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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ~~
santa100 wrote:By the way, this rule is naturally observed effortless once one has become an arahant:
"It is not easy to get a clear picture of the Buddha's original teaching. Certainly, its aim was to stop suffering and rebirth.
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?
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, ...
...how many other precepts do you consider insignificant and not important in the modern world?????
dagon wrote:Where householders see the Monks upholding the Vinaya they respect them more and are more attentive to what they teach.
fabianfred wrote:The Thais have a saying...
Looking for excuses to bend the rules.....complaining that the rules are irrelevant nowadays...that they were added later...etc. etc.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Fluke and 8 guests