2

An unknown contributer wrote

Imo a yogi (homeless) without formal association is more likely to be assumed to be an outcast holding wrong views, unable to get along with 'the contemporary masters'. Therefore it will be difficult lest one makes a living recycling stuff or otherwise gets the money.

How about a layperson. How will he/she be assumed if unknown, without face, name, without formal refuge and renewing?

Whould't he/she not merely need to live just from recycling stay, or from improper ways to gain the Dhamma?

Maybe worthy to give reflective answer.

[note that this isn't giving for trade, exchange or stocks but toward release from a wheel]

0

Your question is posed mainly from a modern Western/Capitalist perspective where seclusion from economical "responsibilities" for spiritual practice is - to say the least - not encouraged. Also, the West doesn't have a tradition of handing out food to begging monks, in fact, in many countries this practice is illegal. It was very different in Asia before the industrialization.

During the Golden Age of Buddhism in China, the Ch'an (Zen) school actually consisted to a large extent of 行者 (wandering monks), who would travel throughout China, searching for the "right" master, entering into a discussion with the master of every temple they came across. This is still a common and widely accepted practice in many Mahayana traditions.

The mythological monk Bodhidharma, claimed as their founder by several Chinese Buddhist schools, would definitely qualify as a wandering monk, as does the mythological Budai.

Also in the Ch'an tradition, there are a series of drawings called the Ten Oxherding Pictures, the tenth picture is entitled "Return to society":

Barefooted and naked of breast,

I mingle with the people of the world.

My clothes are ragged and dust-laden,

and I am ever blissful.

I use no magic to extend my life;

Now, before me, the dead trees become alive.

As for laypeople, Huineng was a layman, but is considered to be one of the most important Ch'an masters.

  • Don’t forget about Han Shan either. He was your archetypal wandering monk! And he actually existed! – user17214 Nov 26 at 14:26
0

How about a layperson. How will he/she be assumed if unknown, without face, name, without formal refuge and renewing?

Seems the yogi's idea of contemporary masters are making assumptions.

Whould't he/she not merely need to live just from recycling stay, or from improper ways to gain the Dhamma?

If one gains Dhamma then how can it be improper? Nothing inappropriate with recycling by itself but if it's being done out of some fear or anger towards the contemporary masters then that is wrong view.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.