Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

Monks, lay practioners, and self-sufficiency

edited July 2010 in Buddhism Basics
Hi all,

After years of sporadic study, I've finally decided to call myself a Buddhist. One thing has been bothering me though...

I really respect those who choose to lead the spiritual life of a monk or a nun. I don't think I could do it. I certainly don't intend to try in this life. But why are there so many Buddhist monks/nuns that rely solely on charity? Why are they not more self-sufficient? I have been raised in America, where self-sufficiency is very much an ideal in all of the dominant segments of society. It is also an ideal I strongly accept for myself.

My knowledge of Buddhist scriptures is very limited. I am familiar with the Dhammapada (which is the book that led me to Buddhism in the first place). I am vaguely familiar with the Eight-fold Path, along with very basic teaching from books and online. So please understand I do not fully know the reasoning behind monastic life.

So is there any insight you can offer me? Are all monasteries totally dependent on charity? I seem to remember something about some Zen monasteries supporting themselves--I found it on a random web search but cannot recall the source, so I'm not sure I'm right about that.

Thanks for any and all info you can give!

Comments

  • edited July 2010
    At least in Asia, monasteries are generally economically dependent on the laity.

    This system of economic dependence has been in place since the very beginning, since the Buddha walked the roads of Northern India. It offers a double advantage over self-sufficiency, one for the monastics and one for lay people. The monastics need to spend less time with upkeep and have more time for practicing the teaching the dhamma. The lay people are given extended opportunity for merit making and they are provided with the services of the monastery in return.

    This system of reciprocity has been established since time immemorial in Asia. In the traditional villages of Buddhist countries, the temples often have a secondary function as school, library, sick-nursing practice, welfare centre, counselling service, or some similar social function, especially those temples located in populated areas. If monks wanted to concentrate on meditation practice, they often had to leave these places and seek out remote temples or go to the forests or caves.

    Although there may be some remote temples with near self-sufficiency, it is generally impractical without the direct support from lay stewards, because the monk rules forbid many types of economic activities, such as storing food, or carrying/accepting money. This means the monks themselves can't engage meaningfully in economic activities.

    Cheers, Thomas
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited July 2010
    Those in monasteries live in a micro-culture that has one purpose and one purpose only. Monastic culture is designed down to the smallest detail and rule, from morning to night, to facilitate practice. We lay people are more at risk of dispersion in a culture designed down to the last detail for dispersion. We support monastics so that they can lead us by example. It doesn't mean they have greater capacities, but they are in a position keep a certain intensity and purity. Thats the deal. Monastic life is hard work and they don't just do it for themselves, they do it for all of us. It is a good trade. It should also be noted that at least in western Theravada monastics are not automatically supported by the culture, and they do not solicit. The monastics sink or swim by their virtue. The fact they they are being supported speaks to that virtue.<!-- / message -->
  • edited July 2010
    Thanks for the answers! Let me just echo what I think was said:

    So it's all sort of a social contract between laity and monks/nuns, then? Laity supports monks, who are kept in situations that are conducive to enlightenment. In return, the monks teach laity so that they, too, progress further on the spiritual path. Sort of a tit for tat, in a way. Am I right?
  • edited July 2010
    Hi justme,
    I am a monk. Have been for 24 years. I am an American and had an American teacher. We are close to self-sufficient. We do not rely on donations. Here is a story about our monastery that i posted here awhile back....http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5744

    good luck to you!!
    Dennis
Sign In or Register to comment.