Just came back and got a whole eyefull of historical arguments about
ordination. Quite welcome - reminds me of Monty Python (this is NOT
an argument! Yes it is. No, it's a contradiction. No it's not.).
Sorry, I'm just reading it all and can't help but wonder if really
it's all gotten off track... sometimes when you are all caught up in
something, you can't see it clearly, so maybe having been away, I
have something to add... but I am going by opinion here:
First, I think the key to this whole argument is not whether one
group or another allows the carrying of money, etc. in their rules.
I think even if one group were to radically alter all of the Lord
Buddha's rules as laid down, they would still not be considered non-
bhikkhus by the Theravada vinaya, not until they actually went ahead
and broke one of the parajika. If they broke a sanghadisesa as
accords with the Theravada vinaya, they would still be able to join
in an ordination unless undergoing parivassa or manatta, am I
correct?
I don't think a problem regarding ordination arises directly from
the ten famous points, but it might be from the following:
If a monk were banished, say through the thirteenth Sanghadisesa or
the 68/69th paccitiya, would they still be able to fit a quorom for
ordaining monks or not? It is said that they should not, but if
they do, is the ordination invalid?
Apart from this, is there any basis beyond parajika or
parivasa/manatta to invalidate a bhikkhu's fitting the quorum of an
ordination?
Why I ask, is because it seems like none of the key issues in
tracing valid (according to the Pali) ordinations through different
schools have been well addressed, but rather we are beating around
the bush talking about "asking" vs. "standing". The reason why this
has happened, seems to me to be either:
1) I missed a discussion on this group about how all the different
branches of Buddhism actually did or didn't come from ordinations
with valid monks and monkettes, and what constitutes a valid monk or
monkette (according to the Pali of course - sorry Bhante Sujato, but
this IS a Pali group after all).
2) everyone else already knows the above, and so is leaving me out
in the cold inadvertently, or
3) maybe the discussion has overstepped itself?
I would like to know what, according to reverend sirs like
Dhammanando and Sujato, constitutes a valid ordination? What
nullifies a monk from partaking in ordination? It would be
interesting to me to know whether, according to the Pali, ostracism
invalidates a monk from participation in an ordination (i.e. that he
doesn't count towards the five or ten).
Then, if you're still with me, I would like to ask as to whether the
Pali records show anything that thus invalidates all of the other
schools from being monks in the proper Theravada sense of the word.
I suppose I might add my own two cents, that the Lord Buddha gave
clear instruction on the desputes raised in the past ten days - that
if the monks disputed over the vinaya it was no big deal to Him.
But if the monks were to dispute over the dhamma, this would be A
Very Big Deal. This is more than enough reason for me to bury my
head in the sand and say "My tradition is the best" and not share
communion (or even tea) with monks who hold what is in my opinion
adhamma, whether they be real monks or not. I would humbly
encourage other traditions to do the same :) My teacher says that
when you are angry at someone, you should stay far away from them.
Probably the same goes for when you don't want to share the same
religion with them :)
Peace, from a mountain top in old-growth rainforest. Who could
argue with that?