Tennok wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:26 pm
It's not my belief, zerotime. It's my joke. Tongue in cheek. But I'm sorry, if I offended you.
no offence in your message
, although I thought it was your real belief. Anyway sure we agree there is no problem with building images of the Buddha (physical or mental) with different colors while the teaching is preserved. Well, this is present in the Buddhist art.
Tennok wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:26 pm
And I do believe that there could be some cultural tensions between Indoeuropeans and Dravidians at the times of Buddha. We don't need any modern, anachronistic ideas to support such notion. You seem to know history well, so don't you agree, that in many cases, ruling class comes to power by force? Like Franks in France, or Normans in England. Buddha likely belonged to such "opressor" group, had good ties with king and elite, yet wandered though remote, rural areas. That's interesting position to take, and bit tricky.
Btw, class divisions are possible to exist long before Marxism. In my country, Poland, 10 % of society, so called "nobles", lived separated from other groups, exploiting or even enslaving them, since late medieval period until late XIX Century. The idea of "three estates" was well established in whole medieval Europe, and it was pretty similiar to varnas in India. The warriors, the clergy and the workers.
I agree, violence for power is the common pattern in History. Although no trick about the Buddha behaviour. Sila exists according the own actions. Somebody is not responsible of some oppression because his social group but according his own actions. And sila also exist when talking about Dhamma with oppressors, killers or whoever.
if we label class system to a caste system it will distort that reality. In example, read here:
While distinguishing class from caste, Ogburn and Nimkoff observe as follows:
“In some societies, it is not uncommon for individuals to move up or down the social ladder. Where this is the case the society is said to have “open” classes. Elsewhere there are little shifting, individuals remaining through a life-time in the class into which “they chance to be born.” Such classes are “closed”, and if, extremely differentiated, constitute a caste system.” “When a class is somewhat strictly hereditary,” states Cooley, “we may call it a caste.”
Briefly caste may be defined in the words of Warner and Davis as a rank order of superior super-ordinate orders and inferior subordinate orders which practise endogamy, prevent vertical mobility, and unequally distribute the desirable and undesirable social symbols.
Class may be defined as a rank order of superior and inferior orders which allows both exogamy and endogamy, permits movement either up or down the system, or allows an individual to remain in the status to which he was born; it also unequally distributes the lower and higher evaluated symbols.”
https://www.sociologydiscussion.com/cas ... oints/2356
note the kings and nobles fits better in castes than classes system because no vertical mobility, the endogamy, etc.
This is the problem when projecting our modern notions to the past as I have written in previous messages. We are populating those past minds with notions and ideas absent in their minds. In that way we can believe ancient indian and medieval people were racist or classist while those minds worked with different notions to divide humans and society.
Tennok wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:26 pm
On course, Dhamma was and is aimed at ending of Dukkha, and identity views, inluding any "ethinic" or "class" attachments, are obstacle on the Path.The idea of giving up one's previous, secular identity, clan pride and attachment to language and customs, often appears in the Suttas. Shaving was just a part of it, I guess. And beard is also a masculinity and sexual identity symbol, so to shave it off was an act of vossagga.
I understand the shaving of beard was no related with losing the masculinity. Masculinity and femininity are a kammic rupa production and logically the Buddha knew it. Also note the Buddha visited Upali the barbier for a haircut.
It sounds more probable the novices were completely shaved when joining the order (like Buddha did before pursuing nibbana). And later some of them could choose (be older bhikkus, senior, etc). I don't know exactly what the Vinaya says in this subject. Maybe other people can know.
I believe the explanation to lose masculinity is another projection over the past. At those times, the attachment to lose masculinity or femininity was a manifestation from a non-defined, non-preponderant kamma in that aspect.
Detachment from genre is not leaving masculinity, femininity, or a non-defined kamma. That's not possible. This detachment means leaving any genre concern because this is a cause of doubt and dukkha. Also we should include here the detachment from modern notions like non-binary, trans, inter or any notion to sustain that concern. However, today many people who talk about detachment from genre they talk all the time about there is a problem with the gender, which is revelatory.