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
IMHO we are all trying to make mountains out of a molecule. As I understand it, the Buddha says “young men, There is suffering, instead of searching for an escape from it, why are you all searching for a woman”.
What the Sutta does not say is whether the other women who were with the men also listened to the discourse and made any attainments. Most likely it would have been the outcome because it is unlikely that all the women had to go back home alone.
If the Sutta had said that the women too attained stream entry no one probably would ask these questions today.
With Metta
Bhante, this is fine for itthiyā and vo, but you have left the interrogative kiṁ unanalysed, assuming in each case that it means “What?” However, in the commentaries the word is not infrequently glossed as kasmā or kena which would give us a why or a how question.
To quote an example from one of your own translations:
I note that both the Mahachula Thai translators and Ven. Ānandajoti in his Mahākhandhaka translation have in fact treated kiṁ pana vo kumārā itthiyā as a why question.
Mahachula:
พวกเธอมีความต้องการหญิงไปทำไม
“Why do you have a desire [or need] for a woman?”
As far as I know Ajahn Thanissaro hasn’t translated any of the books of the Vinaya Pitaka. In his Buddhist Monastic Code he has translated many passages from the Vinaya, but I doubt the Bhaddavaggiyasahāyaka episode would be one of them.
Yes. But what are we to do with this information in the context of this thread? It doesn’t change the reality that
Of course transcending all identification is the ultimate goal. Most people on this forum know this. But we don’t live in a vacuum. These things do affect people. Buddhist women and minorities are often reminded of these teachings not as a compassionate response but dismissal. And while these teachings are very important and to be practiced by all of us; I’m concerned that in the context of this particular thread, your comment might not help those who need help with the original question.
What do you think, is it likely that a Buddhist woman will see your comment and think “Oh, right! Silly me, how did I forget”?
It can be inferred that all of these verses can be applied to both sexes. It might just as well been a woman asking
What should we do about men?
Not seeing
What if we have to see them?
Not talking
… etc
I think that it is important to clearly say what is and isn’t the teacher’s message and that we do not make it into something that it isn’t.
For this reason i was compelled to make the last post and as much as it might be disagreeable to some i find the encouragement to offer one’s heart, ear & eyes to a woman straight evil.
Plucking out her lovely eye,
with mind unattached
she felt no regret.
“Here, take this eye. It’s yours.”
Straightaway she gave it to him.
Straightaway his passion faded right there,
and he begged her forgiveness. Thig14.1
Likewise if a man encouraged women to stay bonded i would take an issue with that.
I don’t think females need to be protected from the texts or that the teachings should be made psychologically pleasing to them. I think women are plenty capable of figuring things out and doing the work.
I can’t comment for Bhante @sujato, but personally, I feel that questions beginning with “why” belong to a slightly more formal register of English and are not really that commonly used in spoken Australian English unless you actually want to interrogate someone (or with an additional softener, like “Can I ask why…?”)
So while translating as “why” is technically correct, it makes the English register unnatural. I know not everyone can stomach a dangling preposition, but that’s why I went for softer “what for”.
Also: I’m glad you are out of retreat Bhante @Dhammanando, the internet wasn’t the same without you.
Exactly this kind of problem arises within every scriptural tradition. In teaching ancient texts I have found it helpful to remind students of the following:
Writings intended for an audience thousands of years ago are bound by social ideas of their time just as much as they are by the vocabulary and grammar of their languages. Ancient scriptures require translation of concepts as much as they do language, and a word-for-word translation is not always a fair representation of content.
The important question is not whether a classical text espouses views that would not be acceptable today—you may be sure it will. Being cross with ancient India for not being modern Boston is one of the less useful ways of approaching a text. The question we should ask is whether the problematic statements are structurally essential to the text as a whole, or whether they can be regarded as merely quaint relics of bygone times.
Ancient texts will be sexist and homophobic. Count on it. There’s no way to put a good face on this. But to focus on trace elements of vanished cultures to the exclusion of the explicitly and consciously developed content is to miss the really important points.
A sobering thought, which should lead to a more generous view of ancient texts, is the consideration of our own failures of awareness. My neighbors all drive enormous SUV’s. It doesn’t seem to occur to them that this is an eco-crime. My neighbors are not however criminals: they have a failure of awareness. To berate them is unlikely to improve their understanding.
Failures of awareness are part of the human condition, and human documents, however supernally true, will have flaws that are inescapable when communicating to humans in a particular historical situation.
So yes, there’s sexism in the Pali texts, and trying to candy this over with exegesis only persuades people we are intellectually dishonest. But sexism is not a structurally significant part of the Dharma, and to pretend that it is only persuades people we are captious and self-obsessed. It is there, it’s not right, and it will be hurtful until we advance as a society to where we can view it as a curious delusion of ancient folk without contemporary relevance.
It is our duty to be honest about flaws in our belief systems. It is equally our duty to regard people as beings who essentially mean well and can learn better.
I think you are being impolite here, what about blind people do they need to learn Pali too ?
While I agree that expertise In Pali might clear any possible misunderstanding I don’t think it’s necessary, Buddha never ask us to learn Pali to attain nibbana
This is true as far as it goes. But the reality is that in any language certain combinations of words are far more likely than others. To discover these combinations is an enormous amount of work, but fortunately we have dictionaries. In the present case, it seems the combination of kiṁ with the instrumental case is standard (see DOP, sv. ka), and the meaning is “what is the use of …”, or something similar. I therefore take this to be the most likely meaning of the Pali here.
Still, we need to get the right nuance. Since the English word “use” has unfortunate connotations, I have now chosen a less direct rendering:
“But, young men, why look for a woman?” Kiṁ pana vo, kumārā, itthiyti.
I have also decided to change “prostitute” to “sex worker”. According to Open Society Foundations, the difference between the two terms is as follows:
The term “sex worker” recognizes that sex work is work. Prostitution, on the other hand, has connotations of criminality and immorality.
The evidence from the Canon suggests that “sex worker” is the more appropriate term. It is clear that there were women in ancient India who made a living from selling sex, but there is little evidence, so far as I know, of any criminal activity involved. Moreover, there is little no indication that sex work was considered immoral.
