Asking about non parajika expulsion

Discussion of ordination, the Vinaya and monastic life. How and where to ordain? Bhikkhuni ordination etc.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Asking about non parajika expulsion

Post by Cittasanto » Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:30 pm

I have cleaned up my earlier post to make it easier to read who is saying what.
Cittasanto wrote:is a novice not a person?
Yes, but not every person is a novice. In the text yoz have provided befor, there is written person, while her it goes in regard to already Novice.
This is regarding the novice repercussions it is quite obvious when you read the rest of the text (#67) as to where this belongs in what I have previously quoted.
please read my opening statement on this particular translation.
That was not a critic of your supply, and your statement was read. This how ever does not make it more clear. To say and accept that things are not so clear, does not help exept in letting go, maybe. So just much palce for additional help, supply and work on possible misunderstanding. That does not limit your effort, giving and good will in any case.
who talked about anything being limited?
In this case it is showing with the "At that time, &c." that it is abbreviating. the rule is there in full.
I pointed you back to the initial warning as it seamed necessary.
actually that is motivation, the intention is to pose as a bhikkhu.
if done the propper way they have a better idea of what the life is about.
To pose a Bhikkhu and the perception than one poses a Bhikkhu are two different thing. So to judge such things is not easy possible and it it is made amoung like it looks one would fail what the idea behind this actually is. Not to forget that this rule is very useable for people who like to keep sects seperated.
actually the posing as a bhikkhu, (making oneself out to be a bhikkhu) without being accepted into the order is one thing, and the reasons why you want to be a bhikkhu is another in regard to that rule and what I was responding to. whether people perceive you to be a bhikkhu or not has little to do with it, putting on the cloths of a bhikkhu and going off without being accepted is posing as a bhikkhu whatever the perception.
although, I really do not know where you are getting perception from here?

but just to add to my last responce - it only included those who have not been formally accepted into the sangha, their motivation for joining is not important here.
actually a naga. a magical serpent who can change their shape.
That might be the thought... and explains why there are continues additional "rules"
I do not know what you are trying to say here.
it is a different rule from 63. a rule is not necessarily conected in content for it to be related to the previous.
That might be a thought but no reverence that it is like that when you look at what was there as reverence for thought.
I do not know what you are trying to say here.
yes a prominent feature of a story may not be what the rule reflects
Than such a collection makes more difficults as they might be useful to help. So for me its, much to think about which could at least rever to something useful. The story or this cut over all to make it simple for the not-so-smart. While still it is possible that I did not get the whole message.
I do not know what you are trying to say here.
please see opening statement.
it does, as would the last one, have a conection to another story regarding those who got ordained to recieve medical care, then disrobed. and one of the stories regarding parajika on theft.
"it" ? I don't understand the coherence of your replay to this statement and have also no idea to interpretete it in different ways not only in regard of "it".
"it" refers to "does not give any information about the motivation" it shows in the text where to look "(&c., as in chap. 66)."
#67 should read with the addition from 66
67.
At that time a number of Bhikkhunîs were travelling on the road from Sâketa to Sâvatthi. On the road robbers broke forth, robbed some of the Bhikkhunîs, and violated some of them. Then royal soldiers came from Sâvatthi and caught some of the robbers; others of them escaped. Those who had escaped, received pabbaggâ with the Bhikkhus; those who had been caught, were led to death.

The Bhikkhus told this thing to the Blessed One.

'Let a person, O Bhikkhus, that has violated a Bhikkhunî (or, that has had sexual intercourse with a Bhikkhunî), if this person has not received the upasampadâ ordination, not receive it; if he has received it, let him be expelled (from the fraternity).'

'Let a person, O Bhikkhus, that has caused a schism among the Samgha, if this person has not received the upasampadâ ordination, not receive it; if he has received it, let him be expelled (from the fraternity).'

'Let a person, O Bhikkhus, that has shed (a Buddha's) blood,' if this person has not received the upasampadâ ordination, not receive it; if he has received it, let him be expelled (from the fraternity).'
preceptor is the person who ordains another into the community.
How can a precepetor be somebody who like to gain ordination?? Or do I misunderstand the gramma?
you misunderstand the grammar.
'Let no one receive the upasampadâ ordination with the Samgha as upagghâya.
the whole sangha in attendance is acting as the upajjhaya here.
the rules are not interconected as you seam to suppose.
they do not have to be useful in relation to each other. however it would be related to 62.
When they are even not able to ordinate, who could they be preceptor? This is useless or I misunderstand the previos point and upagghâya means something different.
this is a list of the people who should of not been given acceptance, yet were giving the acceptance into the sangha acting in a role they were not eligible to act in. and refers to the person being accepted, not the person who is acting as Upajjhaya
if they are posing as a member of the sangha and people believe the deception there should be no more issue than the sangha has.
as these rules do not deal with how to properly preform an ordination that is not useful to bear in mind here.
That is simply nonsens. Let people believe what ever they like to believe, this has no influences on the own intention. At the time of the Buddha other Askets would not look different to Bhikkhus. We need to be a little bit more carful what pose means, and what perception of people means.
"as these rules do not deal with how to properly preform an ordination that is not useful to bear in mind here" when you don't know situations and you don't think on possible situation it might be like that, but actually that could be very easy the case. So only one who needs an advice in a special case would know if it is useful to keep in mind and for one who is in charge to jugde it is neverthenless useful to keep even all in mind if he is not one able to read mind of others.
I was responding to a particular nuance of your reply there which seamed predominant, but...
I think you mean ascetics with askets? but yes they would look different. There are several ascetics mentioned in the canon and none of whom look like the Bhikkhus. there were naked, those who wore white (both Nigantha practices at least later on), bark, animal skin, those who wore robes similar to Ghandhi, it is actually an offence to dress like another ascetic. The dress of a Bhikkhu is actually detailed very precisely (down to the colour) for a reason, and they need to have the correct items. the "traditional" giving and receiving of the robes is actually making sure these things are correct.

The rules quoted actually show what posing as a Bhikkhu refers to, their motivation has absolutely nothing to do with it. Intending to put the robes on taking up the bowl, shaving the head... and then doing so without going through an ordination is posing as a Bhikkhu. if people (anyone) sees them as a Bhikkhhu when they are not actually a bhikkhu that is enough.

If someone has dis-robed they would be a lay person and would be aware of what would be required, and not look like a bhikkhu, i.e. not wearing the robes already. just because someone was a bhikkhu does not mean they look like one. what you are saying here (underlined) has no relation to what I was replying to that I can see.
this is prohibiting criminals from taking advantage of the allowance the law had placed on them to be free from punishment. other rules have been created due to this such as the parajika on theft.
I guess you have regarded to another point here. But to replay to your statement which might cause the idea that the Sangha is somehow responsible that people are rightly punished by the laws of a state, that is for sure nonsense. It is possible that one is not aware of that he might be guilty according the law, also there is an extinction of guiltyness according to state laws. The Sangha is not a criminal register viewer. This shortcut, makes much troubles and is not useful.
Sorry I confused this rule with a rule regarding people who are marked in some way as a punishment being barred from the sangha. so I will re-respond to that in a moment.
it is to protect the reputation of the sangha and stop people trying to take advantage of an allowance by the king Bimbisara that Bhikkhus were free from punishment, which as a result is related to the Parajika on theft. and this covers a loophole (as does the parajika) that the Holy life escapes worldly responsibilities & repercussions. although this does beg the Angulimala question.
This seems to be also much to general, while it is understandable that people who strongly depend on others will not easy be able to life a Bhikkhus life it seems to be strong discriminating. Alltrought this point is on the other hand also strongly ignored. There are many cases where the holy life is used also as feed for disabled and sick.
it is to curb the compassion of Bhikkhus, and thus cause too great a burden on the community.
"the Dhamma is all about letting go and the vinaya all about holding on..." ohh, this is very good quote, but we even may misunderstand this.

I guess we have a plenty of work here.
the quote has more than that in it. I only left out the Q&A aspect as this is not necessary to the main points the full quote is
Ajahn Chah - You must be very confused Sumedho, the Dhamma is all about letting go and the vinaya all about holding on?
Ajahn Sumedho - Yes, actually I am!
Ajahn Chah - When you work out how these two work together you will be fine!
when coming at the vinaya it is best not to assume you know anything about what it is doing - such as you comments here; or the non-sense remarks quoted here. The vinaya is set down with 10 things kept in mind and the practicality of living the rule can change the rule, hence non-offence clauses, and how some rules are next to defunct except in certain situations or how all the factors for the offence are needed for the full rehabilitation to be needed and not a lesser one which is the case with some rules.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
Hanzze
Posts: 1906
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 12:47 pm
Location: Cambodia

Re: Asking about non parajika expulsion

Post by Hanzze » Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:22 am

Cittasanto wrote:I have cleaned up my earlier post to make it easier to read who is saying what.
Cittasanto wrote:is a novice not a person?
Yes, but not every person is a novice. In the text yoz have provided befor, there is written person, while her it goes in regard to already Novice.
This is regarding the novice repercussions it is quite obvious when you read the rest of the text (#67) as to where this belongs in what I have previously quoted.
Yes, I know, so we can say the previous message taken from BMC1 "a person who ...(in this case: has sexually molested a bhikkhunī.)" is simply not right or better misleading in many cases.
please read my opening statement on this particular translation.
That was not a critic of your supply, and your statement was read. This how ever does not make it more clear. To say and accept that things are not so clear, does not help exept in letting go, maybe. So just much palce for additional help, supply and work on possible misunderstanding. That does not limit your effort, giving and good will in any case.
who talked about anything being limited?
In this case it is showing with the "At that time, &c." that it is abbreviating. the rule is there in full.
I pointed you back to the initial warning as it seamed necessary.
Even that is no matter any more, that does not bring us further, so it was more a request if you have additional infomations.
actually that is motivation, the intention is to pose as a bhikkhu.
if done the propper way they have a better idea of what the life is about.
To pose a Bhikkhu and the perception than one poses a Bhikkhu are two different thing. So to judge such things is not easy possible and it it is made amoung like it looks one would fail what the idea behind this actually is. Not to forget that this rule is very useable for people who like to keep sects seperated.
actually the posing as a bhikkhu, (making oneself out to be a bhikkhu) without being accepted into the order is one thing, and the reasons why you want to be a bhikkhu is another in regard to that rule and what I was responding to. whether people perceive you to be a bhikkhu or not has little to do with it, putting on the cloths of a bhikkhu and going off without being accepted is posing as a bhikkhu whatever the perception.
although, I really do not know where you are getting perception from here?

but just to add to my last responce - it only included those who have not been formally accepted into the sangha, their motivation for joining is not important here.
Maybe a specific case makes it easier for you to understand what I am talking about as well it might make understandable why we need to be very carefully in what we say. According to your explainings/claim, I am posing to be a Bhikkhu and I will never be able to choin the Sangha. Even my robes are from different (unusal) colors, the faith believers and assumer often mistaken me as a formal Bhikkhu. There is never a problem with meeting wise. There is not a single intention to get some benefit out of that, more over more a run away from faith believers while still living a liveable life. So maybe its just that you need to cut of another perception. Don't hesitate I am also used to be called a useless parasite. But think about the actual dimension of such statements, there could be also good people in similar situation.
Furthermore this rule is still a pontencial Sangha disconnector and an excuxe for some who like to have it like that. As told, if the Dali Lama would like to ordinate, he would not be able to do so, because he regards him offical as Bhikkhu, so also all other tradtions would never be able to accept people from other schools.
So it is very much about perceptions in this case, or an simply an fatal error rule.
So generally take your time and try to fomulate things in such a way, that they will not be able to be taken as ultimatly. There can be many outside who consider very much if they are worthy to choin, and would even by the sightes doubt not like to damage the recutation of the Sangha or cause others in any way a problem. As you had told, it would be also an defense if somebody ordinates somebody wrongly. So please be careful, you might not know the effects.
actually a naga. a magical serpent who can change their shape.
That might be the thought... and explains why there are continues additional "rules"
I do not know what you are trying to say here.
Not all things are that literary takeable as they seem and that is not only a matter of general understanding, but also in the individual perception of words.
it is a different rule from 63. a rule is not necessarily conected in content for it to be related to the previous.
That might be a thought but no reverence that it is like that when you look at what was there as reverence for thought.
I do not know what you are trying to say here.
A framework of rules is always connected as well as the growing of rules is always connected with not understanding the simply rules. That is the way rules come in to being without end and so also there continuing misunderstaning.
yes a prominent feature of a story may not be what the rule reflects
Than such a collection makes more difficults as they might be useful to help. So for me its, much to think about which could at least rever to something useful. The story or this cut over all to make it simple for the not-so-smart. While still it is possible that I did not get the whole message.
I do not know what you are trying to say here.
I simply doubt the coherence between the stories and the actuall rules and I wonder which of it might have some originality without additions of later people who thought that they need to put into more understandability (according to my present knowledge about vinaya in relation to the suttas and the patimokkha)
please see opening statement.
it does, as would the last one, have a conection to another story regarding those who got ordained to recieve medical care, then disrobed. and one of the stories regarding parajika on theft.
"it" ? I don't understand the coherence of your replay to this statement and have also no idea to interpretete it in different ways not only in regard of "it".
"it" refers to "does not give any information about the motivation" it shows in the text where to look "(&c., as in chap. 66)."
#67 should read with the addition from 66
I am not able to reconstruct this branch as it seems to be to much confused. I guess no need to search the mistake...

'Let no one receive the upasampadâ ordination with the Samgha as upagghâya (preceptor??). He who confers the upasampadâ ordination (in such a way), commits a dukkata offence.'

I don't uderstand the meaning of this one.
preceptor is the person who ordains another into the community.
preceptor is the person who ordains another into the community.
How can a precepetor be somebody who like to gain ordination?? Or do I misunderstand the gramma?
you misunderstand the grammar.
I don't think so, maybe you got the wrong points mixed up (look orange above).
'Let no one receive the upasampadâ ordination with the Samgha as upagghâya.
the whole sangha in attendance is acting as the upajjhaya here.
So if I translate you say: Let nobody receive the higher ordination with the Sangha as Ordinationgiver. Somehow a not very useful sentence. It would then just say that the Sangha is never resposible for any ordination at all. Well I could good live with such a message.

the rules are not interconected as you seam to suppose.
they do not have to be useful in relation to each other. however it would be related to 62.
When they are even not able to ordinate, who could they be preceptor? This is useless or I misunderstand the previos point and upagghâya means something different.
this is a list of the people who should of not been given acceptance, yet were giving the acceptance into the sangha acting in a role they were not eligible to act in. and refers to the person being accepted, not the person who is acting as Upajjhaya
Ok I see, so even 1000 lifes a monk no security to have even been one time... holly molly. So I guess its somehow secure to be not ordinated at all. I wonder if there are even a hand full of people who would pass to be ordinated "rightously" according some interpretations here.
if they are posing as a member of the sangha and people believe the deception there should be no more issue than the sangha has.
as these rules do not deal with how to properly preform an ordination that is not useful to bear in mind here.
That is simply nonsens. Let people believe what ever they like to believe, this has no influences on the own intention. At the time of the Buddha other Askets would not look different to Bhikkhus. We need to be a little bit more carful what pose means, and what perception of people means.
"as these rules do not deal with how to properly preform an ordination that is not useful to bear in mind here" when you don't know situations and you don't think on possible situation it might be like that, but actually that could be very easy the case. So only one who needs an advice in a special case would know if it is useful to keep in mind and for one who is in charge to jugde it is neverthenless useful to keep even all in mind if he is not one able to read mind of others.
I was responding to a particular nuance of your reply there which seamed predominant, but...
I think you mean ascetics with askets? but yes they would look different. There are several ascetics mentioned in the canon and none of whom look like the Bhikkhus. there were naked, those who wore white (both Nigantha practices at least later on), bark, animal skin, those who wore robes similar to Ghandhi, it is actually an offence to dress like another ascetic. The dress of a Bhikkhu is actually detailed very precisely (down to the colour) for a reason, and they need to have the correct items. the "traditional" giving and receiving of the robes is actually making sure these things are correct.

The rules quoted actually show what posing as a Bhikkhu refers to, their motivation has absolutely nothing to do with it. Intending to put the robes on taking up the bowl, shaving the head... and then doing so without going through an ordination is posing as a Bhikkhu. if people (anyone) sees them as a Bhikkhhu when they are not actually a bhikkhu that is enough.

If someone has dis-robed they would be a lay person and would be aware of what would be required, and not look like a bhikkhu, i.e. not wearing the robes already. just because someone was a bhikkhu does not mean they look like one. what you are saying here (underlined) has no relation to what I was replying to that I can see.
No...! Now I even need to run a round naked to be an exeptable ascetics. Funny how easy we come into movies of past times. You are an story-teller... I like you.. I like your effort... but I am not able to gain or to work out anything here and I better stop here, Young Oncle Cittasanto.

Lets look maybe we find another way and lets think meanwhile if it is smart to care to much about Vinaya issues for layman. I don't think that a normal Layman is able to understand what it means to live a live as a beggar or even a Bhikkhu and many will not understand such statements by Ajahn Chah & Ajahn Sumedho at all.

Don't feel offended, all just my mistake. But stay carefully in regard telling "trues".
Maybe we would have more success together if we would find a better way to get things not permanenty mixed up. I guess time will solve that.
Just that! *smile*
...We Buddhists must find the courage to leave our temples and enter the temples of human experience, temples that are filled with suffering. If we listen to Buddha, Christ, or Gandhi, we can do nothing else. The refugee camps, the prisons, the ghettos, and the battlefields will become our temples. We have so much work to do. ... Peace is Possible! Step by Step. - Samtach Preah Maha Ghosananda "Step by Step" http://www.ghosananda.org/bio_book.html

BUT! it is important to become a real Buddhist first. Like Punna did: Punna Sutta Nate sante baram sokham _()_

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Asking about non parajika expulsion

Post by Cittasanto » Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:23 pm

hanzze
as allot of this is turning into pointless meta-discussion I am only going to reply in-line to what is rule related everything else i believe needs to be said to you regarding what you have said is here at the top.
At the bottom of page one you were cautioned about assuming, this caution still stands. as does the comment to you about assuming anything about others, in another thread. You read what you want to read, not what is there, and argue straw man arguments with red herrings thrown in. you need to stop this and act with gratitude to the patience people here are trying to afford you constantly.
Hanzze wrote:Yes, I know, so we can say the previous message taken from BMC1 "a person who ...(in this case: has sexually molested a bhikkhunī.)" is simply not right or better misleading in many cases.
did you read 67 or this post you replied to?
Maybe a specific case makes it easier for you to understand what I am talking about as well it might make understandable why we need to be very carefully in what we say. According to your explainings/claim, I am posing to be a Bhikkhu and I will never be able to choin the Sangha. Even my robes are from different (unusal) colors, the faith believers and assumer often mistaken me as a formal Bhikkhu. There is never a problem with meeting wise. There is not a single intention to get some benefit out of that, more over more a run away from faith believers while still living a liveable life. So maybe its just that you need to cut of another perception. Don't hesitate I am also used to be called a useless parasite. But think about the actual dimension of such statements, there could be also good people in similar situation.
Furthermore this rule is still a pontencial Sangha disconnector and an excuxe for some who like to have it like that. As told, if the Dali Lama would like to ordinate, he would not be able to do so, because he regards him offical as Bhikkhu, so also all other tradtions would never be able to accept people from other schools.
So it is very much about perceptions in this case, or an simply an fatal error rule.
So generally take your time and try to fomulate things in such a way, that they will not be able to be taken as ultimatly. There can be many outside who consider very much if they are worthy to choin, and would even by the sightes doubt not like to damage the recutation of the Sangha or cause others in any way a problem. As you had told, it would be also an defense if somebody ordinates somebody wrongly. So please be careful, you might not know the effects.
The person posing would be wearing the cloths of a Bhikkhu. why would I be referring to someone wearing robes other than those of a Bhikkhu? and again you need to understand the difference between intention and intentions/motivations... putting on the robes of a bhikkhu is one intention, anything else is either another intention or motivation.
A framework of rules is always connected as well as the growing of rules is always connected with not understanding the simply rules. That is the way rules come in to being without end and so also there continuing misunderstaning.
If this was true Parajika one and four would be on the same subject. as their connection would be more than the rule class/consequence.
I don't think so, maybe you got the wrong points mixed up (look orange above).
it is correct, your thoughts are not!
So if I translate you say: Let nobody receive the higher ordination with the Sangha as Ordinationgiver. Somehow a not very useful sentence. It would then just say that the Sangha is never resposible for any ordination at all. Well I could good live with such a message.
if you are not understanding something trying to render it then assuming it is correct is silly and arrogant.
the upajjhiya introduces the ordinand to the sangha and the sangha accept them witness the ordination... they can not do both.
Ok I see, so even 1000 lifes a monk no security to have even been one time... holly molly. So I guess its somehow secure to be not ordinated at all. I wonder if there are even a hand full of people who would pass to be ordinated "rightously" according some interpretations here.
The rules are only effective for the life of the being at most. where you got 1000 lives is not from anything said.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
Hanzze
Posts: 1906
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 12:47 pm
Location: Cambodia

Re: Asking about non parajika expulsion

Post by Hanzze » Wed Oct 03, 2012 12:23 am

Don't worry my young uncle Cittasanto, just my thought and my faults, they are not lasting. Maybe I will get a little smarter with time. Thanks for your try. Be carefull.
Just that! *smile*
...We Buddhists must find the courage to leave our temples and enter the temples of human experience, temples that are filled with suffering. If we listen to Buddha, Christ, or Gandhi, we can do nothing else. The refugee camps, the prisons, the ghettos, and the battlefields will become our temples. We have so much work to do. ... Peace is Possible! Step by Step. - Samtach Preah Maha Ghosananda "Step by Step" http://www.ghosananda.org/bio_book.html

BUT! it is important to become a real Buddhist first. Like Punna did: Punna Sutta Nate sante baram sokham _()_

theY
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:07 pm
Contact:

Re: Asking about non parajika expulsion

Post by theY » Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:16 am

I confirm to Thanissaro Bhikkhu texts.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... .ch04.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; << at ending.

He learned vinaya in burma theravāda system that sufficient confirm his texts.

His texts copy that from pārājika commentary name samantapāsādikā and kaṅkhāvitaraṇī. However more that that commentaries have 24 pārājika-similar-person.

And those commentary summary it from various tipitaka points.

P.S. I'm sorry that I didn't read all message at this topic.
Above message maybe out of date. Latest update will be in massage's link.
--------------------------------------------------
Tipitaka memorization is a rule of monks. It isn't just a choice. They must done it.
bahussuto nāma tividho hoti – nissayamuccanako, parisupaṭṭhāpako, bhikkhunovādakoti.
http://UnmixedTheravada.blogspot.com/20 ... monks.html

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests