We need new rules

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
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 »

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote: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.
Would it not be better, then, to have rules which explicitly prohibit seduction and gossip, rather than having a rule which potentially denies women of hearing dhamma when a 'knowledgeable man' is not present?
"What holds attention determines action." - William James
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 »

Viscid wrote:Would it not be better, then, to have rules which explicitly prohibit seduction and gossip,
There are already two rules (saṅghādisesas 3 & 4) against seduction and various rules against bhikkhus' gossiping about other bhikkhus (or at least setting limits on what is sayable). But one can't realistically establish a rule to stop householders from gossiping. Even where a bhikkhu has no designs on a woman, merely being seen talking to her at length will be likely to generate damaging gossip. And so the Vinaya requires that, like Caesar's wife, a bhikkhu should not only be good, but should be seen to be so.
rather than having a rule which potentially denies women of hearing dhamma when a 'knowledgeable man' is not present?
It's a false problem you're raising. In practice if a woman goes to coenobitical monastery to be taught, there'll always be other monks or novices who can sit with the monk who is teaching her. If she goes to an eremitical residence or to a thudong monk camping in the forest, then she will make a point of taking a chaperone with her. If she neglects to do so, or if no suitable chaperone is available, she may still be taught, albeit in brief.
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)
dagon
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 12:45 am

Re: We need new rules

Post by dagon »

Thank you Bhante

I know that in my case (maybe this applies to others) that i have very little knowledge of the rules and even less understanding of what they mean, how they are applied and what they seek to achieve. Sharing your knowledge and experience is a very great gift to me, thank you.

metta
paul
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: We need new rules

Post by chownah »

Dhammanando wrote:
Viscid wrote:Would it not be better, then, to have rules which explicitly prohibit seduction and gossip,
There are already two rules (saṅghādisesas 3 & 4) against seduction and various rules against bhikkhus' gossiping about other bhikkhus (or at least setting limits on what is sayable). But one can't realistically establish a rule to stop householders from gossiping. Even where a bhikkhu has no designs on a woman, merely being seen talking to her at length will be likely to generate damaging gossip. And so the Vinaya requires that, like Caesar's wife, a bhikkhu should not only be good, but should be seen to be so.
rather than having a rule which potentially denies women of hearing dhamma when a 'knowledgeable man' is not present?
It's a false problem you're raising. In practice if a woman goes to coenobitical monastery to be taught, there'll always be other monks or novices who can sit with the monk who is teaching her. If she goes to an eremitical residence or to a thudong monk camping in the forest, then she will make a point of taking a chaperone with her. If she neglects to do so, or if no suitable chaperone is available, she may still be taught, albeit in brief.
Certainly there are homosexual monks.......is the rule interpreted that a bhikkhu should not speak at length to a man unless a knowledgeable woman is present?
chownah
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9058
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: We need new rules

Post by SDC »

Spiny Norman wrote:It seems to me that Buddhism always expresses itself through local culture, and modern Buddhism is no exception.
Unfortunately, yes.

The individual cannot help but to allow culture to be an influence while incorporating the dhamma into their lifestyle - their culture is likely a dominant aspect of their thinking. But I think we can all agree (hehe) that the path for the most part leads away from culturally conditioned behavior and thinking. While both dhamma and culture can be influential in our lives, we are not looking to allow both to flourish - only the dhamma.

So it would be in our best interest to work to relegate culture to a position of very little influence even when aspects of said culture align with the dhamma. Why's that, SDC? Well I'm glad you asked. Because anything seen as part of a culture will keep thoughts on the world and especially keeps the thoughts on the idea of there being a self that exists in that world. It is counterproductive to nurture this type of idea while practicing toward nibbana.

Besides culture is divisive and the dhamma is anything but. Any rules that promote cultural influence do not come from the Buddha and can be damaging if not properly put into perspective as to why they are of significance at all. At least with an explanation such cultural practices would be given their necessary subordinate place in practice and could still be done, but with less significant of an effect. But from what I have seen and heard, most times these rules aren't properly explained to people, which only deepens a culture's influence on the dhamma. While adding to the dhamma does not ruin it per se, it does constipate things unnecessarily. How is that of any use?
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
rohana
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:43 pm

Re: We need new rules

Post by rohana »

  • "What is the cause, lord, what is the reason, why before there were fewer training rules and yet more monks established in final gnosis, whereas now there are more training rules and yet fewer monks established in final gnosis?"

    "That's the way it is, Kassapa. When beings are degenerating and the true Dhamma is disappearing, there are more training rules and yet fewer monks established in final gnosis."
    - Saddhammapatirupaka Sutta
Many well known monasteries in the West usually tend to be from forest traditions with strict vinaya standards. You can find plenty of monks, mainly in traditionally Theravādin countries who interpret the vinaya with varying degrees of laxity. The thing is, the laxer the vinaya, it seems the less chances of producing great teachers who inspire monks, nuns and the lay community to seriously practice. It's not a coincidence that pretty much all the great teachers we know or have heard of are not know for their loose interpretation of vinaya. (This is not to suggest that all monks should keep a strict adherence, or that only those who do are worth paying attention to.) And if we're discussing specifics, I think issues like not handling money or not storing food would be good generic examples to discuss as opposed to the rather silly extreme case of not turning on the heating.

Not to mention, there's a wide range of lay teachers in the West as well. It's not like anyone whose averse to strict vinaya keeping bhikkhus have no other options.
"Delighting in existence, O monks, are gods and men; they are attached to existence, they revel in existence. When the Dhamma for the cessation of existence is being preached to them, their minds do not leap towards it, do not get pleased with it, do not get settled in it, do not find confidence in it. That is how, monks, some lag behind."
- It. p 43
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 »

chownah wrote:Certainly there are homosexual monks.......is the rule interpreted that a bhikkhu should not speak at length to a man unless a knowledgeable woman is present?
There’s no universal standard regarding homosexual monks; it’s up to each monastery to set its own policy. In Thailand most at present don’t have any particular policy at all. Of those that do, the policies are rather varied. Some wats, for example, will simply refuse residence to homosexual monks (e.g. Wat Suan Mokkh and other Buddhadāsa-influenced wats). Some wats will place homosexual monks in different sections of the wat to segregate them from each other and prevent the formation of a gay clique and a Goodbye, Good Men kind of scenario, wherein the clique effectively hijacks the monastery. In recent years such segregation has become a common practice in some of the larger Bangkok monasteries. Some wats will limit the number of homosexuals of the very flamboyant type; the presence of one or two such monks in a wat is no problem, but when you get a whole bunch of ‘screaming queens’ it becomes disruptive as they’re always competing with each other to be the centre of attention.

But as for the 7th pācittiya rule, I’ve never heard of it being applied in the manner you describe. The closest I’ve come across was a Bangkok wat where homosexual monks were instructed not to enter the rooms of temple boys or teenage sāmaṇeras or be seen fraternising with them.
Last edited by Dhammanando on Sat Nov 02, 2013 8:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
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)
User avatar
Kusala
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:02 am

Re: We need new rules

Post by Kusala »

Image
"He, the Blessed One, is indeed the Noble Lord, the Perfectly Enlightened One;
He is impeccable in conduct and understanding, the Serene One, the Knower of the Worlds;
He trains perfectly those who wish to be trained; he is Teacher of gods and men; he is Awake and Holy. "

--------------------------------------------
"The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One,
Apparent here and now, timeless, encouraging investigation,
Leading to liberation, to be experienced individually by the wise. "
User avatar
m0rl0ck
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:51 am

Re: We need new rules

Post by m0rl0ck »

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 in the modern world.
The only way i can see this not being sexist is if the exact corollary rule exists for the thriving and numerous population of theravadan nuns.
So is there a rule for nuns that says:

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

It would be much better if we left the patriarchy and sexism to the theists, we could certainly never beat them at it.
“The truth knocks on the door and you say, "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so it goes away. Puzzling.” ― Robert M. Pirsig
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: We need new rules

Post by mikenz66 »

m0rl0ck wrote: The only way i can see this not being sexist is if the exact corollary rule exists for the thriving and numerous population of theravadan nuns.
So is there a rule for nuns that says:

Should any bhikkhini teach more than five or six sentences of Dhamma to a man, unless a knowledgeable woman is present, it is to be confessed. ??
103 [7]. Should any bhikkhunī teach more than five or six sentences of Dhamma to a man, unless a knowledgeable woman is present, it is to be confessed.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... ti.html#pr
:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
m0rl0ck
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:51 am

Re: We need new rules

Post by m0rl0ck »

mikenz66 wrote:
103 [7]. Should any bhikkhunī teach more than five or six sentences of Dhamma to a man, unless a knowledgeable woman is present, it is to be confessed.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... ti.html#pr
:anjali:
Mike
Excellent :) What is the population of nuns/monks anyway?
“The truth knocks on the door and you say, "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so it goes away. Puzzling.” ― Robert M. Pirsig
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 »

mikenz66 wrote:
m0rl0ck wrote: The only way i can see this not being sexist is if the exact corollary rule exists for the thriving and numerous population of theravadan nuns.
So is there a rule for nuns that says:

Should any bhikkhini teach more than five or six sentences of Dhamma to a man, unless a knowledgeable woman is present, it is to be confessed. ??
103 [7]. Should any bhikkhunī teach more than five or six sentences of Dhamma to a man, unless a knowledgeable woman is present, it is to be confessed.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... ti.html#pr
:clap: Great find!

The Dhamma is timeless
The Vinaya is timeless (as long as it is practiced with the letter and spirit and parajikas are enforced)
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: We need new rules

Post by Dan74 »

David N. Snyder wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:
m0rl0ck wrote: The only way i can see this not being sexist is if the exact corollary rule exists for the thriving and numerous population of theravadan nuns.
So is there a rule for nuns that says:

Should any bhikkhini teach more than five or six sentences of Dhamma to a man, unless a knowledgeable woman is present, it is to be confessed. ??
103 [7]. Should any bhikkhunī teach more than five or six sentences of Dhamma to a man, unless a knowledgeable woman is present, it is to be confessed.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... ti.html#pr
:clap: Great find!

The Dhamma is timeless
The Vinaya is timeless (as long as it is practiced with the letter and spirit and parajikas are enforced)
This is good, David, but we have to admit that there are blatantly sexist rules in Vinaya. A nun of many rains is of a lesser standing than a monk of one day ordination. I mean, we can't turn a blind eye to this and cheer at a little instance of equality like above, can we? Or am I missing something?
_/|\_
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 »

Dan74 wrote: I mean, we can't turn a blind eye to this and cheer at a little instance of equality like above, can we? Or am I missing something?
Yes, we can. It's always good to cheer the positive.

:woohoo:

The 8 garudhammas were probably added later. There are other topics about them and some scholar monks including Bhikkhu Analayo have questioned the authenticity of the 8 garudhammas.
http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=8_Garudhammas
alan
Posts: 3111
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: We need new rules

Post by alan »

If I told you all the rules that needed to be changed, you'd just argue about them. That's why I pointed out that we are no longer wandering through India. Obviously, the situation has changed. How best to respond?
Getting rid of the _ _ _ _ that has accumulated since that time seems like a good place to start.

Moderator edit: no junk. Further "junk" msgs will be deleted without comment.
Locked