Bhikkhuni FAQ:
A conversation with a
sceptic
What is a
bhikkhuni?
A bhikkhuni is a fully ordained Buddhist
nun. (Bhikkhunī is a Pali word, used by the Theravada tradition in
South Asia. Other traditions use the Sanskrit equivalent
bhikṣuṇī, pronounced
‘bhik-shoo-nee’)
Where did the bhikkhuni order come
from?
The bhikkhuni order (‘Sangha’) was started
by the Buddha himself. When women came to him seeking to live the
renunciate life, the Buddha allowed them to go forth in his
religion. At that time, the order of bhikkhus (Buddhist monks)
already existed, so the Buddha adopted the code of discipline and
way of community life from the bhikkhus and changed it as
necessary.
What do we know about bhikkhunis in ancient
times?
Most Buddhist texts are told from the
bhikkhus’ point of view, so there is not a lot of information about
bhikkhunis. But there are several works composed by or about the
bhikkhunis in the time of the Buddha. The bhikkhuni Sangha is
mentioned throughout the Buddhist disciplinary texts (Vinayas) of
all schools. In later years, the inscriptions on Buddhist monuments
mention bhikkhunis nearly as often as bhikkhus. They often played
important roles, such as donors, scholars, and
teachers.
What do
bhikkhunis do?
The same things as the bhikkhus. That is,
they meditate, study and teach the Dhamma, run monasteries, act as
counsellors, participate in ritual and community activities, engage
in social service, and so on.
How do
bhikkhunis live?
The ancient texts show that the bhikkhunis’
life was oriented towards seclusion and meditation, but also had a
strong community involvement. Each new bhikkhuni must study for
several years under a qualified teacher until they are ready to be
independent. Like the bhikkhus, the bhikkhunis live entirely on
alms offerings, and may not use personal funds. They are supported
by donors who supply food, medicines, dwelling, robes, and other
needs.
Are there bhikkhunis in all traditions of
Buddhism?
There is no simple answer to this question.
In ancient times, the Buddhist community was unified, and the
bhikkhunis simply formed one part of this earliest Buddhism. Later,
as Buddhism diverged into different schools (which happened about
200-400 years after the Buddha), each school had its own bhikkhuni
community. The bhikkhuni Sangha was introduced to Sri Lanka by
Venerable Sanghamitta, the daughter of King Ashoka, about 250 BCE.
It flourished in Sri Lanka until around 1100 CE, a time of war and
famine, and then disappeared. No-one knows exactly why this
happened. But the bhikkhuni lineage was taken from Sri Lanka to
China in 443 CE. From there it spread through the East Asian area.
Today bhikkhunis are found in China, Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam, and
Japan.
The bhikkhuni lineage was never introduced
into Tibet, but in modern times some women practising within the
Tibetan tradition have taken bhikkhuni ordination from the East
Asian Sangha. These bhikkhunis, such as Ven. Tenzin Palmo, Ven.
Thubten Chodren, Ven. Lekshe Tsomo, and others, have gone on to
become respected practitioners and teachers in world
Buddhism.
In the Theravadin regions of
South-east Asia there are occasional references to bhikkhunis
through history, but no living bhikkhuni community has survived
until today. Like those practising within the Tibetan tradition,
women who wish to practice within the Theravada tradition have
taken bhikkhuni ordination from the East Asian bhikkhuni Sangha,
sometimes together with Theravada bhikkhus. Today there are many
hundreds of bhikkhunis living in Sri Lanka. In Thailand there are a
few bhikkhunis, who are generally well accepted by the community,
but are denied official support from the Sangha administration. In
Cambodia, one of the Sangharajas (Leaders of the Sangha) is
personally supporting a bhikkhuni community. Two years ago a
Myanmar bhikkhuni was thrown in jail due to the objections of the
monks. Suffering from post-traumatic stress, she subsequently
disrobed. Hence there are no bhikkhunis in
Myanmar.
Why do we need bhikkhuni
ordination?
There are three essential reasons why
bhikkhuni ordination is so important.
1. The bhikkhuni ordination was designed
by the Buddha himself to provide the ideal platform for women to
seek full liberation. As bhikkhus, we are reminded every day of the
Buddha’s consummate skill in understanding the needs of monastics,
and establishing a way of training that is finely tuned to support
the holy life. We feel nurtured and supported by the knowledge that
we have fully entered into the Sangha, and are practising within
the same community as the arahants of old.
2. From the time of his Enlightenment to
the time of his Parinibbana, the Buddha consistently stated that
for his religion to be complete and successful, it must consist of
the four-fold assembly: bhikkhus, bhikkhunis, laymen, and laywomen.
Any other arrangement is imbalanced and incomplete. Without the
bhikkhuni Sangha, Buddhism is deprived of a tremendously powerful
spiritual component. In virtually all meditation retreats, the
women far outnumber the men. Imagine the loss of spiritual
leadership the Buddhist community has suffered by denying these
sincere practitioners a role in leading the Buddhist
community.
3. If Buddhist institutions remain
male-only, they will become increasingly marginalized in a world
that accepts the equality of women. Rather than falling behind the
rest of the world in our spiritual values, we should recognize that
the principle of equality for all is based on the same ethical
values that inform the heart of true Buddhism: universal
loving-kindness and compassion.
Is it really true that women have bad kamma
and can’t get enlightened?
Of course not. The Buddha emphatically
stated that if when go forth they have exactly the same potential
as men, and are fully capable of even the highest level of
arahantship. The original Buddhist texts contain verses by
enlightened bhikkhunis such as Venerable
Uppalavaṇṇā,Venerable
Khemā, and many others. In fact, this literature forms one of the
oldest records of women’s spiritual accomplishments found anywhere
in the world.
But can’t the women just be happy to have
10-precept ordination (as a samaneri)?
The samaneri ordination, as it is presented
in the Vinaya, is for girls who were too immature to take on the
full training. It was never meant for mature women. The Buddha
established only one framework for mature renunciate women, and
that is the bhikkhuni Sangha. Attempts to invent new ordination
platforms will never gain the acceptance of the Buddhist community
at large. The end result is a proliferation of incompatible models,
which further weakens the already fragmented nuns’ community. In
Buddhist nations, it is only within those countries that support
bhikkhuni ordination that women have a leading and recognized
role.
I’ve heard that Theravada monks will never
accept bhikkhunis. Is this true?
No. Some monks support, some oppose. In a
conservative body like the Sangha, which is, after all, made up of
human beings, there are many who would prefer to cling to what they
know and are comfortable with. Sometimes it seems that Buddhist
monks will tell you that everything is impermanent; yet they never
want anything to change!
Part of the problem is that bhikkhus do not know very much about
the position of bhikkhunis within original Buddhism. Sangha
education is still largely based on traditional materials, and this
tends to create a culture which values preservation rather than
reformation.
But we can understand the process better when we reflect that
similar situations are found in all the major world religions. In
every religion, a vital message of freedom has become the basis for
wealthy and powerful religious institutions. These are owned and
run exclusively by men who believe they have a sacred right to
inherit both the material property and the spiritual authority of
those institutions. Whenever this is challenged, those who benefit
from the old arrangement will resist change. Invariably, they
produce a religious text which they claim provides an ancient,
irrevocable mandate for their monopoly. Such arguments, however,
are usually only persuasive to those who benefit from them, for a
number of very good reasons:
1. Any
ancient text is subject to a number of different interpretations,
and rarely is there an unambiguous case to support the male
monopoly.
2. The
ancient texts were composed long ago in a limited historical and
cultural context, and the authors could not have envisaged our
present day social conditions.
3. Refusing to support the religious
aspirations of women because of legalistic details contradicts the
luminous spiritual values of compassion and wisdom.
This explains the fact, which I have repeatedly heard from nuns
living in Thailand, that they have not experienced opposition from
the individual monks so much, but mainly with the Sangha
administration. Opposition to bhikkhunis does not arise
spontaneously from the ground up, as some sort of genetic
predisposition. It must be strenuously maintained from the top
down, as an ideological imposition.
But the Buddha tried to prevent the
ordination of women!
This refers to the legend of the request by
Mahapajapati, the Buddha’s foster-mother, to gain ordination as the
first nun. Modern scholars have shown that this story abounds in
textual problems, and cannot possibly be a factual account. It is
not sure exactly why it took shape in this form. But perhaps it
originally stemmed from personal difficulties concerning
Mahapajapati, which were later taken to apply to the bhikkhunis as
a whole.
So isn’t it the case that the Buddha said
that if bhikkhunis were ordained, Buddhism would die out after 500
years?
This prophecy is part of the same legend,
and the text depicts the Buddha making this prophecy after
accepting Mahapajapati as a bhikkhuni. Obviously, it’s been a lot
more than 500 years since then, and Buddhism has not yet died out!
Either this statement was not spoken by the Buddha, or else he made
a serious mistake. But given that nowhere else does the Buddha
claim to be able to predict the future in this way, it seems
certain that this is not an authentic saying. Anyone who is
familiar with ancient mythic texts would know that, invariably,
prophecies are a disguised way of referring to their own time, and
only on the surface do they refer to the future.
Sometimes you might hear that
the Buddha predicted that the Bhikkhuni Sangha would die out after
500 years, and it is argued from this that the Buddha intended the
bhikkhunis to disappear. This is incorrect. The supposed prophecy
refers to Buddhism as a whole, not to the bhikkhunis, as anyone who
takes the time to read the text would know. In fact, it is now 2500
years, and neither the Bhikkhuni Sangha nor Buddhism look like
vanishing any time soon.
Didn’t the Buddha make all sorts of extra,
difficult rules for the nuns?
It is true that the list of rules for nuns
is longer that that for monks. But this is for many reasons. In
some cases, the monks actually have the same rules, but they are
just not included in the main list. In other cases, the number of
rules is simply multiplied due to repetition. In such cases the
practical effect of the rule is not changed. In other cases the
rules address specific feminine issues, such as ensuring menstrual
hygiene, or guaranteeing the safety of the nuns. But where there
are genuine differences between the sets of rules, there is no hard
and fast principle: in some cases the monks’rules are stricter, and
in some cases the nuns’ rules are stricter.
But the rules do subordinate the nuns to
the monks, don’t they?
No. The Vinaya does not allow for any
power-based relationship between the monks and nuns. In other
words, no monk, not even the entire community of monks, has the
right to order a bhikkhuni to do anything. In fact, there are many
rules that protect the nuns, for example, by forbidding the monks
to use nuns as domestic servants by having them wash or sew their
robes for them.
The Buddha set up the
relationships between the male and female Sangha based on mutual
respect under the Vinaya. Bhikkhunis are included within the
original ‘Dual Sangha’ as set up by the Buddha, and managed
according to the ‘Dual Vinaya’accepted among all schools. So, in
the relationships between the male and female Sanghas, Vinaya is
the guide. Each monk or nun must take the Dhamma & Vinaya as
the final authority, not the statements of any individual
monks.
There is a rule, however, that
requires that the bhikkhunis bow to the monks. This is a matter of
etiquette, not power. Many bhikkhunis sincerely respect this rule,
as it honours the Bhikkhu Sangha, which was originally the senior
community. However, the authenticity of this rule is doubted by
modern scholars. In any case, the Buddha stated that this rule was
laid down in accord with the customs of the time, so many people
believe this should not apply today.
Anyway, the bhikkhunis are forbidden from
teaching the bhikkhus, aren’t they?
No. This is a misunderstanding based on a
mistranslation of one of the special rules for bhikkhunis. In fact,
the rule forbids bhikkhunis from criticizing bhikkhus, which
probably refers to making accusations about Vinaya matters. As far
as teaching is concerned, there is no prohibition in Vinaya. How
could there be? The Buddha always encouraged us to learn Dhamma
whenever we can.
The bhikkhunis from the East Asian
countries are Mahayana, so how can they give ordination to
Theravada bhikkhunis? After all, a chicken can’t lay a duck
egg!
This is an ideological position based on a
series of misunderstandings. Ideas such as ‘Theravada’ and
‘Mahayana’ are not found in the Vinaya, they were invented by later
generations. The actual historical situation is as
follows.
Originally the Sangha lived as
one, following a unified code of conduct (Vinaya) as prescribed by
the Buddha. A few centuries after the Buddha’s Parinibbana, the
unified community broke up, forming the ‘18 schools’ of Early
Buddhism, one of which was the Theravada of Sri Lanka. (At this
time, Mahayana had not yet appeared.) Each school inherited the
original Vinaya and adapted it in minor details. But all Vinaya
scholars who have studied the matter, whether lay or monastic,
agree that the essential aspects of the Vinayas are
compatible.
All bhikkhus and bhikkhunis are
ordained under the ordination lineage and procedures of the Vinayas
of these early schools. The East Asian traditions owe their lineage
to the Dharmaguptaka school, while the Central Asian traditions
stem from the Mulasarvastivada. Hence from the Vinaya point of
view, there is no such thing as a ‘Mahayana’ bhikkhu or bhikkhuni.
‘Mahayana’ is a set of texts, doctrines, beliefs, and practices,
but it has never been an ordination lineage.
As we have seen, the ordination lineage of the bhikkhunis stems
from Sri Lanka, so it is a part of the same broad community as the
Theravada. When this lineage was introduced into China, the Vinaya
masters of China and Sri Lanka obviously decided that the
ordination procedures of the schools were compatible. Hence the
first Chinese bhikkhuni ordinations were conducted with Sri Lankan
bhikkhunis using Dharmaguptaka rites.
Bhikkhuni ordinations in modern
times simply reverse this ancient precedent: bhikkhunis from the
East Asian tradition, together with Theravada bhikkhus, perform the
ordination for women wishing to practice within the Theravada
tradition.
Bhikkhuni ordination is just a Western
feminist imposition on Buddhist culture!
As we have seen, bhikkhuni ordination is an
intrinsic part of all Buddhism since the beginning. This lapsed
during medieval times, as Buddhism slowly drifted away from its
roots. In modern times, due to advances in communication and
learning, those roots are being rediscovered and the value of the
original teachings is increasingly recognized.
Of course, Western education and ideas have played a positive role
in this process. But by far the strongest bhikkhuni movements are
in Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka. The Western Sangha, in
Theravada at least, lags far behind Asia in accepting
bhikkhunis.
And we must be careful how we use the word ‘feminist’. If we
understand feminism to mean a compassionate understanding of the
special kinds of suffering endured by women, and a positive effort
to redress such suffering, then the Buddha was the first
feminist!
If the case for bhikkhunis is as compelling
as you say, why do even great meditation masters oppose bhikkhuni
ordination?
This is a difficult question, one that I
have struggled with for years. I find a key to understanding in
some texts where the arahants are criticized by the Buddha. We read
of the Buddha admonishing, say, Venerable Sariputta, or Venerable
Moggallana, or other the great disciples, for their lack of
understanding in matters relating to the organization and
management of the Sangha, or its relations with the lay community.
It seems that, while they have full understanding as to their own
minds, even awakened beings can lack full insight into matters of
social dynamics.
The Buddhist Sangha forms its
own culture, with its own language, ideology, history, and forms.
All those who enter this culture are immersed in these values. Such
views, inherited in the early years of monastic life, will tend to
remain and no amount of meditation will change them, until there is
an active process of dialogue and questioning within the community.
The very fact that meditation prowess is revered so highly makes it
very difficult to challenge the opinions of the masters, even when
those opinions relate to matters other than meditation, such as the
history of ordination lineages.
This is not to say that
meditation is useless in this context. It is only that meditation
by itself cannot change our views. What it can do, however, is to
enable us to be more open and reflective around our views. We will
understand the conditioned and provisional nature of our opinions,
and be much more accepting of other perspectives.
But you have to admit that if there are
bhikkhunis in a monastery, there is a big danger that the passions
will be aroused?
This is usually not a problem, for we have
the Vinaya as our protection. This ensures that monks and nuns can
never enter into a situation of intimacy. Monks and nuns live in
separate monasteries, or else in the same monastery, but in
separate quarters.
Of course, no protection is
total, and it is inevitable that from time to time monks and nuns
will fall in love and disrobe. But this happens all the time
anyway. Monks fall in love with laywomen, nuns with laymen, monks
with laymen, nuns with laywomen, and all the other lurid
combinations best left unimagined. Experience shows that, in a
committed monastic environment, the proportion of monks who disrobe
to get together with a nun is minimal. In the very rare cases when
it happens, we should simply wish them the best, and hope they can
continue to thrive in the Dhamma.
To my mind, a far bigger
problem is that, when entirely separated from nuns, monks may not
learn to respect women as equal partners in the spiritual life.
Monks are able to relate to women as a mother: the wonderful donors
who bring food every day. We see women who are like a daughter: the
enthusiastic girls and young women who come to learn and meditate.
We treat women like a lover: the temptress, the danger to be feared
and guarded against. But never can we relate to women as a sister:
a friend as we grow together through life. I think this is very
sad, and is our great loss.
Actually I was convinced about how
wonderful the idea of bhikkhunis was as soon as I heard of their
existence. I only asked those questions to stir you
up!
Well, that’s good, I enjoy a good stirring.
But make sure you also stir up any monks who don’t support
bhikkhunis!
