religious identities of buddhist nuns: training precepts, renunciant attire, and nomenclature in...

American Academy of Religion

Religious Identities of Buddhist Nuns: Training Precepts, Renunciant Attire, andNomenclature in Theravāda BuddhismAuthor(s): Nirmala S. SalgadoSource: Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 72, No. 4 (Dec., 2004), pp. 935-953Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40005934 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 12:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Oxford University Press and American Academy of Religion are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to Journal of the American Academy of Religion.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.96.115 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 12:33:20 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40005934?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Religious Identities of Buddhist

Nuns: Training Precepts, Renunciant Attire, and

Nomenclature in Theravada

Buddhism Nirmala S. Salgado

The concept of "renunciation" in contemporary Buddhism is a controversial one. This article investigates the ambiguities latent in the religious and social indicators of Buddhist nuns as "householders" or "laity" and "renunciants." I explore these identities in textual, historical, and contemporary contexts with reference to perceptions on training precepts, ascetic attire, and nomenclature. I suggest that Buddhist nuns participate in not one but variant ideals of renunciation that are located

Nirmala S. Salgado is an Associate Professor of Religion at Augustana College, Rock Island, IL 61201-2296.

I am grateful for grants received from the American Academy of Religion and the Augustana Faculty Research Foundation, which enabled me to conduct the field research for this article. I am deeply indebted to Indira Salgado and Rukmini Kulasuriya for the assistance they gave me in Sri Lanka. Many thanks are due to Daya Wickremasinghe, who assisted me with reading the more difficult passages in Sinhala, and also to Sandagomi Coperahewa and Tilak Weerasekera, who helped me research relevant newspaper articles covering the 1980-1997 period. Ananda Kulasuriya has contributed to my research in many ways and has made useful comments on this article. I am also thankful to George Bond, Steve Collins, Robert Launay, Martie Reineke, and Paul Westman for their insightful suggestions and criticisms on this article and also to Ananda Abeysekara and Carol Anderson for their encouragement. A version of this article was presented at the South Asia Conference in Madison, Wisconsin, in October 2002.

Note, unless otherwise stated, I refer to women who observe the Ten Training Precepts, generally known as Dasa Sil Matas or Ten Precept Mothers, as "nuns."

Journal of the American Academy of Religion December 2004, Vol. 72, No. 4, pp. 935-953 doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfh084 © 2004 The American Academy of Religion



936 Journal of the American Academy of Religion

in a politics of representation, which both includes them in a community of Buddhist renunciants and distances them from it.

THIS IS AN INVESTIGATION OF THE religious and renunciant identities of Theravada Buddhist nuns in Sri Lanka. Numerous studies have demonstrated why Buddhist nuns are in an anomalous position. They conform neither to the cultural role model of wife and mother nor to that of the fully ordained renunciant. However, their celibate life and visual appearance symbolize a religious ideal. Previous studies have defined the liminal position of nuns by contrasting them to both laity and Sangha (the fully ordained community of monastics), without fully exploring the status of the "renunciant" (pavidilpabbajja) person (Barthlomeusz: 136-143; Bloss: 22-24). I will demonstrate that an inquiry into the meanings of "renunciant" and "renunciation" provides more nuanced distinctions that are better suited to understanding controversies about the ambiguous identity of nuns than an examination of the traditional lay/Sangha distinction is. Some householders (gihi) maintain that they respect individual nuns even more than some monks, yet others speak disparagingly of nuns for being "uneducated" and "ignorant" of Buddhism and for living "like beggars." Such divergent attitudes have led to public debates in newspapers and conferences focusing on defining the religious identity of nuns. In this article I examine three interrelated indicators that reflect perceptions on the renunciant status of nuns. These are (a) the Ten Training Precepts and their form as either "Renunciant" or "House- holder" Training Precepts, (b) the ascetic attire worn by nuns, and (c) the nomenclature used for nuns by householders, monks, and nuns themselves. I contextualize these indicators with respect to precedents found in both canonical texts and contemporary Buddhist practice.

Renunciation of the home and all that it symbolizes has been important in helping define the notion of asceticism in South Asian religions. The notion of "home" in Pali is inseparable from the concept of attachment (Collins 1982: 170). Renouncing the home involves (a) leaving the home physically; (b) leaving the home psychologically, that is, leaving desire; and (c) leaving the home ontologically, that is, leaving samsara, the cycle of rebirth and redeath (Collins 1982: 171). The first two types of renunciation are of most relevance here. The debate on the "rights" of the nuns to be considered renunciant involves both a physical and a psychological aspect. Nuns generally argue that they are not householders because they have left the home psychologically. They are professionally celibate and are engaged in religious activities rather than household and familial duties. Some would even argue that they have more right to be called renunciant than certain monks who, despite their technically renunciant



Salgado: Religious Identities of Buddhist Nuns 937

status, remain attached to the "world." However, since there is no clear evidence of textual or social-cultural precedent for determining the householder/renunciant status of nuns, there is room for controversy.

This study is based on interpretations of the training precepts and also on interviews conducted in the summers of 1997 and 2002 and in December 1998. I have interviewed five Buddhist monks who have the Higher Ordi- nation (upasampadd) and eleven female monastics. The female monastics included three women who had recently received the bhikkhuni ordination in India (previously they were Ten Precept nuns), eight Ten Precept nuns, and one samaneri (a novice nun or woman who observes the Ten Training Precepts and is undergoing further training for the bhikkhuni ordination). While the reintroduction of the Higher Ordination for Theravada Buddhist women is still in a fledgling state, the women who claimed to be bhikkhunis had all recently received training for and acceptance into the Higher Ordination and were recognized as such by many in the Buddhist community. Similarly, the samaneri whom I interviewed was one of several women who had begun undertaking the training that was then available to women who aimed eventually to become bhikkhunis. All informants are Sri Lankan. I also researched Sinhala- and English-language newspapers and local publications in the 1980-1997 period.

THE TEN TRAINING PRECEPTS

While most Buddhists would claim to observe the Five Training Precepts, those who observe only these would fall in the category of householder or lay devotee (updsakalupdsikd), although the latter might also include Buddhists who observe additional training precepts. In general, someone who observes the Five or Eight Precepts is not considered to be a renunciant, whereas someone who adopts the Ten Precepts may be so considered. The Eight Training Precepts are most commonly observed on a temporary basis by laity who choose to spend the day at the temple, garbed in white and engaged in meditation and discussions on the Dhamma.

The distinction between renunciant and nonrenunciant (lay) status in the canonical and noncanonical literature provides an interesting compar- ison to the contemporary representation of these identities. In the canonical literature there is a grouping often behavioral prescriptions, known as virtues (dhamma [A.II.253]) or the ten virtues (dasa dhamma [M.I.490]).1

1 Unless otherwise mentioned, all references to primary texts are drawn from Pali Text Society publications. I have used the following abbreviations for primary texts: A. - Anguttara Nikaya (see Hardy; Morris 1955, 1961); D. - Digha Nikaya; M. - The Majjhima-Nikaya (see Chalmers; Trenckner); Pu. - Puggalapannatti (see Morris 1883); Vin. - The Vinaya Pitaka (see Oldenberg).




This list is different from that of the Ten Training Precepts that nuns currently observe.2 Notably, these virtues that are prescribed for nonren- unciants include abstention from misconduct in sexual activities rather than total celibacy. I have encountered only two canonical listings of the Ten Training Precepts that approximate what is known today as the Ten Training Precepts, one of which is in the Vinaya or Book of Monastic Discipline, and the other, in the Khuddaka Patha.3 In the Vinaya the training precepts are referred to as the Ten Training Precepts of the novices (Vin.I.83-84).

The Vinaya list is almost identical to the wording of the list that monastics today know as the Ten Renunciant Training Precepts {pdvidil pabbajja dasaslla). The list that is commonly referred to now as the Ten Householder Training Precepts (gahattha/gihi dasaslla) is basically the same list as the one found in the Khuddaka Patha. Yet there is no textual evidence in the canon indicating that householders or laity followed the same Ten Training Precepts that are known today as dasa sila.4 Neverthe- less, nine of the ten precepts mentioned in the latter are recognized in a separate canonical list that is made in reference to one who is considered a monk (bhikkhu [D.I.63] ), a renunciant (pabbajito) who is in the process of realizing enlightenment (A.II.208, A.V.204; M.I.179, M.I.267, M.I.345, M.IL162, M.II.226, M.III.33; Pu.58), or the Buddha himself (D.I.4). A commentary to a late canonical work indicates that laity may at one time have observed either the Ten Householder Training Precepts or the Ten Renunciant Training Precepts that nuns observe today (Smith: 35). Interestingly, several of the current Householder Training Precepts were only observed by ascetics or those close to enlightenment according to the textual canon itself. Most significantly perhaps, many of the House- holder Training Precepts that seem to define the lack of renunciant status of contemporary nuns were at one time recommended for renunciants alone.

The Ten Training Precepts basically represent a modified version of the Eight Training Precepts. Today Buddhists might observe the Ten Training Precepts either on a temporary basis, at the temple on a full moon (poya) day, or at home. Occasionally they are observed on a more

2 While the first four ways of behaving in the list known as dasa dhatnma are basically the same as the first four training precepts in the list of the Five Training Precepts, the last six are additions that are quite different from what is found in the list of the Ten Training Precepts, known as the contemporary dasa sila/dasa sil. Also see A.II.220 for a version of this list.

I conducted a search for an iteration of the list of dasa sikkhapadani in the Roman script version of the Pali Canon on the Chattha Sangayana CD-ROM (Vipassana Research Institute). While this search resulted in only one list in the entire canon, I am aware of two such lists.

My search for these references was also conducted on the Chattha Sangayana CD-ROM.




continuous basis. The contemporary Ten Training Precepts fall into at least two different categories, the "Householder Training Precepts" and the "Renunciant Training Precepts." The Ten Householder Training Precepts are as follows:

1) I undertake the training precept of refraining from taking life; 2) I undertake the training precept of refraining from taking what is not given; 3) I undertake the training precept to refrain from noncelibacy; 4) I undertake the training precept to refrain from speaking falsehood; 5) I undertake the training precept to refrain from alcoholic drinks and intoxicants - foundations for heedlessness; 6) I undertake the training precept to refrain from taking food at the wrong time; 7) I undertake the training precept to refrain from attending shows as well as dancing, singing, and musical events; 8) I undertake the training precept to refrain from the use of flowers, scents, and cosmetics and from finery and adornment; 9) I undertake the training precept to refrain from using high and large seats/beds; 10) I undertake the training precept to refrain from accepting gold and silver.5

Significant differences between the Ten Training Precepts of the householder and those of the renunciant have gone unrecognized by both scholars and practitioners (Copleston: 471-472; Gombrich: 48-49; Gothoni: 53). These differences are intrinsically related to both perceptions and misperceptions of the appropriate attire and nomenclature for contemporary nuns. Recent scholarship that has identified some differences between the two types of Ten Training Precepts has tended to emphasize the Sangha/laity opposition rather than explore the interstitial role of renunciant identity (Bartholomeusz: 73-74, 157-159; Bloss: 18; Devendra: 183-184).

The Ten Renunciant Training Precepts are currently recited by young boys and men who are undergoing the novice initiation, by men participating in the Higher Ordination ceremony, and by a significant minority of women (about 10 percent of nuns according to some informants) who are being ordained as nuns. Most nuns, however, observe the Ten House- holder Training Precepts. The ritual differences in the Ten Renunciant Training Precepts and the Ten Householder Training Precepts are many. First, the Ten Renunciant Training Precepts are usually recited in the context of either a Novice (Renunciant) Ordination ritual or a Higher Ordination ritual appropriate for members of a Sangha. Words and

5 This list of Training Precepts is taken from The Mirror of the Dhamma (Narada and Kassapa: 18-19), a common prayer book for laypeople. Unless otherwise stated, the translations of this and other non-English passages in this article are mine.




phrases that are mentioned in the Renunciant Ordination ritual (pabbajja mahanavima) and excluded from the Householder Ordination ritual (gihi mahanavima) are, according to my informants, central to the defin- ition of renunciant status. In the initial request for the Renunciant Ordination, "Having taken this robe (kasava), give me the Renunciant Ordination, Venerable Sir, for the sake of expelling all suffering and realizing Nibbana," the word "renunciant" is pivotal.6

In one sense renunciation may refer to what is implicit in the ordination ritual itself. (The Higher Ordination is also considered a Renun- ciant Ordination.) Nuns who do not have the Renunciant Ordination in the Ten Training Precepts might not be considered "renunciants." How- ever, the debate today rests on the wider meaning of renunciation both within and without Buddhism. In the broadest sense of the word, it is used to refer to both Buddhist and non-Buddhist ascetics in general. Within Buddhism, "renunciation" refers not just to a sociological state of "disassociation from the 'world' of inter-connected reproductive-kinship relations and obligations" but also to a state of being without desire (Collins 1988: 109). Hence, although the nuns who have the House- holder Ordination might not be considered "renunciant" in the ritualistic sense, their psychological state of renunciation and their spiritual inclinations might entail them being "renunciant."

Second, the recitation of the Three Refuges in the Renunciant Ordi- nation ritual is unlike that which precedes the recitation of the Ten Householder Training Precepts.7 In the observance of the former, there are two formulations of the Three Refuges, both of which are recited while differing in pronunciation.8 This difference in pronunciation, while

6 All quotations relating to the ordination ritual of the Ten Renunciant Training Precepts are taken from Anuradhapura Shri Sarananda Maha Pirivena. According to one source, this formula, which is not found in the canon, could be as late as the ninth-twelfth centuries (Gombrich: 63). These dates coincide with dates given to me by a scholar-monk who explained the derivation of the formula of the Three Refuges that are a part of the text preceding the recitation of the Ten Renunciant Training Precepts. It is not unlikely that the entire recitation of the ordination ritual dates to about the ninth-twelfth centuries.

7 The Three Refuges that are known to laity are the same ones that are also recited by ordinands who are undertaking the Ten Householder Training Precepts: I go to the Buddha as my refuge; I go to the Dhamma as my refuge; I go to the Sangha as my refuge; for a second time, I go to the Buddha as my refuge, and so on ("Buddharj Saranarj Gacchami, Dhammarj Saranarj Gacchami, Sangharj Saranarj Gacchami, Dutiyampi Buddharj Saranarj Gacchami . . .").

The one recited first is referred to as "the going for the refuges with the am ending" (makaranta saranagamanaya), and the second, as "the going for the refuges with an arj ending" (niggahitanta saranagamanaya [Anuradhapura Shri Sarananda Maha Pirivena: 14-15]). The latter has the same wording as the Three Refuges that are recognized by the ordinary householder. The former, however, is different. Here the wording of the refuges have a Sanskrit influence in the replacement of the Pali arj ending otBuddhay, Dhammag, and Sanghag with the Sanskrit am ending as in Buddham, Dhammam, and Sangham. The monk with whom I discussed this suggested that the Sanskrit ending was brought




perhaps appearing to be a technicality, is, according to my interviewees, a crucial mark of a distinction concerning ritual and renunciant status or the lack thereof. Third, when asking for the Ten Training Precepts, the ordinand specifically requests the administration of the Renunciant Training Precepts: "Venerable Sir, I request that you have compassion and please give me the Three Refuges and the teaching in the Ten Renunciant Training Precepts (Pabbajjd dasasilarj)"

Fourth, in the "renunciant" version of the ritual, the observance of the training precepts involves a single undertaking of all the training precepts as one "rule" rather than ten discrete rules. Thus, the phrase "I undertake" (in the Pali) is only mentioned once after the tenth training precept (rather than ten times after each training precept), when the novice declares that he has "taken these Ten Renunciant Training Precepts."9 This implies that if any one of the Ten Renunciant Training Precepts is broken, the "rule" is violated, and all Ten Training Precepts are therein transgressed. This is explained in a textual commentary (Smith: 28) and is also recognized by the monks and nuns whom I interviewed.10

A fifth difference between the two types of Ten Training Precepts, according to my interviewees, is that the Ten Renunciant Training Pre- cepts, unlike the Householder Precepts, must be administered by a monk who has the Higher Ordination. In the case of novice monks, this would be a preceptor who acts as a parent, a teacher, and a moral guide to the novice throughout his period of probation. Even though nuns may receive either type of Ten Training Precepts from a monk, the ordaining monk cannot serve them as a preceptor in the same way as he might serve a junior monk, because monks are barred from associating closely with members of the opposite sex. As a result, a newly ordained nun may not enjoy the benefit of the type of guidance that a novice monk might. One nun, emphasizing the relationship of the precepts to her renunciant status and nomenclature, explained to me that she observed neither the House- holder nor the Renunciant Ten Training Precepts but, rather, the "Homeless Woman's Ten Precepts" (anagarikd dasa sil). (Her ordination

by Lankan monks from Thailand around the eleventh century when the Higher Ordination was reintroduced to Lanka. He indicated that the Sanskrit usage was present in the Thai ordination ritual. According to him, the decision was made in Sri Lanka to include both forms of the Three Refuges in the ordination at a later time. For a further discussion of these issues, see Bizot: 49-59.

Malalgoda (59) indicates that the Novice (i.e., Renunciant) Training Precepts are the ones that were supposedly observed by the white- or saffron-clad ascetics or ganinndnses, who basically served as monks in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Ceylon, at a time when the Higher Ordination had been lost.

Interestingly, the commentary to the Khuddaka Patha mentions that laypeople might take the Five Training Precepts as one rule, not so unlike the ordinand who undertakes the Ten Training Precepts as one rule (Smith: 28).




included a recitation similar to that of the Ten Renunciant Training Precepts, with the exception of the term "homeless" being substituted for "renunciant."

Finally, the Renunciant Ordination given to novice monks might be differentiated from both the Renunciant and the Householder Ordination given to nuns. Nuns, unlike novice monks, do not embark on a training for examinations deemed necessary for the Higher Ordination and entrance into the Sangha. Before receiving the Higher Ordination, novice monks must pass an examination on Buddhist texts (Gothoni: 135, 139). Some monks I interviewed were emphatic about the importance of this as a defining difference between nuns and novice monks.

The woman who is generally recognized as the first nun from Sri Lanka and the founder of the Lady Blake Hermitage, Sudharmacarl Upasika MSniyarjvahanse (the honorable lay mother Sudharmacarl), observed the Ten Renunciant Training Precepts. According to a study by Kawanami, Burmese nuns (thild-shin) today usually observe no more than eight training precepts. Those who adopt ten training precepts follow training precepts that are a little different from the Ten Training Precepts listed above (Kawanami: 23-24). u

Apparently, Sudharmacarl Upasika MSniyarjvahanse followed the same ten training precepts in Burma as those that are recognized by contemporary Burmese nuns and then later undertook the Renunciant Ten Training Precepts in Sri Lanka, which were given to her by Buddhist monks there.12 The nuns who currently trace their lineage back to her practice the Renunciant Training Precepts.

Apart from some monks and nuns, most Buddhists do not distinguish between the Renunciant Training Precepts and the Householder Training Precepts. Some monks, believing that nuns observe the latter only, identify nuns as "householders." I have not found canonical evidence of laity following either of the two categories of Ten Training Precepts known today. A dearth of textual evidence allows for an ongoing debate on the status of nuns. I suggest that the renunciant status of nuns can be limited neither to their membership status in the Sangha nor to their observance of a particular category of the Ten Training Precepts. The controversy concerning the status of the nuns has raised a range of issues that seem to focus on the central question of whether the nuns are "householders" or "renunciants." While nuns do not consider themselves

11 Their first eight training precepts are identical to those in the list of the Eight Training Precepts, and their tenth training precept is the same as the tenth training precept in the list of the Ten Training Precepts listed above. However, their ninth training precept is a phrase wishing loving- kindness (metta) on all beings.

Interview by the author, 3 August 2002.




as either householders or laity, other Buddhists sometimes disagree. Definitions of householder and renunciant status have also become central in debates concerning the appropriate attire and nomenclature used with reference to nuns.

ASCETIC ATTIRE

The yellow/saffron robe is considered a potent symbol of Buddhist ascetics. Controversies concerning the authentic attire identifying Buddhist monastics are known in the canonical texts. The term theyyasarjgvasaka or "one who lives clandestinely with the bhikkhus" (Rhys Davids and Stede: 310) has been used to refer to those who wear the robes of monks by theft or undeservedly and need to be excluded from the Sangha (Vin.1.86, 1.135, 1.168, 1.320). There have been heated debates on the rights of nuns to wear the yellow robes in recent times. In order to under- stand the alternative positions framed in the context of these debates, it is useful to discuss textual and historical precedent in relation to different types of attire worn by Buddhist ascetics.

The canonical literature makes several references to householders (gihi) who wear white (A.I.73, A.III.297, A.III.384; M.II.23, M.III.261). Mention is also made of individuals who are both householders and laity/ lay devotees (upasaka, upasika) and who wear white (M. 1.491). Such persons are sometimes referred to as brahmacarl (M.I.49I), which might be understood to be celibate householders or householders who follow the Brahma (religious) path (or both). The different moral practices that these white-clad individuals observed is not always clear. It is probable that these individuals observed five or more precepts, and it is very likely that laity following more than the Five Training Precepts were among those who wore white. Individuals referred to as "laity" who observe just the Five Training Precepts are also mentioned in the canon (A.III.203).

Today in Sri Lanka a male or female lay devotee is seen as one who generally takes the Eight or Ten Householder Training Precepts either at home or at the temple. Such a person would usually wear white and not shave his or her head. Copleston (471-472), writing in 1892, mentions shaven-headed women who took the Ten Training Precepts and wore white. Shaving the head marks a further degree of renunciation. Cur- rently, before an ordinand for the novitiate receives a yellow robe and the Ten Renunciant Training Precepts, he wears white and has his head shaven. Before his Higher Ordination an ordinand, even if he has previously received the Novice Ordination, reverts to wearing white and undertakes the Ten Renunciant Training Precepts once again.




Sudharmacari Upasika Maniyarjvahanse, who returned to Sri Lanka in 1905 after her ordination as a nun, is said to have worn a white blouse and a yellow robe "to differentiate herself on the one hand from the bhikkhunis and on the other hand from the uninitiated, undisciplined women in white of which Copleston spoke" (Bloss: 10-11). Edith Blake, writing in 1914-1915, speaks of one Buddhist nun who wore a "salmon- coloured robe" (1915: 57) and of others who were dressed "in a white robe, over which one of pale salmon colour was folded over the left shoulder" (1914: 671 ).13 According to one informant I spoke with in 1997, the color worn by the pioneering women who observed the Ten Training Precepts was not yellow (kaha) as suggested above but, rather, a brown (guru) color. It is possible that the first nuns in Sri Lanka wore white blouses with robes of a variety of colors ranging from yellow to salmon or brown. Several informants suggested that nuns did not begin wearing the complete yellow attire (i.e., the yellow blouse in addition to the yellow robe) until the mid- or late 1950s. Today most, if not all, nuns wear attire that is completely yellow. One nun indicated that Sri Lankan nuns made the decision to uniformly wear the full yellow attire in 1986 when the National Sil Mata Organization of Sri Lanka moved a resolu- tion to this effect. According to her, "On that day, those who had worn brown wore yellow; those who had worn red wore yellow; even those who had worn the white blouse wore yellow."14

The main distinction among the attire of a fully ordained Theravada monk, that of a novice (renunciant) monk or nun, and that of a nun who observes the Householder Ten Training Precepts is that the robes of the former are "cut into pieces" (kada kapala), which means that the robes have been sewn together from separate pieces of cloth, as per Vinaya regu- lations. However, from a distance, excepting the long-sleeved blouse, the yellow color of the nuns' attire makes it hard to distinguish from that of a novice or a fully ordained monk. The change of color from white to a combination of white and yellow/brown and eventually to the complete yellow attire demonstrates how the nuns have, over time, distanced themselves from both the householder and the lay devotee.15

13 Today nuns in Burma wear pinkish salmon-colored robes, possibly the same color worn by

nuns in Burma when Sudharmacari MIniyarjvahanse had her ordination. For further information on the color of the robes of Burmese nuns, see Jordt: 37.

14 Interview by the author, 2 August 1997. The color of the robes of the Burmese nuns also changed over a period of time. This caused a

fierce debate in early-nineteenth-century Burma. Eventually, officials declared that both the white and the red robes were suitable for Burmese nuns (Jordt: 37). A comparative study of the controversies in Burma and Sri Lanka concerning the attire of the nuns might prove a fruitful investigation.




Arguments about the appropriate color of the attire of the nuns relate to the broader debate centering upon the type of ordination they observe. Those who oppose the nuns' wearing of yellow robes usually mistakenly think that they all take the Ten Householder Training Precepts and that they use the robes that are cut and sewn.16 However, not all nuns take the Householder Training Precepts, and there is only one nun I have encountered who, without the bhikkhuni ordination, actually used the robes that are considered to be the prerogative of "renunciants." One writer states: "According to the Dhamma, it is the white attire that is suitable for the Mothers who have taken the Householder Precepts. If an ordained woman (mehenak) dresses in the robes that have been cut in to pieces and sewn according to the Vinaya she, realizing the status oVthey- yasarjvasaya would be defeated by (parade) the dispensation (sasana)."l/ According to this author, a Ten Precept nun who wears the yellow robe has seriously transgressed a monastic rule by adopting attire that is not rightfully hers.

Public debate centering on the appropriate color of the nuns' robes arose at a conference of Buddhist prelates and lay scholars, where some argued that nuns should don brown (guru) instead of yellow.18 The debate has even extended to examining the etymology of the word kaha used for yellow.19 One monk whom I interviewed was very opposed to both the revival of the bhikkhuni order and the nuns wearing the yellow robes, saying, "They have no right to wear the yellow color. ... It is a great wrong that they are doing by wearing this color."20 Some, supporting the nuns' choice of attire, do so on the basis that anyone has the right to wear yellow. Only one article I encountered in researching sources dated from 1980 to 1997 supported the nuns' choice of yellow attire.21 The

16 See "Sil Manivarunta Kahavat Darima Sudusuda?" Budusarana, 31 March 1980; "Dasasil MInivaru," Budusarana, 28 April 1991; and "Dasasil MSnivarunta Kerehit Dharmanukula Visandhumak Onl," Budusarana, 22 July 1992.

17 "Sil Manivarunta Kahavat Darima Sudusuda?" Budusarana, 31 March 1980. The use of the word parade is interesting. The Pali equivalent is parajika, which refers to the most serious transgressions that involve the expulsion from the Sangha. 18 "Dasa Sil Matas and Their Robes," The Island, 18 September 1990.

Some debaters suggest that kaha and kasa both refer to a yellow color (in Sinhala the "h" and c s are often interchangeable); one writer has suggested that there is a difference. This individual

explains that although kaha refers to the yellow color, kasa refers to a type of yellow/orange dye used for the robes, and suggests that while the complete kaha attire should not be worn by those who are renunciant, the latter should wear the specially dyed robes. "Kasavat Darima Sil Manivarunta Tahanamda?" Budusarana, 23 December 1992.

"E gollanta ayiti na kaha pata andinna. . . . Loku varadak tamayi me pata pavicci kirima (interview by the author, 19 July 1997).

"Sil Manivarunta Kahavat Darima Hakida?" Budusarana, 3 August 1980. A lay devotee interviewed in July 1997 also made this argument.




writer, a nun, assumed that all nuns had the status of female novices and renunciants and therefore observed the Renunciant Training Precepts (Chandima: 37). She points out that the Vinaya does not prohibit female novices from wearing yellow.

The controversy surrounding the attire of the nuns has emerged in response to an increasing awareness of (and in some cases resistance to) perceptions of their enhanced social and religious status. It is evident that the inaccurate views concerning the type of Ten Training Precepts taken by nuns (not all nuns take the Householder Training Precepts) has also fuelled the debate. The fact that few Ten Precept nuns actually wear the robes recommended for fully ordained monastics in the Vinaya seems to be of little or no importance. Perhaps the most sensitive point is the per- ception of whether or not the nuns are claiming rights to religious attire that they should not claim. Since householders are generally unaware of the technical differences in monastic attire, the appropriateness of the nuns' robes remains a moot point and one that is necessarily connected to their perceived renunciant status. Their controversial status is in turn intertwined with the problem of appropriate nomenclature.

NAMING NUNS: UPASIKA, MANIYO, MEHENIy OR SILMATA?

The problem of finding a consensus concerning a suitable nomenclature for the nuns is common to scholars as well as Buddhists in Sri Lanka. Lack of a universal nomenclature is reflective of the ambiguous renunciant status of nuns. The first nun in Sri Lanka, referred to as "lay woman" as were other nuns of her time, was known as "Sri Sudharmacari Upasika MSniyar) Vahanse," the "Venerable Sudharmacari lay-devotee- mother," and her disciples, as "celibate lay women" (brahamacari upasika [Bartholomeusz: 94-95]). Originally, the use of the term "lay women" in reference to women who took the Ten Training Precepts on a permanent basis was not uncommon (Bartholomeusz: 94-102; Blake 1915: 51-53). Even today the residence of nuns is often referred to as a "residence of lay women" (upasikaramaya). The term "celibate lay woman," which was used for the disciples of the first nun, contrasts significantly with the term "celibate homeless woman" (anagarika brahamacari) used in a recent article arguing in favor of the renunciant status of the nuns (Wijebandara: 122).

For want of better terms in English, scholars have referred to nuns as Ten Precept Mothers or Dasa Sil Matas (Bloss), lay nuns (Bartholomeusz), and nuns (Gombrich and Obeyesekere: 274-296; Tsomo: xxvi). None of these terms fully conveys the complex nuances that emerge in the Sinhalese nomenclature used for nuns. Today nuns are referred to in spoken




Sinhalese variously as "lay woman"; "Mother" (maniyo); its honorific, "Ven- erable Mother" (mfiniyagvahanse); "Precept Mother" (sil mata); "ordained woman" (meheni); or its honorific, "Venerable ordained woman" (meheninvahanse) . It is noteworthy that in Sinhala the terms for "Vener- able Mother" and "Venerable ordained woman" sound very similar and might therefore be confused or used interchangeably. Newspaper articles often refer to a nun as a "Precept Mother" (sil mata, sil mUni), sometimes preceded by the word ten (dasa).

In the late 1980s two individuals wrote to the papers suggesting that nuns be designated "homeless women" (anagarinl, anagarika).22 One of these individuals, a monk, argued that the word "Mother" (mata) was especially inappropriate when used by elders to young teenage women.23 The second writer was a nun who, ironically, referred to herself as "Precept Mother" (sil mata). Although some nuns I interviewed thought the designation "homeless" appropriately described the status of both monks and nuns, all of them agreed that the distinctive use of this term for denoting a status for nuns alone was unsuitable.

The debates on the use of the term "ordained woman" are not uncon- nected to the discussions concerning the revival of the Theravada bhikkhuni lineage. "Ordained woman" is what is generally used to refer to a woman with the Higher Ordination, the bhikkhuni who is a part of the Sangha. One Buddhist householder I interviewed in 1997 said: "We say that there is no Order of Fully Ordained Women (Meheni Shdsana) in Lanka ... so we do not have any occasion to talk about ordained women now. ... I myself do not use the reference 'ordained woman.' ... I do not use it because the reverend monks do not like it to be used." The term "ordained" (mahana) is often used in conjunction with the "Higher Ordin- ation," as in mahana-upasampada. Yet nuns who talk about their ordination into either the Householder or the Renunciant Training Precepts refer to this as an "ordination" (mahanavima). Nuns and laity tend to differ in their attitudes to the appropriateness of the use of the term "ordained woman" as applied to nuns.

I questioned eight female ascetics specifically about the appropriateness of the use of the term "ordained woman" for nuns. All but two of them asserted (with varying degrees of emphasis) that this was a suitable term to use for nuns. One of the two dissenters also felt, unlike the others, that the term "renunciant" was not appropriate for nuns. One head nun who belonged to a hermitage where, significantly, the nuns practiced the Ten

22 "Sil Matavan Anagarika Namin Amatamu," Budusarana, 21 February 1987; "Sil Matavan

'Anagarika' Namin Amatamu," Budusarana, 27 April 1987. "Sil Matavan Anagarika Namin Amatamu," Budusarana, 21 February 1987.




Householder Training Precepts only, considered the use of the terms "ordained women" and "renunciants" for nuns inappropriate. I interviewed her at some length.24 She clearly defined the identity of the nuns in terms of their Ten Training Precept Ordination. She said that "it was not right (hari na) to call a Precept Mother an ordained woman (meheni)" because "she does not have the status of being ordained (mahanakama)." She suggested that being ordained referred to "one who is about to have the Higher Ordination." When I asked her if she then considered the novice monks to be "ordained," she explained: "Novice monks are 'ordained.' If the Precept Mothers were a part of the Order of Fully Ordained Women, then they would be considered ordained. At the moment they have no ordained status. . . . [T]he term 'ordained woman' can be used for bhikkhunis. . . . [T]he word 'ordained' can only really be used for the monks and nuns who have the Higher Ordination." When I suggested that by "ordained" she implied the Higher Ordination, she argued that "in the ordination (mahanavlma), the Higher Ordination (upsampadd) is special. A novice monk is ordained but does not have the Higher Ordin- ation." She insisted that being "renunciant" meant that a person wras "ordained" and that when a woman is initiated into the Ten Precepts for the first time, "it is not right to call her an ordained woman because . . . the 'status of renunciation' (pdvidikama) is different from the Ten Pre- cepts." She pointed out that at her hermitage, the nuns observed the Ten Precepts but that they did not participate in the "status of renunciation." She acknowledged that householders use the word "ordination" in reference to nuns, but she also insisted that "there is no complete ordination there."

This nun, as well as another who held a similar view on the use of "ordained," asserted that novice monks could be called "ordained" because the latter, unlike the nuns, would generally proceed to undergo the Higher Ordination and then become a part of the Sangha. Nuns, both argued, did not have access to the Higher Ordination; therefore, they were not ordained. These informants possibly represent a view congruent with the concept of "Training Precept" that contextualizes the nuns and novice monks as participating in an ongoing process where the latter, unlike the former, are in training for a Higher Ordination.

While all five monks I interviewed considered the use of the term "ordained woman" for the nuns inappropriate, only one of them suggested that the nuns were householders.25 Two monks whom I interviewed

24 Interview by the author, 3 August 1997. Ironically, one of them who opposed this usage and preferred the use of upasika for nuns kept

referring to them as mehenis throughout our conversation and did not "correct" himself until after I pointed this out to him.




together explained the reasons for their thinking on the meaning of "ordained woman." Like the nun interviewed above, they suggested that this term referred directly to the ritual of ordination and that a Mother (mtini) was not an ordained woman (meheni). According to them, an ordained woman was a renunciant and an ordained man was a monk.26 Interestingly, these two monks, who strongly opposed the revival of the Theravada bhikkhuni Order, had also just conceded to me that if women took the Renunciant Ten Precepts, they were "renunciant." These monks were perhaps uncomfortable with the use of the word "ordained woman" for nuns because of its narrower meaning of fully ordained bhikkhuni and hence the implication that nuns are both renunciants and members of the Sangha, as opposed to householders or laity. Material support of Buddhist renunciants is believed to be especially meritorious and benefi- cial to laity. Since both monks and nuns are dependent on householders for alms, some individuals might fear that the source of support for monks would be undermined if householders were to recognize the nuns as members of a renunciant Buddhist community.

Unlike the nun cited at some length above, five female ascetics who headed monasteries (including one who was training to be a bhikkhuni) suggested that the nuns be considered renunciants. All the nuns whom I interviewed suggested that the term "laywoman" was not an appropriate designation for a nun, and some of them vehemently opposed this usage. Two of the female ascetics objected strongly to the use of the word "Mother" (mdniyo) for nuns, for this had both mundane and secular con- notations.27 According to these two, neither "Precept Mother" nor "Mother" should be used in reference to nuns since these words lacked the respect that they thought nuns deserved. Some of these ascetics, while recogn- izing that the use of the terms "ordained woman" and "bhikkhun? for a nun were technically inconsistent with the Vinaya, argued in favor of using this appellation. One nun, emphasizing asceticism as a psychological status, explained that a nun who observed the Ten Training Precepts sincerely for a period of twenty years or more might be thought of as one who had received the Higher Ordination. Two nuns, while understanding that nuns did not technically belong to the Sangha (if it referred only to those with the full ordination), argued that the term "Sangha" had a spiritual significance, which might be applicable to nuns. Stressing the psychological

26 Interview by the author, 1 1 August 1997. 27

They argued that "Precept Mother" and "Mother" were commonly used in reference to women who serve at the shrines of the gods. See also Obeyesekere: 22-30 on this usage of "Mother" {mtiniyo). One nun pointed out that the word Mother (mata) could also be used to refer to midwives, also known as winnambu mata.




attitude, they suggested that nuns who had a fear of samsara (sasara bhaya) might also be considered both arenunciant" and "bhikkhuni".

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Buddhist nuns represent an innovative expression of religious practice and symbolism in a religious context where innovation can prove all too controversial. Their adoption of the Ten Training Precepts in the late nineteenth century is perceived by some as a relatively late phenomenon that is not comparable to the taking of the Higher Ordination by Thera- vada monks: the latter have an ordination that is traditionally traced back to the time of the Buddha. The debates concerning the identities of the nuns appear to be symptomatic of a lack of textual and cultural precedent identifying women who observe the Ten Training Precepts as either householders or renunciants. However, it is possible that the underlying issues pertain more to a politicization of discursive space where female religious, in discovering their identities, are simultaneously vocalizing them and, only now, beginning to be seriously heard and refuted.

It is apparent that householders and nuns themselves do not consider nuns as householders or laity, although some monks might. From the householders' point of view, the nuns follow a vocation that is more ascetic than that of householders. However, from the viewpoint of a fully ordained monk, nuns traditionally do not, unlike novice monks, train for the full ordination and, therefore, are less ascetic vis-a-vis both novices and fully ordained monks. While the monks I interviewed disagreed on whether or not the nuns could be considered householders (some affirm- ing this status and others denying it), all five monks said that nuns are not renunciants. There seems to be a tension between nuns who consider themselves renunciant in relation to householders and laywomen in general, and those monks who suggest that nuns cannot be renunciant.

Nuns and monks represent variant ideals of renunciation that are intrinsically rooted in diverse traditions of monastic lineage, power, and social acceptability - or lack thereof (Salgado). The observance of the Ten Household Training Precepts would appear to exclude nuns from renunciant status. Some nuns, accurately citing canonical precedent, assert that regardless of the type of ordination they have, they might be considered "renunciant" or even "bhikkhuni" because of their spiritual inclinations prompted by genuine fears of samsara. While the designation of appropriate status for nuns appears to be mired in the technicalities of ordination ritual, religious attire, and nomenclature, the controversies regarding these details are perhaps a manifestation of something more basic: the right to social-religious status and the material welfare associated




with it. Claiming renunciant status suggests a distancing from the role of householder/laity or almsgiver as well as formal inclusion among renunciants (alms receivers). Special merit accrues to the householder who donates and sponsors rituals conducted by renunciants. This indicates how and why the issue of material wealth underlies debates that apparently focus on the technicalities of renunciant status and their representations. The ambiguous status of Buddhist nuns is currently located in a politics of representation that continues to both include them as members of a renunciant Buddhist community and distance them from it.

REFERENCES

Anuradhapura Shri Sarananda Maha Pirivena

1995

Samanera Bana Daham Potha. Colombo: Anuradhapura Shri Sarananda Maha Pirivena.

Bartholomeusz, T. J. 1994

Women under the Bo Tree. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bizot, F. 1988

Les traditions de la pabbajja en Asie du Sud-Est. Gottingen: Vandehoeck und Ruprecht.

Blake, E. 1914

"The Sacred Bo Tree." The Nineteenth Century and After 76: 660-673.

1915 "A Buddhist Nun." The Buddhist Review 7: 47-58.

Bloss, L. 1987

"The Female Renunciants of Sri Lanka: The Dasasilmattawa." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 10/1: 7-31.

Chalmers, R., ed. 1993-1994

The Majjhima-Nikaya. Vols. 2-3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chandima, M. 1991

"Dasasil Pejapaliya." Meheni Udawa 13: 36-38.

Collins, S. 1982

Selfless Persons: Imagery and Thought in Thera- vdda Buddhism. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press.

1988 "Monasticism, Utopias and Comparative Social Theory

" Religion 18: 101-135.

Copleston, R. S. 1892

Buddhism Primitive and Present in Magadha and in Ceylon. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.




Devendra, K. 1987

The Dasasil Nun: A Study of Women's Buddhist Religious Movement in Sri Lanka with an Outline of Its Historical Antecedents. Unpublished MS.

Gombrich, R, F. 1984

"Temporary Ordination in Sri Lanka." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 7/2: 41-65.

Gombrich, R., and G. Obeyesekere

1988

Buddhism Transformed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

Gothoni, R. 1982

Modes of Life of Theravada Monks: A Case Study of Buddhist Monasticism in Sri Lanka. Helsinki: Soceitas Orientalis Fennica.

Hardy, E., ed. 1958

Anguttara Nikaya. Pts. 3-4. London: Pali Text Society.

Jordt, I. 1989

"Bhikkhuni Thilashin, Mae-chi: Women Who Renounce the World in Burma, Thailand and the Classical Pali Buddhist Texts." Crossroads 4/ 1:31-39.

Kawanami, H. 1990

"The Religious Standing of Burmese Buddhist Nuns (thild-shin): The Ten Precepts and Religious Respect Words." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 3/1: 17-39.

Malalgoda, K. 1976

Buddhism in Sinhalese Society, 1750-1900. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Morris, R., ed. 1883

Puggala-Pannatti. London: Henry Frowde.

1955 Anguttara Nikaya. Pt. 1. London: Luzac and Co.

1961 Anguttara Nikaya. Pt. 2. London: Luzac and Co.

Narada, T., and B. Kassapa

1975

The Mirror of the Dhamma. 2d ed. Colombo: Lake House.

Obeyesekere, G. 1981

Medusa's Hair: An Essay on Personal Symbols and Religious Experience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Oldenberg, H., ed. 1879

The Vinaya Pitaka. Vol. 1. London: Williams and Norgate.




Rhys Davids, T. W., and W. Stede

1986

The Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary. London: Pali Text Society.

Salgado, N. S. 2000

"Teaching Lineages and Land: Renunciation and Domestication among Buddhist Nuns in Sri Lanka." In Women's Buddhism, Buddhism's Women, 175-200. Ed. by E. B. Findly. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications.

Smith, H., ed. 1915

The Khuddaka-Patha Together with Its Commen- tary Paramatthajotika I. London: Humphrey Milford.

Trenckner, V., ed. 1993

Majjhima-Nikaya. Vol. 1. Oxford: Pali Text Society.

Tsomo, K. L. 2000

"Introduction." In Innovative Buddhist Women Swimming against the Stream, xvii-xxviii. Ed. by K. L. Tsomo. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon.

Vipassana Research Institute

1999

Chattha Sangayana. CD-ROM. 3d version. Dhammagiri: Vipassana Research Institute.

Wijebandara, C. 1993

"Anagarika Jivitayak Gevana Vatman Silmatavan Magin Atikala Haki Agamika Prabodaya." In 2003 Sarjghamitta Jayanti Sarjgrahaya, 117-126. Maharagama, Sri Lanka: Buddha Shasana Amathyarjshaye Bauddha Katayutu Departmen- tuwa.



religious identities of buddhist nuns: training precepts, renunciant attire, and nomenclature in...

Documents