5 ms·

> Buddhism is so audaciously and unapologetically male-dominated From what I understand, the Buddha taught anyone who was interested without the slightest rega

by b6 8y 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 8y 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 8y ago
  The concept is pure the implementation is flawed fallacy.
- icebraining 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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.
        icebraining 8y ago
        Yes, I know (although I was actually asking about non-Trinitarians - sorry for the confusing formulation), but my question was if there were any "complete" non-Trinitarians left, except for Jehovah's Witnesses.
        kgwgk 8y ago
        Unitarians.
        neaden 8y ago
        Mormons are non trinitarian.
        kgwgk 8y ago
        Actually I think they were all Trinitarian and agreed on the nature of Christ. The disagreement was over the origin of the Holy Spirit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque
      - paloaltokid 8y ago
  - psyc 8y ago
    Jesus said a finite number of things in the New Testament, so we have interpretations of some of his thoughts on some things. Every fundamentalist church I attended when I was young was far more enthusiastic about the teachings of Paul.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      Right, but Paul's writings is Scripture, which is Word of God, and Christ is God. How could Christ believe anything else?
      - paloaltokid 8y ago
        I think you may be overthinking this a little, or applying philosophical reasoning where it doesn't quite make sense. If someone writes a book about me, that has nothing to do with me, even if the person who writes the book claims to know everything about me. Only I know what I believe and you should only assume I believe the things you hear me say, whether in word or in deed. EDIT: also, Paul never actually met Christ. He came along later after Christ had already been crucified. If you believe Paul's account, Christ revealed himself in a vision. But everyone agrees that Paul and Christ never actually met in person.
    - paloaltokid 8y ago
      Yep! I think modern fundamentalist Christians are actually more disciples of Paul than they are Christ.
  - vkou 8y ago
    Most of the Bible has nothing to do with Christ - and the parts that do were written down by people with their own biases.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > I, as a non-Christian, might be skeptical of that, but believing it is part of the definition of Christian. The Bible—specifically the Gospels —contains some stories about what Jesus said and did, but much of the former is explicitly in parable. Ideas about what Jesus thought are largely inferences from that. And any belief about the Bible other than that, understood correctly, it contains no moral error, is neither part of the definition of Christianity, nor a universal doctrine within it (even among the official doctrines of the large subsets.)
KingMob 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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.

by b6 8y ago

paloaltokid 8y 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 8y ago
The concept is pure the implementation is flawed fallacy.
icebraining 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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.
      - icebraining 8y ago
        Yes, I know (although I was actually asking about non-Trinitarians - sorry for the confusing formulation), but my question was if there were any "complete" non-Trinitarians left, except for Jehovah's Witnesses.
        kgwgk 8y ago
        Unitarians.
        neaden 8y ago
        Mormons are non trinitarian.
      - kgwgk 8y ago
        Actually I think they were all Trinitarian and agreed on the nature of Christ. The disagreement was over the origin of the Holy Spirit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque
    - paloaltokid 8y ago
- psyc 8y ago
  Jesus said a finite number of things in the New Testament, so we have interpretations of some of his thoughts on some things. Every fundamentalist church I attended when I was young was far more enthusiastic about the teachings of Paul.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Right, but Paul's writings is Scripture, which is Word of God, and Christ is God. How could Christ believe anything else?
    - paloaltokid 8y ago
      I think you may be overthinking this a little, or applying philosophical reasoning where it doesn't quite make sense. If someone writes a book about me, that has nothing to do with me, even if the person who writes the book claims to know everything about me. Only I know what I believe and you should only assume I believe the things you hear me say, whether in word or in deed. EDIT: also, Paul never actually met Christ. He came along later after Christ had already been crucified. If you believe Paul's account, Christ revealed himself in a vision. But everyone agrees that Paul and Christ never actually met in person.
  - paloaltokid 8y ago
    Yep! I think modern fundamentalist Christians are actually more disciples of Paul than they are Christ.
- vkou 8y ago
  Most of the Bible has nothing to do with Christ - and the parts that do were written down by people with their own biases.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > I, as a non-Christian, might be skeptical of that, but believing it is part of the definition of Christian. The Bible—specifically the Gospels —contains some stories about what Jesus said and did, but much of the former is explicitly in parable. Ideas about what Jesus thought are largely inferences from that. And any belief about the Bible other than that, understood correctly, it contains no moral error, is neither part of the definition of Christianity, nor a universal doctrine within it (even among the official doctrines of the large subsets.)

KingMob 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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.