Why do monks reside in temples

[tobes]

Monks live in temples because they do not follow the Dharma.

We know nothing about original Buddhism (please see Wikipedia page on original Buddhism and read all the scholarly references and you will understand for yourself not even the 4 Noble Truth is certain)

One of the few things we know is that the original Buddha followers were a wandering community (with the only exception of the rainy season). Even besides The two traditions of meditation in ancient India of Prof Bronkhorst, Google is your friend ad you can easily find scholarly references for this.

if Buddha deemed it necessary to establish a fixed community in a monastery he would have created one so all modern monasteries do not have the foundation on original Buddhism; life among nature was more conducive to enlightenment for Buddha than monastic life, staying all day long sitting meditating was not his Dharma..

Little is more contrary to what the Buddha **actually** taught, then the assumption that particular causes and conditions of a given time can and should remain fixed.

[Budai]

Do you not think the pure Buddha lands mentioned in the Lotus Sutra don't have Temples?

[Johnny Dangerous]

As noted above, Anathapindika canonically founded Jetavana during Sakyamuni's lifetime. Visakha also founded Migaramatupasada while he was alive. And the Vinaya speaks clearly of and to monastic living. Nor is it true that the early Buddhist communities lived an eremitic lifestyle out in nature: they needed to be close to towns, so they could get food.

edit: I think it at least borderline slanders the triple gem to imply that 2.5 thousand years worth of homeleavers "have not followed the dharma" because they lived in a dedicated building rather than camping out under a ficus tree or something.

Yep, it is insulting to ordained practitioners, and such talk will be given a short leash here.

[PadmaVonSamba]

I don’t think very many monks make their robes
out of rags they find in graveyards either.
That includes Nichiren monks.

Regardless of what we know or don’t know about
the Buddha Shakyamuni,
there is the vinaya.
Nothing in that says monks can’t live in a building.

What a silly discussion!

[CosmosFF]

who builds them to be like that, you can buy food for money

Since the time of the Buddha, the wealthy nobility and royalty has donated large sums of money for the construction of temples and monasteries. Today, with there being so many millionaires now in China, where making grand donations is regarded as creating merit and gaining “face” money is still spent on extravagant temples, if not in Chiba itself, then in Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, the United States, and those recipients also use much of the donations for humanitarian projects. But, like it or not, when big donors make big donations, they expect to see some flash. Or giant Buddhas. This, in turn, attracts tourists and tourist money helps support the monasteries and their projects.

Okay, this clears it up! Thank you mr laughing

[neander]

As I wrote my post was provocative.

Anyway we are lucky with the internet, do your research guys I do not speak for myself, I posted scholarly paper and references;

As Nichiren said:

Buddhism is reason. Reason will win over your lord

Have a good day.

[GDPR_Anonymized001]

As I wrote my post was provocative.

Anyway we are lucky with the internet, do your research guys I do not speak for myself, I posted scholarly paper and references;

As Nichiren said:

Buddhism is reason. Reason will win over your lord

Have a good day.

What scholarly articles? You posted a wikipedia-like link which has no relevance to your claim and a kind of blog entry from a journalist.

Where is your evidence that the Buddhist monks wandered the forests eating berries and twigs and not living near towns going on alms rounds?

[Aemilius]

There is a list of places where the Buddha stayed during his life. These places are gathered from the opening paragraphs of sutras or suttas, and there are several monasteries, aramas or viharas in this list. Sravasti Dhammika has written an article about the issue of the viharas built during Buddha's lifetime, and to what extent he was a wanderer, but he seems to have withdrawn it (from open access). But you can make your own conclusions, here is the list https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... dha_stayed

[Genjo Conan]

I do not speak for myself, I posted scholarly paper and references;

Oh, really? Where? Both of the links you posted note that Sakyamuni's first disciples were homeless wanderers which, so far so good. But no one here would dispute that. Your links go on to state that, as the community grew, the shelters built during the rains retreats became permanent and turned into the first monasteries. E.g., from your Britannica link: "The custom of spending the rainy season in one place in a study retreat (see vassa) led gradually to the settling of the community." The canonical sources indicate that this happened during the lifetime of the Buddha, and you haven't posted anything that shows otherwise.

The notion that we should rely on what is supposedly from "early Buddhism" is anyway quixotic in a Mahayana forum. Unless there's a Pali Sutta on SGI that I missed.

[Queequeg]

Also... Devadatta proposed some ascetic rules, including one that monks must not live in structures but must live in the forest, and the Buddha rejected that. Told him that he was a fool who licks other people's spit.

[Aemilius]

Monasteries owned by the Sangha. Originally offered to Buddha and/or the Sangha. Buddha used to stay in these fourteen monasteries according to the sutras.

Sravasti:
Jetavana. The following huts were used by Buddha: Gandhakuti, Kosambakuti
Pubbarama. Migaramatupasada
Rajakarama

Rajagriha:
Veluvana: Kalandakanivapa
Jivakambavana
Gijjhakata

Kausambi:
Kukkutarama
Ghositarama
Pavarika-ambavana
Badarikarama

Vaishali:
Kutagarasala
Ambavana

Kapilavastu:
Nigrodharama

Saketa:
Kalakarama

Places of the Buddha Gautama's Rains retreats:



Some of the modern place names, where they differ, are given here: Isipatana = Sarnath; Rājagaha = Rajgir; Vesālī = Vaishali; Kosambī = Kausambi; Kapilavatthu = Kapilavastu. Nāḷaka is either Nalanda, or is nearby; Āḷavī is unidentified as yet.

This map shows the various places where the Buddha spent his Rain’s Retreats according to the information related in the Introduction to the Commentary on the Buddhavaṁsa, which is also followed by Ven. Medhaṅkara in Jinacarita. Most of them are well known, and appear in the Discourses many times. Of the Retreats we are sure about note that they all were taken in the Middle Lands (Majjhimadesa).

Some of the places we cannot identify. These include the 6th retreat on Mount Maṅkula; 8th at Bhesakalā Wood in the Bhagga Country; 13th, 18th and 19th on Mount Cāliya. Others are only vaguely known, such as Silk-Cotton Wood, Pārileyya and Verañjā, all of which were around Kosambī. The exact position of Āḷavī is also not known, but must have been in the Vajjī Country where there were many yakkha shrines. According to tradition the 7th Rains Retreat was spent in Tāvatiṁsa/Trayashtrimsa heaven teaching the Abhidharma to his Mother, who had been reborn as a Devaputra.

The information given in the Commentary inexplicably omits the last Rain’s Retreat spent by the Buddha, which was at the village of Beluva, within walking distance of Vesālī, as related in the Mahāparinibbānasuttaṁ.

(Bhikkhu Anandajyoti)

Maps relating to the life of Buddha Gautama https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/ ... -index.htm

[neander]

Aemilius

What you posted is exactly what the scholars say: wandering community with the exception of the rainy season, there is a reason why the historical Buddha did this kind of life and never accepted a temple as a permanent residence even if with his charisma he could have had one and more...

If people of this community spent 10% of their time trekking they will probably resolve 90% of the questions they post here as they would be closer to realize what Nichiren called: the mystic truth that is originally inherent in all living beings... life at each moment encompasses the body and mind and the self and environment of all sentient beings in the Ten Worlds as well as all insentient beings in the three thousand realms, including plants, sky, earth, and even the minutest particles of dust..

[Aemilius]

Aemilius

What you posted is exactly what the scholars say: wandering community with the exception of the rainy season, there is a reason why the historical Buddha did this kind of life and never accepted a temple as a permanent residence even if with his charisma he could have had one and more...

If people of this community spent 10% of their time trekking they will probably resolve 90% of the questions they post here as they would be closer to realize what Nichiren called: the mystic truth that is originally inherent in all living beings... life at each moment encompasses the body and mind and the self and environment of all sentient beings in the Ten Worlds as well as all insentient beings in the three thousand realms, including plants, sky, earth, and even the minutest particles of dust..

There are interesting stories in the sutras about the life of the Buddha Gautama, about his wanderings and also about his teaching tours, etc.. You must understand that when his movement of buddhist mendicants had become wellknown and succesful, and they had several monasteries and buildigs, it seems pretty certain that they had ceased wandering all the year (excepting the rainy season). Do you think that they left the large buildings (some of which had several stories) empty and that they stayed there empty and in a good condition? That is very much unlikely. Empty buildings are taken over, they deteriorate when not in use, or they become inhabited by rodents, other animals, fungi and plants.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Whether the Buddha and his followers travelled or settled down doesn’t make any difference in whether one practices Dharma or not.

[PadmaVonSamba]

If people of this community spent 10% of their time trekking they will probably resolve 90% of the questions they post here as they would be closer to realize what Nichiren called: the mystic truth that is originally inherent in all living beings...

Spending 10% of the time trekking still leaves 90% of the time to be in a building, doesn’t it?

[Aemilius]

Aemilius

What you posted is exactly what the scholars say: wandering community with the exception of the rainy season, there is a reason why the historical Buddha did this kind of life and never accepted a temple as a permanent residence even if with his charisma he could have had one and more..

That is not wholly true. If we look at the opening sentences of a few sutras, we will find:

"At one time the Blessed One was living in the monastery offered by Anathapindika in Jeta’s grove in Savatthi." Aakankheyya Sutta, If the Bhikkhu Desires

"At one time the Blessed One lived in the Pubba monastery in the palace of Migaara’s mother," Aanaapaanasuttam, The Discourse On In and Out Breathing

"At one time the Blessed One was living in the Kuru country, in the hamlet named Kammassadhamma," Aananjasappaayasuttam, Suitability to Attain Imperturbability

"I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels' Sanctuary." Abhaya Raja Kumara Sutta, To Prince Abhaya

"On one occasion Ven. Ánanda was staying in Kosambi at Ghosita's monastery." Ajivaka Sutta, To the Fatalists' Student

And so on...

You can easily find hundreds of sutras to check this out, for example in http://www.buddhasutra.com/index.html

[neander]

Aemilus, the Sutras say he was living ..offered, etc.. not that he deemed it necessary to establish a fixed community in a temple.

the fact that even 2 centuries later was endorsed by a king (Ashoka) tells you that Buddha was indeed a very charismatic figure, as such he was probably invited everywhere by everybody not only in temples but very likely in local government institutions, estates of rich people and so on...

If such a charismatic figure would have built a temple with a fixed community we would have some archeological trace because it must have been huge, as we have some trace of Ashoka pillars, the local community would have left some trace of this settlement,

But there is something much more important than archeology and, is what he allegedly said when he was about to die that tells you the reason why no monastic life is necessary:

it may come to pass, ānanda, that you will think: ‘the doctrine is deprived of its teacher, we no longer have a master.’ you should not think thus, ānanda. the doctrine (dharma) and the discipline (vinaya) that I taught you, they shall be your teachers after my demise.”

so that this is where you can find Buddhism :

the doctrine (dharma) and the discipline (vinaya) that I taught you, shall be your teachers after my demise.


that is why former navy seals Jocko Willink says that discipline equals freedom, and I consider his quote a highly Buddhist quote together with the with his military life lived according to his quote.

[Tlalok]

that is why former navy seals Jocko Willink says that discipline equals freedom, and I consider his quote a highly Buddhist quote together with the with his military life lived according to his quote.

[kirtu]

Buddha Dharma has nothing to do with living in monasteries, in a hermitage, houses, mountain tops, mountains, trees, the base of trees, near rivers, away from rivers, in cities*, outside of cities, on a farm, away from a farm, in a meadow, in a field, behind rocks, on a beach, wandering from place to place, in the forest, etc.

Monks can live where they can best practice. Over the past two thousand years that was often in monasteries or temples although some monks still wandered (usually on pilgrimage and not wandering per se).

The Buddha Dharma is about accumulating merit and wisdom and eliminating negative states of mind culminating in full Buddhahood (or a lower stage of accomplishment in the present lifetime). Where one lives has to be conducive to the practice of the Buddha Dharma, including potentially sharing the Dharma with others, and nothing else.

Kirt

*nowadays there is an argument that Buddhists should live in cities because it will be easier to alleviate other's suffering if they do that. That could be a consideration if people have the resources and ability to do so.

[Aemilius]

Aemilus, the Sutras say he was living ..offered, etc.. not that he deemed it necessary to establish a fixed community in a temple.

the fact that even 2 centuries later was endorsed by a king (Ashoka) tells you that Buddha was indeed a very charismatic figure, as such he was probably invited everywhere by everybody not only in temples but very likely in local government institutions, estates of rich people and so on...

If such a charismatic figure would have built a temple with a fixed community we would have some archeological trace because it must have been huge, as we have some trace of Ashoka pillars, the local community would have left some trace of this settlement,

But there is something much more important than archeology and, is what he allegedly said when he was about to die that tells you the reason why no monastic life is necessary:

it may come to pass, ānanda, that you will think: ‘the doctrine is deprived of its teacher, we no longer have a master.’ you should not think thus, ānanda. the doctrine (dharma) and the discipline (vinaya) that I taught you, they shall be your teachers after my demise.”

so that this is where you can find Buddhism :

the doctrine (dharma) and the discipline (vinaya) that I taught you, shall be your teachers after my demise.


that is why former navy seals Jocko Willink says that discipline equals freedom, and I consider his quote a highly Buddhist quote together with the with his military life lived according to his quote.

Yes, that is true naturally, and it has been pointed out that the Vinaya is very much concerned with communal living. And on that basis Buddhism is a cenobitic religion, -as it is called in some refined terminology. Communal living takes more likely place in monasteries or in living communities, than say under the trees. When the community owns buildings, it does not seem logical or likely that they would be living in the wilderness.

According to Vinaya the making or constructing a vihara for the Sangha was a regulated practice of earning merit for the wealthy laity. The Sangha did own buildings and/or monasteries. (source, Gregory Schopen: Monks, Nuns and Worldly Matters).