And the perspective of the original poster. I fully agree with @Cara.
7 Likes
Great but ⊠I donât think itâs really a matter of who agrees or disagrees with who. For, without explaining why one agrees or disagrees, it just becomes a kind of a poll, or a contest of numbers rooting for or against this or that argument. Nor do I understand whatâs the significance of mentioning oneâs status as the âoriginal posterâ (genuinely I donât understand, what am I missing here?!) :0)
What Iâm trying to say is that I have more than just disagreed with friend Cara! I have reasoned and argued and conversed with friend Cara! So for me this is a discussion! Discuss & Discover!!
1 Like
No body is denying anything! âThe way it isâ to which friend @awarewolf is referring [as I understand it] implies the exact opposite of denial; rather it is the most sober recognition of reality that one could possibly experience, and precisely because it is not emotional and not self-obsessed, lacking desire and fear and the impulses of antagonism (accusing and blaming) and escape. âWhat it isâ is what one sees when thereâs no more biases and positions and affiliations and allegiances in the conditioned mind, when thereâs even no more concern for the very evaluation of the elements of pleasure or pain associated with whatâs being experienced. Freedom incomparable.
But thanks a lot! For itâs really great to be talking Dhamma here!!
3 Likes
Itâs weird because I fully agree, and talking dhamma is great.
But still⊠thereâs something there that canât sit so well with me. May be I just need to voice this out⊠and find out that we agree, and I couldnât see your view point directlyâŠ
So, what I was trying to convey is that we canât deny someoneâs suffering. I agree that most likely we canât solve it, but I really think that loving kindness and compassion would go a long way in this matterâŠ
Anyhow, I donât think I have enough practice to bring out all that I would like to, but I tried. Sorry if that causes trouble to some in the process, no suffering intended, thatâs for sure!
6 Likes
May the fruits of generosity bring you closer to NibbÄna! 
For sure.
Everybodyâs suffering, itâs SaáčsÄra after all! And letâs not forget about upekkha along with metta and karuna (all of which, we, lay people, are actually pretty bad at, I guarantee you that).
I myself entered the topic just because I believe I have something to say on the latests opinions. To me, it seems that postulated âadditional sufferingâ argument isnât very well-established, because everything can be an additional suffering. Iâm pretty sure every newly ordained person, no matter the background, would find his/her personal âadditional sufferingâ in a monasticâs life.
I would even question the idea that thereâs a discrimination in the different sets of rules for nuns and monks. I know itâs a shocker for many here 
, due to culture, but please try to understand my argument here. 
The rules are different, yes, and western women may feel offended because of these differences, but itâs a matter of cultural perception more than a real discrimination. In fact, in Theravada tradition women are officially barred from joining the monastic order not because they are women, but because the line was broken, thatâs how it is presented, so it is not a discrimination by gender per se, even if the resulting consequence is the same, however unfortunate that is. And the postulation that the line was broken because of eight garudhammas or similar is ungrounded. It is much more likely because women in traditional societies in general were not encouraged too much to join the sangha and other cultural things; after all, the institute of marriage was very different, as well as womenâs role in society: they were mothers by default and I believe usually had many children which they had too look after. In fact, by Vinaya they were more equal with men than in the lay life at that time.
P.S. Itâs funny to think that probably many of you might perceive me as a total conservative patriarch here. But where I am from, I am usually perceived as a liberal! My opinions on the matter stay the same however.
3 Likes
Yup, I did share my opinion and experience, because unless we share and listen to those who are different, how will we understand those experiences we will never have?
I donât have time I reply to every point. But will say -
The structures of privilege are invisible to those who benefit from them.
I repeat.
The structures. Of privilege. Are invisible. To those. Who benefit. From them.
Some will understand this without even knowing or seeing it and take that step into what they donât understand - to you, I applaud 
11 Likes
Glad you mentioned it, because that got me searching for this essay written by a christian priest, and which I found helpful. Itâs translated by our friend Google, so take care! 
The walls between us
In the old days, they had square stones for at least two things: for urban construction. And to bridge construction. The same kind of stone could be used for both purposes. Some were sent to war service, they were put on top on each other, formed fortifications and castle façades. Others were laid down after each other, to roads and bridges, so people could reach each other on them.
Words are such building blocks. They can be used for city building or bridge construction. With sharp tongue, I can mark my landmarks and keep strangers outside. But the words can also carry understanding and warmth to frozen strangers.
âThere is a wall between us.â That sentence appears regularly. "There is a wall between us. A thick wall. Words do not reach through. My wife does not understand me. My husband is deaf and blind. "
Family therapist David KvebĂŠk has made a valuable observation when he points to this:
"There is never one wall between people. There are always two. "
The problem is that your own wall is transparent, it is transparent. You often do not see your own wall. You look through it and your eyes encounter the other partyâs fortifications. It is likely that there are two walls in a position war, for I have never heard of anyone who war with each other from the same fortress.
Before going to the case, this is important: Are you willing to get help revealing your defense? Are you willing to try to understand how other people can perceive you, yes, have to perceive you? And one more thing: Are you willing to get help to see what your defense is like?
Itâs not built for fun.
Things you do not dare to take in. Unmanageable emotions that have roots deep in your own soil.
Walls always hide different types of vulnerability. The wall will make me secure. And they do. For this reason, I am successful in all my building. But in addition to making me vulnerable, the wall makes me isolated, lonely, silent, self-absorbed, self-reliant and disappointed.
There is never one wall between people, there are two.
The wall that is easiest for me to do is my own wall. I can lower it, I can open it, I can remove it. As long as my own wall remains transparent, all my aggression will be directed to the opposite wall. I can not open it, I can not remove it. I can only look at it, angst, shoot, thunder loose!
But our walls are among our best works, they stand there wounded and weathered, and they oppose attacks from the outside.
Iâm going to start tearing my own wall. I will then become more visible and more vulnerable.
Nevertheless, I will do it. Because itâs just sentenced people who live behind walls. And they have the right to do time and then stay free again. Their stay behind the walls has a time frame, freedom waits. But the walls we build and rearrange ourselves can stand there all our lives. Whoever built a wall needs help. Because itâs easier to build a wall than to tear it down.
Before building a wall
All people get one day a bright idea:
"Iâm building a wall! Now Iâm really tired of being hurt by other people, so: Iâm building a wall! Now I will not be vulnerable anymore, so: Iâm building a wall! Now they can feel fine without me. However, I build the wall invisibly. So they will not notice it right away. But they will notice it eventually, thatâs for sure. I would like to say less! I want to stop being spontaneous, never minded anyway. I will let them guess what I feel and mean instead of saying that. I will be correct and polite, but no longer so friendly and attentive. I want to book myself a bit, just a bit, but all the time!
Hereafter I will be in peace on my own property. I want to pull back in periods.
And I would prefer to meet people on the outside of my fence. How I have it in myself, nobody needs to know anything about it. I now have so many bad experiences with people that I want them at armâs length. "
There is hardly anyone who, once or even, has just received this bright idea!
And many have followed the one who thought so done.
Itâs safer behind a wall, without a doubt. People who build walls are right: Finally, they can relax, feel safe, be at peace. Walls can be built with silence or with words. A lot of silence and empty words make up a thick wall.
It is extremely comfortable from day to day to be able to travel on the front or back of a thick wall, according to the needs of the moment. But from year to year itâs painful.
Before building a wall: Think about what youâre walling in and what youâre walling out âŠ
Wall builders are right, mostly: People have been simple with them. They have not received the response, attention and love they deserve.
Many relationships with other people have had too much expense items in relation to revenue. Family can be a dragon! And people have disappointed me again and again and again.
Wall builders are not stupid people, their accounts are correct, their conclusions are logical. But one thing is not logical: life. One thing is not estimable: life. Things can never be worn inside: Life. Behind walls you are safe and unreachable, but barely alive.
Whoever wants to love and be loved must drop the thought of security. Life does not provide us with a safety net during any day that comes. And you do not save life by avoiding it. Before you build a wall, think about this: What do I wall in, and what do I wall out??
- Karsten Isacksen
1 Like
Iâm sufficiently informed about âsocietal privilegeâ arguments, as well as about criticisms to them. The one I like most is that which shows how such arguments, though purport to fight discrimination and social injustice and inequality, are themselves the most discriminatory. To wit, just here, the argument that I am âincapableâ of seeing something simply because of who I am, that, my friend, is both discriminatory AND humiliating. So thank you; and goodbye! By placing yourself at a superior position to those with whom you are discussing, you have only demonstrated that it is probably not me who is blind, and that that which is invisible is indeed something within oneâs own suffering heart rather than without!
1 Like
sigh! Friend sukha ⊠No one is ever suffering. People just think that what they feel is real! Thatâs all! Stop âsubstantiatingâ what you experience and experiencing itself, as a cognitive process, transforms into something that is free from any conditionality!
So thereâs a difference here: what we canât deny is that someone thinks that theyâre suffering! We cannot also deny that they havenât a clue about how to transcend the fear and horror of this phantom of suffering (weâve all been there, some are still there!! Many!). And it is this more profound human condition of ignorance and helplessness, that calls our innermost metta and karuna, rather than just the emotional sympathy we feel for someone whose pain is due to deprivation of one mundane need or another (including social justice!). This distinction in understanding dukkha and by consequence also karuna, is rarely understood, even in Buddhist circles which have for long been chewing on the sympathetic form of karuna until thereâs no more a tiny drop of juice left on the thing!! And it is not that sympathetic emotions are wrong; itâs just that they can be and often are an obstacle to development on the path, even preventing the experiencing of a more profound form of compassion which I have described just now. And it is so easily observable how this sympathetic metta becomes something to which people are addicted, âI canât live without itâ, they say proudly; and why? Because it makes people feel good about themselves; it makes them feel that they are good people, that they are right, and that they are wholesome; which is great; but they are actually not yet right or good or wholesome, they are filled yet with all kinds of defilements that they have not begun even to see, let alone do something about. And once the conditions arise there to bring forth their cruelty and hatred, they will have no options, neither of awareness nor of restraint, and like a conditioned dog, they will grin and bare teeth at the object of antagonism whatever it may be; and they will do it even in the name of social justice! And alas!
Suffering exists only in so far as one does not understand it as a mental apparition. For if suffering was objectively real, there would be no way to transcend it! And we can at least understand all this great Dhamma, even if we have not yet managed to bring our hearts to let go completely in experience.
mais, vous nâĂȘtes pas dâaccord; Je le sens!!
3 Likes
Maybe I have misunderstood some of the points being made in the discussion above, but it seems to me that if someone claims that other people in a community are engaging in patterns of harmful behavior, then responding to that claim with ideas such as âWell, thatâs samsara! Harm happens! Try to stop engaging in discriminating cognition that distinguishes harm for not-harm! If the behavior bothers you, thatâs because you still have worldly aversion to the way people treat you, so reduce your ego and practice better!â are just strategies of avoidance.
I mentioned before that just because the Buddhist path consists of practices that, developed to their fullest extent and potential, might enable a person to maintain equanimity even when being sawed in half, that is no reason to resist the idea that people who go around sawing other people in half should be encouraged to stop doing that!
Actions that are harmful to others are usually harmful to the doer too, even if the intentions and attitudes behind the action are difficult for the doer to see clearly and understand. And even if the doer is completely âinnocentâ of culpability for the action, because it was performed entirely out of ignorance and without the slightest tincture of a desire to do harm, it is still the case that simple kindness and compassion will push the doer to eliminate those actions from their behavior, once the harmful effects are seen and understood.
The same applies to people who might be engaged in activities that, while less malicious and grossly horrible than sawing other people in half, still inflict needless emotional pain. It also applies if the behavior is not motivated by deep malice, but only because one has fallen into a customary pattern of normalized behavior that tends to reproduce hierarchies and exclusion that have no sound basis. It seems to me the OP was calling for people to observe such patterns of behavior, and reflect on them, and discuss possibilities for changing them, or the desirability of changing them. Some of the subsequent reaction, I must say, strikes me as nearly hysterical in its resistance to this simple call.
11 Likes
Dear Ven. @anon61506839
I feel that you may have misconstrued my point. Nevertheless I apologize unreservedly for any offense caused and that it was certainly not my intention to cause any harm.
farewell 
5 Likes
Its such a shame when we cannot skilfully deal with problems the world throws at us, and are not aware of how much is reality and how much is mere perception. Acting through defilements cause problems to âexplodeâ. Acting with wisdom can cause them to implode. A path of action that invites people to react with emotions can only lead to bad feelings, and a mess in relationships with people.
People are commenting on things they donât even know about. No one has the facts- this is probably not the time for emotive responses on threads. There is so much mind reading here.
If monks and nun cannot resolve this issue among themselves one must think whether they deserve to be held in that role of very high esteem. Ok, so no one is calling for ethnic blood letting, but can a relatively clear issue be settled maturely and responsibily? We manage equality in the National Health Service everyday!
I think some of the incessant âactivismâ rhetoric has a part to play here. Can we have sensitive dialog as the gold standard to settling problems between monastics? âRunning to the newspapersâ isnât the best way to work things out?
with metta
1 Like
One thing I admire about Ajahn Brahm is that he once said that talking about it is not enough. He went ahead and actually did things to help women despite unpleasant consequences on himself. And he hasnât stopped helping.
3 Likes
Sadhu!
Thatâs why I wished for a small portion of facts - ones related to Bodhinyana only as I think I might be able to seek help to address it.
BTW, as a woman born and raised in an conservative country like Thailand, Iâve seen lots of sexual discrimination incidents, and Iâve also seen how the public react to them. Iâve also seen how gender equality is materialized among skillful people or in a skillful community.
IMHO, what is needed when one faces a problem in the world is to find facts, search for options to address the issue, and âactuallyâ work (alone or with others depending on the issues) to resolve or mitigate them. Sometimes media is very useful in helping raise awareness, but the real solution usually comes from people actually doing something positive by using skillful approaches and maintaining a kind and compassionate heart.
When one starts to feel âhotlyâ passionate about an agenda that one advocates, one loses a skillful perspective.
A quote from Ajahn Brahmâs book âWisdom and Wondersâ
1 Like
One way to get around prejudices that one cannot -just cannot, yet, abandon, is to apply the circumstances to another case. For example, maybe as a male, it is difficult to not throw up defenses to whiney women (please stay with me here!) So⊠donât see it as occurring to whiney women. Imagine if a universally sullen or sometimes spiteful circumstance⊠was offered by someone to your grandmother. Or to a EBT bhukkhuni you respect. Or to a guest of yours, new to the country.
That might help hyou see the transparent defenses hard to see.
Or imagine that one is not accused of doing this, but that this behavior is reported of a bully one has known, a person utterly capable of trolly disrespect and even spite or hatred to women.
Because⊠it is true that you are not accused! Because all of us have nothing to cling to, or cling with; we are Buddhists, all disciples of the Blessed One, all except arahants still with struggles and blind spots etc. It is ok to not be perfect. Just ⊠take a breath.
The Buddha established a 4 fold Sangha. This was not a mistake. Only together can we unlock all the locks in this puzzle. Sila, learning, faith, all improve naturally in the Buddhaâs design, and fall apart if we deviate from the design. The bhukkhuni ordination is as much or more about rescuing the bhikkhus, as it is for the liberation of HALF of our species.
So⊠if you throw pebbles at âthemâ, they could walk away and leave you to more and more dhukka. If your buddy who for some reason hates women drives them away, more and more dhukka for all. Because we lay people watch. Donât fail the faith we and the Buddha have in you.
Sorry if that is a rant, but compassion and metta are right here.
By the way. Women are not whiney. If you thought for a moment oh they are - thereâs an edge of your wall.
1 Like
Friend @Mat, thanks for this insightful post; Iâll make some remarks on it by way of concluding my participation in this thread and also on this forum, as I have resolved to suspend my participation here.
Please do not make an over generalisation only because the exception is visible before you. Monastics have good dialogues all the time, and about very problematic and sensitive issues. And though I agree with you that there may perhaps be something rather afflicting in the âqualityâ of some dialogues; nevertheless, Iâm just as well impressed by the fact that, on an online forum, at 2018, that level of samma kammanta has been preserved (at least on the level of outer verbal behaviour), through out a conversation such as this weâve been having here; and that no one has blurted and screamed with neurotic words through out this conversation, which I myself have taken the risk of trying to make it really vibrant and substantial rather than just a simplistic discourse of accusation and blame, and a sympathetic display of taking sides! And even though I may have miserably failed in realising this goal; nevertheless Iâm really impressed by the general civility here! So itâs not all bad isnât it?
What I have noticed on the other hand, and that I feel more urgently problematic, is the near total absence of âviewâ and âperspectiveâ in some cases! And I mean any real, developed, mature, substantial view, even one that is not Dhamma or even opposed to it; it donât matter to me; just any substance that shows why a person believes something and why he understands that thing to be true, because it is only then that I can at all respond to them in any meaningful way or even just understand them as rational rather than emotional beings! Instead, in some conversations iâve been having with âBuddhistsâ for few years now, I find some people speak without clarity or cohesion, while others reproduce, in a poor language which they think is sophisticated and complex, such commonplace slogans as chanted on the streets of dark cities, by commonplace people throwing rocks at their antagnoists over the police that struggles to keep them physically separate from each other, lest they chew the flesh off each others bones! Alas! And whatâs worse is when such discourses, if we may even call them that, become in the minds of those who repeat them associated with Dhamma in any way! Lo and behold! And it is not that taking âactivist-likeâ positions with regard to âmysogonyâ, âthe patriarchyâ, âman privilegesâ, and the rest of the sorrowful list, are to be automatically rejected from thought, or removed from the scope of hearing and vision by a Buddhist person; but the disaster is when one engages with these issues without precisely âright viewâ; when the vast unbridgeable abyss which separates non-Dhamma from Dhamma, secularism from renunciation, self-identification from no-self, desire from dispassion - when these distinctions should become so blurred in the minds of Buddhist people, and even Buddhist practitioners - it is this that I find truly problematic, though increasingly expected amidst the turmoil and agony of the world.
One can go no where without sammaditthi. But for one to have sammadhitthi, one must have a ditthi. Just as the experience of contact is important for one to learn how to respond to contact, developing a real, substantial view is also very important, even if one will get it wrong at first, err and struggle, until one gets it right eventually. But to have no views at all, or to confuse emotions with views, or to confuse the conditioned positions born from the delusion of self-identification with views; that is not helpful; that is dangerous, and it is faaaar removed from the Buddha and from the enlightenment to which he had awakened.
Enfin, much of what iâve been talking about here is related to âcontentmentâ, particularly as a trait that should be developed and sought by a Buddhist practitioner, lay or monastic. Iâve always believed that we are all renunciates in essence and in principle! To be a Buddhist is to be renunciate at heart; there are no other options! And one cannot be a true renunciate at heart -not for long at least- without contentment. Itâs not doable; itâs impossible. And contentment in turn cannot arise unless one understands and accepts the way things are, and they are only those who see tilakkhana in all, who grow inwardly cool and extinguished and satisfied with whatever it is that is available and possible, for their attention and care for the journey of emancipation, and for that journey alone and no other.
Where ever we can live as âmendicantsâ, and this is precisely what is meant by âbhikkhuâ and âbhikkhuniâ, there we can train to see the way things are, and thereby we can be content, and having become content we can renounce all, and having renounced all we can be true to the Buddha, his Path, and the enlightenment to which he awakened. And, friend Mat, there is no place in which a human being cannot live as a mendicant. And even for a layperson, there is no poverty which could prevent one who sees the Dhamma from living according to it. And yes, we seek the best possible conditions of renunciation and of life, we will even pursue better conditions, but we do not condition our renunciation, at heart, on finding those conditions; nor do we for a moment confuse the quest of finding better conditions with the very purpose of our renunciate lives; which is in the end only a means to a great goal that goes precisely beyond all conditions.
Thank you.
I have spoken at length, and with care and attention, through out this conversation. I have not spoken recklessly or at a hurry. I have not accused or abused anyone. But it is in the nature of thought and language that we human beings must sometimes disagree and take opposite positions; and though I feel content with my contribution here, nevertheless, I apologise for any inconvenience I may have caused. Now regarding this matter, I will be silent.
Wishing you all Nibbana, Nibbana only, and nothing other than Nibbana.
8 Likes
@anon61506839 I find it impossible to believe that these comments of yours spring from any mental state that an objective person would describe as âcontentmentâ. You seem quite upset by this whole discussion.
Thatâs OK. People get upset. But I think you might reflect on the possible sources of your own discontent, and not be so quick to project that emotion onto others only, and imagine you are speaking from a superior position of beautiful sammaditthi while everyone else is wallowing in some gross and inferior state lacking not just right view, but any view at all.
This discussion has been eye-opening for me.
2 Likes
Lol! @DKervick Iâm not upset at all! Your imagination is on fire! ;o)
And what I said was
Youâre being unjust. Especially given that I wasnât referring to discussions on this forum exclusively, but in general.
1 Like
It may be so, friend.
But Iâm always puzzled by people who fill their comments with exclamation points, while trying at the same time to convince people they are suffused head-to-toe with equanimity.
1 Like
Itâs okay to be puzzled, itâs not okay to be unjust! :0)