My question concerns the issue of clearly defining the current lines in the monastic Saṅgha according to the principles of (classical) theravada. This matter concerns how monks ought to relate to each other across affiliations (saṃvāsa), and the issue of what in fact counts as an affiliation.
In the interests of clearly defining the relationship between the Theravāda and Mahāyāna monastic communities, I’m particularly looking for help in making a comparison between the ordination procedures of currently popular Mahāyāna strands.
Does anyone know where these may be found in detail? Some translations are available of Dharmaguptaka etc. but I’d be interested if anyone knows whether or not these ancient texts are actually adhered to or if there are significant deviations that may invalidate the procedures in Theravāda eyes.
Why this is important for us as Theravadins: If, for example, it can be shown that certain Mahāyāna traditions habitually conduct ordinations in such a way that doesn’t fulfill the Theravāda criteria for a proper transaction, then it may be held that their community’s members should not even be treated as validly ordained monks. If, however, some do satisfy the criteria sufficiently, they should be treated simply as members of another affiliation among the broader Sangha (this also leaves open the future possibility, however unlikely, of reunification).
Further, if - in the first case - a Theravada monk were to go over to the Mahāyāna without disrobing beforehand, it may reasonably be held that he has in fact gone over to another religion and should never be allowed to re-enter the Sangha in this lifetime.
Another issue this would of course affect is the perception of the recent attempts to revive the bhikkhunī Saṅgha.
Note: The question of “own dialect” seems likely to crop up. I’d be grateful, for the sake of discussion, if it were possible to both entertain the likelihood that this may simply mean what it appears to mean at face value in the Mūla texts - one’s own dialect, whatever that may be - as well as the Commentary’s explanation that it means Pali.
Now at that time Yameḷu and Tekula were the names of two monks who were brothers, brahmans by birth, with lovely voices, with lovely enunciation. They approached the Lord; having approached, having greeted the Lord, they sat down at a respectful distance. As they were sitting down at a respectful distance, these monks spoke thus to the Lord: “At present, Lord, monks of various names, various clans, various social strata have gone forth from various families; these corrupt the speech of the Awakened One in sakāya niruttiyā. Now we, Lord, give the speech of the Awakened One chandasas.” The Awakened One, the Lord, rebuked them, saying […]: “Monks, the speech of the Awakened One should not be given chandasas. Whoever should [so] give it, there is an offence of wrong-doing. I allow you, monks, to learn the speech of the Awakened One *sakāya niruttiyā
Commentary:
Sakāya niruttiyāti ettha sakā nirutti nāma sammāsambuddhena vuttappakāro māgadhiko vohāro.
“I ordain the words of the Buddha to be learnt in his own language - in Māgadhī, the language used by the Buddha himself,
Correct, the commentary interprets the phrase to mean Pali. However:
It could be argued - using the hierarchy of Mūla->Atthakathā->Tikā that governs Theravada - that the root text is already clear in meaning: sakāya nirutti means that the monks were translating the Dhamma into their own regional dialects and the Buddha allowed it. Saka, after all, means one’s own. Such an argument would suggest there is no need to accept the Commentary’s explanation here (just as it’s understood that there’s no need to heed the tikā when it disagrees with or gives a dubious reading of the commentary). If the Buddha specifically meant his own dialect he could have used mama, me. If he meant Magadhi he could have used that specific term.
Whether we follow the Commentary or not, this passage does not say that a transaction statement must be pronounced in Pali. It’s allowed to use sakā nirutti but all that’s explicitly forbidden is reformulating the Buddha’s words in chandasa - metered verse - which the commentary interprets as meaning in the style of a Sanskrit Veda i.e. as hymns composed in metered Sanskrit verse.
There are clear guidelines in the root Vinaya texts as to what nullifies a transaction, and the language of the announcement isn’t one of the invalidating factors:
Pv. Pañc. Kamm. : kathaṃ ñattito kammāni vipajjanti? pañcahākārehi ñattito kammāni vipajjanti – vatthuṃ na parāmasati, saṅghaṃ na parāmasati, puggalaṃ na parāmasati, ñattiṃ na parāmasati, pacchā vā ñattiṃ ṭhapeti – imehi pañcahākārehi ñattito kammāni vipajjanti.
How is a transaction void due to the announcement? Due to five factors…: It does not touch on 1) the object 2) the community 3) the individual 4) the announcement , or 5) the announcement is later set aside…
Mv.9.3.2 gives further criteria (too long to quote but can be read here: MvIX: campeyyakkhandhako) , but again the only way the rule against reworking the Buddha’s words into chandasa would fit here is if the transaction were turned into metered Sanskrit verse. If that were the case then the transaction could be seen as void, due to it being “apart from Vinaya.”
If, on the other hand, it were translated into prosaic Sanskrit this would not even violate the Commentary’s definition of the rule in question. Thus such a fact would not appear to be sufficient to render a transaction “apart from the Vinaya.”
I currently lack the references, but if I’m not mistaken, there are certain conditions in the Vinaya that may prevent the ordination of a former Mahayana monk as a Theravada bhikkhu:
Having previously been a Theravada bhikkhu and, as a Mahayana monk, acting in a way that defames the Theravada Sangha.
Individuals who violated their celibacy vows while being monastics. This applies to monastics from any religious tradition—for example, a Catholic priest. However, this would not apply to monastics who did not take celibacy vows, which is common in some Buddhist traditions, such as in Japan.
One reason the Buddha was so strict regarding schisms in the Sangha is precisely because these schisms cannot be undone. Whenever a schism arises, the true Dhamma is weakened, and a significant number of beings are led astray from the path to Nibbana.
“‘Putting (the Buddha’s words) into meter’ means putting them into a mode of recitation similar to a Veda in the Sanskrit language.”
Thus what is forbidden is either - following the root text - simply reformulating the Buddha’s prose words into poetry, or - following the Commentarial addition - reformulating them into Sanskrit Vedas (hymns composed in metered verse).
Since it’s generally accepted that the Dhamma can and should be taught in and translated into local languages/ dialects, it can be inferred that the Theravāda position does not prohibit putting the Dhamma into other languages than Pali.
There’s nothing in any Theravada text that I’ve found suggesting that a transaction would be invalidated simply due to translating it, which means we need to investigate the validity of the Korean ordination procedures on other grounds, in order to be crystal clear about whether or not they had any right to claim an unbroken nuns’ lineage.
So for whoever is interested, here seems to be quite clear evidence - from a bhikshuni - that the Korean lineage has long been invalid by Theravada standards:
“So far as I have been able to research, there is no Korean record on the practice of a dual ordination for nuns during the Chosŏn period. It seems that the practice of a dual ordination for Korean nuns discontinued sometime in the Chosŏn period. I assume that Korean nuns were ordained as bhikshunis under bhikshu sangha alone.”
This means the entire argument for reviving the nuns lineage rests entirely on the argument for unilateral ordination - i.e. that monks can perform this process alone: a position that Venerable Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu has comprehensively decimated in this compilation of his essays on the topic, largely written in response to Anālayo (link leads directly to the relevant section):
To compound things he also shows why the Perth ordinations were invalid on yet another level in his letters to Ven. Ñāṇadhammo at the end. They ordained several candidates at once, thus violating a nuns’ pācittiya.
I think you will find the commentary talks about pronunciation of the pāḷi for #4 the announcement.
I think it is counted at pa-auk… that if they come to Theravāda without disrobing, they are okay. If they go back to mahāyāna without disrobing, they are at fault. The practice of ordaining Mahāyāna monks into Theravāda is reckless to the well-being of such monks because it is likely they will return to their own lineage when they go back to their country.
I think that Na-uyana makes mahāyāna monks renounce their ordinations first.
The Tibet and mahāyāna traditions believe we are the same.
I once had a problem a Tibetan bhikshu at Panditarama who was taking juice from the tray without asking… He claimed we were the same.
He then ordained as a sāmaṇera but still that is a problem.
He then ordained as a bhikkhu… then I told him.
“If you took a Tibetan sāmaṇera ordination would you lose your higher ordination?”
He said “Yes”
Then, you lost your original vassa if we are the same. If we are different, then we are different.
Yes thank you venerable I found that after posting. Contentious, perhaps, but it still doesn’t say explicitly that it must be in Pali - it would still seem a not unreasonable application of the Great Standards to insist instead that an approved translation into English be accurately pronounced. Then, however, we get into questions of translation at which point I wholeheartedly agree keeping to Pali is by far the best option in practice.
Incidentally to the topic, I was rather surprised at the Commentary’s insistence that the transaction is invalidated by a single mispronunciation (except for dīgha-rassa confusions). Is that how you read it, too? I know, for instance, that pronunciation of Pali varies a great deal between different Theravāda nations, and that Nepali/Indian visitors frequently criticise what they hear there as inaccurate. On top of that, it would be extremely easy for a single slip of the tongue to go unnoticed by both announcer and listeners - a t for a ṭ or a n for an ṇ. What’s more there are many Pali words where such changes make no difference in meaning, due to the existence of alternative spellings. If I’ve understood correctly it’s hard to imagine, following the commentary, how anyone could be confident of their own ordination these days.
Thank you for this information. I’m fascinated to learn how monasteries with strict Vinaya traditions deal with such issues.
NU’s position seems consistent - if we’re to consider them of another religion they should go through the necessary four months’ probation and pass all the requirements entailed before ordaining. At the very least it would require renouncing their old tradition.
Regarding PA - “At fault” meaning they can never return to Theravāda fold after defecting?
As a side question - do NU and PA agree to sit on the same pāṭimokkha as different Theravāda Nikāyas in their respective countries?
I suppose the Tibetan monk wasn’t considered theyysaṃvāsaka, then, although in assuming seniority as he did he could be seen as having come rather close…
From what I have been told and some parts I know. The Indo Asian alphabets are organized by different sounds usually in groups of 5 letters based on the position of the lips and the tongue and where the sound comes from. Supposedly, these required descriptions where pronunciation matters are correct across traditions. However, this can turn into a rabbit hole quickly. The pronunciation requirements are not on all letters. This issue was brought up in the 6th Buddhist Council. You can read further on that. Unfortunately, it was decided to not to unify the pronunciation across all traditions. I think they missed a good opportunity.
Pa-Auk, and all mm traditions that I know of accept all monks to the pātimokkha.
NU only accepts monks who come from “good vinaya traditions” and those who follow the way of those good traditions. (The monk never used money nor comes from such a money using tradition). This is not correct according to vinaya since it is not pārājika. They completely ignore Ven. Pa-Auk Sayadawgyi’s Pariyatti past which is no secret. Nevertheless, Pa-Auk is responsible for the remaining vinaya traditions and also the main practice method of Na-Uyana.
IIT does not filter who can come to the pātimokkha.
Despite what NU practices for pātimokkha inclusion, it is better than some traditions in Thailand. The proper course of action is to give dalhikamma to the monk just before the pātimokkha if the saṅgha has doubt.
I am not an official monk to speak for any of these monasteries. It is just what I know from living there. Some information may be way outdated (especially for NU).