Buddhist Nuns, Essay Example

The founding of the bhikkhuni order – essentially the Buddhist nuns – was a response to the desire for women to become devoted followers and travel the path to enlightenment with men.  However, the world in Buddha’s lifetime was much like many other ancient eras, where women were commonly placed in a subservient role.  With that in mind, it is easy to understand how bhikkhunis would be considered less than their male counterparts, the Bhikkhu monk.  After the pleading of Prajâpati Gotami to follow the teachings of her adopted son, the Buddha developed the “Eight Vows of Respect” for this new order, which put them in constant subordination to the monks.  The choice that the Buddha made to include them was a careful one:  as a devout celibate, he knew that sexual desire was a hindrance to enlightenment, and the presence of women only exacerbated the struggle to overcome the power of lust.  However, it was against the nature of his faith to deny anyone a chance to follow the path, so the Vows accepts women but appears to keep them at a sort of ‘arm’s length’ from full equality.  In a rare incident where society and religion initially agree, it was critical to appease those who may want to practice.  It is fortunate for the integrity of the faith that this notion of gender inequality softened as Buddhism spread across Asia.

Nakai’s “Women and Buddhism” speaks to the application of religious text and idealism in society. Likewise, Richard Summerbell’s work in “Does gay-positive Christianity suggest a gay-positive orthodox Judaism and a gay-positive Islam” explores the validity of scriptural support for the condemnation of homosexuality.  Both readings seem to ask the same question: What proof is there that God favors one group over another?  Nakai shows how the disdain for women in the Buddhist sangha evolved with the socio-economic climate, such as the emphasis on texts like the Meditation and Queen Srimala Sutras growing with the influence of merchant’-class women on the temples in Central Asia.  Summerbell points to the evolution of thought behind the acceptance of homosexuals in the church in the latter half of the 20^th century, and notes how the Society of Friends already accept same-sex relationships in their midst.  Moreover, both authors note that these ideals rest of shaky religious ground.  Summerbell acknowledges the use of the Biblical references to homosexual behavior in books like Leviticus, but reveals that the laws given to the Jews were focused on behavior occurring in the absence of women.  The passages seem to refer to the idea that same-sex relations are wrong when it is used to replace a woman in the physical sense, meaning that it is wrong for a heterosexual man to lie with another man.  Nakai’s work also brings to light how early monks may have gone too far with the mandate of the Buddha in regards to sexual purity.  His efforts – like displaying a decaying female corpse to prove the passage of physical beauty and sexuality – may have caused a disdain for women that collectively pushed them out of sangha almost altogether.  But can’t a woman achieve enlightenment?  Is it wrong for a truly homosexual man to express his love for another homosexual man?  Nakai and Summerbell produce separate argument for separate cases in separate faith traditions, but the findings appear to be the same: social mores can mask or even trump the will of God.

Roger Corless’ claims about the queer nature of Buddism speak to the necessity of an openness and interdependency that propels people to enlightenment.   In a society that largely deems homosexuality and “deviant” sexual desires as immoral and detrimental, it is difficult at first glance to see how heterosexuality can clutter the path to a higher level of consciousness.  After all, men and women are designed to join together and reproduce, thus serving as an integral part of the cycle of life and death.  The catch, so to speak, in this dynamic is that there is always a need to dominate or consume, for the man to use the woman as a tool of procreation.  That animalistic nature has influenced the world politically, socially, and of course, religiously.  Those instincts, however, do not agree with the teachings of the Dharma.  The Dharma tells us that relationships, like marriage, need to be focused on mutual support and learning, so that two people may share knowledge and encourage one another to be greater in this life than the one before.  Without the drive to find a mate for procreation, it is arguable that a homosexual searches for a partner in the truer sense; someone who is willing to share the experience of life and be together solely for companionship.  But does this freedom from participating in this facet of the samsara flow make homosexuals superior to heterosexuals? The Buddha nature already deals with eliminating the idea that social station denotes a level of divine understanding, and this modern sexual caste system of “queers” and “normal” people can be met with the same intolerance.  Heterosexuals are not inferior, but their nature can create more obstacles to overcome in order to reach enlightenment.  According to the Buddha nature, it is essential for people to integrate the lessons learned from their own suffering into the lives of one another, so that the lines drawn between society, sex, and even the individual itself disappear into a oneness.  While the heterosexual lifestyle does not keep a person from achieving this harmony, it does require one to disregard instinct and refrain from dominating or being subjugated to another person.  Because the Buddha Nature provides a way to achieve this understanding for all, it is not correct to say that it is “straight” or “queer.”  Rather, it helps us recognize that sexuality is a path towards connectivity, and the choices that we make affect how difficult or long the journey will be.

The political climate and the outbreak of war over the past decade has done very little for the image of Islam.  While many people – especially Americans in this post-9/11 world – are quick to point out the terrible acts of Islamic extremists, the true nature of the religion advocates a lifestyle that creates mutual respect and love between God’s people.  In relations between men and women, this love and respect should go even deeper.  While a woman tends to the needs of the home and family (in addition to her own ventures and career goals), a man provides protection and security.  This give and take is what opens two people up to one another in a marriage; interdependency is created and the bond between husband and wife grows very strong.  Unlike Christianity and Buddism – where the need of address the needs of the wife are either diminished or forgotten – Islam demands that a man respect his wife’s desires, and to cultivate intimacy that transcends the base instinct to procreate.  This view strongly agrees with my personal view on building lasting relationships. At the core of any strong connection between people there must be a sense of respect, where one recognizes the needs, aspirations, and desires of the other.  That act of selflessness brings about trust, and the giver can be sure to expect the same respect given back.