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.
I just want to throw out there that eating only one meal a day really isn't as difficult or austere as it may seem. When I was living at a monastery for a while, I was really afraid I couldn't do it; but after a week or so, I got used to it and made sure I ate enough to last me the whole days (sans a piece of cheese and some tea later in the evening, of course). I suppose some people may have a harder time adjusting; but honestly, it's not a big deal, and you're definitely not going to waste away or die from hunger.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
One point of clarification. The morning meditation or chanting is done before the morning meal.
Personally, I only eat twice a day, my last meal at about 2pm. This is not for spiritual reasons, but more so I can avoid the lunch rush, so I don't have to cook at home and eating too soon before bedtime is bad for weight gain as the metabolism slows. Anyway, I don't have any issues with energy or hunger in the morning and I'm working at a physical job not sitting around studying and praying.
One point of clarification. The morning meditation or chanting is done before the morning meal.
Personally, I only eat twice a day, my last meal at about 2pm. This is not for spiritual reasons, but more so I can avoid the lunch rush, so I don't have to cook at home and eating too soon before bedtime is bad for weight gain as the metabolism slows. Anyway, I don't have any issues with energy or hunger in the morning and I'm working at a physical job not sitting around studying and praying.
I don't feel that one can really come to a real meditative state during group chanting.
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?
Sorry, I still don't understand why you think it is a "stupid rule" other than saying it is so because you see it is a rule, and rules are not ok. However it has survived 2500 years and me and others see its practical use. Teaching umbrella's, your experience as a teacher, attachments to rules etc. doesn't have to do anything with this at all in my eyes.. So I guess it's best for me to back off from this discussion, because I feel like it is not serving anyone anymore anyway.
I just want to throw out there that eating only one meal a day really isn't as difficult or austere as it may seem. When I was living at a monastery for a while, I was really afraid I couldn't do it; but after a week or so, I got used to it and made sure I ate enough to last me the whole days (sans a piece of cheese and some tea later in the evening, of course). I suppose some people may have a harder time adjusting; but honestly, it's not a big deal, and you're definitely not going to waste away or die from hunger.
This. I think people are just too used to the idea of "3 meals a day!!" If you're more or less sedentary with the occasional walk around, you don't really need any more than 1, 1.5 meals a day.
On the days when I'm just sitting on my ass in front of the computer (which is most days.. :zombie: ) I often don't need to eat very much.
But the people who sit around all day with no exercise and eat 3-4 meals are the ones who are gaining weight... fast.
I can't believe so many people responded to this - and I'm very glad. I've learned a lot in this thread and got my question answered, for sure.
However, I'm a little disconcerted about some of the...arguments occurring. I think we're above that, yeah?
Eh. I've learned that arguments, debates, misunderstandings, etc. are practically unavoidable on internet forums. At least the ones here are conducted civilly for the most part.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited April 2012
Eh. I've learned that arguments, debates, misunderstandings, etc. are practically unavoidable on internet forums. At least the ones here are conducted civilly for the most part.
@darkprincess128, as moderators - and this is a completely general comment - we occasionally get complaints about some members who seem intent on provoking arguments with inflammatory remarks and comments intended to bait or enflame discussion.
My response is generally the same:
flag it and don't respond.
Flagging - but then responding - makes moderating a thread triply difficult because often, comments made against the flaming provocative remarks mean that often, the problem is blown out of the water.
the wonderful thing about not responding is that it halts the argument, because an argumentative flaming poster, fishing for an argument, has nowhere to go, if the fish don't take the bait and bite. no fish, no fuss.
The Buddha said it best:
3. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
4. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
I suppose some people may have a harder time adjusting; but honestly, it's not a big deal, and you're definitely not going to waste away or die from hunger.
I agree, and with the obesity epidemic in the developed world a lot of people would benefit from eating 1 or 2 meals a day.
I have a disorder that causes me burn calories in an extremely rapid manner. I need much more food than other people to sustain life. I was wondering if eating more to allow myself to continue living without fear of starvation is worth it, or if I'm being selfish because of it.
I just want to add that I follow Buddha's teachings on meat, so it's not like I'm participating in the slaughter of animals.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
A disorder is not a life choice. Do what you have to do. Even if the body is transitory, you still need to look after it so that it is maintained as the best vehicle you could have, to get you from 'A' to 'B'.
Hi, I've been reading this discussion with great interest and it's nice to hear lots of different view points on this subject and I humbly offer my opinion.
I feel, with my understanding of Buddhism (my main focus being Tao and Zen Buddhism), that the main point is that if you really were considering life as a Buddhist monk you would be making an extremely informed decision (as is necessary to even be considered to be taken on by a Sangha) and you would most likely embrace such guidelines, rules or precepts (take your pick).
Buddhism in itself encourages a simplistic lifestyle and having self discipline. This is, as afore mentioned, in part by freeing yourself of attachments to "worldly things" as my mother's Evangelical Christian (Jesus Army) friends would put it. This is, of course, to aid focus on Buddhist practices in order to attain enlightenment etc.
I do not think that this is the kind of thing that influences the "youth of today's" choices as to whether or not they spend the rest of their lives vowing strict celibacy, mindfulness and selflessness. And being the "youth of today" I think I can say that with confidence. I think actually the point is that the reason for the decline in "sign ups" for Buddhist monkdom is not due to restricted eating times but actually due to the fact that "our modern world" (makes it sound so shiny and new, doesn't it?) is much further removed from the principles of any type of Buddhism than it was however many years ago BC.
If you were that many years ago and you had a choice of joining your father in the failing family farm and watching your crops die year after year and your family starve or the choice of one square meal a day (albeit before 12 noon) and a life filled with good deeds and spritual freedom, what would you choose?
If you were the "youth of today", having been brought up on a diet of Coca Cola, TV and commercialisation and you had the choice of soft porn, more Coca Cola and more TV or a life vowing strict celibacy, mindfulness and selflessness?
Obviously however many years ago they were not living in a world full of distractions and money signs so therefore their own lives were closer to that of the monks already and also the monks were active in their community as teachers, healers and wise men and were reveared. It was an honour for most people to enter a Sangha as monk and they lived full and spiritual lives. [I don't think it was a case of dressing anyone up in robes and shining their cutesie cutesie eggheads however I sympathise with the experience of similar happenings from Christian "nutjob" (my personally preferred term of endearment) parents.]
Clearly, in "our modern world", this life would generally be seen as a bit of hindrance and many would not understand it, as shown within some of this discussion. At this point, I would like to acknowledge the amount of generalisation I have used within these examples however it is to stop lengthiness and I also feel it matches the amount generalisation used by some posters within this discussion.
I'd also like to suggest that maybe the principles about umbrellas and shoes is maybe because these are seen to hinder the energy from the world and when we are barefoot and "earthed" and our energy can reach to the sky we are at one with the world and therefore ready to receive the teachings of the Dhamma.
I think that considering it is Buddhism this discussion is about, a certain amount of spiritual understanding needs to be given rather a purely logical, practical approach.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
the site is called 'newbuddhist' and has an eclectic mix of members; old die-hard long-timers, with a healthy dose of frequent passing visitors. But because it's a gentle approach to Buddhism, or people new to the possibility, we try to give a wide variety or of responses, in order to try to cover all the bases. I have been a member of forums where discussions have been kept so 'on topic' that people are positively anal, discussion is stilted, and people are almost afraid to demonstrate that underneath all that classical and traditional adherence to the teachings, there lurks a human with a beating heart. I'd like to think we have a good balance here. Thanks for your observations, though. Food for thought.
I have a related question. If a person was medically required to eat more than 2 meals a day, or more specifically required to eat at regular intervals, would that prevent them from becoming a monk if that is the path they felt they needed to follow? Or is something medically necessary overlooked as far as taking monastic vows? I'm just generally curious, my youngest son is a type 1 diabetic so not eating just isn't an option for him.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
The clue is in the 'Medically necessary'. People are not required to jeopardise their own health and go against an official diagnosis. Allowances can and are made. for example, the 5th Precept speaks of not taking substances which can alter the Mind's precision, so someone who needs to take medication for a known, diagnosed medical mental condition would be exempt from that.......
The clue is in the 'Medically necessary'. People are not required to jeopardise their own health and go against an official diagnosis. Allowances can and are made. for example, the 5th Precept speaks of not taking substances which can alter the Mind's precision, so someone who needs to take medication for a known, diagnosed medical mental condition would be exempt from that.......
The problem with this scenario is that most monks in Thailand, for example, really don't have sufficient medical care to diagnose such needs. So I guess for them, "tough luck"?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
That's not of concern, AFAIK. I was merely answering the post, and i don't think complicating matters by introducing random information is relevant.... is it..?
The general health and health care of monks, including dietary concerns, should -- in my view -- be of concern. I've visited the main monk hospital in Bangkok, and it's a very sad place to see. Most of the monks there are older and, in my view, go there mostly when it's too late for many of the medical conditions they have.
The monks in the small Theravada sangha here in Colorado Springs have no health insurance and, I assume, can only get medical care if members of the sangha are willing to help out financially. And, at the local rate of at least $100 for a doctor's appointment, that doesn't afford very good medical care. Especially considering the rather small number of local attendees, I imagine there's little opportunity for medical care, especially to cover severe illness or long-term illness.
I'm older and so are a lot of monks. My doctors, along with the doctors of most of my friends who are also older, often stress to us senior clients the importance of 3 balanced meals per day that are spread out, and I know many older people who have specific medical issues that require more frequent, smaller meals. Many older monks, who do not receive proper medical care, don't even know what medical conditions they have.
2,500 years ago, medical issues such as diabetes, hypoglycemia, etc. were not known about and no treatment was known. Perhaps a modern, more scientific religion (which we like to claim Buddhism is) ought to look at medical knowledge as related to the issue of this thread and see if the old ways 2,500 years ago are still wise today, rather than keeping the admonition simply because "that's the way it's always been". Isn't that the very definition of clinging?
I find that the physiological changes that occur in my body during formal meditation are a hindrance to digestion for up to an hour after eating. Limiting ones practise to two meals a day, when no physical labour is required, is the best use of ones available time for meditation..
With the sensory limitations of going forth, gluttony is a common monkly temptation.
With no clocks but the suns shadow, the shadow of an upright stick through out the country was the easiest law indicator of when the mid day meal was to be finished.
If your last meal was at high noon, a monk was only going to sleep in the next day if he could ignore his early morning hunger.
In a country where poverty and hunger were common, it dissuaded those who might choose monk hood more for it's comforts rather than an aspiring to sufferings end.
It seems that in a land with much hunger, to eat more alms from the poor than what was absolutely necessary would have transmitted the wrong message about Buddhists.
The mid day meal rules help with all of the above.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
A calorie restricted diet has been shown to significantly increase the lifespan of studied creatures (%30-%40 in mice) as well as other health benefits. There are certain health concerns that also occur and longterm studies amongst humans and primates are still ongoing because of the longer lifespans. The point isn't that restricting calories is perfect but that there have been shown to be some significant advantages.
Comments
Personally, I only eat twice a day, my last meal at about 2pm. This is not for spiritual reasons, but more so I can avoid the lunch rush, so I don't have to cook at home and eating too soon before bedtime is bad for weight gain as the metabolism slows. Anyway, I don't have any issues with energy or hunger in the morning and I'm working at a physical job not sitting around studying and praying.
With metta,
Sabre
On the days when I'm just sitting on my ass in front of the computer (which is most days.. :zombie: ) I often don't need to eat very much.
But the people who sit around all day with no exercise and eat 3-4 meals are the ones who are gaining weight... fast.
I can't believe so many people responded to this - and I'm very glad. I've learned a lot in this thread and got my question answered, for sure.
However, I'm a little disconcerted about some of the...arguments occurring. I think we're above that, yeah?
OFF-TOPIC:
@darkprincess128, as moderators - and this is a completely general comment - we occasionally get complaints about some members who seem intent on provoking arguments with inflammatory remarks and comments intended to bait or enflame discussion.
My response is generally the same:
flag it and don't respond.
Flagging - but then responding - makes moderating a thread triply difficult because often, comments made against the flaming provocative remarks mean that often, the problem is blown out of the water.
the wonderful thing about not responding is that it halts the argument, because an argumentative flaming poster, fishing for an argument, has nowhere to go, if the fish don't take the bait and bite.
no fish, no fuss.
The Buddha said it best: from here.
Just flag it - the rest is up to us - that's what we're here for!
BACK TO TOPIC!
I just want to add that I follow Buddha's teachings on meat, so it's not like I'm participating in the slaughter of animals.
Do what you have to do.
Even if the body is transitory, you still need to look after it so that it is maintained as the best vehicle you could have, to get you from 'A' to 'B'.
I feel, with my understanding of Buddhism (my main focus being Tao and Zen Buddhism), that the main point is that if you really were considering life as a Buddhist monk you would be making an extremely informed decision (as is necessary to even be considered to be taken on by a Sangha) and you would most likely embrace such guidelines, rules or precepts (take your pick).
Buddhism in itself encourages a simplistic lifestyle and having self discipline. This is, as afore mentioned, in part by freeing yourself of attachments to "worldly things" as my mother's Evangelical Christian (Jesus Army) friends would put it. This is, of course, to aid focus on Buddhist practices in order to attain enlightenment etc.
I do not think that this is the kind of thing that influences the "youth of today's" choices as to whether or not they spend the rest of their lives vowing strict celibacy, mindfulness and selflessness. And being the "youth of today" I think I can say that with confidence. I think actually the point is that the reason for the decline in "sign ups" for Buddhist monkdom is not due to restricted eating times but actually due to the fact that "our modern world" (makes it sound so shiny and new, doesn't it?) is much further removed from the principles of any type of Buddhism than it was however many years ago BC.
If you were that many years ago and you had a choice of joining your father in the failing family farm and watching your crops die year after year and your family starve or the choice of one square meal a day (albeit before 12 noon) and a life filled with good deeds and spritual freedom, what would you choose?
If you were the "youth of today", having been brought up on a diet of Coca Cola, TV and commercialisation and you had the choice of soft porn, more Coca Cola and more TV or a life vowing strict celibacy, mindfulness and selflessness?
Obviously however many years ago they were not living in a world full of distractions and money signs so therefore their own lives were closer to that of the monks already and also the monks were active in their community as teachers, healers and wise men and were reveared. It was an honour for most people to enter a Sangha as monk and they lived full and spiritual lives. [I don't think it was a case of dressing anyone up in robes and shining their cutesie cutesie eggheads however I sympathise with the experience of similar happenings from Christian "nutjob" (my personally preferred term of endearment) parents.]
Clearly, in "our modern world", this life would generally be seen as a bit of hindrance and many would not understand it, as shown within some of this discussion. At this point, I would like to acknowledge the amount of generalisation I have used within these examples however it is to stop lengthiness and I also feel it matches the amount generalisation used by some posters within this discussion.
I'd also like to suggest that maybe the principles about umbrellas and shoes is maybe because these are seen to hinder the energy from the world and when we are barefoot and "earthed" and our energy can reach to the sky we are at one with the world and therefore ready to receive the teachings of the Dhamma.
I think that considering it is Buddhism this discussion is about, a certain amount of spiritual understanding needs to be given rather a purely logical, practical approach.
But because it's a gentle approach to Buddhism, or people new to the possibility, we try to give a wide variety or of responses, in order to try to cover all the bases.
I have been a member of forums where discussions have been kept so 'on topic' that people are positively anal, discussion is stilted, and people are almost afraid to demonstrate that underneath all that classical and traditional adherence to the teachings, there lurks a human with a beating heart.
I'd like to think we have a good balance here.
Thanks for your observations, though. Food for thought.
for example, the 5th Precept speaks of not taking substances which can alter the Mind's precision, so someone who needs to take medication for a known, diagnosed medical mental condition would be exempt from that.......
The monks in the small Theravada sangha here in Colorado Springs have no health insurance and, I assume, can only get medical care if members of the sangha are willing to help out financially. And, at the local rate of at least $100 for a doctor's appointment, that doesn't afford very good medical care. Especially considering the rather small number of local attendees, I imagine there's little opportunity for medical care, especially to cover severe illness or long-term illness.
I'm older and so are a lot of monks. My doctors, along with the doctors of most of my friends who are also older, often stress to us senior clients the importance of 3 balanced meals per day that are spread out, and I know many older people who have specific medical issues that require more frequent, smaller meals. Many older monks, who do not receive proper medical care, don't even know what medical conditions they have.
2,500 years ago, medical issues such as diabetes, hypoglycemia, etc. were not known about and no treatment was known. Perhaps a modern, more scientific religion (which we like to claim Buddhism is) ought to look at medical knowledge as related to the issue of this thread and see if the old ways 2,500 years ago are still wise today, rather than keeping the admonition simply because "that's the way it's always been". Isn't that the very definition of clinging?
With the sensory limitations of going forth, gluttony is a common monkly temptation.
With no clocks but the suns shadow, the shadow of an upright stick through out the country was the easiest law indicator of when the mid day meal was to be finished.
If your last meal was at high noon, a monk was only going to sleep in the next day if he could ignore his early morning hunger.
In a country where poverty and hunger were common, it dissuaded those who might choose monk hood more for it's comforts rather than an aspiring to sufferings end.
It seems that in a land with much hunger, to eat more alms from the poor than what was absolutely necessary would have transmitted the wrong message about Buddhists.
The mid day meal rules help with all of the above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction
http://www.crsociety.org/