Archived_member14
SPNer
Bhagat ji,
I think many who think that way, do so not because they themselves are householders, but because of what they draw from the teachings. What I believe is that people are inspired mostly by Guru Nanak, and not only was he a householder, but what he taught pointed to the some errors in thought and understanding on the part of those who decide to leave the household life. And since I think, the Nihang and Udasi tradition came not from Guru Nanak, but those after him; it is understandable that they will not be taken seriously. If this is the case, it is something that I am inclined to agree with. Why?
In Buddhism there is only one leader towards whom everyone has the highest respect, the Buddha. The monk tradition was started by him and all the rules were the product of his great wisdom. No monk with any degree of understanding would therefore think to change the rules or add any new ones. Indeed soon after the Buddha's death, during the first council, a few monks wondered if some of the so-called “minor rules” could be dropped. But no, they decided that they not. After all, although they appear not so necessary, are at the same time, not a hindrance. But more importantly, they knew that if one can be dropped now, others will also be dropped by the generations to come, and that would mean complete destruction of the teachings.
All the Buddhist traditions which came later, where not only new rules were created, but in fact new teachings added and quite perverted, is evidence of the effect of anything short of great wisdom. Actually, no wisdom at all but instead much conceit and wrong understanding, after all, why not encourage strict following of the existing rules and teachings if that is what came from the Buddha himself?
The point I am trying to make is that, for a community of recluse to function optimally, there must be rules which is result of great wisdom; anything short of this is likely to have elements of corruption. To decide on one's own the rules to follow, must be other than wisdom. Those who do this are on a wrong path.
And this was said by the Buddha:
"He who practices this practice of the Arousing of Mindfulness is called a bhikkhu." He who follows the teaching, be he a shining one [deva] or a human, is indeed called a bhikkhu. Accordingly it is said:
"Well-dressed one may be, but if one is calm,
Tamed, humble, pure, a man who does no harm
To aught that lives, that one's a brahman true.
An ascetic and mendicant too."
I was asking about codes of conduct and not the basic teachings. The codes of conduct differentiate the way of life between the lay person and the monk, even though both are taught the same teachings.
Although the Basket of Discipline is for monks, a householder with any degree of understanding will no doubt find much inspiration from reading it. I wonder if it is the same with the above mentioned text?
Well, not odd, but what is. And what is it? Is it as you say, the same, to keep the hair or shave it? I don't think so. According to the Buddhist and as I pointed out, hair is not conducive to the simple life at all. After all, it needs to be well kept, made sure that it is cleaned, causes the parts under it to sweat and therefore smell, comes in the way while doing most things, including bathing, going to the toilet and eating food. Is this being simple? Reminds me of the hippies, not just the appearance but more the idealistic attitude.
If one must have long hair, then it is better that one ties it into a joora and cover it.
I'm almost certain that many of those long-haired recluses would get very upset if someone secretly cut their hair, since they would surely have grown to have great attachment to the idea of keeping it uncut. The question to ask is, why keep and not cut it?
The reason why some keep and some don't is not because both are correct. It is either both are wrong or only one is correct.
Easy is not an issue, but there is a difference between keeping long hair and not, and wisdom chooses the latter.
To go by “marks” is practical? It is a proliferation of view and easy object of attachment. Not simple and not practical at all!
To do something symbolically is not an instance of understanding and therefore can’t be detachment, but must instead be the stuff of attachment.
I think many who think that way, do so not because they themselves are householders, but because of what they draw from the teachings. What I believe is that people are inspired mostly by Guru Nanak, and not only was he a householder, but what he taught pointed to the some errors in thought and understanding on the part of those who decide to leave the household life. And since I think, the Nihang and Udasi tradition came not from Guru Nanak, but those after him; it is understandable that they will not be taken seriously. If this is the case, it is something that I am inclined to agree with. Why?
In Buddhism there is only one leader towards whom everyone has the highest respect, the Buddha. The monk tradition was started by him and all the rules were the product of his great wisdom. No monk with any degree of understanding would therefore think to change the rules or add any new ones. Indeed soon after the Buddha's death, during the first council, a few monks wondered if some of the so-called “minor rules” could be dropped. But no, they decided that they not. After all, although they appear not so necessary, are at the same time, not a hindrance. But more importantly, they knew that if one can be dropped now, others will also be dropped by the generations to come, and that would mean complete destruction of the teachings.
All the Buddhist traditions which came later, where not only new rules were created, but in fact new teachings added and quite perverted, is evidence of the effect of anything short of great wisdom. Actually, no wisdom at all but instead much conceit and wrong understanding, after all, why not encourage strict following of the existing rules and teachings if that is what came from the Buddha himself?
The point I am trying to make is that, for a community of recluse to function optimally, there must be rules which is result of great wisdom; anything short of this is likely to have elements of corruption. To decide on one's own the rules to follow, must be other than wisdom. Those who do this are on a wrong path.
And this was said by the Buddha:
"He who practices this practice of the Arousing of Mindfulness is called a bhikkhu." He who follows the teaching, be he a shining one [deva] or a human, is indeed called a bhikkhu. Accordingly it is said:
"Well-dressed one may be, but if one is calm,
Tamed, humble, pure, a man who does no harm
To aught that lives, that one's a brahman true.
An ascetic and mendicant too."
I was asking about codes of conduct and not the basic teachings. The codes of conduct differentiate the way of life between the lay person and the monk, even though both are taught the same teachings.
Although the Basket of Discipline is for monks, a householder with any degree of understanding will no doubt find much inspiration from reading it. I wonder if it is the same with the above mentioned text?
Well, not odd, but what is. And what is it? Is it as you say, the same, to keep the hair or shave it? I don't think so. According to the Buddhist and as I pointed out, hair is not conducive to the simple life at all. After all, it needs to be well kept, made sure that it is cleaned, causes the parts under it to sweat and therefore smell, comes in the way while doing most things, including bathing, going to the toilet and eating food. Is this being simple? Reminds me of the hippies, not just the appearance but more the idealistic attitude.
If one must have long hair, then it is better that one ties it into a joora and cover it.
I'm almost certain that many of those long-haired recluses would get very upset if someone secretly cut their hair, since they would surely have grown to have great attachment to the idea of keeping it uncut. The question to ask is, why keep and not cut it?
The reason why some keep and some don't is not because both are correct. It is either both are wrong or only one is correct.
Easy is not an issue, but there is a difference between keeping long hair and not, and wisdom chooses the latter.
To go by “marks” is practical? It is a proliferation of view and easy object of attachment. Not simple and not practical at all!
To do something symbolically is not an instance of understanding and therefore can’t be detachment, but must instead be the stuff of attachment.
