To be or not to be (a monk)
mindatrisk
Veteran
For a long time i've been torn between wanting to make a positive difference in the world and the argument for being a monk and dedicating myself to becoming enlightened first (because only then could I truly help others, as the argument goes). I just spent the last few days at the Amaravati Monastery (UK) curious to see how I would feel living in a monastic setting and (to some degree) living a monastic lifestyle for a few days. I felt no interest or connection though. I wasn't inspired, my heart wasn't in it, and I couldn't even bring myself to attend their morning and evening Puja's by the end of my few days. I feel like I need to follow my heart, but then, as an ignorant and deluded human being, how am I to be sure that my heart knows best? I am perfectly capable of overruling my heart with logic, i.e. whether I feel a connection with the monastic lifestyle or not, I will do well by making that commitment, and, most likely, in time my heart will very much so be 'in it'.
There's no real argument against that. Unless, of course, I have some remarkable capacity for making a difference in the world that is meaningful and can make a real difference. That's possible. I mean, if there was a brilliant doctor who had a high potential to find a cure for cancer in his lifetime if he dedicated himself to his research were in my position, i.e. potentially helping people with his interest / skills or becoming a monk, which should he choose? It seems that finding a cure for cancer would be of more import than even quite significant gains in his spiritual life in becoming monk (enlightenment aside).
Does anyone else have a similar struggle? Or what are your thoughts on my own struggle?
Comments
It's a good point to put up for discussion, perhaps wiser heads can shed some light, so I think it was a fine idea to post the topic
My personal experience is that these kinds of things are best addressed by "just knowing". Sometimes the head will present an obvious, no-brainer answer. Sometimes the heart will supply an imperative, "I must be with her". And sometimes it's something in the middle. For those difficult cases I tend to sit down, clear my mind and imagine myself in each potential new situation, and I choose whichever makes me feel happy.
Duty is all very well, even to a high ideal like enlightenment, but if you do not deeply feel that it is your calling then perhaps it is wise to consider what else life might hold. My experience is that it is wise to not shoot too high in these areas, and have proper respect for the natural path - a family life, with wife and kids.
If you want to make a positive difference to the world, you could do that just as well by becoming a member of say the Zen Peacemakers and going on yearly retreats with them to help good causes.
Tee Hee.
Sounds very familiar.
I gave up my teaching job to join the sangha at Amaravati. I lasted two or three weeks. It is just not for me. It might not be for you.
Basically after a week I saw little practical benefit to myself or potentially to others. A retreat I find invigorating. A lifetime of cloistered rule following, requires a specialised persona. I don't have it.
As a lay practitioner, I find far more opportunities for meaningful practice.
Basically try living more like a monk, attend retreats and in time your heart may change. For example I may join the sangha at some point but I doubt it (tried at another monastery too).
I think that what it comes down to for me is whether or not the heart can be trusted. Maybe the heart is the vocal chords of our soul / Buddha nature guiding us towards our highest calling... or maybe it is another faulty part of our nature, as equally ignorant and deluded as our minds can be.
But (according to the Buddha) there is no 'me' for it to be 'for me' or not. Who or what is it that thinks / feels that pursuing the highest states is the right thing to do for me or not? And what validity can that idea of something being 'for me' have when there is no 'me'? That's what I mean by the arguments being so heavily stacked in favour of dedicating this life to the pursuit of enlightenment. There really is little argument against it, only 'it's not for me', and with a bit of reasoning (as above) that 'not for me' rings very hollow indeed.
You don't (I'm sure you're aware) become a monk overnight. You have a period of time, as a novice, during which time you prove to yourself - and to others - that you "have what it takes".
Perhaps reading @Jayantha's threads will help you steer your course.
He ordained, and is now our resident monastic.
Yeah, indeed. I suppose my dilemma is whether to begin that process or not. I'll have a look at those threads, thank you.
The whole point of the period as a novice, is precisely to see whether the Monastic life is one that would suit you.
There are many thousands of Buddhist Monks on this earth. There are many more thousands of Buddhist laypeople.
If you decide to not pursue the Monastic Life, nobody's gonna whup you upside the head.
It will be what it will be.
Monastic life? Great.
Lay Life? Great.
Whichever one you choose - or whichever one chooses you - it's great to be Buddhist.
And that's OK.
But more weight is put on it than that within Buddhism. When I read things like being born a human is as rare as a turtle who comes to the surface of the ocean every 1000 years or whatever and sticking his head through a singular golden ring floating on the surface of a massive ocean etc. etc. it makes it sound like this thing is really, really important. Throw in some hell realms and it makes me feel like 'this matters'. I'm sure it is possible for a lay person to be as dedicated / more dedicated than a monk or nun - the robes don't qualify anyone - but there is obviously a significant difference between being ordained and being lay otherwise why bother becoming ordained? So, for me, right now, it doesn't feel as light as 'whatever I choose will be okay'... certainly not if I take seriously what the Buddha taught and the emphasis and weight he put on this path. I'm at a crossroads, and it's something I need to figure out.
Some interesting discussions can be had about the nature of intuition. Some people hold that it is your higher self trying to guide you, others hold that it is just an impression of past experiences, others think it is a result of instinct, knowledge beyond words.
Personally I know there is such a thing as premonition, as sensing things that you could not otherwise know, sometimes. Being able to tap into that does give you a cleaner guidance, beyond just like or dislike.
But I think the imagined happiness meditation is equally valid. If you are contemplating doing something that does not make you happy or give you a deep sense of satisfaction, then what are you doing? It would be an incredible upwards struggle to become something you are not, and in the end you will have to ask yourself are you a fake?
There is definitely validity in your idea... at least enough to make it discussion worthy. I think it's more complicated, however, with regards the path to enlightenment than usual life choices, i.e. where to go on holiday, what job to take, whether to get married and have kids etc. just because it's the promise of a very different happiness based on very different factors. If, for example, I was absolutely guaranteed enlightenment - you know, the full blissful works - but it would first require 50 years of miserable struggle, then I think most of us here would take the miserable struggle. That seems like the rational choice. It also seems like a realistic view of what this path is. Especially for the ordained. I heard a lot about the conditions in the Thai monasteries in Thailand and it's hardcore. Not easy at all. Not enjoyable at all. And the only happiness you're going to experience is the fruits of your spiritual practice, and they can be a long time coming. So, for me, i'm not sure how important my happiness is. Not with this. And I don't think my (perception of) happiness could serve as a good indicator. I mean, I might imagine myself struggling in boredom, but in reality I might absolutely love the path. I might love being ordained. Maybe then the answer is to dip my toes in. You know, go and spend 6 months living the monastic lifestyle. Gain some experience, some insight etc. But, even then, whether I enjoyed those 6 months or not doesn't seem like a worthwhile consideration. The more pertinent question - to me - would simply be whether I could cut it, i.e. for better or worse, can I stick to it?
So you are talking about deciding no less than your life's purpose, without taking into account happiness or the natural course of life. It sounds like one of those turning points in life where you are considering making a big decision which shapes your life, at least for a few years.
I had one of those around driving a car. When I was much younger I learned to drive, but after I passed my test, I didn't get a car. And months later, I still didn't. Something was stopping me. When I moved house for a new job, i ended up in walking distance of both the office and the shops. And after some years I realised it was because I didn't like cars, mostly because they pollute. So not having a car became my contribution to stopping global warming. And that's lasted 20 years and is still going. I go everywhere by public transport, and that has shaped my life at times.
So I'm not going to talk against following long-lasting, deep impulses. But you should realise what you are doing. The whole urge to enlightenment is also a programmed impulse, inherited knowledge from your teachers. In order to truly come to a knowledge of what you yourself want and need, you need to drop conditioning, and also the conditioned urge to enlightenment. Go find the authentic you.
Only then can you see in correct context what you really want, what moves you, and what you would be giving up by taking up a monastic life. Don't turn it into some crazy endurance challenge, make a truly informed choice.
@mindatrisk
You could have been a lay person or a monk in the past , just as you could also end up as a lay person or a monk in the future but the only real place and time where you can actually practice, is in this present moment.
One master I knew was fond of saying that it does not matter how ardently or cleverly you stir a mud puddle, expecting that stirring to create something other than a stirred mud puddle, is foolishness. Here, the mud puddle represents a worldly mind, the selfish self, the ego or our identity. Something that monks and lay folks share equally in.
The practice is simply about transcending of our attachments to that mud puddle.
Trying to figure out what is a real change from the stirring of a mud puddle or is a real lessening of the world's suffering, requires some sincere practice, where ever you now are, whether status-ed as layperson or as a monk.
Imagine if I drove a car for the first time really slow and found it challenging to an extreme. I lost the road, bumped the car and abandoned it. Now, I propose to drive the same car but this time, really fast. What would be the advice?
I have nothing against any monastics. People should do what they feel the need to do, generally speaking. But how many monastics are there in the world? And how many make a meaningful difference on a regular basis? It seems to me that there is actually more opportunity to help people and make a difference as a lay person than as a monk. There is no guarantee that being a monk will help you reach enlightenment sooner/faster. Whatever you happen to be, you should be the very best you can. Can you really go into monastic life and be the very best monk you can be when your heart is not in it? Or maybe perhaps would it be better to be the very best @mindatrisk that you can be, right now?
Enlightenment is not guaranteed, not 'blissful' and very sadly in my experience, not something that comes from all forms of monastic 'misery'.
Do we have a grasp of basic dharma practice? Would be useful to attend intense practice retreats for weekends, weeks or longer? Can we be 'in the world but not of the world' as the Christian mystics put it:
John 17:16
I would suggest as with painting a wall, everything is in the preparation.
Preparation, perspiration, presentation.
There are also often options to go abroad to study the Dharma, there would probably be some cost you'd need to cover but if its in a developing country it may be affordable and there could be some work/study options or possibly some type of scholarship if you can connect with a teacher that could recommend you. That might be a path worth looking into.
what you are going through is quite normal. I have the same struggle too. my main consideration is due to some health issues I can not eat a single meal a day. some monks have told me it's not a problem since it's a medical issue. I would advice you to give it a try. try it for a month and see how it goes. think of it as a journey of self discovery. sometimes we forget that during Buddhas time, Buddha just said "come. bikkhu " to ordain some one. at the end of the day it's your personal decision but don't forget that if you miss this opportunity , you may not get another one.
Then if you have been advised it's ok for you due to medical issues, you have clearance.
If, now having received clearance, you still hesitate, it must be something else holding you back...
FWIW -- I flunked out of a Zen monastery and, looking back, I think it was one of the best things I ever did for my practice.
Bravo @genkaku.
There is hope for us flunkies. I was recently on a few days of private retreat for the dharmically challenged. I had a nun on standby for emergencies which never arise.
'To be or not to be', that is not the question ...
Being born as human is indeed rare and coming into contact with Buddhist teachings even rarer.
During Buddha's time, there is simply no opportunity to hear them. Leisure time is only for the fortunate few. Only monastics can afford to fully practise with the support from the lay followers. "Meditation" was mainly taught to monastics.
Nowadays, there is so much leisure time to pursue and meditation is being taught to anyone who cares to learn. The Buddha's teachings are freely available. So much so that the monastic path is not the only way to go. But to go all the way requires full renunciation and that really means to give up lay life.
Is like comparing apples to oranges. Finding a cure for cancer is no small feat and is a great source of comfort. The Buddha however discovered the "cure" for aging, sickness and death.
Before I became a monk, I stayed for about 5 months at the monastery as a layperson. I didn't seriously think of becoming a monk until about month 5, and even after that I didn't take the robes for another two years. So you don't need to rush your decision. Spend some more time at a monastery, preferably months, and see how you feel. You can't tell from must a few days.
And yes, in my experience your heart definitley has to be in it. If the heart isn't keen on monastic life, it can be very dry and lonely.
Also, in the monasteries I have stayed at, (Theravadan forest tradition) during the first 5 or so years there is not much opportunity to help others in the dhamma, in big concrete ways. Sure you can help your fellow monks and novices, but there is very little interaction with the outside world. But as a layperson in normal life, you can do a lot for other people, more than a monk can, at least for those first 5 years.
But saying that, Jayantha's monastery seems to be different, as he is teaching already and he's still a novice. So... if your heart is really dedicated to helping others, choose your monastery after asking questions about opportunities for outreach and teaching.
Good advice @BhanteLucky
I feel it is important to establish what kind of practitioner one is and what we are capable of. If we have the opportunity to go on an extended retreat, wonderful.
Whatever our life path no one can decide if we follow the rhinoceros path ...
http://opcoa.st/0xx5n-8055d
... or the common or uncommon herd ...
Find our life path we must. Time is short.