Right speech and gender

That’s understandable. I will just say that in my experience being opposed to said ordination doesn’t necessarily mean one is being exclusive. For example, I know of monasteries who don’t allow Bikkhuni ordination due to Vinaya concerns but still try to find a way to include women in monastic life as much as possible from that position.

1 Like

Bhikkhu @Khemarato.bhikkhu told me a story once about Buddhist monks entering China. Chinese value diligent labor and beggars were seen as useless. So alms rounds offered little and monks started to starve. There was debate about the growing of food by monks since such required cutting plants.

2000 years after that I studied in a Zen monastery where they grew their own food. The other, inflexible monks may have starved to death. They held onto their views of the Vinaya for that time and that place and died there and then.

I think the Buddha’s lack of definition of the “minor rules” is actually a gift for all future generations to live and adapt to needs as they arise.

Bhikkhu Khemarato, forgive me if I have misunderstood your lesson. :pray:

1 Like

That he left the minor rules undefined is one of the reasons why I’m conservative when it comes to the Vinaya. Apart from the potential of unintentionally abolishing a major rule, I’m also concerned about where such modification will end once begun.

1 Like

And for just this reason, we should all study the EBTs exactly as passed on. The discussions about what we share will go on forever. But at least all those discussions will start from what we share.
:smiley:

DN29:17.0: 6. Teachings Should be Recited in Concert

In Zen I was told to chant without worrying about the meaning. These days I study the EBTs and have learned far more. Yet I remain grateful and indebted to the Dhamma as passed through Zen, that line of the Dhamma that showed me the spiritual side of gardening. :heart:

And in listening to the gender debate, all I can hear is the words of the Zen master who said, “is that so?”

3 Likes

Dear @Ceisiwr, I’m going to use your statement above as an example - though please do not take this as a personal criticism in any way, it isn’t. This same thing has been said by many people on many occasions… And I am just using it as an example on this occasion. All of us, including me, struggle with this stuff (views, beliefs and opinions), our conditioning, on a daily basis. This is just the work of applying the Dhamma in our daily lives :smiley:

What I’m going to say will not be comfortable, but i beseech you all, to just think about it for a while, without immediately disagreeing - wait for a few hours before responding :pray:
It is one of those tricky things the Buddha talked about in Right Speech, and I am hoping that this is the right time, and that it will be beneficial :crossed_fingers: and that it can lead to beneficial growth in the Dhamma :dharmawheel: :pray:

“being opposed to said ordination doesn’t necessarily mean one is being exclusive”

I’m afraid that it is 100% excluding women from higher ordination. The reasons for making this choice (to exclude) are another matter… One may feel justified and cite the reasons - this doesn’t mean that one isn’t being exclusive - but rather that one believes that there is a good reason for being so.

The issue that arises and divides, comes from self view - not wanting to see oneself as excluding others… because this is seen as a ‘negative’ trait. However, there could not be a clearer example of exclusion as saying - ‘no that is not for you - you are excluded from full monastic life’.

The contradiction between ones actions and how one feels about them or self view, is brought into stark contrast!! I’m not an uncaring person - see - I will ‘still give’ women access to the dhamma, just in another (lower) format.

IMHO this stance is really damaging to all people involved, because not only does it involve exclusion/denial of access (for whatever reason) but it is denying that the issue of exclusion actually even exists. This can be like a red rag to a bull to those affected by it - women (50% of the population)… Then, in the past, discussions quickly go on to focus on the rights of those who object, on their rights to be exclusionist… and it goes very quickly into a battle of views, wills and hurt.

I hope and pray that this discussion can be conducted in a way that focuses on how we can be kind to those that are hurting… no matter whether we think that hurt is ‘justified’ or not, that skillfulness and metta and compassion drive our words. There will be hurt for all people involved, those who have been excluded, and those who realise that they have done the excluding, and for all of us in knowing that it has resulted in ongoing suffering. Let us try to put a halt to this unnecessary suffering from this point hence. Even if there is no ‘solution’ that comes of this discussion, acknowledging the personal reality of the situation, can only move us forward.

Absolute honesty in appraising our own internal processes and views requires courage… especially to see and accept those things that are not perfect within us. That is why I think it is a very apt expression - to be a Spiritual Warrior - to shine the light into the darkest recesses of our own minds, and no matter how difficult, to get to the truth of things. May we all work hard and keep unraveling assumptions and belief systems, may we have unwavering courage to keep confronting and dismantling delusion, to see the truth of conditioning - about ourselves and others.

@anon38492442, as the OP, I apologise if this has moved a bit far from your intention in opening the topic. If you would like to keep to the narrower focus in your OP, please let us know.

Homage to the Buddha for showing us the path.

With Metta and Karuna for all beings :pray: :revolving_hearts: :dharmawheel:

12 Likes

This thread succeeded in staying on its topic of how to deploy right speech within a situation where gender bias is perceived to be at play (not the principle of whether women should have access to higher ordination) for round about sixteen posts. :smiley: Then it began to waver between the two.

Please consider the best ways to keep the thread on topic.

If you are new to our forum you will find many discussions/reports of Bhikkhuni ordination by following the results of this search.

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/search?q=Bhikkhuni%20ordination

5 Likes

Thanks Gillian, Ajahn Hasapanna suggested in her talk earlier this week that if you focus on the defilements of others then you increase your own defilements. In principle I agree with her. However this can act as a prohibition on honesty. Ajahn Thanissaro suggests that you can critique another if its done in good will. I have struggled to articulate my position at times in the face of massive censorship and unconscious bias. I have not been supported by anyone. At times I was told by monks to see a psychiatrist. The monks even some of the more enlightened have no real idea of how they are man spacing at both an individual and systemic level. The 2 examples I gave of men talking about women as if they don’t exist illustrate this. The 2 examples of women discussing the mine field of right speech for women illustrate this.
By the way I can say Ayya Vimala gave me support recently and to her I owe a debt of gratitude :pray:.

6 Likes

What a beautiful idea. Sadhu. Sadhu. Sadhu. :pray:
.
.

This is something I need to think about. Something perhaps that we might all think about.

Perhaps it was unskillful of me to stop visiting the traditional monastery. Maybe I could resume my visits and, whilst participating in the life there, carefully drop into the conversation references to how the local Bhikkhuni groups are faring and mention inspiring overseas examples.

Typing that paragraph just reminded me of an inspiring example I observed twenty years ago. :smiley:

I was sitting a retreat that was taught by a western woman who was a nun in the Burmese tradition. All her Dhamma talks centred on sutta stories of how a women (ordained and lay) achieved enlightenment. Her retellings stayed close to to the texts and came with references.

I recall these evening talks as delightfully subversive and I remember thinking at the time how it would be hard to challenge what was in the suttas. :pray:

4 Likes

My experience of judging other people totally supports Ajahn Hasapanna. But I would respond that Ajahn Thanissaro’s statement needs some unpacking.

Yes, critique must be done in goodwill, but there are different circumstances, eg dealing with real events or stated views, dealing with strangers, dealing with a known person with whom there is mutual respect or dealing with a known person with whom there is acknowledged disagreement already. If it is a ‘real events’ situation, how important is the current event and at what level are emotions running? Does a cooling-off period look like a good idea? Is it a real emergency?

In other words, I think that decisions about what is potentially right/harmful speech need to be made within their individual contexts. This is what makes right speech so challenging, that it doesn’t have simple rules set down. And this is why we train to open our hearts to every situation we find ourselves confronting. :heart: :pray:

4 Likes

Silence has been the best option much of the time. It is sad I agree but that is the reality.

3 Likes

I do not think it is possible to assess a situation the way you suggest. It requires a level of predictive modelling bordering on clairvoyance. The parameters are not well defined. When I posted this heading I was not sure what the reception would be. There is an element of risk taking involved. I have noticed most people do not have the stomach for this. I do not particularly enjoy sticking my neck out. I hope others find it in themselves to explore the sensation of not knowing but with goodwill.

4 Likes

Perhaps I overstated my case. I wouldn’t want to endorse predictive modelling, because I prefer to try and stay in this moment, now. The heart can only open to what is being perceived right now.

I don’t think people who see themselves as active change agents would be able to agree with me? (That’s half a statement and half a question.)

1 Like

Personally, as a man, I’m really grateful that there are Theravada bhikkhunis. This not only benefits the Bhikkhuni’s, but also the lay people. Even for those of us who are unlikely to ordain, monastics can be important role models. They certainly are for me, and I am sure that it is helpful for female lay followers to have role models that they can identify with (just as in lay professions).

Furthermore, I have found Bhikkunis inspiring. Unfortunately, I have only ever had a serious conversation about practice with one Theravada Bhikkhuni: Phalañānī, who Bhikkkhu Dhammanando kindly arranged for me to visit when she was living on a mountaintop in Thailand. Apart from some wonderful Dhamma discussion, it was very useful to experience what the lay women do when interacting with Bhikkhus - that is, the need to be very mindful about behaviour. It gives a very different dynamic and a heightened mindfulness.

For me, another important Bhikkhuni has been Ajahn Vayama (BSWA). I have listened to most of her recorded talks, and was very sad when her health became such that she could no longer teach.

I have also benefited from occasional interaction with the Abbess of the New Zealand Fo Guang Shan, and I understand that Fo Guang Shan were very helpful in some of the “early” (i.e. a few decades ago) Theravada Bhikkhuni ordinations.

I understand that some women prefer to remain 10-precept nuns - in their particular situation it suits them, just as some men chose to remain Samaneras, as there are less restrictions (I believe Bhikkhu Analayo remained a Samanera for some time for such practical reasons). However, that some might choose that option would hardly be a good argument that full ordination is “unnecessary” and women should be “content with their lot”.

7 Likes

Hi Mike, did you read post # 26?

1 Like

Hi @Gillian, I was trying to address aspects of what was introduced in the OP. But, looking back at the OP again, perhaps I was addressing some of the issues raised in the OP rather than the actual question. Sorry if it was off-topic.

2 Likes

I am interested to know if right speech is gendered in Theravada/Early Buddhism.

What a fascinating question, thanks.

The only gender-specific instruction I can recall in scripture is the bhikkhunis’ garudhamma rule #8:

“From this day forward, the admonition of a bhikkhu by a bhikkhunī is forbidden…"

But what was meant by “admonition” has been given different interpretations. Some say the rule forbids bhikkhunis from taking the role of formally stating to a bhikkhu legal charges against him by Bhikkhu Sangha; some say a bhikkhuni shouldn’t counsel bhikkhus; some say it means bhikkhus shouldn’t listen to a Dhamma talk by a bhikkhuni (hence sometimes monks who invited me to speak at their temple glide out of the room when time for me to begin, which always weirds me out); some say it means that bhikkhuni shouldn’t upbraid or correct a bhikkhu.

Aside from that dubious example, no, I’d say right speech wasn’t presented by the Buddha or in Theravada tradition in a gendered fashion.

However, in my experience, actual right speech ends up being gendered!

Returning to the right speech chart shared earlier by @Gillian:

48FDA34E-77F9-44D9-B901-99B1E606066B

Though nothing there specifies gender, in application, what is “beneficial” and “accepted” tends to be heavily impacted by gender.

Right speech requires assessing the overall context. Many topics must be addressed delicately by certain speakers when addressing certain listeners, due to any fraught histories and special sensitivities. For a random example, if someone who has built many luxury apartments, after clearing away housing for poor people, were to address protestors demanding housing rights, he must be careful lest a glib tone-deaf comment trigger outrage. While we can come up with dozens of examples of special cases and topics requiring great care to be right speech, for women gender can impact every kind of conversation involving men.

On any topic, women generally cannot speak as freely to men as men can without stumbling against male resistance making the woman’s words “non-beneficial” or “not accepted.” In calculating right speech women must take resistant sexist ears into account. Hence, right speech for women is very much gendered.

An example: One evening, monastery residents gathered around a stretch of driveway where a big truck had somehow sunk into the soft shoulder and sat pitched at a bad angle. When I arrived, the monk responsible for this minor disaster (a Westerner) was running around trying various methods to right it. I studied the situation a few minutes, then came up with a few suggestions that apparently hadn’t been tried yet. Although the monk’s response to my 1st suggestion was curt, I assumed he was just moody from the stress and continued to share a couple more insights.

Then the monk whirled around and snapped something dismissive, but I don’t recall his words because what made an impression was his display of rage. He was aflame with passionate fury at me for meddling, and it seemed clear that his outrage was gender-specific. A male person offering similar ideas would have been heard or at least tolerated, but this female form & female voice daring to offer advice to him, a man, threw him into an instant hell state. His red crazed eyes frightened me so much that I promptly left the scene.

A woman needs to have an extra antenna up to sense whether her voice will be accepted. Oftentimes silence is our only right speech option. Men have pejorative words ready for women who speak when they don’t want to hear us.

Going back to the meaning of garudhamma #8’s “admonition”, I hold it as meaning not to correct a bhikkhu. Men often being snowflakishly reactive to female criticism, no matter how constructive and kindly well-meant, it’s best that we not irritate male monastics against us females. After ordaining as a bhikkhuni I found it easier to get along with male bhikkhus due to holding this rule in mind in this way.

The one time after higher ordination that I significantly trespassed it - pointing out to a monk a promise to a group that he was failing to keep and the impacts of his negligence - I did so only because his persona was so egalitarian, modern and carefree. (He’s known for playing his guitar, writing children’s songs, and other public playfulness.) Surely he’d be chill, right? He chewed me out for it viciously. Then he declared my bold comment to be the reason for him to fully abdicate his duty, and snarkily reminded me of garudhamma rule #8!

If the Buddha did advise bhikkhunis not to correct bhikkhus, he did so for our benefit, to keep the peace with male monastics.

16 Likes

Thankyou for your courage in sharing your experiences honestly with us! It is no little thing, to ‘stick ones neck out’ like this - ready for the ‘bashing’ that usually accompanies such honesty. I hope that this does not eventuate here now :pray: :pray: :pray:

It is a great example of what is considered right speech and how this varies according to gender. Thank you for highlighting garudhamma rule number 8. Does this rule supercede what the Buddha taught on Right speech? Even if all the other factors of right speech are met, such as in your example. It would seem to mean that Right speech really is different for females? Obviously, this issue is not new :sweat_smile: 2500 years on and it is still as hot as ever.

For me it is of utmost importance not to react to this discussion personally… not to position oneself in a camp (male) (female) but to be aware of the dynamics of our conditioning, and to use this to break through this most insidious example of delusion. That there is difference in the ‘value’ and rights of a being, based on their gender.

It is a fact that our species is divided into 2 sexes… but lets also acknowledge that an entire edifice of sankharas and delusion have been built upon it, and to be very aware NOT to use this as a field of fertiliser for greed, hatred and delusion, any longer. What a beneficial area to exert personal effort to move along the Path to Liberation!

Thank You Ayya :pray:

5 Likes

First, thank you, @Charlotteannun. That was both beautiful and wise.

Second, this…

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Third, looking at what I just quoted from a more serious perspective…

@Gillian’s graphic included the step of asking if a comment was beneficial. It is not beneficial to a woman to have her head chewed off for trying to help. It is not immediately beneficial to the man if he enters an unskillful mind state where he can neither see what is being offered nor his reaction. But, it is also not beneficial to a man to wander through life “snowflakishly reactive” to well-meaning comments from women. So it seems while speaking may not be immediately beneficial, not speaking is not ultimately beneficial either.

I don’t have answers. I’d love to hear your thoughts. And if you have any suggestions on how I can help as a man I promise I won’t get all snowflakey. :wink:

6 Likes

Just think ahead to your next life - being re-born as a woman… How would you like to be treated? Treat every female you interact with from now on, in the way that you yourself would like to be treated.

None of us are just a man or a woman -… we oscillate between both. I’m quite sure I was a real misogynist in a previous life - and am sure reaping the kamma from it now!! :rofl: The good news is, that by raising awareness about this issue now, we all have the opportunity to put into place the causes for a better re-birth. To reach liberation, and experience Nibbana, certainly the delusions that go along with gender discrimination (including in speech) must be eradicated. :pray:

5 Likes

Dear @Viveka, you asked,

Does this rule [GD 8] supercede what the Buddha taught on Right speech? Even if all the other factors of right speech are met, such as in your example. It would seem to mean that Right speech really is different for females?

Remember garudhamma #8 is for bhikkhunis re bhikkhus, not regarding laymen, and doesn’t apply to laywomen. And anyway, the garudhamma story & list of rules are so full of inconsistencies that anyone approaching the account with logic (as opposed to faith) has a hard time giving any of it much credibility.

So no, on both counts, I don’t think we can generalize that GD 8 indicates a gendered right speech.

I find it gendered in practice. That is, with most men - but not all men.

5 Likes