Spent the better part of two hours debating the ordination of bhikkhunis
with a good friend, a Thai scholar who taught Pali in Burma for many
years and is now back in Thailand at Wat Mahadhatu.
My
contention, based on the internationally well-known (thanks to Bhikkhu
Bodhi's article on the subject) commentary to the Milindapanha, was
this:
(Arg 1)
a) when there were no bhikkhunis, the Buddha's answer on how to ordain bhikkhunis was to allow bhikkhus to ordain bhikkhunis:
(Text 1) anujānāmi, bhikkhave, bhikkhūhi bhikkhuniyo upasampādetu''nti;
b)
once there were bhikkhunis, the Buddha's reasons for "allowing" a dual
ordination were due to a difficulty in, rather than a repercussion of,
the original ordination method (viz. that the bhikkhunis were shy to
answer to the bhikkhus' questions)
c) the Buddha never revoked the original allowance for single ordination.
Therefore,
I argued, the Venerable Mingun Jetavana Sayadaw's argument was valid
that, based on the Buddha's example, when there were no bhikkhunis,
bhikkhus should ordain bhikkhunis.
We argued back and forth, bringing up examples from various sources. In the end, his argument was basically,
(Arg 2)
a) the words "allow" in this instance means "require";
b) a later allowance that consists of an alteration of a previous allowance necessarily replaces the original allowance;
c)
the circumstances relating to the Buddha's instating the
dual-ordination requirement are not to be understood to limit the
requirement to those circumstances;
Therefore, he concluded, the
alteration being made, it will never be possible to return to the
original allowance of bhikkhu-only ordination.
His point (c) has
some merit in my mind; after all, he argued, it would not have always
been the case afterwards that the bhikkhunis were shy to answer
questions, yet it is to be assumed that all subsequent ordinations were
dual.
Apart from that, I think his argument doesn't hold. At the
time, I argued vaguely about the existence of "allowances" that could
certainly not be considered mandatory; allowances of straps and needle
cases, for example. It was clear, I argued, that those allowances were
put in place simply for convenience, since not all monks would be
required to use the allowances.
His response was that the word
"allow" means different things in different places. While I was quite
skeptical of this line of argument, I couldn't do much more than simply
disagree. We both agreed to "hit the books" and see what the actual
wording of the allowance was. I'm not sure whether he actually did any
more studying, though I sent him the Pali of the Milinda commentary. I,
however, did go back and look at the Cv X account of the evolution of
Bhikkhuni ordination and life. I found two interesting points:
(Arg 3)
a)
the allowance for bhikkhu-based ordination came after the original
declaration (in the garudhammas) of a requirement for dual ordination -
this also undermines the argument that the garudhammas were immediately
binding, but, more important for this issue, makes clear the reason for
allowing bhikkhu-only ordination, viz. there being no bhikkhunis;
b)
the passages surrounding the single/dual ordination allowances
completely undermine the idea that the dual was intended to irrevocably
replace the single, as follows:
In the same section of the Cv X as the single ordination, we have the following text:
(Text 2)
``anujānāmi, bhikkhave, bhikkhūhi bhikkhunīnaṃ pātimokkhaṃ uddisitu''nti.
tena
kho pana samayena bhikkhū bhikkhunupassayaṃ upasaṅkamitvā bhikkhunīnaṃ
pātimokkhaṃ uddisanti. manussā ujjhāyanti khiyyanti vipācenti --
``jāyāyo imā imesaṃ, jāriyo imā imesaṃ, idāni ime imāhi saddhiṃ
abhiramissantī''ti! bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ. ``na, bhikkhave,
bhikkhūhi bhikkhunīnaṃ pātimokkhaṃ uddisitabbaṃ. yo uddiseyya, āpatti
dukkaṭassa. anujānāmi, bhikkhave, bhikkhunīhi bhikkhunīnaṃ pātimokkhaṃ
uddisitu''nti
The important passage here is "na, bhikkhave,
bhikkhūhi bhikkhunīnaṃ pātimokkhaṃ uddisitabbaṃ. yo uddiseyya, āpatti
dukkaṭassa.", which explicitly revokes the original allowance, instating
an offense for anyone who uses it. This makes absolutely clear the
formula the Buddha would use if he wanted to require, rather than simply
allow, a change in procedure.
The following passages include
many similar allowance/rescension pairs. They also include examples
where the Buddha introduced new allowances without an associated
revocation, e.g.:
(Text 3)
``anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tassā
bhikkhuniyā daṇḍakammaṃ kātu''nti. atha kho bhikkhūnaṃ etadahosi --
``kiṃ nu kho daṇḍakammaṃ kātabba''nti? bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ.
``anujānāmi bhikkhave, āvaraṇaṃ kātu''nti. āvaraṇe kate na ādiyanti.
bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ. ``anujānāmi, bhikkhave, ovādaṃ
ṭhapetu''nti.
When the first punishment didn't work, the Buddha
allowed a different form of punishment. Missing is the expected
rescension... not really expected, actually, since the first allowance
had not caused any problems, it had simply failed to produce the
expected results in the given situation.
This, I think quite reasonably, leads us to the following observations:
a)
in certain circumstances, ostensibly because some undesireable
repercussion will result, the Buddha revoked an earlier permission,
replacing it with a new one:
give permission A, permission A causes problems, revoke permission A, give permission B
b)
in certain circumstances, seemingly because the earlier permission was
found to be incapable of bringing about the desired effect, the Buddha
gave a later permission without revoking the original permission:
give permission A, permission A fails, give permission B
Now,
a liberal Buddhist (which neither he nor I is) might argue that the
difference between the two is purely coincidental, perhaps a case of
sloppiness on the part of the scribe, or even the Buddha. Us
literalists, however, can't fail to appreciate the great importance of
this difference. It is unacceptable to us to write it off as
coincidental. There has to be a rule we can derive from this
difference. The most rational rule to derive is that in type (a), the
earlier permission is revoked, while in type (b) the earlier permission
still stands - e.g., if the bhikkhus decide to inflict the earlier
punishment in the above (Text 3), there should be no offence in doing
so, based on the canonical principle that we are as equally bound to not
instate uninstated rules as we are to not revoke instated rules.
If
we accept these observations as correct, we can then apply the above
framework to the question of whether a dual ordination is required
today.
The allowance for bhikkhus to ordain bhikkhunis has
already been quoted above (Text 1). The dual allowance occurs in a
later section:
(Text 4)
tena kho pana samayena bhikkhū
bhikkhunīnaṃ antarāyike dhamme pucchanti. upasampadāpekkhāyo
vitthāyanti, maṅkū honti, na sakkonti vissajjetuṃ. bhagavato etamatthaṃ
ārocesuṃ. ``anujānāmi, bhikkhave, ekatoupasampannāya bhikkhunisaṅghe
visuddhāya bhikkhusaṅghe upasampādetu''nti.
Using our established framework, we might ask two questions about this passage:
a) does it include explicit revocation of the first permission?
and,
b) does it involve an occurance of undesireable repercussions, or an occurance of insurmountable obstacles?
The
answer to the first is quite obvious; unless we allow for a scribal
omission, the first permission was not explicitely revoked in the
expected manner. The answer to the second question seems equally clear;
an argument in favour of the idea that the applicant for ordination's
bashfulness were an undesireable repercussion with potential to harm the
sangha is at best far-fetched.
The obvious conclusion? That the first allowance stands, at least in some form (more on this later).
It
must be noted at this point that change in ordination procedure is not
without precident in the vinaya. The obvious parallel, which I brought
up during our argument, is that of the evolution of the bhikkhu
ordination:
(Text 5)
yā sā, bhikkhave, mayā tīhi
saraṇagamanehi upasampadā anuññātā, taṃ ajjatagge paṭikkhipāmi.
anujānāmi, bhikkhave, ñatticatutthena kammena upasampādetuṃ.
(Mv 1)
Here
the Buddha uses a different format for revoking the permission; in the
Cv cases of this type, he doesn't actually revoke it, he rather instates
an offence for doing it. Here, ostensibly, there is no need for
instating an offence; the result of tisaranagamana ordination after this
would simply be a non-ordination. The question we need to ask
ourselves is, had we not the Buddha's statement revoking the permission,
would a tisaraṇagamana bhikkhu ordination stand as valid today?
My
answer is that, if the Buddha had not explicitly revoked the
permission, an argument might be made that the revocation was implicit
(and by extension, implicit in the case of the bhikkhunis). Given,
however, that it is explicit in this case, we come up against the need
to explain why the Buddha was seemingly careless in not making it
explicit in the case of the bhikkhunis. Against the framework we have
accepted above wherein revocation is necessarily explicit, it seems to
be little less than willful blindness to suggest an implicit revocation
in this case.
If an example could be had of an obvious implicit
revocation, whereby the original allowance could without question not be
allowed, there might be some argument for at least uncertainty. As it
stands, there is no reasonable argument for certainty by which one could
say that the later dual ordination is required in all circumstances
since being allowed.
The final question to address is when to use
the single ordination, if at all? Sidestepping the issue of whether
the Buddha actually considered our plight in the present day - with no
Theravada bhikkhunis in existence, a prevalent loosely-veiled misogyny
among Theravada bhikkhus, and an openly hostile feminist segment of the
global population, we can ask the question, not WWBD (what would Buddha
do?) but WDBD(what did Buddha do?). Meaning, what is the actual line of
conduct laid down by the Blessed One in regards to the ordination of
women. Two conflicting interpretative answers to this question exist:
a)
when no bhikkhuni had ever ordained (besides Mahapajapati, that is),
there was an allowance for bhikkhu-based ordination. Once opportunity
had been given for bhikkhunis to establish their own sangha, dual
ordination became the requirement. This one might call the "inheritist"
view. I.e., we take the rules as we have inhereted them. Of course,
there are still obvious problems with this approach as detailed above,
but putting those aside for the moment, we here are given the idea that
unless the Buddha gives us explicit permission to change the way we do
things, we are bound by the chronological order of the permissions as we
have inherited them, and must live by the latest permission.
b)
when there were no bhikkhunis, there was the allowance for bhikkhu-based
ordination. Once there were bhikkhunis, and due to difficulties in
bhikkhu-only ordinations of women, dual ordination was allowed. Given
the circumstances surrounding each allowance, the argument is that, by
precedent, whenever bhikkhunis do not exist, bhikkhus should ordain
bhikkhunis. When bhikkhunis do exist, bhikkhunis should ordain
bhikkhunis. This we can call the "methodist" view (yes, I'm just making
these words up and don't really know what a methodist is).
This
dychotomy seems to be the crux of the matter. Are we to claim
helplessness in having no explicit instructions on what to do in the
case where a certain allowance cannot succeed? If we had only the
allowance for dual ordination, the answer of course would be yes.
Without an allowance to do things another way, we are bound to follow
the allowances we have, and refrain from allowances that have been
revoked. This is the inheritist principle that conservative Buddhists
follow, myself included.
Since, however, we have a clear
methodology by which to pattern our actions - a set of allowances, none
of which have been revoked, that seem to cover all circumstances, a
methodist should argue that it is actually a failure to follow the
Buddha's example if we stick stubbornly to the later allowance that
cannot succeed at present. This is the methodist principle, that the
Buddha's allowances should be used in situations that mirror the
circumstances surrounding the allowances.
So, which do we follow?
The
question Bhikkhu Bodhi asks in his article on the subject is, what is
our intention? As a conservative Buddhist, I would ask, rather, what is
our understanding of the Buddha's intention? If our understanding of
the Buddha's intention is that there should be bhikkhunis in the world,
then we should use the allowances in such a way as to facilitate their
ordination without breaking any rules. If we use the Buddha's
allowances in such a way as to prohibit single ordination without being
able to point to any explicit canonical prohibition, we fly in the face
of the Buddha's own pattern of explicit-prohibition/non-prohibition, and
have to admit that our understanding of the Buddha's intention is that
of not favouring the existence of a bhikkhuni sangha.
This, of
course, is the true problem at present. When the chips are down, the
big secret is that most monks just don't like women. They're afraid of
women. They think women will run rampant, destroying the carefully
crafted institution bhikkhus have worked tirelessly for generations to
build up. They believe women have more defilements; that they have more
difficulty giving up sensuality. They are afraid that women will
become so powerful as to endanger the power they now hold over their
respective societies. They are afraid they will lose money, power and
luxury. These are the true reasons for refusing to look carefully at
the subject.
I don't deny the veracity of some such arguments -
believe me, they are used as arguments, though never in public, only in
private to people whom they are sure would never expose them on, say a
public weblog. Oops. No, I accept there may be a real problem in
putting women together in a monastic organization. Why? Because of
what both male and female monastics tell me from their experiences.
Women, they say, just can't get along. Yes, a gross, gross,
over-simplifying generalization, but it's what they, women as well as
men, say.
And I don't deny that the Buddha himself seems to have
had sincere reservations about ordaining women, not just because of the
inter-gender relations problem, but also because of an inherent weakness
he attributed to women. Gross generalization, yet coming from the
Buddha himself.
Nonetheless, they are generalizations.
Generalizations should not be dismissed out of hand; if women in a
certain culture are generally weaker than men, then allowing them to
live off in the forest alone or even as a community without men is
probably better to be avoided. But generalizations are not enough to
necessitate complete rejection. The general argument used by monks
after all arguments have been exhausted is that the Buddha refused the
request to ordain women six times, ostensibly because he was against the
idea. The truth is actually somewhat different. He never refused or
allowed the ordaination those six times. What he said, each time, was:
(Text 6)
``alaṃ, ānanda, mā te rucci mātugāmassa tathāgatappavedite dhammavinaye agārasmā anagāriyaṃ pabbajjā''ti.
"Enough,
Ananda (or Gotami). Don't you be pleased by the going forth from
home-life into homelessness of women in the dhamma-vinaya declared by
the Tathagata"
The wording here is very important. Again, a
liberal or a casual observer would equate this with refusal and leave it
at that. The problem with such an interpretation is that it flies in
the face of the Buddha's own intention, viz:
(Text 7)
``na
tāvāhaṃ, pāpima, parinibbāyissāmi, yāva me bhikkhuniyo na sāvikā
bhavissanti viyattā vinītā visāradā bahussutā dhammadharā
dhammānudhammappaṭipannā sāmīcippaṭipannā anudhammacāriniyo, sakaṃ
ācariyakaṃ uggahetvā ācikkhissanti desessanti paññapessanti
paṭṭhapessanti vivarissanti vibhajissanti uttānīkarissanti, uppannaṃ
parappavādaṃ sahadhammena suniggahitaṃ niggahetvā sappāṭihāriyaṃ dhammaṃ
desessanti.''
'I shall not come to my final passing away, Evil
One, until my bhikkhunis have come to be true disciples — wise, well
disciplined, apt and learned, preservers of the Dhamma, living according
to the Dhamma, abiding by appropriate conduct and, having learned the
Teacher'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.'
(DN 16, Vajira & Story, trans)
I personally
find it difficult to believe that the fully enlightened Buddha would
have refused to do something he had previously promised to do. It seems
quite clear that what the Buddha intended by his words (Text 6) was to
warn both his cousin and step-mother of the dangers and to dampen their
enthusiasm, which would have the potential of letting things get easily
out of hand.
So, in the end, there seems to be no good argument against the most venerable Mingun Jetavana Sayadaw's contention that:
(Text 8)
Iti
yathāvattena bhikkhusaṃghena ussāho kātabbo: “Idāni bhikkhunīsaṃghe
vaṃsacchinne mayaṃ bhikkhunīsāsanaṃ anusandhānaṃ karissāma. Bhagavato
manorathaṃ jānissāma. Bhagavato puṇṇindusaṅkāsamukhaṃ passissāmā”ti.
Tampi bhikkhunīsāsanaṃ kātukāmena pubbaṅgamena bhikkhunā nāma bhagavato
thomite ṭhāne kusalena bhavitabbanti.
Thus the Bhikkhu Sangha
described above should make a determined effort as follows: "Now that
the Bhikkhunī Sangha has become extinct, we will revive the institution
of bhikkhunīs! We will understand the heart’s wish of the Exalted One!
We will see the Exalted One’s face brighten like the full moon!" A
bhikkhu motivated by a desire to resuscitate the institution of
bhikkhunīs should be skilled in the subject praised by the Exalted One.
(Bodhi, Trans)
Looking
at where things stand today, however, I would forward the opinion that
ordination of women should be undertaken with great care - more care
even than the ordination of men - due to three issues:
a) the danger caused by increased inter-gender interaction among celibate monastics
b) the potential backlash coming from misogynist bhikkhus
c)
the perceived inability of women to live a monastic life, either for
reasons of not being able to get along as well as men, or for reasons of
physical and emotional weakness.
Of course, this last reason is
purely speculative on my part. I have made no such observation myself; I
don't know of a truly harmonious monastic community, even one composed
of a solitary monk, I haven't found women to be weaker than men (except,
generally, in terms of physical strength), and statistically, women
seem more inclined towards intensive meditation practice than men, even
over the long term.
Another observation I would make is that
there is little hope in obtaining a concensus on this subject in the
near future; the monk I debated this with was adamant that single-sided
ordination is impossible, since his own teacher in Burma was one of the
monks to publish a paper explaining how exactly impossible it is. On
the other side of the argument, since we know they are wrong (hehe),
there is little hope the "in-favour" side will capitulate.
Finally,
a bit of a capitulation. The only rational argument I've ever heard
against Bhikkhuni ordination in present times was from a Thai monk who
explained it like this to me:
Today, in Buddhism, there are many,
many problems. Just to keep the Buddha sasana alive is a very, very
heavy burden, threatening to smother us at any time. If we add
bhikkhunis into the equation, the burden will become simply too heavy to
carry. It is not that we don't want to ordain women, it's that we are
afraid we are not strong enough to bear the consequences.
I
sympathize with this sentiment. I don't believe the people who say that
ordaining bhikkhunis will actually improve the state of affairs. Maybe
in the short term they will feel compelled to keep the precepts better
than the monks because of public scrutiny; maybe they will actually
teach, practice and study better than the monks. But the complexity
which they introduce into the sangha is undeniable. Every bhikkhu who
ordains becomes a burden that needs to be carried until they can carry
themselves. The burden that comes with having to oversee two groups of
monastics instead of one is certainly the greater of the two. The
question is whether we are strong enough to bear a greater burden then
we currently bear.
So, the idea that the sangha might benefit
directly from ordaining bhikkhunis is, I think, unwarranted. The only
benefit I can see to the Buddha sasana in ordaining women, and a great
benefit it is, is that ordaining women will be seen as the right thing
to do by the global community. It will allow Theravada Buddhism to take
its rightful place as a world religion, not just a cultural artifact
from antiquity.
Half the world is women; where is the justice
in denying them what was rightfully bestowed upon them by our great
teacher? How can we sit back and make false claims about what the
Buddha required, what he intended, what he did even, while inside our
true concern is merely our own comfort and peace?
If this is
truly the reason, let us come out and say it. Let us be clear that it
is not that we can't ordain women, it is really and truly that we don't
want to. Any group that is so honest as this is cleared of wrong-doing
in my books. I am fully for allowing monks to find their own way to
peace without being bothered by helping others, if they so choose. I
will be very happy for them if they find that goal. Let us not,
however, use the words of the Buddha as a shield to hide our feelings of
guilt at our own self-interest. If we are afraid of the burden of
training women as full monastics, let us admit our fear and learn from
it, or at least be true to it. Anyo monk who teaches lay women but is
afraid to ordain them does not merit the role of teacher. Let him go
off in the forest and help himself, I will count myself amongst his
supporters.
The fear, I think, is anyways unwarranted. If
anything, I would suggest what has been suggested to me, that the best
way to keep men or women in line is to give them full ordination. To
suggest that a lay woman is easier to train than a bhikkhuni is
disengenius, not to mention insulting to the one who laid down the rules
as a means of facilitating the training itself. If you accept that
women have a part to play in Buddhism, the answer is not to allow them
to live in our monasteries as lay people, it is to force them to follow
the same strict set of rules (stricter, in fact) as the bhikkhus. The
idea that this would make them more difficult to control is a product of
our misunderstanding of ordination, not a necessary consequence of
ordination itself. It is, after all, more about what you give up than
what you become.
The truth is, we're all bums. "Bhikkhu",
"bhikkhuni". It's the same word. Define it as you like, it was used to
mean "bum" at the time of the Buddha. He gave it greater meaning, and
applied it to lay people who saw the danger in samsara as well, but as
it applies to us in robes, the implication is that we're nothing. If
women want to be nothing, we should let them. Let the girls play too.
There
is a strong suspicion in my mind that the real problem is our
instinctual unwillingness to do just that - that we are living under the
influence of our childhood days of boys' clubhouses and "no girls
allowed" signs, propping up our egos with our ability to exclude those
who are physically weaker than us, reacting to our fear of the unknown
and repressed sexuality by denial. Maybe the secret of bhikkhu monastic
harmony is that boys can only get along when girls are not involved;
all it takes is one female to get them butting heads and biting throats.
We
are bums, let us be bums. Let us lose the sense of self-importance at
being something special. Let us help ourselves and those around us
become free from greed, anger and delusion. Let us be careful but not
exclusionary, self-interested but not selfish, focussed but not
narrow-minded, watching our own feet but not hogging the path. It is
not, of course, in our best interest to engage in heated debate hoping
to change the ways of others. I write all this because I need to know
where I stand and what I will do in the future. What others decide is
not my concern, and I hope what I decide is not your concern. Let us
find the truth as it really is, for ourselves. Let the truth set us
free.
The Argument For Allowing Bhikkhus To Ordain Bhikkhunis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment