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.
Only Men find Nirvana?
Ghid
Explorer
in Meditation
The Sutra of the Medicine Buddha, translated by Minh Tranh, says on page 23.
"This Buddha Land is utterly pure. You will find no women there."
Does that mean that only men reach Nirvana?
0
Comments
No it means that it was written by someone who was sexist/ignorant.
I agree with @AldrisTorvalds. It seems to me the best evidence with regards to enlightenment is that we lose attachment to our gender, so, excluding one gender over another because of the human male's oft inability to control their sexual urges would not be possible. Identifying with one gender is part of our suffering, IMO.
I agree with @karasti's agreeing with me.
The Medicine Buddha is a Tibetan tradition, and there have been female "Buddhas", or realized Bodhisattvas in that tradition. In fact, the Dalai Lama meditates to Vajrayogini daily, she's one.
Yes, only men can achieve Nirvana and live in Pure Land. Women can't stop bleeding every month and dirtying the men, in fact, women's bodies are why. Women's bodies prevent them from achieving the necessary refinements. All the bleeding, bloating, birthing, not to mention how much they make men have to remember their OWN lowly bodies -- you want that in Pure Land? Without women, men won't be bothered by wanting to bang every one of them. Women stop men from achieving Nirvana and so they are not allowed.
@Hamsaka That's one good demonstration of why we shouldn't subscribe to dogmatic assertions.
While we're trying to find what's objectively true, many traditions are all about the subjective truth of, say, trying to avoid sensuality. It thus demonizes anything that leads to sensuality, turning women into vile temptresses instead of recognizing that the source of the problem is within our own minds and not caused by the opposite sex. A lot of what you've said about bleeding etc. is prevalent in the Old Testament too. It's just men not being able to handle biological truths and assigning negative spiritual value to those truths so at least they can say "these things are unclean and evil". They then have power over them by being able to blame and shun women for their own (the men's) aversion and attraction.
I just have to throw my hands in the air at all the gross ignorance and stupidity, and hope that people today don't get bamboozled by it. This very thread is an example of how sexism and ignorance exist even in Buddhist traditions and texts, and people actually have to wonder whether to believe it or not (which is sad; people are better than what they're being taught... so it's possible for them to be dragged backward into sexist discrimination if they give up their own judgment in favor of believing dogma).
Welcome to the world of BSB. BullshitBuddhism. It's crap.
I think that what ever Boddhisatva organized a pure land willing to collect up as many misogynist nutters away from the human gene pool as is possible....
really loved us.
Ah... Reverse psychology...! Of course!!
I couldn't find that on page 23, but on page 24 it says: "All devout men and women should vow to be born in this land.".
???
Its worth pointing out I think that this 'sutra' was written by an unknown author one thousand two hundred years after the lifetime of the Buddha.
On page 23 I found this quote:
That explains why the women aren't in Buddha land. They're all out clothes shopping.
From page 24 of the PDF
No, it doesn't mean women can't get enlightenment. It means there are no more temptations in a Buddha land.
Two paragraphs down it says:
If women can't be born there, there would be no reason for women to vow to be born there.
I thought that Vajrayogini is a goddess, but if she is a buddha, then at least in some traditions, women can achieve Nirvana.
I think, whoever wrote the Medicine Sutra, thought that women must be reborn as men in order to reach Nirvana.
And if a Buddha can be a goddess, who prances around nude something like King David in the Bible, that sounds even better.
Then they're wrong. But that's ok, no problem. We're very used to men being wrong.
.
It reminds me of this:
>
From here
(Many other sites relating the same tale also exist)
Even a few Chinese nuns I've been acquainted with have believed that unless reborn as a man they can't become enlightened. Further in some way places women are restricted as to what they may do during their cycles within the sanctuary.
See, now that makes me feel like there's a misunderstanding there.
If all men and women should strive to exist there, perhaps when there, there is no distinction between gender.
If speaking to a man, one may say not to worry as there are no women there. If speaking to a woman, one may say not to worry as there are no men.
Perhaps one could just as easily say the problems that arise from seeing self and others won't be there.
In the east, it is quite common (based on memoirs I've read, I haven't interviewed scores of people or anything) for women to pray to be reborn as men so that they can be enlightened. So I doubt that this sutra is the only place it is mentioned. It seems to be a cultural attitude in some places still. I always enjoyed Tenzin Palmo because she vowed to be enlightened as a woman.
Always nice to see people cherry-picking!
We all have our karmic loads to address, plain & simple.
My Zafu says that..
using gender to forecast anyone's ability to do this is simply choosing to ride along with the human condition instead of stepping up onto the path towards suffering cessation.
Maybe I'm just clinging to my own bias but it seems to go against what I've come to believe the process is.
I can see saying that as far as we've been led to believe, mankind has the ability to reach nirvana. I can buy that because of the evolution of the brain. I'd imagine there are other animals in the universe that will reach it also.
But to say females can't awaken seems contradictory to the middle way and even (forgive me) silly. It saddens me that there are cultures that embrace this sort of ignorance. It's just plain old fashioned control.
Really???? I doubt that.
If I write some treaty on Buddhism today that justifies the social prejudices of our current society, should someone a thousand years hence call anyone who does not embrace that treaty as a cherry picking Buddhist?
Yes. Because you are picking and choosing which teachings to follow. Which I have always stated was good and logical.
Sorry vinlyn
My Bad!
I was incorrectly thinking you were saying the opposite!
I can see how one could have thought that.
ridiculous statement!
No one finds nirvana!
Nirvana is for the ignorant men in this world!
No
before one reaches Nirvana one has to 'see' Nirvana with wisdom and then one know which Path one has to take to reach Nirvana
ex: one is in dark forest or cave and suddenly sees a light in a distance and one can walks towards the light
for this to happen one needs to read Buddha's Teaching, listens to Buddha's Teaching and practice Buddha's Teaching according to one's understanding is necessary
just reading and listening is not enough 'Practicing' is essential
practicing include generosity, virtue and meditation
unless one practices, it is like one gets a prescription from the doctor for illness and reading the prescription but not taking medication
ones one sees Nirvana one can walk the path (Noble Eight-fold Path) until one reaches Nirvana
this writing comes from a woman who sees Nirvana and walking in the Noble Eight-fold Path to reach Nirvana
so have no doubt
women can see Nirvana
Great thread guys. Nirvana has no gender.
Yesterday my unenlightened siblings of the female persuasion taught me a thing or two about reality when we paid a passing visit to a Buddhist monastery. They continued to wear jewellery (just as the Buddha did . . . now you know where those big holes in his ear lobes come from), put on lipstick, take pics of what to them was a strange cloistered environment etc.
People were flying a kite in one of the gardens.
Focus on the important. :buck: .
Tara is precisely the example that springs to mind when one encounters sexism in BS Buddhism literature.
She put the monk in his place by responding:
"Here there is no man, there is no woman.
No self, no person, and no consciousness.
Labelling 'male' or 'female' has no essence,
But deceives the evil-minded world."
("In praise of Tara" by Martin Willson)
Her answer not only makes a statement against the prevailing gender cultural prejudices of her time, but also points out to the monk how little he really knows of basic notions such as no-self, to begin with.
Pure Land Buddhism can be very sexist, anyway.
Long ago I read a book on Buddhism distributed by the Japanese organization Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai, which is Pure Land, and in the section "Practical Guide to True Way of Living," there's a whole chapter on how women are supposed to take the backseat in the marriage relationship, and be submissive and attentive to her husband's and all the male entourage's needs.
I am not sure all Pure Land are sexist, but no doubt this book does belong in the BS Buddhism shelf.
Asia is a very sexist continent. I heard that in China and India ecographies on pregnant women are forbidden because they abort girls.
Whenever a Chinese woman gets married, everybody wishes her a long, happy marriage with many baby boys.
Again, we're talking cultural biases here, not failures inherent to the Buddhist doctrine.
If women were not supposed to achieve Enlightenment, why would the Buddha have admitted women in his order?
As I understand the Buddha's teaching, he said that we should understand the way that thing are.
When people looked around themselves, they would have noticed that women had a more difficult life than men. Even now, using the restroom is the last thing I do before I go to an event like a baseball game or concert because I know the women's restroom will have a long line, a line longer than at the men's restroom.
I know that is a trivial example. It is not like death in childbirth or carrying water.
The older men in my family tell me that in Vietnam the women carried the water with a stick over the shoulder and two buckets attached to the stick. My relatives from the Texas hill country say that before electricity, women became hunchbacked because they carried the water from the well just like in Vietnam.
So if women had a harder life, anyone might conclude that women rank lower than men just like some men rank lower than kings.
I don't see how simply because women had a harder life it follows that women rank lower.... :scratch: .
It's interesting: in the Lotus Sutra, there are some comments like that, e.g., referring to a buddhaland it says "there are no women there". My sangha's modern interpretation of that is as many people have said above: gender ceases to matter; there are not women OR men there, at least not in the way we've proscribed those roles. Even more interesting, in the 12th chapter of the Lotus Sutra, the Bodhisattva Manjushri comes up from undersea where he's been visiting with the dragon-beings, and says there's an eight year-old daughter of the Dragon King who's ready to reach Buddhahood. None of the senior disciples believe him, stating that it's impossible for women; and then this little non-human girl turns into a buddha in front of everyone's eyes in an instant. At the end of that chapter it says that the company present received this revelation "in silence," in other words, this was revolutionary at the time. We often chant this portion of the chapter in services.
It might be good and logical, but it might not. It depends on how and why it is done.
Come on folks! Give your spiritual noggins a shake.
The main problem with discussing gender issues and Buddhism...... is the Sangha's need to hold up the Buddha, the Dharma or itself as a representation of perfection or infallibility.
It was, is and always will be going, going, always going on, always becoming Buddha.
Only ignorance and it's minions try to make the fluidity of existence into something as static as the dream that the Buddha asked us to awaken from..
Everything changes. I am just as sure that many of the "Buddhist" truths that we now believe to be sacrosanct today will be a similar source of puzzlement and apologetic manipulation for the Sangha of the future.
Hanging on to yesterdays truth is only a postcards memory compared to the facing of the real truth unfolding in this nano moments possibility. Allow the scholars to accurately track where we've come from to provide some context to our journey but always try to leave the placement of your next footfall up to your meditation.
I'm not trying to convince you. Swallow it all hook, line, and sinker (which is exactly the opposite of cherry picking) without ever asking any penetrating questions, if that floats your boat. And, BTW, if you really ask penetrating questions and are discerning, the you can never really buy anything hook, line, and sinker.
But, that's really what we're talking about in this thread. Do we just swallow it all as taught (in this case regarding sexism in some Buddhist cultures), or do we sometimes say: wait a minute...that's not right.
But, that's just my viewpoint. Your mileage may vary.
@Eugene
At the end of that chapter it says that the company present received this revelation "in silence,"** in other words, this was revolutionary at the time**. We often chant this portion of the chapter in services.
In meetings of the Buddhist Sangha, to remain silent to a proposal was simply the traditional method of agreeing with it..
I am not sure why you are interpreting the silence as a statement that it was revolutionary?
How, I think it was because the sutra was put together in India at a time when people really thought that women couldn't become buddhas; and this part of the chapter definitely states that women can. Also, someone told me (I'm relying on hearsay, so correct me if I'm wrong) that very few sutras or chapters of sutras end that way. Don't they usually end by people being "gladdened and delighted" and so forth?
Eugene
You could be right that to simply end it with the traditional method of Sangha agreement without the usual joyful accouterments might represent a grudging acceptance of something true but threatening to the social mores of the time.
Which is really quite strange since the Buddha's own mother became an Arhat and attained Nirvana!
This is precisely the sentiment that has been expressed by the zen masters I have met. Even master of old like Bankei. A woman asked him once: "I've heard that because women bear a heavy karmic burden it's impossible for them to realize buddhahood. Is this true?" The Master said: "From what time did you become a 'woman'?"
As if "being a woman" was already a mistake.
first of all,
to understand Buddha's Teaching one has to 'Look Inside' not Outside
once one understands inside, understanding Outside is easy
First step:
instead of looking out side check how we get all experiences in our own life
experiences come through our six sense bases, eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind
experiences are seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, sensation of the body, an thoughts come into mind
check whether you can find anything else other than these
second step comes later If Only you need it
:
I'm curious -- how do you know that?
>
You are right that it does not follow, but it is perceived that way in many cultures. Those who work harder and do more "menial" tasks are perceived as ranking lower. It's all about perception. (look, no sarcasm or silliness in this post, it's been a while since I was sensible)
It's written in the scriptures. But if one wants to be technical, it was actually his stepmother, Mahapajapati Gotami, as his birth mother, Maya, is said to have died 7 days after he was born. The Buddha also ordained Mahapajapati as the first Bhikkhuni and established the first order of Buddhist nuns.
Well, I mean if it's in the scriptures it has to be true. Just like with the Bible.
Do only men reach nirvana?
No, we are in it. There is nothing to reach. Women, man, animal, tree are all in the same state of being.
So are you saying that you have experienced Nirvana Earthninja ?
>
The thing about saying things like that is that it requires counter-information. It is insufficient - even with things said in the Bible - to say that merely because the Bible says something, you don't believe it. That's just tit for tat.
The Bible requires that a Christian takes a great number of things on faith: And Christians will quote the Bible, reams of passages at a time, in order to support their own views, which actually does nothing to convince anyone else, because it's largely a matter of having to take things on trust.
Quoting the Suttas is slightly different, because the Buddha himself (in a nutshell) tells us to not take things simply as read, even if they are pronounced by the 'wisest of the wise'....
So for you to make such a comment, @vinlyn, really requires that you add more meat to the bone. What have you, as any form of sensible information, to counter-argue the comment made? because merely saying "Oh well if it's in the scriptures it must be true" is mere empty argument, and does nothing for the debate.
I think you're presenting a false dichotomy, ie accepting it all or cherry picking the bits that one likes. The middle path is using discernment, while recognising that one's personal likes and dislikes are probably quite subjective.
I agree. I know no one, monk or lay who sees the Canon as a revealed 'scripture'.
One extreme is to treat them as if they were.
Another is to throw out the baby with the bathwater in reaction to Judeo/Christian conditioning.
As in all things a middle way might be wisest.
I agree!