Hello,
I neither believe it is a mistake nor do I believe it is a western thing.
If it increases the wholesome dhammas and decreases the unwholesome dhammas, how could it be a mistake? Do you think this blurring is decreasing the wholesome?
Even the old commentaries (atthakattha) explain on occassions that the term bhikkhu is meant to include the laity, the serious practioner. And then there is the Ledi Sayadaw. He can be credited with intensifying the practice of the laity. This expanded the role from simple merit-making to studying the teachings, especially the Abhidhamma, and practising meditation. He sayed, lay people could be monks of the world. And before him, there were the dark ages of meditation even among the monastics. For Ledi Sayadaw and his role see Erik Braun and expanding on this Ingrid Jordt's take on Burma's mass lay meditation movement. It is not a western thing.
Kind regards,
Florian
Mistake for laity to focus on practices given to monastics?
- tsurezuregusa
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 8:04 pm
- Location: Munich, Germany
Re: Mistake for laity to focus on practices given to monasti
I think the reality on the ground is as you say, for the most part, with pockets of individuals and groups performing both above and below that average.Kim OHara wrote:I think your "bare minimum" is way higher than that of most lay Buddhists. Keeping the Five Precepts (and the extra three on Uposatha days) and giving to the local temple seems to be pretty much the norm. It's much the same as the typical lay Christian's practice - church once a week, a bit of charitable work or donations, and keeping the basic morality rules, the Commandments.mettafuture wrote:Would it be fair to say that stream-entry is the minimum goal for a practicing Buddhist?
I am not saying that this pattern is ideal, of course.
But I think that stream-entry is a perfectly serviceable goal, and that not having this basically renders traditional devotional Buddhism a Pure Land endeavor, which simply doesn't make sense to me.
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
- mettafuture
- Posts: 475
- Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:13 pm
Re: Mistake for laity to focus on practices given to monasti
That's exactly my point! If you want to follow a more traditional path, and you believe samsaric existence is something that should be escaped, you likely need to spend more time working on eliminating the first 3 fetters. But like you said, the bar can be set wherever you want, with or without regard for the fetters. There are no "rules" carved in stone in Buddhism.Kim OHara wrote:You can set the bar as high as you like - and all credit to you! - but I think your "bare minimum" is way higher than that of most lay Buddhists.
Yes it would be. We would all benefit if we set our bars just a tad higher, and maybe over to the left a little.I am not saying that this pattern is ideal, of course. Sincere Christians and Buddhists alike will aspire for more but the reality is that most lay people of both faiths (and I could probably broaden that to say all faiths) are not very interested in the religion they happened to be born into. The world would be a different place if 99% of Christians actually tried to "love one another", wouldn't it?
But I don't think the bar for stream-entry is too high. It's just 5 precepts (8 on Uposatha days), 3 recollections, and maybe some breath / elements meditation.
Because we're focusing too much on the simplified and likely more advanced practices (Anapanasati) without first developing a clear comprehension of what the individual aspects of those practices are (Satipatthana). And we're not spending enough time on the practices that were originally prescribed to us (the recollections), or on that practices that were said to directly chip away at the first 3 fetters.tsurezuregusa wrote:If it increases the wholesome dhammas and decreases the unwholesome dhammas, how could it be a mistake?
Mahasi Sayadaw is one of the people who inspired this thread.Even the old commentaries (atthakattha) explain on occassions that the term bhikkhu is meant to include the laity, the serious practioner. And then there is the Ledi Sayadaw. He can be credited with intensifying the practice of the laity.
With metta, everyone.