Schopen: Buddha as Businessman?

[daverupa]

Alas. Let's try this. Skip ahead, if you like, to the top of page 261.

[Indrajala]

The overall effect was a text that was felt to be malleable, where today no one would be comfortable modifying the Patimokkha to have fewer or more rules, would they? But in the past, things were done differently, with interesting consequences for our understanding of how these things developed, and might best do so going forward.

If you read Yijing's account of India in the early 8th century, it seems the Vinaya was only followed in a general sense. The Nalanda monks were forbidden to eat after noon when the bell rang, but then they owned gold and everyone bathed daily.

This sort of approach was sensible and adaptable.

Also, if classical Indian Buddhism is a standard we look to for reference, then we might as well acknowledge the loose nature of the Vinaya back then and then see how we might go about doing things now.

[Indrajala]

But you don't have to be a monk to not kill people. Any decent person, religious or not, can do that. What you've been advocating is like saying that just because some students in a math class cheat when their teacher is away, then it's ok for every students to cheat. A good honest student is someone who does the right thing even when ALL OF his friends do not!

Taking a bath daily instead of every two weeks isn't a sin.

[robertk]

The overall effect was a text that was felt to be malleable, where today no one would be comfortable modifying the Patimokkha to have fewer or more rules, would they? But in the past, things were done differently, with interesting consequences for our understanding of how these things developed, and might best do so going forward.

If you read Yijing's account of India in the early 8th century, it seems the Vinaya was only followed in a general sense. The Nalanda monks were forbidden to eat after noon when the bell rang, but then they owned gold and everyone bathed daily.

This sort of approach was sensible and adaptable.

Also, if classical Indian Buddhism is a standard we look to for reference, then we might as well acknowledge the loose nature of the Vinaya back then and then see how we might go about doing things now.

Classical Theravada is rather different. For this the gold standard is the MahaVihara in Sri lanka. One example, before the texts were written down at the 4th council there was a famine in Sri Lanka and laypeople stopped offering sufficient food. The monks died out in the thousands from starvation rather than break Vinaya to ask for food or to store it, or even to climb a coconut trre to take a fruit (Novices can do this however). This is the way the ancients were..

[santa100]

Indrajala wrote: Taking a bath daily instead of every two weeks isn't a sin.

If all that you wanted was taking a bath daily then there wouldn't be so many posts spanning 5 pages and growing just for this thread. Obviously you want more: handling of money, eating and hanging out with folks on Friday nights, etc. Forum members have cited both Vinaya AND Suttas references which message was quite clear on those issues. This way you can't use your skepticism on the Vinaya as an excuse. If you have problem with even the Suttas, then there's nothing left for us to discuss here. Martial art fighters earn their identity inside the ring, engineers earn theirs through the products they build, what do monks need to do to earn their identity as noble Sakyan sons?

[Indrajala]

...what do monks need to do to earn their identity as noble Sakyan sons?

Display wisdom ideally. That's not necessarily following archaic rule manuals to the letter.

[santa100]

And how exactly do you demonstrate wisdom other than mere talks?

[Indrajala]

And how exactly do you demonstrate wisdom other than mere talks?

Speak wisdom, demonstrate lucidity, maintain equanimity in the face of disaster, etc...

I don't believe an outward display of purity necessarily reflects an internal purity of one's mind.

[santa100]

Any decent person can do that.

I don't believe an outward display of wisdom reflects an internal purity of one's mind and conduct.

[tiltbillings]

I prefer their company to that of the Buddhist version of the Pharisees.

Because a monk opts to keep the Vinaya in a struct manner, that does not warrant that monk being called a Pharisee. One could just as easily argue that you are simply offering a sophistic rationale for being slack with the monastic rules.

[Indrajala]

I prefer their company to that of the Buddhist version of the Pharisees.

Because a monk opts to keep the Vinaya in a struct manner, that does not warrant that monk being called a Pharisee. One could just as easily argue that you are simply offering a sophistic rationale for being slack with the monastic rules.

As the official story goes, Vinaya rules only came to exist because of incidents that warranted them.

For instance, Svagata got wasted on moonshine and vomited all over himself, hence the prohibition against alcohol.

This clearly demonstrates that the rules were tentative and conditional. There is nothing sacred about any of it. If Svagata never got wasted as the story goes, then presumably there would have been no rule against alcohol laid down by the Buddha. Some Vinaya texts even state clearly that monks could and in fact did consume alcohol before the precept was established. I discuss this here:

http://huayanzang.blogspot.com/2012/03/ ... cohol.html

I'm not saying monks should drink (I don't), but nevertheless it needs to be understood that the rules were not originally so sacrosanct. I believe in ancient India this was largely understood by most sanghas, which is why the whole program was only loosely followed, as Yijing describes in his account, to say nothing of the archaeological record.

[tiltbillings]

I prefer their company to that of the Buddhist version of the Pharisees.

Because a monk opts to keep the Vinaya in a struct manner, that does not warrant that monk being called a Pharisee. One could just as easily argue that you are simply offering a sophistic rationale for being slack with the monastic rules.

As the official story goes, Vinaya rules only came to exist because of incidents that warranted them. . . There is nothing sacred about any of it. . . . .

Again, you use the Pharisee, which is derogatory, in terms of those may opt to follow the rules closely, and you offer a way of looking at the rules that can be easily characterized as rationalizing not following the rules with care. I don't see in your discussion of these things much balance or nuance.

[Indrajala]

Again, you use the Pharisee, which is derogatory, in terms of those may opt to follow the rules closely, and you offer a way of looking at the rules that can be easily characterized as rationalizing not following the rules with care. I don't see in your discussion of these things much balance or nuance.

Defining the term...a member of a Jewish sect that flourished during the 1st century b.c. and 1st century a.d. and that differed from the Sadducees chiefly in its strict observance of religious ceremonies and practices, adherence to oral laws and traditions, and belief in an afterlife and the coming of a Messiah.

What I am getting at is that there are plenty of Buddhists who insist on the manual in a fashion akin to the underlined point above, whereas the manual was only meant to be general and provisional by the Buddha's own admission, and moreover in ancient India it was only loosely implemented.

[tiltbillings]

Again, you use the Pharisee, which is derogatory, in terms of those may opt to follow the rules closely, and you offer a way of looking at the rules that can be easily characterized as rationalizing not following the rules with care. I don't see in your discussion of these things much balance or nuance.

Defining the term...a member of a Jewish sect that flourished during the 1st century b.c. and 1st century a.d. and that differed from the Sadducees chiefly in its strict observance of religious ceremonies and practices, adherence to oral laws and traditions, and belief in an afterlife and the coming of a Messiah.

So, there is no negative connotations at all to referring to someone by the term Pharisee?

What I am getting at is that there are plenty of Buddhists who insist on the manual in a fashion akin to the underlined point above, whereas the manual was only meant to be general and provisional by the Buddha's own admission, and moreover in ancient India it was only loosely implemented.

That is your argument, but you have really not made it very well, given that monks such as Ajahn Sumedho, who you would -- it would seem --consider to be a modern-day Buddhist Pharisee, speaks of using the Vinaya, not in terms of keeping the rules for the sake of keeping the rules because they are somehow sacred; rather, Ajahn Sumedho talks about the Vinaya as a way of Dhamma practice. Also, what it was truly meant to be, opinions obviously vary. As for whether or not the Vinaya was carefully or loosely followed in Buddhist India as a whole is not a valid argument for the obvious reasons.

[Indrajala]

So, there is no negative connotations at all to referring to someone by the term Pharisee?

I'm using the term rhetorically.

Also, what it was truly meant to be, opinions obviously vary. As for whether or not the Vinaya was carefully or loosely followed in Buddhist India as a whole is not a valid argument for the obvious reasons.

It is a valid argument because the classical Indian standard is one which Buddhists of foreign lands can look back to. This is what historically a lot of cultures did. They looked at how things were done in India proper and then measured themselves up against it.