Korean AI robot ordains as Buddhist monk

Meet Robot Monk ‘Gabi’: South Korea’s First Humanoid Robot Which Is Learning Spirituality

• 

  Can statues be monks, too? No.

  South Korea’s first robot monk joins Buddhist ceremony; internet split over AI in religion About 130 cm tall and dressed in traditional Buddhist robes, Gabi took part in an ordination ceremony alongside senior monks at Jogye Temple.
• Humanoid robot monk ‘Gabi’ introduced at Seoul South Korean Buddhist temple, triggers online debate Humanoid robots are often designed to assist people in workplaces like factories, warehouses, and offices. But in South Korea, one such robot is now stepping into an entirely different role—that of a Buddhist monk. According to Reuters, a temple in Seoul recently introduced its first humanoid robot monk named "Gabi" ahead of the Buddha’s birthday celebrations, sparking curiosity and debate online.

Robots can't be Buddhist monks

Bow to me, Bar-buh-ruh. Pay respect to the robe. - Well, if I have to. Who ordained you?

.

From a Theravada perspective, this would not be a real monk for various reasons right off the top of one's head for anyone familiar with the Vinaya Collection. For one, it's not human, and Buddhist ordination is reserved for human beings: no reptilians (naga-shapeshifters) allowed. At least one nāga tried to ordain and when found out was disrobed. It is also said that no pandakas ("eunuchs") are allowed. Is the robot Gabi neutered? If so, it could not be ordained. This is tragic because pandaka does not really mean "eunuch" as we understand the word in the West but culturally does include perverted eunuchs in the East. A pandaka is a sexually perverted person, more of an out-of-control pansexual, bisexual, homosexual, and possibly a libertine heterosexual unable by nature to control his/her sexual impulses. The literature includes mention of hermaphrodites, crossdressing transvestites, transsexuals, and those exhibiting aberrant, non-normative behaviors as defined in an ancient subcontinental context. This would seem to include kathoeys ("ladyboys") in Buddhist South and Southeast Asia.

• Bomhard - The two meanings of the Pali term "pandaka" | PDF | Pali | Indian Religions
• Buddhism and LGBTQ - Wikipedia

The Eunuch (Pandaka) Festival of India is where all of these aberrations are on full exhibition for the public to fear, ridicule, and condemn. Being tricked, induced, or forced to participate in homosexual prostitution or to undergo castration (or those born asexual or intersexual), many young males act out and lead a life of debauchery, abusing alcohol and drugs and engaging in sexual misconduct. It is in this context that the ill-defined term pandaka should be understood. Instead, due to Western influence, it has come to mean a male without a penis -- for whatever reason -- cannot be ordained as a monk (bhikkhu). It might be possible to become a novice (samerera) depending on the elder monk administering the precepts, so a person could look like a monk and live in a monastery yet not actually be a fully ordained "monk." It seems safe to imagine that all of this applies to nuns (bhikkhunis) and female novices (samaneris). The upshot is that robots -- oddly, unless they're sexbots -- would not be eligible for true ordination. Any monk or monastic Sangha might nevertheless ordain an AI bot at their discretion, but would it really be valid? Not likely. Third, the purpose of ordination, at least in the Theravada tradition, is to bring suffering and rebirth to an end. Do robots suffer? Are they reborn? We may imagine analogues to these unpleasant emotions and the forced wandering on through samsara, but neither would seem to apply to inanimate objects, particularly of the nonhuman variety. Still, one could use sophistry and philosophy to make some argument in favor of a robotic sangha. In Mahayana, many say the goal is neither enlightenment nor liberation but to save all other beings first. Would a robot ever be able to do that? Maybe, if it trained on the texts, commentaries, disciplinary code, higher doctrine, history, and miscellaneous human issues (feelings, psychology, etiquette, customs, cultural sensitivities, existential, ontological, theological questions, etc.) No doubt that by the measure of the Turing test, robots will be able to pass eventually. Do they already "feel," are they already "conscious"? That depends on how humans define the terms or "feel" about it. Surely, an argument can be made that the simplest robot, the lowly smoke detector, is conscious and has a feeling. How? It "knows" when there is smoke and can say so by being triggered to send out an alarming call. And how does it do that? It does it by feeling (sensing) the smoke. If one buys this argument then a car, computer, and mainframe are much more advanced and able to act in their environment. If they could only act in programmed ways, that might not be much, but if they could "learn," that would be something. Yes to robot monks? No.

Korean Buddhist monks in South Korean Buddhist Temples provide serene...

Can a dryad ordain? No.

However, there's a slight conundrum. Long ago, Thai Theravada Buddhist monks in the Forest Tradition began to "ordain" trees. Why? They did it to save them. Loggers and poachers were cutting everything down, and they could not be induced to knock it off. So the local sangha came up with a brilliant solution. Do a ceremony, don the tree (or dryad) with robes, and magically no faithful karma-fearing logger or poacher dared touch it. The motivation was good, the solution was problematic, but it worked. The trees and forests and Thai environment were saved, just barely. But it did open up a loophole, did it not? If living, organic, old growth trees can (not because they themselves are possessed of self-view but possibly because the tree spirits inhabiting them are). After all, trees are conscious, sentient, organic lifeforms. Because a tree is much less overtly responsive than a boop-boop-bee-doop robot being, some might argue that robots are much more human like and deserving of ordination. That's ridiculous because no one is ordaining or professing to ordain robots for their benefit. There's a selfish human motive for doing it. Perhaps we should wait until AI is sufficiently advanced that a Robo-Buddha arises among the legions of chips, plastic, and metal automatons, and then that Robo-B can set up rules for ordination and teach them the way to mechanical-nirvana.

Bar-buh-ruh, Bar-buh-ruh! Where are you?

This did not begin in our era. The first robot monk is actually over 500-years-old. How is that possible? Robots have only been around since that episode of The Twilight Zone where that guy built that one in his basement that could not pronounce his wife's name correctly: "Bar-buh-ruh, Bar-buh-ruh." No, the first humanoid robot monk was Catholic and was composed of gears and levers, according to NPR. Fortunately, it still exists in a museum, or who would believe it.

The problem is bigger than "Gabi" (the Korean robot monk), of which there seems to be a swarm already and not a singular example, because in 2016, there was already Venerable Xian'er:

Robot monk seeks to merge Buddhism and cutting edge tech

Xian'er: I'm a cartoon character come to "life."

Popular Mechanics) Buddhism is increasingly trying to connect with the modern world. Mahayana monks across China have taken this word ("modernity") to heart, and their latest effort is Xian'er, an adorable robot that lives in a monastery answering questions and chanting mantras.

Xian'er first came to "life" as a cartoon character drawn by Master Xianfan of the Longquan Temple on the outskirts of Beijing, China.

The temple is over 500 years old but a decade ago, Longquan Temple was in disrepair. Xianfan wrote for Chinese websites before becoming a monk and found that Buddhism enhanced his natural creativity.

The Xian'er character gave life to the Temple, which eventually added an animation studio. The Xian'er robot monk, built in conjunction with [blank], is the Temple's furthest extension of its brand yet. More

• Mirror Now; The Independent; David Grossman, Popular Mechanics, April 29, 2016; Ashley Wells and Dhr. Seven (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly COMMENTARY

Buddhist novices busted smuggling weed

Dealer? British beauty busted in Sri Lanka with 101 lbs (46 kg) of kush in her suitcases.

 

Dried flower bud of "kush," potent cannabis

(DW News) Buddhist monks arrested in Sri Lanka for smuggling an s-load of cannabis weed (potent "kush") that would have likely addicted many Sri Lankan youths had they not been caught and stopped at the border, the international airport (BIA) in Colombo.

• (10 News Late) 22 Buddhist monks (novice trainee monastics who have not been fully ordained) arrested at airport in giant drug bust, returning from Bangkok, Thailand (that experimented with legalizing cannabis for recreational use but discovered it was a mistake)
• (NewsX) Buddhist monks novices shock the Theravada Buddhist nation with cannabis smuggling scandal
• (WhyItsTrendingDaily) 22 Buddhist monks trainees just got caught with 242 pounds of potent weed at the airport

First, in defense of these Buddhist monastics, it is important to note that they (most) were not "monks" (bhikkhus) but rather novices (trainees, samaneras) during a probationary period that can last years as they learn and put into practice the Buddhist Monastic Code (Vinaya and Patimokkha).

• Buddhism in Sri Lanka

Second, of all the rules to break, drug dealing cannabis -- as horrific and condemnable as it is -- is not the worst thing they could have done. The four worst things they could have done are "defeat" (parijika) offenses: killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying about spiritual attainments. Or they might have committed one of the five heinous acts (anantarika-karma, deeds that bear bitter fruit in the very next life):

1. killing one's mother (matricide)
2. killing one's father (patricide)
3. killing an arhat (arahant, fully enlightened being)
4. Wounding a Tathāgata (a buddha, silent or teaching)
5. Creating a schism in the Monastic Community (Sangha).

We stayed behind in the monastery sweeping.

Third, there are no more excuses or consoling statements to be made. They each had about 5 kilograms or 11 U.S. pounds (110 kg or 242 lbs in total). This is no accident but sounds like a cynical abuse of the high esteem in which monastics are held to smuggle drugs, likely for sale and distribution rather than recreational or medicinal use. Novices (samaneras) have very strict rules to live by, beyond what is expected of all Theravada Buddhists.

Did the "businessman" sponsor put them up to it to gain financially, and will they say they knew nothing about it?

• British woman accused of smuggling drugs into Buddhist Sri Lanka in suitcase
• Woman caught with cannabis in suitcase at airport (AOL)

There are Five Precepts all Theravada lay Buddhists vow to maintain:

1. abstain from killing
2. abstain from stealing
3. abstain from sexual misconduct
4. abstain from lying
5. abstain from intoxicants that occasion heedlessness.

The very minimum precepts for monks-in-training (samaneras or "baby samanas") are the Eight Precepts or Ten Precepts, abstaining from harming, taking what is not given or handling "gold and silver" (money), sex (all erotic activity), lying, intoxicants, eating before dawn or after noon, using high and luxurious seats or beds, dancing, singing, self-beautification, viewing lowbrow entertainments and shows...

If one were to follow the major rules and the minor (etiquette) rules, it would never come to this unless, as we say, they were cynically used by the businessman drug kingpin as "mules" to unknowingly transport drugs into the very uptight and traditional island Buddhist country of Sri Lanka (Ceylon, Serendib) with a sizeable Tamil Hindu population and significant number of Muslims and Christians.

• Sri Lankan monks arrested after 110kg... - Zambia Daily Mail | Facebook

We could be mystics but prefer drugs as shortcut? Micro of the macro: colliders, unity, quantum...

Sri Lanka arrests 22 Buddhist novices allegedly carrying over 110 kilos of cannabis at airport

Buddhist Denominations Explained

WARNING: Narrator mispronounces nearly every Buddhist term he uses as if they were phonetic.

The Buddha vs. Budai vs. Cosmic Amitabha

Strange as it may sound, most of the time when most people say "Buddha," they are NOT talking about the historical Buddha Siddhartha Gautama (a.k.a. Shakyamuni), the founder of Buddhism, but rather a cosmic/celestial god called Amitabha or Budai (Putai, Hotei, aka "Fat Happy Buddha," who is not even a buddha but a bodhisattva) or Avalokiteshvara or Guanyin (Kwan Yin, Kwannon, Kannon, Chenrezig) or Prajnaparamita or Bodhidharma or Ksitigarbha or quite often Maitreya (the future buddha) or the Dalai Lama or the Panchen Lama or Padmasambhava or some other Rinpoche.

In the older, more focused Theravada tradition, only the historical person Siddhartha Gautama is THE Buddha, though there have been and will be other buddhas in the past (at least 28 of them) and in the distant future (one of them named Maitreya or Metteyya). All the other figures arise out of the watered-down reform movement that is the "Great Vehicle" (Mahayana) that is a collective term for everything else. And lest anyone should be confused, there are no extant Hinayana ("Lesser Vehicle") schools or sects (like the Sarvastivadins) left, all having been pushed into extinction by the Mahayana movement. Theravada, a back-to-basics movement concerned with what the historical Buddha taught rather than later developments or additions, is not a Hinayana school, but as there are no Hinayana schools left, it gets called one anyway by know-it-alls who are not too concerned with facts or details.

Is Buddhism spoken in every Asian language?

The Buddhist language

It is also crucial to point out that there are at least two Buddhist languages, Pali (Magadhi) and Sanskrit, and the two schools use different ones. This can be confusing because they are so similar. The reason there are two is because Pali was what ordinary people spoke, the lingua franca of the Buddha's day. Sanskrit was exclusively the language of elitist temple priests known as Brahmins, who regarded themselves as the upper crust and a members-only old boys club. Their sacred books, the Vedas, are in this ancient secret language, once spoken only by them, just as Catholic priests (popes, cardinals, bishops, etc.) managed all their official affairs in Latin, leaving Spanish and Italian and other related languages for the commoners. Because ex-Old Vedic Religion Brahmins were dealing with Buddhism, there came to be a Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. There are many languages used by Buddhists, according to their country, but one can easily tell if one is dealing with Theravada Buddhism: Its root texts are all in Pali. Now that many Sanskrit terms (like karma, mantra, avatar, ayurveda, mandala, dharma, sutra) have crossed into English, the lines are blurry. Pali must have had many dialects and regional differences. One of the most important is the Gandhari script, Kharosthi, in which the oldest existing Buddhist texts are written. The Buddha was NOT from India but from Gandhara. How can we be sure? There was no India yet, only different kingdoms, republics, and territories that were later united by Buddhist Emperor Ashoka into a single country (Bharat or Great Bharat). This union may have existed before in antiquity, but it did not exist at the time of the Buddha. He was also not from Nepal, as he is now placed. He was a Saka (Scythian, Shakya, Sakka, Sakai) from Gandhara (Afghanistan/Pakistan area). He did travel to, become enlightened in, and teach in proto-India, and out of laziness or not to be pedantic, we call Magadha and Bihar and places he stayed "India." But it is interesting to always bear in mind that it is because he was a foreigner and an outsider that nativists like Sri Shankara who systematized the diverse spiritual traditions of "Greater India" (the whole Indus Valley Civilization and Mahabharata and neighboring areas) that came to be called by the occupying British interlopers "Hinduism" (Indus-ism, all the different and unrelated things people were and are practicing around the Indus river valley) as a whole. Prior to Sri Shankara, there was on consensus or unifying label for disparate views and daily observances. Prior to British influence, there wasn't even the idea of "religion," as most people here and around the world (like the Egyptians and shamans) did not make a distinction between daily life and customs and "religion" or beliefs; they were the same thing, just life.

Buddhist Denominations Explained | Theravada vs. Mahayana 

(UsefulCharts) There's more than one Buddhism? Yes. There are at least two kinds with big differences. They are called Theravada (Teaching of the Elders, the "elders" being the enlightened monks and nuns who were the immediate disciples of the historical Buddha) and Mahayana (almost a kind of Hinduism, with Brahmins doing a number on the Buddha's teachings to bring them back in line with their Vedas or "Knowledge Books," turning the Buddha from a man who awakened thereby showing we ALL can to him being "Lord Buddha," an avatar or incarnation of Lord Vishnu, one of their major gods). Although everyone gets along, except for newbies who might think they need to take sides when they do not, their aim and practices differ. There is a third kind of Buddhism (Vajrayana, particularly the Tibetan variety, but also Nepalese and Bhutanese, sometimes also called Tantrayana or Mantrayana) and even more (like Japanese Zen/Chinese Chan, Pure Land, Esoteric Buddhism, etc.) except that all of them are lumped under the heading "Mahayana." So the split is 90% Mahayanists vs. 10% Theravadins.

SOURCES

• Skilton, A. (1994). A Concise History of Buddhism. Cambridge: Windhorst.
• Strong, J. S. (2015). Buddhisms: An Introduction. London: Oneworld

CREDITS

• Charts and narration by Matt Baker
• Animation by Syawish Rehman
• Audio editing by Ali Shahwaiz

Theme music: "Lord of the Land" by Kevin MacLeod and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution license 4.0. Available from incompetech.com

PRODUCT

UsefulCharts tagged product is a World Religions Family Tree Poster ($25.00) usefulcharts.com/products/world-religions-family-tree... Click: blinkist.com/usefulcharts to get 40% off Blinkist’s Annual premium and enjoy the collection. Start a 7-day free trial now. Buy the poster version of the chart: usefulcharts.com.

• Matt Baker, UsefulCharts, 1/12/24; text by Pat Macpherson, Dhr. Seven, Amber Larson (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly

Sutra: Suicide? (SOAD "Chop Suey")

Producer Rick Rubin; System of a Down (SOAD) as reviewed by The Charismatic Voice; T.W. Rhys Davids (trans.) SuttaCentral.net; Dhr. Seven, Seth Auberon (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly

What did the Buddha teach about suicide?

Attanipātanapañha—T.W. Rhys Davids (trans.), The Questions of King Milinda, Book 4: The solving of dilemmas, Chapter 4 (Mil. 5.4.5), "On Suicide" (PTS cs 13 PTS vp Pali 195)

“Venerable Nāgasena, it has been said by the Blessed One: ‘O meditators, a monastic is not to commit suicide. Whosoever does so shall be dealt with according to the dharma.”

“But on the other hand [members of the Monastic Order] say: ‘On whatever subject the Blessed One was addressing the disciples, he always, with various similes, preached to them in order to bring about the destruction of rebirth [life], old age, disease, and death. And whoever overcame rebirth, old age, disease, and death, that person did he honor with the highest praise.”

“Now if the Blessed One said suicide [is wrong and forbidden] that saying of yours must be wrong. But if not then the prohibition of suicide must be wrong. This, too, is a double-edged dilemma now put to you, and you have to solve it” (PTS cs 14).

“O king, the monastic [disciplinary code] rule you quote was laid down by the Blessed One yet the saying you refer to is also true. There is a reason for this, a (PTS vp En 274) reason for which the Blessed One both prohibited [the destruction of life] and also [in another sense] instigated us to [bring about the destruction of rebirth].”

“What, Nāgasena, might that reason be?”

“A good person, O king, perfect in uprightness, is like medicine to humans, an antidote to the poison of unskillful karma. Such a person is like water to people, bringing down the dust and impurities of unskillful dispositions. That person is like a jewel treasure to people, bestowing upon them all attainments in righteousness. That person is like a boat to people, inasmuch as one conveys them to the further shore of the four flooded streams (of lust, separation, delusion, and ignorance). Such a person is like a caravan owner to people, bringing them beyond the sandy desert of rebirth. Such a person is like a mighty rain cloud to people, filling their hearts with satisfaction. Such a person is like a teacher to people, training them in all that is good. Such a person is like a guide to people, pointing out to them the path to ultimate peace. It was in order that so good a person as that, one whose good qualities are so many and various, so immeasurable (PTS vp Pali 196), in order that so great a treasure mine of good things, so full of benefit to all beings, might not be done away with that the Blessed One, O king, out of his mercy towards all living beings, laid down that injunction, when he said: 'O meditators, a monastic is not to commit suicide. Whoever does so shall be dealt with according to the dharma.'

“This is the reason for which the Blessed One prohibited [self-murder]. And it was said, O king (PTS vp En 275)  by the Ven. Elder Kumāra Kassapa, the eloquent, when he was describing to Pāyāsi the Rājanya the other world:

“‘So long as shamans (wandering ascetics or samaṇas) and Brahmins (brahmanas) of uprightness and beauty of character continue to exist — however long that time might be — just so long do they conduct themselves to the advantage and happiness of the great number of people, to the good and gain and benefit of devas and human beings!’” (PTS cs 15)

“And what is the reason for which the Blessed One instigated us [to put an end to rebirth]? Rebirth, O king, is full of pain, and so is old age, and disease, and death. Sorrow is painful, and so is lamentation, and pain, and grief, and despair. Association with the unpleasant is painful, and separation from the pleasant is painful. The death of a mother is painful, or of a father, or a brother, or a sister, or a son [or a sister], or a wife, or of any relative. Painful is the ruin of one’s family, and the suffering of disease, and the loss of wealth, and decline in goodness, and the loss of insight (PTS vp En 276). Painful is the fear produced by despots, or by robbers, or by enemies, or by famine, or by fire, or by flood, or by the tidal wave, or by earthquake, or by crocodiles or alligators. Painful is the fear of possible blame attaching to oneself, or to others, the fear of punishment, the fear of misfortune. Painful is the fear arising from shyness [bashfulness or inhibition due to misconduct] in the presence of assemblies of one’s fellows, painful is anxiety as to one’s means of livelihood, painful the foreboding of death (PTS vp Pali 197).

“Painful are [the punishments inflicted on people accused of crimes], such as being flogged with whips, or with sticks, or with split rods, having one’s hands cut off, or one’s feet, or one’s hands and feet, or one’s ears, or one’s nose, or one’s ears and nose. Painful are [the tortures inflicted on those accused of being traitors] — being subjected to the Gruel Pot (that is, having boiling gruel poured into one’s head from the top of which the skull bone has been removed) — or to the Chank Crown (that is, having the scalp rubbed with gravel till it becomes smooth like a polished shell) — or to the Rāhu’s Mouth (that is, having one’s mouth held open by iron pins, and oil put in it, and a wick lit therein) — or to the Fire Garland or to the Hand Torch (that is, being made a living torch, the whole body, or the arms only, being wrapped up in oily cloths and set on fire) — or to the Snake Strips (that is, being skinned in strips from the neck to the hips so that the skin falls in strips round the legs), or to the Bark Dress (that is, being skinned alive from the neck downwards and having each strip of [PTS vp En 277] skin as soon as it is removed tied to the hair so that these strips form a veil around one) — or to the Spotted Antelope (that is, having one’s knees and elbows tied together and being made to squat on a plate of iron under which a fire is lit) — or to the Flesh-Hooks (that is, being hung up on a row of iron hooks) — or to the Pennies (that is, having bits cut out of the flesh, all over the body, of the size of pennies) — or to the Brine Slits (that is, having cuts made all over one’s body by means of knives or sharp points and then having salt and caustic liquids poured over the wounds) — or to the Bar Turn (that is, being transfixed to the ground by a bar of iron passing through the root of the ear and then being dragged round and round by the leg) — or to the Straw Seat (that is, being so beaten with clubs that [PTS vp En 278] the bones are broken and the body becomes like a heap of straw) — or to be anointed with boiling oil, or to be eaten by dogs, or to be impaled alive, or to be beheaded. Such and such, O king, are the manifold and various pains which a being caught in the whirlpool of births and rebirths has to endure. Just, O king, as the water rained down upon the Himalayan Mountain flows in its course along the Ganges, through and over rocks and pebbles and gravel, whirlpools and eddies and rapids, and the stumps and branches of trees which obstruct and oppose its passage — just so has each being caught in the succession of births and rebirths to endure such and such manifold and various pains. Full of pain, then, is the continual succession of rebirths. A joy is it when that succession ends. And it was in pointing out the advantage of that end, the disaster involved in that succession, that the Blessed One, great king, instigated us to get beyond rebirth, and old age, and disease, and death by the realization of the final end of that succession of rebirths.

“This is the sense, O king, which led the Blessed One to instigate us (to put an end to rebirth).”

“Very good, Nāgasena! Well solved is the puzzle (I put), well set forth are the reasons (you gave). That is so, and I accept it as you say.”

Here ends the problem as to suicide. Source: Mil 5.4.5: Attanipātanapañha—T.W. Rhys Davids (suttacentral.net)

Buddhist monks behaving badly (video)

Thailand's Tainted Robes | Bhikkhus behaving badly | Misbehaving Monks | 101 East

(Al Jazeera English, 12/18/14) As scandals involving misbehaving Buddhist monks (bhikkhus) rock the nation, 101 East examines if Thailand can save its moral soul and monastic institution.

Nehn Kham was once a hugely popular monk preaching in Thailand's poor northeast region. Today, he is an international fugitive with a $32 million dollar fortune that he amassed through fraud. Buddhists around the world were shocked when footage emerged of this monk on a private plane, clutching a Louis Vuitton bag and fidgeting with high-end gadgets.

His extravagance put him atop a long list of misbehaving monks making headlines in Thailand for fist fights, smuggling drugs, selling guns, hiding gay pornography, raping trafficked boys, and more.

In response, Thailand's military junta (dictatorship) has set up a 24-hour hotline for the public to report rule-breaking monks. But the junta is also proposing new laws to criminalize breaking any Buddhist rule (227 precepts) -- a move some fear is an over-reaction that would threaten religious freedom.

There are already in Buddhism since the time of the historical Buddha four acts that instantly make one not a monk. These are called "defeat" offenses or parajikas, and they mean one can never again become a monk in this lifetime:

• Sexual intercourse: engaging in any sexual penetration.
• Stealing: the taking of anything worth more than 1/24 troy ounce of gold (as determined by local law).
• Killing: bringing about the death of a human being — whether by killing the person, arranging for an assassin to kill the person, inciting the person to die, or describing the advantages of death [2].
• Lying: lying that one has attained any of the stages of enlightenment, such as claiming to be an stream enterer or arhat when one knows one is not, or claiming to have attained one of the meditative absorptions (jhānas) when one knows one has not.

101 East exclusively reveals where Thailand's infamous jet-setting monk has been hiding and meets those on a mission to save the country Buddhist treasure (Sangha).

• More from 101 East on: YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Website: aljazeera.com/101east
• #AlJazeeraEnglish #Thailand #Monk

When the first celibate monk had sex

Academic researcher Achim Bayer, Dongguk University, Seoul (buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf); Dhr. Seven, Ananda (DBM), Ashley Wells (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly

The Sudinna Tale in the Pāli Vinaya and Its Interpretation

Restraint of the eyes is good.

[Then the Buddhist monk Ven. Sudinna had sex with his ex-wife and was the first to commit such an offense which was not yet a specific violation of the Vinaya or Monastic Disciplinary Code.]

Filled with remorse (kukkucca), Sudinna returned to his fellow monks and confessed his deed. They scolded him harshly, and "then these monks, having rebuked Venerable Sudinna in various ways, told this matter to the Buddha."

The Buddha, after questioning Sudinna, again rebukes him in a similar way as the monks had done. Mocking Sudinna as a "foolish person" (moghapurisa), he tells him that what he has done is unfit (ananucchaviyam), disorderly (ananulomikam), unseemly (appanirūpam), not samana [wandering ascetic]-like (assāmanakam), unsuitable (akappiyam), and not to be done (akaranīyam).

"Why are you...unable to exert the supremely complete full ascetic behavior for as long as you live?" [9].

"Has not the Dhamma [Dharma] been taught by me in manifold ways in order to be free from passion (virāgāya), and not in order to have passion (sarāgāya)?" [10]. "How can you, O foolish person, when the Dhamma is taught by me in order to be free from passion, be intent on (cetessasi) having passion?" [11].

"The Dhamma has been taught for the sake of being without fetters (visamyogāya), being without attachment (anupādānāya)," and still, the Buddha says, Sudinna is intent on doing the opposite.

"The Dhamma has been taught to subdue haughtiness (madanimmadanāya) [12] and so on, for cessation (nirodhāya), and for nirvana. The abandoning of the sensual pleasures has been taught, and the calming of the fever of [craving for] sensual pleasures (kāmaparilāhāna), too.

It would be better if Sudinna (or any "foolish person") were to put (pakkhitta) his "specific organ [or limb]"  (angajāta) into the mouth of a venomous snake or a fire-pit rather than into the "specific organ" of womenfolk (mātugāmassa angajāte).

Why is that so? It is because with the former he will die or experience agony (maramamatta, vā dukkham, lit. "suffering as if dying"), but he will not go to hell [niraya, naraka, purgatory, perdition], to a lower realm [13]. But with the latter (i.e. sexual intercourse), he will go to hell, to the lower realms (niraya).

Through that karmic deed, Sudinna will enter (samāpajjissasi) upon the untrue dhamma (asaddhama), "village dhamma" (gāmadhamma), vile dhamma (vasaladhamma), badness (dutthulla), "what ends with ablution" (odakantika), secrecy (rahassa), "coming together of the two" (dvayamdvayasamāpatti) [14] ― Sudinna has just done the first of many unwholesome things [15].

Finally, the Buddha states ten reasons why sexual intercourse is forbidden for monastics, such as:

1. for the excellence of the Sangha (sanghasutthutāya),
2. for the comfort of the Sangha (sanghaphāsutāya),
3. for the suppression of badly confused persons (dumma puggalāna, niggahāya),
4. so that the well-behaved monastics may live with ease (pesalāna, bhikkhūna, phāsuvihārāya),
5. for restraining the inflows/defilements (āsavāna, samvarāya),
6. for the piety of those who are not pious (appasannāna, pasādāya),
7. so that those who are pious may increase (pasannāna, bhiyyobhāvāya),
8. so that the true Dhamma may be stable (saddhammatthitiyā),
9. for assistance in the vinaya (vinayānuggahāya) [16].
10. 
    

Thus the Buddha proclaims the prohibition of sexual intercourse for monastics, the transgression of which makes one liable to the state of asamvāsa, a loss of "fellowship or communion" with other members of his monastic community [17].

Interpretation of the Story

Hmm, what dos this story tell us?

THE PROHIBITION What, then, do the single elements of the narrative tell the reader? Ven. Sudinna himself is shown as not actively interested in sexual pleasure.

There is also no real danger that he would break away from the community: The agreement with his mother was clear, and for his part, Ven. Sudinna was ready to remain in the community as before [18].

From the point of view of lay ethics, there were no objections of caste, and the act happened with the

consent of his wife's superior in the family hierarchy, Ven. Sudinna's mother, who accepted the fact that Ven. Sudinna had neglected his duties as a husband and was intent on doing so in the future.

Therefore, I think the message of the story is as follows: Even if the conditions are highly favorable, even if there is apparently no harm to a third party, sexual intercourse is forbidden. That is to say, under no circumstances should any monastic have sexual intercourse or contact [19].

Soteriology: The liberation of the individual

Ven. Sudinna is accused of not having inferred the prohibition of sex from the fundamental precept of the Dhamma: moving away from sensual craving towards the cessation of sensual desire. That is, of course, a soteriological goal [20].

And indeed, celibacy fits in well with the general ascetic lifestyle, which consists of restraint of the senses for goals such as overcoming craving (tanhā, lit. "thirst") or the attainment of peace [21].

That being true, how does expulsion from the ascetic community fit in here? Does Ven. Sudinna's single transgression really endanger his ascetic lifestyle to such an extent that there is no hope for his return to his formerly exemplary monastic discipline? Is it really justified to truncate the career of a wandering ascetic such as Ven. Sudinna, giving him up as a hopeless case? More

Sex and monks and nuns (Monastic Rules)

Dhr. Seven, Ananda (eds.), Ven. Ariyesako, Monks' Rules: Laypeople Guide, Wisdom Quarterly

They have sex! They're hypocrites, liars, deceiving the world for minimal gains. We knew it!

.

(II) Relationships

It's hard not to stare when you're still only human.

Buddhist monastics cannot live in complete isolation from laypeople, for their mutually supportive relationship is intrinsic to the monastic way of life.

However, it should never become an intimate or sexual relationship, for that would go against the whole purpose of leaving behind the "family or household life" with its endless "closed in" complications [43],

The "supreme life" (brahmacariya) is one that checks the display of any form of erotic desire through the actions, speech, and thoughts of a monastic. In fact, restraint from gross sexual misconduct is already part of the Five Precepts. [See Note 4].

The Eight Precepts as well as the Ten Precepts immediately refine this then the Monastic Disciplinary Code (Vinaya) manages it with even greater subtlety. One's Dharma life can then advance toward the letting go of all craving through development of the heart/mind through meditation (cultivation).

The most potent object for strong sexual craving, which the mind/heart is pining for and grasping after, is usually associated with the other sex. Therefore, many rules involve this relationship [44].

Sexual intercourse

Transgender "monk" in Tibet

The first offense of the 227 listed major rules of the Rules Recitation (Patimokkha) concerns a monastic engaging in sexual intercourse.

It is a hot issue, perhaps more today than before, going by the number of sex scandals that rock the Buddhist world in the East and West. Ven. Thiradhammo writes:

"While some of the guidelines may seem somewhat rigid or prudish, it is important to reflect upon the volatility and durability of rumor, even if untrue. The incessant sex-scandals in religious circles may provide a sufficient incentive to encourage the greatest measure of prevention and discretion" (HS, Chp.13).

The rule of celibacy (chastity) was originally laid down because of rich Ven. Sudinna. He was the son of a rich merchant, who left home to become a wandering ascetic (Buddhist monastic) only after great opposition from his family. He went away to practice Dharma, and when he came back to visit, his parents were overjoyed to see him.

So they plotted to lure him back into the lay life again. They invited him for a meal then laid out their wealth in front of him, piled up in two huge heaps of gold, while the wife he had left behind dressed herself in her most irresistibly alluring way.

Ven. Sudinna remained unmoved by all of this. After telling them to throw the gold away in the river, he referred to his former wife as "sister."

Nevertheless, when his elderly mother pleaded with him at least to give them a grandson and heir, he foolishly gave in. He had sexual intercourse with his former wife.

This first defeat offense is summarized: "A monastic who engages in any form of sexual intercourse [penetration] is defeated" (Parajika 1, BMC, p. 45).

Every form and variety of sexual intercourse with sexual penetration — be it genital, oral, or anal, whether with a female, male, or animal — is forbidden. The penalty is the heaviest one of defeat (parajika).

Intimacy — touching

I can't believe that hypocrite touched me.

The modern West is full of stories of sexual harassment. The ways the Buddha dealt with such matters should therefore not seem very strange.

If a monastic touches a person in a sexual way, one commits a very serious offense requiring formal meetings of the Monastic Community (sangha) and probation (sangha-disesa).]

The scrupulous monastic wants to remain above suspicion so, if able, will avoid all physical contact.

Hence monk's and nun's attitude toward shaking hands is to avoid them. Or if one wishes to avoid offending, because it is a warm social custom, they are kept brief. This also explains why, at least in Thailand, a receiving cloth is used to receive offerings from females. (See EN 85).

Buddhist monks are not alone in this. Catholics.

The rule was first set down by the Buddha after a Brahmin and his wife had gone to inspect Ven. Udayin's fine dwelling. [See Udāyī (2).] As Ven. Udayin was showing them around, he came up behind the lady and "rubbed up against her limb by limb."

After they had left the husband praised Ven. Udayin, but the wife was critical and explained what had happened. The Brahmin then complained, "Isn't it even possible to take one's wife to a monastery without her being molested?" This rule was then set down:

"Should any monastic overcome by lust, with altered mind, engage in bodily contact with a woman, or in holding her hand, holding a lock of her hair, or caressing any of her limbs, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Monastic Community" (Sanghadisesa 2, BMC, p. 100).

To be at fault the monastic must usually do some action to bring himself in contact with a female as lust overcomes his mind [45]. If he accidentally stumbles and bumps into a female, or vice-versa, or if he is accosted by one, as long as there is no intention to come into lustful contact with her, there is no offense.

However, the average monastic's mind tends to be so quick and unruly — for one is, after all, still in training and therefore not yet enlightened — that one may prefer to be super-cautious about such situations.

If a monastic touches his mother out of affection, this is still an offense but the lesser one of wrong-doing (dukkata) [46]. While gratitude to parents was strongly emphasized by the Buddha, the monastic having left the home-life and family should not cling to worldly relationships.

The only true way to fulfill one's filial obligations is by gaining insight into the Dharma and then teaching one's parents.

If a monastic is acting with lustful intentions, one incurs a grave (thullaccaya) offense for making bodily contact with a pandaka ("sex-aberrant") [homosexual, deviant, pervert, transgender, transsexual, prostitute, or eunuch] and an offense of wrong-doing for sexual contact with a male. (See BMC, p. 103).

The previous rules dealt with the monastic's physical actions. The next two rules are offenses — again of the very serious category — that concern his wrong speech towards females.

Flirting

Are you still a monk? - That was just temporary.

This rule came into being when many female visitors came together to look over Ven. Udayin's dwelling. He spoke to them in a lewd, flirtatious way so that some of them said, "It is improper. Even from our husbands we wouldn't like to hear this sort of thing." Therefore, the Buddha laid down this rule:

"Should any monastic, overcome by lust, with altered mind, address lewd words to a female in the manner of young men to a young woman alluding to sexual intercourse, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Monastic Community" (Sangh. 3, BMC, p. 110).

Propositioning

The following rule is very relevant today when some misguidedly believe that submitting to sex with spiritual teachers can help in their spiritual development.

Again, it was originally a lustful Ven. Udayin who was the cause of this offense. This time, he suggested to a beautiful and devout female follower that she make a "special offering" to him, that of sexual intercourse. The Buddha then set forth this rule:

"Telling a female that she would benefit from having sexual intercourse with oneself is [an offense requiring initial and subsequent meetings of the Monastic Community]." (Summary [47] Sangh. 4, BMC, p. 117). More