We need new rules

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
santa100
Posts: 6799
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: We need new rules

Post by santa100 »

I don't see any contradiction between AN 8.53 and SN 20.7. They both emphasize measurable and concrete metrics instead of mere talks. Footnote from SN 20.7:
The Commentary notes that the drum originally could be heard for twelve leagues, but in its final condition couldn't be heard even from behind a curtain.
Back to the UFC match. It'd be interesting to see a fighter "ground and pound" the schnitzel out of the other guy while all that the other guy could do is crying: "please stop, that move is un-authentic!"... :rofl:
User avatar
manas
Posts: 2678
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: We need new rules

Post by manas »

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:
Dan74 wrote:As for your other claims, you have said nothing to substantiate the label 'junk'. I think the onus is on you, Bhante.
You already admitted that it is not the teaching of Sakyamuni, so what more evidence do we need to provide to substantiate that the label "junk" is valid?

Whatever contemporary Buddhist teachers say, if it's their own invention, and cannot be traced in the Dhamma and Vinaya, then one should rightly conclude that it is not the Buddha's teaching.

We can find no basis for reciting "Om Mane Padme Om," or arranging coloured grains in complex patterns. Nor can we find any esoteric teachings in Buddhism. The Buddha's teachings are open to all to study as they wish — even the Vinaya rules.

There is no secret that sexual intercourse via any orifice is an offence of defeat for a bhikkhu, but the Dalai Lama apparently teaches such Tantric practices. Is it not so?
Bhante, that is all well and good, but I suspect that issue has been taken with describing some practices, such as creating sand mandalas or chanting 'Om Mani Padme Hum', that happen to be dear to some members in our sister Forum 'Dharma Wheel', and possibly also dear to a few who visit this place, as 'junk'. (A quick aside, I am not a Tibetan Buddhist but I once experienced some quite profound spiritual emotion whilst chanting that mantra, and as I understand it the meaning is quite noble, and so at the very least it's a good thing, even if the Buddha did not originally teach it...?) I suspect that this might not be in keeping with the TOS (putting down another religion (as has already been pointed out), in fact some would argue the same religion as ours in essence, ie Tibetan Buddhism). I say this with respect, and in the spirit of friendliness,

kind regards
manas
:anjali:
To the Buddha-refuge i go; to the Dhamma-refuge i go; to the Sangha-refuge i go.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: We need new rules

Post by tiltbillings »

Enough "junk" has been spread through this thread. Any further "junk" will be removed.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: We need new rules

Post by retrofuturist »

[ 3 posts removed ]

Come on guys, Tilt wasn't kidding around...

:focus:

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6490
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: We need new rules

Post by Dhammanando »

alan wrote:We need to take a fresh look at how to go about things, friends. Let's start with getting rid of all the accumulated junk.
  • “Your [Jacobin] literary men, and your politicians ... essentially differ in these points. They have no respect for the wisdom of others; but they pay it off by a very full measure of confidence in their own. With them it is a sufficient motive to destroy an old scheme of things, because it is an old one. As to the new, they are in no sort of fear with regard to the duration of a building run up in haste; because duration is no object to those who think little or nothing has been done before their time, and who place all their hopes in discovery. They conceive, very systematically, that all things which give perpetuity are mischievous, and therefore they are at inexpiable war with all establishments.”
    — Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France
  • Non-Decline

    Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Rājagaha on Mount Vulture Peak. There the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus:

    “Bhikkhus, I will teach you seven principles of non-decline. Listen and attend closely. I will speak.”

    “Yes, Bhante,” those bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this:

    “And what, bhikkhus, are the seven principles of non-decline?

    (1) “As long as the bhikkhus assemble often and hold frequent assemblies, only growth is to be expected for them, not decline.

    (2) “As long as the bhikkhus assemble in harmony, adjourn in harmony, and conduct the affairs of the Saṅgha in harmony, only growth is to be expected for them, not decline.

    (3) “As long as the bhikkhus do not decree anything that has not been decreed or abolish anything that has already been decreed, but undertake and follow the training rules as they have been decreed, only growth is to be expected for them, not decline.

    (4) “As long as the bhikkhus honor, respect, esteem, and venerate those bhikkhus who are elders, of long standing, long gone forth, fathers and guides of the Saṅgha, and think they should be heeded, only growth is to be expected for them, not decline.

    (5) “As long as the bhikkhus do not come under the control of arisen craving that leads to renewed existence, only growth is to be expected for them, not decline.

    (6) “As long as the bhikkhus are intent on forest lodgings, only growth is to be expected for them, not decline.

    (7) “As long as the bhikkhus each individually establish mindfulness [with the intention]: ‘How can well-behaved fellow monks who have not yet come here come, and how can well-behaved fellow monks who are already here dwell at ease?’ only growth is to be expected for them, not decline.

    “Bhikkhus, as long as these seven principles of non-decline continue among the bhikkhus, and the bhikkhus are seen [established] in them, only growth is to be expected for them, not decline.”

    (A. iv. 21-2, Bhikkhu Bodhi tr.)
In point #3 “what has been decreed” (paññattaṃ) refers to Vinaya ordinances of every sort, whether prohibitions, allowances or procedural regulations.
Rūpehi bhikkhave arūpā santatarā.
Arūpehi nirodho santataro ti.


“Bhikkhus, the formless is more peaceful than the form realms.
Cessation is more peaceful than the formless realms.”
(Santatarasutta, Iti 73)
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: We need new rules

Post by Spiny Norman »

alan wrote: Let's start with getting rid of all the accumulated junk.
I'm still not clear how we define "accumulated junk", or cultural baggage or whatever. It seems to me that Buddhism always expresses itself through local culture, and modern Buddhism is no exception.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: We need new rules

Post by daverupa »

The Vinayas we have definitely reflect later developments to various degrees, so the things were considered readily open to additions, for a time at least. Some of these seem culture-specific to a certain extent, perhaps, but I think this indicates the exercise of the spirit of the thing by the early Sangha, which is a nice example of those who, best situated to understand the import of the foundation, were tasked with making wise additions for emergent issues. It helps give the proper taste, in other words, I think, but it quickly becomes quite culture-specific...

I guess any modern monastically-demarcated area could have discussion and take a monastic vote, according to Vinaya, about whether or not to add certain rules for a specific location, in response to lay concern? Maybe the stuff that was already added due to lay concern can be removed, if the (local?) laity don't care one whit any longer?
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: We need new rules

Post by Mr Man »

daverupa wrote: I guess any modern monastically-demarcated area could have discussion and take a monastic vote, according to Vinaya, about whether or not to add certain rules for a specific location, in response to lay concern? Maybe the stuff that was already added due to lay concern can be removed, if the (local?) laity don't care one whit any longer?
An example of this would be the UK monasteries under the then guidance of Ajahn Sumedho, implemented a rule that monks should cover the upper torso at all times (in public areas) and should not go bare shoulder. It was thought that bare shoulder would be seen as a sign of impropriety by the local population.
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: We need new rules

Post by Aloka »

Mr Man wrote: ]

An example of this would be the UK monasteries under the then guidance of Ajahn Sumedho, implemented a rule that monks should cover the upper torso at all times ....

I think I'd find it very distracting if I went to Amaravati monastery and saw monks with bare upper torsos walking around !


:anjali:
User avatar
gavesako
Posts: 1794
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: We need new rules

Post by gavesako »

They have relaxed this rule in some monasteries including Amaravati now, so you might come across monks in the summer walking around with a bare shoulder.

If anyone thinks it is easy to simply "get rid of old junk and start afresh" in a new territory, they can read about some recent attempts to do that:

Establishing monastic Buddhism in the UK: an uphill struggle

http://vajratool.wordpress.com/2010/05/ ... -struggle/
Bhikkhu Gavesako
Kiṃkusalagavesī anuttaraṃ santivarapadaṃ pariyesamāno... (MN 26)

Access to Insight - Theravada texts
Ancient Buddhist Texts - Translations and history of Pali texts
Dhammatalks.org - Sutta translations
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6490
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: We need new rules

Post by Dhammanando »

daverupa wrote:I guess any modern monastically-demarcated area could have discussion and take a monastic vote, according to Vinaya, about whether or not to add certain rules for a specific location, in response to lay concern?
In a sense this is already permitted and practised.

In the injunction against creating new ordinances or abolishing existing ones, the term (paññatti) indicates that the disapproved conduct is that of attempting to add to or substract from the canonical Vinaya corpus binding upon the whole of the monastic sangha. It does not, however, preclude the establishment of in-house rules binding only upon the monks residing in the monastery that establishes them. These are called 'decisions' (katikā) and the sangha has been making them from very early days. We know this because one of the rules about appropriate conduct for a visiting monk is that when he first arrives in a monastery he should enquire of the resident monks concerning the katikā that are in force in that community.
Rūpehi bhikkhave arūpā santatarā.
Arūpehi nirodho santataro ti.


“Bhikkhus, the formless is more peaceful than the form realms.
Cessation is more peaceful than the formless realms.”
(Santatarasutta, Iti 73)
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: We need new rules

Post by daverupa »

Dhammanando wrote:
daverupa wrote:I guess any modern monastically-demarcated area could have discussion and take a monastic vote, according to Vinaya, about whether or not to add certain rules for a specific location, in response to lay concern?
In a sense this is already permitted and practised.

In the injunction against creating new ordinances or abolishing existing ones, the term (paññatti) indicates that the disapproved conduct is that of attempting to add to or substract from the canonical Vinaya corpus binding upon the whole of the monastic sangha. It does not, however, preclude the establishment of in-house rules binding only upon the monks residing in the monastery that establishes them. These are called 'decisions' (katikā) and the sangha has been making them from very early days. We know this because one of the rules about appropriate conduct for a visiting monk is that when he first arrives in a monastery he should enquire of the resident monks concerning the katikā that are in force in that community.
Brilliant, thank you, and now: what problems are not addressed for the OP by this extant process? Lack of implementation, or something else?
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: We need new rules

Post by DNS »

daverupa wrote: Brilliant, thank you, and now: what problems are not addressed for the OP by this extant process? Lack of implementation, or something else?
The OP has not addressed any specific rules either for monastics or lay people. In spite of repeated requests from cooran, myself and perhaps others, the OP has not addressed which specific rules are "out of date" or in need of changing. When I noted his concerns about "money grabbing" that may (or may not) exist in some lay organizations and how the monastic institution avoids this issue, the OP did not address that either.

I think the Vinaya is fine as it is it and just needs to be implemented and taken for the letter and the spirit. Problems come when there is too much emphasis on the letter and not the spirit or vice versa. The only caveat if any should be that where rigidity to a rule comes in conflict with compassion; compassion should be chosen. Examples include a bhikkhu lighting a gas heater in the upper Yukon, wearing a knit cap outside. Or allowing Mahayana bhikshunis for the double-ordination of Theravada bhikkhunis to start the reinstatement of bhikkhunis (which has already taken place). It is in the name of compassion allowing a monk not to get sick or possibly die of hypothermia or for compassion in allowing women full access to the holy life of their choosing.
User avatar
Viscid
Posts: 931
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 8:55 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: We need new rules

Post by Viscid »

There are many rules which should be modified or nullified. Such as:

Should any bhikkhu teach more than five or six sentences of Dhamma to a woman, unless a knowledgeable man is present, it is to be confessed.

Which is sexist and not acceptable in the modern world.
"What holds attention determines action." - William James
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4644
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: We need new rules

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

Viscid wrote:There are many rules which should be modified or nullified. Such as:

Should any bhikkhu teach more than five or six sentences of Dhamma to a woman, unless a knowledgeable man is present, it is to be confessed.

Which is sexist and not acceptable to a modern world.
It's really not sexist, it was made to protect women from evil-minded monks who might set out to seduce them, as the origin story shows. Another interpretation is that it was made to protect monks and women from gossip.

The rule allows the bhikkhu to talk at length if the woman asks a question.

Pācittiya 7
David N. Snyder wrote:I think the Vinaya is fine as it is it and just needs to be implemented and taken for the letter and the spirit. Problems come when there is too much emphasis on the letter and not the spirit or vice versa.
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
Locked