As the society becomes more and more realism and venality, many monks and nuns only follow the way that the money goes. It seems the same to lay person. the buddha teach sila to moderate the monks, for manager the order and other aspects. but in kamma, the buddha teach that whatever happens, it depends on one’s kamma. and everything is the cause and effect.
if that so, why it needs a sila to manage the order? why it didn’t include in kamma? if everything is kamma, then, it seems sila is redundant.
another one is about communication. even monks have their duty to take care to each other. so lay person it is more than that. it seems an opposite view to get rid of samsara. if there’s duty or friends or family, we must easily to get in touch to them. thess latent defilements hind in the mind which will be obstacles to attain higher states. so, I just can find out someone selfish could practice well, because they always only want to treat oneself well.
Welcome to the Classical Theravada group @Ivy_Zheng ! It is good to have you here. I’m not sure I fully understand your questions but I can comment that monks are not supposed to touch money, accept money or have it accepted for them. Furthermore, they are not allowed to engage in trade.
The monks are allowed kappiyas and they are allowed donors. However, this is often discouraged in the Loving-kindness sutta.
santussako ca subharo ca, appakicco ca sallahukavutti,
satisfied (with little), easy to support, free from duties, and light in living,santindriyo ca nipako ca, appagabbho kulesu ananugiddho, [02]
with faculties at peace, prudent, not forward, and greedless among the families,
Morality as mentioned here is the preliminary for concentration and that is the preliminary for wisdom as stated in this sutta. “greedless among the families” actually means greedless among donors. So, even though monks are allowed to use donors upon special invitations, the monk should be careful to have fewness of wishes and to be controlled in what he asks for. The reason why donors are referred as “families” is because the families do not need to give invitations.
The invitation is automatic according to the blood lines of 7 generations in both directions, so the monk can ask for things. A monk cannot ask for things without such an invitation. If he does, those items are not allowed for him. An exception is a bowl that is damaged, lost or stolen, or when the monk has less than two robes.
So even though a monk might not use money, he could still be “greedy for families or donors”.
It seems as though you have the perception that monks are “following the money”. Unfortunately, the vast majority of monks (high 90 percentages) disregard such rules. Only a small percentage (low single digits) follow proper rules laid down by the Buddha. Refraining from handling money is an important rule. That is why it is one of the ten rules for novice monks to follow. It is impossible for a monk to attain any distinction in concentration or wisdom and use money at the same time.
It is recommended that you learn from monks who follow the rules and also meditate. Furthermore, it is recommended that you follow monks who are accepting of the Classical Theravāda. There are also lay people who can help you as well. I hope this helps to answer your question.
my question is about kamma and sila. if monks follow kamma, that means he knows cause and effect. I think the buddha always teach kamma to let the follower to abstain from doing evil. so, why it needs sila? what’s the relationship between kamma and sila. why monks needs sila?
Dear OP, the Buddha did not teach a doctrine of determinism.
If that is so, that would be impossible to attain Nibbāna.
Never did the Buddha taught that Kamma is fixed.
You have misunderstood how Kamma and Vipaka working… I suggest you read Mahakammavibhanga sutta.
The question you asked is contradictory, as if one might ask: “I will die anyway, why live now?”
Once a person is an Arahant he is no longer bound to the training. He is called an asekhiya. Until that time, he should follow morality. After that time, his morality will be naturally pure anyway. Furthermore, the monk who is an arahant still should follow the monk’s rules out of respect and out of being an example.
- Should any bhikkhu chew or consume stored-up staple or non-staple food, it is to be confessed.
This is one of the few rules where the original instigator was an arahant: Ven. Beḷaṭṭhasīsa, Ven. Ānanda’s preceptor and formerly the head of the 1,000 ascetics who attained Awakening on hearing the Fire Sermon (SN XXXV.28). The origin story here reports that he made a practice of keeping leftover rice from his alms round, drying it, and then moistening it to eat on a later day. As a result, he only rarely had to go out for alms. Even though he was doing this out of frugality rather than greed, the Buddha still rebuked him. The story doesn’t give the precise reasons for the rebuke. Perhaps it was because the Buddha saw that such behavior would open the way for bhikkhus to avoid going on alms round, thus depriving themselves of the excellent opportunity that alms-going provides for reflecting on their dependency on others and on the human condition in general; and depriving the laity of the benefits that come from daily contact with the bhikkhus and the opportunity to practice generosity of the most basic sort every day. Although frugality may be a virtue, there are times when other considerations supercede it. (BMC 1)
Sila is a Kamma. ( a kusala kamma)
Yes, according to Theravada, the selfish one becomes only second to the person who care about both self and others.
1.Attahita + Parahita
2.Attahita + Neva Parahita
3.Neva Attahita + Parahita
4.Neva Attahita + Neva Parahita
The 1st and 4th is obvious. The 2nd and 3rd Classification shows the difference between Wisdom and Compassion, or in other words Theravada and Mahayana.
Sila is “abstaining from doing evil”. That is why Sila has been recommended.
At first, sila is not kamma. and kamma also can’t include sila. sila is the buddha who wrote down for moderate the monk. it is only for training their deeds to be acceptable to layperson and how to associate with the society. I can’t refuse to agree that some parts also includes kamma but not all. the sila why it should be lay down it is also for the order of sangha can harmony to stay together and to get a development in the society. if the sangha became realism, I think people will slowly and slowly to keep the distance.
kamma is not sila. kamma is just cause and effect, the rule of nature. so they’re different to each other.
so, my question is when sila make the cause and effect go to worse. how about the kamma leads to? for example, doner invites a monk for food in his home tomorrow. but the monk at last didn’t have time to go or have other things to do. so he sent other monk to instead of him. when doner met that monk, he didn’t know what happened and feel lost. from this, we know that the monk follows the sila but the effect is the doner feel lost. it’s not only in this case but also many unfair case in sila. in this sense, kamma will be created, right?
Sila IS Kamma. Kamma means “action” or “deeds”. It can be “Kusala” aka wholesome ; or “Akusala” aka unwholesome.
Monastic Sila can be Bhikkhu Patimokkha or Bhikkhuni Patimokkha; layfollowers like us is mainly Pancasila or occasionally, Uposatha Sila, etc.
Yet, this Kusala Kamma is conducive to stopping the cycle of birth and death.
In Culakammavibhanga sutta, the Buddha said:
“But here, student, some man or woman, abandoning the killing of living beings, abstains from killing living beings; with rod and weapon laid aside, gentle and kindly, he abides compassionate to all living beings. Because of performing and undertaking such action, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world. But if on the dissolution of the body, after death, he does not reappear in a happy destination, in the heavenly world, but instead comes back to the human state, then wherever he is reborn he is long-lived. This is the way, student, that leads to long life, namely, abandoning the killing of living beings, one abstains from killing living beings; with rod and weapon laid aside, gentle and kindly, one abides compassionate to all living beings.”
From this excerpt, we can see that “Panatipata veramaniya” is a wholesome Kamma.
And Sila wasn’t made up by the Buddha. It is the universal law of nature, how it works in reality, the way as it is, nobody makes it. The Buddha was just the Discoverer of what is hidden away.