Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
What Did the Buddha Mean: Ordaining Nuns Will Shorten the Duration of the Dharma?
I think there is too much emphasis on what the Buddha did and didn't say. It's authoritarian.
I tend to feel the same way, in that, being a follower of the Mahayana, I am willing to accept later sutras which are no doubt due to the scholarship and exegesis of later Buddhist thinkers, but on this specific point it's asserted that the Buddha said it and the point has a major effect on how some may view Buddhism.
My point is that there is an assertion made that "This philosopher said thus-and-such". My question is, did he really or was it a later addition that was just attributed to him?
The 1st question is; Did Buddha mean 1000 years literally or not?
2.Do we still have the true dharma? If so, out of the millions of people who regard themselves as Buddhist, how many know the true dharma?
3. Is it possible that some day, the dharma will be completely lost?
4. What effect does ordination of nuns have? When Buddha said "Just as a clan in which there are many women and few men is easily plundered by robbers and thieves, in the same way, in whatever doctrine and discipline women get to go forth, the holy life does not last long..." Did he mean it literally?
"If, Ananda, women had not entered from household life into the houseless one, under the Doctrine and the Discipline announced by the Tathagata, religion, Ananda, would long endure; 1000 years would the Good Doctrine abide. But since, Ananda, women have now retired from household life to the houseless one, under the Doctrine and the Discipline announced by the Tathagata, not long, Ananda, will religion endure; but 500 years will the Good Doctrine abide." -- Sutta Pitaka
Why did the Buddha say this? Clearly, he was wrong; it's been 2500 years, and the "Good Doctrine" is alive and well. Comments, interpretations, explanations, musings?
Sometimes the obvious answer is the best one. What it means is that whoever wrote those words had an issue with women monks. Does it surprise you that devoted monks might put words in the Buddha's mouth to make a point that they would be certain the Buddha would agree with? Any scholar of ancient writings will tell you it was a widespread practice to bring instant authenticity to one's message. Considering how male dominated those societies were, it's amazing we have so few anti-nun references. These same monks would have you believe the Buddha personally listed a hundred picky temple rules for the monks and nuns to live by, before the first temple was even planned. So we have to see the sutras as the human construction they are.
Now for the people wondering how do we know, then, that any of the Buddha's words or message made it into the writing? Because we aren't just taking the words of the sutras on faith. The Noble Truths aren't true just because some guy thousands of years ago spoke them. They're true because you can look around today and see they are true. As long as the Noble Truths are being taught in whatever form, then the Dharma is still not dead, not after 500 years or 1000 years. It doesn't matter what language or ceremony it's wrapped around.
The Dharma is transforming lives today. It's a living, breathing force as long as the Sangha remains full of living, breathing people. It's not just dead words on dead scrolls.
Now I'll get off my soapbox and let someone else preach for a while. Coffee and tea after the service.
4. What effect does ordination of nuns have? When Buddha said "Just as a clan in which there are many women and few men is easily plundered by robbers and thieves, in the same way, in whatever doctrine and discipline women get to go forth, the holy life does not last long..." Did he mean it literally?
Did he even say it? Citation, please.
Now I'll get off my soapbox and let someone else preach for a while. Coffee and tea after the service.
It's a good soapbox. And will that be butter-tea?
I'd like to see Jason's opinion on this matter. I haven't seen him around for awhile...
the Buddha taught Buddha-Dhamma, his unique teachings or revelations
the Buddha also taught improvements to the existing teachings, including rebirth
the scriptures clearly state what was taught to monks & laypeople respectively was different
It's just that for a long time I have attended to the Teacher, and to the monks who inspire my heart, but never before have I heard a talk on the Dhamma like this.
This sort of talk on the Dhamma, householder, is not given to lay people clad in white. This sort of talk on the Dhamma is given to those gone forth.
Interpreting this story as misogynistic is understandable, however typical of misperception inherent in dukkha. Significant is that Ananda persisted and Gautama relented - and adjusted his mind - as witnessed in subsequent stories of encounters with women such as Kisa Gotami (in the tale of the mustard seed) and Queen Vaidehi (Meditation Sutra).
Surprise! Even the esteemed guru could be wrong! Or was he?
In the paternalistic culture in which Guatama emerged as "the awakened" women who aspired to ascendancy were roundly subjugated. Perhaps Guatama recognized an even greater affinity for Dharma in women because of their deeply rooted sense of being in touch with life as the givers of live birth. Coupled with an acute awareness of his paternalistic culture perhaps he could see the destruction of the "Good Doctrine" by the prevalent misogynous society if the Sangha were populated - indeed even directed by accomplished and deserving women.
It seems more logical that Guatama's reasoning was an effort to protect and preserve both women in the Sangha and the Sangha's survival in the culture.
His Garudhammas for bhikkunis seem harsh but they provide a foil against the prying eyes of society hungering to persecute women in ascendancy - spiritual or material. Sort of a sad comment on human "culture" and the "subjugation" of women by religion but it seems highly implausible that Gautama was a misogynist - rather, extremely mindful of the possible consequences of an oppressive conventional reality.
Gombrich gives a few arguments for why he thinks all of this is a later addition in his book, What the Buddha Taught. If I had time, I'd give the reference, but I'm about the run out the door. You can find some of my thoughts on this topic from about a year ago here if you're interested, though.
Even if it is a later addition, why did the sangha of monks add it? That would be relevant to what happened to buddhas following rather than questions of the buddha.
'I am far from an expert on this subject, but I have heard a theory from other sources that the idea of the Buddha being reluctant to ordain women in the first place may be a later addition. According to another Sutta the Buddha supposedly tells Mara that he will not enter Pari-Nibbana until he has established a four-fold Sangha of monks, nuns, lay men and lay women. The theory goes that the sentiment expressed in both of these ideas is contradictory and so one (or perhaps both) of these may not have been the Buddha's words. '
But Jeffrey, if the dandelion seeds spread on the wind, why wouldn't they produce similar dandelions? It doesn't mean somehow a degeneration of the original dandelion genome. It doesn't seem to fit the analogy (or accusation) with the seeds of the Dharma spreading around the world and giving rise to an ersatz Dharma that has strayed from the original. Or am I missing something? (Sorry, I didn't mean to shoot down your poetic little image.)
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Even if it is a later addition, why did the sangha of monks add it? ....
Social current conditioning, misogyny, resistance... you name it.
In the paternalistic culture in which Guatama emerged as "the awakened" women who aspired to ascendancy were roundly subjugated.
I read that the Buddha opened up the monastic community to women at great risk to his movement. Some of his sponsors frowned at the idea (society at large was shocked, most likely), and he risked losing some of his financial backing by including women. So it was a daring and radical (and compassionate) act.
I'm voting with the "later addition" argument for now.
Even if it is a later addition, why did the sangha of monks add it? ....
Because later on texts were added that women present a potential distraction and therefore a danger to monks' practice. Teachings evolved that really press this point. So maybe the passage quoted in the OP was drummed up to justify the women-as-predatory-vixens view.
"In that case, Ven. Sariputta, please let this sort of talk on the Dhamma be given to lay people clad in white. "
and the sutta was said to a lay follower.
Anathapindika was old. The Buddha would have been old. Sariputta would have been old.
Sariputta decided to instruct Anathapindika on non-attachment.
The sutta indicates clearly this was against the norm.
The suttas do not demonstrate the 4NT and DO were widely taught to laypeople, only occassionally, example, in the Upali Sutta.
The sutta indicates clearly:
"It's just that for a long time I have attended to the Teacher, and to the monks who inspire my heart, but never before have I heard a talk on the Dhamma like this.
This sort of talk on the Dhamma, householder, is not given to lay people clad in white. This sort of talk on the Dhamma is given to those gone forth."
'I am far from an expert on this subject, but I have heard a theory from other sources that the idea of the Buddha being reluctant to ordain women in the first place may be a later addition. According to another Sutta the Buddha supposedly tells Mara that he will not enter Pari-Nibbana until he has established a four-fold Sangha of monks, nuns, lay men and lay women. The theory goes that the sentiment expressed in both of these ideas is contradictory and so one (or perhaps both) of these may not have been the Buddha's words. '
Where is the contradiction?
If one of his goals was to ordain bhikkhuni's then why would he be reluctant about it and need others to practically beg him to do so?
The dandelion is just a metaphor. The sangha became dispersed such that it was not recognizable as the original dandelion. With age. Then it disperses but it still caries the seed, just not the original dandelion. It is a flaw in the analogy that the duplicate dandelions from seeds. But they would be duplicate in the sense of dharmic. My teacher says buddhism will change in America but hopefully still can be practiced to enlightenment. Just as it changed in leaving mainland India.
Weren't there arhats in the sangha? To make sure nothing bad happened? Are arhats failable? Or did they not have any arhats for awhile?
Dear guy, the Pari-Nibbana was near the death of Buddha, long after the ordination of women.
Hi Hermitwin,
'I am far from an expert on this subject, but I have heard a theory from other sources that the idea of the Buddha being reluctant to ordain women in the first place may be a later addition. According to another Sutta the Buddha supposedly tells Mara that he will not enter Pari-Nibbana until he has established a four-fold Sangha of monks, nuns, lay men and lay women. The theory goes that the sentiment expressed in both of these ideas is contradictory and so one (or perhaps both) of these may not have been the Buddha's words. '
Where is the contradiction?
If one of his goals was to ordain bhikkhuni's then why would he be reluctant about it and need others to practically beg him to do so?
the Pari-Nibbana was near the death of Buddha, long after the ordination of women.
42. "There was a time, Ananda, when I dwelt at Uruvela, on the bank of the Nerañjara River, at the foot of the goatherds' banyan-tree, soon after my supreme Enlightenment. And Mara, the Evil One, approached me, saying: 'Now, O Lord, let the Blessed One come to his final passing away! Let the Happy One utterly pass away! The time has come for the Parinibbana of the Lord.'
43. "Then, Ananda, I answered Mara, the Evil One, saying: 'I shall not come to my final passing away, Evil One, until my bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have come to be true disciples — wise, well disciplined, apt and learned, preservers of the Dhamma, living according to the Dhamma, abiding by appropriate conduct and, having learned the Master's word, are able to expound it, preach it, proclaim it, establish it, reveal it, explain it in detail, and make it clear; until, when adverse opinions arise, they shall be able to refute them thoroughly and well, and to preach this convincing and liberating Dhamma.
The story of creation of the order of nuns occurs in the Culla-Vagga. I don't have a translation, but another source says that the Buddha compares ordaining women to mildew on a field of rice or rust on a field of sugarcane. Basically, he considers nuns to be a blight. The story also appears in the Anguttara Nikaya. Both the Culla-Vagga and the Anguttara are considered to contain a large portion of post-Buddha material, so this story is a good candidate for being a later addition.
In general, the Buddha was very supportive of anyone who made sincere efforts to practice his teaching. He was also willing to expel people he thought were causing trouble. I don't think he would have admitted an entire class of people into the sangha and then compared them to mildew.
Why focus on the negative? Why not focus on the positive part of the sutta? In the same sutta Buddha said women are just as capable of nirvana. His objection is to ordination of women, not women learning & practising Buddhism. He relented & he explained the consequences. If you want to reject the sutta, you will have to reject the part about women are just as capable of nirvana as well. In Buddhism, being born a woman means that you dont have sufficient good karma to be borned a man. No, not because men are better than women. Simply because through out history women have been subjugated & oppressed by men. Even in 2011, if you look at the world, countries where women have equal rights as men are still the minority.
In Buddhism, being born a woman means that you dont have sufficient good karma to be borned a man.
:eek:
"The Buddha unhesitatingly accepted that women are capable of realizing the Truth, just as men are. This is why he permitted the admission of women into the Order, though he was not in favour of it at the beginning because he thought their admission would create problems in the Sasana.
Once women proved their capability of managing their affairs in the Order, the Buddha recognised their abilities and talents, and gave them responsible positions in the Bhikkhuni Sangha. The Buddhist texts record of eminent saintly Bhikkhunis, who were very learned and who were experts in preaching the Dhamma. Dhammadinna was one such Bhikkhuni, Khema and Uppalavanna are two others.
The Theri-gatha contains numerous stanzas that clearly express the feelings of joy experienced by saintly bhikkhunis at their ability to enter the Order and realize the Truth."
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
In Buddhism, being born a woman means that you dont have sufficient good karma to be borned a man.
What utter bullcrap.
"Among the legends of Tara, one is that she was a good and virtuous being, who spent millions of years meditating in other dimensions before coming to Earth. When she did, her virtue was so admired that monks advised her to seek an incarnation as a male in order to achieve enlightenment, as women could not. She was so angry with this that she said, “Many wish to gain enlightenment in a man’s form. Therefore, may I, in a female body, work for the enlightenment of all beings.” She vowed always to be born as a woman."
because through out history women have been subjugated & oppressed by men. Even in 2011, if you look at the world, countries where women have equal rights as men are still the minority.
I guess this is why my garden is so full of worms and slugs.
All misogynistic men, reborn into the realm they deserve for what they do to women, huh....?
(ridiculous isn't it? Just as ridiculous as your assertion....)
Which is better? to be born a man who is mentally retarded or a woman who became the CEO of Pepsico? Are you saying the fact that we are born male or female is completely by chance? There is a tribe in Yunnan, China where the women are in charge. Ultimately, its how you perceive these things. I have no problems with women. I think they are wonderful. Its just that in many cultures, women are regarded as inferior & are treated as inferior, deprived of education & freedom. Its a great disadvantage to be born a woman in such societies. As a nun, Robina Courtin puts it, perhaps the women who are oppressed by men in this life were the men who oppressed women in their previous life.
So what did Robina do in her past life to be reborn as a hardcore radical lesbian separatist feminist in this life?
(Don't bother answering. I have great metta for same sex couples & people, having many such friends. Just a question to bring up the monkey chatter in speculative minds)
At the age of 31 Robina Courtin, from Australia, decided to leave behind her life as a radical lesbian separatist and become a nun.
Dear DD, I dont know what you have against Robina. She devotes her time n energy to teach prisoners buddhism n meditation. I have great admiration for people like that.
Read for comprehension, hermitwin. He's got nothing against her, he's just making fun of the whole framework of rebirth as an explanation for life factors.
Read for comprehension, hermitwin. He's got nothing against her hardcore radical lesbian separatist feminist past, he's just making fun of the whole framework of rebirth as an explanation for life factors.
Read for comprehension, hermitwin. He's got nothing against her, he's just making fun of the whole framework of rebirth as an explanation for life factors.
Perhaps hermitwin recalls DD's earlier posts on the subject of Robina.
completely by chance? There is a tribe in Yunnan, China where the women are in charge.
This tribe is descended from Tibetan nomads, and speaks a dialect of Tibetan. In ancient times, Tibet had three matriarchal kingdoms (some archaeologists refer to them as "Queendoms"). Perhaps the Yunnan tribe is a survival of that tradition.
Why focus on the negative? Why not focus on the positive part of the sutta? In the same sutta Buddha said women are just as capable of nirvana. His objection is to ordination of women, not women learning & practising Buddhism.He relented & he explained the consequences.
Thank you for this, hermitwin. I wasn't aware of the rest of the suttra, I picked the OP passage up from another thread. Could you give us the relevant passage? And why did the Buddha object to ordination of women, what were the consequences? Thank you again.
"If, Ananda, women had not entered from household life into the houseless one, under the Doctrine and the Discipline announced by the Tathagata, religion, Ananda, would long endure; 1000 years would the Good Doctrine abide. But since, Ananda, women have now retired from household life to the houseless one, under the Doctrine and the Discipline announced by the Tathagata, not long, Ananda, will religion endure; but 500 years will the Good Doctrine abide." -- Sutta Pitaka
Why did the Buddha say this? Clearly, he was wrong; it's been 2500 years, and the "Good Doctrine" is alive and well. Comments, interpretations, explanations, musings?
Could I have the name of the sutta please?
/victor
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited April 2011
It's a quote from the Sutta Pitaka (no exact source), The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology By Jerry L. Walls.
Wouldn't it matter more, the individual body and circumstances that a person was born into rather than the sex?
We can create all sorts of labels and talk about being born as a black person, a white person, a gay person, a woman, a man, a naturally talented person, a handicapped person, a midget.. any sort of person and we can debate the benefits and drawbacks for each group. The differences between the individuals seem to be more important than the broad labels of their groups because our circumstances are not cookie cutters within the groups that happen to be united through some label. I think focusing too hard on a label like gender is a generalization that overlooks much detail.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
The discussion is not on superior or preferable gender. The discussion is on the duration of the dhamma after the ordination of nuns was approved, and whether the Buddha really said that.....
A two thousand year old text says two thousand year old things in a two thousand year old way.
- It takes a certain degree of magic for granted. (So the Buddha knowing the distant future is no problem at all.) - It expresses a certain degree of low opinion about woman. (In this case it is surprisingly mild.) - A recount of events which happened hundreds of years before is non-problematic. (The oldest surviving texts apparently date from the first century A.D.)
"But, Ānanda, if women had not obtained the Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the doctrine and discipline made known by the Tathāgata, the holy life would have lasted long, the true Dhamma would have lasted 1,000 years. But now that they have gotten to go forth... this holy life will not last long, the true Dhamma will last only 500 years. Just as a clan in which there are many women and few men is easily plundered by robbers and thieves, in the same way, in whatever doctrine and discipline women get to go forth, the holy life does not last long... Just as a man might make an embankment in advance around a great reservoir to keep the waters from overflowing, in the same way I have set forth in advance the eight rules of respect for bhikkhunīs that they are not to transgress as long as they live." — Cullavagga X.1
People used to claim scientists are full of "bullcrap". The human habit of dismissing what they don't understand...
If people cannot see that males still hold more advantage in the world than women then they are deluding themselves.
No wonder Buddha speaks what is true, because it is what it is. By saying it's bull crap one denies that humans discriminates and differentiates things around us.
If people cannot see that males still hold more advantage in the world than women then they are deluding themselves.
When I received the Lamrim teachings, the lama said that a male rebirth was the best. He apparently had gotten flack for saying this before, or maybe someone alerted him in advance to the controversial nature of that statement in the West, because he immediately added that this doesn't mean women can't pursue careers, their dreams, etc. blah blah. But after working in the developing world and seeing the obstacles women face, including violence, I couldn't deny that a male rebirth enables one to be more effective in a male-dominated world, and certainly minimized threats to personal safety. I wouldn't go so far as to say that a male rebirth is best for practicing the dharma or realizing Enlightenment. And the whole question of whether or not karma has any bearing on our birth circumstances is up for grabs I'd say, after reading umpteen threads on the subject. But in a male-dominated world, it only stands to reason that men have an advantage. It doesn't mean women can't do what they want, only that they face extra challenges. This has been my observation and my experience.
Harvey discusses the authenticity of the ordination story in his book "Introduction to Buddhist Ethics". He cites Jan Nattier to the effect that the story is not found in Mahasanghika texts, so it must have been introduced after the Sthavira/Mahasanghika split that occurred 60-100 years after the Buddha died. It is found in the vinayas of the groups that split off from the Sthaviras, so it must have been added before those splits occurred.
There's a Google Books version of Harvey's book. Google for "harvey and buddha and nuns and ordination" if you're interested.
Comments
My point is that there is an assertion made that "This philosopher said thus-and-such". My question is, did he really or was it a later addition that was just attributed to him?
Did Buddha mean 1000 years literally or not?
2.Do we still have the true dharma?
If so, out of the millions of people who regard themselves as
Buddhist, how many know the true dharma?
3. Is it possible that some day, the dharma will be completely lost?
4. What effect does ordination of nuns have?
When Buddha said "Just as a clan in which there are many women and few men is easily plundered by robbers and thieves, in the same way, in whatever doctrine and discipline women get to go forth, the holy life does not last long..."
Did he mean it literally?
Now for the people wondering how do we know, then, that any of the Buddha's words or message made it into the writing? Because we aren't just taking the words of the sutras on faith. The Noble Truths aren't true just because some guy thousands of years ago spoke them. They're true because you can look around today and see they are true. As long as the Noble Truths are being taught in whatever form, then the Dharma is still not dead, not after 500 years or 1000 years. It doesn't matter what language or ceremony it's wrapped around.
The Dharma is transforming lives today. It's a living, breathing force as long as the Sangha remains full of living, breathing people. It's not just dead words on dead scrolls.
Now I'll get off my soapbox and let someone else preach for a while. Coffee and tea after the service.
I'd like to see Jason's opinion on this matter. I haven't seen him around for awhile...
"In that case, Ven. Sariputta, please let this sort of talk on the Dhamma be given to lay people clad in white. "
and the sutta was said to a lay follower.
Surprise! Even the esteemed guru could be wrong! Or was he?
In the paternalistic culture in which Guatama emerged as "the awakened" women who aspired to ascendancy were roundly subjugated. Perhaps Guatama recognized an even greater affinity for Dharma in women because of their deeply rooted sense of being in touch with life as the givers of live birth. Coupled with an acute awareness of his paternalistic culture perhaps he could see the destruction of the "Good Doctrine" by the prevalent misogynous society if the Sangha were populated - indeed even directed by accomplished and deserving women.
It seems more logical that Guatama's reasoning was an effort to protect and preserve both women in the Sangha and the Sangha's survival in the culture.
His Garudhammas for bhikkunis seem harsh but they provide a foil against the prying eyes of society hungering to persecute women in ascendancy - spiritual or material. Sort of a sad comment on human "culture" and the "subjugation" of women by religion but it seems highly implausible that Gautama was a misogynist - rather, extremely mindful of the possible consequences of an oppressive conventional reality.
Where is the contradiction?
I'm voting with the "later addition" argument for now.
Sariputta decided to instruct Anathapindika on non-attachment.
The sutta indicates clearly this was against the norm.
The suttas do not demonstrate the 4NT and DO were widely taught to laypeople, only occassionally, example, in the Upali Sutta.
The sutta indicates clearly:
"It's just that for a long time I have attended to the Teacher, and to the monks who inspire my heart, but never before have I heard a talk on the Dhamma like this.
This sort of talk on the Dhamma, householder, is not given to lay people clad in white. This sort of talk on the Dhamma is given to those gone forth."
Metta,
Guy
Metta,
Guy
Weren't there arhats in the sangha? To make sure nothing bad happened? Are arhats failable? Or did they not have any arhats for awhile?
the Pari-Nibbana was near the death of Buddha, long after
the ordination of women.
In general, the Buddha was very supportive of anyone who made sincere efforts to practice his teaching. He was also willing to expel people he thought were causing trouble. I don't think he would have admitted an entire class of people into the sangha and then compared them to mildew.
Why not focus on the positive part of the sutta?
In the same sutta Buddha said women are just as capable of nirvana.
His objection is to ordination of women, not women learning &
practising Buddhism.
He relented & he explained the consequences.
If you want to reject the sutta, you will have to reject the part
about women are just as capable of nirvana as well.
In Buddhism, being born a woman means that you dont have sufficient
good karma to be borned a man.
No, not because men are better than women.
Simply because through out history women have been subjugated &
oppressed by men.
Even in 2011, if you look at the world, countries where women
have equal rights as men are still the minority.
:om:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thig/index.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.044.than.html
Once women proved their capability of managing their affairs in the Order, the Buddha recognised their abilities and talents, and gave them responsible positions in the Bhikkhuni Sangha. The Buddhist texts record of eminent saintly Bhikkhunis, who were very learned and who were experts in preaching the Dhamma. Dhammadinna was one such Bhikkhuni, Khema and Uppalavanna are two others.
The Theri-gatha contains numerous stanzas that clearly express the feelings of joy experienced by saintly bhikkhunis at their ability to enter the Order and realize the Truth."
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/position.htm
see here too....
http://www.tilokpur.org/kdtl6.html I guess this is why my garden is so full of worms and slugs.
All misogynistic men, reborn into the realm they deserve for what they do to women, huh....?
(ridiculous isn't it? Just as ridiculous as your assertion....)
to be born a man who is mentally retarded or a woman who became the
CEO of Pepsico?
Are you saying the fact that we are born male or female is
completely by chance?
There is a tribe in Yunnan, China where the women are in charge.
Ultimately, its how you perceive these things.
I have no problems with women. I think they are wonderful.
Its just that in many cultures, women are regarded as inferior
& are treated as inferior, deprived of education & freedom.
Its a great disadvantage to be born a woman in such societies.
As a nun, Robina Courtin puts it, perhaps the women who are oppressed
by men in this life were the men who oppressed women in their previous
life.
(Don't bother answering. I have great metta for same sex couples & people, having many such friends. Just a question to bring up the monkey chatter in speculative minds)
I dont know what you have against Robina.
She devotes her time n energy to teach prisoners buddhism n
meditation.
I have great admiration for people like that.
This tribe is descended from Tibetan nomads, and speaks a dialect of Tibetan. In ancient times, Tibet had three matriarchal kingdoms (some archaeologists refer to them as "Queendoms"). Perhaps the Yunnan tribe is a survival of that tradition. Thank you for this, hermitwin. I wasn't aware of the rest of the suttra, I picked the OP passage up from another thread. Could you give us the relevant passage? And why did the Buddha object to ordination of women, what were the consequences? Thank you again.
/victor
Apparently.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1967&start=0
(interesting read.....)
We can create all sorts of labels and talk about being born as a black person, a white person, a gay person, a woman, a man, a naturally talented person, a handicapped person, a midget.. any sort of person and we can debate the benefits and drawbacks for each group. The differences between the individuals seem to be more important than the broad labels of their groups because our circumstances are not cookie cutters within the groups that happen to be united through some label. I think focusing too hard on a label like gender is a generalization that overlooks much detail.
The discussion is on the duration of the dhamma after the ordination of nuns was approved, and whether the Buddha really said that.....
A two thousand year old text says two thousand year old things in a two thousand year old way.
- It takes a certain degree of magic for granted. (So the Buddha knowing the distant future is no problem at all.)
- It expresses a certain degree of low opinion about woman. (In this case it is surprisingly mild.)
- A recount of events which happened hundreds of years before is non-problematic.
(The oldest surviving texts apparently date from the first century A.D.)
What is there to explain about that?
I found this in the thread.
"But, Ānanda, if women had not obtained the Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the doctrine and discipline made known by the Tathāgata, the holy life would have lasted long, the true Dhamma would have lasted 1,000 years. But now that they have gotten to go forth... this holy life will not last long, the true Dhamma will last only 500 years. Just as a clan in which there are many women and few men is easily plundered by robbers and thieves, in the same way, in whatever doctrine and discipline women get to go forth, the holy life does not last long... Just as a man might make an embankment in advance around a great reservoir to keep the waters from overflowing, in the same way I have set forth in advance the eight rules of respect for bhikkhunīs that they are not to transgress as long as they live." — Cullavagga X.1
And from that this
http://www.leighb.com/aboutan851.htm
Another interesting read...
Cheers
/Victor
providing you avoid using 'borned'....
If people cannot see that males still hold more advantage in the world than women then they are deluding themselves.
No wonder Buddha speaks what is true, because it is what it is. By saying it's bull crap one denies that humans discriminates and differentiates things around us.
There's a Google Books version of Harvey's book. Google for "harvey and buddha and nuns and ordination" if you're interested.
Harvey actually gives a number of reasons why the story is probably post-parinirvana. I just gave Nattier's argument as an example.