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.
Monks behaving badly...oops. ;-)
vinlyn
Colorado...for now Veteran
Comments
If however your freedom to move independently from any of it is compromised by the self, then it's time to put the toys aside.
Does anyone know why they were flying on a private jet or if the listening or watching material was Dharmic?
Nopparat of the Office of National Buddhism said, "one way to prevent the monks from misbehaving is for followers not to spoil them with valuable objects or vices. In many cases, it was the followers who gave the monks the luxury. Some bought them sports cars. This is by no means necessary."
(*^_^*)
I guess the question is, where do we draw the line in our preconceived notions of what a monk/nun should or shouldn't do?
Personally, I don't see these monks as being attached to the sunglasses/headphones/private jet, therefore I don't see a problem with it. I don't know the story behind why they were utilizing the objects, but I surely don't see them as rolling around in the plane in a state of samsaric ecstasy either. If that were the case, I'm sure they wouldn't be in their robes, either. Not saying that there aren't some monks/nuns out there who abuse their status to gain money/sex/drugs/etc. for their own hedonistic pleasures, but for some reason I didn't quite get that vibe from these monks. Maybe the private jet came with all that junk and that's why they were using them? To them, perhaps it meant nothing "flashy" but only had practical use.
There is an effect - a number of ongoing effects.
For example, the system of the 'designer' product is perpetuated.
Say a reasonable pair cost £100 - how much suffering can that alleviate - as an example, it costs around £3 to cure river blindness - it costs less than 1 pence for a nutritious meal - 20 pence for a spade for growing food, 2 pence for seeds...
The fact that anyone can wear £100 or more on their face to stop the sun inconveniencing them staggers me when people are in poor health, starving and dying around most of the world.
In my mind, it is amusing that the trappings of division are utilised to transport a bunch of people around the world so they can preach about alleviation of suffering whilst generating the trappings of division.
A lot of the rules enforced upon monastics often come across as stupid and almost verge on funny rather than serious like not being able to eat after noon, torturing yourself is not the way.
Well, let's put it this way, the Supreme Sangha of Thailand, in affiliation with the government controls Buddhism in Thailand, has the ability to strip monks of their ordainment (and does), decides which temples can exist, has legal enforcement power against monks (with the ability to imprison them)...I could go on.
So I guess about 66 million people in Thailand give a spit. You're free not to, of course.
If the monks felt that a lot of the rules they are made to follow are stupid, ridiculous, useless or even detrimental to their practice as you suggest, they would disrobe and practice as ordinary householders instead. However, many serious Buddhist practitioners choose to become ordained and many of them choose to remain ordained throughout their entire lives with firm dedication to the practice of the Dhamma. These monks obviously benefit from following the Vinaya rules. When I am in the presence of such monks, I can observe their peacefulness and their simple lives and mindful behaviour inspires faith and confidence.
I've read a number of autobiographies written by Thai and Western monks (in the Theravada tradition) and I have never come across any of them complaining about having to follow 227 rules or how they found some of the rules silly or useless. In fact whenever a monk mentions the monastic rules it would be in praise of them. One observation I remember distinctly is how the fact that since virtually all of a monk's behaviour is regulated, this requires them to be very mindful at all times to avoid transgressing a rule. When I turn and look at my own practice of the five precepts, it is evident that just keeping five requires quite a lot of mindfulness in my daily activities so I can imagine how mindful the monks have to be in order to keep 227 rules intact.
Also, what you may perceive as "torture" isn't necessarily so for everyone especially the monks. For example, when I go to retreats, I keep the eight precepts which includes not eating after noontime. At some temples in the Thai forest monk tradition I've been to, meals can be restricted to once a day to be taken at around 6.00 am in the morning. Yes, the first day or two I do feel hungry but would hardly consider it "torture". Nobody else I know who goes on such meditation retreats complain about the sixth precept so I believe my experience with it is a common one. So it normally takes just one or two days to adapt to the new eating routine. The point about not eating after noontime is to help the mind stay awake and alert as eating promotes sleepiness/drowsiness which is a hindrance to meditation. And after a few days of limiting my food intake in accordance with the sixth precept, my body actually starts to feel healthier. A lot of other people I know have said the same thing.
One meal a day is torture and unreasonable and is far from healthy, it actually is healthy to do pretty much the opposite small portions but spread out across the day.
I don't think hunger particularly helps with meditation but it is not a problem either because like I said, it normally takes just one or two days to adapt to the new eating routine. Hunger will still occasionally arise from time to time, but this is manageable as it's not that acute. Drinking a glass of water can usually make it go away.
The Thai forest monks who eat one meal a day as a norm all seem healthy and well to me. But in general, meditation retreats for lay practitioners will allow two meals, breakfast and early lunch. Honestly, I can say that virtually no one in Thailand regards either practice as torture.
I've marvelled for years at how many monks not subject mid day eating rules, have thwarted attachments from various other forms of renunciation, simply move over to food indulgences.
Either the masters in charge of these schools are themselves caught in the same way or they consider such indulgenses the lesser evil amongst attachments.
Anyhow as far as the other items, my teacher has tennis shoes and sunglasses, he has a cell phone and one of his gold shirts is even a Nike shirt. Not only does he not care what they may or may not represent to the rest of us (as far as cost, brands, etc) he doesn't even know in relation to everything else because they are things that are purchased for him, as he needs them, by the lady who takes care of those things for him. He needs sunglasses. He needs good shoes and winter boots and a good winter coat. Would he some how be a better monk if his coat came from Walmart instead of Northface? Somehow I doubt it. He doesn't even know the significance of the brand unlike the rest of us.
I do think that the mid day eating rule of the Buddha in his time had many advantages.
The shadow of a simple stick stuck in the ground was the indisputable timekeeper available for all monks where ever they were.
The hunger of 16 hours of no food encouraged renunciates to arise early for meditation and weeded out those just looking for an easier life in hard times..
It meant that the laity who themselves suffered from seasonal food shortages would likely remain more supportive of those not indulging themselves through food.
There are specific advantages to meditating when the blood flow is not physiologically being directed towards the digestive tract as happens during food digestion.
The hour following a meal does reduce some blood flow to the brain and some torpor is often reported.
Meditation does balance out the blood flow throughout the body so when one formally meditates while still digesting a meal when the body is trying to encourage the blood flow to the abdominal area, a disquieting body conflict results.
The Buddha said that monks who use the four requisites without contemplation is like consuming a "strong poison". In relation to almsfood, he instructed his monks to contemplate as follows: The Pali Commentary explains that monks should contemplate almsfood before and after eating as well as during a meal with every swallow. This is why monks are required to eat attentively and only look into their bowls while eating so as to avoid conversation in order to eat mindfully with contemplation. Some temples prohibit conversation during meals.
There are also several rules on eating a meal which prohibits types of behaviour that would be shown by someone who was eating out of greed. eg. "I will not make up an overlarge mouthful of food; nor open my mouth until the portion of food has been brought to it.... I will not eat stuffing out my cheeks."
The Theravadin approach has much to be admired.
I was not speaking so much of most monks but instead was speaking of those monks who flouted their food attachment with impunity. This would often be senior monks as the juniors had no such freedoms.
Zen has much ritualized eating etiquette that requires much mindfulness and limits food volume but most monks only live in the Zendo during retreats. All meals are preceded by scriptures that highlight the spirit of your post but the following of this Dharma is often only seen in more formal settings compared to the more common settings away from a masters censure.(if that comes at all).The rules and the Dharma are in place but it is usually the master who sets the tone for how carefully it's followed or not.
For one party they were having that was close to X-Mas time I brought him a gift. They were pretty awesome sunglasses, they looked a lot like the pic posted lol. He was really happy to get them he put them on right away and was making a few people laugh when he greeted them inside with them, he now wears them often when he's out.
I often have to eat even when I'm not hungry due to my blood sugar but I can see where only eating once or twice a day can be beneficial to meditation. When I have been able to go without food for long periods of time I did seem more clear headed. Same thing when not sleeping too much. I love to sleep so that would be difficult for me but I suppose if you are going to wear the robes it is a serious commitment, not to be taken lightly.
Those are distractions to the important question we should be asking. That question is, why are these two monks being flown around in a private jet like some sort of rich rock stars or corporate bigwigs? It says the Abbott is on a "religious tour of France", whatever that means. A tour of Buddhist temples? Are there that many Theravadan Buddhist temples in France to justify treating the monk like he's too important to travel on regular flights like the rest of us?
So we see the picture, and like a koan our minds are trapped by shiny distractions like sunglasses while the big problem is ignored. People treated like royalty will begin to think and act like royalty. That's the human mind doing what it needs to fit in. These monks are beginning to act like rich jet setters because that's the way people are treating them.
When I was a principal we would sometimes run across school rules that we couldn't really explain. And we would ask the questions: Is this just useless tradition? If we drop this rule will school life fundamentally change for the worse?
So I will ask, if monks started to eat a light evening meal, would Buddhism fade from the earth?
If the answer is yes, then it's not a valid religion to begin with. I don't think that Buddhism is that frail.
So people have greed, hatred n delusion.
to think that buddhist monks are any different from
christian, muslim or hindu clerics is wishful thinking.
there are good monks n there are bad monks,
i am not surprised.
it is to train the mind n body to be able to be satisfied with the
basic necessity.
So I will ask, if monks started to eat a light evening meal, would Buddhism fade from the earth?
but again, why does someone become a monk?
if you have a medical condition, a monk is allowed to eat in the evening.
if you dont, and you want to eat a light meal in the evening,
dont be a monk. you can still practise buddhism.
nobody is forcing you to become a monk.
as can be seen from many people who do not eat in the evening,
monks or not, they look fine n healthy.
many people who went on meditation retreats report that not eating
after noon is something you get used to pretty quickly.
But there have been days when I have merely drunk tea and/or water.
It's a good way to train the body that going without, won't kill you.
We eat/consume far too much food here in the West, anyway. We are spoiled by a glut of produce, an obscene amount of which, gets wasted and thrown away, on a daily basis.The high amount of foodstuffs disposed of - particularly by restaurants, food chains and supermarkets, is nothing short of inhumanly criminal.
On can criticise these monks all one wants, for their apparently "unskilful" and ostentatious demonstration - what we as a society, as a whole are guilty of, is incomparable.
An abbot no less.
Materialism has encroached on the behavior of many monks in Thailand (by many, I do not mean most). You see them in Pantip Plaza buying computer equipment, in upscale malls in the main shopping district, there have been instances of abbots owning expensive cars, etc. Do I think they're going to Buddhist hell for doing so? No. But what does it say to the laity?
Somebody earlier said, if you don't want to not eat after noon, don't be a monk. Okay. If you want to live a materialistic lifestyle, don't be a monk.
Having said that...well, that's the status quo viewpoint. I also have the view that the monkhood needs to be modernized with lifestyles updated to something that is beyond the 19th century.
Hmmmmm.
Is renunciation for self or others?
Is it enough to know the teaching or is it being the teaching?
If everything changes, and Buddhism must eventually fall, what do you think that falling process will look like?
I think there's a sort of "tourist" mindset among many Buddhists that really comes down to isn't it picturesque to see monks in their saffron robes doing their alms rounds. It's a nice postcard.
It is hubris to think that modernization is only now possible. Why did Buddhism not modernize through all the other ages where folks thought of themselves as modern compared to what went on before them.. or perhaps it did in 11th century India.
Many think that a modernized buddhism is just another description of how Hinduism consumed the Buddhism of that time.
The modern world is mostly about what we want to believe, as opposed to seeing what really is, much like believing in our identity as opposed to seeing whats real when that identity is no longer being maintained.
What you call a middle ages mindset really just describes our own inability to be a renunciate around modernaties bling..
So for example, let's take the rule that monks are not allowed to be in a secluded room with a woman alone by themselves. It would not be a defence for the monk to say that he was in a secluded room with a woman while his mind was absolutely pure and free of any lustful desire and he was only intending to speak to this woman about some of the monastery's affairs for a few minutes. This is because the point of the rule is not simply to protect the monk against possible misconduct due to lustful temptations that may arise from being in a room alone with another woman. There is also the other aspect of the rule being to protect the reputation of the Sangha so that people won't go around saying things like, "Hey, I saw a Buddhist monk coming out of a room with this beautiful woman, I wonder what kind of things they might have been up to."
So what a monk would normally do in such situation is either ask another monk to be present in the room while he talks to the woman or to ask the woman to move to a public, unsecluded area to have their conversation.
In the Vinayapitaka, there occurs the following story:
Actually, Buddhism has updated itself on occasion. I would say the different sects of Buddhism were efforts to clarify Buddhist scriptures and update the way they were looked at. There have been at least 6 Buddhist Councils that did some housekeeping on Buddhist thought.
The questions here that interest me is what is renunciation and how intrinsic is it to Buddhism's 4 NT, 8FP and D.O. for a renunciate?
If this is no longer relevant to a "modern" life, is it really the fundamentals of Buddhism that should change or should it stay the course as it has in the past to be available for modernity's next form of Bling?
Is it like judicial systems where it's not just enough to be true but the good of it is in being seen to be so?
Buddhism must go into decline regardless of what you & I believe.. You can debate what this will mean but not it's inevitability. Historically this has already happened in many places just as sometimes it has later been reintroduced and regained a foothold again.
Pack it in.
While in grad school for educational administration I remember taking a course about change in institutions (for wont of a better term or phrase). And I remember the discussion about no change versus too much change...both things that can result in the demise of an institution...and where is the balance. We can look at Kodak, for example -- a company that in the advent of the digital era was not willing to make any significant changes -- which has withered from a behemoth of a company to one that is on the verge of disappearing. Or, on the other hand, you have JC Penny that sought to reinvent itself and went way too far, forgetting its roots, and floundering to the point of investors wondering if its time to throw in the towel completely.
How does this relate to Buddhism? In Thailand right now there's a lot of angst about the sharp decline in the number of monks. It's my belief that a large part of that is modern life bumping up against a very traditional form of life for monks. What is missing in the equation is which monks are disappearing? If it is the monk-lite version (those who are monks for only a few weeks as part of a rite of passage), then I don't think it's of true concern. If, on the other hand, it's the long-serving type of monk that is disappearing, then there may be real cause for concern in the dropping numbers.
What I've just written was not attempt to be argumentative or to split hairs. I have too few hairs left to split!
The unseen irony is while spouting off here about modern bling, I am at the same time preparing hundreds of my own blings involved in my next kayak expedition.
Here I am dissuading a stowaway in a photo that also explains why calling myself a minimalist with pretencions of renunciation today is a bit of a farce.