Gist of Monastic / Vinaya explanation of the Ajahn Brahm controversy

A wonderfully detailed explanation of the relationship between the monastic community and the Vinaya, the text of rules for the monastics and one of the three main bodies of texts or Pitakas, was published on the Buddhist Channel website yesterday by ex-monk in the Thai forest tradition Kester Radcliff. It is recommended for all to read the full explanation. However, for those who haven't the time to read the long exposition, or for those who are confused by the complex language, here are the basic points. All quotes in this article are from the letter in question- many thanks to Kester Radcliff for taking the time to explain this sensitive issue.

1.  "Traditional 'lineages' (nikayas, paramparas) have no status in Vinaya."
   If modern monks and nuns from different locales agree on the eighteen categories of doctrinal and disciplinary disputes, then the relative viewpoints of their 'lineage ancestors' are immaterial. Perceived difference in lineage is of cultural and not doctrinal significance. It would seem, from the nature of Ajahn Brahm's language in his open letter, that he had checked the legal boundaries with a Thai senior monk and then acted on the behalf and wishes of his Sangha. His privacy in carrying out the ordination appears to be an attempt at discretion, not secrecy.
2. "To maintain the practices appropriate to different communions as defined in Vinaya when a bhikkhu knows there are actually no grounds for it is a minor offence, as it is an intention on the way to deliberately aiming for schism for its own sake." This points to the necessity of a monk to adjust to varying social climates, specifically of the sangha who supports him. To propogate such blatant sexism as is rules by the Thai sangha does not go over well in the Western world. Ajahn Brahm, then, was merely brave enough to challenge the prerequisites of the Thai Sangha, which is tailored to their society. Transmission of the Dhamma is what should be most important, and ordination of women in the West to help this cause would seem to go without saying.
3. "There are actually very few conditions in which an ordination carried out by a sangha can possibly not be valid... it takes a lot in canonical Vinaya for it to actually be invalid." Lineages are not mentioned in the Suttas or early Vinaya. The importance is stressed on the Dhamma and its dissemination. The argument at hand speaks of an overt attachment to lineage, which appears to have more weight than the transmission of the Dhamma to whomever is willing to receive it. Attachment being one of the main hindrances, we must then question their committment to the interest of the Australian laypeople and sangha, who obviously wanted this ordination to take place.
4. "...the garudhammas had been traditionally and popularly misinterpreted to seem far more draconian and sexist... that bhikkhun?s cannot admonish' (vacanapatho) monks, is definitely much more specific than it is commonly thought of: vacanapatho means more than just a generic criticism, it is a technical legal term for a formal accusation in the midst of a sangha." Bhikkhus and Bhikkhunis had seperate communities, to help support the conditions of non-attachment (and reduce sexual tension), and so had different governing parent-bodies. If there was a dispute between a monk and a nun, they could ask another monk or nun to take it to official channels to resolve the dispute. This was to facilitate the seperation of the sanghas, and not to keep the bhikkhunis subordinate. That said, "...the whole communal legal system has practically obsolesced, part of why nobody recognises it."
5.  "The whole corpus of Suttas and Vinaya, in all the recensions, make it absolutely incontestably clear that 'refuge' in Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, or "refuge in (/reliance on) Dhamma and not a person" requires an absolutely uncompromising and exclusive commitment to Dhamma-Vinaya 'only'." The Dhamma, and not a person, was to be the refuge for the monk, nuns, and lay community when they took the refuge ceremony. Further, there are "...the Buddha’s deathbed words: "The Dhamma and Vinaya "as taught and formulated by me", will be your Teacher when I am gone".  Dhamma, and not tradition, has weight. Conformity to social rule, as the Thai are doing as is Ajahn Brahm, is what was referred to when "...the Second Council... concluded that 'What is traditional (?cinno) is not allowable'." The Thai Forest commmunity have historically supported tradition over the Vinaya and Suttas.
6. "In the rhetoric of the Thai traditionalist faction, they regularly use 'harmony' and 'schism' as threats to enforce conformity and suppress any kind of dissent from the totalitarian autocracy of the abbots... that the faction advocating correct Dhamma and Vinaya by definition cannot possibly be legally responsible for a schism, is the one most often covered up in traditionalist rhetorical usage to threaten dissenters.": The first reference to abbots came in the 12th century. Heirarchy, seniority, and tradition are not proper authorities according to the Vinaya and Suttas. They are guides, ostensibly used to further the cause of understanding and communication- an indication of trust in more experienced monks and nuns. They are abused in the current context to mean something more religiously righteous, a clear distortion of Dhamma and the words of the Buddha himself. Within Buddhist Pitaka, the closer the text was to the Buddha's time, the more genuine the Dhamma within it. From the letter- "For comparison, consider how ‘divisive speech’ (pisunav?ca) is defined as speech aimed specifically at dividing friends. Second, it is explicitly defined in Vinaya that schism is only anantarayika kamma (extreme bad kamma) when it is done intentionally deceitfully, aware that the disputed issue is bogus."

The heritage of Buddhism, colored with all of the cultures that have carried it down the generations to reach these relatively new countries and societies, is interesting historically but not useful practically. This situation is an illustration of how over-attachment to tradition over Dhamma can sour relationships and communication between otherwise devout sanghas. In the closing words of Kester Radcliff, who we can thank for the original enlightening exposition abridged here, "...the institution has become definitively non-Buddhist and hostile to genuine uncompromising commitment to authentic Buddhism, therefore let it go."

A more simplified explanation of the original letter seemed in order, to elucidate for the lay community. Not being a monastic makes these matters difficult to understand, and extrapolations that seemed logical have been made. If there are any points of the original letter from Radcliff which have been misunderstood by the author, please email or comment below with clarifications and an explanation of your authority on the subject. 

It is recommended that you read the original letter on the Buddhist Channel Website.