Privileged woman, poor man

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Annapurna
Posts: 2639
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:04 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Privileged woman, poor man

Post by Annapurna »

notself wrote:Annabel:

I agree with Chris. I think you may have misread a sutta. Your version that it is rare or more important to be born male would conflict directly with other suttas. Here is one example from the Samyutta Nikaya, Book V:
5. "What does womanhood matter at all
When the mind is concentrated well,
When knowledge flows on steadily
As one sees correctly into Dhamma.
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."
Hi, Notself, thanks for the abone, I am aware of it, agree too.

I'm pretty sure though I haven't misread it. I read it more than once to make sure..

It's just not represented by me in such a way that it is identifiable.

Sorry. :thinking:
Your version that it is rare or more important to be born male would conflict directly with other suttas.
That is not what I said. It's not about rare,- genders are born in a relationship of about 50/50%.

It's not about more important. Both genders are equally important to procreate.

It's about that Buddha said, it is hard to be born as a human being and harder still, as a man.

It is hard to #### and harder still to ######

It goes on like this.

It also makes sense, because the Buddha said that a Supreme Buddha can only be a Man.

:coffee:
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2712
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Privileged woman, poor man

Post by Zom »

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;
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4646
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: Privileged woman, poor man

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

The quote I am thinking of from the Dhammapada definitely says "manussa" = human being.

The Good Are Rare

Kiccho manussapaṭilābho, kicchaṃ maccāna jīvitaṃ.
Kicchaṃ saddhammassavanaṃ, kiccho buddhānamuppādo. (Dhp v 182)

Rare is birth as a human being.
Hard is the life of mortals.
Hard is the hearing of the Sublime Truth.
Rare is the appearance of the Buddhas.

Kiccha means rare or difficult. A woman's life is more difficult, but no rarer than a man's life.
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
User avatar
gavesako
Posts: 1794
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: Privileged woman, poor man

Post by gavesako »

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.
Attachments
Bahudhatuka.pdf
(393.7 KiB) Downloaded 205 times
Bhikkhu Gavesako
Kiṃkusalagavesī anuttaraṃ santivarapadaṃ pariyesamāno... (MN 26)

Access to Insight - Theravada texts
Ancient Buddhist Texts - Translations and history of Pali texts
Dhammatalks.org - Sutta translations
User avatar
bodom
Posts: 7216
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: Privileged woman, poor man

Post by bodom »

:goodpost: Thank you for posting that Bhante.

:anjali:
Liberation is the inevitable fruit of the path and is bound to blossom forth when there is steady and persistent practice. The only requirements for reaching the final goal are two: to start and to continue. If these requirements are met there is no doubt the goal will be attained. This is the Dhamma, the undeviating law.

- BB
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2712
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Privileged woman, poor man

Post by 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
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:26 pm

Re: Privileged woman, poor man

Post by Freawaru »

Zom wrote: 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."
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Privileged woman, poor man

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Freawaru,

Nice quote - where's it from?

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Lombardi4
Posts: 1551
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:53 pm

Re: Privileged woman, poor man

Post by Lombardi4 »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Freawaru,

Nice quote - where's it from?

Metta,
Retro. :)
Hi retro:


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .bodh.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Freawaru
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:26 pm

Re: Privileged woman, poor man

Post by Freawaru »

Annapurna wrote:
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
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:26 pm

Re: Privileged woman, poor man

Post by Freawaru »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Freawaru,

Nice quote - where's it from?

Metta,
Retro. :)
It is notself's quote here: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2543" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2712
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Privileged woman, poor man

Post by 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.. =)
User avatar
Annapurna
Posts: 2639
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:04 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Privileged woman, poor man

Post by Annapurna »

Freawaru wrote:
Annapurna wrote:
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
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:26 pm

Re: Privileged woman, poor man

Post by Freawaru »

Hello Annapurna,
Annapurna wrote:
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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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 ...
Post Reply