Dhamma is for individual liberation, Vinaya is for conduct optimization to propagate Buddha’s teaching long and pure.
Individual is alright to just follow sutta in order for self liberation.
To keep unquestionable lineage of Buddha’s teaching, vinaya is the key.
I was able to identify Thai Forest Monks are carrying unaltered Dhamma spoken by Buddha himself, by looking at monks’ conduct in following Vinaya texts.
By the look of vinaya, I have impression that Buddha trusts only vinaya followers to continue his lineage. That means those individuals who are highly disciplined in conduct.
Vinaya is a ‘burden’ and duty of lineage carriers. Vinaya is not important for those who wish for liberation but no interest in teaching pure dhamma.
Even when tough time, no one is getting enlightened, but if there is a continuous line of ppl who strictly following vinaya, we can trust this line keeps sutta true and pure as spoken by Buddha. That is how vinaya makes pure dhamma long standing.
While people may have their personal opinions on smoking and bicycles, the reality is that the text of the vinaya says nothing substantial about either of these in their modern forms (presumably smoking in the vinaya is the ayurvedic type).
If we can criticise anything from the bicycle and smoking conversations, it should be the pettiness of some modern vinaya interpretive traditions, which are (a) not all modern Theravada interpretive traditions and (b) still not the vinaya itself. If there is an apparent false dichotomy between dhamma and vinaya, it’s likely the problem of vinaya interpretation as opposed to a vinaya problem, as vinaya by definition is that which supports dhamma.
It may be reflexive to think that Mahayana may have solutions, but there are also regionally diverse Theravadas which have developed localised solutions which are in many cases already highly functional and adaptive. These local approaches may not always make into into print because they aren’t “prestigious”, but also form an important body of knowledge as to how we “do vinaya” outside of the South and SE Asian monsoon belt (and are in many cases also already within what the text of the vinaya requires).
I personally have a very happy life in the West keeping vinaya, I’m not sure how anyone could improve it in a substantial way [maybe less plastic on almsround?] (I would be happy to see more disabled, queer, indigenous, environmental, ex-untouchable and women’s exegesis, but I already largely know what the vinaya means to me personally in these areas). I also chose to do something that is quite obvious to me- which is to live where I can get alms in walking distance. My friend who was a Mahayana monk told me it’s not possible to live without money in the West and I really just laughed because we are already doing it quite satisfactorily.
I was part of the bicycle discussion, so I’m guessing a lot of these things are directed, or are based on my posts in that thread . . .
I think a few crucial things need to be considered: I don’t believe separating people into categories of being “Vinaya-followers” and “Dhamma-followers” is a good approach at finding solutions for the issues presented. For one, there is likely almost no one who would fall under the “Vinaya-follower” group. Those who would fall under “Vinaya-follower” would mostly be monastics. Other than monastics, there are likely very few members on the forum who have studied Vinaya, or even read the Vinaya Piṭaka.
(Similarly, likely every single person would be considered a “Dhamma-follower.” The Vinaya is considered teachings of the Buddha, and therefore, a “Vinaya-follower” is also a “Dhamma-follower.”)
Secondly, whether or not there is such two classifications, I don’t think dividing people into two opposing groups, and then pitting these two groups against themselves is conducive to finding solutions, or even simply for having a constructive discussion.
It is difficult to believe that, from two recent discussions, and a few others, that the forum has somehow divided into two opposing camps. While it may definitely appear as such in those threads, in many cases, this is what can sometimes happen in any thread.
I don’t think the above is correct. How Vinaya rules are interpreted is very complex, and sometimes even strange for a non-monastic. One may simply read even just the Pāṭimokkha, and from a short reading, I’m sure the initial reaction of most would be confusion about how detailed and complex it is—with many rules having little meaning for such a person.
However, the life of a monastic is based on very peculiar circumstances, and the rules in the Pāṭimokkha—as described by the Buddha, and according to the reasons the Buddha created those rules—are similarly complex and based on that very peculiar social arrangement for monastics.
This is a false choice—there is no choice to be made between Dhamma and the Vinaya. Both the Vinaya and the Suttas are teachings of the Buddha, and therefore, Dhamma. The main difference between the discrepancy, however, is that one deals with events of the Buddha’s life, and the teachings he expounded to both monastics and lay people; while the Vinaya is a set of rules and teachings he created and taught to monastics—and only for monastics to follow.
As said above, I think the division of two groups, of “Dhamma-follower” and “Vinaya-follower” can similarly lead to further division. I personally feel responsible for my participation in the bicycle thread, and would even more so if a discussion such as this one were to result in something negative. However, regardless of my reaction or participation, I believe a discussion precisely structured as it is will likely lead to animosity and division.
@faujidoc1, I’m not sure if you are being deliberately provocative with the thread’s title: “which is foremost - Dhamma or Vinaya”, but this is certainly a false dichotomy!
In both cases, of smoking and riding bicycles, the questions were specifically about the Vinaya rules.
I rejoice in your intention to ordain. However, knowledge of how the vinaya as it is actually applied and practiced is something one can only really learn after ordaining. As you say yourself:
So, I would humbly suggest not positioning yourself as an expert until you actually have some experience living as a monk, with the shared understanding of a lived tradition gained from being in a community and in close proximity to a learned and wise teacher. You may be surprised that there are many different approaches to practicing the vinaya and that they coexist quite harmoniously even in the same community. Surely it would be wise to hold off developing some very strong views just yet until you have had some practical experience? It is often people with the least experience of monastic life who have the most vehement views of how it “should be”.
I remember a wonderful story about a Japanese academic who was an ‘expert’ in western ballet, but everything he knew came from books. He had never seen a ballet performance or even danced a step himself. What kind of expertise could he have?
I don’t say this to upset or hurt you, the same thing goes for all of us in many spheres of our lives. I’ve known many vinaya scholars and senior monks and nuns who have studied for years and years, but even they would hesitate to refer to themselves as ‘experts’, not out of false modesty, but because such things are actually very complex! One’s understandings and views also change over time. It’s easy to be completely certain about something before one starts out but as you go along, you may find the more one knows, the more one understands how little one knows!
Interpretation!! For example, shaving heads. Some people believe that the scissoring action of hair clippers means they shouldn’t be used (as scissors are not allowed) but others believe that the blades are less like shears and more like a blade, so it is allowed. You will find monks of both views sharing the same bathroom on head shaving day. Many such things occur.
For What it’s worth, I didn’t interpret @faujidoc1 's OP as being deliberately provocative, but rather highlighting that issues surrounding the Vinaya have been a source of conflict even during the Buddhas lifetime, and presenting a hypothetical about why this may be the case… different traits in people…
It is only if we try to impose a judgement on which is better or worse that we get into trouble… ie the word ‘foremost’… But I chose to read this as a (tongue in cheek) reflection of the very nature of the conflict itself, rather than a call to engage in judgement.
Regarding the above, I will first say that I have never positioned myself as an expert—and that I have never said I’m an expert on Vinaya. I have always positioned myself as a lay person, and rarely have I even said I’ve studied any of the Vinaya.
(If you are referring to my post in this thread, I simply described my background to clarify and give more details as to my participation in the Vinaya/bicycle thread—since many of the details in this discussion were in part about my posts in that thread, and about that thread. What I described in my post about myself weren’t things I necessarily wanted to divulge in a public forum, but rather only thought it might be useful to clarify my intentions with my participation in that thread.)
However, if your suggestion has nothing to do with any prior discussions, but it is rather a suggestion to prevent me complications in the future—which I think it likely is—I will take that as generous and thoughtful advice.
I fully agree with you. Vinaya as written, and Vinaya as practiced and lived are likely two very different things. It is a distinction which I had definitely not reflected upon enough.
Thank you for your suggestions, Bhante. I take them to heart, and will continue to reflect on them.
I don’t know about the “monks smoking” thread, which I didn’t participate in. However, I was one of the main objectors regarding owning bicycles in the bicycle thread—especially quoting the Vinaya (and therefore one of the “Vinaya-followers” classification, according to the two camps mentioned in the OP).
Thinking over it, my posts in that thread were somewhat direct and done a bit out of haste, and I may not have given the topic the attention to detail that it required. I was going to clarify my point after Ven. Subhāro’s next post, however—the discussion was still going on.
Still, I don’t think because different people disagree in a thread that it means a division of two camps needs to be put against each other—and I would be regretful if such a situation were to take place.
The Vinaya emerges from the Dhamma. It is secondary. We see this in origin story to the laying down of rules:
Sāriputta then got up from his seat, put his upper robe over one shoulder, raised his joined palms, and said, “This is the time, Venerable Sir, for laying down training rules and reciting a monastic code, so that this spiritual life may last for a long time.”
“Hold on, Sāriputta. The Buddha knows the appropriate time for this. The Teacher doesn’t lay down training rules or recite a monastic code until the causes of corruption appear in the Sangha. And they don’t appear until the Sangha has attained long standing, great size, an abundance of the best material support, or great learning. When the causes of corruption appear for any of these reasons, then the Teacher lays down training rules for his disciples and recites a monastic code in order to counteract these causes.
Sāriputta, the Sangha of monks is free from cancer and danger, stainless, pure, and established in the essence. Even the least developed of these five hundred monks is a stream-enterer. They will not be reborn in the lower world, but are fixed in destiny and bound for awakening.”
There is more. The word Vinaya is now used more or less synonymously with Vinaya Piṭaka. At the time of the Buddha, however, it was used to mean training in a general sense. For instance, a horse is said to be vineti, “trained”, a word which is the verbal form of vinaya. It follows from this that whereas Dhamma is the Teaching—the theory if you like—the Vinaya is the training, the practical expression of the theory. The most obvious example of this is how we put the noble eightfold path into practice. Over time, perhaps already towards the end of the Buddha’s life, the word Vinaya narrowed down to specifically refer to rules and regulations.
What this means that Vinaya rules and regulations should reflect the Dhamma. They exist as an extension and particular expression of the Dhamma.
This is helpful in deciding what we need to kept and what not. But first of all we need to understand a bit more about why the Buddha laid down the rules. Again, this is specifically stated in the Vinaya Piṭaka:
“Well then, monks, I will lay down a training rule for the following ten reasons: for the well-being of the Sangha, for the comfort of the Sangha, for the restraint of bad people, for the ease of good monks, for the restraint of corruptions relating to the present life, for the restraint of corruptions relating to future lives, to give rise to confidence in those without it, to increase the confidence of those who have it, for the longevity of the true Teaching, and for supporting the training.”
We can perhaps summarise this as two main reasons: (1) helping monastics to practice properly; (2) supporting confidence in the Dhamma.
The first of these concerns rules that have to do with moral conduct. Such rules should never be abolished. They concern a fundamental aspect of what Buddhism is about.
The second concerns what is acceptable in society and what is inspiring conduct for a monastic. The Buddha laid down a large number of rules to this end. Yet this is an area where careful judgment is required. Monastic practice should ideally be an expression of true renunciation. At its best, it should reflect the sort of insight that is the culmination of the Buddhist path. This is both a good strategy for achieving those insights, as well as a banner to the world of what those insights consist of. To reform these rules in a skilful way—even if we only consider rules that were not laid down by the Buddha—we need the guidance of experienced and wise monastics.
Of course, not all monastics will live up to the highest ideal. And that’s fine, so long as they keep the moral rules of the Vinaya. But it’s an ideal we should keep in mind and strive for. The longevity of the real Dhamma depends on it.
A big Thank you to those who have chosen to step forward and participate! Conversations about things dear to our heart are never easy, and what could be dearer to us all but the Buddha’s dispensation?
In starting this thread, I sought to recognize that there seem to be two different approaches that people follow when it comes to judging if a certain behavior is skillful or not.
Lay people by and large are more familiar with Dhamma teachings so that is the framework they tend to use. Monastics (and some lay people who seek to ‘step-up’ their practice) arrange their lives according to the Vinaya, so that becomes important to them.
Ideally, there would be no conflict between the two approaches. Yet, when I see a Vinaya based line of reasoning lead to the conclusion that for instance “Smoking is allowable but cycling is not” something inside me goes ‘Wait a minute! How can that conclusion possibly be correct given the Dhamma advice on skillful behavior the Buddha gave to the Kalamas and to Rahula?’
So there seem to be issues with how Vinaya is interpreted and practiced versus a purely Dhamma perspective. And personalities, being conditioned by their circumstances and experiences tend to veer towards one side or the other.
But for me, personally to come to a decision on what would be the more skillful path to follow, there is the requirement of choosing one way of thinking over the other. And surely many others - both monastic and lay people may be struggling similarly between what their heart tells them and what is currently accepted by their communities as correct and by the rules.
Ajahn Brahmali summed up my unvoiced personal opinion succinctly when he said…
If it’s any consolation @faujidoc1 if you wanted to stay as a nun here [in a very very hypothetical world], if you smoked, I would take you to see a doctor (but probably not to see a vinaya lawyer in the first instance sorry unless there are flow-on issues involved) and yes, you could have a bicycle but I don’t think we can afford accessories or repairs or to mop you up after you get sideswiped by a bus (local area is not cycle friendly). Around here it is either walk or train, but I personally prefer to walk as much as I can because train suicides disturb me.
I think religions (not only Buddhism) have an issue with “competitive piety” in general whereby the most narrow minded form of the religion comes to be seen as the most authentic. Which is a bit lame if you are honestly just interested in um, getting enlightened and don’t care about “piety as social performance”. If you feel alarmed by people using the vinaya to argue against bicycles, it’s ok, I do too (as would a significant number of my monastic friends, and the lay devotee who kindly offered to buy me a bicycle).
I think those rules are a guide for a long, long time. Ever read about Buddha Lands? They’re all Monks there, and there are no women not because they don’t like Women but because even though Men and Women are the Perfect Match, they want everyone to be fully equal, and although Men and Women have similarities, they are different, and this creates the basis for Samsara. Sex life. Anyway, ending birth, even the Buddha has finished His life Span.
Thankfully the Buddha didn’t actually teach about Pure Lands, so we don’t need to worry about this kind of irrelevant sexist content except as historical trivia which will ultimately be superseded by more accurate knowledge of early Buddhism.
Sadhu Ayya, I think you are providing an example of very wise behaviour!
It is my impression that calls for modernization of the Vinaya (and, to be clear, I don’t regard reviving the Bhikkhuni order as a “modernization”, the possibility was there all along it seems to me! ) are most often driven by issues such as being able to drive to Dhamma talks, finding a job as a monastic in order to support their monastery etc… and while I think the work some of these monastics do in order to spread the Dhamma is outstanding, I think it is important to remember that the main purpose the Dhamma/Vinaya was designed is to bring the person practicing to full liberation, not necessarily as a missionary vehicle.
Hopefully this remembrance can provide an additional pointer for monastics when deciding on controversial issues.
So, I guess my message to monastics would be “Please, don’t worry too much about us laypeople! We are doing fine in this age of worldwide connectivity and can probably make do with online Dhamma talks if it means making sure you as monastics are maximizing your conditions towards liberation! This is what will ensure the lasting welfare and happiness of the people, the benefit, welfare, and happiness of gods and humans!”
Yeah it does seem sexist, especially when you first read it. I won’t comment about it then, but I hope you can find a better solution than what I said. The Buddha doesn’t comment about Goloka Vrndaven either, and all we have there is Amor, Amor, Amor, and the most High Spiritual Practice (what’s that, Buddhism too? What’s the purpose of Buddhism? Where am I in this World? I just want beings not to to suffer and I honestly feel like a crybaby, the Saha world is filling back up again).