Serious Question

[tgeezer]

I was sitting waiting for a bus outside one of the Universities when two monks came and sat beside me waiting for a bus. I needed a small note for the fare and got out my wallet decanting the note into my pocket and replaceing the wallet in my bag. It appeared to give them an idea and they struck up a conversation, eventually I got the message that the bus did not go to their wat and that they wanted 100 baht for a taxi. I gave it to them but was not sure it was 'right', how do you say 'no' to a monk who is telling you he can not lie, he is a monk. They did go off in a taxi. These were elderly real monks. Now that I know that monks have no money if I see one who I think I could help, should I? how to do it? when do you wai? I assume if he doesn't need it himself he knows someone who does.

[Nudee]

It's already passed. It's no use to think about it now. It just make yourself suffering.

You did the "right" thing giving the money.

Even you didn't give him the money, you also did the "right" thing.

It has nothing to do with his "monkhood".

But you are not doing the "right" thing thinking/worrying about it now.

Think about how many days you have been suffering with this question.

You should leave it at the bus stop instead of carrying it back home.

Edited January 20, 2008 by Nudee

[tgeezer]

It's already passed. It's no use to think about it now. It just make yourself suffering.

You did the "right" thing giving the money.

Even you didn't give him the money, you also did the "right" thing.

It has nothing to do with his "monkhood".

But you are not doing the "right" thing thinking/worrying about it now.

Think about how many days you have been suffering with this question.

You should leave it at the bus stop instead of carrying it back home.

I realize that this forum is a sort of 'councilling' service and to be true you can't actually take a stand on any subject, but I wondered if any people who admire the concept of Bhudhism but are more pragmatic like the idea of the monkhood being corrupt in religious terms. What is a monk doing in a Pantip Plaza or using a mobile 'phone for instance? Surely the 'lay' people in the Wat should be tasking care of any entertainment the monks might find necessary, or the monk could stop being a monk.

Edited January 22, 2008 by tgeezer

[chownah]

It does seem as if many monks are not living by what the Buddha taught. The Buddha taught that it is better for you to be concerned about your own practice and not be concerned about what others are doing.

I would never give money to a monk because the Buddha taught that monks should not handle money. If someone wants to donate money to benefit Buddhism I suggest giving to a temple.

These are just my views on the subject.

Chownah

[AYJAYDEE]

It's already passed. It's no use to think about it now. It just make yourself suffering.

You did the "right" thing giving the money.

Even you didn't give him the money, you also did the "right" thing.

It has nothing to do with his "monkhood".

But you are not doing the "right" thing thinking/worrying about it now.

Think about how many days you have been suffering with this question.

You should leave it at the bus stop instead of carrying it back home.

I realize that this forum is a sort of 'councilling' service and to be true you can't actually take a stand on any subject, but I wondered if any people who admire the concept of Bhudhism but are more pragmatic like the idea of the monkhood being corrupt in religious terms. What is a monk doing in a Pantip Plaza or using a mobile 'phone for instance? Surely the 'lay' people in the Wat should be tasking care of any entertainment the monks might find necessary, or the monk could stop being a monk.

its not our business what a monk does. only what we do. if u want to be generous, do so. if not, dont

[camerata]

Now that I know that monks have no money if I see one who I think I could help, should I?

Monks are supposed to be cultivating their minds to eliminate desire. So, to put it simply, it's OK for you to offer but it's not OK for monks to ask - particularly when they are just looking to ride in comfort in a taxi.

The original idea of the Buddha was that monastics sought enlightenment while being totally dependent on the laity. In return, monks taught the Dhamma, were an example of pure living, and were a means for the laity to make merit. Some monks still think like this.

Over the millenia, things have changed a lot. Many monks these days think of the monkhood more like an occupation (or a priesthood) - they chant at funerals, weddings and other ceremonies in exchange for support from the laity. This kind of monk probably won't think twice about asking for money. So it's up to you which kind of monk you want to support.

[seonai]

I think any monk worth their salt would never ask for money ANYWHERE

[Oleg_Rus]

It does seem as if many monks are not living by what the Buddha taught. The Buddha taught that it is better for you to be concerned about your own practice and not be concerned about what others are doing.

I would never give money to a monk because the Buddha taught that monks should not handle money. If someone wants to donate money to benefit Buddhism I suggest giving to a temple.

These are just my views on the subject.

Chownah

+1

Very nicely put.

[chutai]

The problem is that we fail to see that monks are , like us, human beings undergoing their own 'human revolution' (or transformation of the mind) if correct practice is applied. They just wear different attire and lead seperate lives in the main.

No amount of formal rules nor adhering to disipline for disiplines sake can instigate a human revolution within an individual. We tend to accept too much from fellow mortals who happen to have taken monastic vows.

Firstly, as someone else has intimated, we need to concentrate upon revealing our own Buddhaood and in so doing naturally realising greater wisdom and compassion - thus seeing the Buddha in every being, not just those who are somehow living differently.

I think it's the essential messge of the Lotus Sutra, and at least one sage of the same has said:

"The Buddha was a mere mortal. All mortals are the Buddha."

And that is really something worth considering, and even better realising.

[AYJAYDEE]

The problem is that we fail to see that monks are , like us, human beings undergoing their own 'human revolution' (or transformation of the mind) if correct practice is applied. They just wear different attire and lead seperate lives in the main.

No amount of formal rules nor adhering to disipline for disiplines sake can instigate a human revolution within an individual. We tend to accept too much from fellow mortals who happen to have taken monastic vows.

Firstly, as someone else has intimated, we need to concentrate upon revealing our own Buddhaood and in so doing naturally realising greater wisdom and compassion - thus seeing the Buddha in every being, not just those who are somehow living differently.

I think it's the essential messge of the Lotus Sutra, and at least one sage of the same has said:

"The Buddha was a mere mortal. All mortals are the Buddha."

I sure like your stuff

And that is really something worth considering, and even better realising.

[camerata]

Here's a summary of the rules for monks and money:

Part 1. Information for Lay Supporters

Do you know that the Buddha did not allow monks and novices to accept money?

You will certainly have noticed that the vast majority of monks do accept and use money. This is one of the factors that will lead to the disappearance of the Buddha´s Teaching. You can help to keep the Buddha´s Teaching alive by learning how to offer allowable requisites.

In this section we will list the main points that a layperson should remember so that a monk (bhikkhu) may obtain requisites without breaking the rules of Vinaya.

1. Never offer money to bhikkhus, but only offer allowable requisites such as robes, medicine, books, or tickets for transport. If you are unsure as to what a bhikkhu needs then you can ask him, or invite him to ask you if he needs anything.

2. A fund for requisites can be left with a kappiya (someone who performs services for a bhikkhu) and he should be instructed to buy and offer requisites for a bhikkhu, a group of bhikkhus, or the sangha of a monastery. Do not ask the bhikkhu, `To whom should this be given to?´ If you ask in this way then it is not allowable for a bhikkhu to point out a kappiya. Simply say, `Venerable Sir, I want to offer requisites to you. Who is your kappiya?´

3. Having instructed the kappiya then inform the bhikkhu by saying, `I have left a fund for requisites worth `x´ dollars with your kappiya. When you need requisites ask him and he will offer them to you.´

4. If you already know who the bhikkhu´s kappiya is then you can simply leave the fund with the kappiya and inform the bhikkhu as above in no 3.

Conclusion

The rules concerning money are complex to explain but not difficult to practise; all a bhikkhu needs to do is to refuse to accept money. For those who do keep the rules sincerely they will gain a deeper understanding of Dhamma. They will be able to realize the fruits of the Vinaya which are not found within the letter of the rules, but within the hearts of those who practise it.

Source: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebsut060.htm

[yorkman]

Do you know that the Buddha did not allow monks and novices to accept money?

I do. And then we had a monk checking out ahead of us in Tesco/Lotus, buying groceries, handing over his cash from his purse, and then.....

.... slapping his hand down on the counter as an indication, so the poor girl at the checkout was sure to put the change down there rather than touching his hand.

Thailand. I even turned around to wife to ask her opinion on whether he was a real monk or an imposter. She said, after pausing, real, and rolled her eyes.

[sutnyod]

I would never give money to a monk because the Buddha taught that monks should not handle money. If someone wants to donate money to benefit Buddhism I suggest giving to a temple.

You might also want to consider giving to nuns (Maechee). They are permitted to handle money and are often living in dire circumstances.

[Herbs]

I think it's the essential messge of the Lotus Sutra, and at least one sage of the same has said:

"The Buddha was a mere mortal. All mortals are the Buddha."

And that is really something worth considering, and even better realising.

Where in the Lotus sutra is that stated?

This is that 'Buddha was just like us' argument, 'Buddha the man'. This is to completely misss the point of what it is to be a Buddha, I think. He is neither animal, human or god. This is the whole point: a buddha is a buddha...

[IMA_FARANG]

It's already passed. It's no use to think about it now. It just make yourself suffering.

You did the "right" thing giving the money.

Even you didn't give him the money, you also did the "right" thing.

It has nothing to do with his "monkhood".

But you are not doing the "right" thing thinking/worrying about it now.

Think about how many days you have been suffering with this question.

You should leave it at the bus stop instead of carrying it back home.

I realize that this forum is a sort of 'councilling' service and to be true you can't actually take a stand on any subject, but I wondered if any people who admire the concept of Bhudhism but are more pragmatic like the idea of the monkhood being corrupt in religious terms. What is a monk doing in a Pantip Plaza or using a mobile 'phone for instance? Surely the 'lay' people in the Wat should be tasking care of any entertainment the monks might find necessary, or the monk could stop being a monk.

Why should a monk not be using a cell phone? A cell phone is just a device to communicate. Using it or not using it does not make a person more or less religious. It is only a thing that is picked up and used then put down. If there is no attachment to it then there is no blame or merit. It is just another thing that is as it is.

[Herbs]

Why should a monk not be using a cell phone? A cell phone is just a device to communicate. Using it or not using it does not make a person more or less religious. It is only a thing that is picked up and used then put down. If there is no attachment to it then there is no blame or merit. It is just another thing that is as it is.

Sorry? So we can do anything as long as we are not attached to it? So monks can have sex, as long as they are not attached to the experience? This is absurd...'A female/male body is just a device to satisfy desire...it is only a thing that is picked up, used, then put down.'

[chutai]

I think it's the essential messge of the Lotus Sutra, and at least one sage of the same has said:

"The Buddha was a mere mortal. All mortals are the Buddha."

And that is really something worth considering, and even better realising.

Where in the Lotus sutra is that stated?

This is that 'Buddha was just like us' argument, 'Buddha the man'. This is to completely misss the point of what it is to be a Buddha, I think. He is neither animal, human or god. This is the whole point: a buddha is a buddha...

That's a strange question to ask as most of the Lotus Sutra (LS) is written in prose and needs a great deal of insight to fully realise what the essential meaning is. However the most important chapters of the LS are the Hoben and Juryo. Where indeed the message is that he (Buddha Shakyamuni) has been preaching that all men are the Buddha, that there is no seperation (ichinen sazen) between all beings. This is true enlightenment (formally , thei nterrelatedness and interconnectedness of all phemonena). This is enlightenment.

Unfortunately, I'm unable to quote the full text at prersent as I'm using an internet cafe and can't work out how to use the cut and paste. However, if you wish I'll carry on this discussion when I have access to a more accesible computer I'll point you the right direction. In the meantime perhaps you'd like to look up these chapters for yourself. They're readily available online - as is the whole of the LS (Burton translation).

As for mising the point ,I don't understand your meaning ? However, if you believe that the potential for enlightenment isn't within us all , then what? Some deity that is external to us perhaps ? Buddha Shakyamuni wasn't some super human with a god given realisation. To the contary he reached enlightenment by his own efforts. He, the historical Buddha, shared the enlightenment that is universal and eternal. If we don't realise that we have the same Buddha Nature within us, then any efforts to attain the same enlightenment are futile. We may as well worship anything that is external to us and gives us some sort of comfort. However, the good news of the LS is -if we study and practice correctly- then it isn't outside of the realms of possiblity that we too can attain enlightenment in this lifetime. It just needs tapping into as we dispel our own delusions of duality and seperatedness. But don't think for one moment that there aren't obstacles on the way.

To put it basically, Buddha Shakyamuni wasn't , isn't and was never intended to be, someone that we worship as a supreme being. But pointed the way for all humankind to attain the same inante potential inherrent in all humanity. What's needed is a radical transformation of our fundemental darkness or delusions.

Edited for selling errors. Although I'm almost sure that I may have missed a few.

Edited January 25, 2008 by chutai

[chutai]

I think it's the essential messge of the Lotus Sutra, and at least one sage of the same has said:

"The Buddha was a mere mortal. All mortals are the Buddha."

And that is really something worth considering, and even better realising.

Where in the Lotus sutra is that stated?

This is that 'Buddha was just like us' argument, 'Buddha the man'. This is to completely misss the point of what it is to be a Buddha, I think. He is neither animal, human or god. This is the whole point: a buddha is a buddha...

Following my previous post (selling errors and all ) I hope that this may be of some help to you

The Lotus Sutra teaches the universal potential for Buddhahood within the lives of all people. In the second chapter, Shakyamuni declares to his disciple: "Shariputra, you should know / that at the start I took a vow, / hoping to make all persons / equal to me, without any distinction between us" (The Lotus Sutra, Burton Watson, trans. P. 36). Here Shakyamuni indicates that all people can reveal themselves as Buddhas. For this reason, the life of each person, no matter how she or he may appear at this moment, is worthy of the utmost respect. According to the Lotus Sutra, therefore, happiness lies in self-actualisation, not in pursuit of an external deity's blessings. What matters most is faith in our true potential and our efforts to reveal it to the fullest extent.

Each person's potential for compassion, wisdom and courage is equal to the Buddha's. Shakyamuni, as the founder of Buddhism, began expounding his profound teachings after becoming enlightened to the supreme potential in all people including himself. Though their supreme potential may not yet be realised, all people deserve our deepest respect for possessing it. Furthermore, those striving to awaken to their Buddhahood by upholding the Lotus Sutra are to be honoured for their noble efforts. As Shakyamuni's injunction ends the sutra: "If you see a person who accepts and upholds this sutra, you should rise and greed him from afar, showing him the same respect you would a Buddha" (LS28, 324).

So you see , that apart from the fact that Shakyamuni Buddha was indeed a mortal the same as we (he experienced the same life tribulations as us all - but post enlightenment he was able to observe the mind to the point that the negative workings of unenlightened mind held no power of disrtraction over Buddhahood itself). But also that we have the potential to achieve the same life-state as Shakyamuni Buddha. A I previously stated, all mortals are the Buddha, it's just that most of us haven't reached any (or full) actualisation of this.

[Donleavy]

I am far from being an expert here but I do have some thoughts

The world has changed enormously since the time of the Buddha and some things may need to be taken into account.

Some of the rules that the Buddha talked about are more difficult today than they were at the time

Some were based on the country and the climate at the time

If the Buddha had happened to be born in Iceland then heavy fur robes might be de-rigeur and meditation techniques would certainly be different

The Buddha was a wise man - If he were alive today he would probably laugh/groan at a few of the things that are done in his name.

One thing that really sticks in my mind is the fact that he said something along the lines of "Question Everything, do not blindly follow and believe but think and test both the teachings and the teacher until you are satisfied in your own mind"

Whoops - going off track!

So why is there such a fuss about monks and money?

Maybe the Buddha would allow a small daily allowance in todays world.

The little saying about "People who live in glass houses" comes to mind

They are building their own Karma and it might be better to feel compassion for them.

Either give or dont give and leave it at that.

Amen

Edited January 30, 2008 by Donleavy

[jamesc2000]

I am also not an expert but I believe the idea is that a monastery has a symbiotic relationship with the community and not a parasitic one.

Free food is given to monks in exchange for the monks sharing their knowledge and understanding.

So if there is no sharing of their knowledge and understanding and no benefit to the community then people really don’t have to give food to the monks let alone money.

I think the rule for monks not given money is that they should be 100% reliant on the goodwill of the community and that they contribute back to the community in the form of teachings.

I think to be a monk is a privilege given to serve the community and not so much for an individual for their personal enlightenment.

I am sure people who know more about Buddhism will enlighten us more on this.

[IMChris]

Hi all since Im new to buddha's teachings, I too was a little shocked when at our temple I saw monks smoking. Im a Nurse and wanted run up to him and tell him how bad that it was for his health and that the children saw him smoke. I spoke to the "Lung Pa" I think thats the right word and he told me that they talk about it durring Lent. He agreed with me that tabacco was a drug and a real problem. Most of the younger "Lung Pe" monks smoke.