Why not just let go...........it gets so much of peace .
sanjay
I had let it go. Then my name was dragged back.
retrofuturist wrote:
alan wrote:arijitmitter is speaking sense.
No one is making arijitmitter become a bhikkhu, nor contribute towards the maintenance of the Sangha. If he'd rather restrict his Triple Gem reverence to the Noble (Ariyan) Sangha instead of the community of monastics, then he can do that. There is no issue there.
So today morning (IST) I had to respond to defend myself. But you are correct Sanjay.
arijitmitter wrote:I had let it go. Then my name was dragged back. .
No one can "drag" you back by your name... although I'll admit that the conversation has been very interesting to read so I'm glad you keep returning so long as it is not becoming an unnecessary stress on anyone.
Arijitmitter,
I'm glad that you are expressing your views here. I both agree and disagree with you. Frankly I don't really much care what monks do. I think it is much more valuable to know what the Noble Ones do. Not all monks are Noble Ones and not all Noble Ones are monks. The Buddha never claimed to be of any lineage of monks but he did claim to be of the lineage of Noble Ones.
There is the case where a monk is content with any old robe cloth at all. He speaks in praise of being content with any old robe cloth at all. He does not, for the sake of robe cloth, do anything unseemly or inappropriate. Not getting cloth, he is not agitated. Getting cloth, he uses it not tied to it, uninfatuated, guiltless, seeing the drawbacks (of attachment to it), and discerning the escape from them. He does not, on account of his contentment with any old robe cloth at all, exalt himself or disparage others. In this he is skillful, energetic, alert, and mindful. This, monks, is said to be a monk standing firm in the ancient, original traditions of the Noble Ones.
Furthermore, the monk is content with any old almsfood at all. He speaks in praise of being content with any old almsfood at all. He does not, for the sake of almsfood, do anything unseemly or inappropriate. Not getting almsfood, he is not agitated. Getting almsfood, he uses it not tied to it, uninfatuated, guiltless, seeing the drawbacks (of attachment to it), and discerning the escape from them. He does not, on account of his contentment with any old almsfood at all, exalt himself or disparage others. In this he is skillful, energetic, alert, and mindful. This, monks, is said to be a monk standing firm in the ancient, original traditions of the Noble Ones.
Furthermore, the monk is content with any old lodging at all. He speaks in praise of being content with any old lodging at all. He does not, for the sake of lodging, do anything unseemly or inappropriate. Not getting lodging, he is not agitated. Getting lodging, he uses it not tied to it, uninfatuated, guiltless, seeing the drawbacks (of attachment to it), and discerning the escape from them. He does not, on account of his contentment with any old lodging at all, exalt himself or disparage others. In this he is skillful, energetic, alert, and mindful. This, monks, is said to be a monk standing firm in the ancient, original traditions of the Noble Ones.
Furthermore, the monk finds pleasure and delight in developing (skillful mental qualities), finds pleasure and delight in abandoning (unskillful mental qualities). He does not, on account of his pleasure and delight in developing and abandoning, exalt himself or disparage others. In this he is skillful, energetic, alert, and mindful. This, monks, is said to be a monk standing firm in the ancient, original traditions of the Noble Ones.
These are the four traditions of the Noble Ones — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — which are not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and are unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives and brahmans.
And furthermore, a monk endowed with these four traditions of the Noble Ones, if he lives in the east, conquers displeasure and is not conquered by displeasure. If he lives in the west... the north... the south, he conquers displeasure and is not conquered by displeasure. Why is that? Because the wise one endures both pleasure and displeasure.
This is what the Blessed One said. Having said this, he said further:
Displeasure does not conquer the enlightened one.
Displeasure does not suppress him.
He conquers displeasure
because he endures it.
Having cast away all deeds:
who could obstruct him?
Like an ornament of finest gold:
Who is fit to find fault with him?
Even the Devas praise him,
even by Brahma is he praised.
For this discussion I might plagiarize and slightly alter, "He does not, on account of his contentment with any old airline seat at all, exalt himself or disparage others. In this he is skillful, energetic, alert, and mindful. This, monks, is said to be a monk standing firm in the ancient, original traditions of the Noble Ones."
chownah
arijitmitter wrote:Kindly ponder these words from an arrogant and foolish person.
Your words, not mine. Your stance on Business class seating is arrogant and foolish. Does that alone make you an arrogant and foolish person? Not if you can ponder the advice given by others and relinquish the attachment to your stance on this.
It is not unusual for those without enough knowledge to adopt an extreme position. Later, after studying more carefully, and meditating systematically, they often adjust their stance, seeing the danger in attachment to views.
arijitmitter wrote:
Obviously it will take less time to study Suttas for a good lawyer used to reading difficult law books than a nurse whose task is to measure blood pressure and note urine color
You really gotta bring nurses into this? Come on man.
Last edited by kmath on Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
arijitmitter wrote:Kindly ponder these words from an arrogant and foolish person.
Your words, not mine. Your stance on Business class seating is arrogant and foolish. Does that alone make you an arrogant and foolish person? Not if you can ponder the advice given by others and relinquish the attachment to your stance on this.
It is not unusual for those without enough knowledge to adopt an extreme position. Later, after studying more carefully, and meditating systematically, they often adjust their stance, seeing the danger in attachment to views.
Ven. Pesala is right and that's all there is left to say here.
I've followed this thread and must thank the participants for many good contributions.
To me the main point Arjit is making is that Vinaya should be followed in spirit rather than letter. Bikkhu Pesala makes several points but the chief one for me is that "None of us know the monks referred to in the OP, nor how they got to be in business class seats, but in the absence of any facts, it is quite wrong to criticise them."
These are both good points with the first one being of course more controversial. It may be useful to have a proper discussion on Vinaya, its purpose and how its current form is serving this purpose but at the moment I don't have the time necessary to put together a proper post on this big subject.
arijitmitter wrote:
It is not unusual for those without enough knowledge to adopt an extreme position. Later, after studying more carefully, and meditating systematically, they often adjust their stance, seeing the danger in attachment to views.
Venerable Sir,
You are elder to me and have far greater erudition about what we are discussing.
I will like to extend my sincerest apology to you since I have been specifically taught not to argue with elders by my parents and my nation's culture (as you must know well, we are taught not to speak in a challenging voice to elders; please no one see this as a slight to other cultures or my observation of what they do and not do) especially when the elder is a person who is an expert in that subject matter.
I am not withdrawing from my position of Dana and business class but I am withdrawing my challenging statement made last evening and expressing deepest regret for same. I got carried away by my love of debate. I withdraw from the topic accepting that I may be wrong and judgmental about the issue. I also should not adopt a hard line and show inflexibility in my attitude.
I am sure that with your blessing and my effort one day I will be a good Buddhist. Till then I will refrain on commenting on matters which are so delicate.
Dan74 wrote:I've followed this thread and must thank the participants for many good contributions.
To me the main point Arjit is making is that Vinaya should be followed in spirit rather than letter. Bikkhu Pesala makes several points but the chief one for me is that "None of us know the monks referred to in the OP, nor how they got to be in business class seats, but in the absence of any facts, it is quite wrong to criticise them."
These are both good points with the first one being of course more controversial. It may be useful to have a proper discussion on Vinaya, its purpose and how its current form is serving this purpose but at the moment I don't have the time necessary to put together a proper post on this big subject.
Hello Dan,
If you do get the time to start a new thread on the Vinaya could you please put it in the Ordination and Monastic Life sub-forum?
With metta,
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
Beyond the concerns discussed, we need to consider how the issues may affect the other passengers as well as any monks. I know that my Buddhist wife would be so very uncomfortable sitting next to a Monk in close confinement as experienced in the non-business class. Then there is the potential of other passengers seeing any kind of physical contact between a woman and a monk. Please see the text below to understand where I am coming from. Bolding of text is not in the original article.
If a bhikkhu touches a woman in a sexual way, he commits a very serious offence requiring formal meetings of the Community and probation (Sa"nghaadisesa). The scrupulous bhikkhu wants to remain above suspicion so, if he can, he will avoid all physical contact. (Hence his attitude to shaking hands. This also explains why in Thailand a receiving cloth is used to receive offerings from women. (See EN 85)
The rule was first set down by the Buddha after a brahman and his wife had gone to inspect Ven. Udaayin's fine dwelling. As Ven. Udaayin was showing them around, he came up behind the lady and "rubbed up against her limb by limb." After they had left, the husband praised Ven. Udaayin but the wife was critical and explained what had happened. The brahman then complained, "Isn't it even possible to take one's wife to a monastery without her being molested?" This rule was then set down:
"Should any bhikkhu, overcome by lust, with altered mind, engage in bodily contact with a woman, or in holding her hand, holding a lock of her hair, or caressing any of her limbs, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community."(Sa"ngh. 2; BMC p.100)
To be at fault, the bhikkhu must usually do some action to bring contact with a woman while lust overcomes his mind.[45] If he accidentally stumbles and bumps into a woman or vice-versa, or if he is accosted by a woman, as long as there is no intention to come into lustful contact there is no offence. However, the average bhikkhu's mind tends to be so quick and unruly — he is, after all, still in training and therefore unenlightened — that he may prefer to be super-cautious about such situations.
I came late to this discussion and have read the interesting exchanges here. I think it all comes down to people holding on to personal views. I have traveled to some very poor parts of Asia and understand that what is luxurious and what is not is all relative.
Arijit argues for monks to travel on economy and not business class as the latter is considered luxurious. On the same line of argument, one could argue that any form of air travel is an unnecessary luxury for monks who should travel by bus together with 99.999% of the human population. Or that monks should not sit on the cushy seats of the cars when chauffeured to Dhamma talks but on the floorboards of the car. Or they should not live in beautiful, ornate viharas but stay in mud huts.
If I choose to buy my favourite monk or my favourite mistress a business class ticket, why is it anybody's business?
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:If donors offer excellent things, then we can rejoice in their generosity and faith in the Dhamma.
However, this approach can lead to massive amounts of wealth owned by the sangha.
Unfortunately, where there is wealth there is corruption, and where there is corruption evil people lurk.
If you want a sangha that is reasonably pure and solid, then a modest level of wealth and enforced mechanisms for using excess wealth for the benefit of the greater community are necessary.