Vows and Vinaya in the Tibetan Tradition

Discussion
,
23

Hi Senryu,

This is, unfortunately, also common in Thai monasteries. As is using money. Doe that mean that all of Theravada has abandoned the vinaya?

I don’t have enough familiarity to comment on this, but I would be careful reaching conclusions on the depth of serious Tibetan monastics, just as I would be careful reaching conclusions about Theravada by observing a few easily accessible Thai monasteries.

It seems to me that there is a range of “seriousness” of practitioners in all current Buddhist traditions. I’ve not had much contact with Tibetan monastics but I do know serious Theravada and also East Asian monastics.

2 Likes
24

No. But in the several years I lived in Tibetan communities, including numerous monasteries, I never met a single Tibetan who followed the vinaya. Or even heard of one doing so or intending to do so. I simply never encountered even any idea of the rules of the vinaya as being rules one should follow as a monk - only the opposite (unless you count abstract textual doctrine - I’m talking about actual living people). And, I don’t mean to sound rude or critical, just reporting my experience.

Well, I spend years researching this specific topic, and interviewed numerous highly qualified Tibetan lamas on precisely this issue, including highly qualified and very well regarded meditation teachers from all 4 branches of Tibetan Buddhism, as well as researching through texts. And I did so as an insider to the tradition. So I think that counts as being “careful reaching conclusions”.

2 Likes
25

Thanks for the clarification, Senryu. That does indeed sound careful. As I indicated, I don’t know any Tibetan monastics well, so it would be rash for me to come to conclusions.

As I said, it would be possible to spend time in Theravada monasteries and conclude that watching TV and spending a lot of time with mobile phones was normal behaviour. But I take your point that well-regarded teachers would generally be more restrained.

3 Likes
26

You’re welcome! :slight_smile:

Actually, I see Thailand and Burma - or more specifically, maybe even the Dhammayuttika Nikaya, and the monks of the Mon tribe before them from whom they gained their discipline, (and maybe some groups in Burma?) as exceptions in the Buddhist world. I don’t think I’ve heard of any other recent form of Buddhism making an attempt to actually follow the vinaya. Have you?

1 Like
27

That’s a good point, though my impression is that it is more finely grained than particular countries or Nikayas (the Ajhan Chah group is Maha Nikaya, for example). And I think there is a spectrum, rather than a black and white follow/not follow the Vinaya division. Furthermore, some of the monastics I know spent time doing quite strict, intensive practice, but are now in a more “social” role, where their focus is providing support for expatriate Thai people. Since I am not a monastic myself, I would not want to be judgemental about particular choices. And, actually, the fact that they took on those roles was the reason I found the Dhamma.

4 Likes
28

Hello Bhante, this was an interesting question. A cursory search has led me to either two possibilities so far:

The three ethical trainings are often called the three sets of vows (Skt. trisaṃvara; Tib. སྡོམ་གསུམ་, dom sum; Wyl. sdom gsum). So it could be saṃvara.

I’ve also seen the word sila to refer to specific vows, which is common usage with early Buddhism (panchasila).

1 Like
29

I thought his group was Dhammayuttika Nikāya… ah… I just looked him up. So it seems he was Mahā Nikāya, but his two teachers which I always hear him identified with, Ajahn Sao and Ajahn Mun, were Dhammayuttika.

Also, regarding his tradition which seems to be know as the Thai Forest tradition, on the Dhammayuttika Wikipedia page, it says:
“While the Dhammayuttika Nikaya originally started as a Buddhist reform movement in Thailand, later leading to the development of the Thai forest tradition, the order has played a significant political role in Thailand as well.”

So perhaps I was on track in associating the strict vinaya discipline of the Thai Forest Tradition, with the Dhamayuttika. Also, while Ajahn Chah’s group identify as Thai Forest Tradition, that was founded by Sao and Mun. I don’t know which they now ordain in, but, anyway this seems to still represent the vinaya approach coming from the Dhammayuttika.

Yeah I guess so. Though I think the spectrum would have looked very different before the Dhammayutika movement! Before then, it seems most Theravada monasteries didn’t even have a Tipitaka! Let alone monks following the vinaya with any sense of strictness. Perhaps it was more black and white in those days, with the vinaya followers such as the Mon, being the extreme exception. Also in Japan for example, the whole country, except a tiny obscure sect, entirely abandoned the vinaya. They have no bhikkhus at all! (Aside from that obscure sect, and maybe a few converts to Theravada etc. - since many many centuries ago).

1 Like
30

What’s the name of that sect?

31

I’ve seen it written ‘Ritsu’ or ‘Risshu’ sect. I can’t remember if the ‘u’ is ‘ū’ or not - maybe not. Also, in Japan an wholistic approach is rare. Unlike elsewhere, schools seem to have focused in on a small number of texts, or often even just one! And I heard the school that has the vinaya, does little else? I don’t even know their contemporary situation, but I think back in the day, they were studying that. I think also ordination was controlled heirarchically, so I think a lot of schools may have just abandoned the vinaya so they didn’t have to go through the big organisations, freeing themselves from that political power (maybe based in Nara?). Not sure if that was definitely vinaya ordination, or the newer bodhisattva ordination thing. But anyway, somehow they left the vinaya except this small school, and even for them, I’m not sure if it was a case of actually following the vinaya, or, simply studying it.

1 Like
32

There’s a video here of Ritsu monks performing the Uposatha ceremony at their last surviving temple, Tōshōdai-ji in Nara.

If I’m construing it correctly, the first thirteen minutes are taken up with confessional proceedings (and perhaps devotional ones) and then the Pratimoksa recital proper starts at 13:50. As it’s all over in just six minutes I suppose it must be a recital in brief - perhaps just the pārājikas and sanghāvaseșas. Recitals in brief are also very common in Thai village temples, even though the Pali Vinaya only permits them in certain special circumstances.

8 Likes
33

Ah, this would explain why that sect isn’t well known, and only has one temple of its own:

However, during the Meiji period, the Ritsu sect was incorporated within the Shingon sect by decree of the Japanese government. Today only Tōshōdai-ji, which resisted the government measures, retains its identity as a Ritsu temple.

34

Thanks! Any idea if any of them practice the vinaya?

35

There are some academic articles on it… if forget where I read about it. But just to say - in the Meiji period, the government decided to try to totally wipe out Buddhism in Japan. They created a new kind of Shintoism, State Shintoism maybe it’s called, with the emperor as god. Ironically, emperors had always had Buddhist funerals so far as I know! But the Meiji period was a big time of change. They made everyone register with a Shinto temple (similar to when in the… 1600’s? they made everyone register with a Buddhist temple when they made Christianity illegal), and they had local gods to believe in. And the gods were put in a spiritual hierarchy, with the emperor being the top god they were all under. And of course, there was a branch of government with was the ‘voice’ of the emperor. So, it was a very convenient way for the government to control the people.

This also became quite racist. Japan was the land of god, and the Japanese, the people of god. This put non-Japanese as categorically superior, which seems to have helped in the committing of huge massacres of Chinese in the imperial wars that followed. Dehumanising the enemy is ‘great’ for imperialism.

Getting rid of Buddhism also meant getting rid of Chinese influence. They got Buddhism from China (largely via Korea), so they termed Buddhism as a ‘foreign impurity’ or stain, sullying the Japanese nation and culture. And the Japanese being categorically superior to all outsiders, meant (or justified) getting rid of such toxic elements.

Ironically, their Shintoism was full of Confucianism! And created by many people who were scholars of Confucianism. Hence the rigid role of classes and duty and so on. So there really is no logic to their position.

So, they tried for a while in this eradication campaign, and did even entirely close down a number of entire schools of Buddhism - I did not know that happened to the Risshu school, though I know it happened to the Fuke school, which had shakuhachi music as their central activity (which I teach). Very troubled history!

Some of their excuses for doing this did have some validity to them, however. They had complaints about the hypocrisy of the Buddhist institutions, and their corrupt character and activity. And these cannot be dismissed. indeed even today, Buddhism in Japan seems to be primarily about funeral business. They have a monopoly on funerals, and the costs are very high. The business is inherited by the son usually, and these are all priests, not monks, although unfortunately they are usually called ‘monk’ in English, which naturally makes people assume they belong to the monastic order which the Buddha created. They might be surprised to know these are business men who when off work dress in ordinary lay clothes, and have a family!

So in some way perhaps it’s natural, when an organisation takes advantage of society too much, and embodies too much hypocrisy, that the society will eventually fight back. That’s not to say that I support the government efforts. But the whole situation was rather messy. I think for Buddhism to survive well in a society, then the institution should be dedicated to non-harm, and benefitting society, at the very least by focusing on mind training and right action.

2 Likes
36

There is also another small sect, the Shingon-risshū, which combines Shingon Buddhism with the Vinaya practices of the Risshū sect.

Also, according to “A Cultural History of Japanese Buddhism”, during the Edo period, there was a widespread movement to return to the proper use of Buddhist precepts by various Buddhist schools in Japan. This was the “precepts restoration movement” (戒律復興運動) led by Eison (1201–1290) and his pupil Ninsho. It was mostly associated with members of the Shingon sect. I suspect its because their founder, Kūkai, had promoted the importance of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya against the bodhisattva precept ordination system of Saicho (they were long time rivals and argued about other things too). Another figure is Jokei (1155-1213), of the minority Yogacara (Hosso) sect, who also worked to restore the Vinaya in that school.

The leading scholar in the study of this precept restoration movement is David Quinter.

There were also Vinaya revivals in Shingon during the Tokugawa period, with various debates being sparked due to this. See this paper: Miscellaneous Musings on Mūlasarvāstivāda Monks The Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya Revival in Tokugawa Japan. This paper is actually fascinating, apparently there was a Mulasarvastivada “school” in Japan, focusing on the Vinaya.

I am not sure if the upholding of the Vinaya survived in other schools, but if it exists among the Risshu and Shingon, then it might exist as a minority practice among other sects too (maybe Hosso since they are quite conservative?). But I don’t know and its hard to find sources on this.

1 Like
37

Yes I read that over time, there were a few small movements to take on the vinaya, and connections to the Risshu sect, though I don’t think any of them had much of an impact or lasted long, from what I understand. I wonder, it might have even been those article/s I had come across… or some other source. My conclusion from the reading I did on it was that the number of bhikkhus in Japan is and has been for a long time, statistically insignificant. Unfortunately I do not remember if there was or not any indication that those who did use the vinaya, actually followed it or not. That would be interesting to know.

38

Years ago, when I was staying in a Seon monastery in South Korea, a Japanese monk turned up for a while. He claimed to be a fully ordained bhikkhu. This really surprised me, but no one else seemed very interested when I asked about it. The monk only spoke Japanese and Korean, so I couldn’t speak to him about it myself.

39

No idea at all, I’m afraid.

1 Like
40

Not knowing the details, I assume it’s possible that he got ordained in Korea, or some other country.

41

Wow. Amazing. Quite a discovery!

42

Having watched that YouTube, I consider that is nothing to do with Bhikkhu Vinaya. I have noticed that this term being presented: 菩薩戒 (“Bodhisattva-śīla”).