plwk wrote:Yeah yeah, the usual reasons are belted out when I ask on this like how the Bodhisattva Vows trump over the Pratimoksa but isn't it only in limited and exceptional circumstances?
In Tibetan Buddhism a great deal of emphasis is placed on maintaining samaya under penalty of some ghoulish punishments in hell, but the same threats are given in the Vinaya literature, too, yet in Tibetan Buddhism the Vinaya isn't taken overly seriously and a lot of reasons are given for this.
I guess it really comes down to what is commonly held as important.
Don't even make me talk about the issue of monastics eating full meals beyond their stipulated time. So on one hand, they are 'pure' and bureaucratic when it comes to restoring the Siksamana and Bhiksuni levels of ordination in Mulasarvastivada and the women can wait and wait (and those who can't would cross over to the Dharmaguptaka side) but in obvious daily and basic observances like handling of money, meals and hugging women in public, it's ok to trump the rules?
Cui bono? Who benefits? Who stands to lose out? Who stands to surrender their power and privileges?
Buddhist religions are all too human. Most people are ridden with afflictions. You can't expect too much. Unfortunately, this isn't readily admitted, so there is the façade of purity presented to the outside world, meanwhile there's a lot of questionable stuff happening behind closed doors.
Were it not for the Vinaya, and for those who continue to keep it alive to this day, there would be no Buddhism.
This is a myth and belief. The Japanese did fine up until modernity without a functioning Vinaya. They had their unique monastic rules and they worked well enough as they were suited to that environment. China was not really big on the Vinaya either, and their Buddhism has survived for twenty centuries. Throughout much of its history it seems segments of the monastic population took the Vinaya seriously (or ever received a full ordination), yet it still survived.
So, in this quoted narrative who benefits?