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.
I've always said, the most profound and permanent change Western culture might bring to Buddhism is opening it up to women at all levels.
This is already happening in the west anyway. The organisation I practice with has 2 nuns in the position of General spiritual director and Deputy. In general it is easier in the west to appropriate equality then it is in eastern cultures where the culture is still very much intertwined with Buddhadharma so it can make it difficult to separate the attitudes from the teachings.
I've always said, the most profound and permanent change Western culture might bring to Buddhism is opening it up to women at all levels.
Well - there have been high-level female teachers for centuries, but the numbers of high-level teachers, as well as of nuns in general, are lower than the male equivalent. Since monasticism was voluntary, it might be revealing to ask why not as many women chose to become monastics, at least in Tibet.
Despite the fact that pre-1950s Tibet was home to the largest community of Buddhist nuns in the world (Havnevik 1994; Tsomo 2003), some estimates (Dreyfuss and Willis) put pre-invasion figures at 2%-4% of the female population as nuns, in contrast with 20%-33% of the male population as monks. Getting exact numbers is difficult, as many nuns and monks travelled and/or didn't live in monastic institutions at all.
Another observation I found interesting, mentioned in the beginning of the Tsoknyi Nangchen nuns video (female teachers thread), is that female teachers didn't tend to write as prolifically as their male counterparts, and therefore weren't as well-known outside their own region.
I wonder if one problem has been Buddhism as a monastic religion reenforces male rule. It's the old "separate but equal is never truly equal" problem. You have monks, and you have nuns, and usually they live and worship separately and while the nuns might be honored, they still are under the control of the monks (especially finances) and don't have equal access to the Masters and certainly the monks don't want to learn at the feet of the women. For a lot of history, the nuns probably would not have been taught to read and write like the monks, so their contribution was limited.
"A women can sexually receive her man for as long as she pleases. . . a man's love making is limited to the amount of energy he has to keep his erection . . .this sexual imbalance is the primary reason men have sought physical, financial, political, intellectual, and religious advantage over woman."
"A women can sexually receive her man for as long as she pleases. . . a man's love making is limited to the amount of energy he has to keep his erection . . .this sexual imbalance is the primary reason men have sought physical, financial, political, intellectual, and religious advantage over woman."
-Mantak Chia
In tantric practice, though, the male is able to maintain an erection as long as (or longer than) the female is able to continue. Would the above quote imply that because tantric practice has equalized the sexes in the sexual realm, patriarchy in tantric Buddhism should have died out centuries ago? Is Taoism, which has similar sex practices, patriarchal?
"A women can sexually receive her man for as long as she pleases. . . a man's love making is limited to the amount of energy he has to keep his erection . . .this sexual imbalance is the primary reason men have sought physical, financial, political, intellectual, and religious advantage over woman."
-Mantak Chia
In tantric practice, though, the male is able to maintain an erection as long as (or longer than) the female is able to continue. Would the above quote imply that because tantric practice has equalized the sexes in the sexual realm, patriarchy in tantric Buddhism should have died out centuries ago? Is Taoism, which has similar sex practices, patriarchal?
According to what source ? Having a longer lasting erection is not the point of Buddhist Tantric practice.
Having a longer lasting erection is not the point of Buddhist Tantric practice.
I didn't say it was. Just commenting on Mantak Chia's comment about "sexual imbalance" being the root cause of patriarchy. Where there is no sexual imbalance, does it then follow that there is no patriarchy?
The problem with Mantak Chia's statement is that it implies a disrespect for women's traditional roles, as if those roles are less important than running a company or slinging a coal pick.
I don't agree with him that the most important thing is running a company or slinging a pick. Yes, women can and do run companies beautifully, and I know more than a few who could outdig anyone's bitumen, but being a mom is an elegant, worthy, vital vocation equivalent to being a CO or miner.
How do we know women don't seek advantage over men because most men have traditionally slogged to the office or down a mineshaft instead of spending exhausting yet enjoyable time raising their children and running the homestead?
I'm for real equality, and that means acknowledging all roles as important, vital, and worthy. Often, I find grandiose statements on equality such as Mantak Chia's (no offense) to contain concepts which are non-starters.
Having a longer lasting erection is not the point of Buddhist Tantric practice.
I didn't say it was. Just commenting on Mantak Chia's comment about "sexual imbalance" being the root cause of patriarchy. Where there is no sexual imbalance, does it then follow that there is no patriarchy?
There will always be sexual Imbalance lets be realistic this is Samsara after all, Male and females have their respective roles to fulfil within each society accordingly with some roles mixed or not so depending on the culture.
I had to google Mantak Chia to find out what he was all about. So he sells a line of Taoist teachings and methods that claim to "control and harness sexual energy"? Those wacky Taoists. Brought to you by the same people who claim powdered rhinoserus horn helps a man get an erection.
It says everything about our preoccupation that a man can make a good living selling this to other men, when a clear mind tells us that people have been having sex since before they were people, so maybe we don't need an instruction manual to get it right.
I had to google Mantak Chia to find out what he was all about. So he sells a line of Taoist teachings and methods that claim to "control and harness sexual energy"? Those wacky Taoists.
These are Taoist "longevity practices" for men. They're the Taoist equivalent of Hindu/Buddhist tantric sex. It's not just the Taoists who are into that.
"A women can sexually receive her man for as long as she pleases. . . a man's love making is limited to the amount of energy he has to keep his erection . . .this sexual imbalance is the primary reason men have sought physical, financial, political, intellectual, and religious advantage over woman."
-Mantak Chia
Many of my friends ( male friends ) have commented on this inherent difference between the genders .... I can see how unacknowledged this type of thinking could result in envy and be seen as an inequality and contribute to seeking some kind of compensation ... the ultimate short man syndrome on a gender basis ... not a pretty motivation.
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 other factor, is actually aesthetic comfort... much of the underwear considered to be feminine, sexy, alluring, seductive... is downright damn uncomfortable, itchy, invasive and very distracting.
@ Federica. Wow! I've been away for awhile and came back to all these wonderful responses!
I was thinking that the reason the Dalai Lama is always male is because he reincarnated in the most socially/politically acceptable way for the world that he was coming to. In order to be the most effective the Dalai Lama would have to be male, and would have to be born into a Buddhist country. If he were born female in Egypt, she likely would never be found. I figure that when Buddhism is more widespread and women are valued as equals then there might be a female Dalai Lama. Until then, he will always be male.
I figure that when Buddhism is more widespread and women are valued as equals then there might be a female Dalai Lama. Until then, he will always be male.
Well, this is it. Now that Tibetan Buddhism has gone worldwide, and now that the DL recognizes that more female leadership is needed in TB and Buddhism in general, he has considered reincarnating in female form. When he was born and the 13th had passed away, Tibet was still a closed country functioning on tradition. The current DL has witnessed cataclysmic change and upheaval, and has lead his people into the 21st Century and all that implies. He's undergone a tremendous transition from a medieval society to the Information Age, from feudalism to democracy, and has handled it remarkably smoothly. It's really something, when you stop and think about it.
With all due respect to the Dalai Lama, I would add some credit for the transitions that were already happening before Chinese invasion in 1950. The 13th had set quite a course for change already, and the 14th, imo, picked up that ball and ran with it--and as @Dakini notes, remarkably smoothly, considering.
Change was already well in the air, though -- Tibet was one of the first nations to ban capital punishment (and did so in 1913, though it's unfortunately been reinstated by Beijing); it had its own currency, postal stamps, passports, fledgling telegraph system, and national radio broadcasts. Some areas in Tibet were well ahead of areas in, say, Wisconsin, in the 1930s, and the people were not generally starving as were some Wisconsinites during those grim years.
Well before any of that, 1/4 - 1/3 or so of Tibetan society (depending on whose figures you subscribe to) had been receiving education for hundreds of years in literacy and philosophy in the monastic schools--that's a much higher percentage of society educated and literate than in neighboring India and China at the time, for example. It's true that girls were not educated in the same numbers as boys -- far more boys became monks than girls did nuns. But some girls received formalized literary education in Tibet many hundreds of years before those in China and England, by way of contrast.
I certainly agree that many segments of Tibetan society have undergone a tremendous transition, though, since the 1950s, as have Chinese, Indian and other regional societies (and, well, much of the rest of the world). Certainly the Dalai Lama has pushed through reforms in Tibetan government which would otherwise likely have taken longer; insisting on devolution to democracy, for example, even thought the people were attached to the idea of him continuing to lead on his own. I do think the 13th paved a lot of the way for major change in Tibet, and that the sequential influence of the 13th through the 14th has been absolutely historic.
We do tend to define change, however, by a society being "discovered" (by us), and by how rapidly they adopt our ways thereafter; so our perspective on change can be a little biased at its root. I don't know, for example, what sorts of change happened between the 12th and the 13th, nearly as well as I know about those between the 13th and the 14th.
Comments
Despite the fact that pre-1950s Tibet was home to the largest community of Buddhist nuns in the world (Havnevik 1994; Tsomo 2003), some estimates (Dreyfuss and Willis) put pre-invasion figures at 2%-4% of the female population as nuns, in contrast with 20%-33% of the male population as monks. Getting exact numbers is difficult, as many nuns and monks travelled and/or didn't live in monastic institutions at all.
Another observation I found interesting, mentioned in the beginning of the Tsoknyi Nangchen nuns video (female teachers thread), is that female teachers didn't tend to write as prolifically as their male counterparts, and therefore weren't as well-known outside their own region.
-Mantak Chia
According to what source ? Having a longer lasting erection is not the point of Buddhist Tantric practice.
I don't agree with him that the most important thing is running a company or slinging a pick. Yes, women can and do run companies beautifully, and I know more than a few who could outdig anyone's bitumen, but being a mom is an elegant, worthy, vital vocation equivalent to being a CO or miner.
How do we know women don't seek advantage over men because most men have traditionally slogged to the office or down a mineshaft instead of spending exhausting yet enjoyable time raising their children and running the homestead?
I'm for real equality, and that means acknowledging all roles as important, vital, and worthy. Often, I find grandiose statements on equality such as Mantak Chia's (no offense) to contain concepts which are non-starters.
It says everything about our preoccupation that a man can make a good living selling this to other men, when a clear mind tells us that people have been having sex since before they were people, so maybe we don't need an instruction manual to get it right.
Don't forget the reindeer antler, Cinorjer.
:cool:
The other factor, is actually aesthetic comfort... much of the underwear considered to be feminine, sexy, alluring, seductive... is downright damn uncomfortable, itchy, invasive and very distracting.
I was thinking that the reason the Dalai Lama is always male is because he reincarnated in the most socially/politically acceptable way for the world that he was coming to. In order to be the most effective the Dalai Lama would have to be male, and would have to be born into a Buddhist country. If he were born female in Egypt, she likely would never be found. I figure that when Buddhism is more widespread and women are valued as equals then there might be a female Dalai Lama. Until then, he will always be male.
Change was already well in the air, though -- Tibet was one of the first nations to ban capital punishment (and did so in 1913, though it's unfortunately been reinstated by Beijing); it had its own currency, postal stamps, passports, fledgling telegraph system, and national radio broadcasts. Some areas in Tibet were well ahead of areas in, say, Wisconsin, in the 1930s, and the people were not generally starving as were some Wisconsinites during those grim years.
Well before any of that, 1/4 - 1/3 or so of Tibetan society (depending on whose figures you subscribe to) had been receiving education for hundreds of years in literacy and philosophy in the monastic schools--that's a much higher percentage of society educated and literate than in neighboring India and China at the time, for example. It's true that girls were not educated in the same numbers as boys -- far more boys became monks than girls did nuns. But some girls received formalized literary education in Tibet many hundreds of years before those in China and England, by way of contrast.
I certainly agree that many segments of Tibetan society have undergone a tremendous transition, though, since the 1950s, as have Chinese, Indian and other regional societies (and, well, much of the rest of the world). Certainly the Dalai Lama has pushed through reforms in Tibetan government which would otherwise likely have taken longer; insisting on devolution to democracy, for example, even thought the people were attached to the idea of him continuing to lead on his own. I do think the 13th paved a lot of the way for major change in Tibet, and that the sequential influence of the 13th through the 14th has been absolutely historic.
We do tend to define change, however, by a society being "discovered" (by us), and by how rapidly they adopt our ways thereafter; so our perspective on change can be a little biased at its root. I don't know, for example, what sorts of change happened between the 12th and the 13th, nearly as well as I know about those between the 13th and the 14th.