vinaya rule against ordaining in two traditions

[dylanj]

i know this exists - can someone give me a citation/quote

[JamesTheGiant]

I can't help. But you can ordain on one tradition and "convert" across to another without doing anything extra. Some traditions may force you to reordain, but they have no grounds for that in the vinaya. That's just their preference and their little rule.
For example Dhammayut monks generally don't let Mahanikaya monks attend their pattimokhas, and they have to sit with the novices at the back of the meal line. This includes most of the monks in Thailand, including the Ajahn Chah monks. If they want to join a Dhammayut monastery they are basically forced to reordain. Totally unnecessary to force a monk to do such a thing, but that's their thing.
An ordination done properly, as clearly laid out in vinaya, is valid in all schools of Buddhism.
If a Theravada monk wants to convert across to Mahayana, I recall technically all they have to do is take the Bodhisatta's Vow to save all beings, and that's it.

[mikenz66]

If a Theravada monk wants to convert across to Mahayana, I recall technically all they have to do is take the Bodhisatta's Vow to save all beings, and that's it.

Yes, I think it's important to be clear what is meant here by "ordination". The extra Mahayana vows are not really "ordination" in the sense of ordaining as a monastic (Bhikku/Bhikkhuni/Bhikshu/Bhikshuni). Non-monastics also take those vows.

Mayahana and Theravada monastics use slightly different, but probably equally ancient, vinayas, which is why those who consider all of the early sects valid have no objection to Bhikshunis from Taiwan, etc participating in the ordination of Theravada Bhikkhunis (those who consider that the non-Theravada vinayas are invalid because they are from heretical sects will, of course, disagree).

I'm somewhat familiar with the Dhammayut exclusiveness. My impression is that it is relatively one-sided, and it also depends on the acceptability of the particular Bhikkhu. There are a number of comments by Ven Dhammanando about this sort of thing on the forum that you can search for. He's been both but was disrobed in between. And various monastaries maintain different levels of exclusivity.


Mike

[DNS]

i know this exists - can someone give me a citation/quote

I don't believe there is one in the Vinaya because the Vinaya was recited at the First Council in approx. 483 BCE and at that time it was the "pre-sectarian" period of Buddhism of Dhamma-Vinaya; the various sects hadn't fully developed yet. By tradition, I assume you mean another Buddhist tradition; if you meant another religion, then yes that wouldn't be allowed.

[Dhammarakkhito]

From the Buddhist Monastic Code:

"The twelve equivalent pārājikas include the eleven disqualified types who should not be ordained as bhikkhus in the first place. If they happen to be ordained, their ordination is invalid; once they are found out they must be expelled for life (Mv.I.61-68; see BMC2, Chapter 14 for details). They are— ... a bhikkhu who has ordained in another religion without first giving up his status as a bhikkhu..."

and a stream enterer cannot take another teacher than the buddha

[dylanj]

I am talking about the need to disrobe if one is ordained outside the Buddha's Sangha, if they wish to seek ordination within it.

[JamesTheGiant]

I am talking about the need to disrobe if one is ordained outside the Buddha's Sangha, if they wish to seek ordination within it.

Do you mean like a Christian monk becoming a Buddhist monk? Or...

[dylanj]

I am talking about the need to disrobe if one is ordained outside the Buddha's Sangha, if they wish to seek ordination within it.

Do you mean like a Christian monk becoming a Buddhist monk? Or...

yes that's one example

[dylanj]

it's what Dhammarakkhito referred to

[Dhammanando]

Now at that time the one who had formerly been a member of another sect when he was being spoken to by his preceptor regarding a rule, having refuted the preceptor, went over to the fold of that same sect (as before), but having come back again, he asked the monks for ordination. The monks told this matter to the Lord. He said:

“Monks, he who was formerly a member of another sect … having refuted the preceptor and going over to the fold of that same sect (as before), on coming back should not be ordained. But, monks, whoever else was formerly a member of another sect and desires the going forth in this dhamma and discipline and desires ordination, to him you should grant probation for four months.

Two persons exempted from the need to undergo probation: believers in kammasakatavāda and Sakyans:

“Monks, if those come who are fire-worshipping matted-hair ascetics they may be ordained, probation should not be given to these. What is the reason for this? These, monks, affirm deeds, they affirm what ought to be done. If, monks, there come a former member of another sect who is a Sakyan by birth, he may be ordained, probation should not be given to him. I, monks, will give this special privilege to (my) relations.”

https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/pi-tv-kd1

[Ruud]

Two persons exempted from the need to undergo probation: believers in kammasakatavāda and Sakyans:

“Monks, if those come who are fire-worshipping matted-hair ascetics they may be ordained, probation should not be given to these. What is the reason for this? These, monks, affirm deeds, they affirm what ought to be done. If, monks, there come a former member of another sect who is a Sakyan by birth, he may be ordained, probation should not be given to him. I, monks, will give this special privilege to (my) relations.”

https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/pi-tv-kd1

That second exception is quite interesting. The first seems reasonable, since it helps towards right view, but the second seems subjective. Is any reason given (I didn’t see any when following the reference you provided)? Could it be respect for ones parents/ancestors/former teachers?

[Dhammanando]

Is any reason given (I didn’t see any when following the reference you provided)? Could it be respect for ones parents/ancestors/former teachers?

The Vinaya Commentary's explanation is that since they were members of the Buddha's own clan it could be safely assumed that Sakyan titthiyas would be deferential towards their clansman's Dhammavinaya and would not be seeking ordination in order to find fault with it.

[Ruud]

The Vinaya Commentary's explanation is that since they were members of the Buddha's own clan it could be safely assumed that Sakyan titthiyas would be deferential towards their clansman's Dhammavinaya and would not be seeking ordination in order to find fault with it.

Thank you very much Bhante.
That indeed makes sense now, when considering the reason for the initial rule of that section, the one you quoted in your initial answer, about whether a person should be allowed back and needs probation or not. It is all based on respect for the Dhamma. We are so used to rhetoric about groups/tribes, that that becomes the first lens we look through, while the wholesome intentions get hidden.
Thanks again for the insight Bhante

[Grigoris]

“Monks, if those come who are fire-worshipping matted-hair ascetics they may be ordained, probation should not be given to these. What is the reason for this? These, monks, affirm deeds, they affirm what ought to be done.

Interesting!