On December 1 1955, in Montgomery Alabama, an African-American woman refused to obey a bus driver’s order to give up her seat on the bus to a white passenger. That simple act of defiance for the cause of social justice became one of the most important symbols of the modern Civil Rights Movements in the USA. That woman was Rosa Parks. The United States Congress called her “the first lady of civil rights” and “the mother of the freedom movement”. December 1 is commemorated in the US states of California and Ohio as “Rosa Parks Day”.
Rosa Parks became a Buddhist before she passed away in 2005 aged 92. One can speculate that this female icon against discrimination chose Buddhism because it is well suited to advancing social justice issues.
In this paper, I will discuss how Buddhism may advance the particular social justice issue of Millennium Development Goal No. 3: Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women. I will focus on the need for Theravada Buddhism’s current male leadership to clearly demonstrate its own commitment to MDG 3 through acceptance of the bhikkhuni ordination. Only then can it use its considerable influence to make our world more fair, one where people are judged on their character and not on their gender.
Gender Inequality in Australia and the Contributions of Buddhist Leaders
In a report on gender equity issued by the Council of Australian Governments on Tuesday 19 November 2013, the median salary of new female graduates in Australia was found to be 10% less than that of male graduates. Even though they were equally qualified, women received less pay than men. Thus even in a developed country such as Australia, gender inequality still persists. In less developed countries it is far worse.
My colleague, Ajahn Sujato, recently attended the 2013 Religions for Peace World Assembly in Vienna, sponsored by the king of Saudi Arabia. He reported in his blog:
One panel was devoted to the role of women in religion, and that was, predictably, powerful and moving. Rape, domestic violence, trafficking in women, forced prostitution, maternal mortality: these are all-too-painful realities for many women; and meanwhile male-dominated religious morality obsesses about correct doctrine and stopping gays. The suffering of women is rarely featured in religious discourse, and as one of the delegates said, when it is mentioned it is tepid and equivocal. Yet as those working in development know well, empowerment of women is the single most effective means of lifting countries out of poverty.
As Buddhists who espouse the ideal of unconditional loving kindness and respect, judging people on their behavior instead of their birth, we should be well positioned to show leadership on the development of gender equality in the modern world and the consequent reduction of suffering for half the world’s population. Moreover, if Buddhism is to remain relevant and grow, we must address these issues head on. But how can we speak about gender equality when some of our own Theravada Buddhist organizations are gender biased?
In Australia, the Anglican Christian Church represents 17.1% of the population (2011 National Census) and is maintaining its relevance by ordaining female bishops. In May 2008, in Perth, I was invited to attend the ordination of the world’s first female bishop in the Anglican Christian Church, Rev. Kay Goldsworthy. The media response to the recognition of women in the Anglican Church was overwhelmingly positive. Such initiatives shine a damming spotlight on other religions in Australia that still discriminate on the basis of gender. But it shone a positive light on Theravada Buddhism in Perth that has fully ordained nuns.
Unfortunately, other Theravada Buddhist temples and monasteries in Australia and in other parts of the world still adhere to excluding women from full membership of the Sangha. I will later argue that there is no legal basis in the Vinaya, the ancient Buddhist Monastic Code, to deny women full ordination. Moreover, when parts of Theravada Buddhism are generally considered to unreasonably prevent women from full membership of the Sangha, then they have no moral authority to speak on gender equality. They have lost the opportunity to speak for the empowerment of women in other parts of society and advance the Third Millennium Development Goal.
When Mahatma Gandhi was a law student in London, the landlady of his boarding house asked him to have a talk with her son. Her boy was eating too much sugar and would not listen to his mother when she told him to stop. Yet the boy had a fondness for the young Mr. Gandhi. She suggested that if Mr. Gandhi advised her son not to eat so much sugar then he might follow the good advice. A week or two went by and the landlady’s son was still eating lots of sugar. So she took Mr. Gandhi aside and asked him why he had not kept his promise to talk with her son. “But I did talk with your son” Mr. Gandhi replied, “but only this morning.” “So why did you wait so long?” “Because it was only yesterday that I gave up eating sugar”. Such was the reply of the great man.
Religious leaders, above all others, must practice what they preach to be taken seriously and for their advice to be effective.
The Power of Leading by Example
According to the latest figures from Wikipedia, there are between 506 million to 1,146 million Buddhists in our world. Even at the lower estimate that is a significant proportion of the global population. The vast majority of these look to their monks and lamas for inspiration, guidance and moral leadership. Moreover, many of these Buddhists are in undeveloped or developing countries where the empowerment of women is crucial for those countries’ economic development and social progress. In today’s highly connected world, words are not enough. Actions are demanded.
Master Cheng Yen, the female founder of the International Tzu Chi Foundation, is an example of the power of an ordained Buddhist Nun. Ordained in Taiwan in 1962, at a time when women had little influence in social policy, she is now regarded as an icon throughout her homeland as well as internationally. She has built state-of-the-art earthquake-proof hospitals in Taiwan, led the way in encouraging recycling of waste in her country, and established the largest Buddhist Relief Organization in our world. When I visited Tzu Chi Foundation in Taiwan in May 2013, I was shown how discarded plastic bottles were turned into blankets to be sent to natural disaster zones, such as the areas devastated by the recent Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. Much of the work was done by retired men and women who gained meaning in their lives together with the considerable emotional and health benefitsthat such a social activity provides. They were enjoying their twilight years instead of wasting away at home. No monk or lama has done anything comparable.
For Buddhism to grow in our modern world, we need to do more than teach meditation, preach inspiring sermons, and make the Sutras available over the internet. We are good at studying, publishing and spreading the word of Buddhism. What we have not been very successful at is showcasing the compassion and selflessness of the Dharma by our actions. We have written many more words in our books than what few kind words we have spoken to the poor, lonely and desperate. We have built so many more temples than orphanages.
Female Leadership in Theravada Buddhist Countries.
Sri Lanka, a majority Theravada Buddhist country, can be proud of having the modern world’s first female Prime Minister, Mrs Sirimavo Bandaranaike, in 1960. Myanmar would have had its first female head of government in 1990 when Aung San Su Kyi and her NLD party won 59% of the popular vote in the national election, but the election result was not accepted. In 2013, Thailand elected their first female Prime Minister, Yingluk Shinawatara.
This shows that Theravada Buddhist laypeople can accept women in leadership roles. Why, then, can’t the Sangha?
Tradition
Theravada Buddhist monks, generally speaking, are very conservative. They often claim that they are the guardians of “Original Buddhism” from the time of the Lord Buddha Himself. They consider that one of their most important duties is to preserve these precious and authentic early teachings. In this context, what was the tradition in the time of The Lord Buddha with regard to women in the Sangha?
All monks of all traditions in all countries, and all Buddhist lay scholars as well, fully accept that there were fully ordained women, called Bhikkhuni, in the lifetime of the Buddha. Moreover, it is clearly stated in these early teachings that one of the goals of the Lord Buddha’s mission was to give the full ordination to women:
Ananda, once I was staying at Uruvela on the bank of the river Neranjara (present day Bodh Gaya) under the Goatherd’s Banyan tree, when I had just attained supreme enlightenment. And Mara the Evil One had come to me, stood to one side and said “May the Blessed One now attain final Nibbana, may the Sugata now attain final Nibbana. Now is the time for the Blessed Lord’s final Nibbana.”
At this, I said to Mara: “Evil One, I will not take final Nibbana until I have bhikkhus, bhikkhunis, lay men and lay women followers, who are accomplished, trained, skilled, learned, knowers of the Dhamma, trained in conformity with the Dhamma, correctly trained and walking in the path of the Dhamma, who will pass on what they have gained from their Teacher, teach it, declare it, establish it, expound it, analyse it, make it clear, until they shall be able by means of the Dhamma to refute false teachings that have arisen, and teach the Dhamma of wondrous effect.
Theravada Buddhists should have an advantage over other major world religions because their tradition explicitly gives such equity to women. Christianity has no tradition of gender equality in their priesthood. Nor does Islam, Judaism or the various schools of Hinduism. Buddhism stands apart and ahead of its time in granting such status to women from “when I (the Lord Buddha) had just attained supreme enlightenment” at Bodh Gaya.
Therefore, full ordination of women is part of the earliest tradition. It is also the declared wish of the Lord Buddha
Obstacles to Gender Equality in the Theravada Sangha
There are two main obstacles to the acceptance of the Bhikkhuni Ordination in Theravada Buddhism: 1) Ignorance about who makes the decisions that govern the Sangha, and 2) Ignorance of the Vinaya, the rules established by the Lord Buddha that restrict what decisions may be made.
1. Many monks in Thailand argue that a ruling from the Sangharaja of Thailand in 1928 bans the ordination of female monks:
Announcement
“It is unallowable for any Bhikkhu to give the Going-Forth to Women.
Any woman who wishes to ordain as a Samaneri, in accordance with the Buddha’s allowances, has to be ordained by a fully ordained Bhikkhuni. The Buddha laid down the rule that only a Bhikkhuni over 12 vassas is eligible to be a Preceptor (pavattini).
The Buddha did not allow for a Bhikkhu to be the preceptor in this ceremony. Unfortunately, the Bhikkhuni lineage has since faded and died out. Since there is no more fully-fledged Bhikkhunis to pass on the lineage, there is henceforth no Samaneris who have obtained a proper ordination from a fully-fledged Bhikkhuni.
Therefore both the Bhikkhuni and Samaneri lineage has died out. So any Bhikkhu who gives the going forth to a woman to become a Samaneri, it can be said that the Bhikkhu is not acting in accordance with the regulations the Buddha laid down. In essence, he is following his own guidelines and diverging from the guidelines that the Buddha laid down. This is something that will jeopardize the Buddhist Religion and is not a good example for other Bhikkhus.
Therefore, all monks and novices in both Nikayas are forbidden to ordain any woman as a Bhikkhuni, Sikkhamana, or Samaneri from this day forth.”
Phra Bancha Somdet Phra Sangharacha Jiao Gromluang Jinawarn Siriwad (18 June 2471)
Official announcement from the Sangha Committee Meeting minutes, Book 16 p. 157.
As well as noting the antiquity of this ruling, it should also be pointed out that the Sangharaja of Thailand, together with the Thai Council of Elders (Mahatherasamakom), are only permitted by their legally binding constitution to rule on matters directly concerning the monks and novices of the main two Thai Buddhist sects, Mahanikaya and Dhammayuttanikaya. They are legally not empowered to rule on the affairs of other monastic groups, such as Chinese Mahayana monks in Thailand, nor on nuns. For those well meaning monks waiting for the Thai Council of Elders to decide on the legitimacy of Theravada Bhikkhunis, they will need to wait forever. The Thai Council of Elders is not legally entitled to rule on matters beyond its remit.
As the Late Somdet Phra Pootajarn, the then acting leader of the Thai Council of Elders, told me in 2009 regarding the question of Bhikkhuni ordination “Thai law does not extend beyond Thailand”. In essence, a Sangha in Thailand cannot rule on the proceedings of a Sangha in Sri Lanka, nor in Australia.
Indeed, the Buddha established that all Sanghakamma (monastic acts), such as the ordination of Bhikkhunis, are to be decided on by the local monastic community, defined as those monks or nuns within the same monastic boundary. Decisions or opinions of other monastic communities are not binding. Governance of the Sangha is devolved to each monastic community. This is the ruling of the Lord Buddha.
2. However, each monastic community is bound to act within the rules called the Vinaya. So are these rules an obstacle to Bhikkhuni Ordination?
The Thai Sangharaja’s 1928 ruling judged that a bhikkhu Sangha cannot give ordination to a bhikkhuni, because one needs other bhikkhunis to ordain a bhikkhuni. This is a moot point. In a recent publication “The Revival of the Bhikkhuni Order and the Decline of the Sasana” by the renowned scholar monk Bhikkhu Analayo (Journal of Buddhist Ethics, Vol. 20, 2013), the author argues that such an ordination is valid. In short, he argues that at first the Lord Buddha gave the bhikkhus authority to ordain bhikkhunis. Later, the Buddha gave authority for bhikkhunis to be ordained by a dual ordination ceremony; first in a Sangha of bhikkhunis and then in a Sangha of bhikkhus.
However, in contrast with the history of the bhikkhu ordination, where one finds that whenever a new ordination is allowed by the Lord Buddha then the previous method is immediately abolished, the original ordination of bhikkhunis by bhikkhus was not abolished by the Lord Buddha.
It is a general principle of Theravada Buddhism “Not to abolish what has been authorized by the Buddha” (one of the seven causes for the longevity of the Buddhist religion, Anguttara Nikaya 7.23, Digha Nikaya 16). This, then, is a strong argument for the legitimacy of ordination of bhikkhunis by bhikkhus alone.
It is generally regarded that the first bhikkhuni ordination of modern times was that which occurred in 1998 in Bodh Gaya. This was a dual ordination performed first by Chinese bhikkhunis following the “Dharmagupta” Vinaya and then by an international Theravada Sangha of bhikkhus. Was this legitimate?
There are four, and only four, ways that an ordination may be judged illegitimate:
- 1. Simavipatti: when there is a monk or nun within the monastic boundary who should be present but is absent.
- 2. Parisavipatti: when there is not an adequate quorum.
- 3. Vatthuvipatti: (for ordinations) when the candidate is disqualified from ordination such as being underage.
- 4. Kammavacavipatti: when the procedure is chanted incorrectly, e.g. an ordination ceremony being chanted without a motion and three announcements.
In regard to the Bodh Gaya ordination, there is no doubt that:
- 1. All the monks and nuns within the monastic boundary were present,
- 3. The candidates were well qualified, and
- 4. The procedure was chanted correctly.
But was there a quorum? May Mahayana bhikkhunis qualify as a quorum?
There are no reasonable grounds to suspect that the Chinese Mahayana nuns who performed the Bodh Gaya ordination are not legitimate bhikkhunis. The records show that their lineage came from Sri Lanka. Their own ordination procedure does not fail for any of the four reasons given above. They perform the ceremony with all present within a boundary (which they call a “platform”). There is always a quorum. They ensure that the candidate is qualified. And the ceremony is enacted by the same motion and three announcements as in Theravada, albeit chanted in Chinese. They are bhikkhunis according to the Vinaya and so can ordain other bhikkhunis.
But what about a quorum of one sect (Mahayana) ordaining nuns of another sect (Theravada)?
Sects in Buddhism
The different sects of Theravada are called nanasamvasa in the Vinaya. They are separate communities each performing their own acts of governance (sanghakamma), even within the same monastic boundary. The Vinaya states that there are only two origins of separate communities (nanasamvasabhumi):
- A monk decides for himself to belong to a community separate from others, or
- The Sangha forces a monk out of their community by enacting the severe penalty of Ukkhepaniyakamma by a motion and three announcements.
Vinaya Mahavagga, chapter 10, verse 1.10
The second cause for a separate community is not used these days. This leaves only the first, that of personal choice. Put simply, according to Vinaya, a monk may choose to perform Sanghakamma with any group of monks he feels comfortable with. There is no legal impediment preventing a Theravada bhikkhu from performing a Sanghakamma with a Mahayana bhikksu. Indeed, it may be accurately said that there are no Theravada or Mahayana bhikkhus, there are just bhikkhus, according to the Vinaya, who happen to follow Theravada customs or Mahayana practices. Thus, a monk ordained in a Theravada ceremony may join a Mahayana monastery without needing to be re-ordained.
Thus, according to the Vinaya, Mahayana bhikkhunis may perform the first part of the ordination ceremony for a new bhikkhuni, and then she may take the second part of the dual ordination in a gathering of Theravada bhikkhus. This is what happened in Bodh Gaya. There is no reasonable argument based on the Vinaya to invalidate this. And what sect to those bhikkhunis ordained at Bodh Gaya belong to? They choose!
The Perth Bhikkhuni Ordination in 2009
Once there were Theravada bhikkhunis, it was relatively easy to arrange for the ordination of four women as bhikkhunis in Perth in October 2009. Even though it caused some trouble at the time, the bhikkhunis that were ordained are now recognized by all as bhikkhunis according to the Vinaya. As the old saying goes: “One cannot make an omelette without cracking eggs”.
The Bhikkhuni Sangha is growing. In Perth, the Dhammasara Nuns Monastery currently has 11 members of the Sangha with a waiting list of women from around the world wanting to ordain. Recently, a Thai TV channel visited Dhammasara and interviewed the bhikkhunis. In Thailand there are around 100 bhikkhunis (Murray Hunter, ANU, 2/1/2014) and in Sri Lanka around 800 bhikkhunis (The Sunday Leader, Sri Lanka, 3 March 2013). They may not be respected by all monks but they are becoming ever more respected by the lay Buddhist community, especially in Western countries. The Perth bhikkhunis are giving talks and teaching meditation. They are taking their place in the fourfold assembly of Buddhism as the Lord Buddha wanted. They are getting ample support.
The Need for the Current Leadership of Theravada to Embrace Bhikkhuni Ordination
It may be of interest to Thai monks to know that the Preceptor (pavattini) at the Perth Bhikkhuni ordination, Ayya Tathhaaloka, had visited Ajahn Maha Boowa at Wat Bahn That in Udon before the Perth Bhikkhuni ordination. Ajahn Maha Boowa invited her to stay in the female quarters overnight, and gave her ordination recognition by inviting her up onto the monks’ platform and then addressing her as a bhikkhuni, in front of the Sangha together with the assembled laity.
Many influential leaders in Thailand respect Ajahn Maha Boowa to such an extent that this incident may encourage other senior monks to accept the existence of Theravada bhikkhunis in Thailand. Such acceptance by Buddhist monk leaders will result in greater respect for the status of bhikkhunis among the lay Buddhist followers. Then those women will be empowered to lead in many other areas for the benefit and progress of their nation.
The Relevance of Bhikkhuni Ordination for the Third Millennium Development Goal
In a recently published paper by Emma Tomalin and Caroline Starkey (Sakyadhita newsletter, Winter 2012), the authors explored the role that Buddhism in Thailand and Cambodia plays in maintaining gender disparity in education and, “ultimately ask what is the relationship between the reassertion of women’s traditional ordination rights and female empowerment through education?” They noted that “Several scholars, both Thai and Western, have implicated Buddhism as one explanatory factor for the historical inequality between genders, particularly in the poorest areas.” Also that “Many advocates of the bhikkhuni ordination consider that that there is a direct relationship between the low status of women in many Buddhist traditions and the inferior status of women within Buddhist societies.
Thus, by restoring equity to women in the Theravada Sangha through the reinstating of the bhikkhuni ordination, we will be addressing the inferior status of women in many Theravada countries, promoting gender equity in education and, thereby, making a strong statement in support of the Third UN Millennium Development Goal.
By fixing our own house first, we have the considerable opportunity and moral authority through our books and sermons to inspire and encourage our Buddhist followers to also work towards gender equality in spheres other than religion. That will lead to a world with less violence, better health and more prosperity.
Ajahn Brahm, Perth, January 2014
Sujato’s Blog 
I am yet to read this paper in full.. but I am sure it is going to be a nourishing experience.. so I liked it upfront!
This all sounds good and I’m glad. As always I have some questions…
Re Women bishops in the Church of England, just 4 days ago the BBC reported “However, the question of women bishops has remained a thorny issue for the Church, with groups of traditionalists firmly opposed to the idea.” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18702908) Is the situation different in Aussie? Is this example of how divided the CoE are over the issue apposite to Theravāda communities?
Re having Mahāyāna bhikkhuni’s make up your quorum… they follow a different paṭimokkha and therefore could not attend an uposatha ceremony with you, could they? I like the fact that you guys worked around this, but if you want to stake legitimacy on scripture, haven’t you broken the rules?
What about the 8 garudhammas? Especially the 1st and 8th – that bhikkhunis must always be subservient to any bhikkhu and that no bhikkuni may criticise any bhikkhu? I’m sure this issue must have been raised at some point, but I haven’t seen a response to it. Do the new(ish) bhikkhuni’s follow the garudhammas? (I really hope they do not!)
No, the situation with the CoE is pretty much the same here. It is geographically localized: the leadership of the Sydney communion is well known for its extreme conservatism, and rejects women’s ordination, but it is widely accepted elsewhere.
Of course. Patriarchies, like all human power structures, tend to follow similar patterns, and it’s helpful to understand how those patterns work.
In most of the the communities I have participated in over the past 2 decades, Mahayana Sangha are fully accepted in the community, as long as they are following the Vinaya. The patimokkhas are so similar that the differences are regarded as negligible. In fact, it is against the Vinaya to exclude Sangha from the uposatha, unless they have been declared nanasamvasa, as pointed out by Ajahn Brahm in his essay. Of course, many Mahayana Sangha don’t keep the Vinaya, but the same is true of most Theravada monks.
I also hope this! I have argued often, in writing and speech, that the garudhammas, and the whole story of Mahapajapati are a later addition. There are so many text-critical problems with the entire passage that this conclusion is inevitable. Some bhikkhunis choose to follow the garudhammas, a decision I respectfully disagree with. But it is their choice.
Hi Bhante Sujato
So at Bodhinyana Mahayana monks attend the Patimokha recitation? Does this happen in Thailand?
Hi Peter,
Yes, that’s right. We sometimes have Mahayana monks staying here, and no distinction is made when sitting in the patimokkha.
Normally in Thailand this is not the case. The Mahayana Sangha there is regarded as entirely separate from the Theravada. But we should also bear in mind that Dhammayuttika monks don’t sit patimokkha with Mahanikaya, and Ajahn Chah tradition monks, though Mahanikaya, don’t sit patimokkha with other Mahanikaya monks, and so on. And of course all of these practices are kept inconsistently, and are broken as often as they are kept. For example, Ajahn Ganha, who is Ajahn Chah’s nephew and a highly regarded meditation master in his own right, is Dhammayuttika, and he will happily include not only Mahanikaya monks but also Mahayana monks in his patimokkhas.
There are two competing principles in these decisions. One is the notion of samvasa: that a certain circle of bhikkhus is regarded as of a different communion. This is widely believed to be a Vinaya concept, but as Ajahn Brahm explains in his paper (actually, I discussed this previously in my paper at the Hamburg bhikkhuni congress), the way it is practised today has no basis in the Vinaya.
The other principle is that those sitting in patimokkha should keep a compatible standard of Vinaya. Since the purpose of patimokkha is to affirm a common way of life, this principle does have a basis in Vinaya. So as far as we are concerned, as long as monks are keeping the Vinaya, we make no distinction.
Hello Sujato. I understand that Rosa Parks became associated with Soka Gakkai at the end of her life. According to Soka Gakkai’s teachings, which are based on the Lotus Sutra and totally ignore the Pali Canon, one should always practice in order to achieve some aim (which can be more or less mundane), and it is this striving towards some aim that makes one happy and enhances one’s life condition (I don’t know if this is the right rendering in English: in Italian they speak of ‘stato vitale’). Thus striving, rather than letting go, is at the core of their teaching. It would thus seem that what SGI in practice advocates is at the antipodes of Theravada as Ajahn Brahm teaches it (actually I know this from personal experience, since I have some very good friends who are members of SGI – so I am not criticing SGI members here, and I must say I have met some very good and generous persons who are members of that association. However, I have seen that there is an enormous gulf between their practice and that of the Theravada Buddhism as I understand it). So would you agree that the reference to Rosa Parks in Ajahn Brahm’s papaer is puzzling, since SGI teachings have very little to do with Theravada Buddhism (apart from the name)?
Thanks, Stefano, we were just discussing that here at Bodhinyana, and none of us knew any more details. Nor do I know much about Sokka Gakkai, excpet that they are regarded as a Buddhist movement. There are many different forms of Buddhism, but the virtues of compassion, generosity, kindness, and wisdom are always present. So unless a particular movement is engaging in behaviours that are actively harmful, we don’t make a big issue out of the differences.
My experience of SGI is meeting them in Kent 20 years ago when with a female practitioner of Nicheren Buddhism.
To my knowledge ‘way back then’ Nicheren gained ascendance as a warrior who imposed rule in Korea and led a form of Buddhism which has become named ‘Yuppie Buddhism’ in the West.
This being due to the chanting of a single pepetitive mantra to attain what is desired.
This, to me, seemed far from Buddhist -and I declined to join the group.
This does accord with the comment that striving is an aim in itself but not one that is based on compassion for others. More for oneself, I suggest.
As a throwaway line, maybe any form of Buddhist Dharma is better than none at all but this is definitely too near the line for me.
Thank you Ajahn Sujato and Ajahn Brahm for all your continued efforts in this tedious business!
A very important and relevant topic. Bhante, are you aware of this conference which will be held next year in Indonesia? http://www.sakyadhita.org/conferences/14th-si-con.html
I am a member of BSWA currently based in Indonesia. I had the thought that perhaps a Bhikkuni from Dhammasara may be interested in attending and/or speaking at this event. I can help arrange it this side if there is some interest. Do you have any thoughts on this?
With due respect, in Mara’s temptation, some interpreted it as the Buddha’s wish or intention, but is it true or can we be absolutely sure that it was Buddha’s wish or intention? Can it not be that the Buddha was Omnicience & it was probably a prophecy, similarly as in Saddhamma? I find it contradicting for a Supreme Buddha to still have wish or intention. According to my understanding, a Supreme Buddha should have no more wish or intention which are, in reality, samkaras, mental formations or mental construct. Appreciate any light shed on this. Namo.
Hi Angel,
Actually, the Buddha (and other arahants) still has intention just like everyone else. Otherwise how would you get up in the morning? But it’s just that the intention is pure, and doesn’t lead to rebirth. In fact in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, just before he passes away, and just after the passage we are considering, the Buddha announces that he relinquishes the “will to live”.
Of course we can never know 100% what the Buddha said or what his intentions are. But it is clear that this passage represents what a significant part of the early Buddhist community believed was his intention. And they knew him, which we don’t. This is something that I’d like to come back to in a future post, so stay tuned…
Excellent! Sadhu! Thank you, venerable.
Dear Bhante Sujato, thanks for posting Ajahn Brahm’s paper. To me, it sends a poweful message to all human! We must fight for equality as there is no reason why women should be treated differently from men.
Thank you, that’s interesting. Would the Mahayana monks perform confession before the recitation? Would you say that generally speaking that visiting Mahayana monks relate to and practice vinaya in the same way as the resident monks at Bodhinyana?
Hi Peter,
Yes, they confess and participate in exactly the same way as the rest of the monks. The Mahayana monks who do come here to stay do so because they are interested in Ajahn Brahm’s teachings and the Theravada lifestyle, so they want to practice as the rest of us do. In fact it is a little misleading to call them “Mahayana” monks, as they are in fact monks who ordained in a Dharmaguptaka lineage within a tradition whose primary practice is Mahayana. But the very fact that they are here shows that their main interest is actually in early Buddhist teachings and practice. There is a strong movement within several Mahayana traditions, including Korea and Taiwan, to go back to the sources as a form of revitalization.
Hi Bhante
So the Dharmaguptaka ordination is seen as compatible and valid Therevada act of Sangha? Are the procedures similar? If a Mahayana Monk wanted to commit himself fully to the lifestyle of a monk under the guidance of Ajahn Brahm would he just need to change his robes or would he need to take a Theravada ordination? Thanks.
Once again, for us this is not an issue. The ordination is identical in all core facets. The Dharmaguptaka is somewhat more developed than the Pali texts, so the ordination procedure is a little more complex. But the core of the ordination is the motion and three announcements: this is what actually makes someone a bhikkhu or bhikkhuni. And these are essentially identical in all Vinayas.
Thanks for clarifying.
with due respect,may i share my views and opinions here.Pls. take what is agreeable and make sense to you &pls. ignore what is not.Pls. do not take it personally.
Scientifically,it’s proven that women & men are different in many ways.The Buddha admitted Mahapajapati into the Sangha subject to the Garudhammas on the sole basis that female could be enlightened i.e.free from taints of lust,hatred,delusion,but didn’t give equal rules as men in the Sangha.It’s obvious Buddha established a patriarchal system in the Sangha as shown in “welfare of bhikkhus” & “last admonition” in the Mahaparinibbana sutta.The original bhikkhus & bhikkhunis during Buddha’s time were taught to practice “birth is destroyed, the holy life is lived ¬hing further to be done.”Theravada Sangha/Elders tradition is said to be ideal for those who aspire to become an Ariya i.e.sotapanna,sakadagami,anagami,arahant by following what the Buddha taught in the Pali Canon.
My understanding of the Garudhamma:-
Rule No.1 -“A nun who has been ordained even for a hundred years must greet respectfully,rise up from her seat, salute with joined palms, do proper homage to a monk ordained but that day.” -This is for protecting the nun when nun anjali monk.Men’s ego by nature is bigger (sorry don’t take it personally but could be true),so if nun anjalis monk the monks would in return respect&protect the nun.Buddha is said to be a psychologist.
Rule No.2 -“A nun must not spend the rains in a residence where there are no monks” -This is for nun’s biological safety to prevent physical harm by other men.
Rule No.7-“A Monk must not be abused or reviled in any way by a nun & Rule No.8-“From today, admonition of monks by nuns is forbidden, admonition of nuns by monks is not forbidden.” -These are for harmony in the Sangha.The Buddha first taught to the 5 monks and later to other monks for many years before Mahapajapati asked for ordination.Monks are Buddha’s first disciples & the nuns received teachings from the monks during Buddha’s time.
The Garudhamma is said to be authentic and pragmatic.They are rules said to be laid down by the Buddha said to be according to the truth for the harmony & protection of the Sangha & Dhamma.They are timeless ancient wisdom not about Eastern values nor it is about inequality which a perception or concept (judgement).
Imo the bhikkhus & bhikkhunis can either follow or not follow the Garudhamma according to their trust in it.But pls. do not abolish it.There are some who think it’s authentic. No offence.
Hi Angel,
You say:
Sorry, but this really isn’t true. Decades of psychological studies have repeatedly shown that any differences between the genders are minimal at best, and once you allow for cultural conditioning, the real question is: why are we so obsessed with finding differences between the sexes.
Similarly, repeated text-critical studies have shown beyond reasonable doubt that the garudhammas and the story of Mahapajapati are products of later revisions of the texts, not spoken by the Buddha. The real question here is: why, when bhikkhunis are mentioned, do Buddhists bend over backwards to find some way of justifying a sexist, inauthentic text, while ignoring the hundreds of positive statements on bhikkhunis, including those by the bhikhhunis themselves?
Hi Bhante
Firstly,i don’t mean to be disrespectful to bhante or monastics by my comments which were solely mine.I don’t speak for anyone or represent anyone.Only based on personal knowledge subject to disagreement by anyone.In mparinibbanasutta,Buddha is said to include upasakas&upasikas(translated laymen&laywomen) “….shall be able to refute them thoroughly and well, and to preach this convincing and liberating Dhamma.” I appreciate the privilege to share my views &opinions here as what this blog is all about.
With due respect,by “scientifically” i mean biologically,hormonally regardless of culture,conditioning,creed &geographical.Without the scientists or buddha,I think we’re able to know this experience by our own observations &experiences.Men by nature are more stable &less emotional.Women by nature are subject to uncontrollable premenstrual stress &tensions(PMS/PMT),prone to eating disorders,mood swings,experience natural intense craving for a child.All these hormonal surges could make women become irrational,outrage &unstable during certain periods.Generally,from experience it is said women are more jealous &hateful,miserly,bitchy &gossip more,more vain etc(sorry,not out to discredit women.You may disagree.) .
As for the garudhammas,the text appeared as well in “the dhammapada” & in “the sacred text” – http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/lob/lob43.htm (subject to reliability &verification).
Quoted in dhammapada text -“a Thera is not determined by his grey hair”. I think similarly with rule 1 in garudhamma.Perhaps,male is said to be representing the Buddha’s sangha regardless of academic &seniority.Perhaps it’s based on our previous kamma or virtue,as it’s said, “we are the product of what we were.” Another quoted in dhammapada,text -“misconduct is the taint of a women”.Misconduct is said to refer to body,speech &mind (sorry ladies,this is not from me but appeared in the text unless proven otherwise that it is again a later addition and not words of the buddha).
Based on this texts available,it’s said that the garudhammas are plausible rules laid down by the buddha.It is perceived by the modern world as inequality.In reality,the garudhamma could have nothing to do with inequality.It could be a beneficial spiritual protocol&etiquette organization set up recommended by a fully awakened one for the welfare of women &harmony of both genders in the monastic,prolongation of the sangha &the dhamma.In reality,equality could be an economic terminology & ideology applicable socially and materially.Having said that,it is controversial & it is said that it’s not mandatory & regarded by some as “outdated” in today’s modern world.No offence.
Reading this 6 years from now, I’m a bit astonished by the sexism displayed in your post. I hope you still don’t believe things like “men are more stable than women”. There’s plenty of evidence against that. Most people in prison are men. Most people who commit suicide are men. Most people who live on the street are men. Where is the stability here?
Fascinating.
I remember trying to justifiy these things too… It seems long ago that I did so.
One day, I found myself freed from having to do so.
It was blissful. It was peaceful. It was leading in the direction of letting go and had the scent of liberation about it. It was, a massive relief.
I’m learning, over the years, to trust this feeling. I’ve found that the Buddha in the suttas backs me in this. For he instructed us that this how we would know what would be in accordance with his teaching and what would not be.
A massive relief. To suddenly change my view. I knew intuitively that it was the Right View. The View that led to peace and happiness. For that is what makes ‘right view’ ‘right’.
For this path has to lead to peace and happiness. That is in the core teachings of the 4 Noble Truths; that is the last two Truths. That is how I aim to navigate my way.
It was a massive relief to suddenly look through a different window and see a different View. Through this window I saw nuns supported by a wise compassionate Buddha, whose statements were consistent with such wisdom and compassion. Through this window I saw men and women as human beings having the same defilements, learning to acknowledge and therefore respect how these defilements manifested within themselves at times, in different ways. I saw them transforming, transcending and loving and being free.
I never went back to the old window and the old view which began to seem so wrong to me. For out that window, I felt a sense of burden. A desire to try and reconcile wise, compassionate teachings with utterances that couldn’t be disguised for anything but the opposites of these beautiful qualities. Whilst looking out this window, I had to urgently find reasons, excuses, justifications for these utterances. So that I could still feel okay. But even with these excuses, I couldn’t feel okay. I just couldn’t. I felt bad about my very human-ness, cos I felt bad about my very woman-ness. Some where deep inside, i felt so flawed and so hindered and felt i deserved nothing but difficulty in my spiritual aspirations. I only knew how much this held me back from peace, love and understanding, when I stopped clinging to them. When I let these wrong views go, all this burden was released. I didn’t have to excuse these hurtful utterances, cos they just weren’t truth.
It was a massive relief. There was nothing wrong with my human-ness with all it’s flaws because there was nothing wrong with my woman-ness. We do identify with these things. (We do identify with gender. We can’t help it. It’s part of our make-up. Best be honest on this score for we are, as practising Buddhists, in the business of seeking honesty and truth.) That’s why we’re trapped in samsara….because we identify…that’s why we’re still here. But we’ll never transcend this trap if we first don’t acknowledge, love, embrace our full humanity. For without love, we cannot bear to see our flaws. Without love, we hold our flaws at arms length, afraid lest we punish ourselves through shame. But when the shame is gone and the love is present, all things are embraced and then understanding flourishes, ease flourishes, the path becomes more obvious and happiness emerges in the most unexpected places. Suffering isn’t banished, just understood better.
So as for the garudhammas…let us, oh let us get rid of them! 🙂 But look, if you want to practice and support them, that’s okay. But, this is my opinion on the matter. No offence.
I just imagine again what it was like when I thought them real. The sinking feeling. The stone in my heart. It was awful and yucky. And I didn’t drop them just because of a feeling of peace and a scent of liberation. I’m not a completely intuitive being. I can be cerebral too…so I checked out the reasons for and against. I always said, I’d only support Bhikkhuni ordination if they could show me how it was “legally” (in terms of Vinaya) show me that it was alright. Well, I saw it was. So I supported it. (I know some think this is a too worldly approach and we shouldn’t use this as reason to support it, that compassion alone should be enough…now I agree with this view…at the time I didn’t even understand this view).
I take the same approach with the garudhammas. I’ve listened to both sides. I think I’ve a reasonable balance of both emotional-heart qualities and intellect (though making no great claims in either realm of course) to see that the garudhammas are wrong view. It is so obvious to me after exploring this as I have. So I am happy, indeed, I feel privileged and honoured, to support any bhikkhuni who wishes to practice without them…so long as they’re cultivating compassion and peace and aiming to keep all their precepts as best they can. They are practising as the Buddha advised.
I don’t need to imagine what it would be like to stop trying to justify the garudhammas (and just feel good about being as I am…the acceptance of suffering as it actually is, is so much easier with this approach…how could it not be the Buddha’s path…it aligns so beautifully with the first noble truth)…I don’t need to imagine this cos this is just so often my perception of my reality now. I hope I’ll always live and practice through this and that I will continue to feel closer to the Buddha-Dhamma for it.
However, if you’ve some strong vested interest…some attachment I should say…in justifying the garudhammas…perhaps it’s because monks you rely on and support prefer to see them as legitimate…and perhaps it would be too big for you to give up such an attachment… Whatever the reason…I invite you to just imagine for a few moments how it would feel…in your heart and body…your emotional world…to let them go… Our practice must be connected to our emotional world…for peace and love are things that are felt, not thought.
With metta
Beautifully put,Kanchana!