Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Sunset wrote:

yuttadhammo wrote:I was referring to suttas like the Sammaditthi Sutta.

Dear Venerable Yuttadhammo.

Off topic but why the Sammaditthi Sutta? I have never noticed any conflict there.

What about the Satipatthana Sutta and its incoherent listing of various disconnected and random ordered meditation teachings? For example, how could contemplation of the five hindrances occur in the fourth Satipatthana, at the end? This would indicate no concentration has been developed.

Warm regards

Sunset wrote:

yuttadhammo wrote:I was referring to suttas like the Sammaditthi Sutta.

Dear Venerable Yuttadhammo.

Off topic but why the Sammaditthi Sutta? I have never noticed any conflict there.

What about the Satipatthana Sutta and its incoherent listing of various disconnected and random ordered meditation teachings? For example, how could contemplation of the five hindrances occur in the fourth Satipatthana, at the end? This would indicate no concentration has been developed.

I was referring to the fact that the Sammaditthi Sutta was spoken by Sariputta.

Maha Kaccana is wise, monks. He is a person of great discernment. If you had asked me about this matter, I too would have answered in the same way he did. That is the meaning of this statement. That is how you should remember it.

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.

Of course this is not proper meditation practice, since the hindrances will have to be dealt with in the very beginning of one's practice.

If you are truly interested in the relationship between the five hindrances and the practice of satipatthana, I recommend the lengthy debate between a Mahasi Sayadaw teacher and a Sri Lankan teacher.

On returning from his almsround, after his meal he sits down, folding his legs crosswise, setting his body erect, and establishing mindfulness before him. Abandoning covetousness for the world he abides with a mind free from covetousness; he purifies his mind from covetousness. Abandoning ill-will and hatred, he abides with a mind free from ill-will, compassionate for the welfare of all living beings; he purifies his mind from ill-will and hatred. Abandoning sloth and torpor, he abides free from sloth and torpor, percipient of light, mindful and fully aware; he purifies his mind from sloth and torpor. Abandoning restlessness and remorse, he abides unagitated with a mind inwardly peaceful; he purifies his mind from restlessness and remorse. Abandoning doubt, he abides having gone beyond doubt, unperplexed about wholesome states; he purifies his mind of doubt.

“Having thus abandoned these five hindrances, imperfections of the mind that weaken wisdom, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, he enters upon and abides in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by thinking and examining thought, with joy and happiness born of seclusion. With the stilling of thinking and examining thought, he enters and abides in the second jhāna which has self-confidence and stillness of mind without thinking and examining thought, with joy and happiness born of collectedness. With the fading away as well of joy a bhikkhu abides in equanimity, and mindful and fully aware, still feeling pleasure with the body, he enters and abides in the third jhāna, on account of which noble ones announce: ‘He has a pleasant abiding who has equanimity and is mindful.' With the abandoning of pleasure and pain, and with the previous disappearance of joy and grief, a bhikkhu enters and abides in the fourth jhāna, which has neither -pain-nor-pleasure and purity of mindfulness due to equanimity.

Sunset wrote:

I was referring to the fact that the Sammaditthi Sutta was spoken by Sariputta.

Bhikkhu Yuttadhammo

I must certainly disagree with you strongly. The Buddha advised in the Ekapuggala Sutta in the AN 1s that if there is one person who can follow up the Dhamma declared by him, it is the Venerable Sariputta. Suttas such as MN 9, MN 18, MN 44 (spoken by Dhammadinna) and MN 141 are Buddhavacca because they are consistent with what the Buddha spoke. As concluded in MN 18 and MN 44:

Maha Kaccana is wise, monks. He is a person of great discernment. If you had asked me about this matter, I too would have answered in the same way he did. That is the meaning of this statement. That is how you should remember it.

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.

yuttadhammo wrote:That's really a sad argument for the non-authenticity of the text... the four satipatthana are in no way a chronologically ordered list of meditation practices

Manapa wrote:...but the clue is in the name to start, SATIpatthana, and indicates no concentration has been developed???

This is how mindfulness of in-&-out breathing is developed & pursued so as to bring the four frames of reference to their culmination.

This is how the four frames of reference are developed & pursued so as to bring the seven factors for awakening to their culmination.

This is how the seven factors for awakening are developed & pursued so as to bring clear knowing & release to their culmination.

Sunset wrote:

Manapa wrote:...but the clue is in the name to start, SATIpatthana, and indicates no concentration has been developed???

Manapa

If no concentration has been developed, then SATIpatthana is not the path, because the path is eight factors rather than one. Please note your opinion is at odds with the Anapanasati Sutta, which includes concentration and insight. The Anapanasati Sutta states:

This is how mindfulness of in-&-out breathing is developed & pursued so as to bring the four frames of reference to their culmination.

This is how the four frames of reference are developed & pursued so as to bring the seven factors for awakening to their culmination.

This is how the seven factors for awakening are developed & pursued so as to bring clear knowing & release to their culmination.

The seven factors for awakening include concentration.

Warm regards

Terasi wrote:I am disappointed. Yes, it's naive, but I have to get it out. I've been reading about many matters in Theravada in the attempt to know more about the path of my choice, and so far this is one issue which I fail to persuade myself to understand. As a newcomer to Theravada, I have nothing to say in terms of Vinaya, Sutta, etc, but I do have something to say as a female who is currently on the doorstep of Theravada. So, this sect that I thought is down-to-earth, fair, rational, cool-headed, is actually an exclusive boy's club?'

Stop thinking from male or female point of view, think about human. It's hard to be born as human, why would half the population want to deprive the other half? Both the boys and the girls have to learn to control "the supermagnetic attraction between the genders". Please do not think that for the sake of the boys, then let the girls out in the cold. I can understand the reason why monastics do not handle money, which is to rid themselves of the temptation to be greedy. In this matter though, let's not forget this is not money, not just a thing/object, here we are talking about women who.. surprise surprise... are human!

OK, I've said I got nothing to contribute. The person described in OP's post doesn't sound like the Buddha I've been hearing about so far. How are we to be sure that the words come from the Buddha himself? And if those are truly his, it must be for 2500 years ago, and now.. hello.. time's changed. Separation is possible, noone said monks and nuns have to reside together, travel together, meet everyday etc - if you are worried about some monks being "chick magnet". The Buddha himself said that minor adjustments are possible, while on the other hand the Sangha was described as consisting of bhikkhunis too. Trying to keep bhikkhunis out of the picture, that would be a major change. Why would a good monk be refrained from helping his fellow seekers, who happen to be women, to ordain?

Saying so much, this's only a minor fraction of Theravada. There are bhikkhunis in other countries - why can't they learn from others. Sorry, I definitely don't know much, the ordination, the Vinaya, etc. are not my concern (yet). I just can't stand outdated misogynistic views, be it in Buddhism or elsewhere. Stopping this little rant now, back to my corner.

/rant

Individual wrote:Rather than engaging in speculation, I think it would be better for some monasteries to make men and women equal in rules, and for other monasteries to keep the traditional rules. Then we can be mindful of the results.

If there are already monasteries out there which are like both, perhaps people with experiences with both monasteries could share their insights on how they think their way is the best.

Sasana wrote:

Individual wrote:Rather than engaging in speculation, I think it would be better for some monasteries to make men and women equal in rules, and for other monasteries to keep the traditional rules. Then we can be mindful of the results.

If there are already monasteries out there which are like both, perhaps people with experiences with both monasteries could share their insights on how they think their way is the best.

I think in reality we would find that there would be little difference between men and women. Although it's true to say men and women are different, well it is also true that I am different to you and you to another and so on. The middle way should when practiced properly eliminate the potential for problems regardless of gender IMHO.

Just my two cents as I have always thought it strange the gender bias involved in the Sangha.

With Metta,

Adam

Individual wrote:

Sasana wrote:

Individual wrote:Rather than engaging in speculation, I think it would be better for some monasteries to make men and women equal in rules, and for other monasteries to keep the traditional rules. Then we can be mindful of the results.

If there are already monasteries out there which are like both, perhaps people with experiences with both monasteries could share their insights on how they think their way is the best.

I think in reality we would find that there would be little difference between men and women. Although it's true to say men and women are different, well it is also true that I am different to you and you to another and so on. The middle way should when practiced properly eliminate the potential for problems regardless of gender IMHO.

Just my two cents as I have always thought it strange the gender bias involved in the Sangha.

With Metta,

Adam

Pardon me if I am politically incorrect here, but men and women are not equal -- not simply in terms of genitalia and giving birth -- but even in terms of brain chemistry and composition. These differences are subtle, but perhaps there are meaningful differences that may be a justification for an unequal set of rules. There are the stereotypes that women are more strongly influenced by emotion, are prone to being petty, jealous, and troublesome. Perhaps these are just stereotypes or perhaps not. Outside the western world, in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, perceptions like these persist. Perhaps they are misguided or maybe there is some basis behind it.

When it comes to conversations like this, I am reminded of a quote by Socrates, "When woman is made equal to man, she becomes his superior." Think about what exactly that means and why Socrates might say it.

Of course it also depends on the woman. We could create further distinctions whereby there are some male monks who need further rules too, and there are some women who could probably do with less.

Sasana wrote: Sorry but that to me sounds silly, I think in reality whatever differences lie underneath they do not qualify as superiority or inferiority.

Now I'm not sure if you meant in the fact that women are not equal in terms of in society now, which I would agree. But if you meant women are not equal at all to men then I must simply disagree with this evaluation.

With Metta,

Adam

Individual wrote:

Sasana wrote: Sorry but that to me sounds silly, I think in reality whatever differences lie underneath they do not qualify as superiority or inferiority.

Now I'm not sure if you meant in the fact that women are not equal in terms of in society now, which I would agree. But if you meant women are not equal at all to men then I must simply disagree with this evaluation.

With Metta,

Adam

"Superior," means in terms of authority or status, not personal value.

I acknowledge women and men are equal in some cases and different in some cases. What I'm saying that their similarities might be good basis to get rid of the old rules, but their differences might be a good basis to keep the old rules.