Buddhism gained popularity for its egalitarian values, but women ordained into the religious order weren’t treated at par with the men, writes AMRITA CHAUHAN
We live with certain notions and belief, and are our thoughts and views on the position and status of women in society are no different. We often go back to our past to reiterate standpoints and even stereotypes. Most believe that women, like any other subordinate group in society, are among the muted voices of history. Though the degree of women’s invisibility varies over time and space, efforts have been made to represent them time and again.
New techniques and methodologies have allowed us more nuanced readings of the same set of sources. This has brought forth a wide range of possibilities in our understanding of women's issues. Acceptance of pluralism, rather than an emphasis on a universal meta narrative, seems to be in vogue. Women, as a social category, are also fragmented in different groups based on caste, religion, occupation, cultural traditions and region. Hence, to understand and investigate the diversities and polarities in our understanding of the term ‘women' is important.
Buddhism was the main alternative to Brahmanism, for many including BR Ambedkar. Many have attempted to study Buddhism in a modern light. The religion has been hailed for its egalitarian values ever since its inception. In fact, the space that Buddhism provided to those from the lower social groups and even women was one of the important reasons why it first became popular.
Yet, early Buddhist attitudes towards the lower social order and women often paints a picture which is not as accepting and accommodating, as many assume. Explorations into the social backgrounds of the followers of Buddha as well as the rules of inception into the new religion, particularly the monastic order known as the sangha, show that the doors were closed to a large section of the population.
Buddhist texts reflect male attitudes and the views of educated religious elite which are not always socially and sexually egalitarian. A careful study of the Buddhist canon reveals a picture of ambiguity and highlight a two-fold concern: First, an attitude of accommodation and providing space to women for looking into matters which are uniquely feminine (those relating to robes, menstruation cycle and others relating to ornamentation and living), and second, in a way this is symbolic of the monks’ underlying fears on matters relating to the same.
As far as punishments are concerned, they are the same for bhikkhus and bhikkhunis even though more precepts have been added in the case of the bhikkuni-vinaya. Do we find evidences to suggest differentiation between women within the sanghaIJ Bhikkhuni-vinaya of the Sarvastivadin School refers to nunnery servants (kappiyakarikas).
Such evidence suggests that, though lower order women were kept outside the realm of soteriological aspirations, their physical presence was noticeable. It also points to a kind of hierarchy of privileges even in the sangha which otherwise stood for ascetism and equality. Women, who were given an ‘alternative’ path, were both accepted and feared by the male celibates of Buddhism. Social hierarchy was also clearly reflected within sangha.
The women in the monastic order followed their spiritual goals but were placed at a subservient position vis-à-vis the male counterparts. Also, within the category of women, access to the Buddhist order was limited. The religious ambitions of slave girls, prostitutes and barren women, for instance, were hindered by rules and laws. Excessive concern with female sexuality is evident in the large number of rules that pertain primarily to women. It brings forth the innate fear of the male monks who viewed their female counterparts as a potent threat to spiritual enlightenment.
(The writer is Assistant Professor, Indraprastha College for Women, University of Delhi)