The topic has definitely been subjected to wide ranging tangents. From angers about sexual violence, to defense of professions, statistics and sociological data requests, broad generalizations about violence not being gender specific, rape culture theories, tarnishing the reputation of ancient civilizations, national identities and bickering, nationalistic stereotypes, marriage and marital relationships, slavery, domestic violence, …
So… “we” do not want to discuss anger about sexual violence, or personal or collective work on defilement. Does that seem a fair summary of the thread?
Can you give me a clearer indication of what you are saying here? What is it that has not been considered that you feel is important? Something you may have intended to draw attention to that has been missed? I understand that not getting angry when you are abused in any way is the positive message in the teaching about the different kinds of wives. What’s interesting in this teaching to me is not that good advice but the context in which the teaching is presented. This is also loaded with meaning that is clearly sexist?
Sexism is a form of violence however it finds expression, sexist abuse can take many forms, they are all interrelated? If women are treated as second-class citizens then, it becomes easier to subject them to abuse. The lack of respect for women’s rights - to fair and equal treatment - is a form of abuse ‘in and of’ itself. What is rape and sexual abuse if it is not a complete disregard for someones welfare and human rights? Slavery and rape are both the products of the 3-roots and they often occur together.
Am I off topic or were you directing your comment to other mitta’s?
I would hope to reach the same conclusion, given that I go to the suttas more as a guide for inner personal development than as a manual for social action (!!) Hence my need for a broader context: so thank you for the links @thenoble. Could you help me find an English version of EA51.9 please?
@Gillian Unfortunately, it isn’t translated in English. It’s in Chinese. And, since Agamas are less studied than the Pali Nikaya, the likelihood of finding English translations of Agamas is very slim. Only some of the Agamas are translated in English. Sadly, EA 51.9 isn’t one of them. I don’t know if this will make you feel any better, but EA 51.9 is basically the same as the Pali version, except the differences that I mentioned in my previous post, and the usual conclusion of taking refuge in the Three Jewels that is common in the Agamas.
No. I now think a substantial amount of what is preserved in the canon is an expression of the monastic institutions and lay devotional cult that only took their recognizable shape either very late in the Buddha’s lifetime, or after it. I suspect the Buddha had some worries about this movement, which are expressed in his final words to his followers be their own refuges.
After 60 posts, i looked back… and saw how it went. You are not off topic@lawrence The anger i happily lost was about all the abuse i had experienced, helped others with, suffered over reading about or having seen or feared for self or others, etc. Quite a relief!
Yes the Jataka story is fully loaded with sexism and a peculiar non focus on the person given an intervention. Rather uncharacteristic of the sutta-Buddha, it seems.
My comment was somewhat directed to myself, and to all participants, inviting a step back and consideration of the quality of discourse.
irony, or just how it happens at times: today, I heard an interview by Trevor Noah on Comedy Central cc.com of a well know actress/producer on a documentary just coming out: “I Am Evidence”. It is about the scandal of hundreds of thousands of rape kits in the United States never having been tested (until, for some, very recently.)
I think it would be quite a mistake to assume any other country is immune to the problem, which is… people not considering these crimes as crimes against society, not just against individuals. I Am Evidence official trailer
In my opinion the best “neutral” overview of the Lazarus case cited that I found appears to be:
Or you can read my summary here.
It’s a story of 2 trials and two appeals.
Luke Lazarus was convicted of rape in a Australian court.
The case was appealed by defendant Lazarus.
Defendant’s appeal was heard by a 3 judge panel of the Court of Criminal Appeal, Supreme Court, New South Wales.
The appeals court ordered the case to be re-tried due to improper jury instructions. The decision: Lazarus v R - NSW Caselaw
The defendant was re-tried before Judge Judge Robyn Tupman (without a jury). That judge acquitted Lazarus.
The crown appealed on behalf of the complainant claiming that in her decision, Judge Robyn Tupman failed to properly explain and document in her written decision the reasons why she found in favor of the defendant.
The second appeal, this time by the crown, after the second trial before judge Judge Robyn Tupman is here: R v Lazarus - NSW Caselaw
The crown’s argument on the first grounds of appeal were not upheld. In the court transcript of the verbal decision it appeared that the transcript failed to include the word “not” in a key sentence making it appear that the judge didn’t understand the law. The judge later tried to correct the transcript. The appeals court agreed that in other parts of the ruling the judge appeared to correctly understand the law and therefor the missing “not” was most probably an error in the transcript.
On the 2nd grounds the 3 judge appeals court ruled unanimously that judge Tupman had failed to properly “expose his or her reasoning process by linking the relevant principles of law to the facts as he or she finds them to be”. That is, she failed to be sufficiently transparent in her reasoning as required by law.
However the judges decided to exercised it’s discretion to let the decision stand on several grounds.
One reason given was that the accused had already faced trial twice (with all the expenses thereof), the second trial receiving a acquittal, but both times the court made a serious error.
The Court elected to invoke its residual discretion and not order a retrial. Primarily the Court placed emphasis on the following:
The time that had now passed after the events
The fact that it would be a third trial
The fact that the matters that led to a successful crown appeal were not the fault of the accused or his lawyers
The fact that he had already served 10 months in prison
Recognizing one chooses to participate in this thought experiment, @Feynman, i cannot not note, with what object did one seem to identify; seem to defend, with exertion; seemed to “see”? Not it seems with a teenage maiden who noted “A part of me died that day”.
Edit: to avoid confusion, i see your post as defending justice system, or society, or such…
I am concerned for you. For all who read this, whether they are men, women, girls, boys, lay, monastic, prosecuters, judges, juries, australians, humans. I do not think the direction in which you invest your self is harmless to you or many.
Rape can occur in any gender- rape is abhorrent in any gender. Though obviously it occurs mostly to women.
There is a case in the Vinaya where a monk is raped, while he was erect, by a lay woman. He was upset by this.
More commonly women hit on men and it can be unpleasant for the men too.
I think we can denounce these acts driven by a mind confused by lust. Gender wide accusation highlight and bring attention to the problem, but can alienate some, in my opinion.
@Mat i did not intend gender wide accusations, can you clarify (if you think i did) where? Thank you, i do want to understand your post.
“These acts”. Do you mean the rape, the justice system events, or something else?
"More commonly women hit on men. … " This is not my experience nor am i familiar with this as factual; can you clarify, is this doctrinally based or something else? i am confused by your unequivocal statement… _**edit: ah perhaps you mean, as opposed to raping… Am i now understanding you on this?
If i am understanding you on this… It seems you see an equivelency between rape, and flirtation. Please, clarify, if i am misunderstanding your post.
Combined with friend @Feynman 's post, this is illuminating. Shocking. But it does make somewhat understandable verbal and physical behavior previously mysterious, incomprehensible, not-sane in my perspective. **_
I think you are pointing to the experience of the individuals in the case. Yes?
In my last post I was trying to get an idea on what happened … beginning with a overview of what happened in the complicated story of two trials and two appeals. Just getting my mind around what happened in the legal proceeding was enough for one day’s look.
My personal experience has been more with men falsely accused of rape or child abuse. So I’m real familiar with the pain of being the accused.
I’m even more familiar with what it’s like to get sued in civil court and watching large amounts of your retirement fund go to paying lawyers. That’s in addition to the literally months of one’s life that defendants may have to put in on their own defense. Even if you “win” you pay a “virtual fine” that can run to several hundred thousand dollars.
I’m also concerned, as a matter of having a civil and safe society with a legal process that leads to social justice and legal justice. I’m seeing a multi-dimensional issue with many ways to begin understanding it with many ways in which different people can be harmed.
I’m thinking you have a some picture or idea of the direction in which other people invest themselves.
Call me a cynic but I think that no one is harmless – so I guess I agree on principle.
I wonder what the EBT’s have to say on the subject of being harmless and if it’s possible?
I think i begin to see the disconnect between us, on this issue. I can understand how our quite different experiences so set the filters or conditioning framing the issues.
It will be difficult, perhaps not even possible, to communicate the depth and bredth of the differences in this. I will think on this some.
@ERose, I’m thinking that for some of those feelings and differences out of compassion for a fellow being I want you to share those things with wise spiritual friends or perhaps a therapist under conditions of privacy and confidentiality.
As for the aspects that are more appropriate to speak of to the public – the differences in their depth and breath are not infinite. If you were to make a list … the list would have a end.
@Feynman being a Californian, plus whatever other demographics tags… of course, i have a therapist, and will discuss this. (Not having a therapist seems in some ways analagous to not brushing one’s teeth; mental health is worth investment, honesty, etc etc.) I also have spiritual friends who consider no topic off limits. I will discuss this with them, of course, but thank you for the kindly suggestions.
Yes lists have an end. I observe thoughts, feelings, words, among other things. But again, reminding me of impermanence is much appreciated.
I am trying to use harmless words and concepts… i have previously thought, rapists are like rabid dogs; isolation for life seems (seemed?) appropriate, and a restrained societal reaction. I am far from unique in this line of thought, and i know this from many and deep discussions on this, in many {edit: non-online, face to face} forums. While the effects of rape for survivors vary greatly, … it is not uncommon for women {edit: or men) to wish, repeatedly, that they had not {survived}… {edit: but this may be a cultural issue; my experience of conversations on this is mostly across the USA; i cannot (will not?) comment on other possible perspectives. )
And yet… people who seem to be of solid virtue and intelligence might find that line of thinking incomprehensible, or not-sane… {edit: and as i suggested a few posts back, this other view, that rape is not at all analogous to murder by torture-with survival, seemed insane-ish. That is the gulf between views. }
It is a relief, to perceive the disconnect. i might eventually be capable of offering a minor topical essay gender and the N8fP, which might help others make the Dhamma accessible to those bewildered or distressed by usual/traditional responses to feminist or human rights concerns. I think at this time that traditional responses, if out of tune with diligent mindful extinguishment of defilements for all, is a significant problem for Sangha, partly because many do NOT experience cognitive dissonance about it.
One cannot liberate, i hypothesize, without renunciation of gender privilege, gender identification, or concern for how rape breaks the spirit of many precepts, and creating much difficulty for one’s self and other beings, directly and indirectly. And not talking about it does not seem, does not appear to be, either harmless or skillful or mindful awareness or cultivating of Metta or karuna.
I am sorry for the trouble, but it cannot be avoided forever. That just cannot work.
It will be difficult, perhaps not even possible, to communicate the depth and bredth of the differences in this. I will think on this some.
well, because an issue remains unresolved, unaddressed, and there is opportunity for metta andkaruna.