[Buddha-l] Re: Rational or mythological Buddhism andWesternBuddhist lay practice

[jkirk]

JK
> With all due respect, I don't see why merely having wives, mistresses or
> pets would, in and of themselves, impede begging. Beggars throughout
> history have had wives and children, whom they often inveigled into
begging
> as well.
RH
> Religious mendicants in Magadha at the time of the Buddha were expected
> to be celibate. If you read the commentaries to the vinaya rules you
> find it said again and again that Buddhist monks were expected to follow
> various rules, lest the village people talk. Apparently one of the
> things that caused villagers to talk was religious beggars who had
> families to support. Moreverover, the Buddha seems to have been mindful
> of taking precautions against his community being any kind of burden on
> the supporting community. That is the reason for celibacy stated in the
> vinaya.
JK
I was not suggesting that this important consideration was not relevant, I
simply
added to it with more sociological suggestions.
>
> > No, the reasons for requiring celibacy were otherwise, most importantly
> > perhaps that married men with children could not be expected to submit
to
> > the routines nor the discipline of monastic communitarian living.
 RH
> That reason is not the one given in the vinaya. Of course, the vinaya
> may have been lying.
JK
     I was not responding to the issue according to what's in the rules,
that should have been clear, but instead from a more sociological point of
view.

> > I daresay the women would not have put up with monasticism, either!
RH
> Why not? Don't you think some women would prefer a well-behaved husband
> to a gambler, drinker and womanizer?
JK
    Gambling, drinking and womanizing have never been far from some denizens
of   monasteries no matter what the affiliation. Vide the Thai sangha of
late.