What if your reply to a request was to say something like “I would love to lead your sunrise meditation session but I have no way to get there and back” and let them figure it out (or not). That way you’re not asking for anything.
3 Likes
Is there any mention in the suttas of lay people transporting monks and nuns around on ox carts or…? (A monastery vehicle! 
) If there are restrictions in the Vinaya, perhaps there were situations mentioned that prompted these rules.
I am always very supportive and validating of good Vinaya monastics, insofar as I feel that Vinaya practice and conformance to traditional 2500 year old practice is what sets great monastics apart from others in the ordained Buddhist pantheon. Having said that, like many rules or laws in life, we have to have a rule of reason about adapting to modern realities. I have known Sri Lankan monks here in the US that held part-time jobs as day care givers in order to have the funds to support their new wat. A few of the senior monks drove an old car they had to surrounding cities to lead meditations; these meetings would never occur unless the monks drove themselves. And so, the strict Vinaya was not kept, but there was no risk of some “slippery slope” arguments that these monks would next be riding Harley-Davidson motorcycles. Their accommodation to reality was reasonable, and they were fundamentally good monks, and so these behaviors seemed to me both reasonable and necessary in the 21st century.
I’ll leave it to the monastics to determine how they get around. I am much more interested in the practices, hearts, and minds of monastics than I am as to how they get from place to place. When we as lay people start getting our knickers in a twist over a monk wearing sandals on pindabhat, we need to look at ourselves, and not the monk.
15 Likes
Whether or not monastics end up on bicycles, surely discussing what is and is not according to the Vinaya is legitimate?
There is a difference between simply getting a bicycle, with that of saying it follows the Vinaya/the Buddha would have accepted bicycles.
1 Like
@Samseva, I agree with you here. I do think the Vinaya is very important, and the discussion as among the monastics as to what is acceptable in a community is also important.
There’s no proscription against mobile phones in the Vinaya, but I’d argue that the worst possession that a young monk in Thailand might have is a mobile phone. I see these young (and old) monks tethered to their phones and Facebook, and find it hard to understand how they find the mindfulness or the time to meditate or study Dhamma. I have no idea what the Buddha might have said about bicycles in 2021, but I 'm sure he would have made some strict rules about mobile phones, Facebook, and the like. In any case, good monastics will make reasonable and appropriate interpretations of Vinaya for their Sangha, and some will find room to allow for adaptation to the modern era. Because the Buddha was, in part, an ethicist and pragmatist, he likely would have encouraged monastics to employ wisdom and compassion to determine, within their community, what devices and things will best keep monastics on the path of practice and maintain the symbiotic support of the lay community.
5 Likes
A previous discussion that’s similar:
Here’s what Thanissaro Bhikkhu says in BMC 2 → General → Misbehaviour → Discussions → Bad Habits:
There are rules forbidding a bhikkhu from riding in a vehicle unless he is ill, in which case he may ride in a handcart or a cart yoked with a bull. In modern times, ill is interpreted here as meaning too weak to reach one’s destination on foot in the time available, and the allowance for a cart yoked with a bull is extended to cover motorized vehicles such as automobiles, airplanes, and trucks, but not to motorcycles or bicycles, as the riding position in the latter cases is more like riding on an animal’s back. There is also a rule allowing a bhikkhu to ride in a sedan-chair, although the origin story to that rule suggests that the allowance is intended specifically for a bhikkhu too ill to ride in a vehicle. In discussing these rules, the Commentary states that the sedan-chair may be carried by women or men, and the vehicle may be driven by a woman or a man (although see the discussion under Pc 67 in BMC1). Even then, though, the Commentary does not extend permission for the bhikkhu to drive the vehicle himself. Thus it is improper for a bhikkhu to drive a motorized vehicle of any sort.
Thanissaro Bhikkhu doesn’t make all that clear above what comes from which historical layer of Vinaya. There’s certainly nothing in the Patimokkha to stop bike-riding monks. I am almost certain (and somebody please correct me if I’m wrong, with a citation or specific reference) that there is also nothing in the Suttavibhaṅga layer of the Vinaya either (the 1st Commentarial layer of the Vinaya, said to be composed at the 1st council, and therefore is generally regarded as having Early-Buddhist-Text status).
Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s arguments which tackle bike riding around the ankles seem to come from Commentarial layers of Vinaya beyond the Suttavibhaṅga, namely, the layers written and composed in Sri Lanka (and therefore, Sri Lankan Buddhists are likely to rise to the defence of these Vinaya layers more readily).
The lineage I was ordained into, the Ajahn Chah lineage, sometimes will follow what’s in the Vinaya commentarial layers beyond the Suttavibhaṅga, sometimes not (as “binding”, meaning entailing a confession when broken).
BTW: Ajahn Punnadhammo of Arrow River Forest Hermitage, Canada adds the following: when he was trained in Thailand, the relevant Vinaya here against monks riding horses, etc. has everything to do with monks not exploiting the labour of animals, and as such would not apply to bicycles or automobiles, as they are not a riding animal. In the West, monks will drive vehicles around on monastery property for the sake of work (like hauling building materials and tools around), but will not drive vehicles around in town, because that almost certainly entails spending money, which monks of course can’t do.
5 Likes
To be fair, and as to not misrepresent Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu, most of what he wrote about is directly from the Mahāvagga of the Vinaya Piṭaka:
7. The prohibition against vehicles, etc.
At that time the monks from the group of six traveled in vehicles, sometimes pulled by women with men inside, at other times pulled by men with women inside. People complained and criticized them, “It’s as if they’re at the Ganges festival.” They told the Buddha and he said,
“You should not travel in a vehicle. If you do, you commit an offense of wrong conduct.”
Soon afterwards a monk who was traveling through the Kosalan country on his way to visit the Buddha at Sāvatthī became sick. He stepped off the path and sat down at the foot of a tree. People saw him and said to him, “Venerable, where are you going?”
“I’m going to Sāvatthī to visit the Buddha.”
“Please come with us.”
“I can’t; I’m sick.”
“Then please mount the vehicle.”“Thanks, but the Buddha has prohibited us from traveling in vehicles.” And being afraid of wrongdoing, he did not accept. When he arrived at Sāvatthī, he told the monks what had happened, who in turn told the Buddha. He said,
“I allow a vehicle when you’re sick.”
The monks thought, “A vehicle pulled by women or by men?”
“I allow a rickshaw pulled by men.”
Soon afterwards a certain monk [likely sick, from the prior allowance] was even more uncomfortable when jolted around in a vehicle.
“I allow a palanquin and a litter.”
https://suttacentral.net/pli-tv-kd5/en/brahmali
The Pāṭimokkha and the Suttavibaṅgha deal with the heavier rules of pārājika, saṅghādisesa, aniyata, pācittiya, pāṭidesanīya, and sekhiya—whereas the Khandaka section of the Vinaya Piṭaka deals with the khandhaka rules.
That a khandhaka isn’t described in the Pātimokkha or Suttavibaṅgha doesn’t say anything at all about a khandhaka rule.
4 Likes
Buddhist monks and nuns do a lot for the environment.
They aren’t having children, they aren’t eating a lot of meat, and they are probably being driven less than most people drive. Children, diet, and transportation are the big issues that people can something about via their personal choices.
Additionally Buddhist monks and nuns, theoretically should be teaching people about the pitfalls of attachment. Attachment plays a big role in consumerism, which plays a big role in the environmental foot prints people have.
As for the Vinanya, I think think it is at least 2000 years overdue for an update.
Years ago I arrived at a Vihara around dinner time. There was only 1 monk there. He asked me to turn on the lights for the evening. He explained that the rules of being a monk did not allow him to do that. This was a few decades ago, but it was connected to some Vinanya rule that was created after a monk got scared finding a snake near a camp fire.
It is things like that, in part, where people lose respect for a religion.
No disrespect meant.
Don’t lose respect for the Tradition over a few rules. Monastic life and it’s rules are meant to be quite strict to build discipline and detached-from-the-material-world state of mind. If we give as much support, emotionally and respectfully otherwise, to the monastics, they will in turn Bless us with the gift of expounding the Dhamma. There is a long Path in Buddhism, towards the Gateway of Enlightenment. Walking it is like walking the Razor’s Edge, one must have the most serious disposition, yet still a heart full of Metta for everyone, including one’s own Emptiness. So if we give Metta to all of the monastics by respecting their rules, even if they are seemingly strange to us, we will be encouraging Buddhist Principles and the most important life choice: Monastic Life.
2 Likes
Thank you for quoting the Vinaya text. I think the most important take-away that is often forgotten is that all of the Vinaya rules have a historical origin. The Buddha did not think from any high principle like, “let us care for the environment,” “let us be humble,” or, “let us not burden animals” and try to, a priori, come up with a set of rules that would lead to people maximally achieving those principles. Rather, he responded to discrete issues in the moment. The prohibition on vehicles comes from someone causing problems by using vehicles. The allowance for sick monks comes from someone causing problems by refusing vehicles.
While your disheartening experience is individually valid, research in general shows the opposite reaction to be the general tendency. It’s funny that you chose this particular example, which is in common to Orthodox Jewish practice. These generally fall into the category of “Credibility Enhancing Displays” or CREDs - costly behaviors that have no possible justification other than a particular belief system. Exposure to these behaviors in others has been shown to be a consistent cross-cultural cross-contextual predictor of adhering to a belief system (including non-religious belief systems like environmentalism).
I think it would be best if the world were organized such that healthy monks could walk everywhere and still have everyone be served by them. In my country, America, when I think about why that isn’t possible the biggest factors are disheartening aspects of our history where governments often prioritized business interests over the safety and convenience of poor urban and rural peoples, and the fact that Dhamma came to our country quite late and hasn’t taken off with great fervor. In the Buddha’s time, it seems there was a good ratio of monks: laity and a healthy person could walk from Nepal to Persia. I briefly had a job less than a mile away I couldn’t walk to because there was no walking route under five miles. There are even places it is literally illegal to walk to, because of how they are encircled in roads and highways. It is a disease, not of the person, but of the environment.
I think it’s kind of sad that the local Wat always has several cars parked next to the residences, and I’d feel similarly but less so if they had a large number of bikes. But it’s a low scale, diffuse example of the problem we find when Monks live in a place that is hostile to them. Honestly, even if I saw a monk on one of those expensive racing bikes, or a luxury SUV, as long as I generally believed they were donations from the laity and they were following that monastic community’s interpretation of Vinaya, I wouldn’t second-guess it.
1 Like
Thanks for the quotations, but you haven’t really said anything helpful or constructive that applies to bicycles as they are: bicycles aren’t animals that you mount, and they are not carried or pulled by humans either. They are like these metal machines that are self-propelled, and relatively inexpensive and unpretentious, and travel roughly 2-3 times faster than walking. It’s also virtually impossible to make out with members of the opposite sex (simultaneously) while you are riding them. As such, I think they by-and-large lie outside the generalizations about the ancient “vehicle” types found in the suttas.
12 Likes
Hi Bhante,
As a monastic, you know how the Great Standards work. And I’m sure you are of a similar opinion that using characteristics such as “metal machine,” “self-propelled,” and so on doesn’t make much of a case as to why bicycles would be allowed according to the Vinaya.
However, no matter what way it’s put. . . the section on vehicles in the Mahāvagga of the Vinaya Piṭaka (titled “The prohibition against vehicles, etc.” and “Rejection of vehicles, etc.” according to the I.B. Horner translation), describes how vehicles are usually to be rejected and were disallowed by the Buddha, except in situations where one is sick.
Anyway, I’m not here to tell you not to use a bicycle—feel free to do so. I simply pointed out that the statement that bicycles (in all cases) are allowed according the Vinaya is in contradiction with the Mahāvagga of Vinaya Piṭaka.
1 Like
The discussion in this thread, and another, resulted in a third discussion on those two discussions—therefore, I will clarify my position, all in one post (I believe a discussion following a natural course is better, but in this case I will describe it all at once):
First, I’d like to point out that I’m not against monastics using bicycles—the only issue I had were the arguments presented to support the general claim that bicycles are accepted according to the Vinaya.
Now, although the Mahāvagga of the Vinaya Piṭaka states one shouldn’t travel in a vehicle—except when one ill—not being an expert on the matter, I will simply quote Ven. Ṭhānissaro from the BMC II:
There are rules forbidding a bhikkhu from riding in a vehicle unless he is ill, in which case he may ride in a handcart or a cart yoked with a bull. In modern times, ill is interpreted here as meaning too weak to reach one’s destination on foot in the time available, and the allowance for a cart yoked with a bull is extended to cover motorized vehicles such as automobiles, airplanes, and trucks, but not to motorcycles or bicycles, as the riding position in the latter cases is more like riding on an animal s back. There is also a rule allowing a bhikkhu to ride in a sedan- chair, although the origin story to that rule suggests that the allowance is intended specifically for a bhikkhu too ill to ride in a vehicle. In discussing these rules, the Commentary states that the sedan-chair may be carried by women or men, and the vehicle may be driven by a woman or a man (although see the discussion under Pc 67 in BMC1). Even then, though, the Commentary does not extend permission for the bhikkhu to drive the vehicle himself. Thus it is improper for a bhikkhu to drive a motorized vehicle of any sort.
Source: Buddhist Monastic Code II, page 787
Like Ven. Subhāro said, I would equally be interested in knowing the origin of the rule disallowing riding horses, and by extension bicycles. However, even if that were ignored, it is still the case that the section from the Mahāvagga, being rules formulated by the Buddha—with the allowance of riding a vehicle only when one is sick—would also need to be taken into account.
Now, with that said, as the above describes, I believe what would likely follow the Mahāvagga and Vinaya is:
- That a monastic were to use a bicycle for long trips, of which would likely result in dehydration, and so on, were he/she to make such a travel on foot—this would maybe be in line with the Mahāvagga and the Vinaya (although the rule about horses and so on would need to be looked into).
What would go against the Vinaya, I think, are things like:
-
Monks personally owning a bicycle (after all, a bicycle is not one of the requisites, and I’m sure monastics would agree goes against the general spirit of having a “bowl, robes, medicine and so on only as one’s belongings”)—however, a monastery owning a bicycle would be a different situation, as with many other communal and shared items.
-
Or, monks casually using a bicycle, or for very short-duration trips, when walking would have easily been possible.
I think these are points and distinctions about the topic that haven’t necessarily been covered—and which might be good to consider for further discussion.
2 Likes
Each tradition, and to some extent each monastery, is involved in interpreting the Vinaya and deciding how it applies to Buddhism in the 21st century. It’s an ancient text that comes out of an ancient context. Hence, no mention of bicycles, computers, smart phones, etc.
Some things to consider, in the spirit of the Buddhist tradition: (1) bicycles are powered by the rider rather than an animal, (2) bicycles are solo vehicles, (3) bicycles may reduce dependency on laypeople and polluting vehicles, (4) there may practical reasons for monastics needing to travel in a modern society to visit laypeople and give teachings.
At least as far as I’m concerned, I think bicycles are a rather simple and elegant solution when compared to relying on laypeople with automobiles. I can easily see keeping a few community bicycles around a monastery.
4 Likes
Seems like driving a car, rollerblading, or riding a bicycle are the same. They are considered “ugly” for monks to do. Driving is common in the West and is picking up in Asia as monks run out of things to do with their money.
When someone asks if a monk uses money and it is known they drive, it is often answered with … “He drives…” This refers to something considered “lower” even though it is not a rule.
Sometimes things that are not rules does not mean they are allowable. The Buddha was very clear on that in The Great Standards. The Great Standards is often a way to make something allowable, but it is also a standard to make something unallowable.
1 Like
Because the Buddha only writes Suttas and Sutras.
I’m not aiming to claim that the Vinaya supports monks riding bicycles, but rather I’m aiming to prove that the Vinaya doesn’t deny monks riding bicycles. Note that the title of my OP article is "Why Can’t Buddhist Monks Ride Bicycles? Note the choice of the words “Why Can’t”.
I’m seeking to leverage standard number 2 (bolded below) from the 4 great standards:
"Bhikkhus, whatever I have not objected to, saying, ‘This is not allowable,’ if it fits in with what is not allowable, if it goes against what is allowable, that is not allowable for you.
"Whatever I have not objected to, saying, ‘This is not allowable,’ if it fits in with what is allowable, if it goes against what is not allowable, that is allowable for you.
"And whatever I have not permitted, saying, ‘This is allowable,’ if it fits in with what is not allowable, if it goes against what is allowable, that is not allowable for you.
“And whatever I have not permitted, saying, ‘This is allowable,’ if it fits in with what is allowable, if it goes against what is not allowable, that is allowable for you.”
So what is “gone against”, which is unallowable, in Great standard #2? Arrogance, pretentiousness, and high-horsing it, via some choice of showy (by modern standards) vehicle (note examples of chauffeured SUV rides, first class airplane tickets, and palanquin rides above). That’s the negative thing that is “gone against” by monks riding bicycles, thereby satisfying Great Standard #2.
And it’s trivially true that the Buddha didn’t object to monks riding bicycles anywhere in the Pali Canon, owing to their non-existence at the time. This satisfies the other half of Great standard #2 (“Whatever I have not objected to, saying, ‘This is not allowable,”)
I would guess that most people would be pretty impressed if they were in coach and a Buddhist monk swapped his 1st class seat with theirs! 
Hello Bhante,
It seems there is something else to consider.
Are the conditions in each Great Standard in an “and” or in an “or” relationship?
Meaning:
-
Is it enough for something to either fit in with what is allowable or go against what is not allowable?
-
Or Is it necessary for something to both fit in with what is allowable and go against what is unallowable?
From Horner’s translation quoted above, it doesn’t seem to be specified, since he uses a comma.
However, Ajahn Brahmali’s translation uses an “and”:
If I haven’t specifically prohibited something, then it’s allowable to you if it is similar to what is allowable and excluded from what is unallowable.
If it’s an “and” relationship it seems that to make your case you need to find something that the Buddha actually allowed that would be similar to a bicycle.