[Buddha-l] Orders and Ordinations (was women & , er, religion)

[Jayarava]

-- On Wed, 22/7/09, Alex Wilding <alex at chagchen.org> wrote a bunch of stuff that seemed more and a little heated.

Alex, look in your dictionary my friend. Order, ordain, and ordination - I am in no way "abusing" the English language, just using it as a educated, if somewhat unsophisticated, native speaker from downunder. What I'm *not* doing is allowing Buddhist jargon to determine how I use my native tongue, and why should I? Really. Look the words up before you make wild accusations - it's unseemly.

I accept that anyone who has joined an order has had an ordination and is ordained - it's no big deal. Not all of those rituals you mention involve joining an order, though some of them are marked by taking Buddhist names, and many of them involve a life-long commitment to a religious discipline. The latter is more meaningful than one's haircut or clothing, or ordination for that matter. It's more meaningful to meditate for a minute than it is to shave your head, or wear a dress for a lifetime. Though I believe ordination of whatever kind can be advantageous.

> This would run roughshod over the distinctions that have been made 
> amongst Buddhists for many, many centuries.

Oh yes! Such distinctions are the result of vikalpa and prapañca and are not the paramathasatya. Yes? Some of these distinctions have been abandoned for centuries in China and Japan. Tendai abandoned vinaya ordination 1100+ years ago. Zen followed suit about 800 years ago. Why are Buddhists in the business of making distinctions at all? You have to ask yourself: who benefits? Hint: the guys in dresses who won't let the women get in on the action.

People who take vows are just people who take vows, they don't need a special name - they are not special, they shouldn't receive any preferential treatment or deference as a matter of course. Ordination doesn't make one special either. It should be humbling if anything, as it's bloody daunting at times living up to such high ideals (or failing to most of the time)! I'm not impressed by people who take 227/250 vows when so many of them are entirely without spiritual or cultural significance - and who knows which is which and who is who? I'm impressed by people - whatever their ecclesiastic or religious status - who are consistently kind, who are generous, who deal with difficulties gracefully. I've met rude and unkind monks who were "fully ordained", and I've met really beautiful generous people who aren't even Buddhists let alone lay Buddhists. Why create a status hierarchy if it doesn't reflect Buddhist values, and on what Buddhist value could a
 hierarchy be established: kindest people get the best food and have the tallest seat?

Your blog focuses on Kagyupas. How would you describe the status of, say, Milarepa? Did he received an ordination from Marpa? Was he "fully" ordained? Was Marpa fully-ordained? What about Tilopa? (I think Naropa was a monk, yes?) So do the distinctions make any sense in the case of these very inspiring people? 

Haul out your dictionary and take a look at those words, and if you still disagree then say why. I can be convinced by rational argument.

Best Wishes
Jayarava 
- fully ordained Dharmacārī.