Can a monk who disrobe reordain?

[beeblebrox]

Cittasanto, why keep on saying "no reason to disbelieve"? In the seen, there should only be the seen... (Bahiya Sutta.)

[Cittasanto]

Cittasanto, why keep on saying "no reason to disbelieve"? In the seen, there should only be the seen... (Bahiya Sutta.)

why ask? (same quote)

[beeblebrox]

Just concerned that you aren't creating some unnecessary dukkha based on hearsay. (Which I believe is the point of the sutta... in reference to the 4NT. But that's off-topic for the thread.)

[Cittasanto]

Just concerned that you aren't creating some unnecessary dukkha based on hearsay. (Which I believe is the point of the sutta... in reference to the 4NT. But that's off-topic for the thread.)

look at yourself first! but why would I want to create anything?

the point being made by my statement is because I do not know the reference but it is from a source I trust.

[beeblebrox]

OK, sorry about this.

[hermitwin]

could it be ven Dhammavuddho?

Hi Bankei,
they are essentially the same except wording!
I double checked with a contact of mine yesterday, but I do remember seeing a booklet made by a by a former monk ordained in the Dharmagupta tradition then within the Theravadin tradition, and the order is slightly different between the two, but the Theravadin Patimokkha seams to have all the rules they have, and I would hazard a guess that it would be the same between others also, but there maybe rules missing here and there in the other groups of rules.

sometimes the major change is in distance or length or amount, such as in the rules requiring forfiture and confession/confession.

the monk who wrote the booklet made it for free distribution and is living in malasia if I remember, so it maybe available online, his work has become quite popular/he is quite a prolific author, but his name excapes me at the moment, another booklet of his (I think) is only we can help ourselves if someone wants to check, I will try later.

[Cittasanto]

see here

http://www.vbgnet.org/download-tracking.asp?ItemId=25213&Download=article%2FDV%2FEng+Adv%2FThe+Buddhist+Monk%27s+Precepts+%28Eng%29%2Ezip

it is quite a big file so can not load it to download, and it is a scan, but I do know it is a free distribution book so no violation of precept or other.

[lostheaven]

Hello,

When 'monk' was said the assumption was 'bhikshu'- what about novice monks?

So generally:
If a novice breaks the vow of celibacy, are they are barred from monastic ordination (novice or full) for life as well?
How does this vary across traditions? What is the 'letter of the law' and what is the 'spirit of the law'?

Specifically and personally (let me know if off topic): I took novice ordination in a Gelugpa tradition and have gotten a variety of responses on my case:

I tried to give back my vows to my abbot, senior teachers, bhikshus etc- and none would allow me to return the vows or would accept the return...so in front of a Buddha statue I verbally said something like:

"No one is taking my vows back, I am giving them back to you for holding since I do not want to break them but cannot be in the current situation and know if I change situations I am likely to lose discipline and would feel I was misrepresenting the community that ordained me...and so I want to return to being a monastic when the circumstances are proper and I can hold that discipline.
I ultimately do not want to disrobe but I know staying in the tradition/center and receiving their dana when I am not committed to the teachers/agenda/sect would be dishonest of me, as would staying a monastic but cutting ties with them and switching to other monasteries that offered me a place. So better I return to lay life, to one day ordain in a community that I can be in harmony with and enter that relationship correctly. I will keep my kasaya, bowing mat and belt as symbol of this promise and it is because I feel in my heart I have renounced but cannot live as a symbol in organization I strongly disagree with."

...and so told people I was no longer practicing as a novice/representing the ordained Sangha and returned to lay life to figure things out. After a few months I had a sexual relationship and this happened on and off for sometime. All the while working on finding a place and tradition that was appropriate (primarily non-sectarian, non-lineage/tradition biased) and dealing with the idea that now I was basically spiritually ruined and I was told I should live in retreat the rest of my life.


Some answers I've had, all from bhikshus and none of which could give a 'scriptural reference' but always seemed to the 'spirit of their practice':

barred for life from novice/bhikshu ordination. better to shave head/wear robes and live in solitary retreat the rest of my life though.

still technically a novice and continually breaking the vow. if i can confess to a bhikshu and reaffirm my refuge and commitment to them- then i would be restored as a novice. good to attend fortnightly confession, one of those would restore the vows.

vows are just the rudder to the big boat of dharma practice. the rudder is still in place and many sutras talk how it is better to be a screw up monk than never at all. Mostly referring to the story of a nun who converted a brothel and all said they couldn't possibly keep the vows but were encouraged anyway.

still a novice, still the right mind for it. put on the robes again, follow the vows, go to fortnightly confession as often as possible, i accepted your confession. confess to the Buddha more, as always we confess delusions and develop virtue. the point of the vows is to liberate the mind from disturbed emotions not cause. up to you to be responsible for your practice and you did the responsible thing at the time.

[Aloka]

Hi lostheaven,

Have you tried consulting a senior lay-tulku about your situation, or a lay lama with one of the other Tibetan traditions ? If its not possible to get an interview, then you could write to someone for advice.

If that doesn't help, you could also seek advice from a senior Theravada monk or abbot.

with kind wishes

Aloka

[lostheaven]

Hello Aloka-

Thank you for the suggestions.
Unless a lay teacher was trained in vinaya and could sort of culture from text- I don't think it could be much help. I am also not down with the Tulku institution, it is highly problematic and often political.

I asked a Theravadin monk who said he would ask his abbot, he didn't follow through.
I could ask a million people and get a million answers I am sure.

---

As someone who was ordained a novice, disrobed, and was told I could never ordain again but should live in robes and retreat I have formed a personal opinion I'd like to contribute to this discussion, as fun as it is to get to the written vinaya:

It is interesting to discuss how a bhikshu can and cannot be allowed to re-enter the community- when really it is so individual: to the person, the community, the abbot, the tradition, the monastery, the cultural and social ideals. Whether someone follows the vinaya 'to the letter', to the 'spirit', a mix, or to their cultural expectations. The vinaya, even how monastics live, has been changed frequently since the day the Sangha formed. Something in one community is okay but for another not. How schisms, sects, traditions etc...these all happened over difference in doctrine or practice.

Here is an extreme example with maybe a literal reading of vinaya and informed by a lot of cultural ideas that lead to an awful dehumanizing of a individual and their dharma practice.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... ons-buddha

A general example of change:

From what I have experienced the Tibetan traditions do not have a 'lifelong ordination' in letter but say it as though it is true in spirit- this comes about as a cultural idea and so it is a often seen as taboo for a monastic to disrobe (even properly) and ordain again. The person has failed to a degree. Unfortunately this attitude strips someone of their humanity and places the implied expectation that one must be morally perfect and free of desire, anger, ignorance to become and remain a monastic.

The South Asian traditions seem to encourage a temporary ordination as a merit making/personality development/coming of age tradition. Quite the opposite attitude. Perhaps choosing to be a monastic should be based on understanding of the path and dharma not as a social obligation?

Two extremes it appears and two cultures with a large monastic population and culture developed around that.

Were either of these attitudes or practices developed during and in place at the time of the Buddha? I don't know. Seems like they, in the same way as the vinaya, developed as an collection of actual situations happening in actual communities over time. Regardless of looking at the past or what was written...it will be always interpreted and rationalized in the context of the experience and history of the person applying it now.

At this point, to me, the answer to the thread question looks like:

Can a monk who disrobe reordain? depends, on a lot. Is a monk who disrobed (voluntarily or not) or expelled (voluntarily or not) face a huge block in their practice? yes. Does someone who never ordained face a huge block in their practice? yes. Does any monastic face a huge block in their practice? yes. Do lay people face a huge block in their practice? yes. Same delusions different expressions- desire, anger, ignorance are universal problems. Someone said: "Whether householder or monastic, your success is determined by making dharma your #1 priority in life".

[Aloka]

From what I have experienced the Tibetan traditions do not have a 'lifelong ordination' in letter but say it as though it is true in spirit- this comes about as a cultural idea and so it is a often seen as taboo for a monastic to disrobe (even properly) and ordain again. The person has failed to a degree. Unfortunately this attitude strips someone of their humanity and places the implied expectation that one must be morally perfect and free of desire, anger, ignorance to become and remain a monastic

In the past I knew of western men and women who were ordained in the Tibetan tradition and at a later time then gave back their robes again to lead a lay life.

They continued to practice within the tradition without any repercussions nor had any loss of personal status within their sanghas, nor did they seem to have any problems with their practice afterwards. They didn't want to reordain again though.

There are also Tibetan teachers who have decided to give back their robes at some point in their lives and then continued to teach and be influential. The late Chogyam Trungpa was one of them.

All I can suggest, as I mentioned previously, is that you arrange to speak about it to someone influential within the Tibetan tradition. I mentioned tulkus because they have key roles within the Tibetan schools, are often familiar with the Tibetan ordination system and may themselves have given up their robes to lead a lay life.

All the best for the future, I hope you can get your difficulties resolved.

with kind wishes,

Aloka.

[Cittasanto]

Hi Lostheaven,
this is outside the main area of knowledge of members here as it is to do with the Tibetan tradition not the Theravadin, but not specifically off topic just outside of the area of knowledge, you may wish to repost this at our sister site which covers Mahayana & Vajrayana schools http://www.dharmawheel.net/

Hello,

When 'monk' was said the assumption was 'bhikshu'- what about novice monks?

So generally:
If a novice breaks the vow of celibacy, are they are barred from monastic ordination (novice or full) for life as well?
How does this vary across traditions? What is the 'letter of the law' and what is the 'spirit of the law'?

Specifically and personally (let me know if off topic): I took novice ordination in a Gelugpa tradition and have gotten a variety of responses on my case:

I tried to give back my vows to my abbot, senior teachers, bhikshus etc- and none would allow me to return the vows or would accept the return...so in front of a Buddha statue I verbally said something like:

"No one is taking my vows back, I am giving them back to you for holding since I do not want to break them but cannot be in the current situation and know if I change situations I am likely to lose discipline and would feel I was misrepresenting the community that ordained me...and so I want to return to being a monastic when the circumstances are proper and I can hold that discipline.
I ultimately do not want to disrobe but I know staying in the tradition/center and receiving their dana when I am not committed to the teachers/agenda/sect would be dishonest of me, as would staying a monastic but cutting ties with them and switching to other monasteries that offered me a place. So better I return to lay life, to one day ordain in a community that I can be in harmony with and enter that relationship correctly. I will keep my kasaya, bowing mat and belt as symbol of this promise and it is because I feel in my heart I have renounced but cannot live as a symbol in organization I strongly disagree with."

...and so told people I was no longer practicing as a novice/representing the ordained Sangha and returned to lay life to figure things out. After a few months I had a sexual relationship and this happened on and off for sometime. All the while working on finding a place and tradition that was appropriate (primarily non-sectarian, non-lineage/tradition biased) and dealing with the idea that now I was basically spiritually ruined and I was told I should live in retreat the rest of my life.


Some answers I've had, all from bhikshus and none of which could give a 'scriptural reference' but always seemed to the 'spirit of their practice':

barred for life from novice/bhikshu ordination. better to shave head/wear robes and live in solitary retreat the rest of my life though.

still technically a novice and continually breaking the vow. if i can confess to a bhikshu and reaffirm my refuge and commitment to them- then i would be restored as a novice. good to attend fortnightly confession, one of those would restore the vows.

vows are just the rudder to the big boat of dharma practice. the rudder is still in place and many sutras talk how it is better to be a screw up monk than never at all. Mostly referring to the story of a nun who converted a brothel and all said they couldn't possibly keep the vows but were encouraged anyway.

still a novice, still the right mind for it. put on the robes again, follow the vows, go to fortnightly confession as often as possible, i accepted your confession. confess to the Buddha more, as always we confess delusions and develop virtue. the point of the vows is to liberate the mind from disturbed emotions not cause. up to you to be responsible for your practice and you did the responsible thing at the time.

[lostheaven]

Hello,

Yes, you are right...Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana etc. difference.

Sorry, the post was intended to direct attention more to the variables of 'can a monk who disrobe reordain?' The topic interests me as I am of that category and question.

Part of it was directed to the Theravadin tradition:

When 'monk' was said the assumption was 'bhikshu'- what about monks who are novices?
(so what would be something that would permanently expel a novice?)

Generally:
If a novice breaks the vow of celibacy, (with concealment or not) are they are barred from monastic ordination (novice or full) for life as well?

What divisions exist in the novice vows- parajika, sanghadisesa, aniyata etc.? From what I've seen they are not categorized to weight as for bhikshus- under what category of training do they fall in Theravadin?

Since we are speculating on the Ven.Hypothetical (is he a bhikshu or sramanera? maybe both! we should check his papers), and we are in What-If-Land, I was thinking the situation could be read as a Theravadin one instead... much of the same incidents I presented could be applied under the Theravadin tradition if someone was interested, or not?

----

Thank you for the help!...but I am not looking for an answer personally, I should've been clear about that. There is one I really like- I gave it at the bottom of my last post

I imagine the monks and nuns you refer to did it in the 'proper' way. Their communities may have a different perspective as well. Even within the Tibetan community itself not all foreigners are 'really monastics' to many. I was living in a Tibetan community. So many variations!! In mine the former monastics, who chose to disrobe, were kinda seen as deficient. Not outright was this communicated but it was definitely a perception and gossiped. I am no longer practicing in that tradition.

For me any 'answer' would be inconclusive and I am a little wary of someone who could offer that conclusively. I could have a million different answers based on who I ask and many could feel their interpretation is the most 'authentic'. Basically in any tradition- I can ask people until someone gives me one I agree with. Then up to me and the community whether it is accepted it or not. That is the nature of a religion organized by communities and not a vertical hierarchy.

[Cittasanto]

Hi Lostheaven,
it is an interesting question and a novice can be expelled for several reasons and punished for others, but this only falls in the bounds of Theravada, not Mahayana, as the rules for Novices may be different.
from the Mahavaga,

Indeed the fortunate one permitted, endowed with ten qualities a novice should be expelled.
What are these ten?
They are one who takes life, thieves, is unchaste, speaks falsely, or drinks intoxicants recreationally, Speaks disrespectfully about the Buddha, Dhamma, & Sangha, Is one who expounds dissident views, and defiles female mendicants.
Indeed the fortunate one permitted, that a novice endowed with these ten qualities be expelled.

as the list shows Engaging in incomplete chastity (sex) is an expulsion offence, as is Molesting a Bhikkhuni.

Thanissaro points out in BMC2 there are two forms of expulsion one dealt with within BMC1 Pc70, and the other dealt with within BMC2.

Only a molester of a bhikkhunī is automatically expelled without further ado. Such a novice also makes himself ineligible from taking the Going-forth or receiving Acceptance ever again in this lifetime.

this commentarial Parajika for a novice (for lack of better word & phrase) would probably be because of two reasons, the unchaste behaviour itself, and the undermining of communal trust this act demonstrates. I would add that Bhikkhuni would probably cover other female monastics such as samaneri... and extend today to other forms of female monastic such as the siladhara (as would any of the precepts involving the female order.)

but if a Bhikkhu who disrobes re-ordain? it is fully possible, unless they are Parajika, and this would in some cases include any traditions monks, if they are parajika they are parajika.

A novice is not a monk, the term samanera/samaneri means little renunciant and corresponds to a novice, even in the christian tradition where these terms are borrowed from a Novice is not a monk, they are a monastic, but this isn't the same as being a monk. the novice has 10 precepts which are the same in all traditions, to my knowledge, but it is common for them to also train in the Collection of Protocols - Vattakkhandhaka of the Culavagga, and the Rules connected with the training - Sekhiyā: rules 146-220 of the patimokkha, however the Sāmaṅera Sikkhā – the novices training has three divisions the precepts, the reasons for punishment which can be likened to the Saṅghādisesa, and the reasons for expulsion which can be likened to the Parajika, however the precepts themselves are not classed in the same way as the patimokkha. I would also hypothesise that the Calming and Settling of legal Issues that May Arise: 221-227 - Adhikaraṇa-samatha would also be followed in-cases where a breach of the training happens, although not exactly the same as the Novice is dealt with by their teacher, and the community can not legally impose sanction upon them without their consent, to my understanding at-least.

But you should be aware that there can be differences of opinion in some areas particularly if the commentaries or manuals get involved, if someone is accepted in one place another place may not accept them, so inconclusive is not an issue, it is conclusive as to the community they go to, there are plenty of instances of this happening, and there have been accusations of monks being in offence, yet it is a tradition not a vinaya rule that is the cause of this. a good example of the commentaries/manuals changing interpretation is Ajahn Brahms vinaya notes and Ajahn Thanissaros BMC (using the authors name for ease not saying this is there current understanding or practice) Ajahn Brahm says things are canonical and would have a bhikkhu repay things which in the actual vinaya involves breaking precepts to do, or be parajika, which is a commentary interpretation, yet Thanissaro is clear that these hold no basis in vinaya, and does not give a penalty for them (I can look up the respective quotes if you wish, and from my readings of the canon Thanissaros BMC is closer to the vinaya, although depending on the version you read depends on the interpretation, and earlier versions have been requested to be destroyed as they give inaccurate information.)

[lostheaven]

Oh thank you, interesting~ thank you for the links
I poked around a little more...

In the same chapter...

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... .ch24.html

Here the 10 vows are translated as 'training rules' but I wonder what the original word was that was translated. Since they seem to be fairly identical as far as the descriptions of rules go.

Immediately after listing them, Thanissaro says the commentary states that if any rule is broken the Triple Refuge is broken,the novice is still a novice but 'cut off' from the Sangha. If the novice sees the error he can retake refuge in the Triple Gem with the preceptor and is reinstated to his original status. Punishment is applied by the preceptor not by the community...? It seems like if a novice engages in repeated breaking of the precept, is admonished, doesn't make an attempt to restrain him or see the error ( I imagine all four would need to be happening simultaneously...?)- then it would be grounds for expulsion? While a novice who breaks it, is 're-educated', and restrains himself could be reinstated? Except in the case of actions with a female monastic?

The training rules do not seem to be equated with parajikka at all in that sense...! More a question of understanding or not understanding, intent, view and remorse and harmony of the community..?

Where expulsion and lifetime was mentioned was only in regard to one of training rules...

"Only a molester of a bhikkhunī is automatically expelled without further ado. Such a novice also makes himself ineligible from taking the Going-forth or receiving Acceptance ever again in this lifetime."

more searching, from: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... .html#Pc70
explaining in more detail expulsion and the forms of punishment for novices:

"And as for the novice who rapes a bhikkhunī: The Commentary notes that this comes under the breaking of the third precept, but is listed separately because a novice who has sexual intercourse with anyone but a bhikkhunī may be reinstated if he sees the error of his ways, whereas one who has raped a bhikkhunī may not — and furthermore, he can never be ordained as a novice or a bhikkhu in this lifetime. (See BMC2, Chapter 14.)

I'd like to see the Tibetan vinaya and compare but to my knowledge there isn't a translation of it or the commentary. I believe the Dharmagupta vinaya has be compared to Theravadan and differences pointed out in practice?...but not the Mulasarvastivadan? It seems like in Theravada the way a novice can be 'permanently expelled from the Sangha for lifetime' is only if they assault a female monastic. I think that one is universal to the traditions...? At what other points the vinayas diverges on permanent/lifetime expulsion would be interesting. I don't know if a comparison of Dharmagupta and Mulasarvastivadan has been translated to English either...

-----

I agree 'conclusive' within a community and their tradition. A 'to the book answer' is inconclusive for myself. Since the Tibetan vinaya canon hasn't been translated (as I know of..)...it would be hard to tell if a teacher is giving opinion, tradition or canon. And for example of community conclusiveness, a Zen priest told me I was still a monk, just wear robes and follow the vows again if I left because of a disagreement with community views and practices. The intent, remorse, and reasons were all reasonable. He saw no problem, but then Zen is more 'situational ethics'. So some communities would accept this, others would not. This doesn't quite work in traditions that maintain a history of following vinaya and canon so much. Also how did a translator translate? Thanissaro points out canon vs. commentary...but it isn't always done...having multiple translations is helpful for figuring that out!

Thanks again for the links!

[Cittasanto]

The word is sikkha as in sikkhāpadāni the full training is given at Mv.I.60 - Mv.I.56.1- Mv.I.57.1.

the Bhikkhus rules and the samaneras are not the same kettle of fish, the samanera is not a Bhikkhu and does not have the same codified rules so the rules can be seen as related and connected, which they are, but they are not expressed in exactly the same way.

but be careful with advice on monastic discipline from Zen monks they are not necesarily Vinaya particularly if they are from a japanese line they wont be, not to mention that they are not of the same tradition.

The work Thanissaro done is not a translation of the vinaya, it is a manual, it looks at the practical application of the vinaya in relationship to traditions, where it is unclear or has room for interpretation, unlike a commentary which explains what the meaning is.