Authenticity of monks

[Iron Cross]

Ok then an "authentic" monk is like those guys in the movies with long wight beards that can float on a lotus leaf...

Your right though my answer really didnt make sense let me try to clarify...

I would call an authentic monk someone that lives a monastic life devoting his time to buddhism and his practices while practicing the beliefs he preeches... His ultimate goal would always be to seek enlightenment as is really the goal of all buddhists... and since drinking alcohol is something frowned upon as an intoxicant i would expect him to be sober....

Better? want me to clarify anything else?

[arhat]

maybe you should have attended more buddhism classes.

again, a great non-answer. but I see you are back to having fun fun fun!

the question is what you call him, nobody asked you what he called himself- although I am sure you would find him to be an ego driven cultist to be sure, considering all his self used titles. I always liked The One Thus Come, how ill does that sound.

Which is back to my original premise, and here it is dumbed down, so let's hear a good solid answer, it's just a question and we all know you love to ask them so what's the big deal.

Was he or wasn't he.

Don't forget to slip in a "calm down", no reason to break character now.

[Iron Cross]

Ok then I'll say no he wasnt... Thought it was pretty freaking obvious from everything I already wrote..

[arhat]

Gotoma was not a monk.

OK.

Later.

[Iron Cross]

Was Jesus a priest?

[arhat]

An evasive circular answer!!!

That means you are in a cult!!!!

[Iron Cross]

Well than now we both have something in common....

[baiwanxi]

Have you all taken a look at the monk teaching in New Jersy, Shi Xingpeng ? He too has a wife. However he chose to drop the monk title. His website addresses him as, "former monk Zhang Lipeng" his Chinese name.

I respect that he has chosen to renounce his "title" (But that's only my opinion), even though he still wears the robes when demonstrating. Notice though, niether he or his students wear the robes when practicing. .

What makes this guy relevent to the discussion in that he was a monk just like SYM or any of the others. But unlike them, he saw that with a wife and living the life of a normal person, as opposed to a monastic person, he couldn't very well continue calling himself a monk. He dropped the title but still has students, and acknowledgment as a Shaolin pratcticioner.

He has even started the movie choreographing buiss. Which I think he's not half bad at ! So,,,, he does all this, makes money, and still has recognition even though he has renounced his monkhood.

Why couldn't the other "monks" do the same ? Would it really hurt their situation, making money and all ? Only if they want to be known as something more than a "regular" person...... THat's how I see it.. Again,, just my opinion.

I don't know him, but I'd be willing to bet Zhang Lipeng is still a practicing Buddhist as well. Who said he can''t be Buddhist and a regular guy too.

http://americaneuropeanshaolin.com/

My 2 cents on this whole "monk" thing.

[Iron Cross]

I respect what Lipeng did too... He USED TO live in a temple and was considered a "monk" but now lives in a city and runs a business... So, he no longer referes to himself as a monk but a former monk.. hats off to him...

[LFJ]

first, lets be sure that no one missed my posts to btl in her hell topics. my point is not to discredit or insult anyone. but simply to explain what entails monasticism in buddhist tradition and has nothing to do with ones ability to practice and teach the dharma. but lets go further...

admits he doesn't know the sets of vows, because nobody has told him- certainly he realizes these are internal temple traditions which google will never score a hit on

actually, what i said was no one has been able to explain a wuseng's ordination- what makes a wuseng a "monk". many have only taken refuge vows and havent gone beyond that. but they may have lived in temples and lived like monks. but really, all that makes them is "buddhist". traditionally taking these vows is what makes one a "buddhist"- entering the gate. even if they took novice vows (part of the ordination vows). it is still short of monkhood.

there are traditions in japan where you have guys who shave their heads, wear robes, take refuge vows, and teach dharma. but they also have wives and children often times. but they are recognized as "priests" not monks. its a tradition that sounds very close to what a wuseng is. yet, they claim to be monks.

my point is, in the buddhist traditions there are requirements for ordination making one a monk. if you make up a special order of wuseng who dont take full ordination vows, you simply cant call them monks in the buddhist sense of the word. if you do, then you're making a whole new line of monasticism which is no longer "buddhist" bhiksu-sangha by definition.

Anyway, letter of the law vs spirit is where he loses it for me.

certainly i agree for any layman practitioner. bodhisattva vimalakirti for example was a perfect representation of a layman dharma master and teacher who had a family life. but he never was ordained. and so what?

however, if one wants to become a monk they take vows respecting the whole of the vinaya as the basis for their ordination and strive to uphold it. as i said, if you dont respect the vinaya and dont even accept it, you should drop the vows you've made to become a monk on the basis of the vinaya set up by the buddha. again, if you dont believe the buddha set it up, what business do you have claiming monasticism upon such an unacceptable basis?

perhaps it'll be good for those interested to do some searching around to hear some teachings of the vinaya as taught by the buddha. you'll come to find that the buddha taught of past buddhas who's dharma lasted a shorter period of time due to not setting up a more strict vinaya, or one at all. or speaking of the longevity of his own dharma in terms of his own vinaya and how well the ordained observe it and how well the laity respect it.

it is also worth noting that the buddha referred to his own teaching as dharma-vinaya, the doctrine and disciple. both equal components.

because the vinaya is not the dharma and quite a bit of it is idiotic, if not mysogynistic.

here, if you dont respect it and a "monk" doesnt accept it, he should take back his vows to it first of all and you should reexamine the reasons it was set up.

but for one who has broken the first precept of celibacy and has kids, they are automatically expelled anyway.

but as far as i know, its okay for guys like yanming to have kids because they havent taken full ordination vows and were never buddhist monks to begin with. they are equal to lay practitioners (refuge recipients) who lived in the temple. perhaps wuseng is an honorific title for the purpose they serve to the temple. but they are not monks in the buddhist sense. if a new order was created it at most makes them priests. otherwise if they are monks it is upon a basis other than that set up by the buddha and hardly a "buddhist" order.

but if you want to talk as if these guys are monks of any kind in the buddhist tradition, then thats another story and breaking the first precept results in "defeat" and they are automatically expelled. even if you deny the rest of the vinaya- of the major precepts, the precepts entailing defeat for a monk, celibacy is numero uno.

[arhat]

buddha was defeated. well I admire your sack.

this cracks me up, "monk" is an english word. there are 5 stages within shaolin, and also according to your family, each are entitled to fall under the umbrella term "monk."

[arhat]

isn't it odd how people struggle to define something which doesn't seem to have much trouble defining itself.

I mean asking episcopalians about catholics is interesting and all...

[LFJ]

buddha was defeated. well I admire your sack.

the buddha had a family before starting his spiritual life.

and thank you. it hangs quite nicely.

[arhat]

and more importantly, kept them.

[LFJ]

certainly, how buddhalike is it for a man to abandon his family? i would expect no less.

as far as monasicism, you arent turned away if you have a family. but you cant be married or start a family after ordination. and actually, being unmarried is a requirement of ordination. but if you had kids before that doesnt mean you are non-celibate the rest of your life or unfit to become a monk. just that after ordination if you break that precept thats it.

but even still, i think striving to be like a modern day vimalakirti bodhisattva if one is leading the lay life is very important. monasticism doesnt guarantee understanding and enlightenment. and ordination doesnt determine how one lives or spreads the dharma. the bodhisattva precepts are open to monastic and laity the same. in this case, whether monastic or laity, "spirit of the letter" is the importance never "spirit over the letter".

dharma-vinaya