What's wrong with living a "normal" life?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
bodom
Posts: 7216
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: What's wrong with living a "normal" life?

Post by bodom »

Sanghamitta wrote:As lay people we don't have to choose one or the other. We can read Suttas and practice meditation and the rest of the Eightfold Path AND do the things posited in the OP.
:goodpost:

Agree 100%.

:anjali:
Liberation is the inevitable fruit of the path and is bound to blossom forth when there is steady and persistent practice. The only requirements for reaching the final goal are two: to start and to continue. If these requirements are met there is no doubt the goal will be attained. This is the Dhamma, the undeviating law.

- BB
User avatar
adosa
Posts: 271
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: What's wrong with living a "normal" life?

Post by adosa »

Actually when people stop obsessing about their own personal suffering so much and start to consider the greater good, oneself and others, it becomes clear that either vehicle has ample opportunity through which to make a positive impact on those around them. Then ironically their own suffering starts to abate. And, yes the Buddha did praise the wise person whether in robes or not.

adosa
"To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's mind — this is the teaching of the Buddhas" - Dhammapada 183
User avatar
bodom
Posts: 7216
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: What's wrong with living a "normal" life?

Post by bodom »

chownah wrote:If you find nothing wrong with living a "normal" life and find it completely fulfilling then why are you wasting your time reading Suttas?....why not just go out there and live that completely fulfilling life?
Im not sure what your point is.

:anjali:
Liberation is the inevitable fruit of the path and is bound to blossom forth when there is steady and persistent practice. The only requirements for reaching the final goal are two: to start and to continue. If these requirements are met there is no doubt the goal will be attained. This is the Dhamma, the undeviating law.

- BB
User avatar
bodom
Posts: 7216
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: What's wrong with living a "normal" life?

Post by bodom »

‘Good, Gotama, wait! Other than bhikkhus, bhikkhunis and lay disciples of Gotama, who wear white clothes and lead the holy life. Is there a single lay disciple, who wears white clothes, leads the holy life, while partaking sensual pleasures, and doing the work in the dispensation has dispelled doubts. Has become confident of what should and should not be done, and does not need a teacher any more in the dispensation of the Teacher. Vaccha, not one, not one hundred, not two hundred, not three hundred, not four hundred, not five hundred. There are many more lay disciples of mine, wearing white clothes leading the holy life, while partaking sensual pleasures and doing the work in the dispensation have dispelled doubts Have become confident of what should and should not be done and do not need a teacher any more.’ -- MN 73
http://www.dhammaweb.net/Tipitaka/read.php?id=107" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

:anjali:
Liberation is the inevitable fruit of the path and is bound to blossom forth when there is steady and persistent practice. The only requirements for reaching the final goal are two: to start and to continue. If these requirements are met there is no doubt the goal will be attained. This is the Dhamma, the undeviating law.

- BB
User avatar
mettafuture
Posts: 475
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:13 pm

Re: What's wrong with living a "normal" life?

Post by mettafuture »

Thank you all for the great advice and references. You've given me a lot to think over.

Here's my theory: I think renunciation is highlighted so frequently in the suttas because the Buddha saw it as the way to live a completely pure and spiritually "dust free" life. However, he never completely condemns the householder's life. So the level of dust you're willing to deal with or tolerate is up to you.
chownah wrote:If you find nothing wrong with living a "normal" life and find it completely fulfilling then -
I never said I found my life "completely fulfilling."
why are you wasting your time reading Suttas?....
Because I have learned a lot from reading them.
Sanghamitta
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

Re: What's wrong with living a "normal" life?

Post by Sanghamitta »

I dont think that The Buddha condemned the householder life at all Mettafuture. Its all about odds and priorities.
If you want to penetrate to the heart of the Buddhadhamma in this life the odds are longer for a householder. But its possible.
And we can certainly become much more compassionate , wise, and peaceful people. For many with the right degree of practice and instruction and support from more experienced people, preferably hands-on, that can happen relatively quickly.
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
dhamma follower
Posts: 354
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:48 am

Re: What's wrong with living a "normal" life?

Post by dhamma follower »

mettafuture wrote:What's wrong with going to school, getting a degree, working hard to earn a stable income, starting a family, enjoying the good, and learning how to tolerate the bad? Is the "worldly life" really that bad? This is the question that's been floating through my head lately.
IMO, we should start from where we are , not from where we think it's good to be. This is part of our conditioning to always look for what is "good" vs "bad". Nothing is inherently good or bad. The various desires in our mind is the sole responsible for the conflict.

If someone still feels drawn to worldly pursues, he can just do it, while applying mindfulness in whatever he does, observe and get understandings. With understanding, detachment naturally grows and life adjustments can be made accordingly. It is an ongoing process. No need to struggle.

The proper question, IMHO, is not whether we should get a degree, or stop working, or shave hair, but is: how to apply the Noble Eigth Fold Path here and now. Any time there's observation and subsequent understanding, the N.E.F.P is set in motion. Let's wisdom do the work, and wacht out for defilements !

D.F
User avatar
Wind
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:10 pm

Re: What's wrong with living a "normal" life?

Post by Wind »

hi mettafuture

I think a normal life is all wrong for you, so why not give away all your possessions, starting with your ipod to me. :D

On a serious note, nothing wrong with it as long as you continue to do good, avoid doing bad things, and purify your mind. :)
User avatar
bodom
Posts: 7216
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: What's wrong with living a "normal" life?

Post by bodom »

I find it ironic that those who are the most critical of lay practice, who seem to think that progress is only possible if one is a world renouncing monastic, are householder's themselves.

:anjali:
Liberation is the inevitable fruit of the path and is bound to blossom forth when there is steady and persistent practice. The only requirements for reaching the final goal are two: to start and to continue. If these requirements are met there is no doubt the goal will be attained. This is the Dhamma, the undeviating law.

- BB
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: What's wrong with living a "normal" life?

Post by ground »

bodom wrote:I find it ironic that those who are the most critical of lay practice, who seem to think that progress is only possible if one is a world renouncing monastic, are householder's themselves.

:anjali:
This may be interpreted in two ways:
1. positively: a means to remind oneself of the dangers of householder's life, to be mindful of this fact and thus to integrate householder's condition and practice
2. negatively: a sort of resignation, justifying one's lack of progress

Kind regards
Mukunda
Posts: 295
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:54 am

Re: What's wrong with living a "normal" life?

Post by Mukunda »

bodom wrote:I find it ironic that those who are the most critical of lay practice, who seem to think that progress is only possible if one is a world renouncing monastic, are householder's themselves.
And I find it ironic that those who believe renunciation is unnecessary are those deeply involved with the world and sense pleasures.


:anjali:
User avatar
altar
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 6:24 pm
Location: Great Barrington, MA

Re: What's wrong with living a "normal" life?

Post by altar »

This is hardly ironic that those who are involved in sense pleasures are least likely to recognize the importance of renunciation. Maybe the word you are looking for is "suspect"?
Anicca
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:11 am
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma

Re: What's wrong with living a "normal" life?

Post by Anicca »

Howdy y'all
Mukunda wrote:
bodom wrote:I find it ironic that those who are the most critical of lay practice, who seem to think that progress is only possible if one is a world renouncing monastic, are householder's themselves.
And I find it ironic that those who believe renunciation is unnecessary are those deeply involved with the world and sense pleasures.
I agree that renunciation is key, but even with renunciation there is still a reliance. If only indirectly all a monk's requisites rely on money being used somewhere in the chain of events. They may not drive but still rely on transportation (ever moreso in this day and age) - etc.

Please excuse this mangling of Dhp IX 124 as it helps make the point: The hand without the wound is safe from the poison - but to think that allowing others to handle the poison for you protects you from the affects of the poison is mistaken. Indirectly, that hand, if it has a wound, even though others handled the poison, still feels the affect of the poison.

To sum it up - defining "normal" as having a wounded hand - some (many? - most?) monks live a normal life in the monastery. "What's wrong with living a normal life?" is that there is a still need for healing. Living in a home or a monastery makes no difference.

Metta
User avatar
bodom
Posts: 7216
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: What's wrong with living a "normal" life?

Post by bodom »

Mukunda wrote:And I find it ironic that those who believe renunciation is unnecessary are those deeply involved with the world and sense pleasures.
No irony there. I could be wrong but I dont believe you are ordained Mukunda. If you believe renunciation so key to realization why not ordain? What are you holding on to? If practicing as a householder is so inferior to practicing as a Bhikkhu why waste your time? If you are unable to ordain due to responsibilities, circumstances etc. why not follow the advice the Buddha gave to householder's in similar situationsto the best of your ability? Why such insistence on renunciation? Of course it is the ideal way and strongly recommended by the Buddha but it is not the only way to practice. Renunciation of unwholesome mental states is far more important than renunciation of material things. As the sutta I quoted above states there were many, many householder's "leading the holy life,partaking of sensual pleasure's" and still attaining stream entry.
Liberation is the inevitable fruit of the path and is bound to blossom forth when there is steady and persistent practice. The only requirements for reaching the final goal are two: to start and to continue. If these requirements are met there is no doubt the goal will be attained. This is the Dhamma, the undeviating law.

- BB
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: What's wrong with living a "normal" life?

Post by PeterB »

Well said Bodom.
Post Reply