how do monks travel internationally?

[Mr Man]

I have no problem with monk handling money.
My concern is that they are breaking the tenth precept hence braking the fourth precepts as well.
Is breaking the tenth precept,considered breaking a minor rule?
What about then monks breaking other rules?
How does monk get around this problem?

In the end one should think not about "keeping/breaking precepts" - but how in reality it affects his own practice (and if this keeping/breaking creates difficulties for other people around him). If money makes you more greedy and lustful, then probably it is better for you to abstain from it as much as possible. If not - what's the problem then? You know, sometimes adhering strictly to rules can be even worse than not doing so - some people become arrogant simply because of that.

The Buddha established the monastic order as alms mendicants. In my opinion this is fundamental.

If a monastic was to think that eating a banana in the evening was fine as it had no negative affect on his practice and that he felt not eating in the evening when others were was causing him to be arrogant, would it then be okay?

[Zom]

The Buddha established the monastic order as alms mendicants. In my opinion this is fundamental.

If a monastic was to think that eating a banana in the evening was fine as it had no negative affect on his practice and that he felt not eating in the evening when others were was causing him to be arrogant, would it then be okay?

Yes, some of the rules are not so obvious (while others are). Money - is one of the obvious and even explained in one sutta (btw, not eating rule is explained in details as well - why it is useful). Money (to be more exact, gold and silver = ability to get 5 cords of sensual pleasure. This is why this rule was introduced. Okay, if you use money for transport, paying for visa, paying for medicines, etc. - does it create a hindrance for your practice, or, on the contrary, gives you a support for practice? For example, if you don't pay for visa - you will be forced to disrobe and return back from Asia to your country where you'll get no support as a monk. Will this be good for your practice or not? As you can see, everything is not black and white. World "has changed a bit" since 2500 years old India.

[samseva]

The Buddha established the monastic order as alms mendicants. In my opinion this is fundamental.

If a monastic was to think that eating a banana in the evening was fine as it had no negative affect on his practice and that he felt not eating in the evening when others were was causing him to be arrogant, would it then be okay?

[samseva]

to be more exact, gold and silver = ability to get 5 cords of sensual pleasure. This is why this rule was introduced.

No, this isn't the reason why the precept and rules about not having or accepting money were created. They were created because money is a very significant source for the arising of the defilements (which is much more than simply the 5 sense pleasures) and a whole bunch of others things as well—huge complications to maintain a community of renunciants being one of them.

[Zom]

No, this isn't the reason why the precept and rules about not having or accepting money were created.

Do I really need to cite the Buddha's explanation?

Money is nothing in itself. It creates problems simply because you can get worldly pleasures with it. That's it, this is the major reason why it is the obstacle for practice. If they were not conductive to 5 sensual pleasures, they would be utterly useless, just a piece of paper. However, money can be used in another, more skilful way - like paying for visa to stay in a buddhist country. Or paying for transport to get to some place to propagate Dhamma. Or paying for mobile phone to call, for example, your ajahn from afar - and for many other useful things as well.

I personally know several (not world-wide-famous) monks who accept money and use them in a very skilful way, helping people and other monks, maintaning monasteries and dhamma centers. Others, even less famous, use them just to have possibility to stay in monkhood. Not all monks who accept money necessarily use them in a way to hinder their practice. On the other hand, I know monks who don't accept money (at least, openly), but they are arrogant because of this "advanced status". Also know one young monk who flatly rejected to handle money and thus created a whole mess of problems for local community. If this rule is so fundamental - why do these things happen? So, again, this is not that easy with monks & money nowadays. I understand idealistic view on the question, but I repeat, we are not in ancient India anymore, things changed. Some easy questions became hard ones.

[mikenz66]

...

I think to be a bhikkhu's steward is a great opportunity (with good monks). Not only do you offer help and practice generosity in a similar way to when you offer dāna, but you get to spend a lot of time with a monk and can learn many things about Dhamma and meditation.

Certainly. That's why monks from "famous" groups with good reputations have lots of people looking after them. My point was that if the attendants are used simply as a mechanism to avoid physically using money when obtaining goods, the vinaya offence is of the same level as using money.

I should add that the good monks (famous or not) that I've attended to have been quite careful about this.


Mike

[SarathW]

No, this isn't the reason why the precept and rules about not having or accepting money were created.

Do I really need to cite the Buddha's explanation?

Money is nothing in itself. It creates problems simply because you can get worldly pleasures with it. That's it, this is the major reason why it is the obstacle for practice. If they were not conductive to 5 sensual pleasures, they would be utterly useless, just a piece of paper. However, money can be used in another, more skilful way - like paying for visa to stay in a buddhist country. Or paying for transport to get to some place to propagate Dhamma. Or paying for mobile phone to call, for example, your ajahn from afar - and for many other useful things as well.

I personally know several (not world-wide-famous) monks who accept money and use them in a very skilful way, helping people and other monks, maintaning monasteries and dhamma centers. Others, even less famous, use them just to have possibility to stay in monkhood. Not all monks who accept money necessarily use them in a way to hinder their practice. On the other hand, I know monks who don't accept money (at least, openly), but they are arrogant because of this "advanced status". Also know one young monk who flatly rejected to handle money and thus created a whole mess of problems for local community. If this rule is so fundamental - why do these things happen? So, again, this is not that easy with monks & money nowadays. I understand idealistic view on the question, but I repeat, we are not in ancient India anymore, things changed. Some easy questions became hard ones.

Why do monks has to have mobile phones?
If they cant observe 9 (10) precepts why did they accept it?
Can't they stay as 8 preceptors?
I think a person can stay as a eight preceptor and follow the 227 Vinaya rules.
Can't eight preceptor wear a robe and have a bowl?
Clinging to precepts means, a person who believe that he can realise liberation by following rules.
In that case just observing 10 precepts, a person can't liberate from Samsara.
10 precepts (even the 227 rules) are just the pre-curser for concentration.

The question I have is whether using money amount to breaking the Vinaya rule and how the monks get around it.
By the way I do not know any monk who does not handle money.
I know only one monk in this forum who does not handle money.
I do not think it is arrogance.
It is important that monks teaches lay people about the tenth precept.
Then lay people will learn to accommodate the monks.
I learnt about the tenth precepts only after I joined this forum. (not from a monk)

[Zom]

I know only one monk in this forum who does not handle money.
I do not think it is arrogance.

I didn't say all monks who abstrain from money are arrogant. I said, there are some, but they are arrogant precisely because of their "advanced level of renunciation". As soon as they start taking money like all others, they have nothing to boast -)

It is important that monks teaches lay people about the tenth precept.

In buddhist countries I think there is every possibility for a resident (not foreign) monk to abstrain from money. They don't need visas, healthcare is free, no need to travel a lot, no need to have internet to keep contact with relatives. And I think there are a lot of forest monasteries where they do live like that - without using money, mobile phones, laptops, etc. But most of monks don't need (want) such level of renunciation and they are actually monks only for some time (maybe several years maximum). For non-resident monk things are more complicated, not to speak about monks who live in non-buddhist countries, where non-handling money is almost impossible thing do to.

[SarathW]

I am mainly talking about the monks in Sri Lanka not about the western monks.
I do not know any monk in Sri Lanka who does not handle money.

[samseva]

No, this isn't the reason why the precept and rules about not having or accepting money were created.

Do I really need to cite the Buddha's explanation?

It is cited in Bhikkhu Thanissaro's Buddhist Monastic Code I as one of the reasons the rule was implemented, but it isn't the only reason and according to Bhikkhu Thanissaro, nor is it the reason why it was introduced.

If you have a passage that indicates it is the reason why the rule was created, please share it.

[samseva]

For non-resident monk things are more complicated, not to speak about monks who live in non-buddhist countries, where non-handling money is almost impossible thing do to.

All of the Ajahn Chah monasteries in countries like the US, the UK, Canada, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia and others are doing quite well without handling money.

[Zom]

If you have a passage that indicates it is the reason why the rule was created, please share it.

This passage is in SN 42.10: "If gold and silver are allowable for anyone, the five cords of sensual pleasures are allowable for him. If the five cords of sensual pleasures are allowable for anyone, you can definitely consider him to be the one who does not have the character of an ascetic or of a follower of the Sakyan clan".

This is the only canonical explanation why this rule was introduced.

All of the Ajahn Chah monasteries in countries like the US, the UK, Canada, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia and others are doing quite well without handling money.

Yes, as I said, there are some restricted places (supported by asian immigrants) where you can avoid using money. But not everyone is ready to live in these (quite closed) communities for certain reasons. That's why any monk who lives somewhere else just obliged to use money. Actually, even in buddhists countries this is a hard rule to observe again if you are not living in some restricted places (but, at least, it is possible to some extent).

[samseva]

This passage is in SN 42.10: "If gold and silver are allowable for anyone, the five cords of sensual pleasures are allowable for him. If the five cords of sensual pleasures are allowable for anyone, you can definitely consider him to be the one who does not have the character of an ascetic or of a follower of the Sakyan clan".

This is the only canonical explanation why this rule was introduced.

No, this is almost certainly not the only canonical explanation. It might be the only passage in the Sutta Piṭaka, but the origin of the rule should be clearly explained in the Vinaya Piṭaka.

Yes, as I said, there are some restricted places (supported by asian immigrants) where you can avoid using money. But not everyone is ready to live in these (quite closed) communities for certain reasons. That's why any monk who lives somewhere else just obliged to use money. Actually, even in buddhists countries this is a hard rule to observe again if you are not living in some restricted places (but, at least, it is possible to some extent).

Although I wouldn't say the Ajahn Chah monasteries in the many countries I mentioned are restricted or closed communities at all, by monastic standards, however it is important to remember that that is pretty much the point for the life of a renunciant, to live in enclosed places for quiet contemplation.

Monks during the time of the Buddha were expected to either live in the wild or in a monastery, especially during the 3-month rains retreat. They aren't expected to roam about wherever it may please them, especially amongst lay people or other worldly places. This is intentionally restrictive, the same way the rules about money, travel, robes, dwellings, belongings, food and many more things are.

[samseva]

I don't understand the so many justifications for the use of money among monks (addressed to everyone, not just Zom). Although I agree there are some rare situations where handling money might be better, such as if a monk were to be deported if he were to not pay a visa or legal fee for example. However, even if this were the case, if the monk were to have a minimum of intention to keep to the precept, an alternative would possibly show up.

The thing is, when you easily start justify something, it is a slippery slope—monastic or not.

I think it is better to stick to your values and if there is a situation where you really can't maintain one, then that is an exception (which should be considered rare). If exceptions are becoming the norm, then maybe you should rethink how you are doing things and reconsider your false and possibly slightly casual beliefs regarding what it is that is conflicting with your values.

Remember, the life of a bhikkhu is one of a renunciant. It isn't simply renouncing belongings, but it is also renouncing possibility and ease of travel, what you eat, how you dress, the way you can interact with people and so many other things—in other words, a large range of possibilities and options. If you can't go to such and such a place because you need a large sum of money and that would require accepting money from lay donors when going for alms*, maybe travelling there isn't a possibility for someone living the life of a renunciant and this trip, at least for the time being, should be renounced as well.

*A lay person can still pay for a part or all of the expenses, you just can't directly handle the money.

[Zom]

No, this is almost certainly not the only canonical explanation. It might be the only passage in the Sutta Piṭaka, but the origin of the rule should be clearly explained in the Vinaya Piṭaka.

As far as I know, there is a story, but no explanation (as with many rules).

I think it is better to stick to your values and if there is a situation where you really can't maintain one, then that is an exception (which should be considered rare).

Unfortunately, this is not rare.

If exceptions are becoming the norm, then maybe you should rethink how you are doing things and reconsider your false and possibly slightly casual beliefs regarding what it is that is conflicting with your values.

Real life is harder and much more complicated than idealistic views on it.

If you can't go to such and such a place because you need a large sum of money and that would require accepting money from lay donors when going for alms*,

Who said about "large sums"? Most of monks who accept money are not that rich at all .) If you are not famous - what you get is just some 1-3$ occasionally )) For most foreign monks this is, however, enough to pay for transport, year visa, and paying for/buying some minor things (that is - in time they accumulate enough money to pay for that).

maybe travelling there isn't a possibility for someone living the life of a renunciant and this trip, at least for the time being, should be renounced as well.

I remember one monk (who lived in Wat Suanmokh) told me: "If I stop using money I ll need ~3 months to go by foot to Bangkok for visa affairs. And when I return to the monastery, it will be the time for me to go to Bangkok again" )). However, he prefered to pay 300 baht for bus ticket and the whole thing took just several days.

A lay person can still pay for a part or all of the expenses, you just can't directly handle the money.

Yes, you can ask someone... once or twice.. or thrice - but not more than that (unless you are an impudent person or a well known "ajahn" with a crowd of followers).