mikenz66 wrote:
I've never heard of this. Where did the idea come from? In my experience, monks regularly give away (commonly give back) food to lay people.
Not to give food to naked ascetics or other persons clinging to erroneous views. If a bhikkhu gives food to such persons with his own hands, this entails a pācittiya.
By giving products that are not foodstuffs to those persons (oil / ointments to be applied on the skin, soap, etc.), a bhikkhu does not commit an offence. Similarly, if a bhikkhu places a pot containing food in front of those persons telling them to take whatever they want from it, but without offering it from his own hands, he does not commit an offence.
It is actually limited to giving food and seemingly only with one's own hands, so it is not as i assumed that it was extended to requisites.
BasementBuddhist wrote:
I would rather meditate in a homeless shelter, among unenlightened beings who laugh and ridicule the idea of the Dhamma, than sit in a temple while someone freezes outside.
I did not say he should be left to freeze outside, i said if he was to disrupting the Sangha causing disturbance, upsetting lay supporters and forcing monks to leave the monastery it would not surprise me if it was worse for him than freezing.
Frankly any beggar can ask to ordain or be an Anagarika or lay worker and i guess many people do this. There also monks who are forced to disrobe and why should they not be allowed to stay? They are homeless technically arent they?
I would personally just leave such monastery where this was an issue or if there were things interrupting my meditation practise and i think most monks would also just leave if they had to live with non Buddhists and especially if they were rediculing Dhamma. I would not be able to stand it personally because living with people holding wrong view is like living with a corpse.
A monastery that I stayed at allowed non-practising homeless people to stay with them, and it led to big problems. Disruption, drinking, and difficulties arising from mental health issues. Some found it so comfortable that they refused to leave. Now they have a very strict policy that homeless people who just turn up are given a bed for one night, a meal, and a shower before being sent on their way. I'm not sure how typical this is. In both the monasteries that I am familiar with, the police are called if visitors present difficulties and are disruptive.
Somewhat related to Sam Vara's post imo but mostly just interesting tbh sorry if too far offtopic. Uposatha
Mahāmoggallāna fixed his attention on the entire Saṅgha of bhikkhus, encompassing their minds with his own mind. He then saw that person sitting in the midst of the Saṅgha of bhikkhus: one who was immoral, of bad character, impure, of suspect behavior, secretive in his actions, not an ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. Having seen him, he rose from his seat, went up to that person, and said to him: “Get up, friend. The Blessed One has seen you. You cannot live in communion with the bhikkhus.” When this was said, that person remained silent.
A second time … A third time the Venerable Mahāmoggallāna said to that person:
“Get up, friend. The Blessed One has seen you. You cannot live in communion with the bhikkhus.” A third time that person remained silent.
Then the Venerable Mahāmoggallāna grabbed that person by the arm, evicted him through the outer gatehouse, and bolted the door. Then he returned to the Blessed One and said to him: “I have evicted that person, Bhante. The assembly is pure. Let the Blessed One recite the Pātimokkha to the bhikkhus.”
“It’s astounding and amazing, Moggallāna, how that hollow man waited until he was grabbed by the arm.” Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus: “Now, bhikkhus, you yourselves should conduct the uposatha and recite the Pātimokkha. From today onward, I will no longer do so. It is impossible and inconceivable that the Tathāgata could conduct the uposatha and recite the Pātimokkha in an impure assembly.
Monks are prohibited to give their alms food to beggars afaik
Yes I can recall this.
Is this the right practice?
I've never heard of this. Where did the idea come from? In my experience, monks regularly give away (commonly give back) food to lay people.
Mike
Perhaps I was thinking about the following. Which answer I got from Sutta Centra.
===================
The only specific restriction I know of relates to a bhikkhu sharing with his own hand almsfood with naked ascetics (Jains, Ajivakas). See this:
“Whatever monk should give with his own hand solid food or soft food to a naked ascetic or to a wanderer or to a female wanderer, there is an offence of expiation.”
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
SarathW wrote:[
Perhaps I was thinking about the following. Which answer I got from Sutta Centra.
===================
The only specific restriction I know of relates to a bhikkhu sharing with his own hand almsfood with naked ascetics (Jains, Ajivakas). See this:
“Whatever monk should give with his own hand solid food or soft food to a naked ascetic or to a wanderer or to a female wanderer, there is an offence of expiation.”
That is about "wanderers" of other sects, so would seem to have nothing to do with letting homeless people (or other lay people) eat left over alms food.
That's a completely different issue. There were queries about whether Bhikkhus were forbidden to give food to others, and it seems that the answer is "yes" apart from some very specific cases.
The question of how a particular monastery organises itself to deal with visitors is a different issue, as is the question of who is "better".
I would guess that the homeless person would have to follow the rules that the monks follow, attend services, and work as the monks do . If he is willing to do that, get the guy a robe and hope he stays.
“To dare is to lose one's footing momentarily. Not to dare is to lose oneself.”
― Søren Kierkegaard
User156079 wrote:
Monks are prohibited to give their alms food to beggars afaik, i dont see why same would not apply to Monasteries and other requisites.
Why is this? Surely if someone needed that food more than they did, it would be metta or just plain decent to give it to the homeless person?
I understand that the food was given to them, but since it is now in their possession, isn't it up to the monk to decide what to do with it?
Loose yourself in serving others
"One is not noble who has injures living beings.
One is called 'noble' because they are harmless to all living beings."
"Silent in body, silent in speech,
Silent in the mind, without defilement,
Blessed is silence is the sage.
One is truely washed of evil."
Certainly at the Cambodian temple I lived at, alms food was distributed to the congregation, homeless or not after the monks had eaten, this is pretty standard practice at Therevada temples I have attended.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John
The gift of shelter is mentioned again & again in the suttas.
The proper choice is to allow them to stay. How could one turn them away?
Born, become, arisen – made, prepared, short-lived
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in
Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss
dylanj wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:29 am
The gift of shelter is mentioned again & again in the suttas.
The proper choice is to allow them to stay. How could one turn them away?
So long as they were quiet and didn't disturb the monks' meditation practice, I would think it would be the right thing, to let them stay. However, if the place got noisy to the point that monks keen on the practice, ended up having to leave, what then? The monastery could become a homeless shelter if one never said no, then, no more monks, no more laypeople visiting...then? Would that be a good thing? Compassion needs to be balanced against Wisdom, I think I heard that said somewhere. Where would the limit be? One homeless person? two? twenty? How far would one allow it? I don't think the answer is completely clear cut.
To the Buddha-refuge i go; to the Dhamma-refuge i go; to the Sangha-refuge i go.