Vulgar talk of Monks

Vulgar talk of Monks

So I delve into Dhamma in that sense to Samutta Nikaya (56:10) to repeat a verse told to monks would suffice to convince myself why I should not be a journalist. 

This can be rephrased why a Buddhist monk should be a conveyor of Dhamma message sans journalistic endeavor.

Buddha states 28 of his qualifications of vulgar talk to monks.
Numerically in order as was said by the Lord Buddha are as follows.  
 

Manifold vulgar talks are

1. Talk about Kings (Presidents, Prime Ministers and Tyrants)

2. Talk about Robbers (Robber barons, the multinational businessmen)

3. Talk about Ministers

4. Talk about armies

5. Talk about dangers

6. Talk about wars

7. Talk about food

8. Talk about drink

9. Talk about cloths

10. Talk about dwellings 

 

11. Talk about garlands  

 

12. Talk about perfumes

13. Talk about relations

14. Talk about conveyances (transfer of property)

15. Talk about villages

16. Talk about hamlets

17. Talk about towns

18. Talk about countries

19. Talk about women

20. Talk about heroes

21. Talk about street talk

22. Talk about ghosts

23. Talk about ancestors

24. Talk about gossip

25. Talk about land

26. Talk about sea

27. Talk about gain (credit market)

28. Talk about loss (stock exchange)

To this another four are added in another verse

1. Eternity (unending)

2. Annihilation (reduced to nothing)

3. Sensual gratification

4. Self mortification
 

What a Buddhist monk as a journalist should talk about are about greedlessness,  (opposite of Lobha) hatelessness (opposite of Dhosha) and  
undeludedness (opposite of Moha)(wisdom) and any other talk is senseless and does not lead to liberation or salvation.

Vulgar Deeds of Monks

Reproduction

Posted on January 5, 2016 by asokaplus

Vulgar Deeds of Monks

One should read this in tandem with “Vulgar Talks for Monks”.
I never thought that I might have to use this phrase to describe some of the deeds of Monks with political power.
This has nothing to do with Vinaya (Set of rules passed down by oral tradition) which outlines 300 odd major and 1000 odd minor strictures.
I will list a few below.
1. Possession of more than two robes.
2. Possession of money more than what is required of travel (this was a concession when public transport came into existence).
They are meant to be walking spreading Dhamma and no two monks should take the same path having come to a four way intersection.
3. Possession of vehicle for transport.
4. Possession of land
5. Possession of books other than Thripitaka, which is colossal.
6. Possession of Televisions
7. Possession of Elephants
 
The sole purpose of this is to highlight the number 7.
 
I think very soon our monks will ascend to Nibbana on the back of a poor elephant.
I am sure once they ascend there the poor animal is dispensed for good to rot probably in hell.
I am not sure how the modern articles like mobiles, laptops, digital texts and multimedia applications would apply in the context of Vinaya.
 
A modern Sangayana is necessary to validate them in posterity as essential items ‘On the road to Nibbana’.
 
I am also not sure of Television Displays in the trend of TV stars.
 
I sometime incline to think when the Thripitaka is fully digitalized and translated to many languages as possible (this is not happening) the existence of Monks may become redundant except for the SOLE practice of meditation for ultimate goal SEEKING of TRUE salvation or Nibbana.
 
The way the things are developing there may be monasteries dishing out Nibbana certificates at four levels, 
 
Sovan, 
Sukrudhagami, 
Anagami, and
Arhath.
 
I hope, I should kick the bucket before that eventuality of having to register for salvation and is open for all, in the World Wide Web.

I am ambivalent about the right of the monks to become politicians and a member of the parliament.

As a true democrat, I say YES for an individual’s right to exercise political right, if not the Wisdom or the better judgment.

Having said that I am uneasy if they continue to done the robe after being duly elected.

 The point is conflict of interest, priesthood or the legislative functions (law of the land).

Suppose the legislature agrees for capital punishment would they vote YES or NO.

I feel very uneasy to see any person (whatever the religion that does not matter) in official capacity especially in the parliament (sometimes in civil capacity, too) display their identity in dress code, hair style, facial hair decoration or by any other mean.

It is a hindrance in the name of fair judgment and a Universal dress code for the assembly is mandatory.

I hope this fact is taken into consideration when drafting the new constitution.

I have no problem with any form of national dress (in the form of kilt in Scotland) however ugly and cumbersome for it to be worn.

I prefer the loin cloth for those without any educational qualifications and the dress should indicate their educational level but not their professional status (Army, Navy, Air Force, Doctor, Lawyer, Accountant, Professor or University cloak).

The NEW dress, with neutral colour (not the party colour) should be very simple and no civilian should be permitted to wear this dress for any civilian function.

It should be smart and should not look like a school UNIFORM or Police, Army or Navy.

The idea is, the moment they wear this dress they are in a different mold and feel proud (whether in power or in opposition).

This stricture like VINAYA for monks is only inside the assembly to discipline the present unruly Guys / Girls trained by the politicians and the CLAN in our legislature.

In other words if a monk wears a particular robe they are expected to behave as such upholding the VINAYA and not like The BBS THUGS.

Under political wisdom their status should be steamrolled like chained pets and the new TREND would harbinger good behavior in parliament and uplift the status in the legislature as TRUE DEMOCRATS (listen to the alternative views). 

Equally, the politician should not wear this dress for civilian functions other than the official duties in the assembly.

They are free to wear any other dress including PARTY dress and colour in public so that they can freely mix with their electorate or supporters.

If the speaker wears a particular dress why not MPs?

I never EXPECT this proposal could see the day light.

It is only a wishful thinking.