Schopen: Buddha as Businessman?
Re: Schopen: Buddha as Businessman?
Alas. Let's try this. Skip ahead, if you like, to the top of page 261.
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: Schopen: Buddha as Businessman?
If you read Yijing's account of India in the early 8th century, it seems the Vinaya was only followed in a general sense. The Nalanda monks were forbidden to eat after noon when the bell rang, but then they owned gold and everyone bathed daily.daverupa wrote: The overall effect was a text that was felt to be malleable, where today no one would be comfortable modifying the Patimokkha to have fewer or more rules, would they? But in the past, things were done differently, with interesting consequences for our understanding of how these things developed, and might best do so going forward.
This sort of approach was sensible and adaptable.
Also, if classical Indian Buddhism is a standard we look to for reference, then we might as well acknowledge the loose nature of the Vinaya back then and then see how we might go about doing things now.
Last edited by Indrajala on Wed Nov 06, 2013 6:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Schopen: Buddha as Businessman?
Taking a bath daily instead of every two weeks isn't a sin.santa100 wrote: But you don't have to be a monk to not kill people. Any decent person, religious or not, can do that. What you've been advocating is like saying that just because some students in a math class cheat when their teacher is away, then it's ok for every students to cheat. A good honest student is someone who does the right thing even when ALL OF his friends do not!
Re: Schopen: Buddha as Businessman?
Classical Theravada is rather different. For this the gold standard is the MahaVihara in Sri lanka. One example, before the texts were written down at the 4th council there was a famine in Sri Lanka and laypeople stopped offering sufficient food. The monks died out in the thousands from starvation rather than break Vinaya to ask for food or to store it, or even to climb a coconut trre to take a fruit (Novices can do this however). This is the way the ancients were..Indrajala wrote:If you read Yijing's account of India in the early 8th century, it seems the Vinaya was only followed in a general sense. The Nalanda monks were forbidden to eat after noon when the bell rang, but then they owned gold and everyone bathed daily.daverupa wrote: The overall effect was a text that was felt to be malleable, where today no one would be comfortable modifying the Patimokkha to have fewer or more rules, would they? But in the past, things were done differently, with interesting consequences for our understanding of how these things developed, and might best do so going forward.
This sort of approach was sensible and adaptable.
Also, if classical Indian Buddhism is a standard we look to for reference, then we might as well acknowledge the loose nature of the Vinaya back then and then see how we might go about doing things now.
Re: Schopen: Buddha as Businessman?
If all that you wanted was taking a bath daily then there wouldn't be so many posts spanning 5 pages and growing just for this thread. Obviously you want more: handling of money, eating and hanging out with folks on Friday nights, etc. Forum members have cited both Vinaya AND Suttas references which message was quite clear on those issues. This way you can't use your skepticism on the Vinaya as an excuse. If you have problem with even the Suttas, then there's nothing left for us to discuss here. Martial art fighters earn their identity inside the ring, engineers earn theirs through the products they build, what do monks need to do to earn their identity as noble Sakyan sons?Indrajala wrote: Taking a bath daily instead of every two weeks isn't a sin.
Re: Schopen: Buddha as Businessman?
Display wisdom ideally. That's not necessarily following archaic rule manuals to the letter.santa100 wrote:...what do monks need to do to earn their identity as noble Sakyan sons?
Re: Schopen: Buddha as Businessman?
And how exactly do you demonstrate wisdom other than mere talks?
Re: Schopen: Buddha as Businessman?
Speak wisdom, demonstrate lucidity, maintain equanimity in the face of disaster, etc...santa100 wrote:And how exactly do you demonstrate wisdom other than mere talks?
I don't believe an outward display of purity necessarily reflects an internal purity of one's mind.
Re: Schopen: Buddha as Businessman?
Any decent person can do that.
I don't believe an outward display of wisdom reflects an internal purity of one's mind and conduct.
I don't believe an outward display of wisdom reflects an internal purity of one's mind and conduct.
Last edited by santa100 on Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Schopen: Buddha as Businessman?
Because a monk opts to keep the Vinaya in a struct manner, that does not warrant that monk being called a Pharisee. One could just as easily argue that you are simply offering a sophistic rationale for being slack with the monastic rules.Indrajala wrote: I prefer their company to that of the Buddhist version of the Pharisees.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: Schopen: Buddha as Businessman?
As the official story goes, Vinaya rules only came to exist because of incidents that warranted them.tiltbillings wrote:Because a monk opts to keep the Vinaya in a struct manner, that does not warrant that monk being called a Pharisee. One could just as easily argue that you are simply offering a sophistic rationale for being slack with the monastic rules.Indrajala wrote: I prefer their company to that of the Buddhist version of the Pharisees.
For instance, Svagata got wasted on moonshine and vomited all over himself, hence the prohibition against alcohol.
This clearly demonstrates that the rules were tentative and conditional. There is nothing sacred about any of it. If Svagata never got wasted as the story goes, then presumably there would have been no rule against alcohol laid down by the Buddha. Some Vinaya texts even state clearly that monks could and in fact did consume alcohol before the precept was established. I discuss this here:
http://huayanzang.blogspot.com/2012/03/ ... cohol.html
I'm not saying monks should drink (I don't), but nevertheless it needs to be understood that the rules were not originally so sacrosanct. I believe in ancient India this was largely understood by most sanghas, which is why the whole program was only loosely followed, as Yijing describes in his account, to say nothing of the archaeological record.
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Schopen: Buddha as Businessman?
Again, you use the Pharisee, which is derogatory, in terms of those may opt to follow the rules closely, and you offer a way of looking at the rules that can be easily characterized as rationalizing not following the rules with care. I don't see in your discussion of these things much balance or nuance.Indrajala wrote:As the official story goes, Vinaya rules only came to exist because of incidents that warranted them. . . There is nothing sacred about any of it. . . . .tiltbillings wrote:Because a monk opts to keep the Vinaya in a struct manner, that does not warrant that monk being called a Pharisee. One could just as easily argue that you are simply offering a sophistic rationale for being slack with the monastic rules.Indrajala wrote: I prefer their company to that of the Buddhist version of the Pharisees.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: Schopen: Buddha as Businessman?
tiltbillings wrote:Again, you use the Pharisee, which is derogatory, in terms of those may opt to follow the rules closely, and you offer a way of looking at the rules that can be easily characterized as rationalizing not following the rules with care. I don't see in your discussion of these things much balance or nuance.
Defining the term...a member of a Jewish sect that flourished during the 1st century b.c. and 1st century a.d. and that differed from the Sadducees chiefly in its strict observance of religious ceremonies and practices, adherence to oral laws and traditions, and belief in an afterlife and the coming of a Messiah.
What I am getting at is that there are plenty of Buddhists who insist on the manual in a fashion akin to the underlined point above, whereas the manual was only meant to be general and provisional by the Buddha's own admission, and moreover in ancient India it was only loosely implemented.
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Schopen: Buddha as Businessman?
So, there is no negative connotations at all to referring to someone by the term Pharisee?Indrajala wrote:tiltbillings wrote:Again, you use the Pharisee, which is derogatory, in terms of those may opt to follow the rules closely, and you offer a way of looking at the rules that can be easily characterized as rationalizing not following the rules with care. I don't see in your discussion of these things much balance or nuance.
Defining the term...a member of a Jewish sect that flourished during the 1st century b.c. and 1st century a.d. and that differed from the Sadducees chiefly in its strict observance of religious ceremonies and practices, adherence to oral laws and traditions, and belief in an afterlife and the coming of a Messiah.
That is your argument, but you have really not made it very well, given that monks such as Ajahn Sumedho, who you would -- it would seem --consider to be a modern-day Buddhist Pharisee, speaks of using the Vinaya, not in terms of keeping the rules for the sake of keeping the rules because they are somehow sacred; rather, Ajahn Sumedho talks about the Vinaya as a way of Dhamma practice. Also, what it was truly meant to be, opinions obviously vary. As for whether or not the Vinaya was carefully or loosely followed in Buddhist India as a whole is not a valid argument for the obvious reasons.What I am getting at is that there are plenty of Buddhists who insist on the manual in a fashion akin to the underlined point above, whereas the manual was only meant to be general and provisional by the Buddha's own admission, and moreover in ancient India it was only loosely implemented.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: Schopen: Buddha as Businessman?
I'm using the term rhetorically.tiltbillings wrote:So, there is no negative connotations at all to referring to someone by the term Pharisee?
It is a valid argument because the classical Indian standard is one which Buddhists of foreign lands can look back to. This is what historically a lot of cultures did. They looked at how things were done in India proper and then measured themselves up against it.Also, what it was truly meant to be, opinions obviously vary. As for whether or not the Vinaya was carefully or loosely followed in Buddhist India as a whole is not a valid argument for the obvious reasons.