SuttaCentral
Great minds…again. 
No, as I have pointed out, that is far from the truth. One great mind here, and it’s not me.
But still, men are such jerks, and I’m one of them. 
I think the garudhammas have the “essence of jerkiness” to them. And the Buddha was so far removed from this kind of thinking, to my mind.
It took me a quarter of a million words to say this. Who’s the great mind now?
I’m a lawyer. I can’t say anything useful in less than 500,000 boring, repetitive words.
I find this topic exasperating. I haven’t commented to this point because I am finding it difficult to say anything substantive that is also courteous. I have read the articles, but almost can’t believe I am reading the words I am reading. The conservative position seems so lacking in both common sense and rudimentary compassion that it is hard for me not to conclude that it is motivated by a malevolent and oppressive bigotry and male supremacism, and that the fusty legalism that is being deployed to support these supremacist practices is a complete sham. The spiritual lives and attainments of millions of women are being crushed and thwarted by such arrantly foolish pedantry. That’s deplorable.
I can appreciate somewhat the uncomfortable position of some of the western monks. These are people who probably went Thailand as young people seeking exotic experiences, escape from their troubles and the instruction of meditation masters. They ended up ordaining, and now find themselves in leadership positions in what is effectively the state religion of Thailand. They probably can’t help feeling like outsiders and invited guests, despite their rank in the hierarchy, and don’t want to be wave-making cultural imperialists, appropriating and taking charge of the direction of of somebody else’s religion.
OK, so then maybe they should create a Buddhist sangha that is not the state religion of some other country, and so cannot be seen as belonging to any particular people or place. If female monks are too much of an affront to the patriarchal cultural traditions of Thailand, then perhaps bhikkhus of good will should drop their addiction to generous conservative Thai benefactors , and find a way to live a simpler life that includes welcoming bhikkhunis into their community.
Yes, I understand the idea that the sangha is a apprenticeship institution. But that an initial group of initiate women cannot undertake a spiritual apprenticeship under men has little plausibility.
It seems obvious to common sense that the intent of that second rule was that, since the bhikkhuni sangha already existed, then people shouldn’t be allowed into it unless the people who were already in it approved of the new initiates. The idea that this sensible rule should then be used to forever close the door to a future bhikkhuni sangha if the first one unexpectedly dies out seems, frankly, laughable - and a willfully perverse bit of literalist legalism.
It seems obvious that in the background of all this lawyering there are a bunch of people who deeply don’t want there to be bhikkhinis. I would really like to know why. Because the official reasons being given are scarcely credible.
I am embarrassed that the women who participate here even have to read these discussions.
[Edited a bit]
Thank you for your detailed input, Bhante!
I think all Ven. Analayo is saying is that he think the garudhammas were laid down before the other rules on ordination found in the bhikknunī-kkhandhaka. I don’t think this means that the garudhammas need to be accepted by a female candidate before ordination.
There are several points here. The first is that VA distinguishes between a historical/text-critical reading of the texts and a Theravadan legal reading. It is only on the legal reading that the garudhammas were established before the other ordination procedures. So if a female candidate feels there are strong historical reasons why the garudhammas were not laid down by the Buddha - and she does not really see herself as a dyed-in-the -wool Theravadan - then I think she can still cogently argue that she will/should not keep them.
The second point is that even though VA is giving the garudhammas temporal priority over the other ordination rules, this still does not mean they were laid down by the Buddha. Much of bhikkhunī Vinaya is quite late, and I cannot see any good reasons to think these rules come from the earliest period. For me it seems quite likely that these rules were not laid down by the Buddha.
The third point is that the garudhammas are, as VA puts it, just injunctions. In other words, they are minor rules, and there is no penalty for breaching them. If you look at the sekhiya rules of the pātimokkha, you only breach them if you don’t keep them out of disrespect. This means that if there is a good reason for not keeping these rules, such as a change in culture that makes the rules obsolete, then there is no penalty for not keeping them. In fact, I would go so far as to say one should not keep sekhiya rules that are no longer sensible. The same, in my opinion, is true for all the minor rules found in the Vinaya, including the garudhammas. These rules do not need to be kept if they are out of synch with the prevailing attitudes at any time and in any culture. If they are kept, they just tend to make Buddhism obsolete and to destroy its credibility.
In sum, I fully agree with Bhante Sujato that there is absolutely no reason for bhikkhunīs to keep the garudhammas, except, of course, where they are also found in the pātimokkha. In fact, I too would recommend bhikkhunīs not to keep the garudhammas. Keeping the garudhammas is bad for Buddhism.
Thank you for this very clear statement!!
Of course there are. And the reasons are just as unreflective and primitive as any other patriarchy: prestige, money, control of real estate, menstruation taboos, internalized misogyny, entitlement, ignorance: in a word, sexism.
There is an established order, and when something changes, the established order feels threatened and fights back. One of the purposes of White Bones Red Rot Black Snakes was to show how the responses and attitudes embodied in the garudhamma story are of-a-piece with broader social narratives around women.
The legal maneuvers are just sleight of hand. This is one of the basic techniques of patriarchy. You control education so that only men know the stuff. Then it’s easy to convince women that they don’t know enough to be able to take part in the conversation. The “experts” i.e. men, can decide for themselves what womens’ fate must be. Meanwhile, women are free to perform their proper role, which is to gaze on admiringly and cook the food.
[quote=“Brenna, post:10, topic:5489, full:true”]
… I understand where you’re coming from, but the problem I see is that for those who have not met AT (like me) it is extremely difficult to judge based on his essays what his intention is. Thusly, he seems quite mean-spirited based on his writing, regardless of whether he intends to do so.[/quote]
It’s an unfortunate, even depressing, situation all around. In my archives are some 184 MB of files downloaded in 2011 and 2014 on the matter, much of which I’d read, plus this recent batch of AT-VA back-and-forth and everyone else chiming in. Getting further involved at this point seems just a slippery slope edging on strong temptations towards akusala reactivity.
Admittedly I’m uncomfortable with what I perceive as a dominant tendency in this forum to dismiss or openly attack AT, from the philologists constantly picking at his translations, to the absurdity of labeling him as an “eternalist”, and to this level of rather serious criticism. At the core, I know AT as an erudite and inspiring teacher of dhamma – ETB/Sutta translation and study (focused on teaching rather than philology), and, perhaps most importantly, how to effectively develop practice of sila, samadhi and insight/realization. (Admittedly too, he’s, not unlike the “outback Buddhism” school being also of Thai lineage, dismissive of abhidhamma, Visddhimagga, etc., which I’ve had to come to terms with as I find insight and inspiration also in much of the Burmese approach – from samadhi training with Shaila Catherine, protege of the Pa Auk Sayadaw, and now regular attendance at the nearby Tathagata Meditation Center in vipassana training with Mahasi/Pandita monks.)
Would that AT et al would accept sub-sect variations, and VA et al would affirm comparable rigor in maintaining tradition (vs the slippery slope of unrestrained social/cultural adaptation) – and simply let the bhikkunis sangha-s flourish.
Two anecdotal memories that demonstrate the extremes of the dilemma:
1: Somewhere in the earlier stuff from the internet, a letter from one of the then newly ordained bhikkunis (which I haven’t yet been able to relocate), in which she confronted AT with outrage, even abusive language, demanding an apology. That brought to mind the of question of proper training and respect.
2: Several years ago the Ven. Ayya Tathaloka gave a dhamma talk at Shaila Catherine’s meditation group (where I first encountered Theravada), which talk I remember as one of the most poignant and inspirational I’ve ever witnessed, to the point of feeling in the presence of an ariya.
Thanks for the balanced approach. It’s nice to have people with your breadth of experience around.
While I don’t disagree with your main point, I’d just like to register a response to a couple of points.
It may not be correct to label him as an eternalist, but I don’t think it is absurd. He is a staunch defender of the Ajahn Mahabua wing of the Thai forest tradition, with their “original mind” idea that is, so far as I can see, indistinguishable from the Upanishadic doctrine. To criticize this idea as “Hindu” is quite common in Thailand. Note that it is not just the critics who say this: even Ajahn Paññavaddho—Ajahn Mahabua’s vice-abbot—noted the resemblance. There are many things in Ven Thanissaro’s writings that support this conclusion. I haven’t read him in any depth for decades now, so I have no idea if his ideas have changed or evolved at all. But I would certainly regard his ideas about Nibbana and not-self as, at the very least, moving towards eternalism.
Which, let us be clear, is not the junior’s responsibility. It is the responsibility of the seniors in the Sangha, those long gone forth, learned and well-practiced, to support, train, and teach the juniors. For the monks, this includes the responsibility to ordain and teach bhikkhunis. If the senior monks are derelict in this duty, it is not the fault of those who are seeking training.
I notice that no nun has participated in the conversation so far, although we are the ones whose lives are actually impacted by this issue.
I believe that they are all found in the Patimokkhas.
According to Wikipedia, the Dharmaguptaka has no. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8;
The Pali has 2, 3, 4, (6), 7 as Pacittiyas, and 5 and 6 elsewhere in the Vinaya.
Ajahn @Brahmali, could you please clarify which ones you recommend that we not keep?
Personally, I also don’t really see how it is helpful to discard only some of the discriminating rules and recommend that we keep the others. It just exposes us to criticism from traditionalists and hard-core Vinaya adherents for not keeping Vinaya, while at the same time not really removing the discrimination.
Hi Ayya @vimalanyani, does “elsewhere in the Vinaya” mean elsewhere in the Patimokkha, or elsewhere outside the Patimokkha?
But anyway:[quote=“vimalanyani, post:25, topic:5489”]
Personally, I also don’t really see how it is helpful to discard only some of the discriminating rules and recommend that we keep the others. It just exposes us to criticism from traditionalists and hard-core Vinaya adherents for not keeping Vinaya, while at the same time not really removing the discrimination.
[/quote]
I fully agree with you in this point.
Garudhamma 5 is about the procedure for clearing a sanghadisesa offence. So it’s not in the actual sanghadisesa rules but in the closing paragraph after the sanghadisesas.
Since the Patimokkha as an independent document is not found in the canonical Vinaya, I’m not sure where the introduction and closing paragraphs come from. Are they from the commentaries? Maybe Bhantes @sujato or @Brahmali can comment on this.
Garudhamma 6 is about 2 years of Sikkhamana training and dual ordination. The Sikkhamana training is in the Patimokkha, the ordination procedure is in the Khandhakas, Cullavagga 10.
Thank you ayya vimalanyani for raising an important point.
Just for fun as someone following along at home, I just looked up this reference and thought to share (I apologize for all errors)
In the Pali-
Garu2 - pacittiya 56
Garu3 - pacittiya 59 (nb: in pacittiya offense seems to be related to excessive requesting, although p58 makes it offense not to go for ovada or uposatha )
Garu4 - pacittiya 57
Garu6 - related to content in pacittiyas 63+, not exactly the same
Garu7 - pacittiya 52 (note significantly different phrasing)
Should any bhikkhuni revile or insult a bhikkhu, it is to be confessed.
I did not see anything like 1 or 8 in my recent survey just now of pacittiyas, and no such rules come to mind from memory.
Thanks for the comments Ayya.
No, they are found in the vibhanga.
As for the rules not found in the patimokkha, my recollection is that the main ones of significance are the one about bowing and that a nun may not admonish a monk but a monk may admonish a nun.
In terms of ordination, my understanding is that the original form of ordination, as found in the patimokkha, was by nuns only.
My preference would be that in matters where the nuns must deal with both sanghas, that the monks also do so, even when it it not required by Vinaya.
Generally speaking, it is for the nuns to decide what rules to keep and how to keep them, just as every monk does.
Are you talking here of the Pacittiya rules from 61 onwards?
Yes; specifically the use of vuṭṭhāna instead of upasampadā for ordination, as I discussed in Bhikkhuni Vinaya Studies.
Thanks for clarifying this. 
Yes, I noticed that, too. 
Nowhere in the Pacittiya rules dealing with ordination is there any indication that monks should be involved.
I wish that would become general Sangha policy.
I am just starting to dive deeper into the Vinaya, so I am grateful for these hints and for the comments given by everybody in this thread 
Is there a general Sangha policy?
I probably shouldn’t say anything, because I don’t want to be the problem. But O well, here goes anyway. What I would like to hear is nuns saying: “Venerable, do I tell you how to keep your rules? Then please don’t tell me how to keep mine. I am a grown woman who can make up her own mind what is right and what is wrong. If I need your advice, I will ask for it.”
After making this post, i reconsidered, as it is not clear enough, but I will leave it as is, with the following expansion.
In the Patimokkha, it is a serious offence to make yourself unadmonishable, and the sanghadisesa rule uses similar wording to what I used above. But it is a dicey situation, and the contexts are not exactly the same.
It is one thing to admonish someone who you think is making a mistake or doing something wrong. It is quite another to lecture someone about how they should live their lives.
If I was living at Bodhinyana, for example, and the meal was running late, and i saw a monk continuing to eat after noon, I might remind them that noon had passed and it was time to finish. But I wouldn’t show up at a Chinese temple and start lecturing the monks there about not eating in the afternoon. Context matters; time and place matter.
It is one thing for a monk to express an opinion about a rule, to remind another monastic in an appropriate way when they are straying. But what we have is a situation where the monks, with zero basis in Vinaya, arrogate to themselves the right to arbitrate and interpret the Vinaya for the nuns.
The Vinaya itself is nuanced, and requires trust to work properly. An adviser for the nuns must be someone they like and trust; and it is quite acceptable to refuse admonition from someone you believe to be under the sway of the four biases—desire, anger, delusion, fear.
If a monk is dogmatically opposed to the very existence of bhikkhunis and/or samaneris—and don’t forget, the Thai “law” such as it is, forbids both—then I don’t see how they could be free of such biases. On the contrary, the whole narrative around this matter is, in my view, an expression of such unconscious impulses, which again was one of the themes of White Bones Red Rot Black Snakes.
There is another issue, which is worth bearing in mind if you ever find yourself in a situation with such a dogmatic monk. If he denies the existence of bhikkhunis/samaneris, then to him, you must be a layperson, and he has no rights at all under Vinaya to admonish you. Bear in mind that regarding other ordained people as laypeople is no rarity in modern Theravada. The whole of the Dhammayut order traditionally regards Mahanikaya monks such as myself as having an invalid ordination lineage and being basically samaneras. Theravada monks in general often treat Mahayana monks as not really ordained. So you have plenty of company!