Is this allowed? Drama emerges when celebrity monk photographed carrying his daughter

[arend]

Unrealistic expectations... when one ordains, one doesn't become an instant saint. It's a long process with many mistakes and failures along the way. Corrupt monks... it's a slice of humanity... monkhood is a good place to hide for some criminals. Most young monks come from impoverished families for whom this is the only avenue to an education and a vocation for their sons...

Edited September 27, 2016 by arend

[steve down under]

Bloody Idiots !

[arend]

3 poisons that lead to suffering for those around you and yourself - Hatred/Anger,  Greed and ignorance... Perhaps you might want to reflect on that not as some moral prerogative but just as the source of pain in your life... OK, I know,  F*&k me...

Edited September 27, 2016 by arend

[jacko45k]

Pity this guy and his wife felt the need to post pics of their trivial life at all!

The fact that he has a child suggests he is accustomed to doing plenty of things with women. This is a child for heaven's sake, why do people have to see drama in everything,

Edited September 27, 2016 by jacko45k

[KhaoNiaw]

There was a controversy a few years ago with a monk going home every day to bathe and look after his elderly mother who couldn't do things for herself. After the idiots had their say, sensible voices prevailed and it was agreed that he was acting with compassion as a good son and monk. And that to simply say there's a blanket rule that forbids monks from touching a woman is nuts. 

[elgordo38]

When you reach a low point in your career its time to head to the temple. Get all your ducks lined up in a row, photographer, wife, child and a bit of gossip or social media twitter. 

[Redline]

Losers~get a life.  Yes, a child that age is innocent

[Bluespunk]

2 hours ago, henry15 said:

I'm more disturbed by the fact that they coloured the infants hair.

It's a wig...

[alofthailand]

On 27/09/2016 at 10:30 AM, klauskunkel said:

many netizens need to get a life

As do the TV contributors.

[gdgbb]

6 hours ago, rkidlad said:

Many Thais really do have to distinguish between what's sexual and what's affection. The whole idea of pecking your gf on the lips or cheek before you go to work is not sexual. It's affection. If Thailand is a conservative culture, that's fine. Up to them. But don't confuse sex with affection, and you'll have to think of another reason why you think something is inappropriate.

 

As for young kids dressing in short skirts, wearing make up and crop tops, that totally is sexualising a child. But let's not discuss things. Let's just continue with the same pattern. 

 

 

But first of all you have to distinguish between what is being discussed in the OP and your weird off-topic imagination.

[Travel2003]

I know the majority of foreigners on TV do not recognize Thai rules and tradition, so that is not exactly a surprise.

 

However, what are the rules here,

except of course the fact celebrities in Thailand are above law and traditions.

But that is already common knowledge.

[DM07]

5 minutes ago, Travel2003 said:

I know the majority of foreigners on TV do not recognize Thai rules and tradition, so that is not exactly a surprise.

 

However, what are the rules here,

except of course the fact celebrities in Thailand are above law and traditions.

But that is already common knowledge.

Oh, we recognize them!

We only call them out as BS if a) they are and b ) they are not even followed by Thais but presented as shining examples of how great Thainess is!

[Travel2003]

1 minute ago, DM07 said:

Oh, we recognize them!

We only call them out as BS if a) they are and b ) they are not even followed by Thais but presented as shining examples of how great Thainess is!

Thnx for proving my point.

:)

 

Now, when you have cherry picked the argument,  what is actually the rules applying to the subject in matter?

 

Edited September 27, 2016 by Travel2003

[rkidlad]

1 hour ago, gdgbb said:

But first of all you have to distinguish between what is being discussed in the OP and your weird off-topic imagination.

 

Yes, very off topic.

 

It's a female baby. The rules are that monks can't touch females - why? One reason is it may stir passion. My point is that's it's a baby. Male or female shouldn't be an issue. In fact, man or woman, it shouldn't be an issue, but that would be off topic, right?

[DM07]

12 minutes ago, Travel2003 said:

Thnx for proving my point.

:)

 

Now, when you have cherry picked the argument,  what is actually the rules applying to the subject in matter?

 

I really don't give a hoot, what some 2000 year old rules, taken out of some fairy- tale, say!

 

If Thais would follow all the Buddhas teachings as well as they trumpet to do, there would be way less problems in this country!

And whatever THIS particular rule says, if it applies to fathers and their 1year old daughters, I call BS even more!

 

[Bluespunk]

 

36 minutes ago, Travel2003 said:

Thnx for proving my point.

:)

 

Now, when you have cherry picked the argument,  what is actually the rules applying to the subject in matter?

 

I'd say the salient part of your post was answered...

[fvw53]

On 9/27/2016 at 7:42 AM, daveAustin said:

... The Buddha looks down over Thailand and continues shake his head.

 

Yes ..but is it known or can we guess what Buddha would have done when meeting his young child?

[CantSpell]

since it is deemed to be a serious offense for a monk to be touched by a woman.

 

Not the other way round apparently, since it seems to be tradition nowadays for monks to touch women left and right :)

 

 

[William C F Pierce]

The girl was not touching the monk, the monk was touching the girl. Was the glass half empty, or was it half full?

[YetAnother]

On 9/26/2016 at 9:21 PM, Jonathan Fairfield said:

since it is deemed to be a serious offense for a monk to be touched by a woman.

why would monks care about that ?

[Laab Muu]

On ‎27‎/‎09‎/‎2016 at 0:57 AM, jaltsc said:

"After seeing this picture, many netizens discussed on whether or not it was appropriate for a monk to hold a little girl, since it is deemed to be a serious offense for a monk to be touched by a woman."

The issue here is not about a monk touching a woman. It's about people who cannot or will not distinguish between a child and a grown woman. How many times do we see someone claiming that an 8 year-old is dressing provocatively? This is a case of adults sexualizing a child and blaming the child. This is the justification a pedophile uses for molesting a child.

 

Don't blame the monk in this case. Look at yourself and ask: "Why am I viewing this child as an adult?"

Your understanding of the patimokkha is seriously lacking, or more likely non-existent, and your comments are typical of someone who knows nothing about something and then lectures about it. In this case (holding his daughter) it has nothing to do with sexual lust, it is about if the touching happens because of craving for the sensation of touch, which of course in this case it is, and so he is guilty of committing a vinaya offence.

 

A newly (and temporarily) ordained monk's unwillingness to follow the vinaya discipline shows that is ordination is all for show and attention, you'd think he and/or his wife could explain it to his daughter without too much difficulty. Even so I would agree that the rule seems to lack compassion and wisdom in such cases, but if you are only going to cherry pick rules you follow then there is no point what-so-ever of ordaining in the first place.

A renunciate who has no wife and children and who intend to remain in the monastic state for life or a long time is a different kind of renunciate from a husband/father who takes on the monastic life for two weeks or one rainy season, as they do in Thailand.