Tripiṭaka (Buddhist scripture), bhikkunis (Buddhist nuns), impermanence of the Dharma
The Buddhist scriptures which are considered to be the oldest and most reliable source of the Buddha's teachings (= "Dharma" or "Dhamma") are the Pāli Canon, Pāli being the language they are recorded in. Because they are divided into three sections, they are also sometimes referred to as Tipiṭaka (Sanskrit Romanisation: Tripiṭaka) which literally means "three baskets."
Historically, Buddha's closest disciple, the monk Ānanda, committed Buddha's sermons to memory word-for-word and passed them down in this fashion, the first council for implementing this having been held only 3 months after the Buddha's passing. This is the origin of chanting in Buddhist practice and the whole reason for the importance of it -- this is how the Dharma was preserved initially, having had no written form until the 4th council which took place hundreds of years after the Buddha, in 29 BC. Those written forms where put together meticulously by thousands of devoted monks at council, with careful attention to variations (which proved minimal) in each sect's recitation, in order to record the original Dharma as exact as possible, and these are the Tipiṭaka. [source: palicanon.com]
The first section is called the Vinaya Piṭaka and is a collection of the monastic rules for Buddhist monks and nuns. It's not simply a lengthy list, but includes background stories of how each of the rules came to be, as Buddha did not just pull this stuff out of his holy meditating ass but had logical thought processes and learned from experiences, as he taught others to do as well. It is interesting to note that many of the rules for Buddhist nuns (bhikkhunis) which are taken to be sexist and oppressive in modern times actually came about out of necessity to protect the women, and individual incidents of them being at particular risk are mentioned. It is only sexist in the sense that it recognises a difference between the sexes. Unfortunately, it was much more likely for a peaceful, unarmed female to be taken advantage of than a peaceful, unarmed male, for instance.
Buddha is noted as having expressed particular concern for the well-being of his nuns because of threats to them and some sources suggest he considered not even ordaining females because he could not guarantee their safety alone in a monastery or wandering to teach the Dharma -- although despite some claims that he in fact did not ordain females it seems pretty clear from the record of his own wife and of his stepmother both having eventually become nuns and subsequently arahants ("enlightened beings"; comparable to saints in other religions) as well as the very existence of the ~350 rules specifically for nuns (as compared to ~250 for monks) that females were ordained from the very beginning of his ministry and there need be no question today of whether or not to do so.
Also, in accordance with the Buddha's repeated insistence to test his teachings for one's self and not follow in blind faith I think it reasonable to reconsider the differences between monastic rules for monks and those for nuns and reassess them for modern times. Following unnecessary ritual only distracts from the purpose, which is to live by the Dharma, as an image of the Dharma, and to actively teach it.
I firmly believe -- also in accordance with the key teachings -- that the Buddhist way of life in general as passed down by the Buddha himself not be at all intended as an immutable dogma, but as a practical exemplar of it for the time it was engendered. The essential Buddhist doctrine itself of Impermanence (Pāli: anicca; Sanskrit: anitya) would have it be so.
Preservation of the original teachings seems still of utmost importance as they need to be the basis for any application of them -- it's in these applications where the changes are seen, and not the Dharma itself.
---
I am still working out the problems of:
- Doctrine of impermanence applying in the case of Dharma being permanent -- unless it can be seen as resolved by the above statement of it changing through it's application. However, the goal should not be understood as an attempt to force it into a state of impermanence, but to discover and understand it's true nature of impermanence. The intention is to realise, not rationalise. Important to note that consistency =/= permanence. Interesting to note that Buddha himself predicted that his own teachings would eventually die out, he was not being pessimistic but reasonable. He was also not an all-knowing divinity but a fallible (albeit brilliant) human being, and I hope for the sake of humanity that by the time his Dharma is no longer taught it's because an equally or better Dharma for humanity has replaced it or humankind has evolved to such an extent that any such Dharma be superfluous.
- Determine whether perceived attachment to the Dharma (and perhaps Sangha) be exceptions to the key teaching of non-attachment or in accordance with it. My reason for leaving out the Buddha here is that it's been clear to me already that attachment to the Buddha himself was not prescribed. Points supporting my view are his not wishing to have any images made of him during his lifetime, as well as comments during his passing away that when he is gone the Dharma should suffice to lead them, and he appointed no successor to take over his role. In the sense of taking refuge in him as any other buddha, Sangha applies here.
Historically, Buddha's closest disciple, the monk Ānanda, committed Buddha's sermons to memory word-for-word and passed them down in this fashion, the first council for implementing this having been held only 3 months after the Buddha's passing. This is the origin of chanting in Buddhist practice and the whole reason for the importance of it -- this is how the Dharma was preserved initially, having had no written form until the 4th council which took place hundreds of years after the Buddha, in 29 BC. Those written forms where put together meticulously by thousands of devoted monks at council, with careful attention to variations (which proved minimal) in each sect's recitation, in order to record the original Dharma as exact as possible, and these are the Tipiṭaka. [source: palicanon.com]
The first section is called the Vinaya Piṭaka and is a collection of the monastic rules for Buddhist monks and nuns. It's not simply a lengthy list, but includes background stories of how each of the rules came to be, as Buddha did not just pull this stuff out of his holy meditating ass but had logical thought processes and learned from experiences, as he taught others to do as well. It is interesting to note that many of the rules for Buddhist nuns (bhikkhunis) which are taken to be sexist and oppressive in modern times actually came about out of necessity to protect the women, and individual incidents of them being at particular risk are mentioned. It is only sexist in the sense that it recognises a difference between the sexes. Unfortunately, it was much more likely for a peaceful, unarmed female to be taken advantage of than a peaceful, unarmed male, for instance.
Buddha is noted as having expressed particular concern for the well-being of his nuns because of threats to them and some sources suggest he considered not even ordaining females because he could not guarantee their safety alone in a monastery or wandering to teach the Dharma -- although despite some claims that he in fact did not ordain females it seems pretty clear from the record of his own wife and of his stepmother both having eventually become nuns and subsequently arahants ("enlightened beings"; comparable to saints in other religions) as well as the very existence of the ~350 rules specifically for nuns (as compared to ~250 for monks) that females were ordained from the very beginning of his ministry and there need be no question today of whether or not to do so.
Also, in accordance with the Buddha's repeated insistence to test his teachings for one's self and not follow in blind faith I think it reasonable to reconsider the differences between monastic rules for monks and those for nuns and reassess them for modern times. Following unnecessary ritual only distracts from the purpose, which is to live by the Dharma, as an image of the Dharma, and to actively teach it.
I firmly believe -- also in accordance with the key teachings -- that the Buddhist way of life in general as passed down by the Buddha himself not be at all intended as an immutable dogma, but as a practical exemplar of it for the time it was engendered. The essential Buddhist doctrine itself of Impermanence (Pāli: anicca; Sanskrit: anitya) would have it be so.
Preservation of the original teachings seems still of utmost importance as they need to be the basis for any application of them -- it's in these applications where the changes are seen, and not the Dharma itself.
---
I am still working out the problems of:
- Doctrine of impermanence applying in the case of Dharma being permanent -- unless it can be seen as resolved by the above statement of it changing through it's application. However, the goal should not be understood as an attempt to force it into a state of impermanence, but to discover and understand it's true nature of impermanence. The intention is to realise, not rationalise. Important to note that consistency =/= permanence. Interesting to note that Buddha himself predicted that his own teachings would eventually die out, he was not being pessimistic but reasonable. He was also not an all-knowing divinity but a fallible (albeit brilliant) human being, and I hope for the sake of humanity that by the time his Dharma is no longer taught it's because an equally or better Dharma for humanity has replaced it or humankind has evolved to such an extent that any such Dharma be superfluous.
- Determine whether perceived attachment to the Dharma (and perhaps Sangha) be exceptions to the key teaching of non-attachment or in accordance with it. My reason for leaving out the Buddha here is that it's been clear to me already that attachment to the Buddha himself was not prescribed. Points supporting my view are his not wishing to have any images made of him during his lifetime, as well as comments during his passing away that when he is gone the Dharma should suffice to lead them, and he appointed no successor to take over his role. In the sense of taking refuge in him as any other buddha, Sangha applies here.