Privileged woman, poor man

[Zom]

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.

Heh.. if one follows such a postion, one may say that all suttas are not Buddha words, but were composed many centuries later by someone else ...
Say so... to drop away everything one doesn't like in the suttas ))

[Freawaru]

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.

How can this agree with this? :

6. One to whom it might occur,
'I'm a woman' or 'I'm a man'
Or 'I'm anything at all' —
Is fit for Mara to address."

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Freawaru,

Nice quote - where's it from?

Metta,
Retro.

[Stephen K]

Greetings Freawaru,

Nice quote - where's it from?

Metta,
Retro.

Hi retro:


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .bodh.html

[Freawaru]

For me this is more a logical issue, not one of my personal life.

Yeah, and then consider this: the way things go very soon all it will take to switch from woman to man (or vice versa) is an injection with some reto-virus ...

Seriously, even now someone with a physical female body can identify with a male body in dream and the mind-made realm, born as a man there. It is not that difficult, even. Do you think this was any different at the time of the Buddha or that the Buddha didn't know this? Concentration practice was well known at the time of the Buddha, the iddhi Transformation was known at the time of the Buddha ... how can one make such as fuss about gender when one can transform oneself at will into any form one wants? I think either the Buddha and his students never ever experienced this iddhi (and how likely is that???) or there has become something wrong with the interpretation of those suttas more than two thousand years later.

[Freawaru]

Greetings Freawaru,

Nice quote - where's it from?

Metta,
Retro.

It is notself's quote here: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2543

[Zom]

How can this agree with this? :

These are different things, because here we meet speaking in conventional truth and ultimate truth.
This is a mistake to mix these.

In conventional truth there IS a man and a woman and they differ in their faculties, they are not "the same" (that's why it is said that a woman can't be a Buddha, though both can reach arahantship).
In ultimate truth there is no man or woman, just lets say so.. a flow of dhammas.. =)

[Annapurna]

For me this is more a logical issue, not one of my personal life.

Yeah, and then consider this: the way things go very soon all it will take to switch from woman to man (or vice versa) is an injection with some retro-virus ...

Seriously, even now someone with a physical female body can identify with a male body in dream and the mind-made realm, born as a man there. It is not that difficult, even. Do you think this was any different at the time of the Buddha or that the Buddha didn't know this? Concentration practice was well known at the time of the Buddha, the iddhi Transformation was known at the time of the Buddha ... how can one make such as fuss about gender when one can transform oneself at will into any form one wants? I think either the Buddha and his students never ever experienced this iddhi (and how likely is that???) or there has become something wrong with the interpretation of those suttas more than two thousand years later.

Yeah, and then consider this: the way things go very soon all it will take to switch from woman to man (or vice versa) is an injection with some retro-virus ...

Freawarus, this is a speculation.
It may be that way someday, and seems plausible in science fiction movies, but today, we're still born from a womb and that is also what the Buddha spoke about.

Seriously, even now someone with a physical female body can identify with a male body in dream and the mind-made realm, born as a man there. It is not that difficult, even.

Yes, we can. (No pun intended...)

I may day-dream I am Marilyn Monroe, but when I wake up, I'm still Anna...so, I don't really change my physical reality.

how can one make such as fuss about gender when one can transform oneself at will into any form one wants?

Who's making a fuss? This is a discussion about the teachings, not a fuss. And no, we don't truly become another form, it's only a play of thoughts, a creative construct of the mind.

Annapurna

[Freawaru]

Hello Annapurna,

Seriously, even now someone with a physical female body can identify with a male body in dream and the mind-made realm, born as a man there. It is not that difficult, even.

Yes, we can. (No pun intended...)

I may day-dream I am Marilyn Monroe, but when I wake up, I'm still Anna...so, I don't really change my physical reality.

Not the physical one, no, (until that retro-virus anyway) but in Buddhism the self can take three acquisitions, physical body, mind-made body and formless. Some deva only have formless acquisitions of self for example but in Buddhism they are considered beings even though they have no physical body. The form body (mind made body) is considered as "real" as the physical one, real in the ordinary sense not in the ultimate.

You can see the Buddha's ideas regarding this here for example:

"Now, lord, is perception a person's self, or is perception one thing and self another?"

"What self do you posit, Potthapada?"

"I posit a gross self, possessed of form, made up of the four great existents [earth, water, fire, and wind], feeding on physical food."

"Then, Potthapada, your self would be gross, possessed of form, made up of the four great existents, feeding on physical food. That being the case, then for you perception would be one thing and self another. And it's through this line of reasoning that one can realize how perception will be one thing and self another: even as there remains this gross self — possessed of form, made up of the four great existents, and feeding on food — one perception arises for that person as another perception passes away. It's through this line of reasoning that one can realize how perception will be one thing and self another."

"Then, lord, I posit a mind-made self complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties."

"Then, Potthapada, your self would be mind-made, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties. That being the case, then for you perception would be one thing and self another. And it's through this line of reasoning that one can realize how perception will be one thing and self another: even as there remains this mind-made self — complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties — one perception arises for that person as another perception passes away. It's through this line of reasoning that one can realize how perception will be one thing and self another."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

To the Buddha it makes no difference whether one posits a gross self based on the physical body or a mind made self based on the mind made realms. It does not matter what one is in the physical world, the moment one enters the mind made realms and identifies with a mind-made body this body is taken as wrong self. It is what we identify with. The moment we identify with a mind-made body, male or female or animal or gargoyle or deva or whatever, Mara can take a hold on us.

how can one make such as fuss about gender when one can transform oneself at will into any form one wants?

Who's making a fuss?

Not you. Just all those who take the suttas all to literal ...