Theft of status

Discussion
1

Hello everyone :pray:

I found a couple of old threads about the topic but none of them treat the issue directly, so I made a new direct thread. Hope it’s ok!

In the commentary there is the idea that if a layperson puts on robes without the Sangha’s consent then they are guilty of “theft of status” and are disqualified from ordination.

As I understand it, the level of strictness with which this is enforced varies according to tradition, from dressing as a monk for Halloween, to impersonating a monk in the street in order to get money from people.

However, in the Vinaya itself (specifically in Kd 1:62.1.1) it seems that only the idea of affiliation by theft is condemned, which implies the intention to deceive for the sake of an easy life:

Why don’t I just get myself a bowl and robes, shave off my hair and beard, put on ocher robes, and then go to the monastery and live with the monks?”

If theft of status were a real thing then what about Pukkusāti in MN 140?

The sutta seems to imply that he hadn’t received either going forth or full ordination, yet he dressed and acted like a bhikkhu. Even the Buddha himself thought of him and called him “bhikkhu”.

And from the context we can understand that this was at a time when the Sangha had already spread far enough that Pukkusāti went forth without ever having seen the Buddha in person, so it’s reasonable to think that standardized robes might have already been introduced.

Not only Pukkusāti, but the Venerable Mahakassapa also went forth from his own accord in SN 16.11:

After some time I made an outer robe of patches and, in the name of the perfected ones in the world, I shaved off my hair and beard, dressed in ocher robes, and went forth from the lay life to homelessness.

If theft of status occurred only by putting robes and begging for alms then both would have been disqualified from ordination.

So it seems to me to be more likely that theft of status might have to do with the intention to deceive in order to claim certain privileges that one has not earned, but that begging for almsfood individually might not necessarily be one of those?

I wonder what the Venerables would think of someone who, maybe from lack of Buddhist presence or suitable teachers in their country, were to go forth on his own accord, practicing wholeheartedly in line with the Dhamma as best they can, hoping someday to find a suitable teacher, but never claiming to be an ordained monastic.

What if they were to dress in a monastic style that is sufficiently different from standardized robes, so that people wouldn’t immediately think of a Buddhist monastic?

I’m not sure I see how that would constitute “seriously wronging the Dhamma-Vinaya” as the commentary puts it?

Thank you :pray:

3 Likes
2

I wonder, how that one Indian actor who played Buddha in that long and interesting Hindi Serial on the Buddha fared, because though an actor, first he played the Buddha and put on robes to play the part of Siddhartha, then a number of years after the show itself finished he is known to have become a real life Monk and Went Forth for real. I hope he is doing okay, and didn’t have any issues.

3

It says on his Wikipedia page:

In 2014, Gagan Malik renounced Hinduism and embraced Buddhism on Poson Poya day in Mihintale, Sri Lanka. On 10 February 2022, Malik ordained at Wat That Thong Temple in Bangkok, Thailand. His short-termed monkhood will last for 15 days which he would take the opportunity to further study the teachings of Buddhism in Thailand. But he remained a Buddhist monk for 4 months (until June 2022), during which time he visited major Buddhist sites related to the life of the Buddha and Ambedkar.

However, there are no citations for the 4 month claim, and I can’t find them anywhere, who knows.

4

I hope so too, as that would really seem to be an overinterpretation of the notion of theft of status.

1 Like
5

I think, re-formulating your question to precisely include a scenario would help. :slight_smile:

“Going forth”, being a homeless ascetic, is certainly not exclusive to Buddhism. There are other traditions (like Jains) and even countless unaffiliated ascetics who take up a homeless life, dress however they want (or not at all, in some Jain cases), behave in all sorts of manners.

So, I’m not sure what Vinaya would have anything to say about an ascetic who didn’t claim to follow Vinaya or being a “buddhist monk”. Unless of course, you assumed to know and/or preach the Buddhadhamma. :slight_smile:

Zen Priests, for example, do not follow Vinaya, they handle money, do all sorts of things banned in vinaya (like getting married even). They don’t call themselves “monks”, they call themselves “priests” and they do not deceive the public. Most people are fine with Zen priests (Though you may find some traditional Theravadins not even considering them to be the same religion. Which is probably for the best for all parties involved).

tl;dr as long as you don’t assume to be part of Buddhadhamma Sangha lineage (even if your beliefs are partly or largely inspired by Buddhism), I’m not sure what the problem is. Buddhism doesn’t have a monopoly on asceticism.

Lastly, if someone really wants to live as an ascetic and practice truly according to Dhammavinaya, then I would strongly urge literally going homeless, and finding a suitable monastery to practice in. No matter where you come from, there are monasteries all over the world to accomodate such people. So, that to me nullifies the “lack of a Buddhist presence or suitable teacher in one’s country”. If that’s the only obstacle, that’s really not an obstacle (unless of course one has other situations that makes it impossible for them to leave their country).

2 Likes
6

As Dogen hints above, renouncing the lay life, becoming (and calling oneself) a Bhikṣu, and much of what is called in Buddhism the ‘Vinaya code’ - were there in Brahmanism before both Jainism and Buddhism started. It was widespread enough that the pre-Buddhist teachers Pārāśarya & Karmandin both independently codified the rules of living for bhikṣus in sutra format called the Pārāśarya Bhikṣu sūtras & Karmandin Bhikṣu sūtras respectively. Yājñavalkya (of the Br̥hadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad) himself became a bhikṣu.

Pāṇini mentions these pre-existing Bhikṣu-sutras in his grammar (4th century BCE).

The Buddha mentions this Pārāśarya & his pre-Buddhist teachings for Bhikṣus in MN152, as I have formerly explained in Dhammacakkapavattan Sutta - #8 by srkris

2 Likes
7

What is also interesting is that the commentary to MN 140 confirms that Pukkusāti went forth of his own accord, hence putting into question its own idea that simply putting on robes and walking for alms constitutes theft of status.

Maybe the fact that his set of robes and bowl wasn’t complete meant people wouldn’t have taken him to be a fully ordained bhikkhu.
However both he and the Buddha seem to take his going forth as valid since at the end of the sutta he only asks for full ordination.

So it seems not looking exactly like a bhikkhu and not claiming to be one (although he doesn’t correct the Buddha when he calls him “bhikkhu”) is acceptable, but where is the line then?

8

Doesn’t much of this go back to the idea of “intent”? Am I intending to make an impression on people as to my affiliation? Is it important that people have some idea that I am engaging in a particular practice? Does it have any bearing on the practice itself? Is it special attention am I seeking? To seek the practice through following the path suggests seclusion, moderation in one’s needs for food and shelter, devotion to developing the eightfold path. It really doesn’t require that one adorn oneself in a manner denoting what one is doing. In the big picture, it doesn’t matter what other people think. I can shave my head and dress in a simple and neutral manner concurrent with the basic style of the culture I reside within. I will attract little attention either wanted or unwanted. The respect of other people, should one be seeking that, comes from the practice that you pursue, not from advertising that it is your lifestyle. As noted by previous posters, there are teachers and monasteries to be found throughout the world, provided one is able to leave their own country. And if it is not yet time to commit to the practice fully, one can work with the resources available with a minimum of added elaboration. You do no serious wrong if your intentions are in true accordance with the purity of following the eightfold path.

1 Like
9

This old thread may be of some use as it discusses quite a few of the issues raised.

Btw Pukkusati and Bahia have both been inspirations of mine, as in how far you can take the practice if ordination wasn’t available. So many barriers and hindrances are just belief constructions we cling to…

Best wishes for your journey

1 Like