"Going Forth – for Liberation" by Ajahn Candasiri

The Watercooler
105

I do not recognise such legitimacy. [quote=“frankk, post:103, topic:4431”]
even if we don’t like the result of his conclusions.
[/quote]

I don’t like them. That has nothing to do with the illegality of his conclusions.[quote=“frankk, post:103, topic:4431”]
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.
[/quote]

The thing is, this is found within the 311. The capacity to interpret them in a way that is compassionate and lacking in misogyny is there already.

It’s ridiculous that “legitimate” monks get a way with doing all manner of things that are detrimental to the sasana; I’m talking extreme stuff too…like abusing novices and having kids on the side, and women are thrust into pointless (as opposed to useful ones) conversations about legality and illegality. Personally I’m not bothering to read anything written by anyone that doesn’t support the sasana.[quote=“frankk, post:103, topic:4431”]
In the end, people are going to gravitate toward quality, not whether the lineage is legitimate or not.
[/quote]

This is exactly why more and more people are gravitating towards supporting the nuns at Dhammasara. They’ve got “lineage” and “legitimacy” (for what they’re worth) but they’ve got quality too. And, they’ve got a strong base of lay supporters who like them because they’re not just the real deal in name and rule, they’re the real deal in their intentions. They’ve also got incredible support from the local monks. Ajahn Brahmali even regularly offers his deep, broad, experience in Vinaya classes. And what do I like best in all this? Ajahn Brahmali repeatedly encourages them to check out their intention, to come from compassion. To understand the spirit of the rules they’ve taken up…the spirit of most of these rules, is compassion.

I agree with the spirit of these statements. There is, however, something to be said for the feeling you get in your heart, when you know something goes back to the Buddha. It’s probably what people feel when they go and visit the Bodhi Tree at Anuradhapura or even the off shoot at Dhammasara.

To some extent the spirit of what you’ve said is strong within those who feel so strongly stirred in their hearts. Because all they need is some sense of acknowledgement of just the chance that there is a legitimate/True link. That’s all they need, just a chance linking with something True. And their hearts are moved, their faith is deepened, their scattered, restless, doubting minds become calmer. This the deep well of devotion that generations of well practising traditional Buddhists draw on without even realising it. It is what you start to see in the faces of westerners who have been practising and supporting their communities over the course of 30 odd years. These are the people that grow in Dhamma. Their hearts are moved.

But it’s incredible what a whiff of legitimacy does. It gives one a sort of psychological acknowledgement, a tremendous psychological support. So I will always support the resurgence of the Bhikkhuni ordination. Just as I will always question anything within it that isn’t an EBT, because if it’s not as close to the Buddha as it can get, then it just doesn’t stir my heart. Perhaps it’s because of lifetimes of conditioning, I don’t know, but I am frequently moved to joyful crying at the mention of the Buddha. Buddhanusati comes real easy to me…I’m happy to say.

And I’ll always want to question anything within the Bhikkhuni Vinaya that is not in accordance with Dhamma. If it was good enough for the Buddha to bow to Dhamma, then it’s good enough for me.

And I’ll never sit idly by and just accept things that are clearly not cool. That is not what the Buddha encouraged.

There is a vast chasm between, letting go of your desires and wants which are not in accordance with Dhamma, and letting go of your desires and wants that _are in a_ccordance with Dhamma. One of the Truths this religion is based on is the Fourth Noble Truth. Within that, clearly and repeatedly repeated thoughout the EBTs, is the outline and the exposition of the difference between what is Right (as opposed to what is Wrong). There is clear and blindingly obvious reference to Speech and Intention. Right Intention, Right Speech, is in accordance with Dhamma. Thus when Ajahn Candasiri refers to times when she and other nuns were simply encouraged to “let go” and forget about “status”…I strongly suggest that those who encouraged them in this, missed the point.

106

Well for all you bhikkunis and bhikkunis-to-be, happy Saint Patrick’s Day!

2 Likes
107

I think this is such an important point. To emulate Ajahn Chah is not to batten down and become conservative, trying to preserve a tradition with as little change as possible. Rather, we should adopt Ajahn Chah’s own fearless attitude of moving forward when it is required. Part of Ajahn Chah’s legacy is the proper practice of the vinaya, and part of that proper practice is the inclusion of bhikkhunīs. I think there is every reason to believe Ajahn Chah would have supported this.

8 Likes
108

To clarify…

I’m referring to any writings that are specifically unsupportive of the sasana; unless of course, the reading of such material some how gives me knowledge that can be used, in some way, to support the sasana.

109

The misogyny of senior Bhikkhunis bowing to Bhikkhus who have only ordained for one day was there from the beginning, one of the conditions the Buddha required to allow the Bhikkhuni order to start up. I’m no vinaya expert, but AFAIK there isn’t something in there that could overturn that bowing rule. Correct?

IMO (just my opinion), if we’re going to leverage the legitimacy angle in reviving the Bhikkuni lineage , we would have to carry out the Bhikkhuni vinaya today exactly the way the Buddha laid out the rules, misogyny and all. Otherwise, how can we have a consistent way of interpreting and enforcing the vinaya? By having this opinion, that doesn’t make me a misogynist (I hope), it’s just the only way I see of carrying out a legal system in a clear, consistent, and transparent way.

110

Frank, I think there’s good evidence that these Gharudhamma rules were later impositions by the male Sangha after the passing of the Buddha. It seems odd to me that a fully awakened Buddha would have in his heart and mind the capacity for misogyny or unsupportable inequitable treatment of members of his Sangha. The evidence seems strongest that these rules were imposed after the passing of the Tathagata.

However at the Buddha’s death his personal authority would have disappeared and at that point all the Garudhammas, but more importantly a dramatic proclamation of their contents for popular consumption, would have become necessary. I suggest that the origin story we have for the Garudhammas and the establishment of the Nuns’ Sangha was composed only after the Buddha’s death, attributed back to the Buddha to put the “garu- “(weight) into “Garudhamma,” and badly bungled. It all fits.

One useful article to consider is , as is cited above, : What Did the Buddha Think of Women? | Buddha-Sāsana

2 Likes
111

Would that it were, but…

I think the intention here was to reassure that the garudhammas can, to all intents and purposes, be ignored, but actually what it does for me is just illustrate the power of argument and actually creates more space (for the doubt springing from the mutually conflicting propositions) for me to have to consider the need to take them a bit more seriously then I did beforehand.

2 Likes
112

You raise some good points, Aminah. I think it’s fair to consider carefully the varied theories, including Ven. Analayo’s, as he has certainly done some heavy lifting in the scholarship on this, and other, issues.

I go back in my own mind to what I recall of something Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote at the time of the Bodhinyana ordinations. Part of what I recall is that he stated that when views or standards conflict, that we should always defer to the most compassionate interpretation. Again, assuming/believing that the Buddha had this fully awakened mind, and weighing the evidence of the history of the rules, it’s a easy transition to make toward the full ordination of women, sans Gharudhamma rules. I truly understand that the possibility for inequitable rules existed at or near the time of the Buddha’s passing, but the best evidence points me toward a view that these views were imposed after his passing, along with other rifts that developed among the various soon-to-be sects that arose out of Dhamma/Vinaya disagreements after the Second Council.

I like that there is vigorous discussion and disagreement on these issues. It allows the semblance of truth to sometimes percolate to the top. :slight_smile:

3 Likes
113

Yes, thank you. I think this expresses better what I was trying to get at re: some of the patimokkha rules. I have no issue with the validity of bhikkhuni ordination based on vinaya, and personally I am inclined to disregard the garudhammas (but that’s just me).

2 Likes
114

To be clear, “early” is not the same thing as “original”. In Analayo’s case, “early” simply means “as far as his comparative methodology takes him”, which is the splitting of the Sangha that happened a couple of centuries after the Buddha. I argue, on grounds other than comparative studies, that these rules were introduced around the time of the Second Council.

2 Likes
115

Much thanks! If my foggy memory of Frauwallner is correct (and his calculations are taken as dependable), that would mean there’s perhaps 100 or so year potential gap…? That’s very much within the realm of workable for me :smiley:

1 Like
116

Indeed, something along those lines. Any methodology we use is foggy, relies on multiple inferences, and can give us no more than approximate results.

But to my mind the least plausible hypothesis is to postulate that the all-Awakened Buddha, the spiritual giant who inspired so many, should travel like a cosmonaut to the very edges of reality and back, only to end up endorsing the same boring, bog-ordinary prejudices and hate that are found in literally every other patriarchal system in the world, ever.

7 Likes
117

Hang about, sorry, I’m a bit confused: above Ajahn Brahmali puts it that you argue for a later date, but Ven. Analayo suggest they might be early, however, if you go for the Second Council and Ven. Analayo plumps for the Sangha split, doesn’t that mean that your ‘later’ date is actually before Ven. Analayo’s?

:rocket:

1 Like
118

Well, later and earlier are relative terms, but the main difference, as I understand it, is that I argue that the garudhammas must have been introduced some time after the Buddha, most likely around the Second Council. Analayo—and to be clear, it has been a while since i looked at his arguments on this, so someone may well correct me here—argues on comparative grounds that they are (in part at least) “early”. I am not sure if he defines “early” any further in this context, but my understanding is that this is derived from the fact that they are largely shared between diverse sources, and hence must predate the split between those sources. I don’t disagree with that, I would simply argue that this does not, on its own, establish that they are authentic.

2 Likes
119

My thanks again.

Anyway, here’s to cosmonautical adventures towards the hate-free.

3 Likes
120

Thanks for the reasonable input, @Aminah. Here’s my reply.

One of the common arguments for the garudhammas being late is the existence of identical pātimokkha rules, pācittyas to be precise. The argument is that the garudhammas must have been laid down after these pātimokkha rules, for otherwise the pātimokkha rules would not be required. This is based on the idea that the garudhamma are somehow important rules (as is implied by their name), more important than the lesser rules of the pātimokkha.

But really, there is no good reason to see the garudhammas as particularly important. The name itself, which means something like “weighty principles,” cannot settle this issue, because context as always is crucial. There is really only one standard for settling the importance of a rule and that is the penalty incurred in breaking it. There is no penalty for breaking the garudhammas, and so they must regarded as minor injunctions.

It follows from this that the pācittiya rules of the pātimokkha are actually more important than the garudhammas. This in turn makes it likely that the garudhammas were laid down before these corresponding pācittiya rules, otherwise there is no rational explanation for why the garudhammas exist. So this then is the meaning of early.

This does not mean that the garudhammas were established by the Buddha. We know from comparative study that many of the lesser rules (pācittiyas onward) of the bhikkhunī pātimokkha were probably laid down quite a while after the Buddha. We know this because many of these rules vary significantly from school to school. And so the garudhammas are only early compared to the corresponding rules in the pātimokkha.

But the main point is perhaps that this is still a fairly new field of study. We should therefore not expect definite conclusions, but rather some degree of contradiction in the findings. If everything were straightforward, this would have been sorted out long ago. Yet despite these differences in scholarly opinion, there are in all cases good reasons why the garudhammas can be dispensed with in our present age. That this conclusion holds up in spite of the scholarly differences makes the argument stronger, in my opinion.

6 Likes
121

Much thanks for explaining the basis of your argument. :slight_smile:

122

I just began to track this forum. For those who find the misogyny in bhikkhuni vinaya a discouraging factor for going forth, I offer a report how we are holding it here at Dhammadharini Bhikkhuni Sangha.

Sanghadisesa 3 is mainly about going to a place between villages, a gāmantara. This would be a place where there is no government authority, which existed between villages in ancient times, is no longer to be found anywhere on earth. Likewise crossing a river involved going on a boat where there was not the rule of law. The clauses about staying away for the night and falling behind are explained in the story as going off by oneself without informing the sangha. The definition about going an arm’s length away from another bhikkhuni applies only if one has broken the rule

It is to be remembered that the third precept of a lay person prevented a man from stealing another man’s property by violating his daughter, his wife or his mother. But it was not unethical for a women to have sex with any man. For a man to take multiple wives even for only one night was considered ethical. Therefore the expectation would have been that a single unattached woman might be available for any man. Danger danger! These days, this is not generally the case. The pacittiya rule about going to dangerous places precludes going where sexual assault by a stranger is likely. Multiple rules about one-on-one contact reduce the chance for sex with known people.

In practice, we do sometimes walk alone in our local village during daylight, having informed the sangha; or for longer trips go by caravan (public transportation) and arrange to be met at our destination.

About Garudhamma 1, there is an article here by Ayya Tathaaloka. In practice we never come across the situation where we are expected to bow individually to each bhikkhu in a sangha, but we do bow and pay respect to the senior bhikkhus when we see them individually or when among their sangha. We diplomatically avoid encounters with bhikkhus junior to us where the bowing question would come up. Even at traditional Buddhist temples having a senior monastic bow to a junior one is so naturally disconcerting, it never comes up. We don’t pressure a junior bhikkhu to bow to a senior bhikkhuni.

The only sad side affect of all this is that it reduces the possibility for deep Dhamma friendships between senior bhikkhunis and junior bhikkhus. We appreciate that the bhikkhu sangha has formal obligations to the bhikkhunis, such as providing training, sharing requisites, and facilitating ordinations, and that the relation between the two sanghas is somewhat formal.

I hope this helps!

10 Likes
123

It’s wonderful to hear from you Ayya!

It helps a lot!!

It’s wonderful to hear from someone for whom this matter actually means something, from someone who has an interest in learning as much about all this as she can and from someone who is a senior Bhikkhuni.

Thank you so much for this invaluable contribution.

With metta

4 Likes