Personally, I don’t think I’ll bike even if/when I come back West. I feel it sets a better example to walk unhurriedly. But I certainly won’t judge if others do. As pointed out, it’s better for the environment than getting a driver, so… But it also deprives lay people the opportunity to make merit driving monastics… 
2 Likes
No! Not always. That’s why I mentioned it. Many people in western countries don’t have any clue of this concept. In fact I would say the vast majority of centres and meditation groups I visit do not offer any transportation assistance and would never ever think to. Luckily we are close to public transport and we have a card payment system. I often travel over an hour on train or bus to reach a meditation group and an hour back again.
Recently someone asked me to lead a sunrise meditation session 2hrs away and as I’d have to leave at 3:30am to catch public transport there so for the first time ever I asked for help with transport. They were shocked! They thought that I would drive. I told them that I never drive and that usually it is considered the responsibility of the people inviting to help out with transport. They said they would try to arrange something (obviously a long way for them to come, a 4hr round trip, something they had just expected I would do but baulked at themselves!) and I saw them asking for help on some forums but nothing ever came of it. 
We don’t have anagarika help here. Most larger monasteries will have monastery vehicles and live in chauffeurs, in the form of anagarikas or lay guests. Monastery vehicles are kind of like owning a car actually, because it is always there and you have a sense that it is available for you.
Being chauffer driven everywhere actually has an effect in the mind. But monasteries rely on these because they don’t want lay people to have to help out every time a monk needs to go out.
Unless someone offers usually I won’t ask for help with transport, because generally asking for things is not good. And actually most of the people who will be available to help are women and there are rules about that, too.
I think you can see that my post was responding to the issue of transportation generally. As I’ve tried to indicate it is the responsibility of lay people to help out with this, something you agree with, but cultural attitudes vary from place to place. Walking everywhere is not an option in many countries.
I don’t think I’d ride a bicycle myself because I am sure I would get my robes caught in the spokes and choke to death! 
14 Likes
Do you know the story about asking a bird for a feather? Ask once and they might give you one. But keep on asking and they will start to get annoyed and fly away!
I’m not sure if you’re a monk or ever been a monk - you should try it! But generally you never want to ask for things if possible and never want to be a burden. We just accept what is offered. But to ask is something else.
7 Likes
Hi Bhante,
Yes, it’s kind of damned if you do, damned if you don’t, isn’t it? A monastic who gets chauffeured around might get criticised for being a burden. A monastic who, like you, uses a card to ride public transport, or someone who rides a bicycle, might be criticised for some possible breach of vinaya.
Peripherally, I suspect those who think riding a bike takes roughly the same amount of time as walking have not had much experience with bicycles. It would be typical to travel 4-5 times faster on a bicycle than on foot, especially in places with good bike infrastructure. That’s a big difference in practicality if the destination is, for example, one or two hours on foot.
2 Likes
That’s strange. Normally, when someone is asked to do public speaking, especially if for free, some form of pick-up at the bus stop or airport is expected. Even a meal is usually included. After all, if the organization doesn’t pay for transportation and other expenses, it comes directly out of the speaker’s pockets.
Surely most Westerners should know—but if not, maybe more should be done to get the message accross that monks don’t use money, or own cars! 
I think this is the best way to go about it. Some effort on the oranizer’s part is expected—especially since you are doing this with zero monetary compensation. If no effort is done on their part to at least get you from your monastery to their location, or to feed you, then it shows a lack of effort on their part, IMO.
Yeah, sure. However, in the context of the topic, the response gave a bit of a wrong impression that the issue was due to the lay community, rather than it being the Vinaya being intentionally restrictive (as laid down by the Buddha, to create interaction with the lay community).
2 Likes
I agree, and I acknowledged lack of tangible support is 100% a valid issue. However, surely you see the point I’m making, that trying to find justifications to say it is valid according to the Vinaya is faulty reasoning?
A group of monks who farm 4-7 hours a day to feed themselves is obviously much better than them starving, but it’s still not allowable according to the Vinaya—that they would go hungry if they didn’t farm doesn’t somehow make it allowable based on the Vinaya.
3 Likes
Using a public transportation card, as with a plane or train ticket, doesn’t go against the Vinaya (it’s essentially a “multi-ticket” medium).
If it saves that much time compared to walking, the likelhood of getting into an accident is much higher. And, as someone who either uses public transportation or walks (and also had my fair share of experience biking both on roads and urban areas), unless you live in the Netherlands or somewhere like that, biking when there is any form of traffic, you can easily get hit and get seriously injured.
If a monastic gets hit by a car, and then ends up in the hospital, who is going to foot the hospital bill?
1 Like
Exactly. There appears to be no serious vinaya issue with cards, bicycles, airplanes, or chauffeurs. Which doesn’t mean that monastics won’t sometimes get criticised for one or other or all of the above… 
And yes, I was thinking of places with good bicycle infrastructure, like the Netherlands, where I’m very happy to ride a bike, and sometimes have feared for my life as a pedestrian with all those speedy bikes around me…
2 Likes
I think you should be careful not to get your robes caught in the wheel. (I used to do that with my skirts.)
I think that people shouldn’t worry too much about what other people are doing. I’d rather see a monastic self-propelling rather than sitting back in an ultra expensive monastery car with a lay chauffeur.
At the same time, it’s good for people to practice generosity by helping the sangha out. And driving monastics around is a wonderful opportunity for some relaxed spiritual conversation without worrying about taking up the Venerable’s time. 
Absolutely right. 
8 Likes
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