Reasons for being a layperson

pauliwago

Hi everyone,
If the purpose of Buddhism is to achieve freedom, and the way to do that is through intense meditation and following rigorous precepts (that are near impossible to follow unless you're a monk/nun), why doesn't Buddhism just tell us all to be monks or nuns? If liberation is the goal of Buddhism, it would seem that being a layperson is the inferior way to realize it.

With people in other religions, I often hear them talk about "God's plan" and how everyone's made to do different things (and doing those things - that are right - is the way to follow God's wishes and desires). In this sense, they justify not being a priest/nun because that's not their role to play. Being a priest/nun is NOT the "most proper" way to live if you know what I mean in their traditions.

Any thoughts? Thanks.

person

It wouldn't work as a rule. Motivation is of utmost importance in the quality of ones practice. If a person isn't motivated to achieve liberation they would probably just be going through the motions and could actually build up a resentment towards the dharma

Jeffrey

Because buddhism isn't dogmatic. It doesn't tell you to become a monk/nun. Even the precepts are a learning technology rather than a directive.

pauliwago

It wouldn't work as a rule. Motivation is of utmost importance in the quality of ones practice. If a person isn't motivated to achieve liberation they would probably just be going through the motions and could actually build up a resentment towards the dharma

This is true. But to be a layperson means, in even a small sense, that the motivation is not ALL for achieving liberation, right? Afterall, if we go to work, care for our family, make money....these are all desires for the conditional. Isn't it possible though to understand that these are conditioned things, want them, but not cling to them? In that sense, isn't it possible to see reality as a layperson?

I guess my question is: would being a layperson be the better way to liberation for some people? (as opposed to living a monastic life)

Jeffrey

A layperson in general has more distractions drawing them into samsara. Such as forums. :cool:

person

A lay practice can be quite successful. I think though that the deep realizations require a high level of concentration. I don't think that's possible living in the world, too many mental distractions. I suppose if one had the means or support one could do that without taking ordination though.

taiyaki

In a way we are neither lay person or monks. I find that buddhist in the western world have either great distractions but at the same time he optimal chance and conditions for enlightenment.

Don't set up unnecessary conditions. Just practice and focus on only your progress. Those who are sincere and willing will achieve full buddhahood. Whether they are monks or lay persons. Anything is possible.

pauliwago

In a way we are neither lay person or monks.

I think I'm happy with that. I guess it's my conceptual mind trying to conceptualize things again. Thanks.

compassionate_warrior

It's a practical matter, in part. Who would support the monks and nuns if there were no laypeople? The monastic tradition depends on laypeople for its support.

DaltheJigsaw

It's a practical matter, in part. Who would support the monks and nuns if there were no laypeople? The monastic tradition depends on laypeople for its support.

Good point! And if that was the case, we would not be able to receive beautiful Dharma teachings!:(

jll

Hi everyone,
If the purpose of Buddhism is to achieve freedom, and the way to do that is through intense meditation and following rigorous precepts (that are near impossible to follow unless you're a monk/nun), why doesn't Buddhism just tell us all to be monks or nuns? If liberation is the goal of Buddhism, it would seem that being a layperson is the inferior way to realize it.

With people in other religions, I often hear them talk about "God's plan" and how everyone's made to do different things (and doing those things - that are right - is the way to follow God's wishes and desires). In this sense, they justify not being a priest/nun because that's not their role to play. Being a priest/nun is NOT the "most proper" way to live if you know what I mean in their traditions.

Any thoughts? Thanks.

Well, Buddha does tell you to be a monk.
But most people dont want to do what Buddha tells them to do.
Instead they ask Buddha, 'We dont want to be monks.
How can we live a virtuous life without becoming monks?'
Buddha teaches how to end dukkha and the cycle of rebirth.
The best way to do that is to be a monk.

DaltheJigsaw

Any thoughts? Thanks.

Well, Buddha does tell you to be a monk.
But most people dont want to do what Buddha tells them to do.
Instead they ask Buddha, 'We dont want to be monks.
How can we live a virtuous life without becoming monks?'
Buddha teaches how to end dukkha and the cycle of rebirth.
The best way to do that is to be a monk.



Or a nun!

Cinorjer

Buddhism has an ancient and honored monastic tradition, certainly. The inclusion of non-monks into the temple sangha in an active role as both serious student and teacher is probably the biggest contribution of Western cultures. Even some temples in the East are taking notice and starting to open their doors and make a bigger effort to welcome and incorporate the lay population in their ceremonies and teachings.

Being one of those lay people, my thoughts are that I honor the monks who have dedicated their lives to living and preserving the Dharma. But, I don't see it as either easier or harder to live a virtuous life. Being a Buddha is all about who you are, not what you do. If you shave your head and put on a robe and move into a temple, you still take the same mind with you.

Another analogy. Two people live in a boat and are both afraid of drowning. One leaves the boat and stays out of the water, while the other stays in the boat and learns to swim. Which one is easiest, or correct? Neither of them drown, and that's all that matters.

AMH

Hmm, such good thoughts on this. I notice that often we talk abtou relationships are some of the hardest work in our practice. Monks do have relationships but not the same as the lay person. So the lay person is not separated as much from distractions (darn forums) but has lots and lots of work in relationships, work, daily life, etc. So I am not sure which one is the harder route, but they are both necessary as others have pointed out.

My personal take is that this lifetime I am in a constant rebalance. I have felt since a child that my focus for existence is spiritual, however I have also felt that family was also an important task for me. So I raised/amd raising my kids to be uber great people. I have my moments where I am happy that they are more aware of what really matters and being honest even if it is harder than some adults. In my mind there are many lifetimes, there is a purpose for this one, and maybe next time I will be a monk (besides I kinda like men too much to try the nun thing, just saying)

Steve_B

Isn't Buddhism more of a map than an instruction? We choose what we wish to achieve, or avoid, or whatever. If we want to reduce our suffering, Buddhism offers methods. But it does not order us what to do. Does it?

pauliwago

Isn't Buddhism more of a map than an instruction? We choose what we wish to achieve, or avoid, or whatever. If we want to reduce our suffering, Buddhism offers methods. But it does not order us what to do. Does it?

It definitely doesn't. But even if a map doesn't order you to do anything, if you choose to disregard the map's instructions, you'll get lost. So in that sense, there is a "right" way and a "wrong" way.

But reading people's thoughts here, it really sounds like that's not so clear cut. I like the idea that Buddhism is a spiritual PATH. Maybe being a monk is near the path's end and ultimately the way to liberation, but you've got to live the path you're on now. You can't jump to the end. Like most of you here, I'm not interested in a monastic life, but perhaps that's exactly the way it's supposed to be.

genkaku

"Buddha" means "awake." It doesn't mean "monk" or "nun." A Buddha meets circumstances as they arise, from an awakened standpoint. Awakened monk, awakened nun, awakened lay person.

"Buddha" just means "awake."

Dakini

Thank you for boiling it down to such a simple nutshell, genkaku.

Theswingisyellow

@pauliwago:
"the purpose of Buddhism is to achieve freedom, and the way to do that is through intense meditation and following rigorous precepts"
Buddhism to me is to know suffering and the end of suffering not necessarily freedom. Also one must follow intense meditation and rigorous precepts?
I would certainly question that is well.
I find that to tread the path as laid by the Buddha, notably the 4NT's and the 8 fold path, one certainly does not need to be a monastic. This path can be tread by anyone and will produce good fruit.
Monastics are no closer to realizing enlightenment than either you or I, chasing after concepts will not get you one iota closer to the truth.

Hubris

Or, maybe it is "reasons to not be a monastic". Procreation for example.

ZendoLord84

i'm doing this because it increases my quality of life, and hopefully that of those around me a bit.

driedleaf

I am a lay person because my attachments are too strong.

genkaku

I am a lay person because my attachments are too strong.

@driedleaf -- And, with respect, how do you know to a certainty that your attachments would not be equally strong as a monk or nun. Everyone -- and I mean everyone -- has attachments that are 'too strong.' We work with what we've got, not with vain imaginings.

driedleaf

@genkaku -- It is probably better for me to take small steps. Handling the four and the eight seems difficult of a task for me as it is.

genkaku

@genkaku -- It is probably better for me to take small steps. Handling the four and the eight seems difficult of a task for me as it is.

Sounds like a plan.

mithril

Because it would give the impression that it is the rules and looks that matter, thus promoting just chasing after another attachment.

The idea of becoming a monk is aimed more towards "i can let all go and still be happy". So essentially, "i can let all go, even the idea of ever becoming a Buddhist monk and still be happy" is really exactly the same.

"I will become a monk because i am such and have interests xyz" is somewhat off-path in that regard, i'd say.

jll

"The inclusion of non-monks into the temple sangha in an active role as both serious student and teacher is probably the biggest contribution of Western cultures."
Laypeople serving as teachers instead of monks is one of the reason
given by Buddha for the deterioration of the dhamma.

Cinorjer

"The inclusion of non-monks into the temple sangha in an active role as both serious student and teacher is probably the biggest contribution of Western cultures."
Laypeople serving as teachers instead of monks is one of the reason
given by Buddha for the deterioration of the dhamma.

Yeah, I know some of the monks have historically been jealous of their position and a few of the sutras even attempt to put words in Buddha's mouth to the effect that only monks are worthy to be Buddhas. But if you actually open your eyes and look at the history of Buddhism, you find that in fact the exact opposite is true: Buddhism deteriorats and declines when the temples isolate themselves and the monks set themselves up as the sole transmitters and guardians of the Dharma. It always, without fail, causes empty ritual to replace a dynamic practice.

I'm not a big fan of apocalyptic teachings, because it always boils down to "If it isn't the way it's always been done, then it's bad." In fact, Buddhism was actually on the decline in the East and in danger of becoming entirely irrelevant as people found the Muslim and Christian religions more geared to a lay population. Then the West began embracing a new type of Buddhism, one modeled more after the churches we are familiar with, revolving around the congregation and with teachers who live the same lives that we do.

Good or bad? Deterioration or transformation? Open for debate. Personally, I tend to trust the power of the Dharma to shine through.

genkaku

"Laypeople serving as teachers instead of monks is one of the reason
given by Buddha for the deterioration of the dhamma." -- jll

Lord knows you don't have to look far to see that going on. But if you look a little further, you will see the same thing happening with monks at the helm.

Find a practice and practice whole-heartedly. Will you be wrong? Count on it. Practice anyway.

AMH

Yeah, I have to agree even though I am a layperson who would love to at least lead meditation and someday teach (but feel I need a lot more training). I started to attend a United Methodist Church which is an interfaith community with a 'buddhist serevice' on Sunday evenings. I have been to 2 and really am not sure how I see this as buddhist. There are speakers, 2 this month are specifically on buddhism. The others have had amazing music and are nice people, however it feels like good people mixing a lot of stuff up and calling it buddhism. It is in a church with benches so I brought my cushion but I was the only one and felt odd about it. I have been to 4-5 different groups over the years on a regular basis, seems odd. Even the eastern christian church I went to and asked for a meditation time in the service was more 'meditation'. Not sure I am making sense.