[feeshyLew]

I think that Stephen Batchelor's approach is genuine and knowledgeable, not really disrespectful, but somehow opinionated.

Opinionated" really means nothing here. Anyone can call anyone else's understanding or view "opinionated". It's nonsense.

scepticism is the leading motive here and this label tends to sell books these days.

Oh, yes, it would be very nice for you if you could reduce it to a matter of just wanting to sell books with a "skeptical hook". It's a whole lot more than that -- people can see the truth of the 4NT for themselves right off, and that they are true independently of, and without recourse to, any superstition or speculative view.

The thing that I don't like about Batchelor's book is its revisionism and latent protestantism.

What revisinonism? What "protestantism? Give examples.

He recounts innumerable little facts about Buddhism, some of them quite misrepresented

Name some of them, and what makes you think he misrepresents them? Vague innuendo will not do here.

With his supposed "peeling away of dogma" from Buddhism, he peels away good chunks of flesh, apparently quite unaware of doing so.

What "good chunks of flesh? Let's not be vague here.

It goes a little bit into the direction of Protestant Buddhism

And what is this "Protestant Buddhism"? What are its tenets, and who declares themselves "Protestant Buddhists"? A show of hands from the legions of Protestant Buddhist Straw Men, please...?

[Unjucky]

I am not sure if I understand this. Could you expand on the "horrors" and the "Thai catastrophe"?

I was referring to general nationalist accretions co-opting the Sangha; here is an article for Sri Lanka, and here is one for Thailand.

[BrodiKennedy]

stuka: As someone who has a lot of trouble with the supernatural flavor of Buddhism as I've encountered it, I would be really interested in getting more detail about your position. I think it'd help me sort myself out, in addition to just plain being interesting.

Cobalt, please see my post in the beginner's forum on "The Buddha's Unshakable Ethics". I will be posting more along this vein there.

[Ztcgtqvb]

Is modern "Buddhism" moving away from the teachings of the historical Buddha ?

After about 2500 years what else can we expect. But I think the essence is still there in the suttas well protected and as valid as before.

[markkisil]

And what is this "Protestant Buddhism"? What are its tenets, and who declares themselves "Protestant Buddhists"? A show of hands from the legions of Protestant Buddhist Straw Men, please...?

I've never heard of "Protestant Buddhism" before !

[zoolissentesy]

I've never heard of "Protestant Buddhism" before ! dontknow

Hmmm... apparently a phrase coined by anthropologists to describe a reaction in Sri Lanka to the British occupation:

Two prominent Sri Lankan anthropologists, Gananath Obeyesekere (1) and Kitsiri Malalgoda, (2) created the phrase Protestant Buddhism to identify a form of Buddhism that appeared in Sri Lanka as a response to Protestant Christian missionaries and their evangelical activities during the British colonial period. Buddhists not only criticized Protestant missionaries, but also adopted their strategies and models in reforming Buddhism. This process of assimilation and incorporation occurred on an ideological level as well as social and cultural levels. The emulation of Protestant models was very much apparent in the establishment of Buddhist schools and Buddhist organizations such as the Young Men's Buddhist Association. Like evangelical Protestant Christians, Buddhists also started to print pamphlets (after June 1862), to hold preaching sessions, and to enter into debates and religious controversies in defending Buddhism. In the history of religious controversies, one important event was the two-day public debate (August 26, 27, 1873) that was held in Panadura between a Sinhala Wesleyan clergyman David de Silva and Buddhist monk Mohoṭṭivatt Guṇānanda (1823-90). The arrival of Colonel Henry Steel Olcott (1832-1907) in Sri Lanka in 1880 marked another important phase in the shaping process of what anthropologists have identified as Protestant Buddhism.


We are still waiting for that show of hands of all, or any, who claim to be "Protestant Budhists"....

[PZXjoe]

I've never heard of "Protestant Buddhism" before !

Orange robes perhaps?

[ulw7A8Po]

Hmmm.. found more...

Term introduced by the scholar Gananath Obeyesekere referring to a phenomenon in Sinhalese Buddhism having its roots in the latter half of the 19th century and caused by two sets of historical conditions: the activities of the Protestant missionaries and the close contact with the modern knowledge and technologies of the West. In 1815 the British become the first colonial power to win control over the whole of Sri Lanka and signed the Kandyan convention declaring the Buddhist religion practised by the locals to be inviolable. This article was attacked by Protestant evangelicals in England and the British government felt obliged to dissociate itself from Buddhism. The traditional bond between Buddhism and the government of the Sinhala people had effectively dissolved while official policy favoured the activities of Protestant missionaries and the conversion to Christianity had become almost essential for those who wished to join the ruling élite. Leader of the movement that started as a result of these conditions was Anagārika Dharmapāla.

The movement can be seen both as a protest against the attacks on Buddhism by foreign missionaries and the adoption in the local Buddhism of features characteristic of Protestantism. In essence, Protestant Buddhism is a form of Buddhist revival which denies that only through the Saṃgha can one seek or find salvation. Religion, as a consequence, is internalized. The layman is supposed to permeate his life with his religion and strive to make Buddhism permeate his whole society. Through printing laymen had, for the first time, access to Buddhist texts and could teach themselves meditation. Accordingly, it was felt they could and should try to reach nirvāṇa. As a consequence lay Buddhists became critical both of the traditional norms and of the monastic role.


It seems that this is being used as a pejorative against folks who would read the Suttas themselves. Quite a stretch, I would say, since all of the Buddhist traditions (and those that claim to be "Buddhist" as well) are disseminating printed literature.

Of course, this notion of a movement that "denies that only through the Saṃgha can one seek or find salvation" is a straw man as well: The Sangha includes not only monastics but also robed laypersons and housenholders who know the Dhamma and can explain the Dhamma to others and defend it from its detractors
. The Buddha points this out many times in the suttas as he speaks in praise of his Sangha.


Perhaps Bhikkhu Bodhi is a "Protestant Buddhist" as well, for his complicity in disseminating the Dhamma in written form to the masses, undercutting the political power of monastic rule. Shame, shame.... 8)

[LesLattis]

Having read Batchelor's book, I find that critique unconvincing. The fact that something is "very old" does not mean in that it is inherently "tried and true." It only means that it is... very old. Even the fact that Buddhism, like the Catholic church, survives today points only to its value as a social institution; it doesn't indicate any intrinsic value in the teaching. I am not saying this to denigrate the Dhamma. Certainly I have investigated this teaching for myself and found it of great value. But to do this, I first had to ask why something from 2,500 years ago would still be relevant to me today. Without that questioning and without that level of skepticism, Buddhism would be no less culpable as an "opiate of the masses" than any number of spiritual traditions that people take simply on faith.

One huge stumbling block for traditional Buddhism is its monastic focus. It's worth noting that the institution of monasticism in countries where Buddhism survives has typically cut off from the Dhamma from laypersons. Buddhism for the majority of the people in these countries amounts only to devotional practices and paranormal beliefs, with very little knowledge or application of the psychological and social insights of the Buddha of the Pali canon. Most people in the West cannot become and are not interested in becoming monks or nuns. How, then, do we reevaluate Buddhism for our modern-day lay lives? This is one of the questions Batchelor and his wife Martine are actually asking in their work. (For the record, I think Batchelor's newest book, Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist does a better job of pointing at an answer than Buddhism Without Beliefs.).

I am grateful that Batchelor, and people like Richard Gombrich, are doing this very important work. In the critique, Punnadhammo claims that Batchelor doesn't question his Western humanistic biases with the same tenacity he questions traditional Buddhism. I think this is disingenuous. For one thing, we know the history of Western humanism. We know how it developed and who contributed to it and why we should see a need for things like "democracy", "secularism", "agnosticism" and "science." Batchelor does not ascribe to them "unexamined positive valuation" as Punnadhammo claims. Rather, these are hard-won values, that have resulted from hundreds of years of mishaps, evaluations, critical thought and (sometimes unwitting) social experimentation.

In contrast to this, we don't really know the history of Buddhism. It almost seems that Punnadhammo is expecting Westerners to swallow Buddhism whole and assent to its value without going through an intermediary stage of weighing it against everything we know. This is unrealistic and possibly dangerous. As a person of Asian descent, I am sympathetic to Punnadhammo's qualms against Western arrogance. But I don't think Batchelor exhibits this sort of arrogance. In fact, I've been impressed by just how much sensitivity and respect Batchelor has towards the Indian milieu of Buddhism. Also, it should be noted that it's not just academics and skeptics: even people within the monastic community, like Thich Nhat Hanh, at points radically reinterpret and question the traditional canon. Buddhism's interaction with the West is relatively nascent. I see Batchelor as an intermediary stage of evolution.

As for whether or not we are diverging from the teachings of the historical Buddha, we have no way of really knowing what he actually taught. If the Pali suttas are in any way representative of the actual Siddhartha Gautama's teaching, I actually think more people than ever are being exposed to what he might have meant. The advent of the internet has made vast amounts of the Pali canon (as well as the Sanskrit, Chinese and Tibetan scriptures) available to a wider audience than ever. Rather than depending on monastic communities scattered and isolated from (and, in some cases, in opposition to) one another, we now have the change to come into contact with the alleged words of the Buddha firsthand. This is unprecedented, especially for lay people. And I think it's not a bad place to be, actually.

Great to have such high quality postings on this Forum.

[kavaTeexy]

One huge stumbling block for traditional Buddhism is its monastic focus. It's worth noting that the institution of monasticism in countries where Buddhism survives has typically cut off from the Dhamma from laypersons. Buddhism for the majority of the people in these countries amounts only to devotional practices and paranormal beliefs, with very little knowledge or application of the psychological and social insights of the Buddha of the Pali canon. Most people in the West cannot become and are not interested in becoming monks or nuns. How, then, do we reevaluate Buddhism for our modern-day lay lives? This is one of the questions Batchelor and his wife Martine are actually asking in their work. (For the record, I think Batchelor's newest book, Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist does a better job of pointing at an answer than Buddhism Without Beliefs.)

I disagree that the monastic focus is a stumbling block for Buddhism -its not here in the UK, at any rate. I've just spent the day at a Theravada Forest tradition monastery and listened to a 2hr talk given by the Abbot Ajahn Sumedho to the ordained and lay community. Devotional practices and paranormal beliefs weren't even mentioned. There were a number of references to suttas in the Pali Canon, the Four Noble truths were mentioned, Dependent Origination, and lots of advice for meditation, mindfulness and day to day living.

I think its a mistake to mistrust all things that are connected with tradition and to want to just throw them out. For me it would be a great tragedy if the only Buddhist 'teachers' available were people like Stephen Batchelor.

I've also encountered several westerners interested in ordaining in both the Theravada and Tibetan Buddhist traditions in this country both of which have active monastic communities.

[isogeople]

The Buddha established the Sangha rule of only taking food that is given precisely to ensure that the monastics would have daily contact with laypeople. From what I hear, it is very unusual for a Thai man not to be ordained at some point in early adulthood, if only for a few months. In a monastery, he will be exposed to daily contact with the Dhamma. Although they will teach some things I might no agree with, nonetheless this practice continues to ensure that the Dhamma does not die from the world. It is still there for those to find who want. The best of the monastics are the finest examples of Dhamma followers that are to be found in the world, and the fact that they have let go of materialism, lust for power, and most, if not all, other worldly pleasures is a strong indication that here is one of the best places to look for a teacher who is no longer bound to greed, hatred, and delusion.

[pE71J5Sw]

Originally Posted by Glow One huge stumbling block for traditional Buddhism is its monastic focus. It's worth noting that the institution of monasticism in countries where Buddhism survives has typically cut off from the Dhamma from laypersons. Buddhism for the majority of the people in these countries amounts only to devotional practices and paranormal beliefs, with very little knowledge or application of the psychological and social insights of the Buddha of the Pali canon. Most people in the West cannot become and are not interested in becoming monks or nuns. How, then, do we reevaluate Buddhism for our modern-day lay lives? This is one of the questions Batchelor and his wife Martine are actually asking in their work. (For the record, I think Batchelor's newest book, Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist does a better job of pointing at an answer than Buddhism Without Beliefs.)

I disagree that the monastic focus is a stumbling block for Buddhism -its not here in the UK, at any rate. I've just spent the day at a Theravada Forest tradition monastery and listened to a 2hr talk given by the Abbot Ajahn Sumedho to the ordained and lay community. Devotional practices and paranormal beliefs weren't even mentioned. There were a number of references to suttas in the Pali Canon, the Four Noble truths were mentioned, Dependent Origination, and lots of advice for meditation, mindfulness and day to day living.

I think its a mistake to mistrust all things that are connected with tradition and to want to just throw them out. For me it would be a great tragedy if the only Buddhist 'teachers' available were people like Stephen Batchelor.

I've also encountered several westerners interested in ordaining in both the Theravada and Tibetan Buddhist traditions in this country both of which have active monastic communities.
So this post is several months old, and I missed your reply, but I wanted to clarify a few points. The present manifestation of the Thai forest tradition in the U.K. is a relatively novel phenomenon. It actually ought to be called the "Thai forest revival." In fact, it evolved in the 20th century out of the direct result of people who, like Stephen Batchelor, were interested in reviving a practice of Buddhism that relied on direct experience of the transformative psychology and personal interaction with the historical Pali texts. The Thai forest tradition of Ajahn Maha Bua and Ajahn Chah, thus, was a sort of "modernist" movement itself. It was an anomaly that was not representative of other contemporary Theravadin communities in Thailand or abroad.

In fact, in the case of the Sri Lankans (to whom we owe quite a lot in terms of our knowledge of Pali manuscripts), it was thanks largely to the efforts of two Westerners that Buddhism and a meditation tradition still exists in that country at all: Colonel Henry Steel Olcott and Helena Blavatsky who reinvigorated Buddhism there after years of Colonial oppression. The man who revived the meditation tradition (which had fallen out of favor in the Sri Lankan monastic community) in Sri Lanka and India was a sort of protege of theirs: Anagarika Dharmapala. His return to the Pali texts and the resurrection of the contemplative practices gleaned therefrom are a direct result of Olcott and Blavatsky's exhortation to simply return to the original texts themselves (which, again, was anomalous to the contemporary Buddhist culture). From what we can tell, until fairly recently, laypeople in Theravadan countries (not so sure about Zen or Vajrayana) did not meditate and had no interest in it, certainly not with an eye for the deep shift in the psyche that those familiar with the Pali texts know it has the potential to catalyze.

And, of course, we have people like Buddhadasa Bhikku or Mahasi Sayadaw, et al. who became distrustful with their own contemporary "traditional" culture and established "traditions" of their own. These traditions actually reflected a return to the historical Buddha's teaching rather than a departure from it. People like Batchelor or Gombrich are simply the latest in a chain of reevaluations of the prevailing Buddhist culture. In other words, "modern Buddhism" oftentimes signifies a return to early Buddhism, or at least a practice that more closely resembles what we can presently know of early Buddhism.

Likewise, the modern "access to insight" movement whereby laypeople everywhere have access to the Pali texts is unprecedented, and results from the "modernist" approach to Buddhism spearheaded by the Thai forest revival and the expectations for such a thing by Westerners like Ajahn Sumedho, Bhikku Bodhi, Jack Kornfield and Thanissaro Bhikku. I'm not sure we would even have English translations of the Pali texts if the Christian Protestant Reformation hadn't made personal exposure to the firsthand sources of a religion so intrinsic to spiritual study in the West. That sort of unprecedented access really didn't exist in Asia at all until recently. In fact, guess where the Sri Lankan Walpola Rahula (author of What the Buddha Taught) studied the Pali canon in depth?: the Sorbonne in Paris. Comprehensive scriptural study of the sort we modern Westerners have become used to is a modern innovation.

I'm not certainly not saying Batchelor, et al. should be the only teachers and that we should look to their work uncritically and abandon all Asian traditions in favor of modern ones. I am simply saying that blindly vilifying modernism and exalting so-called tradition is short-sighted, because Batchelor and other modern Buddhists are just doing the selfsame things that people (some of whom, like Ajahn Chah, have even been Asian) have always been doing in good faith efforts to understand what Buddhism really means for us as individuals. I always get the feeling that qualms of this sort are indicative of a sort of knee-jerk misoneism, rather than an honest understanding and evaluation of Buddhism in its proper historical, social, and personal contexts respectively.

Yeesh, that got long. Sorry for being so garrulous.

[agolutuaddiff]

Glow:

I found that very thought-provoking. Thanks. I'm not steady enough on my own feet where discussing the various traditions is concerned to give you a good reply to it, but I enjoyed the read.

[HenriRow]

Thanks Cobalt. Getting people to think is the best response I could have hoped for!

[ThisIsOK]

I'm not certainly not saying Batchelor, et al. should be the only teachers and that we should look to their work uncritically and abandon all Asian traditions in favor of modern ones. I am simply saying that blindly vilifying modernism and exalting so-called tradition is short-sighted, because Batchelor and other modern Buddhists are just doing the selfsame things that people (some of whom, like Ajahn Chah, have even been Asian) have always been doing in good faith efforts to understand what Buddhism really means for us as individuals. I always get the feeling that qualms of this sort are indicative of a sort of knee-jerk misoneism, rather than an honest understanding and evaluation of Buddhism in its proper historical, social, and personal contexts respectively.

Since my last post on this subject I've been to more talks at Amaravati monastery, asked questions in a question and answer session and had chats on two different occasions with Ajahn Sumedho about personal practice. It delighted me that everything I heard was very relevant to my studies of the Pali Canon, to my everyday life, and to my meditation practice. It might be worth mentioning that I came to the Forest Tradition after investigating the teachings of Ajahn Chah and others and of course not forgetting Ajahn Buddhadasa.

This was like a much needed breath of fresh air after my many years of listening to Tibetan Buddhist teachings handed down from lineage masters and translations and discussions of various Tibetan texts. It is certainly not unjustifiably exalting tradition to say that it would be a huge loss to the world if the Forest Tradition were to disappear, because they cut through so many of the cultural superstitions that cling to Buddhism, amongst other things.

As for Steven Batchelor, I bought 'Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist' and only read half of the book because it was so boring to me that I couldn't be bothered to pick it up again. So many other westerners have followed that trail to India and other places in the far east, some taking Buddhist ordination for a while, often coming to similar conclusions but not actually writing a book about it. Having been a Tibetan Buddhist practitioner myself I didn't find anything new in what he had to say about that phase of his life as a monk in two traditions either, and there were also some fuzzy inconclusive gaps in the storytelling. Maybe the book improved in the second half but I'm afraid I'm not a particularly Stephen Batchelor fan. He seems to be quite attention/media seeking and the thought of ever considering him as a teacher is too preposterous for words. I don't see that he has anything new and innovative to offer me in general, there are plenty of others who have come to similar conclusions. I don't consider this to be "blindly vilifying modernism" I'm simply speaking from my own investigation, offline experience and conclusions. I don't actually see anything wrong in modern thought, why would I ? - but it does have to be something that I find convincing if it has the label of "Buddhist."

Just a personal opinion though, 'different strokes for different folks' as the saying goes.

[67Irralphaisa]

Thanks for your thoughtful response Aloka-D. I'm glad to hear you're finding the teachers at Amaravati helpful and relevant.

But I'm not quite sure I understand your comment about considering Batchelor a teacher being "preposterous." As I (and the majority of his readers) don't have any actual access to him, he is more of an author than teacher. I don't consider myself a student of his and I'm not even avery ardent fan. I simply think he articulates some important points of discord at the juncture of modern secularism and Buddhism. If others have followed a similar journey, why should they not write books about it? Writing is a powerful way of communicating ideas and it is never a bad thing to have a diversity of voices available. I personally find it nice to hear that people have the selfsame doubts as myself and learn about what conclusions they have come to, even if they differ from my own.

There are any number of people in whose work I have found wisdom, with whom I have not had personal contact: Ajahn Chah, Bhikku Bodhi, Pema Chodron, et al. They exist to me only as writers. I don't have a student-teacher relationship with them, and I don't resonate with everything they have written. Furthermore, even if I were to consider such people "teachers", such a relationship does not entail subjugating your own intellect or opinion to that of another. You can doubt and disagree with your teacher and still learn some things from them. As such, I don't see why such a relationship, to any person, should be "preposterous."

I also think you're setting up a false dichotomy between the Thai Forest Tradition and people like Batchelor. Why are you pitting them against one another as if their right to exist is mutually exclusive? Where in my posts did I ever say the Thai Forest Tradition should go away? Why even posit such a scenario? (As you can tell from all the question marks, I am truly quite perplexed, lol.) I am simply saying that the modernist approaches to Buddhism (of which the Thai Forest Revival is one!) have their place and can be quite valuable. I wouldn't want to do without the more orthodox Sri Lankan schools who have preserved much of the Theravada canon. I also certainly would not want to do without the work of Jack Kornfield or Gil Fronsdal -- two teachers in the Western Insight Meditation tradition -- whose teaching makes "kitchen-sink level" Buddhism come to life for laypeople. A lay practice, the sort I am practicing and I assume you and most people on this forum who are not monastics are practicing, is a fairly novel phenomenon. It's nice to have people who are talking about how they have navigated the intersection between this 2,500-year-old body of philosophy and their 21st-century workaday reality.

As for Confession..., like you I found parts of it boring and Batchelor's prose sometimes hard-going, but I enjoyed his reconstruction of the Buddha's pragmatism and his reading of the Four Noble Truths more so than the memoir aspect. I also am not quite convinced that one can safely say that the Buddha didn't literally believe in the metaphysical aspects of the philosophy preserved in the suttas. Still, I enjoyed reading his thoughts. I appreciate that he is voicing some of the reservations people looking East for wisdom might have.

[lollypop]

Hi Glow,

My use of the word 'preposterous' in connection with Batchelor as a teacher was purely a rather forceful personal opinion !

As well as writing books he also functions in a teaching capacity. From his website...." For several months each year he travels worldwide to lead meditation retreats and teach Buddhism "....and personally I wouldn't consider it worth investigating him as a teacher.

I'm not sure why you think I'm pitting the Forest Tradition against Batchelor, that certainly wasn't my intention, perhaps its my muddled way of presenting my views. The topic is "Is modern Buddhism moving away from the teachings of the Buddha" and I was supporting the teachings of the Forest Tradition (which isn't moving away from the teachings of the Buddha) as being very relevant to the modern world.

Sorry if I caused any misunderstanding.

[Mr Andrews]

Hi Glow,

My use of the word 'preposterous' in connection with Batchelor as a teacher was purely a rather forceful personal opinion !

As well as writing books he also functions in a teaching capacity. From his website...." For several months each year he travels worldwide to lead meditation retreats and teach Buddhism "....and personally I wouldn't consider it worth investigating him as a teacher.

I'm not sure why you think I'm pitting the Forest Tradition against Batchelor, that certainly wasn't my intention, perhaps its my muddled way of presenting my views. The topic is "Is modern Buddhism moving away from the teachings of the Buddha" and I was supporting the teachings of the Forest Tradition (which isn't moving away from the teachings of the Buddha) as being very relevant to the modern world.

Sorry if I caused any misunderstanding.

Hi Aloka-D. Okay, I think I understand what you mean now. I think I probably muddled my first post in this thread wrong when I said that monasticism was a "stumbling block." I think I may have seen it that way when I posted that, but now I realize that I have learned quite a lot from monks and nuns. My point was that, although in the suttas we see the monastic community communicating all manner of dharma to laypeople, this hasn't always been how it's worked out historically. From accounts I've read and my own experiences in Asia, the laity don't really know about the dharma beyond the very basics and the monastic community didn't have any interest in sharing it with them until fairly recently. Places like Amaravati in England and Dhammaloka in Australia are quite novel in that they exist to offer the dharma to an audience that includes people from all lifestyles: not just monastics.

Lay people are now interested in really, seriously studying meditation and the suttas and the dharma in detail whereas, traditionally, (and this is the case even in the Buddha's time), such people were not expected to take up such a dedicated practice. The Buddha's prescription for lay people is fairly limited. People want more than that now. That's why I think "modern" Buddhism is actually a propagation of the historical Buddha's message: it's allowing more people than ever to interact more intimately with his message than ever.

[Dreaming]

I think an argument can be made that the Buddhas own noble teachings were not always taught to the laity and there was a slant to just teach basic morality to the laity


When this was said, Anathapindika wept and shed tears. Then Ananda asked him, "Are you foundering, householder, are you sinking?"

"I am not foundering, Ananda, I am not sinking. But although I have long waited upon the Teacher and bhikkhus worthy of esteem, never before have I heard such a talk on the Dhamma."

"Such talk on the Dhamma is not given to lay people clothed in white, but only to those who have gone forth."

"Well, then, Sariputta, let such talk on the Dhamma be given to lay people clothed in white. There are people with little dust in their eyes who are wasting away through not hearing such talk on the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand."


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...143x.olen.html



notice he said that the Buddhas own teachings were


"Such talk on the Dhamma is not given to lay people clothed in white, but only to those who have gone forth."

[babopeddy]

I think an argument can be made that the Buddhas own noble teachings were not always taught to the laity and there was a slant to just teach basic morality to the laity

So, do you think that monastic life is the only way to have a deep and real practice of the Dhamma?