Brahm preceptor status revoked

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Assaji
Posts: 2106
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: Brahm preceptor status revoked

Post by Assaji »

Hi Anders,

You should read that letter more carefully. : ) Specifically:
Anders Honore wrote:Please be assured that, while I express these reservations about the way Ajahn Brahm proceeded in this affair, I still lend him my moral support just as much as I support the revival of bhikkhuni ordination in the Theravāda tradition.
Bhikkhu Bodhi supports the Bhikkhuni ordination as such, not this particular ordination.
And who will decide what's correct?
That is of course the question.
That's the key question. Without a clear authority, except some undefined 'scholarly opinion', the whole thing will end up in small sects, and eventually perish, as it did in India.

So I'm glad the Thai Sangha undertakes decisive actions.
My point here is your portrayal of Ajahn Brahms as someone who goes simply his own way without regard for protocol or vinaya is inaccurate. He has acted in accord with what he believes the Vinaya to say and that is an interpretration supported by many reputable scholars.

I am quite aware that there are reputable scholars who will say otherwise as well, but I think the above is sufficient to establish that your claim that he 'wanted to split from Forest Sangha and establish his own rules' is not an accurate portrayal of what has happened. Your attribution of questionable motivations is something I likewise would consider, if not slanderous, then certainly lowering the tone of debate.
Well, let's discuss facts. Here's what Ajahn Brahm said:

"... One of the biggest myths is that bhikkhunis in the Mahayana tradition are somehow separated from the Theravada. But the truth of the matter is, there is no such thing as a Mahayana Vinaya. In all the Mahayana schools, they follow mostly a Dharmagupta Vinaya. Dharmagupta is one of the Theravada sects. They follow Theravada Vinaya. So the bhikkhunis we see even now in Taiwan and China is a lineage that is unbroken since the time of the Buddha. ..."

http://www.bangkokpost.com/leisure/leis ... i-question" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I can't desist from a joke.

Guess what's that thing -
- uses Dharmagupta Vinaya transmission;
- follows Sarvastivada Agama texts;
- calls itself Theravada?

Answer:
It's Australian pre-sectarian Buddhism :^)
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Brahm preceptor status revoked

Post by Cittasanto »

hi Dmytro,
I think it is a myth that each of the vinayas are the same, they aren't.

and I know I am agreeing with you! :woohoo: I'm agreeing with someone.
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
User avatar
Assaji
Posts: 2106
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: Brahm preceptor status revoked

Post by Assaji »

Hi Vardali,
Vardali wrote:This is pretty much the approach, he is proposing, so again: I simply fail to see where this approach is an "attack on Theravada" part.
If accusation of schizophrenia and mythological idiosyncrasy of the doctrine isn't enough, here's a juicy passage from "A History of Mindfulness" by Sujato, page 199:

"the Theravada Abhidhamma scholars, for all their insistence on radical momentariness, still betray a nervousness, amounting almost to neurosis, in their obsessively repetitive texts, a massive attempt to freeze the Dhamma in a matrix of abstract, contextless, and bloodless dhammas"

And given that Abhidhamma is in high regard in the Theravadin countries, no wonder that Sujato went his own way.
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: Brahm preceptor status revoked

Post by Paññāsikhara »

Dmytro wrote:
I can't desist from a joke.

Guess what's that thing -
- uses Dharmagupta Vinaya transmission;
- follows Sarvastivada Agama texts;
- calls itself Theravada?

Answer:
It's Australian pre-sectarian Buddhism :^)
:jumping:

You forgot that the "dharmagupta vinaya" is also via a quite distinctive Sinicized form, too. And that part of this Sinicized Dharmagupta vinaya form involves elements of synthesis of Mahasamghika and Sarvastivada vinayas (may stand corrected on which two schools here, but I think it was these two), which were quite popular in China before they went "all dharmagupta".

I have a problem with this statement:

In all the Mahayana schools, they follow mostly a Dharmagupta Vinaya. Dharmagupta is one of the Theravada sects. They follow Theravada Vinaya.

Because the first use of "Theravada" is in the sense of vis-a-vis Mahasamghika, at the first split; whereas the second usage of the the word "Theravada" seems to imply that it is just the same as that of what we nowadays call the "Theravada" (ie. the Sthavira / Thera tradition preserved by the Mahavihara,) and so there is no conflict with the Theravada school.

Reminds me of a good friend of mine, Bhante "A", a Thai bhikkhu (since age 10, or so, now about 30), who has been studying in Taiwan for maybe about 6 years now. We were talking about the Nikayas and Agamas, this whole "early / original Buddhism" idea. He said that actually, much of "original Buddhism" in Taiwanese academia has already become "Samyuktagama studies".
Last edited by Paññāsikhara on Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
User avatar
Assaji
Posts: 2106
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: Brahm preceptor status revoked

Post by Assaji »

Manapa wrote:and I know I am agreeing with you! :woohoo: I'm agreeing with someone.
Have a good day, Manapa :rofl:
User avatar
Vardali
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:56 am

Re: Brahm preceptor status revoked

Post by Vardali »

Dmytro wrote:Hi Vardali,
Vardali wrote:This is pretty much the approach, he is proposing, so again: I simply fail to see where this approach is an "attack on Theravada" part.
If accusation of schizophrenia and mythological idiosyncrasy of the doctrine isn't enough, here's a juicy passage from "A History of Mindfulness" by Sujato, page 199:

"the Theravada Abhidhamma scholars, for all their insistence on radical momentariness, still betray a nervousness, amounting almost to neurosis, in their obsessively repetitive texts, a massive attempt to freeze the Dhamma in a matrix of abstract, contextless, and bloodless dhammas"

And given that Abhidhamma is in high regard in the Theravadin countries, no wonder that Sujato went his own way.
I guess this just proves that perceptions vary.

The references to psychological illnesses (be they schizophrenia or neurosis etc.) to me is just a case of contemporary verbal dhiarrea found pretty commonly these days. Neither do I know if it is used in a medical correct form, nor do I know if this attributable beyond individual diagnosis. So, frankly, I can see that you find this offensive; personally, I find it irrelevant.

The part about mythological elements within religions in general, including Buddhism, I would agree with, though, it mirrors my experience so far. But then, that's just personal empiricism and as such "opinion".

Ven Sujato obviously doesn't think uch of the Abhidamma, but then he is not alone in questioning it, if I just go by the popluar thread here
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2169" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But anyway, I guess you answered my question, so thanks very much, even though I disagree with your assessment; I am out of here now :)

:anjali:
User avatar
appicchato
Posts: 1602
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:47 am
Location: Bridge on the River Kwae

Re: Brahm preceptor status revoked

Post by appicchato »

Anders Honore wrote:From an academic pov, there is much in Sujato's writings that strike me as a product of undisciplined and often unsound method. He's obviously smart and well educated in the material he uses, but I tend to take his lines of reasoning with a grain of salt. I also recommend something sweet on the side for his rather acerbic rethoric.

Still, he raises some very interesting points and does present some edifying material.
Great review Anders... :thumbsup:
User avatar
Anders
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: Brahm preceptor status revoked

Post by Anders »

Dmytro wrote:Hi Anders,

Bhikkhu Bodhi supports the Bhikkhuni ordination as such, not this particular ordination.
I don't think that can be supported by the letter, seeing as he explicitly says:

I regard the women who have taken this ordination, whether from lineages based in the so-called “Mahayana countries” or from the recently emergent Theravada bhikkhunis, as legitimately ordained bhikkhunis, fully entitled to participate in the Sangha acts prescribed for them in the Vinaya. I also believe that a full-scale revival of the Bhikkhuni Sangha and its unqualified acceptance by the Bhikkhu Sangha is an imperative for the Theravāda tradition in our time.
That's the key question. Without a clear authority, except some undefined 'scholarly opinion', the whole thing will end up in small sects, and eventually perish, as it did in India.
I think that's a false argument. Buddhism in India did not die out because it had a multitude of sects. The primary cause for this is easily traced to the moslem invasions in the 12th century.

The problem with the notion of a central authority is, to whom do we grant such an central authority? The Thai Sangha, an organ with secular affiliations peculiar to Thailand? That might suffice in the modern age for Thailand itself, but it is not a construct the Buddha envisioned (though tbf, the Vinaya was created in an environment of much more geographically limited communication and interaction) and it is questionable whether it will be capable of handling the issues of international Theravada Buddhism. The current issue is a case in point.
Well, let's discuss facts. Here's what Ajahn Brahm said:

"... One of the biggest myths is that bhikkhunis in the Mahayana tradition are somehow separated from the Theravada. But the truth of the matter is, there is no such thing as a Mahayana Vinaya. In all the Mahayana schools, they follow mostly a Dharmagupta Vinaya. Dharmagupta is one of the Theravada sects. They follow Theravada Vinaya. So the bhikkhunis we see even now in Taiwan and China is a lineage that is unbroken since the time of the Buddha. ..."

http://www.bangkokpost.com/leisure/leis ... i-question" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I can't desist from a joke.

Guess what's that thing -
- uses Dharmagupta Vinaya transmission;
- follows Sarvastivada Agama texts;
- calls itself Theravada?

Answer:
It's Australian pre-sectarian Buddhism :^)
I am not much of a believer in the quest for a pre-sectarian 'pure' Buddhism myself. However, as an admirer of Indian Buddhism, I consider it coherent and sensible to accept multiple schools of authentic Buddhism, especially when it concerns Vinaya.

Ajahn Brams is somewhat confused in his terminology here, I suspect what he is trying to say is that they follow a vinaya with similar claims to lineage back to the Buddha as the Theravadin and not a Vinaya, as some might presume, based on Mahayana works.

tbh, I find the current developments in the forest tradition altogether as curiously mirroring the Sautrantikan branching from the Sarvastivadins in many ways.

I am not sure it is fitting to lumb Ajahn Brahms and Sujato together in this matter. Sujato is obviously a vocal advocate of Brahmavamso on this matter, but I don't know if the opposite holds true. And doctrinally, Sujato has previously already seperated himself from the teachings of most of the forest tradition teachers anyway (not to mention the abidhammikas as well), something Ajahn brahmavamso has not quite done.
User avatar
jcsuperstar
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:15 am
Location: alaska
Contact:

Re: Brahm preceptor status revoked

Post by jcsuperstar »

Paññāsikhara wrote::offtopic:
Vardali wrote:
Dmytro wrote:...
I have given the links to articles where Sujato attacks Theravada and puts forward the idea of 'pre-sectarian Buddhism', for example:

It's time
http://santipada.googlepages.com/it%27stime" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
....
Hm, I wanted to stay out of this, but after reading the article you linked, I fail to see where this is an attack on Theravada.
Frankly, I haven't read anything in there that wouldn't be perfectly consistent with an academic approach to any sort of validation and authentification, be they religious in nature or not.
And unlike many other religions, Buddhism seems to encourage a to explicitly use one's facilities (including the brain) rather than to do anything due to "blind faith".

Seems a valid - standard academic - approach to validate authenticity claims suggested there, so what is so shocking about this?
:shrug:
:coffee:
I don't think it quite measures up to "standard academic" approach. One major criteria for academic standard is citation of relevant information, and reference to other works in the area. This article only contains one or two. Another criteria is peer review, that's what journals are for, not internet pages, blogs, etc.

For this:

The basic conclusion is that the Chinese Agamas and the Pali Nikayas are identical in doctrine. They are two slightly varying recensions of the same set of texts. These texts – popularly referred to simply as ‘the suttas’ – were assembled by the first generations of the Buddha’s followers, before the period of sectarian divisions. They are pre-sectarian Buddhism.


I disagree, and so do many other scholars. (Ven Sujato cites AK Warder, but Warder can't even read Chinese, so he doesn't know either, and is working second and third hand; He also cites Lamotte, who can read this stuff, but he is not a Nikaya / Agama specialist either. Kalupahana is exaggerating, as usual.)

Large parts may be "pre-sectarian", but other parts are definitely not.

One of the big problems is the large majority of all the Nikaya and Agama literature that we have, is all from the Sthavira side (so called Theravada, Dharmagupta and Sarvastivada), and the Mahasamghika side is largely unrepresented (except one very late Agama). So, at best, we can try to work out some sort of Asokan period Sthavira positions. Then, for those points where they disagree, we sometimes cannot know either way, it's kind of a "split vote".

Some of the criteria he provides sounds reasonable, but is actually not necessarily in accord with standard textual criticism methods. eg. simplicity, vs "difficile lector". He also favors a "text that never was" over "best text" methodology, though both have their problems, too.

This is seriously tricky stuff. !!

:focus:
have you read his sects and sectarianism? it would help to understand his position more. according to his thesis the schism had to happen after asoka (if the edicts are right and the sangha was made unified, this means one sangha right? ) therefore any text from this era or before would be from a unified buddhism. he also doesnt paint the texts with the broad brush you ascribe to him. you are correct that he isnt writing from a standard academic approach, though that is not what he ever claims to be doing.
สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ

the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat
User avatar
Assaji
Posts: 2106
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: Brahm preceptor status revoked

Post by Assaji »

Hi Anders,
Anders Honore wrote:The problem with the notion of a central authority is, to whom do we grant such an central authority?
To the Dhamma, the words of the Buddha, as they have been preserved in the Pali Canon.

IMHO, when the multiple Buddhist Canons are taken as authoritative, there's no clear basis of mutual agreement, and hence no clear basis for cooperation.

Ok, I am not a fan of such topics, and it seems that I have said a lot of unnecessary and inexact things.
Thanks for the patience.
User avatar
Anders
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: Brahm preceptor status revoked

Post by Anders »

Dmytro wrote:Hi Anders,
Anders Honore wrote:The problem with the notion of a central authority is, to whom do we grant such an central authority?
To the Dhamma, the words of the Buddha, as they have been preserved in the Pali Canon.

IMHO, when the multiple Buddhist Canons are taken as authoritative, there's no clear basis of mutual agreement, and hence no clear basis for cooperation.

Ok, I am not a fan of such topics, and it seems that I have said a lot of unnecessary and inexact things.
Thanks for the patience.
That's fine, because that is not what I am suggesting here. What we have here is the case of different groupings relying on the same body of texts, the pali canon (or at the very least the sutta and vinaya pitakas) coming to different conclusion as to what it actually says concerning the status of bhikkunis.
suanck
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 7:51 am

Re: Brahm preceptor status revoked

Post by suanck »

Paññāsikhara wrote:
Reminds me of a good friend of mine, Bhante "A", a Thai bhikkhu (since age 10, or so, now about 30), who has been studying in Taiwan for maybe about 6 years now. We were talking about the Nikayas and Agamas, this whole "early / original Buddhism" idea. He said that actually, much of "original Buddhism" in Taiwanese academia has already become "Samyuktagama studies".
I opened a new thread here: Samyutta-Nikaya & Samyuktagama http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... ead#unread

Suan
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: Brahm preceptor status revoked

Post by Paññāsikhara »

jcsuperstar wrote:
have you read his sects and sectarianism? it would help to understand his position more. according to his thesis the schism had to happen after asoka (if the edicts are right and the sangha was made unified, this means one sangha right? ) therefore any text from this era or before would be from a unified buddhism. he also doesnt paint the texts with the broad brush you ascribe to him. you are correct that he isnt writing from a standard academic approach, though that is not what he ever claims to be doing.
Yes, read it some time back. It is ok, but has a few problems. But we can leave that for another discussion. Needless to say, it is not saying much more than what has already been said by people like Bareau, Lamotte, Yinshun, and a host of Japanese scholars, decades ago. It just says it in a way for intelligent western practitioners of Theravada.

My understanding is that the schisms took place over some time, stretching from before Asoka, to well after Asoka.

The edict does not necessarily describe what actually happened, but like a lot of govt propaganda, may well simply indicate what Asoka wanted people to think had happened. See Schopen on the prescriptive vs descriptive nature of Buddhist material, both scriptural and epigraphic.

Likewise, too, the compilation of the canon into Agamas / Nikayas, and so forth, took place over some time. Greater parallels are found in the early strata, less in the later.

What we now have as the Pali Nikayas, and also the Chinese translations, have been reworked over at quite a later date, too. In particular, the Theravada Nikayas, whereas the Sarvastivada tend to leave in all sorts of "cut and paste" markers, and other traces.

So, in response to "therefore any text from this era or before would be from a unified buddhism" is out of the question. Firstly, we don't really have anything "from this ear or before". The parts that we think are closest also do not exhibit 100% coherence. So which is right? How can it be "from a unified Buddhism"? Moreover, the split between the Sthavira and Mahasamghika groups is before Asoka. So even Asokan period scripture (if we even had such a thing) would only be be Sthavira material, before splits into Vibhajjavada, Sarvastivada, Puggalavada, etc. As we do not even have any really early material from the Mahasamghikas, how do we know what texts they had? We cannot. So, we must hedge the range of any claims from restricted sources.

My comments viz "academic approach" were in response to the claims of an earlier poster in this thread, and not to claims of Ven Sujato himself.
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
User avatar
Anders
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: Brahm preceptor status revoked

Post by Anders »

On a similar note, can I ask for a quick review of Bareau's Les Sectes Bouddhiques du Petit Véhicule, venerable? I am reading it at the moment and am quite impressed so far, despite the age. He does portray some Mahayana assumptions here and there and I am waiting for a discussion of just how reliable Paramartha is, seeing as he quotes him relatively often, but a wealth of information so far.
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: Brahm preceptor status revoked

Post by Paññāsikhara »

Anders Honore wrote:On a similar note, can I ask for a quick review of Bareau's Les Sectes Bouddhiques du Petit Véhicule, venerable? I am reading it at the moment and am quite impressed so far, despite the age. He does portray some Mahayana assumptions here and there and I am waiting for a discussion of just how reliable Paramartha is, seeing as he quotes him relatively often, but a wealth of information so far.
Hi Anders

Are you reading the French, or the English version? ( http://www.gampoabbey.org/translations2 ... ues%20.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )

Quick review? Excellent resource material, in the very least, really very helpful and useful. As far as this sort of thing goes, because the bulk is setting out information, rather than interpreting it, it will age very well. Quotes and citations still stand. (Though as you say, there are a couple of Mahayana assumptions, and I had trouble tracking down the sources for some of his citations from Demieville, as they are rather obscure.) Paramartha's sources seem fairly reliable, and we must remember that he is slightly earlier than Xuanzang, there is no necessity for them to agree on all points, as things in India can change. Both are probably more reliable than people like Jizang, Kuiji or others, who never went to India. We often don't know where exactly they got their ideas from. But, between these people, they have a remarkable amount of info about the various Indic schools. The French got it. The Anglophones often miss it.

As far as sitting down and reading it from cover to cover, I doubt that many would. And I don't even know if it is supposed to be read like that. Maybe the intro stuff, then the openings for each of the schools and sub-schools. Then, cut to the conclusions at the back.

It is interesting that also ostensibly it is about the "schools of the small vehicle", his final conclusions have a lot to say about, and seem to be quite directed at, finding out things about the Mahayana. A few points are a little dated, but some of the conclusions are still worth bearing in mind, that is for sure. I am still fascinated by the Dharmagupta connection.

PS: How's Copenhagen these few days, with all the conference thing and all? Are you wearing green and yelling Anarchist chants on the street corners already? :P
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
Post Reply