Gender and the Sakyadhita

A forum for beginners and members of other Buddhist traditions to ask questions about Theravāda (The Way of the Elders). Responses require moderator approval before they are visible in order to double-check alignment to Theravāda orthodoxy.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3117
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Gender and the Sakyadhita

Post by DooDoot » Tue Jun 19, 2018 3:54 am

paul wrote:
Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:53 pm
The Buddha's instruction is that gender roles must be overcome:
Not really. The quote made is for higher practise. Any person engaging in the act of sexual intercourse is engaging in gender roles. In the ordinary world, there are gender roles.

In the monastery there are also gender roles, such as the improperness of a monk to receive teachings from a nun.
Never ordained... not an anonymous-online-bhikkhu or ex-bhikkhu...

thang
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:37 pm

Re: Gender and the Sakyadhita

Post by thang » Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:06 am

The East says - the gender transition must be overcome.
The West says - the gender roles must be overcome.
The Buddha says - the gender traits must be overcome.
"Bhikkhus, whatever the Tathāgata speaks, utters, or expounds
in the interval between
the night when he awakens to the unsurpassed perfect enlightenment
and the night when he attains final nibbāna,
all that is just so and not otherwise"
;

User avatar
AgarikaJ
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:21 pm

Re: Gender and the Sakyadhita

Post by AgarikaJ » Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:38 am

DooDoot wrote:
Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:55 pm
[any obstacles to female ordination in countries such as Thailand or Burma is not related to gender roles but is related to the historical breaking of the bhikkhuni (nun) lineage and the respective institutional views towards this.
As reading through the Thai sources on this might be not an easy task; for the discussion around the Bikkhuni ordination you might find ample English sources in the older talks and writings of Ajahn Brahm and Ajahn Sujato. Especially the latter gives strong arguments based on scripture itself, even though he can loose himself in detail at times.

A good starting point would be:
https://sujato.wordpress.com/2014/05/23 ... -buddhism/

Please do note that the view of those two teachers is controversial and is not shared by the Thai Sangha council and the Ajahn Cha forest tradition (and I am sure others). So you will need to make up your own mind on this.
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]

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3117
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Gender and the Sakyadhita

Post by DooDoot » Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:09 pm

AgarikaJ wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:38 am
Please do note that the view of those two teachers is controversial and is not shared by the Thai Sangha council and the Ajahn Cha forest tradition (and I am sure others). So you will need to make up your own mind on this.
Thanks. I was well aware of the matter when it occurred. My primary objection to what happened was the Cultural Marxist divide & conquer strategy claiming the persecutors were the persecuted. Personally, I thought the behaviour was unworthy, particularly the demonization of the Thai Buddhism that nurtured at least one of them. Buddha-Dhamma condemns ingratitude. This said, if they overtly advised the Ajahn Chah Sangha of a decision to leave the lineage to ordain bhikkhunis then I would have had no objections to this. If an order of bhikkhus has sufficient Vinaya (which I think they have) then ordaining women is OK by me. But to claim they were kicked out from Ajahn Chah when they in reality chose to leave; I don't buy into that. The common worldling may not see anything wrong with this but I did. Kind regards. :)
Never ordained... not an anonymous-online-bhikkhu or ex-bhikkhu...

User avatar
AgarikaJ
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:21 pm

Re: Gender and the Sakyadhita

Post by AgarikaJ » Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:34 am

DooDoot wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:09 pm
AgarikaJ wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:38 am
Please do note that the view of those two teachers is controversial and is not shared by the Thai Sangha council and the Ajahn Cha forest tradition (and I am sure others). So you will need to make up your own mind on this.
Thanks. I was well aware of the matter when it occurred. My primary objection to what happened was the Cultural Marxist divide & conquer strategy claiming the persecutors were the persecuted. Personally, I thought the behaviour was unworthy, particularly the demonization of the Thai Buddhism that nurtured at least one of them. Buddha-Dhamma condemns ingratitude. This said, if they overtly advised the Ajahn Chah Sangha of a decision to leave the lineage to ordain bhikkhunis then I would have had no objections to this. If an order of bhikkhus has sufficient Vinaya (which I think they have) then ordaining women is OK by me. But to claim they were kicked out from Ajahn Chah when they in reality chose to leave; I don't buy into that. The common worldling may not see anything wrong with this but I did. Kind regards. :)
Hi DooDot,

sorry, I did not mean to imply you when I added the warning that the stance of Ajahn Brahm was controversial, this was more directed to the OP, MarkoBeocanin. I should have marked this better to avoid confusion.

He seems to be only starting to dip into Theravada, so might be unaware that not everything written on this quite complicated subject, gender in Buddhism, is to be taken as definitive viewpoint of all and that there is considerable discussion on it.
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]

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3117
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Gender and the Sakyadhita

Post by DooDoot » Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:12 am

AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:34 am
I added the warning that the stance of Ajahn Brahm was controversial
No. There was nothing controversial about ordaining women. Buddhism has extremely systematic Vinaya. Ordaining women should not be controversial at all because both bhikkhus and bhikkhuni have clear rules to abide to. Please do not misrepresent my reply to you, after I took the time to write a clear reply to you. All I pointed out was the lack of virtue in what occurred. I never posted anything "controversial" occurred. Kind regards
Never ordained... not an anonymous-online-bhikkhu or ex-bhikkhu...

User avatar
AgarikaJ
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:21 pm

Re: Gender and the Sakyadhita

Post by AgarikaJ » Tue Sep 18, 2018 2:33 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:12 am
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:34 am
I added the warning that the stance of Ajahn Brahm was controversial
No. There was nothing controversial about ordaining women. Buddhism has extremely systematic Vinaya. Ordaining women should not be controversial at all because both bhikkhus and bhikkhuni have clear rules to abide to. Please do not misrepresent my reply to you, after I took the time to write a clear reply to you. All I pointed out was the lack of virtue in what occurred. I never posted anything "controversial" occurred. Kind regards
I apologize if I did not acknowledge your reply properly. :anjali:

Actually I agree with your point that there should be nothing controversial about ordaining women. Still, from the view of the Thai Sangha, there very much was.

Helpfully, Ajahn Sujato posted the meeting minutes from Wat Pah Pong where Ajahn Brahm was expulsed. https://sujato.wordpress.com/2010/01/02 ... ahn-brahm/

There is a statement from Wat Pha Nanachat: http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php ... 61,0,0,1,0

and an Open Letter To All From Ajahn Brahm On His Exclusion by Wat Pah Pong: http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php ... 67,0,0,1,0

A good number of Theras came to word during the WPP meeting and were able to present their viewpoint and I do know that thir abbreviated views as logged in those meeting minutes were discussed before that at length with Ajahn Brahm. Therefore, forgive me to say that, I do detect a large amount of controversy, which led to quite personal repercussions for Ajahn Brahm.

They centered mainly around the fact that he was unwilling to (or due to knowledge of the Vinaya unable to, as is his perspective) accept that ordaining bikkhunis was Wrong View from the get-go and he would have to publicly renounce it. Simply promising not to ordain any bikhhuni again was not sufficient to keep him in his position, so it 'was agreed' that Bodhinyana monastery might split from Wat Pha Pong to avoid further discontent.

Were all those Theras wrong? And was 'allowing' him to split off his lineage rather a more virtuous way moving forward for Theravada instead of allowing one monk to hold an irreconcilable view which goes against the declared consensus of many others?

At the time I also followed the discussions and recriminations closely and once more must I state, that I found the explanations made by Ajahn Brahm, following his understanding of the Vinaya, conclusive that bikkhunis can and should be ordained. This does not change the fact that the viewpoint of multiple Theras on this matter, for a Theravada practitioner, should also hold the greatest weight.

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.
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]

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3117
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Gender and the Sakyadhita

Post by DooDoot » Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:10 pm

AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 2:33 pm
Helpfully, 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. Wat Pah Pong does not want to ordain women. 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. Note: Buddhism is a guest religion in Thailand. Ajahn Chah during his life did not support any movement for the ordaining of women. Ultimately, Ajahn Brahm chose to leave the Wat Pah Pong tradition. While he was officially "expelled", Ajahn Brahm chose to act in way for him to be inevitably expelled. Ajahn Brahm gave them no choice. 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? If 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, criticising and persecuting me. Ajahn Brahm chose to start his own lineage. Ajahn Brahm is free to do that. Ajahn Brahm decided to leave the nest. Therefore, finalise the matter there. Thanks. Stop the unvirtuousness and hubris of criticizing Wat Pah Pong & Thai Buddhism. :yingyang:
Never ordained... not an anonymous-online-bhikkhu or ex-bhikkhu...

User avatar
AgarikaJ
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:21 pm

Re: Gender and the Sakyadhita

Post by AgarikaJ » Wed Sep 19, 2018 6:16 am

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 pm
Helpfully, 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. :yingyang:
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 pm
If 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. :anjali:
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]

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3117
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Gender and the Sakyadhita

Post by DooDoot » Wed Sep 19, 2018 7:33 am

AgarikaJ wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 6:16 am
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).
Its written here in the suttas, therefore it seems my reasoning is not false.
If a female has the powers of attractiveness, wealth, and relatives, but not that of ethical behavior, the family will send her away [expel her], they won’t accommodate her.

Rūpabalena ca, bhikkhave, mātugāmo samannāgato hoti, bhogabalena ca, ñātibalena ca, na ca sīlabalena, nāsenteva naṃ, kule na vāsenti.

https://suttacentral.net/sn37.30/en/sujato
:candle:
AgarikaJ wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 6:16 am
I do understand that bikkhuni ordination is an emotional issue
Its not emotional. Its the opposite. Those who sincerely wish to practise Dhamma just practise it; unconcerned about ordination.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 6:16 am
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.
The goal of renunciation is the realisation of emptiness. Emptiness is not a gender issue. "Women" have had places to live & practise to realise emptiness. The issue does not have the urgency or emotionally you appear to be imputing. Regards
Never ordained... not an anonymous-online-bhikkhu or ex-bhikkhu...

User avatar
AgarikaJ
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:21 pm

Re: Gender and the Sakyadhita

Post by AgarikaJ » Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:21 am

DooDoot wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 7:33 am
AgarikaJ wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 6:16 am
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).
Its written here in the suttas, therefore it seems my reasoning is not false.
If a female has the powers of attractiveness, wealth, and relatives, but not that of ethical behavior, the family will send her away [expel her], they won’t accommodate her.

Rūpabalena ca, bhikkhave, mātugāmo samannāgato hoti, bhogabalena ca, ñātibalena ca, na ca sīlabalena, nāsenteva naṃ, kule na vāsenti.

https://suttacentral.net/sn37.30/en/sujato
:candle:
I note your point, DooDoot. I did not know this passage from the Nikayas, so I am thankful that you brought it to my attention. I was too forward in calling out your knowledge as 'false'.

Not to seem quarrelsome (bear with me), I must however remark that there is little quantification on this 'unethical behavior'.

As an example, does drinking alcohol once, surely a breaking of the precepts and therefore not pure Sila, make a wife liable to be divorced? Or is this to be taken in the concept that the Panca Sila are not hard legal rules but aspirations and only frequent and careless non-compliance could be called 'unethical behavior'?

Or is maybe -- from a Buddhist doctrinal view -- breaking the third precept specifically worse in a marriage situation (even if it might have happened only once) because 'faithfulness' is a quality specifically also named in the Sigalovada Sutta, while sobriety gets no such special mentioning?

As I have not thought about these questions much (yet), I would wish to hear your interpretations. :anjali:
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]

thang
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:37 pm

Re: Gender and the Sakyadhita

Post by thang » Wed Sep 19, 2018 2:50 pm

All the sub sects of all the nikayas of all the theravada countries have already been officially declared that the bhikkhuni ordination is illegal according to the Vinaya.
Our personal views are not taken into consideration in Official Sangha Decisions.
"Bhikkhus, whatever the Tathāgata speaks, utters, or expounds
in the interval between
the night when he awakens to the unsurpassed perfect enlightenment
and the night when he attains final nibbāna,
all that is just so and not otherwise"
;

User avatar
AgarikaJ
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:21 pm

Re: Gender and the Sakyadhita

Post by AgarikaJ » Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:40 am

thang wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 2:50 pm
All the sub sects of all the nikayas of all the theravada countries have already been officially declared that the bhikkhuni ordination is illegal according to the Vinaya.
Our personal views are not taken into consideration in Official Sangha Decisions.
Writing in a very large font does not indicate that your statement to be more or less true. I therefore do not understand why you have chosen to package your reply in this manner.

Anyway, as you have chosen to formulate your reply in simple absolutist terms ("all the sub sects of all the nikayas of all the theravada countries") it is sufficient to defeat it with two very simplistic counters:
1) the Thai Sangha council does not speak for outside its national borders; as Theravadins exist in a monastic settings for example in Australia, pls point me to an official statement refuting bikkhuni ordination "according to the Vinaya" in the appropriate Nikaya
2) "Since 2005, many ordination ceremonies for women have been organized by the head of the Dambulla chapter of the Siyam Nikaya in Sri Lanka".

In case we would discuss this any deeper, I suggest a very nice article exposing the viewpoint of various Thai scholars to be taken as a starting point, here: https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/i ... /8976/2869#, going on from p.155 or this by Bikkhu Analayo, here: https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg ... kkhuni.pdf
This is so that we are not drawn into the views of Ajahn Brahm or Sujato alone, which maybe would be viewed as tainted due to the political dimension of their acts.

In addition, while I have expressed my personal opinion quite clearly, you will be hard-pressed to find where I said that the 'official Sangha decisions', as you call them, are wrong. I rather criticized others for maybe rejecting their views too lightly, which would be the opposite of what you insinuate.
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]

befriend
Posts: 1296
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:39 am

Re: Gender and the Sakyadhita

Post by befriend » Thu Sep 20, 2018 4:16 pm

Read the gotami sutta. Sutta 51 in anguttara nikaya it talks about female ordination and what they must do to be a monastic.
Take care of mindfulness and mindfulness will take care of you.

thang
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:37 pm

Re: Gender and the Sakyadhita

Post by thang » Thu Sep 20, 2018 5:17 pm

AgarikaJ wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:40 am
1) the Thai Sangha council does not speak for outside its national borders; as Theravadins exist in a monastic settings for example in Australia, pls point me to an official statement refuting bikkhuni ordination "according to the Vinaya" in the appropriate Nikaya
2) "Since 2005, many ordination ceremonies for women have been organized by the head of the Dambulla chapter of the Siyam Nikaya in Sri Lanka".
In addition, while I have expressed my personal opinion quite clearly, you will be hard-pressed to find where I said that the 'official Sangha decisions', as you call them, are wrong. I rather criticized others for maybe rejecting their views too lightly, which would be the opposite of what you insinuate.
Sri Lankan bhikkhuni ordination done by dambulla chapter has been officially refused by the supreme leader of their own nikaya. So it is considered illegal and un-official attempt by all the supreme leaders of all the three nikayas in Sri Lanka.

What outsiders says as vinaya is not considered as the vinaya by sangha councils. Only the vinaya decided by the council members are considered valid in making council decisions.

I think you have not yet understood the decision making procedure of Sangha. It is true that different people or monks have different opinions in this regard. But they are not taken into consideration.

The big figures you(/many people) see on the internet or in non-theravada countries are not big figures in Sangha counsils. They are not even members of Sangha counsils.
In Burma, the governing council of Burmese Buddhism has ruled that there can be no valid ordination of women in modern times, though some Burmese monks disagree.
In Thailand, in 1928, the Supreme Patriarch of Thailand, responding to the attempted ordination of two women, issued an edict that monks must not ordain women as samaneris (novices), sikkhamanas (probationers) or bhikkhunis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhikkhun% ... Ordination
"Bhikkhus, whatever the Tathāgata speaks, utters, or expounds
in the interval between
the night when he awakens to the unsurpassed perfect enlightenment
and the night when he attains final nibbāna,
all that is just so and not otherwise"
;

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests