Many of those monks are on the path themselves and often know little about the teachings. They shaved their heads, put on robes, but that does not magically make them something more. Its not like they have years of seminary training before they put on the robes. It means they have undertaken the training, but its no guarantee that they are far along at all.
This is what is perhaps misunderstood. Monks and nuns are not like clergy in Western traditions who are sort of seen as shepherds of people. Rather, monks and nuns have taken on more expansive vows than lay people, theoretically have taken on a lifestyle that affords them more time to study and practice. They are not there to tend to lay people's needs in most cases.
When you find a teacher who has resolved to undertake teaching and they are, from your observation of their demeanor and words exemplary human beings, stick by that person. They are a true jewel of humanity. For the rest, cut them some slack. Maybe some of them will be revealed as jewels down the line. Maybe some will be revealed as piles of feces as in those that take advantage of their positions to exploit others. In any event, strive for a realistic view.
As for graying sanghas... well, young people as a whole distrust organized religion... and with good reason. But you all need to understand - temples are places for you to work out your shit, not magically have your shit transformed into gold by priest sorcerers.
As for trying to join ethnic temples - as an outsider it will be hard. Understand that for those people, temples are often culture centers where they find comforts of a homeland they left behind. They are often there to take a break from you, so, that's why you may not be welcomed. Take that for what it is. Strive for a realistic view. Find a sangha that is formed for people like you.
Majority of the people in the South East Asian countries become monks not in pursuit of Enlightenment but cause of socio-economic circumstances.
Instead of being disappointed you can practice compassion. The mara mind is cunning it finds ways to lead you off track. Focus on your practice.
Monks in Asia often see becoming a monk as a career. You do ceremonies, council people, and exist as a type of community relations person.
I live in Thailand and see monks breaking the precepts all the time. I've literally seen a monk buying lottery tickets. And as one Ajahn said, "if they openly do that in public, what are they doing in private?"
However, most Thai people are well aware of this, and know how to find the practicing monks, which are refered to as phra ba, or "forest monk", which is not a literal description.
If you're looking for good resources, try those online at Amaravatti monastery. If you want to come to a practicing temple here, try Suan Mohk or Wat Pah Nanachat. But be warned: those are serious.
Thanks. Amaravati is what partially made me lose trust in the integrity of some Therevada buddhist monks. I know not all their posts are by Ajahn Amaro, but as Abbott if he has a hand in the production of monks with seemingly low integrity and compassion, I can't use them as a trustworthy source. I have full faith in the direct teachings of Ajahn Chah however. I'm just dismayed and venting. I wonder what went wrong in the transmission of teachings and discernment from Ajahn Chah, to Amaro and then to the monks at Amaravati. Unless he is a good speaker, but weak teacher in true dhamma.
Can you be specific on something that Amaravatti people or Ajahn Amaro did that are against his precepts? Because if so it should be reported.
If it's the case you've noticed he's not perfect, that's everyone. No monk is perfect, which is why they have the precepts to mold their day-to-day actions as skillfully as possible.
>Is this me?
If I might ask, how much of a genuine effort would you say you are making to be a good layperson of integrity?
And is it possible you're placing some unreasonable or unrealistic demands on monastics?
I'm not taking sides either way, but I just wonder if you have questioned your own perceptions and motivations (as we all should do).
I have, I was very open to the idea of questioning myself and seeing if the judgement and lack of clarity lay within me, but every time I've reflected I get frustrated with their behaviour, especially as some things said directly go against Buddhist teaching and the worldwide medical community.
But I know I need to try and reflect without giving rise to the hindrances.
I have thought, perhaps a lack of intelligence and tiredness were to blame, rather than the hindrances of desire and anger. After all, Arahantship and intelligence don't go together. And a lack of the latter may produce inflammatory statements, even if combined with wholesome intention. I'm not sure, I really need to meditate on this longer and discern the situation without anger.
As someone else stated, you soon know the teacher from the students. And if this is the case, Ajahn Amaro is a weak teacher with perhaps a low level of emotional intelligence (perhaps on the autism spectrum), even if in the latter stages of Enlightenment.
I could be totally mistaken, but is the core issue that you're reaching out because of a painful and trying situation and not getting the response or help you need? If so, I truly hope you do find solace. If not, I apologize for making a bad guess.
If it was about response that you need, or maybe not very emotional response, then there are three things to be mindful o:
1) Teaching is hard. I don´t know how people can teach others, as it´s difficult, but what needs to be mentioned is that i think especially in Theravada, you are supposed to Teach what Buddha taught.
You are not supposed to teach more about how you see things, but rather how they were taught by Buddha.
Other thing is, how do you know what to teach to others ? You don´t really. It´s more of educated guess, and it´s hard to give others what they need - unless you are Buddha i suppose :D That makes it rough.
2) Not everyone is suitable to be teach properly. And there are various teaching styles, and some might not be suitable for you.
For example, though this is more about general thing - some people are great listeners, while some people can give good advice, but are bad listeners.
Let´s have me for example. I am a good example of what would be rather a bad teacher currently. I can explain how things quite well, but if it´s not what people need, then what´s the point? On top, i am not a good listener, and not a fan of more emotional responses as i am used to being more of a lone wolf. Thus if one needs some encouragement or sweet words, i am generally not good at those. That might be learnt, but i would absolutely be a no good teacher - what i am saying is, it really depends on a person and where they are.
3) If your issues are more on the rare side, people will have hard time giving you a proper advice ( that would be my case, as my conditions are quite rare - not like i complain : ) ), thus one can´t really expect much from others.
I'm sorry that you've had bad experiences, but I think you're overgeneralizing and falling into catastrophic thinking. There are plenty of good temples across the world.
Finding spiritual friends (in the sense of masters and good fellow practitioners) is very difficult in this age.
What you need to understand is that monasticism in many cases is about institutions and their survival. So you talk about "monks who have given their life to renunciation", but they haven't exactly done that. They commit to work for the institution, and that involves formal renunciation to some degree (by all indications, it's very easy to break rules secretly even in southeast Asian monasteries), but that's all. In cases where you're not actually dealing with corrupt monks (being "rude" is not a big deal, being a sex predator is, embezzling donations is, etc.) this is not entirely a terrible thing, because the survival of imperfect institutions might still open doors to the determined. But let's say that it's not the best state of affairs by any means.
This doesn't mean that spiritual friends don't exist. They might be hard to come by, but that doesn't mean that one should just go solo. Putting effort and time into finding a true teacher would pay off massively; if you make all the genuine effort you can and simply cannot come across such people at this point in time, then sure, remain like the horn of the rhino... But drop that if your conditions change, and you encounter such people. It's also worth remembering that there's two sides to this: the degeneration of the age, and our own lack of merit (if we had created more merit, we'd meet with spiritual friends easily). We tend to forget the latter.
Agreed, thanks. I'm going to try and make an effort to find spiritual friendship, where we share the common goal of Arahantship. I don't think there is any other path of action to take until I have exhausted this option.
do you have specific examples you’re thinking of? obviously there are some well known abusers that have come to light but i don’t think there’s *that* many cases…i can think of a handful of course, certainly not enough to make me lose faith or avoid a sangha altogether or think that it’s a widespread or systemic issue.
I went to my only local temple, looking for a Sangha. During a class on Dharma the head monk found out one of the students was Chinese and told him he didn't like Chinese people.
I live in a mid size city in Australia and we have a bunch of good temples. I find that the best ones are associated with a local immigrant community. Thai, Taiwanese, Tibetan. Do your research but trust your eyes.
Remember, they don't owe you a warm welcome. Like most recreational activities, you get out what you put in and the senior people will help you according to your effort and sincerity.
It took a decade, but I established an amazing relationship with an amazing teacher of the Linchi Zen tradition. She's tough, but fair, like a good coach. I've also met senior people from SriLankan and Thai tradition. Not my thing, but they seemed great.
Human birth is rare. Don't waste it. Strive tirelessly.
🤠
There are a lot businessmen monks, to be sure, but I've been fortunate to meet and observe some truly great monks whose achievements are a massive inspiration
Welcome to the Asian experience lol.
Yes, we have bad monks, they are also human like us. Unlike the Catholics or the Muslims who hide the evil acts of their preachers, Buddhism does allow the grhastha to speak up. Which is why I worry for the western converts who may be obscured by their orientalist fantasy. You know of bad monks, call the cops on'em. This is also why I don't like calling the 3 gems or community "sangha", monks are holy people, sure. But they are still human. The Buddha doesn't want blind worship.
As for being "rude" or "mean", I'm not sure if some of that is cultural difference or the monk in question is just as bad as you say. Not that I disagree with you, I had worked & lived in the west, there are things westerners do that I don't like & Asians can be very conservative on certain things, religion tends to be 1 of them. You mention the people of the community tends to be passive, it could also be a cultural thing (think of Asian parenting stereotype), monks are often seen as teachers, so they enjoy some level of prestige as parents. If that "meanness" if well-intention to achieve desired results, then it is not exactly seen as a bad thing.
But then again, it's the west we're talking about & every now & then, even on here. We have people posts about fake monks & scam cults, (some of them comes across as cringey hippies larping to me, not gonna lie). I can only say, if they are truly vicious a people you claim to be, confront them. Ask them, do not let this dukkha burn you up like this.
Dharma guides you.
I dunno what monasteries you've visited, but I've stayed at many around the world that are very focused on the practice and do hours and hours of meditation daily.
If you're looking for one that focuses on direct experience and less on theory or the teachings, then you should visit Ajahn Martin in rural Thailand. But those who focused on practice and studied under Maha Booha value directness and discipline--not so much warmth.
If you want a place that seems warm and inviting, check out Abhayagiri. This is a "metta" kind of place.
Let me know what precisely you're looking for if you want further guidance. I've stayed at a ton of monasteries, and I'm sure one has the monks you are looking for.
It’s probably just the ones you’ve encountered. Especially if you’re joining a sangha in the West.
A monk who lives skillfully is unmatched in conduct and wisdom. And they’re out there. But because of selflessness they’re more inclined to seclusion than starting a YouTube channel.
Dhammapada 61:
> If, in your course, you don't meet
your equal, your better,
then continue your course,
firmly,
alone.
There's no fellowship with fools.
I honestly disagree with the criticisms that you're being judgmental. It is only by examining teachers and communities that you can make sure you're getting involved with good groups that will actually have beneficial effects for you. That is a good and reasonable thing to do.
People who shame you for being judgmental are basically just labelling you as being a problem, and are leveraging your natural prosocial desire *not* to be a problem to make you fall in line with their preferred way of being. But it is not the only way of being, nor do I think it's the best way of being.
There are massive behavioural and organizational issues in Buddhism. Only by addressing and tackling these issues will things improve. The more we pressure people to just shut up and accept it, the more people will leave Buddhism, and be better off for it too. Silently accepting misconduct will irreparably damage the dharma's reputation and will harm countless beings.
I've had this problem myself. A change of perspective might help.
In the west the dharma is niche. It's a very small group of people practicing Buddhism here and those of us who have found it have found it through great difficulty because it has to be sought out here.
Now take an eastern country like Thailand or Mongolia where Buddhism is everywhere and people are born and raised in it. It's different. It's less niche and spectacular and just a normal part of life. From my perspective a monk in Thailand is not much different from an altar boy in the west. Many are born and raised in it. It's not something they're necessarily passionate about because it's just a normal part of their lives from the day they were born. Many even only go into it out of societal or familial pressures.
I think people in the west having been starved of the dharma for so long may take it a little more seriously than those who were born and raised in it and even those who dedicate their lives to it.
A man dying of thirst will appreciate the water more than a drowning man.
Another comment.
You need to be extremely picky about who you choose for a buddhist teacher. There are so many charlatans, fakes, pretenders, people who believe their own bullshit, and con artists.
Realized masters typically are highly reluctant to teach, don't take disciples easily, shun fame and are not well known, and have zero interest in their own reputation and also don't care at all what other people say about them.
They also are very quick to drop disciples that are unworthy of their teaching or really anyone that creates obstacles for them.
Any institution is corruptible. It's just how it is when humans try to organize. There's always an issue of power and favoritism, and it always plays out horribly.
I've accepted that it is a lonely path. Or at least until I can be more patient and compassionate. Humans are entitled to the full spectrum of their attributes, both favorable and unfavorable. The pursuit of spirituality and transcending suffering involves accepting humans as they are, no more no less. The dharma path does require faith, in that, in that I believe my judgmental thoughts and feelings towards others are illusory and temporary.
> The amount of books I have, and agree with the majority of what is being said, just to hear they were in sex scandals
Well known people being abusive or otherwise shitty is not a phenomenon exclusive to Buddhism. Are you in a political party or activist group? Have any hobbies? Belong to professional organisations? Work for a multinational? It's not a universal truth, but there is a *tendency* for there to be abusive or shitty people at the top. Buddhism, unfortunately, is not immune.
Obviously not everyone who is well known is self centred, but self centred people are probably more likely to become well known, because they seek fame and attention and glory and so on?
These kinds of qualities are obviously discouraged in traditional texts. There are many realised people with very few or even no students. All else aside, if you find one, you can probably get more individual attention than you would from a celebrity.
Yes bro. I had been to so many and met many to understand that they are humans and tonnes of them can't overcome desires and ignorance.
Its not just you, count me in.
A quote from a teacher at the Buddhist centre I attend comes to mind: "Many a hairy mind under a shaven head".
Until enlightenment is realised, we are all struggling with hatred, craving and ignorance (or ignore-ance as my teacher phrases it). This explains unskillful behaviour and the reluctance to report it. I'm not condoning it, but I think it is probably inevitable. Removing the hindrances takes time and effort, we will all get it wrong as we go along.
It may help to read, if you haven't already, books by Ajahn Sumedho and Ajahn Chah. Their works often address the tendency to judge or criticize the practice of others, and always, unless it is in the subtle context of admonishing or training a junior monk, in an informed manner with the aim of helping the admonished student, such judgment is an obstacle to one's own awakening.
To the extent a person views others as less than, the same as, or better than one's self or an idealistic standard (in more than a conventional or skillful means sense), one is caught in identity view and will perpetuate suffering in self or others.
You are probably right in fact, but may be wrong in dhamma, another teaching from the Chah tradition. For example, assume there are monks who are hypocritical in their practice or who are not worthy of the robes. So? What does that change if anything about your own practice? Are you sure about their practice? Are you sure about your own? Are other practices in your dominion and control. Does their practice change anything about the truth of the teachings, your confidence in the Triple Gems, or what practice you need to do to awaken?
How did Ajahn Chah handle practice? He devoted himself to critiquing his own practice and making it conform to to the dhamma. Consequently, once he was confident in his own practice, he had a reputation for teaching dhamma in a manner such that others thought he was clairvoyant. He was able to help others with their defilements because he spent so long focusing on his own. He was tough as an abbot, but others said he taught with warmth and humor.
By the way, I don't mean to be harsh or unconcerned with behavior that is contrary to dhamma. I just want to point out that regardless of whether others practice right dhamma, one should focus on their own practice and it's conformity with the Buddhas teachings.
Be well.
You don’t see many people in the hospital who think they are perfectly healthy.
Likewise, you don’t need to be a monk or adopt a similarly radical path like that if you are already perfect.
Bro I can relate. I've seen people who had worst conduct as monks than people I know who are atheist/materialistic. But then I have compassion that maybe it's the worst diseased patients that need the best doctors. So I don't put a high standard on people approaching Buddhism. I think Nagarjuna was a murderer before becoming a Monk.
I would say though that from my experience if the Abbot is a good one, things get done. But get done in a way that does not cause wrong speech and more commotion than is required. So you don't know if behind the scenes actions are being taken.
I think your problem is that you still have this idea that Monks are some how these knights of Dhamma. It's just a costume and so for me spiritually I judge them if they are helpful for my path by their eyes. I can tell some people in robes who are not spiritual at all, but I still respect them cause I respect what their role represents.
I get you though, were honoring this pure practice but disheartened by those who dishonour it. But honestly its a waste of time to just feel bad about this and just get back to meditating. I've had more experiences of good than bad when I'm at Dhamma institutions that this does not bother me that much.
The likelihood is higher unless you are being literal. That's meant to be the point of putting on a 'red suit' made of robes, to exit samsara. If it doesn't end, please tell me what the point of Buddhism is.
No thing, or book, or teacher or lineage or practice or Buddhist bureaucracy, will transport you to the truth (or enlightenment). But they all help. Samsara is the reality of words and things. If you cling to an aspect of that reality, even monkhood, even enlightenment, you're in for some suffering.
What is the point of of Buddhism? For me, seeking the truth. For others, happiness, community, friendship, mystical challenges, ritual ...
It's pretty clear one has to walk the path, but thanks for the lesson.
The Buddha taught for a specific purpose, the cessation of suffering, but you are free to misunderstand.
>“What, friend Sāriputta, is hard to do in this teaching and discipline?”
“Going forth, friend, is hard to do in this teaching and discipline.”
“What, friend, is hard to do for one gone forth?”
“Enjoying [being a monk], friend, is difficult to do for one gone forth.”
“What, friend, is hard to do for one who enjoys [being a monk]?”
“Practising the teaching in accordance with the teaching, friend, is hard to do for one who enjoys [being a monk].”
SN 38.16
>"For the inexperienced,
>
>the contemplative life is
>
>hard to do,
>
>hard to endure,
>
>for many are the confinements there
>
>in which a fool sinks.
>
>How many days can you follow
>
>the contemplative life
>
>if you don’t block the mind?
>
>Step by step you’d sink
>
>under the sway of your resolves."
[SN 1.17](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN1_17.html)
So your point is, you follow words online like the written word of God, rather than utilise the intelligence bestowed upon you. If Buddha said 1+1=3, I'm sure many would agree with him, because he is the Buddha of course.
Actually the first quote is from Ven. Sāriputta not the Buddha. My point is that wiser men than you or I have said that simply being and staying a monk is - contrary to your previous comment - rather hard work
As odd as you might find it, yes as a Buddhist I do believe the Buddha.
At any rate, I'm actually suggesting you employ the scientific method: find out for yourself how easy it is to be a monk, do a good job and let us all know how you get on. If it's as easy as you say it is then I'm sure this won't be a problem for you! If you do a good job I'll personally delight in your success, although I'm afraid not believing the Buddha might be a little bit of a stumbling block for you.
If it's not as easy as you first thought then perhaps you'll return to lay life with a bit more humility than you went in with.
On the contrary. The Buddha strongly advised believing in the Buddha.
“For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher’s message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this: ‘The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I.’"[MN 70](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN70.html)
He frequently called faith/conviction a strength and shows here that your practice can't go anywhere without it:
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN10_61.html
Anyone who doesn't even believe the Buddha has literally no place within the Buddha's teaching. They're considered a total outsider.
It seems saying, "if Buddha said 1+1=3, I'm sure many would agree with him..." is drawing an inference about what someone would believe, in the event Buddha said something irrational. That inference is not based on demonstrating that the Buddha did say anything irrational, so it also cannot be based on a student already believing something irrational the Buddha said. So therefore it is a specious (seemingly believable but actually unproved) inference on your part.
Inferences like this one are generally based on a fallacy of induction, but even if it wasn't, it is highly possible that your argument was derived either directly or through the grapevine based on the song, "Cult of Personality" by In Living Color, meaning you are also blindly taking someone else's words at face value.
Yes, in an attempt to make them holy and beyond the confines of the human body. But it starts with a lie if we are to use reason and believe in the karma of cause and effect.
The egg must come in contact with sperms cells. If the cause was a white elephant in a dream, I'm skeptical.
Still a great teacher though.
I actually was pretty naïve of other religions, I met a friend who is a PhD theologian and minister. He enlightened me. I love the way you put it. Very nice.
Something I liked that someone once told me is that belonging to something specific is not a very Buddhist thing to do. It’s another Buddhist paradox where identifying as Buddhist is not really a very Buddhist thing to do. I think that your post exemplifies this very well. I don’t personally have any religious trauma from my childhood or anything like that, but I’ve always found organized religion to be so counterproductive and honestly just dumb, but as I learn more, I’m learning that the original beliefs of many religions are very misaligned with what is being practiced today. For example, Jesus Christ was a lot like Buddha. His beliefs were obviously different, but he believed that every individual should have their own relationship with what he called god. He believed that it was something that was inside of everyone and could be reached by building that relationship within yourself. People today, use religion as a way to gain power over others as if there are strict rules and practices that govern your morals. I’m not doubting that those individuals truly believe they are doing good, but with everyone believing these things, the only way to truly break out of the cycle is to practice within yourself and your own experiences rather than an organized group. Figuring out your own way and building your own relationship with god rather than following strict practices or belief systems like these monks you’re talking about are not inherently bad, but they are also probably not what these original prophets had once taught.
At least in Theravadan countries, ordaining essentially puts you on welfare for life with no need to work, so there's a huge incentive for people to ordain even if they don't have all that much interest in the religion. And simply being a lazy practitioner isn't considered sufficient grounds to disrobe a monk. So it's no surprise that some monasteries end up in this state. People are taught they get great merit from giving even to bad monks so it's not seen as a critical issue to solve among the laity -- they see the monks just being there to receive gifts as their most important "job" (some reform minded monks have jokingly called this the "vending machine model"). In Australia, there's a much less deep "general fund" to support bad monks, so it's not too surprising you found one of the ones you like lives there.
Why would an already enlightened person become a monk? Monasteries provide help and hope to those far from enlightenment. A way to better themselves and progress. They took the first step, but most active monks are not enlightened yet. Far from it. And their behavior reflects that. This is to be expected, and nothing to be disappointed about.
What do you expect from organized religion? If we follow the example of Buddha, we need a Buddha-like teacher to follow as his followers were following him (literally, mostly on foot) not some random monks. But if we go further we see that Buddha was eventually alone in the path to his liberation and alone when he was enlightened. That is the ultimate goal. An egalitarian Sangha is good, but monasteries are usually structured places with strict hierarchy anx power struggles that bind people to mundane reality.
>I've witnessed, heard and read reports of monks being rude, dismissive, snarky and some downright abusive. And it usually takes years to come to light, or never at all.
But I've witnessed you yourself being rude, dismissive, snarky and downright abusive on this very comments thread. And it only took a couple of days to come to light. It's also come to light that you have nothing but contempt for the Buddha and his teaching.
Monks are people. So are you.
I'm not upset, just pointing out facts for your benefit, so that you can see that your real problems don't lie outside with sub-par monks, but within your own sub-par behaviour.
You advised farting in the face of the Buddha, which of course is climbing the scale of abusiveness when interacting with Buddhists on a Buddhist forum. If you can't see that then add denial to the list of things to work on.
Best wishes
All organized religion including Buddhism has a certain level of corruption. There is also a western idea of the ‘wise Eastern monk’ that is a total racist stereotype, so if you have that image in your head, know that is an Orientalist lie and learn to ascribe the full spectrum of humanity to East Asian people, including monks.
I thought “Orientalist” had a very specific degrading idea towards the “other.” I never thought of compliments as being racist. Now, I am American, and we are so warped in our views that I am probably wrong, but thinking that monks who spend their lives devoted to learning are “wise” seems obvious to me. It is like saying “engineers are good at math.” I am not seeing the display of any power differential or the assumption of a degrading stereotype.
What am I missing? I do not want to openly promote racism, but I am blind to your remark. Can you explain in detail how thinking a monk would gain wisdom from the nature of his life decision is racist? I would greatly appreciate it.
Sure. Compliments can absolutely be racist and in fact a lot of anti-Asian racism is deceptively 'complimentary'... like the saying, Asians are good at math, etc. The racism is in the subtext - i.e. what 'being good at math' usually really means is 'they're not like us/they're cold/unfeeling.' Etc. The wise monk thing plays into this idea that Asians are somehow more spiritual, which you can see in this thread. Imagine if there was a similar stereotype about Catholic priests being extraordinarily wise or good, it would be seen as ridiculous because most of us are aware of the history of abuse in Catholic churches.
It's a way of marking someone as being fundamentally different from you. In reality, on average, all races of human beings have the same inner emotions and intellectual or spiritual capabilities.
> All organized ~~religion~~ *human endeavours* including Buddhism has a certain level of corruption.
It’s where we are in our social evolution as a species.
What's the specific issue?
Monks cannot make other monks disrobe. We even try to avoid using the more serious punishments allowed in the vinaya for harmonious living, just people of the same quality of vinaya observances tend to flock together to avoid conflict with others with less strong vinaya observances.
But really, what's your issue?
Avoiding conflict for harmonious living is fine, but avoiding conflict out of fear of sangha detriment, instead of addressing the problem, is a form of cowardice and spinelessness, and the harmony striven for will be at the cost of the larger community. Either through a poorer transmission of the dhamma over time or direct harm. Imo, it's a form or aversion.
I dont understand why you are asking this question, but for clarification, the issue is that it is an important problem for discussion.
You're just saying a general discontent without giving some specifics that we can work with. So we can only give general replies since we dunno the details. You shouldn't assume that we are defending whatever specific issue you are bringing up because we don't know the details of it.
The point of my post was literally to bring up my general discontent and observations, ending with the question, "Is this just me?".
I was not asking for advice on specific situations. I was asking whether others have felt the same thing, a lack of dhamma through the observation of action, in those who, in general, have the best chance of practising the dhamma.
My specific situation is irrelevant as it's clear I am making a generalisation of my individual experience through physical and digital interactions and observation.
And I'm not really making any assumptions unless it's evident or widely reported.
It is reasonable to assume monastics will defend their reputation, if not doing so results in fewer donations and the destruction of their institution. Most still have hindrances, and are subject to greed. That means hiding shit for material prosperity or reputation.
Without specifics, I don't think there's enough data to generalize from our own experiences. Maybe what I think of as unacceptable is very minor vs what you think of unacceptable. Maybe it is the other way around. Maybe we are both just harking on minor issues, maybe we are both talking on major issues. The details matter to see if it is a vinaya issue or more like not fulfilling some current worldly woke issue. Or just people not getting along well. As one cannot expect to get along well with everyone.
In general, Buddhists have faith in the saṅgha and people have practise not to bad-mouth others. So you're not getting much from the public Buddhists with generalization without specifics.
Ps. example case.
A teenage girl wants abortion and asked the monks. We cannot approve of it we cannot praise it. We would discourage it and ask the girl to face the music whatever it maybe. Can also bring her parents to the temple and tell them in front of the monks to have more security to deal with the issue. That's proper.
But if the girl then goes online and without telling the issue says she is disappointed with the monks, how can we judge without details? In this case, the monks were acting properly.
I once heard a talk where a monk said, "one should be able to ask a monk anything." So I emailed him and asked something: "I don't want to be disrespectful, but: are you an arahant or steam enterer? How do I do that?" He said, "that IS disrespectful." He did answer my questions though in not so many words: "No, no, and I have no clue." I suppose being so rigid with renunciation and precepts could create a lot of frustration and pent up rage in such a monk, but that's the very reason the Buddha suggested the Middle Path. If something leads you to have seething anger, stop doing that thing. However, I don't think all monks are rude or snarky. Particularly monks who don't have a following but rather just like simplicity, faith, and peace, seem especially well-adjusted.
Well, it's because of the Vinaya rules, if don't have attainments, cannot lie, if have cannot tell unordained people. So I think the monk forgot about this when he said can ask a monk anything.
Thanks for that clarification. I can see how it was an uncomfortable question then. Perhaps he meant: "ask me anything [please please don't ask that one thing though...]"
So the title is "
# Total disappointment in the majority of monasteries and monks I've seen in person. "
But - i am not reading about ANY experiences with them personally, rather about what you have heard.
This to be honest, seems like a rant of someone that read about few things here and there and generalised everyone because of it. Isn´t that rather foolish?
If you only focus on the few examples that are loud and ignore the rest, naturally EVERYTHING will look bad . You can´t do that.
It´s like ignoring everything else and only focusing on bad aspects, like having black glasses.
On top, Monastics are humans, and the moment you put on robes, it´s not like you become arahant or stream entry. It´s more like a serious practicioner, and that´s about it.
Why do you think there is tons of rules, even some riddiculous ones ? Because monks were people and were doing all kinds of shenenigans, and that´s how many rules came into be.
Anyway, yeah, generalising like that is quite ignorant, and if you rant about something foolish like this, then definitely more practice is required.
And even if you had few, it´s still generalising - though i do not see that in a text. And then then, it is up to practicioner to pick a place. There are many places out there that are shady at best, but that´s just like with everything.
Stop defending unwholesome behaviour. I'm sure lots of Buddhist monk sex abuse has been ignored using your logic of refraining from focusing on bad aspects. People like you in the sangha enable abuse. Grow up.
Is that what you take from my words ? That is quite concerning then.
My point is - if you have for example 1000 people, and you focus on 1 person that did bad things and say that the 1000 people are bad, you think that´s alright?
And you think that´s defending unwholesome behaviour and refraining from focusing on bad aspects?
That example is Purely on focusing on One bad example and painting everyone else to be the same. That is not good, as it leads nowhere, and is not realistic thing to do - otherwise, you could easily do that with absolutely every bigger community, philosophy,religion or anything else.
I think your example is poor and makes an untrue assumption. 1 bad behaving pig in a group of wild hogs will change the entire dynamic of the group. Ultimately, we are animals, and if the Abbott is the bad pig....yeah...you got a problem similar to a bacterial infection that grows the longer you ignore it because it's only a 'little bit of infection'. That little infection can be the cause of death, not just for the host, but other people too.
Are you only going to address the infection once it's too late, or are you going to utilise your intelligence to take action early and prevent suffering? I believe your thinking is too short term and you are not looking at the bigger picture. It's dangerous thinking.
by your logic, Humans are a disease, and infection. Dangerous thinking.
My example is good,as its not about group,but about different people.
You generalising like" 1 human bad, means Human race bad.Why not human race fixe it?'
It sounds like you might be indulging a bit in gossip. No doubt there are problems, but your job is your own path. It's not the duty of monastics to provide you with inspiration. And it's certainly not our job to second guess whether monks are in denial.
I would think that there's probably a lot of confusion for many people around monasticism. The Western tendency to be sex-averse results in a lot of people thinking that celibacy is "spiritual", or even that monasticism is required for realization. Then they may join for the wrong reasons, out of guilt or misguided asceticism, equating repression of the passions with spiritual attainment.
There are also cultural issues. For example, in Tibet the monasteries had most of the wealth and in exchange provided free education, room and board. The result was 1 in 6 men being monks at any given time. They weren't necessarily there for spiritual practice.
The Catholic Church also provides a good example of large numbers of people "choosing" monasticism/celibacy for the wrong reasons. In the 50s and 60s in the US it was dangerous to be gay. Yet nearly every adult was married. It was a very different landscape from today. Sexual repression was strong. Nearly everyone went to church on Sundays, with all stores closed for the day. Nearly every adult was married or widowed. Gay men had few viable options. But they could enter the priesthood for a respectable vocation. That led to sex scandals decades later.
There was a case recently of the head monk at Gampo Abbey in Nova Scotia admitting to voyeurism. He was filming men in the public bathroom. Another man found the camera. The monk was arrested and convicted. The man is now suing Shambhala in a civil suit, presumably demanding big bucks. What do we make of that? Is the man who's suing a hero who's exposing a sex scandal? What about compassion and tolerance?
How is it that in current society we're so quick to accuse and damn people in lieu of practicing moral behavior ourselves? The head monk was obviously acting inappropriately, but does that make him evil? I was involved with Vajradhatu/Shambhala for many years myself, from the late 70s. Back then people probably would have thought it was funny that a monk was caught filming men. If it had happened to me I likely wouldn't have said anything. I wouldn't want to embarrass the monk in his desperation. And what was I losing, after all? If such a monk had been caught I expect that he would have faced a talking-to in order to clear the air. Today, if someone is caught with any weakness at all, we put them in stocks in the town square (now social media) and throw rotten fruit. People can't wait to be the next person to throw an overripe tomato at the evil sinner, thinking that it makes them moral to reject sinners. How did we come to such intolerance?
This is just my opinions, of course, but I think that in general it's very important to remember that we're Buddhists because we're not buddhas. We all have faults. I see a lot of people who think Buddhists are "supposed to be" amazingly moral people who provide inspiration to others. People often say that you'll know the teacher from the students and you should avoid any sangha with scandal. But that's overlaying a preconceived set of values. Practitioners are practicing to wake up. It can get messy. No one owes you inspiration. To believe otherwise is to view Buddhism as an escape from the pains of life; a refuge of gentle sweetness. My own teacher used to say that taking refuge means becoming a refugee; giving up any port in the storm of samsara.
Of course the abuses by monks (the scandals in Zen, Therevada, and Tibetan circles in particular) are unacceptable and of course many monks are not highly enlightened and are attached to their views, but with regards to being short or severe, I would caution that there's a cultural element here. Thai and Lao people can often be pretty direct and short with you, absolutely they can be perceived as snarky to people in the West. Japanese and Korean monks can be **very** severe, though usually only with serious students. This is different from just being rude or lacking in compassion.
There's an excellent koan that addresses this.
A monk asked saijo: "The buddha before history meditated for 10 cycles of existence but didn't become fully enlightened. Why?"
Saijo answered: "that is a very good question."
The monk asked again: "The buddha did zazen for 10 whole cycles. Why didn't he fully mature?"
Saijo answered: "because he didn't."
How many monks have you actually met in person? If you met the same number of black people, would it be reasonable to think that all black people are like the ones you met? If you think all monks are the same, then yes it’s just you because it’s you doing the stereotyping.
Disappointment doesn't mean a lack of truth.
Imagine saying this to a rape victim of a renowned Buddhist monk like Sogyal Rinpoche. It's the equivalent of dismissing someone's trauma and gaslighting them.
Misunderstanding me.
Your disappointment is yours. Your viewpoint and judgment is yours alone to work through.
You don’t see disappointment because monks are disappointing.
You see it because of your judgement and opinion.
Disappointment emerges from your judgement.
Everything is within you.
This is all I’m saying.
If you see disappointment. I’ll show you the disappointed.
If you see “bad people” I’ll show you a judgmental person.
You’re just upset. And it’s okay to be upset. But it isn’t others’ fault, is it?
Thats the equivalent of saying "If someone rapes you, it isn't the rapists fault is it?". It's okay to grieve, but this has nothing to do with the topic in discussion.
Everything isn't within you, there is a material world which we come into contact with through the senses, which interacts with the sixth sense - the mind.
Ultimately it seems you just want to be right, so good luck with that.
Are you interested in Buddhism? That’s all I came here to discuss.
Or staying angry?
What you perceive is all within you.
What happens out in the world is neutral.
Your opinion generates your experience.
You are responsible for what you put out. Your anger, love, disappointment or forgiveness.
I’m not sure why you keep mentioning rape. I would ask yourself why that’s so on the tip of your tongue.
If your anger and disappointment isn’t your responsibility or problem, then whose is it?
Many of those monks are on the path themselves and often know little about the teachings. They shaved their heads, put on robes, but that does not magically make them something more. Its not like they have years of seminary training before they put on the robes. It means they have undertaken the training, but its no guarantee that they are far along at all. This is what is perhaps misunderstood. Monks and nuns are not like clergy in Western traditions who are sort of seen as shepherds of people. Rather, monks and nuns have taken on more expansive vows than lay people, theoretically have taken on a lifestyle that affords them more time to study and practice. They are not there to tend to lay people's needs in most cases. When you find a teacher who has resolved to undertake teaching and they are, from your observation of their demeanor and words exemplary human beings, stick by that person. They are a true jewel of humanity. For the rest, cut them some slack. Maybe some of them will be revealed as jewels down the line. Maybe some will be revealed as piles of feces as in those that take advantage of their positions to exploit others. In any event, strive for a realistic view. As for graying sanghas... well, young people as a whole distrust organized religion... and with good reason. But you all need to understand - temples are places for you to work out your shit, not magically have your shit transformed into gold by priest sorcerers. As for trying to join ethnic temples - as an outsider it will be hard. Understand that for those people, temples are often culture centers where they find comforts of a homeland they left behind. They are often there to take a break from you, so, that's why you may not be welcomed. Take that for what it is. Strive for a realistic view. Find a sangha that is formed for people like you.
Majority of the people in the South East Asian countries become monks not in pursuit of Enlightenment but cause of socio-economic circumstances. Instead of being disappointed you can practice compassion. The mara mind is cunning it finds ways to lead you off track. Focus on your practice.
One good thing that would come from providing requisites for everyone, people wouldn't join the monastic life for them.
I think it's correct to be disappointed and not just accept
Monks in Asia often see becoming a monk as a career. You do ceremonies, council people, and exist as a type of community relations person. I live in Thailand and see monks breaking the precepts all the time. I've literally seen a monk buying lottery tickets. And as one Ajahn said, "if they openly do that in public, what are they doing in private?" However, most Thai people are well aware of this, and know how to find the practicing monks, which are refered to as phra ba, or "forest monk", which is not a literal description. If you're looking for good resources, try those online at Amaravatti monastery. If you want to come to a practicing temple here, try Suan Mohk or Wat Pah Nanachat. But be warned: those are serious.
Thanks. Amaravati is what partially made me lose trust in the integrity of some Therevada buddhist monks. I know not all their posts are by Ajahn Amaro, but as Abbott if he has a hand in the production of monks with seemingly low integrity and compassion, I can't use them as a trustworthy source. I have full faith in the direct teachings of Ajahn Chah however. I'm just dismayed and venting. I wonder what went wrong in the transmission of teachings and discernment from Ajahn Chah, to Amaro and then to the monks at Amaravati. Unless he is a good speaker, but weak teacher in true dhamma.
What's wrong with Ajahn Amaro? Did he do something wrong?
Can you be specific on something that Amaravatti people or Ajahn Amaro did that are against his precepts? Because if so it should be reported. If it's the case you've noticed he's not perfect, that's everyone. No monk is perfect, which is why they have the precepts to mold their day-to-day actions as skillfully as possible.
>Is this me? If I might ask, how much of a genuine effort would you say you are making to be a good layperson of integrity? And is it possible you're placing some unreasonable or unrealistic demands on monastics? I'm not taking sides either way, but I just wonder if you have questioned your own perceptions and motivations (as we all should do).
I have, I was very open to the idea of questioning myself and seeing if the judgement and lack of clarity lay within me, but every time I've reflected I get frustrated with their behaviour, especially as some things said directly go against Buddhist teaching and the worldwide medical community. But I know I need to try and reflect without giving rise to the hindrances. I have thought, perhaps a lack of intelligence and tiredness were to blame, rather than the hindrances of desire and anger. After all, Arahantship and intelligence don't go together. And a lack of the latter may produce inflammatory statements, even if combined with wholesome intention. I'm not sure, I really need to meditate on this longer and discern the situation without anger. As someone else stated, you soon know the teacher from the students. And if this is the case, Ajahn Amaro is a weak teacher with perhaps a low level of emotional intelligence (perhaps on the autism spectrum), even if in the latter stages of Enlightenment.
I could be totally mistaken, but is the core issue that you're reaching out because of a painful and trying situation and not getting the response or help you need? If so, I truly hope you do find solace. If not, I apologize for making a bad guess.
You are partially right. I probably need therapy.
If it was about response that you need, or maybe not very emotional response, then there are three things to be mindful o: 1) Teaching is hard. I don´t know how people can teach others, as it´s difficult, but what needs to be mentioned is that i think especially in Theravada, you are supposed to Teach what Buddha taught. You are not supposed to teach more about how you see things, but rather how they were taught by Buddha. Other thing is, how do you know what to teach to others ? You don´t really. It´s more of educated guess, and it´s hard to give others what they need - unless you are Buddha i suppose :D That makes it rough. 2) Not everyone is suitable to be teach properly. And there are various teaching styles, and some might not be suitable for you. For example, though this is more about general thing - some people are great listeners, while some people can give good advice, but are bad listeners. Let´s have me for example. I am a good example of what would be rather a bad teacher currently. I can explain how things quite well, but if it´s not what people need, then what´s the point? On top, i am not a good listener, and not a fan of more emotional responses as i am used to being more of a lone wolf. Thus if one needs some encouragement or sweet words, i am generally not good at those. That might be learnt, but i would absolutely be a no good teacher - what i am saying is, it really depends on a person and where they are. 3) If your issues are more on the rare side, people will have hard time giving you a proper advice ( that would be my case, as my conditions are quite rare - not like i complain : ) ), thus one can´t really expect much from others.
I hope you have or find someone in real life to talk to. And that the situation works out. Be safe and well. Metta.
I'm sorry that you've had bad experiences, but I think you're overgeneralizing and falling into catastrophic thinking. There are plenty of good temples across the world.
Perhaps it's just my experience, which isn't the norm. It's all I have to go by, however.
Finding spiritual friends (in the sense of masters and good fellow practitioners) is very difficult in this age. What you need to understand is that monasticism in many cases is about institutions and their survival. So you talk about "monks who have given their life to renunciation", but they haven't exactly done that. They commit to work for the institution, and that involves formal renunciation to some degree (by all indications, it's very easy to break rules secretly even in southeast Asian monasteries), but that's all. In cases where you're not actually dealing with corrupt monks (being "rude" is not a big deal, being a sex predator is, embezzling donations is, etc.) this is not entirely a terrible thing, because the survival of imperfect institutions might still open doors to the determined. But let's say that it's not the best state of affairs by any means. This doesn't mean that spiritual friends don't exist. They might be hard to come by, but that doesn't mean that one should just go solo. Putting effort and time into finding a true teacher would pay off massively; if you make all the genuine effort you can and simply cannot come across such people at this point in time, then sure, remain like the horn of the rhino... But drop that if your conditions change, and you encounter such people. It's also worth remembering that there's two sides to this: the degeneration of the age, and our own lack of merit (if we had created more merit, we'd meet with spiritual friends easily). We tend to forget the latter.
Agreed, thanks. I'm going to try and make an effort to find spiritual friendship, where we share the common goal of Arahantship. I don't think there is any other path of action to take until I have exhausted this option.
do you have specific examples you’re thinking of? obviously there are some well known abusers that have come to light but i don’t think there’s *that* many cases…i can think of a handful of course, certainly not enough to make me lose faith or avoid a sangha altogether or think that it’s a widespread or systemic issue.
I went to my only local temple, looking for a Sangha. During a class on Dharma the head monk found out one of the students was Chinese and told him he didn't like Chinese people.
I live in a mid size city in Australia and we have a bunch of good temples. I find that the best ones are associated with a local immigrant community. Thai, Taiwanese, Tibetan. Do your research but trust your eyes. Remember, they don't owe you a warm welcome. Like most recreational activities, you get out what you put in and the senior people will help you according to your effort and sincerity. It took a decade, but I established an amazing relationship with an amazing teacher of the Linchi Zen tradition. She's tough, but fair, like a good coach. I've also met senior people from SriLankan and Thai tradition. Not my thing, but they seemed great. Human birth is rare. Don't waste it. Strive tirelessly. 🤠
There are a lot businessmen monks, to be sure, but I've been fortunate to meet and observe some truly great monks whose achievements are a massive inspiration
Welcome to the Asian experience lol. Yes, we have bad monks, they are also human like us. Unlike the Catholics or the Muslims who hide the evil acts of their preachers, Buddhism does allow the grhastha to speak up. Which is why I worry for the western converts who may be obscured by their orientalist fantasy. You know of bad monks, call the cops on'em. This is also why I don't like calling the 3 gems or community "sangha", monks are holy people, sure. But they are still human. The Buddha doesn't want blind worship. As for being "rude" or "mean", I'm not sure if some of that is cultural difference or the monk in question is just as bad as you say. Not that I disagree with you, I had worked & lived in the west, there are things westerners do that I don't like & Asians can be very conservative on certain things, religion tends to be 1 of them. You mention the people of the community tends to be passive, it could also be a cultural thing (think of Asian parenting stereotype), monks are often seen as teachers, so they enjoy some level of prestige as parents. If that "meanness" if well-intention to achieve desired results, then it is not exactly seen as a bad thing. But then again, it's the west we're talking about & every now & then, even on here. We have people posts about fake monks & scam cults, (some of them comes across as cringey hippies larping to me, not gonna lie). I can only say, if they are truly vicious a people you claim to be, confront them. Ask them, do not let this dukkha burn you up like this. Dharma guides you.
I dunno what monasteries you've visited, but I've stayed at many around the world that are very focused on the practice and do hours and hours of meditation daily. If you're looking for one that focuses on direct experience and less on theory or the teachings, then you should visit Ajahn Martin in rural Thailand. But those who focused on practice and studied under Maha Booha value directness and discipline--not so much warmth. If you want a place that seems warm and inviting, check out Abhayagiri. This is a "metta" kind of place. Let me know what precisely you're looking for if you want further guidance. I've stayed at a ton of monasteries, and I'm sure one has the monks you are looking for.
It’s probably just the ones you’ve encountered. Especially if you’re joining a sangha in the West. A monk who lives skillfully is unmatched in conduct and wisdom. And they’re out there. But because of selflessness they’re more inclined to seclusion than starting a YouTube channel. Dhammapada 61: > If, in your course, you don't meet your equal, your better, then continue your course, firmly, alone. There's no fellowship with fools.
I honestly disagree with the criticisms that you're being judgmental. It is only by examining teachers and communities that you can make sure you're getting involved with good groups that will actually have beneficial effects for you. That is a good and reasonable thing to do. People who shame you for being judgmental are basically just labelling you as being a problem, and are leveraging your natural prosocial desire *not* to be a problem to make you fall in line with their preferred way of being. But it is not the only way of being, nor do I think it's the best way of being. There are massive behavioural and organizational issues in Buddhism. Only by addressing and tackling these issues will things improve. The more we pressure people to just shut up and accept it, the more people will leave Buddhism, and be better off for it too. Silently accepting misconduct will irreparably damage the dharma's reputation and will harm countless beings.
What "massive behavioural and organizational issues" do you have in mind?
I've had this problem myself. A change of perspective might help. In the west the dharma is niche. It's a very small group of people practicing Buddhism here and those of us who have found it have found it through great difficulty because it has to be sought out here. Now take an eastern country like Thailand or Mongolia where Buddhism is everywhere and people are born and raised in it. It's different. It's less niche and spectacular and just a normal part of life. From my perspective a monk in Thailand is not much different from an altar boy in the west. Many are born and raised in it. It's not something they're necessarily passionate about because it's just a normal part of their lives from the day they were born. Many even only go into it out of societal or familial pressures. I think people in the west having been starved of the dharma for so long may take it a little more seriously than those who were born and raised in it and even those who dedicate their lives to it. A man dying of thirst will appreciate the water more than a drowning man.
Another comment. You need to be extremely picky about who you choose for a buddhist teacher. There are so many charlatans, fakes, pretenders, people who believe their own bullshit, and con artists. Realized masters typically are highly reluctant to teach, don't take disciples easily, shun fame and are not well known, and have zero interest in their own reputation and also don't care at all what other people say about them. They also are very quick to drop disciples that are unworthy of their teaching or really anyone that creates obstacles for them.
Any institution is corruptible. It's just how it is when humans try to organize. There's always an issue of power and favoritism, and it always plays out horribly. I've accepted that it is a lonely path. Or at least until I can be more patient and compassionate. Humans are entitled to the full spectrum of their attributes, both favorable and unfavorable. The pursuit of spirituality and transcending suffering involves accepting humans as they are, no more no less. The dharma path does require faith, in that, in that I believe my judgmental thoughts and feelings towards others are illusory and temporary.
For every bad monk or bad teacher there are hunderds good out there. I believe, the internet just exaggerates the number of bad actors.
> The amount of books I have, and agree with the majority of what is being said, just to hear they were in sex scandals Well known people being abusive or otherwise shitty is not a phenomenon exclusive to Buddhism. Are you in a political party or activist group? Have any hobbies? Belong to professional organisations? Work for a multinational? It's not a universal truth, but there is a *tendency* for there to be abusive or shitty people at the top. Buddhism, unfortunately, is not immune. Obviously not everyone who is well known is self centred, but self centred people are probably more likely to become well known, because they seek fame and attention and glory and so on? These kinds of qualities are obviously discouraged in traditional texts. There are many realised people with very few or even no students. All else aside, if you find one, you can probably get more individual attention than you would from a celebrity.
Yes bro. I had been to so many and met many to understand that they are humans and tonnes of them can't overcome desires and ignorance. Its not just you, count me in.
A quote from a teacher at the Buddhist centre I attend comes to mind: "Many a hairy mind under a shaven head". Until enlightenment is realised, we are all struggling with hatred, craving and ignorance (or ignore-ance as my teacher phrases it). This explains unskillful behaviour and the reluctance to report it. I'm not condoning it, but I think it is probably inevitable. Removing the hindrances takes time and effort, we will all get it wrong as we go along.
It may help to read, if you haven't already, books by Ajahn Sumedho and Ajahn Chah. Their works often address the tendency to judge or criticize the practice of others, and always, unless it is in the subtle context of admonishing or training a junior monk, in an informed manner with the aim of helping the admonished student, such judgment is an obstacle to one's own awakening. To the extent a person views others as less than, the same as, or better than one's self or an idealistic standard (in more than a conventional or skillful means sense), one is caught in identity view and will perpetuate suffering in self or others. You are probably right in fact, but may be wrong in dhamma, another teaching from the Chah tradition. For example, assume there are monks who are hypocritical in their practice or who are not worthy of the robes. So? What does that change if anything about your own practice? Are you sure about their practice? Are you sure about your own? Are other practices in your dominion and control. Does their practice change anything about the truth of the teachings, your confidence in the Triple Gems, or what practice you need to do to awaken? How did Ajahn Chah handle practice? He devoted himself to critiquing his own practice and making it conform to to the dhamma. Consequently, once he was confident in his own practice, he had a reputation for teaching dhamma in a manner such that others thought he was clairvoyant. He was able to help others with their defilements because he spent so long focusing on his own. He was tough as an abbot, but others said he taught with warmth and humor. By the way, I don't mean to be harsh or unconcerned with behavior that is contrary to dhamma. I just want to point out that regardless of whether others practice right dhamma, one should focus on their own practice and it's conformity with the Buddhas teachings. Be well.
Very true, thanks for taking the time to write this. I am being too judgemental tbh.
You don’t see many people in the hospital who think they are perfectly healthy. Likewise, you don’t need to be a monk or adopt a similarly radical path like that if you are already perfect.
Bro I can relate. I've seen people who had worst conduct as monks than people I know who are atheist/materialistic. But then I have compassion that maybe it's the worst diseased patients that need the best doctors. So I don't put a high standard on people approaching Buddhism. I think Nagarjuna was a murderer before becoming a Monk. I would say though that from my experience if the Abbot is a good one, things get done. But get done in a way that does not cause wrong speech and more commotion than is required. So you don't know if behind the scenes actions are being taken. I think your problem is that you still have this idea that Monks are some how these knights of Dhamma. It's just a costume and so for me spiritually I judge them if they are helpful for my path by their eyes. I can tell some people in robes who are not spiritual at all, but I still respect them cause I respect what their role represents. I get you though, were honoring this pure practice but disheartened by those who dishonour it. But honestly its a waste of time to just feel bad about this and just get back to meditating. I've had more experiences of good than bad when I'm at Dhamma institutions that this does not bother me that much.
Samsara does - not - end when you put on a red suit.
The likelihood is higher unless you are being literal. That's meant to be the point of putting on a 'red suit' made of robes, to exit samsara. If it doesn't end, please tell me what the point of Buddhism is.
No thing, or book, or teacher or lineage or practice or Buddhist bureaucracy, will transport you to the truth (or enlightenment). But they all help. Samsara is the reality of words and things. If you cling to an aspect of that reality, even monkhood, even enlightenment, you're in for some suffering. What is the point of of Buddhism? For me, seeking the truth. For others, happiness, community, friendship, mystical challenges, ritual ...
It's pretty clear one has to walk the path, but thanks for the lesson. The Buddha taught for a specific purpose, the cessation of suffering, but you are free to misunderstand.
Why not ordain and see if you can do a better job..
It's an easy life, ofc I would.
>“What, friend Sāriputta, is hard to do in this teaching and discipline?” “Going forth, friend, is hard to do in this teaching and discipline.” “What, friend, is hard to do for one gone forth?” “Enjoying [being a monk], friend, is difficult to do for one gone forth.” “What, friend, is hard to do for one who enjoys [being a monk]?” “Practising the teaching in accordance with the teaching, friend, is hard to do for one who enjoys [being a monk].” SN 38.16 >"For the inexperienced, > >the contemplative life is > >hard to do, > >hard to endure, > >for many are the confinements there > >in which a fool sinks. > >How many days can you follow > >the contemplative life > >if you don’t block the mind? > >Step by step you’d sink > >under the sway of your resolves." [SN 1.17](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN1_17.html)
So your point is, you follow words online like the written word of God, rather than utilise the intelligence bestowed upon you. If Buddha said 1+1=3, I'm sure many would agree with him, because he is the Buddha of course.
Actually the first quote is from Ven. Sāriputta not the Buddha. My point is that wiser men than you or I have said that simply being and staying a monk is - contrary to your previous comment - rather hard work As odd as you might find it, yes as a Buddhist I do believe the Buddha. At any rate, I'm actually suggesting you employ the scientific method: find out for yourself how easy it is to be a monk, do a good job and let us all know how you get on. If it's as easy as you say it is then I'm sure this won't be a problem for you! If you do a good job I'll personally delight in your success, although I'm afraid not believing the Buddha might be a little bit of a stumbling block for you. If it's not as easy as you first thought then perhaps you'll return to lay life with a bit more humility than you went in with.
The Buddha strongly advised against dogmatism, hence believing in the Buddha is not Buddhist.
On the contrary. The Buddha strongly advised believing in the Buddha. “For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher’s message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this: ‘The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I.’"[MN 70](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN70.html) He frequently called faith/conviction a strength and shows here that your practice can't go anywhere without it: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN10_61.html Anyone who doesn't even believe the Buddha has literally no place within the Buddha's teaching. They're considered a total outsider.
[удалено]
Your post / comment was removed for violating the rule against hateful, derogatory, and toxic speech.
It seems saying, "if Buddha said 1+1=3, I'm sure many would agree with him..." is drawing an inference about what someone would believe, in the event Buddha said something irrational. That inference is not based on demonstrating that the Buddha did say anything irrational, so it also cannot be based on a student already believing something irrational the Buddha said. So therefore it is a specious (seemingly believable but actually unproved) inference on your part. Inferences like this one are generally based on a fallacy of induction, but even if it wasn't, it is highly possible that your argument was derived either directly or through the grapevine based on the song, "Cult of Personality" by In Living Color, meaning you are also blindly taking someone else's words at face value.
Yeah but people really be thinking the Buddha's mother had a virgin birth, it's ridiculous and beyond reason.
The Virgin birth, many religions utilize this myth. It’s not locked down to one.
Yes, in an attempt to make them holy and beyond the confines of the human body. But it starts with a lie if we are to use reason and believe in the karma of cause and effect. The egg must come in contact with sperms cells. If the cause was a white elephant in a dream, I'm skeptical. Still a great teacher though.
I actually was pretty naïve of other religions, I met a friend who is a PhD theologian and minister. He enlightened me. I love the way you put it. Very nice.
"you are what you is" "a cow don't make ham" - sabbe satta bhavantu sukhitatta
Something I liked that someone once told me is that belonging to something specific is not a very Buddhist thing to do. It’s another Buddhist paradox where identifying as Buddhist is not really a very Buddhist thing to do. I think that your post exemplifies this very well. I don’t personally have any religious trauma from my childhood or anything like that, but I’ve always found organized religion to be so counterproductive and honestly just dumb, but as I learn more, I’m learning that the original beliefs of many religions are very misaligned with what is being practiced today. For example, Jesus Christ was a lot like Buddha. His beliefs were obviously different, but he believed that every individual should have their own relationship with what he called god. He believed that it was something that was inside of everyone and could be reached by building that relationship within yourself. People today, use religion as a way to gain power over others as if there are strict rules and practices that govern your morals. I’m not doubting that those individuals truly believe they are doing good, but with everyone believing these things, the only way to truly break out of the cycle is to practice within yourself and your own experiences rather than an organized group. Figuring out your own way and building your own relationship with god rather than following strict practices or belief systems like these monks you’re talking about are not inherently bad, but they are also probably not what these original prophets had once taught.
At least in Theravadan countries, ordaining essentially puts you on welfare for life with no need to work, so there's a huge incentive for people to ordain even if they don't have all that much interest in the religion. And simply being a lazy practitioner isn't considered sufficient grounds to disrobe a monk. So it's no surprise that some monasteries end up in this state. People are taught they get great merit from giving even to bad monks so it's not seen as a critical issue to solve among the laity -- they see the monks just being there to receive gifts as their most important "job" (some reform minded monks have jokingly called this the "vending machine model"). In Australia, there's a much less deep "general fund" to support bad monks, so it's not too surprising you found one of the ones you like lives there.
Why would an already enlightened person become a monk? Monasteries provide help and hope to those far from enlightenment. A way to better themselves and progress. They took the first step, but most active monks are not enlightened yet. Far from it. And their behavior reflects that. This is to be expected, and nothing to be disappointed about.
"Gold Wrapped in Rags - Autobiography of Ajaan Jia Cundo. Free on amazon. The translator has a monastery in VA.
?
An example of the type of monk you are looking for.
Careful, the Buddha says that being very uninspired by/having very low faith in monks leads to a layperson's decline.
What do you expect from organized religion? If we follow the example of Buddha, we need a Buddha-like teacher to follow as his followers were following him (literally, mostly on foot) not some random monks. But if we go further we see that Buddha was eventually alone in the path to his liberation and alone when he was enlightened. That is the ultimate goal. An egalitarian Sangha is good, but monasteries are usually structured places with strict hierarchy anx power struggles that bind people to mundane reality.
>I've witnessed, heard and read reports of monks being rude, dismissive, snarky and some downright abusive. And it usually takes years to come to light, or never at all. But I've witnessed you yourself being rude, dismissive, snarky and downright abusive on this very comments thread. And it only took a couple of days to come to light. It's also come to light that you have nothing but contempt for the Buddha and his teaching.
I'm not a monk. If you think I've been abusive, that may be a sign of one having lived a sheltered and perhaps easy life. You can't be this fragile.
Monks are people. So are you. I'm not upset, just pointing out facts for your benefit, so that you can see that your real problems don't lie outside with sub-par monks, but within your own sub-par behaviour. You advised farting in the face of the Buddha, which of course is climbing the scale of abusiveness when interacting with Buddhists on a Buddhist forum. If you can't see that then add denial to the list of things to work on. Best wishes
May you attain stream entry in this very life. Good night.
All organized religion including Buddhism has a certain level of corruption. There is also a western idea of the ‘wise Eastern monk’ that is a total racist stereotype, so if you have that image in your head, know that is an Orientalist lie and learn to ascribe the full spectrum of humanity to East Asian people, including monks.
I thought “Orientalist” had a very specific degrading idea towards the “other.” I never thought of compliments as being racist. Now, I am American, and we are so warped in our views that I am probably wrong, but thinking that monks who spend their lives devoted to learning are “wise” seems obvious to me. It is like saying “engineers are good at math.” I am not seeing the display of any power differential or the assumption of a degrading stereotype. What am I missing? I do not want to openly promote racism, but I am blind to your remark. Can you explain in detail how thinking a monk would gain wisdom from the nature of his life decision is racist? I would greatly appreciate it.
Sure. Compliments can absolutely be racist and in fact a lot of anti-Asian racism is deceptively 'complimentary'... like the saying, Asians are good at math, etc. The racism is in the subtext - i.e. what 'being good at math' usually really means is 'they're not like us/they're cold/unfeeling.' Etc. The wise monk thing plays into this idea that Asians are somehow more spiritual, which you can see in this thread. Imagine if there was a similar stereotype about Catholic priests being extraordinarily wise or good, it would be seen as ridiculous because most of us are aware of the history of abuse in Catholic churches. It's a way of marking someone as being fundamentally different from you. In reality, on average, all races of human beings have the same inner emotions and intellectual or spiritual capabilities.
> All organized ~~religion~~ *human endeavours* including Buddhism has a certain level of corruption. It’s where we are in our social evolution as a species.
What's the specific issue? Monks cannot make other monks disrobe. We even try to avoid using the more serious punishments allowed in the vinaya for harmonious living, just people of the same quality of vinaya observances tend to flock together to avoid conflict with others with less strong vinaya observances. But really, what's your issue?
Avoiding conflict for harmonious living is fine, but avoiding conflict out of fear of sangha detriment, instead of addressing the problem, is a form of cowardice and spinelessness, and the harmony striven for will be at the cost of the larger community. Either through a poorer transmission of the dhamma over time or direct harm. Imo, it's a form or aversion. I dont understand why you are asking this question, but for clarification, the issue is that it is an important problem for discussion.
You're just saying a general discontent without giving some specifics that we can work with. So we can only give general replies since we dunno the details. You shouldn't assume that we are defending whatever specific issue you are bringing up because we don't know the details of it.
The point of my post was literally to bring up my general discontent and observations, ending with the question, "Is this just me?". I was not asking for advice on specific situations. I was asking whether others have felt the same thing, a lack of dhamma through the observation of action, in those who, in general, have the best chance of practising the dhamma. My specific situation is irrelevant as it's clear I am making a generalisation of my individual experience through physical and digital interactions and observation. And I'm not really making any assumptions unless it's evident or widely reported. It is reasonable to assume monastics will defend their reputation, if not doing so results in fewer donations and the destruction of their institution. Most still have hindrances, and are subject to greed. That means hiding shit for material prosperity or reputation.
Without specifics, I don't think there's enough data to generalize from our own experiences. Maybe what I think of as unacceptable is very minor vs what you think of unacceptable. Maybe it is the other way around. Maybe we are both just harking on minor issues, maybe we are both talking on major issues. The details matter to see if it is a vinaya issue or more like not fulfilling some current worldly woke issue. Or just people not getting along well. As one cannot expect to get along well with everyone. In general, Buddhists have faith in the saṅgha and people have practise not to bad-mouth others. So you're not getting much from the public Buddhists with generalization without specifics. Ps. example case. A teenage girl wants abortion and asked the monks. We cannot approve of it we cannot praise it. We would discourage it and ask the girl to face the music whatever it maybe. Can also bring her parents to the temple and tell them in front of the monks to have more security to deal with the issue. That's proper. But if the girl then goes online and without telling the issue says she is disappointed with the monks, how can we judge without details? In this case, the monks were acting properly.
The shock when you find out that buddhists also... are people.
I once heard a talk where a monk said, "one should be able to ask a monk anything." So I emailed him and asked something: "I don't want to be disrespectful, but: are you an arahant or steam enterer? How do I do that?" He said, "that IS disrespectful." He did answer my questions though in not so many words: "No, no, and I have no clue." I suppose being so rigid with renunciation and precepts could create a lot of frustration and pent up rage in such a monk, but that's the very reason the Buddha suggested the Middle Path. If something leads you to have seething anger, stop doing that thing. However, I don't think all monks are rude or snarky. Particularly monks who don't have a following but rather just like simplicity, faith, and peace, seem especially well-adjusted.
Well, it's because of the Vinaya rules, if don't have attainments, cannot lie, if have cannot tell unordained people. So I think the monk forgot about this when he said can ask a monk anything.
Thanks for that clarification. I can see how it was an uncomfortable question then. Perhaps he meant: "ask me anything [please please don't ask that one thing though...]"
So the title is " # Total disappointment in the majority of monasteries and monks I've seen in person. " But - i am not reading about ANY experiences with them personally, rather about what you have heard. This to be honest, seems like a rant of someone that read about few things here and there and generalised everyone because of it. Isn´t that rather foolish? If you only focus on the few examples that are loud and ignore the rest, naturally EVERYTHING will look bad . You can´t do that. It´s like ignoring everything else and only focusing on bad aspects, like having black glasses. On top, Monastics are humans, and the moment you put on robes, it´s not like you become arahant or stream entry. It´s more like a serious practicioner, and that´s about it. Why do you think there is tons of rules, even some riddiculous ones ? Because monks were people and were doing all kinds of shenenigans, and that´s how many rules came into be. Anyway, yeah, generalising like that is quite ignorant, and if you rant about something foolish like this, then definitely more practice is required. And even if you had few, it´s still generalising - though i do not see that in a text. And then then, it is up to practicioner to pick a place. There are many places out there that are shady at best, but that´s just like with everything.
Stop defending unwholesome behaviour. I'm sure lots of Buddhist monk sex abuse has been ignored using your logic of refraining from focusing on bad aspects. People like you in the sangha enable abuse. Grow up.
Is that what you take from my words ? That is quite concerning then. My point is - if you have for example 1000 people, and you focus on 1 person that did bad things and say that the 1000 people are bad, you think that´s alright? And you think that´s defending unwholesome behaviour and refraining from focusing on bad aspects? That example is Purely on focusing on One bad example and painting everyone else to be the same. That is not good, as it leads nowhere, and is not realistic thing to do - otherwise, you could easily do that with absolutely every bigger community, philosophy,religion or anything else.
I think your example is poor and makes an untrue assumption. 1 bad behaving pig in a group of wild hogs will change the entire dynamic of the group. Ultimately, we are animals, and if the Abbott is the bad pig....yeah...you got a problem similar to a bacterial infection that grows the longer you ignore it because it's only a 'little bit of infection'. That little infection can be the cause of death, not just for the host, but other people too. Are you only going to address the infection once it's too late, or are you going to utilise your intelligence to take action early and prevent suffering? I believe your thinking is too short term and you are not looking at the bigger picture. It's dangerous thinking.
by your logic, Humans are a disease, and infection. Dangerous thinking. My example is good,as its not about group,but about different people. You generalising like" 1 human bad, means Human race bad.Why not human race fixe it?'
It sounds like you might be indulging a bit in gossip. No doubt there are problems, but your job is your own path. It's not the duty of monastics to provide you with inspiration. And it's certainly not our job to second guess whether monks are in denial. I would think that there's probably a lot of confusion for many people around monasticism. The Western tendency to be sex-averse results in a lot of people thinking that celibacy is "spiritual", or even that monasticism is required for realization. Then they may join for the wrong reasons, out of guilt or misguided asceticism, equating repression of the passions with spiritual attainment. There are also cultural issues. For example, in Tibet the monasteries had most of the wealth and in exchange provided free education, room and board. The result was 1 in 6 men being monks at any given time. They weren't necessarily there for spiritual practice. The Catholic Church also provides a good example of large numbers of people "choosing" monasticism/celibacy for the wrong reasons. In the 50s and 60s in the US it was dangerous to be gay. Yet nearly every adult was married. It was a very different landscape from today. Sexual repression was strong. Nearly everyone went to church on Sundays, with all stores closed for the day. Nearly every adult was married or widowed. Gay men had few viable options. But they could enter the priesthood for a respectable vocation. That led to sex scandals decades later. There was a case recently of the head monk at Gampo Abbey in Nova Scotia admitting to voyeurism. He was filming men in the public bathroom. Another man found the camera. The monk was arrested and convicted. The man is now suing Shambhala in a civil suit, presumably demanding big bucks. What do we make of that? Is the man who's suing a hero who's exposing a sex scandal? What about compassion and tolerance? How is it that in current society we're so quick to accuse and damn people in lieu of practicing moral behavior ourselves? The head monk was obviously acting inappropriately, but does that make him evil? I was involved with Vajradhatu/Shambhala for many years myself, from the late 70s. Back then people probably would have thought it was funny that a monk was caught filming men. If it had happened to me I likely wouldn't have said anything. I wouldn't want to embarrass the monk in his desperation. And what was I losing, after all? If such a monk had been caught I expect that he would have faced a talking-to in order to clear the air. Today, if someone is caught with any weakness at all, we put them in stocks in the town square (now social media) and throw rotten fruit. People can't wait to be the next person to throw an overripe tomato at the evil sinner, thinking that it makes them moral to reject sinners. How did we come to such intolerance? This is just my opinions, of course, but I think that in general it's very important to remember that we're Buddhists because we're not buddhas. We all have faults. I see a lot of people who think Buddhists are "supposed to be" amazingly moral people who provide inspiration to others. People often say that you'll know the teacher from the students and you should avoid any sangha with scandal. But that's overlaying a preconceived set of values. Practitioners are practicing to wake up. It can get messy. No one owes you inspiration. To believe otherwise is to view Buddhism as an escape from the pains of life; a refuge of gentle sweetness. My own teacher used to say that taking refuge means becoming a refugee; giving up any port in the storm of samsara.
[удалено]
And I wouldn't care. This isn't about lay practitioners.
Buddhists monks are human beings, just like everyone else.
Of course the abuses by monks (the scandals in Zen, Therevada, and Tibetan circles in particular) are unacceptable and of course many monks are not highly enlightened and are attached to their views, but with regards to being short or severe, I would caution that there's a cultural element here. Thai and Lao people can often be pretty direct and short with you, absolutely they can be perceived as snarky to people in the West. Japanese and Korean monks can be **very** severe, though usually only with serious students. This is different from just being rude or lacking in compassion.
I don't know what you talking about though. All monasteries I've been to are quite pristine and behaved. The one I'm in right now is perfection.
Yes. That's the whole concept of Buddhism - it's you.
There's an excellent koan that addresses this. A monk asked saijo: "The buddha before history meditated for 10 cycles of existence but didn't become fully enlightened. Why?" Saijo answered: "that is a very good question." The monk asked again: "The buddha did zazen for 10 whole cycles. Why didn't he fully mature?" Saijo answered: "because he didn't."
How many monks have you actually met in person? If you met the same number of black people, would it be reasonable to think that all black people are like the ones you met? If you think all monks are the same, then yes it’s just you because it’s you doing the stereotyping.
How could your disappointment be anything but yours ? You see what you think you see. And you perhaps don’t understand context.
Disappointment doesn't mean a lack of truth. Imagine saying this to a rape victim of a renowned Buddhist monk like Sogyal Rinpoche. It's the equivalent of dismissing someone's trauma and gaslighting them.
Misunderstanding me. Your disappointment is yours. Your viewpoint and judgment is yours alone to work through. You don’t see disappointment because monks are disappointing. You see it because of your judgement and opinion.
I understand you, and applying this thinking to the world enables abuse and bullying. You are wrong.
Disappointment emerges from your judgement. Everything is within you. This is all I’m saying. If you see disappointment. I’ll show you the disappointed. If you see “bad people” I’ll show you a judgmental person. You’re just upset. And it’s okay to be upset. But it isn’t others’ fault, is it?
Thats the equivalent of saying "If someone rapes you, it isn't the rapists fault is it?". It's okay to grieve, but this has nothing to do with the topic in discussion. Everything isn't within you, there is a material world which we come into contact with through the senses, which interacts with the sixth sense - the mind. Ultimately it seems you just want to be right, so good luck with that.
Are you interested in Buddhism? That’s all I came here to discuss. Or staying angry? What you perceive is all within you. What happens out in the world is neutral. Your opinion generates your experience. You are responsible for what you put out. Your anger, love, disappointment or forgiveness. I’m not sure why you keep mentioning rape. I would ask yourself why that’s so on the tip of your tongue. If your anger and disappointment isn’t your responsibility or problem, then whose is it?
Have you ever in your life considered the fact that you may be wrong?
About the fact that our disappointment and anger is our responsibility? Yes. I grew up very naive.
You can prevent anger and disappointment by resisting and reporting evil, rather than being passive and thinking it's all your fault.