Would a buddhist monk...

[Hanzze]

tell: "I am a Monk."?
Would a Buddhist monk tell: "I am a Buddhist."?
Would a follower of the path call him self a Buddhist?

...from the view of practice, except of situations where one is needed to answer ( local law)

[Individual]

He might say that, but his mind should remain clear.

In other words, he uses conventional language, but not conventional thinking.

[Hanzze]

_/\_

[Individual]

He might say that, but his mind should remain clear.

In other words, he uses conventional language, but not conventional thinking.

Good solution, but wouldn't it in this case a lie? A tactic?

It is a lie, but the monk did not create it. He merely accepts the lie and gives it back, to avoid too much confusion.

Because it is not always possible or necessary to explain anatta. Many suttas are written about anatta, but people might read them and still not understand.

So, you have to use conventional language, or people will think you are crazy or stupid.

[Hanzze]

_/\_

[plwk]

Does it matter?

[Hanzze]

_/\_

[Goedert]

Friend,

Everything is possible to do in the world. Didn't You know that a monk could say such things as you describe?

[appicchato]

When knowing the mind of the other...

We don't even know our own minds...seeing, or knowing, another's is pretty unrealistic...

[Hanzze]

_/\_

[Hanzze]

_/\_

[Phra Chuntawongso]

When I enter Thailand there is a question on the immigration card that asks what is my occupation.I would have to state Monk.
I was also reading something by Ven.Yuttadhammo on his website.He is somewhere in California and people ask him what he is,many of them never seeing a monk walking their streets before.Should he remain silent?No, he can answer that he is a buddhist monk.As monks we are dealing with non monastics all of the time and have to speak in conventional language unless we are explaining certain aspects of the dhamma.If a person,especially a non buddhist asks, are you a monk I can not really start saying things like-no monk-no me-no you.I would consider this to be un-beneficial speech that would merely create confusion and why would I wish to add confusion where confusion already exists?

[Sylvester]

It is a lie, but the monk did not create it. He merely accepts the lie and gives it back, to avoid too much confusion.

Because it is not always possible or necessary to explain anatta. Many suttas are written about anatta, but people might read them and still not understand.

So, you have to use conventional language, or people will think you are crazy or stupid.

That would maybe the point if two monks are meeting.

Questioned by a layman? Knowing the layman is deep attached with concept of somebody in a orange robe.

Indeed, which seems to be what happened when a young and cheeky Ven Brahmavamso met the Taungpulu Sayadaw and asked him, "Who's answering these questions?"

The sayadaw answered - "Nama".

[Hanzze]

_/\_

[Hanzze]

_/\_