bankei

Monks aren't supposed to be involved in political activities or protests anyway.

Why?

Didn't the Buddha once stop a war?

Bankei

You might be interested in the blog of an American researcher doing her Ph.D. on English language meditation/retreat groups in Thailand

http://wanderingdhamma.wordpress.com/

A new reading text book for Thai, Thai Reader, is now available for download

from http://readingthai.wisc.edu/index.html.

by Robert J. Bickner

Professor (Thai) and Chair

Department of Languages and Cultures of Asia

University of Wisconsin

Different Wats chose different colour robes. Generally the so called forest monks have the darker yellow robes. THe bright flourescent robes are usually city monks of the Mahanikaya and the reddish robes are more of the Burmese influenced monks. But this is not always the case

I have been ordained 2 times in Thai Buddhist temples and I was asked to come to the temple a few weeks before ordination.

I understand that staying at the temple or at home away from the usual things in life is a way to prepare and purify your mind and body.

I wore white during that time and studied and memorized the verses of Pali text that is required to recite to become a monk.

I am ordaining in this coming April and I have been searching for the Pali text that is required to recite at the ceremony for quite a long time. Do you happen to have the Pali and romanized to English version of this text? Also, do you happen to have the audio version of this to help me learn and listen to it?

Any information or documents would help me greatly,

Thank you

I have it, send me an email and I can send you a copy. Pali with the english translation. Mahanikaya version.

The ordination ceremony is actually in the Pali language, not Thai.

I have the script for the ordination ceremony for Samenera (novice) and Bhikkhu (monk) in romanised Pali with English Translation. It is in word format and is about 18 pages long. If you email me I can send you a copy.

The version I have is that used by Mahanikaya temples.

Bankei

Bankei,

I would greatly appreciate your copy of the script for the ordination ceremony. I am ordaining in April and really want to get the script comfortably memorized.

As soon as you can send it the better. I truly appreciate it.

One question, which version of the script is it? Esaham or Ukasa?

Thanks,

Mike

Its the Mahanikaya version. Ukassa vandami bhante..........

The Dhammayut version is available from the bookshop opposite Wat bowon in Bangkok for about 30B.

Do the Buddhist temples depict Hindu gods?

Yes, often the case in Thailand, Burma and Sri Lanka

The ordination ceremony is actually in the Pali language, not Thai.

I have the script for the ordination ceremony for Samenera (novice) and Bhikkhu (monk) in romanised Pali with English Translation. It is in word format and is about 18 pages long. If you email me I can send you a copy.

The version I have is that used by Mahanikaya temples.

Bankei

I have heard that some of the monks that were present at the ordination of those Bhikkhuni in Perth have already been refused admittance to temples in the WPP group.

It seems the authorities don't know what to do with them. They may regard them as "Mahayana" Bhikkhuni and leave them alone.

Are they actually Mahayanan or Theravadan?

Buddhism split up into a number of schools shortly after the Buddha's death. It is traditionally said there were 18 schools, though there were more as time went on. Theravada was one of these schools. Mahayana only came a few hundred years later.

The Mahanaya monks and nuns are actually ordained under a non-mahayana (or hinayana) vinaya. For Chinese this is the Dharmaguptaka vinaya and for Tibetan traditions the Mulasarbastivada vinaya. These two schools are pre-mahayana. The monks and nuns follow the vinayas of these schools, but hold different philosophical view points, ie Mahayana view points. From the vinaya perspective there is no Mahayana nuns or monks as there is no Mahayana vinaya. Mahayana is a philosophical school.

Therefore it is possible to be ordained under a Theravada vinaya, but hold Mahayana views.

However, these Bhikkhuni were ordained under Theravada vinaya following Theravada rules and proceedures, using Pali as the lanaguage of the ceremony.

The problem is the preceptor Bhikkhuni was ordained 12 years ago following the Dharmaguptak proceedure - she also redid the ordination using the Pali proceedure with Theravada monks doing the Bhikkhu part of the proceedure. Another one of the Bhikkhuni's present at the ceremony had only been ordained by Theravada monks, and not Bhikkhuni.

So, to answer your question, they are Theravada Bhikkhuni following Theravada vinaya and proceedures, using Theravada language (Pali) and were ordained solely by Theravadins.

(but the fundamentalists deem this not to be valid as there are questions regarding the validity of the preceptor Bhikkhuni's ordination).

Sorry, another question... The bhikkunis that have been ordained in Perth... Will they be regarded as legitimate bhikkhunis outside Thailand but required to disrobe when on Thai soil? I ask this if the advice Ajarn Brahm has received from the acting Phrasangharaja infers that outside Thailand they are ordained, but inside the country they would not be recognised.

There are currently about 30 Bhikkhuni in Thailand already. The first was a woman up a Chiang Rai. She had been a Bhikkhuni for a number of years now, maybe 5 and runs her own temple. The second was the more famous Dr Kabilsingh who was a professor of Buddhism at Thammasat Uni for a long time. She went to Sri Lanka and ordained and now now running a Wat just outside Bangkok. Her name is now Bhikkhuni Dhammananda.

There are also a few others affiliated with these groups and on their own or in other groups. I have seen pictures of the Bhikkhuni goin on Alms round.

It seems the authorities don't know what to do with them. They may regard them as "Mahayana" Bhikkhuni and leave them alone.

Actually there were 4 ordained in the 1920s who were jailed and then Dhammananda's mother was the first Bhikkhuni after that, ordaining in Taiwan in the 1970s.

Isn't that, in effect, what is happening? And why not? Why be tied to the Thai Sangha?

Some significant reasons, if you think about it. Who makes the rules for the new sect? It could easily become the Brahm Sect. What happens when he's gone? What happens when the next abbot wants to change a rule? Will the laity feel it is authentic if it's centered on one monk? The other Aj Chah temples in Oz and NZ haven't openly broken away so they may be instructed not to have anything to do with him and his monastery. Will the bhikkhuni feel like real bhikkhuni if they belong to a relatively small sect?

I wouldn't say its a new sect. It could be that the WPP monks will refuse to participate in Sanghakamma (monastic business such as ordinations) with the monks associated with Ajahn Brahm. Maybe the existing ones will be considered ok, but now his preceptor status has been removed (actually he is still qualified under the vinaya) it could be that future monks are not accepted as monks in Thailand. This could mean problems with getting visas or monk id cards etc. That doesn't mean that they won't be monks or accepted elsewhere. It could end up being a separate nikaya.

As for rules, they will follow the vinaya like all monks. Brahm is only the abbott of a temple, when he is gone a new abbott will be appointed by the committee that controls the temple. Not sure if it is centred around one monk. There are a few other well established monks there as well as nuns which do lots of teaching - thought Brahm does seem to have a cult like following.

This site:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=1532...amp;topic=11952

Has a link to

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F...sion.mp3&h=

which is a brief recording of part of the proceedings where they expelled Ajahn Brahm. it is in Thai language.

Here is a translation of the minutes of the meeting at WPP where Ajahn Brahm was kicked out of the organisation.

taken from Sujato's blog http://sujato.wordpress.com/

Minutes of the WPP Meeting Regarding Ajahn Brahmavamso, Bodhinyana Monastery & Bhikkhuni Ordination

From the Thai transcription at http://www.alittlebuddha.com

English translation: Supatra Chowchuvech

Title: Summery of the Meeting of the Sangha Committee of Wat Nong Pah Pong and its Branches Regarding Bhikkhunis – Nov 1, 2552 BE (2009 CE)

Chairman (Loung Por Liem):

“Everyone, this is the 1st of November, the 14th night of the 12th month full moon Festival of Kalatthana. We are gathered here at Wat Nong Pah Pong related to this activity and this culture and these traditions that have been practiced for a long, long time. However today we also have a meeting about the Sangha Committee in order to increase and improve our understanding of our duty and conduct. We will be speaking about the conduct of a monk, our monk. On this occassion it is the responsibility of the Secretary to propose this issue into the Meeting, in order to clarify our responsibilities and duties. I am taking the role of the Chairman of the Meeting, and the Meeting is now open.”

Secretary:

“May i have the opportunity, Chairman. The issue that we are Meeting over today is related to Ven Chaokhun (Bishop) Brahm giving bhikkhuni ordination at Bodhinyana Forest Monastery in Perth. All of you Ajahns have the document in front of you, so i would like to invite the Ven Chaokhun [brahm] to explain the ordination, so that the other Ajahns can ask questions, item by item.”

Ven Brahmavamso:

“I was not the Upajjhaya (Preceptor). There was a bhikkhu[ni] who was the Upajjhaya of the bhikkhunis; it was not me. The ritual was done at the forest monastery in Perth. It was an ordination for bhikkhunis. There was no Upajjhaya; the Pavattini was a bhikkhuni. A bhikkhuni was Pavattini (Upajjhaya). Tathaaloka has been to Thailand long ago. She has 12 Pansa (Vassas/Years since full ordination). She was ordained in the Mahayana in a sect in the United States. In the meeting there were eight bhikkhunis, and we ordained four samaneris into bhikkhunis. In the Bhikkhuni Sangha who gave the ordination there was Tathaaloka Bhikkhuni – Tathaaloka was the Pavattini. After that it was the duty of the Venerable Bhikkhu Sangha to give a joint action [to complete the dual ordination]; to receive the Sanghakamma that was done before (that of the Bhikkhuni Sangha) in the second Sanghakamma (by the Bhikkhu Sangha). For the Bhikkhu Sangha, I was one of the Kammavacaryas… [Explaining the principle behind the ordination] (@ 10:38 on the recording) …It is the strict law of that country (Australia), if we are going to have inequality for women and men, it is against the law… Some people want it in Australia; it doesn’t impact Thailand. But in Australia, we do it per Australian law. If we can have bhikkhunis, then it is a way to keep the faith of Buddhists abroad…”

Rebuttal of the Elder Theras of Wat Pah Pong (@ 44.35 min)

Thera:

“The Australian law, as far as i know, and i have studied this – it does not interfere with religion. Each religious has its rules and proceedures; it is controlled by the power of the law; they (religions) are exempted.”

Thera:

“You claim that you have the support of the Buddhist Society of Western Australian and that over a thousand people agree with the ordination of bhikkhunis. This is not true. You did not ask them. You did not study from them. You kept this as a secret from the Buddhist Society. I have checked on the internet already. Even the vote of the meeting was still a secret. When you kept things secret from our monks, how could it be possible that we could be discussing it? When you kept things secret from your own Society, except for a few individuals on the Board/Committee, only about 14 people knew about this, and then you went ahead and made the decision on your own…”

3rd Thera:

“All of the branches abroad are in communication. We all felt that you made this decision unilaterally. You did not consult anyone. We we learned that we were about to go to your monastery, as those that will go to discuss at the WAM in December, then you became anxious. I have asked the monks at your monastery why you have kept this as a secret. That monk who is a caretaker of the monastery, Ven Brahmali, said that he (Ajahn Brahmavamso) is afraid that the Meeting that Loung Por Liem is going to be having is going to end of forbidding giving ordination to bhikkhunis, therefore he hastily moved ahead, and got it done in secret…”

Thera (@ 60.00 min)

“Ajahn Brahm is the force behind spearheading the ordination of bhikkhunis. He was the supporter of them ordaining at his monastery, even inside the sacred sima of his monastery. The other monks that joined [in the ordination] where also monks of his monastery, and when there were monks who felt uncomfortable and did not want to join he asked them to leave the sima so that they would not object. This is according to what a monk told me. I have communication with monks over there and this is what they said.”

Thera:

“Even those nuns, they foresaw that there might be a problem between the Sangha and Ajahn Brahm, so they discussed this problem and came to the decision that they did not want him to be the Kammavacacarya. So then they travelled to his temple, while Ajahn Brahm was still abroad. The nun asked him not to be Kammavacacarya, but he refused and insisted he had to be. I have talked to the nun. She said that she foresaw a crack, a problem and a division in the monk’s community at Wat Pah Pong…”

Chairman (Loung Por Liem) (@ min 77.00):

“In honor of all the Venerable Theras in this meeting about ordination: I have been living at Wat Nong Pah Pong; i have devoted my body and my high respect to Loung Por Chah since the year 2512 BE. When i came here i did my duty and i respected the Rule of Conduct of Wat Nong Pah Pong, which is not that difficult. When Loung Por Chah ordered me to go stay here and there, i followed his order. When i went to the branch in Laos — that time it was not a branch yet, it was just a jackfruit orchard — then i came back and stayed here; i didn’t get to go anywhere. He didn’t send me anywhere, therefore i got the chance to take my responsibility in helping with practice. I didn’t think there there is so much of a big deal – he (Loung Por Chah) was given the position of Upajjhaya, but he never talked about the ordination of bhikkhunis – only maechees. Maechees were like the giver of his life, so he had given the ordination to maechees, and had them come to live at Wat Nong Pah Pong. Even myself – i did the same. In 2519 BE, my mother who has borne me, came to ordain at Wat Nong Pah Pong; all the way to my younger sister who has come and ordained here. Noone said that they have to be bhikkhunis, because it would create an intimacy in a way that is not good. It is about feelings. If there is a close relationship then there is an opportunity for innapropriate emotions. When Ven Ajahn [brahm] went to do his duty over there, where this action occured, i did not have any reaction at the time, because it did not happen in the principle of conduct in Thailand. In Thailand, i have been given the position of Upajjhaya. When i went to training, noone told me about this type of ordination, only about the ordination of men. If there are women it is called the ordination of maechee. The issue of being enlightened is not related to this title [of bhikkhuni], it is about the practice. Therefore, when we bring such senstitive issues to discussion like this, it is as if we create a problem in the field, resulting in a reaction which is judgementally critical, creating a feeling of distrust in the behavior. I don’t have much reaction, because on the Thai Theravada side, there is no such thing [as bhikkhuni ordination], therefore i am not in agreement with this action. That is all.”

Another Thera (@83.30 min)

“…Is it possible for you, Ven Chaokhun Brahm, for you to stop everything? Stop everything, and stop ordaining bhikkhunis ever again. I want to hear from you: can you stop? If you can stop, they we may ask for loving kindness from our teachers. We can go forwards with the anusavana chanting. If you have made a mistake for the first time, can you understand the consequences? If not, still we will not cut you off. We can have a second Kammavaca, and chant the samanupassana. Or whatever. Which is to bring up that conduct, to say that it is unbeneficial. This second time is for the changing or dispelling of ditthi (views). If that still does not work then we can give another punishment from dukkhata to thullacaya. This third time, will you, Venerable, be able to accept abandoning this conduct? Then all of the Sangha will rejoice and bless you…”

Thera:

“Can you say yourself, can you promise in front of the Sangha Committe that you will stop? That you will accept the decision of the Sangha Committee before you do something which has such wide impact, such enormous impact? Sometimes we look at things from only one aspect. I would like to ask you, Venerable Chaokhun Brahm, if you would admit that what you have done is wrong and that you are willing to change? Our group will accept your words. Please give the opportunity to Ven Ajahn Brahm to say something to those Sangha members assembled here.”

Ajahn Brahmavamso (@91.15 min)

“I would like to thank you, Venerable Ajahn, for your kindness. I do not want the Sangha to divide. I have lived here for nine years, although i was born in a foreign country. I still see the monks here as my brothers, and i really love them; therefore, as in a family, we have to listen to our brothers. Therefore, i accept. I am not looking for followers. I will not chant in the bhikkhunis affairs, unless the Venerable Sangha of Wat Pah Pong allows me to. In the future, if the Sangha at Wat Pah Pong changes, ten years from now, a 100 years from now, a 1000 years from now — in the future i will ask for the Sangha decision of Wat Nong Pah Pong? Is that right?”

Elder Thera (@93.18 min)

(After Ven Brahmavamso answered the question about bhikkhunis and his role in it and explained the ordination) “May I, a listener, have a chance to say this: This is like you are saying ‘I am not stealing; i only carry the rope, but the buffulo somehow got trapped in the rope and followed it.’ Do you understand this? This is his meaning. This is no small matter. This is a matter of all the Sangha all over the Kingdom of Thailand. If we make a decision that is unclear, we can be criticised by Sangha all over the Kingdom. Our Monastic Committee must consider this carefully.”

Elder Thera:

“May the power of the Monastic Committee consider another point: is this action appropriate or not? The Sanghakamma needs to be discussed. Those who have been ordained are another story. But our teachers have told us: Is it possible? May i say again, is it possible that the ordination of a Sangha member may be nullified?”

Secretary of the Meeting:

“Those that have gone to pay homage to Venerable Somdet Phra Buddhajahn (the Acting Sangharaja) at Wat Saket [will know]: he said that this is a Mahayana practice, not Theravadan.”

Thera:

“…I asked the Most Venerable Somdet Buddhajahn: ‘What about the fact that Ven Ajahn Brahmavamso has ordained bhikkhunis? If we look from that point of view, what happens to those bhikkhunis?’ The Somdet answered: ‘They are upasikas (lay women) who hold precepts. It (the ordination) must be considered nullified.’

Thera:

“About nullification: what do all of the Elders sitting here together think about this? And Ven Ajahn Brahm, how do you feel that you have given the ordination, if they do not accept it? If they (those women ordained) come to Wat Nong Pah Pong, they will not be considered bhikkhunis who have gone through the natthi (ordination rite) chanting. [Their ordination] will be considered null and void. The documents and certification that you can give as an Upajjhaya relating to this entire ordination – you will not be able to issue. You will not be able to issue any of these. Can you accept this?

Ven Brahmavamso:

“After the ordination was completed, Ayya Tathaaloka, who was the Upajjhaya asked me to sign [the certificate] as a Chanting Acarya. I had to sign as the chanting Acarya. But i did not certify [the ordination as Upajjhaya]. I only signed as the Chanting Acarya. As for certifying, then who is going to certify it? Maybe the bhikkhunis in America… maybe their Upajjhayas. I did not issue the certification.”

Thera:

“Venerable Ajahn, if you regard this whole thing (the ordinations) as nullified, will you take this as you being pressured by the Sangha Committee?”

Ven Brahmavamso:

“I admit that the Thai Sangha cannot except this. But, for the United States Sangha – I am not able to come up against them.”

Thera:

“…in ordination, these are not considered full bhikkhunis, because the Theravada sect does not accept it, the Thai Sangha and the teachers and monks at Wat Pah Pong do not accept it. Therefore these cannot be regarded as full bhikkhunis. All they can be accepted as is laywomen with eight precepts, being maechees. So now, we want you to know that from now on, the Monastic Committee wants to grant you kindness. But you should not continue this, and you will stop. But in regards to them, you should not pressure them to resign [from monastic life]. They can stay and practice as maechees. That is not a problem. The Monastic Committee just wants to hear from you that you will not do this again; that you will not continue. Or, if you will continue, and want to stay with us, then this Committee cannot agree with you. If you want to stay with us, to honor your debt of gratitude to your Upajjhaya, then you must repent of your mistake and ask forgiveness from your Upajjhaya, and he will grant this to you when you ask for forgiveness. I want to hear from you – what do you have to say?”

Ven Brahmavamso:

“…I have said this for the second time now, that i will stop unless i have permission from the Committee of Wat Nong Pah Pong. In the future I will follow the decision of the Sangha of Wat Nong Pah Pong. Whatever is the decision of the Sangha at Wat Nong Pah Pong; i will always follow that. I am saying that i will stop; I will not give ordination to bhikkhunis again, unless the Committee of Wat Nong Pah Pong changes their mind. If the Mahathera Samakhom in the future –10 years from now or 20 years from now — considers that they want to allow bhikkhunis in the Thai Theravada sect, then the Monastic Committee of Wat Nong Pah Pong will then follow, then I will ask for permission to do it again. Apart from that, i will not do it.”

Another Thera:

“May i bring this to the main point? The Sangha Committee is asking you, Venerable Ajahn, whether you see the ordination that you have done as nullified, which means that those nuns are not bhikkhunis? Can you accept and can you admit that or not? This is what we are asking. We are not asking whether you will do it again or not.”

Ven Brahmavamso:

“This is very difficult because this is an issue of Vinaya. Because…”

A Thera:

“Now, now. We must take the decision of the Monastic Community, which is about unity, and which is about a united mind. If you still want to be one of our branch monasteries, you do not need to go so far as to speak about Vinaya. All of us here are senior monks and we all know the Vinaya well. So, just stay with this point.”

(@ 107.30 mins)

Ven Brahmavamso:

“If what has been done is vipatti, then it was wrong. But if it is not vipatti, then the bhikkhunis are not vipatti. I acknowledge that the Thai Monastic Committee does not accept bhikkhunis. But if i go to the United States, or if i speak to my disciples in Australia or to my disciples in Singapore, i cannot force them. If they want to regard them as bhikkhunis or maechees, then i can do nothing about that.”

Thera:

“That is your business, but if you don’t have the ability to control them, can you consider yourself their Ajahn, or not? As we are [part of the] administrative hierarchy [of this] lineage, we must excercise the chain of command…”

Ven Brahmavamso:

“If you are in doubt then you have to consult your Upajjhaya, Somdet Phra Buddhajahn. What i can promise about the ordination of bhikkhunis, is that I won’t do it again, unless…”

Thera:

“Yes, but what is vipatti? I want to point out here that the vipatti is ditthi vipatti. We do not agree with you. But are we holding the Vinaya vipatti or not? Or opinion is that your ditthi is vipatti. Can you accept this or not? This is about ditthi vipatti. Since the majority of the Sangha in our lineage do not…”

—

[Part II of translation]

Another Thera:

“Please, please – we are quarrelling here. Right now, Venerable Ajahn [former speaker] or Venerable Chaokhun [brahm], you are both Thai [tradition] monks and you are in Thailand. All the hierarchical governing chain of command is entirely within Thailand, and Thailand cannot except this situation. Neither can the Monastic Administrative Committee of Wat Nong Pah Pong. They are currently being scritinized as ‘What are they doing there at Wat Nong Pah Pong? What about 150 Patimokkha? What about that bhikkhuni ordination?’ If each goes off on their own like this, then what will happen to the Monastic Administrative Committee at Wat Nong Pah Pong? Ven Ajahn, if you want to do it, go ahead; we won’t say anything; but you have to leave the network of Wat Nong Pah Pong. You have to leave Thailand. Or, in other words, you do not have to be a Thai [tradition] monk. You can be any kind of monk you want to be. We can avoid all problems by cutting off each other. But if you still want to be part of Wat Nong Pah Pong, then you have to humble yourself. You have to stop. You have to quit doing this. If you agree to quit doing this, then the Monastic Committee at Wat Nong Pah Pong will accept you entirely. But if you continue to do as before, you will have no benefits from Wat Pah Pong, and the Thai Monastic Committee cannot accept that either. I say this sincerely, from my heart. We, in our Committee that have gone through thick and think with the Most Venerable Loung Por Chah – we have enough knowledge and ability to do good for the Buddha Sasana. This time you did this unilaterally, without consulting the Elder Theras. Once you did that, it harmed the entire Sangha Committee. Here, in the Thai Monastic Committee, for so many hundreds of years, when we gave ordination, we had to have the Monastic Committee’s [approval]. Say, how many Sangharajas have we had so far? Whatever we do, we have to consult them. Wat Nong Pah Pong is just a small part [of the greater Sangha]. If i go and do this, and you go and do that, and everybody does what they want, then what will happen? This plot [of yours] was a ten year plan; a plan to destroy the Buddhist religion. I have been to many spots and I can tell one from another. And i can tell tell what you are doing fits right into the plot. You have been roused through many different methods to destoy Buddhism. You actually have good principles, but you have applied them in a way that is, (excuse me for saying this), corrupted by gain and corrupted by fame, or corrupted by whatever. Being in the world, if it turns out this way, i’m telling you that the Thai Monastic Committee cannot accept it. Neither can Wat Nong Pah Pong. If you think you can do whatever you were planning by yourself, then you can do it alone. Even the Ajahns in other countries will not accept it. Therefore, please understand that you must go by the majority, that is, the majority of the views of the Thai monks, which right now also includes [the majority of the] Sri Lankan, Burmese and Thais. And we will not mention China and Japan. This is the principle to uphold. If we do not uphold this principle there will be nothing left. Loung Por Chah will have no meaning. Please consider this for the sake of our Loung Pu Chah and all of our Elder monastic teachers sitting here, discussing something you did which shouldn’t have happened. Can you make a commitment that you will not do it every again? Then the Monastic Committee will bless you with their ‘Anumodana Sadhu’ again…”

Thera:

“May i speak, Ajahn? Right now, the gist of this discussion is that all of the teachers and monks in Thailand, and all of the monastic disciples of Loung Por Chah will not accept the bhikkhunis who have been ordained. Meanwhile, Ajahn Brahm says if they are accepted in other places, then it is their business. And the fact that the Sangha here does not accept, does not matter, because you will not accept in any case. Our Thai Monastic Committee and WNPP’s Committee in our Theravadan sect do not accept bhikkhunis because we understand that bhikkhunis have gone extinct from Thailand from 300 years after the Lord Buddha has reached his Parinibbana [that is, that the Bhikkhuni Sangha ended with Sanghamitta]. All of these recent supposed ordinations are fake (made up). It is not that difficult. You can get any four people together and give them [the candidates] ordination; but it is wrong. So here i want to ask Venerable Chaokhun Brahmavamso, are you going to give any more ordinations? Or are you going to quit doing this per the wish of your teachers? “

Ven Brahmavamso:

“Well, i guess i can quit… OK, i can (with a firmer voice).”

Another Thera:

“May I speak, Teachers? Here is how it went. It started from you formulating a plan to give ordination to bhikkhunis quite a while ago. And then, Sujato, your right hand man, has used very aggressive language to protest the Thai Monastic Committee including the Elders at Wat Nong Pah Pong. This is very serious. It [has come] through an email. And then you want to complete this project successfully. But you know that the international Abbots were coming to the Western [or World] Abbots’ Meeting on the 8th of December. So you went ahead and completed this project before the meeting, because you were afraid that the Community abroad will not accept this. You have gone to consult Ajahn Sumedho, and Ajahn Sumedho did not agree. Since he did not agree, you decided to go ahead and do it discreetly, so that word does not get around. The Buddhist Society [of Western Australia] was suspicious, so some of them did not attend. They were suspicious about why you did it this way, discreetly. But you went ahead and plowed through it until it was successful. Although you received documents from the Elders of Wat Nong Pah Pong warning you that if you went ahead you would be disaffiliated as a branch. This was very clear. Even Chaokhun Sumedho sent you a very clear letter, but you did not consider and obey it or the Rule of Wat Nong Pah Pong or anything. You just gave the ordination. So here it is. You are successful. You have given ordination to bhikkhunis in the Theravada sect. Bhikkhunis have been born in the Theravada sect. It is done. In addition, they were ordained in a branch of Wat Nong Pah Pong abroad in Australia. You have acheived your goal. Now that you have acheived your goal, then you soften your position and you say that you will stop doing this. But what you have done has been done, that is, the ordination of bhikkhunis complete and full. So here is the problem: now there are bhikkhunis. And so if we do not implement any measures to punish you or excommunicate you, then this is going to create future problems in the foreign branches, because people will say: ‘How is that he can give ordination and there is not consequence?’ So in other branches they will say, ‘I will do it too! And after i do it i will repent and promise not to do it again.’ This is how the problem will expand and grow larger. This is very dangerous for other foreign countries. Why is that? Because the siladharas in England or anywhere else have now evolved into an unequal situation, such that now that there are bhikkhunis, even when she [a siladhara] has been ordained for 20 years, when she comes to meet a bhikkhuni, then she is lower in the heirarchy than a bhikkhuni who has just been ordained. This is going to create a problem in our hierarchical governance in our branches in other countries, which will be damaged by this in their efforts to propogate [buddhism].

(All of the Elders discussed what to do until 122.05 mins)

Representative From Europe:

“May I speak? I want to add that the Sangha Committee in Europe, that is, those of Loung Por Sumedho, have given the opinion that, if you will not yield or will not agree with the Monastic Committee, then we must disaffiliate you. But if you still love and miss being a disciple of this lineage, then we ask you to start your branch again from the beginning, from Level One. These are the options that you have. Whether you want to consider these options or not, it is up to you, Venerable Chaokhun [brahmavamso].”

Thera:

“May I speak? I think we should let Venerable Ajahn Brahm make his own decision whether he wants to stay with us and stop doing all those things or whether he wants to continue to do it. Let him make that decision, and the Monastic Committee will hear you out.”

Another Thera:

“According to the Vinaya, when a bhikkhu has ditthi or is stubbornly attached to a wrong view, then the Monastic Committee should summon him. And then, the first sentence to tell him is that he will be cut off and not allowed to stay together. But then he [Ajahn Brahm] replies, ‘If I no longer wanted to be Loung Por Chah’s disciple, or if I didn’t want to be a branch of this lineage, then I wouldn’t have come all the way here.’ He came here for the purpose of explaining himself and hearing the opinion of the other monks. When the other monks asked him to stop, he said that he would stop and not do it again. And as far as the ordination that has occurred, it is not correct per Dhamma-Vinaya, therefore it is to be nullified. We have told him that. And the bhikkhunis that have been ordained, since they are not accepted by the monks, their ordination is nullified. They are simply upasikas [devoted lay women], just like they were before. Ven Chaokhun [brahm] promised to stop. We should ask him again whether he is really going to stop for real. This is per the Vinaya. Not to just cut him off like that, and say come back in 5 years or 10 years. That is not right. We have to follow the Dhamma-vinaya.”

Another Thera:

“Wait a minute! The Monastic Committee has originally notified him fully, but he would not back down. He continued to give the ordination. We notified him; we told him in all possible ways many, many times. But he was not afraid. He just went ahead and continued with the ordination until it was completed, until he produced a Theravada bhikkhuni. How are we going to solve this problem? This is going to spread all over the world. The Most Venerable Somdet Phra Buddhajahn has said that, ‘If he wants to give ordination, then alright. Let him be Mahayana.’ Then he [Ajahn Brahmavamso] replied, ‘We are not splitting from you, but you are splitting from us into Mahayana.’ This is what he said.”

(@ 126.17 min – The Elders Explain About the Request to Phra Ajahn Brahmavamso to Wait Until the Meeting in December to Give Ordination)

(@ 130.55 min ) Another Thera:

“May I speak? So far as I have heard, I think that this is a deliberate wrongdoing, in defiance of the Monastic Committee. We have heard about the issue of bhikkhunis many times. Many of us have heard about it. Yet he stubbornly took action as he wished. This means that he has won; he was successful. The best thing to do is to let him win. Let him go to another sect. But in our Theravada sect, counting from [the Acting Sangharaja] Chao Phrakhun Somdet [buddhajahn] all the way down [through the monastic rankings and hierarchy], I am sure that no one will accept; no one in this entire country. He knows that these are bhikkhunis, and he had a part in it. It is not an accidental, momentary mistake. It has been know for many years that there is a movement to want to give ordination to bhikkhunis. Thus, he willfully committed wrongdoing. In my opinion, the best thing to do is to ask him to leave the Theravadan sect. This is my opinon.”

Another Thera:

“We invite you, Venerable Chaokhun [brahmavamso], to make your decision now. It is up to you. There is no one who can control you.”

Another Thera:

“I request that Venerable Chaokhun [brahamavamso] sign a concession and the Secretary will make a document to notify Somdet [Phra Buddhajahn] and send it to all – that says that what you have done is to be nullified. Can you accept that – that what you have done is to be nullified? Will you be willing to sign that document which will be prepared by the Secretary? If it has not been signed, then it hasn’t been corrected. Can you do that? I mean signing the document which is a notification to Chaokhun Somdet [Phra Buddhajahn]. Do you agree to it, that what you have done is to be nullified? This action is important. It is easy to say with words that you agree, but we must have documentation with your signature on it. I will be brief. Is there anyone else who has any other opinion? Please express your opinion. Or Loung Por [Liem], will you please summerize?

Another Thera:

“But if we have already excommunicated him, whether he agrees to sign or not is his business now. We shouldn’t have anything more to do with it now.”

Loung Por Liem:

“Our meeting has been going on for two hours now, and we are still unclear in this matter. As for myself, I do not agree with this action, [that is, the ordination]. This is because we have notified you [Ajahn Brahm] ahead of time, in writing. This is my feeling. If there are any other monks here who agree to that, I bless them with my ‘Anumodana’. I do not agree with the ordination of bhikkhunis, which means that I do not accept it. Is there anyone in this group who agrees or disagrees? If he asks, I am asking him to say if he is going to stop doing this anymore? That is all. Do you understand.”

Another Thera:

“Ven Chaokhun Brahm, do you understand? Please express yourself which direction you want to go.”

Venerable Brahmavamso:

“I don’t understand. I already explained myself. I don’t understand what the problem is. I already said that I will stop.”

Thera:

“Will you follow the resolution of the Monastic Committee?”

Venerable Brahmavamso:

“I will follow the resolution of the Monastic Committee.”

Thera:

“OK. So you will follow the Committee of Wat Nong Pah Pong as before, but from now on you will also follow the Monastic Committee [of the Mahathera Samakhom]?”

Another Thera:

“But wait a minute! When you said you follow the Monastic Committee, it means that you must issue a document that the ordination of bhikkhunis transgressed the Dhamma-vinaya, that is, the Vinaya that Loung Por Chah and the branches of his lineage have practiced with for long. You must admit that you have committed a wrongdoing, and then this document will be distributed all over the world. Alright?”

Ven Brahmavamso:

“But I cannot issue this letter.”

Thera:

“If you cannot do it, then it means that you still hold that your conduct is correct. You only admit guilt after you have completed the [sangha]kamma. This is really up to the Committee now. I think it doesn’t hold at all. It really shows that he does not truly admit that what he has done is wrong.”

Another Thera:

“Yes, if he does not accept Dhamma-Vinaya, because he thinks that it is merely an opinion of the majority of the monks, this is a case of ditthi (holding a view). This is the ditthi: he regards himself as knowing everything about Dhamma-Vinaya, therefore he will not yield. He said that it is not doable. He said, this is the ditthi of the majority of the monks who do not agree with him. But since the majority does not agree — he is the only person that agrees — thus it is he who has ditthi, [that is, he who is clingling to his own view].

Another Thera:

“This is similar to the case of [ex-monk and Prime Minister] Phra Kugrit Pramot who said that he wanted to chant 150 as opposed to the 227 [precepts of the Bhikkhu Patimokkha]. He insisted on 150. Therefore we excommunicated him.

Another Thera:

“But ditthi is the view of the majority of the Monastic Committee. This is for the purpose of unity and harmony. I think we should call a halt to it, that is, not allowing it [bhikkhuni ordination] to happen, not allowing it to be born. We must halt it by nullifying the ordination, by recognizing that they are not bhikkhunis. And you, Ven Chaokhun [brahm] must admit everything. And the Sangha will consider to have you start again, per the opinion of the European Sangha, that is, to start as a new brach, starting from one. Ven Chaokhun, can you accept this or not?

Ven Brahmavamso:

“I still do not understand why. What evidence do you have that this is transgressing the Vinaya?”

Thera:

“[To Ajahn Brahm]: So, that is it. You do not accept. So as of now you do not accept that you are wrong and that you will change. [To the Committee:] I ask the Committee what judgement will you have?”

(The Committee discussed until 143.32 min)

Thera:

“OK, you will not be in the Theravada sect. Are you going to go to the Mahayana sect?”

Ven Brahmavamso:

“I am not Mahayana. But as far as I know, as you all have explained – what is the reason for saying that this is not a real ordination? If Somdet Buddhajahn who is my Upajjhaya is able to me that it is really wrong, then I will admit it. But it has to have reason. I have not heard a reason. I don’t understand. And also…

(monks explain the reason and there is debate up till 145.32 mins)

Ven Brahmavamso:

“I am speaking the truth. In brief, I do not want to step on the toes of other monks. If i have to say that the ordination is not real, then I cannot say that. But if the Monastic Committee thinks that I have to disaffiliate from being a branch, then I will accept that, because this is the truth. The truth is the truth. [This next sentence is broken Thai and difficult to translate so may be incorrect]: I see many disciples, and those that will be my disciples can be either monastics or lay people, and there are those amongst them that are experts in the monastic Vinaya… Then let’s make it simple. Cut Bodhinyana off as a branch; I accept that.

Thera:

“So are you still a branch of Wat Nong Pah Pong at this time?”

Ven Brahmavamso:

“I can accept disaffiliation, so that this will not be a problem for the monks. It is a very heavy decision, because I still love all of my teachers, but I don’t want to be a problem anymore. So if there are monks, even 2 or 3 who are unhappy, then I accept that. And then being a little distant, I want you to reconsider that. But what has been done has been done, and was done according to the monastic Vinaya. And from what I have heard from the Venerable Somdet [Phra Buddhajahn] of Wat Saket, it [such ordination] is according to Vinaya but it is not accepted in Thailand, but it is accepted in Australia.”

(some commotion)

Thera:

“This is the situation, in the Theravada sect, in the Thai sect, wherever Thai Theravada Buddhism is over the entire world: we do not accept the ordination of bhikkhunis is accordance with Dhamma-Vinaya. Before coming to this meeting, I had a telephone conversation with Ven Chaokhun Panna who is the Secretary of Somdet [Phra Buddhajahn], who said that Chaokhun Somdet [Phra Buddhajahn] gave you this policy [that was just stated prior]. So whatever the decision is of the Monastic Committee today, we will follow that.”

Ven Brahmavamso:

“I am ready to follow the resolution of the Wat Nong Pah Pong monks. If you want me to disaffilate the branch, I will. If you want me to start the branch over from one; OK, I am ready to do that.

(discussion about disaffiliation/excommunication amongst the monks until 160.25 mins)

Thera:

“I have asked for the resolution, and it keeps going on and on endlessly. Why don’t we do this: I heard that the Loung Por Chairmen [Ajahn Liem] said that if it is so much trouble then just ‘cut it off;’ so then this is the resolution: I ask the Committee, do you agree or disagree? If anyone disagrees please say so.

Another Thera:

“May I speak? I feel confused, but now I am pretty clear. Loung Por Liem said, ‘cut the monastery out.’ Please, all temple Chairmen and Abbots here, what do you think, do you bless this decision or not?”

(Alot of monks said ‘Sadhu’ [after 3 tries].)

Loung Por Liem:

“So our meeting here has reached an agreement of the governance of the group. It has taken almost three hours and we have finally agreed in the form of divorce. You can go ahead and do your job over there, and over here we will continue to not agree with it. Therefore, this resolution is backed by the majority of the monastic community here. This meeting can adjourn and we can all go back to our duties. Let us all close the meeting by paying homage to the Buddha.”

—

As reported by http://www.alittlebuddha.com

Dec 21, 2552 BE [2009 CE]

English translation by Supatra Chowchuvech

Here is a response by the Western members of the WPP to the recent articles on that press converence

http://dhammalight.com/official/pdf/Respon...le-02-01-10.pdf

A Response to the 30th December 2009 Article, “Monks Target Western Clergy”

On 28th December 2009, a representative delegation of senior monks from the Wat

Nong Pah Pong Sangha held a press conference in response to various articles in the

major Thai newspapers released earlier between the 20th to 24th December. These

articles effectively stated that the Council of Elders and the Office of National

Buddhism had done everything in their power in regards to Ajahn Brahmavamso and

the bhikkhuni ordinations and that the future status of Ajahn Brahmavamso as abbot

of Bodhinyana Monastery and the ownership of that monastery was left up to Wat

Nong Pah Pong’s decision. The articles effectively left the responsibility of this issue

back on Wat Nong Pah Pong to proceed with. In order to make clear Wat Nong Pah

Pong’s stance, it was decided by Luang Por Liem and other governing committee

members to make a statement to the Thai media. A very unprecendented move in Wat

Nong Pah Pong’s history.

Although this matter has been cleared up within the Thai press, it seems that the

article in English has stirred up and agitated Western readers. This has been caused

by some misrepresentations of the events of the press conference and the editorial

language used in the article. Wat Nong Pah Pong feels that it is best to clear up these

misunderstandings.

The article says that the Thai Sangha “want the properties of Thai temples in the West

to come under the ownership of the Thai Sangha to ensure complete control.” In

reality, Wat Nong Pah Pong stated in the press conference that it had no power in

which to retake ownership of Bodhinyana Monastery, even if the land on which it

was built on was initially offered to Ajahn Chah (Bodhinyana Thera) and Wat Nong

Pah Pong. Wat Nong Pah Pong requested the Office of National Buddhism to reevaluate

the way that monasteries in the West are governed so that confusion and

division such as with the present situation would be avoided in the future.

The most misleading section is where it is written that “If action is not taken, the

council fears that more women could be ordained in the West,” and quotes Phra Kru

Opaswuthikorn saying that "Sooner or later, we'll see female monks everywhere."

Although this is a sensational statement in the eyes of a Western reader, a more

accurate translation would be, “If we (Wat Nong Pah Pong) had not taken any action,

it would open the doors in the future for women to ordain as bhikkhunis within the

Wat Nong Pah Pong western sangha, running into the same problem we have at the

moment (breaking Thai law)”. The issue is not that Wat Nong Pah Pong is against

women ordaining, but rather due to Wat Nong Pah Pong’s status as a member of the

Thai Sangha and its obligation to follow Thai Sangha Laws.

Further, this article’s portrayal of facts is to be questioned. It cites that “two women”

were ordained, instead of the four women which were actually ordained.

In conclusion, we would like readers of this article to be wary of the editorial

sensationalism and misrepresentations that have been given to this press release. It

was originally intended to reply to the questions the Thai media had on Wat Nong

Pah Pong’s stance in relation to the present situation with Ajahn Brahmavamso and

Bodhinyana Monastery’s status, not a gender equality and power-seizing issue that it

has been made into.

The Administrative Committee of Wat Nong Pah Pong

I think the problem here with the WPP sangha leadership is that they come from a different world. Imagine the level of education they have. They would not be well read, have no knowledge of feminism or women in general and do not understand other traditions of Buddhism exist. They would have heard of Mahayana and the fact that they do have Bhikkhuni but would simply dismiss this as not Buddhism.

especially complicated by the fact that in the Theravada the monks refuse to say if they attained their awakening or not!

It's not that Theravada monks refuse to say if they are enlightened, but that the Vinaya forbids them to tell the laity of their attainments. They are perfectly at liberty to tell other monks about it and those other monks are allowed to tell the laity about what they've been told. Hence the book by Ajahn Maha Boowa about the arahantship of Ajahn Man. The idea is to have some verification by other monks before the news gets to the public.

If you look at the story of Ajahn Man, it's obvious that very few monks can attain arahantship on their own as he did. Most need a teacher to guide them when they have problems with their meditation. It was the same in the Buddha's day. You could compare the Buddha's time directly with the practice of the Thai Forest monks in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but the practice of wandering in the jungle ended when the jungle was destroyed and the state took a more active role in controlling monks.

Here is Thanissaro's translation of Parajika No 4.

4. Should any bhikkhu, without direct knowledge, claim a superior human state, a truly noble distinction of knowledge and vision, as present in himself, saying, "Thus do I know; thus do I see," such that regardless of whether or not he is cross-examined on a later occasion, he — being remorseful and desirous of purification — might say, "Friends, not knowing, I said I know; not seeing, I said I see — vainly, falsely, idly," unless it was from over-estimation, he also is defeated and no longer in affiliation.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors.../bmc1.ch04.html Where he analyses ther rule too.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong as I've always been curious about this, but I thought I remember reading in some Theravada-related text somewhere that if a monk had no hope of progressing in his practice in extreme circumstances, he had a right to take his own life. I've certainly heard that in Zen, and I'm fairly certain it's not just the rhetorical motivations of the master when he says there's no point in living if you cannot attain satori. There is one story of a young monk who spent a few years at a monastery, and for whatever reason (I assume he had depression issues or something) decided to jump of a cliff because he had failed to progress on the path. It's stated that as soon as his feet left the ground, he must have attained his awakening. I think the Buddhist perspective is that although life should not be clung to as it is a mere 'burning house,' intentionally destroying it is a clinging (to death) as well.

There is a sutta where the Buddha was staying with some monks, he then went away and the monks started killing themselves because they misinterpreted his teachings. Buddha came back and said it was wrong. Can't remember the name of the Sutta but Phra Kantipalo wrote an article on it in the Buddhist Studies Review.

There is also an interesting paper on Buddhism and Suicide By Damien Keown, "Buddhism and Suicide: The Case of Channa." in the Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 1996 - available online.

I just came across a decent website on Thai Buddhism with a page on the difference between Thammayut and Mahanikaya:

http://www.thaibuddhism.net/maha_tham.htm

Also they have an interesting page on Santi Asoke too. Seems Bodhirak was Thammayut and then changed to Mahanikaya and then back to Thammayut again without giving up his Mahanikay status. ie he was both???

http://www.thaibuddhism.net/Bodhirak.htm

There were long discussions on the now defunct esangha discussion list. I never participated but did read a few threads. I think it had to do with Thanissaro's not self strategy from memory.

Ajahn Thanissaro's views on noself are considered to be heretical by many.

There is a wikipedia article on anatta which mentions the Dhammakaya

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta

Is talking about "self" the same as talking about a "soul"?

I think there may be subtle differences between a self (atta) and a soul (jiva) - but I am not sure. But both would be denied by the Buddha as there is nothing outside the 5 khandhas (ขันธ์. they are body, sensation, perception, volition, and consciousness) and even they are impermanet, constantly in flux.

Technically, or legally, there are only 2 Nikaya in Thailand - Mahanikaya and Dhammayutika Nikaya - but there are many sub groupings, but these all belong to one of these. Acharn Chah group monks belong to the Mahanikaya, but they tend to keep to themselves and don't really mix without monks of the same nikaya when conducting offical business (sanghakamma).

One exception is the Santi Asoke group. The leader and some or most of his students where expelled from the sangha around 20 years ago. The leader, Phra Bodhirak was forceably stripped of his robes although he has never given up the monkhood and still maintains he is a Bhikkhu but to prevent being arrested again he dresses in a different colour robes. This is an interesting case as there were no allegations that he commited any of the disrobbing offences (parajika) but he did commit some more minor offences such as acting as a preceptor without a licence and without having the 10 years as a monk required by the vinaya.

But it is interesting the prince Mongkut, before he was a King, did not want to ordain under the Thai sangha because he thought the lineage was not pure.

He did not want to ordain under the Thai Sangha of the time because their vinaya was not pure. At least that's how the history of it is portrayed as far as I know, if you have information on the lineage not being pure I'd be interested in taking a look.

Hi Bruce

I have the book "Buddha Sasana Vamsa" written by the Sangharaja Phra Nyanasamvara. This book outlines the history of the Dhammayutika Nikaya.

It wouldn't have been wise to outrightly say the lineage of the Thai Buddhism was broken or corrupt. But Mongkut wouldn't have sought ordination elsewhere if he didn't consider it so.

from the book:

In 1824 Mongkut ordained at Wat Mahathat. He quickly came to see the erroneneous practices and became disheartened. He met a Mon Bhikkhu in 1825 and was greatly impressed, soon reordaning under this lineage.

But, he had the siima stones (Boundary markers) dug up and found the siima had not been properly established. This would have invalidated the ordination, so he was reordained again by 18 Mon Bhikkhu in a water boundary siima (udakukhepa siima). Mongkut is also said to have reordained again under a group of 28 visiiting Sri Lankan Bhikkhu from Thuparama Vihara in Sri Lanka. This was around 1830. It is difficult to ascertain how many times he reordained.

Others were reordained by Mon monks with one monk, Buddhasiri reordaining 7 times before he considered the ceremony to be done with perfection.

A valid ordination is said to depend on 5 factors:

1, Sima-sampatti or validity of the boundary

2, purisa-sampatti or validity of the quorum

3, vatthu-sampatti or validity of the candidate

4, natti-sampatti or validity of the motion

5, anusavana-sampatti or validity of the announcement

The Dhammayut had its origins in the Mon tradition which traces its origins from the Kalyani Siima in Rammanya Burma. This in turn traces its origins to a group of monks who went to Sri Lanka and reordained there in a siima on the Kalyani river.

Bankei