Can a monk who disrobe reordain?

[Cittasanto]

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.

[Ytrog]

I wonder: what chance does a monk have to be successful in the Dhamma after he has disrobed because of committing a Pārājika offense and re-ordaining. I would say it's almost none after such a defeat. You have proven to yourself to be incapable of keeping the most major rules after that, so what is the point in trying to re-ordain in whatever tradition even if it is allowed?

[Cittasanto]

I wonder: what chance does a monk have to be successful in the Dhamma after he has disrobed because of committing a Pārājika offense and re-ordaining. I would say it's almost none after such a defeat. You have proven to yourself to be incapable of keeping the most major rules after that, so what is the point in trying to re-ordain in whatever tradition even if it is allowed?

well put it this way the first parajika has lengthy instruction on how to disrobe! it is better to disrobe then commit preform the act than to preform the act, as you die in the sangha (it isn't exactly disrobal), but if you disrobe first due to a weakness, then preform the act it isn't the same (BTW I am thinking of a specific sensual act in this regard, not murder).

being weak is one thing, recognising that weakness is another, and doing it anyway is something else. there are cases in thailand where groups trying to undermine Buddhism for whatever reason have gotten monks in situations and some have stayed strong others have disrobed due to weakness, others have tried to disrobe but not done it propperly so parajika, and yet others have done it anyway so parajika.

but just because someone commits a parajika does not mean they are not capable of practising, I do believe they go to hell according to the canon, but they can still practice create punna and hopefully be born into a life where the dhamma can be understood and practised fully.

[Sylvester]

The Pali Vinaya is the only Vinaya that does not contain a rehab allowance for Parajika monastics. All the other known Vinayas have this allowance. I can't recall the spelling now, but it sounds vaguely like "siksadattaka" (will have to download that article from my other PC for the correct name).

I think the redactors of the Pali Vinaya were quite aware of the "siksadattaka" developing in the other traditions.

[Bankei]

You might wish to view the research by Dr Shayne Clarke of McMaster university. See his home page for more details.

[Cittasanto]

You might wish to view the research by Dr Shayne Clarke of McMaster university. See his home page for more details.

I have tried to look for this Dr but don't know which site?? can you share a link

[Cittasanto]

The Pali Vinaya is the only Vinaya that does not contain a rehab allowance for Parajika monastics. All the other known Vinayas have this allowance. I can't recall the spelling now, but it sounds vaguely like "siksadattaka" (will have to download that article from my other PC for the correct name).

I think the redactors of the Pali Vinaya were quite aware of the "siksadattaka" developing in the other traditions.

there are rehabilitation rules within the pali Vinayapitaka but these are the sanghadisesa rules and there is no evidence I know of for rehabilitation of the parajika rules within the pali canon.

[Bankei]

You might wish to view the research by Dr Shayne Clarke of McMaster university. See his home page for more details.

I have tried to look for this Dr but don't know which site?? can you share a link

Yes.
http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/clarsha/publications.html

Look at the third article in particular.

[Sylvester]

The Pali Vinaya is the only Vinaya that does not contain a rehab allowance for Parajika monastics. All the other known Vinayas have this allowance. I can't recall the spelling now, but it sounds vaguely like "siksadattaka" (will have to download that article from my other PC for the correct name).

I think the redactors of the Pali Vinaya were quite aware of the "siksadattaka" developing in the other traditions.

there are rehabilitation rules within the pali Vinayapitaka but these are the sanghadisesa rules and there is no evidence I know of for rehabilitation of the parajika rules within the pali canon.

That is true.

As mentioned, I think the redactors of the Pali Vinaya were aware of this allowance. They may have left a clue of this in one of the origin stories to the 1st Parajika (the one immediately following the she-monkey episode).

There, it is said that the Buddha explicitly denied the possibility of a repeal of the Parajika rule.

Whether this was truly in response to the failings of some Vajjian monks, or was inserted subsequently as a reaction to the development of the siksadattaka, is anyone's guess.

[Cittasanto]

You might wish to view the research by Dr Shayne Clarke of McMaster university. See his home page for more details.

I have tried to look for this Dr but don't know which site?? can you share a link

Yes.
http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/clarsha/publications.html

Look at the third article in particular.

Thanks, couldn't find this page

[Cittasanto]

With the exception of the Pāli Vinaya, however, all other extant Buddhist monastic law codes (Dharmaguptaka, Mahāsāṅghika, Mahīśāsaka, Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda) contain detailed provisions for monks and nuns who commit pārājikas but nevertheless wish to remain within the saṅgha.

as following this line of inquiry is outside the bounds of the pali canon; commentaries; Theravada and this subforum I would sujest if you wish to continue it, it would be better in a more open sub-forum, maybe open Dhamma. but here it would be off topic.

[Cittasanto]

If anyone is interested in starting a new thread dedicated to the secondary line of inquiry here is a link to where a thesis on the subject can be read.
http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/1012

[mikenz66]

Hmm, yes, thanks for that link. Unfortunately there won't be more such theses from here, since we no longer have any expertise in that area, since Paul Harrison got fed up and left. He's now a professor at Stanford:
http://humanexperience.stanford.edu/pharrison

From 2006:

Shayne Clarke works primarily on Indian Buddhist monasticism, with particular
reference to Buddhist monastic law codes (vinaya) preserved in Sanskrit, Pāli, Tibetan,
and Chinese. Having completed a MA in Religious Studies at Canterbury in 1999 under
the supervision of Professor Paul Harrison, he went to Japan to further his studies of
Indian Buddhism on a Monbushō scholarship. In 2002 he entered a Ph.D. programme at
UCLA (Asian Languages & Cultures), where he has continued his studies of Indian
monasticism with a minor field of specialization in Japanese Buddhism. His dissertation
(2006) is titled Family Matters in Indian Buddhist Monasticism, and uses epigraphical
and literary sources (Sanskrit drama, etc.) in addition to canonical Buddhist law codes
to reconsider the role of the family in monastic Buddhism: issues of monks and nuns,
their families, marriages, and children. He joins the Department of Religious Studies at
McMaster University (Canada) in July of 2006 as an Assistant Professor in Asian Religions.
Some recent publications include “Vinaya Mātrkā—Mother of the Monastic Codes, or
Just Another Set of Lists? A Response to Frauwallner’s Handling of the Mahāsāmghika
Vinaya” (Indo-Iranian Journal, vol. 47, no. 2, 2004, pp. 77-120; “Right Section, Wrong
Collection: An Identification of a Canonical Vinaya Text in the Tibetan bstan ’gyur—bya
ba’i phung po zhes bya ba (Kriyāskandha-nāma)” (Journal of the American Oriental
Society, vol. 124, no. 2, 2004, pp. 335-340); “Miscellaneous Musings on
Mūlasarvāstivāda Monks: The Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya Revival in Tokugawa Japan” (In
press in the Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, vol. 33, no. 1, 2006).

Mike

[gavesako]

Matchmaking service gives Buddhist monks a boost in dating market
The Japan Times, Jan. 19, 2012

Kyodo, Japan -- Buddhist monks and matchmaking services may sound like an unlikely combination, but many Buddhist sects in the country are now offering such services for their monks as their temples face a dearth of successors and possible integration with other temples.
One such sect is the Koyasan Shingon, headquartered on Mount Koya, Wakayama Prefecture.

Out of its 3,700 temples nationwide, some 800 currently have no managing monks and are being overseen by other temples.

In Japan, it is typical for relatives of monks — especially head monks — to inherit caretaker duties of their temples.

But because of a lack of successors, the monks have become desperate to find wives in order to preserve this tradition and save their temples from being closed or integrated.

According to Takua Kamei of Kongobuji, the head temple of the Shingon sect, one problem is that "the harder they pursue Buddhism, the fewer opportunities they can have to meet people of the opposite sex." (WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED??)

Kamei noted that families, known as "danka" in Japanese, which for generations have provided voluntary financial support to Buddhist temples, are also concerned about their temples if monks remain single and have no successors.

Kongobuji joined the matchmaking service in April 2009 to help its monks and their sons and daughters find partners.

Under the service, those who are interested submit to the temple forms in which they introduce themselves and state various information, including whether they are willing to live with their potential in-laws or to be adopted by their partner's family or if they mind smoking or drinking.

As of December, about 80 monks were registered as members of the free service, according to the temple. Since its launch, the service has helped two couples marry and two others begin dating.

Nishi Honganji, the head temple of the Shin Buddhism sect in Kyoto, also joined a similar service in 2007.

Twelve couples from that temple had decided to get married by the end of last September.

The Nichiren sect has meanwhile held matchmaking parties each year since 2008, managing to pair up two couples.

http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php ... 87,0,0,1,0

[Bankei]

hi Ajahn

The situation in Japan is rather unique as the 'monks' there are not Bhikkhu (an don't claim to be). They are not ordained by vinaya. Vinaya was introduced to Japan around 500AD. The Chinese monk Ganjin came over and introduced the vinaya and this flourished for a while. Gradually for political reasons some monks set up other methods of ordination such as the Bodhisattva precepts - so they could ordain their own monks away from the centrally controlled Nara temples. Tendai was involved in this, not sure if it was during Saicho's lifetime.

Anyway, throughout history there have been many attempts to renew the vinaya ordinations. Sometimes monks just started ordaning under vinaya without bring validly ordained monks from abroad. There was a vinaya sect - Risshu, it may even be still around today, but I don't think they are ordained under vinaya. There was also a subsect of the shingon, shingonrisshu i think. Then in around 1897 the government abolished the official laws regarding monks being celibate and allowed them to openly marry.

Maybe 'priest' is a better term for the Japanese 'obosan'. Although there are still training monasteries where monks live like 'monks' - such as eiheiji head of Soto Zen. But usually the monks there are from family temples and go to the monasteries for a temporary period of training.

bankei

[Bankei]

If anyone is interested in starting a new thread dedicated to the secondary line of inquiry here is a link to where a thesis on the subject can be read.
http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/1012

thanks for the link Cittasanto - have you read any of the thesis yet?

I wonder, does Clarke discuss 'pārājika penance' from the Theravada perspective?

Bankei

[Cittasanto]

no not yet.

it is almost300pages so

but on the Zen post, I have been told that vinaya ordination is not alowed by Japanese Law?
how true it is I do not know but I have no reason to disbelieve it.

[Bankei]

no not yet.

it is almost300pages so

but on the Zen post, I have been told that vinaya ordination is not alowed by Japanese Law?
how true it is I do not know but I have no reason to disbelieve it.

I cannot see on what basis vinaya ordination could be illegal. There was an imperial order around the Meiji restoration, 1868, which allows monks to have a wife and to eat meat. This is called Nikujiku Saitai 肉食妻帯, but it didn't prohibit ordinations under vinaya - this is a private matter and couldn't be regulated by the state.

Maybe a question for the Mahayana board?

Bankei

[Bankei]

Maybe a question for the Mahayana board?

Bankei

see new thread over on DharmaWheel: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=6774

[Cittasanto]

no not yet.

it is almost300pages so

but on the Zen post, I have been told that vinaya ordination is not alowed by Japanese Law?
how true it is I do not know but I have no reason to disbelieve it.

I cannot see on what basis vinaya ordination could be illegal. There was an imperial order around the Meiji restoration, 1868, which allows monks to have a wife and to eat meat. This is called Nikujiku Saitai 肉食妻帯, but it didn't prohibit ordinations under vinaya - this is a private matter and couldn't be regulated by the state.

Maybe a question for the Mahayana board?

Bankei

Like I said it is something I have been told, and have no reason to disbelieve it.

I have seen the allowance for leaving the place of the rains residence due to a kings invitation used as a means for saying the law changes the vinaya (in regard to the Parajika on theft,) I feel this is pushing the allowance to far, however, that doesn't mean the law doesn't influence the vinaya, as can be seen from the wording of the parajika on theft, and elsewhere, although this would not change the vinaya itself, and a rule would not be defunkt via the law.

If this law did exist (I have heard about,) I believe it would influence the vinaya ordination based on the reasons the sanghakamma can be adjurned, but the law you cite wouldn't stop a parajika to have sexual relations being such, (even tantric sexual practices don't stop the Parajika being in effect.)