Gender discrimination = sexism. It's the definition. Check any dictionary you like.Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Discriminating on the basis of gender is not sexism.
Sutta about the ordination of women?
Re: Sutta about the ordination of women?
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: Sutta about the ordination of women?
Then the answer is obvious: the Buddha could not be a sexist. If He was, He would still be floating around in this miserable Samsara ~2,500 years later, maybe even teaching a few Buddhist courses in the same school with your poor Buddhist class instructor right now..Moth wrote:
I'm taking a Buddhism class and the teacher is essentially teaching us that the Buddha was a sexist. As a Buddhist this, to me, poses an obvious contradiction as to how one can be both enlightened and sexist.
Re: Sutta about the ordination of women?
To my ears the discriminatory passages in the sutta clash with many other passages which honour female arahats, extol the virtues of good disciples, male and female and give instructions to virtuous followers, male and female.
Personally I suspect that they are either necessary "evil" for the times or later corruptions.
Personally I suspect that they are either necessary "evil" for the times or later corruptions.
_/|\_
- Bhikkhu Pesala
- Posts: 4647
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm
Re: Sutta about the ordination of women?
Dictionary definitions can be misinterpreted to suit your own prejudices.daverupa wrote:Gender discrimination = sexism. It's the definition. Check any dictionary you like.Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Discriminating on the basis of gender is not sexism.
Discrimination also means the application of wisdom and discernment, and is not necessarily prejudiced and discriminatory.
Blog • Pāli Fonts • In This Very Life • Buddhist Chronicles • Software (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
Re: Sutta about the ordination of women?
Well said, Bhante.Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Dictionary definitions can be misinterpreted to suit your own prejudices.daverupa wrote:Gender discrimination = sexism. It's the definition. Check any dictionary you like.Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Discriminating on the basis of gender is not sexism.
Discrimination also means the application of wisdom and discernment, and is not necessarily prejudiced and discriminatory.
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
Re: Sutta about the ordination of women?
That article is truly a joke. I recommend it as an example of the lowest level of scholarship.BlueLotus wrote:Thanks a lot Fede. This article is truly enlightening. I highly recommend everyone should read it if you haven't already. Thanks againFede wrote:The Buddha wasn't sexist.
He was a considerate individual who realised the hearts and minds of people. His subsequent followers were sexist.
I've posted this before, and it's worth repeating.
http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php ... 66,0,0,1,0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Sutta about the ordination of women?
Why do you think so? I think the article is really good and personally I think the bhikkuni vinaya rules are not set by the Buddha.robertk wrote:That article is truly a joke. I recommend it as an example of the lowest level of scholarship.BlueLotus wrote:Thanks a lot Fede. This article is truly enlightening. I highly recommend everyone should read it if you haven't already. Thanks againFede wrote:The Buddha wasn't sexist.
He was a considerate individual who realised the hearts and minds of people. His subsequent followers were sexist.
I've posted this before, and it's worth repeating.
http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php ... 66,0,0,1,0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- Fede
- Posts: 1182
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:33 pm
- Location: The Heart of this "Green & Pleasant Land"...
- Contact:
Re: Sutta about the ordination of women?
And that would be....because?robertk wrote:That article is truly a joke. I recommend it as an example of the lowest level of scholarship.BlueLotus wrote:Thanks a lot Fede. This article is truly enlightening. I highly recommend everyone should read it if you haven't already. Thanks againFede wrote:The Buddha wasn't sexist.
He was a considerate individual who realised the hearts and minds of people. His subsequent followers were sexist.
I've posted this before, and it's worth repeating.
http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php ... 66,0,0,1,0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
How about coming up with some constructive evidence to counter-act the article?
Although if it's just your opinion, many thanks for that.
"Samsara: The human condition's heartbreaking inability to sustain contentment." Elizabeth Gilbert, 'Eat, Pray, Love'.
Simplify: 17 into 1 WILL go: Mindfulness!
Quieta movere magna merces videbatur. (Sallust, c.86-c.35 BC)
Translation: Just to stir things up seemed a good reward in itself.
I am sooooo happy - How on earth could I be otherwise?!
http://www.armchairadvice.co.uk/relationships/forum/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Simplify: 17 into 1 WILL go: Mindfulness!
Quieta movere magna merces videbatur. (Sallust, c.86-c.35 BC)
Translation: Just to stir things up seemed a good reward in itself.
I am sooooo happy - How on earth could I be otherwise?!
http://www.armchairadvice.co.uk/relationships/forum/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- Bhikkhu Pesala
- Posts: 4647
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm
Re: Sutta about the ordination of women?
Conclusions that rely on a mistranslation are not valid.Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Venerable Mettānando's interpretation of the Garudhamma is at odds with that of Ajahn Thanissaro. There is nothing there about bhikkhunis not being allowed to teach the Dhamma to bhikkhus.
Blog • Pāli Fonts • In This Very Life • Buddhist Chronicles • Software (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Sutta about the ordination of women?
Dunno, but if those rules were not given by the Buddha, then there had to have been a wholesale conspiracy almost immediately after the death of the Buddha to significantly alter the Vinaya involving virtually all of the monks.BlueLotus wrote: personally I think the bhikkuni vinaya rules are not set by the Buddha.
>> 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
- Fede
- Posts: 1182
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:33 pm
- Location: The Heart of this "Green & Pleasant Land"...
- Contact:
Re: Sutta about the ordination of women?
Which actually, given the time, and the attachment and the misguided conviction of believing that such a thing could not be possibly be permitted, is not beyond the realms of probability.tiltbillings wrote:Dunno, but if those rules were not given by the Buddha, then there had to have been a wholesale conspiracy almost immediately after the death of the Buddha to significantly alter the Vinaya involving virtually all of the monks.BlueLotus wrote: personally I think the bhikkuni vinaya rules are not set by the Buddha.
Misogyny is the world's oldest prejudice, according to the late Jack Holland, and he recounts the historical systematic and relentless suppression of women throughout the ages, by different factions such as Governments and religious bodies.
When you consider that even in the so-called affluent and advanced west, women are consistently paid less than their male counterparts, and that of 30,000 people losing their jobs in the UK this past year, 26,000 of them have been women - I really don't believe such a conspiracy to be out of the question.
http://www.amazon.com/Misogyny-Worlds-P ... 0786718234" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Samsara: The human condition's heartbreaking inability to sustain contentment." Elizabeth Gilbert, 'Eat, Pray, Love'.
Simplify: 17 into 1 WILL go: Mindfulness!
Quieta movere magna merces videbatur. (Sallust, c.86-c.35 BC)
Translation: Just to stir things up seemed a good reward in itself.
I am sooooo happy - How on earth could I be otherwise?!
http://www.armchairadvice.co.uk/relationships/forum/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Simplify: 17 into 1 WILL go: Mindfulness!
Quieta movere magna merces videbatur. (Sallust, c.86-c.35 BC)
Translation: Just to stir things up seemed a good reward in itself.
I am sooooo happy - How on earth could I be otherwise?!
http://www.armchairadvice.co.uk/relationships/forum/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Sutta about the ordination of women?
I always thought ours was not one of the religions of the book and Theravadins in particular often say that it is a faith based on reason rather than dogma.
If Bhikkhuni rules were given by the Buddha and we assume that the Buddha could do no wrong, the question still remains if they remain relevant and appropriate for our time.
Are these the rules that could be changed after his passing even according to what the Buddha reputedly said?
If Bhikkhuni rules were given by the Buddha and we assume that the Buddha could do no wrong, the question still remains if they remain relevant and appropriate for our time.
Are these the rules that could be changed after his passing even according to what the Buddha reputedly said?
_/|\_
Re: Sutta about the ordination of women?
the Buddha says if women to follow the path of holy life
then the holy life will not last long.
he does not say that women should not follow the path of holy life
metta
then the holy life will not last long.
he does not say that women should not follow the path of holy life
metta
Re: Sutta about the ordination of women?
Yes it is just my opinion. i didnt want to add more but since you ask.Fede wrote: How about coming up with some constructive evidence to counter-act the article?
Although if it's just your opinion, many thanks for that.
The evidence of this Mr. Mettanando is scurrilous (my opinion) . He says that if the Buddha set any of those weighty rules for nuns, or if he had said anything about using those rules as a dyke then the Buddha was a sexist. This he doesn't believe to be true so he searches for flimsy evidence and comes up with the idea that bhikkhuni werent allowed to teach monks (not true). Then he says that all evidence shows bhikkuni did most of the Dhamma teaching- what absolute nonsense - but I hope anyone can see it is irrelevant to his whole conspiracy theory that the later bhikkhu got together and placed these rules inside the sutta pitaka as a way to put their collective feet on the necks of the bhikkhuni.
I have no doubt that explaining this has no impact on you, simply because conspiracy theorists can always find reasons to belive in their current idea(check out the threads about people who believe it was bush who demolished the twin towers)/
Mettanando, Sujato and their ilk will always appeal to the people who feel they know the true Buddha mind, which by amazing coincidence, is always aligned directly with their own beliefs, and not with the Tipitika.
Like mrs caroline Rhys davids and her comments about monkish ideas coming into the Tipitaka (she didnt believe the buddha could have taught anatta), there will always be a stream of conspiracists, who grab the attention of the gullible....
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Sutta about the ordination of women?
I am not saying it is impossible, but more than doctrine, it was the Vinaya that defined the group. It was something that resisted change for that reason. Also, this conspiracy would have to have happened almost immediately after the Buddha's death before any sectarian division and before significant separations of distance. I do not think it is really meaningful or helpful to try to make the Buddha into a 21st Century man.Fede wrote:Which actually, given the time, and the attachment and the misguided conviction of believing that such a thing could not be possibly be permitted, is not beyond the realms of probability.tiltbillings wrote:Dunno, but if those rules were not given by the Buddha, then there had to have been a wholesale conspiracy almost immediately after the death of the Buddha to significantly alter the Vinaya involving virtually all of the monks.BlueLotus wrote: personally I think the bhikkuni vinaya rules are not set by the Buddha.
>> 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