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.
Is Awakening possible leading a layman's life? Your views please.
The Buddha was born into particular social conditions, let's not forget.
Probably not all that different from ours though.
Yes, but what I was referring to in particular was the long tradition of renunciates/ascetics leaving society behind - that was the thing to do if you wanted to progress spiritually.
The Buddha was born into particular social conditions, let's not forget.
Probably not all that different from ours though.
Yes, but what I was referring to in particular was the long tradition of renunciates/ascetics leaving society behind - that was the thing to do if you wanted to progress spiritually.
Yes, I see what you mean, and perhaps it was easier then. But I think then as now there would have been the same tension between wanting a "normal" life ( family, work, etc ) and wanting to devote oneself to a spiritual path - trying to work out what was most important, and how to move in a chosen direction.
A query - why did the Buddha left his family for Awakening, if monastic life is not needed - or solitude is not necessary for the inner journey - or living in family does not pose obstacles to move on the spiritual path? Any ideas please.
I have read that Buddha after practising all ascetism and then remembered that the first time he went to Jhana under apple tree in childhood, then why did Buddha did not left his monastic life at that stage and instead returned to his palace again - and then tried on that path of moving into Jhana while living in his palace again, instead of continuing as a monk and sitting under a Bodhi tree and then using that path of moving into Jhana.
I know the above question may seem silly, but this question came to my mind now, so asking this question. May be some of you may have some thoughts about it too. Please suggest.
I don't think it's a silly question at all. The thing to notice is that the troubled young man who left to find out the answer to suffering was not the Buddha yet. There was no Dharma for him to follow, no Noble Truths to guide him on the first steps. He had yet to Awaken and give that to us.
A query - why did the Buddha left his family for Awakening, if monastic life is not needed - or solitude is not necessary for the inner journey - or living in family does not pose obstacles to move on the spiritual path? Any ideas please.
For those who are thinking that you can't move along the path unless you leave your friends and family...because that's what Buddha did...keep in mind:
Siddhartha had not model of religious thought from which to work to begin with. He had to seek out something that -- at the time -- was new and different.
Siddhartha had no books or the internet from which to learn.
So you are not in the same situation in which Siddhartha found himself.
If one is ready for monastic life, one will know for certain. One will not think about it, have doubts, or post on forums for advice. One will know ... cuz the spirit of renunciation is powerful.
"To live in enlightenment is not other than to live an ordinary life. If you wish to live in enlightenment, begin now."
Sorry to quote someone else, but as someone who is not awakened, what more can I do?
What if everyone here answered your question with "No." What then, misemisc1, what then?
Heh. True, you are asking a bunch of laypeople wether they believe they can get enlightened like monks. Kinda self-selecting? I wonder what a bunch of monks would say?
We would need a bit of freedom to reach "freedom" I would think.
The obstacles are greed, hate, delusions, and cravings. If you can't uproot these while taking care of the family and earning a living, that's more than any superhero can do.
I am reading a book called "The Monks and Me" and the lady in the story attended a 40 day retreat at Plum Village. One of the monks she talked to use to be a lay person with a degree in engineering but chose to be monastic. This is what is mentioned in the book. The "he" is the monk.
"He says that living the life of a celibate Buddhist just makes a lot of sense to him. He tells me that the practical aspects of having a partner-the hard work inherent in personal relationships-restricts the time needed to advance on the path of gathering wisdom. At the same time, he acknowledges that for some, having a partner is also a legitimate path to deep understanding. Practicing the Buddha's teachings and applying them to life is the only way to advance wisdom."
I think it just depends on the person, how advanced they are towards enlightenment (as someone else said already) and how much real life obstructs them. There are monks who find monkhood isn't for them. Robert Thurman was a monk, but he left monastic life to get a degree and teaches Buddhist studies. Is he now less likely to attain enlightenment having given up monastic life in favor of making possibly a bigger difference outside of it? I just don't think it's nearly so black and white as "one is the better way." There is no better way when you have to account for all the variations of practitioners.
I say Yes. Buddha guaranteed it in the Mahasatipatthana Sutta. I believe him:) Monk or layperson- human is human. It can happen. I think when we're lucky enough to come across the dharma, and have that pull in the heart, that aching to KNOW, and the heartfelt surrender and humility to give up on the fact we cannot DO anything -- then its all possible. Its in every single one of us. my .02:)
it is not whether it is necessary or not to be a monk. as you move up the spiritual path, you naturally discard the household life. it is not unlike people who give up the corporate life to devote themself to helping the sick n poor.
a life of solitude n simplicity is simply more conducive for spititual growth.
A query - why did the Buddha left his family for Awakening, if monastic life is not needed - or solitude is not necessary for the inner journey - or living in family does not pose obstacles to move on the spiritual path? Any ideas please.
I have read that Buddha after practising all ascetism and then remembered that the first time he went to Jhana under apple tree in childhood, then why did Buddha did not left his monastic life at that stage and instead returned to his palace again - and then tried on that path of moving into Jhana while living in his palace again, instead of continuing as a monk and sitting under a Bodhi tree and then using that path of moving into Jhana.
I know the above question may seem silly, but this question came to my mind now, so asking this question. May be some of you may have some thoughts about it too. Please suggest.
Comments
Siddhartha had not model of religious thought from which to work to begin with. He had to seek out something that -- at the time -- was new and different.
Siddhartha had no books or the internet from which to learn.
So you are not in the same situation in which Siddhartha found himself.
First, find the you that is to be awakened.
Sorry to quote someone else, but as someone who is not awakened, what more can I do?
What if everyone here answered your question with "No." What then, misemisc1, what then?
The obstacles are greed, hate, delusions, and cravings. If you can't uproot these while taking care of the family and earning a living, that's more than any superhero can do.
"He says that living the life of a celibate Buddhist just makes a lot of sense to him. He tells me that the practical aspects of having a partner-the hard work inherent in personal relationships-restricts the time needed to advance on the path of gathering wisdom. At the same time, he acknowledges that for some, having a partner is also a legitimate path to deep understanding. Practicing the Buddha's teachings and applying them to life is the only way to advance wisdom."
I think it just depends on the person, how advanced they are towards enlightenment (as someone else said already) and how much real life obstructs them. There are monks who find monkhood isn't for them. Robert Thurman was a monk, but he left monastic life to get a degree and teaches Buddhist studies. Is he now less likely to attain enlightenment having given up monastic life in favor of making possibly a bigger difference outside of it? I just don't think it's nearly so black and white as "one is the better way." There is no better way when you have to account for all the variations of practitioners.
Buddha guaranteed it in the Mahasatipatthana Sutta. I believe him:)
Monk or layperson- human is human. It can happen. I think when we're lucky enough to come across the dharma, and have that pull in the heart, that aching to KNOW, and the heartfelt surrender and humility to give up on the fact we cannot DO anything -- then its all possible. Its in every single one of us. my .02:)
as you move up the spiritual path, you naturally discard
the household life.
it is not unlike people who give up the corporate life
to devote themself to helping the sick n poor.
a life of solitude n simplicity is simply more conducive for spititual growth.