My own opinion is that the Buddha was exceptionally progressive for his time (approximately 400 BCE). For example, it's clear to me that women had just as important of a place in the Buddha's monastic Sangha as men, which is evident by the Therigatha of the Khuddaka Nikaya and the Bhikkhuni-samyutta of the Samyutta Nikaya. In addition, I'm equally convinced that female lay-followers weren't devalued by the Buddha either, and this is evident by the many accounts of such women and their high status throughout the Suttas (e.g., Visakha, Migara's Mother, who was one of the three chief supporters of the Buddha).
People often point to the Buddha's initial reluctance to ordain women and prophecy that the true Dhamma would only last 500 years because of their 'going forth' as evidence of his negative attitude towards women, but I'm skeptical that this is something the Buddha himself actually said. And even if he did, the issue isn't so cut and dry. For one thing, the story itself, which deals with both the brute survival of the teaching and the survival of the teaching unadulterated with 'synthetic Dhamma' or 'counterfeit Dhamma' (saddhamma-patirupa), isn't only controversial and considered by many to be a later addition, but also held by many who do accept it as being conditional.
Many, for example, hold that the acceptance of the additional rules on the part of the bhikkhunis and the subsequent council after the Buddha's death altered this, acting as conditions for the Dhamma's survival far into the future. However, it's interesting to note that a similar exchange between the Buddha and Maha Kassapa makes no mention of this when discussing the disappearance of the true Dhamma. Instead, it's the failure of monks, nuns, and lay-followers as a whole that leads to the disappearance of the true Dhamma:
[At Saavatthii Kassapa asked the Buddha:] "What is the reason, Lord, and depending on what conditions is it that formerly there were fewer precepts, yet more monks attained enlightenment? What is the reason, Lord, and depending on what conditions is it that nowadays there are more precepts, and fewer monks attain enlightenment?"
"It is like this, Kassapa. When beings are in decline, and the true Dhamma is waning, then there are more precepts and fewer monks attain enlightenment. But there is no disappearance of the true Dhamma, Kassapa, till a counterfeit Dhamma arises in the world; but when a counterfeit Dhamma arises, then there is a disappearance of the true Dhamma, just as there is no disappearing of gold so long as no counterfeit gold has arisen in the world... The earth-element does not make the true Dhamma disappear, the water-element... the fire-element... the air-element..., But right here men of straw appear, and it is they who bring about the disappearance of the true Dhamma. A ship, Kassapa, may sink all at once, but it is not thus that the true Dhamma disappears. There are five contributory factors, Kassapa, which lead to the adulteration and disappearance of the true Dhamma. Which five? It is when monks and nuns, male and female lay-followers behave disrespectfully and rebelliously towards the Teacher,... towards the Dhamma,... towards the Sangha,... towards the training,... towards meditation.
"But when monks and nuns, male and female lay followers behave respectfully and deferentially towards the Dhamma,... towards the Sangha,... towards the training,... towards meditation, then these five things conduce to the maintenance, the purity and the preservation of the true Dhamma."
Why the allowance of women into the monastic order would speed up the appearance of counterfeit Dhamma and the disappearance of the true Dhamma, the Buddha doesn't say in his exchange with Ananda recorded in the Vinaya. But this exchange with Kassapa and his obvious concern about the continuation of the true Dhamma goes a long way towards explaining his role as convener of the First Council, particularly when recalling the reaction of Subhadda after hearing of the Buddha's death ("Weep not, neither lament! We are well rid of the great Samana. We used to be annoyed by being told, 'This beseems you, this beseems you not.' But now we shall be able to do whatever we like; and what we do not like, that we shall not have to do"), which Kassapa may have seen as the sprouting of 'counterfeit Dhamma.'
Other things that make me suspicious of the 500 year prophecy is that it's only found in one place, the Cullavagga of the Vinaya Pitaka, and there are numerous instances where the Buddha talks favourably about bhikkhunis in the Suttas, especially in relation to them being part of the complete Buddhasasana consisting of the four-fold assembly (catu-parisa) of monks, nun, laymen, and laywomen. In DN 16, for example, the Buddha has an exchange with Mara three months before his parinibbana in which Mara, eager for the Buddha's parinibbana, says:
"For the Blessed One, O Lord, spoke these words to me: 'I shall not come to my final passing away, Evil One, until my bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have come to be true disciples — wise, well disciplined, apt and learned, preservers of the Dhamma, living according to the Dhamma, abiding by the appropriate conduct, and having learned the Master's word, are able to expound it, preach it, proclaim it, establish it, reveal it, explain it in detail, and make it clear; until, when adverse opinions arise, they shall be able to refute them thoroughly and well, and to preach this convincing and liberating Dhamma.'
Which seems to imply that the Buddha intended to allow women into his monastic order all along. All in all, it seems to me that the legitimacy of the Buddha's reluctance to ordain women and 500 year prophecy rests on shaky ground and we should be wary of putting too much stock into it. But assuming it's legitimate, I'm confident that the reasons for his initially reluctance must have been cultural/conditional and not due to an inherently negative view of women or their abilities on the Buddha's part. This is particularly evident by the Buddha's acknowledgment, in the same exchange with Ananda where we find the 500 year prophecy, that women are just as capable of achieving liberation as men.
In regard to the eight weighty rules (garudhamma) mentioned in the same controversial account, which are also pointed to as evidence of the Buddha's negative attitude towards women, it should kept in mind that even if they were formulated by the Buddha, it wasn't necessarily due to a negative view of women. For example, the rules could easily have been to protect the bhikkhunis from danger, help maintain healthy and harmonious relations between the two groups or procedures for ensuring the proper education and support of bhikkhunis, as both Ven. Prof. Dhammavihari and Sujato Bhikkhu have suggested. It's also possible that the Buddha was sexist, although it's difficult to fathom why considering his egalitarian path.
It should also be kept in mind that the Buddha was man who lived in India 2,600 years ago when the societal attitudes towards women were probably much harsher than they are today, meaning that we should try to avoid judging these things by today's standards. Personally, I'm not the type of Buddhist who thinks that the Buddha's 'enlightenment' made him some kind of cosmic superman who could see into the future and had knowledge of all things beyond suffering and the cessation of suffering. So while I like to think the eight 'weighty' rules were later additions, I can understand why the Buddha might have instituted them considering the sociohistorical context in which they were formulated.
For one thing, not only were women treated like property by their families and/or husbands during this time, but other renunciates (especially brahmins) would most likely have had a hard time living with women in a monastic setting as women renunciates were such a rare thing. The fact that Buddha gave the going forth to women at all is actually quite amazing.
Think about his position. On the one hand, he realized that women have the same potential to achieve awakening as men; but on the other, he realized that the continued existence of the Sangha depended upon internal and external harmony. Not only did everyone in the monastic community need to get along, but it depended on the lay-community for material support. Allowing women to go forth meant that they were no longer under the authority of their families and/or husbands, which probably angered many people because it upset the status quo.
Moreover, during this time in India, it was generally believed that women didn't have the same spiritual capacities as men, which most renunciates were. The Buddha, on the other hand, knew that women had the same spiritual capabilities, but he was probably aware that accepting them into his monastic community would cause a fair amount of friction within the lay-community, as well as within the monastic community itself, which consisted of men who, in all likelihood, may not have been happy about having to live in a monastic setting with members of the opposite sex.
So if the Buddha did formulate these rules, he was most likely in a tight spot and arguably did his best to accommodate all sides involved so as to preserve harmony within the community as a whole. What he did was extremely progressive and revolutionary, even if it might not seem so by today's standards. Plus, the Buddha may very well have repealed these rules just before his death when he said "the Sangha may, when I am gone, abolish the lesser and minor rules" (DN 16). But since the usually thorough Ananda didn't bother to ask which rules the 'lesser and minor rules' were, the Sangha decided not to abolish any of the rules after his death.
As for the recent bhikkhuni controversy, I completely support full ordination of women for the simple fact that one of my teachers when I used to live in California was Ayya Tathaaloka. I've met few with as much dedication to the practice as her, and I'm happy to see that others, like Ajahn Brahmavamso, are taking up the cause. I honestly don't see why a few minor technicalities should prevent women from having the exact same opportunity as men to commit themselves fully to the practice. I'm sure it's easy for men who don't have that problem to wonder what all the fuss is about, but if a lower ordination wasn't enough for them, why should it be for an entire gender?
From what I've read about it (which is mostly research and presentations done by Bhikkhu Bodhi, Ajahn Sujato and Ayya Tathaaloka from the 2007 conference in Hamburg), the question rests on whether bhikkhus and bhikkhunis from the Dharmagupta lineage — which, Ajahn Brahm and others argue, follows Theravada Vinaya — can ordain bhikkhunis. There have been some good arguments against this, of course; one being the claim by Dhammanando Bhikkhu that the Dharmagupta lineage began in 357 CE with ordinations by bhikkhus only, thus invalidating it by Theravadin standards. But even if that's true, as Bhikkhu Gavesako points out, "The problem with the transmissions of ordination lineage is that, even in the Theravada tradition, nobody knows for sure whether the lineage was once broken or not."
In the end, I know that nothing I say will change the minds of those who are decidedly against this; however, I think it comes down to following the spirit rather than the letter of the Vinaya. I can't imagine the Buddha wanted his monastic community to be dominated solely by men, nor can I imagine that he'd be so uptight about ordination procedures (you know, the whole 'not clinging to rite and rituals' thing) if it meant reviving the other half of the Sangha at a time when women are breaking free from centuries of discrimination (like being considered the property of their husband/family) and now have more freedom to engage in both worldly and spiritual pursuits. But then, I'm just a dumb lay-follower, so what do I know?
Yes. You are a dumb lay-follower, still immersed in sensuality, still wishing for a women to mirror a man so you can engage in irresponsible 'male centred' sex and still caught up in your elitist Western views. In brief, the majority of the Thai society, especially Thai women, which have strong matriarchial roots, do not want bhikkhinus as a role model for Thai women. In Thai society, the ideal man shows restraint where as the ideal woman shows self-expression. In the West, women have fought to free themselves from the patriarchy of Western Christianity. The Thai situation is the very opposite of the Western situation. But you have probably never lived outside of California but as a typical American think you know what is best.
ReplyDeleteLong time no see, DD. Glad to see you're still around.
ReplyDeleteP.S. I'm not from California; I only lived there for a few years.
I am not sure if dhammadhatu is from a Eastern cultural background himself to speak about the general interests of the Thai society when he says "The majority of the Thai society does not want bhikkhinus as a role model for Thai women". Fact is, the majority in the Eastern society, including the Thai, is now shedding away some rigid social norms. The Eastern culture has certainly changed from the old social structure with fixed gender roles, where the woman was confined to the role of a care-giver and bearers of offspring.
ReplyDeleteMost youngsters nowadays recognize and acknowledge the need for female representation in ordained sangha. With the spread of the Internet and globalized education systems, the East if mixing a lot with the West and adopting elements from the Western culture, which includes more Thai women wanting an equal stake in spiritual matters. I know as a fact that most Thai women DO want female sangha in their society and sometimes even find it more appealing. Thai youngsters do not particularly entertain leaving out 50% of the population from engaging in the rights to follow a spiritual path away from home if they so wish.
I suggest that you educate yourself more about the modern Thai society before spreading your own dogmatic separatism as the overall view heald by an entire culture.