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

[Richard Hayes]

On Aug 19, 2009, at 2:50 AM, Mike Austin wrote:

> Alex Wilding <alex at chagchen.org> writes
>
>> Can we agree on the following? We call the holders of the 200+  
>> nuns' and
>> monks' vows "fully ordained"
>
> That seems sensible. I suspect the alternative - i.e. calling  
> holders of
> the 200 vows 'ordained'  and consequently calling all the others  
> 'partly
> ordained' or 'slightly ordained' - might ruffle a few feathers ;-)

In Myanmar and other countries there are lay people who take on extra  
vows and dedicate themselves to serious meditation practice and commit  
themselves to right livelihood. They dress in a recognizable way and,  
so I was told, form guilds to help one another practice and lead a  
dharmic life. It seems to me this model is being followed all over the  
West. Just about every Buddhist organization I have encountered  
follows a model rather like that. I see no reason at all to call such  
people ordained, partly ordained, slightly ordained, pseudo-ordained  
or quasi-ordained. Why not just call them Buddhist laymen and -women?  
There is a long history of lay bodhisattvas.No need to change that. A  
bodhisattva can be a damn good Buddhist without being ordained.  
Indeed, that is the message of the Vimalakīrtisūtra.

I think the FWBO is just muddying the waters with their insistence  
that dharmacharis are ordained. We're not ordained. We're  
dharmacharis. If one is going to use a term other than bhikkhu for the  
result of an action, why not use a different verb for the action  
itself. Bhikkhus take ordination. Dharmacharins are initiated. It's  
time to stop being muddy and start being clear. (Are you listening  
Jayarava?)

--
Dh. Dayamati (a Richard Hayes by any other name....)
http://web.me.com/dayamati/