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

[Jayarava]

I flipped off a reply to this but on reflection there is more I would say. 

--- On Wed, 19/8/09, Richard Hayes <rhayes at unm.edu> wrote:

> I think the FWBO is just muddying the waters with their
> insistence that dharmacharis are ordained. 

I think the waters were already pretty muddy. I can see that conservatives find it irritating, but they said the same kinds of things about Saichō in 822 CE. Some of these 1000 year old arguments can seem a bit stale.

> We're not ordained. We're dharmacharis. 

With respect - you are the only member of the Western Buddhist Order I know who makes this distinction. Certainly the founder of our order has at all times referred to the ritual in English as an ordination. Even in the old days when the ordination was an upasaka/upasika ordination! 

I am ordained. If you aren't then I suggest that you talk to your preceptors who will be interested to know this.

> 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. 

If the verb fits, and in this case it certainly does fit, then why not use it? There is no substantive difference in the form of the ritual. It's just the conferring of precepts and taking of vows. The taking of titles afterwards is irrelevant - all titles are irrelevant, even dharmacarin. The use of adjectives to describe subsequent lifestyle also seems irrelevant. You want me to believe that changing the name of the rose makes it smell sweeter. BTW I notice that Buddhists only use my civil name when they mean to be uncivil.

Using the verb 'initiation' doesn't solve the problem as you didn't get a tantric initiation in your private ordination, and tantrikas have colonised that word even more effectively than bhikṣus have colonised ordination. Though water was sprinkled over you, we can't call that an abhiṣeka can we? Who would associate 'initiation' with the Hindi 'dikṣa'. I wouldn't.

> Bhikkhus take ordination. Dharmacharins are initiated. It's  
> time to stop being muddy and start being clear. 

I think that this discussion is far too binary which in no way improves the clarity of it. My friend Al describes himself as "an ordained Zen priest" [sic] (in a US based Korean Son lineage). He is following a norm that is relevant to this discussion - though from the discussion you wouldn't think that Zen or Japan even existed! The weight of my argument rests on three foundations (numbered for clarity):

1. the dictionary definition of the word 'ordination', 
2. well established Japanese norms,
3. the arbitrary privilege of bhikṣus.

I see point 3 as being inconsistent with Western Enlightenment values generally - in the English speaking world the trend is against institutionalised privilege. A moot point perhaps, whereas points 1 and 2 seem fairly clear and I'm puzzled that they are not considered, let alone accepted. My points are defined out of bounds and never addressed. 

It's the first discussion over the meaning of a word that I've ever participated in where the dictionary was ruled out as a source of useful information, and conventional usage was defined in such a way as to exclude any convention which supported the argument. Clarity seems unlikely under these circumstances which is why I gave up debating it with Alex.

You, Dayāmati, chanted "... I accept this ordination" four times at the end your public ordination ceremony - unless they did the whole thing in Hindi? So you ritually accepted your *ordination* at the time you were ordained into the order. I'm clear that I did. 

I'd go further and say that 'initiation' does not encompass the ritual you undertook but describes only an aspect of it. The only word I know of in English which does the job is ordination. 

> (Are you listening Jayarava?)

Is anybody listening Dayāmati?

Jayarava

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