I came back to Sri Lanka on 15th Feb., completed a draft of another paper, and now I have uploaded it to the Files section of this list.
First, some disclaimers are in order. I plan to send this paper to an established peer-reviewed journal so I reserve all the rights. And this paper is not yet peer-reviewed so any scholar wishing to cite and make use of the materials therein should be very careful. I might be entirely wrong, who knows?
Now some remarks about its contents.
This paper is entitled "Titthiyaparivaasa vis-à-vis Noviciation" and its abstract is:
'Dhirasekera claims in his work "Buddhist Monastic Discipline" that there is a "considerable difference" between the Vinaya and Sutta traditions as regards the probation procedure for former alien ascetics aspiring to full ordination in the Buddhist Order. I argue, however, that he is only following Buddhaghosa's assumptions to arrive at that conclusion. I question these assumptions and attempt to prove that such a difference between Vinaya and Sutta traditions is only apparent, not real.'
Obviously this topic is only a remote corner in the Vinaya canon that most of the members will not find interesting. However, the basic of my argument is a legally important fact. Pali sources nowhere mentions novicehood as a requirement for the full-ordained monkhood of men otherwise qualified, so the Burmese tradition has always believed that it is legally possible to directly ordain laymen, even if it culturally insists on all candidates passing through the novice stage first. But I cannot comment on other traditions.
Therefore I would like to ask a question. Is there any doctrinal evidence in other traditions to make novicehood compulsory for full ordination (for monks) ?
(I must note with regrets that I have not been able to show this paper to Dhirasekera (now the late Bhikkhu Dhammavihari) and hear his comments. He passed away just after my arrival in Sri Lanka.)