How would these people react if they learned that the Buddha said his teachings were to last only 1000 years* if women were not included in the Sangha? And will only last 500 years after women were included?:
> “But, Ānanda, if women had not obtained the Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the Dhamma & Vinaya made known by the Tathāgata, the holy life would have lasted long, the true Dhamma would have lasted 1,000 years. But now that they have obtained the Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the Dhamma & Vinaya made known by the Tathāgata, the holy life will not last long, the true Dhamma will last only 500 years.
Curiously, this sutta is left out of accesstoinsight.org, which is the leading source on the Internet for deriving the Buddha's authentic words (translated to English). What's your agenda, Bhikku Ṭhānissaro? Certainly not truth if your way is the way of omission.
*Then, what is it that is being practiced today that is called Buddhism? Or are Buddhists unaware of the mentioned sutta of the Buddha... or do they reject it?
But regarding this, and other, anti-women references in the Pali canon, the passages could be corruptions that don't reflect what the Buddha actually said.
Or they could be authentic statements the Buddha made due to genuine beliefs and/or wanting better cultural acceptance to help the survival of early Buddhism. In either case it's not a disaster for Buddhism, which emphasizes the need for individual wisdom & compassion, rather than blindly following some real or imagined leaders.
This issue at hand here is not limited to the question of women in the sangha, but of the Teacher's claims as to the potency and longevity of his Teachings.
I'm not sure if pointing out there are contradictions in the suttas helps the case.
In any case, whether through having contradictions or through rejection via cherry picking, modern Buddhists are eating the fruits of a poisoned tree.
The suttas were already cherry picked when they were written down. In fact, they were cherry picked when the oral tradition first developed.
See also, Digha Nikaya 16, the Mahā Parinibbāna Sutta, one of the foremost suttas detailing the Buddha's awakening, in which he refuses to achieve full enlightenment in the presence of Mara unless his monks and nuns, male and female lay followers were fully established in the dhamma.
If modern "Buddhists" are skillful their practice won't be poisoned by a couple of problematic/corrupt passages within the huge Pali cannon..
There's the now-famous Kalama Sutta where the Buddha specifically encourages people to not rely too much on canonical texts: https://suttacentral.net/an3.65/en/sujato
The 道德经 was not written in the last century, and the ancient pronunciation is only approximately known. Yes it's written in Modern Standard Chinese/pinyin as "Dào Dé Jīng" but the text has existence in the western world older than the Modern Standard Chinese language, certainly longer than modern Chinese orthography.
Looking at Zhengzhang reconstruction of the title, for instance, we get the pronuciation /l'uːʔ tɯːɡ keːŋ/ (I don't know old Chinese phonology at all, I'm just working from wiktionary - please forgive any errors/take with a grain of salt). I don't see any particular reason for English-speakers to use the Modern Standard Chinese pinyin orthography/pronunciation to write terms that come from a considerably older way of speaking. (I say this as someone learning Classical + Middle Chinese using Middle-Chinese pronunciation).
Okay one possible reason is that it might be seen as good if the main inheritors of the tradition (the modern Chinese state+people) get given 'ownership' of it, and that outsiders speak using their preferred terminology/pronunciation. But I'm not personally on board with that, any more than I'd insist that people pronounce Shakespeare in American English.
[ I apologise for any snark that might be residual in this reply (and acknowledge that the remark is slightly tangential to the topic of this page) - I've tried to keep it constructive. ]
As someone who has spend long time meditating in Buddhist monasteries, I would say they don't care.
Sutras are just teachings. You may learn from them and value them, but Buddhists are not "people of the book" like Abrahamic religions are. You don't have to parse everything Buddha and ponder it endlessly. Sometimes he just wondered about the future of the discipline.
He also changed his mind when others presented arguments, just like in this case.
Buddhism as a religion is considered just a vehicle for some truth that people can discover, not the goal itself. Requiring perfect gym to practice is not for people who really want to train.
My own personal experience differed from yours. In a retreat in Burma I observed a lot of traditions, which made it very clear that men had a higher standing than women. When forming a line for going to lunch, the monks were first, then the laymen, then the nuns and then the laywomen; only the monks ate on a raised platform, but not the nuns or laypeople etc.
This was not just old books, which nobody cared about, but pervasive everyday practice.
I very much believe that you had different experience and am happy for it. There’s a lot of Buddhists and different traditions and it’s very difficult to generalise. I myself also practiced in - more western - communities, where there was no noticeable gender imbalance. But I am also sure, that there are Buddhist traditions and communities, which are sexist.
1) You did not see nuns. Formal lineage of nuns died in Theravada lineage hundreds of years ago. Women were wearing white robes right? Those are the robes of novices. You need 5? female nuns to ordain a new nun. Sri Lankan monk, Bhante Henepola Gunaratana (aka Bhante G) asked Tibetan nuns so bootstrap the tradition in Theravada, but it's just starting and there is resistance.
2) Women are considered less than men in Asian cultures (equality of sexes is new in the West too). Religions are not separate from the culture around them.
>But I am also sure, that there are Buddhist traditions and communities, which are sexist.
Yes there are and that is to be expected. (Unless you believe that Buddhism makes people somehow perfect. "After the Ecstasy, the Laundry: How the Heart Grows Wise on the Spiritual Path" by Jack Kornfield is a good book that explains how full of shit Buddhists are no matter how much they train.
Buddhism is not about creating perfect world in this world or in afterlife.
Yes, thank you for this explanation. I didn’t know that they were not fully ordained, I learned something from you today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thilashin (although one could argue whether to call them nuns or not in English. The wikipedia article still calls them “Burmese Theravada Buddhist nun” and they were called nuns in English where I practiced - I’d say their culture’s concept of “nun” does not map perfect to the Western concept, so details get lost in translation, but your explanation is fundamentally correct and very helpful. )
This definitely makes clear again my lack of deeper understanding of their culture and the hubris of me judging their culture after having been in Burma for only a month.
That being said, there definitely were signs of sexism, women did not have the same standing and we should not close our eyes to this part of Buddhism. I don’t mean “and therefore Buddhism is bad”, but “as a Buddhist I think we can and should strive to do better”.
When Buddhism supports and reinforces misogyny, racism or jingoism from the surrounding culture, this is also a failing of Buddhism.
There are many Buddhist teachers (including Jack Kornfield) who absolutely do emphasise more virtuous and emphatic living as a core teaching and result of Buddhist practice. As a simple example, metta meditation is often advertised as actually helping you be more compassionate in “real life”.
> When Buddhism supports and reinforces misogyny, racism or jingoism from the surrounding culture, this is also a failing of Buddhism.
Buddhism as a religion has constantly and reliably failed throughout history. "This is not true Buddhism" is putting head into the sand. Buddhism that is deeply embedded into culture and tradition carries the baggage of the culture. Often when it transfers to a new culture there is a nice break from the tradition.
>There are many Buddhist teachers (including Jack Kornfield) who absolutely do emphasise more virtuous and emphatic
Yes. The wisdom of Jack Kornfield is taking western secular values adopting them into Buddhism and getting rid of the bad. Buddhism like any religion can be changed to anything you like, good or bad.
> Women are considered less than men in Asian cultures (equality of sexes is new in the West too). Religions are not separate from the culture around them.
Sure - but aren't monks and priests also supposed to be a model, demonstrating what a really dedicated, pious follower of the religion should look like?
Buddhism is not some progressive movement to change the world.
Ethnic Buddhist traditions are usually among the most conservative forces in the society. They try to be conservative models. In Burma and Sri Lanka many of the politically most active monks favor ethnic cleansing and preach religious intolerance.
There is sexism in Buddhism. I stayed at a Buddhist temple in Germany and there where way more rules for the nuns than the monks.
> "It is extremely important to note that world religions [...] are, naturally and inevitably, in large part compendia of rules for
managing daily life." - John A. Hall, Ideas and the Social Sciences, 1993
This is why I think it's a good thing that western Buddhism exits. It gets rid of all the bad stuff. And there are really interesting insights in Buddhism, like the concept of non-self or the four noble truths.
That’s laughable. Who decided what “the bad stuff” was? The early adopters were people who rejected western religions but projected western, individualistic culture onto eastern traditions.
Buddhists are not "people of the book" because the Buddha was not a God, and didn't have prophetic access to the teachings of a God. His views on karma and rebirth, for example, were those of the society he sprang from; they were not the result of transcendent insight. He was not some kind of perfect being.
Buddha became more God-like as the centuries passed; some Prajnaparamita and later texts describe him as being the height of seven palm trees, for example. But he's never been considered infallible, like a prophet.
> they were not the result of transcendent insight
That's exactly his selling point, that through deep meditation he had profound insights, regarding impermanance and no-self. But yeah, that was his own realisation, not just some words some god said to him that are supposed to be infallible.
Shahrastani, whose book Kitab al milal wan nihal is sitting in front of me right now, had a lot of things to report about Buddhists, and not only that verdict. Have you read him? Furthermore, Biruni on this subject alone is notoriously unreliable, relying on secondhand sources.
For that matter, the New Testament wasn't written until long after the life of Jesus, the canon wasn't established until long after many oral traditions were, and some of Old Testament canon the status of "deuterocanon/apocrypha" has been controversial.
Religions start with key important figures, events and practices long before they get encoded as text. The only one I can think of off the top of my head that might have gone somewhat in the reverse direction was L. Ron Hubbard writing Dianetics and other books to develop a schema and theory for psychological healing before he officially started Scientology. But I don't know all the details about early Scientology so it's hard to say precisely how much was pre-encoded there. I've heard rumours that Hubbard was involved in Freemasonry before starting Scientology so if it's true, it's likely that some of his experiences in it shaped his writings. I also heard that Paul Twitchell, founder of a lesser-known group called "Eckankar" spent some of his earlier days in Scientology. But I digress.
When you strip practices away from dogma in an attempt to further enrich corporations, it's almost like trying to start over with the practices borrowed from some past heritage, the corporation's leadership as the key figures who give advice or select practice consultants to confer with, and with some milestone of success as the promised "awakening event". It definitely runs the risk of turning the corporation into a personality cult where your boss directly or indirectly tells you how to reach a spiritual objective... Of making them money.
>Then, what is it that is being practiced today that is called Buddhism? Or are Buddhists unaware of the mentioned sutta of the Buddha... or do they reject it?
Well, there are many things the Buddha said that they could not care less about. That would just be one more.
A religion is not about precisely what some founder said, but how it was adopted, intepreted, and developed (including what parts were given precedence and which were ignored).
> Buddha said it is super hard or impossible to achieve Nirvana after 1500-2000 years.
Well, that I can agree with. Also according to the Buddha, there are signs that an enlightened being can display to prove their enlightenment. A simple one is that fire does not affect them. To prove his enlightenment, "Ānanda performed a supernatural accomplishment by diving into the earth and appearing on his seat at the council (or, according to some sources, by flying through the air.)"
Ramana Maharshi got cancer. When the doctor operated to remove the tumor anesthetic was refused. Ramana watched the operation without evident discomfort. He said after that he experienced the sensations of the operation but did not suffer.
Buddhism is not a philosophy based on a magic book or some unprovable god; it’s just people. The Buddha was a normal person, and absolutely could and did make the kinds of mistakes common in his time.
I don’t think that stops it being useful, personally.
I think it depends on your particular fork of Buddhism. It's a pretty open source religion, and some sects and scriptures are more devout to tradition and mysticism than others.
I don’t believe this is the gotcha that you think it is.
Every single school of thought, religion or otherwise, has good and bad parts. Taking the overwhelmingly good aspects of Buddhism to understand how to lead a better life, is not invalidated because the Buddha said one thing you dislike. It’s naivety to desire 100% perfection from everyone/thing.
Many religions claim that their scriptures have some special merit or perfection that goes beyond ordinary schools of thought. (I don't disagree that this is naive; it's nevertheless often a central claim).
You don’t need to believe in any religion, though even theists are very selective followers. The point is to use philosophy from religions/etc to inform your own worldview and improve your life.
My point is, why believe that philosophy has merit, or that you'd be able to distinguish the good parts from the bad parts? (And if you are able to distinguish good from bad philosophy, why would you need an existing religion as a starting point?)
Could you point me to some perfect philosophical writings?
Obviously, the authors must be beyond reproach in their lives. And, do ensure that everything in their writings & speech are “good” before their time, during their time, during our time, and for all future times to come.
Your other point seems to be that it’s better to avoid all this, and start from scratch. It’s good for you that you are able to inform yourself of everything with no materials. The rest of us need something to go off of.
> Could you point me to some perfect philosophical writings? Obviously, the authors must be beyond reproach in their lives. And, do ensure that everything in their writings & speech are “good” before their time, during their time, during our time, and for all future times to come.
I have a lot more faith in an imperfect source that acknowledges itself as such than a source that purports to be perfect but isn't.
I can't assume a disclaimer that contradicts what's explicitly in the main body of the work, no.
Religious philosophy is generally embedded in a paradigm where that religion is correct, and where scripture in particular is perfect and infallible. So it's not at all obvious to say that you can pull value from it outside that paradigm.
I don't know why this good advice is downvoted, and looks like mine will too.
I don't understand why people still consider literature written by human with nowadays language to must be either perfect or it's worthless.
Also how they see a form of government that declared they're adopting one religion teaching and using it as argument proof / point.
We will spiralling down to whataboutism soon like this. Cherry picks the good ones are fine, and people do that everyday. Just don't cherry pick a bad one to justify your agenda and your bad action.
It's like people want these things written down in no-holes legalese. While at the same time people will misinterpret what others are saying (see "straw man argument"; people are quick to jump to conclusions about people about what they say and don't say).
Here's a religious code people can live by: "Don't be a dick". I'm sure that summarizes all the good parts of organized religions and philosophies. It's also the most difficult one to adhere to for a lot of people.
One of the agreed-upon principles common to the largest Buddhist denominations is that our world was not created and is not ruled by an omnipresent, omniscient God.
As for that sutta, the Pali canon is absolutely huge, the Mahayana sutras even more so, the majority of the latter haven’t been translated into English even. Most Buddhists, even historically, do not follow the sutras to the word, they use them as teaching guidance. There is nothing wrong with not accepting a sutra because you don’t think it is a good teaching or one that is helpful to you
EDIT also Buddhists I’ve spoken to generally reject that sutta, Mahayana Buddhists see all Pali suttas as lesser and provisional. The founder of my sect, Dogen, rejected the idea of mappo (age of dharma decline) entirely.
It is not historically accurate to think that all Buddhists generally accept all Buddhist texts and concepts, unless you specifically only mean some of the more hardcore Theravada who accept all of the Pali canon. Unfortunately in the west Buddhism is often conflated with just the Theravada, since the Mahayana seems scarier and more difficult to get into, however the latter is more popular and has developed more historically
Buddism has always adopt in order to stay relevant. There are many ways to achieve enlightenment. Maybe US Buddhists will find their own unique path forward.
There was a great saying by Ajahn Chah, who always seems to be quotable. He said "How come everyone says Buddhism is old-fashioned and needs to be adapted? No-one ever accuses the defilements as being old-fashioned and outdated; no, they're always up-to-date."
Edit: can you please not post unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments in general? It looks like you've been doing that repeatedly, unfortunately. If you wouldn't mind reviewing the guidelines and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
The way I was taught, suttas/sutras were treated as interesting historical documents, and sometimes as useful aids to understanding. They were not considered to be "gospel" truth, because they are not associated with a practice lineage. That is, there is only a text; there is no handing-down of a lived experience from teacher to practitioner.
My teachers favoured more "modern" texts, such as Asanga's works, and the Prajnaparamita literature. They have practice lineages that can be traced back to their authors. Statements from the sutras/suttas were met with remarks of the form "Very interesting; it may be true, or it may be not true".
> “But, Ānanda, if women had not obtained the Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the Dhamma & Vinaya made known by the Tathāgata, the holy life would have lasted long, the true Dhamma would have lasted 1,000 years. But now that they have obtained the Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the Dhamma & Vinaya made known by the Tathāgata, the holy life will not last long, the true Dhamma will last only 500 years.
Source: AN 8:51 Gotami Sutta, Pali Canon: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN8_51.html
Curiously, this sutta is left out of accesstoinsight.org, which is the leading source on the Internet for deriving the Buddha's authentic words (translated to English). What's your agenda, Bhikku Ṭhānissaro? Certainly not truth if your way is the way of omission.
*Then, what is it that is being practiced today that is called Buddhism? Or are Buddhists unaware of the mentioned sutta of the Buddha... or do they reject it?