If you don’t gain much, be contented, understanding that it’s only the worldly. If you gain a lot, understand that it’s only the worldly. Contemplate these truths and don’t be heedless. See both sides of things, without getting stuck on one side. – Ajahn Chah
One of the main things a modern monk considers is how to live in accordance with what the Buddha termed “the middle way.” In the time of the Buddha (500BCE), in the Indian subcontinent, that explicitly meant abandoning all worldly possessions and living the simple life of a spiritual mendicant. In other times and places it has happened differently. For instance, when Buddhism spread to China the spiritual community became more of less self-sufficient, lived in large monasteries, and grew much of their own food. Today we see examples of even more high-tech and luxurious monasteries in the East. The question then is this: Does the middle way especially as regards to material abundance shift? And if so, what are the implications?
On first reflection, perhaps the answer seems to be a resounding no. If the middle way worked back in the day of the Buddha, surely we don’t need anything more extravagant. In order to have this body survive we really don’t need much. But is that what a monk’s duty is, merely to survive and continue practicing? It can be, but I’d argue that a monk need not escape the world, and that they also have a strong obligation to share what they’ve discovered about the Truth. The way we share of course changes and this article and the way it’s being propagated are a testament to that fact. Not to mention that a modern monk will be sharing with other people who themselves are living a similar modern lifestyle. These people are interested in finding freedom in this very world, not in another world where they have to give up all of their current relationships and go live with a robe and begging bowl.
So a monk of today’s world may take advantage of the technologies and means that exist to share his or her knowledge, and will share knowledge that is relevant to his or her audience. Case in point a good friend of mine, who’s a Tibetan practioner, recently took part in a series of teachings from his Rinpoche via webcast, and one of my teachers got enlightened while getting a medical degree and working his ass off!
Walking the middle path doesn’t mean that we are always doing just enough to get by. Rather it points to living a life that avoids the extremes of utter poverty and extreme wealth. Or to get even more subtle with the issue I would say that it means that one isn’t chasing happiness in the world or trying to escape the material realm. But for our discussions, talking about the exterior dimension of wealth may point us in an interesting direction.
It’s in this exterior dimension, somewhere between extreme wealth and desperate poverty that a monk resides. These extremes or thresholds of abundance aren’t static, but rather shift over time. And in particular places and times they both shift upwards, as is the case here in the United States today. As a result the middle way between them itself shifts upwards!
According to the CIA World Factbook, whose sources I’m sure we can trust with our lives (bad joke, I know), the average GDP in the United States is currently hovering above $40,000 annually. In the Buddhist country Sri Lanka, where monasticism is a regular practice, their GDP is nearly 10 times less, and in Burma it’s 20 times less. Surely a modern monk, living in the United States, where monasticism isn’t widely practiced would live a completely different life then those practioners in either country. But what exactly would be different?
Well, using myself as an example, I make it by on less then $15,000 a year. I have access to high speed internet, have a reliable laptop, am usually able to afford all organic foods, have an operating vehicle, a decent apartment, and have up to this point been able to keep myself clothed (well nearly…). I have the great fortune of having all of that on well under the average GDP here, and still manage to go on retreat for nearly a month out of the year. In comparison to my peers I probably spend a good deal less on “stuff.” I don’t go out and buy the newest coolest gadgets (even though I often want to), don’t eat out at luxurious restaurants often (damn, when was the last time?), or do much traveling outside of my meditation trips. But still, I have many more things and a larger degree of access to technologies then your average pre-modern monk. How many of these monks do you know that are blogging, or that are making their teachings available online? There are some for sure but all in all the pre-modern monk is teaching much as before. And for us in the modern (and post-modern) world we have to either make sense of that teaching for ourselves or seek out others who already have and are presenting it in a more modern context.
There are further implications of being a modern monk and having access to greater degrees of wealth and opportunity. This includes being able to live in two (or more) different worlds simultaneously. For instance, many practioners have other strong interests outside of their own spiritual path. They may have an interest in health, psychotherapy, technology, relationships, business, or many combinations of these and others. As a result they can learn lessons from one area of interest and see how these lessons apply to their spiritual path or vice versa. There is often a mutually beneficial process of interpenetrative learning that happens, or in integral parlance one could say that they are engaging change in all quadrants.
In addition, instead of having rigid social and religious roles the modern monk can be flexible and active. They can be in an intimate relationship, raise a family, and be involved in local communities and politics. They can be “in the world, but not of it” in ways that are fulfilling and contribute profoundly to the “mainstream.” In that way, the modern monk can live in the modern world, while simultaneously engaging in a practice that reveals perfection. All while blogging like a fool!
Wonderful post!
I think the last part about interpenetration of disciplines is key. Many of us in the West, and particularly in the Integral movement, want our spirituality to be “engaged”. We see the value (as you acknowledge) in technology, the Internet, etc. These things can have great spiritual import. We don’t want to abandon the world; what we seek to abandon is our *addiction* to the world.
Keep on blogging. Please!
thanks vince, good article and important questions, as always. i’m only sorry you haven’t reflected more on the interior shift taking place with modernity and postmodernity, as we’re becoming aware of traditionalist structures and their many aspects – bihevioral and cognitive – readily internalized in the past by the monks east and west. the external difference is not just in quantity of course, the quality and “direction” is also important, depending in the way of life (as you make clear). that’s another issue of potential confusion: traditionally “monk” means celibate, and “priest” may have a wider range of possibilities, but what you probably mean is a “practical bodhisattva”, ordained perhaps but not celibate. this today requires a modernization of the monastic institution, as well, even if we have some past models, such as the white lamas of nyingma. these institutions need to be reorganized from inside out, not just better equiped with cables and sat-dishes. also, the rigidity of traditional “middle way” models is not so exclusive as scripture would have us think, at least not neccesarily and not everywhere. the scriptures, at least the canon, were long controlled by the celibate, cloistered monks, while the other two vital groups – forest/mountain hermits and lay/family practitioners – where quite often originators of progressive models of practice, interpretation, living and teaching. i’m sure you’re aware of that, but it’s good to point out. (just as mahayana sutras ridicule conventional monks, the theravada suttas got rid of devadatta, who’s depicted negatively by the settled monastics, while he was probably a forest yogin). i believe modernity has most to do with our widening perspective on differing ways of pursuing the middle path, with our rising generosity in allowing different forms while more accutely preserving the spirit without belittling any form in itself, and with growing complexity (as you point out when discussing multiple interests and their mutual influence). still, we need to take some inspiration in the fact that such liberty was envisioned in some avangarde sutras of the mahayana, such as the vimalakirti (himself a merchant, family man, and lay bodhisattva) and the huge avatamsaka (especially the gandavyuha, with it’s many advanced bodhi-teachers some of them even prostitutes). and of course, modernity is about femlib in one way or another (hence again b-sattva is more appropriate than monk). a typical woman’s approach to spiritual liberation would differ significantly not just in form but in “tone” as well. finally, the economic issue (is it 15K or 50K, or 5K as in my case) should be regarded in it’s collective, social aspect. good looking dharma is where the money is. fewer teachers start centers in east european countries (and it’s not because people are too dull there). in the west, where many of us live engaged lives with careers and partners and kids and pets and many social roles etc. we should consider developing a mutual fund with hundreds or even thousands of shareholders to foster the practice of intensive retreats and prolonged contemplative immersion by facilitating loans and transitions. on the level of groups, cognate centers could join in regions and develop more stable environments for everyone to benefit. some do, i’m sure, but more of that is needed on a postdenominational basis – all that is modernity, even when we have rare antecedents, pioneers east and west. well, i’m just “thinking aloud”. again, thank you for the article, and to everyone alse for your comments.