I’ve been lurking here for a little while. I found this thread, as well as a few others on here alarming in relation to the mostly male views on Bhikkunis.
The whole status of Bhikkunis and their striving for legitimacy, respect and support hurts me. I feel they have inherited a bum deal and I truly wish that in a hundred years time, when the seeds of these new Bhikkuni communities have bloomed that this nonsensical patriarchal bent which undermines them today will fade into the distance. Surely, by sheer fact of one ‘going forth’ and abstaining from pro-creating and sexual pleasures, the notion of gender for monastics must in theory evaporate and render them in essence ‘genderless’. So if that is the case this suppressing and undermining of Bhikkunis looks even more ludicrous.
I myself have witnessed elderly Bhikkunis serve young novices food and then proceed to take their meals in a completely different room to the Bhikkus in a monastery. And you know what, as a male layperson staying at the monastery - I found this very insulting to these women and it made me uncomfortable.
All these frightened notions of imaginary ‘schisms’ tearing apart a Sangha also seem equally ludicrous to me. All institutions, over time develop a skewed sense of control and power due to hermetically sealed containers these ecosystems exist within. And buddhism, being an institution - is no different. And how challenging the monastic community’s misogynist views will hurt the Dhamma is beyond me, it will only help it spread further by being more inclusive to women. So yes, if old power structures need to be abandoned and institutions refreshed for the sake of equality or justice, bring on your imaginary schisms.
And to you Bhikkunis out there striving forth in face of the the sillyness, I leave you with some wisdom from the great Hunter S. Thompson - “Don’t take any guff from these swine”.
It is true.
Buddha sat on a bunch of grass no in an extravagant chair.
I have seen some Buddhist monks sit on overly decorated chairs and I think this is unnecessary.
I know monks are not to be blamed but the lay people who provide them. But monks should educate the lay people with these unnecessary expenses. I think there are some restriction on how monks used their beds and chairs.
Well then introduce first come first serve rule and see what happens when you see starving monks scramble on each other to obtain food. Josep Goldstein always comments on the way participants lining up for food.
Monks are expected to practice the loth some of the food. Not to complain about weather they are served before the kids.
Ooops, I think I might need to clarify here, in case it isn’t clear (at your remark I just realised that very alternative readings are available). I am responsible for the title; I rather quickly separated Sarath’s “idiosyncratic” jabs in the early hours from what was otherwise a mature and rich conversation, as they and the comments they attracted distracted from said conversation and took the thread well off-topic.
As an aside, my own personal hope was that in the surrounding community would here apply the suggestion in the guidelines to “Engage in discussions that make this forum an interesting place to be — and avoid those that do not” and that the thread would enjoy a happy, speedy death along with the pernicious views that drive it. But evidently the line of consideration still proves interesting and I understand why.
I guess that’s fair enough, so long as it doesn’t railroad more worthwhile discussions.
I think it is much easier if we throw the whole Vinaya rules to the garbage bin and carry on as we fit.
Because this Vinaya rules does not apply to the 21st century.
What an extreme reaction, and a straw man argument.
Why are the monks comfortable with eating before hungry children? Because extreme needs are probably taken care of as seen, and to teach respect. This then leads to why 10 or 8 precept nuns before bhikkhunis. To teach respect and contempt, and the latter violates the very spirit of the Sangha the Buddha designed.
If you actually believe there is some rightness in men before women or gender above all, one should be warned by concerned Buddhists, that this puts ego and clinging to impermanence above the Buddha’s guidance and instruction.
I suspect that when discussing these questions people start to forget that this separation by sex was set by the Buddha himself, and I have no doubts in the power of his equanimity. Yes, he clearly stated that no matter which sex you have or ancestry or caste, all are equal in terms of ability to reach the Liberation. However, the sangha is divided into two. I do trust in his wisdom to organize it this way. I suspect this division comes from reasons far from spiritual development and has something to do with humans themselves. If it were better to mix men and women together, he would do it. What do you think?
We really do not know how the Vinaya is developed to present day format. My point is some monks and nuns are paying too much attention to unwanted political matters. In my opinion, the real distractors are those monks and nuns, not me. I rather spend my time on more relevant Dhamma discussions rather than these fruitless arguments.
Do you mean to suggest that men and women are blessed castes, or the divisions between monastic and lay? Or perhaps believers and non believers?
I think creating more polarities is conditioned… It is an easy, and quite deceiving way to view almost anything or nothing, for bipedals, it seems. Yet it is exactly something the Buddha explicitly shows to not be right. Neither this, nor not-this, nor both nor neither, over and over…
This is not so. Only some phenomena were classified as you say, such as Nibbana and everything that cannot be grasped in terms of mundane logic. However, the discerning wisdon is a quite unique Buddhist “kind” of wisdom, characteristic of a developed mind. To see that things are different and not the same: virtue and non-virtue, trained person and untrained person, good or bad, etc. The “sameness” is about another matter: that everyting is dukkha, anatta, anicca, all is not absolute, empty foam. This has nothing to do with sex/gender or other phenomena like them.
I thought the main issue under discussion was not whether or not the monks and the nuns should live separately, but how they should behave and show respect to one another when together.
… do you say what was crafted and argued in worldly Sangha is act of Buddha in this age? or that bhikkhu are immune from this arrangement reinforcing Self-yness???
… this feels incorrect and wrong. Just a laywoman but … really???
There are (at least) three purposes of the Vinaya and the monastic order (please add to this whoever is more knowledgeable in these matters!) - the following is from the texts, not my interpretation:
provide a way of living best suitable for realizing the goal
preserve the Dhamma for generations to come
secure the support of the laity
All three were reasons to come up with one rule or another. And really, some rules are only there because the Buddha reacted to some attitudes of the population and the lay community. Just pragmatic as that, no higher spiritual purpose there. Simply because if you do things that upset the population around the Sangha then support will disappear and the Dhamma eventually too.
Without compromising the two first goals it would be wise to adjust to concerns of Western population - for the Sangha in the West. If not, Buddhism will loose its still good reputation and will be seen as a backward irrelevant obsolete religion, supported only by expat Asian communities.
Indeed, some local changes were happening before quite naturally, conforming rules used in practice according to customs views to some degree. For instance, I’ve read recently a translation of Fa Xian’s travel notes from his pilgrimage to India in V century CE. He describes how people were practicing along his way - from Loulan through Khotan and Kashmere to Central-North India and further. Monastics’ behavour and rituals were different from place to place.
