Householder Rejection of Monastics

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 9871
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: United Kingdom

Householder Rejection of Monastics

Post by Ceisiwr »

Greetings everyone,

I have a question I have not thought about before. At which point can a householder not recognise a monk or nun as being a genuine Buddhist, and so not a genuine bhikkhu worthy of alms? Do the suttas or commentaries set out any behaviour which if observed would be grounds for a householder to reject said person as a member of the sangha, or is there no grounds? Is it bad kamma to make the claim, or to make the claim and yet be wrong?
Saññāvirattassa na santi ganthā,
Paññāvimuttassa na santi mohā;
Saññañca diṭṭhiñca ye aggahesuṃ,
Te ghaṭṭayantā vicaranti loke”ti.


“For one detached from perception, there exist no ties,
for one by wisdom freed, no delusions are there,
but those who have grasped perceptions and views,
they wander the world stirring up strife."


Māgaṇḍiya Sutta
santa100
Posts: 4439
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Householder Rejection of Monastics

Post by santa100 »

Provided that monastics only expose/confess/handle their wrongdoings within their own circle, it's difficult for lay folks to really know for sure how really corrupt a monastic is. S/he can display an outward image of a perfectly nice/kind/precepts-observing/master-of-the-Tipitaka-being while behind the scene, breaks every single one of them. So, what do the lays do? Well, use common sense. When there's evidence that the monastic's doing something harmful to the well-being of other monastics and/or lay people ( ie. sex acts with minors, sex acts with married women, advocating the practice of wrong views, wrong conducts of the three gateways body/mind/speech, extract money from public funds, etc... ). At such point, that monastic's no longer a monastic anyway, and it's one's civic duty to expose the crime of a criminal before s/he'll commit more crimes against more innocent people.
SarathW
Posts: 14747
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Householder Rejection of Monastics

Post by SarathW »

This is a difficult thing for a lay person to decide.
You have to rely on the community. If the whole community is currepted, there is not much hope for us as it happen many parts of the world. The Vinaya is the guide for the community but not for the lay people. However lay people may raise their concerns to the appropriate monks I suppose.

=============
The Patimokkha classifies its rules into seven levels:

pārājika, defeat;
saṅghādisesa, entailing Communal meetings;
nissaggiya pācittiya, entailing forfeiture and confession;
pācittiya, entailing confession;
pāṭidesanīya, entailing acknowledgement;
sekhiya, trainings; and
adhikaraṇa samatha, the settlement of issues.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... intro.html
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
santa100
Posts: 4439
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Householder Rejection of Monastics

Post by santa100 »

SarathW wrote:This is a difficult thing for a lay person to decide.
That's not the worst part. The worst part is sometimes the breach is so blatant and yet those not-so-bright followers still cheer and clap in approval of the corrupted teacher. In such case, the most effective and also the easiest way to do it to terminate the cash-flow, cut off the feeding tube to those blood-sucking parasites.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 17930
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Householder Rejection of Monastics

Post by mikenz66 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:27 am Greetings everyone,

I have a question I have not thought about before. At which point can a householder not recognise a monk or nun as being a genuine Buddhist, and so not a genuine bhikkhu worthy of alms? Do the suttas or commentaries set out any behaviour which if observed would be grounds for a householder to reject said person as a member of the sangha, or is there no grounds? Is it bad kamma to make the claim, or to make the claim and yet be wrong?
Do you mean whether they have committed an offence that should have entailed expulsion? Or are you talking about making judgements of their grasp of Dhamma (i.e. you disagree with the particular monastic on some technical issue of Dhamma interpretation)?

Of course, it is good to seek out monastics who you feel inspired by, which will tend to be the ones you think are practising well. As the Buddha says, those who "excel in virtue, excel in concentration, excel in wisdom, excel in release, ... " and that
“By following such bhikkhus, by associating with them and attending upon them, the aggregate of virtue as yet incomplete reaches completion of development, the aggregate of concentration, of wisdom, of release, and of knowledge and vision of release as yet incomplete reaches completion of development. Such bhikkhus as these are called teachers, caravan-leaders, fault-abandoners, dispellers of darkness, light-bringers, makers of radiance, luminaries, torch-bearers, bringers of illumination, noble ones, possessors of vision.”
https://suttacentral.net/iti104
Also, relevantly here:
Bhikkhus, brahmins and householders are very helpful to you. They provide you with the requisites of robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicine in time of sickness.
And you, bhikkhus, are very helpful to brahmins and householders, as you teach them the Dhamma that is good at the outset, good in the middle, and good at the end, with its correct meaning and wording, and you proclaim the holy life in its fulfilment and complete purity. Thus, bhikkhus, this holy life is lived with mutual support for the purpose of crossing the flood and making a complete end of suffering.”
https://suttacentral.net/iti107/en/ireland
And he admonished monastics who were not measuring up:
“Bhikkhus, whatever bhikkhus are deceitful, stubborn, mere talkers, frauds, arrogant, and unconcentrated, these bhikkhus are no followers of mine. They have turned aside from this Dhamma-and-Discipline and will not achieve growth, progress, or development within it.
https://suttacentral.net/iti108/en/ireland
However, working out whether someone is practising well is not easy, unless you know them well.

:heart:
Mike
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4153
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: Householder Rejection of Monastics

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

This question is answered in depth in the Dhamma Dīpanī.

Should One Avoid Shameless and Immoral Monks?
Dhamma Dīpanī" wrote:Should those who know the truth about shameless and immoral monks refrain from associating with and paying respect to them? Does this agree with the verse in the Maṅgala Sutta that advises one to avoid the foolish? Is a lay person who shows disregard by shunning immoral and shameless monks following the Maṅgala Dhamma? We would like to hear evidence and case histories from the scriptures regarding good or bad results from this act.”

“Should those who know the truth about shameless and immoral monks continue to pay respect and offer requisites? Are they following the Maṅgala Dhamma that advises us to associate with the wise? Is this behaviour following the advice given in the Maṅgala Sutta or not? Kindly give evidence and case histories regarding good or bad results from this act.”
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 3962
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Householder Rejection of Monastics

Post by robertk »

Layfollowers do not have to give alms to bhikkhus they know are corrupt or wrongviewers , disparages of saddhadhamma (we can see even monks sometimes disparage Abhidhamma for example).

also see this:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... o/bmc2.pdf
The Community, if it wants to, may impose a reconciliation transaction on a
bhikkhu endowed with any of the following qualities:
a) he strives for the material loss of householders, for the detriment of
householders, for the non-residence of householders (so they can’t live in a certain
place); he insults and reviles householders; he gets householders to break with
householders;
b) he speaks in dispraise of the Buddha to householders, speaks in dispraise of
the Dhamma to householders
, speaks in dispraise of the Saºgha to householders,
ridicules and scoffs at householders about something low or vile, does not fulfill a
righteous promise made to householders [C: this includes accepting an invitation for
the Rains retreat or any other similar promise].
The procedure for imposing a reconciliation transaction is the same as for imposing
censure. Once a bhikkhu has had the transaction imposed on him, he must follow the
same duties as a censured bhikkhu, with one important addition: He must go to the lay
person (or lay people) he has wronged and ask his/her/their forgiveness. The
procedure for this is as follows. First another bhikkhu who has agreed to take on the
role of companion is authorized to go with the offending bhikkhu to the lay person’s
residence. None of the texts mention this point, but a wise policy would be to choose as
the companion a bhikkhu who is on friendly terms with the lay person (or people).
1) When they arrive there, the offending bhikkhu should ask the lay person’s
forgiveness, saying, “Forgive me, householder. I am making peace with you. (Or: I am
amicable with you.)” If the lay person forgives him, well and good.
2) If not, the companion bhikkhu should say, “Forgive this bhikkhu, householder.
He is making peace with you.” If the lay person forgives him, well and good.
3) If not, the companion bhikkhu should say, “Forgive this bhikkhu, householder. I
am making peace with you.” If the lay person forgives him, well and good.
4) If not, the companion bhikkhu should say, “Forgive this bhikkhu, householder, at
the request of the Community.” If the lay person forgives him, well and good.
5) If not, then without leaving sight or hearing of the lay person, the offending
bhikkhu should arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, kneel down with his hands
in añjali, and confess his offense to the companion bhikkhu.
When the offending bhikkhu has received the lay person’s forgiveness through any
of the steps 1-4, or has confessed his offense in the lay person’s presence in step 5, and
has observed his other restrictions properly, then at his request the Community may
rescind the reconciliation transaction.
User avatar
confusedlayman
Posts: 3629
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:16 am
Location: Human Realm (as of now)

Re: Householder Rejection of Monastics

Post by confusedlayman »

robertk wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 6:45 am Layfollowers do not have to give alms to bhikkhus they know are corrupt or wrongviewers , disparages of saddhadhamma (we can see even monks sometimes disparage Abhidhamma for example).

also see this:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... o/bmc2.pdf
The Community, if it wants to, may impose a reconciliation transaction on a
bhikkhu endowed with any of the following qualities:
a) he strives for the material loss of householders, for the detriment of
householders, for the non-residence of householders (so they can’t live in a certain
place); he insults and reviles householders; he gets householders to break with
householders;
b) he speaks in dispraise of the Buddha to householders, speaks in dispraise of
the Dhamma to householders
, speaks in dispraise of the Saºgha to householders,
ridicules and scoffs at householders about something low or vile, does not fulfill a
righteous promise made to householders [C: this includes accepting an invitation for
the Rains retreat or any other similar promise].
The procedure for imposing a reconciliation transaction is the same as for imposing
censure. Once a bhikkhu has had the transaction imposed on him, he must follow the
same duties as a censured bhikkhu, with one important addition: He must go to the lay
person (or lay people) he has wronged and ask his/her/their forgiveness. The
procedure for this is as follows. First another bhikkhu who has agreed to take on the
role of companion is authorized to go with the offending bhikkhu to the lay person’s
residence. None of the texts mention this point, but a wise policy would be to choose as
the companion a bhikkhu who is on friendly terms with the lay person (or people).
1) When they arrive there, the offending bhikkhu should ask the lay person’s
forgiveness, saying, “Forgive me, householder. I am making peace with you. (Or: I am
amicable with you.)” If the lay person forgives him, well and good.
2) If not, the companion bhikkhu should say, “Forgive this bhikkhu, householder.
He is making peace with you.” If the lay person forgives him, well and good.
3) If not, the companion bhikkhu should say, “Forgive this bhikkhu, householder. I
am making peace with you.” If the lay person forgives him, well and good.
4) If not, the companion bhikkhu should say, “Forgive this bhikkhu, householder, at
the request of the Community.” If the lay person forgives him, well and good.
5) If not, then without leaving sight or hearing of the lay person, the offending
bhikkhu should arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, kneel down with his hands
in añjali, and confess his offense to the companion bhikkhu.
When the offending bhikkhu has received the lay person’s forgiveness through any
of the steps 1-4, or has confessed his offense in the lay person’s presence in step 5, and
has observed his other restrictions properly, then at his request the Community may
rescind the reconciliation transaction.
so Ajhan brahm who dont support abhidhamma dont receive alms? i think abdhidhamma or vism is optional
I may be slow learner but im at least learning...
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 3962
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Householder Rejection of Monastics

Post by robertk »

laypeople can give to whom they wish-. However the wise will not support the folly of reckless monks.

The Expositor (Atthasalini). B Commentary On The Dhammasangani The First Book Of The Abhidhamma Pitaka. Translated by Pe Maung Tin. pp. 35-38,


Thus as rehearsed at the Council, the Abhidhamma is a Pitaka by Pitaka-classification, Khuddaka-Nikaya by Nikaya-classification, [28] Veyyakarana by Part-classification and constitutes two or three thousand units of text by the classification of textual units. One of those bhikkhus who studied the Abhidhamma once sat in the midst of bhikkhus who knew all the five Nikayas, and quoting the text (sutta) from the Abhidhamma taught the Doctrine thus:



[Preacher] 'The aggregate of matter is unmoral; of the four (mental) aggregates some are moral, some immoral, and some unmoral. Ten sense-organs are unmoral; the (remaining) two sense-organs may be moral, immoral, or unmoral. Sixteen elements are unmoral; the (remaining) two elements may be moral, immoral, or unmoral. The Fact of the Origination of ill is immoral; the Fact of the Path is moral; the Fact of Cessation is unmoral; the Fact of ill may be moral, immoral, or unmoral. Ten controlling powers are unmoral; the controlling power of grief is immoral; the controlling power of (intellect which prompts and inspires us)—“I shall come to know the unknown”—is moral; four controlling powers may be moral or unmoral; six controlling powers may be moral, immoral or unmoral.’



A bhikkhu, seated there, asked,



‘Preacher, you quote a long text as though you were going to encircle Mount Sineru; what text is it?’



[Preacher] ‘Abhidhamma text, brother.’



[Bhikkhu] ‘Why do you quote the Abhidhamma text ? Does it not behove you to quote other texts spoken by the Buddha?’



(Preacher) ‘ Brother, by whom was the Abhidhamma taught?’



[Bhikkhu] ‘Not by the Buddha.’



(Preacher) ‘But did you, brother, study the Vinaya-Pitaka ?’



[Bhikkhu] ‘No, brother, I did not.’



(Preacher) ‘Methinks, because you have not studied the Vinaya-Pitaka, you say so in ignorance.’



[Bhikkhu] ‘I have, indeed, brother, studied some Vinaya.’



(Preacher) ‘Then that has been badly acquired. You must have been seated at one end of the assembly and dozing. A person who leaves the world under such teachers as yourself to give the Refuge-formula, or a person who receives the full ordination under a chapter of such teachers as yourself, who have badly studied the Vinaya, does amiss. And why ? Because of this badly “studying some Vinaya.” For it has been said by the Buddha:1 “ If without any intention of reviling the Vinaya one were to instigate another, saying, Pray study the Suttas or Gath as or Abhidhamma first and afterwards you will learn the Vinaya—-there is no offence in him.” (Again, in the Bhikkhuni Vibhanga:2 “A bhikkhuni is guilty of a minor offence) if she questions on the Abhidhamma or Vinaya after getting permission (to question) on the Suttanta, or on the Suttanta or Vinaya after getting permission (to question) on the Abhidhamma, or on the Suttanta or Abhidhamma after getting permission (to question) on the Vinaya.” But you do not know even that much.” 3



With so much refutation was the heretic put down. The Mahdgosinga Sutta is even a stronger authority (to show that the Abhidhamma is the Buddha’s word). For therein when Sariputta, the Generalissimo of the Law, approached the Teacher to inform him of the reciprocal questions and answers that took place between Mahamoggallana and himself, and told how the former had answered, (the Master said) [29] ‘Brother Sariputta, in the religion the talk of two bhikkhus on the Abhidhamma, each asking and answering the other without faltering, is in accord with the Dhamma. Now such a bhikkhu, brother Sariputta, might enhance the beauty of the Gosinga Sala Forest.’4 The Teacher, far from saying that bhikkhus, who knew Abhidhamma, were outside his religion, lifted his drum-like neck and filling (with breath) his mouth, fraught as the full-moon with blessings, emitted his godlike voice congratulating Moggallana thus: ‘Well done, well done, Sariputta ! One should answer rightly as Moggallana has done; Moggallana is indeed a preacher of the Dhamma.’ And tradition has it that those bhikkhus only who know Abhidhamma are true preachers of the Dhamma; the rest, though they speak on the Dhamma, are not preachers thereof. And why? They, in speaking on the Dhamma, confuse the different kinds of Kamma and of its results, the distinction between mind and matter, and the different kinds of states. The students of Abhidhamma do not thus get confused; hence a bhikkhu who knows Abhidhamma, whether he preaches the Dhamma or not, will be able to answer questions whenever asked. He alone, therefore, is a true preacher of the Dhamma.

User avatar
confusedlayman
Posts: 3629
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:16 am
Location: Human Realm (as of now)

Re: Householder Rejection of Monastics

Post by confusedlayman »

robertk wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 8:15 am laypeople can give to whom they wish-. However the wise will not support the folly of reckless monks.

The Expositor (Atthasalini). B Commentary On The Dhammasangani The First Book Of The Abhidhamma Pitaka. Translated by Pe Maung Tin. pp. 35-38,


Thus as rehearsed at the Council, the Abhidhamma is a Pitaka by Pitaka-classification, Khuddaka-Nikaya by Nikaya-classification, [28] Veyyakarana by Part-classification and constitutes two or three thousand units of text by the classification of textual units. One of those bhikkhus who studied the Abhidhamma once sat in the midst of bhikkhus who knew all the five Nikayas, and quoting the text (sutta) from the Abhidhamma taught the Doctrine thus:



[Preacher] 'The aggregate of matter is unmoral; of the four (mental) aggregates some are moral, some immoral, and some unmoral. Ten sense-organs are unmoral; the (remaining) two sense-organs may be moral, immoral, or unmoral. Sixteen elements are unmoral; the (remaining) two elements may be moral, immoral, or unmoral. The Fact of the Origination of ill is immoral; the Fact of the Path is moral; the Fact of Cessation is unmoral; the Fact of ill may be moral, immoral, or unmoral. Ten controlling powers are unmoral; the controlling power of grief is immoral; the controlling power of (intellect which prompts and inspires us)—“I shall come to know the unknown”—is moral; four controlling powers may be moral or unmoral; six controlling powers may be moral, immoral or unmoral.’



A bhikkhu, seated there, asked,



‘Preacher, you quote a long text as though you were going to encircle Mount Sineru; what text is it?’



[Preacher] ‘Abhidhamma text, brother.’



[Bhikkhu] ‘Why do you quote the Abhidhamma text ? Does it not behove you to quote other texts spoken by the Buddha?’



(Preacher) ‘ Brother, by whom was the Abhidhamma taught?’



[Bhikkhu] ‘Not by the Buddha.’



(Preacher) ‘But did you, brother, study the Vinaya-Pitaka ?’



[Bhikkhu] ‘No, brother, I did not.’



(Preacher) ‘Methinks, because you have not studied the Vinaya-Pitaka, you say so in ignorance.’



[Bhikkhu] ‘I have, indeed, brother, studied some Vinaya.’



(Preacher) ‘Then that has been badly acquired. You must have been seated at one end of the assembly and dozing. A person who leaves the world under such teachers as yourself to give the Refuge-formula, or a person who receives the full ordination under a chapter of such teachers as yourself, who have badly studied the Vinaya, does amiss. And why ? Because of this badly “studying some Vinaya.” For it has been said by the Buddha:1 “ If without any intention of reviling the Vinaya one were to instigate another, saying, Pray study the Suttas or Gath as or Abhidhamma first and afterwards you will learn the Vinaya—-there is no offence in him.” (Again, in the Bhikkhuni Vibhanga:2 “A bhikkhuni is guilty of a minor offence) if she questions on the Abhidhamma or Vinaya after getting permission (to question) on the Suttanta, or on the Suttanta or Vinaya after getting permission (to question) on the Abhidhamma, or on the Suttanta or Abhidhamma after getting permission (to question) on the Vinaya.” But you do not know even that much.” 3



With so much refutation was the heretic put down. The Mahdgosinga Sutta is even a stronger authority (to show that the Abhidhamma is the Buddha’s word). For therein when Sariputta, the Generalissimo of the Law, approached the Teacher to inform him of the reciprocal questions and answers that took place between Mahamoggallana and himself, and told how the former had answered, (the Master said) [29] ‘Brother Sariputta, in the religion the talk of two bhikkhus on the Abhidhamma, each asking and answering the other without faltering, is in accord with the Dhamma. Now such a bhikkhu, brother Sariputta, might enhance the beauty of the Gosinga Sala Forest.’4 The Teacher, far from saying that bhikkhus, who knew Abhidhamma, were outside his religion, lifted his drum-like neck and filling (with breath) his mouth, fraught as the full-moon with blessings, emitted his godlike voice congratulating Moggallana thus: ‘Well done, well done, Sariputta ! One should answer rightly as Moggallana has done; Moggallana is indeed a preacher of the Dhamma.’ And tradition has it that those bhikkhus only who know Abhidhamma are true preachers of the Dhamma; the rest, though they speak on the Dhamma, are not preachers thereof. And why? They, in speaking on the Dhamma, confuse the different kinds of Kamma and of its results, the distinction between mind and matter, and the different kinds of states. The students of Abhidhamma do not thus get confused; hence a bhikkhu who knows Abhidhamma, whether he preaches the Dhamma or not, will be able to answer questions whenever asked. He alone, therefore, is a true preacher of the Dhamma.



I may be slow learner but im at least learning...
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3811
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Householder Rejection of Monastics

Post by Mr Man »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:27 am Greetings everyone,

I have a question I have not thought about before. At which point can a householder not recognise a monk or nun as being a genuine Buddhist, and so not a genuine bhikkhu worthy of alms? Do the suttas or commentaries set out any behaviour which if observed would be grounds for a householder to reject said person as a member of the sangha, or is there no grounds? Is it bad kamma to make the claim, or to make the claim and yet be wrong?
If the ordination was valid and they have not commuted a offence entailing defeat or relinquished the training, they are a monk/nun end of.

It is not a laypersons perceptions that determines a monastics status.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 23298
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Householder Rejection of Monastics

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,

AN 6.59 acknowledges that there are both praiseworthy and blameworthy monks, and criteria are given for their distinction.

Blameworthy...
be puffed up,
proud,
excitable,
a mouthy speechifier,
forgetful of mindfulness,
not self-possessed nor composed,
a scatter-brain,
rude in sense-governance
Praiseworthy...
if he be not puffed up,
proud,
excitable,
a mouthy speechifier,
but upright in mindfulness,
self-possessed,
composed,
one-pointed,
controlled in faculties
But it also says it's beneficial to give, regardless of whether the monk is praiseworthy or blameworthy because...
As you do so,
your heart will become tranquil;
and tranquil in heart,
you will, on the breaking up of the body after death,
arise in the good way,
the heaven-world.
Metta,
Paul. :)
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)

"Overcome the liar by truth." (Dhp 223)
MettaDevPrac
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:44 am

Re: Householder Rejection of Monastics

Post by MettaDevPrac »

robertk wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 6:45 am...

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... o/bmc2.pdf
The Community, if it wants to, may impose a reconciliation transaction on a
bhikkhu endowed with any of the following qualities:....
One:
Community here means the Community of bhikkhus, does it not? And specifically, the Community with standing to engage in formal acts of transaction with the bhikkhu, is this correct?

It is not the community at large, nor of lay men or women, nor bhikkhus who are not able to recite together and do formal acts of Sangha together, right? Or am I mistaken in understanding Community this way?

Two:
Laity can traditionally bring concerns to fully ordained bhikkhu(s), is this not the traditional pattern?? Though not one would hope for political or resentful or other motivations or intentions contrary to Dhamma-Vinaya.

If this wasn't possible, what was the appropriate remedy? To relocate? Practice as a rhino (even as a layman or lay woman)?
- MettaDevPrac
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4153
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: Householder Rejection of Monastics

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

I was going to quote some sources, but it seems that Robert K already quoted them both.

This screenshot from the CST4 Tipṭaka shows numerous references to the Abhidhamma in the Mūla (root texts; not Commentaries) of the Suttanta and Vinaya Piṭaka. Many from the Milindapañha can be set aside, as that is clearly a later work, although it cites the early texts.
Abhidhamma References in Sutta and Vinaya.png
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Householder Rejection of Monastics

Post by binocular »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:27 amI have a question I have not thought about before. At which point can a householder not recognise a monk or nun as being a genuine Buddhist, and so not a genuine bhikkhu worthy of alms? Do the suttas or commentaries set out any behaviour which if observed would be grounds for a householder to reject said person as a member of the sangha, or is there no grounds? Is it bad kamma to make the claim, or to make the claim and yet be wrong?
What do you mean by "make the claim"?

Actually, verbally, state one's rejection of a particular monk before an assembly of his fellow monastics and one's fellow lays?

Or implicitly, such as when a row of monks go for alms, giving alms to all the other monks, except that particular monk that one rejects?
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Post Reply