A proposal for the reform of discriminatory bhikkhunī rules (part 1)

[vimalanyani]

Hi Ajahn,

Thanks for starting this discussion.

I think everything you suggest is entirely reasonable and fairly easy to implement if any community wants to do it. It’s well-grounded in the early texts and in line with the Buddha’s instructions. Of your three options, number 2 (keep all the rules shared between the schools) isn’t going to be useful for the purpose of removing discrimination. The schools only split one or more centuries after the Buddha’s passing, so the vinayas share many of the pacittiyas you outlined above. But suggestions 1 and 3 would probably work. (I haven’t looked at the commentary’s disctinction between faults of morality and faults of convention in detail.)

But as you say:

@Brahmali

Of course, even this quite radical proposal would probably not be enough to create a level playing field between the bhikkhus and the bhikkhunīs. Still, it would be a significant step in the right direction.

Yes, there would still be way to go.

It seems to me that there has been quite some research into textual layers of the vinaya, and it is clear that (most of) the discriminatory practices were introduced later. But we haven’t drawn any practical conclusions from that knowledge. If, for example, the garudhammas are late, what does that mean for dual ordination? For the sanghadisesa procedure? For ovada? For all the other discriminatory rules?
We don’t have suggestions for alternatives. So I’m very happy that someone has finally made a proposal that at least addresses part of the issues.

As you have shown, the Buddha was very clear that it’s not OK to add new rules after his passing. So if we know that parts of the vinaya are late, it should be our duty as monastics to try to restore earlier “more authentic” versions. After all, it could be argued that rules and procedures not sanctioned by the Buddha are invalid, and therefore much of our current vinaya isn’t actually valid.

If we start discussing about changing the patimokkha, then we need to look at these areas too. For example, the dual sanghadisesa procedure is mentioned in the patimokkha. That’s based on the garudhammas and is discriminatory. And things like ovada are all over both patimokkhas. The monks have several rules on it, and it’s in the preliminary duties section as well. Technically, having ovada is a prerequisite for reciting the patimokkha for both monks and nuns, so this is an additional issue.
There’s also the problem that nuns have twice as many parajikas as monks. And when you start altering parajikas, things become really difficult.
My personal feeling is that it will be hard to completely remove discrimination from the patimokkha because it’s just all over the whole structure of the text, and in almost every section of rules. For this reason, I’ve developed an alternative framework based on the early texts a few years ago. I’m not saying that this is the perfect solution but I think it’s worth discussing about:

Thought experiment - a genderless vinaya

The vinaya as is is faces some significant problems. For those with serious aspirations to ordain, the gender discrimination can be a huge barrier, and raise many doubts and questions as to the Buddha’s wisdom in establishing such rules, and the current sangha’s wisdom in following them. This is not only an issue for nuns, who are subjugated, but also for monks, who don’t want to be put in the role of the oppressor; and a gendered patimokkha leaves no place at all for people who don’t identify w…

---

Eventually, we should also look at the elephant in the room: dual ordination. There’s evidence that indicates that the early nuns’ sangha did their ordinations alone. If that’s what the Buddha set up, it’s very justifiable to go back to it.

Again, thank you so much for starting a discussion. It is extremely important to discuss ways to remove gender discrimination in the sangha for the future of Buddhism. And it’s also an issue very close to my heart.