Help
Sign In
Buddhism
January 2009 
What you see and what you don't see!
Posted on Mar 25th, 2008
by 
True Eloquence
True Eloquence
This is originally in response to Martha's very good question: why do you say growing up in a monastery would be a drama?
Many of you here are non-monastics and I believe what you know about life of monastics mostly comes from what you either hear or read about it and may be at least from your own brief encounters.
Generally I observe two misconceptions about the life of monastics. 1. Monastics naturally live a calm, peaceful, virtuous, flawless, asocial, trouble-free life. 2. Monastics are burden to the society, they are lazy, they don't serve the society, they beg for food and depend on others.
In the first case, yes you are partly correct, because the very environment of a monastary is quite simple and less-complicated than the outside world where people do anything to make a living. In the monastary, the priority is given to prayers, studies, meditation and community works. In that sense, the life of a monastary is quite peaceful and trouble-free. In normal lay life, you have to worry first of all about whether your boss is going to fire you or not if you are late for your job, etc, etc. Most of the week you go to work in the office from morning till evening and you feel like you are not doing it for yourself, but for others, anyway, you are compelled to do it for the sake of earning a living. There are often misunderstanding between co-workers, and etc. So it is a drama right. Well, drama can happen in monastary as well. If you look carefully, you will realize that the members of the monastics come from very different social backgrounds with different temperaments. They bring all thier previous habits and bahaviour into the community, so even after ordaination they find it difficult to deal with it. I will give an example. Just an year ago or so, there was an nun from Argentina in our community college and she was a really hot-tempered woman (I tell ya), she must have been like that even as a lay woman. I suppose that she must have become a nun, because she really had a bad relationship in her early life and somehow she is broken and entered the Order to be free from those sorrowful experiences in search of peace. But she could not really leave her previous habits. So, one day, a Chinese friend of mine was talking to her for something and to all our surprise she just shouted at him. On another occassion, she threw some rubbish to a monk and didn't even say sorry to him. And now she left, because she is in conflit with her own reason and emotions. I feel sorry for her, because I think she understands how her nature is, but she is struggling with it. There are many such cases like this that you will experience if you are living within a community, but basically it is less compared to the outside world and ofcourse there are many beautiful people in the Sangha (the spiritual community) that will help you and care about you. So when I say that there can be dramas as well within the Sangha, please do not take it seriously, ok. I just want you to know some of the things you do not often hear or read, so as to give you a better picture of the life of monastics.
In the second case, I think it is mostly wrong. How is monastics burden to the society. It is rather the opposite to it. Monastics instead feel that the sociaty is an obstable (if you call it burden) to a life of peace and spiritual practice. You can't really practice spiritual life with all your heart, if you are constantly worrying about your work, children, your payments, relatives, friends, and so on. It is true that you can work, raise family, study science, computer and make cars, air-crafts, and so on. But you have to ask yourself whether these things really lead to the peace of mind or more burden to the society. I remember clearly here in the zaaz (gaia) community I have been criticized for being monastics and being a burden to the society. My question is how am I a burden to the society or any monastics. I study, I work, I teach, I help children, I practice meditation and generosity, I talk nicely with other people, I don't go to bars, I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't create problems for others...how am I being a burden to the society? I think monastics work genuinely more than others. If you look at the daily routine of monastics, some of you might be surprised. Monastics get up really early say about 4 or 5 am (depending on the temple system), then start chanting and also meditation. They cook themselves, they clean temple areas, they study most of the times, they teach and help people, they advise those social people who are with many difficulties and help them to be better human beings and so on. It seems that Buddha himself slept only an hour when he was alive and all other times, he thought about benefitting all living beings.
Let us look at what I just said earlier about people from different social backgrounds entering into monastary and with the passing of some time, they often become chief abbots in the monastary. They all have different temperament. So the members of the Sangha is often affected by the decision of the abbot. Say for example if the chief abbot is a very rough hot-tempered monk and not a very kind-hearted person (though many are good actually comparatively), then what happens to the other monks, especially if there are small novice monks? The small monks don't have thier parents there to look after them. They don't have the capacity to think like the adults. They can't run away. So they become often the prays of such unfortunate circumstances.
Sometimes it is hard to explain a situation that others have not gone through themselves. It is easy to think about the lives of monk to be so planned out like clockwork–work, prayer, meditation, study, sleep, work, prayer, meditation, study, sleep, etc. But often the deeper sides of the circumstances are either neglected or ignored. Definitely, I encourage everyone to experience for themselves the peaceful life of the monastary with the proper guidance of a good spiritual teacher (if you are lucky). My only objection is the special consideration for the young novicecs. Just imagine a 8 years old child is being asked to follow all the rules and regulations that adults are following. I doubt that child is ready for all that. When I conventionally left home to be a monastic at that age, I literally left the physical connections of my family members and I no longer was able to experience warmth and affection that once I had from my mom, grandma and sisters. When that kid takes refuge in a group of people who don't have the same feelings as the family do, then the child naturally feels neglected. When a child is given something beyond his capacity, things that adult do, then how can he bear that much of weight. A child feels secure if someone cares for him, say a hug.
Later in my teen ofcourse I was very fortunate enough to meet my present spiritual teacher, under whose proper guidance and care, I was able to get a very good education. He really cares for me. I remember he bought for me many toys every now and then. He also took me to place like Singapore and Malaysia for visits. Still, even though I am studying at a different place, I am constantly being advised and cared. So now I believe that If all young novices had such compassionate teacher like him, I think the standard of their upbringings would drastically be improved.
Thank you!
Many of you here are non-monastics and I believe what you know about life of monastics mostly comes from what you either hear or read about it and may be at least from your own brief encounters.
Generally I observe two misconceptions about the life of monastics. 1. Monastics naturally live a calm, peaceful, virtuous, flawless, asocial, trouble-free life. 2. Monastics are burden to the society, they are lazy, they don't serve the society, they beg for food and depend on others.
In the first case, yes you are partly correct, because the very environment of a monastary is quite simple and less-complicated than the outside world where people do anything to make a living. In the monastary, the priority is given to prayers, studies, meditation and community works. In that sense, the life of a monastary is quite peaceful and trouble-free. In normal lay life, you have to worry first of all about whether your boss is going to fire you or not if you are late for your job, etc, etc. Most of the week you go to work in the office from morning till evening and you feel like you are not doing it for yourself, but for others, anyway, you are compelled to do it for the sake of earning a living. There are often misunderstanding between co-workers, and etc. So it is a drama right. Well, drama can happen in monastary as well. If you look carefully, you will realize that the members of the monastics come from very different social backgrounds with different temperaments. They bring all thier previous habits and bahaviour into the community, so even after ordaination they find it difficult to deal with it. I will give an example. Just an year ago or so, there was an nun from Argentina in our community college and she was a really hot-tempered woman (I tell ya), she must have been like that even as a lay woman. I suppose that she must have become a nun, because she really had a bad relationship in her early life and somehow she is broken and entered the Order to be free from those sorrowful experiences in search of peace. But she could not really leave her previous habits. So, one day, a Chinese friend of mine was talking to her for something and to all our surprise she just shouted at him. On another occassion, she threw some rubbish to a monk and didn't even say sorry to him. And now she left, because she is in conflit with her own reason and emotions. I feel sorry for her, because I think she understands how her nature is, but she is struggling with it. There are many such cases like this that you will experience if you are living within a community, but basically it is less compared to the outside world and ofcourse there are many beautiful people in the Sangha (the spiritual community) that will help you and care about you. So when I say that there can be dramas as well within the Sangha, please do not take it seriously, ok. I just want you to know some of the things you do not often hear or read, so as to give you a better picture of the life of monastics.
In the second case, I think it is mostly wrong. How is monastics burden to the society. It is rather the opposite to it. Monastics instead feel that the sociaty is an obstable (if you call it burden) to a life of peace and spiritual practice. You can't really practice spiritual life with all your heart, if you are constantly worrying about your work, children, your payments, relatives, friends, and so on. It is true that you can work, raise family, study science, computer and make cars, air-crafts, and so on. But you have to ask yourself whether these things really lead to the peace of mind or more burden to the society. I remember clearly here in the zaaz (gaia) community I have been criticized for being monastics and being a burden to the society. My question is how am I a burden to the society or any monastics. I study, I work, I teach, I help children, I practice meditation and generosity, I talk nicely with other people, I don't go to bars, I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't create problems for others...how am I being a burden to the society? I think monastics work genuinely more than others. If you look at the daily routine of monastics, some of you might be surprised. Monastics get up really early say about 4 or 5 am (depending on the temple system), then start chanting and also meditation. They cook themselves, they clean temple areas, they study most of the times, they teach and help people, they advise those social people who are with many difficulties and help them to be better human beings and so on. It seems that Buddha himself slept only an hour when he was alive and all other times, he thought about benefitting all living beings.
Let us look at what I just said earlier about people from different social backgrounds entering into monastary and with the passing of some time, they often become chief abbots in the monastary. They all have different temperament. So the members of the Sangha is often affected by the decision of the abbot. Say for example if the chief abbot is a very rough hot-tempered monk and not a very kind-hearted person (though many are good actually comparatively), then what happens to the other monks, especially if there are small novice monks? The small monks don't have thier parents there to look after them. They don't have the capacity to think like the adults. They can't run away. So they become often the prays of such unfortunate circumstances.
Sometimes it is hard to explain a situation that others have not gone through themselves. It is easy to think about the lives of monk to be so planned out like clockwork–work, prayer, meditation, study, sleep, work, prayer, meditation, study, sleep, etc. But often the deeper sides of the circumstances are either neglected or ignored. Definitely, I encourage everyone to experience for themselves the peaceful life of the monastary with the proper guidance of a good spiritual teacher (if you are lucky). My only objection is the special consideration for the young novicecs. Just imagine a 8 years old child is being asked to follow all the rules and regulations that adults are following. I doubt that child is ready for all that. When I conventionally left home to be a monastic at that age, I literally left the physical connections of my family members and I no longer was able to experience warmth and affection that once I had from my mom, grandma and sisters. When that kid takes refuge in a group of people who don't have the same feelings as the family do, then the child naturally feels neglected. When a child is given something beyond his capacity, things that adult do, then how can he bear that much of weight. A child feels secure if someone cares for him, say a hug.
Later in my teen ofcourse I was very fortunate enough to meet my present spiritual teacher, under whose proper guidance and care, I was able to get a very good education. He really cares for me. I remember he bought for me many toys every now and then. He also took me to place like Singapore and Malaysia for visits. Still, even though I am studying at a different place, I am constantly being advised and cared. So now I believe that If all young novices had such compassionate teacher like him, I think the standard of their upbringings would drastically be improved.
Thank you!
Access: Public
TE, you have brought the life of a monastery alive; and perhaps some will sense a feeling of familiarity with it.
I can't imagine why anyone would attack you for being a monk; and I like the way you've described how monastics are not burdens to society. I think people who say that, are thinking of the economic issue; but even that is not as simple as may seem at first.
It is wonderful that you found a spiritual teacher; and I can tell you, that one can find everything that you have in a monastery, in terms of learning, even outside the monastery. But there are many reasons why monasteries exist, and so..
A question: if parents asked you, would you recommend they send their children to a monastery? Or would you recommend that the child decides when old enough?
Thank you Meena (my auntie's name is Meena too)! definitely some will sense a feeling of familiarity with it, because the situation is not exclusively unique to the life of monastics alone. I believe every person has something to say about their own early upbringings and it can be as dramatic as my own.
Well, it is true that I was being attacked by a person here for being monastics. He is a jerk (I tell ya) - even some friends here were attacked by him personally for having different ideas. There was no reason for rebuking me. I was simply explaining some doctrinal points and he simply started to blame monastics, out of no where, saying monastics are burden to the society, etc, etc. I did not personally reply to him as it was pointless for me to argue over such issues that he has so much hatred. So it was better for me to just ignore it.
Definitely even outside the monastery one can find everything that one has in a monastary! - I can understand that - the only difference I see is in their degree of emphasis. Normally in the government or even private educational system, whatever subjects are taught are mostly secular subjects (maths, economics, science, history and so on). Teachers teach because they are trained to teach and make a living out of it and the students go to classes because they need the certificates, so that they can have better jobs - I have no problem with that - I encourage people to be teachers, doctors, engeniers, scientists, even musicians and so on - they are a vital parts of our existence. We can't ignore it and I myself has studied secular subjects, even as a monastics. I studied Maths, English literature, computer, as my spiritual teacher felt that it was a important part of the society we live in.
What I beg to differ in the present educational system (i.e. outside of monastary) is their overwhelming unnecessary emphasis on education that involves heavy competitions and tremendous pressure in the mind. The school fees are so high that often even after graduation students live in debts. If this is all present education system has to offer to us humanity, my question is why would it be central importance to our precious life? - afterall we are meant to happy and peaceful ultimately - it is not leading to any peace of mind. The modern educational system in fact does not have an answer to the solution of this increasing problem.
That's where the monastic education become important - given that it is well-managed and looked after by spiritual teachers. The word monastary should not be used so narrowly. When I say monastary (monastic) education I mean any institutional education that is committed to both secular and spiritual developments - and not one or the other alone. I do not want to see an institution that is solely for the purpose of secular development and even solely for the purpose of spiritual develpment - I do not see these two (secular and spiritual) divorced from each other - they should be together in a balanced way. So, you asked me the following interesting question: if parents asked you, would you recommend they send their children to a monastery? Or would you recommend that the child decides when old enough? My reply is: I would recommend the parents to send their children to that kind of monastery like what I have just described above that is committed to both secular and spiritual development - and not to monasteries that are meant for the adults for exclusive spiritual practice. Adults can decide their own choices - I have no grudge on that - which means here that the child can also decides when old enough - that's perfectly fine and quite safe too.
You have chosen your way, and that is right for you, others choose differently, and living in society is a challenge. Agreed there are many distractions but it is possible to use those to practise the spiritual path it is not impossible. Others in society learn from those enlightened ones who live among them. It is possible to reach inner peace and contentment in the hurly burly of life and be of service to others for a lifetime, and to love and appreciate the creator of all.
Absolutely! it is only a matter of time. Monastics reach Nirvana (perfect rest) faster with thier few burdens while the general lay people rather delay by taking pleasure in the social affairs - but afterall they are all going to the same direction. I won't mind reaching my destination faster and enjoy the perfect rest. It would be fun to see others too climbing slowly!
True Eloquence, though you have called me Meena, it is rare for me to answer to this name!!! Still, for the sake of brevity I will allow you to use this short form. A very different meaning, though, than my actual name. But then, no need to be attached to a name, right? :P
Now as to monasteries as spiritual schools: most monastic orders follow one religious tradition or the other, is it not? So, we have Jain samanas or samanis, Buddhist bhikkus, Benedictine, Trappist and so on.
From what I know, each follows mainly the teachings and esoteric knowledge of that particular religion or monastic order. I believe that each stream, when taken to the end, and traversed with attention, leads to the One.
I also feel, though, that the awareness that there are many streams may not be as acceptable to a monastic education as it is to a lay person, who considers themselves spiritual rather than religious. A spiritual person is willing to see the truths inherent in all spiritual traditions; while a monk largely ignores other traditions.
Is this a true distinction, in your experience?
Also, as to the one who attacked you on Gaia; I have a thread on the Z-Network group, started when I heard of another member being attacked; called If someone attacks you on Gaia, what can you do?
Would you consider giving your perspective on that thread?
I think this would help the community.
Dear Assaji,
I've just enjoyed reading your blog posts tremendously, with deep reminders of being a monk for several years from age 15-17, and also of visits to the peaceful wats of Thailand and some great conversations with some beautiful, blossoming monk souls with tremendous beauty and humor. Thank you.
Whatever your path, do not justify it. Whether you get up at 4 in the morning or 4 in the afternoon, whether we get up to say prayers or get up to go to work, get up to catch the bus or get up to rob the bus riders, Life is still at play within us in a way which surpasses all of our imaginings.
You have chosen to be a bhikku. The friend who criticized you is right in his own mind: you are a burden to society. You are right in your own mind: you are a gift to society, creating little burden, seeking wisdom, contributing to your community. In the same way the bird in the tree is a burden to society: he neither goes to work nor does he study sutras. When the rice falls to the ground he swoops down and eats it, when the song arises in his heart he sings it. No mind, no problems.
I very much liked Adyashanti when he said “The nature of the mind is such that it will use anything as evidence of a problem.” This means that beyond the problem which arises out of mind the Invitation that Life offers us is still available. Look at those beautiful lotuses in the pools at your temple. We too are made to blossom my dear Assaji. It is our nature. Fast, slow, Nature is not in a race with itself, it is in the play of unfolding. Pull on the lotus flower and maybe it never blossoms, but if you simply let the lotus be itself, arising naturally in those sun-filled watery places where lotuses naturally arise, so too they will blossom.
You are the lotus of the monastery, someone else is the crocus flower of the workplace. Is one better, one worse? Where is that better or worse? Only in the mind.
Recently, listening to the New Story by Brian Swimme, which is a telling of the universe according to what science has discovered, and embracing the beauty and the poetry of it, I was delighted to learn that carbon and all of the elements heavier than carbon are brought into existence when a star (like a sun) burns up all of its fuel and collapses in on itself and then explodes. This is the Little Big O principle in action. So now I look up in the sky and see stars and it simply amazes me that the adventure of stars is to manifest as birds, monks, people who think monks are a burden to society, people who go to work, some who rob them, and others who write to beautiful people like yourself by computer. We are literally the adventure that starlight takes as it plays in the universe, and I look at your beautiful photo, look at myself in the mirror, my home - and I am simply astounded. This is so beautiful Bhikku-ji!
Amazing isn't it? Our adventure, regardless of who we are, where we think we are going, where we think we came from, is so generously astounding and filled with sumptuous delight. When the mind, as it is wont to do, uses our experience as evidence of a problem, then we can even delight in that.
And when someone calls us scoundrel monks, scoundrel laypeople, scoundrel birds, we can look at them in full recognition and say, “Yes! Thank you for recognizing me. I truly am a scoundrel. I am the dream of wayward stars pretending to be human.”
Dear Assaji, please know that your adventure is beautiful. The pain of children that you speak about is experienced in many places. It is hard to come into this socialized form which is always trying to shape our beautiful human nature into the shape of a thought. Children are not born as thoughts, they are born of That Which Is, then we impose a story upon them of what they are.
Have you heard of the “Unschooling Movement”? Google it and I think that you'll find it quite interesting.
Your words of deep wisdom and grace bathe my spirit and heart in the kindness of the Awakened One and the beautiful spirit of your gracious countrymen and women in your gracious land of smiles.
I send you my heartfelt greetings and joyous tidings. Please enjoy your adventure and be gentle with yourself. Know that the child that you were once and who yearned for that gentle, loving touch, affection, and simple, connective recognition is with you still. Provide yourself with that love and all others will be touched by your already very touching presence.
Kind Regards & Love, my friend,
O (your not-so-distant cousin in the play of starlight)
I love your path!
I love it that you are 22 years old
in 2008,
making music,
on the Internet
and about to go to London
for further adventures!
Way to go!
love
HummingBird
Hello Meenakshi,
Right! no need to be attached to a name. People have always called me differently like: ”Aji, Saji, Ji, Assa, Asso (horse lol)”. However, if ”Meena” has a different meaning and you think its sensitive, I will avoid it. I know how sensitive I would be as a child when people called me with a different meaning.
Yes most monastic orders follow one religious tradition or the other in general. I agree, but I also see there are subtle differences which we often tend to neglect by categorizing them into one. If you have read enough books on Buddhism, you must have come across discussions like ”Is Buddhism a religion?”, because the word ”religion” from the Western context, means ”the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship”, like Christian Religion. If we consider this, we can't put Buddhism in this category. Can we? No, because there is no belief in a God (the Creator) in Buddhism. In Indian terminology, Buddhism is simply called as ”Buddha-Dharma” (Dharma of the Buddha). Now what is Dharma? Dharma has many meanings. The most common translations are “law, nature, virtue, factors, truth and Doctrine”. So here Buddha-Dharma can be said to be the” Doctrine of the Buddha” or the “Law of the Buddha”. We can see here it does not have any relationship whatsoever with the word “Religion” as used in the western context.
Another point I want to show is that in the East, at least in the Buddhist circles, we don't very much distinguish between religious and spiritual. They are just one. We just call them “Dharmic”, doesn't matter you are a monastic or a lay. When Emperor Asoka took refuge in Buddha-dharma and followed sincerely, he ruled the whole India only by the power of “the Dharma” (the law, truth), which is always there. Because of that, he was also named “Dharmasoka”. A Buddhist monk who is highly developed in his practice is considered a spiritual person, not necessarily a religious person. We don't call him a religious person exclusively, do we? (a religious person is someone who is doing some rituals and sacrifices) Similarly a lay man devoting to vipassana meditation (like S.N. Goenka in India), we also call him spiritual person. So the distinction between religious and spiritual is not to be found in Buddhism. His Holiness Dalai Lama is not the religious Pope for all Buddhists. Most Western people think so, just like they are used to think the Christian Pope to be the supreme authority over all Christians. His Holiness Dalai Lama is only the spiritual leader for the Tibetan people, not for Sri Lankan, Thai, Burmese, Chinese, Korean and Japanese. So in Buddhism, we don't have such strict distinctions. What we have is the four social classifications into ”Layman (upasakha), laywoman (upasikha), monks (bhikkhu) and nuns (bhikkhuni)”. The distinctions among these four-fold classifications are mainly with regard to their qualities of life and not with regard to their caste, colour, size, positions. But all of them have the same potentials to be Buddhas. Monks and nuns are respected because they keep alive the spiritual path and show the lay people (busy with family and society) to follow suit.
Strictly I don't distinguish a spiritual person from a religious person. I have always considered myself a spiritual person, so has my teacher. But, we are both monastic. At the same time, I have no problem on anyone who distinguishes given his or her own social background. One of my friends considers herself spiritual, rather than religious. I understand why she says like that. I understand the society she is coming from. Louis de la Vallée Poussin, who has been a Christian father went about studying extensively Buddhist Philosophy and other prior and temporary Indian Philosophies and produced some of the best books today. He being a Christian monk saw the truths inherent in all the spiritual traditions. How is he different from a lay person who is willing to do the same thing? Buddha Shakyamuni himself went about seeking the truth inherent in all the spiritual traditions during his life times, but having realized that all these were not able to lead him to final liberation, so he endeavoured to pursue his own goal. He was like just one of us seeking after the highest truth. So as a follower of Him, how am I not a spiritual person, but a religious person?
True Eloquence, you are truly eloquent! And also very gracious.
This is a good point; that Buddha being a spiritual being, his followers feel themselves to be spiritual and not religious.
However, as you have pointed out, the Dalai Lama is the spiritual head only of Tibetan Buddhists; and that you follow the Buddha. Additionally, having Buddhist friends, I realize that there are many sects, each of them purporting to teach the most important sutra of the Buddha.
This does seem to underscore my point that a monk follows ONE stream of spirituality. As s/he rises in the monastery classification, perhaps at the highest level, they are exposed to the interconnections among different spiritual streams. But I don't know this.
So, a simple question: are you “allowed” to pursue studies of different monastic/spiritual/Buddhist traditions? e.g. could you, as a monk, decide to follow the Dalai Lama's teaching?
And another question [sorry, I'm full of them:]
There is a mystical lore that during Wesak, the Buddha and Christ both are present to bless the people of the earth. Is there any light you can throw on that?
today I was reading some basic literature on Buddhism today and had this thought:
I bow to the essential truth all things and beings represent
HummingBird
Graceful Mom
Thank you for sharing this lovely thought
Dear Meenakshi,
Thank you for your precious questions. I very much enjoy answering them. Sorry for taking a while to reply you, as I have been bit busy preparing for my upcoming studies.
As for your first question - ”are you “allowed” to pursue studies of different monastic/spiritual/Buddhist traditions? e.g. could you, as a monk, decide to follow the Dalai Lama's teaching?” - definitely yes! we are allowed to pursue studies of different traditions, afterall they are all Buddhism. Aren't they? See I belong to the Theravadin Tradition, but I also study Mahayana and Vajrayana Traditions as well. I compare them with a tree of enlightenment - Theravada being the trunk of the tree and Mahayana and Vajrayana being the branches, leaves and the fruits. Well, the different Buddhist Schools seem to have appeared around the 2nd century BCE mainly due to Vinaya (disciplinary) issues, but all believe in the fundamental teachings of the Buddha. It is just that some school emphasize certain ways of living and teachings more than the others. Later with with further geographical changes and adaptations of new cultures, there were more schools in China, Korea, Japan and Tibet. Buddhism came to Tibet very late, when it was about to almost disappear from India in the 5th century CE.
As for your second question - There is a mystical lore that during Wesak, the Buddha and Christ both are present to bless the people of the earth. Is there any light you can throw on that? - this depends on how one looks at it. Empiricists would not agree with this (I am sure) given the fact that Buddha was a historical person, so was Christ and they were of different periods in history too. They came into this world, did great things and then passed away. What we have now is their legacy. That's all. Well, this is not the case for so called mystics (I personally don't like to use this word, but at the same time I don't have a better tern for this). They would say Buddha is an enlightenment energy which is always there. Buddha Shakyamuni's coming into this world was just an expedient means to demonstrate the world the path to liberation. In reality, he was not born a prince, neither did he saw the Four Sights, went into the forest, attained enlightenment, taught the Dharma for forty five years and then passed away. He was already enlightened long time ago. It was just an expedient means of his enlightenment energy.
Well for me I would be more practical than being mystical. It resonates more with my intellect and reality of the world. I don't think Buddha is watching over us or coming to bless us. This idea is completely Christian or whatever. Buddha had said ”atta hi attano natho ko hi natho paro siya attana'va sudantena natham labhati dullabham” (One is indeed one's own lord. What other lord would there be? With oneself well restrained, one will obtain the lord that is so hard to get.)
I hope this is helpful.
Ah yes, very illuminating. You are wise beyond your years, True Eloquence. And what an interesting icon you have now!
Thank you Meenakshi for the nice compliment (I think I am smiling). I like your icon too - very sweet indeed!
kind regards,
Assaji
Dear Little Big O (my not-so-distant cousin in the play of starlight),
Yes, it's amazing our adventure, regardless of who we are, where we think we are going, where we think we came from, is so generously astounding and filled with sumptuous delight.
Your words are truly rewarding. Originally when I wrote this post, I was not complaining about the attack on me being a monastic. I was simply trying to clarify some extreme views. So, since many gaian friends here are curious about the life of monastics and I often get lots of questions, I thought of sharing here.
Yes, when someone calls us scoundrel monks, scoundrel laypeople, scoundrel birds, we can look at them in full recognition and say, “Yes! Thank you for recognizing me. I truly am a scoundrel. I am the dream of wayward stars pretending to be human.”
This reminds me of the Eight Worldly Conditions: gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. These eight worldly conditions spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions.
Thank you Little Big O, I shall keep in mind that my adventure is beautiful and I shall enjoy this adventure and be gentle with myself. I am becoming aware of that child I was once and who yearned for that gentle, loving touch, affection, and simple, connective recognition is still here with me. I shall provide that child with that love and hopefully all others will be touched by that presence.
Much appreciation,
Assaji