This week’s readings on the Sangha helped to illustrate what the experience of Buddhism was like during the Buddha’s life, and to explain the finer details of what it takes to become a monk or nun. To the latter point, in short,

“The monk or nun had to abandon race, caste, family, name, property, occupation, clothing, adornment, hair, even sexuality” (IR 101).

Reading in depth about how much of the material world one must give up to be ordained as a monk or nun gave me a new appreciation for the dedication required to set out on this path.

I am particularly interested in the story of how the Buddha came to allow nuns to be initiated and ordained. In Chapter 2 of The Experience of Buddhism, Strong provides the story of Gautami, the first woman to seek ordination (Strong 53). I was surprised by how much resistance Gautami faced from the Buddha; I counted at least three attempts of Gautami asking the Buddha for ordination for women before he finally (and reluctantly) allowed for women to become nuns. I suppose the reason I was surprised by this was because of the strong emphasis Buddhism places on individualism, and the idea that any individual, so long as they are human, can follow the path set by the Buddha and eventually reach buddhahood. Strong accounts for this dissonance by noting that the sexist views expressed in Buddhist texts should perhaps be attributed to the monastics who wrote and edited those texts, rather than the Buddha himself (Strong 52). However, this still does not sit well with me, because previous readings urged the benefits and accuracies conveyed by transmitting Buddhist teachings orally. If the writers and editors of Buddhist texts included sexist themes that were not taught by the Buddha, does this not reflect poorly on the accuracy of the oral tradition? On the other hand, if we are to attribute the sexism within Buddhist texts to the Buddha, does this not reflect poorly on him?

A brief account of the sexist views found in the Strong reading: after the Buddha decided to allow women to become ordained, he laid out eight cardinal rules which nuns, but not monks, would need to follow. Many of these rules were clearly put in place to keep nuns subordinate to monks:

“A nun, even one who has been ordained for a hundred years, must respectfully salute a monk, even one who has been ordained but a day…. It is forbidden for nuns to criticize monks, for real or nonexistent offenses…” (Strong 55-56).

Further, nuns are subject to a list of offenses that could get them expelled, which monks do not need to follow (Strong 66-67). The very fact that nuns had an additional set of rules, compounded with the fact that some of these rules have the effect of establishing a hierarchy where monks are above nuns, indicates that many Buddhist teachings are rooted in sexism. It is as if the rules were put in place to try to prevent women from attempting to become nuns; indeed, the additional rules contributed to the dying out of the nun lineage in many countries (Strong 52).

Chapter 4 of Thurman’s Essential Tibetan Buddhism discusses at length the rarity and benefits of being born human.

“...once in a human form, well endowed, you are fit for truth, And how this jewel makes you equal to the task of Buddhahood, You should always carefully contemplate your liberty and opportunity” (ETB 117).

The text explains just how rare it is to be born human, and uses that rarity as a way to encourage the reader to do everything in their power to attain enlightenment. It goes on to advocate against the

“clinging to one’s self or work” (ETB 119)

by emphasizing the impermanence of this life. This is an effective message which is echoed by previous readings, including Chapter 2 of Thurman’s Inner Revolution.

My classmates and I have talked at some length about the role of faith in Buddhism. The Thurman reading shed some light on what that role is, and indicated to me that faith is more important than I had realized:

“If you do not pursue the art of generating faith, You will achieve no blessings but continually wander in cyclic life” (ETB 122).

Taken together with some previous readings, I now better understand how faith and “science” (i.e. seeking wisdom for oneself) each have unique and important roles on the path to enlightenment. There seems to be a sort of ideal, middle way between the two, much like the middle way between asceticism and self-indulgence, and the middle way

“between prophet and revolutionary” (IR 100)

taken by the Buddha.

I was also interested in the discussion as to why one should become a monk/nun rather than remain a layperson. Nagasena’s answer is that both a layperson and a monk can attain enlightenment. The difference is that the path is much longer and more difficult for a layperson: pallet town

“To reach the Path by leaving one’s home––that is like the journey of the young, strong man; to reach the Path by remaining a householder, that is like the old man’s journey” (Strong 78).

This sentiment is emphasized in Essential Tibetan Buddhism:

“All the Buddhas of the three times attained Buddhahood in the life-form of a transcendent; no one did so in the form of a householder” (ETB 134).

These passages were very helpful in my understanding of why one would decide to become a monk/nun rather than remain a layperson, and keep material comforts like a house. While it is technically possible to attain enlightenment as a layperson, it can be done much more easily and quickly as a monk/nun. A question I have is what this debate looks like today: are there any people who have found success in reaching the path of enlightenment as a layperson, or is it still a rule of thumb that one must become a monk or nun to have any real hope of success?