Sutta quotes derisive to women

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
Meggo
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 2:42 pm

Re: Sutta quotes derisive to women

Post by Meggo »

rekoW wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 3:50 am I saw on another buddism forum
Jhana4 wrote:
Another person well versed in the suttas spent what must have been hours in making an anti-woman meme he posted that consisted of a number of sutta quotes derisive to women.
I was too scared to ask question at this buddha forum. Everyone there writing same in austria called "wowserism".

Is the above true? Is a number of buddha sutta quotes derisive to women? How many Sutta quotes derisive to women exist? Which are the many sutta quotes derisive to women?
Das Wort "Wowserism" hast du aber erfunden, oder?
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19314
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Sutta quotes derisive to women

Post by mikenz66 »

wowser (redirected from Wowserism)
Also found in: Encyclopedia.
wow·ser (wou′zər)
n. Chiefly Australian
A person regarded as obnoxiously puritanical.
...
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Wowse ... origin.%5D
Note that it is Australian, not Austrian slang, though I'm sure I've heard it in a Frank Zappa song somewhere...

:heart:
Mike
Spiny Norman
Posts: 9508
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Sutta quotes derisive to women

Post by Spiny Norman »

So the suttas have some misogynistic content, presumably related to cultural attitudes when they were composed?
And so? :shrug:
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
rekoW
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2022 11:50 am

Re: Sutta quotes derisive to women

Post by rekoW »

Spiny Norman wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 6:41 am So the suttas have some misogynistic content...
I have not found it yet. Am continue looking. Is abstains from anger and from bad action "misogynistic"?
ToVincent
Posts: 1818
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Sutta quotes derisive to women

Post by ToVincent »

Just a Buddha's definition of (the vicāra* of) women in the Tipitaka (not entirely similar in the Agama) — and not derisive (just factual) :
“Women have a man as their ambition. They’re preoccupied with adornments. They’re dedicated to their children. They insist on being without a co-wife. Their ultimate goal is authority.”

"Itthī pana, bho gotama, kiṁadhippāyā, kiṁupavicārā, kiṁadhiṭṭhānā, kiṁabhinivesā, kiṁpariyosānā”ti?
AN 6.52
* Here, vicāra [act. vicar], as a" mode of acting" (ŚrS.)
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 9508
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Sutta quotes derisive to women

Post by Spiny Norman »

rekoW wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:32 am
Spiny Norman wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 6:41 am So the suttas have some misogynistic content...
I have not found it yet. Am continue looking. Is abstains from anger and from bad action "misogynistic"?
Do you know Doo Doot?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Ontheway
Posts: 2330
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: Sutta quotes derisive to women

Post by Ontheway »

thomaslaw wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 12:39 am The Pali collection, Matugama Samyutta, does not have any corresponding Chinese SA sutras. It belongs to Veyyakarana/Vyakarana (Tathagata) anga, according to Ven. Yinshun.
That just his opinion. And his opinion doesn't amount to anything compared to the authority of ancient parampara system.

And foremost, he is of Mahayana later sect of Chinese Buddhism. Out of league. He should have stayed in his domain of Mahayana doctrine.
"The self tries so hard. Like the wooden boy Pinocchio, this fictional entity passionately wants to become a living soul. With its many self-hoods, this long-nosed puppet is desperate to become the real you."

- Kate Gustin
thomaslaw
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: Sutta quotes derisive to women

Post by thomaslaw »

Ontheway wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 4:55 pm
thomaslaw wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 12:39 am The Pali collection, Matugama Samyutta, does not have any corresponding Chinese SA sutras. It belongs to Veyyakarana/Vyakarana (Tathagata) anga, according to Ven. Yinshun.
That just his opinion. And his opinion doesn't amount to anything compared to the authority of ancient parampara system.
What is "the authority of ancient parampara system"?
Ontheway wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 4:55 pm And foremost, he is of Mahayana later sect of Chinese Buddhism. Out of league. He should have stayed in his domain of Mahayana doctrine.
Thanks for his studies in early Buddhism based on both Pali and Chinese versions.
Post Reply