BuddhaSoup wrote:That day, no verbal complaints, no bad mood... just acceptance. I think these rules, some of which some might see as unnecessary, instill backbone in the practice. Some of the ascetic practices seem out of place in the modern world, but it is this disciplined distinction, to my mind, that makes some of these practices so important.
Zom wrote:There's one more thing stream-enterer eliminated. Grasping to rules and observances. Being horrified that you finished eating at 12.01 am is exactly this very thing, as I see it .) So, a stream-enterer is not like that. Vinaya rules are not "to be observed at the cost of your life", but they are guidelines how to do things in a right way. Keep in mind, that some of the rules Buddha offered to drop not long before final nibbana, so they are not important "by themselves".
I do not say that you can attain purity
by views, traditions, insight, morality or conventions;
nor will you attain purity without these.
But by using them for abandonment, rather than as positions to hold on to,
you will come to be at peace without the need to be anything.
SarathW wrote:Bhante Pesal and others
I got another few questions:
a) What is the timing for breaking the fast? Is it 7.00 am to 12.00 noon?
b) How many meals are allowed in this period? What does it mean by one meal a day?
c) Why monks do not obey all 227 rules the same way? Eg: Handling money
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Your bhikkhu friend got it right. He understood how to follow the Vinaya rule without grasping. Moral discipline has the purpose of cutting off defilements.
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:It's not just about not harrassing the lay supporters and making oneself difficult to support, it is also good for one's own practice, and good for health too.
Read the Bhaddali Sutta, where the Buddha recommended just one meal a day.
If the compilers of the various Vinayas considered it ‘highly important’ to regulate the lives of their monks so as to give no cause for complaint to the laity, and if considerations of this sort could only have assumed high importance after buddhist groups had permanently settled down, then, since the latter almost certainly did not occur until well after Aśoka, it would be obvious that all the Vinayas that we have are late, precisely as both Wassilieff and Lévi have suggested a hundred years ago.
Even in the later inscriptions from Bharhut and Sanchi there are no references to vihāras, and they begin to appear—though still rarely—only in Kharosṭḥī records of a little before and a little after the Common Era, about the same time that the first indications of permanent monastic residential quarters begin to appear in the archaeological record for the Northwest, and this is not likely to be mere coincidence.
BuddhaSoup wrote:The monks can't ask for anything.
If no one provides alms, they go hungry.
In 2013, reasonable people can always suggest that Vinaya rules don't apply anymore.
Why not let Bhikkhus drive cars?
As Bhante suggested earlier, these precepts cultivate moral discipline and, in practice, mitigate defilements.
If you know how the real world of monasticism works, you'll know the Vinaya is largely ineffective and only enforced when the powers that be feel compelled to punish someone.
BuddhaSoup wrote:I was in robes for a time at an excellent Wat, excellent Abbot...
My own view is that the Vinaya practices speak to an important aspect of modern practice, in a culture that is increasingly greedy, angry and deluded. The Vinaya monk is just one way that the ordained community speak to the increasing greed and consumerism among especially the young people of the west and Asia.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests