When do the "spirit" and the "letter" come into conflict?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

From another topic... viewtopic.php?f=30&t=11160

If I were ordained (I'm not, and don't ever expect to be) I would try to keep both letter and spirit of the vinaya - but when and if they clashed, I hope I would have the courage and decency to follow the spirit rather than being bound by the letter.

I'm just curious to know from those here who are, or have been ordained, how often the "spirit" and the "letter" of the Vinaya come into conflict.

Is this a regular occurrence, or is it so infrequent as to not even bother talking about?

Metta,
Retro.

[Cittasanto]

Not that I have been fully ordained, but my sense is that they clash when you know something is wrong yet do it anyway.


some things are not wrong in and of themselves, but are a wrongdoing, and as was mentioned by Ajahn Gavesako in the other thread "no-one can remember all the rules all the time" (my wording sorry if it is out of sync with Ajahns meaning) and it is a matter of remembering ones motivations for an act, sometimes these are pure, yet the action is outwardly wrong, and vice versa.

put simply if there is a dissidence created at some level then there is conflict between the two, or the two and oneself.
take an example of lying to save someone's feelings, it maybe a small lie, but it is still a lie, and we may strongly feel it is the right thing to do, however there are other options we chose not to take, there are always other options btw. the rule is not to lie, the spirit is to be truthful, but we have a dissidence around this area.

at the end of the day the rules are not forced upon anyone, they are taken upon oneself, if this causes problems then the problem is somewhere, not necessarily with the rule or spirit or oneself, but could be from outside, I remember Anandas (and others but not the exact situation or names) example at the first council, even though he didn't see any fault he accepted that there was a perception of fault, and confessed it as such for the greater harmony within the sangha.

this is just from my limited experience from following the Anagarika training, and hope it is not out of place and helpful.

[Ytrog]

In The Broken Buddha I read a story about a monk who was very strict in the Vinaya. He received from a lay follower some tea with some milk in it after noon and refused to drink it (not verbally stating that though) while hinting at the follower to get a new cup of tea without milk.

The Vinaya indeed states that it is forbidden to eat after noon and that dairy products are also food, however from what I know about the rule was that the intention is to not inconvenience people by only going on an almsround once a day and to keep your mind from getting drowsy from digesting the food in the evening. Some milk in your tea does not make you drowsy, so that cannot really be the reason for the refusal, but the monk was doing something very inconvenient for the lay follower by getting him another cup without milk.

IMHO this is a good example of strictly following the rules but going completely against the spirit of it.

[Cittasanto]

The Vinaya indeed states that it is forbidden to eat after noon and that dairy products are also food,

Sorry where does the Vinaya say dairy is food, and not allowable?
milk is a gray area, i.e. it isn't specified as off limits or allowable, unless one is travelling, but Ghee is specified as allowable, (a derivative of Butter which is derived from....) and cheese certainly is allowable, although the cheese 2500 years ago would possibly be closer to soft cheese by today's standards.

[Ytrog]

The Vinaya indeed states that it is forbidden to eat after noon and that dairy products are also food,

Sorry where does the Vinaya say dairy is food, and not allowable?
milk is a gray area, i.e. it isn't specified as off limits or allowable, unless one is travelling, but Ghee is specified as allowable, (a derivative of Butter which is derived from....) and cheese certainly is allowable, although the cheese 2500 years ago would possibly be closer to soft cheese by today's standards.

Heard about the dairy from monks tbh.

[daverupa]

Sorry where does the Vinaya say dairy is food, and not allowable?

It is a pācittiya in the following way:

"39. There are these finer staple foods: ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, sugar/molasses, fish, meat, milk, and curds. Should any bhikkhu who is not ill, having requested finer staple foods such as these for his own sake, then consume them, it is to be confessed."

Elsewhere in the Vinaya: "Tenfold, o brahmana, is the merit attached to rice-milk. In what way is it tenfold? He who gives rice-milk, gives life... color... joy... strength... readiness of mind... removes hunger... dispels thirst... sets right the humors of the body... purifies the bladder... promotes the digestion."

[Cittasanto]

Sorry where does the Vinaya say dairy is food, and not allowable?

It is a pācittiya in the following way:

"39. There are these finer staple foods: ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, sugar/molasses, fish, meat, milk, and curds. Should any bhikkhu who is not ill, having requested finer staple foods such as these for his own sake, then consume them, it is to be confessed."

Elsewhere in the Vinaya: "Tenfold, o brahmana, is the merit attached to rice-milk. In what way is it tenfold? He who gives rice-milk, gives life... color... joy... strength... readiness of mind... removes hunger... dispels thirst... sets right the humors of the body... purifies the bladder... promotes the digestion."

sorry but that isn't saying they are not allowable, the meaning here is that if one isn't ill and asks for them they fall under offence, but that isn't making them unallowables, such as a chicken curry is after noon. it stops those from eating when they don't need to. also it doesn't prohibit these things being consumed if offered and not asked for!

there is a provision for milk being allowable when on a journey, ghee is one of the five tonics...
non-allowable and allowable in certain circumstances, be it a lifetime, 7day, or one day allowance is not the same as non-allowable i.e. human flesh, is under no circumstance allowable, chicken is allowable at the proper time...

NP 23. There are these tonics to be taken by sick bhikkhus: ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, sugar/molasses. Having been received, they are to be used from storage seven days at most. Beyond that, they are to be forfeited and confessed.

[daverupa]

sorry but that isn't saying they are not allowable...

No one said they were strictly not allowable. I said only that it was a pacittiya "in the following way", and cited Vinaya. You seem to be reading things which are not written.

[Goofaholix]

Depending on what lineage you are in you have to follow the letter of the vinaya.

There are things that are not in the vinaya but practising them would be in the spirit of the vinaya, so it makes sense to add them. For example smoking, there is no rule against this and a lot of asian monks smoke, but most western monks don't because to us it's very much in the spirit of the vinaya not to smoke. Most westerners when they first see a monk smoking have difficulty believing what they are seeing I think, whereas I've seen asian lay people offer monks cigarettes as if they were no different from food.

If offering a monk food gives good kamma then I wonder what kind of kamma offering them cancer in a stick gives them.

[daverupa]

If offering a monk food gives good kamma then I wonder what kind of kamma offering them cancer in a stick gives them.

I doubt their intention was "I wish to offer you cancer, Venerable..."

[ancientbuddhism]

‘Food for the illness’ (gilānabhatta), is an allowance for sick bhikkhus after noon, although the ‘spirit of the law’ is stretched in some vihāras where gilānabhatta or gilānapaccaya has become the euphemism for dinner.

[cooran]

'm just curious to know from those here who are, or have been ordained, how often the "spirit" and the "letter" of the Vinaya come into conflict.

The OP asked for information only from those ''who are, or have been ordained''.

with metta
Chris

[Goofaholix]

I doubt their intention was "I wish to offer you cancer, Venerable..."

Indeed, so do you think it's fine to abdicate responsibility then?

[ancientbuddhism]

Depending on what lineage you are in you have to follow the letter of the vinaya.

There are things that are not in the vinaya but practising them would be in the spirit of the vinaya, so it makes sense to add them. For example smoking, there is no rule against this and a lot of asian monks smoke, but most western monks don't because to us it's very much in the spirit of the vinaya not to smoke. Most westerners when they first see a monk smoking have difficulty believing what they are seeing I think, whereas I've seen asian lay people offer monks cigarettes as if they were no different from food.

If offering a monk food gives good kamma then I wonder what kind of kamma offering them cancer in a stick gives them.

In my experience tobacco is only offered on piṇḍapāta in rural areas, and then only loose-leaf with nipa-palm leaves for making cigarettes. At jungle vihāras this is considered a medicine as an insect repellant. This may be hard to believe, but I have seen some who ‘imbibe’ only to fumigate the air around them in the evenings.

[Cittasanto]

Depending on what lineage you are in you have to follow the letter of the vinaya.

There are things that are not in the vinaya but practising them would be in the spirit of the vinaya, so it makes sense to add them. For example smoking, there is no rule against this and a lot of asian monks smoke, but most western monks don't because to us it's very much in the spirit of the vinaya not to smoke. Most westerners when they first see a monk smoking have difficulty believing what they are seeing I think, whereas I've seen asian lay people offer monks cigarettes as if they were no different from food.

If offering a monk food gives good kamma then I wonder what kind of kamma offering them cancer in a stick gives them.

depends upon the country and school, Ajahn Chah branch monasteries don't (none of them as far as I am aware) Sri Lanka it would be very unusual, yet, not 100%.
I do not know the reason for different opinions and practices but it does seam to be against the spirit of the vinaya, as it brings extra demand upon the lay supporters, i.e. increases needs rather than provides fewness of needs, in western societies at least smoking is looked down upon, so it would bring a bad repute, to an extent also.
but any offering brings results, it is the intention of the offering which would increase or decrease the punna.

[Ytrog]

'm just curious to know from those here who are, or have been ordained, how often the "spirit" and the "letter" of the Vinaya come into conflict.

The OP asked for information only from those ''who are, or have been ordained''.

with metta
Chris

IMHO if something is particular important you should emphasize it. I hadn't noticed it anyway.

[Goofaholix]

in western societies at least smoking is looked down upon, so it would bring a bad repute, to an extent also.

Yes, much of the vinaya is about maintaining good repute, so smoking violates the spirit though not the letter.

but any offering brings results, it is the intention of the offering which would increase or decrease the punna.

The intention being to kill the monks slowly?

Perhaps if any offering brings results we should offer porno magazines.

[Cittasanto]

in western societies at least smoking is looked down upon, so it would bring a bad repute, to an extent also.

Yes, much of the vinaya is about maintaining good repute, so smoking violates the spirit though not the letter.

not in every case.

but any offering brings results, it is the intention of the offering which would increase or decrease the punna.

The intention being to kill the monks slowly?

Perhaps if any offering brings results we should offer porno magazines.

I did not know this thread was intended to be about offerings to monastics!
I thought it was about monastic practice of the rules.

[chownah]

The Buddha never declared himself to be of the lineage of monks but he did declare himself to be of the lineage of Noble Ones and that he followed the traditions of the Noble Ones. I think that the traditions of the Noble Ones can therefore be taken fairly suredly as being the "spirit" in this matter. The following excerpt from "The Discourse on the Traditions of the Noble Ones" can be taken as the "spirit" and my view is that anything that comes from the "letter" which comes into conflict with this is to be taken as being misunderstood.

chownah
-------------------------
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
AN 4.28 PTS: A ii 27
Ariya-vamsa Sutta: The Discourse on the Traditions of the Noble Ones
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

These four traditions of the Noble Ones — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — are not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and are unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives and priests. Which four?

There is the case where a monk is content with any old robe cloth at all. He speaks in praise of being content with any old robe cloth at all. He does not, for the sake of robe cloth, do anything unseemly or inappropriate. Not getting cloth, he is not agitated. Getting cloth, he uses it not tied to it, uninfatuated, guiltless, seeing the drawbacks (of attachment to it), and discerning the escape from them. He does not, on account of his contentment with any old robe cloth at all, exalt himself or disparage others. In this he is skillful, energetic, alert, and mindful. This, monks, is said to be a monk standing firm in the ancient, original traditions of the Noble Ones.

Furthermore, the monk is content with any old almsfood at all. He speaks in praise of being content with any old almsfood at all. He does not, for the sake of almsfood, do anything unseemly or inappropriate. Not getting almsfood, he is not agitated. Getting almsfood, he uses it not tied to it, uninfatuated, guiltless, seeing the drawbacks (of attachment to it), and discerning the escape from them. He does not, on account of his contentment with any old almsfood at all, exalt himself or disparage others. In this he is skillful, energetic, alert, and mindful. This, monks, is said to be a monk standing firm in the ancient, original traditions of the Noble Ones.

Furthermore, the monk is content with any old lodging at all. He speaks in praise of being content with any old lodging at all. He does not, for the sake of lodging, do anything unseemly or inappropriate. Not getting lodging, he is not agitated. Getting lodging, he uses it not tied to it, uninfatuated, guiltless, seeing the drawbacks (of attachment to it), and discerning the escape from them. He does not, on account of his contentment with any old lodging at all, exalt himself or disparage others. In this he is skillful, energetic, alert, and mindful. This, monks, is said to be a monk standing firm in the ancient, original traditions of the Noble Ones.

Furthermore, the monk finds pleasure and delight in developing (skillful mental qualities), finds pleasure and delight in abandoning (unskillful mental qualities). He does not, on account of his pleasure and delight in developing and abandoning, exalt himself or disparage others. In this he is skillful, energetic, alert, and mindful. This, monks, is said to be a monk standing firm in the ancient, original traditions of the Noble Ones.

These are the four traditions of the Noble Ones — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — which are not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and are unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives and priests.
--------------------------------

[Goofaholix]

I did not know this thread was intended to be about offerings to monastics!
I thought it was about monastic practice of the rules.

Yes, and as lay people surely we have a responsibility to support them in maintaining the spirit and the letter of the rules, rather than putting temptation in front of them just because we want merit regardless of the negative affect the gift may have on the monk.