https://americanmonk.org/should-bhikkhu ... nasteries/
The article starts with: Did you know that bhikkhunis (nuns) are not allowed to sleep alone or travel alone and if they do, they are sentenced to 2 weeks of rehabilitation and lose their full status as bhikkhunis during this period?... read below:
I wrote this article on the bhikkhuni rules that most monks and lay perople are not familiar with. It is a long critique of the rule that is discussed in Bhikkhu Sujato's, Bhikkhuni Vinaya Studies That book and a link to the relevant sections are provided in the article. I hope you find this useful and enlightening to the realities of the Western Bhikkhuni Movement and what that really means for them if the ordinations are real. I'm presuming that these rules are ignored. This article assumes that the ordinations are real for the purposes of discussion.
If you wish to post this article to the general group, or the suttacentral discussion group that is fine with me and the latter is fully encouraged.
Should Bikkhunis Be Sent To Probation Monasteries (Article)
- JamesTheGiant
- Posts: 2147
- Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 8:41 am
- Location: New Zealand
Re: Should Bikkhunis Be Sent To Probation Monasteries (Article)
This reminds me of Dhammapada Verse 50,
But I guess it would be trumped by a vinaya rule to report serious rule breaking?One should not consider the faults of others, nor their doing or not doing good or bad deeds. One should consider only whether one has done or not done good or bad deeds.
Re: Should Bikkhunis Be Sent To Probation Monasteries (Article)
This is absolutely not true, although I'm happy that the author has been able to live inside such a bubble. The most frequently broken Sanghadisesa rule for monks is that against intentional emission of semen. Outside of strict Vinaya monasteries it may be difficult to find a monk who does not have this uncleared offence from some point in their monastic life. I'm sure this is what the nuns are referring to when they say that monks don't follow all the rules either.Nevertheless, these “normal” monks will draw the line when it comes to breaking the heavy rules, or at least we hope they do. Ask any Theravāda monk and they will confirm that heavy rules are non-negotiable.
This language is so over the top. I have never in 20 years heard of a monk "having a warrant on his head" no matter what precept he has broken.If the ordinations of bhikkhunis are legitimate, then all bhikhunis who sleep alone and travel alone have “warrants” on their heads
There is a tradition of Vinaya monks who seem to believe the only way to follow the Vinaya is to invent their own "more strict" practices. Monks are no more special because they invent their own rules. I understand that the reasoning behind having more than 20 is that if one of them turns out to not be a monk, then this specific procedure of re-admittance (not the whole probation period) could be considered invalid. But then why didn't the Buddha say there should be 23 or 25? There is really no end to this kind of Vinaya inflation.Furthermore, 20 is not usually considered enough and usually 23-25 monastics are required as a minimum on each side.
So while some of the information in the article is accurate, it's important to understand that the author is using a lens that is far outside common Theravada practice and even among Vinaya monks is an edge position. Of course monks are allowed to practice however they like. Unfortunately this courtesy doesn't seem to be extended to the nuns.
As well, the concept (as far as I know) of having special monasteries for the Vinaya procedures mentioned in the article is not found in the Vinaya and may be a part of this excessive behaviour that I mention above. It is, of course, convenient, as well as a way for a monk to be spared some of the humiliation of suddenly being at the end of the line for public facing events. But if the Buddha thought that it was important, he would have made a rule about it, no?
Really? Says who? I'm sure he doesn't.Bhikkhu Sujato, who is the chief teacher for most of the Western Bhikkhunis
| One sutta per day to your inbox | ReadingFaithfully.org Support for reading the Suttas | Citation lookup helper | Instant sutta name lookup | Instant PED lookup | Instant DPPN lookup |
Re: Should Bikkhunis Be Sent To Probation Monasteries (Article)
Thank you for the article, Bhante.bksubhuti wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 6:07 am https://americanmonk.org/should-bhikkhu ... nasteries/
The article starts with: Did you know that bhikkhunis (nuns) are not allowed to sleep alone or travel alone and if they do, they are sentenced to 2 weeks of rehabilitation and lose their full status as bhikkhunis during this period?... read below:
I wrote this article on the bhikkhuni rules that most monks and lay perople are not familiar with. It is a long critique of the rule that is discussed in Bhikkhu Sujato's, Bhikkhuni Vinaya Studies That book and a link to the relevant sections are provided in the article. I hope you find this useful and enlightening to the realities of the Western Bhikkhuni Movement and what that really means for them if the ordinations are real. I'm presuming that these rules are ignored. This article assumes that the ordinations are real for the purposes of discussion.
If you wish to post this article to the general group, or the suttacentral discussion group that is fine with me and the latter is fully encouraged.
But to post this article on Suttacentral is quite impossible, people will soon flood in and claim the poster as "homophobic"; "male supremacist"; "oppressor of women"; "anti-feminist", etc., and then get banned.
Aren't that Ajahn Brahm? Actually there were some people supporting the abolishment of Eight Garudhammas.Bhikkhu Sujato, who is the chief teacher for most of the Western Bhikkhunis
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.
https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.
https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
Re: Should Bikkhunis Be Sent To Probation Monasteries (Article)
https://www.dhammatalks.org/vinaya/bmc/Section0022.htmlJamesTheGiant wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 6:43 am This reminds me of Dhammapada Verse 50,
But I guess it would be trumped by a vinaya rule to report serious rule breaking?One should not consider the faults of others, nor their doing or not doing good or bad deeds. One should consider only whether one has done or not done good or bad deeds.
64
Should any bhikkhu knowingly conceal (another) bhikkhu’s serious offense, it is to be confessed.
Here there are four factors for the full offense.
1) Object: a serious offense committed by another bhikkhu.
2) Perception: One perceives the offense as serious—either from knowing on one’s own, from having been told by the bhikkhu, or from having been told by others.
3) Intention: One wants to hide the offense from other bhikkhus, one’s motive being either (a) fear that they will charge him with the offense or interrogate him about it (steps in the formal inquiry into the offense) or (b) fear that they will jeer, scoff, or make him feel abashed (steps in his enemies’ informal reaction to the news). In other words, this factor is fulfilled if one wants to prevent a Community transaction from being carried out against the offender or simply to protect him from the jeering remarks of other bhikkhus who may dislike him.
4) Effort: One sees a bhikkhu suitable to be informed of the matter but abandons one’s duty to report the offense.
Object & perception
Serious offense, according to the Vibhaṅga, means a pārājika or a saṅghādisesa. As under Pc 9, the Commentary states that, despite what the Vibhaṅga actually says here, its compilers meant to include only saṅghādisesa offenses under this definition. But, as was also the case under Pc 9, this explanation clearly contradicts the Vibhaṅga, so it cannot stand.
Another bhikkhu’s non-serious offenses are grounds for a dukkaṭa here, as are the misdeeds—serious or not—of an unordained person. None of the texts explicitly define the term unordained person here, but because bhikkhus have no responsibility to tell other bhikkhus of the misdeeds of lay people, the sense of the rule would seem to require that it cover only bhikkhunīs, female trainees, male novices, and female novices. (Again, none of the texts state explicitly whether a bhikkhunī counts as ordained or unordained in the context of this rule, but because the Vibhaṅga defines serious offenses as the four pārājikas and the thirteen saṅghādisesas, and because the bhikkhunīs have different numbers of these two classes of rules, it would appear that a bhikkhunī would count as an unordained person here.) According to the Commentary, a breach of any of the first five precepts would count as serious for an unordained person (presumably meaning a novice or female trainee), whereas any other misdeed would count as not serious.
As for a bhikkhu’s offenses, the Vibhaṅga states that only a serious offense that one perceives to be serious is grounds for a pācittiya. All other possible combinations of object and perception—a serious offense about which one is in doubt, a serious offense that one perceives to be non-serious, a non-serious offense that one perceives to be serious, a non-serious offense about which one is in doubt, and a non-serious offense that one perceives to be non-serious—are grounds for a dukkaṭa.
Effort & intention
The K/Commentary defines the factor of effort here as if it were a simple act of mind—one decides that, “I won’t tell any bhikkhu about this”—but this goes against the principle that the commentaries themselves derive from the Vinita-vatthu to Pr 2 and apply to all the rules: that the mere arising of a mind state is never sufficient for an offense. It would seem better to argue from the Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clauses to this rule and say that this factor is fulfilled if one comes to this decision when seeing a bhikkhu who is suitable to tell and yet decides not to tell him.
None of the texts define suitable bhikkhu here, but—following the Commentary to Cv.III—it would probably mean one who is of common affiliation and in good standing, i.e., neither suspended or undergoing penance or probation. Because of the way in which the factor of intention is worded here, a suitable bhikkhu in this case—unlike the case in which a bhikkhu needs to report his own saṅghādisesa offense—would not have to be on congenial terms with either the bhikkhu who committed the offense that needs to be reported or the bhikkhu responsible for reporting it. If the only bhikkhu available to be told is uncongenial, one must be scrupulously honest with oneself about any disinclination to inform him of the offense. If one’s only fear is that he will jeer at the offender or initiate a Community transaction to look into the offense, one is duty bound to tell him. If one feels that telling him will lead to strife in the Community or retaliation from the original offender—as the non-offense clauses note—one may wait and tell a more suitable bhikkhu.
Because the non-offense clauses also state that there is no offense in not reporting the offense if one’s motive is not to hide it, one need not inform the first suitable bhikkhu one meets if one is planning to inform a more appropriate bhikkhu, such as a senior member of the Community, a Vinaya expert, or the offender’s mentor or preceptor.
Apparently, once one has told a suitable bhikkhu, one is absolved of the responsibility of having to tell anyone else. However, none of the texts discuss the question of what one’s duty is if, after informing another bhikkhu, one realizes that he wants to conceal the offense. A responsible course of action, if none of the dangers listed in the non-offense clauses apply, would be to find and inform a more responsible bhikkhu, but this is a matter of one’s conscience and not of the rules.
The Commentary says that if, out of a desire to hide the original offense, one neglects to inform a suitable bhikkhu but then later changes one’s mind and tells either him or yet another bhikkhu, one has committed the offense all the same.
It also says that if one tells Bhikkhu X, asking him to help hide Bhikkhu Y’s offense, this also fulfills the factors of effort and intention here. If X then abandons his responsibility to tell, he too commits the corresponding offense under this rule. Regardless of how many co-conspirators would end up trying to keep the original offense secret enough to prevent a formal inquiry into it, all of them would be guilty of the offense here.
Non-offenses
There is no offense in not telling another bhikkhu—
if one thinks that telling will lead to strife or a split in the Community;
if, seeing that the bhikkhu who has committed the offense is violent by nature, one feels that he might create “dangers to life” or “dangers to the celibate life”;
if one sees no suitable bhikkhu to tell;
if one has no desire to hide the offense; or
if one feels that the wrong-doer’s own behavior will betray him and thus there is no need to tell.
Summary: Not informing another bhikkhu of a serious offense that one knows a third bhikkhu has committed—out of a desire to protect the third bhikkhu either from having to undergo the penalty or from the jeering remarks of other bhikkhus—is a pācittiya offense.
* * *
Re: Should Bikkhunis Be Sent To Probation Monasteries (Article)
A response to BKh
"warrant" is poetic and cheeky with the theme of "prison" but also appropriate to express they must go to a special place for discipline and rehabilitation.
Below is the definition from Webster's Dictionary:
As for living in a Bubble. Yup! I avoid "normal monasteries" and many of them are not allowable because they use money and the monasteries are built with unallowable money. It was a major reason for leaving ITBMU which although allowable since the government owned it, the vinaya monks were an extreme minority. I love living in a bubble and make an effort to do so.
Furthermore, I no longer post to the General Theravada Discussion of DhammaWheel and only post to the "Classical Theravada" section so I can stay in my happy bubble.
From the BMC:
I have qualified that statement with:
I did not see you criticizing the actual rule that bhikkhunis should be following.
That is good.
That was the main purpose of the Article.
It is best to comment on those issues, but I have edited the original to suite your comments to a small extent.
Nevertheless, I'm quite sure some new and agreeable information was conveyed to you in this article.
This is referring to bhikkhunis and not bhikkhus for sleeping or traveling alone. You had mentioned a monk.This language is so over the top. I have never in 20 years heard of a monk "having a warrant on his head" no matter what precept he has broken.
"warrant" is poetic and cheeky with the theme of "prison" but also appropriate to express they must go to a special place for discipline and rehabilitation.
Below is the definition from Webster's Dictionary:
Going to a special monastery is qualified by this quote in the BMC:a precept or writ issued by a competent magistrate authorizing an officer to make an arrest, a seizure, or a search or to do other acts incident to the administration of justice
I have qualified the statement "Draw the line" with more information to this:Practicalities. Because a bhikkhu observing penance must notify every bhikkhu in
the monastery of his penance, it is impractical for him to observe penance in a
monastery with many bhikkhus in residence or coming and going on visits. Thus the
texts agree that a wise policy is to choose a monastery where only a few (but no
less than four) other congenial bhikkhus are living and where visiting bhikkhus are
rare.
Nevertheless, these “normal” monks will draw the line when it comes to breaking the heavy rules, or at least we hope they do. There will be cases where a rule is broken, and when that happens, he will know something very bad has been done wrong. He will need to confess and make arrangements for purification and rehabilitation. It will be on his mind until it is resolved. This is a heavy offense.
As for living in a Bubble. Yup! I avoid "normal monasteries" and many of them are not allowable because they use money and the monasteries are built with unallowable money. It was a major reason for leaving ITBMU which although allowable since the government owned it, the vinaya monks were an extreme minority. I love living in a bubble and make an effort to do so.
Furthermore, I no longer post to the General Theravada Discussion of DhammaWheel and only post to the "Classical Theravada" section so I can stay in my happy bubble.
Some monks come from monasteries that have had improper ordinations or improper ordination halls. Also there may be some who have unknowingly or knowingly committed, or have doubt about offences of defeat. This extra number makes up for these issues. You should be concerned if the numbers are not padded. During vinayakamma, the monks are usually bunched together "knee to knee" just in case one monk is a failure. This keeps the continuous chain of "within arm's reach" in tact. This issue is very important. The conclusion in the sanghadisesa rule itself mentions that if there are less than 20 (for each side), then the procedure is failed. So yes, over time, there has been inflation.But then why didn't the Buddha say there should be 23 or 25? There is really no end to this kind of Vinaya inflation:
From the BMC:
You also wrote:Once the bhikkhu has completed his penance, he may ask a Community of at least
20 bhikkhus to give him rehabilitation. Once rehabilitated, he returns to his previous
state as a regular bhikkhu in good standing.
Bhikkhu Sujato, who is the chief teacher for most of the Western Bhikkhunis
Really? Says who? I'm sure he doesn't.
I have qualified that statement with:
Bhikkhu Sujato, who is the leading vinaya teacher(1) for most of the Western Bhikkhunis...
Footnote says...
He is the leading vinaya teacher for Westerner Bhikkhunis because he has written "The English Bhikkhuni Vinaya Book" in the same sense that Ajahn Thanissaro who is the author of the BMC is the leading vinaya teacher for Westerner Bhikkhus
I did not see you criticizing the actual rule that bhikkhunis should be following.
That is good.
That was the main purpose of the Article.
It is best to comment on those issues, but I have edited the original to suite your comments to a small extent.
Nevertheless, I'm quite sure some new and agreeable information was conveyed to you in this article.
Re: Should Bikkhunis Be Sent To Probation Monasteries (Article)
Hmm...wonder why those strict measures came into existence in the first place... some woke, freedom-fighting bhikkhunis decided to sleep alone and travel alone, then some pervert raped the sh... out of her. Then that bhikkhuni filed a huge lawsuit against the Sangha for total complete neglection of the safety and well-being of female monastics!bksubhuti wrote:The article starts with: Did you know that bhikkhunis (nuns) are not allowed to sleep alone or travel alone and if they do, they are sentenced to 2 weeks of rehabilitation and lose their full status as bhikkhunis during this period?
That article seemed to be well-intended and authentic until its biggest slip and blatant giveaway:
Bhikkhu Sujato, who is the leading vinaya teacher1 for most of the Western Bhikkhunis
Re: Should Bikkhunis Be Sent To Probation Monasteries (Article)
Sadhu...bksubhuti wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 12:33 pm ...
As for living in a Bubble. Yup! I avoid "normal monasteries" and many of them are not allowable because they use money and the monasteries are built with unallowable money. It was a major reason for leaving ITBMU which although allowable since the government owned it, the vinaya monks were an extreme minority. I love living in a bubble and make an effort to do so.
...
This reminds me of a Dhammapada verse... Verse 329
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.
https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.
https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
Re: Should Bikkhunis Be Sent To Probation Monasteries (Article)
As good follower of other Sects might have assumed that Atmas post wasn't thought to go against the blame in and of itself: actually it was like mostly a hint for "prison-monastery-Bhante", not to fall himself into grave fault at first place, assuming he isn't given by the Sangha: to encourage Bhikkhunis, not to tell faults of monks to lay people, and even Sanghadiseas if accusing wrongly.
Sure understandable, that one often prefers to defend ones stand, then to help the food-giver to get not lost while giving... ways dogs hunt together are fast adopted.
But sure, no problem to feed off anothers givers hand, some wouldn't mind and know that's hard to recognize ones cetasikā while thinking to act 'meritious'.
You may make use of this account as wished for good, it's a cast off one. Password: 12345678. As the good stuff gets usually censured here, good if being quick to find ways out.
Re: Should Bikkhunis Be Sent To Probation Monasteries (Article)
Now, there are no bhikkhunis in
Theravāda tradition anymore.
It's hard to accept facts. Don't worry,
Gurls can be anagārikā/anagārinī.
Theravāda tradition anymore.
It's hard to accept facts. Don't worry,
Gurls can be anagārikā/anagārinī.
Gwi: "There are only-two Sakaṽādins:
Theraṽādå&Ṽibhajjaṽādå, the rest are
nonsakaṽādins!"
Theraṽādå&Ṽibhajjaṽādå, the rest are
nonsakaṽādins!"
Re: Should Bikkhunis Be Sent To Probation Monasteries (Article)
Yes, the Bhikkhuni lineage was broken long ago, by nature. It is not a fault of modern Bhikkhus.