Hi Lojong,
I am asking about the vinaya used by Bhiksus.
Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?
Yes, that is all it takes to become a monk/nun these days...or what have I missed?Cittasanto wrote:Hi Lojong,
I am asking about the vinaya used by Bhiksus.
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?
They may be considered monks or nuns but not Bhikkhus/Bhikkhuni. They can not take part in Sangha-Kamma or anything a Bhikkhu or Bhikkhuni can.lojong1 wrote:Yes, that is all it takes to become a monk/nun these days...or what have I missed?Cittasanto wrote:Hi Lojong,
I am asking about the vinaya used by Bhiksus.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?
Verily I tell thee, their buddha disagrees.Cittasanto wrote:They may be considered monks or nuns but not Bhikkhus/Bhikkhuni. They can not take part in Sangha-Kamma or anything a Bhikkhu or Bhikkhuni can.
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?
theirs can all he wants, the Vinaya trumps him in this regard.lojong1 wrote:Verily I tell thee, their buddha disagrees.Cittasanto wrote:They may be considered monks or nuns but not Bhikkhus/Bhikkhuni. They can not take part in Sangha-Kamma or anything a Bhikkhu or Bhikkhuni can.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?
from newkadampatruth.org:
"Smear: NKT ordination is not valid
Truth: Because the system of ordination in the NKT follows Buddha Shakyamuni’s teachings on ordination interpreted by Geshe Potowa (1031-1106), and this contains the essential meaning of all ordination, it is entirely valid.
It is important to understand the essential meaning of ordination before judging whether NKT ordination is valid or not. Just because it is different from the Tibetan tradition doesn't make it invalid.
At the present time the NKT-IKBU has about 700 ordained people around the world. The way of granting ordination was designed by Geshe Kelsang following the ancient Kadampa tradition. It is very simple and very practical.
The definition of ordination vow is a special moral discipline motivated by renunciation and received by means of a ritual practice given by an Ordaining Preceptor. This is true for all traditions of ordination in Buddhism. The aspect of the ordination may change in accordance with the conventions of society but, for as long as the essential meaning of ordination is maintained, it is entirely valid.
The real meaning of ordination is to develop the mind of renunciation (the wish for liberation from samsara's suffering) and then to practice the actual method for attaining liberation, which is called “the three higher trainings” – the practices of higher moral discipline, higher concentration and higher wisdom, until liberation or nirvana is achieved.
Traditionally, Tibetan Buddhism follows the Vinaya Sutra, which comes from the Hinayana tradition. In the system of Tibetan Buddhism, the level of ordination is determined by the number of vows. Someone is a fully ordained monk if they hold 253 vows, or a fully ordained nun if they hold 364 vows. (There is no longer any tradition for full ordination for women in the Tibetan tradition and so Tibetan Buddhist nuns are secondary to monks.)
The NKT ordination follows the tradition of ordination explained by Geshe Potowa and other Kadampa Geshes. According to this system, it is the level of renunciation that determines the level of ordination, not how many vows you hold. In NKT ordination, a monk or a nun becomes 'fully ordained' (Gelong or Bhikshu (monk), Gelongma or Bhikshuni (nun)) by holding the ten vows of ordination and having developed the realization of renunciation, that is, having developed the spontaneous wish for liberation such that it is ever-present in the mind, day and night.
The essence of the ten ordination vows of a Kadampa monk or nun is the condensation of all the vows of a fully ordained monk or nun contained in the Vinaya Sutra. The ten ordination vows are derived from a different teaching of Buddha, a Mahayana Sutra called The Perfection of Wisdom Sutra. The vows are very practical, compatible with the norms of Western society and can easily be integrated into daily spiritual practice. Moreover, monks and nuns are equal; there is no discrimination against nuns.
For more information on ordination in the New Kadampa Tradition, please see the following two articles explaining the nature and function of NKT ordination and the authenticity of its lineage. There you will find the listing of all 253 vows of a fully ordained monk and see how they are not contradictory to the ten vows taken and kept by a monk or a nun in the New Kadampa Tradition."
"Smear: NKT ordination is not valid
Truth: Because the system of ordination in the NKT follows Buddha Shakyamuni’s teachings on ordination interpreted by Geshe Potowa (1031-1106), and this contains the essential meaning of all ordination, it is entirely valid.
It is important to understand the essential meaning of ordination before judging whether NKT ordination is valid or not. Just because it is different from the Tibetan tradition doesn't make it invalid.
At the present time the NKT-IKBU has about 700 ordained people around the world. The way of granting ordination was designed by Geshe Kelsang following the ancient Kadampa tradition. It is very simple and very practical.
The definition of ordination vow is a special moral discipline motivated by renunciation and received by means of a ritual practice given by an Ordaining Preceptor. This is true for all traditions of ordination in Buddhism. The aspect of the ordination may change in accordance with the conventions of society but, for as long as the essential meaning of ordination is maintained, it is entirely valid.
The real meaning of ordination is to develop the mind of renunciation (the wish for liberation from samsara's suffering) and then to practice the actual method for attaining liberation, which is called “the three higher trainings” – the practices of higher moral discipline, higher concentration and higher wisdom, until liberation or nirvana is achieved.
Traditionally, Tibetan Buddhism follows the Vinaya Sutra, which comes from the Hinayana tradition. In the system of Tibetan Buddhism, the level of ordination is determined by the number of vows. Someone is a fully ordained monk if they hold 253 vows, or a fully ordained nun if they hold 364 vows. (There is no longer any tradition for full ordination for women in the Tibetan tradition and so Tibetan Buddhist nuns are secondary to monks.)
The NKT ordination follows the tradition of ordination explained by Geshe Potowa and other Kadampa Geshes. According to this system, it is the level of renunciation that determines the level of ordination, not how many vows you hold. In NKT ordination, a monk or a nun becomes 'fully ordained' (Gelong or Bhikshu (monk), Gelongma or Bhikshuni (nun)) by holding the ten vows of ordination and having developed the realization of renunciation, that is, having developed the spontaneous wish for liberation such that it is ever-present in the mind, day and night.
The essence of the ten ordination vows of a Kadampa monk or nun is the condensation of all the vows of a fully ordained monk or nun contained in the Vinaya Sutra. The ten ordination vows are derived from a different teaching of Buddha, a Mahayana Sutra called The Perfection of Wisdom Sutra. The vows are very practical, compatible with the norms of Western society and can easily be integrated into daily spiritual practice. Moreover, monks and nuns are equal; there is no discrimination against nuns.
For more information on ordination in the New Kadampa Tradition, please see the following two articles explaining the nature and function of NKT ordination and the authenticity of its lineage. There you will find the listing of all 253 vows of a fully ordained monk and see how they are not contradictory to the ten vows taken and kept by a monk or a nun in the New Kadampa Tradition."
Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?
May this long remain true. They have taken over this city and are spreading quickly. Dorje Shugden is the least of our worries.Cittasanto wrote:theirs can all he wants, the Vinaya trumps him in this regard.lojong1 wrote:Verily I tell thee, their buddha disagrees.Cittasanto wrote:They may be considered monks or nuns but not Bhikkhus/Bhikkhuni. They can not take part in Sangha-Kamma or anything a Bhikkhu or Bhikkhuni can.
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?
It looks like a lay-ordination not a Vinaya ordination. doesn't mean it isn't valid in it's aim, but invalid non-the-less regarding whether they are Bhikkhus or Bhikkhunis.lojong1 wrote:May this long remain true. They have taken over this city and are spreading quickly. Dorje Shugden is the least of our worries.
I do not fully know who that dorje shugden is but as Theravada has nothing to do with it I need not care about it.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?
That's why I'm repeating, because it is so strange, and I want to be sure you understand me -- these ten commitments are their entire Vinaya! It is the most popular version of the vinaya/pratimoksha in this area. Your view, the one I like, is the minority here.Cittasanto wrote:It looks like a lay-ordination not a Vinaya ordination.
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Theravada or Root-yana, whatever?
popularity is not a guage for much other than popularity. Fortunately the Buddha didn't go with what was popular and went the hard road to find the truth.lojong1 wrote:That's why I'm repeating, because it is so strange, and I want to be sure you understand me -- these ten commitments are their entire Vinaya! It is the most popular version of the vinaya/pratimoksha in this area. Your view, the one I like, is the minority here.Cittasanto wrote:It looks like a lay-ordination not a Vinaya ordination.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill