You mean, monks who were openly gay before ordaining?
I mean, after all, the importance of sexual orientation falls away after ordination, doesn’t it?
1 Like
We don’t know the circumstances of how that came to be.
The Ajahn herself says it had become a pleasure to be able to serve her teacher in that way.
No need to feel heartbroken about that part unless we get more information and how it came to be.
I’m all for equal rights for men and women, 100%, but let’s not carry it that far as -for example- to “prohibit” individuals (male and female) paying respect to their teacher in the way they (themselves) chose.
1 Like
I think that is true, Ayya, that goes for all of us, but this should not be turned into a weapon to deny female monastics their rights or to tell them to shut up.
1 Like
Sure, if there’s no imbalance of power, and women are treated equally, then all adults may act as they choose. The argument that I am making is that there was a severe imbalance of power, a subordination of women that caused harm, and a general environment that defies the standards set by the Buddha. To me, that’s a bit heartbreaking, but hey, that’s just me.
2 Likes
In this particular case, with Ajahn Sumedho?
Sorry for bringing my five cents into the discussion, but if you look at the history of the Siladhara order, it is indeed quite heartbreaking, and the imbalance of power there was rather obvious, I’m afraid. The problems ran much more deeper than serving a glass of juice on one’s knees.
@AnagarikaMichael I remember how shocked I was when I read for the first time about a Bhikkhu fanning the Buddha. To some extent I think this shock came about because of my cultural expectations and societal norms I am accustomed to. So, on the one hand, as long as the monks have to stand on their knees handing a glass of juice to the Venerable, it is okay. On the other hand, it may be a good reason to discuss whether certain norms of the monastic etiquette could be changed because of the different social environment in the Western countries and modern Asian countries: what should be left untouched, what could be revised and what should be a matter of communal or personal choice. In some respect, this discussion will be closely connected to a possible discussion about the Vinaya in general and how strict and which Vinaya rules should and can be applied in what contexts.
1 Like
Please allow me to contrast this with what Sister Candasirī says:
"Among people who speak with me, there are a number for whom the question of whether or not we should become bhikkhunīs is a matter of concern. For some of the sīladharā it’s a non-issue, it being clear that both the spiritual and material support we receive as nuns is perfectly adequate for our practice of Dhamma. For others, including me, it continues to be a matter of some interest. Should, at any time, there be the blessing of the elders of our community, together with a satisfactory agreement on how the numerous rules of the bhikkhunī pātimokkha would be interpreted, I could well be among the first to make the request. However, I’m not in a hurry, I’m glad that I can continue as I am – until it becomes clear, if or when, that is to be the next step in this extraordinary unfolding."
@Vstakan This is not about what you or I or even bhante Sujato might find heartbreaking.
This is about adult, intelligent women who chose to continue to live in this order even while they have other options nowadays.
There is absolutely nothing heartbreaking about it for me.
Does that mean I support this practice? No, not at all, but should it be a basis for quarrels or conflicts between the different sangha’s? I don’t believe so. Not at this time (when full bhikkhuni ordination is taking flight) and in this place (Europe, Australia).
Just my five cents.
2 Likes
I think this is a really important sentiment. When I went to Amaravati for the first time, I went in with the mindset that the Siladhara were deeply discriminated against and had no power or voice in their community. While part of this idea may indeed be true, I was surprised to realize (through conversations with a senior Siladhara) that they do not necessarily feel the same way. The Ajahn I spoke with felt supported and content within the community. Thus, as Leon says, it’s important to remember that no one is forcing them to stay Siladhara, and that they very well could leave (as many others have done) if they choose to.
I also realized while I was there that the Siladhara who remain have an incredible amount of power. Their ability to remain in a patriarchal sangha despite the tremendous challenges – and to practice well in spite of this – is incredible. It’s very easy to pass blame or judgement, to say that by staying in the community they are encouraging the discrimination placed upon them. However, It’s necessary to realize that they never have and never will be at blame for the actions of the monks in their community. They deserve, at the very least, our tremendous and unwavering support.
9 Likes
It is heartbreaking for me that adult, intelligent and compassionate men were fully aware of the options they had in defining the status of the Siladharas and opted for the Five Point Declaration. Sure, it is Sister Candasirī’s conscious decision to stay within her tradition despite her being not really very happy about some of its aspects - something she repeatedly mentions in the article - but it is also the Amaravati elder monks’ conscious decision to treat the Siladharas the way they did. I just can’t help noticing some resemblance to what Putin and Medvedev repeatedly said about people unhappy with the current Russian political system: ‘If you don’t like it, you can always emigrate.’ Not that the Amaravati bhikkhus are tyrants or anything like this, but the way of reasoning used here is quite similar. Without going into further detail here (like whether emigration from Russia or leaving the Amaravati community can always be considered feasible), I’ll just say that going into homelessnes was already a decision drastic enough not to put the Siladharas before a second choice that could be even more drastic. The decisions that the senior Amaravati monks made were unskilful in my opinion, and I think that this is the most heartbreaking thing about the whole situation.
Of course, things like this one can influence my perception of the Amaravati and Chithurst monks, but I am personally, hopefully, very careful in distinguishing between monks and the Sangha or even local monastic community as a whole. Ultimately, this discussion, just as any other among the Buddhists, should revolve around whether an action or idea is true or false, right or wrong, skilful or unskilful, and not about condemning the dissenters. If you don’t feel about the situation around the Siladharas the way I do and you have a clear idea why the decision of the bhikkhu community to compose the Five Point Declaration was alright, it’s fine 
3 Likes
This is tremendously sad for me as well. On one hand the Five Points seem to indicate a kind of power play, where the bhikkhus maintain their authority through the implementation of the rules. But on the other hand, could it be possible that the monks didn’t know how destabilizing the Five Points would be? This is perhaps the most terrifying aspect for me, that the senior Theravada male authorities are not aware of the consequences of their actions.
Now I’m tempted to go to every Thai Forest Monastery in the West and teach a class entitled “Women in Buddhism – and What You Can Do As an Ally.” 
4 Likes
this is a big dilemma
on the other hand human life is too short to fight all the windmills and stupidity
I don’t know whether that is directed to me or said more in general - to be clear: I said I did not support this practice.
I’d say it is also important, how exactly you’re making a fuss about oppression 
3 Likes
Okay, great 
Then we don’t really have any differing opinions on the matter 
Ilya, thanks for the link to Bhante Sujato’s essay. I’d not seen that before, It reminds me again why I trust and value Bhante’s scholarship, advocacy and, well, what Thanissara said in the comments (she being formerly part of the Chithurst and Amaravati community):
" And we thank you for that Ajahn Sujato – and for the clear voice & ethical – compassionate leadership you give to the discussion."
I want to be careful not to sound like a “mansplainer,” as though I have some special insight into what is appropriate for an adult woman in a monastic community. I have no real standing at all to to comment on what any intelligent woman should decide in terms of her monastic or lay life. But, early in my vocational life, I spent time as a Domestic Violence prosecutor. I put men who abused their wives and girlfriends in jail, but also learned how some women became almost immune to the abuse, or through fear, were unwilling to testify so as to avoid losing their “relationship” of servitude with their abuser. The abuse became a “new normal” of sorts. A “Stockholm Syndrome,” in some cases. Psychologically, being treated in a substandard way was tolerated in order to maintain a status quo, even though the status quo was unhealthy.
Today, I do some NGO work in Thailand, and see, through NGO interaction, cases of girls and women being trafficked. I have been to the Hill Tribes, and talked with these bright, lovely girls who cannot afford to go to school, working in the orange groves for a pittance, possibly being sold by their parents to a recruiter for a go-go bar in BKK or Chiang Mai. In Chiang Rai last week, I ate breakfast at a table next to a dodgy looking man of 65 years, sitting with a girl of maybe 18 or 20. The look on her face was, yes, heartbreaking. In general, I see how so many girls and young women end up in situations of abuse, and yet fall into a kind of pathology of victimized resignation or acceptance, as the patriarchal, impoverished, and money-driven society is just so stacked against them.
So, I feel a bring a bias to this discussion, and apologize if I reached too far. But I do endorse what Ilya included with his link, that these forms of control and abuse, while on the surface perhaps reasonable or acceptable, tend to have a more pernicious effect. That’s my view and it is founded, in part, that the Buddha that I see and feel in the Suttas demanded better in terms of the views and treatment of women in his Sangha.
10 Likes
...
that bhikkhu acquired a great deal of merit by doing so and especially if it wasn’t under coercion or out of sense of obligation
Ramana Maharshi used to be served by devotees all the time and they all were happy to get close to him in whatever way possible whereas he himself was totally disinterested and unassuming like an awakened person is
that is certainly an Indian spiritual thing
1 Like
Ordaining means you change your behavior; it does not erase your identity or your desires. Being gay in an all-male or all-female community poses its own special set of challenges.
3 Likes
Dear Bhante,
I can understand that. A gay monk might -unwillingly- fall in love with one of his fellow-monks for example.
But being openly gay as a monk? How can that be?
How would that show?
I would not expect a monk to clearly show his sexual orientation, whether he is gay or straight.
But I’m totally not acquainted with this topic - I might be very mistaken.
It just means that they tell their fellow monastics, so it is not something that’s hidden or shameful. They might choose to share it with lay people as well, as part of their story. Personally, I think it’s great if they do.
4 Likes
Thanks! That’s clear
4 Likes