This was the reason I said in reality there is no male or female. For what this story is just explaining how the mind works. So in the story before. There is was no distinction yet. Outside. So it kinda gives a clue
In the female appeared the distinctive features of the female, in the male those of the male. Then truly did woman contemplate man too closely, and man, woman. In them contemplating over much the one the other, passion arose and burning entered their body
May all men be reborn as women until they become Buddhas or gender equanimous.
MN44:30.1: And then the layman VisÄkha approved and agreed with what the nun DhammadinnÄ said. He got up from his seat, bowed, and respectfully circled her, keeping her on his right. Then he went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, âThe nun DhammadinnÄ is astute, VisÄkha, she has great wisdom. If you came to me and asked this question, I would answer it in exactly the same way as the nun DhammadinnÄ.
Same as being born in the middle class can mean better karma than being born in high poverty⊠In any situation, everyone has its own dukkha, and after all, nothingâs better than something elseâŠ
These are just conditions, sometimes those âworseâ are needed to develop certain character traits needed to go forth and succeed.
Since itâs a translation from translation and commentary I wonât take it as real Buddhaâs worldsâŠ
And even if - thatâs not really important⊠Iâd even say that itâs a dangerous topic, one of those charming Sanghaâs unity.
Anyway I can imagine than in a few eons world would look totally different and Buddha being a woman would be the best possible manifestation of Dhamma in that world
Really? How come Bhante? For myself I found it was close to my own views. Itâs also based on the suttas, where the Buddha talks of masculine and feminine faculties. Still, personally even if I didnât like it that isnât reason enough for me to reject it.
Yes. Iâve attached some pictures of the commentary (The Expositor) on the Dhammasaáč gaáčÄ« from Ven. Buddhaghosa regarding the masculine and feminine dhammas:
Wow. Interesting. I have the book that is available online. I didnât start reading it. Is that a full version? This morning I also read in Samyutta Buddha explaining that itâs the eye etc has the nature of good and bad, and then we wrongly see the outside world as good and bad and permanent. But we have to see it as Buddha teaches, non-self, impermanence etc.
How do you understand ultimate realities to be? To me it seems something part of mind-body. So actually not outside. So the meaning of ultimate realities is the reality of your mind, meaning what it cause to happen.So although we see it outside as male and female. In ultimate realities itâs still taught to be rupa because itâs created by your mind. For example I have found this in Chinese Sinhala Commentary where there was instance where a MÄra appeared at the monastery and was threatening Monks with death. Saying who is already tired of life, and he offered to kill them. But the weak in mind monks that heard that for first time, was afraid. But others was said that they where not afraid because they knew that the nature of the mind is void.
So here we see our main concern. Understanding that whatever happens outside is void. So knowing that male and female is created by the mind.
Ultimate reality (dhammas) are that which carry their own nature or characteristic and so canât be broken down further under analysis (sabhÄva). Nibbana is a an ultimate reality (dhamma) which carries its own nature (sabhÄva) but isnât a physical or mental dhamma.
There is a big problem with certain teachings. Becareful with this nature thing. I read somewhere thatâs itâs not Buddha teachings. If we make it real in our mind that things has nature. Isnât it accepting the same idea as self? Like the teaching of Buddha simple say there is nothing that has a nature. Simple. Itâs like a mirror. Will we say the reflection has itâs own nature?
For me I want to see everything as without a nature of itâs own. Maybe itâs like I was saying to another user. Abhidharma started as a teaching developed by Sariputta for stream-entry.
But I donât think it as the final way you have to understand things.
What you said is in the first Abhidhamma book also?
Or itâs commentary?
Exactly. As the field of gender studies amply proves, gender can indeed be broken down further under analysis. A lot further.
To suggest otherwise is called âGender essentialismâ and is, in my opinion, an extremist view akin to ârace scienceâ or such other ideas which, in the final analysis, serve only as intellectual cover to prop up their respective â-ismsâ: e.g. racism and, in this case, sexism.
If you accept those theories over the Abhidhamma, sure. Personally I find those theories to be somewhat confused with a tendency to be grounded more in ideology than anything else. There is no requirement for a Buddhist to choose those theories. I wouldnât say subscribing to an Abhidhammic view is extreme Bhante. Far from it. Calling it pseudo-science doesnât mean much either since the Abhidhamma isnât meant to be a scientific theory.
Personally I think there is more wisdom in the Abhidhamma than what you find coming from Marxist professors in liberal arts colleges. Is there a reason why I should listen to them over the Abhidhamma and indeed the suttas, since the Buddha talked about masculine and feminine faculties?
Weâre all free to listen to whomever we have faith in and to ignore whomever we donât.
And I lost my faith in the Abhidhamma at the point where it claimed gender is an absolute reality. Thatâs all. Not looking to convert you, just sharing a fun fact
Well itâs always interesting to hear different perspectives. Regarding myself I started off thoroughly rejecting the Abhidhamma and the commentaries. I was a Buddhadasa fan for a long time, before moving closer towards the orthodox line. Itâs been quite a journey.
thanks for the reminder.
