Why Can't Buddhist Monks Ride Bicycles?

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.

:pray:

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! :laughing:

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.

I also say “and”. Which my argument satisfies.

Sorry, I’m not convinced of that, in the context of Great standard #2. It’s enough that bicycles are not disallowed.

EDIT: Ok wait :sweat_smile: I realized there probably was confusion on both parts.

What I am saying is this:

Great Standard #2 reads:

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 you believe it’s an “and” relationship then it needs to be proven that bicycles are both similar to something that is allowed and against what is not allowed.
Hence the final statement in my previous post.

Do you get my point?

Sorry for the confusion Bhante :sweat_smile:

(BTW: I’m not trying to argue for or against bicycles in any way, I’m just enquiring.)

Bicycles are similar to the means of transport which are allowed. You know, the self-propelled kind, such as the feet which I assume are located on the ends of your legs. Bicycles are dissimilar to the non-allowable, medieval-style means of transport at the time of the Buddha, which are animal- or servant-powered. (See Ajahn Punnadhammo’s point above, highly relevant here).

3 Likes

I have no axe to grind here, so whether this is a strong enough argument towards allowing bicycles is not for me to decide.
Of course, stronger evidence would be if the Buddha allowed some kind of self-propelled vehicle. Feet do not necessarily fall under the category of vehicle, they are simply a bodily part.

Plus, if feet were considered a vehicle in the Buddha’s time then the very prohibition against vehicles would have made it unallowable for monastics to walk :sweat_smile:

I have much respect for Ajahn Punnadhammo, however the Vinaya itself does not mention these conditions as deciding factors of whether a vehicle is allowable or not.
Saying that the reason the Buddha forbade vehicles is because of compassion towards animals or servants might be very speculative. Especially considering the reason laypeople complained does not mention any of these factors:

In the Cammakkhandhaka we find the reason laypeople complained was that:

"It’s as if they’re at the Ganges festival.”

So there doesn’t seem to be suggestion of animal or servant abuse.

Anyway, whatever you end up deciding, good luck on your quest :pray: :slightly_smiling_face:

Rafts, propelled by long poles?
Boats propelled by paddles?

These are still in use today to cross the Ganges.

5 Likes

Are these mentioned in the Vinaya? :thinking: I’m not aware.
If not, I guess it would be necessary to first prove these are allowable through the Great Standards, and then try to use the Great Standards to argue for bicycles :sweat_smile:

But I guess there would still be the issue of whether a monastic can self-propel the boat or is only allowed to sit in a boat propelled by another.

And if self-propulsion is somehow allowable then who owns the boat? Is it allowable as individual possession or as Sangha property?

In either case it needs to be proven that something similar to a boat (or a bicycle) was allowed to be either owned individually or as Sangha property.

So many legal passages to go through by the Sangha it seems before something can be declared allowable :sweat_smile: My heart goes out to those responsible for these decisions :pray:

1 Like

Why stop there? What about using man-made bridges to cross water or valleys?

Hi Ven. Subhāro,

As discussed in my last reply, even if one were to apply the Great Standards to claim bicycles aren’t disallowed, according to the Mahāvagga of the Vinaya Piṭaka, riding vehicles, a cart, a rickshaw and so on, however, are disallowed (with an exception when one is sick):

“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 […]

“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.”

For monastics traveling using cars and planes (and please correct me if I am wrong), particularly when traveling long distances, via the Great Standards, “when one is sick” from the Mahāvagga is interpreted to mean “when one would become sick from such travels if it were not done with such a vehicle.”


In your reply, you say you want to leverage the second of the Great Standards:

  1. 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.

However, as above, the Mahāvagga doesn’t say vehicles and so on are allowed, but rather that they aren’t allowed (but allowed if one is sick).

Therefore, the second Great Standard doesn’t apply. It would rather be the first and third:

  1. If I haven’t specifically prohibited something, then it’s unallowable to you if it is similar to what is unallowable and excluded from what is allowable.
  1. If I haven’t specifically allowed something, then it’s unallowable to you if it is similar to what is unallowable and excluded from what is allowable.

Great Standards (Ven. Brahmali)

Now you could say bicycles aren’t similar to vehicles, carts, and rickshaws, but more similar to a horse. However, like I’ve said in my previous reply, the rule about not riding a horse would need to be looked into.


If you want to ride a bicycle, Bhante, feel free to do so—I’m not saying you shouldn’t. And my participation was to discuss Vinaya, and to present the Vinaya and the Buddha’s teaching as honestly as possible.

:pray:

1 Like

Yes,

pc28

Monks are allowed to make an appointment with nuns to cross a flowing body of water via boat. They are also allowed to use a boat to go upstream or downstream on a body of water with a nun if there is no appointment.

Going from that rule to monks using solo bicycles seems like it would involve many complex logical inferences about which there could be honest disagreement.

As well, for nuns ss3 can imply that two or more nuns are allowed to cross the river together on a boat they themselves propel. It only explicitly addresses wading through a waist-high river alone (forbidden) or crossing on a ferry with a boatman alone (forbidden). Again, it seems like a very uncertain path from this to bicycle usage.

2 Likes

I’m only aware of one Buddhist monk on planet Earth who actually does that though (Bhante Jason of Australia, whom I met): vehemently spurn the use of all car and plane travel, when his feet can accomplish it, at the cost of great inconvenience in time. I suppose you can theoretically have your Vinaya purity on that point, but from a practical standpoint, not an actual Sasana.

Note: Even Bhante Jason’s Vinaya purity falls short on other points (in the Suttavibhaṅga), which I won’t mention here, out of respect for him.

Also note: I haven’t been convinced to drop my assertion that the use of vehicles only when sick effectively applies only to the medieval-style vehicles, where there are beasts of burden or servants as a means of propulsion (again, see Aj. Punnadhammo above), and not to self-propelled, modern vehicles like a bicycle.

It’s a valid application of the Great Standards, is what I meant. Obviously, traveling from Australia to Europe, for example, would likely result in injury and drowning if it were done without a vehicle.