Making the Sangha Whole Again

[camerata]

Making the Sangha Whole Again The Buddha accepted full ordination for women. But in the centuries since, they have been barred from this legacy. Two nuns help revive the female monastic line.

In Buddhism, the standard phrase to refer to the transition of becoming a monastic is “to go forth from home into homelessness.” The Pali term for “going forth,” pabbajja, is now also used to mean a monastic candidate’s first ordination by which one becomes a novice monk (samanera) or nun (samaneri). From there, a candidate can pursue higher ordination as a fully ordained monk (bhikkhu) or nun (bhikkhuni), one who follows the full extent of the Vinaya, the Buddhist monastic code.

But for almost a thousand years, ever since the female monastic order died out, women in the Theravada tradition of Buddhism have been barred from receiving full ordination, caught without the first case of a circular cause: the Vinaya states that a bhikkhuni must be ordained by both bhikkhu and bhikkhuni sangha in order for the ordination to be valid. Although many Buddhist scholars and preeminent teachers now recognize the legitimacy of bhikkhuni ordination, which has been reclaimed through the Mahayana tradition, there are still those who protest or reject their standing as fully ordained nuns. Because of this, those women who have sought full ordination run the risk of finding themselves on their own, outside of a lineage and the established networks of support available to male monastics.

Such was the case for Ayya Santacitta and Ayya Anandabodhi, who together run Aloka Vihara, a rural training monastery for nuns in northeast California.

Full article at tricycle.com

[rockyysdt]

I see a lovely older Indian lady from time on my work rounds.

She's a devoted Buddhist and spends considerable time following her faith.

I touched upon the issue of women in Buddhism and the lack and non acceptance of Bikkhuni with her.

She indicated that she must wait for another life (as a male) before she can achieve enlightenment.

She appeared content with her situation and the role of women in Buddhism.

[RandomSand]

I read many times, people say, that all people are actually Buddhas.

Perhaps this is just the Tibetan / Chinese way of thinking.

Edited November 13, 2014 by RandomSand

[rockyysdt]

I think this statement is correct in terms of, "we're all made from the same source and all linked to that which is permanent and unconditioned, hence, we are all capable of awakening."

We differ in that the Buddha also formulated the path.

Edited November 13, 2014 by rockyysdt

[VincentRJ]

I'm impressed so far from what I've read of the Santi Asoke Buddhist movement in Thailand. Although I get the impression the group is considered to be rather heretical by orthodox Buddhists, I agree with the group's main principles, such as ordaining women as Bhikkhunis without obstacle, working to support themselves through organic farming and the selling of their produce in local markets at very low prices, refusing to accept donations from visitors, and curiously, refusing to erect Buddha statues in their temples.

As a Westerner, I always found it rather bizarre to see Buddhists prostrating themselves in front of giant statues of the Buddha. Does anyone reading this have personal experience of the Santi Asoke movement?

[RandomSand]

Santi Asoke is not in accordance with the establishment. I have no personal experience.

I think this statement is correct in terms of, "we're all made from the same source and all linked to that which is permanent and unconditioned, hence, we are all capable of awakening."

We differ in that the Buddha also formulated the path.

Eeekk! it's said (we are all Buddhas already) to directly negate falsehood and confusion. What you're doing is twisting the meaning to aid a belief in something mystical. A mystical permanent self no less!

We normally think that there is a dualism of Body & Mind. The Buddha taught, with regards to Mind, that there was no self to be found. He didn't say "look for a grain of rice and you'll not find one", did he?

The "permanent and unconditioned" self you seek can never be found!

With regards to dependant origination, he basically means the material world. Cause and effect. It's like our modern, rational, factual science which we take for granted but Buddha worked it out as a philosophy without scientific proof.

Then you think, about the "permanent and unconditioned" self, "It's very hard to find, because I'm not awake to it now, but Buddha has found it, so if I'm cunning I will find it too"... insert-bangs-head-against-wall-avatar-here.

Edited November 13, 2014 by RandomSand

[RandomSand]

this "mystical permanent self" is basically like God because it keeps you searching for something unattainable. No wonder those with power and authority delight in teaching it to the masses and others, like Santi-Asoke, who say otherwise are seen as a threat.

Edited November 13, 2014 by RandomSand

[rockyysdt]

Hi Random.

There was no mention of "Self" in my post.

In terms of what awakening turns out to be, I have no fixed ideas of what this is or will be.

Just simply that it involves the permanent and unconditioned.

Edited November 13, 2014 by rockyysdt

[RandomSand]

I think this "permanent and unconditioned" quality ties in with transcendence.

Here's how I imagine it to be, so it can be explained, but still remain elusive:

Imagine all the events, of all time, as being written in a book.

This book doesn't exist as an event or object in time or space. All events, of all time, exist in the book.

From our current perspective; we can't see the book because we're living out the story contained therein/herein.

From the transcendent perspective; the book hasn't been opened and the story is unknown.

Because the book exists eternally; it is "permanent and unconditioned".

Because the pages keep turning; they are "impermanent and conditioned".

So the story is dependant on the book, and the book dependant on the story,

but "they" are not two separate "things" which could be separated.

Although the "true-self" might be the book, I can't experience it as I'm living my life,

so intellectually, I acknowledge the book as the higher-self, and the "story" about "RandomSand" is like a dream,

yet experientially, my life, and the world around me, are the pages of the book.

Therefore, reasonably, it's truer to say the true-self is contained as a can of soup than contained within the "mind".

If it's possible to experience a transcendence, I see no reason why a woman couldn't experience it,

unless there's something physically different about her, compared to him, and the difference negates the possibility?

Edited November 14, 2014 by RandomSand

[VincentRJ]

Santi Asoke is not in accordance with the establishment.

Nor was Gautama Buddha in accordance with the establishment of his times, so that's a potential 'plus' for Asanti Asoke, in my view.

The fact that they don't encourage people to prostrate themselves in front of Buddha statues, on the grounds that the Buddha would not have approved of such behaviour, seems very sensible to me.

From what I gather, the Asoke group emphasizes simplicity even in ceremonies and rituals. It focuses on the literary tradition of the Buddhist teachings and keeps rituals to a minimum. Members look askance at the elaborate rutuals practiced by mainstream Buddhists. The rhythmic Pali chanting, glittering statues of the Buddha, and other decorations are perceived as obscuring the essence of Buddhist doctrines. Belief in magic is discouraged. The group rejects the folk Brahminical and magico-animistic practices that are prevalent in main-stream Buddhist monastic culture and that occupy a dominant role in the lives of ordinary, particularly rural, Thai people. (Sounds like the right sort of sect for me. )

The communities are organized around the principles of: “Consume Little, Work Hard, and Give the Rest to Society.” The Santi Asoke nuns, or sikkhamats, are ordained on the Ten Precepts, as are the male novices. The only discrimination is with regard to the number of nuns allowed in a community. Apparently, the ratio should not be greater than one sikkhamat for every 4 monks. It's been suggested that the reason for this rule is in order not to further infuriate the mainstream monks who do not promote the position of 'ordained' women.

http://www.bunniyom.com/sikkhamat.html

Now, according to Phra Phaisan Visalo, who is not a member of Santi Asoke but the abbot of Wat Pa Sukato in Chaiyaphum province of Thailand, "Uniform or standardized Buddhism is a thing of the past. Thai Buddhism is returning to diversity again . . . . In the past, uniform Buddhism was possible because of state and central Sangha control. The recent trends suggest that Buddhism is becoming independent of the state and the Sangha hierarchy, returning again to the hands of the people. (Phaisan 1999:10)".

Is this a good thing? What do you think?

[RandomSand]

Nice post, VincentRJ, thanks.

Surely it'd be better to live by the principles "consume little, work hard, and give the rest to society", even forgetting all other teaching, than to not live in accordance with the principles and believe one knows it all ?

So as for joining their sect, I think I'll pass, as I believe the only thing stopping me living by these principle is myself... and not my membership of a sect.

The question that's on my horizon is; Is religion useful, not as a principle of belief, but as a method of discipline ?

A paradoxical situation is arrived at; If one has the discipline to adhere to a religion; why doesn't one have the discipline to adhere to the principles ?

Of course this is personal to each one of us. For me the paradox is (intellectually!) resolved like this: When one is in accordance with the principles, the axiom of liberation is in effect. Likewise, the dualism of this axiom is necessarily suppresed...like the singularity of a black-hole.

Therefore; The praxis of liberation can only be implemented with equal suffering. This is why I think "The true liberation is non-liberation" and favour the Mahayana concept of sacrificing ones own liberation for the sake of others.

[VincentRJ]

Nice post, VincentRJ, thanks.

Surely it'd be better to live by the principles "consume little, work hard, and give the rest to society", even forgetting all other teaching, than to not live in accordance with the principles and believe one knows it all ?

So as for joining their sect, I think I'll pass, as I believe the only thing stopping me living by these principle is myself... and not my membership of a sect.

You're welcome. I hope the following post is not too controversial.

I have been interested in the agricultural practice of Permaculture for a number of years now. It is a labour intensive method of producing food and therefore not popular amongst those whose main goal is to make financial profits, but it's a method which is sustainable, has the potential to produce double the quantity of food per acre of land than conventional, highly mechanised agricultural practices, and at the same time produces such food in an 'organic' manner, free of pesticides and artificial fertilizers, which is of course better for the health as well as being more sustainable.

Such methods are consistent with the basic principles of Buddhism.

In general terms, I would say that the reason why certain people are attracted to a 'foreign' religion, or philosophy in the case Buddhism, is because the principles of the foreign religion or philosophy happen to resonate with, and perhaps more clearly articulate, similar principles already held by those people.

However, all religions seem to have evolved over time to include attitudes and practices which may be anathema to all clear-thinking individuals. Does one then reject the whole religion, or does one pick and choose?

Two aspects of Buddhism which have always troubled me are (1) the complete reliance on the lay community for the most basic requirements of food, clothing and shelter, and (2) the clearly misogynistic attitude towards women.

In the West, the Catholic Church has had an ongoing problem with pedophilia for years, a problem which was often swept under the carpet and has only relatively recently come out into the open. One would imagine that Buddhism, with a similar emphasis on celibacy, might have a similar problem, which might also be 'swept under the carpet'. After a search on the internet, I concluded that pedophilia in Buddhism can also be a problem between monks and temple boys. But what surprised me most of all, during my internet enquiry, was the often-stated penalty for a Buddhist monk who has committed the sin of pedophilia. It is, to be reborn as a woman in the next life.

This is so ludicrous it's actually laughable, although a serious subject.

So, for me, the Santi Asoke heretical group, no doubt as a result of applying the advice given in the Kalama Sutta, have removed at least two major objections that I've always had towards conventional Buddhism.

I give them 4 & 1/2 stars out of 5. Why not 5? Well, they still have the rule of regularly shaving their head and face, despite the fact that they produce their own organic, herbal soap which should keep their hair and skin free of lice and other problems.