Dear Venerables,

Thank you Dhammanando for the clarification.

If I may jump into the middle of this...

> 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.

I think, after going back over the texts again, I agree that the
Vinaya Pitaka is not explicitly clear on every point - much of the
Tipitaka is the same way - of course, no one suggests this is a
fault of the Buddha or the monks who memorised it. On the contrary,
I think it makes perfect sense, that there should thus be
commentary. But in some cases it is perfectly clear by itself. For
instance, pacittiya 65:

"...so ca puggalo anupasampanno..."

but the other cases are not mentioned. This might be a solid use of
the great standards (usually it is for cases where one wants to eat
cheese in the evening or so on). Surely by the great standards it
is clear that the other cases are also included in this rule.

Another thing that seems clear is the ordination procedure. The
Buddha disallowed all forms of upasampada that were previously
allowed (i.e. only one, the tisaranagamana) and allowed an
ordination by a sangha of ten bhikkhus (and later five in remote
areas). I think this may be one important word that hasn't been
discussed here: "anujaanaami". Where the Lord Buddha first says
this or that should not be done, and then says "I allow...", I think
it is clear that the thing thus labelled by the word "shouldn't" is
not allowed. For example:

"Na, bhikkhave, ayaacitena upasampaadetabbo. Yo upasampaadeyya,
aapattidukka.tassa. Anujaanaami, bhikkhave, yaacitena
upasampaadetu.m."

Could one say that an ordination against one's will stands? Of
course, one could say so, but I think it is clear from the Lord
Buddha's words that one should not say so. Otherwise, why would the
Lord Buddha specifically say "anujaanaami"? Should it be translated
as "I allow this as a suggestion, but you do whatever you like"?
For myself, I take it to mean that the singular anu~n~naata
upasampada has now been modified, just as happens in common law
practice in the West. If an ordination takes place without a monk's
yaacita, then it is an ordination not specifically allowed by the
Lord Buddha. If one arranges an upasampada in a way not
specifically allowed by the Lord Buddha in the Pali canon and
commentaries, IMHO it should not stand as a Theravada ordination.

So, the most important question is whether the other schools have
kept to the same anu~n~naata upasampada as recorded in the Pali
Tipitaka? What about Bhikkhuni ordinations? I've never studied it,
but I think it would likely be difficult for them to follow the
exact process as allowed by the Lord Buddha.

> 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 !

and then they could all sing "Always Look on the Bright Side of
Life" for the anumodana.

> 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?

Considering that this kind of ordination has not been allowed by the
Buddha, could it really be thought to stand by anyone?

What are the specific things required to make the
upasampada "allowed"?

1) the request from the applicant
2) the validity of the applicant (in eight ways at least)
3) the ten bhikkhus (or five)
4) the upajjha with 10 years standing, who is experienced (byatta)
and competent (pa.tibala)
5) the sanghakamma from the Pali (IMHO, translations would be
allowed if they stick to the letter)

Am I missing anything, or have I included anything that should not
be included?

It appears that the simple fact of being an upajjha is not easy... a
monk with wrong view cannot be an upajjha (perhaps saying that
arahants still have kilesa, or that Nibbaana is atta, or that one
can still talk to the Lord Buddha Gotama, count here)- only
ordination through an upajjha who has right view was allowed.

Respectfully,

Yuttadhammo