Yes I can understand.
This problem is no different to that you have to live with an abusive partner, neighbour or an employer.
1 Like
I think a person who want to become a monk should chose a temple with proper check and balances.
Specially a temple run buy a Sangha board not buy a dictator.
Perhaps a board with at least one female member.
1 Like
What we are calling the ‘Ajahn Brahm Tradition’ is a break from those powerful entrenched hierarchies. I am assuming that is why we are identifying it as a distinct tradition. What makes this tradition stand out is its willingness to question - openly - literally everything. That has always been my experience with ‘Ajahn Brahm’ - he always encouraged me to question. The threads that I have initiated are the result of this good-Dhamma friendship and guidance. I am not worried if Buddhism undergoes major structural change as long as this results in improvements. Like, completely ending gender discrimination and an (active) concern for wider social and environmental issues. We already have efforts underway and your leadership has helped a great deal. We can still emphasise the positive in Buddhism - the gifts of the bhikkhuni-sangha (past and present) and, keep our eye on the ball when it comes to serious and necessary reform - from the ground up. Even if this involves a close look at the rules of training and getting rid of all traces of gender discrimination - why not?
2 Likes
This is a good idea if you are the Buddha.
@vimalanyani, I am curious as to whether any bhikkhunis or lay-women have taken the trouble to look at these discriminatory rules - major or minor - and deleted them or, modified them in a way that removes the discrimination? There may be room for adding some that pay attention to modern needs (skilful means).
There could be an action-plan developed whereby a modified code of conduct could be produced and presented at a Buddhist womens conference or, has this already happened? There appears to be ‘good reasons’ for the development of a neo-bhikkhuni order that is gender-bias free but still retains the best of what the discipline has to offer? It would not surprise me if a development of this kind breathed new-life into Buddhism. There would be some courageous and thoughtful practitioners who may be interested in participating in this necessary reform of a discriminatory system?
This would give Buddhism a lot more moral-force - ‘truth-force’ (satyagraha) - that would be welcomed, celebrated and, supported by the progressive Buddhist community (internationally). It may receive the blessing and support of progressive Buddhist societies and monastic communities worldwide. It could exist harmoniously in friendship with all Buddhist communities - traditional and otherwise - that are willing to extend their good-will and best wishes. Perhaps, supportive scholars of the early teachings could assist in the process through examining the rules in question and helping to find workable alternatives that we can all celebrate - together.
As was pointed out in this thread it would be unfair to focus on bhikkhunis to the exclusion of the bhikkhus. In following the Buddha’s lead, who did not discourage lay-followers from pointing out the shortcomings of monastics, I will now say something about the bhikkhus. Clearly, if the bhikkhus are involved in the discriminatory practices you have outlined in the major rules then, there is also a need for reform of the bhikkhus discipline. Some of the ways they interact with bhikkhunis may need to change if it involves interference and/or dependency. This seems self-evident?
Before we do this we should examine why Bhikkhuni orders disappeared from places like Sri Lanka. It definitely not the Vinaya rules.
I am thinking that for socially engaged action a very appropriate skillful means is to be sure the sangha (both lay and monastic) are informed by a diversity of perspectives /viewpoints. That is, a Buddhist equivalent of this movement among academics. https://heterodoxacademy.org/problems/
As long as there are some people with a different political perspective in every field and every department, we can assume that eventually, someone will challenge claims that reflect ideology more than evidence.
[A overbalance of a limited range of political viewpoints is] causing [problems] for scholarship, particularly in the social sciences and related fields (such as law and public policy). The word heterodox means “not conforming with accepted or orthodox standards of beliefs.” We chose that word to contrast with “orthodoxy,” which refers to conforming with accepted norms and beliefs. Orthodoxy has religious connotations, but it can be applied to any view that becomes dogma or dogmatic, such as “orthodox Marxism,” “social constructionist orthodoxy,” or “free market orthodoxy.”
In this view one of the poisons for Buddhist action is the privileging of the ideology we bring into our practice over the dharma. A noble path for release would be supporting viewpoint diversity so that the sangha has an appreciation and understanding (a multi-perspective understanding) behind whatever approach individuals or groups advocate. A bolder step would be the support of diverse teams which attempts to be honest brokers of viewpoints and policy options rather than advocates for a single solution.
What do you think?
@sujato, I appreciate your comments based on your broad reading of the texts.
… in the EBT’s … the lay folk frequently criticize the Sangha, and the Buddha never once reprimands them for being critical.
Those certainly are not the type of passages that I tend to read first.
1 Like
Inspiring speeches are inspiring to those who feel inspired by what is said. Those who have a different view about what is said in an inspired speech may feel the need to ‘close down’ this kind of activity as they don’t agree with what is being shared. Unfortunately, for some, we have free-speech in liberal democracies and it is very difficult to suppress the expression of views - given in speeches or in some other public forum - as a consequence. Some monks and nuns are also citizens within liberal democracies and, as citizens their right to free speech is enshrined in law.
The right of freedom of speech is enshrined in law/in the constitution of most modern states.
The idea that someone would wish to suppress a monk or nun from expressing heartfelt views in a public forum - something they feel deeply about - is something I would not support. Everyone has a right to be heard even if we disagree with what they have to say - as long as it is not hate-speech or, provokes violence.
Monks like ‘Bhikku Bodhi’ or ‘Ajahn Brahm’ are as entitled as anyone else to express an opinion freely and without interference. If someone does not like what they have to say they are perfectly entitled to ignore them but, to insist they remain silent is something I would never support or condone.
1 Like
It’s mostly in the Vinaya that you see this. A quick search for ujjhāyantānaṃ “(people) complained” turns up a few hundred hits across the corpus.
2 Likes
Some years ago when I worked at The Buddhist Society in London, we had a visiting monk who was ordained in Sri Lanka. He would bow and angali to junior monks, nuns from other traditions, even us lay people. It was quite disarming - in our experience Theravada monks just didn’t bow to lay people, and here was a (fairly senior) bhikkhu bowing to lay males and females alike. It made a big difference to the group. People who never bowed before started bowing, people who never asked questions before started asking questions. The class became much more inclusive. It was such a small thing which had a big impact - I presume that this was because there was such an atmosphere of respect for all generated by this simple action. I asked him if he got criticised for it from other monks. He said, “oh yes, all the time”. I presume that he was not doing anything against vinaya with all this bowing. It seemed like such a great idea. Are there other ways that bhikkhus can undermine these traditions that bind? I know that this doesn’t cover the vinaya, but as a start surely it is fairly straightforward to flip most of the garu-dhammas on their head and get the monks to preserve them too? So, for example you might always require nuns at a bhikkhus ordination ceremony.
15 Likes
Think that broadbrush strokes don’t work for everyone- those who seek seclusion away from the world should be able to do that, without feeling obliged to keep up with social media, current affairs and be able to not engage, with social engagement.
Others are free to do what they want, and they do…
@sujato, thank you very much! That is empowering information.
I have been really pleased by the thought and effort that went into the user design of this website.
- I hovered over a underlined reference and the pop-up window informed me of a couple of Chinese parallels and even partial parallels. Impressive.
- I searched on “people complained” and got a search on the literal string – the two words in that order
- Then I searched on people complained without the quotes around it and get passages such as:
People who were touring the dwellings grumbled and complained
– and that is my anti-complaint. 
6 Likes
Wow, that’s a really interesting story. It reminds me of the famous blue eyes/brown eyes study. It’s so easy to overlook the corrosive effect of hierarchy, even what we think of a simple, harmless norms.
As for the Vinaya, there is one passage that says a bhikkhu should not bow, etc. to lay people and so on. But it is in a minor passage, buried deep away somewhere, and entailing no serious consequences. In other words, it is the kind of minor rule that almost all monks break almost all the time, mostly without even knowing they exist. But as is the way of these things, certain ideas and principles get elevated to being big deals, while so many other things are lost.
It’s quite common for Mahayana monastics to anjali freely to anyone, and I think it’s a great idea. Times have changed, and people will respect you more if you don’t appear stuck-up. At least, that’s how it is in Australia.
14 Likes
I tried to word the proposal with a narrower brush so as to be in agreement with you.
I am thinking that for socially engaged action a very appropriate skillful means is to …
Is there a way I could have worded this better?
This modern “precept” as it were, is only for those who want to practice what is called socially engaged action or socially engaged Buddhism. Which, at least in the form I see it, is something that is only hinted at in the EBT’s as far as I know. It’s not for the monastics and others who follow the other (original?) noble path.
On the other hand, when the Buddha sought his own enlightenment he sought out a diversity of teachers and practices. That diversity was the basis for the “middle way”.
I am thinking that for socially engaged action a very appropriate skillful means is to be sure the sangha (both lay and monastic) are informed by a diversity of perspectives /viewpoints.
Yes, I know what you mean here.
In Japan, people bow to each other as just a ritual.
As a tourist, I caught up with this habit and just involuntarily I was bowing to everybody.
1 Like
It may be the case - and it often is - that people may have heartfelt convictions based on deep inquiry and learning. It may not be a lack of understanding of a diversity of views that makes people decide on a particular course of action - that causes them to make one political choice over another. You ‘seem’ to be saying that anyone with a political opinion that leans one way or another is a source of difficulty that needs to be ‘nullified’ for the inconvenience and disruption of communal harmony this may cause. I don’t think it is a bad thing that there is a diversity of views in academic life or, in society at large. I don’t believe that we all have to agree on how things should be as that would be a stifling of the democratic process. What is being referred to as political heterodoxy could easily be used as a tool of suppression. In Australia we have this thing called the ‘tall-poppy syndrome’.
2 Likes
“[Periander] had sent a herald to Thrasybulus and inquired in what way he would best and most safely govern his city. Thrasybulus led the man who had come from Periander outside the town, and entered into a sown field. As he walked through the wheat, continually asking why the messenger had come to him from Cypselus, he kept cutting off all the tallest ears of wheat which he could see, and throwing them away, until he had destroyed the best and richest part of the crop. Then, after passing through the place and speaking no word of counsel, he sent the herald away. When the herald returned to Cypselus, Periander desired to hear what counsel he brought, but the man said that Thrasybulus had given him none. The herald added that it was a strange man to whom he had been sent, a madman and a destroyer of his own possessions, telling Periander what he had seen Thrasybulus do. Periander, however, understood what had been done, and perceived that Thrasybulus had counselled him to slay those of his townsmen who were outstanding in influence or ability; with that he began to deal with his citizens in an evil manner.” - Herodotus, The Histories, Book 5, 92-f
Bhante, what about all the vinaya rules regarding not teaching dhamma to a person wearing a hat or carrying an umbrella, not sitting or standing at a lower height than the audience when giving a dhamma talk, are those in the same minor category as well?
The way I was taught, those rules seem to be categorized as important. They made a lot of sense to me, because anyone wearing the robes is a walking advertisement and a representative for the Buddha and Dhamma and Sangha. Just as many people would react with horror if they see their country’s flag disrespected, even more so when a monastic wearing the Robes, who looks just like the EBT Buddha , is not treated with the highest honor that a Buddha deserves. In one of the suttas, a lay person invites a Bhikkhu over to offer a meal. After the meal, she requests a Dhamma talk, but he refuses without giving a reason (at least no reason that made any sense that I recall). She asks her friend later who explains to her she behaved too casually (or something like that), something that seemed to violate protocol for requesting and receiving a Dhamma talk. So after being educated, she invited the same monk for a meal on another day, followed protocol, and this time received a Dhamma talk. There’s another sutta where a monk is deathly ill and bedridden, and even though the Buddha was not even in the vicinity, the monk, when visited by his friends, bowed (or did some other respectful gesture to the extent he was able to in the deathly ill condition) in the general direction of the Buddha. Pardon the errors in details of these descriptions, they’re just from memory, but these kind of accounts of the Buddha tend to make me think bowing, and protocols for when it’s allowable to teach Dhamma, are serious rules and not optional.
Could you clarify please?
1 Like
Of course lots of people have studied the rules in detail and these debates have been ongoing through the centuries and millenia, since the earliest times of Buddhism! But there is no chance of any international agreement to modify the Buddha’s words. Nobody today has the authority to do something like that. Therefore, most nuns find workable solutions in their own monastery and then get on with their meditation practise.
Every monastery is independent in their decision how they keep the vinaya. So you’d have to start on the local level. If you are involved in the group of monasteries associated with Ajahn Brahm, then talk to your local monastics. The Ajahn Brahm “lineage” is known to be a fairly strict vinaya tradition, so I’d be surprised if they were in favor of rewriting the vinaya. But I am not associated with them and really can’t speak for them at all.
I have presented my suggestion of how to make the vinaya gender-free in this thread (Genderless vinaya thought experiment).
As other people have mentioned already, most bhikkhunis are really just struggeling to survive and to keep their monastery running. Investing much time and effort in international vinaya reform is not a very high priority.
7 Likes
I understand if it is a ‘hierarchy of needs’ situation where basic survival comes before ‘actualisation’ - with an emphasis on (deepening in the Dhamma). ‘Maslow’ believed ‘transcendence’ was the penultimate human-need. As long as the ‘struggle for existence’ is not used as a pretext for avoiding the issue because it would be ‘criticised’ by those who would never support the ending of patriarchy - in any shape or form.
The Buddha did teach that we should carefully scrutinise his teachings - along with any other teachings that come our way. He encouraged us to practice those teachings that we have found to be beneficial and, reject teachings that do not serve a useful or beneficial purpose.
“So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, “This contemplative is our teacher.” When you know for yourselves that, “These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness” — then you should enter & remain in them.” - Kalama Sutta
There are different ways we can honour and respect our teachers - past and present. We can be grateful for the wonderful things that they have helped us to understand that have transformed our lives in beneficial ways. However, if we find out that aspects of what they have taught - assuming they ‘actually’ taught everything that has come down to us - are not beneficial and helpful then, there would be no point in taking that on board.
We don’t live long enough to be wasting our time with practices that are redundant, meaningless or, harmful. Again, this seems self-evident IMO. Therefore, I would encourage and support meaningful reform of the monastic-discipline in order to remove all sexist discrimination.
In the past, there may have been a reason for some practices that are no longer relevant. We need to pay attention to ‘anicca’ (changing circumstances) and not cling ‘mindlessly’ to the past out of fear, or misguided loyalty. The Buddha would have approved of his students if, they found good-reasons to change behavioural-norms and, acted accordingly. I don’t think we should underestimate the Buddha’s awakened intelligence. He would have been filled with joy when he saw his disciples acting in beneficial ways.
The Buddha wanted us to use our critical thinking skills - develop them. It is our ability to go beyond the surface of things - mere appearances - which enables the realisation of the ‘Dhamma’ (that which sustains and liberates).