Buddhist fundamentalists?

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jun 06, 2011 6:29 pm

pueraeternus wrote:Thanks Namdrol. Still can't see how the technicalities of one ordination could hinder practice of another lineage's praxis, but I understand if it's too technical to go into details here.


It does not.

It just means that ordination rites are kept separate i.e. the method of ordination of Thervada is different than that of Mulasarvastivada. So for example, since the vows are different, different monks in different lineages cannot recite posadha with one another.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10167
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jun 06, 2011 6:31 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
The Buddha was not a "Buddhist" ...


Sure he was, since he, by his own admission, was following the path blazed by past buddhas.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10167
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby pueraeternus » Mon Jun 06, 2011 7:43 pm

Namdrol wrote:
pueraeternus wrote:Thanks Namdrol. Still can't see how the technicalities of one ordination could hinder practice of another lineage's praxis, but I understand if it's too technical to go into details here.


It does not.

It just means that ordination rites are kept separate i.e. the method of ordination of Thervada is different than that of Mulasarvastivada. So for example, since the vows are different, different monks in different lineages cannot recite posadha with one another.

N


Earlier you mentioned that the vinayadharas could consolidate the lineages. In this case, could the re-established bhikshunis decide to "consolidate" their lineages to exactly fit those of the lineage they want affiliation with? For example, the Dharmagupta nuns in the Theravadin countries - could the most senior amongst them decide to "consolidate" or fold themselves into the same Bhikkhuni vows that the old Theravadin nuns kept? Since the Vinayadharas appear to have the ability to change the vows according to consensus, would this be a viable method? In any case, isn't this how the various sects grew out of each other? They just changed their ordination procedures to their liking.
When I set out to lead humanity along my Golden Path I promised a lesson their bones would remember. I know a profound pattern humans deny with words even while their actions affirm it. They say they seek security and quiet, conditions they call peace. Even as they speak, they create seeds of turmoil and violence.

- Leto II, the God Emperor
User avatar
pueraeternus
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jun 06, 2011 7:53 pm

pueraeternus wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
pueraeternus wrote:Thanks Namdrol. Still can't see how the technicalities of one ordination could hinder practice of another lineage's praxis, but I understand if it's too technical to go into details here.


It does not.

It just means that ordination rites are kept separate i.e. the method of ordination of Thervada is different than that of Mulasarvastivada. So for example, since the vows are different, different monks in different lineages cannot recite posadha with one another.

N


Earlier you mentioned that the vinayadharas could consolidate the lineages. In this case, could the re-established bhikshunis decide to "consolidate" their lineages to exactly fit those of the lineage they want affiliation with? For example, the Dharmagupta nuns in the Theravadin countries - could the most senior amongst them decide to "consolidate" or fold themselves into the same Bhikkhuni vows that the old Theravadin nuns kept? Since the Vinayadharas appear to have the ability to change the vows according to consensus, would this be a viable method? In any case, isn't this how the various sects grew out of each other? They just changed their ordination procedures to their liking.



Cannot revive vows since the lineage is dead.

Could only decide to adopt Dharmaguptaka lineage. This means that monks from Thervada and Mulasarvastivada would have to reordain.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10167
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby pueraeternus » Mon Jun 06, 2011 8:19 pm

Namdrol wrote:
Cannot revive vows since the lineage is dead.

Could only decide to adopt Dharmaguptaka lineage. This means that monks from Thervada and Mulasarvastivada would have to reordain.

N


Ah well, that would indeed be impossible.
When I set out to lead humanity along my Golden Path I promised a lesson their bones would remember. I know a profound pattern humans deny with words even while their actions affirm it. They say they seek security and quiet, conditions they call peace. Even as they speak, they create seeds of turmoil and violence.

- Leto II, the God Emperor
User avatar
pueraeternus
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jun 06, 2011 8:20 pm

pueraeternus wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
Cannot revive vows since the lineage is dead.

Could only decide to adopt Dharmaguptaka lineage. This means that monks from Thervada and Mulasarvastivada would have to reordain.

N


Ah well, that would indeed be impossible.


This is why there is a bit of a difficulty.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10167
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:25 pm

Namdrol wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:
The Buddha was not a "Buddhist" ...


Sure he was, since he, by his own admission, was following the path blazed by past buddhas.
Touche!
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7892
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby dzoki » Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:41 pm

I think there is no problem with reintroducng bikshuni lineage. Because in the time of Buddha for certain time there were no bikshunis, so the first group of bikshunis had to be ordained without any bikshunis present. I imagine two posibilities:

1. Reinstate vows based on the example of Buddha, that is some realised monk will simply give the vows to the bikshuni apsirant the same way Buddha gave them to the first bikshunis.

2.Some realised shikshamana would receive this vows in a vision.

Of course there is a problem with that how such ordinations would be accepted by both ordained and lay public.
dzoki
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:56 pm

dzoki wrote:I think there is no problem with reintroducng bikshuni lineage. Because in the time of Buddha for certain time there were no bikshunis, so the first group of bikshunis had to be ordained without any bikshunis present. I imagine two posibilities:

1. Reinstate vows based on the example of Buddha, that is some realised monk will simply give the vows to the bikshuni apsirant the same way Buddha gave them to the first bikshunis.

2.Some realised shikshamana would receive this vows in a vision.

Of course there is a problem with that how such ordinations would be accepted by both ordained and lay public.


won't happen.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10167
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Caz » Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:58 pm

dzoki wrote:I think there is no problem with reintroducng bikshuni lineage. Because in the time of Buddha for certain time there were no bikshunis, so the first group of bikshunis had to be ordained without any bikshunis present. I imagine two posibilities:

1. Reinstate vows based on the example of Buddha, that is some realised monk will simply give the vows to the bikshuni apsirant the same way Buddha gave them to the first bikshunis.

2.Some realised shikshamana would receive this vows in a vision.

Of course there is a problem with that how such ordinations would be accepted by both ordained and lay public.


My thoughts as well for example 1.
So the Lineage of ordination has died, well if there are good monks about whom keep their morale discipline then why not receive a similar version of ordination from them after all the basis of Morale Discipline is to help train the mind so I dont think there would be anything wrong with people coming forth and seeking to restore a dead ordination lineage for the benefit of others. It would be a little different if there where no ordained at all however it is just the Gender issue that needs to be overcome which in reality should be no problem, It would be a little different if it where a dead lineage of realization but this is something minor that can be overcome with a little wisdom and acceptance. :buddha1:
Abandoning Dharma is, in the final analysis, disparaging the Hinayana because of the Mahayana; favoring the Hinayana on account of the Mahayana; playing off sutra against tantra; playing off the four classes of the tantras against each other; favoring one of the Tibetan schools—the Sakya, Gelug, Kagyu, or Nyingma—and disparaging the rest; and so on. In other words, we abandon Dharma any time we favor our own tenets and disparage the rest.

Liberation in the Palm of your hand~Kyabje Pabongkha Rinpoche.
Caz
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:49 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:16 pm

I like how this conversation has turned. If Buddhists won't confront gender issues, who will?
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Caz » Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:24 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:I like how this conversation has turned. If Buddhists won't confront gender issues, who will?


:good:
Abandoning Dharma is, in the final analysis, disparaging the Hinayana because of the Mahayana; favoring the Hinayana on account of the Mahayana; playing off sutra against tantra; playing off the four classes of the tantras against each other; favoring one of the Tibetan schools—the Sakya, Gelug, Kagyu, or Nyingma—and disparaging the rest; and so on. In other words, we abandon Dharma any time we favor our own tenets and disparage the rest.

Liberation in the Palm of your hand~Kyabje Pabongkha Rinpoche.
Caz
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:49 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:32 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:I like how this conversation has turned. If Buddhists won't confront gender issues, who will?



It is not a gender issue. it is a transmission issue. Completely different issues.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10167
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby David N. Snyder » Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:59 pm

This discussion on nuns shows how the literal word can work to the detriment of Buddhism and is not what the Buddha intended.

“And which are the five lower fetters? Self-identity views; uncertainty; attachment to rites, rituals, and ceremonies; sensual desire; and ill will.” Anguttara Nikaya 10.13


Due to attachment to rites, rituals, and ceremonies, some want to deny women the right to ordain, to deny them to live the holy life as a monastic.

“There are two ways a person slanders the Buddha; He who explains a discourse whose meaning needs to be inferred as one whose meaning has already been fully drawn out.; and He who explains a discourse whose meaning has already been fully drawn out as one whose meaning needs to be inferred.” Anguttara Nikaya 2.25

(Shows that the Buddha did not support literalism, at least not in all cases.)

“After I am gone, the Sangha, if it wants, may abolish the lesser and minor training rules.” Digha Nikaya 16

Again, shows the flexibility of the Buddha, even allowing the abolishing of some rules as needed.
User avatar
David N. Snyder
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:23 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:03 pm

David N. Snyder wrote:This discussion on nuns shows how the literal word can work to the detriment of Buddhism and is not what the Buddha intended.



One cannot invent one's own traditions. It is not a gender issue. Since there is a Vinaya ordination for women in Dharmaguptaka, they are free to take it if they wish. But one cannot invent one for Theravada and Mulasarvastivada. Presumably, for these women, beings bhikṣunis is more important than which vinaya lineage they belong to, right?

Due to attachment to rites, rituals, and ceremonies...


This does not apply to Vinaya.

Again, shows the flexibility of the Buddha, even allowing the abolishing of some rules as needed.


I doubt Buddha would approve of inventing ordinations.
Last edited by Malcolm on Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10167
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby David N. Snyder » Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:04 pm

Namdrol wrote:won't happen.


It already did. There are now over 1,000 fully ordained nuns in Theravada and Tibetan Buddhism.
User avatar
David N. Snyder
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:23 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:05 pm

David N. Snyder wrote:
Namdrol wrote:won't happen.


It already did. There are now over 1,000 fully ordained nuns in Theravada and Tibetan Buddhism.


Yes, they are Dharmaguptaka nuns. But there is still no surviving ordination of nuns of Theravada and Mulasarvastivada. There are only Dharmaguptaka nuns.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10167
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby David N. Snyder » Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:11 pm

Namdrol wrote:Yes, they are Dharmaguptaka nuns. But there is still no surviving ordination of nuns of Theravada and Mulasarvastivada. There are only Dharmaguptaka nuns.


In your opinion.

In my opinion, the women who took the Theravada ordinations are Theravada bhikkhunis and the women who took the Tibetan vows and vinaya are Tibetan nuns. They follow their respective traditions. The outward form of the rite, ritual, and ceremony is not important. What matters is their devotion and acceptance of the vinaya of their respective traditions.

But even that outward ritual and ceremony included monastics from their own traditions and acceptance from their monk preceptors of their traditions.
User avatar
David N. Snyder
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:23 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:14 pm

David N. Snyder wrote:
Namdrol wrote:Yes, they are Dharmaguptaka nuns. But there is still no surviving ordination of nuns of Theravada and Mulasarvastivada. There are only Dharmaguptaka nuns.


In your opinion.

In my opinion, the women who took the Theravada ordinations are Theravada bhikkhunis and the women who took the Tibetan vows and vinaya are Tibetan nuns. They follow their respective traditions. The outward form of the rite, ritual, and ceremony is not important. What matters is their devotion and acceptance of the vinaya of their respective traditions.

But even that outward ritual and ceremony included monastics from their own traditions and acceptance from their monk preceptors of their traditions.



You don't understand. In Tibetan Buddhism, those woman who became bhikṣunis took the Dharmaguptaka ordination since it did not survive in Mulasarvastivada. Those woman in Thailand have a broken ordination. I understand the reasons behind it, but it is not a proper ordination if they did not ordain with Dharmaguptaka nuns.

This is my position. If the male monastic ordination died out, it would be inappropriate to "revive" it. Why, because the direct transmission from the Buddha would have been broken.

It is not about gender, it is about transmission.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10167
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:17 pm

David N. Snyder wrote:The outward form of the rite, ritual, and ceremony is not important.



What is important is the transmission. If the transmission is broken, then it is dead.

Fortunately for women, there exists the Dharmaguptaka ordination.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10167
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kirtu, mikenz66, Norwegian, Thrasymachus and 25 guests

>