Sanghamitta wrote:Ah how unlike the more sophisticated laity in the west who spend their time on Buddhist forums.....
You are here posting in this thread too Valerie
Sanghamitta wrote:Ah how unlike the more sophisticated laity in the west who spend their time on Buddhist forums.....
beeblebrox wrote:Good review, Jhana. I just want to point out one thing... the comparison between a Christian missionary and a Buddhist monk isn't really fair. I think that a Christian monk would be closer... and AFAIK they also don't really cater to the public, or even less so when compared to the average Buddhist monk (I could be wrong).
I think the real problem here is that the layperson part of the Sangha is also neglected... it's not just the monks. (Also, where do the monks come from?)
Jhana4 wrote:Sanghamitta wrote:Ah how unlike the more sophisticated laity in the west who spend their time on Buddhist forums.....
You are here posting in thread too Valerie. I do think that most DWers probably know more about the dhamma and meditate more than a number of people in those countries if the situation is as how Venerable Dhammasika describes. Have you read the book? Do you any opinion about it?
mikenz66 wrote:I think what Sanghamitta is getting at is that it is very easy to overlook that some of those people that might easily be dismissed as "just making merit" are quietly living their lives according to the precepts, turning up early in the morning to feed the sangha, and doing low-key meditation practice.
Jhana4 wrote:mikenz66 wrote:I think what Sanghamitta is getting at is that it is very easy to overlook that some of those people that might easily be dismissed as "just making merit" are quietly living their lives according to the precepts, turning up early in the morning to feed the sangha, and doing low-key meditation practice.
I don't see how you got that otherwise interesting point from her message. Getting back to the book, the author Venerable Dhammika who has lived in Asia and who spent time with Asians is of the view that most Buddhist lay people are not like that. They do not meditate, have told people like him that it is the province of monks and that they have been taught that by monks.
Another potentially more serious problem is that all the Ajahn Chah monasteries in the West are largely dependant on funds from Thailand. If this money stops for some reason the movement may be unable to maintain itself.
Sanghamitta wrote:I think Jnana4 that people have all sorts of ways of working through their doubts and fears and confusions, and thats OK. It wont go any faster than it will go.
Jhana4 wrote:
According to the Venerable S. Dhammika the Asian Theravada laity is only concerned with making merit. That is, ensuring a good rebirth for themselves by making donations to the monks. They grow up being taught that the maximum amount of merit is to be had by giving to monks, so few make donations or do volunteer work for others. The rest of the time, outside of holidays the laity is unconcerned about Buddhism. They do not read the suttas. They do not meditate. They are discouraged from doing so by the monks. They believe both things are not for ordinary people, but only for monks.
BlackBird wrote:Regarding the sect that only allows the highest caste (and white folks) to ordain - The Siam Nikaya - They do not have a good reputation amongst the educated laity. That's not to say that all Siam Nikaya monks are bad eggs, but that a high standard of vinaya is not followed and meditation is practiced by very few.
retrofuturist wrote:There is a big difference between making merit so that "I" may have a good rebirth (in fact, this isn't much different to Christianity - being rewarded in the afterlife for good done in this life - combined with the fear of punishment of being prodded by flaming pitchforks in hell) and making merit as part of an integrated program of sila, bhavana and panna... in other words, making merit as part of, and support for, the fulfilment of the Noble Eightfold Path.
I have no idea which is more prevalent amongst Asian laity, so I won't speculate.
daverupa wrote:Mostly correct. The best comparison is between a Buddhist monastic and a Catholic friar.
BlackBird wrote:Jhana4 wrote:I hate reading PDFs, but I have to say I am about a half dozen pages into this book and I am finding it to be engrossing.
Scandal always is. Just remember there are still a lot of good monks out there.
Jhana4 wrote:
According to the Venerable S. Dhammika the Asian Theravada laity is only concerned with making merit. That is, ensuring a good rebirth for themselves by making donations to the monks. They grow up being taught that the maximum amount of merit is to be had by giving to monks, so few make donations or do volunteer work for others. The rest of the time, outside of holidays the laity is unconcerned about Buddhism. They do not read the suttas. They do not meditate. They are discouraged from doing so by the monks. They believe both things are not for ordinary people, but only for monks.
Many monks are also unfamiliar with the suttas and do not meditate. In fact if a monk chooses to meditate they will not get any encouragement and even some discouragement as it makes other monks look bad. Many monks go into the Sangha as children, out of poverty and leave after they get a college education paid for by dana from the laity. The ones who stay experience a life time of being waited on hand and foot by the community. The monks become spoiled and narcissitic, caring only about their whims to use dana money to put up buildings and statues that people don't need and often when there is a lot of poverty in the surrounding area. The monks often get big egos demanding huge amounts of respect and demanding to be catered to. Often the Buddhist community in Asia will sacrifice on essentials to their own families to give dana to monks who already have an excess of what they need or could want. This happens because of the aforementioned belief in merit making. For monks the most important thing is following the vinaya, and most could care less about the dhamma, even if they knew about it.
But while it is obviously true, I would also contend that it is truly obvious. All the activities that Schopen depicts may be plainly seen in the activities of the majority of the ordained Sangha in all traditions in the present day. Schopen merely points out that these conditions also obtained in the Middle Period of Indian Buddhism as well. While this may come as a surprise to academics with little contact with Buddhism in the real world, and constitutes an important critique of the fallacy of equating Buddhism with the idealized portrait in the sacred texts, it will come as no surprise for those of us who encounter Buddhism in the world every day.
James the Giant wrote:Venerable Fred, with respect, may I ask why you and Ven Greg stay at such a monastery?
Surely there are Ajahn Chah wats you could go to, or even dhammayut, Where both meditation and vinaya are taken more seriously.
What's keeping you where you are now?
Registered users: Bing [Bot], cooran, Coyote, Dmytro, Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot], mikenz66, Mindstar, Modus.Ponens, Mr Man, palchi, rahul3bds, vagrancy