Anachronisms in Vinaya & whether a fresh start is due

[suttametta]

Are you saying that the perennial inferiority of the bhikkhuni sangha is just a cultural accretion?

Basically, in my opinion, that's correct.

And then you've also alluded that some of these vinaya rules are add-ins, and Buddha never made them?

[suttametta]

I agree with that. Still no reason to make women bow to men. That inflames a man's predisposition to pride. It should be the other way around.

And then women's predisposition to pride would be inflamed.
So how does that solve anything?


And it's not like anyone is _made_ to bow to anyone. If one wishs to be part of a particular group, then one has to play by the group's rules. Otherwise, why seek to be part of a group to begin with?

No. I'm not tening that at all. I'm tening that modern attitudes are new, and old one's aren't "ideal" or "universal". I'm tening no universal. I know for a fact that folks in my city, San Francisco, are put off by traditional asian culture, and see it as sexist and anti-gay. There have been yelling over it... So I know it's an issue for people who would like to be included but find the old-world ways, just outmoded and offensive.

Why do they want to be included in something they find "just outmoded and offensive"??

Because they want to be a part of something true. And in this world, Buddhism is the best we have.

[dhammafriend]

Reading the vinaya and Buddha's strong exhortations to his aunt, in particular, lead me to think, the Buddha was working off of very anachronistic value that no longer translate...

Suttametta, virtually all of the people who've posted here on on your side and would like to see things change regarding patriarchy and discrimination against LGBT members of the community. I ask you respectfully to take a step back and reflect on the responses here. Can we move this to a more positive discussion perhaps? if we claim to be Buddhists and yet disrespect the Triple Gem, nothing good will come of it.

Positive changes will come when we enter respectfully into those communities we'd like to see change in and develop a genuine empathy and affinity for that culture. Based on that we can then find the real cultural sticking points that need to be addressed. This could take a generation or two. Being antagonistic only makes thing worse.

Have you heard of Sakyadhitta? Do you know that women in SEAsia have for centuries now searched for ordination opportunities beyond their restrictive cultures and even achieved them? All of this independent of Western culture or influence?

please have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhammananda_Bhikkhuni

http://www.congress-on-buddhist-women.org/59.0.html

Dhammafriend

[suttametta]

I take it back. A layperson with attainments has no business bowing to a child monk with no attainments. A layperson does have the basis for nibbana as much so as does a monk.

[daverupa]

And then you've also alluded that some of these vinaya rules are add-ins, and Buddha never made them?

Most Vinaya is like this, recording events long after the Buddha's teaching career. But things are complex in that a local sangha can institute local rules for whoever shares the Rains together, iirc, which would be Vinaya that wasn't explicitly laid down by the Buddha but which was laid down according to a process that the Buddha did lay down.

This is one way that the Vinaya can be used in the modern day. The Patimokkha is the core that's basically the same throughout its versions (a good sign), with some differences in the training rules (which don't even have penalties) and a few other line-items. These, incidentally, are the sorts of things that local rules can ultimately adjudicate, i.e. issues of deportment, local custom, etc.

The rest of the Vinaya, as always, is a work in progress based on the shifting sands of the surrounding cultural milieux. It's a living document with a strong root, so while I don't think it's meant to ossify ca. 300 BCE standards of living I also don't think it's in the way - in terms of what the Patimokkha is asking of its monastics and the behavioral realm thereby indicated - when considering how monastics can best negotiate the modern world.

The trick is partly in strongly maintaining Patimokkha and partly in not insisting on one's local customs in faraway places, I think. As I recall, Ajahn Brahm was basically 'excommunicated' from a local custom, since there was no actual Vinaya infraction, so it's possible to see this dichotomy if one looks for it.

(For example, after seeing this dichotomy, a laypreson with attainments might choose to bow to the robes as a symbol of the Triple Gem or the Noble Sangha, and not necessarily to the putthujjana wearing the robes - though they might do that too, in order to respect the decision that's been made, etc. So things can be very multifaceted.)

[suttametta]

Reading the vinaya and Buddha's strong exhortations to his aunt, in particular, lead me to think, the Buddha was working off of very anachronistic value that no longer translate...

Suttametta, virtually all of the people who've posted here on on your side and would like to see things change regarding patriarchy and discrimination against LGBT members of the community. I ask you respectfully to take a step back and reflect on the responses here. Can we move this to a more positive discussion perhaps? if we claim to be Buddhists and yet disrespect the Triple Gem, nothing good will come of it.

Positive changes will come when we enter respectfully into those communities we'd like to see change in and develop a genuine empathy and affinity for that culture. Based on that we can then find the real cultural sticking points that need to be addressed. This could take a generation or two. Being antagonistic only makes thing worse.

Have you heard of Sakyadhitta? Do you know that women in SEAsia have for centuries now searched for ordination opportunities beyond their restrictive cultures and even achieved them? All of this independent of Western culture or influence?

please have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhammananda_Bhikkhuni

http://www.congress-on-buddhist-women.org/59.0.html

Dhammafriend

Thank you. I will research this too. Everything that's being told to me here is helping and I appreciate it. I'm don't know any of the things you all are citing. So I love to learn it. Being a first generation American, raised in the Indian and American cultures, I am not Euro-phile. But I am primarily concerned with my own country, the United States, and particularly the culture of my region, Northern California and the Pacific Northwest. I am dealing with our own unique cultural situation that I don't see the Asian monks helping with. We are Westernized folks partially of Asian descent and being indoctrinated by Asian monks in Asian culture doesn't work. Furthermore, many of us were educated in Catholic schools, and are influenced by such ethic, even though no one believes in Jesus. That's what I'm working with. We are Western culture, but it is a very different sort of Western culture than you will see in New York or England. We are the epicenter of all cultural innovations and so if Buddhism is going to help here, it had better innovate, even if that means a back to the original ethos. Furthermore, I have studied in depth with many masters of many traditions and am having a hard time sorting out what part of Buddha's teaching was really said by a guy called Gotam. It's a rabbit hole. I'm doing my best to identify the most genuine things. That's my aspiration. I don't want to create something in my image. I don't have an image. I'm just a chimera and an outcaste mostly. All I strive for is something genuine and true. The first and foremost thing I respect is critical analysis. I'm heavily influenced by my philosophy degree and my professors. I'm deeply indebted to Karl Popper, Carnap and others. I feel Buddha was the forerunner of these. Statements must be tested. The Kalama Sutta is the earliest "come and test" I read. It's a big axe to cut threw all the superstition, which I hate. I don't have time to be sensitive to people's cultural baggage. I have never cared about that. I'm the same way with my Indian family, my Christian family and all the Chinese around here. The way I see it, being an outcaste with a strong predilection for reason, I have no culture to offend. If you have a point, make it. Back it up. If you are wrong, admit it. I will. The main problem here on the West Coast is spiritual starvation and all the food is polluted. People just fall back on YOLO (you only live once), that's seriously bad for us... I'm working off the Buddha's command that we put the dhamma into plain language of the people... this is no easy task, given the amount of meddling the monks have done to Buddha's words...

[suttametta]

(For example, after seeing this dichotomy, a laypreson with attainments might choose to bow to the robes as a symbol of the Triple Gem or the Noble Sangha, and not necessarily to the putthujjana wearing the robes - though they might do that too, in order to respect the decision that's been made, etc. So things can be very multifaceted.)

I agree with what you say, by and large, but this sort of pharisee-like rationalization is what I think plagues all Buddhism, all the "yanas" get into this and I find it to be BS. Keep it simple and clear otherwise it cannot be differentiated from a sham.

[suttametta]

One of the most valuable things I read was that "vinaya" didn't necessarily mean the list of rules, but one's own discipline and restraint. One can follow rules and it can harm; one can break rules and it can help. Avoid harm, benefit others... these exhortations alone should be sufficient...

[culaavuso]

(For example, after seeing this dichotomy, a laypreson with attainments might choose to bow to the robes as a symbol of the Triple Gem or the Noble Sangha, and not necessarily to the putthujjana wearing the robes - though they might do that too, in order to respect the decision that's been made, etc. So things can be very multifaceted.)

There can be value in a lay person bowing to monks regardless of whether the lay person or the monk has any attainments along the path. One reason, as mentioned, is to cultivate a feeling of respect within the mind of the person bowing. Another reason is that many lay people have a strong sense of pride or independence that can feel wounded or offended by having to bow to someone else, and direct experience of those mental activities arising after bowing to another person can provide insight into the harmfulness of pride and arrogance and the value of humility. Through cultivating humility, it is possible to cultivate greater contentment with a large variety of situations in life.

Through the practice it is possible to reach a deeper understanding of what harms oneself and others and what is of benefit to oneself and others. Part of being subject to delusion is that it's easy to misunderstand what is harmful and what is beneficial, and this seems to result in many unskillful actions that can be seen in the world today. Many people, wishing for happiness, make unskillful and deluded choices that lead themselves to states of unhappiness.

[binocular]

And who place his faith in Tathagata, place his faith in the best, and result of it will be the best. And what about these who will go to the lower worlds becouse of their object of saddha? They are wrong, are not they?

But how can one know that one is in fact placing one's faith in the Tathagata, and not in one's fanciful image of the Tathagata?
How can a person know whether they have the proper understanding of the Tathagata or not? It's not like one can talk to the Tathagata and request feedback from him as to whether one has understood him as he intended to be understood.

[binocular]

(For example, after seeing this dichotomy, a laypreson with attainments might choose to bow to the robes as a symbol of the Triple Gem or the Noble Sangha, and not necessarily to the putthujjana wearing the robes - though they might do that too, in order to respect the decision that's been made, etc. So things can be very multifaceted.)

I agree with what you say, by and large, but this sort of pharisee-like rationalization is what I think plagues all Buddhism, all the "yanas" get into this and I find it to be BS. Keep it simple and clear otherwise it cannot be differentiated from a sham.

This reference was already quoted earlier, but I refer to other passages -

/.../
As for confrontational reforms introduced from the bottom up, these have never been sanctioned by the tradition, and Theravadin history has no record of their ever succeeding. The only such reform mentioned in the Canon was Devadatta's attempted schism, introduced as a reform to tighten up the disciplinary rules. The Canon treats his attempt in such strongly negative terms that its memory is still very much alive in the Theravada mind set, making the vast majority of Buddhists reluctant to take up with confrontational reforms no matter how reasonable they might seem. And with good reason: Anyone who has to fight to have his/her ideas accepted inevitably loses touch with the qualities of dispassion, self-effacement, unentanglement with others, contentment with little, and seclusion — qualities the Buddha set forth as the litmus test for gauging whether or not a proposed course of action, and the person proposing it, were in accordance with the Dhamma.

In addition, there have been striking instances where people have proposed religious reforms as a camouflage for their political ambitions, leaving their followers in a lurch when their ambitions are thwarted. And even in cases where a confrontational reformer seems basically altruistic at heart, he or she tends to play up the social benefits to be gained from the proposed reform in the effort to win support, thus compromising the relationship of the reform to true practice. Experiences with cases such as this have tended to make Theravadin Buddhists in general leery of confrontational reforms.

Thus, given the limited opportunities for institutional reform, the only course left open to those few men and women prepared to break the bonds of mainstream Buddhism in their determination to practice is to follow the example of the Buddha himself by engaging in what might be called personal or independent reform: to reject the general values of society, go off on their own, put up with society's disapproval and the hardships of living on the frontier, and search for whatever reliable meditation teachers may be living and practicing outside of the mainstream. If no such teachers exist, individuals intent on practice must strike out on their own, adhering as closely as they can to the teachings in the texts — to keep themselves from being led astray by their own defilements — and taking refuge in the example of the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha in a radical way.
/.../
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai ... namic.html

EDIT: emphases mine

[binocular]

Why do they want to be included in something they find "just outmoded and offensive"??

i guess its similar to the restaraunt with the best food in town having a dress code one doesn't agree with

The restaurant is under no obligation to serve food to just anyone who requests it, no matter how much the person might want it or be willing to pay for it in money.

- - -

Because they want to be a part of something true. And in this world, Buddhism is the best we have.

How do they know it is true, if they already think that the community who practices it, is "just outmoded and offensive"?

Thank you for this reference. I was not aware of it. I'm an looking in to it now. I'm not one for useless prattle. I'm here to solve my problems and I will act according to what I find.

If you're here to solve your problems, what has convinced you that this can be done here or that it is worth trying to do so here?

[Boris]

And who place his faith in Tathagata, place his faith in the best, and result of it will be the best. And what about these who will go to the lower worlds becouse of their object of saddha? They are wrong, are not they?

But how can one know that one is in fact placing one's faith in the Tathagata, and not in one's fanciful image of the Tathagata?
How can a person know whether they have the proper understanding of the Tathagata or not? It's not like one can talk to the Tathagata and request feedback from him as to whether one has understood him as he intended to be understood.

You shift discussion to different problem. Not being sotapanna, you can be sure you don't understand Tathagata. So what? Exactly because of this base on Tathagata words, you make efford to understand Tathagata. And this is your saddha.

But here, we discuss the case, where you contradict words of Tathagata and suggest, that he is mistaken. And as I said - this is lack of saddha.

[binocular]

You shift discussion to different problem. Not being sotapanna, you can be sure you don't understand Tathagata. So what? Exactly because of this base on Tathagata words, you make efford to understand Tathagata. And this is your saddha.

But here, we discuss the case, where you contradict words of Tathagata and suggest, that he is mistaken. And as I said - this is lack of saddha.

Whom are you talking to?
Certainly not me.

[Boris]

Sorry, I used word "you" just as an example of two kinds attitude in order to answer your question. So I talk to you but I do not suggest that you contradict words of Tathagata. It was only an ilustration. Sorry once again