Irrelevancy in a gendered world

it might be helpful to post links to SuttaCentral translations… I cannot do this at this time, as i must rest.

perhaps someone can step up? or i can perhaps do it sometime after 14 hours…

The wiki-link I have posted puts the source in the ‘Anguttara Nikaya’. It says the slave-wife submits to every wish her husband has and is also willing to endure physical abuse - repeated abuse - without complaint. What would every wish of a violent husband entail - I wonder? We may need to seek clarification on this teaching from the wise?

"The slave-wife (dasisama or dasibhariya -dasi in Pali appears to mean “slave-woman” or “slave-servant”. Alternate translations include “slave-like wife”, “handmaid-wife” and “maid-wife”) – she is patient, unangered, and submits to his will. She obediently receives physical punishment whenever her husband so desires to deliver it, and is unquestionably submissive to him.

After speaking these things, Sujata was deeply moved by Buddha’s words. Upon being asked which wife she was to be, she answered: “I am to be the last of the wives, the slave-wife to my husband.” -Sujata and seven types of wives - Wikipedia

From what I gather this is a Jataka-story that involves a Buddha and Sujata. It would have to be the most unsettling Jataka story I have come across!

As slavery was practiced during the Buddha’s lifetime there may have been some understanding of how slave-wives were actually treated by their husbands. If polygamy was practiced perhaps elites could have a number of wives - some of them being slaves?

According to the research the police are involved in the prostitution and other law enforcement personnel.

@laurence As is every country in the world. As I said, why single out Thailand? If you talked about these kind of things in general, I wouldn’t have any problems. For some reasons, many western people, or those who have western background, tend to pick Thailand as an example of these kind of things, when other countries are worse.

1 Like

I was responding to a comment made earlier about Buddhism and the treatment of women and Thailand was also mentioned in another comment - that is why Thailand came into focus. Yes, its true that bad things happen all over the place - some more than others.

We can hope that the Buddha did not teach this to a married female follower as it makes the Koranic-verse on the disciplining of wives - by husbands - for noncooperation look ‘kind’ by comparison. This Buddhist teaching does not require a husband to provide a reason for the violence and it does not specify how it should be carried out.

Its strange that the slave/master relationship is the last one mentioned and ‘accepted’ by the devoted and newly awakened disciple. A relationship based on friendship and companionship did not seem the ‘best choice’ among the ones on offer as it was mentioned earlier or, is that just a coincidence?

Its strange how nobody seems to want to offer their insights into this anomalous teaching. The silence is telling don’t you think?

Here’s most of the sutta:

“Sujātā, a man can have seven kinds of wife. What seven? A wife like a killer, a wife like a thief, a wife like a lord, a wife like a mother, a wife like a sister, a wife like a friend, and a wife like a bondservant. These are the kinds of wife that a man can have. Which one of these are you?” “Sir, I don’t understand the detailed meaning of what the Buddha has said in brief. Please teach me this matter so I can understand the detailed meaning.” “Well then, Sujātā, listen and pay close attention, I will speak.” “Yes, sir,” she replied. The Buddha said this:

“With a mind full of hate and no kindness,
lusting for others, looking down on her husband,
she longs to murder the one who paid the price for her.
A man’s wife of this sort
is called a wife and a murderer.

A woman’s husband earns his wealth
by working at a profession, trade, or farming.
And even if it’s only a little, she wants to take it.
A man’s wife of this sort
is called a wife and a thief.

She’s an idle glutton who doesn’t want to work.
Her words are harsh, fierce, and rude.
She rules over him, though he rises early.
A man’s wife of this sort
is called a wife and a lord.

She’s always caring and kind,
looking after her husband like a mother her child.
She keeps the wealth that he’s earned secure.
A man’s wife of this sort
is called a wife and a mother.

She respects her husband
as a younger sister respects her elder.
Conscientious, she does what her husband says.
A man’s wife of this sort
is called a wife and a sister.

She’s delighted to see him,
like one reunited with a long-lost friend.
She’s well-raised, virtuous, and devoted.
A man’s wife of this sort
is called a wife and a friend.

She has no anger when threatened with violence by the rod.
Without hate or anger,
she endures her husband and does what he says.
A man’s wife of this sort
is called a wife and a bondservant.

The kinds of wives here called
murderer, thief, and lord;
unethical, harsh, and rude,
when their body breaks up they go to hell.
But the kinds of wives here called
mother, sister, friend, and bondservant;
steadfast in their own morality, restrained for a long time,
when their body breaks up they go to a good place.”

Sujātā, these are the seven kinds of wife that a man can have. Which one of these are you?” “Sir, from this day forth may the Buddha remember me as a wife like a bondservant.” - SuttaCentral

1 Like

I can see how a marriage partner could be like one of these or, may embody combinations of the above at different times for different reasons. I just don’t see why the bonded servant/master option would be listed as kusala/skilful. It is portrayed as a beneficial option leading to a blissful rebirth on a higher plain. I understand that in the good old days this kind of married relationship was seen as exemplary as it still is in some traditional cultures today. It was not long ago that a man owned his wife - a master/slave dynamic was commonplace - the violence was optional. I wonder, if a layman disciple had received this teaching about different kinds of husband’s and chose to be a ‘slave husband’ would this be seen as virtuous, a proper role for a man to play in a marriage?

What if a Buddhist woman were to decide to follow in ‘Sujata’s’ footsteps - one of our loved ones - and enter a marriage that turned her into a slave-wife, would we advice against that type of relationship out of concern for their welfare - on every level? Or, would we say: if its good enough for a Buddhist saint it is probably a good option?

A very minor point, but one which might be helpful: not a slave husband, but an enslaver husband. Though in the story, this is a passive role, accepted perhaps by the story-buddha and perhaps by the husband.

Is passive acceptance of enslaver husband consistent with the N8FP? Odd Jataka story indeed, disturbing. Thoughts?

Yes, an enslaver is even more disturbing, apparently, an acceptable norm at the time - even by a Buddha - not requiring spiritual guidance and correction. Noisy women, well, that’s something that needs attention! It may lead to unrest in married life but, enslavement is OK? What should we do when we find teachings like these in the midst of beneficial ones? Should we just pass over them in silence or rage at the dying of the light? Should we speak out against this traditional understanding of marriage as ‘virtuous’ or just ignore it - to tired and sceptical to bother?

i think this question is perhaps best addressed by lay men and monastic men. Though of course how women react is important to us individually, as well as a factor for some men individually. Maybe collectively too.

May all beings liberate, in this very life.
:anjal:

1 Like

We could consider the slave/master relationship in general and just say this isn’t any good - period - there is to much collateral damage.

Then, we might extrapolate from this all sorts of relationships we have with each other that have this kind of dynamic and, question whether we want to live that way?

There are other relationships we can have with each other that follow a similar pattern - don’t you think? And it goes unquestioned, even praised in the modern world e.g. dysfunctional student/teacher relationships in Buddhism, boss/employee etc.

Its not difficult to find dysfunctional relationships of this kind, they are commonplace? Perhaps, those who find this dynamic praiseworthy or necessary - wherever it appears - are in need of spiritual and practical guidance and correction?

As Buddhists, all our relationships should be grounded in generosity, kindness and respect - with regard to ourselves and others?

Surely, we should cooperate and work together for the benefit of all sentient beings on a fragile planet? If we say, this is impossible, as it is not in our nature to be this way then, its game-over!

Look at the ‘reality’ on the ground - what do you see? Do you see any enslavement of people - and other species - and harmful exploitation? This is the modern world - its rationale for existence - isn’t it?

Is this what ‘progress’ is meant to deliver to human beings - masters and their wage-slaves - subjugation and a mindless conformity to a dysfunctional system that is destroying our life support systems?

Do we need to control everything that matters in our daily lives - that which sustains - out of existence?

When a mind that has this kind of relationship to life and living turns to meditation what kind of outcome would we expect?

Would we expect deep states of natural stillness and letting go - awakening - or grasping and controlling. Trying to get, own and, control something we do not have - what is it that we are looking for?

1 Like

It might not have been very easy in ancient India for a woman to leave her marriage. I think what is skillful and leads to a good rebirth is the lack of anger and ability to endure adversity without unskillful qualities overcoming the mind.

"Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: ‘Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.’ That’s how you should train yourselves. - MN21

"And if other people attack the monk in ways that are undesirable, displeasing, & disagreeable — through contact with fists, contact with stones, contact with sticks, or contact with knives — the monk discerns that 'This body is of such a nature that contacts with fists come, contacts with stones come, contacts with sticks come, & contacts with knives come. Now the Blessed One has said, in his exhortation of the simile of the saw [MN 21], “Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding.” So my persistence will be aroused & untiring, my mindfulness established & unconfused, my body calm & unaroused, my mind centered & unified. And now let contact with fists come to this body, let contact with stones, with sticks, with knives come to this body, for this is how the Buddha’s bidding is done. - MN28

I suppose if a woman back then was fed up with her husband and able to leave him she might ordain:

So freed! So freed!
So thoroughly freed am I—
from my pestle,
my shameless husband
& his sun-shade making,
my moldy old pot
with its water-snake smell.
Aversion & passion
I cut with a chop.
Having come to the foot of a tree,
I do jhāna, from the bliss thinking:
“What bliss!” - Thig2.3

As for what the suttas have to say about a violent husband:

“Here, student, some man or woman is given to injuring beings with the hand, with a clod, with a stick, or with a knife. Because of performing and undertaking such action, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation…But if instead he comes back to the human state, then wherever he is reborn he is sickly. This is the way, student, that leads to sickliness, namely, one is given to injuring beings with the hand, with a clod, with a stick, or with a knife. - MN 135

:anjal:

8 Likes

There seems to be a contradiction between the message conveyed in the last quote - you cited above - and the behaviour of a master-husband with regard to their slave-wife?

I understand the need for tolerance, patience, equanimity etc. with regard to dukkha but, it seems that this is only half of the process when it comes to waking up. We do more than forebear, we also care - proactively. We don’t say to the persecuted - the abused - those treated unfairly, just remain calm and kindly accept your suffering. We lend a hand as best we can, we try to help, this is also a vital part of awakening - don’t you think?

The Buddha never said a master husband was virtuous, only that a wife who endures violence without hate and anger is.

The only proactive care that I see in the EBTs is proactively teaching the dhamma, and the distribution of alms to the poor and to spiritual seekers. This would suggest that as far as the EBTs are concerned, social work is not vital to awakening except where it concerns our own directly harmful actions.

I would suggest to any woman living today under an abusive husband to leave them and seek a restraining order, unless the woman believes her husband can be reformed and she still wants to be with him. In the latter case, she should go stay with her relatives or friends until her husband has proven in various ways that he has made a real effort to change, perhaps by going to anger-management therapy and taking up a meditation practice, or other things of this nature.

3 Likes

Nothing is said about the wrongness of a master abusing their slave but, a woman behaving ‘as if’ she was a slave in her relationship to her husband is seen as productive of a beneficial outcome. “Forebear and put up with it my dear one, you know ‘life is tough, it will put you through a lot of changes, but, don’t take it personally.’”

Is that the kind of advice the enlightened offer us in life? Would you offer similar advice to a battered and bruised wife or, someone who aspired to enter into that kind of relationship? Why do you imagine a Buddha would suggest as much when you can see how inappropriate such advice would be?

One would hope, that an awakened being, on hearing that a disciple has chosen the life of a slave - subject to abuse and violence - that they would express deep concern for their welfare and, maybe give a teaching to the master-husband about the wrongness of wife-beating - don’t you think? Maybe, an awakened being would offer immediate shelter and support to their beloved disciple and not leave them in a situation where they are subject to danger - emotional and physical abuse - don’t you think? Would this be some kind of aberrant social-work that contradicts the Dhammic teaching to just forebear and understand that ‘life’s tough’ and, so it goes…

Yes, I do find it telling, and also a bit confronting. I think it relates to the whole theme being confronting, as @ERose indicates at the top of this thread.

I’ve been reading the thread as it unfurled but haven’t felt able to contribute because I felt I couldn’t get a grip on the context of the discussion in terms of where the different contributors are coming from. I’m grateful to @Polarbear for the exact link to SuttaCentral because the introduction does put the Buddha’s admonition into a context:

Then the Buddha robed up in the morning and, taking his bowl and robe, went to the home of the householder Anāthapiṇḍika, where he sat on the seat spread out. Now at that time people in Anāthapiṇḍika’s home were making a dreadful racket. Then the householder Anāthapiṇḍika went up to the Buddha, bowed, and sat down to one side. The Buddha said to him:
“Householder, what’s with the people making that dreadful racket in your home? You’d think it was fishermen hauling in a catch!” “Sir, that’s my daughter-in-law Sujātā. She’s been brought here from a wealthy family. She doesn’t obey her mother-in-law or father-in-law or her husband. And she does not honor, respect, esteem, and venerate the Buddha.”
Then the Buddha addressed Sujātā, saying, “Come, Sujātā.” “Yes, sir,” she replied. She went up to the Buddha, bowed, and sat down to one side. The Buddha said to her: … etc etc”

His words do sound overly harsh to my modern feminist ears; still, Sujata was behaving badly and I would like to have even more context before responding: eg What does the Buddha say to wives/concubines in other suttas? And especially, does he ever speak to a husband who is mistreating his wife, and what does he say to them?

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.

Who does the husband obey? What about the speaker: ‘Anāthapiṇḍika’, who does he obey?

Apparently, wives are meant to obey not only their husband but, also, their husband’s parents. Why is she required to follow the orders of others in her family as they see fit to command? Why, is she denied an equal right to participate in decision making processes?

We have the likely answer to these questions don’t we? That is how wives were treated in that culture at that time and place!

It would seem, by the Buddha’s lack of a response to Anathapindika’s explanation that it was tacitly understood that the wife was meant to be following the orders given to her by her hubby and in-laws and, was failing to do so.

This appears to have been ‘accepted’ as a reasonable explanation for why this woman was raising her voice and asserting herself. She was a married woman who did not know her place which was to obey and follow the orders of her husband etc.

It might have been more polite and considerate to point out - due to the noise and the domestic disturbance - that, this is not a good time or situation to teach the Dhamma or receive alms or, something of the sort?

As a house-guest - no matter how esteemed you happened to be - would you require an adult female member of the family to present themselves before you gave them a teaching on how they should behave? One of the behavioural options was being a slave-wife?

A slave-wife is a woman who dutifully follows the instructions of her spouse, is obedient and, does not complain about being assaulted by her husband if he feels the need.

This is the ‘solution’ that is directly related to the cause of the problem - as explained by ‘Anathapindika’.

Is this the kind of advice an awakened being would give to a woman with her culturally determined ‘superiors’ in attendance? What kind of message is this sending to Buddhist girls and women in todays world?

What kind of message does this send to all of us about wives? Is it still an acceptable message about women and their place in the family and, by implication the wider community? Is it acceptable and appropriate, is it wise, is it kind, is it the Dhamma?

This is not rocket science!

I’m suspicious that, during the Buddha’s own lifetime, there was a general expectation that people would “venerate the Buddha”.

@Gillian This might interest you. In the Ekottara Agama version (EA 51.9), there isn’t any passages about dreadful racket and fishermen comparison at all. Also, in the Agama version, only 4 types of wives are mentioned. They are: mother-like wife, close friend-like wife, enemy-like wife, and servant-like wife.

Still, about how the servant-like wife is described, I personally think it is more about being non-hostile and not succumbing to negative emotions like anger and hatred than acting like a slave. This discourse should be studied together with AN 4.53, AN 4.54, AN 4.55, and AN 6.16 (even though these discourses have no known Agama parallels, they shoudn’t be considered as Theravadin only discourses, their parallels may be lost or aren’t discovered yet, hence their importance shouldn’t be undermined).

1 Like