It’s more of you’re the one watching yourself with mindfulness. It’s important to know how to be mindful without using effort. Like Sayadaw U Tejaniya’s teaching. Or else, one may feel tired to be mindful every waking moment.
It can be dangerous. One moment of lapse of mindfulness, then hey, isn’t what I am doing breaking the precepts? Then next thing you know, meditation becomes harder, then have to confess.
It’s not so much tight, depends on one’s attitude towards it. Young monks tend to take vinaya more tight, old monks tend to be already used to living by the vinaya, and seemed more relaxed.
If one’s behaviour doesn’t seem inspiring, it could subtly affect the atmosphere of the place and people’s attitude towards you.
So it’s not so much 24/7 you’re with people. A lot of time is alone time for meditation or other stuffs. It’s more like you can read (via mindfulness) people’s body language, actions and behaviours over time, we know who’s got what habits like family members.
Also, part of the vinaya requirement for admonishment is to do it with metta, and see within oneself if one has this fault, if got, cannot admonish others. Must also do it at the right time, situation etc, not to embarrass people.
Whether or not the Buddha was actually married, I think he also was in the unusual situation of being born into a wealthy clan (perhaps not literally a royal family but more like having a father who might have been a Sakyan leader). If there was any dependent wife or child, they would have been well looked after and supported.
MN 81 comes to mind also, which focuses on a past life of the Buddha, then named Jotipāla, where he meets the previous Buddha Kassapa after being literally reluctantly dragged there by his friend the potter Ghaṭīkāra:
Ghaṭīkāra said to the Buddha Kassapa, ‘Sir, this is my dear friend Jotipāla, a brahmin student. Please teach him the Dhamma.’ Then the Buddha Kassapa educated, encouraged, fired up, and inspired Ghaṭikāra and Jotipāla with a Dhamma talk. Then they got up from their seat, bowed, and respectfully circled the Buddha Kassapa, keeping him on their right, before leaving.
Then Jotipāla said to Ghatīkāra, ‘Dear Ghaṭīkāra, you have heard this teaching, so why don’t you go forth from the lay life to homelessness?’
‘Don’t you know, dear Jotipāla, that I look after my blind old parents?’
‘Well then, dear Ghaṭīkāra, I shall go forth from the lay life to homelessness.’
Even though Ghaṭīkāra is a layman, caring for his aged parents, he is later described as being a non-returner (with the five lower fetters destroyed). In the suttas, laypeople being on the first two stages of awakening, as stream-enterers or once-returners, is not that unusual a situation. There are also cases of lay non-returners (celibate and sometimes described as “clothed in white” – obviously with the destruction of the fetters of sensual desire and aversion, that part of lay life no longer interested them). Though, IMO going the entire way to arahantship is closely associated with ordained monastics in the suttas.
Do visit forest monasteries. The answer is plenty.
I think that @dayunbao is saying applies more to a few things:
First 5 years where a monastic is under training to become a monk. You can’t be trained if the teacher cannot see you often. There’s plenty of stuffs to learn, not just meditation.
In monasteries where the schedule does have group stuffs. Eg. Group cleaning, group chanting, group meditation, group sutta study, group sewing class, group meal, etc.
The fortnightly patimokkha recitation.
If you want mainly meditation kind of schedule, go to Pa Auk monasteries. It’s intense.
I think it is important to have a deep reflection here. First of all, I remember that a robe does not make a monk at the spiritual level. Ordination is not equal to liberation, something people today often seem to forget. Albeit ordination help and it is still probably an excellent option today, despite there is a clear emphasis for it by people who are ordained (and it cannot be otherwise anthropologically speaking because of their own choice and experience), ordination is not a magic bullet.
Studying the texts and understanding Buddha’s message deeply shows that liberation comes through a mental process; it is a mind liberation, not liberation by style or practice. This means that it is also extremely personal.
Liberation is obtained through the eradication of the kleshas and the deep understanding of anatta. It is that process that provides the way and the results, not ordination.
In other words, despite the efforts to argue differently, there is no evidence that you must be a monk to reach the different degree of liberation, and you do not need, in theory, to be a “Buddhist” either as the Buddha clarified by answering such a question on his deathbed.
Sure, a structure can help, and the ordination helps because you have more or less guaranteed a certain level of survival and support.
Yet if you really practice, if you make your life in tune with the teachings, and you really work hard following the path and working on your mind, there is no reason that you will not reach results of different degrees or even enlightenment.
Indeed, if we think carefully, or we must accept that any sotāpanna will become a monk before becoming a sakadāgāmi, anāgāmi or arahant, or we must accept that some sotāpanna may reach another stage or even arahant level without maybe any experience of being a monk. And since paccekabuddhas existed even before monastic orders, it is clear that there is no reason why not becoming a monk should prevent you from reaching all the stages.
So, what can you do? Compromise. If you have children and a wife, you can discuss a solution that allows you to progress as much as possible to your path, even to dedicate most of your life to practice. I know that. In some cases, you may have even more time for practice and learning about the mind than in certain monasteries or situations.
Just speak and explain to your family and wife your spiritual needs and be compassionate and kind. Times are different from the time of the Buddha and teaching as so available. Most of us will not be forced to kill (one of the reasons for which monasticism was seen as so important at the time of the Buddha since you could have been forced to go to war or kill or find yourself in very unskilful realists we can easily avoid today).
At the same time, try not to be greedy, since you must rally evaluate how much your desire to become a monk may end in actually increasing your kleshas and bring you more distant from the path of liberation than not actually a very well controlled life, with 8 or more precepts and focus on the development of the mind.
I wasn’t implying that there aren’t any monasteries where people spend a lot of time meditating in kutis in the forest. I was just pointing out that even in those kinds of monasteries the residents have responsibilities. Keeping the monastery clean (sweeping, mopping, washing windows, cleaning toilets, cleaning shrines, etc.), keeping insects and other critters out of kutis (which, if you live in a forest, is not a trivial task and requires cutting back trees and bushes to keep them away from the kutis, at a bare minimum) maintaining/repairing kutis, building new kutis, dealing with guests, dealing with the local lay supporters, dealing with aspiring monks, training new monks…off the top of my head, those are a few of the things I saw during my stay at various monasteries that needed doing on a semi-regular to regular basis. Of course, if the monastery isn’t in a forest, isn’t growing (so no new kutis need to be built), or is well established and has a large group of lay supporters, then a lot of that work becomes much lighter. A well run monastery will find the right balance between work and meditation, but “balance” is a rather subjective term.
True. The Buddha never said, “By shaving your head, wearing robes, and living in a monastery/forest/cave, your suffering will end.” Suffering ends through practice, a lot of it. A long time ago something a nun once said to me really stuck with me. It seems relevant to this discussion. She said, “When you’re a layperson living in the world, you have the suffering of a layperson living in the world. When you’re a monastic living in a monastery, you have the suffering of a monastic living in a monastery.”
I can’t remember the sutta’s name or number, but there’s one that tells about a monk who insists on going to meditate in seclusion although advised not to by the Buddha three times. Eventually he leaves.
Afterwards, he comes back with no success. The Buddha tells that there are values to pick from being (or socialising?) with other monks.
The above may not be a 100% accurate summary of the sutta but I think I’d bring it up because it’s relevant to our practice. Hopefully someone who knows the sutta’s number or name can post it in this thread.
Now at that time there was a certain mendicant named Senior. He lived alone and praised living alone. He entered the village for alms alone, returned alone, sat in private alone, and concentrated on walking mindfully alone.
Thank you @ekay It’s great to be given those links.
From what I remember the earlier part of the sutta roughly goes:
The Buddha is with a monk. (After seeing a forest?) The monk asks for permission to go to meditate. The Buddha tells him to wait until other monks arrive because otherwise he’d be alone. The monk asks again for the second and third times before he eventually gets the permission and leaves.
I still haven’t found the sutta.
It seems to me that the message of the sutta is in line with AN5.22 whose SuttaCentral summary is “If your basic practice is not there, you can’t go higher.”
“Having seen it, this occured to me: ‘This is surely a pleasing and delightful mango grove. For a son of a good family who needs to strive this is surely enough for striving. If the Gracious One would allow me, I could come to this mango grove for striving.’ If the Gracious One would allow me, reverend Sir, I could go to that mango grove for striving.”
When that was said, the Gracious One said this to venerable Meghiya: “You should wait for as long as I am alone, Meghiya, until some other monk arrives.”
That’s a wonderful quote. It is expected that a layperson who hasn’t heard dhamma or follows dhamma will suffer more. However, when one becomes monastic after listening to dhamma, it is understood that he/ she will strive to live fully in accordance with dhamma. In this case, there should be much less suffering for monastic compared to a layperson? Also, according to Buddha, a monastic has more opportunity to practise completely with ease than a layperson?
Vandami Bhante,
Thank you for your reply. I am just wondering if it is a high risk - high reward thingy, then those who are not ordained (or those who never heard dhamma and living accordingly), are they in low risk and hence will have a low reward? I would imagine these are the ones who are at more risk to fall below as there are higher chances of increasing suffering due to ignorance and wrong view. Having done many Goenka Vipassana retreats (including 30 days), every time I come back from the centre, I feel that I was happier and more content during the retreat and that it is much easier to commit to practising there. If I am not wrong, Goenka tradition does not explicitly encourages people to become monks thus followers are not necessarily inspired for going forth or even at times aware that monkhood or renunciation can be crucial. Also, in countries where Buddhism is not in the mainstream, people will not have the opportunity to visit monasteries or live life as a samanera to give trial until they profoundly discover this aspect of Buddhism. For such people, when they discover or even gain knowledge about monasticism later in their life, it may be the case that they are already married. Due to this, it becomes complicated for them to ordain. However, I can think that a similar situation must have arisen at the time of Buddha too where many must be already married. I believe that it must be an experience of many that even one wants to follow 8 precepts, due to ignorance of partner or their lack of interest in Dhamma (or having attachment to other religious/ philosophical views), one has to compromise (especially celibacy). As such, if someone is naturally inclining towards ordination, the situation becomes tricky. Hence, I am wondering whether there is any explicit advice from the Buddha in Suttas.
Thank you,
Chetak
As a lay person, I’m sure I’m suffering from things I’m not aware of or ignoring that would come to my attention and need to be dealt with if I were to become a monk in a monastery! I would also be faced with new situations generating previously unarisen dukkha!
this article is rooted in wishful thinking and full of perhaps, maybe, etc… I have found this claim specially out of point:
There may have been pressure to show the Buddha as virile and fulfilling his clan obligations, thus softening the critiques of the young religion as it moved into the Indian mainstream.
the Sramana movement was populated with a lot of people leaving home and family. This is no strange thing because it has been always a common thing in India. The classic Porphyry mentions that characteristic many centuries ago:
"The Samanaeans are, as we have said, elected. When, however, any one is desirous of being enrolled in their order, he proceeds to the rulers of the city; but abandons the city or village that he inhabited, and the wealth and all the other property that he possessed. Having likewise the superfluities of his body cut off, he receives a garment, and departs to the Samanaeans, but does not return either to his wife or children, if he happens to have any, nor does he pay any attention to them, or think that they at all pertain to him."
Different from that article, more decent scholars sees the Sramana movement like a sort of counter-culture at those times. A phenomena fueled by a social environment with many people excluded from the religious umbrella by different reasons. Many of that wandering people were revered by the populace with a mixture of sainthood and social heroicity
that movement had the support of powerful lords and rulers who obviously thought a renewal was a good idea because different reasons. This become fully visible in the new Maurya dinasty with Chandragupta and Bindusara. They were active supporters of Buddhists, Jainists, Ajivijas and others. The Sramana movement also was a manifestation of social discontent with the religious establishment and a big crisis for the ancient brahmanic structures in India, which were deeply transformed by all these movements, specially Buddhism and Jainism.
The Sramana was a plural phenomena with many people married with children who leaved home. Having wife and children was the common thing and at young age.
don’t know exactly about the family case, although we find examples in the Buddhist case showing different types of support for the sramanas activity, in this case the Buddhist Sangha. I mean, I don’t know if there is some example of somebody supporting the family of some monk who leaved home. Maybe.
About the facility to leave home, there is a very good book, "Sudras in Ancient India"**, Ram Sharan Sharma, in where we find a lot of information about the conditions and regulations in the daily life for the majority of population. Most people were workers for somebody, and commonly they belonged to low castes and sub-castes. It was the big mass of people. All men, women or children were workers for endless tasks and from here one could extract that it was no so difficult leaving home and family, because having a place to live and food was the common interchange for work. Also in the women case.
Regarding higher castes it sounds logical the situation could be better. Although there is the question for the higher castes about familiar duties and obligations for the relatives to support wife and children in these cases. I don’t know .
Anyway, the hypothesis about a possible later manipulation (another one ) to exalt the virility of the Buddha it sounds a complete absurdity to me.
) to exalt the virility of the Buddha it sounds a complete absurdity to me.