New Theravada Bhikkhuni Ordinations a Cause for Joy

[Dan74]

This link has many details:
https://classicaltheravada.org/t/garuka ... tion/535/9
as Dan74 noted the traditional position is that once the bhikkhuni order went extinct it cannot be reinistated.

And was this "traditional position" that states: "once the bhikkhuni order went extinct it cannot be reinstated" written down anywhere in the Suttas and/or Vinaya?

In the Mahavamsa an ancient text, although not part of sutta, it states about the time when Mahinda first brought the Dhamma to Sri Lanka:

But the Queen Anulā, who had come with five hundred women to greet the theras, attained to the second stage of salvation. And the queen Anulā with her five hundred women said to the king: “We would fain receive the pabbajjā-ordination, your Majesty.”

The king said to a thera, “Bestow on them the pabbajja!” But the thera made answer to the king: “It is not allowed to us. O great king, to bestow the pabbajjā on women. But in Pataliputta there lives a bhikkhunī, my younger sister, known by the name Saṅghamittā. She, who is ripe in experience, shall come hither bringing with her the southern branch of the great Bodhi-tree of the king of samaṇas, O king of men, and (bringing) also bhikkhunīs renowned (for holiness); to this end send a message to the king my father. When this therī is here she will confer the pabbajjā upon these women.”
(Mahāvaṃsa ch. XV

Any rule, law or even tradition are discussed in terms of the "letter" and the "spirit". This discussion appears to be exclusively about the letter, but if one may bring the spirit back to it, taking up robertk's quote above, it is naturally preferable when new bhikkhunis are initiated (and indeed, guided) by older experienced bhikkhunis. Hence the rule, whose spirit is clear. The situation where no such bhikkhunis are in existence is something else entirely. Would it have been the Buddha's intention to stop women from embarking on the holy life altogether? What would the possible reason ("spirit") behind such a restriction be? Or are we, like Deist fundamentalists, to follow rules blindly, because they are given to us by our omniscient creator?

Of course, David has mentioned that Mahayana bhikkhunis who are ordained under an equally ancient Vinaya and for all we know, do indeed trace their lineage to the Buddha, have been ordaining new bhikkhunis who choose to follow Theravada. Which rule, whether in letter or in spirit, makes that invalid?

[Eko Care]

According to the Bhikkhuni ordination procedure mentioned in Cullavagga Bhikkhunikkhandhaka, the Candidate require a Bhikkhuni-preceptor. Otherwise the ordination is invalid.

Cullavagga - Bhikkhunikkhandaka:
First, she should be invited to choose a woman preceptor; having invited her to choose a woman preceptor, a bowl and robes should be pointed out to her. ....

“The Order should be informed by an experienced, competent nun, saying: ‘Ladies, let the Order listen to me. This one, So-and-so, wishes for ordination through the lady So-and-so. ...

“Taking her at once, having approached the Order of monks, having made her arrange her upper robe over one shoulder, having made her honour the monks’ feet, having made her sit down on her haunches, having made her salute with joined palms, she should be made to ask for ordination, saying: ‘I, the lady So-and-so, wish for ordination through the lady So-and-so, I am asking the Order for ordination Ladies, may the Order raise me up out of compassion.’ The Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. This one, So-and-so, wishes for ordination through So-and-so. She is ordained on the one side in the Order of nuns, she is pure (in regard to the stumbling-blocks). So-and-so is asking the Order for ordination through the woman proposer So-and-so. If it seems right to the Order, the Order may ordain So-and-so through the woman proposer So-and-so. ...

Correct, however there were bhikkhuni preceptors at the time when the Theravada bhikkhuni lineage was reinstated.
They used Dhamaguptaka nuns from Korea and China. They have an unbroken lineage going back to the Buddha.
No rule in the vinaya against that.
All the subsequent ordinations after that used the fully ordained Theravada bhikkhunis.

The Vinaya is againt that.
Vinaya says the Preceptors must be valid preceptors. Preceptors must have ordained beforehand according to Theravada Vinaya Pitaka Procedures.
There are many conditions in Theravada Vinaya Pitaka Ordination Procedures such as Simas, Kammavacas etc that are not followed by the Dharmaguptaka tradition.
And Expelled or Parajika Preceptors are not valid as well.

There are many fully ordained Theravada bhikkhunis in Sri Lanka, a Theravada country.
There is at least one bhikkhuni monastery/temple in Thailand, a Theravada country, see for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhammananda_Bhikkhuni
And then there are at least 1,000 or more bhikkhunis in Western nations.

They are not considered Bhikkhunis by the Theravada Sangha (officially).

Any rule, law or even tradition are discussed in terms of the "letter" and the "spirit". This discussion appears to be exclusively about the letter, but if one may bring the spirit back to it, taking up robertk's quote above, it is naturally preferable when new bhikkhunis are initiated (and indeed, guided) by older experienced bhikkhunis. Hence the rule, whose spirit is clear. The situation where no such bhikkhunis are in existence is something else entirely. Would it have been the Buddha's intention to stop women from embarking on the holy life altogether? What would the possible reason ("spirit") behind such a restriction be? Or are we, like Deist fundamentalists, to follow rules blindly, because they are given to us by our omniscient creator?

Even though the issue (spirit) is sensitive, we are not allowed to bypass the Vinaya Ordination Requirements (letter).

Of course, David has mentioned that Mahayana bhikkhunis who are ordained under an equally ancient Vinaya and for all we know, do indeed trace their lineage to the Buddha, have been ordaining new bhikkhunis who choose to follow Theravada. Which rule, whether in letter or in spirit, makes that invalid?

See above. I can quote later if I had time.

[DNS]

Any rule, law or even tradition are discussed in terms of the "letter" and the "spirit". This discussion appears to be exclusively about the letter, but if one may bring the spirit back to it, taking up robertk's quote above, it is naturally preferable when new bhikkhunis are initiated (and indeed, guided) by older experienced bhikkhunis. Hence the rule, whose spirit is clear. The situation where no such bhikkhunis are in existence is something else entirely. Would it have been the Buddha's intention to stop women from embarking on the holy life altogether? What would the possible reason ("spirit") behind such a restriction be? Or are we, like Deist fundamentalists, to follow rules blindly, because they are given to us by our omniscient creator?

Of course, David has mentioned that Mahayana bhikkhunis who are ordained under an equally ancient Vinaya and for all we know, do indeed trace their lineage to the Buddha, have been ordaining new bhikkhunis who choose to follow Theravada. Which rule, whether in letter or in spirit, makes that invalid?

Yes, I think it comes down to this; the letter and the spirit of the teachings.

Classical Theravadins argue that the bhikkhuni line has died out, there are no "real" bhikkhunis available for the required double-ordination (quorum of bhikkhus and bhikkhunis).

Modern Theravadins argue that the Dharmaguptaka nuns have a lineage tracing back to the Buddha, unbroken and provided the necessary double-ordination of the first bhikkhunis of the reinstatement of the Theravada line with Theravada bhikkhus participating in the ceremonies. The Dharmaguptaka nuns have some differing views from Theravada, but can we really say that all Theravadins have the same views anyway? The fact is they were ordained nuns and helped to revive the bhikkhuni line. The Buddha allowed for and wanted bhikkhunis and directly ordained his step-mother Maha-Pajapati Gotami. In the spirit of the teachings and doing what the Buddha wanted (a four-fold assembly including bhikkhunis), the bhikkhunis who have done the full ordination should be accepted as that.

[ssasny]

Great post!

The bottom line seems to be if the Theravada group want to be known for love, compassion, inclusiveness, and encouragement to practice as fully as one is able,
or rather a group known for repression, hatred, snarkeyness, and bitterness.

[Sam Vara]

They are not considered Bhikkhunis by the Theravada Sangha (officially).

Any rule, law or even tradition are discussed in terms of the "letter" and the "spirit". This discussion appears to be exclusively about the letter, but if one may bring the spirit back to it, taking up robertk's quote above, it is naturally preferable when new bhikkhunis are initiated (and indeed, guided) by older experienced bhikkhunis. Hence the rule, whose spirit is clear. The situation where no such bhikkhunis are in existence is something else entirely. Would it have been the Buddha's intention to stop women from embarking on the holy life altogether? What would the possible reason ("spirit") behind such a restriction be? Or are we, like Deist fundamentalists, to follow rules blindly, because they are given to us by our omniscient creator?

Even though the issue (spirit) is sensitive, we are not allowed to bypass the Vinaya Ordination Requirements (letter).

Let's assume that this is technically correct, and that these women are not considered to be Bhikkhunis by the Theravada Sangha; and that this is "official". What happens if someone does consider them to be Bhikkhunis, and treats them as such?

Does a faithful third party breach some further rule or precept unless, knowing about it, they publicly object to others unknown to both the supposed Bhikkhunis and those who suppose them to be so?

[Radix]

Yes, I think it comes down to this; the letter and the spirit of the teachings.

Classical Theravadins argue that the bhikkhuni line has died out, there are no "real" bhikkhunis available for the required double-ordination (quorum of bhikkhus and bhikkhunis).

Modern Theravadins argue that the Dharmaguptaka nuns have a lineage tracing back to the Buddha, unbroken and provided the necessary double-ordination of the first bhikkhunis of the reinstatement of the Theravada line with Theravada bhikkhus participating in the ceremonies. The Dharmaguptaka nuns have some differing views from Theravada, but can we really say that all Theravadins have the same views anyway? The fact is they were ordained nuns and helped to revive the bhikkhuni line. The Buddha allowed for and wanted bhikkhunis and directly ordained his step-mother Maha-Pajapati Gotami. In the spirit of the teachings and doing what the Buddha wanted (a four-fold assembly including bhikkhunis), the bhikkhunis who have done the full ordination should be accepted as that.

This kind of thinking shows that monastic ordination is viewed as a right.

[Radix]

The bottom line seems to be if the Theravada group want to be known for love, compassion, inclusiveness, and encouragement to practice as fully as one is able,
or rather a group known for repression, hatred, snarkeyness, and bitterness.

Surely the "Theravada group" want to be known for enlightenment.

[Radix]

Would it have been the Buddha's intention to stop women from embarking on the holy life altogether? What would the possible reason ("spirit") behind such a restriction be?

Why would someone want to ordain or support such ordination of other people, when there exists serious dispute over the validity of said ordination???

Would it have been the Buddha's intention to stop women from embarking on the holy life altogether?

No. The way things stand now, prospective Theravada nuns are not embarking on the Theravadan holy life, they are embarking on what is at best, a facade, a shell of it, a mere formality. For as things stand, they are "ordained" by preceptors they have no intention to stay with and follow.

[Dan74]

Would it have been the Buddha's intention to stop women from embarking on the holy life altogether? What would the possible reason ("spirit") behind such a restriction be?

Why would someone want to ordain or support such ordination of other people, when there exists serious dispute over the validity of said ordination???

Perhaps because there are enough of the appropriate support structures for them to embark on the journey they wish to embark on?

Would it have been the Buddha's intention to stop women from embarking on the holy life altogether?

No. The way things stand now, prospective Theravada nuns are not embarking on the Theravadan holy life, they are embarking on what is at best, a facade, a shell of it, a mere formality. For as things stand, they are "ordained" by preceptors they have no intention to stay with and follow.

What makes you say that?

My experience has been the direct opposite. I've met bhikkhunis who were earnest, dedicated in their pursuit of the holy life and an inspiration to those around them.

[Radix]

Why would someone want to ordain or support such ordination of other people, when there exists serious dispute over the validity of said ordination???

Perhaps because there are enough of the appropriate support structures for them to embark on the journey they wish to embark on?

In other words: ordination as a right and a meal ticket.

Would it have been the Buddha's intention to stop women from embarking on the holy life altogether?

No. The way things stand now, prospective Theravada nuns are not embarking on the Theravadan holy life, they are embarking on what is at best, a facade, a shell of it, a mere formality. For as things stand, they are "ordained" by preceptors they have no intention to stay with and follow.

What makes you say that?

My experience has been the direct opposite. I've met bhikkhunis who were earnest, dedicated in their pursuit of the holy life and an inspiration to those around them.

I'm sure they are, they're just not Theravada.