The view that there are no Bhikkunis today is inherently flawed and yet another example of ‘institutional androcentricism’ to quote Sponberg. This is due to the fact that the lack of a female sangha hinges upon a technicality with no direct trace to the Buddha, which has led to the consequence of the marginalisation of women inside Theravada Buddhism today. What is clear is that the many contingents of women to be found in Sri Lanka and indeed the West have all that it takes to be classified as a Bhikkuni and furthermore there is little reason to classify them as non-existent.
Firstly, what is clear is that the formal reasons for the lack of a female Sangha is contradictory in nature and furthermore highly suspect why it cannot be overlooked in light of many other passages which have been contextualised. Andrews points out that even though the first woman to be ordained was by the Buddha (Gotami), the arrival of The Colas in Sri Lanka and the wiping out the female Sangha has left there with fewer than 10 nuns who must be present to ordain more nuns. Where this reason is flawed relies on the interpretation given in the Therigata whereby the Buddha declares that ‘there are these fools who doubt that women can grasp the truth,’ implying a clear sense of spiritual equality between men and women. Therefore, it is highly suspect the current structure of Theravada Bhikkus refuse to ordain women, when clearly the Buddha himself states that they are worthy of equal treatment. Modern scholars, such as Dhammamanda, have pointed out that the diverging rules between men and women, such as ‘the 8 heavy rules’ must be contextualised to the wider misogynist society under which Buddhism developed, which logically means that the unequal ordination between men and women must also fall under this bracket, as these rules date from circa 1000AD. But, on the other side, the dissenters would argue that especially Theravada Buddhism adheres strictly to the Pali Canon, in particular, the Vinaya Pitaka which explicitly reinforces the rules that there must be 10 Bhikkus and 10 Bhikkunis to ordain a female rather than simply 10 Bhikkus to ordain a male. However, this view is flawed due to the fact that the Vinaya Pitaka has little relation to the time of the Buddha and thus the true Dharma. This is due to the ad hoc nature of the Vinaya, which contains verses such as these to please the misogynist Buddhist intelligentsia following the death of the Buddha. Due to the fact that the female Sangha was a ‘radical experiment for its time’ (Susan Murcott) it would make sense that the early Sangha were incentivised to protect their own position against such radicalism to be found in the female Sangha. Therefore, this rule can plausibly be written off as part of this reaction and thus have little relevance to the Buddhism of today. So, from a textual and technical point, it is highly flawed to say that due to the technical details there are no Theravada Bhikkunis today, as clearly, the text can be plausibly disregarded as others have before it.
Another way in which there are certainly Bhikkunis in Theravda Buddhism today. Tessa Bartholomeuz cites that the numbers of lay-nuns have risen considerably between 1989-92, who follow every part of the Vinaya rules apart from the aforementioned technicality regarding the presence of 10 Bhikkunis and 10 Bhikkus. What is striking, however, is that the very reason which stops them from gaining legitimacy (apart from the technical standpoint) relates to the elite turning their back on the nunnery and thus depriving them of funds. As mentioned earlier, these female nuns found today (such as the Dasa-Sil-Maniyo in Sri Lanka) follow the Sanghas rules on lack of possessions and relying on funds, which forces them to encounter problems as the technical aspect means the vast majority of Dharma-following laity do not recognise them as legitimate, despite follow every other aspect and indeed teaching the Dharma. What can be seen here is that there are clearly female Bhikkus in Theravada today which have been deprived of equal status to men due to economic reasons.
As a synoptic link to ethics, this can be seen across vast swathes of society as a means of subverting women economically to produce a patriarchal social structure. This is evident in the West from JS Mill’s writing in The Subjection of Women whereby he writes that to economically deprive women is ‘one of the chief hindrances to human improvement.’ As stated earlier, the Buddha clearly stated that women have equal capacity for spirituality than men, so by denying them their own Sangha and further the official status of ordained Bhikkunis, it is only limiting how many may be able to reach Nirvana thus proving Mill right as it is a hindrance to spiritual development. However, the argument against this view is well pronounced, if women do indeed have the same spiritual capacity it can be seen as suspect that the Buddha denied ordination to the first female Bhikkuni several times before ordaining her. However, this view lacks contextualisation, as P Harvey points out, that this s was regular practise as the Buddha wanted people who went forth and took the path of renunciation were serious about it. Thus, if a woman takes the 10 precepts and becomes ordained serious, the Buddha would undoubtedly have no problem.
To conclude, it is clear that both from a textual and practical aspect the view that there are no Bhikkunis today is flawed. The textual aspect is flawed as it is highly likely that it emerged as part of wider ‘ascetic misogyny’ making it fall in line with other passage (such as the 8 heavy rules) which have been written off from the time. Moreover, it is highly suspect that the relative lack of female nunneries today is due to a lack of spiritual legitimacy but more endemic of the wider misogyny to be found in contemporary society, depriving the few nuns who exist t0day at the detriment of wider spiritual development.