Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa
8) Bist du ein freier Mann? SĀ: "Ich bin, Ehrwürdiger Herr!"
8) Bhujiso'si? "Āma, bhante."
Verzicht auf die österreichische Staatsbürgerschaft
Allgemeine Informationen
Besitzt man neben der österreichischen Staatsbürgerschaft gleichzeitig noch eine fremde Staatsangehörigkeit, kann auf die österreichische Staatsbürgerschaft durch eine schriftliche Erklärung beim zuständigen Amt der Landesregierung verzichtet werden. Ein Verzicht auf die österreichische Staatsbürgerschaft ist nicht möglich, wenn man dadurch staatenlos wird.
Einen Damm brechen, sodaß das Wasser herausfließt: Wasser in einem See, Kanal oder Reservoir.Hier dieses Zitat um zu sehen, dass eine Anstiftung (aus welchem Beweggrund auch immer) zu gewissen Dingen nicht sehr des Erfinder Gedanken entsprechen würde.
Verursachen, daß ein Tier all seine Beine bewegt: zweibeinig (dies inkludiert menschliche Wesen, d.h. Sklaven), vierbeinige, vielbeinige Tiere. Entsprechend dem Kommentar passt diese gleich ob man das Tier berührt oder einfach durch Verführung oder Behandlung ohne es zu berühren bewegt. Wenn ein Tier am liegt, ist bloßes Dazubringen sich auf die Beine zu stellen als nehmen zu zählen. In dem Fall wo man einem Sklaven hilft, aus der Sklaverei zu entfiehel und der Sklave folgt dieser Anordnung oder dem Rat, ist man des Stehlens schuldig; doch wenn jemand einen Sklaven über gute Wege informiert, wie man zu Freiheit kommt oder ihm Nahrung oder Schutz auf seinem Weg gibt, begeht man kein Vergehen.
Lohnt dies? Sollte er da nicht besser alleine ziehen. Es war ihm doch klar, warum versucht er etwas was gar nicht mehr geht?
Warum hat er früher stets auf die Frage "Wollen sie sich nicht als Mönch einweichen lassen?", eines Mönches geantwortet: "In dieser Existenz wird das wahrscheinlich nicht gehen...", spontan (er "kannte" damals das Dhamma und die Tradition der Noblen nicht, war ihm nicht bewusst, aber das was man als Mönch hier lebte war ihm wohl gleich fremd).
Er hat sich doch aus "erbarmen" als "Samanera" eingeweiht (auch wenn er sich darüber gefreut hat, das man ihm dieses Vertrauen schenkte, ohne Reputation und das er dies schlicht vor Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha machte und an keinem anderen Ort, vor keiner "Person"), das die Mönche ihn einordnen können, nicht ganz verwirrt sind. "Wer sind Sie, was sollen wir mit einem Samana anfangen, der nicht eingeweiht ist? Wir haben da viele Probleme und Konflikte wenn ein nichteingeweihter mit uns lebt...."
Schließlich wird auch in einem religiösen Kontext von Heimatlosigkeit gesprochen. Vor allem im christlichen Kontext der Nachfolge Christi gilt Heimatlosigkeit neben Familienlosigkeit und Besitzlosigkeit als ein Merkmal eines apostolischen Lebensstils. Dabei steht jedoch die Relativierung und der Verlust der irdischen Heimat im Gegensatz zum Gewinn der "himmlischen Heimat" bei Gott.
Moritz in function as admin
Edit (May 25): PDF file attached after correspondence with Ven. Nyanadassana72. ‘Just as a man might be a slave (dāso), not self-dependent, not his own master (an’attādhīno), dependent on another (parādhīno), unable to go where he liked (na yenakāmaṅgamo), and after some time he might be freed from slavery (dāsabyā mucceyya), be self-dependent (attādhīno), be not dependent on another (aparādhīno), be a freeman (bhujisso) and able to go where he liked (yenakāmaṅgamo), might think: “Before this I was a slave (dāso), ... now ... I am a freeman (bhujisso) ...” And he would rejoice and be glad about that.’(e.g. DN Sāmaññaphala Sutta)
74. ‘As long, as a bhikkhu does not perceive the disappearance of the five hindrances in himself, he feels as if in debt (iṇa), in sickness (roga), in jail (bandhan’āgāra), in slavery (dāsabyaŋ), and on a long desert route (kantār’addhāna-magga). But when he perceives the disappearance of the five
hindrances in himself, it is as if he were free of debt (āṇaṇya), in good health (ārogya), in freedom from jail (bandhanāmokkha), in freemanship (bhujissaŋ), and on a safe ground (khemanta-bhūmi).ibid.
_/\_Ven. Ñāṇadassana
06/05/2016
Dear Johann,
As far as I understand from your email titled “citizenship and hopefully not reasonable sorrows”, you mean that Bhujisso’si? has to do with “giving up citizenship and leaving the rights as well as the duties in regard of [sic] the Nation behind”, and by not doing so “Samanera ... fears that such ordinations are actually invalid”; and “Samanera needs to come to the conclusion that the Sangha will be extincted [sic] within this very generation”.
The rest seems all be founded on the interbetration that a Buerge is free and of depts, and if, like people often know their right but not their buergerplichten, at the duties of even buddhist countries, so you may find that it is good so that one even has duties that will break basic precepts.
I don’t know how you got these doom and gloom ideas, but there isn’t a single passage in the Pāḷi canon and its commentaries to support them. Bhujisso, which is usually translated as “a freeman or freier Mann”, has a very specific meaning in Pāḷi, that is: a slave (dāso) who is freed, or a person who is not a serf or a slave. Please see the PTS Pali-English Dictionary under bhujissa and English Dictionaries under freeman = not a slave.
Now, in relation to Vinaya, a slave (dāsa) should not be ordained and it is a dukkaṭa offence for any bhikkhu who ordains him, for it is said, “Na, bhikkhave, dāso pabbājetabbo. Yo pabbājeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā’ti.” (Vin i.72, 76, Mahā-vagga). Conversely, bhujisso means, according to the Sāratthadīpanī subcommentary, a non-slave (adāso), who is allowed to be ordained, because he is not the property of another person (para-pariggahit’ābhā-vato).
In contrast, a slave (dāso) is a person who is the property of another, is owned by him, bought and sold accordingly, has no citizen rights (keine Bürgerrechte) whatsoever, and whose labour and also whose life often is subject to the owner’s volition; who is legally obliged by prior contract (oral or written) to work for another, with contractually limited rights to bargain; who is forced against his/her will to peform, for another person or other persons, acts or services on a regular or continuing basis. Should he flee or try to escape, he risks a severe punishment, or even death.
A freeman, on the other hand, is a full citizen (Vollbürger), legally recognized as a member of a state (Staatsbürger), with civil rights (Bürgerrechte) to exercise his own volition in choosing his profession, occupation, labour, employer, political or religious leader, lifestyle, religion, etc. This includes fundamental freedoms and privileges, and legal, social and economic rights. He is thus not dependent on a master for his life, nor does he live depending on another’s choice without using his own discretion. An example for his economic freedom, at the least, can be gathered from the Suttanipāta Commentary where a man called Dhaniyo expressed his freemanship (bhujissa-bhāva) thus: “I am self-reliant on my earnings and maintenance” (atta-vetana-bhato hamasmi).
Now, in the Pāḷi texts the very antithesis between a slave (dāso) and a freeman (bhujisso) is described thus:Quote72. ‘Just as a man might be a slave (dāso), not self-dependent, not his own master (an’attādhīno), dependent on another (parādhīno), unable to go where he liked (na yenakāmaṅgamo), and after some time he might be freed from slavery (dāsabyā mucceyya), be self-dependent (attādhīno), be not dependent on another (aparādhīno), be a freeman (bhujisso) and able to go where he liked (yenakāmaṅgamo), might think: “Before this I was a slave (dāso), ... now ... I am a freeman (bhujisso) ...” And he would rejoice and be glad about that.’(e.g. DN Sāmaññaphala Sutta)
A similar antithesis is described between slavery (dāsabyaŋ) and freemanship (bhujissaŋ):Quote74. ‘As long, as a bhikkhu does not perceive the disappearance of the five hindrances in himself, he feels as if in debt (iṇa), in sickness (roga), in jail (bandhan’āgāra), in slavery (dāsabyaŋ), and on a long desert route (kantār’addhāna-magga). But when he perceives the disappearance of the five
hindrances in himself, it is as if he were free of debt (āṇaṇya), in good health (ārogya), in freedom from jail (bandhanāmokkha), in freemanship (bhujissaŋ), and on a safe ground (khemanta-bhūmi).ibid.
It is worth noting here that a candidate for higher ordination should also be debtless (aṇaṇo), healthy in respect to serious sicknesses or afflictions (roga or ābādha, such as leprosy, boils, epilepsy, etc.), not condemned in jail or prison (kārā in Vin i. 75), and not be a slave (dāso) but a freeman (bhujissa). Moreover, in Vin i. 76, 77 the prohibitions of ordaining a candidate in debt (iṇāyiko) and a slave (dāso) occur together, one after the other, i.e. § 96, “Na, bhikkhave, iṇāyiko pabbājetabbo”, and § 97, “Na, bhikkhave, dāso pabbājetabbo.” Similarly, the allowance of ordaining a candidate who is a freeman (bhujisso) and free of debt (aṇaṇo) occur together in the questionnaire of the higher ordination when teachers ask: “Are you a freeman? (bhujisso’si?); are you free of debt (aṇaṇo’si?) Thus, all these correlations shows that bhujisso means the opposite of a slave (dāso), and has nothing to do with given up citizenship.
In regard to a slave, the Vinaya Commentary on Vin i. 77, § 97 says that if he is freed from slavery in line with the country’s customs and law, he may go forth or ordain. It explicitly employs the synonyms, “Adāsaŋ katvā ... bhujisse katvā pabbājetuŋ vaññati” (After making him non-slave ...after making him freeman it is fitting to ordain him).
Therefore, a slave (dāsa) has to become a freeman (bhujissa), a regular, free and full citizen (Vollbürger) before getting ordained. It is not the other way round you say that a freeman (bhujissa) has to “give up citizenship and leave the rights as well as the duties in regard of the Nation behind”.
Two other noteworthy points to be mentioned are:
1. The similarity between a slave and a government servant (rājabhaṭa) and their difference to a freeman
Just as there is the prohibition in Vinaya not to ordain a slave, so there is a prohibition not to ordain a government servant, such a soldier, police officer, or other uniformed professional. The latter is called rājabhaṭa in Pāḷi, which literally means “hired (bhaṭa) by the king, ruler or government (rāja)”, and he is thus bound to government or military services, not free to desert or flee at will. Should he desert, he can be severely punished or even killed. Thus, he is basically the property of the ruler, is owned by him, and his labour and also life often is subject to the ruler's volition. In a sense, he is a part-time paid slave, who for convenience is called “servant”, as long as in service. He should thus not be ordained, for it is said, “Na, bhikkhave, rājabhaṭo pabbājetabbo. Yo pabbājeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā’ti.” (Vin i.74).
Now, in order to get ordained, he needs to be free from government service by getting official permission to relinquish his duties, and thus become a civilian, a free and full citizen (Vollbürger), or in a sense a freeman (bhujissa). Therefore both, a slave (dāsa) and a rājabhaṭa, have to become regular citizens and free civilians before getting ordained, and not the other way round that they have to “give up citizenship and leave the rights as well as the duties in regard of the Nation behind”.
2. Disqualifications and Invalid Ordinations
The other noteworthy point is about disqualifications, i.e. the factors that would bar an applicant from receiving ordination—either the going-forth (pabbajjā) or the higher ordination (upasampadā)—or make the ordination invalid if already received. These fall into three categories:
- absolute disqualification baring him for life — even if the applicant receives ordination, the ordination is invalid and he does not count as ordained; and the bhikkhus who ordain him incur a dukkaṭa offence.
- disqualification as an undesirable member of the Community — if he happens to be ordained, he counts as ordained, but the bhikkhus participating in the ordination incur a dukkaṭa; and
- disqualification as being formally unprepared for higher ordination (for instance, he lacks robes and an alms-bowl)—usually classified as the same class as the undesirable, above.
These categories are to be understood as follows:
- absolute disqualification—In Vinaya there are all-in-all thirteen persons who are absolutely disqualified (abhabba-puggalā), and even they receive ordination, it is totally invalid, they should be disrobed and expelled (nāsetabba), and the bhikkhus who ordain them incur a dukkaṭa offence.
The thirteen persons are:
- paṇḍako (a eunuch),
- theyyasaŋvāsako (one taken affiliation by theft, i.e. putting on robes without the authorization of the Sangha, and/or claiming rights of samanerahood or bhikkhuhood, such as seniority, etc. without an ordination according to the Vinaya standards),
- titthiyapakkantako (one gone over to another religion while still a bhikkhu),
- tiracchānagato (an animal),
- mātughātako (a matricide),
- pitughātako (a patricide),
- arahantaghātako (a killer of an arahant),
- bhikkhunidūsako (a molester of a bhikkhunī),
- saṅghabhedako (one successfully creating a schism in the Sangha),
- lohituppādako (one maliciously injuring the Tathāgata to the point of drawing blood), and
- ubhatobyañjanako (a hermaphrodite). — (Vin. i. 86)
- pārājiko (one who committed a parājika offence while previously a bhikkhu and becomes thus asaŋvāso (no longer in communion)) —( Vin. iii. 23, Pārājika), and
- 13. ūnavīsativasso puggalo (a person of less than twenty years of age in the case of higher ordination). —(Vin. iv. 130, Pācittiya 65)
- disqualification as an undesirable member —An applicant, such as a slave (dāsa), a government servant (rājabhaṭa), a person in debt (iṇāyika), etc. should not be given the Going-forth (na pabbājetabbo). As Going-forth is the customary first step in higher ordination, this means that they should not receive higher ordination, either. Any bhikkhu who gives any of these applicants the Going-forth incurs a dukkaṭa (yo pabbājeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa). However, since these applicants do not have the absolute disqualification as a paṇḍaka, theyyasaŋvāsaka, etc. and since this prohibition does not include the clause “should be disrobed or expelled” (nāsetabbā), they do count as having properly gone forth if they get ordained. And if they receive the higher ordination, it is valid and they should not be expelled (na nāsetabbā). The bhikkhus who ordain them, however, incur a dukkaṭa offence. Hence scrupulous bhikkhus do not ordain them without making sure that they are freemen (bhujissa), not government servants (rājabhaṭa), not debtors (iṇāyika), etc. To do so especially nowadays, legal documents, such as certificates, identity cards, passports, andso on, which officially verify their civil status, etc. are necessary.
- disqualification as being formally unprepared —As explained above, this category is usually classified under the second one and refers to applicants without an alms bowl or a full set of robes, with a borrowed alms bowl or a borrowed set of robes, and without a proper preceptor. Anyone who participates in ordaining them incurs a dukkaṭa. However, if they happen to receive ordination, their ordination is valid.
(Please see also Ven. Thaṇissaro’s Buddhist Monastic Code II, CHAPTER 14 : Ordination (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc2/bmc2.ch14.html) , 2007–2011)
Here now, none of these categories mentions anything about ordinations becoming actually invalid by not giving up citizenship and leaving the rights as well as the duties in regard of the Nation behind, as you publicly state, and that the Sangha will be extinct within this very generation because of such “invalid ordinations”. Such statements are utterly untenable in Vinaya terms and look over exaggerated.
Regarding the Sutta-piṭaka, there is the Pahārāda Sutta in Aïguttara Nikāya that refers to members of the four main classes (vaṇṇas) of Indian society who, after going forth in the Tathāgata's Dhamma Vinaya, `give up their former names and clans' (jahanti purimāni nāma-gottāni), and are simply designated as “ascetics following the Sakyan son” (“samaṇā sakyaputtiyā” tveva saṅkhaṃ gacchanti); that is, they follow the Buddha, they are designated as Buddhists. But even here there is no mention about giving up citizenship and leaving the rights as well as the duties in regard of the Nation behind, but only about being called Buddha’s followers. Besides, it is probably due to the Pahārāda Sutta and other places in the canon which repeat the same passage, that there is the tradition in Buddhist communities to change one’s lay name after going forth and adopt a Buddhist or Pāḷi name (Buddharakkhita, Dhammarakkhita, etc.) as a designation that one is no more a layman, a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. But again, this is done as an outward religious designation and has nothing to do about giving up citizenship, and the rest.
As I will not have time to further discuss this or other topic, I hope that you will investigate the Pāḷi texts, reconsider your position and come to a reasonable conclusion.
With Mettā and best wishes in Dhamma Vinaya,
Ñāṇadassana.
Ursprünglich bedeutete das Wort „vogelfrei“ lediglich „frei wie ein Vogel, ungebunden“. So wird das Wort in den älteren Quellen verwendet.[1] Auch Luther und Zwingli verwendeten das Wort noch in seiner ursprünglichen Bedeutung.
Viel später kam es zu der Verknüpfung mit der Ächtung. Sie ergab sich aus den Formeln:
„als du mit urteil u. recht zu der mordacht erteilt worden bist, also nim ich dein leib u. gut aus dem fride und thu sie in den unfrid und künde dich erlös u. rechtlos und künde dich den vögeln frei in den lüften und den tieren in dem wald und den vischen in dem waßer und solt auf keiner straßen noch in keiner mundtat, die keiser oder künig gefreiet haben, nindert fride noch geleit haben; …“
– Artikel 241 der Bamberger Halsgerichtsordnung, zitiert nach Jacob Grimm, Bd. I, S. 58.
und
„Frei soll er sein, wie die Tiere im Wald, die Vögel und die Fische,[2] den vischen im waßer, so daß niemand gegen ihn einen frevel begehen kann, dessen er büßen dürfe“
– Wigand, Das femgericht Westphalens. Hamm 1825. S. 436 zitiert bei Grimm S. 59.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa
"Verbeugung vor ihm, dem Erhabenen, Würdigen,
völlig aus sich selbst Erleuchteten.[235] (3x)
"Namo tassa Bhagavato, Arahato,
sammā Sambuddhassa. (3x)
1. Mit Verlaub, Ehrwürdiger Herr, bitte ich um das Fortziehen. Zum zweiten Male, Ehrwürdiger Herr, ... Zum dritten Male, Ehrwürdiger Herr, bitte ich um das Fortziehen.
1. Okāsa, ahaŋ, bhante, pabbajjaŋ yācāmi. Dutiyampi, ahaŋ, bhante, pabbajjaŋ yācāmi. Tatiyampi, ahaŋ, bhante, pabbajjaŋ yācāmi.
2. Ehrwürdiger Herr! Bitte nehmen Sie dieses Gewand [236] entgegen und lassen Sie mich, aus Mitleid bewogen, zur Überwindung allen Leidens und zur Verwirklichung des Nibbānas, aus [dem Hausleben in die Hauslosigkeit] ziehen.
2. Sabba-dukkha-nissaraṇa-nibbāna-sacchikaraṇatthāya imaŋ kāsāvaŋ gahetvā pabbājetha maŋ, bhante, anukampaŋ upādāya.
Zum zweiten Male, Ehrwürdiger Herr! ... ziehen.
Zum dritten Male, ... ziehen."
Dutiyampi, sabba-dukkha ... upādāya.
Tatiyampi, sabba-dukkha ... upādāya."
Aramika
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa
...The First Visible Fruit of the Contemplative Life
“So, lord, I ask the Blessed One as well: There are these common craftsmen: elephant-trainers, horse-trainers, charioteers, archers, standard bearers, camp marshals, supply corps officers, high royal officers, commandos, military heroes, armor-clad warriors, leather-clad warriors, domestic slaves, confectioners, barbers, bath attendants, cooks, garland-makers, laundrymen, weavers, basket-makers, potters, calculators, accountants, and any other common craftsmen of a similar sort. They live off the fruits of their crafts, visible in the here and now. They give pleasure and refreshment to themselves, to their parents, wives, and children, to their friends and colleagues. They put in place an excellent presentation of offerings to brahmans and contemplatives, leading to heaven, resulting in happiness, conducive to a heavenly rebirth. Is it possible, lord, to point out a similar fruit of the contemplative life, visible in the here and now?”
“Yes, it is, great king. But first, with regard to that, I will ask you a counter-question. Answer however you please. Suppose there were a man of yours: your slave, your workman, rising in the morning before you, going to bed in the evening only after you, doing whatever you order, always acting to please you, speaking politely to you, always watching for the look on your face. The thought would occur to him: 'Isn't it amazing? Isn't it astounding? — the destination, the results, of meritorious deeds. For this King Ajatasattu is a human being, and I, too, am a human being, yet King Ajatasattu enjoys himself supplied and replete with the five strings of sensuality — like a deva, as it were — while I am his slave, his workman… always watching for the look on his face. I, too, should do meritorious deeds. What if I were to shave off my hair and beard, put on the ochre robes, and go forth from the household life into homelessness?'
“So after some time he shaves off his hair and beard, puts on the ochre robes, and goes forth from the household life into homelessness. Having thus gone forth he lives restrained in body, speech, and mind, content with the simplest food and shelter, delighting in solitude. Then suppose one of your men were to inform you: 'You should know, your majesty, that that man of yours — your slave, your workman… always watching for the look on your face… has gone forth from the household life into homelessness… content with the simplest food and shelter, delighting in solitude.' Would you, thus informed, say, 'Bring that man back to me. Make him again be my slave, my workman… always watching for the look on my face!'?”
“Not at all, lord. Rather, I am the one who should bow down to him, rise up out of respect for him, invite him to a seat, invite him to accept gifts of robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicinal requisites for the sick. And I would provide him with righteous safety, defense, and protection.”
“So what do you think, great king. With that being the case, is there a visible fruit of the contemplative life, or is there not?”
“Yes, lord. With that being the case, there certainly is a visible fruit of the contemplative life.”
“This, great king, is the first fruit of the contemplative life, visible in the here and now, that I point out to you.”
The Second Visible Fruit of the Contemplative Life
“But is it possible, lord, to point out yet another fruit of the contemplative life, visible in the here and now?”
“Yes, it is, great king. But first, with regard to that, I will ask you a counter-question. Answer however you please. Suppose there were a man of yours: a farmer, a householder, a taxpayer swelling the royal treasury. The thought would occur to him: 'Isn't it amazing? Isn't it astounding? — the destination, the results, of meritorious deeds! For this King Ajatasattu is a human being, and I, too, am a human being, yet King Ajatasattu enjoys himself supplied and replete with the five strings of sensuality — like a deva, as it were — while I am a farmer, a householder, a taxpayer swelling the royal treasury. I, too, should do meritorious deeds. What if I were to shave off my hair and beard, put on the ochre robes, and go forth from the household life into homelessness?'
“So after some time he abandons his mass of wealth, large or small; leaves his circle of relatives, large or small; shaves off his hair and beard, puts on the ochre robes, and goes forth from the household life into homelessness. Having thus gone forth he lives restrained in body, speech, and mind, content with the simplest food and shelter, delighting in solitude. Then suppose one of your men were to inform you: 'You should know, your majesty, that that man of yours — the farmer, the householder, the taxpayer swelling the royal treasury… has gone forth from the household life into homelessness… content with the simplest food and shelter, delighting in solitude.' Would you, thus informed, say, 'Bring that man back to me. Make him again be a farmer, a householder, a taxpayer swelling the royal treasury!'?”
“Not at all, lord. Rather, I am the one who should bow down to him, rise up out of respect for him, invite him to a seat, invite him to accept gifts of robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicinal requisites for the sick. And I would provide him with righteous safety, defense, and protection.”
“So what do you think, great king. With that being the case, is there a visible fruit of the contemplative life, or is there not?”
“Yes, lord. With that being the case, there certainly is a visible fruit of the contemplative life.”
“This, great king, is the second fruit of the contemplative life, visible in the here and now, that I point out to you.”
Higher Fruits of the Contemplative Life
“But is it possible, lord, to point out yet another fruit of the contemplative life, visible in the here and now?”
“Yes, it is, great king. Listen and pay close attention. I will speak.
“There is the case, great king, where a Tathagata appears in the world, worthy and rightly self-awakened. He teaches the Dhamma admirable in its beginning, admirable in its middle, admirable in its end. He proclaims the holy life both in its particulars and in its essence, entirely perfect, surpassingly pure.
“A householder or householder's son, hearing the Dhamma, gains conviction in the Tathagata and reflects: 'Household life is confining, a dusty path. The life gone forth is like the open air. It is not easy living at home to practice the holy life totally perfect, totally pure, like a polished shell. What if I were to shave off my hair and beard, put on the ochre robes, and go forth from the household life into homelessness?'
“So after some time he abandons his mass of wealth, large or small; leaves his circle of relatives, large or small; shaves off his hair and beard, puts on the ochre robes, and goes forth from the household life into homelessness.
“When he has thus gone forth, he lives restrained by the rules of the monastic code, seeing danger in the slightest faults. Consummate in his virtue, he guards the doors of his senses, is possessed of mindfulness and alertness, and is content. ...