Monasticim and parental permission

Discussion of ordination, the Vinaya and monastic life. How and where to ordain? Bhikkhuni ordination etc.
vitellius
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:21 pm

Re: Monasticim and parental permission

Post by vitellius »

Anyway, has anyone got any ideas about this question?
I wonder, if he [Rathapala of MN82] would die, his starvation would be a kusala or akusala (like other suicides) kamma?
vitellius
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:21 pm

Re: Monasticim and parental permission

Post by vitellius »

Manapa wrote:if a father left home, and gave up custody to the mother would the adult son or daughter need to get permission of them also?
According to the Commentary, in such case one needs permission from mother only.

It was cited earlier in this thread:
(5) A father, not concerned for the welfare of his wife and son, runs away. The mother gives her son to some monks, saying, "Let him go forth." When asked, "Where has his father gone?" she replies, "He has run away to disport himself." — It is suitable for him [the son] to be given the going forth.

A mother has run away with some man or other. The father gives [his son to some monks, saying], "Let him go forth." The principle in this case is just the same as above.

The Kurundī* states: 'A father is absent. The mother gives her son permission, saying, "Let him go forth." When asked, "Where has his father gone?" she replies, "I shall be responsible for whatever is due to you from the father." — It is suitable for him [the son] to be given the going forth.'

[* Kurundī: one of the Sinhalese commentaries most frequently cited by Buddhaghosa as the source of his Vinaya exegesis.]
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: Monasticim and parental permission

Post by Paññāsikhara »

Oleksandr wrote:Anyway, has anyone got any ideas about this question?
I wonder, if he [Rathapala of MN82] would die, his starvation would be a kusala or akusala (like other suicides) kamma?
The issue of types of "death kamma" is a tricky one. Though they seem to be more common in some tradition, the idea that it is the very last moment which determines the death kamma / mental event, I personally think that this is somewhat simplistic. More factors have to be considered.

We need to keep in mind, that from his first decision not to eat, up to his (hypothetical situation of) death by starvation, several days, if not weeks, may take place. During that time, there are a vast number of mental states.
In general, his intention is to ordain, which is wholesome.
However, his method may not be particularly skillful, there may have been other ways to convince his parents. It is not his aim to die, though, and this we must keep in mind.

Then, at the actual moment of death, there could be any one of a number of possibilities. I am familiar with traditions that outline three main ones:
1. Powerful kamma. Had Rathapala enacted any particularly powerful kammas during his life? eg. entering jhanas? killing of a human being? etc.
2. Habitual kamma. What was Rathapala's habitual state of mind. Was he usually a positive, wholesome type of man? Or, was he selfish and greedy, etc.? If he had maintained his wish to ordain very strongly during the days / weeks preceding (hypothetical) death by starvation, this would also start to form a habit.
3. General thought. Or, at death, was he thinking about just any old thing? eg. oh, I wonder if my friend Tissa will visit me today ... <zip> ...?

Although the decision to starve had a general wholesome intention, it may form some quite troublesome habits in future lives. This would be particularly so if he had regrets about it, at the time of death. This may lead to eating disorders, etc. and other problems. If these were obstructions to the path, then the basic cause would be mostly likely unwholesome / unskillful.

There is a lot to keep in mind for this. And my ramblings above should be seen as just ramblings, throwing around some basic Dhamma ideas. Please don't take them too far, or too generalized!
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
User avatar
pink_trike
Posts: 1130
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am
Contact:

Re: Monasticim and parental permission

Post by pink_trike »

Paññāsikhara wrote:
Although the decision to starve had a general wholesome intention, it may form some quite troublesome habits in future lives. This would be particularly so if he had regrets about it, at the time of death. This may lead to eating disorders, etc. and other problems. If these were obstructions to the path, then the basic cause would be mostly likely unwholesome / unskillful.

There is a lot to keep in mind for this. And my ramblings above should be seen as just ramblings, throwing around some basic Dhamma ideas. Please don't take them too far, or too generalized!
This would be particularly so if he had regrets about it, at the time of death. This may lead to eating disorders, etc. and other problems.
Hi Paññāsikhara,

Is there sutra support for this specific correlation between a regret about starving to death and a possibility of eating disorders in a forthcoming incarnation? Are you speculating to make a point? A couple of my teachers have stressed that these types of associations are pointless and impossible because there are too many unknown variables.
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.
Bankei
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:40 am

Re: Monasticim and parental permission

Post by Bankei »

I ordained in Thailand without my parents permission. It was never asked if I had the permission, other than in Pali during the ceremony where I was instructed to just answer yes to everything (and 1 no if I remember correctly). I did have a 'surrogate' mother in the form of a Thai aunty at the ceremony, so maybe this was taken as being enough.

Re the issue about the tree I mentioned above, I cannot find anything at the moment, but have found a reference to an article (I don't have a copy):

Crosby, Kate 2005 "Only if you let go of that Tree: Ordination without Parental Consent according to Theravada Vinaya." Buddhist Studies Review


Hope this helps

Bankei
-----------------------
Bankei
vitellius
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:21 pm

Re: Monasticim and parental permission

Post by vitellius »

Bankei wrote:Crosby, Kate 2005 "Only if you let go of that Tree: Ordination without Parental Consent according to Theravada Vinaya." Buddhist Studies Review
I have a hard copy of her article (it is not available online). Basically, it is translation and discussion of the relevant part of Samantapāsādikā (Commentary to Vinaya). Kate also compares text of Pali Samantapāsādikā to its Chinese abridged translation to clarify some points.

Bhante Dhammanando has posted his translation of the relevant fragment at the beginning of this thread.
suanck
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 7:51 am

Re: Monasticim and parental permission

Post by suanck »

Thanks, Bhante Pesala, for the explanation.
I'd like to post my comments in 2 parts:

Part 1:
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:
suanck wrote:In the present day, I wonder if this rule of seeking parents' permission is strictly applied, especially for mature adults who live independently from their parents?
In the present day, I sometimes wonder if any of the rules are strictly applied.
In my original question, I used the word "strictly", because in the past, I did attend to a number of bhikkhu ordination ceremonies in Southeast Asia, both in Theravada and Mahayana traditions. In most cases, the parents of the bhikkhu candidates were present, and I assumed they did give the permission to their sons to ordain.

Except 2 cases I personnally know the monks. They were both mature adults (in their late 20s) and had been living far away and independently from their parents, and did not maintain regular contacts with them. In one case, the bhikkhu candidate only wrote a letter informing his parents about his intention to ordain, and did not receive a reply from them. In the second case, the bhikkhu candidate only informed his parents a year or two after the ordination.

That's why I don't know if this rule is "strictly" applied in the present day.

Suan
suanck
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 7:51 am

Re: Monasticim and parental permission

Post by suanck »

Part 2:
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote: Living apart as a mature adult makes no difference. To understand this rule, you need to understand the Buddhist idea of indebtedness. Our parents give us life and endure great hardship in raising us and having us educated. Our debt to them is immeasurable.

It is not permissible to grant ordination to a candidate who is not free from debt. One's parents may rightly be expecting that they will be supported and cared for by their children in their old age.
Does it mean that once the bhikkhu candidate receives permission from his parents, he's free from the debt from them and he does not need to look after them? Is that mentioned anywhere in the Vinaya Pitaka or later Commentaries?

A side note: I have seen at some temples in Southeast Asia's rural areas, the abbot's old mother was staying there, usually as a white-robe nun (Theravada) or grey-robe nun (Mahayana). Presumably, that is a way for the abbot to look after his elderly mother.

Suan
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: Monasticim and parental permission

Post by BlackBird »

suanck wrote: That's why I don't know if this rule is "strictly" applied in the present day.
There's not a lot of rules that are.
Ven. Dhammika wrote: As with the locals, a Westerner can turn up at a Theravadin monastery in Asia and be ordained almost immediately. In keeping with the Vinaya, he will be asked whether he is a human, whether he is a male etc. But he will not be asked what most intelligent people would consider were more pertinent questions like; 'Do you have a criminal record?' 'Have you suffered from mental illness?' 'Can you read and write?' 'Is this really what you want to do?' Astonishingly, he won't even be asked if he is a Buddhist! Where else in the world would it be possible to become a clergyman in a religion before knowing anything about that religion?
source

There in lies part of the problem.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
User avatar
pink_trike
Posts: 1130
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am
Contact:

Re: Monasticim and parental permission

Post by pink_trike »

he will be asked whether he is a human
One must be a human?
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17186
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Monasticim and parental permission

Post by DNS »

pink_trike wrote: One must be a human?
"... Once a Naga, a powerful serpent who can take the form of a human being, was mistakenly ordained as a monk. Shortly after, when asleep in his hut, the naga returned to the shape of a huge snake. The monk who shared the hut was somewhat alarmed when he woke up to see a great snake sleeping next to him! The Lord Buddha summoned the naga and told him he may not remain as a monk, at which the utterly disconsolate snake began to weep. The snake was given the Five Precepts as the means to attaining a human existence in his next life when he can then be a monk. Then out of compassion for the sad snake, the Lord Buddha said that from then on all candidates for the monkhood be called 'Naga' as a consolation. They are still called 'Naga' to this day."

http://www.jendhamuni.com/buddhism/arti ... remony.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From a scholarly perspective, nagas are remnants from Hindu-Brahmanism mythology, pre-dating Buddhism.
vitellius
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:21 pm

Re: Monasticim and parental permission

Post by vitellius »

And I have three more questions to Vinaya pundits :)

If a monk-to-be doesn't have a permission, is his ordination valid in following cases?

1) He knowingly lies that he has a permission (when asked in Pali at a formal ceremony).
2) He doesn't know that permission is necessary and just says "yes" in Pali as he was taught to, not understanding the meaning of question.
3) He wasn't asked about permission at the ordination (e.g. if preceptor has forgotten to ask that or knowingly omitted this question).

As far as I understand in third case preceptor commits a dukkata offenсe, but what about a newly-ordained bhikkhu then?
vitellius
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:21 pm

Re: Monasticim and parental permission

Post by vitellius »

Another interesting and related topic is samanera ordination.

Samaneras are not asked about parental consent at ordination.

I wonder,

1) How samanera ordination was established?
2) Was it designed especially for children? If Buddha had banned children from becoming bhikkhus (because they could hardly bear ascetic lifestyle), why he let them ordain as a samanera? Then, what is the essential difference, making samanera ordination available for children?
3) May an adult ordain as samanera according to Pali canon and the Commentary? Were any such cases registered at that time? If no, when and why the practice of "adult samaneras" emerged?
4) Why samaneras are not asked about permission of their parents? Was it because it went without saying that they have it? Could a run-away kid become a samanera?
vitellius
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:21 pm

Re: Monasticim and parental permission

Post by vitellius »

suanck wrote:Does it mean that once the bhikkhu candidate receives permission from his parents, he's free from the debt from them and he does not need to look after them? Is that mentioned anywhere in the Vinaya Pitaka or later Commentaries?
As far as I remember it said in Vinaya that monks may share alms-food with their parents in the case of famine.

And - again, as far as I remember - Commentary says that they may take care of ill parents.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Monasticim and parental permission

Post by Cittasanto »

Oleksandr wrote:1) How samanera ordination was established?
The Buddha ordained Rahula, his son, and his father (the Buddhas, Rahulas grandfather) complained that he lost two people dear to him
2) Was it designed especially for children? If Buddha had banned children from becoming bhikkhus (because they could hardly bear ascetic lifestyle), why he let them ordain as a samanera? Then, what is the essential difference, making samanera ordination available for children?
he didn't ban it as such, he agreed that a better course of action would be to give them a lesser ordination.
3) May an adult ordain as samanera according to Pali canon and the Commentary? Were any such cases registered at that time? If no, when and why the practice of "adult samaneras" emerged?
Yes, and all bhikkhus ordain as novices first, sometimes the two ordinations are done one after the other (litterally), other times a few weeks or days are between the ordinations, and other times they stay as novices, not everyone feels the need to take full ordination, this is more common in the west, or Sri Lanka than Burma & Thailand.
4) Why samaneras are not asked about permission of their parents? Was it because it went without saying that they have it? Could a run-away kid become a samanera?
They don't need to ask because they aren't bound by the same rules, they have allot of freedoms Bhikkhus & Bhikkhunis don't have, so can reletavely live a closer to normal life than full monastics, they have only really taken on 1 extra precept, that of relinquishing money, but the rest are the same as a Upasaka/Upasika, although they tend to follow the 75 training rules aswell, many of which wouldn't inhibit a lay life, and I believe lay Dhamma Teachers follow these as well.
Someone else may correct anything I have erred on here, but I believe this is essentially correct without looking up the relevant stuff! but there is a section in the Buddhist monastic code 2 which may answer this last question more (chapter 9 if I remember rightly)
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
Post Reply