Sutta about the ordination of women?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Sutta about the ordination of women?

Post by daverupa »

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Discriminating on the basis of gender is not sexism.
Gender discrimination = sexism. It's the definition. Check any dictionary you like.
  • "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.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
santa100
Posts: 6799
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Sutta about the ordination of women?

Post by santa100 »

Moth wrote:
I'm taking a Buddhism class and the teacher is essentially teaching us that the Buddha was a sexist. As a Buddhist this, to me, poses an obvious contradiction as to how one can be both enlightened and sexist.
Then the answer is obvious: the Buddha could not be a sexist. If He was, He would still be floating around in this miserable Samsara ~2,500 years later, maybe even teaching a few Buddhist courses in the same school with your poor Buddhist class instructor right now..
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Sutta about the ordination of women?

Post by Dan74 »

To my ears the discriminatory passages in the sutta clash with many other passages which honour female arahats, extol the virtues of good disciples, male and female and give instructions to virtuous followers, male and female.

Personally I suspect that they are either necessary "evil" for the times or later corruptions.
_/|\_
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4644
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: Sutta about the ordination of women?

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

daverupa wrote:
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Discriminating on the basis of gender is not sexism.
Gender discrimination = sexism. It's the definition. Check any dictionary you like.
Dictionary definitions can be misinterpreted to suit your own prejudices.

Discrimination also means the application of wisdom and discernment, and is not necessarily prejudiced and discriminatory.
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Sutta about the ordination of women?

Post by Ben »

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:
daverupa wrote:
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Discriminating on the basis of gender is not sexism.
Gender discrimination = sexism. It's the definition. Check any dictionary you like.
Dictionary definitions can be misinterpreted to suit your own prejudices.

Discrimination also means the application of wisdom and discernment, and is not necessarily prejudiced and discriminatory.
Well said, Bhante.
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Sutta about the ordination of women?

Post by robertk »

BlueLotus wrote:
Fede wrote:The Buddha wasn't sexist.
He was a considerate individual who realised the hearts and minds of people. His subsequent followers were sexist.
I've posted this before, and it's worth repeating.

http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php ... 66,0,0,1,0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thanks a lot Fede. This article is truly enlightening. :smile: I highly recommend everyone should read it if you haven't already. Thanks again

:anjali:
That article is truly a joke. I recommend it as an example of the lowest level of scholarship.
User avatar
BlueLotus
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 7:46 am

Re: Sutta about the ordination of women?

Post by BlueLotus »

robertk wrote:
BlueLotus wrote:
Fede wrote:The Buddha wasn't sexist.
He was a considerate individual who realised the hearts and minds of people. His subsequent followers were sexist.
I've posted this before, and it's worth repeating.

http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php ... 66,0,0,1,0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thanks a lot Fede. This article is truly enlightening. :smile: I highly recommend everyone should read it if you haven't already. Thanks again

:anjali:
That article is truly a joke. I recommend it as an example of the lowest level of scholarship.
Why do you think so? I think the article is really good and personally I think the bhikkuni vinaya rules are not set by the Buddha.
User avatar
Fede
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: The Heart of this "Green & Pleasant Land"...
Contact:

Re: Sutta about the ordination of women?

Post by Fede »

robertk wrote:
BlueLotus wrote:
Fede wrote:The Buddha wasn't sexist.
He was a considerate individual who realised the hearts and minds of people. His subsequent followers were sexist.
I've posted this before, and it's worth repeating.

http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php ... 66,0,0,1,0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thanks a lot Fede. This article is truly enlightening. :smile: I highly recommend everyone should read it if you haven't already. Thanks again

:anjali:
That article is truly a joke. I recommend it as an example of the lowest level of scholarship.
And that would be....because?

How about coming up with some constructive evidence to counter-act the article?
Although if it's just your opinion, many thanks for that. :smile:
"Samsara: The human condition's heartbreaking inability to sustain contentment." Elizabeth Gilbert, 'Eat, Pray, Love'.

Simplify: 17 into 1 WILL go: Mindfulness!

Quieta movere magna merces videbatur. (Sallust, c.86-c.35 BC)
Translation: Just to stir things up seemed a good reward in itself. ;)

I am sooooo happy - How on earth could I be otherwise?! :D


http://www.armchairadvice.co.uk/relationships/forum/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4644
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: Sutta about the ordination of women?

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Venerable Mettānando's interpretation of the Garudhamma is at odds with that of Ajahn Thanissaro. There is nothing there about bhikkhunis not being allowed to teach the Dhamma to bhikkhus.
Conclusions that rely on a mistranslation are not valid.
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Sutta about the ordination of women?

Post by tiltbillings »

BlueLotus wrote: personally I think the bhikkuni vinaya rules are not set by the Buddha.
Dunno, but if those rules were not given by the Buddha, then there had to have been a wholesale conspiracy almost immediately after the death of the Buddha to significantly alter the Vinaya involving virtually all of the monks.
>> 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
User avatar
Fede
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: The Heart of this "Green & Pleasant Land"...
Contact:

Re: Sutta about the ordination of women?

Post by Fede »

tiltbillings wrote:
BlueLotus wrote: personally I think the bhikkuni vinaya rules are not set by the Buddha.
Dunno, but if those rules were not given by the Buddha, then there had to have been a wholesale conspiracy almost immediately after the death of the Buddha to significantly alter the Vinaya involving virtually all of the monks.
Which actually, given the time, and the attachment and the misguided conviction of believing that such a thing could not be possibly be permitted, is not beyond the realms of probability.

Misogyny is the world's oldest prejudice, according to the late Jack Holland, and he recounts the historical systematic and relentless suppression of women throughout the ages, by different factions such as Governments and religious bodies.
When you consider that even in the so-called affluent and advanced west, women are consistently paid less than their male counterparts, and that of 30,000 people losing their jobs in the UK this past year, 26,000 of them have been women - I really don't believe such a conspiracy to be out of the question.



http://www.amazon.com/Misogyny-Worlds-P ... 0786718234" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Samsara: The human condition's heartbreaking inability to sustain contentment." Elizabeth Gilbert, 'Eat, Pray, Love'.

Simplify: 17 into 1 WILL go: Mindfulness!

Quieta movere magna merces videbatur. (Sallust, c.86-c.35 BC)
Translation: Just to stir things up seemed a good reward in itself. ;)

I am sooooo happy - How on earth could I be otherwise?! :D


http://www.armchairadvice.co.uk/relationships/forum/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Sutta about the ordination of women?

Post by Dan74 »

I always thought ours was not one of the religions of the book and Theravadins in particular often say that it is a faith based on reason rather than dogma.

If Bhikkhuni rules were given by the Buddha and we assume that the Buddha could do no wrong, the question still remains if they remain relevant and appropriate for our time.

Are these the rules that could be changed after his passing even according to what the Buddha reputedly said?
_/|\_
Gena1480
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:36 am

Re: Sutta about the ordination of women?

Post by Gena1480 »

the Buddha says if women to follow the path of holy life
then the holy life will not last long.
he does not say that women should not follow the path of holy life
metta
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Sutta about the ordination of women?

Post by robertk »

Fede wrote: How about coming up with some constructive evidence to counter-act the article?
Although if it's just your opinion, many thanks for that. :smile:
Yes it is just my opinion. i didnt want to add more but since you ask.
The evidence of this Mr. Mettanando is scurrilous (my opinion) . He says that if the Buddha set any of those weighty rules for nuns, or if he had said anything about using those rules as a dyke then the Buddha was a sexist. This he doesn't believe to be true so he searches for flimsy evidence and comes up with the idea that bhikkhuni werent allowed to teach monks (not true). Then he says that all evidence shows bhikkuni did most of the Dhamma teaching- what absolute nonsense - but I hope anyone can see it is irrelevant to his whole conspiracy theory that the later bhikkhu got together and placed these rules inside the sutta pitaka as a way to put their collective feet on the necks of the bhikkhuni.

I have no doubt that explaining this has no impact on you, simply because conspiracy theorists can always find reasons to belive in their current idea(check out the threads about people who believe it was bush who demolished the twin towers)/
Mettanando, Sujato and their ilk will always appeal to the people who feel they know the true Buddha mind, which by amazing coincidence, is always aligned directly with their own beliefs, and not with the Tipitika.
Like mrs caroline Rhys davids and her comments about monkish ideas coming into the Tipitaka (she didnt believe the buddha could have taught anatta), there will always be a stream of conspiracists, who grab the attention of the gullible....
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Sutta about the ordination of women?

Post by tiltbillings »

Fede wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
BlueLotus wrote: personally I think the bhikkuni vinaya rules are not set by the Buddha.
Dunno, but if those rules were not given by the Buddha, then there had to have been a wholesale conspiracy almost immediately after the death of the Buddha to significantly alter the Vinaya involving virtually all of the monks.
Which actually, given the time, and the attachment and the misguided conviction of believing that such a thing could not be possibly be permitted, is not beyond the realms of probability.
I am not saying it is impossible, but more than doctrine, it was the Vinaya that defined the group. It was something that resisted change for that reason. Also, this conspiracy would have to have happened almost immediately after the Buddha's death before any sectarian division and before significant separations of distance. I do not think it is really meaningful or helpful to try to make the Buddha into a 21st Century man.
>> 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
Post Reply