Bhikkhuni Ordination performed - by Ajahn Brahmavamso

[Dan74]

21 pages into this topic and I am wondering how people are finding it useful for their practice?

To me these kinds of disputes are disheartening for beginners and distracting for the rest.

But I am curious to hear other perspectives.

_/|\_

[BlackBird]

Certainly hasn't benefited my practice.

[mikenz66]

Hi Dan,

I agree. Not particularly helpful to anyone, as far as I can see.

What puzzles me is why those who have no confidence in the Thai Sangha in general and WPP in particular care what they do with regard to Bhikkhuni ordination, etc. Why not just ignore them and seek teaching from someplace else that you do have confidence in?

If I had no confidence in my teachers and my general support environment I would rather move on than generate negative mind-states over it.

Metta
Mike

[bodhabill]

Hi Dan

LOL 22 pages now because of your post !!

Agree with you, but there are positive sides to everything and I have 'met' some very interesting and knowledgeable people here on this topic and been introduced to other teachers and teachings that I had not been exposed to before

Hi Mike

What puzzles me is why those who have no confidence in the Thai Sangha in general and WPP in particular care what they do with regard to Bhikkhuni ordination, etc.

Maybe because it is worth trying to correct perceived wrongs and ensure a balanced view is put forward

My perception is that the Thai Sangha has erred in its decision, yours is that it has not, both sides are valid and have been worth debating

My honest hope now is that both sides now can peacefully co-exist as they travel slightly different paths

This comment is not designed to flare the argument up again so anyone reading it should take it in the 'right speech' spirit it was written in

With Metta
Bill

[BlackBird]

This raises another question however, and in this case it is mostly unrelated to the Bhikkhuni/WPP issue.

Do we not have a duty as lay people, to shore up bad behavior? Is not the Canon filled with examples of the laity complaining to the Buddha of monks behaving badly? Is not the laity a vital check and balance in ensuring the integrity of the Monastic community?

I think this relationship of symbiosis has fallen out of kilter.

[cooran]

Do we not have a duty as lay people, to shore up bad behavior? Is not the Canon filled with examples of the laity complaining to the Buddha of monks behaving badly? Is not the laity a vital check and balance in ensuring the integrity of the Monastic community?

No to each.

[BlackBird]

Do we not have a duty as lay people, to shore up bad behavior? Is not the Canon filled with examples of the laity complaining to the Buddha of monks behaving badly? Is not the laity a vital check and balance in ensuring the integrity of the Monastic community?

No to each.

Why? Could you please provide some supporting evidence?

One of the lay responsibilities that shows up especially in Vinaya literature is that of keeping the monks in line. Or, to put it in a less vulgar and accusatory way, so many of the monastic rules are formulated not for the sake of training the monks, but instead of allow the lay community to have confidence in the Sangha.

While I am not going to speak out against having reverence for the Sangha, it is nice to think of respect as something precious and valued, and not a foregone conclusion. Perhaps you would see fewer “buddhist” teachers up to seriously shady business if this kind of respect had a few more strings attached.

- http://dharmafolk.wordpress.com/2008/07 ... ace-monks/

Having read the BMC a couple of times, I can see the author's point in the part I emphasized. I like the general gist of what the author is saying too, but I am prepared to question whether it is indeed what the Buddha intended, hence the question marks in my original post.

metta
Jack

[bodhabill]

This raises another question however, and in this case it is mostly unrelated to the Bhikkhuni/WPP issue.

Do we not have a duty as lay people, to shore up bad behavior? Is not the Canon filled with examples of the laity complaining to the Buddha of monks behaving badly? Is not the laity a vital check and balance in ensuring the integrity of the Monastic community?

I think this relationship of symbiosis has fallen out of kilter.

Hi Jack

An interesting topic and perhaps one that perhaps could be started in a new thread

The Buddhist community was and always has been the Fourfold Sangha consisting of bhikkhus bhikkhunis upasakas and upasikas

Imho the laity are not part of the Fourfold Sangha just to provide ongoing dana and robes once a year but to also actively participate in their monastic community

With metta
Bill

[Cittasanto]

Who translated the transcript? http://www.alittlebuddha.com/
does everyone immediately know who or what the dharmagupta are?
as the Vinaya line and Mahayana are linked together easier to use an immediately understandable word when translating.

Well, add an explanation then. Just say: "... Dhammagutta (one of the early Vibhajjavada Theravada / Sthaviravada schools) ..." Not hard, is it?

"mahayana" is not a translation of "dhammagutta".

They are related, by association, yes. But because in most Theravada countries they basically believe that the Mahayana is heretical, evil and whatnot, the term "mahayana" is not in any way an appropriate substitute in this context.

So, by saying that "mahayana" is an understandable translation of "dhammagutta", it is totally incorrect.
Their so-called "understanding" is of something totally different. So, it makes the confusion even worse.

I didn't say it was a translation of dhammagutta, I said it is understandable word to use instead of, in other words because of the link the translator may of altered the word used when translating so everyone knew who was being reffered to, the speakers could of used the term for the same purpose, this could of been because they wished it to be understood who was being refered to by everyone, but because Brahm (in the transcript) uses the word also and in light of what sujato has said in some of his research and on youtube it is in my opinion doubtful that it was used by at least one person there, unless it was for clarity of who was being referred.
it is a case of I'm giving them (all) the benefit of the doubt. look at the use of the term hinayana in use, it can stir up some very hurt feelings and emotional responses, as in this case the term mahayana can be used in the same way, it is better to give them all the benefit of the doubt than tar them all with the same brush of either ignorance or bigotry.

[Paññāsikhara]

I've been trying to think of an analogy, and maybe this is as close as I can get:

A branch campus in Italy of a Jewish university in Tel Aviv is looking for a professor of the old testament. They already have great scholars with the Hebrew bible, but they know that this is insufficient. So, they decide that they need an old testament scholar who knows Greek and Latin, too. They have an applicant, from the United States, an old testament scholar. She is a Christian, but knows her old testament well. Once she studied Islamic interpretation of the New Testament, in the USA. So, the head of the branch campus in Italy hires her, and gives her the job. Soon, the main campus in Tel Aviv calls up the head of the branch campus, and demands an explanation: "Why have you employed a Muslim professor?"

It's not the perfect analogy, but if you actually have a good think about it...

[Cittasanto]

Hi Manapa

I was just trying to point out that these monks live in a different world to the average Westerner and therefore have different views on women and Buddhism to most people so it may be a bit much to expect them to be over enthusiastic about women ordaining.

An yes, Mike, what I wrote was stereotypical and there are many exceptions out there. There are many educated and knowledgeable Thais out there (just not probably monks of the WPP group!).

Bankei

so you use derogatory stereotypes why?

What was derogatory?

It may be hard to imagine, for those who haven't lived in Thailand. The education level and general knowledge of the monks, especially those outside of bangkok, is very low by western standards. So don't expect too much!

OK. what you put here in this post and the other is another way of saying they are to stupid & backward to know better, because the length of time the western monks have been there they are essentially the same.
There is only one purpose I know of to use negative generalised statements or generalised statements in threads such as this, comparing two different cultures (one negatively), and that is to generate dislike for that culture, education level and the rest don't necessarily denote wrong view, of the local populus or people who live there!
I could say based on my experiance that people who commit adultery are not honest, although this would be based on fact it wouldn't be relevant to a thread on sexual misconduct, because it would be making the thread personal and not about the action or views.

[Cittasanto]

Had computer problems then, so lost the original I was trying to post
I can see two possibilities here
1 - it is referring to Brahms excommunication from the Thai Sangha.
in this case it is don't hire (or accept a job) someone who doesn't agree with the rules of the organisation, this could be because the organisation has changed or the employee has, or the goals were not compatible from the start, be honest and don't accept the post or leave, voice the concerns but don't try and have your cake, with Ice-cream when ice-cream isn't available.
2 - be accurate with your words
three possibilities with this one in reference the the use of Mahayana
A - assuming it wasn't the transcriber changing it - as Ajahn Brahm is the first to use the term Mahayana, they were following his lead, and the closeness to hinayana use and derogatory meaning you point out is inferred by the reader.
B - assuming it was changed, my earlier remark "don't trust every translation" is still relevant, and would be relevant to 'A' as there are different ways the word can be understood, plus the word in itself does not automatically refer to a derogatory meaning in use to a group.
C - assuming it was used independently by each speaker, the context could be read in a non-representational manner, whether by the words used or the translators translation style, remember there were allot of hurt feelings about the way brahm went about this & Mahayana is and can be used with no derogatory meaning associated unlike the hinayana counterpart.

unless you have specific evidence that they used the term Mahayana in a derogatory manner, meaning to be derogatory to the Mahayana then this would just be circular.

I've been trying to think of an analogy, and maybe this is as close as I can get:

A branch campus in Italy of a Jewish university in Tel Aviv is looking for a professor of the old testament. They already have great scholars with the Hebrew bible, but they know that this is insufficient. So, they decide that they need an old testament scholar who knows Greek and Latin, too. They have an applicant, from the United States, an old testament scholar. She is a Christian, but knows her old testament well. Once she studied Islamic interpretation of the New Testament, in the USA. So, the head of the branch campus in Italy hires her, and gives her the job. Soon, the main campus in Tel Aviv calls up the head of the branch campus, and demands an explanation: "Why have you employed a Muslim professor?"

It's not the perfect analogy, but if you actually have a good think about it...

[Cittasanto]

21 pages into this topic and I am wondering how people are finding it useful for their practice?

To me these kinds of disputes are disheartening for beginners and distracting for the rest.

But I am curious to hear other perspectives.

_/|\_

As already pointed out you made this 22 pages

but yes, I am.
if you look back earlier in the thread my (at best) wording was borderline, it is giving me a good practice of restraint, and practice of metta.

[roni]

Has been useful (up to now), finding many people (mostly through the FaceBook page) who think of theravada (monastic and lay), social issues (getting involved or not), Aj Brahm etc. simillarly to how I do. A good friend is not only the half of holy life...

[Bankei]

Hi Manapa

I can't really understand what you are trying to say. But I didn't say WPP Thai monks are stupid, but that they come from a different world view with lower academic education levels than the general levels in the West. I don't think there is any dispute about this.

People growing up in different societies hold different views as well. In the West there is a general feeling of equality - although women are still disadvantaged to a degree. Thai society is a vertical society - the senior/junior, age and status are important as well as wealth, much more so that the in West.

Have you ever been to Thailand? If so ever been to Isarn?

[Paññāsikhara]

Had computer problems then, so lost the original I was trying to post
I can see two possibilities here
1 - it is referring to Brahms excommunication from the Thai Sangha.
in this case it is don't hire (or accept a job) someone who doesn't agree with the rules of the organisation, this could be because the organisation has changed or the employee has, or the goals were not compatible from the start, be honest and don't accept the post or leave, voice the concerns but don't try and have your cake, with Ice-cream when ice-cream isn't available.
2 - be accurate with your words
three possibilities with this one in reference the the use of Mahayana
A - assuming it wasn't the transcriber changing it - as Ajahn Brahm is the first to use the term Mahayana, they were following his lead, and the closeness to hinayana use and derogatory meaning you point out is inferred by the reader.
B - assuming it was changed, my earlier remark "don't trust every translation" is still relevant, and would be relevant to 'A' as there are different ways the word can be understood, plus the word in itself does not automatically refer to a derogatory meaning in use to a group.
C - assuming it was used independently by each speaker, the context could be read in a non-representational manner, whether by the words used or the translators translation style, remember there were allot of hurt feelings about the way brahm went about this & Mahayana is and can be used with no derogatory meaning associated unlike the hinayana counterpart.

unless you have specific evidence that they used the term Mahayana in a derogatory manner, meaning to be derogatory to the Mahayana then this would just be circular.

I've been trying to think of an analogy, and maybe this is as close as I can get:

A branch campus in Italy of a Jewish university in Tel Aviv is looking for a professor of the old testament. They already have great scholars with the Hebrew bible, but they know that this is insufficient. So, they decide that they need an old testament scholar who knows Greek and Latin, too. They have an applicant, from the United States, an old testament scholar. She is a Christian, but knows her old testament well. Once she studied Islamic interpretation of the New Testament, in the USA. So, the head of the branch campus in Italy hires her, and gives her the job. Soon, the main campus in Tel Aviv calls up the head of the branch campus, and demands an explanation: "Why have you employed a Muslim professor?"

It's not the perfect analogy, but if you actually have a good think about it...

Hi Manapa

I didn't mention anything about being derogatory. The point I am making is that the ordination of those nuns has nothing to do with a Mahayana ordination.

Perhaps you can share with us your understanding of how a "triple platform ordination" works, and how the bhiksuni ordination is Mahayana, because I certainly cannot see how it is.

[Cittasanto]

Hi Paññāsikhara
I was using derogatory as a short form for this.

They are related, by association, yes. But because in most Theravada countries they basically believe that the Mahayana is heretical, evil and whatnot, the term "mahayana" is not in any way an appropriate substitute in this context.

i took this to be how you thought the term was being used in the transcript, considering the other comment by bankai, about how Mahayana is being used like Hinayana, and your response

Yes, it has nothing to do with Mahayana. That lineage of bhikkhuni ordination is from other Sthavira lineages.

I simply pointed out that it could of be used in that way, even though historically inaccurate.
Do you know of a surviving Vinaya lineage which isn't Sthavira? as I have said the Mahayana is a teaching lineage, not a Vinaya Lineage, but I wasn't claiming it was anything else I was talking about the use of the term on this occasion as found in the transcript.

[Paññāsikhara]

I am going to leave it here. I guess I am expecting too much from a Theravada forum.

[mikenz66]

Hi Venerable,

I am going to leave it here. I guess I am expecting too much from a Theravada forum.

I think that there is some confusion in this discussion. I don't think anyone disagrees with you about what what terminology should be used.

However, the transcript http://sujato.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/ ... ahn-brahm/ has Ajahn Brahm explaining the background of the preceptor like this:

A bhikkhuni was Pavattini (Upajjhaya). Tathaaloka has been to Thailand long ago. She has 12 Pansa (Vassas/Years since full ordination). She was ordained in the Mahayana in a sect in the United States.

Who knows what has been lost in translation from what he said in Thai, and whether the English is garbled. Maybe he mentioned the Vinaya line (he's certainly well aware of that), and it didn't get translated, or maybe he thought it was more understandable to say that Ven Tathaaloka was ordained by a Mahayana Bhikshuni (I'm not sure of all the details of her ordination).

Metta
Mike

[cooran]

Hello Jack,

Only just noticed your post ....

No deep explanation ....

The questions were:

blackbird said: Do we not have a duty as lay people, to shore up bad behavior?

To shore up means to strengthen. Lay people do not have a duty to strengthen bad behaviour.
No example was given of bad behaviour either of type or who it was performed by.

Is not the Canon filled with examples of the laity complaining to the Buddha of monks behaving badly?

Not to my knowledge. If the Canon is filled with examples, I'm assuming you mean scores of complaints. Please provide links.

Is not the laity a vital check and balance in ensuring the integrity of the Monastic community?

No. A monks' integrity is the primary responsibility of himself, his upajaya, and the community of bhikkhus.
Sure, laypersons have a small role ~ I've given alms on the streets of Bangkok with Thai laypeople who "did not see" and therefore "did not invite" a monk on the other side of the street to come for alms. When I began to make the slight bow (Wai) to invite him to come, the other ladies, without looking up, hissed and whispered "no, bad monk! bad monk!". They did not tell me anything more, and I did not ask. But that is really the extent of lay persons influence ~ anything more would involve gossip, and wrong speech. So .... not a vital check ~ he still got alms down the road.

metta
Chris