No affection? At all? Period?

Theravāda in the 21st century - modern applications of ancient wisdom

No affection? At all? Period?

Postby Kasina » Sat Apr 12, 2014 1:56 pm

Here is a quote from a previous thread of mine:

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:This is the full text from Buddhist Monastic Code:

Intention. The Vinītavatthu contains cases of a bhikkhu who caresses his mother out of filial affection, one who caresses his daughter out of fatherly affection, and one who caresses his sister out of brotherly affection. In each case the penalty is a Dukkaṭa.
The Vibhaṅga does not discuss the issue of bhikkhus who intentionally make active contact with women for purposes other than lust or affection — e.g., helping a woman who has fallen into a raging river — but the Commentary does. It introduces the concept of anāmasa, things carrying a Dukkaṭa penalty when touched; women and clothing belonging to a woman top the list. It then goes into great detail to tell how one should behave when one’s mother falls into a raging river. Under no circumstances, it says, should one grab hold of her, although one may extend a rope, a board, etc., in her direction. If she happens to grab hold of her son the bhikkhu, he should not shake her off, but should simply let her hold on as he swims back to shore.
Where the Commentary gets the concepts of anāmasa is hard to say. Perhaps it came from the practices of the Brahmin caste, who are very careful not to touch certain things and people of certain lower castes. At any rate, there is no direct basis for it in the Canon. Although the concept has received universal acceptance in Theravādin Communities, many highly‑respected Vinaya experts have made an exception right here, saying that there is nothing wrong in touching a woman when one’s action is based not on lust, but on a desire to save her from danger. Even if there is an offence in doing so, there are other places where Buddhaghosa recommends that one be willing to incur a minor penalty for the sake of compassion (e.g., digging a person out of a hole into which he has fallen), and the same principle surely holds here.

So, shaking a woman's hand with the intention to avoid being impolite, or touching a woman to help her, not being lustful, nor out of affection, are no offence. However, touching or hugging out of affection are an offence of wrong-doing.

If a woman tries to shake my hand, I usually explain how to greet a bhikkhu by holding the hands in añjali, if circumstances are


viewtopic.php?f=30&t=20300&p=284154&hilit=family#p284154

What I gather is that if I want to be a monk, I cannot under any circumstance hug any of my family members... Which, well, is a problem, because I would really like to be a monk. However, if I were to say "sorry mom, I can't touch you anymore" she'd be less than thrilled, to say the least. I've already received a fair bit of resistance to my choice, and theres always, how do I put this, a frosty reception from my mother. Her eyes just glaze over and she meets anything I say about these sort of things with disbelief and utter disinterest. Honestly, it makes me very sad but I can't really expect much out of parents who aren't even religious (that isn't to say they're atheists, at least not my mother, my father probably doesn't even consider such things)... Anyways, say if I were to ordain (I'm ordaining at an Ajahn Chah monastery in Canada, 4 hours from where I live) I've read in the canon examples of people who utterly wanted to ordain but their parents wouldn't let them (mine have given me consent btw). Under these circumstances, conditional ordination was allowed. Could I have such an ordination, that would still allow me to interact with my family (physically, I'm positive there's no rule against me going for visits), so I could satisfy their wants and needs concerning my affection? If not is it possible to be a novice for, well, life so I needn't violate the vinaya?

Metta, Josh.
"This world completely lacks essence;
It trembles in all directions.
I longed to find myself a place
Unscathed — but I could not see it."


Sn 4.15 PTS: Sn 935-951 "Attadanda Sutta: Arming Oneself"

"You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go... This is the curse at work, the curse that feeds on all life..."

Wilbur Mercer in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
User avatar
Kasina
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:35 pm
Location: Barrie, Canada

Re: No affection? At all? Period?

Postby TheNoBSBuddhist » Sat Apr 12, 2014 2:17 pm

Just a few points here:

First of all, the Dalai lama regularly hugs, touches and greets women in different circumstances, even though he is a monk, and according to his Precepts and monastic regulations, he should not.

Secondly, there is the wonderful tale of the two monks on a journey together:

Two monks on a pilgrimage came to the ford of a river. There they saw a girl dressed in all her finery, obviously now knowing what to do since the river was high and she did not want to spoil her clothes. Without more ado, one of the monks took her on his back, carried her across and put her down on dry ground on the other side. Then the monks continued on their way.

However, the other monk, after an hour or so, started complaining, “Surely it is not right to touch a woman; it is against the commandments to have close contact with women. How could you go against the rules for monks?”

The monk who had carried the girl walked along silently, but finally he remarked, “I set her down by the river an hour ago, why are you still carrying her?”
Irmgard Schloegl, The Wisdom of Zen Masters, from here.

http://www.heartlight.org/articles/2001 ... rying.html

The root reason for this regulation is to combat and transcend excessive attachment.

There are certain things it is 'Right' to be attached to; for example, Monastic Vows, if you are ordained, the Dhamma if you are a Buddhist, and your chosen vocation of work, if you are employed in a job you cherish.... but 'Wrong' attachment is manifested as clinging/grasping. This is what leads to the love of worldly things and can steer us and divert us from our course/objective.

Nobody is ever suggesting you must cease ever having any affection for your relatives; but by very virtue of choosing a monastic life, you are sacrificing certain aspects of 'ordinary life'. That's the whole point.
You commit yourself to a life of asceticism, and forego many of the mundane, day-to-day things you know as a lay practitioner.

Being an ordained person is no mean feat,, no easy task; it is a requirement that you accept you must make sacrifices, and one of them, is excessive closeness.
It's a teaching model, a means to discipline.

I am reminded of the comments made by a woman, whose daughter was ordained as a nun, and subsequently went on to become a Superior;
"Look, in the beginning, I called you 'daughter'. When you ordained as a nun, I was obliged to call you 'sister'. Now you're a 'Superior' I am going to have to call you 'Mother' - ?! That really is the limit!!"

But she was being humorous.

If you ordain, and that is an expectation, this will not be done to please, or displease your mother.
You're not ordaining for your mother's pleasure, or otherwise. You are ordaining because in your heart of hearts, it is what you want to do.
If your mother will be obliged by convention and regulation to not hug you so much, then to use 'street parlance' she will just have to "suck it up".

And frankly - so will you.
You can't 'move the goalposts' or look for exceptions to the rule, or a slackening of what is expected of you.

I have found though, that relatives are a lot more respectful of their children and siblings, in such circumstances, than you'd ever expect.....
:namaste:

You will not be punished FOR your 'emotions'; you will be punished BY your 'emotions'.



Image

Pay attention, simplify, and (Meditation instruction in a nutshell) "Mind - the Gap."
‘Absit invidia verbo’ - may ill-will be absent from the word. And mindful of that, if I don't respond, this may be why....
User avatar
TheNoBSBuddhist
 
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:06 pm
Location: Loch Lomond, via the High AND Low road....

Re: No affection? At all? Period?

Postby Kasina » Sat Apr 12, 2014 2:31 pm

TheNoBSBuddhist wrote:Just a few points here:

First of all, the Dalai lama regularly hugs, touches and greets women in different circumstances, even though he is a monk, and according to his Precepts and monastic regulations, he should not.

Secondly, there is the wonderful tale of the two monks on a journey together:

Two monks on a pilgrimage came to the ford of a river. There they saw a girl dressed in all her finery, obviously now knowing what to do since the river was high and she did not want to spoil her clothes. Without more ado, one of the monks took her on his back, carried her across and put her down on dry ground on the other side. Then the monks continued on their way.

However, the other monk, after an hour or so, started complaining, “Surely it is not right to touch a woman; it is against the commandments to have close contact with women. How could you go against the rules for monks?”

The monk who had carried the girl walked along silently, but finally he remarked, “I set her down by the river an hour ago, why are you still carrying her?”
Irmgard Schloegl, The Wisdom of Zen Masters, from here.

http://www.heartlight.org/articles/2001 ... rying.html

The root reason for this regulation is to combat and transcend excessive attachment.

There are certain things it is 'Right' to be attached to; for example, Monastic Vows, if you are ordained, the Dhamma if you are a Buddhist, and your chosen vocation of work, if you are employed in a job you cherish.... but 'Wrong' attachment is manifested as clinging/grasping. This is what leads to the love of worldly things and can steer us and divert us from our course/objective.

Nobody is ever suggesting you must cease ever having any affection for your relatives; but by very virtue of choosing a monastic life, you are sacrificing certain aspects of 'ordinary life'. That's the whole point.
You commit yourself to a life of asceticism, and forego many of the mundane, day-to-day things you know as a lay practitioner.

Being an ordained person is no mean feat,, no easy task; it is a requirement that you accept you must make sacrifices, and one of them, is excessive closeness.
It's a teaching model, a means to discipline.

I am reminded of the comments made by a woman, whose daughter was ordained as a nun, and subsequently went on to become a Superior;
"Look, in the beginning, I called you 'daughter'. When you ordained as a nun, I was obliged to call you 'sister'. Now you're a 'Superior' I am going to have to call you 'Mother' - ?! That really is the limit!!"

But she was being humorous.

If you ordain, and that is an expectation, this will not be done to please, or displease your mother.
You're not ordaining for your mother's pleasure, or otherwise. You are ordaining because in your heart of hearts, it is what you want to do.
If your mother will be obliged by convention and regulation to not hug you so much, then to use 'street parlance' she will just have to "suck it up".

And frankly - so will you.
You can't 'move the goalposts' or look for exceptions to the rule, or a slackening of what is expected of you.

I have found though, that relatives are a lot more respectful of their children and siblings, in such circumstances, than you'd ever expect.....


All fair game, thanks for the response. Just to clarify, less affection and less closeness are not problems for me. Lets just say it would be easier for me to set myself to work as a monk if I didn't need to weighed down with poor relations or constant complaints from family members.

As for the bolded part, I can suck it up, rather I already have, or maybe I never needed to, but my family is entirely different. The game's a lot more complicated when everyone's not playing by the same rules. :juggling:

Metta, Josh.
:anjali:
"This world completely lacks essence;
It trembles in all directions.
I longed to find myself a place
Unscathed — but I could not see it."


Sn 4.15 PTS: Sn 935-951 "Attadanda Sutta: Arming Oneself"

"You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go... This is the curse at work, the curse that feeds on all life..."

Wilbur Mercer in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
User avatar
Kasina
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:35 pm
Location: Barrie, Canada

Re: No affection? At all? Period?

Postby James the Giant » Sat Apr 12, 2014 2:42 pm

You can hug her, it's not a rule laid down by the buddha, it's a rule made up by monks hundreds of years later, EDIT: this is WRONG. Oops! Bhukkh Pesala has corrected me and says this rule is not commentarial, but is in the actual vinaya text. and probably based on the sexist rules of the brahmins.
Even if it had been a rule made by the buddha, it's a dukkata, which is fixed by a simple 3 minute confession ceremony that you'll be doing twice a month anyway.
When you become a monk, be sure to read the vinaya carefully, and see what are the buddha's rules, and what are the commentarial things added later. EDIT: It looks like I need to do this myself! Apologies.
Last edited by James the Giant on Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Then,
saturated with joy,
you will put an end to suffering and stress.
SN 9.11
User avatar
James the Giant
 
Posts: 784
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:41 am

Re: No affection? At all? Period?

Postby Kasina » Sat Apr 12, 2014 2:57 pm

James the Giant wrote:You can hug her, it's not a rule laid down by the buddha, it's a rule made up by monks hundreds of years later, and probably based on the sexist rules of the brahmins.
Even if it had been a rule made by the buddha, it's a dukkata, which is fixed by a simple 3 minute confession ceremony that you'll be doing twice a month anyway.
When you become a monk, be sure to read the vinaya carefully, and see what are the buddha's rules, and what are the commentarial things added later.


Oh, thank you very much!

:anjali:
"This world completely lacks essence;
It trembles in all directions.
I longed to find myself a place
Unscathed — but I could not see it."


Sn 4.15 PTS: Sn 935-951 "Attadanda Sutta: Arming Oneself"

"You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go... This is the curse at work, the curse that feeds on all life..."

Wilbur Mercer in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
User avatar
Kasina
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:35 pm
Location: Barrie, Canada

Re: No affection? At all? Period?

Postby Coyote » Sat Apr 12, 2014 2:58 pm

I have read that in some monasteries (abhayagiri I think) for western monks hugging parents is overlooked, given that it is not one of the 227 rules, but a tradition. I am not a vinaya expert, but it seems that if there is no lust, there is no offence.
Personally, if I worried that much about what my parents thought, I would seriously consider my desire to ordain. In fact, I decided not to for the time being for those reasons (among other things).

I wonder if anyone knows what things are like at Ven. Thanissaro's monastery. I only asked because he includes the commentary rules in his "Buddhist monastic code".
"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared."
Iti 26
Coyote
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:42 pm
Location: Wales - UK

Re: No affection? At all? Period?

Postby TheNoBSBuddhist » Sat Apr 12, 2014 3:07 pm

Kasina wrote:<mega-snip>

The game's a lot more complicated when everyone's not playing by the same rules. :juggling:

Metta, Josh.
:anjali:


It doesn't matter whether 'everyone's playing by the same rules' or not.

These are 'Your rules' and as such, they have no say in the matter.
Ordination is not a democratic process in which they have any say, after you have ordained and been accepted into the Monastery.

They don't have a choice; they don't get to set rules, make them up or have their own.

You rules, are your rules, and they have an obligation to accept them and abide by them.
Like I said, 'suck it up'..... :twothumbsup:
:namaste:

You will not be punished FOR your 'emotions'; you will be punished BY your 'emotions'.



Image

Pay attention, simplify, and (Meditation instruction in a nutshell) "Mind - the Gap."
‘Absit invidia verbo’ - may ill-will be absent from the word. And mindful of that, if I don't respond, this may be why....
User avatar
TheNoBSBuddhist
 
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:06 pm
Location: Loch Lomond, via the High AND Low road....

Re: No affection? At all? Period?

Postby Kasina » Sat Apr 12, 2014 3:09 pm

Coyote wrote:I have read that in some monasteries (abhayagiri I think) for western monks hugging parents is overlooked, given that it is not one of the 227 rules, but a tradition. I am not a vinaya expert, but it seems that if there is no lust, there is no offence.
Personally, if I worried that much about what my parents thought, I would seriously consider my desire to ordain. In fact, I decided not to for the time being for those reasons (among other things).

I wonder if anyone knows what things are like at Ven. Thanissaro's monastery. I only asked because he includes the commentary rules in his "Buddhist monastic code".


It's not so much worrying what they think, but what they can do. Honestly, the explanations I've received thus far should be fine for my purposes.
"This world completely lacks essence;
It trembles in all directions.
I longed to find myself a place
Unscathed — but I could not see it."


Sn 4.15 PTS: Sn 935-951 "Attadanda Sutta: Arming Oneself"

"You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go... This is the curse at work, the curse that feeds on all life..."

Wilbur Mercer in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
User avatar
Kasina
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:35 pm
Location: Barrie, Canada

Re: No affection? At all? Period?

Postby Anagarika » Sat Apr 12, 2014 3:10 pm

James the Giant wrote:You can hug her, it's not a rule laid down by the buddha, it's a rule made up by monks hundreds of years later, and probably based on the sexist rules of the brahmins.
Even if it had been a rule made by the buddha, it's a dukkata, which is fixed by a simple 3 minute confession ceremony that you'll be doing twice a month anyway.
When you become a monk, be sure to read the vinaya carefully, and see what are the buddha's rules, and what are the commentarial things added later.


:goodpost:
User avatar
Anagarika
 
Posts: 611
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:25 pm

Re: No affection? At all? Period?

Postby Bhikkhu Pesala » Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:14 pm

James the Giant wrote:You can hug her, it's not a rule laid down by the buddha, it's a rule made up by monks hundreds of years later, and probably based on the sexist rules of the brahmins.

Even if it had been a rule made by the buddha, it's a dukkata, which is fixed by a simple 3 minute confession ceremony that you'll be doing twice a month anyway.

When you become a monk, be sure to read the vinaya carefully, and see what are the buddha's rules, and what are the commentarial things added later.

It is a rule laid down by the Buddha. The Vinītavatthua is the story in the Vinaya text, not the Commentary. It gives the occasion for the rules, and the stories that later led to amendments.

The offence of wrong-doing for touching one's mother or sister out of affection comes in the Vinītavatthu for the Saṅghadisesa rule regarding touching a woman with lust. Ajahn Thanissaro's Buddhist Monastic Code says:
Intention. The Vinītavatthu contains cases of a bhikkhu who caresses his mother out of filial affection, one who caresses his daughter out of fatherly affection, and one who caresses his sister out of brotherly affection. In each case the penalty is a Dukkaṭa.

If a mother or an unrelated woman hugs a monk, there is no offence. If the monk hugs the woman, there is.
AIM WebsitePāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
 
Posts: 2034
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: No affection? At all? Period?

Postby Anagarika » Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:32 pm

I'm in favor of strict Vinaya adherence, but I have to wonder if the rule as stated above by Bhante can be circumvented by the Bhikkhu, who wishes to maintain the "hugging" connection with, say, his Mother, then instructs her that she may reach out to hug him, but not that he may hug her. Mom gets her hugs at will, and the Bhikkhu maintains this connection with his beloved Mother.

I wonder if this rule developed out of a concern, more than any other, that someone in the community would see a Bhikkhu hugging a woman, and believe something romantic or sexual was taking place. To rule out even the appearance of impropriety, the rule was established.

I can only imagine that there are some very solid Vinaya monks who still, while in a private home secluded from others, give their Mothers a hug. Going forth entails giving up so much, and with ( at least in the Thai tradition) the reverence that is paid to parents, that this is one area where some discretion can be applied, and maintain the Vinaya in the spirit, if not letter, of the rule.
User avatar
Anagarika
 
Posts: 611
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:25 pm

Re: No affection? At all? Period?

Postby Bhikkhu Pesala » Sat Apr 12, 2014 8:12 pm

Lust, craving, greed, and affection are hard to remove. Only a Non-returner is entirely free from lust.

No Affection at all is ideal. The Chapter on Affection in the Dhammapada.

Do not confuse affection with loving-kindness. The first is unwholesome (akusala), the second is wholesome (kusala). Distinguishing the two is not at all easy either. If it hurts to let go, and to abide detached, then attachment is still present.

To abide detached does not mean dwelling in aversion either. In the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta it repeats in many paragraphs: Vineyya loke abhijjhā domanassaṃ — free from covetousness and grief concerning the world.
AIM WebsitePāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
 
Posts: 2034
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: No affection? At all? Period?

Postby Kasina » Sat Apr 12, 2014 8:39 pm

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Lust, craving, greed, and affection are hard to remove. Only a Non-returner is entirely free from lust.

No Affection at all is ideal. The Chapter on Affection in the Dhammapada.


I absolutely agree. Unfortunately my family doesn't really understand the value in these ideals, nor will they any lifetime soon.

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Do not confuse affection with loving-kindness. The first is unwholesome (akusala), the second is wholesome (kusala). Distinguishing the two is not at all easy either. If it hurts to let go, and to abide detached, then attachment is still present.

To abide detached does not mean dwelling in aversion either. In the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta it repeats in many paragraphs: Vineyya loke abhijjhā domanassaṃ — free from covetousness and grief concerning the world.


Bhante, then would it be more appropriate to allow my family to hug me in those ways, merely out of concern for their needs (as opposed to craving their mutual affection and love)? I'm absolutely not against following the vinaya strictly, but part of being able to do that for me would be keeping my family pleased as well.

If it's not too private, how do you interact with your family, or how do they interact with you?

Metta, Josh.
:anjali:
"This world completely lacks essence;
It trembles in all directions.
I longed to find myself a place
Unscathed — but I could not see it."


Sn 4.15 PTS: Sn 935-951 "Attadanda Sutta: Arming Oneself"

"You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go... This is the curse at work, the curse that feeds on all life..."

Wilbur Mercer in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
User avatar
Kasina
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:35 pm
Location: Barrie, Canada

Re: No affection? At all? Period?

Postby Kasina » Sat Apr 12, 2014 8:40 pm

Anagarika wrote:I'm in favor of strict Vinaya adherence, but I have to wonder if the rule as stated above by Bhante can be circumvented by the Bhikkhu, who wishes to maintain the "hugging" connection with, say, his Mother, then instructs her that she may reach out to hug him, but not that he may hug her. Mom gets her hugs at will, and the Bhikkhu maintains this connection with his beloved Mother.

I wonder if this rule developed out of a concern, more than any other, that someone in the community would see a Bhikkhu hugging a woman, and believe something romantic or sexual was taking place. To rule out even the appearance of impropriety, the rule was established.

I can only imagine that there are some very solid Vinaya monks who still, while in a private home secluded from others, give their Mothers a hug. Going forth entails giving up so much, and with ( at least in the Thai tradition) the reverence that is paid to parents, that this is one area where some discretion can be applied, and maintain the Vinaya in the spirit, if not letter, of the rule.

:goodpost:
"This world completely lacks essence;
It trembles in all directions.
I longed to find myself a place
Unscathed — but I could not see it."


Sn 4.15 PTS: Sn 935-951 "Attadanda Sutta: Arming Oneself"

"You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go... This is the curse at work, the curse that feeds on all life..."

Wilbur Mercer in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
User avatar
Kasina
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:35 pm
Location: Barrie, Canada

Re: No affection? At all? Period?

Postby Bhikkhu Pesala » Sat Apr 12, 2014 9:22 pm

The standards at the monastery where you ordain should be followed. After ordination you will receive instructions about the proper conduct around relatives. I recommend putting some distance between yourself and family after ordination. Write about twice a year to let them know that you're alive and well, and if you're not you can ask them for medicine. That's enough, unless they ask about the Dhamma, then you can write more often, and in more detail.

My personal attitudes are irrelevant to this issue, but we never did do hugs in my family — at least not since my young childhood. My father is dead, and my mother is in a care home with dementia. I am not sure if she even recognised me at my father's funeral. My sister writes occasionally, my brother sometimes sends an email, or I occasionally call to manage some business. None of my family are Buddhists, or interested in Buddhism. My brother is an active Christian, but other family members have no interest in religion AFAIK. It's not something they ever talk about.

It's worth noting that fondling the children of supporters is one of the actions included in "Corrupting families."

21 Kinds of Wrong Livelihood
AIM WebsitePāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
 
Posts: 2034
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: No affection? At all? Period?

Postby Kasina » Sat Apr 12, 2014 9:38 pm

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:The standards at the monastery where you ordain should be followed. After ordination you will receive instructions about the proper conduct around relatives. I recommend putting some distance between yourself and family after ordination. Write about twice a year to let them know that you're alive and well, and if you're not you can ask them for medicine. That's enough, unless they ask about the Dhamma, then you can write more often, and in more detail.


If only I could get away with that! As I have mentioned, I'll be here in Canada, only 4 hours away from home, and I will be pretty much expected to visit them several times a year, or any consent they gave me goes down the drain...

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:My personal attitudes are irrelevant to this issue,


Of course. I was just curious how someone who is ordained actually goes about this, it being my main aspiration.

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:but we never did do hugs in my family — at least not since my young childhood. My father is dead, and my mother is in a care home with dementia. I am not sure if she even recognised me at my father's funeral. My sister writes occasionally, my brother sometimes sends an email, or I occasionally call to manage some business. None of my family are Buddhists, or interested in Buddhism. My brother is an active Christian, but other family members have no interest in religion AFAIK. It's not something they ever talk about.

It's worth noting that fondling the children of supporters is one of the actions included in "Corrupting families."

21 Kinds of Wrong Livelihood


I see, clearly a different dynamic and age as well. I'm still only 19, so of course it's going to be different... Thank you for sharing Bhante.

Metta, Josh.
:anjali:
"This world completely lacks essence;
It trembles in all directions.
I longed to find myself a place
Unscathed — but I could not see it."


Sn 4.15 PTS: Sn 935-951 "Attadanda Sutta: Arming Oneself"

"You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go... This is the curse at work, the curse that feeds on all life..."

Wilbur Mercer in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
User avatar
Kasina
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:35 pm
Location: Barrie, Canada

Re: No affection? At all? Period?

Postby seeker242 » Sat Apr 12, 2014 9:59 pm

IMO, leaving home means...leaving home, either you do or you don't. I don't think there is a middle ground IMO
User avatar
seeker242
 
Posts: 279
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: No affection? At all? Period?

Postby Kasina » Sat Apr 12, 2014 10:06 pm

seeker242 wrote:IMO, leaving home means...leaving home, either you do or you don't. I don't think there is a middle ground IMO


If I could leave and be done and gone, I would. But for the time being, It's going to take some doing to get things the way I'd like them.
"This world completely lacks essence;
It trembles in all directions.
I longed to find myself a place
Unscathed — but I could not see it."


Sn 4.15 PTS: Sn 935-951 "Attadanda Sutta: Arming Oneself"

"You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go... This is the curse at work, the curse that feeds on all life..."

Wilbur Mercer in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
User avatar
Kasina
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:35 pm
Location: Barrie, Canada

Re: No affection? At all? Period?

Postby James the Giant » Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:47 am

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:It is a rule laid down by the Buddha. The Vinītavatthua is the story in the Vinaya text, not the Commentary. It gives the occasion for the rules, and the stories that later led to amendments.

The offence of wrong-doing for touching one's mother or sister out of affection comes in the Vinītavatthu for the Saṅghadisesa rule regarding touching a woman with lust. Ajahn Thanissaro's Buddhist Monastic Code says:
Intention. The Vinītavatthu contains cases of a bhikkhu who caresses his mother out of filial affection, one who caresses his daughter out of fatherly affection, and one who caresses his sister out of brotherly affection. In each case the penalty is a Dukkaṭa.

If a mother or an unrelated woman hugs a monk, there is no offence. If the monk hugs the woman, there is.


Gosh, I was quite wrong, thanks for correcting me. Looks like I need to do my research more carefully! I'll edit my comment above.
Thanks again Venerable.
Then,
saturated with joy,
you will put an end to suffering and stress.
SN 9.11
User avatar
James the Giant
 
Posts: 784
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:41 am

Re: No affection? At all? Period?

Postby waterchan » Sun Apr 13, 2014 2:05 am

Maybe it's a good idea to consider ordaining when it's clear that your family more or less doesn't need you any more?

If one has doubts regarding one's ability to strictly follow the Vinaya due to familial attachments, it might be a good idea to postpone ordination until those attachments have weakened. Unless you have children, the time will surely come when your parents leave you or grow ill enough to not remember you.

We can still rise pretty high through the "ranks" of the Dhamma as a layperson.
quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur
(Anything in Latin sounds profound.)
User avatar
waterchan
 
Posts: 456
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 7:17 pm
Location: Sereitei

Next

Return to Theravāda for the modern world

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests