Are Theravadins Simpler ?

[Dhammanando]

When given a choice A, B, C they should choose the one which is least expensive because they are renunciates.

You don’t seem to understand how things work out here. Let me explain...

1. If you buy a plane ticket for a Buddhist monk from an official Thai International Airways broker, you will be given a 40% discount, but the ticket has to be for business class. If the TIA sales-staff know the ticket is for a monk they won’t sell you anything else.

2. If you buy the same from a bucket shop or some other unofficial broker, you’ll get no discount but you can have any kind of ticket you want.

3. Thai laypeople buying tickets for monks will commonly calculate whether it’s cheaper for them to buy a discounted ticket in business class or an undiscounted one in economy class. But which of the two they end up buying makes no difference to the monk because...

4. When a monk enters the plane, even if he has an economy-class ticket the TIA cabin crew will still direct him to a seat in the business class. Whenever this has happened to me I didn’t get the impression I was being given any choice. I mean they never asked me if I actually wanted to be upgraded; I just found myself upgraded willy-nilly.

5. In recent years some of the airlines from non-Buddhist countries that fly to Thailand have begun to emulate TIA’s practice of upgrading monks with economy-class tickets to business class (presumably to boost their image with Thai Buddhist passengers).

[arijitmitter]

Venerable Dhammanando,

Thank you for explaining this point (instead of quoting Vinay like others). Your technical explanation is much appreciated. But this was an Indian carrier and not TIA (your point # 5 does cover it). Perhaps that is why the senior monks only were allowed business class seats and juniors back in economy.

Can you give us your view of the other point. If I am your disciple and I decide to gift you a Louis Vuitton suitcase, will you accept it. At what level of expenditure will you stop accepting gifts of a personal nature (if I gift you a million dollars to open and run a meditation center where you are spiritual director, that is perfectly fine by me).

A good sturdy pair of shoes, yes you will accept. But what about Ferragamo designer shoes ? If you were my guest, will you like that I put a nice middle class Jeep Cherokee at your disposal or a Mercedes or a Bentley Arnage. If you see a Jeep Cherokee, Mercedes, Bentley Arnage in my garage and I tell you my chauffeur will drive you around during your stay in the Bentley will you say no the Jeep or the Ford Fiesta will do just fine or will you say no let us go for the Bentley.

I understand it is difficult to answer since it might bring you in direct conflict with what others have said regarding this issue (that Dana can be expensive and that does not matter)

Arijit

[Kusala]

What an odd concept. It's OK to accept needless gifts and live in luxury, so long as you also follow ridiculous rules?

There is a big problem here. Monks can easily get out of touch with reality. I suggest we throw away the old rulebook, and come up with a new way of understanding how to live and teach. No wonder Buddhism isn't thriving-we're stuck in old ways of thinking, particularly about monks.

Buddhism In The News -------> http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2008/10/b ... -news.html The article is old, but still worth reading. What I find inspiring is the fact that non-Buddhists are taking notes and even praising the "austere life" of Buddhist monks. Ajahn Brahm and the few monks who strictly adhere to Vinaya is the reason why the Dhamma is timeless.

[reflection]

Achaan Chah says he does not dream any more. He sleeps only a few hours a night, upstairs in a small one-room cottage. Underneath this cottage, which is on wooden pillars in Thai fashion, is an open floor where he receives visitors.

Often these visitors bring him gifts, not just food or robes but also exquisite ancient statues and carefully made folk art depicting Buddhist themes. One Western monk, a collector and appreciator of Asian art, was excited by the possibility of seeing such lovely objects when he was assigned to help with the daily cleaning of Achaan Chah's cottage. He went upstairs, unlocked the door, and found only a bare bed and a mosquito net. He discovered that Achaan Chah gives these gifts away as fast as he gets them. He does not cling to anything.
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books2/Ajahn ... t_Pool.htm


The gift of the Dhamma excels all gifts (dhammapada)

[Mr Man]

I can understand why the OP found it incongruous. With this particular instance there may be a reasonable explanation, Ven Dhammanando's for example, but no harm in questioning. In my opinion there is certainly some room for realignment within Theravada monasticism.

[Modus.Ponens]

What an odd concept. It's OK to accept needless gifts and live in luxury, so long as you also follow ridiculous rules?

There is a big problem here. Monks can easily get out of touch with reality. I suggest we throw away the old rulebook, and come up with a new way of understanding how to live and teach. No wonder Buddhism isn't thriving-we're stuck in old ways of thinking, particularly about monks.

Realy? Do you realise that a monastic movement in that direction would inevitably cause a schism?

[Sylvester]

From MN 77, the Buddha describes some of the luxurious gifts He used -

Suppose, Udāyin, my disciples honoured, respected, revered, and venerated me, and lived in dependence on me, honouring and respecting me, with the thought: ‘The recluse Gotama is content with any kind of robe and commends contentment with any kind of robe.’ Now there are disciples of mine who are refuse-rag wearers, wearers of coarse robes; they collect rags from the charnel ground, rubbish heaps, or shops, make them into patched robes, and wear them. But I sometimes wear robes given by householders, robes so fine that pumpkin hair is coarse in comparison. So if my disciples honoured me…with the thought: ‘The recluse Gotama is content with any kind of robe and commends contentment with any kind of robe,’ then those disciples of mine who are refuse-rag wearers, wearers of coarse robes…should not honour, respect, revere, and venerate me for this quality, nor should they live in dependence on me, honouring and respecting me.

“Suppose, Udāyin, my disciples honoured, respected, revered, and venerated me, and lived in dependence on me, honouring and respecting me, with the thought: ‘The recluse Gotama is content with any kind of almsfood and commends contentment with any kind of almsfood.’ Now there are disciples of mine who are almsfood eaters, who go on unbroken almsround from house to house, who delight in gathering their food; when they have entered among the houses they will not consent even when invited to sit down. But I sometimes eat on invitation meals of choice rice and many sauces and curries. So if my disciples honoured me…with the thought: ‘The recluse Gotama is content with any kind of almsfood and commends contentment with any kind of almsfood,’ then those disciples of mine who are almsfood eaters…should not honour, respect, revere, and venerate me for this quality, nor should they live in dependence on me, honouring and respecting me.

“Suppose, Udāyin, my disciples honoured, respected, revered, and venerated me, and lived in dependence on me, honouring and respecting me, with the thought: ‘The recluse Gotama is content with any kind of resting place and commends contentment with any kind of resting place.’ Now there are disciples of mine who are tree-root dwellers and open-air dwellers, who do not use a roof for eight months of the year, while I sometimes live in gabled mansions plastered within and without, protected against the wind, secured by door bolts, with shuttered windows. So if my disciples honoured me…with the thought: ‘The recluse Gotama is content with any kind of resting place and commends contentment with any kind of resting place,’ then those disciples of mine who are tree-root dwellers and open-air dwellers…should not honour, respect, revere, and venerate me for this quality, nor should they live in dependence on me, honouring and respecting me.

The sutta does not give an indication whether these gifts were on par with Prada or Gucci, but I get the sense that they were certainly luxurious...

I recently donated some cloth to a monastery. As I was scouring town with the fabric swatch from the monastery, I learned that the cotton used was truly "low-end", used for internal pant pockets. How were the nuns to keep out the cold?!

And it dawned on me that monastics do have a choice in these gifts. Some like Ven Mahakassapa in SN 16.5 elected coarse materials to inspire others, while the Buddha in MN 77 did not refuse extravagant gifts.

[robertk]

perhaps you would have been horified if you had been present when the Buddha and 500 monks recived the great ofering by queen malika and King

gifst beyong compaqre.PNG (105.69 KiB) Viewed 2793 times

pasenad

[Mr Man]

perhaps you would have been horified if you had been present when the Buddha and 500 monks recived the great ofering by queen malika and King

gifst beyong compaqre.PNG

pasenad

robertk, Do you not think the context is rather different?

The OP's sister commented on seeing monks in business class.

If we look at the "The Ten Reasons For Setting Down The Rules Of A Mendicant" http://cittasanto.weebly.com/2/post/201 ... 11511.html (thank you Cittasanto).

1 – To protect the excellent (reputation) of well behaved) members;
2 – To protect the comfort (due to respect) of (well behaved) members;
3 – To silence those who are obstinate;
4 – For diligent meditators to have ease (in obtaining requisites);
5 – For meditators to restrain their effluents in the here & now;
6 – For restraining effluents (that condition) future births;
7 – For faith to arise in those who lack faith;
8 – For the conditions to increase the faith of those already with faith;
9 – For the true way (to be visible) for along time;
10 – For assisting the discipline of those in Training.

Now if we think about these reasons rather than the rules. Notably 7 + 1, 5, 6 & 8, in my opinion.

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

If we look at the "The Ten Reasons For Setting Down The Rules Of A Mendicant" http://cittasanto.weebly.com/2/post/201 ... 11511.html (thank you Cittasanto).

That is a very free translation. This is mine:

1. For the excellence of the Saṅgha (Saṅghasuṭṭhutāya).
2. For the well-being of the Saṅgha (Saṅghaphāsutāya).
3. To control wicked individuals (Dummaṅkūnaṃ puggalānaṃ niggahāya).
4. For the comfort of well-behaved bhikkhus (Pesalānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ phāsuvihārāya).
5. To restrain present taints (Diṭṭhadhammikānaṃ āsavānaṃ saṃvarāya).
6. To prevent the arising of future taints (Samparāyikānaṃ āsavānaṃ paṭighātāya).
7. To arouse faith in those who lack faith(Appasannānaṃ pasādāya).
8. To strengthen faith in those who have faith(Pasannānaṃ bhiyyobhāvāya).
9. To establish the true Dhamma (Saddhammaṭṭhitiyā).
10. To support the Vinaya (Vinayānuggahāya).” (A v 70)

[Dhammanando]

Can you give us your view of the other point. If I am your disciple and I decide to gift you a Louis Vuitton suitcase, will you accept it.

Puggalika-dāna or saṅgha-dāna? If it were the former —an offering that you intended for my personal use— then I would decline it because I don’t use suitcases and there’s no other monk to whom I could easily give it away. If it were the latter, then I would accept it and hand it over to my monastery’s lay stewards. It would then be their responsibility to either barter it for whatever the monastery needs or auction it to pay the bills. Refusing a saṅgha-dāna would be out of the question, unless the gift were something unallowable or the lay donor were under the saṅgha’s interdiction. Luxury French suitcases are not unallowable, however much one might wish them to be. (Although in the case of a Louis Vuitton you’d first need to remove the suitcase’s pretentious monogram, since it’s made out of gold).

Now to continue in this hypothetical vein, suppose I did happen to be a suitcase-using bhikkhu who lacked a suitcase? If you came to me and offered to get me one, and invited me to express some preference, then I would certainly go for something inexpensive. Perhaps a nice sensible product like the Trunki Gruffalo. It’s only £39.99 and no reasonable person could deny that it makes a decorous, yet suitably understated, accoutrement for a bhikkhu.

.

Gruffalo_Front_RGB720.jpg (272.16 KiB) Viewed 3454 times

.

But if you made no such invitation and simply brought me a suitcase that you’d selected yourself, I would accept it no matter what sort it was. Whether it was a poncey over-priced doodah from Paris or a battered old relic that you’d picked up at a jumble sale, or (heaven grant us!) a Trunki Gruffalo, I should accept it with gratitude.

Note that in both of these scenarios my aim would be that of being an easy burden to my lay supporters (subharo) and of light livelihood (sallahukavutti). These are two of the sixteen qualities mentioned by the Buddha in the opening of the Karaṇīyamettā Sutta, upon which the successful practice of mettabhāvanā (and no doubt of bhāvanā in general) depends. In the first scenario I select something cheap so that I don’t burden your bank account. In the second I take what you’ve selected for me so that I don’t waste your time (i.e. by requesting you to go back and change the Louis Vuitton for a Gruffalo or whatever).

As for your other hypothetical scenarios, you can just apply the following rubric:

1. Puggalika-dāna and I need it; I accept it.
1.1. If invited I go for inexpensive.
1.2. If not invited I accept what’s offered.

2. Puggalika-dāna and I don’t need it – I decline it.

3. Saṅgha-dāna – I accept it whether or not I have any personal use for it.

[arijitmitter]

Realy? Do you realise that a monastic movement in that direction would inevitably cause a schism?

Schism of what ? Most of those who posted a reply, asked me to accept any possible transgressions with blind faith that the monks in question were allowed by the Vinay or they will not have done so . But the world is way past that point of blind faith.

Please understand there are two types of Theravadins (and / or Buddhists) (at least) in present day -

1 ) Those who put a lot of faith in the structure, the rules, the system. To them any change in status quo might be annoying. (I am not speaking of Bhikkhus but disciples)

2 ) Those who in course of searching for a body of knowledge chanced upon Theravada (and / or Buddhism) and was attracted by its simplicity. A person like me. To me Theravada will go on existing with or without monks. It has been printed into books. Knowledge of mindfulness has spread to non monk teachers who teach it both in secular and orthodox way. Once a religion becomes democratic in this manner the fate of the clergy does not matter any more (specially since Theravada has very little liturgy unlike Hinduism)

I do not accept that a person in ochre robes is necessarily a Noble One. I do not accept that a person not in an ochre robe is necessarily not a Noble One.

A few days back there was a massive brouhaha because a respected Ajahn had disrobed after some 38 years and married. It seemed to people like me much ado about nothing. Let the man do what he is happy with. Why put a notional burden on his shoulder.

How utterly ludicrous it was. The man was happy being a monk for many years. The man fell in love. The man left being a monk and married. Matter finished.

As for your other hypothetical scenarios, you can just apply the following rubric:

1. Puggalika-dāna and I need it; I accept it.
1.1. If invited I go for inexpensive.
1.2. If not invited I accept what’s offered.

2. Puggalika-dāna and I don’t need it – I decline it.

3. Saṅgha-dāna – I accept it whether or not I have any personal use for it.

Venerable Dhammanando thank you for very succinct and suitable explanations. It is on Bhantes like you Sir that Theravada in wider and more educated world depends on for understanding based faith.

May I also commend you about your excellent choice of luggage.

Arijit

[Sanjay PS]

Lord Buddha once asked the Bhikkus to rub and powder down a sandalwood imperial throne chair that was gifted to him. The powder was then made as a medicinal eye ointment .

i think it is entirely uncalled for us laity to evaluate or contemplate a" perceived " or factual short coming of those who have donned the robe . There is the proper Sangha in place to deal and manage any conducts that spills over the Vinaya . Whenever we pay our deep respects to the members of Sangha it is the qualities of the Sangha to which we stand inspired , devoid of the individuals inclination . And i am sure , a natural feeling of gratitude emanates with reverence making us want to provide the best .

i am reminded of an incident during Emperor Ashokas time .

Emperor Ashoka had a younger brother called Vitashoka , who was quite troubled in seeing the best of dana that was being bestowed on the Sangha by his elder brother . This discontent came onto the ears of the Emperor , and he immediately gave order that his younger brothers head to be chopped off , however , this punishment be resorted after a lapse of 7 days . During these 7 days Vitashoka was pampered with the best of food and other senses of gaiety and ultra luxurious comfort . On the 7th day morning , Ashoka himself went on to check on his younger brother , and found Vitashoka , pale and shriveled with worry . The Emperor asked him why was this so , even though no stone was left unturned in providing the best of luxuries that were bestowed upon him all through the 7 days . Vitashoka replied how was he expected to enjoy all the fine living , when he knew that in 7 days time , he would be executed .

Emperor Ashoka said that Vitashoka was indeed very wise , and should go on to broaden his understanding of the efforts that the Sangha does in living as closely as possible to the truth of the " here and now" execution of our living .

The younger brother of Emperor Ashoka went on to become an Arhant .

sanjay

[Modus.Ponens]

Realy? Do you realise that a monastic movement in that direction would inevitably cause a schism?

Schism of what ? Most of those who posted a reply, asked me to accept any possible transgressions with blind faith that the monks in question were allowed by the Vinay or they will not have done so . But the world is way past that point of blind faith.

Please understand there are two types of Theravadins (and / or Buddhists) (at least) in present day -

1 ) Those who put a lot of faith in the structure, the rules, the system. To them any change in status quo might be annoying. (I am not speaking of Bhikkhus but disciples)

2 ) Those who in course of searching for a body of knowledge chanced upon Theravada (and / or Buddhism) and was attracted by its simplicity. A person like me. To me Theravada will go on existing with or without monks. It has been printed into books. Knowledge of mindfulness has spread to non monk teachers who teach it both in secular and orthodox way. Once a religion becomes democratic in this manner the fate of the clergy does not matter any more (specially since Theravada has very little liturgy unlike Hinduism)

I do not accept that a person in ochre robes is necessarily a Noble One. I do not accept that a person not in an ochre robe is necessarily not a Noble One.

A few days back there was a massive brouhaha because a respected Ajahn had disrobed after some 38 years and married. It seemed to people like me much ado about nothing. Let the man do what he is happy with. Why put a notional burden on his shoulder.

How utterly ludicrous it was. The man was happy being a monk for many years. The man fell in love. The man left being a monk and married. Matter finished.

As for your other hypothetical scenarios, you can just apply the following rubric:

1. Puggalika-dāna and I need it; I accept it.
1.1. If invited I go for inexpensive.
1.2. If not invited I accept what’s offered.

2. Puggalika-dāna and I don’t need it – I decline it.

3. Saṅgha-dāna – I accept it whether or not I have any personal use for it.

Venerable Dhammanando thank you for very succinct and suitable explanations. It is on Bhantes like you Sir that Theravada in wider and more educated world depends on for understanding based faith.

May I also commend you about your excellent choice of luggage.

Arijit

Nothing of what you said contradicts the phrase that I wrote: If there was a monastic movement in that direction, there would be a schism.

[arijitmitter]

Nothing of what you said contradicts the phrase that I wrote: If there was a monastic movement in that direction, there would be a schism.

"Schism of what" in my previous post to be read as "does it matter." If Thai Buddhism vanished tomorrow or Dharamsala Buddhism vanished tomorrow - if there were no longer any ordained monks (assume all ordained monks were abducted by aliens tonight) will our search for Dhamma end or slow down ?

There appears to be a clear divide among those who have read this thread. I am more democratic and unwilling to accept anything on blind faith and question anything that seems slightly inappropriate. Perhaps this comes, because as a householder I lead a life that can be called an urban monk.

Yesterday at the monastery I attend, I was asked by the abbot that since I am already following Dhamma with such gusto and am single why do I not think of becoming a monk. I said I have been toying with the idea for last 2 months but I have to look after my mother and can only consider it once she passes away. I am already 43 and change and do not think becoming a Bhikkhu at a reasonably advanced age of 44 to 60 is a good idea.

The abbot appreciated my candor and said the door is always open for me (Please bear in mind that on June 1, 2013 I walked into his monastery and declared I want to be converted to being a Theravadin Buddhist so my rise in his eyes has been quite fast. Not all lay devotees get an invitation to be a monk after 4 months and 25 days. So I must have some "monk" potential). This is not to be arrogant but to show that i am apart from being argumentative at times a deeply dedicated person on path of Dhamma.

What struck me is he was willing to bring up the discussion of becoming a monk with a person as unorthodox as me. That itself speaks volumes about any possible "schism"

Arijit