Experiencing the Liminal: Understanding Sep Aration And

Home , Buddhist monasticism

chapter 12 Experiencing the Liminal: Understanding Sep aration and Transition among Buddhist Monastic Women in Contemporary Britain

Caroline Starkey

According to Turner (1969: 107) and, later, Szakolczai (2000: 221), individuals who have made a commitment to a monastic way of life experience a “permanent” position of “liminality.” They have transitioned away from their former social roles. They own nothing and they are ritually separated from wider society. They are required to observe rules and regulations without question and “accept arbitrary punishment without complaint” (Turner 1969: 95, 107). In this liminal position, individuals are “bound together” in communitas; a powerful manifestation of companionship and equality (Kamau 2002: 19). Yet, how far does this image of monastic life reflect the experiences of female Buddhist monastics in contemporary Britain? Using empirical evidence from recent research with female monastics from six different Buddhist groups, I will chal- lenge an uncritical acceptance of Turner’s model and argue that this image of “permanent liminality” does not always reflect how Buddhist women in modern Britain experience monastic life. Following ordination, Buddhist female monastics may continue to play certain social roles (such as mother, daughter and sister), and they may have to earn money and own property as not all are able to live within a monastic community.1 This reflects not only how Buddhist monasticism might be experienced in a modern, capitalist context, but also that even in its earlier history Buddhist monks and nuns were not expected to be completely isolated from wider society (Robson 2010: 8). Furthermore, Buddhist monasticism (particularly female Buddhist monasticism) is heterogeneous (Tsomo 2006). This is especially true in contemporary

1 The term “ordination” is complex in this context, as it means different things within different Buddhist groups (see Salgado 2004 for a discussion of the complexities of the terms “ordination” and “renunciation” in relation to Buddhist nuns in Sri Lanka, for example). I take monastic ordination to mean a formal commitment to Buddhist practice that includes celibacy (Tsomo 1988c: 53), and where ordained people are distinguished (in the precepts or vows they have taken, their dress and/or role) from lay people within the same tradition. Not all the groups within this study use the traditional vinaya (monastic code [see Holt 1995, Harvey 2000: 224–225]) but for the purposes of this article I have included data from women who refer to themselves as “monk” or “nun” and who fit the description provided above.

Britain where a variety of traditions are present (Baumann 2002: 93–94, Bluck 2006: 24), each emphasizing different Buddhist teachings and each with different rules in relation to ordination for women. As Bluck (2006: 195) argues, Buddhist traditions in Britain are akin to “family members who had lived in different countries for many years and now find themselves together in one place.” However, despite this heterogeneity, I will argue that the liminal monastic archetype should not be dismissed out of hand. Buddhist monastic women in Britain do undergo a process of separation and transition from non-Buddhist (and lay Buddhist) communities and roles, and this separation is ritually expressed during their ordination ceremonies and in the practices they adopt following monastic ordination, although these continue to be experienced in diverse ways. Therefore, in order to examine the relevance of Turner’s model of liminality for this context, this chapter will be structured into three thematic sections – the ordination process, monastic dress, and living situations. While I will show (particularly in the first thematic section) that elements of separation and transition are significant, as the chapter progresses I will argue that too prescriptive a model of monasticism does not always reflect the diverse experiences of Buddhist women in contemporary Britain. I am inspired by Cook (2010: 71) when she argues that:

It does an injustice to the lives of monastics to understand “monasticism” only as a set of codes or rules by which one may live one’s life and thereby be “monastic.” This provides us with an understanding of the context of monastic practice…but it helps little in our understanding of the signifi- cance of the lived experience of monasticism.

This chapter is based on my on-going doctoral research which investigates the lives of ordained Buddhist women using participant-observation techniques and in-depth, semi-structured interviews with fifteen monastic women and one former monastic within six different Buddhist groups in Britain (Tibetan Karma Kagyu and Gelug, Theravada, Soto Zen and Pure Land).2 The fieldwork took place between September 2011 and July 2012, in various locations across England and Scotland.3 All participants’ names have been changed.

2 This research is funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, uk, and includes an additional nine interviewees who were ordained but were not celibate monastics. Their data are not included here. 3 Two women in this sample lived outside of the uk and were interviewed the internet telephone service “Skype” (www.skype.com).