Different Nikaya and Sanghakamma

[Bankei]

I wonder why monks of one nikaya won't hold any sanghakamma, such as Patimokkha or ordination ceremonies, with members of another nikaya. For example in Thailand members of the Mahanikaya and Dhammayutika nikaya will jointly chant at funerals etc, but they will not hold sanghakamma together.

Why is this so?

Bankei

[Cittasanto]

I believe in come from how they interpret the Sanghakamma is to be done, and one group believes the other is too loose with their interpretation, or goes by comentarial interpretations which don't always match the interpretation they derive from the Vinaya? but it would or could also depend on other things I suppose.

[Bankei]

Yes that is a good point. In Thailand the Mahanikaya and Dhammayut do ordinations slightly different, including the wording of some parts of it.

But what about the chanting of the Patimokkha. I think that should be the same for all Theravada Nikaya.

Maybe they don't do this together because they don't believe in the validity of the other's ordination?

Bankei

[karuna_murti]

I've seen both nikayas sit on the same seat on certain occasions. If each think the other nikaya is not valid, I don't think they will give Dhamma talk on that occasions.

[cooran]

Hello bankei,

A little info.:
Monastic divisions
Among the Theravāda nations of Southeast Asia and Sri Lanka, nikāya is also used as the term for a monastic division or lineage; these groupings are also sometimes called "monastic fraternities" or "frateries". Nikāyas may emerge among monastic groupings as a result of royal or government patronage (such as the Dhammayuttika Nikāya of Thailand, due to the national origin of their ordination lineage (the Siyam Nikāya of Sri Lanka), because of differences in the interpretation of the monastic code, or due to other factors (such as the Amarapura Nikāya in Sri Lanka, which emerged as a reaction to caste restrictions within the Siyam Nikāya).
These divisions do not rise to the level of forming separate sects within the Theravāda tradition, because they do not typically follow different doctrines or monastic codes, nor do these divisions extend to the laity.
http://www.answers.com/topic/nikaya

metta
Chris

[Dhammanando]

I wonder why monks of one nikaya won't hold any sanghakamma, such as Patimokkha or ordination ceremonies, with members of another nikaya. For example in Thailand members of the Mahanikaya and Dhammayutika nikaya will jointly chant at funerals etc, but they will not hold sanghakamma together.

Hi Bankei,

Funeral ceremonies aren't really a relevant example; they are not sanghakammas and have no Vinaya significance at all.

Regarding the situation between the two nikayas in Thailand, I don't think it is readily describable in Vinaya terms. As far as I know neither nikaya has anything like an official position statement as to how it regards the monks of the other nikaya (i.e., that they are schismatics, or not really monks, or whatever). Prince Mongkut's personal doubt about the intactness of the Mahanikaya ordination lineage doesn't have any status as a Vinaya ajudication, even if some in the Dhammayuttika Nikaya take it seriously.

In practice the monks in a Mahanikaya monastery will normally allow a visiting Dhammayutt monk full participation in sangha activities, while Dhammayutt wats are highly inconsistent in how they treat visiting Mahanikaya monks. For example, the extreme chauvinists among the Dhammayutts (e.g., Ajahn Maha Boowa and his associates) will treat a visiting Mahanikaya monk like a samanera. On the other hand, in the north of Thailand (where the Dhammayuttika Nikaya is sparsely represented) many Dhammayutt forest ajahns don't care a damn about nikaya affiliation.

When I was a Dhammayutt monk myself I remember sometimes hearing whisperings about "the regulations of the Dhammayuttika Nikaya". For example, Mahanikai monks can stay at Dhammayutt wats, but must leave during the rains retreat; Dhammayutt monks can confess to Mahanikai monks, but can't hold the Patimokkha recital with them, etc. But these regulations seem to be very elusive. Nobody could ever show me a copy of them, or give me a citation; nor have I ever met a monk who admits to having seen a copy of them.

Best wishes,
Dhammanando

[Bankei]

Hi Bhante and thank you for the reply.

Do you know what happens to visiting monks when the Patimokkha is chanted? I believe that there are various different types of Siima and that, usually, the whole temple is within one type of siima. Those monks present within the siima but not participating will invalidate it. If they were to hold their own sanghakhama wouldn't that be the definition of a sanghabheda?

Many years ago I went to Wat Pa Nanachat with 2 Dhammayut monks and we were there during Patimokka time, but I don't know what happened to them. I recall they confessed to each other before leaving for the Wat and was told they did it because they were going to a Mahanikaya wat.

Bankei

[Dhammanando]

Hi Bhante and thank you for the reply.

Do you know what happens to visiting monks when the Patimokkha is chanted?

It varies. At Wat Boworniwet, the head temple of the Dhammayuttika Nikaya, no non-Dhammayutt monk is allowed in the uposatha hall (= siimaa) when the paatimokkha recitation is taking place. I remember being particularly surprised when a certain western monk ordained in the Sri Lankan Raama~n~a Nikaaya was refused entry, for this nikaaya's lineage is derived from the Mons of Burma, just like the Dhammayutt one (Rama~n~a is the Pali word for Mon).

At Wat Pa Baan Taad the visiting monks sit within the saalaa (= siimaa) but not within forearm's reach of any of the Dhammayutt monks, so they're sort of half in and half out.

At the milder Dhammayutt forest wats a visiting Mahanikai monk will participate fully in the observance.

I believe that there are various different types of Siima and that, usually, the whole temple is within one type of siima. Those monks present within the siima but not participating will invalidate it.

Presumably the Dhammayutts will keep the sanghakamma valid by regarding them as non-monks for the 45 minutes when the Paatimokkha is being recited, for they don't bother asking them to convey their consent (chanda) to the assembly.

If they were to hold their own sanghakhama wouldn't that be the definition of a sanghabheda?

I don't know. I'd need to look it up as my memory of this topic is pretty hazy. I believe that for it to count as sanghabheda the separate recitations have to be the outcome of dissension between the two parties over one of the various grounds for schism (e.g., teaching adhamma as Dhamma).

Best wishes,
Dhammanando

[Bankei]

Thank you again Bhante. Very interesting stuff.

Do you know what the situation is in the Wat Pah Pong group of temples? I have heard they do not perform sanghakamma with other outside monks of the same nikaya.

Thanks

Bankei

[Dhammanando]

Do you know what the situation is in the Wat Pah Pong group of temples? I have heard they do not perform sanghakamma with other outside monks of the same nikaya.

I haven't heard that the Ajahn Chah monasteries have anything like a blanket ban on performing sanghakammas with Mahanikayans who aren't members of their club. I believe it depends on whether the visiting monk is observing a comparable standard of Vinaya. For example, if the monk uses money and isn't prepared to confess his transgressions of the training rules that deal with this, and forfeit any money in his possession, along with any items he has purchased with money, then he won't be allowed in the Paatimokkha recital.

Best wishes,
Dhammanando

[Cittasanto]

Do you know what the situation is in the Wat Pah Pong group of temples? I have heard they do not perform sanghakamma with other outside monks of the same nikaya.

I haven't heard that the Ajahn Chah monasteries have anything like a blanket ban on performing sanghakammas with Mahanikayans who aren't members of their club. I believe it depends on whether the visiting monk is observing a comparable standard of Vinaya. For example, if the monk uses money and isn't prepared to confess his transgressions of the training rules that deal with this, and forfeit any money in his possession, along with any items he has purchased with money, then he won't be allowed in the Paatimokkha recital.

Best wishes,
Dhammanando

Hi Bhante & Babkei,
it is doubtful that his monastery or branch monasteries would refuse as a blanket rule as Ajahn Chah was ordained in the Mahanikaya, and there are senior members of his lineage who are Mahanikaya.

while at Ajahn Muns temple for a few days he was encouraged to reordain by some of the monks but refused, or he asked to reordain but was refused with the reason that he was a good teacher in his own right and could show that there were still good teachers in the mahanikaya.
the former one seams more likely to me as it is the first version I heard from a couple of sources, the latter seams more suspect although I was told it by a former WPN monk.

[Bankei]

Thanks again Bhante

And Manapa, I heard a slightly different version. That is Ajahn Chah wanted to reordain into the Dhammayut, but Ajahn Mun said he should stay as a Mahanikaya monks as it didn't really matter what Nikaya one was in.

Babkei

ps. Also interesting to see that a lot of Western monks have reordained from one Nikaya into another.

[Bankei]

Sorry Manapa, what I wrote was similar to your second point.

[Cittasanto]

not a worry