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.
Men are the only possible private buddhists?
From "The Paccekabuddha: A Buddhist Ascetic" [http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh305.pdf] :
"The conditions needed to make the resolve to go the way leading to Paccekabodhi are enumerated in several works. The commentary to the Suttanipāta gives the following list: being human, possessing the male sex, seeing those who are free of evil influences, meritorious act, and desire.
These conditions are explained as follows:
...
“Possessing the male sex” means: “existence as a man; of those who live in a human birth, but as a woman, as someone without sex or as a hermaphrodite, etc., the aspiration is not
successful.”
Thoughts
"The conditions needed to make the resolve to go the way leading to Paccekabodhi are enumerated in several works. The commentary to the Suttanipāta gives the following list: being human, possessing the male sex, seeing those who are free of evil influences, meritorious act, and desire.
These conditions are explained as follows:
...
“Possessing the male sex” means: “existence as a man; of those who live in a human birth, but as a woman, as someone without sex or as a hermaphrodite, etc., the aspiration is not
successful.”
Thoughts
0
Comments
sorry, but the Buddha himself made no discrimination on whether a man could attain Enlightenment any better than a woman.
It's post-Buddha sexism. from here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel433.html
In the Diamond Sutra, the Buddha talks about "a good man or a good woman who wants to subdue their mind."
Also there's an interesting biography of a nun who it seems reached enlightenment:
http://tinyurl.com/maecheekaew
And limiting women's involvement in religious activity is nothing new. So it seems likely that's all that's happening here.
Conrad.
....No.
A homosexual would feel more at home in the company of women, than of men....
Women are far less homophobic than men...
Misogynists however, are alive and kicking, even in some sectors of Buddhism today. attitudes which i would point out are largely and widely condemned by other Buddhist traditions....
The ordination of women and the continuation/revival of particular and specific bikkhuni lineages has caused huge rifts in some quarters....
this article appears on a Buddhist website. it's a few years old now, and the newspaper link given no longer takes to that page.
but the OP (Appichatto) is a Bikkhu in Thailand.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1281&p=16199&hilit=bikkhuni#p16199
A web search for the term brought me to the Pratyekabddha Wp page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratyekabuddha
--which makes me wonder if what's being asserted is that Guatama had to be male, and couldn't have done it if he was born female.
Is that what's being said? And if so, what is the relevance?
Conrad.
So, not Guatama, but still having nothing to do with nuns?
Conrad.
ps - A fill-in buddha?
I read something about this once, I think, where it said that the private Buddha wouldn't communicate the teaching because he wouldn't have the vocabulary to. And I thought that was interesting:
--I understand that what's meant is that the conceptual vocab is lacking. But I wonder if it might be literal too.
For example, suppose a dog became enlightened. Well, they have Buddha-nature. But he wouldn't be able to communicate the instruction to other canines, presumably, so the teaching wouldn't carry.
In other words, could there be a dog paccekabuddha in the dog bardo?
Which brings me back to a preoccupation of mine: are there non-linguistic ways of communicating the dharma? Through art, or in other ways?
Conrad.
At this moment in time we can become Arahants; which means that we can become enlightened following the teachings of a Sammasambuddha (Gautama).
This road is open to both genders.
It’s different for the road to becoming a Pacceyka Buddha (who gets it on his own when there is no teaching to follow) or a Sammasambuddha (who gets it on his own and in addition is able to set the wheel of Dharma in motion for others to become Arahants in his slipstream).
It takes a penis. Don’t ask me why lol.
For practical purposes: we can all be fully enlightened right now, and we will all be “ordinary“ Arahants when we do.
This would be known as threadjacking, so separate questions not pertaining to the original question should be raised separately.
Many thanks!
the part about not being able to teach or not wishing to is complicated. i think they are still wise people who voice their thoughts but i dont think they have the ability to elaborate a whole system of teaching/concepts like the Buddha w/ the dharma...
My take is that a pratekabuddha is an arhat that doesn't have a teacher. An arhat that does have a teacher is called a sravaka.
It takes a penis. Don’t ask me why lol.
You know... Aristotle had the idea that men supply the soul of a child, and women supplied the matter. Women philosophers who bring up the topic usually go the other way, and say men don't do much.
I wonder if there's something like that happening here. Some philosophical background having to do with ideas about creativity.
Conrad.
Just out of place.
By all means ask the question.
but I think we can over-think things and forget the amazing wonder of the simple teachings.
Its the repressed I-dont-want-to-admit-I-like-men that in my opinion go the other way - in order to justify their lack of desire towards women, they demonise women and create elaborate reasons why they should hang out with men only.
Its a gross generalisation but I like to say it to misogynists... either way I'm going with the 'complete bull' response...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vipassī_Buddha
--human prehistory doesn't go far enough for some of these buddhas. Also if #22's chronology were correct, he died 4k years ago, which, with the non-overlapping rule, doesn't leave room for #24, who was born 6k years ago.
#22 didn't do too well... or maybe did too well. His audiences dwindled rapidly -- people didn't like what they heard I guess.
I thought a "kalpa" was an "eon." I'm having trouble making sense of any of this... perhaps my penis has betrayed me.
Conrad.
But homophobia is a domain of the heterosexual macho male.... who is either grossly misninformed, or in denial....
Straight men feel threatened or intimidated by them, so they get more of a hostile reception from men, than they do women.
I'm not saying this is definitely the case throughout, but it would be interesting to conduct a straw poll amongst our acquaintances.
Why not ask your gay friends, with which gender they feel most comfortable/which gender inflames resentment in them? (if either might apply....)
I'm serious, I'd be interested....
Its a gross generalisation but I like to say it to misogynists... either way I'm going with the 'complete bull' response...
Long ago I came to the conclusion that Buddhism is not quite the scientific religion many people like to point to. This is the stuff of fables.
Don't answer that. I know it's 'yes'......
I OBJECT to the fact that you get to talk about queers on this thread, but you're not letting me talk dog enlightenment.
Where's your brain, hmm?
C.
I trust you have nothing against homosexuals?
And it's pertinent to the discussion. Homosexual monks also face prejudice in some quarters.... Why is it pertinent to the discussion?
I did say start another thread. you're the one who chose to withdraw the question, labelling it as offending. It's debatable I even have one, but I will say I don't keep it in my pants.
All your dumb talk about penis, trying to egg on federica, and now throwing around words likes 'queers', is quite reprehensible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_studies
But now, regardless of the fact that my question offended you badly enough for you to shut the discussion down, because you're anti-dog enlightenment, I am questioning your egregious abuses of power.
The dog enlightenment question was relevant because it was about the question of what qualities and criteria are necessary for a paccekabuddha. Does Rover qualify?
The listed qualities would indicate that Rover does not, even if he has a penis, because he is required to be human. You apparently do not like the penis criteria, but to call the human criteria into question is unspeakable.
How do you justify thread-jacking this discussion into talk about homosexuality?
Conrad.
2. Nobody shut the thread down.
3. The thread has nothing to do with dogs.
2. ?
3. I think @HookahCaterpillar ought to arbitrate what should be included in this thread. I think the speculative nature of the OP is closer to dog enlightenment, and whether dogs could be paccekabuddhas, than it is to Federica ranting about homosexuals not being misogynists -- a theory that went out in the 70s anyway.
Conrad.
ps - the very title of the thread is, "Men are the only possible private buddhists?" -- to which I reply, "What about dogs?" And I have a rational argument to back it up.
From your link. I really wouldn't go there, if i were you.
there has been no discussion shut down.
I'm asking you to start a new thread and not take this off topic. No, he doesn't. wait... what?!
Whyare you reading more into this than actually exists? It's relevant on the prejudice practised against certain sectors of humans beings ostracised or singled out for exception.
Please be cautious about your accusations.
Everyone here will tell you - I don't abuse my powers.
If you have Moderator criticisms, ('egregious abuses of power') contact Admin. I'd be flattering myself if I thought you meant the latter, right?
I'll be quiet.
Have been for nearly 21 years.
while I very often infinitely prefer the behaviour of dogs to that of humans, I'm still convinced dogs - as dogs - cannot seek enlightenment.
They can't think outside the box.
Their thinking is linear, and very black-and-white.
you need a modicum of inquiry to pursue enlightenment.
Not sure if the survey will work on people who are 'out'... I was more considering those that are firmly in the closet and fighting themselves...
Conducted a quick email straw poll of the gay people I know (and can email) - I've never had such a heated debate! they thought that perhaps I'd gone mad with the unexplained poll!! uuuum... have tried to broadly summarise - I emailed 4 people who I know are out - all men - 3 said that they prefer the company of men as they feel more comfortable with men - 1 said that he prefers women as there is no 'pressure'....
3 broadly said they would like to hang out with straight people more as many gay people they hang with are camp and not manly... they also love hanging out with women as they dont feel like theyre being judged but often they find that they dont relate as well to women and have to change their personalities...
Overall I was also encouraged to come out!
It's complete baloney.
the Buddha made absolutely no distinction....
Heck, if he did, I doubt I'd be here....