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.
Enlightenment for women.
chrispche
Southend on Sea, Essex, UK Explorer
I was at my Buddhist group last night and there was a discussion about how women can't get enlightened in the view of some traditions (not the view of the group let me stress). What bull shite is this, who can believe such things. Surely all sentient beings have the potential for enlightenment. Who spreads this kind of nonsense?
0
Comments
Unenlightened men.
Bigoted people the culture buddhism evolved in would as any other been male dominated its always best take ignore the cultral bullshit if someone is as short sighted as to beleive flesh is an obstruction to training the mind then they have clearly learnt very little.
Lol.. surely
That is a mistaken notion caused by confusing the Nikayan concept of sammasambodhi with Awakening {Vishuddha or Spiritual Purification and Nibbanna or unbinding from samsara}. Sammasambuddhas are rare. They become Stream Winners without a teacher and start with the desire to save all sentient beings. They must then spend many lifetimes acquiring merit as a Bodhisatta. Next, they are born during a time when a Sammasambuddha is the world, make a special vow, and receive a prediction. After that, they are reborn in the Tushita Heaven; where they wait. They can only appear in the world after all traces of the Dharma taught by the previous Buddha have vanished.
There can only be a Dharma of one Sammasambuddha at a time. Shakyamuni is said to be the 28th Sammasambuddha. The 29th will be Maitreya, in the far distant future. According to the Suttas, all Sammasambuddhas, Brahmas, and Wheel Rolling Kings are always male. Also, Shravakas {monks, nuns, laymen, laywomen}, Pratyekas, and evil people can never be Sammasambuddhas. Only a Bodhisatta can become a Sammasambuddha.
In the original teaching, Arhat meant the same as Awakened or Enlightened. A Sammasambuddha is also an Arhat. There are two other kinds of Arhats. There are Pratyekabuddhas and Anubuddhas. They all attain the same awakening. Those who become stream winners by following the Buddha's teaching are called Shravakas. When they become arhats; they are called Anubuddhas. In the Suttas, there are examples of female Shravaka Arhats. Dhammadinna the Nun is a famous example. There are also many examples of monks, laymen, and laywomen who attained Enlightenment. Even a serial killer met the Buddha, repented, and became an Arhat.
Unlike Bodhisattas, Shravakas can become Arhats in one lifetime. If we want to be a Sammasambuddha, we would have to wait in line for gazillions of eons. Or, we can be satisfied with just attaining mere Enlightenment as disciples of the Buddha.
All beings have a chance of enlightenment regardless of race and sex.
Women in general have it tougher than men because they generally find it harder to put away their emotions compared to men. Buddhism is about being rational and acting on what is right. Emotion more often than not mars that process. However that said, there are many enlightened women in history.
Robby's right in that women are capable of becoming enlightened. This is not in dispute, and I've never heard any tradition state otherwise. As Robby correctly points out, however, what is in dispute is whether women can become samma-sambuddhas.
Personally, I disagree with the idea that women are incapable of becoming Buddhas. For one thing, I've yet to hear a compelling explanation as to why this is the case. Besides that, I'm open to all the available evidence, and I agree with Prof. Gombrich that such passages are suspect and probably date after the Buddha's lifetime.
I believe the only disadvantage women have in seeking enlightenment is cultural. Women are not expected or encouraged to pursue spiritual and philosophical ideals, and those who do are often rejected by their peers. For a man, it is a noble pursuit. For a woman, it is a foolish waste of time. There is a double standard at play. But for these societal and cultural influences, there would be little difference in regards to enlightenment between men and women.
~ AD
I believe this to be the TRUTH... and it has been like this for many thousands of years... it will remain like this until women take the lead for change. I think that monks did not just preserve the Buddha's teachings over the last 2500 years, but also adulterated in ways to make it prejudicial to women. The same can be said for virtually all the other major religions. This is just my opinion.
Superb statement; I couldn't have said it any better. Whoever says women are from venus and men are from marns do not make much sense to me at all. If you look at it closely all human beings are more or less the same in reality.
Makes so much sense. It is all cultural than a biological limitation. It is a shame how little support women monks have in the Easten societies specially. In my country female monasteries do not get enough arms food either. Society certainly has a visible double standard when accepting, supporting and encouraging women who pursue spiritual paths or any other path for that matter which is differnt to the accepted norm: Grow up, marry, raise the offsprings.
Of course, Tibet, like every other Asian country that I am aware of, is male-centric, and women traditionally take a subservient role. I think that is unfortunate, but there is no reason why we have to emulate that here. I mean, that's one reason why I chose a female teacher!
Palzang
Trace Buddha 迹仏
Origin Buddha 本仏
Trace Gate 迹門
Source Gate 本門
The concept is from Tiantai, I think, I also think it is derived from the Lotus Sutra. I am pretty sure there are is no direct back translation to Sanskrit of either term.
Inspiration from Enlightened Nuns
Well, that was what I was asking, what the concept is. You still haven't explained that. Throwing up a few Chinese/Japanese characters doesn't explain anything.
Palzang
There are different takes.
In the first half of the Lotus Sutra, Shakyamuni is depicted as a Buddha who Awoke for the first time in this world. In the second half, he appears as a Buddha who first awoke in the remote past. The is related to the East Asian concepts of Acquired Awakening 始覺 and Innate Awakening 本覚.
Acquired Awakening is what we achieve in this life time through the three vehicle teaching. The Awakening of the Sammasambuddha is said to be acquired over many lifetimes. Since they rise and fall, they are sometimes called Trace Buddhas.
Innate Awakening refers to Buddha Nature; which has 4 primary attributes. This is called the One Vehicle or Source Gate; because it is shared by all three vehicles. In other words, it is Nirvana or Vishuddha itself.
The concept of Trace / Source or Acquired / Innate resolves the early Mahayana problem that women, evil men, the Cause Awakened, and Dharma Hearers can never be Buddhas. Via conflation, this was taken to mean they can not Awaken at all. Also, it was taken to mean that Bodhisattva is the only vehicle that leads to full awakening.
We may not all ride the same boat {trace}; but we all get to the same other shore {source}.
The teaching spawned what I consider to be all kinds of unintended consequences. Some took the Source Buddha of the Lotus Sutra to be a different being than Shakyamuni. My take is that there are two ways to look at his Awakening. Another problem is that some took Innate awakening to mean that we are already Buddhas as we are; with nothing to attain.
Waking up is a personal, and intimate journey, beyond all these, deeper than all of these, and REQUIRES absolutely no thing from any body, in order to allow it, or accept it.
When we are ready, and when the time is ripe, we reach out and take our inheritance.
Peace,
S9
Awakening is free to those willing to pay the price.
Palzang
~ AD
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose..." ~ Janis Joplin
R: Awakening is free to those willing to pay the price.
S9: AD answered this best. But let me try for second best. ; ^ )
If we still think that we are paying some price, or giving up anything at/all in order to get this Awakening, than we are still holding on to the things of the mind, and valuing them too highly. In other words, we are still asleep, and buying into the dream.
Warm Regards,
S9
I can not tell who you replied to. If me; then you are welcome. Personally, I find it to be a useful concept. My background is in East Asian Buddhism. The Trace / Source concept resolves a lot of dilemmas that pop up there. For example, it is said that the next Sammasambuddha can not appear until all traces of the previous have vanished. That is, IMO, accepted in the Lotus Sutra. Meanwhile, the Dharma Itself -- the source or origin, never arises and never falls.
namaste
robby
Exactly. Who owns the toll booth on the road to redemption?
I guess I follow what you're saying. Personally I don't go around worrying about when the next Buddha will appear! Just happy to have been born when this one's teachings are still in the world!
Palzang
In Japan, the theory formed in some circles that Shakyamuni Buddha's teachings had already vanished! That is a side issue,
There was also a common belief a woman had to change into a man to attain Enlightenment. In the Trace Teaching of the Lotus Sutra, the Dragon Girl has to go to another universe and change into a man to become a Buddha. There was also an early Mahayana Sutra in which several of the Buddha's Arhats express dismay that thay had become stream winners as Shravaka {Dharma Hearers} under Shakyamuni, because this prevented them from becoming Buddhas. This also relates to to the confusion over Enlightenment for Women.
There were a number of other paradoxes and dilemmas that arose in East Asian. Is awakening sudden or gradual? Is the One Vehicle an exclusive practice; or does it inclusive? If people have Buddha Nature and Innate Awakening why practice?
In my view the concept of Trace / Source helps resolve those issues. A related concept would be Two Truths: the Relative, or Conventional Truth of Duality and Temporary Existence; and the Absolute or Ultimate Truth of Non-duality and Emptiness.
<qtlend></qtlend>
The Dragon Girl is a fictional Character. In this dramatization, she already possesses the sacred mani jewel. That represents Awakening to Buddha Nature; Enlightenment Itself; expressed as Unbinding {Nirvana} or Purification {Vishuddhi}. However, the male audience, represented by a fictional Shariputra, is skeptical. So she goes to another universe, changes into a man, and becomes a Trace Sammasambuddha.
Shariputra, in this dramatization, is not the historical person. He represents those who had conflated the trace appearences of Sammasambuddhas with Enlightenment. They had to come to view the Enlightenment of the Shravaka disciples as inferior and incomplete. Arhatship came to be viewed as a partial awakening. They thought that only Sammasambuddhas were completely awake. The Lotus Sutra uses visual imagery to illustrate the confusion and proposes an answer.
Yes, like anything that sentient beings touch, Buddhism has gotten sidetracked into pointless arguments and strange beliefs. I think the important thing is to keep on point and not worry about all of that. What is important is to rest in the primordial state and to practice compassion for all sentient beings equally. Everything else is just a distraction.
It's interesting that in the little book of monastic rules I got when I got ordained it says that we can only change sex two or three times (I forget which)! OK, how does one go about that exactly?
Palzang
We can agree to disagree on this. I think it is wholesome to address, discuss, and seek to resolve this kind of 'minutiae.' The important thing, IMO, is to not let it be a distraction; to not let it overwhelm one's trust in the Dharma; to not cave into cynical doubt. I think this is doable, via non-attachment to fixed opinions. It is interesting to me that both doubt {vicikiccha / vicikitsa 疑} and fixed opinions {dhitti / drishti 見} are considered impediments to practice.
The resolution, for me, is to form a tentative view. That is my middle way between too taut and too loose. If I do not understand something, and lack time or interest to pursue it; I just accept my ignorance. {I can not fix my own car either; so I have a trusted mechanic.} I do not dismiss it as unimportant or 'angels dancing on a head of a pin.' To me, that is too much like sour grapes. That is just me though; I am not telling others what or how to think.
BTW, I include the Pali, Sanskrit, and Chinese terms for reference. Those who are reading, if they are interested, can look them up and form their own opinions. All I can do is give my own tentative take. I do not know the Tibetan words at all; right now I leave that to others. I am interested though.
I know if I had them, I would be quite attached to them and never leave them alone. Thus, my meditation would suffer, which leads to either "fear" or "ding dongs" - I can't remember which.
-bf
I have to tell you, I personally find it amazing that in this day and age, that anyone (in their right mind) thinks gender has anything at/all to do with Liberation, or Realization.
It certainly points out one thing to me. Some people are perfectly willing to give up identifying with the small self, but are unable to go beyond gender.
Wait a minute, does that make any sense at/all? Who are we kidding?
I can only scratch my head and wonder at, what we let our selves and get away with. How blind are we?
S9
Palzang
It is my understanding that not only women get trapped in this stereotype, but men are trapped also.
They do this in one of two ways:
(1)They either plaster it on the other guy/gal (thereby cutting themselves off from any real in depth knowing of the other guy/gal), or…
(2)They plaster in on themselves (simply an inverse, which keeps them from any real in depth knowing of themselves).
Either way the trap is set, and really calls for our compassion towards them, and ourselves.
I think now that the pendulum has swung the other way, in history, women must be careful not to use this opportunity,or as an excuse, to hit the guys up beside the head…however tempting that may sound in the moment. We must stop this chain of suffering RIGHT HERE.
Q: "Try not to hate people for your gifts.”
In other words your good fortune in seeing clearly is the other guy lack of good fortune in this case. (OR not seeing clearly) This is where our compassion is an adequate answer.
Peace,
S9
Don't be offended. In a general sense it's probably true. But it's absolutely irrelevent since Buddhism isn't about tucking away your emotions; so men have their own issues to work with. It's a misunderstanding to suggest that emotional suppression, which is just as much clinging and attachment as anything else, is beneficial in any way to the path the Buddha taught.
Are you trying to say that men are normaly labeled as over emotional as well as women?
Or are you saying that men don't understand that women aren't over emotional?
Or is my brain not working and I've completely missed your point?
Also, I wasn't trying to hit him upside the head, I was just saying that that sort of generalization bothers me. I'm sorry if it seemed like I was trying to be rude.:(
S9: That’s okay, I am not sure I do, all of the time, either. ; ^ )
I am not trying to type cast guys or gals, at/all. That takes away their dignity.
My only point is that we have to give each other Guy/Gals a BIG old break here, because a good deal that we all do/think is programmed into us by the society that we grow up in.
It is probably because we are so ‘tuff’ on each other that, they have coined the phrase “War of the Sexes.” Wouldn’t it be nice, if we could just stop pointing fingers at each other, and placing blame on the other guy, and move past this shameful part of our history?
There is a Psychologist named Carl Jung that says, we are all both sexes, but that men are only men on the outside (animus), and men are women on the inside (anima). Whereas, he goes on to say that, women are only women on the outside, and women are men on the inside, (This is how our psyche is split up), that these two halves of our psyche actually make one whole being, called a human being.
So that:
In this way, putting down any particular gender would be like denying a part of our own self. How sad is that? He feels that this split should be allowed to heal.
Even if you didn’t buy that paradigm (above), it obviously take a sperm (male) and an egg (female) to make one baby. (This pattern keeps emerging.) So, why indulge in all of this silly quibbling about “who is best.” See what I mean?
Lyrics: “All I am saying is give peace a chance.” La/la/la (Sorry, the devil made me do it.)
; ^ )
Kind Regards,
S9
Also, that song is now stuck in my head....
The Source Teaching is when the Buddha finally revealed his true cause of enlightenment regardless if the people around him could have matured to the capacity to understand this ultimate principle of enlightenment
Supported by the Saranaloka Foundation
This is a brief announcement to let people know that plans are afoot to help a community of nuns from the Amaravati and Chithurst lineage be established in the United States. In winter 2009, three nuns stayed for two months in the San Francsico Vihara sponsored by the Saranaloka Foundation. The nuns were pleasantly surprised by the level of support they received and plan to return to the San Francisco Vihara in winter 2010.
To learn more about this, please visit the website for Saranaloka Foundation, which is an organization founded to foster a growing relationship with the siladharas (ten-precept nuns) of Amaravati and Cittaviveka Monasteries by supporting them on their teaching tours in the United States. Saranaloka hopes to provide facilities for a community of nuns to reside in the United States full-time.
Saranaloka Foundation was established in 2004 to support nuns from Chithurst and Amaravati monasteries in England to come to the United States to teach. Since that time, and numerous visits later, enthusiasm for the presence of women monastics has been tremendous and is the driving force behind an invitation to the nuns' community to set up a permanent monastery here in the United States.