Buddha said in the DN: A man serves his wife in five ways. Thus being served, a woman returns her love in five ways. Man is to support and serve. A woman's love should be conditional. Thus, a man has unconditional love and a woman conditional love. This is the optimal way of nature or dhamma. If one holds a woman serves and gives unconditionality, the world will be lost. A woman loves a man when he does right.Individual wrote:Can you cite suttas where the Buddha said that compassion was a "male" quality and neediness was a "female" quality?
Women can't become Buddhas?
Re: Women can't be enlightened?
Last edited by Element on Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Women can't be enlightened?
Renouncing is spiritual but not worldly or moral.retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
My take is that we need to renounce both masculinity and feminity.
The Buddha merely defines and differentiates them to provide clarity for us on what needs to be renounced.
Metta,
Retro.
Suttas are full of the Buddha differentiating male and female.
Better to understand one's true nature or purpose than to renounce.
Male and female are 'neutral'. There is nothing inherently in them to cause dukkha. Performing male or female role or duty is not dukkha.
Thus, there is not need to renounce or abandon.
Buddha did not teach non-duality is Nibbana.
- Ngawang Drolma.
- Posts: 805
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 pm
Re: Women can't be enlightened?
Hi Jason,Elohim wrote:Chris,
I thought it was obvious, but I disagree that a woman is incapable of being a Buddha.Chris wrote:Which particular things do you disagree with, and why? Not arguing, just interested.
Jason
I thought it's that women cannot become a teaching-buddha. Like a nirmakaya. I don't know what we call it in Theravadan. But this thread has left me with the impression that females are capable of becoming enlightened just as males are.
Best,
Drolma
Last edited by Ngawang Drolma. on Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Women can't be enlightened?
Hello Elohim, all,
Can you tell me , when you say this, what your meaning of the term 'buddha' is? Do you mean Arahant - as is the usage in Mahayana (still with afflictions) .... Or do you mean Sammasambuddha - the only one called a Buddha in Theravada - completely fully enlightened when the Teachings have died out? And, if you mean Sammasambuddha, are you not stating that the Buddha Gotama was wrong, or that someone deliberately altered the Suttas and the Arahants at the Councils, and later, didn't happen to notice?
metta
cooran
Can you tell me , when you say this, what your meaning of the term 'buddha' is? Do you mean Arahant - as is the usage in Mahayana (still with afflictions) .... Or do you mean Sammasambuddha - the only one called a Buddha in Theravada - completely fully enlightened when the Teachings have died out? And, if you mean Sammasambuddha, are you not stating that the Buddha Gotama was wrong, or that someone deliberately altered the Suttas and the Arahants at the Councils, and later, didn't happen to notice?
metta
cooran
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
-
- Posts: 1970
- Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am
Re: Women can't be enlightened?
That doesn't seem to be relevant to my question, so I guess the answer is no. All love is conditional, except the love of Arahants and Buddhas.Element wrote:Buddha said in the DN: A man serves his wife in five ways. Thus being served, a woman returns her love in five ways. Man is to support and serve. A woman's love should be conditional. Thus, a man has unconditional love and a woman conditional love. This is the optimal way of nature or dhamma. If one holds a woman serves and gives unconditionality, the world will be lost. A woman loves a man when he does right.Individual wrote:Can you cite suttas where the Buddha said that compassion was a "male" quality and neediness was a "female" quality?
Re: Women can't be enlightened?
Chris,
Jason
Although it should be obvious, my usage of the term Buddha is in reference to a samma-sambuddha. As for what I am stating, I am stating that I disagree with Theravada doctrine that women are incapable of becoming Buddhas. One reason I disagree with Theravada on this point is that I have yet to see a compelling explanation why. Another reason is that I am open to all the available evidence, and I agree with Prof. Gombrich that such passages are suspect and probably date after the Buddha's lifetime.Chris wrote:Can you tell me , when you say this, what your meaning of the term 'buddha' is? Do you mean Arahant - as is the usage in Mahayana (still with afflictions) .... Or do you mean Sammasambuddha - the only one called a Buddha in Theravada - completely fully enlightened when the Teachings have died out? And, if you mean Sammasambuddha, are you not stating that the Buddha Gotama was wrong, or that someone deliberately altered the Suttas and the Arahants at the Councils, and later, didn't happen to notice?
Jason
"Sabbe dhamma nalam abhinivesaya" (AN 7.58).
leaves in the hand (Buddhist-related blog)
leaves in the forest (non-Buddhist related blog)
leaves in the hand (Buddhist-related blog)
leaves in the forest (non-Buddhist related blog)
Re: Women can't be enlightened?
Drolma,
Jason
Yes, women are capable of becoming enlightened. This is not in dispute. (The term "arahant" in Theravada refers to anyone who has achieved enlightenment.) What is in dispute is whether women can become samma-sambuddhas (link).Drolma wrote:I thought it's that women cannot become a teaching-buddha. Like a nirmakaya. I don't know what we call it in Theravadan. But this thread has left me with the impression that females are capable of becoming enlightened just as males are.
Jason
"Sabbe dhamma nalam abhinivesaya" (AN 7.58).
leaves in the hand (Buddhist-related blog)
leaves in the forest (non-Buddhist related blog)
leaves in the hand (Buddhist-related blog)
leaves in the forest (non-Buddhist related blog)
- Ngawang Drolma.
- Posts: 805
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 pm
Re: Women can't be enlightened?
Oh I see. I will respectfully bow out nowElohim wrote:Drolma,
Yes, women are capable of becoming enlightened. This is not in dispute. (The term "arahant" in Theravada refers to anyone who has achieved enlightenment.) What is in dispute is whether women can become samma-sambuddhas (link).Drolma wrote:I thought it's that women cannot become a teaching-buddha. Like a nirmakaya. I don't know what we call it in Theravadan. But this thread has left me with the impression that females are capable of becoming enlightened just as males are.
Jason
Re: Women can't be enlightened?
Thanks Elohim for clarifying. Though, as Gombrich is an academic and not a buddhist, I much prefer the understanding of the Arahants of old, and the teachings handed down in the Traditions over the last two and a half millenia.Elohim wrote:Chris,
Although it should be obvious, my usage of the term Buddha is in reference to a samma-sambuddha. As for what I am stating, I am stating that I disagree with Theravada doctrine that women are incapable of becoming Buddhas. One reason I disagree with Theravada on this point is that I have yet to see a compelling explanation why. Another reason is that I am open to all the available evidence, and I agree with Prof. Gombrich that such passages are suspect and probably date after the Buddha's lifetime.Chris wrote:Can you tell me , when you say this, what your meaning of the term 'buddha' is? Do you mean Arahant - as is the usage in Mahayana (still with afflictions) .... Or do you mean Sammasambuddha - the only one called a Buddha in Theravada - completely fully enlightened when the Teachings have died out? And, if you mean Sammasambuddha, are you not stating that the Buddha Gotama was wrong, or that someone deliberately altered the Suttas and the Arahants at the Councils, and later, didn't happen to notice?
Jason
metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
Re: Women can't be enlightened?
I am sure you do, Chris, as I once did. My problem with this kind of reasoning, however, is that there is no guarantee that those "arahants of old" were all arahants, or if everything that has been handed down to us is 100% kosher.Chris wrote:Thanks Elohim for clarifying. Though, as Gombrich is an academic and not a buddhist, I much prefer the understanding of the Arahants of old, and the teachings handed down in the Traditions over the last two and a half millenia.
"Sabbe dhamma nalam abhinivesaya" (AN 7.58).
leaves in the hand (Buddhist-related blog)
leaves in the forest (non-Buddhist related blog)
leaves in the hand (Buddhist-related blog)
leaves in the forest (non-Buddhist related blog)
Re: Women can't be enlightened?
I'd like interject with a few remarks (btw, what I'm about say is not targeted at you per se, Chris, but at a general tendency that I've observed).Chris wrote: Though, as Gombrich is an academic and not a buddhist, I much prefer the understanding of the Arahants of old, and the teachings handed down in the Traditions over the last two and a half millenia.
This notion that the views of commentators outside the Buddhist tradition (i.e. those speaking from the secular academe like Gombrich, for instance) are by default less relevant or less instructive in matters of the dhamma is, in my view, terribly disingenuous. I say this for several reasons:
1.) This stance of anti-(secular)intellectualism belies the fact that what we understand of the dhamma today was made possible and continues to be influenced by the work of Buddhist scholars of the 19th century. These forefathers of 'Western Buddhism' were driven by the post-Enlightenment secular ethos, and they employed the rigorous methodologies of the secular academe to uncover what they felt was a more 'authentic' version of Buddhism, a Buddhism that is universalist, rationalist and pragmatic. Theravada teachings appealed to many of them as, through their secular academic lenses, they were deemed to be closest to the original teachings of the Buddha. Are the values of universality, rationalism and pragmatism not the same ones that are celebrated today about the dhamma? Do we not invoke the same values of critical inquiry when we discuss the dhamma?
2.) Rejecting the views of secular commentators on the basis that there are merely 'academic' and not 'applied' or 'practical' belies the fact that within Buddhist traditions themselves there is a high degree of scholasticism. And I'm not talking about Tibetan traditions here. We could assume that one reason Theravada has survived for so long is because of the work of countless scholar-monks who have maintained the canon for a good two millennia, translating and espousing the dhamma to new audiences generation after generation. The suttas and commentaries we have today would not have been possible without continued scholarly work, the kind that requires an analytical rigor not unlike what is demanded of secular academics. In light of this, can we justifiably dismiss the scholarship of secular academics as less meaningful? When we debate about the dhamma, do we not cite from texts, make reference to this argument or that--as secular academics do? When the views of secular academics are dismissed simply because they are 'academic' what is really the issue: is it because rigorous scholarship has no place in Buddhism (evidently not) or is it because such 'merely-academic' views raise questions that are uncomfortable to tradition? Should Buddhism shy away from such questions simply because they are uncomfortable?
3.) The reason Buddhism has survived for so long is because it has been able to adapt to (whilst also transforming) the existing worldviews of the societies it migrated into. This requires conversation and a willingness to listen. In a contemporary secular world--an interconnected world where the secular academe plays an integral (although not a sole) role in providing the knowledge base for society--how is Buddhism to maintain its vitality if it sees the views of those outside the tradition as less trustworthy? Is Buddhism really listening when it dismisses such views as merely 'academic' and of little relevance to its emancipatory and ethical endeavours?
To make this post relevant to the thread I would suggest that Buddhist views about women/men ought to take into consideration secular academic views about women/men. The latter has approached the subject in ways that Buddhism hadn't been able to in traditional societies, and also allowed for new ways of being amongst women/men that wasn't possible (or needed) in traditional societies. This is perhaps a rather banal point. But nevertheless, what I find instructive about secular academic views is the way they reveal how individuals and societies have a great deal of unrecognised craving and attachment to notions of women/men that are not strictly 'natural' or 'inevitable' but which have more accurately congealed over time to appear as self-evident truths. So, if liberation involves seeing how we crave and are attached to certain notions of self (and what more powerful sense of self is there if not woman/man), is it not worth our while to consider such secular academic views in our pursuit of the path? To be true to the FNT, why shouldn't we entertain the possibility that our understanding of the dhamma may be coloured by this attachment to notions of women/men, an attachment which may very well foreclose the truly emancipatory possibilities of the dhamma--or worse, unwittingly turn the dhamma into an impenetrable shining fortress?
Best wishes,
Zavk
PS: I do not pretend that I'm speaking from a neutral position for I am indeed pursuing a career in the academe. However, what I've written above can be considered by most of us, for it seems to me that many here have been educated one way or another in the secular academe and through such prior education is engaging with the dhamma in ways that weren't possible for the laity in traditional Buddhist societies.
With metta,
zavk
zavk
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Women can't be enlightened?
Zavk,
Well said. Thanks.
Tilt
Well said. Thanks.
Tilt
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: Women can't be enlightened?
I sense we have now changed subjects from the question, "Can a woman become a samma-sambuddha?" to the question, "Are commentators outside the Buddhist tradition as relevant and instructive as those from within it?"
Maybe a new split thread is in order?
Maybe a new split thread is in order?
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27839
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Women can't be enlightened?
Greetings Jechbi,
Good thinking.... I'll leave that post there, but I'll copy and paste the content into a new thread and anyone wishing to discuss the points of view further can do so there.
Done: Here it is....
Commentators/academics from outside the Buddhist tradition
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=466" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Metta,
Retro.
Good thinking.... I'll leave that post there, but I'll copy and paste the content into a new thread and anyone wishing to discuss the points of view further can do so there.
Done: Here it is....
Commentators/academics from outside the Buddhist tradition
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=466" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Women can't be enlightened?
Hello Zavk, all,
Sorry, I forgot I was in the "Modern" Theravada folder.
karuna,
Chris
Sorry, I forgot I was in the "Modern" Theravada folder.
karuna,
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---