The politics of the Buddha’s genitals

BD.5.356 “If, Ānanda, women had not obtained the going forth from home into homelessness in the dhamma and discipline proclaimed by the Truth-finder, the Brahma-faring, Ānanda, would have lasted long , true dhamma would have endured for a thousand years. But since, Ānanda, women have gone forth … in the dhamma and discipline proclaimed by the Truth-finder, now, Ānanda, the Brahma-faring will not last long, true dhamma will endure only for five hundred years.

what is interesting is seeing how nobody ask if the fault of that time decrement because the admission of women it was in men instead in women. Note the Buddha never said the fault of that decrement was in the women.

It can leave an uncomfortable land to ask for some unconsciouss or implicit misogyny when managing that episode, even to defend sex equality. Which is funny

Do you know some essay arguing if perhaps were the lacks in men what caused the time decrement after accepting women?. I have never found one.

Sorry my ignorance, I’m aware about the tons of papers with this issue. Although I believe this passage don’t have some high special interest because it says something of common sense. In a community of people who are under celibacy, etc… and with many integrants still to be purified, the inclussion of both sex can cause difficulties for the goal. This is nothing strange, I believe. Anyone can study the arising problems after including roosters and hens in a corral, although I wonder where is the special mistery to clarify or discover. What the Buddha said is fully logical.

The strange thing would be reading in a text of 2.500 years ago: “Ananda, after including women there will be no difference”. It isn’t something of common sense?. :no_mouth:

Hermaphrodite refers to specifically to a being (human or otherwise) that has both male and female genitals. Intersex is a more general term that encompasses a range of non-standard presentations.

There is no suggestion that the Buddha had female genitalia, and, as you say, he had a son. So in terms of reproductive sexuality he was male. Clearly, however, his genitals were emphatically said to appear unusual, and the wording used to describe this is elsewhere used of female genitals. Perhaps intersex is not the best term for this, I am open to suggestions.

6 Likes

There is such a thing in some human males as genital retraction & hyperinvolution, and even buried penis. It can develop as an adult, or earlier.

Thanks for the reply Bhante.

Thanks. These might also be appropriate terms, although at a first glance, they appear to be treated as medical problems, rather than as a simple variation in anatomy.

1 Like

I find this Western obsession with sex somewhat weird. I think the only ‘sexual organ’ we need to be concerned with is his head; or specifically the mind and I would argue that it’s the only sexual organ there is! It’s like saying if someone had a mole on their bum, it undermines who they are! It’s actually discrimination!

5 Likes

True, all those terms are from a perspective of “problem”.
There is also the saying “a grower not a show -er”. On a taboo topic, that might be all that is said.

If not mistaken , Cakkavatti The Wheel Turning King appears to bear the 32 great man marks . The birth of a Cakkavatti is attended by the same miracles as that of the birth of a Buddha. A Cakkavatti is as worthy of a thūpa as a Buddha. Another thing is it appears that no woman can become a Cakka-vatti / Sakka / Brahma / Mara and Buddha .

Is it something random ?

Bhante, but haven’t other 30 “marks of the great man” raised any questions or suspicions? :joy: Like, really? If we consider all of them as “real thing”, we will draw a picture of an alien from Star Wars. :slight_smile: Why don’t we then suppose Buddha was a Jedi knight stranded on Earth, and George Lucas is the new Messiah, Maitreya, perhaps? :slight_smile:

1 Like

Just a little moderator comment :slight_smile:

Humour and irony doesn’t translate well across the internet, especially with many participants who do not have english as a first language.

Extra care needs to be taken when addressing people so that posts aren’t perceived as sarcastic etc.

:dharmawheel: :anjal:

2 Likes

They have. There are many essays and discussions of this point.

How do you know the 32 marks are brahmanical ideals or Brahmanic belief? Could you give some concreate details to support the view?

It could be just simply created by the early Buddhists in order to show their teacher or Buddha is very special one.

Yes, I also agree with that.

But it is likely that the Buddha in the beginning did not welcome women into his sangha, according to both the Pali and Chinese Vinayas on the attha garudhamma.

In the suttas it is always brahmins who are said to look out for the 32 marks, see DN 3, MN 91, and MN 92. Apart from this, the 32 marks are only mentioned in two other suttas in the four main Nikāyas, that is, DN 14 and DN 30, without any indication of the origin of the idea.

It’s not clear to me how these marks would have made the Buddha special unless they were already so considered by the broader Indian culture. Many of the marks are strange and idiosyncratic. The Buddhists would have needed some rationale to come up with these particular marks. That the idea was inherited from the broader culture, or segments of that culture, seems to me to be the most plausible one.

10 Likes

I guess we didn’t get each others’ ironies then :slight_smile:
:pray:

Finally an explanation that I can relate to. What would be a better term than “intersex”? Just so I can google to find out more on the human aspect of a great human.

Biological father is not necessarily the same as husband of the mother of the child.

I’m surprised that nobody has drawn a comparison with the concepts of male nudity in ancient Greece and Rome. Whereas modern people consider exposing the male genitals at all to be inherently embarrassing, the ancient Greeks were most concerned with the exposure of the glans. Naturally, the vast majority of men were uncircumcised. When Greek athletes were competing (otherwise) nude, they would commonly tie up the tip of the foreskin with a string, to be sure that the glans was not exposed to the public. If a man was exposed in that way, then he would seem foolish, grotesque, lustful, or bestial.

Substituting in this contemporaneous classical concept of male nudity would provide a simple answer that would be well in line with themes of sagely physical perfection and lack of desire. It may also go some distance in explaining why, in the text mentioned, the Buddha is able to show this one of the 32 marks, and yet the text describing that encounter was not rejected. And for what it’s worth, these ideals were also present in the Seleucid Empire.

8 Likes

Nathan McGovern seems to agree.

6 Likes

Some great materials here. To add to this, some recent comparison by Kenneth Zysk has been done since then between Babylonian and Indian physiognomy texts. The earliest Indic text used here dates from around the 1st century BCE. The earliest Akkadian text here dates to the 7th century BCE, inscribed in cuneiform on clay tablets. However, the actual system is apparently referenced in Mesopotamian sources as early as the 11th century BCE.

Mesopotamian and Indian Physiognomy (2019)

No comparison is made with the 32 marks. However, I’m seeing some overlap with the 32 marks, such as the body hairs curling in some direction, hairs on the head curling in some direction, characteristics of the voice, smooth skin, lines on the feet, body being twisted or straight, etc.

5 Likes