It is very difficult to come to terms with your post, as it seems off the wrong track and dangerously loose in its language. Actually I have difficulty identifying your argument, as your thoughts are displayed in such a convoluted manner.
But I will give my best and try:
DooDoot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:10 pm
AgarikaJ wrote: ↑Tue Sep 18, 2018 2:33 pmHelpfully, Ajahn Sujato posted the meeting minutes from Wat Pah Pong where Ajahn Brahm was expulsed.
Sorry but you keep bringing up the irrelevant Cultural Marxist view of the
persecutors claiming to be the
persecuted.
I find it on so many levels inexcusable to call a gathering of some of the most eminent Theras alive 'Cultural Marxists' without backing this strong claim up with a very carefully and thoughtfully constructed set of reasons following. I am sure you will follow up with a concise explanation on how you come to such an egregious stance.
DooDoot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:10 pm
They are allowed to not want to ordain women. To ordain women requires having the necessary training & organisation. Plus Wat Pah Pong is abiding with historic Thai custom to not ordain women. Historically, the Thai have their reasons for this.
Have you read the meeting minutes I have linked to?
In a weird way your post makes me think that we actually agree on the handling of the bikkhuni ordination by the Wat Pah Pong Sangha. So why are you attacking me?
Have I not been clear in my remarks? To recapitulate what I think happened and how I feel about it:
I think the explanation of the Thai Theras why they are unable to accept bikkhuni ordination *in the Wat Pah Pong lineage* is reasoned, concise and was convincing enough that at the moment of the meeting Ajahn Brahm was willing to accept that he would not ordain any more bikkhunis and that they would not be seen as bikkhunis within the realm of the Thai Sangha..
Were I personally differ with the Theras (as much as a layman can do this with his limited understanding of the matter) is that bikkhuni ordination was automatically Wrong View, as Ajahn Brahm was actually not the Upajjhaya (mentor) of them; a very technical detail and his true motivation was rightly questioned.
I think it is very important to note, that the Theras, following this explanation of Ajahn Brahm, judged the issue in the end only as "ditthi vipatti" (meaning without the approval of the Sangha of Wat Pah Pong), and not as an offense of the Vinaya, which would have been enormously more serious.
As logical conclusion, the lineage split, but Ajahn Brahm was not defrocked nor otherwise punished and there was -- at least I read the gist of the meeting and his letter thus -- the tacit approval by at least some of the Theras present that other Sanghas, to which he might belong, will handle the bikkhuni question differently to the Wat Pah Pong Sangha.
What more does anybody actually want?! The full transcript, once more:
https://sujato.wordpress.com/2010/01/02 ... ahn-brahm/
DooDoot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:10 pm
Wat Pah Pong do not want Ajahn Brahm or the so-called self-proclaimed "independent monk" named Bhikkhu Sujato. Since Wat Pah Pong do not want these monks, why do the followers of these monks, such as your good self, keep harassing, criticising and persecuting Wat Pah Pong?
...
Therefore, finalise the matter there. Thanks. Stop the unvirtuousness and hubris of criticizing Wat Pah Pong & Thai Buddhism.
Maybe you need to re-read my previous post and the lines I wrote above. How do you come to the conclusion that I would be "harassing" Wat Pah Pong? I thought I had made clear in my previous post that I actually agreed with their judgement (while at the same time agreeing with Ajahn Brahm about his reasons for ordaining bikkhunis based on his understanding of the Vinaya). It is not impossible to hold two differing thoughts in one's head, this is why I concluded my last post:
"So I am not unhappy over how things played out in the end: bikkhunis still ordained and working towards enlightenment, Ajahn Brahm able to follow his teachings independently and last but not least a pacified Thai Sangha. For us as laymen this allows to follow the teachers and practice we have accepted for ourselves as best without needing to take an either/or-stance."
I think this also made clear that I am not a "follower" of either Ajahn Brahm or Ajahn Sujato, I have no affiliation with them besides enjoying many of their talks and writings. I also have no affiliation whatsoever with any Thai Forest Sangha, besides enjoying many of their teachings immensely.
I think in this line the emotionality with which you confront this whole issue becomes the most clear and obvious; I think if you look at your statement with a cooler mind you can see right away that it is hardly measured speech to accuse a person that you really do not know of unskillful behavior just because he might or might not belong to a diverse group of people, who might or might not have acted in the manner you assume they did (I hope this is not too convoluted, but I wrote it intentionally and after much thought this way).
DooDoot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:10 pmIf I am married to a woman who has sexual affairs, I have the right to expel her, as written in the suttas. It is not proper for that woman to keep harassing, criticizing and persecuting me.
You have completely lost me with the logical leap in your argument. Besides, also here I think your interpretation that even breaking a precept by one partner gives you automatically the right to expel them willy-nilly is in the best-case brought forward too short-hand. I know of not one instance where it is mentioned in a Sutta in the context you mention, which would make your reasoning false (but maybe this is another discussion).
I do understand that bikkhuni ordination is an emotional issue, seemingly especially for you (you mentioned how closely you followed the happenings while they transpired). Still it would help if you would read posts more carefully and fully try to understand the arguments made. As this is in addition a very complicated matter, those arguments can be nuanced and maybe mine was too subtle. This I do not mean to be interpreted in any way as condescending: the fault then lies with me.
But still I would expect to be talked back to in a measured manner, based on a reasoned argument and without emotional language, aspects which I have seen sadly lacking in your response.
With metta.
The teaching is a lake with shores of ethics, unclouded, praised by the fine to the good.
There the knowledgeable go to bathe, and cross to the far shore without getting wet.
[SN 7.21]