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?
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
I have a good answer let politics be politics and dharma be dharma.
yo Caz, why are you messin' with the lama's boy?
that guys cool.
Does no one have a sense of humour here ? There seems to be alot of abject defensiveness when we arent all holding hands singing Kum-bhaya Its good to practise patience
Does no one have a sense of humour here ? There seems to be alot of abject defensiveness when we arent all holding hands singing Kum-bhaya Its good to practise patience
oh, i'm not really offended or concerned.
i just wanted to say lama's boy and that he is cool.
which he is.
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?
no. The human gestation period is 40 weeks.As there are a little more than 4 weeks in 11 out of the 12 months, that makes it 10 months. trust me. I've carried two children to term.
It feels like even longer....
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.
Most men don't mean to offend women. but social influence, conditioning and thoughtlessness, means that unfortunately, they often do....thst's because whilst they don't envy what women go through, they don 't imagine what it would actually be like to go through the experience themselves.
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
well, multiply that little rant by approximately 3000 years' suppression, and then you'll understand why we get a bit touchy.
Every month.
no. The human gestation period is 40 weeks.As there are a little more than 4 weeks in 11 out of the 12 months, that makes it 10 months. trust me. I've carried two children to term. It feels like even longer....
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.
In a thread where we are discussing the reasoning behind the Buddha's words regarding the longevity of the Dhamma if women are included in the sangha, and the exclusion of women from ordaining, simply because some retro-thinking sexist idiots think it's right, I think it was an inappropriate remark.
Your timing and locations were wrong.
Elsewhere, I would undoubtedly have been amused.
Here, it was just way out of place, and out of line....
In a thread where we are discussing the reasoning behind the Buddha's words regarding the longevity of the Dhamma if women are included in the sangha, and the exclusion of women from ordaining, simply because some retro-thinking sexist idiots think it's right, I think it was an inappropriate remark.
Your timing and locations were wrong.
Elsewhere, I would undoubtedly have been amused.
Here, it was just way out of place, and out of line....
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
Actually, I've just read the last 'page' of this thread, and the posts are so rambling, so disjointed, and so disconnected, it looks as if random posts have been taken from random threads on random forums - and all put into a basket, shoshed around, tipped out and all turned up the right way, and put into a column in no particular order....!
What a fine thread.
One we will indubutably all look back on in a year from now, and think - "THIS was our finest hour...."
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.
For what it's worth, it's not the first time, even since I started participating here. I don't know what the cause was or is, though.
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.
I tend to agree, but I think we should also keep in mind that the Buddha was man who lived in India 2,600 years ago when the societal attitudes towards women were probably much harsher than they are today, meaning that we should try to avoid judging these things by today's standards.
Personally, I'm not the type of Buddhist who thinks that the Buddha's 'enlightenment' made him some kind of cosmic superman who could see into the future and had knowledge of all things beyond suffering and the cessation of suffering. So while I like to think the 8 'weighty' rules were later additions, I can understand why the Buddha might've instituted them considering the sociohistorical context in which they were formulated.
For one thing, not only were women treated like property by their families and/or husbands during this time, but other renunciates (esp. brahmins) would most likely have had a hard time living with women in a monastic setting as women renunciates were such a rare thing. The fact that Buddha gave the going forth to women at all is actually quite amazing.
Think about his position. On the one hand, he realized that women have the same potential to achieve awakening as men; but on the other, he realized that the continued existence of the Sangha depended upon internal and external harmony. Not only did everyone in the monastic community need to get along, but it depended on the lay-community for material support. Allowing women to go forth meant that they were no longer under the authority of their families and/or husbands, which probably angered many people because it upset the status quo.
It should also be kept in mind that during this time in India, it was generally thought that women didn't have the same spiritual capacities as men, which most renunciates were. The Buddha, on the other hand, knew that women had the same spiritual capabilities, but he was probably aware that accepting them into his monastic community would cause a fair amount of friction within the lay-community, as well as within the monastic community itself, which consisted of men who, in all likelihood, may not have been happy about having to live in a monastic setting with members of the opposite sex.
So if the Buddha did formulate these rules, he was most likely in a tight spot and arguably did his best to accommodate all sides involved so as to preserve harmony within the community as a whole. What he did was extremely progressive and revolutionary, even if it might not seem so by today's standards.
Plus, the Buddha may very well have repealed these rules just before his death when he said "the Sangha may, when I am gone, abolish the lesser and minor rules" (DN 16). But since the usually thorough Ananda didn't bother to ask which rules the lesser and minor rules were, the Sangha decided not to abolish any of the rules after his death.
Actually, I've just read the last 'page' of this thread, and the posts are so rambling, so disjointed, and so disconnected, it looks as if random posts have been taken from random threads on random forums - and all put into a basket, shoshed around, tipped out and all turned up the right way, and put into a column in no particular order....!
What a fine thread.
One we will indubutably all look back on in a year from now, and think - "THIS was our finest hour...."
I have printed it all out and framed it. Of course, I printed it in black ink on black paper...
Palzang
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
when I said 'basket' I wasn't suggesting a 'pitaka'.....Don't think we've quite reached those commendable heights, here.....
Pally, I'd love to read that, when you have the time to fold it, make it into a 'plane and chuck it my way....
In a thread where we are discussing the reasoning behind the Buddha's words regarding the longevity of the Dhamma if women are included in the sangha, and the exclusion of women from ordaining, simply because some retro-thinking sexist idiots think it's right, I think it was an inappropriate remark.
Your timing and locations were wrong.
Elsewhere, I would undoubtedly have been amused.
Here, it was just way out of place, and out of line....
in my view.
Hmm. In my view:
Allowing the thread to ramble completely off-topic into accisations that the Mahayana is just Hinduism etc.
Writing a vicious ad hominem attack aimed at me despite my overt support for women on this thread:
'' by your reckoning - superior as a result - this still gives MANkind the right to continue treating women like 5h1t?''
And then topping it off by accusing a 12 year old boy of abusive sex:
''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?''
Not much of an example to others, is it?
Allowing the thread to ramble completely off-topic into accisations that the Mahayana is just Hinduism etc.
I didn't. I reminded posters to remain on topic.
Writing a vicious ad hominem attack aimed at me despite my overt support for women on this thread:
'' by your reckoning - superior as a result - this still gives MANkind the right to continue treating women like 5h1t?''
I think 'vicious ad hominem attack' is a bit rich... given that I'm aiming my criticism at how mankind treats women....
And then topping it off by accusing a 12 year old boy of abusive sex:
''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?''
Not much of an example to others, is it?
12 year old boy? What 12 year old boy....?:-/
And example be damned, you started it by your off-topic bickering.
Either be more civil in general, or go elsewhere.
I really don't care what the difference is between traditions, customs or what similarities exist between this tradition and that school.
All I care about is members staying on topic where possible, and keeping a civil tongue in their heads.
That's what matters.
And I'm here to make sure that is the way things remain.
Now I suggest we lay this aside, put it to bed and have done with it.
Federica was not to know I was twelve. Anyway, I agree that we should put this topic to bed, good night, zzzz zzz zz z, it's only 11:38 AM where I live so I'm not off to bed good bye,
*collapses onto the floor sleepily*
I think 'vicious ad hominem attack' is a bit rich... given that I'm aiming my criticism at how mankind treats women....
12 year old boy? What 12 year old boy....?:-/
And example be damned, you started it by your off-topic bickering.
Either be more civil in general, or go elsewhere.
I really don't care what the difference is between traditions, customs or what similarities exist between this tradition and that school.
All I care about is members staying on topic where possible, and keeping a civil tongue in their heads.
That's what matters.
And I'm here to make sure that is the way things remain.
Now I suggest we lay this aside, put it to bed and have done with it.
OK?
OK by me.
Moving on is fine. Apologies for over-reacting.
(Edited for removal of my 'last word larry' bitching)
Anyway, back to the point, I agree completely with Jason. The Buddha was not at all misogynistic but very much a pragmatist. He had to deal with the way things were in India at the time, and being too revolutionary would not have allowed the Dharma to prosper. Giving women the opportunity to "go forth" would have been extremely revolutionary, so he had to be very careful about how he did it. The same conditions obviously do not apply today (at least not as blatantly) so I don't think we need to be fundamentalist about the teachings of the Buddha and adapt them to current conditions without damaging the spirit of the teachings. If that makes any sense at all (only on my first cup of coffee of the day here).
Yup. Thanks for that. I do appreciate it and have been having a chat via PM about misunderstandings, rants etc.
Please prod me as necessary, folks, as I sometimes 'go off on one', especially when deprived of my meds - chocolate and caffeine!
Hey! Yeshe! Those are my meds too! I have a one-serving molten chocolate cake just waiting to be put in the oven after lunch and a lovely espresso to brew. I'll make the same for you, shall I?
Comments
that guys cool.
Okay so let me get this straight, your assuming i have an axe to grind but you really dont know what it is ? Assumptions
Palzang
I have a good answer let politics be politics and dharma be dharma.
Does no one have a sense of humour here ? There seems to be alot of abject defensiveness when we arent all holding hands singing Kum-bhaya Its good to practise patience
i just wanted to say lama's boy and that he is cool.
which he is.
Cool :cool:
Hey cool
I feel the need to get out my bongo's now.
It feels like even longer....
Most men don't mean to offend women. but social influence, conditioning and thoughtlessness, means that unfortunately, they often do....thst's because whilst they don't envy what women go through, they don 't imagine what it would actually be like to go through the experience themselves.
well, multiply that little rant by approximately 3000 years' suppression, and then you'll understand why we get a bit touchy.
Every month.
Flattery will get you everywhere...
Palzang
Oh, I thought it was let "dharma be drama"! Maybe that explains everything... :crazy:
Palzang
Wow, you're really 3000 years old? You look pretty good, considerin'... :rolleyes:
Palzang
Its only a drama if you put a funny hat on.
Your timing and locations were wrong.
Elsewhere, I would undoubtedly have been amused.
Here, it was just way out of place, and out of line....
in my view.
You should look into doing a martial art
Sorry Federica
What a fine thread.
One we will indubutably all look back on in a year from now, and think - "THIS was our finest hour...."
For what it's worth, it's not the first time, even since I started participating here. I don't know what the cause was or is, though.
I tend to agree, but I think we should also keep in mind that the Buddha was man who lived in India 2,600 years ago when the societal attitudes towards women were probably much harsher than they are today, meaning that we should try to avoid judging these things by today's standards.
Personally, I'm not the type of Buddhist who thinks that the Buddha's 'enlightenment' made him some kind of cosmic superman who could see into the future and had knowledge of all things beyond suffering and the cessation of suffering. So while I like to think the 8 'weighty' rules were later additions, I can understand why the Buddha might've instituted them considering the sociohistorical context in which they were formulated.
For one thing, not only were women treated like property by their families and/or husbands during this time, but other renunciates (esp. brahmins) would most likely have had a hard time living with women in a monastic setting as women renunciates were such a rare thing. The fact that Buddha gave the going forth to women at all is actually quite amazing.
Think about his position. On the one hand, he realized that women have the same potential to achieve awakening as men; but on the other, he realized that the continued existence of the Sangha depended upon internal and external harmony. Not only did everyone in the monastic community need to get along, but it depended on the lay-community for material support. Allowing women to go forth meant that they were no longer under the authority of their families and/or husbands, which probably angered many people because it upset the status quo.
It should also be kept in mind that during this time in India, it was generally thought that women didn't have the same spiritual capacities as men, which most renunciates were. The Buddha, on the other hand, knew that women had the same spiritual capabilities, but he was probably aware that accepting them into his monastic community would cause a fair amount of friction within the lay-community, as well as within the monastic community itself, which consisted of men who, in all likelihood, may not have been happy about having to live in a monastic setting with members of the opposite sex.
So if the Buddha did formulate these rules, he was most likely in a tight spot and arguably did his best to accommodate all sides involved so as to preserve harmony within the community as a whole. What he did was extremely progressive and revolutionary, even if it might not seem so by today's standards.
Plus, the Buddha may very well have repealed these rules just before his death when he said "the Sangha may, when I am gone, abolish the lesser and minor rules" (DN 16). But since the usually thorough Ananda didn't bother to ask which rules the lesser and minor rules were, the Sangha decided not to abolish any of the rules after his death.
How about wearing bed sheets? Will that do?
Palzang
I have printed it all out and framed it. Of course, I printed it in black ink on black paper...
Palzang
Pally, I'd love to read that, when you have the time to fold it, make it into a 'plane and chuck it my way....
Good Post, Jason.
Can I please have a copy Palzang?
Now that would make one look like a ghost a pointy hat and bedsheets not a good combo :eek:
Hmm. In my view:
Allowing the thread to ramble completely off-topic into accisations that the Mahayana is just Hinduism etc.
Writing a vicious ad hominem attack aimed at me despite my overt support for women on this thread:
'' by your reckoning - superior as a result - this still gives MANkind the right to continue treating women like 5h1t?''
And then topping it off by accusing a 12 year old boy of abusive sex:
''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?''
Not much of an example to others, is it?
Did you get the referance i was making LNP ? i suggest you dont it wasnt a good one.
I didn't. I reminded posters to remain on topic.
I think 'vicious ad hominem attack' is a bit rich... given that I'm aiming my criticism at how mankind treats women....
12 year old boy? What 12 year old boy....?:-/
And example be damned, you started it by your off-topic bickering.
Either be more civil in general, or go elsewhere.
I really don't care what the difference is between traditions, customs or what similarities exist between this tradition and that school.
All I care about is members staying on topic where possible, and keeping a civil tongue in their heads.
That's what matters.
And I'm here to make sure that is the way things remain.
Now I suggest we lay this aside, put it to bed and have done with it.
OK?
*collapses onto the floor sleepily*
OK by me.
Moving on is fine. Apologies for over-reacting.
(Edited for removal of my 'last word larry' bitching)
Palzang
Yup. Thanks for that. I do appreciate it and have been having a chat via PM about misunderstandings, rants etc.
Please prod me as necessary, folks, as I sometimes 'go off on one', especially when deprived of my meds - chocolate and caffeine!
Love & Peace
Joe
I agree with Caz
Love & Peace
Joe
I like tea as well friend ive grown especially fond of green tea recently
oh yeah, I'm allergic, as usual :rolleyes: