The garudhamma are rules which some ancient texts say the bhikkhunis should follow. They don’t relate to any fundamental moral principles, and in fact most of them are covered elsewhere in the nuns’ rules. It’s mainly about norms of etiquette, such as whether all nuns have to bow to monks.
I believe these rules are a later corruption of the texts, that they are unfair and cruel and cause harm and suffering. If any nuns ask my opinion, I recommend they not follow them.
However, whether nuns follow them or not should not be up to any monk or to the lay community, but solely up to the bhikkhunis.
There is, and always will be, diversity within the bhikkhuni community, just as there is with the monks. The difference is that diversity of Vinaya practice among the nuns is restricted to trivial details, whereas among the monks we frequently see gross criminal conduct. When we focus on how nuns keep the Vinaya we are just reinforcing another toxic double standard. They are constantly being scrutinized against standards of conduct that almost all monks blithely ignore without any consequences.
The only message that they need from us is that we will support their choice no matter what they chose.
I think keeping the garudhammas is totally wrong. What example does it show to the wider society, to our sons and daughters? Those rules show that somebody is superior only because they were born in a man’s body… Is that really good for Buddhism? Does it really accord with the Dhamma?
And it doesn’t matter how many Buddhists and non-Buddhists know about the garudhammas, the problem is that those rules are still kept in the 21st century. And many Buddhists are quite happy to close their eyes and not see what harm and suffering inequality can cause.
Thank you Pasanna.
It is very informative.
Bhante Sujato confirm what I always thinking (video counter 1.01). That is the Garudhamma is to eliminate the pride. Even newly ordained elderly monk should bow down to the younger senior monk also covey the same message.
I think it is long term benefit of the Bhikhunis to give up the fight against to eliminate Garudhamma.
The purpose of ordaining under the bless one is not for the fighting the politics of trivial matters. It is for the realisation of Nibbana.
Sorry, but this seriously misrepresents my views. What I say in the video is that I believe the origin of the rule, insofar as it has any historical roots, is for Mahapajapati, established for her personally, to counter the pride that she had actually demonstrated. The whole point is that this is not something that should be generally applied to all nuns, as they have not committed any fault.
SarathW1 it saddens me very much that you consider the harm done to monks, to nuns, and to laypeople, is “trivial”. If one monk mistakes respect as actual superiority due to gender, that is too many. If one person decides “Buddhism” is just a scam for lazy prideful foolish monks, that is a tragedy, if it delays their liberation. Please, Venerable, rethink this. I say that as one who is extremely unlikely to become a monastic, but finds the Dhamma, the Buddha, and Buddha’s Sangha, to be perfect, complete, cohesive, internally coherent and flawless.
But sexism is crap, I cannot swallow it; it destroys the potential of so many men and women.
No one is suggesting that bhikkhunis should be ‘compelled’ to not practice the ‘garudhammas’ - if they feel the need. Although, I think it would be appropriate to ask why it is individuals would wish to do this - if they have understood the issue? It is not only a question of personal choice in what individuals wish to practice (or not).
There is another question in all of this that may be unwise to ignore if we are serious about our commitment to the millennium goals established by the United Nations. Ajahn Brahm has made it clear that ‘he’ is committed to those goals - many of us agree - they are worthy aspirations that need to be realised for present and future generations.
You may feel these goals are ‘optional’ for your own reasons or, we have gone far enough in facilitating ordination. I am not complacent about our need to commit to collective progressive social-change - yesterday! Anything that moves us forward needs to be supported before it is to late - we cannot afford to drag our feet for one moment when it comes to creating a better world that is absolutely required - or we are all finished - washed-up - game over!
I am a father and I have an obligation to my daughters to help create a Buddhism that they find accommodating and inclusive. If females are second-class members of the four-fold assembly - as a consequence of a complacency around this issue - I can easily understand why they would conclude that Buddhism is a religious (fossil) from the past. It is not operating in sync with modern progressive values - plain and simple! It talks the talk but at the end of the day it does not walk the walk.
Its wonderful that female practitioners can fully ordain again in the Theravada tradition. It would be wonderful if we could also ‘nibbana’ (all) practices that involve discrimination against females. This seems logical to me - I thought that was the point from the outset?
Is this an insistence of an in-group issue that needs to be addressed by female monastics exclusively - and independently - I don’t see why? We have (all) been around this issue for a long time and we all have good reasons to help to see it through - IMO. Being someone who is a feminist, father and, a Buddhist seems to be a valid reason for concern, encouragement and support - support can come in many ways. Why is this a private-issue that should be resolved by clergy/monastics exclusively as if it has know impact on the wider Buddhist community in which monastics are situated?
Some Christian churches have ordained priests and there is also a Bishop I heard about. The female priests are equal to male priests in the execution of their religious practices. The female priests don’t feel the need to give ‘pride of place’ attention to male priests as part of their religious practice. They don’t feel the need to sit on a lower seat when male clergy are about or, wait to be spoken to, before they communicate. Any practices along these lines would be clear signs that equality was window dressing - they would be second-class priests - like b-grade mechanics. What message would it send to the girls in the church if they saw this kind of behaviour taking place as an observed standard of etiquette for ‘female’ church leaders?
If a junior monk decided not to bow to a senior, there would likely be an awkward moment and then they’d move on. Just like if someone reached out to shake your hand and you didn’t take it. There’s really nothing more to it than that.
Social change doesn’t come about by judging women and telling them what to do. It comes by trusting women to decide for themselves.
Just some minor details; the Vinaya says very little about seniority. There is an expectation that a senior should able to speak first in a formal meeting of the Sangha, and that they should not be denied a place to stay. I haven’t looked into it in detail, but there’s really not much more to it than that. In maybe 99% of the Vinaya seniority has no relevance, and it’s never more than a matter of etiquette. There is no authority or explicit power conferred by seniority.
That describes about 95% of monks today. Is it a good thing? I don’t think so. But it doesn’t invalidate your ordination.
Sorry Bhante.
Can you give answer to the link in my question post.
Can you cut the answer here and paste to my original question.
I keep this discussion for my future reference.
Kind regards
Social change is a complex phenomena. I understand your point but there may be more involved. This looks like another instance of the discussion we have been having about the ways in which meaningful change takes place - individually and collectively. We can place an emphasis on ‘change comes from within’ and of course this is important. However, there is another important way in which positive change takes place within society. Its involves collective goal setting and trying to realise meaningful change through collective-effort. The millennium goals are one of many templates for collective and coordinated efforts - involving large groups - aimed at the realisation of specific outcomes. Its not an either/or situation! There will always be individuals and groups who remain frozen in time - so be it - but we cannot wait for everyone to catch-up and move in the direction we need to go without delay.
Individual Bhiikhunis are welcome to observe atavistic practices if they feel the need. Intransigent Bhikkhus are not required to give up their sexist ways if they find this offensive or inappropriate. However, the rest of us need to get on with the task at hand, as there is no time to drag our feet - socially, economically, culturally and, environmentally. In reality, the opportunities we needed to take advantage of have gone begging - but we cannot give up - IMO.
What collective? All I see is a bunch of lay people judging nuns. If bhikkhunis decide to get together and decide how they will practice regarding the garudhammas, I would absolutely support them.
Maybe you are reading things into - seeing a uniformity - that is not really there. I am not judging nuns I am encouraging them as best I can. I am giving voice to matters that also extend beyond he bhikkhuni-community - to our interdependent needs as part of ever larger circles of life and living.
Bhikkhus and Bhikkhunis can do anything they like - we all can do as we wish - but there are repercussions that impact on all of us as a consequence of our individual and collective choices. If any one feels they have been bullied by me please let me know - and I will shut-up without hesitation?
Look, I’m sorry if I’ve been too harsh. I have a long history with these issues! You haven’t been bullying or anything, in fact you’ve been very nice.
I just wish we stopped talking about these things. Really, it doesn’t accomplish anything. Celebrate the achievements of the bhikkhunis, support them to build for the future, look to the inspiring stories in the Therigatha, which make up a much larger portion of early texts on bhikkhunis than the “rules”!
We need to shift the dialogue. Imagine you’re a newbie to Buddhism, and you are interested in nuns. So you Google it, what do you see? What is the general dialogue around nuns in Buddhism? A lot of it—like really a lot—consists of narrow, rigid arguing about keeping rules. There’s nothing inspiring or interesting about it. It’s silly, and we need to move on.
That has been what I have been doing all along - as far as I can tell - but I could be wrong. If any offence has been taken I apologise - this was not my intention.
