MN22 addresses exactly this question. While laypeople don’t give up sex permanently and can get (partially) enlightened anyway, it is still an obstruction to liberation. To hold otherwise is a “pernicious view”
No, these are not monks. They are basically chaplains.
They wear robes and may sometimes even be called “monks” in English but that’s a mistranslation. Formally, they are “neither monks nor laymen.”
People often make a similar mistake with Tibetan Buddhists. There are real (vinaya-holding, celibate) Tibetan monks. But there are also Tulkus and other teachers who wear robes and preside over ceremonies without taking the monastic vows. It can be very difficult for outsiders to tell the difference sometimes! But they are well aware of the difference between celibate and non-celibate practice.
The Emperor sent a mission to China in 733 CE specifically to find monks able to carry out vinaya ordination and two were invited to Japan: Dōsen (702-760), and Ganjin (688-763). Until Ganjin arrived there was not a sufficient number of ordained monks in Japan in order to carry out proper ordination.
Ganjin founded the Ritsu schools in Nara, which follow the Dharmagupta Vinaya, and publicly ordained both the Emperor and Empress. Eventually the government folded almost all of the Ritsu schools into Shingon, which follows the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya.
For some reason I don’t think the Buddhist scholars in Japan studying all the Shingon handbooks, lecture notes and commentaries on the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya, along with various monks travel diaries will be dissuaded by your insistence that they don’t exist.
This YouTube talk is also available on AudioDhamma. It’s subtitle is “-- On the vital importance of one’s mind’s training being G R A D U A L” and I think it’s relevant to the question in the OP.
In “my” opinion based on reading some philosophy and my tradition as well as the EBT, this guard is more a mental one than a physical one. It has to be, or else it can be easily broken by seeing an attractive and seductive object like a girl, from man perspective. That potentially creates a state of confusion and tension within.
This state can be cultivated by regularly contemplating the five aggregates , and mindfuless meditation. Also by contemplating the consequent suffering from attachment to five aggregates within and around oneself . Also by contemplating the origins: how things are created seemingly from nothing and the cycle of creation and decease. Things are formed again and again all the time for eternity while there is a constant which remains the same for eternity: the life force , the soul. That is unchanging, same for all beings, which is taken shape by forms , called Maya in Upanishads, which is ultimately unreal and without an absolute and independent existence of its own. We can call this unchanging force that forms things for eternity, God or Brahman .
This kind of contemplation, if correctly understood and practiced, creates a worldview of oneness and unity for all existence , which can remove the necessity to be a celibate, because this way one would ideally see through things using mind faculty rather than simply eyes. One could even go into marriage by this mindset, but it’s a dilemma for me personally even though in my tradition we have had great people, Sufi people, who married and even gave birth! Though as far as I know, Sufi people generally were not social snd celibacy was custom among them.
(Look up Manichaeism and Sufism for more info in this. Buddhism heavily influenced those traditions)
This mindset of oneness if I’m not mistaken is in practice very similar to the practice of loving-kindness.
Make no mistake ( talking to myself too): this is not an easy path, because it goes against the norm and the habit and like all great things, takes dedicated effort which is admittedly difficult to do in the modern society.
Question: isn’t suffering a mental state of believing in “self”? So does it mean liberation if one truly reaches such a state to genuinely feel like a feather in the wind , in other words totally selfless ?
( Is it otherwise though? Am I typing this by will? Is there a personal will at all?)
I am sure we have to learn a lot, develop a lot, make powers grow, feed wholesome, abandon unwholesome, purify mind. Really develop the Path. Walk the Path. I have seen this message everwhere in buddhism, in theravada, mahayana, vajrayana.
But Nibbana is not something made, created, not even by the Buddha. If one practices with a mindset that one must make the sublime state of supreme peace which the Buddha called Nibbana, the peace of heart, coolness, i do not doubt anymore that this is wrong view. What one must do is applying those instructions to abandon defilements, the inner fires, the corruption of the heart. The natural result will be that one attains Nibbana. Focus on abandoning them and then as a natural result the heart becomes less burdened, one cools down and feels more and more peace of heart.
It is like purifying water. Apply techniques to remove defilements and the natural result will be clean water. It is not that one makes the water. Likewise, develop all those skills, wisdom, samadhi, calm, perceptions, right views etc that help to remove the defilements, the wilderniss in our hearts, and the natural result is Nibbana. It is not that this is made or created.
The peace or coolness of Nibbana is not a result of constructing, builing-up a stable peaceful mental palace for oneself. That will always desintegrate, ofcourse. That is the wordly path. That one thinks one can have a stable mindset. This is not true. Any mindset will cease.
The clue of attaining Nibbana is to end all clinging, all building-up. Because, without that builder called tanha, no clinging and building up takes place. Also no peaceful mindset! When nothing builds up, that IS peace. That is coolness. What is not build up can also not desintegrate.
This represents detachment and a sublime state of supreme peace, Nibbana.
It is not about being passive, no effort. Not at all. But one must not practice like one makes Nibbana, constructs Nibbana, builds up Nibbana. That is impossible.
It is more like…if one wants stillness, one just removes sources of sound. One does not have to make or create stillness. In the same way, if we removes all those defilements that burden our heart, that heat up our mind, the natural result of that will be coolness, peace of heart. For this reason the sutta’s also talk about the unmade, unbecome etc.
Yes, but “believing in self” is an ignorance on reflexive level so after successfully abandoning sakkayaditthi, one still is not free from ignorance on pre-reflexive level -“conceit I am”.
As far as dependent arising goes, the “will” is always personal, and strictly speaking, since arahat is synonymous with nibbana, his experience has to be described as “cessation of will”, at least in this sense that with the cessation of sakkaya, action doesn’t involve “one who acts”.
“Friend Saviṭṭha, apart from faith, apart from personal preference, apart from oral tradition, apart from reasoned reflection, apart from acceptance of a view after pondering it, I know this, I see this: ‘Nibbāna is the cessation of existence.’”
“ SN 12 : 68
B.N. tells us that one of the principles of the Oxford Group is ‘Absolute Unselfishness’, which is perhaps worth discussing briefly. Some casual English visitors (two ‘grisly English faces’—Cyril Connolly’s phrase—hitchhiking around the world) came the other day and asked me whether it wasn’t rather selfish to sit here alone seeking my own welfare. The idea was, no doubt, that I should busy myself with helping others, like Albert Schweitzer, who is generally regarded these days as the model of unselfish devotion to the service of others. Another Albert—Einstein—has something to say about this:
Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of felt needs and assuagement of pain. One has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to understand spiritual movements and their development. Feeling and desire are the motive forces behind all human endeavour and human creation, in however exalted a guise the latter may present itself to us. (‘Religion and Science’ in The World As I See It, p. 23)
Why, then, does Albert Schweitzer devote his life to the care and cure of lepers in Africa? Because, says Albert Einstein, he feels the need to do so; because in doing so he satisfies his desire. And what does the Buddha say? ‘Both formerly, monks, and now, it is just suffering that I make known, and the ending of suffering.’ <M. 22: i,140> Einstein has, to some extent, understood that suffering is the fundamental fact and the basis of all action. The Buddha has completely understood this; for he knows also the way of escape, which Einstein does not. When, therefore, the question ‘What should I do?’ arises,[a] the choice is not between being selfish and being unselfish; for whatever I do I cannot avoid being selfish—all action is selfish. The choice is between being selfish in Schweitzer’s way—by unselfish devotion to the welfare of others—and being selfish in the Buddha’s way—
The welfare of oneself should not be neglected for the welfare of others, however great; recognizing the welfare of oneself, one should be devoted to one’s own welfare. (Dhammapada 166)
How are we to choose between these two ways of being selfish? The answer is: ‘choose the way of being selfish that leads to the ending of being selfish; which is the Buddha’s way, not Schweitzer’s’
Query: If all things are adjudged as characterized by dukkha, who does the judging? And with reference to what criterion or norm? A subject (immortal soul) with reference to an objective sukha, no? Q.E.D.
You ask ‘Who does the judging?’ This question takes for granted that judging is done ‘by somebody’. But this is by no means a foregone conclusion: we are quite able to give an account of judgement (or knowing without finding ourselves obliged to set it up as ‘a relation between subject and object’. According to Bradley (and Heidegger, who however is not conveniently quotable, would not entirely dissent), judgement is
the more or less conscious enlargement of an object, not in fact but as truth. The object is thus not altered in existence but qualified in idea… For the object, merely as perceived, is not, as such, qualified as true. (PL, p. 626)
(…)
but the question is not whether judgement is an intentional action (which it is), but whether there can be intention (even reflexive intention) without a subject (‘I’, ‘myself’) who intends. This, however, is not so much a matter of argument as something that has to be seen for oneself (cf. CETANĀ [f]).
I believe this is a misunderstanding. Avijja lies at the root of blind instinctive ways of thinking, speaking, acting. Blind here means: instinctive. Just acting like a machine. Out of habit doing this or that.
It describes fettering, unfreedom, how our thinking, speaking, acting is being ruled by conditioning.
By forces of habit that have been accumulated over endless lives, fed and grown strong.
They have become inner rulers. These forces of habit. Good or bad.
Only that gets lost when avijja ceases. Meaning: in the mind of an arahant there is not me and mine making as result of blindness, of habits, of instinctive grasping body and mind as me and mine, as with us. But an arahant and Buddha has still as sense of me and mine in regard to body and mind that makes it possible to live in this world. But this is freed. He/she can drop it any moment.
A Buddha can see the body as me and mine but just as easy leave the body behind.
You can also see this in the sutta’s i believe. If the Buddha thinks about starting to teach, he still sees that will be tiresome for him when nobody understands him. Such things are impossible without any sense of me and mine. You can also see in practice that people without any sense of me and mine in regard to body and mind are unhealthy, sick, and this is not at all, in no way, conducive to well being.
If the old Buddha makes a choice to make a trip, ofcourse he will also think about the results of that choice…maybe more physical discomfort. Or lay down to relax the muscles. For me this shows very clearly that a Buddha has a sense of me and mine in regard to Body and mind but it is freed. Not instinctive or habitual of nature any more. It is more something that can be used skillfully.
The uprooting of anusaya, asava, tanha is nothing more or less then the dismantling of this whole instinctive habitual determined system. Mental abilities such as concentration, conceiving, will, reasoning, intentions, me and mine making etc. now are freely to use. I believe this is the correct picture.
One does also not become without will. Only that volition that blinds, that captures the mind unvoluntairy, that is lost. But a Buddha can use and direct mind at will. Also his will is freed.
I see what you mean. The problem though is that (supposing there is a problem in the first place, which in some Mahayana and Zen traditions is seen just as illusionary), being passive is essentially the same as being active isn’t it? Removing sounds to reach silence is still an action. It’s just a negation of being active. It’s two sides of a single coin. It’s all language and logic construction and any attempt to undermine that is still in the sphere of logic. In other words, I don’t see a escape route from the concept of “me”. It’s like a maze, like a vicious cycle.
I believe that is exactly why the likes of Saint Augustine and Rumi had to express such desperation in this regard, so much so that they had to literally cry for help from a deity, a superior power. (His book, The confessions, is full of such cries of desperation and contemplation on the meaning of “me”).
In SN22.83 it is said: ‘Reverend Ānanda, the notion “I am” occurs because of grasping, not by not grasping. Grasping what? The notion “I am” occurs because of grasping form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness, not by not grasping.
I believe this is true. One cannot expact that if there is grasping to thoughts, views, a belief in God, mental images of God, whatever conceivings, goals, that there can be no ego notion arising. That notion relies on such things.
I believe Buddha has seen that the mind in endless lifes has become increasingly uncomfortable with being without grasping, without grip, being without holding on to something.
We are like a child, as it were, that feels only safe with a teddy in the hands. What is the teddy of grown ups like me …khandha’s. My teddybears, hug, hug. I love my teddies khandha’s.
With khandha’s in my hand i feel i exist. And when i feel i exist, i feel safe.
I believe, there is a reason, there is a cause that we are so uncomfortable without meaning, goals, plans, grip, projects, actions, direction, orientation, tendencies, passions. That is, we are convinced our life depends on all this. We feel totally lost without. I believe this is the dart in our hearts.
This is so beautifully expressed in SN47.6: So, mendicants, don’t roam out of your own territory into the domain of others. If you roam out of your own territory into the domain of others, Māra will find a vulnerability and get hold of you.
What is our own territory? Openess, a fully opened heart, fully being present.
What is the domain of others?..khandha’s, the All, the world, whatever we experience.
What is to roam out? Grasping this or that.
What is the vulnerability? Dependency.
My interpretation ofcourse
Unless we can pull this dart out of our hearts, this discomfort with total open heartedness, i do not believe we can totally overcome the ego conceit.
Thank you for the explanation and the Sutta references.
However I fail to see how attempting to awaken others is not a goal, and thereby necessiates a place for some kind of “self”, albeit loose, unless it is an universal self a.k.a Brahman or any concept of a deity that is not separate from the five aggregates even though it is not confined to those either . @knigarian’s post has some hints about this problem, though it needs further digest.
I think in terms of how things really are. At least i believe i do.
For example, water can be with defilements and without. Is water without defilements a self? No, it is just pure, as it naturally is, what it really is. And if I understand or see defiled water as what water really is, that is my wrong understanding of what water really is. But if I know pure water as pure water, and defiled water as defiled water, then my understanding of water is correct.
In the same way Buddha adressed mind. He said that there is defiled mind and there is pure mind.
Only when one knows pure mind, one can say that one knows what mind really is, just like the example of water. The problem with a defiled mind is that it is so closely identified with all that it experiences. So, strongly identified with what it senses, feels, thinks, wills, knows. This distorts knowledge about what mind really is.
This purity of mind, or, this knowledge of what mind really is, we have failed to see in endless lifes, i believe. We have only accumulated dirt in the water of the mind. In every life a bit more. And now we are trapped in a vision that mind is a problem, and mind cannot be at ease, peaceful, unburdened, free of suffering.
And this is also what we really experience. Because it is not easy to find any peace in a defiled mind.
Ofcourse a defiled mind is restless, burning with the fires of greed hate, delusion. Ofcourse it seeks relief externally in sensual pleasure, in drugs, in amusment, in food etc. It cannot find relief of heart in itself. We all know this reality. This is about us. Oke, only me
This becomes a vicious circle. Because, while acting upon this suffering, and seeking relief in this and that (second noble truth) mind only becomes even more defiled. Inner peace, Nibbana, even becomes more like a dream.
So, to break this, one must see this mission impossible, this vicious circle that only can go downhill.
Have Faith too that mind is not the problem but defilements. If mind would really be the problem Buddha would never advice to make a refuge or island of ourselves.
But this is not about a self. It is about seeing things as they really are.
This is what appeals to me. But i am the only one
The curious thing is that it was exactly instinct -and the chain of causality made thereby- that led me to discover Buddhism! I believe this is basically what Karma is.
Magic disappearing texts more likely with Shingon.
…khandha’s. My teddybears, hug, hug. I love my teddies khandha’s.
I believe this is basically what Karma is.