Thank you for clarifying the various issues.
mikenz66 wrote:Why all this theoretical stuff?
Because the issue may well become a reality for me one day, so I would like to know.
mikenz66 wrote:Goofaholix and others are talking about is how it would work in Asia.
All well and good, but Jack did not define the topic in such a narrow ethnocentric fashion.
Which is why I explained that in Asia a bhikkhu might, for practical reasons, have to look after parents if there was no other support for them, whereas in my country (I may be over-generalizing about "The West") they would generally get at least some basic care from our social welfare system:
mikenz66 wrote:In the West there is generally tax-supported care, so there is less of a pressing issue...
If the Bhikkhu was from somewhere were there was neither lay support, government support, or community support of some kind, then there would be some difficult decisions about whether one could actually continue as a bhikkhu. But no-one said that this would be easy, or that there is a "right to be a bhikkhu".
retrofuturist wrote:Indeed, but it would still be an issue to be addressed. As per Jack's question, "Also say your parents, or one of them were taken ill or had an accident or died, would ones renouncment of attachment extend as far as to ignore these things?"
OK, so there are actually two issues:
1. The practicalities of care.
This has been discussed, somewhat, above.
2. The issue of whether, if the practicalities are not a problem, should one dissociate from one's parents?
I would say that is a matter for the individual.