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

[Richard Hayes]

On Aug 20, 2009, at 7:12 AM, Jayarava wrote:

> With respect - you are the only member of the Western Buddhist Order  
> I know who makes this distinction.

I want everyone to witness this admission of Jayarava's, that I am the  
ONLY member of the Western Buddhist Order with a respect for the  
semantics of the Englihs language.

> Certainly the founder of our order has at all times referred to the  
> ritual in English as an ordination.

That Sangharakshota says something doesn't make it so. He still allows  
himself to be called Bhante, even though he has not been a Thervādin  
bhokkhu in good standing for more than forty years. He also used  
Mahāsthavira as a title for quite some time after he was no longer a  
bhikkhu. I don't think we can take him as our exemplar in the proper  
use of Buddhist terminology.

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

This is something I have discussed with several people in the FWBO.  
(I've been dismissed as a pedant.) I've also discussed the matter of  
using (often grammatically incorrect and nonsensical) Sanskrit names  
and insisting that no two people have the same name. I have  
recommended following the tradition in several Asian countries and in  
many American united states of retaining part of a person's secular  
name and simply adding the Buddhist name. So you would be Jayarava  
Attwood, and I would be Dayamati Hayes. No sympathetic ears for this  
proposal either, not even from Sangharakshita Lingwood.

> If the verb fits, and in this case it certainly does fit, then why  
> not use it?

Because it doesn't fit.

> BTW I notice that Buddhists only use my civil name when they mean to  
> be uncivil.

It is a bad practice to assume you know the motives behind the actions  
of others. Desist, and be ashamed thereof!

> Who would associate 'initiation' with the Hindi 'dikṣa'. I wouldn't.

Monier-Williams and Apte did.

> 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.

You may have been leading a sheltered life. A lexicon, while it can be  
useful, is a very blunt instrument with which to refine usages in  
particular contexts. One needs to observe how terms are used. One  
observation I have made, and that others have reported to me that they  
have made, is that dharmacāriṇaḥ in the FWBO/TBMSG do not know  
what they should do at pan-Buddhist conferences when an invitation is  
made for all members of the ordained sangha to stand up (or sit down  
or come up to the stage or walk out in anger when the bodhisattvas  
arrive).

> You, Dayāmati, chanted "... I accept this ordination" four times at  
> the end your public ordination ceremony - unless they did the whole  
> thing in Hindi?

I don't recall this being part of the ceremony at all. Perhaps in  
India they realized it would get everyone confused (as if we weren't  
confused enough already chanting the precepts in Pali, Hinid, Marathi  
and English! Thank heavens no Swedes or Lapps were there, or the  
ceremony might never have ended.)

> 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.

On this we are in perfect agreement. I am deeply offended by that fact  
that in the FWBO dharmacārins are distinguished from mitras and  
friends (why two terms that mean the same thing?) by wearing a piece  
of white cloth around their necks, by having Sanskrit names, by being  
able to attend meetings from which others are excluded, and ABOVE ALL  
by being considered more competent than others to perform pūjā and  
other ceremonies. The Quaker in me quakes at such non-egalitarian  
practices that smack of the arbitrary privilege of dharmacārins.

Thanks for the spirited discussion, but I think this dead horse has  
been flogged sufficiently. Let's bury it and requiam in pace.

Santa Fe Dayamati (following the Sri Lankan custom of naming monks by  
the name of their native village and their conferred religious name)