Since it was posted in the area where Candies and Bulldozer are managing the ways of existing and not existing, and first bulldozers have arisen on the horrorzont, Atma would like to repost, prepost it here as well:
Side discussion on the murmur and wailing topic:
The Imaginariums of the Nuns: Days That Are Past and Futures That May Yet Be
Hi, Peter, thanks for your comments and I’m valuing this discussion very much. I suppose on these issues I fall back on what the Buddha prescribed for these issues. For example, while giving to the monks is merit making, the teaching as I have read it is that the Buddha taught that one gives to whomever his/her heart believes is most in need and deserving; dana is driven by this pure intention, vs. obligation to one group or person over another. The more that the laity understand of the actual Dhamma of the Buddha, the more guidance that is available for ethical and practical situations like those you so carefully described. And yes, despite our having the Buddha’s instructions, some do not pay attention to the guidance he has given to all of us on proper attitude and practice. Likely many monks skew this guidance so that the laity feels directed to support them, or the dana is tied to mechanical acts of merit making, vs. being directed to give to those most deserving and in greatest need. A great discussion…thanks for your insights, and have a good week..
Valued Anagarika Michael,
it is not right if one says Dhamma for Dana is the deal, or Dana for Dhamma. Such is not the case and not intended by the Buddha at all. Actually there are many blocks that such a dealing could righteously take place. Both acts whether of the giving by Lay people or by monastics, have to be based on “no desire to get anything in return”. As for the Bhikkhu or Bhikkhuni, the Buddha told, that it is better to swallow burning iron balls then to accept a Dana based of greed. In regard of teaching, it is not allowed to do it for a gift, so Dana can only be received independently. There are even some rules, to block such corruptions (no need to speak about dhamma sharing places where dana would be suggested…) Atma guesses, that the thought of yours comes from the sutta, where Buddha speaks about the benefits both have of each other, to be aware of the matter of gratitude, but that potential dive goes direct into the practice and the sutta does not suggest Dhamma for Dana is the deal, if reading carefully and knowing the general attitude of the danger, that, like many monks and nuns, grow to corrupter of families, villages, communities, countries and even the whole world.
The reason why a Bhikkhu or Bhikkhuni would be worthy of gifts, would be the fact, that he walks the right path or in its direction, which has much more impact on everybody and that would make them worthy and even the greatest field of merits, why to give people making Dhamma their livelihood, making deals, would be not only less merit, but a sooner or later destruction of the path.
We or many should think about this matter very often and deep, rather to get popular by serving demands, claiming rather to teach right view..
Dear Samana Johann: Thanks for your kind response, and I do think that we generally agree with each other. I hope my comments didn’t suggest a “deal” between disciple and monastic; only that the relationship is mutual and must be healthy and motivated by pure ideals and intentions. I read today of an abbot in Thailand that ordered bulldozed a disciples’ home because she had the temerity to write a letter critical of the abbot’s behavior. This is, of course, and example of the disciple/monk relationship gone wrong and corrupt. I do feel that as always, the Buddha’s prescription for these relationships must always be mutual, beneficial, and motivated by the purest of intentions…this will ensure the viability of both the Dhamma and the monastic Sangha…we see this kind of positive relationship with many good monks and nuns, with Ajahns Brahm, Brahmali and Sujato and their disciples being just one excellent example of this.
I wish you the best, Samana Johann, with Metta. Anagarika Michael
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Valued Anagarika Micheal,
such an agreement or not, if based on mind, it has the danger, that mind does not see for now. That is why there are simply rules, to make the risks as small as possible. What you mentioned in your post, are two sides of the same hand. On one side you have the “bad” Abbot, a case where the “love” side has already ripen to worst case. Starting with a minor fault, it grows to Sanghadisesa 13, as it has grow to that, it grows to a Pārājika. You would see the same in the case of the “good” monks you have mentioned, if you would not involved. Today on most places, there is the opinion, that lay people and monks, monks and nuns, are to make their stuff together. Actually such does not even hold for the Sangha of Monk, taken them, as such as a mutual relationship exists only for a teacher and a disciple, a trainee and his preceptor and is well defined. Everything else is already in the sphere of corruption, forces identification and will naturally lead to destruction of either the dhamma or the relation at least. See for example the post of Fiona. You can see the outcomes easy, if observed and don’t believe that there are no “bulldozer” acting around the group of monks you think that they are walking the right way. Monks who think that they can use “greedy” people for there aims, are not aware, that “greedy” do not remember the hand which they have been feed. They nourish baby tigers. As long as they are able to supply food, there will be no problem and everybody would say great. When times of less food will come, they will be the first who will be eaten.
The thought, our relation should be this and this is already wrong. When we remember for example the Sigalovada Sutta, we see that each individual has his/her task in different relation, and that’s already all. No need to demand this or that, since the good results will come by there previous causes and not by this or that wish.
“In five ways, young householder, should a householder minister to ascetics and brahmans as the Zenith:
(i) by lovable deeds,
(ii) by lovable words,
(iii) by lovable thoughts,
(iv) by keeping open house to them,
(v) by supplying their material needs.
“The ascetics and brahmans thus ministered to as the Zenith by a householder show their compassion towards him in six ways:
(i) they restrain him from evil,
(ii) they persuade him to do good,
(iii) they love him with a kind heart,
(iv) they make him hear what he has not heard,
(v) they clarify what he has already heard,
(vi) they point out the path to a heavenly state.
You will not find such as: “they need to go against/for this and that together” or “they have do things together” or “they have to take side with the objectives of each other”. Such you find only in the case of the relation of students and even here, taken the sample, that one does something wrong, the other part has the duty, to prevent him/her form doing wrong. Vatta Khandhaka: Collection of Duties or in Nissaya. Only in a relation like this, such as hierarchy and eventually problems of power take place, but such a relation, against some usual ways is certain sects, between monastics and lay people has not be founded by the Buddha, since such a dependency out of there frames, is not possibly without a lot of problems.
In regard of Bhikkhus and Bhikkhunis, such things are even more serious and strict, so that such as socializing will not have ways to take place. 95% of people come together for the seek of community and to socialize and that is the beginning of conflict. They come to identify, to become, to be, but all of this is actually the opposite of the way and its aims but the marked demand and the way one could “finance” his own identity, becoming and to be. Then community-papanca takes place, which is even more worse that normal papanca, like changing a gun with a nuclear bomb, like the Bhikkhuni-Objectivication, perfect sampled in this topic here:
Papañca & the path to end conflict
The 108 tanhas, comming from this 18 verbalications:
“There being ‘Bhikkhunis Sangha is,’ there comes to be ‘Bhikkhunis Sangha is here,’ there comes to be ‘Bhikkhunis Sangha is like this’ … ‘Bhikkhunis Sangha is otherwise’ … ‘Bhikkhunis Sangha is bad’ … ‘Bhikkhunis Sangha is am good’ … ‘Bhikkhunis Sangha might be’ … ‘Bhikkhunis Sangha might be here’ … ‘Bhikkhunis Sangha might be like this’ … ‘Bhikkhunis Sangha might be otherwise’ … ‘May Bhikkhunis Sangha be’ … ‘May Bhikkhunis Sangha be here’ … ‘May Bhikkhunis Sangha be like this’ … ‘May Bhikkhunis Sangha be otherwise’ … ‘Bhikkhunis Sangha will be’ … ‘Bhikkhunis Sangha will be here’ … ‘IBhikkhunis Sangha will be like this’ … ‘Bhikkhunis Sangha will be otherwise.’”
MN 2
“‘Was Bhikkhunis Sangha in the past? Was Bhikkhunis Sangha not in the past? What was Bhikkhunis Sangha in the past? How was Bhikkhunis Sangha in the past? Having been what, what was Bhikkhunis Sangha in the past? Shall Bhikkhunis Sangha be in the future? Shall Bhikkhunis Sangha not be in the future? What shall Bhikkhunis Sangha be in the future? How shall Bhikkhunis Sangha be in the future? Having been what, what shall Bhikkhunis Sangha be in the future?’ … ’Is Bhikkhunis Sangha? Is Bhikkhunis Sangha not? What is Bhikkhunis Sangha? How is Bhikkhunis Sangha? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?’”
“The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self… or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self… or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self… or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine–the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions–is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity.
Such come up as well for you thought of the relation “lay people and monastics”, but actually there is no need for developing such a relation and as we find everywhere in the teachings, to fix the problem, we reduce to frame of observation, to an size, which we can handle a little with and which would not overwhelm us immediately.
With this, involving even parts, who are actually not directly in conflict, since Bhikkhu business is Bhikkhu business, Bhikkhuni business is Bhikkhuni business… and the touching possibilities are good and strict defined, with this desire of being and becoming, a huge wave hurting touching points grows and such is actually the reason for even wars.
That is why worldly heros are called simply idiots (people who dont understand) in Dhamma frames and normal people would easily miss the heros within the Sangha, if living correct, since they will hold real heros for idiots. But is one simply keeps up only his task, not only that he will meet real heros sooner or later, he/she, at the moment he/she starts in this way, is actually already on the track to become a real hero by him/herselves.
There are possibilities and task, which one can use to grow, but there is no, no place for demands and calling for. In this way, you should also see this word. They maintain a lot of tasks and possibilities to let go, but you are not forced form outside to take on them and it would be not good, if you would make it just for the sake of relationship. They are not for sure.
I will tell
of how
I experienced
samvega.
Seeing people floundering
like fish in small puddles,
competing with one another–
as I saw this,
fear came into me.
The world was entirely
without substance.
All the directions
were knocked out of line.
Wanting a haven for myself,
I saw nothing
that wasn’t laid claim to.
Seeing nothing in the end
but competition,
I felt discontent.
Rather than trying to solve the problem by looking for a larger puddle for himself or his fellow fish, he looked inside to see why people would want to be fish in the first place. What he found was an arrow embedded in his own heart:
And then I saw
an arrow here,
so very hard to see,
embedded in the heart.
Overcome by this arrow
you run in all directions.
But simply
on pulling it out
you don’t run,
you don’t sink.
Happy samvega and may pasada developed in accord and as often as possible, don’t take refuge in what is not for sure and does not walk straight ahead to security, Upasaka Michael.
‘This is why the relationship between lay and monastic is not hierarchical’.
Entry criteria to some Theravadan monasteries is not transparent. This is an example of power. The nuns having to collectively bow to monks in view of the public at nuns ordinations is about power. The well known ritual of nuns having to report on a regular basis to monks is about power.
Dream on Bhante.
May I remember Fiona, that a monastery and other Dana is actually give. If it would be the case, that a giver would demand anything as a “claim” while giving, such a gift should be rejected by the community of monks, actually such would be the case for many monasteries. So in regard of Fionas welfare, do not think is such ways. Give if inspired or let it be. No duty or must at all and claiming afterwards would simply burn your previous good deeds. Such deeds would be in every case more worthy as to try to teach others a lesson, wouldn’t it?
Only in a corrupt relationship (and it needs two parts) such as power can find a foundation and a hold. If one thinks in measures of rights, which is sadly introduced by monks… ones actions are nothing but based of wrong view, and actions based an wrong views have very heavy impacts for ones future.