Sign in to follow this  
SirPalomides

Women and Buddhahood

Recommended Posts

Men should be worried about their own denigration and fall from grace ... but it's easier to talk of "women".

If you talk more, maybe people won't notice your ass hanging out the back of your joggers of your cartoon life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, rideforever said:

Men should be worried about their own denigration and fall from grace ... but it's easier to talk of "women".

If you talk more, maybe people won't notice your ass hanging out the back of your joggers of your cartoon life.

 

Boy, all you can do is faff about my avatar here, which means absolutely nothing compared to the ignoble things you post here and passive-aggressive comments you don't even have the gall to directly quote me in and instead stick to passive-aggressive sniping. 

 

You really have a sick and twisted view on women and gender, and it is evident in your bitterness and self-absorption. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, rideforever said:

Men should be worried about their own denigration and fall from grace ... but it's easier to talk of "women".

If you talk more, maybe people won't notice your ass hanging out the back of your joggers of your cartoon life.

 

What do your "snipets of wisdom" have to do with women and buddhahood? What do they have to do with a buddhist subforum?

 

Being a man and a feminist means that you are able to see past your dick and realize that hey maybe a woman can be whatever the heck she wants. And the same applies to men. Maybe neither of us has to feel restricted and dominated by someone elses idea of what is proper for people with your kind of genitalia. How horrible!

 

If you think being a men is such a fragile thing that women with rights and freedoms can hurt it, then I am sorry to say you confuse being a man with being an idiot.

Edited by Miroku
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Miroku said:

Being a man and a feminist means

 

It means that you switch the tv on, start memorising ... and then replace your own life with those messages.

You would do the same if the tv told you to jump in the lake.

This is not the behaviour of a man ... or of anyone except a sheep.

If you are young ... I am afraid you have been born into an evil time and are being preyed upon by a destructive culture.

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, rideforever said:

 

It means that you switch the tv on, start memorising ... and then replace your own life with those messages.

You would do the same if the tv told you to jump in the lake.

This is not the behaviour of a man ... or of anyone except a sheep.

If you are young ... I am afraid you have been born into an evil time and are being preyed upon by a destructive culture.

 

 

Uuuuu I have always wanted to do this, so thank you for giving me this opportunity. Ready? Here it comes.

Ok Boomer.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, rideforever said:

 

It means that you switch the tv on, start memorising ... and then replace your own life with those messages.

You would do the same if the tv told you to jump in the lake.

This is not the behaviour of a man ... or of anyone except a sheep.

If you are young ... I am afraid you have been born into an evil time and are being preyed upon by a destructive culture.

 

 

Why do always come across as majorly angry & bitter? Do you cultivate this on purpose during meditation just to ensure that the wall you've built around you remains fortified? Your comments and opinions seems to align with this sort of practice. Its quite bizarre. And you're not alone - There are a few here on TDB who fits this personality profile too. All with different ways of expressing their ignorance. Name 5 things you think the world owes you, and maybe we can begin to empathise with your unbending insistence to spew your toxic diatribes here. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, ion said:

No, what I presented was not polarized. Due to a baseless ideology held, people were polarized when presented with controversial facts.

 

Cognitive dissonance? 

 

When you start off with a need for peer reviewed research to prove women are even capable of thinking for themselves, this certainly is polarizing, and what, at this point, I would refer to as your own ideology.

 

19 hours ago, ion said:

No, I'm not playing the victim. I'm just pointing out that no one has presented any facts, charts or links supporting their arguments but they ha e only attacked my character for holding an evidence based view as opposed to an ideology that is not based on facts.

 

Perhaps you've missed something here. I am a woman. I make numerous decisions daily (i.e. think for myself), and your ideology doesn't match up with the reality I live.

 

19 hours ago, ion said:

I am the one sticking to facts, and the one encouraging others to do so too.

 

Imo, you are using facts to prop up your predetermined conclusions and biases. If you stopped at facts, and left your woven narrative out of the presentation, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, C T said:

Why do always come across as majorly angry & bitter?

 

Anyone who is striving for the real is in mortal conflict with this world.  Many of the sages condemned this world and everyone in it as hollow insincere and parasitical.  It is anti life.  And they condemned it to burn to the ground without mercy, and forecast an apocalypse to punish everyone here.

But maybe they had no sense of humour ... opinion is divided on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, ilumairen said:

 

Cognitive dissonance? 

 

When you start off with a need for peer reviewed research to prove women are even capable of thinking for themselves, this certainly is polarizing, and what, at this point, I would refer to as your own ideology.

 

 

Perhaps you've missed something here. I am a woman. I make numerous decisions daily (i.e. think for myself), and your ideology doesn't match up with the reality I live.

 

 

Imo, you are using facts to prop up your predetermined conclusions and biases. If you stopped at facts, and left your woven narrative out of the presentation, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. 

The need for peer reviewed research to show that woman think for themselves is absolutely necessary because there is so much research already so uggesting that they don't. So it's actually logical, and critical thinking that makes a statement like that, not mysogony.

 

Are you a person who believes in  indipendently existing selves and self governing organisms? 

 

If you are, than maybe arguing in the Buddhist discussion forum I s not the right place for your views.

 

It f you are not, then why is it so hard to understand that when a being is hardwired to behave a certain way and to have certain tendencies influencing every aspect of their being that they are not capable of over riding those tendencies?

 

If there were those kinds of selves I would say that and all sorts of other impossible things were possible, but there are not those types of selves, that is not the kind of universe this is. 

 

Everything in this reality is dependent upon other things, conditioned in their arising, dependent in their origination.

 

If a being is wired to go up, it will not go down on purpose.

 

This is not using facts to prop up my predetermined bias, the opposite is true in fact. This is a conclusion I have come to after believing the opposite for years. I always figured that if men and women were equal why shouldn't a woman be allowed to do what Buddha did?

 

But being equal does not mean being the same, the fact that men can't have babies is another case of that, and it's not a matter of being "allowed" just like men not having babies is not because they are being discriminated against. It's not because we are not allowed to, it's because we are different.

 

And as you pointed out there are the facts, and it is those facts that caused me to see things differently, which is more realistically.

 

 

Edited by ion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'self' that makes decisions daily is not the self that can decide to override their own makeup. Those arent the types of decisions you have ever made

 

Again I also make decisions daily, or so it appears, but I can't decide to have a baby. 

 

It appears you really think there is a self that decides and can override even its own existence. Like a flame that wants to burn hotter than the type of fuel (conditions) will permit, just because it feels like it should be able to despite the conditions.

 

Even though it is not cloudy, can it still rain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Apech said:

 

Good points I think.

 

But I would repeat something.  I think it is indisputable that at the time of the Buddha, also in medieval India (600 - 1300 AD) and in Tibet right through till 1950 women would have a second class status in society - and the forms of Buddhism practiced through those periods would reflect this.  However, the Vajrayana specifically classed the denigration of women as a root downfall which many would suggest is some kind of more enlightened reform - but I would say is a reset to what the Buddha probably originally taught.  Because there is fundamentally no difference in dharma between men and women no matter what the cultural attitudes say. 

 

An enlightenment that didn’t go beyond cultural attitudes would be a very poor enlightenment indeed. 
 

13 hours ago, Apech said:

I don't think this is about Tara and dakinis and so on - because presenting women as 'goddesses' is as sexist as denigrating them (even though some feminists come out with this tripe also).

 

I don't think karma mudra is inherently exploitative - but of course that doesn't mean people don't exploit it.  I haven't read June Campbell so I don't know what Kalu Rinpoche is supposed to have done to her - so I'll rest judgement on that till I do.

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ion said:

The need for peer reviewed research to show that woman think for themselves is absolutely necessary because there is so much research already so uggesting that they don't. So it's actually logical, and critical thinking that makes a statement like that, not mysogony.

 

Are you a person who believes in  indipendently existing selves and self governing organisms? 

 

If you are, than maybe arguing in the Buddhist discussion forum I s not the right place for your views.

 

It f you are not, then why is it so hard to understand that when a being is hardwired to behave a certain way and to have certain tendencies influencing every aspect of their being that they are not capable of over riding those tendencies?

 

Because I have experience which indicates your understanding of this isn't entirely accurate. 

 

8 hours ago, ion said:

If there were those kinds of selves I would say that and all sorts of other impossible things were possible, but there are not those types of selves, that is not the kind of universe this is. 

 

Everything in this reality is dependent upon other things, conditioned in their arising, dependent in their origination.

 

If a being is wired to go up, it will not go down on purpose.

 

I believe it may be this concept of "hardwired" which is creating the disconnect.

 

You have crafted an idea of women, and you are reifying it imo.

 

8 hours ago, ion said:

This is not using facts to prop up my predetermined bias, the opposite is true in fact. This is a conclusion I have come to after believing the opposite for years. I always figured that if men and women were equal why shouldn't a woman be allowed to do what Buddha did?

 

But being equal does not mean being the same, the fact that men can't have babies is another case of that, and it's not a matter of being "allowed" just like men not having babies is not because they are being discriminated against. It's not because we are not allowed to, it's because we are different.

 

And as you pointed out there are the facts, and it is those facts that caused me to see things differently, which is more realistically.

 

Why do you seem to equate physical attributes with spiritual realization?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ion said:

The 'self' that makes decisions daily is not the self that can decide to override their own makeup. Those arent the types of decisions you have ever made

 

Again I also make decisions daily, or so it appears, but I can't decide to have a baby. 

 

It appears you really think there is a self that decides and can override even its own existence. Like a flame that wants to burn hotter than the type of fuel (conditions) will permit, just because it feels like it should be able to despite the conditions.

 

Even though it is not cloudy, can it still rain?

 

Are you almost done creating foolish arguments for me and then defeating them? It's kinda silly, and if you would rather just have a conversation with yourself you could do so without making a caricature of me in your mind to duel with. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Convenience.

People argue and defend and deflect because its convenient. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, ilumairen said:

 

Because I have experience which indicates your understanding of this isn't entirely accurate. 

 

 

I believe it may be this concept of "hardwired" which is creating the disconnect.

 

You have crafted an idea of women, and you are reifying it imo.

 

 

Why do you seem to equate physical attributes with spiritual realization?

Spiritual realization and total enlightenment are not the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, ilumairen said:

 

Are you almost done creating foolish arguments for me and then defeating them? It's kinda silly, and if you would rather just have a conversation with yourself you could do so without making a caricature of me in your mind to duel with. 

Care to explain directly? I have no idea what your talking about. Please use actual examples to explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, C T said:

Convenience.

People argue and defend and deflect because its convenient. 

Care to explain using something I have said as a direct example?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@ion,

I'd just like to point out that there are plenty of women who give up everything to ordain and become monastics, (in many traditions). In Buddhism, women often have to settle for even less than full ordination, (esp. in Tibetan Buddhism), and even the lowest ranking monks are treated with more respect than even a senior nun. Most of these humble nuns have no interest in social status, and they are sometimes better, more dedicated practitioners than quite a few monks, (not always, but often enough). There is no way you can say that most nuns, (except for maybe a handful of famous nuns who made a big name for themselves touring around and selling books), are in it for ANY kind of status whatsoever because they are always discriminated against, yet they choose to ordain anyway.

Edited by BluLotus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One heartening thing I've observed in Europe is that, in many conservative Buddhist sanghas and less formal communities, many of the senior teaching positions are filled by women. Overall, they have a much more prominent profile, and personally, I think they possess certain instinctive wisdoms and vulnerabilities that allow them to feel deeper into the teachings they are presenting, and as a result, are able to transmit the Dharma to a wider audience. Some of these teachers are quite powerful in their presence. Unfortunately, this is not being replicated in SE Asia's mainstream sanghas at the moment. The reason is that patriarchy is deeply entrenched into the mindsets of Asians, and does not seem to be any budging of that for the time being. Would love to see some progressive alteration or modification to such an archaic attitude here. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this