Is the age of monastic life over? Is it societal conditioning or keeping up with the times? I hear a lot of "spiritually awakened" people, on shows like batgap.com and on forums like dharmaoverground.org claim that the age of the monastic life is over, and in the present day one must learn to mix the spiritual life with the ordinary life. There is also evidenced by popular lay leaders like John Kabat-Zinn, one-time monastic Jack Kornfield, Ram Dass, Shinzen Young, Daniel Ingram, Kenneth Folk, Eckhart Tolle and others. Perhaps a lot of lay people on this forum are in this boat too.

These are largely sincere people from what I can tell, who have spent a lot of time looking for the truth. So why do they say this?



There have always been scandals and corruption in monastic orders since the time of the Buddha, as well as rather rigid and dogmatic views taken by some abbots. So, that cannot be a new reason to decry the tradition. The Buddha certainly appears to have spent a lot of time dealing with problem makers of this sort.

And both problems continue to be pretty common in almost all Buddhist traditions today (Tibetan, Theravada, Zen etc) who in addition seem to have also confused culture with the pursuit of the truth.

Now, a monk who isn't a local, enrolling in any foreign tradition spends a lot of time learning the new culture, the language, the food, the social mores, often dealing with racism to boot - all of which appear to be a waste of time, taking away from actual time spent on spiritual development. The saving grace is that it teaches perseverance, patience and doggedness, but is it enough? What's the alternative?

Maybe it is this? 



Religion is largely becoming a taboo word in modern times with the trend towards secular materialism ascending. So, it's not like the times of the Buddha when the entire Sakhyan clan decided to follow the Buddha into monkhood. The bar is quite high for someone in the west or in any westernized country really, to forsake all known things, and head off to the other side of the world to become a monk.

Of course many still do. 

Maybe it is this?



In the time of the Buddha lay arhats were pretty rare, the general route was to become a monk. Certainly if one must remain immersed in meditation and dhammic thoughts all day and night, lay life with its smells, noises and temptations is far more dangerous today than at any time previously. This alone must make monasticism all the more necessary today.

Yet, some lay teachers I can think of like Daniel Ingram and Kenneth Folk (at least one of them claims to be an arhat) declare that the idea of 24x7 meditative or dhammic immersion is impossible. One must allow for simple lay pleasures they say. KF even teaches in Silicon Valley, a rather central hub of material pleasures.

It doesn't help that in Buddhist countries like Thailand and Indian-Tibet most monks don't spend all day in dharmic duties either - they can often been seen out in the city, listening to music or idly browsing their smart phones or even smoking. All variously (dubiously?) justified as not contravening the Vinaya.

So, is it this?



Is the monastic life still relevant? The theoretical idea of samsaric seclusion, wise teachers and rigid routine is certainly attractive - but one's resolve is weakened when looking at the reality which often appears far different.

I'd certainly be interested in hearing from monks on the forum like Ven. Yuttadhammo if possible.
This series of questions is quite involved and surely a book could be written to properly assess the status of how well a very traditional monastic community is holding up in modern times. 

But a few things did come to mind that can be easily stated. Your comments are from people who are not currently part of the monastic tradition. They've made their decision and had their reasons. But the monastic community is alive and well without those individuals. It's far more interesting to hear the perspective of those actively a part of the monastic community.


  The bar is quite high for someone in the west or in any westernized country really, to forsake all known things, and head off to the other side of the world to become a monk.


I suppose that's true. And yet people do it and stick with it and find it to be a meaningful way to live. As far as forsaking material things, an interesting example of this is Ajahn Siripanno. His father is a billionaire and he could have lived a life of extraordinary wealth and privilege. And he choose to ordain as a Theravada monk instead. That's a powerful statement about priority when people see clearly. 


  Now, a monk who isn't a local, enrolling in any foreign tradition spends a lot of time learning the new culture, the language, the food, the social mores, often dealing with racism to boot - all of which appear to be a waste of time, taking away from actual time spent on spiritual development.


The head monk are our local Theravada monastery, originally from Laos, does not speak English despite having been in the US for a number of years now. Bilingual lay followers at the temple have told me his reason for not doing so is so that he will have fewer distractions. I think this is a smart approach really. Of course, he is not in a position of having to actively seek out lay followers, it's an ethnic community which seeks out the monastery. But that's certainly one way of avoiding the waste of time you speak of. 

As far as whether we are moving towards some sort of a "permanent" secularization in society, that would be short sighted speculation. Throughout history, societies have changed and become more or less religious. Religious traditions have become corrupted and then reformed. Religious traditions become more heavily focused on one aspect over another and additional sects emerge (I think this latter is roughly how the "forest traditions" revived in modern times.)

It's not for everyone. But I would think for those "with little dust in their eyes" monastic life will survive all that modern life can throw at it. :)