“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” The synoptic gospels’ record of this phrase from Jesus ostensibly laid the foundation for Christian debates about the separation of church and state, and also whether secular or canon law reigned supreme in a particular jurisdiction. This would become a constant sticking point for the Catholic Church at the height of its power and the Holy Roman Empire, along with other territorial factions in medieval Europe.
Jesus’ saying represents the ancient tussle between religious law, which answers to a higher power beyond mortal authority and the state, represented by pagan Rome. In most Asian monarchies and the Greek-speaking Eastern Roman Empire (for all its piety), the state has retained the final say. Even for the various Chinese dynasties, Mongol khanates, and Indic empires with leaders particularly zealous about the Dharma or with intimate Buddhist circles, it was the state that granted the sangha its standing. Buddhism could of course provide legitimation, cultural heft, and spiritual absolution, but it did not grant authority or legality.
The only major exceptions (and by that I mean a state that could feasibly be called “Buddhist” in its exercise of state power) were probably the Tibetan Empire (618–842) and the pre-Islamic, pre-modern Southeast Asian kingdoms that united the fate of their monarchies, and therefore government policy, with Buddhist agendas.
We can see a direct line between these distant historical events and the recent ruling of Sri Lanka’s high court concerning Welimada Dhammadinna Bhikkhuni. Ven. Welimada Dhammadinna was fully ordained as a bhikkhuni in the Rangiri Dambulla Chapter. On 16 June, the high court ruled that Ven. Welimada Dhammadinna must be issued a National Identity Card with her rightful title of bhikkhuni rather than sil matha by the Commissioner General of the Department of Registration of Persons.
Bhikkhunis and bhikkhus have never been equal since the Buddha imposed the garudhammas on Mahaprajapati and Yasodhara. Still, the actual existence of bhikkhunis has always been recognized. Then why has it taken so long for even one female monastic in Sri Lanka to get an ID recognizing her status like that of a bhikkhu’s ID?
The bhikkhuni sangha in the Theravada world remains a marginalized demographic. Despite the efforts of empowered female monastics, activists, and scholars in organizations like Sakyadhita, as well as well-meaning male allies (many of them also Theravada monastics), at both the levels of Vinaya law and our wider culture, monastic women often cannot effect their own changes and advancement in crucial ways. They remain at the mercy of bhikkhu communities that oscillate between indifference, a lack of courage, and outright hostility. And male sanghas in most Theravada countries and the West remain ignorant of, are silent on, or deny outright the urgent need for new communal and ritual relations that will allow ordained women to participate fully in the life of Buddhist law. It is the old story of neglect and even antagonism, much of it down to patriarchal culture no matter the region.
Those who rightly celebrate this ruling will see the historical importance of the state in enforcing what Buddhists should do according to their own ideals and regulations. This was something that none other than Ashoka the Great had to do at his Buddhist councils. In this most recent case, it was the state (or the state’s highest court) ruling that society and sangha must treat a bhikkhuni on equal footing with a bhikkhu.
Male and female monastics having identical IDs is the most obvious precedent for equal treatment. It ensures that the demand for equal recognition and treatment filters downstream, from the country’s Ministry of Internal Affairs down to dual sangha interactions, be they academic encounters or ordinations of women, and then further down to lay culture and broader society.
One only need to look to the 2022 example of Bhutan’s revival of the Vajrayana bhikshuni sangha as to what can be possible with an unambiguous state backer, with legal and royal power, that unapologetically wields this power in concert with the clergy (in this case the Central Monastic Body) to hold a large dual ordination ceremony of women. As the last Himalayan kingdom, Bhutan’s ideal configuration as a country with a state-sponsored and supported ecclesiastic body will remain one of the most potent sources of Buddhist influence and potential in a century where the demographic trends for Buddhism globally look pessimistic.
It is not unreasonable to be cautious of state power, especially in more capricious modes of governance (ironically, such as a monarchy). Yet a greater irony is that even as Buddhist leaders scramble for political influence, financial patronage, and media support, there is very much a solid and moral reason for rendering unto Caesar’s what is Caesar’s—so that the female representatives of Dharma, if not necessarily God, can receive their due as per Buddhist law.
See more
SC orders NIC recognition for Buddhist Bhikkhuni, citing violation of fundamental rights (Daily Mirror)
Related news from BDG
Related news from BDG
Buddhistdoor View: Unfinished Dispensation – The Search for Buddhist Authenticity in China
