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.
Grade A Buddhist Shade
Vimalajāti
Whitby, Ontario Veteran
“Kā cānanda, [...] upāsikā bālā abyattā ammakā ammakapaññā?"
And who is this [...] stupid bumpkin laywoman mango-picker with a mango-picker's intellect, Ānanda?
-Aṅguttaranikāye Dhammikavagge Migasālāsuttaṃ AN6.44
OUCH! ...apply burn cream?
Also, surprisingly gendered & classist a choice of words, coming from the Buddha.
How do we feel when we find weird little "quirks" like this in Buddhist scriptures, presuming that we have an interest in reading these strange old documents?
0
Comments
That maybe either the original meaning has been misinterpreted, the translation is awry - or that he would never have referred to anyone in those terms, because such terms are judgemental, and he - according to his status - would have been anything but.
Remember that there are many terms that have actually evolved to mean the exact opposite of their original. So perhaps the translator's understanding of how the phrase - if ever spoken by Buddha at all - was intended, is also lacking.
I try not to judge historical attitudes by today's standards. I take it not so much that they were insensitive jerks but that we are now more sensitive towards others.
My own hypothesis is that living in an easy, plentiful world where our basic needs are met unbelievably easy from a historical perspective allows us to spend more energy on subtler forms of suffering.
Indeed. The above follows the Siṁhala Tripiṭaka and interprets the Prākrit ammakā as coming from ambikā (mango-woman). The Burmese Mahāsaṅgīti Tripiṭaka renders ammakā as ammikā (nanny, nursemaid). The Thai Pāli Tripiṭaka interprets ammakā as andhikā (blind woman), which is almost definitely a manuscript error IMO.
Each of these respectively forms a compound with paññā/prajñā (i.e. "X's intellect").
So there is quite a bit of ambiguity on terms of what the Pāli actually says, with three different Prākrit recensions of the Pāli Canon from 3 distinct regions of Theravāda Buddhism suggesting reconstructing the Sanskrit in 3 different ways.
For something of an idea of the range of semantic intensity one can translate this passage with, we can see a few others' translations in addition to my own above.
Ayyoppalavaṇṇābhikṣunī (Sister Uppalavaṇṇā): “Who, indeed, is this female lay follower [...], a foolish, incompetent woman with a woman’s intellect?
Ayyadhammanandobhikkhu (Venerable Dhammanando): Who is this foolish incompetent little nanny [...] with a little nanny's intellect?
Ayyasujatobhikkhu (Venerable Sujato): “Ānanda, who is this laywoman [...], a foolish incompetent matron, with a matron’s wit?
The "[...]" in each rendering is omitting the name Migasālā as in the OP.
Indeed. I am want to think that this is one of the less historical stories about the Buddha, along with the Pāli recension of the story of the establishment of the order of nuns, wherein the Buddha allegedly claims it will weaken the dharma (this story is absent from accounts on the establishment of the bhikṣunī order in Sarvāstivāda recensions & the literature of other Early Buddhist schools).
Actually, now that I look at it, perhaps "blind woman" looks like it could have been the original, if this story is historical at all, despite it being the strangest reconstruction. Migasālā is called this because she misunderstands and misrepresents a teaching of the Buddha. "Blind woman" would be in reference to her "failing to see the truth", so to speak.
I consider myself a weird little quirk.
However I rarely read directly strange old documents. I find modern interpretations equally strangled or possibly offering clarity ...
To put it another way, dwelling on the useful is what I find helpful ...
Words mean what they say, but not always what we mean...And they often get in the way of the truth...Especially when becoming lost in translation ....
Thus have I heard the Buddha once said "Ehipassiko".... "The proof of the curry is in the eating !" ( but I could be wrong...maybe this too was lost in translation)
This reminds me of Zhuāngzǐ. Look! More words!
Sexism, classism, racism, etc. are to be found in many places and times. Even amazing men are products of their times and surroundings. Perhaps the Buddha had a harsh attitude towards women despite being one of the first to institute a female monastic lineage and declaring that women were just as capable of attaining enlightenment as men. Or perhaps those who came after and imposed themselves as his successors did. It's also true that the Buddha seems to have had some harsh words for people who misrepresented him or his teachings or worse, such as Devadatta, so maybe this is a similar case (i.e., an unknowledgeable person talkin' smack). Or it could be that even enlightened beings have flaws and are not above criticism. I'm away from home for the weekend, so I don't have my copy of the Anguttara Nikaya handy at the moment, but when I get back I can take a look and see what it says and what I make of it.
I wanted to look it over for context but it's like looking for a needle in a haystack as I can't find it anywhere spelt exactly. I looked for it in the Anguttara Nikaya but it's so vast.
Anywho... What I usually do is look to Buddha's first sermon the Dhammacakkappavatana Sutta (Setting in Motion the Wheel of Truth) and then the last - the Maha-parinibbana Sutta. Then I look to the common theme and see if the verses in question line up.
If they don't then there are a couple of ways to look at it but I think they have been covered by other posters.
In this case I have to question whether or not the interpretation was a true representation of what was meant. This is why I want to learn Sanskrit. I somehow doubt Buddha would be using such judgemental turns of phrase.
The citation is hiding, AN 6.44, I should have made it clearer, my apologies.
https://suttacentral.net/an6.44/en/sujato
The translator of that link, Ven Sujatobhikkhu, follows the Burmese Tripiṭaka's rendering, using ammikā ammikaprajñā (with he translates as "matron with a matron's wit" rather than "nanny, etc").
This thread from DharmaWheel: https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=81&t=27459
It has some wonderful resources for learning Sanskrit, some of which are specialized for Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit.
The context is similar to the Buddha's rebuking of Sāti the Fisherman, whom he calls worthless and a fool.
Both Sāti and Migasālā (the woman whose name is omitted from the OP with "[...]") both misrepresent the Buddha's teaching as being something that it is not.
However IMO Sāti's offence is much more severe. He teaches bad dharma and claims to be a student of the Buddha.
Migasālā, in a private conversation with Venerable Ānanda, admits that she does not think that the Buddha is a good spiritual teacher, because:
When Ven Ānanda returns to the Buddha and tell him of Upāsikā Migasālā's words, he insults her with the quote in the OP above.
Honestly, I don't think the Buddha really said it either. I doubt anyone is lining up to label this a superauthentic ancient discourse.
But it is interesting to see how Migasālā receives so much more gendered an insult for less serious an offence.
IMO sometimes we like to view Buddhist scriptures with rose-coloured glasses, particularly if they are from the oldest layers of Buddhist scriptures. We like to say that all of the nasty business in the Buddhadharma is medieval accretions and cultural developments. But from the beginning, the Buddhadharma has struggled with the same social pressures and human tendencies to interpret our own values (for good or ill) onto ancient texts that every religion has struggled with throughout the ages.
Dear Friends of Superman Buddha the Perfected,
I use fantasy, ideals and archetypes for inspiration but tend towards the idea that anyone can become a Buddha. Krypton alien or Super Being? ... not so likely ...
Over the millenia, I expect very little ordinary awakening recorded from a human Buddha. Just myths and perfected stories of the fan club ...
Did I miss something? Will I be sent to The Hell Realms or Lex Luthor?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagiography
Re: some of the biases found in Buddhism, I think they exist due to the same cultural norms prejudices, and institutions that give rise to them today. Reviewing the story of the first council after the Buddha's death that's recorded in Cullavagga of the Vinaya, for example, two things immediately stand out to me.
One is the conspicuous absence of any bhikkhunis despite the numerous references to bhikkhunis of various levels of attainment throughout the suttas, which gives the impression of this assembly of 'enlightened elders' being a bit of an old boys club, and could go far to explain the rather patriarchal and conservative slant to the Sangha and some of the texts.
The absence of any lay-followers is another, and could also explain the slant towards monasticism despite the Buddha's numerous lay-followers of various attainments.
Personally, I think arahants are a very human bunch of people; and just because one has achieved the end of suffering doesn't necessarily mean they're perfect and don't retain some of their negative personality traits. By virtue of being human beings, even arahants can potentially still make mistakes, in my opinion, to say nothing of us 'unenlightened worldings.'
The reason I say I doubt he would say it in that exact way is that he would be going against his own advice from what I can gather.
I could imagine him saying she simply wasn't understanding that being celibate doesn't necessarily mean better ethics but to be harsh about it would necessarily imply that he had his "off days" where his wisdom wasn't quite up to spec.
It's like he was being defensive instead of just saying she didn't understand what it is to be virtuous.
Perhaps the one penning this Sutta doesn't understand the difference between being frank and being nasty.
So, just for comparison, Bhikkhu Bodhi translates this line as: "Who, indeed, is the female lay-follower Migasala, a foolish, incompetent woman with a woman's intellect?" (911). This is based on the commentarial literature, which explains: "Ammaka (or ambaka) means women (lit., the class of mothers). This is a metaphorical term. That is, mothers, the class of mothers, maternal parents, are found among women" (1332). There's some discrepancies between the Burmese, Sinhalese, and the Roman PTS manuscripts re: ambakapanna (a woman's perception) and ammakasanna (a woman's idea), which I won't bother to type out since it's basically academic and saying the same thing, i.e., a gendered insult. Bhikkhu Bodhi also notes, however, that the Chinese parallel doesn't include this "derogatory generalization about women, but states the matter with reference to Migasala as an individual: 'The lay-follower Migasala is foolish and has little wisdom.'" This is more inline with what the Buddha says in similar cases, being sharp, but not derogatory. I suspect that the Chinese is more faithful to the original intent, and that the added jab at her gender was something introduced later by, frankly, sexiest monks.
Which all goes to prove that deconstruction was happening a long time BD (before Derrida) and that words are a great source of power to the power hungry. Great thread
And then people wonder why I'm a pedant....
Out of curiousity, where does one find sañña attested?
After I read your post, I went looking for ambikā as meaning a mother and found a bunch of interesting stories about a Jain goddesss. Ambikādevī. She is a fertility goddess, always depicted underneath a mango tree, with mango fruits and mango branches in her many hands. So it looks like there is an old association between mangos and fertility/women in India.
While I was looking, I also found a fourth attestation. The Siṁhala Tripiṭaka is unsure of whether or not the B in ambaka should be aspirated: i.e. --> ambhikā. I have no clue that that would mean though, so it seems like a spelling mistake.
From pg 1332 (no time for proper accent markers, though):
I found the line (but I think it might be at T2.99.258a10 rather than T2.99.258c8-9, which is Migasālā's dialogue to Ven Ānanda concerning her father and her uncle):
What comparative Pāli Canon/Mahāṭṭhakathā are you using, if you don't mind me asking? It looks very comprehensive.
This is just from Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the Anguttara Nikaya. I don't always prefer his translations as I think he often relies too heavily on the commentarial tradition, but his research is impeccable and his notes are full of insightful information.
Some folks think that exacting literal translations are the only path to truth. Others think that due to linguistic and cultural differences, contextual evaluation by scholars has to happen.
I think that since (a) nothing is known to have been written by or directly transcribed from the Buddha, (b) memory is remarkably fallible for many reasons including time, age, and confirmation bias, and (c) the monks who were responsible for reciting the suttas were mostly very old and very indoctrinated, every interpretation and translation is, to varying degrees, potentially correct- and the relevance thereof is and forever will be wholly subjective.
So, my confirmation bias actually WANTS the Buddha to have at least occasionally acted in a non-beneavolent way. He was human, and had flaws. I don't trust anyone that seems perfect nor do I trust any description of a person that makes them seem as such.
I don't see why it's an issue if he did. He was human after all. Maybe he got shirty that someone questioned his teaching. Plenty of teachers get irritated by that.
Not really. Women are still denigrated for being women in parts of today's society.
Completely agree 100%
A psychologist friend once told me that the concept of oneself as perfect is an indesputable sign of insanity
Then again, could anyone else do a better job at being you?
I do like to think Buddha was able to clear up these kinds of understandings without lowering himself to insulting somebody over it. I understand that what I prefer to think may not be the case but it doesn't make much sense. Sure, I can see being snappy on a bad day but to add insulting to the list and we have a better example in Thich Nhat Hanh.
I do doubt Buddha would be biased against laywomen even if he may have pointed out that one in particular wasn't getting it.
I could even see him using an insult if he was talking to the person directly but to do it behind their back is all kinds of wrong speech.
I love Thich Nhat Hanh's Awakening of the Heart especially, wonderful translations and I hope he recovers and translates more sutras, his kind of presence is much needed in this world.
Good point:
It would be rude enough if an UNenlightened person were to say it. I think we would be stunned if HHDL or TNH had been quoted as saying something of the kind...
Whereas a Politician unawares of wearing a live mic, for example, would be a dead cert for such a tactless comment....
I sometimes feel anyone else could do a better job David, so thank you for that kind thought
Well, just remember that we are all unique and so we all have something we can bring to the table no matter what. Even if it's just a different angle on something. It's not that our uniqueness makes us special, it's that it makes us useful.
If nurtured, the individual self is a handy tool of exploration.