Do lay Buddhists in the West take renunciation seriously enough?

Question

It has been argued (http://www.wildmind.org/blogs/on-practice/kobai-renunciation#more-454) that Western Buddhists say they have broken their attachments to objects so they don't have to give up the objects themselves.... is that true or are their lots of examples of Buddhists living truly simple lives in the West other than in monastic situations?

renunciation is not asceticism

I don't mean to be judgemental... I am challenging myself

Answer 1

I read the article you provided the link for. It appears to me its author is kind of mixing two different points: (1) he is suggesting that Western Buddhists are not really renouncing material things sufficiently and (2) he is saying they should be more generous with their wealth and more active in social work.

I feel both points are well worth our attention, but his focus to me does not seem really to be about renunciation and non-attachment per se. The distinction can be subtle, but I think it's important:

Our outward lifestyle can have a significant effect on how our minds and hearts see and feel ... but what's of real importance is how our minds and hearts see and feel, not so much the outward lifestyle itself.

The whole point of Mahayana Buddhist texts like the Vimalakirti Sutra is the understanding that lay people are just as capable of enlightened realization as monastics are.

Put simplistically, it's not a matter so much of what we do, but how we do it.

Living in material simplicity can be a big help in lessening distractions and preoccupations, but that's an instrumental thing, not an end in itself. What matters is the quality of our hearts and minds in whatever circumstance of life we find ourselves in.
.

Answer 2

As someone has already pointed out, the Buddha found that there was a 'middle' path, neither immersion in the material, nor rejection of it ( renunciation ).

The point is that 'stuff' isn't 'bad', even money, when understood for what it truly is, nothing but a means of transferring 'stuff' energy from lone application to another. It's the focusing on the 'stuff' that pulls us down deeper into the dense illusion. Everything that does that is a 'dragon' ( addiction ), the best known ones are money, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, even sex, but the point is that anything that distracts us entirely from the contemplation of who we really are, and what we are really doing here, which is, to be precise, nothing !

What I mean is that we are not human 'doings', we call ourselves 'human beings' for a very good reason, by some fortunate 'chance' ( I don't really think it was chance ) we have remembered to keep the wording 'right', it is what we 'Be' that counts.

When we free ourselves of the 'dragons' we free ourselves not of 'stuff', but of the attachment to 'stuff'. In fact this is so 'true' that once we have freed ourselves we can truly enjoy the natural abundance of this amazing realm that we have created, and I mean literally all of us, there was never any 'Intent' to have a permanent situation of plenty for a few, and dire need for the many, it just a phase we had to go through.

Thus, in my view, renunciation, in th generally accepted meaning of the word, no longer has any part to play in the human physical experience.

Monastic living is also an anachronism at this time, we need to be amongst each other, helping us get through the 'Shift'. :-)))

Answer 3

I think lay Buddhists in the west don't spend nearly enough time trying to figure out what renunciation is. Je Rinpoche's "Three Principal Aspects of the Path" is a concise text that expressly defines renunciation as the wish to "definitely get out" of cyclic existence; not just give up "stuff." Giving up stuff, and things like that, are all born from that wish to get out of cyclic existence so it necessarily has to come first. Anything else is contrived and unstable and is probably not based on enough analysis of the four noble truths, the two truths and the twelve links of dependent-arising. I know devout, lay Buddhist practitioners who are wealthy, educated property owners who have kids, bills and jobs. Lastly, you can have all of these things and live a simple life! You can start by recognizing that none of it, but your Dharma practice, is going with you when you die; that you will die is certain, and when you will die is not certain. Further, where you go at the time of death is dependent on your Dharma practice and your Dharma practice is dependent on your studies and your studies are dependent on your Teacher who can explain these things in a much better way than I can!

Answer 4

I would think that few lay Buddhists anywhere give up their stuff. We like stuff.

Of course, the idea that lay Buddhists don't take renunciation "seriously enough" runs afoul of the idea that Enlightenment comes from one's own experience. Can another person judge your path for you? It runs afoul of Right Speech, as well. How do you define seriously enough? Is seriously enough the difference between right mindfulness and avoiding right mindfulness? What is seriously enough? Is seriously enough reality or someone's conceptualization of reality? It runs afoul of Right Intention, as well. When someone says that lay Buddhists do not take renunciation seriously enough, what is the intention there? Is this statement a judgment or is this statement supposed to lead toward awareness for anyone involved in it?

In this instance, I believe that the Christian half-saying to "clean the plank out of your own eye" is most accurate.

I haven't formally renounced anything and I probably never will. I'm a Western Lay Buddhist. Do I take renunciation seriously enough? Who is fit to judge that? Everyone who says that I do or that I don't isn't speaking reality, they simply report their perspective of what they've seen. Buddha, in regard to his Great Renunciation, never said "Do this." Buddha, instead, said, "This is what I did."

A Buddhist should make the appropriate effort to break whatever keeps him or her bound to Duhka. Objects are one of the biggest things that keep us bound to Duhka, so renouncing them makes sense for many people. Does that mean it makes sense for all? Buddha said to test everything against your own experience. This instruction is what led me to Buddhism in the first place.

I do not take renunciation seriously in that I don't give it much though. I do, however, take Magga seriously in that I give it a lot of thought. Later, perhaps, reunciation will be important to me. I don't know, I don't know the future.

Answer 5

As a Western Buddhist myself, I believe it is virtually impossible to fully engage all parts of our beliefs. For example money. How would anyone survive in this Western society without money, when there are so many millions around us who worship money as a god? Western life is powered by greed, and completely ridding ourselves of greed would result in a quick death.

Fortunately it is very easy to practice the core beliefs of Buddhism in Western society, such as the first 5 precepts, and becoming compassionate is not such a huge mountain to climb.

What I'm basically saying is that a Westerner who wishes to become Buddhist should not immediately take it all on. You should do only what you can. The very small positive action is still a positive action, yet no action is negative action.

Answer 6

good question. I think it is a little more difficult to do in western culture. Even Buddhists from the east find it harder to do here because many luxury items border on necessity. As a lay Buddhist, it is something i admit to struggling with. What makes it most difficult is that the world around me does not make it any easier.

Answer 7

it sort of sounds like they would be wonderful with it, a minimum of your mom. Your mom ought to cajole your dad in any different case if he's not. basically tell them you're Buddhist. Edit: be advantageous to do a splash analysis on Buddhism in case you have not already... some people in basic terms "agree" with it because of the fact they are misinformed and believe that Buddhism is atheistic, whilst it is neither atheistic nor theistic. Buddha himself on no account affirmed or denied any God. in case you opt for a sturdy e book to income an information, look at "in the Buddha's words" by utilising Bhikku Bodhi

Answer 8

The "break" can eventually come with time, but the issue is not to force yourself to do so, it's about moderation or a middle way. It happens by default as you start to see the logic of the teachings. You start to realize how silly some attachments are and see things more clearly about the existence of the things you used to be attached to.

Personally I've lost attachment to a lot of things I used to be ga-ga over and I've calmed down a lot, so it's possible, but again it just came by default, not by saying "gee I've got to stop this".

_()_

Answer 9

Buddhist detachment is very similar to Franciscan detachment. From a Franciscan point of view I'd say NO. We Westerners love our "stuff." Houses, cars and office cubicles crowded with "stuff."

I love books. I have TONS of books. The founder of my order - St. Francis of Assisi had ONE book. True spirit of poverty there. I have acres of books. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak...

Answer 10

Not that I know of - it would be very difficult. Anyway, the monasteries are there if you want to become a monk. As lay people we do our best.
Who's judging?
We do the meditation, try to keep the precepts, do our best.
If my best isn't as good as your best - so what?
Buddhism is not a judgemental religion.
Eventually we will all give up everything. In the meantime, we do our best.