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

[Alex Wilding]

In response to my:
> > 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.

"Jayarava" then wrote:
> "Usual"? I have almost nothing to do with the "usual" Buddhist context.
How is it
> relevant?
Because we are talking about the use of language. Language is a shared,
social process. If you want to set up a small, defined sphere of discourse
where words are used in senses that may be clearly understood but that are
not the usual senses, then fair enough, but that sphere should be clearly
identified. Here on Buddha-L we are, I assume, communicating in a more
general Buddhist framework.

Further down "Jayarava" asked:
> How much influence would you say that Japanese Buddhism has had on Western
> Buddhism generally speaking?
I have no idea even of the number of adherents, let alone how we'd go about
measuring their influence. I met one once in Sutton Coldfield - that was
1975 or thereabouts. And I have a friend here who, in spite of his Nyingma
background, sits with a Zen group on Fridays. So yes, they are around.
General "Western Buddhism" is also not a term that conveys anything of
clarity to me.

Another of "Jayarava's" comments was:
> 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.
I like it when people get patronizing - it often suggests that the speaker
is on uncertain ground. But at least you didn't call me "dude"! Then I would
have got annoyed and fallen into the trap!

OK, perhaps we can find common ground. The boundary between connotation and
denotation is of course fluid - it will, dare I say it, depend on the
context. So when you say:
> 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.
... you are calling the distinction a connotation - I wanted to call it a
(context-dependent) denotation. Not a huge difference there, really. Now
that we understand, I expect we can live with that difference rather easily.
The thing is, though, that with your usage I am also ordained, as are quite
a number of my friends, not to mention thousands of other followers (some on
this list, no doubt). So if *you* want to call me an ordained ngagpa you can
do so, but I won't thank you for it very much at all, and I certainly don't
intend to go walking around calling myself ordained, fun as I'll admit that
it is when people bow to me! (It was a case of mistaken identity actually,
but I still liked it.)

The other problem is that, whatever we call them, and whether we call it a
matter of connotation or denotation, it is still of key importance,
especially in formal settings, to distinguish the people who do hold the
full set of monastic vows from the rest of us. They *will* for instance, be
seated at the front - I and others like me will not. We belong with the
rabble (I'm happy to say)! I had thought that in a Buddhist context, the
term "ordained" was good enough for this purpose; you have convinced me that
it is not. I now accept that the term has become quite loose. Fair enough -
none of us can dictate the way language is used.

Can we agree on the following? We call the holders of the 200+ nuns' and
monks' vows "fully ordained"; we simply agree to differ on whether people
like me and you are ordained - you like to say you are, I don't like to say
I am. Null Problemo, as the Germans say.
                                    
All the best
Alex Wilding
Blog: http://chagchen.org/