I have noticed differences in American society and other parts of the first-world - haven’t you? For many years there seemed to be a higher degree of social and cultural insularity in the U.S.A. than we find elsewhere. I am not saying that the U.S.A. is not an amazing place with many wonderful, loving and gifted people in every walk of life.
I think the coalition which has been called for is the Ajhan Brahm lineage of monks and nuns that is working on the same issues mentioned in this thread, perhaps not so loudly that it is beyond criticism from a newby to the scene - should we thinking of communicating the good work done so far, succinctly in one page somewhere on a easily visible website!?
Incidentally when a couple nuns visited Thames Buddhist vihara the Sri Lanka Bhikkhus there were supportive and said they should be supported in their journey to attain Nibbana (as well). I think the overwhelming majority of Sri Lanka’s population of Bhikkhus would (and have) supported the Bhikkhunis making a come back. There’s no need for a coalition there. I’m just writing this as I need to communicate better to everyone else that the situation isn’t as bleak as sometimes seen from the bubbles on the internet. Also I’m certain most Bhikkhus in Thailand would support Bhikkhunis if it wasn’t for the rule of the land. I think it would be the same in any Buddhist country. There would be detractors but they would be a minority - less than 0.1% I would say.
With metta
4 Likes
That’s a good idea! Or maybe that exists already? Personally I’d love to see a time-line with attempts succeeded and failed and concrete plans for the future.
2 Likes
There are many Buddhist monastics who are really concerned for Sangha and who are making the best efforts they can, in difficult environments and circumstances, in their respective areas of influence, however limited these may seem to some people who make idle suggestions from behind a screen. Every aggressive, inconsiderate, unkind, and unthoughtful utterance made for the sake of reform, can be used effectively only to crush reforms rather than reinforce them, and not only those needed for the future, but also those already achieved - as such excessive voices only invite and enable those who oppose reforms to grow more severe in their positions, and to box all reformers in the same faulty category irrespective of what they’re actually doing and saying! (which is basically what some “progressivists” are doing just as well, when they condemn conservatism and tradition generically without regard or understanding of the variances in their causes and conditions).
I suggest making an effort to show, and to demonstrate, that reforms already done have been at least partially good and helpful, beneficial, difficult to oppose or resist due to their demonstrable wholesome effects; and to criticise or point out their shortcomings only with a spirit of benevolence and truthful sense of purpose, rather than seek more and more reforms, mindlessly, by way of mundane victory perhaps, without regard, or even basic understanding, of the precarious context in which the undertaking of reform is at all possible.
7 Likes
In short: better listen to bhante, he is wise.
Enforcing progressive reforms everywhere just because they’re progressive and cool and you think it’s how it should be is no different from any radical ideology in the past. In fact, by their presentation and actions, those advocating “change for equality and tolerance” are far from what they advocate and act as extremist fanatics. I highly doubt this fight for women rights in Buddhism has anything to do with metta, karuna or strife for liberation of all living beings. It’s just the same story all over again: “We have the best ideology here, and it should apply everywhere, because we say so!” - withough considering reasonable critique or trying to reflect, as well as offended egos here and there.
I am saddened to hear these unkind and disparaging comments that involve so many assumptions about my understanding of the issues, motivation for speaking out etc. Apparently, there is only one ‘tolerable’ view with regard to this sad and sorry state of affairs.
I am not a ‘traditionalist’ who insists on conformity to rules that are questionable from a human rights perspective.
I am very supportive of all the progress that has been made. I celebrate it like the rest of us who understand the need for change. I know and see the implications of what I am saying. I realise that if anyone were to take my line of ethical reasoning seriously it would require a radical break from the past.
In fact, every monastic with a genuine progressive impulse driving their decision making would probably have to disrobe and 
-t an entirely new tradition.
I am not the kind of person - a Buddhist of long-standing - who is guided by a fear of change. The only question I need to answer when it comes to change is: will it be better, more just, and fairer than it was before?
If, a radical departure from the past means we are kinder, wiser and more considerate of each others needs in the four-fold assembly then, I say, go for it!
The modern world will understand and celebrate this impulse, this rebirth of a neo-Buddhism and it would place these brave pioneers of the spirit in a position to benefit beings in a way that speaks directly to their needs. The new-world that is emerging at an ever increasing velocity requires our loving concern and attention.
The old-Buddhism can plod along at its own pace and there is much to be grateful for.
Would a neo-Buddhism give rise to a different kind of practitioner who practices non-discrimination and greater inclusivity? Yes! Practitioners would survive the transition physically intact and unharmed.
Psychologically, they would be completely freed from remorse at the ill-treatment of a treasured part of the Buddhist community. Apparently, this is a bad idea? You can lead a horse to water … Somebody has to tell the truth and, as per usual, it is most unwelcome in the places it is needed in order to right a pernicious wrong.
This is exactly what we should expect - no surprises - everything is just as it always has been and, so it goes …
You know, philosophically, human rights do not exist. This is a set of rules defined by certain people for certain reasons. This is not a natural phenomenon. And although using these rules as a guidance can indeed make the world a better place, reckless attempts to enforce arbitrary rules just because you’re their adept and think that they all are unconditionally good is a bad thing and won’t lead to happiness, on the contrary, it will bring conflict and anger. Because all these fights for justice are rooted in conflict and anger!
1 Like
I wasn’t talking about anyone in particular. Perhaps I should have made that clear in the post. This isn’t personal.
3 Likes
I’m not angry - if people wish to get angry when these non-existent human rights are respected then, that is their decision.
Oh, what a coincidence!
Not a coincidence either. Speech is kamma.
1 Like
Sorry for assuming that your comment may have been directly related to the comments in the thread. You may have been inspired for an entirely unrelated reason to share your insights.
Laurence are womens’ rights and human rights slightly different things? - not that they aren’t both important.
with metta
Hi Mat, in a previous thread I posted an amazing document produced by the U.N. on their millenium development goals. It talks about women’s rights in the larger context of human rights. When I get home I will find the link and post it here. Yours in the Dhamma, Laurence
1 Like
Apologies. Not meant personally – though in a lot of the discussion here you seem inclined to take things personally. Just as reflecting aspects of the “Zeitgeist”
attitude as applied in modernist Western Buddhist circles.
3 Likes
Are those people Buddhists?
Or, from another side: should Buddhists gather and polemize about whether Dhamma and Vinaya is in accord with Paris Agreement, or with Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (I guess we would comply 
), or Patent Law Treaty, or whatever else the Samsara brings on?
I do care about the things I discuss - is that what you mean? What others think about me is not a major concern.
Why don’t you create or join a community to specifically promote your ideas? You can inspire people and grow the community to make the change. It’s no easy task but this is how great changes are done - by inspiring speech and action.
In fact you can start right here, start by stating your ideas again, give examples, tell stories. Then listen carefully to the responses and then have fruitful two-way conversation. Are you ready?
I think you might be missing that this the discussion here doesn’t seem to be about you personally. It is your proposals. Many people involved in this issue for a long time (including monastics) are sharing their extensive experience with regard to your proposals. Just based on what I can see, you seem mainly interested in explaining your own ideas (and that of the UN and other organizations) rather than hearing or considering others. Since that may be the case, why not just write your plan for an organization plus who would determine what is or is not “progressive” or “human rights”? What about when something is not “progressive” enough? Or “too progressive”? You can explain who will be permitted in your new order which it seems would be separate from the existent lineage of the theravada Sangha and the majority of SC from what I can see.
As for myself, I also will not be supporting your proposal (which I do think is schismatic) for the reasons listed by many others here.
2 Likes