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

[User13866]

You think there’s something wrong with WALKING A DOG? You do realize how mundane and trivial a thing it is to take a dog for a walk or give him a morsel of food.

What about jumping on a trampoline?

Do you think it's fine if the three tied up the dog and went to jump on a trampoline a little bit, posing for pictures?

[Pondera]

You think there’s something wrong with WALKING A DOG? You do realize how mundane and trivial a thing it is to take a dog for a walk or give him a morsel of food.

What about jumping on a trampoline?

Do you think it's fine if the three tied up the dog and went to jump on a trampoline a little bit, posing for pictures?

I need a link to the picture.

In general - merry making was AFAIK looked down upon by the Buddha. For example, tickling each other would not be appropriate.

I can see no harm in jumping on a trampoline. I’ve done it many times. It’s only moderately addictive, and gives the user a fairly temporary “high”. It’s also dangerous. Someone might “bump” you and you’ll go flying over the edge onto your head.

Somewhere the Buddha discouraged monks from waiving their arms too much while walking. It was “unbecoming” of a monk. So, sure - jumping on a trampoline and merry making of this sort May be inappropriate. Send me a link to the pic and I’ll give you my definite opinion.

Last thing. You use charged language. Ie. “posing for pictures”. We live in the 21st century and, even going back to the invention of photography, monks were taking photos.

But I suppose you see an inherent fault in capturing images of merry making. That’s fine. I don’t see the harm in it. Maybe you think it casts a shadow on monastics in general. I don’t see that. But to each his own.

I won’t say it isn’t different for a monk. Yea, they’re held to a higher standard. But it is not in my nature to judge. I don’t do it. Lest I be judged my self.

[User13866]

I need a link to the picture.

It was a hypothetical question. I hope no such pictures exist.

There are many trivial things that are a no-no for a monk like causing something to float on water for fun

pācittiya 53
"udake hasadhamme pācittiyaṃ."

Not to play in the water. If within a water body (river, stream, lake, pond, etc.) where the water level reaches at least the height of the eyes, a bhikkhu dives, floats, swims, amuses himself or becomes enthusiastic for this water in any manner, he commits a pācittiya.

If he plays by means of a boat, or by throwing or causing to float anything on cooking water, or within any container with water, he commits a dukkaṭa. Naturally, a sick bhikkhu entering the water for health reasons does not commit any fault. The same thing applies to a bhikkhu who swims only for the purpose of crossing a river that obstructs his way.
https://en.dhammadana.org/sangha/vinaya ... m#ch----53

[User13866]

Also can we talk about how the dog looks miserable with tail between legs.

I appreciate dogs a lot and can train a service dog but i don't keep dogs and i wouldn't keep a dog if i was ordained.

I don't keep dogs because they need a lot of training, play & exercise.

Akaliko walks this dog and the dog looks miserable in the pictures because it's scared, that is why they tuck their tails. It's not Akaliko's fault because he is not the owner but it's not good.

Furthermore how is this dog walking on leash?

Is he pulling, walking in front or is lagging behind? If so then is Akaliko pulling/yanking/popping the leash?

Those are punishment/corrections, this is a use of violence, and dogs don't like this. If you disagree then put a leash on yourself and ask someone to yank it...

A walk through the city, for a dog like this, is of little to no value. These dogs need like one and a half hour of running & play for exercise not an uncomfortable stroll through the city.

So please don't talk about affection for animals where the dog is untrained and doesn't dare to keep his tail up in public...

That there is an amazing breed and it's not a pet-dog breed, these are bred to be working dogs.

[Johann]

Inspectum of Sg 2 and assosiated by Sg 13, as the main, and a punch of other things for and around it, incl. bringing given in faith to waste. It's the nature of the Vinaya that one stepping over minors does such motivated by grave, and no end in the frame of this Dhamna-Vinaya for those with gave wrong view and no respect for the Teacher, the Dhamma the parents, elders and those practising rightly.

Even the sign of association, which has to be avoided, such as with Nuns, lay people, gender-confused... what ever actually not even proper to give going forth, would one with eyes, informed, let the bells ring loud.

The further crazy thing is that surely most would get quick annoyed if a monks takes care and draws affliction with children, or what ever improper, yet have no problem if a monk worships pets... The main steam is already there, just think of how often it's told "let me be a pet in next live"... Which kind of monks would they met accouring to their perception of Sublime?

...“Now at that time, many *dogs and cats*, pressing up to a certain bhikkhu, led him about *touch-by touch*. He felt conscience-stricken…. ‘Did you consent, bhikkhu?’ (the *Buddha-nimitta*) asked.

‘No, venerable sir, I did not.’

‘Then there was no offense, bhikkhu, as you did not consent.’”...

A corrupter of families is a bhikkhu who — behaving in a demeaning, frivolous, or subservient way — succeeds in ingratiating himself to lay people to the point where they withdraw their support from bhikkhus who are earnest in the practice and give it to those who are more ingratiating instead. This is illustrated in the origin story of this rule, in which the followers of Assaji and Punabbasu (leaders of one faction of the group of six) had thoroughly corrupted the lay people at Kīṭāgiri.

Sure hard if actually a whole Sangha has fallen in such, even there near like-a-likes.

In not long there will be lanched a intersex-Sangha for pets and pets-lover. The first "Naga-Sangha" in the "Why-not"-scene.

[Coëmgenu]

Thank you for the information.

Have a good one

I had one. It was OK. Could have been better, could have been worse. Now I'm headed home.

So with regards to the above, how many vinaya transgressions do you think there are that the Buddha didn't outline?

I've no idea mate

Well, if you stop and think about it for a bit, I think you'll find that you have two options before you:

1) There is a finite list of particular transgressions that the Buddha never outlined, or

2) There is an infinite list of endless transgressions that react, in endless ways, to endless possible changes that our society can go through.

In the case of 2), now the vinaya-updater assigns himself the task of divining what the underlying principles behind the jurisprudences of the vinaya are, so that he can step into the Buddha's shoes and generate some of these infinite or near-infinite lists of updated transgressions designed to apply to our specific modern era.

You can see where this is all going, no? If there are many ways to transgress the vinaya, and if these many ways were not laid down by the Buddha, someone has to pretend to be the Buddha and generate these new rules. It's not a good look. So I ask again, with specific reference to the range of knowledge of a Buddha, do you think that he included "all possible violations" in said recitation, or do you think that he left a theoretical open list of endless or many violations that are without "buddhic jurisprudence" to support them (because he never outlined them)?

On a related note, proceeding from the above questions, whose job it is to pretend to be Awakened in order to give these new rules? Some layperson's?

[User13866]

So I ask again, with specific reference to the range of knowledge of a Buddha, do you think that he included "all possible violations" in said recitation, or do you think that he left a theoretical open list of endless or many violations that are without "buddhic jurisprudence" to support them (because he never outlined them)?

I already answered this.

there are many things which are not in vinaya but are inappropriate such as stepping on white cloth or indeed endorsing anarchism.

Do you want me to expound on this answer or can you infer the rest?

On a related note, proceeding from the above questions, whose job it is to pretend to be Awakened in order to give these new rules? Some layperson's?

I present to you

The Four Great Standards (Kd 6:40)

“Whatever, monks, has not been objected to by me, saying: ‘This is not allowable’, if it fits in with what is not allowable, if it goes against what is allowable, that is not allowable to you.

Whatever, monks, has not been objected to by me, saying: ‘This is not allowable’, if it fits in with what is allowable, if it goes against what is not allowable, that is allowable to you.

And whatever, monks, has not been permitted by me, saying: ‘This is allowable’, if it fits in with what is not allowable, if it goes against what is allowable, that is not allowable to you.

Whatever, monks, has not been permitted by me, saying: ‘This is allowable’, if it fits in with what is allowable, if it goes against what is not allowable, that is allowable to you.”

Do you want this spoon fed?

[Coëmgenu]

I think you've fed me enough. As I understand the above and several earlier posts, you think that any which random person who considers themselves Buddhist is to use the four great references to invent new infractions in the vinaya. You've even cited the precedent of laypersons criticizing the Saṃgha and the Buddha laying down a rule afterward. The problem is that you are no Buddha, and whatever understanding you have of how to employ those four great references does not give you a platform under which to create new vinaya rulings updated for the time. This is basically a recipe for inventing your own kind of "bubble Buddhism:" a form of Buddhism entirely personal, existing in an isolated bubble.

I think that you should reconsider the way you're choosing to interpret the roles of the rules of the vinaya. If such is the case as you have been arguing thus far, why is there a vinaya at all? The vinaya should have to be intuited according to the four great references by some body of interpreters in each generation. You can see why this would be a disaster, no?

[User13866]

I think you've fed me enough.

I agree and with this i will stop entertaining you.

[Pondera]

I need a link to the picture.

It was a hypothetical question. I hope no such pictures exist.

There are many trivial things that are a no-no for a monk like causing something to float on water for fun

pācittiya 53
"udake hasadhamme pācittiyaṃ."

Not to play in the water. If within a water body (river, stream, lake, pond, etc.) where the water level reaches at least the height of the eyes, a bhikkhu dives, floats, swims, amuses himself or becomes enthusiastic for this water in any manner, he commits a pācittiya.

If he plays by means of a boat, or by throwing or causing to float anything on cooking water, or within any container with water, he commits a dukkaṭa. Naturally, a sick bhikkhu entering the water for health reasons does not commit any fault. The same thing applies to a bhikkhu who swims only for the purpose of crossing a river that obstructs his way.
https://en.dhammadana.org/sangha/vinaya ... m#ch----53

On another occasion, Kassapa asked the Buddha: "What is the reason that formerly there were fewer rules, but more monks were established in the knowledge of Arahatship, while now there are more rules, but fewer monks are established in the knowledge of Arahatship?" The Buddha replied:

"So it happens, Kassapa, when beings deteriorate and the true Dhamma vanishes: then there are more rules and fewer Arahats. There will be, however, no vanishing of the true Dhamma until a sham Dhamma arises in the world. But when a sham Dhamma arises in the world, there will be more rules and fewer Arahats.
"But, Kassapa, it is not a cataclysm of the four elements — earth, water, fire and air — that makes the Dhamma disappear. Nor is the reason for its disappearance similar to the overloading of a ship that causes it to sink. It is rather the presence of five detrimental attitudes that causes the obscuration and disappearance of the Dhamma.

"These are the five: it is the lack of respect and regard for the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha, the training, and for meditative concentration, on the part of monks and nuns, and male and female lay devotees. But so long as there is respect and regard for those five things, the Dhamma will remain free of obscuration and will not disappear."

— S.16:13

No mention of cats or dogs

[Coëmgenu]

Well, regardless if you wish to answer, I think it would be a disaster if the precepts through which the holy life in Buddhism are observed arbitrarily changed with each coming generation. "No walking dogs" is a gateway to chaos as far the what "the precepts" even are. Furthermore, to put yourself in the place of the Buddha as an expounder of the Dharma, able to generate new rulings applicable to the vinaya, is in vain. It doesn't get you any closer to Bodhi to make up new rules for the monks to follow and then accuse them on the Internet of being bad monks for not following your made-up vinaya rulings, however much you might think that they are based on the four great references.

There is a reason why successive generations of Buddhists are not constantly adding updates to the Buddhist monastic code.

Let's take for instance the example of the white cloth. You used a personal interpretation of MN 85 to argue that it was bad for a monk to step on a white cloth. In MN 85, the Buddha is depicted as making a personal decision to not walk in on a lavish white cloth that has been prepared for him. Venerable Ānanda says that the reason is because the Buddha has compassion for future generations. Now, what this means is actually quite ambiguous. The pedestrian reading is that the white cloth is precious and it shouldn't be soiled and ought to be preserved for future generations. Does this really seem like something that the Buddha would consider precious and value the preservation of though, this white cloth? No, obviously not. Furthermore, you've interpreted a personal decision made in a particular context by the Buddha (i.e. not stepping on the fancy carpet prepared for him), which pertained only to himself, as a formal ruling handed down by the Buddha to the Saṃgha that pertains to all of them. Furthermore, you've neglected the context in which the Buddha declines to step on it (it was specifically prepared for him during a lavish feast). It's clear from your post that you are interpreting this to be about white cloth itself, any which white cloth. It isn't just about any white cloth hanging around anywhere. This happened in a specific context. The Buddha never made a ruling specific to preserving or respecting or not stepping on any which white cloth for a reason: the preservation of white cloth is irrelevant to the vinaya. Furthermore, engaging in excessive luxurious fineries is already something covered. So we can see why making up new pseudo-rulings, like monks oughtn't step on white rugs or walk dogs, is actually an exercise in arbitrariness, even if it seems to some like it might be based on the above-quoted four great references.

[Pondera]

Also can we talk about how the dog looks miserable with tail between legs.

I appreciate dogs a lot and can train a service dog but i don't keep dogs and i wouldn't keep a dog if i was ordained.

I don't keep dogs because they need a lot of training, play & exercise.

Akaliko walks this dog and the dog looks miserable in the pictures because it's scared, that is why they tuck their tails. It's not Akaliko's fault because he is not the owner but it's not good.

Furthermore how is this dog walking on leash?

Is he pulling, walking in front or is lagging behind? If so then is Akaliko pulling/yanking/popping the leash?

Those are punishment/corrections, this is a use of violence, and dogs don't like this. If you disagree then put a leash on yourself and ask someone to yank it...

A walk through the city, for a dog like this, is of little to no value. These dogs need like one and a half hour of running & play for exercise not an uncomfortable stroll through the city.

So please don't talk about affection for animals where the dog is untrained and doesn't dare to keep his tail up in public...

That there is an amazing breed and it's not a pet-dog breed, these are bred to be working dogs.

The dog is not tucking it’s tail in the first picture. And there are countless reasons why his tail might be tucked in the second picture. A loud noise, perhaps? He is not NECESSARILY miserable and that is a HUGE assumption on your part.

You have no idea how well or poorly trained the dog is. A gentle pull of the leash to keep the dog out of danger is sometimes necessary. Other than that how do you know the dog does not like a walk through the city? Dogs enjoy smelling their environments. It’s how they “get to know” the other dogs in their surroundings.

The dog is likely more than happy to walk and sniff and learn many things about the dogs in his environment based on the scent they leave in their urine. Any kind of physical activity is good for a dog. You have no idea how the Bhikkhu is handling the dog, so please don’t make assumptions. The owner would not likely lend his dog to the Bhikkhu if he wasn’t trusted as being a capable handler.

Again, this is a trivial matter where both the dog and the handler are simply getting exercise. Any question of lust, hatred, or ignorance resulting from the activity seems to be entirely absent. This is a matter of wholesome affection, good will and metta, if you ask me.

[User13866]

The dog is not tucking it’s tail in the first picture. And there are countless reasons why his tail might be tucked in the second picture. A loud noise, perhaps? He is not NECESSARILY miserable and that is a HUGE assumption on your part.

A gentle pull of the leash to keep the dog out of danger is sometimes necessary. Other than that how do you know the dog does not like a walk through the city? Dogs enjoy smelling their environments. It’s how they “get to know” the other dogs in their surroundings.

The dog is likely more than happy to walk and sniff and learn many things about the dogs in his environment based on the scent they leave in their urine. Any kind of physical activity is good for a dog. You have no idea how the Bhikkhu is handling the dog, so please don’t make assumptions. The owner would not likely lend his dog to the Bhikkhu if he wasn’t trusted as being a capable handler.

Again, this is a trivial matter where both the dog and the handler are simply getting exercise. Any question of lust, hatred, or ignorance resulting from the activity seems to be entirely absent. This is a matter of wholesome affection, good will and metta, if you ask me.

You come off as an amateur pet-dog owner and i am not going to get into this. If your dogs can't heel properly such that they need leash corrections and you call a walk through the city "exercise" for a greyhound then it's just sad.

[Sam Vara]

The dog is not tucking it’s tail in the first picture. And there are countless reasons why his tail might be tucked in the second picture. A loud noise, perhaps? He is not NECESSARILY miserable and that is a HUGE assumption on your part.

The dog is a greyhound, or greyhound cross. They tuck their tails in most of the time. Google the breed and see what pics come up. Looks like a happy dog to me!

[Pondera]

The dog is not tucking it’s tail in the first picture. And there are countless reasons why his tail might be tucked in the second picture. A loud noise, perhaps? He is not NECESSARILY miserable and that is a HUGE assumption on your part.

A gentle pull of the leash to keep the dog out of danger is sometimes necessary. Other than that how do you know the dog does not like a walk through the city? Dogs enjoy smelling their environments. It’s how they “get to know” the other dogs in their surroundings.

The dog is likely more than happy to walk and sniff and learn many things about the dogs in his environment based on the scent they leave in their urine. Any kind of physical activity is good for a dog. You have no idea how the Bhikkhu is handling the dog, so please don’t make assumptions. The owner would not likely lend his dog to the Bhikkhu if he wasn’t trusted as being a capable handler.

Again, this is a trivial matter where both the dog and the handler are simply getting exercise. Any question of lust, hatred, or ignorance resulting from the activity seems to be entirely absent. This is a matter of wholesome affection, good will and metta, if you ask me.

You come off as an amateur pet-dog owner and i am not going to get into this. If your dogs can't heel properly such that they need leash corrections and you call a walk through the city "exercise" for a greyhound then it's just sad.

I’m aware that for this particular breed a large amount of running in open spaces is ideal. No need to call me an amateur. I said ANY amount of physical activity is good for a dog - not optimal.

Regardless, you are making more assumptions. How many cities can you think of are without open green spaces? How would you have any idea at all whether or not the Bhikkhu does not bring the dog to an open space and let him run free.

You could ask him personally, but I suspect someone else other than the dog has his tail between his legs. You bash the Bhikkhu behind his back, while having every opportunity to confront him directly on suttacentral.