The Validity of Non-Theravada Ordinations Lineages

Exploring the Dhamma, as understood from the perspective of the ancient Pali commentaries.
Post Reply
Bankei
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:40 am

The Validity of Non-Theravada Ordinations Lineages

Post by Bankei »

Hi

Robert's other thread on the Bhikkhuni reminded me of a question I was meaning to ask. It seems many regard the Bhikkhu (of the Mulasarvastivda and Dharmaguptaka) and Bhikkhini Lineages (Dharmaguptaka) as being invalid or corrupt.

I am wondering what some of the arguments for this could be - from a classical Theravada POV.

Bankei
-----------------------
Bankei
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Validity of Non-Theravada Ordinations Lineages

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,

If you don't mind, may I append a related question to your's, which also arose after reading Robert's postings? The question being...

Is another sect's status deemed schismatic, based on a corruption of their understanding of the:

1. Dhamma,
2. Vinaya, or
3. Dhamma and Vinaya?

... and if it is point #1, does that invalidate their Vinaya and corresponding ordinations performed under that Vinaya, even if it was not the difference in Vinaya which rendered them schismatic?

(All the above assumes continuous lineage back to the Buddha)

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: The Validity of Non-Theravada Ordinations Lineages

Post by Cittasanto »

Bankei wrote:Hi

Robert's other thread on the Bhikkhuni reminded me of a question I was meaning to ask. It seems many regard the Bhikkhu (of the Mulasarvastivda and Dharmaguptaka) and Bhikkhini Lineages (Dharmaguptaka) as being invalid or corrupt.
Who does?

not all those who wear robes are bhikkhus, some of the Tibetan Lamas aren't Bhikkhus and the same goes for others in other groups.
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
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Validity of Non-Theravada Ordinations Lineages

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,

Just a reminder that we're in the Classical Theravada forum... let's aim to stick closely within the guidelines in order to keep the discussion focused.

Thank you.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Bankei
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:40 am

Re: The Validity of Non-Theravada Ordinations Lineages

Post by Bankei »

Manapa wrote:
Bankei wrote:Hi

Robert's other thread on the Bhikkhuni reminded me of a question I was meaning to ask. It seems many regard the Bhikkhu (of the Mulasarvastivda and Dharmaguptaka) and Bhikkhini Lineages (Dharmaguptaka) as being invalid or corrupt.
Who does?

not all those who wear robes are bhikkhus, some of the Tibetan Lamas aren't Bhikkhus and the same goes for others in other groups.
Yes, i know that some are tulkus or lay people or even novices, but there are still Bhikkhu among these traditions.
-----------------------
Bankei
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: The Validity of Non-Theravada Ordinations Lineages

Post by Cittasanto »

Hi
being a tulku doesn't mean they aren't Bhikkhus.

but do you have any references to where the Theravada have made this claim classically, and why?
Monks in England (FS) wear jackets, this is against the rules, but they do so due to climate and because of complaints from the locals, so isn't necessarily against the spirit of the rule, and monks when they went abroad originally were faced with similar situations, some found themselves in areas which saw mendicants as no more than beggars and as such a dishonourable profession, so they had to adapt to survive, and maintain the 'honour & purity of the life' hence some have rules about vegetarianism and omit prohibitions on growing their own food, which isn't necessarilly against the spirit of the vinaya, so the early splits aren't necessarily schismatic splits, although they may of become so at some point, so I need specific references to the the splits you are referring to.

& Sorry Retro didn't see the forum.
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
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: The Validity of Non-Theravada Ordinations Lineages

Post by Paññāsikhara »

Manapa wrote:... hence some have rules about vegetarianism and omit prohibitions on growing their own food, which isn't necessarilly against the spirit of the vinaya, ...
If the bit about vegetarianism is wrt to the Chinese traditions, it doesn't really have anything to do with their bhiksu/ni ordination lineage. It's a Yogacarabhumi / Mahayanabrahmajalasutra bodhisattva precept issue.

If the "growing their own food" is also wrt to the Chinese (Chan) traditions, this didn't come about until quite a bit later, and only in some groups (probably much less than the popular idea suggests). Nowadays it is actually quite uncommon.
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.
Bankei
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:40 am

Re: The Validity of Non-Theravada Ordinations Lineages

Post by Bankei »

I can think of two reasons why some may dispute the validity of the Dharmaguptaka and Mulasarvastivada lineages:

1. Simas
2. Break in the chain somewhere in the past.

I think the concept of Simas must be different in Tibetan and Chinese communities. In Theravada, the rules of the sima where developed mainly in the commentaries. Since these other schools don't follow the Theravada commentaries then they must have different requirements for simas - their establishment and use etc. Does anyone know about sima in these traditions?

Also, the Chinese in particular seem to have switched and changed vinayas a few times throughout history. eg once a particular community may have been using the Sarvastivada vinaya and they, without reordaining, they suddenly switch and start using the Dharmaguptaka one. This can be seen when the Bhikkhuni went from Sri Lanka in the 400s to China and established the Bhikkhuni lineage there. They were following the Mahisasaka vinaya. However, changing vinayas may not necessarily mean a break in the chain.

Another possible reason is:

3. Language
Theravadins are very particular about the correct usage of language in ordination. it must be done in Pali, and ideally with the correct pronunciation. Tibetan and Chinese schools translated the ceremony into their local language.
-----------------------
Bankei
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6490
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: The Validity of Non-Theravada Ordinations Lineages

Post by Dhammanando »

Bankei wrote:Hi

Robert's other thread on the Bhikkhuni reminded me of a question I was meaning to ask. It seems many regard the Bhikkhu (of the Mulasarvastivda and Dharmaguptaka) and Bhikkhini Lineages (Dharmaguptaka) as being invalid or corrupt.

I am wondering what some of the arguments for this could be - from a classical Theravada POV.
Sabbatthivaadin and Dhammaguttiya monks and nuns are not accepted as validly-ordained by some conservative Theravadins because both schools are included in the list of schismatic schools given in the Diipavamsa, the oldest of the Ceylonese chronicles. The Diipavamsa's judgment is repeated and endorsed by Buddhaghosa in his commentary to the Kathaavatthu. It is further endorsed in the later Ceylonese chronicles, and in the 12th-13th century sub-commentataries. It was similarly endorsed by the Burmese in their chronicles, such as the 18th century Saasanavamsa and most recently the judgment was endorsed by Mahasi Sayadaw in his acclaimed commentary tothe Visuddhimagga. In short, the Theravada has a long and consistent history of viewing these two schools as schismatical, with no record of any dissenting voices in the matter, nor of any official and vinayaically lawful rapprochement between the schools.
I can think of two reasons why some may dispute the validity of the Dharmaguptaka and Mulasarvastivada lineages:

1. Simas
2. Break in the chain somewhere in the past.
It's more fundamental than that: if the Diipavamsa's judgment of the Sabbathivaadins and Dhammaguttiyas is correct, then there never was a "chain" to be broken. In the Pali Vinaya a schism in the sangha is a sort of one-generation-only virus, for the Buddha's rulings are such that no schism is capable of outliving the bhikkhus responsible for it. To be specific, there is a ruling that sanghakammas will be invalid in any case where schismatical bhikkhus complete the quorum. In other words, for a sanghakamma to be valid there must be enough non-schismatical bhikkhus present to constitute a quorum by themselves. So, if a sanghakamma, e.g., bhikkhu ordination, is invalid when schismatics complete the quorum, how much more so when schismatics constitute the entire quorum.

Best wishes,
Dhammanando
Rūpehi bhikkhave arūpā santatarā.
Arūpehi nirodho santataro ti.


“Bhikkhus, the formless is more peaceful than the form realms.
Cessation is more peaceful than the formless realms.”
(Santatarasutta, Iti 73)
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: The Validity of Non-Theravada Ordinations Lineages

Post by Paññāsikhara »

Bhante, thank you for the informative post.
I am curious, may I ask on what grounds every school other than their own is considered "schismatic" by the aforementioned Theravadin representatives?
For instance, what were the actual schismatic acts that they performed (in each and every case)?
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
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: The Validity of Non-Theravada Ordinations Lineages

Post by Cittasanto »

It has been a while since I last said this but where is the thumb up button to press?
:thumbsup:
Very informative as always Bhante!
Dhammanando wrote:
Bankei wrote:Hi

Robert's other thread on the Bhikkhuni reminded me of a question I was meaning to ask. It seems many regard the Bhikkhu (of the Mulasarvastivda and Dharmaguptaka) and Bhikkhini Lineages (Dharmaguptaka) as being invalid or corrupt.

I am wondering what some of the arguments for this could be - from a classical Theravada POV.
Sabbatthivaadin and Dhammaguttiya monks and nuns are not accepted as validly-ordained by some conservative Theravadins because both schools are included in the list of schismatic schools given in the Diipavamsa, the oldest of the Ceylonese chronicles. The Diipavamsa's judgment is repeated and endorsed by Buddhaghosa in his commentary to the Kathaavatthu. It is further endorsed in the later Ceylonese chronicles, and in the 12th-13th century sub-commentataries. It was similarly endorsed by the Burmese in their chronicles, such as the 18th century Saasanavamsa and most recently the judgment was endorsed by Mahasi Sayadaw in his acclaimed commentary tothe Visuddhimagga. In short, the Theravada has a long and consistent history of viewing these two schools as schismatical, with no record of any dissenting voices in the matter, nor of any official and vinayaically lawful rapprochement between the schools.
I can think of two reasons why some may dispute the validity of the Dharmaguptaka and Mulasarvastivada lineages:

1. Simas
2. Break in the chain somewhere in the past.
It's more fundamental than that: if the Diipavamsa's judgment of the Sabbathivaadins and Dhammaguttiyas is correct, then there never was a "chain" to be broken. In the Pali Vinaya a schism in the sangha is a sort of one-generation-only virus, for the Buddha's rulings are such that no schism is capable of outliving the bhikkhus responsible for it. To be specific, there is a ruling that sanghakammas will be invalid in any case where schismatical bhikkhus complete the quorum. In other words, for a sanghakamma to be valid there must be enough non-schismatical bhikkhus present to constitute a quorum by themselves. So, if a sanghakamma, e.g., bhikkhu ordination, is invalid when schismatics complete the quorum, how much more so when schismatics constitute the entire quorum.

Best wishes,
Dhammanando
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
Bankei
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:40 am

Re: The Validity of Non-Theravada Ordinations Lineages

Post by Bankei »

Yes, very good Bhante, thank you for that.

That explains why conservative Theravadins think the Bhikkhuni ordination is invalid and cannot be revived.

Bankei
-----------------------
Bankei
Bankei
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:40 am

Re: The Validity of Non-Theravada Ordinations Lineages

Post by Bankei »

Dhammanando wrote:
Bankei wrote:Hi

Robert's other thread on the Bhikkhuni reminded me of a question I was meaning to ask. It seems many regard the Bhikkhu (of the Mulasarvastivda and Dharmaguptaka) and Bhikkhini Lineages (Dharmaguptaka) as being invalid or corrupt.

I am wondering what some of the arguments for this could be - from a classical Theravada POV.
Sabbatthivaadin and Dhammaguttiya monks and nuns are not accepted as validly-ordained by some conservative Theravadins because both schools are included in the list of schismatic schools given in the Diipavamsa, the oldest of the Ceylonese chronicles. The Diipavamsa's judgment is repeated and endorsed by Buddhaghosa in his commentary to the Kathaavatthu. It is further endorsed in the later Ceylonese chronicles, and in the 12th-13th century sub-commentataries. It was similarly endorsed by the Burmese in their chronicles, such as the 18th century Saasanavamsa and most recently the judgment was endorsed by Mahasi Sayadaw in his acclaimed commentary tothe Visuddhimagga. In short, the Theravada has a long and consistent history of viewing these two schools as schismatical, with no record of any dissenting voices in the matter, nor of any official and vinayaically lawful rapprochement between the schools.
I can think of two reasons why some may dispute the validity of the Dharmaguptaka and Mulasarvastivada lineages:

1. Simas
2. Break in the chain somewhere in the past.
It's more fundamental than that: if the Diipavamsa's judgment of the Sabbathivaadins and Dhammaguttiyas is correct, then there never was a "chain" to be broken. In the Pali Vinaya a schism in the sangha is a sort of one-generation-only virus, for the Buddha's rulings are such that no schism is capable of outliving the bhikkhus responsible for it. To be specific, there is a ruling that sanghakammas will be invalid in any case where schismatical bhikkhus complete the quorum. In other words, for a sanghakamma to be valid there must be enough non-schismatical bhikkhus present to constitute a quorum by themselves. So, if a sanghakamma, e.g., bhikkhu ordination, is invalid when schismatics complete the quorum, how much more so when schismatics constitute the entire quorum.

Best wishes,
Dhammanando

Hi Bhante

Assuming the Theravada account is correct for a moment, If a schism did occur, then it is possible for reproachment to occur according to Thannisaro's BMC. I assume reproachment he was referring to was during the lifetime of the monks involved. Would it be possible for some Dharmaguptaka monks of today to admit their errors and seek to rejoin with Theravada. Is this possible considering the schism occured 2000+ years ago?
-----------------------
Bankei
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6490
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: The Validity of Non-Theravada Ordinations Lineages

Post by Dhammanando »

Hi Bhante and Bankei,

Just to let you know that I've read your posts and will post a reply after a few days (I'm not much online these days).

Best wishes,
Dhammanando
Rūpehi bhikkhave arūpā santatarā.
Arūpehi nirodho santataro ti.


“Bhikkhus, the formless is more peaceful than the form realms.
Cessation is more peaceful than the formless realms.”
(Santatarasutta, Iti 73)
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: The Validity of Non-Theravada Ordinations Lineages

Post by robertk »

Excellent post by Ven. Subhuiti:

https://americanmonk.org/are-theravada- ... ons-valid/

Are Theravāda Bhikkhuni Ordinations Valid?

There is not much written in English explaining why bhikkhuni ordinations are rejected by the Theravada Community of Monks. The English writings are a poor representation of the vast majority of Buddhist Scholarship and that is why there is “controversy” regarding the revival of the extinct Theravāda Bhikkhuni order. There is really no controversy to speak about once you know the full story.

Many Westerners believe that women are not able to become nuns without such a revival, but that is not true. The extinct bhikkhuni ordination had rules that were numerous, restrictive, and heavy in consequence to protect their brahmacariya life. To give monastic opportunities to women, the senior monks created new lineages in Myanmar, Sri Lanka and within the Western Thai Tradition long before this “revival”. Not only that, these “new” traditions have been designed to simplify and remove many of the “difficult to follow” rules which gives more freedom to practice to attain the goals of Buddhist meditation. Pa-Auk allocates roughly half of its residential resources to female monastics with equal access to the teachers. Na-Uyana in Sri Lanka and Amaravati in England have similar arrangements. One of these nuns has her own international meditation center with donors to offer full autonomous support.

So opportunities exist for women, but there was one problem. These nuns were given names like sīlashin or dasasīlamātā (10 precept mothers) instead of bhikkhuni which is the female counterpart of bhikkhu. Why? Because to call oneself a bhikkhuni when one is not a bhikkhuni is considered a “theft of saṅgha” and a very heavy karmic crime. Furthermore, it was found that there was no way to bring the bhikkhuni saṅgha back from extinction. Lastly, the special rules that went along with the bhikkhuni name were restrictive, and heavy in punishment and karmically obstructive to attainments or progress in the Path if broken.

In this article, we will discuss the 2 methods which are used today for bhikkhuni ordinations and we will discuss whether or not they are proper to make new bhikkhunis.

There are two methods used today to bring the Pāḷi Bhikkhunis back from extinction:

1. Using existing Mahayana bhikṣuṇī to ordain new Pāḷi Bhikkhunis to fulfill the requirement of two saṅghas to perform the ordinations.

2. Single saṅgha ordination by letting bhikkhus alone perform the bhikkhuni ordinations with no further action required.

Mahayana Bhikṣuṇī Method:
Traditionally, in order for a Pāḷi bhikkhuni to be ordained, one needs both the bhikkhuni saṅgha and the bhikkhu saṅgha to ordain the new candidate inside a proper ordination hall called a sīma. This method is called aṭṭhavācikūpasampadā because there are 4 readings each done by two saṅghas which equals eight times (aṭṭha). Because the lineage was extinct, one idea was to import the nuns from Mahayana to fulfill this factor.

I have not read Buddhist history books, but according to legend, when there was disagreement that caused a heated split in the saṅgha, the group which is now calls themselves Mahayana did not do the detailed technicalities to officially make a new sect in saṅgha. This is good news if you want to use Mahayana bhikṣuṇīs as seeds for new Pāḷi bhikkhunis.

Because of this, progressives believe that Mahayana bhikṣuṇīs are still the same as Pāḷi Bhikkhunis and these Mahayana nuns can be used to make new Pāḷi bhikkhunis. There is one problem and one controversial term in Pāḷi called, Sakāya Nirutthiya.

Sakāya Nirutthiya:
At one time, a Brahman criticized the Buddha for having the teachings in the Pāḷi language and transcribed the teachings into Sanskrit which only scholars could understand. The Buddha did not like that and prohibited his teachings being transcribed into another language or Sanskrit. He said that it should be done in the common dialect.

‘‘na, bhikkhave, buddhavacanaṁ chandaso āropetabbaṁ. Yo āropeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sakāya niruttiyā buddhavacanaṁ pariyāpuṇitu”nti.

CV.285
In the English texts, sakāya niruttiyā is translated as “one’s own dialect.” Sometimes words cannot be literally translated. For instance, what does the word “under–stand “ mean? Does it mean to stand underneath something? Probably not. Because of this single mention of sakāya niruttiyā, Mahayana ordinations have been performed in Mandarin. The question is can Pāḷi Buddhism be compatible with Mandarin Buddhism? The commentaries explain that this sakāya niruttiyā means the “common language” used in Māgadha or where the Buddha was from. Based on the keywords in this discussion, you can see what the Pāḷi explanation means below:

Sakāya niruttiyāti ettha sakā nirutti nāma sammāsambuddhena vuttappakāro māgadhiko vohāro.

CV.A.285
In those times, many dialects were spoken in India. A common language was used for people to communicate with each other beyond their own village and at that time it was the Māgadhi language.

Because we are biased with English and most native speakers of English speak only one single language, I asked a resident Indian monk about this and if Hindi would be a similar example of a “Common Dialect” for Indians. Even today, Indians speak many languages because there are many languages inside India. Hindi is a unifying language among the different dialects, and the Indian monk agreed with my suspicion. Ironically, Mandarin is the unifying language across China for the local dialects which are still used today.

Now we are asked if Mandarin is valid or not for Pāḷi ordinations. If we conclude Mandarin is valid, then we are left with other logical statements to ask. You remember those logic games right?

If:
a is equal to b and
c is equal to b,
then we can conclude that:
a is also equal to c.

Typical logic question on SAT exams in the USA
If Mandarin is considered valid for Pāḷi Buddhist Ordinations, then English can also be used for ordinations for both Pāḷi Buddhist Ordinations and Chinese Mahayana ordinations. If English is valid for bhikkhunis, then English should also be valid for bhikkhus. How many monks are ordained in English and would it be recognized by saṅgha if that were done? Are the monks who perform bhikkhuni ordinations with this method positive English would be valid for bhikkhus as well? The answers to these questions also answer whether or not using Mahayana bhikṣuṇīs are a valid substitute for a two-saṅgha-ordination (aṭṭhavācikūpasampadā).

Single-saṅgha-ordination
The second option is using the Bhikkhus to ordain Bhikkhunis as a single-saṅgha-ordination. This has now become the preferred method because it is of a single school and retains the Pāḷi language as a single language for the ordinations. Not only that, the Buddha has been documented in saying this can be done. This sounds promising, however, we must look more deeply into what was allowed at the time and how rules are made and how rules are overwritten or “overruled”.

Historically, there have been 8 ways that ordinations were performed. Only the last two are considered valid for bhikkhus and bhikkhunis.

ehibhikkhūpasampadā,
saraṇāgamanūpasampadā,
ovādapaṭiggahaṇūpasampadā,
pañhabyākaraṇūpasampadā,
garudhammapaṭiggahaṇūpasampadā,
dūtenūpasampadā,
aṭṭhavācikūpasampadā,
ñatticatutthakammūpasampadāti
Bhikkhu Ordinations:
For simplicity, we will talk about only a few types of ordinations. The very first and early ordinations were done directly by the Buddha. He would simply say “ehi bhikkhu” which means “come monk” and the ordination was complete. However, after some time, that was not possible, so the Buddha allowed the monks to give ordination by saraṇāgamanūpasampadā. This ordination is performed by having the monk take triple refuge tisaraṇa, which is exactly the same as novice monks and lay people take today. Buddhaṁ saraṇaṁ gacchāmi.. etc. This was later replaced with the current “4-speakings-ordination” method called ñatticatutthakammūpasampadāti.

Bhikkhuni Ordinations:
For Bhikkhunis, the very first ordinations were called garudhammapaṭiggahaṇūpasampadā. They were performed in the presence of the Buddha by agreeing to follow the 8–garu-dhamma or 8-heavy-rules. Because it was difficult to travel and visit the Buddha like before, the Buddha allowed the monks to ordain the bhikkhunis. However, problem after problem arose with this procedure, and more and more amendments were successively made by the Buddha until the last ordination procedure was finalized in the Cūḷavagga-pāḷi text as the evolved standard and only method for ordaining women. The evolution of this ordination method is all translated into English and you should read these texts if you doubt what is said here in this article. This final method involves both saṅghas (a group of bhikkhus and a group of bhikkhunis) separately to perform the ordination in a proper ordination hall with 8 (aṭṭha) transactions performed in total, 4 transactions for each saṅgha. That is why it is called aṭṭha-vācik-ūpasampadā, (ordination-by-8-speakings), where the bhikkhu ordination done by a single group is ñatti-catuttha-kammūpasampadāti 4 speakings.

Historically, when the rules are amended by the Buddha in the vinaya, the previous version is rendered invalid and the most recently declared rule is the full and final replacement. The context of how previous rules are invalidated and new declarations are replacements are very clear in the Pāḷi texts.

In the same way, when each ordination method was changed, the former became invalid. This is why it is called “over-ruled.” We easily can see this in the vinaya for the monks rules when they are mentioned twice with amendments. It is very clear, and once it has changed, the original rule is no longer valid. There is no controversy to this “over-ruling” process. Any scholar monk will confirm this point.

So the single saṅgha ordination was over-ruled to current extinct two saṅgha ordination aṭṭhavācikūpasampadā.

If we conclude that ordination of a bhikkhuni by a single saṅgha is valid, then we are left to conclude all other previous ordination methods mentioned in the texts are still valid. Let’s go back to those logic games again.

If:
a is equal to b and
c is equal to b,
then:

Answer:
We can conclude that a is also equal to c.

Typical logic questions for SAT exams in the USA.
So if single saṅgha ordination is valid for ordaining bhikkhunis, then we must also conclude that any previous ordination method for monks would be valid too. That means that merely taking triple gem refuge saraṇāgamanūpasampadā should be valid for ordaining bhikkhus today.

Do you think that any Pāḷi bhikkhus would recognize a monk who merely took triple gem as a valid ordination? Would the Western monks who support the bhikkhuni revival accept saraṇāgamanūpasampadā as a valid ordination for bhikkhus? No, and that is why saraṇāgamanūpasampadā are never performed today except for novice monks and lay people. I encourage you to ask these same questions to the monks who support bhikkhuni ordinations. Nope..Saraṇāgamanūpasampadā is never going to be performed and if someone did, there would be no recognition for such monks. A new religious order would be created.

Summary
There are two present methods used to bring the Pāḷi Bhikkhunis back from extinction. The first method relies on the validity of accepting English as a valid language for ordaining Pāḷi bhikkhus or Pāḷi bhikkhunis. The single school method relies on outdated or “over-ruled” ordinations as valid today. Therefore, if we accept these two points then we must accept:

Bhikkhu ordination can be made by taking Triple Gem as the means of an ordination
Bhikkhu ordinations can be performed in English as the means for a valid ordination.
Bhikkhu with a triple gem ordination also performed in English as the means for a valid ordination.
When you consider the two ordination methods that exist in this way, one can easily see why the Greater Community of Pāḷi Monks (Mahāsaṅghikānaṃ) do not accept the current “bhikkhuni” revival in practice today. Strong governement laws exist in some Theravada countries for those claiming to be bhikkhunis because it is considered to be a form of fraud of the highest degree.

It should be known that Mahayana Ordinations are valid within their own community. Theravada recognizes them as monks and nuns. However, they are not Pāḷi bhikkhus or Pāḷi bhikkhunis. They are monks and nuns, but of a different order that is not compatible with the technicalities of Pāḷi Buddhist ordinations.

This discussion on the two methods of bhikkhunii ordination is now finished. A further article is being written about the heavy bhikkhuni saṅghādisesa rules which appear to be ignored by the vast majority of Western “bhikkhunis” that exist today. Such rules include sleeping or traveling alone without another bhikkhuni present. When a bhikkhuni breaks these heavy rules, she must enter a special monastery, lose her full status as a bhikkhuni and undergo probation for 2 weeks to purify such offenses before being reinstated back to saṅgha.

If you have read this far, then you were interested in the whole article and its issues. I encourage you to post this article in Western Dhamma outlets, such as dhammawheel.com and https:/
/discourse.suttacentral.net/
Post Reply