About "masculine faculties", "manly effort" etc.

[binocular]

Hello.


So AN 7.48 says:

The Blessed One said: “A woman attends inwardly to her feminine faculties, her feminine gestures, her feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voice, feminine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, she attends outwardly to masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voices, masculine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, she wants to be bonded to what is outside her, wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Delighting, caught up in her femininity, a woman goes into bondage with reference to men. This is how a woman does not transcend her femininity.

“A man attends inwardly to his masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voice, masculine charms. He is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, he attends outwardly to feminine faculties, feminine gestures, feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voices, feminine charms. He is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, he wants to be bonded to what is outside him, wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Delighting, caught up in his masculinity, a man goes into bondage with reference to women. This is how a man does not transcend his masculinity.

“This is how there is bondage.

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN7_48.html

What exactly is meant by "masculine faculties" here?
And what about "feminine faculties"?

There is probably quite a bit of culturally specific conditioning to consider here. What might be considered "masculine" in one culture, might be considered universal or even "feminine" in some other culture.

Then some suttas speak of "manly effort", "manly stamina" in terms of the Practice, such as here:

“As for the course of action that is unpleasant to do but that, when done, leads to what is profitable, it is in light of this course of action that one may be known—in terms of manly stamina, manly persistence, manly effort—as a fool or a wise person.

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN4_115.html

What concerns me, as a female aspirant, is that, given my specific cultural background, the "masculine faculties" and an appreciation of them are precisely what is needed to make an effort in the Practice. So the suggestion to give up this appreciation seems counterproductive. I've always thought that in order to make an effort in the Practice, one needs to be manly; for a woman, that means be(com)ing butch.
Like I said, there could be culturally specific factors at work here.


Thank you for your discussion.

[Nicolas]

My perspective:
Does having stamina, persistence and effort make one butch? No.
Don't be "manly", don't be butch, don't indiscriminately develop "masculine" qualities, but instead develop stamina, persistence, and effort. Forget about gender and instead develop wholesome qualities, regardless of whether or not they're "masculine" or "feminine".

[Ceisiwr]

Masculinity and femininity do have a genetic component as well as a cultural one. I feel the Buddha is probably referring to both. When saying you need a “manly effort” I feel the Buddha is merely speaking in terms which would arouse effort in a male dominated audience. I wouldn’t read too much into it.

[DooDoot]

I imagine “faculties” refer to unique physical features, such as boobs, legs, buttocks, lips, make up and those other physical features that lead to women spending trillions of dollars on cosmetics, tight & revealing clothing, sexy underwear, etc

[Dan74]

My take is what the sutta refers to is that at a certain stage, the delight in our physicality becomes an obstacle. So what that time comes, we should see it for what it is.

But given how most of us are these days, ie tending to have aversion and anxiety about our appearance and even physicality, these negative mind states need to be dealt with first. When they are, we will experience pleasure from our physical being and renewed vigour which can be applied to practice.

Giving up delight in the physical and gendered characteristics is something one with a healthy physical identity does at an appropriate time in their practice, IMO.

[binocular]

My perspective:
Does having stamina, persistence and effort make one butch? No.

In the culture I come from: yes, absolutely.

I was thinking that perhaps there is a sutta (or a secondary source) that lists what exactly the suttas mean by "masculine faculties" and "feminine faculties".

Don't be "manly", don't be butch, don't indiscriminately develop "masculine" qualities, but instead develop stamina, persistence, and effort. Forget about gender and instead develop wholesome qualities, regardless of whether or not they're "masculine" or "feminine".

That's what I've been thinking. It does feel strange, though. Makes me feel masculine, butch.

Going against the flow, again.



(I've also noticed there are sometimes gender-specific expectations in terms of Buddhism/the Dhamma. For example, a female aspirant is expected to be gullible, docile, weak -- but if she isn't, she's accused of some very bad things. But that's for another thread.)

[santa100]

I was thinking that perhaps there is a sutta (or a secondary source) that lists what exactly the suttas mean by "masculine faculties" and "feminine faculties".

AN 7.48's concepts of masculine or feminine faculties are quite straightforward and they are exactly what you think they have been all along. Even in the 21st century, masculine faculties are still what you think they are in both positive and negative connotations. Talking about negative connotations, regardless of how hard women try to fight for gender equality, fact of the matter is, they'll have a hard time to catch up with men in the department of savagery and cruelty, the negative side of "masculine faculties". All of the most horrid and gruesome crimes committed at unimaginably massive scale against humanity were all done by men. War crimes, atrocities, genocide, etc. were, are, and will be done by men. In a different world where all those nasty stuff were, are, and will be done by women, then of course a Buddha of that world will swap around the meanings of masculine vs feminine faculties. It's just not in this world, at least not for now.

[binocular]

I was thinking that perhaps there is a sutta (or a secondary source) that lists what exactly the suttas mean by "masculine faculties" and "feminine faculties".

AN 7.48's concepts of masculine or feminine faculties are quite straightforward and they are exactly what you think they have been all along. Even in the 21st century, masculine faculties are still what you think they are in both positive and negative connotations.

So you don't have a canonical or secondary (commentarial) source?

Talking about negative connotations, regardless of how hard women try to fight for gender equality, fact of the matter is, they'll have a hard time to catch up with men in the department of savagery and cruelty, the negative side of "masculine faculties". All of the most horrid and gruesome crimes committed at unimaginably massive scale against humanity were all done by men. War crimes, atrocities, genocide, etc. were, are, and will be done by men. In a different world where all those nasty stuff were, are, and will be done by women, then of course a Buddha of that world will swap around the meanings of masculine vs feminine faculties. It's just not in this world, at least not for now.

Don't forget that those men were raised by women.

[DooDoot]

All of the most horrid and gruesome crimes committed at unimaginably massive scale against humanity were all done by men. War crimes, atrocities, genocide, etc. were, are, and will be done by men.

Obviously, the above is quite out of touch with reality, here. It seems the above views are Cultural Marxist rather than Buddhist.

Don't forget that those men were raised by women.

Indeed. And not only "raised" by women but they also served the wants & ambitions of women.

Its nearly the time for me to go to my friends house to watch the following historical soap opera on Netflix. The women portrayed in it are not exactly submissive & meek. They kill their share of Crusaders, Mongols and Traitors and have their own devious manipulative schemes. I think we are up to episode 93.

[santa100]

So you don't have a canonical or secondary (commentarial) source?

No. But then it's not the sutta/comy.'s job to spoonfeed readers info. on every single term. If one knows what the eye faculty, the ear faculty, or the nose faculty mean, then one should be able to know what the masculine/feminine faculty mean.

Don't forget that those men were raised by women.

And men too obviously.

Obviously, the above is quite out of touch with reality, here. It seems the above views are Cultural Marxist rather than Buddhist.

Please provide proof to prove me wrong. Please provide a name of any woman who is the female version of Hitler, Gengis Khan, or Pol Pot.

[DooDoot]

Please provide a name of any woman who is the female version of Hitler, Gengis Khan, or Pol Pot.

In my lifetime, to name a few: Margaret Thatcher, Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, Hilary Clinton, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, Gina Haspel, Nimrata Nikki Haley (née Randhawa).

[santa100]

In my lifetime, to name a few: Margaret Thatcher, Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, Hilary Clinton, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, Nimrata Nikki Haley (née Randhawa).

They are no saints, but putting those women leaders above in the same exact league as Hitler, Gengis Khan, and Pol Pot proves that you've been living in an alternative universe all along.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,



Please re-read the original post if you require a reminder about what this topic is about.



Metta,
Paul.