Is Buddhism is a very patriarchal religion ???

[Sam Vara]

Can the Buddha be a woman?

In this age or any other?

If not, why not?

DooDoot's question was asking us to concentrate upon the household life, so those questions are not really relevant to my response. They are also well above my pay-grade. I think I've read in the suttas that a woman cannot be a Samma Sam-Buddha, but what the status of that claim is, or why it should be so, I've no idea.

Regarding the bit about my wife - the little emoticon showed, I hope, that it was a joke. She is, though, a priest, so does know quite a lot about patriarchal attitudes within her corner of Christianity. As DooDoot said, certain types of Christianity seem to be almost a template for patriarchal religiosity.

[DooDoot]

Why would handing something to someone imply anything other than complete control of the one who hands it?

This seems like a valid & interesting question to me. However, I think it also should be asked why authority is handed over? For example, if my 4 year old child can't drive a car, do I give authority to my 4 year old to drive my car?

Also, can the Buddha be a woman? If not, why then?

I imagine because a Buddha must establish the Buddha-Dhamma (religion) in a materially developed world. A materially developed world will be militaristic thus having male political power structures. A Buddha I imagine must have the social authority to operate in a militarist world, as we can read in the suttas, where the Buddha had relationships with all of the local kings.

Note: It is said some Buddhas were unable to establish a religion; thus they were silent Buddhas.

I think I already mentioned the Christian imputing of a Male God upon its devotees is not relevant. I think, ultimately, the Patriarchal nature of Christianity (where women were often forbidden to own property, vote or run a business) lead to its demise; given it was the flaws of Christianity itself that allowed the Cultural Marxists to destroy it.

[Manopubbangama]

Can the Buddha be a woman?

In this age or any other?

If not, why not?

DooDoot's question was asking us to concentrate upon the household life, so those questions are not really relevant to my response. They are also well above my pay-grade. I think I've read in the suttas that a woman cannot be a Samma Sam-Buddha, but what the status of that claim is, or why it should be so, I've no idea.

Regarding the bit about my wife - the little emoticon showed, I hope, that it was a joke. She is, though, a priest, so does know quite a lot about patriarchal attitudes within her corner of Christianity. As DooDoot said, certain types of Christianity seem to be almost a template for patriarchal religiosity.

I see, so your wife wasn't quoting a sutta... as stated here:

Sam Vara's wife appeared to be commenting on a sutta.

It was a joke....

Well, the title of the thread is Is Buddhism is a very patriarchal religion ???

Should it perhaps be changed to "Is Buddhism a very Patriarchal religion *in household life ???" to reflect this new direction we are apparently going in?

[Manopubbangama]

I imagine because a Buddha must establish the Buddha-Dhamma (religion) in a materially developed world. A materially developed world will be militarist thus having male political power structures. A Buddha I imagine must have the social authority to operate in a militarist world, has we can read in the suttas, where the Buddha had relationships with all of the local kings.

So the Buddha is patriarchal to appeal to the male dominated political power structure?

Is the political power structure male dominated in every eternal age that the Buddha appears in?

[DooDoot]

Is the political power structure male dominated in every eternal age that the Buddha appears in?

Personally, I don't believe there were any past Buddhas. Many scholars agree the DN is often largely mythology. The fact the DN says all past Buddhas arose in India, which similar technology to 500 BC (such as chariots) seems to indicate the idea of past Buddhas is questionable.

So the Buddha is patriarchal to appeal to the male dominated political power structure?

I didn't say "appeal". I said to be able to gain authority; to have credibility in "the world" of violent, militaristic, evil men. Again, you seem to be mixing up "The Buddha" with "The World". The Hebrews believed "God" created "The World". But Buddhism is not a religion of Creationism thus the Buddha is not the world or its God or Father or Patriarch.

[Manopubbangama]

Personally, I don't believe there were any past Buddhas. Many scholars agree the DN is often largely mythology. The fact the DN says all past Buddhas were in India, which similarly technology to 2,500 BC (such as chariots) seems to indicate the idea of past Buddhas is questionable.

So why do we need to quote sutta if we can appeal to our own intuition by claiming suttas are irrelevant then?

What are the rules of the discussion, exactly, that I have been called into here?

I didn't say "appeal". I said to be able to gain authority; to have credibility in "the world" of violent, militaristic, evil men.

So the Buddha spent 45 years preaching against Brahmins, Jains and other non-Buddhists but had to hide an androgenous omni-sexual identity to appeal to violent, militariistic men (ksatriyas), the varna he was born into?

[Sam Vara]

I see, so your wife wasn't quoting a sutta...

No, she's asleep, actually. You see, the joke was about me talking about patriarchy within Buddhism, and as a practising Buddhist pretending that I had to ask my wife, which would be a sort of admission of... Oh, never mind!

Well, the title of the thread is Is Buddhism is a very patriarchal religion ???

Yes, and my answer is "I don't think so".

Should it perhaps be changed to "Is Buddhism a very Patriarchal religion *in household life ???" to reflect this new direction we are apparently going in?

It's not really a new direction, as the household life bit is right there in the OP. But I guess if people want to talk about householders, metaphysics, sexuality, monasticism, soteriology, or whatever, then it's up to them. If DooDoot wants me to change the title of the thread, I can do so; but he hasn't asked.

[DooDoot]

So why do we need to quote sutta if we can appeal to our own intuition by claiming suttas are irrelevant then?

Valid question. I was merely suggesting the structure of society we don't know way back in the past, where there are no records. Thus, it seems pointless discussing the mythological past Buddhas.

So the Buddha spent 45 years preaching against Brahmins, Jains and other non-Buddhists

The suttas say the Buddha was not the enemy of the Brahmans. Again, you seem to be imputing the idea of Jesus of Nazareth onto the Buddha; of when Jesus (a Jew) turned over the tables of the money changers in the Jewish temple and spent three years provoking the Jewish Rabbis in Judah until he was crucified for his trouble making. It appears the Buddha was not a trouble maker and did not activity engage in destroying or reforming other religions.

but had to hide an androgenous omni-sexual identity to appeal to violent, militariistic men (ksatriyas), the varna he was born into?

Are you aware of SN 5.2?

Then the bhikkhuni Soma, having understood, "This is Mara the Evil One," replied to him in verses:

What does womanhood matter at all
When the mind is concentrated well,
When knowledge flows on steadily
As one sees correctly into Dhamma.

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.

Then Mara the Evil One, realizing, "The bhikkhuni Soma knows me," sad and disappointed, disappeared right there.

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

Obviously, any "masculinity" or "maleness" of the Buddha was merely "outer form" or "convention".

[Manopubbangama]

[/quote]

. If DooDoot wants me to change the title of the thread, I can do so

Well feel free to, my good sir. Its been highly entertaining as always and I look forward to finding out what direction we will take next, when I wake up next morning.

In the meanwhile, I admit, I'd like to know why I'm supposed to only quote suttas but when I do, it can be arbitrarily negated as "illigitimate."

Do I get to negate any sutta that doesn't fit my political opinions as 'illigitimate?'

What are we basing this meandering discussion on anyway?

Thanks for your hard work, Sam.

the Buddha was not a trouble maker and did not activity engage in destroying or reforming other religions.

No, doodoot, not at all.

Not even in the least bit.

[DooDoot]

In the meanwhile, I admit, I'd like to know why I'm supposed to only quote suttas but when I do, it can be arbitrarily negated as "illigitimate."

The above does not seem to matter since I do not recall you quoting any suttas; plus my only objection was about speculations about what type of societies past Buddhas (from 40,000 BC) live in. OK, so lets post more suttas:

Householders, there are these four ways of living together. What four? A wretch lives together with a wretch; a wretch lives together with a female deva; a deva lives together with a wretch; a deva lives together with a female deva.

https://suttacentral.net/an4.53/en/bodhi

Householders, if both husband and wife wish to see one another not only in this present life but also in future lives, they should have the same faith, the same virtuous behavior, the same generosity, and the same wisdom. Then they will see one another not only in this present life but also in future lives.

https://suttacentral.net/an4.55/en/bodhi

The above appear to refer to men & women with both equal & unequal spiritual qualities. In other words, AN 4.53 does not appear to say when a wife is immoral the husband can physically beat her (as, for example, appears to be written in the Islamic Koran).

In summary, the suttas appear to say:

1. There can be murderous, gold-digging & domineering wives.

2. A woman's ideal is domination.

3. A woman does not want to share a husband with another woman.

4. Husband is to give wife authority in the home.

5. A (doomed) marriage may include an immoral wife.

6. A (doomed) marriage may include an immoral husband.

The husband is immoral,
miserly and abusive,
but his wife is virtuous,
charitable, generous.
She is a female deva living
with a wretched husband.

AN 4.53

Since AN 4.53 says a wife can be morally superior to a husband, Buddhism does not appear to be "patriarchal".

No, doodoot, not at all.

Not even in the least bit.

Kindly offer sutta evidence that shows the Buddha was a trouble maker and overtly proactively acted to change other religions; where, similar to Jesus of Nazareth, the Buddha approached other religions, uninvited, and caused trouble? Thanks

The ascetic Gotama... has this good reputation...

He teaches the efficacy of deeds and action. He doesn’t wish any harm upon the community of brahmins. …

Samaṇo khalu, bho, gotamo kammavādī kiriyavādī apāpapurekkhāro brahmaññāya pajāya … pe

https://suttacentral.net/mn95/en/sujato

[DooDoot]

Regarding family, my family is very patriarchal. My wife and children respect my decisions, as head of the household and understand that it is in their best interest. Buddhism is a very patriarchal religion.

To erase doubts about the Buddhist nature of the above ideas, let us consider suttas where enlightened wives and ex-wives provided Dhamma teachings and instructions to their unenlightened &/or floundering husbands:

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....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.

The Blessed One said to him... It is your gain, your great gain, householder, that you have Nakula's mother [your wife] — sympathetic & wishing for your welfare — as your counselor & instructor.

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

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels' Sanctuary. Then Visakha the lay follower [and ex-hushand] went to Dhammadinna the nun and, on arrival, having bowed down to her, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to her, "'Self-identification, self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which self-identification is described by the Blessed One?"

There are these five clinging-aggregates, friend Visakha: form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. These five clinging-aggregates are the self-identification described by the Blessed One....

When this was said, the Blessed One said to him, "Dhammadinna the nun is wise, Visakha, a woman of great discernment. If you had asked me those things, I would have answered you in the same way she did. That is the meaning of those things. That is how you should remember it."

That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Visakha the lay follower delighted in the Blessed One's words.

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

Both of the suttas above, particularly AN 6.16, appear to negate the Christian idea that a husband is always the Lord of his wife.

I am only aware of one sutta that infers total male domination of a wife and, at least to me, that sutta implies physical violence, intimidation or social coercion ( given it says the power of ethics won't avail the wife):

“Mendicants, when a man has one power he has a female under his mastery.

“Ekena ca kho, bhikkhave, balena samannāgato puriso mātugāmaṃ abhibhuyya vattati.

What one power?

Katamena ekena balena?

The power of sovereignty. Mastered by this, a female’s powers of attractiveness, wealth, relatives, children, and ethical behavior do not avail her.

Issariyabalena abhibhūtaṃ mātugāmaṃ neva rūpabalaṃ tāyati, na bhogabalaṃ tāyati, na ñātibalaṃ tāyati, na puttabalaṃ tāyati, na sīlabalaṃ tāyatī”ti.

https://suttacentral.net/sn37.28/en/sujato

Note: the word used here is "Issariya", which I recall is the Indian equivalent (issara) of the Hebrew Creator God called Yahweh or Jehovah.

[santa100]

You think the fact that the Buddha is always a man and never a women, never ever ever has nothing to do with the fact that Buddhism is a patriarchal religion?

Actually that's accurate. You'll need to provide a lot more rigorous proof and/or sutta references in order to prove a direct causal link between the 2 statements above. The reason it'd take a man to become a Buddha could be a lot more simple than we thought. Remember the period when someone was about to rediscover a long lost Path and become a Buddha, gotta be a very brutal period, a time when the Dhamma had completely died out. And the many stories in the suttas about that period 2,500 years ago indeed proved it: punishments for thieves and robbers would be having eyes plucked out, noses and ears chopped off for committing their crimes, war prisoners bodies would be impaled or pierced with hundreds of sharp spears. The savagery extended all the way up to the highest stratum where it was normal business for sons to kill their fathers to usurp their thrones. Keeping those ethical/social/political/environmental factors in mind, maybe the reason it'd take men to become Buddhas during such periods was due to simple mathematics, that the odds for success was much much higher if it was a he instead of a she.

[Manopubbangama]

Asking again: what is the criteria (in this thread) for validity of sutta?

Its a very protean standard of 'evidence' going around that changes shape quicker than the T1000 in "Terminator 2."

Please tell me which suttanta material is "valid" ? Who is the authority on it? Sujato perhaps?

Also, despite the obvious fact that Buddhist household life is considered patriarchal, I think its also obvious from this thread that monastery life is strictly patriarchal and even the universe is patriarchal.




I see quite a bit of material in the suttas that feminist, womynnist theologians would not really care for, no?

Regarding the irrelevant foray into the Jesus material, Jesus taught us that God is love, and that man should love his wife as his own flesh.

Very more benevolent than the Mohammad god who teaches polygomy and wife-beating among many, many other departures from "normative behavior."

Moderator note: ad hominem material removed.

[DooDoot]

...

Thanks ManoPG but I am satisfied the suttas support the view Buddhism is not patriarchal. The outcome here appears conclusive, particularly AN 6.16, where the Lord Buddha said the wife of Nakulapita was the counsellor & instructor of her husband (Nakulapita). If you seek an alternate view, I suggest this chat site. I consider my posts here to be of a very high quality in terms of textual research. If you are not happy & grateful for the offerings at Dhammawheel, as I suggested, there are other forums. At least personally for myself. I expect I high respect for sutta & truth; that dhamma discussion occur with integrity & objectivity. I am not interested in trivial worldly argumentative ideas. I recall when you arrived at this forum, how we generously answered your questions; similar to this thread; offering our years of study & research. Kind regards. Best wishes.

Regarding the irrelevant foray into the Jesus material, Jesus taught us that God is love, and that man should love his wife as his own flesh.

Where exactly did Jesus teach this? Please provide a quote or source. Thank you. Regardless, if this was true, how does it relate to patriarchy or non-patriarchy?

[JamesTheGiant]

Let's keep this on topic to Buddhism only please, not Christianity.

__________________

Maybe in the past Buddhism was patriarchal or matriarchal or neither...

But it cannot be denied that Buddhism today is profoundly patriarchal.
Men control almost every aspect of Buddhism today in every tradition across the planet....with the exception perhaps of the American secular meditation movement such as Spirit Rock, and Barre.

Men make-up 99% of monastics. (Picking that number out of the air, but it seems reasonable)
Men head every Buddhist authority in the world. For example the Thai supreme sangha, and the equivalents in Tibetan Buddhism, Japanese Zen, Chinese Chan, and on and on.
If you look for Buddhist talks on YouTube there are endless talks by monks and male teachers, and very few by females.
It's all men men men.
There are a few women but their scarcity proves the rule.

I don't mind that because I'm a man, so it suits me just fine, but all I'm saying is it's very patriarchal NOW.