plwk wrote:I guess Ven Indrajala, this thread is discussing what it should be and not what it really is happening...
I too have my own experiences with such but what's the point of repeating about the obvious elephant in the room when the elephant knows it's not suppose to be there?
If the rules clearly don't work or have the intended effect, might as well update them accordingly. If people have become degenerate, then it is unlikely you'll whip them back into shape with archaic customs and rules. Lament that all you like, but let's be realistic and accommodating.
If the Vinaya literature is to be believed, the Buddha's sangha was democratic. The appropriate proceedings for organizational decision making were done by communal dialogue and vote (you propose something a certain amount of times and provided there are no objections the motion is considered passed). This was how things were done in various Indo-European communities in ancient India, like in the Buddha's homeland. In English we call it them republics.
I would say the Buddha would have been fine with democratically adjusting and updating rules and regulations.
However, most monasteries and Buddhist orders are effectively dictatorships or oligarchies, which Vinaya proponents often seem to overlook. They'll insist on keeping archaic social customs and precepts, but the democratic procedures are overlooked or ignored.
So, in the absence of democratic sangha models and workable procedures for intelligent reform, we can ignore illegitimate ecclesiastical authority and simply do our own thing, like update the rules, ordain women, eat dinner, etc.