The Need for Western Monastics
The tendency among many Western Buddhists has been to minimize the importance of the monastic community and emphasize the role of lay Buddhist practitioners. This is the opposite of what occurred in India. But just as a one-sided emphasis was partially responsible for the weakening and eventual loss of Buddhism in its homeland, it might also lead to a similar downfall in the West.
The Buddhist monks’ and nuns’ lineages were lost in a number of Asian countries due to invasions, wars and a combination of many other factors. But several times in Buddhist history, they were purposely discarded. Let us look at the reasons in some of these examples to see if they would justify the present Western trend to possibly do the same.
The Mulasarvastivada tradition of monks’ and nuns’ ordination had been transmitted from northern India to the Newaris of the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Although it is unclear when and how this nuns’ lineage died out in India and Nepal, the facts about its monks’ tradition are well documented. When the monasteries of the central part of northern India were destroyed in the early thirteenth century, many Indian monks with vows from this lineage fled to Nepal and joined the Newari monasteries. But subsequently, by the end of that century and the beginning of the next, the Newaris purposely dropped their celibate monastic tradition. They kept their monasteries but installed a hereditary caste of married male priests to maintain them. The only way to join a monastery, then, is by birth, and there are no celibate monks. Male family members of the Buddhist priest caste keep celibacy vows for just a few days as a symbolic gesture at the advent of puberty.
The Newari choice to replace the celibate monastic tradition with a Buddhist version of the Hindu caste system, with a hereditary group equivalent to brahmin priests for performing temple rituals, was clearly a defensive tactic. As a drastic measure, it was instituted undoubtedly to help preserve Buddhism in face of its gradual disappearance in northern India and the Muslim raids that were then reaching Nepal. This example does not, however, justify the Western tendency to belittle celibate monastic life. There is no threat of Buddhism dying out in the West because of too many monastics or raids from hostile, intolerant groups.
Even when there is hostility towards Western Buddhist monastics, such as in Switzerland, the situation does not call for any drastic measures. The Calvinist population of the French part of Switzerland protest to the police when Western Buddhist monks and nuns wear their robes in the streets and walk in the cold with their arms bared. They accuse them of belonging to an Eastern religious cult. But this public attitude does not cause the Western Buddhist monastic community in this area to disband. Its monastics simply wear their robes only indoors and change to lay clothing when going into town.
Another example is from the history of the Yugurs (Yellow Uighurs), a Turkic people of Gansu province in northwestern China who follow the Tibetan form of Buddhism. During the Manchu rule of China, from the mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth century, the Yugur population had decreased to 15,000 due to wars and disease. Consequently, the Manchu emperor decreed that the Yugur monks might marry and, except for times of important religious ceremonies, live at home. This was to help maintain the population of this minority group. This example is also not relevant to the modern Western situation as the Western Buddhist lay community is not suffering from a lack of births.
The Eighth Jebtsundamba Khutugtu, the head of Outer Mongolian (Khalkha) Buddhism in the early part of the twentieth century, did not adhere strictly to his monastic vows, but was openly married. During the latter part of the Communist period, in the late 1940’s, after Stalin’s destruction of all Buddhist institutions, a few token monasteries were either reopened or built anew in Mongolia and Buryatia. Many of the old surviving monks had been forced to disrobe and had taken wives. They now put back on their monastic robes and worked in the monasteries during the daytime. They even reconstituted the bimonthly confession and purification ceremony for monks. But in the evenings, they donned lay clothing and went home to their wives and children. A great number had also developed a strong vodka habit. When asked about the seeming contradiction between their monastic robes and their mode of behavior, many justified their lifestyle by claiming that the Eighth Jebtsundamba had sanctioned it.
We cannot say whether or not this Mongolian lama actually gave permission for others to act as he did. In either case, the sexual conduct and marriage of certain supposedly celibate Buddhist teachers of today who still try to convey the appearance that they are full monks cannot justify Westerners trying to follow their lead.
The Japanese Model of Married Priests
The Dharmaguptaka lineage of full monks’ and nuns’ ordination was transmitted from China to Japan in the mid-seventh century. In the thirteenth century, Shinran, the founder of the Jodo Shinshu Pure Land school started the tradition of married “monks” and “nuns” for his order. In later times, Western observers, to avoid confusion, have referred to them as “male and female temple priests.”
Shinran taught that no matter how negative and destructive people might have been, if with total faith they sincerely repeat even once the homage formula of Amitabha’s name, “Namu Amida Butsu,” they will be reborn in the Pure Land. It is with this rationale that he taught it is not necessary for monks and nuns to be celibate or even to abstain from alcohol. In some instances, he said, it may be better to follow the norms of Japanese lay society.
This point has led many people to the misunderstanding that in all cases it is preferable to lead a non-celibate life and to drink alcohol. This was never Shinran’s intention. He did not aim to eliminate the celibate monastic tradition, but simply to point out that it is not always necessary for people to follow it.
As a result of the Jodo Shinshu school’s precedent, however, the Meiji government decreed, in the mid-nineteenth century, that monastics from all Japanese Buddhist sects could marry and still retain their position. After that, the monks’ and nuns’ ordination lineage soon came to an end. In its place, both priests and laypeople may nowadays take ordination with sixteen vows, which include refuge, the five lay precepts and certain aspects of bodhichitta vows.
If Westerners are sincerely following the Jodo Shinshu tradition, there is no problem in their becoming married priests. The danger, however, is when they misunderstand Shinran’s message and deny the basic Buddhist teachings on cause and effect.
Non-Celibate Western Buddhist Priests
At present in the West, there is a movement within the Roman Catholic Church to allow married priests, as in the Anglican Church. One might think that instituting married or single, non-celibate Buddhist male and female priests might be a good cultural adaptation of Buddhism to the West. But even if this were so, it would be a grave mistake to follow the Japanese example of allowing all monks and nuns from all Buddhist traditions to give up their celibacy vows and yet retain their positions; in this case, the entire celibate monastic tradition might be lost. It seems to be wiser to follow the Korean example.
The Japanese introduced their own forms of Buddhism to Korea during their occupation of the country prior to and during the Second World War. A conflict arose, however, between the Japanese custom of married priests and the traditional Korean one of celibate monastics. In 1962, South Korea officially resolved the conflict in favor of their native institutions.
Buddha said that the presence of his Dharma in the world was contingent upon the existence of a monastic community upholding the Vinaya vowed rules of discipline. Without the existence of such a community and the option to join it, most people will not have the opportunity to devote their full time and energy to the Buddhist spiritual path.
Many, but not all of the Buddhist traditions teach that it is equally possible for householders and monastics to become enlightened. However, most people find it not very easy to follow a full-time spiritual path while having the responsibility for supporting a family. This does not mean that all householders should desert their families and take robes. As His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama says, such people should aim to devote their time and energies “fifty-fifty”: half to this life and half to higher goals beyond.
Some people today cite the example of Shakyamuni Buddha to justify leaving their family responsibilities and causing great emotional pain to their spouses and children. They and their families, however, are not on the level of Shakyamuni and his relatives. When Shakyamuni Buddha left his wife and family to follow an intensive spiritual path, he was not abandoning them in an irresponsible manner. Both he, his wife and his son were on extremely advanced spiritual levels, as a result of many lifetimes of practice and a close karmic connection with each other. None of his close relatives were emotionally devastated by Buddha’s move, and as a royal family, they were certainly not left to a life of destitute.
The first person Buddha taught after his enlightenment was his mother who was in one of the god realms. Later his wife, son and aunt all joined his monastic order. Buddha always maintained responsibility to provide for his family’s spiritual needs.
It is necessary, therefore, to have both a lay and monastic community of Buddhists. They should be separate entities, however, and not blend into each other. In the Tibetan tradition, for instance, both celibate monastics and married ngag-pa, advanced tantric ritualists, attend to the spiritual needs of the lay populace by performing ritual ceremonies. The robes of these two groups are different, however, and the former shave their heads, while the latter have long, braided hair.
His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama is extremely critical of non-celibate ngag-pa and people who have completed a three-year retreat who dress and shave their heads in the manner of celibate monks and nuns. Their appearance gives a very confusing and misleading message to the people, which may cause them to lose respect and faith in the monastic community. Although there is benefit in Westerners maintaining both non-celibate tantric ritualist and celibate monastic traditions, both groups must be very careful that neither dresses nor wears their hair in the manner of the other. These traditions must be kept recognizably distinct.
The same is true with Westerners who carry on the Japanese married priest model and those who maintain monastic vows of celibacy. If monks and nuns have license to act and dress like married priests, their tradition will die out in the West as it did in Japan.
Segregating Monastic and Lay Facilities
In several Western countries which are unable as yet to support Buddhist monasteries and nunneries, the monks and nuns have been forced to share the facilities of Dharma centers with laypeople. Sometimes, there is not even a community of monastics living together, but only one monk or nun at a lay center. This has been very difficult for everyone concerned.
If teachers feel it is beneficial for monks or nuns either to teach or help organize the educational and meditation programs at lay Dharma centers, it would perhaps be best for there to be at least four monastics living together, separate from the lay community. Traditionally, the lay and monastic Buddhist communities have always lived separately. Even when laypeople were allowed to attend the classes at Nalanda Monastery in India, they were not permitted to spend the night.
Furthermore, it is better for these monastics to be either all monks or all nuns or, if having both is helpful, four of each, living separately. Traditionally, Buddhist monks and nuns have never lived together in Asian countries. This custom was not instituted because of sexist bias, but because it was more conducive for helping monastics to keep their vows and avoiding public criticism and doubts about monastic purity.
The presence of a conventional Sangha community in a land is determined by its having at least four resident members. Although these four may be either monks, nuns or laymen or laywomen holding the five precepts with vows of celibacy and wearing robes, nevertheless, the traditional custom is to keep monasteries and nunneries separate for men and women.
If the monastics within a lay Dharma center can form a “mini-Sangha” community like this, they will be able to support each other in keeping their vows. Although they might share certain facilities with the lay community, such as their meals, and lead their puja ceremonies, the monastics should also have special classes and rituals for themselves alone. Although, as at Nalanda in India, a few extremely dedicated laypeople might be allowed to attend the monastics’ classes, they should be the exception and not the rule. If Westerners, in their enthusiasm for egalitarianism, remove all differences between the monastic and lay communities other than the wearing of robes and the keeping of celibacy, they will seriously undermine the existence of a Western monastic institution.
Even when sufficient Western monasteries and nunneries are built to accommodate all the monks and nuns, it is important not to go to the other extreme and have the monastics live in total isolation from the lay community. There is the danger of them developing a men’s or women’s aristocratic social-club mentality in which people feel complacent and aloof, relieved that they do not have to handle the messiness of entangling “lower class” lay relations. As His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama has suggested, Buddhist monastics would do well to follow the model of their Christian counterparts and engage themselves in constructive social service.
Designing New Monastic Robes
Many Western Buddhist monastics find the traditional robes and shaved head very inconvenient for living in the modern world. Some Western monks of the Tibetan or Theravada traditions may feel that wearing a skirt attracts too much negative attention to themselves when they are out in public. But then, many Christian monks wear habits that look like a dress and hardly anyone makes fun of them. Many in the Tibetan tradition also find it very difficult not to wear sleeves in extremely cold weather. Some Westerners, in fact, are deterred from taking Buddhist ordination because of their reticence to wear the traditional robes.
The problem is perhaps exacerbated by the fact that many Western monastics must work at ordinary jobs in order to support themselves. In order to obtain employment and fit into their workplace, they must leave their robes at home and wear lay clothing. Many Western monastics, in fact, only wear their robes when they go to a Dharma center or visit the traditional Buddhist countries of Asia. If Western monks and nuns lived in Buddhist monasteries and nunneries in the West and had stable sources of economic support other than from their own work in the lay community’s labor market, they would avoid experiencing a lot of these problems concerning the design of their robes.
The Buddhist habit has, however, changed for other reasons when Buddhism went from one Asian society to another. The Theravadin robes, worn mostly with no shirt, are well suited for the hot climate of Southeast Asia. Although the Tibetan habit, lacking sleeves, seems impractical for a cold, mountainous climate, the monks and nuns add heavy cloaks to provide extra warmth in winter. Chinese robes show the most cultural influence. With their dark colors, pants and sleeves, they least resemble any type of robe that monastics might have worn in India.
Even within one tradition, such as the Mulasarvastivada of the Tibetan cultural area, there has been adaptation. During the second half of the seventeenth century, the First Jebtsundamba Khutugtu of Outer Mongolia eliminated the Tibetan-style robes. He substituted for them a single-piece habit that resembles the almost floor-length long-sleeved tunic worn by Mongol laymen. He altered the neck and the end of the sleeves to distinguish them from a lay tunic, kept the maroon color of the Tibetan robes and added the Tibetan-style monastic shawl on top. Mongol monks usually wear long pants underneath this tunic. The monks of the Buryat monasteries that follow the Mongolian tradition adopted a similar style of dress. The Kalmyks also changed the Tibetan robes to a manner of tunic that resembled their laymen’s dress and also retained the Tibetan monastic shawl.
It would not be unprecedented, then, for Western monastics to alter their robes. We might take the lead from the Mongol example of modifying laypeople’s dress while retaining certain features of traditional monastic robes. It would be helpful in this process, however, for the Western monks and nuns of each ordination lineage to agree on one common style for all non-traditional Buddhist countries. If each country feels it must have its own robes, the process of design might degenerate into a fashion competition.
In the end, the West will probably find itself left with the Buryat solution, namely two styles of habit coexisting. Those Buryat monks whose monasteries received their lineages from Mongolia wear Mongol-style robes, while those from the monasteries that received them directly from northeastern Tibet (Amdo) wear the traditional Tibetan style. As many new monks from Outer Mongolia are nowadays receiving ordination directly from the Tibetan refugees and wearing Tibetan robes, this phenomenon of two styles of robes is starting to appear in their country as well. In fact, it is becoming stylish to wear the Tibetan habit even among young Mongol monks who have not been to India. Although the Myanmar monastic community split at the end of the seventeenth century over the issue of whether monks should wear their robes draped over both shoulders or only one, we should try to follow the Mongolian example of monastics of the same tradition wearing two styles of robes and living together harmoniously.
Updating the Vows
Some Westerners feel that many of the Buddhist monastic vows are irrelevant to the modern world and would be better dropped. This is a dangerous tendency; it can lead to the eventual dissolution of the monastic community.
Saicho, the late eighth-century founder of the Japanese Tendai tradition, felt that the monks’ and nuns’ vows were too numerous and too difficult to keep. He began a line of Mahayana ordination with far fewer vows, which he felt was more suitable for the Japanese mentality. In the Chinese ordination tradition, from which he derived, bodhisattva vows are always taken together with the monastic vows, but at a separate ceremony afterwards. Saicho combined the two sets of vows into one ceremony and, for the pratimoksha vows, emphasized the five usual lay precepts, together with the vow of celibacy.
Once Saicho had set the precedent of simplifying and eliminating certain vows, it was difficult to draw the line at where to stop. When Shinran established the tradition of married monk and nun priests within the Jodo Shinshu sect, the Tendai school soon responded by reducing its monks’ and nuns’ celibacy vow merely to a prohibition of adultery. Not long afterwards, they relaxed the vow against drinking alcohol to permit rice wine. With the Meiji reforms, the Tendai school eventually dropped its monastic tradition entirely.
If modern great masters feel it would be beneficial to begin new Western ordination lineages like this with fewer vows than are in the traditional Buddhist sets, it is important for these new institutions not to replace, but to supplement the traditional Vinaya lineages. It is a very serious step to change the Vinaya. As His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama has advised, the Vinaya rules and vows for monks and nuns must be maintained in an orthodox fashion. No individual has the power to change them. Only an assembly of monastic elders from all Buddhist traditions has the authority to make any alterations.
Buddha explained that whether or not his Dharma flourishes is determined by whether or not the practice of the Vinaya rules of discipline is present. Therefore, the existence of monks and nuns is very important. Nevertheless, even without them, if there are still lay people with refuge who refrain from the ten destructive (“non-virtuous”) actions, His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama has said there is still the presence of Buddhism. But when there is no longer anyone maintaining ethical self-discipline, then Buddha said this would signal that his teachings were no longer present on this earth. Although Buddha predicted this would occur 5,000 years after his passing, we should try not to consciously contribute to its coming.
Furthermore, the vows that any new Western ordination lineage transmit must all have scriptural references. Otherwise, the fault will arise of inventing “imitation Dharma.” We should not be like the late sixth-century Korean kings who, in order to use Buddhism to foster the people’s allegiance to their state, promulgated a new set of five lay precepts based on Confucian principles their Korean monk advisors had learned in China. Instead of the usual Buddhist precepts, Korean laypeople of that time vowed to serve the king loyally, treat their parents with filial piety, be sincere towards their friends, never retreat from a battlefield and be discriminating in taking lives.
Concluding Thoughts
In most modern Western societies, “respect” has become almost a dirty word. People have become so jaded and disillusioned, they feel there is nothing left in the world they can respect. When Westerners reject their own cultures and adopt Buddhism, they must be on guard not to transfer this attitude, with misplaced loyalty, onto the monastic community. Buddha emphasized that even if monks or nuns are merely wearing the robes without doing any practice, they and their robes are still worthy of respect. His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama has clarified this point by explaining that the monastic way of life does not exist inherently as an object worthy of respect, isolated from considerations of cause and effect. Its value derives from its being the most conducive lifestyle for developing the three higher trainings in ethical self-discipline, concentration and the realization of voidness.
The monks, nuns and robes, then, are clearly not the actual Sangha Refuge. Only those with non-conceptual cognition of voidness, the community of aryas, constitute this Precious Gem. But, as a symbol of one of the Three Jewels of Refuge, Buddhist monastics are always to be respected. If we find the monastic community in less than an ideal condition, we must work to support it and help it uplift its quality, rather than self-righteously criticizing it and showing disrespect.
The traditional role of the Buddhist lay community has been to support the monastics. We must avoid the two extremes of laypeople either blindly worshipping the monks and nuns, without making any efforts for their own spiritual practice, or denigrating and belittling the monastics, feeling that they, as householders, are the only important ones. Although the monastic community must not remain aloof, but needs to serve society, the lay community, especially in Western Dharma centers, should not treat the monks and nuns as servants who are there to do all the work.