"The influence of Bhramanic culture on gender aspects in Buddhism."

The following narrative continues the story of a Mexican meditator who has been in Burma for many years. This is the 12th entry, with her story starting here.

"In order to understand more the social conventions, I decided to investigate the status of women in the Vedas. Bhramanism was one important religion at the time of the Buddha and the social beliefs of Bhramans were very strong So I believe is important to understand the Bhraman culture to related to Buddhism because they have many aspects in common.

According to Subhamoy Das (2010) “Women of the Vedic period (circa 1500-1200 BCE), were epitomes of intellectual and spiritual attainments. The Vedas have volumes to say about these women, who both complemented and supplemented their male partners. When it comes to talking about significant female figures of the Vedic period, four names - Ghosha, Lopamudra, Sulabha Maitreyi, and Gargi - come to mind.”

It is also mention that:

“During the Vedic age, more than 3,000 years ago, women were assigned a high place in society. They shared an equal standing with their men folk and enjoyed a kind of liberty that actually had societal sanctions. The ancient Hindu philosophical concept of 'shakti', the feminine principle of energy, was also a product of this age. This took the form of worship of the female idols or goddesses. […] The feminine forms of the Absolute and the popular Hindu goddesses are believed to have taken shape in the Vedic era. These female forms came to represent different feminine qualities and energies of the Brahman. Goddess Kaliportrays the destructive energy, Durga the protective,Lakshmi the nourishing, and Saraswati the creative.

Here it's notable that Hinduism recognizes both the masculine and feminine attributes of the Divine, and that without honoring the feminine aspects, one cannot claim to know God in his entirety. So we also have many male-female divine-duos like Radha-Krishna, Sita-Rama, Uma-Mahesh, and Lakshmi-Narayan, where the female form is usually addressed first.” (Subhamoy Das p.1)



It is also mention that Indian people consider that the Vedas have the true regarding the sold, the universe and the ultimate reality. This ties are reveal form time to time to the heart of men and women who’s heart is pure by the practice of meditation. This sols or people are call rishis o seers of the true. The wisdom of the seers is not exclusively of men, women, a particular faith or time, country or sex. The seers are men and women, religious people and housewife and also people that did not belong to the brahnines cast. However, many of the vedas were lost.”

Then, 500 years BC The Law of Manu appear in the Hindu tradition with many conservative rules for women. It may be the case that those conservative rules have a lot of momentum when the Buddha arise and even the Buddha was a radical revolutionary in changing this behaviours. When he died old patters came again in the mind of monks. Two of the many Laws of Manu are significant for understanding the behaviour of women in religious affairs before Buddha.

“ 20. “Na ast strinam………..” – 5/158. Women have no divine right to perform any religious ritual, nor make vows or observe a fast. Her only duty is to obey and please her husband and she will for that reason alone be exalted in heaven.[…]

33. “Na asti strinam………” – 9/18. While performing namkarm and jatkarm, Vedic mantras are not to be recited by women, because women are lacking in strength and knowledge of Vedic texts. Women are impure and represent falsehood.” ( PATWARI, 2011 p. 3-4)

The rest of the Laws of Manu regarding women are as follow:



“ 1. “Swabhav ev narinam …..” – 2/213. It is the nature of women to seduce men in this world; for that reason the wise are never unguarded in the company of females.

2. “Avidvam samlam………..” – 2/214. Women, true to their class character, are capable of leading astray men in this world, not only a fool but even a learned and wise man. Both become slaves of desire.

3. “Matra swastra ………..” – 2/215. Wise people should avoid sitting alone with one’s mother, daughter or sister. Since carnal desire is always strong, it can lead to temptation.

4. “Naudwahay……………..” – 3/8. One should not marry women who has have reddish hair, redundant parts of the body [such as six fingers], one who is often sick, one without hair or having excessive hair and one who has red eyes.

5. “Nraksh vraksh ………..” – 3/9. One should not marry women whose names are similar to constellations, trees, rivers, those from a low caste, mountains, birds, snakes, slaves or those whose names inspires terror.

6. “Yasto na bhavet ….. …..” – 3/10. Wise men should not marry women who do not have a brother and whose parents are not socially well known.

7. “Uchayangh…………….” – 3/11. Wise men should marry only women who are free from bodily defects, with beautiful names, grace/gait like an elephant, moderate hair on the head and body, soft limbs and small teeth.

8. “Shudr-aiv bharya………” – 3/12.Brahman men can marry Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaish and even Shudra women but Shudra men can marry only Shudra women.

9. “Na Brahman kshatriya..” – 3/14. Although Brahman, Kshatriya and Vaish men have been allowed inter-caste marriages, even in distress they should not marry Shudra women.

10. “Heenjati striyam……..” – 3/15. When twice born [dwij=Brahman, Kshatriya and Vaish] men in their folly marry low caste Shudra women, they are responsible for the degradation of their whole family. Accordingly, their children adopt all the demerits of the Shudra caste.

11. “Shudram shaynam……” – 3/17. A Brahman who marries a Shudra woman, degrades himself and his whole family ,becomes morally degenerated , loses Brahman status and his children too attain status of shudra.

12. “Daiv pitrya………………” – 3/18. The offerings made by such a person at the time of established rituals are neither accepted by God nor by the departed soul; guests also refuse to have meals with him and he is bound to go to hell after death.

13. “Chandalash ……………” – 3/240. Food offered and served to Brahman after Shradh ritual should not be seen by a chandal, a pig, a cock,a dog, and a menstruating women.

14. “Na ashniyat…………….” – 4/43. A Brahman, true defender of his class, should not have his meals in the company of his wife and even avoid looking at her. Furthermore, he should not look towards her when she is having her meals or when she sneezes/yawns.

15. “Na ajyanti……………….” – 4/44. A Brahman in order to preserve his energy and intellect, must not look at women who applies collyrium to her eyes, one who is massaging her nude body or one who is delivering a child.

16. “Mrshyanti…………….” – 4/217. One should not accept meals from a woman who has extra marital relations; nor from a family exclusively dominated/managed by women or a family whose 10 days of impurity because of death have not passed.

17. “Balya va………………….” – 5/150. A female child, young woman or old woman is not supposed to work independently even at her place of residence.

18. “Balye pitorvashay…….” – 5/151. Girls are supposed to be in the custody of their father when they are children, women must be under the custody of their husband when married and under the custody of her son as widows. In no circumstances is she allowed to assert herself independently.

19. “Asheela kamvrto………” – 5/157. Men may be lacking virtue, be sexual perverts, immoral and devoid of any good qualities, and yet women must constantly worship and serve their husbands.

20. “Na ast strinam………..” – 5/158. Women have no divine right to perform any religious ritual, nor make vows or observe a fast. Her only duty is to obey and please her husband and she will for that reason alone be exalted in heaven.

21. “Kamam to………………” – 5/160. At her pleasure [after the death of her husband], let her emaciate her body by living only on pure flowers, roots of vegetables and fruits. She must not even mention the name of any other men after her husband has died.

22. “Vyabhacharay…………” – 5/167. Any women violating duty and code of conduct towards her husband, is disgraced and becomes a patient of leprosy. After death, she enters womb of Jackal.

23. “Kanyam bhajanti……..” – 8/364. In case women enjoy sex with a man from a higher caste, the act is not punishable. But on the contrary, if women enjoy sex with lower caste men, she is to be punished and kept in isolation.

24. “Utmam sevmansto…….” – 8/365. In case a man from a lower caste enjoys sex with a woman from a higher caste, the person in question is to be awarded the death sentence. And if a person satisfies his carnal desire with women of his own caste, he should be asked to pay compensation to the women’s faith.

25. “Ya to kanya…………….” – 8/369. In case a woman tears the membrane [hymen] of her Vagina, she shall instantly have her head shaved or two fingers cut off and made to ride on Donkey.

26. “Bhartaram…………….” – 8/370. In case a women, proud of the greatness of her excellence or her relatives, violates her duty towards her husband, the King shall arrange to have her thrown before dogs at a public place.

27. “Pita rakhshati……….” – 9/3. Since women are not capable of living independently, she is to be kept under the custody of her father as child, under her husband as a woman and under her son as widow.

28. “Imam hi sarw………..” – 9/6. It is the duty of all husbands to exert total control over their wives. Even physically weak husbands must strive to control their wives.

29. “Pati bharyam ……….” – 9/8. The husband, after the conception of his wife, becomes the embryo and is born again of her. This explains why women are called Jaya.

30. “Panam durjan………” – 9/13. Consuming liquor, association with wicked persons, separation from her husband, rambling around, sleeping for unreasonable hours and dwelling -are six demerits of women.

31. “Naita rupam……………” – 9/14. Such women are not loyal and have extra marital relations with men without consideration for their age.

32. “Poonshchalya…………” – 9/15. Because of their passion for men, immutable temper and natural heartlessness, they are not loyal to their husbands.

33. “Na asti strinam………” – 9/18. While performing namkarm and jatkarm, Vedic mantras are not to be recited by women, because women are lacking in strength and knowledge of Vedic texts. Women are impure and represent falsehood.

34. “Devra…sapinda………” – 9/58. On failure to produce offspring with her husband, she may obtain offspring by cohabitation with her brother-in-law [devar] or with some other relative [sapinda] on her in-law’s side.

35. “Vidwayam…………….” – 9/60. He who is appointed to cohabit with a widow shall approach her at night, be anointed with clarified butter and silently beget one son, but by no means a second one.

36. “Yatha vidy……………..” – 9/70. In accordance with established law, the sister-in-law [bhabhi] must be clad in white garments; with pure intent her brother-in-law [devar] will cohabitate with her until she conceives.

37. “Ati kramay……………” – 9/77. Any women who disobey orders of her lethargic, alcoholic and diseased husband shall be deserted for three months and be deprived of her ornaments.

38. “Vandyashtamay…….” – 9/80. A barren wife may be superseded in the 8th year; she whose children die may be superseded in the 10th year and she who bears only daughters may be superseded in the 11th year; but she who is quarrelsome may be superseded without delay.



39. “Trinsha……………….” – 9/93. In case of any problem in performing religious rites, males between the age of 24 and 30 should marry a female between the age of 8 and 12.

40. “Yambrahmansto…….” – 9/177. In case a Brahman man marries Shudra woman, their son will be called ‘Parshav’ or ‘Shudra’ because his social existence is like a dead body.” (HIRDAY N. PATWARI , 2011)

But why did these rules came to India? Especially if the Vedas were so welcoming to men and women towards the religion? Wendy Doniguer mention that it may be because disputes and wars between systems of power. During this time the Maurya Emperor was disappearing and the Shunga Emperor were arising. The Maurya Emperor was known for fomented tolerance and religious freedom. When this Maurya Emperor started to decay, India had a lot of uncertainty and that helps to develop ultraconservatives power of systems.

This ultraconservative environment helps to develop the Laws of Manu. Stephen Knapp suggests that foreign invasions helped to change the status of women in the Vedas. These foreign invasions developed a new system of oppression towards women, the spiritual level or standard went down as well as important values like respect to them. This system created by this invasions, according to Knapp, develops a new social system of hierarchies and social division.

Knapp also mention that the spirit of renunciation and non-attachment under the materialism point of view gained more power in the new social system. In this new system, the view of women change from pure and divine to be seen as an object to posses, private property. The Laws of Manu are mainly laws that see women as an object of possession of men, giving them no freedom and no independence.

But the interesting question is: Why do these values affect so strongly Buddhism? If the Vedas had many years before the Laws of Manu a system of respect towards men and women, why it have so much power when the Buddha arises? My personal believe is that those believe of Manu were added into Indian culture by a lot of violence. There were introduced by force in a war. The main idea of a war is getting resources from another culture or group of people. It is taking others people property or belongings. To justify this action, the original people need to be seen as lower as the people that is making the invasion. Most of the time is a divine justification where they mention a source that it cannot be proof, like a God, that only refers to the people that invade and give them reason or justification for taking what it does not belong to them.

One way to lower the status of local or indigenous people is by making them less human and as objects. This happened with Africans when they were invaded by Europeans. The justification to treat them as slaves is that God did not give them a soul, therefore they were similar than animals and only humans, according to the Christian belief in the 18th century. It also happened when Spanish arrived in Mexico. They saw indigenous people as children, so that was the justification why missionaries to come to convert local people in Mexico to Christians so they could be treat as humans. Even though indigenous people in Mexico did not want to become Christian and did not like the Spanish. This is a pattern in history and unfortunately the people that suffer the most in wars are women because military people are trained to have anger and sometimes they allow lust to happen as well.

So this is the nature of war. It has happened many times in many other countries. Because wars are based on violence, the new ideas that are introduced because of the wars are very radical. The old fashion system needs to be seen as poor and insufficient. If women were seen as part of the Vedic culture before the invasions, the seen them as objects, which is what happen when a war happen, will change the system of organization and belief that allow the new system to operated. Perhaps these ideas had a lot of momentum and they stopped when the Buddha appeared and started again after he died. Even though they are against of the teaching of the Buddha.

It is written in the sutta of the first council:

“Kassapa again interrogated Ānanda: ‘Three times you begged the Buddha to allow the going forth for women in the saddhamma. This is a wrong-doing. You should see your fault and confess.’

Ānanda said: ‘Venerable sir; It was not out of disrespecting the Dhamma. But Mahāpajāpati Gotamī raised the Blessed One until he was grown up and could go forth and achieve the great path. Because of this merit should fruit, I asked three times. So I don’t see it as a fault. But out of faith in the Venerable I confess.’” (Sujato & Samacitta)

According to Sujato, there is no Sutta mentioned Bhikkhus complaining about womens been ordain when Buddha was a live. It happen after he died that this complains start to flourish again. Lets remember the rule number of the Laws of Manu:

20. “Na ast strinam………..” – 5/158. Women have no divine right to perform any religious ritual, nor make vows or observe a fast. Her only duty is to obey and please her husband and she will for that reason alone be exalted in heaven.

We also can think, how could an arhat could perform such kind of speech? If they already have the understanding of reality. They already realize the importance of non-self. How come they still pay attention into mundane things like this one and not take joy in the liberation of thousand of women during the Buddhas times and after the Buddhas time. Perhaps this is possible because it was added later on, it never happened or/and the writer of the Sutta was not an enlighted person and was writing with dosa. As Buddhadasa Bhikkhu mention “So we fail completely to understand the doctrine of anatta (non-self) and sunnata (emptiness), the soctrine that there is no “I” or “mine”. Consequently we experience suffering” (Buddhadasa, 2005, p. 228).



Bhikkhu Analayo Mention:

“Would it be reasonable and coherent for an awakened teacher to make such derogatory remarks about women, a teacher who according to other discourses had numbers of nun disciples that had reached full awakening and thus total freedom from any defilement, who according to the same proclaimed various nuns and lay women as outstanding in qualities like deep concentration and profound wisdom, and who apparently placed such trust in women that in a twin regulation found in all she sanctioned acting on a trustworthy laywoman’s report about a monk’s breach of the rules?” (Analayo, 2009, p 3)

For understanding this aspect, I believe is important to remember that the sutras were written 300-400 years after the dead of the Buddha. This happened in Sri Lanka after a war with The Tamels. Those suttas were written by monks. Sri Lanka culture has a lot of influence from Hinduism. Still now a days in Sri Lanka is consider that a women should not be, by any means, independent. She should depend on her husband, father or son. I was told that by a contemporary Sri Lanka monk and I have experience it myself in the country. In the Laws of Manu we see this rule.

“17. “Balya va………………….” – 5/150. A female child, young woman or old woman is not supposed to work independently even at her place of residence.

18. “Balye pitorvashay…….” – 5/151. Girls are supposed to be in the custody of their father when they are children, women must be under the custody of their husband when married and under the custody of her son as widows. In no circumstances is she allowed to assert herself independently.

27. “Pita rakhshati……….” – 9/3. Since women are not capable of living independently, she is to be kept under the custody of her father as child, under her husband as a woman and under her son as widow.” (PATWARI, 2011, p. 2).

So Buddhist has a lot of influence by the old tradition in India. I think we should be careful with statements that are not consistent with the teachings. Is important to rescue what is valuable for liberation and understanding, and to be very careful with the values of the culture that may increase aversion, greed or delusion. The cultures that preserve the Buddha’s teachings are very important and advance in some aspects and they are not in some others. Is possible to do that by using critical thinking, logic and consistency in the arguments.

Bhikkhu Analayo (2009) say that:

“By way of foreword, allow me to propose that in approaching the scriptures of the Pāli canon for guidance and orientation, we need to be aware of the fact that this material is the final product of a prolonged period of oral transmission and thus may not always fully reflect the original.1 The possibility cannot a priori be excluded that views, which were not part of the original delivery of a discourse or a rule, could have influenced the canonical material as we have it now. This does not mean that the Pāli canon can no longer provide guidance and orientation. But it does mean that during the centuries of oral transmission, material that at first perhaps arouse in the form of a commentary (where the reciters would have felt free to express personal opinions) could have become part of what now is considered canonical. […]Practically speaking, this means that instead of taking isolated passages on their own as invariably true, what is required is an awareness of the overall thrust of the canonical scriptures on a particular theme. Here an important criterion is consistency. Given that according to the discourses the Buddha himself presented consistency as a criterion of truth, it would be reasonable to expect that the Buddha was coherent in his views. Furthermore, in order to evaluate single passages a comparative study of the same material transmitted by other early Buddhist schools can provide important perspectives, i.e. in particular the Vinayas and Āgamas preserved in Chinese and other languages.” I would hold that a discriminating attitude towards women in principle is incompatible with the freedom from defilement incumbent on reaching full awakening, where any prejudice based on caste, social standing, race or gender has been left behind. Individual passages reflecting a misogynist attitude among the canonical sources need to be approached with circumspection, comparing them with the general thrust of the Dhamma and Vinaya, and ideally studying them in the light of extant parallels.



Regulations that express gender discrimination probably reflect the ancient Indian situation and would thus in principle be open to revision in a different setting, when Buddhism begins to flourish in a different environment and culture. Such revision is not against Dhamma and Vinaya, so it seems to me, but would rather express the pragmatic principle of adjusting to circumstances that is such a recurrent feature in the formation of rules as documented throughout the Vinaya. In the end, tradition – which I personally highly value – only stands a chance to survive if it is able to adjust to changing circumstances without loss of what is essential. This can come about if our appraisal of the situation is based on a clear awareness of what causes dukkha– for ourselves or others – and what leads to freedom from dukkha [Italics added by me]. (Analayo, 2009, p.1)"

"Making investigation in the topic from different angles."

The following narrative continues the story of a Mexican meditator who has been in Burma for many years. This is the 11th entry, with her story starting here.

"Making investigation in the topic from different angles."

Later on, I decided to gain more information because I thought that perhaps my perception here in Myanmar, about Buddhism and women, was wrong. So I asked to some Burmese monks that I thought were suitable for help. Most of them were surprised even by the questions, and others did not know how to address the questions, while some got a bit uncomfortable even a bit angry. But generally speaking they tried to help as much as they could. So from these interactions I tried to learn as much as possible and try to understand and to practice as much as I could.

I started to read many journals about the topic from many angles and I found a suitable book that explained many aspects that I had never been aware of before. I came to recognize that in most religions, critical thinking is not present. Religion is also used as a way to organize society and give structure to it. Form the a sociological point of view, religion is a system of belief that gives order to society, it develops structure and the way the society will operated (Durkheim, 1997). So it should not be questioned because it will disorganize much of what already has order. Critical thinking normally is not present in many religions. Most of the time it is used as a social convention. Also, in a system of hierarchies it is even more difficult to develop critical thinking because systems of hierarchies are based on fear. Fear will not allow critical thinking to flourish, will supress it. So is difficult to find this critical thinking in very religious books.

I could also find some books about gender topics written by monks that were academic. They will go through many suttas from many traditions to find out the reason behind the behaviours towards women. Also they will look for historical evidence and they investigate how history changes the religious beliefs. The teachings of the Buddha have change a lot since the time he died and that is normal, it is nature.

Also these monks have pointed out the contradictions in behaviours and in precepts in Bhikkhus. Thanks to these books, I could get more information and more perspective of the situation. From the historical point of view, one passage that I find very useful to understand how Buddhism have evolve in history is the follow one:

“Taking all the little hints together, it seems possible that the bhikkhunis did maintain a quiet presence. One of the latest and clearest mentions of bhikkhunis in Burma is discussed by Maung Paw:

In January 21, 1788, the kings made another proclamation stating that: Any male or female who are of age 19 and who are:

• free of any incurable disease

• free from any criminal offenses or fugitive from law

• free from financial indebtedness – not bankrupt person 
Those free of the above could be permitted to be ordained as Bhikkhu for male and Bhikkhuni for female. There is another proclamation forbidding any king’s slave from taking ordination as Bhikkhu or Bhikkhuni. Who ever so monk ordained the king’s slave will be harshly punishable by law. (March 30, 1810). 
In the same month, the king made another proclamation stating that all legally ordained Bhikkhu or Bhikkhuni be monitored by the king’s men to check on the legal status of their Sangha life and their orderly observation of the rules of the Monks.

If our source does not mislead us, until recent years the bhikkhunis were present in Burma, and possibly in Thailand as well. Buddhism in those lands was diverse and often did not have a strong central control. Local customs flourished, and many regions owed little allegiance to the putative government. It was not until the challenges of the colonial era that cohesive nation states in the modern sense were formed. And as these states were formed under western influence, western models lay behind the new forms that Buddhism was shaped into.

In Thailand, for example, the modern reform movement was shaped by the towering figures of King Mongkut and his son Vajirañāṇavarorasa. As a Prince, Mongkut ordained as a bhikkhu in 1824 and went to practice meditation. However, he was disappointed that the monks did not understand what they were doing and could only repeat what had been passed down by the tradition. He criticized this attitude, calling it āciṇṇakappikavāda. This term harks back to the Second Council, where one of the contested issues was whether it was allowable to follow what had become customary. Mongkut became convinced that contemporary Thai Buddhism had become a mass of superstition and was in need of reform. Mongkut had an incisive, analytical mind, and he embarked on a detailed study of the Buddhist texts, always pointing back to the rational teachings of original Buddhism as found in the Pali Canon. During his time in the Sangha he was zealous in his study of western knowledge. He developed a friendship with a certain Bishop Pallegoix, who lived nearby in Bangkok, and they exchanged lessons in Pali and Latin. He had many discussions on religion with western missionaries, who he impressed with his skeptical and questioning attitude. Later, as king, he corresponded with Pope Pius IX, emphasizing the spirit of religious tolerance found in Thailand. Mongkut began to re-envisage Thai Buddhism along the western lines of the Vatican hierarchy.

Following on from the reforms instituted by Mongkut, Thailand eventually adopted a Sangha Act in 1902, under the guidance of Vajirañāṇavarorasa, then head of the Dhammayuttika Nikāya. Thailand thus became the first Buddhist country to attempt to control the Sangha using a modern, western-style legal instrument. A Council of Elders was established as the ruling body of the Sangha; their decisions were absolute and could not be appealed or disputed. The Sangha Act was modeled on the structure of secular Thai society, and successively remodeled to reflect the changes as Thailand went from being a monarchy to a democracy (1941), then in 1962, a military dictatorship. Subsequent democratic reform has failed, however, to result in a democratic reform of the Sangha Act.

The current Sangha Act defines the Sangha as male-only, and sets up a Vatican-style system of titles, positions, and bureaucratic administration, all with the avowed intent to protect the Vinaya and serve the Sangha. It may be more than simple coincidence that both the Vatican and the Thai Sangha have a problem accepting ordained women within their ranks. In insisting that bhikkhunis can have no place within the Thai Buddhism, the Sangha is placing more emphasis on the modern legal structures derived from western models, rather than the Buddhist scriptures which their tradition, and the modern reform of that tradition, is supposed to be based. And while bhikkhuni ordination is sometimes decried as a western, feminist interpolation in the Asian tradition, the reality is that the four-fold community, including the bhikkhuni Sangha, is the authentic heritage, while the insistence on a male-only Sangha is a modern, western-derived innovation. History, it seems, is not without a sense of irony.” ( Sujato, 2010, p. 13-15).


These paragraphs helped me a lot to understand how history, politics and culture change behaviours in religion and in almost all aspects. As I went on in this research, I was also surprised to know the eight rules that Bhikkhunis needed to follow. Some of these rules I found against humans rights as Bhikkhu Aggacitta mention: “It is unlikely that modern women, who enjoy so much more privileges and are seeking equal status with men, can acquiesce to such discriminative and humiliating conditions and rules.” (Aggacitta, 2003, p.5) I often thought that how come, someone that compassioned, wise and sharp like the Buddha could develop such hard conditions for half of the population of the world? That was something strange, because some of the teachings of the Buddha are possible to see if the practitioner keep practicing, but this kind of rules I felt were not part of the practice. Those rules are as follow:

1. “ A bhikkhunī with even 100 vassas (years of seniority) must respect, in every way, a bhikkhu ordained but that day.

2. A bhikkhunī must not spend the vassa (rainy season retreat) in a locality where there is no bhikkhu.

3. Every half-month a bhikkhunī must ask the Bhikkhu Saṅgha the Uposatha Day and [permission for] coming for exhortation […].

4. After the vassa, a bhikkhunī must invite both Saṅghas [Bhikkhu and Bhikkhunī] for criticism on her conduct in respect of what was seen, heard or suspected.

5. A bhikkhunīs who has committed a grave offence must undergo penance (mānatta) for half a month under both Saṅghas.

6. A sikkhamānā who has successfully completed her two-year probation should seek bhikkhunī ordination from both Saṅghas.

7. A bhikkhu must not be scolded or reviled in any way by a bhikkhunī.

8. Bhikkhunīs cannot admonish bhikkhus, but bhikkhus can admonish bhikkhunīs.” (Bhikkhu Aggacitta, 2003 p. 4-5).

Regarding the first rule, Bhikkhu Sujato mention that:

“ This rule startles with its abruptness, its immediate and total exclusion of the possibility for any other way in which the male and female monastic communities might relate to one another. It stands in stark contrast with the Buddha’s reasoned and balanced approach throughout the rest of the Vinaya, where he refuses to lay down a rule until it is needed. This is why we respect the Vinaya and wish to follow it: it is reasonable, a contingent and pragmatic means for people to live in community and develop good behavior. When the Vinaya appears unreasonable, we must ask ourselves: is this our problem, or the text’s? […. ] is it possible that our ancient texts do not issue unsullied from the penetration into perfect wisdom, but result from a lengthy and complex historical process, a process that involved both good and bad, wisdom and folly, compassion and cruelty?” (Sujato, 2010, p. 52).

Sujato mention that this rule was made mainly to respect elders from different Vinayas. 

“There is, however, another passage in some Vinayas that reinforces the message of this rule, and which extends it to a general principle that monks should never bow to any women. The Mahāvihāravāsin Vinaya elsewhere in the Khandhakas has a group of 10 avandiyos (those who should not be bowed to), which includes women. But the context the rule appears in raises doubts as to the formation of this passage. It follows the well-known story of the partridge, the monkey, and the elephant, where the three animals lived harmoniously by respecting the eldest among them. This story is found in all Vinayas.

However the different Vinayas each follow this story with a very different text. The Pali appears, on purely internal criteria, to be an originally independent passage. It changes from the specific list ‘bow down, rise up, make anjali, and behave properly’ mentioned in the story, to the general term ‘not bow’. Not only that, but the content sends a completely different message: the whole point of the three animals story is that we should respect elders, but now we are being told to not respect women, even if they are elder. Taken together, these suggest that the sequel is not intrinsic to the story.” (Sujato, 2010, p. 53)

He mention more arguments and the general idea is that this rule may be add later when the Buddha died as a rule for all Bhikkhunis. At the moment when the Buddha was a live, it may be for respecting elders and rules of good behaviour at that historical moment. He also mention that this rule probably was copy from Jainism. Jainism have an exact rule. 

“The following is taken from the Yuktiprabodha with the Svopajñavṛtti of the Svetambara Upadhyāya Meghavijaya. Dated from the 17th Century, this presents an argument on the status of women between the two main Jain sects.

• “Even if a nun were initiated for a hundred years and a monk were initiated just this day, he is still worthy of being worshiped by her through such acts of respect as going forward in reverential greeting, salutation, and bowing down […] Jaini, Chapter 6 #18. The Yuktiprabodha, as well as insisting on the ritual 
humiliation of women, argues that they cannot be enlightened because of their wanton, crooked nature, as well as the vile impurities of their bodies, especially menstruation.” (Sujato, 2010, 60).

So perhaps, the ideas and behaviours of Jainism are deep rooted in Buddhist because it was the same idea that the Lay Myanmar men told me when he mention that I have the perfecto condition for the practice, I just need to be reborn as a man.

Sujato continuous mention that: “The identical wording makes it obvious that here we are seeing not just a generic similarity but a direct copy. While Jainism is older than Buddhism, the Jain texts are, as here, typically younger; so it is not easy to decide whether this rule, as it stands, was copied by the Buddhists from the Jainas or vice versa. Nevertheless, the main point remains: this rule is one that, as claimed by the Buddha, is found among other Indic traditions. The key thing to notice is that the Buddha specifically invokes contemporary social conventions to justify his position, in exactly the same way as the laywoman in the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya story.” (Sujato, 2010, p.60-61)

Sujato also mentions that this rule may be apply only to his step mother to avoid pride for been Sakyan and to avoid attachment to the Buddha himself because he was her son. Sakyan that joined the Sangha. According to the story of Mahapajapati asking the Buddha to avoid this rule, he mentions that that was the custom in the time.

“The story refers to the garudhammas as already existing. There is, however, no question of an offense arising from them. It is as if the status of the garudhammas at the time this rule was formulated was of some recommended trainings in etiquette, like, say, the sekhiya rules, with no specific penalty attached. The Pali version of the garudhammas describes the acts of respect that must be shown by the bhikkhunis to the bhikkhus in this way: abhivādanaṁ paccuṭṭhānaṁ añjalikammaṁ sāmīcikammaṁ, which I render as ‘bow down, rise up, make anjali, and behave properly’. This phrase occurs twice elsewhere in contexts crucial for understanding the garudhammas. First is when the Sakyan princes, including Ānanda, asked for Upāli, the former barber and Vinaya expert-to-be, to ordain first, so they can reduce their Sakyan pride by ‘bowing down, rising up, making anjali, and behaving properly’ to him.68 Elsewhere, we are often told of the problems caused in the Sangha by the Sakyans and their pride: Nanda, who famously went forth on account of 500 pink-footed celestial nymphs, and who wore make-up as a monk; Channa, the Buddha’s incorrigible charioteer, who on the Buddha’s deathbed was given the ‘Supreme Punishment’ (i.e., the silent treatment); Upananda, who constantly harassed the lay supporters for fine requisites; and of course Devadatta, who tried to kill the Buddha. Tradition says that pride caused the Sakyans to grievously insult Viḍūḍabha, king of Kosala, who in revenge destroyed the Sakyan republic and scattered the clan. Thus the Sakyan pride has become a byword in Buddhist culture. This suggests that the purpose of emphasizing bowing in the garudhamma, just as for the Sakyan princes, was to reduce pride. Given that it was Mahāpajāpatī and the Sakyan ladies who were seeking ordination, we might be forgiven for thinking that it was specifically Sakyan pride that is at issue here.” (Sujato, 2010, p. 58-59

However, it seems that this rule were made only for the step mom of Buddha. In the original narrative it does not mention that is for all Bhikkhunis:

“ Now, the Buddha is supposed to have said that the acceptance of these rules was Mahāpajāpatī’s full ordination. Sometimes what is omitted is ignored, and yet may have a decisive importance, so I must bodily lift the next fact into consciousness: nowhere in this narrative are the bhikkhunis explicitly told that they have to keep these rules. The rules are laid down for Mahāpajāpatī. It is true that the rules are phrased in the general sense of all bhikkhunis, and elsewhere the Vinaya expects the bhikkhunis to keep these rules. But in the core of the primary narrative, it is never directly said that these rules are a part of general bhikkhuni ordination. Nor is the adherence to these rules a part of the ordination procedure in the Mahāvihāravāsin Vinaya, or indeed the procedures of other Vinayas. Since the text explicitly says that the garudhammas are intended to be Mahāpajāpatī’s ordination, and since there are plausible reasons why they should be relevant for her, there seems every reason to think the garudhammas were originally laid down for Mahāpajāpatī alone.” (Sujato, 2010, p. 59-60

Sujato mention that this rule also was conceived as a rule of etiquette at that time. However, they do not consider it suitable at the present moment.

“ The key thing to notice is that the Buddha specifically invokes contemporary social conventions to justify his position, in exactly the same way as the laywoman in the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya story.
This raises the contentious issue of the degree to which Vinaya rules and procedures may be adapted according to time and place. As a practicing bhikkhu, I believe that, in general, the essential aspects of the Vinaya remain as true and relevant today as they were 2500 years ago. I do not think we should use, as a blanket excuse, changes in social customs to justify abolishing or ignoring Vinaya rules, even if they may be inconvenient, or we don’t understand their purpose. But in instances where the text specifically invokes contemporary social conventions to justify the rule, and where that convention has demonstrably changed, we must question whether such a rule should be kept. And when, in addition, the rule causes unnecessary suffering, I think it is unjust and cruel to insist upon keeping it.
Here we would do well to remind ourselves of the fundamental ethical principles embodied in the United Nations ‘Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women’
Article 1: Discrimination against women, denying or limiting as it does their equality of rights with men, is fundamentally unjust and constitutes an offense against human dignity.

Article 2: All appropriate measures shall be taken to abolish existing laws, customs, regulations and practices which are discriminatory against women, and to establish adequate legal protection for equal rights of men and women...
Article 3: All appropriate measures shall be taken to educate public opinion and to direct national aspirations towards the eradication of prejudice and the abolition of customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority of women.
This garudhamma, and some others, are manifestly ‘laws, customs, regulations and practices which are discriminatory against women’. Discrimination against women is ‘fundamentally unjust and constitutes an offense against human dignity.’ If bhikkhus wish to maintain the ethical standards expected in our international community, they must take ‘all appropriate measures’ to abolish these practices.
There are those who would wish to argue that such provisions are a ‘Western’ imposition on Buddhist cultures, and do not represent the values of Buddhist peoples themselves. But when Buddhist peoples are given the chance, they too show that they adhere to such values. For example, here are some excepts from the draft Thai Constitution of 30 April, 2007.
Part 2 : Equality
Section 30: All persons are equal before the law and shall enjoy equal protection under the law.
Men and women shall enjoy equal rights.
Unjust discrimination against a person on the grounds of the difference in origin, race, language, sex, age, physical or health condition, personal status, economic or social standing, religious belief, education, or constitutional political views, shall not be permitted.
Part 3 : People’s Rights and Liberties
Section 37: A person shall enjoy full liberty to profess a religion, a religious sect or creed, and observe religious precepts or exercise a form of worship in accordance with his or her belief.

Chapter IV : Duties of Thai People
Section 70: Every person shall have the duty to defend the country and obey the law.
According to this document, Thai people, including all Thai monks and Western monks living in Thailand, have the duty to obey the law of Thailand." [This was emphasized by Vajirañāṇavarorasa : ‘Although monks are already subject to the ancient law contained in the Vinaya, they must also subject themselves to the authority which derives from the specific and general law of the State.’ Quoted in McDaniel, p. 103.” (Sujato, 2009, p. 62)] The fundamental law of the nation, superseding all others, is the Constitution. Under the Constitution, men and women have equal rights, and unjust discrimination, such as that expressed in garudhamma 1, is illegal. Thai women have the right to ‘observe religious precepts’ in accordance with their beliefs, which includes taking ordination as bhikkhunis and practicing the bhikkhuni Vinaya as they see fit. In addition, Thai monks, according to this constitution, are permitted to practice their religion according to their beliefs, and this would include performing ordination for bhikkhunis. Prohibiting Thai monks from performing bhikkhuni ordination would transgress their one of their basic rights according to the Thai constitution. The tension between a progressive social movement and conservative religious forces is negotiated in various legal contexts. For example, the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (amended 6 July 2009) section 56 provides a blanket exemption for religious bodies from the anti-discrimination laws that apply to everyone else. The fact that such an exemption was considered legally necessary implies that if it were not present the discriminatory practices of the Church could be considered illegal and subject to prosecution. Here is the relevant section.
Perhaps this is why, despite the widespread belief that bhikkhuni ordination is forbidden in Thailand and opposed by the Thai Sangha, the Council of Elders who rule Thai Buddhism (Mahatherasamakhom) have not made any pronouncement regarding bhikkhunis. The Thai Sangha Act defines its sphere of concern as the bhikkhus, and has no jurisdiction over bhikkhunis.
So now the rude shock of this rule has been softened a little. This garudhamma, if it is authentic at all, is best seen in context as a curb for the pride of Mahāpajāpatī. The status of this as a rule in general for the bhikkhunis is dubious, since it is only occasionally found in the pāṭimokkhas, and where it is found it is in very different forms and settings. But those stories do at least demonstrate a reasonable context within which such a rule might have arisen. In the current form, however, the rule is clearly discriminatory and contravenes accepted national and international principles of equity. Following the basic Vinaya principles that the Sangha should not act in ways that contravene the laws and customs of their culture, and should not act in a way that leads to harm, this rule should be rejected by the contemporary Sangha.” (Sujato, 2010, p. 61-64).
The seventh rule is also very interesting. Sujato mention that:
“ The origin story is at Vesālī. An elder of the group of six nuns dies. They make a stupa for her, and hold a noisy mourning ritual. Upāli’s preceptor, Kappitaka, who was living in the cemetery, was annoyed at the sound, and smashed the stupa to bits – somewhat of a distasteful overreaction, one might think. Anyway, the group of six nuns say: ‘He destroyed our stupa – let’s kill him!’ Kappitaka escapes with Upāli’s help, and the nuns abuse Upāli, thus prompting, not a rule against noisy funerals, or smashing stupas, or attempted murder, but against abusing monks. Other Vinayas tell the story differently […] This rule is similar to the next, and evidently the Mahāsaṅghika/Lokuttaravāda tradition has collapsed the two together, and created an extra garudhamma to make up the eight: the bhikkhus should get the best lodgings and food.” (Sujato, 2010, p. 73).
Finally, the last rule is interesting to see form a critical point of view. Rather than be a rule that affirm that nuns cannot teach monks, is a rule that emphasis right speech between monks and nuns. The way they should approach each other is with kindness. Not allowing nuns to teach perhaps can be seen as an unkind and discriminatory behaviour that is against humans rights as well.
“ The operative word here is vacanapatha, which I have translated as ‘criticize’. It is often interpreted as ‘teach’, and in Thailand and other places it is assumed that a bhikkhuni can never teach a monk. But this has no basis whatsoever. I find it difficult to believe that any Pali scholar could actually think that vacanapatha meant ‘teaching’, since it is never used in that way.
Etymology is of little help here: vacana means ‘speech’ and patha literally is ‘path’, hence ‘ways of speech’. […]The formulation of this garudhamma in the Lokuttaravāda/Mahāsaṅghika reinforces the association with this Sutta. This rule is a little confusing, for this school does not have an equivalent to the garudhamma prohibiting a bhikkhuni from abusing bhikkhus. Rather, they seem to have collapsed that rule into the present one, so while the rule formulation seems to deal with criticism, the explanation deals more aggressively with abuse:
‘It is not allowed for a bhikkhuni to aggressively speak to a bhikkhu, saying: ‘You filthy monk, you stupid monk,111 you childish monk,112 you wicked,113 doddering, unintelligent incompetent!’
The rule itself, in clear distinction from the Pali, says that a bhikkhuni is forbidden to criticize a bhikkhu about what is true or untrue (bhūtena vā abhūtena vā), while a bhikkhu is forbidden to criticize a bhikkhuni about what is untrue, but may criticize about what is true. The terms ‘true or untrue’ clearly link up with the Kakacūpama Sutta.114 While the phrasing of the rule clearly discriminates against the bhikkhunis, the rule explanation mitigates this, for the actual explanations of how criticism is to be done by monks and nuns to each other is effectively the same. Both are permitted to admonish a close relative in a gentle and encouraging way, but are not permitted to use abusive language […]
The two aniyata rules found in the bhikkhu pāṭimokkhas establish a protocol enabling a trustworthy female lay disciple to bring a charge of serious misconduct against a bhikkhu, which must be investigated by the Sangha and the appropriate punishment levied. This protocol is only established for the female lay disciples, not the male. Are we to believe that the Buddha made one rule supporting admonishment by lay women, and another prohibiting it by nuns? […]
Saṅghādisesa 12 lays down a heavy penalty for bhikkhus or bhikkhunis who refuse to be admonished, saying: ‘Thus there is growth in the Blessed One’s following, that is, with mutual admonishment and mutual rehabilitation.’120 Garudhamma 8 directly contradicts this, and stands in sad contrast with the broad stream of the Buddhist teachings on admonishment. […]

There seems little evidence that Buddhist communities through history felt that it was wrong for a bhikkhuni to teach or even justly criticize a bhikkhu. I have elsewhere gathered a series of stories that present nuns as criticizing monks in various ways, and nowhere is this rule brought up.121 While these stories may not all be strictly historical, they tell us about how Buddhist monastics interpreted the rules at different times. Given the nature of actual relationships between groups of people, the rule prohibiting admonishment of bhikkhus by bhikkhunis can never have been anything other than a dead letter. That the rule books tell a different story is unsurprising. Rule books, ancient and modern, tell us what the rule-writers wanted, not what was actually done. What is perhaps more remarkable is that I cannot find a single example where a nun is criticized or disciplined for admonishing a monk. The conclusion seems inescapable that either this rule was an alien interpolation, or its original scope was very narrow. In any case, the mainstream of the traditions tells us that it is perfectly okay for a bhikkhuni to teach, exhort, or admonish a bhikkhu in a way that is gentle and kind. In doing so, she will be not merely keeping the letter and the spirit of the Vinaya, she will be fulfilling her practice of right speech as part of the noble eightfold path.” (Sujato, 2010, p. 73-78)Nevertheless, these teachings sometimes are saturated by culture of the time and place where they were develop. The culture itself is a support for the teachings to carry on generation to generation. However, they can also be an obstacle if the culture decides to pay more attention into forms rather than meaning.

Section 56 Religious Bodies

Nothing in this Act affects:


(a) the ordination or appointment of priests, ministers of religion or members of any religious order,


(b) the training or education of persons seeking ordination or appointment aspriests, ministers of religion or members of a religious order,


(c) the appointment of any other person in any capacity by a body established to propagate religion, or


(d) any other act or practice of a body established to propagate religion that conforms to the doctrines of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of the adherents of that religion. (Sujato, 2010, p. 63)

"The Only Thing that I was Missing was to be Reborn as a Man."

The following narrative continues the story of a Mexican meditator who has been in Burma for many years. This is the tenth entry, with her story starting here.

"Difficult aspects in Myanmar and how it helped the practice and understanding of the teachings, the religion and the culture."

One of the most difficult aspects of Burmese culture is the difference in treatment between genders. Many factors contribute to this experience. One of these factors is that I was educated in the most liberal side of Mexico City. So among this sector of people in Mexico, it is considered very low ethical conduct to make any distinction within gender, religion (or non-religion, race, and among some people today, sexual preference as well). So among these people and this community, I have never encountered strong discrimination in gender.

A second factor was that I came to the study Buddhism believing that the practice was the solution for all the problems. With this I believed that all Buddhist people were bestowed with the qualities of being aware, kind, loving, and knowledgeable. In short, I had the idea that Buddhist communities were perfect. But Buddhist communities are like any other community in the world. With compassion, kindness, wisdom, craving, aversion, and delusion. So I came to Burmese Buddhism with a lot of expectation and a lot of craving! When my expectations were not fulfiled, then I experienced aversion. I was experiencing (here in Kalaw) what U Tejaniya calls the pendulum. The same amount of greed will lead to the same amount of aversion if the expectation is not fulfiled.

A third aspect that increased this aversion was the system of hierarchies. Myanmar is organized by a system of hierarchies where the monks are at the top and young lay people at the bottom. So the treatment is very different between the level of attention that monks get and the level of attention that everybody else gets. The religious organizational system is a patriarchal. Burmese Buddhism believes that the lineage of nuns called Bhikkhunis have died out, so by law one is prohibited to ordain women as monks here. Women are allows to take robes as Seminaries or Sayalays. They have eight precepts or ten. The majority of the nuns take eight precepts, the same as any yogis or lay people. So the level of attention and support that Sayalays get from lay people is much less than the monks in Myanmar. The first time I came to Shwe Oo Min Yangon I was surprised to see the difference in treatment among monks and Sayalays. Sayalays spend much of their time taking care of monks: they clean, cook, organize the monastery, and take care of the female yogis. They offer all the time things to monks and from an outsider’s point of view, or at least the way I saw it, Sayalays role’s is more like been at the service of monks.

Also, some Myanmar monks (but certainly not all of them) do not recognize other kind of Bhikkhunis from the Mahayana tradition because they consider it as another religion. So sometimes the Burmese Sayadaw will tell their students to see Bhikkhunis as they were Sayalays. Bhikkhus need to follow a lot of rules if they encounter a Bhikkhuni. For instance they cannot be together without a third person. They cannot ask a Bhikkhuni to do domestic service and they also cannot accept food from one of them. I believe this also applies for seminaries nuns. However, in reality in some monasteries Sayalays are cooking and cleaning the monastery continuously and they also give every morning food to the monks.

For me this radical treatment among men and women, not only in the religious environment but also sometimes in daily life, was radically new. I was told by a lay Burmese man that I have all the conditions for the practice, the only thing that I was missing was to be reborn as a man. In some Buddhist commentaries, this Burmese men continued, it said that one of the conditions for enlightenment is to be a man. So therefore, according to him half of the population of the world cannot get enlightenment! As a good Latin women, I immediately reacted and told him that he was wrong and he need to prove those statements before saying them. After that he told me that then I should see by myself, I was the only one who could have the answer for that questions. Finally, here was something that we can agree on! Some others scholar monks mention that a women can never become a Buddha. They also say these statements without any evidence whatsoever.

I also have the experience that sometimes some monks—again, not all of them-- pay more attention to what monks said than yogis. Sometimes I have felt that lady yogis are completely ignored. It happens many times that local people would like to introduce a group of foreigners to their own Sayadaw and some of this monks will only talk with the monks and lay men, completely ignoring the lady yogis who are present. Then again, some other monks will treat everyone equally and with the same amount of respect and caring. It depends very much on the level of kindness and awareness of the monk.

On some occasions I thought that perhaps there were a degree of Moha (ignorance) in what I was conceiving, but I asked some female yogis and they agreed with me. Some Burmese female yogis even believe that this gender hierarchy is the main problem of Burmese culture, and they consider it to be against basic human rights. However, they only admit these things when they feel very comfortable and secure, and will not say things like this in a public space where men or monks are present. Some of these ladies privately conceive that be born as a woman is a bad kamma and so they needed to obey monks and accept that they could not become one of them in this life. Still others were interested in re-establish the bhikkhuni lineage. Many Burmese women want to become Bhikkhunis. However, in the public space these same women will always look very religious and respectful to monks. They will obey, give rise every morning and pay respect to them. Even some of these women that admit they do not feel confortable; they still have a lot of appreciation towards monks and mainly the teachings of the Buddha. Some others young ladies said they were interested in learning more about gender inequality, however they noted that in Myanmar there is not much information and opportunities to do so, and some wanted to go oversees.

For me all this aspects were incredible shocking. I was very surprised that Buddhism was so violent regarding gender aspects. I find it a massive contradiction because it is against the teachings of compassion and Metta. It also against the teachings of non-self. Why should the form matters if in the core there is no form? The process that happened in the mind are the same.

Also I found it surprising because I was expecting that monks will be the most humble people in the country. But the culture treats them so well and takes care of them so well that even local people said that they can become a bit arrogant. Sayadaw U Tejaniya mentioned that is important to watch the mind continuously, when this knowing mind is not present, many defilements can come. He mentions ones that when people did not bow to him and offer things to him first, he could get angry if he was not mindful. So then, he recognizes and let it go. Unfortunately, not all monks are practitioners, so not all of them are as skilful as U Tejaniya. So defilements like arrogance and pride are some times recognize by lay people in monks. “It should also be noted that monks should not give the teaching desiring worldly benefits such as receiving homage, and it is an offense (pācittiya 24) for a bhikkhu to accuse another bhikkhu of doing this.” (Sujato, 2010, p. 57)

Fortunately, this happens with some monks but not all of them. Some other monks are very humble, helpful and caring and they tried as much as they can to embody the teachings of the Buddha. However, these teachings are not that easy to embody. So it takes long time, a lot of patient and it need a very good motivation to keep practicing. So one of my main problems in Myanmar have been aversion to this situation. Mainly because I did not expected and I have never felt it so close to me."