Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Why aren't monks allowed to eat after noon?

TheEccentricTheEccentric Hampshire, UK Veteran
With all due respect to the tradition this sounds absolutely ridiculous, what's the point of it?

Comments

  • I will leave others to explain the Theravada position..just to point out that this does not apply to Mahayana/Vajrayana monks.
  • TheEccentricTheEccentric Hampshire, UK Veteran
    Oh thank goodness, I'm Vajrayana
  • You want to know the real reason? It's not hard to figure out, if you understand how the early Buddhist monks and the lay population lived back then.

    The lay population had only one proper, cooked meal a day. That was the evening meal, when the men came back from the fields or whereever they had to toil all day. The monks lived off the leftovers of these meals, and those were given to them the following morning. The monks figured that the lay population would not appreciate a begging monk with a bowl showing up while the hungry man of the house was trying to relax and sit down to a meal after a hard day of work.

    So the monks confined their begging to the morning, when they were given the leftovers. These leftovers were taken back to the temples and their own meal prepared. It worked out best for them and the surrounding population they depended on and kept hard feelings at bay.

    One of the repeated criticisms of Buddhist temples as they spread was that the monks sat around, collected donations that went to useless statues and countless copies of sutras, and still lived off the hard work of the surrounding population. The temples ended up as landowners, even, and given the feudal system took most of what the farmer produced on top of that. Sometimes the criticisms got so bad that the temples and monks were banned by the authorities (who wanted those riches for themselves).

    To counter this, some schools of Buddhism changed to become self-sufficient and that worked out much better. Granted, the monks now had to work and sweat out in the fields also, and there was no reason for that no eating after noon rule, but that's tradition for you. Once a rule becomes tradition, it becomes sacred and remains long after its purpose is over.
    PremaSagar
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited January 2013
    If you are not a monk it wouldnt apply to you anyway.
    The 12 noon rule applies to Theravadin monks or Theravadin lay people who have taken three more precepts than the usual five.
    Usually because they are on retreat.
  • BhanteLuckyBhanteLucky Alternative lifestyle person in the South Island of New Zealand New Zealand Veteran

    With all due respect to the tradition this sounds absolutely ridiculous, what's the point of it?

    Does it sound so ridiculous now you've heard the origin of the tradition?
    Ficus_religiosa
  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran

    With all due respect to the tradition this sounds absolutely ridiculous, what's the point of it?

    Digestion take time, Also its worthy to note when the Buddha established the rules of conduct for the ordained (Vinaya) the monks where collecting alms with their begging bowls so as not to be a bother to the general lay population it was likely easiest to restrict alms collection to once a day. :)

  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran

    With all due respect to the tradition this sounds absolutely ridiculous, what's the point of it?

    Does it sound so ridiculous now you've heard the origin of the tradition?
    For me, it sounds even more foolish now, although I've always been critical of it.

  • TheEccentricTheEccentric Hampshire, UK Veteran

    With all due respect to the tradition this sounds absolutely ridiculous, what's the point of it?

    Does it sound so ridiculous now you've heard the origin of the tradition?
    TBH it makes it sound more ridiculous present rules should not be dictated bysituations from hundreds of years ago that aren't even a problem anymore, they should just abolish it and move on

  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran



    With all due respect to the tradition this sounds absolutely ridiculous, what's the point of it?

    Does it sound so ridiculous now you've heard the origin of the tradition?
    TBH it makes it sound more ridiculous present rules should not be dictated bysituations from hundreds of years ago that aren't even a problem anymore, they should just abolish it and move on

    Buddha did say that the minor rules of the Vinaya could be removed after his death however one thing with the Theravada tradition is they never took kindly to doctrinal disputes over the Vinaya.
  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    I personally don't find it any more ridiculous than the notion that we need "3 squares a day" especially considering what the average American considers a meal, lol.

    Anyhow, I just wanted to add that my teacher is Vajrayana, Nyingma tradition and he still abides by the 2 meals a day rule. From what I've found, many Tibetan monastics still take this, it is part of the 36 precepts.
    eating after midday (Exceptions: if one is ill, if one is traveling, or if one cannot meditate properly without food.)
    BhikkhuJayasara

  • Personally I know no Nyingma or Kagyu or Sayka teacher, lay or monastic, that keeps the 12 noon rule.
    Most Gelugpa do.
  • TheEccentricTheEccentric Hampshire, UK Veteran
    Citta said:


    Most Gelugpa do.

    Including Lay people? I consider myself to be Gelupga and I couldn't keep to that, not even if I wanted too.

  • Citta said:


    Most Gelugpa do.

    Including Lay people? I consider myself to be Gelupga and I couldn't keep to that, not even if I wanted too.
    No, not laypeople. One explanation for it is that the digestive process disturbs meditation. In some traditions, monks meditate in the early morning, before eating, and in the evening, after textual studies and prayers.

    Traleg Rinpoche (Kagyu) nearly starved himself to death after years of avoiding food, because digestion interfered with his meditation. He really got life-threateningly ill and emaciated at one point. I guess he got over the obstacle-to-meditation thing, because he's been rolley-polley ever since.

    Eat within reason and without guilt, OP. Eat to nourish yourself, and be grateful for each meal. Eat mindfully, and all will be well.

    TheEccentricJeffrey
  • My 2 cents:

    Hypothesis:The buddha gave that precept for a reason regarding the practice.
    The buddha saw that without moderation in eating it was to hard to keep good vigilance (digestion causes mind to be overcomed by sloth-drowsiness,the body gets heavy..this is not a personal opinion, digestion does that and thats why people take naps and rests after it).

    Without vigilance it was impossible to keep right mindfulness, without right mindfulness it was impossible to overcome the hindrances, without overcoming the hindrances it was impossible to progress in the meditation, and without progress..well there was no point.

    This line of reasoning its in the suttas.

    Anyways, as it was explained, it only for monks or serious practitioners.

    With Metta.




    BunksDeepankar
  • Citta said:


    Most Gelugpa do.

    Including Lay people? I consider myself to be Gelupga and I couldn't keep to that, not even if I wanted too.

    Sorry, I wasnt clear..Gelugpa MONASTICS keep a similar Vinaya to that of the Theravada..as far as I know Gelug lay people are not obliged to.
  • I think it depends what you eat. If you eat a light salad you are not going to be as sleepy as if you eat something with a lot of cheese like lasagna or pizza.
  • BhikkhuJayasaraBhikkhuJayasara Bhikkhu Veteran
    Cinorjer said:

    You want to know the real reason? It's not hard to figure out, if you understand how the early Buddhist monks and the lay population lived back then.

    The lay population had only one proper, cooked meal a day. That was the evening meal, when the men came back from the fields or whereever they had to toil all day. The monks lived off the leftovers of these meals, and those were given to them the following morning. The monks figured that the lay population would not appreciate a begging monk with a bowl showing up while the hungry man of the house was trying to relax and sit down to a meal after a hard day of work.

    So the monks confined their begging to the morning, when they were given the leftovers. These leftovers were taken back to the temples and their own meal prepared. It worked out best for them and the surrounding population they depended on and kept hard feelings at bay.

    One of the repeated criticisms of Buddhist temples as they spread was that the monks sat around, collected donations that went to useless statues and countless copies of sutras, and still lived off the hard work of the surrounding population. The temples ended up as landowners, even, and given the feudal system took most of what the farmer produced on top of that. Sometimes the criticisms got so bad that the temples and monks were banned by the authorities (who wanted those riches for themselves).

    To counter this, some schools of Buddhism changed to become self-sufficient and that worked out much better. Granted, the monks now had to work and sweat out in the fields also, and there was no reason for that no eating after noon rule, but that's tradition for you. Once a rule becomes tradition, it becomes sacred and remains long after its purpose is over.

    I've not heard this explanation before although it make sense. I've also not heard of buddhist monastics doing similar things to medieval monastics, although since human is human, I wouldn't deny it either.


    since my weight loss surgery a few years back I eat 6-8 small meals a day, which works well for me. When I first started going to the monastery I worried about the not eating after 12 thing because I can't fit in so much food in a sitting, but it turned out to be fine even with me doing physical labor like chopping and moving wood. Personally I like the fact that you know after 12 you are done with worrying about eating and concentrate on your the work at hand.

    You'd be surprised how little the human body ACTUALLY needs, compared to how much we ACTUALLY eat in modern society.

    When the monks reflect on requisites they reflect on how they eat this food for the nourishment of the body, not for enjoyment, intoxication, gluttony, etc etc. So when you eat enough for the body to be healthy that is all thats needed.

    I see nothing wrong with the no eating after 12 tradition and as long as you are a lay person there is no need to worry about it so I don't see a need to down the practice or be critical of it.
  • With all due respect to the tradition this sounds absolutely ridiculous, what's the point of it?

    Some people are required by their religion to fast the whole day and month too. I heard it has to do with history - then being the war and there is no food to go around and there is a need to save the little food there is. I don't know why Buddhist monks can't eat after 12. Maybe it is history but I would like to think it as a form of discipline, to train the monk to not give in to craving. Ridiculous, isn't it? If you are a diehard Buddhist, maybe, you'd rather like to add a scientific explanation to the practice like it is good for health, giving your stomach a rest etc. But then, we are not monks -let's eat!
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    Handy hint: if you visit a monastery where they observe this rule, take a secret stash of chocolate. :p
    TheEccentric
  • Actually PP some Sanghas see NON MILK chocolate..in other words dark chocolate, as an "allowable.."
  • BhikkhuJayasaraBhikkhuJayasara Bhikkhu Veteran

    Handy hint: if you visit a monastery where they observe this rule, take a secret stash of chocolate. :p

    just goes to show our attachment to food that we need to bring stashes and worry about not eating after 12. As someone who is an emotional eater was 373lbs and has a lifetime of food attachment.. I feel free of that when I'm at the monastery and I'm done by 12.
    BhanteLucky
  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    It really is a lot of attachment. We buy into so many things the government and various "experts" tell us instead of relying on our own wisdom and our connections to our bodies to tell us what we need. My son is one who could never abide by that rule because he is a diabetic, so he will have to schedule his meals and snacks for his entire life, barring a cure in his lifetime. I get along just fine, better even, on 2 main meals a day. I sleep better, for one. Everyone has different needs, but many of us can simply retrain our bodies (and our thinking) and adapt fairly quickly to different eating schedules. We cling to the "we need to eat 3 times a day" or "they say we should eat 5 small meals a day" because we are so out of touch with our own bodies that we need someone else to tell us what we are supposed to do. Eating has gone from a basic need for fuel for our bodies to this complex thing because of all the advice and all the choices we have. It is just as simple to fuel our bodies now as it was 100 years ago, but we've made it that much more complex because we've largely removed ourselves from being involved in our own care at that level.
    BhikkhuJayasara
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    Jayantha said:

    Handy hint: if you visit a monastery where they observe this rule, take a secret stash of chocolate. :p

    just goes to show our attachment to food that we need to bring stashes and worry about not eating after 12. As someone who is an emotional eater was 373lbs and has a lifetime of food attachment.. I feel free of that when I'm at the monastery and I'm done by 12.
    Yeah, I know. But ironically they provided chocolate and cheese to eat later in the day.
    :p
  • BhikkhuJayasaraBhikkhuJayasara Bhikkhu Veteran

    Jayantha said:

    Handy hint: if you visit a monastery where they observe this rule, take a secret stash of chocolate. :p

    just goes to show our attachment to food that we need to bring stashes and worry about not eating after 12. As someone who is an emotional eater was 373lbs and has a lifetime of food attachment.. I feel free of that when I'm at the monastery and I'm done by 12.
    Yeah, I know. But ironically they provided chocolate and cheese to eat later in the day.
    :p
    in my experience at Bhavana Society Forest Retreat (Theravada) , Bhante S has only once shared some chocolate with us after 12. they certainly don't lay it out there for us to snack on. I will admit though I'm not much of a tea drinker so when everyone drinks tea I drink hot cocoa or cold cocoa.

  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    There was an article in the news not long ago about Thailand monks becoming overweight from bad eating habits, despite their limit to how often they eat. Some traditions I guess don't limit beverages, and they are often drinking soda and other sugary beverages, and being fed less than ideal food by tourists and such. It was an interesting article, they were doing some things to make changes such as to allow for more exercise and such.
  • BhikkhuJayasaraBhikkhuJayasara Bhikkhu Veteran
    edited January 2013
    karasti said:

    There was an article in the news not long ago about Thailand monks becoming overweight from bad eating habits, despite their limit to how often they eat. Some traditions I guess don't limit beverages, and they are often drinking soda and other sugary beverages, and being fed less than ideal food by tourists and such. It was an interesting article, they were doing some things to make changes such as to allow for more exercise and such.

    it reminds me of what Bhante G told me when I asked about ordaining in Sri Lanka because they have an age limit here in usa. He said " you don't want to ordain in Sri Lanka they sit around doing nothing" hahah.

    I think the answer is more walking meditation! or Thudong!



    one of the things that I feel such a connection to and that I think is important is the daily pindapat, where the monks go to collect food once a day.. this seems to be nearly gone from the planet except in some spots of buddhist countries. Having to walk a few miles to get your food would be exercise.

    I already feel remiss that I won't be able to do that daily( I know some places do it once a month etc) when/if I become a monastic here in America.
  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    Walking meditation is a start, but for most people would not lead to adequate weight loss as such slow walking does not burn many calories unless it is done for many hours a day.
    I think I'd be afraid to be a monastic in America, who knows what some of the people would feed you!
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran

    With all due respect to the tradition this sounds absolutely ridiculous, what's the point of it?

    Does it sound so ridiculous now you've heard the origin of the tradition?
    For me, it sounds even more foolish now, although I've always been critical of it.
    Jayantha said:

    karasti said:

    There was an article in the news not long ago about Thailand monks becoming overweight from bad eating habits, despite their limit to how often they eat. Some traditions I guess don't limit beverages, and they are often drinking soda and other sugary beverages, and being fed less than ideal food by tourists and such. It was an interesting article, they were doing some things to make changes such as to allow for more exercise and such.

    it reminds me of what Bhante G told me when I asked about ordaining in Sri Lanka because they have an age limit here in usa. He said " you don't want to ordain in Sri Lanka they sit around doing nothing" hahah.

    I think the answer is more walking meditation! or Thudong!



    one of the things that I feel such a connection to and that I think is important is the daily pindapat, where the monks go to collect food once a day.. this seems to be nearly gone from the planet except in some spots of buddhist countries. Having to walk a few miles to get your food would be exercise.

    I already feel remiss that I won't be able to do that daily( I know some places do it once a month etc) when/if I become a monastic here in America.
    Yes, Jayantha, it would be good for Thai monks to get some exercise. I can't say I ever recalled seeing a Thai monk exercising, unless you want to call cleaning up the temple grounds or gardening exercise (which they are, though not with that intent).

    I don't think there's any significant amount of food being given to the average monk by tourists. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it's not common. First, monks are mostly out at dawn doing their food rounds, and most tourists are not. But, like poor Americans, the poor Thais that are the biggest contributors of food are not contributing the most healthy diet to the monks.

  • BhikkhuJayasaraBhikkhuJayasara Bhikkhu Veteran
    edited January 2013
    karasti said:

    Walking meditation is a start, but for most people would not lead to adequate weight loss as such slow walking does not burn many calories unless it is done for many hours a day.
    I think I'd be afraid to be a monastic in America, who knows what some of the people would feed you!

    who said anything about walking slow?

    and if/when I'm a monk , whatever I'd be fed is fine, I'd eat it.. I'm not a vegetarian and the vinaya states that the monks accept and eat what is given, with very rare exception( for instance if you know any animal is specifically killed for you). It is all just used to nourish the body and for living the brahmacharyia lifestyle, not for enjoyment.

    I have no desire to be a monk in a "buddhist country" the dhamma is fragile yet with so much potential here in America, here( in the west) is the place for a monk to be in this new century :).
    vinlyn said:

    With all due respect to the tradition this sounds absolutely ridiculous, what's the point of it?

    Does it sound so ridiculous now you've heard the origin of the tradition?
    For me, it sounds even more foolish now, although I've always been critical of it.
    Jayantha said:

    karasti said:

    There was an article in the news not long ago about Thailand monks becoming overweight from bad eating habits, despite their limit to how often they eat. Some traditions I guess don't limit beverages, and they are often drinking soda and other sugary beverages, and being fed less than ideal food by tourists and such. It was an interesting article, they were doing some things to make changes such as to allow for more exercise and such.

    it reminds me of what Bhante G told me when I asked about ordaining in Sri Lanka because they have an age limit here in usa. He said " you don't want to ordain in Sri Lanka they sit around doing nothing" hahah.

    I think the answer is more walking meditation! or Thudong!



    one of the things that I feel such a connection to and that I think is important is the daily pindapat, where the monks go to collect food once a day.. this seems to be nearly gone from the planet except in some spots of buddhist countries. Having to walk a few miles to get your food would be exercise.

    I already feel remiss that I won't be able to do that daily( I know some places do it once a month etc) when/if I become a monastic here in America.
    Yes, Jayantha, it would be good for Thai monks to get some exercise. I can't say I ever recalled seeing a Thai monk exercising, unless you want to call cleaning up the temple grounds or gardening exercise (which they are, though not with that intent).

    I don't think there's any significant amount of food being given to the average monk by tourists. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it's not common. First, monks are mostly out at dawn doing their food rounds, and most tourists are not. But, like poor Americans, the poor Thais that are the biggest contributors of food are not contributing the most healthy diet to the monks.

    Bhante G walks a few miles every day during the 12-2 free period at Bhavana Society. This is why he is thin and fairly healthy at 85 years old. I plan to do the same.. if I could run as a monk I would but I'll have to give up running( I do barefoot running currently).

    as a monk I will have to be content with walking and yoga :P
  • BunksBunks Australia Veteran
    karasti said:

    I personally don't find it any more ridiculous than the notion that we need "3 squares a day" especially considering what the average American considers a meal, lol.

    Anyhow, I just wanted to add that my teacher is Vajrayana, Nyingma tradition and he still abides by the 2 meals a day rule. From what I've found, many Tibetan monastics still take this, it is part of the 36 precepts.
    eating after midday (Exceptions: if one is ill, if one is traveling, or if one cannot meditate properly without food.)

    Exceptions: in the case of a nun being pregnant :D
    karasti
  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    @Jayantha I wouldn't have a problem with typical food. It would be times people put moldy or otherwise spoiled or old food in, or other such things.
  • BhikkhuJayasaraBhikkhuJayasara Bhikkhu Veteran
    karasti said:

    @Jayantha I wouldn't have a problem with typical food. It would be times people put moldy or otherwise spoiled or old food in, or other such things.

    wow.. the thought of spoiled moldy food never crossed my mind.. something tells me there is an allowance to not have to eat food that can make you sick though , but I couldn't point to a spot in the vinaya that says so, so who knows.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Jayantha, it's difficult for me to imagine a Thai person intentionally putting out spoiled food for monks.

    On the other hand, when I was living over there I bought chicken breasts one day at the market, and when I got home the odor led me to believe they were quite definitely spoiled. I mentioned it to my Thai partner as I was throwing them away, and he said, "Oh wait! We can give them to the maid!" Duuuuuuh!
  • BhikkhuJayasaraBhikkhuJayasara Bhikkhu Veteran
    vinlyn said:

    Jayantha, it's difficult for me to imagine a Thai person intentionally putting out spoiled food for monks.

    which is exactly why it never even entered my mind until Karasti said it.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Jayantha said:

    vinlyn said:

    Jayantha, it's difficult for me to imagine a Thai person intentionally putting out spoiled food for monks.

    which is exactly why it never even entered my mind until Karasti said it.
    But, I should add that many Thais I know buy food at street restaurants for the monks, and I have gotten sick on some of the same food...but I know I am more sensitive about that than the average Thai is.

  • BhanteLuckyBhanteLucky Alternative lifestyle person in the South Island of New Zealand New Zealand Veteran
    karasti said:

    @Jayantha I wouldn't have a problem with typical food. It would be times people put moldy or otherwise spoiled or old food in, or other such things.

    Monks don't have to eat everything that is put in their bowl.
  • The main foods for monks is jhanas bliss and also depending on occasion and the physical wellness of monks to eat only before noon like the buddha then who ate only at noon, so that full focus is on mindfulness over body need.
  • You can rise to much higher states of mind when you are low on stomach food.
    lobster
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran

    You can rise to much higher states of mind when you are low on stomach food.

    Maslow might disagree with you.

  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited January 2013

    With all due respect to the tradition this sounds absolutely ridiculous, what's the point of it?

    To begin with, the Buddha did his best to ensure the monastic sangha would always connected to the laity, making the monks dependent upon the laity for food and material support. That way, they won't just go off into the forest to live and practice completely on their own, leaving householders without access to the teachings or the guidance of those who have dedicated their lives to practicing them and passing them on to future generations (particularly since this was done in a time when the teachings were memorized instead of being written down).

    As for the rule limiting the collection and consumption of food to between dawn and noon, the two main reasons for its existence I've seen are (1) eating too late can cause drowsiness, making meditation (an important part of the monastic life) more difficult, and (2) eating only once a day helps to reduce the burden on the lay community, which supports the monastic community with the majority of their material requisites. (An exception is made for monastics who are ill, however.) And this training rule is also undertaken by lay-followers who wish to have a more rigorous practice, part of which is to reduce the amount of time and energy spent on indulging in sense pleasures.

    And I just want to throw out there that, from personal experience, eating only one to two meals a day really isn't as difficult or austere as it may seem. When I was living at a monastery for a while, I was really afraid I couldn't do it; but after a week or so, I got used to it and made sure I ate enough to last me the whole days (sans a piece of cheese and some tea later in the evening, of course). I suppose some people may have a harder time adjusting; but honestly, it's not a big deal, and you're definitely not going to waste away or die from hunger.

    In addition, I find not eating after noon while on meditation retreats to be much more preferable than eating throughout the entire day. I generally feel lighter and more awake, for one.
    Citta said:

    Actually PP some Sanghas see NON MILK chocolate..in other words dark chocolate, as an "allowable.."

    Yes, many Theravadin monasteries (especially Thai ones) allow cheese and/or dark chocolate after noon, primarily because neither are mentioned specifically in the Vinaya, so they must be placed into which ever of the five groups they most closely belong, and some consider them as tonics rather than staple food, which can be taken whenever one feels ill, run down, or tired.

    Dark chocolate is made from cocoa and salt, which are medicines, and sugar, which is a tonic. In addition, the presence of small amounts of milk, which is considered a food, doesn't put a chocolate into the food category from a Vinaya standpoint until it's sufficient enough to make it 'milk chocolate'. So some argue that dark chocolate can be used as a medicine or tonic.

    As for cheese, some argue that it's sufficiently similar to 'navanita' and dissimilar to anything else placed by the Buddha into the other four groups to be considered in the same category. However, certain monasteries have changed their views about this and no longer allow cheese, e.g., I think this is the case at Wat Metta and Bodhinyana Monastery.

    In a comment on Ajahn Sujato's blog, Ajahn Brahmali explains this in more detail:
    In brief, for anyone who practices at least eight precepts, the Buddha allowed certain types of ‘medicines’ that are allowable even when ordinary food is not. These medicines include medicinal leaves (e.g. tea) and non-substantial fruits (e.g. coffee beans and cocoa beans), known as lifetime medicines, but also certain ‘tonics’ known as seven-day medicines: ghee, navanita, oil, honey and molasses (or sugar). Juice drinks are also allowable outside the ordinary meal time. Chocolate is considered allowable because its ingredients are allowable: dark chocolate consists mainly of fats (oil), cocoa and sugar. If the medicine contains a small quantity of non-allowable foods this is not a problem, as long as the product is still considered to go by the same name.

    Cheese is more controversial, and whether it is allowable depends on the understanding of the Pali word navanita (which I have left untranslated in the list of ‘tonics’ above). The Thai forest tradition has traditionally (perhaps starting with Ajahn Mun) understood navanita to mean cheese. Most monks, however, would understand it to be closer to butter. Since there is disagreement on the meaning of this term, it makes sense not to take a dogmatic position on what it means. Whether one eats cheese or butter in the afternoon – as long as it is used wisely to assuage discomfort due to hunger – is not going to be an impediment in one’s practice. At Bodhinyana Monastery in Perth we take neither cheese nor butter in the afternoon or evening, but it is up to each individual monk how he wishes to practice when he is outside the monastery.

    Sometimes the arguments that can result from different standards of what is allowable can be more disturbing to medotation practice than adopting standards that might be considered controversial by some. If something falls within a grey area of Vinaya, I believe it is better to accept that others may see the matter differently and not make a big issue out of it. Harmony is one of the factors required for meditation to be successful.
  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    The reason I mentioned it (Thanks to @Jamesthegiant for answering) about the possible bad food was because @Jayantha mentioned ordaining in the US and not Thailand. I could imagine plenty of people in the US doing such a thing, depending of course on how neighbors felt about having a monastery nearby. Last week we watched "When the Iron Bird Flies" as a sangha and in the movie there was discussion about a monastery in CO I think and they talked about how they can to get the land they had, and the problems in zoning and with neighbors who did not want a non Christian religion in their area. In the end, it all passed and they built their place of course. But I think I'd be a bit nervous about having to rely on some of those people to feed me. But of course I might not understand how these things are done in America, I don't know much about how western monasteries manage alms and such.
  • BhikkhuJayasaraBhikkhuJayasara Bhikkhu Veteran
    karasti said:

    The reason I mentioned it (Thanks to @Jamesthegiant for answering) about the possible bad food was because @Jayantha mentioned ordaining in the US and not Thailand. I could imagine plenty of people in the US doing such a thing, depending of course on how neighbors felt about having a monastery nearby. Last week we watched "When the Iron Bird Flies" as a sangha and in the movie there was discussion about a monastery in CO I think and they talked about how they can to get the land they had, and the problems in zoning and with neighbors who did not want a non Christian religion in their area. In the end, it all passed and they built their place of course. But I think I'd be a bit nervous about having to rely on some of those people to feed me. But of course I might not understand how these things are done in America, I don't know much about how western monasteries manage alms and such.

    the main monastery I visit, do retreats at, and plan to ordain at.. is Bhavana Society, created by Bhante G some 30 years ago in the mountains of WEST VIRGINIA. Now you couldn't think of too many places that you'd expect more issues then there.. and indeed within a 10 mile radius of that monastery there are 6 churches and everyone has crosses on their yards with jesus saves signs and such.. including the home right next door to the monastery.

    that being said, while they had some minor issues at first, Bhante G has become part of the community there, these are very nice people who we wave at while we walk and they wave back etc. Have faith in humanity, even " those ignorant Christians!" :P

    also btw.. no monk expects or looks for non-buddhists to donate dana, it's not their place to do so, so the locals wouldn't be feeding any monks anyways.
  • BhanteLuckyBhanteLucky Alternative lifestyle person in the South Island of New Zealand New Zealand Veteran
    karasti said:

    ... how these things are done in America, I don't know much about how western monasteries manage alms and such.

    From what I have experienced, people book up to a year in advance to feed the monks at most western Theravadan monasteries, so there is no lack of food... quite the opposite in fact. The laypeople drive in with prepared food and serve it to the monks there.
    There's a calendar in the monastery kitchen, and as soon as a new calendar is put up, the whole year is usually full, booked out, in just a couple of weeks.
    Some western monks have tried to go on an actual alms-round, walking the streets, but westerners don't know what's happening and so the monks don't get much, if anything. But once the westerners get the idea, they give enough food too, especially if the monks are in a town centre, not a residential area.
    I did it once as a layperson in a western country, and the two of us got enough food to feed three or four people... it was mostly bread, cake, subway sandwiches, and cola.
    Subway is healthy enough I guess.
  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    Interesting, thanks for sharing!
    lol on the subway. I guess it depends how much processed meat and mayo you put on it, as to how healthy it is. Not so much if you eat like my son who gets double meat (spicy italian) on white bread and cheese and that's it.
  • care to explain why you think it is ridiculous?

    With all due respect to the tradition this sounds absolutely ridiculous, what's the point of it?

  • BhanteLuckyBhanteLucky Alternative lifestyle person in the South Island of New Zealand New Zealand Veteran
    Watch out the explanation doesn't come out as theravada-bashing, or disrespecting someone's tradition of Buddhism.
  • PatrPatr Veteran
    Bcos 2500 years ago it wasnt safe for the monks to wander around at night.

    Its in the nikayas somewhere..

    A lot of wild animals then, even worse was humans with bad intentions.

    Even worse still, humans now have tnt and machine guns.
Sign In or Register to comment.