Historical Buddha and modern idea

[Ontheway]

Okay, I have a wild thought... Forgive me if I offend anyone here.

My question is:
Can the attachment to "modern feminism" idea, leading to (or increase the magnitude of) Sakkaya-Ditthi?

[sibling]

"Woke" culture is quite harmful, and many people who have previously been neck-deep in it have spoken out about it in writing or video. Identifying as "a chair" is painfully hipsterish. I was deeply into leftist feminist culture years ago and am very happy to be out of it. All that said, gender roles and assignment are quite silly and inconsistent over time. I don't like to be in society very much because the wokesters have given such a bad taste in everyone's mouth, if there is a hint as to my gender identity, many assume I am one of the "woke" folks (I'm not).

[Ontheway]

"Woke" culture is quite harmful, and many people who have previously been neck-deep in it have spoken out about it in writing or video. Identifying as "a chair" is painfully hipsterish. I was deeply into leftist feminist culture years ago and am very happy to be out of it. All that said, gender roles and assignment are quite silly and inconsistent over time. I don't like to be in society very much because the wokesters have given such a bad taste in everyone's mouth, if there is a hint as to my gender identity, many assume I am one of the "woke" folks (I'm not).

Thanks for the comment.

Yes, till today, I can't understand why would a living person identifies he/she/them -selves as an inanimate object...

[asahi]

Can the attachment to "modern feminism" idea, leading to (or increase the magnitude of) Sakkaya-Ditthi?

Attachment to this body as either equal , superior or inferior are but sakkaya ditthi .

[Ontheway]

Can the attachment to "modern feminism" idea, leading to (or increase the magnitude of) Sakkaya-Ditthi?

Attachment to this body as either equal , superior or inferior are but sakkaya ditthi .

Then I will take it as a "Yes". Quite reasonable.

[Red Belly]

Yes, I also saw that thread over on SuttaCentral. They seem to have quite a number of threads with a similar politicized take on things. It is sad to see some monastics involved with such silliness, but as others have said, this is one of the consequences of the internet age and the restless, deeply confused times we live in.

The idea that researchers can determine the relative happiness of whole nations is, of course, breathtakingly stupid. In addition to this, and not yet mentioned here, I think, is the fact that if such "happiness" exists (and I don't believe it does in aggregate), the sort she attributes to "feminine countries" is highly unlikely to in any way reflect that recommended by the Buddha. Are we really to believe that Scandinavia is any closer to the Dhamma than most "masculine countries?" Oh please.

Such topics are a big reason I generally just lurk on forums, Buddhist or otherwise, take what is good and beneficial, and then get back to practice.

[Ontheway]

Yes, I also saw that thread over on SuttaCentral. They seem to have quite a number of threads with a similar politicized take on things. It is sad to see some monastics involved with such silliness, but as others have said, this is one of the consequences of the internet age and the restless, deeply confused times we live in.

The idea that researchers can determine the relative happiness of whole nations is, of course, breathtakingly stupid. In addition to this, and not yet mentioned here, I think, is the fact that if such "happiness" exists (and I don't believe it does in aggregate), the sort she attributes to "feminine countries" is highly unlikely to in any way reflect that recommended by the Buddha. Are we really to believe that Scandinavia is any closer to the Dhamma than most "masculine countries?" Oh please.

Such topics are a big reason I generally just lurk on forums, Buddhist or otherwise, take what is good and beneficial, and then get back to practice.

Wise man spotted

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

It's basically just Cultural Marxism tarted up as DhammaVinaya. To the nun's credit, at least she's not as militant about it as others.

Best ignored.

Metta,
Paul.

[Bundokji]

I think most progressive movements try to relate their beliefs to nature inspired spirituality rather than monotheism or creationism. In nature, both the feminine and the masculine can be found where relative advantages can be observed and discerned, whereas creationism assumes a beginning to the sensual realm which is often associated with dominance and hierarchy relevant to governance and power structures. Nature inspired spirituality includes new age movement and Buddhism.

Keeping in mind that most progressive movements appear in centralized systems where institutions are deeply rooted, archetypes provide good and convenient basis to construct theories about the feminine and the masculine. By definition, the masculine has the tendency to use its relative advantage for conflict resolutions. If we look at wars, most soldiers are men, while the females are busy in hospitals healing the wounds of masculine madness and hunger for power. In contrast, what would be more feminine than mother earth that accepts us unconditionally and cleans our shit, of which we have been abusing and taking for granted. As such, for the sake of our well-being and future, we need to reverse course and correct our actions by living in harmony with nature (which is primarily feminine),

[Ontheway]

Thanks for input, but I can only agree with 50%...

I do understand that both sexes should be working together in a harmonious ways and supporting each other. Feminism of the past that talked about "Empowerment of women", to that I agreed. But what happening now is what I should said "radical feminism" that somehow unfair to males.

Why should we attribute the quality such as "madness and hunger for powers" to masculinity only? Isn't that just unwholesome quality that can potentially exists in every human being?

Isn't Siddartha Gautama, a prince, a skilful Khattiya (warrior class), becomes a harmless ascetic in the end? Isn't that in ancient China, the Empress Wu Zhe Tian, a ruthless ruler? https://www.google.com/amp/s/supchina.c ... story/amp/

And the term "Mother Earth" is just happened to be in English or India's Hindu custom (Bhudevi), but when I ask my SEA Chinese friends, who are Taoists, they said it is "Grandfather Earth" or "Tu Di Gong" they said... Should we even put a label of masculinity or feminity to "Earth" at all?

Imo, wholesome and unwholesome qualities are not related to masculinity or feminity, it is just happened to be qualities that might be found in anyone. And Buddhism (be it Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana) did not teach that those qualities were due to either masculinity or feminity too.

[Bundokji]

Thanks for input, but I can only agree with 50%...

I do understand that both sexes should be working together in a harmonious ways and supporting each other. Feminism of the past that talked about "Empowerment of women", to that I agreed. But what happening now is what I should said "radical feminism" that somehow unfair to males.

Why should we attribute the quality such as "madness and hunger for powers" to masculinity only? Isn't that just unwholesome quality that can potentially exists in every human being?

Isn't Siddartha Gautama, a prince, a skilful Khattiya (warrior class), becomes a harmless ascetic in the end? Isn't that in ancient China, the Empress Wu Zhe Tian, a ruthless ruler? https://www.google.com/amp/s/supchina.c ... story/amp/

And the term "Mother Earth" is just happened to be in English or India's Hindu custom (Bhudevi), but when I ask my SEA Chinese friends, who are Taoists, they said it is "Grandfather Earth" Should we even put a label of masculinity or feminity to "Earth" at all?

Imo, wholesome and unwholesome qualities are not related to masculinity or feminity, it is just happened to be qualities that might be found in anyone. And Buddhism (be it Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana) did not teach that those qualities were due to either masculinity or feminity too.

Unfairness in general seems to be a trade off for seeking certainties. This is where archetypes, which is a form of stereotypes comes into play. Essence, in the midst of uncertainty, begets categorizing qualities as primary and secondary. Usually, the reference is to physical features that are then utilized to make inferences about the mind and how it operates. As a general rule, males have a bigger muscle mass, hence the tendency to use it more often for conflict resolutions. Females on the other hand had to rely more on intuition to reach common grounds and resolve conflicts. This is why, within this mindset, where things are divided into primary and secondary, any example you provide to falsify the general rule is merely presenting an exception. It does not negate the general rule or the archetype, but rather confirms it. Unless you agreed in a way with the general rule, you would not have provided the exception, this mindset goes.

Other justifications comes into play. The use of technology made the reliance on muscles less essential and paved the way for women to enter the work force and become leaders. Science, which is primarily empirical, neutralized the logical need for a fixed beginning to understand nature. Postmodernists and some Buddhists deconstructed logic and dismissed it as the most reliable tool of knowledge, especially when compared to intuition and subjectivity. The centralized systems of governance allowed more people the time and energy to explore there individuality and uniqueness, and to see the buffoonery in objective truths.

A historical perceptive of existence is in a way reactionary. This can be seen in how the scientific method becomes the only reliable method to define nature by its proponents, as opposed to the theoretical basis provided by religions, which became known as supernatural and superstitious. The same tendency for reactions is the way of experimenting. The unsatisfactory nature of existence has to be explained, and it is most appropriately explained through examining power structures of the past, which were dominantly masculine. As such, the path to solve our problems is through adopting the other extreme considering our ability to attribute our ills to the old norm. Adopting the most updated version, on the other hand, is a safe bet in-spite of its biases. At least, until the new version is officially falsified, one can be on the right side of history.

[Ontheway]

I couldn't say I'm agree with you 100% on that...of course I do believe that both sexes may have certain advantages in doing different things.

But what I want to bring out on this thread is how this modern idea can be misleading and its potential negative impacts by bringing up this modern feminism idea to Buddha Sasana. Historical Buddha never taught that "patriarchy influences happiness" and certainly the ancient AriyaSangha did not established based on the modern feminism as we can read from the scriptures. Yet the post made by a considerable celebrated monastic such as Ven. Vimala could change the whole thing upside down.

Furthermore, we don't need to put on label (masculinity or feminity) to measure our happiness or morality, because it's just doesn't make sense, especially in the light of Dhamma. And what Ven. Vimala said in her post (and many others' posts in Suttacentral of such nature) really put off my respect to them and to be frank, I'm afraid of them too. Because these comments & claims of hers and potential feminists (be it laypeople or monastics) are very serious and fundamental to Buddhists' mindset and lifestyle.

I have seen nowadays how people put "toxic masculinity" or "patriarchy" labels on other people simply because they don't agree with them in certain ways related to modern feminism. And I believe it's a trend in Suttacentral too, where people were ridiculed, censored and banned because they are dared enough to question the validity and compatibility of this modern idea of feminism with Buddha Dhamma. And what saddened me is even some monastics are supporting this worldly agenda.

And I find these people in Suttacentral (well I'm not saying Suttacentral forum is not good) are very forceful and certainly, it doesn't give me a "Dhammic" feel, it is more like "if you don't buy this idea, you are not a good person"...

Should I believe that soon, there will be a "Neutrois-ism" rising up against this modern feminism? I hope this wouldn't coming to Buddha's teachings very soon...

https://youtu.be/0Oy34z01bh8

[sibling]

I think a lot of logic jumps are happening there, might be best to stick to the Dhamma and worry less about imagined future problems

[Coëmgenu]

The Buddha can be construed as a "feminist." He can even be construed as an "intersectionalist." Of course, the kind of "feminism" or "intersectionalism" one could read out of the Buddha is not identical to modern feminism certainly. The Buddha established the order of bhikkhunis, a deeply "feminist act." The Theravādin version of the story characterizes the Buddha as doing this reluctantly and saying that it has hurt the order in the long-run, but he does it all the same. If it had been utterly evil to establish the order of nuns, the Buddha never would have consented, by my reasoning. This is a "kind" of feminism. The parallels disagree with the Theravādin account, btw.

IMHO, the gripes presented with the foolhardy article analyzing nations around a gender binary are actually gripes with what I would call, colloquially, "Tumblr feminism." A lot of modern feminism isn't about calling societies and people you don't like "masculine."

[asahi]

You can construe Gotama before his awakening , once he became Buddha , it is not proper to construe him in anyway . In one sutta , Buddha said you cant pin point him as any one , part of or totality of the five aggregates .
Then it seems contradicting when some Theravadin are in the position of the notion that male should be in leading status where it is agaisnt the view of equality of bhikkhunis roles in the sangha .