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 8
  • 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 4

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
Posted (edited)

Here's something I have started observing recently.

 

Feminine is a quality, the receptive quality. An amazing one!

 

The heart that comes with this quality is the most suitable for all sorts of spirituality and spiritual practices.

 

However, this quality is like a double edged sword. It seems to strengthen the karmic bonds quite a bit unless you take the quality to the extreme and become feminine to the whole world.

 

This is not about talking genders, since gender talk becomes pure bullshit after enlightenment. If you are still so attached to the bodily form you have, how in the heavens are you liberated? Masculine and feminine are qualities; a man can have more of feminine quality (in some, it needs work. In some, it's natural) and a woman can have more of a masculine quality, which is usually the case nowadays. Trying to go against their nature has become so common in the society today that it's become natural.

 

No matter what gender, if you wish to be quicker in the spiritual path, you need to have an equal mixture of both.

 

Speaking of the Buddhas, we'll first have to see and understand that in those days when the sanghas were first being established after Shakyamuni left his body, it was much much easier for a man to renounce home and traverse the spiritual path of buddhahood than it was for a woman.

Why was it so? 

Firstly, this was again, because of the feminine quality which was widely prevalent among the women of those times. They were a lot more attached to their family/worldly bindings than their male counterparts. Secondly, a woman carried almost the whole of the reputation of her household on her shoulders, hence making this bonding all the more difficult to remove. Lastly, it was because of the presence of physical dangers all around, in the form of lack of food, wild animals, bandits, and so on. To a female, the only result other than deep spirituality was either death or disownment from her family.

 

Now, this was likely the reason the early Buddhists were more inclined towards the male participation in the spirituality. This tradition slowly started mingling with the societal norms of the times, developing into what it is like today.

 

As for all Buddhas being men, it's complete nonsense. Buddhas have no physical body they are bound to, so no genders. However, to say this would create a huge chaos in people's ignorant minds. Hence, they chose males. There have been many, many Buddhas. There still are, both males and females.

Edited by CataclysmicSky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was not there 4 thanks ?   Like thank Buddha you where born in a country that allows (or knows of ) Buddhism . I cant remember the 4 , but one used to be  ' be thankful I was born a man ' .  And later that got changed .

 

Old ideas hang around a bit in some places .  But Buddhism appears to have 'updated' on this one .  I think the 'thanks I am a man' one got changed  a while back .

 

Male  exclusiveness in enlightenment  and heavenly rewards  smacks of  primitive savagery to me

 

Ia4Kn7wu4PtPOqCr5hDtPjlj0Wk5Sv6QJMOrEC5S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My current thinking is that the male side channel has been well developed, like in the dawning of wisdom in humanity, but the female side channel has been neglected, and this neglect is evident in the various patriarchal attitudes that have developed over the last few Millenia, and in the spiritual arena this has been expressed as a denigration of the value of emotion and it’s spiritual counterpart. 

Recalibrating the value of the female in spirituality turns Buddhism on its head, in that it requires valuing emotions, and this is not possible in Buddhism I think, actually it’s not really possible in any current spiritual system that I know of. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the tradition I follow, the male and female energies have never been obscured. Obscuration arises in individual samsaric beings. The female is the loving Mother of wisdom. The male is Compassion. Emotion is not the enemy, it is the path to liberation..

We only find this enmity in the context of a specific practice, that of renunciation- the sutric path. Different strokes are needed for different folks. It does not apply to the higher Tantras.. 

 

Self-originated primordial wisdom is the base.

The five poisonous mental afflictions are the dynamic energy.

Chasing after them is the way you are deluded.

Viewing them as deficient is the error.

Leaving them as they are is the method.

Freeing them into vastness is the path.

Non-duality is the realization

~ from The Twenty One Nails 

 

Certainly there is ignorance in the collective, but that is a conceptual construct itself. As practitioners, we can only take responsibility for ourselves, as I post often here.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... And yes, the patriarchy and abuse are no stranger to Tibetan Buddhists... Real progress exists in their communities and sanghas are now far more alert and ready to act on corruption. Far too slow but alive.

 

ūüėĘ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, steve said:

In the tradition I follow, the male and female energies have never been obscured. Obscuration arises in individual samsaric beings. The female is the loving Mother of wisdom. The male is Compassion. Emotion is not the enemy, it is the path to liberation..

We only find this enmity in the context of a specific practice, that of renunciation- the sutric path. Different strokes are needed for different folks. It does not apply to the higher Tantras.. 

 

Self-originated primordial wisdom is the base.

The five poisonous mental afflictions are the dynamic energy.

Chasing after them is the way you are deluded.

Viewing them as deficient is the error.

Leaving them as they are is the method.

Freeing them into vastness is the path.

Non-duality is the realization

~ from The Twenty One Nails 

 

Certainly there is ignorance in the collective, but that is a conceptual construct itself. As practitioners, we can only take responsibility for ourselves, as I post often here.

 

 


True, there is Vajrayana Buddhism which values the left and the right channels equally, which is brilliant. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites