i recently went to a meeting with some bhikkhus, and they served the monks a small dish with butter slices and little chocolate squares... i think it was dark chocolate if that matters. So anyway, i was suprised to see it and was wondering other views on this. and the underlying point to the question... i am obviously looking for loop holes for a snack-ish type thing before bed.

I wonder if Mahayanabhikkhus can perform a Theravadin ordination and have the ordination be recognized as valid by the Theravadin bhikkhusangha without doing dalhikamma? What if the theravadins do a dalhikamma for a monk who took theravadin ordination performed by mahayana monks? Can he get full acceptance in the Theravada then? If not, can a dalhikamma be performed for the Mahayana monks as to make them eligible to perform Theravadin ordinations or must they re-ordain as Theravadins? Finally, can a monk be considered to have full ordination in both mahayana and theravada?

What does one think, to reflect and investigate: If a Bhikkhu would do efforts that finally lead to lose for at least a non-Bhikkhu (lay man, novice...), such would be easy a downfall transgression (if worthy the price of a pillow...). What do you think if such happens with possessions within the internet realm? Say, for example, making efforts that someone loses access, loses possibility to use...blocked... what ever. Say, a Bhikkhu hunts after you and gets you banned, disabled, deprived by this or that regional authority (equal if using law enforcement for a Non-Bhikkhus lose). As there are many using common tools, like householder, incl. there inbuild weapons, it's something that touches many actually. (Sure, it's possible to consider also other around, yet just in kammic sphere: lay person strives for lose of a monk).

Is there a standardized version of Pali Patimokkha to be memorized? Is there a difference in the recital of the Pali Patimokkha among the monks?

I often find that in real life people I know are doing things in a "wrong" way. By this I not only mean profound things related to Dhamma, but also small everyday things. Because of these small things, which are most often due to a small gap in their understanding, they keep suffering in a worldly manner. Example clip I feel compassion for them and I feel that only if they could simply know the right thing their particular problem would go away and they will get some peace of mind. With this in mind (mostly) I try to gently tell them what the cause of the problem is... but I have found it unfortunately that 99% of them not only not act, but even not think about my words. It has caused me suffering, I'm not sure how... maybe because I'm not being taken seriously even though I'm telling something very important to them... anyways so I wanted to ask if what I am doing is incorrect, or maybe it is correct but it is impractical, or I'm doing something wrong somewhere? I feel like I should stop helping but then I think even if it makes me lesser in others' eyes, it is worth it if it helps them. Do you experience this situation in people surrounding you? How do you find a middle ground... like have you stopped helping thinking that they cannot comprehend at once deep insights? Any responses are appreciated. PS: Sorry, if my english is bad.

In this answer there is a quote from The Buddhist Monastic Code 1 - The Patimokkha Rules Translated and Explained by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, which reads in part > only when one is possessed by non-human beings In that book there are several references to being possessed by spirits or non-human beings, such as this from page 44. >State of mind. The bhikkhu must be in his right mind. Any statement he makes while insane, delirious with pain, or possessed by spirits does not count. My question is, **who or what is doing the possessing**? Is there a belief in Buddhism that some being (a hungry ghost or something else?) would actually take over the mind of a human? Is that type of cross realm interaction possible? How literally is possession by spirits to be understood? Thank you.

Fire ceremonies are likely categorized as ‘rites and rituals’, but is/was the basic usage of fire for warmth prohibited by monastic rules?

I felt this was unfair and somewhat misleading, too, because there were many very elderly laypeople, plus some of the Bhikkhus might not be part of the Aryan (enlightened) Sangha and some of the Lay people might be part of the Enlightened Sangha. I believe it is proper to serve monks first, but at another mixed lineage temple in Oxnard, we never waited, but the Bhikkhus sat first and took food first, but we all sat down and ate together. Are there strict Vinaya rules for this laid down by the Buddha? Thank you for any and all perspectives on this.

Recently I happened to read the following review and comments about the book "The Broken Buddha." The Broken Buddha and its Implications The Broken Buddha: The revenge of the unfaithful monk > By Carl Stimson: > > The book is the work of Shravasti Dhammika, an > Australia-born man who ordained as a Theravada monk in 1976. It was > published in 2008, though as he states in the preface, most of it was > written several years earlier and he only decided to publish after an > “unauthorized draft” appeared online. I am unsure how much the > official version differs from this draft, but the text retains a rough > feel. At less than 80 pages, it is somewhere between long essay and > short book, and is at turns angry, funny, cutting, astounding, and, > unfortunately, sometimes poorly researched. For some, Bhante > Dhammika’s casual relationship with facts and tendency toward > generalization may limit their ability to take the thrust of his > arguments seriously. Both of them says most of the S. Dhammika's views are angry and and misleading. Is S. Dhammikas work poorly researched and baseless?

Is there a rule where if a monk is an arahant and if he is to tell he is an arahant, he can only say it to a Upasampada monk and not even a samanera monk? If so, please provide the source of the rule

I have questions regarding hospitalization and its morals 1. Are monks/nuns allowed to be hospitalized and can they go to a hospital or doctor if sick? (because aren't they not allowed to request anything according to the vinaya?) 2. Can a monk/nun take painkillers or will that be a breach of the fifth precept? 3. If there is a parasite or other being inside of someone, can they take medicine to cure themselves of it, or would that break the first precept, or is it not if the being isn't sentient?

>Take another case of a mendicant who lives close by a jungle thicket. As they do so, their mindfulness becomes established, their mind becomes immersed in samādhi, their defilements come to an end, and they arrive at the supreme sanctuary. But the necessities of life that a renunciate requires—robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicines and supplies for the sick—are hard to come by. That mendicant should reflect: >‘While living close by this jungle thicket, my mindfulness becomes established … But the necessities of life are hard to come by. But I didn’t go forth from the lay life to homelessness for the sake of a robe, almsfood, lodgings, or medicines and supplies for the sick. Moreover, while living close by this jungle thicket, my mindfulness becomes established …’ After appraisal, that mendicant should stay in that jungle thicket; they shouldn’t leave. Take another case of a mendicant who lives close by a jungle thicket. Their mindfulness becomes established … And the necessities of life are easy to come by. That mendicant should reflect: ‘While living close by this jungle thicket, my mindfulness becomes established … And the necessities of life are easy to come by.’ **That mendicant should stay in that jungle thicket for the rest of their life; they shouldn’t leave.** > MN 17 Am I interpreting this correctly in saying that for an Arahant, it is forbidden for him to leave the place where he became enlightened? Also, if so, how large is the area around this spot, where one can go to without breaking this rule?

The following sutta quote suggests that under the stated conditions, an Arahant should forcibly remain an unwanted burden or guest to a specific individual caretaker, even if sent away (or dismissed - according to Ven. Suddhaso's translation). Is this really the case? If that specific individual caretaker is unable to care for that Arahant any more due to personal circumstances e.g. due to financial reasons or family reasons or health reasons, what should he do? > Take another case of a mendicant who lives supported by an individual. > As they do so, their mindfulness becomes established, their mind > becomes immersed in samādhi, their defilements come to an end, and > they arrive at the supreme sanctuary. And the necessities of life that > a renunciate requires—robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicines and > supplies for the sick—are easy to come by. That mendicant should > reflect: ‘While living supported by this person, my mindfulness > becomes established … And the necessities of life are easy to come > by.’ That mendicant should follow that person for the rest of their > life. **They shouldn’t leave them, even if sent away**.” > MN 17 (translated by Ven. Sujato)

I read the following comment on the secular internet in relation to the closing paragraphs of DN 2, where a King or layperson made an admission of a moral transgression/sin to the Buddha: > Yes that confession is especially by and to monks -- "the discipline" > as you quoted it is the Vinaya. Does the Pali word "vinaya" in the suttas always refer to the Vinaya Piṭaka, i.e., the Pāṭimokkha rules made exclusively for monks & nuns?

I am specifically interested in the attitude of Theravadan Buddhism toward homosexuality (if it has one at all.) I don't recall ever seeing any references to homosexuality in the suttas...I do recall seeing some non-normative sexual activity discussed in the Vinaya (or its commentary) but am not as familiar with the Vinaya. If anyone can speak to the Vinaya on this topic that would be helpful. It seems right to assume that homosexual activity would not be treated any differently than heterosexual activity, but the fact that I do not recall seeing it ever discussed, along with general cultural attitudes expressed (e.g., statements by the Buddha (as I recall) that there is nothing more attractive to a man than a woman and vice versa) makes me wonder if I am missing something. Also, if anyone has any contextual information about the culture in India at that time that would point to why there would be no discussion of homosexuality--e.g., it was absent--that would be helpful.

I know a person who is fairly expert on Dhamma and in early times practised well; meditating up to 10 hours per day. But today this person spends at least five hours per day doing physical rehabilitation due to an unfortunate injury. Yet this person is constantly harassed by a troll monk who insists this rehabilitating person become a monk. While this person spends 5 hours per day doing rehabilitation, this monk appears to spend 5 hours per day trolling the internet rather than practising meditation. For example, sometimes when this person wants to sit, their body must walk. Other times, when this person wants to walk, their body must sit. Sometimes they want to quietly breathe, but the body may cough (which would disturb other monks). What happens to the abusive monk whose actions can cause distress & trauma (to a similar fool)? Are there any suttas about what happens to evil characters and uncontrolled men wearing the saffron robe?

If one reads [this quote by a monk](https://ninjastream.to/download/n9JZrxK8gAG72/atid-370-uncensored-mp4) , who is referring to [donations to SuttaCentral](https://suttacentral.net/donations?lang=en) : >...For the past week or so, we’ve been actually losing money on Stripe: paying more in settlement fees than we get in donations. - What should one assume in regard of observing Vinaya while letting people believe to act in preserving a noble tradition? *This seems to be referring to asking people to donate money, to preserve a noble tradition (i.e. the scriptures published by SuttaCentral) -- but can they be doing this and observing Vinaya?* - Maybe some can quote some related texts to money and relation issues from open resources on the matter to try to catch bite the tail (don't forget to donate...). What faults can come into play? What's required to make with things attained wrongly? What can be assumed when Bhikkhus share food and success, trade together with lay people? *To answer this question, perhaps quote from available from resources, on issues such as money and relationships. Are these faults? Is this an example of Bhikkhus sharing food, and success, and trading commercially with lay people?*

I have heard that Buddha was eating similar to one meal a day. Is this true? Would this not lead to severe constipation? Was it common for ascetics to take medicines to help purge the food waste from their bodies?

I've found a similar question; https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/9687/are-theravada-monks-allowed-to-stay-in-lay-peoples-house However it was asked by a woman and nobody answered otherwise. What i wonder is if there are any restrictions on living in the same house as a male lay disciple and relying on the lay person for alms and requisites? Thank you.

> A medicine may be made of the “four great filthy things”: excrement, urine, ashes, and clay > > A bhikkhu’s basic medicinal support is puti-mutta-bhesajja, which translates literally as “rancid urine medicine” (Mv.I.30.4) does anybody know a recipe? Also any relevant information pls, tyvm.