The Dalai Lama and the "Age of the Woman"

person

Recently, during his visit to Yeunten Ling, a well-known Buddhist center in Huy, Belgium. His Holiness spoke about the role of women :

“Ancient nomadic tribes were egalitarian and not governed by chiefs. Then came the age of sedentary agriculture and the beginning of the accumulation of wealth. Some troublemakers emerged and it became necessary to call on leaders to keep things in order. Physical strength was essential and naturally male domination took hold.

“Then came the age of education, intelligence, and reason. Women and men are equal in these areas. Nowadays, although there remains much progress to be accomplished, we have entered the age of equality between men and women.

“If we look ahead, it seems that the essential qualities society will need are affection, concern for others, altruism, and compassion. It is clear that women are naturally more inclined to be caring and more compassionate than men. This probably comes from the maternal instinct to care for a child who depends on her, to be concerned with its sufferings and happiness. Faced with the need to promote a more altruistic society, it seems that we might be entering the “age of the woman.”

http://www.matthieuricard.org/en/index.php/blog/

BonsaiDoug

He has mentioned very recently that his next reincarnation might possibly be a woman. He also mentioned Korea for her location; definitely not Tibet.

I remember reading something about high Lamas being able to direct where their reincarnations will take place. A fascinating scenario.

Dakini

Well, HH isn't an anthropologist, but the sentiment is appreciated. The most important thing he said is at the end, where he noted that women are more naturally inclined toward compassion. That's very significant that he said that, because it's pretty much the opposite of what is taught in the monasteries.

Cinorjer

Bless his heart, the HH does try. If you didn't know what the real world is like, you'd think it should be the age of women. The reality is, women have it harder than ever. It's not just the rise in tribal fundamentalism. Even in a place like the US, they're increasingly being treated as second class citizens when it comes to privacy rights. That whole having sex and babies thing. Watcha gonna do?

Are women more naturally compassionate than men? On the one hand, we have the mythic nurturing woman image. On the other, we again have some troubling examples from reality.

Interesting.

Invincible_summer

He has mentioned very recently that his next reincarnation might possibly be a woman. He also mentioned Korea for her location; definitely not Tibet.

I remember reading something about high Lamas being able to direct where their reincarnations will take place. A fascinating scenario.

I wonder how that would turn out, seeing as how (AFAIK) many countries that have Buddhism as a dominant religion tend to also be quite socially patriarchal.

Sile

Very few human societies we know of are/were matriarchal. Sometimes matriarchal simply meant matrilineal (i.e. descent or clan relationships are figured through the female line); generally in matrilineal societies the women do have greater status in general. But very few societies were said to exist which literally flipped the roles between men and women, for many reasons including the very obvious one: men can't nurse.

That said, our western definition of "matriarchal" has been very much colored by...men That has to do in great part with who is most likely to be educated in (and therefore write about) society. I always laugh, for example, when someone says, "Native American society is so patriarchal," knowing the incredible power women wield in the tribe I worked for. It is almost always a more subtle power, yes, but power is power. And it's true, subtle power cannot be easily seen from the outside, and few observers seeing the male village leader making a speech will have any knowledge that his wife advised him--strongly--what to say

Buddhist women in Tibet, by another example, had a less-monastic tradition of spiritual service than the men, but not an unempowered one. It's very easy to count monasteries and monks; much harder to count individual female practitioners, not all of whom are even necessarily in robes. There were female medical practitioners, female lineage holders, female teachers, and female oracles (according to some researchers, the vocation of oracle was in fact dominated by women).

This is not to say that there was no difference in power or status; certainly men dominate in nearly every society in many, many ways and still do. But to get at the deeper truth of the issue, we need to define "dominate," "patriarchal/matriarchal," and probably even "power."

Also, it's worth a note on gender roles; though the modern feminist probably would shrink from the thought, I can tell you after many a long night making food for the men, I was extremely grateful, lying in my warm cozy bed, to hear them get up at 3 a.m. and go get more firewood for the stove. It's not all bad.

Dakini

Very few human societies we know of are/were matriarchal. Sometimes matriarchal simply meant matrilineal (i.e. descent or clan relationships are figured through the female line); generally in matrilineal societies the women do have greater status in general. But very few societies were said to exist which literally flipped the roles between men and women, for many reasons including the very obvious one: men can't nurse.



There were female medical practitioners, female lineage holders, female teachers, and female oracles (according to some researchers, the vocation of oracle was in fact dominated by women).

I disagree with the first paragraph. Matriarchal societies were quite common in Europe, Tibet and India before the arrival of patriarchal nomad society from the Inner Asian desert civilizations. There were three matriarchal "Queendoms" in Tibet before the arrival of Buddhism. Matriarchy isn't always about flipping the roles between male and female, and has nothing to do with the fact that men can't nurse.

It's interesting about the Tibetan women doctors. I've heard Tibetans say that women can't be doctors, there are no women doctors. And yet, there are 3 or 4 in the S.F. Bay Area Tibetan community alone, and one of those comes from a lineage of 7 generations of women doctors, and has female relatives including her mother practicing medicine in Lhasa. The reason it comes as a surprise to some that most oracles were female (aside from the fact that the Tibetan State oracles are male) is that the early scholars of shamanism were men (Levy-Strauss, and Eliade, to name two of the best known), so they only recognized male shamans. Inner Asian shamanism and healing are typically female vocations, as they were in Europe before the Inquisition and Puritan purges.

I've never heard someone say that Native American societies are so patriarchal. That might appear to be the case, because when the US gov't imposed gov't structures on the tribes, the US required tribal representatives to be male. But the women elders still have influence, and in some tribes, the women control the land and the traditional wealth (stock animals). Personally, I find that Native Americans offer a welcome relief from patriarchy.

Invincible_summer

@Sile, I'm not sure if you're responding to my post or not, but an "age of the woman" and feminism in general isn't about overthrowing patriarchy and turning societies into matriarchies. I'm not sure where you're drawing this stuff about matriarchy from.

While I agree that women do have "soft power" in many ways politically/economically, my post was referring more to the more or less sexist attitudes/social structures women in many countries , even ones with Buddhism as a majority religion, have to face.


Finally, I don't know what your anecdote about men getting up to get firewood has to do with patriarchy or anything like that. If a male driver allows a female driver to pass him in traffic, is that a sign of weakening patriarchal structures?

vinlyn

I disagree with the first paragraph. Matriarchal societies were quite common in Europe, Tibet and India before the arrival of patriarchal nomad society from the Inner Asian desert civilizations. There were three matriarchal "Queendoms" in Tibet before the arrival of Buddhism. Matriarchy isn't always about flipping the roles between male and female, and has nothing to do with the fact that men can't nurse.

...

There also was at least one matriarchal "queen"dom in Thailand back well before Thailand became more united...located about an hour's drive south of today's Chiang Mai.

enko

I believe the buddha himself was against women being ordained as nuns until his aunt? or someone close to him persuading him that women too can live a monastic life

In saying that Tibetan Buddhism for example is very male dominated in its hierachy and there is not so much a glass ceiling as a reinforced concrete one

white_wolf

@enko

If the Dalai Lama really does come back as a female, I think that would severely weaken that ceiling in Tibetan Buddhism and I, for one, hope it breaks it.

Now, on to the Dalai Lama's comments, I think he is a bit mistaken because women still face a lot of oppression even in the West. However, I have to see I find his view on woman to be much more progressive and modern than most religious leaders. I mean can you imagine Pope Benedict asking that his successor be a woman or even allowing female priests?

enko

@enko

If the Dalai Lama really does come back as a female, I think that would severely weaken that ceiling in Tibetan Buddhism and I, for one, hope it breaks it.

No doubt. Its amazing when you think just how much social change this Dalai Lama, from an old culture mired in tradition, responds and adapts too. In a progressive way.

federica

I believe the buddha himself was against women being ordained as nuns until his aunt? or someone close to him persuading him that women too can live a monastic life

There is some evidence to support that ths account was added later. If the Buddha had truly been against female ordination, it wouldn't have happened. But there's no reason for that to have happened, because he declared that enlightenment was genderless.
As Judge Judy(!) often says, 'if it doesn't make sense, it's usually because it's not true'.

In saying that Tibetan Buddhism for example is very male dominated in its hierachy and there is not so much a glass ceiling as a reinforced concrete one

Tibetan Buddhism joins the ranks of many other religious views and traditions.
Jesus' mother is of primary importance in the Catholic faith, and one of his most avid followers was Mary Magdalene, yet where are the women in Catholicism?

enko

@federica

Well....that is what Tenzin Palmo, one of the most accomplished and learned Buddhists nuns wrote in her book "Reflections on a mountain lake"

I do recall her as saying something like it is the only time the Buddha was persuaded to change his mind.....i do believe that even the Buddha is capable of changing his mind. Does enlightenment make one infallible and incapable of change? Interesting.



All true but diversionary. I am not interested in what catholicism does or does not do.

federica

Tenzin Palmo is herself in an interesting situation, working as she does to establish a previously lost lineage of ordained nuns...

In addition, although Tenzin Palmo is wise, she is not all-knowing....You may be interested in what this article has to report.

All true but diversionary. I am not interested in what catholicism does or does not do.

As a woman, and ex-catholic, I am.

enko

Yes. Her book and story has been one of my favourites i have read so far.

Good article. Concludes that women are not given equal footing within buddhism and particularly organised buddhism. Alot is obviously cultural as i see in the west many nuns/lay women who are much respected in buddhist tradition.

Also an ex-catholic but alas a man .....the role of women in catholicism is a point of disagreement. Unfortunately it is the same, if not worse, in many buddhist countries.

federica

I'm not sure I understand your 'point of disagreement'....
I'm interested in discussing this, but if you feel it would take the thread O/T, PM me if you like.

Cinorjer

I disagree with the first paragraph. Matriarchal societies were quite common in Europe, Tibet and India before the arrival of patriarchal nomad society from the Inner Asian desert civilizations. There were three matriarchal "Queendoms" in Tibet before the arrival of Buddhism. Matriarchy isn't always about flipping the roles between male and female, and has nothing to do with the fact that men can't nurse.

...

There also was at least one matriarchal "queen"dom in Thailand back well before Thailand became more united...located about an hour's drive south of today's Chiang Mai.

Irrelevant. England was ruled by a Queen during some of the darkest days for women's rights there ever was, when normal women could not even inherit property. The Greeks had entire temples and religions led by Priestesses while the society treated wives as disposible property. There is no evidence that the Amazonian ideal of a matriarchal society where women are in charge of the men ever existed other than fantasy.

PrairieGhost

Cinorjer

There is no evidence that the Amazonian ideal of a matriarchal society where women are in charge of the men ever existed other than fantasy.

Tell that to my wife. She's always telling me what to do but this time I -

- sorry, got to go.

Cinorjer

Cinorjer

There is no evidence that the Amazonian ideal of a matriarchal society where women are in charge of the men ever existed other than fantasy.

Tell that to my wife. She's always telling me what to do but this time I -

- sorry, got to go.

Same with me. The Wife says I wear the pants in the family, but she tells me which ones to put on that morning. I have to agree.

Sile

Cinorjer

There is no evidence that the Amazonian ideal of a matriarchal society where women are in charge of the men ever existed other than fantasy.

Tell that to my wife. She's always telling me what to do but this time I -

- sorry, got to go.

Ha!

vinlyn

I believe the buddha himself was against women being ordained as nuns until his aunt? or someone close to him persuading him that women too can live a monastic life

There is some evidence to support that ths account was added later. If the Buddha had truly been against female ordination, it wouldn't have happened. But there's no reason for that to have happened, because he declared that enlightenment was genderless.
As Judge Judy(!) often says, 'if it doesn't make sense, it's usually because it's not true'.

In saying that Tibetan Buddhism for example is very male dominated in its hierachy and there is not so much a glass ceiling as a reinforced concrete one

Tibetan Buddhism joins the ranks of many other religious views and traditions.
Jesus' mother is of primary importance in the Catholic faith, and one of his most avid followers was Mary Magdalene, yet where are the women in Catholicism?

If I may ask, what is the evidence?

Well, at least in the Catholic faith women can be formally ordained nuns.

vinlyn

I disagree with the first paragraph. Matriarchal societies were quite common in Europe, Tibet and India before the arrival of patriarchal nomad society from the Inner Asian desert civilizations. There were three matriarchal "Queendoms" in Tibet before the arrival of Buddhism. Matriarchy isn't always about flipping the roles between male and female, and has nothing to do with the fact that men can't nurse.

...

There also was at least one matriarchal "queen"dom in Thailand back well before Thailand became more united...located about an hour's drive south of today's Chiang Mai.

Irrelevant. England was ruled by a Queen during some of the darkest days for women's rights there ever was, when normal women could not even inherit property. The Greeks had entire temples and religions led by Priestesses while the society treated wives as disposible property. There is no evidence that the Amazonian ideal of a matriarchal society where women are in charge of the men ever existed other than fantasy.

Why is it irrelevant?

federica

If I may ask, what is the evidence?

I posted a link to an article in my subsequent post...., where I spoke of Tenzin Palmo...

Well, at least in the Catholic faith women can be formally ordained nuns

Nuns are not 'ordained' they are 'tonsured'. (although after the first ceremonial and symbolic head-shaving, they are permitted to re-grow their hair to a reasonable length).
By making a formal, public profession of solemn vows (the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience) a nun promises to live as a consecrated religious for the rest of her life. This taking of vows is not holy orders, which is the reception of the priesthood. Although they live consecrated lives, nuns (or "sisters "), brothers, and those monks who are not ordained as priests (some monks receive ordination, many don't) are all lay people. They are not members of the clergy, and it is not correct for us or for them to refer to them as clergy, or as ordained.
They refer to themselves as 'Handmaidens of the Lord' and as such, part of their vow entails becoming subservient to the authority of The Church and to its ordained representatives.
Oh it's a great life for a woman of religion.....!

vinlyn

If I may ask, what is the evidence?

I posted a link to an article in my subsequent post...., where I spoke of Tenzin Palmo...

Well, at least in the Catholic faith women can be formally ordained nuns

Nuns are not 'ordained' they are 'tonsured'. (although after the first ceremonial and symbolic head-shaving, they are permitted to re-grow their hair to a reasonable length).
By making a formal, public profession of solemn vows (the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience) a nun promises to live as a consecrated religious for the rest of her life. This taking of vows is not holy orders, which is the reception of the priesthood. Although they live consecrated lives, nuns (or "sisters "), brothers, and those monks who are not ordained as priests (some monks receive ordination, many don't) are all lay people. They are not members of the clergy, and it is not correct for us or for them to refer to them as clergy, or as ordained.
They refer to themselves as 'Handmaidens of the Lord' and as such, part of their vow entails becoming subservient to the authority of The Church and to its ordained representatives.
Oh it's a great life for a woman of religion.....!

First, thank you for the link. I had missed it the first time around. Very interesting article, and I was particularly interested because it was from Thailand. However, there are a couple of things which bother me about it. I'm not sure parsing words (broad definition) is "evidence", particularly when the words have been translated at the very least from the Pali to English, and possibly a number of times in Pali. And, it sort of bothers me that one is essentially calling into question one section of the Pali Tipitaka, because that they brings into question all of the Pali Tipitaka...and how many times have we had discussions about whether or not the Buddhist canons are or are not the teachings of Buddha. If I am to take that article at face value, then I cannot say that the Buddhist canons are the teachings of Buddha. Unless we want to cherry pick!

Sorry for using the incorrect word for nuns. However, let's not miss my point. In Catholicism, nuns have a formal status, which mae chee in Thailand do not. Nuns are under the authority of the Catholic Church.

federica

It seems to be accepted by many scholars (all without exception, doubtless far better informed than I) that the scriptures/teachings/suttas have undergone some modification, addition, change.... well, sure....!
One section brought into question, does not bring the remainder into question.
But then again, what if it does?
Isn't that a good thing?
Doesn't that make you appraise the teachings with a discerning attitude?

I simply take it back to 'Ehi Passiko' and the good old Kalama sutta....
And as I said before, how much sense does it make, particularly if you can cross-reference it with other teachings which seem to contradict?
What makes more sense?
What is more logical?
What strikes you as being honourable, true and is able to withstand scrutiny?
If it hits all the right buttons, and seems to have solid foundations to you, go with it.
Discard what does not resonate, ring true or seem imbalanced and askew.

Nuns everywhere (formally or otherwise) are under the authority of their traditions. Which without exception, are patriarchal.

vinlyn

It seems to be accepted by many scholars (all without exception, doubtless far better informed than I) that the scriptures/teachings/suttas have undergone some modification, addition, change.... well, sure....!
One section brought into question, does not bring the remainder into question.
But then again, what if it does?
Isn't that a good thing?
Doesn't that make you appraise the teachings with a discerning attitude?

I simply take it back to 'Ehi Passiko' and the good old Kalama sutta....
And as I said before, how much sense does it make, particularly if you can cross-reference it with other teachings which seem to contradict?
What makes more sense?
What is more logical?
What strikes you as being honourable, true and is able to withstand scrutiny?
If it hits all the right buttons, and seems to have solid foundations to you, go with it.
Discard what does not resonate, ring true or seem imbalanced and askew.

Overall, I think I agree with you. I have always said that the words in the Buddhist canon are unlikely to be the exact words of Buddha, but are, rather, a later report of what is remembered of his teachings...with the accuracy varying. And, as I think you are saying here, the principle(s) in each teaching stands on its own merit, whether or not it is exactly what Buddha said.

PrairieGhost

My joke earlier had a point attached to it. Officially, women in many societies are limited in their roles, but in practice, women often guide and lead. When it comes down to it, even bigoted people tend to defer to someone who is clearly capable.

federica

Well... there are 6 Moderators registered here.
4 of them evident and active.
One of them perpetually present, to the point of possible irritation.
That would be me.
I'm the only female.
which proves that when push comes to shove, you can count on a woman to kick ass when needs be.

(Where's the "tongue firmly in cheek" emoticon when you need it....? )

federica

Overall, I think I agree with you. I have always said that the words in the Buddhist canon are unlikely to be the exact words of Buddha, but are, rather, a later report of what is remembered of his teachings...with the accuracy varying. And, as I think you are saying here, the principle(s) in each teaching stands on its own merit, whether or not it is exactly what Buddha said.

If i personally want to take that up a notch, what it boils down to, for me personally, is that if, after some research and examination on my part, it makes complete, impartial and sound sense, the Buddha said it.
If, after some research and examination on my part, it grates on my nerves, contradicts something else, or sounds a little biased, off-kilter and out of place - he never taught it and it's been added afterwards for the sake of either convention or different opinion....

but this is just me.

vinlyn

^ Shame on you!

Only kidding!

My only variation on that is that I don't need to believe in/agree with every sentence to still believe in the general principles of Buddhism.

Sile

I disagree with the first paragraph. Matriarchal societies were quite common in Europe, Tibet and India before the arrival of patriarchal nomad society from the Inner Asian desert civilizations.

I guess I was thinking along the lines of how it's treated (here via Wiki) by anthropologists, many of whom hold that there are allegedly "no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal,[1][2][3][4][5][6] but possible exceptions include the Iroquois, in whose society mothers exercise central moral and political roles.[7] However, this reluctance to accept the existence of matriarchies might be based on a specific, culturally biased notion of how to define 'matriarchy': because in a patriarchy 'men rule over women', a matriarchy has frequently been conceptualized as 'women ruling over men', whereas in reality women-centered societies are - apparently without exception - egalitarian.[8][9]"

I agree with the second paragraph that the definition itself is likely flawed; I think it would probably be safer to suggest that there are no known societies that are either unambiguously matriarchal or unambiguously patriarchal, lol.

Dakini

Oh well, those anthropologists were male, anyway, so naturally they're going to quibble, and split hairs about a thing like that.

Matriarchal cultures being "egalitarian" doesn't necessarily mean that a woman wasn't at the head of it. It may mean that it wasn't as strictly hierarchical as male-run societies tend to be. From what I've read of the ancient Tibetan "Queendoms", they were run by women. But I don't know how much people really know for sure about them, it might be wishful thinking. I think more research needs to be done on the whole issue.

I couldn't access your references, btw.

Dakini

Minoan Crete is thought to have been matriarchal with women governing it.
ok, back to topic.

Sile

Here are the refs - I can't speak for their POV, as I haven't read them yet:

1. Steven Goldberg, The Inevitability of Patriarchy, (William Morrow & Company, 1973).

2. Joan Bamberger,'The Myth of Matriarchy: Why Men Rule in Primitive Society', in M Rosaldo and L Lamphere, Women, Culture, and Society, (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1974), pp. 263–280.

3. Donald E. Brown, Human Universals (Philadelphia: Temple University Press), 1991.

4. Cynthia Eller, The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future, (Boston: Beacon Press, 2001).

5. Jonathan Marks, 'Essay 8: Primate Behavior', in The Un-Textbook of Biological Anthropology, (Unpublished, 2007), p. 11.

6. Encyclopaedia Britannica describes this view as "consensus", listing matriarchy as a hypothetical social system. 'Matriarchy' Encyclopædia Britannica, 2007."

7. Doug George-Kanentiio, Iroquois Culture & Commentary (New Mexico: Clear Light Publishers, 2000, pp.53–55.

8. Heide Goettner-Abendroth, Matriarchal Society: Definition and Theory. http://www.gift-economy.com/athanor/athanor_005.html

9. Lepowsky, M. A. (1993). Fruit of the Motherland: Gender in an Egalitarian Society. Columbia University Press, USA.

vinlyn

Sorry for using the incorrect word for nuns. However, let's not miss my point. In Catholicism, nuns have a formal status, which mae chee in Thailand do not. Nuns are under the authority of the Catholic Church.

Federica, I find that I must admit I was wrong. I had a former nun and her husband over for dinner and cards tonight, and she told me that the role of nuns (etc.) in the Catholic Church is only perfunctorily formal, far less than the extent I had thought. (Although it is certainly more formal than mae chee in Thailand).

federica

Yes, the Catholic church has a singular skill in that it considers women to be lowly, therefore recruits them as 'handmaidens' and makes them lowlier still.

:rolleyes:

SattvaPaul

But doesn't Catholic Church recognise quite a number of female saints as well?

Do they have the same "heavenly status" as male saints?

Cinorjer

But doesn't Catholic Church recognise quite a number of female saints as well?

Do they have the same "heavenly status" as male saints?

Here we have the strange mind of the human species to ponder. We are usually hypocritical in our beliefs and behavior. We often see woman as either virgin saints or wanton sinners and treat them accordingly. It's our ability to justify our prejudices and believe our own lies at work. Fascinating.

When it comes to women and the Catholic church, all you have to do is count the number of women in positions of authority in the church. How many women Bishops? Priests? That happens to be none. Zero.

federica

Oh yes, once they're dead, they're harmless and they don't interfere, see?

PrairieGhost

federica

Oh yes, once they're dead, they're harmless and they don't interfere, see?

Edge