Why do monks reside in temples

A forum for those wishing to discuss Buddhist history and teachings in the Western academic manner, referencing appropriate sources.
neander
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:24 pm

Re: Why do monks reside in temples

Post by neander »

tingdzin wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 10:01 pm This is an interesting discussion, but the fact is that we can never know what "Original Buddhism" was like, and the urge to say it was either this or that is usually based on peoples' preconceptions, and desires of what they think it should have been.

Pointing to masonry structures at traditionally Buddhist sites as evidence that Buddha's followers lived in them from the beginning, however, is pretty risky; a lot of Buddhist sites that have been excavated show considerable changes over the centuries as shown in different historical strata. Sites like Jetavanarama may be nothing like they were when the Buddha was around. As Malcolm pointed out, stone structures are not the same as grass huts, and to take the pictures of Buddha's alleged retreat dwelling as even approximating the footprint of what he stayed in requires a huge leap of faith. Yes, the Harappan civilization used stone, but we cannot assume that the Gangetic Plain civilizations followed suit and maintained a cultural continuity in that way unless there is some evidence, which there is not. It's a big mistake to think of "Indian civilization" a s a unified whole, especially in the earliest periods..

As far as the Vinaya, everyone knows there are many versions. Pace Aemilius, I don't know of any modern scholar who thinks there is a single authoritative Vinaya that used to be longer than the existing versions. The quotes from the Chinese may refer to the Dharmaguptakas, as they were the most important school in the early period of translation, being gradually superseded by the Sarvastivadins. It's also important to remember that Vinayas were not written down for a long, long time -- the earliest Chinese converts expressed exasperation that the Indian and Central Asian monks they were getting Buddhist texts from did not have "hard copies" of the Vinaya, it being based wholly on memorization.

Bronkhurst's and Schopen's books are quite interesting, and certainly prompt one to re-examine assumptions about early Buddhism and the actual historical evidence we have, or don't have, in relation to the received tradition. For my money, one of Bronkhurst's most useful observations is that Buddhism cannot be seen as a derivative of or a reaction to "Hinduism", because the two germinated in different geographic regions and subcultures of the Indian subcontinent. I also think it is undeniable that Buddhism underwent huge changes in institutional structure during the Maurya and Kushan periods.
:good:
User avatar
DewachenVagabond
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 7:30 pm
Location: Dewachen

Re: Why do monks reside in temples

Post by DewachenVagabond »

For the life of me I can't comprehend how a Nichiren Buddhist could have such an obsession with "Early Buddhism." And that's not a knock on Nichiren Buddhism. It is just something you usually see with Secular Buddhists and some Western Theravada practitioners. A practitioner of a form of Buddhism originating in 13th century Japan obsessing about Early Buddhism is just absurd. That seems like a massive amount of cognitive dissonance.
:bow: :buddha1: :bow: :anjali: :meditate:
neander
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:24 pm

Re: Why do monks reside in temples

Post by neander »

SonamTashi wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 10:50 pm For the life of me I can't comprehend how a Nichiren Buddhist could have such an obsession with "Early Buddhism." And that's not a knock on Nichiren Buddhism. It is just something you usually see with Secular Buddhists and some Western Theravada practitioners. A practitioner of a form of Buddhism originating in 13th century Japan obsessing about Early Buddhism is just absurd. That seems like a massive amount of cognitive dissonance.
could be...

Tingdzin is also right for the " solid foundation " and curiosity

also Nichiren said, "To believe that Buddhahood exists within the human world is the most difficult thing of all ..."

_________________________________________
Nichiren

A coward cannot have any prayer answered.
Last edited by neander on Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
tingdzin
Posts: 1947
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:19 am

Re: Why do monks reside in temples

Post by tingdzin »

It might be because a lot of people consider Nichiren Buddhism to be a poor relation, not really Buddhism at all. Neander's motivation might be to indicate that what we think we know about Buddhist history rests on foundations that are as not as solid as we think.

Also, it may be that there are Nichiren Buddhists who are simply interested in a scholarly look at Buddhism as a whole for no reason except curiosity.
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4604
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Why do monks reside in temples

Post by Aemilius »

tingdzin wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 10:01 pm This is an interesting discussion, but the fact is that we can never know what "Original Buddhism" was like, and the urge to say it was either this or that is usually based on peoples' preconceptions, and desires of what they think it should have been.

Pointing to masonry structures at traditionally Buddhist sites as evidence that Buddha's followers lived in them from the beginning, however, is pretty risky; a lot of Buddhist sites that have been excavated show considerable changes over the centuries as shown in different historical strata. Sites like Jetavanarama may be nothing like they were when the Buddha was around. As Malcolm pointed out, stone structures are not the same as grass huts, and to take the pictures of Buddha's alleged retreat dwelling as even approximating the footprint of what he stayed in requires a huge leap of faith. Yes, the Harappan civilization used stone, but we cannot assume that the Gangetic Plain civilizations followed suit and maintained a cultural continuity in that way unless there is some evidence, which there is not. It's a big mistake to think of "Indian civilization" a s a unified whole, especially in the earliest periods..

As far as the Vinaya, everyone knows there are many versions. Pace Aemilius, I don't know of any modern scholar who thinks there is a single authoritative Vinaya that used to be longer than the existing versions. The quotes from the Chinese may refer to the Dharmaguptakas, as they were the most important school in the early period of translation, being gradually superseded by the Sarvastivadins. It's also important to remember that Vinayas were not written down for a long, long time -- the earliest Chinese converts expressed exasperation that the Indian and Central Asian monks they were getting Buddhist texts from did not have "hard copies" of the Vinaya, it being based wholly on memorization.
Looking at the magnificent ruins of the cities of the Indus Valley Civilisation, I find it ludicurous to think that after that the Indian culture went backwards several thousands of years to a primitive level of building! The magnificent cities of the era of Shakyamuni are many times praised and mentioned in the sutras. I don't place my trust in scholars, Buddhism is a way to a goal, the goal of enlightenment, which should contain the extrasensory powers and abilities (of seeing the past, present and future). I believe there is truth in the feeling of the Vaibhashika, that the Dharma was earlier much more extensive, than what they had at the time of the Vibhasha.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9437
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Why do monks reside in temples

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

tingdzin wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:23 pm It might be because a lot of people consider Nichiren Buddhism to be a poor relation, not really Buddhism at all. Neander's motivation might be to indicate that what we think we know about Buddhist history rests on foundations that are as not as solid as we think.

Also, it may be that there are Nichiren Buddhists who are simply interested in a scholarly look at Buddhism as a whole for no reason except curiosity.
Well, where do Nichiren monks live?
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
TsultimNamdak
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:59 pm

Re: Why do monks reside in temples

Post by TsultimNamdak »

Aemilius wrote: Sat Dec 19, 2020 1:35 pm Looking at the magnificent ruins of the cities of the Indus Valley Civilisation, I find it ludicurous to think that after that the Indian culture went backwards several thousands of years to a primitive level of building!
This is completely ahistorical. You are assuming a couple of things here that are without any foundation: that history is always progressive. Look at the ruins of ancient Greece and Rome. The descendants of those builders lived in thatched cottages and diminutive wooden forts during the so-called dark ages. Secondly, as pointed out above, there was no such thing as an 'Indian culture' in those days. The Indus culture was quite a long time before the time of the Buddha, and quite som distance away as well. As I understand it, the stone and brick ruins you see at Buddhist sites in India today are from medieval times and have absolutely nothing to do with how the sites looked at the time of the Buddha.

The monks at the time of the Buddha might have spent some of their time going from place to place, and may have lived in viharas that were probably quite primitive by today's standards, but I fail to see how that made them any better or more true Dharma practitioners.
User avatar
kirtu
Former staff member
Posts: 6997
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Why do monks reside in temples

Post by kirtu »

neander wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:10 pm also Nichiren said, "To believe that Buddhahood exists within the human world is the most difficult thing of all ..."
He also said the Buddha resides in our body (is to be found within our body) .... as any Kamakura Period Bodhisattva would ... and Nichiren himself didn't reside under a tree following the dhutaṅga practices that you seem to be insisting on (from my cursory examination of this thread).

If, as a Nichiren disciple, you want to follow ascetic practice then how about engaging in aragyo*? Otherwise Nichiren simply established veneration of the Lotus Sutra as the primary practice (sadly many people who claim to follow him seem to have argumentation as their practice, at least viewed from the outside of the Nichiren/Lotus Sutra traditions).

Kirt

*the monks doing aragyo also don't usually practice under a tree or wandering or even spend all their time under a waterfall.
“Where do atomic bombs come from?”
Zen Master Seung Sahn said, “That’s simple. Atomic bombs come from the mind that likes this and doesn’t like that.”

"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Why do monks reside in temples

Post by Malcolm »

Aemilius wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:15 am Indians were already building houses from bricks during the Indus valley civilisation, that is 1700...
2500 BCE. The oldest stone temples also come from this era. The desriptions in Vinaya that involve monks making bricks are consistent with the house building techniques that existed in Northern India at the time of Buddha.
Have you ever seen how long a mudbrick structure lasts without being maintained? Even with adobe, not very long, and then only in dry climates.

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-old-a ... 36027.html
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Why do monks reside in temples

Post by Malcolm »

Aemilius wrote: Sat Dec 19, 2020 1:35 pm Looking at the magnificent ruins of the cities of the Indus Valley Civilisation, I find it ludicurous to think that after that the Indian culture went backwards several thousands of years to a primitive level of building!
Primitive? There is nothing primitive about thatch and wood structures. You can't build or maintain one. So who is primitive now? Honestly, your cultural bias is showing, better zip up.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Why do monks reside in temples

Post by Malcolm »

tingdzin wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 10:01 pm This is an interesting discussion, but the fact is that we can never know what "Original Buddhism" was like, and the urge to say it was either this or that is usually based on peoples' preconceptions, and desires of what they think it should have been.

Pointing to masonry structures at traditionally Buddhist sites as evidence that Buddha's followers lived in them from the beginning, however, is pretty risky; a lot of Buddhist sites that have been excavated show considerable changes over the centuries as shown in different historical strata. Sites like Jetavanarama may be nothing like they were when the Buddha was around. As Malcolm pointed out, stone structures are not the same as grass huts, and to take the pictures of Buddha's alleged retreat dwelling as even approximating the footprint of what he stayed in requires a huge leap of faith. Yes, the Harappan civilization used stone, but we cannot assume that the Gangetic Plain civilizations followed suit and maintained a cultural continuity in that way unless there is some evidence, which there is not. It's a big mistake to think of "Indian civilization" a s a unified whole, especially in the earliest periods..

As far as the Vinaya, everyone knows there are many versions. Pace Aemilius, I don't know of any modern scholar who thinks there is a single authoritative Vinaya that used to be longer than the existing versions. The quotes from the Chinese may refer to the Dharmaguptakas, as they were the most important school in the early period of translation, being gradually superseded by the Sarvastivadins. It's also important to remember that Vinayas were not written down for a long, long time -- the earliest Chinese converts expressed exasperation that the Indian and Central Asian monks they were getting Buddhist texts from did not have "hard copies" of the Vinaya, it being based wholly on memorization.

Bronkhurst's and Schopen's books are quite interesting, and certainly prompt one to re-examine assumptions about early Buddhism and the actual historical evidence we have, or don't have, in relation to the received tradition. For my money, one of Bronkhurst's most useful observations is that Buddhism cannot be seen as a derivative of or a reaction to "Hinduism", because the two germinated in different geographic regions and subcultures of the Indian subcontinent. I also think it is undeniable that Buddhism underwent huge changes in institutional structure during the Maurya and Kushan periods.
:good:
neander
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:24 pm

Re: Why do monks reside in temples

Post by neander »

kirtu wrote: Sat Dec 19, 2020 8:03 pm
neander wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:10 pm also Nichiren said, "To believe that Buddhahood exists within the human world is the most difficult thing of all ..."
He also said the Buddha resides in our body (is to be found within our body) .... as any Kamakura Period Bodhisattva would ... and Nichiren himself didn't reside under a tree following the dhutaṅga practices that you seem to be insisting on (from my cursory examination of this thread).

If, as a Nichiren disciple, you want to follow ascetic practice then how about engaging in aragyo*? Otherwise Nichiren simply established veneration of the Lotus Sutra as the primary practice (sadly many people who claim to follow him seem to have argumentation as their practice, at least viewed from the outside of the Nichiren/Lotus Sutra traditions).

Kirt

*the monks doing aragyo also don't usually practice under a tree or wandering or even spend all their time under a waterfall.
I do not want to hijack the OP thread into a Nichiren discussion, seen also that I learned myself new interesting things about Indian monasteries.

Briefly when a westerner like me visits the Japanese temple or shrines the first thing that strikes you is how they blend with nature...

moreover, teachers do not have to be followed to the letter, rarely their life and their speeches can provide a coherent answer to all your questions if you are lucky they just point to a new road you were not aware of, that you have to follow yourself ... (a road, not a temple pun intended..)
Last edited by neander on Sat Dec 19, 2020 9:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4604
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Why do monks reside in temples

Post by Aemilius »

Image

Conjectural reconstruction of the main gate of Kushinagar circa 500 BCE adapted from a relief at Sanchi.

Image

City of Kushinagar in the 5th century BCE according to a 1st century BCE frieze in Sanchi Stupa 1 Southern Gate.



Image

The Barabar Hill Caves (Hindi बराबर, Barābar) are the oldest surviving rock-cut caves in India, dating from the Maurya Empire (322–185 BCE), some with Ashokan inscriptions, located in the Makhdumpur region of Jehanabad district, Bihar, India, 24 km (15 mi) north of Gaya.
These caves are situated in the twin hills of Barabar (four caves) and Nagarjuni (three caves); caves of the 1.6 km (0.99 mi)-distant Nagarjuni Hill are sometimes singled out as the Nagarjuni Caves. These rock-cut chambers bear dedicatory inscriptions in the name of "King Piyadasi" for the Barabar group, and "Devanampiya Dasaratha" for the Nagarjuni group, thought to date back to the 3rd century BCE during the Maurya period, and to correspond respectively to Ashoka (reigned 273–232 BCE) and his grandson, Dasharatha Maurya.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabar_Caves
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4604
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Why do monks reside in temples

Post by Aemilius »

Cities mentioned and described in the Mahaparinirvana sutra:

Translated from the Mahâ-Parinibbâna-Sutta of the Digha-Nikâya.
Translated by Henry Clarke Warren 1896

"Reverend Sir, let not The Blessed One pass into Nirvana in this wattel-and-daub town (Kushinara), this town of the jungle, this branch village. For there are other great cities, Reverend Sir, to wit, Campâ, Râjagaha, Sâvatthi, Sâketa, Kosambî, and Benares. Let The Blessed One pass into Nirvana in one of them. In them are many wealthy men of the warrior caste, many wealthy men of the Brahman caste, and many wealthy householders who are firm believers in The Tathâgata, and they will perform the funeral rites for The Tathâgata."
"O Ânanda, say not so! O Ânanda, say not so, that this is a wattel-and-daub town, a town of the jungle, a branch village. There was once, Ânanda, a king called Sudassana the Great, who was a Universal Monarch, a virtuous king of justice, a victorious ruler of the four quarters of the earth, possessing a secure dominion over his territory and owning the seven precious gems. This city Kusinârâ, Ânanda, was the capital of king Sudassana the Great, and had then the name of Kusâvatî. From the east to the west it was twelve leagues in length, and from the north to the south it was seven leagues in breadth. Kusâvatî, the capital, Ânanda, was prosperous and flourishing, populous and thronging with people, and well provided with food. As Âlakamandâ, the capital of the gods, Ânanda, is prosperous and flourishing, populous and thronging with gods, and is well provided with food, in exactly the same way, Ânanda, Kusâvatî, the capital, was prosperous and flourishing, populous and thronging with people, and well provided with food. Kusâvatî, the capital, Ânanda, was neither by day nor night without the ten noises,--to wit, the noise of elephants, the noise of horses, the noise of chariots, the noise of drums, the noise of tabors, the noise of lutes, the noise of song, the noise of cymbals, the noise of gongs, and the tenth noise of people crying, 'Eat ye, and drink!' "


A description of saunas/hot-air baths that were given to and used by the Sangha in Buddhist India of T.W. Rhys Davids

"Another sort of building historically interesting were the hot-air baths, described in full in Vinaya Texts, iii.105-110,297.They were built on an elevated basement faced with brick or stone, with stone stairs up to it, and a railing round the verandah.The roof and walls were of wood, covered first with skins, and then with plaster; the lower part only of the wall being faced with bricks.There was an antechamber, and a hotroom, and a pool to bathe in. Seats were arranged round a fireplace in the middle of the hotroom; and to induce perspiration hot water was poured over the bathers, whose faces were covered withs cented chunam (finechalk). After the bath there was shampooing, and then a plunge into the pool. It is very curious to find at this very early date in the Ganges Valley a sort of bathing so closely resembling our modern 'Turkish Baths'."

According to Buddhaghosha's Sumangala-Vilasini's description of the daily routine of the Tathagata Shakyamuni: "if he desired to bathe, he would enter the bath-house, and cool his limbs with water made ready by his body-servant. Then the body-servant would fetch the Buddha-seat, and spread it in the perfumed chamber."
(included in the book of Henry Clarke Warren)
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
neander
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:24 pm

Re: Why do monks reside in temples

Post by neander »

Scholarly reference :Prof John Powers

Buddha conceived the Shangha as a loosely organized community of wanderes.

This imperative was initiated by the Buddha eight months after his awakening
as he traveled toward the village of Senani:

“monks, take to the road;travel for the good of the many; travel for the happiness of the many, out of
Compassion for the world. Travel for the good, benefit, and happiness of humans and gods. Preach the doctrine!”

According to the Texts of the Theravada Tradition later on, the sole exception to the this lifestyle was the rainy season retreat.(pali: vassa; skt.: varsa), when monks stayed in a temporary residence.

initially the monks travelled even during the rainy seasons and people complained about them destroying plants (Scholarly reference Mohan Wijayaratna Buddhist Monastic Life)

The indian monsoon causes torrential rains that turn roads to mud, and travel becomes difficult. There is an increased danger from disease and waterborne parasites. Buddha was a pragmatic.

The wandering style was very important to the point that the monk Dhanya who did not want to take down the temporary cell he built during the rainy season was frowned upon by Buddha and his disciples (Vin I 152) and he was obliged to abandon it (Wijayaratna)

prof Charles Prebish believes that the sangha switched to a cenobitical system within a hundred years or so of the Buddha’s passing..

We also have the records of the first land grant by King Bimbisara few weeks after Buddha ‘s awakening, by Anathapindika, a wealthy banker from Savatthi etc..
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4604
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Why do monks reside in temples

Post by Aemilius »

According of the sutras there are various types of places where Buddha stayed. The most important kind are those monasteries which were given for his (or the Sangha's) use. Also, sometimes he was invited to stay in someone's garden or house, or he just stayed in the wilderness (a forest without owner). All these places are located in the Gangetic Plain (located in Northern India and Southern Nepal).

Sangha that is described in the Vinaya does not seem like "a loosely organized community".

Monasteries

Owned by the Sangha. Originally offered to Buddha and/or the Sangha.

Savatthi:

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

Rajagaha:

Veluvana: Kalandakanivapa
Jivakambavana
Gijjhakata

Kosambi:

Kukkutarama
Ghositarama
Pavarika-ambavana
Badarikarama

Vesali:

Kutagarasala
Ambavana

Kapilavatthu:

Nigrodharama

Saketa:

Kalakarama

Gardens

Buddha used to stay there as a guest in someone's garden or forest

Kosambi:
Udakavana

Nalanda:
Pavarika's mango grove

Thullakotthika:
Koravya's Migacira Park

A wilderness area

These places had no owner, and generally nobody lived there.

Bodhgaya: - Mahabodhi tree and surroundings

Benares: - Isipatana (Sarnath)

Gaya: - Gayasisa hill

Savatthi: - Andhavana

Kosambi: - Simsapavana

Campa: - Grove of Champaka-trees

Parileyyaka: - Rakkhitavanasanda: Bhaddasala tree

Saketa: - Anjanavana

Vesali: - Beluvagama village

Mathura: - Gundavana

And many other places...


Kammassadhamma:
The fire-hut of a brahmin of the Bharadvaja-clan.

Buddha also stayed in places called cetiya/caitiya or shrine

Alavi:
Aggalava Cetiya (shrine)

Rajagaha:
Supatitthacetiya
Pásánakacetiya

Vesali:
Udena cetiya
Gotamaka cetiya
Sattambaka cetiya
Bahuputta cetiya
Sárandada cetiya
Kapinayha cetiya

More in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... dha_stayed
Last edited by Aemilius on Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:54 am, edited 4 times in total.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4604
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Why do monks reside in temples

Post by Aemilius »

tingdzin wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 10:01 pm
As far as the Vinaya, everyone knows there are many versions. Pace Aemilius, I don't know of any modern scholar who thinks there is a single authoritative Vinaya that used to be longer than the existing versions.
By a longer Vinaya I meant the Vinaya that was held in the memory of Upali. Acccording to Etienne Lamotte, Upali made several attempts to transmit the whole Vinaya that he held in memory, but no one could memorize it all. Then Upali made a concise version of the Vinaya, which would then become the original Vinaya.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
neander
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:24 pm

Re: Why do monks reside in temples

Post by neander »

Aemilius wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:32 am According of the sutras there are various types of places where Buddha stayed. The most important kind are those monasteries which were given for his (or the Sangha's) use. Also, sometimes he was invited to stay in someone's garden or house, or he just stayed in the wilderness (a forest without owner). All these places are located in the Gangetic Plain (located in Northern India and Southern Nepal).
Aemilius we cleared already this.

Buddha indeed stayed in various private and public places as he was a very charismatic figure but this does not mean he established any fixed headquarters.

He traveled to various towns therefore is normal he dwelled in various palaces or private estates.

But he conceived the sangha as a community of wanderers: “….take to the road; travel for the good of the many; travel for the happiness of the many…”…… "let not two of you go the same way" (Vin I 21)

We know he received grants from rich people, I quote the same prof Powers The first land grant was made by King Bimbisara a few weeks after the Buddha’s awakening, Anathapindika, a wealthy banker from savatthi, who bought a park for the order and commissioned the building of dwelling places for Buddhist Monastics, another monastery was financed by visakha migara-mata. It is described as a seven-story building; that took years to complete.

I think I provided enough scholarly evidence to think that a part of modern Buddhology (a very small part indeed) is reconsidering the early Buddhism way of life and the way the original sangha was conceived by Buddha, it is still not the mainstream for sure but is the one I strongly believe therefore I publish this post for everybody's perusal.

I think is of paramount importance for people who are interested in early Buddhism, because as soon as the sangha switched to a cenobitical system it lost its independence and departed from the main tenet of Buddhism that is the Middle Way, if you read The Monastic code Pāṭimokkha you easily realize that is an extreme way of living.

After creating the Pāṭimokkha also various religious practices that did not belong to Buddhism were probably gradually introduced during all Mauryan empire, I already mentioned Jainism influence analyzed by Bronkhorst and I was reading a paper that questioned whether the doctrine of karma is really Buddhist at all, Schmithausen and other scholars question its importance in the early stage but the paper was questioning the whole thing and there are copious philological comparatives analyses nowadays on various subjects we know now things are more complicated that the Buddhism imported to the West initially believed.

This was done because of the financial influence of the donors who built and supported the maintenance of the buildings or by order of some local king or authority that like in Japan, ordered some form of syncretism..

In relation to the Vinya I strongly suggest you read prof Schopen in the Encyclopedia of Buddhism:
vinayas are almost obsessed with avoiding any behavior that might alienate lay followers and donors……… ……..Much to the chagrin of those modern scholars who want to maintain that meditation was an important part of Buddhist monastic practice, the Vinaya texts that we have say very little about meditation and allow very little room for its practice. .. we do not actually know what a complete Vinaya is…
User avatar
Virgo
Posts: 4844
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: Uni-verse

Re: Why do monks reside in temples

Post by Virgo »

Genjo Conan wrote: Tue Dec 08, 2020 12:57 am 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.
Yes the Buddha approved and allowed temples during his life. He understood that not all monks were going to be forest dwelling hermits.

Virgo
PeterC
Posts: 5190
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Why do monks reside in temples

Post by PeterC »

Suggest that mods move this thread to academic discussion, since it is largely about the speculations of a small number of western buddhologists, and the rules of that sub-forum require citations and evidence.

I still remain confused as to why someone practicing self-customized SG wants to tell the rest of us how we should practice based on that. But whatever.
Post Reply

Return to “Academic Discussion”