Zom wrote:It also makes sense, because the Buddha said that a Supreme Buddha can only be a Man.
Not only ... :
It is impossible that a woman should be the perfect rightfully Enlightened One.
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.
http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ma ... tuka-e.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ven. Analayo has just published an article about this Sutta. The paper translates the MA parallel to the Bahudhaatuka-sutta of the MN in an attempt to show the lateness of the stipulation on the inabilities of women found in nearly all versions of the discourse.
See the attached PDF, the bibliographical information would be: "The Bahudhātuka-sutta and its Parallels on Women’s Inabilities", Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 2009, vol. 16 pp. 137-190.
See endnote 53:
Romberg (164) notes that once “the aim was no longer to become an
Arhat, but to become Buddha ... this shift made, in fact, the situation for
women worse, because a doctrinal foundation was laid for the necessity
of changing the sex before being able to become enlightened.” In fact the
Bodhisattvabhūmi explains that a woman will not realize the awakening of
a Buddha because already an advanced bodhisattva has left behind wo-
manhood for good and will not be reborn again as a female.
Harrison (78) concludes that “women ... are gener-
ally represented in such an unfavourable light as to vitiate any notion of
the Mahāyāna as a movement for sexual equality. Compared with the
situation in the Pāli Canon, in which women are at least as capable as
men of attaining the highest goal, arhatship, the position of women in
Mahāyāna has hardly changed for the better.”
endnote 64
Kajiyama (58) concludes that, regarding the listing of inabilities of
women, “it is most likely that the dictum did not exist when the Budd-
hist Order maintained one and the same tradition, but that it was created
after the Order was divided into many schools and was inserted into
sūtras of various schools.” However, the suggestion by Kajiyama (70) that
“the dictum that a woman is incapable of becoming a Buddha arose
probably in the first century B.C.” may be putting things at too late a
time.