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.
Differences between men and women
sndymorn
Veteran
I believe there are many differences (besides the obvious) between men and women. For instance, men are stimulated by the visual where women seem not so much to react to this stimuli. Also, women seem to cry more than men, to be more emotional. Children select and play with toys which sharply divide them down gender lines. boys rough house and girls socialize. I know not every person falls into one camp or the other but I am interested in what you think. Can you describe differences or do you believe it all just conditioning? Does the Buddha recognize such differences or are they considered unimportant? Are they refuted , or denied in Buddhist texts? Are they even mentioned?
0
Comments
If there is another Sutra that states women can attain Buddhahood in their present form, simply through faith, I'd be interested to hear it.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thig/index.html
Then Mara the Evil One, desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and terror in the bhikkhuni Soma, desiring to make her fall away from concentration, approached her and addressed her in verse:
That state so hard to achieve
Which is to be attained by the seers,
Can't be attained by a woman
With her two-fingered wisdom.
Then it occurred to the bhikkhuni Soma: "Now who is this that recited the verse — a human being or a non-human being?" Then it occurred to her: "This is Mara the Evil One, who has recited the verse desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and terror in me, desiring to make me fall away from concentration."
Oh and most women shave their armpits.
This could mean that males, whether human or monkey, have a biological predisposition to certain toys, says Kim Wallen, a psychologist at Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta, Georgia"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13596-male-monkeys-prefer-boys-toys.html.
And Tara, according to tradition, explicitly made a vow to become a Buddha while retaining her female form.
TARA'S VOW
Long ago in an age before which
there was nothing else,
the Victorious One, the Tathagata Dundubhisvara
came into existence and was known as the Light
of the Various Worlds.
The Princess "Moon of Wisdom"
had the highest respect for his teaching,
and for ten million, one hundred thousand years,
made offerings to this Enlightened One,
to his attendant Sravakas,
and to countless members of the Sangha of Bodhisattvas.
The offerings she prepared each day
were in value comparable to all the precious things
which filled a distance of twelve yojanas
in each of the ten directions,
leaving no intermediate spaces unfilled.
Finally after all this
she awoke to the first concepts of Bodhi-Mind.
At that time some monks said to her:
"It is as a result of these,
your roots of virtuous actions,
that you have come into being in this female form.
If you pray that your deeds accord with the teachings,
then indeed on that account you will change your form
to that of a man, as is befitting."
After much discourse she finally replied,
"In this life there is no such distinction
as "male" and "female,"
neither of "self-identity,"
a "person"
nor any perception,
and therefore attachment to ideas
of "male" and "female"
is quite worthless.
The weak-minded are always deluded by this."
And so she vowed:
"There are many who wish to gain enlightenment
in a man's form,
and there are but few who wish to work
for the welfare of living beings
in a female form.
Therefore may I, in a female body,
work for the welfare of beings
right until Samsara has been emptied."
Women have motherly nature. They tend to care more about social matters. About being accepted, being loved, and loving others, etc. They also highly care about security more than men. I notice a lot of women are easier to believe in god over men. Most men I know of my generation don't have faith in god. A lot of women of my generation (way more than men) still do and they look to their faith and their culture for security.
I also have to say women tend to have it a lot easier when it comes to find a mate. As a woman you have a lot to choose from, and often you don't even have to put in as much effort. You can walk into a bar any time and just get laid within an hour. The women are never the ones asking to buy the man a drink. Or they can put an ad online that says they want sex and they will get many offers soon. It doesn't work like this for most men. For a male to do that he really has to be on top of his game on several levels.
Either way, we have to focus on the similarities, don't we?
I thank you all for your responses.
"Too much thinking," is something I am guilty of.
On the other hand, I find an answer like "There is no self, so how can there be gender," to be useless to me. I am so far from that point of view. Maybe I am the "evil one."
:pirate:
All of this, everything related to genetic survival is part of the first noble truth of suffering. The Buddha advises that suffering should to be understood, the cause of suffering abandoned, the escape from suffering realized, and the path to escape from suffering developed. I personally find it useful to study "normal" human psychology, sociology, anthropology etc. with an eye to understanding and then letting go the cause of suffering. Think of it this way, the most important kamma you inherited was the kamma leading to a human birth, with the entire bundle of emotional and psychological patterns, instincts, and naive realistic way of cognizing yourself and the world. In Dhamma terms, you inherited the 5 khandas. Now your important work is to break out.
Gender is very irrelevant to the basic teachings of the Buddha, and the societal norms of early Buddhist culture were egalitarian, much more so than modern Europe, for example. This is most strongly preserved in Sri Lankan society. In India, Brahmanical culture gradually took over, including the "Law of Manu" and the subjugation of women became more and more extreme during several centuries after the Buddha's parinibbana. The culture of Siam (= Thailand and Burma) is influenced by Brahmanism and less egalitarian than Sri Lanka. I am not deeply familiar with Northern Buddhist Culture, but the women's monastic lineage in Korea and Taiwan is really powerful - fantastic.
I hope this helps. Bhikkhuni Sobhana
Next thread
If the differences are meaningless in connection with Buddhist practice that is another issue.
"The Basis for realising enlightenment is a human body.
Male or female - there is no great difference.
But if she develops the mind bent on enlightenment,
the woman's body is better ".
(from 'Mother of Knowledge' by Nam khai nying-po.)
However, there is no record of the Buddha saying anything like that and personally I don't see any difference.
Its also worth noting that in Tibet before the Chinese takeover, female tulkus were very rare, and sometimes any women further back in lineages were later replaced by male tulkus. It was very much (and still is) a system dominated by men.
Thinking hard about abstracted notions. Perhaps thinking is not touching reality, but looking into the nature of abstracted notions is.
If you actually think a guy can get sex easier than a woman I don't know what to tell you lol. I know an unattractive woman without a job or car that doesn't even work out and she gets laid whenever she wants. Even if a guy is physically attractive, without a car or a good job it starts getting very difficult. Because women tend to look more for security, rather than casual sexual satisfaction like men do.
If women put effort into their personal appearance, even only a little bit, they never have to be celibate. I tell you this from my experience with dating sites, bars, and casual encounter online ads. Women can get sex whenever they want, easily. I can personally walk through any half decent looking woman on how to get laid. I can't say the same with a man. You never see women asking to buy a guy a drink. With men, a lot more effort goes into the picture.
For the danger of being raped that a woman faces with casual encounters. It's actually a lot less likely to happen and a lot less dangerous than driving a car. The danger from rape comes from not expecting it and from not fighting back if it does happen. Even a big guy is very vulnerable when trying to have sex. When you meet someone in a proper setting, with proper lighting and start observing them and chatting with them, all these are tools to be able to better see if you're at risk. Just by googling, or youtubing self defense against rape, a woman can learn practical self defense to beat a rapist. It really isn't hard to beat a bigger guy who is trying to rape you.
They put themselves at high risk by trying to take their dick out. I know this because I practice martial arts in a school that teaches women how to defend themselves and I have watched their practice a few times. It's easy to take out a guy bigger than you when you just aim for the right areas (the eyes, you can even bite off the dick). The elbow can strike from many positions and can easily break a face. The most risky thing to worry about for casual encounters are STDs not the chances of rape.
buddhism is taught on two levels: (1) mundane and (2) supramundane
on the level of the supramundane, the enlightened mind has transcended identification with 'male' & 'female'
but on the mundane level, that is, of everyday life in a society of ordinary people, the Buddha certainly pointed out differences between man & women
your questions are fine by me
kind regards
Thank you for your opinions but, personally, I find them idiosyncratic & heavily biased.
The scriptures show men, such as the Buddha, Sariputta, Mogallana, Maha Kassapa, etc, entered the spiritual life due to their dissatisfaction with worldly life, including dissatisfaction with women. But you appear to be implying men became monks because there was a shortage of women and they could not find a wife. Bluntly, such an inference is preposterous.
Also, your views about 'inheritance' and 'breaking out' in respect to the five aggregates are superstitious. The Buddha taught the suffering to be comprehended is ATTACHMENT to the five aggregates. But you appear to be asserting the AGGREGATES themselves are suffering.
As for Thailand, the traditional culture is somewhat matriarchial. The impression gained is your views are influenced by the Ajahn Brahm/Bhikkhuni PROPAGANDA.
The Thais, including the majority of Thai women, simply do not want bhikkhunis as a role model in their society. The Thais want monks to be role models because they provide an example of MALE RESTRAINT. As for their women, they wish for their traditional role model of a woman as an unrestrained GODDESS.
I hope this helps.
Dhamma Dhatu
In traditional Thai culture, the male role model is one of restraint. Each Thai man becomes a monk for at least three months of his life, where (hopefully) he learns about morality in the monastery and how to be a good husband.
Where as the traditional role model of a woman is of a Goddess. The Thai's have a saying: "Man is like the front legs of a horse and woman is like the back legs. The back legs have power and the woman does the pushing".
The Goddess is unrestrained. She does not hide her beauty. She is not inhibited in her behaviour. Her natural tendencies towards motherhood, nest building, etc, are fully encouraged. Her capacity to utlilise her beauty & care to love her sons fully manifests. Most Thai Ajahns give credit to their mother's for teaching them morality & non-harming.
This is different from the Western model, where fathers are generally expected to moralise their sons. In Thailand, the mother, using her beauty & love, plays a significant role in moralising her sons.
I personally find it useful to study "normal" human psychology, sociology, anthropology etc. An example is the works of anthropologist Gregory Bateson, in his studies of traditional Balinese culture & the respective roles of males & females. If we read his essay on Balinese culture, we will discover the dominant & rather unusual methods of motherhood in relation to sons of the Balinese.
These methods are so far from any Western models, most of us would be rather shocked. For example, when the son reaches a certain age, his mother will pleasure him (masturbate his penis). As the boy's pleasure arouses, the mother will reject him & walk away from him. The mother will continue this until the boy learns intimately about the DUKKHA of sensuality.
The boy learns intimately that ATTACHMENT to the aggregates is DUKKHA. The boy is not caught in up superstition that the AGGREGATES themselves are dukkha.
I hope this helps.
So the Buddha did not offer a patriarchal model of marriage relations, as found in Christianity/Islam.
The Buddha understood the ordinary woman has her aspirations & her husband should support her in such aspirations (rather than expect a wife to be his slave & servant).
today, the ordinary woman still has the same aspirations
today, it is advisable a man support a woman in her aspirations
nothing has changed dude
in fact, it has got more serious
today, if you do not support a woman, you will end up in court, divorce and lose the shirt from your back
today, a woman's natural GODDESS nature is unleashed!
all the best
Now, to fully understand what the Buddha meant, he meant that a woman cannot become a Buddha as a woman, not that she cannot attain enlightenment - she can. In fact, there is a whole book called the Therigatha in the Pali Canon which details the "awakening verses" (what is called the "lion's roar" for male enlightened beings chronicled in the Theragatha) of many female nuns who became awakened during the Buddha's time.
There is also a sutta in which a female nun wanted to follow the path of a Bodhisattva to become a fully enlightened Buddha so she was reborn as a male Deva. However, I can't locate that sutta.
There was a discussion at newbuddhist regarding this particular passage in MN115 which, for more information, you can find here: http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/8108/least-favorite-buddha-sayings-and-sutras/p1
I do lean toward explanations which coincide with my world view. Since I perceive profound distinctions between sexes, I seek to find a framework in Buddhism which supports this position.
I am thrilled at the responses I am getting and amused at the side issues (mostly quite germane) that have been raised.
Perhaps because I am a simple person, I like aphorisms:
Men marry women hoping they won't change and women marry men expecting they will.
Societal constructs, (pardon this phrase) such as the one Dhamma described in Thai culture, in which men are constrained, appeal to me. That women are in charge of this task makes perfect sense. Who else could do the job but the "better half", the "Goddess"?
(My better half is summoning me right now)
The Buddha aligned craving with the female and ignorance with the male.
Generally, women have innate expectations of moral behaviour from a man.
Generally, men must mature to inwardly understand the benefits of moral behaviour.
There is a lot in recent neuroscience and philosophy that shows from a completely different perspective, how form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness all work together to create the delusion of self and perpetuate life in samsara. Do you even know that the definition of the English word consciousness is that knowing which knows the "self" and its "objects"? Without knowing a "self" a person is unconscious in the normal meaning. So don't let yourself be led by the five aggregates of clinging. To do this is truly to be led by a fool.
Instead, let the wisdom factor become the leader in your life. Learn to lighten up and dis-identify with the five aggregates individually and all together. Then learn to unite and harmonize the khandhas around wholesome meditation practices such as brahmaviharas. In deep meditation, allow the khandas to fall apart and fall away. I have been focusing on this point in my personal practice and teaching for a few years now. I am confident this is a correct reading because of the profound beneficial impact this approach has had for me and for others who have tried it.
In peace,
:rolleyes:
Pornography is a good example. Most people who regard pornography as problematic, see the problem rooted in lust. But the problem is actually rooted in delusion (ignorance). Men, especially, think such behaviours bring happiness.
:-/
Women are challenged with more heady pitfalls. Young men's (in the normal coarse of events) challenge is centered in the body, young women's in the mind.
Only one khandha clings, namely, sankhara khanda. The body, which is mere matter, does not cling. Nibbana with residue is void of clinging but still experiences feeling. In MN 121, the Buddha described the supreme emptiness as including the activity of the sense organs, the body & the life facility. In a Buddha, each five aggregates continues to function, void of ignorance, void of sensuality, void of (self) becoming.
Regarding endorphins, your point is irrelevent. You appear to be confusing the reactions of the nervous system with clinging. Clinging, the Buddha regarded as 'delight' (nandi), as 'self-view' (assami mana). The Buddha said there are four kinds of clinging, namely, clinging to pleasure, rules, views & notions of 'self'. However, you appear to be asserting feeling & physical reactions are clinging. The suttas (ex. MN 37) make it unambiguously clear Nibbana is the destruction of craving and not the destruction of feeling.
Your sentence: "without knowing a "self" a person is unconscious in the normal meaning" does not accord with the suttas. The suttas describe well the arahants, such as Sariputta, who are fully conscious in various meditative states but their minds are utterly void of 'I making' and 'my making'.
In deep meditation, the khandas do not fall apart and fall away (although they exhibit impermanence). The essense of Satipatthana is to see the khandas are mere khandas. To see the body as 'body' (rather than 'self'). To see feelings as 'feelings' (rather than 'self'). Etc.
The essense of vipassana (insight), is to see the khandhas arise & pass, including with the arising & passing of momentary consciousness; to see they are insubstantial; so disenchantment towards them occurs.
But the khandhas never disappear. They are always there.
To believe the khandas fall away is not Buddhist insight (vipassana). Instead, it is a dissociated state of consciousness, resembling an immaterial jhana (however, most likely, just sloth & torpor).
There is no such thing as the "five aggregates of clinging". The sutta make it very clear what non-clinging is. It is to not regard each or all aggregates as "I", "me" or "mine". Even Bhikkhu Bodhi, who adheres to the Sri Lankan Mahavihira Commentary tradition, translates the relevent passages as "the five aggregates subject to clinging".
But the forest teachers, such as Chah, Maha Boowa & Buddhadasa simply regard it as clinging to the five aggregates. I was reading Maha Boowa only yesterday, who unambliguously stated in arahantship, the khandhas continue to function.
But your reading of one sentence, seems to be divorced from the entire body of suttas, which consistancey exhort simply to not regard the five agggregates as "self", as "I", "me" and "mine".
To me, your personal practise simply sounds like letting go or the developmnent of concentration. Here, your mind is becoming empty of perceptions & thoughts but not yet clear enough (kammaniyo) for the work of insight (vipassana).
In vipassana, the five aggregates are seen clearly as just the five aggregates. "Dis-identification" happens automatically.
All the best