Ajahn Brahm Sanctioned, Monastery Loses Wat Nong Pa Pong Branch Status

[camerata]

Mrs Xangsamhua is very impressed with Luang Por Kob. I wonder if he was an arahant.

http://www.carilubang.com/viewthread.php?a...e&tid=46874

Well, since he never met his main student and taught him entirely by telepathy, I think many Thais would be impressed by him.

[bankei]

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.

[bankei]

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.

[rockyysdt]

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?

[Sarathi]

Ajahn Pasanno - the most senior Ajahn Chah Western monk after Ajahn Sumedho was appointed to be the monks contact for the siladhara order.

He will be giving a public talk in Bangkok also on Thrs Jan 21st at the Tawana Hotel, together with Ajahn Amaro - the joint abbot at the California LPChah temple.

[camerata]

In Thai or English? What's the subject of the talk?

[Sarathi]

details are on www.littlebang.wordpress.com

[sabaijai]

For thread on Aj Pasanno and Aj Amaro visit see

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Dhamma-Talk-...bh-t329487.html

[thailandfaq]

I, of course, applaud Ajahn Brahm's actions which should bring a breath of fresh air into Thai Buddhism, especially in the West where it is flourishing.

Personally, I would love to have a truckload of female forest monks chanting in my next home blessing.

Forest monks tend to avoid the more mundane social tasks asked of the Sangha which are not related to Buddhism.

What i am about to say is a cause for schism depending on how you interpret the purpose of being a member of the Sangha;

The reason that Forest Monks do not perform many of the "Household" activities which is seen in other factions of the Sangha (such as house blessings, amulet making, prayer water spraying etc) is (the fact) that the reason for beocming a Bhikkhu is to leave all household activity and lay interests and to aim solely for the cutting off of the Kilesas - Mundane tasks such as a house blessing is not a path to end Dhukkha, and the only practise of the kammathana forest monk is to observe mindfully the phenomena which occur within the mind and to attain the paths and fruits to Arahantship. All other things are seen as opbstructions to this path - the Buddha never had fundraisers, never blessed houses, and most certainly never made amulets. He only gave teachings which ;led to self realisation of the way things really are,and the way to release oneself from the fetters of craving which lead to endless rebirth.

There is nothing wrong with making amulets, blessing houses,performing magical incantations or the like, nor is there anything wrong with building schools or hospitals for the people - such actions are very noble and certainly makemerit for he who performs such projects and actions. But a person who is still entangled with the wish to build build build and raise funds for this or that project, is still entangled in the world and its ways. Although such entanglement is an auspicious way to be entangled, it does not lead to disentanglement with the kilesas or the khandas. It is a cause for continued entanglement in the Paticasamuphada (dependent origination). The forest monks' training does not look to this at all, it looks to letting go of all distractions. This may seem selfish, but if a person lets go of all things and preconcieved notions and cravings, and finally becomes an arahant, then he is a Buddha, and has attained the goal.the Buddha did not teach anything at all outside of this.

When you see a course that says "attaiin peace and happiness with meditation, you are being duped in a manner, because the desire to be happy and that reason for going to meditate is based in self cherishing.meditation is not about "getting things" (happiness, peace) it is about "getting rid of things" (the desire to be happy, the desire for some peace). It is a catch 22 situation . The way to be happy is to not wish for anything. So a Forest monk is obviously not going to get involved in fulfilling the desires of those with 'dust in their eyes" if a man with clear vision follows the blind man then he is a fool. If a monk is trying to aim for self enlightenment and renunciation of desire but he listens to the requests of those who call for useless watses of time, he is being led on a detour. Most monks in city temples or temples that are "Wat Srang" (building and developing) are a chaos and it is impossible to practise the dhamma. Such monks will never becomemuch more than the average layperson can attain.. sometimes even less. (i know as i have been ordained and stayed both in cave in the jungle and also in a city temple and a provincial temple that was developing and raising funds to build - and i had to run off to the forest and even ignore the bleating pleas from some monks to remain entwined in such busy busy busy always busy doing something worldy for the sake of this or that stuff). it became apparent to me that these kind of monks have lost their way along the path.. The abbot of one temple even admitted to me in the end that he had chosen the wrong path and that he wished to followme to the forest but that he was stuck halfway in the project which would take solong that he would die before he got a chance to leave and concentrate on his own progress. You might as well not ordain if you are going to be as caught up in the world and its traps as a layman .

So here is the schism

For some, Buddhism is something that helps society,builds schools and serves the people

For others, Buddhism is a personal practise and has nothing to do with involvement in the world.

If we look at what the Buddha and the Sangha of those times did, then the latter is the true definition of Buddhism

If we ask a person who has a basic understanding and respect for Buddha and Buddhism, but has not seen the four noble truths, then the former will be true.

Now on to Ajahn Brahm

I support the idea of Bhikkhunis being ordained, and commend Ajahn Brahm for his bravery in defending the decision of the Buddha in allowing females to be ordained members of the Sangha.

Those who deny women this right are directly disobeying the decree of the Lord Buddha.

But, what he did is a direct disobedience to his elder monks and teachers, which is aphati sankatisesa

and he is causing schism in Buddhism, which is damaging to the Buddhasasana.

The way to go is to continue the debate with the Thai theravada Buddhist organism until they yield to the Buddha's decree that women should be allowed to ordain.. it is patriarchistic and direct disobedience to the Lord Buddha that they do this, and very conceited indeed. But to disobey the orders of your lineage and masters is also aphati and to be punbished, this also was decreed by Lord Buddha.

It is not correct to forbid the ordination of Bhikkhunis

But Ajahn Brahm went the wrong way about it, and this is what the Buddha was very concerned about (causeng splits and schisms in the Buddhasasana).

He has also been rather concieted in taking it upon himself to do this.

he is a very nice friendly and compassionate Bhikkhu but i have observed him teaching several times and it is clear that he is still very much a putucana and has not gained much in realisation. He talks too much about his attainments and is too disrespectful of certain concepts (i.e. "dont think that this buddha statue is anything except a piece of metal" - this may or may not be true but in Thai we say "สิ่งสถิต" sing satid - even the Buddha talked about entities inhabiting objects) - a Thai person listening would be shocked and offended to talk this way about a Buddha statue, and for this simple reason alone a Bhikkhu with wisdom should not speak in such a manner about an image of the Buddha.

Ajahn brahm also does like "luxury meditation retreats" in Hua Hin as i have seen - which is also a grand misunderstanding and wrong way to teach the dhamma (self cherishing; kind of like "relax in the five star atmosphere and cherish yourself")

Im sorry if i offend anyone who respects Ajahn brahm - i myself respect him as a Bhikkhu on his path - also that he reaches the people who are not yet so deeply into the Dhamma that they want to let go of everything, he is an ambasador of dhamma to the common folk - But he is definitely not a master monk. hes just verymuch on the start of his path and his ego is stil very evident (Tithi - and this is what he was told that he had "tithi" [attitude problem])

It is because of events such as this that it is so difficult for foreigners to ordain in thai temples, for there have been many cases of Farang rebelling and disregarding the orders of their superiors in the past, and this case will only go to increment the reluctance of Thai Upacayas to ordain us. I myself had to listen to many grand lectures and get refused at many temples before i found a garantor, for exactly the reason that they were worried that the same would happen as has happened many times (disrespect and disobedience from the foreign monks - tithi).

I as a farang have to concede that their worries are founded in truth and that we Westerners have a real problem in this matter. We simply have grown up in a different enviroment and it really is a problem. When in Rome, we should do as the Romans do, and like or or lump it. We should not try to revolutionize that which we once approached with awe and respect, asking for the chance to enter into what we saw as the most wonderful thing in the most wonderful country. then we get it and we try to rip the paint down and paint the walls a different color, dig up the flowers and plant some trees..

Ajahn Brahm has tried to do good but has caused a lot of damage.

I cant expect many of you to react well to my words, but i find it uneccessary to revolutionise Buddhism in a protester way - it should be done auspiciously, using the right channels and methods of debate and legislation. Not by causing schisms

ยาวแล้วแค่นี้ก่แอนครับผม

Edited January 14, 2010 by thailandfaq

[rockyysdt]

When you see a course that says "attain peace and happiness with meditation, you are being duped in a manner, because the desire to be happy and that reason for going to meditate is based in self cherishing.meditation is not about "getting things" (happiness, peace) it is about "getting rid of things" (the desire to be happy, the desire for some peace). It is a catch 22 situation .

ยาวแล้วแค่นี้ก่แอนครับผม

I was interested in your interpretation of "the middle path" as taught by the Buddha.

Isn't interaction in everyday life , without attachment, by practicing mindfulness, the "middle path"?

Isn't our practice three fold, that is:

• follow the precepts.
  
• perform regular sitting meditation.
  
• practice mindfulness in daily life.
  

Isn't the trick to performing the duties of a city monk without getting caught up in it all, by getting the balance right. That is to ensure adequate sitting meditation as well as following through on your mindfulness?

Whether locked away in a forest or interacting with life situations isn't interacting without attachment the aim?

Just wondering what your opinion is.

The way to go is to continue the debate with the Thai theravada Buddhist organism until they yield to the Buddha's decree that women should be allowed to ordain.. it is patriarchistic and direct disobedience to the Lord Buddha that they do this, and very conceited indeed.

I certainly hope there is movement in this area soon.

Bikkhunni should be part of the landscape.

I would have thought any level of enlightenment amongst the sangha would have seen to it.

If enlightenment is so slim amongst the Sangha it doesn't bode well for new travelors at the beginning of their path.

Edited January 15, 2010 by rockyysdt

[sabaijai]

It is because of events such as this that it is so difficult for foreigners to ordain in thai temples, for there have been many cases of Farang rebelling and disregarding the orders of their superiors in the past, and this case will only go to increment the reluctance of Thai Upacayas to ordain us.

[....]

I cant expect many of you to react well to my words, but i find it uneccessary to revolutionise Buddhism in a protester way - it should be done auspiciously, using the right channels and methods of debate and legislation. Not by causing schisms

Thanks for your input thailandfaq. I wouldn't presume to comment on Aj Brahms' attainments, but whatever they may be, I agree that his actions and the immediate results don't bode well for the future ordination of westerners in Thailand. Whether that is bad or good, I don't know. It would be interesting to hear Aj Brahm's himself respond to the claim that his actions might make it more difficult for westerners to ordain.

[bankei]

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).

[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.

[dutchguest]

Osho has said the following about the position of woman in Buddhism (and other religions):

The first

thing to remember, to always remember, is never to judge the past by present standards.

That is not compassionate.

….

A religion has to exist in the society. If the society is too much against a certain thing,

even the founder has to make a few compromises. Otherwise the religion as such will not

exist at all. Society is not in a condition of perfection, society is not yet as it should be,

but a religion has to exist in this society, in the framework that this society allows it.

Revolutionaries try to go a little further than the boundary, but even they cannot go too

far. If they go too far they will be uprooted.

….

Buddhism died in India. Do you know why? It was because Buddha finally allowed

women into his order. He himself is reported to have said, 'My religion would have lived

at least five thousand years, but now it will not live more than five hundred, because I am

taking a very great risk.' Just allowing woman into his order was such a risk that Buddha

said, 'The life of my religion is reduced by four thousand, five hundred years -- at the

most it will last only five hundred years.' And it happened exactly that way. For only five

hundred years Buddhism lived, and that life was also not at the climax. not at the

optimum. Every day the life was slowing down, every day death was coming closer and

closer. What happened?

The society. Society has long been male-oriented. To allow women into a religious order

was to destroy the old hierarchy, the superiority of man.

…

You cannot conceive of what happens to a person when he becomes a Buddha or a Baal-

Shem in a country, in a world, which is absolutely mad. He is no longer mad but he has to

follow your laws, otherwise you will kill him. He has to make compromises. Of course he

cannot hope that you will make compromises with him. You are not in a state in which

you can think. But he can think. Only the higher can make compromises with the lower,

only the greater can make compromises with the lower, only the wise person can make

compromises with stupid people.

So it happened that women have never been accepted. It is only just in this century, very

recently, that women are coming out of the dark night of the past history.

…..

…. but rather than destroying the whole movement they chose

to go with the society and its rules and its regulations. At least let the message reach to

men. If it cannot reach to women right now, later on it will -- but at least let the message

be rooted on the earth.

…..

I have

done It. In my community, men and women are no longer separate. That's why Indians

have stopped coming to my Ashram. They cannot come. When they used to come, their

questions were more or less all concerned about what type of Ashram this was -- men and

women mixing and meeting, holding each other's hands, going together? Even after

meditations hugging, kissing each other? What type of things were these? This is not

good.

They used to come to me and say, 'This is not good, this should not be allowed. Osho,

you should interfere.' I never interfered because to me there is nothing wrong -- man and

woman should not be made in any way distinct. They are not separate, nobody is higher

and nobody is lower. They are different but equal. Difference is beautiful, it has to be

there. The difference has to be enhanced, but the equality has to be saved. And to me,

love is a way towards God.

I didn't listen to them. By and by they disappeared. Now only very courageous Indians

can enter here.

…..

were not people who wanted to become political revolutionaries. They were

not reformists. They were not trying to reform the society, they were trying to bring a

mutation to the individual soul. And they had to exist in the society. Remember that

always.

If you want to read the whole story you can find it in the e-book "The art of dying" chapter 6 on this website:

http://www.oshoworld.com/

[camerata]

Buddhism died in India. Do you know why? It was because Buddha finally allowed

women into his order.

Not according to anyone but Osho.

'The life of my religion is reduced by four thousand, five hundred years -- at the

most it will last only five hundred years.' And it happened exactly that way.

He should have read a history book or two.

The difference has to be enhanced, but the equality has to be saved. And to me,

love is a way towards God.

Osho was nothing if not eclectic in his beliefs.

[dutchguest]

The main point is Osho gives a -for me- understandable and acceptable explanation of the position of woman in historic perspective, something I could not find in the posts above.

About the historic details I can not judge but -broadly outlined- it seems allright to me.

I think Osho is much more universal and less eclectic then the specific form of Buddhism you find in Thailand, which has adapted to and mixed with existing Thai culture.

[dutchguest]

"love is a way towards God"

There are many misconceptions and prejudices about the role of love.

Assuming that values like love, compassion etc. are central in Buddhism it is not so strange that they can play a role in the proces of selfrealisation.

A.o. in his books about Tantra Osho follows this line. As far as I have understood love for one person can become love for everybody and love for the universe, a loving attitude towards live.

In this way celebacy seems to be possible without repression of sexual impulses, without thoughts or dreams of sex. The sexual energy is completely sublimated in other directions.

[rockyysdt]

Osho has said the following about the position of woman in Buddhism (and other religions):

The first thing to remember, to always remember, is never to judge the past by present standards.

That is not compassionate.

A religion has to exist in the society. If the society is too much against a certain thing,

even the founder has to make a few compromises. Otherwise the religion as such will not

exist at all. Society is not in a condition of perfection, society is not yet as it should be,

but a religion has to exist in this society, in the framework that this society allows it.

Revolutionaries try to go a little further than the boundary, but even they cannot go too

far. If they go too far they will be uprooted.

Hi DutchQuest.

A woman's place in the world 2,500 years ago was definitely an issue.

Would you say that over the last 100 years the situation is totally different?

Buddha himself is reported to have said, 'My religion would have lived

at least five thousand years, but now it will not live more than five hundred, because I am

taking a very great risk.' Just allowing woman into his order was such a risk that Buddha

said, 'The life of my religion is reduced by four thousand, five hundred years -- at the

most it will last only five hundred years.' And it happened exactly that way. For only five

hundred years Buddhism lived, and that life was also not at the climax.

…. but rather than destroying the whole movement they chose

to go with the society and its rules and its regulations. At least let the message reach to

men. If it cannot reach to women right now, later on it will -- but at least let the message

be rooted on the earth.

Things are completely different today.

In fact some would say women are now the dominant partner in many relationships.

If the Buddha was fearful of making women equal in terms of Monkhood, do you think he would now be at ease in 2010?

If so, why doesn't the ruling Sangha give credence to the Buddhas aim by allowing reform to take place?

I feel that it's now up to the less wise to understand that the wiser ones have been compromising, otherwise the Buddha's fears may come true, not by excluding women, but by pandering to men.

Edited January 28, 2010 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

The main point is Osho gives a -for me- understandable and acceptable explanation of the position of woman in historic perspective, something I could not find in the posts above.

Well, he got it half right. That having a female Sangha in the Buddha's time could potentially cause problems within the Sangha or society to turn against the Sangha was a very real issue and obviously the cause of the Buddha initial reluctance to admit women. But the problems didn't happen, as far as we know. It simply isn't true that Buddhism died out in India because of the female Sangha. It died out over a long period of time because of resurgent Brahmanism and Muslim invasions that resulted in the wholesale massacre of monks. The female Sangha finally died out in Sri Lanka for reasons that aren't entirely clear, but it was probably related to the wars going on there at the time.

[dutchguest]

The main point is Osho gives a -for me- understandable and acceptable explanation of the position of woman in historic perspective, something I could not find in the posts above.

Well, he got it half right. That having a female Sangha in the Buddha's time could potentially cause problems within the Sangha or society to turn against the Sangha was a very real issue and obviously the cause of the Buddha initial reluctance to admit women. But the problems didn't happen, as far as we know. It simply isn't true that Buddhism died out in India because of the female Sangha. It died out over a long period of time because of resurgent Brahmanism and Muslim invasions that resulted in the wholesale massacre of monks. The female Sangha finally died out in Sri Lanka for reasons that aren't entirely clear, but it was probably related to the wars going on there at the time.

As I said I cannot judge the historic causes very well, but apart from wars etc., if a population is mainly male chauvinist they will not follow a religion which is for equality.

[dutchguest]

Hi DutchQuest.

A woman's place in the world 2,500 years ago was definitely an issue.

Would you say that over the last 100 years the situation is totally different?

Things are completely different today.

In fact some would say women are now the dominant partner in many relationships.

If the Buddha was fearful of making women equal in terms of Monkhood, do you think he would now be at ease in 2010?

If so, why doesn't the ruling Sangha give credence to the Buddhas aim by allowing reform to take place?

I feel that it's now up to the less wise to understand that the wiser ones have been compromising, otherwise the Buddha's fears may come true, not by excluding women, but by pandering to men.

It is clear that the Sangha is not following the intention of the Buddha, but they could in the past have had the same fears as the Buddha that if they would allow woman may be the religion could not exist at all.

For Thailand I don't think this fear was justified as in Thailand the woman had and have -in my view- a much more important place then in India. But as far as religion and politics are concerned also Thailand is male dominated.

Now the times are changing slowly, also because of western influences, and I think in the future we will get more and more discussions about equality for woman, also in religious affairs.

But generally religious institutions tend to be very orthodox and conservative, compared with the rest of society, see also the roman catholic church, so it will take some time.

[deadman]

Does anyone know what stance ajarn Sumedho is taking on the matter? His '5 point agreement on silidahra' quoted earlier said nothing.

I met Aj Brahms whilst staying at the Perth monastery shortly after Aj Jagaro left. He seemed to me to be the antithesis of a meditation monk. His public talks were always laced with lame jokes which always seemed most inappropriate to me. I have a tape of one of his talks to the sangha from many years ago where he alluded to the fact that he has attained Release, which i found quite surprising.

He has always struck me as more akin to a Buddhist activist than a meditation monk, hence his ordination of women doesn't surprise me. His actions appear to be a publicity stunt with the intention of him gaining some kind of maverick monastic status.

If this move had of come from a more respected monk with greater powers of discernment, such as Aj Sumedho, far greater support would be forthcoming. But then i suppose someone with reasonable powers of discernment wouldn't be getting involved in petty social issues such as whether women should be ordained or not.

DM

[rockyysdt]

But then i suppose someone with reasonable powers of discernment wouldn't be getting involved in petty social issues such as whether women should be ordained or not.

DM

Hi DM.

I wonder why you deem the issue of female ordination as petty?

If Monkhood facilitates ones journey to enlightenment wouldn't exclusion be far from petty?

[Xangsamhua]

But then i suppose someone with reasonable powers of discernment wouldn't be getting involved in petty social issues such as whether women should be ordained or not.

DM

Hi DM.

I wonder why you deem the issue of female ordination as petty?

If Monkhood facilitates ones journey to enlightenment wouldn't exclusion be far from petty?

I guess that, for many people -women as well as men - the women's ordination issue is not a big one. However, for some it is important and, for many, unjustified discrimination against women on account of their gender is a significant moral and social issue.

One might ask whether those who follow dhamma practice should be concerned about gender issues in society, but women who want to live the homeless life more fully are barred from doing so in some traditions and they may well feel this handicaps them unnecessarily. Legalistic arguments put forward by the Thai Sangha ring hollow (IMO) in response to the legitimate aspirations of women who wish to be bhikkhunis. They sound like the sort of excuses put up by the Vatican for banning women's ordination in the Roman Catholic Church (my own tradition).

[thailandfaq]

It is because of events such as this that it is so difficult for foreigners to ordain in thai temples, for there have been many cases of Farang rebelling and disregarding the orders of their superiors in the past, and this case will only go to increment the reluctance of Thai Upacayas to ordain us.

[....]

I cant expect many of you to react well to my words, but i find it uneccessary to revolutionise Buddhism in a protester way - it should be done auspiciously, using the right channels and methods of debate and legislation. Not by causing schisms

Thanks for your input thailandfaq. I wouldn't presume to comment on Aj Brahms' attainments, but whatever they may be, I agree that his actions and the immediate results don't bode well for the future ordination of westerners in Thailand. Whether that is bad or good, I don't know. It would be interesting to hear Aj Brahm's himself respond to the claim that his actions might make it more difficult for westerners to ordain.

Well its difficult anyway (although it is disputably easy to do it in e provincial area for a week without a "bai sutti") (ใบสุทธิ - monks official pass) - His actions wouldnt be the only influencing factor, rather that it is this and other similar incidents which when rounded up and counted together, have led to a great caution being taken by the Upachayas of the Thai Sangha when considering the ordination of a Westerner.

In Wat Nong Pha Pong, it is anyway difficult even if you are Thai - you must spend up to 6months in white and stay there keeping ten precepts under the observance of the temple until your ordination day is approved. The Master Ajahn Chah always said บวชยาก สึกยาก hard to ordain, then hard to disrobe. _ this extended period will prove the resolve, seriosity and mettle of potential ordainees

I believe that in the end, in order to enabe a westerner to ordain, this system will have to be introduced - this will increase the probability of westerners being able to ordain, as a six month testing period will put the upachayas at ease and give them a chance to see the behaviour of the person requesting ordination.

I am not sure if Ajahn Brahm underwent 6 months i suppose he did. In whatever case, i find my comments in the previous post were very difficult to make because i do indeed stand for the ordination of Bhikkhunis and it is a cause for which i myself campaign for. But i also have learned about how the Buddha taught that one should obey ones Ajahns and the rules of the Sangha group one is in. One should not cause schisms within the Sangha this is a serious offence.

I suppose he is sacrificing a lot and his reasons are well meant and based on compassion - he is a very brave Bhikkhu indeed.

But i think he considered the case of the Bhikkhunis without considering the damage he may cause in other corners. The best would have been to request permission to ordain the Bhikkhunis in a situation that made the whole issue (as well as the most definite refusal he would have recieved from Nong Pha Pong temple) as much in the public eye as possible. In the long run the issue will force the thai Theravada movement into allowing Bhikkhunis to ordain on the basis of the shame factor.

As i was a Buddhist monk, i had deep and long conversational discputes with other monks about why Bhikkhunis should be able to ordain. I always won and always got them to concede that it was true (after hours and hours of debate).

How i did this was by

1. opening you tube videos showing Bhikkhunis teaching Dhamma which displayed great compassion and adept wisdom on the part of the Bhikkhunis, teachings which leave a lot of Thai Ajahns looking a lot less able than some of these Bhikkhunis - i would ask them if they could not feel the compassion and great ability of these Bhikkhuni Master-esses - they were all pretty gobsmacked by the teachings uttered by these Bhikkhunis. I would then explain how essential it is to permit adeptly capable teachers to have the possibility to become teachers through ordination.

2. raising the case of the Buddha's agreement for his step mother, and subsequently all other women to be able to ordain as Bhikkhunis, and then commenting that to disallow women to ordain is directly disobeying, or at least disregarding the Buddha's Decree.

I would explain the seriosity of changing the Buddha's decree and forbidding something which the Lord Buddha himself had already given his permission to. This left all of the Bhikkhus looking shamefully at the floor.

In the end all the Bhikkhus (some of which are graduates of Mahidol University with tri ek and to degrees) i debated with, ended up conceding i was right.

I hope one day as a re-ordained Bhikkhu, i shall get the chance to arrange and raise this debate onece more in a congregation of Higher Sangha - it is perhaps just a dream, but til now i have managed to access many places within the Sangha and have my contacts and reach.

In Vipassana one is taught อย่ายึดมั่นยึดเหนียว (dont hang on to assumptions - do not cling to things or ideas) i remind the Bhikkhus of this when the Bhikkhuni debate is raised. I attempt to show how the Thai Theravada Sangha members tend to blindly assume that the forbidding of Bhikkhunis is for the betterment of the Dhamma and for Thailand, and to be extremely oe sided and closed on the matter.. simply raisiing the subject causes most Bhikkhus faces to become like a stone wall - this is precicely the act of การยึดมั่น which they profess to teach us not to do.

Ajarn Brahm is a warrior of dhamma and has tried to protect the Buddha's decree to allow Bhikkhunis to ordain.

Unfortunately he has caused some schism too and added one more cause for Upachayas in thailand to worry about ordaining foreigners.

Maybe i will get the chance to ask him about this one day - if i do, i will be happy let you know what he said.

In any case, i do believe that despite his probable loss of face in Thailand, his popularity and reach in the western world has probably grown immensely because of his compassion based act in ordaining the Bhikkhunis.

His loss is going to be many people's gain - especially women.

I believe he has considered most aspects and made a great personal sacrifice.

Edited January 28, 2010 by thailandfaq

[thailandfaq]

Does anyone know what stance ajarn Sumedho is taking on the matter? His '5 point agreement on silidahra' quoted earlier said nothing.

I met Aj Brahms whilst staying at the Perth monastery shortly after Aj Jagaro left. He seemed to me to be the antithesis of a meditation monk. His public talks were always laced with lame jokes which always seemed most inappropriate to me. I have a tape of one of his talks to the sangha from many years ago where he alluded to the fact that he has attained Release, which i found quite surprising.

He has always struck me as more akin to a Buddhist activist than a meditation monk, hence his ordination of women doesn't surprise me. His actions appear to be a publicity stunt with the intention of him gaining some kind of maverick monastic status.

If this move had of come from a more respected monk with greater powers of discernment, such as Aj Sumedho, far greater support would be forthcoming. But then i suppose someone with reasonable powers of discernment wouldn't be getting involved in petty social issues such as whether women should be ordained or not.

DM

There are Bhikkhus who are good for teaching advanced practitioners and sangha

such masters are relatively incapable to teach people who have a basic superficial understanding of Buddhism, and beginners on the path.

There are other masters who can reach people who still have not seen the four noble truths, and tilakkhana, which,if explained directly and transmitted instantly would depress someone who has not developed his or her practise, and drive that person away from Buddhism.

Thes masters are the kind which Ajahn brahm belongs to

This kind of Master is just as important, in order to spread Buddhism and introduce newcomers gradually to the path and later the fruits

is "lame jokes" and "publicity stunts" may seem rather superficial and non dharmic to one who is considering the dhamma from an advanced perspective, and sees such things as "the desire to speak, the desire to enjoy life" as an enemy to the practise in the final stages of the path.

To tell a beginner that to hold fast to the fact that there is a self and to seek pleasure is the cause of suffering,would sound ridiculous to them - they would say "whats wrong with looking after ones body, dressing pretty and smelling nice?

Ajahn Brahm is a messenger of Dhamma to those who still have little understanding of what the ultimate goal is.

An advanced and full bore Master cannot bring newcomers to Buddhism for their teachings are too dry.

My favourite western ajarn (Thanissaro Bhikkhu) stonewalled a newcomer once and i am sure gave a negative impression - a newcomer entered his temple and visited him privately after the course and said "i loveBuddhism, it's all about love isn't it?"

Thanissaro replied

"No, not at all! Its about getting rid of things and letting go of things.. including love. he then went on to explain how love is grasping and based on the "me, mine" conditioned thought and how it is one of the causes of us suffering due to impermanence.

This left the newcomer gobsmacked.

This is a great teaching by Thanissaro (as are all his discourses)

But its not somethiing you should drop on the head of someone who is approaching Buddhism with the conditioned thought that it is a compassion and love based "religion'

These facts are to be found out step by step and stage by stage all in their natural course, not dropped like a bomb on the head of the unsuspecting.

Ajahn Chah was the same - blunt and direct

Ajahn maha Bua is the same - many say he only teaches for Bhikkhus and Sotapanna upwards.. perhaps true

These are the greatest masters.

But we need masters like Ajahn Brahm as friendly messengers who attract the attention of newcomers.

The Dhamma and the practise of knowing the Dhamma is the true path to liberation and the happiness which lies when one has gone beyond the desire for happiness

But that is the fruit

The path must be begun at the beginning

I do know what you mean sir in what you say about Ajahn brahm - point noted - you obviously need to hear teachings from more serious masters.

But dont make the mistake of thinking that Ajahn Brahm has no role to play in the spreading of Dhamma - he does.

[camerata]

The plot thickens...

---

Letter to Perth Thai Community from the BSWA

January 12, 2010

Here’s the Buddhist Society of WA’s official response to the allegations made by Wat Pah Pong stemming from the press conference on 28 December, 2009. It is signed by present and past Presidents of the Society.

4 January 2010

To Members of the Perth Thai Community,

It has come to my attention that a senior Thai monk from Wat Pah Pong has been phoning some of the Thai people here in Perth with the intention of trying to get them to ask Ajahn Brahmawamso to resign. Following this action I have heard that three Thai ladies have started a petition for this purpose and are waiting around outside Nollamara on the weekends urging our Thai community to sign.

The allegations of misconduct made against Ajahn Brahm include the incorrect statements that Bodhinyana was built primarily with money donated by the Thai disciples of the late Ajahn Chah, and that Ajahn Chah had visited Perth, and further, that Bodhinyana had once been given to Wat Pah Pong or to Ajahn Chah. The allegations also include falsehoods that relate to the recent Bhikkuni ordinations.

I intend to set out below a response to all the allegations that have been made, so our members and the community in general will know the truth of all these matters. There has been some mischief perpetrated by some members of the Wat Pah Pong community in order to try and weaken our Nuns’ fully ordained status. My intention is not to be scornful of the Thai community or to belittle any aspect of Thai culture. The truth is that I and the committee have the greatest respect for Thai culture and the fact that Ajahn Chah has had such a wonderful influence on us all here in Perth, is a blessing for us all. My intention is to be truthful in the hope that I will not offend, but clarify the issues for us all.

Firstly, and by way of setting the scene, a Press Conference was held in Bangkok recently by the “Wat Pah Pong Executive Council”. For the first time, these WPP elder monks revealed officially and publicly that their problem with us was not with any secrecy or lack of consultation but with the Bhikkhuni Ordination itself. They are implacably opposed to the reintroduction of the Bhikkuni order. Phra Khru Opaswuthikon said:

“If action is not taken, the council fears that more women could be ordained in the West. Sooner or later, we’ll see female monks everywhere”.

He added that the introduction of the Siladhara order, or 10-precept nuns which was set up by the most senior western monk, Ajahn Sumedho, as an alternative to female monks in Thailand was also “unthinkable”.

I along with our committee believe this unbending stance has justified our decision not to consult with Wat Pah Pong before the Bhikkhuni Ordination, as such consultation would have been not only a waste of time, but also may have led to the Bhikkhuni Ordination being blocked.

The following points will set the record straight with the allegations that have been made.

Bodhinyana Monastery was never given to Ajahn Chah, nor to Wat Pa Pong. Ajahn Chah had a stroke during the Rains Retreat of 1983 and was subsequently unable to speak or travel. A few months later, on December 1st 1983, the vacant land for Bodhinyana Monastery was purchased. It is not possible that Bodhinyana Monastery could have been given to Ajahn Chah because he was incapacitated before the land was purchased. Nor was Bodhinyana Monastery ever given to Wat Pah Pong. From the very beginning, Bodhinyana Monastery remained the property of the Buddhist Society of Western Australia, not of any monk. According to Australian Law, it would be illegal to give Bodhinyana Monastery to Wat Pah Pong or to any other organisation.

Bodhinyana Monastery was not “built primarily with money donated by the Thai disciples of Ajahn Chah”. It was built with donations coming mostly from within Australia, from Sri Lankan, Burmese, Singaporean, Malaysian, Thai and Australian members of the Buddhist Society of Western Australia, out of faith in the monks at Bodhinyana. Significant overseas funds came early on from Chao Khun Pannyananda of Bangkok, Somchai’s “Esso Buddhist Group”, Khun Prayoonsri of Bangkok, and later from Malaysia and Singapore. These were given out of faith in Ajahn Jagaro, and later in Ajahn Brahm.

Bodhinyana Monastery is not a Thai Temple, it is a Theravada Buddhist Monastery open to all nationalities. It has a wide support base consisting of Buddhists of many nationalities. Nevertheless, most Thai Buddhists in Perth go to Bodhinyana Monastery, and the associated Dhammaloka Centre in Perth, out of faith in the teachings, compassion and conduct, that they have observed in the monks of Bodhinyana for over 26 years.

Ajahn Brahm has never been accused of Temple mismanagement. Because of Australian Law, all donations and payments are audited by a professional outside accountant and the audited statements are presented to the members of the Buddhist Society of Western Australia every year at the annual AGM. No Temple in Thailand has to undergo such meticulous scrutiny.

Ajahn Brahm has never changed the Temple bylaws. According to Australian Law, it is impossible for a monk or any one person to change the bylaws in the Constitution of the Buddhist Society of Western Australia. Such changes can only be done at an Annual General Meeting, or at a Special General Meeting, with a two thirds majority of members agreeing to the change. Consequently, Ajahn Brahm has not made such changes “in his own interest”, nor “despite any disagreement from the Bodhinyana Sangha”. The Bodhinyana Sangha has always supported Ajahn Brahm.

Temple Ownership has not “greatly troubled the Thai Buddhists in Australia”. There have been no problems in this area.

The Bhikkhuni Ordination was fully supported by the members of The Buddhist Society of Western Australia, and most Thai Buddhists in Perth have no problem with supporting the new Bhikkhunis. Some senior Thai Buddhists living in Perth attended the Ordination ceremony to show their support.

Ajahn Brahm did not ordain the four Bhikkhunis. The preceptor was the American born Theravada Bhikkhuni, Ayya Tathaloka. Another American born Theravada Bhikkhuni, Ayya Sobhana, together with a German born Theravada Bhikkhuni, Ayya Sucinta, chanted the “Kammavaca”. The four women were ordained by Bhikkhunis. Ajahn Brahm participated in the “Confirming” ceremony performed by the Bhikkhu Sangha that followed the ordination, as required by the Vinaya.

Since the lineage follows that of the preceptor, the four Bhikkhunis in Australia belong to the “Nikaya” of their preceptor, which is the Syam Nikaya of Sri Lanka. Therefore, they should be of no concern to the Thai Buddhist authorities.

Vinaya Masters are clear that Ajahn Brahm did not break any rule of Vinaya. Moreover, as he was not the Preceptor, or Upajjhaya, he did not transgress long established Thai Sangha Law.

Ajahn Brahm did not receive any invitation to the meeting of monks at Wat Pah Pong on 16th January 2010. Having not been invited, he cannot have refused any invitation.

As current and a past President of the Buddhist Society I know that the above account of the issues involved is correct, but as you will see I have asked those past Presidents that are currently available to counter sign this letter. I personally have not had any contact, in any way, with anyone, who has had any issues with the way our Buddhist Society has handled the Bhikkuni ordination, apart from people being disappointed that they could not attend. If you do have any further concerns, I would be happy to receive your question or queries directly. My telephone number is (08) 9367 3918.

I am disappointed that Ajahn Brahm is being treated with such disrespect, and I know that most people reading this letter will concur. However, I also know that Ajahn Brahm has very broad shoulders and will let this issue flow away “like water off a ducks back”. Having said this I call on all of our members to come together with good will and show support for Ajahn Brahm and the Buddhist Society of WA.

Yours very respectfully,

Dennis Sheppard

President BSWA

Counter signed by Past Presidents

Rachel Green

Don Weerakody

Sol Hanna

James Pinakus

Binh Anson