Bhikkhuni Ordination performed - by Ajahn Brahmavamso

[pink_trike]

It is the way things were done that is most unwholesome.

Chris,

Could you please define "unwholesome" as used in this context? I'm not understanding.

[Dhammanando]

Hi Mike,

Would you be willing to venture some guidance about the issue of whether Bhikhuni ordination completely compatible with the Vinaya is actually possible, and, if not, where the key problems are?

I will consider it, and perhaps prepare something for posting when I'm next online (probably Wednesday next week).

Best wishes,
Dhammanando

[pink_trike]

All closed systems will ultimately generate what Gregory Bateson referred to as a "governor" - that is, some action, perception, substance, movement, etc...that causes the closed system to reorganize itself in a way that allows the system to adjust its internal environment in order to re-establish a stable equilibrium that incorporates denied and en-shadow-ed energies. The governor is a natural result of tensions that organically arise within any entrenched structures of any closed system.

In reality, closed systems aren't really "closed"...a closed system is (mistakenly and often unconsciously) only perceived as "closed" as an ultimately impotent protection against energies and agents of change that don't fit within the closed model. When a system is perceived as "closed" it denies realities of change that are required by larger interfacing systems of energy - the more the "closed" system resists these impulses of life (change) the more potent those impulses of life (change) will become. The form and intensity of the governor is completely determined by the pattern, intensity, and resistance of the structures within the system that keep it closed to organic, intrinsic/extrinsic change which must arise, with or without the closed system's permission.

In human systems that perceive themselves as closed, there are those that will align themselves with the patterns that gave birth to the need for a "governor" to arise - these people attempt to blame/inhibit/minimize, drive out, or at the very least, demand complete control over the "rouge" re-organizing principle. This assigning of blame to the re-organizing "governor" divides the whole into "good" and "bad", more specifically "control" and "loss of control" - and it denies that those doing the dividing and resisting change are themselves the equal parent of the governor, just as much as those who are the embodiment of the governor. Those who assign blame "out there" are denying their own complicity in the creation of the governor. They are denying their intimate, organic full participation in the creation of the exact form and intensity of the governor and projecting this creation onto the bad, unwholesome, disrespectful "other" that appears seemingly from "out there".

Dharma practice teaches us to own what we create and to own the effects that arise from causes that we participated fully in creating rather than to perceive ourselves as separate from them and then do battle with them. "Blame" for this immediate set of circumstances can't be assigned to the "governor" action that organically arose out of a situation that has been brewing inside a closed highly resistant pressure cooker for at least the last 30 years that I'm aware of, and as Manapa points out, 90 years. The form and intensity that this action took is in direct proportion to the actions and energies of the closed system. If it is considered "too direct" or "too intense" or "too far outside of the rules" or "unwholesome" and "disrespectful" then those who defend the closed system would do well to ask themselves if the system has reified itself to the point of generating earth-shattering "too...too" governors that necessarily arise outside of well-worn channels. Governors will appear precisely in direct proportion to the patterns of closed systems. As within, so without. Just like it works in the mind.

[Bankei]

I wonder what the Buddha would think of all this, particularly the type of legalistic approach like that of ven Thanissaro.

Bankei

[jcsuperstar]

well the buddha wouldnt have to think about this, he could just make nuns no questions asked, but the very legalized way the sangha rules are set us is to keep the sangha from a lot of infighting, and breaking up. there is no leader of the sangha, and it isnt a democracy where the monks can just vote out rules they dont like (though some may argue that they just drop ones they dont want to follow but thats a whole different argument) all there is is this system and if you look at the stories behind how the rules came to be, coupled with the formalities of how things are to be dealt with you (or at least i) get the sense that it is set up this way simply to maintain the sangha as an organization and to keep some monks from screwing it up for all monks.

buddhism is different from other religions where you have some guy who just says "hey theres a god, and here's some rules he's got for us", the buddha didnt just sit down and think up rules(originaly the monks didnt have rules), they came about from pretty specific events.

[Bankei]

Hi JC

Thanks for the reply. But does squabbling over minor points, or maybe even nit picking, lead to the goal which is the end of suffering.

You say the sangha isn't a democracy, but I think it is in a way. All it takes is for all the monks in a given area to agree on something and a motion can be passed - this doesn't include amending the vinaya but it applies to acts of the sangha, sanghakamma. This can be seen in this Bhkkhuni case where all the monks in the siima agreed and the ordination was conducted without approval from the hierarchy.

[Cittasanto]

I wonder what the Buddha would think of all this, particularly the type of legalistic approach like that of ven Thanissaro.

Bankei

The Buddha didn't set up groups to oversee the sangha but we live in a day and age where this is starting to emerge in one form or another and it is more feasable to have a large group meet from other areas to preform sanghakamma, so te great standard would nee to be used for such a group to have it inline with the vinaya. Dhammawiki is a good example of this people who I assume have not met before offline have met and shared their knowedge on a topic thus making the topic further explained for the Dhammawiki viewers than if these conributors had never met.

the sangha isn't a democracy although certain aspects of it are, although the issue with this bhikkhuni case is brahms conduct, and in how the ordination happeed, even if their is concensus between the monks that something is done correctly, it doesn't mean that it is done correctly.
examples of monks having to reordain can be found in the vinaya I believe, BMC, because the ordination was invalid for one reason or another, and disrobing done impropperly doesn't stop a person being a monk.

[Vardali]

Hello David, Vardali,

It doesn't make much sense ... what point is it making and in what way is it allegedly supporting the ordination of bhikkhunis?

And who wrote the Blog? ... some anonymous lay person, or if not, which bhikkhu?

metta
Chris

Here is now an official translation by the Waldkloster society

http://www.theravadablog.de/2009/11/19/ ... oster-e-v/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And as who wrote it/is it: it seems to be an umbrella society supporting/funding the German forest monasteries. Lay people as such but not anonymous, as their names are stated on their website.


As for the general "debate" here - or rather exchange of opinions - it looks remarkably similar to the boardroom politics that I see on a day-to-day basis in my professional/corporate life. So nothing new there, but who would expect this anyway. At the end of the day, each party will reap the karma that they sow, and I am happy to leave it this way

[jcsuperstar]

Hi JC

Thanks for the reply. But does squabbling over minor points, or maybe even nit picking, lead to the goal which is the end of suffering.
.

thats why i dont think precepts nessasarily lead to the end of suffering, i dont think one cant be liberated because they lick the curry off their fingers or pee standing up. the rules are there IMO to just get a large group of people getting along with one another and not looking like hillbillies in front of lay people thus turning the lay people off to the dhamma and the offering of food.

[Cittasanto]

The Vinaya is there to cultivate mindfulness, have you ever tried not standing up to urinate everytime? harder than you may think.

[jcsuperstar]

The Vinaya is there to cultivate mindfulness, have you ever tried not standing up to urinate everytime? harder than you may think.

my wife certainly wouldnt think it' harder to pee not standing up...
but yes i have, i've lived in temples and prior to getting married my plan was to be a monk, so this was one of the things i changed im my actions (better to just get this little thing out of the way now i thought), but if you look at the story of how the rule came into being i guess you could argue about it being about mindfulness, although i think one could stand and pee mindfully, but its more about how a monk is seen by others not really the inside quality of the monk.

[Cittasanto]

Like I said Mindfulness! Mindfulness of our actions, in what we do, in how we are percieved

[quote="mahasatipatthana sutta]
Sampajànapabbaü
The Section about Full Awareness
Puna ca paraü, bhikkhave, bhikkhu abhikkante pañikkante sampajànakàrã hoti;
Moreover, monks, a monk in going forwards, in going back, is one who practises with full awareness;
àlokite vilokite sampajànakàrã hoti;
in looking ahead, or in looking around, he is one who practises with full awareness;
sammiÿjite pasàrite sampajànakàrã hoti;
in bending or in stretching, he is one who practises with full awareness;
saïghàñipattacãvaradhàraõe sampajànakàrã hoti;
in bearing his double-robe, bowl, and (other) robes, he is one who practises with full awareness;
asite pãte khàyite sàyite sampajànakàrã hoti;
in eating, in drinking, in chewing, in tasting, he is one who practises with full awareness;
uccàrapassàvakamme sampajànakàrã hoti;
in passing stool and urine, he is one who practises with full awareness;[/quote]

[being5]

I've been reading this thread but have no attachment to either "side" - it's something that I feel quite neutral about.
Obviously this is not so for others.

When I read postings where Ajahn Brahm or Ajahn Sujato is referred to simply as "Brahm" or "Sujato" to me it sounds rather dismissive and disrespectful. Is it OK to drop the honorifics and refer to a monastic without at least a venerable in there?
I only ask because it gave me a jolt to read this. Like a police report "Peterson claimed he was innocent...".

Maybe it's OK, I don't know, which is why I'm asking.

being5

[jcsuperstar]

hmmm i went back and reread some posts and you are quite right Ajahn Brahm and Ajahn Sujato are writen with out the word ajahn, or phra, bhikkhu etc. while Ajahn Sumedho et al, have kept their titles...

[BlackBird]

Wouldn't read too much into it.

metta
Jack