Buddha's intention was to enable the monks to survive anywhere, any part of the world, may it be in deserts or frozen lands, eating whatever food that was offered by the lay community. The main goal was to spread Dhamma. Food and other necessities were just to sustain the body.
So to help shed some light on your inquiries: The chant that you talk about “shameful parts,” I believe you have taken out of context. Let me explain: The chant is the “Contemplation of the Four Requisites.” These four being: robes, food, dwelling and medicine. The passage that you are referring to, is part of a larger passage that translates to “Properly considering my robes (clothes), I use it: to simply ward off cold. To simply ward off heat. To simply ward off the touch of flies, mosquitoes, reptiles and other crawling things. To simply cover up the parts of the body that would cause shame.” It’s a reflection of the use of the robes, not a reflection of the shame of the body. As far as your comment on not looking shamefully on the body... that’s part of the reason why we wear clothing in the first place, something that is as old as human existence. This passage is just a recognition of that, and ensuring that the robes are not being used for beautification, for style or for any frivolous/useless purpose. Keep in mind these are training rules of a monastic, and not of a lay person... As far as another chant about the recollection of the body. It’s more of the realization that the body, is inherently unclean, filled with things such as skin, teeth, flesh, bone, lungs, heart, liver, oils, fats, blood, puss, intestines, urine, feces. This is a recollection in Buddhism to realize that this attraction to the body should not be pursued, because no matter no matter how attractive a person is, they will eventually grow old and decay, thus the physical beauty is simply a distraction what is really there. In some Thai Buddhist monastery’s (Metta Forest is in the Thai tradition), you may find a skeleton in the meditation hall. The reason: is it is a reminder of what our bodies really are. It’s a way to understand that physical beauty will fade, so it shouldn’t be a condition for the pursuit of happiness. Also, you mention that you’ve been on vipassana meditation before, and the meditation the Buddha used WAS vipassana (insight). The difference between most secular meditation retreats versus those done in Buddhist monasteries like Wat Metta (Metta Forest) is that there is just a focus on the meditation, where the Buddha expounded that meditation will only take you part of the way to understanding ultimate truth/true happiness. The three “tools” you need for happiness are: 1)sila (virtue/morality), 2) samadhi (mindful concentration), and 3) pañña (discernment through wisdom). Discernment is what you arrive at, after practicing virtuous conduct (through the eightfold path and mindful concentration). But the beginning is virtuous conduct, that’s why lay Buddhist take on the 5 precepts (8 precepts, if you are on retreat in a Buddhist monastery- that’s why you don’t eat after 12 pm, at Wat Metta). Also, about eating meat. Theravāda Buddhists do eat meat. The first precept is the refraining of killing. You didn’t kill the animal, and if you don’t eat it it’s not going to magically come back to life. The animal is already dead, the meat is there (and most likely will be thrown away, if not eaten or cooked), so it’s a matter of being practical. The Buddha himself ate meat, not refusing any meal offering, and understanding that being a monastic means living off the kindness of others. Hope this helps you understand Theravāda Buddhism a bit more.
Dream Dream Serene Monks and lay practitioners are commended for going vegetarian. But it’s not all necessary. I understand the concept of supply and demand when it comes to the meat industry, but ultimately that expansive world view is not useful to you if your goal is liberation (nibbana/nirvana). Those who practice the path to liberation should be more concerned about the intentions behind their actions. Instead of focusing on refraining from eating meat to “stop the meat industry,” one should focus on abandoning eating as a form of sensual pleasure. Rather look at it as a necessary process to sustain your body. Instead of trying to change the world, Buddhism is about renouncing the world because it is filled with craving. The practices taken on by monks and serious practitioners of the path are more about realize that this world is not worth being a part of, but realizing that there are necessary actions needed to sustain the body for the practice. So the proper way to look at eating meat is: “If it’s there I will eat it, and I ask for forgiveness from the being that was killed for the meal. I am not eating for pleasure or to beautify the body. I eat to sustain this body to continue the practice.”
The verses about "shame" that you alluded to are as follows: "Whatever robe I used today without consideration, was simply to counteract cold, to counteract heat, to counteract the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles; simply for the purpose of covering the parts of the body that cause shame." This simply alludes to the fact that we are not attached to the requisites (such as food and clothing).
I think this is an aspect a lot of Westerners struggle with, especially if they grew up as practicing Christians. Body shame isn't really a thing in Buddhism. The body isn't seen as evil or anything (though it is seen as gross/disgusting, that's more meant to come through practice rather than accepted ideology/belief). The Buddha talks about contemplating that the body is, among other things, filled with piss and shit (every translation I've seen uses the expletives). There may well be other reasons, but I've long thought of the whole modesty thing as less body=evil and more an acknowledgment that the bodies of those we are attracted to can be stimulating and therefore distracting if we are serious about practice. No condemnation, just a simple acknowledgment of biological reality.
Hey! Thank you so much for the video. I really appreciated your honesty about what you observed there! I wanted to add some comments about your concerns regarding equality of the sexes and vegetarianism. First, not only is Theravada Buddhism *the only religion that includes the teachings of women among its "canon,"* (the scriptural collection that is considered the highest authority in a religion), it also contains the vast majority of *the earliest recorded literature by women in human history, "period"!* Vegetarianism is not quite as harmless as it seems - it kills far, far more conscious beings than we admit - and folks intentions in clinging to it as a lifestyle/identity is perhaps merely just that. Regarding the sexes, Theravada Buddhism is the *only* religion - even among other "Buddhisms" - with a scriptural Canon that includes the teachings of women as being *on equal par* with the teachings of its foremost leader. The Pali Suttas - the orally composed teachings that are the earliest records of the Buddha's teachings - are not only the only religious canon that contains the teachings of women - it actually contains most of humanity's earliest female literature of various forms/genres: it contains the first recorded collection of women's poetry (Therigatha), the first recorded book composed by a women (Ittivutaka), the first recorded dialogue in which a man submits to a woman for extensive religious advice (the Culavedalla Sutta), and the first records of women's psycho-spiritual battles with their own minds (the Bhikkhuni-Samyutta). What's interesting about the Culavedalla Sutta is that the man receiving teachings from his "ex-wife" who left him and became fully awakened (making this another "first" in human literature); at the end of the discourse, a monk tells the Buddha what she said during the conversation and he says "I could not have said it better myself" (this is the first recorded instance of anything of the sort having been said of a women by a man, and it is said by the religion's founder and highest authority, at that). These works contain the first recorded feminist writings: critiques of gender roles, accounts of women instructing men, accounts of women "telling off" men (and deities!), critiques of the domestic role of women, assumptions about the intellectual-spiritual inferiority of women, etc. It's important to not fall for first (or second, or third) impressions, but to rest uncontended with one's standing understanding of things until one has reached complete, definitive, fully informed understanding. Nothing comparable is found in any other religion, and - again - this is the first recorded female literature in female history of such breadth, depth, and controversy! It's the world's first social criticism - and it's by women! :-D The covering of shameful parts of the body applies to both men and women; the body is only "shameful" in that we often - indeed, almost universally - reduce ourselves to our sensual appeal. In Buddhist practice, we are looking to de-objectify ourselves and each other in order to really address ourselves and others as conscious, feeling subjects who, deep in our hearts, desire a completely harmless and deathless happiness. Human religions tend to demonize the body with little reason, but Buddhism recognizes that our body is an important tool for supporting our mind/heart's quest for higher and higher forms of happiness. Because we live in cultures that try to (literally) sell us the idea of finding some sublime bliss in sensual indulgence (where, in the end, little is to be found), folks at training centers (monasteries) are encouraged to de-objectify themselves and each other, in part, by covering the parts of the body that are ordinarily deployed as a sense of low self-esteem, inflated self-esteem, and the subtle dynamics of sexual competition that we largely don't even have a vocabulary for, being so deeply in denial about it. We often think that the only way to counteract the demonization of the body is to go to its opposite - apotheosizing it and/or it sensual features, regardless of the limitations, drawbacks, or subtle harm doing so might cause to others and ourselves. On the vegetarianism theme: the cultivation of grains and vegetables kills *immense, immense* numbers of living beings - just not the cuter ones with which it is (often) easier to identify or derive aesthetic/sentimental pleasure from protecting. As a small child, far before he even thought about pursuing enlightenment, the Buddha noticed the immense loss of life caused by his father plowing a field. One of the greatest insights he had is that all feeding causes suffering to others. A hunter who kills one deer and uses that protein has led to far, far lesser loss of life than a farmer cultivating and equivalent amount of protein in the form of legumes like soy, etc. More significant than this, however, is that the Buddha realized that we not only feed physically (off of food), but we feed emotionally (off of pleasant sensory contacts, intentions, and consciousness). These (four) forms of feeding build up passing personalities and personas on which we become fixated - and it is this fixation, this feeding off of these phenomena to build up and cling to unsustainable centers of identity, that is stress and suffering itself; it is also what leads us into conflict with others, causing their suffering. I really, really appreciate your unassuming honesty and criticism, because these are important things for folks to think about. It's really, really important - if they are interested in pursuing an ultimate happiness - that they think twice, thrice, and more about the things that their senses, imaginations, and memories - conditioned by cultural trends and economic forces - present to them. It's also important to ask questions from reliable authorities when necessary. Thank you so much for the video, and for your patience with this comment! Remember: not everything is what it seems; indeed, it's usually not! May you forever be well!
In the U.S., most of the animals killed for meat are from factory farms, not somebody shooting a deer in the forest. Factory farms are among the worst threats not only to non-human animals, but also to human and environmental health. Though this may seem counterintuitive, if growing plants for food leads to killing, then the animal industry causes to more killing than veganism. Much of the plant-based foods grown are to feed livestock who are overproduced by humans through artificial incemination. Thus, veganism is the best way to reduce killing and save the world.
Great video for a seeker that is exploring different spiritual traditions! I wish you all the best in your search. Just as a clarification, the chant you refer to which talks about covering the shameful parts of the body is actually a chant where monks reflect on why they are wearing any clothes at all. If they are truly renunciant, why not remain with no food, no clothing, no shelter, and no medications? These are the four requisites, and monks are expected to reflect on the fact that they are consuming these. The lay people are encouraged to do the same if they want to develop themselves spiritually. Now, about the idea that the human body has nothing to be shameful about, or that it is worth celebrating and admiring is actually a perception we have superimposed. The body is just made up of all these materials and is neither beautiful nor ugly. Just that we humans are actually intoxicated by what we perceive to be beautiful about the skin covering our bodies. Now, while scientists claim that our attraction to the body is inherently hard-wired thing in our brains, Buddhism teaches that it is actually due to a very subtle process in our mind where we are actually making a choice to perceive the body as attractive. Our hands are not tied and we aren't forced to see the body as attractive because of a hard-wiring in the brain - we actually have a choice in how we perceive the body. Have you ever thought that men with muscles and six-pack abdomens are attractive and others with fat, plump bodies, and stubby noses, are ugly? Why do you do so if our bodies are all worthy of admiration and celebration? What if Buddhism told you that it is possible for you to develop a mind that doesn't get attracted to one and repulsed by the other and treat both bodies as just bodies? Would such a teaching appeal to you?
I have something that might clear some of your doubts. The meat subject was always debated for a long time. The reason that the monks accept meat is that for one, it is easy for people to prepare foods for them. The monk receives foods that are given to them, if they are picky, then the people has to prepare the foods for the monks and foods they eat differently. On the other hand, monks need to be mindful with foods they eat, especially the meat. They have to think that they eat the meat like a mother eats her own baby. The baby is already dead and she needs it to survive, she eats it without any desire for taste. If the animal is killed to prepare foods for the monks, and the monks know or doubt it, they arent not allowed to eat it. If its a dead meat made for general population, and the monks receive as if it is not killed specifically for them, then they are allowed to eat it by the buddha. The monks can choose not to eat meat. Monks dont always have people prepare foods for them everyday, some monks live in the forest and has to walk to the vilages to get foods. So, they cant be picky. They only eat the meat, but they dont have killing intent, didnt put effort into killing, didnt make the killing successful, or wasnt happy that the animal was killed. One thing to note that, the monks are allowed to eat the dead prey of another animal, for example, if the tiger killed a deer and left some meat there. If the deer is already dead, has no more consciousness, then the monks can eat that deer too. The monks eat only to survive to fulfill their devotion (seeking nirvana) but not to survive of desire to live. People argue that if they dont accept meat then people stop killing animals for them. This is in fact not true, if people want to stop killing and prepare vegetarian foods for the monks, the monks will always accept it. They dont refuse foods because of the taste or whether it contains meat or not. If u want to prepare vegetarian foods for the monks, go ahead. The monks never tell u he wants to eat meat. If he does, its against the monastic rules. And about the shamefullness of the body, it was taught for people to let go of the desire and attachment to the physical body. If people perceive their own body as stinky, dirty, disgusting, undesireable by color, undesireable by shape, then they can let go of the desire and attachment of the body. This is because we desire or attach to body because we think otherwise. We, not only desire our own body this way or some other way, but also we desire other people body as well. If you see them as undesireable by shape and color, stinky and disgusting, then you will not like it as much or like it anymore.
Great video, thank you so much for showing us around. Taan Geoff is the reason I became a Buddhist and has planted in me the seed to become a monk and chase the ultimate happiness one day, hopefully if I can get over the health problem I'm going through. About the meat eating problem, I did struggle with that for a while too(as I used to be a vegetarian), but then came across some explanations. I believe the monks have a rule that if the animal was specifically killed for them, they can't eat it. So they are keeping their precepts by not directly killing or guiding someone to kill an animal for them. Also generosity is very important in a monks training and hence they make a point to not turn away any offer that is made. If you also factor the fact that in a normal setting people bring and share the food they actually prepared for themselves as an act of generosity, we can come to the conclusion that the monk simply accepted what the donors were willing to share. It would have been rude to reject the act of generosity that the donor made. Hence no blame on the monk. For the idea about the inequality of men vs women, I don't know if it'd answer your question, but there are no monasteries for nuns in the Theravada tradition as of now, because they went extinct at some point, and the rules set forth by the Buddha does not allow a monk to ordain a nun. Hence nuns monasteries can't restart. According to Taan Geoff the reason the Buddha "favored" men over women was a pragmatic one and certainly not because men are better than women. There is a video of Taan Geoff explaining this here : th-cam.com/video/eEmwE6EN9e8/w-d-xo.htmlm35s Anyways, thanks again for the wonderful video and take care :)
At the time of the Buddha, the monks walked around in India basically only staying put during the Vassa = Rainy season. They only eat alms food and not all lay people in the villages they came upon could offer them vegetables. Some could offer a bit of chicken, some were fishermen and could only offer fish. They monks are/were not allowed to refuse meat when it was offered to them, though they did not have to eat it. At times in certain regions there were nothing else to eat but some meat and rice. And it doesn't benefit your spiritual life refraining from eating if only meat is served during a whole week, for instance. The monks path is very realistic and humble in that sense. Then again a monk is not allowed to eat meat should he know that the animal was slaughtered for him. As a monk in no way is allowed to partake in killing. Though a piece of meat is only dead matter. And eating it does not cause suffering to the animal it came from.
There are 3 dominant strains of the 2,500 year old Buddhism: Theravada ( yellow/safron robes in South East Asia), Mahayana (maroon robes, HH Dalai Lama, Tibetan Buddhism) and Vajrayana. There are brown robes also worn, Thich Nhat Hanh from Vietnam wears, another wonderful inspiring teacher . HH Dalai Lama says that Buddhism is not a religion. It's a practice like yoga, we don't worship Buddha, we practice meditation, mindfulness, compassion, kindness and put this into daily practice.
The Dalai Lama and so-called "Vajrayana" Buddhism are not all that they present themselves as. They have a very good marketing team, which has made them quite profitable and powerful. Reading more closely into the honest history of Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism's role and legacy there is disheartening for those of us who have been wooed by the smiles, the art, the philosophy, and the sentiments. It's worth looking into.
To know and understand what is the main principle teaching in Buddhism one should be accustomed to and awared of their teaching. There are two major parts of the teaching, the first one is called the Dhamma and the second is called the Vinaiya(Discipline). The Buddha's main Dhamma are of the 4 noble truths and the 8 noble Maggas for the monks to be educated and practiced to reach the resolution of all defilements and become liberated from the cycle of rebirth. The second one is the Vinaiya(Discipline) this one is the rule for the monastic monks to follow. There are 227 rules for Theravadha Buddhist tradition to be observed. There are major and minor rules for the rest of monastic communities. The severities of breaking rules are from excomunication upto severing from the monkhood altogether. The dress code for robes that each monk can have only 3 robes, these 3 robes are for protecting from harsh environtment only ie: heat,cold ,insect etc. The robes are not for adornment of the body or for decorating purpose. There is no shame or guilt in the body as it may be misunderstood by the outsider. There is no woman discrimination from practicing the Dhamma nor against woman from performing any wholesome deeds in any temples. The Vinaiya limit exposing contact between monks and lay woman is to prevent any defilement and unwholesome thought from both parties. Since monks practicing celibacy therefore it's his commitment into practicing introspection regarding emotional feeling inorder to twarth off any reaction of unwholsome thought that may arised in the presence of the lay women. Most of the monks are still in the process of learning and practicing Dhamma and there mind is yet to be purified for further development of there training for the final goal of liberation from Samsara.
well, exposed female body is just a distraction and seducing factor for monks who are not allowed to have lustful thoughts and i'm sure don't want to (but lust is hard to control), so it's not about shamefulness but about respect for their way of living and their practice celebration of physical body doesn't accord with the Dhamma, because attachment to it is one of the things which ties us down to samsara indeed Dhamma is a religion, but it's also akin to a travel route, if you wish to arrive at a destination witin a minimum time possible you follow the route RELIGIOUSLY
at the same time, monks should examine their lustful / desirous thoughts and understand them, instead of body shaming the women whose only crime is being born a woman. if the monk thinks it's about controlling lustful thoughts than the monk is confused. it's about feeling and examining the desire in order to have an epiphany about the desires empty nature
Very nice and informative video you have created . I have spent many Sundays over a 8 year period at Wat Buddha Temple in Escondido . I have found there to be the missing link in Christianity which is the interaction love and friendliness between all people on every occasion . My trip to Metta was very calm and peaceful but no sense of connectedness .
It's not "body shaming" (which would imply comparing an uglier body to a more beautiful body). It's changing one's perception toward all bodies, so as to chip away at identifying too strongly with one's own body. And the Buddha ate meat.
A lot more, especially before commenting about it. "there's still dogma and lots of rituals", yeah, right lady.. it's a religion, what do you expect? Does she even know the monks are celibate and seek to eradicate all desires? People in the West grow up with very wrong notions about Eastern religions.. not everything will endorse their hippie, drug-using, promiscuous lifestyle. Yeah, the 5 precepts for lay Buddhists also prohibit alcoholic drinks..
ํYou asked why Buddhist eat meat or fish ... "does this go against the five precepts of not killing?" It was clear that Lord Buddha took all kind of food which lay people prepared for him but if he knew that lay person was going to kill animals for his food .... he would not let one doing that (would not allowed). You must read the book because this thing has declared clearly. If the meat or chicken or fish exist in the market already then you can prepare that as food for monks..... but you WONT kill the animals (catch fish from the river, slaughter chicken in your kitchen or even knock the cow down ) just to prepare food for the monks, this is forbidden. //// When we go to monastery for meditation... we chant, eat, walking meditation, sitting meditation BUT no reading books of any kind, no talking, no VDO recording... just reflect your thinking.... think about death think about when we ageing think about your bones, skin, guts, livers, saliva..... all about your body which one day will be sick ill and part from this world. Think about the uncertainty of our bodies. PLS read the book especially from Luangta Maha BOA at Wat Pa Ban Tad.... He was Arahanta Monk. Good luck to you that one day you understand what I mean.
Once you become a monk, you let go of the political. You accept what you are given. It is not the monk's job to end the slaughter of animals. It is the lay person's job. If the world goes vegan, a monk will be more than happy to accept what is given within that frame.
There is a LOT of (unintended) wisdom in what you said about Zen allowing/encouraging folks to "jump over the rules." We, who have been let down by most of our own rule-bearing religions, very very easily "fall for" any sentiments around anti-authoritarianism and rulelessness. But this is something to investigate closely. Blind aversion to rules, and blind attraction to rule-lessness, is something to look at closely.
"What was being taught didn't line up with actions"- what does that have to do with you? It's as though you're basing your faith or belief system on how others live out theirs? If you do that, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. The only walk you should concern yourself with is yours. Of course, pray for and help others as much as you can, but the only walk you will have to answer for is your own. If you choose the Buddhist path, you are free to do so, because I have found it very beautiful and inspirational in many ways. I have even read the Dhammapda multiple times and have one. Know many verses and even recite them to myself and in dialogue. My point is that make sure that your perception is accurate. Otherwise, no matter where you go, spiritually speaking, if you base that faith upon how its practicioners manifest it, you will be searching all of your life. Take care.
I can feel u are a loving human, this is a basic precepts of Buddhism. Buddhist forbids killing, even preaching NO kill their enemy, nothing is impermanent. U are ur own master n responsible u act if u wish. I was told in my Thailand trip to Lois, monk eat every thing who sincerely offer them, it must clean, so simple.. Not begging They chant or prayers before eat. As to thank n to bless whom offer them food. Monk consider food as to support life, nothing else.
Please don't misunderstood the Buddha's teaching. When Buddha said do not kill, that includes don't eat any animal including seafood. Because we eat them, that's why people killed them to sell it. Even though you are not killing them yourself, but you are the reason why they are being killed. Buddha said I'm the Buddha that had become all beings are able to become Buddha's in the future. If you are learning or want to learn about the Buddha's teaching ,please learn from the Buddha's Sutra. If you visit The City of Ten Thousand Buddha's in California. They have Sutras in English.
I feel so proud of you, most of people from non - Buddhism didn't want to be listen what Buddha said was? Budda talked about (Nate Bate). so everybody can know what the (Nate ban is). He did't say that we must have to obey and pray to buddha. U said to us "Try think and consider of yourself) if u do a good thing. Good thing will b happen, if u do bad thing bad thing will b happen) ..SISTER I hope you will know about the meaning of NATE BAN)
Yes, sister. The Sangha is in the conventional world although the Dhamma (or Dharma) is not of the world. Conventional realities eventually become part of what becomes tradition. Those who know and see the Truth abandon conventional reality and abide in happiness. If women come second in the queue for the food or are less senior simply because of their sex, it's conventional observance. The wise have no suffering attached to such trivialities and remain imperturbably serene. Some of the teachers I respect, adore and revere are females, even some of the novice women have extremely bright hearts and bowing my head to them is natural and fulfilling. Signed A Man.
Luke McK Assuming you are of European heritage you have understood the basic tenets of Buddhism very well than of the peoples of Asia. I myself coming from Asia and being called a 'man' having grown up in 'Buddhist' environment had to face this dilemma. My challenge was not welcomed. It was here in a western country doing my major in religions - Buddhism where I was able to raise again, on the basis of "mind is the forerunner of all phenomena" - Dhammapada.
Elephant in the room You explained Dhamma very well. If you allow me to contribute my humble 2 cents worth then it would be the "mind" in the Teachings of the Buddha as it is the forerunner of all phenomena. Our bodies (men, women and all other) are just dwellings for our brains and/or mind which has an ability to reason the ultimate truth from the conventional truth/reality (The Two Truths of Reality). The latter or the mature understanding of reality on the way to awakening or enlightenment will not discriminate whether it arose from a man or a woman, and that is my argument against the orthodoxy. Milinda Panna illustrates this two truths argument in detail. Having being called a 'man' 'I' also adore, respect and revere 'women' who are much more or highly intelligent, wiser, kind and compassionate than 'me'. I came to this understating by analysing whatever available as the teachings of the Buddha. I am not going to buy into Theravada who call themself as the holder of authentic Buddhists even though I grew up in that tradition. PS: Phenomena in 'Buddhism': me, you, man, women, house, sky, moon, money, investments, happiness, sorrow, love, cat, dog etc. All these are conventional truths, in reality they are not (refer to Milinda's question) All these arises from our mind, therefore we crave for them, hence we attach to them, hence we feel sad when they decay or leave us. and the teachings of the Buddha goes on. In the same way 'chitta' mind/consciousness arises and fades away, arises and fades away, therefore all phenomena too are impermanent. More the you want to freeze phenomena more the you feel sad as one could not hold them forever, they all seize to exist. My thoughts at the begin of this text has seized to exist now and new have arisen, hence I had to edit this after posting. From the beginning to the end of this text I have been 'born' and 'passed away' trillions times, 'I' am not the one now as at the beginning. That is Dhamma. I admire the way you signed off. If you allow 'me' to copy you Signed by another 'man' May all sentient beings be happy, free from pain and suffering. In metta to you all.
It is truly wicked and sad how we as Westerners have to bring sexual politics even to criticize and our best virtue signaling efforts to corrupt other people's religious traditions. But keep on doing what you do, building up bad karma seems to be the goal for some.
Because Buddhist monks are not supposed to ask for specific things when people are making offered. But if those who make offerings do not know what Buddha teaches and that monks are not supposed to eat meat, then they might offer meat. Monks accepting offerings is an opportunity for the one who make the offerings to create good merit for themselves. If you are a Buddhist follower you should not offer meat to a monk, because that is creating bad karma.
Buddha said ..dont kill... didn't say dont eat... just so u know it's not a religion.... u are mistaken.... it's a PHILOSOPHY.... u could be the only one to call it a religion... how little we know.... Buddha never said shameful parts of the body... it is just been decent... We dont go to places of worship to show off..... our bodies or clothes etc. It is not just Buddhist temples...like u say... All religious places are like that... if anyone has a problem with descent dressing.... shouldn't go to such places... Again... it is not a religion.... they are based around a God... Buddha is not a God...or a messenger from anyone... And we all can attain buddhahood. That is the difference... Learn from a real monk
Strict vegetarianism is not conducive to enlightenment, if anything it is another bias and fetter. Food is merely eaten to nourish the body, a diet with meat is bound to create a healthier body so you can keep on living the holy life. The buddha himself actually actively rejected the notion of vegetarianism which was one of the tenets posited to him by one of his disciples who tried to fragment the sangha.
A little knowledge is more dangers than having zero knowledge.......first if you are christin....put aside jisus.....and than Read the History of Buddhism and what gautam Taught......Dont just be a teacher or Buddha to explain things you did not understood.....you people are crazy you just go to the Monestry as a picnic.....and do dirty stufs with your bf around there.....and than you make videos or comment on thinks you dont know about.....you keep your jisus with you and dont comment again on buddhism.....!
Buddha's intention was to enable the monks to survive anywhere, any part of the world, may it be in deserts or frozen lands, eating whatever food that was offered by the lay community. The main goal was to spread Dhamma. Food and other necessities were just to sustain the body.
So to help shed some light on your inquiries:
The chant that you talk about “shameful parts,” I believe you have taken out of context. Let me explain:
The chant is the “Contemplation of the Four Requisites.” These four being: robes, food, dwelling and medicine. The passage that you are referring to, is part of a larger passage that translates to “Properly considering my robes (clothes), I use it: to simply ward off cold. To simply ward off heat. To simply ward off the touch of flies, mosquitoes, reptiles and other crawling things. To simply cover up the parts of the body that would cause shame.”
It’s a reflection of the use of the robes, not a reflection of the shame of the body. As far as your comment on not looking shamefully on the body... that’s part of the reason why we wear clothing in the first place, something that is as old as human existence. This passage is just a recognition of that, and ensuring that the robes are not being used for beautification, for style or for any frivolous/useless purpose. Keep in mind these are training rules of a monastic, and not of a lay person...
As far as another chant about the recollection of the body. It’s more of the realization that the body, is inherently unclean, filled with things such as skin, teeth, flesh, bone, lungs, heart, liver, oils, fats, blood, puss, intestines, urine, feces. This is a recollection in Buddhism to realize that this attraction to the body should not be pursued, because no matter no matter how attractive a person is, they will eventually grow old and decay, thus the physical beauty is simply a distraction what is really there.
In some Thai Buddhist monastery’s (Metta Forest is in the Thai tradition), you may find a skeleton in the meditation hall. The reason: is it is a reminder of what our bodies really are. It’s a way to understand that physical beauty will fade, so it shouldn’t be a condition for the pursuit of happiness.
Also, you mention that you’ve been on vipassana meditation before, and the meditation the Buddha used WAS vipassana (insight). The difference between most secular meditation retreats versus those done in Buddhist monasteries like Wat Metta (Metta Forest) is that there is just a focus on the meditation, where the Buddha expounded that meditation will only take you part of the way to understanding ultimate truth/true happiness. The three “tools” you need for happiness are: 1)sila (virtue/morality), 2) samadhi (mindful concentration), and 3) pañña (discernment through wisdom). Discernment is what you arrive at, after practicing virtuous conduct (through the eightfold path and mindful concentration). But the beginning is virtuous conduct, that’s why lay Buddhist take on the 5 precepts (8 precepts, if you are on retreat in a Buddhist monastery- that’s why you don’t eat after 12 pm, at Wat Metta).
Also, about eating meat. Theravāda Buddhists do eat meat. The first precept is the refraining of killing. You didn’t kill the animal, and if you don’t eat it it’s not going to magically come back to life. The animal is already dead, the meat is there (and most likely will be thrown away, if not eaten or cooked), so it’s a matter of being practical. The Buddha himself ate meat, not refusing any meal offering, and understanding that being a monastic means living off the kindness of others.
Hope this helps you understand Theravāda Buddhism a bit more.
Your explanation is very good.
Dream Dream Serene
Monks and lay practitioners are commended for going vegetarian. But it’s not all necessary. I understand the concept of supply and demand when it comes to the meat industry, but ultimately that expansive world view is not useful to you if your goal is liberation (nibbana/nirvana).
Those who practice the path to liberation should be more concerned about the intentions behind their actions. Instead of focusing on refraining from eating meat to “stop the meat industry,” one should focus on abandoning eating as a form of sensual pleasure. Rather look at it as a necessary process to sustain your body.
Instead of trying to change the world, Buddhism is about renouncing the world because it is filled with craving. The practices taken on by monks and serious practitioners of the path are more about realize that this world is not worth being a part of, but realizing that there are necessary actions needed to sustain the body for the practice.
So the proper way to look at eating meat is: “If it’s there I will eat it, and I ask for forgiveness from the being that was killed for the meal. I am not eating for pleasure or to beautify the body. I eat to sustain this body to continue the practice.”
Dream Dream Serene
Okay sure.
The verses about "shame" that you alluded to are as follows:
"Whatever robe I used today without consideration,
was simply to counteract cold,
to counteract heat,
to counteract the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles;
simply for the purpose of covering the parts of the body that cause shame."
This simply alludes to the fact that we are not attached to the requisites (such as food and clothing).
I think this is an aspect a lot of Westerners struggle with, especially if they grew up as practicing Christians. Body shame isn't really a thing in Buddhism. The body isn't seen as evil or anything (though it is seen as gross/disgusting, that's more meant to come through practice rather than accepted ideology/belief). The Buddha talks about contemplating that the body is, among other things, filled with piss and shit (every translation I've seen uses the expletives). There may well be other reasons, but I've long thought of the whole modesty thing as less body=evil and more an acknowledgment that the bodies of those we are attracted to can be stimulating and therefore distracting if we are serious about practice. No condemnation, just a simple acknowledgment of biological reality.
Hey! Thank you so much for the video. I really appreciated your honesty about what you observed there! I wanted to add some comments about your concerns regarding equality of the sexes and vegetarianism.
First, not only is Theravada Buddhism *the only religion that includes the teachings of women among its "canon,"* (the scriptural collection that is considered the highest authority in a religion), it also contains the vast majority of *the earliest recorded literature by women in human history, "period"!* Vegetarianism is not quite as harmless as it seems - it kills far, far more conscious beings than we admit - and folks intentions in clinging to it as a lifestyle/identity is perhaps merely just that.
Regarding the sexes, Theravada Buddhism is the *only* religion - even among other "Buddhisms" - with a scriptural Canon that includes the teachings of women as being *on equal par* with the teachings of its foremost leader. The Pali Suttas - the orally composed teachings that are the earliest records of the Buddha's teachings - are not only the only religious canon that contains the teachings of women - it actually contains most of humanity's earliest female literature of various forms/genres: it contains the first recorded collection of women's poetry (Therigatha), the first recorded book composed by a women (Ittivutaka), the first recorded dialogue in which a man submits to a woman for extensive religious advice (the Culavedalla Sutta), and the first records of women's psycho-spiritual battles with their own minds (the Bhikkhuni-Samyutta). What's interesting about the Culavedalla Sutta is that the man receiving teachings from his "ex-wife" who left him and became fully awakened (making this another "first" in human literature); at the end of the discourse, a monk tells the Buddha what she said during the conversation and he says "I could not have said it better myself" (this is the first recorded instance of anything of the sort having been said of a women by a man, and it is said by the religion's founder and highest authority, at that).
These works contain the first recorded feminist writings: critiques of gender roles, accounts of women instructing men, accounts of women "telling off" men (and deities!), critiques of the domestic role of women, assumptions about the intellectual-spiritual inferiority of women, etc. It's important to not fall for first (or second, or third) impressions, but to rest uncontended with one's standing understanding of things until one has reached complete, definitive, fully informed understanding. Nothing comparable is found in any other religion, and - again - this is the first recorded female literature in female history of such breadth, depth, and controversy! It's the world's first social criticism - and it's by women! :-D
The covering of shameful parts of the body applies to both men and women; the body is only "shameful" in that we often - indeed, almost universally - reduce ourselves to our sensual appeal. In Buddhist practice, we are looking to de-objectify ourselves and each other in order to really address ourselves and others as conscious, feeling subjects who, deep in our hearts, desire a completely harmless and deathless happiness. Human religions tend to demonize the body with little reason, but Buddhism recognizes that our body is an important tool for supporting our mind/heart's quest for higher and higher forms of happiness. Because we live in cultures that try to (literally) sell us the idea of finding some sublime bliss in sensual indulgence (where, in the end, little is to be found), folks at training centers (monasteries) are encouraged to de-objectify themselves and each other, in part, by covering the parts of the body that are ordinarily deployed as a sense of low self-esteem, inflated self-esteem, and the subtle dynamics of sexual competition that we largely don't even have a vocabulary for, being so deeply in denial about it. We often think that the only way to counteract the demonization of the body is to go to its opposite - apotheosizing it and/or it sensual features, regardless of the limitations, drawbacks, or subtle harm doing so might cause to others and ourselves.
On the vegetarianism theme: the cultivation of grains and vegetables kills *immense, immense* numbers of living beings - just not the cuter ones with which it is (often) easier to identify or derive aesthetic/sentimental pleasure from protecting. As a small child, far before he even thought about pursuing enlightenment, the Buddha noticed the immense loss of life caused by his father plowing a field. One of the greatest insights he had is that all feeding causes suffering to others. A hunter who kills one deer and uses that protein has led to far, far lesser loss of life than a farmer cultivating and equivalent amount of protein in the form of legumes like soy, etc. More significant than this, however, is that the Buddha realized that we not only feed physically (off of food), but we feed emotionally (off of pleasant sensory contacts, intentions, and consciousness). These (four) forms of feeding build up passing personalities and personas on which we become fixated - and it is this fixation, this feeding off of these phenomena to build up and cling to unsustainable centers of identity, that is stress and suffering itself; it is also what leads us into conflict with others, causing their suffering.
I really, really appreciate your unassuming honesty and criticism, because these are important things for folks to think about. It's really, really important - if they are interested in pursuing an ultimate happiness - that they think twice, thrice, and more about the things that their senses, imaginations, and memories - conditioned by cultural trends and economic forces - present to them. It's also important to ask questions from reliable authorities when necessary. Thank you so much for the video, and for your patience with this comment! Remember: not everything is what it seems; indeed, it's usually not! May you forever be well!
In the U.S., most of the animals killed for meat are from factory farms, not somebody shooting a deer in the forest. Factory farms are among the worst threats not only to non-human animals, but also to human and environmental health. Though this may seem counterintuitive, if growing plants for food leads to killing, then the animal industry causes to more killing than veganism. Much of the plant-based foods grown are to feed livestock who are overproduced by humans through artificial incemination. Thus, veganism is the best way to reduce killing and save the world.
Great video for a seeker that is exploring different spiritual traditions! I wish you all the best in your search.
Just as a clarification, the chant you refer to which talks about covering the shameful parts of the body is actually a chant where monks reflect on why they are wearing any clothes at all. If they are truly renunciant, why not remain with no food, no clothing, no shelter, and no medications? These are the four requisites, and monks are expected to reflect on the fact that they are consuming these. The lay people are encouraged to do the same if they want to develop themselves spiritually.
Now, about the idea that the human body has nothing to be shameful about, or that it is worth celebrating and admiring is actually a perception we have superimposed. The body is just made up of all these materials and is neither beautiful nor ugly. Just that we humans are actually intoxicated by what we perceive to be beautiful about the skin covering our bodies.
Now, while scientists claim that our attraction to the body is inherently hard-wired thing in our brains, Buddhism teaches that it is actually due to a very subtle process in our mind where we are actually making a choice to perceive the body as attractive. Our hands are not tied and we aren't forced to see the body as attractive because of a hard-wiring in the brain - we actually have a choice in how we perceive the body.
Have you ever thought that men with muscles and six-pack abdomens are attractive and others with fat, plump bodies, and stubby noses, are ugly? Why do you do so if our bodies are all worthy of admiration and celebration? What if Buddhism told you that it is possible for you to develop a mind that doesn't get attracted to one and repulsed by the other and treat both bodies as just bodies? Would such a teaching appeal to you?
Dama chantjng
Wow.... bravo...brother 👍
I have something that might clear some of your doubts. The meat subject was always debated for a long time. The reason that the monks accept meat is that for one, it is easy for people to prepare foods for them. The monk receives foods that are given to them, if they are picky, then the people has to prepare the foods for the monks and foods they eat differently. On the other hand, monks need to be mindful with foods they eat, especially the meat. They have to think that they eat the meat like a mother eats her own baby. The baby is already dead and she needs it to survive, she eats it without any desire for taste. If the animal is killed to prepare foods for the monks, and the monks know or doubt it, they arent not allowed to eat it. If its a dead meat made for general population, and the monks receive as if it is not killed specifically for them, then they are allowed to eat it by the buddha. The monks can choose not to eat meat. Monks dont always have people prepare foods for them everyday, some monks live in the forest and has to walk to the vilages to get foods. So, they cant be picky. They only eat the meat, but they dont have killing intent, didnt put effort into killing, didnt make the killing successful, or wasnt happy that the animal was killed. One thing to note that, the monks are allowed to eat the dead prey of another animal, for example, if the tiger killed a deer and left some meat there. If the deer is already dead, has no more consciousness, then the monks can eat that deer too. The monks eat only to survive to fulfill their devotion (seeking nirvana) but not to survive of desire to live. People argue that if they dont accept meat then people stop killing animals for them. This is in fact not true, if people want to stop killing and prepare vegetarian foods for the monks, the monks will always accept it. They dont refuse foods because of the taste or whether it contains meat or not. If u want to prepare vegetarian foods for the monks, go ahead. The monks never tell u he wants to eat meat. If he does, its against the monastic rules.
And about the shamefullness of the body, it was taught for people to let go of the desire and attachment to the physical body. If people perceive their own body as stinky, dirty, disgusting, undesireable by color, undesireable by shape, then they can let go of the desire and attachment of the body. This is because we desire or attach to body because we think otherwise. We, not only desire our own body this way or some other way, but also we desire other people body as well. If you see them as undesireable by shape and color, stinky and disgusting, then you will not like it as much or like it anymore.
Great video, thank you so much for showing us around. Taan Geoff is the reason I became a Buddhist and has planted in me the seed to become a monk and chase the ultimate happiness one day, hopefully if I can get over the health problem I'm going through.
About the meat eating problem, I did struggle with that for a while too(as I used to be a vegetarian), but then came across some explanations. I believe the monks have a rule that if the animal was specifically killed for them, they can't eat it. So they are keeping their precepts by not directly killing or guiding someone to kill an animal for them. Also generosity is very important in a monks training and hence they make a point to not turn away any offer that is made. If you also factor the fact that in a normal setting people bring and share the food they actually prepared for themselves as an act of generosity, we can come to the conclusion that the monk simply accepted what the donors were willing to share. It would have been rude to reject the act of generosity that the donor made. Hence no blame on the monk.
For the idea about the inequality of men vs women, I don't know if it'd answer your question, but there are no monasteries for nuns in the Theravada tradition as of now, because they went extinct at some point, and the rules set forth by the Buddha does not allow a monk to ordain a nun. Hence nuns monasteries can't restart. According to Taan Geoff the reason the Buddha "favored" men over women was a pragmatic one and certainly not because men are better than women. There is a video of Taan Geoff explaining this here : th-cam.com/video/eEmwE6EN9e8/w-d-xo.htmlm35s
Anyways, thanks again for the wonderful video and take care :)
Sadhu, sadhu, sadhu.
You made a very good explanation.
At the time of the Buddha, the monks walked around in India basically only staying put during the Vassa = Rainy season. They only eat alms food and not all lay people in the villages they came upon could offer them vegetables. Some could offer a bit of chicken, some were fishermen and could only offer fish. They monks are/were not allowed to refuse meat when it was offered to them, though they did not have to eat it. At times in certain regions there were nothing else to eat but some meat and rice. And it doesn't benefit your spiritual life refraining from eating if only meat is served during a whole week, for instance. The monks path is very realistic and humble in that sense.
Then again a monk is not allowed to eat meat should he know that the animal was slaughtered for him. As a monk in no way is allowed to partake in killing. Though a piece of meat is only dead matter. And eating it does not cause suffering to the animal it came from.
Nice short video, now I know what to expect when I get there oh, I'll be chopping vegetables😊
Very good and thank you very much
There are 3 dominant strains of the 2,500 year old Buddhism: Theravada ( yellow/safron robes in South East Asia), Mahayana (maroon robes, HH Dalai Lama, Tibetan Buddhism) and Vajrayana. There are brown robes also worn, Thich Nhat Hanh from Vietnam wears, another wonderful inspiring teacher . HH Dalai Lama says that Buddhism is not a religion. It's a practice like yoga, we don't worship Buddha, we practice meditation, mindfulness, compassion, kindness and put this into daily practice.
The Dalai Lama and so-called "Vajrayana" Buddhism are not all that they present themselves as. They have a very good marketing team, which has made them quite profitable and powerful. Reading more closely into the honest history of Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism's role and legacy there is disheartening for those of us who have been wooed by the smiles, the art, the philosophy, and the sentiments. It's worth looking into.
🦋 Namaste 🙏 🦋 ⚡ 🧘♂️ love and care unconditionally ❤️ ❤️ ❤️
To know and understand what is the main principle teaching in Buddhism one should be accustomed to and awared of their teaching. There are two major parts of the teaching, the first one is called the Dhamma and the second is called the Vinaiya(Discipline). The Buddha's main Dhamma are of the 4 noble truths and the 8 noble Maggas for the monks to be educated and practiced to reach the resolution of all defilements and become liberated from the cycle of rebirth. The second one is the Vinaiya(Discipline) this one is the rule for the monastic monks to follow. There are 227 rules for Theravadha Buddhist tradition to be observed. There are major and minor rules for the rest of monastic communities. The severities of breaking rules are from excomunication upto severing from the monkhood altogether. The dress code for robes that each monk can have only 3 robes, these 3 robes are for protecting from harsh environtment only ie: heat,cold ,insect etc. The robes are not for adornment of the body or for decorating purpose. There is no shame or guilt in the body as it may be misunderstood by the outsider. There is no woman discrimination
from practicing the Dhamma nor against woman from performing any wholesome deeds in any temples. The Vinaiya limit exposing contact between monks and lay woman is to prevent any defilement and unwholesome thought from both parties. Since monks practicing celibacy therefore it's his commitment into practicing introspection regarding emotional feeling inorder to twarth off any reaction of unwholsome thought that may arised in the presence of the lay women. Most of the monks are still in the process of learning and practicing Dhamma and there mind is yet to be purified for further development of there training for the final goal of liberation from Samsara.
well, exposed female body is just a distraction and seducing factor for monks who are not allowed to have lustful thoughts and i'm sure don't want to (but lust is hard to control), so it's not about shamefulness but about respect for their way of living and their practice
celebration of physical body doesn't accord with the Dhamma, because attachment to it is one of the things which ties us down to samsara
indeed Dhamma is a religion, but it's also akin to a travel route, if you wish to arrive at a destination witin a minimum time possible you follow the route RELIGIOUSLY
at the same time, monks should examine their lustful / desirous thoughts and understand them, instead of body shaming the women whose only crime is being born a woman. if the monk thinks it's about controlling lustful thoughts than the monk is confused. it's about feeling and examining the desire in order to have an epiphany about the desires empty nature
A great comment. I hope the lady in this video read it and reflected on it.
@@10010x0x0x01101XX0X1 what monks are body shaming women? I have yet to come across legitimate ones that choose to break the right speech precept.
@@10010x0x0x01101XX0X1 that's why they always look down
Very nice and informative video you have created . I have spent many Sundays over a 8 year period at Wat Buddha Temple in Escondido . I have found there to be the missing link in Christianity which is the interaction love and friendliness between all people on every occasion . My trip to Metta was very calm and peaceful but no sense of connectedness .
It's not "body shaming" (which would imply comparing an uglier body to a more beautiful body). It's changing one's perception toward all bodies, so as to chip away at identifying too strongly with one's own body.
And the Buddha ate meat.
I been there before last week and i sleep in the tent .
🙏🙏🙏
Very nice video, thank you for posting it!
cool，you should learn more about buddhism
A lot more, especially before commenting about it. "there's still dogma and lots of rituals", yeah, right lady.. it's a religion, what do you expect? Does she even know the monks are celibate and seek to eradicate all desires?
People in the West grow up with very wrong notions about Eastern religions.. not everything will endorse their hippie, drug-using, promiscuous lifestyle. Yeah, the 5 precepts for lay Buddhists also prohibit alcoholic drinks..
💖
ํYou asked why Buddhist eat meat or fish ... "does this go against the five precepts of not killing?" It was clear that Lord Buddha took all kind of food which lay people prepared for him but if he knew that lay person was going to kill animals for his food .... he would not let one doing that (would not allowed). You must read the book because this thing has declared clearly. If the meat or chicken or fish exist in the market already then you can prepare that as food for monks..... but you WONT kill the animals (catch fish from the river, slaughter chicken in your kitchen or even knock the cow down ) just to prepare food for the monks, this is forbidden. //// When we go to monastery for meditation... we chant, eat, walking meditation, sitting meditation BUT no reading books of any kind, no talking, no VDO recording... just reflect your thinking.... think about death think about when we ageing think about your bones, skin, guts, livers, saliva..... all about your body which one day will be sick ill and part from this world. Think about the uncertainty of our bodies. PLS read the book especially from Luangta Maha BOA at Wat Pa Ban Tad.... He was Arahanta Monk. Good luck to you that one day you understand what I mean.
Good reply . Namo Buddha
Wow\ very very nice🙏💕
it's good that you have questions about Buddhism, Please find the answers for more knowledge.
Abbot Jeffrey has been a monk for 47 Years now...Sadhu...🙏🙏🙏🙏
🦋 🤗 ❤️ ❤️ Love and care unconditionally ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ 🦋
Greetings all bhantes. Please blessings me and my beloved one everyday. Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu🙏🙇
India me kon shi jagah me hai
the sound nice...
god and budha is all...
wish love and metta to all thing.
www.dhammatalks.org/books/Noble&True/Section0007.html
Nice video 👌 I love Buddhism.
Awesome
Sathu sathu sathu
So good I like review you
เป๋นพระเพณีที่สวยงามเสมอ สำหรับศาสนาพุทธ 💛💛💛
Nice vid thanks
Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu! 🙏🙏🙏
Even a boy of our family born in USA name geofry, god give consolation
Is it possible come there and meditate on the own without all their schedule?
Yes. Watmetta.com is the website for infornations.
Beautiful video, inspiring. Would it be possible to ask what that background music is? I love it. Much Metta. Dominic
Hey Dominic! Thanks for watching :)
The background music is TH-cam's copyright free music! Metta! Valentine
The God Talks Thanks Valentine!
Once you become a monk, you let go of the political. You accept what you are given. It is not the monk's job to end the slaughter of animals. It is the lay person's job. If the world goes vegan, a monk will be more than happy to accept what is given within that frame.
Dream Dream Serene A bhikku is someone who is striving to be not of this world.
Satoo satoo anoomotanami :)
Where is Metta Monastery?
It's a Theravada monastery. Look into other Buddhist traditions. Like Zen, they like to jump over the rules.
Timothy Price actually in Theravada they are following the original rules set down by the Buddha.
I'm not disputing that.
There is a LOT of (unintended) wisdom in what you said about Zen allowing/encouraging folks to "jump over the rules." We, who have been let down by most of our own rule-bearing religions, very very easily "fall for" any sentiments around anti-authoritarianism and rulelessness. But this is something to investigate closely. Blind aversion to rules, and blind attraction to rule-lessness, is something to look at closely.
Just got back from there, place was empty,
"What was being taught didn't line up with actions"- what does that have to do with you?
It's as though you're basing your faith or belief system on how others live out theirs? If you do that, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.
The only walk you should concern yourself with is yours. Of course, pray for and help others as much as you can, but the only walk you will have to answer for is your own.
If you choose the Buddhist path, you are free to do so, because I have found it very beautiful and inspirational in many ways.
I have even read the Dhammapda multiple times and have one. Know many verses and even recite them to myself and in dialogue. My point is that make sure that your perception is accurate.
Otherwise, no matter where you go, spiritually speaking, if you base that faith upon how its practicioners manifest it, you will be searching all of your life.
Take care.
🙏🙏🙏👼 modthana sadshu
I can feel u are a loving human, this is a basic precepts of Buddhism.
Buddhist forbids killing, even preaching NO kill their enemy, nothing is impermanent. U are ur own master n responsible u act if u wish.
I was told in my Thailand trip to Lois, monk eat every thing who sincerely offer them, it must clean, so simple.. Not begging
They chant or prayers before eat. As to thank n to bless whom offer them food. Monk consider food as to support life, nothing else.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Please don't misunderstood the Buddha's teaching. When Buddha said do not kill, that includes don't eat any animal including seafood. Because we eat them, that's why people killed them to sell it. Even though you are not killing them yourself, but you are the reason why they are being killed. Buddha said I'm the Buddha that had become all beings are able to become Buddha's in the future. If you are learning or want to learn about the Buddha's teaching ,please learn from the Buddha's Sutra. If you visit The City of Ten Thousand Buddha's in California. They have Sutras in English.
cho tôi được súp việc cho nhà chùa được không
Sister, take the chance to put your stuff down, sit, stay quiet, look at your mind, be here, be here... Learn to meditate!!!!
I feel so proud of you, most of people from non - Buddhism didn't want to be listen what Buddha said was? Budda talked about (Nate Bate). so everybody can know what the (Nate ban is). He did't say that we must have to obey and pray to buddha. U said to us
"Try think and consider of yourself) if u do a good thing. Good thing will b happen, if u do bad thing bad thing will b happen) ..SISTER I hope you will know about the meaning of NATE BAN)
I think you'll find the inequality of the sexes in Buddhism comes more from a culture than from the Buddha's teachings.
I really appreciate your comment and based on my experience and reading Buddha's teaching, I agree with you. Metta!
Yes, sister. The Sangha is in the conventional world although the Dhamma (or Dharma) is not of the world. Conventional realities eventually become part of what becomes tradition. Those who know and see the Truth abandon conventional reality and abide in happiness. If women come second in the queue for the food or are less senior simply because of their sex, it's conventional observance. The wise have no suffering attached to such trivialities and remain imperturbably serene. Some of the teachers I respect, adore and revere are females, even some of the novice women have extremely bright hearts and bowing my head to them is natural and fulfilling.
Signed A Man.
Luke McK
Assuming you are of European heritage you have understood the basic tenets of Buddhism very well than of the peoples of Asia. I myself coming from Asia and being called a 'man' having grown up in 'Buddhist' environment had to face this dilemma. My challenge was not welcomed. It was here in a western country doing my major in religions - Buddhism where I was able to raise again, on the basis of "mind is the forerunner of all phenomena" - Dhammapada.
Elephant in the room
You explained Dhamma very well. If you allow me to contribute my humble 2 cents worth then it would be the "mind" in the Teachings of the Buddha as it is the forerunner of all phenomena. Our bodies (men, women and all other) are just dwellings for our brains and/or mind which has an ability to reason the ultimate truth from the conventional truth/reality (The Two Truths of Reality). The latter or the mature understanding of reality on the way to awakening or enlightenment will not discriminate whether it arose from a man or a woman, and that is my argument against the orthodoxy. Milinda Panna illustrates this two truths argument in detail. Having being called a 'man' 'I' also adore, respect and revere 'women' who are much more or highly intelligent, wiser, kind and compassionate than 'me'. I came to this understating by analysing whatever available as the teachings of the Buddha. I am not going to buy into Theravada who call themself as the holder of authentic Buddhists even though I grew up in that tradition.
PS: Phenomena in 'Buddhism': me, you, man, women, house, sky, moon, money, investments, happiness, sorrow, love, cat, dog etc. All these are conventional truths, in reality they are not (refer to Milinda's question) All these arises from our mind, therefore we crave for them, hence we attach to them, hence we feel sad when they decay or leave us. and the teachings of the Buddha goes on.
In the same way 'chitta' mind/consciousness arises and fades away, arises and fades away, therefore all phenomena too are impermanent. More the you want to freeze phenomena more the you feel sad as one could not hold them forever, they all seize to exist. My thoughts at the begin of this text has seized to exist now and new have arisen, hence I had to edit this after posting. From the beginning to the end of this text I have been 'born' and 'passed away' trillions times, 'I' am not the one now as at the beginning. That is Dhamma.
I admire the way you signed off. If you allow 'me' to copy you
Signed by another 'man'
May all sentient beings be happy, free from pain and suffering. In metta to you all.
It is truly wicked and sad how we as Westerners have to bring sexual politics even to criticize and our best virtue signaling efforts to corrupt other people's religious traditions. But keep on doing what you do, building up bad karma seems to be the goal for some.
Because Buddhist monks are not supposed to ask for specific things when people are making offered. But if those who make offerings do not know what Buddha teaches and that monks are not supposed to eat meat, then they might offer meat. Monks accepting offerings is an opportunity for the one who make the offerings to create good merit for themselves. If you are a Buddhist follower you should not offer meat to a monk, because that is creating bad karma.
I don't think you fully understand Buddhism.That's why you're wondering about meat eating. Good video though. Thank You!
hi miTTa
You did not learn anthing. Just showing food, nothing of the teaching. Waste of time.
Buddha said ..dont kill... didn't say dont eat... just so u know it's not a religion.... u are mistaken.... it's a PHILOSOPHY.... u could be the only one to call it a religion... how little we know....
Buddha never said shameful parts of the body... it is just been decent...
We dont go to places of worship to show off..... our bodies or clothes etc.
It is not just Buddhist temples...like u say...
All religious places are like that... if anyone has a problem with descent dressing.... shouldn't go to such places...
Again... it is not a religion.... they are based around a God...
Buddha is not a God...or a messenger from anyone...
And we all can attain buddhahood.
That is the difference...
Learn from a real monk
Sadhu dhamma buddha
eat to live . not live to eat
Strict vegetarianism is not conducive to enlightenment, if anything it is another bias and fetter. Food is merely eaten to nourish the body, a diet with meat is bound to create a healthier body so you can keep on living the holy life. The buddha himself actually actively rejected the notion of vegetarianism which was one of the tenets posited to him by one of his disciples who tried to fragment the sangha.
When I see a tourist in a monastery with a selfie stick... 😱😱👎👎👎
A little knowledge is more dangers than having zero knowledge.......first if you are christin....put aside jisus.....and than Read the History of Buddhism and what gautam Taught......Dont just be a teacher or Buddha to explain things you did not understood.....you people are crazy you just go to the Monestry as a picnic.....and do dirty stufs with your bf around there.....and than you make videos or comment on thinks you dont know about.....you keep your jisus with you and dont comment again on buddhism.....!
Come my monestry in srilanka
@Scott Valentine cantact me
094761606317
🙏🙏🙏