Why not have a progressive ‘Buddhist Council’ and the formation of a progressive monastic alliance (post discrimination)?

There seems to be an aura of magical thinking that surrounds this issue? There are thoughts that Buddhists are permitted to think with regard to the treatment of women in our practice communities and others that are very irregular and best avoided. We are permitted to have ‘compassion’ and ‘sympathy’ with regard to the mistreatment of nuns - for instance. But, there is only one possible route that is permissible with regard to resolving the issue. If somebody comes along and says: hey guys why don’t we just give the old sexist thing the heave-ho! They are regarded with suspicion as if they had thought the unthinkable thought - most un-Buddhist of them - don’t you think? What we really need to do is keep the compassion and sympathy flowing and slowly slowly maybe in a hundred years or, when ‘Metteya Buddha’ turns up we can do something about this. We are simply incapable of saying this is ‘bad behaviour’ respect your female practitioners, come to your senses and stop this! Its like Buddhists have entered a ‘magical circle’ where no new ideas can get in and nothing can get out - it is truly incredible. I would hate to see how Buddhists would fair in a climate-emergency or with regard to some other pressing issue? They may have a set formula for dealing with emergencies as well? hmm … Is anyone capable of snapping-out of this trance? Can anyone unknot the knot?

What I don’t understand is why you argue in such a polarizing way. My contacts with nuns were always pleasant and inspiring. I would love to see the whole thing updated to current standard. But - speaking about myself - I don’t even consider myself a theravadin. Like so many here I don’t just hang around the TV, people are active in inspiring causes of their own. Why do you expect them to be excited to follow your lead? You talk about ‘nuns’ - Theravada only? Or shall we include Mahayana, Tibetan etc. in all countries. Already this delineation needs discussing and discussing.

Things are changing, actually rapidly in the West. Change nowadays is propelled by on-the-fly discourse adjustments - and the discussions and activities here on CS are part of that. I don’t see that things are heading in the wrong direction, quite the opposite.

4 Likes

You call it polarising - I call it ‘an alternative perspective’. I really don’t find alternative perspectives problematic. There is just more than one way to look at things. This is not unfortunate or regrettable but just part of living in a world like this. Nobody needs to feel offended or confronted or exasperated or threatened by my honest and straightforward Buddhist musings. We are not all ‘programmed’ to think alike - thank goodness. Traditional orthodox mind-sets will never go away and they don’t need to. That does not mean that alternative mind-sets are to be ‘contained’ or suppressed - does it? People can live any way they wish - and they do - within limits, in the modern world. Its called: pluralism - get used to it!

Sometimes we need a circuit-breaker, sometimes we need to think outside the box, sometimes we need a few more ‘Kondana’s’ to appear on the scene. Don’t worry, the sun will still come up tomorrow and your life is probably going to be something like it was yesterday.

sigh okay, I’ll try and ‘get used to pluralism’

2 Likes

Sounds like a great idea!

I hope you don’t break out in a rash - it is quite safe!

It’s a bit odd that Buddhists have criticized some Christians who believe their loving God condemns his creations for disbelief. But it makes good sense that Buddhists can be treated with suspicion if they propose that unfair and cruel Buddhist practices are discontinued - post haste. It’s worth a thought?

There have been many reform movements and innovations in the history of Buddhism, so there is no reason their can’t be others. But I think to be successful and enduring, any such movement would have to be grounded deeply in Buddhist ideas, and not just an attempt to stick some very non-Buddhist modern ideas onto a Buddhist-sounding shell.

“Progressive” strikes me as a pretty vague and thin label, yanked from the crude categories of contemporary political struggles and shifting partisan alignments in our very complex and diverse societies. Hardly any two self-identified progressives these days agree with one another on the essentially best attitudes toward life. And a good deal of progressive thought (or “liberal” thought or “conservative” thought, for that matter) is based on conceptions of freedom and liberation, or ideals of social order, that are somewhat alien to the Buddha’s conception of the world. For example, these modern ideologies might be quite concerned with the freedom to gratify sexual desires, or the freedom to acquire lots of material goodies, or the freedom to take intoxicating drugs, or to listen to the psychologically addictive and craving-riddled pop junk-music of one’s choice, or the freedom and equal opportunity to achieve positions of power and influence within inherently exploitative, violent and greedy institutions. Or they might be based on the urge to preserve certain established hierarchies and institutions in society, which exist to subjugate some people to other people, to gratify the craving for status and superiority, and to enable the strong to make full use of the poorly compensated labor of the weak.

To the extent that some bad Buddhist traditions are based on ignorance of the natural world, or the human body, or the workings of the brain, ignorance that can be relieved by careful scientific investigation, then Buddhism has something to learn from the modern world. But most of our contemporary political ideologies seem no less conducive to suffering than the everyday world views of ancient Indians.

6 Likes

If it wasn’t vague and thin enough before if we were to accept your definition of ‘progressive’ it would be reduced to a meaningless sound signifying nothing. Nothing, that distinguishes it from any other human tendency and behaviour.

You said:

So, what are we to make of that observation? Firstly, just what is it that sets up the contrast between ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’ in your comment - above? You don’t seem to make any kind of coherent distinction at all as far as I was able to ascertain. You included in your list of dubious and questionable progressive values and preoccupations: “the freedom and equal opportunity to achieve positions of power and influence within inherently exploitative, violent and greedy institutions” and, “the urge to preserve certain established hierarchies and institutions in society, which exist to subjugate some people to other people […], and to enable the strong to make full use of the poorly compensated labor of the weak.” By this definition ‘Ronald Reagan’ and ‘Benito Mussolini’ were probably progressives as well? Benito enjoyed jazz music that may have been considered a kind of “craving-riddled pop junk-music” among many high-brow Italians in his day and age.

Only in America could this degree of confusion exist about the actual meaning of progressive values. If this is what ‘progressive’ actually means to you then I guess you should probably abandon the use of the term in your vocabulary as you have turned it into a meaningless sound signifying nothing. Or maybe, you should provide us with some more stunning insights into progressive sensibilities by providing us with a considered reflection on what sets it apart from a conservative or, traditional mind-set and sensibility?

Was your intention to render the term as meaningless as you possibly could for unknown reasons? Whether or not this was your actual intention you have done a pretty good job of achieving this end.

It is true that many progressive values and developments are not commensurate with Buddhist values and practices. However, it is also true that progressive values have played there part in enabling Buddhists to practice without fear of persecution. There are deeply conservative religious societies in the world today where being a Buddhist would be ‘dangerous’. In some communist dictatorships - past and present - Buddhist teachings were/are seen as subversive and a source of social unrest. It might be best if we try to refine our focus a little and look at more nuanced definitions of progressive as found in the dictionary or Wikipedia. You never know, it might actually mean something that sets it apart from conservatism but, don’t let that get in the way!

Maybe we could narrow its meaning down to something that actually sets it apart from conservative and traditional tendencies and values and not in the sense of “progressive liver failure” and its various other uses.

"progressive
prəˈɡrɛsɪv/
adjective
adjective: progressive

(of a person or idea) favouring social reform.
“a relatively progressive Minister of Education”
favouring change or innovation.
“the most progressive art school in Britain”

an advocate of social reform.
“people tend to present themselves either as progressives or traditionalists on this issue”

I do understand your concerns but we need to remember that the good-people of the U.S.A. have developed their unique definitions for words that have been informed by the rather odd political preoccupations of their mainstream society. Take the term ‘socialist’ as a case in point! This term is used to denote non-conservative views, opinions and policies in the rest of the developed world but in America, it seems to have been used as a synonym for ‘communist’ in the mainstream for quite some time. For many years mainstream American society seemed blissfully unaware of their own unique take on reality but fortunately, this cultural insularity seems to be changing slowly, at least, in some circles.

In order to restore a relevant meaning to the term ‘progressive’ - in the current context - we might want to narrow our focus just a little. From what you have had to say, I find it indistinguishable from ‘conservatism’ or the code of conduct practiced by the ‘Hells Angels’.

I don’t think we use “progressive” in America in a way that is very different from the way it is used in Australia. It’s not very precise: kind of a laundry list of “left” preoccupations that tends to shift around a bit. “Left” is also not a very precise idea, since the terminology of left and right tends to suggest that political can be classified along a single one-dimensional spectrum.

But here’s a progressive idea: Instead of telling the nuns what kind of Buddhism they should be creating, we could try listening to them first.

1 Like

I know you understand this that is why what you had to say did not seem to reflect what you actually know about the term. It appears that you may have had another agenda in mind when you began to intentionally obfuscate the meaning of ‘progressive’ as it is being used in this context.

I don’t tell the nuns what to do or anyone else. I don’t tell monastics - or anyone else - what they should think or how they should behave. When it comes to defining the ‘proper’ role of monastics in the world at large - as world renouncers - I leave that up to you! As far as I am concerned people should be able to act on the basis of their own conscience without fear or favour - within the reasonable limits accepted in liberal democracies.

I think Ajahn Brahm and those other monastics at dhammaloka who have begun ordaining bhikkhunis again in the Theravada tradition have taken a massive step towards equality. It is a massive undertaking, but they have built a global community raising for awareness of the Bhikkhuni Sangha while promoting and promulgating the Buddha’s teachings in colloquial terms. These two efforts are just massive in and of themselves. Unfortunately, absent a global governing body, as dangerous as that might be, it is going to take time for sexism to be removed from Buddhism and I believe it is best to speak about it and speak out and lead by example.

1 Like

I don’t think I obfuscated the meaning. What I tried to suggest is that the kinds of political orientations that have the strongest appeal to people in the modern world, things that are called by not-very-precise names like “progressivism”, “liberalism”, “conservatism” - and we could throw in a few more - are all out of harmony in their own particular ways with the Buddha’s world view and very different conception of freedom.

2 Likes

We all admire and, are grateful for, the contributions of the BSWA monastic community but, the job was only half finished. The agenda for change was justified on the basis of it being a human rights issue. Well, the human rights issue has not been resolved! It is not a genuinely effective response to sexism if once women enter this brave new Frontier they are treated like second class citizens. To truly address the issue you have to be open and transparent regarding the sexist practices within the institution and get rid of them. To not do this requires some degree of creative ‘spin’ to justify an ongoing abuse of human rights embedded in the codes of discipline - for monastics.

Nobody in their right mind would seek to change Buddhism as whole. It does not need to be changed as a whole. All that should ‘logically’ happen is that those people who are Buddhists, who wish to see an end to sexism in their practice communities should be true to their values and ‘organise’ a do-able process to change how they practice. This is not rocket-science!

The alternative is to stop pretending that human rights - women’s rights - are as important to you as antiquated and discriminatory Vinaya rules and forms of monastic etiquette. I would just like people to start telling the truth. It’s always a good place to start. It’s actually a basic moral precept? :star2:

looks at that. seems a useless characterization. However, impermanence… ok. useful. Good for looking at.

No. The alternative is to understand, based on many, many years of actual experience working in this field, that there are more effective ways of creating change.

12 Likes

Fair enough but, there are also important practices like tolerance, coexistence, multiculturalism, looking after human rights and, many other ‘progressive’ interests and agendas that are perfectly compatible with - and supportive of - Buddhist praxis (that we all freely enjoy). The thing is, you somehow managed to ignore all that or play it down while you systematically rendered the term meaningless or, as good as!

The problem is not that I, and others who have worked for and actually achieved change, lack moral commitment. It is that your methods will not work.

If you want to prove me wrong, fine, make the change and I’ll eat humble pie. But until you have the runs on the board, colour me unconvinced.

And, just a tip here, if you start your campaign by criticizing people who prefer to work for change by other means, you’re going to find it nigh on impossible to build any sort of coalition.

13 Likes

That’s the view I don’t accept - regardless of how long you have maintained this view or why you choose to do so. I have heard the justifications, rationalisations, explanations, every sorry excuse under the sun. I don’t ‘buy’ any of it! To me it’s simple: I have daughters. If, they aspired to enter an institution that did not protect - unconditionally - their basic human rights then, that would make me sad.

I am sorry if this seems peculiar or odd to you but I cannot help but feel the way I do when it comes to sexism or any other form of injustice and repression. I just can’t accommodate something that can be remedied if people choose to act affirmatively - without compromise. It’s just to important to me to ignore for any reason - particularly, the ones provided.

I do honour and respect your right to see things differently. I always have! But I cannot agree as it flies in the face of my basic moral instincts.

This is just how it is and I don’t have the influence of people like yourself to lead the way and make an end to this injustice - even if we have to go it alone in the Buddhist world.

This kind of scenario often arises when it comes to rights and justice issues. I believe it would make Buddhism more relevant and a lot more beneficial to ever widening circles of future practitioners if we decided - unconditionally - to be the change we would like to see in the world (when it comes to the rights of women in Buddhism).

I understand your frustration, I do. I have felt it for many years, and still wish there could be far more things I could have done.

If your daughters ever want to ordain as nuns, they may be grateful that Ayya Vimala is returning to Belgium, where she’ll learn plumbing and other skills, and help build Tilorien monastery for nuns.

They may be grateful to be able to read the suttas that I have translated, which use non-gendered language so as to include women and people of diverse genders.

They might be lucky enough to attend events like the Mira conference this weekend, on His story/ her story, which prominently features nuns and other women as teachers, and which actively holds up questions of gender in Buddhism to be discussed and understood.

They may, I hope, benefit from these and the countless other positive things that have been done and will be done to support and improve the opportunities for women. And, as things will no doubt still be imperfect, maybe they too can contribute to the change by supporting other women in their turn.

These are steps in the right direction, things that make a difference. And that’s how I work.

15 Likes

Our own practice and healthy relationships in the entire Buddhist community are interrelated. We don’t just practice alone we rely on each other for support and guidance. If the monastics have healthy and respectful ways of relating to each other all our hearts are gladdened. We know that the Sangha is filled with wonderful people who we love and respect. We know that they care for each other and support each others practice in any way they can. I am not trying to make life difficult for people.

I do understand how you work and why and I am deeply grateful for it. But I cannot help telling you how I feel and, I am probably not alone. Nobody who has progressive values is going to be happy with this situation until we deal with the elephant in the room and, everything that has been done so far has made room for this big lumbering beast! I think it’s time to put ‘jumbo’ outside where it belongs? We have to protect everyone in the room and this guy is squashing women left, right and, centre. I have heard a few distress signals on this site - among the essays. May all elephants be well and happy but we don’t need this one in our progressive practice communities.

Let other Buddhists practice sexual discrimination - let them rejoice in it, if they must - may all beings be happy! There is no shortage of interest in repression and discrimination so women’s rights will always be abused in traditional orthodox religious communities. I am sorry if you find my views unacceptable or uncooperative. I don’t think I am critical of all the good work you and others have done. In fact, I think your awesome - even if you weren’t a Buddhist I imagine you’d still be a good man with a big beautiful heart. :slight_smile: