What Did the Buddha Mean: Ordaining Nuns Will Shorten the Duration of the Dharma?

compassionate_warrior

"If, Ananda, women had not entered from household life into the houseless one, under the Doctrine and the Discipline announced by the Tathagata, religion, Ananda, would long endure; 1000 years would the Good Doctrine abide. But since, Ananda, women have now retired from household life to the houseless one, under the Doctrine and the Discipline announced by the Tathagata, not long, Ananda, will religion endure; but 500 years will the Good Doctrine abide." -- Sutta Pitaka

Why did the Buddha say this? Clearly, he was wrong; it's been 2500 years, and the "Good Doctrine" is alive and well. Comments, interpretations, explanations, musings?

Jeffrey

Well he was wrong in his prediction as most fortune tellers. I don't know why he thought that.

GuyC

Hi Compassionate Warrior,

We don't know that these are actually the Buddha's words.

Metta,

Guy

compassionate_warrior

We don't know that these are actually the Buddha's words.

Oh really? You mean we don't know any more than we know if anything attributed to the Buddha was actually his words, or did you mean something else?

person

I think maybe it meant the uncontaminated teachings. Or maybe 1000 years shouldn't be taken literally and the Dharma will just last half as long. Also its not clear from that statement that women entering the monastic life is the sole cause, it could be that having both men and women ordaining is the cause. For example if it was just women that could ordain and not men maybe the Dharma would still last 1000 years.

compassionate_warrior

Also its not clear from that statement that women entering the monastic life is the sole cause, it could be that having both men and women ordaining is the cause.

Right, maybe "co-ed" ordination is the cause. That's what I tend to suspect, but I wanted to get opinions from some of our suttra students and expert mods.

aMatt

I wonder if it is describing how with both sexes learning the craft, it wouldn't have to work its mojo on the human race for as long. The more elbows scrubbing the floor, so to speak, the less time the floor is dirty.

Jeffrey

Maybe by dharma he meant the practice of the dharma stemming recognizably from buddhas sangha 500 years and he wasn't refering to the dharma that exists since the connections are so dispersed and distant.

Sort of like the dandelion with its seeds lasts a few days and then they disperse.

compassionate_warrior

I thought about that, aMatt, but it doesn't quite make sense. Notice he says, "not long will religion endure; but 500 years will the Good Doctrine abide". The reasoning you put forward (I've seen that argument before, here) would tend to imply that once everyone comes to the Dharma, it wouldn't be needed anymore. So once everyone's on board, we can all throw it away. That doesn't make sense, unless everyone has reached Enlightenment , which seems like a tall order in just 500 years. If everyone's Enlightened, then, true, the "raft" is no longer needed, as they say. But I'd think that even if the world's population all subscribed to the Dharma, each person would reach Enlightenment at his/her own rate. So it would still be needed beyond 500 years. Maybe if everyone came to the Dharma, AND ordained, then the population would collapse, and indeed, the Dharma then would no longer abide. But that's assuming everyone became monks and nuns. (And assuming ALL those monks and nuns would keep their celibacy vows...)

In any case, it looks like additional assumptions would need to be made for your argument to hold, if you take a closer look.
:scratch:

aMatt

I looked closely. I think you are attempting to make concrete the metaphoric and metaphoric the concrete. Either way, that seems to be a reasonable reason to say such a thing.

GuyC

Hi Compassionate Warrior, Hi Person,

Also its not clear from that statement that women entering the monastic life is the sole cause, it could be that having both men and women ordaining is the cause.

Right, maybe "co-ed" ordination is the cause. That's what I tend to suspect, but I wanted to get opinions from some of our suttra students and expert mods.

AFAIK - In the Theravada tradition, the monks and nuns are not allowed to live together. The nuns are supposed to visit once a fortnight for a Dhamma teaching, but that's about it.

Metta,

Guy

GuyC

Hi Compassionate Warrior,

We don't know that these are actually the Buddha's words.

Oh really? You mean we don't know any more than we know if anything attributed to the Buddha was actually his words, or did you mean something else?

I primarily meant something else, but, yes, we don't really know whether anything attributed to the Buddha actually came from him.

I am far from an expert on this subject, but I have heard a theory from other sources that the idea of the Buddha being reluctant to ordain women in the first place may be a later addition. According to another Sutta the Buddha supposedly tells Mara that he will not enter Pari-Nibbana until he has established a four-fold Sangha of monks, nuns, lay men and lay women. The theory goes that the sentiment expressed in both of these ideas is contradictory and so one (or perhaps both) of these may not have been the Buddha's words.

Metta,

Guy

compassionate_warrior

Sorry, didn't mean to imply living together, just ordaining. From what I understand, Ananda had to do a bit of persuading to convince the Buddha to allow nuns to ordain at all.

I am far from an expert on this subject, but I have heard a theory from other sources that the idea of the Buddha being reluctant to ordain women in the first place may be a later addition. Guy

Thanks, Guy. Now that you mention it, that sounds familiar.

fivebells

People put too much on the Buddha. He's a guy who developed a technique for awakening. The sun did not actually shine out of his arse. Awakening does not imply infallibility or omniscience. Maybe he just screwed up, here. Maybe the prediction resulted from an uncritical assimilation of a cultural assumption. Does it have any bearing on the practice he taught? Not really, because the misogynistic institutions where it's primarily practiced are not the only game in town.

compassionate_warrior

Awakening does not imply infallibility or omniscience.

Some people have said they believe it does. This is a great topic for it's own thread!

GuyC

Hi Fivebells,

Does it have any bearing on the practice he taught?

In my opinion, it is all too easy to just think "oh well, let's just meditate, it doesn't matter", but it doesn't make the issue go away. This issue was not only relevant 2500 years ago - it still affects the attitudes and practices in Buddhism today.

Metta,

Guy

compassionate_warrior

This issue was not only relevant 2500 years ago - it still affects the attitudes and practices in Buddhism today.

Do you think the whole thing about the Dharma's "abiding" being cut short might be a later add-on? Has there been any scholarship on this?

GuyC

Hi Compassionate Warrior,

This issue was not only relevant 2500 years ago - it still affects the attitudes and practices in Buddhism today.

Do you think the whole thing about the Dharma's "abiding" being cut short might be a later add-on? Has there been any scholarship on this?

I am reluctant to straight-out say "yes" or "no" because I have not done the necessary research (even if I had I might still be reluctant). Bhante Sujato has done a lot of research on this and related subjects, you can check out his blog here where he discusses some of his ideas: http://sujato.wordpress.com/

Metta,

Guy

DhammaDhatu

Why did the Buddha say this? Clearly, he was wrong; it's been 2500 years, and the "Good Doctrine" is alive and well. Comments, interpretations, explanations, musings?

Many women ordained due to believing in rebirth. Thus the monks are forced to teach them about rebirth to serve their needs.

After 500 years, the Buddha-Dhamma was basically destroyed, with the core doctrines interpreted to mean rebith, most noteably Dependent Origination

at http://sujato.wordpress.com, we can read a sad & pitiful speech the monk gave in Malaysia about death & dying where he interpreted core doctrines, such as the Four Noble Truths, to mean rebirth

in this speech, the monk shamelessly, without conscience, twisted the intention the Buddha-Dhamma

Last century, some monks, was noteably Ajahn Buddhadasa and then Ajahn Chah, tried to resurrect the true Dhamma

but today, even those masquerading as their disciples, such as Brahm and Sujato, make great efforts to misinterpret & destroy the true Dhamma again

my compassion is not the same as the arahants. Ajahn Chah had infinite compassion but it seems named the monk "Brahm" or "Brahminism" according to his inclinations

Vincenzi

@Dhamma_Dhatu

your position doesn't make sense; a Buddha wouldn't teach something that isn't Dharma just to please others.
that's a very weak argument.

DhammaDhatu

my arguement is not weak

the Buddha taught Buddha-Dhamma, his unique teachings or revelations

the Buddha also taught improvements to the existing teachings, including rebirth

the scriptures clearly state what was taught to monks & laypeople respectively was different

It's just that for a long time I have attended to the Teacher, and to the monks who inspire my heart, but never before have I heard a talk on the Dhamma like this.

This sort of talk on the Dhamma, householder, is not given to lay people clad in white. This sort of talk on the Dhamma is given to those gone forth.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.143.than.html

GuyC

Hi DD,

In my opinion, Ajahn Buddhadasa, Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Brahm and Bhante Sujato all taught/teach (or at the very least, try to teach) the true Dhamma to the best of their ability. In my opinion, none of them are "making great efforts to misinterpret the true Dhamma".

Metta,

Guy

DhammaDhatu

we can read a sad & pitiful speech the monk gave in Malaysia about death & dying where he interpreted core doctrines, such as the Four Noble Truths, to mean rebirth...

http://santifm.org/santipada/2010/rebirth-and-the-in-between-state-in-early-buddhism/

DhammaDhatu

In my opinion, Ajahn Buddhadasa, Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Brahm and Bhante Sujato all taught/teach (or at the very least, try to teach) the true Dhamma to the best of their ability.

We really need to take issue with misrepresenting individuals such as Ajahn Buddhadasa and Ajahn Chah.

False (untrue) speech in Buddhism is considered a transgression and bad karma.

Tell me what books and speeches you have studied and understood by Ajahn Buddhadasa and where he taught the same as Sujato taught at the link above?

:sawed:

compassionate_warrior

Stay on-topic please, guys.

DhammaDhatu

a Buddha wouldn't teach something that isn't Dharma just to please others.

i did not say this. by 500 years after his death, the Buddha was obviously gone

DhammaDhatu

Stay on-topic please, guys.

it is on topic

i have posted modern day examples of adulterations of the core Buddhist teachings to demonstrate how this process occurs

now please, if you spend your time here demanding others answer your questions instead of studying for yourself, at least read the information posted

you are no longer a "newbie" or "new buddhist"

DhammaDhatu

Good Doctrine

this means the "core" doctrine or "true" doctrine, as follows:

Staying at Savatthi. "Monks, there once was a time when the Dasarahas had a large drum called 'Summoner.' Whenever Summoner was split, the Dasarahas inserted another peg in it, until the time came when Summoner's original wooden body had disappeared and only a conglomeration of pegs remained.

In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent [lokuttara: supramundane], connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering.

But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.

In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about.

Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.'

That's how you should train yourselves.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn20/sn20.007.than.html

GuyC

Hi DD,

False (untrue) speech in Buddhism is considered a transgression and bad karma.

I thought that you thought that kamma was just something taught to people who believed in rebirth and there appears to be an implication that you believe that kamma and rebirth are not true (but please correct me if I am wrong about this). If this is so - and if you admit that the Buddha did teach kamma and rebirth when he thought that kamma and rebirth where false - according to this view, wouldn't this make the Buddha a liar? ....anyway....

Tell me what books and speeches you have studied and understood by Ajahn Buddhadasa and where he taught the same as Sujato taught at the link above?

I have read part of this article about Buddhadasa's attitude towards Buddhist women in Thai culture: http://www.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/repository/90001039.pdf

At the very least, one thing that I think Ajahn Buddhadasa and Bhante Sujato agree upon is that women and men are equally capable of attaining Enlightenment.

Metta,

Guy

compassionate_warrior

Stay on-topic please, guys.

it is on topic

I was referring to what looked like bickering about teachers.

DhammaDhatu

According to another Sutta the Buddha supposedly tells Mara that he will not enter Pari-Nibbana until he has established a four-fold Sangha of monks, nuns, lay men and lay women. The theory goes that the sentiment expressed in both of these ideas is contradictory and so one (or perhaps both) of these may not have been the Buddha's words.

Sure

But Commpassionate Warrior asked for "comments, interpretations, explanations, musings"

DhammaDhatu

I thought that you thought that kamma was just something taught to people who believed in rebirth....

More misrepresentation. I have made scores, if not hundreds of posts about the results of good & bad karma.

:sawed:

DhammaDhatu

I have read part of this article about Buddhadasa's attitude towards Buddhist women in Thai culture: http://www.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/repository/90001039.pdf

At the very least, one thing that I think Ajahn Buddhadasa and Bhante Sujato agree upon is that women and men are equally capable of attaining Enlightenment.

This is not related to interpretation & teaching of core docrine.

And, BTW, who do you believe referred you to this essay on You Tube? Did you enjoy it?

I thought it was well written and researched.

DhammaDhatu

GuyC

Hi DD,

I thought that you thought that kamma was just something taught to people who believed in rebirth....

More misrepresentation. I have made scores, if not hundreds of posts about the results of good & bad karma.

I wasn't trying to misrepresent you. I was asking a question to try and clarify your position and I even asked you to correct me if I was wrong about what appeared to me to be your view.

So do you personally believe in kamma and/or rebirth?

Just curious...

Metta,

Guy

DhammaDhatu

So do you personally believe in kamma and/or rebirth?

Karma, yes, obviously. But not post-mortem rebirth.

About the OP, I prefer to regard the Buddha spoke what it is reported in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, about the fourfold assembly.

Attributing the decline in Buddha-Dhamma after 500 years to women sounds a bit dodgy to me.

For the Blessed One, O Lord, spoke these words to me: 'I shall not come to my final passing away, Evil One, until my bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have come to be true disciples — wise, well disciplined, apt and learned, preservers of the Dhamma, living according to the Dhamma, abiding by the appropriate conduct, and having learned the Master's word, are able to expound it, preach it, proclaim it, establish it, reveal it, explain it in detail, and make it clear; until, when adverse opinions arise, they shall be able to refute them thoroughly and well, and to preach this convincing and liberating Dhamma.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html

GuyC

so, BB = DD? I should have known, either that or it was a clone.

GuyC

So do you personally believe in kamma and/or rebirth?

Karma, yes, obviously. But not post-mortem rebirth.

Thanks for clarifying.

Attributing the decline in Buddha-Dhamma after 500 years to women sounds a bit dodgy to me.

Ah, it is wonderful that we can agree about some things.

DhammaDhatu

DhammaDhatu

Hi Compassionate Warrior

In case you are not following, as Guy posted earlier, the Maha-parinibbana Sutta (below) contradicts what was quoted in the opening post.

The Maha-parinibbana states it was always the Buddha's goal to ordain women.

Please note, (to my knowledge), the quote in the opening post is not from the Sutta Pitaka. It is from the Vinaya & Commentaries.

For the Blessed One, O Lord, spoke these words to me: 'I shall not come to my final passing away, Evil One, until my bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have come to be true disciples — wise, well disciplined, apt and learned, preservers of the Dhamma, living according to the Dhamma, abiding by the appropriate conduct, and having learned the Master's word, are able to expound it, preach it, proclaim it, establish it, reveal it, explain it in detail, and make it clear; until, when adverse opinions arise, they shall be able to refute them thoroughly and well, and to preach this convincing and liberating Dhamma.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html

Malachy12

@fivebells I agree. Siddhartha was human too. It would be wrong to assume that if he said it, it must be divine and perfect.

federica

It has been taken in some quarters as an indication that the Dhamma will be tainted and ended prematurely, because it's men who are subject to sensual temptations.
This is why many of the rules implemented for Bikkhunis are actually not intended to constrain them, but to protect them from predatory males - including monks.

I'm desperately looking for links here, but have this one for starters. I used it recently....
http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=70,2666,0,0,1,0

NOTaGangsta

Buddha does not lie, it's not safe to slander Buddha's remarks.

People are offended and claim it's sexist are deluded themselves. But no one is ultimately female or male. There are truth beyond the mundane world.

Just because we don't like what we hear, doesn't mean it's not true.

Malachy12

Buddha does not lie, it's not safe to slander Buddha's remarks.

Unless we were alive and witnessed the guy speaking, we can never say for certain that these were his exact words, or whether or not he was an actual person. Those kinds of things are not important. That's what makes Buddhism unique. It allows for free thought. What matters more is whether or not the teachings are relevant and true, which is something that we are supposed to investigate. I think there is great danger in suggesting that we should always follow words we assume to be perfect. That kind of thinking reminds me of bible thumpers who have used scripture to justify just about anything on the grounds of divine truth. It is perfectly safe to question things in Buddhism. It's what he would have wanted. If it is a truth, it will become apparent.

Cinorjer

Why did the Buddha say this? Clearly, he was wrong; it's been 2500 years, and the "Good Doctrine" is alive and well. Comments, interpretations, explanations, musings?

Many women ordained due to believing in rebirth. Thus the monks are forced to teach them about rebirth to serve their needs.

After 500 years, the Buddha-Dhamma was basically destroyed, with the core doctrines interpreted to mean rebith, most noteably Dependent Origination

at http://sujato.wordpress.com, we can read a sad & pitiful speech the monk gave in Malaysia about death & dying where he interpreted core doctrines, such as the Four Noble Truths, to mean rebirth

in this speech, the monk shamelessly, without conscience, twisted the intention the Buddha-Dhamma

Last century, some monks, was noteably Ajahn Buddhadasa and then Ajahn Chah, tried to resurrect the true Dhamma

but today, even those masquerading as their disciples, such as Brahm and Sujato, make great efforts to misinterpret & destroy the true Dhamma again

my compassion is not the same as the arahants. Ajahn Chah had infinite compassion but it seems named the monk "Brahm" or "Brahminism" according to his inclinations

Dhamma Dhatu, I can't believe you really mean what your post seems to say. You accuse monks of deliberately, "without conscious" making "great effort to destroy the true Dhamma"? You're saying not that they are just misinformed, but that they are acting to deliberately destroy what you claim was already destroyed long ago.

Some years ago, the Zen Buddhists of my order were invited to attend a Whole World is a Single Flower conference of various traditions in Singapore. It was a marvelous coming together of Buddhist minds, according to the monks who attended, but interrupted by a group of Theravadan Buddhist monks who took it upon themselves to put the Mahayana Buddhists in their place, lecturing them about how none of the Mahayana sutras were true or reflected anything taught by Buddha and the famous Buddha holding up the flower story was nothing but a lie. These monks shamed themselves at a gathering designed to celebrate what we all have in common. Likewise, a board like this has Buddhists from many schools. While I am probably misinformed according to your teaching, I certainly am not deliberately trying to destroy the Dharma. Please be careful about what you post?

DhammaDhatu

Dhamma Dhatu, I can't believe you really mean what your post seems to say. You accuse monks of deliberately, "without conscious" making "great effort to destroy the true Dhamma"? You're saying not that they are just misinformed, but that they are acting deliberately destroy what you claim was already destroyed long ago.

hi

I actually asked the moderators to delete the one sentence hours ago, where I used the words "shamelessly, without conscience" but they did/have not.

So I retract what I said here as I do not know the mind of another. Plus my words were overly harsh in respect to my usual harsh speech.

But the rest of the post I stand by. Ajahn Brahm has gone to great lengths and intellectual arguement ("efforts") to give a different interpretation of Dependent Origination to that of Ajahn Chah.

The essay I posted by Bhikkhu Sujato is the same. It is an intellectual "effort" to distort the genuine teachings.

It is a common value of bhikkhus to not teach emptiness to laypeople. But to distort the core teachings goes too far, imo.

The Buddha did not generally teach the Four Noble Truths & DO to laypeople, including as explanations of rebirth. The Buddha just taught about karmic results in respect to rebirth.

So that I said "deliberately", yes!

These monks certainly understand the meaning of the true Dhamma.

They just wish to start their own rigid version of Buddhism in Australia, where they hold to some common values found in tradition, in the Vinaya and in the suttas.

But these values were not actually "rigid" in the suttas. They were flexible.

All the best

DhammaDhatu

These monks shamed themselves at a gathering designed to celebrate what we all have in common. Likewise, a board like this has Buddhists from many schools.

Sure the monks shamed themselves because they were silly enough to attend such a worldly gathering where they did not have the necessary qualities to contrbute to such functions which are just about feel good rhetoric.

But this is a discussion forum. The nature of such forums includes debates & sectarian viewpoints.

If you are implying my mind should feel shame (hiri), certainly not (apart from the one sentence i felt to be overly harsh and speculative).

Kind regards

:coffee:

DhammaDhatu

While I am probably misinformed according to your teaching, I certainly am not deliberately trying to destroy the Dharma.

Sure. The "misinformed" cannot harm deliberately.

Cinorjer

Eh, I enjoy spirited debates with you. I know some people long for a return to that olde time religion, and I shrug my shouldners. Theravadan and Mayahana Buddhists have been debating the relative merits of their understanding for a thousand years, so it's not like we're going to discover anything new.

SherabDorje

Has anyone thought maybe we should call in the Citation Police and ask where the quote and interpretation of the OP comes from? Is it in the core of the original Pali Canon? Where do this idea and interpretation come from?

Maybe that will settle it. What evidence do we have that the Buddha really said this, rather than it being a later addition?

fivebells

I think there is too much emphasis on what the Buddha did and didn't say. It's authoritarian.