Skip to main content
deleted 1150 characters in body
Source Link
Andriy Volkov
  • 59k
  • 3
  • 55
  • 165

This reminds me of a Zen story. A North-American female student approaches her Zen master and asks: "Is it true that a woman can never become a Buddha?" Zen master says "yup". The student gets into a long rant about women discrimination, equal rights, and how deluded the Zen master must be in his culturally-inherited biases. Zen master waits until she runs out of steam and says: "Wait. Are you [=still identifying yourself with] a woman?!"

The moral of the story, obviously, is that the serious student must abandon any and all identification, both personal- and group-based, including identification with gender. Identification is a form of attachment that leads to passions, taking sides, arguments, and a whole gamut of problems.

In AN 7.48 Buddha clearly explains that the person must transcend their gender biases, both masculine and feminine:

"And how is there lack of bondage? A woman does not attend inwardly to her feminine faculties, her feminine gestures, her feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voice, feminine charms. She is not excited by that, not delighted by that [...] This is how a woman transcends her femininity.

"A man does not attend inwardly to his masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voice, masculine charms. He is not excited by that, not delighted by that [...] This is how a man transcends his masculinity.

In SN 5.2 a nun named Soma says:

What
difference
does being a woman make
when the mind's well-centered,
when knowledge is progressing,
seeing clearly, rightly,
into the Dhamma.

Anyone who thinks
'I'm a woman'
or 'a man'
or 'Am I anything at all?' —
that's who Mara's
fit to address.

If any gender bias was seen as bondage by the Buddha, why would he say (in MN 115) that a woman cannot be an Accomplished One, but a man can? Here's what I think (assuming that paragraph wasn't added later):

Historically, back in Buddha's times, women were seen as inherently sloppy in their logical reasoning and analysis, not serious about large-scale spiritual matters, not willing to push themselves to the edge and beyond, very prone to the blinding emotions, unmindful, undisciplined etc.

So when Buddha said "it cannot happen that a woman could be an Accomplished One" -- this is what he meant, that someone sloppy-thinking, petty-minded, without the drive, not calm, not mindful, undisciplined, complacent -- like a (stereotypical) woman -- cannot attain Liberating Realization. However, if they work on their qualities, in order to become precise in their thinking, serious about Dharma's large-scale implications, determined and energetic, sober and controlled, mindful, rebellious etc. -- then at later time, once they have acquired and developed such qualities -- whether man or woman -- they can attain Liberating Realization.

This reminds me of a Zen story. A North-American female student approaches her Zen master and asks: "Is it true that a woman can never become a Buddha?" Zen master says "yup". The student gets into a long rant about women discrimination, equal rights, and how deluded the Zen master must be in his culturally-inherited biases. Zen master waits until she runs out of steam and says: "Wait. Are you [=still identifying yourself with] a woman?!"

The moral of the story, obviously, is that the serious student must abandon any and all identification, both personal- and group-based, including identification with gender. Identification is a form of attachment that leads to passions, taking sides, arguments, and a whole gamut of problems.

In AN 7.48 Buddha clearly explains that the person must transcend their gender biases, both masculine and feminine:

"And how is there lack of bondage? A woman does not attend inwardly to her feminine faculties, her feminine gestures, her feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voice, feminine charms. She is not excited by that, not delighted by that [...] This is how a woman transcends her femininity.

"A man does not attend inwardly to his masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voice, masculine charms. He is not excited by that, not delighted by that [...] This is how a man transcends his masculinity.

In SN 5.2 a nun named Soma says:

What
difference
does being a woman make
when the mind's well-centered,
when knowledge is progressing,
seeing clearly, rightly,
into the Dhamma.

Anyone who thinks
'I'm a woman'
or 'a man'
or 'Am I anything at all?' —
that's who Mara's
fit to address.

If any gender bias was seen as bondage by the Buddha, why would he say (in MN 115) that a woman cannot be an Accomplished One, but a man can? Here's what I think (assuming that paragraph wasn't added later):

Historically, back in Buddha's times, women were seen as inherently sloppy in their logical reasoning and analysis, not serious about large-scale spiritual matters, not willing to push themselves to the edge and beyond, very prone to the blinding emotions, unmindful, undisciplined etc.

So when Buddha said "it cannot happen that a woman could be an Accomplished One" -- this is what he meant, that someone sloppy-thinking, petty-minded, without the drive, not calm, not mindful, undisciplined, complacent -- like a (stereotypical) woman -- cannot attain Liberating Realization. However, if they work on their qualities, in order to become precise in their thinking, serious about Dharma's large-scale implications, determined and energetic, sober and controlled, mindful, rebellious etc. -- then at later time, once they have acquired and developed such qualities -- whether man or woman -- they can attain Liberating Realization.

This reminds me of a Zen story. A North-American female student approaches her Zen master and asks: "Is it true that a woman can never become a Buddha?" Zen master says "yup". The student gets into a long rant about women discrimination, equal rights, and how deluded the Zen master must be in his culturally-inherited biases. Zen master waits until she runs out of steam and says: "Wait. Are you [=still identifying yourself with] a woman?!"

The moral of the story, obviously, is that the serious student must abandon any and all identification, both personal- and group-based, including identification with gender. Identification is a form of attachment that leads to passions, taking sides, arguments, and a whole gamut of problems.

In AN 7.48 Buddha clearly explains that the person must transcend their gender biases, both masculine and feminine:

"And how is there lack of bondage? A woman does not attend inwardly to her feminine faculties, her feminine gestures, her feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voice, feminine charms. She is not excited by that, not delighted by that [...] This is how a woman transcends her femininity.

"A man does not attend inwardly to his masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voice, masculine charms. He is not excited by that, not delighted by that [...] This is how a man transcends his masculinity.

In SN 5.2 a nun named Soma says:

What
difference
does being a woman make
when the mind's well-centered,
when knowledge is progressing,
seeing clearly, rightly,
into the Dhamma.

Anyone who thinks
'I'm a woman'
or 'a man'
or 'Am I anything at all?' —
that's who Mara's
fit to address.

added 212 characters in body
Source Link
Andriy Volkov
  • 59k
  • 3
  • 55
  • 165

This reminds me of a Zen story. A North-American female student approaches her Zen master and asks: "Is it true that a woman can never become a Buddha?" Zen master says "yup". The student gets into a long rant about women discrimination, equal rights, and how deluded the Zen master must be in his culturally-inherited biases. Zen master waits until she runs out of steam and says: "Wait. Are you [=still identifying yourself with] a woman?!"

The moral of the story, obviously, is that the serious student must abandon any and all identification, both personal- and group-based, including identification with gender. Identification is a form of attachment that leads to passions, taking sides, arguments, and a whole gamut of problems.

In AN 7.48 Buddha clearly explains that the person must transcend their gender biases, both masculine and feminine:

"And how is there lack of bondage? A woman does not attend inwardly to her feminine faculties, her feminine gestures, her feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voice, feminine charms. She is not excited by that, not delighted by that [...] This is how a woman transcends her femininity.

"A man does not attend inwardly to his masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voice, masculine charms. He is not excited by that, not delighted by that [...] This is how a man transcends his masculinity.

In SN 5.2 a nun named Soma says:

What
difference
does being a woman make
when the mind's well-centered,
when knowledge is progressing,
seeing clearly, rightly,
into the Dhamma.

Anyone who thinks
'I'm a woman'
or 'a man'
or 'Am I anything at all?' —
that's who Mara's
fit to address.

If any gender bias was seen as bondage by the Buddha, why would he say (in MN 115) that a woman cannot be an Accomplished One, but a man can? Here's what I think (assuming that paragraph wasn't added later):

Historically, back in Buddha's times, women were seen as inherently sloppy in their logical reasoning and analysis, not serious about large-scale spiritual matters, not willing to push themselves to the edge and beyond, very prone to the blinding emotions, unmindful, undisciplined etc.

So when Buddha said "it cannot happen that a woman could be an Accomplished One" -- this is what he meant, that someone sloppy-thinking, petty-minded, without the drive, not calm, not mindful, undisciplined, complacent -- like a (stereotypical) woman -- cannot attain Liberating Realization. However, if they work on their qualities, in order to become precise in their thinking, serious about Dharma's large-scale implications, determined and energetic, sober and controlled, mindful, rebellious etc. -- then at later time, once they have acquired and developed such qualities -- whether man or woman -- they can attain Liberating Realization.

This reminds me of a Zen story. A North-American female student approaches her Zen master and asks: "Is it true that a woman can never become a Buddha?" Zen master says "yup". The student gets into a long rant about women discrimination, equal rights, and how deluded the Zen master must be in his culturally-inherited biases. Zen master waits until she runs out of steam and says: "Wait. Are you a woman?!"

In AN 7.48 Buddha clearly explains that the person must transcend their gender biases, both masculine and feminine:

"And how is there lack of bondage? A woman does not attend inwardly to her feminine faculties, her feminine gestures, her feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voice, feminine charms. She is not excited by that, not delighted by that [...] This is how a woman transcends her femininity.

"A man does not attend inwardly to his masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voice, masculine charms. He is not excited by that, not delighted by that [...] This is how a man transcends his masculinity.

In SN 5.2 a nun named Soma says:

What
difference
does being a woman make
when the mind's well-centered,
when knowledge is progressing,
seeing clearly, rightly,
into the Dhamma.

Anyone who thinks
'I'm a woman'
or 'a man'
or 'Am I anything at all?' —
that's who Mara's
fit to address.

If any gender bias was seen as bondage by the Buddha, why would he say (in MN 115) that a woman cannot be an Accomplished One, but a man can? Here's what I think (assuming that paragraph wasn't added later):

Historically, back in Buddha's times, women were seen as inherently sloppy in their logical reasoning and analysis, not serious about large-scale spiritual matters, not willing to push themselves to the edge and beyond, very prone to the blinding emotions, unmindful, undisciplined etc.

So when Buddha said "it cannot happen that a woman could be an Accomplished One" -- this is what he meant, that someone sloppy-thinking, petty-minded, without the drive, not calm, not mindful, undisciplined, complacent -- like a (stereotypical) woman -- cannot attain Liberating Realization. However, if they work on their qualities, in order to become precise in their thinking, serious about Dharma's large-scale implications, determined and energetic, sober and controlled, mindful, rebellious etc. -- then at later time, once they have acquired and developed such qualities -- whether man or woman -- they can attain Liberating Realization.

This reminds me of a Zen story. A North-American female student approaches her Zen master and asks: "Is it true that a woman can never become a Buddha?" Zen master says "yup". The student gets into a long rant about women discrimination, equal rights, and how deluded the Zen master must be in his culturally-inherited biases. Zen master waits until she runs out of steam and says: "Wait. Are you [=still identifying yourself with] a woman?!"

The moral of the story, obviously, is that the serious student must abandon any and all identification, both personal- and group-based, including identification with gender. Identification is a form of attachment that leads to passions, taking sides, arguments, and a whole gamut of problems.

In AN 7.48 Buddha clearly explains that the person must transcend their gender biases, both masculine and feminine:

"And how is there lack of bondage? A woman does not attend inwardly to her feminine faculties, her feminine gestures, her feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voice, feminine charms. She is not excited by that, not delighted by that [...] This is how a woman transcends her femininity.

"A man does not attend inwardly to his masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voice, masculine charms. He is not excited by that, not delighted by that [...] This is how a man transcends his masculinity.

In SN 5.2 a nun named Soma says:

What
difference
does being a woman make
when the mind's well-centered,
when knowledge is progressing,
seeing clearly, rightly,
into the Dhamma.

Anyone who thinks
'I'm a woman'
or 'a man'
or 'Am I anything at all?' —
that's who Mara's
fit to address.

If any gender bias was seen as bondage by the Buddha, why would he say (in MN 115) that a woman cannot be an Accomplished One, but a man can? Here's what I think (assuming that paragraph wasn't added later):

Historically, back in Buddha's times, women were seen as inherently sloppy in their logical reasoning and analysis, not serious about large-scale spiritual matters, not willing to push themselves to the edge and beyond, very prone to the blinding emotions, unmindful, undisciplined etc.

So when Buddha said "it cannot happen that a woman could be an Accomplished One" -- this is what he meant, that someone sloppy-thinking, petty-minded, without the drive, not calm, not mindful, undisciplined, complacent -- like a (stereotypical) woman -- cannot attain Liberating Realization. However, if they work on their qualities, in order to become precise in their thinking, serious about Dharma's large-scale implications, determined and energetic, sober and controlled, mindful, rebellious etc. -- then at later time, once they have acquired and developed such qualities -- whether man or woman -- they can attain Liberating Realization.

added 23 characters in body
Source Link
Andriy Volkov
  • 59k
  • 3
  • 55
  • 165

This reminds me of a Zen story. A North-American female student approaches her Zen master and asks: "Is it true that a woman can never become a Buddha?" Zen master says "yup". The student gets into a long rant about women discrimination, equal rights, and how deluded the Zen master must be in his culturally-inherited biases. Zen master waits until she runs out of steam and says: "Wait. Are you a woman?!"

In AN 7.48 Buddha clearly explains that the person must transcend their gender biases, both masculine and feminine:

"And how is there lack of bondage? A woman does not attend inwardly to her feminine faculties, her feminine gestures, her feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voice, feminine charms. She is not excited by that, not delighted by that [...] This is how a woman transcends her femininity.

"A man does not attend inwardly to his masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voice, masculine charms. He is not excited by that, not delighted by that [...] This is how a man transcends his masculinity.

In SN 5.2 a nun named Soma says:

What
difference
does being a woman make
when the mind's well-centered,
when knowledge is progressing,
seeing clearly, rightly,
into the Dhamma.

Anyone who thinks
'I'm a woman'
or 'a man'
or 'Am I anything at all?' —
that's who Mara's
fit to address.

If any gender bias was seen as bondage by the Buddha, why would he say (in MN 115) that a woman cannot be an Accomplished One, but a man can? Here's what I think (assuming that paragraph wasn't added later):

Historically, back in Buddha's times, women were seen as inherently sloppy in their logical reasoning and analysis, not serious about large-scale spiritual matters, not willing to push themselves to the edge and beyond, very prone to the blinding emotions, unmindful, undisciplined etc.

So when Buddha said "it cannot happen that a woman could be an Accomplished One" -- this is what he meant, that someone sloppy-thinking, petty-minded, without the drive, not calm, not mindful, undisciplined, complacent -- like a (stereotypical) woman -- cannot attain Liberating Realization. However, if they work on their qualities, in order to become precise in their thinking, serious about Dharma's large-scale implications, determined and energetic, sober and controlled, mindful, rebellious etc. -- then at later time, once they have acquired and developed such qualities -- whether man or woman -- they can attain Liberating Realization.

This reminds me of a Zen story. A North-American female student approaches her Zen master and asks: "Is it true that a woman can never become a Buddha?" Zen master says "yup". The student gets into a long rant about women discrimination, equal rights, and how deluded the Zen master must be in his culturally-inherited biases. Zen master waits until she runs out of steam and says: "Wait. Are you a woman?!"

In AN 7.48 Buddha clearly explains that the person must transcend their gender biases, both masculine and feminine:

"And how is there lack of bondage? A woman does not attend inwardly to her feminine faculties, her feminine gestures, her feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voice, feminine charms. She is not excited by that, not delighted by that [...] This is how a woman transcends her femininity.

"A man does not attend inwardly to his masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voice, masculine charms. He is not excited by that, not delighted by that [...] This is how a man transcends his masculinity.

In SN 5.2 a nun named Soma says:

What
difference
does being a woman make
when the mind's well-centered,
when knowledge is progressing,
seeing clearly, rightly,
into the Dhamma.

Anyone who thinks
'I'm a woman'
or 'a man'
or 'Am I anything at all?' —
that's who Mara's
fit to address.

If any gender bias was seen as bondage by the Buddha, why would he say (in MN 115) that a woman cannot be an Accomplished One, but a man can? Here's what I think (assuming that paragraph wasn't added later):

Historically, back in Buddha's times, women were seen as inherently sloppy in their logical reasoning and analysis, not serious about large-scale spiritual matters, not willing to push themselves to the edge and beyond, very prone to the blinding emotions, unmindful, undisciplined etc.

So when Buddha said "it cannot happen that a woman could be an Accomplished One" -- this is what he meant, that someone sloppy-thinking, petty-minded, without the drive, not calm, not mindful, undisciplined -- like a (stereotypical) woman -- cannot attain Liberating Realization. However, if they work on their qualities, in order to become precise in their thinking, serious about Dharma's large-scale implications, determined and energetic, sober and controlled, mindful, etc. -- then at later time, once they have acquired and developed such qualities -- whether man or woman -- they can attain Liberating Realization.

This reminds me of a Zen story. A North-American female student approaches her Zen master and asks: "Is it true that a woman can never become a Buddha?" Zen master says "yup". The student gets into a long rant about women discrimination, equal rights, and how deluded the Zen master must be in his culturally-inherited biases. Zen master waits until she runs out of steam and says: "Wait. Are you a woman?!"

In AN 7.48 Buddha clearly explains that the person must transcend their gender biases, both masculine and feminine:

"And how is there lack of bondage? A woman does not attend inwardly to her feminine faculties, her feminine gestures, her feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voice, feminine charms. She is not excited by that, not delighted by that [...] This is how a woman transcends her femininity.

"A man does not attend inwardly to his masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voice, masculine charms. He is not excited by that, not delighted by that [...] This is how a man transcends his masculinity.

In SN 5.2 a nun named Soma says:

What
difference
does being a woman make
when the mind's well-centered,
when knowledge is progressing,
seeing clearly, rightly,
into the Dhamma.

Anyone who thinks
'I'm a woman'
or 'a man'
or 'Am I anything at all?' —
that's who Mara's
fit to address.

If any gender bias was seen as bondage by the Buddha, why would he say (in MN 115) that a woman cannot be an Accomplished One, but a man can? Here's what I think (assuming that paragraph wasn't added later):

Historically, back in Buddha's times, women were seen as inherently sloppy in their logical reasoning and analysis, not serious about large-scale spiritual matters, not willing to push themselves to the edge and beyond, very prone to the blinding emotions, unmindful, undisciplined etc.

So when Buddha said "it cannot happen that a woman could be an Accomplished One" -- this is what he meant, that someone sloppy-thinking, petty-minded, without the drive, not calm, not mindful, undisciplined, complacent -- like a (stereotypical) woman -- cannot attain Liberating Realization. However, if they work on their qualities, in order to become precise in their thinking, serious about Dharma's large-scale implications, determined and energetic, sober and controlled, mindful, rebellious etc. -- then at later time, once they have acquired and developed such qualities -- whether man or woman -- they can attain Liberating Realization.

deleted 517 characters in body
Source Link
Andriy Volkov
  • 59k
  • 3
  • 55
  • 165
Loading
added 45 characters in body
Source Link
Andriy Volkov
  • 59k
  • 3
  • 55
  • 165
Loading
added 21 characters in body
Source Link
Andriy Volkov
  • 59k
  • 3
  • 55
  • 165
Loading
added 2 characters in body
Source Link
Andriy Volkov
  • 59k
  • 3
  • 55
  • 165
Loading
added 2 characters in body
Source Link
Andriy Volkov
  • 59k
  • 3
  • 55
  • 165
Loading
added 113 characters in body
Source Link
Andriy Volkov
  • 59k
  • 3
  • 55
  • 165
Loading
added 3 characters in body
Source Link
Andriy Volkov
  • 59k
  • 3
  • 55
  • 165
Loading
added 1110 characters in body
Source Link
Andriy Volkov
  • 59k
  • 3
  • 55
  • 165
Loading
added 1110 characters in body
Source Link
Andriy Volkov
  • 59k
  • 3
  • 55
  • 165
Loading
added 324 characters in body
Source Link
Andriy Volkov
  • 59k
  • 3
  • 55
  • 165
Loading
added 324 characters in body
Source Link
Andriy Volkov
  • 59k
  • 3
  • 55
  • 165
Loading
Source Link
Andriy Volkov
  • 59k
  • 3
  • 55
  • 165
Loading