It is possible that a man should be the perfect rightfully Enlightened One. It is impossible that a woman should be the Universal Monarch It is possible that a man should be the Universal Monarch. It is impossible that a woman should be the King of Gods. It is possible that a man should be the King of Gods. It is impossible that a woman should be the King of Death. It is possible that a man should be the King of Death. It is impossible that a woman should be Brahmaa. It is possible that a man should be Brahmaa.
The Bhikkuni vinaya say she should stand even if senior to a young monk.
Someone said there is a sutta buddha saying bhikkuni will destroy the sangha one day like some disease that spread to rice plants.
Make me wonder if Buddha is sexist. What do you make of these historical records of his words?
Note: I do not intend to insult Buddha to which I have great respect. Just trying to understand his words
It could be that there is corruption in the suttas regarding this matter. The fact is that the Buddha ordained bhikkhunis. Very radical move in that age.
Thanavuddho wrote:It could be that there is corruption in the suttas regarding this matter. The fact is that the Buddha ordained bhikkhunis. Very radical move in that age.
Extremely radical, as is the assertion that women could become awakened, and there is the Therigatha, Verses of the Elder Nuns that is part of the Pali suttas.
I don't think we need to try to dismiss the man stuff as being corruptions; rather, it is more likely a reflection of the age and probably some editing, but the Buddha probably was also quite realistic in terms of just how much he could have pushed the equality of women notion in the context of the culture in which he found himself.
>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
tiltbillings wrote:
I don't think we need to try to dismiss the man stuff as being corruptions; rather, it is more likely a reflection of the age
About nuns vinaya I can think this is true. I can think he set the rules to make nuns accept in the old society. But about saying women can never be the self enlighten one -- it is something he could not have said right?
Khalil Bodhi wrote:I second your "Who knows?" Also, gender need not be nearly as divisive as it is in our society when you consider the reality of rebirth. Mettaya.
Im a man full of doubt. I dont sure of rebirth too
Isn't the Buddha just stating the facts as he sees them? So just as a woman can't get an erection, she can't be Boss of the Gods. Simple fact, it's just that we can't see it, but the Buddha can (the Boss of the Gods that is...)
Women needn't despair though, they can be reborn as a man, and, therefore, as Boss of the Gods. I've just been reading the Dalai Lama's "Spiritual Autobiography" and he thinks he might be reborn as a woman.
The Buddha was asked in so many words, "is there even one woman nun who is fully enlightened?" The Buddha responded, "There are not only one hundred . . . or five hundred, but far more bhikkhunis, my disciples, who by realizing for themselves with direct knowledge here and now enter upon and abide in the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom . . ." Sutta 73 Majjhima Nikaya and also in other suttas too.
David N. Snyder wrote:The Buddha was asked in so many words, "is there even one woman nun who is fully enlightened?" The Buddha responded, "There are not only one hundred . . . or five hundred, but far more bhikkhunis, my disciples, who by realizing for themselves with direct knowledge here and now enter upon and abide in the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom . . ." Sutta 73 Majjhima Nikaya and also in other suttas too.
Yes but this is about being just enlightened disciple. Question is about being "THE BUDDHA" or "the load of gods" or "the ruler". Buddha is said to really laugh at the cast system in old days and not care for it at all. So why was he trying to adjust to a society with 8 heavy rules etc just to be acceptable? Why did he say a nun should stand and respect a young monk all the time?
Last edited by BlueLotus on Thu Oct 11, 2012 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I don't see the Buddha being sexist; I see the culturally-laden Sangha having something of a conniption about teachings which ignore gender, apart from setting up separate communities; the Pali recitation traditions in particular tend to downgrade nuns' achievements, as compared to the Chinese versions, though both have negative tales of what women are capable of; one Mahayana text even ends up suggesting that women can turn into men, if they meditate the right way - after all, every bodhisatva has to become male at some point.
The same misogyny occurs in the writings of the Desert Fathers; frankly, monastic misogyny is par for the course; I simply don't see any evidence for housing the origin in the Buddha or the Dhamma.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
daverupa wrote:I don't see the Buddha being sexist; I see the culturally-laden Sangha having something of a conniption about teachings which ignore gender, apart from setting up separate communities; the Pali recitation traditions in particular tend to downgrade nuns' achievements, as compared to the Chinese versions, though both have negative tales of what women are capable of; one Mahayana text even ends up suggesting that women can turn into men, if they meditate the right way - after all, every bodhisatva has to become male at some point.
The same misogyny occurs in the writings of the Desert Fathers; frankly, monastic misogyny is par for the course; I simply don't see any evidence for housing the origin in the Buddha or the Dhamma.
It is possible that a man should be the perfect rightfully Enlightened One. It is impossible that a woman should be the Universal Monarch It is possible that a man should be the Universal Monarch. It is impossible that a woman should be the King of Gods. It is possible that a man should be the King of Gods. It is impossible that a woman should be the King of Death. It is possible that a man should be the King of Death. It is impossible that a woman should be Brahmaa. It is possible that a man should be Brahmaa.
The Bhikkuni vinaya say she should stand even if senior to a young monk.
Someone said there is a sutta buddha saying bhikkuni will destroy the sangha one day like some disease that spread to rice plants.
Make me wonder if Buddha is sexist. What do you make of these historical records of his words?
Note: I do not intend to insult Buddha to which I have great respect. Just trying to understand his words
For what it's worth, I agree with Richard Gombrich (via email) that this sutta is likely a piece of 'abhidhamma catechism' dating after the Buddha's lifetime; and like him, I sincerely doubt that the Buddha ever concerned himself with who could or couldn't become a Buddha, Mara, etc. In addition, Gombrich notes in What The Buddha Thought that he's "convinced by the arguments of Ute Husken that the story of the Buddha's reluctance to allow nuns into the Sangha does not date from his lifetime" (p. 53). You can also find some of my thoughts on this topic from two year ago here if you're interested.