Would Buddha approve?

[Marcel1]

In every religion you have people how disobey the rules of it. those people are weak enough to fall for the seductions and cowards for not standing for their own actions but instead hiding behind the face of religions. (to me, the worst of the lot)

I often try to imagine how these people look into the mirror..

the religious people who live by the rules are just hoping for a better after live of whom no one knows it is true.

non religious people just live their live, good or bad in all sorts of ways

who is right? we will see when the day comes I guess..

[jaideeguy]

In my OP, I didn't intend this developing into a Buddha bash. I just wanted to hear from the experts on the [short] list of the hippocracy of one of the many religions out there. Please, let's stay on track and discuss this like tolerant adults and maybe we'll all have a better understanding of the situation.

Wats and monks do perform a service to the communities as most churches do and they all bring in tons of money and temptations are there and often abused.

Bottom line [to me] is that all religions are corrupt and prey on the innocents that follow them, but society needs some kind of order and people need some kind of spiritual reward or punishment at the end of the road.

Religions have kept some kind of order to the chaos that abounded thousands of years ago, but times have changed and most religions haven't changed with the times..........

[camerata]

Let's be clear about one thing, there are rules for monks (primarily the 227 precepts), and immediate consequences if they break them (disrobing etc). For lay Buddhists there are guidelines (the 5 precepts), which people keep if they want to attain nibbana, but there are no rules as such. So a lay person can't be called a hypocrite for failing to follow the precepts unless he is claiming everyone should follow them.

To answer the OP, which mostly referred to monk's behaviour, one only has to look - in the Pali Canon - at how monks were expected to behave in the Buddha's time. Basically, they were in the monkhood to attain nibbana, by meditating, listening to sermons, and following rules of behavior. Their relationship with the laity was that the laity provided their essential needs and in return they taught the Dhamma. Anything other than that, the Buddha probably wouldn't have allowed.

Most of the problems mentioned in the OP have come about because these days most monks aren't in it for nibbana, and because the laity expect various services from them other than teaching.

[camerata]

One off-topic post has been deleted. Let's stay on the topic of present-day Buddhist monks/temples and whether the Buddha would approve of them.

[nithisa78]

Thais in my country don't go around asking if Jesus Christ would approve when a minister has a drink or buys a phone selling alcohol on the Sabbath etc.

We went to our one and only local, Thai Restaurant. Here in small town, coastal, Florida. I speak with Mark as usual, after exchanging customary greetings. Mention to him, could use some help. His reply, we need you, help us. We man hug and then sit our usual semi-private table and enjoy again, world class cuisine and service. We all approved. Generally phone to let them know our eta. Also mentioned to Mark, we will help each other. No judgment, just man to man.

[hookedondhamma]

Let's be clear about one thing, there are rules for monks (primarily the 227 precepts), and immediate consequences if they break them (disrobing etc). For lay Buddhists there are guidelines (the 5 precepts), which people keep if they want to attain nibbana, but there are no rules as such. So a lay person can't be called a hypocrite for failing to follow the precepts unless he is claiming everyone should follow them.

To answer the OP, which mostly referred to monk's behaviour, one only has to look - in the Pali Canon - at how monks were expected to behave in the Buddha's time. Basically, they were in the monkhood to attain nibbana, by meditating, listening to sermons, and following rules of behavior. Their relationship with the laity was that the laity provided their essential needs and in return they taught the Dhamma. Anything other than that, the Buddha probably wouldn't have allowed.

Most of the problems mentioned in the OP have come about because these days most monks aren't in it for nibbana, and because the laity expect various services from them other than teaching.

if one also reads the pali canon, he/she will also find pretty detailed stories as to why this or that rule was made. In other words, it's pretty silly to think in the Buddha's time monks were squeaky clean. Their practic and standard s were higher, but what is described in some passages will open your eyes.

There is also a group on thai visa that loves to preach their knowledge on what is to be buddhist or a monk, when in reality it's pretty apparent they have no idea. It extends off the internet and is one reason many english speaking thai monks don't really enjoy interaction with foreigners in general (obviously excluding monk chat at the lanna campus in chiang mai) - too much 'I know already.'

There's a great website called access to insight. Org and it is pretty valuable from r those with genuine curiosity about Therevad a Buddhism.

[beautifulthailand99]

or IPADs

and ATMs

[fabianfred]

I don't see the point of the above post ....is the poster trying to bash monks for using ATM's and iTech?

There seems to be many TV members posting on topics in the Buddhism forum now who are just trying to bash Buddhism or declare how all religions are wrong and gleefully declare their superior wisdom in being anti this or anti that.

If they are not Buddhist or have no desire to learn about it they should stay out.

Once you get one stupid post in a topic..many seem to follow... like a bunch of thugs diving in to kick someone once they are down...

[beautifulthailand99]

I don't see the point of the above post ....is the poster trying to bash monks for using ATM's and iTech?

There seems to be many TV members posting on topics in the Buddhism forum now who are just trying to bash Buddhism or declare how all religions are wrong and gleefully declare their superior wisdom in being anti this or anti that.

If they are not Buddhist or have no desire to learn about it they should stay out.

Once you get one stupid post in a topic..many seem to follow... like a bunch of thugs diving in to kick someone once they are down...

I'm not trying to bash Buddhism - but monks or any one in a position of religious authority of prominence should in my humble opinion set a noble standard so that lesser souls can appreciate there are higher forms of conduct and behavior that we can aspire to. And yes you were once a monk fabianfred and using an ATM to withdraw money is pretty much a no go for a monk I would have thought. As I get older I'm finding that there are just as many good folk leading useful , purposeful and beneficial lives who have no religion but are just a kindly souls. We are all just smoke up a chimney in the end after all.

[khunsuar]

I don't see the point of the above post ....is the poster trying to bash monks for using ATM's and iTech?

There seems to be many TV members posting on topics in the Buddhism forum now who are just trying to bash Buddhism or declare how all religions are wrong and gleefully declare their superior wisdom in being anti this or anti that.

If they are not Buddhist or have no desire to learn about it they should stay out.

Once you get one stupid post in a topic..many seem to follow... like a bunch of thugs diving in to kick someone once they are down...

I'm not trying to bash Buddhism - but monks or any one in a position of religious authority of prominence should in my humble opinion set a noble standard so that lesser souls can appreciate there are higher forms of conduct and behavior that we can aspire to. And yes you were once a monk fabianfred and using an ATM to withdraw money is pretty much a no go for a monk I would have thought. As I get older I'm finding that there are just as many good folk leading useful , purposeful and beneficial lives who have no religion but are just a kindly souls. We are all just smoke up a chimney in the end after all.

Having watched the clip several times, I see no evidence of money going into the monks hand. He could, after all, be checking on his Wats account on behest of the abbot. At best there is not enough video to discern any improper activity.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[fabianfred]

I have a family here in Thailand and support them on my UK army pension which goes into my UK bank and I draw money from an ATM here. I also have Thai bank accounts with ATM cards which I use when people I know as friends on Facebook who used to be students of mine at the temple donate money through my paypal to help the kids here.

I was involved in teaching foreigners at the temple Dhamma and meditation for a couple of years before I ordained there, so often our guests would get to visit the villages and kids I support.

When i ordained as a monk I did not know how long I would be ordaining for, because I still had my two kids in school and my wife's family to support. I still used ATM to withdraw money for my family and to buy stuff like clothing and treats for the kids. I had a project we called 'Warm Clothes for Kids' which ran for a couple of years and enabled me to donate about 3000+ sets of winter warm clothes to poor kids around the hills and villages in Fang where it gets cold in the winter.

Was I supposed to close all my accounts and refuse my pension, and abandon my family, just to soothe the troubled minds of those who are ignorant of the truth?

Edited March 22, 2014 by fabianfred

[beautifulthailand99]

I have a family here in Thailand and support them on my UK army pension which goes into my UK bank and I draw money from an ATM here. I also have Thai bank accounts with ATM cards which I use when people I know as friends on Facebook who used to be students of mine at the temple donate money through my paypal to help the kids here.

I was involved in teaching foreigners at the temple Dhamma and meditation for a couple of years before I ordained there, so often our guests would get to visit the villages and kids I support.

When i ordained as a monk I did not know how long I would be ordaining for, because I still had my two kids in school and my wife's family to support. I still used ATM to withdraw money for my family and to buy stuff like clothing and treats for the kids. I had a project we called 'Warm Clothes for Kids' which ran for a couple of years and enabled me to donate about 3000+ sets of winter warm clothes to poor kids around the hills and villages in Fang where it gets cold in the winter.

Was I supposed to close all my accounts and refuse my pension, and abandon my family, just to soothe the troubled minds of those who are ignorant of the truth?

Fabianfred you are a good guy and your soul shines through your posts - what you are basically saying is that if your intentions are good and you have a noble mind and instinct then modern day living allows for some creative interpretation of the Dhamma and the Buddha's rules for monks. I don't have a problem with that but if this is widespread in Thailand then the Sangha could maybe educate people more , be careful as to who they ordain , and make it more clear to the laity and others that this is the case. At the moment their is widespread suspicion of a lot of monks because of their public behaviour and mostly by Thais I should add.

[thepool]

Siddhārtha Gautama died somewhere between 486 and 483 BCE (Before Common Era) and there are no known writings that can be directly attributed to him.

Any conjecture about what he would have thought is pure and unhelpful speculation.

[camerata]

From what I've read by academics like Warder, Gethin, et al, the bulk of the suttas were spoken by one individual (i.e. the Buddha), and the record we have in the canons are in some parts probably verbatim, in others rearranged in a formulaic q&a format. At any rate, the various canons are all we have. To follow the Buddha's teachings means to follow the basic teachings set down in the Pali, Chinese or Tibetan canon.

Extrapolation is not speculation. There are lots of questions as to what the Buddha would have thought about aspects of modern living, and whether they are wholesome or unwholesome kamma. All we can do is look at what the Buddha said about similar situations in his own time and extrapolate from there. Western monks and lay teachers are doing this all the time.

[sms747]

Thais are not Buddhists, if Buddha came back he would have to start trying to convert them. Almost all Thais do not even understand the basics of Buddhism

[sms747]

I don't see the point of the above post ....is the poster trying to bash monks for using ATM's and iTech?

There seems to be many TV members posting on topics in the Buddhism forum now who are just trying to bash Buddhism or declare how all religions are wrong and gleefully declare their superior wisdom in being anti this or anti that.

If they are not Buddhist or have no desire to learn about it they should stay out.

Once you get one stupid post in a topic..many seem to follow... like a bunch of thugs diving in to kick someone once they are down...

There are over 200 rules for Thai monks, I am pretty sure one of them is not owning anything except a robe and a begging bowl and one or two other things, they are not meant to handle money or keep gifts of money, but they do

[thepool]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

From what I've read by academics like Warder, Gethin, et al, the bulk of the suttas were spoken by one individual (i.e. the Buddha), and the record we have in the canons are in some parts probably verbatim, in others rearranged in a formulaic q&a format. At any rate, the various canons are all we have. To follow the Buddha's teachings means to follow the basic teachings set down in the Pali, Chinese or Tibetan canon.

Extrapolation is not speculation. There are lots of questions as to what the Buddha would have thought about aspects of modern living, and whether they are wholesome or unwholesome kamma. All we can do is look at what the Buddha said about similar situations in his own time and extrapolate from there. Western monks and lay teachers are doing this all the time.

Interesting.

Extrapolation is a mathematical construct which if used with poor data will produce bizarre results.

[camerata]

The definition I'm using is "inferring an unknown from something that is known." In other words, to use logic to come up with an answer that is more than a guess. In this case, the known facts are the precepts and codes of behaviour left to us by the Buddha in the Canon. The problem is not so much that the guidelines he left are poor, but that they might not be specific enough or are maybe too specific for some situations today.

[gregk0543]

Yes you are right the Buddha would not approve of most of these things.

He also would not have got upset about it. He understood and explained from the very beginning that his teaching would not last and that his disciples and laity would add things over time until the teaching was no longer present. Every religion does this, but the Buddha was the only leader I know who told people it would happen right from the start.

But just on a more positive note that may be of help to you is that there are still good monks out there, but you have to search to find them.

You wont find them walking around cities too often, but you will find plenty of sincere and exemplary monks out there in forest monasteries across Thailand.

If you want a little bit more specifics try finding ones associated with Achaan chah. Specifically you can start with Wat Na Ba Pong in Ubon Ratchatani. Then there is a branch monastery of his run by westerners Wat Pah Nanachat.

Also look up acharn maha boowa from Wat Barn Tard, Udon Thani.

Do a google search for Achaan Chah and you will find a lot of stuff about him.

In summary. It is like panning for gold. Throw out the dross and find the gold in what is left. It is there but you need to put in a little effort to find it and most people dont put in the effort. I have however so hope this helps.

[camerata]

The Bhikkhus' Rules - A Guide for Laypeople is a good reference for what monks can and can't do according to the Vinaya.

For example:

"Clothing, food, shelter and medicine are necessary whether one is a lay person or a bhikkhu. The bhikkhu, however, should take a completely balanced stance towards these fundamentals. Advertising and the latest fashion should not draw him, for he should be solely concerned with simplicity and lack of attachment towards things.[57] It seems that the original requisites were 'basics' that wandering bhikkhus could conveniently carry around, for example, an alms bowl, three robes, a sitting cloth, a needle-case, and a waist band. However, extra allowances were gradually given as the need arose, for instance, a water filter, a razor and its sheath, the stone and strop for sharpening it and then articles such as an umbrella and sandals. Later the commentaries allowed other similar items."

[beautifulthailand99]

The Bhikkhus' Rules - A Guide for Laypeople is a good reference for what monks can and can't do according to the Vinaya.

For example:

"Clothing, food, shelter and medicine are necessary whether one is a lay person or a bhikkhu. The bhikkhu, however, should take a completely balanced stance towards these fundamentals. Advertising and the latest fashion should not draw him, for he should be solely concerned with simplicity and lack of attachment towards things.[57] It seems that the original requisites were 'basics' that wandering bhikkhus could conveniently carry around, for example, an alms bowl, three robes, a sitting cloth, a needle-case, and a waist band. However, extra allowances were gradually given as the need arose, for instance, a water filter, a razor and its sheath, the stone and strop for sharpening it and then articles such as an umbrella and sandals. Later the commentaries allowed other similar items."

That's a very interesting link which says the money my wide donated on a plate in an envelope to the local Wat at the weekend was the wrong thing to do even though I would trust all the monks there and especially the Abbott with my life - the best advice he ever gave me when I was blathering on about some arcane points of Buddhism - was don't worry about that just do good.

Money

The rule about a bhikkhu not accepting money came to be made when Ven. Upananda went to visit his regular supporters on alms round. The meat that had been set aside for him that morning had instead been given to the family's hungry son. The householder wished to give something else to make up for it and asked what he could offer to the value of a kahaapana coin. Ven. Upananda inquired if he was making a gift of a kahaapana coin to him, and then took the money away. Lay people were disgusted with this, saying, "Just as we lay people accept money, so too do these Buddhist monks!."

This Rule has been variously translated:

"Should any bhikkhu take gold and silver, or have it taken, or consent to its being deposited (near him), it is to be forfeited and confessed."(Nis. Paac. 18; BMC p.214)

"Should any bhikkhu pick up, or cause to be picked up or consent to the deposit of gold or silver, this entails Confession with Forfeiture." (Nis. Paac. 18; Paat. 1966 Ed. p.42)

"A monk, who accepts gold or money or gets another to accept for him, or acquiesces in its being put near him, commits [an offence requiring Confession with Forfeiture.]" (Nis. Paac. 18; BBC p.116)

"If a bhikkhu himself receives gold and silver (money) or gets someone else to receive it, or if he is glad about money that is being kept for him, it is [an offence of Confession with Forfeiture.]"(Nis. Paac. 18; Nv p.11)

◊ Note that there are some subtle differences in the way that the rule is translated, especially in the last example.

According to the Commentary, there is 'no consent' if a bhikkhu refuses to accept the money: by word — telling the donor that it is not proper to receive money; by deed — gesturing to that effect; by thought — thinking that this is not proper. There may be a problem in communicating this to the donors without causing them offence and without the bhikkhu falling into offence himself.[103]

Many of the rules concerning money, etc., are those of Confession with Forfeiture (Nissaggiya Paacittiya). This means that the money or articles that are wrongly acquired have to be forfeited. Furthermore, it is specified that they cannot be forfeited to a single monk but must be given up to the Community — who must then follow a strict procedure for disposing of those gains.

In practice, this rule is understood by various bhikkhus in different ways. This ranges from some monks who seek to circumvent the rule completely by saying that "paper-money is just paper" and therefore not 'gold and silver' (jaataruupa-rajata) and so falls outside the rule; to the following more strict opinions:

The Paali term jaataruupa is defined as 'gold of any sort' and, while rajata is also 'silver' in other contexts, here it is defined as maasaka (coins) of different materials (copper, wood, lac) whatever is used in business, i.e., money.

"At present the term would include coins and paper currency, but not checks, credit cards, bank drafts, or promissory notes, as these — on their own and without further identification of the persons carrying them — do not function as true currency." (BMC p.215)

"The term jaataruupa-rajata refers firstly to personal adornments (of gold and silver), secondly to ingots, thirdly to ruupiya, which are for buying and selling, referring not only to gold and silver but anything which can be used in this way. All the above-mentioned things are included in this term. The phrase, 'be glad at the money kept for him' [as in translation above] suggests that if it is only cittuppaada (the coming into existence of a thought), he would not [fall into an offence,] so it must refer to the action of receiving it and holding the right over it." (Paat. 1969 Ed. p.158)

"For Laypeople: A lay-person should never offer money directly to a bhikkhu... even if it is placed inside an envelope or together with other requisites. They should either deposit the money with the monastery steward, put it in a donation-box or into the monastery bank account. They may then state their invitation to the bhikkhu(s) regarding the kind or amount of requisite(s). In Thailand, for example, knowledgeable lay-people would deposit money with the steward and offer to the bhikkhu(s) an invitation note mentioning the details of the offering." (HS ch.14)

[sms747]

All a fantasy, almost every Thai has offered money direct to a monk, they love house parties, a few hundred baht is not a bad days work for 30 mins of chanting, same with funerals etc. Such money should only be donated to the wat and not stuffed in monks robes as their income

[camerata]

Generally, it's more convenient to donate cash, regardless of what the Vinaya says.

[Bkungbank]

As Buddha predicts after 5 times 599 years Buddhist started out of direction by followers as many thing happen using religion name under personal gain and fame, this normal as not only Buddhism others religions are the same as man lead man is wrong we should let the Dhamma lead us .

[sms747]

where did he predict that?

[camerata]

Off-topic and cantankerous posts have been deleted. The topic is not about religion in general, it's "Would the Buddha approve (if he were alive today) of certain practices by Buddhists?"

[camerata]

The Buddha's prediction about the decline of the Dhamma is from the Pali Canon, Digha Nikaya, 26. AFAIK, the claim that it would be in stages of 500 years each was made by the commentator Buddhaghosa.

[fabianfred]

The Buddha said that the true dhamma would last as long as there was no false dhamma to compete with it. Once monks became lazy and did not follow the true Dhamma, did not practice his teachings, did not practice meditation as he taught, they would become corrupted by Kilesa (defilements) and start to teach an easier dhamma to practice with heaven as the goal instead of Nibbana. He predicted his teachings would last for approx. 5,000 years and since we are over half way it is sliding down the slippery slope already.

Actually we are quite lucky...because although his teachings last for only 5,000 years....if you took the life span of humans to be 100 years, that would mean that it lasts for 50 life spans so we get plenty of chances to bump into his teachings.

Previous Buddhas in this Aeon had longer lifetimes (60,000, 40,000 & 20,000 years), but their teachings lasted only a few lifespans. The next, fifth, and last Buddha in this aeon, will come when the human lifespan is 80,000 years, but his teaching will only last about 240,000 years which is only three lifespans.

[spidermike007]

What about the practice of face. Would Buddha approve of that?

 

My guess is that the Buddha taught nothing of face. If he did, it was probably an encouragement to lose face as often as possible, so as to shatter the ego. Face is nothing but ego. It is nothing but a lack of manhood being expressed. It is nothing but extreme cowardice, and in my opinion is the opposite of everything Buddhism stands for. If you really think about it, face is really nothing more that the inability to look within, to introspect, to reflect, and to improve as an individual. It corrodes the soul. It prevents spiritual growth. It retards forward development. It hold a person back, from any sort of advancement. Only when we are able to look within, admit fault with ourselves, take responsibility, and show remorse for poor actions on our own parts, are we able to advance as a people, or as an individual. Face prevents all of that, and serves as a weak excuse for not looking within, and taking blame for anything. It is a blight on the face of Asia. Face is abhorrent behavior. So is lying. And if lying is used to save face, it may be the ultimate form of offensive behavior, and a huge spiritual transgression. And from a spiritual point of view, lying might be the ultimate form of laziness. On many levels, it is the opposite of spiritual development and growth. 

 

I know I will hear about all the reasons for face. About all the social implications, etc, etc. I do not give a hoot about the culture behind face. I am simply talking about face as a form of extreme personal weakness. I am talking about the negativity of the trait, and how it holds people back, in regard to the spiritual life, and the precepts of Buddhism, or any other faith for that matter. Face is the very opposite of spirituality, and therefore Buddhism. All those opinions expressed are my own of course. And they are just opinions. But, I think they may have some validity. What do you think?