Jump to content
Dharmaling Forums
Sign in to follow this  
lillipooh

Buddhism and Gender equality

Recommended Posts

Dear Friends,

 

although the concept of Buddhism invokes gender equality this is not really reflected enough in the material world. Thus I am wondering why haven't there been for instance any female Dalai Lamas or other high Lamas during the history of Buddhism? Why does the HH Dalai Lama constantly 'choose' to incarnate in a male body?

 

Isn't the Buddha nature without a sex? Wasn't Buddha often portrayed as androgynous because of that fact?

 

Where has the 'female' aspect of Buddhahod vanished?

 

I know, there is Tara and there are Buddhist nuns somwhere in the background as well, but in my view, for the true equality this is far from being enough..

 

I would love to hear your thoughts about it.

 

With best regards,

 

Lil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi lillipooh :) ,

I can imagine you would like to hear facts and proofs...I hope one will write about them, because I know there are....(but I am not good at this). I mean there are more women, it's not only Tara who became enlightened in a female body...

...but, even if it was only Her, She is so much...! <|:)

I stooped being bothered by that, I hope :wink:

This is one aspect.

About the injust inequalities there might be in communes, I don't know...I would like to hear about them too...I don't think anyone wise would approve the differentiation between minds, as you said, wouldn't that be in controversian with one's path.

I wish you all the very best,

Pamo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ani.Chödrön

Tashi Delek,

 

many times women ask me if nuns are in equal position as man. Usually I answer as you and Pamo have already told: that mind has no gender; that there are many important female Buddhas; that men and women have equal possibilities to reach Buddhahood; and that these things have been written in the Texts. For me, this is the important thing.

 

But you are talking about living in a conventional world, created by our limited minds. So an additional answer would be: social context of each time-and-space also shapes the concrete reality, not just the religious ideals that we strive to reach.

Practically speaking, if men have more influence in a particular society then women, and if one wants to reach with Dharma as many sentient beings as possible – which conventional body would you choose? It’s not a question of being biased, it’s a question of the actual karmic circumstances that people have been creating in their past lives.

 

There are texts and facts that can be interpreted as sexism – if taken out of their context. Shantideva’s Bodhisattvacharyavattara gives some remarks about women that many western women would not like to hear – but it was written for monks, to prevent them from desire. So it is good to distinguish a function from the appearance.

And there are nunneries that are poorer then the monasteries and in the history nuns had less possibilities to get a full geshe education then monks. Today this cultural injustices are being actively removed. Nevertheless, it is good to know that even in the history it was the karma of the particular women which created the living conditions in which they found themselves.

 

Some people are convinced that no man can do as much harm to a woman as women can. They believe that the level of jealousy or gossip is higher among women, and that this, together with emotional turbulences and lack of self-discipline, can retard their spiritual progress – not men. The point is again not biased to gender: the real enemy lays inside, not outside us. As Shantideva said,

 

[align=center]By destroying your inner enemy, the disturbing thoughts,

You destroy all your outer enemies as well.

The work is accomplished at the same time.[/align]

 

All the very best, :*

chödrön

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would just like to add what Rinpoche said about this topic last summer. Namely, that some phenomena, like gender discrimination, that seem to be associated with certain religions originate from specific societies and predate the religion itself. For example, the Tibetan society as such predates Buddhism and many of its traditions and social norms are a heritage of an earlier time. Nowadays we tend to see a society and its religion as a single phenomenon, but in fact a specific society existed before it adopted a certain religion and blended its traditions and norms with the new beliefs.

 

Another such example is Islam. Prophet Muhammad highly respected women and Quran says that women should be respected and protected from any harm, that they should be regarded as equals to men. It does not command women to cover themselves or to get mutilated in order to be "pure". In fact, Muhammad preached against such harmful practices. This also proves that such discriminative practices predate Islam, that they originate from an earlier time before these societies adopted Islam. Unfortunately, some beliefs are so deeply rooted that it is difficult to eradicate them, particularly since coverts often used their new religion to justify their old habits and traditions. This is the case for example with the genital mutilation of women in Africa: they claim they should be mutilated in order to be pure and proper Moslems, when in fact this tradition predates Islam.

 

A similar although less drastic mechanism is probably at work in Tibetan and other Asian societies that do not seem to be able to abandon their old traditions, including the discrimination of women, despite the fact that they have adopted a religion such as Buddhism. Consequently, practice and theory are often at odds in these societies.

 

I am convinced that we could also find many such examples in our western society that has adopted Christianity at a certain point.

 

As Rinpoche says, there is only one mind, not a female and male mind, and Buddha never said anything to the contrary. In order to attain our ultimate spiritual goal, we must transcend all differences, including the delusions about the female and male gender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear All,

thank you for all your very insightful thoughts. :)

 

I agree with you Dechen that religions have to bee seen in a wider culturally historical frame, but on the other hand we have to acknowledge as well that only we are creating or perpetuating those qualities gathered through history, be them good or less good. History of a nation, society or civilisation can be seen as a macro projection of a self-realisation and in this sense we are obliged to erase those oppressive 'culturally'-conditioned practices.

 

Otherwise, why would have we been placed here if we wouldn't have that inherently striving motivation to change and transcend the mutilations caused by human weaknesses?

 

It is good to know about all influences and causes that are co-creating certain societies or religions but it is certainly not good enough to leave it that way.

 

With all respect to what Ani. Chödrön said, I would like to comment something. If the reason that, for instance, highly acknowledged lamas have been perpetually incarnated in male bodies, was because men are more influential in this world, then this tells me 2 things, namely that:

 

a) it is hard to imagine that such highly consciouss beings wouldn't want to abolish the male domination and transform the world-view of their companion beings and thus consequently eradicate additional suffering caused by male dominance;

 

B) if we agree that for the purpose of gathering as much as possible sentient beings into Sangha is the reason that we didn't had any female Dalai Lama yet, then nowdays - with all respect - monks would have to choose to practice other 'professions' which are indeed far more influential on masses in the modern society.

 

It is good to hear about female Lamas and Buddhas (Thanks Khyenrab for links), but I think we have to agree that they are still in men's shadows...

 

I know that there are much greater gender inequalities in other religions, but knowing the Buddhist principles I am wondering why are these inequalities still reflected within Buddhism.

 

Tradition and peoples opinion should not in any way be a reason not to act according with the Buddha nature, which contains both male and female principles, and is none of those at the very end...

 

However, this question is still tickling my mind; why would an enlightened being choose certain manifestations (ie male bodies) and subordinate 'him/herself' to play the game constructed by the part of the population of less developed beings? Wouldn't the compassion for the other part of the population stimulate 'him/her' to change these mistaken gender-polarised actions?

 

Thanks again for all your thoughts!

Warm regards and much light,

Lillip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that we shouldn't just sit and watch the injustices taking place around us, that things should change and that we should contribute to these changes. How we should do that, well, I'm not going to speculate about that, I'm not that wise but I'm sure striving to become wise enough one day.

 

Equally, I don't know the answer as to why many enlightened beings choose a male body, but maybe here I should use the word "some" instead of "many". The fact is that there have been many enlightened female masters. I feel that due to our conditioning and upbringing we automatically focus on the male principle practically on every step of our lives, including the spiritual and that way, we ignore or miss out on the female principle. In other words, there have been enlightened female masters but in our ignorance we don't see them or know about them. Maybe it is our own outlook that is at fault here. And our outlook (plus karma) creates the world for us. This is what I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Der Dechen,

 

you are right. There are also enlightened beings in female bodies - I never doubted about it - but however about them we do not know much by a big part because the system isn't constructed that way and not solely due to our personal ignorance.

 

It's obvious why men have a superior position in Islam, Judaism and Christianity, but Buddhism is based on fairly different premises as those religions... And, of course, I am not saying that the position of women in (Tibetan) Buddhism is as bad as in other religions, but some details are certainly disturbing a bit the harmony.

 

All the very best :),

 

Lil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but some details are certainly disturbing a bit the harmony.

 

The question one could ask him/herself also in this discussion is: why to bother about all this if it's not a manifestation of the ego?

 

Of course, this has to be taken out of cases when women are "badly" discriminated ie. forced to labor, beaten, etc... which is not the case in our Western societies.

 

Many feminist have entered Buddhist with all their prerogativesprojections, bitterness, frustrations, and have been/are shouting a lot at discrimination and difference in gender. Yet, since we know that ultimately it doesn't matter, that male/female is a concept, why to develop attachement to seek an absolute equality and not to work on that ego which feels affected by this discrimination?

Isn't it a way to reinforce a sense of ego to "fight" in this direction? Which, of course, is opposite of Dharma...

 

And it is also a bad understanding of karma. Because after all, we are what we have created the causes for, no? Man, woman, is the result of our own karmic causes from the past....

 

Equality and human rights are a issue to work on for the happiness of all sentients beings. Feminism and machism are distortion of te egotic mind striving for useless and disturbing emotionnal matters...

 

Lets focus on the essential: Dharma practice, through all its possibilities.

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek,

It is good to hear about female Lamas and Buddhas (Thanks Khyenrab for links), but I think we have to agree that they are still in men's shadows...

Realized Teachers, Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, emanate in forms that will be most helpful, most beneficial to sentient beings, this is very good to keep in mind - there is no way we can judge Them.

 

No Lama is in the shadow of another Lama, that kind of thinking is absurd. There is no "male" or "female" agenda behind it. It is not a competition - far from it. ;)

 

Yet, some practitioners do choose to take female bodies until and after they reach Enlightenment, just to show that it is possible, that gender is no obstacle, nothing more.

 

With best wishes,

Khyenrab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion it doesnt matter whether the teacher or teachers of the Buddhism are male or female. The form that the mind is in is not relevant - well it is relevant if you focus youre mind on what that being looks like instead of looking what that being is talking about.

 

Also about female, male boddies. In Africa (don't know where) there are tribes where male part of population stays home, takes care of the young etc. whereas female part hunts and battles. I think this is a great example that it doesn't matter the body but the mind you carry within your body. Also, giving less freedom to the women is part of the institution and not the religion.

 

Why Lama's don't reincarnate in female bodies? Don't know that but i think that they must have a good reason otherwise they wouldn't do that. The same goes for the female Lama's. So, shouldn't we pay them respect just for being here and try to practise the wisdom they speak, other than thinking why they live in bodies of one sex? When our time comes - we will be able to decide the same thing as they did - let's wait till then :wink: .

 

 

What goes for male power and politics... That is something else - our society teaches or at least has a taste of the teaching that males are still dominant. Rather than argue about that - show it through your deeds that we are all equal, what you believe is important not what others say. If you find sanctuary or answers in buddhism - learn it, do not listen to empty words of those who never experienced it. Same goes for all other things...

 

 

best regards

 

namgyel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Gigu, for putting into words what I failed to express. :)

 

I completely agree. As a woman, I always felt uneasy about feminism. Particularly in the west, we always demand rights and never think about responsibilities and what we have done to end up in a certain situation.

 

We should keep things in the right perspective, i.e. karma and work to eliminate suffering from the world for men and women alike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Lilipooh,

 

I don't have anything more to add to what others have said, except that I totally agree with them.

 

But I would like to correct you about other religions. The origin of Christianity and Islam is very noble. Christ's teaching is nothing but pure love and compassion, calling to the people of that time to change their ways and become more compassionate. Prophet Mohammad's message was much the same. The life of Arab tribes at that time was extremely ruthless and cruel. What he preached for was social justice.

As far as Judaism goes, the matter is more complicated and not that pure, but there were periods when Jewish prophets called their people to be compassionate, to establish social justice and to lead a more ethical life. These messages are pure, but what their recepients did with them, to what extent they put these messages into practice, is another matter.

 

It is very dangerous to accuse a religion/belief/teaching of being harmful or impure based on how subsequent generations behaved. I think we should separate between the teachings as such and the behaviour of those who claim that they have embraced it. A teaching may be perfect, but people unless enlightened are not. And this is also one part of the answer about discrimination of women in Buddhism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ani.Chödrön

Tashi Delek,

 

just a slight remark about social activism. Machism and feminism are just one tandem of the different social dichotomies, obviously there are many others (poverty, sickness, handicap, racism, old age, nationalism…). I see the most effective “activism” in cutting the root of it, namely our self-clinging attitude and lack of understanding of the dependent arising nature of the phenomena. Bodhicitta and Wisdom are the best weapons against it that I know, suitable for inner and outer work.

 

Because the line between Dharma path and ego path is sometimes thin, I prefer to check well two things before taking an action: my motivation for doing something; and my attitude towards the others, my sense of equanimity. Sometimes this forces me to remain “like a piece of wood”, when I would prefer to act. And to work harder on my inner dis/abilities.

 

I believe that Dharma does have a revolutionary effect on a society. I would compare it to a river, which slowly blazes a trail through a mountain, melting the ego, not just its symptoms.

 

All the very best,

chödrön

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek,

just a slight remark about social activism. Machism and feminism are just one tandem of the different social dichotomies, obviously there are many others (poverty, sickness, handicap, racism, old age, nationalism…). I see the most effective “activism” in cutting the root of it, namely our self-clinging attitude and lack of understanding of the dependent arising nature of the phenomena. Bodhicitta and Wisdom are the best weapons against it that I know, suitable for inner and outer work.

[align=justify]I agree with Ani Chodron. But social activism is still an interesting topic with regard to Buddhism. Sometimes it seems that Buddhism is mainly occupied with changing an individual, implying that the rest (change in the perception of the environment) will follow automatically :lol:. Western societies on the other hand seem to be historically more focused on changing the (social) system, implying that individual changes will follow naturally, once the social barriers have been torn down. This probably explains why democracy is a western notion, while e.g. Emptiness an Eastern one.

 

Sometimes it seems that when focusing on personal change, there is a danger of indirectly neglecting the social aspects (the same can be of course argued for the opposite). Perhaps lack of social activism could be supported through the explanation of karma. E.g. if one is living in an unjust society, it is his karma that is the reason for it, therefore one should turn on the inside and not outside (i.e. trying to change oneself and not the society), in order to improve. But this is quite difficult to believe, being brought up in communism 8). I mean - giving legitimacy to the existing social order just like that (indirectly, but still). And there are some "Dharma stories", when e.g. someone becomes a mighty king with many servants and big fortune as a consequence of his good deeds. Does this imply that monarchy (or feudalism or even absolutism) are acceptable social systems and that the existing rulers are nice people with good karma :roll:? (I am not completely sure, which exact Dharma stories I am referring to here :lol:.

 

Tibet was probably socially stable, while materially not very developed society. On the west the question of social activism seems more problematic, since the society is at least formally democratic, giving individuals more possibilities to act.

 

Maybe middle way between focusing on inner development and outer (social) acting is the right way :lol:. Probably with (aspiring) Bodhicitta motivation.

 

Best regards,

 

Draftsman[/align]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ani.Chödrön

Tashi Delek.

 

I wouldn’t go into democracy, :| individualism :| and altruism :| here, but in general I agree with you. It reminds me of medicine: allopathic (western) medicine is usually healing the symptoms while traditional medicines like Tibetan, Chinese or Ayurvedic are working on causes on the first place, but also removing the disturbing symptoms – this is how I see social activism or middle way in Buddhism.

 

E.g. if one is living in an unjust society, it is his karma that is the reason for it, therefore one should turn on the inside and not outside (i.e. trying to change oneself and not the society), in order to improve.

 

I would turn it in another way: because karma is nothing fatalistic, we can work on it through our everyday life – with outer and inner activities simultaneously. To my knowledge, karmicaly aware Buddhists are not nailed to their meditation cushions. :wink:

 

And as i understand, it can take quite some time before we evolve from mainly outer actions :-v to mainly inner ones. l-) We have to accumulate some merits first. :wink:

 

All the very best,

chödrön

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek,

I wouldn’t go into democracy, :| individualism :| and altruism :| here, but in general I agree with you.

I also agree that we agree in general :D.

 

It reminds me of medicine: allopathic (western) medicine is usually healing the symptoms while traditional medicines like Tibetan, Chinese or Ayurvedic are working on causes on the first place, but also removing the disturbing symptoms – this is how I see social activism or middle way in Buddhism.

[align=justify]Usually it is said that western and holistic medicine should walk hand in hand - western being needed for its wide spectre of knowledge and advance technology it uses, holistic for its in depth approach and traditional methods - probably the same goes for the inner transformation v. social activism dilemma.

 

On the ultimate level it is surely true that the state of society is a symptom, yet on a conventional level, it might be useful to differentiate between individual and social pathology, the latter being more than just a sum of individual pathologies. Social pathology (a consequence of the previous/existing social systems) is inevitablyy reflected in the mental state of indviduals - members of the society, therefore it has a wide effect. Society and individual seem like two mirrors opposing and reflecting each other, obviously the former mirror (society) reflecting with a stronger beam 8). Conventionally, social pathology probably needs social changes as the antidote and for this, wisdom of individuals is required. So the circle is closed :lol:.

 

Hmm, I sure hope that this writting doesn't reflect some sort of my hidden Fromm-like leftist "commie" agenda (i.e. my projection :oops:).

 

To put it more simple: India might be a home of spirituality, but as a society it is probably less fair than the west (taking in consideration the caste system, poverty etc.) So, I would say that social activism is (speaking conventionally) not just removing a symptom.

 

Best regards,

 

Draftsman[/align]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as fairness goes, everything is relative. In my opinion, what we call western democracy is nothing but the freedom of capital and adjustment of the society for the benefit of the wealthy to accumulate more capital. And poverty is on the rise judging by the number of the homeless in our streets. At least that's what I see on every step in our "democracy". As an individual living in a "democratic" society I feel I don't have much influence on the way this society is shaping. Therefore I tend to retreat into my own world, working on myself, while at the same time being acutely aware that something should be done to make to world better for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ani.Chödrön

Tashi Delek,

 

[align=justify]Usually it is said that western and holistic medicine should walk hand in hand - western being needed for its wide spectre of knowledge and advance technology it uses, holistic for its in depth approach and traditional methods - probably the same goes for the inner transformation v. social activism dilemma.[/align]

 

I agree completely. :D

 

There’s one thing that prefer I keep in front of my eyes: we live in degenerate time and our life span is quite short; if i want to really help the others, not just in their present life, but also in the future, then I shall better not waste time. Among the three ways of helping the others – material help; giving protection from fear / comforting others; and teaching the Buddha's doctrine, the Dharma – all are necessary. And they depend on each individual and each situation.

 

At the same time I believe that being focused on the Final Goal, while we are working on our short-, middle-term and long-term goals, can be good from all points of view: we don’t get easily lost on sideways, it adjusts our motivation so that we don’t give up when inevitable obstacles appear, and because it puts everything in the right perspective. I think this compass makes our life more peaceful and more effective. This priority is not against everyday practical help but supports it. ;-F

 

All the very best,

chödrön

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's good to have democracy, it is good to have human rights - we must have some good karma to live in such a society. But not that good, since these grand ideas are not being thoroughly upheld.

Human rights give us a lot of freedom - to choose. They do not say: "You must be kind and help others." Their motto isn't "Selfishness will kill you.". We live in democracy (not perfect, but still), where selfishness is completely legal. I am not saying we should ban it ;) I am saying the answer to our problems is our attitude. One can be an extremely successful citizen - utterly selfish, with many wrong views and prejudice - seemingly doing good beneficial work with great results, whereas karmically speaking "paving his/her path to hell".

I have always thought that it is not what you do that matters but how you do it - and there is some truth in that. When you know how to do anything, it becomes also very important what you do. My view anyway.

 

And I sincerily beleive that there can only be "World peace through inner peace" as His Holiness teaches. Or family peace, or peace in any country, any job, any relationship. We do create this world, and each of us has a certain number of contact with others, we influence one another in a big way. It would be foolish to say that the government is leading us - they do - but not our minds, not our thoughts and hearts. So, the way we act is of greatest importance, the impact we can have is enormous - not by tearing down the government - but by spreading peace, non-violance and compassion to those we meet, call, send post :)

 

Anyway, speaking very much in general...

 

Best regards,

Khyenrab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ani.Chödrön

I've just noticed: in Dharmaling i've met much more actively socially engaged people (including engaged for animals) then anywhere else. :maybe: !:!

 

Not a coincidence, i guess, Buddhism is a compassionate path. :%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as feminism is concerned, i just remembered one super cool quote, unfortunately don't know the author.

 

"Holding a grudge is like swallowing poison and then expecting somebody else to die."

 

:P :DD ;-F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek,

As far as fairness goes, everything is relative. In my opinion, what we call western democracy is nothing but the freedom of capital and adjustment of the society for the benefit of the wealthy to accumulate more capital. And poverty is on the rise judging by the number of the homeless in our streets.

Yes, I completely agree. Democracy is an empty frame, how we fil it up, it is completely up to us, as Khyenrab pointed out. Yet, only having this kind of decision making frame is worth something. And although selfishness is surely on the rise, western societies still have their benefits (it is easier to live moral, since we are e.g. not exposed to so-called extreme poverty etc.) But it is still surprising to see that Asian societies are not "naturally" inclined towards democracy, having such a spiritual history. Probably moral and similar problems in our society are more post-capitalistic, while in India&co., they are still living in a kind of mixture of the old and modern times.

 

I've just noticed: in Dharmaling i've met much more actively socially engaged people (including engaged for animals) then anywhere else. maybe Prostra-tion

Khm yes, speaking for myself, I sure hope that social activities are not just a lazy way to escape regular practice :oops: .

 

Best regards,

 

Draftsman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...