The difference between changes in ordination procedures for monks and nuns

Discussion
1

I found this explanation about why nuns’ ordination can’t happen any longer. It discusses the flaw in the argument that the Buddha would have explicitly rescinded ordination by monks if he’d wanted to make unilateral ordination impossible. I haven’t yet come across a convincing rebuttal. Does anyone know if one exists?

"It has been argued that because the original allowance for bhikkhus to ordain bhikkhunīs was never explicitly rescinded, it is still in place, so bhikkhus may ordain bhikkhunīs without the candidates’ having to go through the preliminary procedures. This argument is based on drawing a parallel to the way in which the Acceptance of bhikkhus changed in the early years of the Teaching…

However, the two cases are not really parallel. In the case of bhikkhu ordination, when the Buddha allowed groups of bhikkhus to give the Going-forth and Acceptance by means of the three goings for refuge, he spelled out the procedure for them to follow. Once this procedure had been explicitly allowed, he had to explicitly rescind it when he set out a new procedure in Mv.I.28.3-5. In the case of bhikkhunī ordination, though, he did not explicitly spell out a procedure for the bhikkhus to follow when he allowed them of give full Acceptance to bhikkhunīs in Cv.X.2.1. Because the only procedure available to the bhikkhus at that time was the procedure for bhikkhu ordination, it was apparently understood that this would be the fallback procedure to press into service until the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha was well established and could play a role in the double ordination, involving both Saṅghas, stipulated in the sixth rule of respect.

This means that the allowance in Cv.X.2.1 is incomplete. It doesn’t follow the pattern in other, similar allowances, where, once the Buddha has given the allowance, he immediately provides instructions for how to carry it out. At the same time, it only partially falls in line with the sixth rule of respect. In this sense, the allowance for double ordination given in Cv.X.17.2-8 simply completes the earlier, incomplete allowance. It doesn’t rescind the earlier allowance, because there is nothing in the earlier allowance that needs to be rescinded. Bhikkhus still give full Acceptance to bhikkhunīs, simply that they have to do so in line with the new procedures, which are fully in line with the sixth rule of respect.

Once these new procedures were spelled out, the earlier fallback procedure could no longer be used for that purpose from that time onward, as that would violate the new allowance."

2

Bhante Analayo (Bhikkhu Analayo) has written several essays on the topic. There is also several discussion on this forum on this very topic.

I have added the tag bhikkhuni-ordination to this topic to help you find others. But the search function will surely show up more.

There is also Bhante Sujato’s book Bhikkhuni Vinaya Studies which goes into detail about Garudhammas

3

I’ve looked at some of these materials already, but I haven’t found anything that directly responds to this particular point. Do you know of something that I’ve missed in these texts that does address it? I’d be grateful to be shown if so.

4

It’s been a long time since I have read it, but I believe Bhante @sujato discusses this in one of his books. Either Bhikkhuni Vinaya Studies or White Bones Red Rot Black Snakes.
Bhante?

5

This argument (which I believe you’re quoting?) is a straw man.

Let us assume that we take the texts as they stand. That monks can ordain nuns has nothing to do with parallels from other cases. There is a black-&-white, explicit statement in the Bhikkhuni-kkhandhaka:

“I allow monks to give the full ordination to nuns.”

No argument from parallel or precedent or procedure has any force. It says what it says. It’s misleading to say that it is not “explicitly” rescinded. It is not rescinded at all and remains in effect.

How this was to be done, how it was understood, how it stands in the evolution of bhikkhuni ordination generally—these are all secondary matters of context.

2 Likes
6

Yes the part in quotation marks is a quote from the link provided.

As I understand the argument being addressed in the passage has been put forward by an actual man (Brahmāli, as I recall, whom I’ve never met in person but assume to be made of tougher stuff than straw!), so I’m not sure that’s the case. And in all fairness it initially looks like a reasonable stance until the flaw in it is highlighted as above.

The author - Ven. Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu - seems to agree with you, though, that the rule hasn’t been rescinded: his point appears to be that rescinding it would make no sense given the fact monks still had to ordain nuns when dual ordination replaced ordination by monks alone. So rather than being rescinded it was instead modified to necessitate ordination on the nuns’ side. Once the amendment was made there was no longer any recourse to single ordination - following the consistent pattern of amendments like this in the rest of the Vinaya. (This is a point that I’ve read made independently by Ven. Somdet Payutto - widely regarded as the foremost Pali scholar and Vinaya expert in Thailand.) This brought the procedure in line with the relevant garudhamma - requiring that nuns be ordained in both Sanghas - and a formal transaction was then formally authorised for ordaining nuns: that of dual ordination, the only transaction specifically authorised for ordaining nuns that exists in the entire Pali Vinaya. He seems - if I understand correctly - to therefore be of the opinion that using another method & transaction would be ‘apart from Vinaya, apart from the Teacher’s instruction’ and thus invalid.

He elsewhere bolsters his point as follows:

You’re on much more solid ground when you look at the Buddha’s own words: how the rules themselves are expressed. That’s why I’ve recommended looking at cases where we can see, from how the rules themselves are formulated, that a later formulation of an issue was intended not to replace or modify an earlier formulation of how to proceed, but simply to provide an alternative way of proceeding. And I found that there is a pattern in such cases: There has to be something explicit in the second formulation to indicate that it is an alternative: either the word “also” or the specific conditions to which it applies.

Brahmāli and Anālayo express doubt that such a pattern exists, but if they really wanted to prove their point, it wouldn’t be hard: Find a counter example in which it’s obvious that the later formulation is meant as an alternative to, rather than a modification of, the earlier one. But so far, neither has found a valid counter example.
www.dhammatalks.org/books/QuestionofBhikkhuniOrdination/Section0012.html

He then goes on to dissect an example that they incorrectly claim counters the pattern (how they missed their mistake I’m not sure), showing that it actually fits the pattern he mentions, proving his point further: if the Buddha intended ordination by monks alone to remain an option he’d have clearly indicated the fact - such as using the Pali term api - ‘also’ - to indicate that he allowed both procedures. This, the author insists, is a pattern consistently found elsewhere in such cases. Where such an indication is lacking, the amendment invariably & entirely replaces and overwrites the original. Since the Buddha didn’t indicate that both were allowed, it means they’re not: only dual ordination is permitted.

That’s his argument, I think, which seems to stand until someone finds the counter example he says is required to challenge it.

So, do you happen to know of an example that actually breaks the pattern? It seems quite important if the attempts to revive the bhikkhunī lineage are to have any chance of gaining broader traction in the Saṅgha.

1 Like
7

Again, the existence of a “pattern” is irrelevant. Monks are allowed to ordain nuns, period.

Don’t let complicated arguments lead you astray. Both of those venerables are starting from the assumption that bhikkhunis cannot exist, and that is the inevitable endpoint of any argument they publish. Since the letter of the text states the opposite, they must resort to sophistry. It’s what monks do, I’m afraid. There’s nothing interesting about it.

8

Just as a thought experiment, what sort of fault would it be to restart the Bhikkhuni Sangha because it’s not in line with this pattern?

Couldn’t the people involved just confess after doing it?

Like, okay, we restarted the Bhikkhuni lineage, clearly in line with the Buddha’s intentions, if we violated some technical vinaya principles, we confess and ask forgiveness?

9

Why would the existence of a consistent pattern in the application of Vinaya rules be ‘irrelevant’ to how we apply the Vinaya? Many would argue that - far from engaging in mere ‘sophistry’ - the venerables are simply adhering to an obvious & consistent application of the Great Standards: it tallies with the rest of the Vinaya to assume that the amended version of a rule entirely & irreversibly supercedes the preceding formulation, unless explicitly indicated otherwise. When it is suggested that this pattern suddenly becomes irrelevant for the sake of a particular rule - without any indication whatsoever in the texts that this is the case - it is inevitable that the suggestion raises eyebrows, to say the least.

That aside, though, it’s hardly debatable that the attempted revival would have much more weight in the tradition as a whole if a valid counter-example to the pattern were provided. Am I to assume from your avoidance of the question that it still hasn’t been found?

1 Like
10

The traditional Theravāda view, based of course on the Pali Vinaya, would, I believe be something like as follows:

It’s considered a “non-transaction” due to being “apart from Vinaya, apart from the Teacher’s instruction” and thus void - “reversible, not fit to stand”. That’s the main Vinaya principle that’s violated. No amount of confession would change that fact, but tradition would suggest there would be dukkaṭas for all the monks involved.

The allowance for dual ordination superceded the earlier allowance for unilateral ordination, meaning the latter is no longer valid (this is the consistent pattern in the Vinaya). The aim of the transaction would thus remain unfulfilled: i.e. the female candidate for ordination would remain unordained.

Confessing & asking forgiveness for forcing the invalid transaction and causing disharmony in the community would, however, at least go some way to restoring good relations.

11

This is exactly backwards. The general principle across the Vinaya is that a new rule only supercedes a previous rule if the Buddha explicitly says that it does so. If it is not explicitly stated, the rules and allowances are always cumulative.

This, quite trivially, must be the case as a hermeneutic, because it’s never quite clear when one rule is similar enough to a previous rule to supercede it.

For example, Nissaggiyā Pācittiyā 19 is quite similar to rule 18. They both involve money. Does 19 supercede 18? And NP 20 is also quite similar, expanding the scope of 19 to include bartering. Did 20 supercede 19?

Of course not.

Saying a later rule “implicitly” overwrites an earlier rule is just an attempt at rewriting the Vinaya and removing a rule that the author finds inconvenient. That’s all.

3 Likes
12

NP 18 & 19 aren’t different versions of a single rule, they’re different rules altogether. Slightly more relevant would be the changes in, say, Pr 1, where the Buddha adds extra explicit conditions to the rule - only the final version stands. That is a consistent pattern throughout the Sutta Vibhaṅga, and it’s so clearly the case that - contrary to your argument - it’s never considered necessary to clarify that the old versions of the rules are redundant. The minor complication is that in the Khandhakas we’re dealing with allowances as well as proscriptions. As Ven. Ṭhānissaro points out, though -

When the Buddha wanted to modify a rule only for a specific case—in other words, if the original version was still valid for some cases, whereas the new modification was valid for others—he would always say so explicitly, either in the rule itself or in the protocols based on the rule.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/QuestionofBhikkhuniOrdination/Section0006.html

That’s the pattern that he quite understandably insists would need to be in evidence for the case at hand. Since it isn’t, intellectual honesty would require that the allowances for nuns’ ordination be read according to the first pattern, whereby only the latest formulation of the rule is in force, and the preceding versions are null & void.

Unless, that is, an example can be found that breaks the mould. As I say, if it could be found, the attempts at revival would likely to start to look more plausible in the eyes of traditionalists. If it cannot, then that surely proves the venerable’s point: the pattern really exists, and the argument for unilateral ordination of nuns by monks involves denying that fact.

13

Have you read the Khandhakas on the Bhikkhu ordination procedures?

14

Yes, that and the difference between the nuns’ case is precisely what’s being referred to in the OP quote. See:

This argument is based on drawing a parallel to the way in which the Acceptance of bhikkhus changed in the early years of the Teaching…

Have you found an example there where the Buddha amends a rule clearly intending for both the original and the amendment to remain in force, without clarifying the fact?

15

Do you have a source? Considered by whom? Etc.

This makes me think you’re not interested in a real discussion, but are here to be a partisan.

And fyi, the Asian women who cry because for the first time they’re able to give something with their hands into the hands of a monastic seem pretty stoked about Bhikkhunis.

The women who come to our monastery seem pretty happy about not being second class citizens.

It seems kind of evil, honestly, to want to deny and prevent all the wholesome happiness the restoration of the Theravada Bhikkhuni has caused and is causing?

16

No, this is the part I most have a problem with. For two reasons:

  1. There are plenty of examples of allowances without procedures, even within the Bhikkhu ordination chapter. To the Bhikkhunī allowance in the Gotamī chapter:

I allow monks to give the full ordination to nuns.

The most obviously parallel example within the Bhikkhu ordination section is:

I allow a competent and capable monk who has ten or more years of seniority to give the full ordination.

This allowance within the Bhikkhu section also has no special procedure given, the procedure being simply as previously outlined. Throughout the Bhikkhunī Vinaya, this is the case. Wherever there are shared rules and procedures, the Vinaya didn’t bother to repeat the monks’ version with the gender changed. The Vinaya leaves shared rules and procedures implicit.

The fact that the Vinaya doesn’t repeat the ordination procedure after giving the allowance for a ten-year monk to give an ordination doesn’t make that allowance “incomplete” and it doesn’t make the allowance for monks to give ordination to nuns incomplete either.

  1. The narrative after that allowance within the Gotamī chapter makes it clear that nuns were getting ordained. At the start of the Ordination section where the dual ordination procedure is given, it starts by saying:

At that time the full ordination had been given to women who…

How is that possible if the previous allowance was “incomplete?”

No, the general principle holds. If the Buddha wanted the previous allowance rescinded, he would have said so, as the Lord did so in the Bhikkhu chapter where he says:

From today I rescind the full ordination through the taking of the three refuges. Instead you should give the full ordination through a legal procedure consisting of one motion and three announcements.

This proves that Buddha was perfectly capable of explicitly rescinding ordination allowances. I see no reason why the allowance for monks to ordain nuns should be treated differently than any other allowance in the Vinaya which, of course, stands unless explicitly rescinded.

1 Like
17

Regarding your first point:

i) Garudhamma 6 shows clearly that it was incomplete. The Buddha’s vision for the nuns’ ordination process was always that it would entail acceptance in both Sanghas. That’s the crucial sense in which the example you say is parallel is anything but. The other related difference is that the Buddha did complete the nuns’ ordination procedure with a brand new transaction formula following his initial allowance, but did not do so for the monks on the back of the example you’ve provided.

ii) There’s no question that the standard monks’ ordination procedure was most likely used until the nuns’ ordination procedure was modified. And there’s also no question that it was a modification, rather than an addition, with the purpose of bringing the procedure into line with the Buddha’s vision vis-à-vis G6. The idea that the Buddha, who demanded dual ordination as a necessary condition for establishing the nuns’ order, would have countenanced unilateral ordination for nuns as optional after having formally codified G6, is implausible. Hence attempts to discredit the garudhammas’ historical accuracy have had to be resorted to by revivalists in order to make their case ( I understand, however, that the leader of those efforts has recently changed his tune, conceding that the garudhammas are most likely not the result of a misogynist brahman conspiracy after all, but instead bona fide, historically accurate Dhamma-Vinaya.)

So when you say

I give you that, because in this case the Buddha made no further action to complete it by replacing the transaction already in place, thus showing he felt it required no further modification; but when you say

I don’t, because he did, and so it of course follows that it was, in his eyes, incomplete: a fact that’s further supported by G6.

It was a temporary measure. Just in the same way that Gotamī’s ordination via the acceptance of the garudhammas was complete for the purposes of ordaining her, but couldn’t be used thereafter; so too was unilateral ordination complete for the purposes of ordaining the first wave of nuns, but couldn’t be used after it had been superceded by dual ordination. “Incomplete” simply means the Buddha hadn’t finished legislating regarding the issue until he’d brought the procedure in line with his stated vision for its final version.

This misunderstanding has been addressed a couple of times already in the quotes and discussion above, so you might benefit from a reread for a fuller explanation. In short, he didn’t want it rescinded. Rescinding the allowance for monks to ordain nuns would have made no sense given that monks would still have to be allowed to ordain nuns under the dual ordination procedure. So instead of rescinding the allowance the Buddha modified it to necessitate, from that point on, that nuns also be involved in the process.

So, again, the sticking point is the lack of a valid counter-example bucking the trend of the pattern described by Ven. Ṭhānissaro in the linked articles: namely, that when the Buddha modifies a rule with the intent that both the original and modified formulations remain in force, he explicitly indicates this to be the case. Where no such indication is made, only the second formulation stands - this being the case in the allowances for nuns’ ordination.

Despite the mud thrown my way above I’m genuinely interested in finding such an example if it exists. I myself have been scouring the Khandhakas for it. While I currently agree with the position outlined by Ven. Ṭhānissaro I’d have to reconsider if a convincing counter-example surfaces. If it does it would lend more credence to the revivalist attempts in the eyes of Theravāda Vinaya experts. If it does not, it remains a valid basis for them to reject the revival entirely.

Any serious move towards harmonious acceptance of revival would require locating it. Failure to do so, in turn, would require that those of honest character in the movement admit their mistake - the lack of counter-evidence must prove the pattern’s existence and, by proxy, that the allowance for unilateral ordination of nuns by monks has long been dead in the water.

18

Yes, I’ve provided links above. Here’s another: The Buddhist Discipline in Relation to Bhikkhunis: Questions and Answers - Phra Payutto and Dr. Martin Seeger - Dhamma Writings

19

If you reread Ajahn Geoff’s writings, you’ll see that he admits that the Garudhammas are not binding rules in the Vinaya sense. They don’t really have any say into this Vinaya matter. This is, again, by Ajahn Geoff’s own admission.

And yet, this is exactly what he did. Spelled out in the plain letter of the Vinaya.

You’re not going to find that in the Vinaya because that’s not how the Vinaya works.

The Buddha never said “Btw, that previous rule about this topic? Yeah, it’s still valid.” Why? Because that goes without saying.

Vinay rules are valid until a Buddha rescinds them. End of story. Anything else is political activism.

1 Like