pulga wrote:What about those men who believe that their wives should bow to them? Should they be condemned for thinking as the Buddha?
suttametta wrote:Men who believe their wives should bow to them have no place in modern society. By the modern egalitarian customs, such a person would be ostracized. Why? Because it is an act of cruelty.
pulga wrote:suttametta wrote:Men who believe their wives should bow to them have no place in modern society. By the modern egalitarian customs, such a person would be ostracized. Why? Because it is an act of cruelty.
Personally I wouldn't feel comfortable having anyone bow to me -- of either gender. That said I think Buddhism ought to accommodate itself to a variety of cultures.
pilgrim wrote:It has nothing to do with women bowing to men. The Bhikkhuni order came later, so the entire order is junior to the bhikkhu order.
Buddha wasn't perfect.
the noble eightfold path, that is to say, right view, right intention; right speech, right action, right livelihood; right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. That is the middle way discovered by a Perfect One, which gives vision, which gives knowledge, and which leads to peace, to direct acquaintance, to discovery, to nibbana
suttametta wrote: It seems the Buddha was overly preoccupied with courtly etiquette. ..
suttametta wrote:Today, courtly etiquette is itself impolite and improper as it is a sign of old and tired oppressive attitudes of the monarchies.
No great lost.suttametta wrote: I don't think the Sangha has a snowball's chance in hell of being taken seriously in the West due to this attitude towards, not just women, but gays and "hermaphrodites."
suttametta wrote: If I were a woman, gay or a hermaphrodite, I wouldn't think much of Buddha. He's reduced by this. Thoughts?
One is the quest for worldly gain, and quite another is the path to Nibbana. Clearly understanding this, let not the monk, the disciple of the Buddha, be carried away by worldly acclaim, but develop detachment instead.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .budd.html
boris wrote:Buddha as such is timeless, above any danger of reduction. But indeed foolish, demoralized society, as for example in our times has a negative influence on Sangha. Fortunately most of this sick society don't think much of Buddha. More dengerous are fools who try to improve "mistakes" of Buddha.
pulga wrote:boris wrote:Buddha as such is timeless, above any danger of reduction. But indeed foolish, demoralized society, as for example in our times has a negative influence on Sangha. Fortunately most of this sick society don't think much of Buddha. More dengerous are fools who try to improve "mistakes" of Buddha.
You're sounding a little like Evola, but I share your sentiments.
Denigrating progress is too easy. I aspire to the professorship in methodical regression.
Progress is the scourge God has chosen for us.
The failure of progress has not consisted in the non-fulfillment but in the fulfillment of its promises.
The horror of progress can only be measured by someone who has known a landscape before and after progress has transformed it.
For the fool, obsolete opinion and erroneous opinion are synonymous expressions.
In the end, what does modern man call “Progress”?
Whatever seems convenient to the fool.
A progressive defends Progress by saying that it exists.
The murderer also exists, and the judge condemns him.
A greater capacity for killing is the criterion of “progress” between two peoples or two epochs.
Resistance is futile when everything in the world is conspiring to destroy what we admire.
We are always left, however, with an incorruptible soul, so that we might contemplate, judge, and disdain.
An “ideal society” would be the graveyard of human greatness.
"Renouncing the world" ceases to be an achievement and becomes a temptation as Progress progresses.
It is indecent, and even obscene, to speak to man of “progress,” when every path winds its way up between funerary cypresses.
The only possible progress is the internal progress of each individual.
A process that concludes with the end of each life.
We can only hope for a reform of society to come from the contradictions between human follies.
In order to avoid a manly confrontation with nothingness, man erects altars to progress.
What is called progress are preparations for a catastrophe.
The left’s theses are trains of thought that are carefully stopped before they reach the argument that demolishes them.
Progress is the offspring of knowledge of nature.
Faith in progress is the offspring of ignorance of history.
As a criterion of what is best, modern man knows nothing but posteriority.
The progressive’s cardinal syllogism is simply beautiful: the best always triumphs, because what triumphs is called the best.
More repulsive than the future which progressives involuntarily prepare is the future they dream of.
Chance will always rule history, because it is not possible to organize the state in such a way that it does not matter who rules.
In order to renew, it is not necessary to contradict; it is enough to make profounder.
Unlimited gullibility is required to be able to believe that any social condition can be improved in any other way than slowly, gradually, and involuntarily.
Social improvements do not come from powerful shake-ups, but from light nudges.
The golden rule of politics is to make only minimal changes and to make them as slowly as possible.
It does not appear that the humanities, in contrast to the natural sciences, reach a state of maturity where anything idiotic is automatically obvious.
Religious thought does not go forward, like scientific thought, but rather goes deeper.
It is possible to inculcate in the contemporary bourgeois any stupid idea in the name of progress and to sell him any grotesque object in the name of art.
Reason, Progress, and Justice are the three theological virtues of the fool.
Asking the state to do what only society should do is the error of the left.
The leftist, like the polemicist of yesteryear, believes he refutes an opinion by accusing the holder of that opinion of immorality.
The vice which afflicts the right is cynicism, and that which afflicts the left is deceit.
Civilization is what old men manage to salvage from the onslaught of young idealists.
The progressive believes that everything soon becomes obsolete, except his ideas.
The periodic reflowering of what he decrees obsolete makes life bitter for the progressive.
Progress ages badly.
Each generation brings a new model of progressivism and discards with contempt the previous model.
Nothing is more grotesque than yesterday’s progressive.
The frightened progressive has neither compassion nor dignity.
Nothing is more dangerous than to solve ephemeral problems with permanent solutions.
To reform everyone else is an ambition which all mock yet which all nurse. .
The left is a collection of those who blame society for nature’s shabby treatment of them.
Knowing which reforms the world needs is the only unequivocal symptom of stupidity.
The problems of an “underdeveloped” country are the favorite pretext for leftist escapism.
Lacking new merchandise to offer to the European market, the leftist intellectual peddles his faded wares in the third world.
The left does not condemn violence until it hears it pounding on its door.
The individual today rebels against immutable human nature so that he might refrain from amending his own correctable nature.
The preaching of progressives has so corrupted us that nobody believes that he is what he is, but only what he did not succeed in being.
Modern man already knows that political solutions are ludicrous and suspects that economic solutions are too.
Transforming the world: the occupation of a convict resigned to his punishment.
They speak emphatically of “transforming the world,” when the most to which they can aspire is to certain secondary remodelings of society.
Two hundred years ago it was permissible to trust in the future without being totally stupid.
But today, who can believe in the current prophecies, since we are yesterday’s splendid future?
The leftist emulates the devout who continue venerating the relic after the miracle has been proved to be a hoax.
The new left gathers together those who acknowledge the ineffectiveness of the cure without ceasing to believe in the prescription.
Nothing cures the progressive.
Not even the frequent panic attacks administered to him by progress.
The progressive’s enthusiasm, the democrat’s arguments, the materialist’s demonstrations are the reactionary’s delicious and succulent food.
Consumption, for the progressive, is justified only as a means of production.
The new catechists profess that Progress is the modern incarnation of hope.
But Progress is not hope emerging, but the dying echo of hope already vanished.
In the intelligent man faith is the only remedy for anguish.
The fool is cured by “reason,” “progress,” alcohol, work.
The most persuasive reason to renounce daring progressive opinions is the inevitability with which sooner or later the fool finally adopts them.
Man is an animal that can be educated, provided he does not fall into the hands of progressive pedagogues.
When it finishes its “ascent,” humanity will find tedium waiting for it, seated on the highest peak.
Yesterday progressivism captured the unwary by offering them freedom; today all it needs to do is offer them food.
Under the pretext of giving work to the hungry, the progressive sells the useless artifacts he produces.
The poor are industrialism’s pretext for enriching the rich man.
Leftists and rightists merely argue about who is to have possession of industrial society.
The reactionary longs for its death.
The crisis of Christianity today has been provoked not by science, nor by history, but by the new means of communication.
Religious progressivism is the task of adapting Christian doctrines to the opinions sponsored by news agencies and publicity agents.
The modern Christian feels professionally obligated to act jovially and jokingly, to show his teeth in a cheerful grin, to profess a slavering friendliness, in order to prove to the unbeliever that Christianity is not a “somber” religion, a “pessimistic” doctrine, an “ascetic” morality.
The progressive Christian shakes our hand with the wide grin of a politician running for office.
suttametta wrote:I agree, but the current standard is the vinaya, where women can only be ordained by men and must bow to them whenever they walk in the room. This is super f***...
Buddha wasn't perfect.
suttametta wrote:Same with Buddha. He revolutionized the whole field of meditation, but when it came to institutions, he fell back on what he knew and didn't stretch his mind beyond the courtly traditions of his tribe.
binocular wrote:Modern egalitarian liberal culture can make people underestimate the power of lust ...
In older cultures, they seem to know its power much better and make provisions for it and for dealing with it.
AN 1.1: Cittapariyādāna Sutta (Thanissaro Bhikkhu translation) wrote:'Monks, I don't know of even one other form that stays in a man's mind and consumes it like the form of a woman... one other sound... smell... taste... touch that stays in a man's mind and consumes it like the touch of a woman. The touch of a woman stays in a man's mind and consumes it.
'I don't know of even one other form that stays in a woman's mind and consumes it like the form of a man... one other sound... smell... taste... touch that stays in a woman's mind and consumes it like the touch of a man. The touch of a man stays in a woman's mind and consumes it.'
kitztack wrote:if one wasn't clinging to a sense of identity or aspiration of recognition of equality
Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote:Thus, given the limited opportunities for institutional reform, the only course left open to those few men and women prepared to break the bonds of mainstream Buddhism in their determination to practice is to follow the example of the Buddha himself by engaging in what might be called personal or independent reform: to reject the general values of society, go off on their own, put up with society's disapproval and the hardships of living on the frontier, and search for whatever reliable meditation teachers may be living and practicing outside of the mainstream. If no such teachers exist, individuals intent on practice must strike out on their own, adhering as closely as they can to the teachings in the texts — to keep themselves from being led astray by their own defilements — and taking refuge in the example of the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha in a radical way.
In a sense, there is a sort of folk wisdom to this arrangement. Anyone who would take on the practice only when assured of comfortable material support, status, and praise — which the Buddha called the baits of the world — would probably not be up to the sacrifices and self-discipline the practice inherently entails.
Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote:Thus the Bhikkhunī Pāṭimokkha contains 85 rules for which there are no direct correspondences in the rules for the bhikkhus. Some writers have interpreted these added rules as sign of an attempt to oppress the bhikkhunīs unfairly, but it should be noted that:
more than one third of these extra rules were formulated to protect bhikkhunīs from being the direct recipients of the abusive or careless behavior of other bhikkhunīs;
two of the extra rules (Pācittiyas 6 and 44) prevent bhikkhunīs from putting themselves in a position of servitude to bhikkhus or lay people;
according to the rules' origin stories, all but three of the extra rules (Pācittiyas 59, 94, and 95) were formulated only after bhikkhunīs complained to the bhikkhus about an errant bhikkhunī's behavior.
Tellingly, these last three exceptions were formulated after complaints initiated by the bhikkhus, and they touch directly on the formal subordination of the Bhikkhunī Community to the Bhikkhu Community. However, they are counterbalanced by two rules exclusive to the Bhikkhu Pāṭimokkha — NP 4 & 17 — that were formulated at the request of bhikkhunīs to prevent bhikkhus from abusing their position in the hierarchy in a way that would interfere with the bhikkhunīs' practice of the Dhamma. For a more detailed discussion of the checks and balances in the relationships between the two Communities, see The Buddhist Monastic Code, volume II, chapter 23.
binocular wrote:suttametta wrote:Same with Buddha. He revolutionized the whole field of meditation, but when it came to institutions, he fell back on what he knew and didn't stretch his mind beyond the courtly traditions of his tribe.
Modern egalitarian liberal culture can make people underestimate the power of lust ...
In older cultures, they seem to know its power much better and make provisions for it and for dealing with it.
daverupa wrote:The Vinaya was an open set of texts long after the Buddha's teaching career ended. Lots of cultural accretions and evaluations of how to get along with one another, etc., were discussed over time. In fact, the Sangha's adminstrative structure itself is probably based on the administrative structure in place in the Sakyan Republic when the Buddha grew up there. It probably blew the minds of the brahmins, but made rather obvious sense to those in the hill areas and otherwise on the edge of the Vedic culture in the valley.
So one thing to be careful about it just how much you ascribe to the Buddha. The garudhammas are extensively discussed in this connection as being late additions, so I think we have to pay attention to what looks like a (re-)assertion of certain cultural values over time. The existence of a bhikkhuni sangha at all is quite amazing, and the development of landed monasteries for greater safety is an interesting development in that respect.
Considering that there were female renunciates already in the Buddha's time, I think we can safely say that misogynistic attitudes are products of later difficulties over the early egalitarian ways of the early Sangha, and not some cultural baggage the Buddha couldn't/didn't overcome.
James the Giant wrote:At Santi Forest Monastery near Sydney, the monks and nuns bow to each other in strict seniority of when they were ordained. It seems to work well, and is a worthy experiment.