Buddhistdoor View: Monasticism for the Young—A Considered Choice?

[mikenz66]

Buddhistdoor View: Monasticism for the Young—A Considered Choice?
Buddhistdoor Global | 2015-10-30

Children should always have an opportunity to enjoy the diversity and profundity of religious experience. Yet the actual acceptance of the Buddha-Dharma and a life of practice requires an element of individual initiative and free will, as indicated in the Kalama Sutta. The Buddha’s advice not to automatically accept a teaching and to do so only when it has been personally validated implies that a mature mind is necessary. To consciously embark on a spiritual path during childhood is therefore extremely difficult.

However, committing children to a lifetime of monastic study, self-denial, and meditation in a monastery is a common occurrence in many traditionally Buddhist societies. To “go forth” and renounce life as a householder is not something to be undertaken lightly. Monasticism is restrictive and for life (the Theravada tradition does allow for short-term monastic sojourns, but these tend to be for mature laypeople). Hours of meditation every day, focused study on dense subjects, and the sublimation of sensual cravings are not pursuits to be accepted without deep reflection.

http://www.buddhistdoor.net/features/bu ... red-choice

Mike

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

Yet, hardly anyone even considers the converse:

However, committing children to a lifetime of study, self-assertiveness, and loyalty to the materialistic aims of a corporation is a common occurrence in secular societies. To get married and undertake the burdens of a householder is not something to be undertaken lightly. Household life is restrictive and for life (modern society does allow for short-term marriages, but these tend to be for immature laypeople). Hours of commuting and shopping every day, focused study on materialistic aims, and the prioritisation of sensual cravings are not pursuits to be accepted without deep reflection.

[Khalil Bodhi]

Yet, hardly anyone even considers the converse:

However, committing children to a lifetime of study, self-assertiveness, and loyalty to the materialistic aims of a corporation is a common occurrence in secular societies. To get married and undertake the burdens of a householder is not something to be undertaken lightly. Household life is restrictive and for life (modern society does allow for short-term marriages, but these tend to be for immature laypeople). Hours of commuting and shopping every day, focused study on materialistic aims, and the prioritisation of sensual cravings are not pursuits to be accepted without deep reflection.

Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu!

[Lazy_eye]

Yet, hardly anyone even considers the converse:

However, committing children to a lifetime of study, self-assertiveness, and loyalty to the materialistic aims of a corporation is a common occurrence in secular societies. To get married and undertake the burdens of a householder is not something to be undertaken lightly. Household life is restrictive and for life (modern society does allow for short-term marriages, but these tend to be for immature laypeople). Hours of commuting and shopping every day, focused study on materialistic aims, and the prioritisation of sensual cravings are not pursuits to be accepted without deep reflection.

I don''t think anyone on this board endorses child marriage or child labor. Child monasticism is likewise problematic, for similar reasons. An involuntary decision foisted on a child by its parents isn't comparable to a voluntary decision taken by consenting adults.

I realize you probably consider such a decision foolish; nevertheless, it is freely made by the parties involved. The same cannot be said of the children described in the article.

Family poverty or the lack of alternative opportunities for education are common reasons for sending one’s sons to a monastery. These boys are usually not asked how they feel about a lifetime pledge to celibate monasticism and are ordained without consideration of their personalities, temperaments, or inclinations. Free will and critical agency, which the Buddha saw as crucial, are not priorities. It is precisely for this reason that poverty or other social or economic problems are dangerous motivations for ordaining.

[Goofaholix]

However, committing children to a lifetime of study, self-assertiveness, and loyalty to the materialistic aims of a corporation is a common occurrence in secular societies. To get married and undertake the burdens of a householder is not something to be undertaken lightly. Household life is restrictive and for life (modern society does allow for short-term marriages, but these tend to be for immature laypeople). Hours of commuting and shopping every day, focused study on materialistic aims, and the prioritisation of sensual cravings are not pursuits to be accepted without deep reflection.

While you make a good point someone can easily ordain in their early 20's when they have the maturity to make that decision for themselves, they aren't committed to laylife until they have children, only after that the option to ordain becomes much harder. Whereas someone who ordained as a child and missed out on a secular education and coming of age may not have the skills and job history to easily establish themselves in lay life if they decided once mature enough to make that monasticism is not for them.

[dhammacoustic]

"Monasticism for the Young" Uh, they are not really young they are little children. This is not right.

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

It's largely a matter of what is culturally acceptable. Western culture is not the only valid model. There's pros and cons either way. By ordaining young and learning Pāḷi instead of science or maths the novices have a head start that those ordaining only at 20 or later will never catch up.

The Venerable Mahāsi Sayādaw was born in 1904 at Seikkhun, a large, prosperous and charming village lying about seven miles to the west of the historic Shwebo town in Upper Myanmar. His parents, U Kan Taw and Daw Oke, kept a small shop. At the age of six he was sent to receive his early monastic education under U Adicca, presiding monk of Pyinmana Monastery at Seikkhun. Six years later, he was initiated as a novice (sāmanera) under the same teacher, and given the name of Shin Sobhana (which means Auspicious).

[Aloka]

As the article and the photo in the OP appear to be about small boys in Tibetan Buddhist monasteries its worth considering the possibility of sexual abuse taking place, and looking at this article :

"Not in the Name of the Dalai Lama: Tibetan Reaction to Child Rape Reveals a Deeper Malaise"

Excerpt:

1 faced a similar 'cover-up' reaction when I recently wrote about the growing number of alleged cases of physical and sexual abuse in Tibetan Buddhist monasteries, the alleged rape of the teenage Kalu Rinpoche by Tibetan Buddhist monks in his monastery and the lack of a public response from the Tibetan exile government or monastic authorities to these cases.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/adele-t ... 51112.html

and this video in which the young Kalu Rinpoche talked about being sexually abused by monks in a monastery when he was a child.

phpBB .

.

[mikenz66]

It's largely a matter of what is culturally acceptable. Western culture is not the only valid model. There's pros and cons either way. By ordaining young and learning Pāḷi instead of science or maths the novices have a head start that those ordaining only at 20 or later will never catch up.

In a modern Theravada context it's also not such an an either/or thing. I know a number of Bangladeshi monks who ordained as novices in their teens. They went through a normal high-school curriculum as well as their Buddhist studies. This seems to be the case in Thailand as well.


Mike

[Mr Man]

It's largely a matter of what is culturally acceptable. Western culture is not the only valid model. There's pros and cons either way. By ordaining young and learning Pāḷi instead of science or maths the novices have a head start that those ordaining only at 20 or later will never catch up.

The Venerable Mahāsi Sayādaw was born in 1904 at Seikkhun, a large, prosperous and charming village lying about seven miles to the west of the historic Shwebo town in Upper Myanmar. His parents, U Kan Taw and Daw Oke, kept a small shop. At the age of six he was sent to receive his early monastic education under U Adicca, presiding monk of Pyinmana Monastery at Seikkhun. Six years later, he was initiated as a novice (sāmanera) under the same teacher, and given the name of Shin Sobhana (which means Auspicious).

So in the case of Mahāsi Sayādaw we are talking about 100 years ago.

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

So in the case of Mahāsi Sayādaw we are talking about 100 years ago.

In the case of Rāhula, we're talking 2,600 years ago, but what does the era have to do with it?

If novices have wise and good preceptors (as the Mahāsi Sayādaw had) they will get a good education and won't be subjected to sexual abuse. They are not isolated from the lay community, and in most cases their parents will continue to take an interest in the academic and spiritual progress of their ordained sons.

Young children are not able to make a well-informed choice. It is wrong to assume that a monastic education is in any way inferior to a secular education. The article focuses on child abuse in monasteries, but not all monasteries are like that, so it is important to put the other side of the argument.

[daverupa]

Young children are not able to make a well-informed choice.

Correct. This is the responsibility of their caretakers, and of people generally.

It is wrong to assume that a monastic education is in any way inferior to a secular education.

Basically incorrect; wrong to assume anything, perhaps, but monastic education is in fact inferior to modern secular education in many respects. The only way this isn't true is when using different scales of value, and these need to be unpacked & discussed, not left tucked away.

I'm a fan of history, for example, but also archaeology, text criticism... I'm alive to practice the Path due to the medical training of others which did not occur in a monastery, but instead in a series of secular "monastic" training centers called "school".

The article focuses on child abuse in monasteries, but not all monasteries are like that, so it is important to put the other side of the argument.

Correct. Both sides indeed - the incorrect sentence was ignoring this, too.

[Goofaholix]

It is wrong to assume that a monastic education is in any way inferior to a secular education.

What proportion of those ordained as children come away with an Information Technology degree in their early adulthood do you suppose?

[Mr Man]

So in the case of Mahāsi Sayādaw we are talking about 100 years ago.

In the case of Rāhula, we're talking 2,600 years ago, but what does the era have to do with it?

Because what is appropriate or the best option changes with time.

[Mkoll]

However, committing children to a lifetime of study, self-assertiveness, and loyalty to the materialistic aims of a corporation is a common occurrence in secular societies.

It's more common for people to focus on the materialistic aims of themselves, not corporations.

To get married and undertake the burdens of a householder is not something to be undertaken lightly. Household life is restrictive and for life (modern society does allow for short-term marriages, but these tend to be for immature laypeople). Hours of commuting and shopping every day, focused study on materialistic aims, and the prioritisation of sensual cravings are not pursuits to be accepted without deep reflection.

Though what you say is wise, Bhante, the household life comes naturally to people and most people don't want to think of any other options. Renouncing the world does not come naturally which is why the Buddha said it goes against the stream. Theravada monastics also depend upon householder support, without which monasticism would die out.