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 are monks/nuns not allowed to eat after noon?

The sixth precept is to abstain from taking untimely meals, and the definition of "timely" meals is between sunrise and noon. Just wondering - why is this?
«1

Comments

  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    The digestive process interferes with meditation.
    Carlita
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Just my own personal feeling -- stupid rule.
  • SabreSabre Veteran
    edited April 2012
    I haven't studied the monastic precepts, so I don't know the origen (I can guess it has something to do with the long walk monks had to make to get their food in the early days), but nowadays it is partly practiced to not overindulge in food. In a retreat setting I personally found it a beneficial practice. Especially in such a setting, you don't need to eat three times a day, so it also saves some time - of course also for the people who prepare the food.

    In lay life, it may not be that practical, but monastic life is also all about simplicity. If you don't need to eat more times a day than necessary, why do it?

    By the way, some traditions follow this precept more strictly than others. Some don't follow it at all. So it's not like this for all monks/nuns.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    ^ I think I would agree with the precept much more if it was not to over-indulge with food.
  • SabreSabre Veteran
    edited April 2012
    It goes hand in hand of course. Less opportunities to eat is probably less overindulgence. I don't just mean overindulgent in a physical way, but also in a mental way; overindulging in craving. When the mind has little sensual exitation (no music/movies etc), it will automatically start to crave much more for the things it can have; like food. If halfway through the day you've had all the food for that day, this will be less. This is what I personally found very useful about it. I honestly don't see why you would think it is a stupid practice. Do you want to explain?
  • patbbpatbb Veteran
    edited April 2012
    What Sabre and Dakini said.


    on retreats, people meditate all day long.
    So we don't spend too much calories so we need less than usual.

    Also on a physiological level, we feel more sleepy when we're full.

    So if people eat too much, you'll end up with a bunch of snoring meditators in the meditation hall ;)
    Carlita
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    ^ To me if you forcing non-overindulgence, it is meaningless. It is only meaningful when the person is making the conscious choice to not overindulge.
  • SabreSabre Veteran
    edited April 2012
    Luckily nobody is forcing anyone to become a monk/nun or to join a retreat. (or at least I don't hope so :p )
  • patbbpatbb Veteran
    ^ To me if you forcing non-overindulgence, it is meaningless. It is only meaningful when the person is making the conscious choice to not overindulge.
    Perhaps think about the other precepts at the time of serious meditation work like retreats.

    If you let people watch day time drama, or chit chat all day long, no one is getting any meditation done, and many people sacrifice their limited vacation time to join retreats so this would be a shame...

    I personally appreciate having a bunch of little rules like this in retreats because i just don't have to worry about any of those things, don't have to fight my self..
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    edited April 2012
    ^ To me if you forcing non-overindulgence, it is meaningless. It is only meaningful when the person is making the conscious choice to not overindulge.
    Perhaps think about the other precepts at the time of serious meditation work like retreats.

    If you let people watch day time drama, or chit chat all day long, no one is getting any meditation done, and many people sacrifice their limited vacation time to join retreats so this would be a shame...

    I personally appreciate having a bunch of little rules like this in retreats because i just don't have to worry about any of those things, don't have to fight my self..
    Well, I'm really not talking about short-term things. I'm talking about years in the monkhood. And it's long been my opinion that when Thai Buddhist officials (in the Sangha or government) wonder why fewer and fewer men are choosing to become monks, and some temples are having to close down, gee...who wants to spend their life giving up, giving up, giving up when there's a whole world out there.

    Yes, it's a choice, and one that fewer and fewer are making. I have been in villages where there are no longer open temples. And most locals have no means of transportation to other villages.

  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited April 2012
    The two main reasons I've seen are eating too late can cause drowsiness, making meditation (an important part of the monastic life) more difficult, and 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.
  • soo, am i the only one who thinks this would be impossible? I eat every 3-4 hours, even if it is small. Without eating like that I can ge to the point of passing out. I think maybe some people could do this however I wonder if even being still for long periods if this is physically possibly for a large number of people
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    It's entirely possible. I've spent a fair amount of time at monasteries, and I didn't find it as difficult as I thought it'd be.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Of course, the idea that monks spend 16 hours a day meditating is sheer nonsense.
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited April 2012
    Of course, the idea that monks spend 16 hours a day meditating is sheer nonsense.
    Which is probably why no one here suggested they did. If they're sincere about their practice, however, they're going to spend a fair amount of time alternating between sitting and walking meditation.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    jason, my point is two-fold. First, people on this forum act as if monks (and to some extent they themselves) spend 24/7 on Buddhism. After having visited hundreds of Buddhist temples in Thailand, I will tell you that my experience is that monks spend a lot of time sitting around, and I don't mean meditating. Meditation is probably a part of every day for them, but we are not talking about hours on end. I have seen them eating, cleaning the temple, talking with the laity, attending formal occasions (mostly funerals), I have sat with them in their kutis, I have seen them out walking around and shopping at the computer mall, talked with them on buses and the river taxis, chatted with them while they were gardening, and caught them sleeping in the wiharns and bots, etc.

    And, if the food traditions (receiving alms shortly after dawn) and eating only in the early morning and around 11 a.m. are such wonderfully useful tools, then I imagine most of the people on this forum who are defending the process as being so worthwhile are doing it themselves. But you and I both know that's not happening except in rare instances.

    I recently read a statistic that the decline in the number of monks in Thailand is roughly equal (percentage-wise) to the decline of Catholic priests in Europe. I find that to be quite disturbing. I have visited a number of temples in Thailand where the laity are trying to attract monks to come to their village temple because their wat has been closed for a fairly long period of time, and the locals have no place to go since they have no transportation to neighboring villages. The Thai government and the Supreme Sangha have both expressed confusion about why this is happening. I don't see why it is so difficult to understand. In olden times boys and young men became novices and monks to gain an education (of sorts) or because the family was simply too poor to feed them. That's rarely true anymore. And young adults have choices now -- 3 meals a day, or collecting alms and eating only in the morning; meditating or watching television; having nothing or owning a computer; walking around with alms bowl or a Blackberry; taking a vow of poverty or working and helping their family. So what is the mystery? Modern people are making modern choices. And, when you consider that most monks in Thailand are only monks for a few weeks or perhaps 3 months, the number of real long-term monks is indeed few.

    And this is not really any different than what has happened in Protestant and Catholic churches here in America. The minister or priest of 2012 is not the same as the minister or priest I grew up around in the 1950s. Meanwhile, at least in Southeast Asia, monks are wearing the same style robes they wore hundreds of years ago. Some of the monks I have visited are living in kutis with dirt floors.

    At Thai ordination ceremonies there's a tradition that, with their families present, monks being ordained wear white clothing and toss symbolic coins away to show they are giving up worldly possessions...for a few days, weeks, or maybe a very few months. It gets very old very fast. And soon the vast majority of them go back to their regular lives, satisfied that they have done their duty to their family and tradition. Meanwhile, back at the temple, the vast majority of the "real monks" are old men in their 60s, 70s, and beyond.

    I can't think of another group in the world that has done so little to modernize and has still remained viable. That's why the Supreme Sangha and the Thai government are concerned with the sharp decline in the number of monks...but can't figure out why.
  • Invincible_summerInvincible_summer Heavy Metal Dhamma We(s)t coast, Canada Veteran
    Thanks @vinlyn for your perspective. It's pretty sad yet fascinating to know that Buddhist ordination is on such a sharp decline in Thailand. I can imagine it being true that the whole celibate, having to give everything up thing isn't that attractive to youth growing up in a world that is increasingly commercial.

    I wonder what the stats are for monastics in places like Japan, where Zen and Shin Buddhist monks are allowed to have families and - I've heard but not sure if this is true - even a job on the side.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Thanks @vinlyn for your perspective. It's pretty sad yet fascinating to know that Buddhist ordination is on such a sharp decline in Thailand. I can imagine it being true that the whole celibate, having to give everything up thing isn't that attractive to youth growing up in a world that is increasingly commercial.

    I wonder what the stats are for monastics in places like Japan, where Zen and Shin Buddhist monks are allowed to have families and - I've heard but not sure if this is true - even a job on the side.
    You bring up a very interesting point. I didn't know that about being able to have families there.

  • ToshTosh Veteran
    Ajahn Brahm - in one of his many interweb talks - says that the 'not eating after midday' precept was brought in, in Buddha's day, to stop his monks from bothering the local lay householders through out the day.

    You can imagine it, drips and drabs of monks coming for food at all hours; it would have to be annoying day-in-day out; right? It's bad enough with teenage kids!

    So it meant the Monks had to be up and have completed their alms round early; so the locals weren't bothered by the Monks at all hours. It was a practical precept, which turned into a tradition; which not all Buddhist sects follow anyway.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited April 2012
    I can find a perfect excuse to eat any time of the day I want, because somewhere on this planet, it's always before midday..... ;)

    That's called stretching a point.

    if a person ordains, they will have a prolonged series of trainings and instructions.
    An ordained person will know about a particular precept, and will agree to vow to abstain from... as part of their devotional practice and ordination.
    There is no 'stretching a point' for them.
    in fact a person in tent on ordaining will often have begun to adhere to the precepts more stringently, even while still a layperson.
    it's not a hardship.

    I believe we all consume far too much anyway....
    Where this fixed concept of '3 meals a day' ever arose as the norm, is beyond me...

    (someone will doubtless pick up on this and tell us....! :rolleyes: :D )

    As far as I can tell, regulations are there for a purpose. it seems this regulation has multiple purposes: to prevent drowsiness, to enable the monk to become accustomed to abstaining from excess, to prevent the community from being eaten out of house and home at all hours... so actually, the regulation would seem to be founded on common-sense.

    Now, regulations like "you must wear your school tie at all times, even during free time in the evenings, even if you stay within the school grounds".. are senseless.
    Particularly when you ask Mother Superior why such a rule exists, and she replies, "Well, we must wear our wimples and coifs" and feels this is a perfectly adequate explanation....!
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    Also on a physiological level, we feel more sleepy when we're full.
    So if people eat too much, you'll end up with a bunch of snoring meditators in the meditation hall ;)
    That's true, but this is more likely to happen if people eat one large meal as opposed to several smaller ones.
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    It's entirely possible. I've spent a fair amount of time at monasteries, and I didn't find it as difficult as I thought it'd be.
    The retreats I've been on had chocolate and cheese around tea-time... ;)
  • CinorjerCinorjer Veteran
    edited April 2012
    When you see a tradition that seems to make no sense, that's because the rule made perfect practical sense when it was needed, but became tradition not subject to question or change as circumstances eventually changed.

    Instead of looking at it from the receiving monk's perspective, look at the lay wife and household that get hit up for food every single day, in a world before fast food joints and microwave ovens. Cooking and preparing the evening meal for the husband coming home from work was a huge chore that started long before mealtime in many cases. Baking was usually done in early morning, before the day became even hotter.

    A husband exhausted from a hard day in the fields might not like a bunch of men showing up at mealtime to take some of his hard earned food hot out of the oven, when he wants some peace and quiet.

    So a system is worked out, where the wife makes a little extra to set aside in the evening meal perhaps. By making their rounds early in the day, the monks get leftovers plus fresh bread and they avoid the dreaded "I just sat down to eat and those damned monks showed up again."
  • SabreSabre Veteran
    edited April 2012
    [..] And young adults have choices now -- 3 meals a day, or collecting alms and eating only in the morning[..]So what is the mystery? Modern people are making modern choices
    Hi Vinlyn

    I think all that you've said is worthwhile considering, but it says something about the people, not about the precept.

    I doubt something as relatively insignificant as not eating in the afternoon would hold anyone back who intends to be a monk, anyway. It would be things like celebacy and abstaining from music, drinking alcohol etc that would hold people back. But what do you suggest? Getting rid of those practices so there would be more monks again? Those monks wouldn't be monks, they would just be normal people wearing robes. Buddhism is about letting go and this practice of not eating too often can be a useful tool.

    With metta,
    Sabre


  • I can't think of another group in the world that has done so little to modernize and has still remained viable. That's why the Supreme Sangha and the Thai government are concerned with the sharp decline in the number of monks...but can't figure out why.
    I think you've made a very valid point. For most of history, monks were composed of either the devoted few who felt a calling or young men and boys who didn't really have a choice. While I'm way far from young, I try to remember what it was like, and the traditional rules a monk is forced to observe boils down to "Wait a second. No sex? No drinking? No goofing around with the gang or seeing the latest movie? So I'm not allowed to have any fun?"

    I was raised by a Minister from a family of Ministers and spent what seemed like a huge part of my childhood in church or living in a house that was pretty much the same thing. They were very conservative in their lifestyle, as in movies and television and even going to the swimming pool were wicked and only Christian stations were allowed on the radio, etc. The adults were well meaning people and enjoyed their life, but it was a life they chose for themselves. To me, it felt like a prison. Oh, I played the game and tried to fit in, with my little suit and Bible verses I had memorized. But, my own experience means when I see a young boy being turned into a monk, I want to rescue him and scream at the adults who think he looks so cute in his robe and shaved head. I know exactly how he feels. Let him get dirty and play doctor with the girl next door and be a child.

    Maybe Buddhism needs to get away from monks as a workforce and become a religion of lay people led by other lay people, not sacred priests. But that's just my own bias.
  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran
    Historically, I have heard 3 general reasons for it :

    So that monks do not burden the lay society preparing more than one meal a day.
    There was once a monk who went for alms round during night. Seeing the figure his figure in the dark, the householder become frightened and reported to the Buddha on seeing a dark figure. It was also already customary to go on alms rounds in the morning because laypeople generally prepared their own food in the morning and their main meal of the day was also before noon time.

    To save time for meditation practice. Monks need to walk sometimes an hour or two to go out for alms round. Coming back, he spends time eating and cleaning up. After eating, he feels lethargic and may take sometime to rest. How much time needs to be spent for 3 meals?

    For health reason. The Buddha said one live healthily by eating only one meal a day. If you are meditating full time, you don't need that much food. After getting used to that, your body becomes light and energetic.
    jason, my point is two-fold. First, people on this forum act as if monks (and to some extent they themselves) spend 24/7 on Buddhism.
    I think it would be safe to say that for the Buddha's monks. I would not be surprised if the Buddha's monks did spend 16 hours a day meditating. What else was there to do, in the forest, in 500 BC. :) If a person would rather watch TV than meditate, they are probably not cut out to be a monk anyway.
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited April 2012
    Ajahn Brahm - in one of his many interweb talks - says that the 'not eating after midday' precept was brought in, in Buddha's day, to stop his monks from bothering the local lay householders through out the day.

    You can imagine it, drips and drabs of monks coming for food at all hours; it would have to be annoying day-in-day out; right? It's bad enough with teenage kids!

    So it meant the Monks had to be up and have completed their alms round early; so the locals weren't bothered by the Monks at all hours. It was a practical precept, which turned into a tradition; which not all Buddhist sects follow anyway.

    I've heard this from monks as well.

  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran
    This is mainly a Theravada followed rule, Food can interrupt the meditative progress. But as previously mentioned by @Tosh this is the core issue with it.
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited April 2012
    It's entirely possible. I've spent a fair amount of time at monasteries, and I didn't find it as difficult as I thought it'd be.
    The retreats I've been on had chocolate and cheese around tea-time... ;)
    Yes, that's 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, small amounts of food A small amount of milk, which is considered food, doesn't put a tonic 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 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.
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited April 2012
    jason, my point is two-fold. First, people on this forum act as if monks (and to some extent they themselves) spend 24/7 on Buddhism. After having visited hundreds of Buddhist temples in Thailand, I will tell you that my experience is that monks spend a lot of time sitting around, and I don't mean meditating. Meditation is probably a part of every day for them, but we are not talking about hours on end. I have seen them eating, cleaning the temple, talking with the laity, attending formal occasions (mostly funerals), I have sat with them in their kutis, I have seen them out walking around and shopping at the computer mall, talked with them on buses and the river taxis, chatted with them while they were gardening, and caught them sleeping in the wiharns and bots, etc.
    Well, if they're shopping at the computer mall, then it sounds like there's been at least some amount of modernization going on. :)

    In addition, I think it depends on the kinds of temples one visits. Visiting a monastery like Wat Metta and Abhayagiri in the US, or Wat Nong Pah Pong and Wat Pah Nanachat in Thailand, for example, where the focus is on meditation and adherence to monastic discipline, will probably give you a somewhat different experience, I suspect. That's not to say that the monks there are perfect in their discipline or meditate 24/7, but you certainly won't see them shopping at the computer mall.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    [..] And young adults have choices now -- 3 meals a day, or collecting alms and eating only in the morning[..]So what is the mystery? Modern people are making modern choices
    Hi Vinlyn

    I think all that you've said is worthwhile considering, but it says something about the people, not about the precept.

    I doubt something as relatively insignificant as not eating in the afternoon would hold anyone back who intends to be a monk, anyway. It would be things like celebacy and abstaining from music, drinking alcohol etc that would hold people back. But what do you suggest? Getting rid of those practices so there would be more monks again? Those monks wouldn't be monks, they would just be normal people wearing robes. Buddhism is about letting go and this practice of not eating too often can be a useful tool.

    With metta,
    Sabre</blockquote

    Essentially you are saying that Buddhism will fail and disappear if it doesn't hold on to traditions.

    So, if you go to Tibet you will most likely see monks in wine colored robes and weird hats. But if you go to Thailand, you will see monks wearing saffron colored robes and no hats.

    Oh my god! Somewhere along the line a tradition was broken. Was it in Tibet? Or Siam? Or both? Did Buddhism evaporate?

    We have learned (above) that some Buddhist sects don't practice the only eating before noon rule.

    Oh my god! Did Buddhism evaporate?

    What happens to the vast majority of companies and institutions that never change/evolve?

  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran


    I think you've made a very valid point. For most of history, monks were composed of either the devoted few who felt a calling or young men and boys who didn't really have a choice. While I'm way far from young, I try to remember what it was like, and the traditional rules a monk is forced to observe boils down to "Wait a second. No sex? No drinking? No goofing around with the gang or seeing the latest movie? So I'm not allowed to have any fun?"

    I was raised by a Minister from a family of Ministers and spent what seemed like a huge part of my childhood in church or living in a house that was pretty much the same thing. They were very conservative in their lifestyle, as in movies and television and even going to the swimming pool were wicked and only Christian stations were allowed on the radio, etc. The adults were well meaning people and enjoyed their life, but it was a life they chose for themselves. To me, it felt like a prison. Oh, I played the game and tried to fit in, with my little suit and Bible verses I had memorized. But, my own experience means when I see a young boy being turned into a monk, I want to rescue him and scream at the adults who think he looks so cute in his robe and shaved head. I know exactly how he feels. Let him get dirty and play doctor with the girl next door and be a child.

    Maybe Buddhism needs to get away from monks as a workforce and become a religion of lay people led by other lay people, not sacred priests. But that's just my own bias.
    Interesting. And I wonder if (at least in the West) that is not what is really happening.

    I think that when a Westerner visits a place like Thailand, they sometimes want to see "postcard Buddhism".

  • jason, my point is two-fold. First, people on this forum act as if monks (and to some extent they themselves) spend 24/7 on Buddhism.
    yes. practice is continuous... it's unavoidable.. because dukkha is wall to wall. It's quite a finger trap... better to have not started.

  • SabreSabre Veteran
    edited April 2012
    [..] And young adults have choices now -- 3 meals a day, or collecting alms and eating only in the morning[..]So what is the mystery? Modern people are making modern choices
    Hi Vinlyn

    I think all that you've said is worthwhile considering, but it says something about the people, not about the precept.

    I doubt something as relatively insignificant as not eating in the afternoon would hold anyone back who intends to be a monk, anyway. It would be things like celebacy and abstaining from music, drinking alcohol etc that would hold people back. But what do you suggest? Getting rid of those practices so there would be more monks again? Those monks wouldn't be monks, they would just be normal people wearing robes. Buddhism is about letting go and this practice of not eating too often can be a useful tool.

    With metta,
    Sabre
    Hi Vin,

    I just said that it would say something about people, not about the precepts. If people are not willing to let things go (not eating after noon being just a small part of what a monk gives up, so that doesn't even have to be specifically considered here), there will be no monks, sobeit.

    But I think would be foolish to just get rid of all kinds of precepts just to keep the 'monks', because than you throw away a lot of what Buddhism is. It'll be almost like forgetting one of the noble truths that attachments lead to suffering, because be honest; the main reason not to follow the precepts is out of attachments/craving.

    However, I personally believe there will always be people with the drive to remove their attachments, so I'm not really afraid of Buddhist monks disappearing. The monastic tradition has survived for 2500 years, I don't see why it would suddenly disappear because of not eating in the afternoon...

    Anyway, as I said I think not eating after noon is just an insignificant hindrance for someone to become a monk, so somewhere we got dragged along and lost sight of the topic. Maybe it is time to go back to it.

    With metta,
    Sabre
  • edited April 2012
    I thought monks had breakfast and lunch, but no dinner. Why is everyone saying they only have one meal. Was I mistaken?
    The digestive process interferes with meditation.
    Totally makes sense to me. When I first went to my Zendo, I had breakfast right before I left. When I got there, my stomach kept make gurgling and belching sounds the entire time. I was so embarrassed.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran



    Hi Vin,

    ...

    But I think would be foolish to just get rid of all kinds of precepts just to keep the 'monks', because than you throw away a lot of what Buddhism is. It'll be almost like forgetting one of the noble truths that attachments lead to suffering, because be honest; the main reason not to follow the precepts is out of attachments/craving.

    However, I personally believe there will always be people with the drive to remove their attachments, so I'm not really afraid of Buddhist monks disappearing. The monastic tradition has survived for 2500 years, I don't see why it would suddenly disappear because of not eating in the afternoon...

    ...

    With metta,
    Sabre
    So let me this...do you think Buddhism would disappear if monks ate dinner instead of lunch?

    Are monks unable to meditate from dawn until (let's say) 3 p.m. since they are stuffed with food?

    But wait a minute, monks shouldn't worry about the Precepts anyway, because so many people here on this forum say that Precepts are simply guidelines, not rules.

  • edited April 2012
    But wait a minute, monks shouldn't worry about the Precepts anyway, because so many people here on this forum say that Precepts are simply guidelines, not rules.
    Guidelines for the laity. Rules for people who choose to accept the precepts as rules.. aka: monks.

    Although, what exactly would we define as a rule and as a guideline? It'd depend on one's definition.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    The first 5 Precepts are Precepts for the laity.
  • SabreSabre Veteran
    edited April 2012



    Hi Vin,

    ...

    But I think would be foolish to just get rid of all kinds of precepts just to keep the 'monks', because than you throw away a lot of what Buddhism is. It'll be almost like forgetting one of the noble truths that attachments lead to suffering, because be honest; the main reason not to follow the precepts is out of attachments/craving.

    However, I personally believe there will always be people with the drive to remove their attachments, so I'm not really afraid of Buddhist monks disappearing. The monastic tradition has survived for 2500 years, I don't see why it would suddenly disappear because of not eating in the afternoon...

    ...

    With metta,
    Sabre
    So let me this...do you think Buddhism would disappear if monks ate dinner instead of lunch?

    No. I said "all kinds of precepts", replying to
    And young adults have choices now -- 3 meals a day, or collecting alms and eating only in the morning; meditating or watching television; having nothing or owning a computer; walking around with alms bowl or a Blackberry; taking a vow of poverty or working and helping their family. So what is the mystery? Modern people are making modern choices
    Just to be clear about how I understood your points:
    - Not eating in the afternoon is a stupid training
    When I asked you to explain, a big part of your reply seemed to be:
    - It holds people from ordaining

    But don't you agree vows like celebacy, no music etc are much bigger things to put one off? So just removing the precept of not eating in the afternoon will not change anything to the number of monks.

    I would however, remove a bit of the practice of non-attachment. Because there is no real physical or practical need to eat three times a day as a monk (or lay visiting a monastery) the main reason left is sensual craving.
  • The first 5 Precepts are Precepts for the laity.
    And for all Buddhists, laity or not.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran


    So let me this...do you think Buddhism would disappear if monks ate dinner instead of lunch?

    No. I said "all kinds of precepts", replying to
    And young adults have choices now -- 3 meals a day, or collecting alms and eating only in the morning; meditating or watching television; having nothing or owning a computer; walking around with alms bowl or a Blackberry; taking a vow of poverty or working and helping their family. So what is the mystery? Modern people are making modern choices
    Just to be clear about how I understood your points:
    - Not eating in the afternoon is a stupid training
    When I asked you to explain, a big part of your reply seemed to be:
    - It holds people from ordaining

    But don't you agree vows like celebacy, no music etc are much bigger things to put one off? So just removing the precept of not eating in the afternoon will not change anything to the number of monks.

    I would however, remove a bit of the practice of non-attachment. Because there is no real physical or practical need to eat three times a day as a monk (or lay visiting a monastery) the main reason left is sensual craving.

    Good questions.

    I have long believed that "organizations" (broad definition) often choke to death on too many rules and regulations. I saw it in the school where I became principal. Ten years of a little form that students and teachers had to fill out when a student had been absent, totally unorganized, in hundreds of boxes taking up a whole store room, that no one ever had consulted. All because, "That's the way we do it". A new student couldn't have a locker for his first 3 days of attendance because "that's the way we do it". I could go on and on. And in any "organization's" rules and regulations, where is the straw that broke the camel's back for each individual. You never know when one particular rule or reg is going to be just one too many for some people. Is the local Methodist minister less able to do his job because he is married, than the local Catholic priest who cannot marry?

    Now look at some of the arguments above for not eating after noon, because eating will make it more difficult to meditate. Hmmmmm. So from dawn until noon monks can't effectively meditate because they ate the morning meal. And from noon until 3 or 4 they can't effectively meditate because they at the noon meal. So I guess monks can only effectively meditate from 4 p.m. until dark. Does that really make sense?

    To me it makes as much sense as the old Catholic rule that women had to cover their heads before entering a Catholic church. Or that Masses had to be in Latin, a language that no one sitting in the church could understand.

    All the Precepts for monks are wise and significant? Such as not teaching the Dhamma to someone holding an umbrella?????

    How about not teaching the Dhamma to someone who is wearing shoes?????

    Now, you mention attachment, I guess referring to attachment to eating food for pleasure.

    If a monk eats a rambutan at 4 p.m. because he is truly hungry or feels weak, is that for pleasure?

    What about the attachment of the Buddhist establishment to old and meaningless rules?

  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    The first 5 Precepts are Precepts for the laity.
    And for all Buddhists, laity or not.
    Sorry you missed the point.

  • edited April 2012
    The first 5 Precepts are Precepts for the laity.
    And for all Buddhists, laity or not.
    Sorry you missed the point.
    Sorry you didn't make your point clear.

    Wowzers, for Buddhists, we're pretty sarcastic and contemptuous assholes, aren't we?
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Either precepts are to be followed or not. It is logical (to me) to say that Precepts for laity are suggestions, and Precepts for monks are rules.
  • Either precepts are to be followed or not. It is logical (to me) to say that Precepts for laity are suggestions, and Precepts for monks are rules.
    And that is what I was saying. ...

    Where's the problem?
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Forget it.
  • Forget it.
    :scratch:
  • IMO... Buddhism is about finding the middle path to all, it could be viewed as this...
    Not eating is one extreme and to be avoided as it weakens the body/mind and impacts the practice... Eating too much is another extreme and should be avoided since it too weakens the body/mind. The Buddha determined that one to two meals a day where enough to keep the body/mind strong to allow a continued practice. This is the middle path between the two extremes.
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited April 2012
    I thought monks had breakfast and lunch, but no dinner. Why is everyone saying they only have one meal. Was I mistaken?
    It really all depends on the tradition and how strict they tend to be with their discipline. Many do have a small meal in the morning after chanting and before chore time, and then the main meal just before noon. Some traditions and individual monks who lean more towards the strict and/or ascetic side of the monastic spectrum will only eat once, however. Not sure about the exact rules on this, though, beyond food intake being limited to the hours between dawn and noon.



  • Hi Vin,

    ...

    But I think would be foolish to just get rid of all kinds of precepts just to keep the 'monks', because than you throw away a lot of what Buddhism is. It'll be almost like forgetting one of the noble truths that attachments lead to suffering, because be honest; the main reason not to follow the precepts is out of attachments/craving.

    However, I personally believe there will always be people with the drive to remove their attachments, so I'm not really afraid of Buddhist monks disappearing. The monastic tradition has survived for 2500 years, I don't see why it would suddenly disappear because of not eating in the afternoon...

    ...

    With metta,
    Sabre
    So let me this...do you think Buddhism would disappear if monks ate dinner instead of lunch?

    Are monks unable to meditate from dawn until (let's say) 3 p.m. since they are stuffed with food?

    But wait a minute, monks shouldn't worry about the Precepts anyway, because so many people here on this forum say that Precepts are simply guidelines, not rules.

    That's strange... I didn't say what I'm quoted as saying here...

Sign In or Register to comment.