I really don't think we are in the position to determine what was actually spoken or laid down by the historical Buddha, if that is what you mean by "Buddhavacana".daverupa wrote:It means the garudhammas aren't Buddhavacana.Zom wrote:Even if we agree that they are a later addition - this simply means nothing.
Bhikkhunis junior to Bhikkhus rule
Re: Bhikkhunis junior to Bhikkhus rule
Re: Bhikkhunis junior to Bhikkhus rule
Even if they do - they don't consider that the rule forbidding money is "a later Vinaya addition" ,)What about the 99% of monks in Thailand who use money? I guess they are not Theravada either?
They just know that they are violating the rule.
Oy yes, okey then - you can dress in monk's robes then and call yourself "a bhikkhu". But the truth is that you won't be a bhikkhu. That's why Buddha did established lineage.otherwise I think the importance of this lineage thing is just your fabrication and not the teaching of the Buddha
Re: Bhikkhunis junior to Bhikkhus rule
I must agree that we can't operate in realms of assurance, unfortunately, so that was stating as certain what is simply quite likely. It's obvious I think they are not valid, but to be precise:Mr Man wrote:I really don't think we are in the position to determine what was actually spoken or laid down by the historical Buddha, if that is what you mean by "Buddhavacana".daverupa wrote:It means the garudhammas aren't Buddhavacana.Zom wrote:Even if we agree that they are a later addition - this simply means nothing.
We can employ probabilistic language with high degrees of accuracy. For example, it is very likely that the Buddha spoke of Four Noble Truths. Similarly, we are very much in a position to determine what was very likely not actually spoken by the historical Buddha. The Lotus Sutra is one example. The Yì Jīng is another. The garudhammas are a third.
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: Bhikkhunis junior to Bhikkhus rule
What we can be sure about is that the garudhammas are a part of the Theravada tradition and canon, be they valid or not.daverupa wrote: I must agree that we can't operate in realms of assurance,
Re: Bhikkhunis junior to Bhikkhus rule
Seems like this is your view only.....I'd like to find anything that indicates that the Buddha agrees with you but haven't been able to find it. The Buddha identified with the lineage of Noble Ones which most everyone agrees is not the so called lineage of monks that you are talking about.....Zom wrote: That's why Buddha did established lineage.
Can you find ANYTHING that the Buddha or anyone else in the Pali texts said that says anything about a lineage of monks?.....I have been asking for this for awhile and so far no one has found such a reference.....it seems to be a rather worldy thing to be thinking about a lineage of monks and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the Buddha thought about monks that way but I would be really pleased to find such a reference......just because you made the word "did" in bold does not make it more true or more relevant or more important....it is your view and you stated it....what did the Buddha state about lineage?....seems he didn't say anything about lineage when it comes to monks but he did have something to say when it came to a lineage of Noble Ones (which seems to not be the same thing as monks).
chownah
Re: Bhikkhunis junior to Bhikkhus rule
The validity of the garudhammas is likely to be a point of debate for some time. I support the bhikkhuni order but I don't fully appreciate the resistance to the garudhammas. Samaneras of umpteen years do not seem to have a problem being junior to a day-old bhikkhu.
Re: Bhikkhunis junior to Bhikkhus rule
They be very likely not, and yet you'd retain them because "it's what we've always done".Mr Man wrote:What we can be sure about is that the garudhammas are a part of the Theravada tradition and canon, be they valid or not.daverupa wrote: I must agree that we can't operate in realms of assurance,
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: Bhikkhunis junior to Bhikkhus rule
Well, as it seems, they've existed as minimum in both in Theravada and Dharmaguptaka. That means they are at least ~2300 years old ,)
And no one can ever prove that Buddha didn't establish them. It seems likely that they were established by him, because they are very old.
What is more - the story about Ananda asking Buddha about women ordination is accepted not only by Theravada school. That means that this is true, that Buddha didn't want to establish bhikkhuni sangha. And from Vinaya we know that it was that very story when he established garudhammas.
And no one can ever prove that Buddha didn't establish them. It seems likely that they were established by him, because they are very old.
What is more - the story about Ananda asking Buddha about women ordination is accepted not only by Theravada school. That means that this is true, that Buddha didn't want to establish bhikkhuni sangha. And from Vinaya we know that it was that very story when he established garudhammas.
Re: Bhikkhunis junior to Bhikkhus rule
That whole episode is directly called into question throughout the various citations in this thread. That there are quite a few "ehi bhikkhunis" is also evidence against the origin story being original, as it sets up a contradiction. Furthermore, "because they are very old" is not sound evidence on it's own, else we might as well say the Buddha established the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad "because it is very old".Zom wrote:Well, as it seems, they've existed as minimum in both in Theravada and Dharmaguptaka. That means they are at least ~2300 years old ,)
And no one can ever prove that Buddha didn't establish them. It seems likely that they were established by him, because they are very old.
What is more - the story about Ananda asking Buddha about women ordination is accepted not only by Theravada school. That means that this is true, that Buddha didn't want to establish bhikkhuni sangha. And from Vinaya we know that it was that very story when he established garudhammas.
Indeed, no one can prove it one way or the other, but the evidence altogether weighs in favor of them being a later interpolation, so the likelihood of them being late is stronger than the likelihood of them being original to the Buddha.
To insist on them boggles the mind, but as you like.
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]