MPNS on Women

Discuss and learn about the traditional Mahayana scriptures, without assuming that any one school ‘owns’ the only correct interpretation.
User avatar
ThreeVows
Posts: 942
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:54 pm

MPNS on Women

Post by ThreeVows »

I'm interested in anyone's thoughts on the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra's stance on women, in terms of how one might interpret certain statements.

For example, there is the following:

"Good man, it is in this sense that good men and good women who listen to this Mahayana Great Nirvana Sutra will always decry the marks that characterize a female and seek to be male . Why? Because this Mahayana scripture has the characteristic of manliness. I am referring to buddha-nature. If someone does not understand buddha-nature, then he does not have male characteristics. Why do I say this? Because he cannot grasp the fact that the buddha-nature exists within himself. I would say those unable to know the buddha-nature are to be called women. I would say those who are able to know themselves that the buddha-nature exists are characteristically male. If a woman is able to know definitively that the buddha-nature exists within herself, you should know that this constitutes her as male."

Clearly, this is not talking about biological sex, as it says, "If a woman is able to know definitively that the buddha-nature exists within herself, you should know that this constitutes her as male", so it is using the terms male and female in a sort of subversive way you might sort of say. One might consider this to be similar to how the Buddha, in the Nikayas/Agamas, uses the term 'brahmin' in a way that is different than what might have been the common usage of the word in the world at the time - he kind of redefines the word with a particular intention, you might say.

So if it is not talking about biological sex, any thoughts on how best to interpret the meaning?

Thanks for any honest thoughts on the topic.
“Whoever wants to find the wisdom beyond intellect without praying to his guru is like someone waiting for the sun to shine in a cave facing the north. He will never realize appearances and his mind to be one.”
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche
User avatar
ThreeVows
Posts: 942
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:54 pm

Re: MPNS on Women

Post by ThreeVows »

Of note this excerpt was posted elsewhere, I'm not sure which translation it's from.
“Whoever wants to find the wisdom beyond intellect without praying to his guru is like someone waiting for the sun to shine in a cave facing the north. He will never realize appearances and his mind to be one.”
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: MPNS on Women

Post by Malcolm »

Seeker12 wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 2:15 pm
Thanks for any honest thoughts on the topic.
One of the reasons the MPNS is considered a provisional text...

It is completely sexist.
User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 1781
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: MPNS on Women

Post by Nemo »

There were no books in the time of Buddha. With the proliferation of questionable teachers I have been forced to have a crisis of faith and separate what the Buddha taught from the Cult of Buddha to the best of my meager abilities. I was lucky enough to have teachers who kept all 3 levels of vows with great discipline and near perfect motivation. I had no idea that was incredibly rare. I wish you luck on your journey and suggest you occasionally take time to listen to your own inner judgement. If something sounds sexist and dangerous to women throw it out like the garbage it so clearly is.
Last edited by Nemo on Wed Jun 02, 2021 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ThreeVows
Posts: 942
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:54 pm

Re: MPNS on Women

Post by ThreeVows »

Malcolm wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 2:30 pm
Seeker12 wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 2:15 pm
Thanks for any honest thoughts on the topic.
One of the reasons the MPNS is considered a provisional text...

It is completely sexist.
Longchenpa and others don't consider it provisional.
“Whoever wants to find the wisdom beyond intellect without praying to his guru is like someone waiting for the sun to shine in a cave facing the north. He will never realize appearances and his mind to be one.”
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: MPNS on Women

Post by Malcolm »

Seeker12 wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 3:23 pm
Malcolm wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 2:30 pm
Seeker12 wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 2:15 pm
Thanks for any honest thoughts on the topic.
One of the reasons the MPNS is considered a provisional text...

It is completely sexist.
Longchenpa and others don't consider it provisional.
In general, it should be considered provisional even by Longchenpa since it contains the doctrine of the icchantika. It is also considered provisional because it uses intentional language to discuss a self, permanence, and so on.

What Longchenpa holds to be definitive is the doctrine of tathāgatagarbha, but there are some problems if we take the whole of those ten sūtras to be "definitive."

Then of course, there is the issue of whether the tathāgatagarbha doctrine is actually definitive. Arguably, the Uttaratantra itself holds the tathāgatagarbha doctrine to be provisional.
Norwegian
Posts: 2632
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: MPNS on Women

Post by Norwegian »

Seeker12 wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 2:15 pm "Good man, it is in this sense that good men and good women who listen to this Mahayana Great Nirvana Sutra will always decry the marks that characterize a female and seek to be male . Why? Because this Mahayana scripture has the characteristic of manliness. I am referring to buddha-nature. If someone does not understand buddha-nature, then he does not have male characteristics. Why do I say this? Because he cannot grasp the fact that the buddha-nature exists within himself. I would say those unable to know the buddha-nature are to be called women. I would say those who are able to know themselves that the buddha-nature exists are characteristically male. If a woman is able to know definitively that the buddha-nature exists within herself, you should know that this constitutes her as male."
Seeker12 wrote:Longchenpa and others don't consider it provisional.
One very important Mahayana sutra, is the Akshayamati-nirdesha sutra. It is considered a Madhyamaka sutra, and in it, we can learn many things, in particular how to know what a provisional sutra is, and what a definitive sutra is. Read the citation you posted, and then read the following two citations:

"If one asks what are the sutras of definitive meaning and what are the sutras of provisional meaning, those sutras which are taught in order that one might enter the path are called the provisional meaning, and those sutras which are taught in order that one might enter the result are called the definitive meaning. Those sutras which teach of self, sentient beings, life itself, creatures, individuals, personalities, personal selves, actors, subjects of sensation, explanations according to diverse terms, and of that which is not a possessor as a possessor, are called the provisional meaning. The sutras which teach of emptiness, of that which is signless, aspirationless, not manifestly conditioned, uncreated, unoriginated, insubstantial, without self, without sentient beings, without life itself, without individuals, without a possessor, and without any properties even as far as the approach to liberation, are called the definitive meaning. This text is said to rely on the sutras of definitive meaning, but not to rely on the sutras of provisional meaning."
-- Akshayamati-nirdesha sutra

"Do not rely on the person, rely on the teaching, do not rely on the words, rely on the meaning, do not rely on the provisional, rely on the definitive, do not rely on consciousness (vijñana), rely on primordial wisdom (jñana)"
-- Akshayamati-nirdesha sutra.

According to the Akshayamatinirdesha sutra, is what was cited above provisional or definitive? It should be very clear.
User avatar
ThreeVows
Posts: 942
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:54 pm

Re: MPNS on Women

Post by ThreeVows »

The intent of this thread is not primarily to discuss provisional vs definitive sutras, and if possible I would suggest that we leave that topic alone. Even if we say that it is a provisional Sutra, that doesn't actually address the question, as provisional doesn't simply mean meaningless. So presumably even if a Sutra is provisional there is still a useful intent behind it. Which means, the question has not been answered in the slightest.
“Whoever wants to find the wisdom beyond intellect without praying to his guru is like someone waiting for the sun to shine in a cave facing the north. He will never realize appearances and his mind to be one.”
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: MPNS on Women

Post by Malcolm »

Seeker12 wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 4:10 pm The intent of this thread is not primarily to discuss provisional vs definitive sutras, and if possible I would suggest that we leave that topic alone. Even if we say that it is a provisional Sutra, that doesn't actually address the question, as provisional doesn't simply mean meaningless. So presumably even if a Sutra is provisional there is still a useful intent behind it. Which means, the question has not been answered in the slightest.
Yes, it was:

It is completely sexist. There is nothing useful, in this day and age, about gendering the appreciation of, or lack thereof, the tathāgatagarbha doctrine. The entire discussion in that passage devalues women.

The Vimalakirtī Sūtra throws shade on the idea that there are "marks" of gender which can be found.
User avatar
ThreeVows
Posts: 942
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:54 pm

Re: MPNS on Women

Post by ThreeVows »

Malcolm wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 6:26 pm
Seeker12 wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 4:10 pm The intent of this thread is not primarily to discuss provisional vs definitive sutras, and if possible I would suggest that we leave that topic alone. Even if we say that it is a provisional Sutra, that doesn't actually address the question, as provisional doesn't simply mean meaningless. So presumably even if a Sutra is provisional there is still a useful intent behind it. Which means, the question has not been answered in the slightest.
Yes, it was:

It is completely sexist. There is nothing useful, in this day and age, about gendering the appreciation of, or lack thereof, the tathāgatagarbha doctrine. The entire discussion in that passage devalues women.

The Vimalakirtī Sūtra throws shade on the idea that there are "marks" of gender which can be found.
So, basically, you're simply saying that as far as you're concerned, the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra does not have much use and should be essentially disregarded. Or at least sections like the above, if not the entirety. It's not that there is a meaningful reason for the above citation, it's just that the whole thing is garbage.

I would say that this is a separate conversation from provisional vs definitive sutras. Provisional Sutras/teachings are not garbage, nor should they simply be disregarded, they have a definite use and provisional teachings have a particular meaning/intention.

But you're saying, basically, that is not the case here, and it is simply garbage.

Is that all fair?
“Whoever wants to find the wisdom beyond intellect without praying to his guru is like someone waiting for the sun to shine in a cave facing the north. He will never realize appearances and his mind to be one.”
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9397
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: MPNS on Women

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Assuming that the translation is accurate...
I would interpret it as saying that men can grasp the profound meaning of the sutra, and women can’t.
It that actually true? No.
But let’s not dodge the ball and make up excuses. Let’s just admit that the text is sexist.
After that, you can speculate as to whether
the Buddha ever even said it or not.
And it may not be accurate at all.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Giovanni
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:07 am

Re: MPNS on Women

Post by Giovanni »

Seeker12 wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 6:44 pm
Malcolm wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 6:26 pm
Seeker12 wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 4:10 pm The intent of this thread is not primarily to discuss provisional vs definitive sutras, and if possible I would suggest that we leave that topic alone. Even if we say that it is a provisional Sutra, that doesn't actually address the question, as provisional doesn't simply mean meaningless. So presumably even if a Sutra is provisional there is still a useful intent behind it. Which means, the question has not been answered in the slightest.
Yes, it was:

It is completely sexist. There is nothing useful, in this day and age, about gendering the appreciation of, or lack thereof, the tathāgatagarbha doctrine. The entire discussion in that passage devalues women.

The Vimalakirtī Sūtra throws shade on the idea that there are "marks" of gender which can be found.
So, basically, you're simply saying that as far as you're concerned, the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra does not have much use and should be essentially disregarded. Or at least sections like the above, if not the entirety. It's not that there is a meaningful reason for the above citation, it's just that the whole thing is garbage.

I would say that this is a separate conversation from provisional vs definitive sutras. Provisional Sutras/teachings are not garbage, nor should they simply be disregarded, they have a definite use and provisional teachings have a particular meaning/intention.

But you're saying, basically, that is not the case here, and it is simply garbage.

Is that all fair?
Absolutely fair I think. This is not the only example of a ‘sutra’ which has outlived its use, there are better known ones too.
When supposed sutras are clearly proceeding from a conventional point of view and loaded with cultural luggage we should quietly lay them aside.
User avatar
ThreeVows
Posts: 942
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:54 pm

Re: MPNS on Women

Post by ThreeVows »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 6:56 pm Assuming that the translation is accurate...
I would interpret it as saying that men can grasp the profound meaning of the sutra, and women can’t.
It that actually true? No.
But let’s not dodge the ball and make up excuses. Let’s just admit that the text is sexist.
After that, you can speculate as to whether
the Buddha ever even said it or not.
And it may not be accurate at all.
I don't think that makes sense. It says, "If a woman is able to know definitively that the buddha-nature exists within herself, you should know that this constitutes her as male." If a woman was not able to know this definitively, then there would be no reason for this statement.

In general, in this thread, you have made an attempt to interpret the citation, although I don't personally think your interpretation makes much sense. But otherwise, I think everyone has basically just said that the citation is crap. Or in other words, the citation shouldn't even be attempted to be interpreted because it's crap from the beginning, which is pointless to even try to interpret. Which you also kind of said, or at least implied the possibility of.

If anyone is actually reading this, then, I still am interested if anyone has any other interpretations of a legitimate reason for the statement as it is written. Otherwise, it seems, essentially, that the citation is likely considered to be crap by the consensus here at DW. Which I will take as a satisfactory answer to my question, if that's the case.
“Whoever wants to find the wisdom beyond intellect without praying to his guru is like someone waiting for the sun to shine in a cave facing the north. He will never realize appearances and his mind to be one.”
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche
User avatar
ThreeVows
Posts: 942
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:54 pm

Re: MPNS on Women

Post by ThreeVows »

Giovanni wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 6:59 pm Absolutely fair I think. This is not the only example of a ‘sutra’ which has outlived its use, there are better known ones too.
When supposed sutras are clearly proceeding from a conventional point of view and loaded with cultural luggage we should quietly lay them aside.
Again, though, speaking of the Sutras as a whole, it is considered in high regard by many highly regarded masters. Longchenpa, as I said, considers the Sutra as a whole to be a definitive Sutra, as he explicitly lists in Finding Rest. Dudjom Rinpoche similarly. Longchenpa cites it fairly extensively at times.

So it seems pretty silly, to me, to simply consider that the Sutra is useless and should be quietly laid aside as a whole.

With that said, one could, potentially, say that the Sutra as a whole has some use but certain sections are questionable (at best). This would be a slightly different stance.
“Whoever wants to find the wisdom beyond intellect without praying to his guru is like someone waiting for the sun to shine in a cave facing the north. He will never realize appearances and his mind to be one.”
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche
User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 1781
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: MPNS on Women

Post by Nemo »

Seeker12 wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 7:05 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 6:56 pm Assuming that the translation is accurate...
I would interpret it as saying that men can grasp the profound meaning of the sutra, and women can’t.
It that actually true? No.
But let’s not dodge the ball and make up excuses. Let’s just admit that the text is sexist.
After that, you can speculate as to whether
the Buddha ever even said it or not.
And it may not be accurate at all.
I don't think that makes sense. It says, "If a woman is able to know definitively that the buddha-nature exists within herself, you should know that this constitutes her as male." If a woman was not able to know this definitively, then there would be no reason for this statement.

In general, in this thread, you have made an attempt to interpret the citation, although I don't personally think your interpretation makes much sense. But otherwise, I think everyone has basically just said that the citation is crap. Or in other words, the citation shouldn't even be attempted to be interpreted because it's crap from the beginning, which is pointless to even try to interpret. Which you also kind of said, or at least implied the possibility of.

If anyone is actually reading this, then, I still am interested if anyone has any other interpretations of a legitimate reason for the statement as it is written. Otherwise, it seems, essentially, that the citation is likely considered to be crap by the consensus here at DW. Which I will take as a satisfactory answer to my question, if that's the case.
Looking for masters to tell you what to think is Russian Roulette. There are Sutras that tell you about how to treat your slaves and to only have sex with slaves that you own. Would you also like to talk about ethical slave owning? What do you personally think of the passage? I don't think it comes from the Buddha. I think some misogynist slipped in his personal political agenda like every other religion on earth.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17071
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: MPNS on Women

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

Seeker12 wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 7:11 pm
Giovanni wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 6:59 pm Absolutely fair I think. This is not the only example of a ‘sutra’ which has outlived its use, there are better known ones too.
When supposed sutras are clearly proceeding from a conventional point of view and loaded with cultural luggage we should quietly lay them aside.
Again, though, speaking of the Sutras as a whole, it is considered in high regard by many highly regarded masters. Longchenpa, as I said, considers the Sutra as a whole to be a definitive Sutra, as he explicitly lists in Finding Rest. Dudjom Rinpoche similarly. Longchenpa cites it fairly extensively at times.

So it seems pretty silly, to me, to simply consider that the Sutra is useless and should be quietly laid aside as a whole.

With that said, one could, potentially, say that the Sutra as a whole has some use but certain sections are questionable (at best). This would be a slightly different stance.
There are Mahayana Sutras with all kinds of contradictory stuff, If you try to accept them all as declarative and definitive statements you will go crazy.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
User avatar
ThreeVows
Posts: 942
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:54 pm

Re: MPNS on Women

Post by ThreeVows »

Nemo wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 7:22 pm Looking for masters to tell you what to think is Russian Roulette. There are Sutras that tell you about how to treat your slaves and to only have sex with slaves that you own. Would you also like to talk about ethical slave owning? What do you personally think of the passage? I don't think it comes from the Buddha. I think some misogynist slipped in his personal political agenda like every other religion on earth.
Man people are really missing my intention here it seems in general. I'm not looking for masters to tell me what to think, though I also don't think it's generally a very smart thing to simply disregard statements of great masters offhand.

But with that said, you said,

"I think some misogynist slipped in his personal political agenda like every other religion on earth."

That is a legitimate answer to my question, and I appreciate your perspective.
“Whoever wants to find the wisdom beyond intellect without praying to his guru is like someone waiting for the sun to shine in a cave facing the north. He will never realize appearances and his mind to be one.”
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9397
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: MPNS on Women

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Seeker12 wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 7:05 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 6:56 pm Assuming that the translation is accurate...
I would interpret it as saying that men can grasp the profound meaning of the sutra, and women can’t.
It that actually true? No.
But let’s not dodge the ball and make up excuses. Let’s just admit that the text is sexist.
After that, you can speculate as to whether
the Buddha ever even said it or not.
And it may not be accurate at all.
I don't think that makes sense. It says, "If a woman is able to know definitively that the buddha-nature exists within herself, you should know that this constitutes her as male." If a woman was not able to know this definitively, then there would be no reason for this statement.

In general, in this thread, you have made an attempt to interpret the citation, although I don't personally think your interpretation makes much sense. But otherwise, I think everyone has basically just said that the citation is crap. Or in other words, the citation shouldn't even be attempted to be interpreted because it's crap from the beginning, which is pointless to even try to interpret. Which you also kind of said, or at least implied the possibility of.

If anyone is actually reading this, then, I still am interested if anyone has any other interpretations of a legitimate reason for the statement as it is written. Otherwise, it seems, essentially, that the citation is likely considered to be crap by the consensus here at DW. Which I will take as a satisfactory answer to my question, if that's the case.
“...constitutes her as...” can mean puts her on the same level (with regards to the sutra) as a male.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
GrapeLover
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2020 12:55 am

Re: MPNS on Women

Post by GrapeLover »

Personally I don’t think the usage of man and woman here has any real significance beyond representing “desirable state” and “undesirable state” in the minds of those who were listening. In other circumstances I think he could equally say “you’re right to want to be a superhero—but the real superhero is one who understands emptiness!”. I don’t think there’s any real commentary on gender apart from to imply that it’s irrelevant to this matter.
User avatar
ThreeVows
Posts: 942
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:54 pm

Re: MPNS on Women

Post by ThreeVows »

GrapeLover wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 7:46 pm Personally I don’t think the usage of man and woman here has any real significance beyond representing “desirable state” and “undesirable state” in the minds of those who were listening. In other circumstances I think he could equally say “you’re right to want to be a superhero—but the real superhero is one who understands emptiness!”. I don’t think there’s any real commentary on gender apart from to imply that it’s irrelevant to this matter.
If there is a legitimate meaning here, and it is not just some insertion later on by some misogynist monk or whatever, it would seem to be that potentially it is related to sort of a 'state' of femaleness, in which - as is often the case historically, and currently - females are sort of in a societal existence that is essentially lesser than that of a male and a sort of state of being subservient. I don't think it's unfair to say that throughout history, and today in some areas, females are more or less treated as property, much like slaves. Both in terms of outer conditions and inner conditions, in terms of the structure of the mindset, this is not an optimal condition.

I could, potentially, conceive that with insight into the Dharma, one drops this fundamental identification and basically is released from these shackles in a sort of essential way, even if the 'external world' doesn't change, so to speak.

I will also point out that, if I reflect honestly, when I consider my own state, I don't actually necessarily strongly identify with 'being a male" (although I am biologically a male), I just kind of am what I am and don't have to deal with major gender related problems. I could imagine that many females throughout history would be more strongly sort of put in the box of 'being a female', which has certain connotations and a certain lack of freedom associated with it, and if one was released from those shackles, that would result in being more like I am, in that I just don't think about it much.

I also, if I reflect on it, could consider that in some future manifestation I could be biologically a female, but if I were a dharma practitioner with some confidence, I don't think that fundamentally I would identify with being a female, any more than I currently fundamentally identify with being a male.

As such, I could potentially understand this as being related to, say, the vows of Medicine Buddha which free females from the state of female-ness, or from passages such as the above.

With all of that said, maybe it's just a misogynist addition, and there is no real meaning to it, and I'm just hypothesizing to try and see how it might fit. But I could, potentially, maybe consider a meaning such as this. More or less.

If that makes sense.
“Whoever wants to find the wisdom beyond intellect without praying to his guru is like someone waiting for the sun to shine in a cave facing the north. He will never realize appearances and his mind to be one.”
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche
Post Reply

Return to “Sūtra Studies”