My gratitude to all who have attacked me personally. I had some suspicion I was wrong. Now I have none.dagon wrote:Yesarijitmitter wrote: Do I seem so foolish ?
Arijit:arijitmitter wrote:My gratitude to all who have attacked me personally. I had some suspicion I was wrong. Now I have none.dagon wrote:Yesarijitmitter wrote: Do I seem so foolish ?
Yes he can, but yes it does break the seventh precept, and yes it is a minor deviation from the life of a renunciate.arijitmitter wrote:Can a Buddhist Bhikkhu not watch a few minutes of marvellous skating on ice in Olympics? It breaks the 7th precept.
Yes they can, and yes they do, but it is wrong. Anyone who knows the Vinaya will say that it is a significant deviation from the life of a renunciate to accept and make use of money.arijitmitter wrote:Bhikkhus in India accept cash as alms (for personal use). But they have to travel and they need money for local conveyance. It breaks the 10th precept (hopefully I am counting the precepts correctly). These are not wrong. They are changes that came with time and no one will say it is a deviation from life of a renunciate.
Yes, there is a significant difference. Travelling business class doesn't break any precepts, and does not deviate at all from the life of a renunciate, as was so clearly explained to you by Venerable Dhammānando. A bhikkhu may accept whatever is offered, as long is it is allowable for a bhikkhu, though I am not sure if a suitcase with a smiley cartoon face is suitable for a bhikkhu. It would count as decoration in my opinion.arijitmitter wrote:However there is a difference between that and travelling business class.
If monks ask someone to book a ticket for us, we will, of course, travel economy class, well aware that all donations should be used wisely. However, if a wealthy donor offers a business class seat, or an airline upgrades our seat to business class, then we will graciously accept the offer.arijitmitter wrote:I cannot, shall not, will not accept under any circumstances that a Buddhist monk travels in business class despite attempts by so many to put it under Dana.
Venerable Sir,Bhikkhu Pesala wrote: You accuse others of being deaf, but you are the one not listening to others, though most have been following Buddhism much longer than you have. Long experience doesn't always mean that one is right, but it should be worthy of more respect than you have shown. To take the dogmatic stance that you have about travelling business class is both arrogant and foolish.
I had let it go. Then my name was dragged back.Sanjay PS wrote:Hi Arijit ,
Why not just let go...........it gets so much of peace .
So today morning (IST) I had to respond to defend myself. But you are correct Sanjay.retrofuturist wrote:No one is making arijitmitter become a bhikkhu, nor contribute towards the maintenance of the Sangha. If he'd rather restrict his Triple Gem reverence to the Noble (Ariyan) Sangha instead of the community of monastics, then he can do that. There is no issue there.alan wrote:arijitmitter is speaking sense.
No one can "drag" you back by your name... although I'll admit that the conversation has been very interesting to read so I'm glad you keep returning so long as it is not becoming an unnecessary stress on anyone.arijitmitter wrote:I had let it go. Then my name was dragged back. .
Your words, not mine. Your stance on Business class seating is arrogant and foolish. Does that alone make you an arrogant and foolish person? Not if you can ponder the advice given by others and relinquish the attachment to your stance on this.arijitmitter wrote:Kindly ponder these words from an arrogant and foolish person.
You really gotta bring nurses into this? Come on man.arijitmitter wrote:
Obviously it will take less time to study Suttas for a good lawyer used to reading difficult law books than a nurse whose task is to measure blood pressure and note urine color
Ven. Pesala is right and that's all there is left to say here.Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Your words, not mine. Your stance on Business class seating is arrogant and foolish. Does that alone make you an arrogant and foolish person? Not if you can ponder the advice given by others and relinquish the attachment to your stance on this.arijitmitter wrote:Kindly ponder these words from an arrogant and foolish person.
It is not unusual for those without enough knowledge to adopt an extreme position. Later, after studying more carefully, and meditating systematically, they often adjust their stance, seeing the danger in attachment to views.
Venerable Sir,Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:arijitmitter wrote: It is not unusual for those without enough knowledge to adopt an extreme position. Later, after studying more carefully, and meditating systematically, they often adjust their stance, seeing the danger in attachment to views.
Hello Dan,Dan74 wrote:I've followed this thread and must thank the participants for many good contributions.
To me the main point Arjit is making is that Vinaya should be followed in spirit rather than letter. Bikkhu Pesala makes several points but the chief one for me is that "None of us know the monks referred to in the OP, nor how they got to be in business class seats, but in the absence of any facts, it is quite wrong to criticise them."
These are both good points with the first one being of course more controversial. It may be useful to have a proper discussion on Vinaya, its purpose and how its current form is serving this purpose but at the moment I don't have the time necessary to put together a proper post on this big subject.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... guide.htmlIf a bhikkhu touches a woman in a sexual way, he commits a very serious offence requiring formal meetings of the Community and probation (Sa"nghaadisesa). The scrupulous bhikkhu wants to remain above suspicion so, if he can, he will avoid all physical contact. (Hence his attitude to shaking hands. This also explains why in Thailand a receiving cloth is used to receive offerings from women. (See EN 85)
The rule was first set down by the Buddha after a brahman and his wife had gone to inspect Ven. Udaayin's fine dwelling. As Ven. Udaayin was showing them around, he came up behind the lady and "rubbed up against her limb by limb." After they had left, the husband praised Ven. Udaayin but the wife was critical and explained what had happened. The brahman then complained, "Isn't it even possible to take one's wife to a monastery without her being molested?" This rule was then set down:
"Should any bhikkhu, overcome by lust, with altered mind, engage in bodily contact with a woman, or in holding her hand, holding a lock of her hair, or caressing any of her limbs, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community."(Sa"ngh. 2; BMC p.100)
To be at fault, the bhikkhu must usually do some action to bring contact with a woman while lust overcomes his mind. If he accidentally stumbles and bumps into a woman or vice-versa, or if he is accosted by a woman, as long as there is no intention to come into lustful contact there is no offence. However, the average bhikkhu's mind tends to be so quick and unruly — he is, after all, still in training and therefore unenlightened — that he may prefer to be super-cautious about such situations.
However, this approach can lead to massive amounts of wealth owned by the sangha.Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:If donors offer excellent things, then we can rejoice in their generosity and faith in the Dhamma.
Not really. Ajahn Brahm is popular because he is a charismatic teacher with a large youtube following, not because he strictly adheres to the Vinaya.Kusala wrote:Ajahn Brahm and the few monks who strictly adhere to Vinaya is the reason why the Dhamma is timeless.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 45 guests