James the Giant wrote:
gavesako wrote:It is a dukkata (wrongdoing) offence.
One of the thousands of commentarial dukkatas? Or canonical?
I know there is a commentarial dukkata in the Vinayamukha that prohibits touching pictures or statues of women. It's the same rule which states a monk should not save his mother from drowning if he has to touch her to do it!
I found that reference in Thanissaro's BMC, but I don't have access to the commentaries themselves right now.
I suppose looking at a picture is touching with the eyes...
I believe it is commentarial from memory, but unsure.
I'll have to have a proper look for which rule it is related to, but it wont be until monday at the earliest now ( I don't have access to my computer... from friday until sunday evening, other than a smartphone.) It may well be the rule you are referring to here, but can not find with a quick look
no, one would need to actually look, a glance or a double take probably wouldn't count. But it is for each to decide for themselves.
not to nit pick but you bring up somethings which others may find useful.
There are ten reasons for the rules being in place and the great standard for knowing what would be classed as offence when something is not covered by a rule.
The main reason I see here is to "restrain the unrestrained" and to "keep the good name of the sangha" so it is pleasant for the restrained.
but it is in keeping with the spirit of the rules (porn mags existed for a reason) and some may try to logic their way around things (as was done with several rules.) but yes the issue is with the mind, but the rules are also for mindfulness as Ananda (I believe it was) pointed out.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill