🪔🪔🪔 Tidipa

The Buddha's Ethics?

20 min read

In general the Buddha tries his best to be as ethical and as fair as possible, judging from the rules that he sets in the Khandhaka. However, some of his moral values and ethical decisions may seem questionable by modern standards.

Modern Buddhists have tried to rationalise or even whitewash some of these questionable rules, even claiming perhaps they did not originate from the Buddha but were later additions.

However, as per My Motivation for Translating the Khandhaka, the Khandhaka as a whole can be traced to no later than the 2nd century BCE. Although it is possible the author/compiler of the Khandhaka may have invented these rules, it is extremely unlikely given how strict the Buddhist community is regarding the exact wording and the enforcement of these rules, and they were even unwilling to discard the “minor” rules after the Buddha died, and schisms have developed over whether to adopt new rules. So it is likely these rules can be traced all the way back to the Buddha, and reflect his personal opinion.

Ordination is an exclusive club for (some) men

Ordination (admission and full membership in the monastic community) is not open to all, and it would seem only a minority of the population is eligible for ordination. The following types of individuals are not eligible for ordination:

It is clear from the above list, the Buddha intends his community to be an exemplary community full of virtuous men, but it also seems he is specifically rejecting those with encumbrances, disability, diseases (especially infectious ones), abnormal behaviour and states of being (non humans, intersexed and non-binaries).

Elsewhere in the Khandhaka, aberrant behaviour (eg. sexual practice including homosexuality) results in the expulsion of the specific individual(s), but abnormal characteristics (eg. inter-sexuality) results in the prohibition of an entire class of individuals. The Buddha is also happy to exclude specific classes of individuals based on professions, status (slaves or soldiers), as well as those trying to escape from personal circumstances in order to have a perceived simpler existence.

In fact, in 3V/1.63 Upasampadāvidhi, it is clarified that those seeking ordination should have the following characteristics:

  • free from following diseases — kuṭṭhaṃ (leprosy), gaṇḍo (boils), kilāso (eczema or vitiligo), soso (consumption), apamāro (epilepsy)
  • a human being (ie. a “normal” man, free from physical defects)
  • a man (ie. free from sexual abnormalities)
  • a free man (ie. not a slave)
  • free from debt
  • not a royal soldier
  • permitted by parents
  • at least twenty years old
  • owned bowl and robes

So it would seem only able, “normal”, unencumbered and healthy men can be a part of the community. Specifically, intersexed and non-binary (LGBTQIA+) individuals are not allowed. Although this would seem to keep the community in harmony and in good reputation (and presumably free from temptation and vices), it does seem to deny admission to a large class of individuals due to factors seemingly out of their control.

It could be argued that the Buddha’s exclusion of those with physical and sexual abnormalities, as well other “obstructing” characteristics and encumbrances, reflects not just a desire for the community to be seen as exemplary (good looking, bright eyed, shiny faced masculine paragons of virtue free from defects) but also perhaps a need to attract the Buddha’s target market. As (Norman, 1997) and (Gombrich, 2006) and other scholars have noted, the main support for the Buddha appears to come from royal patronage and wealthy benefactors.

A community of thousands would need accommodation, basic necessities and a regular supply of food. The concept of “begging” for alms each day and sheltering in the root of a tree may work for solitary wandering recluses, it is impractical for a large community and must have been so even during the Buddha’s time. The Buddha was dependent on support and generosity, and a large community would be a tremendous drain on the goodwill and resources of a small town.

There is perhaps also an unspoken assumption that individuals who are not “normal” (ie. suffering from abnormalities or defects) must be in that condition due to non-optimal behaviour in past lives, and therefore they are not eligible to join the community because they are not likely to be able to achieve the soteriological goal. “Better luck next life, pal.” Even if the Buddha did not personally believe this to be the case, it was the perception of society that mattered.

Therefore, it was necessary that the community rejected misfits and others that would be shunned by society. Regardless of what the Buddha’s personal attitudes may have been, it was important that the community was perceived to have a good reputation, and that potential benefactors are not discouraged. Indeed, it could be argued the early sections of the Khandhaka could be interpreted as the Buddha specifically targeting wealthy and influential supporters: the conversion of Yasa, his family and friends, the Bhaddavaggiya group and ultimately King Seniya Bimbisāra. It is perhaps not a coincidence that the Buddha’s discourse to these individuals always started with emphasising the virtue of generosity. At one stage, the Buddha even received criticism that he was breaking apart families and drawing the best resources from the town into his community.

The exclusion of non-normative individuals is a pity, since it would seem it is precisely the misfits and rejects of society that have the most to gain from the Buddha’s soteriology. The Buddha’s compassion for them apparently does not extend to allowing them to follow the path.

Slaves in Buddhism

The Buddha was also relaxed about the use of human servants (perhaps slaves?). In 3V/6.3 Pilindavacchavatthu, the Buddha allows gifts from the King of ārāmika (euphemistically, “monastery attendants”) - eventually King Bimbisāra gave Pilindavaccha 500 “attendants”, leading to the creation of “Pilinda’s Village.” Given that “slaves” are not allowed to be ordained (according to 3V/1.34 Dāsavatthu), this would seem to result in an underclass of bonded servants who are not allowed to be members of the community.

Of course, it could be argued that Pilinda’s Village did not consist of “slaves” but ordinary village citizens conducting their own business, and perhaps the King was sharing the taxation proceeds from them, or asking them to donate their time to Pilinda. But this seems a far-fetched interpretation. Surely a King is not in the position to give away the 500 strong inhabitants of a village as a “gift” unless they were his property to begin with, in other words, his slaves.

(Gombrich, 2006b) wrote:

Thus it is that the issue of whether the Sangha may have servants or slaves is little discussed in the Vinaya. Originally, before there were monastic establishments, there can have been no lay servants. But they gradually arrive on the scene and are taken almost for granted. For an ordinary servant there was a euphemistic term, ārāmika - literally just a person connected with a monastery. The Vinaya story is that once a saintly monk was clearing a mountain slope to make a cave to live in, and the king promised to give him a man, an ārāmika,, to help him. He asked the Buddha whether this would be in order and the Buddha agreed. However, the king for a long time forgot to do anything about it; then later, to atone for his negligence, he assigned the monk five hundred servants, who constituted a whole village. While this story seems absurd as it stands, it does illustrate how royal patronage must have shaped the Sangha’s development. Throughout the history of Sri Lanka until very recently the richest monasteries have owned not only vast tracts of real estate but also the labour of its inhabitants, and probably only the king owned land on such a scale as to make such huge donations as whole villages possible.

Gombrich adds:

Inscriptions record that people gave money for the specific purpose of maintaining monastic slaves - and offered the resulting merit to all living beings.

If granting endowments to maintain slaves at monasteries was considered meritorious, freeing them from slavery was considered even more meritorious. Thus the device of offering slaves to monasteries provided a two-fold way for the acquisition of merits. (Rahula, 1956)

We shall see that kings would offer and redeem themselves as a dramatic act of humility. But this practice was not confined to royalty: inscriptions show that it became popular between the fifth and eighth centuries. In such cases the slavery was a kind of fiction; but as late as the fourteenth century a monk could write ‘that in order to liberate oneself from evil tendencies one should liberate slaves’. (Rahula, 1956)

The system of ‘monastery villages’ has not yet quite disappeared from Sri Lanka. A monastery may own the territory of a village, or part thereof, and the right to the labour of its inhabitants, who must till the monastery’s fields and provide other services according to their caste, such as bringing and washing cloth and making music at religious occasions. (Recently the terms of service have been mitigated and the labour can be commuted for cash.) Though we have detailed information on the provision of these feudal services only since the sixteenth century, presumably a very similar system of tied labour employed many of the villagers of ancient Ceylon as ‘monastery attendants’.

The Buddha’s opinion of women

Regarding the ordination of women, the Buddha was initially reluctant and rejected three requests from Mahāpajāpati Gotamī, before being persuaded by Ānanda in 4V/10.1.1 Mahāpajāpatigotamīvatthu. After also being rejected three times, Ānanda reminded the Buddha that women are capable of awakening, and Gotamī was the Buddha’s maternal aunt, foster-mother, nurse, giver of milk; for when the his mother passed away, she suckled him.

The Buddha finally relented, but specified 8 rules (garudhamme) that Gotamī must accept before she can be ordained (4V/10.1.2 Aṭṭhagarudhamma.):

  1. A bhikkhunī (nun) ordained for a hundred years must perform salutation, rising up, reverential salutation with joined palms, (and) proper respect to a bhikkhu (monk) ordained on that very day. This dhamma (rule) also, having been respected, revered, esteemed, (and) honored, is not to be transgressed for as long as life lasts.

  2. A bhikkhunī should not spend the vassa (rains-residence) in a residence where there is no bhikkhu. This dhamma also, having been respected, revered, esteemed, (and) honored, is not to be transgressed for as long as life lasts.

  3. Every half-month, a bhikkhunī is to expect two dhammas (things) from the Saṅgha (order) of bhikkhus: the asking of the Uposatha (observance day), and the approach for ovāda (exhortation). This dhamma also, having been respected, revered, esteemed, (and) honored, is not to be transgressed for as long as life lasts.

  4. A bhikkhunī who has completed the vassa (rains-residence) must make the pavāraṇā (invitation) before both Saṅghas on three grounds: by what has been seen, or by what has been heard, or by what is suspected. This dhamma also, having been respected, revered, esteemed, (and) honored, is not to be transgressed for as long as life lasts.

  5. A bhikkhunī who has transgressed a garudhamma (important rule) must undertake mānatta (penance) for half a month before both Saṅghas. This dhamma also, having been respected, revered, esteemed, (and) honored, is not to be transgressed for as long as life lasts.

  6. A sikkhamānā (female probationer) who has trained for two years in the six dhammas (rules) is to seek upasampadā (higher ordination) from both Saṅghas. This dhamma also, having been respected, revered, esteemed, (and) honored, is not to be transgressed for as long as life lasts.

  7. A bhikkhunī should not in any way whatsoever revile or abuse a bhikkhu. This dhamma also, having been respected, revered, esteemed, (and) honored, is not to be transgressed for as long as life lasts.

  8. From today onwards, the channel of speech for formal admonition from bhikkhunīs to bhikkhus is closed; the channel of speech for formal admonition from bhikkhus to bhikkhunīs is not closed. This dhamma also, having been respected, revered, esteemed, (and) honored, is not to be transgressed for as long as life lasts.

Whilst some of these rules seem reasonable, I see no reason why they should be imposed only on women and not men as well. Rule 1 however seems misogynistic - even the most senior bhikkhunī must respect and revere the most junior bhikkhu. Furthermore no bhikkhunī can revile, abuse or admonish any bhikkhu (rules 7 and 8).

Not satisfied with Gotamī accepting the above rules, the Buddha had a parting shot:

“If, Ānanda, women had not obtained the pabbajjā (going forth) from home to homelessness in the Dhamma-Vinaya (Doctrine and Discipline) proclaimed by the Tathāgata, the brahmacariya (optimal life), Ānanda, would have lasted long; the saddhamma (true Dhamma) would have endured for a thousand years. But since, Ānanda, women have gone forth from home to homelessness in the Dhamma-Vinaya proclaimed by the Tathāgata, now, Ānanda, the brahmacariya will not last long. Now, Ānanda, the saddhamma (true Dhamma) will endure for only five hundred years.”

So essentially women are the reason why the teachings will be corrupted earlier. Just in case we were not entirely clear of the Buddha’s low opinion of women, he further explains that the ordaining of women is a weakening force analogous to:

  • those families which have many women and few men are easily despoiled by robbers, by house-breakers

  • in a flourishing rice field, a disease called setaṭṭhikā (white-boned blight) falls, so that rice field does not last long

  • in a flourishing sugarcane field, a disease called mañjiṭṭhikā (red-rust) falls, so that sugarcane field does not last long

In short, women weaken the community, like a disease.

There is really no excuse for this level of misogyny.

This narrative shows some signs of being a late addition. For example, it refers to the four stages of awakening (which is otherwise not explained in the Khandhaka, and usually regarded as Theravadīn specific doctrine):

  1. the fruit of stream-entry (sotāpattiphala),
  2. the fruit of once-returning (sakadāgāmiphala),
  3. the fruit of non-returning (anāgāmiphala),
  4. the fruit of arahantship (arahattaphala)

Also, the narrative implies the early death of the Buddha’s mother, which is otherwise not detailed in the Khandhaka.

Even so, clearly the 8 conditions/rules for bhikkhunīs are unlikely to have been introduced after the Buddha’s death, so perhaps the narrative serves to justify why these rules needed to be articulated.

Regardless of whether the narrative was accurately depicting the Buddha’s opinions, or perhaps that of an unknown disciple after his death, the author of these comments was clearly uncomfortable with women. He was quite possibly simultaneously sexually attracted to women and repelled by them.  Yasa’s story could have been the Buddha’s (and in fact was included as a story from the Buddha’s own life in some versions of the Buddha’s biography). Even after awakening, the Buddha clearly sees women as a danger, representing temptation and corruption to the community.

10.3 Tatiyabhāṇavāra further specifies that bhikkhunīs must also be free from “obstructing characteristics” (antarāyike dhamme):

  • animittā: those without the mark (ie. lacking sexual organs),
  • nimittamattā: those with only the mark (ie. with incomplete or not fully formed sexual organs),
  • alohitā: those without blood (ie. non menstruating),
  • dhuvalohitā: those with constant blood (ie. always menstruating),
  • dhuvacoḷā: those with constant discharge (ie. always wearing a menstrual rag),
  • paggharantī: those who dripped (ie. incontinent),
  • sikharaṇī: females having genital prolapse; or with extruding genitalia,
  • itthipaṇḍakā: asexual female, or female eunuch,
  • vepurisikā: “butch” females, or androgyns,
  • sambhinnā: those who were sexually ambiguous,
  • ubhatobyañjanā: those with both male and female characteristics

Clearly, LGBTQIA+ individuals need not apply, as men or women. In this matter, the Buddha (or an unknown author) clearly expresses his disgust and revulsion for all aspects of “the female condition” and non-binary individuals.

One could perhaps argue that the Buddha was simply a creature of his times, and his opinion of women reflect social norms of his time, and if anything he should be valorised for even allowing women to be ordained. For example, (Dhammananda, 2002) wrote:

WOMEN’S position in Buddhism is unique. The Buddha gave women full freedom to participate in a religious life. The Buddha was the first religious Teacher who gave this religious freedom to women. Before the Buddha, women’s duties had been restricted to the kitchen; women were not even allowed to enter any place of worship or to recite any religious scripture. During the Buddha’s time in India, women’s position in society was very low. The Buddha was criticized by the prevailing establishment when He gave this freedom to women. His move to allow women to enter the Holy Order was extremely radical for the times. Yet the Buddha allowed women to prove themselves and to show that they too had the capacity like men to attain the highest position in the religious way of life by attaining Arahantahood. Every woman in the world must be grateful to the Buddha for showing them the real religious way of living and for giving such freedom to them for the first time in world history.

Whilst the above may be (at least partially) true, it skilfully avoids mention of the Buddha’s extreme reluctance, the restrictions (ie. garudhamme) related to female participation in monastic life, as well as the Buddha’s low opinion of women.

Perhaps modern Buddhists will disregard these historical prejudices and treat female and male members of the monastic community equally? In an ideal world, that would be nice, but unfortunately this is not the case in some South East Asian Buddhist countries.

As Wikipedia reports:

The tradition [of bhikkhunīs] flourished for centuries throughout South and Southeast Asia, but appears to have lapsed in the Theravada tradition of Sri Lanka in the 11th century C.E.  It apparently survived in Burma to about the 13th century, but died out there too. Although the bhikkhunī order is commonly said to have never been introduced to Thailand, Laos, Cambodia or Tibet, there is substantial historical evidence to the contrary, especially in Thailand. With the bhikkhunī lineage extinct, no new bhikkhunīs could be ordained since there were no bhikkhunīs left to give ordination.

For this reason, the leadership of the Theravada bhikkhu Sangha in Burma and Thailand deem fully ordained bhikkhunīs as impossible. “Equal rights for men and women are denied by the Ecclesiastical Council. No woman can be ordained as a Theravada Buddhist nun or bhikkhunī in Thailand. The Council has issued a national warning that any monk who ordains female monks will be punished.” Based on the spread of the bhikkhunī lineage to countries like China, Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam, Japan and Sri Lanka, other scholars support ordination of Theravada bhikkhunīs.

Without ordination available to them, women traditionally voluntarily take limited vows to live as renunciants. These women attempt to lead a life following the teachings of the Buddha. They observe 8–10 precepts, but do not follow exactly the same codes as bhikkhunīs. They receive popular recognition for their role. But they are not granted official endorsement or the educational support offered to monks. Some cook while others practise and teach meditation.

There has been several attempts to reestablish bhikkhunī ordination in various countries, with only partial success. For example, female ordination is now practised in Sri Lanka but it is unclear whether this is legally recognised by the government, and it is still opposed by some monastic leaders (the main Nikayas - Malwathu, Asgiri, Amarapura, Ramanna). For example, the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance does not recognize Bhikkhunis. However, at least bhikkhunī can now be issued identity cards affirming their religious status:

The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka in SC FR 218/2013 addressed a landmark Fundamental Rights application concerning religious identity and gender equality, specifically the recognition of Bhikkhunis (female Buddhist monks) in State-issued identity documentation. LankaLaw

Thailand still does not recognise female ordination and in fact punishes not only aspirant female nuns but punish and expel the male monks who assist them. For a summary of the situation refer to Seeger - The Bhikkhunī-ordination controversy in Thailand (2006) (Seeger, 2006).

It is certainly disappointing to see recent articles such as Makcharoen - Why Women Cannot Be Buddha? (2018) trying to justify misogynist opinions of women, even to the point of claiming women cannot be Buddhas (a statement that as far as I know the Buddha never made).

The ten abstinences

Buddhists sometimes suggest that the Buddha has an ethical framework, such as the 10 training rules for novices (sikkhāpadāni) in 3V/1.42 Sikkhāpadakathā:

  1. pāṇātipātā veramaṇī (abstinence from onslaught on breathing beings)

  2. adinnādānā veramaṇī (abstinence from taking what is not given)

  3. abrahmacariyā veramaṇī (abstinence from unchastity)

  4. musāvādā veramaṇī (abstinence from false speech)

  5. surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī (abstinence from intoxicants, liquor, and strong drink, which are a basis for heedlessness)

  6. vikālabhojanā veramaṇī (abstinence from eating at the wrong time)

  7. naccagītavāditavisūkadassanā veramaṇī (abstinence from dancing, singing, music, and seeing unseemly shows)

  8. mālāgandhavilepanadhāraṇamaṇḍanavibhūsanaṭṭhānā veramaṇī (abstinence from wearing garlands, using perfumes and cosmetics, and from occasions for adornment and beautification)

  9. uccāsayanamahāsayanā veramaṇī (abstinence from high and luxurious beds)

  10. jātarūparajatapaṭiggahaṇā veramaṇī (abstinence from accepting gold and silver)

But these appear to be a more or less an arbitrary set of abstinences rather than a true ethical framework. Although some of these rules would appear to make sense, others seem puritanical, and perhaps reflect the Buddha’s personal opinion regarding what may be non optimal behaviour rather than a structured basis for making ethical decisions. They can perhaps be best interpreted as a minimum guide for acceptable behaviour for novices so that they appear seemly before the public, to avoid criticism. In other words, the Buddha’s primary concern seem to be to uphold the reputation of the community and not discourage his target market, rather than imposing moral values.

Later on some these abstinences were adopted by the monastic community and lay disciples in general and today many Buddhists try to practice some of them regularly.

References

Dhammananda, K. S. (2002). What Buddhists Believe (Expanded 4th Edition). Buddhist Missionary Society Malaysia.
Gombrich, R. F. (2006a). How Buddhism Began: The conditioned genesis of the early teachings (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Gombrich, R. F. (2006b). Theravāda Buddhism: A social history from ancient Benares to modern Colombo (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Norman, K. R. (1997). A Philological Approach To Buddhism: The Bukkyō Dendō Kyōkai Lectures 1994: Vol. V.
Rahula, W. (1956). History of Buddhism in Ceylon: the Anuradhapura Period. Gunasena.
Seeger, M. (2006). The Bhikkhunī-ordination controversy in Thailand. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 29(1), 155–183.

Graph View

Backlinks