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.
The Monastic Life--A "Dead End"?
Dakini
Veteran
Our colleague and Buddhist scholar, Stephen Batchelor, has found some interesting quotes in the suttras that I thought merited exploring.
"Those who hold training as the essence, or who hold virtue-and-vow, pure livelihood, celibacy and service as the essence--this is one dead end. And those with such theories and such views as 'there is no fault in sensual desires'--this is another dead end." Ud 6.8 p.92
Batchelor frames this in the context of finding a middle path, between complete rununciation and laissez-faire.
"Those who hold training as the essence, or who hold virtue-and-vow, pure livelihood, celibacy and service as the essence--this is one dead end. And those with such theories and such views as 'there is no fault in sensual desires'--this is another dead end." Ud 6.8 p.92
Batchelor frames this in the context of finding a middle path, between complete rununciation and laissez-faire.
0
Comments
I think this quote is stating that attachment to either path will not lead to enlightenment.
The Buddha never rejected the importance of Sila, on the contrary, he spoke frequently about it. Sila makes up 3 of the 8 factors in the N8FP, so it must be important, right?
It appears to me that what the Buddha was saying (with this passage taken in the context of the rest of his Teachings) is that although living a pure lifestyle, keeping precepts are definitely useful they are not the whole of the Eightfold Path.
It would be a mistake, in my opinion, to say that the Buddha was saying that the monastic path (and keeping precepts) is a dead end. Far from this, it appears that the monastic path is praised again and again in the Suttas.
Metta,
Guy
There's also the fact that the Buddha himself organized monasteries, so he must have thought them useful for practice.
Monastic life was necessary, if only for the fact that it preserved the traditions and scriptures. In the future maybe the monastic life won't be necessary. But I don't know.
Living a standard lay life we are bound to get lost on our way much more often, no matter how strong the will.
The environment IS important. Buddha has explained it. I have experienced it.
Sabre :vimp:
The monastic life is for those who feel they need the monastic life, that's all. I thought that I would become a monk in the past, even seriously thought about going off on my own and living in the woods at one point! This is because it was hard for me to concentrate on the Buddha's teachings with worldly concerns all about me; delusional constructs.
What's right for Stephen Batchelor is right for Stephen Batchelor.
What's right for you is right for you.
Those for whom precepts & practices
are the essence of the training,
for whom celibacy is the essence of service:
this is one extreme.
Those who say, "There's no harm in sensual desires":
this is the second extreme.
It simply rejects the view that celibacy iself is the goal of the path.
The Buddha advised in countless discourses the goal of the path is the unshakeable liberation of mind (Nirvana).
http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima1/029-mahasaropama-sutta-e1.html
:om:
But several reports on monastic life say that only 10% of the monks receive a meaningful education in Buddhism, which is to say that 90% are required to simply memorize endless amounts of text without any explanation of what they're memorizing. Only 10% are considered to be of sufficient intellectual capability to be taught all the theory, history and symbolism that we take for granted.
May we all be free from suffering and the cause of suffering
May we all be well educated?
Palzang
I totally agree with GuyC . The Udana verse simply means that by simply practicing Sila will not lead to Enlightenment because there are two more division, namely Samadhi and Panna ( wisdom) . The claim that following the precept is not necessary doesn't take into account nor explain numerous suttas in which the Buddha extolled the need for Sila practice. For example, in the Sila sutta the Buddha said that aside from Sila ( development of virtue and keeping precepts) , a person still needs to develop Full Awareness ( mindfulness) to let go of the 5 hindrancess in every moment.
Sila Sutta:
"Bhikkhus, when the bhikkhu is virtuous, observing the patimokkha, conducting himself with the right behavior, realizing the danger in the slightest fault, what further has he to do?
"Even when walking he dispels grasping ( abhijjha: covetousness ), aversion, sloth and drowsiness, restlessness & worry , and has discarded doubts , then his energy becomes actively aroused, unclouded mindfulness (sati) is established, his body is at ease and unexcited, his mind is collected ( samahita: settled, composed, collected of mind) and unified( ekagga: unified, calm, tranquil). Even when walking, if he is scrupulous in this way, it is said : ‘ strenuous and scrupulous, he is continually with aroused effort to dispel.’
The same goes with standing, lying down, and sitting, a person needs to be fully aware of feelings, perceptions , and thoughts are known as they arise, as they are present, as they disappear so that one can practice letting go of the 5 hindrances.
The Gradual Training Sutta ( MN 51) Gives a list of practices in order:
http://jwleaf.org/html/gradual-training.html
It shows that after development of Sila ( morality, keeping preceps etc,) , there is still development of Full Awareness explained above, and also Meditation & Wisdom.
"Possessing this mass of virtues (sila,) , the restraint of the mental faculties, right mindfulness and full awareness, one resorts to a secluded dwelling, such as the forest, the root of a tree, a mountain, a ravine, a hillside cave, a charnel ground, a jungle forest, an open space, or a heap of straw. After the meal and returning from the alms round, one sits legs crossed and mindfulness established in front.
The path is Eightfold, divided into three division ( Sila, Samadhi, Panna). To eliminate one of the division ( Sila) , the path becomes a Fivefold path or something else.
SILA (virtue , morality) : Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood
SAMADHI ( meditation development) : Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration
PANNA ( wisdom development) : Right View, Right Intention
In the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, the Buddha said that:
" In whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, there exists not the Noble Eightfold Path, neither is there to be found a true samana of the first ( Stream Entry) , second ( Once Returner) , third ( Non-Returner) , or fourth ( Arahant) degree . But in whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline there is found the Noble Eightfold Path, there is found a true samana of the first, second, third, and fourth degree of saintliness. In this Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, there exists the Noble Eightfold Path; and in it alone are also found true samanas of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness (enlightenment). The systems of other schools are empty of true samanas . If the bhikkhus live (practice) rightly, the world will not be empty of arahants. "
There are numerous misconceptions put forth in Stephen Batchlor's book. This topic is an example. Also, the kamma and rebirth theory was suggested that it should be thrown out as well. But this is based on the Buddha's night of enlightenment. Personally, I wouldn't use the book as a point of reference .
Peace,
I asked Bhante Brahmali if he would comment on this since he is quite knowledgeable of the Suttas, here's what he said: Metta,
Guy
Thanks GuyC for consulting with a practicing bhikkhu. Before doing away with Sila, kamma, or the sangha established by the Buddha, we should verify it with the text. A look into the texts shows countless of suttas that was not accounted for by the author:
The Samannaphala Sutta and the Ganaka Moggallana Sutta also provide us with the complete formula for the practice toward enlightenment from the Buddha. Below is an excerpt:
*"Come , bhikkhu, be virtuous, live controlled by the restraint of the Patimokkha, be perfect in behavior and posture, seeing danger in the slightest fault and, undertaking them, train yourself in the rules of training."
* Dutiya-Saddha Sutta
"Bhikkhus, the bhikkhu has faith, has no virtues by this factor he is incomplete. He should become complete in that factor- `How shall I have faith and virtues. When the bhikkhu has faith and virtues, then he becomes complete in that factor.
*In the Sonadanda sutta the Buddha taught that wisdom is purified by Morality ( sila, virtue) , and Morality is purified by Wisdom:
" Wisdom is purified by morality, and morality is purified by wisdom : where one is, the other is, the Moral man has Wisdom and the Wise man has Morality, and the combination of Morality and Wisdom is called the highest thing in the world. But Brahmin, what is this morality and what is this wisdom?"
“ .... A disciple goes forth and practices the Moralities , he guards the sense-doors, attains the four jhanas ( purifying the mind through meditation) . Thus he develops conduct.
He attains various insights , and the cessation of the corruptions … Thus he develops wisdom. That is wisdom."
Peace,
I think Talisman and Guy C have interpreted the passage correctly, however, having read Batchelor's book, I think he raises a valid point (for discussion, anyway) similar to Inji-gyo's; that societies and cultures have changed in the last 2500 years, and it could be worthwhile to consider the possibility that secular Buddhist communities could offer a valid alternative path to furthering practice and advancing toward Enlightenment. The custom in the Buddha's time was to form monastic communities and find a benefactor to support them. Back then, it apparently was inconceivable to form a community of lay practitioners, since probably no one would sponsor that.
Even if we just examine the assertion closely for ourselves, we can still see that turning an Eightfold path into a Fivefold path is clearly not the path suggested by the Buddha. Based on the false premise that we should do away with Sila, he suggested that the monastic lifestyle is not necessary and that his path of enjoying sexual relationship with no Sila will lead to full Enlightenment.
Records indicate that there are sexually active householders who can get as far as Stream entry or Once Returning. But generally Non Returners and Arahant are naturally free from lust. If you are shooting for Arahantship, then monastic life is conducive. If you are shooting for Non-Returning, perhaps the 8 precepts household life is needed ( letting go of lust).
Set up like what you find at a Retreat or Forest Refuge ( for lay people) is conducive to developing deep meditation. If you can't find time after eight hours of work everyday then the monastic lifestyle is ideal for meditation practice. However, I see a need for a renewal of the monastic set up. What kind of monastery allows a monk to smoke what the author said he spent time smoking. Doesn't that clouds the mind and become a hindrance to meditation practice. Why would someone join a monastery waste time doing that. It defeats the purpose of joining a monastery to develop meditation in the first place. The Buddha didn't allow brewed drinks because it can cause mental negligence and decrease awareness. If someone is serious about their practice and wants to make the best of their time at the monastery, this is not the way to go. I am not surprise that the person's monastic experience is not fruitful spending time in that way. However, that doesn't mean that the monastic lifestyle should be eliminated. I am sure there are other individuals who makes the best of their time in the monastery to practice.
When reading about a man being allowed to spend time smoking instead of developing his meditation, I see a need for reform or renewal of the monastic lifestyle. Such as better instruction or set up.
Candidates (who voluntarily express an interest) are given a minimum of 2 years (1 as an Anagarika and 1 as a Novice), sometimes longer, to make sure that it is not just a whimsical decision to become a monk. Even after the initial probationary period, once fully ordained, they are allowed to disrobe and re-ordain several (up to 7 I think...multiple, anyway) times which would relieve some of the stress that may come with thinking "now I'm a monk I have to make this work, there's no choice!"
There is also a great deal of freedom as to how monks spend their time. If they prefer to meditate more, they can do that. If they prefer to study more they can do that. Due to the differing mental dispositions of monastics I think this is a great system.
As a result of this combination of flexibility and long probationary period the candidates who remain usually turn out to be really good monks/nuns. Anyone who has met these inspiring examples of what a human being can be would not question the merit of an ordained Sangha in our modern world. It is truly a blessing to have such dedicated practitioners, especially with the state of the world today.
Metta,
Guy
And I don't believe, after reading this book, that monastic life really works all that well and am on the side of Stephen Batchelor. Why? This book is filled with the going-ons in monasteries since the time of Buddha. In the book he talks about "temple illness," where homosexually "flourished in Buddhist monasteries throughout the centuries." Temple Illness is hemorrhoids.
Because our normal life are actually controlled by our desires.
It's not a question of right or wrong, it simply is. We do things we enjoy, we reject things we don't enjoy, thats already "control".
Monastics and Lay practitioners are both very important to carry down the Dharma. By saying one is better than the other, is duality, and not the middle way.
Stephen Bachelor's analysis needs to be taken with a grain of salt because he is a scholar who carries a biased philosophy oritented view toward buddhism while prejudiced against the faith and religious part of the teachings. His claim on "lesser monastic" just shows his attachment to the lay life.
Many monks will disagree with him.
with Yasodara?
I think it is a serious delusion to still want a wife when
you are free from all cravings.
I would miss everyday people.
But I'm intrigued now: if virtue, service, training, and right livelihood are a dead end, what is the goal supposed to be? What do we make of that quote? There must be a broader context that helps make sense of this. Can someone look it up?
monastery life is needed for some people. lay life is needed for some people.
realization only gives you right view and from there you live out the wisdom through your individual expression.
buddha at walmart, buddha at a fruit shop, buddha at the pizza place.
when we can have buddhas all over the world, then serious change will happen. when there is only buddhas who are in the monastery then nothing will change. that is the beautiful thing about america, maybe we'll see everyday buddhas.
take a buddha out of a monastery and give him/her a real job with everyday problems. it's easy to live in peace under nice conditions, but try staying still amongst the fire. american buddhism will have another style to it.
thanks, I will probably do fire pujas as needed... but some meditation now and then, and playing guitar has helped
Edit: I think both posts are misplaced...
A person who lives the laylife is unable or unwilling
to let go of the things he has in lay life.
Buddha taught the the monastic life is the most conducive
for the spiritual path.
"Buddha taught the the monastic life is the most conducive"
AFAIK, that is theravadan dogma, sutric reference if it was said by Shakyamuni missing.
"Buddha taught the the monastic life is the most conducive"
AFAIK, that is theravadan dogma, missing sutric reference if it was said by Shakyamuni.
Everyone has the potential to express this true self, to be peaceful and clear, but it takes some willingness and some determination. Better and worse are beside the point. Willingness and determination are not.
Even during days when Sakyamuni Buddha was alive, the Monastics cannot survive without the offerings from the Layity. Even more importatnly, the Layity cannot learn the right teachings with the Monastic teachers.
But to deny that the householder's life has many distractions
compared to the lifestyle of a monk is a mistake.
if someone is serious about the path,surely he can give up everything
in his lay life.
Otherwise, just admit that one wants to hang around samsara a bit more.