Return to Answer

• Japan might be exceptional or extreme in the non-standardness of its Vinaya -- where senior monks are allowed to marry. That might be because there was at least one episode in Japanese history where Buddhism was forcibly altered by the state.

• The Tibetan Vinaya is not unlike the Theravada -- it might be a superset? -- it too includes rules about "seeds of a plant" for example.

• I don't know about (non-Japanese) Zen, generally. I get the impression that the discipline in Plum Village (is that traditional Vietnamese I don't know) seems joyous for and welcoming of nuns, but who knows -- other nuns with any online presence might be albeit experiencing some difficulties too, maybe it's something to "see for yourself".

It might help to understand that Sangha as at least two distinct meanings:

1. The groups of all presently-ordained people, monks and nuns
2. The "noble" sangha is the group of all present and past enlightened and semi-enlightened people -- including for example "Sotāpanna".

Perhaps it's our duty, as people in general and as laypeople in particular, to be careful about what teaching and teachers we accept.

• Japan might be exceptional or extreme in the non-standardness of its Vinaya -- where senior monks are allowed to marry. That might be because there was at least one episode in Japanese history where Buddhism was forcibly altered by the state.

• The Tibetan Vinaya is not unlike the Theravada -- it might be a superset? -- it too includes rules about "seeds of a plant" for example.

• I don't know about (non-Japanese) Zen, generally. I get the impression that the discipline in Plum Village (is that traditional Vietnamese I don't know) seems joyous for and welcoming of nuns, but who knows -- other nuns with any online presence that I've noticed might be joyful albeit experiencing some difficulties too, maybe it's something to "see for yourself".

It might help to understand that Sangha has at least two distinct meanings:

1. The groups of all presently-ordained people, monks and nuns
2. The "noble" sangha is the group of all present and past enlightened and semi-enlightened people -- including for example "Sotāpanna", monastic and/or lay

Perhaps it's our duty, as people in general and even as laypeople, to be careful about what teaching and teachers we accept.

Japan might be exceptional -- where senior monks are allowed to marry. That might be because there was at least one episode in Japanese history where Buddhism was altered.

In practice if you read something like The Broken Buddha you can see there are some monks and monasteries who flout the rules, perhaps openly or perhaps hypocritically (monks don't necessarily welcome that book having been published as some might interpret it as bringing the whole Sangha into disrepute and/or harming the faith of laypeople).

Sometimes there are controversies like bhikkhuni ordination for example.

Comparatively:

• Japan might be exceptional or extreme in the non-standardness of its Vinaya -- where senior monks are allowed to marry. That might be because there was at least one episode in Japanese history where Buddhism was forcibly altered by the state.

• The Tibetan Vinaya is not unlike the Theravada -- it might be a superset? -- it too includes rules about "seeds of a plant" for example.

• I don't know about (non-Japanese) Zen, generally. I get the impression that the discipline in Plum Village (is that traditional Vietnamese I don't know) seems joyous for and welcoming of nuns, but who knows -- other nuns with any online presence might be albeit experiencing some difficulties too, maybe it's something to "see for yourself".

Now in practice and not just in theory:

• If you read something like The Broken Buddha you can see there are some monks and monasteries who flout the rules, perhaps openly or perhaps hypocritically (monks don't necessarily welcome that book having been published as some might interpret it as bringing the whole Sangha into disrepute and/or harming the faith of laypeople).

• Sometimes there are controversies like bhikkhuni ordination for example.

Is it permissible for a Buddhist lay follower, one who has taken refuge and has chosen to follow the Eightfold Path without picking and choosing, to discuss certain aspects of the vinaya in a skeptical light, as I have just done?

Well I think you have asked politely enough for this site, anyway. :-)

I'm mindful of this line from the Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha (DN 16)

"If it is desired, Ananda, the Sangha may, when I am gone, abolish the lesser and minor rules.

The footnote there says,

Since Ananda, at this point, did not ask what the minor rules were, the Sangha decided not to abolish any of the rules of the Vinaya.

Apparently they didn't agree that some were "minor" and/or which were minor and, out of respect, kept them all as-is.

Within a school I think that the Vinaya famously doesn't change -- it's part of what defines "a tradition", for example "Theravada". So much so that there's even something, I forget what, which existing monks may do when they go to a new monastery, in case the rules at their previous monastery hadn't been followed correctly -- and so they take on the rules afresh, just to be sure -- conversely some might, even rightly, not trust the compliance-with-the-rules of other places/groups.

Japan might be exceptional -- where senior monks are allowed to marry. That might be because there was at least one episode in Japanese history where Buddhism was altered.

In practice if you read something like The Broken Buddha you can see there are some monks and monasteries who flout the rules, perhaps openly or perhaps hypocritically (monks don't necessarily welcome that book having been published as some might interpret it as bringing the whole Sangha into disrepute and/or harming the faith of laypeople).

Sometimes there are controversies like bhikkhuni ordination for example.

I have not taken refuge in the Three Jewels and will not unless I can do so in total sincerity and a pure conscience.

It might help to understand that Sangha as at least two distinct meanings:

1. The groups of all presently-ordained people, monks and nuns
2. The "noble" sangha is the group of all present and past enlightened and semi-enlightened people -- including for example "Sotāpanna".

Conversely one of the monastic rules forbids monks from claiming attainment in front of laypeople -- in case laypeople will prefer (to gives alms to) the more enlightened, leaving others with no support.

Perhaps it's our duty, as people in general and as laypeople in particular, to be careful about what teaching and teachers we accept.

But I suspect that we shouldn't be too critical of the Sangha in general nor of (venerable) members of the sangha in particular, even if one were to believe that one might have seen some fault.

"Pure conscience" might mean that it's not an unvirtuous or unskilful action on your part, i.e. not something you regret or have remorse for.

I couldn't help but think that some of the rules were shockingly superstitious even by the standards of most of the world religions of the time. For example, rules that emphasize non-violence to such an extent that they forbid monks and nuns from slicing or peeling their own fruits and vegetables.

Just historically perhaps that is a middle (i.e. less extreme) way, compared to the doctrine of the Jains, which had started one generation before.

Is it permissible for a Buddhist lay follower, one who has taken refuge and has chosen to follow the Eightfold Path without picking and choosing, to discuss certain aspects of the vinaya in a skeptical light, as I have just done?

Well I think you have asked politely enough for this site, anyway. :-)

I'm mindful of this line from the Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha (DN 16)

"If it is desired, Ananda, the Sangha may, when I am gone, abolish the lesser and minor rules.

The footnote there says,

Since Ananda, at this point, did not ask what the minor rules were, the Sangha decided not to abolish any of the rules of the Vinaya.

Apparently they didn't agree that some were "minor" and/or which were minor and, out of respect, kept them all as-is.

Within a school I think that the Vinaya famously doesn't change -- it's part of what defines "a tradition", for example "Theravada". So much so that there's even something, I forget what, which existing monks may do when they go to a new monastery, in case the rules at their previous monastery hadn't been followed correctly -- and so they take on the rules afresh, just to be sure -- conversely some might, even rightly, not trust the compliance-with-the-rules of other places/groups.

Japan might be exceptional -- where senior monks are allowed to marry. That might be because there was at least one episode in Japanese history where Buddhism was altered.

In practice if you read something like The Broken Buddha you can see there are some monks and monasteries who flout the rules, perhaps openly or perhaps hypocritically (monks don't necessarily welcome that book having been published as some might interpret it as bringing the whole Sangha into disrepute and/or harming the faith of laypeople).

Sometimes there are controversies like bhikkhuni ordination for example.

I have not taken refuge in the Three Jewels and will not unless I can do so in total sincerity and a pure conscience.

It might help to understand that Sangha as at least two distinct meanings:

1. The groups of all presently-ordained people, monks and nuns
2. The "noble" sangha is the group of all present and past enlightened and semi-enlightened people -- including for example "Sotāpanna".

Conversely one of the monastic rules forbids monks from claiming attainment in front of laypeople -- in case laypeople will prefer (to gives alms to) the more enlightened, leaving others with no support.

Perhaps it's our duty, as people in general and as laypeople in particular, to be careful about what teaching and teachers we accept.

But I suspect that we shouldn't be too critical of the Sangha in general nor of (venerable) members of the sangha in particular, even if one were to believe that one might have seen some fault.

"Pure conscience" might mean that it's not an unvirtuous or unskilful action on your part, i.e. not something you regret or have remorse for.