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 and Money
ThailandTom
Veteran
So not long ago I visited a temple close to me and bought an amulet. Further on they had these braclets that are common in thailand and they were free or donations. Now, the person sat at the table was a monk, I thought you were not aloud to accept money as a monk.. Also, in koh Chang, there is a huge glass box with a monk sat infront of it where people plunge bank notes into it and then give a bow. I have seen monks with ATM cards and so forth, it seems that at least here in thailand, the precepts are being violated left right and centre. What is your opinion/experience with this??
0
Comments
Yeah, you are right that most monks these days ignore that particular rule in the Vinaya. It's not a major precept, however.
Not that you don't have a point, you do. But I think you have to chalk this up to an unfortunate reality of the modern world in which we live.
I know of no monks in any tradition or country who refuse to handle money completely. I'm sure some must exist somewhere, but I've never known one personally. So that in itself is not all that unusual.
Rather, the spirit of the rule is the more important thing. Does the monk have financial motivations? Does he hoard money for himself? Does he chose who to preach the Dharma to depending on who can pay?
Any such behavior would be a serious breach. Just handling money, however, is unavoidable.
I understand that there are things that monks shouldn't do but i like the idea that the money i give to the monks is being used. What they use he money for is up to them. Its just money.
`Headman, for whoever gold, silver, or money are allowable then for him the five types of sense pleasure are allowable . For whoever the five types of sense pleasure are allowable you can be certain, "He does not possess the nature of a monk, he does not possess the nature of a son of the Sakyan prince."
Maniculaka Sutta
"There are some contemplatives and brahmans who consent to gold & silver, who don't refrain from accepting gold & silver. This is the third obscuration of contemplatives and brahmans, obscured by which some contemplatives and brahmans don't glow, don't shine, don't dazzle.
Upakkilesa Sutta
This can happen when you give money to monks.
http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=57,8414,0,0,1,0
Turkish proverb.
Here is a post in my local newspaper, by my teacher, on this topic.
Moral of the story: if it is ethical for a buyer to determine the value of something is it not equally ethical for the seller to determine the value?
On the other, part of this is due to the unwillingness of lay-followers to observe their duties towards monastics. The Buddha did his best to ensure the monastic sangha was 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 practice, 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.
Now that these things are more widely available thanks to books and the internet, however, people tend to take monasteries for granted and don't attend to the monks material needs. Many monks are then forced to handle donations themselves in order to pay for the things they need, particularly taking care of bills (e.g., electricity, property tax, etc.).
And for a more Buddhist perspective — which I think not only addresses the relation between the lay and monastic communities, but also ties into some of the ideas found in Debt — I recommend a pair of essays by Thanissaro Bhikkhu: The Economy of Gifts" and "No Strings Attached: The Buddha's Culture of Generosity."
With Metta
Codling and Thanissaro ask for whatever donors have the means to give without even a "suggested donation." That is not cooperative in nature and it is the cooperative aspect that is the basis of a moral economy.
The blindsight is understandable of course. Belief systems and religions, or rather, memes, have a natural inclination to grow and they absolutely believe that they are beneficial, therefor any amount of resources allocated to them is considered appropriate, regardless of all the other factors involved.
As I tried to illustrate earlier, it is moral to cooperatively determine the value of something.
I'd argue that, at its heart, it's definitely a cooperative, reciprocal relationship or form of 'gift economy,' not a competitive, commodity-fetishized one. I'm some cases, such as in the context of commercial markets and commodity exchanges, I'd agree this argument can be made, and is a reasonable one at that. But in this particular instance, I don't think it's necessarily true. For one, the nature of the exchange itself is different, as are the social relations involved.
Perhaps you underestimate the importance of cooperation in determining value? In my opinion it is especially true in this case for several reasons. For one, people often seek out spiritual guidance when they are distraught or in an otherwise chaotic state, in which case their judgement may be compromised and they may over/under-value what is offered to them. Again, this is like my fictitious example of a child buying ice cream for $100. Is that ethical? Why not take all known factors (which include the needs on both sides and the surrounding environment) into account and cooperatively determine a value?
Another reason, as I mentioned before, is that religious belief systems are both inclined to growth and absolutely assume value, so any amount donated to them may be considered appropriate. Any amount could be appropriate, who am I to judge, but it is not cooperative in nature and the basis of a moral economy is the cooperative aspect.
Moreover, I find the comparison between a lay-person and a child buying ice cream a bit much. For one, the vast majority of lay-followers giving to temples are adults who are already familiar with the needs of the monks and the customs surrounding the offering of material requisites (e.g., offering food before noon, etc.). As Graeber points out, these types of 'moral economies' are regulated by custom and reputation, which themselves help determine a baseline of 'value' — although I hesitate to call it since when it comes to the gift of teachings, value is highly subjective — so there is some input in terms of how value is comparatively measured within the community as a whole. Perhaps. But have you also considered that you may be overestimating it? Or that maybe you're ignoring the broader framework in which cooperation also plays an important role? One example of what I mean is that this kind of gift economy isn't built around making a profit; it's built around a community seeking to take care of one another, giving based on ability, and receiving based on need. The entire effort is a cooperative one, in my opinion. In this kind of economy, value isn't as important of a factor, partially because it's so subjective, but also because 'obligations' are necessarily quantified. Again, when it comes to the gift of teachings, value is highly subjective. If someone is terribly distraught and they visit a temple for a while and begin to feel a lot better, that visit may be worth $100 to them. And if they happen to have $100 they can spare, what's wrong with them giving that $100? Also, your example completely ignores the fact that gift economies are regulated by custom, reputation, etc. Your example may be relevant when it comes to someone completely new to this sort of thing; but even then, they'll eventually become accustomed and adjust accordingly. The same applies to going to another country and having to adjust to their currency exchange rates, which I certainly wouldn't say is unethical.
In addition, when it comes to monastics, they're not here to make money. They're not even allowed to ask for money; although, if asked, they can tell a lay-person what particular requisite they need so that they can provide it. So, here, the laity needs to be sensitive to the needs of the monastics, which helps to keep the two communities connected, as the Buddha intended.
This system intrinsically takes into account sliding scales, as well, and gives people the benefit of the doubt. People with a lot to give can (and do tend to) give more, while people of little means can give what little they can, if anything at all. It also take into account that, in a gift economy, you don't have to 'settle' everything up front as no accounts are taken, and returns aren't always immediate or even tangible.
Thanissaro sometimes tells a story about when he was in Thailand, not long after he ordained. The temple was in a relatively poor part or Thailand; and on alms round, he recalls having to go by a small hut with a newly married couple. They were extremely poor and had very little, but they often shared what little rice they had with him. And that simple gesture, of giving just a bit of rice when they had little else, contained a lot of value. Not so much materially as it inspired Thanissaro to practice hard in order to be worthy of such an offering.
In this instance, he didn't feel worth what he was being given at the time by this couple, but that gift inspired him to be worthy someday; and now he's arguably a great meditation teacher and prolific writer helping countless people with his gift of teachings. It was an investment of sorts on their part, and put him in their debt (creating a particular sort of social bond). He, in turn, practiced well and taught a great deal in Thailand before being asked by his teacher to run Wat Metta.
All in all, I think you do have a good point in that cooperation in determining value is important (more so than I acknowledge), and I agree with you that forms of exchange can be considered cooperative when each side has a hand in determining value. I also agree that this type of economy can become competitive in the sense of competing for more merit or reputation. Nevertheless, I don't agree that that's the only level where an exchange can be considered cooperative, especially within the context of a broader, noncommercial economy that's based on social relations rather than market relations, need rather than profit, donations rather than set prices, etc., and which functions only when everyone's cooperating.
In addition, anyone familiar with the gift economy of Theravada Buddhism will know and understand what requisites a particular monk or monastery requires (e.g., food offerings everyday before noon, etc.), which is why custom is often an important part in human economies of this sort. Traditionally, the laity works together and coordinates these efforts to make sure monks don't starve. Also, the Vinaya rules address this issue by allowing the laity to give monastics a formal invitation (pavarana) to ask for whatever it is they need if they are in a position to provide them. While not expressly mentioned in his essay, it's common knowledge in every sangha community I've been a part of. That's not what I said. Perhaps you should read what I wrote a bit more carefully, as I think it's fine as written. Because there's simply no need to do so in the same way that's needed in a predominately market based economy. And, of course, the door is always open for this re: the formal invitation to ask for whatever requisite they may need. Making the laity responsible for initiating this also helps to prevent monastics (particularly unscrupulous ones) from using their position of relative spiritual authority to bilk lay-followers as it's an offense for monks to ask for things without an invitation, even through hints.
I think a greater familiarity with the Vinaya and the customs surrounding dana (generosity) in Buddhism would help to clear some of these things up.
However, thinking about it some more, I think one can make the argument that even our present system works, at least in part, because of customs and habituated behaviour. For example, my payment of taxes to help fund public works and services every year is as much of a custom to me these days as anything else, and was partially influenced by seeing my parents habitually doing the same.
Certainly one can counter that this is coercive rather than customary because there are penalties involved for nonpayment; but when you think about it, many customs themselves are imposed upon us by society, upbringing, etc., so that could end up being a very complex argument.
In the end, I suspect that most things people do can be said to arise out of, or are influenced by, customs, social institutions, etc., so maybe the answer is yes on a more fundamental level. But I'm not entirely sure, to be honest.
The truth is that hierarchical traditions are resistant to collaborate on determining value, simply because it upsets the hierarchy. It puts everyone on equal footing, which is probably where everyone needs to be for true cooperation, for mutual benefit.
By the bracelets, are you talking about sai sin? If so, I'd never seen them even charged for by anyone, monk or lay person.
Personally, we're in the 21st century, and I think the lives of monks ought to be modernized a bit.