The ordination of bhikkhunīs: from Trojan horse to St. Bernard dog

[karl_lew]

@ERose

I do not think its effect has yet faded.

When the Buddha was around, one knew where to go and who to listen to.

Now, with the proliferation of Dhamma echoes, one is faced with enormous possibilities (often conflicting) within a limited lifetime that will not grow to embrace all those possibilities. We must choose carefully and use what time we have remaining with great care.

Indeed, here at SuttaCentral, I have learned that the Pali Canon is itself an incomplete echo. But it is one that has served me better than the Rinzai Zen canon alone. And perhaps the most significant thing that I have learned here is to seek, know and practice the teaching that is

realizable in this very life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that sensible people can know them for themselves.

[ERose]

@karl_lew Yes, it is fadING, but not imo fadeD; my point is, imo, the Dispensation has not ended. As to how long it will last… I do not think anyone living knows. (Perhaps this is obvious, but imo, the 1,000 year “prediction” was either inserted or hyperbole; if not, there are no authentic disciples, ordained or not, in this world.)

[Khemarato.bhikkhu]

Thank you Ajahn @Brahmali for clarifying the role of narrative in Vinaya interpretation so clearly!

I’m also glad that Bhikkhu Analayo (finally? I don’t recall him pointing this out earlier) brought up Ajahn Sao and Ajahn Mun in his reply and somehow managed to do so without lowering himself to an ad hominim. Indeed, the Dhamma and Vinaya are our teachers now, not (necessarily) our officiators. Sadhu to you both on your clear-headed replies.

This said, I think part of Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s argument in Trojan Horse is important and has been left unaddressed: namely the issue of methodology and ideology. As was stated above so well:

@Brahmali

That Buddhism will be properly established in the West is not a foregone conclusion.

Nor, indeed, is the definition of “proper.” Secular Buddhists no doubt believe that they are “proper” to their standard. But, for more orthodox Theravadins, “proper” means “in accordance with the Pali Canon” not “in accordance with your culture’s values.”

And this, I think, is Ajahn Thanissaro’s frustration, and the reason he is calling the issue a Trojan Horse. He feels (understandably, though perhaps innacurately) that the pro-Bhikkhuni scholars have been working backwards from a forgone conclusion. Having decided for political and cultural reasons that Bhikkhuni ordinations are valid, those Vinaya scholars will twist and distort the Vinaya any way they can to make it say what they want it to. And this is a problem, because then it’s cultural and poltical factors that are guiding the Sangha and not the Vinaya. In short, he’s claiming that this style of scholarship is dangerous.

This is a serious and impersonal claim and is worth responding to.

There are two basic ways to reply to this, depending on whether or not you would break the Vinaya in order to ordain Bhikkhunis.

If you would stick to the Vinaya no matter what, one could respond by saying that legal issues are always best thought through combatively: with two sides debating and attempting to twist the law in their own favor and seeing which way(s) the law bends. If you genuinely feel this is the correct way for legal issues in the Sangha to be thought through, then a letter thanking Ajahn Geoff for playing the Devil’s Advocate would be in order.

It can’t be a fun job to argue against something so obviously good as the validity of the Bhikkhuni ordinations, but it helps the Sangha stay true to the Vinaya to have someone willing to put up a good fight for the Devil. “Thank you Ajahn Geoff for doing this unpopular but necessary bit of role play.” (See how this gives him a way of saving face?)

The other extreme is to openly espouse the view that the Dhamma is superior to the Vinaya. “The Vinaya rarely contradicts the Dhamma, but when it does, always choose the Dhamma.” Personally, I thought that a beautiful and inspiring teaching. There are times when we really can trust our conscience more than words.

In this case, the response to Thanissaro Bhikkhu is to apologize for arguing on “bad faith”. “However, the ethical clarity of acknowledging the validity and dignity of those women who have already ordained, far outweighs the Vinaya even if the Vinaya were explicit in forbidding it (which, of course, it is not).”

These two approaches, of course, can coexist. Perhaps there is some degree of clarity for which you would concede that the Vinaya should outweigh your moral impulse. And perhaps there is a degree of ambiguity for which Thanissaro Bhikkhu could be willing to agree that the Vinaya isn’t clear on the matter (and thus it should be left to each community to interpret, as he is willing to concede in BMC on many such points). Then the discussion can turn to the question of where that line is. How do we (in general, in a principled way) trade off moral and textual clarity when they conflict?

There are several ways in which one could respond constructively to the essence of “Trojan Horse”. Ajahn Geoff brings up a good point that our methods of Vinaya scholarship have been unclear and problematic, and the Sangha would be healthier for us addressing that, and not simply dismissing it as an ad hominim.

What do you think?

[Brahmali]

Indeed, those are two possible approaches to ordaining bhikkhunīs. But there is also a third approach, which involves ordaining bhikkhunīs in the existing Dharmaguptaka tradition, the one found in East Asia, and then the bhikkhunīs choosing to “convert” to Theravada. This conversion could involve a further ordination, a so-called dalhī-kamma (a “strengthening procedure”). Whether this latter method would work depends on whether the ordination procedure on the Dharmaguptaka side was considered valid by the Theravadins. At the very least the procedure would have to be done according to the standards of the Dharmaguptaka vinaya.

It was this third approach that was used in 1998 when a large number of bhikkhunī were ordained at Bodh Gaya. The Theravada bhikkhunīs-to-be were first ordained through a dual ordination by bhikṣus and bhikṣuṇis from Taiwan. They were then given a second ordination by Theravada bhikkhus. This procedure had the advantage of in effect combining two of the above approaches. If the dual ordination was considered valid, then the latter ordination by bhikkhus only was merely a strengthening to induce the bhikkhunīs into the Theravada tradition. If the dual ordination was considered invalid, then the latter could be considered an ordination in its own right.

To me, either of these two approaches is fine. For most Theravada monastics, however, the dual ordination in the Dharmaguptaka tradition would be problematic. This is so because the requirements for a legal ordination are not exactly the same in the two traditions. The differences revolve around such arcane topics as how a sīmā, a monastery boundary, is established, and how the ordination legal procedure is phrased and in which language. For my part, as long as the Dharmaguptaka monastics follow their own legal requirements, then I would consider the ordination valid. But I am afraid this is likely to be a minority view within Theravada.

Still, both the above approaches are preferable to disregarding the vinaya altogether. Only if it is decided once and for all that the Theravada vinaya does not allow for the ordination of bhikkhunīs would we even have to consider whether disregarding the vinaya is acceptable. I have my doubts. It is likely that those bhikkhunīs would become pariahs and would never be accepted by Theravada Buddhism. In effect we would not have been able to introduce bhikkhunīs to Theravada at all, but rather created a new school of Buddhism. Not only that but the monks who performed such an ordination might find themselves excluded from the rest of Theravada. I fear such an approach would cause too much trouble and division. It would be much better, I think, for women to ordain as Dharmaguptaka bhikkhunīs and then practice as Theravadins. They might never become fully accepted by the Theravadin establishment, but at least we would avoid a serious split in the Sangha.

So it seems to me that it is worthwhile to continue to make the argument that bhikkhunīs can be ordained within Theravada as the vinaya stands. I believe the argument is quite strong and I doubt there will be any way of finally refuting it. If it ever were refuted - and I really can’t see this happen - then we would have to consider our options once again. But let’s cross that bridge when we get to it. In the meantime the Theravada bhikkhunīs are thriving. As far as I can see, there is no turning back. The whole debate is becoming more and more academic.

[Khemarato.bhikkhu]

I completely agree. We’ve basically won. What I’m talking about is how to be a gracious victor.

There is a rift in the Sangha now, with Thanissaro Bhikkhu painted as the bad guy. Despite his stubbornness, I don’t believe Ajahn Geoff is doing this because he’s a misogynist. I believe that he’s genuinely scared of the liberalization of the Vinaya.

Reaching out to him in a friendly way that acknowledges his fear as valid (even if incorrect in this instance) and gives him a way of saving face could go far in healing that rift in the Western Sangha.

The Bhikkhunis will be fine either way, it’s Thanissaro I’m worried about.

[Brahmali]

Yes, I agree. It’s good to reach out to people and bridge our divisions. I suspect, however, that Ajahn Ṭhānissaro’s main worry is not so much the liberalisation of the vinaya, but rather the detrimental effect the ordination of bhikkhunīs will have on the survival of the Dhamma. In other words, even if there were no vinaya issue, I believe he would still be opposed to it. He thinks the ordination of bhikkhunīs will hasten the decline of Buddhism regardless. That’s how I read The Trojan Horse.

So quite aside from the vinaya issue, I think there is a fundamental disagreement of what will be for the benefit of Buddhism. I don’t think Ajahn Ṭhānissaro is interested in face saving. It seems to me, rather, that he regards himself as a protector of Buddhism, and as such compromise is not really on the agenda. So while I agree that reaching out is always good, I do not think it will have much effect on our respective positions.

Let’s see what happens. Venerable Anālayo has already tried to reach out to Ajahn Ṭhānissaro through his two open letters. His first letter was especially conciliatory, but judging from The Trojan Horse Ajahn Ṭhānissaro is not willing to respond in kind. But new openings may appear. I will certainly keep it in mind. We should always try to strive for harmony.

[DKervick]

@Brahmali

He thinks the ordination of bhikkhunīs will hasten the decline of Buddhism regardless. That’s how I read The Trojan Horse .

That’s not how I read his argument. I thought it was a slippery slope argument. He thinks authentic Buddhism is defined and preserved by its strict, conservative legalism and disciplinary code, and that if people give themselves permission to depart from the strict letter of the code, even in the places where the code seems iffy and pointless, that will open a crack in the defenses through which all kinds of other innovations will come flooding in.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe he thinks the problem is women themselves, and women will somehow swamp and destroy Buddhist monasticism. But since they didn’t destroy it for the first 1500 years, I don’t know why he would think this time is different. I think he is more motivated by the idea of rigor for its own sake, along with a conviction that males cannot properly train females.

Theravada Buddhism seems to some extent to define itself by its disciplinary conservatism. The story of the Buddha giving the sangha permission to eliminate the minor rules, followed by the sangha’s voluntary decision to adhere to all of the rules, is recited as a kind of Theravada foundation myth, as a tradition of the authentic Elders who voluntarily chose to err on the side of absolute rigor.

[Brahmali]

The legal argument is just too ambiguous. It’s hard for me to avoid the conclusion that there are deeper issues at stake. I believe these issues are amply on display in Ajahn Ṭhānissaro’s various papers on the topic. Let me just quote one of his statements:

One of the central issues I raised in OBU was that, given the demise of the Theravāda Bhikkhunī Saṅgha, there is no one to train new bhikkhunīs. For the full details of my position, see the discussion there. In a nutshell, the argument is this: Because the purpose of ordination is to provide training from a qualified teacher, and because there are no qualified bhikkhunī teachers, this problem renders meaningless any attempt to revive bhikkhunī ordination. And not only meaningless: It’s also uncompassionate, placing senior bhikkhunīs in a role they are not qualified to fill, placing junior bhikkhunīs in a position where they are absorbing the examples set by unqualified teachers, and subjecting the world to teachers who create a false impression of how a true bhikkhunī should embody the Dhamma and Vinaya in word and deed.

Here it is the consequences of ordaining the bhikkhunīs that he is concerned about. These consequences - lack of training, etc. - would be the same whether one regards the ordination as valid or not.

[Viveka]

A thought - totally oblique to this debate:

Regarding the decline of the dispensation.
.

Soon there will be no more rhinoceros’ on earth
.

All that can be done is for all beings to practice as completely and diligently as possible… don’t turn anyone away, from the opportunity to do so…

Gratitude and Respect to those who strive to give the females of the species this opportunity

[Coemgenu]

@Viveka

A thought - totally oblique to this debate:

Regarding the decline of the dispensation.
.

Soon there will be no more rhinoceros’ on earth

I don’t think it’s oblique. It’s obviously a sign of looming apocalypse by fire, water, and wind.

[Viveka]

icon is supposed to be “expressionless” !

[Upasako]

Dear Dhamma Friends,

As mentioned by Ajahn Brahmali, the Bhikkhunis are here to stay. What is remaining is to make sure that the arguments about the rights & wrongs of the decision to ordain Bhikkhunis do not lead to the unhappiness of the people involved, both for & against. Let the Past be Past! Stay in the present moment & support the Bhikkhunis!!

If we use somewhat similar questions that the Lord Buddha asked the Kālāmas, in the Kesamutti Sutta (AN3:65) & use that Blueprint, we could ask ourselves the following questions:

• When women are practising as Bhikkunis wouldn’t that help create more conducive conditions for them to tread the Path to Nibbana?
• When the female monastics practise the Dhamma well, within a more conducive environment, wouldn’t that help them reduce their greed, hatred & delusion?
• When there are more fully ordained monastics, both male & female, practising in the right way, practising the True Dhamma happily, wouldn’t that be for the welfare & benefit of the whole world?

To my way of thinking, a true practitioner of the True Dhamma would almost invariably answer all three questions in the positive/ affirmative manner.

May all beings be happy, well & peaceful! May the year 2019 be a happy year to all beings!

With Metta to all beings,

Upasako

[dzt]

@ERose

You want to take literally part (“quicker disappearance”) but ignore other parts (500 years, 1000 years) because to take it all literally would mean there is no authentic bhikkhu sangha.

No, if you read the sutta, you’ll see “disappearance of pure Dhamma”, and pure Dhamma does not exist anymore.

@ERose

You are maligning the reputations of many who have committed to the Renunciate life. Some are women, some are men. This is foolish imo, I suggest you rethink this.

This malingning is what exaclty, stating their support for feminism and social justice? To describe someone as a feminist = malign someone?

@ERose

The established working systems have scandals in the news every month. These established systems have established (edit: recently, within the last 100 years, perhaps) high councils which appear to wish to set standards beyond their local sanghas.

I wasn’t talking about Buddhism, as it it little touched yet, I was talking in a broader context.

@ERose

It seems perhaps unkind, ungenerous, frightened, belligerent, hysterical.

Seems to you, it seems.

@ERose

The entire Forest tradition at least initially was a Reformist movement.

Again, I am not talking strictly about Buddhism, and about the past, and about reformists in general. I am talking about SJWs, current time, other scopes and examples.

@ERose

The goal of the bhikkhuni revival, as I understand it, is for human lives to practice the Holy Life, as it seems to be the most effective practice leading to liberation from samsara.

It is declared so, but often crosses into the political sphere, where it becomes another SJW movement.

@ERose

Would one not hope to practice in the most effective ways in any human life?

So you can’t practice the most effective way without an orange robe? Interesting.

@ERose

This should lead to equanimity.

Yes; equanimity is not equality.

Again, I myself don’t see any issue in women’s ordination, there’s none, actually. After all there is a legit branch, for those who require legislation over common sense. Where I do see the issue is when, together with the quest to ordain women in Theravada, the “unfairness” of Vinaya is brought up, because suddenly it appears that when ordination is allowed, still there are barriers for the real practice (like bowing down to a male monk)… There will always be what to fight for (in terms of change). Preserving the texts alone is not enough, they’re dead as being just texts. There should be practice and practitioners, and the very first stage of the practice is morality and discipline.

Here’s a nice speech by Alan Watts about do-gooders which is pretty relevant.

- YouTube

[karl_lew]

@dzt

bowing down to a male monk

From a contemporary lay perspective, the bowing down to a male monk easily strikes one as absurd. Should a robed monk walk about with genitals displayed so that bowing down might be more easily determined and accomplished in a large community with unfamiliar monastics? Indeed, I am going blind, so should I first reach out to ascertain gender if I were a blind bhikkunni? A quick firm squeeze would certainly elicit the proper feedback to bow.

Or how about the offense of shaving armpits? What on earth is the difference between a shaved head and a shaved armpit? They both breed bacteria and shaving eliminates that concern. And if we’re concerned about “not killing the hair flora and fauna”, then let the scalp hair grow. This one is quite puzzling as well.

Although I find many good rules in the Vinaya, I simply cannot fathom other rules. Therefore I look forward to studying the forthcoming translations and origin studies of the Vinaya. I am certain that wisdom will emerge from that study.

[ERose]

@dzt I have read your response, and decided not to engage.

May you, and all, be happy and peaceful and ultimately freed from all suffering.

[Coemgenu]

@dzt

So you can’t practice the most effective way without an orange robe? Interesting.

Would you ask a man this question? Would you ask a monk this question?

[Coemgenu]

@karl_lew

From a contemporary lay perspective, the bowing down to a male monk easily strikes one as absurd. Should a robed monk walk about with genitals displayed so that bowing down might be more easily determined and accomplished in a large community with unfamiliar monastics?

Perhaps Theravāda needs a Pope-toaster.

There was a legend of a lady Pope named Joan, in medieval Europe, who snuck into the Papacy in drag. The story is almost definitely ahistorical.

The legend goes, and I don’t doubt there is Protestant colouring of this legend from the years of sectarian warfare in Europe, but the legend goes that every new Pope is hoisted into the air on a chair, and the Pope-toaster toasts the Pope by sticking his hands up his robe to make sure there are the appropriate genitals underneath.

[Nadine]

@Coemgenu

Perhaps Theravāda needs a Pope-toaster.

Ack!

[zhangyixuan]

@Brahmali

It would be much better, I think, for women to ordain as Dharmaguptaka bhikkhunīs and then practice as Theravadins. They might never become fully accepted by the Theravadin establishment, but at least we would avoid a serious split in the Sangha.

And probably also reduce the criticism faced by the bhikkhunīs. As far as I know, respect for the Dharmaguptaka order is part of the political-correctness.

@DKervick

The story of the Buddha giving the sangha permission to eliminate the minor rules

Saying ‘it is not allowed (to eliminate the minor rules)’ when the Buddha actually said ‘it is allowed’, wouldn’t it be a distortion of the Vinaya?

A dispute about livelihood or about the Pātimokkha would be trifling, Ānanda. But should a dispute arise in the Sangha about the path or the way, such a dispute would be for the harm and unhappiness of many, for the loss, harm, and suffering of gods and humans.

–MN.104
SuttaCentral

The Buddha obviously did not describe this kind of issue as ‘for the harm and unhappiness of many’. In fact, he said it is ‘trifling’.

[Sumano]

@Brahmali

Here it is the consequences of ordaining the bhikkhunīs that he is concerned about. These consequences - lack of training, etc. - would be the same whether one regards the ordination as valid or not.

I’ve also been following the exchange between Ven. Analayo and Ven. Thanissaro. My take away is that Ven. Thanissaro is concerned about the consequences of contemporary bhikkhuni ordination because the bhikkhuni lineage in the Theravada tradition had been broken. He is a firm believer in what he calls the apprenticeship model of Buddhist monasticism and practice. If the bhikkhuni sangha had been uninterrupted from the time of Mahapajapati, I doubt he would have any concerns beyond whatever concerns one might have about any other practice community. That’s why he mentions “unqualified” bhikkhuni teachers. (And he also thinks bhikkhus are unsuitable teachers for bhikkhunis because of their separation in the Vinaya).

He probably believes the Vinaya supports this view by forbidding, in his interpretation, unilateral ordination of bhikkhunis by bhikkhus. If the Vinaya didn’t support this view, then while he might still object to the quality of instruction received, I don’t think he would consider it invalid.

Of course, that’s just my understanding based on what he’s written and spoken about in a number of places.

As for the topic of bhikkhuni ordination, as a lay man, I see what the big deal is, and I also don’t think it’s that big of a deal.

Like Ven. @Brahmali says, I think Ven. Thanissaro sees himself as protecting an institution tasked with disseminating the Dhamma for the benefit of all beings. That’s no small responsibility. If he simply cared about his own monastery in the hills, it would be a non-issue. But he feels compelled to speak out about things that will affect the Buddhist community. Yes, good intentions are not enough, as @Viveka points out. But I see where he’s coming from. (In some ways it’s still a non-issue because he has no power over what monastics outside his jurisdiction do or don’t do—though he does speak from a platform of considerable influence.)

But in a lot of ways the whole debate is already moot. Theravadan bhikkhunis are a reality. There are some that I really admire, respect, and support when I can. If bhikkhuni ordination means more women can get access to the Dhamma, then I’m all for it. The question is, now what? What role does the bhikkhu sangha play, if any? Those are the questions that I think need to be addressed now. (Though not in this thread, of course!)

Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu says, perhaps ineloquently, “We are bums, let us be bums.” Let anyone called to a life wide open embark on that path with sincerity. We’re all bumbling along the path to Awakening the best we know how, and, as others have noted, monasticism in the West is still young. Its establishment is where, I think, our efforts should be focused.