Society was once female dominated. This is theorised by the multitude of ancient Goddesses. However, the female dominated societies gave birth to the accumulation of wealth and the need for men to protect it. When this militarism occurred, men began dominating society.Drolma wrote:I don't see why we have to tiptoe around the fact that most cultures on earth today are male-dominated.
well considering the next Buddha will be after the teachings have vanished from the world, so listening and understanding one is not a prerequisite for listening and understanding the next.Element wrote:Dhamma is always the same. The last Buddha is always with us in the suttas. If one does not listen and understand the last Buddha, one will not listen and understand the next one.Manapa wrote:If that is the case I think what ever form the next Buddha will take will be the form most easily listened to, and understood.
I don’t know if this is ever spelt out in the texts, but I doubt it, for the abhidhammikas’ priority is to describe the dhammas themselves, rather than their conventional consequences. I would suggest, however, that the sexual differences produced by the gender-controlling faculties are indeed of a sort that tend to make a male body something more to be wished for than a female one, all other things being equal. If one considers those features of men's and women's bodies that are differentiated by the gender-controlling faculties, it seems that in every case the male features are stronger, less susceptible to injury, and more versatile for nearly every end save that of attracting mates and child-rearing.Elohim wrote:Even taken in context, though, it still seems like it is saying roughly the same thing, i.e., that the conventionally observable marks of the male sex are produced from superior kamma while the conventionally observable marks of the female sex are produced from inferior kamma. It begs to question why "male" characteristics such as beards, moustaches, etc. are produced from superior kamma while "female" characteristics such as breast, round hips, etc. are produced from inferior kamma. I would appreciate it if you could explain the meaning of this passage in more detail when you have the time.
Hello Venerable DhammanandoDhammanando wrote: If one considers those features of men's and women's bodies that are differentiated by the gender-controlling faculties, it seems that in every case the male features are stronger, less susceptible to injury, and more versatile for nearly every end save that of attracting mates and child-rearing.
I didn't miss it. It just isn't relevant to the question that Jason was raising. The fact that women's bodies are weaker and more easily injured than those of men lends support to the abhidhammikas' claim that the femininity rūpadhammas are generated by past akusala kamma and masculinity rūpadhammas by past kusala kammas. The fact that women have the canniness to make the best of a bad lot doesn't negate this. A one-legged beggar, by eliciting more sympathy from passers-by, might well make a better living than a two-legged beggar; nonetheless, it remains the case that two-leggedness is the more desirable state.thecap wrote:In the process you describe though, you seem to have missed one important fact.
Women can and do well pretend to be weaker than they are in order to attract mates, for this is what usually pleases the male ego.
This may be the case, but it goes beyond the issue that my reply to Jason was addressing, which was male and female physical features considered in themselves.Then still remains the question, to what extent is this portrayed female weakness an over-simplification and a self-fulfilling prophecy?
At least, from personal observation, even though females usually have weaker body features, as you say, they are also more persistent than males.
I do not think it has been discussed in this thread, but that topic has been raised here.Will wrote:I did not read the entire thread very closely, so pardon if this point was already raised.
Gotama Buddha was not eager to have a bhikkuni order. He even said it would shorten or weaken his Dhamma (something like that). Perhaps it was only the quality of women in his time, perhaps not.
I suspect the answer is that the entire "Discourse on Many Elements," when read in context, appears to an encouragement to understand things in a manner similar to the way they are presented in the Abhidhamma (although I realize that came later). Ven. Dhammanando seems to be hinting at something along these lines, tho I might have misunderstood him. Remember that the discourse was given to monks, not lay people.Elohim wrote:That is a good question, piotr.
I would go even further and say that being born a man in a male-dominated society is the product of better karma than being born a woman in a male-dominated society. Just as being born rich is from better karma than being born poor. Note that just as this doesn't make a rich man superior to a poor man, it doesn't make a man superior to a woman.Dhammanando wrote:I would suggest, however, that the sexual differences produced by the gender-controlling faculties are indeed of a sort that tend to make a male body something more to be wished for than a female one, all other things being equal. If one considers those features of men's and women's bodies that are differentiated by the gender-controlling faculties, it seems that in every case the male features are stronger, less susceptible to injury, and more versatile for nearly every end save that of attracting mates and child-rearing.
I do not know, but keep in mind it was a] beneficial to the people the Buddha said it to, b] probably beneficial to certain types of people today, and c] probably not beneficial to certain other types of people today.piotr wrote:what is beneficial and conducive to the practice in this statement?
In the Mahāsīhanāda Sutta (MN. 12) the first of the ten Tathāgata powers is called "knowledge of the possible and the impossible" (ṭhānaṭṭhāna-ñāṇa):piotr wrote:then what is beneficial and conducive to the practice in this statement?
