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

[Jayarava]

--- On Wed, 19/8/09, Alex Wilding <alex at chagchen.org> wrote:

> Because we are talking about the use of language. Language
> is a shared, social process. 

Agreed. I share my language with a few hundred million others. 

> 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. 

I am using the word in the way that English speaking people use it generally. You ignore this time and again. Buddha-L, according to Richard, has only a handful of active posters! It is a tiny sphere where we regularly fail to agree on *anything* let alone what Buddhist terminology means! 

> Here on Buddha-L we are, I assume, communicating in a more
> general Buddhist framework.

An academic Buddhist framework even. In which case you should be using the appropriate terminology: upasamada or whatever the Tibetan equivalent is. If citing a Tibetan term I might ask that you give a Sanskrit equivalent since I know no Tibetan at all. Surely if we have a lingua franca for terminology it is Sanskrit? 

> > 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. 

Is this genuine or feigned ignorance I wonder? It is clear that Zen has had a huge influence on Western Buddhism and Western Buddhists. I could suggest that you read Jan Nattier's introductory comments to "A Few Good Men" if you doubt my word (and doubting me seems to be an article of faith with you). 

Perhaps it would help if you could define the sphere you wish to take in? If we are excluding the entirety of Japanese Buddhism then what are we including?

> General "Western Buddhism" is also not a term that conveys
> anything of clarity to me.

Doesn't surprise me. 

> 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!

What's this? Irony? Interesting that you see me as laying a trap for you. The thinking behind this becomes clearer later on.

> 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. 

No I don't think so, or at least not in this case. There is nothing substantially different about vinaya ordination which places it outside the general definition of 'ordination'. There's no need to consider it a new denotation in any context.

> ... you are calling the distinction a connotation - I wanted to call it a
> (context-dependent) denotation. 

Ordination even in the Buddhist context has many connotations - the fact that you are unwilling to admit it, doesn't make it untrue, but it doesn't reflect well on you.

> Now that we understand, I expect we can live with that difference rather easily.

It's you that can't live happily with the situation, though it is kind of funny watching you tie yourself in knots over it.

> 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.)

Ah. I think we have got something here. Alex likes being bowed to - a guilty pleasure. He equates ordination with status and privilege and with guilty pleasures - I associate it with duty and discipline and difficulty. To Alex the distinction is important because if I say I am ordained then he will feel bound to bow to me. 

Perhaps Alex you are more in need of broadening the definition than I am of narrowing it? You have more to gain in terms of liberation from limiting views. 

> They *will* for instance, be seated at the front - I and others like me 
> will not.

And again we find the vein. This argument is not about semantics it is an apologetic for privilege. The word 'ordination' signifies that privilege for Alex, and others presumably. 'Fully ordained' emphasises the difference - it is not merely ordained, in case this is ambiguous (which it is in English) but *fully* ordained. Only the 'fully ordained' are entitled to be treated like Asian feudal lords - including the control of resources!!

I was being a bit playful in suggesting that the fundamental issue was privilege, but unknowingly I struck right at the heart of the matter. Alex believes the myths created by the monks themselves that they deserve to be treated as lords - and in particular bowed down to. 

I only bow down to the Buddha, the Dharma and the Ārya-sangha. I don't even bow to my preceptors or teachers - we greet each other with a handshake or a hug as appropriate. I know myself to be lower down the spiritual hierarchy than they and I give it expression in ways consistent with my (antipodean) culture. I have kalyana-mitras not patis and rājas.

We now know that Alex secretly enjoys the bowing but thinks he himself doesn't deserve it. What would Alex's teacher think if Alex did *not* bow to *him*? Would he disapprove and withdraw his affection? Wouldn't that be terrible? That must be a fearful position to be in and hence his resistance to either evidence or logic. 

> Fair enough - none of us can dictate the way language is used.

So what are you doing if not trying to dictate how language is used?

> Can we agree on the following? 

I don't see any point in agreeing to something which I think is nonsense and stated for nonsensical reasons. No, I don't agree. I have nothing to gain by agreeing with you either. I'd prefer to have dissonance than capitulate to views I see as inimical to civilisation. It's made me more clear than ever that we need to abandon traditional mores. 

> Null Problemo, as the Germans say.

Not for me.

Maybe it's time to start splatting monks with custard pies? Vegan saffron custard of course!

Respect!
Jayarava

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com