A couple of sore points on the Mahavastu

I think part of this conflict of values is presented in part by modern western culture as well. We are taught that lust and sexuality are good and healthy, and to believe otherwise is to be prudish and backwards.

Traditional Buddhist values tend to go in the opposite direction, and consider lust to be associated with the defilement, and with ordinary ignorant people. There are many EBT’s that contrast impurity with purity, and ignorance with wisdom.

But apart from this, is the material in the Mahāvastu not just an extension of what is already in MN 123 and MA 32 concerning the birth of the Bodhisattva? To my eyes, I see no significant difference between this Mahāvastu passage and what was already in the Majjhima Nikāya and Madhyama Āgama.

“Venerable sir I have heard these words from the Blessed One himself and you acknowledged them. ‘Ānanda, when the one aspiring enlightenment, was born into this world from the mother’s womb, the mother by nature was virtuous, abstaining from, destroying living things, taking the not given, misbehaving sexually, telling lies and intoxicating drinks.’ Venerable sir, this I bear as something wonderful and surprising of the Blessed One.

“Venerable sir I have heard these words from the Blessed One himself and you acknowledged them. ‘Ānanda, from the day the one aspiring enlightenment, descended to the mother’s womb, sensual desires about men did not arise in the mind of his mother. She had risen above attachment to thoughts of any man.’ Venerable sir, this I bear as something wonderful and surprising of the Blessed One.

“Venerable sir I have heard these words from the Blessed One himself and you acknowledged them. ‘Ānanda, when the one aspiring enlightenment, was born to this world the mother of the one aspiring enlightenment was endowed and provided with the five sense pleasures.’ Venerable sir, this I bear as something wonderful and surprising of the Blessed One.

“Venerable sir I have heard these words from the Blessed One himself and you acknowledged them. ‘Ānanda, when the one aspiring enlightenment, was born to this world the mother of the one aspiring enlightenment was healthy, happy and had no ailments what so ever. She could see the one in her womb complete with all limbs large and small. Like a well completed comely lapis gem with eight facets, with a thread of blue, yellow, red, white or pale running through it. A man who could see would place it in his palm and would reflect. This is the well completed comely lapis gem with eight facets, with a thread of blue, yellow, red, white or pale running through it. In the same manner, when the one aspiring enlightenment, was born to this world the mother of the one aspiring enlightenment was healthy, happy and had no ailments what so ever. She could see the one in her womb complete with all limbs large and small.’ Venerable sir, this I bear as something wonderful and surprising of the Blessed One.

“Venerable sir I have heard these words from the Blessed One himself and you acknowledged them. ‘Ānanda, seven days after the birth of the one aspiring enlightenment, the mother of the one aspiring enlightenment passed away and was born with the happy gods.’ Venerable sir, this I bear as something wonderful and surprising of the Blessed One.

“Venerable sir I have heard these words from the Blessed One himself and you acknowledged them. ‘Ānanda, other women give birth bearing the womb for about nine or ten months. That is not so with the one aspiring enlightenment, the mother of the one aspiring enlightenment bore the womb for complete ten months and gaves birth.’ Venerable sir, this I bear as something wonderful and surprising of the Blessed One.

“Venerable sir I have heard these words from the Blessed One himself and you acknowledged them. ‘Ānanda, other women give birth either seated or lying. That is not so with the one aspiring enlightenment, the mother of the one aspiring enlightenment gave birth standing.’ Venerable sir, this I bear as something wonderful and surprising of the Blessed One.

http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima3/123-acchariyabbhutta-e.html

1 Like

Sure. And I should note that whilst it is easy to pick a few verses from a vast body of work that is the Mvu and make (what I hope is) some healthy critisism, I am doing so whilst trying not to create the impression that I am disparaging the entire text. The ‘cool stuff’ in the Mvu far outweighs a few ‘sore points’.

1 Like

i suspect that sexist undertones of the passage could have been misconstrued or exaggerated

what the narrator says is not that the Bodhisatta’s mother MUST die so that she can’t indulge in sex after giving birth to him, because realistically why would one need to die to abstain from sex? it only requires maintenance of celibacy for the rest of one’s life which isn’t something unheard of

it’s about the fact of him specifically looking for a woman who would certainly die in seven nights and ten months regardless of birthing a buddha-to-be and just using her as a medium at the same time making sure that she’s not desecrated by sex afterwards

just as @llt remarked it’s more about ritual purity than about denigration of women, of course in those days women i guess bore a heavier burden of prejudice connected with impurity so sexism is kind of embedded in those concepts, but it’s not their primary focus

Hi LXNDR, I see your point and you may be right but exaggerated or not it’s created a perception of sexism in my mind so why not others? If we don’t call it out or at least question it aren’t we complicit? For example:

Nah, I don’t think that’s the right way to say it.

2 Likes

Your post just made my day on so many levels. Particularly the use of the word ‘nah’! So Aussie :laughing:
Oi yeah, but nah, ay.

2 Likes

I also had a chuckle.

Like, seriously, i deal with these issues in the texts every day.

Today, I translated the famous sutta about the two acrobats protecting each other, SN 47.19. Although this is such a well known sutta, I never realized that the student was a woman. Yep, that’s right, her name is consistently feminine. Yet translators have mostly erased her gender (Ven Bodhi), or changed it to masculine (Woodward). Only Ven Thanissaro gets it right. This is all because of the commentary, which apparently couldn’t grok the fact that a woman could be a professional sportsperson.

Then, in the next sutta, SN 47.20, we have the simile of the janapadakaḷyāṇī. Ven Bodhi translates this as “the most beautiful girl in the land”. Ven Thanissaro has “beauty queen”. Woodward has “the fairest lass in all the country-side”.

Now, the thing is, the word janapadakaḷyāṇī says nothing about beauty. On the contrary, kalyāṇa is the standard word for “good”, as in “morally virtuous”. Sure, it can be extended further than that, but still. A word whose normal connotation is “quality, virtue, goodness” is rendered, by male translators, so as to refer to physical appearance alone.

I don’t mean to suggest that beauty is irrelevant. The janapadakaḷyāṇī is frequently referred to as the supreme object of male sexual desire, and obviously physical attractiveness plays a part. Compare modern terms like “celebrity” or “star”. We assume, rightly or wrongly, that they’re going to be beautiful. But it would be pretty insulting and reductive to simply say “beautiful girl” instead of “celebrity”.

Moreover, the sutta itself emphasizes her skills at dancing and singing. She’s a highly talented and trained entertainer, not just a “beauty queen”.

In addition, translations such as “girl” and “lass” go beyond objectifying to infantilizing. Once again, there is nothing in the term itself to suggest that she’s a “girl”. Maybe she was, but that’s not what the word says.

So how to render? Perhaps “the finest lady of the land” would do.

6 Likes

The texts, I mean… what can you do? These are just normal hazards to be encountered when reading Buddhist texts while female. Now we have great scholarship to help us understand this!

Nowadays what bothers me more is people reinforcing sexist ideals using the texts, which could hold women back from the holy life. That’s what sometimes makes me feel like I don’t belong in ‘Buddhism’ and that it’s time to trade in bodies. :disappointed:

But, ya know what - suffering! That’s Dhamma! Grist for the mill…

:clap:

4 Likes

Maaaaate! How’s about us blokes stop beating around the bush on these issues and quit knockin’ the sheilas!

2600 years later and we still having trouble coming to terms with it. I’m thinking sports commentators refering to female athletes based on appearance rather than say, I dunno, sporting ability perhaps?

http://www.vogue.com/13466818/sexist-moments-olympics-coverage/

3 Likes

What a shallow and bleak existence where only men that have a leading presence in Buddhism. I’m sure you’ve got friends on this forum that welcome and accept you just the way you are. You’ve got my support for one! :slight_smile: .

2 Likes

yet this appears to what have happened according to the narrative, which is a motive not unknown from elsewhere, namely the Gospel

the way males perceive females is heavily conditioned by biology and so as natural as sexual urges are and going to be relevant as long as them, i’m not sure it can ever be changed as long as gender roles are the same, be suppressed it can which doesn’t amount to changing male psyche
females too objectify males, don’t they? it’s only a problem because males dominate in almost all societies so objectification has sort of come to be considered an expression of power

i think one effective way of changing that is celibacy, which undermines the very foundations objectification of the opposite sex rests on, but it’s domain of a minority

1 Like

Sweet as, maaaate! It’s no wuckas ya know coz there’s no need to get heaps devo 'bout it ay. But 'on ya mate, I fully 'ppreciate it.

Hey thanks! :slight_smile: It’s not all so bad, these are just my darkest thoughts at times when I’m feeling a little sorry for myself. And I don’t mean to overshare, just to reveal how these things might hurt. The good news is it’s not only men now, we really have many truly awesome Buddhist women and truly exemplary Buddhist men to look up to which is awesome and I am so grateful for. We all face our battles, and for the most part I’m extremely happy and grateful for the opportunities I’ve had, and to be here!! Admittedly, it’s confusing, and a little unnerving to be a part of these discussions, and I am sorry if I have offended or misspoken in any way.
But thanks heaps ay. :thumbsup:

4 Likes

What do you mean? Can you please elaborate?

Yerh. I have sexual urges but (hopefully) that doesn’t mean I am a prisoner of chauvinism. Not saying you are chauvinistic - but defending chauvinism because guys have sexual urges is drawing a pretty long bow. I am pretty sure there’s a lot of males out there that are a little bit more sophisticated than that.

Yes maybe? Or maybe men can just decide not to be chauvinistic? I am gonna sound a bit preachy here but if we care about our fellow human beings we can put our sexist ideas aside. I don’t think we need to be Non-returners to do this. Heck, I don’t really think it’s that hard is it?

1 Like

There’s definitely nothing that has offended me and as far as I am concerned there’s no need to apologise.

Everything you’ve said is inspiring! I am grateful that you are one of only a handful of women on this forum so thank you!

3 Likes

MN 123 states that when the Bodhisatta was conceived, his mother was abstaining from sexual misconduct (kamesumicchacara):

Sammukhā metaṃ, bhante, bhagavato sutaṃ, sammukhā paṭiggahitaṃ: ‘yadā, ānanda, bodhisatto mātukucchiṃ okkanto hoti, pakatiyā sīlavatī bodhisattamātā hoti viratā pāṇātipātā viratā adinnādānā viratā kāmesu­micchā­cārā viratā musāvādā viratā surā­meraya­majja­pa­mā­daṭṭhānā’ti. Yampi, bhante … pe … idampāhaṃ, bhante, bhagavato acchariyaṃ abbhutadhammaṃ dhāremi.

“Venerable sir I have heard these words from the Blessed One himself and you acknowledged them. ‘Ānanda, when the one aspiring enlightenment, was born into this world from the mother’s womb, the mother by nature was virtuous, abstaining from, destroying living things, taking the not given, misbehaving sexually, telling lies and intoxicating drinks.’ Venerable sir, this I bear as something wonderful and surprising of the Blessed One.

This means that the Bodhisatta indeed is not conceived in a virgin birth. It is different from traditional account which said that his mother was abstaining from sexual activity (abrahmacariya) as told in Mahavastu and other biographical works of the Buddha.

3 Likes

we started with sexism and seamlessly switched to some stronger terms

i’m explaining it, not defending, by the natural factors and the weakness of human will in resisting them, the urges, emotions, desires and conditioning, something Buddhists i believe should be able to recognize better than anybody, which on the other hand can indeed be brought to its defense or rather of the people who allow their behavior be governed by their imperfect nature

where sexism causes discrimination, inequality and adversely effects people’s lives (not sentiments) it must be rooted out, but the general popular attitude is not easily changed for the very reason of it being underpinned by the nature

to some it’s not

Yes, the Buddha’s birth was definitely not regarded as virgin. However, a virgin birth and an immaculate conception are two different things even in Christianity, so we cannot rule out that the Buddha’s conception was thought to be immaculate. In fact, even in this paragraph the father is not mentioned at all.

On the other hand, this quote suggests that at some stage at least some people were okay with Mahamaya having sex with her own husband before the Buddha was conceived (or maybe even born?), a more liberal stance than the Christian view of Mary.

1 Like

It depends on how you define chauvinistic or, better said, sexist. I am totally okay with reasonable definitions requesting equality of rigths and opportunities (by the way, equality of rights is non-existent here in some European countries because women have more rights than men, while the equality of opportunities could be an issue). At the same time, being a lay male person, I can’t help looking at women in some special ways, just as lay women can’t help doing the same things with men. There are situations where pretty much any undeveloped person, no matter whether monastic or lay, thinks of other people first and foremost in terms of sexual craving, regards them as a sexual object. It is inevitable if you don’t train your mind.

I can make a conscious decision to not be chauvinistic and provide women with equal oppotunities and respect their rights, but I cannot have an absolute control over my sexual urges and the way I perceive other people unless I am a highly accomplished practitioner. Mind you, I didn’t say I don’t want to control them, I do and I should, my point is that unless you are pretty far on the Path, you can’t have an absolute control over these things. I may be ashamed of my thoughts later, but at the very moment they happen, I am not having control over them.

And yes, I can understand why women may be irritated by being objectified. I am a member in a relatively popular community posting links to social network profiles of dead people (I visit it to meditate on my own mortality). By far the most frequent comment made under a link to a handsome guy’s profile is ‘Oh, he was sooooo cute, it’s such a shame…’ The male members leave comments like this as well but they are rarer and liked a lot less. I think many if not most men do make such comments in their heads but prefer to not share them. Being a single male student in a group of at least 20 other ladies, I learned a lot about men being objectified and how annoying it is. Women I know made fewer comments on… erm… specific physical features of handsome gentlemen, but the terms they used were still unambiguous and didn’t refer to their high personal virtue or bright intelligence. That said, I am afraid this is still unavoidable to a pretty large extent and should be seen as a reason to practice Dhamma more. This way, we will learn to have control over our urges and not be upset about other people objectifiying us.

With most people not being highly developed practitioners, it is inevitable objectivisation will stay with us till the humanity perishes, just like war, greed, hatred and other consequence of our deluded state, and I think this was actually the point @LXNDR made rather than trying to defend chauvinism or sexism or whatever.

2 Likes

Yep, that’s exactly what I thought of.

:pray:

Dear @stuindhamma,

My take on this is that most of those are additions. But consider the following:

  • The Buddha was born in a a place and time where religious people of many ideas were welcomed and highly supported and where civilization has taken root. No Buddhas can arise where there is not enough supporting conditions.

  • Because of his past good kamma in previous lives of being a monk, it is expected that he would be born in a well to do family. Mind you that he was even born as a wheel maker in his past lives but one thing that remains evident is his mindfulness because even as a humble wheel maker, he was astute and observant in his profession.

  • In our world, it is the male that is more dominant hence that is why the Buddha was born a man. If it was the other way around, of course the Buddha would have been a female. We must remind ourselves that the Buddhas are part of nature and they will arise accordingly. The Buddha eventually transcended the idea of male and female anyway :smile: But the sad thing is a lot of females get turned off when it comes to Buddhism because they can’t get past that the Buddha was a man.

  • In addition to Bhante Sujatos remark about death and loss, you can add contention as one of the keys that drove the bodhisatta to finally go on his journey:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.4.15.olen.html

Moreover since we are talking about the Buddha’s life as a lay person, I think that when Rāhula was born, he felt his child is beset with all the suffering he has experienced and saw for himself, which finally made him go in search for liberation. He would have gone much earlier before his son was born but why did it take much longer?

Just my thoughts.

Happy vassa!

in mettā,
russ

:pray:

1 Like

There’s a lot of things there that I should probably respond to, but this:

Seriously?

1 Like