[Q&A] Isn't Asking for Money a Violation of Vinaya? And certain bypasses...

[Dhammañāṇa]

Isn't Asking for Money a Violation of Vinaya?

Was asked, and after an "explaing" a further question raised by Upasaka {removed name} :

Does kind of sound like a way to bypass the rule of not accepting money.
"I don't accept money or ask lay people for anything, give the money to my lay person attendant and i will ask him for it if i need it"

Also there are many, especially in the west, who like to lift themselves above others by very hypocritical and inhonest ways, saying "we are the good one, we don't accept money", not only their mind is nothing but full of money, budgets, plans and desires for this and for that and their actions deeds and services have less objectives aside of getting the budget holes filled.

Althought the sadness that this very good essay of Ven. Bodhesako has at least also come under the control, has been taken, by householder-monks, is a very useful and straight explaining, worthy a read: The Use of Money by Monks

You should be clear about it, that a wordling is incapable to keep this precept seriously, by heart and out of understanding, and that you would hardly ever find such a person, come across or get aware of such this days.

You do not seriously believe that those Western Monks you associate with, are really that different to the "bad" ones? You wouldn't seriously believe that someone like Yuttadhammo did, does, will not handle and controll money and order like a king who never touches money? Or those ex-monks, speaking with big voice in the topic: do you seriously think that they have kept the simply precept... they all might have kept this or another hypocritical and inhonest approach, nothing more.

So from this point, it's not very smart to divide between others not really capable to live a homeless life and stick with the basic precepts.

It's easy to make one or another silly monk on face book who probably never really learned Vinaya to a bad man, but it's another to glorify such people like Sujato Bhikkhu and so on, who are not ashamed to ask for money and budget even at large in public, to maintain their livelihood, on the other side. What do you think will bring more harm for many? Ohh, you got certain personal benefit from it...

If really interested in the nature and the reasons of this precepts, if wishing to understand it by heart, it may be expressed. For it's a joy to talk with someone having certain virtue in his heart, rejoices in talks on virtue, and not on this or that stand, and it's of no use and burdensome to do such in regard of a person who just seeks for justifications of his/her innoble and dishonest ways.

[Dhammañāṇa]

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa

In case a king, a royal official, a brahman, or a householder sends a robe fund for the sake of a bhikkhu via a messenger, (saying,) "Having purchased a robe with this robe fund, clothe the bhikkhu named so-and-so with a robe": If the messenger, approaching the bhikkhu, should say, "This is a robe fund being delivered for the sake of the venerable one. May the venerable one accept this robe fund," then the bhikkhu is to tell the messenger: "We do not accept robe funds, my friend. We accept robes (robe-cloth) as are proper according to season."

Quote from: http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/vin/sv/bhikkhu-pati_en.html#np-10

Here it ends, but if (!) then...

- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -

If the messenger should say to the bhikkhu, "Does the venerable one have a steward?" then, bhikkhus, if the bhikkhu desires a robe, he may indicate a steward — either a monastery attendant or a lay follower — (saying,) "That, my friend, is the bhikkhus' steward[1]."

If the messenger, having instructed the steward and going to the bhikkhu, should say, "I have instructed the steward the venerable one indicated. May the venerable one go (to him) and he will clothe you with a robe in season," then the bhikkhu, desiring a robe and approaching the steward, may prompt and remind him two or three times, "I have need of a robe." Should (the steward) produce the robe after being prompted and reminded two or three times, that is good.

If he should not produce the robe, (the bhikkhu) should stand in silence four times, five times, six times at most for that purpose. Should (the steward) produce the robe after (the bhikkhu) has stood in silence for the purpose four, five, six times at most, that is good.

If he should not produce the robe (at that point), should he then produce the robe after (the bhikkhu) has endeavored further than that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

If he should not produce (the robe), then the bhikkhu himself should go to the place from which the robe fund was brought, or a messenger should be sent (to say), "The robe fund that you, venerable sirs, sent for the sake of the bhikkhu has given no benefit to the bhikkhu at all. May the you be united with what is yours. May what is yours not be lost." This is the proper course here.

1.	Note: not "my steward", an importand detail.

So at no tome there is the idea of "my money", "my budge" or "my possibility" by a monk keeping such discipline and it's a matter of nature that one taking it serious would not even step down till the burden of offering ways toward a steward, but simply let lay people do of what they wish to, accept just of what is proper to exept and get not involved even a little.

Think just on the many problems which will naturally arise if a steward is not responsible toward helping a donor in his desires. Nothing but problems and normal stories of win and lose of live.

To reject even all signs of "having" a steward, not to speak of approving that someone takes care of certain things, is the wise and Noble track.

Even this "compassionate" way, given by the Buddha for the donor (don't think it's a help for monks who strive rightly) bares a lot of dangers and it is not to be regarded to be just a story that monks, having associated with so called stewards got hardly harmed an killed.

So if seeing, or getting aware that someone might give someone else the task to care for something for "your" purpose as a monk, as a person keeping the 10th precept, simply regard it as never been hear, seen, known... since all else will be just for unease and food for even very worse things.

Money and deals is the householders sphere, and the sphere of their Brahmans and thiefs of the Noble Ones.

Do not touch it and act wise in what ever side of a fruitful relation with those toward Unbinding you are, whether giver or receiver.

As a person not even having reached the stream, not even able to refrain of taking what is not given, is pointless if wishing to lift oneselve above a matter which actually requires to be already beyound the path and fruit of one in Dhamma.

This world is merely void of people who even have reached the stream and someone seriously having let go of the use of money and control, my person did not really met more than maybe two or three. In western spheres: dream on and let you be entertained and cheated.

In this regard it should be wisely considered, that even if those who openly hold money, even request money, althought very ugly and dirty are by far not that dirty and inhonest, unworthy, like those acting hidden, take of what they not even have asked for and what has not even given by a deal, for those, althought often the biggest voices, are not even worthy, not regarded, as monks or in affliction.

And it's not said to give any approval toward not abstaining from money, but for the purpose to possible get not blinded by those acting more then ugly by the means of using knowledge for their personal gain and who are not a lttle in the position of blame others within their poor ways of life.