The 1928 bhikkhuni ban – some new thoughts

I’ve just updated the post on the 1928 bhikkhuni ban, following a discussion of the matter with Ajahn Brahm. I think there are some significant points i missed previously. The entire argument is found in full in the original posting, but I thought i would put the additional paragraphs here as well, as they make a new legal point which should be highlighted.

A further problem with the rule is that it focuses on the preceptor (upajjhaya for monks, pavattini for bhikkhunis). In contemporary Thai culture, the preceptor is more or less regarded as the one responsible for the ordination, whereas in the Vinaya it is the Sangha as a whole. The way this is phrased, admittedly, both in the Vinaya and in modern usage, can be a bit vague, but this is the general tendency.

The rule appears to make it illegal for a bhikkhu to be the preceptor at a going forth for women. In the bhikkhuni ordination in the Pali Vinaya, however, the preceptor is not a bhikkhu, but a bhikkhuni – as the 1928 ruling itself acknowledges. So at the ordination in Perth, Ayya Tathaaloka was the preceptor, not Ajahn Brahm. The 1928 ruling forbids a bhikkhu from giving the ordination; since Ayya Tathaaloka is not a bhikkhu, and since Ajahn Brahm did not act as preceptor, there is no violation of this rule.

The essential issue here is that there is not a disagreement about the Vinaya procedures, but a historical difference. The framers of this rule were simply unaware of the existence of the Dharmaguptaka bhikkhuni lineage in the East Asian traditions.

Ironically enough, in the English Sangha, since its female ordination procedures do not follow the Vinaya, the preceptor is a bhikkhu. For the most part this has been Ajahn Sumedho. If we are to follow the 1928 ruling, any giving of the ‘going forth’ is illegal, and it would seem to be the English Sangha that has violated this law, not Ajahn Brahm. One could make the technical argument that the English siladhara are not samaneris – which is a very odd kind of argument to me, but I’ll leave that aside. In any case, are they considered to have ‘gone forth’? Basically, in Buddhism, you’re either ‘gone forth’ or a lay person. If they have ‘gone forth’ – which everyone in practice agrees they have – then for a bhikkhu to give that ordination is illegal under the 1928 ruling.

About these ads

50 thoughts on “The 1928 bhikkhuni ban – some new thoughts

  1. Hello,

    To close all this debates and disharmony (now turning into a “bush fire”),
    can’t AB be respectful and not rebel by simply re-ordaining his beloved
    Bikkunis in Sri Lanka or other traditions, to end this feud???????????

    Why is he & AS so obstinate?? Why are they lobbying from public to pressure
    other tradition to change and bend others to follow their scholar arguments?

    We request that AB settles this feud amicably and harmoniously, since he was
    the one who started the fire. AB, just re-ordained the Bikkunis not under Thai
    theravada tradition if you sincerely do not want to provoke others.DO IT, PLS!

    • Dear Frustrated,

      Ajahn Brahm has been seeking to end this feud amicably and harmoniously. Have a read elswhere on this blog, Aj Sujato has posted an extract from a recent email he sent in which he (Aj Brahm) apologises.

      I don’t think he started it by the way. There’s a history to what’s happened here. Frankly I think the strength of reaction overseas is over the top…all he did was ordain some nuns; and all the nuns wanted was to keep more virtue.

      Its a shame if we have to be thrown out of home for wanting to be better people. Its a shame if we have to go to another family because ours doesn’t support us in being better human beings.

    • Dear Kanchana,

      Sorry to have upset you. I just meant good so that we all could lay this to rest and have peace restored.

      I kind of agree with in that sense. But now they are debating on the Vinaya and the Thai Sangha had also to upkeep their Sangha law inherited for centuries.

      OMG, how we wish Buddha was still alive, so He could solve this problem with his wisdom & enlightenment.

    • Some insightful translated verses from;
      Ajahn Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Dhammapada, A Translation. July 2008. Auspicious Affinity.

      By day shines the sun;
      by night, the moon;
      in armor, the warrior;
      in jhana, the brahman.
      But all day & all night,
      every day & every day night,
      the Awakened Ones shines
      in splendour.

      V387. Pg.344.

    • “As kusa grass wrongly handled
      cuts the very hand, so also
      asceticism wrongly practised,
      leads to woeful states”.
      (Verse:311)

    • Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu!:-)

      Thank you for timely reminder and with heart and palms together in Anjali.

      Quote from a Pali sutta provided by a compassionate Bhante in Malaysia but don’t have the source proper for reference quotation.(m only a student, so hope i don’t get into trouble for plagiarism and copyright infringement:-P:-))
      ‘…….. Anupubbim katham kathessami’ti paresam dhammo desetabbo; ……..’

      AN 5.159. PTS: A iii 184. Udayi Sutta: About Udayin. translated from the Pali by
      Thanissaro Bhikkhu. © 1997–2009

      “[1] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak step-by-step.”
      “[2]….. ”
      “[3]….. ”
      “[4]….. ”
      ‘[5]….. ”

      THE BOOK OF THE GRADUAL SAYINGS(ANGUTTARA-NIKAYA)OR MORE-NUMBERED SUTTAS.
      VOL. III
      (THE BOOKS OF THE FIVES AND SIXES) TRANSLATED BY E. M. HARE. WITH INTRODUCTION BY MRS. RHYS DAVIDS, D.Litt., M.A. THE PALI TEXT SOCIETY, OXFORD. 1988. CHAPTER XVI. – SADDHAMMA. ix (159). The Venerable Udāyin.

      “(1) Teach others Dhamma, thinking: I will talk a talk on the gradual”
      “(2)….. ”
      “(3)….. ”
      “(4)….. ”
      “(5)….. ”

      Is there other translation to the Pali word ‘anupubbim’? i kinda remember another translation as cause and effect but not sure…

      Anonymously;
      Dana.
      The Giver is the Receiver
      The Receiver is the Giver
      Who is the Giver, Who is the Receiver?
      When there is no giver nor receiver
      There is no self

      Metta Cheers!:-)
      p/s apologies and may i be forgiven for typo, grammar, spelling, etc, etc errors.

    • Rebelling others and impatience are not virteous.Patience is the highest virtue. Their rebellious action are not virteous.What virtue??

  2. Dear Bhante, Brilliant! Leveraging a dispute is often the fastest way to a reconciliation. This should be put to good use!
    With metta, AE

  3. I’ve talked to a ‘good’ Thai monk. He might not have done much research on bhikkhuni ordination, as is common among Thai monks. (Why do they have to do that?!?) So, when asked about the possibility of having Thai Theravada bhikkhunis, he said that it cannot be done as a bhikkhuni available to be a preceptor is of the Mahayana tradition. Therefore, bhikkhunis newly ordained (i.e. after the Theravada bhikkhuni lineage stopped several centuries ago in Sri Lanka) are Mahayana bhikkhunis. He added that he does not have a problem with women getting ordained as Mahayana bhikkhunis at all! BUT no woman of the modern days can ever get ordained as a Theravada bhikkhuni. End of story!

    In my humble opinion, the main root of this problem is so trivial it is sad to accept — that ‘we’ divide Bhuddhism into different sects and traditions due to our attachment to self and the resulting self-importance, and thus it’s the division ‘we’ have created that has made it impossible in ‘our’ standpoint to have Theravada bhikkhunis again.

    If only all of us (especially Theravada male monks) regarded Bhuddists as Buddhists, we would not be having this sad situation…

    With metta to all,

    • So, what’s the verdict? Are they now Theravada or Mahayana?

      What’s wrong with Mahayana (all are labels & identity).
      Important here is the sincere practice to liberation.

      How is it there is no standard guidelines or code of ethics
      to be used by the Theravada monks on do’s & don’ts.

      In our opinion, since the preceptor is from Mahayana tradition,
      then rightfully these Bikkunis should be Mahayana (why not, can
      go to Pure Land, since Bikkunis cannot become Buddhas -confirmed).
      What is all these fuss.

      All preach teachings of Buddha – 1Buddha tradition with respect for
      each land’s laws, rules or conventions & traditions that take precedence
      over the Vinaya for universal harmony (Buddha emphasized so much on harmony
      with one another and with Nature).Now we are not in harmony,more like harMONEY.

      Pls. AB, to end the debates, just re-ordained your Bikkunis in Sri Lanka and
      get on with business. End problem.

      Refer: http://www.dhammalight.com for more light shed on this issue.

      With Peace & Harmony.

    • As pointed out before there is no such thing as a “Mahayana Vinaya” or a “Theravada Vinaya”, both traditions follow the same Vinaya. So Bhikkhunis following the procedures can get ordained.

      Ajahn Sujato, so a bhikkhuni can’t be ordained by a bhikkhu? Is that definitive? Buddha ordained women didn’t he? And didn’t other monks? Did they do that only before Buddha made that rule or after as well?

    • Yes, a bhikkhuni can be ordained by bhikkhus alone. This is specifically allowed in the Pali Vinaya, and has been followed by some bhikkhus in present day. It is only in the 1928 ruling that this would be unallowed.

    • Dear Bhante

      I just wish to clarify the Vinaya’s allowance for the ordination of bhikkhunis by bhikkhus. Ven Bodhi notes that the original allowance was never revoked by the Buddha, even after the Buddha set up the dual-process.

      I know this will be a horribly complicated technicality, but could you explain if there were any difference between the original allowance of bhikkhus ordaining bhikkhunis, with the dual process where the bhikkhus merely “confirm” the bhikkhuni ordination?

      Is there any difference in the form or substance of the orginal allowance with the “confirmation” procedure that was performed at Perth? If so, might it not be a fair point that Ven Bodhi may be right that the original allowance (never revoked) can be applied to restore the bhikkhuni lineage?

    • Dear Sylvester,

      The original allowance for bhikkhus to ordain bhikkhunis is simply given in the texts, but there is no ordination procedure or explanation. One presumes it was done in the same way as the bhikkhu ordination. The main difference from the final form of the ‘dual ordination’ is that in the dual ordination it is the bhikkhunis who play the most active role in preparing and examining the applicant, and it is a bhikkhuni who is the preceptor. Presumably earlier these roles were played by bhikkhus.

      Actually, my own belief is that these allowances do not represent genuine historical stages. My own belief is that the earliest ordinations were performed by the bhikkhunis alone. This is, however, a complex technical matter.

      I think the allowance to perform ordination by the bhikkhus alone would form a perfectly valid basis for bhikkhuni ordination. This was also argued by Jetavana Sayadaw, Mahasi’s teacher. Like any solution to this problem, however, it would not be uncontroversial.

    • Dear Rahula,

      It was translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi and included as an appendix for his article on the restoration of the bhikkhuni order that he presented at Hamburg. I’ve uploaded it here.

    • AS, I agree that the allowances don’t represent genuine historical stages, and that the earliest bhikkhuni ordinations were performed by bhikkhunis alone. Fascinating to see the ‘allowances’ reified into law. It seems obvious that an ordination of a bhikkhuni can be performed by bhikkhus in the absence of any bhikkhunis; that a dual ordination be performed in the instance of insufficient numbers of bhikkunis; and that bhikkhunis perform ordinatios of bhikkhunis in all other instances, just as bhikkhus perform ordinations of bhikkhus, without bhikkhunis participating in that. This makes most sense if the simple intent is borne in mind, that the variable allowances were made – to cover all contingencies – to ensure the continuance of bhikkhuni sanghas. Reverse allowances were not reuired (to ensure the continuance of bhikkhu sanghas) because men are generally not subject to the same prejudices and attacks that women have been over time in many cultures.

      On that note, a disappointing aspect of the response of Tan Payutto to the issue of gender equity – given his good reputation in Thailand – is that he attributes the fault to women, that they are subject to attack form men. He attributes ‘weakness’ to women and rationalises gender inequity accordingly. For me it’s so clearly the reverse: the weakness is attributable to those men who can’t restrain themselves – can’t manage their emotions of rage, anger,fear – from raping and otherwise attacking women. This lies behind much of the prejudice we’ve been witnessing in motion.

    • Dear Cintamani,

      Yes, I agree absolutely regarding the inappropriateness of Tan Payutto’s statements about the ‘weakness’ of women. It continues the horrific tendency to blame women for men’s acts of violence.

      It is very sad to see a Buddhist country like Thailand being renowned world wide for its sex trade and child slavery. Here are just a few links with relevant information:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Thailand

      http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/thailand.htm

      http://www.msmagazine.com/oct99/bitterharvest.asp

      http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/thailand/091027/economic-crisis-the-sex-trade-and-children

      There can be no better way to change Thailand’s endemic patterns of violence against women than to develop a strong and articulate bhikkhuni Sangha.

    • Some inspiring translated verses from;
      Ajahn Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Dhammapada, A Translation. July 2008. Auspicious Affinity.

      Phenomena are preceded by the heart,
      ruled by the heart,
      made of the heart.
      If you speak or act
      with a corrupted heart,
      then suffering follows you-
      as the wheel of the cart,
      the track of the ox
      that pulls it.
      Phenomena are preceded by the heart,
      ruled by the heart,
      made of the heart.
      If you speak or act
      with a calm, bright heart,
      then happiness follows you,
      like a shadow
      that never leaves.
      V1-2*. Pg.4.

      As a bee-without harming
      the blossom,
      its color,
      its fragrance-
      takes its nectar & flies away:
      so should the sage
      go through a village.
      V49. Pg.41.

      No flower’s scent
      goes against the wind-
      not sandalwood,
      jasmine,
      tagara.
      But the scent of the good
      does go against the wind.
      The person of integrity
      wafts a scent
      in every direction.
      Sandalwood, tagara,
      lotus, & jasmine:
      among these scents,
      the scent of virtue
      is unsurpassed.
      Next to nothing, this scent
      -sandalwood, tagara-
      while th scent of virtuous conduct
      wafts to the devas,
      supreme.
      V54-56*. Pg.46.

      Winning gives birth to hostility.
      Losing, one lies down in pain.
      The calmed lie down with ease,
      having set
      winning & losing
      aside.
      V201. Pg.182.

    • Many thanks, Bhante.

      I was rather hoping that an “emic” analysis of the Vinaya might yield a finding that the unrevoked bhikkhu-led process is totally different from the “confirmatory” role in the dual process. That would lend weight to the argument that the “original” allowance was still available to revive the bhijjhuni lineage. An “emic” perspective might actually be easier for some of the conservatives to accept.

      But I guess the “etic” approach would be a more powerful argument, even if more unpalatable to the conservatives. Have you elaborated on your views in your on-line essays or print works?

  4. I wonder if these legal arguments are not some how missing the point. My experience would suggest that if a group does not want to agree with a viewpoint, no amount of legal argument and logic makes any difference.

    As I see it fundamentally the Thai sangha is opposed to women ordaining. Even if there is a lot of “support” for ordaining women among many Ajahns, it is quiet and unable to match the vehement opponents. Most likely this is a reflection of Thai cultural values, which are basically sexist, more than anything else. To support this viewpoint various misrepresentations of the Vinaya and misapplications of Thai law have been employed but these are generally accepted in Thailand. The basic injustice of the situation means little to them because in Thai culture women are still considered inferior on the whole.

    Opposing these attitudes with reasoned argument cannot really work because the basic premise, that women are inferior to men, is not reasonable. Until Thai culture shifts it is hard to see this premise changing in the Thai sangha.

    The Thai educated western Ajahns unfortunately feel compelled to support this unreasonable position, even if their private view differs. This is mainly, I think, out of ‘respect’ for their Thai teachers (translated as submission to the Thai authority) and a desire to remain part of what is admittedly a very great and valuable community. These Western Ajahns then have to rationalise this position with legalese and cultural trappings and appeals to “proper” process. But the fundamental injustice toward women seems again to take secondary place.

    Basically until the issue of injustice toward women is seen as more important than supporting the Thai sangha there will be no change. And I cannot see that happening until Thai sexist attitudes change – that I am afraid is a very long way off.

    And if anyone feels compelled to challenge my charge of Thai sexism, I would say the proof is not in what people say, but what they do.

    • Dear WTP,

      I 100% agree that the legal arguments are beside the point. But they are taken seriously by some, and for this reason i think it’s worthwhile to show that the legal position is not as clear cut as it is presented. The Sangha of WPP based their ban on bhikkhunis entirely on the assumed Thai legal situation, so out of respect for them their argument should be addressed rationally. Once the rational argument is seen as hollow, we are left with the irrational….

    • Thankyou.

      I remember watching a movie about the abolition of slavery in England. There were many legal and other arguments over many years, but what caused attitudes to change was economics. As soon as there was an econonimic incentive to change, change occured.

      My feeling is that until there is an inducement from lay supporters to change (and they represent the economic support of the monasteries), the Thai sangha will retain the status quo.

  5. Venerable Sujato, let me expand on Dheerayupa’s entry. By “Theravada” in her entry, let’s us narrow it down to Thailand’s Theravada. By definition, Thailand’s Theravada Bhikkhuni’s lineage has ended. As at now it is not ready to reopen or initiate the lineage again. Meanwhile there are some other Theravada Bhikkhuni lineages. Therefore for me it is fine that the recent Bhikkhuni ordination be classified into a Theravada lineage but other than the Thailand’s or WPP’s. Please do not force Thailand or WPP to recognize the lineage as theirs.

    Venerable, it seems that you are very attached to concepts of human rights, women’s rights, and probably democracy. You are also very attached to what is written and disregard whatever is not written. Venerable I am afraid Asian culture does not work in this way. Not all the Asian culture and traditions are properly recorded in writing. Much of the tradition is passed down through practices, and evolved along the way. Venerable, I think may be disrespectful to go into somebody’s house and audit their culture based on what was properly recorded and diminish whatever was not properly recorded. For one, literacy was not strong in Asia, hence many cultural practices and evolution were not recorded. It is good that you found the recording on the stopping of the Bhikkhuni lineage. If you did not find it, the Bhikkhuni lineage would still have stopped regardless of whether it was recorded.

    Similarly human rights, women’s rights and democracy are all pretty new concepts to Asia. The Asian culture obviously was not built around these three new concepts. To be fair even the Western culture was missing these concepts a few hundred years ago. Because the West innovated these concepts, therefore the Western culture has a headstart compared to the Asian culture regarding these concepts.

    Therefore we cannot assume that the current Asian culture is immediately in harmony with and are ready for the unrestricted application of these concepts. To be fair, these three concepts caught most of Asian culture by surprise. The Asian culture is already rapidly trying to adapt and adopt these three new concepts, but it takes time. Worse still, the Asian culture used to be quite contradictory to these three concepts. Asian culture has always emphasized the importance of “state before family, and family before self” to uphold societal harmony. Societal harmony was deemed to be the utmost important. How can anyone expect Asia to change into “self before family, and family before state” overnight?

    Therefore Venerable sir, your insistence that women’s rights come before harmony is probably not in sync with traditional Asian values. By insisting that your priority structure is better than the Asia’s priority structure, then in some perspective, you are not respecting the Asian culture. In the worst case, you could result in tearing the Asian culture and creating disharmony.

    But all is not lost. I think a simple way out is to not force upon the old lineage, but innovate your own new lineage. Start a new lineage and put in all things that you deem important and put them as priority. For example you may put as first priority human rights, women’s rights and democracy in the new lineage. The new lineage can be an active voice to fight against poverty, corruption, child abuse, and animal sacrifice, and to save the Earth, etc. Do all the things you deem important and right, you have your freedom. You can claim better interpretation of the teachings based on your perspectives as well. But please do not call or force this lineage upon the existing ones. Please do not force the existing lineages to adopt your school of thought. Wouldn’t this be more fair to everyone?

    Venerable, this is only a personal thought. From the progression of the posts in your blog, you seemed to have become more and more caught up with concepts and theories, and not see things as they are. You have become more literal in your arguments, using logic, history and definitions. While these would be the ways of the scientists and lawyers, these are not ways of a negotiator or mitigator. Venerable sir, I think most of the time the solution does not lie in the brain, but in the heart, and unfortunately concepts obscure the heart. You may argue why can’t the opponents be the ones using the heart instead while your side uses the brain. But if you have this argument arising, then what are the other cittas that arise with it?

    Please forgive my ignorance Venerable sir.

    • Dear Asian Buddhist,

      Thanks so much for your kind and considered thoughts.

      As I have said many times, I do not see this as a West vs. East issue at all. I have lived for 7 or 8 years in Asia, and many of the people in my monastery are Asian. And many of them have seen the discrimination against women in the Theravada monasteries and were shocked.

      The Buddha was Asian, and he set up the bhikkhuni Sangha many years before gender equality became an issue in the West. The Bhikkhuni sangha has been preserved down through the ages by the Asian communities in China and elsewhere. In the modern era, it is the Sangha of Sri Lanka that has led the way in supporting the bhikkhunis. My personal experience with bhikkhus from Burma, Laos, Sri lanka, Bangladesh, India, and Thailand is that most of them fully support bhikkhuni ordination.

      What I am actually doing is not forcing Western culture on Asia, but trying to introduce this wonderful aspect of Asian culture into our Western country!

      We have not tried to force or impose our ideas on Thai Buddhists or anyone else. For the past several years I have simply practiced here, done my study, and supported the development of bhikkhuni communities. I have respectfully tried to raise the issue with my seniors in the Sangha, and have simply been ignored. This is not a personal matter, as everyone else who has tried to raise the topic of bhikkhunis in the Ajahn Chah tradition has also been ignored. Don’t take my word for this: go over to the facebook discussion and ask the ex-monastics there if this is true. I have also been told it by many who are still in robes, but most of them will not say so in public.

      It is only that one tiny group of monks – who happen to be Asian, and represent one part of the spectrum of belief in one Buddhist country – have decided that their way must be followed in Australia, and have expelled my teacher, who I love and respect, for doing things differently.

      I have learnt many wonderful things from my time in Asia, and it is clear to me that the time has come for the peoples of the world to look to each other for wisdom and inspiration. I definitely do not think that Western culture is better than Asian; that is why I went to Asia and diligently and humbly practiced Asian, especially Thai, culture as best I could for several years. But I definitely believe that there are some things that traditional Buddhists can learn from the West.

      One of the ironies of this, for a student of history, is that many of the things that are today considered ‘Asian’ were in the past Western influences. This includes the whole modern structure of Thai Buddhism, whose reform was started by King Mongut, a very modern man who loved Western culture and consciously introduced many Western ideas into the Thai Sangha and culture generally – including an improved lot for women. Wikipedia says:

      Mongkut also improved woman’s rights in Siam. He released a large number of royal concubines to find their own husbands. This is a marked contrast to how his story has been dramatized. He banned the forced marriages of all kinds and selling one’s wife to pay a debt.

      Our actions on behalf of the bhikkhunis has a widespread support here in Australia, from all sectors of the community. One of our Vietnamese supporters said to me: ‘Bhante, don’t worry what they do; even if they kill you, you can just come back and do it all again!’

      I can understand the dismay of people who see the argument among the Sangha and wish all was peaceful. Of course, we all want that. And it will come – these things have their season. The Hindus, perhaps, understand these things better than we Buddhists, as they accept that a time of chaos is necessary before a new growth can flourish.

      If you wish that the Sangha, especially myself, had acquitted themselves better in this, what can I do but ask for forgiveness, and try to do better next time? Just remember one thing: if you are a woman and you wish to ordain; or if your daughter or mother or sister or female friend wishes to ordain, you will be warmly welcomed here in Australia. I hope that is something worth while.

    • Look at what human rights and gender equality have done to the West (with the exception of European countries).The society has no more hiri & ottapa (moral shame and moral fear), eg same sex marriage are now legalized because of human rights & gender equality, society behaving like animals (no more genders & “doing things” in public, walking naked showing their private parts in the public etc)like a sexual hell realm.

      Please do not introduce human rights & gender equality into religion. Buddhism is far more refined and judging from the Pali language in the Suttas the verses are so poetic and refined like in Shakespeare’s language and spoken by heavenly beings!
      Buddhism is also a spirituality science for self-practice & progress towards liberation not reputation or democracy.

      I cannot imagine the 4 Bikkunis going for pindapata (alms round) in the street of Perth bare footed in their robes (what a manly sight!).Gender equality, mah.

  6. The way I see it, when it comes to rules or vinaya, it is not enough to to know what the rule is but also the reason behind it to see the full picture. Otherwise it is easy to follow the rule to the letter yet missing the spirit of the rule. This could render the practice of the rule pointless. Also by not examining or understanding the reason behind a rule we can apply it in the wrong way and can create unnecessary complication for ourselves and others. The Buddha was said to constantly reminds his hearers that it is the spirit that counts.

    What is the reason the Buddha said that a female monastic acting as a Upajjhaya is also needed during the bhikkhuni ordination ceremony ?

    It is simply because there are certain personal things that the new bhikkhuni needed to recite. Due to the nature of the content of the recitation, it can be uncomfortable to recite it to a male . Therefore it was suggested that the female monastic is also needed so she can recite this to a female instead. Just so it wouldn’t be too uncomfortable for her. At first , just the bhikkhu sangha is fine .

    Given the reason, the detailed characteristics of the Preceptor bhikkhuni ( pavattini ) at the ceremony does not effect the quality of the ordination in anyway. It is not mentioned in the vinaya that the pavattini has to be a Theraveda in particular, although certain groups of people might prefer to place strong emphasis on the characteristeristics (tradition, countries, etc..) of the pavattini .

    Actually, It is the characteristics of the bhikkhuni getting ordained that can effect the outcome of her own spiritual path . Also, it is not the case that the new bhikkhuni will be required to follow the practices of the Mahayana tradition when having a Mahayana bhikkhuni acting as a pavattini at her ceremony.

    Some might say, so what if this focus on the characteristic of the pavattini is not really that neccessary? We prefer it that way?

    Those who choose to do so may do so, but it is not recommended that we impose this on others.

    This focus can be trivial when comparing to the spiritual progress of countless of female practitioner. Let’s not create obstruction for the female gender unecessarilly because we are stuck on a minor rule that the pavattini needed to be Theraveda in particular. In the Mahaparinibbana Sutta the Buddha, as part of his last teaching, tells the bhikkhus that they can abandon some minor rules, but that they should stick to the major ones, but since they can’t discern which is , they decided to kept all of them without distinguishing which are the minor ones that can be abandon . The Buddha doesn’t suggest that they should or have to adhere to all minor rules regardless of any negative consequences it may cause. He does allow the monks to abandon some minor rules, and stick to the major ones. The decision to adhere to all minor rules are that of the bhikkhus that can’t discern for themselves which are the minor ones that can be abandoned.

    Besides, that minor rule that the pavattini has to be Theraveda is not even in the vinaya of the Buddha in the first place . IT DOES NOT SAY IN THE VINAYA THAT THE PAVATTINI HAS TO BE THERAVEDA IN PARTICULAR  . It is something that comes later from someone else instead. Meaning it is a preference of later group but not in the vinaya. The word Theraveda bhikkhuni can’t be found in the vinaya, but it only bhikkhuni.

  7. “But, Ānanda, if women had not obtained the Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the doctrine and discipline made known by the Tathāgata, the holy life would have lasted long, the true Dhamma would have lasted 1,000 years. But now that they have gotten to go forth… this holy life will not last long, the true Dhamma will last only 500 years. Just as a clan in which there are many women and few men is easily plundered by robbers and thieves, in the same way, in whatever doctrine and discipline women get to go forth, the holy life does not last long… Just as a man might make an embankment in advance around a great reservoir to keep the waters from overflowing, in the same way I have set forth in advance the eight rules of respect for bhikkhunīs that they are not to transgress as long as they live.” — Cv.X.1

    • Well, both figures were wrong weren’t they?! Not 500, not 1000, but over 2500 years later and still going, complete with women!

    • Greetings Bro David,

      To me, i think (still ignorant, seek your enlightenment,pls.)what Lord Buddha meant was just a figure of speech to mean its lifespan would be shorten.

      This extract is from the Sutta when Ananda appealed to Lord Buddha(LB) to ordain LB’s aunt. LB refused 3 times and finally gave in under strict conditions (will cut & past later).

      May the spirit of Kalama Sutta prevails. Anumodana.

      We have the Theravada tradition to thank for, for preserving the Dhamma in its pure state for us to taste even after 2500 years! We have to thank too the westen monks who diligently translated it from Pali to English for our easy understanding. Thats to the Dhamma Proctectors and the Dhamma Propagators. SADHU X3!!!

    • Now at that time, the Awakened One, the Blessed One, was staying near Kapilavatthu in the Banyan Grove. Then Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed to him, stood to one side. As she was standing there, she said to him: “It would be good, venerable sir, if women might obtain the Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the doctrine and discipline made known by the Tathāgata.”

      “Enough, Gotamī. Don’t advocate women’s Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the doctrine and discipline made known by the Tathāgata (§).”

      A second time… A third time she said to him: “It would be good, venerable sir, if women might obtain the Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the doctrine and discipline made known by the Tathāgata.”

      “Enough, Gotamī. Don’t advocate women’s Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the doctrine and discipline made known by the Tathāgata.”

      So Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī, (thinking,) “The Blessed One does not allow women’s Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the doctrine and discipline made known by the Tathāgata” — sad and unhappy, crying, her face in tears — bowed to the Blessed One, circumambulated him, keeping him to her right, and then went away.

      The Blessed One, having stayed as long as he liked in Kapilavatthu, set out for Vesālī. After wandering in stages, he arrived at Vesālī. There he stayed near Vesālī at the Gabled Hall in the Great Wood.

      Then Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī, having had her hair cut off, having donned ochre robes, set out for Vesālī together with a large number of Sakyan women. After wandering in stages, she arrived at Vesālī and went to the Gabled Hall in the Great Wood. Then she stood there outside the porch, her feet swollen, her limbs covered with dust, sad and unhappy, crying, her face in tears. Ven. Ānanda saw her standing there … and so asked her, “Why, Gotamī, why are you standing here … your face in tears?”

      “Because, venerable sir, the Blessed One does not allow women’s Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the doctrine and discipline made known by the Tathāgata.”

      “In that case, Gotamī, stay right here for a moment (§) while I ask the Blessed One to allow women’s Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the doctrine and discipline made known by the Tathāgata.”

      Then Ven. Ānanda went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: “Venerable sir, Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī is standing outside the porch … her face in tears, because the Blessed One does not allow women’s Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the doctrine and discipline made known by the Tathāgata. It would be good if women might obtain the Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the doctrine and discipline made known by the Tathāgata.”

      “Enough, Ānanda. Don’t advocate women’s Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the doctrine and discipline made known by the Tathāgata.”

      A second time… A third time, Ven. Ānanda said, “… It would be good, venerable sir, if women might obtain the Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the doctrine and discipline made known by the Tathāgata.”

      “Enough, Ānanda. Don’t advocate women’s Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the doctrine and discipline made known by the Tathāgata.”

      Then the thought occurred to Ven. Ānanda, “The Blessed One does not allow women’s Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the doctrine and discipline made known by the Tathāgata. What if I were to find some other way to ask the Blessed One to allow women’s Going-forth …” So he said to the Blessed One, “Venerable sir, if a woman were to go forth from the home life into homelessness in the doctrine and discipline made known by the Tathāgata, would she be able to realize the fruit of stream-entry, once-returning, non-returning, or arahantship?”

      “Yes, Ānanda, she would…”

    • “In that case, venerable sir, Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī has been of great service to the Blessed One. She was the Blessed One’s aunt, foster mother, nurse, giver of milk. When the Blessed One’s mother passed away, she gave him milk. It would be good if women might obtain the Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the doctrine and discipline made known by the Tathāgata.”

      “Ānanda, if Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī accepts eight rules of respect, that will be her full Acceptance.

      1) “A bhikkhunī who has been fully accepted even for more than a century must bow down, rise up from her seat, salute with hands palm-to-palm over her heart, and perform the duties of respect to a bhikkhu even if he has been fully accepted on that very day. This rule is to be honored, respected, revered, venerated, never to be transgressed as long as she lives.

      2) “A bhikkhunī must not spend the rains in a residence where there is no bhikkhu (nearby)…

      3) “Every half-month a bhikkhunī should expect two things from the Bhikkhu Saṅgha: (permission to) ask for the date of the uposatha and (permission to) approach for an exhortation…

      4) “At the end of the Rains-residence, a bhikkhunī should invite (accusations from) both Saṅghas (the Bhikkhu and Bhikkhunī Saṅghas) on any of three grounds: what they have seen, what they have heard, what they have suspected…

      5) “A bhikkhunī who has broken any of the rules of respect must undergo penance for half a month under both Saṅghas…

      6) “Only after a trainee has trained in the six precepts for two years can she request Acceptance from both Saṅghas…

      7) “A bhikkhu must not in any way be insulted or reviled by a bhikkhunī…

      8) “From this day forward, the admonition of a bhikkhu by a bhikkhunī is forbidden, but the admonition of a bhikkhunī by a bhikkhu is not forbidden. This rule, too, is to be honored, respected, revered, venerated, never to be transgressed as long as she lives.

      “If Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī accepts these eight rules of respect, that will be her full Acceptance.”

      Then Ven. Ānanda, having learned the eight rules of respect in the Blessed One’s presence, went to Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī and, on arrival, said to her, “Gotamī, if you accept these eight rules of respect, that will be your full Acceptance…”

      “Ven. Ānanda, just as if a young woman — or man — fond of ornamentation, having been given a garland of lotuses or jasmine or scented creepers, having accepted it in both hands, were to place it on her head, in the same way I accept the eight rules of respect, never to transgress them as long as I live.”

      Then Ven. Ānanda returned to the Blessed One and, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said, “Venerable sir, Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī has accepted the eight rules of respect. The Blessed One’s foster mother is fully accepted.”

      “But, Ānanda, if women had not obtained the Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the doctrine and discipline made known by the Tathāgata, the holy life would have lasted long, the true Dhamma would have lasted 1,000 years. But now that they have gotten to go forth… this holy life will not last long, the true Dhamma will last only 500 years. Just as a clan in which there are many women and few men is easily plundered by robbers and thieves, in the same way, in whatever doctrine and discipline women get to go forth, the holy life does not last long… Just as a man might make an embankment in advance around a great reservoir to keep the waters from overflowing, in the same way I have set forth in advance the eight rules of respect for bhikkhunīs that they are not to transgress as long as they live.” — Cv.X.1

    • Dear David,

      What Buddha meant was half that it would be shorten by half (if not wrong, it means if Dhamma was meant to last 5000 years (just an example), it would only last 2500 years).

    • Dear Bikku,

      In fact, the dhamma lasted way more than 1000 years. It has been over 2500 years now. So the prediction is clearly false.

      Because of the untrue statement and the other things in this suttra that contradict other suttra in the pali canon, many scholars questioned the authenticity and the source from which this sutra came from, considering that the sutras were passed down through the oral method for over 500 years before it was passed down through writing.

      Besides, after all was said and done the Lord Buddha had decided to ordain Bhikkhuni. Why would we want to decide not .

    • Dear iMed,
      With due respect, i think Buddha meant by half (the standard of measurement during that time as there was no calendar yet).Those days their lingo is very poetic. Buddha cannot be wrong being Enlightened. Example, it was meant to last for 10,000 years but shorten to 5,000 years (half).Sorry, don’t mean to outsmart you but i believe it was meant by half.

    • Below is an excerpt from Venerable Bhikkhu Analayo that can give more details regarding this sutra:

      “By way of foreword, allow me to propose that in approaching the scriptures of the Pāli canon for guidance and orientation, we need to be aware of the fact that this material is the final product of a prolonged period of oral transmission and thus may not always fully reflect the original.

      1 The possibility cannot a priori be excluded that views, which were not part of the original delivery of a discourse or a rule, could have influenced the canonical material as we have it now. This does not mean that the Pāli canon can no longer provide guidance and orientation. But it does mean that during the centuries of oral transmission, material that at first perhaps arouse in the form of a commentary (where the reciters would have felt free to express personal opinions) could have become part of what now is considered canonical.

      2

      Practically speaking, this means that instead of taking isolated passages on their own as invariably true, what is required is an awareness of the overall thrust of the canonical scriptures on a particular theme. Here an important criterion is consistency. Given that according to the discourses the Buddha himself presented consistency as a criterion of truth,

      3
      it would be reasonable to expect that the Buddha was coherent in his views. Furthermore, in order to evaluate single passages a comparative study of the same material transmitted by other early Buddhist schools can provide important perspectives, i.e. in particular the Vinayas and Āgamas preserved in Chinese and other languages.

      In the case of the attitude towards women, we find contradictory positions and thus a lack of consistency in the Pāli canon. One example is the account of the foundation of the order of nuns.

      4
      According to the Mahāparinibbāna-sutta,soon after his awakening the Buddha proclaimed that he would not pass away until he had nun disciples who are wise and learned.

      5
      From this it would follow that right from the outset he wanted to have an order of nuns. This impression is further supported by a closer perusal of the Pāli canon, which shows recurrent references to the importance of having four assemblies of disciples (monks, nuns, male and female lay followers) and to the significant contribution made by nuns to the prosperity and success of the Buddha’s dispensation. These passages stand in contrast to the impression created by the account of the foundation of the order of nuns, which reads as if the Buddha did not want to allow women to go forth.

      6
      A comparative study of this account in the different Vinayas, mainly extant in Chinese, shows clear signs of later addition and thus makes it probable that it does not accurately reflect the Buddha’s attitude.

      Another example would be a pair of discourses in the Aṅguttara-nikāya that compare women to black snakes, as both are dirty, smelly and betray friends etc.

      7
      Would it be reasonable and coherent for an awakened teacher to make such derogatory remarks about women, a teacher who according to other discourses had numbers of nun disciples that had reached full awakening and thus total freedom from any defilement,

      8
      who according to the same Aṅguttara-nikāya proclaimed various nuns and lay women as outstanding in qualities like deep concentration and profound wisdom,

      9
      and who apparently placed such trust in women that in a twin regulation found in all Vinayas he sanctioned acting on a trustworthy laywoman’s report about a monk’s breach of the rules?

      10
      The comparison of women to snakes recurs in two parallel versions: one in the Tibetan Vinaya, where a similar remark is headed by the qualification “some”, i.e. “some women are …”,

      11
      and another in a late text in Uighur, where this remark is not made by the Buddha, but rather by some Sakyan youths.

      12
      These two cases may already suffice for the time being to alert us to the possibility that gender discrimination in the Pāli canon may well be the result of later developments. Regarding the overall attitude towards nuns in early Buddhism, I think it stands beyond doubt that an order of nuns was in existence, and from that I would conclude that the Buddha approved of its existence.

      13
      To this we may add a range of passages that express a very positive attitude towards nuns and value their important contributions to the Dhamma.

      Now quite probably the Buddha adjusted to prevalent customs in ancient India – in wider society as well as in parallel traditions like the Jain order, which appears to already have had an order of nuns – by placing nuns in second position vis-à-vis monks. However, such positioning would have been dictated by circumstance, not being an expression of a principle endorsement of gender discrimination. In fact, I would hold that a discriminating attitude towards women in principle is incompatible with the freedom from defilement incumbent on reaching full awakening, where any prejudice based on caste, social standing, race or gender has been left behind.

      14

      In sum, it would seem to me that

      1.

      Individual passages reflecting a misogynist attitude among the canonical sources need to be approached with circumspection, comparing them with the general thrust of the Dhamma and Vinaya, and ideally studying them in the light of extant parallels.

      2.
      Regulations that express gender discrimination probably reflect the ancient Indian situation and would thus in principle be open to revision in a different setting, when Buddhism begins to flourish in a different environment and culture. Such revision is not against Dhamma and Vinaya, so it seems to me, but would rather express the pragmatic principle of adjusting to circumstances that is such a recurrent feature in the formation of rules as documented throughout the Vinaya. In the end, tradition – which I personally highly value – only stands a chance to survive if it is able to adjust to changing circumstances without loss of what is essential. This can come about if our appraisal of the situation is based on a clear awareness of what causes dukkha – for ourselves or others – and what leads to freedom from dukkha.

      Bhikkhu Anālayo

  8. …but the English Sangha and LP Sumedho aren’t giving the going forth. They are ordaining women as Siladhara, and openly admit (see Five Points) that this does not entail bhikkhuni ordination, i.e. there is no going forth (only to which the Vinaya is applicable).
    I’m thoroughly on the pro-bhikkhuni side of all this- but the critique in this post is flawed.

    To try and progress this debate more meaningfully, we need;
    a) reconciliation between the Australian parties and the wider Forest Sangha
    b) a re-scheduling of the WAM to include Ajahns Brahm and Sujato, on the agenda of which should be full responses to (and further discussion thereof) the charges leveled by Dhammalight and Wat Nong Pah Pong. Internet debates will get us absolutely nowhere.

    Metta

    • Dear Tom,

      The term “going forth” does not just apply to full ordination. Normally it includes all kinds of ordination, and is a general term that refers to someone who has left the household life, ‘having shaved hair and beard (!) and putting on the ochre robe…’ The siladharas certainly consider themselves to have “gone forth”.

  9. Dear Asian Buddhist,
    You are so very articulate. My sincere applause.

    Asian cultures generally are as you describe. They are not perfect and need improvement. However, I totally agree with your implication that outsiders should not impose their values upon others. The change should have come from within. Nevertheless, …

    Unfortunately, without Ajahn Brahm’s courageous decision, Thailand, I’m afraid, would never ever have Thai Theravada bhukkhunis for another century at least…

    Ajahh Chah was reported to say that Buddhism was growing in the West. Did anyone ever ask him to explain why he thought so?

    A Thai monk recently said that several senior Thai monks sadly admitted that Thai Buddhism might degenerate in a hundred years or so. Why? Perhaps because many of the Thai male monks have not wholeheartedly practiced the Buddha’s eightfold path and attained enlightenment? We have some good monks and we also have men in saffron robes violating not only Vinaya but also laws. As long as one is still lost in the whirlpool of delusions, greed and hatred, one can never walk the Way, let alone guiding laypeople to the Way.

    Who in the Thai male Sangha would be wise and compassionate enough to take trouble to seek ways to help women get ordained as Bhikkhunis — to walk on the most accommodating path to enlightenment discovered by the Buddha?

    On the other hand, to be fair, we can see that it’s hard enough for good monks to try to comply with all the monastic rules and teach good dhamma. We can assume that they have more than enough on their plates so that they cannot spend much time on reviving what they consider dead and un-revivable.

    This is my humble opinion to supplement what our dear iMeditation has said so very clearly and beautifully.

    Last but not least, dear Ajahn Sujato, I would like to tell you that should things go as wished, I would like in ten years’ time to plead Ajahn Vayama to be my preceptor and Ajahn Brahm and Ajahn Sujato as the participating Bhikkhu sangha!

    Once again, my deepest gratitude to Ajahn Brahm and Ajahn Sujato for opening the door to the path for us women.

    Yours in dhamma,

    Dheerayupa

  10. Dear Bhante,
    I have been following the news, BIG news, for the Thai forest tradition. I think we need to really look into what are behind the reactions: lopha,dosa, and moha, aren’t they?? And what lines underneath that is ‘Avijjha’ or ignorance which leads to ‘Upadana’-attachments, isn’t it?

    Questions: 1. Could anyone commamd/order anything that contradict what the Buddha taught, ‘I allow Bhikkhu to ordain women’,?
    2. Thai Bhikkhuni died out,true, but prospers in the east, do you have info. on this?
    Anumodana for opening the ears of all!

    Matta

  11. Dear wisdom,

    Thanks for sharing your views. The number was stated clearly. There is no need to inject that it could be half of 10,000 years. Or that it would be 5000 years. I would like to quote the writing below:

    “the true dharma would have stood fast for 1000 years. But since, Ânanda, women have now received that permission, the pure religion, Ânanda, will not now last so long, the good law will now stand fast for only 500 years”

    I also share your view that the Buddha can hardly be wrong ( if ever). Many scholars would agree that this sutra could have been added by other people.

  12. Dear Bhante Sujato , my deep wish is – May your compassion never degenerate and may your mind remain firm and calm. May you rest and refresh at regular intervals.

    May we all progess in the Dhamma.
    ALL of us without exception.

  13. Frustrated :Dear Kanchana,
    Sorry to have upset you. I just meant good so that we all could lay this to rest and have peace restored.
    I kind of agree with in that sense. But now they are debating on the Vinaya and the Thai Sangha had also to upkeep their Sangha law inherited for centuries.
    OMG, how we wish Buddha was still alive, so He could solve this problem with his wisdom & enlightenment.

    Dear Frustrated,

    Not to worry, ‘am sorry if I upset you too.

    I’m sure it will all turn out well if we continue to actively keep true to the refuge we have taken in the Triple Gem. Even if it all goes hey-wire here and in this time, the good kamma we make will still ripen for us all. Only good can come of trying to re-connect authentically with the Buddha’s Dhamma and the way he intended the Sangha to be.

    Harmony is wonderful, but if it was the only heart of Buddhism then the Buddha would never have caused so many families to lose sons and daughters, wives and husbands, sisters and brothers, to the Holy Life.

    Harmony is not the reason we are Buddhist. Harmony is an EFFECT, the by-product of our practise. To be truthful, to live in the world, to have courage, we cannot always be fully harmonious (no matter how much we might wish to be) especially since so many factors are out of our control; such as reactions of the WPPS, ‘you can’t please all of the people all of the time but you can please some of the people some of the time’.

    I reckon Ajahn Brahm has a million times less fear than people like myself.

    All the best.

  14. iMeditation,

    Bhikku Analayo’s letter makes an awful lot of sense.

    It fits in perfectly with the Dhamma as he is practising in line with the Kalama Sutta as well as Right Effort (cos as you all probably know, a lot of Right Effort involves activly focusing on that which is positive, wholesome, compassionate).

    This Buddha-Dhamma is just completely COOL!!

    • Kanchana,

      Analayo Bhikkhu pointed out some very important thing that we usually overlooked when approaching this sutra:

      ” Here an important criterion is consistency. Given that according to the discourses the Buddha himself presented consistency as a criterion of truth, it would be reasonable to expect that the Buddha was coherent in his views. In the case of the attitude towards women, we find contradictory positions and thus a lack of consistency in the Pāli canon. One example is the account of the foundation of the order of nuns.According to the Mahāparinibbāna-sutta,soon after his awakening the Buddha proclaimed that he would not pass away until he had nun disciples who are wise and learned. From this it would follow that right from the outset he wanted to have an order of nuns. This impression is further supported by a closer perusal of the Pāli canon, which shows recurrent references to the importance of having four assemblies of disciples (monks, nuns, male and female lay followers) and to the significant contribution made by nuns to the prosperity and success of the Buddha’s dispensation. These passages stand in contrast to the impression created by the account of the foundation of the order of nuns, which reads as if the Buddha did not want to allow women to go forth. A comparative study of this account in the different Vinayas, mainly extant in Chinese, shows clear signs of later addition and thus makes it probable that it does not accurately reflect the Buddha’s attitude.”

      “These two cases may already suffice for the time being to alert us to the possibility that gender discrimination in the Pāli canon may well be the result of later developments. ..Regarding the overall attitude towards nuns in early Buddhism, I think it stands beyond doubt that an order of nuns was in existence, and from that I would conclude that the Buddha approved of its existence.”

      Very skillful way of approaching a sutra. Saddhu to Bhikkhu Analayo.

    • Dear imeditation,

      Thanks for your comments. I would like to sound a slight counterpoint to this argument by Analayo. He’s a truly great scholar, and I follow all his work avidly. But I think that, like many who pursue academic work (including myself) he is so reasonable that he sometimes expects his material to be similarly reasonable. Of course, i agree totally that it is reasonable to think that the Buddha was coherent and rational, and to use this as a principle in reconstructing the Dhamma.

      And yet at the same time i cannot help but notice that Indic texts generally seem to have little problem in saying completely contradictory things in adjacent passages. This happens less in the early Buddhist scriptures than elsewhere, but it is still found – as indeed the problem that Analayo addresses testifies to. Aristotle’s law of the excluded middle simply never took off in India. They seemed to be quite happy to accept that something could, at the same time, be one thing and also another. And it may be, as the Dalai Lama suggests, that such a model gives a more realistic depiction of the truth that one that is overly rational and consistent.

      I don’t want to propound this as a philosophical tenet, or to assume that the Buddha was inconsistent. Consistency and coherence are important standards by which to assess early Buddhist scripture. But i think we need to be open to the very real presence of ambivalent, ambiguous, or even downright contradictory voices in our texts. Even if they are not the Buddha’s voice, they are someone’s voice. And those someone’s voices play an important role in how Buddhism has developed.

  15. Who are behind all these sex trade and child slavery??? Men or women?
    Sex trade & prostitution in Thailand – if there is no demand, there is no supply.
    Child slavery, phaedophile etc – which gender behind all these?

    We are seeing Hell here, here and now.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s