I'm simply saying that refraining from dinner, at least out in public in front of laypeople, isn't really relevant in today's world, at least outside Theravada countries where people maybe become emotionally compromised seeing a monk eat past noon (meanwhile they're testing out their new amulets on chickens).
That sounds a bit too institutional to me, which leads me to think it was a later addition
That sounds like a convenient narrative to justify institutionalized rules and regulations.
And the Lord said to Ananda: ‘Ananda, it may be that you will think: “The Teacher’s instruction has ceased, now we have no teacher!” It should not be seen like this, Ananda, for what I have taught and explained to you as Dhamma and Discipline will, at my passing, be your teacher. ~~ DN 16: Mahaparinibbana Sutta ( http://palicanon.org/index.php/sutta-pi ... at-passing ) ~~
santa100 wrote:Indrajala, you've been giving the same kind of response whenever I cited sutta references about the importance of precepts (specifically the eating rule for monks).... I've done my part here and have nothing more to say. Peace..
“It is true, Kesi, that it's not proper for a Tathāgata to take life. But if a tamable person does not submit either to a mild training or to a harsh training or to a mild and harsh training, then the Tathāgata does not regard him as being worth speaking to or admonishing. His knowledgeable fellows in the holy life do not regard him as being worth speaking to or admonishing. This is what it means to be totally destroyed in the Doctrine and Discipline, when the Tathāgata does not regard one as being worth speaking to or admonishing, and one's knowledgeable fellows in the holy life do not regard one as being worth speaking to or admonishing.”
David N. Snyder wrote:Theravada monastics don't eat beyond noon, but as you know are allowed the 'tonics' / medicine as needed.
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:This is a Theravāda Forum — which not really the place to discuss Mahāyāna views.
Indrajala wrote:I sincerely hope people exercise critical thinking and don't try to recreate failing Asian paradigms in the new cultures.
Indrajala wrote:The Chinese have a Dharmagupta Vinaya lineage, which is not Mahāyāna. They eat dinner, too. They call it "medicine meal".
Indrajala wrote:So, eating past noon is bad, but selling amulets and other questionable practices is okay because it is part of the culture?
plwk wrote:I guess Ven Indrajala, this thread is discussing what it should be and not what it really is happening...
I too have my own experiences with such but what's the point of repeating about the obvious elephant in the room when the elephant knows it's not suppose to be there?
daverupa wrote:There are some key issues to do with local necessity versus global unity in Buddhism which are a Herculean task to address... this begins to approach one facet of that monster, I think.
BuddhaSoup wrote:Respectfully, eating past midday violates the precepts.
I might guess that the Buddha understood the Vinaya to be well enough understood that its precepts would be the roadmap for those on the path. So, it's up to all of us to determine how serious and focused we wish our own practice to be.
For the ordained, I feel that disregard of the Vinaya is the classic slippery slope that will lead to the Dhamma being diluted to the point of nonrecognition, one of the Buddha's great concerns. It didn't happen in the 500 years he predicted, but it's happening now quite nicely in the west.
Indrajala wrote:However, most monasteries and Buddhist orders are effectively dictatorships or oligarchies, which Vinaya proponents often seem to overlook. They'll insist on keeping archaic social customs and precepts, but the democratic procedures are overlooked or ignored.
So, in the absence of democratic sangha models and workable procedures for intelligent reform, we can ignore illegitimate ecclesiastical authority and simply do our own thing, like update the rules, ordain women, eat dinner, etc.
daverupa wrote:This is an interesting call to action. I wonder how we can make an even-handed assessment of illegitimate ecclesiastical authority...
It was apparently Mahākassapa that, undemocratically, said nothing would be changed and that all the precepts from before had to be followed, but what authority did he have to do that? What about the democratic procedures in the sangha for voting on things? Did Mahākassapa have the authority to make decrees as he purportedly did?
If we conclude in fact he lacked the authority to make such a decree, then we can consider such a decree unlawful and thus proceed with reforms.