Exercise:
1. In your own opinion, could Buddhism exist without any one of the following: monks, nuns, laymen, laywomen?
2. What are the advantages of going on a pilgrimage?
3. Are monks and nuns as reliant on laypeople today as they were in ancient India? Are laypeople of today as reliant on monks and nuns?
Answers:
1. I disagree with the suggestion in this module as to the relevant roles of the laity and monks/nuns. Whilst the described roles may be true for some Buddhist traditions, it certainly is not for all. In much of Mahayana Buddhism the main role for the monks and nuns is to organise ceremonies which the laity may attend, and also to offer teachings and guidance. To answer whether Buddhism could exist without one of these groups is not simple because one must then question what one really means by Buddhism. If one refers solely to the Buddha's teaching then in theory the teaching could be kept alive by any one of these, or indeed even by a handful of people. Taken to an extreme, even if only one person could faithfully retain and follow the Lord Buddha's teaching then Buddhism still would exist. One might reason that a solitary monk in retreat may still hold the Buddhist teaching alive. However, if one is considering Buddhism more in terms of the traditional roles currently expected, then one could argue that there is a necessity for monks, nuns, and laity.
2. Pilgrimage gives us the opportunity to focus our minds on Buddha and his teachings. Some believe that visiting the main pilgrimage sites itself gives one merit. Personally I do think this may be true, but not simply because one has physically visited those places but because of one's right-minded motivation to purify our minds in order to help other sentient beings, and that focussing on Buddha's life at the pilgrimage sites will help one to achieve this.
3. Monks and nuns do still rely on donations the same as was always the case. In many countries the way in which these donations are made might have changed dramatically from the concept of the monk going on alms round. Nowadays revenue may be received from books, periodicals, music and teaching CDs, even TV channels, but still these require the laity to either donate money to make these ventures possible, or through purchasing such items. Donations continue to be made by those attending ceremonies too. One might argue that some have gone too far and that commercialism has become far too common. This is a difficult balance as many people in these days are less attracted to a simple temple or surroundings, and if teachings are provided in books they expect those books to be produced professionally and attractively, and of course all that needs large sums of money. One might argue in defence that if this more 'glitzy' approach attracts people, then it (and the resultant need to generate large sums of money) is justifiable. Regardless as to where one sits in this argument it may be seen therefore that the monks and nuns continue to have a reliance on the laity, with very few exceptions.
Similarly, the laity continue to have a need to turn to the monks and nuns as they tend to be the ones who can organise ceremonies and provide teachings for the laity. There are some exceptions to this. I disagree with the idea espoused in the text that the laity need to turn to the temples as a source of merit - I think this is a false idea of Buddhist practice, at least in many Schools.
M D VICKERS
Taiwan