The buddha and the bhikkhuni order

Discussion
22

Ah well, technically, the word “all” was never mentioned anywhere though. I feel poor for Ven. Ananda in a tough spot…

Are we unenlightened normal person still unhappy if Ven. Ananda had said “Protective nature are of many women”? I don’t know how you judge this statement, but for me, I don’t consider that statement as false speech. I don’t feel bad or feel ashamed of thinking that statement in my head or saying it to another being.

Well, in case I am judged as wrong, please do not execute me on the spot… :sweat_smile:

23

How about this expression: Mātugāma Saṃyutta

24

technically, the word “all” was never mentioned anywhere though

Yes, you’re correct that ‘all’ was never mentioned. However, the translation ‘Women are foolish’ seems to be making an inference - i.e., ‘(All) women are foolish’. I feel that adding in ‘(Many) women are foolish’ suffers from the same issue - it’s inferring quantity.

Literally, the translation seems to be ‘The woman is foolish’ within the localised context of Ananda referring to the nun Thullananda who had insulted Maha Kassapa because she felt Ananda was more qualified to give a talk to the nuns that the elder. It’s referring to a single nun who eventually disrobed and was the cause of the creation of a number of Vinaya rules I believe. The translation ‘Women are foolish’ is unsupported on the discussion of the Pali above.

My addition to the grammatical discussion above is based in the premised of the Dhamma. A noble attainer would not use language loosely. They would certainly not make a statement such as ‘(All) women are foolish’. Right speech is using language in ways that are very specific and precise. This is not so.

Your hypothetical of ‘(Many) women are foolish’ could be are true statement if we consider the Buddha’s words that most people (both male and female) are unlikely to obtain benefit from the Dhamma in this lifetime, despite the teaching being available here and now for us. But I suspect these sorts of statements in the Suttas are either qualified by the Buddha, or gender neutral (“an ordinary, uninstructed worldling”).

I’m surprised by the degree of attachment people have to gender. It’s interesting to consider that according to the Buddha, attachment to our own gender, and the definition of difference between our own sex characteristics and those of another, are kamma for future births based on sex / gender differentiation. If you think about it, infatuation with one’s own sex characteristics means can easily slip into infatuation with the opposite gender, leading to rebirth as the opposite sex. Whilst that may not be frightening for most people, I can imagine that for some who have built up their identity around their sex / gender, and habitually engage in discrimination on the basis of sex / gender, that could be quite a concerning proposition.

25

That’s still very much an active debate while Ven. Bodhi has clearly stated his position with the acknowledge of the consequence of his translation. So no clear conclusion yet on which translation can satisfy both the angers of half of common worldling and also satisfy the expertise of Ven. Bodhi’s years of Pali translation.

That’s also the reason I put up another scenario where Ven. Ananda could have said something else more acceptable to the uninstructed worldling but in the eye of the awakened would eventually results in more or less same meaning.

“Many women are foolish due to their protective nature, in the eye of the awakened” is still a small price to pay for result where people can at least cool down and lend their ears.

I am not sure whether many man would get upset, stand up and argue against a statement like “Many men are foolish due to their nature thirst to conquer others, in the eye of the awakened”?

If people are confident that they are not foolish then there is no need to lend their ears anymore. After all, the purpose of my suggestive scenario is for people to cool down and lend their ears. My purpose is not to stir up unending debate.

Note: There are many more suttas (ex: AN 5.229, AN 5.230, AN 2.61, AN 5.55, AN 4.80, SN 37.28) which can raise much more eyebrows than such statement “Foolish are women” above. They are much more difficult to present a different interpretation or suggestive scenario as I did above.

If we can’t (yet) interpret them in a harmonious/beneficial way, it’s recommended to leave them aside and read + practice more until we are more ready. It would be a mistake to getting upset, pointing fingers, creating division or doubting the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha.

This post will mark the end for my contribution to this thread. Hope that it’s beneficial to at least somebody.

26

Dear All,

Just a reminder:

3 Likes
27

In the Pali text of the SN it is actually written as Mātugāmasaṃyutta. In other words, it’s not two separate words, but rather a compound comprising two words. There is nothing in the form of a Pali compound that will tell us whether the first item (i.e., mātugāma-) is to be taken as singular or plural. That being so, “woman”, “women” and “womenfolk” are all possible translations of mātugāma here. To determine which is desirable we need to consider the content of the 34 suttas contained in this saṃyutta.

Now the first 33 suttas all refer to women using the word mātugāma rather than itthī, and all of them are concerned with making distinctions among women rather than generalisations about them. As such, they exemplify my earlier point:

The exception is the 34th sutta, which is only concerned with those women who are noble disciples. In this sutta neither mātugāma nor itthī is used. Only ariyasāvikā.

In the light of the above, I would concur with Bhikkhu Bodhi’s rendering of Mātugāmasaṃyutta as “Connected Discourses on Women”.

28

My last contribution to this thread as well :slight_smile:

A note regarding the possible translation of ‘Women are foolish’ in light of @ORsEnTURVi’s observations above.

Even if the translation refers to a plural (‘women’), rather than singular (‘woman’), the omission of the definite article (‘The’) arguably makes a difference to the connotation of the translation.

‘The women are foolish’ is a different statement to ‘Women are foolish’. I’ve made my argumaents on the basis of the Dhamma, why the latter sentence isn’t consistent with right speech, and hence isn’t likely.

Syntactically, to my knowledge, both sentences are equivalent in the Pali, but the translation that a particular translator elects for has implications - we can be misrepresenting the Dhamma here with our words, so we need to be careful how we translate, and (even as readers) what we endorse.

Even the sutta’s @ORsEnTURVi has noted above can be understood in slightly different way that give slightly different connotations. For example:

Asuci, duggandho, sabhīru, sappaṭibhayo, mittadubbhī. AN 5.229

Could be translated as:

filthy, stinking, cowardly, frightening, and treacherous.

Or:

Impure, ill-smelling, fearful, dangerous, and bound to betray one

The Buddha’s denigration of women’s bodies as foul isn’t surprising - the Buddha says the same things of his own body. The ascription of certain qualities to women by the Buddha in these suttas needs to be seen as contextual to the audience of bhikkhus who he is trying to lead away from sensual entanglement - it’s consistent with his encouragement for us to see the drawbacks of things that we are infatuated with.

Finally, just to reiterate the original post was on the evidence for an absence of any sexist intent in the Buddha’s institution of the garudhammas. This current discussion of a subsidiary statement of Ananda’s is sideline, and I do not wish it to detract from the message of my original post - namely that the Buddha did not intend any sexism in the institution of the garudhammas. If sexism exists within the monastic disciplines today, that perhaps reflects the sense of self and defilements of the individuals involved - it’s not the Buddha’s intent.

Best wishes to all.