If one does not keep
learning and practising
the Right Dharma well,
how can one keep
propagating it well?
How is it that some Buddhist organisations do not seem to improve in their Dharma propagation projects substantially, or even have their quality deteriorate over time? Here is a theory… They might be run by committees with those relatively more experienced in management matters, even ‘successful’ in worldly corporations. However, this also means they might be those relatively less experienced in Dharma matters, the finer details of the Buddha’s profound teachings, especially in terms of guiding all beings to transcend the rounds of birth and death as skilfully as possible. They should ideally be proficient in both Dharma theory and practice, while being wary of slandering less familiar Buddhist traditions due to lack of understanding.
Where are those more experienced in Dharma matters? Exactly since they are more focused on the Dharma, they might be less interested in management matters, thus also less experienced in them. Therefore, it is natural that less of them join management committees. This leads to a confounding situation – those managing Buddhist organisations are less proficient in Dharma matters, while those more proficient are not managing them. Ideally, those managing are equally proficient in Dharma and management matters, but Buddhists with sound Dharma understanding are already getting rare, what more with good management skills too. To make things worse, we have already entered the Dharma-Ending Age.
Due to those more worldly in management thinking they are experienced in managing, not knowing what they do not know, they might direct Dharma matters in ways not aligning to Buddhist principles. Thus, when there is bad management, this might not only not be known, it might be assumed as good. In reverse, when those involved in direct Dharma propagation are doing a good job, this might not only not be known by those in management, who might even assume it is badly done. Since there is lack of Dharma understanding, that is not acquired overnight, perfunctory communication might not adequately correct one another’s misperception.
When there is some tension or even much conflict, those in management might become ‘political’ in nature, while those in Dharma propagation might strive to be above politics. One side becomes more worldly while the other side more ‘renunciant’. This is how the chasm between widens. Those with higher standards in Dharma propagation might not be cherished adequately. Some might even be belittled and disregarded, who thus depart in disappointment. Ironically, the true impact of their departure might not be felt by the management since they are not focused on the Dharma. The quality of their routine and sometimes perfuctory Dharma activities then drops, while there are less of those rightly gauging this.
Those in management do not and might never know who they have lost and what is missing, thus ignorant of the need to apologise, make amends and persuade the departed to return. What they do not cherish they will lose, sooner or later. What is the solution then? There should be more open-hearted and open-minded dialogue. Those in management with less Dharma understanding should learn and practise more, just as those with less management skills should learn to be more involved in managing. If this is too challenging, with too many in disagreement, it does make sense to move out and move on, to continue Dharma propagation independently. For how else can the Right Dharma thrive in this age of accelerating decline?
If one does not keep
learning and practising
the Right Dharma well,
how can one keep
managing its propagation well?
