There is the case where a monk is content with any old robe cloth at all. He speaks in praise of being content with any old robe cloth at all. He does not, for the sake of robe cloth, do anything unseemly or inappropriate. Not getting cloth, he is not agitated. Getting cloth, he uses it not tied to it, uninfatuated, guiltless, seeing the drawbacks (of attachment to it), and discerning the escape from them. He does not, on account of his contentment with any old robe cloth at all, exalt himself or disparage others. In this he is skillful, energetic, alert, and mindful. This, monks, is said to be a monk standing firm in the ancient, original traditions of the Noble Ones.


Not getting almsfood, he is not agitated.

Not getting lodging, he is not agitated.

AN 4.28

And the well-known simile of the Saw:

"Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves.


  • 1
    Hi! I don't think this has to do with rights. Rights are a notion connected to law and society. There is a giver of benefits/protection/goods/services (the Estate, a private owner/entrepreneur, a civilian, etc) and a receiver (the one benefitted). The Sangha does not seem to have the same purpose as civil and political society. The Sangha is a free association of people supporting and helping each other to reach the goal of stop needing things, quite the opposite to the goal of society. Kind regards! Commented Feb 6, 2019 at 18:22
  • 4
    I can only guess at what the question is -- e.g. what is "a right", and why is the question tagged "anger"?
    – ChrisW
    Commented Feb 6, 2019 at 18:22
  • Althought you may think you have rights to do, good and even wished by the site owner to add source... (strong wrong view?) Commented Feb 8, 2019 at 0:33

4 Answers 4


The monks can and should receive robes (as donation), almsfood, lodging and respect.

But if the monks don't receive these, they shouldn't be angry, unhappy or agitated, for that conflicts with their training of equanimity.

Furthermore, any kind of donation is voluntary. If a lay person doesn't wish to donate to monks, the monks cannot blame him for it.


What you quoted is the consideration and comprehension, not the prohibition.

Except money and improper things, e.g. human, that denied in Vinayapitaka, the monk can receive the proper things, e.g. foods, clothes, residences, medicines.

However, the monk lives to cease the dependent origination cycle, e.g. craving, the consideration and comprehension to meditate the meditation in every moment is required.


Conventionally, a right is something to which one is entitled--it is a possession to be fought over. The right to bear arms is a contentious example.

Buddhism addresses suffering. It does not advocate for entitlements because entitlements are often attachments that cause suffering. Buddhism has a different perspective on "right". That perspective is based on ethics and personal conduct. As an example, for a Buddhist, killing would be a wrong action. Buddhists understand that all others are entitled to not being killed.

Buddhists practice mindful of ten Rights:

Right view gives rise to right thought. Right thought gives rise to right speech. Right speech gives rise to right action. Right action gives rise to right livelihood. Right livelihood gives rise to right effort. Right effort gives rise to right mindfulness. Right mindfulness gives rise to right immersion. Right immersion gives rise to right knowledge. Right knowledge gives rise to right freedom. MN117


Yes (hold no rights), and one should avoid monks who even encourage to thoughts of claim and rights, i.e. grave wrong view.

The Vinaya helps them to learn this if not arrived at the Noble domain for now.

But it's not something exclusive to monks, every person, who has arived on the path, those with right view, do no more hold on wrong views, i.e. rights, whether woman, human, animal-rights, rights to copy... and live of what is given, having abounded claim and demand.

One should of course also avoid lay people with wrong view, claimer and "Robin Hoods".

Nobody has actually such as inherent rights for anything, but depends on goodness of others or taking from others, one leading to liberation, the other to debts, if after not given.

Not even that someone gives one birth: that's why people of integrity have gratitude to what is worthy of that as an attribute, others then worldlings.

Today the poision of illusion destroys generations at large and even monks currupt at large families, giving slaves ideas that they have rights and encourage them to steal together.

There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed

This is a certain believe that things either come by accident or one is the creator of all by one self. Or one has such as inherent right, one is inherent worthy of things and ones live and well-being does not effect others, is not on the cost of other beings "misfortune". A person of wrong view therefore is known as a person without gratitude and does not feel obligated. Typical modern strong wrong views are thinking in right, believing in rights. This is a very serious and broad wrong view. Even most monks have falling into this wrong view today and do not dear to even teach rights rather that right view. A person who demands "I have this and that right", holds on rights, makes rights his means of gain and sustain, is a person of strong wrong view.

How to address wrong view?

There are "Buddhist" who even believe that they do a right think when using commercial places and exchange markets for Dhamma, bending the purpose and think they have a right, both from the owner of Dhamma and the owner they work for.

While it's of course not a matter of rights to be claimed or executed, a real lay person does not give outwardly the Sangha first, but only those who think they have a right to pull and steal the Dhamma for where it will not bear fruits.

[Given for liberation, not for exchange, stack, trade for/in the world and to be deleted if such is not given to share here]

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .