Yes but why would it shorten lifespan of Dhamma in this world?
I can’t believe that is true anyway, because we still have true dhamma and true teachings of the Buddha, so the prediction is wrong. OR will you argue the Dhamma we have is not true and in that case it should be disregarded anyway.
There is no such thing as ‘comteporary’ and ‘past’ wisdom. Wisdom is wisdom. The Buddha and arahants of the past were humans just like us. They inspected, evaluated and knew this world and it’s problems for themselves, and won their liberation for themselves, just as we can.
I disagree, at least regarding the patriarchal assessment. That can be ascertained objectively, that society followed a patriarchal pattern.
So you are saying that beginners should operate according to gender identity, even though it is ultimately false? That unenlightened women need to be held to a stricter and more punitive standard than unenlightened men?
Who might not have been aware how things changed for women of the future.
So in this case, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering’ — then you should abandon them.
Yes but why should this be the case? If we cannot find a good reason that supports skillfulness, then why? ‘Just cause’ is not a good answer.
Not true, there were other female ascetics and nun orders.