[Buddha-l] Ordination (again) or the semiotics of privilege.

[Jayarava]

--- On Tue, 18/8/09, Alex Wilding <alex at chagchen.org> wrote:

> I cannot understand you. 

I would accept that with all that it implies, but I suspect it is more of am unwillingness to concede rather than an inability comprehend. 

> In some contexts (the usual Buddhist one, I contend) "ordained" refers 
> to holding the 200+ vows of a monk or nun; you tell us that in the FWBO 
> it does not carry that meaning.

Yes, I and my 1600+ fellow WBO members (except perhaps Dayamati who wasn't ordained but initiated) do say that in the WBO 'ordination' doesn't carry the narrow connotation you wish to give it. 

"Usual"? I have almost nothing to do with the "usual" Buddhist context. How is it relevant?

In Zen as a whole there are no longer vinaya ordinations. Yet they speak not only of ordination, but of priests and even Bishops! (in the US anyway). In the early 9th century Saicho abandoned vinaya ordinations for Tendai monks - substituting a Bodhisattva ordination - which may have been the precedent for Zen I'm not sure. From what I know many Shingon priests are married and have therefore abandoned vinaya ordination as well. Shingon and Tendai claim more adherents than Zen in Japan. Certainly Pure Land Buddhists are not vinaya monks and they are ordained as well. As far as Japanese Buddhism is concerned the vinaya ordination is a thing of the ancient past, and yet there are many robe-wearing-shaven-headed clergy in Japan, and in Japanese sects in the west.

Have I got this wrong? 

How much influence would you say that Japanese Buddhism has had on Western Buddhism generally speaking? 

> Surely that is a difference in denotation, not connotation?

It might be profitable for you you ask: why is the upasampada referred to by the English word 'ordination'? And why is the Bhikshu Sangha called an 'order' in English? And why is a bhikshu considered by English speakers to be 'ordained'? Try looking at your dictionary.

A Buddhist reading of an English word can only be a connotation since it is a highly specific usage of the generic term. It is an additional connotation to the several that already exist in English.

The denomination of the religious order, the discipline one undertakes on joining it, or the nature of the ceremony marking one's acceptance into the order are *not* part of the definition of the words. What is important is that it *is* a religious order, that one *undertakes a discipline*, and that one is *ritually accepted*.

The trouble, I think, is what the word signifies for traditional Buddhists in terms of privilege and authority. An ordination with no privilege and no authority is a threat to the hegemony. I wonder if the reaction of the established orders to the founding of the Franciscans might provide a parallel? By saying that the vinaya is irrelevant to being a Buddhist - as I do - the gauntlet is thrown down to justify the extraordinary treatment of people who follow the vinaya; and the problem of who owns the monasteries and all their resources (and why they own them in the first place) is called into question. Mwah ha ha :-)

Jayarava