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

[Kdorje at aol.com]

In a message dated 8/20/2009 5:43:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
mike at lamrim.org.uk writes:

Jayarava  <jayarava at yahoo.com> writes
>--- On Wed, 19/8/09, Mike Austin  <mike at lamrim.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> 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  ;-)
>
>It does raise the question of why vinaya-ordainees refer to  themselves 
>as fully ordained though doesn't it? Fully as opposed to  what?

I don't know how vinaya-ordainees refer to themselves. However,  were the 
question to be why we should now refer to them as 'fully  ordained' (and 
no longer just 'ordained'), well that's all your fault  ;-)

-- 
Metta
Mike Austin



In Buddhist Hybrid English "fully ordained" almost always refers to  
bikkshu/gelong, and is usually used to distinguish them from  shramanera/getsul, 
and sometimes from rabjung or genyen/upasaka, who also take  vows.
 
Far be it from me to speak critically of those with unresolved authority  
issues, but this debate seems to be of much more concern to those who do not  
hold them than to those who do. Once the head of our lineage was in the US, 
 giving a talk on the five lay vows of the upasaka/genyen to a group who 
was  about to take them, and using the word "ordination." Every time he did, a 
 visitor from another Buddhist group would correct him, shouting out from 
the  back of the room, "vows!"  

The usual teaching regarding this is that it's beneficial to rejoice in the 
 spiritual attainments of others, no matter how meager or how great. But 
then you  knew that.
 
Best  wishes,

Konchog Dorje