Well, of course, it is possible to argue (as Robert and Zom have already in this thread) that the (Pali-Theravada-Vinaya) Bhikkhuni ordination is invalid because the lineage died out.SarathW wrote: ↑Sat Mar 03, 2018 3:07 amI am a supporter of the Bhikkhuni ordination.
What I am not supporting is the distortion of the Vinaya by some nuns.
See the following video, Bhante Sujato is cherry picking the Vinaya code.
One point he said that he does not believe the Vinaya code to support his point and the next he uses the Vinaya to support another point.
Those who support (Theravada) Bhikkhuni ordination have a different opinion on ordination requirements, so they are already in some disagreement with the Theravada orthodoxy. Of course, if one considers oneself an "Early Buddhist Text" follower, then there is no particular reason to favour the Pali Theravada Vinaya lineage over the Dharmaguptaka lineage of the Chinese Mahayana Bhikshunis.
It seems to me that any sort of support for Bhikkhunis could be argued to be cherry picking, especially by those who place high importance on the Theravada commentaries and tradition. The more traditional would argue that the Dharmaguptaka are a schismatic sect, so the ordinations are invalid.
I don't personally agree with that point of view. I support the ordination of Bhikkhunis, and I feel priviledged to have had a chance to meet a few of them, and I am also pleased to have met a (larger) number of Bhikshunis. However, I think that it is important to acknowledge that the arguments around the technical validity of the Theravada Bhikkhuni ordinations is not a simple matter.