How Enlighten Was Buddha

[atanu]

A chair and table both made of same wood have different functions. We would laugh if we saw one claim superiority over the other or complained of discrimination at the hands of the other. IMO, those who are yet to see the equality at the substratum are too much bothered by the functional differences.

The same happens when a westerner hears about the practical wisdom that the competence of all are of four kinds (the four varnas). They immediately see discrimination. Buddha taught that such colouration is from one's mind (nowadays we call it 'value judgement' etc.). Nature is as it is.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Seems to be the case, however, though it is true that India at the time was many Kingdoms and not quite a unified country. Perhaps the region where the Buddha lived and taught would have been better.

When talking about the status of women in history, gross generalizations like this are often used by those of us who aren't historians; in this case, I'm reporting what I've heard on the matter, and would gladly like to hear of exceptions, or to see if I am outright wrong.

There were women elite soldier units that fought against Alexander.

Patanjali wrote (2nd c. BCE) that women engage in the thread ceremony before starting their education, and says that female's studied grammar.

Over all you are right the down ward side of women had began.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Oh God,

Don't cry out to God. Buddha says it wont help!.... Still we agree :faint:

 

[Riverwolf]

There were women elite soldier units that fought against Alexander.

Was not aware of that.

Patanjali wrote (2nd c. BCE) that women engage in the thread ceremony before starting their education, and says that female's studied grammar.

Again, was not aware of that.

Still, the women who fought against Alexander could be argued to be the exception rather than the rule, and Patanjali may have been referring to his own students.

I'm not trying to be difficult; I'm just reminding you that my knowledge on this subject is limited.

 

[atanu]

Still, the women who fought against Alexander could be argued to be the exception rather than the rule, and Patanjali may have been referring to his own students.

I have two points.

1. The subject is Buddha . When people agree that he gave the world a trail blazing religion, breaking the mould of tradition, why should he then stick to societal norms in regards to male-female equation? Are people saying that Buddha was a politician after all?

2. Recognising different functionalities of different forms do not equate to bigotry. We raise such questions from our stand-points and our values.

 

[Riverwolf]

I have two points.

1. The subject is Buddha . When people agree that he gave the world a trail blazing religion, breaking the mould of tradition, why should he then stick to societal norms in regards to male-female equation? Are people saying that Buddha was a politician after all?

2. Recognising different functionalities of different forms do not equate to bigotry. We raise such questions from our stand-points and our values.

I agree. Why are you addressing this to me?

 

[Chisti]

I have two points.

1. The subject is Buddha . When people agree that he gave the world a trail blazing religion, breaking the mould of tradition, why should he then stick to societal norms in regards to male-female equation? Are people saying that Buddha was a politician after all?

2. Recognising different functionalities of different forms do not equate to bigotry. We raise such questions from our stand-points and our values.

Breaking traditional thinking is one thing, breaking tradition (not as an abstraction but as it manifests in society) is another. The former is psychological and can be done quickly, the latter not so much. It takes time, so the Buddha probably had no choice.

 

[atanu]

I agree. Why are you addressing this to me?

ha ha dear Riverwolf.

Because I thought you said: Also, don't forget that, at this point in Indian history, women were basically regarded as naturally stupid and the property of men ....

There is no other particular reason other than recording that I do not think that Buddha was influenced by society or that he was realy a misogynist. Neither.

 

[Riverwolf]

ha ha dear Riverwolf.

Because I thought you said: Also, don't forget that, at this point in Indian history, women were basically regarded as naturally stupid and the property of men ....

There is no other particular reason other than recording that I do not think that Buddha was influenced by society or that he was realy a misogynist. Neither.

Oh.

Actually, I meant to argue that the Buddha rebelled against that; after all, I said that he was miles ahead of the time. I don't think he was a misogynist.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I'm not trying to be difficult; I'm just reminding you that my knowledge on this subject is limited.

I would say that you are being logical. It feels good posting to you again.

 

[atanu]

Breaking traditional thinking is one thing, breaking tradition (not as an abstraction but as it manifests in society) is another. The former is psychological and can be done quickly, the latter not so much. It takes time, so the Buddha probably had no choice.

I concede your point to the extent that Breaking traditional thinking and breaking tradition are different things.

But I cannot agree that Budhha had no choice on the matter (and he said what he said as a matter of convenience) .

 

[ratikala]

dear cynthia cypher ,

Originally Posted by CynthiaCypher
He believed women were naturally ignorant, and could never attain Buddhahood without the help of men. He imposed harsh rules upon his women followers and he didn't want to admit women has followers in the first place.

He was pretty much a misogynist.

one should concider the simple possibility that the buddha did not initialy want to admit women in to a male order for the obvious reason, that being that it might cause undue distraction within an all male comunity .

therefore he established (or allowed to be established )an all femail order .

had he not thought that they could atain enlightenment I doubt he would have allowed femail orders to establish ?

 

[idav]

Ive never seen Misogyny attributed to Buddha. His followers possibly.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

It is dishonest to say that the Buddha abandoned his wife and child. He abandoned a life of luxury, which included leaving friends, relatives etc. this is not the same as making a conscious decision to abandon one's wife and child.

No it is not dishonest because that is what he did. A family isn't a exactly a life of luxury. family is obligation and duty. Duty he shirked on.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Oh God, so much FAIL in this thread.

Oh God an egotistic Buddhist using internet slang!

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I don't think you understand enough to come to any type of conclusion on this subject.

yeah with me being a woman and all how could I understand? You know like the Buddha said I need a man to instruct me.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

A chair and table both made of same wood have different functions. We would laugh if we saw one claim superiority over the other or complained of discrimination at the hands of the other. IMO, those who are yet to see the equality at the substratum are too much bothered by the functional differences.

The same happens when a westerner hears about the practical wisdom that the competence of all are of four kinds (the four varnas). They immediately see discrimination. Buddha taught that such colouration is from one's mind (nowadays we call it 'value judgement' etc.). Nature is as it is.

Why do westerners view it that way? Because the caste system is discrimination! It's racism and serfdom made sacred.

 

[idav]

yeah with me being a woman and all how could I understand? You know like the Buddha said I need a man to instruct me.

Where does it say this?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

“One would sooner chat with demons and murderers with drawn swords, sooner touch poisonous snakes even when their bite is deadly, than chat with a woman alone”

“It were better, simpleton, that your sex enter the mouth of a poisonous snake than that it enter a woman. It were better, simpleton, that your sex enter an oven than that it enter a woman”

“But the danger of the shark, ye monks, is a characteristic of woman”

The Shadow of the Dalai Lama: Sexuality, Magic and Politics in Tibetan Buddhism, by Victor and Victoria Trimondi

 

[Riverwolf]

“One would sooner chat with demons and murderers with drawn swords, sooner touch poisonous snakes even when their bite is deadly, than chat with a woman alone”

“It were better, simpleton, that your sex enter the mouth of a poisonous snake than that it enter a woman. It were better, simpleton, that your sex enter an oven than that it enter a woman”

“But the danger of the shark, ye monks, is a characteristic of woman”

The Shadow of the Dalai Lama: Sexuality, Magic and Politics in Tibetan Buddhism, by Victor and Victoria Trimondi

Oh, boy, one of those "The Dark Side of (insert generally good thing here)" books.

The only reason those exist is to make money, for the most part. After all, scandals are very profitable, and people tend to latch onto negatives more than positives, to the point where often a single minor negative will outweigh a mountain of positives. It's just silly.