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.
Two Types of Buddhists...
Glow
Veteran
Buddhism has been attracting many people in Western countries in which there has not traditionally been a Buddhist monastic community. I myself was one such person and found in Buddhism a unique possibility for peace in this ever hectic world and a morality based, not on the whim of some external deity or the threat of post-mortem damnation, but on the truth of suffering in the here and now.
However, I think it would be wise to consider the traditional delineation Asian Buddhism makes between (1) lay followers and (2) monastic renunciants. (Hence, the title of this thread.) Much confusion and needless divisiveness IMO is the result of people trying to have their cake and eat it too. In other words: trying to pursue life as a lay person in Western society with its humanistic values while simultaneously pursuing the path of renunciation required of Buddhism. Many people, upon reading the words of the Buddha of the Pali canon, are struck by their characteristic austerity.
Yet, this balancing act is rather tenuous. How does one conceivably pursue romantic relationships while simultaneously heeding the Buddha's exhortation to extinguish sensual passions with the earnestness of one whose hair was caught on fire? Or his reply to the monk Arittha that one cannot engage sensual desire (understood in the commentaries as engaging in sex) without consequent attachment? The Buddha states in no uncertain terms that sensual desire is an obstacle on the path to nirvana.
I think it is important that we admit the limitations of Buddhist practice within the context of lay existence. It would save newcomers considerable confusion and frustration to make clear that the aim of classical Buddhism has been the complete extinguishment of craving for this world (later manifest in further "becoming" -- classical understood as rebirth) -- a goal perhaps not realistic or even healthy for those who, by necessity or choice, need to stay engaged in secular life. This would also prevent the categorical dismissal or misrepresentation some Western lay practitioners have of the monastic tradition, in all its austerity.
The Buddha himself made a distinction between his lay followers (upasaka/upisaka) and those who left worldly life for the homeless existence of a monk (bhikkhu). His prescriptions for lay followers were much less austere; he essentially expected them only to follow the first five precepts. They were allowed to marry. They were allowed to have sex and pursue careers. They were not, however, expected to follow the monastic renunciation of sensual desire, music, etc. In the Jivaka Sutta, his description of a lay follower is relatively simple: one who practices generosity, virtue, and remembers to practice the Dhamma to the best of his/her ability.
Ultimately, I guess my point would be that, rather than attempting the Sisyphian task of attempting to shoehorn the austerity of classical Buddhism into 21st century secular existence, or attempt to reconstitute classical Buddhism through the lens of secular humanism, we remind ourselves and others to keep things in perspective and practice the Buddha's message to the extent that it can prevent suffering in our lives and those we touch and not obsess about the rest.
However, I think it would be wise to consider the traditional delineation Asian Buddhism makes between (1) lay followers and (2) monastic renunciants. (Hence, the title of this thread.) Much confusion and needless divisiveness IMO is the result of people trying to have their cake and eat it too. In other words: trying to pursue life as a lay person in Western society with its humanistic values while simultaneously pursuing the path of renunciation required of Buddhism. Many people, upon reading the words of the Buddha of the Pali canon, are struck by their characteristic austerity.
Yet, this balancing act is rather tenuous. How does one conceivably pursue romantic relationships while simultaneously heeding the Buddha's exhortation to extinguish sensual passions with the earnestness of one whose hair was caught on fire? Or his reply to the monk Arittha that one cannot engage sensual desire (understood in the commentaries as engaging in sex) without consequent attachment? The Buddha states in no uncertain terms that sensual desire is an obstacle on the path to nirvana.
I think it is important that we admit the limitations of Buddhist practice within the context of lay existence. It would save newcomers considerable confusion and frustration to make clear that the aim of classical Buddhism has been the complete extinguishment of craving for this world (later manifest in further "becoming" -- classical understood as rebirth) -- a goal perhaps not realistic or even healthy for those who, by necessity or choice, need to stay engaged in secular life. This would also prevent the categorical dismissal or misrepresentation some Western lay practitioners have of the monastic tradition, in all its austerity.
The Buddha himself made a distinction between his lay followers (upasaka/upisaka) and those who left worldly life for the homeless existence of a monk (bhikkhu). His prescriptions for lay followers were much less austere; he essentially expected them only to follow the first five precepts. They were allowed to marry. They were allowed to have sex and pursue careers. They were not, however, expected to follow the monastic renunciation of sensual desire, music, etc. In the Jivaka Sutta, his description of a lay follower is relatively simple: one who practices generosity, virtue, and remembers to practice the Dhamma to the best of his/her ability.
Ultimately, I guess my point would be that, rather than attempting the Sisyphian task of attempting to shoehorn the austerity of classical Buddhism into 21st century secular existence, or attempt to reconstitute classical Buddhism through the lens of secular humanism, we remind ourselves and others to keep things in perspective and practice the Buddha's message to the extent that it can prevent suffering in our lives and those we touch and not obsess about the rest.
0
Comments
Very interesting. I think my practice would fit into the first level (to have a good life).
Whatever your situation is, it is entirely your ability to conduct your practice within yourself despite any external conditions that leads to the goal. That is why it is conceded that a lay Buddhist may reach full enlightenment, but it is much less probable than a bhikkhu doing the same.
There is really nothing more to it. It is the case where it depends upon each individual. I'm out...
I keep the Eight Precepts, and feel much more free than I did when I was keeping only the Five Precepts. When I was keeping the Five Precepts I was much more free than when I kept no precepts.