I think it’s probably true that we don’t have to look past simple patriarchy, and its associated sexual divisions of labor, to explain the attitudes. My observation, based on my admittedly limited experience, is that female lay followers tend to do a lot of the work around the monastery. They do most of the cooking and indoor cleaning. They bring the flowers and arrange them. Maybe the bhikkhus are worried about what happens when many of these women have joined their own monasteries.
The women also supply a lot of the “venerating”, and some monks who have grown accustomed to, and are not yet free from the allurements of, that kind of routine ego gratification, might be worried about what happens when these pious woman have the option of seeking spiritual fulfillment in some other way than merit-making by bowing before a male monk. And for the male lay followers, what happens to their egos when they have to bow before a female monk?
Perhaps some of the men in these cultures where Bhikkhuni ordination has disappeared are worried about this kind of freedom:
Thig 1.11 Mutta
So freed! So thoroughly freed am I! — from three crooked things set free:
_ from mortar, pestle,_
_ & crooked old husband._ Having uprooted the craving that leads to becoming,
_I’m s_et free from aging & death.
Thig 2.3 Sumangala’s Mother
So freed! So freed! So thoroughly freed am I —
_ from my pestle,_
_ my shameless husband_
_ & his sun-shade making,_
_ my moldy old pot_
_ with its water-snake smell._ Aversion & passion I cut with a chop. Having come to the foot of a tree, I meditate, absorbed in the bliss:
_ “What bliss!”_
Thig 5.2 Vimala
Intoxicated with my complexion figure, beauty, & fame; haughty with youth,
_ I despised other women._ Adorning this body embellished to delude foolish men, I stood at the door to the brothel:
_ a hunter with snare laid out._ I showed off my ornaments, and revealed many a private part. I worked my manifold magic, laughing out loud at the crowd.
Today, wrapped in a double cloak,
_ my head shaven,_
_ having wandered for alms,_ I sit at the foot of a tree and attain the state of no-thought. All ties — human & divine — have been cut. Having cast off all effluents, cooled am I, unbound.
True. I’m being very culturally narrow, aren’t I? But to the people I know - the folks coming to retreats at IMS, Spirit Rock, and other lay centers in the US, those are the monasteries they really know about, and the monastics they know. I don’t know whether other US monasteries are dysfunctional and spiritually bankrupt or not - except I don’t think Bhavana Society would be with Bhante G there.
My point was that I don’t think we can ignore them. They have enormous influence.
What’s always been troubling for me is the fact that the evidence of the Bhikkhunis from the time of the Buddha is just so obvious, or at least it should be painfully obvious to any serious student of the early texts. As much as one may rightfully respect some of the Bhikkhus that were mentioned above, it is always painful to listen to them, at times, answer questions about the propriety and need for modern Bhikkhuni ordinations. The responses involve such seemingly disingenuous verbal gymnastics, that it’s painful to watch.
I get that much of the support for these monasteries comes from Thailand, and there is real caution on the issues of Bhikkhunis because of this fear of crossing up the Thai Sangha. I get the motive, and the defenses. Yet, as these Ajahn Chah bhikkhus are well trained, academically accomplished, (some of them) and very knowledgeable on the history of the Buddha’s life and the original Sangha, it’s just beyond the pale for them to brush aside Bhikkhuni ordination as something that is akin to resurrecting woolly mammoths from old DNA. Sadly, we may see woolly mammoths roaming the west before we see a fully established Fourfold Assemblies catasso parisā. I trust that won’t be the case.
History is a great teacher. At one time in the US (not so long ago), there were “White entrances” and “Colored entrances” in restaurants, and white only hotels. This practice was accepted, and few really dared to challenge it. Now, we look back, and see how damaged, cruel, and wrong that view was. The Ajahn Chah tradition bhikkhus should be leaders on this issue, they know better, but are seemingly still on the path of least resistance. Ajahn Chah had old school courage and a willingness to say and do what he thought right, but that courage seems to me missing somewhat these days.
Yes, certainly if you’re talking about that circle of people, the Western Ajhan Chah Group, and a few other people, are the ones that are well known. And, as you say, Bhikkhuni’s are not particularly visible there (not that they are more visible in the SE Asian Monaseries of course!).
As I said here: Phalañānī Bhikkhuni, Women's Day - #5 by mikenz66 In over ten years of Dhamma contact I’ve only every had a serious conversation with one Bhikkhuni, and I had to travel up a mountain in Thailand in an ancient Hilux to do that…
You mean the Western Ajahn Chah Bhikkhus? They obviously do have tremendous influence in the Western circles you mention, and those I’ve met have been very helpful to me.
And they do seem to be widely respected outside Western communities. When Ajahn Tiradhammo http://www.dhammagiri.org.au/ajahn-tiradhammo-biography.html (who lived in New Zealand for a time a few years ago) visited my local Thai Wat and gave a talk in Thai he was very well received by the Thai lay people, who do recognise the Ajahn Chah brand. However, Buddhist monasteries fall into many, many, independent groupings, and it’s not clear that there is any particular influence between those groups, apart from mutual respect.
I was speaking of the officially sanctioned hierarchy in Thailand, authorized by the Saṅgha Act, with its leaders appointed by the King; the Sri Lankan nikāya system; and similar bureaucracies in other Theravadin countries. Few people in the west even know that these things even exist, still less, that the monks who you cite enforce their anti-bhikkhuni policies supposedly based on allegiance to them.
The whole idea of a state religion seems rather alarming to me - and for a group of westerners to feel constrained by someone else’s state religion is bizarre. I can’t help feeling that it comes down to a sad lack of, um, guts.
But on the plus side, Ajahn Sucitto and some of the others invite bhikkhunis to teach with them and that helps to raise awareness and support for them.
Couldn’t agree more. It’s not just weird, it’s a betrayal of what the forest traditions stands for. Right from the beginning, the forest monks rebelled against the imposition of state authority. In the north, Kruba Sriwichay famously opposed the imposition of central control. Ajahn Chah was loathed by the local district head monk. Ajahn Mun literally escaped through the back window of a monastery when he was asked by an authority to take over management of a monastery. At Wat Nanachat, the local village monks advocated for years against the establishing of a forest monastery. In recent years, the central authorities have attempted to take over the entire forest tradition, disestablishing them and confiscating their lands and money.
This is the tradition I learned when I was in Thailand. The recent self-appointed role of the Wat Pa Pong Sangha as champions of Thai Sangha law is a furphy. As I mentioned, in a previous thread, they have (thankfully) ignored the central authorities’ homophobic prohibition on gay monks ordaining (as has everyone else!).
Well, as long as it doesn’t cost them anything, I guess.
This is something that I’ve really struggled with, specifically how to respect senior monastics who might theoretically be in favor of bhikkhuni ordination but are complicit in their abstention. Now, for monastics like Ven. Thanissaro this is a completely different matter, and I always have to bite my tongue a little bit when people start gushing about him. He is, no doubt, an excellent teacher, but his blatant anti-bhikkhuni stance makes me so angry I have to go on walks.
There is one bit in this essay that I find particularly interesting:
…an aspiring bhikkhunī who, after the disappearance of the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha, derived her knowledge about bhikkhunī life from texts and behaved in line with her understanding of the texts wouldn’t count as “trained.” Nor would any bhikkhunīs taught in turn by her[…]How could the Buddha have approved of this being done in his name? It’s not an act of compassion to the senior bhikkhunīs, who are creating the bad kamma of teaching without being qualified to do so; it’s not an act of compassion to the junior bhikkhunīs, who are absorbing the examples set by unqualified teachers; nor is it an act of compassion to the world, subjecting it to teachers who create a false impression of how a true bhikkhunī should embody the Dhamma in word and deed. (2-3)
I can understand the argument of not having a lineage of trained teachers to pass on knowledge to other bhikkhunis, but the implication that they are generating “bad kamma” or “[creating] a false impression” seems so much like person bias rather than substantiated thought.
(I’m quite fond of Ven. Analayo’s “The Cullavagga on Bhikkhunī Ordination” in which he basically argues with Ven. Thanissaro in all of his footnotes. My personal favorite is: “Ṭhānissaro’s inability to see the difference between an evaluation of historical plausibility and an interpretation of legal implications confirms an assessment by Singsuriya (262) that (at times) “Thai Sangha and monks in general lack hermeneutical consciousness. The reason is their advocacy of ‘naive realism’, the belief that meanings of texts are something given . . . they do not seem to have an inkling idea that textual meaning comes through mediation of an interpretative” stance taken by the reader (404).”)
It seems to me that fundamentalism includes more than just this kind of naive realism. It also includes the idea that once one does properly understand what a text says - even following the most sophisticated hermeneutical analysis - one then knows the truth about the matters of which the text speaks. But that isn’t the case. At that point one only knows what the text says.
Me too. I make a point of telling them how inspiring and affirming it is for me to see fully ordained bhikkhunis and leave it at that. They get it.
Yes, he is different. But only in print. In person he is very kind and supportive. I would love to see someone who could keep their equanimity and good humor debate with him on this issue. Alas, that is not me.
I have felt the same way. It’s really burned. It’s a kick in the guts. And it’s not just the monk you’ve mentioned. Sadly, I can think of others.
Frankly, they’re the ones making the bad kamma; their words dilute faith and hurt hearts, prevent a strong, focused sasana and cause division. They have become cowards; happy to receive support from Asian countries and migrants and stay comfortably ensconced within their support structures, all the while being too frightened to even listen openly to a conversation about anything that would challenge their overseas base of support.
Of course, most of their support is from overseas; they haven’t genuinely grown the Dhamma in the western countries they dwell in. Granted, to really do this properly, the commitment of several generations of devoted practitioners will be required (it helps if all four assemblies are represented in this - obviously). Yet, to really delve deeply into the task of growing Dhamma, they need to show some gumption.
They should always honour and respect traditional Buddhists and all they bring - to not do so is not only a deep and non-Dhamma based unkindness, but is also stupid and short sighted. However, they also should understand the unique opportunity they are being gifted; to grow the Dhamma in a context that is far less fettered by extreme, and in some cases, rampant sexism.
But why should they bother if they believe that they will be better supported and fed if they just stay comfortably within their status quo? At least, that’s what they seem to believe.
The truth is that if you protect the Dhamma, it will protect you. Thag 4.10 It’s what some western monasteries/temples/centres have done; they’ve gone out on a limb, taken a leap of faith (in the Dhamma - that is, in Truth, Peace, Compassion) and they’ve found that they are extremely well supported by both locals and those overseas, by migrants and those born in whatever country they’re in. There is enough evidence around the world to show that courage and good Dhamma practice pays off. Why? Because everywhere you go, you will find genuinely, wise, devoted, well practising and committed lay people who are intelligent and capable of recognising those who are true protectors of Truth and they come out into the open and support such protectors.
It is the job of the Sangha to protect the Truth. If they are not openly and actively supporting Bhikkhuni ordination and supporting Bhikkhunis openly in whatever way is appropriate, they are failures; specifically, they are failing in their duty to protect the Dhamma, to protect the sasana.
Did you know that in recent times, major financial support for a bhikkhuni monastery in California came from donations given when Ajahn Brahm was touring the States? Rather than directing this money into his home temple etc., he ensured that donations given went to Bhikkhunis in a country where he rarely visits.
The actions - or inactions - of some other western monks is not just cowardly, it is wrong and not in accordance with the Dhamma. Any argument that repeatedly, uselessly, seeks to refute this, only does so by bringing forth the scattered instances of sexism within the Canon. I say, “uselessly” because the instances of compassion, liberality and open handed kindness and support for Bhikkhunis is much more prevalent within the Canon - both in specific reference to them, but more generally through text after text that encourages, compassion, happiness and freedom from suffering for all beings.
I would, hopefully, suggest that some of these western monks do not see themselves as being intentionally sexist or unkind to women’s aspirations to renounce deeply. However, they are certainly encumbered, not by blind “spots” but a blinding wall of ignorance, handed down over the last 1000 years or so. The Truth, according to all compassionate and wise interpretations of recent delving in EBTs, is that the Bhikkhuni ordination could have being reinstated very soon after it “”“died”“” out. But clearly, when this tragedy occured, Buddhism was weak, the Dhamma not widely practiced and so largely unprotected; not enough people knew that it was possible to bring the nuns back, not enough people cared.
Well, now that’s changed. We know. We care. It’s happened. Please, get deeply, actively involved in making sure any nuns near you are able to keep their Rules, that they have enough to eat, that they have medicines that they require, that their roofs aren’t leaking and their plumbing is working. Monasteries require maintenance, nuns require loving, considerate support. Look after them. Get organised. Show you care. And above all, I beg you all, practice! Protect the Dhamma with your practice too. Build these amazing Buddhist communities. It can happen. It has happened. It’s happening right now. Let’s make it happen more.
Ajahn Brahm is a hero - and truly a “noble one”. And @sujato too. But I will say that other teaching bhikkhus are quietly dedicating their dana to support bhikkhunis. I can’t say more, but it is heartening.
I’ve found that for my own peace I have to step back a bit from my internal demands and criticisms of some of these monks. I count it as really really great karma to be able to meet some of them, because when someone is willing to be vulnerable - to open up about their failures and their successes, as well as their understanding of the dharma, it does allow me to reach a far richer, more complicated, authentic, and ultimately more beautiful understanding of the difficult process we are going through.
It’s truly in accordance with the Dhamma to treat those whom you meet with such kindness. It’s very nice to respect and to allow their journeys and understandings to enrich your own life in a positive way.
However, if you are a prominent and influential teacher within western buddhism, and you haven’t openly showed your support for Bhikkhunis, then your actions/inactions are not in accordance with Dhamma. If you are not an influential teacher and you’re quietly causing as many problems as you can for those who support Bhikkhuni ordination, then your actions are not in accordance with Dhamma. If you’re an unknown monk somewhere and you have no opportunity to show support for Bhikkhunis, but you’re rather glad that you don’t have to, then I’d say your intentions are bordering on Wrong Intention and therefore your mental actions are not in accordance with the Dhamma. If you’re a monk openly opposing Bhikkhuni ordination, your actions are not in accordance with Dhamma.
Working through some internal process is great. But it’s separate to what I’m stating. Certain actions of body/speech/mind, are simply not in accordance with Dhamma; regardless of what process people are going through.
I don’t believe Ven. Thanissaro is anti-bhikkhuni. I would characterize him more as a vinaya purist who has very rigorous interpretation standards. He does make many legitimate points, even if we don’t like the result of his conclusions.
My personal opinion is, we would be better off establishing an official illegal Bhikkhuni lineage. Then you’d have a license to streamline it down from 300+ rules to maybe 100 or less, make it more robust and internationally compliant for different climates, get rid of all misogyny, etc.
While we’re at it, I’d like to see an official illegal EBT Bhikkhu lineage based just on dhamma and vinaya with 100 rules or less, no abhidhamma.
In the end, people are going to gravitate toward quality, not whether the lineage is legitimate or not.
Even if the Dalai Lama and Ajahn Brahm were christian, I bet they would have lots of supporters and students.
Be kind to them. Support them if they are a successful in all/most other ways of being monastic.
But gently and firmly call them out when you perceive their actions/stance to not be in accordance with Dhamma.
And repeat yourselves. Be persistent.
Have conversations openly amongst your communities. A friend and her husband visited a monastery, I won’t say where, in the western world several years ago. She says, for a number of reasons, they won’t be returning. One of the main reasons was that the lay people whispered to each other about what had happened in 2009 but did not feel confident or comfortable to speak openly to each other or to the resident monastic.
Open conversation is necessary, and the kind which recognises that within Buddhism, there is such a thing as Truth, there is such a thing as Dhamma. That’s what we’re based on. (The Four Noble Truths; the Buddha bowed to the Dhamma…it’s a thing). So any open conversation that acknowledges Truth and is courageous is going to help; particularly amongst lay supporters. Then at least the monastics know that they have a base of local support from which to act with more courage, in a manner that is in accordance with Dhamma and honours Truth.
