I already did clarify, retrofuturist.
To get people to see which dhamma they pick and choose (Cafeteria Buddhists). Interesting to see the Mahayanists / Visuddhimaggists on this forum use the "It's not authentic card" when it suits them, but when it comes to Zen / Vipassana, they turn a blind eye.
I am an EBT follower, I don't necessarily follow these Jataka tales because I do not know which are authentic or not until Bhikkhu Analayo and other monks are done with their research with comparing parallels (agamas, ghandaran fragments, etc..). But it's interesting to see those who accept ALL Buddhism reject this because it conflicts with their PC ideology.
So anyone who accepts the complete canon (Tripitaka) or later "Buddhisms" cannot complain about misogyny or authenticity and must accept this as well.
Lastly, some of these texts also align with a few of Asoka's edicts (women courts, women roles, bad vs good women etc..)
And this was why I created the new thread, not because Aloka is a woman, as Sam Vara said, but because Aloka accepts all of Buddhism on his/her engaged Buddhism forum, but then rejects THIS Buddhism (Jataka Tales), so it's interesting to see when he/she uses the "Not Authentic card" to mold Buddhism to his/her PC or SJW ideology, as in his/her fashionable impermanent ideology (which isn't timeless compared to the true dhamma) takes priority. It's interesting to see Sam Vara, someone who usually is careful about what he/she says easily jump to conclusions, as he/she wrote here:
Sam Vara wrote: ↑
Tue May 21, 2019 12:04 pm
chownah wrote: ↑
Tue May 21, 2019 10:17 am
How about defining exactly what an sjw is?
As this thread was started immediately after a robust exchange of views with Aloka was locked, my guess is that an sjw is herein defined as "a woman who gets the last word in".
I have no idea whether Aloka is a man or a woman, just like I've seen people confuse Kim Ohara as a woman when he's a man. In fact sometimes I confuse Kim for Aloka because they have similar avatars and views, so I don't partcularly pay attention to the identity of the person I'm responding to unless they are very well learned in the dhamma and have impressed me. Usually if someone is not well-learned in the dhamma I don't care much for their person. So we can see that Sam Vara seems quick to jump the gun and jump to conclusions when his/her own bias is met with opposition.
As shown before and here too:
Sam Vara wrote: ↑
Wed May 22, 2019 8:37 am
Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel?
binocular wrote: ↑
Wed May 22, 2019 8:22 am
Mr Man wrote: ↑
Wed May 22, 2019 6:59 am
Perhaps someone from the moderation team could have the op clarify what the thread is actually about
The OP was engaged in a personalised dispute with a female member on the "Gender Equality Poll" thread. He was claiming that the Buddha was "anti feminist". She got the last word in (a picture of a woman sleeping at a keyboard, implying her boredom with the discussion; this and personalised insults have now been removed) when a moderator locked the thread. Forty minutes later, this thread popped up.
Work it out.
Both comments made by Sam Vara after I've already clarified my position to SDC. Sam Vara also uses the "Misogyny" card which DooDoot said in response that that word is not found in the dhammas
. Sam and co are quick to ask for an SJW definition, but have no hesitancy to use the word Misogyny (which has hatred implied in it)
mid 17th century: from Greek misos ‘hatred’ + gunē ‘woman’.
That's accusing someone of being hateful, which imho is far worse than accusing someone of being an SJW.
But just for clarification, what I believe is irrelevant, I just show what the suttas show.
And yes, there is anti-feminism in the Dhamma, for example the suttas
Anuruddha sutta and Uggaha Sutta:
(1) “So then, girls, you should train yourselves thus: ‘To whichever husband our parents give us—doing so out of a desire for our good, seeking our welfare, taking compassion on us, acting out of compassion for us—we will rise before him and retire after him, undertaking whatever needs to be done, agreeable in our conduct and pleasing in our speech.’ Thus should you train yourselves.
(2) “And you should train yourselves thus: ‘We will honor, respect, esteem, and venerate those whom our husband respects—his mother and father, ascetics and brahmins—and when they arrive we will offer them a seat and water.’ Thus should you train yourselves.
(3) “And you should train yourselves thus: ‘We will be skillful and diligent in attending to our husband’s domestic chores, whether knitting or weaving; we will possess sound judgment about them in order to carry out and arrange them properly.’ Thus should you train yourselves.
(4) “And you should train yourselves thus: ‘We will find out what our husband’s domestic helpers—whether slaves, messengers, or workers—have done and left undone; we will find out the condition of those who are ill; and we will distribute to each an appropriate portion of food.’ Thus should you train yourselves.
(5) “And you should train yourselves thus: ‘We will guard and protect whatever income our husband brings home—whether money or grain, silver or gold—and we will not be spendthrifts, thieves, wastrels, or squanderers of his earnings.’ Thus should you train yourselves.
For her husband, she must wake up before him, go to bed after him, be of service to him, conduct herself to please him and speak words that are loving to him.