A Thai Monks Duties

[ourmanflint]

I think almost everyone here has had more experience in dealing with Thai monks than me, so I am curious as what are their duties as monks within society, are there things that are expected of them by Thais and if so what are they?

My impression of Buddhist monks has taken a beating this year and I am more and more convinced that they are selfish. I can't seem to shake off the idea that becoming a monk is a selfish not a selfless act, as they are not contributing to society only taking.

Can anyone redress the balance and explain to me why it is not selfish to become a monk.

[Brucenkhamen]

For a start you need to realise that there are at least two kinds of monks in Thailand.

One kind, maybe 90% in Thailand, are there to try and make merit for their parents, as a cultural status thing, or to skive off from having to make a living, Their practice of the buddhist teachings and the monks rules can vary from non-existant to being as genuine as a Thai can be.

The other 10% or so see Buddhist teachings as a way to end their personal suffering and suffering as a human condition. They tend to be very strict on the application of monks rules and ascetic practices. In Thailand meditiation isn't so emphasised as in places like Burma but it is a major part of their life. They might live a very secluded life or teach others.

If you are saying the first kind is selfish then I agree with you, the whole merit making industry seems daft to me and quite a sad corruption of the Buddhist teachings.

As for the latter it really depends on where you think the answers to human problems lie. If you think feeding the poor and helping the sick is where it's at then they are going to seem selfish compared with Christians for example.

In contrast the Buddhist teachings points to rooting out an inner dissatisfaction and selfishness within each of us as the way to make the world a better place. The more people who achieve that, the more that can teach others, the better society is as a whole. So while sitting cross-legged in a cave and working on your own self can seem selfish in the short term in the long run it can benefit society as a whole. It takes a long time sure but other methods seem to treat the symptoms, wheras the buddhas method treats the cause.

The people that feed and look after the worldly concerns of those monks are doing their bit and showing that they don't think it's a selfish act but something they want to get behind and support in a way that's appropriate for them.

[jinjok]

therevada buddhism also is inward rather than outward (fix yourself and the world will follow). buddhism can very much be a personal struggle to achieve enlightenment. it is not unlike a monk to attempt to remove himself from everyday realities and thus all the trappings and encumbrances of the venal/real world.

a monk is not necc a miracle worker although they should be readily available to consult with lay persons in need of honest guidance (sp).

dont also forget superficial nature of thai buddhism - monk 4 a weekend thing. kinda like george bush's tour of 'duty'.

[sutnyod]

My impression of Buddhist monks has taken a beating this year and I am more and more convinced that they are selfish.

It is very sad that you came to this conclusion (although I admit that I have seen reasons to think not too favourable about monks). However, I think many monks and nuns are not being selfish. They have a rigorous schedule every day, not sufficient food and their whole life in the monastery evolves around the non-self. I don't know whether they do it everywhere, but the forest monks spend long hour every day to pray for ordinary people like you and me.

I suppose you have seen a lot of monks in bigger cities. If that is the case, go to Loei and watch the forest monks. Hopefully this will balance the scale.

Greetings

[ourmanflint]

For a start you need to realise that there are at least two kinds of monks in Thailand.

One kind, maybe 90% in Thailand, are there to try and make merit for their parents, as a cultural status thing, or to skive off from having to make a living, Their practice of the buddhist teachings and the monks rules can vary from non-existant to being as genuine as a Thai can be.

The other 10% or so see Buddhist teachings as a way to end their personal suffering and suffering as a human condition. They tend to be very strict on the application of monks rules and ascetic practices. In Thailand meditiation isn't so emphasised as in places like Burma but it is a major part of their life. They might live a very secluded life or teach others.

If you are saying the first kind is selfish then I agree with you, the whole merit making industry seems daft to me and quite a sad corruption of the Buddhist teachings.

As for the latter it really depends on where you think the answers to human problems lie. If you think feeding the poor and helping the sick is where it's at then they are going to seem selfish compared with Christians for example.

In contrast the Buddhist teachings points to rooting out an inner dissatisfaction and selfishness within each of us as the way to make the world a better place. The more people who achieve that, the more that can teach others, the better society is as a whole. So while sitting cross-legged in a cave and working on your own self can seem selfish in the short term in the long run it can benefit society as a whole. It takes a long time sure but other methods seem to treat the symptoms, wheras the buddhas method treats the cause.

The people that feed and look after the worldly concerns of those monks are doing their bit and showing that they don't think it's a selfish act but something they want to get behind and support in a way that's appropriate for them.

The making merit was not something I had considered, but on balance while superficial I don't think their behaviour could be regarded as selfish, as they are doing it for many reasons, and if what you say is correct then those reasons are not always their own, so I think this cannot be a selfish act.

I should have added that I do believe that monks who are ordained to set themselves on the path and then leave are not selfish either. They are looking for guidance and are then returning to society to live a full life.

In fact it is the ascetics, the lifers I now regard as the most selfish. Obviously there has to be those who offer knowledge and guidance to newly ordained novices and Bikkhus, they are the teachers and the continue the tradition of passing on their wisdom to those in need of it. I am curious though as to how these monks interact with lay people and if they are available to them when needed?

I can't fathom why a monk should spend his entire life within the monastery, surely there is no need once you have set yourself on the right path, what purpose does it serve? Would it not be more useful to be out in society, not behind the walls of the monastery.? These are the things I cannot justify.

Isn't it more selfish to just be concerned with ones own existence, and ones own salvation??

I seem to have developed these feelings after travelling through western China in the Tibetan foothills and have seen little to change them since returning to Thailand. Maybe I am just seeing the world as it is for the first time. There are lots of notions about the nobilty of life of a Buddhist monk which I can no longer subscribe to. I'm not sure it's a bad thing though.

[chownah]

Ourmanflint,

From the perspective of the Buddha's teachings as accepted by Theravada orthodoxy (Thai Buddhism is Theravada Buddhism) there are many reasons for monkhood. I think that the most compelling of these reasons that the broadest audience can appreciate is that the monkhood is what has preserved and spread the Buddha's teachings for the 2500 odd years since the Buddha lived.

As for the veneration of monks in general, this is according to the Buddha's teachings. The Buddha taught that monks should be venerated and I believe he taught that they should be venerated whether one feels that they are personally worthy of it or not.

Chownah

Edited January 25, 2007 by chownah

[ourmanflint]

Ourmanflint,

From the perspective of the Buddha's teachings as accepted by Theravada orthodoxy (Thai Buddhism is Theravada Buddhism) there are many reasons for monkhood. I think that the most compelling of these reasons that the broadest audience can appreciate is that the monkhood is what has preserved and spread the Buddha's teachings for the 2500 odd years since the Buddha lived.

As for the veneration of monks in general, this is according to the Buddha's teachings. The Buddha taught that monks should be venerated and I believe he taught that they should be venerated whether one feels that they are personally worthy of it or not.

Chownah

I think it's safe to say that we have very different ideas of what the Buddha said and how that is to be best appreciated, maybe because I try not to follow any one school of thought.

I agree and have said that one of the reasons I can see is good to being a monk is to carry on the tradition and pass on knowledge and wisdom. I agree that this is very important. But nowhere can I find a reason to live ones whole life as a monk?? There maybe those to whom Buddhism is a sanctuary from reality and others who feel they cannot practice Buddhism unless they are too cut off from everyday life, but I believe to do this and to claim you are not being partly or wholly selfish is a foolish lie and if you cannot even accept and understand your own actions and see them as they are, then 10 lifetimes of sitting in a monastery will see you no better off.

I'm not sure why you think anything I have said relates to the veneration of monks? And I have never read anything to suggest that I or anyone should blindly accept any teaching without question, and therefore I cannot agree that veneration of a monk is a must. I would certainly not respect any monk younger than I without at least first talking with them..

putting on the robe does not magically transform anyone. It is just a sign of intention.

Edited January 25, 2007 by ourmanflint

[chownah]

I'm not sure why you think anything I have said relates to the veneration of monks?

I went back and looked at your post and I agree that my bringing up veneration in relationship to it is off the mark.

And I have never read anything to suggest that I or anyone should blindly accept any teaching without question,

Absolutely the Buddha taught that you should not blindly accept any teachings and that you should examine teachings carefully and question their validity and only accept them if they prove to be true and of value in your own life.....he even said you should not accept a teaching just because he taught it.

and therefore I cannot agree that veneration of a monk is a must.

From what I have read and how I understand it there really aren't any things that the Buddha indicated are "musts." He taught that we all have intentions that lead to action (kamma) and we all reap the fruit of those intended actions. I have never read where he said that anyone must do anything.

Chownah

[Brucenkhamen]

In fact it is the ascetics, the lifers I now regard as the most selfish. Obviously there has to be those who offer knowledge and guidance to newly ordained novices and Bikkhus, they are the teachers and the continue the tradition of passing on their wisdom to those in need of it. I am curious though as to how these monks interact with lay people and if they are available to them when needed?

I think you'll find that while the lifers may spend periods of time in solitary retreat most of the time they are available to teach other monks and lay people. The Theravada system is setup to enforce that, because as the monks are dependant on the lay people for their material needs they can't totally withdraw from society. A kind of symbiotic relationship I suppose.

From what I've seen senior Thai forest monks are too available and too in demand, teaching and engaging with laypeople most of the day every day. Westerners are better at getting time out.

I can't fathom why a monk should spend his entire life within the monastery, surely there is no need once you have set yourself on the right path, what purpose does it serve? Would it not be more useful to be out in society, not behind the walls of the monastery.? These are the things I cannot justify.

That's because you view it in terms of western culture and the western work ethic, we judge people by what they produce, what's one of the first questions asked when meeting new people "What do you do?"

Asian cultures have a different way of looking at it and it's worked for them for 2500 years.

Isn't it more selfish to just be concerned with ones own existence, and ones own salvation??

If you can't save yourself how can you save others? People have to take responsibility for their own lives and spiritual development. If they are at the stage of needing teaching and help it's freely available. It's not like the Buddha's teaching is a quick and easy push your head under water and you're saved, it's a lifetime. For that reason it's not appropriate for advanced Buddhist practitioners to push their salvation on others.

There are lots of notions about the nobility of life of a Buddhist monk which I can no longer subscribe to. I'm not sure it's a bad thing though.

I agree, in and of itself there is no nobility, following the Buddhist teaching as honestly as you can whatever your situation is noble I think.

But nowhere can I find a reason to live ones whole life as a monk??

I think the example of the Buddha's life is reason enough, he gave everything up and never looked back. He was a monk for the rest of his life and when he was in the position to teach he did so to his last breath.

but I believe to do this and to claim you are not being partly or wholly selfish is a foolish lie and if you cannot even accept and understand your own actions and see them as they are, then 10 lifetimes of sitting in a monastery will see you no better off.

I'm afraid it takes longer than you'd like it to.

It's like saying those who go to restaurants and order a meal that takes an hour to prepare are selfish, they should use the McDonalds drive through. Well maybe the meal that takes an hour is more delicious and nutritious.

Following a belief based religion that encourages people to look after the sick and poor is a good thing, but it treats the symptoms not the cause, for some people that's just not enough.

The Asian view is having people in society who are trying to eradicate clinging and aversion in their own lives improves societies "collective conciousness" as a whole. While I don't like using new-agey terminology it's the easiest way to describe it

I cannot agree that veneration of a monk is a must. I would certainly not respect any monk younger than I without at least first talking with them..

I agree.

[camerata]

From reading the suttas I'd say it's clear the monks original job was the spread/teach the Dhamma and the enlightened ones were to instruct the unenlightened ones. It's clear they also served as an example to lay persons and a vital means for them to make merit. Becoming enlightened means spending a lot of time in the monastery or forest.

In the present-day context, they are expected to give blessings at marriages, attend funerals and other events, and do other things that make them more like priests. Not to mention the ridiculous stuff like telling fortunes.

Perhaps many these days are failing to be a good example and few are reaching enlightenment, but I don't see them as selfish considering their original role. That they provide the means for Thais to make merit is a big deal here.

[ourmanflint]

If what you say is true about the relationship between these lifelong monks and lay people, then that in some way allays my concerns about the right or wrong of becoming a monk. I still do not agree though that staying in a monastery for life is a good thing, and I don't think it has to do with my western work ethic, more that if anything being in a monastery substantially cuts you off from real life, and if you had really wanted to lead by example, that would best be done outside the monastery.

Camerata..

I agree that the original purpose of becoming a Bikkhu or monk to spread knowledge to others seems to have taken a back seat. Why this is so I have no idea, it feels like many monks are content to retreat to the safety of the life of a monk within the monastery. I think this is especially true in China, here in Thailand I am glad that they play some role in society by helping ordinary Thais make merit, what this actually entails I'm not sure.

Edited January 26, 2007 by ourmanflint

[camerata]

I think it's a matter of practically. A monk simply cannot become enlightened without spending years in a monastic environment (or in seclusion). This was why the Buddha set things up the way he did. Monks are not supposed to be ministering to lay people and getting caught up in the maelstrom of worldly affairs. They are supposed to be getting liberated so that they can liberate others.

However, it seems anyone can go to a temple and get advice from monks, if they want.

By "example" I meant an example of the happiness and serenity that comes from seriously practising Dhamma. This doesn't require living among lay people, which would probably have a detrimental effect. They should inspire lay people to practise and keep the precepts.

There are well-known monks in Thailand teaching Dhamma and writing about it, but I guess they are the ones who are gifted in teaching. Others perhaps give advice or teach on a lower level, but I think this has been subverted to some extent by the Thais need for blessings. If one can get a blessing from monks, why bother listening to a Dhamma sermon?

In the Pali Canon the Buddha made clear the benefits (a better rebirth) of dana given to monastics, and especially for enlightened monks. So, just by existing, the monkhood serves lay people's needs. And in Thailand people generally believe that monks can make sure that any merit dedicated to deceased loved ones reached them.

[ourmanflint]

I Just cannot agree with your assertions.

It may be agreeable for certain people to live a retired life in a quiet place away from noise and disturbance. But it is certainly more praiseworthy and courageous to practice Buddhism living among your fellow beings, helping them and being of service to them. It may perhaps in some cases be useful for a man to live in retirement for a time in order to improve his mind and character, as preliminary moral, spiritual and intellectual traing, to be strong enough to come out later and help others. But if a man lives all his life in solitude, thinking only of his own happiness and salvation, without caring for his fellows, this surely is not in keeping with the Buddha's teaching which is based on love, compassion, and service to others.

Walpola Rahula

Finding the above text whilst I was in China is what has set me thinking long and hard about this. It offers a more sensible view in my eyes.

[camerata]

Well, the idea of Theravada is to become enlightened. This is what the Buddha exhorted his monks to do in their current lifetime. Without arahants, no one will be left to show others the way. As Sayadaw U Pandita said, "If two people are stuck up to their necks in mud, can one help the other out?" Obviously not.

Helping people is very different from liberating them. Anyone can run a soup kitchen, help the poor or be a social worker, but very few can guide them to liberation. Mahayana sees it differently, of course.

[jdinasia]

it seems that some people want monks to be social activists and measure their worthiness by Christian standards ... while most see Buddhism differently.

[sabaijai]

I can't fathom why a monk should spend his entire life within the monastery

One reaons for some is nibbida (world weariness). One could turn the question around, why bother living as a layperson if you are confirmed in your belief in the Four Noble Truths?

[Brucenkhamen]

One example of a good monk I forgot to mention is Luangta Maha Boowa. He's been a monk for almost all of his life and is now in his early 90's.

Every day hundreds of people come to his monastery to give food, and every day he teaches and chats with them despite his advanced years, well at least every day I was there.

Not only that but after the economic crises in the late 90's Thailand ended up owing the IMF a lot of money. Luangta Maha Boowa decided to use his celebrity status and started a campaign along the lines of "If every Thai gave 10 baht we'd pay off the IMF". It worked and the money raised was given to the government and the IMF was paid off.

Just one example of how one monk can make a difference in society.

[jinjok]

chownah - dont thank the thais for keeping buddhism alive. i beleieve it (had to be) reintroduced via sri.lanka and has always been stronger/more serious force in neighboring countries esp myanmar. thailand is a new phenomenon (sp). it was the burmese + khmer that stomped all over the 'thais' before the new dog had its day - siam was born and conqured (sp) its neighbors -primarily the khmer/lao + pushed back the 'burmese'.

i think jdinasia has something - do not judge a monk by your western standards, certainly not that of christian clergy.

monks are really cool. i have a good time joking with them (they old guys). in the end - we are all faulty players.

[ourmanflint]

One example of a good monk I forgot to mention is Luangta Maha Boowa. He's been a monk for almost all of his life and is now in his early 90's.

Every day hundreds of people come to his monastery to give food, and every day he teaches and chats with them despite his advanced years, well at least every day I was there.

Not only that but after the economic crises in the late 90's Thailand ended up owing the IMF a lot of money. Luangta Maha Boowa decided to use his celebrity status and started a campaign along the lines of "If every Thai gave 10 baht we'd pay off the IMF". It worked and the money raised was given to the government and the IMF was paid off.

Just one example of how one monk can make a difference in society.

That's what I wanted to hear!! It seems like a rare exception though.

[chownah]

chownah - dont thank the thais for keeping buddhism alive. i beleieve it (had to be) reintroduced via sri.lanka and has always been stronger/more serious force in neighboring countries esp myanmar. thailand is a new phenomenon (sp). it was the burmese + khmer that stomped all over the 'thais' before the new dog had its day - siam was born and conqured (sp) its neighbors -primarily the khmer/lao + pushed back the 'burmese'.

i think jdinasia has something - do not judge a monk by your western standards, certainly not that of christian clergy.

monks are really cool. i have a good time joking with them (they old guys). in the end - we are all faulty players.

I have no idea if your notion that Buddhism has always been a stronger/more serious force in Thailand's neighbors is correct or not. I don't think of Buddhism as a force but I am not suggesting that it is wrong to have such a view.

I guess I was a bit confusing in my previous post since it led you to believe that I personally thanked someone for keeping Buddhism alive. Just to be clear on my views around this issue: I don't thank anyone for this. The Buddha taught that his teachings would eventually be lost completely and all memory of him and his teachings would cease....I think he even gave an estimate of the length of time it would take for this to happen.....so....consequently why worry about it!! If you believe in his teachings then you must accept that fact that his teachings will be lost so why worry? If you don't believe in his teachings then there is no need to worry from the get go!!!

Chownah

Edited January 27, 2007 by chownah

[bankei]

chownah - dont thank the thais for keeping buddhism alive. i beleieve it (had to be) reintroduced via sri.lanka and has always been stronger/more serious force in neighboring countries esp myanmar. thailand is a new phenomenon (sp). it was the burmese + khmer that stomped all over the 'thais' before the new dog had its day - siam was born and conqured (sp) its neighbors -primarily the khmer/lao + pushed back the 'burmese'.

i think jdinasia has something - do not judge a monk by your western standards, certainly not that of christian clergy.

monks are really cool. i have a good time joking with them (they old guys). in the end - we are all faulty players.

Thailand has had a Theravada Buddhist presence for a long time, possibly from as early at the 5th century. As far as I know there is no evidence that the Sangha had died out and had to be reestablished, but there is evidence of Singhalese monks in Thailand around the 12th century.

But the Sangha did die out in Sri Lanka - more than once. In the 1700s Thai monks travelled to Sri Lanka and ordained monks there, re-establishing the ordination lineage. Today the largest group of monks there is known as the Siam Nikaya. (There are also two other lineages introduced later from Burma - Ramanna Nikaya and the Amarapura Nikaya).

Bankei

[sabaijai]

chownah - dont thank the thais for keeping buddhism alive. i beleieve it (had to be) reintroduced via sri.lanka and has always been stronger/more serious force in neighboring countries esp myanmar. thailand is a new phenomenon (sp). it was the burmese + khmer that stomped all over the 'thais' before the new dog had its day - siam was born and conqured (sp) its neighbors -primarily the khmer/lao + pushed back the 'burmese'.

Actually Thailand has the longest unbroken ordination lineage of any Theravada country. Thai monks reintroduced Buddhist monasticism to Sri Lanka after the order was destroyed during an Indian occupation. Hence the main monastic sect in Sri Lanka today is called Siamupalivamsa, a reference to Thera Upali, the Thai monk who reintroduced Buddhist ordination to Sri Lanka.

Based on frequent travels to each country, my observation on Theravada monastic society found in neighbouring/nearby Theravadin countries is that Thai monks, in general, observe the Vinaya (monastic code) at a more strict level than in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar or Sri Lanka. What that means is another discussion altogether.

[the swagman]

I having trouble with the quote thingy so this is the best I can do. Sorry about this. I also see Camerata and Chowdah have responded and I bow to their superior knowledge.

I'd like to say a few things however.

The 'lifer' monks as you call them OMF, are indeed available to the lay people on a 24/7 basis. They teach, the guide, they help in many many ways. It is not always obvious to us outsiders but spiritually and concretely they do make and contribute to society.

To become a monk is not a selfish thing, as someone said, if we ourselves are not doing the right thing then how can we guide others or encourage others to follow.

Being a monk or even a layperson who follows the Buddhas teachings is not a simple thing. It is not easy there are many obstacles and distractions to overcome. You said, once you have set yourself on the right path then why not get out into society and be more useful.

Once you set yourself on the right path it takes an enormous effort to stay on the right path. There are too many distractions, expectations, that hinder staying on this path. In the monestary and temples monks must follow 227 rules, 'the vinaya', and these are, as the Buddha knew, would be very hard to maintain outside of a community of like minded people (sangha) and setting of a temple.

Yes, the idea of getting out there and being seen to help people less advantaged than you is a Western thing.

The monks I am in contact with are busy people, they study, they officiate at functions, they attend chanting twice a day, the go out for alms, they teach, they guide and they advise people. Its not put on the robes and sit under a tree all day.

There is a monk who opened the temple to people suffering from HIV and Aids in Lopburi, there are monks in the NE who actively participate in programs to protect the nevironment, there are others who have opened and teach in schools, and seminars, there are many who teach meditation. There are many examples.

Edited January 27, 2007 by the swagman

[chownah]

I've never seen a scripture where the Buddha taught that monks should be active in society....seem like he was always saying they should seek seclusion....and that they should continue until the end is reached....the end being the cessation of dukkha once and for all.

Chownah

Edited January 27, 2007 by chownah

[ourmanflint]

But if a man lives all his life in solitude, thinking only of his own happiness and salvation, without caring for his fellows, this surely is not in keeping with the Buddha's teaching which is based on love, compassion, and service to others.

Walpola Rahula

Yes, the idea of getting out there and being seen to help people less advantaged than you is a Western thing.

I have never heard either that the idea of helping people is a western thing? Where does that idea come from? One of the main aspects of Buddhism, and one of the reasons I was initially attracted to it, is the idea of selflessness.

Why would Walpola Rahula suggest that the Buddha's teaching is one " based on love, compassion, and service to others " when what I am now hearing from you all is that , no that is a western thing.

I think there is a lot of confusion about what Buddhism is or is not, and using Thai Theravada as a mirror of what Buddhism encompasses, is like saying the only music that exists is that heard here in Thailand.

I think my original question about what a Thai monks duties are has been answered in part, there are many monks who officiate at weddings and house blessings, and shop blessings and car blessings and all those blessings the Buddha so wisely 2500 years ago instructed his Bikkhus to memorise in case they were ever needed.

I think it will take a lot more time to start to change my opinions of the monastic way of life, especially so for those in China and Tibet, which seem to be overrun with those who just see Buddhism and monastic vows as a means to an end and a big belly!!

But I'm glad that many of you at least have positive experiences of the monastic way of life here in sunny Thailand. Maybe I shall visit Sri Lanka next!!

[ourmanflint]

I've never seen a scripture where the Buddha taught that monks should be active in society....seem like he was always saying they should seek seclusion....and that they should continue until the end is reached....the end being the cessation of dukkha once and for all.

Chownah

Then what on earth have you been reading all this time???

Surely one of the central elements of the `Sangha, is that monks should devote their lives "for the good of the many, for the happiness of the many", they can't do that sat on their backsides trying to reach a higher plain of existence.

Seclusion is not supposed to be the be all and end all to attaining a greater level of understanding, why are people so attuned to that particular facet of Buddhist doctrine? Surely you don't belive that is the only way to progress in life??

[lannarebirth]

I've never seen a scripture where the Buddha taught that monks should be active in society....seem like he was always saying they should seek seclusion....and that they should continue until the end is reached....the end being the cessation of dukkha once and for all.

Chownah

Then what on earth have you been reading all this time???

Surely one of the central elements of the `Sangha, is that monks should devote their lives "for the good of the many, for the happiness of the many", they can't do that sat on their backsides trying to reach a higher plain of existence.

Seclusion is not supposed to be the be all and end all to attaining a greater level of understanding, why are people so attuned to that particular facet of Buddhist doctrine? Surely you don't belive that is the only way to progress in life??

I think monks exist, not so much as to be a service to others (though they often are); but to serve as an example to others. Doing service may be part of that example.

As for seclusion, it can be really beneficial for insight. Ultimately however, unless one is in a cloistered order, it's what one does with those insights gained in seclusion, in the real world that matters most (to me at least).

[chownah]

I've never seen a scripture where the Buddha taught that monks should be active in society....seem like he was always saying they should seek seclusion....and that they should continue until the end is reached....the end being the cessation of dukkha once and for all.

Chownah

Then what on earth have you been reading all this time???

Surely one of the central elements of the `Sangha, is that monks should devote their lives "for the good of the many, for the happiness of the many", they can't do that sat on their backsides trying to reach a higher plain of existence.

Seclusion is not supposed to be the be all and end all to attaining a greater level of understanding, why are people so attuned to that particular facet of Buddhist doctrine? Surely you don't belive that is the only way to progress in life??

I really doubt that you will be able to find any scripture that indicates that the Buddha taught that monks should devote their lives for the good of the many and especially not for the happiness of the many.....I don't think its there....I don't think that the Buddha taught that at all. If you can find a scripture that indicates this I would very very much like to know about it. The Buddha did not teach that one should strive to achieve happiness....he taught equanimity and dispassion from what I've read.

Chownah

Edited January 27, 2007 by chownah

[bankei]

This reminds me of a quote, from the Vinaya I think.

The Buddha urged his monks to go out and spread the teachings, "for the good of the many, the welfare of the many, let not two of you go in the same direction." (paraphrased from memory).

Bankei

[chownah]

Bankei,

Thanks so much for jogging my memory!!! I went to the Maha-parinibbana Sutta at:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn...6.1-6.vaji.html

and found this:

"61. Thereupon the Blessed One entered the hall of audience, and taking the seat prepared for him, he exhorted the bhikkhus, saying: "Now, O bhikkhus, I say to you that these teachings of which I have direct knowledge and which I have made known to you — these you should thoroughly learn, cultivate, develop, and frequently practice, that the life of purity may be established and may long endure, for the welfare and happiness of the multitude, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit, well being, and happiness of gods and men.

62. "And what, bhikkhus, are these teachings? They are the four foundations of mindfulness, the four right efforts, the four constituents of psychic power, the five faculties, the five powers, the seven factors of enlightenment, and the Noble Eightfold Path. These, bhikkhus, are the teachings of which I have direct knowledge, which I have made known to you, and which you should thoroughly learn, cultivate, develop, and frequently practice, that the life of purity may be established and may long endure, for the welfare and happiness of the multitude, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit, well being, and happiness of gods and men."

So....what I thought wasn't there is easily found. Your paraphrased quote was not there...could you find it? It seems that perhaps here (and with your quote if it can be found) we can find at least a partial answer as to what the Buddha taught about how a monk should live his life in reference to social action. This one seems to say that a monk should live a life of purity as the way to benefit the many etc....of course that's just my interpretation and I'm sure that there is some disagreement about just what this scripture is saying.

Chownah