Yes, it has nothing to do with Mahayana. That lineage of bhikkhuni ordination is from other Sthavira lineages.Bankei wrote: Also note their misunderstandings of history and how they use the term 'Mahayana'.
They should have dropped all uses of "mahayana", by both Ajahn Brahms and other Theras. This is nothing to do with "mahayana ordination" or lineages. None of those bhikkhunis received any "mahayana ordination" at that time at all. It just makes things even more confused for people who haven't done their homework (and it is pretty simple homework at that).Manapa wrote:Ven Brahmavamso: “I am not Mahayana. But as far as I know, as you all have explained – what is the reason for saying that this is not a real ordination? If Somdet Buddhajahn who is my Upajjhaya is able to me that it is really wrong, then I will admit it. But it has to have reason. I have not heard a reason. I don’t understand. And also… (monks explain the reason and there is debate up till 145.32 mins)In order of appearanceBankei wrote:Also note their misunderstandings of history and how they use the term 'Mahayana'.They may of opted to use Mahayana instead of dharmagupta as it would save confussion as to who was being refered to i.e, the lineage of ordination of Bhikkhunis which is uncut and found only in the Mahayana teaching lineage?Ven Brahmavamso: “I was not the Upajjhaya (Preceptor). There was a bhikkhu[ni] who was the Upajjhaya of the bhikkhunis; it was not me. The ritual was done at the forest monastery in Perth. It was an ordination for bhikkhunis. There was no Upajjhaya; the Pavattini was a bhikkhuni. A bhikkhuni was Pavattini (Upajjhaya). Tathaaloka has been to Thailand long ago. She has 12 Pansa (Vassas/Years since full ordination). She was ordained in the Mahayana in a sect in the United States.In one respect he is correct, this vinaya practice is unbroken in the Dhammagupta line which the Mahayana follow. Whether it is literarily correct is another matter but the meaning is clear.Secretary of the Meeting: “Those that have gone to pay homage to Venerable Somdet Phra Buddhajahn (the Acting Sangharaja) at Wat Saket [will know]: he said that this is a Mahayana practice, not Theravadan.”As it is a Mahayana teaching lineage that still has the Bhikkhuni ordination from the dharmagupta vinaya lineage within it, this may appear confused, although it is relatively clear what they were meaning, or at least discernable.Thera: The Most Venerable Somdet Phra Buddhajahn has said that, ‘If he wants to give ordination, then alright. Let him be Mahayana.’ Then he [Ajahn Brahmavamso] replied, ‘We are not splitting from you, but you are splitting from us into Mahayana.’ This is what he said.”Meaning the ordination line of the Dharmagupta. It would be interesting to see what someone experienced in vinaya has to say about the transcript, but feel that may possibly not be seen as appropriate to do by those who are experienced to explain the vinaya acts in this manner, although it would be nice to be incorrect about that feeling.Thera: “OK, you will not be in the Theravada sect. Are you going to go to the Mahayana sect?”
haha! Exactly what I was thinking. I any Theravadins out there are sick to death of ignorant Mahayanists (which is not all of them) calling their practice "hinayana", well maybe they can reflect for a bit about how Mahayanists feel when ignorant Theravadins (which is not all of them) make such blunders as this! What goes around comes around. Sad, very sad. haha! I'm trying to laugh at it, because it is a kind of tragic comedy.bodom wrote:Yes, notice it sounds the way Hinayana is used within the Mahayana sect.Bankei wrote:Also note their misunderstandings of history and how they use the term 'Mahayana'.