by Bhante S. Dhammika
At the time of the Buddha, Indian women had considerably more freedom than in later centuries, and there is little evidence that purdah, widow burning, female infanticide or child marriage had become widespread, as they did in later centuries. Widows could remarry, although a collection of verses in the Jataka shows that they were starting to be looked upon with contempt (Ja.VI,508), an attitude that later led to enforced widowhood. The verses express great sympathy for the widow’s predicament, suggesting that Buddhists did not approve of it.
The main criticisms of the Buddha’s attitude to women are the ideas attributed to him that: (1) a woman cannot become a Fully Perfected Buddha (M.III,65), and (2) that nuns must abide by eight special rules (atta garudhamma) that make them inferior to monks (Vin.II,254). Concerning this first idea, the appearance of a Fully Perfected Buddha is an event so rare, only occurring once in many eons, that the chances of anyone, whatever their gender, becoming one are extremely remote. This being the case, the objection would seem to be moot.
The eight special rules incumbent on nuns give them a second place to monks, and in several matters make them dependent on monks. This would have been uncontroversial during the Buddha’s time, although it does not accord with modern ideas of gender equality. Today, numerous Vinaya rules are disregarded because they are irrelevant or at odds with modern norms, and the eight special rules would be an example of this and thus need not be adhered to. The other text that always gets a mention when the Buddhist attitude to women is being discussed is the Kunala Jataka. To say that this tale is outrageously misogynistic is not an exaggeration. It accuses women of a broad range of vices. But in doing so, it is also more than a little hypocritical given that other Jataka stories depict males as guilty of murder, theft, scheming, skulduggery, treachery, ingratitude, avariciousness, stupidity and a few other vices we don’t have words for. The only consolation is to keep in mind that the Jataka was not taught by the Buddha and post-dates the suttas by several centuries.
The Buddha seems to have had an ambiguous attitude towards women, sometimes praising them, at other times disparaging them. However, concerning the essentials of the Dhamma, he asserted that there is no significant difference between males and females. He said: “Having gone forth from home into homelessness in this Dhamma and training taught by the Tathagata, women can realise Awakening and the stages leading up to it” (Vin.II,254). And again: “Whether it be a man or whether it be a woman, whoever travels in the Chariot of Dhamma shall draw close to Nirvana” (S.I,33). The nun Soma made the same point, only perhaps more emphatically. “A woman’s nature is unimportant when the mind is still and firm, when knowledge grows day by day, and she has insight into Dhamma. One who thinks such thoughts as ‘I am a woman’ or ‘I am a man’ or any other ‘I am…’, Mara can address that one” (S.I.,129).
The Buddha said that he expected all his disciples, including nuns and lay women, to be “accomplished and well-trained, learned and erudite, knowers of the Dhamma, living by Dhamma and walking the path of Dhamma… and to pass on to others what they have received from their Teacher and teach it, proclaim it, establish it, explain it, promote it and clarify it… and use it to refute false teachings and impart this wondrous Dhamma” (D.II,105). Some of the nuns in the scriptures are described as being learned (bahussuta), reciters of the suttas (bhanika), confident (visarada) and outstanding at teaching the Dhamma (patta dhammim katham katum, Vin. IV,290).
The Dhammasangani of the Abhidhamma Pitaka says that gender is a characteristic of matter (rupa), not of consciousness (citta, Dhs. 633-4), which certainly makes sense thus, while the consciousness of a being who had a female body in this life would be the same as the consciousness in the next life, even if it reanimated a male body.