Bhikshu Ordination of Karmapa 17

[WuMing]

hello,

does anybody know, if and when the 17. Karmapa, Orgyen Trinley Dorje received full ordination, bhikshu vows?
thanks for any reply!

wm

[Jinzang]

I don't think he has taken full ordination yet.

[WuMing]

Thanks for your reply! I thought so, too, but was not really sure about it. I wonder if he will do it or what are the reasons he hasn't done it, yet, respectively.
Anyway, thanks for reply again.

[Jikan]

If you read Karma Thinley's History of the Sixteen Karmapas, you notice that some of them take full ordination much later in life than others. I can't recall which Karmapa it was, but one of them did not do so until his early 30s.

[Dhondup]

If you read Karma Thinley's History of the Sixteen Karmapas, you notice that some of them take full ordination much later in life than others. I can't recall which Karmapa it was, but one of them did not do so until his early 30s.

Does the book offer any insight to the reasons behind waiting so long before they took full ordination, or the advantages of doing so?

[kirtu]

Was the 15th Karmapa the only householder?

Kirt

[JKhedrup]

Was the 15th Karmapa the only householder?

Yes, I think so. The remaining incarnations all remained monks, and the 16th from what I hear of friends who knew him quite well, insisted on strict monastic discipline.

My feeling is that HH Karmapa will take the bhikshu ordination soon- he is very interested in preserving the sangha. During the Kagyu monlams he insisted on the highest standard of conduct and provided classes on how to properly accept offerings, bow with the robes, walk, etc.

[dzoki]

Was the 15th Karmapa the only householder?

Kirt

It seems that also 10th Karmapa was a layman, he was wearing a long hair and was traveling in a company of many women (this was noted by the 5th Dalailama, when the two of them met), so I doubt that he was a bikshu. Tibetan histories tend to "monasticize" teachers who were actually not monks at all, or they were monastics only for some earlier part of their life - for example Longchenpa. Also Milarepa is being presented as celibate (though not monastic) by some teachers these days, while the early biographies are said to speak of Milarepa having multiple consorts.

In Tibet there seems to be a sentiment of looking down on the practitioners who have given back their vows and continued as a laymen no matter how high capacity this practitioner could have - Shakya Shri is one of several such practitioners. So I think this is also reason for covering up a history of nonmonastic teachers in a monastic lineage. Several Shamarpas were clearly laymen, yet they are depicted as monastics in the lineage paintings of Karma Kagyu.

[Yudron]

Was the 15th Karmapa the only householder?

Yes, I think so. The remaining incarnations all remained monks, and the 16th from what I hear of friends who knew him quite well, insisted on strict monastic discipline.

My feeling is that HH Karmapa will take the bhikshu ordination soon- he is very interested in preserving the sangha. During the Kagyu monlams he insisted on the highest standard of conduct and provided classes on how to properly accept offerings, bow with the robes, walk, etc.

Rumor has it that the 15th said he would be a monk in his subsequent incarnations.

[Raksha]

It seems that also 10th Karmapa was a layman, he was wearing a long hair and was traveling in a company of many women (this was noted by the 5th Dalailama, when the two of them met), so I doubt that he was a bikshu. Tibetan histories tend to "monasticize" teachers who were actually not monks at all, or they were monastics only for some earlier part of their life - for example Longchenpa. Also Milarepa is being presented as celibate (though not monastic) by some teachers these days, while the early biographies are said to speak of Milarepa having multiple consorts.
In Tibet there seems to be a sentiment of looking down on the practitioners who have given back their vows and continued as a laymen no matter how high capacity this practitioner could have - Shakya Shri is one of several such practitioners. So I think this is also reason for covering up a history of nonmonastic teachers in a monastic lineage. Several Shamarpas were clearly laymen, yet they are depicted as monastics in the lineage paintings of Karma Kagyu.

Probably a good idea to separate ordinary lay practitioners from enlightened masters (who were not ordained), because such beings were in every sense identical to monks (apart from their clothing). Conventional divisions like non-monastic versus monastic and celibate versus non-celibate are therefore not really applicable.
R.

[Jikan]

If you read Karma Thinley's History of the Sixteen Karmapas, you notice that some of them take full ordination much later in life than others. I can't recall which Karmapa it was, but one of them did not do so until his early 30s.

Does the book offer any insight to the reasons behind waiting so long before they took full ordination, or the advantages of doing so?

Not so much, no.

[WuMing]

I just read in the recently published book "History of the Karmapas" http://www.shambhala.com/history-of-the-karmapas.html (BTW, a wonderful book) on page 253, that

the Dalai Lama conferred on the young Karmapa the vows of a fully ordainied monk.

The information here http://www.bodhionline.org/ViewArticle.asp?id=149 and here http://the17thkarmapa.blogspot.de/2012/07/may-august-2002.html says that he received the Getsul vows, but no mention of Gelong vows, as in the book stated.

[gregkavarnos]

Karmapa Trinley Thaye Dorje (born in 1983) was ordained a shramanera at the age of 11 by Chobgye Tri Rinpoche and at 16 he started a 3 year retreat. He took his full ordination at the age of 23.

[sherabpa]

It seems that also 10th Karmapa was a layman, he was wearing a long hair and was traveling in a company of many women (this was noted by the 5th Dalailama, when the two of them met), so I doubt that he was a bikshu. Tibetan histories tend to "monasticize" teachers who were actually not monks at all, or they were monastics only for some earlier part of their life - for example Longchenpa. Also Milarepa is being presented as celibate (though not monastic) by some teachers these days, while the early biographies are said to speak of Milarepa having multiple consorts.
In Tibet there seems to be a sentiment of looking down on the practitioners who have given back their vows and continued as a laymen no matter how high capacity this practitioner could have - Shakya Shri is one of several such practitioners. So I think this is also reason for covering up a history of nonmonastic teachers in a monastic lineage. Several Shamarpas were clearly laymen, yet they are depicted as monastics in the lineage paintings of Karma Kagyu.

Probably a good idea to separate ordinary lay practitioners from enlightened masters (who were not ordained), because such beings were in every sense identical to monks (apart from their clothing). Conventional divisions like non-monastic versus monastic and celibate versus non-celibate are therefore not really applicable.
R.

In the 16 Karmapas, Karma Thinley Rinpoche records that the 10th Karmapa was ordained at the age of 21 at Tsurphu. He spent most of his life in exile due to his association with the Tsang chieftans who were in conflict with Sera and Drepung. He returned to Tibet once in that time to seek out the Shamar incarnation, and he disguised himself as a layman. It is very interesting that the 5th Dalai Lama records he was dressed as a layman. Perhaps after 30 years, he had become accustomed to this lifestyle. There is no suggestion he gave up his vows.

There isn't any evidence to suggest Milarepa maintained the Brahmacharya, this is made up. He is said to have taken Tseringma and her sisters as consorts, but I think it is also fair to say his activity is completely inconceivable.