Why is Theravada Buddhism opposed to the revival of the Bhikkhuni order in Sri Lanka?

Please forgive me from the very outset of raising this question, as I have somewhat limited knowledge of the topic, and would like to illuminate this subject for myself. I appreciate all comments and feedback in advance, and welcome a thorough examination of the matter.

Below are several bullet points that I would like to bring into the fold of this discussion, and offer some surface knowledge of the historical and contemporary context pertaining to it, in which I may be inaccurate at times:

  • List item The Vinaya contains a separate set of rules & regulations for the bhikkhus and for the bhikkhunis. Some of them overlap, but others are completely distinct based on the different physical & biological characteristics of the two sexes. The bhikkhunis follow an extensively larger set of rules than their male counterparts, although majority of these additional rules pertain to the differences in hygiene, and all bhikkhunis join the order with the same initial precepts as the bhikkhus.

  • List item The male order was often charged with supervisory or protective duties over the female order, primarily for reasons of safety and security.

  • List item The ordination of a bhikkhuni (possibly of senior rank) requires the approval and ceremony by a senior Bhikkhu.

  • List item The historical reference to the origination of the Bhikkhuni order in Buddhist India occurred after the permission was given by Gautama Buddha to his step mother (if I remember this reference accurately) to ordain, after several initial attempts that were denied to her.

  • List item Bhikkhuni Sanghamitta, a high ranking bhikkhuni and daughter of Emperor Asoka, delivered the sampling of the Bodhi tree to Anuradhapura, thus establishing the female order in Sri Lanka, and enlisting some of the leading craftsmen of the day to produce incredible works of Buddhist art that are unique to the cultural heritage of Sri Lanka.

  • List item This nun order later vanished, just as the male order dwindled in Sri Lanka due to continuous invasions and instability in the Buddhist population. The male order was later revived, with continued hurdles for the female order to reemerge.

  • List item More recently, through the efforts of the late Bhikkhuni Kusuma, a former molecular biologist, the female order was revived, and the ordination of the nuns began to take place once again, but it continues to receive opposition from some factions of senior monk leadership and the re-establishment of the nun order continues to be under-subsidized by the governing authorities in Sri Lanka, presenting at times insurmountable challenges to an already rigorous endeavor of going-forth.

In addition yo these general points, I would like to make a few remarks that pertain to the existing context today:

  • List item I have had the great privilege to meet and interact with Bhikkhuni Kusuma within the framework of an organized pilgrimage in Sri Lanka, where we were able to create an interactive talk with the late Bhikkhuni and learn of her struggles to enter the order, firstly for her own keen desire to enter the path, as well as her growing wish to broaden this narrow trail for other female followers seeking liberation. What was clear from her efforts is that women were once again seeking a meaning to their lives beyond the mere domestic role they’ve occupied for 10 centuries since the last Buddhist nun lived on the sacred island, and they wished to reclaim their rightful place in the Buddhist affairs of the island as they once had occupied before the modern opposition from the conservative male order had prevented them from doing so, presenting all sorts of arguments that were easily debunked by the historical events of the origins of Bhikkhuni ordination dating back to the days of Gautama himself.

  • List item Bhikkhuni Kusuma has become an inspiration, trailblazing the way for so many women seeking liberation across the entire world, and leading many into the direction of wholesome discipline and holy life — something our modern world desperately needs on all fronts— she has become a beacon of light shining brightly on the resplendent shores of the Buddha’s island for females all over the world seeking salvation from a world of predatory degradation and darkening perversity, a woman’s last hope of spiritual purification. Can this really be denied to a desperately seeking human being on the basis of their sex?

  • List item Today, the 3rd woman in history of the island, Mme Harini Amarasuriya, has been named the 16th Prime Minister of Sri Lanka. A highly educated, non-pedigree politician, a self-made leader and inspiration to many women and men on the island, who so desperately want a government and socio-political stability that reflects the ingenuity, intelligence and insightfulness of a people whose cultural and historical legacy dates back to the days of an ethical kingdom rooted in the Buddhist precepts— can we still offer arguments contrary to the re-flourishing of the Bhikkhuni order and deny it its rightful existence in Sri Lanka?

My post is not an attempt at a political manifesto or some plea for justice, it is an attempt to understand the true causes of tension on this subject matter in the specific context of the island of Sri Lanka. I am greatly appreciative to anyone who can contribute thoughtful commentary which may enlighten some gaps in my understanding of the matter, and illuminate flaws in my argument.

I thank you all for that in advance :pray:

She was not in reality a Theravada Bhikkhuni . The ordination was by a Korean order.
The bhikkhuni order has died out and cannot be revived. Misinformed or reckless people may believe that the Garuka Dhammas as laid down by the Buddha are only technicalities that can be ignored but this is an ill idea.

see this thread

I think you need to get your information from the source texts.
Please try to read all of the garudhammas and all of the sanghadisesa rules from original pali sources. After that, please ask appropriate questions.
Furthermore, please learn about how ordinations are done and what ordaining by both sanghas means.

The official politically correct answer is, until the next great sangha meeting (a 7th council) decides this is allowed, then it will not be allowed.

It would be valuable if the precise technicalities of why the Korean tradition wouldn’t be able to pass on the bhikkhunī lineage could be clarified.
This, I think, will be important going forward in ensuring that the stance against revival is on firm footing.

We can consider the stance of the ancient Theravada Bhikkhus.
a summary of the time around the 3rd council: by Rewata Dhamma

When the Emperor [asoka] heard about this he sought to rectify the situation and dispatched one of his ministers to the monks with the command that they perform the ceremony. However, the Emperor had given the minister no specific orders as to what means were to be used to carry out his command. The monks refused to obey and hold the ceremony in the company of their false and ‘thieving’, companions (theyyasinivasaka).

In desperation the angry minister advanced down the line of seated monks and drawing his sword, beheaded all of them one after the other until he came to the King’s brother, Tissa who had ordained. The horrified minister stopped the slaughter and fled the hall and reported back to the Emperor Asoka who was deeply grieved and upset by what had happened and blamed himself for the killings. He sought Thera Moggaliputta Tissa’s counsel.

He proposed that the heretical monks be expelled from the order and a third Council be convened immediately. So it was that in the seventeenth year of the Emperor’s reign the Third Council was called. Thera Moggaliputta Tissa headed the proceedings and chose one thousand monks from the the sixty thousand participants for the traditional recitation of the Dhamma and the Vinaya, which went on for nine months. The Emperor, himself questioned monks from a number of monasteries about the teachings of the Buddha. Those who held wrong views were exposed and expelled from the Sangha, immediately. In this way the Bhikkhu Sangha was purged of heretics and bogus bhikkhus.

This council achieved a number of other important things as well. The Elder Moggaliputta Tissa in order to refute a number of heresies and ensure the Dhamma was kept pure, complied a book during the council called, the Kathavatthu. This book consists of twenty-three chapters, and is a collection of discussions (katha) and refutations of the heretical views held by various sects on matters philosophical. It is the fifth of the seven books of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. The members of this Council also gave a royal seal of approval to the doctrine of the Buddha, naming it the Vibhajjavada, the Doctrine of Analysis. It is identical with the approved Theravada doctrine.

Again in Sri Lanka the Abhayagiri sect - which did have the Tipitaka but in addition held to some wrong views - was favoured by a king. However the good Bhikkhus of the Mahavihara refused to carry out any sangha acts with them. The King then proclaimed that no one was to offer food to the good bhikkhus . The Bhikkhus would still not carry out sangha acts.

It shows that in the ancient days the Bhikkhus were ready to endure up to death rather than compromise with wrong viewers. It is why we still have the pristine Dhamma today.

Fascinating, thank you Robert. Can you point me to the source?

I have to go to work now but will get the reference later.

Here is a little more on a somewhat similar point:

Katthavathuppakarana-Atthakatha (by Buddhoghosa) (p3 of Points of controversy, PTS)
It talks about after the second council (about 100 years after Buddha parinibbana)

“Ten thousand of the of the Vajjiputtaka bhikkhus[after spliting from the good monks] seeking adherents among themselves, formed a school called the Mahasanghika [these then split several times] Thus from the school of the Mahasanghikas, in the second century only two schools seceded from the Theravada[note that the rightful monks are called Theravada by Buddhaghosa]-Mahimsinsasakas and Vajjiputtakas… [it lists more that split later]…Thus from the Theravada arose these eleven seceding bodies making 12 in all. And these 12 together the six schools of the Mahasanghikas constitute the 18 schools which arose in the second century. Of the eighteen, 17 are to be understood as schismatics, the Theravadan only being non- schismatic.

The commentary continues and cites the Dipavamsa.

The Bhikkhus [of the schismatic sects] "
settled a doctrine contrary [to the true faith] Altering the original redaction, they made another. they transposed suttas which belonged in one collection to another place;they destroyed the true meaning and the faith in the vinyaa and in the five collections. Those bhikkus who understood neither what had been taught in long expositons…settled a false meaning in connection with spourious speeches of the Buddha. These bhikkhus destroyed a great deal of meaning under the colour of the letter. Rejecting the other texts- that is to say the Pavara, the six sections of the Abhidhamma, the Patisambhidhida, the niddessa and some portions of the Jataka they composed new ones. They changed their appearance, …forsaking what was original…"

Thanks again. Their schismatic nature, as I understand it, would still not necessarily be sufficient - in and of itself - to render them non-monks. Unless, that is, the schismatic efforts were similar to Devadatta’s in that they knowingly and cynically contradicted Dhamma-Vinaya for the sake of a split, rather than out of simple ignorance. In that case the instigators would be automatically pārājikā but still this wouldn’t apply to any hapless followers they acquired - again as in the case of Devadatta. It would, however, be enough to throw their entire lineage-purity into extreme doubt, to the point that it would be safest to assume their ordained adherents essentially unordained for the purposes of the Vinaya.

The question then would be what the historic Theravāda verdict was on the nature of/mindset behind the various schismatic efforts - simple stupidity or evil desires…

Perhaps the incredible resolve of the elders in the stories cited above shows the Abhyagiri group to have been considered pārājikā - i.e. the split was judged to be based on evil desires? I wish we knew more details about what exactly they were refusing to do. Pāṭimokkha should certainly not be performed under any circumstances with a separate affiliation (of validly ordained monks), unless the differences are resolved beforehand. If that was the case in the story, the elders surely acted admirably. (Ordinations and other kammas , however, can have members of other affiliations present as long as the transaction’s quorum is fulfilled by one’s own affiliation).

The theyysaṃvāsaka monks are without doubt pārājikā and I bow at the deceased elders’ feet for their steadfast refusal to accept such evil individuals into the midst of the Sangha, as the ocean spits out a rotting corpse.

THis is from the translation of the Mahavamsa. The extract spans decades and several kings.:

95 A thera known by the name Mahatissa, who had frequented the families of laymen, was expelled by the brotherhood from our monastery for this fault, the frequenting of lay-families
96 His disciple, the thera who was known as Bahalamassutissa,
went in anger to the Abhayagiri (vihara)
and abode there,97 forming a (separate) faction. And thenceforward these
bhikkhus came no more to the Mahavihara :

thus did the bhikkhus of the Abhayagiri (vihara) secede from the Theravada. From the monks of the Abhayagiri-vihara those of the 98
Dakkhina-vihara separated (afterwards); in this wise those

Bhikkhus (who had
seceded)from the adherents of the
Theravada were divided into two (groups).

He (the king) built the cells of the vihara so that a greater 99
number were joined together, for he reflected : ’ In this
way it will be possible to restore them/
p.264 Purifying the doctrine by suppression of heresy he
seized bhikkhus dwelling in the Abhayagiri (vihara), sixty in number**, who had turned to the Vetulya-doctrine** 5 and were 112 like a thorn in the doctrine of the Buddha, and when he had excommunicated them, he banished them to the further coast. A bhikkhu from the Cola people, named Samghamitta, who was versed in the teachings concerning
the exorcism of spirits,
and so forth,had attached himself 7 to a thera banished
thither, and he came hither embittered against

p.265 the bhikkhus of the Mahavihara.
When this lawless (bhikkhu) had thrust himself into an
assembly in the Thuparama and had refuted there the words
of the thera living in the parivena of Samghapala, namely the
thera Gothabhaya, uncle of the king on the mother’s
side, who had addressed the king with his (old) name, he became a
constant guest in
the king’s house. 1 The king who was well
pleased with him entrusted his eldest son Jetthatissa and his
younger son Mahasena, to the bhikkhu. And he made the
second his favourite, therefore prince Jetthatissa bore ill-will
to the bhikkhu. After his father’s death JETTHATISSA became

king ….

AFTER king Jetthatissa’s death, his younger brother MAHA SENA ruled twenty-seven years as king. And to consecrate him 2 as king, the thera Samghamitta came thither from the further coast,
when he heard the time (of Jetthatissa’s death).

When he had carried out the consecration and the other 3 ceremonies of various kind, the lawless (bhikkhu) who would fain bring about the destruction of the Mahavihara won the 4 king to himself with the words : ’ The dwellers in the Mahavihara do not teach the (true) vinaya, we are those who
teach the (true) vinaya,O king’, and he established a royal 5penalty :
’ Whosoever gives
food to a bhikkhu dwelling in
the Mahavihara is liable to a fine of a hundred(pieces
of money)/

The bhikkhus dwelling in the Mahavihara, who thereby
fell into want, abandoned the Mahavihara, and went to
Malaya and Rohana. Thus was our Mahavihara desolate for
nine years …And t**he unwise thera persuaded the **
unwise king Mahavamsa

XXXVII. 9

: ’ Ownerless land belongs to the king/ l and
when he had
gained leave from the king […]
shameless bhikkhus, destroyed the splendid Lohapasada seven stories high, and carried away the (material of the) various
buildings from hence to the
Abhayagiri (vihara), and
by means of the many buildings 2 that were borne away from

the Mahavihara the Abhayagiri-vihara

became rich in buildings. Holding fast to his evil friend, the thera Samghamitta,
and to his servant Sona, the king wrought many a deed of wrong.
king sent for the great stone image from the Paclna-
tissapabbata (vihara)

He set up a building for the image, a temple for the Bodhi-
up in the Abhayagiri (vihara).tree,
a beautiful relic-hall and a four-sided
hall, 3 and he restored the (parivena) called Kukkuta.4 Then by the ruthless thera Samghamitta was the Abhayagiri-vihara made stately to see.