Mahanikaya vs Dhammayuttika

Discussion of ordination, the Vinaya and monastic life. How and where to ordain? Bhikkhuni ordination etc.
EmptyShadow
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 3:34 pm

Re: Mahanikaya vs Dhammayuttika

Post by EmptyShadow »

paul wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 10:13 pm
tbeaudoin wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 6:38 pm (1) Much of Thai Buddhist practice - among both laity and monastics - had by the 1800s become infiltrated with many indigenous animistic beliefs and practices, as well as some beliefs and practices from Hinduism and Mahayana Buddhism. Many kingdoms in Southeast Asia converted to Hinduism, then to Mahayana Buddhism, and lastly to Theravada Buddhism. Summary: Dhammayut was founded in order to purify Buddhism from animistic, Hindu, and Mahayana beliefs and practices.
Could you give your take on how the Thai Forest Tradition fits into this?
In the book Stillness Flowing, about Ajahn Chah's life and teaching, there's a chapter(page 57) that talks about both sects. Historicaly how and why Dhammayut sect was created and the differences between them. Basically the founders of the thai forest tradition Ajahn Khao and Ajahn Mun were from Dhammayut sect and most Mahanikaya monks who decided to train under them had to reordain in the Dhammayut order.That was done for concerns that their ordination may not be legitimate or that thay have broken too many vinaya rules and to make sure that their ordination is pure.
Ajahn Chah visit Ajahn Mun and asked questions for 3 days but he didn't change his leanage. And after that, inspired by the strict following of vinaya and the dhutanga practeces, he basically introduced the thai forest tradition to Mahanikaya order.
Luang Por Chah’s visit to Luang Pu Mun was then not simply that of a
young tudong monk to the father of the Thai Forest Tradition, but also
that of a Mahānikāya monk to a Dhammayut monastery. During his brief
visit, some of the younger resident monks urged Luang Por to switch to
the Dhammayut Order as they had done, but he remained unmoved. Most
probably, he considered a change of affiliation to be ungrateful or disloyal.
Luang Por himself never revealed his thoughts on the matter. What is
known is that one of the questions that he asked Luang Pu Mun during
his visit was this central one of re-ordination. Was it necessary for one
intent on realization of the Dhamma? Luang Pu Mun put his mind at rest:
no, it was not.

It has been recorded that, prior to Luang Por’s visit, one of Luang Pu Mun’s
senior disciples had a meditative vision in which he saw Ubon split off
from the rest of Isan. Luang Pu Mun apparently considered this a sign that
Ubon would not be a stronghold for the Dhammayut forest monks in the
future. It is said that he recognized in Luang Por Chah the one who would
introduce the Forest Tradition into the Mahānikāya Order and establish
monasteries in Ubon.
User avatar
AgarikaJ
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:21 pm

Re: Mahanikaya vs Dhammayuttika

Post by AgarikaJ »

tbeaudoin wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 6:38 pm I'm sorry to see that much of the above-oriented discussion of the Dhammayuttika is largely sectarian rhetoric based upon anecdotal information.
... and then you go on doing exactly the same, repeating -- often highly unsubstantiated -- textbook passages.

Starting with:
tbeaudoin wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 6:38 pmDhammayut was founded as a "reform" movement within Thai Theravada. It's intention was to return to/recreate Buddhist practice based on the Canon.

...

Much of Thai Buddhist practice - among both laity and monastics - had by the 1800s become infiltrated with many indigenous animistic beliefs and practices, as well as some beliefs and practices from Hinduism and Mahayana Buddhism.
When one studies historical accounts not based on Thai Royal propaganda, the reason why the later King Mongkut imported the sectarian Mahaviharan Theravada strain -- as did contemporary royal 'reformist' movements in Burma -- was to gain a better control over the Buddhist Sangha by implementing with it a new hierarchy of monastic titles; if you look at the affiliation of the Supreme Patriarch of Thailand and other high-ranking officials, you will note that connection to the Mahanikaya has become rather rare fast.

With regard to your assertion that laity and monastics were 'infiltrated' by 'indigenous' beliefs, you are insofar right as the reformist movements tried hard -- and succeeded -- in supressing the original heterodox form of Buddhism prevalent troughout Maritime Southeast Asia (which went far beyond what we would call Theravada indeed).

Again, the reason was (maybe not exclusively, but still) political: especially the Lanna kings to the north were proclamating to be incarnations of (or reborn as) Metteyya while promoting heavily their own brand of heterodox Theravada, and Rattanakosin Thailand tried really hard to diminish their considerable political influence, with the Chakri dynasty still reeling from lingering doubts about their legitimacy and in the need of consolidating power over everything beyond central Thailand (not just to the north).

This had a few rather unlucky side effects: a similar introduction of Mahaviharan Theravada sectarian thinking had already happened once during Ayutthaya times, leading to Royal patronage for a Bikkhu-only Sangha. This led to the near extinction of true Bikkhuni lineages in Thailand already in the 18th century. The last known Bikkhunis of Thailand were finally made illegitimate (or better said: illegal), leading to forced defrockings, with the final consolidation move of the Chakri dynasty over the Thai Sangha with the Thai Sangha Act of 1902.
tbeaudoin wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 6:38 pm Dhammayut order sought to return to/recreate Buddhist practice based on the Canon (Ti-pitakka), not on the Commentaries, the Vissudhimagga
This passage of yours confounds me really. Dhammayut, as a direct and basically unchanged Mahaviharan Theravada import, makes the commentaries of Buddhaghosa pre-eminent in Thai Tharavada thinking, to the point that teachings do happen not based on the Pali canon, but this and other commentarial works (including still the Traiphum Phra Ruang, the Phra Malai and the Vessantara Jatakas, which Mongkut admittedly tried to supress). While this has changed to a more Tipitaka-centric approach in more recent times, it puts your statement about the original intentions of the Dhammayut movement completely on its head.
The teaching is a lake with shores of ethics, unclouded, praised by the fine to the good.
There the knowledgeable go to bathe, and cross to the far shore without getting wet.
[SN 7.21]
ChooChoo
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:50 am

Re: Mahanikaya vs Dhammayuttika

Post by ChooChoo »

Chanh Dao wrote: Thu Apr 25, 2019 2:23 pm I'm a member of the Dhammayut. I'm originally from USA but moved to Thailand and ordained. If anyone has any questions about my experience I'll do my best to answer.

I've only been a monk for almost 5 months so my experience is limited.
Are you at the same monastery as Ajahn Martin Piyadhammo?
User avatar
Eko Care
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

When and where did the 'eternal citta' teaching emerged in Dhammayut?

Post by Eko Care »

When and where did the 'eternal citta' teaching emerged in Dhammayut?
How many percentage of Dhammayut monks follow it?
The Burmese Mon/Kalyani/Ramanna Theravada lineage where the king Mongkut received Upasampada for Dhammayut, still doesn't have such a teaching.
Do you think you know better than the ancient Sangha ?
classicaltheravada.wordpress.com
ChooChoo
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:50 am

Re: Mahanikaya vs Dhammayuttika

Post by ChooChoo »

Are there Monasteries of either tradition I can stay at when I go to Thailand?
User avatar
Virgo
Posts: 1538
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:52 pm
Location: United States

Re: Mahanikaya vs Dhammayuttika

Post by Virgo »

ChooChoo wrote: Wed May 01, 2019 8:55 pm Are there Monasteries of either tradition I can stay at when I go to Thailand?
If you are in Bangkok, you should visit Wat Bowon on a day trip. It is a Dhammayut Monastery. It is located near Khao San Road in the Banglamphu district of Bangkok.

Kevin
The Hunger Site

________________
TRobinson465
Posts: 764
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: Mahanikaya vs Dhammayuttika

Post by TRobinson465 »

rightviewftw wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 9:13 pm
TRobinson465 wrote: Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:28 am Some of their practices are in fact unnecessary, like only eating one meal a day (most mahanikaya temples eat 2 meals, just b4 noon. which is perfectly allowed in the vinaya).
Friend, It is not allowed to eat two meals but one can eat a portion of the meal at a later time:

https://www.wisdompubs.org/book/middle- ... dali-sutta
1. Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s Park. There he addressed the bhikkhus thus: “Bhikkhus.”—“Venerable sir,” they replied. The Blessed One said this:
2. “Bhikkhus, I eat at a single session. By so doing, I am free from illness and affliction, and I enjoy health, strength, and a comfortable abiding. Come, bhikkhus, eat at a single session. By so doing, you too will be free from illness and affliction, and you will enjoy health, strength, and a comfortable abiding.”
3. When this was said, the venerable Bhaddāli told the Blessed One: “Venerable sir, I am not willing to eat at a single session; for if I were to do so, I might have worry and anxiety about it.”
“Then, Bhaddāli, eat one part there where you are invited and bring away one part to eat. By eating in that way, [438] you will maintain yourself.”
“Venerable sir, I am not willing to eat in that way either; for if I were to do so, I might also have worry and anxiety about it.”
4. Then, when this training precept was being made known by the Blessed One, the venerable Bhaddāli publicly declared in the Sangha of bhikkhus his unwillingness to undertake the training. Then the venerable Bhaddāli did not present himself to the Blessed One for the whole of that three-month period [of the Rains], as he did not fulfil the training in the Teacher’s Dispensation.
...
Not two meals but one meal in two portions, friend. I have also seen monks completely ignore this and have two separate meals offered to them.


Hi, so I'm confused about this now. According to the dhutangas. One of the 13 recommended (not required) training practices is eating only one meal a day. But the sutta above appears to support the notion that one meal a day is required. So I'm confused now. If one meal a day is required, then what is the recommended practice Dhutanga number 5 is referring to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhutanga

Thanks in advance for anyone who can help clarify this. :anjali:
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"At Varanasi, in the Deer Park at Isipatana, the Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta

"Go forth, monks, for the good of the many, for the happiness of the many, out of compassion for the world, for the welfare, the good and the happiness of gods and men. Let no two of you go in the same direction." - First Khandhaka, Chapter 11, Vinaya.
User avatar
Bhikkhu_Jayasara
Posts: 267
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:54 am
Contact:

Re: Mahanikaya vs Dhammayuttika

Post by Bhikkhu_Jayasara »

TRobinson465 wrote: Mon May 06, 2019 7:19 pm
rightviewftw wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 9:13 pm
TRobinson465 wrote: Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:28 am Some of their practices are in fact unnecessary, like only eating one meal a day (most mahanikaya temples eat 2 meals, just b4 noon. which is perfectly allowed in the vinaya).
Friend, It is not allowed to eat two meals but one can eat a portion of the meal at a later time:

https://www.wisdompubs.org/book/middle- ... dali-sutta
1. Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s Park. There he addressed the bhikkhus thus: “Bhikkhus.”—“Venerable sir,” they replied. The Blessed One said this:
2. “Bhikkhus, I eat at a single session. By so doing, I am free from illness and affliction, and I enjoy health, strength, and a comfortable abiding. Come, bhikkhus, eat at a single session. By so doing, you too will be free from illness and affliction, and you will enjoy health, strength, and a comfortable abiding.”
3. When this was said, the venerable Bhaddāli told the Blessed One: “Venerable sir, I am not willing to eat at a single session; for if I were to do so, I might have worry and anxiety about it.”
“Then, Bhaddāli, eat one part there where you are invited and bring away one part to eat. By eating in that way, [438] you will maintain yourself.”
“Venerable sir, I am not willing to eat in that way either; for if I were to do so, I might also have worry and anxiety about it.”
4. Then, when this training precept was being made known by the Blessed One, the venerable Bhaddāli publicly declared in the Sangha of bhikkhus his unwillingness to undertake the training. Then the venerable Bhaddāli did not present himself to the Blessed One for the whole of that three-month period [of the Rains], as he did not fulfil the training in the Teacher’s Dispensation.
...
Not two meals but one meal in two portions, friend. I have also seen monks completely ignore this and have two separate meals offered to them.


Hi, so I'm confused about this now. According to the dhutangas. One of the 13 recommended (not required) training practices is eating only one meal a day. But the sutta above appears to support the notion that one meal a day is required. So I'm confused now. If one meal a day is required, then what is the recommended practice Dhutanga number 5 is referring to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhutanga

Thanks in advance for anyone who can help clarify this. :anjali:
The Buddha is inviting the monks to do as he does " come Bhikkhus" , he is not laying down a rule. outside of the patimokha, The Buddha did not force monastics to live in a particular way(even at the time of the Buddha there were city monks, forest monks, etc), but he did encourage certain ways of living, like the eating one meal a day. He also continued to abide as much as he could in the forest " for the benefit of future generations", to be an example for people to follow, knowing full well that some would, and some would not.

It's also important to know that the Dhutangas are not part of the patimokha, they are things added later to the tradition.They may individually be found in the suttas, but as a list of extra things to undertake, are not found.

As for the eating two meals or a portion of one, I do not believe the "portion of one" is a vinaya rule. the rule on how many meals a day evolved from 3 meals, to two meals (being morning and evening) to two meals ( being morning and lunch).
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bhikkhu Jayasāra -http://www.youtube.com/studentofthepath and https://maggasekha.org/
budo
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Mahanikaya vs Dhammayuttika

Post by budo »

Imho, the Buddha was quite vocal about dwelling in forests for one who has attained jhanas and wants to develop them further.
“Upāli, remote lodgings in the wilderness and the forest are challenging. It’s hard to maintain seclusion and hard to find joy in it. Staying alone, the forests seem to rob the mind of a mendicant who isn’t immersed in samādhi. If someone should say this: ‘Though I don’t have immersion, I’m going to frequent remote lodgings in the wilderness and the forest.’ You can expect that they’ll sink down or float away.
- AN 10.99

and then
Take a mendicant living in the neighborhood of a village who I see sitting immersed in samādhi. I think to myself: ‘Now a monastery worker, a novice, or a fellow practitioner will make this venerable fall from immersion. So I’m not pleased that that mendicant is living in the neighborhood of a village.

Take a mendicant in the wilderness who I see sitting nodding in meditation. I think to myself: ‘Now this venerable, having dispelled that sleepiness and weariness, will focus just on the unified perception of wilderness.’ So I’m pleased that that mendicant is living in the wilderness.
- AN 8.86

Therefore one should first attain Jhanas in a village, and then start moving further away from villages.
TRobinson465
Posts: 764
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: Mahanikaya vs Dhammayuttika

Post by TRobinson465 »

Bhikkhu_Jayasara wrote: Mon May 06, 2019 8:08 pm
TRobinson465 wrote: Mon May 06, 2019 7:19 pm
rightviewftw wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 9:13 pm
Friend, It is not allowed to eat two meals but one can eat a portion of the meal at a later time:

https://www.wisdompubs.org/book/middle- ... dali-sutta

Not two meals but one meal in two portions, friend. I have also seen monks completely ignore this and have two separate meals offered to them.


Hi, so I'm confused about this now. According to the dhutangas. One of the 13 recommended (not required) training practices is eating only one meal a day. But the sutta above appears to support the notion that one meal a day is required. So I'm confused now. If one meal a day is required, then what is the recommended practice Dhutanga number 5 is referring to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhutanga

Thanks in advance for anyone who can help clarify this. :anjali:
The Buddha is inviting the monks to do as he does " come Bhikkhus" , he is not laying down a rule. outside of the patimokha, The Buddha did not force monastics to live in a particular way(even at the time of the Buddha there were city monks, forest monks, etc), but he did encourage certain ways of living, like the eating one meal a day. He also continued to abide as much as he could in the forest " for the benefit of future generations", to be an example for people to follow, knowing full well that some would, and some would not.

It's also important to know that the Dhutangas are not part of the patimokha, they are things added later to the tradition.They may individually be found in the suttas, but as a list of extra things to undertake, are not found.

As for the eating two meals or a portion of one, I do not believe the "portion of one" is a vinaya rule. the rule on how many meals a day evolved from 3 meals, to two meals (being morning and evening) to two meals ( being morning and lunch).
Thank you for the input bhante. I appreciate the clarification. :anjali:
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"At Varanasi, in the Deer Park at Isipatana, the Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta

"Go forth, monks, for the good of the many, for the happiness of the many, out of compassion for the world, for the welfare, the good and the happiness of gods and men. Let no two of you go in the same direction." - First Khandhaka, Chapter 11, Vinaya.
Post Reply