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?
My teacher says that you would have to talk to a Hindu (or Mahayanist or Therevadan or New Ager or Catholic or Sufi) to determine whether they were correct about the nature of reality. Second you would have to yourself understand reality correctly.
The reason why the dharma only lasts half as long if women is ordained is that when women are ordained they become arhats at the same rate as ordained men. Once all the beings with the merit to become enlightened are exhausted, the dharma declines and becomes a semblance. Thus the dharma only lasts half as long, because otherwise the women would first need to be reborn as men and become monks.
For one perspective on the Buddha's attitude towards women, I suggest reading "Was the Lord Buddha a sexist?" by Mettanando Bhikkhu. While the author doesn't provide conclusive evidence, he provides circumstantial evidence that does help to support his view. And even if his conclusions don't reflect the reality of the situation, I think it's clear that the Buddha wasn't sexist in the sense of viewing women as spiritually inferior to men. This is clearly evident by the Buddha's acknowledgment that women are just as capable of achieving liberation as men.
My own opinion is that the Buddha was exceptionally progressive for his time (approximately 400 BCE). For example, it's clear to me that women had just as important of a place in the Buddha's monastic Sangha as men, which is evident by the Therigatha of the Khuddaka Nikaya and the Bhikkhuni-samyutta of the Samyutta Nikaya. In addition, I'm equally convinced that female lay-followers weren't discriminated against by the Buddha either, and this is evident by the many accounts of such women and their high status throughout the Suttas (e.g., Visakha, Migara's Mother, who was one of the three chief supporters of the Buddha).
In regard to the eight weighty rules (garudhamma), it should kept in mind that even if they were formulated by the Buddha, it wasn't necessarily due to a negative view of women. For example, the rules could easily have been to protect the bhikkhunis from danger, help maintain healthy and harmonious relations between the two groups or procedures for ensuring the proper education and support of bhikkhunis, as both Ven. Prof. Dhammavihari and Sujato Bhikkhu have suggested. It's also possible that the Buddha was sexist, although it's difficult to fathom why considering his egalitarian path.
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.
Monks, these five future dangers, unarisen at present, will arise in the future. Be alert to them and, being alert, work to get rid of them. Which five?
"Furthermore, in the course of the future there will be monks who will live in close association with nuns, female probationers, and female novices. As they interact with nuns, female probationers, and female novices, they can be expected either to lead the holy life dissatisfied or to fall into one of the grosser offenses, leaving the training, returning to a lower way of life.
"This, monks, is the fourth future danger, unarisen at present, that will arise in the future. Be alert to it and, being alert, work to get rid of it.
"These, monks, are the five future dangers, unarisen at present, that will arise in the future. Be alert to them and, being alert, work to get rid of them."
Anagata-bhayani Sutta
The Discourse on Future Dangers
The Buddha recognised the full potential of women to become enlightened. He was the first religious founder to establish an order of female monks. But he also recognised the dangers to the sangha as well.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
The Buddha recognised the full potential of women to become enlightened. He was the first religious founder to establish an order of female monks. But he also recognised the dangers to the sangha as well.
Quite - Because of this:
"Furthermore, in the course of the future there will be monks who will live in close association with nuns, female probationers, and female novices. As they interact with nuns, female probationers, and female novices, they can be expected either to lead the holy life dissatisfied or to fall into one of the grosser offenses, leaving the training, returning to a lower way of life.
So he realised that whilst some men might be able to control their lustful urges, others wouldn't.
Thereby illustrating quite clearly, that it wouldn't be the fault of the nuns, that the danger existed, but of the men, and THEIR lack of self-control.
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 agree.
For being "enlightened" - it seems like a very unenlightened thing to say. I can't wrap my mind around making one sentient being's value less than anothers.
My teacher is female and she attracts a lot of female students.. But not technically nuns. No I am not tempted... They are mostly old enough to be my mother. But if there were a cute one I guess; I havent taken vows hehehe.
So he realised that whilst some men might be able to control their lustful urges, others wouldn't.
Thereby illustrating quite clearly, that it wouldn't be the fault of the nuns, that the danger existed, but of the men, and THEIR lack of self-control.
I rest my case. :rolleyes:
I have read of many cases of sexual exploitation within Buddhism, heterosexual and homosexual. Within the NKT, ordained males and females live with lay males and females. It's a brave experiment and whilst the vast majority seem to behave well, several senior monks and one senior lay female teacher have had to leave after a sex scandal involving alleged exploitation.
There are also tales of Tibetan monks exploiting young boys, even using them as sexual 'consorts' for tantra, and many stories of Catholic monks abusing children, so I am tempted to make the unproven assumption that if males live a celibate life, rather than simply abandon that life, some engage in covert exploitation.
I have no idea if nuns in convents respond to their own urges in similar ways.
With present people being very different from people in Buddha's time, it could get confusing. After all back then, up to my knowledge, same-gender relationships were unheard of. Now a days (to the majority at least) it's known and (unfortunately not to many people I've met:() accepted. I do understand that the rules were put there to protect them, but shouldn't a monk, being a monk, not desire or dominate another person? Well any Buddhist shouldn't treat another person like that, atleast try not to. Aah, confudling topic I find this. BTW, I've always wondered if a man hitting a man but not a woman, is sexist, or a little bit more of a gentle-man? Now I'm a pacifist so it doesn't matter but anyway, modern-man is supposed to be a wimp compared to cave men anyway lol...:o
I have read of many cases of sexual exploitation within Buddhism, heterosexual and homosexual. Within the NKT, ordained males and females live with lay males and females. It's a brave experiment and whilst the vast majority seem to behave well, several senior monks and one senior lay female teacher have had to leave after a sex scandal involving alleged exploitation.
There are also tales of Tibetan monks exploiting young boys, even using them as sexual 'consorts' for tantra, and many stories of Catholic monks abusing children, so I am tempted to make the unproven assumption that if males live a celibate life, rather than simply abandon that life, some engage in covert exploitation.
I have no idea if nuns in convents respond to their own urges in similar ways.
Its a assumption to far, Not everyone will behave in the same way certainly there will always be a few who misbehave within any religious organisation it happens the important thing is to learn from it and catch the warning signs.
Its a assumption to far, Not everyone will behave in the same way certainly there will always be a few who misbehave within any religious organisation it happens the important thing is to learn from it and catch the warning signs.
Isn't 'not everyone' roughly the same as the wording I used: 'some'?
I'm not sure that we can go so far as to be sure that it is only a 'few'. It would be nice to think that, but as the story of Catholic priests unravels it seems to be a fairly widespread problem.
In the case of Bhikkhunis, it would be good if one could post and explain how their lives relate to bhikkhus etc.
Isn't 'not everyone' roughly the same as the wording I used: 'some'?
I'm not sure that we can go so far as to be sure that it is only a 'few'. It would be nice to think that, but as the story of Catholic priests unravels it seems to be a fairly widespread problem.
In the case of Bhikkhunis, it would be good if one could post and explain how their lives relate to bhikkhus etc.
I get the feeling sexual misconduct deserves its own thread
I get the feeling sexual misconduct deserves its own thread
There are several related issues which affect Bhikkhunis:
Should they be ordained at all?
As women, can they reach the same spiritual attainments as a man?
If a Bhikkhuni is raped, should she be expelled?
(I've even come across an article explaining that a Bhikkhuni who has been raped and did not enjoy it should be allowed to remain ordained, whereas if a Bhikkhu rapes a Bhikkhuni he may be asked to leave (Ven.Bhikkhu Sujato commenting on historical cases).
There are several related issues which affect Bhikkhunis:
Should they be ordained at all?
As women, can they reach the same spiritual attainments as a man?
If a Bhikkhuni is raped, should she be expelled?
(I've even come across an article explaining that a Bhikkhuni who has been raped and did not enjoy it should be allowed to remain ordained, whereas if a Bhikkhu rapes a Bhikkhuni he may be asked to leave (Ven.Bhikkhu Sujato commenting on historical cases).
Such questions should not even need to be raised.
Such questions seem to defy logic why are they asked ?
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 January 2010
I have read of many cases of sexual exploitation within Buddhism, heterosexual and homosexual. Within the NKT, ordained males and females live with lay males and females. It's a brave experiment and whilst the vast majority seem to behave well, several senior monks and one senior lay female teacher have had to leave after a sex scandal involving alleged exploitation.
There are also tales of Tibetan monks exploiting young boys, even using them as sexual 'consorts' for tantra, and many stories of Catholic monks abusing children, so I am tempted to make the unproven assumption that if males live a celibate life, rather than simply abandon that life, some engage in covert exploitation.
I have no idea if nuns in convents respond to their own urges in similar ways.
The adherence to celibacy in Theological religions such as Catholicism is more to do with sexual intercourse being a carnal sin, allied to perpetuating original sin as defined by the Catholic Council in around 400AD. They stated that women are the carriers of this sin, and that therefore fornicating with women, and impregnating them, perpetuated such things.
Celibacy in RC realms is more to do with sins of the flesh.
Celibacy in Buddhist realms is more to do with detachment from human desires, and self-discipline.
However, the focus is the same: To not indulge in acts of a sexual nature with another person.
Homosexual affection is a distraction here.
The main topic of discussion is ordination of women and the absolutely sexist, trite, insubstantial and mysogynistic reasons for not permitting it, or being opposed to it.
Because the topic rapidly moved to a discussion of sexism, which you mentioned several times in your own posts, and after a meander examining deities, examined exploitation.
Of course, I guess sexism can apply to a dislike of one's own sex as well as the opposite one, and exploitation is not exclusively a male characteristic, but the thread has followed a largely female focus as that relates to the OP.
I just said that because I couldn't think of what to say...
Shouldn't we just have gender equality and leave it at that?
Sure thing. As long as it doesn't mean I have to give birth - I'm quite content as a man to be inferior in that respect and leave that one to the women! LOL
Sure thing. As long as it doesn't mean I have to give birth - I'm quite content as a man to be inferior in that respect and leave that one to the women! LOL
http://www.progressive.org/mag_intv0106 This is an interview with the Dalai Lama, in which he comments on women and nuns in Buddhism. I'm limited in my knowledge of Buddhism as it is still new to me, but the Dalai Lama's comments sound to me like he is saying that Buddhism is outdated and that we should work on changing things. What are your thoughts on his statements in this interview?
Q: Buddhism is a male-dominated religion. What’s your view about getting more women in leadership positions in the Buddhist hierarchy? The Dalai Lama: First, among the followers of all different religions, women are in the majority. Among Hindus, women are so much more devout, and, similarly, for Buddhists, too. I think when religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism—as well as Christianity and Judaism—were founded, at that time societies were generally male-dominated. So, therefore this social notion also influenced religion. For example, when the Buddha came on the scene 2,500 years ago, the society that the Buddha was preaching in was a male-dominated society. If he stressed feminist viewpoints, nobody would have listened to him. [Laughs] I think even these great masters used to teach according to the prevailing social circumstances. In Buddhism also, a bhikshu [ordained man] is considered higher than a bhikshuni [ordained woman]. Ordained males usually sat higher.
The important thing is that now, for the past thirty years, we have worked to change that. Many nuns are very sincere, but they have had no chance to ascend to the highest ordination level. This has made me somewhat uncomfortable, especially since the Buddha gave equal opportunities to women. But we, even as followers of Buddha, neglected that. In the last few centuries, we completely neglected the quality of religious studies in nunneries. For the last forty years, ever since we’ve been in India, nunneries have developed better. Then, we introduced the same levels of studies for both males and females. Now it is possible for both men and women to get doctorates in Buddhist studies. Q: So will it be possible in the future for both males and females to be the highest lamas? The Dalai Lama: Up to now, most of the abbots in the nunneries are males. Now, there will be well-qualified female abbots within the nunnery community itself. Then, if a female lama passes away and she’s been a good scholar and practitioner, it is quite possible that the reincarnation will be a female, too. So, I think, that in the twenty-second century, there will be more female reincarnations at female institutions. Then there’ll be competition between male lama institutions and female lama institutions. It’ll be a positive sort of competition. [Laughs]
I agree with the sentiments buddhism will change according to where it visits.
I'd just like to point out that the same trip was laid on Tara before she attained enlightenment. She said (essentially) screw that, I'm making a vow to attain enlightenment as a woman and always as a woman.
I'd just like to point out that the same trip was laid on Tara before she attained enlightenment. She said (essentially) screw that, I'm making a vow to attain enlightenment as a woman and always as a woman.
DD, you off your meds or something?
Palzang
Thats a nice way to speak to someone let me just jot that one down :smilec:
So who was being hostile? I'm concerned about him. Where's the teddy bear? Do you have some sort of personal problem you'd like to talk about?
Palzang
Ah dont be concerned about DD he loves you really
Well speaking to people leaves something to be desired on this thread it seems to be a reoccuring theme amongst people presented with criticism and they knowingly/unknowingly return it.
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
Sure thing. As long as it doesn't mean I have to give birth - I'm quite content as a man to be inferior in that respect and leave that one to the women! LOL
And this is what your argument boils down to is it?
the fact that women are the carriers, while you just poke around for a while and have a bit of fun, getting your rocks off?
So because we carry the offspring for 10 months, and give birth, and are therefore by your reckoning - superior as a result - this still gives MANkind the right to continue treating women like 5h1t?
With the crimes being perpetrated around the world, against women, as we speak - that's a trite, trivial and quite frankly, puerile remark.
Rather akin to "Glad I don't have to shave every day!":rolleyes::mad:
Dhatu's remarks did seem surprisingly sexist and troll-like to me. At the very least, for the sake of his argument's integrity, he should have addressed the question of why mothers dominating monastic sons is more of a potential problem than fathers dominating potential daughters. The whole argument gave me the impression that there was an oedipal strain to his thinking, and it makes me wonder how he and his mother got along.
And this is what your argument boils down to is it?
the fact that women are the carriers, while you just poke around for a while and have a bit of fun, getting your rocks off?
So because we carry the offspring for 10 months, and give birth, and are therefore by your reckoning - superior as a result - this still gives MANkind the right to continue treating women like 5h1t?
With the crimes being perpetrated around the world, against women, as we speak - that's a trite, trivial and quite frankly, puerile remark.
Rather akin to "Glad I don't have to shave every day!":rolleyes::mad:
And this is what your argument boils down to is it?
the fact that women are the carriers, while you just poke around for a while and have a bit of fun, getting your rocks off?
So because we carry the offspring for 10 months, and give birth, and are therefore by your reckoning - superior as a result - this still gives MANkind the right to continue treating women like 5h1t?
With the crimes being perpetrated around the world, against women, as we speak - that's a trite, trivial and quite frankly, puerile remark.
Rather akin to "Glad I don't have to shave every day!":rolleyes::mad:
You're right. Lots of hidden agendas rolling around this thread!
Dhatu's remarks did seem surprisingly sexist and troll-like to me. At the very least, for the sake of his argument's integrity, he should have addressed the question of why mothers dominating monastic sons is more of a potential problem than fathers dominating potential daughters. The whole argument gave me the impression that there was an oedipal strain to his thinking, and it makes me wonder how he and his mother got along.
I'm not particularly interested in DD's personal life, but there is a very marked change in his posts. That's what I'm concerned about. I'm just wondering if he is OK.
I'm not particularly interested in DD's personal life, but there is a very marked change in his posts. That's what I'm concerned about. I'm just wondering if he is OK.
Palzang
Ever considered perhapes he's testing your patience ?
I found it interesting what the Dalai Lama said... I learn a bit about him and what may happen in the future, I think it would be interesting to have a non-Tibbetan and/or female Dalai Lama.
I found it interesting what the Dalai Lama said... I learn a bit about him and what may happen in the future, I think it would be interesting to have a non-Tibbetan and/or female Dalai Lama.
Doubt you'd ever get a Non-tibetan one, The role of the dalai lama now seems increasingly stuck in a quagmire of irrelevance and politics, an exiled god king of his people i hardly think any ethnic tibetan would accept any non ethnic tibetan as dalai lama young tibetans are becoming increasingly fustrated with the lack of progress under the DL leadership and increasingly nationalistic, it would be better in future for the role of the DL to completly remove itself from the 8 worldly concerns and re focus its self back into its spiritual roots, i highly doubt there would be a female dalai lama as well, one thing is said to a western audience and a different one to a tibetan audience i doubt the role would break with tradition, in fact i think the DL was quoted as saying he may not even bother reincarnating.
And this is what your argument boils down to is it?
the fact that women are the carriers, while you just poke around for a while and have a bit of fun, getting your rocks off?
So because we carry the offspring for 10 months, and give birth, and are therefore by your reckoning - superior as a result - this still gives MANkind the right to continue treating women like 5h1t?
With the crimes being perpetrated around the world, against women, as we speak - that's a trite, trivial and quite frankly, puerile remark.
Rather akin to "Glad I don't have to shave every day!":rolleyes::mad:
Most humble apologies. It was a lighhearted joke, that's all - hence the LOL. Are jokes forbidden?
I have witnessed quite a few births and if I had meant it as a serious comment, it would still be defensible - I would hate to have to go through all that pain, and many men I'm sure would find it unbearable. If I was admiring a quality in women, your leap to accuse me of the opposite.
Your rant about 'superiority', and by some inverted logic, my support of a world which treats women like 5h1t is your own invention and was just plain iinsulting.
My 'argument' so far in this thread.has been to describe and despise exploitation etc. so again I've no idea what you are on about.
And this is what your argument boils down to is it?
the fact that women are the carriers, while you just poke around for a while and have a bit of fun, getting your rocks off?
So because we carry the offspring for 10 months, and give birth, and are therefore by your reckoning - superior as a result - this still gives MANkind the right to continue treating women like 5h1t?
With the crimes being perpetrated around the world, against women, as we speak - that's a trite, trivial and quite frankly, puerile remark.
Rather akin to "Glad I don't have to shave every day!":rolleyes::mad:
OK, firstly most woman are pregnant for nine months, I'm hardly going to say that I'd love to carry a baby around for nine months and go through labor am I? I didn't mean anything by it, it's just one reason I wouldn't want to be a woman, although if I wanted a baby and I was a woman I'd go through pregnancy, but I'm not a woman and I didn't mean to offend anyone by that fact. BTW I hate the word mankind, and I have never treated a woman like shit, just for being a woman. I'm everything for gender equality, being a man or woman doesn't make me like or dislike a person anymore, and where I come from woman are shockingly sexist against men, as I have been offended many times, but I, even when I used to be a racist homophobic sadist, have never been sexist, ever, I've never meant to, and (apparantly up to know) I've never offended anybody for that reason, end of. I also don't need to shave, I'm a virgin, and I believe in long-lasting partnerships, therefor I don't 'poke around a bit and have fun, getting my rocks off'.:rolleyes:
Doubt you'd ever get a Non-tibetan one, The role of the dalai lama now seems increasingly stuck in a quagmire of irrelevance and politics, an exiled god king of his people i hardly think any ethnic tibetan would accept any non ethnic tibetan as dalai lama young tibetans are becoming increasingly fustrated with the lack of progress under the DL leadership and increasingly nationalistic, it would be better in future for the role of the DL to completly remove itself from the 8 worldly concerns and re focus its self back into its spiritual roots, i highly doubt there would be a female dalai lama as well, one thing is said to a western audience and a different one to a tibetan audience i doubt the role would break with tradition, in fact i think the DL was quoted as saying he may not even bother reincarnating.
The whole situation is pretty messed up. There seems to be no good answer. No matter what the Tibetans do, they're not likely to be able to get the Chinese off their backs any time soon, barring a complete collapse of the Chinese state (which is not out of the realm of possibility).
Comments
My own opinion is that the Buddha was exceptionally progressive for his time (approximately 400 BCE). For example, it's clear to me that women had just as important of a place in the Buddha's monastic Sangha as men, which is evident by the Therigatha of the Khuddaka Nikaya and the Bhikkhuni-samyutta of the Samyutta Nikaya. In addition, I'm equally convinced that female lay-followers weren't discriminated against by the Buddha either, and this is evident by the many accounts of such women and their high status throughout the Suttas (e.g., Visakha, Migara's Mother, who was one of the three chief supporters of the Buddha).
In regard to the eight weighty rules (garudhamma), it should kept in mind that even if they were formulated by the Buddha, it wasn't necessarily due to a negative view of women. For example, the rules could easily have been to protect the bhikkhunis from danger, help maintain healthy and harmonious relations between the two groups or procedures for ensuring the proper education and support of bhikkhunis, as both Ven. Prof. Dhammavihari and Sujato Bhikkhu have suggested. It's also possible that the Buddha was sexist, although it's difficult to fathom why considering his egalitarian path.
The Buddha recognised the full potential of women to become enlightened. He was the first religious founder to establish an order of female monks. But he also recognised the dangers to the sangha as well.
Quite - Because of this:
So he realised that whilst some men might be able to control their lustful urges, others wouldn't.
Thereby illustrating quite clearly, that it wouldn't be the fault of the nuns, that the danger existed, but of the men, and THEIR lack of self-control.
I rest my case. :rolleyes:
I agree.
For being "enlightened" - it seems like a very unenlightened thing to say. I can't wrap my mind around making one sentient being's value less than anothers.
-bf
I have read of many cases of sexual exploitation within Buddhism, heterosexual and homosexual. Within the NKT, ordained males and females live with lay males and females. It's a brave experiment and whilst the vast majority seem to behave well, several senior monks and one senior lay female teacher have had to leave after a sex scandal involving alleged exploitation.
There are also tales of Tibetan monks exploiting young boys, even using them as sexual 'consorts' for tantra, and many stories of Catholic monks abusing children, so I am tempted to make the unproven assumption that if males live a celibate life, rather than simply abandon that life, some engage in covert exploitation.
I have no idea if nuns in convents respond to their own urges in similar ways.
With present people being very different from people in Buddha's time, it could get confusing. After all back then, up to my knowledge, same-gender relationships were unheard of. Now a days (to the majority at least) it's known and (unfortunately not to many people I've met:() accepted. I do understand that the rules were put there to protect them, but shouldn't a monk, being a monk, not desire or dominate another person? Well any Buddhist shouldn't treat another person like that, atleast try not to. Aah, confudling topic I find this. BTW, I've always wondered if a man hitting a man but not a woman, is sexist, or a little bit more of a gentle-man? Now I'm a pacifist so it doesn't matter but anyway, modern-man is supposed to be a wimp compared to cave men anyway lol...:o
Its a assumption to far, Not everyone will behave in the same way certainly there will always be a few who misbehave within any religious organisation it happens the important thing is to learn from it and catch the warning signs.
Isn't 'not everyone' roughly the same as the wording I used: 'some'?
I'm not sure that we can go so far as to be sure that it is only a 'few'. It would be nice to think that, but as the story of Catholic priests unravels it seems to be a fairly widespread problem.
In the case of Bhikkhunis, it would be good if one could post and explain how their lives relate to bhikkhus etc.
I get the feeling sexual misconduct deserves its own thread
There are several related issues which affect Bhikkhunis:
Should they be ordained at all?
As women, can they reach the same spiritual attainments as a man?
If a Bhikkhuni is raped, should she be expelled?
(I've even come across an article explaining that a Bhikkhuni who has been raped and did not enjoy it should be allowed to remain ordained, whereas if a Bhikkhu rapes a Bhikkhuni he may be asked to leave (Ven.Bhikkhu Sujato commenting on historical cases).
Such questions should not even need to be raised.
Such questions seem to defy logic why are they asked ?
The adherence to celibacy in Theological religions such as Catholicism is more to do with sexual intercourse being a carnal sin, allied to perpetuating original sin as defined by the Catholic Council in around 400AD. They stated that women are the carriers of this sin, and that therefore fornicating with women, and impregnating them, perpetuated such things.
Celibacy in RC realms is more to do with sins of the flesh.
Celibacy in Buddhist realms is more to do with detachment from human desires, and self-discipline.
However, the focus is the same: To not indulge in acts of a sexual nature with another person.
Homosexual affection is a distraction here.
The main topic of discussion is ordination of women and the absolutely sexist, trite, insubstantial and mysogynistic reasons for not permitting it, or being opposed to it.
Because the topic rapidly moved to a discussion of sexism, which you mentioned several times in your own posts, and after a meander examining deities, examined exploitation.
Of course, I guess sexism can apply to a dislike of one's own sex as well as the opposite one, and exploitation is not exclusively a male characteristic, but the thread has followed a largely female focus as that relates to the OP.
I just said that because I couldn't think of what to say...
Shouldn't we just have gender equality and leave it at that?
Sure thing. As long as it doesn't mean I have to give birth - I'm quite content as a man to be inferior in that respect and leave that one to the women! LOL
I second that :tonguec:
Meg
DD, you off your meds or something?
Palzang
Thats a nice way to speak to someone let me just jot that one down :smilec:
Palzang
Your point being ? i didnt realize we where ment to act with hostility when we are critised ? :smilec:
Have I taught you nothing? ! LOL
Caz is a good teacher.
So who was being hostile? I'm concerned about him. Where's the teddy bear? Do you have some sort of personal problem you'd like to talk about?
Palzang
Ah yes excuse me dear teacher.
When all else fails beat self...
Ah dont be concerned about DD he loves you really
Well speaking to people leaves something to be desired on this thread it seems to be a reoccuring theme amongst people presented with criticism and they knowingly/unknowingly return it.
And this is what your argument boils down to is it?
the fact that women are the carriers, while you just poke around for a while and have a bit of fun, getting your rocks off?
So because we carry the offspring for 10 months, and give birth, and are therefore by your reckoning - superior as a result - this still gives MANkind the right to continue treating women like 5h1t?
With the crimes being perpetrated around the world, against women, as we speak - that's a trite, trivial and quite frankly, puerile remark.
Rather akin to "Glad I don't have to shave every day!":rolleyes::mad:
Woah...i smell gasoline. :wtf:
You're right. Lots of hidden agendas rolling around this thread!
Palzang
I'm not particularly interested in DD's personal life, but there is a very marked change in his posts. That's what I'm concerned about. I'm just wondering if he is OK.
Palzang
Ever considered perhapes he's testing your patience ?
Palzang
Does he need to be talking to you to incite a response when he critics a mahayana sutra ? or vajrayana practise ?
Wow, you really aren't paying attention, are you?
I guess when you've got that axe to grind it's hard to hear what's going on around you, eh?
Palzang
Doubt you'd ever get a Non-tibetan one, The role of the dalai lama now seems increasingly stuck in a quagmire of irrelevance and politics, an exiled god king of his people i hardly think any ethnic tibetan would accept any non ethnic tibetan as dalai lama young tibetans are becoming increasingly fustrated with the lack of progress under the DL leadership and increasingly nationalistic, it would be better in future for the role of the DL to completly remove itself from the 8 worldly concerns and re focus its self back into its spiritual roots, i highly doubt there would be a female dalai lama as well, one thing is said to a western audience and a different one to a tibetan audience i doubt the role would break with tradition, in fact i think the DL was quoted as saying he may not even bother reincarnating.
What axe are you assuming i have to grind palzang ?
Most humble apologies. It was a lighhearted joke, that's all - hence the LOL. Are jokes forbidden?
I have witnessed quite a few births and if I had meant it as a serious comment, it would still be defensible - I would hate to have to go through all that pain, and many men I'm sure would find it unbearable. If I was admiring a quality in women, your leap to accuse me of the opposite.
Your rant about 'superiority', and by some inverted logic, my support of a world which treats women like 5h1t is your own invention and was just plain iinsulting.
My 'argument' so far in this thread.has been to describe and despise exploitation etc. so again I've no idea what you are on about.
Please explain what you think I was writing.
OK, firstly most woman are pregnant for nine months, I'm hardly going to say that I'd love to carry a baby around for nine months and go through labor am I? I didn't mean anything by it, it's just one reason I wouldn't want to be a woman, although if I wanted a baby and I was a woman I'd go through pregnancy, but I'm not a woman and I didn't mean to offend anyone by that fact. BTW I hate the word mankind, and I have never treated a woman like shit, just for being a woman. I'm everything for gender equality, being a man or woman doesn't make me like or dislike a person anymore, and where I come from woman are shockingly sexist against men, as I have been offended many times, but I, even when I used to be a racist homophobic sadist, have never been sexist, ever, I've never meant to, and (apparantly up to know) I've never offended anybody for that reason, end of. I also don't need to shave, I'm a virgin, and I believe in long-lasting partnerships, therefor I don't 'poke around a bit and have fun, getting my rocks off'.:rolleyes:
Love & Oh Why Do I Bother? Peace
Joe
I haven't the slightest. It's your axe.
Palzang
I'm sorry
The whole situation is pretty messed up. There seems to be no good answer. No matter what the Tibetans do, they're not likely to be able to get the Chinese off their backs any time soon, barring a complete collapse of the Chinese state (which is not out of the realm of possibility).
Palzang