[deackatera]

Thanissaro and other Theravadin fundamentalists claim that strict Vinaya practice helps promote
harmony within the Sangha. There is little historical evidence to justify this claim. Thanissaro’s
book contains many sentences like, ‘At points where the ancient commentaries conflicted with the
Canon...’ ‘One of the difficulties in trying to collate all the various texts is that there are points on
which the Vibhanga is at variance with the wording of the Patimokkha rules, and the commentaries
are at variance with the Canon’, ‘(T)here are many areas on which the Vibhanga is unclear and
lends itself to a variety of equally valid interpretations’, etc. Of course for those who have ‘made
the Way itself the main thing’ differences and contradictions in minor rules would be no problem.
But pedantic hairsplitting minds can zoom in on such molehills and turn them into veritable
mountains, and this is what Theravadins have usually done. Most of the divisions within the
Theravada Sangha have come about due to quarrels over points of Vinaya. These quarrels
characteristically involved extraordinarily minor matters, some of them dragged on for decades and
they often led to acrimony, hatred and even violence. Thanissaro quite correctly says, ‘For some
reason, although people tend to be very tolerant of different interpretations of Dhamma, they can be
very intolerant of different interpretations of the Vinaya and can get into heated arguments over
minor issues...’ For some reason! Take what were provisional rules meant to address a specific
problem, attribute them to the Enlightened One, turn it into moral absolutes, then claim that
scrupulous adherence to them is essential for awakening and it is almost inevitable that people will
quarrel over them.
In the 12th century the great Sri Lankan king Parakramabahu I spent years trying to unite his
country. When he finally succeeded and made himself king one of his first tasks was to try to unite
the Sangha. This proved to be even more difficult than all the campaigns he had fought and in
exasperation he said as much. He couldn’t even get monks of the various sects to sit down with
each other. With a combination of threats, bribes and force he eventually united them but almost as
soon as he died they broke up once again into squabbling factions. The Ekamsika Parupanu (One
Shoulder Both Shoulders) Dispute in the 18th century over the proper way to wear a robe went for
over a hundred years. The Adhikamasa Vadaya Dispute in Sri Lanka in the 19th eventually
embroiled the ecclesiastical authorities of both Burma and Thailand and was due to a piece of wood
supposedly making a sima invalid. This dispute raged for thirty years and was never really resolved.
Another dispute that further rent the Sri Lankan Sangha arose due to disagreements about, amongst
other things, the proper way to offer food to monks. In 1941 as a part of a determined effort to unite
the Sangha in that country, the Thai government built a monastery where monks of the two sects
could live together as ‘an example of unity and harmony.’ As is the norm, interminable bickering
over Vinaya soon scuttled the scheme. The same pattern is repeated again and again in Theravadin
history. I have been told that disciples of a certain famous Thai teacher now popular in the West
once even refused to participate in a ceremony attended by the king unless they were seated
separately from monks who had a slightly different Vinaya practice.
Another justification for Vinaya fundamentalism is, as Thanissaro states, that it can ‘foster
mindfulness and circumspection in one’s actions, qualities that carry over into the training of the
mind.’ The claim here is that the rules can lead to one becoming more mindful or that they might
even be a meditation in themselves. This is quite true but it is also true that one could reverse some
rules or have completely different rules and they could be just as conducive to mindfulness. The
point is the mindfulness, not the object or behavior one is mindful of. It is equally true that the rules
could be practiced in an overly fastidious way where all attention was on outward form rather than
inward transformation and in reality this is what more usually happens. Some say that strict Vinaya
frees a monk from anxiety and worry thus helping the practice of meditation. According to this
view a monk’s every action is clearly set out and he knows how to behave in every situation, thus
freeing him to concentrate on the more important things. Anyone who has ever spent time with
fundamentalist monks will know how untrue this is. I once shared a room with a young Australian
monk who was very strict about Vinaya. One day I came back to the room and noticed that he was
more morose than usual. ‘What’s wrong?’ I asked. ‘I have been impure for a whole year without
confessing it’ he said. ‘Which rule have you broken?’ I asked. ‘Nissaggiya Pacittiya 18,’ he replied,
the rule against touching gold or silver, i.e. money. His confession surprised me because I knew that
he was extremely strict about this particular rule. ‘But I’ve never seen you break that rule.’ I said.
He hung his head and said, ‘I’ve been doing it ever since Iv been a monk.’ ‘How? When?’ I asked.
He opened his mouth and pointed to a gold filling on one of his back teeth which he had apparently
only just remembered. One rule states that a monk should not use Sangha property without putting a
cover on it. This seems like a sensible rule but combine it with that obsessive tendency common to
Theravadins and it can become a major problem. I knew a monk, again an Australian, who was
constantly agonizing over this rule. He was a very restless sleeper and in the mornings he would
inevitably wake up finding that his sheet had come loose during the night and his body was
touching the bed, that is, touching Sangha property. Even when he woke up with no part touching
the bed he would worry that he might have done so during the night. One morning he was so
overwrought that he was literally on the verge of committing suicide and had I or another monk not
been with him he may well have done so. As a brief aside, I have noticed two other things about
Vinaya fundamentalists. The first is that they seem to have a higher rate of disrobing than the more
‘lax’ monks. Secondly, and this should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with psychology,
when they do disrobe they often go wild and not uncommonly even give up Buddhism altogether. It
is a case of first one extreme and then the other. The two monks mentioned above both soon
disrobed, one turned against Buddhism with a vehemence and the other gradually drifted out of it.
It is not uncommon for strict monks to regularly confess to having broken some of the more
obscurely stated rules even when they have not knowingly done so, just to free themselves from the
anxiety that they might have broken them. It is said that when King Monkut was a monk he
ordained and disrobed again nearly thirty times because he wasn’t quite sure that his ordination
ceremony had been conducted correctly and that he was therefore a ‘real’ monk. Vinaya
fundamentalists seem to spend much of their time ruminating on the minutiae of the more obscure
rules, nervously watching the clock and discussing which of numerous hypothetical scenarios
would or would nor not constitute an infraction of the rules. The conversation can range from such
subjects as whether swallowing toothpaste while cleaning one’s teeth would be breaking the rule
against eating after noon, to discussing how to calculate when to stop eating if one were living
above the Arctic Circle where a day can be several weeks long. Then there is the matter of whether
putting a handkerchief on a chair and sitting on it would make a monk higher than lay people in the
room sitting on the same type of chairs. I know of a monastery in Europe where two jars of honey
are kept in the kitchen, one labeled ‘Morning Honey’ and the other ‘Afternoon Honey.’ The reason
for this curious arrangement is thus. Monks should not eat solid food after noon but they are
allowed to have honey (Nissaggiya Pacittiya 23). While a monk is putting honey on his morning
toast a tiny crumb of bread might end up in the jar. If while having some honey in the afternoon he
were to ingest this crumb he would be breaking a rule. To avoid such an enormity two jars are
provided and kept separate. Making such arrangements suggests a level of concern out of all
proportion to the rule’s importance and the size of the tiny crumb that might be accidentally
ingested. Far from putting one at ease fundamentalist Vinaya practice not uncommonly leads to
anxiety, worry, guilt and obsessive behavior. Another justification for strict Vinaya is that in
disallowing a monk to ask for anything it encourages acceptance and egolessness. Again this could
be true but more commonly the opposite seems to happen. Strictly observant monks usually become
very adept at getting exactly what they want and having their own way no matter what the rules say.
There are many ways to skin a cat – hinting, insinuation, a mournful look, a grimace - and as we
will see below, Theravada has evolved a whole culture of getting around the rules.

this whole piece is at......http://www.buddhistische-gesellschaf...nbuddhanew.pdf

[HunterM]

I once shared a room with a young Australian monk who was very strict about Vinaya. One day I came back to the room and noticed that he was more morose than usual. ‘What’s wrong?’ I asked. ‘I have been impure for a whole year without confessing it’ he said. ‘Which rule have you broken?’ I asked. ‘Nissaggiya Pacittiya 18,’ he replied, the rule against touching gold or silver, i.e. money. His confession surprised me because I knew that he was extremely strict about this particular rule. ‘But I’ve never seen you break that rule.’ I said. He hung his head and said, ‘I’ve been doing it ever since Iv been a monk.’ ‘How? When?’ I asked. He opened his mouth and pointed to a gold filling on one of his back teeth which he had apparently only just remembered.

[Thifiadardivy]

his body was
touching the bed, that is, touching Sangha property. Even when he woke up with no part touching the bed he would worry that he might have done so during the night

Sleeping on a bed eh very slack,but as long as it wasn't a "high and luxurious bed"

[Vulkanevsel]

Do you guys use some special technique to read those long lengthy passages without feeling Claustrophobic? Phew!

[d1Bc25UP]

The Vinaya doesn't need justifying.