After about eighteen months of debate and redrafting we have a new name - the Amaravati Upasika Association (which supports the Upasika Training) - and a limited written constitution. This has been quite a tortuous business and begs the question of why we needed a constitution anyway? Many of us - myself included - have a strong conditioned reaction to anything that smacks of bureaucracy and formalism. I do not think this is just conditioning in Buddhists - there is a widespread antipathy towards rules, regulations and constraints. Our immediate reaction is that these are not what spiritual practice is all about.

And yet what about the 227 rules of conduct in the Vinaya for monastics? These are pretty formal and constraining. Many might see them as an anachronism. What is their value? These are useful questions to consider.

Looking at the parts of the Pali Canon which describe the development of the Vinaya it is stated that initially there were no rules. The conduct of the early Sangha did not require formal regulation. Gradually, however, as the Sangha grew in numbers problems began to arise. Each of the Vinaya rules was framed to deal with a particular circumstance which could lead the Sangha into disrepute or divert from the aim of the holy life.

At the end of his life the Buddha told the Venerable Ananda that after his parinibbana the lesser and minor rules could be discarded if the Sangha wished. At the first Council, some months later, the Sangha admonished Ananda for not asking what these lesser and minor rules were. In order not to give the impression to lay-people that the Sangha were intent on diverging from the Buddha's teachings, they decided to leave the Vinaya unchanged.

The Vinaya itself contains guidance for changing the rules, however, this has not generally been applied in the Theravada tradition. As a consequence, the  same Vinaya rules have been followed for 2541 years up to the present day.

Although it may seem easy to find many reasons why the Vinaya needs an update, it is worth reflecting upon what value it has added. At the very least it seems to have given a longevity to the tradition and fostered the regular development of accomplished spiritual masters. What is it that makes some formal rules and procedures of positive value to us?

It is interesting that Ajahn Chah apparently told those establishing the Sangha in England, that even if they might give up meditation or other practices, they should always keep the Vinaya rules.

Whilst nobody would claim that the Upasika Training Guidelines are in any way equivalent to the monastic Vinaya they do give rise to some of the same possibilities for practice.

The Constitution lays down some guidelines for the way the AUA should govern itself and how the Upasika Training can evolve. The Upasika Training Guidelines provide us with a benchmark for what it is to be a lay-Buddhist in the Forest Sangha Tradition.

Many people have had an input to the Upasika Training Guidelines and Constitution and they have been agreed by consensus. For this reason they will not be completely acceptable to everyone. Each of us may have our own favourite form of words, or an extra statement to add, or a guideline that we would like changed because we feel a little threatened.

The way that the Constitution and Training Guidelines have been established - by redrafting and consensus over a long period - means that not only will many of us view them as imperfect, but they are also likely to be harmless. And the constraints that we feel they impose upon us make them a potentially useful tool for practice.

Used in the right spirit, and with the general support of AUA lay-women and men (half of the four-fold sangha), the Constitution and Training Guidelines provide a conventional form that should assist the AUA to develop a stronger sense of community and generate opportunities for constructive involvement with Amaravati as well as motivating our practice.

CW

 Return to community  page