Neither half can manage alone.
A monastic owns nothing, cooks nothing, stores nothing and walks everywhere, so cannot last a week without lay households — and feeding one is the most direct religious act available to a householder. The mutual dependency is the design rather than a weakness, and it keeps monks visible and accountable in a way an endowed order would not be.
The fourfold sangha — monks, nuns, laymen, laywomen — is not a hierarchy with an ancillary support wing but a mutual dependency written into the rules. A mendicant may not cook, may not store food overnight, may not carry money, may not own more than a whisk, a bowl and, for Svetambaras, robes, and may not accept anything prepared for them. They must therefore eat from lay households daily or not eat. Laypeople, conversely, have in feeding and lodging mendicants the most direct religious act available to them, and the merit is substantial. The arrangement has two effects worth noting. It keeps the mendicant order poor and unendowed — there is no Jain equivalent of monastic landholding on the scale seen elsewhere, because the rules forbid it — and it keeps mendicants continuously visible and accountable to the laity, since a community that stops feeding a monk has an immediate and unanswerable sanction. Jain laywomen in particular carry a great deal of this, since the alms round arrives at the kitchen, and scholars of Jain practice have argued that it is a genuine source of religious standing for them.
The same ground, other faiths
claims that share this one's ideasSign in to open the first thread. Everything here is attributed.