Please see the sutta quote below of AN 7.51.
The Buddha was neither alpha male, beta male, alpha female, beta female, androgynous, dominant or submissive (from a gender-identity perspective).
Rather, he was unbound and free of all such binding gender identity views.
He was not even self-identified as a human being - he was simply the Awakened One - also ...
There's some discussion of that here.
Some answers quote references, which point out that the Buddha allowed footwear in the wilderness and take that as permission to adapt to the terrain.
One says that some monks simply don't go outside at all.
One says that the strict interpretation of the Vinaya can't easily be adapted to a hostile climate.
One says ...
The traditional description of the Buddha's physical characteristics include "well retracted male organ" -- so perhaps "androgynous" in that sense.
I understand "alpha" as being a social adjective -- there are alpha males and alpha females -- and the Buddha was "alpha" in that sense i.e. socially: a leader, able to ...
Frustration and suffering arise from unskillful intentions. That's bad kamma.
DN33:1.11.154: There are deeds that are dark with dark result.
Harmony and happiness arise from skillful intentions. That's good kamma.
DN33:1.11.155: There are deeds that are bright with bright result.
More commonly, the two are mixed and muddied.
No self may imply submissiveness, in some ways: not putting your own "me" and "mine" first.
'Alpha male' is strongly tied to the senses and wealth, status etc.. Which clearly Buddhas reject as mundane.
I think you got the definition of "Alpha male" wrong by associating it with putting "me" and "mine" first. ...
Why are some Buddhists in the west hostile to academic analyses of the
What makes you think so ? If any Buddhist says that academic analysis of religion is prohibited then he or she is going against Dhamma. Buddha says come ,analyse and test the Dhamma by yourself and follow it only if you are convinced. Why does Buddha says so ? He says so out ...