Thanks for your reply!
The point I was trying to make is that most of them are in one of the Patimokkhas. Even Garudhamma 1, about bowing, is in the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, Pac 175.
If the Dharmaguptaka living Vinaya tradition interests you, there is also the book by Ven Wu Yin:
https://www.amazon.com/Choosing-Simplicity-Commentary-Bhikshuni-Pratimoksha/dp/1559391553
It developed out of a Vinaya course for monastics and is quite detailed.
I think we have totally lead this thread astray. Maybe we should move the conversation elsewhere.
3 Likes
Yes I have read half of it, but then decided to leave the rest for another time. But it is an excellent commentary on the living tradition.
Quite right I should know better! Anyway I shall shut up for now, being truly inexperienced to join the discussion any further most likely. Please do start a new thread if you can share more though 
[quote=“brahmali, post:44, topic:5489, full:true”]
…I have tremendous respect for Ajahn Ṭhānissaro. … no reason to doubt that he is a very good monk and an experienced and serious meditator
… There are areas in which I disagree with AT…[/quote]
Thank you. I too don’t agree with everything Than-Geoff recommends, in the sense of following it in my own practice, but can respect his perspective. Once I mentioned to him i was reading the Vissuddhimagga. He said don’t bother; read the Sutta-s. I finished reading it, refer to it on and off, and plan to read it again, in parallel with the Pali, in addition to the abhidhamma volumes. That doesn’t affect what I’ve learned and continue to learn from him. (It just limits what I can discuss with him.)
His take on concentration, on bodily awareness, isn’t in line with training I’ve had (Pa Auk lineage), but having some (yet small degree) of mastery of some of that, I can turn around and see the point of the way he does it, can emulate it if I choose. Being able to understand and experience multiple perspectives views, IMO, contributes to unhinging any dogma-leaning attachments, habits.
2 Likes
[AT as an eternalist]
[quote=“sujato, post:24, topic:5489, full:true”]
…He is a staunch defender of the Ajahn Mahabua wing of the Thai forest tradition, with their “original mind” idea … There are many things in Ven Thanissaro’s writings that support this conclusion. I haven’t read him in any depth for decades now, so I have no idea if his ideas have changed or evolved at all…[/quote]
Not having traced such ideas in AT writings from the beginning, I find that recently he has quite pointedly criticized supposedly Theravadan teachers/writers who hold “Buddha nature” ideas and similar mixes of new-age and Mahayana notions – in talks at IMC (Redwood City, Calif – recorded at AudioDharma that I could cite if wanted), and at length in the book “Buddhist Romanticism”. Also in his exegeses of Sutta passages where the Buddha differentiates his teaching from what we call “nihilist” and “eternalist” views, AT’s understanding appears to mirror the Buddha’s. I’m looking into this further, but will perhaps bring it up in the thread on “Existence after Death, Nihilism, and Anattā” rather then here.
3 Likes
This is the problem with these rules, there is no consistency. You really have to decide first of all how you want to approach the Vinaya: should you just keep the Pali Vinaya or do you want to take more of a text-critical approach. The former is relatively straightforward, since the text is a given. With the latter approach, it seems to me that you would have to compare all extant Vinayas to make informed decisions. This is obviously quite an undertaking, although Ven. Dhammānandā’s work would be a good starting point. I made the conscious decision to rely on the Pali, since my knowledge of the other Vinayas is very limited.
Hardly anyone, including most hard-core Vinaya adherents, keep all the minor rules. To take one example, there is a sekhiya rule - the most minor rules of the pātimokkha - against giving a Dhamma teaching while standing if the listener is sitting down. You can see why this is a rule. At the same time such a rule makes no sense in a modern lecture theatre, for instance. Hardly any monk I know of would refuse to stand in such a situation. Indeed, the rule itself allows you to do so, as I have argued above. So I really don’t think anyone can criticise any monastic, whether it is a bhikkhunī or a bhikkhu, for not keeping minor rules that are culturally inappropriate, especially since they most likely do not keep many such rules themselves.
In any case, I would not worry too much what these hard-core Vinaya adherents say. You will be criticised no matter what you do, and trying to please others has no end. It is much better to arrive at a practice of the Vinaya that is in line with the word of the Buddha, that has integrity, and that is satisfactory for yourself. The word of the Buddha is much more flexible, especially in Vinaya matters, than it is normally given credit for.
10 Likes
The Bhikkhuni Patimokkha is less well preserved than the bhikkhu’s, and I can’t really see a good reason why the Pali should be more reliable than any other version, so I went for the text-critical approach. I did study Ven Dhammananda’s book on the Patimokkha of the 6 schools in quite some detail, but it contains many mistranslations, one of which Cara and I have mentioned above.
At some point I might make my own translations (I know Chinese and study “Buddhist Chinese”), but even then, the Patimokkhas still remain inconsistent and it is difficult (impossible?) to know which, if any, is authentic. So text-critical studies don’t solve the question of how to follow the Vinaya “correctly” either.
5 Likes
FYI , 問訊 is a way of manner or ceremonial gesture in the Mahayana tradition which is pranamasana (anjali mudra) but with both the 1st fingers rising up and put on the 3 rd eye !
Best wishes .
2 Likes
Thanks for clarifying this.
I wonder though, since this is an early Buddhist text, why there would be Mahayana terminology in it. Is it possible that it was used with that meaning in later texts, and originally meant something else? Could it just mean that they made some polite small talk? ( 問: ask, 訊: news)
I’m still quite new to Chinese Buddhist texts… 
2 Likes
Here’s a few:
- It’s in the Indic language.
- It is the earliest of the available Indic dialects (certainly earlier than Sanskrit/Hybrid Sanskrit)
- There is a continuous and detailed commentarial tradition. Not always reliable of course, but helpful in many cases.
- On the whole, it seems to be no later than other Vinayas; if anything, a little earlier.
5 Likes
[quote=“vimalanyani, post:55, topic:5489”]
Thanks for clarifying this.
I wonder though, since this is an early Buddhist text, why there would be Mahayana terminology in it. Is it possible that it was used with that meaning in later texts, and originally meant something else? Could it just mean that they made some polite small talk? ( 問: ask, 訊: news)
I’m still quite new to Chinese Buddhist texts…
[/quote]Its a matter of a different layer of the language.
I consult mostly Chinese dictionaries that presume Mahāyāna Buddhism, so when I run an āgama through them, all sorts of things pop up, for instance: 不動 (bù dòng) shows up very frequently in the āgamas. If you consult the wrong dictionary, it refers to Akṣobhya! (it doesn’t though)
There is also a certain amount of Maháyána influence in some ágamas, but these are generally easy to spot because they generally directly reference specifically Maháyána doctrines and concepts.
The translation of these texts is also late, although their source documents were not.
2 Likes
Sure. Look, you may be right, and I am not at all familiar enough with his teachings to argue differently. But this example doesn’t really prove anything. He’s a die-hard Theravadin, so of course he is criticizing Mahayana: it’s what they do. But it doesn’t mean that his own views are not eternalist. Hindus argue with Hindus, Christians argue with Christians.
Thanissaro is an intelligent and sophisticated man, and if it is the case that his views have eternalist leanings, it is to be expected that these would be expressed in subtle ways that do not obviously contradict the Suttas.
I have met several students of his teachings who have no trouble sliding from what he says into the Upanishads. Maybe they have misconstrued him. All I am saying is that, when such a connection is made not by critics, but by intelligent and careful students, it’s not absurd to think that these tendencies are in fact present in his teachings.
2 Likes
Sammuti13:
Just a quick note to thank you for your post, and let you know you’re not alone.
I’m certainly nobody special, but I have been around the American Buddhist scene in one way or another going on 50 years, and my experience has been somewhat similar to yours. I remember as a part-time lay practitioner at the Zen Center 40 years ago, being somewhat nonplussed to see that the behavior of the “priests” (as they were/are called; they wear the Buddha’s robe and – mostly – shave their heads) there was in some respects – e.g. sexuality, intoxicants – less restrained than my own.
Sometime in the late '90s I came across Access to Insight, and Thanissaro’s contributions there, which impressed me with their clarity and directness. I have never met nor had any contact with him, but in the last few years I’ve gradually come to listening to two or three of his recorded talks (at Dhammatalks.org) every day, and find nearly all of them give me valuable fresh new insights – particularly in helping me to understand just why I haven’t been entirely comfortable with the other versions of “Buddhism” I’ve come across, that seem to be propagating like weeds all around the landscape.
I particularly like his essay on “Saṁsāra”, which I came across about a decade ago, and which I still feel succinctly describes my own view of this existence and what I hope to do about it – free of brand names or fancy wrappings.
I’m not a bhikkhu nor do I expect to be in this life – I understand my limitations – but I very much respect and value Thanissaro for his strict commitment to the path the Buddha prescribed – even and especially including where it requires that he swim against the stream of popular consensus in these insane times.
Same here. Only I would note that I know sincere Christians who are not at all happy with what’s being done to that religion either; they call it “Churchianity” – and see it as precisely the opposite of the challenge to our precious egos that real Christianity should be. (Ram Dass: “Spiritual practice is one insult after another.”) I haven’t been able to come up with a comparable term for what’s being done to Buddhism in the West, but Thanissaro’s “Designer Buddhism” serves pretty well.
More I could say about the subject under discussion, but I haven’t the energy to go into it at the moment. I will say, though, that much of what I see in this thread is exactly the reason why I’m convinced that the story told in Cullavagga X is indeed authentic, not apocryphal. And after reading several other threads on this forum, I suspect that if I were to go into the subject in more detail, I might be banned; so it seems hardly worth the effort.
Just one more thing (thanks, Steve Jobs): The truth is always politically incorrect; otherwise it would not have been necessary to invent the concept.
Sabbe sattā bhavantu sukhitattā.
May all beings be happy.
6 Likes
Why is this surprising?
I think we should grant at least the possibility that there could be legitimate concerns voiced by AT, which are not at all rooted in traditionalism, bias or chauvinism.
He may have a different legal reading of the Vinaya, which makes him conclude whatever he concludes.
It would not be fair from our side, if we by default regard every voice that speaks up against revival of the bhikkhunī-saṅgha, as a form of traditionalism, bias or chauvinism.
It is because of not wanting to be falsely portrayed in this light, that even some Vinaya-experts abstain from discussing their viewpoints in public (e.g. at online forums like this).
3 Likes
Pari , you make a fair point. Part of what gets my goat is what appears, at least to me, as personal shots that Ven. T takes at scholars who disagree with him. The tipping point for me was comments he made, about a year or so ago, about Bhikkhu Bodhi’s position on the 1st precept and the kammic consequences of a “just war.” I felt the comments AT made were personal, though he claimed they were attacks on the themes, and not the author. I found this disingenuous, akin to telling someone “the statement you made could only come from an idiot. But, I’m only attacking the statement” Here again, the statements have an ad hom flavor to them. I respect and appreciate Ven. T’s scholarship and longterm efforts to bring translations to ATI, and the many volumes he publishes and distributes freely. But, I get the sense that he has appointed himself an arbiter of the "True Dhamma,"and those that fail to agree with his views, no matter how well researched and cited to the texts, are met with contempt.
I feel that men and women of reason can discuss and debate this issue, with attention on the issues, without worry that anyone opposing Bhikkhuni ordinations on textual bases will be seen as a misogynist. I feel that what we’re doing here on D&D is giving every contributor a fair and equal platform to discuss this issue.
In one of Ven. T’s essays, he discusses the development of western case law, and statutory authority. I won’t pick nits with his characterizations, but one aspect of the discussion that was missing from his lecture on case and statutory law was the idea that the law is intended to do equity, and to allow for just results. When statutes conflict, or when cases conflict in differing jurisdictions, usually the best resolution to any dispute is to find the most fair and equitable outcome. It is this aspect of Ven. T’s discussion I found lacking, as well, aside from what I felt were his less than convincing discussions of the evidence from the Suttas and Vinayas.
6 Likes
Bhante,
Just to clarify an ambiguity … when you write of “minor rules outside the pātimokkha” do you mean to refer to those rules outside the Pātimokkha whose transgression would be a minor offence? Or do you mean that all rules outside of the Pātimokkha are to be viewed as minor, regardless of what class of offence their transgression would be?
1 Like
I fully agree that AT’s personal remarks about other (eminent) scholars are entirely unnecessary and counterproductive to a civil conversation and level-headed investigation into complex topics, such as the revival of the bhikkhuni-sangha.
While this can be truly off-putting to the reader, we still should make an effort to understand the substance of what he is pointing to and then see whether his (Vinaya-based) arguments are well-founded or not. If not, then we can dismiss them, no problem, but our dismissal should not be influenced by our distaste for the author’s (somewhat confrontational) style of presentation.
3 Likes
Considering that we find 68 thullaccaya offences outside the pātimokkha, it follows that importance/severity of the offence was not the only consideration for which rules got included in the pātimokkha, and which did not.
We can only speculate, but it seems to me that considerations of what comes up regularly in daily life (see the various sekhiya rules related to food, how to wear robes and teaching activities), have Donald trumped over considerations of severity of the offence.
In this sense maybe we can say that these dukkaṭa offences that are mentioned in the Sekhiya rules are more important to hear regularly (every fortnight), rather than the more heavy offences that usually don’t come up for monastics on a daily basis (e.g. thullaccaya for cutting off one’s penis).
Thus, a rule’s inclusion in the Pātimokkha is not necessarily a sign of increased importance of the rule itself, but of increased importance of hearing the rule on a regular basis.
Well, let’s leave aside the thullaccayas, at least for now. But the whole question of which rules are from the earliest period is certainly an interesting one.
In the Anguttara we find only four classes of offences: pārājika, saṅghādisesa, pācittiya, and pāṭidesanīya (AN 4.244). The Parivāra then gives us a choice between 5 or 7 classes of offences. My guess from this and other evidence is that there must have been an evolution in the number of classes of offences after the Buddha passed away. Some of the rules probably existed as injunctions from the earliest period, but gradually became solidified as rules with corresponding offences.
4 Likes
Generally, I agree that the Pali EBTs are quite a reliable source. But specifically on the issue of women / bhikkhunis, it seems to me that they often have a more critical attitude than the parallels, such as for example in the Nandakovadasutta MN 146, the Migajalasutta AN 6.44, the Bhikkhunūupassayasutta SN 16.10, Mahapajapati’s ordination story AN 8.51, etc.
So I don’t see why they should have preserved the most accurate version of the Bhikkhuni Patimokkha.
3 Likes