Is it right for a monk, who lives on alms food, to spend his time petting dogs and posing with dogs on leash?

[Sam Vara]

Let's try a new angle here. Is it possible that the Blessed One himself was not unacquainted with the pleasures of dog-walking?

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Just as a stick thrown up in the air lands sometimes on its base, sometimes on its side, sometimes on its tip...

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[dadati]

It is disrespectful towards the Teacher, towards the Dhamma and towards the Sangha when you spend your time having fun with dogs as a monk. As a monk who goes forth out of faith from the home life into homelessness, living on almsfood, to live and fulfill the holy life. And it is also disrespectful towards the lay followers who out of faith provides the requisites for you.

Like I said to your cohort earlier in the thread, you may be right. However, if you believe the monk in question is inflicting damage with his action than you have to be willing to assume the same risk with how you carry out your criticism - especially if it is not justified nor comprehensive. You shouldn’t take for granted an exemption based on intention alone because - whether you like it or not - you’ve cast a pretty large net. Not exactly the mark of any sense of shame or fear of wrongdoing, which are necessary aspects of practice. Yes, absolutely, the monks in question would be assuming the same risk, but two wrongs don’t make a right.

To be frank, I have no issue with this being discussed (as has been insinuated), but there is a serious lack of perspective and care with how it is being addressed. And I’m more concerned for the posters in this thread than I am of the feelings of the monastics who may be not be considering the image portrayed when things look too casual. Yeah, perhaps there are instances where joy should be tempered, but to cut so deep really doesn’t seem worth it.

I can really just repeat myself, my question is. Do we have any reference in the suttas which provide any backup/justification of such livelihood? Being a custom today does not make it right. Like I said in the example, e.g. about accepting money:

I am not really interested in whether it is a common practice or not.

I've just learned that a monk is strictly forbidden to accept and handle money. But still, only a few percent of the monks follow this rule. It is the 10. precept.

" Refrain from accepting money (literally gold and silver, but explained as anything that is used for commerce or trade)."

What I am really interested in, not the custom today.

We should not forget that we are talking about monks and not about lay people. So who is a monk?
"Bhikkhus, here some clansman goes forth out of faith from the home life into homelessness, considering: 'I am a victim of birth, ageing, and death, of sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair; I am a victim of suffering, a prey to suffering. Surely an ending of this whole mass of suffering can be known.' "

So in this context, who is really a bhikkhu, is it ok to spend your time on petting and taking care and waking dogs, cats etc...
Do we have any reference from the vinaya or other part of the suttas which support such livelihood for a monk, for someone who has choosen the homlessness out of faith, for one who lives on almsfood?

On the other hand, some seek monkhood for not right livelihood, as Moggalana said:
"So too friend, there are persons who are faithless and have gone forth from the home life into homelessness not out of faith, but seeking a livelihood..."

[Coëmgenu]

Instead of playing "pass the puck," you should support your own claims and point out where it is an actual violation of the actual vinaya in the actual vinaya, instead of speculating on the underlying principles of vinaya rulings and/or looking for passages that have the Buddha saying things like "I don't mind if someone walks a dog."

[User13866]

Let's try a new angle here.

Let's rather have a thread about dogs, the pleasures of dog ownership and it's drawbacks

[Johann]

Let's try a new angle here. Is it possible that the Blessed One himself was not unacquainted with the pleasures of dog-walking?

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Just as a stick thrown up in the air lands sometimes on its base, sometimes on its side, sometimes on its tip...

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

It's only in moder times that human feel attracted of "virtues" of beings grave bond to sensuality, because of this-like-a-like.
In more human realms nobody values pets (slaves of many kind, work, amusements), seeks relation out of using it for their purpose.

Dog is very low, very low, lower as the bottom of the back regarded in old world.

Let's try a new angle here.

Let's rather have a thread about dogs, the pleasures of dog ownership and it's drawbacks

Association with pets - Associated rebith?

[Johann]

Instead of playing "pass the puck," you should support your own claims and point out where it is an actual violation of the actual vinaya in the actual vinaya, instead of speculating on the underlying principles of vinaya rulings and/or looking for passages that have the Buddha saying things like "I don't mind if someone walks a dog."

Good householder is hopefully not serious in wishing to slander the Sublime Buddha by displaying him as a fool doing supportives for other fools... It would be better for him to seek for gaining refuge as clearly a strong servant of Mara.

[Sam Vara]

Let's try a new angle here.

Let's rather have a thread about dogs, the pleasures of dog ownership and it's drawbacks

Feel free to start one, but please make sure there's a Dhamma angle to it.

[Sam Vara]

Let's try a new angle here. Is it possible that the Blessed One himself was not unacquainted with the pleasures of dog-walking?

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Just as a stick thrown up in the air lands sometimes on its base, sometimes on its side, sometimes on its tip...

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

It's only in moder times that human feel attracted of "virtues" of beings grave bond to sensuality, because of this-like-a-like.
In more human realms nobody values pets (slaves of many kind, work, amusements), seeks relation out of using it for their purpose.

Dog is very low, very low, lower as the bottom of the back regarded in old world.

A dachshund is, that's for sure.

[Johann]

So it's easy to draw the line... as pets, animal, those related, are incapable to grow in this Dhamma. Just if those Nagas would take on the Uposatha, they might gain a human state (maybe even of mind in this life) later on.

So that's your only possibility here, but as most of yours are not even used to a merely ritual observance, itjs doubtful that any related here could leave this bond.

[Coëmgenu]

Instead of playing "pass the puck," you should support your own claims and point out where it is an actual violation of the actual vinaya in the actual vinaya, instead of speculating on the underlying principles of vinaya rulings and/or looking for passages that have the Buddha saying things like "I don't mind if someone walks a dog."

Good householder is hopefully not serious in wishing to slander the Sublime Buddha by displaying him as a fool doing supportives for other fools... It would be better for him to seek for gaining refuge as clearly a strong servant of Mara.

Dearest Fake Monk, I don't have a clue what this borderline-broken English is referring to. I'm neither a servant of Māra nor a slanderer of Buddhas. When you neglect to correct those who mistake you for a bhikkhu and misrepresent yourself as a samana of Gotama Buddha's dispensation, that is another matter.

[Pondera]

Just as an aside, I wonder if the Buddha would ever accept offerings from, say, a monkey - or an elephant?

With such a harsh opinion in this thread towards affection and animal companionship, I would assume the defenders of that same harsh opinion would be inclined to say “no”. Yes?

[User13866]

Just as an aside, I wonder if the Buddha would ever accept offerings from, say, a monkey - or an elephant?

You wonder about that? I think you know the answer...

[Pondera]

Just as an aside, I wonder if the Buddha would ever accept offerings from, say, a monkey - or an elephant?

You wonder about that? I think you know the answer...

I’m being facetious. I do know the answer. It is in the affirmative and the text is the commentary to “The Quarrelsome Monks of Kosambi”. Found in the Dhammapada, I believe. Someone please correct me if I’ve cited this incorrectly.

Part of the reason I asked the way I did was that I couldn’t find a link to the direct passages where the golden monkey offers the Buddha a honey comb and the elephant draws the enlightened one a hot bath and shades him from the sun, takes his bowl and robes and protects him throughout the night.

It can all be read here: https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/ ... /01-05.htm

Now. If the Buddha had animal companions in the spiritual life why can’t the Bhikkhu in question?

One thing that I think requires pointing out is that when a human pets a dog or a cat (for example) it is not for the pleasure of feeling it’s coat. The act is a form of communication. Since we cannot talk back and forth to our animals, we pet them. (well - in general. Eg. my cat can be quite vocal and communicative but ultimately I have no idea what sentiment he is conveying [unless he’s preparing to vomit on the rug - then, in that case, his vocalization is unmistakable]). The point being that the way to tell our dog or cat that we appreciate and love them is by stroking their back or nuzzling their underchin. Petting in itself is not inherently “pleasant to the body”. In fact, it’s pleasant to the heart. Cats, dogs, and their owners derive mental and emotional happiness from displaying their affection through petting, patting, nudging, and so forth.

By painting the Bhikkhu as someone who is lusting after physical pleasure, you are ignoring the fundamental way in which humans communicate with their pets. There should be no confusion that the Bhikkhu is showing this animal metta and, also, that there is nothing wrong with that.

[confusedlayman]

as for me, i dont speculate on these things. one small unrealistic thought and u gain much bad karma.

[Joe.c]

…
And what is the gratification of sensual pleasures?

There are these five kinds of sensual stimulation.

What five?

Sights known by the eye that are likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing.
Sounds known by the ear …
Smells known by the nose …
Tastes known by the tongue …
Touches known by the body that are likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing. These are the five kinds of sensual stimulation.

The pleasure and happiness that arise from these five kinds of sensual stimulation: this is the gratification of sensual pleasures.

And what is the drawback of sensual pleasures?
…
Furthermore, for the sake of sensual pleasures, they conduct themselves badly by way of body, speech, and mind.

When their body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell.

This is a drawback of sensual pleasures to do with lives to come, a mass of suffering caused by sensual pleasures.

And what is the escape from sensual pleasures?

Removing and giving up desire and greed for sensual pleasures: this is the escape from sensual pleasures.

There are ascetics and brahmins who don’t truly understand sensual pleasures’ gratification, drawback, and escape in this way for what they are. It’s impossible for them to completely understand sensual pleasures themselves, or to instruct another so that, practicing accordingly, they will completely understand sensual pleasures.

There are ascetics and brahmins who do truly understand sensual pleasures’ gratification, drawback, and escape in this way for what they are. It is possible for them to completely understand sensual pleasures themselves, or to instruct another so that, practicing accordingly, they will completely understand sensual pleasures.

…There are touches known by the body that are likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing.

If a mendicant approves, welcomes, and keeps clinging to them, they’re called a mendicant who is bound when it comes to touches known by the body.

They’re trapped in Māra’s lair, fallen under Māra’s sway, and caught in Māra’s snare.

They’re bound by Māra’s bonds, and the Wicked One can do what he wants with them.
…