Many of the texts of the Sutta Pitaka are aimed at motivating monks to quickly let go of attachment to life forms. These life forms are numerous. In fact, it can be said that whatever concepts we hold about life, whether it is a good concept or a bad concept, it is always related to the forms of life. Later, a good concept of life form, when grasped, will become the impetus for rebirth in a pleasant realm. While the bad concept of life forms, when grasped, will become the impetus for rebirth in an unpleasant world. Because of this, many Sutta texts encourage monks to see life as danger, ulcers, pus… This can be stressful for non-monk householders who are passionate about life forms.
Gender concepts such as men, women, those are all concepts of life forms. Then it’s all pushed to be seen as ulcers, pus… of course it’s natural that this can be stressful, nauseous, for people who really love, grasp, life forms. Have not seen life forms as the reality of dukkha.
My bad. Whilst I did try to read the word used in its immediate context, I didn’t read the whole of the text. … I shall go and do so before I contribute further.
Thank you for helping us women out here Bhante.
EDIT: And even when I’ve read the text in English, my Pali is too poor to read the original, and I’m not an antropologist of Iron Age India … so actually my hope of understanding all this … is hopelessly abysmal.
Exactly this idea is what I don’t tolerate.
This kind of approach in texts has but one reason:
to make it clear to all readers that monks did not
permit women to co-write the texts.
We could just start by acknowledging this truth
in stead of saying that someone is doubting the Buddha.
I have no reason to doubt the Buddha, he got enlightened.
I don’t think that Buddha said anything wrong. He saw that those men have potential and for that reason asked this question. He understood that they were ready to “go further”.
I also think that in today’s world we are getting too much involved in thinking “he/she” - every sentence needs to be gender right or neutral. Why?
In Germany they say it’s sexist that Santa Claus is a man…??? He WAS a man, a monk called St Nicholas. We can’t just make a female out of him.
I also ask myself why analysing the prostitute? The text has a meaning. Be celibate. Be not distracted. Listen to the teaching and take the teaching in. That’s how one develops on the path.
I am happy when people respect me for “what I am” and not because they are using “political correct” language.
There are women in this world who like to be prostitutes and there are women who are slaves. But this is not what this Sutta is about. Buddha always taught against sense desire and greed. The path of purification.
Buddha also taught that if we can change it - change it. If not, carry on with your practice. That’s what I try to follow when sorrow about injustice overcomes me. May you all be well and safe.
The problem here really starts with interpreting the Pali. The phrase
which I have rendered
“But, young men, what use is a woman to you?”
is actually an idiomatic expression that needs drawing out to make sense in English. Quite literally it might be translated as follows:
“But what for you, young men, with a woman?”
A number of other translation are possible, depending on the case of vo and itthiyā. Then you have to decide what it means. The commentaries say nothing, which makes the matter even more difficult.
Still, I think the context makes it fairly clear what is meant. The Buddha seems to have spotted their spiritual potential. He then tries to draw them away from sensuality towards the spiritual path. To my mind, the Buddha is actually saying, “What use is sensuality to you?” The Buddha clearly got it right, since they all ended up as stream-enterers.
It might be, however, that my rendering is not quite optimal. Perhaps a more elliptical rendering such as, “But, young men, why look for a women?” would be both clearer and more sensitive at the same time? If anyone has any suggestions for how the translation can be improved, I would be most happy to hear from you.
Then there is the word “prostitute”. Perhaps “sex worker” would be better?
that is permitting the feedback of translation choices.
However, it should be noted that it’s believed that the Pali wordings are believed to be preserved verbatim all the way from the Buddha. It’s problematic if there’s a proposal to want to change those Pali texts to suit whatever happens to be politically correct at the moment in the world. Eg. veganism Even though I am vegan and very pro-vegan, I don’t think it’s right to modify the Pali suttas to change the meaning to Buddha makes veganism compulsory!
Let’s not worry about the wordings too, but get to the meanings. As I mentioned, there’s plenty of suttas elsewhere which I dare not quote to you due to your reactions which are better read entirely from the monk’s point of view. It’s death in the discipline of the noble ones to disrobe and go back to the lower life. Parajika 1 (having sex as a monk) is a lifetime ban from becoming a monk, and an auto disrobe offence, as well as a kamma worthy of hell. Sangadisesa 1 (no intentional ejaculation) is no fun either, being so troublesome to recover from it, and troubling 20 other monks to do so.
To have the monks give super-wide distance from women and lust is one of the strategies to help. It’s those who had become non-returners onwards who are safer to be able to interact with women, as they have eradicated lust. Ananda asked the Buddha on how to deal with women. Don’t look at them, if you must look, don’t talk to them, if you must talk, guard your mind. So we shouldn’t expect that some strategies shouldn’t be employed by the monks if they can.
Most importantly, as long as any views about women are not used to oppress women, hurt their feelings, promote inequality in lay society etc. Just keep this in mind, in case you come across those suttas one day. When I first came across them, it really strikes me as it’s meant for monks only, not for lay women, especially in this political climate, so when viewing in the lens of monks only, I see that there’s less of an issue for me.
Suttas are for everyone who wants to live by it. Regardless of being a monastic or layperson. Of course is a monastic looking differently at it, as a monastic is bound by the Vinaya. We are all in it for the same - freedom of suffering. Have a successful journey
I thought from the context, I was specifically referring to the exact suttas which lay women folks would find sexist, misogynistic, and get offended etc. Anyway, you’re free to google up exactly which ones are they. I don’t recommend doing so, judging from your reaction.
And I should also clarify that from:
It means that the meaning behind those suttas can be easily generalized, as long as one doesn’t cling onto gender identity as the default lens to read the suttas. I don’t mean to be sexist/ misogynistic etc, but I think this gender issue thing is too hot for me to handle skillfully at the moment. Too easily people can read sexist remarks from me when I made it clear that it’s not that intent. @Ratana And @Alex70 got my meaning right and helped to get my wordings to be generalized.
I’m just going to break down the grammar here a little bit. There are a few interlocking problems that make a precise rendering difficult.
First is that a feminine word like itthī has an ambiguous declension: instrumental (“by a woman” or “use of a woman”), ablative (“from a woman”), dative (“for a woman”), genitive (“of a woman”). Likewise, the pronoun vo can be accusative (“to y’all”), instrumental (“by y’all”), dative (“for y’all”) and genitive (“of y’all”).
Normally a sentence gives more information to sort out the sense, but here, it’s pretty terse. There’s not even a verb!
The real complexity then comes in because each of these grammatical cases can have multiple senses. And finally, it sometimes happens that usage doesn’t really fit in with any case, so we end up saying, “it’s an exception!”
We might have the following readings based on different assumptions as to the grammar.
instrumental (of means): “what use is a woman to y’all”
instrumental (of cause): “what effect would a woman have on y’all?”
instrumental (of action): “what does a woman do for y’all?”
ablative: “what do you have from a woman?” (perhaps even “what do you have that you owe to a woman?”)
genitive: “what does a woman have for you?” (I.e. “what does a woman have that you want?”)
dative: “what do you have for a woman?”
Note that all these extrapolate to some degree from the text. The last one is interesting. It’s entirely possible to read it as saying, “But what do you really have to offer a woman?”
Then of course, it might be an unknown idiom, or a corrupted passage, or—and this is quite probable—a late passage (this entire narrative portion is replete with late elements). Finally, we’d want to check Sanskrit, Tibetan, or Chinese parallels.
So, perhaps don’t throw the whole Dhamma out quite yet?
Having plunged into the Blind Men’s Grove, she sat down at the foot of a tree for the day’s abiding.
Then Mara the Evil One, desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and terror in the bhikkhuni Soma, desiring to make her fall away from concentration, approached her and addressed her in verse:
“That state so hard to achieve
Which is to be attained by the seers,
Can’t be attained by a woman
With her two-fingered wisdom.”
Then it occurred to the bhikkhuni Soma: “Now who is this that recited the verse—a human being or a nonhuman being?” Then it occurred to her: “This is Mara the Evil One, who has recited the verse desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and terror in me, desiring to make me fall away from concentration.”
Then the bhikkhuni Soma, having understood, “This is Mara the Evil One,” replied to him in verses:
“What does womanhood matter at all
When the mind is concentrated well,
When knowledge flows on steadily
As one sees correctly into Dhamma.
“One to whom it might occur,
‘I’m a woman’ or ‘I’m a man’
Or ‘I’m anything at all’—
Is fit for Mara to address.”
Then Mara the Evil One, realizing, “The bhikkhuni Soma knows me,” sad and disappointed, disappeared right there. Sn5.2
Leaving aside Master Gotama, the monks, the nuns, the celibate laymen, and the laymen enjoying sensual pleasures, is there even a single laywoman disciple of Master Gotama—white-clothed and celibate—who, with the ending of the five lower fetters, is reborn spontaneously, to be extinguished there, not liable to return from that world?”
“There are not just one hundred such celibate laywomen who are my disciples, Vaccha, or two or three or four or five hundred, but many more than that.”
“Leaving aside Master Gotama, the monks, the nuns, the celibate laymen, the laymen enjoying sensual pleasures, and the celibate laywomen, is there even a single laywoman disciple of Master Gotama—white-clothed, enjoying sensual pleasures, following instructions, and responding to advice—who has gone beyond doubt, got rid of indecision, and lives self-assured and independent of others regarding the Teacher’s instruction?”
“There are not just one hundred such laywomen enjoying sensual pleasures who are my disciples, Vaccha, or two or three or four or five hundred, but many more than that.”
“If Master Gotama was the only one to succeed in this teaching, not any monks, then this spiritual path would be incomplete in that respect. But because both Master Gotama and monks have succeeded in this teaching, this spiritual path is complete in that respect.
If Master Gotama and the monks were the only ones to succeed in this teaching, not any nuns … celibate laymen … laymen enjoying sensual pleasures … celibate laywomen …
laywomen enjoying sensual pleasures, then this spiritual path would be incomplete in that respect. But because Master Gotama, monks, nuns, celibate laymen, laymen enjoying sensual pleasures, celibate laywomen, and laywomen enjoying sensual pleasures have all succeeded in this teaching, this spiritual path is complete in that respect. Mn73
The suttas are difficult for people for a different reason;
Enough now with teaching
what
only with difficulty
I reached.
This Dhamma is not easily realized
by those overcome
with aversion & passion.
What is abstruse, subtle,
deep,
hard to see,
going against the flow —
those delighting in passion,
cloaked in the mass of darkness,
won’t see. Sn6.1
My grade nine social sciences teacher once called me an “erudite ne’er-do-weller”, which is probably as close as I come to being a scholar, but thank you.
There’s not really enough to unpack in this text to be interesting to me TBH. It’s a minor vinaya narrative, not an attempt to outline a Buddhist systematic theory of gender.
I had assumed they were having a picnic and the friends had arranged a (paid) escort for the unmarried male friend, which I guess means business for her. Fairly PG.
Maybe the text is androcentric, but I don’t see this as being demeaning to women. Perhaps something of the tone of the Pali hasn’t carried over in translation, as it makes sense (and is actually quite intelligent and witty due to the double meaning) to say Kiṁ pana vo, kumārā, itthiyāti that way in Pali. English could alternatively read, “But, young men, what use is a woman to you?”=“What are you looking for a woman for?” or even “What do you need a woman for?” (implying there is no benefit).
There is one sutta saying that one has to give up the fetter of householdship in order to attain the final goal of arahantship.
Apart from that text, pertaining to the utter most final goal, i can’t recall a single sutta saying liberation is only for monks.
Here are some passages that may clear it up;
But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising are hard to see.
“No wonder you don’t understand, Vaccha, no wonder you’re confused. For this principle is deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute. It’s hard for you to understand, since you have a different view, creed, preference, practice, and tradition. Mn72
(1) “This Dhamma is for one with few desires, not for one with strong desires. (2) This Dhamma is for one who is content, not for one who is discontent. (3) This Dhamma is for one who resorts to solitude, not for one who delights in company. (4) This Dhamma is for one who is energetic, not for one who is lazy. (5) This Dhamma is for one with mindfulness established, not for one who is muddle-minded. (6) This Dhamma is for one who is concentrated, not for one who is unconcentrated. (7) This Dhamma is for one who is wise, not for one who is unwise.” an8.30
This seems to be a challenging topic since it is so emotive! To assist participants in framing their replies in accordance with Right Speech and the forum rules, Slow Mode has been engaged. Let’s all take a deep breath!!
The Lord has instructed one to transcend things like feminity and masculinity;
The Blessed One said: "A woman attends inwardly to her feminine faculties, her feminine gestures, her feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voice, feminine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, she attends outwardly to masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voices, masculine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, she wants to be bonded to what is outside her, wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Delighting, caught up in her femininity, a woman goes into bondage with reference to men. This is how a woman does not transcend her femininity.
"A man attends inwardly to his masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voice, masculine charms. He is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, he attends outwardly to feminine faculties, feminine gestures, feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voices, feminine charms. He is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, he wants to be bonded to what is outside him, wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Delighting, caught up in his masculinity, a man goes into bondage with reference to women. This is how a man does not transcend his masculinity. Sn7.48
That reminds me exactly of things not to be done
Then the Venerable Ananda said to the Blessed One: “How, Lord, should we conduct ourselves towards women?”
“Do not see them, Ananda.”
“But, Lord, if we do see them?”
“Do not speak, Ananda.”
“But, Lord, if they should speak to us?”
"Then, Ananda, you should establish mindfulness Dn16
A fearless heart is one unbound.
283-285 Dhammapada
Cut down the forest of desire, not the forest of trees. From the forest of desire come danger & fear. Having cut down this forest & its underbrush, monks, be deforested. For as long as the least bit of underbrush of a man for women is not cleared away, the heart is fixated like a suckling calf on its mother. Crush your sense of self-allure like an autumn lily in the hand. Nurture only the path to peace — Unbinding — as taught by the One Well Gone
