Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Relevance of Monks and Monastries in the present-day world

ddrishiddrishi
edited November 2011 in Buddhism Today
At the time of Buddha, it was essential to have monks and monastries for the spread of religion and creating awareness as there were no means other than personal contact to spread a message. Secondly, it would have been practically impossible for a person to follow his own vocation and also wander for preaching. I wonder whether monks and monastaries are relevant to the Buddhism of today.

Comments

  • ToshTosh Veteran
    There's a symbiotic relationship between monks and lay people; the monks rely on lay Buddhists to provide for them, and in return, they give spiritual guidance.

    I'm guessing as a new Buddhist myself, that if they weren't relevant, the lay Buddhists wouldn't support them, and the monastic community would die out.

    Therefore, I posit, that they're still relevant.
  • SattvaPaulSattvaPaul South Wales, UK Veteran
    Monasteries are still centres of intensive practice and learning.
  • genkakugenkaku Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
    edited November 2011
    Monks and nuns have always carried the banner. Leaving aside the role as a shills for religion, I think it is interesting to ask, "The banner for what?" or "What banner?"

    If we try to describe this banner, we invariably slip into the realm of merchandising and imagined altruism... good enough, in a social setting, perhaps, but not quite good enough for the heart that seeks a peaceful home.

    Sometimes I think monks and nuns are little more than a fantasy that encourages us to seek out and actualize what is most dear ... the thing that speaks in the clearest voice and has no need for the encouragement of others.

    Just noodling.
  • SabreSabre Veteran
    The Buddha didn't ordain people because it would be a better way to spread the dhamma, but because it is the best way to practice. So monks and monasteries are as relevant as they always were.
  • compassionate_warriorcompassionate_warrior Veteran
    I remember reading here some time ago that the Buddha was against the institutionalization of monastic life, and that the monks in his movement were wandering renunciants or something closer to the Thai Forest tradition.
  • Floating_AbuFloating_Abu Veteran
    edited November 2011
    "When a person has shaved his hair and beard and put on the ochre robe, that's the symbol of his state as a monk. But it counts only on the external level. Only when he has shaved off the mental tangle — all lower preoccupations — from his heart can you call him a monk on the internal level.

    "When a head has been shaved, little creeping insects like lice can't take up residence there. In the same way, when a mind has gained release from its preoccupations and is freed from fabrication, suffering can't take up residence at all. When this becomes your normal state, you can be called a genuine monk."

    - Venerable Ajahn Dune Atulo
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/dune/giftsheleft.html

    Then there is utmost relevance.

    _/\_
  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran
    It is very relevant for the monks themselves. Otherwise, they most likely would not have become monks to begin with. :)
Sign In or Register to comment.