Saijun raises the same question that I am pondering in my daily life. Is the intention of "unburdened with duties" to be "free from duties" or "manage duties with equanimity"? Monastics seem to be (to my outside perspective) some of the busiest people I know.
Believing that it was my job as a lay person to practice the Bramhavihara, I pursued a career in the helping professions and have worked for non-profit organizations most of my professional career. Honorable work, maybe, but I have exponentially more duties than anyone I know who works in the private sector. So lately I have been thinking a lot about this line from the Karaniya Metta sutta, and wondering if I am barking up a Wrong View tree?
We don't want to renounce. We want to have fun.
- Monkey Mind
- Posts: 538
- Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:56 pm
- Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
Re: We don't want to renounce. We want to have fun.
"As I am, so are others;
as others are, so am I."
Having thus identified self and others,
harm no one nor have them harmed.
Sutta Nipāta 3.710
as others are, so am I."
Having thus identified self and others,
harm no one nor have them harmed.
Sutta Nipāta 3.710
-
- Posts: 1952
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
- Location: London, UK
Re: We don't want to renounce. We want to have fun.
Hi Retro,
'Pick and choose' - I think there is enough in this dhamma, wide as the ocean as it is, for everybody, of every temprament. With time, what you choose and pick, will change- it comes with maturity and maturing in the dhamma - certainly it has been with me. I suspect it is pretty similar with everyone else- no one (except perhaps bodom ) chooses one thing and sticks to it- I think that would be artificial. Yes, it does cause some conflict- but if I wanted to avoid the unpleasant altogether I wouldnt bother with Buddhism- I would not have religion in my life at all. It is Suffering which keeps me coming back to the Dhamma - damn it he's right..again !
with metta
Matheesha
'Pick and choose' - I think there is enough in this dhamma, wide as the ocean as it is, for everybody, of every temprament. With time, what you choose and pick, will change- it comes with maturity and maturing in the dhamma - certainly it has been with me. I suspect it is pretty similar with everyone else- no one (except perhaps bodom ) chooses one thing and sticks to it- I think that would be artificial. Yes, it does cause some conflict- but if I wanted to avoid the unpleasant altogether I wouldnt bother with Buddhism- I would not have religion in my life at all. It is Suffering which keeps me coming back to the Dhamma - damn it he's right..again !
with metta
Matheesha
With Metta
Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27858
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: We don't want to renounce. We want to have fun.
Greetings Monkey Mind,
Metta,
Retro.
I think it's a question of samadhi. The bhikkhu who is organising renovations, organising Sunday School classes or wheelbarrowing dirt is dripping in sweat, not samadhi. Right Samadhi is a factor of the Noble Eightfold Path. Similarly, the enlightenment factors are more difficult to cultivate when the mind is obliged, for worldly reasons, to be attentive to wordly things, no matter how noble or wholesome they may be. I do not believe it is simply a co-incidence that the only people to achieve full fruition in the Pali Canon (i.e. arahantship) are the bhikkhus and bhikkhunis who have renounced the dusty household life.Monkey Mind wrote:Saijun raises the same question that I am pondering in my daily life. Is the intention of "unburdened with duties" to be "free from duties" or "manage duties with equanimity"? Monastics seem to be (to my outside perspective) some of the busiest people I know.
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17229
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: We don't want to renounce. We want to have fun.
Bahiya and Uggasena became arahants as lay men and I think a few others. Bahiya was killed shortly thereafter and Uggasena ordained after enlightenment. But definitely, it was rare, but not impossible.retrofuturist wrote: I do not believe it is simply a co-incidence that the only people to achieve full fruition in the Pali Canon (i.e. arahantship) are the bhikkhus and bhikkhunis who have renounced the dusty household life.
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27858
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: We don't want to renounce. We want to have fun.
Greetings David,
I don't know Uggasena, but I'll look him up later.
Metta,
Retro.
Lay in the context of the Buddahsasana, yes... but from what I've heard of him, he was clearly a renunciate beforehand (albeit not one under the direction of the Buddha). A 'wanderer', if you will... and therefore doesn't negate what I was saying about being "unburdened with duties".David N. Snyder wrote:Bahiya
I don't know Uggasena, but I'll look him up later.
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17229
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: We don't want to renounce. We want to have fun.
Uggasena:retrofuturist wrote: I don't know Uggasena, but I'll look him up later.
http://www.aimwell.org/Books/Suttas/Dha ... a.html#348" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Uggasena was a lay man with the householder responsibilities with family and work as an acrobat in side shows.
But that doesn't necessarily refute your point, since there are only a few lay people at the most who attained enlightenment as lay people, compared to thousands of bhikkhus and bhikkhunis who attained full enlightenment (in the Pali Canon).
My post is just to say that it is not impossible. But is it likely? Probably not.
Re: We don't want to renounce. We want to have fun.
I remember reading some suttas somewhere that claimed that lay people don't become arahants.
In reading the scriptures, there are two kinds of mistakes:
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
Re: We don't want to renounce. We want to have fun.
That's true but attaining the other Ariya levels appears to be quite good already.Jhana4 wrote:I remember reading some suttas somewhere that claimed that lay people don't become arahants.
Other than bhikkhus, and bhikkhunis. Is there a single lay disciple of Gotama, who wearing white clothes had led the holy life, has destroyed the five lower bonds to the sensual world, and is born spontaneously, not to proceed?'
`Vaccha, not one, not one hundred, not two hundred, not three hundred, not four hundred, not five hundred. There are many more lay disciples of mine, who have destroyed the five lower bonds to the sensual world, and born spontaneously would not proceed,'
`Good, Gotama, wait! Other thanbhikkhus, bhikkhunis and lay disciples of Gotama, who wear white clothes and lead the holy life. Is there a single a lay disciple, who wears white clothes, leads the holy life, while partaking sensual pleasures, and doing the work in the dispensation has dispelled doubts. Has become confident of what should and should not be done, and does not need a teacher any more in the dispensation of the Teacher.
Vaccha, not one, not one hundred, not two hundred, not three hundred, not four hundred, not five hundred. There are many more lay disciples of mine, wearing white clothes leadingthe holy life, while partaking sensual pleasures and doing the work in the dispensation have dispelled doubts Have become confident of what should and should not be done and do not need a teacher any more,'
http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pit ... ta-e1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Kind regards
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17229
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: We don't want to renounce. We want to have fun.
Which sutta?TMingyur wrote:That's true but attaining the other Ariya levels appears to be quite good already.Jhana4 wrote:I remember reading some suttas somewhere that claimed that lay people don't become arahants.
The reference you quoted shows that well over 500 lay people reached anagami, but that does not say that lay people cannot become Arahants.
In the example I quoted, there is at least one example of a lay person with family and career who did become an Arahant -- ordination after enlightenment, but enlightened while still a lay person.
Re: We don't want to renounce. We want to have fun.
Well obviously it is such a rare case that it was not mentioned in the sutta I quoted which implies what a lay practitioner may achieve depending on living a celibate life or not.David N. Snyder wrote:Which sutta?TMingyur wrote:That's true but attaining the other Ariya levels appears to be quite good already.Jhana4 wrote:I remember reading some suttas somewhere that claimed that lay people don't become arahants.
The reference you quoted shows that well over 500 lay people reached anagami, but that does not say that lay people cannot become Arahants.
In the example I quoted, there is at least one example of a lay person with family and career who did become an Arahant -- ordination after enlightenment, but enlightened while still a lay person.
Anyway I think one should not harbor hope based on such narratives but let go of hope and investigate into one's attachments in the context of lay life which may actually prevent even the smallest attainments.
Kind regards
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17229
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: We don't want to renounce. We want to have fun.
Milindapanha III.19If a layman attains arahant-ship, only two destinations
await him; either he must enter the Order that
very day or else he must attain parinibbàna
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/milinda.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (page 98)
Milindapanha III.62“You say that if a layman attains arahantship he must either
enter the Order that very day or die and attain
parinibbàna.199 Yet if he is unable to find a robe and bowl
and preceptor then that exalted condition of arahantship is a
waste, for destruction of life is involved in it.”
“The fault does not lie with arahantship but with the
state of a layman, because it is too weak to support
arahantship. Just as, O king, although food protects the life
of beings it will take away the life of one whose digestion is
weak – so too, if a layman attains arahantship he must,
because of the weakness of that condition, enter the Order
that very day or die.”
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/milinda.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (page 138)
The Milindapanha, which is almost as old as the [rest of (Burmese ed.)] Pali Canon above implies that lay people do/did attain enlightenment. It is just that they all ordained or died within 7 days or less.
No, it is not easy, but still possible.
Re: We don't want to renounce. We want to have fun.
This is a Dhammapada Commentary, I wouldn't trust it too much ,)http://www.aimwell.org/Books/Suttas/Dha ... a.html#348
Uggasena was a lay man with the householder responsibilities with family and work as an acrobat in side shows.
But that doesn't necessarily refute your point, since there are only a few lay people at the most who attained enlightenment as lay people, compared to thousands of bhikkhus and bhikkhunis who attained full enlightenment (in the Pali Canon).
In the suttas and in the Vinaya there are no evidences that a layman could become an arahant. Except Bahiya, who was an ascetic with, seemingly, supernatural powers ,) And, together with that, perhaps that 500 ascetics of Uruvella. Guess they were not ordained at the moment they reached arahantship. So these 500 could also be considered as "lay people", but only in a sense, that they were not Buddha's monks.
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17229
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: We don't want to renounce. We want to have fun.
Don't trust the Dhammapada Commentary? Zom is that you? (just kidding)Zom wrote: This is a Dhammapada Commentary, I wouldn't trust it too much ,)
In the suttas and in the Vinaya there are no evidences that a layman could become an arahant. Except Bahiya, who was an ascetic with, seemingly, supernatural powers ,) And, together with that, perhaps that 500 ascetics of Uruvella. Guess they were not ordained at the moment they reached arahantship. So these 500 could also be considered as "lay people", but only in a sense, that they were not Buddha's monks.
On e-sangha there was a thread about lay arahants and I remember Bhante Dhammanando listing about 4 to 6 lay arahants in that thread. Unfortunately that data base is gone. Were those arahants that he listed also from the Commentaries?
Re: We don't want to renounce. We want to have fun.
Perhaps this essay by Piya Tan (Laymen Saints) will be of use.
In any event, here is an old topic on the matter: ta-da
In any event, here is an old topic on the matter: ta-da
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: We don't want to renounce. We want to have fun.
I think the significance of renunciation is not just the 'not doing' of something, but also the attitude of renouncing. In the sense that, when you are not renouncing, you are clinging to the idea that "if only I do/get/avoid this, I will be happier in the future". If you do/get/avoid whatever it is, the reality is you create an impermanent group of conditions that you perceive as 'good' or at least 'better than the (imagined) alternative. But if you get in the habit of creating conditions to suit your taste, you will never be satisfied, because conditions keep changing, and your desire keeps changing, and you will expend effort to maintain conditions until you inevitably fail because of the impermanence of things.
As for the idea of duty, it is often a conditioned response. I'm from a Chinese background, and in more traditional families, the eldest son has a 'duty' to do things like take over the family business and whatnot. Note that both 'eldest' and 'son' carry significance. Responses to this very specific role will probably range from "what, you mean that's not a universal truth?!" to people who can't understand it to people who understand it but don't subscribe to it to who knows what. It's probably not helpful to try and convince someone that what they think is their duty actually isn't, and I will not try, but I think it's something useful to keep in mind the next time one tells oneself that "I have to do this because it's my duty", because it can be a good excuse, especially in the social climate that shares the same idea of duty.
As for the idea of duty, it is often a conditioned response. I'm from a Chinese background, and in more traditional families, the eldest son has a 'duty' to do things like take over the family business and whatnot. Note that both 'eldest' and 'son' carry significance. Responses to this very specific role will probably range from "what, you mean that's not a universal truth?!" to people who can't understand it to people who understand it but don't subscribe to it to who knows what. It's probably not helpful to try and convince someone that what they think is their duty actually isn't, and I will not try, but I think it's something useful to keep in mind the next time one tells oneself that "I have to do this because it's my duty", because it can be a good excuse, especially in the social climate that shares the same idea of duty.