Discussion in 'Buddhism' started by OAT, Feb 24, 2010.
Oh come on, guys. Misogyny is hardly innovative, even for the Buddha's time!
How does the Buddha's reply imply a misogynistic attitude?
Maybe read it again? Put yourself in the woman's position of being verbally reduced to a bag of excrement, in front of your father, for a moment. It's a fine meditation technique, to sort out the 32 parts of the body, but an entirely different thing to heap it on another human being. That's some dark vipassana burnout - er, personal issue with women- the Lord Buddha was showing there.
Even the venerable monk who translated that sutta was at a loss to explain the Buddha's outburst, and added a footnote, in the page you linked.
Well, that makes more sense. I was thinking of it more in terms of a meditation technique.
My reaction was the same as Cino's — it's strikingly misogynistic.
All the more so when its believed that women must reincarnate as a man before they can attain Buddha-hood — that one of the marks of Buddha Nature is the male genitalia.
As for it's uniqueness, I think you'll find that story told in different ways in different traditions. I'm reminded of the brother of Thomas Aquinas who hired a hooker to dissuade him from joining a religious order.
Ah, but the Bodisattva Tara showed the old (and young) geezers the proverbial finger(s) when she vowed to only ever incarnate as a woman, and attain final enlightenment as a woman.
That's actually a nice side of Buddhism, the way they added innovation to the religion, in the ever-ongoing "turnings of the wheel of Dharma". Not sure other traditions have it quite that explicitly.
Of course, adherents of older revolutions of the wheel tend to become uptight orthodoxies.
I think it's anatta (not-self) which is unique to Buddhism.
But then the Buddhists can't seem to agree what it means. How many schisms did they have over that point?
Separate names with a comma.