Vinaya-Lineage of Shaolin Monks

[Thanuttamo]

@SCMatt

I remember seeing in the Vinaya somewhere that if all other options such as running away are exhausted one may strike to get away from an attacker. Sorry, I’m not sure where exactly where I saw this, might be in the Nun’s Vinaya.

Dear Matt,
I think the passage you are referring to is found (also?) in the bhikkhu vibhaṅga, the expositions on the pātimokkha rules for monks. If I remember correctly in the section of Pācittiya offences it is said that is only no technical offence to strike in the case mentioned by you. I would make the distinction because “one may strike”, as employed by you, sounds a bit too permissive to my ear …

[Thanuttamo]

@Mat

Whats the vinaya stance on all that fighting training?

@sujato

I don’t think the Vinaya has much to say about it, to be honest. Obviously striking or hitting someone out of anger is an offence, but I don’t think that applies. It would probably come under exercise training generally, which is allowed.

Even if it is techinically no problem, as mentioned by ven. Sujato, I would deem it problematic, however, on the ground that the Buddha at some instances criticized bhikkhus for over-engaging in things counterproductive to samatha-vipassanā and reaching magga-phala, such as making ornamented or special kinds of shoes etc. In the case of shaolin monks I would rather liken them with their several hours long training in acquiring martial arts skills to the mentioned cases criticized by the Buddha …

[Mat]

@Thanuttamo

I would rather liken them with their several hours long training in acquiring martial arts skills to the mentioned cases criticized by the Buddha …

That’s interesting …it makes sense appamada and all that, isnt it?

with metta

[Brahmali]

@Thanuttamo

I think especially in the case of Mahāyāna monks we can be quite sure that they use money for practically everything, essentially with no distinction to a lay person in these instances … Might it be problematic for a bhikkhu to use an object which actually had to be forfeited? I can imagine the commentaries based their explanations on such premises …

My understanding is that even some Mahāyāna monks (and nuns) keep the vinaya strictly. But I believe it’s only a small minority.

In any case, the pātimokkha rule that probably come closest to touching on the scenario you describe is nissaggiya 18, and especially the vibhaṅga to this rule. According to this, when money received by a monastic has been relinquished, and it is then used to buy a requisite after hinting to a lay person, it cannot be used by the offender, but all other monastics may use the item:

Sace tattha āgacchati ārāmiko vā upāsako vā so vattabbo – “āvuso, imaṃ jānāhī”ti. Sace so bhaṇati – “iminā kiṃ āhariyyatū”ti, na vattabbo – “imaṃ vā imaṃ vā āharā”ti. Kappiyaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ – sappi vā telaṃ vā madhu vā phāṇitaṃ vā. Sace so tena parivattetvā kappiyaṃ āharati rūpiyappaṭiggāhakaṃ ṭhapetvā sabbeheva paribhuñjitabbaṃ.
If a monastery attendant or a lay follower is available, you should tell him, “Look into this.” If he says, “What can I get you with this?”, you should not say, “Get this or that;” you should point out what is allowable: ghee, oil, honey, or sugar. If he makes a purchase and brings back what is allowable, everyone may enjoy it except the one who received the money.

It could perhaps be argued that the situation described above is similar to a situation where a monastic buys the item themselves. In other words, when a donor gives money to a monastic, they presumably do so in lieu of giving an actual requisite, that is, the alternative for the donor would have been to donate the requisite itself. So using the above extract from the vibhaṅga as a precedent, it could be argued that anything bought with money received by a monastic is allowable for all except the monastic who received the money. This interpretation seems quite reasonable to me, but of course one should not abuse this as some sort of loophole, whereby you get less strict monastics to buy things on your behalf.

In the end, I think it is always undesirable to live long-term with monastics who do not share roughly the same standard of vinaya as oneself. It is our nature to surround ourselves with people who share our basic outlook in life. Because of this, I think the situation you describe is often more a theoretical problem than a practical one, at least in the long run. And if, in the short run, you should use requisites obtained inappropriately, I cannot see any problem as far as the Canonical vinaya is concerned.

[Thanuttamo]

@Brahmali

It could perhaps be argued that the situation described above is similar to a situation where a monastic buys the item themselves.

Bhante,
thanks for your thoughts again, though I would still be rather disinclined to use these requisites. I think the mentioned rule might not hold true here because the item in our case would not be relinquished and no lay-donor actually would do the procuring of the requisites, just the monastic would be in the chain of acquisition … Would you see it differently anyhow?

@Brahmali

In the end, I think it is always undesirable to live long-term with monastics who do not share roughly the same standard of vinaya as oneself. It is our nature to surround ourselves with people who share our basic outlook in life. Because of this, I think the situation you describe is often more a theoretical problem than a practical one, at least in the long run.

Yes, I can relate to that, I think so too. If I had to directly live together with them I would not stay there long-term (without wanting to degrade their personalities or confronting them harshly in any way). Indeed it would be just land of theirs or perhaps a kuti, unfortunate if this would be problematic … Thank you.

Mettā

[Brahmali]

You are right that the rule does not directly apply to the situation you are describing. I was more quoting it to provide an analogy, which comes as close as possible. My point was that whether the requisites are bought by monks or lay people, the ultimate donors in both cases are lay people. It is the intermediary monk who uses money who has fallen into an offence, but from your perspective the difference is minimal. You are just using what comes from a rightful donation, that is, the original monetary donation of the donor.