Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

When a monk has broken major rules, he is forced to disrobe.
Can he become a monk again?

hermitwin wrote:When a monk has broken major rules, he is forced to disrobe.
Can he become a monk again?

if a bhikkhu breaks a parajika rule they can not ordain again in this life.

[edit - some off the similies used to describe breaking the four parajika rules]
as though a rock broken in two can not be whole again, a leaf fallen from a tree can not be reattached, a man with his head cut off can no live...

no coming back from it

Also, I think a parajika monk can ordain as a novice - according to vinaya.

Bankei wrote:Also, I think a parajika monk can ordain as a novice - according to vinaya.

that is a gray area, and not everywhere does, or accepts it as valid. but some places do, however, it may cause problems if they go to where this isn't.

This is a reminder to all members to keep their posts on-topic.
Thanks for your cooperation.

Ben

What if the monk goes to another country or another tradition?
Why cant the monk be forgiven if he has repented?

hermitwin wrote:What if the monk goes to another country or another tradition?
Why cant the monk be forgiven if he has repented?

how the other tradition (i.e. another vinaya lineage found in Tibet or within the Chinese line of ordination) may or may not view them as not being able to ordain, but it would depend on the tradition and if they are a vinaya line or not. but I do know some Bhikkhus would not consider it possible if it was a parajika from another vinaya line.

if it was another religion or non-vinaya school then it shouldn't be a problem.

In the Tibetan tradition I know of a bhikshu who broke the celibacy rule (that is a parajika one I think) & had a child. Several years later (5 or 7 or?? I forgot) he was allowed to become a bhikshu again. Whether that was because the Tibetan tradition permits it or there was a special dispensation given by the Dalai Lama, for example, I do not know.

Thanks for the all the comments.
What is the rationale for this rule?
Is it purely to discourage monks from breaking the rules?

Will wrote:In the Tibetan tradition I know of a bhikshu who broke the celibacy rule (that is a parajika one I think) & had a child. Several years later (5 or 7 or?? I forgot) he was allowed to become a bhikshu again. Whether that was because the Tibetan tradition permits it or there was a special dispensation given by the Dalai Lama, for example, I do not know.

Will,

I have often wondered what the go is with the Tibetans. It seems there are many married 'monks' but maybe these are not Bhikshu but lamas - what is the difference?
There is also the tantric side.

Bankei

Bankei wrote:

Will wrote:In the Tibetan tradition I know of a bhikshu who broke the celibacy rule (that is a parajika one I think) & had a child. Several years later (5 or 7 or?? I forgot) he was allowed to become a bhikshu again. Whether that was because the Tibetan tradition permits it or there was a special dispensation given by the Dalai Lama, for example, I do not know.

Will,

I have often wondered what the go is with the Tibetans. It seems there are many married 'monks' but maybe these are not Bhikshu but lamas - what is the difference?
There is also the tantric side.

Bankei

A lama may be a monk, but a lama also may be a layperson, and a monk is not necessarily a lama just by being a monk.

Will wrote:In the Tibetan tradition I know of a bhikshu who broke the celibacy rule (that is a parajika one I think) & had a child. Several years later (5 or 7 or?? I forgot) he was allowed to become a bhikshu again. Whether that was because the Tibetan tradition permits it or there was a special dispensation given by the Dalai Lama, for example, I do not know.

He wouldn't be a Bhikshu!

the rule is not able to be overridden in any tradition, but whether one tradition would or could accept someone who comitted a parajika from another tradition or not is not exactly the same, see my above post on this.

not all those in the Mahayana tradition as a whole are Bhikshus/Bhikshunis as there are other forms of ordination within the Mahayana tradition, such as in Zen there is no Vinaya line, in Korea there is both a vinaya and non-vinaya line, and the same is in tibet and other countries/traditions.

hermitwin wrote:Thanks for the all the comments.
What is the rationale for this rule?
Is it purely to discourage monks from breaking the rules?

these are what should never be done as they go against the motives for being a mendicant & meditator following the Buddhas teaching.
the four rules which constitute the Parajika group (for Bhikkhus; 8 for Bhikkhunis) although not all of them are wrong in and of themselves; such as theft is a worldly wrong but may have reasons which seam reasonable to preform, but it goes against being relyant upon lay people for food and support, whereas sex is a spiritual wrong because it can be misused and is a gross form of clinging - claiming attainments one does not see one having is wrong because it also undermines trust in recieving support by being a pure practitioner, but murder is regardless.

doing any of these is not the same as disrobing, as it is instant, no motive to disrobe need be involved.

however there are excemptions to these rules but that doesn't mean it is possible to do them. see Buddhist monastic code volume 1.

hermitwin wrote:What if the monk goes to another country or another tradition?
Why cant the monk be forgiven if he has repented?

I think the 4 parajika rules are the same in all extant vinaya traditions. So if one were to break a parajika rule in one tradition then one could become a monk (legally anyway) in another tradition.

Bankei wrote:

hermitwin wrote:What if the monk goes to another country or another tradition?
Why cant the monk be forgiven if he has repented?

I think the 4 parajika rules are the same in all extant vinaya traditions. So if one were to break a parajika rule in one tradition then one could become a monk (legally anyway) in another tradition.

this is not necessarily true Bankei, and has already been commented on.

How different traditions are viewed changes with the person, some consider them the same, as with the case of your post regarding Ajahn Sumedho ordaining Bhikshus/nis would show, others would consider them different traditions and would require probationary periods, yet others may require them to ordain within their tradition.

Unless a Venerable of a different school or another fully or ex-ordained member chooses to comment upon this (someone who may have knowledge of how the different schools views it) it is speculation and not relevant unless you can support your claim.