Dzogchen, varjayana and being a monk/ nun

[qwerty13]

I used to think that being a monk is something very important and it would be best that vajrayana practitoiners become monks and uphold more than 200 pratimoksha vows instead of being a lay person. I thought that when Buddha said that you can attain buddhaood as a lay person was just a provisional teaching and it was meant to guide those attached to lay life more gradually to the fact that best thing to do is to become a monk.

But today I understood that in Vajrayana and of course in Dzogchen all you need is presence and awareness and maintain your samaya and do daily sadhana practice and that is all you need for buddhahood. There really is no need to take many pratimoksha vows to limit activities of body (like sitting on luxurious chairs, dance and sing etc..).

But now question arises. In Nyingma, Sakya, Kagyu and Gelug schools we have monks. And they all practice HYT / inner tantras.
So if daily sadhana practice, awareness and samaya is all you need in vajrayana and dzogchen, why should you become a monk? What is the advantage here?

Lama Zopa for example seems to praise the merits of becoming a monk. I used to think that way too. But having practiced under Namkhai Norbu and studied precious vase I no longer understand the advantage of being a monk.

You visualize yourself as the yidam just the same way as a monk tantrika as you would as a lay person.
You practice contemplation just the same way as a monk dzogchenpa as you would as a lay dzogchenpa.
The only difference is that the other one has monks vows to hold.

So what is the advantage of being a monk in one of the traditions of tibetan buddhism?

[Malcolm]

I used to think that being a monk is something very important and it would be best that vajrayana practitoiners become monks and uphold more than 200 pratimoksha vows instead of being a lay person. I thought that when Buddha said that you can attain buddhaood as a lay person was just a provisional teaching and it was meant to guide those attached to lay life more gradually to the fact that best thing to do is to become a monk.

But today I understood that in Vajrayana and of course in Dzogchen all you need is presence and awareness and maintain your samaya and do daily sadhana practice and that is all you need for buddhahood. There really is no need to take many pratimoksha vows to limit activities of body (like sitting on luxurious chairs, dance and sing etc..).

But now question arises. In Nyingma, Sakya, Kagyu and Gelug schools we have monks. And they all practice HYT / inner tantras.
So if daily sadhana practice, awareness and samaya is all you need in vajrayana and dzogchen, why should you become a monk? What is the advantage here?

Lama Zopa for example seems to praise the merits of becoming a monk. I used to think that way too. But having practiced under Namkhai Norbu and studied precious vase I no longer understand the advantage of being a monk.

You visualize yourself as the yidam just the same way as a monk tantrika as you would as a lay person.
You practice contemplation just the same way as a monk dzogchenpa as you would as a lay dzogchenpa.
The only difference is that the other one has monks vows to hold.

So what is the advantage of being a monk in one of the traditions of tibetan buddhism?

Usually people who become monks do so years before they have any real understanding of Dzogchen teachings. And when they do gain understanding of Dzogchen teachings, if they are a monk, what is the point of giving up their vows?

[dzogchungpa]

Usually people who become monks do so years before they have any real understanding of Dzogchen teachings. And when they do gain understanding of Dzogchen teachings, if they are a monk, what is the point of giving up their vows?

Well, I can think of at least one advantage.

[qwerty13]

Usually people who become monks do so years before they have any real understanding of Dzogchen teachings. And when they do gain understanding of Dzogchen teachings, if they are a monk, what is the point of giving up their vows?

Maybe some people lack understanding of Vajrayana and based on that they become monks. But on the other hand Lama Tsongkhapa was a monk. He ordained at the age 21 and of course he must have had profound realizations in the meaning of tantra. So I am wondering what kind of motivation he had in taking monks vows.

Many masters of the past took monks vows and I am sure they understood Tantra teachings and Dzogchen very well (before taking monks vows)

I am just trying to avoid thinking that being a monk is useless. Yet I do not see the benefit of being a monk right now.

[Malcolm]

Usually people who become monks do so years before they have any real understanding of Dzogchen teachings. And when they do gain understanding of Dzogchen teachings, if they are a monk, what is the point of giving up their vows?

Maybe some people lack understanding of Vajrayana and based on that they become monks. But on the other hand Lama Tsongkhapa was a monk. He ordained at the age 21 and of course he must have had profound realizations in the meaning of tantra.

By age 21? I don't think so.

[qwerty13]

Usually people who become monks do so years before they have any real understanding of Dzogchen teachings. And when they do gain understanding of Dzogchen teachings, if they are a monk, what is the point of giving up their vows?

Maybe some people lack understanding of Vajrayana and based on that they become monks. But on the other hand Lama Tsongkhapa was a monk. He ordained at the age 21 and of course he must have had profound realizations in the meaning of tantra.

By age 21? I don't think so.

Oh sorry, I was careless. Berzin says

(http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/ar ... khapa.html)
Although some accounts say Tsongkhapa took full monk vows at age 21, it is uncertain in which year this actually took place. It was probably later in his 20s

Some sources say he took vows at the age 21. But more likely this happened later. So somewhere in he`s 20s. I just read the first part of he`s sentence when i was checking this information.

[Malcolm]

Maybe some people lack understanding of Vajrayana and based on that they become monks. But on the other hand Lama Tsongkhapa was a monk. He ordained at the age 21 and of course he must have had profound realizations in the meaning of tantra.

By age 21? I don't think so.

Oh sorry, I was careless. Berzin says

(http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/ar ... khapa.html)
Although some accounts say Tsongkhapa took full monk vows at age 21, it is uncertain in which year this actually took place. It was probably later in his 20s

Some sources say he took vows at the age 21. But more likely this happened later. So somewhere in he`s 20s. I just read the first part of he`s sentence when i was checking this information.

What I meant was is that I do not think that Tsongkhapa was profoundly realized in Vajrayāna in his twenties.

[qwerty13]

What I meant was is that I do not think that Tsongkhapa was profoundly realized in Vajrayāna in his twenties.

Ah, ok.

[Virgo]

So what is the advantage of being a monk in one of the traditions of tibetan buddhism?

For a Vajrayana or Dzogchen practitioner it is unnecessary and arbitrary. Traditionally, in Tibetan culture, the monastery was a central part of the village, it is also where you could get an education, so it was a good place to bring your children if you wanted them to be educated and have a lot of access to teachings. They would get educated in Dharma, learn to read, learn other subjects, be cared for, and have an opportunity to practice the \Dharma. Monastaries also traditionally housed all the Buddha's teachings, were where the teachings were given often, and was where lay people could make merit by giving to the monastery/monks. It was a focal point.

Kevin

[Tsongkhapafan]

If there are no monks or nuns, there is no Sangha and no Dharma. It's not optional.

Je Tsongkhapa showed that if someone is serious about practising Vajrayana, it should be done so on the basis of taking pratimoksha vows which can be either the lay or ordained vows.

[Kelwin]

... in Dzogchen all you need is presence and awareness and ...

Yup. And to do that, it might be extremely useful to become a monk.

[Malcolm]

If there are no monks or nuns, there is no Sangha and no Dharma. It's not optional.

Je Tsongkhapa showed that if someone is serious about practising Vajrayana, it should be done so on the basis of taking pratimoksha vows which can be either the lay or ordained vows.

This is false, for example, the Buddha Sikhin never ordained monks or nuns.

Not only this, but each of the nine yānas is an independent means of liberation, self-contained and self-sufficient.

[Malcolm]

... in Dzogchen all you need is presence and awareness and ...

Yup. And to do that, it might be extremely useful to become a monk.

That depends very much on the person, the time and the place.

[Kelwin]

... in Dzogchen all you need is presence and awareness and ...

Yup. And to do that, it might be extremely useful to become a monk.

That depends very much on the person, the time and the place.

Agreed, hence I said 'might be'. Just saying that understanding Dzogchen, and experiencing it to some degree, doesn't mean being a monk cannot be useful to actually progress to stable realisation.

[Malcolm]

Yup. And to do that, it might be extremely useful to become a monk.

That depends very much on the person, the time and the place.

Agreed, hence I said 'might be'. Just saying that understanding Dzogchen, and experiencing it to some degree, doesn't mean being a monk cannot be useful to actually progress to stable realisation.

Actually given how restricted a monastic life is, it will undoubtedly serve as a barrier for most Western people when it comes to working with circumstances.

[Kelwin]

That depends very much on the person, the time and the place.

Agreed, hence I said 'might be'. Just saying that understanding Dzogchen, and experiencing it to some degree, doesn't mean being a monk cannot be useful to actually progress to stable realisation.

Actually given how restricted a monastic life is, it will undoubtedly serve as a barrier for most Western people when it comes to working with circumstances.

Agreed, hence I said 'might be'.

I fully agree though. When I was younger I really wanted to be a monk. Now I see how dealing with 'real' life, and relationships especially, is a much more interesting and useful challenge in my growth as a practitioner. Also, even during retreats it seems it might be an advantage not to be a monk.

Then again, for some people I know it just seems to be a very natural fit, and a great way to uphold proper practice every single day. So I can only rejoice in that.

[_R_]

It's easier to practice, if you're a monk. I think I've asked that from at least three lamas.

And now that I'm married and have three kids, I kind of agree with it.

[Malcolm]

It's easier to practice, if you're a monk. I think I've asked that from at least three lamas.

And now that I'm married and have three kids, I kind of agree with it.

Easier where? Eaisier when you are in a busy monastery? Easier when you are western monk having work full time, pay rent? And who says lay people must have kids? I dont.

[_R_]

Malcolm,

yes.

[Malcolm]

Malcolm,

yes.

With due respect to your esteemed lamas, I don't agree with them. My esteemed guru, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, has a different opinion.