A monk has no qualms about letting you die, even if he could help you; for example, if you're drowning and he could save you.
Absolutely. Just because someone has the ability to do something doesn't mean it's an ideal situation to intervene. I am able to do CPR and know this from personal experience because while I'm able to, I would feel emotional dread from an actual situation where this was needed to put this knowledge into practice, and while I want to be able to say 'absolutely I'd do it', it's not impossible for me to just have a panic attack and fail to help either way. Just because you know what to do doesn't mean you're the best person for the job. If I'm drowning do I want the poor samaṇa or monk in robes or do I want the lifeguard? How could I put that kind of pressure on someone? It's unreasonable and I refuse to do that.
The Monk's job is to teach and practice Dhamma, and that they do that or even learn pali is amazing. Teaching Dhamma or even practicing is pretty difficult, much less living by patimokkha restraint. I still have absolute respect for a monk knowing these rules. It's entirely unreasonable to expect a monk to do what a monk isn't required to do.Can you respect him all the same, knowing that he could let you die, given that the monk's rules make that allowance for him?
From what you say here and above about finding women repugnant, It sounds like you have done a lot of reading of vinaya and commentaries, and not actually lived with monks, or talked to many monks about what they actually do think.
As an aside, according to Ven. Thanissaro’s Buddhist Monastic Code this is a commentarial addition that is not found in the Vinaya itself. He says that indeed the view is common in Theravada countries but that there is no basis for it in the Canon itself.binocular wrote: ↑Mon Apr 23, 2018 10:20 pm A monk has no qualms about letting you die, even if he could help you; for example, if you're drowning and he could save you.
Are you okay with that? Can you respect him all the same, knowing that he could let you die, given that the monk's rules make that allowance for him?
Otherwise, the Vibhaṅga does not discuss the issue of bhikkhus who intentionally make active contact with women for purposes other than lust or affection—e.g., helping a woman who has fallen into a raging river—but the Commentary does. It introduces the concept of anāmāsa, things carrying a dukkaṭa penalty when touched; women and women’s clothing top the list. (See BMC2, Appendix V for the entire list.) It then goes into great detail to tell how one should behave when one’s mother falls into a raging river. Under no circumstances, it says, should one grab hold of her, although one may extend a rope, a board, etc., in her direction. If she happens to grab hold of her son the bhikkhu, he should not shake her off but should simply let her hold on as he swims back to shore.
Where the Commentary gets the concept of anāmāsa is hard to say. Perhaps it came from the practices of the brahman caste, who are very careful not to touch certain things and people of certain lower castes. At any rate, there is no direct basis for it in the Canon. Although the concept has received wide acceptance in Theravādin Communities, many highly respected Vinaya experts have made an exception right here, saying that there is nothing wrong in touching a woman when one’s action is based not on lust but on a desire to save her from danger. Even if there is an offense in doing so, there are other places where Buddhaghosa recommends that one be willing to incur a minor penalty for the sake of compassion (e.g., digging a person out of a hole into which he has fallen), and the same principle surely holds here.
Sangadisesa 2, Active contact, derived offences, intention https://www.dhammatalks.org/vinaya/bmc/ ... 1.html#Sg2
Which monk? How do you know what qualms he has or has not got?binocular wrote: ↑Mon Apr 23, 2018 10:20 pmA monk has no qualms about letting you die, even if he could help you; for example, if you're drowning and he could save you.
Are you okay with that? Can you respect him all the same, knowing that he could let you die, given that the monk's rules make that allowance for him?
I have heard this story of the priest during lord buddas time. The particular priest trying to follow the vinaya rule of celibacy , failing which had cut off his private part as a last resort. Lord budda who came to know this had commented; " This fool had cut his body part when he should have cut something else" (and that something else is lust.)JamesTheGiant wrote: ↑Mon Apr 23, 2018 9:05 pmSorry Binocular, you're quite wrong here.
Monks are men, like any others. They certainly are affected by women who visit the monastery.
I can speak from experience! Western monasteries and Thai monasteries both.
There is also a story told by Ajahn Chah, where he saw an attractive woman, and then for weeks afterwards had a massive erection which was very frustrating. The slightest touch of his robe against his "parts" meant he was in danger of sanghadisesa. So he went to a secluded kuti in the forest, where he could walk around pulling his robe away from his lower body, without anybody laughing at him.
Ajahn Chah said lust is one of the very last things to be overcome on the path, and the strongest hindrance.
I'm female. How much do you think I can talk to monks? If I want to talk to a monk, I need to find a suitable adult male to accompany me. You can guess what the scope of the communication will be then. And, of course, I need to respect the rule of the turf above everything else.JamesTheGiant wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 1:45 amFrom what you say here and above about finding women repugnant, It sounds like you have done a lot of reading of vinaya and commentaries, and not actually lived with monks, or talked to many monks about what they actually do think.
They don't seem that way to me; and, of course, I can't actually ask them.I can assure you, the vast majority of monks don't think like this. Maybe the zealot 0.01% do, or have forced themselves to think they do.
Monks are regular guys! Normal men, trying to follow the vinaya Yes, but normal men all the same.
It's been addressed earlier in the thread: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=31727&start=20#p469033
But you don't have to trust just any of those people with your life.The same applies to random people on this forum, doesn't it? Any of them could let me die.
Indeed. It seems to be a situation which is hypothetical (i.e. highly unlikely to arise) as well as based on a misconception.binocular wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 12:00 pmIt's been addressed earlier in the thread: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=31727&start=20#p469033
Quite possibly. When I attend the local monastery and listen to a dhamma talk, I'm not expecting to be saved. If I had that expectation, and the monks had led me to believe that they were there to save me, I might be upset when I heard that. But as I have never expected monk-borne salvation, I'm perfectly OK with the situation.As for the qualms: monks sometimes talk about that in the Dhamma talks they give. I've recently heard one say, in regard to saving people, that a monk's duty isn't to save people, his duty is just not to kill them.
Lay supporters working with monks in the forest might put their lives in the hands of monks - they use some fairly dangerous machinery like chainsaws, chippers, and tractors. But when I accept a monk's exposition of the dhamma, I'm just looking to pick up some advice on how to improve my practice. Stuff like how to meditate better, more useful textual exegesis, reminders about how to stay calm when driving. Nothing they say is going to kill me, or save me from imminent death. (Mind you, they are more likely to give me instant psycho-physical salvation than an intelligible explanation of Dependent Origination...But you don't have to trust just any of those people with your life.
In contrast, when accepting a monk's exposition of the Dhamma, you put your life in his hands.
) May I say it is our shortcoming of aversion ( vyapada).James Tan wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:54 pm Perhaps there is a feeling of distance but not towards the monk/nun form , just some aversion at some one personality , attitude , thinking or probably distaste towards a person appearance . It may be monk/nun shortcoming or it could be our shortcoming also .
Whether it's a rule in the folk vinaya, or the actual Vinaya, my point was that there is a culture of an absence of any real-world concern among religious/spiritual people. How widely that culture is spread, I don't know, but it's there.
As for salvation in the metaphysical sense, the situation in Buddhism is actually no different than in, say, Christianity. God doesn't save people, Jesus doesn't save people, people save themselves by adhering to the right religion. It's the same in Buddhism.Quite possibly. When I attend the local monastery and listen to a dhamma talk, I'm not expecting to be saved. If I had that expectation, and the monks had led me to believe that they were there to save me, I might be upset when I heard that. But as I have never expected monk-borne salvation, I'm perfectly OK with the situation.
Lay supporters working with monks in the forest might put their lives in the hands of monks - they use some fairly dangerous machinery like chainsaws, chippers, and tractors. But when I accept a monk's exposition of the dhamma, I'm just looking to pick up some advice on how to improve my practice.
When questioned directly, few monks would say something to the effect of "nobody gets to nirvana except through me".You seem to be labouring under some assumptions about monastics that I (and the monastics I know) just don't share. Have you actually met any monks? Did they ask you to do anything that was tantamount to putting your life in their hands? And if they did, why didn't you feel free to discount what they said?
Perhaps.You seem to be labouring under some assumptions about monastics that I (and the monastics I know) just don't share.
They don't actually talk (much) to me, because I'm female. Will you be my adult male chaperon and then we can go and visit some monks and ask them questions like the above?Have you actually met any monks?
Because I don't operate within the dichotomy of "either guru worship, or extreme individualism".Did they ask you to do anything that was tantamount to putting your life in their hands?
And if they did, why didn't you feel free to discount what they said?
No. In Christianity, you still save yourself, by picking the right religion. Jesus becomes your savior only after you've made the right choice of religion and only after you adhered to it adequately.Wizard in the Forest wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 1:09 pmI could be wrong, but the issue here seems to arise from a pretty Western notion for the culmination of religious life. The life of a Christian is meant to result in "being saved" by someone else, placing the savior role in someone else's hands.
Similar in Christianity.The Buddha made it pretty clear that we are meant to save ourselves by practicing.
Similar in Christianity.No monk can make us correct our bodily, verbal, or mental conduct; they can tell us what this misconduct is, and how to avoid it through Dhamma practice and personal experience.
Read again what started this:On a literal level though to assign blame to monks for not saving the life of another puts a pretty heavy duty on monks for something that not even regular people can typically do.
It's not about obligating them to physically save you. It's about them being indifferent when in fact there's good reason to believe they, as able-bodied adults, could have done something.
When they talk like supermen, they should walk like supermen, or fly, for that matter.The best possible way to respect a monk is to remember they're also regular people like us striving for liberation by taking many strict rules of restraint meant to cultivate mental discipline. If we don't expect something from a regular person, one shouldn't expect it from a monk. They're not Supermen.
