August 2001 Guide
108
Bows Ceremony
Every Sunday during our monks’ training we hold our 108 Bows
ceremony. Starting in July we changed the time from 9 am to 10 am
to allow more people to join us for this lovely ceremony. Our monks
in training take turns in leading this ceremony. We invite you to
join us. It is a good prelude for our Sunday service.
ceremony for the dead, August 26
Ullumbana Ceremony
Every year we perform the ceremony of sending merits and our best
wishes to those people who have died within the past three years,
the traditional mourning period for Mahayana Buddhists. This day is
known as Ullumbana Day, and we will perform the ceremony on Sunday,
August 26, at 11 noon, holding our garden luncheon at 12:30.
If you have family or friends that you would like remembered, regardless
of when they died, please either send us the enclosed form or call
the office and leave the information on the answering machine. We
will also remember pets, so give us their names as well. You can remember
people who died more than three years ago, as we will wish those who
have already attained rebirth a happy life. We also pray for all those
lost persons who are wandering between births, whether or not we know
them.
We will begin the ceremony by offering dana, or food, to our fully
ordained monks, That ceremony will begin at 10:30 am, with the ritual,
formal dana ceremony called Gua Dong in Vietnamese. Anyone wanting
to share in this ceremony, contact Kathy Whyte at 213 385-5292. It
is traditional that everyone having someone remembered that day brings
food to feed the monks at the formal luncheon served before the ceremony.
So, combine bringing food for the monks with your donation to the
garden lunch that will follow the ceremony. We hope to see you on
that very important day in the Mahayana calendar.
Ullumbana Retreat to be held September 21-23
This year we will not hold the Ullumbana Retreat until September 21-23.
So, mark your calendar for this important weekemd. If you have not
yet taken refuge, that is officially become a Buddhist,you may do
so at the end of the retreat if you attend it.
Dharma School to begin Sept.
Beginning the first Sunday of September, September 2, IBMC will be
offering Dharma school for children, ages 10 and up, of all ethnic
backgrounds and Buddhist traditions. The teacher will be Ven. Sakya
Bodhi, a Zen teacher from IBMC. For more information, e-mail Rev.
Karuna... karunadh@earthlink.net.
Painters... We Need Your Help
IBMC is painting three of its buildings. We need volun-teers to
help us with this chore. Call Kathy at 213 385-5292 or the office
at 213 384-0850 if you can donate any of your time. It will be greatly
appreciated and think of the merit you will gain.
If you are not a good painter but like to garden, we also need help
to keep our grounds looking nice. The weeds and bamboo are growing
faster rthan we can take care of them. Help!
Dragon Boat T-shirts Available
This year IBMC made up both baseball caps and orange t shirts for
our role in the Dragon Boat races. We have a few on sale in our Sunday
shop at $9 a piece, in sizes small, medium amd extra large. If you
are interested, visit our shop or send us a check for $10, including
postage and we will mail you one. The t-shirt design is of Bodhidharma
standing in a boat, with tigers making up the waves.
Under him it says Boaty Dharma
Comes to the West
August Events
Sunday Lectures
8/5 Zen and Death
11am Rev. Vajra Karuna
8/12 How Do We Gain Merit?
11am Ven. Dr. Karuna Dharma
8/19 It Doesn’t Pay to Be Small
11am Sr. Maitridasi Karuna
8/26 Service and Compassion
11am Bro. Sraddha Karuna
Classes at IBMC
Mon Zen Meditation
5-7pm Ven. Sakya Bofhi
Wed Buddhism and Daily Life
7-9pm Rev. Kusala
Wed Monks training and the Lotus
7-9pm Sutra
Ven. Dr. Karuna Dharma
Fri Meditation
7:30-9pm Rev. Kusala
Sun Zen Meditation
5-7pm Ven. Sakya Bodhi
Special Events
Every Sunday at 10 am
108 Bows Ceremony
8/26 Ullumbana Ceremony
12:30 Picnic luncheon
Meditation times
Mon. and Sun. evenings from 5:00-7:00 pm, led by Rev. Sakya Bodhi
Wed evening: 7-9 pm, led by Rev. Kusala
Fri evening: 7:30-9 pm, led by Rev. Kusala
IBMC web page is found at: InternationalBuddhistMeditationCtr.org
You can email us at: IBMC@InternationalBuddhistMeditation Ctr.org
Rev. Karuna’s email address is:Karunadh@earthlink.net
Karuna’s web page is: www. home.earthlink.net/~karunadh
Rev. Kusala’s email: Kusala@kusala.org
Rev. Kusala’s web page: www.kusala.org
Rev. Shanti’s email: Hshanti@earthlink.net
Rev. Prabuddhi’s: Prabuddhi@yahoo.com
Rev. Vajra’s email: Madmonk88@aol.com
Bro. Sunya’s email: Sunya2@Earthlink.net
Bro. Ksanti and Bro.Sraddha’s email: VictorTom@aol.com
The Development of the Buddhist Order
by Rev. Vajra Karuna, Thich Tam-Thi
The Development of the Monks' Order
The suttic legend states that immediately after his enlighten-ment
Gautama went through an inner struggle as to whether or not to share
his discovery. Having decided to do so, especially after divine intervention
on the part of Brahma, Gautama choose to share his realization with
some former sramana (recluse) companions, in order to help them reach
the peace he now felt. [Ariyapariyesana Sutta, MLS I, 212-214] These
five ascetics were said to have been Gautama’s companions up
until the time he renounced the extremist path, an act which caused
them in disgust to leave him. [MLS, I, 302] There are a number of
problems with this story, not the least of which is that the older
parts of the early Buddhist canon suggest that Gautama far from renouncing
extremist practices favored them even after his enlightenment. [Sutta
Nipata]
One thing we can unquestionably trust in the oldest of the suttas
is that the early Buddhist movement not too long after Gautama, rather
than showing an interest in being a new religion, was more concerned
with the establishment of a practical fellowship or an assembly (Sangha)
of monks and nuns. Therefore, Buddhism, as anything other than as
a teaching for a celibate fellowship, did not developed until well
after Gautama’s death.
The Sangha as we know it today appears to be modeled on the old tribal
warrior republican systems that were found in the Himalayan foothills
and which around Gautama’s time were gradually being exterminated
by more powerful monarchal states. One of these was the Sakya tribal
republic of Gautama’s own people. What seems likely is that many
of the warrior republican members, feeling unable to prevent the decline
of their traditional social order, in the face of Gangetic based imperialism,
sought to recreate their cherished social order in a new form, namely
that of a religious Sangha. In fact, in the Buddhist Sangha we do
have an alternative society based on the very traditional respect
for such republican values as leadership by seniority and a respect
for the members’ status as spiritual warriors. [AN III, 73; Gomez
51] This suggests that even though the early Buddhist movement may
have renounced class obligations, it might have still found it impossible
to drop all feelings of the warrior class sympathies. This would be
especially true, if as seems likely, the majority of the early Sangha
members came from that class. In fact, the numerous canonically reported
defenses of the warrior caste’s higher status over the Brahmins
would further suggest this.
There is some scholarly dispute as to the age of the Sangha as a tightly
organized order. The term is not mentioned in the earliest parts of
the Sutta Nipata: the Atthaka and Parayana sections. In those sections
the emphasis is on the solitary sage. Found also in that same ancient
sutta collection is the Khaggavisana or Rhinoceros’s Horn Sutta
which has as it theme the desirability of a monk to live and travel
without companionship. These examples have lead many to believe that
the Sangha as a tightly organized communal body was a post-Gautama
development. [Dissanayake 35; Jayawickrama 1951, 114-124; Kalupahana
1961, 189-190, Ray, most of his book] From a practical point this
seems highly likely. In the country-side solitary monks would have
had a much better chance of begging for food in the poor villages
than would the very large groups canonical piety would have us believe
was the norm. Any non-solitary life could have only been possible
for those monks living near one of the larger towns and cities.
The more primitive of the early suttas, in fact, records that there
were two types of sramana (ascetic) groups during Gautama’s time.
The first was headed by one or more teachers and lived a communal
life under a particular set of rules. These moved about in large bodies
from one village or town to another, where their main activity was
to discuss and debate various doctrines. The other sramana group was
more or less solitary forest dwellers who specialized in meditation.
The Attahakavagga Sutta is very critical of the communal type, regarding
them as half-hearted ascetics. This is especially so because of their
ten-dency to degenerate into disputers of useless metaphysical doctrines.[Sn
796-803, 824-834] Indeed, the Attaha-kavagga denies sagehood to those
who are too learned in views. [Sn 1057-58, 1062, 1077-1078, 1080,
1087] This and other very early suttas clearly state that a true (forest)
ascetic is one who should be mute (muga). This may have accounted
for Gautama’s earliest title Sakya-muni. The usual translation
for this is Sakya-the Sage, but the literal translation is Sakya the
Silent One. Also, according to the most primitive of the suttas the
truly wise one should at least act stupid (jala) when it comes to
discussing doctrines. [Ray 93] In spite of such early sutta attitudes
the orthodox canonical view, and one that most western scholars had
adopted, is that Gautama belonged to the first of these groups, the
non-forest or urban one. However, a less dogmatic reading of the canon
suggests just the opposite. [Ray 64-67, 77] In the Cullavagga Vagga
of the Vinaya, Gautama is quoted as saying that monks who learn metaphysics
(lokayata) commit an offense. [Horner 195] Although the term lokayata
is often translated as materialism for a challenge to this interpretation
see Dialogs pt. I, 166-172)
The earliest suttas actually seem to document a stage in the evolu-tion
of the Sangha that is progressively abandoning the forest life for
the more settled one. In fact, the term Sangha itself at first referred
only to the monks living near village and town areas, and in the mouths
of those still living the forest life the term has a slightly pejorative
meaning. To those forest ascetics Sangha literally meant those monks
who lacked the stamina or will-power to commit themselves to the more
ascetic life. [Ray 96, 103-104, 277-278] In fact, it was this abandoning
of the original life style for a less rigorous one that first gave
rise to the idea of the dark time (pacchimakala, S. pashcimakala)
or the Decline of the Dharma.[Ray 95] Part of the reason for the urbanized
Sangha’s emphasis on doctrinal or intellectual factors over meditational
ones was so that it could better compete with the Brahmin’s Vedic
tradition. The Brahmins claimed that they possessed a way to salvation
through thier sacred literature. To match this claim the Sangha put
forth its own claim that salvation could be gained through the study
of their sacred texts.
Regardless of the opinions of the forest ascetics, the later success
of the Sangha, and hence Buddhism, was probably due to the appeal
of what the urban monks came to call the Middle Way; a moderately
ascetic way, between the sensual attachments of lay life and self-torturing
forest asceticism. The early urbanized Sangha, though not necessarily
Gautama, made it clear that the practice of extreme asceticism, with
its emaciated body, its lice-ridden skin and hair, was something that
made a person seem sub-human. Of course, one of the reasons for not
attributing this attitude to Gautama himself is that the shaved head
and beard of the later Sangha does not seem to have been a requirement
of the monks living in the forest life. The forest monks may have
kept their hair long (dirghakesha) and beards (shashru) uncut, which
allowed them to derogatorily refer to the urban monks as shaven-headed
householders. [109] Naturally, for those who took to settled communal
living such shaving practices would have been required to prevent
lice from eating the monks alive. Originally the repelling factor
that lead to a rejection of extreme asceticism was less some physically
sub-humanizing practice than what we might call the moral sub-humanism
of fatalism, especially of the Ajivika brand.
The division between forest and urban monks may have had a profound
effect on later Buddhism. It is the opinion of many Buddhist scholars
that it was from among some of those monks who resisted urbanization,
and so remained in the forest, that proto-Mahayana arose. Whereas
the urban sangha became progressively more academic and less meditationally
oriented, the forest tradition continued the largely meditative life-style.
At least one group of these forest meditators probably developed along
a very mystical line and produced the Prajnaparamita literature. This
literature, of course, became the theoretical foundation of later
Mahayana Buddhism.
The gradual increase in urbanization of the Buddhist monastic order
during the first century or two after Gautama may not have been an
entirely voluntary process. As secular urbanization increased it may
have become more difficult to sustain an itinerant forest life. But
possibly the most important reason for abandoning the forest life
was that the more dignified lifestyle of the town and village monks
attracted higher caste members to the Buddhist movement than the forest
lifestyle could. This automatically increased the prestige of the
Sangha, which in turn gave them the ability to inferiorize, and eventually
repudiate, the earlier more extreme forest lifestyle.
Although the very earliest members of the Buddhist movement, at least
while it was predominantly a forest tradition, would have largely
been from the warrior (varna) class, a later tally from the early
(Pali) canon of the class origins of the Sangha tells us that of the
lay supporters 42% of them were Brahmins, and that 39% of those who
joined the order as monks were Brahmins. As for other varnas, the
khattiyas (warriors) comprised 16% of the lay supporters and 23% of
the monks; of the vaishyas (merchants) 32% were lay supporters and
23% were monks; only 6% of the laity and 8% of the monks were sudras
(laborers); those few who supported or entered the order as previous
ascetics make up the remainder. Whether this reflects the true state
of affairs or early Buddhist propaganda we can not know. But it is
no secret that, at least in the later more historically documented
times, lower caste members were not encouraged to join the order.
The often repeated idea that the early Buddhist move-ment was anti-caste
is, on closer examination, more propa-ganda than reality.
Origin of the Order of Nuns
There can be no question that Buddhism throughout its history has
been excessively patriarchal. Yet, in spite of this, women throughout
the centuries have been attracted to Buddhism. Among the reasons for
this attraction has been that in south and east Asian societies Buddhism
has allowed women a greater degree of freedom and greater respect
than has Hinduism or Confucianism. In India, at least, Buddhist wives
seem to have had more control over their own lives and own property
than did their Hindu counter parts. Moreover, Buddhism condemned the
Hindu practice of suttee, widow burning. This is true, at least in
theory, if not always in practice. The earliest examples of this is
found in the canon were it is declared that women have an equal ability
to men to realize nirvana, and that early Buddhism allowed for the
establishment of an order of nuns (bhiksunis). Buddhism was not the
only Indian religious sect to have an order of nuns. Jainism also
had one and it may have been established before the Buddhist nuns’
order. [Sponberg 1992, 19]. Moreover, while most nuns were expected
to mainly teach other women, the early canon says that some nuns did
teach laymen. That many women thrived spiritually in the early Buddhist
nuns’ order is confirmed in the Therigatha, Verses of the Female
Elders, which comprises part of the early Buddhist canon.
The Therigatha is a collection of verses or poems (gathas) credited
to nuns who attained arahantship (enlightenment). It is paired with
the Theragatha, a collection recording the spiritual attainment of
monks. That the Buddhist monastic order included into the canon a
collection commemorating nuns’ spiritual progress show the respect
the order, as a whole, must have had for the nuns’ achievements.
It is important to note that in Therigatha, as well as in the Suttas
of the Sisters section of the Samyutta Nikaya, it is recounted that
the earliest nuns were permitted to live alone in the forest just
like the brothers were. This is in marked contrast to the presumably
later Vinaya (monastic) rules that forbade such an independent life
style. [Ray 100] Thus, it seems that it was the later Sangha, rather
than the Buddhist movement during Gautama’s time, that created
at least some of the rules which made the nuns entirely subordinate
to the monks.
In contrast to the positive attitude towards women’s spiritual
capacities noted in the Therigatha we can find in other parts of the
canon more than sufficient evidence of a very negative attitude towards
women, both clerical and lay.
Much to the offense of modern Buddhist sensibilities, especially Western
Buddhist ones, the early Buddhist suttas record a number of misogynous
statements which they directly attributed to Gautama. They quote Gautama
as saying: that women are neither leaders of businesses nor judges
because they are more lustful, greedy and ignorant than men; that
women are to be perceived as sea serpents, unclean, evil-smelling,
timid, fearful and betrayers of friends, always passionate, forked-tongued,
slanderous of speech and adulteresses; and that a woman can never
be a Buddha or even a higher god.
The suttas say that after Gautama allowed women into the sangha as
nuns, he limited their influence by instituting several rules which
subordinated the nuns to the monks; these subordinating rules are
as follows: (1) A prospective nun must ask for ordination from both
the nuns and the monks, but prospective monks need only ask the monks;
(2) A nun who has been ordained for many years must give deference
to a monk only recently ordained; (3) A nun under any circumstance
may never chastize a monk, but a monk may chastize a nun; (4) Nuns
must observe the twice monthly day of exhortation in the presence
of monks, but monks need only to do this in the presence of fellow
monks; (5) A nun who has violated a rule must accept discipline not
only from the order of nuns, but from the monks as well; (6) A nun
must spend the rainy (retreat) season only in the vicinity where there
are monks; (7) After the rainy season nuns must report to the order
of both nuns and monks, but a monk need only report to his fellow
monks. [Cullavagga 354-355] If as though these subordinating rules
were not humiliating enough the suttas state that Gautama went on
to declare that having nuns in the order would be like disease weakening
the Sangha and cause it to live only half as long as it otherwise
would have. [MLS III, 109; GS I, 26; GS II, 92-93, 129; GS III, 191-192;
GS IV, 134, 184]
Before going into evidence that both the special rules and the misogynous
statement that followed cannot be attributed to Gautama we need to
review the canonical legend that is supposed to account for the whole
subordination of the nuns’ order to the monks’ order. The
canon states that sometime after the establish-ment of the monks’
order Gautama’s aunt, Pajapati, who was also his foster mother,
asked Gautama to allow her and some other women to establish a nuns’
order. Gautama, at first refused. Nonetheless, the women are said
to have shaved their heads and put on yellow robes in the hopes that
Gautama, seeing them thusly, would change his mind. To encourage such
a change Pajapati is said to have asked Gautama’s cousin and
main attendant, Ananda, to intercede on their behalf. After some effort
Ananda was able to get Gautama to accept the idea of a nuns’
order, but only with the stipulation that the nuns would accept the
set of rules that would restrict them to a subordinate position vis-a-vis
the monks. Lest one assume that misogyny is confined to Early Buddhism
it needs to be noted that many Mahayana texts are full of sexist and
misogynous statements. Far too many to deal with in a short essay.
The reason I have chosen to focus in on the Theravada canon is that
this canon is closer to the time, the teachings, and possibly the
attitude of Gautama, than any Mahayana works can claim. I will, however,
give one Mahayana example, which I will take from the Pure Land tradition,
since it is the most widely spread tradition in east Asia. In the
Pure Land sutras it is stated that while a female devotee can be reborn
into the Pure Land of Amitabha Buddha she can not do so in the form
of an impure female body. Therefore, she must be born into it in the
form of a male body. On the other hand, this monosexuality of paradise
just may be less a reflection of male sexism, and more a realistic
evaluation of women’s toilsome lives in Asian society. [Robinson
113]
A very careful analysis of the canon has led some authors to believe
that these restrictive rules were actually created well after the
nuns’ order was established, and thus presumably should not be
attributed to Gautama. [Sponberg 1992, 17] There are at least two
clues to this later origin of the special rules, both to which I have
already alluded. The first is the undeniable fact that women ascetics
were already present in the Buddhist movement while it was still primarily
a forest tradition. All of the special rules, like most of the Vinaya
rules for the monks themselves, clearly apply to a settled communal
urban lifestyle. Thus even most of the Vinaya rules would have had
no place in a largely itinerant non-communal forest tradition. The
second clue is that the legend of the founding of the order inadvertently
states that there were shaven headed, yellow robed nuns before the
special rules were instigated.
Although from this evidence it is impossible to absolutely prove that
the subordination of the nuns was a post-Gautamic event, the above
two pieces of evidence have led to the theory that as long as the
nuns were forest dwellers the monks had no real ability to lord over
them even if they had wish to do so. However, as the Order in general
became more and more a settled urban one it came up against the attitudes
of lay society which were opposed to any real independence of women,
even if they were in a religious order.To ensure that the nuns were
able to receive lay support they were forced to subordinate themselves
to the order of monks.
According to this idea, the legend of the founding of the nuns’
order is a later attempt to justify this subordination by attributing
it to Gautama himself. Thus Pajapati came to personify the nuns, Ananda
to personify those monks who were eager to aid the nuns in their attempt
to gain social tolerance, and Gautama to personify the ambivalent
feelings of the remaining monks. [Sponberg 1992, 16-18]
As for the statement that women in the Sangha would lead to the premature
decline of it, this can absolutely be shown to have nothing to do
with the existence of nuns. The prophesy of the decline of the Sangha,
as noted earlier, can be traced back to those forest monks who saw
the ever increasing urbanization of the Buddhist order as an indication
that it was becoming effete and would eventually die out. This prophesy
obviously was an embarrassment to the urbanized and largely male sangha,
and the subordination of the nuns to the monks gave the latter a convenient
opportunity to deflect this criticism from themselves and project
it on to the nuns. [Sponberg 1992, 32] Although not justified by any
suttic statement, a modern apologist view of Gautama’s supposed
initial refusal is that Gautama was concerned that women taking up
a homeless life-style would be subjected to seduction and rape.)
The founding of the order of monks and nuns is at least more complex
than the canonical version of this event has suggested, and although
I have tried to demonstrate some of this complexity, I have not in
this short talk been able to do full justice to this. For those who
would like to explore this issue in greater detail I recommend the
books Buddhist Saints in India by Reginald Ray; Ascetic Figures Before
and in Early Buddhism by Martin Wiltshire; The Ideas and Meditative
Practices of Early Buddhism by Tilmann Vetter; and A. Sponberg’s
article Attitudes towards Women and the Feminine in Early Buddhism
which is found in Buddhism, Sexuality and Gender, ed. J. I. Cabezon.
