How many years before houses were allowed

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
User avatar
tharpa
Posts: 175
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 12:56 am
Location: North America
Contact:

How many years before houses were allowed

Post by tharpa »

The phrases "going forth" (pabbaja, becoming a novice monk) and "homeless life" (the life of a monk) date back to the earliest years of the Sasana, before the Buddha allowed monks to live in residences donated by householders. The terms are still used to this day, even though the number of literally homeless monks in the world is probably somewhere between 0 and 100. There was the late Venerable Nyanavimala, Mahathera in Sri Lanka who did it for quite a few years, but he became famous for it because it's so unusual.

The change in the rule was a significant shift in the lifestyle of a monk. It's not hard to believe that the Buddha made the loosening after some years, but it's also not terribly surprising that though the vast majority of monks were devoted to the man, the Buddha, that there were some who continued to see homelessness as an essential part of the path, and that there was a schism between the two. I have a suspicion that Devadatta was demonized in the Tipitaka and that he didn't, for example, literally attempt to murder the Buddha, but I accept that the Tipitaka says that he did.

I also have a hunch that centuries later, when the Mahayana was invented, that the originators got the idea of claiming that the Buddha had a radical change in the Dharma halfway through from the fact that he actually had made a radical change in the Vinaya halfway through.

I always kind of figured that the period where literal homelessness was required was about ten years, but I don't really know. Perhaps it was more like twenty. Has anyone ever figured out roughly how many years it was? Are there any indications in the Tipitika or the Commentaries?
May all beings, in or out of the womb, be well, happy and peaceful.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17186
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: How many years before houses were allowed

Post by DNS »

I don't know the answer, but there is a monk here in Las Vegas, an abbot of a temple who spends almost the entire day outside. He does gardening and meditates all day. He even sleeps outside, even when it's over 100 degrees (38 Celsius). A real ascetic!

He's the abbot of Bhodhiyana Meditation Center, in Las Vegas.
Mr. Seek
Posts: 582
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 5:45 am

Re: How many years before houses were allowed

Post by Mr. Seek »

I think that period lasted +45 years, but that's just my personal opinion. You're not alone in your theories about Devadatta. Some scholars have made the point that the Vinaya and even the Patimokkha are later additions to the canon and practice.

Note that, for a samaṇa, being allowed to live in a home does not necessarily mean being allowed to permanently live in a home. Shelter is to be used when shelter is needed, i.e. when one is incapable of wandering or must stick along for some time, e.g. due to the rainy season, some serious disability, or some other activity. To live in a home, I imagine, for a genuine samaṇa, is to stray away from the goal, is to pick up dust.

Some jains have rules against staying in the same village for more than a certain amount of time; they're not allowed to spend the rains twice or thrice in the same village.

E.g., from JOCBS, a recent article by Alexander Wynne on the matter: http://jocbs.org/index.php/jocbs/article/view/218
SarathW
Posts: 21227
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: How many years before houses were allowed

Post by SarathW »

Some jains have rules against staying in the same village for more than a certain amount of time; they're not allowed to spend the rains twice or thrice in the same village.
I think this is a good rule.
In Sri Lanka, many monks are always in the court fighting for their properties.
The temples should be owned by a group of supporters and monks must be able to move freely from town to town.
In Sri Lanka, the situation is so bad the monks even try to own the supporters. They stop other monks coming to their territory even for preaching Dhamma.
Monks have become property owners.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
tharpa
Posts: 175
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 12:56 am
Location: North America
Contact:

Re: How many years before houses were allowed

Post by tharpa »

Mr. Seek wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:01 am I think that period lasted +45 years, but that's just my personal opinion.


What you're saying is in direct opposition to the Tipitaka. My question is assuming that the Tipitika is correct.
Mr. Seek wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:01 amYou're not alone in your theories about Devadatta. Some scholars have made the point that the Vinaya and even the Patimokkha are later additions to the canon and practice.
I don't wish to be associated with that kind of company. Those "scholars" are probably conscienceless people who desperately wish that the Buddha had not laid down any rules. Having said that, I do think that in the Vinaya, the rules themselves are probably older than the explanations, as in some cases the explanations don't seem to perfectly fit the rules. The Patimokkha, as I understand it, is not part of the Tipitika, but is an extract of the Sutta Vibhanga. I don't think it's perfectly uncorrupted, though. For example, you will hear that there are 227 basic rules. However, there's really only 220: 7 are not rules, but allowable ways of resolving disputes, even though the Patimokkha refers to them as if they were rules.

It is absurd to think that the Vinaya was not part of the Buddha's teachings. The way he referred to his teachings was the Dhamma-Vinaya. He used that phrase countless times.
Mr. Seek wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:01 am Note that, for a samaṇa, being allowed to live in a home does not necessarily mean being allowed to permanently live in a home. Shelter is to be used when shelter is needed, i.e. when one is incapable of wandering or must stick along for some time, e.g. due to the rainy season, some serious disability, or some other activity. To live in a home, I imagine, for a genuine samaṇa, is to stray away from the goal, is to pick up dust.
There is nothing in the Vinaya (after the change I mentioned) to prevent a monk from living permanently in a vihara. I see no evidence that the Buddha didn't allow that.
May all beings, in or out of the womb, be well, happy and peaceful.
Mr. Seek
Posts: 582
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 5:45 am

Re: How many years before houses were allowed

Post by Mr. Seek »

tharpa wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:58 am...
No problem then, I understand. Feel free to dismiss my input if you wish; not here to push an agenda, just sharing.

Cheers.
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: How many years before houses were allowed

Post by asahi »

There is one rule for monk not to stay in same place for more than 3 months . But not many follows because it is not compulsory .
No bashing No gossiping
Post Reply