Dear Suan Lu Zaw,
> You wrote:
>
> "the custom of not allowing laypeople to see the Vinaya."
>
> Are you sure about this custom?
The question at the beginning of this thread was regarding the
Chinese tradition, where such a custom does indeed prevail
> You also wrote:
>
> "Another related problem is bhikkhuni ordination: traditional
> Theravadins remain opposed to this, partly because they often
> believe that 'Mahayana' monastics are not really bhikkhus and
> bhikkhunis (if they are even Buddhists). Only ignorance of the
> closeness of the monastic codes can sustain this belief -
especially
> in view of the fact that Chinese bhikkhuni ordination stemmed
> originally from Sri Lanka!"
>
> Your views here are rather simplistic. For example, why do you
think
> that those non-Theravadin monastics feel the need to call
> themselves "Mahayana"? Don't you think that it sounded very
arrogant?
Well, i agree that the original motivation for assuming the
title 'Mahayana' does seem more than a trifle conceited, but by now
it has just become an accepted usage.
In any case, the question to hand was the validity of bhikkhuni
ordination and the relevance of the historical relations between
early schools such as Theravada and Mahayana. This has nothing to do
with any imputed arrogance on anyone's behalf.
>
> And, don't you think that accusing Theravada ascetics of ignorance
> of the closeness of the monastic codes made you sound arrogant and
> conceited as well?
What's more to the point, is it true? I have met, in 11 years in
robes, vanishingly few Theravada monks who displayed any knowledge
or interest in such matters. Do you know of any? I'd love to hear
it, because i have been working quite hard to overcome such
ignorance, and am always delighted to meet someone, especially a
monastic, who shares similar interests.
>
> Let me tell you why Theravada ascetics and their followers regard
> the so-called Mahayana monastics and their other variants as fakes.
>
> I read during 2003 (or 2004?) in The Canberra Times that a Tibetan
> lama ordained women as Bhikkhuniis, and claimed to the effect that
> he had revolutionized something. As if long-suffering women denied
> the opportunity to ordain were now liberated from the strict heavy-
> handed Theravada Vinaya rules!
>
> Guess what? This Tibetan lama is an acquaintance of mine. He is
> married with children and goes about in lay clothes. He wears lama
> robes only when there are ceremonies such as during Dalai Lama's
> visit. Or perhaps he might have put on the monk's saffron robes
when
> conducting the so-called ordination ceremony of women. After those
> ceremonies, he puts on lay clothes and lives and behaves like any
> other householders! How convenient! :-) Did you go to that
ceremony
> (held outside Canberra)?
No, i didn't, but the gentleman concerned, Lama Chodak, has visited
my monastery. We had a very pleasant talk, and i was impressed with
his sincerity. He has done a three year solitary meditation retreat,
and i felt when listening to him that his meditation teachings were
good. Obviously we have very different views on monastic practice,
and i look forward to continuing my dialogue with him on the matter.
>
> As far as I am concerned, this Tibetan lama is merely a
householder
> and ceremonial robe-wearer.
Yes, he is a householder - no-one disagrees with that. And yes, i
guess he wears robes at ceremonies. But i would not wish to reduce a
human being and dedicated long-term Dhamma practitioner to
being 'merely' this.
And, those so-called Bhikkhuniis
> ordained by this ceremonial robe-wearer are no more than fakes.
You omit to mention that the ordination was carried out by a quorum
of bhikkhus and bhikkhunis. I'm not sure what role Lama Chodak
himself played in the ordination.
If you look closely at the ordination procedure in the Pali, you'll
see that there is a surprising amount of leeway given as to the role
of the upajjhaya. For example, if the upajjhaya is a layman, or an
animal(!), this does not invalidate the ordination, it merely
results in a dukkata offense for those carrying out the sanghakamma.
So even if Lama Chodak did carry out such a role - which i don't
know - this would not, in and of itself, invalidate the sanghakamma.
As long as there is a natticatutthakamma carried out in the
appropriate manner by a quorum, the ordination is valid.
>
> What do you think?
I think it is important to look carefully at the whole picture
before coming to one-sided conclusions.
The destiny of the Sangha founded by Lama Chodak has not been a
happy one. They were not given adequate support, and many have
disrobed. On the other hand, some remain, and were a bright,
inspired bunch when i met them at a Sangha meeting in Canberra some
time ago. They deeply respect their teacher and are full of
gratitude at the opportunity to practice Dhamma with him.
Lama Chodak has been criticized rather heavily from other quarters.
A sincere young Tibetan nun i know in Sydney, Venerable Yeshe, is
disappointed in the lack of support and training offered to the
Western monks and nuns in Tibetan tradition. We're trying to do
something positive about it.
When in Singapore for the Global Buddhist Conference, i listened to
a conversation between Venerable Lekshe Tsomo, an American bhiksuni
and head of the international Sakyadhita organization, and the
Vietnamese monk, Thich Quang Ba, a good friend of mine who was
present at Lama Chodak's ordination ceremony. Dr Tsomo expressed in
no uncertain terms that she thought what was done was wrong, there
needed to be more support, training and groundwork done before
plunging ahead with bhiksuni ordinations.
So there is a diversity and a dialogue going on within the
traditions. Yes, sometimes mistakes are made. But we cannot infer
from this that a whole tradition is wrong or invalid.
>
> By the way, how have you been ordained?
By natticatutthakamma in a quorum of bhikkhus, as is the case with
all bhikkhus of all traditions.
As a 'Mahayana' monastic?
>
No, my ordination lineage came from Thailand, hence from the
Theravada tradition of Sri Lanka, and before that, like all
ordination traditions, from the Dhamma-Vinaya of the Buddha himself.
yours in Dhamma-Vinaya
Bhante Sujato