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.
Literalism...Where Do We Draw The Line ?
Citta
Veteran
In the Patimokkha The Buddha says
" Worthless man ! It would be better to put your penis into the mouth of a Black Viper than into the vagina of a woman "
Oh--kay.
So what do we make of this...
Generally there are a few typical responses to passages of this type.
1) I must be celibate, sex is dirty.
2) He couldn't have really said it..its a later interpolation.
3) He did say it, but he was a man of his time.
4) It was only meant for monks.
The trouble with 3 and 4 is that even if it reflects the times, and even if it only for monks...He doesn't seem to have a high regard for women ..does he ?
The trouble with 2 is that it appears to be genuine.
The trouble with 1...is obvious.
Thoughts anyone ?
0
Comments
'appears to be genuine' is not the same as 'has definitely been authenticated as genuine'. Sorry, I don't buy it.
IF the Buddha DID say that (and it's an if of behemoth proportion) he was criticising the weakness and susceptibility of the Monk (surely, a monk) than the act and urge for sexual satisfaction
He had a son, remember.
It is part of the standard universally accepted Patimokkha @federica.
It is held to be the reference manual for all ordained Sanghas. T. and M.
No scholar or monk doubts its authenticity. Check it out.
In the same passage he says that it is " better to put ones penis in a fire than in etcetc."
The reason I have raised it is because sooner or later our western/modern sensibilities will come up against this or some other incendary topic.
Or the Buddha endorsing ancient cosmology....
Such as the vast mountain at the centre of the Universe..
We need to reflect on our response.
One extreme is to deny that the Buddha could possibly have held such views.
Another is to conclude that in that case none of his words are reliable.
I suspect that we have to work at our own responses...
5: Clinging to sense pleasure produces much more duhhka than any physical pain. AKA better to burn in fire than to cling to aggregates and be reborn in samsara.
That's very true.
But an awful lot of his Suttas begin with the word 'Monks!'.
If this is as you say, a reference manual for all ordained Sanghas, then it seems that it is obviously aimed at the ordained...
As breaking and violating precepts, for an ordained monastic, is a far more severe and unforgivable violation, it stands to reason that the Buddha would put such misdemeanours in the strongest terms.
I think this is where Wise Discernment comes in.
We have to evaluate our own View, and examine our own rationale, against such teachings.
The Buddha was quite clear insofar as inappropriate sexual conduct was concerned, in who should not be engaged with.
As to the remainder, we must look to ourselves and decide for ourselves what is and what is not acceptable.
I made comment in the other thread, as you know....
One of the things of which we need to be aware...or so it seems to me...is backwards projection.
Of assuming that our norms and mores must have been shared by the Buddha.
And sometimes that is not the case.
I think it's probably OFTEN not the case. Yet, it is extraordinary how the vast majority of his teachings have stood the test of time and have passed across the centuries... they are still as valid today as they were then.
It is we, who need to take a look at our own values, and selective abilities... Just as it has been said, that "All Christians want to get to Heaven; they just want the entry requirements to be relaxed" and "Most Christians would prefer 10 Suggestions, rather than 10 Commandments" ... so it sometimes is with us... we want to follow the Buddha, but we hope he means this rather than that...
(interesting... a single asterisk at each end of the word, makes it italic...)
I dream of being worthless. Will keep a look out for some dark skinned nagas to give a mouthful to. Thanks for the tip Buddha!
. . . and now back to the impeccable sauces and their tried and tested recipes . . . :crazy: . . .
It sounds like it was written by someone with a bad hangup to be honest. I can't imagine Buddha said that... Its really quite a childish thing to say.
If he did say it then it just goes to show even Buddha had off days. The monk he was talking to should have suggested another hour of sleep or something.
I think you will find that there is a universal consensus that the words are genuinely those of the Buddha @ourself.
Perhaps we need to accept the fact that the Buddha did not share all of our norms.
He was not like our favourite uncle.
He frequently called people 'idiots' 'fools' and 'knaves'...check it out.
We have an idealised version of the Buddha in our heads..the trouble is he came from a very different time and culture and some of our ideals do not gel with the ideals of that time.
The Patimokkha is the monk's rules of discipline, so I'd say it's primarily for celibate monastics. Moreover, I don't think it illustrates the Buddha's low opinion of woman so much as his high opinion of the holy life (brahma-cariya) and its goal. I'm sure he wasn't any more lax with bkikkhunis in this regard.
Then what do we make of ( from the same Patimokkha ).
" Even if a Bhikkuni ( nun) has been a nun for 100 years, she must still give way, show respect to, bow to, and eat after, a monk of one days standing "
I think no matter how we dress it we are not in Kansas here...
Excellent plan. It explains why some nuns are versed in humility, service and closer or actually enlightened . . . If a few more monks followed the nuns path we would have a far better sangha . . .
. . . and now back to the fossil records . . .
I am glad I don't accept everything that is universally accepted, wait, that means it's not universally accepted! Sex is ok. It makes little people, and it can be fun, yes it does involves tubes, liquids and squiggly moaning noises, but little people are funny and make you laugh. It's only after they've grown up and all that religious nonsenses has been passed on to shackle, bind and knot them up, and distract them from being who they are.
I draw two lines, and guess where that leaves me - lol:
Sex addict - Can I come in your temple darlin', and yours, what do you mean I should see the doc for antibiotics; what do you mean you want money for the kid, ok it could be mine, but I've already got 4 by 3 others already
Me - dabbler - 3 kids later, hey where did they come from the little darlings, bless them..., 'STOP ARGUING, I'm trying to get a point across here!, no you can't have an Ice cream, I'll help with the homework later" - Vasectomy: well worth the physical pain, wasn't it wife!
Celibate - I'm so righteous, look at me - holier than thou; wait where are all these little people coming from - stop enjoying yourselves - it's just not right. Why aren't you praying to god and praising me for what I've given up!
And what of this from the Samyutta Nikaya 4
"Women with their two-fingered wisdom( i.e. limited ) cannot fully understand my teachings ".
My point is to suggest that we cannot expect any human figure, even the wisest, from the ancient world, to conform in every respect to our cultural norms..and we had better get used to that.
I think we just have to think about it a bit. If we believe Buddha woke up within Sidhartha then obviously having sex is not that much of an obstacle. Its like saying that money is the root of all evil when we know its the love of money that hinders.
True...
But I look at it this way: The Bible is not the same book, after editing, translating, and modernising.
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that someone inserted those provisos later, as a way of discouraging women from ordaining.
Then again, were women not accustomed already to being second-class citizens? Total equality and liberty to practise as Monks did, might have proven actually to be an anathema to them... now that WOULD have been a huge leap in circumstances!
Once again, I think we have to evaluate what we see, and discern just how much sense it makes, and of more importance, how relevant it is to our personal circumstances and practice.
Indeed...and it makes no difference to my practice at all if it is the case that the Buddha's social attitudes and current ones do not coincide exactly..
He was right about the eternal verities..
Genuinely the words of Buddha himself...
If only that claim can be rightly made.
This is why I am glad it is also believed that we must use our inner guide to decipher the truth of words claimed to be genuinely his.
This is similar to new testament verses where it is said that it would be better to pluck out one's eye or cut off a hand for instance, so I would say at its most rudimentary spiritual level it is about taking decisive action necessary to maintain purity or avoid sin, and this can easily be understood and applied by both monastics and householders alike regardless of their respective circumstances.
It really doesn’t matter if the Buddha actually said it or not. What is important is what spiritual meaning can be discerned and how it can applied to your own life.
Well what I said is that it is universally accepted by Buddhist teachers as well as scholars that certain passages and suttas are authentic..including most of the Patimokkha.
Otherwise why not just invent whatever suits us ?
Well what I said is that it is universally accepted by Buddhist teachers as well as scholars that certain passages and suttas are authentic..including most of the Patimokkha.
Otherwise why not just invent whatever suits us ?
I think that's pretty much the conclusion we have come to, @Silouan... Probably the wisest path to follow...
Glad to see such broad support for cherry picking!
This isn't cherry picking.
This is using discernment and personal choice to ascertain whether a particular teaching aligns with one's own lifestyle.
It matters, because we are not committed to a life of celibacy or ordination.
Would you consider it appropriate for you personally to adhere strictly to the above admonishment and recommendation?
My, but we are feeling tetchy and argumentative today, aren't we @vinlyn....?
I don't see a problem with these "problems." As someone of Indian descent, I can tell you that the mindset espoused in that sutta is not just symptomatic of India 2,500 years ago -- it's very much alive in India in the year 2014. I have heard modern-day, educated Indians flinch at the recent media attention to the brutal rape and murder of women (and young girls) in the country, and rationalize it as the result of a highly unstable, insecure period of India's history. But this is disingenuous. The devaluation of women in India has existed there for a very long time. As far back as the 1950s, anthropologists Stanley and Ruth Freed describe a schoolgirl who was raped by her schoolteacher. The blame was not leveled on her rapist, however, but on the poor girl herself. Her father then raped and murdered his daughter.
Did the devaluation of women exist to such a violent and disgusting proportion in the Buddha's time? We don't really have much information to go on, but the attitudes of the Buddha towards women in the suttas hardly surprise me. I don't see a problem with a Buddha who may also have been thought women were inferior to men. I don't share his opinion, but I am not vexed that someone from that part of the world and from that culture would hold such beliefs. Gandhi was a racist. Thomas Jefferson kept slaves. Beethoven was an asshole. To bastardize Walt Whitman, "people are vast; they contain multitudes." I don't think it devalues what is of value in the Buddha's teaching, but I don't think anyone approaching Buddhism with a sober eye can idealize and lionize the Buddha as some superhuman figure whose whole mentality transcended everything about his time. Most people are walking contradictions and hypocrites in certain aspects of their lives.
But you don't see it as a problem..
To be honest Federica, I've felt you've been a bit tetchy lately, as well.
But we are talking about cherry picking here because we are talking about which Buddhist teachings to accept or set aside and how broadly they apply to Buddhists -- that is, as you so wisely put it, being selective about aligning Buddhist teachings with one's lifestyle. You forget that I feel that cherry picking is a good thing, so there's no reason to see my comment as being negative. So no, I do not agree with the passages in question, so therefore I cherry pick.
Even when a person makes a judgement about whether or not eating meat is a defilement, that is cherry picking...whichever choice one makes.
Cherry picking is simply saying that you do or don't agree with a particular teaching.
I've never been one who believed every word from a holy/revered person should apply literally, 100% to today. Not Jesus, not Mohammed, not Buddha.
Though, I find it kind of amusing that so many (maybe all even, but I don't know) have claims of being all knowing, knowing all the truths of all the ages, aka omniscient. Yet they didn't grasp the truth of a round earth and a vast universe that didn't revolve around us. So, one has to believe that if they got even just that one "truth" wrong, none of them were truly omniscient and one has to keep that in mind when thinking they need to apply any and all teachings 100% literally.
I do think that he probably understood that in time, things might change. How they might change, he had no way of knowing. But I believe he left room for that and that, in part, is why we have the Kalama Sutra. Everything has to be investigated and determined where it fits in as far as truth and our practice goes. Including things Buddha said 2500 years ago that make absolutely no logical sense in the world we live in today. But that type of investigation requires a stark honesty with oneself, not simply determining we don't want to follow something because of our attachments, and so on.
Actually we do.
Anthropologists hold that more elemental, hunter/gatherer societies tended towards matralineality. A shift seems to have occurred when societies adopted agarian lifestyle. Thje Buddha lived in an agrarian society, so it's not unreasonable to expect a certain bias in that society.
That doesn't mean the the Buddha, a fully, completely and supremely realized being shared in such mundane concerns. His "attitudes" toawrds women, and every other thing he did was dictated by skill and wisdom. What that was, in the case of women in the sangha, is a bit of a mystery to me, but then I don't dwell much on it.
I agree @Karasti ..on the whole..although I am not convinced by your explanation of the need for the Kalama Sutta.
I think the key to the understanding of that Sutta is the fact that he was not addressing his own followers.
He was addressing the Kalamas ( surprise ) who were followers of another teacher, who apparently did require a degree of blind belief.
To me, it isn't cherry-picking. To me, it is recognizing the value of the FNTs and disregarding that which fails to move the story forward.
Logically, if being born as a human is a favorable existence then it is our solemn duty to make it possible for more of us to be born as humans. It isn't going to happen if we don't have sex... It's not a death cult.
I could see it if he was talking about going to a prostitute but guiding another sentient being through the gates of the human experience...
For the ordained, in a bid to help them keep complete clarity, I can see celibacy being a good thing so if he were talking to a person that was working towards monk-hood it's likely supposed to sound a little harsh.
If he did say it, I'm pretty sure it wasn't a slam against women but a warning that fatherhood and monkhood don't go hand-in-hand.
Could you imagine what it would be like if everybody took everything you said literally and truthfully? And he was alive for 40+ years after waking up... Could be enough for a living Buddha to eat tainted food.
@Citta, indeed. Sometimes things seem to fit logically but it doesn't make them the truth, LOL. That is just what happened to pop in my mind, but yes, I realize the sutra was directed as followers of a different teacher. To me the lengthy list of things to consider goes a ways beyond simply investigating the teacher, so it seems (but certainly may not be) as if Buddha knew further investigation would be necessary as time went on. I guess I mostly mean that that is, in part, how I look at it. That when I run into things in sutras that are completely contrary to living today, I remember to investigate it per Buddha's own advice, and not merely accepting it because they are words that came from him.
Hmm... I can see where you're going with that, @Chaz, but AFAIK, matrilineage doesn't preclude a society from being male-dominated. Often times, matrilineal societies practice avuncolocal residence dominion -- that is, the closest male blood-relative (usually the mother's sister) takes on the duties traditionally ascribed to the father in patriarchal societies. So, even though lineage may be traced through the females, the females may still have very little say in household affairs. Also, every culture is different, even if they share a subsistence pattern. The Ju'Hoansi differ from the Triobriand, etc. I don't doubt that there is archaeological data about India during the Buddha's time that can give us some clues about what the societal views of the time were, but anthropologists study the "ethnographic present", and archaeologists only have what limited evidence is extant. What I mean is that, I would be surprised if people would have recorded the rapes/murders of country girls for posterity, so if that WAS occurring then as it does now, we don't have much to go on.
Are we drawing lines, now? And with what sort of utensil?
The cultural strappings don't tarnish the message, for me.
A friend of mine told me that the teaching of the Buddha is basically the 4NT and the N8P explained in 80.000 suttas and I choose to accept that.
Men having sex with their daughters, a king sending a friend off to war because he coveted his wife, a god asking a man to sacrifice his beloved son to prove his fidelity, have not deterred Jews and Christians from considering the Bible their holy book.
The cultural context of the Buddha was so and so and we have to live with that.
We can still take from his teachings what is relevant to our own lives, and I have to say my life has been greatly improved by his message.
Well stated @dharmamom!
@vinlyn said:
With the amount of foolishness there has been of late, you can hardly blame a menopausal woman for acting out of character, now and then..
The menopause sucks.
Why, what's your EXCUSE? (add humorous wink).
No point to further debate then, if indeed there ever was one...
humorous wink back at ya
I think it's just rhetoric to urge the monks not to break their vows.
I don't see a problem with cherry picking either, as far as you don't apply your cherry picked (or left behind) values to other people. Hopefully, you (whoever, not anyone in particular) are honest about why you are cherry picking and not doing so simply because the words in question make you feel a little uncomfortable. Sometimes, it worth going back over that which you discarded every so often to see how you feel about it. Some things I outright discard, and some things I set aside because I am still working through them, or because life at this point isn't so conducive to making changes in that direction, or whatever the case may be.
I think we all cherry pick, all the time, whether in Buddhism or elsewhere in life. It only becomes a problem (for me anyhow) when others use their cherry picking against other people.
Agreed @karasti.
And if anyone is interested in seeing what happens when someone does not cherry pick they only need to drop into Dhamma Wheel sometime and watch educated moderns twisting themselves into knots trying to accommodate ancient Buddhist cosmology as a literal description of reality, for example..
^^Good point!^^
>
Maybe he had a bad experience with a some woman. Woman == Black Viper
" Worthless man ! It would be better to put your penis into the mouth of a woman, than into the vagina of a woman "
....Nope... doesn't make sense.....
You're being too logical.
Using pure logic on the original statement without regard to reasonable context we could determine that sex makes a man worthless and Buddha thinks this a dangerous act. He could be indicating that it is a great risk to life. The risk might be less if you had someone to suck the poison out before it gets into your blood stream. Probably won't work though...
Did he mention the context of this statement? I could not find it.
Went and read the context. It is more about craving sex. It seems as if I can commit to sex if I do it for any reason than being desirous of it.
I think there are two issues here. One is the Buddha's position on the holy life, including vows of celibacy, which applies to both monks and nuns alike. The second is the controversial eight 'weighty rules' (garudhamma) that are part of the nuns rules of discipline. In regard to the first, the Buddha seems to have had a very high/strong opinion about the benefits of the celibate holy life. Part of this, I think, is due to the efficacy of the holy life in attaining the goal. Another part, in my opinion, is due to the Buddha trying to protect both monastics and lay-followers from potential misconduct and scandal. That's why intentionally breaking the vow of celibacy entails a defeat for monastics.
The second is the inclusion of the eight extra rules in the bhikkhuni patimokkha and the charge that the Buddha was sexist. This may be the case, but I don't think so. My personal opinion is that the rules are likely later additions. And even if the rules were instituted by the Buddha, I think it was likely due to the sociohistorical context in which they were formulated, not because of any sort of lowly opinion of women on his part, i.e., they were made as a compromise: allowing women to ordain while also trying to mitigate friction within the lay-community, as well as within the monastic community itself, which consisted of men who, in all likelihood, may not have been happy about having to live in a monastic setting with members of the opposite sex. (You can find more of my thoughts about this here if you're interested.)
As I've mentioned before, I think it should always be kept in mind that the Buddha was man who lived in India 2,600 years ago, when the societal attitudes towards women were probably much harsher than they are today, which is why I try to avoid judging these things by today's standards. I'm not the type of Buddhist who thinks that the Buddha's 'enlightenment' made him some kind of cosmic superman who could see into the future and had knowledge of all things beyond suffering and the cessation of suffering. So while I like to think the eight extra rules were later additions, I can understand why the Buddha might have instituted them considering the sociohistorical context in which they were formulated. He was certainly progressive for his time, and extraordinarily wise; but that doesn't mean he was perfect.
Incidentally, reviewing the account of the first council recorded in the Vinaya Pitika, twothings immediately stand out to me. One is the conspicuous absence of any bhikkhunis despite the numerous references to bhikkhunis of various levels of attainment throughout the suttas, which gives the impression of this assembly of 'enlightened elders' being a bit of an old boys club, and could go far to explain the rather patriarchal and conservative slant to the suttas as they've come down to us. The absence of any lay-followers could also explain the slant towards monasticism despite the Buddhas numerous lay-followers of various attainments. But that's just speculation on my part.
As with early Christianity (Paul wrote regularly about sins of the flesh), women at that time in the known world were considered 2nd class citizens, chattel to be owed and generally treated like shit.
I think it has to do with the times it was written in AND it was transcribed. The Buddha did not write this himself. And as for the Buddha considering women as dirt - he ordained his aunt and mother so I don't think he held women in contempt. His followers very well may have.
Why is it so easy to discount other faiths as being silly/ridiculous/enter insult here when they are being "too literal" yet not Buddhism? Didn't the Buddha himself exhort any follower of his teachings to try them for themselves and not accept it because he said it? That's pretty much discouraging us to take the writings on face value alone.
Metta.
Just because or if the Buddha (PBUH) was a cultural misogynist, no reason why we can't follow a more enlightened path . . .
_What is that Mr Cushion? Be a Buddha not a Dharma Bum? Good plan . . . _
I have stated my personal opinions already in this thread and elsewhere; however, there's no point in any of us lady members getting defensive and irate about a teaching of this kind.
We can't demand retrospective equality, neither does it actually do anything to insist it should have/could have existed in the Buddha's Sangha.
There is actually no way of knowing whether this was absolutely, definitely without question, a direct first-hand teaching of his, or whether words were put into his mouth, even a short while after his death.
I suspect the latter.
But even so, it was what it was; and we can't change that.
What is, is; but we can change that.