Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Discussion of ordination, the Vinaya and monastic life. How and where to ordain? Bhikkhuni ordination etc.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4302
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Post by Sam Vara » Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:26 pm

SarathW wrote:I can recall there is a Buddhist story that Buddha advising King Kosala to reduce his weight.
He gave some instructions how to do it. I can't find the source.
Mr. Man beat me to the quote, but the instructions are to eat mindfully!

santa100
Posts: 3055
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Post by santa100 » Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:36 pm

Sam Vara wrote:Your misquotation of Juvenal implies that it is so. "A sound mind is in a sound body" means that the two necessarily go together, unless you are merely referring to one unspecified mind in a body.
You're entitled to your own interpretation. You simply over-interpreted that statement. What exactly does a "sound body" mean to you in that statement? I already gave my position that a "sound body" is not that of mr. stands on fingers, but is "sound" enough to allow one to maintain a regular practice of Virtues, Meditation, and Insight. Was that too much to ask?
Sam Vara wrote:In the context of the mind being sound, there is no difference. Both frailties are the result of kamma, and neither preclude the mind being sound, or spiritual progress being made.
I'm surprised a long term member like you makes such a basic mistake in the understanding of kamma. It can't be any more wrong to say the frailties of an old man in the last stage of his life is the same kind as those of a young guy due to his indulgences in consumption and pleasures! Kamma is action. What did the poor old man do to cause him to fall ill or develop diseases? Nothing. That is very different compared to that young guy who over-eats, over-drinks, over-sexes, etc. And let me point out the danger of ommitting context by asking you the same question again: for a young guy who over-indulges, what kind of effect that same exact quote you've just provided will have on him? Please give a brutally honest answer, an answer from a typical un-enlightened being like you and me:
The body is afflicted, weak, & encumbered. For who, looking after this body, would claim even a moment of true health, except through sheer foolishness? So you should train yourself: 'Even though I may be afflicted in body, my mind will be unafflicted.' That is how you should train yourself.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4302
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Post by Sam Vara » Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:48 pm

santa100 wrote: You're entitled to your own interpretation. You simply over-interpreted that statement.
I may have interpreted it differently from how you intended, but the English language means what it means. "A sound mind is in a sound body" is a generalisation which is open to refutation by means of citing specific instances.
It can't be any more wrong to say the frailties of an old man in the last stage of his life is the same kind as those of a young guy due to his indulgences in consumption and pleasures!
Possibly, but I'm not saying that. I'm saying that both are due to kamma, which I believe determines our physical condition and our life-span. Not that the kamma is the same, or that the frailties are the same.

santa100
Posts: 3055
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Post by santa100 » Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:55 pm

Sam Vara wrote:Possibly, but I'm not saying that. I'm saying that both are due to kamma, which I believe determines our physical condition and our life-span. Not that the kamma is the same, or that the frailties are the same.
But if all you intended to say both cases are due to kamma and not that the kamma is the same, then I don't quite see whether you have made your point to counter my position that the context to your quote is extremely important. You seem to say quite the opposite. I did not ask you the last question just to be argumentative but to simply prove the importance of context, that's all.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4302
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Post by Sam Vara » Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:09 pm

santa100 wrote:
Sam Vara wrote:Possibly, but I'm not saying that. I'm saying that both are due to kamma, which I believe determines our physical condition and our life-span. Not that the kamma is the same, or that the frailties are the same.
But if all you intended to say both cases are due to kamma and not that the kamma is the same, then I don't quite see whether you have made your point to counter my position that the context to your quote is extremely important. You seem to say quite the opposite. I did not ask you the last question just to be argumentative but to simply prove the importance of context, that's all.
Because my point about kamma is intended to be universally true, so no context is required. Your point about body and mind is not universally true, but is phrased as if it were, whether you intended it or not.

santa100
Posts: 3055
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Post by santa100 » Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:19 pm

Sam Vara wrote:Because my point about kamma is intended to be universally true, so no context is required. Your point about body and mind is not universally true, but is phrased as if it were, whether you intended it or not.
But everyone knows that and more importantly it doesn't help countering my position on the importance of providing context to some quote. You tried to lump together the cases of an old man at the end of his life and a young guy by brushing aside context. I proved the case otherwise and even asked you a question to prove my point which you didn't answer.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4302
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Post by Sam Vara » Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:44 pm

santa100 wrote:
Sam Vara wrote:Because my point about kamma is intended to be universally true, so no context is required. Your point about body and mind is not universally true, but is phrased as if it were, whether you intended it or not.
But everyone knows that and more importantly it doesn't help countering my position on the importance of providing context to some quote. You tried to lump together the cases of an old man at the end of his life and a young guy by brushing aside context. I proved the case otherwise and even asked you a question to prove my point which you didn't answer.
We don't need to provide context in the case of disproving a general proposition, and that's what the statement "A sound mind is in a sound body" is. As a general proposition, it has no context. That's what makes it general, and what I objected to. You might have intended it to have some, but if so, you neglected to give it. What I provided was the disproving counter-example of Nakulapita. Where the counter example comes from is irrelevant as to whether it disproves the general proposition, providing it is true, of course.

Your statement is propositionally similar to "Swans are white". It means "If there is such a thing as a swan, then it must be a white thing". I presented you with a black swan in the form of Nakulapita. For purposes of disproof, context is irrelevant.

santa100
Posts: 3055
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Post by santa100 » Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:17 am

Sam Vara wrote:We don't need to provide context in the case of disproving a general proposition, and that's what the statement "A sound mind is in a sound body" is. As a general proposition, it has no context. That's what makes it general, and what I objected to.
Context is totally relevant. You have not provided any "black swan" for you didn't even want to acknowledge the difference between black and white. The question I gave simply asked for this acknowledgement. The fact that you have continuously dodged my very simple question to demonstrate a case in point just proved that you have not proved anything.

santa100
Posts: 3055
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Post by santa100 » Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:17 am

Bhikkhu_Jayasara wrote:i was told by a buddhist friend who lived and taught in china that the majority of "monks" and "monasteries" in china are really tourist attractions , including Shaolin, so I'm not quite sure mr. stands on fingers is following any kind of actual monasticism, although as someone who use to practice kung fu for years, sometimes I wish I still could
Glad to see another martial arts enthusiast and practitioner. I trained in Judo and while Judo doesn't require conditioning the fingertip (which is important for strikers' martial arts like kung fu, karate, taekwondo, etc.), it does require conditioning the strength of the finger's sides and the grip. While resorting mostly to cardios like running/biking nowadays, I still have leftover calluses on the finger sides from those long hours of pulling and pushing those coarse judogi lapels. I also don't know if that dude is a real monk or not, one thing we do know is that if you eat one of those fingers, you'll walk funny the rest of your life!

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4302
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Post by Sam Vara » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:56 am

santa100 wrote: Context is totally relevant. You have not provided any "black swan" for you didn't even want to acknowledge the difference between black and white. The question I gave simply asked for this acknowledgement. The fact that you have continuously dodged my very simple question to demonstrate a case in point just proved that you have not proved anything.
Nakulapita is the "black swan", as here is a person with a sound mind in an unsound body. Which is, as I said, a refutation of the general statement that you made. There may well, of course, be others, such as the Gilana Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html, and probably the Sakkali Sutta. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .wlsh.html The difference here between "black" and "white" is the difference between a sound body and an unsound body. Nakulapita, according to the sutta, has an unsound one. I'm very happy to explore the difference between "sound body" and "unsound body", and indeed my initial comment on this expressed unease at your excessive generality in rendering Juvenal's phrase. My point is precisely that this general statement is not about "fat, lazy young dudes", etc, but that it excludes all those in an unsound body from soundness of mind; which is not the case. If you want to modify that statement to refer to "fat, lazy, young, etc" rather than unqualified unsound bodies in general, then that's fine. But if you want to stand by it, then expect counter-examples.

santa100
Posts: 3055
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Post by santa100 » Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:18 pm

Sam Vara wrote: I'm very happy to explore the difference between "sound body" and "unsound body", and indeed my initial comment on this expressed unease at your excessive generality in rendering Juvenal's phrase.
I don't think you really meant it when you said about being happy to explore the meaning of "sound body" for you haven't even answered another question I posed to you earlier:
You simply over-interpreted that statement. What exactly does a "sound body" mean to you in that statement? I already gave my position that a "sound body" is not that of mr. stands on fingers, but is "sound" enough to allow one to maintain a regular practice of Virtues, Meditation, and Insight. Was that too much to ask?

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4302
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Post by Sam Vara » Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:35 pm

santa100 wrote:
Sam Vara wrote: I'm very happy to explore the difference between "sound body" and "unsound body", and indeed my initial comment on this expressed unease at your excessive generality in rendering Juvenal's phrase.
I don't think you really meant it when you said about being happy to explore the meaning of "sound body" for you haven't even answered another question I posed to you earlier:
You simply over-interpreted that statement. What exactly does a "sound body" mean to you in that statement? I already gave my position that a "sound body" is not that of mr. stands on fingers, but is "sound" enough to allow one to maintain a regular practice of Virtues, Meditation, and Insight. Was that too much to ask?
I'm happy to answer it, although I don't think it is all that relevant to my point, or indeed on-topic. A sound body is one that is healthy, not decrepit or diseased, that enables one to do the physical activities consistent with one's role and desires. There are of course considerable cultural differences in what this means, but that is the gist of the Juvenal quote and what most people tend to mean by it.

santa100
Posts: 3055
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Post by santa100 » Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:44 pm

Sam Vara wrote:I'm happy to answer it, although I don't think it is all that relevant to my point, or indeed on-topic. A sound body is one that is healthy, not decrepit or diseased, that enables one to do the physical activities consistent with one's role and desires. There are of course considerable cultural differences in what this means, but that is the gist of the Juvenal quote and what most people tend to mean by it.
Good, now we're getting somewhere. Putting aside cultural differences and stuff, for someone who has not attained a "sound mind" just yet, if his body is not "sound" enough to maintain a regular practice of Virtues, Meditation, and Insight, then is it possible that s/he will be able to attain a "sound mind"?

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4302
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Post by Sam Vara » Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:57 pm

santa100 wrote: Putting aside cultural differences and stuff, for someone who has not attained a "sound mind" just yet, if his body is not "sound" enough to maintain a regular practice of Virtues, Meditation, and Insight, then is it possible that s/he will be able to attain a "sound mind"?
Yes, of course.

santa100
Posts: 3055
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Why many Buddhist monks are over weight?

Post by santa100 » Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:03 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
santa100 wrote: Putting aside cultural differences and stuff, for someone who has not attained a "sound mind" just yet, if his body is not "sound" enough to maintain a regular practice of Virtues, Meditation, and Insight, then is it possible that s/he will be able to attain a "sound mind"?
Yes, of course.
Good, then please provide sutta references to back up your statement: "Yes, of course is is possible to attain a sound mind without regularly practice Virtues, Meditation, and Insight"?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests