This topic was created to discuss Ajahn Candasiri’s article. If you would like to discuss another topic please make a new thread.
7 Likes
If you had respected Brenna’s admonition to make a new thread, I would have gladly discussed this topic with you.
But as you obviously wanted to have the last word here, I leave it to you, my friend.
No, I will have the last word and the last offtopic post here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notselfstrategy.pdf
Claiming that Buddha never expressed a clear opinion about existence or non-existence of a self. And about eternal consciousness “luminous, all around” - it is discussed better in Sjutato article quoted.
And no, I am not against bhikkhuni ordination. As I’ve said, there is no rational reason to be against such a thing. Just that it really is not going to happen too soon in these theravada countries. The focus should be on the west where there is still oposition against this in england for example.
1 Like
You may be right that some see this as a barrier, but to be honest, I feel the problem is often overstated. First, I don’t think we should to wait until we have “a satisfactory agreement on how the numerous rules of the bhikkhunī pātimokkha would be interpreted”, because this will never happen (depending a bit on who is supposed to be included in this “agreement”). Decisions, as always, should be taken at local Sangha levels, the only legitimate authority on such matters according to the monastic law.
Second, there are only a few rules in the bhikkhunī pātimokkha that need to be interpreted in a way that is acceptable to our modern sensibilities. There are especially two culprits that stand out: the garudhammas and bhikkhunī saṅghādisesa 3. (Which happen to be the precise rules brought up by Ajahn Amaro in his talk.) As for the garudhammas, there are some very good reasons why these can be disregarded in our times. It has been argued by many, including @sujato, that these rules are late and were not laid down by the Buddha. If this is correct, they can be dismissed on the basis of the four great standards, without further ado. Others, especially Ven. Analayo in a recent essay, have argued that the garudhammas are likely to be early, but that they are minor rules with no real consequences if they are not kept. This means that these rules should be regarded in the same way as other minor rules in the Vinaya, that is, there is only an offence when the rule is breached because of disrespect. The minor rules of the Vinaya are bound to time and place, and it is understood that the rules may or may not be relevant at any particular time and in any particular society. It follows that there is no need to keep these rules in most contemporary societies.
As for bhikkhunī saṅghādisesa 3, there is plenty of scope for interpretation, as there is with all Vinaya rules. It is important to realise that it is virtually impossible to find two monastics who understand the Vinaya in exactly the same way. The Vinaya is just too complex and too subject to interpretation. So no rule is set in stone, and we need to read each rule carefully to see what sort of flexibility is built into the rule itself. (I suspect a degree of flexibility may have been intentionally incorporated into the rules by the Buddha.) In accordance with the Buddha’s own recommendations, we should take a text-critical approach (the Great Standards) and proceed from the premise that the commentaries – including the Canonical commentary, which is the rule analysis found in the Vinaya itself – are not binding on our understanding of the actual rules. Once we consider saṅghādisesa 3 in isolation, divested of all the commentarial type material, it is not very difficult to find interpretations that I suspect most bhikkhunī would be willing to accept. At least that’s my experience.
The principles I have outlined above can, and probably should, be applied to any rule in the pātimokkha, whether it is for bhikkhunīs or bhikkhus. One of the main considerations would be the need to consult monastics with enough experience to differentiate between reasonable interpretation and a dilution of the efficacy of the Vinaya.
I have no doubt that this is correct, but it needs to be done at the local level. We will never get, and we should never wait for, universal acceptance.
13 Likes
Thank you Venerable for your detailed answer, I appreciate it very much 
I see it as a significant barrier, as someone who contemplates ordination - but maybe that’s just me, maybe I misunderstand something. I see the importance of keeping sila and how that helps to maintain peace of mind and happiness. I imagine the same is true for Vinaya. If you feel like you’re not keeping Vinaya, people will criticize you and you may see those criticisms as true. I feel this may lead to sadness and lack of faith in one’s path.
As for the garudhammas, I agree with you that they can be dealt with satisfactorily enough. But Sanghadisesa 3 is more significant, and as a sanghadisesa can’t be treated lightly right?
I definitely agree that a suitable interpretation needs to be found personally, or if applicable, according to the local communities preference. That is the most important thing, as you say.
I think it’s just difficult for the lay novice, with the paucity of access to bhikkhuni communities, and various other factors, to ascertain for themselves. That is what I would say from my individual experience, but maybe I’m just wrong or crazy. Am I crazy? 
(LOL, but seriously though, do tell me if so!)
2 Likes
I think it’s quite natural that you see it as a barrier, especially with all the scare stories people are told. But I suspect that this will change as you see the broader picture. The Vinaya is in most respects just a natural expression of morality. In other instances the Vinaya is about protecting the Sangha or Buddhism in a broader sense. All of it is quite reasonable. It is not there simply to be oppressive. Within this broader framework, few things are firmly fixed. The most important thing is to find a community that is compassionate and reasonable and not too fixed on following a particular tradition of interpretation. In such circumstances it is surprising what can be achieved, all within the framework of the pātimokkha rules.
Indeed. These rules need to be followed strictly. But if they are interpreted in a reasonable fashion, then the idea of strict interpretation takes on a very different meaning. My point is that one should never break these rule, but what constitutes a breach is all in the interpretation.
Of course it is, and that’s why I thought I would reply to you. I don’t think anyone has ever called me a slack monk (Vinaya-wise), and yet I do a follow a policy of reasonable interpretation. It’s a middle way between being slack and being strict for strictness’s sake.
You are certainly not crazy; in fact I would say the exact opposite. It’s just hard for lay people to get a clear idea of the monastic Vinaya. The Vinaya is really just a natural extension of the Dhamma, and it is entirely subsidiary to it. If you get inspired by the Dhamma, then the Vinaya should be no different.
8 Likes
Thank you Venerable. That helps to clear things up. And I really do appreciate you sharing your opinion and wisdom on it very much!
I have visited a few bhikkhuni monasteries in Australia, U.S., and Thailand, and the difference in patimokkha interpretation is both confusing and somewhat a relief, I guess. I want to continue investigating Vinaya, especially bhikkhuni Vinaya, so I am just always looking for more ideas. So I appreciate discussing and going through this!
What I have seen so far is this is definitely true, and provides much hope.
Thank you!
3 Likes
Agree.
This remind me of:
"It’s just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, ‘I won’t have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a brahman, a merchant, or a worker.’ He would say, ‘I won’t have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me… until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short… until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored… until I know his home village, town, or city… until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow… until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark… until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated… until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird… until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.’ He would say, ‘I won’t have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.’ The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.
Well, it’s certainly not just you! In a sense, the Vinaya should be a barrier: it should deter anyone who is not serious.
But for serious candidates who happen to be women, the barrier is not the Vinaya, which is there to support your holy life. The barrier is the sexist patriarchy, which abuses the Vinaya to create obstacles for women.
That is a reality, a painful and difficult one. But here’s the thing: if it wasn’t Vinaya, it’d be something else. The real agenda of sexists is to exclude women from what they see as the male preserve. Since the Vinaya is available, they use that. If the Vinaya wasn’t there, they’d fall back on “tradition” or “women’s nature” or “kamma” or whatever else. Which is why, even though the supposed Vinaya objections to bhikkhuni ordination have been repeatedly refuted, it has made precisely zero difference to the attitudes or actions of the patriarchs.
The good news is, the mainstream patriarchy in Theravada is so dysfunctional and spiritually bankrupt that you can just ignore it.
4 Likes
Could there be a connection between refusing the establishment of a bikkhuni order in Thailand, and the effect it could have on the, from what I’ve heard, prevalent sex industry? For instance, if disadvantaged girls had the choice to become a monastic, rather than prostitution, could that be an underlying motivation for the continuance of this seemingly nonsensical course? Meaning, if women were given equal access to resources, as well as respect from the laity, making a monastic life much more attractive than the other choices a woman could make to earn a living, is there some fear that it would impact the male supporters of the Sangha because they would not have such a wide choice of people to exploit when there grasping for pleasure gets the best of them?
2 Likes
Hmm uncertain about that one. Someone said temporary ordination prevalent in Thailand maybe diluting the sangha of serious monks and eventually corrupting the monkhood. In Sri Lanka the problem might be ordaining due to poverty.
Yes, but this seems to have been the case since the very beginning of the Sangha. By going through the origin stories of the Vinaya Rules as recorded in the Bhikkhu Vibhanga one sees examples of all sorts of misuses and exploitation of the Bhikkhu status.
The fact we have records of whole sub-segments of the Sangha having as heads very corrupt and crazy monks (aka the Group of Six) at the same time the Buddha was walking around and helping individuals awake on the spot should serve as a lesson that just like with other things in life, things may not have been better in the past.
There is a record of a very frank conversation among senior monks in Bangkok regarding ordination, and this is one of the major issues. The problem they expressed is that, given that there are estimated to be twice as many sex workers as monks in Thailand, if bhikkhuni ordination were to be available, these women and girls would soon find they had other options, and would join the Sangha in large numbers.
This would mean that there would likely be soon more nuns than monks in Thailand; and they pointed a worrying finger at the situation here in Taiwan as an example of what can happen when things get out of hand, with four times as many nuns as monks.
The notion that it would be a good thing for women to have options other than sex work was not a part of the conversation.
7 Likes
So what is wrong with that? Are there problems in Taiwan as a result?
2 Likes
Oh, no it’s terrible. There are nuns who are actually running monastic colleges—would you believe it! They are independent and educated, and seem to think they can make their own decisions. 
They even go so far as to say that Buddhist ethics should apply to helping people, and sometimes even animals and the environment, too! 
There’s a nun who runs a world-wide charity, others who speak up for same-sex marriage, 
and others who spend their time in meditation and retreat. 
Some people—misguided, foolish people—might see what is happening and see it as evidence that a vital, modern Buddhism actually requires a healthy female Sangha. Goodness knows where that could end up! 
15 Likes
An alternate solution, then, would be to offer ordination to the sex traffickers, who I assume must be males, though I might be mistaken. I think they would jump at it as who wants to work as a sex trafficker- it must be a terrible field to work in- no pay rise, poor dental plans etc.
3 Likes
Protectionism is a common features of all ‘professions’. I wonder if the Taiwanese monks are practicing monks and not professional ones, if you know what I mean?
best wishes
On a serious note- what do you think about child ordination? Psychologically I see the person stuck with parental rejection for the rest of their life. Apart from ordaining to save lives or destitution, I see no reason to ordain young children. However you could argue whether it is better to grow up under abusive parents (who love them enough to give them away- more alcohol anyone?), or parents so poor that they see a better life for the child they can’t afford, in the sangha. I would have though there are processes and procedures in place for this?
with metta
You know, that isn’t really true here in the US. Of course it depends on what you mean by “mainstream patriarchy”, but here the face of Theravada monasticism is Ajahn Sucitto, Ajahn Amaro, and a few other Ajahn Sumedho disciples. Their monasteries seem to be quite successful (the ones in the US and Canada, at least) and receive unbelievable financial support - mostly from Asia. Ajahn Sucitto is the most beloved and in-demand dharma teacher, lay or monastic, who teaches in the US, as far as I can tell. And (IMHO) the dharma he is putting out is extremely beautiful and inspiring.
Most of the people who come on retreat at BCBS and IMS have no idea at all that bhikkhuni ordination is not available and supported by that lineage, and most of the financial support from westerners to western monastics goes to them as well.
For me, at least, the barriers to bhikkhuni ordination have been first, not knowing there were bhikkhunis, then not having the opportunity to stay with, or get to know any of them, and now that I do know some, seeing how hard it is for them to get enough support to practice and follow the discipline.
1 Like