Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Discussion of ordination, the Vinaya and monastic life. How and where to ordain? Bhikkhuni ordination etc.
santa100
Posts: 3119
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Post by santa100 » Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:46 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
santa100 wrote: I didn't wander away from your original point. I already explicitly defined my criteria of a sound body and asked you to define yours. But you have not. I even asked you specifically if my criteria was "too much to ask?". You didn't reply either. About your sutta evidences, as already pointed out, all you did was proving a different point quite different from your original claim. All the venerables in all your cited suttas were way advanced in their practice and already attained very sound mind, hence has no relevance to the statement you need to prove. I afraid the red herring on your part is to lump together the 2 statements, specifically the keywords I highlighted, those who need to "attain" and those who can "maintain" as one and the same. But apparently they are not. I thought I have made it quite clear with all the premises, for if I give any more details, the statement will be too long to read, it'll be something like this:
A regular person (not at the level of Nakulapita, Vakkali, Bahiya) can attain the state of sound mind (a state that is yet to exist) without requiring a decent physical body (decent enough to allow him or her to maintain a regular practice to cultivate virtues, meditation, and insight).
I'd be glad if you could find a sutta instance that support the statement above 'cuz I have not.
Ah, a change of position, from "A sound mind is in a sound body"! They mean something very different, don't they? As suggested earlier, I'm not criticising your understanding of what the Buddha taught. I'm merely criticising your sloppy use of the Juvenal quote in a way that is misleading.
Ah, but the "sloppy" is a pre-conception, a papanca on your part that made you jumped to conclusion. A careful reader would replied and asked for clarification and definition of the terms, which I clearly did. Fact is I don't even understand your pre-conception for you have never explicitly defined your criteria of a "sound body". All you did was accusing me of "sloppy" use without even defining your own criteria of what you think the word means. It just doesn't make any sense at all to be honest. Speaking about papanca, I've just realized how much papanca have been generated by both you and me, how far away we have strayed from the main OP with our countless posts centered around one single statement. This is papanca in action. Realizing it now and I will stop here.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4407
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Post by Sam Vara » Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:21 pm

santa100 wrote: Ah, but the "sloppy" is a pre-conception, a papanca on your part that made you jumped to conclusion. A careful reader would replied and asked for clarification and definition of the terms, which I clearly did. Fact is I don't even understand your pre-conception for you have never explicitly defined your criteria of a "sound body". All you did was accusing me of "sloppy" use without even defining your own criteria of what you think the word means. It just doesn't make any sense at all to be honest. Speaking about papanca, I've just realized how much papanca have been generated by both you and me, how far away we have strayed from the main OP with our countless posts centered around one single statement. This is papanca in action. Realizing it now and I will stop here.
I suppose I ought to respond to the details, but this is becoming so hugely enjoyable that you must forgive any minor inaccuracies - I'm laughing too much!

A papanca, you say? Well, that sounds suitably Dhammically reprehensible, but I suspect is a paraphrase for the fact that you don't agree with it. No conclusion was jumped to. English means what it means, and we can't expect to be understood if we make up our own meanings.

As for a careful reader asking for clarification and definition of the terms: of a cliched line misquoted from Juvenal? Go back to my original post, and you will see that it is careful to the point of conditionality. "If you mean this, then..."

Read back through the thread and you will see that I have in fact explicitly defined my criteria for a "sound body". Go on, have a look!

You'll stop here? Don't feel you have to - that last post was a tour de force!

santa100
Posts: 3119
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Post by santa100 » Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:35 pm

Sam Vara wrote:I suppose I ought to respond to the details, but this is becoming so hugely enjoyable that you must forgive any minor inaccuracies - I'm laughing too much!

A papanca, you say? Well, that sounds suitably Dhammically reprehensible, but I suspect is a paraphrase for the fact that you don't agree with it. No conclusion was jumped to. English means what it means, and we can't expect to be understood if we make up our own meanings.

As for a careful reader asking for clarification and definition of the terms: of a cliched line misquoted from Juvenal? Go back to my original post, and you will see that it is careful to the point of conditionality. "If you mean this, then..."

Read back through the thread and you will see that I have in fact explicitly defined my criteria for a "sound body". Go on, have a look!

You'll stop here? Don't feel you have to - that last post was a tour de force!
The feeling is mutual. I'm laughing my behind off. Anyway, per your suggestion, I'll post again and have some more laugh, how about that?

I did search thru your post and no, did not find where you explicitly defined "sound body". Please provide the exact post just like I have provided you repeatedly with mine.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4407
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Post by Sam Vara » Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:08 pm

santa100 wrote:
Sam Vara wrote:I suppose I ought to respond to the details, but this is becoming so hugely enjoyable that you must forgive any minor inaccuracies - I'm laughing too much!

A papanca, you say? Well, that sounds suitably Dhammically reprehensible, but I suspect is a paraphrase for the fact that you don't agree with it. No conclusion was jumped to. English means what it means, and we can't expect to be understood if we make up our own meanings.

As for a careful reader asking for clarification and definition of the terms: of a cliched line misquoted from Juvenal? Go back to my original post, and you will see that it is careful to the point of conditionality. "If you mean this, then..."

Read back through the thread and you will see that I have in fact explicitly defined my criteria for a "sound body". Go on, have a look!

You'll stop here? Don't feel you have to - that last post was a tour de force!
The feeling is mutual. I'm laughing my behind off. Anyway, per your suggestion, I'll post again and have some more laugh, how about that?

I did search thru your post and no, did not find where you explicitly defined "sound body". Please provide the exact post just like I have provided you repeatedly with mine.
Oh! you're back! Isn't there a risk of some of that, er, papanca stuff happening?

The exact post is here:
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 20#p419010

You might note that you had acknowledged it. Don't you go criticising and carping about it now, though. Saying that it doesn't meet your special criteria, or somesuch. It was apparently fine before when you acknowledged it, and you don't want any more of that papanca stuff.

I'm happy to keep reading your posts, but don't lose the comedic edge. This one was a bit derivative. The last one - particularly the juxtaposition of what you said compared to what you "meant to say" - was a tough act to follow.

santa100
Posts: 3119
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Post by santa100 » Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:29 pm

Sam Vara wrote:Oh! you're back! Isn't there a risk of some of that, er, papanca stuff happening?

The exact post is here:
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 20#p419010

You might note that you had acknowledged it. Don't you go criticising and carping about it now, though. Saying that it doesn't meet your special criteria, or somesuch. It was apparently fine before when you acknowledged it, and you don't want any more of that papanca stuff.

I'm happy to keep reading your posts, but don't lose the comedic edge. This one was a bit derivative. The last one - particularly the juxtaposition of what you said compared to what you "meant to say" - was a tough act to follow.
Per your last post, you seem to point to some un-finished business between us and so I simply obliged. If that's the definition you've got, accusing me of my "sloppy" use doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I'm happy to keep reading your posts too.So lets pick up what we left off. I'm still waiting for you to prove your statement right here:
A regular person (not at the level of Nakulapita, Vakkali, Bahiya) can attain the state of sound mind (a state that is yet to exist) without requiring a decent physical body (decent enough to allow him or her to maintain a regular practice to cultivate virtues, meditation, and insight).
The statement has been modified and is as clear as it gets. No more deliberate excuse from now on ok. This is so much fun. It's a deal. 'Til the end dude.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4407
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Post by Sam Vara » Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:20 pm

santa100 wrote: Per your last post, you seem to point to some un-finished business between us and so I simply obliged. If that's the definition you've got, accusing me of my "sloppy" use doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I'm happy to keep reading your posts too.So lets pick up what we left off. I'm still waiting for you to prove your statement right here:
A regular person (not at the level of Nakulapita, Vakkali, Bahiya) can attain the state of sound mind (a state that is yet to exist) without requiring a decent physical body (decent enough to allow him or her to maintain a regular practice to cultivate virtues, meditation, and insight).
The statement has been modified and is as clear as it gets.
Please be assured there is no "unfinished business between us".

And that isn't my statement. It's yours. I have no interest in it, thanks; I've already said that the limit of my interest is in correcting your sloppy expression that might mislead.
No more deliberate excuse from now on ok. This is so much fun. It's a deal. 'Til the end dude.
Perfectly portentous papanca! You're recovering your form...

santa100
Posts: 3119
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Post by santa100 » Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:23 pm

Sam Vara wrote:Perfectly portentous papanca! You're recovering your form...
As already mentioned, per your last post, I simply obliged. And the limit of my interest is in correcting your sloppy conclusion about my expression. If that's my form, it's simply a mirror reflection of yours, which's been there all along... :jumping:

Trindolex2
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 12:21 pm

Re: Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Post by Trindolex2 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:26 am

I'm surprised the five factors of striving haven't been brought up. One of them requires a good digestion, the basis of most health, the other requires strong energy. How the individual obtains those is up to them and will vary in different cultures and people. I see in the vinaya vestiges of the Ayurvedic system so I would suggest that's where the details are. One thing that is interesting in ayurveda is that you have different constitution types and they all require different things to stay heathy, so it's up to the yogi to be smart in looking after their health. Having tried to practice for more than a decade with bad health I can see that both health and energy are essential to be able to meditate. The instruction given to Nakulapita is more of an outlier, since he had no way of being healthy at his age.

From AN 5.35 and other places too, implying it's not a minority teaching:
.“Bhikkhus, there are these five factors that assist striving. What five?

(1) “Here, a bhikkhu is endowed with faith. He places faith in the enlightenment of the Tathāgata thus: ‘The Blessed One is an arahant, perfectly enlightened, accomplished in true knowledge and conduct, fortunate, knower of the world, unsurpassed trainer of persons to be tamed, teacher of devas and humans, the Enlightened One, the Blessed One.’

(2) “He is seldom ill or afflicted, possessing an even digestion that is neither too cool nor too hot but moderate and suitable for striving.

(3) “He is honest and open, one who reveals himself as he really is to the Teacher and his wise fellow monks.

(4) “He has aroused energy for abandoning unwholesome qualities and acquiring wholesome qualities; he is strong, firm in exertion, not casting off the duty of cultivating wholesome qualities.

(5) “He is wise; he possesses the wisdom that discerns arising and passing away, which is noble and penetrative and leads to the complete destruction of suffering.

“These, bhikkhus, are the five factors that assist striving

Sroberto
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:29 am

Re: Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Post by Sroberto » Sun Apr 22, 2018 6:24 pm

With some exceptions, the human body becomes overweight (fat) when calories ingested exceed those needed for metabolism. In plain English, because of over eating. Thus the many overweight monks you see are overweight because they are almost certainly eating too much. Why is anyones guess.

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 1941
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Post by rightviewftw » Mon Apr 23, 2018 1:51 am

Sroberto wrote:
Sun Apr 22, 2018 6:24 pm
With some exceptions, the human body becomes overweight (fat) when calories ingested exceed those needed for metabolism. In plain English, because of over eating. Thus the many overweight monks you see are overweight because they are almost certainly eating too much. Why is anyones guess.
Yep afaik there is not other way to get fat other than Intake calories exceeding the expended calories.
He goes to Niraya, the one who asserts what didn't take place, as does the one who, having done, says, 'I didn't.' Both — low-acting people — there become equal: after death, in the world beyond.
Tyranny of Words - An Introduction to General Semantics
How to Meditate: Mindfulness of Breathing
Factors of Enlightenment & Perceptions
How to Meditate: Basic Satipatthana
Parallel Dhammapada Reading

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2985
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Post by DooDoot » Mon Apr 23, 2018 7:50 am

I posted an update on phrase 2 of my new eating regime, here. Overall, my weight has dropped 15 kg over the last 2 years however over the last 3 months I am eating close to the minimum. The point I wish to make is often I reflect on the Buddha's teaching, which is to eat to get through to the next day (Puttamansa Sutta). Its not difficult at all. The monks should follow the Buddha's teaching. :heart:

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20129
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Post by retrofuturist » Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:45 am

Greetings DooDoot,

Well done.

I try to keep to two meals a day, because (much like a monk) I don't do enough physical exercise to justify 3 meals a day. I'll usually eat at around 10.30 and 5.30... And that's enough to get me through.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2985
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Post by DooDoot » Mon Apr 23, 2018 11:26 am

Thank you Paul :smile:

User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 4207
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Ban Sri Pradu Rubber Forest, Phrao, Chiangmai

Re: Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Post by Dhammanando » Sat Apr 28, 2018 11:36 am

Sroberto wrote:
Sun Apr 22, 2018 6:24 pm
Thus the many overweight monks you see are overweight because they are almost certainly eating too much. Why is anyones guess.
In Thailand I think a major contributory cause of obesity among town and village monks is the wholesale neglect of the Kathāvatthu, the Abhidhamma Piṭaka's record of the debates at the Third Council. Not only is the text not included in the national Pali syllabus but even in the Abhidhamma colleges they don't teach it.

If Thai Buddhists would take the time to read the Kathāvatthu's Paribhogamayapuñña debate then they would realise that it's wrong view to hold that merit increases with utility, which at present most of them do in fact believe. Having discarded this wrong view, when inviting monks to their homes for a meal they will stop trying to coax us to eat as much as possible out of the superstitious belief that the more we eat the merit they'll get. And the senior monks in turn will stop nudging the junior monks, saying: "Go on, try and eat a little more to encourage the donors' faith!"

And so with the revival of Kathāvatthu studies, Thai monks will stop flopping about like beached whales and become restored to the gracile and willowy slenderness that befits a samaṇa.

Sroberto
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:29 am

Re: Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Post by Sroberto » Sat Apr 28, 2018 12:54 pm

Dhammanando wrote:
Sat Apr 28, 2018 11:36 am
Sroberto wrote:
Sun Apr 22, 2018 6:24 pm
Thus the many overweight monks you see are overweight because they are almost certainly eating too much. Why is anyones guess.
In Thailand I think a major contributory cause of obesity among town and village monks is the wholesale neglect of the Kathāvatthu, the Abhidhamma Piṭaka's record of the debates at the Third Council. Not only is the text not included in the national Pali syllabus but even in the Abhidhamma colleges they don't teach it.

If Thai Buddhists would take the time to read the Kathāvatthu's Paribhogamayapuñña debate then they would realise that it's wrong view to hold that merit increases with utility, which at present most of them do in fact believe. Having discarded this wrong view, when inviting monks to their homes for a meal they will stop trying to coax us to eat as much as possible out of the superstitious belief that the more we eat the merit they'll get. And the senior monks in turn will stop nudging the junior monks, saying: "Go on, try and eat a little more to encourage the donors' faith!"

And so with the revival of Kathāvatthu studies, Thai monks will stop flopping about like beached whales and become restored to the gracile and willowy slenderness that befits a samaṇa.
Interesting insight. I have lived in thailand 15 years but never saw that. Every time monks are invited to the home there is huge quantities of food, true, but the people are taking the occaision as an excuse to have fun and it is they who intend toneat all the food after the monks have finished. The monks eat very little and do so slowly and mindfully.

This is in the villages. In the cities is where I notice the obese monks, especially the senior monks. But I never noticed anyone forcing monks to eat more than they wanted. But it may happen, the way you say

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests