Page 1 of 2

teaching to monastics vs lay people

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 8:44 pm
by Dhammarakkhito
considering doodoot's go-to refutation is that 'such and such discourse was taught to monks not to lay people' even on matters of very basic doctrine
is there any truth to this and to what extent is it not true

Re: teaching to monastics vs lay people

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 8:44 pm
by Dhammarakkhito
doodoot you're welcome to ventilate

Re: teaching to monastics vs lay people

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 8:48 pm
by dylanj
no it's bs

Re: teaching to monastics vs lay people

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 8:50 pm
by dylanj
"In that case, Ven. Sariputta, please let this sort of talk on the Dhamma be given to lay people clad in white. There are clansmen with little dust in their eyes who are wasting away through not hearing [this] Dhamma. There will be those who will understand it."

Re: teaching to monastics vs lay people

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 9:44 pm
by DooDoot
Dhammarakkhito wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 2018 8:44 pm
considering doodoot's go-to refutation is that 'such and such discourse was taught to monks not to lay people' even on matters of very basic doctrine
is there any truth to this and to what extent is it not true
I think it is probably true, as spoken in the very 1st sermon & many other places.
Bhikkhus, these two extremes ought not to be cultivated by one gone forth from the house-life. What are the two? There is devotion to indulgence of pleasure in the objects of sensual desire, which is inferior, low, vulgar, ignoble, and leads to no good; and there is devotion to self-torment, which is painful, ignoble and leads to no good.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nymo.html
:candle:
dylanj wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 2018 8:50 pm
[Anathapindika the householder said:] "In that case, Ven. Sariputta, please let this sort of talk on the Dhamma be given to lay people clad in white. There are clansmen with little dust in their eyes who are wasting away through not hearing [this] Dhamma. There will be those who will understand it."
This quote of words spoken by Anathapindika the householder appears to be refuting your opinion because in this text Arahant Bhikkhu Sariputta says:
This sort of talk on the Dhamma, householder, is not given to lay people clad in white. This sort of talk on the Dhamma is given to those gone forth.
In the sutta, Anathapindika says:
It's just that for a long time I have attended to the Teacher, and to the monks who inspire my heart, but never before have I heard a talk on the Dhamma like this.

Re: teaching to monastics vs lay people

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:44 pm
by dylanj
Venerable Saariputta doesn't say that such talks are inapplicable to householders, in fact, they taught it to one so clearly that's not the case.

Venerable Saariputta's quote simply points to the fact that householders aren't prioritized, I think.

Re: teaching to monastics vs lay people

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:56 pm
by DNS
In the Suttas, we see numerous times, the Buddha beginning with "Bhikkhus . . ." but that could be because that is who his audience was on those occasions.

The Vinaya includes some discourses and teachings which were clearly meant for monks and nuns, not lay people.

Re: teaching to monastics vs lay people

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:05 pm
by Sam Vara
Dhammarakkhito wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 2018 8:44 pm
'such and such discourse was taught to monks not to lay people' even on matters of very basic doctrine
is there any truth to this and to what extent is it not true
I would have thought that the "truth" of whether a particular discourse or doctrine was taught to a specified group is now far beyond historical verification, and also not particularly useful, apart from academic history.

For the practitioner, I would have thought that questions of intelligibility and usefulness take precedence. If you can make sense of it and it helps your practice, then use it. Did the Buddha teach anything at all to Europeans, Americans, and Australasians?

Re: teaching to monastics vs lay people

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:07 pm
by rightviewftw
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html Anathapindikovada Sutta: Instructions to Anathapindika
...
Then Ven. Sariputta, having put on his robes and, taking his bowl & outer robe, went to the home of Anathapindika the householder with Ven. Ananda as his attendant.
...
[Ven. Sariputta:] "Then, householder, you should train yourself in this way: ....
...
When this was said, Anathapindika the householder wept and shed tears. Ven. Ananda said to him, "Are you sinking, householder? Are you foundering?"

"No, venerable sir. I'm not sinking, nor am I foundering. It's just that for a long time I have attended to the Teacher, and to the monks who inspire my heart, but never before have I heard a talk on the Dhamma like this."

"This sort of talk on the Dhamma, householder, is not given to lay people clad in white. This sort of talk on the Dhamma is given to those gone forth."
...
"In that case, Ven. Sariputta, please let this sort of talk on the Dhamma be given to lay people clad in white. There are clansmen with little dust in their eyes who are wasting away through not hearing [this] Dhamma. There will be those who will understand it."

Then Ven. Sariputta and Ven. Ananda, having given this instruction to Anathapindika the householder, got up from their seats and left. Then, not long after they left, Anathapindika the householder died and reappeared in the Tusita heaven. Then Anathapindika the deva's son, in the far extreme of the night, his extreme radiance lighting up the entirety of Jeta's Grove, went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, bowed down to him and stood to one side. As he was standing there, he addressed the Blessed One with this verse:

This blessed Jeta's Grove,
home to the community of seers,
where there dwells the Dhamma King:
the source of rapture for me.

Action, clear-knowing, & mental qualities,[1]
virtue, the highest [way of] life:
through this are mortals purified,
not through clan or wealth.

Thus the wise,
seeing their own benefit,
investigating the Dhamma appropriately,
should purify themselves right there.

As for Sariputta:
any monk who has gone beyond,
at best can only equal him
in discernment, virtue, & calm.

That is what Anathapindika the deva's son said. The Teacher approved. Then Anathapindika the deva's son, [knowing,] "The Teacher has approved of me," bowed down to him, circled him three times, keeping him to his right, and then disappeared right there.

Then when the night had past, The Blessed One addressed the monks: "Last night, monks, a certain deva's son in the far extreme of the night, his extreme radiance lighting up the entirety of Jeta's Grove, came to me and, on arrival, bowed down to me and stood to one side. As he was standing there, he addressed me with this verse:

This blessed Jeta's Grove,
home to the community of seers,
where there dwells the Dhamma King:
the source of rapture for me.

Action, clear-knowing, & mental qualities,
virtue, the highest [way of] life:
through this are mortals purified,
not through clan or wealth.

Thus the wise,
seeing their own benefit,
investigating the Dhamma appropriately,
should purify themselves right there.

As for Sariputta:
any monk who has gone beyond,
at best can only equal him
in discernment, virtue, & calm.

"That is what the deva's son said. And [thinking], 'The Teacher has approved of me,' he bowed down to me, circled me three times, and then disappeared right there."

When this was said, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Lord, that must have been Anathapindika the deva's son. Anathapindika the householder had supreme confidence in Ven. Sariputta."

"Very good, Ananda. Very good, to the extent that you have deduced what can be arrived at through logic. That was Anathapindika the deva's son, and no one else."

That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Ven. Ananda delighted in the Blessed One's words.
It is not hard to analyze that verse and arrive at the same conclusion knowing what The Venerable Ananda knew at that point.
Shame on those who misrepresent the truth.

Re: teaching to monastics vs lay people

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:13 pm
by SDC
I think the point is that some lay people can handle what is intended for monastics and some can't.

On the other hand, some monastics don't seem to be able to handle what is for monastics.

There is a broad range when it comes to preparedness to understand the dhamma. Nothing will change that.

Re: teaching to monastics vs lay people

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2018 1:19 am
by chownah
A good teacher spends alot of effort understanding students. Different students learn best in different ways. A good teacher tailors their lessons to the learning style of the student. Monks are different from lay people although there is alot of overlap. A monk is much more likely to benefit from a teaching that suggest that one sit under a tree for many hours a day than is a lay person etc etc etc etc.
chownah

Re: teaching to monastics vs lay people

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2018 3:52 am
by Dhammarakkhito

I would have thought that the "truth" of whether a particular discourse or doctrine was taught to a specified group is now far beyond historical verification, and also not particularly useful, apart from academic history.

For the practitioner, I would have thought that questions of intelligibility and usefulness take precedence. If you can make sense of it and it helps your practice, then use it. Did the Buddha teach anything at all to Europeans, Americans, and Australasians?

Re: teaching to monastics vs lay people

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2018 4:31 am
by DooDoot
dylanj wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:44 pm
Venerable Saariputta's quote simply points to the fact that householders aren't prioritized, I think.
Unlikely given there are suttas specifically addressed to householders; such as the following, where it is taught the obligation of monk is to teach the path to heaven to householders:
The ascetics and brahmans thus ministered to as the Zenith by a householder show their compassion towards him in six ways:

(i) they restrain him from evil,
(ii) they persuade him to do good,
(iii) they love him with a kind heart,
(iv) they make him hear what he has not heard,
(v) they clarify what he has already heard,
(vi) they point out the path to a heavenly state.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nara.html

Re: teaching to monastics vs lay people

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2018 6:16 am
by Dhammarakkhito
dn 16 buddha makes no distinction between esoteric and exoteric doctrine and holds nothing back with a closed fist
doodoo i think u are onto something, it's just that i think u abuse it. there are certainly very clear differences between the required practices of monastics and laity. to me, killing is clearly 100% to be done away with for both; not to make this a thread about the first precept, just using it as an example. upāsakas and upāsikās and bhikkhus and bhikkhunis all take the five precepts on as a life long vow. the goal should be nibbāna, buddhism is goal oriented and if you qualify to ordain you should ordain. buddhism as an identity misses the point, it should yield cessation of identity.
anyway, exposition of kamma is about the consequences of wholesome and unwholesome intentions. committing an offense in robes is a separate matter from the clear and present consequences of doing a deed. i think you are promoting nihilism, which is refuted in the texts. i also wonder what a buddhist is supposed to do if not keep the five precepts. where do you set your bare minimum?

Re: teaching to monastics vs lay people

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:21 am
by DooDoot
Dhammarakkhito wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 6:16 am
dn 16 buddha makes no distinction between esoteric and exoteric doctrine and holds nothing back with a closed fist
I think this quote is not really relevant to the subject plus this quote was spoken to monks. If the Buddha teaches laypeople non-harming or teaches laypeople how to best manage their money, this does not fall outside of a straightforward teaching.
there are certainly very clear differences between the required practices of monastics and laity.
And?
to me, killing is clearly 100% to be done away with for both;
To you, yes. You are free to hold your view. This subject was discussed extensively on another thread.
upāsakas and upāsikās and bhikkhus and bhikkhunis all take the five precepts on as a life long vow.
Bhikkhus and bhikkhunis have defeat (pārājika) or expulsion. But in MN 86 & DN 2, the Buddha did not forbid murderers from being bhikkhu.
the [universal] goal should be nibbāna
I doubt the suttas support this idea. I suggest when you yourself attain Nibbana, when your mind is absolutely lucid & clear, to review your opinion on this matter. There are so many suttas, spoken to laypeople, that do not mention Nibbana as a goal; such as DN 13. There is MN 97 where the Buddha admonishes Sariputta for establishing a Brahman in the Brahma-World & not establishing a Brahman in Nibbana.
i think you are promoting nihilism, which is refuted in the texts.
Respectfully, although I greatly admire your sincerity, honesty, good-will & aspiration, I think your views can be rather extreme. The suttas obviously show a great diversity of teachings & remain silent on many matters (such as vegetarianism).
i also wonder what a buddhist is supposed to do if not keep the five precepts. where do you set your bare minimum?
My minimum (which many Buddhist might disagree with) is a buddhist could keep the five precepts. However, the precepts are training rules. The discussion you are having has occurred thousands of times on Buddhist forums, where you divorce an action from its motive. For example, it is almost universally held by all learned Buddhist monks that abortion is OK if continuing a pregnancy will endanger the woman's life.

Kind regards :anjali: