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.
I just base that on 'non buddhist' people I have spoken to about monks and their notions of what kind of life they live. My mother for example said they don't have to do anything and live in an unrealistic world. If I try and explain my point of view that the world of chasing money paying taxes etc is unrealistic, I get called bone idle! :grumble:
Well, most have plenty to do, but one story comes to mind --- kind of humorous actually, where the monks started to train stray cats to jump through hoops and do other tricks. When asked why they did this, they said they had too much time on their hands LOL
At the monastery I practice in, we wake up average 3 or 4am and are sitting, chanting, eating, working non stop until about 9:30pm when we get to go to bed to retire. During breaks most people are on their beds sighing. It's not easy for everyone.
I often wonder this for myself. What is the point of 'enlightenment' if it only leads to sitting in a room pondering your belly button? But I think words like no-action or no-mindedness don't mean a lack of action or no thought.
Allen Watts said something like: The Master tells the students: give up your desires as much as you can.
So the students say, 'OK let's get to it', and they go off and meditate and try to wipe away their desires
But they find something in practice. No matter how they train, no matter how pure their practice, they're still desiring. They hunger and desire food. They get tired and need to sleep. And, with horror, they realize that they Desire enlightenment! Desire Buddha!
They figure they're doing something wrong and go see the Master again. They tell him that no matter what they try, they find there is still desire in them.
The Master then tells them, I did not tell you not to desire at all, but try not to desire as much as you can. To desire to help people is a good desire. To desire enlightenment is good too, because it has brought you here to practice and begin down the path. Give up desires to seek personal glory and go out and get drunk at the bar every night (I'm paraphrasing)
It makes me think the point of my own practice is find a well-spring for engaging in the world in a way that genuinely helps those around me. I think a lot of other religions get this too. Monks included.
As for monastics not being part of the 'real' world (as if their world isn't real or productive in its own way), I find it interesting that the relatively modern concept of wage labour has so quickly become the only legitimate means of making a living in many people's eyes; and things like monasticism, which was once viewed as a noble profession/pursuit, is now looked down upon as something almost ignoble and essentially useless.
I think that, perhaps, you're mistaking what some of us are meaning by (well, let's lump it together under the term) "productivity". Producing something that is of value to the community. That something doesn't have to be a physical product, although it might be. But it also might be an idea, a discovery, a service.
Had Thomas Edison sat in a laboratory and invented the light bulb, sound recording, etc., and them locked them away never to be shared with the world, he would not have been productive for society, would not be remembered or respected. Had Jonas Salk or Lister or Pasteur developed their vaccines or other advancements in health, and then locked the results of their experiments away in a vault and never shared them with mankind in a way that was productive for mankind, similarly, they would not be remembered or respected.
In Thailand, where there are more Buddhist temples than any other nation in the world, there are several different formats that temples seem to have:
There are some temples where one can walk into a wiharn where there is a monk almost always on duty to "minister" to the laity, to counsel, to give a sai sin with a blessing, etc. And there are other temples where one would be hard pressed to find a monk even with a concerted effort (and I'm not talking about temples with few monks).
There are temples that have formal outreach programs. For example, I have visited a number of temples where there are outreach programs for speakers of English. And other temples -- pretty much devoid of laity -- where no outreach takes place.
A few people here on the forum have spoken of their experiences at forest temples when they attended retreats. I have had the pleasure of visiting a couple of temples in Issan (the northeast plateau) where temples serve as places where drug addicts can get a new start.
And then there are temples where monks sit around and seemingly do practically nothing. Now you might say, ah, but those monks are meditating. Maybe, maybe not, but 16 hours of meditating per day seems pretty unlikely to me.
To be honest, temples are not built for the monks. Temples are built by and for the laity as a sort of community center where wisdom and services are provided. At least in Thailand it's the laity that builds the temples (sometimes brick by brick, and other times by financial contributions. It's the laity that feeds the monks. It's the laity that cleans the temple and keeps it up physically. And what do the monks provide in return? At some temples a great deal. And at some temples virtually nothing.
And it's those temples where virtually nothing is contributed that some of us are critical of.
In the West you often hear the question, "What would Jesus have done?" Okay, for our purpose, "What did Buddha actually do?" He didn't just sit an privately meditate for his own internal (and eternal) purpose. He went out and taught what he had learned to the laity. Had Siddhartha striven for enlightenment, but then kept it all a secret, we wouldn't have known of him or respected him.
Monks ought to do what Buddha did...give back to the world...after all, he was their prime example.
Monks do live in the real world. Not living in the real world implies that they are sheltered, which really isn't the case. There are many monks that do dharma work or public out reach. It's not all study and retreats! Take Tsem Tulku Rinpoche for example. He's a monk that works pretty darn hard to help spread dharma and take care of his students. Just because someone throws on some robes doesn't mean they leave the real world behind.
Tsem Tullku is a tulku, and therefore not representative of the rank-and-file among monks. We have an idealized view of monks. Many of the monks in TIbetan monasteries are worker-bee monks, busy with chores. Their "study" is mainly memorization, without teachings. The top 10% receive the kinds of teachings we in the West take for granted. I think a streamlining of the monkhood, paring the numbers down to a nucleus of maybe the top 20-25% would make more sense. But then alternative institutions, like boarding schools or orphanages would have to be created for the children of poor parents who can't support them, who traditionally are given to the monastery. The young incarnation of Kalu Rinpoche has proposed creating such a boarding school system.
...I think a streamlining of the monkhood, paring the numbers down to a nucleus of maybe the top 20-25% would make more sense.
That's a very interesting idea.
For example, in Thailand, you could have the true monks, but the laity who just come and participate for a few weeks or a few months could be some other classification ("student monks?"). Hmmm. Very interesting concept.
...I think a streamlining of the monkhood, paring the numbers down to a nucleus of maybe the top 20-25% would make more sense.
That's a very interesting idea.
For example, in Thailand, you could have the true monks, but the laity who just come and participate for a few weeks or a few months could be some other classification ("student monks?"). Hmmm. Very interesting concept.
Right. In that situation, it would separate the men from the boys, so to speak, and that way, there would be less chance of people writing off all monks as lazy. You'd have the serious, devoted monks, and then the temp. monks. Sounds kind of funny, but it makes a certain amt. of sense. They could wear slightly different shades of saffron, or something.
...I think a streamlining of the monkhood, paring the numbers down to a nucleus of maybe the top 20-25% would make more sense.
That's a very interesting idea.
For example, in Thailand, you could have the true monks, but the laity who just come and participate for a few weeks or a few months could be some other classification ("student monks?"). Hmmm. Very interesting concept.
Right. In that situation, it would separate the men from the boys, so to speak, and that way, there would be less chance of people writing off all monks as lazy. You'd have the serious, devoted monks, and then the temp. monks. Sounds kind of funny, but it makes a certain amt. of sense. They could wear slightly different shades of saffron, or something.
Now if we could just get you appointed to the Supreme Sangha!
Now if we could just get you appointed to the Supreme Sangha!
Er, I think I'm the wrong gender.
btw, are there not many nuns in Thailand? Why is the monkhood seen as a man's business? Why aren't women expected to spend a stint as nuns before marriage? Did Thailand get the news that the Buddha allowed women into his sangha?
I think that, perhaps, you're mistaking what some of us are meaning by (well, let's lump it together under the term) "productivity". Producing something that is of value to the community. That something doesn't have to be a physical product, although it might be. But it also might be an idea, a discovery, a service.
Perhaps, but I was primarily addressing the OP, which doesn't seem to view the pursuit of monasticism as something useful, or as an integral part of the 'real' world, i.e., "getting up, getting ready for work, working a long hard day just to get abit of money to pay the bills and put food on the table for our family." My point was that even though monastics play different roles and provide for different needs than those in more 'worldly' occupations, they're still a part of the world, and a truly contemplative life is as much work as anything else. Moreover, it's a valuable and productive profession, in my opinion, well-deserving of material support by the laity if they're so inclined to provide it.
Had Thomas Edison sat in a laboratory and invented the light bulb, sound recording, etc., and them locked them away never to be shared with the world, he would not have been productive for society, would not be remembered or respected. Had Jonas Salk or Lister or Pasteur developed their vaccines or other advancements in health, and then locked the results of their experiments away in a vault and never shared them with mankind in a way that was productive for mankind, similarly, they would not be remembered or respected.
Actually, Thomas Edison didn't invent the light bulb, he simply improved upon already existing light bulbs previously pioneered by others.
Now if we could just get you appointed to the Supreme Sangha!
Er, I think I'm the wrong gender.
btw, are there not many nuns in Thailand? Why is the monkhood seen as a man's business? Why aren't women expected to spend a stint as nuns before marriage? Did Thailand get the news that the Buddha allowed women into his sangha?
What the heck, if we're going to promote change, then we might as well go all the way!
You will see occasional "nuns" (they are called "mae chee"). Usually they tend to center around particular temples. But, they have no official status at all. I'd have to go back and study up a bit. As I recall the Thai Sangha goes back to a point when nuns disappeared from active practice and have used that as an excuse that you cannot now go back to that...sort of like the line ended and cannot just start up again. Here's an interesting article about it: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/DI19Ae02.html
Moreover, it's a valuable and productive profession, in my opinion, well-deserving of material support by the laity if they're so inclined to provide it.
...
Actually, Thomas Edison didn't invent the light bulb, he simply improved upon already existing light bulbs previously pioneered by others.
I agree that it's a productive profession if one shares it...as did Lord Buddha.
Picky. No previous light bulb was practical until Edison's version.
I think a streamlining of the monkhood, paring the numbers down to a nucleus of maybe the top 20-25% would make more sense. But then alternative institutions, like boarding schools or orphanages would have to be created for the children of poor parents who can't support them, who traditionally are given to the monastery. The young incarnation of Kalu Rinpoche has proposed creating such a boarding school system.
There's actually several monastic groups in India who have done just that, established orphanages, even a couple that specifically take in children to train as monks, though the latter has raised concerns from several fronts, such as the age of some of the younger children, as well as a lack of vocational training should they decide to leave after they're of legal age.
The plain boarding school or orphanage concept (without an overt attempt to make little monks) is probably best IMHO --- let the children be children, educate and allow them to experience the joys (and sometimes the sorrows) that come with childhood.
Picky. No previous light bulb was practical until Edison's version.
Not picky, just a fact I thought I'd share. It's commonly asserted that Edison invented the light bulb, but he didn't; he simply improved upon previous designs and aggressively marketed his patented bulb. It's like saying Henry Ford invented the automobile.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
A monks world is more real than this world. Spending your whole life in the "rat race" to get a little bit more money. For what? !
To raise my children and just, LIVE. It costs money unfortunitely. (monks dont need money coz 'we' give them the food.
As for the rest of us non monks, we have to go work and provide and do what 'i think' is right..earn a living for my loved ones.
(and i dont spend my life in the rat race to get a 'little bit more money' i do it coz i have to.) These days you cant get away with just leaving your wife and kids to search for enlightenment. You'd be hunted down and taken to court. We have to take responsibility for our actions = fathering children, we have to either bring them up (cost money) or give them money to support them (again, cost money) etc etc.
So we laypeople have to go to work. Why does that matter? I really don't see the issue. I don't see how "making money" work is more real than a monk's work. Especially when a monk's work is more important than "making money" work. Especially when a monk's work is much more difficult than making money work. Monks are very far from being normal homeless people begging for change on the corner.
Through all of time no one has not lived in the real world. How could you? It looks mich different based on who you are and your situation, but it's all the "real world".
Through all of time no one has not lived in the real world. How could you? It looks mich different based on who you are and your situation, but it's all the "real world".
I don't think you and Seeker are "getting" by what we mean the "real world".
The President of the United States doesn't live in the "real world". Donald Trump doesn't live in the "real world". And so forth.
Those two men, just as examples, are sheltered from the "real world" by aides and bodyguards and the Secret Service, etc.
Monks don't have to fend for themselves. It is not what anyone would call a "normal" human experience.
Monks don't have to fend for themselves. It is not what anyone would call a "normal" human experience.
You're right, monks and nuns are insulated from the pressures of conventional everyday life - but they have other pressures to deal with, a different set of challenges.
Monks don't have to fend for themselves. It is not what anyone would call a "normal" human experience.
You're right, monks and nuns are insulated from the pressures of conventional everyday life - but they have other pressures to deal with, a different set of challenges.
Agreed. And, they also have the power to step away from ordainment.
Through all of time no one has not lived in the real world. How could you? It looks mich different based on who you are and your situation, but it's all the "real world".
I don't think you and Seeker are "getting" by what we mean the "real world".
The President of the United States doesn't live in the "real world". Donald Trump doesn't live in the "real world". And so forth.
Those two men, just as examples, are sheltered from the "real world" by aides and bodyguards and the Secret Service, etc.
Monks don't have to fend for themselves. It is not what anyone would call a "normal" human experience.
In my experience, monks and nuns do very much fend for themselves. They go to the same grocery stores I do, and stand in the same lines.
I've never prepared food for monks, but they have certainly prepared very simple yet delicious (best daal ever!!) meals for me for which I have been very grateful. In my experience it is the monks doing more of the work, not the general body of dharma students, though there are absolutely some dedicated longtime dharma students who also do an incredible amount of work at our center.
Monks and nuns in my experience have very long days, not only with their own extensive personal study, but meeting with many students to give advice, taking care of the grounds, the office work, the chores, the shopping, and then evening classes on top of that for what is in my town an expanding Buddhist community.
Once in a great while I run into Deer Park staff at the zoo, where I imagine they, like I, are both appreciating the creatures and feeling somewhat bad for them at the same time.
If being a monk or nun implies laziness, I haven't seen evidence of it.
In my experience, monks and nuns do very much fend for themselves. They go to the same grocery stores I do, and stand in the same lines.
I've never prepared food for monks, but they have certainly prepared very simple yet delicious (best daal ever!!) meals for me for which I have been very grateful. In my experience it is the monks doing more of the work, not the general body of dharma students, though there are absolutely some dedicated longtime dharma students who also do an incredible amount of work at our center.
Monks and nuns in my experience have very long days, not only with their own extensive personal study, but meeting with many students to give advice, taking care of the grounds, the office work, the chores, the shopping, and then evening classes on top of that for what is in my town an expanding Buddhist community.
Once in a great while I run into Deer Park staff at the zoo, where I imagine they, like I, are both appreciating the creatures and feeling somewhat bad for them at the same time.
If being a monk or nun implies laziness, I haven't seen evidence of it.
Good! That sounds impressive. Which school is that?
Very different from the way thing work in Thailand, where there are an estimated 320,000 monks and novices who, supposedly, do not have money to go to grocery stores (in fact, one of the ongoing arguments you will find in Thai forums is why are monks shopping at computer stores?).
^^ In Thailand, monks are basically expected not to have money. Yet, in Bangkok you often see them in the main computer shopping center, and people are often questioning why do monks, who have taken a vow of poverty, shop in computer stores.
^^ In Thailand, monks are basically expected not to have money. Yet, in Bangkok you often see them in the main computer shopping center, and people are often questioning why do monks, who have taken a vow of poverty, shop in computer stores.
LOL, I have seen monks with ATM cards. I was speaking to my GF about Buddhism yesterday, and she said something about how money is heavily involved in Buddhism. I said no, that is Thailand, not Buddhism. Many here do not look outside of their borders, I am sure a lot of them think they are the only Buddhist nation. When I showed someone a statue I have of Buddha, the fat Buddha, they said it was incorect. Obviously because it was Tibetan it was wrong...
Tom, apparently money handling isn't the biggest threat as far as the Sangha is concerned --- instead it's any monk in Thailand who looks the slightest bit effeminate LOL
^^ In Thailand, monks are basically expected not to have money. Yet, in Bangkok you often see them in the main computer shopping center, and people are often questioning why do monks, who have taken a vow of poverty, shop in computer stores.
LOL, I have seen monks with ATM cards. I was speaking to my GF about Buddhism yesterday, and she said something about how money is heavily involved in Buddhism. I said no, that is Thailand, not Buddhism. Many here do not look outside of their borders, I am sure a lot of them think they are the only Buddhist nation. When I showed someone a statue I have of Buddha, the fat Buddha, they said it was incorect. Obviously because it was Tibetan it was wrong...
Isn't that guy Chinese? Anyway doesn't matter. You're right about the rest for sure.
But in Thailand there are also serious monks of course. Handling money also doesn't have to be a bad thing per se. But you can predict it doesn't support the practice very well.
Comments
Best wishes,
Abu
Allen Watts said something like: The Master tells the students: give up your desires as much as you can.
So the students say, 'OK let's get to it', and they go off and meditate and try to wipe away their desires
But they find something in practice. No matter how they train, no matter how pure their practice, they're still desiring. They hunger and desire food. They get tired and need to sleep. And, with horror, they realize that they Desire enlightenment! Desire Buddha!
They figure they're doing something wrong and go see the Master again. They tell him that no matter what they try, they find there is still desire in them.
The Master then tells them, I did not tell you not to desire at all, but try not to desire as much as you can. To desire to help people is a good desire. To desire enlightenment is good too, because it has brought you here to practice and begin down the path. Give up desires to seek personal glory and go out and get drunk at the bar every night (I'm paraphrasing)
It makes me think the point of my own practice is find a well-spring for engaging in the world in a way that genuinely helps those around me. I think a lot of other religions get this too. Monks included.
Had Thomas Edison sat in a laboratory and invented the light bulb, sound recording, etc., and them locked them away never to be shared with the world, he would not have been productive for society, would not be remembered or respected. Had Jonas Salk or Lister or Pasteur developed their vaccines or other advancements in health, and then locked the results of their experiments away in a vault and never shared them with mankind in a way that was productive for mankind, similarly, they would not be remembered or respected.
In Thailand, where there are more Buddhist temples than any other nation in the world, there are several different formats that temples seem to have:
There are some temples where one can walk into a wiharn where there is a monk almost always on duty to "minister" to the laity, to counsel, to give a sai sin with a blessing, etc. And there are other temples where one would be hard pressed to find a monk even with a concerted effort (and I'm not talking about temples with few monks).
There are temples that have formal outreach programs. For example, I have visited a number of temples where there are outreach programs for speakers of English. And other temples -- pretty much devoid of laity -- where no outreach takes place.
A few people here on the forum have spoken of their experiences at forest temples when they attended retreats. I have had the pleasure of visiting a couple of temples in Issan (the northeast plateau) where temples serve as places where drug addicts can get a new start.
And then there are temples where monks sit around and seemingly do practically nothing. Now you might say, ah, but those monks are meditating. Maybe, maybe not, but 16 hours of meditating per day seems pretty unlikely to me.
To be honest, temples are not built for the monks. Temples are built by and for the laity as a sort of community center where wisdom and services are provided. At least in Thailand it's the laity that builds the temples (sometimes brick by brick, and other times by financial contributions. It's the laity that feeds the monks. It's the laity that cleans the temple and keeps it up physically. And what do the monks provide in return? At some temples a great deal. And at some temples virtually nothing.
And it's those temples where virtually nothing is contributed that some of us are critical of.
In the West you often hear the question, "What would Jesus have done?" Okay, for our purpose, "What did Buddha actually do?" He didn't just sit an privately meditate for his own internal (and eternal) purpose. He went out and taught what he had learned to the laity. Had Siddhartha striven for enlightenment, but then kept it all a secret, we wouldn't have known of him or respected him.
Monks ought to do what Buddha did...give back to the world...after all, he was their prime example.
For example, in Thailand, you could have the true monks, but the laity who just come and participate for a few weeks or a few months could be some other classification ("student monks?"). Hmmm. Very interesting concept.
btw, are there not many nuns in Thailand? Why is the monkhood seen as a man's business? Why aren't women expected to spend a stint as nuns before marriage? Did Thailand get the news that the Buddha allowed women into his sangha?
You will see occasional "nuns" (they are called "mae chee"). Usually they tend to center around particular temples. But, they have no official status at all. I'd have to go back and study up a bit. As I recall the Thai Sangha goes back to a point when nuns disappeared from active practice and have used that as an excuse that you cannot now go back to that...sort of like the line ended and cannot just start up again. Here's an interesting article about it: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/DI19Ae02.html
Picky. No previous light bulb was practical until Edison's version.
The plain boarding school or orphanage concept (without an overt attempt to make little monks) is probably best IMHO --- let the children be children, educate and allow them to experience the joys (and sometimes the sorrows) that come with childhood.
Yeah.
Edison was a douchebag.
It's official.
Back TT.
May I assume that using sexually charged insults/phrases is fair game for all of us? (Of course, I doubt it).
feel free to read the blog then PM me, if you wish to continue the discussion. thanks
Thank you for this link/blog.
ok, back TT.
On-topic, where is the OP?
The President of the United States doesn't live in the "real world".
Donald Trump doesn't live in the "real world".
And so forth.
Those two men, just as examples, are sheltered from the "real world" by aides and bodyguards and the Secret Service, etc.
Monks don't have to fend for themselves. It is not what anyone would call a "normal" human experience.
You're right, monks and nuns are insulated from the pressures of conventional everyday life - but they have other pressures to deal with, a different set of challenges.
I've never prepared food for monks, but they have certainly prepared very simple yet delicious (best daal ever!!) meals for me for which I have been very grateful. In my experience it is the monks doing more of the work, not the general body of dharma students, though there are absolutely some dedicated longtime dharma students who also do an incredible amount of work at our center.
Monks and nuns in my experience have very long days, not only with their own extensive personal study, but meeting with many students to give advice, taking care of the grounds, the office work, the chores, the shopping, and then evening classes on top of that for what is in my town an expanding Buddhist community.
Once in a great while I run into Deer Park staff at the zoo, where I imagine they, like I, are both appreciating the creatures and feeling somewhat bad for them at the same time.
If being a monk or nun implies laziness, I haven't seen evidence of it.
Very different from the way thing work in Thailand, where there are an estimated 320,000 monks and novices who, supposedly, do not have money to go to grocery stores (in fact, one of the ongoing arguments you will find in Thai forums is why are monks shopping at computer stores?).
@Sile -- I could be wrong, but are you talking about Deer Park Monastery in Escondido, California?
Anyway doesn't matter. You're right about the rest for sure.
But in Thailand there are also serious monks of course. Handling money also doesn't have to be a bad thing per se. But you can predict it doesn't support the practice very well.
(bad joke, not funny