This is regarding the novice repercussions it is quite obvious when you read the rest of the text (#67) as to where this belongs in what I have previously quoted.Yes, but not every person is a novice. In the text yoz have provided befor, there is written person, while her it goes in regard to already Novice.Cittasanto wrote:is a novice not a person?
who talked about anything being limited?That was not a critic of your supply, and your statement was read. This how ever does not make it more clear. To say and accept that things are not so clear, does not help exept in letting go, maybe. So just much palce for additional help, supply and work on possible misunderstanding. That does not limit your effort, giving and good will in any case.please read my opening statement on this particular translation.
In this case it is showing with the "At that time, &c." that it is abbreviating. the rule is there in full.
I pointed you back to the initial warning as it seamed necessary.
actually the posing as a bhikkhu, (making oneself out to be a bhikkhu) without being accepted into the order is one thing, and the reasons why you want to be a bhikkhu is another in regard to that rule and what I was responding to. whether people perceive you to be a bhikkhu or not has little to do with it, putting on the cloths of a bhikkhu and going off without being accepted is posing as a bhikkhu whatever the perception.To pose a Bhikkhu and the perception than one poses a Bhikkhu are two different thing. So to judge such things is not easy possible and it it is made amoung like it looks one would fail what the idea behind this actually is. Not to forget that this rule is very useable for people who like to keep sects seperated.actually that is motivation, the intention is to pose as a bhikkhu.
if done the propper way they have a better idea of what the life is about.
although, I really do not know where you are getting perception from here?
but just to add to my last responce - it only included those who have not been formally accepted into the sangha, their motivation for joining is not important here.
I do not know what you are trying to say here.That might be the thought... and explains why there are continues additional "rules"actually a naga. a magical serpent who can change their shape.
I do not know what you are trying to say here.That might be a thought but no reverence that it is like that when you look at what was there as reverence for thought.it is a different rule from 63. a rule is not necessarily conected in content for it to be related to the previous.
I do not know what you are trying to say here.Than such a collection makes more difficults as they might be useful to help. So for me its, much to think about which could at least rever to something useful. The story or this cut over all to make it simple for the not-so-smart. While still it is possible that I did not get the whole message.yes a prominent feature of a story may not be what the rule reflects
"it" refers to "does not give any information about the motivation" it shows in the text where to look "(&c., as in chap. 66).""it" ? I don't understand the coherence of your replay to this statement and have also no idea to interpretete it in different ways not only in regard of "it".please see opening statement.
it does, as would the last one, have a conection to another story regarding those who got ordained to recieve medical care, then disrobed. and one of the stories regarding parajika on theft.
#67 should read with the addition from 66
At that time a number of Bhikkhunîs were travelling on the road from Sâketa to Sâvatthi. On the road robbers broke forth, robbed some of the Bhikkhunîs, and violated some of them. Then royal soldiers came from Sâvatthi and caught some of the robbers; others of them escaped. Those who had escaped, received pabbaggâ with the Bhikkhus; those who had been caught, were led to death.
The Bhikkhus told this thing to the Blessed One.
'Let a person, O Bhikkhus, that has violated a Bhikkhunî (or, that has had sexual intercourse with a Bhikkhunî), if this person has not received the upasampadâ ordination, not receive it; if he has received it, let him be expelled (from the fraternity).'
'Let a person, O Bhikkhus, that has caused a schism among the Samgha, if this person has not received the upasampadâ ordination, not receive it; if he has received it, let him be expelled (from the fraternity).'
'Let a person, O Bhikkhus, that has shed (a Buddha's) blood,' if this person has not received the upasampadâ ordination, not receive it; if he has received it, let him be expelled (from the fraternity).'
you misunderstand the grammar.How can a precepetor be somebody who like to gain ordination?? Or do I misunderstand the gramma?preceptor is the person who ordains another into the community.
the whole sangha in attendance is acting as the upajjhaya here.'Let no one receive the upasampadâ ordination with the Samgha as upagghâya.
this is a list of the people who should of not been given acceptance, yet were giving the acceptance into the sangha acting in a role they were not eligible to act in. and refers to the person being accepted, not the person who is acting as UpajjhayaWhen they are even not able to ordinate, who could they be preceptor? This is useless or I misunderstand the previos point and upagghâya means something different.the rules are not interconected as you seam to suppose.
they do not have to be useful in relation to each other. however it would be related to 62.
I was responding to a particular nuance of your reply there which seamed predominant, but...That is simply nonsens. Let people believe what ever they like to believe, this has no influences on the own intention. At the time of the Buddha other Askets would not look different to Bhikkhus. We need to be a little bit more carful what pose means, and what perception of people means.if they are posing as a member of the sangha and people believe the deception there should be no more issue than the sangha has.
as these rules do not deal with how to properly preform an ordination that is not useful to bear in mind here.
"as these rules do not deal with how to properly preform an ordination that is not useful to bear in mind here" when you don't know situations and you don't think on possible situation it might be like that, but actually that could be very easy the case. So only one who needs an advice in a special case would know if it is useful to keep in mind and for one who is in charge to jugde it is neverthenless useful to keep even all in mind if he is not one able to read mind of others.
I think you mean ascetics with askets? but yes they would look different. There are several ascetics mentioned in the canon and none of whom look like the Bhikkhus. there were naked, those who wore white (both Nigantha practices at least later on), bark, animal skin, those who wore robes similar to Ghandhi, it is actually an offence to dress like another ascetic. The dress of a Bhikkhu is actually detailed very precisely (down to the colour) for a reason, and they need to have the correct items. the "traditional" giving and receiving of the robes is actually making sure these things are correct.
The rules quoted actually show what posing as a Bhikkhu refers to, their motivation has absolutely nothing to do with it. Intending to put the robes on taking up the bowl, shaving the head... and then doing so without going through an ordination is posing as a Bhikkhu. if people (anyone) sees them as a Bhikkhhu when they are not actually a bhikkhu that is enough.
If someone has dis-robed they would be a lay person and would be aware of what would be required, and not look like a bhikkhu, i.e. not wearing the robes already. just because someone was a bhikkhu does not mean they look like one. what you are saying here (underlined) has no relation to what I was replying to that I can see.
Sorry I confused this rule with a rule regarding people who are marked in some way as a punishment being barred from the sangha. so I will re-respond to that in a moment.I guess you have regarded to another point here. But to replay to your statement which might cause the idea that the Sangha is somehow responsible that people are rightly punished by the laws of a state, that is for sure nonsense. It is possible that one is not aware of that he might be guilty according the law, also there is an extinction of guiltyness according to state laws. The Sangha is not a criminal register viewer. This shortcut, makes much troubles and is not useful.this is prohibiting criminals from taking advantage of the allowance the law had placed on them to be free from punishment. other rules have been created due to this such as the parajika on theft.
it is to protect the reputation of the sangha and stop people trying to take advantage of an allowance by the king Bimbisara that Bhikkhus were free from punishment, which as a result is related to the Parajika on theft. and this covers a loophole (as does the parajika) that the Holy life escapes worldly responsibilities & repercussions. although this does beg the Angulimala question.
it is to curb the compassion of Bhikkhus, and thus cause too great a burden on the community.This seems to be also much to general, while it is understandable that people who strongly depend on others will not easy be able to life a Bhikkhus life it seems to be strong discriminating. Alltrought this point is on the other hand also strongly ignored. There are many cases where the holy life is used also as feed for disabled and sick.
the quote has more than that in it. I only left out the Q&A aspect as this is not necessary to the main points the full quote is"the Dhamma is all about letting go and the vinaya all about holding on..." ohh, this is very good quote, but we even may misunderstand this.
I guess we have a plenty of work here.
when coming at the vinaya it is best not to assume you know anything about what it is doing - such as you comments here; or the non-sense remarks quoted here. The vinaya is set down with 10 things kept in mind and the practicality of living the rule can change the rule, hence non-offence clauses, and how some rules are next to defunct except in certain situations or how all the factors for the offence are needed for the full rehabilitation to be needed and not a lesser one which is the case with some rules.Ajahn Chah - You must be very confused Sumedho, the Dhamma is all about letting go and the vinaya all about holding on?
Ajahn Sumedho - Yes, actually I am!
Ajahn Chah - When you work out how these two work together you will be fine!