Virgo wrote:You actually associate with those monks? What can you possibly learn from them if they recite the patimokkha every fortnight knowing they will break it at a moment's notice with no regret or shame?
reflection wrote:Always easy to judge others, that's one thing. Especially if we don't observe their rules ourselves.
David N. Snyder wrote:The reality is that most monks do have cash and handle money and many even have bank accounts. About the only exceptions are some forest monks, especially those from the Ajahn Chah tradition.
chownah wrote:while toilet paper and toothpaste have been used as examples of essential items, it is actually the case that both of them can be replaced with water.
Hickersonia wrote:David N. Snyder wrote:The reality is that most monks do have cash and handle money and many even have bank accounts. About the only exceptions are some forest monks, especially those from the Ajahn Chah tradition.
That might explain why I have gravitated toward the teachings of Ajahn Brahm, although I cannot say with any certainty whether he handles money or not -- I'm thousands of miles away.
Checks. There is some controversy over the status of checks under this rule. In legal terms, a check is a notice to a bank to provide funds for the payee. Because banks are corporate individuals and not "places," a check made out to a bhikkhu is thus equivalent to a notice from a donor to a steward to provide funds on the bhikkhu's behalf. Because the funds in question do not change ownership until the recipient cashes the check, this strengthens the similarity to funds placed with a steward: The funds still belong to the donor until they are used, and the steward is responsible if they become lost in the meantime. Thus the simple act of receiving a check counts not as an act of receiving money but as an acknowledgement of the notice. In passing the notice to someone else, one is simply informing them of the donor's arrangement. Only if a bhikkhu cashes a check or gives an order to someone else to do so does he commit an offense under this rule.
[The teachings that promote] the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to passion, not to dispassion; to being fettered, not to being unfettered; to accumulating, not to shedding; to self-aggrandizement, not to modesty; to discontent, not to contentment; to entanglement, not to seclusion; to laziness, not to aroused persistence; to being burdensome, not to being unburdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher's instruction.'
[As for the teachings that promote] the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'
— AN 8.53
Derek wrote:Hello, folks,
The actual precept is:
Jatarupa-rajata-patiggahana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from accepting gold and silver
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Given that most monks don't observe that rule nowadays, just as most lay Buddhists do not observe the five precepts scrupulously, one has to cultivate a skilful attitude to avoid making unwholesome kamma due to spiritual pride. What others do is their business, what we do is what really matters.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests