[Buddha-l] Back to the core values?

[Christopher Fynn]

Bob Zeuschner wrote:

> Christopher Fynn wrote:

>> As an entity, early Buddhism was clearly in large part an order of 
>> monks. The monastic rules are nearly identical in every version of the 
>> Buddhist canon we have. Unless you gloss over this fact, it's pretty 
>> hard to imagine any kind of Buddhism that is anything like a return to 
>> "what early Buddhism was like" which doesn't have an ordained monastic 
>> sangha, trying to follow these rules at it's heart.

> Are you suggesting that a core value is the monastic order, independent 
> of insights or content?

Hi Bob

I was mostly making an observation about early Buddhism *as an entity*.

However I do believe one of the core values of early Buddhism was "going forth" 
- At least there seems at least as much about this in the early texts I've read 
as there is about meditation per se.

> I may be mistaken about this, but I believe that immediately after the 
> awakening of the Buddha, he encountered many people and somehow brought 
> them to awakening -- but none belonged to any monastic order.

I think many of these individuals were what would be considered monks, 
sanyasins, or sadhus in an Indian context.

> I believe the Buddha then went on to find his five friends, each of whom 
> was brought to awakening without belonging to any monastic order.

They were "five ascetics" - not five householders. Whether they already belonged 
to a formal order of monks or sanyasins I don't know, but didn't they quickly 
ask become Bhikkhus almost immediately after hearing the first teachings?

While these first monks were ordained by the Buddha saying "Come Bhikkhu!"
a more formal procedure, and vows seem to have been instituted fairly
quickly as the sangha grew in size during the Buddha's own lifetime.

While there are accounts of lay people may becoming stream-winners, 
once-returners and non-returners; wasn't it taught that when a layperson
became an Arahant they either become a monk or nun - or quickly
departed this world?

One may choose to believe that all this emphasis on monks wasn't there at the 
beginning and is due to some kind of later day self-interested revision of the 
teachings by the monastic Sangha. But if you take that view how can you have 
confidence

> I conclude that the monastic order may be important to early Buddhism, 
> but if awakening is the essence of Buddhism, then monasticism does not 
> seem to be necessary, or sufficient in earliest Buddhism.

Along with Buddha and Dharma the Sangha *is* one of the three refuges - it's 
hard to see how any one of these three would have been considered "unnecessary" 
- or sufficient in itself.

While there is a lot of talk these days about Buddha or Awakening, and about
core Dharma teachings such as the Four Noble Truths and Dependant Origination
it seems to me that the monastic Sangha is hardly mentioned.

Unless there is a fairly big change in the attitude of many Buddhist followers 
in the west, I find it hard to see a monastic Sangha taking firm root there.  I 
don't know whether it will ever be a practical model in the modern west but 
historically it seems to me that Buddhism never have lasted for very long 
without a monastic Sangha.

While there may be differences in interpretation and emphasis, the set of 
monastic rules is one thing which is almost identical across Buddhist 
traditions. Most lay Buddhists, whatever their particular tradition, have little 
difficulty recognizing anyone who has received these vows and is sincerely
trying to follow them as a member of the Buddhist Sangha - so I see this as 
something which unites various Buddhist traditions.

Some may prefer a looser interpretation of "Sangha" as the "community fellow 
practitioners" - or something similar, but this seems much more open to
sectarian interpretation - then you get a lot of individual "sanghas".

~~~

There are other models which seem to have worked at least for a while in 
particular contexts.

In parts of Tibet it was apparently common for lay practitioners to spend half 
the year in a temple or retreat center studying the Dharma or doing serious 
practice - and the rest of the year at home looking after their farm & family 
(this was often in the same areas where polyandry was common - and having 
husbands taking turns going away to the temple or into retreat may have been a 
very good idea). When these people became elderly they would then go and live at 
the temple or into retreat full time as monks.

In Newar Buddhism there seems to have been tradition of people becoming monks 
for a period while they were young; later they would take Bodhisattva vows, get 
married, look after their families, do good work and support the temple; and in 
old age they would become serious vajrayana practitioners and eventually maybe 
teachers. (This model seems to have a lot in common with the Hindu idea of 
appropriate activities for the various stages in life.)

In Eastern Bhutan there was until very recently a strong tradition of lay 
lay-priests or Gomchen - mostly these lineages of practice passed from
father to son with young men spending extensive periods of retreat. These days 
many of the young men and women from these families become monks or nuns
and go to Tibetan monasteries in India for several years of study -  while some 
of them remain monks others return to take up the lay-priest role of their 
fathers. There is also a whole group of people from these families who have 
received a modern education and migrated to town to take up employment - but who 
still go almost daily to a lama for formal teachings which are pretty well the 
same as the teachings monks receive in a shedra. This is a new phenomena but 
most of these people plan to do full time practice once their own children grow up.

With the relatively long life span that most people in modern societies can 
expect perhaps a kind of model where Buddhists could retire into a monastery or 
retreat at age sixty or sixty-five and still look forward to quite a few years 
of serious practice or retreat and maybe later teaching is something that could 
work in the west. [Maintaining an elderly population as monks and nuns would 
also be relatively inexpensive and keep them out of everyone else's hair ;-)]

- Chris