As someone born and raised in a Muslim nation under sharia law and now embracing the Buddha’s teachings, some concerns have arisen in me regarding the views of women in the suttas. Recently, I came across the Gotamī Sutta where the 8 principles of respect are taught. I have an issue with the following…
() 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 cupped palms, and observe proper etiquette toward him.
() From this day forth it is forbidden for nuns to criticize monks, but it is not forbidden for monks to criticize nuns.
() Ānanda, if ladies 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.
Can someone help me understand the proper context of the sutta’s views about women?
It would be near impossible to understand the context and the debates over these rules without a substantial background in the society of Ancient India, as well as the scholarship on Nikayas & Vinayas, which seem to have added increasingly misogynistic materials over time.
In my experience, the monks who swear by the garudhammas’ legitimacy are the ones who usually (but not always) object to the modern bhikkhuni ordination as well.
In brief though, many monastics raise questions on the historicity and legitimacy of these rules. There are various theories.
And on the flip side, it is not entirely unreasonable to consider these rules as legitimate, as in the Ancient India, women were seen as properties of their fathers, husbands or sons. So, it might well be that it was a form of bhikkhus sheltering female renunciants, and thus seen as “guardian” of these women to ward off any dangers common to women.
To read a view by a bhikkhuni who recaps some of the arguments above and some of the scholarship, see:
The recent talk (04 Sept 2026) by Bhante Sujato and Dr Nadine Levy on Misogyny takes a look at a different sutta containing misogyny and gives some thoughts about how to approach these generally outlying suttas.
With specific regard to bhikkhunis keeping the garudhammas. The bhikkhunis I know keep the garudhammas which are in the patimokkha, but not the ones which are not.
Ah, perhaps that’s what Ajahn Brahm meant during last year retreat. I thought what he said contradicted with what I’m aware of. The 8 respectful principles are found in the khandhaka. I thought he meant Vinaya Pitaka as a whole.
I’m not going to argue one way or the other regarding the garudhammas or speak on who does or should follow them, first, because I’m laity, but also because I don’t know that that’s what the OP was looking for. However, as far as contextualing them, @Whisper, I don’t know how versed you already are in EBT literature, but my takeaway is that, even if one were to triple the number of garudhammas, the ontology I found in the suttas was far more egalitarian with respect to women than some others promoted in ancient (and not so ancient) India. For starters, right there in AN 8.51, Buddha is recorded as recognizing female equality in the arguably the most critical arena of all: mental capacity.
Yes, admittedly there’re also gender-based views scattered throughout the sutta collection which many would (and do!) take issue with, but I haven’t seen any which countermand this fundamental recognition of male-female equality. A view which was capable of preserving an autonomy for women that ideally should’ve remained iron-clad. In most, if not all, Buddhist countries, however, it hasn’t.
(But you asked for contextualization within Buddhist scriptures not Buddhist countries. As someone born under shari’a law, I’m sure you can appreciate the distinction.)
another context you can consider, is that sharia law is divine law, unchanging and can’t be changed. Trying to reform it is forbidden.
Meanwhile, any laws or rules in Buddhism can be reformed. People just need to agree on certain things. Or you can find enough people that agree on something… and start a movement.
There are many interesting stories about how modern Nuns apply garudhamma, or not applying it.
It’s pretty sure that one cannot remove the Parajikas and Sanghadisesas in the Vinaya, no matter how open minded or liberal the community is. The allowances by the Buddha is that if the Sangha wishes, lesser and minor rules, (which at least means below Sanghadisesa), can be abolished. And in the first council it was decided not to do so. There’s a vinaya rule against bringing up issues which has been settled legitimately.
Also, for lay people’s rules, the 5 precepts, the law kamma doesn’t change. Doesn’t matter if some future super liberal and lax Buddhists decide that killing doesn’t cover certain situations or animals, the kamma is still there.
No worries, I was involved. So, I know where to look for. Here’s your poison, somewhere in the playlist:
Audio isn’t that ideal because the room is full of echo.
With respect to Ajahn, here’s one of the outlandish idea by Ajahn Brahm during this retreat: Afford Sayalay the seniority that they deserve, so if there’s a senior Sayalay and a new Bhikkhuni, let the senior Sayalay queue in front. Even that is a bit too weird for me. I thought this is giving in to the system that forbids women from becoming bhikkhunis, instead they should demand that females to be allowed to be ordained as Bhikkhunis. But then, I remember that one of Bhikkhuni students of my teacher did just that. She went to challenge the system, entered Myanmar and claimed that she’s a Bhikkhuni. She was forced to disrobe and thrown into prison. So, forget about that. This was mentioned in brief and my memory may be faulty.
