Attached is a thread about Buddhism and sexism from another forum.

http://www.kundalini-support.com/forum/index.php/topic,7653.0.html

Thank you for that link, Recoverer,

That site looks very interesting.

I sensed a slight discrepancy, however ;), between your comments there and the situation you recalled here recently when you said all the females left the room and hid when you entered---?  :)

Also, Dearsoul, I hope the headguy there was correct when he inferred that enlightenment is a process of a multitude of partial enlightenments and not a state of accomplished perfection. I thought several recent threads here have shown that spiritual growth is stunted by having idols we cannot live up to, and that we can achieve wondrous spiritual strength but still be without perfection.

Your comments there about harnessing kudalini as energy for creative growth are something I need to know more about. I'll be going back often!

Thank you,
Bets

I guess we can't ever know what was intended or what was actually said by historical figures in these situations. It's actually the case that most of the teachings taught by Buddhist schools (especially Mahayana) were set down long after the Buddha lived.

There's especially in Tibetan Buddhism a tradition of hidden teachings (terma) which it's said are revealed as and when they are needed to successive lineage holders according to the needs of the times they live in.

It's easy for ancient teachings to get cross threaded with modern day views which tend to get expressed in politically correct or dogmatic terms. Only theorising, but it's possible that the position of women in society at the time the Buddha taught was such that any religious organisation recognising equality was likely to suffer consequences in terms of its ability to survive, and to propogate its message.

Recognition of a practical reality of this sort (if that's what it was) is not at all the same as holding a fundamental view that women were/are in some way inferior.

In a similar light it's perhaps worth saying as well that realisation is not generally regarded as implying instant infallibility in worldly matters. It simply implies the end of selfish or egotistical urges and the consequent ability to reliably access  higher wisdom and compassion. Trouble is the old (worldly) persona remains - it needs reworking through further life experience guided by the new found insight if it is to reflect restoration of spirit as the guiding light. Realisation is in effect the starting point of this process.....

Betson:

Comments below in double quotes.


betson wrote on Sep 10^th, 2007 at 9:37pm:

Thank you for that link, Recoverer, ""You're welcome."" That site looks very interesting. ""Yes. There are some nice folks over there."" I sensed a slight discrepancy, however ;), between your comments there and the situation you recalled here recently when you said all the females left the room and hid when you entered---?  :) ""You're talking about a dream where I visited my disc.  They didn't leave because I'm a chauvinist.  They left because I still haven't gotten over my sexual desires that prevents me from seeing them as purely spirit beings."" Also, Dearsoul, I hope the headguy there was correct when he inferred that enlightenment is a process of a multitude of partial enlightenments and not a state of accomplished perfection. I thought several recent threads here have shown that spiritual growth is stunted by having idols we cannot live up to, and that we can achieve wondrous spiritual strength but still be without perfection. ""In Eastern teachings you often run into enlightenment being an all or nothing thing, the guru supposedly has the all, but his or her (equal treatment here  ;)) doesn't tend to reflect this. I believe it is far better that a person grows as much as he or she can without thinking in terms of complete enlightenment (whatever that means).  Partial enlightenments? Perhaps the same thing as insights. Insights are fine, but the important thing is to get rid of the false concepts and mental attachments that prevent us from abiding as the lovely loving Souls we truely are. :)"" Your comments there about harnessing kudalini as energy for creative growth are something I need to know more about. I'll be going back often! ""My knowledge of kundalini is based more on my experience rather than book knowledge. It is important to make certain that love is a part of the equation. Remember when Bruce Moen made contact with the planning intelligence, he became concerned about his energy level, and the planning intelligence told him it knows precisely how much energy he can handle? This reminds me of how it has been with me when it comes to energetic work. I've experienced some really intense and precise energy work. Obviously my spirit guidance knows precisely what it is doing."" Thank you, Bets

Vajra:

Responses below within double quotation marks.


wrote on Sep 11^th, 2007 at 5:37am:

I guess we can't ever know what was intended or what was actually said by historical figures in these situations. It's actually the case that most of the teachings taught by Buddhist schools (especially Mahayana) were set down long after the Buddha lived. ""I've read that the words of the Buddha were recorded about 500 years after he lived. Certainly some errors might occur."" There's especially in Tibetan Buddhism a tradition of hidden teachings (terma) which it's said are revealed as and when they are needed to successive lineage holders according to the needs of the times they live in. It's easy for ancient teachings to get cross threaded with modern day views which tend to get expressed in politically correct or dogmatic terms. Only theorising, but it's possible that the position of women in society at the time the Buddha taught was such that any religious organisation recognising equality was likely to suffer consequences in terms of its ability to survive, and to propogate its message. ""Sounds right."" Recognition of a practical reality of this sort (if that's what it was) is not at all the same as holding a fundamental view that women were/are in some way inferior. ""How are things done today? Whenever I see films and photos of Tibetan monks in India they are always male?  Certainly women have Buddha nature.  Are there female monks in Theravadin Buddhism today? Do they have an equal role."" In a similar light it's perhaps worth saying as well that realisation is not generally regarded as implying instant infallibility in worldly matters. It simply implies the end of selfish or egotistical urges and the consequent ability to reliably access  higher wisdom and compassion. Trouble is the old (worldly) persona remains - it needs reworking through further life experience guided by the new found insight if it is to reflect restoration of spirit as the guiding light. Realisation is in effect the starting point of this process..... ""When I was involved with Eastern teachings a lot of followers believed teachers/gurus were infallible perfected masters who have all the answers. Eventually, most of them would find this isn't the case. If there are things in Buddhist teachings that benefit a person, great! How can you argue with results. However, it is important to not get into the trap me and a group I belonged to got into years ago. We thought our guru had all the answers. If he didn't teach something, we didn't need it.  If we didn't become enlightened, it was because we didn't apply what he provided completely enough.  Eventually most of us found it wasn't simply a matter of our application of what he taught, it was also a matter of our guru "not" having all the answers. His teachings were mainly a mixture of Advaita Vedanta and Chan Buddhism. One of the things he other Eastern teachings don't speak about, is a higher self in an oversoul/disc sense.""

Its not surprising to read of the attachment to the body form by writers of Buddhism, Islam, Christ Chronicles, etc. They were all written by the un-enlightened. All truely enlightened persons would know that we are "more than just our physical bodies". (thanks Bob) Not male nor female. When will these religions finaly get it and get over this sexist doctrine. This is one of the main reasons that I can not follow one or any of them. Discrimination. Whether hidden or open, they are all the same. Perhaps they should try Love.  
Joe

I'll have to try indoctrinating my wife with that part about standing in my presence, and not talking back etc. (Oh yes - and not whacking me with the nearest loose object after I say it.)

There is a definite value to inclusion of women in a man's religious experiences. Tantra, the use of sexuality as a quick bridge to a higher state, much as Shri Rajneesh was practicing in the 1970's, is an example.  Khajuraho was evidently built on a variation of that theme, although from either a Buddhistic or Vedantic perspective.

The question that I hear more often is why women need men - especially, as a feminist friend insisted, sea urchins can fertilize themselves with sea water,  so really, us guys are more in the category of tolerated drones. Kinda sets the calendar back 10,000 years.

Hmmm - Maybe it's time to make myself valuable and take out the garbage. ;)
d

Dave:

Responses below"


dave_a_mbs wrote on Sep 11^th, 2007 at 6:36pm:

There is a definite value to inclusion of women in a man's religious experiences. Tantra, the use of sexuality as a quick bridge to a higher state, much as Shri Rajneesh was practicing in the 1970's, is an example.   ""No wonder Rajneesh (Osho) was popular and hence rich enough to own 150 Rolls Royces."" The question that I hear more often is why women need men - especially, as a feminist friend insisted, sea urchins can fertilize themselves with sea water,  so really, us guys are more in the category of tolerated drones. Kinda sets the calendar back 10,000 years. ""I'd like to see sea water throw out the trash."" Hmmm - Maybe it's time to make myself valuable and take out the garbage. ;) d

Writing this having just finished washing up in my pink apron and fluffy slippers Dave.  ;)

One of the peculiarities of modern times is maybe that they are showing us that 'maleness' and femaleness' while distinct and mutually necessary don't necessarily dictate quite as much of behaviour as we might think. That the stereotypes are maybe social conventions as much as true nature. And that there may be scope for lots of overlap in both directions.

For example  - a lot of what has passed for feminism or equality seems to amount to a donning of stereotypically male behaviours and attitudes by some of the ladies. And the opposite is happening   too. There's nothing inherently wrong with any of this which in truth is an inevitable consequence of any process where people seek to get past societal conditioning and understand themselves or to reach some equilibrium. It'd be unfortunate mind you if instead of finding themselves they just built another set of social conventions with no basis in their true natures.

I don't have enough familiarity with Eastern Buddhism to know for sure R, but I'd say that much like other religions it's picked up or hasn't fully transcended (or been able to transcend for practical reasons - it's not regarded as wise to directly teach a message that people can't accept, or to teach too far above the level of the audience) certain attitudes held by the societies it exists within.

What's emerging as 'Western' Buddhism certainly seems to be quite distinct in some ways from the eastern originals. It certainly has a history of emerging in apparently very different forms in differing societies and times.

That said all traditions by definition include people at all levels of insight and development, so it's not surprising that at least some might hold 'conservative' views. It'd again be naive to think that the entire edifice could in some way be perfect.

It's for that reason I agree that it's not really possible to mix a high level of spiritual advancement with blind acceptance of all that's taught by individual teachers. Even if you accept that all Rinpoches for example are enlightened, that doesn't mean that their teaching or your understanding of it (and blind belief would require both) are infallible.

I often wonder in fact what might constitute the true core teachings of Buddhism, and what's been layered on over the centuries. As traditions go it's seemingly not so bad, but that too depends I suspect on where you go, what particular strain is in question and who you are talking to. One very core teaching is that we must never discard our discernment..

  I believe the different sexes are equal, yet i recognize differences.    This doesn't mean to me, that one is better than the other, they both have their strengths and weaknesses and on different levels and with different balances.  

  I've wondered in the past, about why so many of the most noted spiritual teachers decided to incarnate in male bodies?   I never assumed it was because the male body/flesh suit is any better ultimately speaking, but it did lead me to some interesting energy conclusions about the nature of Soul and Spirit vs, and intertwining with matter energies.  

  The simple answer is that most societies and cultures in our recorded history have been male dominated and chauvinistic, and that the masses (who being influenced more so by men) would listen more to a Soul using a male body.   And yet, this strikes me also as being the best reason for a nearing completion Soul to choose a female body, to help change and balance things.    I don't know about most guys, but if i met a woman who could walk across water and who seemed very balanced and loving, etc., then you bet your arse i would listen to her no matter what age and place i was in.   Nor would such a master Soul have anything to fear from any man--if in physical danger, they could just simply raise their vibrations enough to seemingly "disappear" much like both Yeshua, and even John the Baptist on occasion were said to have done.

  My energy conclusions or hypotheses are this:   What we know of as matter, and of Spirit, or the spiritual, are different in various ways, even from a higher physics viewpoint.  One of the main differences, beyond the vibratory differences (spiritual having a much faster rate), is that they have different charge and charge balance ratios.  

  Matter is made up of both positive and negative charges, but not completely equal or balanced, it seems that matter might have a slightly greater negative charge or rather a lesser positive charge relatively speaking.  

 Soul, and spiritual forces and energies, are perhaps more purely positively charged (expanding in nature--i got this info mostly from the Cayce readings dealing with a perpetual energy device was being designed though not completed to our knowledge).  

 Well, what is positive and negative, and what is masculine/yang and feminine/yin, and what are the differences between the two?     Most simply put, is that positive/masculine energy is active, electric, and expanding in nature.   Negative/feminine energy is passive, magnetic, and contractive in nature.  

 One of the main points or side affects of spiritual development, is an increasingly perfect balance and merging of these two different, but connected states of being.    Now if the female body tends generally towards a greater balance to the feminine energy and archetype, and if matter itself is slightly imbalanced towards that polarity to begin with, then there would seem to be a greater challenge inherently in reaching that perfect balance and merging.  

 Maybe complete ascension as Yeshua achieved where the body physical, the somewhat 'frozen' light energy of matter, releases its huge energy potential via merging with both Soul and Spirit forces (check out the Shroud of Turin on this aspect of complete enlightenment while in physical) is just simply somewhat easier to accomplish in a male body, because of its inherent balance or imbalance towards that of the active, positive pole (i.e. not morally better in any way)?  

 Particularly in space/time cycles of greater collective "denseness" and slower vibratory levels?   Meaning, the ages we have seen Yeshua, Buddha, Krishna, and others supposedly completely enlightened or nearly so (many of these i sense were not fully enlightened, otherwise they would not have aged or died).  

 Ultimately, i dunno, but something tells me there is something to this, when one holistically considers the important balances and ratios of physical, to Soul, and Spirit energies, especially as relating to that ultimate liberation or transcendence of physical while even still being connected to same.   The important thing to remember is that we are not bodies, and we transcend physical gender, and are meant to be completely balanced...but since the physical itself isn't completely balanced, then maybe there are certain "energy considerations" involved of which most folks don't normally think about, because they don't want to be perceived as sexist, biased, or what not.

 You have to step out of a lot of boxes to look at it this way.  I see it in a energy, physics type way, though i have no physics background to speak of.  Unfortunately, many people in our times, and in the past, might twist these "matter of fact" energy considerations, to somehow try to promote the idea that generally or universally men are superior to women, which i don't believe and i think would be a skewed, emotionally/ego attached, and overly moralistic way of interpreting that.  

 Or maybe i just don't know what i'm talking about in this subject.  I suppose if i was in a female body, and saying the same thing, it might sound more credible or less biased?