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.
Bhikkunis - or the first nuns, would half the length of his teachings?
How come Buddha said that by letting there be a sangha for women his teachings would not last as long, they would in fact half?
0
Comments
Im not quite sure but i hope this helps.
Certainly an addition made by some misguided man several centuries after the Buddha's parinirvana.
Even today, most 'Buddhists' assert Dependent Origination is a theory of rebirth. As such, they do not 'see' the Dhamma. The Buddha said, they who see Dependent Origination, see the Dhamma.
Are you saying Dependent Origination was invented 500 years after Buddha's death? If not, why was it not taught in the preceding 500 years?
But Dependent Origination as a psychological reality regarding the arising and ceasing of suffering was expounded by the Buddha himself.
stick around and he will try to assert that Nagarjuna was a nihilist.
What denial!
Even Mahayana teachers I have listened to openly say Mahayana was the joining of Buddhism & Hinduism to make Buddhism more attractive to the common people when it was losing its appeal.
Please. Reality please rather than emotional clinging.
I challenge you.
I ask you to post a picture of each Mahayana deity and I will then reply with the pre-existing Hindu equivalent.
Even Tantra is a practise borrowed from Hinduism.
It is not proper for a monk to seek teachings from a woman. His motives may be childish, seeking female luv energy.
It is good to support female ordination. But we must be careful our outspokenness in this matter is not arising from our sexual attraction.
For monks (not laypeople), the Buddha said:
They are adapted methods, who cares if they can be related to existing Hindu deities? This in no way would prove your point.
On the point of tantra, sure again there are close historical relationships between the two, but the methods of practice cant be asserted as the same, many have tried.
If we want to play that game we could relate the very advent of Buddhism to the other shramana movements that were going on around the 5th century BCE and say that it too constists primarily of borrowed methods which, historically, they are for the most part.
Any argument that the Mahayana and Vajrayana are Hinduism can just as easily be asserted about the Shravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana.
Personally, I dont care. I see specifically Buddhist value and teaching all all of the methods mentioned.
Love & Peace
Joe
What you assert about the Mahayana is not my understanding of it.
I have checked on a few deites, and it would appear for example, that Kali in her present form appeared in scripture around 100 years after Vajrayogini. The similarities in appearance and nature are too great for coincidence, so one may surmise that in fact some Hindu deities were drawn from Buddhist deities. Your claim is spurious, in that both Hindu and Buddhist tantras progessed concurrently, leaving behind Vedic deites and allocating them subservient status.
It is also possible to confuse deites as the names recur over time, such as Kali. Tara deities may also have no connection with each other.
Where in the Hindu pantheon do you find Avalokiteshvara earlier than 2500 BC?
Again, you assume that the Tantra was invented to make Buddhism more palatable to 'the common people' yet ask yourself who had access to the Tantra in Buddhism.
You may also be clinging to an interpretation of Mahayana which is far from 'reality'.
For example, many mothers of monks sought to enter the monastery.
As such, the former relationship cannot exist. This is untenable.
One cannot have maternal relationships in the monastery.
that you dont have one?
you certainly dont, like you consistantly do with the Pali sources you site you have taken a tiny chunk out of context in order to make a statement.
nice try.
The two-fold defeat, namely, defeated by moral transgression and defeated in debate.
:eek:
Of course they wouldnt be allowed in the monastery, they would go to the nunnery around the corner.
See, no need for misogyny.
nothing like claiming victory in a debate as an attempt to convince others that you are right.
nice try.
Indeed. Those who regard Vajrayana as superstitious idolatry have no understanding whatsoever about the practice.
I would also say the same about Hinduism, as the surface appearance of worshipping or propitiating a deity is far from the reality of the pujas.
A full bhikkhuni would engage with bhikkhus in many activities.
The heavy rules are to ensure the bhikkhuni do not enter into an maternal relationship where, for example, they are bossing around their bhikkhu son, getting their bhikkhu son to run errands for them, telling their bhikkhu son his practise is not good enough and is causing mother embrarrassment, etc.
Obviously, you cannot image the possibilities, possibly due to some kind of Tara worship tendency.
Even in the current Theravada bhikkuni matter, there were bhikkhunis, just like teenage girls, saying 'Ajahn Brahm is more loving & compassionate than other bhikkus", etc. This tendency of "my boyfriend is better than your boyfriend" should not be allowed to occur, where bhikkhunis like a demanding woman, start to put down bhikkhus, like a wife puts down her husband for his shortcomings that do not meet her expectations.
:smilec:
I can certainly understand these possiblities.
What I am suggesting is that there are better methods to prevent them than the overt misogyny of the 8 heavies.
Maybe all that isolated breath counting has got you a little loopy.
(Honestly, I am joking. I actually do think this is fun)
DD
You seem to be asserting that your view (of DO) is 'psychological reality' yet the views of others are 'imagining and speaking things you do not know or see'.
You cannot judge what others know and see.
One cannot successfully argue that Buddhist Tantra and Hindu Tantra are the same. Just like a lot of people could unsuccessfully argue that Therevada is "Hinayana" (which it isnt).
Do we have a tendency to project mental states onto others?
Also, you're statement about "Tara worship" that inspired this joke is already in one of my quotes so it didnt work when you went back and removed it.
Well perhapes it was especially designed for people of a certain mindset/capacity.
touche
Thank you.
I am of the opinion that the reason the Buddha felt that the teachings would last 500 years was because he knew men couldn't keep it in their pants.
ergo, men would be the downfall of the Dhamma, not women....
the amount of threads started by men declaring they're addicted to porn, and they masturbate and thy're lustful...together with the amount of sex scandals which have surrounded eminent Buddhist lamas in recent years, would bear this out...
And this comment is simply horrendous.... so of course, the fact that they can't keep their vows, is the women's fault....?:skeptical
(Big debate on Bikkunhi ordination on another forum....)
Why would this be touche ?
all of the shramana movements sprung from traditions that we now label as Hindu.
Should we care to be labeled ? a label is a sticky application, a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.
The eight heavy duties are extremely, in my opinion, sexist.
:hrm:
Love & Peace
Joe
Chillout some people are sexist, so unsprisingly there are rules to deal with that
Besides the concept of sexism seems to be a relativly new concept, back then everyone knew their appropriate roles and capablities so it doesnt really suprise me that rules will appear distastfull toward us westernised people.
The dharma changes wherever it goes.
Agreed. I think they are extremely sexist as well.
I also think they were added by later misogynistic monks to subjugate woman and are not a part of the authentic Buddhadhamma.
i think this is most certainly the case.
their views were most likely reinforced by patriarchal social norms.
Perhapes this is true i would not expect a buddha to discriminate upon who can attain based on gender, although i wouldnt expect him either to completly ignore the human variations and condition equality is a pipe dream of the unrealistic this is samsara.
For example, there is a rule against a nun touching a monk's robes...this was actually to prevent monks using nuns as laundry maids and getting them to do their cleaning and washing for them.
Another stated that nuns had to be accompanied everywhere... they were dangerous times for women, because due to their poor social status, men were not dealt with harshly if they assaulted or harmed a woman. Therefore an escort minimised the likelihood of a nun being attacked or assaulted.
I was given these explanations by a nun at this monastery, near me.
Anyone seen it?
Women are not the only sensual distraction for ordained men (and who knows how many times they have intervened to protect the innocent from the ordained male).
Last week when I read this, and the rest of that article regarding full ordination for women I was horrified.
To categorically deny women the choice to fully ordain and devote their lives to the Dhamma for the asinine reasons given by the patriarchs is nothing short of spiritual rape.
It's a filthy, squalid dictate filled with fear and hate and it creates immeasurable suffering.
If men who have truly devoted their lives to living the Dhamma really have so much of a problem dealing with their desire for women that they cannot even interact in groups with them during ceremonies or alms rounds or what have you, than the women, I'm sure, would be more than happy to live their ordained lives completely separate from the men.
How this could ever be perceived as a logistical problem in the face of a woman's desire to live the monastic life is galling. Have these men ever heard of Catholic nuns?
I love men and always have but by god their precious sense of entitlement makes me want to scream. How dare they place any obstacles, much less dictatorial mandates, in the way of a woman's desire to ordain.
I'd normally view a situation like this as the imbecilic, ludicrous, petty, and puerile situation it is if the cost to the spiritual life of women wasn't so high.
Deep shame on them.