Hello Ven,


--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Dhammanando Bhikkhu <dhammanando@...>
wrote:

>
> May I ask what are your grounds for supposing that the mere
> absence of the word "naasetabba" means that a defective
> ordination is to be accepted as valid in spite of its
> defects (vipatti) ?

If the action is referred to as upasamapada, and there is no mention
of it failing, whether by the usual term naasetabba or otherwise, i
can only presume it succeeds. I said earlier that i am not a Vinaya
expert, and would welcome some further comments in light of the
general principles underlying the validity or otherwise of
sanghakamma. But that's how it seems to me, reading simply and
directly from the relevant passage.

>
> The reason that you cite above -- the Buddha's use of
> "upasampadeyya" -- seems unsound to me,

This is the usual usage of such terms in the Vinaya. For example:

yo pana bhikkhu pa.thavi.m kha.neyya vaa kha.napeyya vaa,
paacittiya.m

I think we would agree that this must mean the earth is actually
dug, not that one tries and fails to dig the earth. Since such
idioms occur throughout the Vinaya, again i can only presume it has
the same meaning here, unless there is good reason to believe
otherwise.

for even in the

> cases that are naasetabba the Buddha also uses
> "upasampanna". Yet here it obviously does not mean that once
> accepted as a monk, a prohibited man's upasampadaa is to be
> treated as a fait accompli:
>
> pa.n.dako, bhikkhave, anupasampanno na upasampaadetabbo,
> upasampanno naasetabbo
> An unordained sexual aberrant, monks, must not be ordained;
> [if] ordained he is to be sent away.
>
> Notice that the eight cases where the Vinaya states that the
> defectively ordained man is to be "sent away" (naasetabba)
> all concern men for whom there is no possibility of ever
> receiving a valid upasampadaa in their present life (e.g.
> parricides, matricides, non-humans, sexual aberrants etc.).

Or is this just an assumption? Are we getting caught up in ways of
speaking? Again, reading literally from the passage you quote, it
would seem that the person is ordained (upasampanno - what else
could that possibly mean?) but that they should be expelled.
Naasetabba in such contexts clearly means 'expelled from the order',
not merely 'sent away' (from the monastery).

So whereas we tend to think such people cannot be ordained, perhaps
it would be more accurate to say that if they are ordained they are
to be immediately expelled. Unless, of course, there is another
passage in the Vinaya to justify the claim that they cannot be
ordained at all? I don't know.


In each case one

> would need to check with the Atthakathaa to determine
> whether the defect in question rendered the sa`nghakamma
> "kuppati" or "na kuppati". (The Vinaya Pi.taka by itself
> does not give enough information to decide this).

I would respectfully differ. I think the Buddha was quite capable of
describing how ordination was to take place, and think the
guidelines in the Vinaya are quite clear enough.

in Dhamma

Bhante Sujato