7 ms·

Glad to see this article getting some attention. My university training is in Religious Studies and it became clear pretty quickly that Buddhism suffers just as

• gtirloni 9y ago
  Religion is not detached from the cultural aspects of where it exists. Such was/is the situation in Tibet, male-oriented. The Catholic Church says priests can only be male too. Women weren't given much freedom in society when these policies were defined. Western-adapted Buddhism lineages are much more open to women in general.
• b6 9y ago
  > Buddhism is so audaciously and unapologetically male-dominated From what I understand, the Buddha taught anyone who was interested without the slightest regard for gender, age, wealth, caste, or anything else -- 2500 years ago, in India. The monastic orders have very reasonable rules about how new monks or nuns get legitimacy by being approved by former monks or nuns, and that worked for, I think, over a thousand years. The problem is, for some reason, the female lineage suffered a break, and there was no contingency plan for restoration. But this is now occurring, at least in Theravada. Please don't paint it as if Buddhism is sexist. It is actually amazingly and remarkably non-sexist, back in a time when this was unheard of.
  • paloaltokid 9y ago
    I think the parent is talking about the people in the "ism" of Buddhism, not the Buddha himself. I think it's similar in Christianity. We have no idea what Christ believed, but his followers sure have had some regressive attitudes towards women. Also, I'd agree with you that Buddhism itself is not sexist. But many of the practitioners are as sexist as everyone else. We shouldn't assume that just because someone practices a certain religion or spirituality that they are perfect.
    • otempomores 9y ago
      The concept is pure the implementation is flawed fallacy.
    • icebraining 9y ago
      I don't think that's right. Christians do know what Christ believe - it's right there in the Bible. I, as a non-Christian, might be skeptical of that, but believing it is part of the definition of Christian.
      • paloaltokid 9y ago
        As a former Christian, I don't think we have any real idea what Christ (the historical figure) actually believed. For instance, I never recall learning that Christ wanted a church to be established with a Vatican, a pope, cardinals, etc. Nor did Christ say anything about going to church on Sunday. Most of the Bible is the Old Testament, which are primarily Jewish religious texts carried over from tradition, and the New Testament is a lot of writing about Christ from his disciples and later followers. But I found in my own study of the Bible that Christ was actually a fairly minor character, in terms of the volume of quotes actually directly attributed to him.
        • icebraining 9y ago
          Christ (the historical figure) I'm not a current or ex-Christian, but except for Jehovah's Witnesses, do any current-day Christians believe that Christ is not (also) God himself? And isn't the New Testament the revealed Word of God? How could Christ-the-historical-figure have any opinions different from the ones revealed by God?
          • uhuh234 9y ago
            > do any current-day Christians believe that Christ is not (also) God himself? Yes lots, they are known as Trinitarians. Those that don't believe that Jesus is God incarnate are non-Trinitarians. Without being disrespectful to those that know far more than I, this was basically (simplistically, more or less) the reason for the Schism or the Orthodox Christian Church.
  • KingMob 9y ago
    It's quite a bit more complicated than that, unfortunately. First, the Pali canon didn't begin to be put to paper until 100-200 years after the buddha, so like Jesus, there aren't clear first-hand records. That being said, the Pali canon states Buddha was reluctant to teach women, and had to be exhorted by his aunt to agree. Supposedly, he agreed but warned that if he taught women the lifetime of the sangha would be halved. Even after letting them in, the monastic rules for women were/are much more extensive than for men. In the modern era, there's still a lot of resistance in traditional Theravadan countries to female nuns. Sri Lanka only started ordaining women in the 1990's, and both Burma and Thailand have jailed nuns in recent history. One thing you learn being in a Buddhist country, is that there are many buddhists (even monks) engaged in unskillful behavior, just as there are many Christians who don't understand Christ's actual message.
    • cko 9y ago
      > First, the Pali canon didn't begin to be put to paper until 100-200 years after the buddha, so like Jesus, there aren't clear first-hand records. Yes and there are people who suspect that the “Buddha” wasn’t one person, but representative of teachings passed down from a bunch of gurus over the years. Also, it was the fourth Buddhist council where stuff was written down. That was like 300 years after parinirvana. True to human nature, 70 years after parinirvana the Sangha had already split (second Buddhist council). And even if there were firsthand records, even if we knew the “actual message”, I’m not sure that really adds much credibility in my mind. You have an interesting story. Based on you using “skillfull” for “kusala” I assume you’ve read Thanissaro’s translations. Where did you ordain?
  • jrochkind1 9y ago
    From the OP: > "...two-dimensional caricatures tend not to deepen. Instead, they flip – in this case, from loving and peaceful back to the sinister and violent caricatures that..." Much like arguments over whether who and what is "real" Christianity, or Islam... it's all equally "real". Buddhism is made of people and has a couple thousand years of history across large swaths of the world. And like everything made of people, it's complex and has parts and times and trends we might like and parts we might not. I suppose the believer can say the parts they don't like aren't 'real', and different factions of believers can fight it out over which parts are 'real', as in all religions. But that doesn't seem very "Buddhist" to me. :) And like with all religions or ideologies, the non-believer has no stake in the game. It's all equally "real Buddhism", as it's all things that have actually happened and been done by and in the name of Buddhism.
  • tombh 9y ago
    I must unreservedly restate, Buddhism is sexist. This is not a casual statement. I retort that anyone that considers otherwise has not seriously studied Buddhism. There are those who legitimately go even further to say that vast swathes of Buddhism are misogynistic, see Rita Gross' "Buddhism After Patriarchy". This is a very serious matter.
• hapnin 9y ago
  You speak truth. The sad part is that early Buddhism was revolutionary in that women were given the same rights and powers as men to quit society and join the monastic community. According to tradition, the first woman ordained by the Buddha was his aunt, Mahāprajāpatī Gotamī.
• KingMob 9y ago
  When I became a monk in Burma, sayalays (sort of like female novitiates) in the monastery were expected to show respect to me, even when they had been there for 30 years, and I had only been a monk for two weeks. A western monk friend and I discussed it a lot, and we concluded that the rules of the sangha (the monastic community) ensured it would be roughly as sexist as the society around it. See, one of the rules of the vinaya (the ancient monastic code) is that monks are forbidden to grow their own food; all food is a gift from someone. This is an interesting rule, with both good and bad consequences. The beneficial aspect is that it keeps the sangha tied to the lay community; it prevents Theravadan monks from disappearing into the forest with no ties, and is probably crucial to maintaining the existence of a religious order for over two millennia. The detrimental aspect is that it punishes sanghas that are too progressive for their community. Every morning, we would walk out at 6:00 for alms. If the townfolk were pissed at us, we'd have starved. One of the things western buddhist communities have done better is gender-inclusion. In fact, most of my teachers in both zen and theravada have been women.
  • jschwartzi 9y ago
    When I was younger my mom experimented with one of the Buddhist organizations in the United States that follows the Lotus Sutra. From what I recall of that time, in earlier writings Buddha wrote that women could not become enlightened because they were enslaved to their emotions. In the Lotus Sutra he recanted this. If I'm remembering correctly that would explain the sexism in some Buddhist organizations. Or it may be an excuse for perpetuating it.
  • potatote 9y ago
    I grew up in Myanmar until 23 and know what you're talking about. Those 'sayalays' follow a less stricter rules/precepts than a fully-ordained monk. That's why they are expected to pay respect to the male monks. Of course, there is no denying that it's a male-dominant religion, but it is no worse than Catholicism. Buddha, according to the Buddhist legends, appointed his step-mom to be in charge of female monks and they have established their own structure, which follows closely to the one established by male monk's structure (but with slightly less strict rules). As an atheist, I am not going to defend Buddhism (be it Mahayana, Theravada or Tibetan) because they all have major flaws, and aren't very practical--in my opinion--for the modern society. As with most religions, there are good and bad parts in Buddhism and a lot of original teachings by Buddha have been 'tainted' by cultural reasoning (not to mention that even Buddha himself likely got a lot of influence in his philosophy from Hinduism and other mainstream religions in his time). Overall though, I have to say that Buddhism at its core is fairly benign (no eliminate-those-who-don't-believe-in-our-god's-teachings that can be found in old testament or Koran).
• nugga 9y ago
  I wonder why that is. In plenty cultures and traditions they're treated as less capable or less trustworthy or less honest etc. Even in Bhagavad Gita women are said to be somewhat comparable to children and lower in the spiritual game than men. Are you playing on hard mode if you respawn as a woman? Is spiritual practice or reaching enlightenment harder for women? Modern studies seem to indicate that women seem to be more prone to neuroticism or hysteria and being clouded by sense pleasure.
  • kk58 9y ago
    Wheŕe in gita does it say it?
    • nugga 9y ago
      Perhaps this is what I recalled: As children are very prone to be misled, women are similarly very prone to degradation. Therefore, both children and women require protection by the elder members of the family. By being engaged in various religious practices, women will not be misled into adultery. According to Chanakya Pandit, women are generally not very intelligent and therefore not trustworthy. So the different family traditions of religious activities should always engage them, and thus their chastity and devotion will give birth to a good population eligible for participating in the varnasrama system. On the failure of such varnasrama-dharma, naturally the women become free to act and mix with men, and thus adultery is indulged in at the risk of unwanted population. Irresponsible men also provoke adultery in society, and thus unwanted children flood the human race at the risk of war and pestilence. Bhagavad-Gita As It Is, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1972. Chapter 1, verse 40, purport. Vedabase Now, in the Manu-samhita it is clearly stated that a woman should not be given freedom. That does not mean that women are to be kept as slaves, but they are like children. The demons have now neglected such injunctions, and they think that women should be given as much freedom as men. Bhagavad-Gita As It Is, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1972. Chapter 16, verse 7, purport. Vedabase Women as a class are no better than boys, and therefore they have no discriminatory power like that of a man. Srimad Bhagavatam, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1999. Canto 1, Chapter 7, verse 42, purport. Vedabase A woman’s attachment to her husband may elevate her to the body of a man in her next life, but a mans attachment to woman will degrade him, and in his next life he will get the body of a woman. Srimad Bhagavatam, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1999. Canto 3, Chapter 31, verse 41, purport. Vedabase As a clarification on my earlier post, equal rights (and responsibilities) seems like a nice thing to have to try to let everyone have equal opportunities but genders on average seem to be built somewhat differently when it comes to temperament and interests. The science on that seems pretty convincing especially if you've paid any mind to the James Damore memo thing. The paper is said to have referenced plenty good science and researchers and scientists who have commented on it pretty much have said as much. If you observe people meditatively in detachment and are not sucked in by lust or other ego games you might witness some crazy behaviour. And then it keeps on repeating and occurring and then... well it may be confirmation bias as well.
• bobthechef 9y ago
  "male-dominated" Is that perhaps a fashionable contemporary Western idea bleeding in?
  • cko 9y ago
    Yes, like LGBT rights, slavery is bad, scientific method is good. These are things most of us in the West take for granted as objectively true, but there is surely a cultural component to everything. What can ya do? In traditional Chinese medicine (my uncle and dad believe in it despite both having PhDs) they believe in acupuncture and chi. Two months ago my ankle was bothering me. I thought “it’s because I just walked like ten miles.” My dad was like nah, it’s energy flow or something. Then I let him put huge amounts of pressure on my upper arm area (because apparently that’s connected to my ankle). After five minutes of pain, he proudly sat back and said, “better?” I wanted to say “no you idiot. I sprained my ankle badly ten years ago and just walked excessively. You know this.” But I didn’t because I don’t get to see him much and didn’t want to hurt his feelings. Believe it or not, it didn’t help at all, and my arm was bruised for two weeks. The guy has two PhDs. Two. Published papers and stuff. Just goes to show how... compartmentalized? Inconsistent? our minds can be. /end rant I’ve been trying to find a more “untainted” and universal set of truths, and that just leads to reflecting on human nature and behavior. Then again, there is a heavy dose of western skepticism and whatever in my methods. Culture runs deep.