Note On BHIKKUNI MOVEMENT

A CRITICAL REFLECTION ON THE REVIVAL OF BHIKKUNI SANGHA IN INDIA (Draft) (note prepared as a summary of the comments made in the Bhikkuni conference, held at Nagpur, during September 2022) Let me make it out frankly that i have become very disappointed with the kind of revival taking place in india. It due to the realisation that what is being revived seems to be carrying on those Buddhist legacies, which had caused the backlash within Buddhism. It is equally applicable for the Bhikkuni activism/thinking that seems to putup strong resistance to all Orthodox heritages. From the point of a researcher on Buddhist philosophies and movements, i used to wonder about the absence of any Buddhist response to burning issues of contemporary world, either at the global level or in Indian context.  I don't ignore the voice of engaged budhism, and the mindfulness movements across the world, and the resurgence that taking place along the path initiated by Baba saheb Ambedkar in India. There are many other new age Buddhist sects in Europe and America with sociospiritual concerns. Nevertheless, I feel the radical potential of Buddhism still remains to be untapped (visualised or actualised). Especially, in the context of climate change crisis.  People say, Buddhism is revolutionary, its philosophy, its ethics, religion etc. I wonder what exactly this revolution does mean! What is the mode in which the revolutionary nature gets manifested in contemporary world? What are the reference points for the description of Buddhist revolution in history? I am not able to see anything as revolutionary connected to Buddhism today. We don't see any personality or movement as embodying something as revolutionary in relation to the situations of suffering. I was asked to speak in the session 'The relevance of Bhikkuni sangha in modern times', which conducted during the Bhikkuni sangha conference at Nagapur last year. Instead of engaging with the given directly, I had another question to be clarified first. Hence i responded by asking 'what is the relevanc of Buddhism itself in modern times?' So long as the revival of Bhikkuni sangham in India is being concieved as that of Buddhism the nature in which the former becomes relevant might be depending on the nature of latter. As i understand, the ongoing dispensations of Bhikkuni sangham activism in India seem to be along the path of Buddhism that was revived by Ambedkar. No doubt that Ambedkar had been a shining presence or persuasive voice of Buddhism in the public life of India during his time. Who is there, or what happened afterwards? I don't see anything remarkable happening in India either within the framework of Ambedkarite Buddhism or outside. If not, why? I am trying to say that there is an impasse with respect to the ways in which Buddhism is being revived, or being practiced. When Ambedkar was asked by a journalist to name which of the Buddhist sects he had embraced, he replied none of the historical Buddhist religious sects. The journalist himself wanted to get clarified it as Navayana, instead being the existing 'yanas', Ambedkar had preferred to be known so. It was well and good, but the complexity continued to remain with respect to distinguish the Navayana path from other paths. That ambiguity seems to remain unsettled to cause troubles to tap the liberating potentials from all sects of Buddhism, which Ambedkar wanted.  Unless the context and nature of the present crises are made out, we may not be able to open up a path, which is free from the traps. As far the known history of Buddhism, religious Buddhism to be precise, is concerned the scope for imbibing a liberating path seems to be very limited. Especially for the interests of women. Because, most of the historical expressions of Buddhism in India are found rooted in some of the core values, which could be very broadly termed in the present day language, as that of Brahmanic Hinduism. The expressions of counter revolution within Buddhism, as articulated by Ambedkar, could be identified as pervading throughout its long history and vast  narratives. The subtlety in which the structures of power (desire or trisna) operated within it becomes apparent in its political affiliations. The patriarchic nature of its ritualistic spirituality and the institutional hierarchy are yet to be  noted. This is to see the historical context of Buddhist resurgence in India with a different perspectic altogether. That may not be looking as impressive or revolutionary as made out to be. The major history of Buddhism has to be seen as that of the Hinduised Buddhism. It is other way to see the history of Hinduism as the history of Buddhism based Hinduism. The contrastive picture of sramanic spirituality that the original Buddhism had advanced in relation to yajna-centric spirituality of vaidic Brahmanism (Hinduism) became blurred with the development of various Buddhist sects. Such a backlash within the Buddhist traditions has not been counted much, and the differentiation has not been made while visualizing revival of Buddhism in the modern period. Consequently, much of the baggage of Hinduised Buddhism has also been carried along the spirit of revival. The revival of Buddhism in India, which started during the beginning of twentieth century had come about without any ideological differentiation, as if India had only a singular strain of Buddhism and that had become disappeared or disintegrated due to many factors related to the successful spread of other religions. The modern India being considered as the burial ground of Buddhism, the revival mission was carried out to preserve whatever found left out as Buddhist legacies and  remnants. Revival as the reconstruction of Buddhism with a community of  dhamma practitioners was also happened, mainly based on the same conservation interests. But hardly there had any realisation about the above given context of Hinduised Buddhism. Such an uncognized situation defined by Hinduised Buddhism being the context of modern Buddhism in india, it might relevant to think about to what extent the Bhikkuni sangham is free from it. I have been trying to say that the question of 'Relevanc of Bhikkuni sangha in modern times' may not be addressed in isolation, and so it has to be placed along the question what sort of Buddhism at all has got relevanc in India today. The question of reinventing Buddhism itself could be considered from the point of Bhikkuni or lay women dhamma practioners. In this regard, even those aspects that are considered to be 'the core tenets of Buddhism' may be required revising vis a vis those insights that are often described as having liberating potential. In the first Bhikkuni sagha conference at nagapur, i saw around 500 women and very few men participants. It was a heartening situation many ladies actively involving organisational matters,  deliberations, and other cultural programs connected to the conference. Around 80 Bhikkunis were in robes of saffron colour and other lay upasikas were in white dress. I had expressed my wonder about the colour code of Bhikkuni, 'why it should be like Hindu sanyasi or sanyasini for Buddhist monks and nuns?' I have seen people referring bhikkus and Bhikkunis as Hindu swamis and swaminis. This may look very trivial matter, and could be explained that the saffron is the colour of sacrifice, which marks dedication of the followers who opt for monastery life. Even the Buddha has been represented as wearing saffron robe in the modern pictures and visual narratives. When we recognise that most of institutionalized ideals and practices of buddhism in India is that of Hinduised Buddhism, the dress codes and other silly matters might become grave. During the personal conversations with Bhikkunis and Bhikkus, especially those in the Navayana stream, i used to used to argue on such lingering of Hinduist practices, including the celibacy or asceticism. These sceptical thoughts are raised simply on the basis of intellectual, theoretical or logical grounds. We have enough models from different Buddhist denominations in india and abroad, where they seem to have redefined, reimagined, and reinvented their dhamma practices by deviating from such codes and core principles. However, such things are not seen pronounced public as a matter of reconceptualization of Buddhism, rather than the adaptation for denominational difference.