Dear Monk,
Would you be kind enough to answer my following questions?
1. I’d love to know the vows a monk takes. I’m not sure if they are secret though? I know they are many and would love to know each one!
2. Do all monks want to become monks when they start out? Is it mainly a parent’s decision - do children naturally not question parents’ decisions...many questions in this one!?
3. In Tibetan Buddhism, some monks are identified at a young age as re-incarnations of great teachers (i.e. The Dalai Lama) - is this common amongst all the Buddhist traditions?
4. Some monks use begging bowls - how prevalent is this? If it is still practiced what is the feeling/understanding/sense (I’m not referring to the thinking behind it - but the actual experience of the individual) - I’d imagine this too would vary from individual to individual.
5. How many monks have teachers in the sense of a Guru? I would love to know something about such a relationship - especially in the context of a monastery where there are many students. And this gives rise to something I heard recently - when we have teachers we connect with - the likelihood is high that there was a connection in a previous life. Is this seen to be the case?
Anna
Dear Anna,
First of all, the Monk didn’t receive your questions directly from you. Someone (name withdrawn) has forwarded them to the Monk’s email account. However the Monk would like to extend credits to the original person who asked these questions and that is ‘you’ mainly because he also personally finds these questions interesting. Second of all, the Monk received a total of eleven questions (apparently all from you), but the Monk has decided to answer only five – the questions that entail greater importance.
Please keep in mind that the Monk’s views would mostly reflect the standpoint of Theravada Buddhism – the form of Buddhism unanimously regarded by all Buddhist traditions as the ‘earliest’, if not the original, form of Buddhism. There can be certainly other approaches to these questions, sometimes may be completely contradictory but that is the beauty of Buddhism. Hereby the Monk tries to answer them in order:
1. I’d love to know the vows a monk takes. I’m not sure if they are secret though? I know they are many and would love to know each one!To begin with, your doubt is right: ‘vows’ (the term you used) a monk takes are secret in the sense that they are not really supposed to be ‘recited’ in front of or together with lay people and novice monks (note that novice monks are also left out). A novice monk is also left out because he is not a full fledged monk (a full fledged monk must be at least 20 years old). A novice takes only 10 precepts or vows, if you like (google ‘The Buddhist Ten Precepts’ and you would get them). Elsewhere, the Buddha is recorded to have said that a person, lay or monk, should be ‘vinayo ca susikkhito’, a phrase which means one needs to be ‘well educated of the Vinaya’ (vinaya being the ‘vows’!!!). But unfortunately later generations of orthodox monks altered the understanding of this phrase and stated that ‘vinaya’ has two types – one for monastic monks and the other for lay (the Monk won’t mention the lay vows here because that wasn’t a part of your question). So, according to the reading of those orthodox monks, a lay should not bother with the ‘monastic vows’ whereas a monk is free to learn and preach the lay vows. But that does not prevent anyone from knowing what the monastic vows are, so to speak. Today is an open world; nothing can be hidden. Esoteric teaching is strictly supposed to be not revealed to general people but today even a school child can read a book on esoteric Buddhism in a library or on a click of a mouse! Anyway, carefully note the above paraphrase used ‘not…to…be…recited’. Verily, ‘not to be recited’ is different from ‘not…to…be…known’. This means monastic vows, as it were, can be known by anyone anywhere including you (as a matter of fact, in traditional monastic institutions, you cannot find a lay teacher teaching a class on the Monastic ‘vows’, no matter how competent he is). Before proceeding further on, the Monk would like to make a point here. The term ‘vow’ is not used by all Buddhist traditions (for convenience sake, know that academically Buddhism is popularly divided into two: Southern and Northern. The former refer to Theravada Buddhism found in South and Southeast Asia and the latter refers to Mahayana including Tibetan Buddhism found in the Northeast and Himalayan regions). Vow is popularly used by Northern Buddhism. The Southern Buddhism uses the term ‘sikkhapada’ which is a prakrit-pali word meaning ‘training factor’. Now it would depend on how one understands these two terms ‘vow’ and ‘training factor’ (the Monk would like to evade this issue). Generally, the Buddhist Bible (used here for familiarization) consists of three divisions, one of which is called ‘The Book of Monastic Discipline’ (the word used for that is ‘vinaya’). This Vinaya text contains some of the earliest monastic injunctions laid down by the historic Buddha himself and are commonly accepted by all the Buddhist traditions. The ‘Dos and Don’ts’ containing in this Vinaya text are the primary ‘vows’ (to use your term again) that a monk takes at the time of his ordination. As far as the Monk is aware, the term ‘vow’ is broader which includes aspirations and vows of other superior beings called bodhisattvas, other than the historic Buddha. Since it would take pages after pages to list and explain all the vows, some of which seem mystical and fairy tales, the Monk would only limit the discussion to the primary text mentioned above, the text where historic Buddha’s injunctions are listed. You might call them whatever you like – vows, training factors, disciplinary rules, commandments or injunctions but their relevance and purpose remains the same. The Vinaya text contains a total of 227 monastic vows or rather training factors (strictly speaking only 220, the other seven being just ‘ways of settling down monastic disputes’) which a newly baptized monk ‘undertakes to abide by’ as long as he remains a monk. Note the flexibility of the initiation process: ‘undertakes to abide by’. It is not so much as implanting these 227 vinaya rules into the sub-consciousness of the newly baptized monk. This is the very reason why the Monk finds it uncomfortable to use the term ‘vows’ because vows are more of like ‘implanting’ into someone’s sub-consciousness. The Monk prefers not to go into each of the 227 vinaya rules here as you wanted, not because they contain something very secret but because majority of them are simply manners and behavioral patterns like ‘not eating like a pig (pig is added by the Monk to refer to the ‘eating’ making lots of sound with the mouth)’, ‘not entering the living quarter of a lay person without prior notice (apparently to avoid embarrassment to the person if he is on the bed with someone)’, ‘nor urinating standing’ (but monks find it difficult to abide by this simple but troublesome rule; so, many monks just release themselves standing), ‘not to give blows to fellow monks’, ‘not to travel alone with a woman (for obvious reason)’…the list go on. These are many of the minor rules, the breach of which can be got away lightly. But there are four very serious rules any monk cannot break under any circumstances. By ‘very serious’ the Monk means any monk found guilty of these four rules or vows is to be expelled from the Monastic Community. Such a monk is termed as ‘defeated’ and he can no longer become a full fledged monk in this entire life. Such a ‘defeated’ monk is compared to a fallen leaf which cannot be placed back to its original place, or the chopped off head of a man who cannot be revived. These four serious vows are (the Monk is putting them in positive sequence, which means if a monk does any one of them he is defeated):
1. to have sex (commentary: heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, lesbian, oral, anal sexual activities with humans or animals are to be avoided)
2. to steal (commentary: taking what is not given from an inhabited area or from the wilderness) – this is the most complex rule in the Vinaya text to define its execution exactly
3. to kill a human being (commentary: deprive a human being of life, or search for an assassin for him, or praise the advantages of death, or incite him to die) and
4. to falsely claim sainthood.
Different traditions may prescribe different set of vows but these are the four primary vows that monks of all traditions undertake to abide by as long they remain as monks.
There are further twelve second most serious vinaya vows, the breach of which entails, not expulsion, but congregational confession and probation. Interesting of them are ‘intentional emission of semen via masturbation’, ‘seductive bodily contact with a female’, ‘flirting with a woman’, ‘back biting’, ‘making schism in the monastic community’ and so on.
Please log on to
www.accesstoinsight.org (stroll down the section titled ‘Vinaya Pitaka’) for more details and the complete list of the 227 ‘vows’ you want to know. The Monk would like to end this answer here because at the click of a mouse, you can find a better answer than this. If you are lazy (for lack of a better term) or have no time to find it out yourself, do let the Monk know; he will just copy and paste them here or you.
But let the Monk elaborate a bit on the practical aspect of these vows. At the early part of Buddha’s teaching career, there was no smell of these 227 rules. Apparently it was a custom of the Buddha to gather his monks once a fortnight and recite a single verse to remind them of their purpose of becoming monks: ‘do no evil, do skilful, purify your mind – this is the teaching of all Buddhas’. This original verse later gave rise to the present 227 rules because of misconduct of monks. Today, the traditional recitation of these 227 vows once a fortnight by the monastic community (belonging to the Southern tradition) still exists particularly in the forest tradition whose monks adhere to more ascetic like practices. And this kind of official recitation is the one that is secret, the term used at the beginning. Practically, apart from the four serious vows, many of the other rules are out of date – they hardly fit into the 21st century world. The Monk personally thinks that vows like – ‘not doing job, not handling money, not driving, no entertainment’ etc. etc. don’t just fit into the modern world. Yes, it is true that a monk is supposed to renounce every such worldly affair but the other side of the truth is to ask the question: is it really possible for a city monk to survive without handling money, for example? Analyzing the flexibility of Buddhist teachings of wisdom and compassion (apart from disciplinary vows), it would certainly be foolish for lay Buddhists to demand that all monks live in the forest like bats and owls and never come out to mingle with worldly affairs. The Monk believes this was a historic dilemma for the monks themselves too. To keep a balance therefore, the monks were wise and receptive enough to divide the Monastic Community into two groups: forest and town. Probably this is what made Buddhism survive till today. If you are in need of a long forest retreat, go to the forest monks. They are the qualified monks to help you achieve inner peace and harmony. But if you want to stir up your brains, then you should meet academic town monks who are highly qualified to confuse you with all kinds of complicated Buddhist philosophies and puzzles. But what is now interesting is that often a forest monk blames and criticizes a city monk accusing him of ‘only talking’ whereas Buddha’s teaching is all about ‘practicing’. The city monk also does not keep quiet. He is also always ready to blame the forest monks for ‘neglecting’ the welfare of the general people who need spiritual help, guidance and answers to their worldly problems. The debate goes on but to jump into its conclusion, it would not be wrong to say that both sides have monks stupid enough to blame and criticize the other side when in actual sense, both the sides are needed for the longevity of Buddhism.
2. Do all monks want to become monks when they start out? Is it mainly a parent’s decision - do children naturally not question parents’ decisions...many questions in this one!? If you have known that children as little as four years old are baptized as Buddhist monks, you might not have asked whether children questioned their parents’ decision or not, because obviously such a little child would have no rational maturity to question like that, though of course he will be there to cry when his parents leave him behind in the temple cells (the Monk himself cried when he was left behind…). Perhaps, and it is true that when they become older, some of them might question their parents’ decision and might even accuse them of dumping them into a different world. Here is such a case:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-06/17/content_8294870.htm. Though the Monk has answered a similar question in a previous blog post ‘10 Qs for a monk’, let the Monk touch this point a bit differently. Though it is a requirement to get parents’ consent before becoming a monk, parents don’t always play the major role particularly if the boy or the man in question decides to be a monk himself. But by looking at the family and social backgrounds of majority of monks in traditional Buddhist countries, the Monk believes that if they were given another option in life, they would have certainly avoided the option of becoming monks. For example, it is uncommon to see the children of rich families becoming monks because they have other options to crave for. Younger children of economically weak families may, sometimes, be forced by parents or simply by family economic situations to join the monastic community because it would provide them with food and most importantly a better opportunity for education. Such children, as time passed by, may get used to the lifestyle of a monk. If the senior monks somehow manage to brainwash (for lack of a better word) them, then such children may continue their lives as monks till the end. But unfortunately, statistics show that majority of them disrobe once they finish their education and are sure to get some sort of employment. Despite the high rate of disrobing, the Monastic Communities in different Buddhist countries remain filled mainly because ‘incoming’ is equal to the ‘outgoing’ rate. Hence, nowadays monasteries and temples have turned out to be kind of temporary shelters for the poor to stand up in societies. It is also very natural that such younger novice monks may prefer a monastic life to the kind of life they might have led, which would have been mostly consisted of looking after buffaloes, working in the fields, looking after younger siblings and the like. Initially they might resist, but once they manage to cross a few weeks in monkhood, they are most likely to be attracted by the kind of respect, care and good facilities they are provided with in the monasteries by temple devotees. But as they grow, their needs also grow – differently.
Some other such children might not have liked their parents leaving them behind in temple cells but as they grow, they might start taking life seriously, learning Buddhist doctrines and meditating which then would prepare them for a bright future as Monastic heads, temple abbots and high ranking monks – positions many monks can dream of.
But obviously the situation in economically developed countries is a total contrast. In such countries like Korea and Japan, it is not very common to find large number of children spending their playful days as monks studying books written hundreds of years ago. Monks (mostly in their 20s) from such countries including Europe and America are most likely to have entered monkhood through their sheer will and plan. And majority of such monks are to be found in meditation centers and retreats or in academic monastic institutions because that is the very purpose of their becoming monks. Unfortunately, believe it or not, such monks are also most likely to be fame-conscious. After spending few months learning and practicing meditation, they might declare themselves as so-called ‘meditation masters’ – a very serious trend that needs to be checked out by the Western monks themselves. Not only monks, even Western so-called Buddhists have distorted Buddhism by writing books on Buddhism after attending few classes on Buddhism. Their intention must have been for the good but the result has done more harm than good. Therefore, the Monk’s request to such people is: please don’t try to take our positions in the name of helping us propagate Buddhism. You have as much to learn from us Asians as we have to learn from you Westerners. No doubt, you people are more intelligent, more scientific so to speak but our long years of monastic studies, training, practice, faithfulness and familiarity with our Buddhist cultures and traditions should not be taken as mere empty seashells.
[An interesting reference for this particular answer would be the small book entitled ‘‘Little Angels’’ by Phra Peter Pannapadipo (an English Theravada monk in Thailand). It’s a handy booklet which records a dozen of emotional, heart-rending and educative life stories of little novices in Thailand. The book was published in the UK by Arrow Books in 2005. The monk is having a scanned copy of the book. Anybody wanting a copy for personal reading can contact the monk. Fore warned: the book carries copyright. Take your own risk] 3. In Tibetan Buddhism, some monks are identified at a young age as re-incarnations of great teachers (i.e. The Dalai Lama) - is this common amongst all the Buddhist traditions?If a direct answer serves your question right, then it would be ‘NO’. Even the very idea of reincarnation is not found particularly in the Scriptures of the Southern tradition. Though justifications and rationalizations can be put forward in support of the concept of reincarnation as an authentic Buddhist concept, it was merely a later invention – a concept originating in Tibet hundreds of years after the demise of the historic Buddha in India. Such a concept is also not to be found in the Chinese Buddhist tradition. Refer to the lineage of Chan (Zen) patriarchs in China, which was very much similar to the Dalai Lama lineage but historically the succeeding Chan patriarch was chosen by the preceding patriarch which continued until the 6th greatest of all patriarchs – Master Hui Neng. Surely they could have also incorporated such a reincarnation concept into the hierarchy of the patriarchs but they must have seemingly avoided introducing such a new concept, probably because it would raise more serious questions regarding the fundamental Buddhist tenets of impermanence and soullessness than answer the very question of rebirth. The Monk personally finds it ridiculous to accept the concept of reincarnation in support of rebirth. People have been fascinated and simply started accepting the belief in rebirths as true because the Dalai Lama, a living Buddha, the so-called bodhisattva of compassion reincarnates! Certainly this is not ‘why’ we believe in rebirths (the Monk would not go into the discussion of rebirths here because it is not a part of the original question). However, honestly the Monk has no idea what and how the Tibetan Buddhists explain ‘reincarnation‘without undermining the fundamental Buddhist tenets of impermanence and soullessness. But the Dalai Lama’s personal admission that some of the previous Dalai Lamas were wrongly recognized indicates that perhaps the Tibetan concept of ‘reincarnation’ has been widely misunderstood and misinterpreted as ‘the same Dalai Lama coming again and again’. Further evidence in support of this hypothesis is the recent incident of an Irish boy, being recognized by high ranking Lamas including the Dalai Lama himself as a reincarnated Lama, disrobed and started blaming the Buddhists for making him undergo the ordeal of nightmares living in dark cells of monasteries secluded away from the outside world
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-06/17/content_8294870.htm Anyway, your very question that some monks are identified at a young age as reincarnations of GREAT TEACHERS (the emphasis belongs to the Monk) is not consistent with history because, to say the least, not all Dalai Lamas have been great! The last point is the Monk strongly believes that any normal child could be trained to be like the Dalai Lama if he is also given the kind of training, teaching and facilities as are due to the training of a Dalai Lama or any other such so-called incarnated souls.
The idea of searching for reincarnations of ‘enlightened beings’ (Tibetan incarnated Lamas are considered as enlightened beings) has no support from, at least, the Southern Buddhist Scriptures. A southern Buddhist may find it ridiculous to go after this idea because it is an undeniable recording that the historic Buddha (here the Monk is not talking about mystic bodhisattvas, beings Tibetans respect more) has categorically defined ‘enlightenment’ as ‘cut off is the chain of re-becoming, done what has to be done and there is no further births’. According to this reckoning, an ‘enlightened being’ has no more ‘re-becomings’! Note the term used – ‘re-becoming’ rather than the term ‘reincarnation’. The problem of reincarnation seems to the Monk like the problem of ‘egg<>chicken’ (the egg comes out of the chicken or the chicken comes out of the egg) while the issue of re-becoming is more like the question of milk<>curd<>butter<>ghee. The fundamental issue of Buddhist rebirths is to ask whether the present state of ghee is the same as the original state of milk or different from it; and this is to ask the same question ‘Is the present Dalai Lama the same as the previous Dalai Lama or will the future Dalai Lama be the same as the present Dalai Lama’. The right answer to this problem has been clearly spelt out in the Buddhist Scriptures as ‘neither-nor’ relationship. If the issue of the ‘Dalai Lama reincarnation’ is to be looked at from this angle, then the Monk is willing to accept the idea of reincarnation as essentially that of Buddhist rebirth. Yet, the question still remains as to whether such a reincarnated individual (i.e. the Dalai Lama) is indeed ‘enlightened’ or not, because ‘enlightenment’ in the sense of what the southern Buddhists understand is ‘no rebirths’. However, if the idea of great compassion is inserted to justify the rebirths of enlightened beings such-as the Dalai Lama, the bodhisattva of compassion, then the Monk thinks the greatest of all ‘reincarnations’ would be that of the historic Sakyamuni Buddha’s. But obviously, the reincarnation of the historic Buddha is out of the question. Does it, then, mean to say that the present Dalai Lama is more compassionate than the historic Buddha??? Perhaps, the Dalai Lama can answer this question better than the Monk.
4. Some monks use begging bowls - how prevalent is this? If it is still practiced what is the feeling/understanding/sense (I’m not referring to the thinking behind it - but the actual experience of the individual) - I’d imagine this too would vary from individual to individual. 
A begging bowl is one of the prerequisites for a monk at the time of his ordination. A newly baptized monk is instructed on the four serious vows (mentioned in Q. no.1) and on four supports which includes ‘begging one’s own food with a bowl’, ‘wearing rag-robes’, ‘living under a tree’ and ‘using fermented urine as medicine’. Do you think these four supports are austere enough for a monk?! Well, they are as austere as hell. But don’t get the impression that every monk you see now follows them, certainly not THE MONK you are meeting online. Obliviously, a monk going begging with a bowl wearing rag-clothes in European cities would get arrested under vagrancy laws; a monk living in NYC cannot possibly find a tree to sleep under!; and a monk drinking his own urine for medical purposes while living in towns (where hospitals are available) sounds stupid (though Mahatma Gandhi is supposed to have drunk his own urine to stay healthy!!!). These so-called four supports are to be looked at from practical point of view; not simply following them just because one is a monk. But to the Buddhist credit, the group of forest monks (based in Asian Buddhist countries), mentioned in the answer to the first question above, does still, more or less, keep to these four supports. But to specify your question of the ‘bowl’; the percentage of monks (both forest and town) using a bowl to take one’s food in stationed monasteries (rather than begging with it) is comparatively higher than the other three supports. By the way, the age-old tradition of going public for alms round with bowls can still and only be found in Thailand and Burma (though forest monks in other Buddhist countries may also do the same). The using of bowls among Tibetan and Mahayana monks (Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and Vietnamese) is extremely rare, not absent though. The kind of ‘feeling/understanding/sense’ a monk is supposed to derive when using a begging bowl to take his food is recorded in the Monastic Book of Discipline as follows:
"Properly considering alms food, I use it: not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on weight, nor for beautification; but simply for the survival and continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the chaste life, (thinking) I will destroy old feelings (of hunger) and not create new feelings (from overeating). Thus I will maintain myself, be blameless, and live in comfort."
Whether an average monk does really get this sort of contemplative understanding remains to individual mind-development. But what is certain is that not every monk begs his food and eats from his bowl. But if you insist on the actual experience of the individual who eats from a begging bowl, then you got to try it yourself. A couple of actually feelings most likely would be: firstly, once a begging bowl is forced into your hands, you cannot help feeling that you are a beggar, you don’t exist as a valued person. Secondly, you can never get the real taste and enjoyment of food if you are eating from a bowl because all the stuff would be poured into your single holed-up bowl where sour, bitter, sweet, hot, spicy and cold rice and curries would get mixed up. At your first swallow, you are most likely to vomit out, especially if you are very choosy with foods (when Buddha first became a monk from a prince, he also almost vomited by just having a glimpse of the kinds of mixed up food holed up into his clay bowl; you cannot probably imagine the kind of feeling a prince would get if he was offered such mixed up food). However, the Monk thinks that the original purpose of using a bowl to beg and eat was not kind of deriving feelings from the bowl as such. The using of a bowl during the sixth century before Christ in primitive India was essentially a practical thing to do for a religious mendicant such as a Buddhist monk. A religious mendicant at the time was compared to a bird which flies anywhere easily without the burden of carrying tons of stuff. Carrying all sorts of spoons, forks, chopsticks, plates, pots, glasses, cups, jars and the like was simply not an option for a bird-like mendicant. So, the easiest and the most practical option was to carry a simple bowl that you can use to collect your food and eat to survive for the pursuit of the kind of spirituality you have become a monk for.
This particular issue of a bowl reminds the Monk of something happened decades ago. When the first group of Western monks, trained in the forest traditions in Asia, went back to the West on a preaching mission, many people there wondered whether Western people could really afford to look after these forest monks. And somebody apparently did an account to know how much it would cost to look after a single monk. Surprisingly they found out that it actually was much cheaper to look after a monk than it was to look after a dog!!! The similarity between a monk and a dog is both of them eat out of bowls in which everything is poured into. So, the logic was that every western family should have a monk at their backyards!
5. How many monks have teachers in the sense of a Guru? I would love to know something about such a relationship - especially in the context of a monastery where there are many students. And this gives rise to something I heard recently - when we have teachers we connect with - the likelihood is high that there was a connection in a previous life. Is this seen to be the case?Well, theoretically and practically every monk has a ‘teacher’ but the Monk is not very sure what you exactly understand by the term ‘Guru’. Let the Monk quote the very word of the historic Buddha as found in the Monastic Book of Discipline:
‘‘Monks, I allow a preceptor. The preceptor will foster the attitude he would have toward a son ('son-mind') with regard to the student. The student will foster the attitude he would have toward a father ('father-mind') with regard to the preceptor. Thus they — living with mutual respect, deference, and courtesy — will arrive at growth, increase, and maturity in this Dhamma-Vinaya’’.
If you understand this statement in its intended sense regarding teacher-student or guru-disciple relationship, then you would see no possible difference between a teacher and a guru. Please keep in mind that by ‘teacher’ the Monk does not mean the kind of teacher you can find teaching geography or history in a school class. In Buddhist context, guru (used mostly in the Tibetan tradition), teacher/preceptor (used in the Theravada tradition) and/or master (used in the Chinese tradition) essentially refer to the same person.
In the Tibetan and Chinese traditions, the disciple’s absolute faith and submission to the Guru/Master is an essential part of the initiation process, so much so that in the Tibetan tradition they have four refuges – Guru, Buddha, Dharma and Sangha (note the foremost position given to the Guru). This requires the disciple to solely depend on the Guru’s mercy and guidance for his enlightenment, so to speak. Since the Tibetan initiation of guru-disciple relationship can take separate vows and promises, the Monk is not very sure how many Tibetan monks do have such connections with recognized Gurus (mostly incarnated Lamas).
The second part of your question is also not specified; the Monk is not sure whether you want to know something about teacher-student relationship in the context of a Theravada monastery, a Tibetan monastery or a Mahayana monastery, because each of these traditions has its own ways of teacher-student relationship. But for answer sake, let the monk briefly tell you a typical teacher-student relationship that goes on in the Southern monastic set-up.
In the ordination process of the Southern Buddhist tradition, a monk candidate is presented with two high ranking, competent monks of not less than ten years of monastic standing (mostly selected by the candidate himself) who would be his legal and official Upajjhaya, a term meaning ‘preceptor’ and Acariya, a term meaning ‘teacher’. The job of the preceptor is to lead the ordination ceremony and to be a guide to the newly ordained monk in matters of monastic disciplines through out his monastic life, whereas the job of the teacher is to teach the newly ordained monk the points of Buddhist doctrines and philosophies. But in actual practice, usually a single high ranking, competent and educated monk acts as both preceptor and teacher. In the Southern Buddhist tradition, the relationship between the teacher and the student may not be and does not required to be very profound and abiding because he does not depend on a single teacher for enlightenment, so to speak. Secondly, neither majority of monks do target ‘enlightenment’ nor is it common to find known and recognized enlightened teachers. Thirdly majority of monks become monks to get an education that would prepare them for a living (for want of a better term). Hence, they would depend on school and university teachers to pass exams and get certificates than on a committed guru/teacher for ‘enlightenment’. This is to say, not majority of monks do have a COMMITTED TEACHER, as the Monk puts it. If you hear a modern monk talking about his ‘teacher’, most likely he is his ‘teacher’ because that ‘teacher’ is supporting him with financial and material helps for his education just like a father spending for his son’s education. And this is the modern version of the Buddha’s statement quoted at the beginning that a teacher should be ‘father-minded’ and a student should be ‘son-minded’.
In a monastery where there are many students, not all students there are students of the head monk of that particular monastery. Different students may have different ‘teachers’ (in the sense of what has just been said); it is most likely that they are there either because it is a residential monastic educational institution or because it is a monastic hostel. But in a very rare case, a modern highly educated and rich monk may have many monk students in a single monastery mainly because he can pay for their education. The students’ relationships with the teacher may not be so much spiritual as it is for financial.
A modern well known vipassana meditation guru mostly coming out of Burma may have hundreds of students from different countries but he is only their guru/teacher so long as he leads a meditation retreat for them for a certain periods of time. The conclusion is in the Southern Buddhist tradition, an abiding committed relationship between a teacher and student for the keen pursuit of enlightenment is extremely rare.
The third part of your question is something to do with the Buddhist concept of karma. Well, it’s not only with teachers, karma is said to be an essential component of ‘why’ we have the kind of parents here and now, the kind of country we are born in to, the kinds of friends and relatives we strongly relate to, so on and so forth. It is much more so with the right kind of connection one may have with the right kind of teacher for the keen pursuit of enlightenment.
Got any question? Write to the Monk at askthemonk@hotmail.com
