Neither Monk nor Layperson
Ken O'Neill writes:
"... Later streams of Buddhism's development evolved beyond the earlier dualism separating monastics from laiety, instead stressing that we are all "neither monk nor layperson", just fellow seekers in quest of illumination."
If we're all the same, then I must be the Pope. Maybe "development" should be changed to degenerated.
Mr. McNeil continues...
"... Refer only to Ms Magazine several monks ago for a charming article on the human rights violation of Shri Lankhan monks against women. Not only are they denied ordination, but subject to rape and other abuses by monks stitched into the dominant power structure. More than a few scandals loom in the codependency of monks and laiety in Theravadin countries. It seems to me that when international news reports on scandals in Buddhism, it reports on the conduct of monks!
The Buddha may well have initiated monasticism, along with parts of a vinaya that applied to existential circumstances unique to his limited experience in a small portion of norther india. The two schisms separating Theravada's remote ancestors from what became mahayana had much to do with following the letter of the law or its spirit. That buddhism spread beyond cultures effect by the Indian subcontinent largely resulted from mahayana's flexible application of buddhist principles. Perpetuity of buddhism doesn't depend on monks; instead it depends on people awakening, applying that awakening to the lives."
*****
Sorry Ken, I can't follow your line of thinking. Buddhism is here today because countless monks and nuns for thousands of years have given their light so that we can study Dharma. I am grateful for the Buddhism taught by Mahayana monks and nuns. Furthermore, these same people teach that monks, laypeople, non-Buddhists--everyone--is on a spiritual path of sorts, and that we should respect each others' beliefs. In Buddhism there's room for many approaches. Most of the left-home people I've met seem normal, happy, and well-adusted. Of course being human, there are going to be some bad ones, but to follow your logic--if a few laymen committed some grievous offenses, then all laymen are no good. Ridiculous! I've also met some most extraordinary monks who have inconceivable treasures to offer and who share their wealth of Buddha wisdom with those who value it without feeling the need to belittle laypeople.
To set the record straight, in Buddhism, the Sangha is the left-home order of monks and nuns. If you see things diffently, that's fine, but monastic Buddhism, pretty much as practiced in the time of the Buddha, is still alive and well today, and is an important part of life and practice for millions of Buddhists.
Of course, these are just my opinions. Richard Gere and Ms. Magazine may view things differently.
Beano,
Tim
At 03:15 PM 10/8/95 -0400, Tim Testu wrote:
******
>Sorry Ken, I can't follow your line of thinking. Buddhism is here today because countless monks and nuns for thousands of years have given their light so that we can study Dharma. I am grateful for the Buddhism taught by Mahayana monks and nuns. Furthermore, these same people teach that monks, [etc.]
Dark Ages
----------
Chaos everywhere.
Books left rotting on the floor.
More precious than lives.
15-AUG-85 16:06:45 320 1
-----
Sphere.
>Ken O'Neill writes:
>"... Later streams of Buddhism's development evolved beyond the earlier dualism >separating monastics from laiety, instead stressing that we are all "neither monk nor layperson", just fellow seekers in quest of illumination."
Tim Tetsu replied:
>If we're all the same, then I must be the Pope. Maybe "development" should be changed to degenerated.
Care to offer more than a dis or an opinion - like a supporting reason?
Mr Tetus continues:
*****
>Sorry Ken, I can't follow your line of thinking. Buddhism is here today because countless monks and nuns for thousands of years have given their light so that we can study Dharma. I am grateful for the Buddhism taught by Mahayana monks and nuns. Furthermore, these same people teach that monks, laypeople, non-Buddhists--everyone--is on a spiritual path of sorts, and that we should respect each others' beliefs. In Buddhism there's room for many approaches. Most of the left-home people I've met seem normal, happy, and well-adusted. Of course being human, there are going to be some bad ones, but to follow your logic--if a few laymen committed some grievous offenses, then all laymen are no good. Ridiculous! I've also met some most extraordinary monks who have inconceivable treasures to offer and who share their wealth of Buddha wisdom with those who value it without feeling the need to belittle laypeople.
Buddhism is here today because of the efforts of monks, nuns, laymen, laywomen, and the dobo. In the case of Japan, it survived in tact as long as it did due to the self ordained (hijiri) more than the decadent State religion the 8 major schools turned into by the Kamakura period. Much of the real work was performed by the hijiri.
That Buddhism is alive at all is due to the efforts of laiety supporting monastic classes.
I would remind you that support of monastics hinges on the merit theory of karma. One is said to earn merit by support monks and nuns. Earn enough merit and you'll be reborn in another life in conditions permitting becoming a monk. As a woman, earn enough merit and you'll be reborn a man. The misogynist theory of merit, a degeneration from the Buddha's Buddhism, justifies a priveleged class (perhaps a welfare class) based on the premise that only monks achieve enlightenment. Monasticism has never been a condition of illumination except when perverting buddhism served the interests of a self-declared elite.
>To set the record straight, in Buddhism, the Sangha is the left-home order of monks and nuns.
Nonsense. In early buddhism the sangha is fourfold, including male and female monastics, male and female laiety. Restricting and limiting the meaning of Sangha served only the interests of a self-perpetuating special interest group - rendering non-monastics is support system.
If you see things diffently, that's fine, but monastic BBuddhism, pretty much as practiced in the time of the Buddha, is still alive and well today, and is an important part of life and practice for millions of Buddhists.
Sure it's alive and well today. It produces fine people, but at the expense of limiting Buddhism from a way of awakening to all people to an illusionary Buddhism whose enlightenment is the privelege of a special class.
One of Shinran's contributions was liberation of Buddhism from false, misapplied "Buddhism" based on a dualism between monastics and laiety. Contemporary Zen follows suit. Whatever one's social position or ordination position, illumination is an opportunity for anyone. In that respect, Shinran merely restored Buddhism to its foundational outlook - freeing it from excessive, misused monasticism.
>Of course, these are just my opinions. Richard Gere and Ms. Magazine may view things differently.
No one understands your referrance to Richard Gere; could you please illumine us? As for Ms Magazine, you might read the article before blowing smoke before the Internet. Shri Lankha, at least, has a difficulty with the glass ceiling of misygony parading in the name of monasticism.
Gassho,
Ken O'Neill
>>Of course, these are just my opinions. Richard Gere and Ms. Magazine may view things differently.
>No one understands your referrance to Richard Gere; could you please illumine us? As for Ms Magazine, you might read the article before blowing smoke before the Internet. Shri Lankha, at least, has a difficulty with the glass ceiling of misygony parading in the name of monasticism.
>Gassho,
>Ken O'Neill
Ditto (and not just Shri Lankha).
W Hartwig
>Ken O'Neil writes:
". . . The misogynist theory of merit, a degeneration from the Buddha's Buddhism, justifies a priveleged class (perhaps a welfare class) based on the premise that only monks achieve enlightenment. Monasticism has never been a condition of illumination except when perverting buddhism served the interests of a self-declared elite."
I disagree. This is not true at all, and I think it important that we set this straight. The very purpose of monasticism is illumination. Traditionally a monastery served as a focal point in the community where the laity and monastics could come together to study and practice and mutually benefit each other. In my experience--living in a monastery for almost a decade--enlightenment was always something available and encouraged for all. During the winter months especially, when the busy schedule was put aside in favor of Ch'an, monks, nuns, and laypeople alike sit side by side on equal ground. And the Ch'an talks and Dharma talks are always openly directed to anyone who cares to participate. There is no discrimination between left-home people and the laity.
I'm not saying that monasticism is for everybody. It's a tough life, and few choose to do it. Even so, it is merely one possibility, open to anyone who wishes to pursue it--not just for the elite. My understanding is that Buddhism has 84,000 Dharma Doors. If you wish to approach it in your way, that's fine. I truly wish you every success. But why are you so compelled to dismiss other approaches? As for the Richard Gere remark, I was just paraphrasing the cartoon on page 61 of October 9th New Yorker.
Now, can we lighten up a little bit and get back to the topic at hand?
In the Dharma,
Tim
This thread seems to me to depart significantly from the main theme of the conference, which is Buddhism and human rights. It might be more properly discussed on another list.
Having said that, however, I'd like to disagree briefly with Ken O'Neill's comments on the sangha, which are derived from a Japanese viewpoint and in my opinion are largely irrelevant to most of Buddhism.
As a normative concept, the sangha consists of people who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of nirvana. The reason why the Buddha instituted such an order (and Ken, it's very clear in the Paali literature that he did indeed do so) is that the institution of the sangha allows for some people to devote all their energy to this pursuit. It's not a question of becoming social parasites (although some of course do), but of forming an organization that allows for this. In the same way, symphony orchestras are formed in order to allow people to devote their energies to becoming excellent musicians, professional sports teams are formed that allow people to devote their energies to becoming excellent athletes, etc. The Buddhist sangha allows certain individuals to devote their lives to religious goals.
Those societies that value such practices support these organizations. Western society generally places a high value on entertainment and athletics, and so sponsors classes of people in their pursuit of these things. It doesn't value spiritual pursuits very highly, and so most monastic organizations have to be self-supporting.
But because of historical circumstances in Japan, which were exacerbated by the Tokugawa shogunate, the Buddhist clergy ceased to provide effective spiritual guidance to the populace and generally ceased to function as an organization that contained serious full-time spiritual seekers, and so it lost its original justification. But that isn't true in other Buddhist countries. Since your experience is so obviously based on Japan, it would be nice if you could be clear on when you're talking about Buddhism in general and when you're only speaking about the Japanese context, because particularly in the area of monasticism, Japan is quite different from other Buddhist countries.
John Powers
Faculty of Asian Studies
Australian National University
>>Ken O'Neil writes:
>". . . The misogynist theory of merit, a degeneration from the Buddha's Buddhism,
>justifies a priveleged class (perhaps a welfare class) based on the premise that only monks achieve enlightenment. Monasticism has never been a condition of illumination except when perverting buddhism served the interests of a self-declared elite."
>I disagree. This is not true at all, and I think it important that we set this straight. The very purpose of monasticism is illumination.
In point of fact, the rationale supporting the fourfold Sangha is illumination. That monks later appropriated the silly notion making them top dog marks a deviation from the Buddha's teaching - and a basis for a self declared elitist class.
Traditionally
>a monastery served as a focal point in the community where the laity and monastics could come together to study and practice and mutually benefit each other. In my experience--living in a monastery for almost a decade--enlightenment was always something available and encouraged for all. During the winter months especially, when the busy schedule was put aside in favor of Ch'an, monks, nuns, and laypeople alike sit side by side on equal ground. And the Ch'an talks and Dharma talks are always openly directed to anyone who cares to participate. There is no discrimination between left-home people and the laity.
>I'm not saying that monasticism is for everybody. It's a tough life, and few choose to do it. Even so, it is merely one possibility, open to anyone who wishes to pursue it--not just for the elite. My understanding is that Buddhism has 84,000 Dharma Doors. If you wish to approach it in your way, that's fine. I truly wish you every success. But why are you so compelled to dismiss other approaches?
As for monks having more rights, I'd have to argue nuns have even more; after all, the vinaya imposes many more rules on them! To the extent any Buddhist countries still maintain the orders of nuns!
>As for the Richard Gere remark, I was just paraphrasing the cartoon on page 61 of October 9th New Yorker.
>Now, can we lighten up a little bit and get back to the topic at hand?
A final word. I'm in agreement with the spirit of Sangha you offer, and your seeming backing away from the distorted notion that Sangha is made up of monks and nuns solely.
84,000 paths bodes well for unity in diversity - as well as a basis for dropping ethnic and national traditions in order that Buddhism may come to some understanding of its many families, relatives and kissing cousins.
Gassho,
Ken O'Neill