Is Lay Life not Safe?

Balancing family life and the Dhamma, in pursuit of a happy lay life.
User avatar
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

Is Lay Life not Safe?

Post by Eko Care »

I saw the following discussion in another topic, and have listened to many of similar conversations that end up with a dichotomy.
DNS wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 3:03 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Apr 13, 2023 6:08 pm Is it contradictory to be a follower of Buddhadhamma and to support the retention of a nuclear deterrent for your country?
Difficult issue, because if one does not have some arms and a military, they will easily be overtaken by enemies or neighboring nations who just want to take advantage of the situation. Extreme pacifists never fare well.

However in addition to the First Precept against killing, there is also AN 5.177
"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.

"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in."
Ideally, we wouldn't want to support businesses that engage in weapon-making.
In lay life, we know that, if we don't protect our lives or properties, then the enemies or thieves rob them time to time.
On the other hand, if we attack them, we commit big demerit Kammas.
If one ordained, then he can live without involving in those Kammas.
Is Lay life always in a Threat?
Are all the laymen foolish (who live in danger)?
SarathW
Posts: 21303
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Is Lay Life not Safe?

Post by SarathW »

Devadattha tried to kill Buddha.
So both lay life and monk life is not safe always.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13581
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Is Lay Life not Safe?

Post by Sam Vara »

Eko Care wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 9:01 am I saw the following discussion in another topic, and have listened to many of similar conversations that end up with a dichotomy.
DNS wrote: Fri Apr 14, 2023 3:03 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Apr 13, 2023 6:08 pm Is it contradictory to be a follower of Buddhadhamma and to support the retention of a nuclear deterrent for your country?
Difficult issue, because if one does not have some arms and a military, they will easily be overtaken by enemies or neighboring nations who just want to take advantage of the situation. Extreme pacifists never fare well.

However in addition to the First Precept against killing, there is also AN 5.177
"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.

"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in."
Ideally, we wouldn't want to support businesses that engage in weapon-making.
In lay life, we know that, if we don't protect our lives or properties, then the enemies or thieves rob them time to time.
On the other hand, if we attack them, we commit big demerit Kammas.
If one ordained, then he can live without involving in those Kammas.
Is Lay life always in a Threat?
Are all the laymen foolish (who live in danger)?
I'm not sure there's all that difference between monastic and lay life on this topic. About 10 years ago, our local monastery was repeatedly attacked by youths who would turn up in cars, tear around the place, and cause damage by breaking windows etc. Just kids fooling around, but scary for elderly lay visitors at night in a very isolated area, and expensive.

The monastery defended themselves just as I would have defended my home. The monks hid, waited until the intruders turned up, and trapped them on the site by closing the barrier. Then they called the police, who booked the kids. On other occasions, the Abbot has called the police on people with mental health difficulties who threatened monks. It's in everybody's interests that the state prevents violence, and they protect religious institutions too.

And think of the dangers that actually beset lay life. Being attacked is a possibility, for sure, but it's a lot less common than getting sick, being poor, having accidents, growing older, and dying. Some people tend to dwell on the scary scenario of someone physically attacking them, and mentally rehearse what they would do if they had to defend themselves. Hollywood, eh? That's probably sensible, up to a point. But perhaps they should be defending themselves against their own defilements. They can do you a lot of harm - probably more.
User avatar
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

Re: Is Lay Life not Safe?

Post by Eko Care »

Sam Vara wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 1:03 pm Being attacked is a possibility, for sure, but it's a lot less common than getting sick, being poor, having accidents, growing older, and dying.
I was focusing on the Kamma aspect. The attacks or thefts are situations where we are most likely to participate in a big Akusala kamma, than in getting sick etc. Sometimes even Upasakas do at least involuntarily.

I would have to name the topic something like: Is lay life not safe from grave akusala? or something like that.

Monks (lets say forest monks) have minimum properties to protect and hardly thieves or enemies attack them. They are not expected to defend themselves in a tough way, so others even help them sometimes.

But lay people want to protect many things (family members at least). Sometimes society or neighbours demand such reactions just like the banks expect from their security official.

There are Dhamma stories where strong Upasakas had protected their Sila even in such situations. Eg: during the attacks of wild beasts/thieves etc.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13581
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Is Lay Life not Safe?

Post by Sam Vara »

Eko Care wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 4:32 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 1:03 pm Being attacked is a possibility, for sure, but it's a lot less common than getting sick, being poor, having accidents, growing older, and dying.
I was focusing on the Kamma aspect. The attacks or thefts are situations where we are most likely to participate in a big Akusala kamma, than in getting sick etc. Sometimes even Upasakas do at least involuntarily.
Yes, agreed. I guess I was also focusing on the kamma aspect, as how we deal with this stuff is more important than it happening.
santa100
Posts: 6854
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Is Lay Life not Safe?

Post by santa100 »

Eko Care wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 4:32 pm I was focusing on the Kamma aspect. The attacks or thefts are situations where we are most likely to participate in a big Akusala kamma, than in getting sick etc. Sometimes even Upasakas do at least involuntarily.

I would have to name the topic something like: Is lay life not safe from grave akusala? or something like that.

Monks (lets say forest monks) have minimum properties to protect and hardly thieves or enemies attack them. They are not expected to defend themselves in a tough way, so others even help them sometimes.

But lay people want to protect many things (family members at least). Sometimes society or neighbours demand such reactions just like the banks expect from their security official.

There are Dhamma stories where strong Upasakas had protected their Sila even in such situations. Eg: during the attacks of wild beasts/thieves etc.
That's why there's that common stock phrase in many suttas:
it's not easy living at home to practice the holy life totally perfect, totally pure, like a polished shell. What if I were to shave off my hair & beard, put on the ochre robes, and go forth from the household life into homelessness
However it doesn't mean that one's completely doomed living the lay life, for lay life provides other unique opportunities to generate wholesome kamma, though not the same kind as the world-transcending kamma that'll get one out of Samsara. When evil forces invade and bring great terror to common people, plundering, looting, raping, etc... if one stands up to defend the weak and repel the evil, that's a great source of positive kamma right there. It's just that the kamma is a of a worldly nature, but it could serve as gradual stepping stones toward more favorable rebirths in subsequent lives where it'll be possible to leave lay life behind and dedicate 100% time and energy cultivating the Dhamma living the monastic life.
TRobinson465
Posts: 1784
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: Is Lay Life not Safe?

Post by TRobinson465 »

Samsara is not safe just in general. But you can be a layperson and not do any of those 5 wrong livelihoods, for some people its harder than others as some are literally born into families that work in those livelihoods and cant really get out short of starving. But for a lot of laypeople, especially those in modern nations/areas, its safe as long as they know which fields not to go into. Monkhood is not safe either, as a monk who is not earnest accumulates much bad kamma, and there are some monastaries out there where the culture is to be lax in practice. But it is safe for an earnest monk who picks a good monastary to ordain in. Just as it is safe for a layperson with the freedom to pick his/her career, if they pick a good career.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
User avatar
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

Re: Is Lay Life not Safe?

Post by Eko Care »

santa100 wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 7:12 pm That's why there's that common stock phrase in many suttas:
it's not easy living at home to practice the holy life totally perfect, totally pure, like a polished shell. What if I were to shave off my hair & beard, put on the ochre robes, and go forth from the household life into homelessness
:candle:
TRobinson465 wrote: Sun Apr 16, 2023 1:40 am Samsara is not safe just in general. But you can be a layperson and not do any of those 5 wrong livelihoods, for some people its harder than others as some are literally born into families that work in those livelihoods and cant really get out short of starving. But for a lot of laypeople, especially those in modern nations/areas, its safe as long as they know which fields not to go into. Monkhood is not safe either, as a monk who is not earnest accumulates much bad kamma, and there are some monastaries out there where the culture is to be lax in practice. But it is safe for an earnest monk who picks a good monastary to ordain in. Just as it is safe for a layperson with the freedom to pick his/her career, if they pick a good career.
There is a verse in Vacchanakha Jataka,
Gharā nānīhamānassa, gharā nābhaṇato ’musā,
Gharā nādinnadaṇḍassa paresaṁ anikubbato,
Evaṁ (chiddaṁ) durabhisambhavaṁ, ko gharaṁ paṭipajjatī ti?

No houses for the one who does not exert himself,
no houses without speaking lies,
no houses for the one with a stick, who does not defraud others,
so being faulty and hard to endure, who would practice in a house?
User avatar
Radix
Posts: 1274
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:42 pm

Re: Is Lay Life not Safe?

Post by Radix »

Sam Vara wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 1:03 pm And think of the dangers that actually beset lay life. Being attacked is a possibility, for sure, but it's a lot less common than getting sick, being poor, having accidents, growing older, and dying. Some people tend to dwell on the scary scenario of someone physically attacking them, and mentally rehearse what they would do if they had to defend themselves. Hollywood, eh? That's probably sensible, up to a point.
Ours is not a culture that would value defensive pessimism, so when people do think about all the ills that could befall them, it just fills them with anxiety and makes them ineffective, and thus in fact more likely to fall victim to whatever they feared so much.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
User avatar
Radix
Posts: 1274
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:42 pm

Re: Is Lay Life not Safe?

Post by Radix »

Eko Care wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 9:01 amIn lay life, we know that, if we don't protect our lives or properties, then the enemies or thieves rob them time to time.
This protection can come in many different forms, though, it doesn't have to be physical force.

For example, if you look like 10 million dollars, if your whole appearance is saying, "I have VIP connections and can afford the best lawyers, so don't even think about approaching me" then this is also a form of protection.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
Disciple
Posts: 513
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:13 pm

Re: Is Lay Life not Safe?

Post by Disciple »

I wouldn't hesitate to use violent means to protect myself or family but then again I'm just an ordinary worlding.
pudai
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2023 4:17 am

Re: Is Lay Life not Safe?

Post by pudai »

Knowing one's range is what the topic of this post really is about.

A Buddhist's "range" is in Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha as refuge... Anything other than that refuge as range; Isn't really Buddhist.

As much as an Arhat may hate it... If it weren't for the stage of stream entry? The Arhat would have never had faith in Buddha the path of dhamma and continue on to freedom as sangha.

Since there has been debate about it?

The only real difference between a Buddha and an Arhat; Is an Arhat achieved awakening with the help of others, and a Buddha was rightly "self awakened"; In other words they had no help in achieving their awakening.

The only reason to mention range; Is that it takes a lot of effort to create and maintain pure lands for those that have taken an honest and true refuge in the triple gem... Drag in one Mara and the rest of Mara's army follows.

Renouncing the world is renouncing the world of Mara(Samsara) and not allowing samsara within range of those pure lands of refuge. Making such a mistake in one's body, speech and mind is seen as the infinite tail on the Bhava-cakra.

:candle:
The six senses accommodate; All the factors of existence... The All.
Apart from; The All... Nothing exists.
The senses are empty of a self & what belongs to a self.
Bundokji
Posts: 6507
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Is Lay Life not Safe?

Post by Bundokji »

Leaving home and dwelling in the forest denotes danger. On the other hand, there is a kammic danger in wearing a robe and being corrupt.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
User avatar
Extinguishpassion
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed May 10, 2023 11:44 pm

Re: Is Lay Life not Safe?

Post by Extinguishpassion »

There is not one place in this world, or the next, or in the heavens, in which one is safe. Birth equals no safety.

Even a being born spontaneously in a heavenly realm, soon understands "there is no safety here" even as this being enjoys the heavenly sensual pleasures immediatley made available. Why is that? Its because a being is born according to its kamma, not its own volition; therefore it can percieve straight away its lack of safety regarding its past kamma, not knowing when the good kamma will burn out and the bad one give fruit.

Furthermore, its born entangled with other beings, even if these other beings shower the new born with love, homage, gifts, and sensual artifacts, still the new born can percieve lack of saftey in the fact that it cannot control these other beings actions towards it.

Also it straight away percieves lack of saftey since it understands it is stuck in 6 senses [6 raging fires] and subject to the 5 chopping blocks. So even if it doesnt identify with its angel body, or percieve it as 'me, mine' it still percieves lack of saftey in the fact that there is a body, and that it is subject to pain.

There is no shelter and there is no one in charge.

You dont get what you want.

You have to understand this deep in your bones. You dont own anything. Everything we have are borrowed goods. Even a good heavenly rebirth offers absolutley no security. You either extinguish passion and craving completley, or are always liable to suffering.

I might be wrong on this, but I believe this is in accord with the teaching of the Blessed One, and my faith in his well taught dhamma is enormous and quite unshakeable.

This is truly an enornous realization into anatta if it is seen clearly. The lack of saftey means no body, or feeling, is worth seeing as mine. Its just like a young man upon going on a first date, cant expect anything of the woman who in turn might not even show up. Likewise, a being, in any realm, can expect nothing of the world since his next sight is not guaranteed, next smell, next touch, next sound, taste; feeling, perception, thought; next breath is not guaranteed. In this way, the perception of danger can grant insight into 'not mine-ess' and the flux/stream like nature of being born in space and time, confined to bodies, trapped with people.

"The world is anguished
Being exposed to contact"

No safety.
User avatar
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

Re: Is Lay Life not Safe?

Post by Eko Care »

Extinguishpassion wrote: Sun May 14, 2023 12:43 am You have to understand this deep in your bones. You dont own anything. Everything we have are borrowed goods. Even a good heavenly rebirth offers absolutley no security. You either extinguish passion and craving completley, or are always liable to suffering.

I might be wrong on this, but I believe this is in accord with the teaching of the Blessed One, and my faith in his well taught dhamma is enormous and quite unshakeable.
:candle:
Recently I read the extended way of contemplating Three characteristics, in Visuddhimagga.
Chapter XX Purification by Knowledge & Vision of What Is & Is Not the Path

[Strengthening of Comprehension in Forty Ways]

18. Now, when the Blessed One was expounding conformity knowledge, he
[asked the question]: "By means of what forty aspects does he acquire liking that
is in conformity? By means of what forty aspects does he enter into the certainty
of Tightness?" (P'8). In the answer to it comprehension of impermanence, etc., is
set forth by him analytically in the way beginning: "[Seeing] the five aggregates
as impermanent, as painful, as a disease, a boil, a dart, a calamity, an affliction,
as alien, as disintegrating, as a plague, a disaster, a terror, a menace, as fickle,
perishable, unenduring, as no protection, no shelter, no refuge, as empty, vain,
void, not-self, as a danger, as subject to change, as having no core, as the root of
calamity, as murderous, as due to be annihilated, as subject to cankers, as formed,
as Mara's bait, as subject to birth, subject to ageing, subject to illness, subject to
death, subject to sorrow, subject to lamentation, subject to despair, subject to
defilement. Seeing the five aggregates as impermanent, he acquires liking that
is in conformity. And seeing that the cessation of the five aggregates is the
permanent Nibbana, he enters into the certainty of Tightness" (Patis II 238). So
in order to strengthen that same comprehension of impermanence, pain, and
not-self in the five aggregates, this [meditator] also comprehends these five
aggregates by means of that [kind of comprehension].

19. How does he do it? He does it by means of comprehension as impermanent,
etc., stated specifically as follows: He comprehends each aggregate as impermanent
because of non-endlessness, and because of possession of a beginning and an
end; as painful because of oppression by rise and fall, and because of being the
basis for pain; as a disease because of having to be maintained by conditions, and
because of being the root of disease; as a boil because of being consequent upon
impalement by suffering, because of oozing with the filth of defilements, and
because of being swollen by arising, ripened by ageing, and burst by dissolution;
as a dart because of producing oppression, because of penetrating inside, and
because of being hard to extract; as a calamity because of having to be condemned,
because of bringing loss, and because of being the basis for calamity; as an
affliction because of restricting freedom, and because of being the foundation for
affliction; as alien because of inability to have mastery exercised over them, and
because of intractability; as disintegrating because of crumbling through sickness,
ageing and death; as a plague because of bringing various kinds of ruin; as a
disaster because of bringing unforeseen and plentiful adversity, and because of
being the basis for all kinds of terror, and because of being the opposite of the
supreme comfort called the stilling of all suffering; as a menace because of being
bound up with many kinds of adversity, because of being menaced by ills, and
because of unfitness, as a menace, to be entertained; as fickle because of fickle
insecurity due to sickness, ageing and death, and to the worldly states of gain,
etc.; as perishable because of having the nature of perishing both by violence
and naturally; as unenduring because of collapsing on every occasion and because
of lack of solidity; as no protection because of not protecting, and because of
affording no safety; as no shelter because of unfitness to give shelter, and because
of not performing the function of a shelter for the unsheltered; as no refuge
because of failure to disperse fear in those who depend on them; as empty
because of their emptiness of the lastingness, beauty, pleasure and self that are
conceived about them; as vain because of their emptiness, or because of their
triviality; for what is trivial is called "vain" in the world; as void because devoid
of the state of being an owner, abider, doer, experiencer, director; as not-seZ/because
of itself having no owner, etc.; as danger because of the suffering in the process of
becoming, and because of the danger in suffering or, alternatively, as danger
(adinava) because of resemblance to misery (adina) since "danger" (adlnava)
means that it is towards misery (adina) that it moves (vati), goes, advances, this
being a term for a wretched man, and the aggregates are wretched too; as subject
to change because of having the nature of change in two ways, that is, through
ageing and through death; as having no core because of feebleness, and because
of decaying soon like sapwood; as the root of calamity because of being the cause
of calamity; as murderous because of breaking faith like an enemy posing as a
friend; as due to be annihilated because their becoming disappears, and because
their non-becoming comes about; as subject to cankers because of being the
proximate cause for cankers; as formed because of being formed by causes and
conditions; as Mara's bait because of being the bait [laid] by the Mara of death
and the Mara of defilement; as subject to birth, to ageing, to illness, and to death
because of having birth, ageing, illness and death as their nature; as subject to
sorrow, to lamentation and to despair because of being the cause of sorrow,
lamentation and despair; as subject to defilement because of being the objective
field of the defilements of craving, views and misconduct.
Post Reply