Conventions contrary to scripture.

[LastLegend]

Monks are the more accurate representation of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. So they have to practice the way of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. We laymen should strive to do the same because we are students of Buddha, and we should represent what Buddha taught. Monks and laymen have to make good examples if we are to keep Buddhism alive longer.

Thank for reading

[kirtu]

The problem is that precepts can be a source of pride. I know this all too well and am guilty of that sin.

??? This is what a number of Western Zen people have said too. But how is it meant. How can holding precepts become a source of pride (other than the pride of behaving like a Buddha)?

Kirt

[Indrajala]

The problem is that precepts can be a source of pride. I know this all too well and am guilty of that sin.

??? This is what a number of Western Zen people have said too. But how is it meant. How can holding precepts become a source of pride (other than the pride of behaving like a Buddha)?

Kirt

It is quite easy -- you become proud of yourself for upholding vows you took and compare yourself to others to that effect. You might look down on Buddhists who drink booze yet have the fifth lay precept, or don't behave like a Buddha sufficiently enough for your liking.

Like I said, I've been guilty of this myself. It doesn't help that certain Buddhist communities heap praise on puritanical Buddhists while pointing fingers at the though overall good fellow who likes to have a beer or two.

That doesn't mean we need to do away with precepts. Only that we need to be aware that they can be a source of pride.

[LastLegend]

The problem is that precepts can be a source of pride. I know this all too well and am guilty of that sin.

??? This is what a number of Western Zen people have said too. But how is it meant. How can holding precepts become a source of pride (other than the pride of behaving like a Buddha)?

Kirt

Something like "I stay true to teachings by sticking to precepts and vows better than others can." The mentality is when we do something good or excellent, we tend to take pride in it. This is what we have been taught.

[Dechen Norbu]

I hold my precepts BETTER THAN you! EVERYONE CAN SEE this and so this makes ME a better practitioner and ABOVE lay people whose path is LESS PURE.


Just as an example.

Oh, and I only accept money inside envelops, counting it with a pair of tweezers. See how well do I hold my precepts?

[Indrajala]

Something like "I stay true to teachings by sticking to precepts and vows better than others can." The mentality is when we do something good or excellent, we tend to take pride in it. This is what we have been taught.

The whole purpose of precepts is to prevent you from doing things that will harm yourself or others, or otherwise cause a hindrance to your progression on the path.

That being said, though, they can end up as a measuring stick with which some gauge the quality of a fellow practitioner in an outright condescending ways.

"You can't even uphold simple precepts? Gosh, you're not so advanced [unlike me]!" <-- That kind of attitude is something we need to be mindful of not cultivating.

[LastLegend]

I've have been taught to constantly ask ourselves why we study and practice Buddhism. This is a way to remind us that the purpose of studying and practicing is to end suffering or at least to decrease and arrogance is a source of suffering.

[Anders]

Mahāyāna is not bound by Hināyāna rules.

A statement deserving of a fair amount of qualification.

[Jnana]

Especially in this era, bhikṣus and bhikṣunis are museum pieces.

The optimal conditions for meditative development are provided by extensive and sustained immersion in intensive retreat practice. The monastic tradition provides the basic supports for this type of lifelong training funded by lay donors. Without monastic ordination lineages peopled by well trained homegrown monks and nuns we end up with the type of dharma-lite represented by much of what is being packaged and sold in the West as Zen and Tibetan Buddhism these days.

All the best,

Geoff

[Anders]

Especially in this era, bhikṣus and bhikṣunis are museum pieces.

Are you wumming with this?

[Malcolm]

Especially in this era, bhikṣus and bhikṣunis are museum pieces.

The optimal conditions for meditative development are provided by extensive and sustained immersion in intensive retreat practice.

Not necessarily.

The monastic tradition provides the basic supports for this type of lifelong training funded by lay donors.

Not really.

Without monastic ordination lineages peopled by well trained homegrown monks and nuns we end up with the type of dharma-lite represented by much of what is being packaged and sold in the West as Zen and Tibetan Buddhism these days.

That will happen anyway and since religion, including Buddhism, is driven by money, we will just have wealthy monks and nuns just like in Thailand.

This is the Kali Yuga, monasticism is obsolete.

[Indrajala]

This is the Kali Yuga, monasticism is obsolete.

Some weeks ago you stated the following at another thread:

From the point of the view of the spirit of the thing, perhaps -- but standards must be maintained. There are many people who are capable of upholding their vows -- so it is not impossible. Since there are such people, I think it is important their discipline be recognized and honored -- and it is not honored by allowing just anyone to call themselves or demand they themselves be treated as a fully ordained person just because they wish to have that status. People you are talking about won't care one way or another what they are called. But Bhikshus are the ambassadors of Shakyamuni Buddha. When his monastic sangha disappears, his dharma will be on the verge of collapsing.

Is there not a contradiction between what you said now and then?

If we do away with monasticism, will not the dharma then be on the verge of collapse? If it already is on the verge of collapse, then shouldn't strengthening the monastic institutions be encouraged?

[Malcolm]

This is the Kali Yuga, monasticism is obsolete.

Some weeks ago you stated the following at another thread:

From the point of the view of the spirit of the thing, perhaps -- but standards must be maintained. There are many people who are capable of upholding their vows -- so it is not impossible. Since there are such people, I think it is important their discipline be recognized and honored -- and it is not honored by allowing just anyone to call themselves or demand they themselves be treated as a fully ordained person just because they wish to have that status. People you are talking about won't care one way or another what they are called. But Bhikshus are the ambassadors of Shakyamuni Buddha. When his monastic sangha disappears, his dharma will be on the verge of collapsing.

Is there not a contradiction between what you said now and then?

If we do away with monasticism, will not the dharma then be on the verge of collapse? If it already is on the verge of collapse, then shouldn't strengthening the monastic institutions be encouraged?

Buddhism has been on the verge of collapse for some centuries.

Institutions, in the end, are always about power and money.

N

[Indrajala]

Buddhism has been on the verge of collapse for some centuries.

Institutions, in the end, are always about power and money.

N

So if monasticism is obsolete as you insist, what do you suggest? We do away with it or try to revive it so that the Buddha's Dharma in the world is not lost just yet?

[Jnana]

Not necessarily.

The vast majority of practitioners are not "Indrabhūti" types.

monasticism is obsolete.

Whether you're wumming or not, there's no need to propagate this attitude. All supports -- including the monastic lineages -- are helpful. Far better to emphasize this than dismiss the paths of renunciation with blanket statements.

All the best,

Geoff

[Malcolm]

Buddhism has been on the verge of collapse for some centuries.

Institutions, in the end, are always about power and money.

N

So if monasticism is obsolete as you insist, what do you suggest? We do away with it or try to revive it so that the Buddha's Dharma in the world is not lost just yet?

People will do as they please, of course.

If someone really has the wish to be a bhikṣu or a bhikṣuni, they can do that. But in the end, it will not prevent the predicted disappearance of Shakyamuni's Dharma sasana.

We have to be realistic.

N

[Malcolm]

Not necessarily.

The vast majority of practitioners are not "Indrabhūti" types.

They don't need to be.

Whether you're wumming or not, there's no need to propagate this attitude. All supports -- including the monastic lineages -- are helpful. Far better to emphasize this than dismiss the paths of renunciation with blanket statements.

Paths of renunciation cannot bear fruit in the Kaliyuga. At best, it is a show for posterity.

N

[Indrajala]

Paths of renunciation cannot bear fruit in the Kaliyuga. At best, it is a show for posterity.

N

According to the Sūrya Siddhānta, a key Indian astronomical treatise, kaliyuga started on February 18th, 3102 BCE. This would mean nobody's practice of renunciation in Shakyamuni's Sangha has bore fruit at any point? Why did the Buddha teach it if it would not bear fruit?

[Jnana]

Paths of renunciation cannot bear fruit in the Kaliyuga. At best, it is a show for posterity.

This just reinforces complacent attitudes. Sorry, I'm not interested. There are a number of benefits of having and supporting a monastic sangha. Aside from being a support for individual training, monastics can attend to the translation and low cost distribution of texts, especially those which don't have pop appeal. They can also run residential training programs and retreat programs. Places like Shasta Abbey, Lion's Gate Buddhist Priory, Gampo Abbey, and Sravasti Abbey, and others, are generally doing good things. H.H. the Dalai Lama:

I am heartened to learn of the establishment of Sravasti Abbey in the USA… I am happy to give (it) my support and encourage others who share this interest to do likewise.

All the best,

Geoff

[Malcolm]

Paths of renunciation cannot bear fruit in the Kaliyuga. At best, it is a show for posterity.

N

According to the Sūrya Siddhānta, a key Indian astronomical treatise, kaliyuga started on February 18th, 3102 BCE. This would mean nobody's practice of renunciation in Shakyamuni's Sangha has bore fruit at any point? Why did the Buddha teach it if it would not bear fruit?

That is Surya Suddhanta. Not really in step with Buddhist cycles of time. In any case, it is obviously the Kali Yuga now.