Zom wrote:if we establish, using this or that Vinaya, a group of monks who will have such views: "We take Refuge in Triple Gem that is Christian The Holy Trinity". Are you going to consider them as valid monks? Are you going to bring them dana and support them? It seems there is everything alright with their Vinaya lineage ,) Would they be a Sangha?
And this is the good reason to consider bhikkhuni ordination invalid.
Zom wrote:There is one more good reason not to make any attempts to re-establish bhukkhuni - because this will lead to a schism in Sangha. Actually, I'm afraid, there IS already a schism happened because of this attempt. Now - who is guilty? That one, who made active actions to do it - not that one who resisted it.
Not at all. Comparing a Christian ordination with Mahayana is an apples and oranges comparison. The Mahayana and especially Dharmagupta claim lineage back to Buddha. The Christian does not and did not even exist during the time of the Buddha.
Not at all. Those who advocate and accept bhikkhuni ordinations are not claiming to be some new school or tradition of Theravada or Buddhism. They are calling themselves Theravadins, which is not a separate school in any which way.
see the bhikkhunis and bhikkhuni supporters doing this:
I see those against it doing this:
gavesako wrote:You should specify what you mean by "Theravada bhikkhuni" better, because -- unless they were ordained directly by Theravada bhikkhus only -- they would have had a Mahayana bhikkhuni as preceptor and should really follow the Vinaya that she follows (probably Dharmaguptaka). Or if we take it to mean "those who practise according to Theravada teachings", then again there is a problem because although they may live in Theravada countries, they may actually be practising more according to the Mahayana teachings or some mixture of them (Ven. Dhammananda in Thailand is an example). But now we already have several generations of these bhikkhunis and if they have been practising pretty much in the Theravada style (like in Sri Lanka), then gradually they will become generally accepted as "Theravada bhikkhunis". This is the way it has been with the bhikkhu ordinations in the past as well, new groups have emerged and if they succeeded in gaining royal patronage and support, they became the new accepted and "pure" group.
Zom wrote:And this is the good reason to consider bhikkhuni ordination invalid.
As I said, Dhamma-Vinaya is a whole thing. Long time ago Dharmagupta Vinaya become one and whole with Mahayana views. And such mahayana monks could not hold uposatha with theravadin monks. And theravadin monks won't hold uposatha with such mahayana monks. So, now, you can't just so simply separate Dhamma-Vinaya.
Like the 'Mahāyāna' Bhikkhuni, who are also of the Dharmaguptaka lineage, they can be considered to be following the Theravāda Philosophical teachings. We must distinguish between lineage and philosophical system, there is a difference.
"There are actually no Mahāyāna Bhikkhu or Bhikkhuni, all ordain according to a non-Mahāyāna vinaya, either Dharmaguptaka or Mulasarvastivada."
And, one question, do you know if the 'Dharmaguptaka Theravada' Bhikkhuni chant their pattimokha in Pali, or in Chinese? If Pali, is this a translation of the Chinese, or are they chanitng the Theravada version?
Bankei wrote: Achan Chah argued that it didn't matter what your lineage was it was how you behaved as a monk that is important.
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], robertk and 77 guests