Troubled by a movie...

Makarov

Dear Friends,
I just watched a wonderful and touching movie imported from S.Korea called "The Little Monk". I enjoyed it thouroughly but was troubled by a few things about it.
The first was a scene where the young monk (age 8 or 9) was being chastised by the Master for misbehavior, when the monk offered no explanation for his behavior the Master ordered him to recite his Sutra. The master waited briefly and when the little Monk hesitated, he began slowly, methodically, repeatedly spanking/rapping the monk across the back of his calves with a split cane. Once brought to tears and with red marks across his calves the Master sent him away.
My question...What is the role of "corporal punishment" in modern Buddhist society? Does Buddhism actually say anything about the use of physical punishment? For some reason I have never imagined a Buddhist Monk either administering or receiving corporal punishment.

zenmonk_genryu

Buddhism doesn't see pain as something to avoid, but as a fact of life. If we live without awareness we contribute and perpetuate dukkha or unsatisfactoriness. Whilst I can't comment on this particular movie, pain is used in most Buddhist traditions in the sense that rather than seeking to avoid it, it's made use of in the training to help us develop insight and compassion. Furthermore, there are times in the training when no amount of words can actually prompt the student to take the next step that awaits him or her. At such times, a physical action my be the most appropriate. Just as with a child, if they step into the road in front of an oncoming truck, one doesn't simply ask them to move out of the way, but physically grabs them and removes them from danger.

This isn't an argument for corporal punishment, but pointing out that sometimes a physical response is far more effective and appropriate in training. It is not therefore punishment but a jog that can, at the right time and place, push a student over the edge of the abyss, instead of keeping him or her hanging on to useless concepts that will keep the student stuck indefinately on the edge, if the situation is dealt with conceptually or verbally. Buddhism is not a gentle, peaceful way to be more comfortable in the world. It's a path concerned with what works to wake us up and will make use of whatever works to do so.

questZENer

Buddhism is ... a path concerned with what works to wake us up and will make use of whatever works to do so.

What does it mean, exactly, to "wake up" anyway? It really is an odd metaphor.
Is 'being awake' a difference in perception of our current ways of being in the world?
Or is it a radically different 'state' that is not imaginable to the 'ones who are asleep'?

dawnmike_239

"Attention is living; Inattention is dying. The attentive never stop; the inattentive are dead already." -Dhammapada 21

I like to think of these words when thinking of "being awake".

Brigid

Sorry for skipping your questions, QuestZener, but I'd just like to say that I can understand and appreciate exactly what Genryu described. I think in the west we have strict ideas about not hitting children these days. But these are regular children, not monks. It's a different way for a different purpose or reason.

I think Genryu expressed this understanding so well. I can understand it from a personal perspective as well. My physical pain has brought me to a place I never would have gotten to if I lived in physical comfort and the same goes with my emotional pain. That's why I love the law of karma so much. I feel it's exactly what I need. I used to fight and avoid the pain, any pain. I learned nothing while doing that. Now I see what the pain really can be and it is my greatest gift. I should add that to the other thread about most prized possessions. It would definitely have to be my pain.

And on top of feeling the pain, there is NOTHING in the world like those brief, wonderful moments of relief when the pain recedes. LOL! It's all good, really.

Brigid

Brigid

Ooops. We posted at the same time, Dawn&Mike. Didn't mean to skip you too.

Nice quote, BTW. Thanks.

Brigid

zenmonk_genryu

questZENer wrote:

What does it mean, exactly, to "wake up" anyway? It really is an odd metaphor.
Is 'being awake' a difference in perception of our current ways of being in the world?
Or is it a radically different 'state' that is not imaginable to the 'ones who are asleep'?

Now this is one of the few real questions that I come across, one of the best. so, to take liberties with both Plato and Jed MckKenna, you're in a darkened theatre watching a movie, totally involved. All of a sudden you realize that not only is the movie just a movie, but that you have chains on. Eventually, after much effort, you are out of the chains. At this point you have several options available to you - you can seek to get out of the theatre altogether, you can attempt to wake other people up in the theatre, or you can settle back and continue watching the movie but without the chains. In other words, where you go from here is entirely up to you. Being awake though is leaving the theatre completely.

zenmonk_genryu

dawn&mike_239 wrote:

"Attention is living; Inattention is dying. The attentive never stop; the inattentive are dead already." -Dhammapada 21

I like to think of these words when thinking of "being awake".

And this pretty much gets close to the nub of things. The Tao Te Ching refers to those who are asleep as 'straw dogs'. They're shadows, actors on a screen who identify with the character so much they forget it's a character, rarely stopping to wonder why they feel so unreal and projecting qualities of reality onto others that simply are not there. If you are awake - seeing things as they are, then being ruthless with straw dogs when it's needed is a kindness, not brutality.

Heaven and Earth are impartial;
They see the ten thousand things as straw dogs.
The wise are impartial;
They see the people as straw dogs.
The space between heaven and Earth is like a bellows.
The shape changes but not the form;
The more it moves, the more it yields.
More words count less.
Hold fast to the center.

Makarov

Thanks a million for the wonderful responses!

Vacchagotta

We can philosophize as adult practicioners (some of us who have experienced the practice of the "awakening stick" and therefore have a healthy appreciation of the role of "beatings" in Buddhist context), but I find this could possibly sidesteps one of the important elements of this case. Assuming it portrays something that occurs frequently in real life (we are talking about a fictional narrative, right?), let's think about the situation. The child is 8 or 9 years old, right? Quite likely this means the child is not a seeker of Buddhist wisdom by choice but customarily sent to the monastery for a brief time by his parents. This is very common practice in Asian countries where Buddhism is still common. The parents believe this time in the monastery will build the child's character (and prestige). Kind of like sending your kid to a boarding school for some good old-fashioned discipline. This is a big difference in situation between a person who has earnestly sought out the ordained life as an opportunity to seriously pursue the Buddhadharma. Is it child abuse? I don't know. But I do know that its one thing to hit a full-grown by-choice monk with a cane and another to hit a young kid who isn't there by any volunteering.
I guess I wouldn't think it's appropriate if my kid were caned at the boarding school I sent him to, so I guess I lean to feeling that beating the child in that way is not quite justified, and a matter of the old monk not really knowing any other way to handle disobedience in a child. Obviously there are huge cultural differences at work in my viewpoint on the matter, too.

Brigid

Vacchagotta,

Good points. I hadn't thought of it this way.
You could be right.
Interesting.

Thanks.

Brigid

zenmonk_genryu

A moot point, since the question addressed the role of physical punishment in Buddhism.

Brigid

Genryu,

Moot as in debatable? I'm confused.

Brigid

zenmonk_genryu

I mean moot as in not really relevant. If the question really were about the culture, then it wouldn't be about the Dharma as such. The culture isn't Buddhism, though it can be hard to distinguish exactly where the dividing line is sometimes I admit.

Brigid

O.K. I get it.

Brigid

Vacchagotta

Brigid wrote:

O.K. I get it.

Brigid

I don't. The question actually refers to "modern Buddhist society". Not only that, but the context of the specific case mentioned is not "moot" but actually germane to the question.
Also, to be less "moot," I'll refer to an aspect of the question yet unadressed. No, Buddhism does not (through any Vinaya system of discipline that I know of) in fact advocate corporal punishment by or for monks.

zenmonk_genryu

It's entirely moot - the idea of a 'modern Buddhist society' is a fiction. There is no such thing. The culture that Buddhism might affect is not the same thing as the Dharma and should not be confused with it. Japanese culture for example is very sexist, but that doesn't mean that the Dharma is sexist.

Vacchagotta

zenmonk_genryu wrote:

It's entirely moot - the idea of a 'modern Buddhist society' is a fiction. There is no such thing. The culture that Buddhism might affect is not the same thing as the Dharma and should not be confused with it. Japanese culture for example is very sexist, but that doesn't mean that the Dharma is sexist.

That misses my point. Oh well.

Makarov

Ooops.

Maybe I phrased my initial question poorly by refering to "modern Buddhist culture". I guess what I really meant was simply does Buddhism in general condone, accept, advocate or renounce the use of physical punishment/corporal punishment as a means of training, educating or correcting wrong or inappropriate behavior, either in the realm of dharma or otherwise.

federica

From my own humble little point of view, harming others, in any sense, and for whatever reason, is wrong. Firstly, it goes directly against the first of the Five Precepts, which is in turn supported by the Eightfold Path as a whole, but specifically Right View, Right Intention and Right Action.
I would question the validity of inflicting pain on another human being as a means of enabling them to learn, or to give them a different way of 'waking up' to things. I do not in any way mean to contradict ZenMonk's contribution; he did after all, mention the kyosaku stick in another thread, here but I feel the infliction of pain in this specific instance was perhaps also administered through spite or cruelty.... Bear in mind this elderly Monk may have once upon a time succumbed to the same treatment at the hands of HIS teacher.... it never did HIM any harm.....
Who knows.....?
However. I think we would also do well to remember that (unless I am incorrect) this is a fictitious film, and I'm certain no such thing would happen in reality.

(Did I mention my tongue is very firmly cheek-lodged?)

zenmonk_genryu

The use of pain in training is not a punishment for something done wrong. In that sense, Buddhism does not condone corporal punishment. What it does do is use pain when it arises, and the kyosaku is not usually used as punishment. When it is, it is not being used correctly.

federica

Was its' origin not intended as a sharp and painful reminder, or has it always been a simple 'attention grabber'....?
I was under the impression that its function and purpose has evolved, but that initially, it was intended to transmit some pain as a means of channeling the pupils' concentration.....
If I am mistaken, apologies.....