How do monks put up with celibacy?

[Lazy_eye]

Here one really should avoid to generate the impression that anything like a sort of "moral obligation" or similar would be involved. It would actually be bondage to think a way like "If one practices buddhism then one has to abandon ..." or thinking a way like "If I abandon this then I will achieve that" Such kind of thinking is bondage. I think the way it should be is that after initial small even merely intellectual "insight" into the transient and unsatisfactory combined with faith the practice itself should enhance disenchantment with the transient and unsatisfactory through being the cause of "real" contentment and satisfaction that is independent of the transient and actually unsatisfactory.

Kind regards

Good points + post!

I think it's a little more complicated for laypeople, particularly those of us involved with relationships, raising families, jobs, mortgages, etc. But since this thread is about monastics, perhaps that topic should be saved for another time.

[ground]

I think it's a little more complicated for laypeople, particularly those of us involved with relationships, raising families, jobs, mortgages, etc. But since this thread is about monastics, perhaps that topic should be saved for another time.

Being a lay practitioner myself I do not make such a categorical difference between laypeople and monks. For me its more a matter of attitude, renunciation.
For me "being a lay practitioner" does not necessarily mean "raising a family".
But I see that once one is already involved in "family" and gets involved in Dharma later then it may be more "complicated". This may be one reason for some to choose Mahayana. In Mahayana it is all about "other beings" and of course one's own family members are "other beings" as well.

Kind regards

[Inge]

hmm,.. so you guys might think otherwise,.. but I think if you have a good meditation teacher and you follow the training with no serious afflictions, after a week you should have meditation better than sex. I don't think it's that hard, sex is a coarse pleasure, it really can't compare. After a monk or lay person has competency in meditation, I don't think sex is much of a temptation at all.

So then I either don't have a good meditation teacher, or I don't follow the training with no serious afflictions.

I'm confident my meditation teachers are good, so it must be that I either don't follow the training, or that I have to serious afflictions. Or a combination of both. I don't know what to do about this.

[spiritnoname]

Igne,.. if you are being taught in a large group,.. it may be that your teacher is not teaching according to your capacity, but to the capacity of a continuing stream of beginners. I don't know your teacher, and I don't want to presume,.. but this is a common issue.. I think if a teacher isn't close enough to teach what is applicable to you then you need to find a tutor. Buddhist training is not a endless stream of meditation workshops or seminars, some people will never progress in the training and you don't want to be lumped with them, you need a close teacher.

[Astus]

I think it should be pointed out here that although people attain different levels of samadhi it doesn't mean they're free from desire. A good meditation retreat (Buddhist or not) can be like a week on holiday but then back to everyday life. Even on the initial levels of realisation one is not free from lust. Then there's the sravaka style view that one have to get rid of all to be liberated, then there's no more desire. And there's the mahayana path where one has to attain no-birth and then desire is not a hindrance any more, one doesn't take it up or put it down.

[ground]

I think it should be pointed out here that although people attain different levels of samadhi it doesn't mean they're free from desire.

They are temporarily free ... while in samadhi ... and that is quite a deal even if only temporarily. Because not being free even temporarily is worse.

Then there's the sravaka style view that one have to get rid of all to be liberated, then there's no more desire. And there's the mahayana path where one has to attain no-birth and then desire is not a hindrance any more, one doesn't take it up or put it down.

I think that is a rather biased assessment from a lay man's perspective ignoring the monastic traditions of the Mahayana.
Of cours getting rid of afflictions like attachment and aversion and ignorant indifference is liberation from afflictions which is a prerequisite for genuine bodhicitta. Desire is incompatible.


Kind regards

[Astus]

Just to add a bit to the discussion on lay style, I've been browsing through the PP8K and stumbled upon a section about the signs of an irreversible bodhisattva living a household life (XVII.3). As it is not surprising, the PP25K has a similar section which the Abhisamayalankara summarises in three points (IV 8, 2, 6-8.) (Chinese from Ven. Fazun's 法尊法師 translation):

巧便行諸欲　- skilful use of all desirables (Conze: circumspect in the use of pleasant things (which he possesses and enjoys without caring for them, without eagerness or attachment).)
常修淨梵行　- always cultivating pure chastity (Conze: at all times (in all his lives) he leads a chaste life,)
善清淨正命 - good and pure in correct livelihood (Conze: he is pure in the manner of earning his livelihood, (and provides for it in the right way).)

The relevant line is the second one about brahmacarya, i.e. celibacy. However, it's interesting to note that PP8K doesn't mention this part only that "an irreversible Bodhisattva who lives the life of a householder, possesses any pleasant things he may have simply without caring for them, without eagerness, without attachment. He is not one of those people who care for dear and pleasant forms." (tr. Conze)

Another thing to note is that in the Abhisamayalankara's divisions this is about the 1st bhumi while the Avatamsaka Sutra says about 2nd bhumi bodhisattvas: "They are satisfied with their own spouses and do not desire the spouses of others." (tr. Cleary) Nevertheless, the Avatamsaka Sutra has ample paragraphs talking about relinquishing the householder life and leaving behind all forms of desire. So the sutra says,

"They have no attachment to anything, but just firmly uphold pure conduct, thinking, 'As I maintain pure discipline, I shall surely get rid of all bondage, the torment of craving, oppression, slander, and disturbance, and will attain the impartial truth praised by the Buddhas.' ... Therefore they do not conceive even a single thought of lust; their minds are as pure as Buddha. The only exception is in terms of expedient means to teach and transform sentient beings — yet they still do not relinquish the determination for omniscience. ... After enlightening beings have gotten to see the Buddha, they never arouse a single thought of desire, much less act upon desire."

This single exception explains my former reference to another part in this sutra about a teacher who uses different forms of desires to help beings become free from desire.

Then it is clear from all of this that renunciation is a prerequisite of getting to higher levels of practice meaning that the only safe and sure way for a householder is aspiring for birth in the Pure Land. In the PP8K (X.9, tr. Conze) the Buddha says,

"And when I had surveyed their thought with my thought, I rejoiced in those sons and daughters of good family who belong to the vehicle of the Bodhisattvas and who had made this vow. In consequence they will become so much confirmed in their faith that they will seek rebirth in other Buddha-fields, and also they will come face to face with the Tathagatas there, who demonstrate dharma, and from whom they will hear in detail just this deep perfection of wisdom. In those Buddha-fields also they will set countless living beings going on their way to the supreme enlightenment, and will help them in their quest for full enlightenment."

[Lazy_eye]

I think the "householder bodhisattva" model, as promising as it may seem at first glance, raises a lot of difficulties.

The basic problem is that love, caring, intimacy and attachment are vital ingredients in family life. So if one decides to abandon these things, while still maintaining the role of householder, one is basically striving to be a cruel spouse and parent.

A spouse who is abandoned emotionally and sexually by the other partner may feel lonely and resentful, and may come to regard the dharma as an enemy. Children of neglectful or indifferent parents may suffer terribly.

We see this paradigm first appear in the earliest Mahayana sutras, where it apparently got touted as a "third way" alternative to the established paths of bhikkhu and upasaka.

There are numerous generic mentions of women, virtually all of them in reference to the wife of the male lay bodhisattva, and she is consistently portrayed as an object of clinging and as a possible stimulus to wrong action on the bodhisattva's part. The bodhisattva is told to view her as a "denizen of the Avici hell" and to train himself to conceive of her (together with his other relatives, employees and slaves) as not really "his". Lest he continue to feel any residual attachment to his marital partner even after these personalizing reflections, the lay bodhisattva is given a long list of negative thoughts he should cultivate towards his wife, ranging from a crocodile to a demon to a guardian of hell...In sum, the bodhisattva's wife is portrayed as an object and an obstacle, and the possibility is never even considered that she might be a serious Buddhist practitioner (much less a bodhisattva) in her own right. (A Few Good Men: the Bodhisattva path according to the Inquiry of Ugra)

The bodhisattva-to-be is urged to regard his wife as "impure, stinking, and disagreeable, as an ogre, a demon and a hag". Any affection towards family members is to be ruthlessly eradicated. No concern is expressed regarding the neglected family members, despite the bodhisattva-aspirant's telescopic philanthropy towards all sentient life.

It seems to me that this well illustrates the downside of mixing the vocations of householder and renunciant.

[ground]

I think the "householder bodhisattva" model, as promising as it may seem at first glance, raises a lot of difficulties.

The basic problem is that love, caring, intimacy and attachment are vital ingredients in family life. So if one decides to abandon these things, while still maintaining the role of householder, one is basically striving to be a cruel spouse and parent.

A spouse who is abandoned emotionally and sexually by the other partner may feel lonely and resentful, and may come to regard the dharma as an enemy. Children of neglectful or indifferent parents may suffer terribly.

I agree that this is how it seems at first glance. However causing suffering and harm is a downfall for the bodhisattva.

We see this paradigm first appear in the earliest Mahayana sutras, where it apparently got touted as a "third way" alternative to the established paths of bhikkhu and upasaka.

There are numerous generic mentions of women, virtually all of them in reference to the wife of the male lay bodhisattva, and she is consistently portrayed as an object of clinging and as a possible stimulus to wrong action on the bodhisattva's part. The bodhisattva is told to vier her as a "denizen of the Avici hell" and to train himself to conceive of her (together with his other relatives, employees and slaves) as not really "his". Lest he continue to feel any residual attachment to his marital partner even after these personalizing reflections, the lay bodhisattva is given a long list of negative thoughts he should cultivate towards his wife, ranging from a crocodile to a demon to a guardian of hell...In sum, the bodhisattva's wife is portrayed as an object and an obstacle, and the possibility is never even considered that she might be a serious Buddhist practitioner (much less a bodhisattva) in her own right. (A Few Good Men: the Bodhisattva path according to the Inquiry of Ugra)

The bodhisattva-to-be is urged to regard his wife as "impure, stinking, and disagreeable, as an ogre, a demon and a hag". Any affection towards family members is to be ruthlessly eradicated. No concern is expressed regarding the neglected family members, despite the bodhisattva-aspirant's telescopic philanthropy towards all sentient life.

It seems to me that this well illustrates the downside of mixing the vocations of householder and renunciant.

If seen from the perspective of graded path then there is no downside.
Why?
Because a bodhisattva is guided by a Mahayana teacher. And even renunciation and setting the mind intent on liberation is practiced on the basis of bodhisattva ethics.

There is a vast difference between using thought to achieve an even impartial attitude of mind and acting out thoughts that are means to achieve this attitude of mind.

E.g. one uses the thought that all beings have been our mothers to neutralize aversion against specific beings. And one uses the thought that all beings have been our enemies too and killed and tortured us to neutralize attachment to specific beings.


Kind regards

[ground]

At the end of such kinds of contradictory reasonings what remains is that beings have been our mothers and done harm to us only due to ignorance and their own suffering.
And the root of all is just that all want happiness and do not want suffering but are completely helpless regarding how to get there.


Kind regards

[Aemilius]

Just to add a bit to the discussion on lay style, I've been browsing through the PP8K and stumbled upon a section about the signs of an irreversible bodhisattva living a household life (XVII.3). As it is not surprising, the PP25K has a similar section which the Abhisamayalankara summarises in three points (IV 8, 2, 6-8.) (Chinese from Ven. Fazun's 法尊法師 translation):

巧便行諸欲　- skilful use of all desirables (Conze: circumspect in the use of pleasant things (which he possesses and enjoys without caring for them, without eagerness or attachment).)
常修淨梵行　- always cultivating pure chastity (Conze: at all times (in all his lives) he leads a chaste life,)
善清淨正命 - good and pure in correct livelihood (Conze: he is pure in the manner of earning his livelihood, (and provides for it in the right way).)

The relevant line is the second one about brahmacarya, i.e. celibacy. However,
it's interesting to note that PP8K doesn't mention this part only that "an irreversible Bodhisattva who lives the life of a householder, possesses any pleasant things he may have simply without caring for them, without eagerness, without attachment. He is not one of those people who care for dear and pleasant forms." (tr. Conze)

Another thing to note is that in the Abhisamayalankara's divisions this is about the 1st bhumi while the Avatamsaka Sutra says about 2nd bhumi bodhisattvas: "They are satisfied with their own spouses and do not desire the spouses of others." (tr. Cleary) Nevertheless, the Avatamsaka Sutra has ample paragraphs talking about relinquishing the householder life and leaving behind all forms of desire. So the sutra says,

"They have no attachment to anything, but just firmly uphold pure conduct, thinking, 'As I maintain pure discipline, I shall surely get rid of all bondage, the torment of craving, oppression, slander, and disturbance, and will attain the impartial truth praised by the Buddhas.' ... Therefore they do not conceive even a single thought of lust; their minds are as pure as Buddha. The only exception is in terms of expedient means to teach and transform sentient beings — yet they still do not relinquish the determination for omniscience. ... After enlightening beings have gotten to see the Buddha, they never arouse a single thought of desire, much less act upon desire."

This single exception explains my former reference to another part in this sutra about a teacher who uses different forms of desires to help beings become free from desire.

Then it is clear from all of this that renunciation is a prerequisite of getting to higher levels of practice meaning that the only safe and sure way for a householder is aspiring for birth in the Pure Land. In the PP8K (X.9, tr. Conze) the Buddha says,

"And when I had surveyed their thought with my thought, I rejoiced in those sons and daughters of good family who belong to the vehicle of the Bodhisattvas and who had made this vow. In consequence they will become so much confirmed in their faith that they will seek rebirth in other Buddha-fields, and also they will come face to face with the Tathagatas there, who demonstrate dharma, and from whom they will hear in detail just this deep perfection of wisdom. In those Buddha-fields also they will set countless living beings going on their way to the supreme enlightenment, and will help them in their quest for full enlightenment."

Congratulations! Very Good!
There is also Desire for Dharma, DhammaChanda, even in the Sravaka Canon.
How do you understand Nagarjuna's statement that there isn't even a very slight subtle distinction between Samasara and Nirvana?( Mulamadhyamaka karika)

[Tilopa]

How do you understand Nagarjuna's statement that there isn't even a very slight subtle distinction between Samasara and Nirvana?( Mulamadhyamaka karika)

According to sutra it means they are both the same in that they are empty of inherent existence. In tantra it refers to the fact that all phenomena arise from the same subtle clear light mind. It does NOT mean samsara and nirvana are essentially the same as many people seem to mistakenly think. One is a state of total confusion while the other a state of perfect clarity.

[kirtu]

I think it should be pointed out here that although people attain different levels of samadhi it doesn't mean they're free from desire.

Right but strong samadhi suppresses desire at least for a time.

Kirt

[Astus]

Right but strong samadhi suppresses desire at least for a time.

This could also be said about satisfying a desire, after eating one is not hungry for a while. On the other hand, one could as well be attached to different meditative states, so there's birth in the form and formless realms attained by Buddhists as well as non-Buddhists.

And as I've said in my last post, if the case is as many of you have agreed upon, there's no point in lay people engaging in so many complicated and difficult practices unless they become like hermits. So either one is fine with working on accumulating good karma for a better birth or becomes a renunciate. Third option being only aspiring for birth in the Pure Land. This view makes most of current Western Buddhism pointless and mistaken and also cries for establishing a widespread monastic order.

[Lazy_eye]

And as I've said in my last post, if the case is as many of you have agreed upon, there's no point in lay people engaging in so many complicated and difficult practices unless they become like hermits. So either one is fine with working on accumulating good karma for a better birth or becomes a renunciate. Third option being only aspiring for birth in the Pure Land. This view makes most of current Western Buddhism pointless and mistaken and also cries for establishing a widespread monastic order.

I tend to agree. Looking at Ven. Hsing Yun's books written for laypeople, such as "Buddhism: a Blueprint for Life" or "Living Affinity", one thing that jumps out is that they mostly emphasize moral development, cultivating Buddhist values such as kindness and compassion, and applying dharma teachings to practical everyday concerns. There's little to no emphasis on yogic practices.

Much the same could be said about Thich Nhat Hanh, probably the most famous Buddhist in the West after the Dalai Lama.

Still, I'm not sure we should conclude that meditation is off-limits to householders. Some meditative practices are beneficial for non-renunciants too. Also, it's possible that some might move to a deeper level of practice later in life, for instance.

[Tilopa]

Still, I'm not sure we should conclude that meditation is off-limits to householders. Some meditative practices are beneficial for non-renunciants too. Also, it's possible that some might move to a deeper level of practice later in life, for instance.

Excellent point. Spiritual development takes place over time and practice changes as insights grow. Meditation is for everyone but if you want to be a real yogi then life as a hermit is obviously the best.

[ground]

... cries for establishing a widespread monastic order.

Well yes. But for establishing there need to be establishers.

Still, I'm not sure we should conclude that meditation is off-limits to householders. Some meditative practices are beneficial for non-renunciants too. Also, it's possible that some might move to a deeper level of practice later in life, for instance.

Meditation is not necessarily a "complicated and difficult practice". However what is complicated in the context of housholders is Vajrayana.

Kind regards

[Astus]

Meditation is not necessarily a "complicated and difficult practice". However what is complicated in the context of housholders is Vajrayana.

But why bother if one can simply stick to buddha-remembrance and thus be assured of liberation in the next life?

By the way, Zen is neither complicated nor difficult whatever life one may live.

[Lazy_eye]

But Buddha-remembrance, at least in the Chinese tradition, may not be as simple as some make it out to be. Have you read Shi Wu Ling's "In one LIfetime"? What she describes there sounds very similar to a meditation practice, except that it involves vocalization and an externalized meditation subject.

As for Zen/Ch'an, perhaps the tradition underestimates what can be accomplished in a non-monastic situation, while some Westerners overestimate it, or don't take into account the difficulties that might come up. (?)

[kirtu]

hmm,.. so you guys might think otherwise,.. but I think if you have a good meditation teacher and you follow the training with no serious afflictions, after a week you should have meditation better than sex. I don't think it's that hard, sex is a coarse pleasure, it really can't compare. After a monk or lay person has competency in meditation, I don't think sex is much of a temptation at all.

This is just too broad. And generally the people who will react this way to just meditation will be quite rare. And I'm pretty sure we can find reliable anecdotal evidence to that effect over the past 2,500 years. The only people this is likely to be true for are people who attain Stream Entry ... Arhatship or the bhumis within a week (because you gave the time period of a week). However it is true that if a person were on a retreat and they were really concentrating then generally their meditation would suppress sexual desire for that time period and some period beyond the retreat.

However normal meditative bliss is too subtle for the majority of people to compare with coarse sexual pleasure - coarse sexual pleasure is overwhelming because it is coarse.

Kirt