Inequality and the origins of spiritual specialists

[Mat]

@sujato

In Buddhism, as in Indian spirituality generally, a core requirement is the presence of a significant body of spiritual specialists, the various samaṇas, ājīvakas, nigaṇṭhas, munis, and of course bhikkhus.

I would propose that the bhikkhus (including the bhikkhunis) are different or ought to be different in this respect (am I biased? ). They do not, in my opinion, belong to what could be called pujaka or a religious specialist who performs an facilitative task between the lay people and God or Buddha or Mahavira etc.

The Buddha teaches and the bhikkhus proceed to practice. Bhikkhus teach the layity. The Buddha teaches the layity. The currency is the Dhamma. All specialist and non-sepiacialist roles exist because of the existence of the Dhamma.

The Buddha said that the bhikkhus are fertile ground for the Dhamma, for numerous reasons, I presume. Naturally those lay people, with the strongest inclinations to the Dhamma (ideally, I suppose) would become ordained.

So I see the bhikkhus as an expression of viriya- effort and other spiritual factors- not just monetary considerations. Nowadays a lump sum invested could generate financial support for bhikkhus -there would be no need for layity! It is of course more than just that. Dependence on the layity affords for accountability as well- which is an important non-financial aspect of the bhikkhus (but can lead to corruption).

I think it is important when learning to work with our defilements, not to demonize money. I believe the Buddha even said that money is not the issue but the attachment to it, suggesting to me, that the two aren’t inevitable. We know of Citta who became a non-returner devoid of any sensual craving, while living a lay life and had a lot of money when he was practicing to overcome craving.

with metta

[stu]

@Jacques

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.

Yes. I think that this may be a problem when we view nibbana as ‘something’ that is gained by ‘someone’ - in this case ‘something’ that is gained by ‘someone else’. If we look at nibbana as ‘cessation’ (cessation of killing in this context) rather than a ‘thing’ to get; then recognise that there is a process that leads to that cessation; and further that this process is a gradual process. It then becomes a matter of whether we feel that the gradual process of cessation is a valuable process that we want to support or not, irrespective of the localisation of kamma.