Asceticism might be a path to liberation in Hinduism, but I don't think that's an accurate reading of Buddhism (which famously rejects asceticism as a method of liberation and posits the Middle Way instead) ...
this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2026
0 points (50.0% liked)
Buddhism
480 readers
1 users here now
A community for Buddhists and those interested in discussing Buddhism
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
@dandelion
There is monasticism in Buddhism
I'm not saying there are no ascetic elements in Buddhism, I'm saying it's not central to Buddhist soteriology, i.e. nibbana / nirvana is a realization that cannot be reached through asceticism, and this is a fundamental teaching of the Buddha (and a major distinction between Buddhism and Hinduism).
@dandelion
According Tveravada teaching nirvana/nibbana could be reachable monks only
It's undeniable that within Buddhism, and Theravada Buddhism in particular, that monastic life is considered an aid to the path towards awakening, but it is false that Theravada teaches that nibbana can only be reached by monks, as Theravada scriptures mention several lay followers who were arahants.
some citations are provided here:
The Commentaries mention some lay followers who attained full enlightenment, including for example, Uggasena who was a lay man (an acrobat by trade) with the householder responsibilities with family and work as an acrobat in side shows. (DhA.iv.59‑65) The Commentaries also mention that Buddha's father Suddhodana died as a lay arahant. He became a Non-returner (anāgāmī) after hearing the Mahādhammapāla Jātaka (DhA.i.99; J.iv.55), and when he was about to die, the Buddha came from Vesāli to see him and teach him, and Suddhodana became an Arahant and died as a lay Arahant (ThigA.141).
https://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php/Lay_arahant
Again your mistake is to assume asceticism is necessary to realize nibbana, instead it is more that the monk's lives promote simple living in a way that is meant to help facilitate the path to realizing nibbana - but it is far from necessary, and it is not the asceticism itself that facilitates that - again, Buddhism famously rejects asceticism in favor of the Middle Path. I suggest you read more about Buddhism, maybe try What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula.
The practices the bhikkhu follow are meant to increase the odds of realizing nibbana happening, but according to Buddhist scripture, nibbana was also realized by lay followers who were not monks and who did not live ascetic lives.
concentrates @dandelion @philosophy
I believe modern Christianity has discredited itself and my attention more and more is focusing on Neo-paganism as well as Hinduism, Buddhism and other Oriental religion
I counter with Stoicism.
There are actually some records of Cynics interacting with ascetics in India and recognizing them as engaging in similar practice (i.e. living simply to live virtuously and happily).
Stoicism is just Cynicism with more boot 🤪
Early Buddhism was also criticized as hedonistic by Vedic religious authorities because it rejected asceticism, so in a real way Buddhism is more aligned with Cynicism than you would think (though there are also real differences).
What I want to say is: What is "EAST" and what is "WEST"? Can you just lump together everyone you put under that arbitrary label? If so, what's the point?
While there are arbitrary aspects, it's not like these things are entirely made up without any kind of thread it pulls on, e.g. the West broadly refers to the culture of Europe and the Mediterranean with roots in ancient Greece and Rome, and going even further back some ancient Egypt and western Asian cultures. And in terms of location, places influenced by that culture are usually included, usually due to colonialism places like North America would count even though they aren't in Europe.
Meanwhile the East (clearly a Euro-centric term) broadly refers to the cultures in Asia, including Western Asia ("the Middle East"). Buddhism and Hinduism are "Eastern" in the sense that they originate in India, which is considered part of "the East".
That said, I agree - asceticism in Indian religion doesn't translate to asceticism in Indian culture more broadly, let alone the East (e.g. across Korea, China, Japan, etc.).
That said, it's clearly Eastern in some sense, even if it's just a subset of Eastern culture rather than total.