Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

wormhole wrote:Like Buddha said several times, should we still uphold things like this:

http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_n ... gaha_s.htm

From Sigalovada Sutta

In five ways, young householder, should a wife as the West be ministered to by a husband:

(iv) by handing over authority to her

lyndon taylor wrote:I wouldn't be so sure women in the Buddha's time were at home taking care of the house, they were probably out in the fields taking care of the crops too, as well as buying and selling in the market.

According to some Tibetan commentators, the mens job was to sit around looking pretty while women did almost all the work, that's what is know as a matriachal society!!! I don't think Indian culture was matriarchal, but I would be surprised if womens responsibilities didn't extend well outside house keeping.........

Tibetan commentators talking about what ? Ancient Indian society or Tibetan society ? In Tibet they practised polygamy and women didn't have just one husband but had to accept his brothers as well.

.

BlackBird wrote:I think the internet has become a little bit overly-suspicious when it comes to the motives of posters. I suppose it's the boy-who-cried-wolf effect. But I for one tend to take people at face value. What's the motive in coming to some obscure Buddhist forum simply to sow discord? The OP wants an obedient wife and Aloof think's he's a "Buddha-son" and has mastered the Dhamma of the Mahayana. No ulterior motives from where I stand.

But I have to say Aloof, your cosmic deepities are not my cup of tea

You clearly did not read my other posts. Just the idea have having an obedient wife is bleh to me.

Aloka wrote:

lyndon taylor wrote:I wouldn't be so sure women in the Buddha's time were at home taking care of the house, they were probably out in the fields taking care of the crops too, as well as buying and selling in the market.

According to some Tibetan commentators, the mens job was to sit around looking pretty while women did almost all the work, that's what is know as a matriachal society!!! I don't think Indian culture was matriarchal, but I would be surprised if womens responsibilities didn't extend well outside house keeping.........

Tibetan commentators talking about what ? Ancient Indian society or Tibetan society ? In Tibet they practised polygamy and women didn't have just one husband but had to accept his brothers as well.

.

Tibetan commentators talking about matriarchal society in Tibet, sorry I didn't make that clear. Tibetans practised both polyandry and polygamy, polyandry was usually an attempt to keep the family property intact under one family upon inheritance, whereas the nobles tended to have polygamy, multiple wives. I don't know what the situation in India would have been in the buddha's time.

wormhole wrote:

BlackBird wrote:I think the internet has become a little bit overly-suspicious when it comes to the motives of posters. I suppose it's the boy-who-cried-wolf effect. But I for one tend to take people at face value. What's the motive in coming to some obscure Buddhist forum simply to sow discord? The OP wants an obedient wife and Aloof think's he's a "Buddha-son" and has mastered the Dhamma of the Mahayana. No ulterior motives from where I stand.

But I have to say Aloof, your cosmic deepities are not my cup of tea

You clearly did not read my other posts. Just the idea have having an obedient wife is bleh to me.

I did read your posts, and I'm sorry If I misinterpreted what you were saying, it was not clear to me.

BlackBird wrote:

wormhole wrote:

BlackBird wrote:I think the internet has become a little bit overly-suspicious when it comes to the motives of posters. I suppose it's the boy-who-cried-wolf effect. But I for one tend to take people at face value. What's the motive in coming to some obscure Buddhist forum simply to sow discord? The OP wants an obedient wife and Aloof think's he's a "Buddha-son" and has mastered the Dhamma of the Mahayana. No ulterior motives from where I stand.

But I have to say Aloof, your cosmic deepities are not my cup of tea

You clearly did not read my other posts. Just the idea have having an obedient wife is bleh to me.

I did read your posts, and I'm sorry If I misinterpreted what you were saying, it was not clear to me.

I was referring to this post:

"Personally, I find the Buddha's teachings wise-guidelines that can still help us today, but me must tailor them to our own individual and personally I could never have a subservient wife; just wouldn't give me the same happiness of having a COMPLETELY equal relationship. The purpose of this thread was to see if others thought a subservient wife role was still good for some women, which I've always gone back and forth on in opinion in regards to that".

I'm sorry, I missed that one. You have my apologies and I would ask your forgiveness.

wormhole wrote:Like Buddha said several times, should we still uphold things like this:

http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_n ... gaha_s.htm

Context is everything...

BlackBird wrote:I'm sorry, I missed that one. You have my apologies and I would ask your forgiveness.

No worries.

lyndon taylor wrote:

Aloka wrote:

lyndon taylor wrote:I wouldn't be so sure women in the Buddha's time were at home taking care of the house, they were probably out in the fields taking care of the crops too, as well as buying and selling in the market.

According to some Tibetan commentators, the mens job was to sit around looking pretty while women did almost all the work, that's what is know as a matriachal society!!! I don't think Indian culture was matriarchal, but I would be surprised if womens responsibilities didn't extend well outside house keeping.........

Tibetan commentators talking about what ? Ancient Indian society or Tibetan society ? In Tibet they practised polygamy and women didn't have just one husband but had to accept his brothers as well.

.

Tibetan commentators talking about matriarchal society in Tibet, sorry I didn't make that clear. Tibetans practised both polyandry and polygamy, polyandry was usually an attempt to keep the family property intact under one family upon inheritance, whereas the nobles tended to have polygamy, multiple wives. I don't know what the situation in India would have been in the buddha's time.

When I was involved with Tibetan Buddhism,I only heard about women having more than one husband at a time, usually related, which seems like bondage to me, as I am a woman myself and wouldn't like the idea of having to be passed around brothers!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry_in_Tibet

I don't think in general terms it could genuinely be described as a matriarchal society either, because it was dominated by religion and the influence of the male tulkus and their monasteries.

Having read many, many books on Tibet and Tibetan buddhism, I can assure you that both polyandry and polygamy was practised in Tibet, polyandry more by the poor, and polygamy more by the rich, and that many commentators viewed tibetan society at least in part to be matriarchal. in that the women were in charge of the homes, businesses and farms and made most of the decisions as well as doing much of the work, largely in part because a huge percent of the men were away in the monasteries. One of the last true matriarchal cultures still exists on the borders of Tibet, the Mosuo people.

heres a reference to multiple wives among the nobility, admittadly appears to be a chinese source, but accurate in this respect; http://www.kalachakra.org/articles/marriage.shtml

Having read many, many books on Tibet and Tibetan buddhism,....

Sure, that's great that you've read many many books and the internet,- but I was talking about conversations I had with real Tibetans during the years I practised TB away from books and the internet.

However I don't have anything further to say, so have a nice day!

Most Tibetans you meet in the West were raised in India, I'm talking about books written by the first western explorers to Tibet up to 100 years ago, a lot has changed since then.......

These kinds of questions have always confused me.

The Buddha reached enlightenment, therefore he was all knowing, past present and future.

At the time women's rights were not as well established as they are today, women were treated more as servants than equal partners.

The Buddha was of this time, therefore he saw a martial situation that would have the husband at the head of the family, the wife as the caregiver, cook, cleaner etc but that she should be respected as a human being with compassion.

So if the Buddha was all knowing, past, present and future. If he believed women should serve men, this would be a timeless universal rule as he knew right and wrong for past, present and future generations.

If we question the Buddha's teachings, don't we question enlightenment as well?

Greetings,

GusVanSpent wrote:The Buddha reached enlightenment, therefore he was all knowing, past present and future.

No, that's not what enlightenment is.

Metta,
Retro.