No, the idea of a monastery is to dedicate yourself completely to God, and specifically the God of a specific religion.
Another purpose was to dump awkward heirs and spares in a primogeniture inheritance - certainly not an offically endorsed one - akin to a butcher's knife being meant for livestock and their products.
A substantial reduction in religious belief could explain away a large part of monastic decline.
The "One" god of Christianity comes more from Neoplatonism than Judaism. The Neoplatonic Oneness, which was washed out in various times in Christian history, is fully commensurable with contemporary science. Oneness can be experienced as the common mystical experience of "we are all one, man!" But for Neoplatonists, it only made sense that the ineffable and impossible to fully understand "One" was the origin of the universe and the basis of divinity.
This notion of Oneness is different from typical conceptions of the one god as a person. It is not. To understand true, original Christianity, one must reject the idea of personhood -- god isn't a person (and actually, neither are we--it's just a useful illusion)
In a nutshell: in the beginning of time, there was the Oneness and the emanation from the Oneness, which was known as the Logos. It makes sense here to think big bang: the whole universe in a single point. But from there, the emanations, the logos built everything else. The emanations can return to the Oneness through the creation of new wholes and harmonies (think molecules, stars and solar systems -- onenesses made of parts). This wholeness/harmony is the source of divine goodness. Here's the Christian part: when a person believes in the Logos they have eternal life because they recognize that their life is part of the eternal Logos.
That's what Christianity was to early church fathers like Origen or Clement. I forgot to mention -- Jesus was described as the incarnation of the logos.
Fun fact: Logos is equivalent to "Dao" in Daoism.
So, How'd I do? Are you more open now to the mysteries of Christianity?
It's not hard, either. They just have to reject the idea that the Bible was written by God, which is farcical on the face of it. Then religion is about allegory, cultural traditions and having something to do with your kids on Sunday morning.
But Christianity implies certain ideas which are absolutely consequential, primarily that a certain historical person was the "Son of God" and that he literally rose from the dead. The idea that a single specific person could be God or the Son of God (as opposed to everybody else) is in direct opposition to any reasonable idea of God as "oneness".
But you are right, there is a bait-and-switch. I don't claim to describe the beliefs of current Christians, but ancient Christians, often of the near-heretical type (Origen was never sainted for a reason). Just keep in mind that there is no source of truth in Christianity. That's what all the wars were about! And no one was "right."
Early church fathers described Jesus as the Incarnation of the Logos ("the word made flesh", in highly misleading English translations).
And, the logos worldview meant that everything was an emanation of the oneness. So the logos/jesus lives in all of us.
"Son of God"=emanation of the One. See that? That is what son of God originally meant! See Philo of Alexandria for his judaeo-greco depiction of the logos as son of God in 10BC.
Rising from the dead... born of a virgin... Well, those are classic tropes in mystery religions. Fine for allegorical purposes.
It sounds quite compelling.
Wouter Hanugraff (read "western esoterism, a guide for the perplexed")
Shwep.net
Pythagorean Sourcebook
Oration on the dignity of man
Iamblicus
Origen
Plotinus
Philo of Alexandria
Many more. It is so fulfilling to read these old texts!
Check Perseus project for searching old texts.
Hence...
Note that there is no need to find the original interpretation (impossible), only an early, valid, and widespread interpretation. And whatever it is, it should provide spiritual meaning AND not conflict with empirical reality.
I would not treat Athanasius kindly, considering his role in the Arian heresy. But I'll check out his work.
Also, I don't mean to claim that Christianity "merely borrowed". Christian thought had a huge influence on Neoplatonism (Origen and Plotinus were schoolmates). I'm only saying that interpreting Christianity without Platonism is really missing out. (Platonism was actively removed from later Christianity, as it was seen as pagan.)
"Eastern Christian philosophy," or simply "Eastern Theology" really came into its own, and while it is absolutely valid to study Church writers in contrast and relationship to Neoplatonic philosophy, they developed their own tradition. Thus, parsing the logos tradition as if Origen, the Cappadocians, Dionysius the Areopagite, Maximus the Confessor, etc., were "philosophers" in their own right is actually quite a fruitful endeavor.
You might like shwep.net
I am a subscriber. He is a really good historian -- and interviews even better ones.
Also the book "Western Esoterism: a guide for the Perplexed".
Because this whole Oneness concept is right at the thumping heart of "the esoteric". There are real mysteries there, like you wouldn't believe. And, humanistic magic, I'm telling you!
I was interested in Advaita for a long time, and used to read Upanishads which expound about it. but recently I have come across a different school of thought, which calls this Oneness/Brahman/Nirvana as Self/I. Ramana Maharishi who died 70 years back was a recent proponent of it. but I have seen references to it from different cultures too, like the hebrew word YHWH meaning Self, and the Persian word for God "Khuda" meaning Self in Old Persian.
I recently came across Bernadette Roberts, who is a Catholic Nun, who seems to have not heard of the concept of Self from Advaita/Hinduism, but have reached to similar opinions about Self from her own contemplation/Prayers in her monastery. and in this video she explains it from her perspective as a Christian Mystic. She also has some books, which I haven't read. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb5496uQ3lk
But religion is indeed in decline in the West. Whether or not this is an argument against God's existence is more questionable.
It worked when praying for the world was largely accepted as having some effect. Nowadays thoughts and prayers doesn’t cut it for the general population.
In a way high level research institutes could be seen as the new monastries, with people shutting down in buildings everyday, searching for new truths that could benefit mankind.
Monasteries absolutely require participation in the group. Monks are not hermits, much of their activity is working for the monastery and interacting with other monks.
hrktb is quite right about the general principle of monasticism. Here's the start of the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on it [1]:
"Monasticism or monachism, literally the act of "dwelling alone" (Greek monos, monazein, monachos), has come to denote the mode of life pertaining to persons living in seclusion from the world, under religious vows and subject to a fixed rule, as monks, friars, nuns, or in general as religious. The basic idea of monasticism in all its varieties is seclusion or withdrawal from the world or society."
EDIT although in the entry on "monk" [2] there is considerably less certainty about the origin of the name and idea. Imagine your primary reference work being internally inconsistent like that! Can't imagine where these bible-bashers got that idea.
[1] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10459a.htm
[2] http://catholicencyclopedia.newadvent.com/cathen/10487b.htm
Living a monastic life has never been appealing to the broad population. But to say that an ascetic life devoted to introspection doesn't 'make sense' is misguided.
The modern world in predominately a sedentary lifestyle spent between a cube and a couch, interspersed with frenzies of gluttony, consumption and mindless distraction to stave off feeling of emptiness.
Nothing could make less sense.
> Nothing could make less sense.
Speak for yourself...
One of the core tasks of the contemplative lifestyle (which can certainly be practiced outside of monasteries) is to be awakened from all of the things we think we need and desire. These are usually the things that the (societally constructed) ego needs to feel secure and comfortable - hence so many contemplative traditions stress the importance of "dying to yourself". This is not 'negative' or even necessarily introverted - in fact, dealing with the insecurities that you have inherited from the expectations of the society around you can make you comfortable both alone and with people. There is no need to impress anyone; no need to feel insecure or alone; you're at peace with yourself and the world.
The contemplative tradition has a lot to teach our world - no manner of scientific or technological progress is going to help us before we're comfortable with being ourselves.
That's the point. Living a life of reactivity to every change it the zeitgeist precludes peace.
From a religious point of view, 'adapting' the core idea of what you believe to be Gods will might be seen as far worse than just quietly dying out with dignity.
there is a reason universities have 'faculties' (e.g. 'faculties' of the 'body of knowledge') and that key persons are called 'deans'
The rigid scheduling is an artifact of agrarianism in a quad-seasoned climate and the calender as it becomes essential to have the time aligned. Likewise in the past not being a farmer itself was essentially a luxury - prison without slavery was only affordable if you had a hostage whose ransom was worth far more.
While before they may have been a refugee of sorts for those to devote themselves to study while being socially acceptable and self-supporting.
The time for reforms was a century or more ago during industrialization - if they would want survival over purity having known the peril coming. Now I suspect the options are either accept their demise as inevitable but take all latecomers, half-hearted reforms which likely will fail to stop the death spiral or a "Neomonastic" which fundamentally be an imitation of the past by the present out of its context or contains a glimmer of the spirit - such as a collective living of Catholics who may or may not have children, which pools funds to maintain a working class standard of lifestyle but may make more as a result of being composed of mainly college educated professionals such as doctors.
Theoretically there may be a Neomonastic sort of movement which emerges on its own in another sphere but if they didn't emerge on their own already why not?
Because the core idea is dumb, the change is that more people with more access to knowledge about the world realize that, and monasteries are adapting by dying out.
Monasteries are basically communes. Great for people that have nothing, but more and more people actually have something even if it's "just" a smartphone.