Discrimination against women in Theravada Buddhism
The Tripitaka contains a decidedly negative attitude towards women. To soften the word “negative attitude”, Theravada scholars use the word “conflicting information” - referring thus to their own records of the Tipitaka as possessing “conflicting information”.
The following discussion examines the root cause of the mentioned “conflicting information” - and whether the negative attitude towards women originates from associating birth in this world as the start of sufferings (which should be avoided). Because of women’s natural function of motherhood, women’s desire for giving birth becomes equated with facilitating a life of suffering, an evil that should be avoided.
The most alarming matter in Tripitaka’s account on the subject is attributing to the Buddha statements that contradict the Buddha’s wisdom and compassion.
Before discussing Tripitaka’s conflicting information regarding women, one must ponder how could Theravada relate to people an astonishing story, which essence is disparaging to the Buddha himself. Theravada’s story of how the system of Bhikkhuni was formed is outrageously belitteling the Buddha.
1. Disparaging Shakyamuni Buddha
A prominent Theravada monk answered a question regarding discrimination against women and published it in the Buddhist Channel website: under the title: Was the Lord Buddha a sexiest? (by Mettanando Bhikkhu, Bangkok Post May 9, 2006)
The monk’s answer is the following:
“Like most religious texts handed down from antiquity,
the Tripitaka offers conflicting information regarding the status of women.
One of the key references that strongly discriminates against women
is the legend of the origin of the nuns (bhikkhuni),
in which the Buddha showed his strong disapproval of women’s ordination
as requested by Prajapati Gautami, his aunt and stepmother.
Ananda, the Buddha’s close attendant stepped in and negotiated on her behalf.
As a result, the Buddha laid down a set of special rules,
or the so-called Eight Heavy Duties (Garudhammas)
that established the conditions for women’s ordination,
and nuns were required to strictly adhere to them for the rest of their lives”.
Source: Was the Lord Buddha a sexist* https://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=70,2666,0,0,1,0*
According to this and similar sources, Theravada scholars circulate a story based on the implication that - essentially - the Buddha did not want ordination of women.
Most astonishingly, the mentioned story reveals that the Buddha, the World Honoured One of supreme enlightenment, was essentially not awakened to the importance of women’s ordination and was unwilling to include women in the Buddhist Order.
Inclusion of women as nuns was not the initiative of the Buddha, we are informed, nor it occurred to his mind of enlightenment as anything important or necessary, but it was suggested to him by a young disciple, Ananda.
Ananda, we are informed, “persuaded the Buddha” to change his mind about women - and succeeded in convincing the reluctant Buddha to allow for ordination of women.
And to make the story worse, Ananda himself acted as a solicitor for Prajapati Gautami, the Buddha’s aunt and stepmother. Another implication is that the Buddha’s aunt feared rejection and had no courage to ask the Buddha by herself.
Various sources repeat a similar account of the Buddha’s initial unwillingness to consider ordination of women – and to be “persuaded” later by Ananda, as this account published on Tricycle magazine informs:
“Women’s ordination is one of the most widely debated issues
in Buddhist communities today. According to tradition, the Buddha
initially refused to ordain women, but his stepmother, Mahapajapati
and his disciple Ananda persuaded him to.
The Buddha eventually established a “fourfold sangha,”
or community of monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen,
with monks and nuns progressing from novice
to full ordination as bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, respectively”.
Source: Tricycle org. https://tricycle.org/beginners/buddhism/buddhist-nuns-ordination/
In this presentation too, Theravada scholars inform us that only after the intervention of a man, his disciple Ananda - the Buddha reluctantly agreed to consider the subject and to make a “concession”.
We are informed by this unreasonable story that a “negotiation” occurred, , after which “the Buddha laid down a set of special rules, or the so-called Eight Heavy Duties (Garudhammas) that established the conditions for women’s ordination, and nuns were required to strictly adhere to them for the rest of their lives”.
2. Did the Buddha set the “rules” for women?
In the account published in the Buddhist Channel website we are informed that a “negotiation” occurred after which “the Buddha laid down a set of special rules or so-called Eight Heavy Duties (Garudhammas) that established conditions for women’s ordination, and nuns were required to strictly adhere to them for the rest of their lives”.
Some sources express doubts that the Eight Heavy Duties were imposed by the Buddha himself. Some scholars theorise that they were ‘perhaps included by elder monks’:
“However, additional rules known as the eight garudhammas (“heavy rules”)
were imposed on nuns, which kept them subordinate to monks.
It’s worth noting that some scholars argue the garudhammas were a later addition that had nothing to do with the Buddha.
Some theorize that these rules were instituted to placate the laity by giving nuns lower status, mirroring the position of women in ancient Indian society”.
Source: Tricycle org. https://tricycle.org/beginners/buddhism/buddhist-nuns-ordination/
But finally, either the garudhammas restrictions on women were originated by the Buddha or they were not originated by the Buddha. . If they were not, then why does the Tripitaka include what was originally not taught by the Buddha?
3. The irony of questioning Mahayana for “originality” of its teachings
Conflicting information contained in the Tripitaka weakens belief in the reliability of the Theravada teachings. It is an irony that Theravada scholars claim that Mahayana sutras are “unreliable” or were “not taught by the Buddha”, while various references in the Tripitaka admit to having “conflicting” contents – and some scholars tend to openly disassociate the Buddha from their conflicting - or rather unreasonable - contents.
For example, examine how making an excuse for allowing for inferiority of Bhikkhunis (compared with Bhikkhus) brings Theravada claims to absurdity of blaming society.
Making an excuse for their unreliable or conflicting teachings, a claim is suggested that the Buddha was influenced by his “discriminative society”, which considered women of a lower status (and for that reason the Buddha “mirrored the position of women in ancient Indian society”).
But the Buddha was most revolutionary and unbending in his teaching. He was fearless in attitude, most aware of how to teach others, and most awakened in mind, a mind which is not influenced by lower thoughts of society.
The Buddha was not influenced by his society’s “class system” or people’s belief in “permanent soul”. Mahayana teaches that the most revolutionary teaching of “Buddha-nature in all living beings” – was the Buddha’s own teaching and that Buddha-nature had no “mirror reflection” in that discriminative society. To justify the Buddha’s “acceptance of discrimination against women” as he was “influenced” by society – is further demeaning the Buddha by Theravada scholars.
4. The discriminatory essence of the Eight Heavy Duties
The Eight Heavy Duties apply only to nuns, not to monks: Source: Buddhist Channel
“1. A nun, even if she has been ordained for 100 years, must respect, greet and bow in reverence to the feet of a monk, even if he has just been ordained that day. (Monks pay respect to each other according to their seniority, or the number of years they have been ordained.)
2. A nun is not to stay in a residence where there is no monk. (A monk may take an independent residence.)
3. A nun is to look forward to two duties: asking for the fortnightly Uposatha (meeting day) and receiving instructions by a monk every fortnight. (Monks do not depend on nuns for this obligatory rite, nor are they required to receive any instruction.)
4. A nun who has completed her rains-retreat must offer herself for instruction to both the community of monks and to the community of nuns, based on what is seen, what is heard and what is doubted. (Monks only offer themselves to the community of monks.)
5. A nun who is put on probation for violating a monastic rule of Sanghadisesa must serve a 15-day minimum probation, with reinstatement requiring approval from both the monk and nun communities. (The minimum for monks is a five-day probation with no approval by the nuns required for reinstatement.)
6. A woman must be ordained by both monks and nuns and may be ordained only after a two-year postulancy, or training in six precepts. (Men have no mandatory postulancy and their ordination is performed by monks only.)
7. A nun may not reprimand a monk. (A monk may reprimand a monk, and any monk may reprimand a nun.)
8. From today onwards, no nun shall ever teach a monk. However, monks may teach nuns. (There are no restrictions on whom a monk may teach.)
……………………………………………………………………..
Each of the mentioned rules conveyed by Theravada’s story is based on considering women as spiritually inferior beings. Mahayana teachings, based on the doctrine of “Buddha-nature” disputes that Siddhartha Gautama Buddha would not have considered his mother, aunt, or any woman as inferior being.
The eighth of the Eight Heavy Duties states that a nun should never teach a monk. But Buddhism is about teaching the truth of reality of life: Impermanence, Interconnectedness, Dependent Origination, Cause and Effect, etc… Since childhood, each of the monks was taught by his mother - let alone by educated nuns - about the truth of his “dependent origination”, and was taught about what causes of actions should he make for the effect of ensuring his security and growing up, as a human being.
To set rules of “spiritual inferiority” of nuns, not to mention lay mothers who taught and protected their children, fed them and cleaned after them - is an utmost ungrateful attitude.
5. Tripitaka records containing insulting speech
According to sources discussing Tripitaka misogyny-attitude, reference is made in particular to the following statements:
“In one conversation, the Buddha states, “Of all the scents that can enslave, none is more lethal than that of a woman.
Of all the tastes that can enslave, none is more lethal than that of a woman.
Of all the voices that can enslave, none is more lethal than that of a woman.
Of all the caresses that can enslave, none is more lethal than that of a woman.”
And:
“… the Buddha [said] : “It is better for you to have put your manhood
in the mouth of a venomous snake or a pit of burning charcoal than a woman.”
Source: Quartz, India: There is misogny aspect of Buddhism that nobody talks about
Did the Buddha say the above-mentioned insulting statements about women? If he did, Theravada is again portraying the Buddha as a two-faced person (as he had women disciples and he would not have spoken the mentioned above statement in their face, but only behind their back).
Theravada scholars maintain that Mahayana teaching of “Buddha nature among all human beings” - men and women alike - was not taught by the Buddha. The rejection of such a teaching of spiritual equality among people only suits the discriminatory nature of Theravada - claiming reliability of Tripitaka about what the Buddha stated, while indeed many of what the Tripitaka contains was fabricated by monks.
6. The Psychology of Aversion to Life
Following its misunderstanding that “All life is suffering” - Theravada implies a nihilistic conclusion that if there is no life, then there is no suffering.
Birth, according to Theravada sources, becomes accused as being the origin of the journey of misery and all evil sufferings to follow:
Birth is suffering because it is due to the birth itself that one is predisposed to all other experiences of suffering during one’s lifetime"
Regarding “Birth” as the cause of all evil sufferings to come after birth - this explains the psychological aversion to life, manifested in;
- aversion to be reborn again
- seeking permanent death of the Arahant, and - of course -
- aversion to women who are the carriers, the agents, of giving birth.
If Birth leads to suffering, and suffering is evil, then a re-birth should be avoided. Being already born, then one has to aspire for NoRebirth in this world, and to do so one has to strictly avoid women, whose natural function dicates their instinct for motherhood.
The Buddha never taught aversion to life.
Mahayana Buddhism perceives the journey between birth and death as a journey of learning, experiencing all aspects of life, helping each other overcome hardships and aspiring to a future continuity of one’s karmic tendency for the state of enlightenment, wisdom, compassion and creativity.
Conclusion:
Birth into this world is considered by Theravada teachings as the start of a journey of suffering. In this mindset women become agents of bringing suffering to the world. The natural function of motherhood does not fit within Theravada’s teaching of the necessity of avoiding birth in this world, being the goal of Arahant.
Regarding women as having inferior spiritual capacity is expressed in the monastery rules, which monks imposed on nuns, claiming that discrimination was initiated by the Buddha himself.
Theravada’s account on the Buddha’s agreement to ordain women only after being persuated by a young male disciple - contradicts the essence of the Buddha’s capacity for wisdom and compassion, a story that cannot be taken as true. The reliability of the Tripitaka’s account is weakened through including statements that the Buddha couls not have spoken about his women disciples and relatives.
The true intent of the Buddha is enabling all people to equally attain freedom from suffering - which is perfectly expressed through Mahayana doctrine of the Buddha-nature, inherently existing in all people.
________________________________________