Can an Arahant be against bhikkhuni ordination?

Hi Apeiron

Greetings to you too.

I don’t think you’ve done anything wrong by asking a question, or feeling puzzled. I appreciate your concern for the long-faring of pure Dhamma (and Vinaya).

To me your question is based on the philosophy of centralised control, or everyone agreeing and practising exactly the same way, which I do not see the Buddha tried to enforce. His advice for (a?) sangha (parisā?) to do away with minor rules if it deems fit, speaks to that, imo. The idea of centralised control has been promoted at least since the Third Buddhist Council. Its outcome was that, even if it may not specifically be stated as a goal, but I think it was made quite clear that was a goal.

The Buddha refused to appoint a successor, indicates to me that he didn’t even think of himself as the leader, but, as he said Dhamma and Vinaya would be the teacher when he had passed, as it always had. To me one person in charge speaks to centralised control, not faith in Dhamma and people’s wise reflection.

For me there is a core, which those with Right View would agree on and practice and there is periphery, with secondary things. In the words of Vinaya: Sīla (morality/ethics) - core and Ācāra (good habits) - superficial, secondary. I believe those people with Right View would agree on what was the core, which would be timeless (akāliko) and would know that all outside that core would be secondary and dependent on conditions.

Those who have not attained the Fruit of Stream Entry, (eradicated the First Three Fetters) may not see such a distinction and, if they did have the distinction, would certainly not agree on what was core and what not. Thus (attachment to) Rites and Rituals is maintained.

Those with wise reflection could be called ‘wise’ and Dhamma is to be discovered, each for themselves. Even so, I believe they would agree on what is the core and what is periphery. (This is opposite to the story of the First Council.)

I think everyone does follow their own belief, but those with Right View share the same essential beliefs. They have made the theory of Dhamma their own personal experience.

There is a place where the Buddha says to Ānanda, that disagreement over the Patimokkha (Vinaya) would be a trifling thing, but disagreement over what is the Path (or Way - the Fourth Noble Truth) would be for the detriment to the many for a long time. Thus the advice from the Buddha on comparing teachings (of the path) to ensure the longevity of the Dhamma and this does not seem to be done in the Buddhist Councils.

It is the sekkhiya sections of the Patimokkha that seem to have the most variation in number throughout the various Buddhist traditions. Regarding the monks’ rules, there is a place that mentions (about?) 150 rules. Without the sekkhiya, there are around 150. Sekkhiya are certainly minor rules, imo. For me, 4 Parajika and 13 Sanghadisesa (=17) are serious and cover sīla (morality/ethics) and the rest are minor and cover ācāra (good habits).

I hope that answers your question and eases your puzzlement.

Best wishes

4 Likes

Ven.,

Thanks for answer the question .
Could you explain what do you mean by right view ?

Thank you .

Hi Apeiron

Thanks for your question too, though maybe off topic. If someone were to say they had realised the Fruit of SE, this would be the question to ask, alternatively: what are the Four Noble Truths?

Of course you would know some of the traditional/textual explanations, that knowledge of the Four Noble Truths (4NT) is Right View (e.g. as found in SuttaCentral which I think is a later compilation, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have original teachings). In another place (ref?) it says if one knows (understands?) any one of the Four, one knows them all, which I don’t accept.

I agree with the first idea, but in different words I could say: ‘Right View is that view which causes the eradication of the First Three Fetters’. So there would be three aspects to Right View matching the First Three Fetters. One who is Attained to (Right) View (achieved the Fruit of SE) would have covered all three aspects. Various names of types of SE’s would reflect which/how many aspects they had realised.

Fetters:

  • identity view
  • doubt
  • attachment to rites/rules and rituals

Aspects of Right View:

  • understanding the (true) meaning of the 4NT, most essentially the first, which covers identity view, imo. (I have already discussed my understanding of the Fist Noble Truth in another thread What is the First Noble Truth?. There I try to point out that these two lines of thought/explanations are not compatible: The First Noble Truth is: 1. Life is (the Five Aggregates are) suffering, supported by the doctrine of the 3 (Universal) Characteristics and the commentarial doctrine of the three kinds of suffering, which is pure Hinduism to me and 2. Life with clinging is (the Five Clung-to Aggregates are) suffering. So the Arahant’s Five Aggregates are without clinging and are therefore not suffering, only impermanent and anattā.)
  • developing confidence in the theoretical framework of the 4NT from investigation and reflection, in the way the probably Buddha taught, seeing the Buddha’s teaching is an integrated whole, not a patchwork of nice but not really related teachings
  • testing the theory of the 4NT and experiencing the first taste of liberation, enables one to see rites and rituals are ineffective for liberation, though they might have some social relevance e.g. bonding

Those can be easily matched with what I believe is the Path to SE (Fruit) (ref?):

  • association with the wise
  • listening to what they have to say
    (these two match the first aspect)
  • reflecting on it
    (this matches the second aspect)
  • practising the Dhamma according to Dhamma
    (this matches the third aspect)

See also the ‘gradual training’: SuttaCentral

At the point theoretical understanding is confirmed in experience, then Right View changes to Right Insight, imo (see the 10-fold Path, which has Right Insight and Right Liberation after Right Concentration see (PDF) Bucknell's 1984 Study of Five Presentations of the Path | Joe Smith - Academia.edu).

I hope that answers your question.

best wishes

1 Like

Ven . ,
Thank you for taking time to elaborate , well ,since this is off topic ,I would like to bring it to a new topic to enquire further if you don’t mind ?

Thank you .

oh, yes, good idea, thanks

I strongly believe that after Buddha’s Mahaparinibbana anti-Buddhist Sangha again destroyed the core teaching of the Buddha. If you want to know more details please see the " Divine revelation in Pali Buddhism". It is revied by Alexander Duncan’ "The overwhelming implication of Masefield’s analysis echoes that of Herbert Guenther, that the modern Buddhist sangha is a puthujjana sangha, completely devoid of authenticity, offerings to which have no kammic value or efficacy whatsoever. There was a huge mistrust with early Buddhist Sangha who represented the first Buddhist Council without Bhikkhuni Sangha.

Wonderful. That makes look like the real Buddha. :hugs: