Bhante,

>> 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 should prefer not to presume anything at all, but to
simply note that the passage contains no comment on whether
the upasampadaa succeeds or not, and then seek clarification
in the Atthakathaa. In vinayaic reasoning it is not a
sound policy to infer a positive from the mere absence of
a negative, nor a negative from the mere absence of a
positive.

For example, the Vinaya contains a great many prohibitions
that apply to bhikkhuniis, but with no corresponding
prohibition for bhikkhus (e.g. employing slaves). We are not
*on that basis alone* to infer that these things are
permitted to bhikkhus, for the mere absence of a prohibition
does not in itself amount to an allowance, just as the mere
absence of an allowance does not in itself amount to a
prohibition. (If it were otherwise, then two of the four
Great Standards would be completely redundant). In some
instances the unmentioned thing may be allowable, in others
it may not. In some cases it may be prohibited, but
transgression would result in a different class of offence
than if the action had been performed by a bhikkhunii.

Likewise, the mere absence of a statement saying, "A bhikkhu
ordained by a sangha with an animal acting as upajjhaya is
to be expelled," is not an adequate basis to conclude that
his upasampadaa can be treated as valid in spite of its defect.

> 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.

A "simple and direct" reading would merely note that the
action in question is prohibited, that it will result in a
dukka.ta offence if it is done, but that no comment is made
as to whether the resulting ordination is valid or invalid. It is
not a simple and direct reading when we inject our own
opinion as to what the passage implies.

>> 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.

I think that your analogy is inapt for establishing that
upasampaadeyya necessarily implies the successful completion
of the sanghakamma. The verbs kha.nati and upasampaadeti
denote two different actions whose successful completion
cannot be established with a comparable degree of inerrancy.

The actions denoted by the terms kha.nana.m (digging) and
kha.naapana.m (causing to dig) are of a kind that are
completed in a fairly definitive and certain manner. Digging
has either been done or it has not; an order to dig was
either given or it was not. Barring insanity, there will
rarely be any occasion for a bhikkhu to doubt whether he was
digging or giving someone an order to dig. The only matter
of doubt will be over whether the earth that has been dug is
classed as "living", but this has a bearing only upon the
category of offence, not upon whether the act of digging has
taken place.

Upasampaadana.m ("conferring the full acceptance") is a
different kettle of fish, for it may *appear* to have been
done (i.e. by the completion of the motion and three
announcements in what looks at first sight to be a properly
ordered ceremony) but later prove not to have been done
properly. There are numerous grounds on which the procedure
might later be discovered to have been defective. Therefore,
unlike with digging the earth, the successful completion of
upasampaadana.m cannot be more than a ceteris paribus
practical assumption (except where it is the Buddha who
performs it). Should it be established that the procedure
involved some defect, the sangha would need to determine
whether that defect would be substantial enough to nullify
the sanghakamma. But while the matter is sub judice, the
textual convention is for the man defectively ordained to
continue to be designated "upasampanna" on a provisional
basis. Whether he is really upasampanna remains to be seen.

>> 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?

No. If you wish you may check it for yourself. Naasetabba is
only used in eight cases (Vin. i. 85-9), all of them
involving the most extreme classes of prohibited persons who
are not permitted even the going forth, let alone the
upasampadaa. Several of them are also "wrong resorts" for
bhikkhus.

> 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?)

That the man has mistakenly come to be viewed as ordained,
either owing to an act of deception on his part, or else a
wilful disregard of Vinaya ordinances by the bhikkhus who
ordained him, or an unwitting error on their part.

In this case your literal reading is not actually faithful to
the meaning, for we know from the fact that he has to be
expelled that the man is not really upasampanna, except in
the qualified sense I have outlined above.

> but that they should be expelled. Naasetabba
> in such contexts clearly means 'expelled from the order',
> not merely 'sent away' (from the monastery).

Naasanaa is actually of three kinds: sa.mvaasanaasanaa,
li`nganaasanaa and da.n.dakammanaasanaa. For their meanings
see VinA. iv. 870-1. All entail not only removal of status but also
banishment from the presence of the bhikkhusangha.

> 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.

This is not an either/or thing. It is true that they may not be
ordained:

maatughaatako, bhikkhave, anupasampanno na upasampaadetabbo
(Vin. i. 88)

*AND* it is true that if they do somehow manage to get ordained
then they are to be expelled, for the above passage continues:

... upasampanno naasetabbo (ibid.)

> Unless, of course, there is another passage in the Vinaya to
> justify the claim that they cannot be ordained at all?

See above. How else is one supposed to understand "na
upasampaadetabbo" ?

> I don't know.

If you are interesting in learning, then I recommend you get
the Pali text of the Parivaara and study the Kammavagga
(pp. 220-3), where these matters are very conveniently
summarized. The Atthakathaa to this same section (VinA. vii.
1395-1412) will then tell you how the ramifications of these
are understood by Theravaada vinayadharas. If you don't
have these texts let me know and I will e-mail them to you
in Pali, English and Thai.

>> 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.

It is not a question of what the Buddha was capable of. It
is a question of what the early sangha chose to put into the
Vinaya Pi.taka and what things were -- for whatever reason
-- not preserved in this collection but in some other
manner. I don't see how it can be claimed that the Vinaya
Pi.taka by itself is "clear enough" when it does not say
anything about whether all defective upasampadaas are valid
or invalid. Nor is there any statement to the effect, "All
defective upasampadaas are to be treated as valid except
those containing the word naasetabba" (this is no more than
your own opinion).

On a final note, you have stated already that you are not a
Vinaya expert, but I wonder have you given any serious
thought at all to the implications of your rejection of the
Vinaya Atthakathaa's exposition of sanghakammas? It is not
just that you are putting yourself out of kilter with the
entire mainstream of the Theravaada sangha, but it seems
that your insistence on relying only upon the Vinaya Pi.taka
interpreted according to your own lights leads you at times
to make judgments that are barely even sensible, let alone
orthodox.

By your reading, it would appear that a meeting of the
Australian sangha consisting of yourself and Ven.
Brahmavamso, with a bald wallaby acting as upajjhaya, and
two koala bears to make the quorum, sitting in an improperly
established siimaa (or sitting on a public bus or in a
sheep dip, for that matter), could give upasampadaa to a
man with infectious boils, whose parents do not consent to
his ordaining, who owes thousands of dollars on his Visa
card, lacks the full complement of bowl and robes, and is
wanted for murder in New Zealand....

The bald wallaby could recite the motion and three
announcements in the wrong order (or simply not bother with
them); the two koala bears could fall asleep while you and
Ajahn Brom are interrogating the candidate about obstacles
to ordination, and the anusaasanaa could then be omitted
because everyone's getting bored ....

All the same, the ordination would still be valid !

Now I'll admit there's a tiny element of reductio ad absurdum
in the above, but would you agree that the conclusion would
be in accordance with your understanding of sanghakammas?

Best wishes,

Dhammanando