Yes, it was said from the POV of the narrator. The same applies to both genders.
1 Like
Not wishing to offend or disrespect anyone, but how would this apply to a gay monk? For example all the other monks could be considered as a temptation to a gay monk. Therefore would they be male temters as opposed to female temptresses? Could the neuter ‘tempter’ be used instead, keeping in mind it is the perceiver who is the one feeling the temptation?
The word is specifically female, with the word ‘mātā’ mother’. But yes, perhaps that’s the sense of it.
And of course, as it has been stated, the problem actually lies in the mind of the tempted, not the tempter.
1 Like
Well, if we delve a little bit further into it -
- (Statement retracted)
- Both the Māra-nature and the Buddha-nature are in reality present within one and the same person (and they aren’t to be looked at as mythological externalities i.e. the way some of us misunderstand Māra to be an external mythological demon). One is an antithesis of the other and there is a perpetual fight between them in the mind of the same individual. The Māra nature (being the personification of lust) is gender-neutral (it applies to all orientations and genders), even though Māra himself is depicted as male. Māra cannot be permanently defeated even by the Buddha hence Māra’s attacks on the Buddha’s mind don’t cease even after nirvāṇa. The Buddha and other arhats still have to contend with him when he appears periodically. To the Buddha and the male bhikṣus, it is the mātṛgrāma who create a space for Māra’s appearance (within their own minds). This is why I said above that it is not a fault of the mātṛgrāma/womankind that Māra appears (i.e. it is not anything they do), but the fault is with the bhikṣus or the Buddha themselves that Māra appears within them, and then the Buddha-nature has to then defeat the Māra-nature (temporarily) before he resurfaces again. Māra and the Buddha were both depicted as warriors, and the Buddha is depicted as the victor in their battles. For bhikṣunis, Māra nature could appear within themselves when they meet menfolk, a space for Māra’s appearance is created in their own minds until their own Buddha-nature is able to defeat their own Māra-nature.
I am sceptical of your assertion LGQBT are paṇḍaka. The word itself can also mean jaundice or weak. A brief look at the context it appears in might even suggest it means someone who is addicted to sexual lust, an individual who has weak or not restraint when it comes to sexual urges regardless of gender or sexual orientation.
4 Likes
This topic has been discussed a lot on the forum, see for example:
- The meaning of paṇḍaka in light of the Vedic and Jain scriptures
- What is the 'legal' thing to do here (about transgender going forth)?
- Through the Yellow Gate: Ordination of Gender-Nonconforming People in the Buddhist Vinaya
- Becoming Jivaka - the story of the first transgender monk
Just to note a few threads.
11 Likes
Neither of these things are true.
- paṇḍaka is a complex and difficult term with social, physiological, and supernatural elements that clearly does not map on to what we consider LGBTQ today.
- same-sex relationships and gender transitioning are treated as absolutely normal in the Vinaya and are dealt with in the same way as any other sexual matters.
8 Likes
OK thanks @sujato @sabbamitta & @AniOrgyen - I have retracted that statement. Paṇḍaka isn’t an umbrella term equal to the modern LGQBT but rather equal to some part of it.
oo I like that. Reminding the monks to respect the women. Definitely a very different feel from “females” and captures the neologistic aspect of the term as well.
3 Likes
Does “motherkind” also work in plural? “Motherkinds”?—No, there are no different kinds of mothers, at least that’s not what is meant … 
3 Likes
Oof, it’s extremely grating to have to read this kind of bigotry on this forum. Can you please keep these opinions to yourself?
1 Like
AN 4.80 does seem a bit misogynistic.
How are we to understand the seemingly categorical statement that:
“Females are irritable, jealous, stingy, and unintelligent. This is the cause, this is the reason why females don’t attend council meetings, work for a living, or travel.”
This seems to fly counter to many of the more progressive teachings found in the suttas. Is this a late addition?
1 Like
I find your above statement problematic in the following ways:
- Perhaps you are assuming that what exactly you find grating is extremely obvious to me - but I am rather totally in the dark (and with no mind-reading abilities of any sort) and expect you to quote/say explicitly what (in your opinion) is bigoted and why.
- I see a high horse judgemental and confrontational attitude (not attempting to engage in discussion, ask for specific corrections or offer constructive advice on specific points).
- I see you assuming bad faith right off the bat.
- If it was a sincere comment or criticism, it could have been made privately, and I am ready to explain or fix potentially problematic statements (I have done so in the past and am happy to do in future).
- Attempting to publicly shame people (calling people bigoted etc) or by making other such personal attacks i.e. not attempting to engage respectfully.
- Attempting to silence people by character assassination (“keep these opinions to yourself”)
I sincerely hope I’ve not misread your intent, but if I have, I apologize in advance.
In a discussion about social attitudes that once prevailed, there are bound to be differences of opinion of an academic nature - Not sure if you have learned to distinguish my ‘readings/understanding’ and ‘explanations’ of what the Pali canon states – from my own personal social attitudes. I have not stated anything here about my personal attitudes, so I have no clue how you find anything about me in what I said about the worldview in which the word mātṛgrāma/mātugāma is used.
2 Likes
You don’t have to post about which presently existing minorities you think the Buddha wouldn’t have approved of. So don’t! 
1 Like
Sorry but it’s looking like you are ranting - that too about an already retracted statement. I retracted my original statement as I didn’t want to argue about it or offend anyone (after discussing about it with other moderators) not because I couldn’t defend or substantiate that statement.
If there is still an active moderation issue I am happy to discuss it again with the moderator team and/or make further changes.
I don’t see your personal rant (accusing my academic opinion of being bigotry) as having a moderating effect unfortunately, so I wonder what your intention is.
I’m sorry, but what have Yin and Yang have to do with philosophy and religions of Ancient India?..
1 Like
It can describe and explain what we are stuck and cannot understand. The Buddha may know about this “Yin/Yang” or positive/negative principles because they belong to nature, not Chinese’s.
This is a point of view of certain religions. And none of this religions is Buddhism.
As a woman I can say (my opinion only) that this view is inherently sexist and degrading to women. So I can’t say that Buddha didn’t believe in Yin and Yang, but I doubt it because Buddha was not sexist.
1 Like
We can see it that way because of our own view. However, that’s how nature works. Negative and positive force are actually just the same force, but in different aspect. They have their different functions. They are against each other, but also support each other.
Nature is dualism. We have day and night, good and bad, male and female… Day will eventually become night, good will change to bad…That’s how nature is.
Please stop.
This has nothing to do with the topic, or with Buddhism, or with the “East”, or despite what you say, with “nature”. It is a philosophy invented by men in order to assign women a subordinate position in their patriarchal society.
The Buddha never endorsed this nonsense. Nor, to be clear, did any of the classical Chinese philosophers, for whom this simplistic dualism was unknown.
How anyone can say this stuff with a straight face is beyond me. Seen any good wars started by women lately?
This is the problem with these kinds of faux-eastern “wisdoms”. They start with an apparently obvious basic principle, then proceed to apply it in a way that suits the preconceptions of the person making it, despite the overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary. They explain nothing and hide everything. And they appropriate the genuine insights of Chinese philosophers in a reductive way that makes them seem small and bigoted.
I want to make myself perfectly clear here. I set up this forum to be a place where all people, including women and non-binary folk, can come and participate as equals with friendliness and respect without having to battle the wearying and degrading insistence on their inferiority that characterizes the worst of all cultures, especially in “spiritual” circles. We support and encourage women here.
If you are not in alignment with this, leave.
13 Likes