Chris wrote:Please partake in the joyous occasion of the re-establishment of the original lineage of nuns (Bhikkhunis) -established by the Bhudda 2000+ years ago - right here in Western Australia by Ajahn Brahm.
Chris wrote:I'm not sure about the composition of the group ordaining the Bhikkhunis in the previous attempts. Does anyone know?
TheDhamma wrote:Chris wrote:I'm not sure about the composition of the group ordaining the Bhikkhunis in the previous attempts. Does anyone know?
In the previous full ordinations in the U.S. they used Theravada bhikkhus and Mahayana nuns for the double-ordination. I think the Mahyana nuns had the Dharmagupta lineage which goes back as far as the Theravada to the Vibhajjavada - Third Council time period.
BlackBird wrote:I recently read Ayya Khema's autobiography, it mentions she was ordained as a nun under Ven. Narada Maha Thera in 1979, but she only mentions that she recieved her full Bhikkhuni ordination in California "much later."
I don't know what date this would be, but certainly before 1990 I would assume.
Full-steam ahead for the reinstation of the Bhikkhuni Lineage
Paññāsikhara wrote:For issues like this, I actually sometimes think that it is a little bit misleading to refer to the preceptors, whether bhiksus or bhiksunis, as "Mahayana" monks or nuns. After all, their preceptor status is due to their bhiksu/ni upasampada, and nothing to do with their bodhisattva precepts. It may be more appropriate to refer to them primarily as "Dharmagupta" bhiksu/nis, with a note of the Mahayana bodhisattva precepts, both through the Chinese traditions, as really quite secondary.
Blackbird wrote:I wonder what the reasons are for not reinstating the Bhikkhuni order in Thailand and Burma?
Dhammanando wrote:""Dhammânandâ has omitted some details - vital details, for they have a bearing
on why the Dharmaguptaka bhikkhunî lineage is considered dubious by vinayadharas
in the Theravada tradition (and also, I believe by those in the Mulasarvastivada
tradition of Tibet).
The original transmission (or rather, alleged transmission) of the bhikkhunî
ordination to China in fact took place in 357 CE. This alleged transmission was
carried out by bhikkhus alone and was therefore INVALID by Theravadin criteria.
It led, however, to a century-long tradition of Chinese bhikkhunî ordinations
being given by bhikkhus alone. Moving forward to 433 CE, of the 300 women
ordained in this year some had not done the two years' training as a sikkhamâna,
while others had already been living as bhikkhunîs beforehand, having received
ordination from the bhikkhu sangha alone. Therefore, by Theravadin criteria
their ordinations failed on the grounds of "defect in the material to be
ordained" (vatthu-vipatti). Those women who had never been sikkhamânas were
ineligible to be ordained until they had fulfilled this preliminary training.
Those women who had already been one-sidedly ordained were living in communion
by theft and were therefore banned for life from receiving a genuine bhikkhunî
ordination. Therefore Dharmaguptaka nuns are not bhikkhunîs by Theravadin
criteria. Moreover, this judgment is not unique to the Theravada, for even
within the Dharmaguptaka tradition the validity of Dharmaguptaka bhikkhunî
ordinations has been challenged, notably by the Taiwanese Vinaya master Ven.
Dao-hai. Dao-hai has argued that at several points in Chinese history the
bhikkhunî paramparâ was irreparably broken (see his Discussion of
Bhikshuni Ordination and its Lineage in China, Based on Scriptures of
Chinese Vinaya and Historical facts, p. 18-19, Dharamsala 1998).
To carry out formal transactions of the sangha in such an irregular manner is
not a "loophole"; it is a violation of Vinaya and a defect that invalidates the
being5 wrote: In one talk each of the nuns speaks briefly about what full ordination would mean to her.
Chris wrote:Hello all,
It remains to be seen whether this action by Ajahn Brahms causes division in the worldwide Theravada Ordained Sangha, and whether it actually has positive or negative affects in the years to come.
Maybe a slower process (which was being worked through) with more consulation and eventual consensus would have been a better alternative?