For centuries after the bhikkhunī saṅgha ceased to exist in Sri Lanka in the eleventh century, Theravāda Buddhist women were told to abandon their hopes of becoming fully ordained as bhikkhunī. There was a widely held perception that women could not become bhikkhunī in the absence of a bhikkhunī saṅgha, an assumption derived from the garudhamma (eight rules) given by the Buddha to Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī, the first bhikkhunī, as the conditions for women's admission to the order. The garudhamma included a rule that prescribes that a bhikkhunī candidate be ordained by both bhikkhu and bhikkhunī saṅgha after a two-year probation. The first essential task for the restoration of the disrupted Theravāda bhikkhunī order was to refute that common presumption.
Concerned Buddhist women established international networks to discuss the reintroduction of bhikkhunī saṅgha in the Theravāda and Tibetan traditions, in which there was no existing bhikkhunī ordination lineage. Through international collaboration, the bhikkhunī saṅgha was restored in Sri Lankan Theravāda Buddhism: in 1996 in Sarnath, the Korean order held a historic ordination ceremony for 10 women from Sri Lanka, and in 1998 in Bodhgaya, Taiwan's Fo Guang Shan Buddhist Order hosted an international ordination ceremony at which a further twenty Sri Lankan bhikkhunī were ordained. The bhikkhunī saṅgha has been developing steadily in Sri Lanka; at present it has several hundred members.Footnote 1 The ordination of Sri Lankans further stimulated Thai women to seek ways to become sāmaṇerī and bhikkhunī.
The recent revival of bhikkhunī ordination aroused considerable public and academic interest in Thailand and elsewhere. Thai Buddhists in general were interested in whether it was actually possible, whilst scholars were concerned with public reaction to the claim of a break with precedent. Thai public debates on bhikkhunī ordination are examined in Varaporn Chamsanit's Ph.D. dissertation and Martin Seeger's article, both of which became available while this paper was awaiting publication.Footnote 2 These studies both point to a range of important issues in Thai public debates, such as the significance of strict vinaya adherence in the Theravāda school, and the question of cross-lineage ordination in which an East Asian Mahāyāna bhikkhunī preceptor ordains Theravāda bhikkhunī. On the one hand, opponents, reinforcing the common assumption, insist that no Theravāda bhikkhunī exist, hence no woman can be ordained as a Theravāda bhikkhunī; if ordained by a Mahāyāna preceptor, the woman should also be a Mahāyāna bhikkhunī. On the other hand, the leading Thai bhikkhunī, Dr Chatsumarn Dhammanandā, suggests that the vinaya lineage of Chinese bhikkhunī goes back to Sri Lankan bhikkhunī who travelled to China in the fifth century to ordain the first group of Chinese women.Footnote 3
Aside from public debate, the reactions of Thai mae chi (eight-precept female practitioners) is another important gauge of the social significance of bhikkhunī ordination. In the absence of a bhikkhunī order, Thai women generally become mae chi, despite their lack of formal status as ordained Buddhist nuns. One may expect that mae chi would be enthusiastic about the opportunity to become bhikkhunī; however, the reality is not so simple. Steven Collins and Justin McDaniel conducted joint research on Thai mae chi who had received higher doctrinal education and then served as Pāli teachers, and sought their opinions about bhikkhunī ordination in Thailand.Footnote 4 The authors indicated that in their interviews most intellectual mae chi presented negative views about becoming bhikkhunī. Why are Thai mae chi so negative about becoming bhikkhunī? The reasons given in the interviews by Collins and McDaniel are roughly the same as the ones I gathered from mae chis at the Thai Mae Chi Institute and upāsikā disciples of Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu when I asked the same questions in 1999 and 2005.Footnote 5 How should this Thai Buddhist women's repetition of clichés be interpreted?
I have followed the bhikkhunī ordination movement in Thailand since Dr Chatsumarn Kabilsingh's pioneering sāmaṇerī ordination in February 2001 through interviews with Thai sāmaṇerī, bhikkhunī, and their supporters and opponents. In the course of my research in Thailand up to March 2007, thirty-four Thai women had ordained as sāmaṇerī. Among those Thai sāmaṇerī, seven had ordained as bhikkhunī by the end of July 2007.Footnote 6 Not all those Thai sāmaṇerī and bhikkhunī are Bhikkhunī Dhammanandā's disciples; there are several groups of former mae chi and laywomen who were inspired by the idea and sought their own means to receive bhikkhunī ordination. Unfortunately, some of the Thai sāmaṇerī and bhikkhunī have found it difficult to remain in their yellow robes. As far as could be traced, in May 2007 there were eleven sāmaṇerī and bhikkhunī who gave up their yellow robes and clothed themselves as mae chi or upāsikā.Footnote 7 These numbers reflect the slightness of Thai Buddhist women's hopes for full ordination as well as their desire not be embroiled in controversy; the expansion of sāmaṇerī and bhikkhunī ordination is impeded by the potential risks of being ordained.
In Thailand, the National Saṅgha does not have the legal authority to forbid Thai women's sāmaṇerī and bhikkhunī ordination through foreign Buddhist orders, however, so those ordained elsewhere do have that choice and can live with the Buddhist community's support.Footnote 8 Nevertheless, the Saṅgha's displeasure with bhikkhunī ordination is hinted at in the preservation of the 1928 Saṅgharāja's proclamation which banned bhikkhu and even sāmaṇerī of all the Buddhist orders in Thailand from ordaining women as bhikkhunī, sikkhamānā and sāmaṇerī. In addition, it is a penal offence to disguise oneself in monastic garb to mislead people in order to solicit money.Footnote 9 Thai sāmaṇerī and bhikkhunī have to be ready to defend themselves when questioned as to whether they have been ‘rightly’ ordained; such continual questioning of their status is one of the major obstacles for Thai sāmaṇerī and bhikkhunī to keep wearing the yellow robes.
This paper explores the notion of ‘right ordination’, i.e. the legitimacy of ordination. First, the paper will review Thai Buddhist debates in order to highlight that both bhikkhunī supporters and opponents base their stance on the vinaya texts to examine ‘right procedures’ by which ‘right ordination’ could be materialised. Second, the paper will consider whether the ordinations of Thai sāmaṇerī and bhikkhunī were recognised as legitimate when they chose one of the procedural options that bhikkhunī ordination supporters argued to be valid. Third, the paper will examine cases of foreign saṅgha in which a less normative procedure — which bhikkhunī opponents in Thailand hardly count as a ‘valid’ option — produced ‘legitimate ordination’ in their countries. While some cases here involve the Mahāyāna tradition, it should be kept in mind that in the history of these countries ordination legitimacy has had no less significance than those in Theravāda Buddhist countries, and that ‘private ordination’ was strictly distinguished from ‘legitimate ordination’.Footnote 10 Last, the paper will demonstrate that the legitimacy of ordination is not supported solely by some ‘right’ procedure, but rather is firmly determined by those who have the authority over the interpretation of tradition.
‘Right’ ordination and procedure for restoring bhikkhunī
Soon after the renowned female Buddhist scholar Dr Chatsumarn Kabilsingh made a public appearance as a sāmaṇerī in Theravāda robes in 2001, the propriety of reinitiating bhikkhunī ordination attracted the attention of the Thai public. In Thailand Chatsumarn was already known as a prominent advocate for the restoration of bhikkhunī saṅgha since the time of her mother's bhikkhunī ordination in Taiwan in 1971, although, contrary to her wishes, the Thai Saṅgha recognised her mother as a Mahāyāna bhikkhunī, not as a Theravāda bhikkhunī.Footnote 11 Because of Chatsumarn's continued advocacy of bhikkhunī saṅgha restoration, her ordination as Sāmaṇerī Dhammanandā had a much greater social impact than her mother's ordination (hereafter Chatsumarn is referred by her ordained name ‘Dhammanandā’).Footnote 12
Given the disruption of the bhikkhunī lineage in the Theravāda tradition, a major question in the Thai debate was whether there was a viable method for the ordination of women as bhikkhunī. Thai Buddhists tend to believe that women's ordination is no longer possible because the ordination ceremony requires both bhikkhu and bhikkhunī preceptors, and in contemporary Theravāda Buddhism (before the bhikkhunī saṅgha was firmly restored in Sri Lanka) there were no bhikkhunī preceptors. Opponents tended to reinforce this common notion of women's ordination by referring to precedents in early Buddhist history regarding the origin and transmission of the bhikkhunī saṅgha; whereas supporters of bhikkhunī restoration presented an alternative interpretation of the same stories by invoking the principles of women's rights and gender equality, which they argued should be applied to the religious realm just as they are guaranteed by the Thai constitution in the secular realm.Footnote 13
Negative opinions on bhikkhunī ordination revival: Procedural problems
Opponents of bhikkhunī restoration often cite the vinaya's requirement of both bhikkhu and bhikkhunī preceptors' involvement in the ordination ceremony. One example would be the statement below by the renowned monastic scholar P.A. Payutto Bhikkhu, who often voices his opinions over controversial Buddhist issues. While many Thai Buddhists respect his opinion as being scholarly, according to one senior bhikkhu Payutto's views are supported by a group of bhikkhu elders who do not make public statements in the name of the Thai Saṅgha.Footnote 14 Payutto writes:
Some people ask questions such as ‘Why does not [the Saṅgha] give women a right of ordination to become bhikkhunī?’, referring to [gender equality guaranteed in] the constitution. Some say, ‘If there is no bhikkhunī saṅgha let bhikkhu saṅgha ordain [women] to be bhikkhunī’. Some say something like ‘Theravāda School is narrow-minded; why don't they adopt the Mahāyāna Schools' options for ordaining women?’ Some ask, ‘Why does not the Saṅgha administration, namely the Elders' Council, sanction bhikkhunī ordination?’ Actually the reality is clear and simple: women had the right to ordination in the Buddha's time, and now they still have the right to become bhikkhunī. However, the problem is that at the present time there is no one who has the right to ordain women as bhikkhunī. There are some people who, because they don't know the procedure of bhikkhunī ordination, insist that bhikkhu saṅgha should ordain [women as] bhikkhunī without the involvement of bhikkhunī saṅgha.Footnote 15
On the bhikkhunī ordination ceremony itself, Payutto considered the elder bhikkhunī's oral examination to be most important, with the elder bhikkhu serving simply to confirm the decision of the bhikkhunī saṅgha:
The bhikkhunī ordination ceremony is almost complete at the stage of the bhikkhunī saṅgha's [oral examination]. The [following] stage of the bhikkhu saṅgha's [precept conferral] is only for the purpose of hearing and acknowledging what the bhikkhunī saṅgha has done. Therefore, the bhikkhu saṅgha does not have the right to ordain women as bhikkhunī, if the candidates are not yet ordained by the bhikkhunī saṅgha.Footnote 16
Payutto provides further grounds for the bhikkhu saṅgha's inability to ordain women: ‘If the bhikkhu saṅgha ordain [women as] bhikkhunī or sāmaṇerī, sooner or later feminists will disagree, asking what right bhikkhu have to ordain women, and why bhikkhunī aren't allowed to ordain women.’Footnote 17
Phra Devatilaka (Rabaep Ṭhitañāṇo Bhikkhu) is another senior monk who often voices his ‘personal’ views on contemporary Buddhist controversies based on his ‘academic’ standing. He is involved in the Thai Saṅgha's politically active circle, and quite often his opinions can be perceived as strongly protective of the Thai Buddhist tradition.Footnote 18 Phra Devatilaka has made the same point as Payutto about the roles of the bhikkhu and bhikkhunī saṅgha in the bhikkhunī ordination ceremony. He even strongly criticises women who do not complete the two stages of the ordination ceremony:
now one of the steps [of the ordination ceremony] is no longer available. If we are to establish the bhikkhunī group, where can we start? Since only the [male] saṅgha exists, without having a first group [of the bhikkhunī saṅgha], a second group cannot be generated. Those [women] who ordain [as bhikkhunī] should be accused of unauthentic ordination transgressing the vinaya [in Thai, buat mai thuk tong tam phra thamma winai]; if they don bhikkhunī costume to deceive the world, they will receive the result of that wrong-doing [pen bap kae tua eng].Footnote 19
The strong tone of those two influential bhikkhu seems to indicate that the Saṅgha elders are offended, as if they were being forced to change their ‘narrow-minded suppression’ of women's rights to ordination.Footnote 20 Taking the Saṅgha elders' intentions into consideration, the lay Buddhist teacher Thongyoi Saengsinchai compared the general behaviour of religious Thai Buddhists with that of bhikkhunī advocates. He indicates that ordination would not be demanded if a person were genuinely pursuing enlightenment; such a person would not get stuck on the issue of ordination when it was not available, but rather would pursue enlightenment without ordination.Footnote 21 Thongyoi asked why bhikkhunī advocates do not intend to be ordained by a teacher or at a school in which they have faith and which can ordain bhikkhunī by following the principles of the school. But then he also questioned their demand to establish the Theravāda bhikkhunī saṅgha in the Thai Saṅgha, when that lineage had not been transmitted to Thailand, and there is no teacher to turn to.Footnote 22
To summarise the arguments against bhikkhunī restoration: on the one hand, there is a tendency to think that the ceremonial involvement of the dual saṅgha of bhikkhu and bhikkhunī for women's ordination is an essential requirement for producing new bhikkhunī; on the other hand, ordained status tends to be regarded as a non-essential formality or transient status which is less significant than religious practice for enlightenment. Perhaps the insistence on a traditional form for women's ordination procedure is a convenient reason for dismissing so-called feminist claims. In addition, the voices of Thai bhikkhunī who intended to shed light on low-status Buddhist women's hard work and contributions were not readily heard by those of high status.Footnote 23
Models of ‘legitimate’ ordination procedure: The Senate Subcommittee's proposal
Bhikkhunī supporters argued that the disruption of the female ordination lineage did not prevent contemporary Buddhist women from ordination. One of the highest status groups of bhikkhunī supporters was the Thai Senate Subcommittee for Women's Affairs, which belonged to the Committee for Women's, Children's, and Elderly People's Affairs. The involvement and leadership of female senator Rabiaprat Phongphanit in particular has been a significant contribution to the bhikkhunī debate in Thailand.
The origin of Rabiaprat's interest in the bhikkhunī issue was her entrance into a Master's programme at Thammasat University. In 2002, at the age of 52, when she took the elective ‘Women and Religion’ course taught by Sāmaṇerī Dr Chatsumarn Dhammanandā, Rabiaprat said that she realised for the first time that women's freedom and equality of opportunity in Buddhism had been expropriated.Footnote 24 At high school, Rabiaprat had attended weekend Buddhist classes at a temple and received an award for her excellent result in the Buddhist doctrine examination, but she had not questioned the absence of bhikkhunī, despite having memorised the four Buddhist groups as consisting of bhikkhu, bhikkhunī, upāsaka and upāsikā. Decades later, as one of only 20 female senators, Rabiaprat found the structural gender disparity in Thai Buddhism a serious issue which she should work to redress. In 1999 Rabiaprat stood for election as a representative of women in Khon Kaen province at the request of housewife groups and the Red Cross, of which she was president. Although her husband was an influential bureaucrat who had been the governor of Khon Kaen and other provinces,Footnote 25 Rabiaprat was confident that she could work independently on women's issues, and her contributions resulted in her receiving two awards: the Outstanding Women in Buddhism Award (Rangwan satri di den nai phuttha-sasana) and the Supreme Woman Award (Rangwan yot ying), both in 2003. Inspired by Dhammanandā's lectures, Rabiaprat said that she was determined to take on bhikkhunī restoration as her political mission in her remaining three years of her term as a senator.Footnote 26
For the bhikkhunī restoration movement in Thailand, the involvement of Senator Rabiaprat constituted encouraging support since she was in a position to marshal other legislators' support to give legal standing to newly ordained sāmaṇerī and future bhikkhunī. By coincidence, from late 2001 to 2003 amendments of the Saṅgha Act were being discussed publicly, and the parliament was expecting to examine a draft bill, and it appeared that there was a chance to include the term ‘bhikkhunī’ in one of the bill's provisions.Footnote 27 According to Rabiaprat, the government's original drafter of the Saṅgha bill never agreed to mention bhikkhunī, yet once the bill came up to the senate, Rabiaprat could propose a motion to amend it.Footnote 28 In reality, however, after a few years of tense dispute among the Saṅgha elders, consensus could not be reached on the Saṅgha bill, so lay Buddhist bureaucrats had to abandon it, because they could never offend the opposing elders. Consequently, Rabiaprat did not have a chance to push through the legalisation of bhikkhunī. Similarly, her proposal to abolish the 1928 Saṅgharāja's proclamation, which banned Saṅgha members from ordaining women, could not be approved immediately. Nevertheless, her advocacy in parliament and in public have contributed to clarifications regarding bhikkhunī ordination.
In order to promote understanding about bhikkhunī, Rabiaprat raised questions in parliament, held several public seminars in Bangkok and the provinces, and distributed many copies of booklets and video CDs about the bhikkhunī discussions. She also invited several academics, bureaucrats, and members of women's and religious organisations to become members of the Subcommittee for Women's Affairs; the Subcommittee studied the history and precepts of bhikkhunī, as well as the possibilities of and obstacles to Thai women's ordination, based on the advice of monastic and lay Buddhist intellectuals.Footnote 29 After six months of study, in 2003 the Subcommittee issued a booklet entitled Bhikkhunī ordination in Thailand, which provided answers to important questions, including possible procedures for the ordination of women as bhikkhunī.Footnote 30
Exploring stories from the Tipiṭaka, the booklet identified five alternatives permitted by the Buddha.Footnote 31 The first bhikkhunī ordination method was to receive the garudhamma from the Buddha, just like Mahāpajāpatī, the first bhikkhunī. The second was the case of 500 women who followed Mahāpajāpatī's ordination; the Buddha granted bhikkhu permission to ordain them. The third was Bhikkhunī Bhaddākuṇaḍhilaesḍā's ordination, performed by the Buddha himself. The fourth was the most formal ordination ceremony, the so-called ‘dual ordination’, conducted by both male and female saṅgha, represented by an elder bhikkhunī (pavattinī) and an elder bhikkhu (upajjhāya). The fifth one was a rather exceptional case; where there was a high risk of a bhikkhunī candidate being ambushed or assaulted on her way to the village where her bhikkhu preceptor stayed, the Buddha permitted the bhikkhunī saṅgha to send a delegation to the bhikkhu saṅgha to receive the bhikkhunī candidate's ordination from the preceptor.
Among the five options for bhikkhunī ordination, the Senate Subcommittee's booklet explained in most careful detail the fourth one involving dual saṅgha, which is considered the normative procedure for subsequent generations of Buddhists. The Subcommittee's interpretation of the ‘dual ordination’ was a challenge to Thai Buddhists' commonly held notions about women's ordination. The booklet describes the process of a bhikkhunī ordination ceremony as follows:
at first a female candidate has to ordain as a sikkhamānā (i.e. a sāmaṇerī at a training stage [in Thai, khan khem-khon]) strictly keeping the six anudhamma [conformity or accordance with the Law] precepts continuously for two years. After that, she can ask for [higher] ordination [to become a bhikkhunī]. The candidate has to have a pavattinī (a bhikkhunī who has ordained for twelve years) and pass an oral examination antarāyikadhamma given by a bhikkhunī saṅgha. When the candidate has passed the antarāyikadhamma and is permitted to join the group of the bhikkhunī saṅgha, an ‘intelligent bhikkhunī’ takes her to a bhikkhu saṅgha for ordination by the bhikkhu saṅgha.Footnote 32
Working from the interpretation quoted above, the Senate Subcommittee developed the argument that it is the role of a bhikkhu saṅgha to ordain a bhikkhunī candidate, and the role of a bhikkhunī saṅgha is simply to ask her some questions in order to judge whether she can be a member of the bhikkhunī saṅgha. That is to say, in the bhikkhunī ordination the bhikkhu saṅgha plays the essential part, whereas the presence of the bhikkhunī saṅgha is less important, contrary to popular belief. The Subcommittee reinforces its argument as follows:
The oral examination antarāyikadhamma by a bhikkhunī saṅgha came to exist as the result of an incident involving a female candidate who felt embarrassed to answer questions of antarāyikadhamma to a bhikkhu saṅgha, because the questions dealt with body parts. The female candidate did not dare to answer the questions; this presented an obstacle to ordination. Therefore, the Buddha prescribed that a bhikkhunī saṅgha would play the role of antarāyikadhamma examiner.Footnote 33
Considering examination by a senior bhikkhunī as an unimportant element of the ordination ceremony, serving only to avoid the embarrassment of female candidates, the Subcommittee presented its challenging interpretation:
Therefore, we can conclude that [women's ordination] was done only by a single saṅgha [i.e. bhikkhu saṅgha]. If there is no bhikkhunī saṅgha, bhikkhu saṅgha can ask questions concerning antarāyikadhamma; and if female candidates do not feel embarrassed to answer those questions, they may pass the oral examination antarāyikadhamma and can move on to the next step of the ordination ceremony.Footnote 34
This interpretation was a turn away from Thai Buddhists' traditional conception of women's ordination and stood in remarkable contrast to those of influential bhikkhu. While Payutto and others argued that the role of the bhikkhu preceptor is just to confirm the bhikkhunī saṅgha's decision to permit its new members, the Senate Subcommittee argued that the crucial element of the transmission of female ordination lineage was the bhikkhu preceptor who performed the main conferral of precepts to the candidate, not the senior bhikkhunī who gave the oral examination. Hence, the absence of a bhikkhunī saṅgha in contemporary Thai Theravāda Buddhism does not preclude women's bhikkhunī ordination.
In the final chapter of the booklet the Subcommittee proposed two possible ways ‘of restoring women's bhikkhunī ordination that do not contradict the Buddha's prescribed rules’.Footnote 35 The first option is ordination with bhikkhu saṅgha alone taking the role of antarāyikadhamma examiner. The second option is by bhikkhunī saṅgha in foreign countries. In particular the Subcommittee considered the recently developed Theravāda bhikkhunī in Sri Lanka, who have formalised their ordination procedure and established a clear structure for their saṅgha which is recognised by international Buddhists.Footnote 36 On the seeking of assistance from bhikkhunī in foreign countries, the Subcommittee suggested three methods: first, sending Thai women to receive training and ordination by both bhikkhu and bhikkhunī saṅgha in Sri Lanka; second, inviting both saṅgha, including a pavattinī (bhikkhunī examiner) and upajjhāya (bhikkhu preceptor) from Sri Lanka to hold an ordination ceremony in Thailand; and third, inviting only bhikkhunī saṅgha and ordaining Thai women in collaboration with Thai bhikkhu saṅgha. A note is added to indicate that involvement of Thai bhikkhu can only be possible once the 1928 Saṅgharāja's proclamation is lifted.Footnote 37
Given the status of the Senate Subcommittee, together with Dhammanandā's publications, the booklet served as a reliable reference for less informed Thai Buddhist women who were interested in bhikkhunī ordination.Footnote 38 Even though it did not succeed in its aim of obtaining Thai government endorsement of bhikkhunī ordination based on scriptural accounts, the booklet provided models of ‘right procedure’ for a women's ordination ceremony, including that conducted only by bhikkhu saṅgha, which is more easily available but contradicts the prevalent notion of ‘right’ ordination. Unfortunately, however, the booklet was of little help in narrowing the differences between the bhikkhunī supporters and their opponents themselves, particularly those bhikkhu or former bhikkhu intellectuals close to the Saṅgha elders. It seems that the rationale and interpretations of bhikkhunī supporters were not accepted by others, and those of their opponents only served to reconfirm scepticism; both sides of the debate dismissed each other's opinions as insignificant. Meanwhile, the post-ordination social realities experienced by Thai bhikkhunī pose the question of whether a ‘right procedure’ alone can fully convince a doubting public of the authenticity of their ordination.
Thai women's bhikkhunī ordinations and validity
Whether or not they were influenced by the Senate Subcommittee's booklet, the actual ordinations undertaken by seven Thai bhikkhunī coincided with those suggested in the booklet's final chapter. Although the booklet presented those methods as ways ‘of restoring women's bhikkhunī ordination that do not contradict the Buddha's prescribed rules’,Footnote 39 the Thai Buddhist public did not perceive all methods as equally ‘right’ and ‘legitimate’. People tended to consider those closer to their traditional conception of women's ordination as ‘right’ and remained sceptical toward the rest.
The choice of ordination in Sri Lanka
Regardless of what the Senate Subcommittee defined as ‘right’ ordination, Thai sāmaṇerī who were seeking a way for their own bhikkhunī ordination also held that a ceremony performed by dual saṅgha in Sri Lanka would be a preferable option by which they could best defend themselves from criticisms about authenticity. Even in the case of sāmaṇerī ordination, where a bhikkhunī preceptor is not necessarily required (an elder bhikkhu can also ordain a woman to be a sāmaṇerī), in order to meet contemporary Thai social expectations, it is desirable to be ordained by a Sri Lankan bhikkhunī preceptor in a ceremony held in either Sri Lanka or Thailand. In addition, since Thais are familiar with white-robed mae chi, many believe that the reason for the absence of ordained women in yellow robes is a rupture of the female ordination lineage. Therefore, when a Thai woman receives either the full or novice monastic precepts from a bhikkhunī preceptor, Thai people tend to be better convinced that her ordination is ‘legitimate’.
Unfortunately, however, ordination in Sri Lanka is not an easy option for less affluent Thai women. Among the thirty-four Thai women who have ordained as sāmaṇerī, only nineteen were ordained by a Sri Lankan bhikkhunī preceptor, including the pioneering Thai sāmaṇerī (now bhikkhunī) Dhammanandā and three who had her backing, the second Thai sāmaṇerī (now bhikkhunī) Rattanāvalī, who had an American bhikkhunī mentor, and a group of fourteen sāmaṇerī headed by Sāmaṇerī Nandañāṇī who flew together for ordination in Sri Lanka in early 2006. Including Nandañāṇī's large group, sāmaṇerī who had a Sri Lankan bhikkhunī preceptor outnumber those who were ordained by a Thai bhikkhu preceptor in Thailand; however, they were a rather fortunate group who enjoyed the confidence of their teacher and a sponsor who could introduce them to a Sri Lankan bhikkhunī teacher and help with their overseas travel expenses. Many Thai women would find it difficult to obtain international contacts and financial support. Some are not able to accept offers from prospective sponsors whose actual intentions are unclear, or they have even encountered interference by influential persons in their contact with Sri Lankan teachers; others have difficulty communicating in English with their Sri Lankan teachers.
When Thai sāmaṇerī consider higher ordination to become bhikkhunī, it is even more important than for their novice ordination to travel to Sri Lanka, i.e. the only Theravāda Buddhist country which has established both male and female saṅgha, since it is the least controversial dual ordination option. Yet, some Thai sāmaṇerī did not take this option, even when they were put in contact with Sri Lankan teachers and offered sponsorship. Some cancelled their overseas training because of difficulties with foreign languages and unfamiliar customs. Some were in their sixties or even older and did not feel like going to live in a foreign country for several months or years. Others, while younger, had responsibilities such as the care of elderly parents and duties in their monastic communities. Summarising Thai sāmaṇerī's comments given in interviews with the author, there was more concern with contributing to their own society and religion than with studying other religious traditions and cultures.
Among the limited number of women intending to ordain as bhikkhunī there were even fewer who could clear their private obstacles, although there were encouraging voices among Thai bhikkhunī supporters interviewed. Also, the situation of Thai sāmaṇerī can be viewed rather sympathetically if one considers that the expansion of the Sri Lankan bhikkhunī order only accelerated after 1998 when women's ordinations began to be conducted by the Sri Lankan bhikkhu saṅgha At the time of this research (August 2007), in Thailand, since Dhammanandā's bhikkhunī ordination, three Thai sāmaṇerī have been able to go to Sri Lanka to receive higher ordination by the dual saṅgha.Footnote 40 Other Thai sāmaṇerī had to find other feasible means of ordaining as bhikkhunī.
The single saṅgha ordination option
After pondering whether to remain a sāmaṇerī or to go to Sri Lanka with other Thai sāmaṇerī for higher ordination, one Thai sāmaṇerī finally ordained as a bhikkhunī in Thailand in May 2005. Her bhikkhunī ordination ceremony was conducted at an abandoned ancient temple in Ayutthaya through the initiation of a Theravāda bhikkhu preceptor who originally came from India, had ordained and was based in Tibet, and was temporarily visiting Thailand.Footnote 41 She said that her ordination ceremony had the Indian bhikkhu as preceptor, a pair of Thai bhikkhu chanting to assist the ceremony, and another seven Thai bhikkhu as witnesses, but no bhikkhunī involvement. The abandoned temple still had its ancient stone boundary, so it satisfied the requirement for the conduct of Buddhist monastic ceremonies. The bhikkhunī was confident that women's ordination by bhikkhu saṅgha alone is an acceptable option, and her case was the first Theravāda bhikkhunī ordination ceremony held in Thailand.
The question here is how the Thai Buddhist public perceived the validity of women's ordination by a single saṅgha which differed from the procedure generally seen as standard. The above case of the Thai bhikkhunī is little known to the public, as her ordination ceremony was conducted rather quietly without media coverage. Her advancement of religious status was celebrated by her monastic friends: on her report of bhikkhunī ordination, Bhikkhunī Dhammanandā replied with a letter of blessing, and her sāmaṇerī friends also respected her style of ordination as a possible option. Later, however, when she sought a temple for residence, she encountered many questions about the legitimacy of her ordination.Footnote 42
Ordination ceremony by international dual saṅgha in Thailand
Aside from the case of the bhikkhunī who were ordained by the initiation of a bhikkhu from a foreign country, three other Thai sāmaṇerī had their bhikkhunī ordination ceremony performed by international dual saṅgha in Thailand. The three bhikkhunī who were ordained as sāmaṇerī by different preceptors in different years organised their bhikkhunī ordination by international saṅgha by seizing the opportunity which arose at the 2006 Outstanding Women in Buddhism Awards ceremony, when esteemed bhikkhunī and lay women were invited to receive overseas awards in Thailand. Their ordination ceremony was witnessed by non-Thai Theravāda and Mahāyāna bhikkhu and bhikkhunī saṅgha, and by lay supporters.Footnote 43 They humorously referred to the event as an ‘underground ordination’ and did not wish to publicise further details of their ordination ceremony for fear of possible criticism about their ordination method. Their ordination ceremony was not reported by the media, so the legitimacy of their ordination was never caught up in public controversy. Again, however, one of the three bhikkhunī was questioned about the validity of her ordination upon her return to her temple of residence and was subsequently asked to leave the temple by the bhikkhu abbot. Even though the bhikkhunī insisted that her ordination ceremony followed one of the ‘right’ procedures for bhikkhunī ordination, the abbot was not convinced. Thus the question of ordination validity can be crucial, particularly when a sāmaṇerī or bhikkhunī has to rely on other people's resources.
Thai bhikkhunī's post-ordination experiences
How did higher ordination change Thai bhikkhunī's lives? One of them said that she was very proud to be ordained as a bhikkhunī; although she was a little tired of confronting society, she could no longer hold back. Sometimes she received words of encouragement, but people generally kept asking her if it was right for a woman to don the yellow monastic robes; some even called her crazy. Many mae chi tried to find mistakes in her ordination so as to criticise it as ‘illegitimate’. Some mae chi said to her that Thai bhikkhunī have no status vested by the authorities; being a mae chi is preferable because the Institute of Thai Mae Chi is under the patronage of Princess Somsawalee, a member of the Thai royal family, i.e. the establishment in Thai society. According to the bhikkhunī, such mae chi are obstacles to the expansion of bhikkhunī ordination in Thailand, as they discourage Thai women who express an interest in ordination, telling them nothing good happens after one becomes a bhikkhunī.
Virtually the same as they experienced as sāmaṇerī, those Thai bhikkhunī who have their own monastery or even a hut for their religious practice on land owned by themselves or their family are relatively secure, whereas those who have to find a place to stay under someone else's supervision encounter more difficulties. One of the Thai bhikkhunī said that when she was a mae chi, she used to quite enjoy herself finding new places and meeting new people, and her friendly personality was usually welcomed. As a sāmaṇerī, she occasionally met some people who showed disrespect by calling her chi (a colloquial term of address for mae chi) or nen (a colloquial term of address for sāmaṇera, who are in Thailand young novice boys under the age of 20) instead of sāmaṇerī. Even after she ordained as a bhikkhunī in yellow robes, some people still called her a mae chi and would not prostrate themselves to show respect to her. Her opportunities for dhamma practice and sermon delivery were still very few, and bhikkhu expected her to do similar chores as when she was a mae chi: cooking in front of a hot stove, wiping windows, watering the garden and cleaning bird droppings from the outer corridors; any expression of reluctance was taken as a claim to a status higher than she deserved.
It is also not at all easy to find a monastic community that will accept a bhikkhunī, and much patience and compromise is needed. In one case, a bhikkhu abbot declined a bhikkhunī's request to stay at his temple on the grounds that she had ordained ‘improperly’. Eventually, the stress made her unwell, with symptoms including high blood pressure and depression. After moving from one temple to another several times, the bhikkhunī gave up her robes and joined a monastic community as an upāsikā. She said that as a newcomer to the community she had many dhamma friends, and she no longer had to defend herself and explain much to people; she enjoyed her simpler new life.
Another Thai bhikkhunī who lived in a bhikkhu abbot's temple as a sāmaṇerī received a shocking letter from the abbot upon her return to the temple after her bhikkhunī ordination. The letter said that because she had not ‘properly’ ordained in Sri Lanka, she was no longer permitted to live in the temple. Fortunately, there were several lay supporters who had faith in her potential to become a respected religious teacher, so they sponsored her Master's degree in another region of Thailand, and she was able to continue her religious study and practice as a bhikkhunī. However, the Thai bhikkhunī said she found it difficult to understand why her ordination in Thailand was criticised; she asked why it had to take place in Sri Lanka to be accepted. She also wondered why the same abbot who had protected her when she was a sāmaṇerī suddenly criticised her bhikkhunī ordination even though she had followed one of the ceremony procedures found in the classical scriptures and modelled after Sri Lankan practice.Footnote 44
The same procedural question had been posed to the first generation of contemporary Theravāda bhikkhunī from Sri Lanka and their teachers from Korea. The ordination ceremony of the Sri Lankan women followed a preliminary year-long monastic training by a senior Korean bhikkhunī teacher and had the then Supreme Master of the Jogye Order (the largest Buddhist order in Korea) Master Seo Am as the bhikkhu preceptor, and was conducted in the presence of highly esteemed Buddhist representatives from Korea and other countries. Unfortunately, details of the ordination ceremony procedure were criticised by some keen advocates of bhikkhunī restoration.Footnote 45
Most international ordination ceremonies are supported by the generosity and loving-kindness of bhikkhu and bhikkhunī from a Buddhist country with a well-established system of women's ordination agreeing to ordain women who wish to become bhikkhunī of another monastic tradition, in order to assist them to be able to work with an internationally respected status. For instance, those who ordain in the Jogye Order of Korea usually have to spend several years to acquire monastic manners and Buddhist philosophy before they are allowed to ordain as a bhikkhunī, but those who come to seek the assistance of Korean bhikkhunī to become bhikkhunī of other schools which do not have a female monastic lineage are exempt from the regular course of monastic training in the Jogye Order. After their ordination ceremony, those women can don the Theravāda or Vajirayāna robes and live as bhikkhunī, but without having a formal sanction of a traditional authority of the school, their ordained status is only acknowledged by those who respect them.
Without a consolidated status, new bhikkhunī ordained by international saṅgha may at many junctures face social difficulties in their schools and in countries that have the monastic tradition of those schools. That is to say, international Buddhist women's ordination ceremonies do not promise an instant uplifting of status.
Persistent questioning of ordination validity
In summary, the interpretational challenge to the standard bhikkhunī ordination ceremony was an essential basis for the expansion of Thai women's sāmaṇerī and bhikkhunī ordination. Even though in Thailand there is no bhikkhunī teacher who together with a bhikkhu preceptor initiates female candidates as full monastic members, some alternative methods of ‘valid’ bhikkhunī ordination ceremony were presented to Thai women; as a result they became confident that bhikkhunī ordination was still possible and chose one of the ‘valid’ options.
Are Thai sāmaṇerī and bhikkhunī ordinations really recognised as legitimate when they follow the new interpretation of ‘right’ ordination? And, if so, who can perform legitimate ordinations? While Bhikkhunī supporters insist that such ordinations are valid, opinions vary among the mass of Thai Buddhists: some delightedly accept the new interpretation, which overturns the traditional assumption that bhikkhunī ordination is no longer possible; others feel uncertain about accepting unconventional attempts, relying instead on the Saṅgha's judgement. The Saṅgha's attitude toward Thai sāmaṇerī and bhikkhunī is diplomatically respectful, but hardly ever positive. Although the Thai Saṅgha has never issued any formal proclamation about the legitimacy of Thai women's bhikkhunī ordination, several elder Thai bhikkhu suggested the same point: the Thai Saṅgha respects bhikkhu and bhikkhunī from other countries and other Buddhist traditions as legitimately ordained Buddhists; it also respects the ordained status conferred on Thai women by a saṅgha in a foreign country, so Thai sāmaṇerī's and bhikkhunī's overseas ordinations have been legitimate. One elder Thai bhikkhu indicated, however, that those Thai sāmaṇerī and bhikkhunī are not members of the Thai Theravāda Buddhist Saṅgha. He expressed discontent that bhikkhunī are insisting that the Saṅgha elders have a wrong, narrow view, attempting to force them to change their attitude and accept women's ordination.Footnote 46 Since the Saṅgha elders have both power and authority, it is unlikely that they will make such an unhappy decision unless compelled to do so by some significant authority, such as the Thai royal family.
Thailand's religious authority, the national Saṅgha, can neither totally dismiss Thai women's bhikkhunī ordination, nor can it offer a conclusive definition of women's ‘legitimate’ ordination since it does not accept any female members. Given this uncomfortable latitude, individual Thai women can freely organise their own ordination by following a ‘right procedure’ based on their interpretation of the vinaya prescription. After their ordination, however, their social status as sāmaṇerī or bhikkhunī is not necessarily appropriately respected. Buddhist critics — including conservative bhikkhu, lay intellectuals, and even women ordained as bhikkhunī — can always identify some perceived problems with other women's ordinations by citing whichever traditional conceptions favour their view; yet they are not in a position to monopolise a definition of ‘legitimate’ ordination either.
The reality of Thai sāmaṇerī and bhikkhunī suggests that any kind of ordination procedure can be criticised as ‘invalid’ or ‘illegitimate’, and consequently the social status of all Thai bhikkhunī is insecure. It is not just the single saṅgha ordination ceremony that does not easily gain the full approval of the Thai Buddhist public, but also those performed by dual international Buddhist saṅgha. Some elder bhikkhu never call Bhikkhunī Dhammanandā by her ordained name, disdainfully referring to her as a mae chi, although her ordination procedure coincides optimally with the common notion of ‘right’ ordination, because hers was conducted by the dual saṅgha of Sri Lanka. In other words, even if an ordination were done exactly in accordance with the vinaya, without the sanction of an established authority, the appropriateness of the ceremonial procedure itself scarcely guarantees the legitimacy of the ordination.
Grounds for ordination legitimacy: Thai Buddhism in history and at present
If ordination legitimacy is not guaranteed by precise conduct of the ‘right’ ceremony, what can make one's ordination legitimate and socially secure? There is a dearth of research on the legitimacy of ordination in Southeast Asian studies — this is as true for bhikkhu as it is for bhikkhunī. In Buddhism in Southeast Asian history, ‘legitimacy’ most often meant the popular acceptance of the rule of the monarchy which maintained the purity of the Saṅgha, the field of merit for the lay Buddhist populace.Footnote 47 The political and material relationship between the monarchy and the Saṅgha, which bolstered each other's legitimacy, hints at an understanding of the legitimacy of bhikkhunī ordination. The monarchy provided the Saṅgha with not merely basic food, clothing and shelter, but also the land, slaves and corvée labour exemption, as well as monastic titles that strengthened the honorary status of bhikkhu. At times, the monarchy also revoked the ordained status of bhikkhu who failed the royal examination on Buddhist doctrine, particularly when the monarchy was interested in recovering the Saṅgha's rich property and manpower for its own use.Footnote 48 In a way, the ordained status of bhikkhu was in the hands of the monarchy; it could be secured, promoted or even revoked by the monarchy.
It is often argued that in premodern underpopulated mainland Southeast Asia the power of the monarchy was strong enough to control only the centre and the surrounding area; it faded with distance from the centre.Footnote 49 That is to say, the monarchy never fully controlled people and saṅgha in remote areas, so monastic communities at the periphery seem to have enjoyed a high degree of autonomy from the monarchy's patronage and intervention. In ethnic Lao peripheral areas, it was not the monarchy but the lay Buddhist community that hosted a ceremony called thera phisek and conferred onto a respected senior bhikkhu such titles as ya khru and ya sa.Footnote 50 Although more precise studies are required, the ordained status of bhikkhu was not always in the hands of those in power; in some cases it was also affirmed by the surrounding lay Buddhist community.
In Siam (and subsequently Thailand) ordination legitimacy was fully controlled by the government at the turn of the last century in conjunction with administrative centralisation. In 1902, under the reign of King Chulalongkorn, the Saṅgha Act was implemented and scattered local saṅgha were integrated into a single national Saṅgha which was organised in virtually the same manner as the local administration of the national bureaucracy. Yoneo Ishii indicated that:
[The Saṅgha Act's] Article 15, which stipulated that every monk and novice must be enlisted in a monastery, is one of the most remarkable provisions contained in the act. It was the basis for the Ministry of Public Instruction's communication of August 29, 1911, ordering that vagrant monks (phra chorachat) should be arrested and forced to disrobe. It meant that, after the promulgation of the act, those without monastic affiliation could no longer be recognized as monks.Footnote 51
Furthermore, when a new bhikkhu candidate ordains to enter the order, the vinaya allows that he can be ordained by any bhikkhu with more than 10 years' experience; however, in present Thailand, no bhikkhu candidate would be legally sanctioned as ‘legitimate’ if he were not ordained by a preceptor appointed to that position by the national Saṅgha. Under the Saṅgha Act the government's permission was also required for the installation of a sacred stone boundary for monastic ceremonies, so a ‘legitimate’ ordination ceremony must be held in a place sanctioned by the government.Footnote 52 By monopolising the appointment of ‘legitimate’ preceptors, the national Saṅgha of Thailand exclusively defines its ‘legitimate’ membership.
In the present setting of Thai Theravāda Buddhism it is quite clear that what can make one's ordination most demonstrably legitimate is one's adherence to the laws enacted by the Thai government regarding membership in the national Saṅgha. Any monk or novice not in the possession of an ordination certificate (nangsu sutthi) can be arrested by the police for alleged attempt to deceive the Buddhist populace and collect alms in order to make a living. There is a fair agreement to consider those who ordained in a foreign country as exceptions; if requested by the police or other authority, they have to present an ordination certificate from a foreign Buddhist institution in order to prove that their ordination is ‘legitimate’.Footnote 53 No doubt, the status of these ambiguous exceptions is not as stable as that of the national Thai Saṅgha members; it can be distorted any time by ill will. Without the sanction of the national Saṅgha and the accompanying support of the Thai legal system, an ordination cannot be fully legitimatised.
Saṅgha restoration and ordination legitimacy: Cambodian Buddhism after the Pol Pot regime
The contemporary history of neighbouring Theravāda Buddhist Cambodia shows that restoration of the ‘legitimate’ Saṅgha was a highly politicised matter. At the end of 1975, the Khmer Rouge government declared Buddhism to be a reactionary religion and promoted the destruction of Buddha images and scriptures and the disrobing of bhikkhu and sāmaṇera.Footnote 54 Consequently the Saṅgha and any visible religious ceremony and practice disappeared from Cambodia under the Pol Pot regime. As soon as Pol Pot's government was driven from power by the Vietnamese-backed Heng Samrin troops in January 1979, people resumed religious activities. Even though they had no preceptor who could ‘properly’ ordain them, former bhikkhu started to play monastic roles. At first, some former bhikkhu took white robes in order to hold memorial services for the deceased; eventually they were given yellow robes by village acquaintances and returned to live as bhikkhu without having a formal ordination ceremony.Footnote 55 Villagers compromised with the ‘unauthorised’ private ordinations in that desperate situation; they preferred the presence of a bhikkhu for their spiritual support rather than the traditional notion of formality. At that time there was no single monastic authority in Cambodia that monopolised a ‘legitimate’ ordination lineage; there were plural saṅgha consisting of freely ordained bhikkhu supported by communities of lay Buddhists.
The Cambodian Saṅgha was eventually re-established by the new political power, rather than the people, however. In September 1979 the new government organised an ordination ceremony for seven former bhikkhu by inviting a preceptor and a group of bhikkhu from the Mekong Delta in southern Vietnam, which is inhabited by ethnic Khmer who are Theravāda Buddhists. The youngest bhikkhu among the reordained seven, Venerable Tep Vong, was appointed Vice-Chairperson of the Central Committee of the Khmer United Front for National Construction and Defence; as a preceptor he conducted the ‘official’ reordination ceremonies of former bhikkhu in Phnom Penh and in each province.Footnote 56 All other ‘unauthorised’, ‘private’ reordinations were declared ‘invalid’, and all the reordination applicants were told to ordain by means of Tep Vong's initiation. The ‘official’ ordination was only permitted to men above the age of 50 years whose labour and military service contribution was considered relatively low. Thus while the emergence of ‘privately’ ordained bhikkhu in post-Pol Pot Cambodia reflected Cambodian people's spiritual needs, the government's establishment of the national Saṅgha amounted to its subordination of religious personnel.Footnote 57 The monopolisation of ‘legitimate’ ordination lineage was inseparable from state intervention to establish control of the monastic members.
The restoration of the Cambodian Saṅgha hints at an interpretation of the meaning of a ‘right’ ordination. A guarantee of ‘right’ ordination has to do with authority and power. At the time of difficulty, ordinary Buddhists may compromise monk's lack of ‘right’ ordination which is in total agreement with the vinaya prescriptions as far as they have faith in the person of an ordained individual; but it is the politically powerful authority that is interested in introducing and dominating a ‘legitimate’ ordination ceremony. Detailed descriptions of precise ordination procedures in the classical scriptures and the traditional Buddhist notions of ordination lineage, which are believed to have been transmitted from the Buddha and his original saṅgha, are rather convenient bases for a political power to cite as grounds for re-establishing a ‘legitimate’ saṅgha. It is not difficult for a politically powerful authority to invite a respected preceptor from a remote place who can convince people of the existence of an inherited ‘right’ monastic lineage. Through the invitation of a ‘right’ preceptor and a theatrical production of a ‘right’ ordination ceremony which coincides with people's traditional notions, the authority can seize control of individuals ordained through the new procedure and integrate them into an authorised religious institution. Such establishment of a ‘legitimate’ saṅgha in which common Buddhists have faith was the traditional way for a new political power to consolidate the legitimacy of its rule.Footnote 58
The authorities and ordination legitimacy: Cases of East Asian saṅgha
Summarising the historical examples examined in the discussion above, when the governing authority intends to control Buddhist monastic communities under its power, it monopolises ordination legitimacy and integrates all the legitimately ordained bhikkhu into the unified Saṅgha. Procedural details such as preceptor qualifications and the sacred stone boundary are conveniently used to define ‘right’ ordination.
Looking at the recent history of bhikkhunī saṅgha in Mahāyāna Buddhist East Asia, bhikkhunī ordination ceremonies were not necessarily conducted by dual saṅgha of bhikkhu and bhikkhunī but were sanctioned as ‘legitimate’. In Korea, which has one of the most consolidated contemporary bhikkhunī saṅgha, dual ordination was a rather recent development; it was only in 1982 that dual ordination for bhikkhunī was institutionalised.Footnote 59 Before that, Korean women were ordained by a bhikkhu preceptor without the involvement of an elder bhikkhunī in their ordination ceremony, but they became bhikkhunī and performed their full duties as Buddhist nuns performing religious practices, teaching and conducting ceremonies. Their ‘legitimate’ bhikkhunī status is not created miraculously by a ceremony; rather, it is guaranteed by the authority and traditional formality of the consolidated monastic order that they entered.
In Taiwan, whose bhikkhunī saṅgha is also widely known for its significant role and contribution, the government has abandoned its traditional duty to keep a register of Buddhist ordination since the 1980s, and candidates can be ordained freely. In the tradition of Taiwan and China there are several temples known as ordination ceremony platforms; these have vinaya expert elders who can give lectures to ordination candidates about monastic disciplines and play the role of preceptor in ordination ceremonies. Depending on the preceptor's policy, a bhikkhunī ordination ceremony can be conducted by dual saṅgha of bhikkhu and bhikkhunī or by a single bhikkhu saṅgha; both procedures are recognised as valid in Taiwan, although there are increasing numbers of people who prefer dual saṅgha ordination along with the diffusion of vinaya knowledge.Footnote 60 In the case of Taiwan it is the commonly practised tradition that authorises a range of ‘valid’ ordination procedures.
Unlike those in Thailand and Cambodia, Buddhist orders in Korea and Taiwan are not organised into a single national Saṅgha which monopolises the definition of legitimate ordination. In the social setting of Buddhist orders in Korea and Taiwan, what sanctions ordination legitimacy is not the political power or a centralised religious authority; it is rather the tradition and traditional formalities that each order has developed in its history. People recognise affiliation to one of the traditional Buddhist orders as a ‘legitimate’ ordination, as they trust the well-established formalities in each Buddhist order. Although the presence or absence of a centralised religious authority gives rise to differences of such a magnitude that comparison is difficult, the diversity of ordination legitimacy in East Asian Buddhist countries hints at a way around the question of legitimacy of the Thai bhikkhunī who have organised their ordination ceremony independently. A female order can be institutionalised through formal procedures after a few decades or centuries.
Conclusion
It is important to ask once again by way of conclusion: what makes an ordination legitimate? The cases examined in this paper indicate that there are two kinds of religious establishment whose ordinations are accepted as ‘legitimate’: one is a centralised religious authority validated by the governing political power, and the other is a well-established religious organisation in whose tradition people place their confidence. This article does not conclude that a challenge to the establishment in the form of a new tradition is impossible, but it suggests that an individually organised ordination, which follows a ‘right’ ceremonial procedure, cannot easily win public confidence.
A question worthy of consideration is why ‘private’ ordination is not perceived just as ‘legitimate’ or ‘valid’ as initiation into a well-established religious order. Voices from Thailand and other Buddhist countries say that there are some people of ill-intention who take up robes simply to solicit money, and such ‘fake’ monks and nuns can undermine the general public's faith in Buddhism and ordained individuals who are supposed to conduct their lives for higher Buddhist purposes. Therefore, people often seek to clarify whether an unfamiliar individual in a robe is worthy of their offerings by tracing the details about ordination place, affiliated order and preceptor. People can place credence in the monk or nun in that he/she has received sufficient training to become a respectable practitioner. Put another way, people are confident that an established Buddhist order would be responsible for its members as being respected renunciants.
For the sceptical Thai Buddhist public, it is often difficult to distinguish a ‘right’ ordination based on a ‘right’ procedure for reintroducing a lost saṅgha from a ‘fake’ ordination aimed at taking advantage of faithful Buddhist supporters, since neither is sanctioned by any formal Buddhist institution. Consequently, and most unfortunately, Thai sāmaṇerī and bhikkhunī are often placed in a vulnerable position. Questioning the ‘legitimacy’ of their ordination and fearing intervention by the authorities, people can urge them to leave their temple of residence, even when in reality the source of trouble is a small emotional conflict with an abbot or an influential supporter. Individual women can challenge the injustice of gender discrimination for ordination opportunity and take up the monastic robes to begin a new female order. But such a situation can persist as long as the authority does not sanction their ordination as ‘legitimate’. This is no doubt a rough and a rough and thorny path. On this path newly ordained sāmaṇerī and bhikkhunī take up significant tasks and responsibilities: as individuals they have to be renunciants worthy of people's respect, and as a group they have to develop a consolidated female order which can engender sufficient faith to earn both support and new ordained members.
