Put simply, the raison d’etre of a Buddhist Order is to bring nibbāna into our lives more effectively than the circumstance in which such an Order didn’t exist. To actually do this, rather than nominally be doing it, or ‘preparing’ to do it… An Order is not therefore a social group, or a repository of Buddhist knowledge, or a vehicle for various forms of social work or consciousness-raising, or a tool in the processes of gender politics, as these are ordinary purposes. It exists for the more effective transmission of the way to the Truth. If it is not this, it is just a worthy ethical body, competing with all the other human institutions for the attention of all good people, even while it regards its contribution as specially Buddhist.
It seems to me that the fundamental basis of a Buddhist Order is the explicit and vertical spiritual relationship. The one who has substantially seen the Truth, and lives from it, guides those who would also seek it, to the extent of the former’s competency at that time. This Truth would be the Truth of the Path beyond stream-entry, which is the distinctive Buddhist contribution – so it would not fundamentally consist of information about how to do certain practices, various forms of knowledge about Buddhism, or how to function confidently within the structures of an Order or movement.
Such a relationship does not require everyday intimacy or particular friendship, which would tend to be more of a horizontal phenomenon. It can indeed be just as effective between those who might not ordinarily be drawn to each other. It is however intimate, as real practice is being discussed; and kind, as one is offering another a way out of intractable suffering.
An Order therefore would offer conscious association with the wise. The relationship each member has with one or more others who is wiser is the core of the Order. It follows that ordination should be about this explicit vertical relationship, and that it should not take place unless such a relationship can specifically and effectively continue after ordination. It also follows that preceptors, to be effective, should at least have entered the stream. Otherwise they are not in a position to support practitioners in the way that actually counts.
It is possible to confuse and complicate the process of ordination by conflating it with the gathering of far more knowledge than a practitioner actually requires, and in this way miss the point. It is possible to make ordination more grandiose by increasing the numbers of hoops the ordinee has to jump through, leading to the usual risks of tick-boxing and limiting standardisation. The preceptor needs to be clear that the potential ordinee has had the Arising and Passing Away experience, so that the Truth glimmers in their hearts, and has the integration and single-mindedness to follow through on the training. This experience is quite identifiable (cf. http://integrateddaniel.info/the-arising-and-passing-away/), and far less subjective than, say, seeing whether someone ‘fits in’ with the personalities of an Order as presently constituted.
Preparation for ordination, it seems to me, would then be best occupied, not with the amassing of Buddhist knowledge (however stimulating), but with learning how to live mindfully and meditate effectively. We need to learn how to apply Right View on the cushion, how to meet the difficulties of Samsara appropriately, and be able to recognise progress in one or more of the many metrics that the traditional teaching offers.
Given that most ordinees are unlikely to be stream-entrants, they would neither be in a position to ordain others or to teach. Indeed, while in training in this way, the best occupation for new ordinees is with deepening their own practice. My experience with members of my own Order is that they universally ‘teach’ too soon, and become quickly confused about their own spiritual needs, and lose their way. Even beyond stream-entry, there is much work to do with one’s still-tormented heart from that new perspective, and one can have little to show for one’s insight for quite some time. It is quite difficult and inward work, and can be energetically draining, and emotionally exposing. It makes sense to give time and space to this process, so that when one does teach, one has arrived at enough stability and confidence to be a light unto others. If we do not give an appropriate period of five or ten years to this upon ordination, we would end up with an Order that is superficial and extrovert. Order members would engage in teaching and other activities from unclear or suspect motives, or a weak basis, which would not conduce to an Order’s long-term health.
The most senior practitioners are indeed those that need an Order least, at least for their own sake. They are more likely to abandon roles rather than take them up willingly. It would not be the best use of such practitioners to encumber them with an executive role; so such functions would best be managed by a body of Order members that would be subsidiary to them. Nor would their concerns be with promoting a particular personage within the life of the Order, or a particular Buddhist culture or expression thereof, or a particular mode or method of practice. These tendencies toward cultishness are signs of insecurity, and quickly become limiting.
Preceptors generally, and the spiritually senior-most in particular, need to be in good communication about their growing appreciation of nibbāna, in order to aid their own practice, as well as to support the effective transmission of the Dharma in their particular circumstances. That is, they would naturally be exploring and enhancing their appreciation of the Path with each other, and not implicitly assume common ground whilst, say, only discussing the format of the next event they are leading. The willingness to meet on this profound level would be the basis for a development of a tradition of sorts, though quite incidentally.
It seems to me that it would not generally do for such practitioners to become unavailable or to function purely independently, and would be as suspect as holding too much power or responsibility. In testing their understanding in communication, senior practitioners would be leading by example, and would be doing no more or less than what is asked even of the most newly ordained. Naturally any seeking motive is softer and less personal in the spiritually mature. Instead, effective transmission is increasingly the fundamental motive of those practitioners who are closer to nibbāna; the one song of compassion that they are all naturally drawn to sing, each in their own way.
If each student of the Dharma felt they were being supported in their practice where it really mattered, that would be enough to guarantee the longevity and future effectiveness of the Order. Whatever structures, knowledge and responsibilities there were pertaining to the life of the Order would clearly be secondary, and could vary, or come and go, as suited the times. Ordinees would be able to take confidence from their teachers who are no longer dependent on structures, and who already stand in śunyatā quite naturally. From whatever basis they start from in practice and understanding, they too could move toward the open and undistinguished spaces of the Void themselves.