Are There "Ordinations" in Buddhism?

There are no ordinations in Buddhism.

First of all, let us address the question of the existence of Buddhist “ordinations.” There aren’t any. To be ordained, according Merriam Webster, “Is to invest officially (as by the laying on of hands) with ministerial or priestly authority.”

Second, we have to understand the relationship and role of the three vows: individual liberation (Tib. so sor thar pa, Skt. pratimokṣa'), bodhisattva (Tib. byang chub sems dpa’), and mantra (sngags pa) vows. The rites for receiving these three vows do not qualify as “ordinations,” since they confer no authority at all.

Turning first to individual liberation vows, the rite by which one receives monastic vows is called “going forth (Tib., rab tu ‘byung ba, Skt. pravrajitaḥ)” or rabjung. This means receiving the vows of either a gélong (Tib. dge slong, Skt. bhikṣu), or a gétsul (Tib., dge tshul, Skt. śramaṇera) vows. Usually, one receives the gétsul vow first, and later, the gélong vow. Then we have the so-called lay vows, the vows of a gényen (Tib., dge bsnyen, Skt., upāsaka). There are of course female versions of these vows, gényenma, gétsulma, and gélongma, respectively.

Monastics have no authority and are not empowered to do anything at all. The exception to this is that after ten years a gélong becomes an elder and may lead the conferral of the rite of going forth. Otherwise, a monastic has no status or power at all, other than being able to sit in front of the gényens and gényenmas and behind one’s seniors. Sometimes one sees extremely rude gényens, who imagine they are great mantrikas, who insist on sitting with the monastics, decked out in all their ngakpa gear. They are tolerated as ignorant children, but that’s about it.

There is a long trend of westerners in Tibetan Buddhism who take monastic vows and later give back them back. This is perfectly acceptable, of course. It is not easy being a western Tibetan Buddhist monastic in either the East or the West. However, quite a number of these folks use their time spent as Tibetan Buddhist monastics as part of their C.V. and often as a qualification of their expertise in Tibetan Buddhism. Such people are seemingly oblivious to the fact that in Tibetan Buddhism, surrendering one’s vows is regarded as something of moral failure. Generally, naive western aspirants will admire such people for their attempt at the renunciate life, unaware that the act of surrendering the vows of a gélong is generally frowned upon in the Tibetan Buddhism schools. In these schools, to become a gélong is to commit oneself to life in the renunciate sangha; surrendering getsul vows does not carry the same negative reputation.

Thus, it is a bit of a head scratch to see many western teachers of Tibetan Buddhism proclaiming their surrendered monastic vows as a qualification of their experience, rather than a disqualification. I can’t really speak to their motives in making such admissions at all. But it is strange, as one vajra sister once remarked to me.

There is no so-called “bodhisattva ordination,” as one can take the bodhisattva vows all by oneself without a teacher present, and there are also rites of receiving bodhisattva vows from a teacher. Further, receiving bodhisattva vows does not confer any authority at all. It just means that one has committed to become a buddha in order to benefit all sentient beings.

This brings me to my next observation: the so-called “ngakpa (Tib. sngags pa, Skt. mantrika) ordination.” First of all, as an ordained ngakpa myself, I can quite confidently claim there is no such a thing as a ngakpa “ordination,” and the Buddha never taught such a thing. Not even Padmasambhava was an ordained ngakpa. He was a gélong, a bhikṣu, with both bodhisattva vows and mantra vows, who, as Vajrāsanapāda points out, had a female partner (but that’s for another post).

However, some western Tibetan Buddhists, not satisfied with being mere gényens with both bodhisattva vows and mantra vows, want the benefits of some kind of “ordination,” without having to become renunciate, because after all, many western Tibetan Buddhists live in protestant countries, where we have a strong tradition of married Christian ministers and we don’t like giving up sex, movies, alcohol, mixed company, and so on.

Gényens are not renunciate. They can of course be teachers, and there have been many famous upāsaka teachers, such as Candragomin and so on. They can also be vajra masters if they satisfy certain requirements. However, not understanding that anyone, including monastics, who receives Vajrayāna vows is a ngakpa by definition, these people seek added status amongst their peers through an “ordination” that does not exist and was never taught by the Buddha because they do not fundamentally understand how the three vows are received and function.

In Tibetan society, however, we have to admit that there are people who were called “ngakpas” So who and what, in Tibetan society, are ngakpas? In Tibet, such serious practitioners, called ngakpas, became distinguished from the monastics by their role in Tibetan society, essentially occupying the role that the brahmin ritualist occupied in Indian society. The long hair, which is considered a hallmark of the ngakapa, is just the hair of a lay person. Everyone in Tibet, who was not part of the monastic community, kept their hair long and were resistant to cutting it, much like many Native Americans. The white robes are the traditional dress of Indian full upāsakas. Very simply, ngakpas are those who practice Vajrayāna, and who wear the white robes of a full gényen, a very serious non-renunciate follower of Buddhism, as was done in India. This is illustrated by the image of Jigme Lingpa below. Jigme Lingpa never received a ngakpa ordination. Among individual liberation vows he received, he only received gétshul vows, which he returned, adopting the dress of a full gényen, who traditionally wore white robes to signify their serious commitment to Buddhism.

What confuses people these days is that there are empowerments in various tantric cycles which can involve articles of clothing, implements, instruments, and so. For example, most people are unaware that that the implements of a practitioner of Śrī Heruka, Padmsambhava’s main practice, are a vajra and a skull cup.

In the Nyingmapa tradition, especially in the Dudjom Tersar and related traditions, there is a special empowerment called the “hair empowerment (Tib, skra dbang). I first received this empowerment in 1992 from my first Nyingma teacher, the famous weathermaker of the present Dalai Lama, Ngakpa Yeshe Dorje Rinpoche (1926-1993) (though I deferred from adopting it). I received it again from Kunzang Dechen Lingpa (1928-2006). In this case, these vows are connected with Chod empowerments.

The essence of the hair empowerments is that one agrees to a certain kind of strict observance (Tib., brtul zhugs, Skt., vratacārya): uncontrived hair, uncontrived garb, and an uncontrived dwelling. In general, this empowerment is connected with the conduct of the Great Perfection teachings. But this is not an ordination. Having received this empowerment does not confer authority to do anything other than study and practice Chod and the Great Perfection teachings.

Virtually all higher Vajrayāna empowerments have strict observances, such always carrying and vajra and bell and so on. But many people consider the hair empowerment to ba a “ngakpa ordination.” Sometimes those seeking a ngakpa ordination, which I have observed in person, participate in an event that consists of a lama simple reciting the basic 22 samayas they already obtained from the vajra master empowerment, and handing them a striped zen as a sign that they are serious about keeping their mantryāna vows. But this really makes them no more “ngakpas” than having already attended an annuttarayoga empowerment, which is where they actually received the vows.

This is not to say that Tibetan ngakpas were shy about forging an identity for themselves. It would be too far to claim such a thing. The Tibetan ngakpa has a distinct identity and social role in such places as Repkong and so on. But there is no ordination for such a person. They are either from families like the Khon of Sakya, or they are ngakpas by virtue of empowerments they have received. It is also true that there were and are so-called ngakpa colleges which assemble to promulgate their Vajrayāna traditions. But still, these ngakpas are gényens who practice Vajrayāna, nothing more and nothing less.

Nevertheless, in the 1980’s certain people began claiming that the so called “white robed, long haired division (gos dkar chang lo sde)” were ordinands of equal status with the monastic community, based mostly on the legend of the Tibetan king, Ralpacan (802-838), having aristocrats who practice Vajrayāna seated on his hair on the left side of the hall, and the monastic community seated on his hair on the right side of the hall. It should be remarked that by having the monks seated on the right, Ralpacan was showing more respect to the monastic sangha than the gényen sangha. Due to the enthusiastic promulgation of this western idea, and general lack of knowledge of the dharma, a misconception has arisen in the minds of many westerners that there was such a thing as a “ngakpa ordination.” But as any honest examination of the history of the subject will show that such an “ordination” never existed because there are no more than three kinds of vows taught by the Buddha in the sūtras and tantras—and not four—not to mention there are no ordinations in Buddhism to begin with.