Offering food "through" the internet.

Discussion of ordination, the Vinaya and monastic life. How and where to ordain? Bhikkhuni ordination etc.
Post Reply
The2nd
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:40 pm

Offering food "through" the internet.

Post by The2nd »

Does anyone know if a donor can verbally and or visually offer food to a bhikkhu, through an online medium such as zoom etc(whereby both the donor and bhikkhu can see each other and the food that is being offered). Obviously the food would already be in the Bhikkhu's presence, as in it would be in the monasteries store room.

The rules in regards to a bhikkhu receiving food does state in the commentaries( i think) that the donor must be a certain distance, but now with modern technology such as internet and phones, could this rule/suggestion be bypassed?

If for example, you were staying in my house while i was away on business, and I called you to tell you that you could eat any food in the fridge; my offering and your acceptance of it , would be legit, and so could this type of offering be done without a bhikkhu receiving an offence?

It sounds perfectly reasonable to me. ???
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4646
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: Offering food "through" the internet.

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

If I remember rightly, it is allowable for an animal to offer almsfood to a bhikkhu.

Maybe it should allowable for a robot to do it? That is an interesting thought experiment, but scrupulous monks would be doubtful, and if they are doubtful then it is not allowable.
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
Inedible
Posts: 953
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2020 12:55 am
Location: Iowa City

Re: Offering food "through" the internet.

Post by Inedible »

What is the priority? To give the food or to get the proper credit for giving food?
User avatar
Bhikkhu_Jayasara
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:54 am
Contact:

Re: Offering food "through" the internet.

Post by Bhikkhu_Jayasara »

to offer food the donor and monastic must be within arms length of any items to be offered and must be touching the item or something connected to it( ie like the table). that is vinaya, not commentary.

i get the idea of the verbalizing the offering over zoom, the principle of that aspect works, but the physical requirements are missing.

the robot thing that Bhante brings up IS quite interesting to ponder, but regardless even if a monk is alone in a house its best for that monk to befriend a neighbor or a supporter close by who can run over once a day and offer the refrigerator or something like that.

in the scenario you gave, best to have a friend stop by once a day to offer.

or if its like some kind of door dash, the employee bringing the food counts for the offering.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bhikkhu Jayasāra -http://www.youtube.com/studentofthepath and https://maggasekha.org/
User avatar
JamesTheGiant
Posts: 2147
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 8:41 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Offering food "through" the internet.

Post by JamesTheGiant »

The2nd wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 12:54 pm If for example, you were staying in my house while i was away on business, and I called you to tell you that you could eat any food in the fridge; my offering and your acceptance of it , would be legit, and so could this type of offering be done without a bhikkhu receiving an offence?

It sounds perfectly reasonable to me. ???
It does sound reasonable, but unfortunately it doesnt work like that, as the two bhikkhus above have said.
When I hosted a bhikkhu at my place, they went out to the town center by themselves, and there were plenty of people who donated lots of food. It was easy.
Alternatively you can do Doordash or Ubereats or pizza delivery, whatever service which puts boxes or food directly into the hands of the bhikkhu.
The2nd
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:40 pm

Re: Offering food "through" the internet.

Post by The2nd »

Bhikkhu_Jayasara wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 5:50 pm to offer food the donor and monastic must be within arms length of any items to be offered and must be touching the item or something connected to it( ie like the table). that is vinaya, not commentary.

i get the idea of the verbalizing the offering over zoom, the principle of that aspect works, but the physical requirements are missing.

the robot thing that Bhante brings up IS quite interesting to ponder, but regardless even if a monk is alone in a house its best for that monk to befriend a neighbor or a supporter close by who can run over once a day and offer the refrigerator or something like that.

in the scenario you gave, best to have a friend stop by once a day to offer.

or if its like some kind of door dash, the employee bringing the food counts for the offering.
Thanks. I understand that the door dash scenario would work before noon on the day, but if the monk only has a kappiya kuti with lets say a month supply of food, and he is not surrounded by neighbours, but instead is in an Alaskan wilderness...with internet connection.

The physical requirements for the offering to be legit, you say are not commentary but I would have to disagree, and here is why:

"The Suttavibhaṅga material is usually arranged in a series of four groups:

1- a story leading up to a rule;

2- a Pātimokkha rule, which always states the penalty incurred for breaking it;

3- the Old Commentary, the Padabhājaniya, on each rule, defining it word by word;

4- more stories telling of deviations from the rule, and showing either that they were not so grave as to entail the maximum penalty, or that they were reasonable enough to warrant, in certain circumstances, a modification or a relaxation of the existing rule, or that they were not such as to be rendered permissible by any extenuating circumstances.

Items (3) and (4) are sometimes reversed in position, and (4) is now and again absent altogether."

-https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book ... 28682.html

Point number 3, the Old Commentary, the Padabhājaniya, defines the rule word by word; and that is where the physical requirements are mentioned. Those requirements are not mentioned in the origin story or the rule.

That commentary was made quite sometime after the schism, and so it is not technically authoritive, but of course you could use it as authoritive (with yourself as the authority who decides what is authoritive) but another monk could choose not to and instead just use the origin story ,rule and permutations as an authoritive reference for keeping the rule.

The rule:

"Pācittiya #40: Ingesting Unoffered Nutriment

On this occasion the Buddha, the Blessed One, was dwelling at Vesāli, at the Great Grove,
in the peaked-roof hall. Furthermore, on this occasion, a certain monk was living in the
cemetery, using only cast-of [items]. Not wishing to receive what was being given by
people, he took oferings left in the cemetery, at a tree-root, and at an altar for departed
ancestors, and made use of them himself. People denounced, criticized, and castigated:
“How is it that this monk will take oferings for our departed ancestors and make use of
them himself! This senior monk is plump; I think he consumes human fesh!” Monks
heard of those people – denouncing, criticizing, and castigating. Those monks who were
of few wishes... denounced, criticized, and castigated: “How is it that a monk will take into
the mouth nutriment that has not been given?” ... “Is it true that you, monk, took into
the mouth nutriment that had not been given?” “It is true, Blessed One.” The Buddha,
the Blessed One, reprimanded... “How is it that you, foolish man, will take into the mouth
nutriment that has not been given! This is not, foolish man, for the faith of the faithless...
And thus, monks, you may recite this training rule:
“If any monk takes into the mouth nutriment that has not been given: a
Pācittiya.”
And thus this training rule was designated for the monks by the Blessed One.
On a [later] occasion monks were regretful about [ingesting] water and [using] tooth-
sticks562. They reported this matter to the Blessed One... “Monks, I allow [you] to make
use of water and tooth-sticks after taking them yourself. And thus, monks, you may recite
this training rule:

“If any monk takes into the mouth nutriment that that has not been given, except
for water and tooth-sticks: a Pācittiya.”

As you can see the people in the origin story were upset because that food he was taking was NOT INTENDED FOR HIM, but if it was intended for him, common sense suggests, nobody would get upset, even today people would not find that strange to offer something to someone through various means and not only through hand to hand, or close distance as that commentary suggests.

As long as it is clear that the donor and recipient are clear about what is offered, i see no reasonable objection to offering food verbally.

on a side note, speech is not exactly disconnected from the body, if there was no body, no speech would be possible, therefore it is physical in that sense.

Thats my modern day commentary, which anyone could now take as authoritive.

Also see this article on that commentary:
https://www.dhammatalks.org/3rdparty/Ca ... a_Vina.pdf
The2nd
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:40 pm

Re: Offering food "through" the internet.

Post by The2nd »

JamesTheGiant wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 9:05 pm
The2nd wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 12:54 pm If for example, you were staying in my house while i was away on business, and I called you to tell you that you could eat any food in the fridge; my offering and your acceptance of it , would be legit, and so could this type of offering be done without a bhikkhu receiving an offence?

It sounds perfectly reasonable to me. ???
It does sound reasonable, but unfortunately it doesnt work like that, as the two bhikkhus above have said.
When I hosted a bhikkhu at my place, they went out to the town center by themselves, and there were plenty of people who donated lots of food. It was easy.
Alternatively you can do Doordash or Ubereats or pizza delivery, whatever service which puts boxes or food directly into the hands of the bhikkhu.
If a bhikkhu was to live in extreme seclusion, like in some deep forest, the internet would allow for that , due to being able to verbally offer food.
The bhikkhu would also still be in contact with the donor everyday, albeit through technological means.
User avatar
JamesTheGiant
Posts: 2147
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 8:41 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Offering food "through" the internet.

Post by JamesTheGiant »

The2nd wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:29 am ...As long as it is clear that the donor and recipient are clear about what is offered, i see no reasonable objection to offering food verbally.


...Thats my modern day commentary, which anyone could now take as authoritive.
The2nd wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:34 am
If a bhikkhu was to live in extreme seclusion, like in some deep forest, the internet would allow for that , due to being able to verbally offer food.
No, you're quite wrong here. Sorry but two actual Theravada bhikkhus have explained the rules don't allow for verbal/internet only offerings.
Your vinaya argument is not good either.
You may be able to find a monk who is willing to accept a verbal offering of food and live in such a situation, but they probably won't be Theravadan. Mahayana maybe.
User avatar
salayatananirodha
Posts: 1479
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Offering food "through" the internet.

Post by salayatananirodha »

Bhikkhu_Jayasara wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 5:50 pm to offer food the donor and monastic must be within arms length of any items to be offered and must be touching the item or something connected to it( ie like the table). that is vinaya, not commentary.

i get the idea of the verbalizing the offering over zoom, the principle of that aspect works, but the physical requirements are missing.

the robot thing that Bhante brings up IS quite interesting to ponder, but regardless even if a monk is alone in a house its best for that monk to befriend a neighbor or a supporter close by who can run over once a day and offer the refrigerator or something like that.

in the scenario you gave, best to have a friend stop by once a day to offer.

or if its like some kind of door dash, the employee bringing the food counts for the offering.
source, please?? someone
I host a sutta discussion via Zoom Sundays at 11AM Chicago time — message me if you are interested
User avatar
salayatananirodha
Posts: 1479
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Offering food "through" the internet.

Post by salayatananirodha »

i am trying to remember which sutta but i remember there was a householder who gave to someone to give to someone else? and the buddha explained who got what share of merit
I host a sutta discussion via Zoom Sundays at 11AM Chicago time — message me if you are interested
The2nd
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:40 pm

Re: Offering food "through" the internet.

Post by The2nd »

JamesTheGiant wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:46 am
The2nd wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:29 am ...As long as it is clear that the donor and recipient are clear about what is offered, i see no reasonable objection to offering food verbally.


...Thats my modern day commentary, which anyone could now take as authoritive.
The2nd wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:34 am
If a bhikkhu was to live in extreme seclusion, like in some deep forest, the internet would allow for that , due to being able to verbally offer food.
No, you're quite wrong here. Sorry but two actual Theravada bhikkhus have explained the rules don't allow for verbal/internet only offerings.
Your vinaya argument is not good either.
You may be able to find a monk who is willing to accept a verbal offering of food and live in such a situation, but they probably won't be Theravadan. Mahayana maybe.
A certain number of monks/people adhering to a certain interpretation doesnt by default make them right. If you read the links above concerning the vinaya commentary, you will see that the word by word commentary of each patimokkha rule is a commentary, a later exposition not laid down by the Buddha (who did not allow others to create extra rules). The extra rules, such has being a certain distance when receiving an offering, is a later edition and add on to the Buddha's rule, which is simple 'If any monk takes into the mouth nutriment that that has not been given, except for water and tooth-sticks: a Pācittiya.”

Adding to the Buddha's ruling is creating a new rule which resembles the original, but is essentially a new rule not made by the Buddha. And technically someone who was to follow that new rule would be following someone else other than the Buddha...and who exactly is that someone else? Who created that commentary? Some monks who felt that they could improve on the Buddha's ruling? who is to know? Either way the commentary is a later add on to that which is already perfect.
BKh
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 12:43 am

Re: Offering food "through" the internet.

Post by BKh »

The2nd wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 8:48 am Who created that commentary? Some monks who felt that they could improve on the Buddha's ruling? who is to know? Either way the commentary is a later add on to that which is already perfect.
OK, so you need to frame this whole discussion very carefully. It would have been great if this would have been done in the original post because now something totally different is being debated.

You have to understand that the idea that "only the origin story and the statement of the rule are canonical and the rest should be considered commentary" is not an orthodox Theravada view. You shouldn't be shocked that when you ask a Vinaya question monastics are going to answer it in line with orthodox understandings.

So your original question should have been something along the lines of "If we base the answer to this question only on the rule's origin story and the words of the rule itself..."

Also, some people posting seem to think that your question is about the merit of making the offering. It doesn't seem like this is what you are asking about, correct?

And it seems that you have already answered your own question. You are now saying that something just has to be given, and the only criteria we can find in the origin story is that the food be meant for the recipient. So if that is the case, then there is no need for the Zoom call at all because we can assume that any food delivered by UPS to this monk in Alaska was intended to be given to him. Wouldn't his name being on the package be enough? But for the food in your kitchen you would have to tell the monk somehow.

So the practicality of the whole thing is that you have to ask the individual monastic. If they say that won't work for them, it probably means that they do not share your view of what is and is not canonical/commentarial in the Suttavibhanga.

One of the other reasons that people would be unlikely to follow your view of what is canonical in the Vinaya is that origin stories don't always perfectly match the patimokkha rule. But that's off topic to your original (better framed by me) question. As well, the Vinaya also includes the Khandakas. I don't think there is an easy way to slice that up into canonical and commentarial.
| One sutta per day to your inbox | ReadingFaithfully.org Support for reading the Suttas | Citation lookup helper | Instant sutta name lookup | Instant PED lookup | Instant DPPN lookup |
The2nd
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:40 pm

Re: Offering food "through" the internet.

Post by The2nd »

BKh wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 10:08 am
The2nd wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 8:48 am Who created that commentary? Some monks who felt that they could improve on the Buddha's ruling? who is to know? Either way the commentary is a later add on to that which is already perfect.
OK, so you need to frame this whole discussion very carefully. It would have been great if this would have been done in the original post because now something totally different is being debated.

You have to understand that the idea that "only the origin story and the statement of the rule are canonical and the rest should be considered commentary" is not an orthodox Theravada view. You shouldn't be shocked that when you ask a Vinaya question monastics are going to answer it in line with orthodox understandings.

So your original question should have been something along the lines of "If we base the answer to this question only on the rule's origin story and the words of the rule itself..."

Also, some people posting seem to think that your question is about the merit of making the offering. It doesn't seem like this is what you are asking about, correct?

And it seems that you have already answered your own question. You are now saying that something just has to be given, and the only criteria we can find in the origin story is that the food be meant for the recipient. So if that is the case, then there is no need for the Zoom call at all because we can assume that any food delivered by UPS to this monk in Alaska was intended to be given to him. Wouldn't his name being on the package be enough? But for the food in your kitchen you would have to tell the monk somehow.

So the practicality of the whole thing is that you have to ask the individual monastic. If they say that won't work for them, it probably means that they do not share your view of what is and is not canonical/commentarial in the Suttavibhanga.

One of the other reasons that people would be unlikely to follow your view of what is canonical in the Vinaya is that origin stories don't always perfectly match the patimokkha rule. But that's off topic to your original (better framed by me) question. As well, the Vinaya also includes the Khandakas. I don't think there is an easy way to slice that up into canonical and commentarial.
I understand that theravada monks who follow the commentarial explanation of the rule without question wont agree, i do not expect a different result. But some who do question the rules actually do agree that the Buddha has said if the item is given then it is properly offered and therefore no matter how it is given, as long as both parties are clear about the transaction, it is considered given.

The only argument against using the internet is that ,the person considers that internet usage as not being in the physical presence of the donor, and if using zoom or mobile phone is not considered as being in the physical presence of another, then a monk could have a private zoom chat etc with a woman without breaking the rule because to break pacittiya 45 he would have to be physically in the presence of the woman, and so he can chat with her as much as he likes, in private. If using zoom is not considered a physical presence then when such a monk zooms privately with a woman, he considers her as not there....which would generally be considered a mental disability by the wise or other beings who have some common sense.

I was just wondering if there were some people here who have considered that particular rule in the light of modern technology.

As to, how to distinguish between what is commentarial, it is already been sliced up and distinguished:
https://www.dhammatalks.org/3rdparty/Ca ... a_Vina.pdf

What would you see as the fault with using the internet, zoom call etc for making an offering? what would be the unwholesome aspect there? You might say that its unwholesome because the commentary and traditions say no, but one should not blindly follow tradition, but instead question it so as to know why following or not following the particualr rule is unwholesome or not.

Is the rule essential for the holy life or is it a minor rule which if broken would not constitute a breach of virtue? (An3:87)

And yes it seems i did my own research and found the answers, but as i said i was just wondering if anyone here had any insights into the matter.

Also, the monk cannot store the food in his kuti overnight but can relinquish into a kappiya-kuti at noon of the day it is offered, and so he would have to have a zoom call everyday to partake in that food again. Therefore if nobody zoomed him, and he was in a profoundly secluded area, he would not eat, which in turn would be good for his practice of being easy to maintain. So not only would he be in a secluded area , alone, not socialising with donors or getting intimate with families, he would still be relying on a donor and internet connection which could disappear at any point, so he would still feel that vulnerability of relying on others for his meal, much more than say a monk who has many attendants and devotees running around his monastery preparing him succulents dishes everday.

If you compare certain thai monasteries, with such a situation that I am suggesting, which one is more conducive to practice, to calming, to non-entanglement, to dispassion? is the place that is frequented by a tsunami of thai woman perfumed and dressed up, making you succulent dishes and spending half the day there, where you have to inevitably be a part of or around the entire morning, is that situation ideal for cultivation of the holy life or the dusty household life? In such places, the offerings are considered legit, but the entire lifestyle is not conducive for sustaining any practice that will diminish lust etc. Even the household life that was previously abandoned was probably not as dusty,...

Anyway , I'm all for offerings done through any modern day technological medium, as long as both parties are clear about the transaction. ( I can see no reason why such an act in itself would be unwholesome, of course that doesnt mean that when it is performed that it is wholesome, that would depend on why the person is doing that neutral internet offering act. The monk might just hate people and therefore doesnt want to deal with his hatred, or he might simply enjoy seclusion and be practicing correctly.)
BKh
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 12:43 am

Re: Offering food "through" the internet.

Post by BKh »

The2nd wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:54 pm I understand that theravada monks who follow the commentarial explanation of the rule without question wont agree, i do not expect a different result.
Again, for the purpose of harmonious discussion, it's really unhelpful to keep referring to parts of the Suttavibhanga as commentary. Because there are plenty of monks who don't follow the actual commentary. As well, you shouldn't assume this "without question" thing. Most monks do question things, especially when it come to modern situations. It's just that a majority of monks see the suttavibhanga as authoritative because they respect the wisdom of the elders who collected it, and it is in any case older than the actual commentaries.

I read through the PDF you cited, but I don't think it means what you think it is meaning. For example:
21-07-29 18_52_48-Canonical_Exegesis_in_the_Theravada_Vina.pdf - Adobe Acrobat Reader DC (32-bit).png
So as I read it, the authours of this paper (Ven. Brahmali and Ven. Analayo) feel that monks ordained in the Theravada tradition would need to follow what you are labeling commentary.

They do go on to say this, though,
21-07-29 18_59_49-Canonical_Exegesis_in_the_Theravada_Vina.pdf - Adobe Acrobat Reader DC (32-bit).png
First of all, they use the term "commentarial nature". That is different than it being a commentary on par with what we call the Attakatha. In any case, what are the previously mentioned quotes?
quotes.png
This is my general gripe with Ven. Analayo's work, and academic work in general. It is filled with "seems", "suggests", and "perhaps"es. Because of course there is no actual proof. All that's well and good if you are just presenting papers at academic conferences. But these issues are real things in the lives of Buddhists and monastics specifically. The other shortcoming is that there are so few people writing on these topics academically that the normal review process is all but absent.

Getting back to the issue of food offering, I think it's also important to consider that this "Zoom method" does create a novel situation where a monk could be, except for digital means, completely separate from other humans for extended periods of time. The only thing similar we see in the texts is that an animal can offer food (although that falls, I believe in the part of the suttavibhanga you are calling commentary). Maybe that new lifestyle is ok, maybe not. And thinking of a situation not as extreme, it also creates the possibility that monastics could live cut off from the humans that actually are close by them. Is that a good thing?

It's all interesting to think about. Since you are relying on Bhante Brahmali's work, you might want to post the question on the discussion forum for SuttaCentral where he is an active participant.

Just as a side note, please don't quote whole posts. It makes reading on mobile difficult.
| One sutta per day to your inbox | ReadingFaithfully.org Support for reading the Suttas | Citation lookup helper | Instant sutta name lookup | Instant PED lookup | Instant DPPN lookup |
Post Reply