Heartland

An interesting development on the Bhikkuni ordination from Ajahn Sujato’s blog:

———————————-

Source

We have heard rumors that a press conference held by ‘Wat Pa Pong’ was going to call for increased control over Western monks. Thanks to Sanitsuda Ekachai, here’s a preliminary report.

I’m not sure who took part in the press conference, as it mainly uses the formal titles which are never used in conversation. And i don’t know to what extent this ‘press conference’ represents a collective action by WPP. The whole thing is so unprecedented. There are no pre-existing procedures in WPP circles that would enable such things, so whatever happens it is new. It is highly unlikely that the Western Ajahns were consulted, certainly not all of them or in detail. Like the Dhammalight website, or the emails from the supposed watpahpong@gmail.com address – which this interview says were not from WPP – it is unclear whose agenda is being pushed here. The claim is that the conference represents the views of a council of 12 senior monks at WPP. I believe this is an ad hoc committee set up in the wake of the bhikkhuni ordination.

In the statement from the WAM and elsewhere, the Western Ajahns have been at pains to claim that their system is a slow and consensual one, and that deliberation and discussion must proceed any move. Clearly this is not how things are going on. They need to start acknowledging this reality, or else their brothers in Thailand are going to just keep going further off the wall. If WPP is really as consensual as they claim, then they must accept full responsibility for these attacks and views. If it is not consensual, then they need to stop hiding behind this smokescreen and admit that there simply is no way that bhikkhuni ordination could have been reasonably pursued within WPP circles.

Phra Kru Opaswuthikorn presided at the press conference today to urge the Office of National Buddhism and the Council of Elders to issue rules and regulations to empower the Thai Sangha to punish monks overseas who violate the Sangha’s mandates.

Phra Kru Opas spoke on behalf of the Wat Pah Pong executive board which made this decision last week.

Rough summary of press releases:

The Perth ordination is against the Vinaya-Dharma of Thai Theravada Buddhism as well as violating the Wat Pah Pong’s prohibition against female ordination. Aj Brahm was summoned to admit his mistake which refused to do, resulting in the excommunication. This decision was later approved by Somdet Phra Puttajarn who said Aj Brahm’s preceptorship was therefore automatically revoked.

Apart from ordaining women, Aj Brahm was also accused of temple mismanagement. The Bodhinyana Temple came into being through the faith and donations of Thai Buddhists in Perth. After the first abbot left monkhood, Aj Brahm was appointed as abbot and he later changed the temple bylaws and change the temple committee members for “his own interest” despite disagreement from the Bodhinyana Sangha.

Given that the Bhikkhuni ordination and temple ownership problems have greatly troubled the Thai Buddhists in Australia, a committee should be set up to investigate land ownership and temple mismanagement at Bodhinyana in order to return the land and temple to the Thai Buddhists and to ensure that the temple management is in line with Dhamma Vinaya.

To prevent future problems, rules and regulations should be issued so the Thai Sangha can punish the monks overseas who violate th laws and the clergy’s mandates.

On temple ownership overseas, this poses a problem of control because temples are owned by associations not the Thai Sangha like temples in Thailand. Should the abbots err, they still can stay if the temple committee support them. Or, when the abbots are in the right, they cannot stay if they don’t have support of the committee. The management of temples in Thailand, however, is under Thai Sangha’s administrative structure. When problems occur like in the case of Bodhinyana, it is then difficult to move due to lack of uniform rules which effectively govern temples in Thailand. To prevent similar problems, there should be a state agency to enforce the Thai Sangha law and to cover temples overseas.

I asked whether WPP sent emails to the Thai embasy and Sinporean organisers of Aj Brahm’s talks, the answer is no, WPP did not do that.

Asked if this control effort have been approved by the Western clergy since it would affect the Western monks’ relative autonomy which is useful to their dharma work, the answer that it is the decision of the WPP board consisting of 12 senior monks. That it was approved by LP Liam. But the answer was not clear if the Western Sangha was fully consulted or not.

Phra Kru Sudhamprachote said many Thai Buddhists in Perth are unhappy with Aj Brahm and are trying to find way to get him out the temple. But this is up to the people, WPP cannot do anything to support this action.

I asked if WPP has an alternative to Bhikkhuni. Aj Kevali is in favour of the Siladhara order. But Phra Kru Opas outrightly dismissed it, saying it it would be difficult for the order to be accepted in Thailand. He described Bhikkhuni ordination as against the Dhamma Vinaya. That the Buddha advised monks to stay away from women, because women and monks are like fire and fuel.

I asked what is the real issue concerning Aj Brahm, Bhikkhuni ordination or Aj Brahm’s secrecy and failure to consult the WPP clergy. Phra Kru Opas said the main issue is Bhikkhuni ordination. That there is no way that Thai Theravada Buddhism to have Bhikkhuni. And as far WPP concerns, Aj Brahm is no longer a Thai Theravada monk, but a Mahayana monk.

My hunch : This might be part of the existing problems of internal politics between Thai and Western monks in the WPP order. Luang Por Chah wanted the Western clergy to oversee the Western monks. Consequently, Thai monks have no say on temples overseas. But the Perth ordination shows Aj Sumedho’s failure to keep the monks under his supervision in line so the Thai monks have the reason to step in to control the Western monks and the temple properties abroad.

There are a number of critical points here.

Phra Kru Opas clearly states that the real issue is bhikkhuni ordination, which he says can never be accepted in Thai Buddhism. One the other hand, we have been told again and again by Western Ajahns that the real issue is not bhikkhuni ordination, but the ‘way it was done’. I give the Western Ajahns the benefit of the doubt here: I don’t think they are lying, I think they are just naive. They need to actively develop a culture of denial if they are to maintain the status quo and convince themselves that it is possible to remain with integrity within the existing structures of Thai State Buddhism. As I have said all along, and as the statement here confirms, there never was any possibility of advancing bhikkhuni ordination within the existing structures.

And, as I have also stated repeatedly, siladharas are no better in the eyes of the conservative Thai Sangha. Ordaining siladharas is just as illegal in Thailand as ordaining bhikkhunis – if the 1928 ruling is still in force – and Phra Kru Opas dismisses any chance that that order might make any headway in Thailand. The only advantage of the siladhara order is that it’s easy to dismiss it and not take it seriously. The plain fact is that if these ultra-conservative monks have their way, there is no chance of any improvement in women’s lot in Thai Buddhism.

The most astonishing accusations in Phra Opas’ statement concern the alleged temple mismanagement at Bodhinyana. These claims are so wrong that they beggar belief. Anyone who knows Ajahn Brahm would know that he is the most scrupulous and dedicated manager imaginable. He goes so far as to personally check every call on the phone bill, and will harass Telstra if there’s the slightest problem. The irony is that it was, in fact Wat Nanachat that was badly mismanaged for many years, because most of the other Ajahns, understandably enough, are not so concerned or knowledgeable about such matters. It ended up with lay committee members ripping off much of the donations. The rorts were only ended by Ajahn Nyanadhammo, who set up a rigorous system of checks on finances, which he had learnt to do from his time at Bodhinyana with Ajahn Brahm.

The notion that there are a set of ‘uniform rules’ that ‘effectively govern’ monasteries in Thailand is utter nonsense. Mainstream Thai Buddhism is rotten to its core. This is a staple part of Forest Tradition ideology. You don’t have to take my word for it, look at the actions of Phra Mongkut, or Ajahn Mun, or Ajahn Chah. They all operated under the quite reasonable knowledge that mainstream Thai Buddhism was bereft of any genuine Dhamma, and that only by reforming or living on the margins of the system could one live with integrity.

Things have not improved since their times. On the contrary, it has got much worse. The past generation has seen unprecedented wealth pour into the coffers of the Thai Sangha. There is precious little oversight and no proper policies on how to deal with this. The situation in the past at Wat Nanachat was not the exception but the norm – and not every monastery has an abbot trained in Australian accounting procedures. Everyone agrees that the existing system is inadequate at best and needs overhauling, yet no-one has been able to do it. So it just lurches along from scandal to scandal.

In the forest monasteries you will constantly hear stories of how corrupt the city/village monks are: the monks who set up a still to brew the leftover sticky rice from alms-round – and then tried to sell the liquor back to the villagers; the monastery that was running a brothel out the back; the use of temple boys to pleasure the monks; the monk who had an affair with a novice, and then when he got jealous, murdered his unfaithful lover; the tudong monk who stayed overnight in a village monastery, only to wake up with a naked monk in his bed; the village who got so sick of their monks’ behaviour they took their Buddha image to Bangkok, dumped it and declared they would no longer be Buddhists; the monastery that was so jealous when a nearby monastery actually started teaching meditation that they accused the meditation teacher of being a communist spy; the monks who salt away all the temple money for years, then disrobe and retire rich; selling drugs from monasteries; or the claim by the Thai Religious Affairs department that 10% of Thai monks were addicted to methamphetamine. And on it goes.

But none of these are the problem: ordaining bhikkhunis is the problem.

A few more specifics need mention.

After the first abbot left monkhood, Aj Brahm was appointed as abbot and he later changed the temple bylaws and change the temple committee members for “his own interest” despite disagreement from the Bodhinyana Sangha.

The interesting thing about these claims is not just the fact that they are so utterly without foundation, but that the monks are so out of touch with what is actually happening that they can actually believe them (I presume) and that they can imagine that they don’t just make themselves look silly. Of course, in the media you can say anything, and since most people know even less about the issues some people will always believe it. But it is such a radically unethical approach it is hard to see how it cannot but rebound on the accusers.

To prevent future problems, rules and regulations should be issued so the Thai Sangha can punish the monks overseas who violate th laws and the clergy’s mandates.

“Rules and regulations, punishment, violations, and mandates”. Everything that this interview is about is exactly the opposite of why we became Buddhists, or were attracted to practicing Buddhism, in the first place. Give Buddhism over to these people, and the end is just around the corner.

Phra Kru Sudhamprachote said many Thai Buddhists in Perth are unhappy with Aj Brahm and are trying to find way to get him out the temple. But this is up to the people, WPP cannot do anything to support this action.

Thai people, as I have said again and again, are like people anywhere – diverse and varied. WPP and the Thai Sangha officials do not have a monopoly of what Thai people want or believe. There are, quite probably, some Thais in Perth who do not like the bhikkhuni ordination. There are certainly many who are fully supportive. But the claim that WPP can do nothing about this is untrue: in fact, a senior monk from WPP has been ringing the Thai people in Perth to urge them to act to have Ajahn Brahm removed. This is, of course, just more evidence of how out of touch they are. The committee and lay community in Perth is fully behind Ajahn Brahm.

If this movement gains any momentum, what we may see is the development of a Thai temple in Perth separate from Bodhinyana. It’ll become like every other Thai temple: a place for Thais to go, speak their language, perform their rituals, and be reminded of home. Then they’ll realize that their children are completely alien in this environment, and go to Bodhinayana asking the monks to help teach their children.

The most interesting thing for now will be to see how the other Western Ajahns react – and even more so, what about the junior monks and nuns, and those considering ordination. How do they feel entering such an environment? If these things had been happening when I was new to all this, I would have run a million miles. After a long slow drift towards conservatism, reactionary politics, and sexist institutionalization, now there’s a rapid and dramatic lurch to the extremes.