TheDhamma wrote:green wrote:
I have read all the major Mahayana suttas. Which one says that a woman can become a sammasambuddho?
I don't know which one or if there is one, but Kwan Yin, Tara, and others are not samma-sam-buddhas. A samma-sam-buddha rediscovers the teachings after they have died out.
In that sense, from a Theravada perspective, Kwan Yin and Tara (if they "exist") would be Arahants, no higher (or lower) than the hundreds, perhaps thousands of bhikkhunis who attained enlightenment during the life of the Buddha.
In Tantra, there are many Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, both male and female. There are tantric texts supporting their status, but I don't know if 'green' has read any of them. Kwan Yin of course is simply a female version (rather than an emanation) of the male Buddha Avalokiteshvara, so has exactly the same status. Tantric practices contain such descriptions, but it would not be proper to elaborate.
Of course, all sutras and all histories are open to question, so it would be wrong to disown any, as we have no way of judging their provenance.
The historical figure called the 'Buddha' is quoted as a source both in Theravada and Mahayana scriptures - I have no reason to believe that his biographers and 'scribes' did not transmit an interpetation of the teachings which favoured themselves, as happens with many other religions.
The point is well made that it depends upon our own mind and the 'reality' it accepts. The Madhyamika Prasangika view, repeated in the scriptures, is that Buddhas all lack inherent existence, male or female or other.
Berzin explains:
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/ar ... ra_04.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;