The split of morality in religion

This reminds me of a saying, "A monk on the hill top teaches while the monk in the temple does not."

For a long time I just thought it was a clever saying or perhaps an attack between two types of monks as if one is better than the other. The more I thought about it the more it just seemed useless. But then I figured it out.

A monk on the hill top has completely abandoned everything and is just focused on putting wisdom into absolute practice. The monk is not concerned with money, with family, with a house, or a job, not concerned with clothes, food, ect, ect, ect. This is the lesson. Where as the monk in the temple, must present a different image onto the lay people who come to visit. If the monk dozes off during the meditation session, the laymen will gossip about it. If the monk does this or that, the laymen will complain or question the monk. Nothing can be taught because it is always under scrutiny by the layman. So the conclusion is that the monk on the hill is ready to give up all things where as a layperson is not ready to give up anything.

Lay people like their lives, they want a job, they want a spouse, they want a house, they want a career and they want a family. They put all those things in front of wisdom where as the monk on the hill has placed wisdom in front of those things. That is the only difference.

It seems to me that these "leaders" want people not to become really saved but to adopt a new name like buddhist, or christian which now becomes totally deprived of its meaning.

It is difficult to comment on this without any opportunity to read some of the actual dialog.

I would however comment that it seems logical to me that celibacy should be expected of a sworn monastic, but not necessarily of a lay practitioner.

But from your previous comments on the forum, and your confession of strong suspicions, it would seem that you have already decided the whole purpose is to get people to join a religious group, so maybe it would have been better for me not to comment. But I'll take my chances.

Ir is not an accusation, Eudaimon, it is an observation. I have noticed - I think - a kind of conflict you seem to have, or something you are trying to resolve, about Buddhism or maybe religions in general. There always seems to be some aspect of it that you find very interesting, attractive, worthwhile but it often seems to be associated with something unsatisfactory or unnacceptable. So it seems to come across as an attempt to get some reason why maybe it really is something really worth pursuing, but then you always find a lot of reasons why you really couldn't endorse it after all. This theme comes up a lot for you. Am I wildly off the mark here?

I just got done reading an article about duality vs. non duality. The article brought up a similar question for me. Apparently, among some sects of Buddhists, the idea of karma is for the laymen, while the enlightened know that karma is only a tool for teaching.
I do wonder, especially among fundamentalist sects, how will anyone learn anything if the teachers never expose them to more complex ideas?

On another forum I presented a topic which I'd like to discuss here also:

Recently I have read a book with conversations between the Dalai-lama and a French Jew. There he advocated the doctrine which is widely held in so-called religious circles that morality is different for laymen and monks, "renunciates". The same teaching is represented in many traditions: catholicisim, orthodoxy, buddhism in both mahayana and theravada versions, hindooism.
Now, what exactly baffles me? I should like to express that in question: "Dear Sirs! If you say that non-atachment, non-violence, celibacy etc. are necessary for the attainment of happiness which maybe called Nirvana or Moksha or the Life Eternal, why do you teach laymen that it is alright not to perform them? Why do you make a division between laymen and monks as if the first don't need happiness? Why don't you discard all the false views instead of making concessions to the worldlings that is do them harm ultimately, since this path, as you say, does not lead to liberation?"
And I must confess that I have very strong suspicions why it is being made. It seems to me that these "leaders" want people not to become really saved but to adopt a new name like buddhist, or christian which now becomes totally deprived of its meaning.

As far as I can tell Buddhism is one of if not the only religion that stresses the individual spiritual practice of the subject (meditation, etc.) over and above the Priests' dogma and rhetoric.

As far as I can tell Buddhism is one of if not the only religion that stresses the individual spiritual practice of the subject (meditation, etc.) over and above the Priests' dogma and rhetoric.

What is meditation? According to my dictionary, this means reflection on religious issues.

.........2) People like to share what they are learning so they form groups of like minded people........

3) Groups elect leaders in order to keep order in their group. The leader doesn't necessarily know anymore than anyone else, instead the leader just maintains order and enforces central tenets.

So, I wouldn't be alarmed that the monk group may be doing something different from other people.

It is just somethings that they enjoy doing and maybe not appropriate for other people......

.....who enjoy forming, let's say, their own Buddhist group, to share experiences, but don't feel like doing all of the things monks do.

Well, that is the wrong word then. Actually 'meditation' is a bad translation of what you learn in Buddhism. The word is actually jhana or dhyana. There is actually no translation in the English dictionary, because there is no equivalent practise in the Western traditions.

You won't really understand what this means through conjecture or other forms of discursive thought. It is a specific practise in training the attention to notice and understand the many subconscious and unconscious activities that the mind is usually engaged in through the force of habit. it is certainly not religious in the sense that most western people understand the word. It is more like martial arts for the mind, if you like. It is a specific form of training the attention so as to understand the hindrances, and so as to attain freedom from these. That is what it really means. there is no need to bother about Buddhism as a social phenomenon or historical tradition if this part is understood.