I think in terms of Dhamma rights are neither here nor there, but in a secular setting they are very useful and desirable. They certainly protect people. To give my own example, in my country I am both in a sexual and religious minority. Negative rights then offer me some measure of protection from the state and other citizens. Regarding kamma, whilst you and I would agree on that concept others in the society at large will not. Living then in a diverse society it’s best to have some common secular principles that everyone can get behind. That said there are way in which rights are similar to the political ideals of Buddhadhamma, in terms of outcome. If we take the negative human right of religious freedom, the outcome of that secular view would be the same as what would be found in the ideal society of the Wheel Turning Monarch.
Do you mean buddha is more a conservative than a liberal ?
I think he was what we would call a traditionalist or Burkean conservative today. I don’t think he was a classical liberal or a Progressive. To give one point of departure, both of those systems in the strictest sense argue for Republicanism whereas the Buddha seemed to have preferred Monarchy as the ideal system. I think though we are getting off topic here.
Yes But in vinaya he endorses voting based system to decide the litigation of monk offense, furthermore conservative is what you describe as one who only supports negative right, liberal like in us support only positive right if I am not mistaken like you know abortion right
How he organised the monks and nuns is not the same as how he viewed social organisation in terms of society at large. Liberals, in the American sense of that word, tend to support abortion as a right, yes. I’m not seeing your point here?
I mean Buddha is more a conservative than a liberal, I don’t think buddha would support abortion right for example, being a conservative he would leave nun ordination in the hand of monks not the state because
of his negative right view
Perhaps it is worth considering to what extent the “freedom” to discriminate against others, and treat them poorly, is truly a freedom. Is that really what Buddhists should be supporting in the 21st century? Is this really where Buddhism should be, opposing human rights and defending discrimination, while the rest of the world moves forward?
Personally, I don’t want to support any Buddhist organization that discriminates on the basis of gender. That includes supporting their tax-exempt status and other benefits they receive from the government. Nobody should be forced to fund gender discrimination with their taxes.
What was established in early Buddhism was the Fourfold Samgha. Not a regressive or decayed form of Buddhism with only monks, and those who worship them. If Buddhism is truly the teaching of the enlightened ones, then it must be expansive enough to have a place for everyone. That includes pursuing monasticism.
I think we can make buddhism like what we want but I am afraid that it would not be buddhism in the end
Furthermore There’s already secular buddhism movement that covers all your western views including gender equality view
I think I understand why buddha earlier refused to teach because not all people can accept the teaching thus refusing his teaching and makes much demerit and suffering by doing that
When the Buddha created or modified Vinaya rules based on Civil Law, I perceive that it was to be in harmony with that legal system and public opinion, not because the law was being enforced on the Sangha.
There are examples where a monastic committed an act punishable by the king or counsel but the king or counsel did not enact the punishment, because the offender was a monastic. This monastic and the Saṅgha as a whole were then spoken of poorly by the public. In response, the Buddha incorporated the Civil Law into the Vinaya.
So, for us today, we could follow this practice and check that our monastic code of conduct is not violating civil law or public opinion in regards to ethical behavior. It is then Saṅgha coming into alignment and harmony, not government dictating it.
Hi, Bhante @sujato,
Thank you for your response. I don’t really want to get into an argument about this either, so I’ll leave this topic with this closing thought —
Religious organizations require discrimination to operate. Even a Buddhist Monastery that was very progressive about say, Bhikkhuni ordination or trans acceptance, would still refuse ordination to a Sikh man who wanted to grow his hair long and worship Waheguru instead of taking refuge in the triple gem. There is simply no way to consistently enforce anti-discrimination laws to religious orgs without in effect destroying the purpose to these orgs to begin with. Now, maybe one wants to argue against tax exemptions for religion in general — a fair enough position, albeit one I wouldn’t agree with for other reasons.
Much metta
Some interesting thoughts there. A question does then arise. If society changes, which it always does, and new laws come in which discriminate against certain sections of the population should the Saṅgha then align it’s practices with those laws?
My still incomplete understanding of the Buddha’s method of setting Vinaya rules is that where there was injustice, such as hierarchy by caste, he created rules within the Saṅgha that did not perpetuate that injustice. Thus, when entering the monastic Saṅgha, one’s former caste is set aside.
On the other hand, when a civil law aligned with ethical conduct, such as not stealing, he aligned the consequences of breaking that ethical conduct with that of the civil law. For not stealing at the most severe level in the monastic code (no longer being a bhikkhu or bhikkhunī), the offense is committed if it is a monetary value where the government would imprison the offender.
Gender equality is hardly a uniquely western idea, and is certainly not recent. For example, Buddhism in China and Taiwan may take more broad-minded views, and there is a strong concept of a Fourfold Samgha. The ordination lineage for nuns in China has existed for 1500 years, and goes back to the time of the Buddha.
In some places, Buddhist monastics advocate for social progress. That idea and role for Buddhism is not even particularly new. Social change and progress is an important part of the Buddhist tradition as well. Not every Buddhist tradition has resigned itself to just being whatever it was before.
As a political scientist I have been refraining from entering this discussion, but I’ll say just this: Historically, where governments have been intertwined with religions the influence goes both ways. The reasons for tax-exempt status for religions in countries such as the United States include not only the desire not to have the state interfere with religious practice. They also include the desire not to have religions interfere with the practices of government. 'Nuff said 
[quote=“TheSynergist, post:82, topic:20912”] Even a Buddhist Monastery that was very progressive about say, Bhikkhuni ordination or trans acceptance, would still refuse ordination to a Sikh man who wanted to grow his hair long and worship Waheguru instead of taking refuge in the triple gem.
[/quote]
This is another example of a strawman argument, and an ‘appeal to extremes’ logical fallacy.
Anti-discrimination laws are not sledgehammers but carefully constructed and highly nuanced pieces of legislation. The way anti-discrimination laws function is to balance various human rights in a way that discriminates as little as possible and only when there is a genuine need to so so. Getting the balance right is one of the issues raised here. For example, the right for people to practice their religious views and the right of people to be free of oppression from other’s religious views needs to be held in balance. The ability for a religious organisation to have exceptions to anti-discrimination laws needs to be carefully balanced with genuine religious purpose. For example, no-one would suggest that a priest shouldn’t need to be Christian, but there might reasonably be some debate about whether the church should be able to insist that their website designer not be a divorcee, or that a cleaner in a hospital can’t be bisexual.
Where there is a valid reason for discrimination, such as a Buddhist monk being a Buddhist, or an Aboriginal cultural organisation seeking to fill a cultural officer position, or a women’s empowerment organisation appointing a director, then there are nuanced reasons why discrimination should be allowed, but applied in the most narrow way. These are the types of situations that anti-discrimination law covers.
A problematic situation arises when the discrimination is out of balance and unfairly prioritises religious institutions above the rights of individuals in ways that becomes harmful. For example, in Australia religious schools can expel a student if they are discovered to be gay. The harm done to the student (for something completely beyond their control) is unfair and excessive, and their needs and rights should be held above the institution, which cannot be said to be harmed in the same way. Given the power, wealth and authority of religions, the legal treatment of institutions as being like individuals (as if they can be injured or need excessive protections) is clearly an approach that is out of balance with the much smaller power and limited means of individuals.
No-one has suggested this. However, there are many concrete ways legal imperatives already exert influence every day on our religious institutions; such as accountancy requirements and financial reporting, visa conditions, or building codes. These laws change all the time and sometimes disadvantage Buddhist organisations but though we might have conversations with governments about these things we don’t presume that our religious views should be held completely independent or above civic laws. Yet for some reason when the issue is about gender equality, suddenly religions become all libertarian! Of course there are cases where laws are simply iniquitous and might reasonably be disobeyed, especially if they create harm to others but these are few and far between and would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis by individuals rather than some blanket hypothetical.
This thread is very much about access. A good analogy is to think about the way physical barriers existed in the past in our public and religious buildings, which prevented many people from getting access and participating fully. After a huge struggle and facing massive resistance, the disability rights movement succeeded in getting anti-discrimination legislation passed that requires public buildings to provide alternative means of access, such as ramps and lifts. This recognised that all people’s rights and human dignity needed to be given as much equal access to public spaces as possible. We take this for granted today, but it is a relatively recent phenomenon. The physical barriers were not designed to oppress people with disabilities but that was the effect. Once pointed out, the way these barriers are oppressive becomes difficult to ignore. Imagine if we refused to listen to the people impacted by these things today; would you want to silence their voices or use legal means to reject their pleas for access? This did actually happen in the recent past! This is what happened with bhikkhuni ordination. People don’t like change do they?
A conscious anti-discriminatory approach clearly benefits people with disabilities, but it also benefits anyone who has broken a leg, sprained an ankle, or who is pushing a child in a pram, or who is elderly.
Looking back, it seems the people in charge were ignorant and created unnecessary hardship. You won’t find answers on accessibility in the ancient Buddhist scriptures, but that doesn’t mean that as Buddhists we cant see the value or benefit of such an approach that includes more people and reduces harm to others. Interestingly, here in Australia, religions have exceptions to over-ride disability discrimination laws in some circumstances, such as schools. Despite this exemption, many religious buildings have been designed or modified to create a more inclusive and accessible space for all. Who would argue against such a thing? Buildings are not people. Religions are not individuals. Who needs to be given priority here? You can ask yourself, how would it feel for me if I couldn’t access a building, or how would it feel if my physical attributes denied me access to a religious path?
Just as providing physical access provided many flow on benefits to the whole community, we have already seen so many benefits from the ordination of women and non-binary folks in Theravada; inspiring countless people to practice, and invigorating our dhamma communities with intelligence, compassion and wisdom, benefitting so many beings.
China and Taiwan follows dharmaguptaka vinaya and still have nuns to ordain new nun, I actually don’t know why theravada nuns tradition died in 12th ce so they can’t ordain new nuns without monks involved
Update 1, am I the only one seeing @companion typing all day without Posting anything lol ?
the legality and morality?
Hi, Ven @Akaliko, while I appreciate the time you took to respond to my post, I’m going to reiterate what I said in that same post about not wanting to argue further about this issue 
. I think we’re just going around in circles here about the intricacies of anti-discrimination laws.
That said, I will butt into this conversation once more to respond to what is imho a good point, one that I think needs further exploration. This is the point Ven. @Niyyanika brought up about potentially using civil law to justify Bhikkhuni ordination (although not legally force it). @Ceisiwr asked if there was an example of civil law being absorbed into the Vinaya to make it more discriminatory, and Ayya responded:
Wouldn’t the 8 Garudhammas be an example of the Buddha using “civil law” to discriminate? My recollection is that there is at least one version of this story where the Buddha justifies these rules under the excuse that “everyone else was doing it.” Or am I misunderstanding the principle you’re talking about?
Perhaps the rules banning slaves, debtors, or conscripts from ordaining are other examples of discriminatory civil laws-turned-vinaya?
Let’s quote and venerate the gotami sutta in its entirety, I don’t believe theravada is the earliest school so there is that here, in this sutta there are the 8 garudhammas
An8.51
With Gotamī
At one time the Buddha was staying in the land of the Sakyans, near Kapilavatthu in the Banyan Tree Monastery. Then Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī went up to the Buddha, bowed, stood to one side, and said to him:“Sir, please let females gain the going forth from the lay life to homelessness in the teaching and training proclaimed by the Realized One.”
“Enough, Gotamī. Don’t advocate for females to gain the going forth from the lay life to homelessness in the teaching and training proclaimed by the Realized One.”
For a second time …
For a third time, Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī said to the Buddha:
“Sir, please let females gain the going forth from the lay life to homelessness in the teaching and training proclaimed by the Realized One.”
“Enough, Gotamī. Don’t advocate for females to gain the going forth from the lay life to homelessness in the teaching and training proclaimed by the Realized One.”
Then Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī thought, “The Buddha does not permit females to go forth.” Miserable and sad, weeping, with a tearful face, she bowed, and respectfully circled the Buddha, keeping him on her right, before leaving.
When the Buddha had stayed in Kapilavatthu as long as he wished, he set out for Vesālī. Traveling stage by stage, he arrived at Vesālī, where he stayed at the Great Wood, in the hall with the peaked roof. Then Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī had her hair cut off and dressed in ocher robes. Together with several Sakyan ladies she set out for Vesālī. Traveling stage by stage, she arrived at Vesālī and went to the Great Wood, the hall with the peaked roof. Then Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī stood crying outside the gate, her feet swollen, her limbs covered with dust, miserable and sad, with tearful face.
Venerable Ānanda saw her standing there, and said to her, “Gotamī, why do you stand crying outside the gate, your feet swollen, your limbs covered with dust, miserable and sad, with tearful face?”
“Sir, Ānanda, it’s because the Buddha does not permit females to go forth in the teaching and training proclaimed by the Realized One.”
“Well then, Gotamī, wait here just a moment, while I ask the Buddha to grant the going forth for females.”
Then Venerable Ānanda went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to him:
“Sir, Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī is standing crying outside the gate, her feet swollen, her limbs covered with dust, miserable and sad, with tearful face. She says that it’s because the Buddha does not permit females to go forth. Sir, please let females gain the going forth from the lay life to homelessness in the teaching and training proclaimed by the Realized One.”
“Enough, Ānanda. Don’t advocate for females to gain the going forth from the lay life to homelessness in the teaching and training proclaimed by the Realized One.”
For a second time …
For a third time, Ānanda said to the Buddha:
“Sir, please let females gain the going forth from the lay life to homelessness in the teaching and training proclaimed by the Realized One.”
“Enough, Ānanda. Don’t advocate for females to gain the going forth from the lay life to homelessness in the teaching and training proclaimed by the Realized One.”
Then Venerable Ānanda thought, “The Buddha does not permit females to go forth. Why don’t I try another approach?”
Then Venerable Ānanda said to the Buddha, “Sir, is a female able to realize the fruits of stream-entry, once-return, non-return, and perfection once she has gone forth?”
“She is able, Ānanda.”
“If a female is able to realize the fruits of stream-entry, once-return, non-return, and perfection once she has gone forth. Sir, Mahāpajāpatī has been very helpful to the Buddha. She is his aunt who raised him, nurtured him, and gave him her milk. When the Buddha’s birth mother passed away, she nurtured him at her own breast. Sir, please let females gain the going forth from the lay life to homelessness in the teaching and training proclaimed by the Realized One.”
“Ānanda, if Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī accepts these eight principles of respect, that will be her ordination.
A nun, even if she has been ordained for a hundred years, should bow down to a monk who was ordained that very day. She should rise up for him, greet him with joined palms, and observe proper etiquette toward him. This principle should be honored, respected, esteemed, and venerated, and not transgressed so long as life lasts.
A nun should not commence the rainy season residence in a monastery without monks. This principle should be honored, respected, esteemed, and venerated, and not transgressed so long as life lasts.
Each fortnight the nuns should expect two things from the community of monks: the date of the sabbath, and visiting for advice. This principle should be honored, respected, esteemed, and venerated, and not transgressed so long as life lasts.
After completing the rainy season residence the nuns should invite admonition from the communities of both monks and nuns in regard to anything that was seen, heard, or suspected. This principle should be honored, respected, esteemed, and venerated, and not transgressed so long as life lasts.
A nun who has committed a grave offense should undergo penance in the communities of both monks and nuns for a fortnight. This principle should be honored, respected, esteemed, and venerated, and not transgressed so long as life lasts.
A trainee nun who has trained in the six rules for two years should seek ordination from the communities of both monks and nuns. This principle should be honored, respected, esteemed, and venerated, and not transgressed so long as life lasts.
A nun should not abuse or insult a monk in any way. This principle should be honored, respected, esteemed, and venerated, and not transgressed so long as life lasts.
From this day forth it is forbidden for nuns to criticize monks, but it is not forbidden for monks to criticize nuns. This principle should be honored, respected, esteemed, and venerated, and not transgressed so long as life lasts.
If Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī accepts these eight principles of respect, that will be her ordination.”
Then Ānanda, having learned these eight principles of respect from the Buddha himself, went to Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī and said:
“Gotamī, if you accept eight principles of respect, that will be your ordination.
A nun, even if she has been ordained for a hundred years, should bow down to a monk who was ordained that very day. She should rise up for him, greet him with joined palms, and observe proper etiquette toward him. This principle should be honored, respected, esteemed, and venerated, and not transgressed so long as life lasts. …
From this day forth it is forbidden for nuns to criticize monks, but it is not forbidden for monks to criticize nuns. This principle should be honored, respected, esteemed, and venerated, and not transgressed so long as life lasts. If you accept these eight principles of respect, that will be your ordination.”
“Ānanda, suppose there was a woman or man who was young, youthful, and fond of adornments, and had bathed their head. After getting a garland of lotuses, jasmine, or liana flowers, they would take them in both hands and place them on the crown of the head. In the same way, sir, I accept these eight principles of respect as not to be transgressed so long as life lasts.”
Then Venerable Ānanda went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to the Buddha:
“Sir, Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī has accepted the eight principles of respect as not to be transgressed so long as life lasts.”
“Ānanda, if females had not gained the going forth from the lay life to homelessness in the teaching and training proclaimed by the Realized One, the spiritual life would have lasted long. The true teaching would have remained for a thousand years. But since they have gained the going forth, now the spiritual life will not last long. The true teaching will remain only five hundred years.
It’s like those families with many women and few men. They’re easy prey for bandits and thieves. In the same way, the spiritual life does not last long in a teaching and training where females gain the going forth.
It’s like a field full of rice. Once the disease called ‘white bones’ attacks, it doesn’t last long. In the same way, the spiritual life does not last long in a teaching and training where females gain the going forth.
It’s like a field full of sugar cane. Once the disease called ‘red rot’ attacks, it doesn’t last long. In the same way, the spiritual life does not last long in a teaching and training where females gain the going forth.
As a man might build a dyke around a large lake as a precaution against the water overflowing, in the same way as a precaution I’ve prescribed the eight principles of respect as not to be transgressed so long as life lasts.”
Yes. When we are talking about human rights we are talking about morality and law. Equality legislation is based on the notion of positive rights. Those who oppose it, from a classical liberal side, do so on the basis of negative rights (mostly freedom of association in this case).