Oh man...mom, or any female, charge me......a monk should not save his mother from drowning if he has to touch her to do it!...
Monks and facebook/internet
- appicchato
- Posts: 1602
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:47 am
- Location: Bridge on the River Kwae
Re: Monks and facebook/internet
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Monks and facebook/internet
I believe it is commentarial from memory, but unsure.James the Giant wrote:One of the thousands of commentarial dukkatas? Or canonical?gavesako wrote:It is a dukkata (wrongdoing) offence.
I know there is a commentarial dukkata in the Vinayamukha that prohibits touching pictures or statues of women. It's the same rule which states a monk should not save his mother from drowning if he has to touch her to do it!
I found that reference in Thanissaro's BMC, but I don't have access to the commentaries themselves right now.
I suppose looking at a picture is touching with the eyes...
I'll have to have a proper look for which rule it is related to, but it wont be until monday at the earliest now ( I don't have access to my computer... from friday until sunday evening, other than a smartphone.) It may well be the rule you are referring to here, but can not find with a quick look
kitztack
no, one would need to actually look, a glance or a double take probably wouldn't count. But it is for each to decide for themselves.
Jayantha-NJ
not to nit pick but you bring up somethings which others may find useful.
There are ten reasons for the rules being in place and the great standard for knowing what would be classed as offence when something is not covered by a rule.
The main reason I see here is to "restrain the unrestrained" and to "keep the good name of the sangha" so it is pleasant for the restrained.
but it is in keeping with the spirit of the rules (porn mags existed for a reason) and some may try to logic their way around things (as was done with several rules.) but yes the issue is with the mind, but the rules are also for mindfulness as Ananda (I believe it was) pointed out.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Re: Monks and facebook/internet
Likewise. Theravada Buddhism is as full of post-founder dogmatism as any other religion. It's up to the individual to separate the wheat from the chaff.waterchan wrote:I am not familiar with the Vinaya commentaries but... really?!James the Giant wrote:
I know there is a commentarial dukkata in the Vinayamukha that prohibits touching pictures or statues of women. It's the same rule which states a monk should not save his mother from drowning if he has to touch her to do it!
That just strikes me as uncompassionately dogmatic.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Re: Monks and facebook/internet
Thank you so much for all the replies and comments, although there are still i don't understand as i'm kinda new.
But once i heard a talk from a bhante that if it's comes to contact with the opposite sex, err a monk intention is the most important. Even if it's the female who initiate the contact(hugs etc) then the monk should only not thinking anything about it and remain a deadfish.
But what if it's the other side around, that it's the monk who view inappropriate pages, initiate the contact even thou only verbally(be it jokingly/or even to the same sex) would it be wrong?
But once i heard a talk from a bhante that if it's comes to contact with the opposite sex, err a monk intention is the most important. Even if it's the female who initiate the contact(hugs etc) then the monk should only not thinking anything about it and remain a deadfish.
But what if it's the other side around, that it's the monk who view inappropriate pages, initiate the contact even thou only verbally(be it jokingly/or even to the same sex) would it be wrong?
Re: Monks and facebook/internet
It's noy living the "holy life that is perfect and pure" which is the ideal the Buddha describes, that's for sure.Mao wrote:But what if it's the other side around, that it's the monk who view inappropriate pages, initiate the contact even thou only verbally(be it jokingly/or even to the same sex) would it be wrong?
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa