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.
Women, Equity, Buddhism and the modern world
Simonthepilgrim
Veteran
In the thread on Buddhist Monasteries, the question of the ordination of nuns has arisen. I know it's an old chestnut but I think it remains an important aspect of difference between the traditional and the new (Western) Buddhisms.
The absence of equity for women in all aspects of life which obtained in earlier times is now deemed unacceptable. The fight for the vote, pay equality and, even, ordination has been won in many places. Elsewhere, it continues to be considered, in our cultures, as a desirable objective. One of the most persuasive arguments for intervention against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was the treatment and status of women.
That old traditions preventing women from certain roles or rules which make it harder for them to attain certain ranks than for men continue to be supported seems anomalous. It would be as unthinkable to set a higher standard for a woman to vote as to reintroduce the "Jim Crow" laws.
When the Church of England voted to ordain women, they excluded both the possibility of advancement to the episcopate (which is now under review) but also, and more seriously, they were permitted to derogate from those provisions in law for equal access to promotion and treatment which would have rendered the "no women bishops" clause unlawful! Whilst disagreeing deeply with these exclusions, I can just about understand the attitude of a faith family with only a Father as its leader and 2000 years of phallocracy. And the less said about the Roman Catholic and Orthodox attitudes to women the better.
That various Buddhist traditions persist in treating men and women differently worries me. It suggests that there is a scerlotic attitude at the centre. Lip-service is paid to equity and equality but nuns still need to take more vows and can only be ordained, either by other nuns or by a mix of nuns and monks, whereas monks can ordain monks without the presence of nuns: where's the equality in that?
On the path of rebirth, each of us has been both male and female, presumably. Gender is as 'empty' as any other apparent phenomenon and establishing a hierarchy of gender is just nonsense.
Just as Saint Paul, as a child of his time, told slaves to obey their masters and wives their husbands, yet we question these commands, can we not let go of culturally-conditioned, outdated, sexist practices? They appear to be followed through historical inertia and the desire to maintain that no possible error could have blotted the Buddhist copybook.
The absence of equity for women in all aspects of life which obtained in earlier times is now deemed unacceptable. The fight for the vote, pay equality and, even, ordination has been won in many places. Elsewhere, it continues to be considered, in our cultures, as a desirable objective. One of the most persuasive arguments for intervention against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was the treatment and status of women.
That old traditions preventing women from certain roles or rules which make it harder for them to attain certain ranks than for men continue to be supported seems anomalous. It would be as unthinkable to set a higher standard for a woman to vote as to reintroduce the "Jim Crow" laws.
When the Church of England voted to ordain women, they excluded both the possibility of advancement to the episcopate (which is now under review) but also, and more seriously, they were permitted to derogate from those provisions in law for equal access to promotion and treatment which would have rendered the "no women bishops" clause unlawful! Whilst disagreeing deeply with these exclusions, I can just about understand the attitude of a faith family with only a Father as its leader and 2000 years of phallocracy. And the less said about the Roman Catholic and Orthodox attitudes to women the better.
That various Buddhist traditions persist in treating men and women differently worries me. It suggests that there is a scerlotic attitude at the centre. Lip-service is paid to equity and equality but nuns still need to take more vows and can only be ordained, either by other nuns or by a mix of nuns and monks, whereas monks can ordain monks without the presence of nuns: where's the equality in that?
On the path of rebirth, each of us has been both male and female, presumably. Gender is as 'empty' as any other apparent phenomenon and establishing a hierarchy of gender is just nonsense.
Just as Saint Paul, as a child of his time, told slaves to obey their masters and wives their husbands, yet we question these commands, can we not let go of culturally-conditioned, outdated, sexist practices? They appear to be followed through historical inertia and the desire to maintain that no possible error could have blotted the Buddhist copybook.
0
Comments
Here I will quote a well-read writer on NewBuddhist, Frank Herbert, and say:
"Power itself does not corrupt but attracts the corruptible" (or something to that degree!)
Whether we choose to see it or not, such a notion is applicable to the power structures created by the path that we have chosen to follow - as Simon rightly points out.
For those of you who have spoken to lay-practitioners in countries such as Thailand you'll know that monks, and nuns, are considered holy beings. For those of you that haven't there are rules (that usually don't apply to westerners) such as - you must not touch the monks or make eye contact with them etc. Reverent or not - this is a form of power that ordination gives the monk or nun.
Unfortunately there are people who will play lip service to sutras and temple rules in order to obtain this power and instead of using it wisely (in the service of their practice) only deepen the furrows of their suffering by abusing it. A holy ego stroke, if you will.
Historically men have abused this power and withheld teachings from women, which is indeed erroneous.
BUT
Who, may I ask is really losing out here? Those that stand in the way of peace and compassionate understanding or those that embrace it - despite the colour of cloth on their back?
Please don't think me a hard-hearted chauvinist I wish to only see that despite all these injustices we perceive they are merely clouds floating by on a beautiful blue sky.
For me the true meaning of equality lies not in the separate social staus of individuals but the equal treatment and compassion felt for every sentient being by a loving being. It is therefore, with gratitude, that I practice for every sentient being and their liberation from suffering.
With respect: BSF,
If I am prevented from following a spiritual path simply because I am a woman, then it is I who is really losing out. And I will do whatever I can to change this status quo.
"Please don't think me a hard-hearted chauvinist I wish to only see that despite all these injustices we perceive they are merely clouds floating by on a beautiful blue sky.
For me the true meaning of equality lies not in the separate social staus of individuals but the equal treatment and compassion felt for every sentient being by a loving being. It is therefore, with gratitude, that I practice for every sentient being and their liberation from suffering."
I certainly do not think you are a hard hearted male chauvinist. But if you put yourself in my shoes I think you may see this issue differently. I find neither injustice nor separate social status to be merely clouds floating by. Nor did my suffragette sisters. Nor those who marched and those who died for civil rights in the U.S. Nor those who fought apartheid in South Africa. Nor the Vietnamese monks who self-immolated in the 1960's in protest to a governmental anti-Buddhist crackdown. I could go on.
I simply can't wait quietly for change to come around in it's own good time because that's not how the world works. Change takes more than patience. It takes effort. If I believed that suffering would simply disappear on it's own, I wouldn't be a Buddhist. I hope you understand my point of view.
Simon, thank you for introducing a thread that means very much to me. I greatly appreciate it.
With love and respect,
Brigid.
Thank you for taking the time to read my post.
I have only one question for you:
How are you prevented from following a spiritual path?
A deep bow,
dave
Full ordination to become a Buddhist nun is restricted (or non-existent) in some countries and under some traditions. Check out the thread "Buddhist Monasteries" in "The American Buddhist" for more info. on this subject. It's quite disheartening. There are some excellent links in that thread as well.
And a deep bow returned,
Brigid.
It was also suggested on another forum, when the same issue was discussed, that the main reason the Buddha felt reluctant to accept women for ordination, (he stated that the life of the Dharma would be shortened) was not because he believed women would be responsible, but that men were weak in matters of the flesh, and would permit themselves to be distracted....thereby permittingthemselves to 'stray from the Dharma Path....
Interestingly, in a different thread in the same forum on Notable Monks leaving the ordained life to return to a lay life, many gave examples of Monks doing this, but notable nuns have remained as notable nuns.....
I shall have to see if I can plough my way through this other forum to find reliable links;
But such was he timbre of these discussions....
Palzang
You made a wonderful comment that really encapsulates the whole problem of sexism.
You said, "But if you put yourself in my shoes I think you may see this issue differently."
It would help many people to take this line when discussing pros and cons of a situation that they will never understand unless they are right at the heart of it. For instance, I'm a white male, how can I argue about how racism against black people must feel ? I"M NOT ONE OF THEM!
The same goes for arguing about how women feel in this male-dominated society-I'M NOT A WOMAN.
To get back on topic I think we should all try to remove sexist and racist situations when we see them-the ordination of nuns/monks/me/lay people/whoever is just another one we need to attend to-perhaps.
Brigid... As far as i'm concerned, I look at it this way.
You have a fact, piece of information, or opinion.
Look at the proportion of those who agree with it.
Look at the proportion of those who disagree with it.
If the disparity is huge, then those in the majority would appear to all intents and purposes, carry the argument.
Discrimination is a Wrong View in this case.
However, in a backlash to the phallocratic religions in which most of us were raised, there has developed a Women Only breakaway group, the Dianics, who insist that ONLY women should be ordained. As the central and most holy ritual of the celbration is a representation of the creation of life by male and female, this is patently absurd. Two women together cannot create life any more than two men can.
With deep respect to all, and having suffered from male sexism - I just wish to balance out the viewpoint that chauvinist pigs are always male - some of them are sows!
While I do agree that there are many, many places where things are male-dominated...
It has been my experience that there are female-dominant or female-sympathetic areas that - for some odd reason, I don't hear women complaining about the inequality of those systems. Equality isn't "All male opportunitiies should be open to me - but these women-thing? Oh... they're just for women." and it isn't "All female opportunities should be open to me - but these man-things? Oh.... they're just for men."
I'm trying to write this with Right Mindfulnes - so don't think I'm trying to rip on women here... or anywhere.
It is my belief that if we want things equal - all things should be equal. I believe society is rapidly changing and it is becoming more and more difficult for both men and women to find their places or roles in life anymore.
As for ordination? I have no certain lineage that I follow. I believe that if a person has had some epiphany where they believe becoming a nun or a monk is what they should do - they should have to opportunity to do it.
Even if they have to do it themselves.
-bf
I would like the opportunity to do any job for which I am suited and capable at the same rate as any other person would be paid for it. I want no allowances made, positive discrimination, just the chance to compete on an even basis. This includes in the spiritual.
-bf
"As for ordination? I have no certain lineage that I follow. I believe that if a person has had some epiphany where they believe becoming a nun or a monk is what they should do - they should have to opportunity to do it.
Even if they have to do it themselves."
I see your point, Buddhafoot. And if it comes down to that, I may have to. But I'd like to add that whenever you come across a situation in which you feel men are not being given the same opportunities as women, please think of it as an opportunity to see with your own eyes what women have had to endure for millenia. I don't revel in the idea of forcing men to understand fully what the experience of women has been, and still is. But I think that if the inequalities were weighed on both sides we'd see that we still have a long way to go.
Im sorry but C of E?? RC?? Huh?
It seems like, though I could be mistaken, there are many western women who desire to be ordain on an equal basis with men. Several well known western women have already been ordained in Tibetan traditions, Pema Chodron, Tenzin Palmo and Thubten Chodron.
With organizations like the following, women like Brigid, and with Buddhist male allies I really have hope that the coming years will see the end of monastic gender discrimination within Tibetan Buddhism.
Sakyadhita - International Organisation of Buddhist Women dedicated to the welfare and concerns of Buddhist laywomen and nuns worldwide.
Dongyu Gatsal Ling Nunnery & International Retreat Centre for Women - Ven Tenzin Palmo's special project; where young women from Tibet and the Himalayan border regions could come together to study and practise in accordance with the Drukpa Kargyu tradition of Tibetan Buddhism.
Thösamling Institute for International Buddhist Women in Dharamsala - is the first Rime, non-sectarian nunnery and institution built in India that offers Buddhist nuns and lay women the opportunity to live and practice as part of a spiritual community.
Keith
RC - Roman Catholic
I agree, Keith. I think since Tibetan Buddhism has come to the West a lot has been done to improve the status of women. Of course, it must to survive in the West because we simply wouldn't put up with discrimination of this sort.
One of the reasons I chose my present temple was because the teacher there, Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo, is an American woman and because the majority of the ordained are women as well. For me, it was something of a political statement as well as a spiritual one to throw in my lot with this group because it does address this issue directly and positively. And it is an interesting experience to be in the minority. Of course, the main reason was because I immediately recognized Jetsunma as my root guru, but the other was important too!
Palzang
The literature always referes to the nurse as 'she' and 'her' - naturally - and i have no problem with that; but it did highlight the very subtle ways the male gender will dominate things, as the vast literature referes to people as 'he' and 'his'. This might seem inconsequential but it's just one more way people are conditioned to think in a certain way - in my case that nurses are female (and what does that say for a red blooded male?) - and in womens' case that it is males that do things.
For example, in most theolgy god is neither male nor female (but always super-powerful), but is still refered to as 'he' the vast majority of times - reinforcing 'he' as powerful.
It's also interesting that just about every 'successful' women these days is gorgeous - again reinforcing that a women has to be sexual in order to be considered successful. And who benifits from that? Women who now have an ideal to live up to or men who can just sit back and watch all these lovely 'successful' women.
Sorry about the rant but the other day a 5 year old relative of mine told me she wanted bigger breasts (she's a girl's aloud fan). It disturbed a little.
Brigid,
I see your point.
The only thing I can say is: If a man kills a whole bunch of people, or steals a whole bunch of money, or lies 24x7 - and there is a woman who only kills a little, only steals a little and only lies a little - is the woman better or entitled to more social leniency? Or are they both guilty of killing, stealing and lying?
I believe that things should be equal. To then say, well, while one gender gets away with "this or that" - it's a learning opportunity for the other - and that's okay?
Men are not given any real validity in regards to child rearing or bonding. Men, in society, are made to look like buffoons. When it comes to divorce, in most states, men are reduced to nothing more than a wallet with basically no rights in regards to their children. Most social programs involving children depict the dangerous stranger, the child molester, the evil incarnate of society - being male.
I still stand by the point that all things should be equal. Not to take the injustice of one gender and make it seem abhorrent - but then take the injustice of another gender and say, "until things are equal - you should just learn from this" and somehow justify it.
As usual, if I sound like an ass - I honestly don't intend to. I mean this post in the utmost respect for each and every one of us.
-bf
Listen, you'll never have to worry about offending me. Ever. This is exactly the kind of dialogue that is important and appropriate for this thread and for our times. I've read through a lot of your posts and you've helped me and taught me more than you'll ever know. I like to think I've got a good idea of the kind of person you are and I will always think of you as a close friend. So, don't worry. K?
Regarding your first paragraph;
"The only thing I can say is: If a man kills a whole bunch of people, or steals a whole bunch of money, or lies 24x7 - and there is a woman who only kills a little, only steals a little and only lies a little - is the woman better or entitled to more social leniency? Or are they both guilty of killing, stealing and lying?"
They are, of course, both subject to the same laws, natural and otherwise. I was talking about available opportunities not actions. Twobitbob illustrated it perfectly.
"The literature always referes to the nurse as 'she' and 'her' - naturally - and I have no problem with that; but it did highlight the very subtle ways the male gender will dominate things, as the vast literature referes to people as 'he' and 'his'. This might seem inconsequential but it's just one more way people are conditioned to think in a certain way - in my case that nurses are female (and what does that say for a red blooded male?) - and in womens' case that it is males that do things."
He looked at his experience through the eyes of a male and a female. That's exactly what I was asking for. It's extremely helpful in understanding the ways in which our society has become perverted (not sexually).
I agree with you in regards to the issue of divorce and child custody. Things need to change in the courts, in the home and in the workplace. I don't have any solutions, though. It's a tough one.
As for men being made to look like buffons in society, I've heard other men make this complaint. I don't have anything useful to say about this except that women have been made to look... well, that will take too long.
Now, when it comes to social programs involving violence against children, women will soon be included, as men are not the only abusers. But I'd like you to look at the issue of parents killing their children. It's a very good illustration of inequality among the sexes. In the vast majority of cases it is the father doing the killing. However, when a woman commits the same crime everyone goes berzerk and media coverage is extensive. When it comes to spousal abuse, the same is true. No one says that women can't be as violent as men. However it IS men who are in the majority when it comes to violent crime. That's the reality.
Things are not equal. Women still live in fear of violence simply because they are women. The same cannot be said of men. I'm not interested in making the world a more equal place for men. I'm still trying to avoid violence against myself. I don't have the luxury of time. Like the story about the man who was shot with a poison arrow. I don't have time to refuse it's removal until I know who shot it, what they looked like, what kind of wood the arrow was made of etc. That would be patently ridiculous. All I want is for men who experience any sort of inequality or discrimination based SOLELY on their gender to apply it to their understanding of what women have suffered throughout the history of our species. If you take out the "just" in your comment;
"until things are equal - you should (just) learn from this"
it will be what I was originally asking for. Of course I want you to speak up if you are being discriminated against solely because you are male. Of course I know that two wrongs don't make a right and an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. But in order to understand the inequality women face on this planet we must look at the experiences of women. And men need to walk a mile in our shoes. I think this is very important and until it happens more often, change will be a long time in coming.
With love and respect.
your friend always,
Brigid
Twobitbob,
This deserves a comment. OMIGOD!!!!!! Out of the mouths of babes....
I find this tragic and it absolutely breaks my heart. I like to think human society is evolving. But this is surely a good three steps back. I was thinking about what would be going through my mind if I was that little girl and all I could think of was "Help".
Your post was beautiful and I appreciate every word you wrote. Thank you.
With love,
Brigid
Brigid...
Excellent points.
Regarding violence in the home and "domestic partner violence" - yes, I've been a party to that. Being stabbed at with sewing scissors - being awakened at night by being beaten in the face or back, broken bones, sleeping outside in a car (or at work or at a friends place of business) because home wasn't safe, yeah... I've walked that mile. I've faced all those situations. If you don't think that men live in fear - just ask some of us.
I can't change history. Nor do I believe I should be made to pay for historical crimes I never committed.
As for killing, abuse and such - I have a wonderful book I just finished you might like: Throwaway Dads. Very enlightening to how statistics work in our country and just how many undead-beat dads we have. How many dead-beat mothers there are. How men are the "poster-boys" for an untrusting gender. How the majority of children, that are slain, are done so by a female family member.
I'm not saying that lessons can't be learned - I think all discrimination should be ended - but as it arises. Not making it okay for some discrimination to happily exist while raging against other types of discrimination.
Thanks for your posts.
-bf
You sound a little upset. I hope I'm not making the situation worse by adding this post.
"If you don't think that men live in fear - just ask some of us."
I would never think nor say that men don't live in fear. I think fear is at the very centre of this issue. I don't want you to think I'm invalidating the horrible abuse you suffered at the hands of a woman. And it may be irrelevant to say this now but my mother and I and my four siblings (one of whom is a boy) were beaten and terrorized by my father for almost 40 years. However, my situation IS more common in society, no matter what statistics you look at or what books you read. This is plain fact. It is not my oppinion. Please note, however, that in my earlier post I did say that men are not the only abusers in society.
"How the majority of children, that are slain, are done so by a female family member."
This is a patently false statement.
"How men are the "poster-boys" for an untrusting gender."
We have reason to distrust.
"I can't change history. Nor do I believe I should be made to pay for historical crimes I never committed."
No one is asking you to pay for crimes you did not commit. Especially not I . If you decide to go back and read my posts another day when this issue is not weighing as heavily, I think you will see that.
In sympathy and solidarity,
and with love,
Brigid
Yes, I've read the book.
"THROWAWAY DADS: The Myths and Barriers That Keep Men From Being the Fathers They Want to Be." by Ross D. Parke and Armin A. Brott.
In case anyone else would like to read it.
I write this as a woman who suffered pysical abuse from her first husband - I just want to say that either is obviously wrong and the cause is anger and frustration. Until we heal the causes of this anger and frustration on both sides we aren't going to get anywhere.
Don't forget that great catalyst of violence, alcohol, which is implicated in so much violence, let alone domestic.
I have pondered on this one for years.
I am white, male, middle-class, European. I have benefited from the economic strength of the Western economy and liberal education. My paternal grandparents were Jewish immigrants but my father was an officer of the Raj, in India, after the Great War.
The ease of my living conditions would not be what it is were it not for some hideous crimes committed in the creation and maintenance of "imperial prefence" in trade, and in constructing an industrial base. The Empire sucked in the resources of other lands, leaving many of them impoverished still today. It constrained the inhabitants to change their way of life in order to accomodate the needs of Great Britain.
Before that, England had attempted, over centuries, to gain 'ownership' of the other nations with which it shared these islands.
My question to myself is this: if I am the inheritor of stolen wealth and use it, am I not as guilty as the perpetrators? Do children not inherit, alongside their parents' wealth, all their debts as well?
This question bothers me deeply and has caused some particular upsets in debate with US friends over the matter of Ndn (Native American) rights.
Bravo and very well stated.
With great respect (and a bit of awe),
Brigid.
No.. honestly, I'm not upset with the post.
While I may seem emphatic in my writing - that is truly not how I'm trying to come off. In fact, there is very little here that takes places that I actually allow to upset me.
So, don't worry - we're okay.
As for the topic - it has been my knowledge, understanding and first/second hand encounters that things are very unfair.
I've never been beaten, slapped, cut, bruised or left huddled in a corner weeping and bleeding and afraid by a father or step-father. I have by a step-mother.
I've never been attacked by a man - nor been threatened, had the life of my son threatened, been beaten or buised or bleeding by a man. I have by a woman.
I've seen men at work show up with various shots that have been taken by their female partners - I've even seen one of them being tended to after a wife busted his head open with a bottle - so he fled the family home and slept in a car overnight - which wasn't good because he had suffered a concussion. I've never seen women show up to work like this.
I've worked with and for a number of women. The women that I've worked with and for have been really great co-workers, bosses or owners. I never felt any anger or hatred at working for a woman who had more education, innovation or balls to get where she is. I've never seen any of them come in bruised or battered.
That being the case, I have a hard time sympathizing with something (sometimes) that I have no first hand knowledge of - while incidents that I do have first hand knowledge of - being played down, minimalized, or being told that it is patently wrong, etc.
I don't get upset with posts like this - so don't worry about hurting my feelings or thinking that I'm upset and dwelling on this
Don't worry about upsetting me - and it is not my intention to upset you.
-bf
"By their fruits shall ye know them."
Are their lives better for the trade routes or the missions? Are they happier - or are we?
I honestly don't know what to do.
I think for things to be fair and equitable - all non-Native Americans should leave the US and it be given back to its original people. They should go back to the countries of their origin. The from there, those lands be given back to their original people, and so on and so on.
Is that realistic?
How would or can we reverse things? What does one do?
-bf
What do you all think, do these thoughts and questions help or hinder us on the Buddha's Path?
What is in the past is past. It is usless to attach to the unskillful action of others, even if those 'others' were family members. Past kamma is done. Their effects will ripen when their conditioning permits. There is nothing that you can do to change them [unless you are in the possession of a time machine of course]. The only option that is left open to us in the Buddha's Path is to skillful steer our present actions towards a skillful goal [i.e. Nibbana]. Along the way, we will stumble and make some poor choices, but that doesn't mean that we bereate ourselves over what we've done. We simply learn from our mistakes, which then gives us the insights and tools needed to make better choices in the future. The Buddha was indeed a wise man. He once said that we should frequently recollect:
'I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.' - AN V.57
Notice that the Buddha doesn't say "I am heir to my paternal grandparent's actions, my father's actions, my entire nationality's actions, etc." We will only be as "guilty as the perpetrators" until we let go of these obsessive thoughts. Guilt is only useful when it helps us to make better choices; it is not useful when we cling to it as some sort of stigma. When we attach and identitfy ourselves with our country, our race, our gender, our age, our religion, our political views, our zodiac sign, etc. we are actively creating our sakkaya-ditthi (self-view), which then actively creates our kamma (intentional actions) through the seed of tahna (craving), which consequently sprouts into kusala (skillful) or akusala (unskillful) vipaka (results). The only thinig that we are truly sharing with the world is avijja (ignorance). Once that is completely removed through panna (wisdom), there will be nothing left for us to ponder. A person who has acheived the Goal has no sakkaya-ditthi, and with no soil for the seed of tahna to sprout, they produce no kamma. Hence, the cycle of becoming is broken.
The skillful thing to do in my opinion is "Fix what can be fixed, and leave be what you can't."
Just my personal thoughts.
Jason
Now, folks, Now.....
Simon - I DO agree with you about the eventual outcome, but was trying for balance and if I have offended, I ask your pardon.
Living in the wilderness,
staying peaceful, remaining chaste,
eating just one meal a day:
why are their faces
so bright & serene?
[The Buddha:]
They don't sorrow over the past,
don't long for the future.
They survive on the present.
That's why their faces
are bright & serene.
From longing for the future,
from sorrowing over the past,
fools wither away
like a green reed cut down.
- Arañña Sutta: SN I.10
Well, you have. Being dismissed in this manner is not only insulting but very hurtful. I tried very hard to speak in a skillful way with skillful intentions but you've taken everything I've said and twisted it out of all recognition. You're accusing me of minimizing your personal experience? We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Clearly we are talking about two different things. I can hardly believe it, but you've actually managed to really upset me. A lot. I'm going to go now. I think maybe it's best if I don't come here anymore.
I give up. I didn't know all of this was happening.
-bf
I thought we were discussing personal views, opinions and perspectives. I thought you were very calm and professional in your statements. But, I don't believe this type of discussion is wanted or desired presently- so I'll be begging out of this discussion.
Simon - looks like you'll be having to ponder this question by yourself once again!
Thanks for your posts.
-bf
...
Then the Blessed One said to those bhikkhus; Bhikkhus, is it true that you have aroused a dispute among yourselves are quarrelling with each other throwing sharp words at each other. You wouldn't discuss the matter among yourselves and come to an understanding? Yes, venerable sir. Bhikkhus, at a time when you have aroused a dispute among yourselves are quarrelling with each other throwing sharp words at each other, are you established in bodily actions of loving kindness, towards co-associates in the holy life openly and secretly? Established in verbal actions of loving kindness, towards co-associates in the holy life openly and secretly? Establishd in mental actions of loving kindness, towards co-associates in the holy life openly and secretly? No, venerable sir. Bhikkhus, you have aroused a dispute among yourselves quarrelling with each other, throwing sharp words at each other. Now you are not established in bodily actions of loving kindness, towards co-associates in the holy life openly or secretly. You are not established in verbal actions of loving kindness, towards co-associates in the holy life openly or secretly. You are not established in mental actions of loving kindness, towards co-associates in the holy life openly or secretly. Foolish men, seeing what good have you aroused this dispute? You do not discuss this matter among yourselves and come to an understanding. Foolish men, this will be for your undoing for a long time.
...
- MN 48
Jason
Having just re-read this thread with a calmer mind I'm afraid I just can't stay.
I'm sorry.
Maybe this path isn't the right one for me after all. I don't think I have the strength for it.
I'm sorry for the fuss.
I wish you all the happiness in the world.
Your friend,
Brigid.
Your replies are exactly the reason why this question worries me! And, also, the reason why Budhists so often have the reputation for being 'detached' rather than engaged in life as people are living it.
As for the idea of the 'teming masses' leaving Turtle Island, that is patently unworkable but is it not a scandal that the Ndn peoples (for example), or the Australian Aborigines or the African Bushmen live in such deprivation?
Yes it is a scandal that modern day natives of all our former colonies live in such deprivation, but isn't that a fault of modern day populations and governments?
Zimbabwe having been taken back is in an appalling state of affairs, perhaps the Native inhabitants may prefer the days of British colonialism?
My family were colonial too, in India around the turn of the 19/20Cs and were lauded for it by this country. I don't feel any guilt about this. To be honest I think there is enough trouble in the world and can also be in our day to day lives without a retrograde guilt trip for which one can do nothing about. If one attempted to restore property to Indian peasants its more than likely Indian criminal classes would take it anyway. But that country also was hardly World class back in the 18/19C anyway, and their lives possibly have improved because the days of Empire and of Raj.
The problem is manifold, of course:
1. When John Company and, subsequently, the British government took over the Subcontinent, the old, corrupt, Moghul system of kings and princes was supported. Whilst sutti was abolished, the caste system was encouraged. No political progress was encouraged.
2. No real land reform was ever undertaken.
3. We stayed long after the inhabitants wanted us out.
4. We continue to treat former colonies as second-class nations.
among other factors.
It is true that friends in Goa have said that they wqere richer under Portuguese rule than under Delhi but some of that is based on religion and some on the "good-old-days" syndrome that longs for trains to run on time, irrespective of the Amritsar massacre or the Salt Laws.