Theravada view of women

[SecretSage]

There are varying different causes of war I think things would be more peaceful if women were viewed as like different. We could end violence and warfare.

Talk about a whole new meaning of the term f***.

It became my belief that for the welfare and happiness of the world it would be better if women were viewed as like different. Probably in the future once things become better in terms of health and happiness women will be viewed as like more different than now.

I heard the sages of old, in order not to defile themselves with women, but still produce offspring (sons, of course), would place their semen in clay jars and incubate them there, so that the sons were conceived and born immaculately.


But by all means, an important topic, a dispute that has been going on for millennia. Clearly, there must be something to it.

Women represent the ending of the pure dhamma...women are a sign that the end of something good has come.

Right after the feminist movements began in the late 1800s so did World War I begin and then World War II, then also many other issues like the introduction of useless technology causing pollution, poisoning, killing animals, and other issues in society.

Now in modern times men and women are being viewed as more equal than ever...the life expectancy refuses to increase even with so many advances in science it's still the same as during Gautama's time 2,500 years ago around the 70s/80s eliminating deaths connected to the infant mortality rate, physical injuries, and drugs. COVID-19 just happened reducing the life expectancy in many countries.

Looks like global pollution and infertility are upcoming issues.

I expect many issues to exist in the world until virtue and good kamma increases and women start automatically being viewed as different.

If we were to increase virtue and good kamma automatically women would start being viewed as like different.

Study after study shows that most women are not attracted to nice guys this means one of the main reasons males don't act nice is because they know they won't attract women if they were to act virtuous and peaceful.

Well thanks for being honest about your background. If that's the case you shouldn't dismiss other ppls interpretations of the suttas as "reading in" their subjective opinion about women, as you are admitting to doing just that.

I do agree with you that ppl nowadays have kinda gone off the deep end on the equality thing. Imo women should be treated as equals from the POV of rights and opportunities. But a lot of ppl today are so caught up on the post civil rights high that they pretend there are no biological differences between women and men and this is just delusional. It is possible to both treat women fairly and acknowledge that they menstruate, are physically weaker than men in general, and have various biological differences. Equality does not mean the same. Women are different and should be seen as such. But different doesn't mean inferior.

Many of the things you highlight are true but they are societal to an extent. Women do act in many of those ways but because they experience the world differently, due to how society views/treats them, due to being physically weaker than men and having to find ways to get by having that disadvantage, etc. Not to say that there isn't a biological aspect to some of the things you highlight, as I'm sure higher levels of estrogen and whatnot play a role. For sure men committing the vast majority of violent crime is probably due to higher testosterone levels so we should acknowledge there is a biological element in some of women's behavior too. But a lot of it is societal.

Well based on my unbiased reading of the suttas I don't understand how anyone can think that The Buddha considered male and female as like equals it's just junk from pro-women and feminist authors.

Modern science and biology more supports that male and female aren't equal.

In the US, African Americans make up 13% of the population but commit 50% of the murder. But this isn't biological, it's entirely societal and cultural. Studies show African immigrants are some of the most successful in the US and putting a black kid in a white or Asian majority school significantly increases their chance of success than if the same kid was put in an intercity school. The high crime rate is due to societal factors (poverty, culture of no father's in the household, glorification of black gangster culture in the media, etc) and even the Buddha says biological marks cannot be used to identify a person's behavior.

I did research into aggression and found that a lot of aggressive behavior is caused by negative early childhood memories from age 5 and earlier (by age 5 humans reach around 90% of their adult brain size).

Negative unconscious memories like memories being spanked or harshly disciplined causes aggressive and violent behavior.

Then younger people commit proportionally the most crime according to every crime statistic...younger people have parts of their brains linked to decision making undeveloped according to neuroscience and biology.

This means more violent crime from African Americans in the US is easily explained by:

• US Black kids being spanked the most

• US Blacks having a lower median age and proportionally more younger people than other groups

The younger White people in the US still do commit lots of violent crime too but the White median age in the US is 44 and most common age is 58. The high crime age range is around 15-25...so a younger White person in the high crime age range is super-rare.

Many Christian, Muslim, and Communist groups support spanking kids as well hopefully in the future they won't.

Yeah well. You are right someone with two X chromosomes has more in common genetically with another person with two X chromosomes than someone with one X and one Y chromosome. I never read it that way tho. I just read it as it's an issue despite caste. And in no other analogy he uses in that sutta does he say other groups such as Greeks or Persians or people who break precepts are "lower" caste. Again he was pretty anti-caste in most suttas where he discusses it. He's saying these things prove the folly of caste at all. Not that brahmins arent truly the higher caste because women are akin to lower caste.

Recent research in modern biology is showing more differences between male and female than expected. Besides genetic differences around a third of the genome is expressed differently in male and female https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/artic ... 017-0352-z.

Based on modern biology male and female cannot be viewed as equal.

Some biologists think that biology will cause men and women to be viewed as more differently in the future.

I'm saying it's better for achieving arahantship...allowing women to join caused the pure dhamma to not last as long.

This is one of the most common and most frequent mistake made by those who do not study the suttas carefully. See a previous thread that corrects this wrong view.

But how? That commentary is just nonsensical.

Very rarely does The Buddha refuse to do something even after being requested 3 times...he still refused Ananda three times and only agreed when Ananda asked differently then agreed with the eight precepts.

Unfortunately the Ananda sitta is abit out of context... three rounds of Anandas birth and death is the asking to admit it is not until Gautama sees Anandas mothers feet cracked swollen bleeding and blistered carrying Ananda did he submit to the entrance... Had Ananda known his mom was carrying him through the rounds of birth and death while his mind saw nothing but how ever long it took him to ask those three times... Anandas mother still in his heart was dragging her along and her feet showed it even though Ananda seemed oblivious to it being that way. Consider the koan: Who is dragging that corpse there? The realized know that If it's not yours then it's either your mother or fathers and that it is also due to desire and attachment that such suffering arises.

Women have a path that leads to their own enlightenment and still do... There wasn't anything wrong with their path other than the discrimination against it but I wouldn't say it was their fault more the fault of what gets called an inferior man that hasn't loosened or broken the bonds of the three poisons is more akin to being an animal in a man's body than human.

How women deal with that inferior male is none of my business,,, As said it is their path but what I can say is their path leads men to the dhamma and then abandons them on it altogether. Like the rice offering woman pulling skin and bones Gautama out of the Ganges when many probably mistaken it for a corpse... Her doing that is why Buddhism even exists so when people say there is mother of buddhism they should really think of her.

There goes another silly sadhu floating down the Ganges like dried wood...

It's not out of context it's in context...just some pro-women or pro-feminist groups trying to view men and women as physically the same.

Superiority and inferiority are subjective opinions for arahantship and enlightenment it would be better if male and female weren't viewed as equals.

The context is:

“Ānanda, if females had not gained the going forth from the lay life to homelessness in the teaching and training proclaimed by the Realized One, the spiritual life would have lasted long. The true teaching would have remained for a thousand years. But since they have gained the going forth, now the spiritual life will not last long. The true teaching will remain only five hundred years.

It’s like those families with many women and few men. They’re easy prey for bandits and thieves. In the same way, the spiritual life does not last long in a teaching and training where females gain the going forth.

It’s like a field full of rice. Once the disease called ‘white bones’ attacks, it doesn’t last long. In the same way, the spiritual life does not last long in a teaching and training where females gain the going forth.

It’s like a field full of sugar cane. Once the disease called ‘red rot’ attacks, it doesn’t last long. In the same way, the spiritual life does not last long in a teaching and training where females gain the going forth. - AN 8.51

....

I'm trying to compile a list of Theravada suttas where The Buddha talks about women and their disposition.

Women are viewed as lower in general but some times as better than men.

Did I miss any important Theravada suttas?

These suttas:

In every case where a family can hold onto its great wealth for long, it is for one or another of these four reasons. Which four? They look for things that are lost. They repair things that have gotten old. They are moderate in consuming food and drink. They place a virtuous, principled woman or man in the position of authority. In every case where a family can hold onto its great wealth for long, it is for one or another of these four reasons."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

"In five ways, young householder, should a wife as the West be ministered to by a husband:

(i) by being courteous to her,
(ii) by not despising her,
(iii) by being faithful to her,
(iv) by handing over authority to her,
(v) by providing her with adornments.

"The wife thus ministered to as the West by her husband shows her compassion to her husband in five ways:

(i) she performs her duties well,
(ii) she is hospitable to relations and attendants
(iii) she is faithful,
(iv) she protects what he brings,
(v) she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties.

"In these five ways does the wife show her compassion to her husband who ministers to her as the West. Thus is the West covered by him and made safe and secure.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nara.html

These suttas, where the wife was enlightened but the husband an average Joe:

And Nakula's mother said to the Blessed One: "Lord, ever since I as a young girl was brought to Nakula's father [to be his wife] when he was just a young boy, I am not conscious of being unfaithful to him even in mind, much less in body.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Once the Blessed One was staying among the Bhaggas in the Deer Park at Bhesakala Grove, near Crocodile Haunt. At that time, Nakula's father, the householder, was diseased, in pain, severely ill. Then Nakula's mother said to him: "Don't be worried as you die, householder. Death is painful for one who is worried. The Blessed One has criticized being worried at the time of death.

Now it may be that you are thinking, 'Nakula's mother will not reach firm ground in this Doctrine & Discipline, will not attain a firm foothold, will not attain consolation, overcome her doubts, dispel her perplexity, reach fearlessness or gain independence from others with regard to the Teacher's message,'[2] but you shouldn't see things in that way. To the extent that the Blessed One has white-clad householder female disciples who reach firm ground in this Doctrine & Discipline, attain a firm foothold, attain consolation, overcome their doubts, dispel their perplexity, reach fearlessness, & gain independence from others with regard to the Teacher's message, I am one of them. If anyone doubts or denies this, let him go ask the Blessed One, the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one who is staying among the Bhaggas in the Deer Park at Bhesakala Grove, near Crocodile Haunt. So don't be worried as you die, householder. Death is painful for one who is worried. The Blessed One has criticized being worried at the time of death."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

This sutta where the wife is a god and the husband is a wretch:

“And how does a wretch live together with a female deva? Here, the husband is one who destroys life … he insults and reviles ascetics and brahmins. But his wife is one who abstains from the destruction of life, from taking what is not given, from sexual misconduct, from false speech, and from liquor, wine, and intoxicants, the basis for heedlessness; she is virtuous, of good character; she dwells at home with a heart free from the stain of miserliness; she does not insult or revile ascetics and brahmins. It is in such a way that a wretch lives together with a female deva.

https://suttacentral.net/an4.53/en/bodh ... ight=false

I do think that women can be superior to men in certain conditions just as Theravada says....but they're still like different.

If people were to do more good deeds and develop virtue women would automatically be viewed as like different.

Hopefully we can get more and more people to develop virtue, generate good deeds, actions, and energy...no one can take away the effect of the deeds, actions, and energy generated.

[TRobinson465]

Women represent the ending of the pure dhamma...women are a sign that the end of something good has come.

Right after the feminist movements began in the late 1800s so did World War I begin and then World War II, then also many other issues like the introduction of useless technology causing pollution, poisoning, killing animals, and other issues in society.

Now in modern times men and women are being viewed as more equal than ever...the life expectancy refuses to increase even with so many advances in science it's still the same as during Gautama's time 2,500 years ago around the 70s/80s eliminating deaths connected to the infant mortality rate, physical injuries, and drugs. COVID-19 just happened reducing the life expectancy in many countries.

Looks like global pollution and infertility are upcoming issues.

I expect many issues to exist in the world until virtue and good kamma increases and women start automatically being viewed as different.

If we were to increase virtue and good kamma automatically women would start being viewed as like different.

Study after study shows that most women are not attracted to nice guys this means one of the main reasons males don't act nice is because they know they won't attract women if they were to act virtuous and peaceful.

I think its almost comical you think womens rights caused most of the world problems. its like people who think Jews are responsible for most of the worlds problems. We also saw a massive rise in living standards, and the post WWII period is recorded as having by far the least amount of territorial wars of any period in recorded history. I could make the the same argument in reverse about womens rights causing more peace if i wanted to use your made up logic. But i wont, because actual data, not made up data like womens rights, shows the peaceful period was simply due American hegemony after WWII as it was the only major power not destroyed after the war and we benefited economically in the post WWII economy to keep the borders as it was, plus the threat of WWIII being nuclear and destroying most of humanity.

Well based on my unbiased reading of the suttas I don't understand how anyone can think that The Buddha considered male and female as like equals it's just junk from pro-women and feminist authors.

Modern science and biology more supports that male and female aren't equal.

You are not the only person guilty of this, but i find it funny how everyone on this forum thinks thier reading of the suttas is the "unbiased" one. Literally every other interpretation is biased except thier own, hyperinflated ego and arrogance at its finest. You literally say womens rights caused most of the modern worlds problems (but not the benefits, as there were many, like most things in life its a trade off), and then say you are reading the suttas unbiasedly and everyone else is reading them biasedly.

I am not so egotistical that i think my reading of the suttas is completely unbiased, i am looking at it thru the lens of a modern man living in the West, which is why i defer to commentaries to get a more accurate reading and dont take the scriptures as infallible, either in thier accuracy as historical records or how i interpret them with my still unenlightened mind.

I am not even a feminist, i largely agree that men = women is ridiculous. men and women are different and modern feminists have gone off the deep end arguing there is no difference at all. But when people talk about equality they usually mean equal rights not the mathematical version of equal where men literally equals women and there are no differences at all.

Based on modern biology male and female cannot be viewed as equal.

Some biologists think that biology will cause men and women to be viewed as more differently in the future.

Again, equality is not men = women

[santa100]

But how? That commentary is just nonsensical.

Very rarely does The Buddha refuse to do something even after being requested 3 times...he still refused Ananda three times and only agreed when Ananda asked differently then agreed with the eight precepts.

The commentary simply clarifies what the Buddha already said in the source sutta. So if you think the Comy is nonsensical, then you must also think that the Buddha Himself was being nonsensical!

There were a whole host of reasons why the Buddha was hesitant to make the decision if you take into account the various socio/economical/political factors back then ~ 2,500 years ago. Even right now in the 21st century, women still face tremendous obstacles and inequality compared to men. It'd be absurd to see the Buddha immediately accepted women into His Order without any careful consideration, for that'd only prove how careless and short-sighted He was as a spiritual Teacher. We saw a similar situation when He was hesitant to teach the Dhamma right after His enlightenment. Only after a deva descended from the heavenly realm made an earnest request would He finally agree to do it. All of that only proves that the Buddha was a wise, considerate, and caring teacher, not a dumb shallow one who makes rash decisions!

[Sam Vara]

Moderator note: please be mindful that you are looking at, and might be considering posting in, the Classical Theravada sub-forum. Have a look at the guidance again, especially this bit:

Posts that contain personal opinions and conjecture, points of view arrived at from meditative experiences, conversations with devas, blind faith in the supreme veracity of one's own teacher's point of view etc. are all regarded as off-topic, and as such, will be subject to moderator review and/or removal.

[SecretSage]

I think its almost comical you think womens rights caused most of the world problems. its like people who think Jews are responsible for most of the worlds problems. We also saw a massive rise in living standards, and the post WWII period is recorded as having by far the least amount of territorial wars of any period in recorded history. I could make the the same argument in reverse about womens rights causing more peace if i wanted to use your made up logic. But i wont, because actual data, not made up data like womens rights, shows the peaceful period was simply due American hegemony after WWII as it was the only major power not destroyed after the war and we benefited economically in the post WWII economy to keep the borders as it was, plus the threat of WWIII being nuclear and destroying most of humanity.

Well I do experiments and make observations...I don't try to support or oppose women.

This thread is supposed to be about the Theravada view of women rather than our own opinions.

Modern biology has proven big genetic differences between male and female and now recently also big non-genetic differences in how genes are expressed.

I hypothesize that in the future when mankind has regained it's virtue and goodness and mistreatment, violence against men and women disappear women will be viewed as more differently than now, but happier and healthier being different.

Just as I expected studies show what I said is true - https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... gap-grows/

When things are good men and women become naturally more different but happier....just what I thought.

Data clearly shows the life expectancy as the same throughout history eliminating deaths connected to the infant mortality rate, drugs, and physical injuries...so no real progress throughout human history. This study shows the life expectancy at age 5 as 75 during the mid-Victorian era (somewhere around the 1850s-1870s) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2587384/ ...no real progress at all.

This means virtue and morality is still low for mankind in this modern era since the life expectancy hasn't changed much at all in thousands of years even with so much useless technology and useless advances in modern times.

“Here, student, some man or woman kills living beings and is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings. Because of performing and undertaking such action, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. But if on the dissolution of the body, after death, he does not reappear in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell, but instead comes back to the human state, then wherever he is reborn he is short-lived. This is the way, student, that leads to short life, namely, one kills living beings and is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings." - MN 135

...

You are not the only person guilty of this, but i find it funny how everyone on this forum thinks thier reading of the suttas is the "unbiased" one. Literally every other interpretation is biased except thier own, hyperinflated ego and arrogance at its finest. You literally say womens rights caused most of the modern worlds problems (but not the benefits, as there were many, like most things in life its a trade off), and then say you are reading the suttas unbiasedly and everyone else is reading them biasedly.

I am not so egotistical that i think my reading of the suttas is completely unbiased, i am looking at it thru the lens of a modern man living in the West, which is why i defer to commentaries to get a more accurate reading and dont take the scriptures as infallible, either in thier accuracy as historical records or how i interpret them with my still unenlightened mind.

I am not even a feminist, i largely agree that men = women is ridiculous. men and women are different and modern feminists have gone off the deep end arguing there is no difference at all. But when people talk about equality they usually mean equal rights not the mathematical version of equal where men literally equals women and there are no differences at all.

Ok...it clearly says that the pure dhamma won't last long if women are allowed to ordain...how can you interpret it differently?

Also The Buddha refused both Gotami's and Ananda's request after 3 times initially as well...meaning He really didn't want women to join.

For a third time, Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī said to the Buddha:

“Sir, please let females gain the going forth from the lay life to homelessness in the teaching and training proclaimed by the Realized One.”

“Enough, Gotamī. Don’t advocate for females to gain the going forth from the lay life to homelessness in the teaching and training proclaimed by the Realized One.”
...
“Ānanda, if females had not gained the going forth from the lay life to homelessness in the teaching and training proclaimed by the Realized One, the spiritual life would have lasted long. The true teaching would have remained for a thousand years. But since they have gained the going forth, now the spiritual life will not last long. The true teaching will remain only five hundred years. - AN 8.51

It's pretty obvious from reading Theravada suttas that male and female as very different.

Based on modern biology male and female cannot be viewed as equal.

Some biologists think that biology will cause men and women to be viewed as more differently in the future.

Again, equality is not men = women

Well there's no point in debating about this anymore.

Based on Theravada suttas male and female are viewed as different, but sometimes a female can be superior to a male.

The main thing for the lay people is for both male and female to develop virtue and goodness to make achieving arahantship easier and for the welfare and happiness of the world.

Morality and virtue is still low worldwide.

[Enam]

Based on Theravada suttas male and female are viewed as different, but sometimes a female can be superior to a male.

Female is superior in natural family life. Male is superior in both asceticism & spreading the Dhamma. Ajahn Brahm still is raising funds for his bhikkhuni daughters & sisters. Its a team effort. Right view = there is mother & father.

[TRobinson465]

Well I do experiments and make observations...I don't try to support or oppose women.

This thread is supposed to be about the Theravada view of women rather than our own opinions.

Modern biology has proven big genetic differences between male and female and now recently also big non-genetic differences in how genes are expressed.

I hypothesize that in the future when mankind has regained it's virtue and goodness and mistreatment, violence against men and women disappear women will be viewed as more differently than now, but happier and healthier being different.

Just as I expected studies show what I said is true - https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... gap-grows/

When things are good men and women become naturally more different but happier....just what I thought.

If this thread is about the Theravada view of women, then dont make observations and your own conclusions like women's rights caused WWI, WWII, the great depression and most of the problems in modern society. I only brought that up because you brought that up. You cant just go around saying everything everyone says that isnt sutta based is thier own opinion and then say things like women caused most of the modern worlds problems based on your "experiments and observations". If you want the thread to be about the Theravada view of women practice what you preach and stop inserting your own opinions into things if u want others to do the same.

This means virtue and morality is still low for mankind in this modern era since the life expectancy hasn't changed much at all in thousands of years even with so much useless technology and useless advances in modern times.

the life expetancy hasnt changed much in the past few decades yes and yes it is related to human morality according to the suttas. I dont think its related to women's rights because its not like womens rights was the only thing that changed in the past 200 years. There were also many positive advancements- vaccines that eradicate diseases, less extreme poverty, social mobility, the end of torture as a form of punishment, the end of slavery. I dont think these positive things are related to womens rights either, they just kinda happened in tandem. The problem of course, is people becoming more hedonistic thanks to mass media glorifying fancy cars, jewelry, nightlife, alcohol/drugs, big houses, and gangsta culture combined with people turning away from sprituality in favor of a this one life is all that matters mindset. This has basically counteracted all the positive developments we have had in society in the modern era, probably even more so

For a third time, Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī said to the Buddha:

“Sir, please let females gain the going forth from the lay life to homelessness in the teaching and training proclaimed by the Realized One.”

“Enough, Gotamī. Don’t advocate for females to gain the going forth from the lay life to homelessness in the teaching and training proclaimed by the Realized One.”
...
“Ānanda, if females had not gained the going forth from the lay life to homelessness in the teaching and training proclaimed by the Realized One, the spiritual life would have lasted long. The true teaching would have remained for a thousand years. But since they have gained the going forth, now the spiritual life will not last long. The true teaching will remain only five hundred years. - AN 8.51]

Why do you keep quoting this? everybody on this forum knows about this already. Like i said, the Buddha said that "it is like a household of many women and few men, they are easy prey for bandits and thieves". that is the reason it was an issue, and the commentary explains he prevented the Sangha from becoming "like a household of many women and few men" which is easy prey for thieves by laying down the garudhammas. And just so you know, the Classical Theravada subforum rules literally say commentaries are considered authoritative here since they convey the Theravada interpretation of the suttas, so if you are posting this on classical theravada and asking for the theravada view, you are implying you want the understanding based on the commentaries. If you have an issue with this you are free to request the thread be moved elsewhere and ask for the Suttanta/EBT view or whatever rather than the Theravada view.

It's pretty obvious from reading Theravada suttas that male and female as very different.

For the millionth time, i agree with you men and women are different. Theravada suttas also make it clear men and women are different. The Buddha's statements on women 100% line up with exactly what you would expect from people back in 500 BCE India, and for someone who addresses primarily male monks who's single biggest distraction to enlightenment is women. Not that such people dont exist, but has anyone on this thread even once disagreed with the idea that male and female are different? You are implying that anyone who reads a sutta different than you is saying men and women are the same, nobody on this thread has said that, not even the woman on the thread said that. Male and female are different and should be treated as such. The issue here is you are saying because women got more rights then they did before that men and women became exactly the same and that somehow caused most of the modern world's problems. Women can have rights and be seen as different, and even if we got to the point where it was the norm to see women as exactly the same as men, this would not somehow cause WWIII, although i do agree it wouldnt be good for society if we just ignored the differences completely and pretend women are exactly the same as men.

[Eko Care]

According to Tipitaka and Atthakata, what has said about women (skipping many indirect sayings) is like below as I remember.
Here I'm not going to give exact wording and references, but I will do later, if others like.

Negative:
Women (Generally/ Considering Majority) have more Kilesas than men.

• Woman is irritable, hostile, very lustful, an adulteress and speaks divisively. {Sutta}

• Women have no Strength. (Less strong mind than men) {Sutta}

• Women can only go to Lower Brahma Realms out of each Triads.

• Women can't attain Cakkavatti, Sakka, Mara, Mahabrahma, Buddha positions. {Sutta}

• The power of women is anger {Sutta}

• A Bhikkhuni needs additional precepts and garudhammas. {Vinaya}

• A Bhikkhuni is not allowed to ordain as much students as a Bhikkhu. {Vinaya}

• Number of female arahants seem less than male arahants.

• All women do evil when they get the opportunity (excluding the women developed in Vipassana) {Jataka}

• For women falsehood is like truth and truth like falsehood. (Generally/ Considering Majority) {jataka}

• Women are ingrates and betrayers of friends. (Generally/ Considering Majority) {jataka}

• Women are like outcaste, theives and prostitutes. (Generally/ Considering Majority) {jataka}

• There are no cunning act that women don't know. (Generally/ Considering Majority) {jataka}

... many more I think.

Positive:
There is one higher quality in women. & There are higher qualities in some women.

• If father's Sila is not higher than the mother's, then the mother's qualities are higher than the father's.(only towards her children)

• Not always the man is wise. (There are minority times where the women is wise ) {Therigatha}

• Some women are higher than men. (some women are higher than some men) {Sutta}

• Some women can attain Maggaphalas. {Sutta}

...

viewtopic.php?p=720855#p720855

[Mumfie]

Negative:

• Women can't attain Cakkavatti, Sakka, Mara, Mahabrahma, Buddha positions. {Sutta}

This is a poor paraphrase. In the case of the first four, the suttas don't say whether or not a woman can "attain" (i.e., be reborn into) these states. What they say is that it's impossible that those occupying these states should be female.

By the way, shouldn't the impossibility of a female Māra be included in your list of positives?

• Number of female arahants seem less than male arahants.

And among the named arahants, the numbers of khattiyas and brahmanas seem to greatly exceed those of the other two castes and the outcastes. But what to make of this? It might mean that they were of superior ability, but not necessarily. It could just as well mean that the higher caste arahants came to play a more prominent role in the life of the sangha and so featured more often in the suttas. A similar explanation might also apply regarding the ratio of arahantas and arahantīs.

• All women do evil when they get the opportunity (excluding the women developed in Vipassana) {Jataka}

The treatment of the supposed wickedness of women in the Jātakas is hyperbolical in the extreme and most likely aimed at assuaging the passion of testosterone-crazed young monks. Taking them literally just leads to absurdity. For example:

As groves are made of wood, as streams in curves and windings flow,
So, give them opportunity, all women wrong will go.

Yea give them opportunity and secrecy withal,
And every single woman will from paths of virtue fall:
Thus will all women wantons prove, should time and place avail,
And e’en with humpback dwarf will sin, should other lovers fail.

Women that serve for man’s delight let everyone distrust,
Fickle in heart they ever are and unrestrained in lust.
Ladies of pleasure fitly called, the basest of the base,
To all then such as common are as any bathing place.

...

This much from tale of Kandari and Kinnara is shown;
All women fail to find delight in homes that are their own.
Thus does a wife forsake her lord, though lusty he and strong,
And will with any other man, e’en cripple vile, go wrong.

...

Like river, road, or drinking shed, assembly hall or inn,
So free to all are womenfolk, no limits check their sin.

Fell as black serpent’s head are they, as ravenous as a fire,
As kine the choicest herbage pick, they lovers rich desire.

From elephant, black serpent, and from flame that’s fed on ghee,
From man besprinkled to be king, and women we should flee.
All these whoso is on his guard will treat as deadly foe,
Indeed their very nature it is very hard to know.

...

Surely all womenfolk are vile, no limit bounds their shame,
Impassioned and audacious they, devouring as a flame.

https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/ja536

If categorical claims like these were literally true, then how could any woman ever have arrived at arahatta?

Moreover, the above verses aren't spoken by the Buddha, but by a misogynistic cuckoo. As such, they are mere puthujjana dhamma.

[Eko Care]

Negative:

• Women can't attain Cakkavatti, Sakka, Mara, Mahabrahma, Buddha positions. {Sutta}

This is a poor paraphrase. In the case of the first four, the suttas don't say whether or not a woman can "attain" (i.e., be reborn into) these states. What they say is that it's impossible that those occupying these states should be female.

Are you sure about the assumption that the previous birth of the above 5 can be either male or female?
Anyway, don't forget other paraphrases that you intentionally skipped.

By the way, shouldn't the impossibility of a female Māra be included in your list of positives?

Is an impossibility positive from a feminist point of view?

• Number of female arahants seem less than male arahants.

And among the named arahants, the numbers of khattiyas and brahmanas seem to greatly exceed those of the other two castes and the outcastes. But what to make of this? It might mean that they were of superior ability, but not necessarily. It could just as well mean that the higher caste arahants came to play a more prominent role in the life of the sangha and so featured more often in the suttas. A similar explanation might also apply regarding the ratio of arahantas and arahantīs.

Your choices indicate that the other points (that you skipped) are sound.

• All women do evil when they get the opportunity (excluding the women developed in Vipassana) {Jataka}

The treatment of the supposed wickedness of women in the Jātakas is hyperbolical in the extreme and most likely aimed at assuaging the passion of testosterone-crazed young monks. Taking them literally just leads to absurdity.

Is this challenging Classical Theravada inside Classical Theravada Sub Forum?

Surely all womenfolk are vile, no limit bounds their shame,
Impassioned and audacious they, devouring as a flame.
https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/ja536
..
Moreover, the above verses aren't spoken by the Buddha, but by a misogynistic cuckoo. As such, they are mere puthujjana dhamma.

May be you are running out of healthy mind here. It is a direct assault to Jatakas.

[Eko Care]

Do the commentaries ever elaborate why allowing females to ordain would shorten the lifespan of the true Dhamma?
...
I’m pretty sure classical Theravada considers the female state to be the result of kamma, it’s even pretty heavily implied in some jatakas. It’s only modern EBT and Buddhist feminists who deny this.
...
Being poor is the result of kamma. That does not mean we should treat poor people badly. The female state is the result of karma. This does not mean we should treat women badly. I have various innate health issues, which is likely the result of kamma I did in the past. I am not inferior to people who do not have these health issues.

The femininity is not like poverty and illness where the mind doesn’t affect much. Female birth is not just female body. Female bhavanga has a certain capacity that limits some higher levels of wisdom/concentration/virtue etc. (according to Classical Theravada)

According to the AN Ekakanipata Atthanapali commentary:

• A woman can’t fulfil Bodhisatta Parami while living as a woman, let alone the Buddhahood.

• A woman can’t get a birth in Mahabrahma realm by attaining the first jhana. They can only get birth in the lower Brahmaparisajja realm. (both for first jhana)

According to many Suttas, Jatakas and Atthakathas:

• A Woman has more kilesas than a man. (majority/generally)

This shows that there is a lack/ limit in female mind. ( a glass ceiling)

This can be understood by looking at the differences of minds of children/dvihetukas …etc who are also human beings with wisdom, but their wisdom have some juniority.

Yet according to classical theravada:

• Some women are greater than many men.

• Mother is higher than father.

• Jati is Manussa for both men and women.

• Some women can attain maggaphalas.

• Not always the man is wise.

As usual the classical theravada has a divided answer.

[Ceisiwr]

According to many Suttas, Jatakas and Atthakathas:
A Woman has more kilesas than a man. (majority/generally)

What suttas are those?

[TRobinson465]

Are you sure about the assumption that the previous birth of the above 5 can be either male or female?

Theres no reason to think this. You can make this argument about anything. Are you sure about the assumption that when the Buddha said women can attain arahantship just like men, that he didnt mean men and women are equally capable of arahantship? for instance

The only restriction i know of is Sammasambuddhas cannot be female and cannot be female for many births prior, as bodhisattas cannot be born female once they are predicted to become Buddhas by another Buddha. He was of course a female before he became a confirmed bosdhisatta as all of us have been female before as the Buddha literally says it is hard to find someone who has not been your mother in the past. All of us have been men, all of us have been women, all of us have been animals, all of us have been devas and pretas. (so treat every being well regardless of state because you have been in that state too and may in the future). Every being in existence has been to every realm and state of existence essentially at some point except for the pure abodes. There is no restriction i know of in the texts or commentaries that a women cannot be reborn as a sakka or brahma being in a future life or even directly in thier next life, they just wont be female when reborn into that state.

• All women do evil when they get the opportunity (excluding the women developed in Vipassana) {Jataka}

The treatment of the supposed wickedness of women in the Jātakas is hyperbolical in the extreme and most likely aimed at assuaging the passion of testosterone-crazed young monks. Taking them literally just leads to absurdity.

Is this challenging Classical Theravada inside Classical Theravada Sub Forum?

Surely all womenfolk are vile, no limit bounds their shame,
Impassioned and audacious they, devouring as a flame.
https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/ja536
..
Moreover, the above verses aren't spoken by the Buddha, but by a misogynistic cuckoo. As such, they are mere puthujjana dhamma.

May be you are running out of healthy mind here. It is a direct assault to Jatakas.

It is not actually. He is not challenging the veracity of the jatakas. He is right that the teachings of the unenlightened bodhisatta is not to be taken as flawless Dhamma like that of an enlightened Buddha. There are many Jatakas where the bodhisatta himself has flaws and should not be emulated, it is actually even the purpose of some jatakas to show that the bodhisatta had flaws prior to his final rebirth and enlightenment as a supreme Buddha.

The Bodhisatta as a hedonistic king.

On his father’s death, he inherited the kingdom, and he was very dainty in his eating; accordingly he earned the name of King Dainty. There was so much extravagance about his eating, that on one dish he spent an hundred thousand pieces. When he ate, he ate not within doors; but as he wished to confer merit upon many people by showing them the costly array of his meals, he caused a pavilion adorned with jewels to be set up at the door, and at the time of eating, he had this decorated, and there he sat upon a royal dais made all of gold, under a white parasol with princesses all around him, and ate the food of an hundred delicate flavours from a dish which cost an hundred thousand pieces of money.
...
When the Master had ended this discourse, he declared the Truths and identified the Birth—at the conclusion of the Truths the greedy Brother reached the Fruit of the Third Path, and many others entered the other Paths—“The greedy man is the same in both stories, and I was King Dainty.”
https://suttacentral.net/ja260/en/rouse ... ght=false

The bodhisatta as a lustful king.

On hearing this he said, “You have ruined me,” and early next morning ascending to the king’s house he stood at the door of the royal chamber and, hearing the king rambling about Ummadanti, he thought, “He has fallen in love with Ummadanti; if he does not get her, he will die: it is my duty to restore him to life, if it can be done without sin on the part of the king or myself.” So he went home and summoned a stout-hearted knave or a serving-man and said, “Friend, in such and such a place is a hollow tree that is a sacred shrine. Without saying a word to anyone, go there at sunset and seat yourself inside the tree. Then I shall come and make an offering there, and in worshipping the deities I shall put up this prayer; “O king of heaven, our king, while a festival was going on, without taking any part in it, has gone into his royal closet and lies there chattering idly; we do not know why he does so. The king has been a great benefactor of the gods and year by year has spent a thousand pieces of money in sacrifices. Tell us why the king talks thus foolishly and grant us the boon of the king’s life.” Thus will I pray and at this moment you are to remember to repeat these words, “O commander-in-chief, your king is not sick, but he is infatuated with your wife Ummadanti. If he shall get her, he will live; otherwise he will die. If you wish him to live, give up Ummadanti to him.” This is what you are to say.” And having thus schooled him he sent him away. So the servant went next day and seated himself inside the tree and when the general came to the place and put up his prayer, he repeated his lesson. The general said, “It is well,” and with an obeisance to the deity he went and told the king’s ministers, and entering the city he climbed up to the palace and knocked at the door of the royal closet. The king having recovered his senses asked who it was. “It is I, Ahiparaka, my lord.” Then he opened the king’s door and going in he saluted the king and repeated a stanza:

While kneeling at a sacred shrine, O king,
A yakkha came and told me a strange thing,
How Ummadanti had enslaved thy will:
Take her and so thy heart’s desire fulfil.

Then the king asked, “Friend Ahiparaka, do even the yakkhas know that I have been talking foolishly owing to my infatuation for Ummadanti?” “Yes, my lord,” he said. The king thought, “My vileness is known throughout the world,” and he felt ashamed.
...
When the king had thus been taught the law by his commander-in-chief Ahiparaka, he got rid of his infatuation for Ummadanti.

The Master, having ended his lesson, revealed the Truth, and identified the Birth. At the end of the Truths the Brother was established in the First Path. At that time Ananda was the charioteer Sunanda, Sariputta was Ahiparaka, Uppalavanna was Ummadanti, the followers of Buddha were the rest of the courtiers, and I myself was king Sivi.
https://suttacentral.net/ja527/en/franc ... ght=false

So he is right that we are not take the bodhisatta's word on women as authoritative back when he was a misogynistic cuckoo.

[dharmacorps]

This shows that there is a lack/ limit in female mind. ( a glass ceiling)

You must be female then? Welcome madame!

Besides glass ceilings, there are also rock bottoms.

[TRobinson465]

Why does the body of your post have nothing to do with the title?