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?
0
Comments
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.
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
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..
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.
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.
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 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.
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:
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....!
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."
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 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.
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. 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.
I've heard this from monks as well.
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.
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.
I think that when a Westerner visits a place like Thailand, they sometimes want to see "postcard Buddhism".
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
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.
Although, what exactly would we define as a rule and as a guideline? It'd depend on one's definition.
- 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.
- 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?
Wowzers, for Buddhists, we're pretty sarcastic and contemptuous assholes, aren't we?
Where's the problem?
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.