Unlike Christian or Rabbinical ordination, receiving the three vows does not entitle one to any privilege or empower one to act as a minister. An ordination does both of those things. The importation of the term “ordination”to describe the process of receiving prātimokṣa, bodhisattva, or a vajrayana vows is extremely misleading. So, I stand by may assertion that there is no “ordination” in Buddhism as the term is understood in English. Your argument depends on legal criteria found outside the Dharma, and thus has no legitimacy inside the Dharma. Specifically, it depends on cultural concepts alien to Dharma, and which undermine the Dharma by introducing hierarchical frameworks of entitlement, power, and authority that undermine the true Dharma with the eight worldly concerns. The final flaw in your argument is that you cannot point to a single term in Sanskrit or Pali that might be translatable as “ ordination.’
Your response is characteristic of people who fail to read enough books.
Your only argument does not rest on Buddhist principles. It rests on the legal position of “religions,” tax exemption and other worldly criteria found in Western countries and religions , criteria foreign to Buddhadharma.
There are no ‘lay persons’ among those who hold the three vows, there are only nonrenunciates and renunciates, since the division here is based on which of four kinds of personal liberation vows one elects to hold. Bodhisattvas and mantrins can belong to either group.
And no, there are not four kinds of vows, there are only three, as anyone actually familiar with the literature on vows knows. You ought to bone up on Sapan’s Distinguishing the Three Codes, Ngari Palchen’s Perfect Conduct: Ascertaining the Three Vows, Kongtrul’s Buddhist ethics, and so on.
Finally, I am not sure where you derived your final idea from, but it is strange.
Malcolm your argument is entirely dependent upon reductionism, (and is arguably pedantic), and choosing to take an overly narrow view of the word "ordination" while ignoring any usage of the word that does not fit your view.
The argument essentially boils down to: "Ordination is an English word, and Buddhism doesn't come from English speaking cultures, therefore there is no ordination in Buddhism."
That's extremely reductionist and ignores the fact that the term "ordination" is widely used across a huge variety of authentic Buddhist lineages. It doesn't take much of a Google search to find lots of different Buddhist temples and lineages in the English speaking world that use the term ordination. Trying to say that words in different languages are not an exact translation of each other doesn't change the fact that people generally settle on the use of certain words for translation, and in translating Buddhist terms to English, "ordination" is a word that's widely used. Clearly, people have broadened its use to include Buddhist meanings beyond the narrow scope that you are viewing it from.
So, this is not accurate at all. Honestly, this is what happens when people who've read wayy too many books, miss the forest for the trees. "Ordination" in the Western world, is not a term exclusive to Abrahamic monotheism. It's a *legal* term that designates someone as *legally* a priest, as recognized by how Western countries categorize "religion" in our societies. For example, in the United States, being a "religion" affords a spiritual tradition certain legal and tax rights. And affords authorized representatives of that religion certain privileges, (such as performing marriages, doing spiritual counseling work in jails and prisons, doing chaplaincy work, etc. It also means that all such work they do is considered tax exempt.
Oxford defines ordination as: "the act or ceremony of making someone a priest, a minister, or rabbi". Yes, we do have those in Buddhism, because Buddhism is legally recognized as a "religion" in the West, (with all the rights and legal privileges that come with that), and therefor *legally* does have clergy. All the "historic" context is completely irrelevant, because even religions that are not Abrahamic monotheism, in the West (i.e. they are not Christianity, Islam, etc.) are still legally recognized as "religions" and therefore are legally recognized to have "priests", etc. It doesn't matter whether it is a Druid Temple, or a Buddhist organization. They still legally have "priests" and thus legally, there is a threshold (however major or minor that organization may wish to make it) where someone crosses and is no longer considered a layperson and is now a priest. That threshold is ordination. And whether you wish to have a major ceremony with that, or just mark it on the calendar, it still exists.
Additionally, you are incorrect about tantric vows. We do *indeed* have four kinds of vows. But to go into details of that I would have to go into details of tantra, which not only would be a violation of my own vows, but as other people on the internet have pointed out: you don't consider the perspectives of tantra to be authoritative in the first place.
Nice article Malcolm. You know I received the same empowerment from Ngakpa Yeshe Dorje Rinpoche in 1991, but I kept the commitments and have practiced as a Ngakpa ever since. I found that I grew into the life and meaning of a Ngakpa over many years, and only recently started using the title when my current teacher Lonpon Orgyen Tanzin Rinpoche addressed me as such and has now encouraged me to take on a student.
Hi Nik, my point is not that there are no ngakpas, rather, my point is that there is no-such a thing as an ‘ordained’ ngakpa. If your voice does not have mantra power, even if you wear all the gear, it’s just cosplay. Beyond that, it’s the uncontrived part that is the most difficult to maintain.
They seem even more extraneous when Zen Buddhists call them not only "ordination", but "priest ordination". Two words together that don't relate to what I understand about Dharma.
What did Dogen say about ordination (whether lay or priest ordination that do exist, at least in contemporary Zen Buddhism) in Zen Buddhism?
I myself am curious about how the bodhisattva vows are transmitted during the "triple plaform" ceremony that bhikṣus and bhikṣuṇī go through which includes transmission of the bodhisattva precepts. Are these precepts slightly different for the lay and monastic sanghas, for example?
I don’t know about that, but I know the procedure for taking vows in Soto Zen is basically receiving the five upasika vows and the sixteen bodhisattva vows.
Unlike Christian or Rabbinical ordination, receiving the three vows does not entitle one to any privilege or empower one to act as a minister. An ordination does both of those things. The importation of the term “ordination”to describe the process of receiving prātimokṣa, bodhisattva, or a vajrayana vows is extremely misleading. So, I stand by may assertion that there is no “ordination” in Buddhism as the term is understood in English. Your argument depends on legal criteria found outside the Dharma, and thus has no legitimacy inside the Dharma. Specifically, it depends on cultural concepts alien to Dharma, and which undermine the Dharma by introducing hierarchical frameworks of entitlement, power, and authority that undermine the true Dharma with the eight worldly concerns. The final flaw in your argument is that you cannot point to a single term in Sanskrit or Pali that might be translatable as “ ordination.’
Your response is characteristic of people who fail to read enough books.
Your only argument does not rest on Buddhist principles. It rests on the legal position of “religions,” tax exemption and other worldly criteria found in Western countries and religions , criteria foreign to Buddhadharma.
There are no ‘lay persons’ among those who hold the three vows, there are only nonrenunciates and renunciates, since the division here is based on which of four kinds of personal liberation vows one elects to hold. Bodhisattvas and mantrins can belong to either group.
And no, there are not four kinds of vows, there are only three, as anyone actually familiar with the literature on vows knows. You ought to bone up on Sapan’s Distinguishing the Three Codes, Ngari Palchen’s Perfect Conduct: Ascertaining the Three Vows, Kongtrul’s Buddhist ethics, and so on.
Finally, I am not sure where you derived your final idea from, but it is strange.
Malcolm your argument is entirely dependent upon reductionism, (and is arguably pedantic), and choosing to take an overly narrow view of the word "ordination" while ignoring any usage of the word that does not fit your view.
The argument essentially boils down to: "Ordination is an English word, and Buddhism doesn't come from English speaking cultures, therefore there is no ordination in Buddhism."
That's extremely reductionist and ignores the fact that the term "ordination" is widely used across a huge variety of authentic Buddhist lineages. It doesn't take much of a Google search to find lots of different Buddhist temples and lineages in the English speaking world that use the term ordination. Trying to say that words in different languages are not an exact translation of each other doesn't change the fact that people generally settle on the use of certain words for translation, and in translating Buddhist terms to English, "ordination" is a word that's widely used. Clearly, people have broadened its use to include Buddhist meanings beyond the narrow scope that you are viewing it from.
So, this is not accurate at all. Honestly, this is what happens when people who've read wayy too many books, miss the forest for the trees. "Ordination" in the Western world, is not a term exclusive to Abrahamic monotheism. It's a *legal* term that designates someone as *legally* a priest, as recognized by how Western countries categorize "religion" in our societies. For example, in the United States, being a "religion" affords a spiritual tradition certain legal and tax rights. And affords authorized representatives of that religion certain privileges, (such as performing marriages, doing spiritual counseling work in jails and prisons, doing chaplaincy work, etc. It also means that all such work they do is considered tax exempt.
Oxford defines ordination as: "the act or ceremony of making someone a priest, a minister, or rabbi". Yes, we do have those in Buddhism, because Buddhism is legally recognized as a "religion" in the West, (with all the rights and legal privileges that come with that), and therefor *legally* does have clergy. All the "historic" context is completely irrelevant, because even religions that are not Abrahamic monotheism, in the West (i.e. they are not Christianity, Islam, etc.) are still legally recognized as "religions" and therefore are legally recognized to have "priests", etc. It doesn't matter whether it is a Druid Temple, or a Buddhist organization. They still legally have "priests" and thus legally, there is a threshold (however major or minor that organization may wish to make it) where someone crosses and is no longer considered a layperson and is now a priest. That threshold is ordination. And whether you wish to have a major ceremony with that, or just mark it on the calendar, it still exists.
Additionally, you are incorrect about tantric vows. We do *indeed* have four kinds of vows. But to go into details of that I would have to go into details of tantra, which not only would be a violation of my own vows, but as other people on the internet have pointed out: you don't consider the perspectives of tantra to be authoritative in the first place.
🙏🏻❤️💐
Nice article Malcolm. You know I received the same empowerment from Ngakpa Yeshe Dorje Rinpoche in 1991, but I kept the commitments and have practiced as a Ngakpa ever since. I found that I grew into the life and meaning of a Ngakpa over many years, and only recently started using the title when my current teacher Lonpon Orgyen Tanzin Rinpoche addressed me as such and has now encouraged me to take on a student.
Hi Nik, my point is not that there are no ngakpas, rather, my point is that there is no-such a thing as an ‘ordained’ ngakpa. If your voice does not have mantra power, even if you wear all the gear, it’s just cosplay. Beyond that, it’s the uncontrived part that is the most difficult to maintain.
Thank you Malcolm! I thoroughly enjoyed reading this essay. I look forward to more.
It would be interesting to explore the diverse ordination practices across different schools within Zen Buddhism.
That's a little hard since there are no ordinations in Buddhism. :-)
They seem even more extraneous when Zen Buddhists call them not only "ordination", but "priest ordination". Two words together that don't relate to what I understand about Dharma.
What did Dogen say about ordination (whether lay or priest ordination that do exist, at least in contemporary Zen Buddhism) in Zen Buddhism?
I know. Such Zen priest ordinations are so Zen-ish.
I myself am curious about how the bodhisattva vows are transmitted during the "triple plaform" ceremony that bhikṣus and bhikṣuṇī go through which includes transmission of the bodhisattva precepts. Are these precepts slightly different for the lay and monastic sanghas, for example?
I don’t know about that, but I know the procedure for taking vows in Soto Zen is basically receiving the five upasika vows and the sixteen bodhisattva vows.