I was wondering if there is any data in the ebt revealed any previous Buddha mentioned was in female form ? And also is there any of the heavenly deva such as Lord Sakka and Lord Brahma etc has ever assume by female figure ?
279. Bhikkhus, it is impossible that a woman could be the worthy, rightfully enlightened all knowing one. It is possible that a man could be the worthy, rightfully enlightened all knowing one [Buddha].
280. Bhikkhus, it is impossible that a woman could be the universal monarch. It is possible that a man could be the universal monarch.
281. Bhikkhus, it is impossible that a woman could be the king of gods [Sakka]. It is possible that a man could be the king of gods [Sakka].
282. Bhikkhus, it is impossible that a woman could be the king of Death (Māra). It is possible that a man could be the king of Death [Māra].
283. Bhikkhus, it is impossible that a woman could be the highest divine one [Brahmā] It is possible that a man could be the highest divine one [Brahmā].
I’m always a bit puzzled by this part. How is it possible that a man could be brahma? Aren’t the beings in the rupa realms (=jhana realms) supposed to have transcended sexuality and gender?
Makes me question the authenticity of the passage.
Why do you believe these statements?
Do you think that the Lord Buddha has transcended gender ?
The Buddha has given up any notion of a self, including ideas about him being a man.
Until the day when there’s a woman who’s able to match her male counterparts in terms of sheer evil, ie. there’re female versions of Gengis Khan, Hitler, or Pol Pot, then it’ll be possible to see the coming of a female Buddha. It’s simply the natural yin-yang of nature. You can’t have the utmost good without its utmost evil twin. So women, if you want a female Buddha, start doing unimaginable evil either on par or surpassing our male record-holders. And just a heads up, it’s gonna be a tall order!
Hopefully, there are few women who aspire to become pompous and delusional fantasy kings like Sakka.
Yet, Lord Buddha still has a male form,
this is same for Lord Brahma being assume in male form because of what is inherent in the kamma principles .
Natural laws gave rise to what called the Mahapurisa or the Mark of a Great Man !
May I ask which sutta mentioned Lord Sakka being arrogant ?
He lives in a celestial palace attended by celestial nymphs. His whole world is sensualist delusion.
Yet Sakka became a stream-enterer so I wouldn’t be so quick to pooh-pooh him.
Yes, even vainglorious and sensualist aristocrats can grasp the dhamma if they find a spiritual teacher.
I don’t know if there’s been any female Buddhas in the past, but if the next future Buddha is indeed the Buddha Metteyya, I sure hope it’s a woman. It’s about time. I’m sure a few bhikkhunis on SuttaCentral have already started the Bodhisatta path !
Where is this male form of the Buddha?
Actually the most important for me is whether a female can become an Arahant.
For some strange reason even when I was young I did not want to be the Buddha but I wanted to be the Sariputta.
Isn’t this EBT?
So your reason is that you believe everything that you find written in the earliest texts?
How do we know what not to believe?
What do you think of your self in term of form ?