Are there consequences for deciding Dhammayuttika over Maha ordination in America? Like if someone ordains in a Dhammayuttika monastery at Metta Monastery in Califorina or Forest Dhamma Monastery in Virginia, once they have finished their first 5 years will they be able to go study and stay at a Maha monastery like Abhayagiri Monastery in California or Temple Forest Monastery in New Hampshire eventually if they decide to do so?
Also what about other Theravada Monasteries in America like Bhāvanā Monastery in West Virginia which I believe is affiliated with Monasteries in Sri Lanka?
This isn’t a big deal; perhaps it isn’t even an issue, but it’s a persistent question that comes to mind for me.
There is no official connection with any monasteries in Sri Lanka unless that has happened recently. Bhante Gunaratana does not care at all what nikaya someone is ordained in. He is Siamnikay. But again, as far as monastics living there he doesn’t care at all. In any case this matters a lot less in Sri Lanka than Thailand.
Generally speaking, if you’re ordained in a good Vinaya tradition you should be okay wherever you are.
There can be some discrimination against Mahanikaya monks in Dhammayut monasteries, but it really depends on who is running the place. If they know you’re from an Ajahn Chah lineage, or otherwise have good Vinaya, you’ll be well received, but maybe not allowed in patimokkha.
In Ajahn Chah monasteries you should be okay regardless of your background. Just don’t talk about bhikkhunis.
I’m guessing you are kind of joking from the emoji. Unless something has changed, the monks at Abhayagiri are socially very friendly and supportive of bhikkhunis. It’s legitimate to criticize them for not officially supporting Bhikkhunis on an organizational level, of course. But it’s not a taboo subject. afaik
Are there procedural differences in the ordination processes between Mahanikaya and Dhammayut in American monasteries?
If there are, why are there differences between the two? To me it seems like a ‘rites & rituals’ matter and inconsequential, but perhaps there is an opposing view point I should be aware of on the topic?
Has nothing to do with America. It’s the same situation everywhere. The Wikipedia article gives some background:
The fact is that official Sangha acts, such as ordination, can be valid or invalid. That has nothing to do with silābataparāmāsa.
For Dhammayut monks, the issue has to do with continuity of valid procedures, not the procedure itself as it is conducted today. They believe that they have a continuous valid lineage and that other groups do not. Holding that belief, it’s natural for them to not recognize the ordination as valid.
Whether they are wrong or right is a different matter. And how much individual monks care about it varies. It just so happens that Wat Metta cares and they are the most well known place in the US. And while Mahanikay monasteries (or any non-Dhammayut places) will not have a problem with Dhammayut monks, I’m not sure how (some) Dhammayut monks would feel about one of their own living with Mahanikay monks.
At least in my corner of Thailand, the Dhammayut monks don’t care about this as much these days as they used to.
They still don’t accept Mahanikay monks into their Patimokkha and (usually) won’t join Mahanikaya Patimokkha themselves. But apart from that ceremonial separation, there’s not much difference in how we treat Mahanikay vs Dhammayut guests. We welcome Mahanikaya visitors to join our alms round and meal offering in their normal seniority order, etc.
There’s a recognition that these days the quality of practice at many Mahanikay temples actually exceeds that of many Dhammayut temples (which have had decades now of lavish support and relaxing standards). So, in those terms, monks will be judged on a more case-by-case basis these days than strictly by their nikaya affiliation.
