Gender and the Vinaya: Modernising the Monastic Code

[Ceisiwr]

Greetings everyone,

I've just read an interesting pov from a monastic regarding gender and the Vinaya:

The vinaya as is is faces some significant problems. For those with serious aspirations to ordain, the gender discrimination can be a huge barrier, and raise many doubts and questions as to the Buddha’s wisdom in establishing such rules, and the current sangha’s wisdom in following them. This is not only an issue for nuns, who are subjugated, but also for monks, who don’t want to be put in the role of the oppressor; and a gendered patimokkha leaves no place at all for people who don’t identify with either gender. It also destroys faith in the sangha among laypeople who do not want to support such a system, and thus is a major impediment to the flourishing of Buddhism. Many feel that the patimokkha is such a misfit in today’s world that they have put it aside altogether. Such monastics often find it hard to keep up the discipline of serious practise and end up leading lifes not much different from lay people. We’ve had many discussions about the patimokkha rules already on this forum. But are there actual alternatives?

"Then a certain Vajjian monk … said to the Blessed One, “Lord, this recitation of more than 150 training rules comes every fortnight. I cannot train in reference to them.” … “Then train in reference to those three trainings: the training in heightened virtue, the training in heightened mind, the training in heightened discernment." (AN3.84)

In the early suttas there are many descriptions of “heightened virtue” for monastics, most prominently repeated over and over again in the gradual training. These are ungendered, fairly comprehensive, and are at least as early, if not earlier, than the patimokkhas. To a large extend, these passages are also applicable universally, independent of culture and modern developments. And it would be quite easy to recite these passages on uposatha days, and confess transgressions of the rules mentioned there. Since every Buddhist monastery is independent and local sanghas make their own choices, any monastery could decide on its own to switch over to keeping these rules instead. There would be no need to wait for any universal approval. Of course, most monasteries would still prefer to keep the standard patimokkha, so practitioners could freely choose where they would like to ordain and what method would suit them best.

The Buddha allowed for minor rules to be abandoned after his passing (DN16), and stated that disputes about livelihood and patimokkha should be considered as mere trifles (MN104). So in adapting rules that no longer fit today’s society, we would be following the Buddha’s instructions. These questions don’t imply the the monastics who discuss them are not serious about vinaya. In fact, it is because they are very serious about vinaya, that they are concerned with its problems and try to find solutions that are within the scope of what is covered by the EBTs.

Any thoughts on this?

[cappuccino]

a gendered patimokkha leaves no place at all for people who don’t identify with either gender.

sign of the times

[Ceisiwr]

a gendered patimokkha leaves no place at all for people who don’t identify with either gender.

sign of the times

For sure. Do you agree with the above or disagree?

[cappuccino]

a gendered patimokkha leaves no place at all for people who don’t identify with either gender.

sign of the times

For sure. Do you agree with the above or disagree?

something that is typical of the (bad) way things are now

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

I agree with the responses above. If people want to do those things, they should start their own tradition, or at a bare minimum, a new ordination tradition.

It's certainly not for them to insist they know better, trash the Patimokkha, and degrade it for those who wish to practice (or wish to support or pay respect to those who practice) the Dhamma as it has been practiced for 2500 years.



Metta,
Paul.

[Ceisiwr]

retrofuturist

For those with serious aspirations to ordain, the gender discrimination can be a huge barrier, and raise many doubts and questions as to the Buddha’s wisdom in establishing such rules, and the current sangha’s wisdom in following them.

I found this disturbing, especially from someone who is ordained. It reads more like a leftist who knows better than the Buddha and the wider sangha. This goes back to what we were discussing in another thread regarding the relationship between views and Dhamma.

“Whoever marries the spirit of this age will find himself a widower in the next.” William Inge.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Ceisiwr,

I agree it's unwise, but schismatic behaviour normally is.

Nonetheless, if people want to go off and create their own modern Vinaya equivalents, they should do as Mahayana did in the past, and at least acknowledge that they are deviating from the Buddha's recorded instructions, and form a new tradition in their own image.

Metta,
Paul.

[Jason]

Perhaps it's because I come at things from a different viewpoint than many here, but I don't see this as inherently bad or as disparaging as others seem to be taking it. I also don't see anything wrong with the general principle of making monastic life more available to those who wish to live such a life, which can be rather difficult in the west as they don't tend to have strong dana-based support systems for religious life. Where one may see this as some leftist mischief, another may see a suggestion offered out of compassion for those who may find themselves excluded or marginalized by rules and ideas over 2,000 years old that are possibly not as applicable as they once were. Personally, I see this as a good thing; but I agree that if one wishes to remain more traditional, one can and should refrain from joining or supporting such a monastic community. As the author notes, "Since every Buddhist monastery is independent and local sanghas make their own choices, any monastery could decide on its own to switch over to keeping these rules instead. There would be no need to wait for any universal approval. Of course, most monasteries would still prefer to keep the standard patimokkha, so practitioners could freely choose where they would like to ordain and what method would suit them best." I guess I just don't find the idea or presentation as wild or as threatening as some others here.

[Ceisiwr]

Jason

Perhaps it's because I come at things from a different viewpoint than many here, but I don't see this as inherently bad or as disparaging as others seem to be taking it. I also don't see anything wrong with the general principle of making monastic life more available to those who wish to live such a life, which can be rather difficult in the west as they don't tend to have strong dana-based support systems for religious life. Where one may see this as some leftist mischief, another may see a suggestion offered out of compassion for those who may find themselves excluded or marginalized by rules and ideas over 2,000 years old that are possibly not as applicable as they once were. Personally, I see this as a good thing; but I agree that if one wishes to remain more traditional, one can and should refrain from joining or supporting such a monastic community. As the author notes, "Since every Buddhist monastery is independent and local sanghas make their own choices, any monastery could decide on its own to switch over to keeping these rules instead. There would be no need to wait for any universal approval. Of course, most monasteries would still prefer to keep the standard patimokkha, so practitioners could freely choose where they would like to ordain and what method would suit them best." I guess I just don't find the idea or presentation as wild or as threatening as some others here.

I think we should be conservative on such matters instead of modifying the Vinaya to suit our needs. The Vinaya was put in place by the Buddha. He was awakened. If we start changing it we will likely be changing it not from an awakened position but from a mind that is tainted. Also, once we start changing it where does it stop? Morality is the base. Remove the base and the whole thing comes crashing down.

[whynotme]

Perhaps it's because I come at things from a different viewpoint than many here, but I don't see this as inherently bad or as disparaging as others seem to be taking it. I also don't see anything wrong with the general principle of making monastic life more available to those who wish to live such a life, which can be rather difficult in the west as they don't tend to have strong dana-based support systems for religious life. Where one may see this as some leftist mischief, another may see a suggestion offered out of compassion for those who may find themselves excluded or marginalized by rules and ideas over 2,000 years old that are possibly not as applicable as they once were. Personally, I see this as a good thing; but I agree that if one wishes to remain more traditional, one can and should refrain from joining or supporting such a monastic community. As the author notes, "Since every Buddhist monastery is independent and local sanghas make their own choices, any monastery could decide on its own to switch over to keeping these rules instead. There would be no need to wait for any universal approval. Of course, most monasteries would still prefer to keep the standard patimokkha, so practitioners could freely choose where they would like to ordain and what method would suit them best." I guess I just don't find the idea or presentation as wild or as threatening as some others here.

Such view is normal with flesh eye, but to turn dhamma wheel is not a job a flesh eye can do. You live normally with desire and entertainment, no problem, but if you want to turn the dhamma wheel, then your flesh eye is not enough. There is a big boss called Mara which literally mean the killer. If you know in some countries, the influence of Mara is so high, it can even start serious war, then you will think again in running dhamma with flesh eye.

The trap mara puts infront of ppl is not easy to overcome. So, only a Buddha with enough paramis can turn the dhamma wheel without anyone stopping it, even brahmin, deva, mara, brahma or human. Without divine eye of the Buddha, ppl will not have a clue about mara tricks. Even ppl with high achievement but not enough paramis, like paceka buddha or arahant, if they want to turn the dhamma wheel then something bad will happen. The law of kamma is not something that can easily ignore.

And for ordinary ppl to run dhamma, it will turn into politics sooner or later, e.g. like the Catholics church.

The demand to change happens because there is a degradation in monastery life. The solution is not lower the monastery life even more to persuade ppl, but to set higher standard of monastery life input. I see in some countries, man has to enter monastery for a week, IIRC, as a tradition. While ppl still respect monastery life, make it a mass movement like this will lower monastery life into a mac monastery movement. PPl still follow it, but only based on blind faith. This happen in a lot of traditional buddhism countries, turning buddhism into a mass religion, which is a wrong approach.

But politicians in many generations like king or minister, who dont understand, think that move is a good move to protect and spread buddhism, and to collect merit, which isnt. And even that move may be under influence of mara. You will see it is very hard for ordinary ppl to escape mara, even protecting buddhism is a mara act. Work that on the surface seems good, but depth inside, it is an evil trick. Mara does not fear the spread of mass buddhism, he may even encourage it. Mara only fears a small number of truly hardcore and achieved ones, because he can not fool ppl when they know.

Again, if you doubt the power of mara, then you can see, even in traditional buddhism countries, there is a large mass of ppl put faith in medium or traditional practices of superstition, even in high ranking official. You think mara is just a metaphor? Through these medium, mara can influence high ranking officers easily. Mara is not a man of narrowed mind. He doesnt care about religion, which religion he does not care. So, in many superstition counties like Muslim, or Catholism, or Buddhism, with just a sign, a dream can move the mind of the leader. Mara can put a sign, a dream in the mind of ppl easily, then faked prophecies, fortune telling... all the trick in his bags. Even president Trump once said he is the choosen one, this may be a work of mara, for even the president of the United State. So to turn dhamma wheel, you must have enough paramis to solve all these problems.

Buddhism must be like science. While science is a mass religion, bc almost all ppl believe in it or its application, the true monastery life of science is based on scientists. These scientists are choosen very carefully through a long testing process. This guarantees the quality of science monastery life. When the monks are choosen carefully, the mass follower can trust it. And even with all of that, there is still a lot of hidden problems in science.

[whynotme]

To revive Buddhism, there should be 2 kind of ppl.

One is an high achievement monk, but with politician mind. Monk may be high achievement, even arahant, but without a mind of the politician, it is not much help.

The other is the politician minded lay ppl.

And to revive the monastery life, it should not start from monastery life, but from lay ppl life, because lay life is where monastery life come from. If lay ppl is not smart, weak minded, then when one of them enters monastery, the monastery life is degraded.

The monastery has two doors. One door is to help ppl, so it must be opened widely for every kind of ppl, the not so smart, the loser, the failures... ah the worldly names. The monastery must not closed it door on these ppl for its compassion and love.

But on the other hand, the monastery must be opened for another type of ppl, the ppl that can support the lineage of the Buddha. These ppl must be smart, strong minded, determined, deeply knowledgeable in many fields, and is well practiced.

And where does this type of ppl come from? It must come from lay ppl. So lay ppl is the root of the monastery ppl. There is a saying, ppl get the leader they deserve. In a country where each citizen is smart, then it is hardly to get an unintelligent leader, because the leader comes from the pool of its citizens. Similarly, the monastery life comes from lay life, so improve lay life is the only way to improve monastery ppl. The tree must grow on its root, not the opposite.

[SteRo]

Self[-identifications] and the conceit 'I am' might make it impossible to comply with conventions ...

[Mr Man]

Here is a link to the piece "Thought experiment - a genderless vinaya" and the discussion it brought about.

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/fo ... ation/6978

[TRobinson465]

I mean, you could say that about the suttas too. Don't several suttas talk just say, male or female, bhikkhu and bhikkhuni, upasok and upasika? I'm all for inclusivity and have no problems with people who dont identify as either gender. But changing the Buddha's teachings for the sake of it is not a good idea. I think its certainly okay to have interpretations that evolve with the times but changing the words is not a good idea. Its much better people just recognize the time and culture the Buddha said those things and realize the nuances of the time and culture rather than rewriting anything.

[Jason]

I understand those who hold fast to tradition and don't wish to change things for fear of negative consequences and people going astray, and I'm very sympathetic to that. I myself don't like change simply for the sake of change. That said, I honestly don't see how making monastic life more available to those who wish to live such a life is equivalent to removing the base of morality out from anything. Is removing or lessening gender bias really such a dire threat to the Dhamma? I don't think so, anyway. For example, I don't see the revived bhikkhuni ordinations doing much harm even though it wasn't completely by the rules, quite the opposite in fact. Nothing came crashing down, and we have even more inspiring examples and teachers of the Dhamma. Ayya Tathaaloka was one of my teachers while I was living in California, and you'd be hard pressed to find a more ardent monastic. I think the same may be possible from this if it were to be tried. And it's not like this is something being suggested across the board, only at places that wish to modernize a bit.