Misunderstanding words of the Buddha

By Dr Upul Wijayawardhana

The three meritorious practices (Punna Kammas) the Buddha advocated for the purification of our existence are generosity (Dana), ethical conduct (Seela) and meditation (Bhawana). Dana and Seela are considered essential foundations for meditation, which when practised rigorously can lead to the total detachment of mind. But this can be achieved only through Vipassana or Mindfulness meditation, which the Buddha introduced, not through Samatha or concentration meditation, which can lead to higher mental states but not total detachment. Of these three, the most misunderstood, especially in Sri Lanka, is Dana.

We, Sri Lankans, are well known for our generosity even in times of hardship. Danselas are held during Vesak when free food is virtually forced on people, a practice unseen in any other country in the world. Praiseworthy as this activity may be, most of those who engage therein do so for the wrong reason––to get rewards either later in this life or in the next birth. For some, rebirth is almost an obsession and, hence, they worry more about the next life than this! Unfortunately, this misunderstanding has spread far and wide with some Westerners categorising Buddhism as a religion of insurance. They do not realise that what the Buddha taught is how to achieve just the opposite–– ultimate detachment.

Dana

, is giving without any anticipation of rewards or ulterior motives and is a means to achieving detachment. Not that it does not have benefits; if practised properly, the act of giving can generate mental satisfaction and happiness. Unfortunately, the practice of Punyanumodana, where at the end of a Dana, a Bhikkhu melodiously recites the journey through rich afterlives including sojourns in heavens is greed promoting.

Fortunately, this practice is on the decline and what is heard now is a shortened version, wherein it is stated that this meritorious activity will help us in our journey for the realisation of Nibbana. This is perfectly valid as Dana and Seela prepare the ground for the mind to be at peace for liberating meditation.

Perhaps, the biggest misunderstanding is about the attitude of Buddha towards women.

In researching this subject, I came across an extremely informative and interesting website ‘suttacentral.net’ co-produced by Bhikkhu Sujato. Opinions of his and other learned Bhikkhus’ opinions are published there. Bhikkhu Sujato, born Anthony Best in Perth, Western Australia is an ex-musician, and member of the Alternative rock Australian band ‘Martha’s Vineyard’ from 1986 to 1990. He was ordained under Ajahn Chah in Thailand in 1994 and a few years after higher ordination returned to Australia and spent several years at Bodhinyana Monastery in Western Australia before going on to found Santi Forest Monastery in 2003.

Bhante Sujato, along with his teacher Ajahn Brahm were involved with re-establishing Bhikkhuni Ordination in the Forest sangha of Ajahn Chah. The ordination ceremony led to Ajahn Brahm’s expulsion from the Thai Forest Lineage of Ajahn Chah. Bhante Sujato, not intimidated by that response, and remaining faithful to his convictions that there was no reason the Bhikkhuni order should not be revived, went on to successfully found Santi Forest Monastery in Australia, and following his wishes, Santi has since flourished as a Bhikkhuni (Buddhist nun) monastery Vihara since 2012.

In the section titled, “A Thematic Guide to the Anguttara Nikaya” in the Suttacentral website (), copied from Bhikkhu Bodhi’s book, “The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha”, there is a subsection titled “Bhikkhunis and Women in the Anguttara Nikaya” which is very informative. By the way, Bhikkhu Bodhi is an American who was ordained in Sri Lanka and the president and the editor of the Buddhist Publications Society in Kandy for a very long time. He refers to the controversies regarding the ordination of women, which I too have referred to in my writings, and states that Gothamisutta has been responsible for a distrustful attitude towards Bhikkhunis in Theravada countries and may explain why conservative elders have resisted the revival of the Bhikkhuni Sangha currently taking place in such countries as Sri Lanka and Thailand.

What shocked me most was the attribution of the derogatory comments on women to the Buddha. Though complimentary comments are also referred to, I shall repeat only the paragraph referring to adverse comments:

“Among the four Niakyas, the Anguttara has the largest number of suttas addressed to women, but a small number of discourses in the collection testify to a misogynistic attitude that strikes us as discordant, distasteful, and simply unjustified. These texts depict women as driven by powerful passions that impair their abilities and undermine their morals. At AN 2.61, the Buddha declares that women are never satiated in two things: sexual intercourse and giving birth. When Ananda asks why women do not sit on councils, engage in business, or travel to distant regions, the Buddha answers that this is because they are full of anger, envious, miserly, and devoid of wisdom (AN 4.80). Two suttas compare women to a black snake (AN 5.229–30) in that they are “wrathful, hostile, of deadly venom, double-tongued, and betray friends.” Their venom is their strong lust; their double-tongue is their proclivity to slander; and they betray friends in that “for the most part women are adulterous.”

Bhikkhu Bodhi comments on these as follows:

“Whether such statements should really be attributed to the Buddha or regarded as interpolations by monastic editors is a question that may not be possible to settle with complete certainty. They are surely contrary, however, to the more liberal spirit displayed elsewhere in the Buddha’s discourses. Moreover, in a text like the Anguttara Nikaya, with its many short suttas, it would have been relatively easy for monks, apprehensive about their own sexuality or the spiritual potentials of women, to insert such passages into the canon. These suttas do not have counterparts in the Chinese Agamas, but that fact on its own is inconclusive; for many suttas in the Pali Anguttara Nikaya are without counterparts in the Chinese canon.”

In fact, I would go a step further and say that these are, almost certainly, interpolations. My reasoning, based on the application of principles laid down by the Buddha in the Kalama sutta wherein He encouraged us to reason, is as follows:

1. Would the Buddha who preached equality have made an exception when it came to women? Hardly likely.

2. Overarching feature of Buddha’s teachings is compassion. The Buddha never spoke ill of even those who tried to harm him. Did his compassion not extend to women

3. Even if one assumes, at worst, that the Buddha had some reservations about women, reflecting the prevailing attitudes of the day, would he have used such derogatory language? Impossible!

4. It is very well-known that all the Suttas in Sutta Pitaka are not preachings of the Buddha though Theravada scripts are supposed to be the least contaminated.

Surely, the Buddha was not a male chauvinist for all these reasons. It looks as if, in an act of self-preservation, monastic editors had interpolated their opinions in the harshest possible language, totally unlike that of the Buddha. It is a great shame that they did not realise that in doing so, they have insulted the memory of their Great Teacher. In fact, these are not misinterpretations but gross distortions!