There's a feature story in today's Times of India that provides more details on the case of the nun who was gang raped on a bus in Nepal. The narrative of what happened is presented more coherently than I've seen it elsewhere, and the story also provides some illuminating background on the nun and her family.
It appears that part of the reason for her initial bad treatment from police -- who originally filed the rape as an "accident" -- and hospitals, which at first refused to treat her -- is that she is of an ethnic minority called the Tamang. The Times of India says that for this reason, there has not been as much outrage about this incident within Nepal as outside of it. I don't doubt typical cultural misogyny plays into this as well, of course.
The Times of India article also provides some discussion on the doctrinal issues surrounding monastic celibacy and rape. Very basically, Buddhist teaching does not support the position that a nun who has been raped has broken her celibacy vow. The teachings are not even ambiguous on that point.
Over the past few weeks I've found scattered commentary on the incident, many of which say the nun's religious status remains a question. My understanding is that the Nepal Buddhist Federation has backed off its original opinion that she had to leave her order because of the rape. If I hear that is not accurate, however, I will certainly let you know.
A story that appeared a few days ago in the Twin Cities Star Tribune frames the controversy over the nun's expulsion from her order as a struggle between eastern versus American Buddhists, which is grossly wrong.� Response to this incident is not breaking along some eastern-versus-western Buddhist fault line. From what I see, the fault line is between the Nepal Buddhist Federation and the rest of Buddhism, worldwide. In fact, my impression is that the criticism from elsewhere in Asia had more impact on the Nepal Buddhist Federation than criticism from the West.
No comments:
Post a Comment