Tony’s original post strikes a strong chord here, for me. We’ve seen through the years some people writing in to D&D, questioning whether they should abandon their household, and even go to extremes such as cutting off their relationships with their spouses and children. It’s good to see the focus on Suttas that define a path for householders like DN 31. For many in this lifetime, adherence to the path described in DN 31 is an excellent training and practice.
Yet, the Path of practice of renunciation, and the fullest attempt and practice with the full expanse of the Eightfold Path seems to me to be always at the forefront of practice. This view also allows for the support and continuation of the monastic tradition, for it is our monastics that serve as living examples and mentors for the fullest expression of the Buddha’s Path. By supporting them, we acknowledge daily this distinction, and recognize the importance of having these renunciants in our communities.
I know I am not adding much to this excellent conversation, and @Aminah really hit the nail on the head with the reference to balance in this equation. But all of us as householders need not sell ourselves short; seclusion, renunciation and samma samadhi are available to us (depending on our individual circumstances). Nor should we ever lose sight of the need to cultivate and support strongly the monastic training and vocation in the west. The practices of householders and that of monastics are different, but part of a very important interrelated symbiotic ecosystem that the Buddha created.
Quite so! In fact, I have a similar inclination (although will not dismiss more devotional teachings completely, as I think they, too, can often be functional: the very beginning of the gradual training is faith/confidence and the inspiration and joy that comes from that. As I reflect on it, the cultivation of these qualities is just as much a development of skill as anything else, and is a very important one. That said, I do have a tendency to not be so engaged, by such suttas as are very clearly Buddhist propaganda).
To me, however, MN73 isn’t so much a text of gushing praise as just a categorical assertion to a very sceptical individual (I should note how much I adore Vacchagotta) that this path leads to meaningful “results” for all who walk it irrespective of who they are. Weather devotional or not, I only used it above to show the unavoidable implication that all those laypeople mentioned in the sutta must have been given teachings directly towards the goal rather than just on how to gain a nice rebirth as pretty clear evidence countering the claim that laypeople were only taught about heavenly rebirth.
With respect to Anathapindika, yes, it’s an interesting and lovely sutta, but it is perhaps worth pausing on a couple of details:
it is, of course, impossible to pin down any exact time line, but it is certainly conceivable that Anathapindaka died well before the end of the Buddha’s 45 year teaching career and that within that time the Buddha may have adjusted what he felt was worth teaching to this group or that, just in the same way that—according to perhaps more legendary account—he adjusted his view on it being worth teaching anyone at all.
it is likewise, impossible to pin down the teaching not given to him before his death bed mentioned in MN143, but it’s pretty reasonable to think it was likely to be very refined. At the very least, it would be rather skewed to take it that Anathapindika was only ever taught about how to have a nice rebirth up until then. AN10.93 shows he was taught (and, in fact, could teach to others) deep teachings that are “core renunciate fare” (dependent origination and the three characteristics), while AN5.176 shows the Buddha encouraged him (and the figurative “five hundred” other lay followers) to train in jhana.
I remember a couple of times listening to dhamma talks by skilled Ajahn’s where they said something like this: Buddha teachings was openhanded. And that this meant he would hold nothing back, whoever he taught.
The only miracle Lord Buddha was interested in talking about was the miracle of instruction. I do believe that such miracles can happen anytime, and it’s not about a special teacher or student, but about how much hindrances or mental distortions there is in the space between the two parts.
With less or no hindrances between, the message is an instant mutual reflection, direct knowing, I guess …
It’s a nice myth but reflects more how we would like to see the Buddha than the actual ambiguity of the texts (see above). Probably goes back to SN 47.9 and DN 16 where the Buddha says
The Realized One doesn’t have the closed fist of a teacher when it comes to the teachings.
But see the context of it, it’s about his succession in the monastic Sangha, and not about lay people, other wanderers, Brahmins or Jains.
If Renunciants don’t make higher teachings freely available to those lay people who show suitable interest, how on earth will the gradual training and conversion from putthujana to 5 precept lay buddhist to 8/ 10 precept noviate to renunciant occur?
And who will be the Authority to decide who exactly is “worthy” or “ready” for higher teachings?
And what about those who don’t agree with the decision of that Authority?
Can you see where I’m going with this?
Sooner or later there will be the emergence of the “Benign Dictator Guru”, then an inner core group will emerge, then will come diktats, expulsions, protest groups… schisms, loss of the true teaching and the end of the Buddha Sasana… that is invariably the human way.
The path to Absolute Evil is paved with good intentions.
Instead, perhaps we should consider…
What are the causes and conditions that have allowed the Buddha’s carefully organized method of passing on the Teachings to not only survive but flourish for over 2500 years? No other human organization has lasted as long.
So perhaps, there’s something to be said for not trying to fix what ain’t broken, mate!!
The suitable people obviously got the deeper teachings. I just propose that it was not common knowledge as we have it today. The path was according to some suttas a knowledge revealed under specific circumstances.
When he knew that xxx’s mind was ready, receptive, free from hindrances, elated, and confident, he expounded to him the teaching special to the Buddhas: suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path. (AN 8.12, AN 8.21-22, MN 56, MN 91, DN 3, DN 5, DN 14).
Buddhism isn’t really a carefully planned success story in history. At many turning points it could just as well have vanished from earth like the Ajivikas or Manichaeism.
I am curious to knw if there are any evidences to suggest that?
You cannot say vanished I am afraid.
Of cause it has declined from india. But it lasted all along in several countries. When the lineage was broken it was brought from another place. Ex: upasampadā was brought to Sri Lanka from Burma and Thailand in 17th and18th centuries. Even before it was brought to Burma in the king Dhammacetiya’s time.
And still is … as far as the Mahayana and Tibetan schools go, AFAIK.
IMHO, the reason many of us are attracted to the Theravada is that the Dhamma is freely available without restriction to the lay people, not just the monastics.
On the other hand, many efforts have been made through the ages to wipe out the Buddhist philosophy… By burning all monasteries, destroying all books, killing all monks… Yet it just keeps springing back up again and again…
The key to this invulnerability I feel, is that the entire Dhamma is freely offered and hence available to all humans. So it can’t be wiped out, short of putting whole nations to the sword… And even then who knows, which pesky armchair philosopher on the other side might have stored a copy (for the sake of science/ record?) , even though outwardly not believing it at all?
And then sooner or later, it sprouts wings again…
It’s amazing and wonderful that liberation-dhamma is not a secret.
But if I attempt to earn a living as an architect telling my clients that “delight is the root of suffering” I would have zero clients. In contrast, my business would prosper if conducted according to:
DN33:2.1.52: Furthermore, an ethical person enters any kind of assembly bold and self-assured, whether it’s an assembly of aristocrats, brahmins, householders, or ascetics.
I know this because I was a software architect who had to work with many assemblies.
Then, when the night had passed, in the morning the Venerable Udayī dressed, took his bowl and outer robe, and went to the residence of the brahmin lady of the Verahaccani clan. There he sat down in the appointed seat. Then, with her own hands, the brahmin lady served and satisfied the Venerable Udayī with various kinds of delicious food. When the Venerable Udayī had finished eating and had put away his bowl, the brahmin lady put on her sandals, sat down on a high seat, covered her head, and told him: “Preach the Dhamma, ascetic.” Having said, “There will be an occasion for that, sister,” he rose from his seat and departed.
A second time that brahmin youth approached the Venerable Udayī … as above down to: … “See now, madam, you should know that the ascetic Udayī teaches a Dhamma that is good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end, with the right meaning and phrasing; he reveals a holy life that is perfectly complete and pure.”
“In such a way, young man, you keep on praising the ascetic Udayī, but when I told him, ‘Preach the Dhamma, ascetic,’ he said, ‘There will be an occasion for that, sister,’ and he rose from his seat and departed.”
“That, madam, was because you put on your sandals, sat down on a high seat, covered your head, and told him: ‘Preach the Dhamma, ascetic.’ For these worthies respect and revere the Dhamma.” SN35.133
Does this mean that Monks were hiding the dhamma? I think, not. In the above sutta, when the lady corrected herself she was taught the Dhamma.
Mendicants, towards evening the lion, king of beasts, emerges from his den, yawns, looks all around the four directions, and roars his lion’s roar three times. Then he sets out on the hunt. If he strikes an elephant, he does it carefully, not carelessly. If he strikes a buffalo … a cow … a leopard … or any smaller creatures—even a hare or a cat—he does it carefully, not carelessly. Why is that? Thinking: ‘May I not lose my way.’
‘Lion’ is a term for the Realized One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha. When the Realized One teaches Dhamma to an assembly, this is his lion’s roar. When the Realized One teaches the monks … nuns … laymen … laywomen … or ordinary people—even food-carriers and hunters—he teaches them carefully, not carelessly. Why is that? Because the Realized One has respect and reverence for the teaching. AN5.99
Interesting point. I should’ve used the word “appealing” instead of “beneficial.” Charnel ground meditation has benefits, but it may not appeal to someone who, for example, needs to maintain some “lust” to keep their romantic partner satisfied.
This is one of my biggest concerns. I started to question why I should even bother to maintain my “dusty” household. The constant reminders about the pitfalls of worldly desire were killing my motivation to work.
That’s partly a by-product of the specific Buddhist discourse of the incompatibility of desirelessness and worldly life. The Hindu tradition has crafted an alternative which seems to work relatively well for people, i.e. the combination of duty and dispassion in the Bhagavad-Gita. There, every social group has their ‘dharma’, i.e. their set of duties, their path.
I’m not necessarily saying it’s the better discourse but it allows a dispassionate life with much less friction. I have seen this in action in several Indian friends who had no problem combining a spiritual and a worldly life. In contrast, (Theravada) Buddhists seem to struggle with serious spirituality and going forth.
One’s own family can be a nice training ground for developing the path in my opinion. What is a “Sangha” if not a “high nurturing family”? So if one find a family dusty, then I suggest one lift up the carpets in the monastery one like to visit.
It’s funny that you mention the Bhagavad-Gita. Earlier this year, I tried so hard—desperately—to find another tradition. I read Swami Nikhilananda’s translation of the Gita, and was deeply moved by it. If it weren’t for some caveats, I’d likely be a Hindu right now, but, for one, I’m not willing to be subservient to a guru.
I think the blessed one has praised energy(viriya) and energetic individuals in many many ways. For my self I believe lay disciples of the blessed one should be more energetic than the ordinary man but for quite different reasons. Viriya for the sake of viriya not for gain and fame, but if they come let them come(and they surely will).
