Originally posted by German Delegation MBOT
View Post
the buddha called his teachings the "doctrine and discipline", or "dharma-vinaya". its two part- vinaya being the monastic codes.
you have now given away your lack of knowledge in buddhism.
It is clear to see, that you still think in regular schemes which are predetermined by cultural interpretations of Zen.
Master Aguilar has a full ordination i never said anything else.
Also I said was, that it doesn't matter for this monastery, that this is something different from the monasteries you know and therefor doesn't fit in your schemes and preconditions about what or what is not a real monastery.
This is why I am not even going to start about such things. If you want to speak about the source of his knowledge, i am fine with that, I'll even speak with you about his masters but don't attach me to any terms and structures, of which somebody wants them to be the rules and standards for everybody.
You are speakin of Buddhism as if it was Christianity: If somebody wants to open a church, he has to be a bishop etc..
if master aguilar wants to open a monastery and be an abbot without full ordination, this is not a valid buddhist monastery nor tradition.
It represents a new way of Buddhism, a new, pure and clean version of Chan/Zen and therefor doesn't deal with any Chinese, Japanes, Indian, Pali or Sanskrit terms
however inline with the dharma your philosophy may be.. in case you missed it, the buddha's teachings are called dharma-vinaya. one cannot discard the vinaya and still claim abbocy and have a valid buddhist monastery.
without vinaya, at most, there can be dharma understanding and teaching at a center, where master aguilar is the director, as i suggested. but there can be no ordination, no abbocy and no monastery.
Take Luther for example, even if this is a big scaled one, but i think everybody should be knowing what i am talking about: The things that he did were impossible for catholic terms and structure. In the eyes of the ruling force (catholic church), he was committing something "invalid" as you call it. In their eyes he could not open a new church with very different ideas and philosophy.
he's more than welcome to run his own show, but when you throw out the requirements for abbocy and running a monastery, you can no longer call it buddhist tradition. it is something else.
It is just an example to point out a reformistic movement which is different to the ruling force (existing buddhist communities).
And again: Assuming that every Buddhist way on this planet must fit the requirements of the Asian Buddhist Community, is in itself racist.
And you can try to talk you out of it but it stays like this: The terms that you are talking about have been created from Asian Leaders and are a characteristic of the Asian Buddhism. Surely Delegations of these Asian Monasteries, use the same terms in the Occident. But this monastery is not. It is a new step, having nothing to do with these Eastern terms. But I am repeating myself for the third time...
the terms abbocy and buddhist monastery may refer to different traditions practiced all over the world, but their requirements were set out by the buddha. following something other than what the buddha set out for monastic codes of his monks in a "monastery" is not buddhism.
hopefully with all the repetition this is clear now.
i suggest you do more study of the buddha's teachings, in particular look into the vinaya- pratimoksha precepts, etc..
Leave a comment: