--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" <rjkjp1@...> wrote:
> Dear Venerable Sujato,
> I am trying to grasp exactly what your position is on Bhikkhunis
and
> Bhikkhus outside of Theravada.
Well, thank you for giving my ideas some time and consideration.
> You say
>
> "A bhikkhuni is a bhikkhuni. The bhikkhuni lineage was established
by
> the Buddha, and derives its authenticity from him, not from any
> sect. No Vinaya or ordination procedure mentions the
> words 'Theravada', 'Dharmagupta', 'Mahayana', etc. And as far as i
> am aware, the kammavacas and other essentials of the ordination
> procedure are the same in all traditions."
>
> ======
> They could be exactly the same but if they are from different
sects
> then they are not Theravada. You cannot say that someone who
ordains
> as a Tibetan Monk or a Dhamagupta is a Bhikkhu by Theravada
> standards.
Why not? That is, in fact, exactly what i do say.
I have been recently forming an Australian Sangha Association, and
in my work for this i have had the pleasure of meeting many
monastics from all traditions. They all agree on the fundamental
meaning of Sangha - a community of celibate Buddhist monastics
ordained in an authentic lineage. Not one has suggested that
monastics from other traditions should not be regarded as properly
ordained. I am aware that this is the view, sadly, that prevails in
some theravadin countries, but that clearly is changing.
There have been a very few, including the disciples of Lama Chodak,
who have been of the view that this definition should be broadened
to include lay teachers such as Lama Chodak (without, of course
implying that he is actually a monk - in fact he used to be, but
disrobed some years ago). But the vast majority, including all other
Tibetans, have preferred the stricter definition.
>
> You seem to be saying that Theravada sangha has no right to not
> recognize monks from other traditions - that they are the same-
No, as i said before, they are not the same, but their ordination
lineages and Vinayas stem from the Buddha himself, just as do the
Theravadins. In this they are the same. In other aspects, such as
doctrinal understanding, practices, etc., they are different.
Whether the Theravadins have a 'right' to exclude others or not i
don't know - the language of 'rights' is not part of Buddhist
ethical discourse, perhaps because it leads to such problematic
claims.
In any case, if they do wish to exclude those of other lineages,
they cannot claim justification from the Vinaya itself. Of course,
actual practice involves taking into consideration many other
factors. I am not saying that Theravadins, or anyone else, must be
forced to open the floodgates to all and sundry. I am merely
pointing out that the Vinayas do not sanction or justify
sectarianism.
In the same way, i have been excluded from participating in
Sanghakamma by monks from the Dhammayut sect, since they regard Maha
Nikaya monks as not bhikkhus. That hurt. Where will it all end?
this
> based on the fact that Theravada was not a term in use at the
> Buddhas time.
That's not quite true - it is used to refer to the non-Buddhist
teachers Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta.
But the term Theravada or Vibhajavadin is used to
> describe the non-schismatic Bhikkhus (and previously bhikkhunis)
who
> kept the Dhamma and Vinaya pristine to this day.
Thnak you for the acknowledgement of the role that bhikkhunis have
played in the preservation of the Sasana. It is no empty saying, for
inscriptions in India frequently record the gifts of bhikkhunis who
were learned in a sutta, a nikaya, etc.
The bhikkhus of the Sri Lankan tradition of the Maha Vihara used the
term Theravadin of themselves, and that is exactly how i use it.
Whether and in what sense they might be considered 'non-schismatic'
is a difficult historical question - Stephen Hodge has mentioned a
few of the complexities.
Do the later Theravadin chronicles and commentaries use the
word 'theravada' to refer to the 'bhikkhus from Pava' of the last
chapter of the Culavagga? I don't know. But if they do, it is no
problem as long as we understand that, while the dwellers in the
Maha Vihara may legitimately claim descent from that faction, there
are many other schools of early Buddhism, such as the Dharmaguptaka
and Sarvastivada, who could make the same claim with equal
justification.
As far as i can see, the term 'Theravada' does not occur in the Pali
Culavagga account of the Second Council, although the bhikkhus from
Pava are referred to as 'theras'. But the proceedings of that
Council took place entirely on the basis of what was Dhamma and
Vinaya, not on the basis of who pledges allegiance to a certain
sectarian grouping.
I mentioned in an earlier message that many other schools, such as
the Sarvastivadins, might just as well claim the 'orthodox' bhikkhus
as their forbears. Re-reading the passage, i notice that one of the
bhikkhus from Pava (the good guys) is called Sambhuta Sanavasi
(wearer of hemp cloth). Interestingly, Sanakavasin is the name of
Upagupta's preceptor, the most famous of the Sarvastivada patriachs.
Thus the Theravada seems to make a hero of one of the founders of
the Sarvastivada. I am not sure whether the two 'Sanakavasins' can
be really identified, although they must have been roughly
contemporary. At the least this shows a shared respect for keeping
ascetic practices.
In any case, the chief issue was handling money. Since we see today
that the vast majority of bhikkhus, whether Theravadins or
otherwise, use money, in violation of the precepts and of the
findings of the second council, in what sense can they be regarded
as the 'keepers of the flame'? Surely we should, rather, encourage
and support any bhikkhus or bhikkhunis who has the courage to keep
the rules and renounce money, regardless of what tradition they hail
from.
They are the
> genuine heirs of the Buddha, and trying to dismiss this tradition
as
> being only a convention based on terminology is wrong .
Perhaps, indeed, it is wrong, but i would like to see some good
reasons, based on Dhamma-Vinaya, before i was to accept that.
>
> You wrote to Suan about the ordination of a nun in Australia
>
> Venrable Sujato:"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."""""
> ---------------------
> I do not think that this Bhikkhuni ordination was valid according
to
> the Theravada scriptures. Certainly it may be 100% kosher by
Tibetan
> standards, and if was as a tibetan nun, then fine.
The Theravada scriptures say that if an ordination is carried out
appropriately with a natticatutthakamma then it is valid. As i do
tire a little of repeating, neither the Theravadin nor the Tibetan
scriptures mention anything about sectarian allegiences affecting
the validity of Sanghakamma, for the very good reason that there
were no sects when the Vinaya was laid down.
>
> I suspect the exemption you mention is given only if the monk
> either didn't know he wasn't a monk (for example he was ordained
but
> was a eunuch and thus not properly a monk) or that the other monks
> had no idea he was not a monk.
I cannot believe that a group of
> laymen or non-theravada monks could carry out an ordination that
is
> accepted as being a Theravada ordination..
I never said that a group of laymen can carry out a valid
ordination. I said that the presence of a layman in the assembly,
even as upajjhaya, does not invalidate the procedure, according to
the Pali Vinaya, as long as there is a quorum of bhikkhus.
But please, I would love
> to see the relevant section of the Vinaya.
From IB Horner's translation:
Now at that time monks ordained one who had no preceptor. They told
this matter to the Lord. He said: 'Monks, one with no preceptor
should not be ordained. Whoever should ordain (one such), there is
an offence of wrong-doing.'
Now at that time monks ordained one who had a Sangha as preceptor
(and similarly one who had a), group, eunech, one in communion by
theft (ie a layman imitating a monk), one gone over to another
religion, an animal, a matricide (etc.)...'there is an offense of
wrong-doing'. (Vinaya Mahavagga, 1.69, pg 114 of IB Horner's
translation)
So these things are not to be done, and if they are done they result
in a minor offense, one that may be expiated by a simple confession.
They do not invalidate the ordination. The Vinaya is quite clear on
this. In certain cases an infringement does invalidate the
ordination, such as, for example, if a matricide ordains. In such
cases the term used is 'naasetabbo' 'must be expelled'. But other
cases say merely 'aapatti dukkatassa'.
The Vinaya mentions nothing about whether the people involved
actually were aware of their inappropraite behaviour or not. In some
cases, it would be difficult to disguise, such as when a sangha is
the upajjhaya. So the question of whether the monk to be ordained or
the other monks knew what they were doing and that it was against
the Vinaya does not affect the Vinaya issue.
yours in Dhamma
Bhante Sujato