Dear Nina,

You wrote:

> N: As to satipa.t.thaana, it would not be possible to enforce this.
> The aim is to see anattaa, no person or self who can beforced, since
> whatever arises is dependent on conditions.
> From your paper I see that you are concerned about the order of
> monks, while you wrote: <if the monastic code can be maintained free
> from the whims and fancies of the Order, at least a minority of good
> monks would be able to follow it and get benefits even if the
> majority is corrupt beyond all repair.>
> Not sure whether the idea of carrot or stick helps.

The idea of carrot or stick helps to a certain extent. If a person is even not afraid of a stick, well, no one can help him.

> I am inclined to see the unity of the teaching of the Tipi.taka and would not separate the teaching of Vinaya as being different, with a different approach.

I don't mean that Sutta and Vinaya Pi.takas contradict each other, rather they complement each other. Let us take, for example, a meditation centre. The meditation instructor may be always emitting kindness and patience but he may need to complement his kindness with strict rules and regulations so that meditation retreats can run smoothly. It is the same case here.

> Doing good deeds, restraint from bad deeds, I think that one has to
> know and be aware of the different cittas that arise in a day and
> motivate deeds. Lobha comes in disguise; it seems we are doing good, but how many akusala cittas arise without being noticed. The clinging to self is in the way all the time.

I agree. However, the basic principle of Vinaya is "Manodvaare aapatti naama natthi" (there is no offence in the mind-door). And someone who has studied Abhidhamma systematically at least can judge his or her own deeds as good or bad, at least at the physical or verbal levels, if not at the mental level.

> The monk who has become a sotaapanna has eradicated the wrong view of
> self and he cannot return to worldly life.
>
> We read in the Kindred Sayings (V, Mahå-vagga, Book I, Ch VI, § 12,
> The river) that the Buddha spoke by way of simile about the monk who
> will not return to the layman's life; he said that the river Ganges,
> tending towards the east, cannot be made to change its course and
> tend towards the west. We read:
>
> Just so monks, if the råjah's royal ministers or his friends or boon
> companions or kinsmen or blood relatives were to come to a monk who
> is cultivating and making much of the ariyan eightfold way, and were
> to seek to entice him with wealth, saying: "Come, good man! Why
> should these yellow robes torment you? Why parade about with shaven
> crown and bowl? Come! Return to the lower life and enjoy possessions
> and do deeds of merit"— for that monk so cultivating and making much
> of the ariyan way, return to the lower life is impossible. Why so?
> Because, monks, that monk's heart has for many a long day been bent
> on detachment, inclined to detachment, turned towards detachment, so
> that there is no possibility for him to return to the lower life...
> -----------------

Actually it is a controversial matter in Burma. I am not familiar enough with suttas to give any considered opinion but at least I know that Mahasi Sayadaw believed sotapanna monks may still return to worldly life. I don't know the doctrinal basis of his opinion.

with metta

Ven. Pandita