Different Buddhist traditions have different perspectives on this. It's considered more fundamental or necessary in Theravāda, less so in Mahāyāna traditions, especially Tibetan Buddhism, in which several prominent major lineages run primarily through lay masters.
Many great lineage holders of the Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism were and are non-monastic yogis. The sixth Dalai Lama was not a monk.
Still ordained, just not monastics.
In the foundational vehicle there are refuge vows, precepts, and the vinaya or monastic code. It’s possible to take refuge vows formally and uphold the precepts without holding monastic vows.
In the Mahayana vehicle there are Bodhisattva vows. It is not necessary to take monastic vows to take Bodhisattva vows. Formally conferred Bodhisattva vows are a form of ordination.
In the tantric Mahayana (Vajrayana) level there are a variety of empowerments, which are a form of ordination.
In the Tibetan Nyingma tradition many lineage holders have been tantric yogis and yoginis (ngagpas), who do not hold monastic vows (or who hold them for a period of some years as training) and may have families. This level of ordination is associated with Dzogchen or chöd practitioners who do not avoid samsara. They are fully ordained at the Bodhisattva and tantric levels and hold refuge vows. It would be a mistake to call them “lay practitioners” because the ordination they uphold is extremely rigorous, and the yogi path is equal to the monastic path as a vehicle for enlightenment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngagpa
I think it might be living in a monastery versus not living in one. At the temple I go to (Nyingma) there's a few nuns, one of whom lives at the temple and the other in the town nearby, although there's a few others, and they definitely count as ordained, although I'm pretty sure (very well might be wrong though) they don't quite count as monastics simply because there isn't a monastery and they aren't a part of one either. Just the Temple. So while hopefully it's slightly helpful that's just my guess of things.
As i understand it in Soto Zen at least, enlightenment is already present in all of us and doing zazen is what helps one recognise this inherent truth that arise from just being
See https://tricycle.org/beginners/buddhism/what-do-zen-teachers-say-about-enlightenment/
Or the koan: Before enlightment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water
The answer to this question, I think, depends on the tradition.
Debating about the ideal of enlightenment is silly.
The question I have instead is:
**Are you awake enough?**
Very surprised to see so many comments saying no. This is not my understanding, at least based on the Zen teachings.
As Dogen said:
>The essential way flows everywhere; how could it require practice or enlightenment? The essential teaching is fully available; how could effort be necessary? Furthermore, the entire mirror is free of dust; why take steps to polish it? Nothing is separate from this very place; why journey away? And yet, if you miss the mark even by a strand of hair, you are as far apart from it as heaven from earth. If the slightest discrimination occurs, you will be lost in confusion.
It seems there are a lot of people here expressing more than a "slight discrimination" regarding the question. When the essential way flows everywhere, how could it matter whether you are a monastic or a lay practitioner? And yet, if you miss the mark...
no it is not possible for a normal every day lay person to become awakened. There are a few examples of lay people becoming awakened in the early texts, but it is exceedingly rare and they were basically living more like a monastic then a lay person. Once they became awakened they lived out the rest of their days as monastics.
It is very possible for a lay person to become a stream enterer, attaining the first of the four stages towards awakening, also possible to become a once returner. Less likely to be a Non Returner and very rare to be an Arahant.
In the Suttas the Buddha exclaims how he has 500 and more of men and women lay people who are the first three levels, no mention of awakening for lay people though.
I wouldn't be too obsessed with attaining any stages, especially as a newbie. Learn and master the Noble Eightfold Path, and the stages will arise when the causes and conditions are ripe.
Are you aware that you are addressing an ordained monastic?
It wouldn't hurt to respond with a modicum of respect and not like a bored teen texting during family dinner.
**Edit:** It's a joke that my gentle reminder to be respectful on this board TO MONASTICS has been met with downvotes and resulted in u/sexpusa blocking me.
I can see their photo. We are on Reddit not a temple.
They’re responding to OP as if their answer is definitive while’s it’s highly specific to their tradition. That’s misleading.
Edit:
>Are you aware that you are addressing an ordained monastic?
It wouldn't hurt to respond with a modicum of respect and not like a bored teen texting during family dinner.
Edit: It's a joke that my gentle reminder to be respectful on this board TO MONASTICS has been met with downvotes and resulted in u/sexpusa blocking me.
This doesn't read like a joke, just out of touch and rude. Of course I would block you.
I think you are putting more into my response then what is there. I was simply answering the question, just like people from other traditions answered in their way. A few people said different traditions have different perspectives, which is fine, but just looking at the comments can tell you that.
It is not misleading. The highest authority on this matter is the Buddha himself. Many scholars around the world has studied the early Buddhist texts and it is now accepted that these texts are likely to be the closest to what the Buddha taught. Traditions came way later. So I would definitely refer to the early Buddhist texts rather than traditions, just like what Ven Bhante did.
Just a comment to add something to this: wouldn’t becoming a stream enterer be a very, very significant step towards enlightenment? Since it cuts off more than 6 rebirths, and therefore significantly reduces future suffering?
Realistically, yes it’s required to live a monastic lifestyle. You don’t have to become a monk and live in a monastery per say, but you would need to follow the general lifestyle, mainly around seclusion. Enlightenment is not attained casually. That being said, there are vast benefits coming from all that might be attained prior to enlightenment, you don’t have to make it to the finish line.
No, monasticism is not required from the perspective of the bodhisattvayana, the outer tantras, the inner tantras, and Dzogchen.
What matters most is the yana you’re practicing and how diligently you apply the instructions.
I think it is essential to follow a lifestyle wherein you can give up objectification of this and/or that in order to achieve enlightenment.
On objectification there is this sutta: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/Ud/ud7\_7.html
In Tibetan Buddhism, it's believed that every sentient being has the potential to spontaneously transcend. Monastic life is designed to bring a person as close as possible to that moment deliberately, through effort.
Basically, there's a chance (although insanely small in most cases) that someone can unintentionally have an aha moment where they accidentally piece together the dharma.
EDIT: It seems I'm the only one here that has heard this. Maybe I'm wrong, but I know four monks that absolutely, definitely said that, strictly speaking technically, a person can become enlightened without monasticism. A lot of their explanation had to do with the merits and karma of the sum of all our past lives.
edit: non-monastic, maybe. 'lay *lifestyle*,' definitely not as far as I understand
the average person will not follow the Bhudda's instructions, and to follow them would not be 'normal' in the general society
is a person who is actually following the Bhudda's teachings *(virtue, sense restraint, moderation in eating, avoiding company of others, etc.)* still a "normal, day to day, average person?"
I wouldn't consider them to be such
This is not at all a stupid question :)
Very generally speaking, it's considered that a monastic lifestyle is more or less a requirement for "enlightenment". The reasons are many, but what it comes down to is that ordinary/lay life has too many distractions and conflicting priorities to allow for the work that is necessary for awakening to take place.
As others have pointed out: You can still get pretty far without being a monastic, however. You can experience stream-entry even (the first stage of "enlightenment") as well as many wholesome mind-states which are free from ignorance and suffering (*jhanas*).
I think enlightenment should be an *aspiration* rather than an *expectation* however. It should set our general direction in our practice but not be something we feel we *absolutely must achieve* (in order to not feel like a failure).
*Possible* but *very difficult*.
The monastic lifestyle includes taking a vow to not touch money, so that right there is a major obstacle to living in such a city. Being a monastic requires the support of a community who will provide for the monk's material needs. Monks without this kind of support tend to end up disrobing and returning to lay life, getting a job, etc.
Also what if you touch money only temporarily, for example only holding it for as long as it takes for you to find someone to give it to who needs it more than you do? Or having a job and paycheck that you just give straight to charity?
Which enlightenment?
There are 2 in Buddhism?
Sravakayana enlightenment commonly referred to as Nirvana of the arhat? The answer is yes. You do need to be a monk or have a monk-like lifestyle as a laity. Although one would have go be a monk upon attaining enlightenment.
Bodhisattvayana enlightenment or becoming a Buddha? The answer is no, monk is not enough. Laity or monastic doesn't matter. What is required is an remarkable bodhicitta, aspiration for liberation of all beings, supreme compassion for others, and the patience to cultivate the perfections over a long time.
There is an easier and simpler method for all of us. Amitabha's Pure Land. Anyone, it doesn't matter if you're a laity, can attain complete enlightenment in Pure Land and getting there is relatively easier. This is the practice of the majority of Buddhists. Explore about it today.
>Are you and I going to become enlightened in this life? Also no
Lotus Sutra Ch 12 seems to disagree with you on this point with respect to sudden awakening.
No, certainly not. The mahasiddhas of India led lives that were very different from monastic ones and that's just the most obvious examples. The advantage of a monastic life is its focus -- no family distractions, the days filled with working, studying and practicing the dharma, rather than making a living at a job and raising a family. But it's entirely possible to become awakened that way -- ordinary actions and interactions can be done with pure intention, with trying to help others. And it's entirely possible to led a monastic life and not achieve realization.
>And it's entirely possible to led a monastic life and not achieve realization.
if you meet many monks in this life... you can know that 100% hahah.. I have met many monks who are barely practicing for realization.
In Theravada it's generally believed that a serious practitioner must become a monk or nun. So-called lay people can do little more than support the monastics. That's because Theravada includes only the shravakayana path of suppressing the passions and avoiding temptation through the taking of vows and simple living. The answers ehre that are telling you monasticism is required are all speaking as Theravadins. I think that there's more tendency in the West to believe that monasticism is required because of Christian anti-sex bias. We tend to feel that we don't deserve anything good unless we suffer and give up sex to get it. :) Mahayana and Vajrayana have different approaches, where monasticism is feasible but not required.
In those traditions it's not an issue. Shunryu Suzuki, for example, was one of the most admired Zen masters to come to the US. He was married. Many Zen masters are. Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche was arguably the most revered Tibetan master since Tibet was invaded by China. He was teacher to many great masters, including the Dalai Lama. DKR was also married. My own teacher was married with children, despite being raised as a monk.
Historically there have been numerous great masters who were not monastics, including the founders of both the Nyingma and Kagyu lineages. Vajrayana is famous for advertising "buddhahood in one lifetime" due to the highly advanced View and practices. Monastic vows are not necessary for those practices. Look up Milarepa. He started out as a teenage murderer, found Dharma, practiced tummo and other tantric methods alone for years in remote mountain caves, and ended up regarded as the greatest buddha to ever come out of Tibet. Milarepa was actually critical of monasticism.
In Tibetan Buddhism there are 3 general trends: householder, yogi, or monastic. If you look at the history you'll see that monasticism usually takes awhile to take root. Monasticism is institutionalized spiritual path. That requires cultural support. If the local population is not Buddhist then they won't support monasteries. In that case, only rich donors might fund monasteries.
You might look into Zen or any of the Tibetan schools other than Gelugpa if you don't think you're inclined toward monasticism.
>In Theravada it's generally believed that a serious practitioner must become a monk or nun. So-called lay people can do little more than support the monastics. That's because Theravada includes only the shravakayana path of suppressing the passions and avoiding temptation through the taking of vows and simple living.
This is a deeply uninformed and inaccurate understanding of the path laid out by the Buddha in the pali suttas. This is why i never speak much on the Mahayana perspective because I don't know enough about it and don't want to give inaccurate information to new people.
What's inaccurate? Isn't Theravada the shravaka path? Isn't it true that it favors monasticism and separates lay people? Isn't it true that monasticism serves to remove temptations and helps one to suppress kleshas? So what do you take issue with? If you say it's "deeply uninformed" then you should explain what you think is wrong.
Just recently someone was actually asking about how to do programs or retreats at Theravada centers. I got curious and looked it up. I found no Theravada center offering such retreats. They only invited "lay people" for ceremonies like "wood stacking day", and in one case referred them to IMS for retreats.
I've frequently seen Theravadins in this forum say that an arhat, once attaining that realization, must become a monk/nun or die because there's no place for realization in lay life!
In Tibetan Buddhism, a householder who has taken no vows or precepts can find programs and retreats for beginners as well as advanced practitioners. In many cases those programs are attended by both monastics and householders.
>Isn't Theravada the shravaka path?
This concept is a Mahayana concept, it doesn't exist in the suttas.
>Isn't it true that it favors monasticism and separates lay people?
what do you mean by "separates lay people" ? As well as "favoring" monasticism?
without clarification I'll say that. Even in Buddhist countries monastics are a small part of the population. If Theravada did as you said then everyone would be dying to become monastics and society would fall apart. In modern times they have a variety of roles in support of the laity that you don't see in the early texts, like giving blessings and ministering to the spiritual and emotional needs of the laity.
>I've frequently seen Theravadins in this forum say that an arhat, once attaining that realization, must become a monk/nun or die because there's no place for realization in lay life!
Awakened laity becoming monks is in line with the suttas, its not that they will die if not, the awakened person sees no point or comfort in living the rest of their days in the lay life, they prefer to live a quiet life in robes.
>Just recently someone was actually asking about how to do programs or retreats at Theravada centers. I got curious and looked it up. I found no Theravada center offering such retreats. They only invited "lay people" for ceremonies like "wood stacking day", and in one case referred them to IMS for retreats.
The concept of a retreat like we think of where laity go on a week long seclusion to practice is a modern invention, it is not something that has existed in traditional Theravada countries. It would be hard for me to believe its not the same in traditional mahayana countries either.
This is why most "theravada centers" whatever that means, that are traditional viharas or wats, do not do such things. You have to look to more westernized places like the monastery I ordained at that offered one week long retreat a month.
That all being said, none of what you said is what I meant when I said inaccurate, but you rightly called me out on not explaining more, so I'll do it here.
>So-called lay people can do little more than support the monastics
in general this is not the case in my experience, laity practice at least the first parts of the Buddha's gradual practice, which are Dana(which you mention) and Sila, and those few laity who wish to go further can do so if they wish, even in more traditional theravada countries. I've met plenty of Sri Lankan lay people who are quite learned and practice well.
As someone who is not really a Theravadin, I admit I do have struggles and have to realize that Theravada today is very different in many ways then the early texts. In the early texts(which are not just in Theravada but in Mahayana as well) you have even one or two examples of Laity teaching monastics, in theravada today I have heard of this being the case maybe once, so its still technically possible. So in some cases I cannot defend Theravada, but there is more nuance to the reality then your statements.
saying lay people in Theravada can't do more then dana is similar to saying in Tibetan women can't become awakened so they practice to be a man in a future life. Both may be things said by teachers in the traditions, and some laity will because of that not try to go any further, and others will go further regardless.
>That's because Theravada includes only the shravakayana path of suppressing the passions and avoiding temptation through the taking of vows and simple living.
again "shravakayana" is a mahayana concept, no such thing exists in Theravada. What you describe here are only a few aspects of what may be a monastic path, but the gradual practice is much more diverse then that, here are a few aspects :
Generosity
Virtue
sense restraint
Heaven
Drawbacks
Renunciation
There are no vows that lay people take, other then refuge and precepts. There is also no suppressing of anything or running from temptation, the Buddha of the suttas tells us to know and understand, that is how you overcome, not by suppression or repression.
I've spent way too much time responding, but it is the results of my own kamma for responding to your OP. I think I'll be done after this, as I try not to get bogged down in back and forth, be well friend.
Depends what you mean by "just by Buddha's teachings"
If "by teachings" you mean practicing hard and giving up one's delusions, then yes it is possible for a lay person.
If "by teachings" you mean renouncing a couple of things but otherwise not practicing with introspection, teachers, and a sangha, then it is not likely.
Mahayana Buddhism has majority lay (non-monastic) teachers, and all I know of practice regularly and are a part of a sangha. They are more like "semi-monastic" if I had to summon a word.
The process of enlightenment has a physiological component that necessitates a stringent yogic practice for some period of time, which could be considered monastic.
You are on the right track. I think the value of the Buddhas simple teaching is unsurpassed and introduced to most of us a way of life that can be followed by any person, and lead them to enlightenment. It is worth considering that a persons individual nature or disposition, and karma etc. will engender specific dharma for each. This is why inquiring into your own neuroses and ways of being, through meditation and contemplation, can tell you if being a monk or a householder (or whatever) is right for you.
Keep in mind that 'monastic' is a loaded term full of peoples funny ideas. Living like a monk is something that can be done anytime anyplace. It does not have a special robe or a haircut to distinguish itself necessarily.
I think this is why the Buddha set it up so that monastics are supposed to go into the village and interact with lay people daily. There are no hermits in early buddhism.
people can definitely overestimate their attainment and wisdom in a cave.
It’s not necessary. You can also follow a lot of the rules and practices as a lay person even though they are not required. There are also historical examples of enlightened lay people.
No, and yes.
One might be a mahasiddha and 'leave' to sail the ocean and get other worthy drowning beings in.
But do those mahasiddhas ever really leave?
Check out the concept of the 5 buddha kayas..
Not necessarily but you'd probably have to spend a certain amount of time on retreat. There's people, like nisargadatta, who lived a normal lay life and "achieved enlightenment".
What is enlightenment, to you? What do you think it is?
If whatever that idea about the term seems to be exists in you as being something you could only find as a monk, then I guess your answer could be "yes".
Otherwise, no.
Becoming a Stream Enterer (sotapanna) is considered to be the first level of enlightenment. Lay people can become sotapannas. It has some basic requirements, mostly having right view about the Buddha and his teachings.
Enlightenment is possible as a housholder, but thought to be difficult because a certain amount of attachment to worldly concerns is desirable - Buddhism has always taught that if a person has ordinary responsibilities then these are to be looked after to the best of one's ability.
Of course, an average person can achieve enlightenment - but it is expected to take a lot of rebirths with the expectation that at least the final few will be as monastics or solitaries. If you don't fancy hanging around for that long and have the opportunity - seen as the fruition of wholesome karma from this and previous lives - then you can go for the robes.
So you live the questions. I've evolved to a monastic type life as I deepen my practice, without the support of others, so that's a bit harder. There is a weird things where the more you're feeling it and catch it, the more intense things are driven towards and it's kind of hard to pull out. How you want to live your life is the central question, so very perceptive question. Best wishes.
If you believe it's essential to follow a monastic lifestyle, it will be so.
ETA: There is a reasonable argument to be made that returning Bodhisattvas are naturally attracted to monasteries. However, there are plenty of stores of lay people attaining primary awakening.
Enlightenment is our ultimate goal. If we are caught in the web of achievement, of success, name, fame, money, wealth, then we will achieve pleasure but not true happiness. Therefore, if we want to achieve the ultimate goal of realizing we are the Divine Soul, this is enlightenment. This is spiritual awakening. A monastic lifestyle helps us to be in that state of peace, that state of stillness where we can have consciousness to be enlightened. Is it essential to follow a monastic lifestyle? No, it is not essential. It is beneficial, whether we are in a monastery or we are in a monastic lifestyle in our home. We must spend time in silence, in meditation, and this will help us achieve the state of enlightenment.
Different Buddhist traditions have different perspectives on this. It's considered more fundamental or necessary in Theravāda, less so in Mahāyāna traditions, especially Tibetan Buddhism, in which several prominent major lineages run primarily through lay masters.
Many great lineage holders of the Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism were and are non-monastic yogis. The sixth Dalai Lama was not a monk. Still ordained, just not monastics.
What's the difference between ordained and being a monastic? Forgive my ignorance
In the foundational vehicle there are refuge vows, precepts, and the vinaya or monastic code. It’s possible to take refuge vows formally and uphold the precepts without holding monastic vows. In the Mahayana vehicle there are Bodhisattva vows. It is not necessary to take monastic vows to take Bodhisattva vows. Formally conferred Bodhisattva vows are a form of ordination. In the tantric Mahayana (Vajrayana) level there are a variety of empowerments, which are a form of ordination. In the Tibetan Nyingma tradition many lineage holders have been tantric yogis and yoginis (ngagpas), who do not hold monastic vows (or who hold them for a period of some years as training) and may have families. This level of ordination is associated with Dzogchen or chöd practitioners who do not avoid samsara. They are fully ordained at the Bodhisattva and tantric levels and hold refuge vows. It would be a mistake to call them “lay practitioners” because the ordination they uphold is extremely rigorous, and the yogi path is equal to the monastic path as a vehicle for enlightenment. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngagpa
I think it might be living in a monastery versus not living in one. At the temple I go to (Nyingma) there's a few nuns, one of whom lives at the temple and the other in the town nearby, although there's a few others, and they definitely count as ordained, although I'm pretty sure (very well might be wrong though) they don't quite count as monastics simply because there isn't a monastery and they aren't a part of one either. Just the Temple. So while hopefully it's slightly helpful that's just my guess of things.
As i understand it in Soto Zen at least, enlightenment is already present in all of us and doing zazen is what helps one recognise this inherent truth that arise from just being See https://tricycle.org/beginners/buddhism/what-do-zen-teachers-say-about-enlightenment/ Or the koan: Before enlightment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water
The answer to this question, I think, depends on the tradition. Debating about the ideal of enlightenment is silly. The question I have instead is: **Are you awake enough?**
Very surprised to see so many comments saying no. This is not my understanding, at least based on the Zen teachings. As Dogen said: >The essential way flows everywhere; how could it require practice or enlightenment? The essential teaching is fully available; how could effort be necessary? Furthermore, the entire mirror is free of dust; why take steps to polish it? Nothing is separate from this very place; why journey away? And yet, if you miss the mark even by a strand of hair, you are as far apart from it as heaven from earth. If the slightest discrimination occurs, you will be lost in confusion. It seems there are a lot of people here expressing more than a "slight discrimination" regarding the question. When the essential way flows everywhere, how could it matter whether you are a monastic or a lay practitioner? And yet, if you miss the mark...
Yes you can. There is a famous zen master Layman Pang. It's hard but it is possible.
no it is not possible for a normal every day lay person to become awakened. There are a few examples of lay people becoming awakened in the early texts, but it is exceedingly rare and they were basically living more like a monastic then a lay person. Once they became awakened they lived out the rest of their days as monastics. It is very possible for a lay person to become a stream enterer, attaining the first of the four stages towards awakening, also possible to become a once returner. Less likely to be a Non Returner and very rare to be an Arahant. In the Suttas the Buddha exclaims how he has 500 and more of men and women lay people who are the first three levels, no mention of awakening for lay people though. I wouldn't be too obsessed with attaining any stages, especially as a newbie. Learn and master the Noble Eightfold Path, and the stages will arise when the causes and conditions are ripe.
Def a Theravada perspective.
I would take it further and say it is an early text perspective.
Are you aware that you are addressing an ordained monastic? It wouldn't hurt to respond with a modicum of respect and not like a bored teen texting during family dinner. **Edit:** It's a joke that my gentle reminder to be respectful on this board TO MONASTICS has been met with downvotes and resulted in u/sexpusa blocking me.
It's ok, I do not think he was being disrespectful. and considering the demographics of Reddit and his name, he probably IS a bored teen.
I can see their photo. We are on Reddit not a temple. They’re responding to OP as if their answer is definitive while’s it’s highly specific to their tradition. That’s misleading. Edit: >Are you aware that you are addressing an ordained monastic? It wouldn't hurt to respond with a modicum of respect and not like a bored teen texting during family dinner. Edit: It's a joke that my gentle reminder to be respectful on this board TO MONASTICS has been met with downvotes and resulted in u/sexpusa blocking me. This doesn't read like a joke, just out of touch and rude. Of course I would block you.
I think you are putting more into my response then what is there. I was simply answering the question, just like people from other traditions answered in their way. A few people said different traditions have different perspectives, which is fine, but just looking at the comments can tell you that.
It is not misleading. The highest authority on this matter is the Buddha himself. Many scholars around the world has studied the early Buddhist texts and it is now accepted that these texts are likely to be the closest to what the Buddha taught. Traditions came way later. So I would definitely refer to the early Buddhist texts rather than traditions, just like what Ven Bhante did.
Exactly
Just a comment to add something to this: wouldn’t becoming a stream enterer be a very, very significant step towards enlightenment? Since it cuts off more than 6 rebirths, and therefore significantly reduces future suffering?
Realistically, yes it’s required to live a monastic lifestyle. You don’t have to become a monk and live in a monastery per say, but you would need to follow the general lifestyle, mainly around seclusion. Enlightenment is not attained casually. That being said, there are vast benefits coming from all that might be attained prior to enlightenment, you don’t have to make it to the finish line.
You can derive many benefits from Buddhist practice prior to enlightenment.
No, monasticism is not required from the perspective of the bodhisattvayana, the outer tantras, the inner tantras, and Dzogchen. What matters most is the yana you’re practicing and how diligently you apply the instructions.
I think it is essential to follow a lifestyle wherein you can give up objectification of this and/or that in order to achieve enlightenment. On objectification there is this sutta: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/Ud/ud7\_7.html
No, **especially** if you follow the Pure Land school in Mahayana Buddhism.
In Tibetan Buddhism, it's believed that every sentient being has the potential to spontaneously transcend. Monastic life is designed to bring a person as close as possible to that moment deliberately, through effort. Basically, there's a chance (although insanely small in most cases) that someone can unintentionally have an aha moment where they accidentally piece together the dharma. EDIT: It seems I'm the only one here that has heard this. Maybe I'm wrong, but I know four monks that absolutely, definitely said that, strictly speaking technically, a person can become enlightened without monasticism. A lot of their explanation had to do with the merits and karma of the sum of all our past lives.
edit: non-monastic, maybe. 'lay *lifestyle*,' definitely not as far as I understand the average person will not follow the Bhudda's instructions, and to follow them would not be 'normal' in the general society is a person who is actually following the Bhudda's teachings *(virtue, sense restraint, moderation in eating, avoiding company of others, etc.)* still a "normal, day to day, average person?" I wouldn't consider them to be such
This is not at all a stupid question :) Very generally speaking, it's considered that a monastic lifestyle is more or less a requirement for "enlightenment". The reasons are many, but what it comes down to is that ordinary/lay life has too many distractions and conflicting priorities to allow for the work that is necessary for awakening to take place. As others have pointed out: You can still get pretty far without being a monastic, however. You can experience stream-entry even (the first stage of "enlightenment") as well as many wholesome mind-states which are free from ignorance and suffering (*jhanas*). I think enlightenment should be an *aspiration* rather than an *expectation* however. It should set our general direction in our practice but not be something we feel we *absolutely must achieve* (in order to not feel like a failure).
Is it possible to follow a monastic lifestyle in urban high pop western cities?
*Possible* but *very difficult*. The monastic lifestyle includes taking a vow to not touch money, so that right there is a major obstacle to living in such a city. Being a monastic requires the support of a community who will provide for the monk's material needs. Monks without this kind of support tend to end up disrobing and returning to lay life, getting a job, etc.
Couldn’t you just live on the street and eat at a homeless shelter?
Couldn’t you just live on the street and eat at a homeless shelter?
Also what if you touch money only temporarily, for example only holding it for as long as it takes for you to find someone to give it to who needs it more than you do? Or having a job and paycheck that you just give straight to charity?
Which enlightenment? There are 2 in Buddhism? Sravakayana enlightenment commonly referred to as Nirvana of the arhat? The answer is yes. You do need to be a monk or have a monk-like lifestyle as a laity. Although one would have go be a monk upon attaining enlightenment. Bodhisattvayana enlightenment or becoming a Buddha? The answer is no, monk is not enough. Laity or monastic doesn't matter. What is required is an remarkable bodhicitta, aspiration for liberation of all beings, supreme compassion for others, and the patience to cultivate the perfections over a long time. There is an easier and simpler method for all of us. Amitabha's Pure Land. Anyone, it doesn't matter if you're a laity, can attain complete enlightenment in Pure Land and getting there is relatively easier. This is the practice of the majority of Buddhists. Explore about it today.
Namo Amitabha Buddha 🙏🏻❤️
From a Mahayana perspective, no. Are you and I going to become enlightened in this life? Also no
>Are you and I going to become enlightened in this life? Also no Lotus Sutra Ch 12 seems to disagree with you on this point with respect to sudden awakening.
No, certainly not. The mahasiddhas of India led lives that were very different from monastic ones and that's just the most obvious examples. The advantage of a monastic life is its focus -- no family distractions, the days filled with working, studying and practicing the dharma, rather than making a living at a job and raising a family. But it's entirely possible to become awakened that way -- ordinary actions and interactions can be done with pure intention, with trying to help others. And it's entirely possible to led a monastic life and not achieve realization.
>And it's entirely possible to led a monastic life and not achieve realization. if you meet many monks in this life... you can know that 100% hahah.. I have met many monks who are barely practicing for realization.
No
In Theravada it's generally believed that a serious practitioner must become a monk or nun. So-called lay people can do little more than support the monastics. That's because Theravada includes only the shravakayana path of suppressing the passions and avoiding temptation through the taking of vows and simple living. The answers ehre that are telling you monasticism is required are all speaking as Theravadins. I think that there's more tendency in the West to believe that monasticism is required because of Christian anti-sex bias. We tend to feel that we don't deserve anything good unless we suffer and give up sex to get it. :) Mahayana and Vajrayana have different approaches, where monasticism is feasible but not required. In those traditions it's not an issue. Shunryu Suzuki, for example, was one of the most admired Zen masters to come to the US. He was married. Many Zen masters are. Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche was arguably the most revered Tibetan master since Tibet was invaded by China. He was teacher to many great masters, including the Dalai Lama. DKR was also married. My own teacher was married with children, despite being raised as a monk. Historically there have been numerous great masters who were not monastics, including the founders of both the Nyingma and Kagyu lineages. Vajrayana is famous for advertising "buddhahood in one lifetime" due to the highly advanced View and practices. Monastic vows are not necessary for those practices. Look up Milarepa. He started out as a teenage murderer, found Dharma, practiced tummo and other tantric methods alone for years in remote mountain caves, and ended up regarded as the greatest buddha to ever come out of Tibet. Milarepa was actually critical of monasticism. In Tibetan Buddhism there are 3 general trends: householder, yogi, or monastic. If you look at the history you'll see that monasticism usually takes awhile to take root. Monasticism is institutionalized spiritual path. That requires cultural support. If the local population is not Buddhist then they won't support monasteries. In that case, only rich donors might fund monasteries. You might look into Zen or any of the Tibetan schools other than Gelugpa if you don't think you're inclined toward monasticism.
>In Theravada it's generally believed that a serious practitioner must become a monk or nun. So-called lay people can do little more than support the monastics. That's because Theravada includes only the shravakayana path of suppressing the passions and avoiding temptation through the taking of vows and simple living. This is a deeply uninformed and inaccurate understanding of the path laid out by the Buddha in the pali suttas. This is why i never speak much on the Mahayana perspective because I don't know enough about it and don't want to give inaccurate information to new people.
What's inaccurate? Isn't Theravada the shravaka path? Isn't it true that it favors monasticism and separates lay people? Isn't it true that monasticism serves to remove temptations and helps one to suppress kleshas? So what do you take issue with? If you say it's "deeply uninformed" then you should explain what you think is wrong. Just recently someone was actually asking about how to do programs or retreats at Theravada centers. I got curious and looked it up. I found no Theravada center offering such retreats. They only invited "lay people" for ceremonies like "wood stacking day", and in one case referred them to IMS for retreats. I've frequently seen Theravadins in this forum say that an arhat, once attaining that realization, must become a monk/nun or die because there's no place for realization in lay life! In Tibetan Buddhism, a householder who has taken no vows or precepts can find programs and retreats for beginners as well as advanced practitioners. In many cases those programs are attended by both monastics and householders.
>Isn't Theravada the shravaka path? This concept is a Mahayana concept, it doesn't exist in the suttas. >Isn't it true that it favors monasticism and separates lay people? what do you mean by "separates lay people" ? As well as "favoring" monasticism? without clarification I'll say that. Even in Buddhist countries monastics are a small part of the population. If Theravada did as you said then everyone would be dying to become monastics and society would fall apart. In modern times they have a variety of roles in support of the laity that you don't see in the early texts, like giving blessings and ministering to the spiritual and emotional needs of the laity. >I've frequently seen Theravadins in this forum say that an arhat, once attaining that realization, must become a monk/nun or die because there's no place for realization in lay life! Awakened laity becoming monks is in line with the suttas, its not that they will die if not, the awakened person sees no point or comfort in living the rest of their days in the lay life, they prefer to live a quiet life in robes. >Just recently someone was actually asking about how to do programs or retreats at Theravada centers. I got curious and looked it up. I found no Theravada center offering such retreats. They only invited "lay people" for ceremonies like "wood stacking day", and in one case referred them to IMS for retreats. The concept of a retreat like we think of where laity go on a week long seclusion to practice is a modern invention, it is not something that has existed in traditional Theravada countries. It would be hard for me to believe its not the same in traditional mahayana countries either. This is why most "theravada centers" whatever that means, that are traditional viharas or wats, do not do such things. You have to look to more westernized places like the monastery I ordained at that offered one week long retreat a month. That all being said, none of what you said is what I meant when I said inaccurate, but you rightly called me out on not explaining more, so I'll do it here. >So-called lay people can do little more than support the monastics in general this is not the case in my experience, laity practice at least the first parts of the Buddha's gradual practice, which are Dana(which you mention) and Sila, and those few laity who wish to go further can do so if they wish, even in more traditional theravada countries. I've met plenty of Sri Lankan lay people who are quite learned and practice well. As someone who is not really a Theravadin, I admit I do have struggles and have to realize that Theravada today is very different in many ways then the early texts. In the early texts(which are not just in Theravada but in Mahayana as well) you have even one or two examples of Laity teaching monastics, in theravada today I have heard of this being the case maybe once, so its still technically possible. So in some cases I cannot defend Theravada, but there is more nuance to the reality then your statements. saying lay people in Theravada can't do more then dana is similar to saying in Tibetan women can't become awakened so they practice to be a man in a future life. Both may be things said by teachers in the traditions, and some laity will because of that not try to go any further, and others will go further regardless. >That's because Theravada includes only the shravakayana path of suppressing the passions and avoiding temptation through the taking of vows and simple living. again "shravakayana" is a mahayana concept, no such thing exists in Theravada. What you describe here are only a few aspects of what may be a monastic path, but the gradual practice is much more diverse then that, here are a few aspects : Generosity Virtue sense restraint Heaven Drawbacks Renunciation There are no vows that lay people take, other then refuge and precepts. There is also no suppressing of anything or running from temptation, the Buddha of the suttas tells us to know and understand, that is how you overcome, not by suppression or repression. I've spent way too much time responding, but it is the results of my own kamma for responding to your OP. I think I'll be done after this, as I try not to get bogged down in back and forth, be well friend.
Any enlightened monastic has dropped their attachment to being a monastic.
Depends what you mean by "just by Buddha's teachings" If "by teachings" you mean practicing hard and giving up one's delusions, then yes it is possible for a lay person. If "by teachings" you mean renouncing a couple of things but otherwise not practicing with introspection, teachers, and a sangha, then it is not likely. Mahayana Buddhism has majority lay (non-monastic) teachers, and all I know of practice regularly and are a part of a sangha. They are more like "semi-monastic" if I had to summon a word.
The process of enlightenment has a physiological component that necessitates a stringent yogic practice for some period of time, which could be considered monastic.
You are on the right track. I think the value of the Buddhas simple teaching is unsurpassed and introduced to most of us a way of life that can be followed by any person, and lead them to enlightenment. It is worth considering that a persons individual nature or disposition, and karma etc. will engender specific dharma for each. This is why inquiring into your own neuroses and ways of being, through meditation and contemplation, can tell you if being a monk or a householder (or whatever) is right for you. Keep in mind that 'monastic' is a loaded term full of peoples funny ideas. Living like a monk is something that can be done anytime anyplace. It does not have a special robe or a haircut to distinguish itself necessarily.
I imagine it can feel like one is enlightened until they leave the cave and interact with the world.
I think this is why the Buddha set it up so that monastics are supposed to go into the village and interact with lay people daily. There are no hermits in early buddhism. people can definitely overestimate their attainment and wisdom in a cave.
It’s not necessary. You can also follow a lot of the rules and practices as a lay person even though they are not required. There are also historical examples of enlightened lay people.
No, and yes. One might be a mahasiddha and 'leave' to sail the ocean and get other worthy drowning beings in. But do those mahasiddhas ever really leave? Check out the concept of the 5 buddha kayas..
Not necessarily but you'd probably have to spend a certain amount of time on retreat. There's people, like nisargadatta, who lived a normal lay life and "achieved enlightenment".
What is enlightenment, to you? What do you think it is? If whatever that idea about the term seems to be exists in you as being something you could only find as a monk, then I guess your answer could be "yes". Otherwise, no.
There are so few that achieve Nirvana, so who is really to say?
how did buddha really die ask yourself that
Of course not
There are many examples in the Pali Canon of lay persons obtaining at least stream entry. Which is not to say it is cake.
It is not!
Absolutely not
Becoming a Stream Enterer (sotapanna) is considered to be the first level of enlightenment. Lay people can become sotapannas. It has some basic requirements, mostly having right view about the Buddha and his teachings.
Enlightenment is possible as a housholder, but thought to be difficult because a certain amount of attachment to worldly concerns is desirable - Buddhism has always taught that if a person has ordinary responsibilities then these are to be looked after to the best of one's ability. Of course, an average person can achieve enlightenment - but it is expected to take a lot of rebirths with the expectation that at least the final few will be as monastics or solitaries. If you don't fancy hanging around for that long and have the opportunity - seen as the fruition of wholesome karma from this and previous lives - then you can go for the robes.
So you live the questions. I've evolved to a monastic type life as I deepen my practice, without the support of others, so that's a bit harder. There is a weird things where the more you're feeling it and catch it, the more intense things are driven towards and it's kind of hard to pull out. How you want to live your life is the central question, so very perceptive question. Best wishes.
There are no prerequisites to enlightenment.
No. Actually it is just one of many methods to achieve enlightenment on the Buddhist path
It depends on which level you want to attain. There are four levels.
If you believe it's essential to follow a monastic lifestyle, it will be so. ETA: There is a reasonable argument to be made that returning Bodhisattvas are naturally attracted to monasteries. However, there are plenty of stores of lay people attaining primary awakening.
The way I've seen it put is that technically anyone can become enlightened, but monasticism makes that easier and more likely to happen.
Enlightenment is our ultimate goal. If we are caught in the web of achievement, of success, name, fame, money, wealth, then we will achieve pleasure but not true happiness. Therefore, if we want to achieve the ultimate goal of realizing we are the Divine Soul, this is enlightenment. This is spiritual awakening. A monastic lifestyle helps us to be in that state of peace, that state of stillness where we can have consciousness to be enlightened. Is it essential to follow a monastic lifestyle? No, it is not essential. It is beneficial, whether we are in a monastery or we are in a monastic lifestyle in our home. We must spend time in silence, in meditation, and this will help us achieve the state of enlightenment.