The monk's rule of never sharing experiences... a cover up?

[dagon]

FWIW I Googled on a string from the OP's quote in his/her OP.

I only found one hit at:
http://www.aypsite.org/forum/pop_printe ... IC_ID=2421

Sadly for all his achievements he appears to - how can I put this politely? - 'not entirely fit the general understanding of modest and self-unassuming' that is the case with high-level Buddhist practitioners (think HHDL eg). He is only too anxious to promote his achievements:

:About Jhanananda
Sotapanna (stream winner) Jhanananda (Jeffrey S. Brooks) is a self-ordained Western Buddhist monk in the Great Western Vehicle...

He has, however, been ostracized from the lay and monastic Buddhist community because he speaks openly about his personal experiences with meditative absorption (jhana/kundalini). The orthodox monastic community believes this is a serious violation of the monastic code (Vinaya). Jhanananda believes it is all too easy for a mediocre monk, nun, priest, minister or lay meditation teacher to hide behind these monastic rules that came centuries after the Buddha had left this Earth, and seem to have been instituted only to favor the mediocre non-contemplative community (sangha)...

In addition to acquiring and sustaining the various spiritual attainments (phala), such as Out-Of-Body (OOB) skills, various charismatic phenomena including clairvoyance and clairaudience, the tranquility and equanimity of “No Mind,” and the 8 meditative absorption states (jhanas) he has also mastered many of the meditation practices (magga) of these contemplative traditions.

or see http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/jhanananda.html if you want to have Male Bovine Excrement as your meditation object

paul

[Kenshou]

http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/jhanananda.html

Oh, this guy's calling himself an arahant now. Huh.

[Kim OHara]

FWIW I Googled on a string from the OP's quote in his/her OP.

I only found one hit at:
http://www.aypsite.org/forum/pop_printe ... IC_ID=2421

A very useful technique! Works well against trolls, too.



Kim

[DNS]

Here are the relevant Vinaya quotes, regarding this issue in the OP:

Should any bhikkhu report (his own) superior human state, when it is factual, to an unordained person, it is to be confessed.
Pācittiya 8

A violation to be confessed, not a major violation; if the report is factual. If it is false, then it is a Pārājika (defeat).

Should any bhikkhu, without direct knowledge, claim a superior human state, a truly noble distinction of knowledge and vision, as present in himself, saying, "Thus do I know; thus do I see," such that regardless of whether or not he is cross-examined on a later occasion, he — being remorseful and desirous of purification — might say, "Friends, not knowing, I said I know; not seeing, I said I see — vainly, falsely, idly," unless it was from over-estimation, he also is defeated and no longer in affiliation.
Suttavibhanga III.90-91
PTS version, Volume 1, pages 151-158

The background stories to it seem logical; that if monks and nuns were allowed to broadcast their attainments, there might be disparities in dana given to monastics of various qualities and also encourage deceit in others.

Note that this is for monks and nuns, not lay people. A lay person making claims cannot be defeated (obviously) since they are not in robes, however they would be violating the 4th precept (of the 5 lay precepts) only if it is not factual.

[Jhana4]

Thanks David for improving the quality of this thread with a scholarly reference.

I am a bit disappointed that the reason behind the rule is only for practical purposes ( making sure all monks get fed ). I always assumed it was to avoid the nonsense that results whenever someone goes around bragging "I have achieved X,Y, & Z"

[Kingdubrock]

With all due respect to what I learned from him before things went all Pete Tong, I think there is something to be learned from what happened with Michael Roach when he went public with claims of full realization. Setting aside all the controversy about everything else that surrounded that episode, his apparent claims to realization are somewhat applicable here. One of the big problems it posed was the poistion it put others in, whose silence or inaction would be perceived as tacit endorsement. Lama Zopa for example, a nice guy, Kalyanamitra to many of Roach's students had to publicly take a position. From what I recall, he basically said that if Roach were so realized there would be specific and demonstrable siddhis, which while lacking in tradtitional etiquite (and not allowed for monks) he should come forward with or basically shut up. To my knowledge HHDL hasnt personally made comments in public but letters that circulated from the office of HHDL indicated that Roach was now persona non grata. Lamas really dontlike to publicly criticize even obvious charlatans so one can imagine how uncool tbis all was. It also had a massively fracturing effect on his students.

Anyway, i think its pretty much implied when a monk gives instructions to meditators, in a very matter of fact way, able to answer questions and guidance on matters such as jhana, their having had experience is what qualifies them to talk and teach. Talking about jhana experiences for example either with monks or laypeople shouldnt really seen as huge deal. And i dont think it is. Claiming to be an arahant is probably where anyone who has any sense would stop short.

[mirco]

I visited a friend who recently became a monk, and would not share with me about how is meditation was going. I'd forgot... It's against the rules. What do you think?

I think: Of what benefit would it be for you to know about his meditation experiences.

[Kumara]

I am a bit disappointed that the reason behind the rule is only for practical purposes ( making sure all monks get fed ). I always assumed it was to avoid the nonsense that results whenever someone goes around bragging "I have achieved X,Y, & Z"

Actually, your intuition could be right. From an academic point of view, It's hard to be certain if that story was true.

While all the Pali Patimokkha rules are also in the Chinese Pratimoksha (pretty much word for word), their supposed origin stories differ. This lead scholars to believe that the stories are later additions. Having read much of the Pali's Suttavibhanga (where you find the stories, rules and word analysis), I can't help noticing the distinct lack of correspondence between some of the rules and the attached stories. So, when I heard from a scholar monk about the difference of origin stories, I thought, "No wonder."

This is why I prefer to pay more attention to the wording of the rules themselves, rather than the story or the word analysis(which in rare occasions are at odds with the rule itself).

[retrofuturist]

Thanks bhante.

Metta,
Retro.