What Justifications Are There For Discrimination Against Physical Deformities In Buddhism

[harrry]

Could someone explain how they can justify the budhist position on ordination of those with physical deformities. To me this is rank discrimination which I had never associated with Budhism.

[phetaroi]

Could someone explain how they can justify the budhist position on ordination of those with physical deformities. To me this is rank discrimination which I had never associated with Budhism.

From what I can see it includes the following:

Homosexuals

People with 5 diseases considered to be be contagious, chronic, and incurable (leprosy, smallpox, ringworm, epilepsy, and asthma)

People who are blind, deaf, or mute

Debtors.

Slaves (?)

And criminals

I guess the justification is that people in those situations are suffering from karma from during a previous existence. I will say that I was once invited by the Abbott of a temple in Thonburi, despite the fact that I have a noticeable (but repaired) cleft lip.

So, using only my logic, I would say that the position is to live a good life in the current existence and travel further along the path in the next existence.

Not saying I agree...just telling you what I think the position may be.

[luangtom]

Could someone explain how they can justify the budhist position on ordination of those with physical deformities. To me this is rank discrimination which I had never associated with Budhism.

I do not know why such is tolerated within Buddhism. In the village in Isaan where we visit and stay the abbot of the local temple is blind. He is not precluded from any authority or duty due to his disability. I have to agree with the other poster that said khamma (karma) may be a factor in the restrictions put on those things he listed. I do not see exclusion due to blindness and more than one monk has been seen needing assistance with their mobility. This was a good question.....

[camerata]

From a guide to the ordination rules and who might be excluded from ordination, by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

"5) Those who are physically handicapped, feeble, or deformed. The following list is from the Canon, with passages from the Commentary in brackets: an applicant with a hand cut off [C: at least from the palm] ... a foot cut off [C: at least from the ball of the foot].. a hand and foot cut off ... an ear cut off ... a nose cut off ... an ear and nose cut off [C: in the case of ears and nose, if the cut-off part can be reconnected, the applicant may go forth] ... a finger or toe cut off [C: so that nothing of the nail appears] ... a thumb or big toe cut off .. a cut tendon ... one who has webbed fingers [C: if the fingers are separated by surgery, or if a sixth finger is removed, the applicant may go forth] ... a bent-over person [C: bent-over forward (a hunchback), bent-over back (a swayback), bent-over to either side; a slight crookedness is to be expected in all candidates, as only a Buddha is perfectly straight] ... a dwarf ... one with a club foot (or elephantiasis) [C: if the foot is operated on so as to become a normal foot, he may go forth] ... one who disgraces the assembly [C: through some deformity; (the list here is very long and includes many seemingly harmless characteristics, such as connected eyebrows, a lack of a beard or moustache, etc. This is one area where the Commentary seems to have gone overboard)] ... one who is blind in one eye ... one who has a crooked limb [C: limb = at least a hand, foot, or finger] ... one who is lame ... one half-paralyzed [C: paralyzed in one hand, one foot, or down one side] ... a cripple [C: one who needs a crutch or stool to move along] ... one feeble from old age ... one who is blind... dumb [C: unable to speak or with such a bad stutter that he cannot pronounce the Three Refuges clearly]... deaf ... blind and dumb ... blind and deaf (§ — not mentioned in BD) ... deaf and dumb ... blind and deaf and dumb.

Again, some people have questioned the compassion behind these prohibitions, but the point of the prohibitions is to keep the bhikkhus from being burdened with looking after those who are a burden or an embarrassment to their families. There is at least one case in the Canon of a dwarf who ordained and became an arahant (Ud.VII.1-2), but apparently he, like Aṅgulimāla, was accepted into the Community by the Buddha himself. If it so happens that a bhikkhu develops any of these handicaps after his ordination — e.g., he goes blind or loses a limb — he need not disrobe, and his fellow bhikkhus are duty-bound to care for him."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors.../bmc2.ch14.html

[harrry]

So may I take it that from the Commentries the Justification is that once a doctor complained because he had to treat people who had Gone Forth who he did not consider worthy to treat as it is better to treat Kings and bhikkhus?

Edited April 29, 2009 by harrry

[camerata]

The Commentaries are opinions of monks who were writing long after the Buddha was gone. As Ven Thanissaro says, "the point of the prohibitions is to keep the bhikkhus from being burdened with looking after those who are a burden or an embarrassment to their families."

The monks wouldn't be able to achieve their goal of becoming enlightened if everyone dumped their disabled family members at the monastery and left the monks to look after them. IMO, it's a matter of practicality. Just look at the way people dump unwanted pets at the nearby monastery, making it difficult for the monks to meditate because of the noise.

[mc2]

also sexist .... discriminatory against women

[harrry]

The Commentaries are opinions of monks who were writing long after the Buddha was gone. As Ven Thanissaro says, "the point of the prohibitions is to keep the bhikkhus from being burdened with looking after those who are a burden or an embarrassment to their families."

The monks wouldn't be able to achieve their goal of becoming enlightened if everyone dumped their disabled family members at the monastery and left the monks to look after them. IMO, it's a matter of practicality. Just look at the way people dump unwanted pets at the nearby monastery, making it difficult for the monks to meditate because of the noise.

Hmmmm so people are a nuisance just like dogs. So disabilities should mean no access to schooling or general life.

I am sorry but to me this goes directly against all I had thought of Buddhism and in fact makes me loose the very high respect I had for it and those that practice it.

Note this even applies to disabilities which would be no burden it sems to be just adherance to old dogma.

[harrry]

Possibly I can accept that people with contagious diseases may have been an insurmountable problem for the continuance of a monastry. And I understand the Buddah is claimed to have stated that:

A person cannot become a priest who has a disease which is contagious incurable and chronic. Note the and in these. If the disease is not contagious or it is for example amputation why is it still proscribed.

Edited April 29, 2009 by harrry

[fabianfred]

and in fact makes me lose the very high respect I had for it and those that practice it.

bit of a sweeping reaction to something....perhaps your faith is too easy to shake....try better next time....

[harrry]

and in fact makes me lose the very high respect I had for it and those that practice it.

bit of a sweeping reaction to something....perhaps your faith is too easy to shake....try better next time....

THought the fabians were the ones against dogma

[camerata]

Hmmmm so people are a nuisance just like dogs. So disabilities should mean no access to schooling or general life.

Your original post was about ordination into the Sangha, not about schooling or the general life or lay Buddhists. The original purpose of ordination is a lifelong commitment to become enlightened via (mainly) renunciation and meditation. You just can't do that (walk alone in the jungle, sleep in caves, do alms round, etc) if you have serious disabilities.

The other aspect of monastic life is that monks must be an example to the laity and must be totally reliant on the laity. The reason for the prohibition on some of the lesser disabilities was probably that they might have frightened villagers out in the remote villages or given the wrong impression of the Sangha. The Buddha was a pragmatist and he obviously wanted to make sure the Sangha survived after his death. For the same reason (survival of the Sangha) he was initially reluctant to admit female monks, but eventually allowed them to join the Sangha with extra rules. The reason for having a monastic code in the first place was to facilitate enlightenment and to ensure public opinion didn't turn against the Sangha - it wasn't designed to guarantee "equal rights" to monks.

[phetaroi]

Hmmmm so people are a nuisance just like dogs. So disabilities should mean no access to schooling or general life.

Your original post was about ordination into the Sangha, not about schooling or the general life or lay Buddhists. The original purpose of ordination is a lifelong commitment to become enlightened via (mainly) renunciation and meditation. You just can't do that (walk alone in the jungle, sleep in caves, do alms round, etc) if you have serious disabilities.

The other aspect of monastic life is that monks must be an example to the laity and must be totally reliant on the laity. The reason for the prohibition on some of the lesser disabilities was probably that they might have frightened villagers out in the remote villages or given the wrong impression of the Sangha. The Buddha was a pragmatist and he obviously wanted to make sure the Sangha survived after his death. For the same reason (survival of the Sangha) he was initially reluctant to admit female monks, but eventually allowed them to join the Sangha with extra rules. The reason for having a monastic code in the first place was to facilitate enlightenment and to ensure public opinion didn't turn against the Sangha - it wasn't designed to guarantee "equal rights" to monks.

While I think Harry is overreacting, I think he has made some very valid points, as well.

One thread you may have noticed in many of my posts is that Buddhism cannot exist in a healthy manner (in my view) if it is trying to operate as it did 2,500 years ago.

All things evolve.

I am reminded that at one time the Catholic Church said that eating chocolate was a sin.

[momosan]

Buddhism is pretty much a pick and choose religion for those that are not already indoctrinated on all of the old dogmas. All the items of belief are on the shelves for you to walk in and choose which to take home with you. And as such no two Sangha and their rules will ever be the same.

My own version: basically the core teachings of Buddha (the Three Jewels) and when I mean the teachings I mean the very essence of HIS teachings not the ones which have been morphed and transmogrified by different Buddhist councils after his death. Of those core items should there be something that goes against what I feel is right I will adjust them to become something to which I would feel more comfortable in practicing in my own life. And into that mix I put in my own items of belief and wisdom garnered from my own existence.

So at the end of the day I have a belief system that I can believe in and can change to my daily needs and one in which I am not tied to any of the old dogmas. That's true enlightenment and that's what I feel Buddha was trying to get through at the end of the day. All the petty little rules can just be left by the wayside (unless of course I choose not to, again all up to the individual). Whatever you choose to pick and match and end up with you will most certainly find a Buddhist community out there whose views can be very closely matched to yours.

Edited April 29, 2009 by momosan

[camerata]

While I think Harry is overreacting, I think he has made some very valid points, as well.

One thread you may have noticed in many of my posts is that Buddhism cannot exist in a healthy manner (in my view) if it is trying to operate as it did 2,500 years ago.

All things evolve.

Exactly. And that's why we have Mahayana Buddhism, which is basically a whole bunch of different sects based initially on different interpretations of the Pali Canon. But some of the developments went far from the original ideas of the Buddha. Theravada, on the other hand, is an effort to stick with the "true word" of the historical Buddha so that it is never lost. The great fear of the Sangha seems to be that if they start tinkering with the Vinaya, where will it end? Will it end, as in Japan, with monks being able to marry and their wives running the temples?

With this mindset of preserving the original word of Sakyamuni, it's pretty difficult for the Sangha to justify changing the Theravada Vinaya. Anyway, the real problem today seems to be that monks are simply ignoring (and being allowed to ignore) the Vinaya and have no intention of becoming enlightened... which makes them more like priests.

How would you define existing in "a healthy manner" for Buddhism? That would be an interesting discussion.

[phetaroi]

How would you define existing in "a healthy manner" for Buddhism? That would be an interesting discussion.

One that is responsive to the needs of modern man, while still retaining the absolutely core values of historical Buddhism. The challenge of course is determining what those absolutely core values are, as opposed to rules. Values and rules are often very different.

I know that's a bit vague. Let me give you a Catholic example. My grandmother was appalled that they stopped having Latin masses. Where was her logic? She didn't understand a word of Latin. Going to church and listening to the mass was meaningless to her...more an obligation than a learning experience.

[chutai]

Well of course this discrimination displays a disappointing lack of compassion. However, it's be wrong to attribute such laws to Shayamuni Buddha, they were first formulated and enforced under the first patriach ,established in 1782 at the founding of the Chakri dynasty.

Being a disabled Buddhist myself I have a personal interest and , therefore, researched this issue in some depth; and have found this exclusion of the disabled in ordaining to only be peculiar to Thailand. I was assured by a Burmese leading monk that this wasn't the case in Burma, for instance. However, it must be said that those Buddhists in the Thai Theravada tradition practising in London that I've spoken to, have either been unaware and shocked at this - and indeed many Thai people also - or have said that it should be argued in the Dharma as to why this is wrong.

But I'm pleased to say that I practice in a Mahayana school where such discrimination would be considered an anathema to the essential teaching of the equality of all, irrespective.

[camerata]

Well of course this discrimination displays a disappointing lack of compassion. However, it's be wrong to attribute such laws to Shayamuni Buddha, they were first formulated and enforced under the first patriach ,established in 1782 at the founding of the Chakri dynasty.

Do you recall the reference for that? The ordination rules I quoted above from accesstoinsight.com appear to come from the Sri Lankan Pali Canon. If the Thai Sangha are doing things in that same strict way (I don't know if either Mahanikaya and Dhammayuttika do), then it appears they are doing it in accordance with what we believe is the Buddha's (or the early Sangha's) wishes. In other words, "strict" might be correct according to the Canon, even if it is undesirable for other reasons, such as compassion, and not practised in other countries.

[harrry]

Quote/

Compared to other religions, Buddhism seems to have more conspicuous clauses against people with "improper" characteristics joining the monkhood. However, Phra Maha Boonchuay Sirintharo from Maha Chulalongkorn Buddhist University said he had found that the wording of these "bans" was rather indirect and conditional. Monks who permit the ordination of such people may be subject to a penalty, he said, but these newly ordained clerics would not be expelled from the Sangha merely on the grounds of their physical limitations. Likewise, those with certain contagious diseases are allowed to become monks once they have been completely cured.

"The rationale behind the bans could be the hardships of an ascetic life and the need for a fully integrated religious community in the early days [of Buddhism]," Phra Maha Boonchuay said.

"However, modern medical technology and rehabilitative treatment may enable the disabled to live normal lives and thus it might be time to review the monastic requirements [set during Buddha's time]."

Taking into account the concept of impermanence, karma is something that can be changed. Having studied the Buddhist law of Paticcasamudpada (co-dependent origination), Parichart argued that the disabled are part and parcel of society. They should not be regarded as a burden - for no one can survive on their own; we all need to depend on other people at some stage in our lives.

"At every moment, each of us is creating a new karma, the karma of now, which will in turn affect the events of tomorrow, next month, next year, next life. If we understand the teaching of karma correctly, we should not lose hope: We can always master our own destiny. But society must take a step to help the disabled, to enable them to have an opportunity to create a new and better karma; in short, to develop themselves spiritually.

"In fact, the presence of the disabled also teaches us a big moral lesson: We should learn to accept and appreciate diversity, people who are different from us. After all, these people have as much entitlement to live a dignified, secure life as any other human being."

http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=6,2892,0,0,1,0

[camerata]

One that is responsive to the needs of modern man, while still retaining the absolutely core values of historical Buddhism. The challenge of course is determining what those absolutely core values are, as opposed to rules. Values and rules are often very different.

I think the danger starts as soon as you say "responsive to the needs of modern man." The Dhamma goes "against the worldly strain" so how do you reconcile that with modern needs? I suppose if you want a "Buddhism" that is responsive to the needs of modern man, you can change almost anything you like. Dhammakaya certainly responds to the needs of modern Thais. But that tends to take you away from the Dhamma and the core values. And the problem is who gets to decide what is or is not a valid modern need?

I'm sure I've seen photos of Thai Forest monks in the UK wearing socks and woollen caps, and nuns are allowed to wear brown robes, so there must be some flexibility in the Sangha's interpretation of the Vinaya.

[chutai]

Well of course this discrimination displays a disappointing lack of compassion. However, it's be wrong to attribute such laws to Shayamuni Buddha, they were first formulated and enforced under the first patriach ,established in 1782 at the founding of the Chakri dynasty.

Do you recall the reference for that? The ordination rules I quoted above from accesstoinsight.com appear to come from the Sri Lankan Pali Canon. If the Thai Sangha are doing things in that same strict way (I don't know if either Mahanikaya and Dhammayuttika do), then it appears they are doing it in accordance with what we believe is the Buddha's (or the early Sangha's) wishes. In other words, "strict" might be correct according to the Canon, even if it is undesirable for other reasons, such as compassion, and not practised in other countries.

I'm sorry but I missed your link, I'll get back to it. Although I doubt very much whether discrimination against disabled , or any other people, was ever in Shakyamuni's heart. At the very least, all the evidence points otherwise.

My own reference point was a letter that I received from the ex Phra Farang (Peter Pannapidipo) explaining to me that this was a rule that governing ordination going back to the first patriarch. I had , and have, no reason to doubt the accuracy of this.

Although I consider it to reflect the lack of the transforming power of the provisional, if those that adhere to the Thai Theravada - or any other tradition - who believe the exclusion of disabled people from any sphere of life to be acceptable: and that on no rational or personal developmental basis whatsoever.

Buddhism is a unique doctrine that, in a correct and rational manner, elucidates and actualises the freedom, equality and dignity of the individual, while revealing that all people possess the Buddha nature and the potential to attain Buddhahood.

[chutai]

Could someone explain how they can justify the budhist position on ordination of those with physical deformities. To me this is rank discrimination which I had never associated with Budhism.

It isn't only those with physical disabilities (deformities is such an antiquated term) who are excluded from ordination, but those with mental ones too. So I guess that excludes us all.

Although my friend, a monk for 17 or more years, humorously put it that you can't see those (mental disabilities). The proof being that he knew plenty of monks who where of very questionable mental equilibrium.

[khaowong1]

How would you define existing in "a healthy manner" for Buddhism? That would be an interesting discussion.

One that is responsive to the needs of modern man, while still retaining the absolutely core values of historical Buddhism. The challenge of course is determining what those absolutely core values are, as opposed to rules. Values and rules are often very different.

I know that's a bit vague. Let me give you a Catholic example. My grandmother was appalled that they stopped having Latin masses. Where was her logic? She didn't understand a word of Latin. Going to church and listening to the mass was meaningless to her...more an obligation than a learning experience.

I think you would have to be a little descriptive of "responsive to the needs of modern man". that's a little vague...

[khaowong1]

One that is responsive to the needs of modern man, while still retaining the absolutely core values of historical Buddhism. The challenge of course is determining what those absolutely core values are, as opposed to rules. Values and rules are often very different.

I think the danger starts as soon as you say "responsive to the needs of modern man." The Dhamma goes "against the worldly strain" so how do you reconcile that with modern needs? I suppose if you want a "Buddhism" that is responsive to the needs of modern man, you can change almost anything you like. Dhammakaya certainly responds to the needs of modern Thais. But that tends to take you away from the Dhamma and the core values. And the problem is who gets to decide what is or is not a valid modern need?

I'm sure I've seen photos of Thai Forest monks in the UK wearing socks and woollen caps, and nuns are allowed to wear brown robes, so there must be some flexibility in the Sangha's interpretation of the Vinaya.

as they also do in the U.S. in colder climates and weather... I've personally seen them wearing socks and woolen caps in Arizona..during the winter months there...

[khaowong1]

Could someone explain how they can justify the budhist position on ordination of those with physical deformities. To me this is rank discrimination which I had never associated with Budhism.

It isn't only those with physical disabilities (deformities is such an antiquated term) who are excluded from ordination, but those with mental ones too. So I guess that excludes us all.

Although my friend, a monk for 17 or more years, humorously put it that you can't see those (mental disabilities). The proof being that he knew plenty of monks who where of very questionable mental equilibrium.

i've met a few also who i thought were of questionable mental equilibrium...

[camerata]

Although I consider it to reflect the lack of the transforming power of the provisional, if those that adhere to the Thai Theravada - or any other tradition - who believe the exclusion of disabled people from any sphere of life to be acceptable: and that on no rational or personal developmental basis whatsoever.

Well, OK, but the discussion is about the justification for specific ordination rules in Thailand, for which the Sangha is responsible, rather than about what ordinary Theravadins think of disabled people in general.

Many of the exclusions that I posted from the Pali Canon seem very minor and hardly likely to prevent a monk doing his duty or becoming enlightened (and I suspect were added after the Buddha was gone). If they are part of the Thai ordination rules, I suspect it is a reflection of the extreme conservatism of the Sangha here and their reluctance to change any rule at all. I can't imagine any Theravadin agrees with them.

[phetaroi]

Buddhism is pretty much a pick and choose religion for those that are not already indoctrinated on all of the old dogmas. All the items of belief are on the shelves for you to walk in and choose which to take home with you. And as such no two Sangha and their rules will ever be the same.

My own version: basically the core teachings of Buddha (the Three Jewels) and when I mean the teachings I mean the very essence of HIS teachings not the ones which have been morphed and transmogrified by different Buddhist councils after his death. Of those core items should there be something that goes against what I feel is right I will adjust them to become something to which I would feel more comfortable in practicing in my own life. And into that mix I put in my own items of belief and wisdom garnered from my own existence.

So at the end of the day I have a belief system that I can believe in and can change to my daily needs and one in which I am not tied to any of the old dogmas. That's true enlightenment and that's what I feel Buddha was trying to get through at the end of the day. All the petty little rules can just be left by the wayside (unless of course I choose not to, again all up to the individual). Whatever you choose to pick and match and end up with you will most certainly find a Buddhist community out there whose views can be very closely matched to yours.

Extremely well put. I think that as long as the individual is not "kidding himself" about some aspect of his moral life (like somehow justifying adultery), what you have stated is exactly what I understood Buddhism to be.

[phetaroi]

One that is responsive to the needs of modern man, while still retaining the absolutely core values of historical Buddhism. The challenge of course is determining what those absolutely core values are, as opposed to rules. Values and rules are often very different.

I think the danger starts as soon as you say "responsive to the needs of modern man." The Dhamma goes "against the worldly strain" so how do you reconcile that with modern needs? I suppose if you want a "Buddhism" that is responsive to the needs of modern man, you can change almost anything you like. Dhammakaya certainly responds to the needs of modern Thais. But that tends to take you away from the Dhamma and the core values. And the problem is who gets to decide what is or is not a valid modern need?

I'm sure I've seen photos of Thai Forest monks in the UK wearing socks and woollen caps, and nuns are allowed to wear brown robes, so there must be some flexibility in the Sangha's interpretation of the Vinaya.

As I said, that is the challenge. What I mean is this. The Buddha lived 2,500 years ago. We cannot imagine what life was like 2,500 years ago. We cannot really even imagine what life was like 250 years ago. In the same way, those who wrote the Buddhist scriptures, for the most part, could not imagine the world hundreds or thousands of year later.

As with any religion, there are the very basics, and then there are the man-made rules that are added in as time goes by.

But, as I recall from many of my readings, even the Buddha said that one must continue to study, think, and reason through their own spiritual path. That is why the one poster's definition of what Buddhism is was, in my view, so perfect. Buddhism is a thinking man's faith...not thinking for the sake of thinking, but rather thinking for a purpose.

[phetaroi]

How would you define existing in "a healthy manner" for Buddhism? That would be an interesting discussion.

One that is responsive to the needs of modern man, while still retaining the absolutely core values of historical Buddhism. The challenge of course is determining what those absolutely core values are, as opposed to rules. Values and rules are often very different.

I know that's a bit vague. Let me give you a Catholic example. My grandmother was appalled that they stopped having Latin masses. Where was her logic? She didn't understand a word of Latin. Going to church and listening to the mass was meaningless to her...more an obligation than a learning experience.

I think you would have to be a little descriptive of "responsive to the needs of modern man". that's a little vague...

You will note that I said it was vague.

[camerata]

Of those core items should there be something that goes against what I feel is right I will adjust them to become something to which I would feel more comfortable in practicing in my own life. And into that mix I put in my own items of belief and wisdom garnered from my own existence.

But then you have your own customized philosophy/religion, adjusted to what suits you, rather than the teaching of the Buddha. The benefit of not adjusting the core items is that you are following a tried-and-true (for 2,500 years) method with known results. Once you do a mix-and-match job, there's no guarantee of success (where success is defined as cessation of suffering). I guess it depends on what one considers "core items," though.

I agree about the minor rules, though. Some of them just aren't important and many of them clearly didn't come from the Buddha.