Obstinacy

We have always regretted the absence of a means of communicating with a ‘Buddhist laity’ – i.e. people who are interested in the teachings—who see themselves as Buddhist—but who are fundamentally ‘lay people’ rather than ‘entirely dedicated practitioners’.

Often within Buddhist sanghas there are people who try their best to be practitioners – but who fall short because they are more suited to ‘lay adherence’. Such people can sometimes be unfortunately and mistakenly described as chö-drèd or chö khran’gyür. This is a great pity – because this view leaves no space for those who might gain a great deal from lay association with a Buddhist tradition. The term chö-drèd (chos dred), means Dharma obstinate or Dharma stubborn. The term chö khran’gyür (chos mKhrang ’gyur), means Dharma atrophied or Dharma hardened. These terms cannot be applied to lay people – because they are not people who have sought highly specialised teachings or serious samayas. The terms chö-drèd and chö khran’gyür apply only to persons who have become callous to the many high levels of teachings they have received – i.e. they hear Dzogchen teachings yet they are impervious to them. These people sometimes know a great deal—scholars often fall into this category—however, these terms also apply to esoteric-hungry ignoramuses and the ‘Dharma-attached bone-idle’.

As we said: ‘lay people’ are sincerely interested in the teachings in terms of applying them pragmatically at the emotional level in their day to day lives – and these people cannot be described as chö-drèd or chö khran’gyür. They are simply ‘lay people’, who need teachings appropriate to their level of application. The chö-drèd or chö khran’gyür are addicted to Vajrayana, but their addiction does not translate into the kindness, openness, and genuine devotion one would expect of Vajrayana practitioners.

The chö-drèd or chö khran’gyür are not absentees from retreats; one finds them often at every teaching available – the retreats just makes no difference to them. Lay people however, are often conspicuous by their absence – but their absence mainly implies their primary commitment to the concerns of laypeople of any religion: secular interests, friends and social life, hobbies and interests, cultural pursuits, etcetera.

Those people who are intrinsically lay people are generally good-hearted folk who are simply not impelled to explore Vajrayana at the depth required and to enter periodic solitary retreat. They may not wish to study to the required depth or to battle with the often difficult written material, which practitioners have to attempt to understand.

Life is short. It therefore makes no sense at all not to plunge into whatever it is that makes life worth living – for you. We should all prioritise what we love – and what animates our existence. To do less is to be less than half alive. Lay people should therefore live good and fulfilled lives as lay people – influenced by the teachings of Dharma, yet enjoying the many challenges available in our lay culture. There is no shame in being what we are – there is only shame in pretending to be what we are not. It is often the chö-drèd and chö khran’gyür who are the most unkind in their view of lay people – and it is often the lay people they despise for their so-called lack of involvement who turn out to be the better people. Having a kind heart is worth far more than knowledge that is not applied.