Generosity
Religiosity
2 Likes
Probably we also have to take into account that in most of these traditional Buddhist countries Buddhism was very much supported by the respective governments who directed large amounts into building prestigious religious buildings and sometimes even imposed Buddhism on people. In modern Western countries this isn’t the case.
In Japan for example, the Sangha was supported by the state on one hand, but on the other hand also kept within certain boundaries.
2 Likes
Does the monastic hierarchical structure in Buddhism is seen as sort of inequality ?!
I doubt it- it seems to be a management structure common to most functional organisations, apart from when it’s dynamics become twisted. This happens when it feeds the defilements of some individuals and they affect and afflict others.
With metta
2 Likes
Sometimes poverty might make a renunciate life possible:
With metta
1 Like
I had nightmare flashbacks to courses in Marxism from my university days upon reading the title. My nightmares were pleasantly dispelled, however, upon reading the OP. I give the writer most formal “props” that it is appropriate to give a renunciant.
This brings to mind the post Ven Sujato made, a while ago, about a section of DN with a very dense passage, involving the relinquishing of shovels/hoes/farming implements (which necessarily, at least in the case of ploughs for instance, aside from the most primitive human-run ploughs, involves horse/cow domestication), and the ‘alternative’ history of the Brahmins which the Buddha gave in the Agguññasutta, which seems to indirectly comment upon this quote that I isolated from the OP. In fact, I think that this shovel quote I am half-remembering was one-and-the-same with the Agguññasutta discussion that Ven Sujato initiated much earlier, perhaps last year.
I feel that this sentiment from the OP and that sentiment are intimately related, but perhaps that is just me.
EDIT: I found the discussion I was referring to with my incompetent cryptic remarks about shovels & Brahmins before, it is here: An extremely dense four words
1 Like
I think inequality was an important driver here, but I always think of it more in the terms of ‘social change’ that brought suffering to the fore of people’s minds that led to spiritual innovation. Some people became richer, built bigger homes, had more wealth and therefore security. But city life brings with it poverty, beggars, epidemic illness, rats, plague, famine. They realized despite satisfying all their former needs and more, they still couldn’t control sickness, aging, death, sorrow, lamentation… etc. Obviously the wealth was an important factor in not only allowing for generosity to support a sangha, but suffering is also needed for creating the conditions where people could go forth and would support mendicants.
Perhaps it’s another reason why Ajahn Chah was so successful and why Buddhism made such huge growth in the West, because happened during another period of extreme social change when suffering became obvious and apparent (1950s-1970s).
As I write this I realize that there are other times of suffering and no spiritual innovation and the missing factor is the wealth of inequality so I guess there’s both.
The problem nowadays is distance and technology have shielded us from our suffering. Our beasts of burden are the faceless woman working an a textile factory in Bangladesh and the starving polar bear. Our spiritual innovation is Reason and technology through which we assure ourselves this set up is ok and go on to ‘zone out’ and forget about the world and the fact that we still can’t escape aging, illness and death.
In fact, it seems that science and reason has given us the illusion that we control aging, illness and death, and so these have become our spiritual masters - after all, technological and scientific innovation is what we put the wealth of our inequality into.
The difference between us and the spiritually unequal of the past is that we are practically oblivious to suffering and the imminent reality of death, and put our faith in the more logical and therefore ‘right’ of science and technology, rather than the apparently illogical and unreasonable approach to happiness - faith.
7 Likes
I just thought it worth mentioning that terms like “spiritual specialists” and “religious professionals” tend to put a very positive spin on a broad and very mixed social phenomenon. Mixed in among all of the wandering mendicants pursuing a truly holy life were, I imagine, a not insignificant number of frauds, charlatans, quacks, spongers, confidence artists and even more dangerous vagabonds preying on the superstitions and vulnerabilities of the public.
The Buddha warned about many of these figures, and many of the specialized “arts” they practiced - which he seems to have thought were of little value. Unfortunately, his words haven’t always had the subsequent impact he probably hoped they would.
3 Likes
Material inequality has always existed way before Indo-European herdsmen or the Indian model of spiritual practice which Buddhism stemmed from. Inequality of all kinds is just a natural part of human existence which we seem to have the illusion we can change permanently so everything is equal. Not that we shouldn’t try to do what we can while we try to work towards liberation so we’re out of the samsaric mess.
I would also add that I think the need for spiritual specialists is greater than ever, whether people realize it or not.
4 Likes
Unpopular, but this is karma, as per EBTs, to some degree. We will never have an equal society, karma or not. The Buddha attracted those from the lowest caste right through to local kings. Anybody with a sense of Dukkha (ie human) will be attracted- but the common thread is they are the ‘wise’ and compassionate, ie- they are the ‘vinnu’ who will understand the Dhamma.
With metta
2 Likes
A much more noble goal than uselessly trying to lower inequality would be to rise the standard of living of everybody, be them rich, poor, medium, etc. For example poor people in USA are fat, a big difference compared to communist countries for example or to thirld world ones. Poor, Middle class, rich, etc. - all are better off than their counterparts in other places of the world. And this is something those who helped make this happen should be proud off. Especially since their example has now been taken up by all the rest of the world and that took a lot of people out of poverty already. (1 million in China alone)
As for the problem in question, I don’t think it has anything to do with inequality. Buddhism is not state-supported religion in USA and neither is it too popular. In my country for example, where religion is highly supported by the state, we have built 5 churches for every school built after the 89 revolution. We are right now in the process of building a huge, lavish, extremely expensive one with golden polished roof called “The cathedral of our nation salvation”
These kind of things can only be done by the state
The Buddha attracted those from the lowest caste right through to local kings.
The huge majority of Buddha followers were actually from the higher castes of Bhramins and Warriors. Buddhism has always been and will always be a higher caste religion. It is not a “poor person religion” like Christianity for example. (at least the version of christianity that we have today)
1 Like
I would say warriors and merchants rather than kings or slaves. A middle path, of sorts.
2 Likes
Regarding monasticism in the USA, the issue we have here is we are a country with virtually no history of mendicancy of any kind, even of the Christian type. People don’t know how that works and don’t understand alms. I think that is changing, over time I have heard monks say that a couple decades back people had no idea who they were–assumed they were hare krishnas, but now people see them and know they are Buddhist monks.
From the experience at Abhayagiri, I can say in California the knowledge of Buddhism is getting to be more substantial and donations and support of monks from American Buddhists here is such that now often monasteries have to turn away some donations. That doesn’t mean society at large understands monks and you could start a monastery anywhere in the country with no problems, but its not so very bad.
3 Likes
Actually, terms like ‘‘spiritual specialists’’ and ‘‘religious professionals’’ make me cringe a little. They seem to overshadow inequality at another level. I won’t go into that any further as I’m not interested in opening a can of worms that might provoke an endless set of arguments. However, since we are on the subject of the economics of supporting renunciants, has the subject of who has to pay for the luxury of solely following the path to liberation ever been addressed? Bhikkhus, for example, may not open the earth in fear of harming and/or killing insects. Yet someone has to do it in order to plant a garden in the hope of getting some food from somewhere. So, I guess my broader question is: Do renunciants get a free pass from defilements because they pass the buck on to the ‘worldly’ people ? Isn’t it a case of the latter having to get their hands dirty and furthering their burden of wrong deeds in order to support the renunciants who then go free of having to accumulate such demerit?
2 Likes
You will always see these kinds of ideas thrown around (people calling monastics freeloaders and so forth), and yet, I am pretty sure it is a minority of people who ever truly have the aspiration to ordain, so IMO this line of thinking is not grounded in reality.
There is no compulsion to give dana (or at least, there shouldn’t be). Supporting monastics is something a lay person chooses to do, and they also gain merit by the act of giving. Personally, I wish I was in a position to give more!
Helping other people go “scott free” - what could be better than that?! I believe it will come back around - it is a wholesome thing to do.
Also, the monastics I listen to and respect (unfortunately, mostly via online channels) are always reminding me to do good things, to abandon bad things, and to purify the mind - and they give instructions on how to actually do this through meditation. They spread the Dhamma! In most cases, what they give is worth far more than what they actually receive in material terms.
4 Likes
Ven Dhammajiva, a Sri Lankan monastary bhikkhu would say to tread the path is to learn how to ‘nimbly avoid bad kamma’. That is, how to walk their path without entanglements which could otherwise arise, very easily, unless mindfulness is maintained. I think it is like trying to draw a line on the number of animals killed from eating. We just have to make our way the best we can or is possible- and its not going to be pretty or perfect. But it is better than sitting around looking externally at someone who is making a genuine effort to escape the bonds of samsara. The Buddha gets loads of flack re leaving his wife- maybe he should have just stayed home, become enlightened, and called it a day.
with metta
There’s a fair bit of diversity in how asceticism is (and was) viewed. The Buddha was at the receiving end a few times too, when hard-working people called him as a lazy freeloader. But, giving, in general, has a cleansing effect on the mind. It’s rare that one could give voluntarily to someone and then fume internally. So, in the case of someone supporting an ascetic, both parties benefit. And maybe eventually, a layperson will gain enough courage and willingness to seek the path of renunciation…
I’m afraid I did a bad job of expressing what I meant if it appears that I attempted to accuse any renunciant of being a ‘‘lazy freeloader’’ (which I think we should actually sometimes emphasize in order to balance out our performance obsessed societies).
Rather, what I was trying to get at was how it is okay for someone (renunciant or other) to reap the benefits of a final product but somehow be exempt of how that product was acquired. Put another way, it is like saying that my investments went up but I am not responsible for the arms deals which were at the source of my gains. One may say, for example, that it is okay to eat meat if the animal was killed not just to fulfill the needs of a particular renunciant (or kill insects in the process of harvest). The fact remains that the act has to be accomplished in order for the fruit (be that in the general sense, including all forms of food) to be obtained.
So my real question is, how can this logic hold? How can one get a free pass from the killing of some sort of living being when that killing is necessary for food to be obtained? Then comes the question that the worlding must take the blame for the violence of the act while the renunciant gets off free. I apologize if this line of questioning has offended anyone. It was not my intention. I simply can’t grasp the nuances of self interest involved. It is like the distinction between good desire and bad desire. Forgive me once more, but I find this type of reasoning rather sketchy. It still boils down to one’s personal interest being sought out in order to be fulfilled. It can be a diamond ring …or it can be nibbana or final liberation. In either case, I’m still looking out for number one.
1 Like
Yes, you can either look after yourself (and others) the best that you can by practicing the noble eightfold path. Or you can send you tax dollars to develop and sell weapons to foreign countries. I still thinking stopping rebirth is the best thing one can do for others, who want to remain in it. For those who want to leave it themselves, teaching it to others, is the best possible thing.
with metta
Thank you for this, misunderstandings happen so easily, and it is very important in a conversation to sort them out, especially when it is on an online forum like this and our counterpart is nothing but words on a screen!
I think I am getting the point you are making.
I had the experience that in some Thai tradition monasteries there is the custom that a layperson when offering food to the monastics has to pierce with a knife into any fruit. When asking for the meaning of this it was explained to me that according to their vinaya monastics are not allowed to kill living beings, even plants, and a fruit may have seeds in it that could potentially germinate and make new plats, and by eating the fruit the monastic would “kill” these potential plants. Therefore a layperson had to symbolically do the “killing” instead before the monastics eat the fruit.
At that time I was keeping 5 precepts for many years already which includes not to kill living beings, and it didn’t make sense to me that I should break my precepts so that other’s don’t have to break theirs. When expressing this doubt I was told that this is what laypeople are expected to do for monastics; and as another example I was told the story of another monastery that had been infested by vermin, and one of the lay supporters at some point had decided to take on the kamma and kill all the vermin in order for the monastery to be able to subsist. This was pictured as the ideal behaviour of a committed lay supporter.
Meanwhile I know that this explanation doesn’t represent in any way what is stated in the vinaya, and I have been staying in other monasteries where this custom isn’t observed at all. But probably this is just the point you are after: The idea that laypeople have to do the bad deeds like killing so that the monastics don’t have to.
This is of course not the purpose of the renunciate life. Taking on some precepts does in the first place mean that I want to follow these guidelines, and not that others have to “keep” my precepts for me! If people want to support monastics I think this is a great thing, and it should be done because they appreciate what the monastics are doing in one way or another, not because they feel they “have to”. Ideally they are just happy to share their food with the monastics, and it shouldn’t give them the feeling they have to do something bad in order to accomplish this. Rather like inviting guests and cooking for them.
One other aspect of the fact of not cooking is that monastics are supposed to be content with any food they are given and give up preferences concerning food. They spend as little time and energy as possible with external duties (of course they have to keep their monastery, robes etc. in order) and dedicate themselves as much as possible to their spiritual development. And this isn’t a selfish thing to do! For if they want to become competent teachers they need to practise what they are teaching! Otherwise it won’t work.
So if we want competent teachers who are able to teach also the deeper aspects of the Dhamma and of life on the noble eightfold path—by talk or just by example—we will have to “feed” a few monastics, maybe…
Probably there are still more aspects to it. If some of those who have more experience with monastic life could add something this would be great!
4 Likes