Why one meal a day?

A place to discuss health and fitness, healthy diets. A fit body makes for a fit mind.
User avatar
Indrajala
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:27 pm
Location: Wandering
Contact:

Re: Eating after midday.

Postby Indrajala » Sat Aug 10, 2013 2:04 pm

BuddhaSoup wrote:Yet, my argument would be that once the Vinaya was dropped in the (8-13th century?) medieval period of Buddhist migration out of India into China and Japan in the CE, some of that 'subconscious' discipline evaporated.


I have to wonder how much discipline existed even in India. Now, granted, in the Tang you had figures like Yijing visiting and discussing how strict and pure their Vinaya was, but that might have been selective observations in the elite monasteries like Nalanda where you needed to know the Vinaya inside and out as part of the membership requirements.

Monks married, ate food all day long, and drank alcohol. Monks married and had families. This evolution from a Vinaya world into the fabric of the lay society may have provided political and societal benefits ( I'm focusing on Japan here) , but in my view was the start of the slippery slope toward the erosion of the respect for the monastic community.


Japan had no Vinaya for a number of centuries, yet still maintained celibate monasticism. I wrote an article about this:

http://huayanzang.blogspot.sg/2013/06/b ... inaya.html

You actually can have a living and vibrant monastic system without the Indian Vinaya. Japan's Buddhist degeneration was not a result of letting monks marry, but more to do with extreme secularization and rationalization of society. Up until the post-WWII period, Japanese Buddhism was thriving. Before WWII you had Chinese monks commenting how healthy it seemed. Then after the war the tables turned and Buddhism in Taiwan started to thrive while Japanese Buddhism went into terminal decline.

Some assume the Vinaya revivalism was responsible for the post-WWII regeneration of Chinese Buddhism in Taiwan, but that's not really accurate, just as it is incorrect to think the married clergy in Japan are responsible for the decay of Buddhism there. Of course married clergy come with a whole long list of problems, but before WWII the marriage wasn't as big a problem as people seem to think nowadays. The extreme secularization killed Buddhism in Japan.


You may be the example of the non-Vinaya monk that makes the case for a more modern ordination platform, and who does not need the Vinaya to live an unquestioned life and has the respect of the laity around you. I just see you as the exception, rather than the rule, here in the west.


I'm nothing special. I just want to live the śramaṇa lifestyle to pursue spiritual and scholarly aims. To me the śramaṇa lifestyle is defined not by what the Vinaya says, but what the general expectations were in ancient Magadha. To do this you just need to look at what the literature generally says and see how other schools like the Jains operated. The śramaṇa lifestyle is about celibacy, non-violence, kindness, meditation, contemplation and philosophy, plus maybe social expectations like the shaved head and robes, though those are arguably secondary. We need only recall that there was no Vinaya for the first few years of the sangha. The first monks had zero formal rules and precepts.

User avatar
Anagarika
Posts: 903
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:25 pm

Re: Eating after midday.

Postby Anagarika » Sat Aug 10, 2013 2:43 pm

Even so, in ancient Magadha among the Shramana ascetics there were some generally held principles that defined what a śramaṇa was, as opposed to a Brahmin. I did a litlt e bit of study on the history of the śramaṇa movements in northern India, and it's very interesting. Expanded my (very limited) understanding of the evolution of sramana into Buddhism and Jainism.

I noted that the sramana movement was defined as "free form," and while there were generally accepted views of sramana practices, there was, as you put it, an emphasis on renunciation, non-violence, justice, scholarship. No Vinaya per se, but from what I can tell some fairly defined attributes that separated the śramaṇa from the Vedic practices and the lay folk.

Maybe the discussion is boiling down to the need for a strict set of rules, vs. a defined sensibility for a noble, ethical renunciate life. The śramaṇa movement seems to me to be the pathway that led Gautama to his eventual enlightenment and Dhamma. It lead to the founding of the Jains. To me, it looks all good, and it was certainly good enough for Gautama until his realization of the Middle Way.

I come back to my point, Ven. Indrajala, that you and the śramaṇas posses the internal fortitude to live the noble life. Maybe because I am a lawyer I have this idea that laws are part of the glue that holds societies together, and mitigates the potential for chaos. I see the Vinaya, in part, as a set of statutes that guide the practice, and create a foundation or sensibility that is all the more useful in today's world. As it has been said, if all men were noble, ethical and good, we wouldn't need the law.

Philosophically, as our societies create more laws and regulations, we are not necessarily becoming more ethical and less violent. I understand, you as a scholar and free thinker, feel that detailed and antiquated laws are just one more maladaptive societal tool for control. If only modern man in the west possessed the ethics and renunciate sensibilities of the ancient Magadhan śramaṇa.

User avatar
Indrajala
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:27 pm
Location: Wandering
Contact:

Re: Eating after midday.

Postby Indrajala » Sat Aug 10, 2013 3:28 pm

BuddhaSoup wrote:I come back to my point, Ven. Indrajala, that you and the śramaṇas posses the internal fortitude to live the noble life. Maybe because I am a lawyer I have this idea that laws are part of the glue that holds societies together, and mitigates the potential for chaos.


As a lawyer you naturally understand that the laws are prescriptive and not descriptive, so we need to always keep this in mind.

I think some laws need to be in place, but increasing complexity leads to the law of diminishing returns: too many resources and man hours devoted to developing, studying and enforcing laws which do not really have the intended effect. Secular law of course is also different from ecclesiastical law. The latter is limited to a small community unless enforced by the host culture (as is the case in a few countries today, and many in ancient times where the state backed up the sangha). The vast vast commentary literature on the Vinayas in Classical Chinese is enormous, and that was just a fraction of what existed in India. Think of all the hours and palm leaves such endeavours demanded!

I like to think in the Buddha's day it was not so much about laws and rules, but more expectations. There were expectations laid upon śramaṇas rather than rules with punitive measures in place to punish anyone who violated them. In any case, how do you defrock a homeless mendicant? Even if he commits a pārājika, he can just take his bowl elsewhere. The Vinaya laws only make sense in an institutional setting where some kind of priestly privileges are in place which can be revoked by the powers that be. In the Buddha's day there was none of that. There was also minimal hierarchy and things it seems had to be voted on by a community of equals (there were no sangharajas or abbots, a monk could never order another monk to do anything or make decisions for him).

With respect to the voting mechanisms according to the Vinaya, it seems largely neglected and ignored nowadays. Most monasteries are dictatorships it seems despite the fact monks are supposed to all vote.

So, why be picky about eating after noon, but neglect essential voting procedures? Why insist on diluting your orange juice in the afternoon while neglecting the fact you're not supposed to ride in a vehicle? It boils down to social expectations, doesn't it?


I understand, you as a scholar and free thinker, feel that detailed and antiquated laws are just one more maladaptive societal tool for control. If only modern man in the west possessed the ethics and renunciate sensibilities of the ancient Magadhan śramaṇa.


It begs the question if the Vinaya in the end really produces good ethics and sensibilities in people. If they require rules and punishments to stop themselves as monks from having sex or committing homicide, they probably don't want to be monks in the first place. However, you need those rules when the majority of your monastics are in there because they were destitute or their families placed them there from a young age. I know that in many places this is the case. A lot of monks are monks because they had no choice and as adults they would be a burden to their families if they disrobed. They would also be unemployable. So, maybe strict rules are necessary for them, but others it might be a hindrance to their good works in the world and practice.

But bearing that in mind, we don't need to universally apply rules. What works in one community won't necessarily work in another. What is required in one group won't be needed in another. The Buddha apparently was fine with dropping minor rules and moreover adapting things as necessary in new lands. I take that as license to update things as needed and to exercise common sense (historically this has often been the case in many cultures though it was never framed in such wording). Be flexible like the grass which always bends unlike the stiff branches which snap in strong winds.

Returning to the matter of eating after midday, again it strikes me as unnecessary if you're not doing rounds with your bowl. If you're living in a place with a cook or laypeople giving dana, what is the big deal if you eat dinner, especially if others are happy to provide it? They gain merit from the act of giving you two meals a day rather than one.

santa100
Posts: 1967
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Eating after midday.

Postby santa100 » Sat Aug 10, 2013 6:53 pm

Indrajala wrote:Returning to the matter of eating after midday, again it strikes me as unnecessary if you're not doing rounds with your bowl. If you're living in a place with a cook or laypeople giving dana, what is the big deal if you eat dinner, especially if others are happy to provide it? They gain merit from the act of giving you two meals a day rather than one.

If the Buddha dedicated at least 4 suttas in the Majjhima Nikaya (and also in other Nikayas) to specifically talk about the eating at the proper time rule, then I'd assume that yes, it IS a big deal (MN 65, MN 66, MN 69, MN 70: ~~ http://palicanon.org/index.php/sutta-pi ... ima-nikaya ~~)

By the way, this rule is naturally observed effortless once one has become an arahant:
AN 3.70: As long as they live the arahants eat once a day, abstaining from eating at night and from food outside the proper time. Today, for this night and day, I too shall eat once a day, abstaining from eating at night and from food outside the proper time. I shall imitate the arahants in this respect and the uposatha will be observed by me ~~ http://palicanon.org/index.php/sutta-pi ... at-chapter ~~

User avatar
manas
Posts: 2223
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Eating after midday.

Postby manas » Sat Aug 10, 2013 11:42 pm

Whenever I tried to get all my nourishment for the day between sunrise and noon, I ended up having to eat larger servings, than if I simply allowed myself to have three more moderately sized meals, spread through the entire day. It seemed to turn out that just eating less, was better for meditation practice, than sticking with this ideal of not eating after noon, which as a layman with kids to drive around, and look after (when they come over), turned out to be a bit impractical for me.

But if I did not have many duties to perform, or many practical issues to attend to, I can see how not eating after noon would be possible and even desirable, because with less need for calories, the two servings (breakfast and lunch) would not need to be so substantial. But for a layperson, I really think that striving for this ideal is not as important, as just being more moderate with food, and stopping when one has had enough, rather than continuing to eat for the taste / because of desire. And on that note, I think I used to eat much more than I needed to. One wonderful outcome of stopping out of consideration for how much the stomach can comfortably digest (as opposed to how much one wanted to eat), is that one doesn't get bloated, or get indigestion, and ironically has more energy, than if one had stuffed oneself. It's true: eating moderately one has more energy, than if one eats a lot.

My two cents' worth :)

metta :anjali:
Then the Blessed One, picking up a tiny bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monk, "There isn't even this much form...feeling...
perception...fabrications...consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity."

(SN 22.97)

User avatar
Indrajala
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:27 pm
Location: Wandering
Contact:

Re: Eating after midday.

Postby Indrajala » Sun Aug 11, 2013 12:55 am

santa100 wrote:By the way, this rule is naturally observed effortless once one has become an arahant:


That sounds a bit too institutional to me, which leads me to think it was a later addition. A lot of people believe an arhat physically and literally can't violate any Vinaya rule no matter what (it is comical to imagine that). In any case, a lot of the Pali canon is simply a later production which encapsulates the essence of the Buddha's teachings rather than preserving them literally. Johannes Bronkhorst in Buddhist Teaching in India (p58):

    "It is not easy to get a clear picture of the Buddha's original teaching. Certainly, its aim was to stop suffering and rebirth.

With that in mind, it begs the question if it is really necessary or desirable to have a rule against eating past noon. Even if the Buddha did encourage disciples to just eat once a day, is it really necessary for grown adults with rational faculties and a free will to have to follow a petty rule restricting them from eating past noon? We're not juveniles. We can make decisions for ourselves about when to eat. Eating past noon is not an issue of morality because it doesn't relate to harming others.

Again, the Buddha said to Ananda to dump the minor rules and update things accordingly (according to the canon). So, again, why does there need to be a rule for grown adults?

User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 5975
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Eating after midday.

Postby daverupa » Sun Aug 11, 2013 1:25 am

Indrajala wrote:Eating past noon is not an issue of morality because it doesn't relate to harming others.

Again, the Buddha said to Ananda to dump the minor rules and update things accordingly (according to the canon). So, again, why does there need to be a rule for grown adults?


Well, the Buddha is trainer of gods and grown adults, so being a grown adult simply makes one trainable, not trained.

I think you're right about minor rules; is this food business one of those? I think it might be primarily a cultural sort of thing, the way much of the Vinaya is prompted by lay concern rather than Dhammic prerogative, whereby colder climates may make dinner a quite sensible choice.

But I also think that human food production is inherently limited, and that a world comprised solely of farms is probably abhorrent, so alongside the pressing need for a global response to the human population crisis there is a pressing need to address the problem of how to ethically feed all these people, test-tube meat notwithstanding.

First world peoples generally consume far more food than they need, enough that exercise becomes possible as a hobby - exertion simply for the sake of beautification of the form, not health. Eating as a form of entertainment and socializing is truly bewildering. All this merely re-describes excess calorie consumption in a world where starvation occurs... surely this is an altogether terrible phenomenon in urgent need of an ethical response?

Perhaps modern Vinaya should begin to reflect an awareness of global human lifestyles and their environmental impact both now & in the future. Awareness of population and food production are already addressed by core Vinaya practices, after all (chastity & an emphatic food awareness), and I think these topics, heavily related to the ongoing health of our planet, make them non-minor issues of Vinaya.

Maybe we can use modernity: find resting caloric necessity in each case, chart daily activity and incorporate additional units as necessary, adjust multivitamins, define precisely that level of nutriment required for the function of the body. We could then eat that lump sum within whatever timing was convenient, since the point isn't really the time on the clock, is it, but rather that minimal impact which facilitates the training, neh?
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA
Contact:

Re: Eating after midday.

Postby lyndon taylor » Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:35 am

Indrajala, with all due respect, you may be right or not about the vinaya being later in date, but not eating after 12pm is not one of the minor rules in the Vinaya, its one of the Ten precepts, only 5 of which apply to lay people as well, Im pretty damn sure the Ten precepts date back to the Buddha, you're not just asking to break some minor rules in the Vinaya, your telling monks to break the Ten precepts for Monks, which were set by the Buddha in his Lifetime, how many other precepts do you consider insignificant and not important in the modern world?????
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community that has so generously given me so much, sincerely former monk John

dagon
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 12:45 am

Re: Eating after midday.

Postby dagon » Sun Aug 11, 2013 6:28 am

Greeting All

From my limited understanding - the provision of food to monks by the lay people is one of mutual rights and obligations. The understanding of both myself and wife is that we are and should be grateful of the opportunity of providing support to the monks and receiving instruction relating to the Dhamma.

If we look at the practical side of food being given to the monks then there are several things that need to be considered. As house holders were have duties and responsibilities that we need to preform - the family farms rice and makes an early start in the day.

The food that is offered is the same food as the family eats (we should not eat anything that we would not offer to monks and we should not expect them to eat anything less than what we eat). If the food sits around to dinner time without proper refrigeration then we might be responsible for making monks sick. We would prefer monks to eat the food before midday for this reason.

My understanding is that food from the lay community should be accepted with a certain attitude. The exemplification of this was shown by the Buddha in his last meal and his instruction relating to both the provider of that food as well as what was to happen to the food that remained. However I think that there is also a lesson to those fortunate enough to be able to provide food to monks.

As far as I understand the Monks should also be grateful to the Buddha for the food they receive in that he taught householders of their responsibilities to those who take orders. Did the Buddha teach that the monks should propagate the Dhamma – Buddha taught the Dhamma both by his words and actions. Where householders see the Monks upholding the Vinaya they respect them more and are more attentive to what they teach.

I know that my wife had the fortune to be influenced by a monk with high standards (Luang Ta Maha Bua) through his discourse on the Dhamma and his presence. It was this exposure that she credits with her maintaining the morals and ethics that she has always shown. What conduct of a monk is more highly valued by Buddha than one who teaches the Dhamma in this way?

Metta
paul

User avatar
Indrajala
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:27 pm
Location: Wandering
Contact:

Re: Eating after midday.

Postby Indrajala » Sun Aug 11, 2013 2:09 pm

lyndon taylor wrote:Indrajala, with all due respect, you may be right or not about the vinaya being later in date, but not eating after 12pm is not one of the minor rules in the Vinaya, its one of the Ten precepts, only 5 of which apply to lay people as well, Im pretty damn sure the Ten precepts date back to the Buddha, you're not just asking to break some minor rules in the Vinaya, your telling monks to break the Ten precepts for Monks, which were set by the Buddha in his Lifetime, ...


Not eating past noon makes sense if you take a bowl out to gather food for the day. It would be time consuming and potentially chaotic to have a lot of monks going out at any time of the day to gather food. However, if you live inside a monastery with a cook or laypeople giving dana, is there really a need to restrict people from eating past noon? I don't see any good reason. In fact, if you live in a cold climate then eating past noon and regularly is advisable for health reasons. Likewise if you live in a diseased land with poor sanitation. You need to keep your immune system in constant good order.

The Buddha was fine with changing precepts as needed. We can exercise the right to reform, and we should.


...how many other precepts do you consider insignificant and not important in the modern world?????


If you exercise common sense and maintain sensible behaviour as a śramaṇa, then as far as precepts go you only need a few, and even then if you are a true practitioner and have any wisdom, you don't need precepts at all (there was a time in the Buddha's teaching career that the sangha had zero precepts keep in mind). Precepts are for those who need the fear of punitive measures to behave themselves. For the rest of practitioners, you just behave yourself naturally and don't cause disturbances.

User avatar
Indrajala
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:27 pm
Location: Wandering
Contact:

Re: Eating after midday.

Postby Indrajala » Sun Aug 11, 2013 2:24 pm

dagon wrote:Where householders see the Monks upholding the Vinaya they respect them more and are more attentive to what they teach.


That might work in some countries, but not all. What works in one country is not necessarily applicable to another.

Again, I would argue you'll teach more Dhamma to folks over dinner on a Friday night in a lot of western countries, or even places like Singapore or Japan.

fabianfred
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:06 am

Re: Eating after midday.

Postby fabianfred » Sun Aug 11, 2013 7:25 pm

The Thais have a saying...' One meal a day supports life; a second meal supports work; a third meal supports the kilesa (gives the energy to go out at night and have fun)..
The prime work for a monk is to get himself to at least the state of Sotapanna and leave the state of worldly being ....meditation....doing the practice.....walking the walk, not just talking the talk.
One who spends most of the day meditating does not need much sustenance since not much energy is being expended. Too much food makes you sleepy....fasting makes you light and energetic in your meditation....no wasting time involved in the process of having a meal....no being too much of a burden upon the laity.
ALL Buddhists should be trying to diminish the defilements, and over eating is a big problem around the world for those who are not poor.
If you cannot stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen.....if you don't like the vinaya rules...then disrobe.
Looking for excuses to bend the rules.....complaining that the rules are irrelevant nowadays...that they were added later...etc. etc. :zzz:

User avatar
Indrajala
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:27 pm
Location: Wandering
Contact:

Re: Eating after midday.

Postby Indrajala » Mon Aug 12, 2013 3:15 am

fabianfred wrote:The Thais have a saying...


Good thing I'm not Thai and never will be. Their cultural paradigms and norms don't apply to me. Also Buddhism in Thailand isn't actually in a pristine condition, so be careful what you take from it and/or emulate.



Looking for excuses to bend the rules.....complaining that the rules are irrelevant nowadays...that they were added later...etc. etc. :zzz:


Ever consider that rules can be dismissed if it is for the benefit of people?

User avatar
David N. Snyder
Site Admin
Posts: 9454
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact:

Re: Eating after midday.

Postby David N. Snyder » Mon Aug 12, 2013 4:37 am

Indrajala wrote:Again, I would argue you'll teach more Dhamma to folks over dinner on a Friday night in a lot of western countries, or even places like Singapore or Japan.


Sure and this could still be done. The precept against eating after midday is for monks and nuns, not lay people. Dhamma centers and temples could still have such functions as long as they are led by lay people or some lay teacher. There are some lay people who voluntarily choose to eat just one meal a day, but it is completely voluntary and they usually do so for health reasons or other practical reasons.

The precept is still practical in this day and age. I see no reason to throw this precept out (in my opinion). It would burden the lay people to provide multiple meals to the monastics. Even if the one meal is a large one, it is still less demanding to provide one big meal than several smaller ones. I have found this to be true even for my own meals.

Indrajala wrote:Good thing I'm not Thai and never will be.


Never? Haven't you taken a [Mahayana] bodhisattva vow? How about rebirth? :tongue:

User avatar
Indrajala
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:27 pm
Location: Wandering
Contact:

Re: Eating after midday.

Postby Indrajala » Mon Aug 12, 2013 6:53 am

David N. Snyder wrote:Dhamma centers and temples could still have such functions as long as they are led by lay people or some lay teacher.


Sure, but there tends to be a lot more faith placed in monks as confidants and teachers than laypeople, regardless of if that is really warranted or not. A monk, at least ideally, is a full-time specialist in Buddhism, which is different from most laypeople who specialize in other fields (again I know this isn't always the case, but the general model would suggest this).

So, exercising free well and skilful thinking, we might update the rules.


It would burden the lay people to provide multiple meals to the monastics.


Not really. There are often huge amounts of leftovers which can be easily reheated.

In Chinese monasteries having medicine meal (dinner) is no big deal and never has been. Theravada could learn from this.

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA
Contact:

Re: Eating after midday.

Postby lyndon taylor » Mon Aug 12, 2013 6:56 am

I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally have a lot more trouble putting any faith in monks that don't keep the precepts than ones that do, indeed if they don't keep the precepts what makes them monks, shaved heads?? robes?? that's not enough for me.......
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community that has so generously given me so much, sincerely former monk John

User avatar
Indrajala
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:27 pm
Location: Wandering
Contact:

Re: Eating after midday.

Postby Indrajala » Mon Aug 12, 2013 7:09 am

lyndon taylor wrote:I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally have a lot more trouble putting any faith in monks that don't keep the precepts than ones that do, indeed if they don't keep the precepts what makes them monks, shaved heads?? robes?? that's not enough for me.......


Robes don't make the monk. I would argue precepts don't make the monk either. Renunciation of saṃsāra is what does. This arguably doesn't require precepts, and bear in mind, as the official history goes, the Buddha's first disciples had zero precepts. You can have monks with no precepts at all, as was the case in the first few years of the sangha.

The precepts can perpetuate the eight worldly dharmas. They were largely systematized at a time when landed monasticism was becoming widespread in India and monks had to demonstrate outward purity to benefactors who demanded proper fields of merit to invest their resources into.

Yes, there should be rules and expectations to maintain basic community structure and harmony (celibacy is quite sensible when you live in a monastery and can't afford for residents to have families), but these are different from dogmatically following rules to satisfy worldly concerns or abide by social conventions that made sense in ancient Magadha.

The fact of the matter, too, is that you can demand your monks follow all the precepts, and they outwardly will when you as a layperson are around just to keep you happy, but go behind the closed doors of monks and you'll see another world.

Do you want disagreeable honesty or agreeable dishonesty?

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Eating after midday.

Postby Mr Man » Mon Aug 12, 2013 7:36 am

The monastic rule is part of the tradition and symbology of the (Theravada) monk. It is also something that unifies. It is a template, which can be used skilfully, to train body, speech and mind. It can work as a brake to our personal opinions and wants. It is allows for harmonious community living and as protocol for relationships. It acts as a point of reference.

User avatar
Anagarika
Posts: 903
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:25 pm

Re: Eating after midday.

Postby Anagarika » Mon Aug 12, 2013 11:14 am

Indrajala wrote:Good thing I'm not Thai and never will be.

David wrote: Never? Haven't you taken a [Mahayana] bodhisattva vow? How about rebirth? :tongue:


Being reborn a Thai would be a very fortunate rebirth.

santa100
Posts: 1967
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Eating after midday.

Postby santa100 » Mon Aug 12, 2013 2:21 pm

Indrajala wrote:Robes don't make the monk. I would argue precepts don't make the monk either


Actually the precepts not only makes the monk but also directly contribute to the survival of the Dhamma itself:
Then the Venerable Upāli approached the Blessed One, paid homage to him, sat down to one side, and said to him:

“Bhante, on how many grounds has the Tathāgata prescribed the training rules for his disciples and recited the Pātimokkha?”

“It is, Upāli, on ten grounds that the Tathāgata has prescribed the training rules for his disciples and recited the Pātimokkha. What ten?
(1) For the well-being of the Saṅgha;
(2) for the ease of the Saṅgha;
(3) for keeping recalcitrant persons in check; ... :tongue:
(4) so that well-behaved bhikkhus can dwell at ease;
(5) for the restraint of taints pertaining to this present life;
(6) for the dispelling of taints pertaining to future lives;
(7) so that those without confidence might gain confidence; and
(8) for increasing [the confidence] of those with confidence;
(9) for the continuation of the good Dhamma; and .... :thumbsup:
(10) for promoting discipline.


“It is on these ten grounds that the Tathāgata has prescribed the training rules for his disciples and recited the Pātimokkha.” ~~ http://palicanon.org/index.php/sutta-pi ... y-iv-upali ~~


Return to “Wellness, Diet & Fitness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine