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.
Least Favorite Buddha Sayings and Sutras?
Here's my least favorite!
That sutta is just full of downers.
Hell, according to that sutta no man that has ever lived, at least from the time of Gotama until the end of the reign of Gotama, can become Fully Enlightened (tm) either.
I'm off to find a universe with no Buddha.
"He understands: 'It is impossible, it cannot happen that a woman could be an Accomplished One, a {Fully} Enlightened One - there is no such possibility.'" - Bahudatuka Sutta
Seriously, though. Ain't that some shit?That sutta is just full of downers.
Hell, according to that sutta no man that has ever lived, at least from the time of Gotama until the end of the reign of Gotama, can become Fully Enlightened (tm) either.
I'm off to find a universe with no Buddha.
0
Comments
What other (canonical) sutras do you think misrepresent Gotama?
Or might it be that the Bahudatuka should be considered as one of the sutras whose meaning needs to be interpreted, whose meaning is not definitive or obvious?
I dont heavily rely on any of the sutta/sutra's.
None of them were written down for hundreds of years after Buddha died. I take them all with the grain of salt and entirely dismiss any references to misogyny or other discriminatory cultural norms of ancient India.
Illogical.
Certainly the notions of what exactly enlightenment is have changed over time. Perhaps our modern egalitarian notions of enlightenment are not in accord with the reality of enlightenment. And how would we even know? After all, since the sutra above also says that only one being can be fully enlightened in a single universe at a time, there's really no one else to ask, nor is there the possibility of coming to an understanding through realization of full enlightenment.
I mean that sutra is a real bummer.
What else in the corpus of Buddhist teachings is full of it?
Is it just as wrong to think that an animal cannot become enlightened, that it must first be reborn as a human?
I remember reading a Pali sutra that said that you can tell what sex a person was by looking at the bones of their corpse. Women had black bones and men white ones. I mean, it's like the authors had never even seen a bone before!
C'mon. You two are waaaay too serious. You're both Tibetan Buddhists aren't you? I kid.
C'mon. What are some other "least favorite" or absurd things you find in Buddhism?
Why shy away from the ugly? Let's examine it. But first we gotta find it.
I think the vinaya pitaka is just loaded with nonsense.
The prohibition against albino's is particularly hilarious. Along with the eight heavy rules that are imposed on the nuns.
Why is this turning into just a refutation of the ridiculous?
C'mon, Jason. You're well-read. What are some other patent absurdities?
hermaphrodites too.
I find the idea of a literal "hell of laughter" laughable.
I think it should be kept in mind, however, that when the Buddha talks about hell (niraya), he's often talking about unpleasant or painful painful mental feelings "like those of the beings in hell" (AN 4.235). As I've mentioned elsewhere, I think the Buddha held a more nuanced position than a lot traditionalists believe. For example, David Kalupahana notes in his book, Buddhist Philosophy, that:
(P.S. I can't help myself, I have to refute the ridiculous. It's like a compulsion or something.)
History is littered with men in power displaying mysoginistic control over women. The fact that the Buddha allowed women to join the monastic community was an ENORMOUS step forward and was most certainly criticized by brahman leaders and laypeople in the buddhas time.
I have no doubt that many sexist statements made in the sutras were added by unenlightened, although often well-meaning, men.
The prajnaparamita literature and the bhodisattva Avalokitesvara both embody and portray feminine potentiality for enlightenment.
----
On topic..
I don't like the Mahayana Nirvana Sutra ... TOO WORDY ... the beginning, with all the introductions, reminds me of the Iliad when Homer's describing all the ships arriving. Also, a lot of the concepts seem contradictory to those presented in earlier literature.
Also, it states that there' something like 8,000,000,000,000 monks at vulture peak with Buddha ... thats 8 quadrillion ... At least the Diamond sutra keeps it moderate at 1500. Even the Vimilakirt Nirdesa sutra only has like 100,000 monks present, and that has some of the most fantastical elements of any sutra I've read.
I agree. That's one of the points I try to make here.
I think it's a faulty comparison. For one thing, the Buddha never said women couldn't achieve enlightenment (bodhi). In fact, he made it clear that women are just as capable of achieving spiritual liberation as men. It's never said that animals have the same spiritual capabilities as human beings, however.
Moreover, Buddhism is primarily concerned with human mental suffering, how it arises and how it ceases. As such, it doesn't really have a role for animals. This could be due to a variety of factors, although I think it may be partial due to a lack of higher levels of volition.
Psychologically speaking, human beings don't seem to be as constrained by instinct as animals appear to be, which is one of the reasons I think the animal realm is often associated with lower levels of intelligence and self-awareness, as well as rudimentary faculties of volition that don't seem to be as open to being actively developed as ours appear to be.
In Theravada, for example, it's held by those who take the teachings on rebirth literally that animals aren't capable of the same level of intention (cetana); as such, they're unable to practice the Dhamma and therefore they must wait until they take rebirth as a more mentally evolved being (e.g., human, deva, etc.).
How could one possibly compare the potential for enlgihtenment, in this life, of a human woman to that of an animal.
And yes, we are hoping that animals, in this life, will have exhausted any negative karma that may have been produced in prior lives so that rebirth will engender a being of at least human intellect, living in a world with knowledge of the dharma.
Obviously, he didn't make it completely clear. See, the sutra quoted at the top.
Even in the sutra you link to, Buddha blames the ordination of women for the quickening of the ruination of the Dharma. The implication seems to be that it would invite fraternization or whatever, at least it sounds much better to us this way; the text you linked admits the reasoning for this quickening is not made clear. The implication could very well be that women have a deleterious affect on any religious institutions, it's not clear.
Should we take those words from the mouth of Buddha?
It's been well over 1000 years, twice that allowed by the Buddha in the sutra you link. Is the Dharma dead, then? According to your link it should be.
Should we take those words from the mouth of Buddha?
Frankly, I think it is a kind of fundamentalism to imply that some aspect of Buddhism is more Buddhist (read: in accord with the Dharma) than another aspect. And I don't mean to imply that you are doing this, but it's similar to some Baptist claiming that Mormons are not Christians. And we aren't even talking about extra-canonical or apocryphal texts; we're talking about discrepancies within the canon. These discrepancies, I think, require interpretation not removal (from the mouth of Buddha).
As for animals, one need only look to the Jatakas to see examples of animals behaving with bodhicitta.
Ask the authors of the Bahudatuka Sutta; it's the same reasoning they use. According to some schools of early Buddhism (hell, I bet there are contemporary sects that think this), a woman first had to be reborn as a man to become liberated. We currently think the same thing of animals.
It is indeed common to find this kind of sentiment, in regards to women hoping for rebirth as a man to make it easier to become enlightened, in many sutras. It doesnt make it right.
There are also cases of women surpassing men in wisdom and concentration, and striving specifically to attain enlgihtenment in female form.
There are frequent inconsistancies in the sutras, and as such they must not be taken for truth. The truth can never be stated in words and must be realized empirically. This does not, however, diminish the value of the sutras as they have been used to propogate the dharma for centuries and much of what is taught by them rings true.
That's just my point. For the same reasons that we challenge the Bahudatuka Sutta, we could be challenging the notion that animals cannot be liberated. Apparently it is easier to be an advocate for the liberation of women than it is to be an advocate for the liberation of animals, even though we give them lip service in our vows.
Just like the capabilities of animals are denigrated now, the capabilities of women were denigrated then. And this denigration was rationalized in ways similar to the ways we rationalize that animals are "dumber", thus not capable of becoming enlightened.
We say, MU, a dog does not have a buddha-nature and leave it at that.
MU means "neither yes nor no." It means that the subject of whether or not a dog has buddha-nature is moot, because it does not address the personal enlightenment of the ponderer or the personal enlightenment of the dog.
And to state that intelligence is not necessary for understanding the complexity of the dharma is to detract from the profound nature of the Buddhas teachings.
Bodhi ≠ sammasambodhi.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I never said some aspects of Buddhism are "more Buddhist" than others; I'm simply using my critical thinking skills to make sense of things in the Pali Canon that don't make very much sense to me.
For example, there are reference to passages from the Vedas and Upanishads throughout the Canon (many that are quite witty, in fact), but much of this was apparently lost on later Buddhist commentators who misunderstood a lot of these references. As a result, it was their misunderstandings that were pasted down, and it's only been relatively recently that these things have been rediscovered by modern scholarship and textual analysis (e.g., Bhikkhu Bodhi does an excellent job of pointing these in this sutta translations).
Textual analysis by scholars of the Chinese Agamas and the Gandharan Buddhist manuscripts, not to mention the various Vinayas and Abhidhammas, has also lead me to believe there are corruptions in, and later additions to, the Pali Canon. (Ajahn Sujato gave an interesting talk on the comparisons between the Pali Canon and the Chinese Agamas; unfortunately it seems the site it was hosted on no longer exists.)
As for there being discrepancies within the Canon itself, that's not too surprising considering these teachings have been around for the better part of 3,000 years. I don't imagine they've made it this far unadulterated. I think this is especially true regarding the Vinaya and the Abhidhamma.
Sure, and I don't think that animals are completely incapable of having certain mental states comparable to compassion and loving-kindness, but I also don't take the Jataka Tales too seriously. For one thing, only the Jataka verses are canonical; the prose portions are regarded as being atthakatha (commentarial). Moreover, it's clear that many of the tales are later additions, and many are older Indian folktales reinterpreted with a Buddhist spin.
lol
I must have edited my previous post while you were composing this ^
I apologize.
What I was trying to express was a personal displeasure to the idea that we can know what the Buddha said and what he didn't say. To say anything that roughly amounts to "Buddha never said that", frankly, I think is not only presumptuous but also irrelevant.
I am fine with declaring some texts as having definitive meaning and others as having a provisional nature, but I dislike the idea of dismissing out-of-hand the authenticity of certain texts. IMO, the Bahudatuka Sutta should be merely explained, not explained away.
And as Jason said, the OP quote refers to a Full Buddha, not just a liberated being. I believe in the context of that sutta, it refers to a wheel turning Buddha. In other words a figure who discovers the Buddhadharma independently and sets the teachings in motion for that particular world age. Now, I don't see why a woman couldn't do that, but the assertion is not quite as far-reaching as some are implying, imo
gah, thanks for that, fede. A cringe-worthy read at some parts.
No worries.
I agree with you to a certain extent; but if a passage or text shows obvious signs of being a later addition, especially if it contradicts other teachings, I don't see any reason to accept it at all.
The Pali Canon isn't like the Holy Bible, where every word is 'divinely inspired' and infallible, and we're under no obligation to uncritically accept everything it says. And when it comes to the subject authenticity, I simply go where the evidence, including modern scholarship and textual analysis, takes me. Who knows, maybe the Buddha really did say all these things and he was simply wrong.
Just to be clear, the Bahudatuka Sutta disallows women from being "Accomplished Ones" also. Does this not refer to siddhas or mahasiddhas? Is it just a qualifier of sammasambodhi?
No, the Pali term that is translated here by Bhikkhu Bodi as 'Accomplished Ones' is sammasambuddho.
As in all things, the Buddha made it clear that he taught of nothing but suffering and the cessation of suffering. Animals, with few exceptions, "react". They don't cling, they survive and propagate. It is only when the mental faculties become more defined that we begin to suffer; such could be said of the elephant that mourns the loss of its child, even to the point of being left behind itself and perishing. This is very limited suffering in terms of all animals, and the common view of animal mentality would neither allow for the gamut of suffering that drives us to seek liberation, nor the ability to perceive karma and the fruit of karma which show us how we cause it (most animals do not have long-term memory at all to make it clear in some sense). That's my opinion on that...
Neither compassion nor reason allow for the inexcusable treatment and/or exclusion of women. Though plausible that the Buddha hesitated, weighing cultural concerns/backlash and the well-being of women practitioners, the rest seems completely inconsistent with the teachings and the selfless view of humanity as a whole. They seem "ignorant" in every sense, and that clinging to them based on written word alone continues to exclude women from ordination in many places... what an unenlightened and pitiful situation! This is a clear demonstration of why the Buddha said to believe nothing, even if he said it (or is credited with saying it), unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
Novaloka is an interesting website that looks at some of the Buddhist sutras from a mathematical POV. They present and analyze a portion of the Flower Ornament also.
So it's sammasambuddho sammasambodhi? Man, Pali is sooo lispy looking.
Sammasambuddho is a plural noun, translating as 'perfectly enlightened ones' (or as Bhikkhu Bodhi has done, 'accomplished ones'), which is the term used in MN 115. Sammasambodhi, on the other hand, is a related term referring to the attainment itself, translating as 'perfect enlightenment.'
So, really, the Buddhist distinctions between animal and human, etc. have hardly anything in common with our, I guess we can call it, biological distinctions. I mean, a person born with a disorder such as lissencephaly wouldn't really fall under the Buddhist definition of "human", would they? (Sheesh that looks so awful typed out.) They certainly can't exhibit the kind of existential suffering or drive for liberation that you are talking about.
That sounds really awful. Bear with me...
It seems like it can be resolved, though, if we include the bardo. For example, a human being born with lissencephaly would be released from the physical disorder at the time of death, thus they could attain liberation in the bardo. This begs the question though: what category of life form are you in the bardo? If a human being loses their "human-ness" in the bardo, then so could animals lose their "animal-ness".
If this is true, it's like a loophole for all our animal buddies.
I find your notion of human-centric suffering very strange.
I certainly don't want to argue about it or anything, that'd be ridiculous since I clearly see your passion in this area, and my personal goals are for the greater good as well. I'll just leave you with that, and wish you luck!
Namaste
This is merely an intellectual exercise.
I just find it very curious that everyone seems to think that animals cannot become liberated during their lifetime. Thus, I asked if it might be possible for them to be liberated from a bardo state, and if they should be considered "animals" in that state.
I don't think it's necessarily impossible, but I'm not sure how it's possible either.
How do you teach a dog not to suffer? How do you teach a cat about the eightfold path? Is a box turtle capable of developing the four foundations of mindfulness? Perhaps your scenario is possible if there really is an inbetween state (something the commentarial tradition of Theravada denies), but then again, it wouldn't really be in their lifetime if they've already died.
For what it's worth, I think animals can experience the type of 'periodic nibbanas' described by Ajahn Buddhadasa, but I'm not sure they have the capacity to achieve the same level of liberation and freedom from suffering that lies at the end of the eightfold path. And even if they do, I doubt we'd ever know it.
I think when a Buddha-to-be in the Tusita heaven is getting ready to take rebirth in the human realm, they choose the circumstances (gender, caste, location) most ideal to helping the most people.
Either way it's wiser to link gender neutrality to the Buddhist concept of anatta, or "not-self", a strategy the Buddha taught for release from suffering. In a sutta titled "Bondage", the Buddha states that when either a man or a woman clings to gender identity, that person is in bondage. It's an illusion created by Mara.
Buddha said follow my path and be free like me. But it's not quite like him, is it?
Sure, this is a egoistic notion -- the desire to be the Buddha -- but I think it is like being Columbus too. You make this long (accidental) journey to a new land, only to find that someone's got there before you. And even if you are perfectly fine with visiting a place already discovered, the people there are telling you that you can't get off the boat, that there is only room for them, room for one.
It seems strange. Like it was an unadvertised race in this universe and Gotama got there first, before you even figured out that there was a race.
Or can we become enlightened while in this universe and then receive a universe of our own? 'Cause that's cool with me.
The Buddha said he taught stress and the cessation of stress, nothing more. But isn't that enough?
Yeah, but what am I gonna do when I've ended the stress??? :crazy:
IOW, while I am waiting to get my tonsils removed I can think about the ice cream.
That's one possibility, but the the passage in question states that a women can never become a sammasambuddha, not just this time around. The same thing is said about a wheel-turning monarch, Sakka, Mara and Brahma. And considering the fact Buddha taught that one shouldn't dwelling on one's sexual identity (AN 7.48), I find this passage even stranger and more out of place, making it more suspect in my opinion.
In Theravada, a sammasambuddha (perfectly enlightened buddha) is understood to be a buddha who achieves perfect enlightenment without having heard the Dhamma from others, and is able to effectively teach it to others. A pacceka-buddha (solitary buddha) is a buddha who achieves perfect enlightenment without having heard the Dhamma from others, but is unable to effectively teach it to others. An arahant (noble one) is anyone who's achieved awakening (so the Buddha was also an arahant). And finally, the term savaka (hearer) is used to refer to a disciple of the Buddha (because they 'hear' the teachings), especially a noble disciple, i.e., stream-enterer, once-returner, non-returner or arahant.
As for the Buddha's alleged omniscience, I think it's a bit exaggerated.