FLUID BOUNDARIES, INSTITUTIONAL SEGREGATION AND BUDDHIST SEXUAL TOLERANCE: A RESPONSE (2) Masakazu Tanaka I thank Professor Satha-Anand for her stimulating paper on Thai Buddhism. While Professor Ursula King has tried to place the paper in the wider context of gender studies in religion, I will focus more on the social implications of Buddhism in contemporary society and try to connect these to non-religious issues, with particular attention to feminist ones. Social Implications of Buddhism in Contemporary Society Professor Satha-Anand’s paper starts with an account of the basic Buddhist teachings, ranging from ethics, through temporality to onto- logical truth. The point she makes in the rst section of the paper is that Buddhism is a non-essentialising religion, and that tolerance is its main characteristic. As a social anthropologist, I am not quali ed to criticise such a characterisation of Buddhist teachings. My question is, how far does it show tolerance towards other religions and ethnic groups in reality? In the early 1980s, I conducted research in Sri Lanka, which is one of the few Theravada Buddhist countries in the world. In the 1970s, Buddhism had been given there the status almost of a state religion, and it still maintains this status today. My main interest was in a minor- ity religion of Sri Lanka, that is, Tamil Hinduism. In Sri Lanka, there had been serious ethnic con icts between the majority Sinhalese and the minority Tamils since 1956. So, even though, as a Japanese, I have great sympathy towards Buddhism, I am very suspicious of the idealist teachings of Buddhism. The Buddhist idea of uid identity is no doubt more congenial to other religions than monotheistic religions are. But Buddhism is not free from providing grounds for state violence and discrimination against the minority Tamils. I do not think that the nature of the present ethnic problems in Sri Lanka is religious as far as the Tamils are concerned. However, it shows 162 masakazu tanaka that Buddhism has been of little use in bringing about change in the relationship between the majority Sinhala Buddhists and the minor- ity Tamils. In Professor Satha-Anand’s paper, a distinction is made between ‘enemies’ and ‘opponents’. However, to refer to the theme of the paper, such a distinction is in reality rather ‘ uid’, as opponents tend to become enemies. This is my rst observation. Professor Satha-Anand’s analysis of the past and present situation of the sangha is more objective, and her proposal is sound. Her argument is basically the same for both gender and caste. Through the institu- tion of the sangha, secular differences or discrimination among castes or gender were alleviated. This is a very important point, but I would like to raise another question. Professor Satha-Anand’s has indicated that as the sangha was open to all castes, social distinctions among the people (in the sangha) were uid in character. However, does this mean that the distinction between a householder and an ascetic became more xed and absolute? This would mean that, as a result, the sangha would remain aloof from social issues. This is my second point. My third observation concerns the nature of asceticism. Asceticism is the main aspect that distinguishes a monk or nun from a householder. Professor Satha-Anand has pointed out the critical difference between Buddhism and monotheistic traditions. However, in my understanding, most world religions, including religions such as Hinduism and Jainism, have institutionalised asceticism in one form or another. In its narrow sense, asceticism implies refraining from sexual intercourse, and, for me, it means refraining from contact with women. A typical threat against male ascetics takes the form of a demonic but seductive female, as the case of the Buddha shows us. In my view, the real basis of discrimination against women is in institutionalised asceticism. The female, whether ascetic or not, remains a threat for the male ascetic. In spite of many reforms, asceticism still remains anti-secular and anti-sexual (and thus anti-female). It should be noted that Weber origi- nally contrasted asceticism with ecstasy. I propose that the real alterna- tive to the present situation of religions supporting secular discrimination against women lies not in reformed asceticism but in ‘ecstatic religion’. The present-day goddess or wicca movements in the West have emerged from such critical re] ections on the ascetic-Protestant milieu, though they take many forms. Thus, I would argue that the contrast between the ecstatic and the ascetic is more important than that between Buddhism and monotheism. .