Uposatha Day Post 1/5/2013


Buddhist Rules and Culture

The Vinaya, the First Basket of early Buddhist teachings is the Code for Monks and Nuns, the rules, regulations, policies and procedures by which the monastic Sangha lives. Although this is intended to be studied and followed only by those who have taken monastic vows I have gotten interested in the ways that they shape the broader Buddhist culture, Purisa and Sangha alike. There is no doubt that they were intended to do exactly this.

One example of this is the regulation prohibiting a monk from touching a woman, that is, “engage in bodily contact with a woman, in holding her hand, in holding a lock of her hair or in caressing any of her limbs” when “overcome by lust, with an altered mind.” (Sanghadisesa 2). Although this was enacted after a particularly ill-behaved monk did exactly this but totally unsolicited and unwelcome, the letter of the rule is violated through the mere coincidence of lustful intent and touch, which can arise together in an instant, and carries the harsh implication of a Sanghadisesa. Naturally great care is taken around this rule.

Although only a monk can violate this rule (there is a symmetrical rule for bhikkhunis), in Burma laywomen comply with this rule in a way that makes it easy for the monk not to violate. A Burmese Buddhist woman would never even think of touching a monk. If a monk needs to pass through a restricted space Burmese women are very quick to provide ample space and will alert others who might have their back turned. Burmese take great care that a monk is not seated next to a woman, for instance when a group is traveling in a car. Last week a couple of women undertook to make my bed here in Calgary after having washed the sheets, and I happened to notice them looking perplexed after having pulled the bottom sheet tight at three corners but unable to reach the far corner bordering on two walls. One of them ran into the other room and returned with her husband who climbed on the bed to perform the fourth stretch. I realized that in the minds of the women it would have been a violation of the monk’s space to climb on the bed, even his absence. This is how a monk’s rule not only invokes lay compliance, but evolves into a set of cultural norms about lay behavior.

A Burmese woman has no problem handing something to a monk as an offering as long as fingers do not touch, and sometimes they might inadvertently. In Thailand however a woman will  place what is to be offered on a cloth lying on a table or other surface so that the monk can then receive it by pulling the cloth toward him. This goes far beyond the letter of the relevant rule but seems to have evolved as an embellishment to a cultural norm around a monastic rule. Someone recently reported that Thich Nhat Hanh seemed to have no inhibition about holding hands during a mindfulness walk and sure enough when I checked there he was on Youtube holding hands with a little girl. Technically this does not violate the letter of the precept unless lust arises in Thay’s 85-year-old heart, and is more typical of the looser way in which Buddhists in Mahayana cultures tend to observe precepts or are willing to adjust them to circumstances.

Just as in some cultures many rules are interpreted in a manner stricter than the letter of the rule, often rules are interpreted more lax manner. Burmese routinely make small cash contributions to monks for the purchase of unanticipated requirements, taking care to place such a donation in an envelope. The Vinaya makes clear that a monk cannot receive money in any manner even if “wrapped in a wad of blankets,” but cash may be given to a lay steward on the monk’s behalf who they can use it to purchase material goods to offer to the monk. Furthermore regulations regarding transportation and clothing have been adjusted throughout the Buddhist world according to modern circumstances. Eating of meat is permitted in the original Vinaya, except that if a monk “sees, hears or suspects that it has been killed for him, he may not eat it.” Since the purpose of this qualification seems to be not to implicate a monk in the killing of animals, but to allow him to accept what is offered graciously when lay people wish to share what they have already prepared for themselves, it seems that the an appropriate understanding of this in the modern era of refrigeration and mass distribution of meat would seem to be, “that if he “sees, hears or suspects that it has been killed or purchased for him, he may not eat it..” After all, when a chicken is taken from a supermarket shelf another must be killed to replace it. However this is a rare understanding in Theravada countries. In East Asian Mahayana countries a stricter understanding has prevailed for many centuries: Monks don’t eat meat and they are not offered meat.

In the non-Buddhist West such rules have of course no cultural recognition whatever. The monk is on his own. The most immediate challenge to an Asian monk up arriving in, oh, say, Austin, Texas or in Calgary, Alberta, is as one Burmese monk once put it to me with great distress in his voice, “American women like to … hug!” The challenge for the monk is to avoid the coincidence of lust and touch. If he is not quick enough to avoid the latter he might need quick and very complete control of the senses. Actually technically this will not result in a violation if the monk stands there like a wet fish because in that case he is not complicit as an agent in the action. But that will make of him a disappointing hugging partner indeed. (Western men should take similar care not to hug Buddhist nuns.)

The greatest impact of the monastic rules for a Buddhist culture at large undoubtedly comes in connection with offerings of requisites, particularly food, to monks and nuns. Monastic rules remove every right to a livelihood, to any participation in the exchange economy, to growing or cooking one’s own food or even to storing offered food for the next day. For a monk to follow these rules requires very attentive compliance on the part of the laity; the monk is totally dependent on the laity and totally helpless without its kind offerings. Very rich cultural traditions have grown around this relationship and indeed it places the practice of generosity (dana) right at the center of the Buddhist community, a practice monks enjoy as well and that spills into all areas of the life of a Buddhist community.



7 Responses to “Uposatha Day Post 1/5/2013”

  1. findouting Says:

    Dear Bhante,

    Nice piece. This subject could bear more thinking on. Regarding Thay, I think his capability for adjusting to cultural needs and sheer human needs is phenomenal. In his book ‘Teachings on Love’, he has described how he invented ‘hug meditation’ after a western woman hugged him, making him very uncomfortable and stiff. Later he felt he needed to act with more compassion in such situations, and so ‘hug meditation’ got invented, in which you receive a hug with mindfulness of the great value of the individual and their affection, and send out a thought of metta in their direction. I think such adjustments show a beautiful openness of spirit. Instead of being thrown off his rocker by the culture shock, he developed it into a new and beautiful thing that many people can practice with great benefit. But I am intrigued that you should find a picture of Thay holding hands with a little girl worth noticing. Does not touching women include children too? In another of his books, Thay has described how once a little Vietnamese refugee girl was living with him in his own room.


  2. bhikkhucintita Says:

    Indeed, Thay’s ability to adjust to cultural norms is what makes him such a popular teacher in the West.
    Yes, the rule applies to women/girls of all ages.


  3. findouting Says:

    Does that mean if you have a little grand-daughter, you can’t play with her or cuddle her? Or give your daughter a hug when she needs one? Or are blood relatives exempted? I wonder how these things impact pure human interaction between monastics and lay communities.


  4. bhikkhucintita Says:

    Many Theravada monks would not touch even a granddaughter or a mother. Again the observance of the rules is often overkill and has a cultural element. The letter of the rule specifies “with lust,” and although some people may have incestous incinations that is not common. So in fact blood relatives are generally pretty safe, though it is considered a dukkata, a very very minor infringement, even then. Some Theravada monks maintain that a monk should not grab hold of his mother even to rescue her from drowning. Clearly that is an egregious instance of zeal overriding compassion.

    I have no inhibitions about hugging family members. I will not do that at the monastery however, because the Burmese find it inapprorpriate.

    I personally will not hug a woman who is not a family member though I will occasionally shake hands when one is offered by a non-Buddhist. I used to accept hugs from non-Buddhists and would just control the mind, but I don’t do this anymore because often it becomes a habit and sometimes the intention is more than just cordial.

    A Buddhist woman, who is also very attractive, that I had known at the Zen Center once came out to the monastery and I suspect had misinterpreted my invitation — I invite tons of people out from the Zen Center to maintain a connection and because I think they will find my life and the monastery interesting. — She showed up inappropriately dressed for a monastery, clearly with a lot of care given to her appearance, and intended right off to give me a hug. I must have jumped straight backwards about three feet. I quickly explained that monks don’t hug.


  5. TheravadaDean Says:

    Growing up in Western culture where touching is often allowed, encouraged and abused. It is REFRESHING to hear that there are still individuals I can look up to that would go through such lengths to remain both on the path, and beyond reproach. Much respect Bhante, and thank you for your example.


  6. TheravadaDean Says:

    Growing up in Western culture where touching is often allowed, encouraged and abused. It is REFRESHING to hear that there are still individuals I can look up to that would go through such lengths to remain both on the path, and beyond reproach. Much respect Bhante, and thank you for your example.


  7. Dean Says:

    Growing up in Western culture where touching is often allowed, encouraged and abused. It is REFRESHING to hear that there are still individuals I can look up to that would go through such lengths to remain both on the path, and beyond reproach. Much respect Bhante, and thank you for your example.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: