IMHO if something is particular important you should emphasize it. I hadn't noticed it anyway.cooran wrote:The OP asked for information only from those ''who are, or have been ordained''.'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.
with metta
Chris
When do the "spirit" and the "letter" come into conflict?
Re: When do the "spirit" and the "letter" come into conflict?
Suffering is asking from life what it can never give you.
If you see any unskillful speech (or other action) from me let me know, so I can learn from it.mindfulness, bliss and beyond (page 8) wrote:Do not linger on the past. Do not keep carrying around coffins full of dead moments
- Goofaholix
- Posts: 4017
- Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
- Location: New Zealand
Re: When do the "spirit" and the "letter" come into conflict?
Yes, much of the vinaya is about maintaining good repute, so smoking violates the spirit though not the letter.Cittasanto wrote:in western societies at least smoking is looked down upon, so it would bring a bad repute, to an extent also.
The intention being to kill the monks slowly?Cittasanto wrote:but any offering brings results, it is the intention of the offering which would increase or decrease the punna.
Perhaps if any offering brings results we should offer porno magazines.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: When do the "spirit" and the "letter" come into conflict?
not in every case.Goofaholix wrote:Yes, much of the vinaya is about maintaining good repute, so smoking violates the spirit though not the letter.Cittasanto wrote:in western societies at least smoking is looked down upon, so it would bring a bad repute, to an extent also.
I did not know this thread was intended to be about offerings to monastics!Goofaholix wrote:The intention being to kill the monks slowly?Cittasanto wrote:but any offering brings results, it is the intention of the offering which would increase or decrease the punna.
Perhaps if any offering brings results we should offer porno magazines.
I thought it was about monastic practice of the rules.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Re: When do the "spirit" and the "letter" come into conflict?
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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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.
--------------------------------
chownah
-------------------------
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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
- Posts: 4017
- Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
- Location: New Zealand
Re: When do the "spirit" and the "letter" come into conflict?
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.Cittasanto wrote:I did not know this thread was intended to be about offerings to monastics!
I thought it was about monastic practice of the rules.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: When do the "spirit" and the "letter" come into conflict?
as was said to me, "we are the ones expected to know the rules not the lay people, we have the option to accept or not."Goofaholix wrote: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.Cittasanto wrote:I did not know this thread was intended to be about offerings to monastics!
I thought it was about monastic practice of the rules.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
- Goofaholix
- Posts: 4017
- Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
- Location: New Zealand
Re: When do the "spirit" and the "letter" come into conflict?
That's how it is in asia where it is commonly giving for the sake of giving for the sake of merit and monks end up with all this stuff that they don't need or want.Cittasanto wrote:as was said to me, "we are the ones expected to know the rules not the lay people, we have the option to accept or not."
I don't think westerners are like that, I think we are more interested in taking personal responsibility for our actions rather than relying on the monks to refuse whatever isn't appropriate.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17191
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: When do the "spirit" and the "letter" come into conflict?
Should any bhikkhu chew or consume staple or non-staple food at the wrong time, it is to be confessed.Cittasanto wrote:Sorry where does the Vinaya say dairy is food, and not allowable?Ytrog wrote:The Vinaya indeed states that it is forbidden to eat after noon and that dairy products are also food,
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.
Pācittiya 37
From what I understand, the tonics for health including milk and dairy products are only for a bhikkhu who is ill. Otherwise, they are not allowed to be eaten / drank after noon.
Perhaps right here we see the letter and spirit coming in conflict. The Vinaya cannot specify every possible food that is not allowed. It does not specify many foods that are around today, but we can use the spirit of the teachings to see that anything with substance, i.e, with calories, would not be allowed.
As for juice drinks, the five tonics, and medicine, there is a dukkaṭa for accepting them at the wrong time to be used as food, and another dukkaṭa for eating them at the wrong time as food.
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.
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: When do the "spirit" and the "letter" come into conflict?
Hi David,
the context for this rule is quite loose, it can mean anything from hungry to bed riden. I can not remember the word used g... but Ajahn Brahm gives a detailed breakdown of it in his notes and I think Ajahn Thanisaro also does.
(EDIT - I think it is gilana??)
the context for this rule is quite loose, it can mean anything from hungry to bed riden. I can not remember the word used g... but Ajahn Brahm gives a detailed breakdown of it in his notes and I think Ajahn Thanisaro also does.
(EDIT - I think it is gilana??)
David N. Snyder wrote:Should any bhikkhu chew or consume staple or non-staple food at the wrong time, it is to be confessed.Cittasanto wrote:Sorry where does the Vinaya say dairy is food, and not allowable?Ytrog wrote:The Vinaya indeed states that it is forbidden to eat after noon and that dairy products are also food,
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.
Pācittiya 37
From what I understand, the tonics for health including milk and dairy products are only for a bhikkhu who is ill. Otherwise, they are not allowed to be eaten / drank after noon.
Perhaps right here we see the letter and spirit coming in conflict. The Vinaya cannot specify every possible food that is not allowed. It does not specify many foods that are around today, but we can use the spirit of the teachings to see that anything with substance, i.e, with calories, would not be allowed.
As for juice drinks, the five tonics, and medicine, there is a dukkaṭa for accepting them at the wrong time to be used as food, and another dukkaṭa for eating them at the wrong time as food.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.
Last edited by Cittasanto on Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: When do the "spirit" and the "letter" come into conflict?
it is still up to them to refuse offerings, we can decide what to offer them, but they can still refuse if they see fit.Goofaholix wrote:That's how it is in asia where it is commonly giving for the sake of giving for the sake of merit and monks end up with all this stuff that they don't need or want.Cittasanto wrote:as was said to me, "we are the ones expected to know the rules not the lay people, we have the option to accept or not."
I don't think westerners are like that, I think we are more interested in taking personal responsibility for our actions rather than relying on the monks to refuse whatever isn't appropriate.
I see no need in this thread to be going down this line of what is offered.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17191
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: When do the "spirit" and the "letter" come into conflict?
The "spirit" of the teachings can be used (incorrectly) to justify just about any behavior or violation of a precept. The "letter" of the teachings can be used (incorrectly) to take a rigid, almost fundamentalist stance to the detriment of the Dhamma.
There are plenty of examples in Ven. Dhammika's Broken Buddha.
In my opinion, precepts dealing with food are pretty hard-core where the 'letter' is meant. Things dealing with the image of Buddhism and compassion; then the 'spirit' becomes important. For example, when Bhikkhu Pesala and other monks accepted the hand shake of the Queen when she reached out to the monks.
There are plenty of examples in Ven. Dhammika's Broken Buddha.
In my opinion, precepts dealing with food are pretty hard-core where the 'letter' is meant. Things dealing with the image of Buddhism and compassion; then the 'spirit' becomes important. For example, when Bhikkhu Pesala and other monks accepted the hand shake of the Queen when she reached out to the monks.
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17191
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: When do the "spirit" and the "letter" come into conflict?
gilana : [nt.] swallowing. || gilāna (adj.), sick; unwell; a sick person.Cittasanto wrote: the context for this rule is quite loose, it can mean anything from hungry to bed riden. I can not remember the word used g... but Ajahn Brahm gives a detailed breakdown of it in his notes and I think Ajahn Thanisaro also does.
(EDIT - I think it is gilana??)
- Goofaholix
- Posts: 4017
- Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
- Location: New Zealand
Re: When do the "spirit" and the "letter" come into conflict?
I think it's very material to the subject of this thread, as not being fussy is an important part of mendicancy, and not being seen to be fussy is important to maintain good repute.Cittasanto wrote:it is still up to them to refuse offerings, we can decide what to offer them, but they can still refuse if they see fit.
I see no need in this thread to be going down this line of what is offered.
Monks being put into the position of having to refuse offerings creates an awkward situation, a situation that may cause embarrassment to the lay person, a situation where monks appear to not be practising in the spirit of non-preference and not maintaining good repute.
Not so much where the offering is clearly in the wrong, as then it's an opportunity for the monk to teach the lay person.
However when it's a grey area, or one where in some cultures or monasteries or circumstances it's acceptable and others not, then I think it's important for lay people to be sensitive to what is or is not in the letter of the vinaya and also what is or is not in the spirit of it. From what I've observed in these circumstances monks generally graciously or awkwardly accept the offering then later try to find a way of quietly giving away or getting rid of the item offered.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: When do the "spirit" and the "letter" come into conflict?
how do you mean hardcore?David N. Snyder wrote:The "spirit" of the teachings can be used (incorrectly) to justify just about any behavior or violation of a precept. The "letter" of the teachings can be used (incorrectly) to take a rigid, almost fundamentalist stance to the detriment of the Dhamma.
There are plenty of examples in Ven. Dhammika's Broken Buddha.
In my opinion, precepts dealing with food are pretty hard-core where the 'letter' is meant. Things dealing with the image of Buddhism and compassion; then the 'spirit' becomes important. For example, when Bhikkhu Pesala and other monks accepted the hand shake of the Queen when she reached out to the monks.
and yes the second gila(a)na
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: When do the "spirit" and the "letter" come into conflict?
so you are going to dictate what people want to offer?Goofaholix wrote:
I think it's very material to the subject of this thread, as not being fussy is an important part of mendicancy, and not being seen to be fussy is important to maintain good repute.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill