SuttaCentral
Sorry, the U.N. charter on human rights and its perspective on women’s rights does have something to say about the discriminatory practices ‘within’ religious institutions. It calls for change!
‘Ajahn Brahm’ also draws on the U.N. development goals as an explanation for his anti discrimination initiative - his bhikkuni related activities. You might want to get your facts straight and do a bit more research?
What is the UNs position on the role of Bhikkhunis within Buddhist monasticism?
The position of the U.N. is made clear in the material - from the U.N. - I have easily found online. When it comes to women’s rights and there systematic abuse within traditional religious institutions - in every state, society and, culture - there are resolutions that this should be changed - proactively.
Ajahn Brahm knows about the millenium development goals with regard to women’s rights and has openly supported them. But, the U.N’s proactive objective goes further to include change within the religious/cultural institutions as well.
The U.N. encourages, promotes and, seeks the legal protections of women’s rights within cultural/religious organisations and institutions - internationally.
In an earlier thread I posted U.N. material that spelt this out in no uncertain terms. Check it out!
I asked specifically about its position on bhikkhunis.
How about catholic priests? Does the UN and the human rights community have a position on whether women should be permitted to join the priesthood?
It’s position looks like this - it’s not difficult to understand!
It recognises, what it refers to as, ‘cultural (practices) and institutions’ - which include unambiguously- religious traditions (this is clearly stated in no uncertain terms) - that it proactively requires change in as a consequence of U.N. resolutions.
These are initiatives that proactively require member states to create laws that provide protections of the rights of their female citizens to have their human rights protected.
If, the Thai government is a signatory to the relevant U.N. convention, the pro-bhikkhuni supporters would be entitled to go to the legal system and make the case that their human rights are being violated by a religious institution ie the ‘sangha council’.
The U.N. is serious about women’s rights and there abuse within the ‘practices’ that are part of the fabric of religious traditions - internationally.
You could call it a proactive process of protecting women from the abuse of their human rights ‘WITHIN’ cultural and, by way of extension, ‘religious’ organisations. Check it out!
They can’t compel signatories to the convention to make laws to protect women against all the many and varied practices within religious organisations that violate their recognised human rights but, they proactively encourage them to do so.
Is that clear?
I assume you would celebrate the proactive initiative of the U.N. to protect women’s rights/human rights in traditional cultures and religious institutions? If not, then I guess we never really had anything to talk about together.
Has there ever been an international case that determined whether people have a human right to join a monastery?
I answered your question above as best I can. You asked about the human rights of Bhikkunis and, what bearing does the U.N. human rights convention have on issues affecting this Sangha group. They probably have legal recourse in Thailand - if Thailand is a signatory.
If the bhikkuni support group successfully made the case that it was a decision made by a religious institution that violates their human rights and their religious freedoms then, they have legal grounds for challenging the Thai-law. I think there is a process like this underway or planned?
It would not be a violation of human rights and religious freedoms for monasteries to decide there membership. Not all religious practices are in violation of human rights but clearly, some are! I hope this serves to clarify rather than muddy the waters with further absurdities?
One of the main U.N. concerns about so-called religious practices is genital-mutilation and ‘fatwah’s’ are also not a good idea. But, women’s rights in traditional religious organisations are routinely abused - also in Buddhism.
If anyone is anti-U.N. then good luck with that myopic view. Nothing surprises me anymore! Ajahn Brahm seems to endorse their best efforts by supporting their millenium goals for women.
There would be some bad-apples employed by the many U.N. organisations and agencies. Some of these immoral employees - some peacekeepers etc. - abuse women, would that mean the convention on human rights is meaningless - with its provision for the protection of womens rights?
When you find bad-apples in a barrel you don’t throw out the whole barrel - that would make no sense at all? You might want to find out what the problem is and fix it?
That’s what I’m doing here! We know what the issue is and we are exploring possible solutions. Not piece-meal solutions or window-dressing.
If only people would think carefully and get their facts straight before they comment, it would save a lot of time and trouble.
If anyone is not interested in the topic of this thread they don’t need to click-on to it - do they? There are other topics under discussion!
I think it absurd to think that the UN will resort to legal or any other sort of force to conform religious institutions or communit ies. Or that it would be effective and skillful. Recent news which sickens is the exploitation and extortion of vulnerable women and other by UN “peacekeepers.”
Hasn’t this thread gone far enough? Of course, I can not Track, even Mute. Or just avoid SuttaCentral.
This topic was automatically opened after 11 hours.
While entirely understandable, this is such a disheartening comment and really makes me pause to consider how on earth it is possible to get moderation right. It highlights for me the legitimacy and importance of task (when I was first asked and to this day I have an ambivalence about moderation, because first and foremost I’m drawn to the principle of self-moderation).
If people naturally tend to collapse SuttaCentral (a glorious website that houses the magnificent words of the Buddha) and Discuss & Discover (the forum) together, that to me is a pretty compelling case for maintaining the highest standard of speech possible on the forum—governed, naturally, by the simple guidance of abandoning false speech; abandoning malicious speech; abandoning harsh speech and speaking at the right time.
It is a point gnlaera has nobly tried to raise at least a few times before (one such example). Reading the comment above I have a stark sense of its significance, particularly as we are just now on the dawn of the new release of SuttaCentral. Having just a tiny sense of all the toil and developmental brilliance that has gone into it that and having just a tiny sense of the gleaming possibility (with a bit of luck and, of course, more toil from more quiet volunteers) of opening the door to the Buddha’s teaching to new readers that aided by this extraordinary resource might yet find their way out of suffering, I can by plea that folks start to take the community guidelines to heart and put them in to practice.
In the immediate terms, ERose, might I take the liberty of encouraging you to avoid D&D exactly as is suitable for you (actually, I avoid it myself sometimes), but softly suggest that SuttaCentral is something very much worth not avoiding.
I echo your sentiments Aminah. Also thank you so much for being a moderator, a very challenging task, where the only guarantee is that you won’t be able to ‘please’ everyone. I think you do a brilliant job and balance that thin line very well.
I do also relate to ERoses comment, and find that avoiding the forum for a while does wonders for peace and equanimity. SC is too important to have D&D forum issues jeapordise access to the words of the Buddha as you so rightly point out.
Metta and gratitude to you and the team for all the wonderful work 
I would argue that we focus on the areas we have some influence over. The alternative is I believe called ‘frustration’. Secondly it is a handful of specific behaviours that have been brought to the attention. I’m unsure why it was necessary to discuss publicly and whether it could not have been easier to sort out these little details amongst the ordained. This, I believe could be resolved over a years’ time at most. These discussions snowball into some seemingly insurmountable mega issue, which then require further frantic issues at resolving. I believe it is important to focus on specific individuals rather than some nebulous problem which is ‘out there’ - then it becomes manageable. This will be response which is compassionate and compatible to continued practice, which all of the monks and nuns have signed up for.
With metta
Dear Michael,
Sadhu!
Thank you for your insight. I want to investigate this issue. This is too serious!
Dear Michael,
I would like to support Stu’s story about Ajahn Brahm’s open-mindedness. He really listened to his disciples. The book ‘Bear Awareness’ is what it is, because of people like @stu, who is not afraid to speak his mind and people like Ajahn Brahm, who is open to complaints and suggestions.
Dear Stu,
Wow! What an insight to training techniques. It sounds to a certain extent similar to what Bodhinyana does. One thing I’ve learnt and admired (but still found frustrating coz I’m too harsh to people) is that Bodhinyana, especially Ajahn Brahm, always are kind and want to give people ‘a chance’. Oftentimes I wished Ajahn Brahm would not allow certain men to get ordained because I thought they were not ‘nice’.
Anyway, I’m here asking @sabbamitta and Venerable @Vimala to please provide me some specific incidents and names of monks at Bohinyana via using personal messages to avoid tainting individuals’ reputation. I really want to investigate this.
I wish to have all the info before I meet Ajahn Brahm and Ajahn Brahmali in April. This issue is very serious and needs addressing. (Apology for my personality if I sound too egotistical – I do complaints but more than often I prefer fixing. I don’t know how much I could help mitigate this issue, but my friends and I want to try.)
Warmest metta,
Dheerayupa
UN consists of ‘people’. 
Different people have different opinions.
This is a UN-related incident in 2014: https://www.buddhistdoor.net/features/banning-ajahn-brahms-speech-on-nuns-was-a-spectacular-own-goal
It would seem that the U.N. did not play a part in the ban. They were sponsoring the conference. The organising committee - who banned the presentation - were Buddhists (representatives of the Buddhist community). How is the U.N. directly implicated in the decision?
@Aminah especially but to all who spoke to my sloppy speech. Yes, distinguishing between SC and SCD&D is very useful and I do; and I did avoid D&D for a day until I felt myself in a better state of mind. Checking in on the SuttaCentral.net page itself, with its snippet of sutta, and drinking in the suttas which called to me was part of that day. Extremely refreshing, and almost sustenance at this point… I do not intend to give that up!
D&D is more a mix, at times: delightful; clarifying; useful thought provoking; useless thought provoking; other useless impact on occasion which I am not going to dwell on. A sometimes bewildering buffet which can be consumed or avoided, as we all experience temporality. I am very grateful for the excellent compassionate moderation and good speech practices possible for us all. 
I am aware of my own emotional proclivities, and do try to exercise compassion with this; withdrawing for a time, letting go of ego, examining cause and recognizing what particular impermanent “things” rise,… In training mind, I am i think a beginner but with a solid ground under me (thanking Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha).
Thank you as I try to be better.
I watched an excellent Dhamma talk by Ajahn Brahm yesterday from 2010 on 4 ways of letting go on youtube; really a delightful presentation on the 4 Noble Truths. Technology which makes Dhamma so available, just amazing abundance we have… if we can avoid the distractions!
Anyway. Hello, I hope everyone is well.