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

Discussion of ordination, the Vinaya and monastic life. How and where to ordain? Bhikkhuni ordination etc.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17187
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?

Post by DNS »

Cittasanto wrote: how do you mean hardcore?

and yes the second gila(a)na
In my opinion, the precepts regarding food (for bhikkhus and bhikkhunis) are very specific and not meant to have any leeway or adjustment. There is no need for any changes due to cultural reasons or to keep with modern times or any other reason, except perhaps some logistical things relating to alms rounds. But otherwise, not eating after noon means just that. Not requesting or demanding certain choice foods means just that. Graciously accepting what is offered and not hinting for more or something different is just that and still a timeless and wholesome precept. Being ill and taking some food or medicine in the evening is for those who are truly ill, not just because they are hungry.

Some of the precepts relating to food: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .html#food" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
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?

Post by Goofaholix »

Cittasanto wrote:so you are going to dictate what people want to offer?
No, all I'm going to do is discuss the issue, that's what a discussion board is for.
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
User avatar
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?

Post by Cittasanto »

Hi David,
Have you read the Vinaya or only the manuals or commentaries?
there are medicines, which should be used as such, but these are to stave off hunger in some instances, gilāna is a wide encompassing word.
Ajahn Brahm Vinaya Notes volume 1 pp186/7 wrote:The Use of the Five Tonics
The Five Tonics were allowed by the Buddha for the use of monks who were ‘Ill’
(gilana). However, in the Vinaya the Pali word ‘gilana’ has a very wide meaning
covering any physical disorder from mild discomfort to ‘life-threatening’ diseases.

To illustrate the least forms of physical discomfort which still count as ‘gilana’, here
are some examples from the Vinaya:
• A monk having been invited to a meal may eat something beforehand when he
is ‘gilana’ which is defined here as ‘he is not able to eat as much as he pleases
in one sitting’. (from pacittiya 33)
• A monk may ask for and then eat ‘sumptuous’ foods when he is ‘gilana’, here
defined as ‘for whom there does not come to be comfort without a fire’. (from
pacittiya 39)
-----
• A monk may light a fire for the sake of warmth whin he is ‘gilana’, here
defined as’ for whom there does not come to be comfort without fire’. (from
pacittiya 56)
• A monk may bathe more than once a fortnight in the ‘Middle Country’ (the
Ganges Valley) when he is ‘gilana’, here defined as ‘if there cones to be no
comfort for him without bathing, he may bathe thinking ‘this is a gilana
occasion’. (from pacittiya 57)
These examples show that ‘gilana’ at its least can be merely physical discomfort.
Furthermore, there is the following story which shows that a monk who has not had
enough to eat that day is counted as ‘gilana’ and may if he wishes, take any of the
Five Tonics in the afternoon:
A certain monk, as a result of some bad kamma in a previous life, never once got
enough to eat. Every day he went hungry. Ven. Sariputta, having compassion for
this hungry monk, invited him to accompany him on alms round so that at least
once in his life the hungry monk would get a decent meal. Ven. Sariputta had
many supporters and his bowl was soon filled. But, when they both returned to
the monastery, Ven. Sariputta found that, although the hungry monk had followed
behind him, he had received absolutely nothing, So Ven. Sariputta poured the
whole contents of his alms bowl into the hungry monk’s alms bowl. As soon as it
entered the hungry monk’s alms bowl, the food disappeared. Ven. Sariputta was
determined to get this unfortunate monk something to eat and so he went back
into the town again to get an alms bowl full of the Five Tonics for the hungry
monk. When he returned to the monastery, Ven. Sariputta’s resolute attempt to
feed the hungry monk was found to be of no avail. When Ven. Sariputta was
away the hungry monk had died.
This story, and the examples from the Vinaya given before, show that when a monk
has not had enough to eat in the morning (for one reason or another!), or he feels run
down, or he is tired after doing some hard physical work, then in these and similar
situations he is considered ‘gilana’ and may consume any of the Five Tonics at any
time. Of course, when the discomfort takes the form of a sickness such as a cold, or
the flu, or malaria say, then he may also consume any of the Five Tonics at any time.
Because of the way these Five Tonics are used, I have called them ‘Tonics’ rather
than medicines.
The tonics shouldn't be used as a invitation for a meal, but, if they are available and one is gilāna they can be used, and everywhere has different practices due to the WIDE range of interpretation, even with the rules on food. milk as an example is not specifically unallowed, so some temples have it available in the afternoon, Soya milk is used, even though not every temple agrees it is allowed by the great standard.
no adjustments? then the great standard would specify food in an exception.
no leeway? then those doing more work and need some extra energy, or not getting enough food during alms round, would have a very hard time of it.

the rules are not there with no regard for situations, (every rule has its exemptions).
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
User avatar
pilgrim
Posts: 1679
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:56 pm

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

Post by pilgrim »

I feel that definitely the spirit should take precedence over the latter. But when this should be applied should be at the discretion of the individual monk.

Recently I spoke with an Indian monk who lamented that Theravada monks seem to think their central practice is to take their meals before noon. He was at an international religious conference in India. A minute after the President of india took the stage to give his keynote address, all the Theravada monks stood up and walked out of the hall. It was almost noon and they wanted to take their lunch! :thinking:
User avatar
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?

Post by Cittasanto »

pilgrim wrote:I feel that definitely the spirit should take precedence over the latter. But when this should be applied should be at the discretion of the individual monk.

Recently I spoke with an Indian monk who lamented that Theravada monks seem to think their central practice is to take their meals before noon. He was at an international religious conference in India. A minute after the President of india took the stage to give his keynote address, all the Theravada monks stood up and walked out of the hall. It was almost noon and they wanted to take their lunch! :thinking:
in that situation I am sure they could of eaten before, and if they couldn't there could of been an understanding that this would happen/arrangement for them?
I have been in situations where I had to leave for a meal invitation when the proceedings hadn't yet finished for the meal, and this was pre-arranged by the organisers of the event.
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
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17187
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?

Post by DNS »

Cittasanto wrote:Hi David,
Have you read the Vinaya or only the manuals or commentaries?
Hi Cittasanto,

All 6 volumes, cover-to-cover, several times.
The tonics shouldn't be used as a invitation for a meal, but, if they are available and one is gilāna they can be used, and everywhere has different practices due to the WIDE range of interpretation, even with the rules on food. milk as an example is not specifically unallowed, so some temples have it available in the afternoon, Soya milk is used, even though not every temple agrees it is allowed by the great standard.
The problem with giving gilāna such a wide interpretation is that it opens the door to eat the evening meal just about everyday and then making the rule on the noon meal moot, which I don't believe was the intention of the rule or precept.
no adjustments? then the great standard would specify food in an exception.
no leeway? then those doing more work and need some extra energy, or not getting enough food during alms round, would have a very hard time of it.

the rules are not there with no regard for situations, (every rule has its exemptions).
The great standard can be used to ensure the precept does not get broken, for example, the Patimokkha could not possibly list every possible food, so using the great standard we could interpret any food of substance, i.e., with calories as not allowable after noon for a monk who is not ill.

I think there can be some adjustments and leeway and the Vinaya allows this, for example for a monk who is ill. But allowing the tonics which could easily become a meal itself for mild discomforts opens the door for the whole precept to go out the window. Too much leeway I think may be the reason we are starting to see over-weight and sometimes even obese monks.

I also think there can be some leeway and adjustments for monasteries in non-Buddhist countries who don't have a supportive community for regular alms rounds. In some cases, the monks may need to purchase and prepare food, but the meal could still be eaten before noon.
User avatar
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?

Post by Cittasanto »

David N. Snyder wrote:The problem with giving gilāna such a wide interpretation is that it opens the door to eat the evening meal just about everyday and then making the rule on the noon meal moot, which I don't believe was the intention of the rule or precept.

Well the 'wide interpretation' does come from the vinaya, and the origin stories, not just a commentary interpretation of what ill is. those who want to gain a evening meal are going to interpret it the way they want, or ignore it completely, regardless, some use money but this is against the precepts completely, and how many lay people interpret the 5th precept to be in moderation? there are even monks (Dharmagupta) who consider touching a woman with lustful intent as a Pācittiya even though it is a sanghadisesa. people will use things inappropriately regardless of the actual rule. but it is considering the well behaved Mendicants, those who don't mistreat the rules the 'wide interpretation' is possible for.
The great standard can be used to ensure the precept does not get broken, for example, the Patimokkha could not possibly list every possible food, so using the great standard we could interpret any food of substance, i.e., with calories as not allowable after noon for a monk who is not ill.
Could we???
Sorry but the tonics are or can be of substance, and do have calories.

If we look at another precept, on intoxicants, they are not allowed at all, even unintentionally. yet there is an allowance to take alcohol in very specific conditions, i.e. medicine, which has lead to morphine being allowed in medical situations, even though technically it shouldn't be. but it is only used in specific situations so is accepted, not exactly with the letter, but with the spirit, I believe.
I think there can be some adjustments and leeway and the Vinaya allows this, for example for a monk who is ill. But allowing the tonics which could easily become a meal itself for mild discomforts opens the door for the whole precept to go out the window. Too much leeway I think may be the reason we are starting to see over-weight and sometimes even obese monks.
well regarding the obese monks you can get obese from eating only during the appropriate time. it happened to me, just eating in the morning I was 13st which isn't overweight for my height & build, but considering I levelled of at between 11.5St-12.5St (my weight fluctuates about a stone normally).
but then I was particularly hungry at the time for about a month.
I also think there can be some leeway and adjustments for monasteries in non-Buddhist countries who don't have a supportive community for regular alms rounds. In some cases, the monks may need to purchase and prepare food, but the meal could still be eaten before noon.
so you would advocate breaking two rules for one?
there is the famine allowance which using the great standard should be allowable for that situation; and then there is the allowance to be able to ask for the tonics if one is not getting enough food. so there are potentially (the famine allowance may cover this situation also in the vinaya?) two allowances which enable all the rules to be kept.

unfortunately I do not have a copy of the Vinaya so am relying on memory from my studies, so apologies for any inaccuracies.
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
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17187
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?

Post by DNS »

Cittasanto wrote:
David N. Snyder wrote:The great standard can be used to ensure the precept does not get broken, for example, the Patimokkha could not possibly list every possible food, so using the great standard we could interpret any food of substance, i.e., with calories as not allowable after noon for a monk who is not ill.
Could we???
Sorry but the tonics are or can be of substance, and do have calories.
Yes, tonics have calories. They are allowed for a monk who is ill (see my post above, which you quoted too).
User avatar
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?

Post by Cittasanto »

This part?
David N. Snyder wrote: The problem with giving gilāna such a wide interpretation is that it opens the door to eat the evening meal just about everyday and then making the rule on the noon meal moot, which I don't believe was the intention of the rule or precept.
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
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17187
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?

Post by DNS »

Cittasanto wrote:This part?
David N. Snyder wrote: The problem with giving gilāna such a wide interpretation is that it opens the door to eat the evening meal just about everyday and then making the rule on the noon meal moot, which I don't believe was the intention of the rule or precept.
What wrong with that part? :tongue:

I still say it is meant for monks who are ill, not simply mild discomfort. But if you disagree that is fine.
User avatar
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?

Post by Cittasanto »

David N. Snyder wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:This part?
David N. Snyder wrote: The problem with giving gilāna such a wide interpretation is that it opens the door to eat the evening meal just about everyday and then making the rule on the noon meal moot, which I don't believe was the intention of the rule or precept.
What wrong with that part? :tongue:

I still say it is meant for monks who are ill, not simply mild discomfort. But if you disagree that is fine.
just checking, ;) but I had focused on the 'wide interpretation' part earlier.
but, I certainly don't agree with the precepts (whether loose or tight interpretation) being ignored or abused. certainly the reason for the rules should be born in mind
Mv.1.5.11 Ten Reasons for setting down the Rules of a Mendicant. wrote:Meditators, as this (offence) is so, I will prepare rules of discipline for mendicants (following my) path, basing them on ten reasons!

1 – To protect the excellent (reputation) of well behaved) members;
2 – To protect the comfort (due to respect) of (well behaved) members;
3 – To silence those who are obstinate;
4 – For diligent meditators to have ease (in obtaining requisites);
5 – For meditators to restrain their effluents in the here & now;
6 – For restraining effluents (that condition) future births;
7 – For faith to arise in those who lack faith;
8 – For the conditions to increase the faith of those already with faith;
9 – For the true way (to be visible) for along time;
10 – For assisting the discipline of those in Training.

These are the motivations I shall prepare the mendicants rules of training for!
underlined is the one I believe is the predominant aspect of our discussion, and in bold the other main aspect, although not the only one directly related to this rule.

I personally may of gone with 'having a need for extra support' rather than 'mild discomfort', for instance, if there was work going on, such as building a Kuti, one meal a day may not support the energy needs, or, they had a condition which made it impossible for them to get enough nourishment in the appropriate period, both of which are origin stories if I remember correctly.
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
User avatar
pilgrim
Posts: 1679
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:56 pm

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

Post by pilgrim »

Cittasanto wrote:
pilgrim wrote:I feel that definitely the spirit should take precedence over the latter. But when this should be applied should be at the discretion of the individual monk.

Recently I spoke with an Indian monk who lamented that Theravada monks seem to think their central practice is to take their meals before noon. He was at an international religious conference in India. A minute after the President of india took the stage to give his keynote address, all the Theravada monks stood up and walked out of the hall. It was almost noon and they wanted to take their lunch! :thinking:
in that situation I am sure they could of eaten before, and if they couldn't there could of been an understanding that this would happen/arrangement for them?
I have been in situations where I had to leave for a meal invitation when the proceedings hadn't yet finished for the meal, and this was pre-arranged by the organisers of the event.
Whether alternative arrangements could have been made was not the point. The point was that the contingent of monks found themselves in a situation and they chose to stick to the letter of the rule even though they were probably aware it would embarrass the President of India and bring disrepute to the Sangha.
User avatar
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?

Post by Goofaholix »

pilgrim wrote:Whether alternative arrangements could have been made was not the point. The point was that the contingent of monks found themselves in a situation and they chose to stick to the letter of the rule even though they were probably aware it would embarrass the President of India and bring disrepute to the Sangha.
In a situation like that skipping the meal for one day would probably be the best course. I think most forest/practise oriented monks who don't have health problems should be able to cope with this.

I think the spirit of the rules around eating is to create uncertaintly around whether a monk will get to eat and so loosen attachment to eating, rather than to create a whole lot of inconvenience for the laity.

At the monastery I ordained at it was quite common for monks to fast for a day from time to time, though the thai monk's idea of fasting was to skip the morning meal but compensate by eating more "medicinal food" in the afternoon than usual.
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
User avatar
pilgrim
Posts: 1679
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:56 pm

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

Post by pilgrim »

I remember the rule concerning mealtimes was made because a monk went out for alms late in the evening and frightened a villager in the dark.
Bankei
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:40 am

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

Post by Bankei »

Some random points:
- I think the Chinese Mahayanists allow themselves to eat during the evening and call it something like a 'medicine meal'.

The rule about not touching money - isn't the wording about not handling gold and/or silver. The letter of the law may allow monks to handle bank accounts and paper money? What about credit cards.

I knew some Dhammayut monks in Thailand and they were strict not to touch money, but they still had some in envelopes. One asked me to take some money and go and buy him some bandages once.

Other monks refuse to touch money, but they are flying around the world frequently using temple donations.

There is an article somewhere by a Thai monk which runs many pages and analyses the problems monks face when flying internationally (an increasingly common problem these days) with changing time zones. When is noon when flying from Osaka to Thailand for example?

I once stayed at a Sri Lankan temple in Australia and went into the kitchen at night time to get a drink - only to find all the monks in there eating.

When I was a monk in Thailand a senior monk sent out for some soup for me - clear chinese type with wontons in it. The Thai person I was with at the time was shocked, but eventually said I shouldn't eat the chunky bits, but only the soup. The monk was worried I would be hungry being a new monk - thus exhibiting kindness while perhaps breaking a minor rule.
-----------------------
Bankei
Post Reply