One act or statement? Easy.chownah wrote:you are casting aspersions on the Sangha by supposition and inuendo.....there has been nothing presented which taken for what it is supports a charge of misogyny.....environement are misgynistic only if they reflect those attitudes as expressed by individuals...a cultural attitude can only be misogynistic if it is expressed by individuals in that context....your arguement is false....if you still wish to defend your charges then bring something here that is to the point of misogyny such as one act or statement by a living Sanga member which addresses women in and of themselves in even a negative light much less a misogynistic light.....
In the modern era, there have been a number of women who have tried to ordain as bhikkhunis. The first attempt was made in 1928 by two sisters, Sara and Chongdi Bhasit, who received samaneri ordination along with six other women... In 1932, the women underwent bhikkhuni ordination, but it was considered invalid as they only received their vows from bhikkhus and not bhikkhunis.
They met with strong opposition from the sangha and state. In 1928, the Sangha Council of Elders responded by passing an order forbidding Thai monks from ordaining women, either as bhikkhuni, samaneri, or sikkhamana (a female novice in training to become a bhikkhuni), a rule which still is in force today.
sourceDhammananda Bhikkhuni’s ordination was a historic development, the first - and at the present time, only - instance of a properly ordained Theravadan bhikkhuni to emerge in Thailand. Yet it was naturally also highly controversial, and upon her return to Thailand after her ordination as a samaneri she was met by an onslaught of criticism.
sourceBhikkhuni ordination is permitted under the Thai constitution, but the Thai Sangha Council, a government-linked religious advisory group, does not accept Bhikkhunis' legal status or right to be ordained within the country. It cites a 1928 Sangha Act, which banned ordination of women following the last known attempt to recognise Bhikkhunis.
A new constitution in 1932 made that religious order void, says Mr. Nititawan.
But the Thai Sangha and some Bhikkhu - who remain largely unaware of the revitalized campaign - continue to cite the 1928 order, which recognises only Bhikkhu, along with Vietnamese and Chinese male monks.
sourceAccording to Wat Pah Pong, the Western monks must adhere to the laws of the Thai Sangha and Thai state which oppose female ordination. Ajahn Brahm violated this ground rule. By concealing the ordination from the Wat Pah Pong elders both here and abroad, his action was tantamount to deceit, total disrespect, and a serious breach of trust and communal decision-making based on consultation and consensus.
When given the chance, he refused to declare the Perth ordination null and void and to downgrade the new four Bhikkhunis to mae chee or ten-precept nuns.
And so forth.
Richard Gombrich wrote:If there are women who want to restart a Sangha, why should they be stopped? Should we not thank and congratulate them? What does it matter that the continuity of the ordination ritual has been interrupted? What is that but a ritual? Must we all live in a world of obsessive neurotics? Let people who only care about ritual fuss away to their hearts’ content, and let those who care for the spirit, not the letter, and for living according to the Buddha’s teaching and principles, welcome the one development which, I believe, has the power to preserve Theravāda Buddhism for many future generations.