SuttaCentral
@Gabriel Nicely put. Fear of change within a tradition that hopes to cultivate an acceptance of ‘Anicca’ is quite amusing.
I was recently reading ‘The Rebel’ by Albert Camus, and came across this line which has stuck with me:
“The most elementary of rebellion, paradoxically, expresses an aspiration to order.”
Which is also the case in our discussion I think (trying to establish a new order that improves spiritual practice). Yet, there is a very necessary conservative element in Buddhism as well. After all there was one perfected being with the proclamation of Dhamma. The system doesn’t work really well if everything was open for discussion because people felt “to change things every now and then”. But I think we can agree that the fear of change (or an irrational aversion against it) is probably not a good counselor.
Ayya @Vimala
I am sorry that it appears I misinterpreted your concerns.
Can you tell us in brief what are the systemic problems for nuns?
Just make a list in point form so we can really understand what is your concerns are.
For instance. - Not enough housing for nuns etc.
@SarathW1, it might not be clear to you, but your posts on Vinaya are coming across quite crass/insensitive. If I were you I would stick to the Dhamma posts- like the Nama Rupa post you initiated- thank you for that post. It was quite a helpful.
with metta
There seems to be a very good reason to let the wall builders know how we feel - in no uncertain terms. Of course, we only have maintenance workers these days. They say: don’t blame us, we didn’t build the wall! Sorry, not good enough - tear it down! Don’t worry the sun will still come up tomorrow on a far brighter day. It could increase the relevance of Buddhism and benefit so many suffering beings. We don’t believe in cruelty in Buddhism - say it loud and clear!
Mr Ajahn, tear down this wall - every single brick must go! Why not a progressive ‘Buddhist Council’ - and the formation of a progressive monastic alliance (post discrimination)?
Agree.
I am continually attracted to unwholesome activities even though I try hard to keep away from them. Thank you for the reminder.
Dear Van, I asked a long-time monk this question and the monk explained that an incident had happened in the past that a layperson accidentally gave a ‘wrong’ dish to a monk, he/she then took it back, but the monk thought it was given to him (as he/she had offered it to him earlier), so he ate it. And this upset the layperson as well as breaking the vinaya regarding stealing. So, the rule says that once a layperson touches it again, it needs to be re-offered to make clear that it is really for the Sangha.
In the end, it’s about making things clear and obvious. I have been lucky to host a Bhikkhuni a couple times, and I always made it clear what I offered her so as to help her avoid breaking the vinaya.
I totally agree with you here. Having stayed at Bodhinyana several times, I can say that monks don’t want to talk to women. At first, I thought that they didn’t give us hoots, but later I came to understand their situation.
One thing that people tend to forget is that wearing yellow robes doesn’t make one enlightened and freed from defilement. Many monks are aware of their weaknesses and deal with them their own way. We should respect that.
To be honest, even as a woman, I’ve found a few nuns at Dhammasara very attractive. They are not only good nuns but also are simply physically beautiful. Some have very beautiful smiles. Some have eyes that are so bright and happy and you just want to be near them. Imagine what a man (who happens to wear robes) would feel when they have to converse with these lovely nuns.
Another issue I wish to point out as a feminist and a Bhikkhuni supporter is that when some nuns or Bhikkhuni supporters demand the monks, the laypeople and the society to do things to make their life easier, I can’t help feeling as if I were being made to feel guilty: I ‘owed’ them and ‘had to’ help them. It is an unpleasant feeling.
I admire Ajahn Brahm as his teachings have helped me so much, so I can’t help giving excuses on his behalf (though he doesn’t need it!). What I have seen since 2009 is that he has been being demanded to do this and that for nuns, and if he fails to do a single thing, he is criticised.
I have known some nuns who brave difficulties in their monastic lives, are ‘easily satisfied’, and are at peace. These nuns are truly inspiring. On the other hand, I have seen some nuns critical of most things around them and soon leave the robes. I can’t help wondering whether braving difficulties is part of the obstacles preventing one from finding peace and enlightenment.
Of course, as Buddhists, we should support the Sangha and those who are inspired to take the robes, be they male or female, by trying to help provide them with requisites and conducive environment for their practice.
Warmest metta to both monks and nuns,
Dheerayupa
Found this while doing search for our Facebook Page:
“Whenever you have feelings of love or hate for anything whatsoever, these will be your aides and partners in building parami. The Buddha-Dhamma is not to be found in moving forwards, nor in moving backwards, nor in standing still. This, Sumedho, is your place of non-abiding.”
— Ajahn Chah’s letter to Ajahn Sumedho, as recounted by Ajahn Amaro
If a monastic is not aware that something doesn’t belong to them and take it this is not considered stealing according to vinaya.
As much as I am aware, this rule of re-offering is not in the vinaya but has come into tradition in some Buddhist countries, I think particularly in Thailand, only later.
The way I have been told this rule (I don’t remember in which monastery) was not that food has to be re-offered if a layperson accidentally touches it , but if a female accidentally touches it, and this includes also female members of the Sangha. And it is related to the custom that females have to offer food to a monk only via a receiving cloth as to avoid a direct contact—which is also not from the vinaya.
I would have thought the law of intention applies to these rules.
with metta
Ayya, if you don’t mind, which monastery is this? I work out of northern Illinois, and would be interested to visit this Sri Lankan monastery. Is it Blue Lotus in Woodstock, Illinois?
Rule on stealing—Bhikkhu Pārājika 2:
If a monk, intending to steal, takes from a village or from the wilderness what has not been given to him— the sort of theft for which kings, having caught a thief, would beat, imprison, or banish him, saying, “You’re a bandit, you’re a fool, you’ve gone astray, you’re a thief”— he too is expelled and not in communion.
Intending to steal is the important bit here. If I think a dish has been offered to me and take it I don’t have the intention to steal, even if I might be wrong in my assumption.
The story is that the monk himself felt bad about eating what the layperson didn’t intend to give him.
Born and bred in Thailand for nearly 60 years, I have never heard that this ‘practice’ applies only to female laypeople.
Regarding the ‘receiving cloth’, I’ve been told by a good monk (yes, I’m lucky to have known some good monks who know their vinaya) that it’s not in the vinaya, but it helps prevent misunderstanding when a laywoman gives something small to a monk (or vice versa), it could look as if their hands were touching.
This good monk who is regarded as very conservatively proper has received books from my hand and I also helped adjust dishes of food offered to him without any need of re-offering.
I would say that it depends on individual monks (whether they themselves understand the spirit of the vinaya or just follow the ‘tradition of practice’ blindly without real understanding) and individual incidents (such as to ensure no misunderstanding).
At this temple, an old layman told me off when I was going to touch the monk’s bowl, saying that a woman is not allowed to touch a monk’s bowl. It’s all Ko Mayan. The monk, upon hearing my complaint about gender discrimination, kindly told me that it was not true.
A suggestion I would give (though without a request) is to find a monk or monastery that respects you and your wish to learn the dhamma coz it means they are good monks. If said monk or monastery does something that you think might be insulting or discriminating, just ask them to explain. Perhaps it’s all about misunderstanding by laypeople around the monks who have carried with them wrong ideas from their home countries.
However SarathW’s statements may be disliked for their presentation by some, he does have a point. Let’s consider using money. Okay, using money can be considered a small regression, so technically if, due to circumstances, this or that bhikkhu does use money, this is not a big deal (especially this is the case with foreign monks in SE Asia, where they have to take care about visas, healthcare, etc). The following question arises then: should this be legitimized altogether? For example, because the rule to not use money “imposes unnecessary suffernig” onto bhikkhus.
I don’t think so, because monastic community does not have a purpose to be welcoming, inclusive and so on, it’s not a boy/girl-scout camp or a vacation. I always thought people ordain in order to get as further ahead on the Path as possible without distractions of the lay life (even if it does not work so well nowadays), not for one to feel comfortable. Male monastics also do have a lot of difficulties, at least when they try to practice and live properly, according to rules set by Buddha. I do not hear many arguments that this or that should be redone/changed just because it’s “hard enough”. These challenges are taken for granted. Yes, there are greater resctrictions imposed on the female sangha. But for what reason should these be equalized with male sangha, apart from a lay concept of discrimination and equality and the fact that this does not fit some feminist viewpoint?
As far as I understand, the biggest real problem that the whole topic concerns is that because in traditional eastern societies female monastics are frowned upon (whith a good reason by the way - because their tradition clearly forbids this!), not enough support is provided to nuns. You’re not going to change that by equalizing vinayas, traditional asian communities are generally not aware of its contents, and if they learn westerners are again trying to “fix” them, they might react accordingly. In the west, you would expect a regular western treatment, i.e. equal (to the extent there’s equal treatment of women and men in your particular society), and in this context the pressure of walking behind, say, Ven. Sujato should not be that great, should it? I am pretty sure the western lay community would support female monastics more or less the same as male ones, and wouldn’t even mind them walking in mixed order. If there’s a consensus in the monastery on this matter too, the issue virtually vanishes. So yes, I’d basically repeat here what Dheerayupa said just above: a nun should “find a monk or monastery that respects you and your wish to learn the dhamma coz it means they are good monks”, be it in the west or the east. This way, both the nun and the good monk, and the monastery, will win in the longer run.
As for ideologically based influences… Feminism, marxism, capitalism, economics, politics, whatever - I am highly convinced all this mundane stuff should be kept out of Dhamma, Sangha and Vinaya, they only make it worse, because these are the things from the Mara’s domain.
It is still not from the vinaya, so there cannot be a breach of vinaya involved.
That’s indeed a great thing!
That’s interesting! I’ve heard it quite a few times (although I’ve never been to Thailand ), and always in monasteries related to the Thai forest tradition.
That’s very kind and reasonable of him!
Sri Lankan monks or monks from other Buddhist countries don’t use it, and I’ve never heard of any nun anywhere in the world using it.
This is the rule about physical contact:
If a lustful monk makes physical contact with a woman— holding her hand or hair, or touching any part of her body— he commits an offense entailing suspension.
It only applies if the monk’s mind is lustful.
According to what I’ve read in Bhante @sujato’s book White Bones Red Rot Black Snakes (ebook for free download) this custom of using a receiving cloth has very different roots which have nothing to do whatsoever with vinaya, but it’s very old taboos deeply rooted in all human cultures in one way or the other: The menstruation taboo that makes women ritually ‘unclean’ so that they have to be ‘insulated’ from anything or anybody considered ‘sacred’, like for example a monk.
The taboo on menstruation per se is a part of a much wider set of taboos that govern the relationship between monks and women. In the Vinaya, for example, there is no prohibition for a monk to touch a woman. The offence falls if a monk sexually gropes a woman, with ‘mind perverted by lust’. This protects women from sexual harassment in the monastery, a place where they should be free of fear. But in some Buddhist countries the very idea of a monk touching a woman, even brushing her hand by accident, is viewed with horror.
This goes so far that in Thailand monks have to use a ‘receiving cloth’ when accepting offerings from a woman. We have already seen how this practice makes literal the idea of the ‘insulating horse’ that isolates the sacred from the profane. The use of the ‘receiving cloth’, unknown in the Vinaya or any other Buddhist land, is sternly insisted upon. It is certainly a convenient way for monks to be able to accept gifts from women while remaining ritually isolated from their impurity. Even bhikkhus from other Theravāda countries regard this practice with disdain; K. Sri Dhammananda, the late Chief Monk of Malaysia, told me the use of the receiving cloth was a ‘Brahmanical’ custom.
Once again, there is a Christian parallel to the Thai ‘receiving cloth’. Here are some rules that were decided at a diocesan synod in Auxerre, France, in 585 or 588 CE:
Canon 36. ‘No woman may receive the holy eucharist with bare hands.’
Canon 37. ‘Also she may not touch the pall.’
Canon 42. ‘Every woman must have her dominicale (= a linen cloth to cover her hand) at communion.’
Similarly, in some Buddhist regions, women are forbidden to touch a Buddha image, even to clean it. They may also not touch a monk’s requisites, such as his bowl. None of these customs have anything to do with the Vinaya, nor with a rational practice of sense restraint. They are taboos, plain and simple.
(Chapter 21, “The deepest taboo”, p. 488,4; but the whole book is well worth reading!)
Although we are living in a scientific age these things still are around in all human societies in different ways; usually in subtle rather than obvious forms. They sometimes provoke strong emotional reactions when someone is acting against them, reactions that are difficult to understand on merely reasonable grounds. That is—so I understood it—the motivation that made Bhante Sujato do all this research in the first place that ended up in this book: the fact that he encountered such emotional reactions against all reasonable arguments. And—and again here I cannot speak for the person but that’s just how I would understand it—it is also this kind of taboos that Ayya @Vimala is referring to when speaking of the fear of the ‘other’.
I think both monks and nuns should be sensitive to the prevalent issues. If, for example, there is an issue with conduct and someone takes the necessary responsibility to address it, this can be reinterpreted as gender based discrimination. When defensiveness or projecting blame on others is used, this becomes possible. This immediately clears the ‘blame’ from the ‘complainer’ especially if heard by a person who is sensitive to this form of discrimination.
The other thing is the use of exaggeration. This also helps the cause of the complainer. Therefore it is important to find out the true facts, and ‘hear both sides of the story’ and take a neutral stance to resolve the matter without projecting blame or generating a knee jerk reaction. Patience, and not responding in the heat of the moment, (but not passive waiting with aggressive outburst when things come to a head) and consulting ones equivalent one ‘the other camp’, without attempting affect the accused party directly are important. Conduct issues should be managed with one’s own ‘line-manager’, and not try to cross-manage, as there is a risk of accusations of discrimination. If all else fails, then approaching someone high up enough who have some influence with both sides would be required.
With metta
What one is told when one goes to a temple is not always true to the Buddha’s teachings, especially when it comes to a traditional way of doing things. As someone here wisely said (sorry I can’t find who said it), cultural influence plays a big part.
Oftentimes the monks themselves are not aware of such ‘claims’. For instance, the story about a woman not allowed to touch a monk’s bowl, the monk himself said that it’s nonsense. Of course, one should not touch a monk’s bowl when the monk is holding it, as it looks improper.
So, again I wish to reiterate that if one hears about a silly ‘practice’, just ask the monks that one respects. Not many Thai people do, but I’m not one of them, so I’ve been known to ask ‘too many questions’, in those Thai people’s view, but good monks welcome my questions.
Hope you all will be lucky to find monks who can help show you a right way to practice the dhamma.
Warmest metta,
Dheerayupa
I fully agree with this.
That’s great! 
This is true and the quality of the teachings are much better when it comes to dhamma discussion based on suttas delivered at temples. Cultural and religious practices/ traditions have little basis in the suttas, other than for the exception of meditation, sutta study, teaching the dhamma, dana, uposatha, and possibly meetings held by the donor committees.
with metta
But, you know, these things are still around, they are imposed on people, and—they cause suffering!