Are Theravadins Simpler ?

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: Are Theravadins Simpler ?

Postby Dhammanando » Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:13 am

Can you give us your view of the other point. If I am your disciple and I decide to gift you a Louis Vuitton suitcase, will you accept it.


Puggalika-dāna or saṅgha-dāna? If it were the former —an offering that you intended for my personal use— then I would decline it because I don’t use suitcases and there’s no other monk to whom I could easily give it away. If it were the latter, then I would accept it and hand it over to my monastery’s lay stewards. It would then be their responsibility to either barter it for whatever the monastery needs or auction it to pay the bills. Refusing a saṅgha-dāna would be out of the question, unless the gift were something unallowable or the lay donor were under the saṅgha’s interdiction. Luxury French suitcases are not unallowable, however much one might wish them to be. (Although in the case of a Louis Vuitton you’d first need to remove the suitcase’s pretentious monogram, since it’s made out of gold).

Now to continue in this hypothetical vein, suppose I did happen to be a suitcase-using bhikkhu who lacked a suitcase? If you came to me and offered to get me one, and invited me to express some preference, then I would certainly go for something inexpensive. Perhaps a nice sensible product like the Trunki Gruffalo. It’s only £39.99 and no reasonable person could deny that it makes a decorous, yet suitably understated, accoutrement for a bhikkhu.

.
Gruffalo_Front_RGB720.jpg
Gruffalo_Front_RGB720.jpg (272.16 KiB) Viewed 516 times

.

But if you made no such invitation and simply brought me a suitcase that you’d selected yourself, I would accept it no matter what sort it was. Whether it was a poncey over-priced doodah from Paris or a battered old relic that you’d picked up at a jumble sale, or (heaven grant us!) a Trunki Gruffalo, I should accept it with gratitude.

Note that in both of these scenarios my aim would be that of being an easy burden to my lay supporters (subharo) and of light livelihood (sallahukavutti). These are two of the sixteen qualities mentioned by the Buddha in the opening of the Karaṇīyamettā Sutta, upon which the successful practice of mettabhāvanā (and no doubt of bhāvanā in general) depends. In the first scenario I select something cheap so that I don’t burden your bank account. In the second I take what you’ve selected for me so that I don’t waste your time (i.e. by requesting you to go back and change the Louis Vuitton for a Gruffalo or whatever).

As for your other hypothetical scenarios, you can just apply the following rubric:

1. Puggalika-dāna and I need it; I accept it.
1.1. If invited I go for inexpensive.
1.2. If not invited I accept what’s offered.

2. Puggalika-dāna and I don’t need it – I decline it.

3. Saṅgha-dāna – I accept it whether or not I have any personal use for it.
    ...and this thought arose in the mind of the Blessed One:
    “Who lives without reverence lives miserably.”
    Uruvela Sutta, A.ii.20

    It were endless to dispute upon everything that is disputable.
    — William Penn Some Fruits of Solitude,
User avatar
Dhammanando
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Wat Pa Mieng Khun Pang, Chiang Mai

Re: Are Theravadins Simpler ?

Postby arijitmitter » Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:14 pm

Modus.Ponens wrote:Realy? Do you realise that a monastic movement in that direction would inevitably cause a schism?


Schism of what ? Most of those who posted a reply, asked me to accept any possible transgressions with blind faith that the monks in question were allowed by the Vinay or they will not have done so . But the world is way past that point of blind faith.

Please understand there are two types of Theravadins (and / or Buddhists) (at least) in present day -

1 ) Those who put a lot of faith in the structure, the rules, the system. To them any change in status quo might be annoying. (I am not speaking of Bhikkhus but disciples)

2 ) Those who in course of searching for a body of knowledge chanced upon Theravada (and / or Buddhism) and was attracted by its simplicity. A person like me. To me Theravada will go on existing with or without monks. It has been printed into books. Knowledge of mindfulness has spread to non monk teachers who teach it both in secular and orthodox way. Once a religion becomes democratic in this manner the fate of the clergy does not matter any more (specially since Theravada has very little liturgy unlike Hinduism)

I do not accept that a person in ochre robes is necessarily a Noble One. I do not accept that a person not in an ochre robe is necessarily not a Noble One.

A few days back there was a massive brouhaha because a respected Ajahn had disrobed after some 38 years and married. It seemed to people like me much ado about nothing. Let the man do what he is happy with. Why put a notional burden on his shoulder.

How utterly ludicrous it was. The man was happy being a monk for many years. The man fell in love. The man left being a monk and married. Matter finished.

Dhammanando wrote:As for your other hypothetical scenarios, you can just apply the following rubric:

1. Puggalika-dāna and I need it; I accept it.
1.1. If invited I go for inexpensive.
1.2. If not invited I accept what’s offered.

2. Puggalika-dāna and I don’t need it – I decline it.

3. Saṅgha-dāna – I accept it whether or not I have any personal use for it.


Venerable Dhammanando thank you for very succinct and suitable explanations. It is on Bhantes like you Sir that Theravada in wider and more educated world depends on for understanding based faith.

May I also commend you about your excellent choice of luggage.

:anjali: Arijit
Last edited by arijitmitter on Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
arijitmitter
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Are Theravadins Simpler ?

Postby Sanjay PS » Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:24 pm

Lord Buddha once asked the Bhikkus to rub and powder down a sandalwood imperial throne chair that was gifted to him. The powder was then made as a medicinal eye ointment .

i think it is entirely uncalled for us laity to evaluate or contemplate a" perceived " or factual short coming of those who have donned the robe . There is the proper Sangha in place to deal and manage any conducts that spills over the Vinaya . Whenever we pay our deep respects to the members of Sangha it is the qualities of the Sangha to which we stand inspired , devoid of the individuals inclination . And i am sure , a natural feeling of gratitude emanates with reverence making us want to provide the best .

i am reminded of an incident during Emperor Ashokas time .

Emperor Ashoka had a younger brother called Vitashoka , who was quite troubled in seeing the best of dana that was being bestowed on the Sangha by his elder brother . This discontent came onto the ears of the Emperor , and he immediately gave order that his younger brothers head to be chopped off , however , this punishment be resorted after a lapse of 7 days . During these 7 days Vitashoka was pampered with the best of food and other senses of gaiety and ultra luxurious comfort . On the 7th day morning , Ashoka himself went on to check on his younger brother , and found Vitashoka , pale and shriveled with worry . The Emperor asked him why was this so , even though no stone was left unturned in providing the best of luxuries that were bestowed upon him all through the 7 days . Vitashoka replied how was he expected to enjoy all the fine living , when he knew that in 7 days time , he would be executed .

Emperor Ashoka said that Vitashoka was indeed very wise , and should go on to broaden his understanding of the efforts that the Sangha does in living as closely as possible to the truth of the " here and now" execution of our living .

The younger brother of Emperor Ashoka went on to become an Arhant .


sanjay
Last edited by Sanjay PS on Sat Oct 26, 2013 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sanjay PS
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 2:26 pm

Re: Are Theravadins Simpler ?

Postby Modus.Ponens » Sat Oct 26, 2013 1:29 pm

arijitmitter wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote:Realy? Do you realise that a monastic movement in that direction would inevitably cause a schism?


Schism of what ? Most of those who posted a reply, asked me to accept any possible transgressions with blind faith that the monks in question were allowed by the Vinay or they will not have done so . But the world is way past that point of blind faith.

Please understand there are two types of Theravadins (and / or Buddhists) (at least) in present day -

1 ) Those who put a lot of faith in the structure, the rules, the system. To them any change in status quo might be annoying. (I am not speaking of Bhikkhus but disciples)

2 ) Those who in course of searching for a body of knowledge chanced upon Theravada (and / or Buddhism) and was attracted by its simplicity. A person like me. To me Theravada will go on existing with or without monks. It has been printed into books. Knowledge of mindfulness has spread to non monk teachers who teach it both in secular and orthodox way. Once a religion becomes democratic in this manner the fate of the clergy does not matter any more (specially since Theravada has very little liturgy unlike Hinduism)

I do not accept that a person in ochre robes is necessarily a Noble One. I do not accept that a person not in an ochre robe is necessarily not a Noble One.

A few days back there was a massive brouhaha because a respected Ajahn had disrobed after some 38 years and married. It seemed to people like me much ado about nothing. Let the man do what he is happy with. Why put a notional burden on his shoulder.

How utterly ludicrous it was. The man was happy being a monk for many years. The man fell in love. The man left being a monk and married. Matter finished.

Dhammanando wrote:As for your other hypothetical scenarios, you can just apply the following rubric:

1. Puggalika-dāna and I need it; I accept it.
1.1. If invited I go for inexpensive.
1.2. If not invited I accept what’s offered.

2. Puggalika-dāna and I don’t need it – I decline it.

3. Saṅgha-dāna – I accept it whether or not I have any personal use for it.


Venerable Dhammanando thank you for very succinct and suitable explanations. It is on Bhantes like you Sir that Theravada in wider and more educated world depends on for understanding based faith.

May I also commend you about your excellent choice of luggage.

:anjali: Arijit


Nothing of what you said contradicts the phrase that I wrote: If there was a monastic movement in that direction, there would be a schism.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
 
Posts: 2004
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Funchal, Portugal

Re: Are Theravadins Simpler ?

Postby arijitmitter » Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:02 pm

Modus.Ponens wrote:Nothing of what you said contradicts the phrase that I wrote: If there was a monastic movement in that direction, there would be a schism.


"Schism of what" in my previous post to be read as "does it matter." If Thai Buddhism vanished tomorrow or Dharamsala Buddhism vanished tomorrow - if there were no longer any ordained monks (assume all ordained monks were abducted by aliens tonight) will our search for Dhamma end or slow down ?

There appears to be a clear divide among those who have read this thread. I am more democratic and unwilling to accept anything on blind faith and question anything that seems slightly inappropriate. Perhaps this comes, because as a householder I lead a life that can be called an urban monk.

Yesterday at the monastery I attend, I was asked by the abbot that since I am already following Dhamma with such gusto and am single why do I not think of becoming a monk. I said I have been toying with the idea for last 2 months but I have to look after my mother and can only consider it once she passes away. I am already 43 and change and do not think becoming a Bhikkhu at a reasonably advanced age of 44 to 60 is a good idea.

The abbot appreciated my candor and said the door is always open for me (Please bear in mind that on June 1, 2013 I walked into his monastery and declared I want to be converted to being a Theravadin Buddhist so my rise in his eyes has been quite fast. Not all lay devotees get an invitation to be a monk after 4 months and 25 days. So I must have some "monk" potential). This is not to be arrogant but to show that i am apart from being argumentative at times a deeply dedicated person on path of Dhamma.

What struck me is he was willing to bring up the discussion of becoming a monk with a person as unorthodox as me. That itself speaks volumes about any possible "schism"

:anjali: Arijit
arijitmitter
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Are Theravadins Simpler ?

Postby chownah » Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:48 pm

Sanjay PS wrote:
i think it is entirely uncalled for us laity to evaluate or contemplate a" perceived " or factual short coming of those who have donned the robe . There is the proper Sangha in place to deal and manage any conducts that spills over the Vinaya . Whenever we pay our deep respects to the members of Sangha it is the qualities of the Sangha to which we stand inspired , and not an action of any individual . And i am sure , its only with a natural feeling that what we provided the best .

Sanjay,
I am confused as to who "we" refers to......from my experience what you say does not apply to all Buddhists.
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2718
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Are Theravadins Simpler ?

Postby Sanjay PS » Sat Oct 26, 2013 3:18 pm

chownah wrote:
Sanjay PS wrote:
i think it is entirely uncalled for us laity to evaluate or contemplate a" perceived " or factual short coming of those who have donned the robe . There is the proper Sangha in place to deal and manage any conducts that spills over the Vinaya . Whenever we pay our deep respects to the members of Sangha it is the qualities of the Sangha to which we stand inspired , and not an action of any individual . And i am sure , its only with a natural feeling that what we provided the best .

Sanjay,
I am confused as to who "we" refers to......from my experience what you say does not apply to all Buddhists.
chownah


Chownah ,

We applies to anyone who has great reverence to The Buddha , The Dhamma and The Sangha , immaterial of whether one calls himself or herself as a Buddhist or not . And i am sure, i am just but a drop in the ocean of gratitude .

sanjay
Sanjay PS
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 2:26 pm

Re: Are Theravadins Simpler ?

Postby Modus.Ponens » Sat Oct 26, 2013 3:32 pm

arijitmitter wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote:Nothing of what you said contradicts the phrase that I wrote: If there was a monastic movement in that direction, there would be a schism.


"Schism of what" in my previous post to be read as "does it matter." If Thai Buddhism vanished tomorrow or Dharamsala Buddhism vanished tomorrow - if there were no longer any ordained monks (assume all ordained monks were abducted by aliens tonight) will our search for Dhamma end or slow down ?

There appears to be a clear divide among those who have read this thread. I am more democratic and unwilling to accept anything on blind faith and question anything that seems slightly inappropriate. Perhaps this comes, because as a householder I lead a life that can be called an urban monk.

Yesterday at the monastery I attend, I was asked by the abbot that since I am already following Dhamma with such gusto and am single why do I not think of becoming a monk. I said I have been toying with the idea for last 2 months but I have to look after my mother and can only consider it once she passes away. I am already 43 and change and do not think becoming a Bhikkhu at a reasonably advanced age of 44 to 60 is a good idea.

The abbot appreciated my candor and said the door is always open for me (Please bear in mind that on June 1, 2013 I walked into his monastery and declared I want to be converted to being a Theravadin Buddhist so my rise in his eyes has been quite fast. Not all lay devotees get an invitation to be a monk after 4 months and 25 days. So I must have some "monk" potential). This is not to be arrogant but to show that i am apart from being argumentative at times a deeply dedicated person on path of Dhamma.

What struck me is he was willing to bring up the discussion of becoming a monk with a person as unorthodox as me. That itself speaks volumes about any possible "schism"

:anjali: Arijit


Jesus. Man, your attitude is the one of intelectual pride, not intelectual rigour. If you stop to think for half an hour you'll understand why it would be catastrophic if the ordained sangha disapeared tomorrow. But think about it, not from the perspective of "organised religion is crap", but from the objective perspective. I've seen many, many people along the years come here with the same I-know-better attitude. And it's all the same: intelectual vanity. Most people like you don't have the courage to think in a different manner. You are so proud of your own understanding of things, your own views, that you think such an absurd thing as the ordained sangha being obsolete. You went for refuge 5 months ago. Don't be so proud of views on something you know little of.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
 
Posts: 2004
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Funchal, Portugal

Re: Are Theravadins Simpler ?

Postby arijitmitter » Sat Oct 26, 2013 3:33 pm

Sanjay PS wrote:i think it is entirely uncalled for us laity to evaluate or contemplate a" perceived " or factual short coming of those who have donned the robe . There is the proper Sangha in place to deal and manage any conducts that spills over the Vinaya . Whenever we pay our deep respects to the members of Sangha it is the qualities of the Sangha to which we stand inspired , devoid of the individuals inclination . And i am sure , a natural feeling of gratitude emanates with reverence making us want to provide the best .


Can you explain this by your concept of self correcting Sangha ?

http://news.yahoo.com/scandal-jet-setti ... 38071.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOaLYryhivQ

These monks did not buy their ipod and sunglasses and expensive luggage the day the video was shot. It must have been on going.

How is this different than the German Bishop who spent $ 43 million to renovate his home and $ 15000 on a bathtub ?

http://news.yahoo.com/pope-banishes-ger ... 54932.html
Last edited by arijitmitter on Sat Oct 26, 2013 4:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
arijitmitter
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Are Theravadins Simpler ?

Postby arijitmitter » Sat Oct 26, 2013 3:38 pm

Modus.Ponens wrote:
arijitmitter wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote:Nothing of what you said contradicts the phrase that I wrote: If there was a monastic movement in that direction, there would be a schism.


"Schism of what" in my previous post to be read as "does it matter." If Thai Buddhism vanished tomorrow or Dharamsala Buddhism vanished tomorrow - if there were no longer any ordained monks (assume all ordained monks were abducted by aliens tonight) will our search for Dhamma end or slow down ?

There appears to be a clear divide among those who have read this thread. I am more democratic and unwilling to accept anything on blind faith and question anything that seems slightly inappropriate. Perhaps this comes, because as a householder I lead a life that can be called an urban monk.

Yesterday at the monastery I attend, I was asked by the abbot that since I am already following Dhamma with such gusto and am single why do I not think of becoming a monk. I said I have been toying with the idea for last 2 months but I have to look after my mother and can only consider it once she passes away. I am already 43 and change and do not think becoming a Bhikkhu at a reasonably advanced age of 44 to 60 is a good idea.

The abbot appreciated my candor and said the door is always open for me (Please bear in mind that on June 1, 2013 I walked into his monastery and declared I want to be converted to being a Theravadin Buddhist so my rise in his eyes has been quite fast. Not all lay devotees get an invitation to be a monk after 4 months and 25 days. So I must have some "monk" potential). This is not to be arrogant but to show that i am apart from being argumentative at times a deeply dedicated person on path of Dhamma.

What struck me is he was willing to bring up the discussion of becoming a monk with a person as unorthodox as me. That itself speaks volumes about any possible "schism"

:anjali: Arijit


Jesus. Man, your attitude is the one of intelectual pride, not intelectual rigour. If you stop to think for half an hour you'll understand why it would be catastrophic if the ordained sangha disapeared tomorrow. But think about it, not from the perspective of "organised religion is crap", but from the objective perspective. I've seen many, many people along the years come here with the same I-know-better attitude. And it's all the same: intelectual vanity. Most people like you don't have the courage to think in a different manner. You are so proud of your own understanding of things, your own views, that you think such an absurd thing as the ordained sangha being obsolete. You went for refuge 5 months ago. Don't be so proud of views on something you know little of.


Well thankfully my abbot has a different idea :smile:

I never said organised religion is crap and never said Sangha is obsolete. Then I will not have been a dutiful disciple of Buddha. But yes I question the "do not question" mindset you so amply display. Sorry for the "schism".

All I said was if aliens abducted the whole Sangha of monks tonight our search for Dhamma will continue unabated. How is that intellectual vanity / lack of intellectual rigor. Are you saying my self confidence that I can do it on my own with or without Sangha is a bad thing ? Well Ajahn Brahm was excommunicated. He is following the path of Dhamma quite well on his own. Will you not agree ?

All that few of us said here was that perhaps a small change in keeping with the times is needed instead of blind allegiance. If you feel threatened by that suggestion then you lack intellectual rigor since the ability to entertain opposing ideas in the mind is mark of an intellectual.

Kindly do not use words like Jesus. It is taking the Lord's name in vain. No reason why we cannot be polite to other religions.
arijitmitter
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Are Theravadins Simpler ?

Postby daverupa » Sat Oct 26, 2013 4:23 pm

arijitmitter wrote:Kindly do not use words like Jesus. It is taking the Lord's name in vain. No reason why we cannot be polite to other religions.


Well, it's part of certain colloquial speech phrases in the West, so to that extent it's not taking the Lord's name in vain, it's speaking casually.

Besides, "Jesus" is based on a mistranslation. The lad's name was Joshua.

:focus:
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4179
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Are Theravadins Simpler ?

Postby Mr Man » Sat Oct 26, 2013 5:15 pm

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:
Mr Man wrote:If we look at the "The Ten Reasons For Setting Down The Rules Of A Mendicant" http://cittasanto.weebly.com/2/post/2012/07/the-ten-reasons-for-setting-down-the-rules-of-a-mendicant-vinmv1511-vin11511.html (thank you Cittasanto).

That is a very free translation. This is mine:
  1. For the excellence of the Saṅgha (Saṅghasuṭṭhutāya).
  2. For the well-being of the Saṅgha (Saṅghaphāsutāya).
  3. To control wicked individuals (Dummaṅkūnaṃ puggalānaṃ niggahāya).
  4. For the comfort of well-behaved bhikkhus (Pesalānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ phāsuvihārāya).
  5. To restrain present taints (Diṭṭhadhammikānaṃ āsavānaṃ saṃvarāya).
  6. To prevent the arising of future taints (Samparāyikānaṃ āsavānaṃ paṭighātāya).
  7. To arouse faith in those who lack faith(Appasannānaṃ pasādāya).
  8. To strengthen faith in those who have faith(Pasannānaṃ bhiyyobhāvāya).
  9. To establish the true Dhamma (Saddhammaṭṭhitiyā).
  10. To support the Vinaya (Vinayānuggahāya).” (A v 70)


Thank you Bhikkhu Pesala. Cittasanto does say on his blog "All translations here are from Pali to English by Cittasanto, done for personal reflection and understanding, not as expert translations. Please read translations by other translators who are far more skilled in the Pali language such as Thanissaro Bhikkhu (Ajahn Geoff) or Ven. Bhikkhu Bhodhi." So possibly it wasn't the best source.
:anjali:
User avatar
Mr Man
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Are Theravadins Simpler ?

Postby Modus.Ponens » Sat Oct 26, 2013 5:17 pm

arijitmitter wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote:
Jesus. Man, your attitude is the one of intelectual pride, not intelectual rigour. If you stop to think for half an hour you'll understand why it would be catastrophic if the ordained sangha disapeared tomorrow. But think about it, not from the perspective of "organised religion is crap", but from the objective perspective. I've seen many, many people along the years come here with the same I-know-better attitude. And it's all the same: intelectual vanity. Most people like you don't have the courage to think in a different manner. You are so proud of your own understanding of things, your own views, that you think such an absurd thing as the ordained sangha being obsolete. You went for refuge 5 months ago. Don't be so proud of views on something you know little of.


Well thankfully my abbot has a different idea :smile:

I never said organised religion is crap and never said Sangha is obsolete. Then I will not have been a dutiful disciple of Buddha. But yes I question the "do not question" mindset you so amply display. Sorry for the "schism".

All I said was if aliens abducted the whole Sangha of monks tonight our search for Dhamma will continue unabated. How is that intellectual vanity / lack of intellectual rigor. Are you saying my self confidence that I can do it on my own with or without Sangha is a bad thing ? Well Ajahn Brahm was excommunicated. He is following the path of Dhamma quite well on his own. Will you not agree ?

All that few of us said here was that perhaps a small change in keeping with the times is needed instead of blind allegiance. If you feel threatened by that suggestion then you lack intellectual rigor since the ability to entertain opposing ideas in the mind is mark of an intellectual.

Kindly do not use words like Jesus. It is taking the Lord's name in vain. No reason why we cannot be polite to other religions.


First of all I was responding to alan. He said "I suggest we throw away the old rulebook, and come up with a new way of understanding how to live and teach.". If being against this is having blind faith, I don't know what to tell you.

I was writing more text to reply, but I realise it's futile and, worse, food for mine and your defilements. I just hope that you reflect on the outstanding value of the ordained sangha in this world.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
 
Posts: 2004
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Funchal, Portugal

Re: Are Theravadins Simpler ?

Postby mikenz66 » Sat Oct 26, 2013 8:46 pm

arijitmitter wrote: If Thai Buddhism vanished tomorrow or Dharamsala Buddhism vanished tomorrow - if there were no longer any ordained monks (assume all ordained monks were abducted by aliens tonight) will our search for Dhamma end or slow down ?

Sure would have for me. In my experience, Buddha-Dhamma isn't just some intellectual pursuit based on analysing ancient texts. [In my day job I do intellectual analysis, so I do actually tend to do a lot of it when it comes to Dhamma, but I don't think it's as important as many modern Buddhists think...]

I've not been a monk, but, like anyone who hangs around a monastery for a while, it becomes obvious that there is more to Buddhism than intellect, and that many of the lay people who get up early to feed the monks are actually much more developed than I am, though they probably can't quote all the suttas that I can... Without the focus of our monastery, developing a long-term approach to Dhamma would be very difficult for m.

As I said, I haven't been a monk, but I have had some retreat experience that has some relevance to the topic of discussion. On retreats I'm treated roughly as a novice monk, eating at the same time as the monks (at a different table), and having lay people almost tripping over each other to put the food they cooked on my tray. The food is usually amazing, and generally 3-4 times what I could usefully eat. Occasionally it's not so amazing. After a few days of this routine, it's interesting to see how the mind is working with it: The hope that I'll get one of my favourite dishes; the disappointment when I don't; sometimes the realisation that this whole eating thing is a bit of a waste of time, getting in the way of my practice by both taking up time and making me sleepy for the next couple of hours.

My impression is that a large part of the monastic training is to deal with such feelings in the long term. Sometimes having wonderful food, sometimes not, sometimes being taken somewhere, sometimes not.

I could easily find things to criticise about monastics I've observed, here or in Thailand. However I would question the usefulness of that (apart from the truly outrageous, of course). The monastic training is like the precepts - it's a training. Some are doing well with it, some not.

Overall, the whole system has given me an enormous amount of help in understanding Dhamma. I personally wouldn't have any understanding if I had only had ancient books to rely on. Of course, others may have different experiences.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10393
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Are Theravadins Simpler ?

Postby PeterB » Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:34 pm

daverupa wrote:
arijitmitter wrote:Kindly do not use words like Jesus. It is taking the Lord's name in vain. No reason why we cannot be polite to other religions.


Well, it's part of certain colloquial speech phrases in the West, so to that extent it's not taking the Lord's name in vain, it's speaking casually.

Besides, "Jesus" is based on a mistranslation. The lad's name was Joshua.

:focus:

Not so actually. That's another latinisation.
The lad's name is Y'shua. :focus:
PeterB
 
Posts: 3903
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Are Theravadins Simpler ?

Postby arijitmitter » Sun Oct 27, 2013 1:15 am

daverupa wrote:
arijitmitter wrote:Kindly do not use words like Jesus. It is taking the Lord's name in vain. No reason why we cannot be polite to other religions.


Well, it's part of certain colloquial speech phrases in the West, so to that extent it's not taking the Lord's name in vain, it's speaking casually.

Besides, "Jesus" is based on a mistranslation. The lad's name was Joshua.

:focus:


Just to correct your mistake -
"How do you define the sin of taking the Lord's name in vain?
Well that's a quote from the Ten Commandments: "Don't take the name of the Lord your God in vain." The idea of vanity (and I think the Hebrew carries this connotation) is "don't empty the name."
So it doesn't just refer to a certain tone of voice or a certain use of the word. It's dealing with God and speaking of God in a way that empties him of his significance.
This includes both throw-away words—like "God!" or "Jesus!"—as well as speaking about him in trifling and flippant ways. Not just swear ways but cheap ways, low and insignificant ways that just treat him like a commodity. And when you hear them you sense that there is no weight to that sentence, no corresponding emotion to that statement. It seems to have just been gutted."
http://www.christianity.com/theology/wh ... 00552.html

I almost turned a Catholic at age 25, so I have slightly more knowledge of Christianity than can be expected of a person who is not Christian. It is a part of colloquial speech in West and I am more than familiar with that also thanks to things like books and movies and television. Colloquial speech can be quite flowery. It is best to abstain from it when discussing serious topics.

:focus:
Last edited by arijitmitter on Sun Oct 27, 2013 1:40 am, edited 2 times in total.
arijitmitter
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Are Theravadins Simpler ?

Postby dagon » Sun Oct 27, 2013 1:25 am

arijitmitter wrote:
daverupa wrote:
arijitmitter wrote:Kindly do not use words like Jesus. It is taking the Lord's name in vain. No reason why we cannot be polite to other religions.


Well, it's part of certain colloquial speech phrases in the West, so to that extent it's not taking the Lord's name in vain, it's speaking casually.

Besides, "Jesus" is based on a mistranslation. The lad's name was Joshua.

:focus:


Just to correct your mistake -
"How do you define the sin of taking the Lord's name in vain?
Well that's a quote from the Ten Commandments: "Don't take the name of the Lord your God in vain." The idea of vanity (and I think the Hebrew carries this connotation) is "don't empty the name."
So it doesn't just refer to a certain tone of voice or a certain use of the word. It's dealing with God and speaking of God in a way that empties him of his significance.
This includes both throw-away words—like "God!" or "Jesus!"—as well as speaking about him in trifling and flippant ways. Not just swear ways but cheap ways, low and insignificant ways that just treat him like a commodity. And when you hear them you sense that there is no weight to that sentence, no corresponding emotion to that statement. It seems to have just been gutted."
http://www.christianity.com/theology/wh ... 00552.html

I almost turned a Catholic at age 25, so I have slightly more knowledge of Christianity than can be expected of a person who is not Christian. It is a part of colloquial speech in West and I am more than familiar with that also thanks to things like books and movies and television. Colloquial speech can be quite flowery. It is best to abstain from it when discussing serious topics.

:focus:


Perhaps you have come to the wrong forum.
Honestly i do not think that you, of all people, should be trying to lecture anybody - except your self.

metta
paul
dagon
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 12:45 am

Re: Are Theravadins Simpler ?

Postby arijitmitter » Sun Oct 27, 2013 1:39 am

dagon wrote:Perhaps you have come to the wrong forum.
Honestly i do not think that you, of all people, should be trying to lecture anybody - except your self.

metta
paul


I am not sure what I did to arouse such ire. From opening post I have argued with reason and without malice. One topic led to another. That is not my fault.

And if some one tells me "Jesus" is not a taking the Lord's name in vain I have every right to correct it.

And what does "you of all people" mean. Not a phrase befitting a man who is well versed in scriptures like you. I would have taken offense but being a Buddhist I have learned to pass over injuries.
arijitmitter
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Are Theravadins Simpler ?

Postby dagon » Sun Oct 27, 2013 1:55 am

arijitmitter wrote:
dagon wrote:Perhaps you have come to the wrong forum.
Honestly i do not think that you, of all people, should be trying to lecture anybody - except your self.

metta
paul


I am not sure what I did to arouse such ire. From opening post I have argued with reason and without malice. One topic led to another. That is not my fault.

And if some one tells me "Jesus" is not a taking the Lord's name in vain I have every right to correct it.

And what does "you of all people" mean. Not a phrase befitting a man who is well versed in scriptures like you. I would have taken offense but being a Buddhist I have learned to pass over injuries.


Actually what you have aroused is metta and compassion from people here - unfortunately you have not had the insight to see that.

You have attacked members of the Sangah without knowing the facts - that is slander. I could continue from there but it would be pointless as you do not listen to the advice that you have been given. Basically my friend if you stopped listening to you self for a short while you MAY learn something that is of value.

metta
paul
dagon
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 12:45 am

Re: Are Theravadins Simpler ?

Postby arijitmitter » Sun Oct 27, 2013 2:05 am

dagon wrote:Actually what you have aroused is metta and compassion from people here - unfortunately you have not had the insight to see that.

You have attacked members of the Sangah without knowing the facts - that is slander. I could continue from there but it would be pointless as you do not listen to the advice that you have been given. Basically my friend if you stopped listening to you self for a short while you MAY learn something that is of value.

metta
paul


Thank you for making me object of your compassion. Please read the entire thread. I have not slandered the Sangha or any member if it. I have replied with great deal of respect to Venerable Pesala and Venerable Dhammanando. I have addressed them as Sir. I do not address any other member as Sir except a Bhante.

The thread arose because there was surprise at seeing a monk in business class - something Venerable Dhammanando cleared up.

Someone else suggested new Vinay / rule book.

Then one topic led to another with me finally asking that if entire Sangha vanished will search for Dhamma vanish ? I also clarified at same time I did not wish Sangha to vanish and it was just an exploratory question.
arijitmitter
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:24 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Digity, Kumara and 8 guests