Whatever
3 Likes
Mate, I know how you feel. Really. But there’s something awesome about knowing and experiencing something for yourself, no-one can take that away from you. That’s what I love about the path the Buddha taught.
No matter what our intentions, we can all only speak from our own experiences - experiences that get caught up in bias, furnished by information we find that agrees with what we already believe, and ultimately, constantly, blinded by ignorance. That’s why all this is going to go nowhere. Why I, and perhaps you too, are suffering.
BUT maybe that’s the point. This has given me, yet again, another wonderful opportunity to continue to understand suffering. My own and others.
Anyway what’s this got to do with bhikkhunis and bhikkhus living together? Well, maybe there’s a chance to suffer more! 
Just kidding. But I do think we’ve got a way to go for both genders before we see this becoming a functional reality.
Obviously, we need to keep addressing our biases and the tendency towards sexism in the practice of Buddhism. I do believe we have to keep resisting these notions of what a man or woman should or shouldn’t be or what they are or aren’t better at. It’s just trite and leads to weird expectations and exclusion of people who don’t ‘fit the mold’.
Perhaps it will become a possibility in an environment where we’re all willing to confront our biases, make the goal the focus, minus the BS and ego, and keep in mind…"It is a gain for me, it is a great gain for me, that I am living with such companions in the holy life… Why should I not set aside what I wish to do and do what these venerable ones wish to do?’
9 Likes
There’s an obscure author who wrote a book about this very subject matter, which I enjoyed thoroughly, and would be well worth your time when you have a few spare moments. It’s called “White Bones, Red Rot, Black Snakes” by some monk named Bikkhu @sujato, ever heard of him?
Anyway, here’s the link to the pdf file.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://santifm.org/santipada/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/wbrrbsSCREENopt.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjpq5nZ4IzPAhVN4mMKHTOvDUsQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNFjw_r9hO5Ox-ALNSYlP2Jqz-48rA&sig2=JGo1MKUsCB47PtifaOPYaA
With metta,
:anjal:
5 Likes
In my opinion, the gender stereotypes are not very helpful. The idea of the nature of women being to control men is an old idea in literature, e.g., Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. It is not some unique insight, but rather the sort of idea that men pass on to one another to express frustration with the opposite sex.
How about monks and nuns? Even in all-male environments, monastics from quite a few traditions have engaged in sexual relationships as the quality of monastic rules and institutions declined. There already have been problems. But would a monastery with both monks and nuns run increased risk of such behaviors?
At least in SA 615 and SN 47.10, the nuns are said to have a separate residence, and Ānanda has to make a special trip in order to visit them. This is probably a very early account of a residency for nuns, since it is part of the core of the saṃyukta for the Bases of Mindfulness.
8 Likes
Goodwin presents the aforementioned ideas in order to provide an example as to part of the reason why bhikkhunis aren’t ordained in places like Thailand and Burma. It is women’s perceived biological ‘flaws’ that Goodwin argues contributes to the monks unwillingness to ordain them.
Can you provide an example, please. Also, what’s your definition of feminism?
3 Likes
I would like to make an observation or two regarding vinaya based monasticism and its applicability to emerging societies and the subject of gender.
I understand that I live in a certain community which is regarded as quite progressive (Brighton in the UK) and furthermore I live within a certain subset of that community that is regarded as progressive even within Brighton. However over the years I have seen what was once our radical, progressive ideas become mainstream and these days we even have an increasing parity in the way the law in the UK treats individuals with such advances as 'gay marriage’ now being legal, and to a large extent considered equivalent to ‘straight marriage’.
So, I would like to ask you to consider if the concept of gender is a valid one for future societies and for the legal structure of Theravada monasticism going forward?
We seem to be in the situation where we cannot find anything that effectively differentiates between what we might call a ‘man’ or a ‘woman’.
So my idea @Jayantha, is that as you progress towards a more senior status in the Sangha, that you consider doing away with any reference to gender within the legal framework of the monastic community.
I think that we should understand gender as a simple cultural distinction, and while it was prevalent in the time of the Buddha, and somewhat prevalent today, going forward we can see no reason for making any such distinction, a distinction which encourages discrimination and suffering for a variety of subsets in society.
Due to communication technologies we now have a much clearer idea that rather than some binary man/woman, gay/straight division, we find both gender and sexuality are spectrums, and quite possibly these spectrums are open ended. I find that many of the teenagers that I know, have this very fluid way of talking about gender and sexuality that just didn’t exist back in the 60s and 70s when I was growing up.
I know that was potentially a little radical for many, so many thanks for reading to the end.
10 Likes
Gender is a purely cultural invention to define roles in a society, this is true as I learned this in my college courses(major was anthropology and it blew me away the first time I learned about some cultures having 5 genders or more). However sex (ie male/female and the various biological mixes) is biological. There are actual differences in biology, genetics and of course acculturation between the sexes, this would be true if misogyny/misandry no longer existed and was somehow culturally bread out of the species. I don’t see how just because there is a spectrum doesn’t mean care needs to be taken in working with the differences along that spectrum, especially in relation to how monastics interact with themselves and society.
I think it’s a fair giant leap to go from accepting someone based on their own personal identification on a spectrum(which the Buddha did in the Vinaya itself, allowing someone who “developed the characteristics” of the opposite sex to join the new sex’s order), and totally deleting sex and gender out of the vinaya and monastic life however. There are many practical reasons in daily life to take these factors into consideration.
although I would be interested to see what Bhantes @sujato and @Brahmali have to say about this regarding the vinaya, I’m just a newbie to this life.
3 Likes
Great points made here, Ven @Jayantha. I hope that some of us can either formally or informally do some research over the coming year to see how coed monasteries have functioned, and integrated well with good management of some of the issues (good and not-so-good) that inevitably affect monastic men and women living in proximity with each other. I’m going to try to get out to Abhayagiri this Fall ( 1st visit) and would like to pop into City of 10,000 Buddhas to see how the monastics there thrive. If the subject of a Forest tradition coed monastic campus is of interest, those of us with some perspectives can keep updating and it will be interesting to see how this goes. At the end of the day, the better that the " EBT/Forest/Bhikkhuni/Bhikkhu " tradition can thrive in the west, the better the chance the Dhamma/Vinaya has of thriving and propagating in the west.
1 Like
Thank you however I do not have time to read 190 pages of scholarship, which offers a questionable rendering in its very 1st reference to MN 115, by stating: "a woman is incapable of occupying various positions, one of them being that of a Buddha. " An accurate rendering of this would be "a woman is incapable of occupying various positions, one of them being that of a Sammāsambuddha.”
(Since I performed a document search of the word ‘Sammāsambuddha’ & only found a footnote, I assume the article has not discussed the distinction between a ‘Sammāsambuddha’ & a ‘Buddha’).
The distinction here is important because the term ‘Buddha’ is often used generically in Buddhism to refer to merely an ‘arahant’. In other words, there is no doubt women can develop ‘arahantship’ or ‘Buddhahood’. MN 115 only states a woman cannot be the one & only original ‘Sammāsambuddha’ that arises only once in a world system comprising of many millennium.
In our recorded human history, my understanding is there has only been one Sammāsambuddha, namely, Gotama. While there is a sutta or more that mentions ‘previous Sammāsambuddhas’, there is no recorded history of such.
Thus, what is the probability of a woman being a Sammāsambuddha? Is there one major surviving religion that has a female founder? Is there one modern nation with a female founder?
However, being less hypothetical, let us ask which gender left their homes & toughed it out in the forests & jungles searching for enlightenment, without any teacher of arahantship? Then once achieving enlightenment, which gender had the spiritual authority to start the doctrine of anatta & sunnata (not-self/voidness) in a world of priests that believed in Brahma (God) & Atman (rather than have it rejected)?
Then which gender walked around India & also the known world, risking their lives to spread the Dhamma (which also occurred in Christianity)? How many suttas are there that depict a Bhikkhuni going to a dangerous land as a missionary (‘dhammaduta’) and losing their life after establishing hundreds of coverts to Buddha-Dhamma?
This is COMPLETELY FALSE. Please read the article again and do not misinform people about its contents.
Apologies if I misrepresented the claims of the article. I was referring in my post to a section in which the author quotes scholar Juree Vichit Vadakan’s article “Women and the Family in Thailand in the Midst of Social Change”, who writes, “[women] are viewed as polluted because of their menstrual blood” (246). This is notably a study of family and culture in relation to religious values, and thus I should rather have written how in some countries women are viewed as inferior due to menstruation.
The hormone testosterone is associated with a desire for status.
Though many many men are not terribly interested in devoting their lives to accumulating status, power, etc. some self-hating men have used (and continue to use) religion, as they have used war, money, political power etc., to accumulate status and build up their egos. Sadly religion was long one of the most important tools for accumulating money, power, status, etc. --and scriptures were used to consolidate and manipulate that power… Just as we see politicians, business people, religious figures etc. manipulating “the truth” today… Religious scriptures have been one of the most powerful tools for accomplishing this.
Some of the worst sorts are attracted to power… and in the past, and to a lesser extent today, to religious power… Powerful religious men have often seen women as a threat to their personal “spiritual” “achievement” …or as an easy target… and so such people perpetuated negative views about them…or cut them out of religious scriptures or denied/refuted women’s accomplishments to build up their own egos or to make it easy to keep what they saw as necessary vows of celibacy–or or to project their own desires, negative qualities, and self-hatred on an imagined “other.”
This phenomenon may easily be seen across the globe in the tendency to also look down upon, discriminate against, and scapegoat people of different religions/sects/nationalities etc.
This is the reason there are totally contradictory stories, views, and rules about women and other groups in ancient scriptures…which also revere women and advocate love, compassion, kindness and nondiscrimination.
You are certainly wrong about Buddhism --and about Christianity. There has been a great deal of excellent scholarly work on the accomplishment and importance of women in early Christian communities.
In short the scriptures misogynist/andocentric view of women, and refusal to acknowledge women’s spiritual accomplishments etc., has nothing to do with women themselves.
A bit of advice: Don’t use Buddhism to build up your ego or that of other men/monks/Buddhists or whatever.
By doing so you demonstrate no understanding of Buddhism whatsoever… Buddhism is about letting go of the ego (not building it up) and realizing that we are not separate…
If you use Buddhism to look down on others or discriminate against them --whether women, the laity, people of religions or other sects, or whatever-- you are in fact distorting and misusing the Dharma in a manner that will harm yourself and others.
1 Like
I should add this was a response to the person who was suggesting that men are somehow superior to women… The sequence of responses may make that unclear…
I am not really sure what accomplishments are being referring to, here? I am personally not aware of an abundance of women teachers that have explained or demonstrated the path to Emptiness/Nibbana.
I said correctly & truly in my post that Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī sought to be part of the Buddha’s Sangha that was created & grown by men, including at the risk of their lives in hostile places.
I said correctly & truly in my post that Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī could have started her own religious group if she had the requisite spiritual accomplishments.
I said correctly & truly in my post that the male Sangha had the compassion (karuna) & sacrifice (caga) to allow (rather than refuse) Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī & her female companions into their Sangha, which was solely based on living the non-household wandering life.
Having abandoned home,
living free from society,
the sage
in villages
creates no intimacies
The Buddha SN 22.3
I do understand Buddhism, where spiritual accomplishments are measured by the eradication of defilements, such as craving, social attachment, delusion, self & fear.
The Pali scriptures do not contain a misogynist/andocentric view of women and refusal to acknowledge women’s spiritual accomplishments since they devote an entire section (The Therigatha) to the teachings of arahant nuns & even some major suttas, such as MN 44.
MN 115 is simply a scripture than states a woman cannot be the 1st Buddha that starts the Buddhist religion in a world system. Since history shows no record or evidence of a woman starting a Buddhist religion, why would we want to dispute or argue over this probable fact in MN 115?
My sense of your viewpoint is not misogyny as the problem but the struggle to humble oneself to the difficulty of accomplishing the Buddhist path (which is not easy to accomplish for both men & women). Writing academic & hypothetical academic papers is far different from the reality of reaching Nibbana.
Kind regards 
Dhp 75. One is the quest for worldly gain and quite another is the path to Nibbana. Clearly understanding this, let not the monk [or nun], the disciple of the Buddha, be carried away by worldly acclaim, but develop detachment instead.
misogyny - which is the self hatred of people, mostly men, projected onto imagined others, IS the problem…
But it is part of a greater problem, which includes racism, nationalism, etc.
Look closely at your need to look down on women, and voice your view that they are inferior.
In truth, we are not separate.
That need of yours and others–to look down on and discriminate against others–reveals self-hatred.
1 Like
As a lay practitioner for two decades, following an initial exploration into Buddhism around 1970 that lasted only briefly, like so many other laypeople in the west I’ve given this issue much thought over the years. And I will need to give it much more thought. This complex issue has history, of course, but is also played out in myriad seemingly minor ways day by day in Buddhist communities I have been involved with to the present. I dare not assume too much generalisation but I am confident the limited opportunities for women is played out in many Buddhist complexes in Australia. I am tempted to think (as a person struggling with his own tendency towards impatience and outrage) that the issue of gender equality must be pursued at whatever cost, and yet I must counsel myself to tread carefully. Theravada is not alone in its reluctance to accord women equality but it does play the gender inquality card rather more hard than the other traditions, from what I can see. And yet I am happiest in the Theravada tradition. In the gentlest way in which it can be pursued, in whatever community we might find ourselves practising the Dhamma, and however we might value the teachings we receive from our monastics and, indeed, love our monastics, (overwhelmingly male in my experience) the issue of gender equality must be raised again and again until it is resolved. This is my intention, at least, in whatever small way I am able to undertake it. Finally, I love Bhikkhu Jayasara’s notion of the fourfold assembly. It warms my heart.
4 Likes
As I’m sure you know this is not my notion, but the Buddha’s intention, as he said in the Mahaparinibbana sutta that he would not pass on until his monks,nuns, laymen and laywomen, are established and flourishing. That didn’t necessarily mean they all had to live together in one place, but in these modern times I don’t see why it can’t be tried more. 
I am actually quite proud to say that we have created a sangha that consists of the full fourfold assembly, a virtual sangha online, with not only myself and another Bhikkhu, but an Ayya from Australia and an Anagarika under her. We do sutta discussions, laity has lay person discussions etc. Fitting I suppose since I do believe that the real growth of Theravada in the west will be more in virtual space, then brick and mortar space.
2 Likes
From my perspective the issue is not really about whether bhikkhus or bhikkhunīs should live together, but whether in general it is a good idea to mix the genders in a monastery. Attraction often takes time to develop, and the more exposure you have to someone the greater the likelihood is that you will be attracted to them. The attraction that develops over time is much more insidious and dangerous than the immediate sort of fancy, since it involves a deeper involvement with and attachment to the other person.
I recognise that people are different and that for some exposure to the opposite gender will not pose a problem. I think it is the case, however, that we are very good at underestimating our own defilements and the potential for getting sidetracked. I have no doubt this is one of the reasons the Buddha laid down fairly strict rules for how to deal with the opposite gender.
The model we follow here in Perth seems to work well. We have one monastery for bhikkus and one for bhikkhnunīs, being over one hour’s drive from each other. We usually come together once a fortnight, when the nuns come to our monastery to listen to a Dhammatalk. And sometimes a senior monk will go to the nuns’ monastery to give them a teaching. To me this seems to be a good balance. The nuns get enough support to get their community well-established, but there is little personal interaction.
I believe a fairly strict segregation of the genders is very supportive of monastic life. There are not many of us. We need to be careful to look after ourselves.
17 Likes
Having spent few months at Dhammasara I agree with Ajahn @Brahmali. We seem to have hit upon the correct balance between independence and support (and very much appreciate it when said ‘senior monk’ comes to teach vinaya and answer our Pali questions!).
Noting that Dhammasara is a training monastery and I’m yet to officially start mine, I am grateful not to have the distraction of the very kind, wonderful natured, and sometimes also good looking, monks. I wouldn’t be surprised if I heard monks say something similar. In considering this issue, it isn’t about not trusting the other gender but rather recognising the danger presented by a potential romance. Of course, that danger may have evaporated for many senior monastics but I still hear that romantic relationships are the number one reason monastics disrobe.
Additionally, I have noticed how awkward it can be for female monastics trying to go about their duties without engaging too much with the very few male volunteers working at the monastery. While those volunteers are well informed about the requirement for a chaperone, and everyone endeavours to stick to it, if male presence was permanent then nuns would be forever ‘on guard’ against the perils of interaction.
I also recognise that there are monks who are still in the process of acquiring right view and might not always be as liberal minded as my favourite monks Ajahn @Brahmali or Ajahn @sujato or Ajahn Brahm. Of course, perhaps once the Bikkhuni sangha is further established this aspect might be less of a problem.
Perhaps a tour with short stays in the various monasteries may be in order?
7 Likes
Following slightly on the theme of this very interesting thread, an older article from Tricycle popped up on Facebook today; an interview with UC Berkeley’s Robert Sharf. The article in part, as I read it, is supportive of the idea of the need for Sangha in the West and is appreciative of the necessary role that some ritual and direction by a community of monastics is essential. See the full article here: https://tricycle.org/magazine/losing-our-religion-2/
I think this deep suspicion of religious institutions is understandable but also misguided. The organized rule-bound and tradition-bound institution of the sangha provides a framework that, at least ideally, helps to efface egocentrism. The sangha literally embodies the Buddhist tradition; it transcends the self-concerns of any individual, especially the concerns that arise from placing our inner life at the center of the universe. So we must ask whether Buddhism, when practiced without the ties of community and tradition, instead of mitigating our tendency toward narcissism, actually feeds it.
So, I am always happy to read of, for example, Robyn’s dedication and her training path at Dhammasara, and hope that the West sees more expansion of the monastic training model in the way that Ajahn Brahm developed. I hope to see his “franchise” (his word not mine ) develop one day in the US.
6 Likes