Originally posted by onesp1ng
View Post
It's funny that particularly yourself should ask.
If you remember, maybe 4 yrs ago when you were explaining your degree to me, you told me that sanskrit was a 'really pretty' language, and I didn't know what it was.
It was exactly that that led me to explore it, so, in doing that I came across the vinya and loads of different versions, in virtue of each language it's found in, seems to express slightly differently, and yet all the while being the exact same equation of elements but culturally adapted by the hermeneutic parameters of the language.
It doesn't seem that all of those are available online anymore. Maybe I need to follow a different search path( ).
If a monk is only a monk whilst living in a temple, and takes lay vows when not, is the monk ever really not a monk? I just think that you can take the monk out of the temple, but you can't take the temple out of the monk. ..or the disciple as the case may be.
I also think that it serves an example. I believe that it is the entire point of leaving the temple in the first place, and so to do that a mahayana buddhist might like to offer practical means, of which the entire gammit thereto is available for ppl to choose to incorporate themselves. monkey see monkey do isn't so irrelevant and far fetched of a technique when it makes good sense to. I would definately follow something I could logistically see to be a good example, and have spent agonising moments looking around the world for one. I dont think there's one for me, that aside atm though. that iis what led me to the principal surrounding it, because I already am a mummy, and being a single one at that, how to do ideally do sex and parenting in buddhas books, do you think? he certainly doesn't advocate ceasing procration of the human species .
I think it took buddhism and transformational buddha on the initial brahmin tenets and behaviour( as the parent preist caste of the previous era) that shakyamuni was so alledgedly scholastically and osmotically familiar with to arrive at what he did at all. he was a supposedly parent , with a wife and a mistress btw, and also reputedly heavily influenced by his parent's vedismitic logic before he ever arrived at that bodhitree and arrived at celibacy in lieu. by advocating celibacy, what do you think he was saying about the parent he was and the circumstances surrounding that?
that he travelled and preached for impact offering the lay world buddhism for theeir use, doesnt go in hand with that he didn't have us covered for wholesome relations that resulted in baby making.
Surely, we wouldn't be suggesting that he said that making babies or being lay is unwholesome?? and to become wholesome we should stop babies occuring in the world? I dont think so, somehow.
I only hear of that, circumstance and rules to do it by and not and nothing else. period. that's how I read that, and because I also see a monk's communion as a life time surrenderance by virtue of itself, like marraige never wasn't marraige even after divorce .. that's my math on it. you can't take it back. it was done and is a 'for all intents and purposes' permanent reactant with everything else thereafter.
Blooming tianshi lotus.
Comment