![\"\"](\"https:\/\/4.bp.blogspot.com\/-sWrY61MaadM\/UNyOL_BPNtI\/AAAAAAAAA7Q\/AKdx9bfiocw\/s1600\/MacBeth+&+MacDuff+1.jpg\")
<\/a>One of the recurrent issues in my own writing is the misconception that \u201ccrazy theories\u201d come from the fringes: on the contrary, in Buddhism<\/a>, the craziest theories can (and often do) come from the pinnacle of prestige, influence and academic authority (sometimes from the centers of religious authority, too).\u00a0 I dealt with this question generally in my (still-unpublished) lecture, \u201cThe Opposite of Buddhism\u201d, and I discussed a (stunning) particular example in\u00a0my earlier work<\/a>\u00a0on the \u201cstandard misinterpretation\u201d of the 12 links of \u201cdependent origination\u201d.<\/p>\n English speakers often work from a false assumption that what is \u201ccentral\u201d is conservative and reasonable, and what is \u201cfringe\u201d is radical, original, creative, and more likely to be unreasonable.\u00a0 That may be true of some areas of scholarship, but I can tell you (and I must warn you) that Buddhism isn\u2019t one of them.\u00a0 There is plenty of craziness at the center of the halls of power (and there isn\u2019t much power in those halls).<\/p>\n Often enough, however, what academic publications provide is a certain style of obfuscation for just how crazy these theories may be.\u00a0 In the case of\u00a0my critique of a theory<\/a>\u00a0proposed by Bhikkhu P\u0101s\u0101dika, I honestly think that the theory was refuted\u00a0simply by writing it out clearly<\/strong><\/em>; in other words, as soon as the obfuscation was removed, any reader could see for themselves just how far-fetched it really was.<\/p>\n Below is an alert that I sent out to colleagues several years ago (as an e-mail), about a genuinely crazy theory propounded on the origin of the ordination of women in Buddhism.\u00a0 I\u2019m not really offering a critique of it here, but simply (1) pointing out that the theory exists, (2) warning the reader about all of the obfuscation, and then (3) restating what the theory really is without that obfuscation.\u00a0 As with Bhikkhu P\u0101s\u0101dika\u2019s theory about a \u201cmaterialist conspiracy\u201d re-writing portions of the canon, I think that this \u201cfeminist conspiracy\u201d theory is (likewise) so far-fetched that nobody could really take it seriously.\u00a0 However, none of these theories come from the fringes: this stuff is all being published from the pinnacle of power and privilege, with the imprimaturs of wealthy institutions stamped onto the flyleaves.<\/p>\n \u2014\u2013Begin quotation (May, 2010)\u2014\u2013 In fact, even if you did stumble upon the ARIRIAB website, you would not be able to guess that this article is available for download as part of ARIRIAB-11.PDF, as there\u2019s no list of authors, and the files are scanned images (i.e., not searchable as text). \u00a0Resultantly, this is a nearly-hidden gem, and I will be so gauche as to send out a fan-club letter alerting my colleagues to its existence:<\/p>\n http:\/\/iriab.soka.ac.jp\/orc\/Publications\/ARIRIAB\/index_ARIRIAB.html<\/a><\/p>\n Now, even if you see the article, and even if you start reading it, Hinuber \u201cdramatizes\u201d the article, by delaying the revelation of his However, in the last act of the drama, the article returns to subjects As suddenly as MacDuff declaring that he was born of no mortal woman, The real value of this article, for the larger number of reasons, will be that it draws together the material on the status of women during the lifetime of the Buddha without the usual evasions of what the primary source texts actually say. \u00a0In one of the very last footnotes, Hinuber draws attention to the fact that, at a minimum, the women\u2019s ordination was neither equal to the men\u2019s, nor simultaneous with it \u2013nor was the women\u2019s ordination merely a few years after the men\u2019s.<\/em><\/p>\n Additionally, for those who do not already know it, the middle portion of the argument (that will be difficult for non-specialists to follow) does demonstrate (with some new examples, and some old) just how fragmentary the Vinaya now is \u2013and how many peculiar influences (from Jainism, at least) were able to creep in (both doctrinally and\u00a0linguistically) before the canon was closed.<\/p>\n While I am very pleased at my own sheer luck in discovering this The replies I received from this notice (at the time) were very much along the lines of, \u201cYou can\u2019t possibly be serious!\u201d \u2013and I then had to reiterate that this is certainly\u00a0not<\/strong>\u00a0a theory that I support myself.<\/p>\n From my perspective, this theory that there were\u00a0zero<\/strong>\u00a0ordained female monks during the Buddha\u2019s lifetime, and that they were instead falsely added into the canon at a later date (as part of a \u201cfeminist conspiracy\u201d, so to speak) is\u00a0completely crazy.<\/strong>\u00a0 It would require an absurd series of assumptions, and would undermine the same textual sources that the theory relies on to support itself as\u00a0(presumed) historical evidence<\/a>.\u00a0 Such an interpretation would be entirely created and sustained by a series of \u201cself-fulfilling-prophecies\u201d of the most absurd kind (discarding evidence of female monks existing during the lifetime of the Buddha, and grossly reinterpreting other evidence, etc.).\u00a0 Nevertheless, this completely crazy theory passes the highest levels of peer review, receives the highest levels of institutional support, and is supposed to be taken very seriously, etc., etc., just as with so many examples from the 19th and 20th centuries.<\/p>\n In contrasting the 21st century to the 19th: change is an objective fact, but \u201cprogress\u201d is merely an ideology.<\/p>\n It is has never been the case that \u201cthe center\u201d had a monopoly\u00a0on virtue<\/a>, nor that \u201cthe fringes\u201d had a monopoly on crazy theories.\u00a0 There\u2019s a great scarcity of virtue all around, and there\u2019s a great deal of corruption, nepotism, incompetence, and sheer stupidity at \u201cthe center\u201d everywhere I\u2019ve been (and I\u2019ve been\u00a0almost everywhere<\/a>).<\/p>\n Editor\u2019s note: \u00a0<\/strong>You can read more about Eisel Mazard here<\/a> or visit his current blog here<\/a>; the original post is here<\/a>. I too heard this theory about a later starting date for the ordination of women from someone basically \u2018squarely\u2019 within Buddhist academia and my reaction was also, \u201cyou\u2019ve got to be kidding me.\u201d While I\u2019m more optimistic than Eisel (I\u2019m still in<\/em> academia, after all), I would concur that there is a fair amount of the \u2018bizarre\u2019 in this little corner of the world. For anyone else exposed to this, please share this post and read the excellent paper,\u00a0\u201cTheories on the Foundation of the Nuns\u2019 Order \u2013 A Critical Evaluation<\/a>\u201c<\/strong>\u00a0by Bhikkhu Analayo. \u00a0And, while you\u2019re at it, please support this recent effort to awaken women online<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" One of the recurrent issues in my own writing is the misconception that \u201ccrazy theories\u201d come from the fringes: on the contrary, in Buddhism, the craziest theories can (and often do) come from the pinnacle of prestige, influence and academic authority (sometimes from the centers of religious authority, too).\u00a0 I dealt with this question generally […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":118,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2258","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-buddhism"],"yoast_head":"\n<\/a><\/div>\n
\nIt would be difficult to imagine how anyone would know that an exciting new article was published by Hinuber in an obscure journal called ARIRIAB in 2007.<\/em><\/p>\n
\nyou might well miss its hypothesis:<\/p>\n
\nown thesis until the latest stage possible. \u00a0Although this approach has
\nits advantages, the main defect is that you get an easily readable
\nopening, followed by a lengthy digression into the details of K.R.
\nNorman\u2019s mis-translation of a single passage from the Vinaya in the
\nmiddle portion of the essay (and, I think, there\u2019s some joy taken in
\nHinuber outdoing K.R. Norman in this respect) \u2013alas, I think many
\nnon-specialist readers will simply give up at this point.<\/p>\n
\nof mainstream interest that deserve a broader audience than they
\nare likely to find (hidden away in the pages of ARIRIAB). \u00a0Partly by
\nsheer co-incidence (e.g., an unpublished thesis that I read some years
\nago) I happened to be already familiar with most of the passages that
\nHinuber draws together here, but (1) many readers will not be, and (2)
\nsome readers will only be familiar with this stuff as re-phrased (and
\nindirectly alluded to) in the most evasive and obsequious terms
\npossible.<\/p>\n
\nthe last act takes yet another dramatic turn (terminating in a
\nfootnote) as Hinuber decides to take the further step of concluding
\nthat the ordination of female Buddhist monks took place AFTER the
\nBuddha\u2019s death (whereas, formerly in the article, he had merely
\nsuggested that it took place very late in the Buddha\u2019s life) \u2013a
\nreasonably radical change in interpretation of familiar facts (and,
\nfrankly, I wonder if Hinuber didn\u2019t add this just to startle his
\naudience).<\/p>\n<\/a><\/div>\n
\narticle, others will not be so lucky (and it would be even more
\ndifficult to find if English were not my first language, etc.) \u2013and
\nthis reminds me of my long-ago proposed project to start some sort of
\nannual newsletter on new publications on\/in Theravada Countries (so
\nthat all scholars in related fields at least have a list, perhaps with
\na few articles and illustrations to brighten it up).
\n\u2014\u2013End of quotation (May, 2010)\u2014\u2013<\/p>\n