Although there are many Buddhist monks in Thailand, there are no nuns. The "establishment" monastic institution of Thailand, the Sangha Supreme Council, does not recognize the ordination of bhikkhunis (nuns), for reasons that amount to a classic "catch 22." The proper ordination of nuns requires the presence of ordained nuns, and because there are no ordained nuns in Thailand, nuns cannot be ordained.
You might remember that awhile back a Thai monastery in Australia held a nuns' ordination by importing some ordained nuns from Taiwan for the ceremony. But when the "home office" in Thailand found out about this, it severed ties to the Australian branch and informed the Australian monks they were no longer part of the order. I'm guessing the nuns from Taiwan were Mahayana and not Theravada, but still, that does seem harsh.
Women in Thailand who want to devote their lives to the dharma are called mae chi or mae ji, a term of unknown origin. They shave their heads, take vows, and wear traditional robes, but they have no official status as ordained anything. They are neither clergy nor laypeople, or they are both, depending on circumstances.
An article in the Bangkok Post sheds light on the precarious position of the mae chi of Thailand. As I said, the Thai monastic sangha considers the mae chi to be laypeople. Likewise the Thai Transport Ministry considers them to be laypeople, which means they don't get free rides on public transportation, as monks usually do.
Further, because giving alms to mae chi doesn't confer the same merit as giving alms to monks, Thai laypeople give the mae chi much less support. The Thai Interior Ministry, on the other hand, recognizes the mae chi to be clergy -- and bars them from voting.
Since they are not ordained, the mae chi may not teach or perform rituals. I take it their primary role is to be monastery housekeepers so that monks can devote their time to meditation and study and not cooking and cleaning.
But now the Thai sangha is now in an uproar because the management of a Thai monastery in India has been taken over by a mae chi. Here's how the Bangkok Post reported it --
A court in India's Bihar state recently ruled in favour of Mae Chi Ahree Pongsai, a nun in her seventies, who lodged a complaint requesting that she be allowed to replace Phra Khru Pariyat Thammawithet as head of the Thai Nalanda temple, 90km from the state capital of Patna. Mai Chi Ahree reportedly claimed that the former abbot, Phra Maha Tharntong, who died in 2007, had written in his will that if she came into conflict with his successor, she should seek assistance from India's courts to take over.
I liked this part of the article, too.
Phra Khru Suwatthanachariyakhun, vice-rector for public relations at Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University (MCU), said that as the temple was in India, the court's ruling would have to stand, but the decision flew in the face of Thai-Buddhist tradition.
Ooo, Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University. How awesome is that?
Anyway -- the Thai sangha is scandalized by the thought of a woman managing a temple. Mae chi who are allowed to accompany monks to foreign countries are supposed to be "assisting in religious studies and helping to manage food and accommodation for visitors," Phra Khru Suwatthanachariyakhun said.
Remarkably, the Mae Chi establishment in Thailand is scandalized, also. ''What was she thinking when she went to court to get the rights to manage the temple?'' said Mae Chi Ananta Nakboon of the Mae Chi foundation. ''Mae chi are under the support and teaching of the monks. We have no right to challenge their authority in any case. In the temple, the teaching of the monks receives the highest respect from the people. The mae chi do not earn the same respect. How can they then manage temples successfully?''
Hmm, I see the problem, although not the same problem Mae Chi Ananta Nakboon sees. But the issue under discussion in Bangkok is how to maintain proper control of Thai temples and monasteries outside of Thailand.
The solution appears to be to transfer title of such monasteries to the Thai government, so that if mae chi get uppity, or crazy radical abbots start ordaining nuns, the Thai embassy can step in and restore proper order. This has been done with Wat Buddhapadipa in London and Wat Sanghapadipa in Wales, the article says.
Meanwhile, Amnaj Buasiri, director of the secretariat of the Sangha Supreme Council, went to India to try to take control of the Thai Nalanda temple away from Mae Chi Ahree. But the mae chi refused to speak to him and other officials. Instead, she addressed them through a loudspeaker that she had a right to manage the temple.
Time for mae chi liberation, I say.
I agree.
One can only imagine what the cheerleading squad for Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University’s basketball team has to contend with–’Gimme an M! Gimme an A’ … . But seriously, sexism seems to be the problem endemic to ancient religions. They started out in a man’s world. Imagine a princess instead of Prince Siddhartha going off into the world of ancient India to find the truth, leaving her child behind back at the palace. Thailand today shows the full range of women’s status in a patriarchy, the powerless Mae Chi on the one hand, and the young women fed like cattle into the sex industry on the other. Maybe Buddhism can not reform there until the entire society does. I would imagine that many women accept the lowly status of being Mae Chi to avoid a worse fate.
The game would have to go into overtime to let them finish.
I have found so much spiritual wisdom, compassion and inspiration from women Buddhists, nuns, teachers, and even a non-Buddhist. I can’t imagine these spiritual beings reduced to cooking and cleaning so the monks can study and meditate. Chetsang Rinpoche has established a Drikung Kagyu nunnery in India where the nuns can actually learn and practice. This is being done elsewhere, and it is absolutely the right thing to do. Yoginis play such an important role in the Tantric Buddhist lineages. Men and women really are different, but it is farcical to claim that one is categorically better than the other, and this has gone on for millennia. Probably the main reason is that so many people want to rely on brute force, where the women’s wisdom is subtle. I’ll go with the subtle wisdom myself.
Readers may find this talk by Richard Gombrich of interest (Comfort vs:
http://www.ocbs.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=144:comfort-or-challenge&catid=29:articles-archive&Itemid=121
Mr. Gombrich is a world expert in Theravada Buddhism. He pulls no punches about the misogyny and fundamentalism of the Theravada Buddhist hierarchy in Asia (and perhaps here, too, given what Ajahn Sumedho did for the Siladhara in UK monasteries:
http://sujato.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/a-recent-siladhara-ordination/)
Here is a response to this post:
http://www.angryasianbuddhist.com/2011/03/fun-with-asian-names.html
Jeff — It so happens I have relatives living not too far from Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch, Wales, which is way more awesome than a mere Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University. I’d brag about that more, but I can’t pronounce it.
You know, the original line doesn’t bother me. But the jokes are really lame, and even if you think Arun is over-reacting, you might want to consider how – as white Americans – the words coming out of our mouths about others can have a negative impact, regardless of intent.
I learned a long time ago that people who are determined to take offense will do so, no matter how careful one might be to not offend them. Further, whiteness is no guarantee that a person hasn’t had the stuffing oppressed out of him at some point in his life. I also think there’s a point at which deference to someone’s sense of entitled grievance becomes more an insult than a sign of respect, and I say this is one of those times.
No one is saying you set out to cause offense. But I know that when I hurt someone’s feelings–and as you saw on his post, he was really upset–then I say I’m sorry. I don’t tell them to lighten up. I regret the harm I cause others (and I do indeed cause harm), purposeful or otherwise. Not to get too preachy here but this is Buddhism 101 for me.
As soon as society starts making ching-chong sounds at you for having funny relatives and Welsh people face racial exclusion and intimidation, you’ll be on the same footing as Arun.
I want to add that this is the pattern of an abuser — find some picayune thing to turn into a big bleeping deal that will justify an Episode. In the abuser’s mind, his rampage is the fault of his victim, and his anger is justified. And then he expects his victim to apologize to him for making him angry.
Been there, m’lad, done that. No more. If I think I’ve done something genuinely harmful I’ll certainly apologize for it, but when I think someone is trying to manufacture something to be angry about, he can do it without me.
Well, in fact, the Welsh people have faced centuries of exclusion and intimidation. And as a woman of 60 — well, 59 and a half — I lived through a time in which women were pretty routinely excluded and intimidated. Perpetual sexual harassment was a fact of my life for a long time.
So if you are such a believer in apologies, you may apologize to me, although it’s fine with me if you don’t.
I was also subjected to years of emotional abuse when I was younger, and to survive I had to learn that anger directed at me rarely had anything to do with me. I also struggled to persuade myself that just because I was screamed at and belittled on a daily basis– over a period of years — didn’t mean I had no value as a person. I’m still working on that last thing, and I still have issues with other peoples’ anger, but I’m functional. Mostly.
My first Zen teacher used to say that no one can make us angry; we make ourselves angry. So if Arun is determined to make himself angry, I feel sorry for him. If I ever see that he is the object of genuine racial oppression, I will certainly do what I can to defend him.
But my days of being jerked around by other peoples’ anger ended a long time ago. Is that clear?
Now, if any of you other puppies wants to lecture me about my bad attitude, well, sit on it. Further such lectures will be deleted. Thanks much.
“I also think there’s a point at which deference to someone’s sense of entitled grievance becomes more an insult than a sign of respect, and I say this is one of those times.”
I’m in agreement with Barbara on this one. The discussion is also bringing to mind a comment on an earlier post: “There is no political solution to samsara.” And Thich Nhat Hanh’s encouragement to see “superiority complexes” and “inferiority complexes” and “equality complexes” as all being symptoms of comparison-mind — all based on a notion of a separate “me” who is either more fortunate or less fortunate than some “other” along some particular axis of experience.
If we perceive ourselves to be less fortunate than someone else, we can: (1) feel jealous, resentful, angry, etc. creating a toxic mental environment; or (2) we can practice sympathetic joy, understanding that at a deep level the good fortune of “others” is also “our” good fortune; or (3) we can compare ourselves to someone else who happens to be less fortunate that we are, in order for our minds to feel relatively more fortunate, and thus more happy about our “personal” situation. It’s a choice.
This isn’t to deny the existence of structural inequalities, that would be in our collective interest to resolve — just to point out that Dharma practice essentially is about the cultivation of mind, and a dissolving of egoic identification with a specific (asian or female or whatever) body, which allows us to be in contact with our inherent freedom, regardless of circumstances.