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.
Well, the Buddha himself said that Nibbana was " subtle " " difficult to grasp " and " beyond words "..so we should not be surprised if we struggle with the idea.
"The Bible requires that a Christian takes a great number of things on faith: And Christians will quote the Bible, reams of passages at a time, in order to support their own views, which actually does nothing to convince anyone else, because it's largely a matter of having to take things on trust."
Federica, the "Bible" actually can't "require" anything; it's a book. I contains history, liturgical rubrics, poetry (some of it quite erotic, I mean, REALLY erotic), myth, biography, letters, philosophy, "wisdom literature," etc.
I think a Christian can read that book, and come to convictions that require something, but there are actually no rules in the Bible about what convictions one should arrive at. Of course, there are faith-statements written by the people of the Church which are presumed to be held by most people, if they're part of that body/organization (the historical creeds). The statements have been and are determined to be true through practice. Not so different from what the Buddha taught: "Try this. It works." It may work for some, and not for others.
We probably initiate many, many things in life based on trust or faith. Trust and faith don't have to be blind. Trust and faith in the Buddha is essentially the same as trust and faith in Jesus Christ, although each of those personages presented themselves quite differently.
I never quoted "reams of passages" to anyone when I was actively practicing Christianity. The stories in the Bible served (still serve) to illuminate, challenge, comfort and so forth, probably like the sutras. I wouldn't use them to "convince."
So a caution against making blanket statements about what Christians will do -- and also making blanket statements about what Buddhists, or anyone else, will do. I'm so, so wary of blanket statements at this point in my life, and am looking to be inspired and encouraged.
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
edited August 2014
You obviously haven't met the Christians I have. believe me (weird phrase given the current twist the discussion has taken, I know) I know several Christians who would stake their lives on what the bible says, and who cannot make any form of reasoned debate without quoting reams and reams of passages, because they believe it gives them credibility and gravitas. Many Christians are wonderful, open-minded, generous accepting people, with a great deal of intelligent information in discourse. Sadly, just as many are blind, blinkered mouthpieces. It was these types I was referring to.
And I too was a practising Christian, for around 35 - 40 years. R.Catholicism was strong in this one....
@federica said:
So for you to make such a comment, vinlyn, really requires that you add more meat to the bone. What have you, as any form of sensible information, to counter-argue the comment made? because merely saying "Oh well if it's in the scriptures it must be true" is mere empty argument, and does nothing for the debate.
What it does for the debate is to perhaps remind people of what shaky ground we are on when we accept "facts" in the "scriptures" of any religion. And what I have said many times is that we are not being genuine when we don't apply the same rules for any set of scriptures that we apply with the scriptures we most identify with.
If I read one of the rather massive biographies of FDR, as one example, that came out a few years ago, I can use various sources to check the accuracy of "facts" cited in each book. I cannot do that with "scriptures", whether they be Buddhist scriptures, Muslim scriptures, Christian scriptures, Hindu scriptures, or the scriptures of almost any religion. There is virtually no corroborating source of information for most of the "facts" stated in the scriptures belonging to any ancient religion. Even the most basic historical/archaeological information about Buddha is questionable. We don't really know for a "fact" the years that he lived. We don't really know when he died. It is not clear what type of "kingdom" his father was "king" of, and in "fact" it may have been a small, local community. There is not agreement about where he was born. There does not appear to be a single written record about Gautama Buddha from his lifetime or several centuries hence. And so, when I hear people state as "fact" certain specific things that Buddha did or said, I take such statements with a mountain of salt.
And, there have been discussions on this forum where a number of people have agreed that even if it were proven today that Gautama Buddha never existed, that the teachings -- whoever wrote them -- would stand on their own.
And that, is an excellent summary paragraph of my personal position. Forget about the "facts" in the scriptures of any religion, including Buddhism. They are not facts to begin with. They are points of view written to support the religious beliefs of a person or group of people. Many old world Buddhists were taught (and for that matter, are still taught) that Gautama was conceived in a magical manner involving a dream of a white elephant. I know personally well educated Thais who will still tell you that little fable...as fact.
The "facts" in almost any old time religion's scriptures do not stand the tests of almost any objective, non-biased judge. And we should not lower the bar in judging the validity of "our" scriptures, as compared to how we judge the validity of the scriptures of other religions. That is unfair and prejudicial.
Instead, look to the principles within the scriptures of any religion. Do the principles therein stand the test of time...or not.
I am not asking anyone to accept my viewpoint. But I am not willing to accept someone else's Disneyworld of Buddhism. And that is one difference between a religious and a secular Buddhist.
Hi, Federica. Yes, some "Christians" are close-minded and etc., as are many people. It's a scary thing to open one's mind, as Pema Chodron and probably many other teachers often point out.
I love the Bible. To me, it's "true" because it's a real mirror of the human experience: the beautiful, the good, the bad, and the horribly ugly. I think if taken like that, as a record of collective experience and perception, it can be a real eye-opener.
I've also been warming to the sutras in the Pali canon, and to the Lotus Sutra. Very eager to read others... I like them so far. The warmth and compassion of the Buddha comes through, and there are great tips for how to think in a wholesome way.
So far, there's been no rape, war, murder, and deceit, though, which I find suspicious since it's so much a part of our human experience. :-) Clearly the sutras are aiming at something different, or aren't concerned with portraying humanity as it is. It seems to me they're aimed at giving a specific path. The Bible doesn't do much of that -- it's not good at specifics. It gives us examples of people, good and bad, and that's all, almost. It seems the sutras are a map; the Bible's just a key.
@vinlyn said:
I am not asking anyone to accept my viewpoint. But I am not willing to accept someone else's Disneyworld of Buddhism. And that is one difference between a religious and a secular Buddhist.
It would probably be good too if other people did not make demeaning remarks about other people's beliefs, secular OR religious!
@anataman said:
ridiculous statement!
No one finds nirvana!
Nirvana is for the ignorant men in this world!
Nirvana in Samsara. We have one foot planted in each.
Which side shall we choose?
Chögyam Trungpa said:
"Nirvana means dwelling in peace and openness, and samsara means dwelling in one's neurosis."
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I am not making demeaning remarks about other people's beliefs. I'm making remarks about how they interpret and/or transmit those beliefs to others.
And, @vinlyn, certainly for my part, I never take any of the suttas at face value. if it makes perfect sense, I'm prepared to incorporate it. if there';s even the merest hint of 'hang on....' I tend to suspend acceptance.
@federica said:
I am not making demeaning remarks about other people's beliefs. I'm making remarks about how they interpret and/or transmit those beliefs to others.
And, vinlyn, certainly for my part, I never take any of the suttas at face value. if it makes perfect sense, I'm prepared to incorporate it. if there';s even the merest hint of 'hang on....' I tend to suspend acceptance.
And that is a very wise and reasonable stance, IMHO.
@vinlyn said:
If I read one of the rather massive biographies of FDR, as one example, that came out a few years ago, I can use various sources to check the accuracy of "facts" cited in each book. I cannot do that with "scriptures", whether they be Buddhist scriptures,
You are comparing a comparatively resent person to a historical figure. Make the same argument in 2000 years and all you would have left would be the option to believe in one text or the other. How would you check your facts about FDR then if there is none alive to verify his existence and the only thing to go by are written records?
So in 2000 years it is questionable according to your argument if FDR ever existed? (I would say so since I am a sceptic but I hope you see my point?)
As for the rest of the argument... There is no such thing as a
objective, non-biased judge
Unless you are awakened. That is the sole point of the Dhamma.
But I do agree with what you say in that it is best to stick to the principles of the dhamma that can be tested and verified.
But I really do not get what berating others for the same thing you do (i.e. choosing the parts of buddhism favorable to your cultivation) will gain this question?
Do you presume to choose other peoples paths for them?
I'm sorry, @Victorious, that you missed the first point. Naturally there is a difference in corroborating sources from a relatively present-day figure than from someone who lived 2,500 years ago. But that does not negate that there is still a dearth of corroborating evidence concerning the life of Buddha. And, in fact, that's my point. And what I question are all these "facts" people spout about Gautama, when indeed, we cannot say they are facts. But you actually help make my point -- in 2,000 years there will still probably be many sources corroborating FDR's life, but still virtually no corroborating sources about Buddha's life. And this brings me back to being fair and evenhanded in our analysis of religion and religious figures. How many posts in this forum's history have there been questioning the historical existence of Jesus? How many times have we seen points about not being able to definitively corroborate his history? How many times have folks here questioned different stories about his life? How many times have people cited the lack of evidence (either directly or indirectly) as being at least one of the reasons for leaving Christianity. How many folks have actually postulated that Jesus was a Buddhist? And yet, we're not supposed to apply the same standards to the religion we favor??? Let's level the playing field and let the chips fall where they may.
You're right, there is no such thing as a truly "objective, non-biased judge". But there are "judges" who are far more objective and non-biased than others. For example, I grew up in the town where Joseph Smith formulated the Mormon religion. If you go back to Palmyra yet today, and you nose around enough you will find Mormons who believe and (to some extent) proselytize every belief in the Book Of Mormon. How objective and non-biased are they on a scale of 1-10? And you can find some anti-Mormons in Palmyra who will still tell you that Joseph Smith got kicked out of town because he was a horse thief. How objective and non-biased are they on a scale of 1-10? And then there are other people in Palmyra that will be more balanced, who won't believe the story of the Angel Moroni and the Golden Plates, or the story of the tribe of ancestral Indians, or that Jesus visited North America after his Resurrection...but who will still give Mormons and Mormonism their/its due.
I guess you see my Disneyland comment as berating. Actually, that is your interpretation of my comment. During my months and years visiting and living in Thailand, I often would spend hours visiting temples studying the artwork...it fascinated me...I actually would think that wonderful imaginations of Disney-proportions dreamed up these fanciful interpretations of the Dhamma...and was thankful that they did. When I would take American friends visiting to the Temple Of The Emerald Buddha in Bangkok, I would describe it as a Buddhist Disneyland -- not derogatorily, but to applaud its creativity. But there's a difference between appreciating fables and legends...and believing that there is a magical land of Buddhist cosmology inside the middle of the earth, or the depictions of devas floating around in Buddhist heaven, or the depictions of the tortures of Buddhist hell. I have endless admiration for the Disneys of the world, the Spielbergs of the world, and they people who can create such wonderful imaginative spectacles as we see in Thai Buddhism (as well as other forms of Buddhism). But I know that I don't myself see E.T., 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea (at least the way Jules Verne saw it), or angels with Golden Plates, a Messiah feeding the multitudes with a few fish, or that Buddhist kingdom in the middle of the earth, etc. And every time people treat those things and other religious ideas as "facts", I'm going to question it, just as certain posters here have repeatedly questioned secular Buddhism and its rejection of Old World fantasies. But make no mistake, I was "raised" (at least in terms of Buddhism) in a Theravada world. But yes, when someone gets down into such details of Buddha leading his mother (except it wasn't his mother) into higher spiritual realms, then yes, I am going to challenge accepting that as fact. It could be true. Or not. We don't even KNOW a single real fact about Buddha's stepmother. But again, whether the fact(s) is/are actually facts is less important than whether the principles involved actually work.
@vinlyn said:
And every time people treat those things and other religious ideas as "facts", I'm going to question it.
For what purpose? Why does it matter what other people believe? If their beliefs don't harm others, then who cares? Do you really think you are going to convince a faith follower with your own skepticism? Skepticism that they once had themselves but have since abandoned? What is the point of challenging another person's harmless faith? Are you trying to save them from having faith or something?
We don't even KNOW a single real fact about Buddha's stepmother.
So what? What harm is caused by someone believing that is a fact? I don't understand why this is a problem. If it's not a problem, why even bring it up? What was the point of asking me how I know about Buddha's mother? Just so you can point out the that "well, it's not actually a fact". Well, what is the point of pointing that out? I don't get it!
But yes, when someone gets down into such details of Buddha leading his mother (except it wasn't his mother) into higher spiritual realms, then yes, I am going to challenge accepting that as fact.
From my perspective, you really aren't challenging accepting is a fact. In your mind, it's already not a fact so there is nothing in yourself to challenge to begin with. What you are really challenging is another person's belief that it is a fact, not "the fact" itself. But what point is there in doing that? Just to say "I think you're wrong"? I don't get it!... Unless of course, you are trying to convince them that they have wrong beliefs, then there would be a point. But if you aren't trying to convince them they are wrong, then what purpose does it have to say such things? What benefit is there in saying such things? What's the point?...
Going in the direction of blinding faith, ignorance, contention is indeed unskilful. For most of us being free of our inclinations, ignorance, dharma right or wrong and other personal dream flag waving, is the bulk of practice . . .
Well that is my general direction, I have others . . . :wave: .
Well put. I regularly meet what might be called 'secular ' Buddhists and what some call ' religious' Buddhists. But they don't in my view divide into camps according to those definitions.
No, what divides them is the degree to which they put the teachings into actual practice. Not whether they believe this or that.
I know angry 'religious' Buddhists whose involvement with Buddhism seems to be wanting to prove others wrong. And I know angry secular Buddhists with the same agenda. In both cases they seem to be motivated by insecurity.
I also know sincere practicing 'secular ' Buddhists who are well disposed towards others, and religious Buddhists who are similarly disposed.
Its not what they believe or disbelieve. Its what they are like when the rubber hits the road.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
MODERATOR COMMENT:
People: Please can we remember the original subject of the topic? Let's not take this one too far off-road, and go dirt-track racing when we're sitting in a stretch Limo..... Thanks.
Reminder: "Only Men find Nirvana?" Is the thread topic. OK, let's stick with it.
This sounds very much like something I read two years ago. I think it was the first chapter of The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine. He said, or if I remember right he said that the problem with scripture is that it is hearsay.
I have a feeling that Buddha went one step further. We should judge an idea on its merit regardless of who said it.
Our understanding that women were somehow inferior or lived a more difficult life may have been reasonable two thousand years ago, but the world changes. Change is part of Dukkha.
In all the world religions of which I am familiar, each has some type of organizational structure. Formal Buddhist bodies (you can see a list of some here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Buddhist_Sanghas_and_Governing_Bodies -- although I'm not at all aware of what exists in other places in the world, although even each temple has some hierarchy of who is in control -- as far as I know), though perhaps not as radiant in structure as, let's say, the Catholic Church, operate very much like non-religious organizations in terms of organizational behavior - versus - individual behavior. And this example -- of whether or not women can find nibanna (although we could also cite the example of whether women should be able to be priests in the Catholic Church...or nuns in Buddhist temples) -- demonstrates so well how an organization tends to cling to the past, maintain status, and toe the theoretical line...while individuals (sometimes in groups) tend to push the envelope, partially based on other societal trends.
I think you, @Ghid, have identified a key factor -- change happens -- whether an organization wants it to or not...and such organizations struggle with how much change to allow. And while they struggle, the membership tends to move along with change, usually in advance of the organization.
To find out at this stage of my practice that all I have little to look forward to is a men's den... is cruel and unusual punishment.
My zafu presents another possibility of history that I prefer for it sound more realistic.
Perhaps the Buddha looked into the future and saw that men dens would devolve into what we now know are dark pits smelling of stale beer, cigarettes & sweat where plasma gods holds them spell bound with the arcane rituals of sports and so he
forecast that **there was no future for women there
**
but beyond that den lay a world that was bright and clean and full of potential that men might be allowed into, if they ever discovered the existence of their second brain above their ears.
Apparently the writers of "men only" signs for the men den missed that second part.
To find out at this stage of my practice that all I have little to look forward to is a men's den... is cruel and unusual punishment.
.
I have always thought of you as a potential woman, despite appearances to the contrary. The external and interior meaning of gender can be thought of very differently. Physicality is mostly obvious.
Gender politics change historically, socially and in the future people may be able to simulate or actually explore physiological changes between a range of potential human expressions. Which gender are we free or attached to?
Most of us lowly men and women are defined by ourselves and others through our gender. Fair enough. What of our innate nature, our 'face before we were born, what is that?
@Ghid said:
Our understanding that women were somehow inferior or lived a more difficult life may have been reasonable two thousand years ago, but the world changes.
What I find interesting about that is the Buddha was one of the first people, in that culture anyway, to initiate those changes by challenging the status quo and flat out declaring that anyone can attain enlightenment. This idea was considered blasphemy by the Jains, the Brahmans, pretty much every other religious institution of the time. He was a revolutionary in that regard.
As already mentioned, @Ghid, the Buddha acknowledged that women are just as capable of achieving spiritual liberation as men. The only question is whether a woman can be a sammasambuddha (a technical term denoting a person who achieves perfect enlightenment without having heard the Dhamma from others, and is able to effectively teach it to others), as there's at least one passage in MN 115 that states this. I agree with Richard Gombrich, however, who argues in What the Buddha Thought that this passage (and any like it) is suspect and probably dates after the Buddha's lifetime. (You can find some of my thoughts on this topic here if you're interested.)
I'm willing to bet that if we build something (a character) of substance morals & standards, & our character finds all the real love in their life that they can until their content....They will ascend to the real planet earth as will their partner, & their kids will follow if they do the same....They will live eternally, & will be able to manifest anything they want to at will....They will of course manifest nothing at will apart from tools, because they will have everything that they need materials wise just like we do already....& will have eternity to build their homes, & to try all the things there is to try in the world....Every time they look at each other they will see their perfect partner, & every time they look in the mirror will see their perfect self....I mean mother nature had me through my mother, & i will find my soul mate who is female....So i have a lot to thank females for, & if there are none in nirvana them I'm not going....So black or white gay or straight, if you really love real life when you die, then off you go to the real planet earth....I also reckon this is our first go at it, & that's why we're "as a planet" crap at it!lol.
@Ghid said:
Our understanding that women were somehow inferior or lived a more difficult life may have been reasonable two thousand years ago, but the world changes. Change is part of Dukkha.
I am not sure at all that the Dhamma imparts any inferiority on women? Does it?
According to Theravada a Sammasambuddha is never a female but any female can still become Awakened and even actually become a Sammasambuddha.
But I do think that in general women do bear the heavier end in society still. Simply because they must fight much harder to be heard at all.
That may be just my own prejudice of course?
/Victor
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
I think, if we want to be really unbiased and not dogmatic, we should recognize that a "Sammasambuddha" can in fact be a woman. The only reason we'd think otherwise is blind adherence to some text saying they can't, but we should know better.
Can anyone say that they have met a sammasambuddha? Or point one out? Or been to Nirvana, if one accepts that it is a place, which I don't?
Until they do or can or have, I won't concern myself with whether or not only men can achieve these things.
Unfortunately, there are actually some serious issues to worry about. Like the possibility of Isis creating a radical Islamic state and forcing millions of women to be circumsized, and prisoners in their homes. Or the countless young women being trafficked, even here in North America, as sex slaves. Being a woman is not easy in many parts of the real world.
@robot said:
Can anyone say that they have met a sammasambuddha? Or point one out? Or been to Nirvana, if one accepts that it is a place, which I don't?
Until they do or can or have, I won't concern myself with whether or not only men can achieve these things.
Unfortunately, there are actually some serious issues to worry about. Like the possibility of Isis creating a radical Islamic state and forcing millions of women to be circumsized, and prisoners in their homes. Or the countless young women being trafficked, even here in North America, as sex slaves. Being a woman is not easy in many parts of the real world.
To look to Buddhas/enlightenment or nirvana to be anywhere else but within this one present nano moment is simply being a patsy to your own skandhic conditioning.
Like a fish thinking that one requires the right definition of water in order to swim within it.
The place to concern oneself about such things is when the basis of ignorance. like what allows any fundamentalist group to prosper, is allowed to stand unchallenged.
It is all actually the same issue, that should be addressed where ever it manifests.
PS (Oh & thanks for the summer advise of "the prevailing Westerly's off the Brooks. 53 knot gusts and 3 meter seas were waiting for us.......to run away from.)
@AldrisTorvalds said:
I think, if we want to be really unbiased and not dogmatic, we should recognize that a "Sammasambuddha" can in fact be a woman.
How would we know that? In fact?
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited August 2014
@Victorious Maybe we wouldn't, in fact, but then neither should we know the opposite (in fact). I'm content to say we don't know there's even such a thing as Sammasambuddha, much less whether there are gender requirements for the role, but my reply was particularly in regards to those who say that they can't be female. That's at least two assumptions, two instances of a knowledge claim being made without sufficient justification. I was just as incorrect, it appears, but I'll admit as much. I don't "know", but I will call other people out who claim to, just as I'd call a Christian out who claims I'm going to Hell because I don't believe in Jesus. It just seems particularly sexist and ignorant, so we should be especially wary and require more than hearsay to accept it as truth.
@vinlyn said:
I have my doubts that in the true spiritual world there is male and female.
I agree. Non-duality. An actual teaching of the Buddha.
I can't remember if it was mentioned already that the Buddha was the first spiritual teacher to accept women in his order.
Why would that be?
To look to Buddhas/enlightenment or nirvana to be anywhere else but within this one present nano moment is simply being a patsy to your own skandhic conditioning.
Like a fish thinking that one requires the right definition of water in order to swim within it.
The place to concern oneself about such things is when the basis of ignorance. like what allows any fundamentalist group to prosper, is allowed to stand unchallenged.
It is all actually the same issue, that should be addressed where ever it manifests.
PS (Oh & thanks for the summer advise of "the prevailing Westerly's off the Brooks. 53 knot gusts and 3 meter seas were waiting for us.......to run away from.)
Did you meet my daughter at Fair Harbour? She is running the fuel dock there.
@robot
Ha!
Had I known that I might of popped in to say Hi.
No, we just changed our venue up to the Balaclava Island area which was mostly calm and sunny when all the other Vancouver island waters were colored red with storm warnings.
@AldrisTorvalds said:
Victorious Maybe we wouldn't, in fact, but then neither should we know the opposite (in fact). I'm content to say we don't know there's even such a thing as Sammasambuddha, much less whether there are gender requirements for the role, but my reply was particularly in regards to those who say that they can't be female. That's at least two assumptions, two instances of a knowledge claim being made without sufficient justification. I was just as incorrect, it appears, but I'll admit as much. I don't "know", but I will call other people out who claim to, just as I'd call a Christian out who claims I'm going to Hell because I don't believe in Jesus. It just seems particularly sexist and ignorant, so we should be especially wary and require more than hearsay to accept it as truth.
And now, back to Pac-Man!
Sorry Federica but ground needs some working.
First of all I never claimed it is as a fact that a sammasambuddha cannot be a woman. Neither have I claimed to Know it.
And to be to the point you specify fact as something you think there is only one of. Which is not true. There are myriads of ways to define a fact. .
But it is true I get my information from the scriptures. The same scriptures that contain parts that are verifiable and testable today.
To believe in the parts of them that are verifiable is a sound choice after trying them for yourself. To not believe in the parts that are not verifiable is to be prejudiced and to make a personal subjective choice.
The correct attitude would be to either not care or be open minded (agnostic). IMO.
Second what I know is according again to the Theravada suttas all enumerated sammasambuddhas were male and even if I cannot pinpoint the place they also state that all sammasambuddhas are male.
Like it or not this is a fact in a sense that both of us do agree to.
Now leaving the sanskrit suttras out of this. If we choose to disregard these scriptures then there is no footing what so ever to be having this discussion?
In which case we might continue guessing wildly at nothing for the remainder of this thread.
/Victor
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
@Victorious My aforementioned post wasn't in reply to you, someone else is the one who said a Sammasambuddha can't be female.
@AldrisTorvalds said:
Victorious My aforementioned post wasn't in reply to you, someone else is the one who said a Sammasambuddha can't be female.
Don't I feel the idiot. .
And my ego was really self-righteously satisfied with the answer too...
.
2
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited August 2014
@Victorious It's no big. You made some good points, though as a Skeptic I don't agree that we can't disbelieve something without it being "prejudice". I don't believe in Jesus in the same way I don't believe several things in Buddhist scripture. What's my grounding? My own judgment on the lack of any evidence or sufficient justification to believe them. I don't expect others to follow my judgment, but I'm not going to believe something merely because it's written down or attributed to the Buddha. I don't hold him up as "perfect" because humans simply aren't. What I do believe, at this point, was that he understood human suffering and its causes, and how to transcend them. I've had enough experience with that to overcome my skepticism. That's a far cry from the kind of omniscience that some Buddhists attribute to him.
We're always trying to create gods, to create superhumans to look up to because we don't trust ourselves. I can look up to the Buddha without mistaking him for anything other than a human being that happened to teach the greatest tool for liberation from suffering ever methodically devised. He's my hero; he's not my god.
@AldrisTorvalds said:
Victorious It's no big. You made some good points, though as a Skeptic I don't agree that we can't disbelieve something without it being "prejudice". I don't believe in Jesus in the same way I don't believe several things in Buddhist scripture. What's my grounding? My own judgment on the lack of any evidence or sufficient justification to believe them.
But is that truly being Sceptical? You are acting on a truth value that have really shaky grounds? I.e. your own judgment.
That is I would say being a true Buddhist. Not Sceptic.
/Victor
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited August 2014
@Victorious Well I'm a Skeptic and a Buddhist, so there's bound to be overlap. I don't think my own judgment is shaky at all... other people think their own judgment is shaky, so they need to look to someone else (a god or perhaps the Buddha?). They don't trust themselves. I trust myself. Other people haven't given me good reason to trust their judgment, because they believe so many contrary things! I've given my trust over to the Buddha on matters of suffering and liberation, because he's shown me a Path that I've been walking and that seems to be leading in the right direction. There's no reason to accept sexism in Buddhist doctrine, or this purported omniscience stuff. That's too much trust without it being verifiable.
This is most essential in life. To trust yourself. . Even your choice to trust someone else.
To get back on topic.
There's no reason to accept sexism in Buddhist doctrine, or this purported omniscience stuff. That's too much trust without it being verifiable
Sexism is a man made thing. Most recent too. Why disregard scripture just because somebody invented a word and now tries to fit the world into another category or outside.
This is just another construction to be released.
What is there is there. Why try to make it not be there?
/Victor
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited August 2014
@Victorious It amounts to the same thing. Take the word away, which is only a construct to point to something. The Buddhist doctrine in question makes a distinction between the capabilities of men and women. No word needed, I just find that unsupportable unless someone's taking it on faith. That's all. It's not that sexism is a man made thing; it's that sexism is a behavior that we recognize and describe, and that we've tried moving past in modern times. I think we can get tripped up on rationalizing even by accident. I've heard Christians rationalize slavery because "it was a different time". Discriminating between men and women, without sufficient justification, is just discrimination.
The scriptures are also man made constructs to be released. Everything is. I'm going to continue using them for the purpose to which the Buddha taught, but I'm still not going to accept sexism.
@AldrisTorvalds said:
The Buddhist doctrine in question makes a distinction between the capabilities of men and women. No word needed, I just find that unsupportable unless someone's taking it on faith.
Er what are you saying? There is no difference between the capabilities of men and women? There are humongous differences between the sexes in their mental capabilities.
The words are written in the midst of other words you take as "ok". Only difference is you do not like these particular words. Is that a reason to disregard them?
I've heard Christians rationalize slavery because "it was a different time". Discriminating between men and women, without sufficient justification, is just discrimination.
On what grounds do you suppose there is no sufficient justification that Dhamma to be read in the suttas does not discriminate between the sexes on this account?
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited August 2014
@Victorious So it's improper to decide that any parts of the scriptures are incorrect? I just want to understand where you're coming from, because not even Christians that I know take everything in the Bible as-read. If your position is "If you can't disprove it, you should believe it.", then we'll never agree, because that's not my mode. My mode is not to believe until there's sufficient justification and/or evidence to believe, not the other way around. That's me being a Skeptic, so...
Comments
Haha no, what I'm saying is that I've never heard of anybody describing nirvana as an alternate state of reality.
It seems nirvana is exactly the same as what we are experiencing now. Just minus something... Ego maybe?
Anyway whatever it is, it's definately not something to reach.
I'm sure you can experience letting go but what your looking at is nirvana .
Or I could be completely wrong! Hahah, maybe if I experience it I'll be able to add something. Doubtful though
Well, the Buddha himself said that Nibbana was " subtle " " difficult to grasp " and " beyond words "..so we should not be surprised if we struggle with the idea.
"The Bible requires that a Christian takes a great number of things on faith: And Christians will quote the Bible, reams of passages at a time, in order to support their own views, which actually does nothing to convince anyone else, because it's largely a matter of having to take things on trust."
Federica, the "Bible" actually can't "require" anything; it's a book. I contains history, liturgical rubrics, poetry (some of it quite erotic, I mean, REALLY erotic), myth, biography, letters, philosophy, "wisdom literature," etc.
I think a Christian can read that book, and come to convictions that require something, but there are actually no rules in the Bible about what convictions one should arrive at. Of course, there are faith-statements written by the people of the Church which are presumed to be held by most people, if they're part of that body/organization (the historical creeds). The statements have been and are determined to be true through practice. Not so different from what the Buddha taught: "Try this. It works." It may work for some, and not for others.
We probably initiate many, many things in life based on trust or faith. Trust and faith don't have to be blind. Trust and faith in the Buddha is essentially the same as trust and faith in Jesus Christ, although each of those personages presented themselves quite differently.
I never quoted "reams of passages" to anyone when I was actively practicing Christianity. The stories in the Bible served (still serve) to illuminate, challenge, comfort and so forth, probably like the sutras. I wouldn't use them to "convince."
So a caution against making blanket statements about what Christians will do -- and also making blanket statements about what Buddhists, or anyone else, will do. I'm so, so wary of blanket statements at this point in my life, and am looking to be inspired and encouraged.
You obviously haven't met the Christians I have. believe me (weird phrase given the current twist the discussion has taken, I know) I know several Christians who would stake their lives on what the bible says, and who cannot make any form of reasoned debate without quoting reams and reams of passages, because they believe it gives them credibility and gravitas. Many Christians are wonderful, open-minded, generous accepting people, with a great deal of intelligent information in discourse. Sadly, just as many are blind, blinkered mouthpieces. It was these types I was referring to.
And I too was a practising Christian, for around 35 - 40 years. R.Catholicism was strong in this one....
What it does for the debate is to perhaps remind people of what shaky ground we are on when we accept "facts" in the "scriptures" of any religion. And what I have said many times is that we are not being genuine when we don't apply the same rules for any set of scriptures that we apply with the scriptures we most identify with.
If I read one of the rather massive biographies of FDR, as one example, that came out a few years ago, I can use various sources to check the accuracy of "facts" cited in each book. I cannot do that with "scriptures", whether they be Buddhist scriptures, Muslim scriptures, Christian scriptures, Hindu scriptures, or the scriptures of almost any religion. There is virtually no corroborating source of information for most of the "facts" stated in the scriptures belonging to any ancient religion. Even the most basic historical/archaeological information about Buddha is questionable. We don't really know for a "fact" the years that he lived. We don't really know when he died. It is not clear what type of "kingdom" his father was "king" of, and in "fact" it may have been a small, local community. There is not agreement about where he was born. There does not appear to be a single written record about Gautama Buddha from his lifetime or several centuries hence. And so, when I hear people state as "fact" certain specific things that Buddha did or said, I take such statements with a mountain of salt.
And, there have been discussions on this forum where a number of people have agreed that even if it were proven today that Gautama Buddha never existed, that the teachings -- whoever wrote them -- would stand on their own.
And that, is an excellent summary paragraph of my personal position. Forget about the "facts" in the scriptures of any religion, including Buddhism. They are not facts to begin with. They are points of view written to support the religious beliefs of a person or group of people. Many old world Buddhists were taught (and for that matter, are still taught) that Gautama was conceived in a magical manner involving a dream of a white elephant. I know personally well educated Thais who will still tell you that little fable...as fact.
The "facts" in almost any old time religion's scriptures do not stand the tests of almost any objective, non-biased judge. And we should not lower the bar in judging the validity of "our" scriptures, as compared to how we judge the validity of the scriptures of other religions. That is unfair and prejudicial.
Instead, look to the principles within the scriptures of any religion. Do the principles therein stand the test of time...or not.
I am not asking anyone to accept my viewpoint. But I am not willing to accept someone else's Disneyworld of Buddhism. And that is one difference between a religious and a secular Buddhist.
Hi, Federica. Yes, some "Christians" are close-minded and etc., as are many people. It's a scary thing to open one's mind, as Pema Chodron and probably many other teachers often point out.
I love the Bible. To me, it's "true" because it's a real mirror of the human experience: the beautiful, the good, the bad, and the horribly ugly. I think if taken like that, as a record of collective experience and perception, it can be a real eye-opener.
I've also been warming to the sutras in the Pali canon, and to the Lotus Sutra. Very eager to read others... I like them so far. The warmth and compassion of the Buddha comes through, and there are great tips for how to think in a wholesome way.
So far, there's been no rape, war, murder, and deceit, though, which I find suspicious since it's so much a part of our human experience. :-) Clearly the sutras are aiming at something different, or aren't concerned with portraying humanity as it is. It seems to me they're aimed at giving a specific path. The Bible doesn't do much of that -- it's not good at specifics. It gives us examples of people, good and bad, and that's all, almost. It seems the sutras are a map; the Bible's just a key.
There are several things that have gotten mixed up here.
There are several types of buddhas. Sammasambuddhas and Sravakabuddhas (Arahants)
The question was simply stated: Can a Woman become a (sammasam)Buddha?
The answer according to
But the question that has gotten mixed up is: Can a Woman become awakened (Sravaka buddha)?
To which the answer is:
There is also another question that is related: Can a Woman become a Bodhisattva?
To which both traditions say yes. (again unsure of Mahayana)
/Victor
It would probably be good too if other people did not make demeaning remarks about other people's beliefs, secular OR religious!
Nirvana in Samsara. We have one foot planted in each.
Which side shall we choose?
Chögyam Trungpa said:
"Nirvana means dwelling in peace and openness, and samsara means dwelling in one's neurosis."
I am not making demeaning remarks about other people's beliefs. I'm making remarks about how they interpret and/or transmit those beliefs to others.
And, @vinlyn, certainly for my part, I never take any of the suttas at face value. if it makes perfect sense, I'm prepared to incorporate it. if there';s even the merest hint of 'hang on....' I tend to suspend acceptance.
And that is a very wise and reasonable stance, IMHO.
I am sorry @vinlyn but this is totally bogus.
You are comparing a comparatively resent person to a historical figure. Make the same argument in 2000 years and all you would have left would be the option to believe in one text or the other. How would you check your facts about FDR then if there is none alive to verify his existence and the only thing to go by are written records?
So in 2000 years it is questionable according to your argument if FDR ever existed? (I would say so since I am a sceptic but I hope you see my point?)
As for the rest of the argument... There is no such thing as a
Unless you are awakened. That is the sole point of the Dhamma.
But I do agree with what you say in that it is best to stick to the principles of the dhamma that can be tested and verified.
But I really do not get what berating others for the same thing you do (i.e. choosing the parts of buddhism favorable to your cultivation) will gain this question?
Do you presume to choose other peoples paths for them?
Sincerely
/Victor
I'm sorry, @Victorious, that you missed the first point. Naturally there is a difference in corroborating sources from a relatively present-day figure than from someone who lived 2,500 years ago. But that does not negate that there is still a dearth of corroborating evidence concerning the life of Buddha. And, in fact, that's my point. And what I question are all these "facts" people spout about Gautama, when indeed, we cannot say they are facts. But you actually help make my point -- in 2,000 years there will still probably be many sources corroborating FDR's life, but still virtually no corroborating sources about Buddha's life. And this brings me back to being fair and evenhanded in our analysis of religion and religious figures. How many posts in this forum's history have there been questioning the historical existence of Jesus? How many times have we seen points about not being able to definitively corroborate his history? How many times have folks here questioned different stories about his life? How many times have people cited the lack of evidence (either directly or indirectly) as being at least one of the reasons for leaving Christianity. How many folks have actually postulated that Jesus was a Buddhist? And yet, we're not supposed to apply the same standards to the religion we favor??? Let's level the playing field and let the chips fall where they may.
You're right, there is no such thing as a truly "objective, non-biased judge". But there are "judges" who are far more objective and non-biased than others. For example, I grew up in the town where Joseph Smith formulated the Mormon religion. If you go back to Palmyra yet today, and you nose around enough you will find Mormons who believe and (to some extent) proselytize every belief in the Book Of Mormon. How objective and non-biased are they on a scale of 1-10? And you can find some anti-Mormons in Palmyra who will still tell you that Joseph Smith got kicked out of town because he was a horse thief. How objective and non-biased are they on a scale of 1-10? And then there are other people in Palmyra that will be more balanced, who won't believe the story of the Angel Moroni and the Golden Plates, or the story of the tribe of ancestral Indians, or that Jesus visited North America after his Resurrection...but who will still give Mormons and Mormonism their/its due.
I guess you see my Disneyland comment as berating. Actually, that is your interpretation of my comment. During my months and years visiting and living in Thailand, I often would spend hours visiting temples studying the artwork...it fascinated me...I actually would think that wonderful imaginations of Disney-proportions dreamed up these fanciful interpretations of the Dhamma...and was thankful that they did. When I would take American friends visiting to the Temple Of The Emerald Buddha in Bangkok, I would describe it as a Buddhist Disneyland -- not derogatorily, but to applaud its creativity. But there's a difference between appreciating fables and legends...and believing that there is a magical land of Buddhist cosmology inside the middle of the earth, or the depictions of devas floating around in Buddhist heaven, or the depictions of the tortures of Buddhist hell. I have endless admiration for the Disneys of the world, the Spielbergs of the world, and they people who can create such wonderful imaginative spectacles as we see in Thai Buddhism (as well as other forms of Buddhism). But I know that I don't myself see E.T., 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea (at least the way Jules Verne saw it), or angels with Golden Plates, a Messiah feeding the multitudes with a few fish, or that Buddhist kingdom in the middle of the earth, etc. And every time people treat those things and other religious ideas as "facts", I'm going to question it, just as certain posters here have repeatedly questioned secular Buddhism and its rejection of Old World fantasies. But make no mistake, I was "raised" (at least in terms of Buddhism) in a Theravada world. But yes, when someone gets down into such details of Buddha leading his mother (except it wasn't his mother) into higher spiritual realms, then yes, I am going to challenge accepting that as fact. It could be true. Or not. We don't even KNOW a single real fact about Buddha's stepmother. But again, whether the fact(s) is/are actually facts is less important than whether the principles involved actually work.
So funny. I ain't going there . . .
For what purpose? Why does it matter what other people believe? If their beliefs don't harm others, then who cares? Do you really think you are going to convince a faith follower with your own skepticism? Skepticism that they once had themselves but have since abandoned? What is the point of challenging another person's harmless faith? Are you trying to save them from having faith or something?
So what? What harm is caused by someone believing that is a fact? I don't understand why this is a problem. If it's not a problem, why even bring it up? What was the point of asking me how I know about Buddha's mother? Just so you can point out the that "well, it's not actually a fact". Well, what is the point of pointing that out? I don't get it!
From my perspective, you really aren't challenging accepting is a fact. In your mind, it's already not a fact so there is nothing in yourself to challenge to begin with. What you are really challenging is another person's belief that it is a fact, not "the fact" itself. But what point is there in doing that? Just to say "I think you're wrong"? I don't get it!... Unless of course, you are trying to convince them that they have wrong beliefs, then there would be a point. But if you aren't trying to convince them they are wrong, then what purpose does it have to say such things? What benefit is there in saying such things? What's the point?...
@seeker242, I'm not going in that direction.
Going in the direction of blinding faith, ignorance, contention is indeed unskilful. For most of us being free of our inclinations, ignorance, dharma right or wrong and other personal dream flag waving, is the bulk of practice . . .
Well that is my general direction, I have others . . . :wave: .
Well put. I regularly meet what might be called 'secular ' Buddhists and what some call ' religious' Buddhists. But they don't in my view divide into camps according to those definitions.
No, what divides them is the degree to which they put the teachings into actual practice. Not whether they believe this or that.
I know angry 'religious' Buddhists whose involvement with Buddhism seems to be wanting to prove others wrong. And I know angry secular Buddhists with the same agenda. In both cases they seem to be motivated by insecurity.
I also know sincere practicing 'secular ' Buddhists who are well disposed towards others, and religious Buddhists who are similarly disposed.
Its not what they believe or disbelieve. Its what they are like when the rubber hits the road.
MODERATOR COMMENT:
People: Please can we remember the original subject of the topic? Let's not take this one too far off-road, and go dirt-track racing when we're sitting in a stretch Limo..... Thanks.
Reminder: "Only Men find Nirvana?" Is the thread topic. OK, let's stick with it.
This sounds very much like something I read two years ago. I think it was the first chapter of The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine. He said, or if I remember right he said that the problem with scripture is that it is hearsay.
I have a feeling that Buddha went one step further. We should judge an idea on its merit regardless of who said it.
Our understanding that women were somehow inferior or lived a more difficult life may have been reasonable two thousand years ago, but the world changes. Change is part of Dukkha.
I think that's very well stated @Ghid.
In all the world religions of which I am familiar, each has some type of organizational structure. Formal Buddhist bodies (you can see a list of some here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Buddhist_Sanghas_and_Governing_Bodies -- although I'm not at all aware of what exists in other places in the world, although even each temple has some hierarchy of who is in control -- as far as I know), though perhaps not as radiant in structure as, let's say, the Catholic Church, operate very much like non-religious organizations in terms of organizational behavior - versus - individual behavior. And this example -- of whether or not women can find nibanna (although we could also cite the example of whether women should be able to be priests in the Catholic Church...or nuns in Buddhist temples) -- demonstrates so well how an organization tends to cling to the past, maintain status, and toe the theoretical line...while individuals (sometimes in groups) tend to push the envelope, partially based on other societal trends.
I think you, @Ghid, have identified a key factor -- change happens -- whether an organization wants it to or not...and such organizations struggle with how much change to allow. And while they struggle, the membership tends to move along with change, usually in advance of the organization.
I agree with you -- merit, regardless of source.
ONLY MEN FIND NIRVANA
To find out at this stage of my practice that all I have little to look forward to is a men's den... is cruel and unusual punishment.
My zafu presents another possibility of history that I prefer for it sound more realistic.
Perhaps the Buddha looked into the future and saw that men dens would devolve into what we now know are dark pits smelling of stale beer, cigarettes & sweat where plasma gods holds them spell bound with the arcane rituals of sports and so he
forecast that **there was no future for women there
**
but beyond that den lay a world that was bright and clean and full of potential that men might be allowed into, if they ever discovered the existence of their second brain above their ears.
Apparently the writers of "men only" signs for the men den missed that second part.
In Mahayana arhants are not full Buddhas because of the knowledge veils. They have to follow the bodhisattva path to become a Buddha.
I'm not sure what the old Mahayana texts say about female Buddhas. In my opinion I cannot see why a female couldn't become a Buddha.
I have always thought of you as a potential woman, despite appearances to the contrary. The external and interior meaning of gender can be thought of very differently. Physicality is mostly obvious.
Gender politics change historically, socially and in the future people may be able to simulate or actually explore physiological changes between a range of potential human expressions. Which gender are we free or attached to?
Most of us lowly men and women are defined by ourselves and others through our gender. Fair enough. What of our innate nature, our 'face before we were born, what is that?
Perhaps "no eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind: No form, sound, smell, taste, touch and no mind object. No eye realm until no realm of consciousness." . . . maybe no gender too . . .
What I find interesting about that is the Buddha was one of the first people, in that culture anyway, to initiate those changes by challenging the status quo and flat out declaring that anyone can attain enlightenment. This idea was considered blasphemy by the Jains, the Brahmans, pretty much every other religious institution of the time. He was a revolutionary in that regard.
As already mentioned, @Ghid, the Buddha acknowledged that women are just as capable of achieving spiritual liberation as men. The only question is whether a woman can be a sammasambuddha (a technical term denoting a person who achieves perfect enlightenment without having heard the Dhamma from others, and is able to effectively teach it to others), as there's at least one passage in MN 115 that states this. I agree with Richard Gombrich, however, who argues in What the Buddha Thought that this passage (and any like it) is suspect and probably dates after the Buddha's lifetime. (You can find some of my thoughts on this topic here if you're interested.)
I'm willing to bet that if we build something (a character) of substance morals & standards, & our character finds all the real love in their life that they can until their content....They will ascend to the real planet earth as will their partner, & their kids will follow if they do the same....They will live eternally, & will be able to manifest anything they want to at will....They will of course manifest nothing at will apart from tools, because they will have everything that they need materials wise just like we do already....& will have eternity to build their homes, & to try all the things there is to try in the world....Every time they look at each other they will see their perfect partner, & every time they look in the mirror will see their perfect self....I mean mother nature had me through my mother, & i will find my soul mate who is female....So i have a lot to thank females for, & if there are none in nirvana them I'm not going....So black or white gay or straight, if you really love real life when you die, then off you go to the real planet earth....I also reckon this is our first go at it, & that's why we're "as a planet" crap at it!lol.
I am not sure at all that the Dhamma imparts any inferiority on women? Does it?
According to Theravada a Sammasambuddha is never a female but any female can still become Awakened and even actually become a Sammasambuddha.
But I do think that in general women do bear the heavier end in society still. Simply because they must fight much harder to be heard at all.
That may be just my own prejudice of course?
/Victor
I think, if we want to be really unbiased and not dogmatic, we should recognize that a "Sammasambuddha" can in fact be a woman. The only reason we'd think otherwise is blind adherence to some text saying they can't, but we should know better.
Can anyone say that they have met a sammasambuddha? Or point one out? Or been to Nirvana, if one accepts that it is a place, which I don't?
Until they do or can or have, I won't concern myself with whether or not only men can achieve these things.
Unfortunately, there are actually some serious issues to worry about. Like the possibility of Isis creating a radical Islamic state and forcing millions of women to be circumsized, and prisoners in their homes. Or the countless young women being trafficked, even here in North America, as sex slaves. Being a woman is not easy in many parts of the real world.
Excellent...on both points.
My sympathies @robot
To look to Buddhas/enlightenment or nirvana to be anywhere else but within this one present nano moment is simply being a patsy to your own skandhic conditioning.
Like a fish thinking that one requires the right definition of water in order to swim within it.
The place to concern oneself about such things is when the basis of ignorance. like what allows any fundamentalist group to prosper, is allowed to stand unchallenged.
It is all actually the same issue, that should be addressed where ever it manifests.
PS (Oh & thanks for the summer advise of "the prevailing Westerly's off the Brooks. 53 knot gusts and 3 meter seas were waiting for us.......to run away from.)
How would we know that? In fact?
@Victorious Maybe we wouldn't, in fact, but then neither should we know the opposite (in fact). I'm content to say we don't know there's even such a thing as Sammasambuddha, much less whether there are gender requirements for the role, but my reply was particularly in regards to those who say that they can't be female. That's at least two assumptions, two instances of a knowledge claim being made without sufficient justification. I was just as incorrect, it appears, but I'll admit as much.
I don't "know", but I will call other people out who claim to, just as I'd call a Christian out who claims I'm going to Hell because I don't believe in Jesus. It just seems particularly sexist and ignorant, so we should be especially wary and require more than hearsay to accept it as truth.
And now, back to Pac-Man!
I have my doubts that in the true spiritual world there is male and female.
I agree. Non-duality. An actual teaching of the Buddha.
I can't remember if it was mentioned already that the Buddha was the first spiritual teacher to accept women in his order.
Why would that be?
Did you meet my daughter at Fair Harbour? She is running the fuel dock there.
Yes it is true that only wise can find nirvana. :coffee:
@robot
Ha!
Had I known that I might of popped in to say Hi.
No, we just changed our venue up to the Balaclava Island area which was mostly calm and sunny when all the other Vancouver island waters were colored red with storm warnings.
Sorry Federica but ground needs some working.
First of all I never claimed it is as a fact that a sammasambuddha cannot be a woman. Neither have I claimed to Know it.
And to be to the point you specify fact as something you think there is only one of. Which is not true. There are myriads of ways to define a fact.
.
But it is true I get my information from the scriptures. The same scriptures that contain parts that are verifiable and testable today.
To believe in the parts of them that are verifiable is a sound choice after trying them for yourself. To not believe in the parts that are not verifiable is to be prejudiced and to make a personal subjective choice.
The correct attitude would be to either not care or be open minded (agnostic). IMO.
Second what I know is according again to the Theravada suttas all enumerated sammasambuddhas were male and even if I cannot pinpoint the place they also state that all sammasambuddhas are male.
Like it or not this is a fact in a sense that both of us do agree to.
Now leaving the sanskrit suttras out of this. If we choose to disregard these scriptures then there is no footing what so ever to be having this discussion?
In which case we might continue guessing wildly at nothing for the remainder of this thread.
/Victor
@Victorious My aforementioned post wasn't in reply to you, someone else is the one who said a Sammasambuddha can't be female.
What the in all the dharma is the true spiritual world?
Don't I feel the idiot.
.
And my ego was really self-righteously satisfied with the answer too...
@Victorious It's no big. You made some good points, though as a Skeptic I don't agree that we can't disbelieve something without it being "prejudice". I don't believe in Jesus in the same way I don't believe several things in Buddhist scripture. What's my grounding? My own judgment on the lack of any evidence or sufficient justification to believe them. I don't expect others to follow my judgment, but I'm not going to believe something merely because it's written down or attributed to the Buddha. I don't hold him up as "perfect" because humans simply aren't. What I do believe, at this point, was that he understood human suffering and its causes, and how to transcend them. I've had enough experience with that to overcome my skepticism. That's a far cry from the kind of omniscience that some Buddhists attribute to him.
We're always trying to create gods, to create superhumans to look up to because we don't trust ourselves. I can look up to the Buddha without mistaking him for anything other than a human being that happened to teach the greatest tool for liberation from suffering ever methodically devised.
He's my hero; he's not my god.
But is that truly being Sceptical? You are acting on a truth value that have really shaky grounds? I.e. your own judgment.
That is I would say being a true Buddhist. Not Sceptic.
/Victor
@Victorious Well I'm a Skeptic and a Buddhist, so there's bound to be overlap.
I don't think my own judgment is shaky at all... other people think their own judgment is shaky, so they need to look to someone else (a god or perhaps the Buddha?). They don't trust themselves. I trust myself. Other people haven't given me good reason to trust their judgment, because they believe so many contrary things! I've given my trust over to the Buddha on matters of suffering and liberation, because he's shown me a Path that I've been walking and that seems to be leading in the right direction. There's no reason to accept sexism in Buddhist doctrine, or this purported omniscience stuff. That's too much trust without it being verifiable.
This is most essential in life. To trust yourself.
. Even your choice to trust someone else.
To get back on topic.
Sexism is a man made thing. Most recent too. Why disregard scripture just because somebody invented a word and now tries to fit the world into another category or outside.
This is just another construction to be released.
What is there is there. Why try to make it not be there?
/Victor
@Victorious It amounts to the same thing. Take the word away, which is only a construct to point to something. The Buddhist doctrine in question makes a distinction between the capabilities of men and women. No word needed, I just find that unsupportable unless someone's taking it on faith. That's all. It's not that sexism is a man made thing; it's that sexism is a behavior that we recognize and describe, and that we've tried moving past in modern times. I think we can get tripped up on rationalizing even by accident. I've heard Christians rationalize slavery because "it was a different time". Discriminating between men and women, without sufficient justification, is just discrimination.
The scriptures are also man made constructs to be released. Everything is. I'm going to continue using them for the purpose to which the Buddha taught, but I'm still not going to accept sexism.
Er what are you saying? There is no difference between the capabilities of men and women? There are humongous differences between the sexes in their mental capabilities.
The words are written in the midst of other words you take as "ok". Only difference is you do not like these particular words. Is that a reason to disregard them?
On what grounds do you suppose there is no sufficient justification that Dhamma to be read in the suttas does not discriminate between the sexes on this account?
@Victorious So it's improper to decide that any parts of the scriptures are incorrect? I just want to understand where you're coming from, because not even Christians that I know take everything in the Bible as-read. If your position is "If you can't disprove it, you should believe it.", then we'll never agree, because that's not my mode. My mode is not to believe until there's sufficient justification and/or evidence to believe, not the other way around. That's me being a Skeptic, so...