I'm leaving forever.

[Blake]

Monks are expected to hold themselves to higher standards than normal people, MUCH higher standards.

Their goal is to attain complete liberation from Greed, Anger and Delusion, and in order to attain that ultimate goal, they must live towards it. So they must not act out of anger, greed or delusion - that is the point of the training rules - for example, if you break the Second Precept - the one against stealing, that means you ARE acting out of greed, anger or delusion... there is no good reason to steal.

There are other reasons to conduct oneself with great virtue, including just being worthy of receiving dana (offerings), it makes life easier if people will just give you the minimal amount of food you need to live the contemplative life to the fullest. And one way to do that, is by being a great example in the community - being someone who doesn't do things like killing, stealing, cheating, lying - Good Examples, are very important for a healthy society, and people welcome good examples into their lives...
That IS one role of a Monk, to just be a good example.

Ajahn Brahm is famous for teaching in schools and prisons, and his work in prisons dramatically reduces reoffending. Ajahn Brahm is my hero and I'm unashamed of saying that, he is the first man I'm truly able to look up to as a role model, to emulate without reserves. It is my wish to teach in schools and prisons as a Monk, as Ajahn Brahm does. I will of course need to develop the skill and reputation to get invites, but I feel I am up to the task.
There is no obligation for a monk to do such things, a Monk may treat monastic life as an exercise in solitude, but I have no wish to do that, I have a heartfelt wish to bring buddhism to more people, and many, if not all, monks share that wish.
One thing is that there just aren't many monks in the west, so you almost never see what a monk actually does...
If you've never met a monk, that probably just means there are no monks near where you live, rather than that there are monks but they just don't do anything...

I believe the west needs more monks (and similar people) so I am becoming a monk, I am being the change I want to see in the world.

However with all that said, the Buddhist Journey, for a Theravada Monk, is ultimately about ones OWN enlightenment, the whole helping make the world a better place thing, is kind of like the monk's Job, but it's not his life's purpose - his life's purpose is to attain enlightenment and making the world a better place is just how he pays the spiritual bills. It's also true, that a monk just doesn't have much to do, so making the world a better place is a good hobby.

But the PERSONAL journey part, is part of why Buddhists do not hold others to their own ideals. This is my personal journey to attain enlightenment and make the world a better place.

That's not to say that you shouldn't STRIVE to not act out of greed, hatred and delusion. Every time you do act out of greed, hatred and delusion that WILL bite you on the butt in the future, or you are wise to assume so anyway since usually it does.

BUT one of the fundamental rules of reality is this:
It is MUCH easier to change yourself than to change others.
Buddhists have no interest in forcing others to change, even if it would be good for them to change. It's just far too much work, which would achieve very little and leave no time for meditation.
In other words, forcing others to change is a waste of time, which is why Buddhists don't do it. They have very little time in the world and must use it wisely.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DaShi
Well, my respect for you have improved considerably Blake. It's rare to see someone truly take action on what they are passionate about (though not so rare to hear them talk on and on about it ).

Are you nuts! People do stupid **** like that everyday.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Blake
This is true, or as I like to say "I'm a Buddhist! I don't need no stinking logic!".

But in Buddhism, the idea of "Both right" or "both wrong" is quite valid. The classic story for this, is two monks having an argument about whether someone needs to believe in rebirth to be a real buddhist. The argument gets heated and they decide to go to the Abbot to settle it.
The first Monk gives his argument for why someone NEEDS to believe in rebirth to be a real buddhist! Saying that rebirth is a central part of the Buddha's teachings, it's a huge part of Kamma, Kamma doesn't even make sense without rebirth! Kamma is very central to buddhism, so someone surely can't be a real buddhist without believing in rebirth!
The Abbot nods his head and says "Oh, you're right".

The other monk then protests and launches into his argument. He says that the Buddha made it perfectly clear, that people must only believe what they experience as being true, so that until someone encounters satisfactory proof of rebirth, they should not, indeed must not, believe in it. Just because the Buddha said it's true, is not good enough - because the Buddha made it clear that his disciples must not take what he says in blind faith, so someone can be a disciple of the Buddha, without believing in rebirth.
The abbot nods his head and says "Oh, you're right".

"WHAT?" exclaim both monks. We can't both be right!!!
The abbot nods his head and says "Oh, you're right".

The rightness here, is having a logical argument to prove something. Both monks are right, they both have a logical argument that makes sense to them and arrives at a conclusion.

They are both right in their arguments, the logic does reach their conclusion.

But the reality is, there is no absolute definition of a Buddhist, just some things a lot of buddhists would agree on. There's no god almighty to define perfectly what a Buddhist is. The Buddha didn't define what a Buddhist must be. That is where the monks are both wrong, it's up to individuals to decide whether they want to call themselves a Buddhist or not.

The moral of the story perhaps is, it can be foolish to look for absolute right, all right is relative to something...

Another good example, is Ajahn Brahm's advice on what to do when someone comes up to you, and argues for why you should accept their belief system, they give a nice logical (for them!) argument for why you should believe in Jesus to avoid damnation in hell or whatever.
Ajahn Brahm says: Agree with them and convert! They go away happy!
Then once they're gone, convert right back (to Buddhism or Atheism or whatever)!
After a while they'll figure out that they can't keep you converted and stop trying!

And you do this, because it's so much easier, more peaceful, more enjoyable, just more fun! To get along, than to be right... It's better to have fun than to be right! .

good post actually, but it's still a bunch of buddhist hooey. YOu don't need it.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Kidicious


good post actually, but it's still a bunch of buddhist hooey. YOu don't need it.

Sigged .

[Heraclitus]

Blake why don't you convert to Origin as I have? It is the only true path to enlightenment since the Ori offer proof of their powers to their followers. The power and the greatness of the Ori cannot be denied.


I urge you Blake, fear not the Ori, fear the darkness that would conceal the knowledge of the universe. Believe in the truth of all things and you too may find the path to
enlightenment.


Hallowed are the Ori.

[aneeshm]

First of all, my best wishes are with you. You have to be a real man to commit at this level.

Which monastic order do you plain to join? Which monastery?

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Blake
The Buddha actually set up a system for the contingency of getting hungry. It was thoughtful of him.

Buddhist Monks survive on "almsfood", food which is offered by lay people to the monks. Monks are only allowed to eat what is offered, that's an important aspect of Buddhism, the monks must survive on compassion from others alone - if they are not doing anything useful for the community, if they aren't DESERVING of receiving food, then they ought to disrobe or starve.

What will you do after you've converted the whole world into Buddhist monks?

Don't Chinese Buddhist monks grow their own food?

[Blake]

Originally posted by aneeshm
First of all, my best wishes are with you. You have to be a real man to commit at this level.

Which monastic order do you plain to join? Which monastery?

The Forest Sangha, Thai Forest Tradition. Inspired by Ajahn Brahm and Ajahn Chah.

The Buddha himself was a forest monk. He sat under trees and meditated, that's what a forest monk tends to do. The Buddha followed all of the rules he made (all of the training rules were simply "Do as I do"), and so a forest monk strives to also.

Of all the traditions, the Thai Forest Tradition, has taken the fewest liberties with the Buddha's permission to do things like "ignore some of the minor rules".

The teachings of other Buddhist traditions have never made sense to me, but the teachings of the Forest Sangha, DO! They make perfect sense. And it is the most popular tradition with westerners - the oldest and most conservative, is the most popular with modern westerners, go figure.

The moral I take from that - is that there is, and never was, a need to update the core of Buddhism to fit with the times.

In the Buddha's time, all a person needed to be happy, was 3 robes and a bowl and the four requisites. And the same is still true! To give some perspective here - less than 100 years after the death of Buddha, some monks decided it was time for Buddhism to move with the times, they were "modern monks" and it was no longer practical for someone to not accept or use money... it may have worked in Buddha's time, but it no longer worked, it was no longer practical.... more than a hundred years had passed and they were MODERN monks . It's now 2500 years later and I've met monks who get along just fine not accepting or using money, in hardcore capitalistic society...

"The more things change, the more things stay the same", I think this is very true in the case of buddhism. All the things which men can invent, can never change what men actually need...

Originally posted by Maniac
What will you do after you've converted the whole world into Buddhist monks?

Happily this is not a risk.

Someone may not ordain as a Monk while they have dependent children.

As long as there are children in the world, the whole world will not be Buddhist Monks...

I'm not that optimistic anyway . Buddhism is as ruthless on optimism as it is on pessimism. If the whole world couldn't be converted to Buddhist Monks in 2500 years, and the Buddha said that it couldn't, then there is little chance of the whole work being converted to Buddhist monks in the next 2500 years, let alone my life time .

Don't Chinese Buddhist monks grow their own food?

They do break the 1st precept - refrain from killing, and openly defy the "Right Livelihood" aspect of the noble eight-fold path (a farmer is NOT right livelihood), but yes, I believe there are Monks who grow their own food.
I'm not sold on the "Buddhist" part, but as I said in an earlier post, people are free to define Buddhist for themself. I suppose they still follow 8 or 9 out of the 10 precepts.

[Maniac]

Happily this is not a risk.

Someone may not ordain as a Monk while they have dependent children.

As long as there are children in the world, the whole world will not be Buddhist Monks...

Fact remains, the only way you can follow your lifestyle, is because there are people who do not follow your lifestyle, because there are unenlightened people who are suckered into believing they need to give food to monks to be good people.

Originally posted by Blake
They do break the 1st precept - refrain from killing, and openly defy the "Right Livelihood" aspect of the noble eight-fold path (a farmer is NOT right livelihood), but yes, I believe there are Monks who grow their own food.
I'm not sold on the "Buddhist" part, but as I said in an earlier post, people are free to define Buddhist for themself. I suppose they still follow 8 or 9 out of the 10 precepts.

But by accepting food from others, you aren't breaking the precept yourself, but you do rely on others to break your precept. What's the difference in the end? Isn't it a little... hypocrit?

The possibility of Right Livelihood is an illusion.

Their goal is to attain complete liberation from Greed, Anger and Delusion

Isn't enlightenment in the Buddhist sense liberation of greed, anger, illusion, or more generally said: desires? Does it not follow then that he who seeks/desires enlightenment, will never find it? Enlightenment is a state of being, not a goal you can strive towards.

Every time you do act out of greed, hatred and delusion that WILL bite you on the butt in the future, or you are wise to assume so anyway since usually it does.

Blah blah karma bull****. I'm with the monk who said you shouldn't believe something unless you have sufficient proof (the scientific method in other words). You are choosing to live in a dreamworld/illusion. Which is quite odd, considering the true translation of "Buddha" is not Enlightenment, but Awakening.

Hey, you can do whatever you want if it makes you happy I guess (if you don't mind deluding yourself), but IMO following silly rules/precepts/paths doesn't lead to enlightenment. It leads to the opposite, zealotry and narrowmindedness. Wake up Blake!

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Blake
In the Buddha's time, all a person needed to be happy, was 3 robes and a bowl and the four requisites.

What do you robes for? Why don't you dance naked among the trees??

[Blake]

Holy sh*t maniac!

I think you may have just uncovered deep fundamental flaws in buddhism which somehow went by unnoticed for 2500 years!

That's amazing!

Oh wait, no you didn't. False alarm.

Fact remains, the only way you can follow your lifestyle, is because there are people who do not follow your lifestyle, because there are unenlightened people who are suckered into believing they need to give food to monks to be good people.

People get suckered into buying things through advertising tactics like associating the product with pretty girls or men. I suppose that's better?

This argument is a fallacy on the same grounds as "Not all people can be hairdressers"...

Buddhism aims for a world, with some monks, some hairdressers, some farmers and so on. Buddhism does not want to convert the whole world to buddhism and does not want all people to become monks and nuns.

More than 50% of people who join a monastery, later disrobe. There is no shame in doing so.

Maybe you actually misunderstand what Buddhism is about.

But by accepting food from others, you aren't breaking the precept yourself, but you do rely on others to break your precept. What's the difference in the end? Isn't it a little... hypocrit?

The possibility of Right Livelihood is an illusion.

A precept is a training rule, not a moral rule. If someone is not interested in being trained they have no need to follow the precepts. There's no punishment for breaking a training rule so it doesn't matter if someone doesn't, there's nothing to get worked up about, no need to hunt them down and flog them.

Admittedly, what the training rules train you in, is morality, virtue, that kind of thing. But if someone is not interested in that kind of morality, that kind of virture, not interested in living the holy life, then there is no need for them to follow the precepts.

It's really less hypocritical, and more extremely convenient, that there are some people who are uninterested in living the holy life, but interested in supporting those who do wish to... little effort is applied to figuring out why such people exist. It reminds me of a question in an interview to a senior monk:
"Why do you think it is that the junior Monks move around so much?"
"I don't know"
Hahah.

The reality is that every person is different, everyones looking for something in life, everyone has their own idea of what their own happy medium is. Some junior monks probably look for a monastery which is comfortable enough, others a monastery which is torturous enough, others are just looking for a teacher they connect with. Some Monks disrobe and become hairdressers. But why do they do that? Who cares, it's what people do.

Isn't enlightenment in the Buddhist sense liberation of greed, anger, illusion, or more generally said: desires? Does it not follow then that he who seeks/desires enlightenment, will never find it? Enlightenment is a state of being, not a goal you can strive towards.

Enlightenment has never been attained by someone who strongly desires enlightenment.
I've never come across insight by trying to.
I just listened to Ajahn Brahm's voice because I found his droning voice to the soothing and his stories amusing.
And one day I had a deep insight into suffering due to his words. But I wasn't trying to have that insight, I was just enjoying myself.

Blah blah karma bull****. I'm with the monk who said you shouldn't believe something unless you have sufficient proof (the scientific method in other words). You are choosing to live in a dreamworld/illusion. Which is quite odd, considering the true translation of "Buddha" is not Enlightenment, but Awakening.

Karma isn't bull****, it's common sense. It's obvious that when you commit crimes, you end up in jail. When you lie, people don't trust you. When you help someone in a time of need, they'll help you in a time of need.
It doesn't need to be any more complicated or mystical than that.

Hey, you can do whatever you want if it makes you happy I guess (if you don't mind deluding yourself), but IMO following silly rules/precepts/paths doesn't lead to enlightenment. It leads to the opposite, zealotry and narrowmindedness. Wake up Blake!

IMO? Heheh, shouldn't there be an H in there?

[Maniac]

In this post you're making more sense.
It's just that in many other posts you come across like a narrowminded zealot to me. Please don't try to start teaching in schools and prisons right away.

[Blake]

Don't worry. I'm starting on Apolyton. I also some have some other victims around the place. Don't worry about them, it helps them cultivate patience.

Becoming a great teacher is mainly a process of mellowing out. Young men get VERY fanatical about things... it's kind of what young men do, young buddhists aren't any exception - it's just what young men are like! They enjoy ideologies and arguments and a good cause.
The ones who don't kill themselves in the name of their cause mellow out.

The great monks are the most mellow people on the planet. When I see them, I think, YES! That is exactly what I want to be like when I'm old. So relaxed and at peace with the world. It's what I'm striving for.

But I AM still a young man and slip into zealotry very easily, sometimes I can go for like a week without even once thinking about or applying some very fundamental principles of Buddhism....
Like "I'm a Buddhist so I'm supposed to QUESTION". Questioning, it's very simple. You ask questions of yourself or other people. But sometimes I forget to do it, for days on end. Maybe I should write it down somewhere where I wont lose it, like my forehead. Actually I'm tempted to do that! It would be hilarious! Walking around town with "Question" or "Remember to question" scrawled across my forehead. That would certainly make some people question, hahahah.

BUT one thing I am much better at remembering to do is to always have fun with whatever I'm doing. Someone who is not good at having fun can not hack buddhism . I haven't been motivated by anger for a loooong time. I just get fanatical for fun! .

[DaShi]

Actually, Blake. You are extremely arrogant. You claim to be a teacher, but you are not ready. You a still a student and you need to develop more skills than you can learn in a textbook about Buddhism, if you ever hope to successfully teach anyone about it. Currently, you are at an aneeshm level. You do for Buddhism what he does for India. In doing so, you shame your beliefs as well as yourself.

[Blake]

I don't think I've actually claimed to be a teacher.
I've claimed to be someone who is learning to teach.

Oh and I've never actually read a textbook on Buddhism, does that make it better or worse?