In the suggested sutta, Milinda lists nine types of people who are unworthy of being entrusted with one’s secrets, including drunkards, people obsessed with sensuality, those characterized by the three poisons, and… women. As I understand the sutta, women are presented as being just as unworthy of trust as drunkards or those addicted to saṃsāra. Yet Milinda is speaking here as a representative of the Dhamma. Why, then, are women placed so low in this passage?
I also do not fully understand the meaning of the term “changeability” in this context. It seems to be given as a reason for not trusting women, but its meaning here is unclear to me.
I humbly ask for clarification from those more knowledgeable. Metta
This is an interesting one, because usually in these misogynistic texts the word used for women is matugama. Such as the Nadī Sutta iti109. However, here it’s just itthi.
I have no real answers as to why Venerable Nagasena might say this. Other than cultural/societal ideas about women did seem to go downhill a short period after the Buddha passed.
In most early Buddhist Texts women are viewed pretty well. Even sometimes better than men.
Speaking from personal experience as a woman, it’s because female social norms reward gossip. When I was in elementary and middle school, I had trouble fitting in and making friends, and through observation noticed that if you could be the one to bring a juicy secret about someone else to the group, you would gain immense social currency. Even if you were unpopular and the girls at the top of the totem pole didn’t like you or gave you that sort of disgusted “what are you doing here trying to be part of our group” look, everything would change if you had a piece of gossip to share, like something that someone else told you in confidence. Their entire demeanor would shift, and you would instantly become one of them. Unfortunately I picked up that behavior and can recall on several occasions going against my conscience and betraying someone’s trust out of the desire to fit in and be popular. I believe gossip originated as a way to keep communities safe in tribal times, like warning your neighbors about shady people that could be a real danger, and just became part of the social fabric (and maybe even our DNA?).
Can this be attributed to an earlier sutta where Lord Buddha stated this? Otherwise is it even worthy of consideration? The Milindapañha from which this is extracted is dated 100bc-200ad. Does that even qualify as an EBT? I find the further from the original source the more corrupted the message often becomes. “Evaṃ me sutaṃ” is a gold standard for me. The Suttas seem to be very even handed in spite of the conventions of the time, dare I say enlightened? Metta
King Milinda is NOT the representative of the Dhamma. This is the beginning of the Milindapanha.. the king at this stage is a non believer, seeking to ask questions of the monk Ven Nagasena.
It is Ven Nagasena that is the representative of the Dhamma.
And his reply to King Milinda’s diatribe is telling.
All that Ven Nagasena says is
Mil 4.3
“What is the fault with these?”
Not confirming. Not denying. Just choosing to enquire non judgementally into the process behind King Milinda’s statement.
Through all these statements and the ones following, Ven Nagasena is assessing King Milinda’s ability to reach reasoned rational conclusions (even if based on faulty data) as an initial step before beginning to guide him towards the Dhamma.
Thank you, @pinus_sylvestris, for this interesting inquiry. It has moved me to study this section of The Questions of Milinda! And may your little fir tree grow up nice and tall .
Superb!
Ajahn Sujato from another (much older) thread:
As an aside, many thanks to John Kelly for translating the Milinda…previously we only had T.W. Rhys Davids’ English translation. Although, prior to his translation, we had no English translation at all . I don’t know whether John’s project is to complete the translation?
As a student of pāḷi, I find it uses some rather difficult constructions. Like, lots of the optative tense! Which makes sense because King Milinda is proposing all sorts of hypothetical puzzles throughout.
Well, here is Bhante’s intro to the Minor Discourses of which the Milindapañha is part:
The word khuddaka means “lesser” or “minor”, and it seems that this category originally served to collect certain short collections, mostly verse, that were not conveniently assigned to one of the main nikāyas . Over time, however, the collection grew, so that the Khuddaka in the Pali canon today is the largest of the nikāyas . It includes some of the most popular texts in Theravāda Buddhism, such as the Dhammapada, the Sutta Nipāta, and the Jātakas. There is no closely parallel collection in the other canons, but many of the early texts have parallels in various places.
Why wouldn’t we consider it worthy of our time and attention?
As I researched Mil 4.3. I also read a handful of preceding and proceeding texts. The context is Mil 4.1 1. The Eight Places for Discussion to be Avoided.
Apparently King Milinda had already become
a master of the Tipiṭaka.
Seeming to obsess on things, it’s understandable he starts fearing for the future:
Not understanding the meaning of these [teachings],
the dilemmas spoken about by the Conqueror;
In the future time,
there will be argument about them.
So he takes on
eight observance practices: “From now for the next seven days, having undertaken the eight qualities, asceticism is to be practiced by me. Having practiced asceticism, and having pleased the teacher, I shall ask about the dilemmas.”
He approaches Nāgasena:
“Venerable Nāgasena, I have a certain matter to discuss with you and I wish it to be in private, in an empty place, in seclusion, in the forest, endowed with the eight qualities, fitting for an ascetic.
There, that question should be asked. Nothing there should be kept hidden or secret from me. I am worthy to hear secrets when we have gone into proper discussion. That matter should also be examined with similes.
I find it interesting that the matter of “secrets” is in the context of his taking private counsel with Nāgasena in the ascetic’s place. Presumably the secrets refer to the prized knowledge that Nāgasena imparts to him. As if this were hidden knowledge.
In any case, even without this context, one could appreciate “secrets” referring to a kind of currency. Which is why I find @thestrawberrygirl 's post fascinating:
thestrawberrygirl’s description of how girls can form tight clubs or groups is so true. The currency in these groups is gossip. Or another way of thinking about the gossip is I’m Telling You Things That I Don’t Tell Anyone Else. So Keep it Secret Just Between Us!
It’s an awful way for girls to act out but thestrawberrygirl proposes a great theory about how this may have been rooted a long time ago in protective behavior. For as much as this sounds sexist, I’ll just say that I feel maternal protection is real.
It’s not fair for Kind Milinda to pick on women like this. However, I assume the other eight types of people are not women
Thank you Beth for bringing this up. Reading this reminded me that there are many places in Anguttara Nikaya where the Blessed One said that Mara can only be a man and not a woman. This is one example. There is one more that I knew of but I have yet to find it. It’s around AN 6 or 7.
AN1:281–283
"It is impossible, mendicants, it cannot happen for a woman to perform the role of Sakka, Māra, or the Divinity.
I’m not sure if by “we” you mean “We at Sutta Central” or “We English-speakers”. But if it’s the latter, there are actually three other English translations, those of I.B. Horner, U Pu, and most recently Maria Heim (which I expect will be the gold standard for some time to come).
As a woman who has mostly socialised with women (our culture), I agree with @ thestrawberrygirl. Also, sharing ‘secrets’ signals ‘I trust you’ (= you’re trustworthy), so an easy way to form a bond.
I’ve heard that men gossip as well, but I’d rather hear from the source.
Having said that, as I’ve grown older, I’ve noticed that women who have a generally happy life don’t gossip much, or even not at all. I guess they have more happy things to talk about rather than focusing their attention on negativity.
I’d speculate that women nearly 3,000 years ago had fewer outlets to vent out their frustrations about their life than men (who could go drinking or visit prostitutes, etc), so gossiping about others would take their minds off their own misery.
Relatively rare. That’s possibly why men has more mental issues of feeling lonely and so on. Anyway, in the monastic life, it’s more of mutual respect and one on one counselling. Any issues, we don’t spread, at most we just tell the teacher if it’s required, and the one on one counselling is most of the time confidential.
I agree that most likely the questions of king milinda is referring to women gossiping as to the reason why not to share secrets to women in general.
Pc 3 also has it that we shouldn’t slander people in order to make oneself endearing to the person listening.
Excuse my ignorance, but what is “Pc 3”? I thought perhaps Precept 3, but right speech is usually the 4th I believe.
The precept of right speech is one thing I like about Buddhism. As I understand it, it’s not simply “don’t lie”, but also expands to cover things such as not using coarse language, idle talk or divisive talk—some delight in speech which divides. The people who can unify are the ones who impress me though, it requires much more skill.
Bu Pc 3. It’s from the Vinaya, the monastics’ rules. An explanation on this class of rule:
The rules in this category are known in Pali as pācittiya, “entailing confession”. There are ninety-two such rules for the monks, seventy of which are shared with the nuns. This is the largest class of rules in the Monastic Code. These rules, together with all the other rules apart from those entailing expulsion and suspension, are classed as light offenses, lahukāpatti. For light offenses there is no penalty apart from confession.
Of course men gossip! Its usually about sharing complaints, rants, issues… sometimes malicious allusions or hints. Plus, plans that are grandiose and will never be implemented but are shared grandly as ‘secret’.. probably more misdirection to the competition rather than actual fact.
But usually not secrets.. actually, never… to share an actual secret takes a lot of trust in the other . And to share someone’s secret with a group would be a cardinal transgression, and probably the end of that relationship.
From a masculine perspective, secrets are power. They expose weaknesses. They are never to be mentioned to anyone, because that would put oneself in their power. And if one was to accidentally discover someone else’s secret, one would never reveal it casually.. it is power over them, you see? There should be something to gain from putting that card on the table… the man who shares another’s secret will invariably be seen by the group as morally weak- a traitor - even as they make full use of the power that they have acquired.
Also, men are usually not too hung up on fitting in or becoming part of the group. Its more about being a leader.. at the very least as being seen as someone worthy of being followed… the lone wolf hero is a trope in almost all cultures. See also, Ven Sujato’s description of the contrasting masculine/ feminine version of the hero story for more on this topic.
**********************************************
PS: Its probably better to think of these as masculine/ feminine tendencies rather than absolute qualities. All people are a mix of yin and yang!
Not to further oppressive stereotypes, but I just had n interesting encounter, where the Admin of our apartment called me to ask me to turn on an electrical switch in the control room. I just did it and closed the phone.
My mom, hearing the thing “Why? Which switch did you turn on? Are they doing maintenance? Why isn’t Admin around? Is he at his in-laws?”
I had no answer to any of those questions. It didn’t even occur me to ask them. So…
This is helpful for me. I’ve experienced that, for younger women and girls in particular, secrets are a form of social currency. thestrawberrygirl and Dheerayupa both note this. I concur here:
Women seem to mature out of needing this kind of currency. Or, they gravitate toward its use as a form of power instead – especially in the workplace to compete with men.
I still maintain that Mil 4.1 paints a specific context for “not keeping secrets” which doesn’t transfer well to a broader discussion on gossip. The Pali supports this from what I can tell. (Although my research is limited.)
Sumana gifts us with a (humorous) contrast where the Buddha clarifies that Mara could only be a man. Here, too, I use caution not to overthink what appears to be blatant stereotyping.
.
. I don’t know whether John’s project is to complete the translation?
Its usually about sharing complaints, rants, issues… sometimes malicious allusions or hints. Plus, plans that are grandiose and will never be implemented but are shared grandly as ‘secret’.. probably more misdirection to the competition rather than actual fact.