MPNS on Women

[Lotomístico]

Plenty of classical Buddhist texts explicitly rejected the sort of sexism represented here, so please don't make this some "oh no, the SJWs are ruining Buddhism" deal.

Fair enough, you're right, I see your point. But for me it does seem strange that such a late Mahayana text would expréss such a view (coming after the Lotus Sutra, which rejects such ideas)

These texts were composed in separate, isolated communities.

Indeed, individual "chapters" in Sutras were in many cases entirely separate works composed by people who may have had no contact with one another and later put together to form a single "Sutra". Hence the many discrepancies. The writings and commentaries of ancient Buddhist writers seem to be unaware of this, apparently believing them to be the literal words of Shakyamuni and composed in their completed forms originally as they had them.

[Malcolm]

The writings and commentaries of ancient Buddhist writers seem to be unaware of this, apparently believing them to be the literal words of Shakyamuni and composed in their completed forms originally as they had them.

In India, there was quite a bit of discussion and there is internal evidence in the sūtras themselves of attempts to parse Buddhavacana into neyartha and nitartha, which can be seen as a strategy to politely dismiss other's sūtras in preference for one's own.

Indians were not naive idiots, and were undoubtedly aware that the provenance of Mahāyāna sūtras were widely contested.

[Lotomístico]

The writings and commentaries of ancient Buddhist writers seem to be unaware of this, apparently believing them to be the literal words of Shakyamuni and composed in their completed forms originally as they had them.

In India, there was quite a bit of discussion and there is internal evidence in the sūtras themselves of attempts to parse Buddhavacana into neyartha and nitartha, which can be seen as a strategy to politely dismiss other's sūtras in preference for one's own.

Indians were not naive idiots, and were undoubtedly aware that the provenance of Mahāyāna sūtras were widely contested.

Interesting, though perhaps some later Buddhists took a more literalistic approach to the origin of Sutras in their current form, and perhaps some modern Buddhists are not even aware of this. Similar to followers of other religions who take their scriptures quite literally. And, as with all religions, favoring the particular portions that support their "views" as to the "correct" interpretation/school/understanding.

[Zhen Li]

Fair enough, you're right, I see your point. But for me it does seem strange that such a late Mahayana text would expréss such a view (coming after the Lotus Sutra, which rejects such ideas)

These texts were composed in separate, isolated communities.

Indeed, individual "chapters" in Sutras were in many cases entirely separate works composed by people who may have had no contact with one another and later put together to form a single "Sutra". Hence the many discrepancies. The writings and commentaries of ancient Buddhist writers seem to be unaware of this, apparently believing them to be the literal words of Shakyamuni and composed in their completed forms originally as they had them.

Many versions of the MPNS mention the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka (Lotus Sutra) by name and was clearly well known to the redactors. In fact, while it is less influential in India than it became in China, it appears that the SP was of quite a high level of importance to the Tathāgatagarbha texts and thought. It is there that we get the idea fleshed out in its earliest form that the Buddha is more than a historical personage—something at which the Aṣṭasāhasrikā only hints. Other Tathāgatagarbha texts that rely on the SP include the Mahābherīhārakasūtra (extensively), the Aṅgulimālīyasūtra, and the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra.

If anything, if the Andhra/Śātavāhana thesis of the MPNS's area of development is correct, the other Tathāgatagarbha texts are included in that milieu and the SP formed a central backbone of their understanding of the Mahāyāna. I don't know of any similar regional hypotheses for the SP, but it does not reflect attitudes on women that contradict the MPNS. If anything, the themes are consistent, e.g.:

Thereupon, in front of the entire world, and in front of Sthavira Śāriputra, the daughter of Sāgara, king of the nāgas, manifested the vanishing of her female genitalia, the appearance of male genitalia, and her transformation into a bodhisattva.
That bodhisattva now went to the south and, in a southern world realm named Vimalā, manifested the attainment of perfect buddhahood while seated at the foot of a tree made of the seven precious materials.

Interesting, though perhaps some later Buddhists took a more literalistic approach to the origin of Sutras in their current form, and perhaps some modern Buddhists are not even aware of this. Similar to followers of other religions who take their scriptures quite literally. And, as with all religions, favoring the particular portions that support their "views" as to the "correct" interpretation/school/understanding.

A modernist presupposition is that the redactors who composed sūtras did so thinking that they are forgeries. There's a lot of scholarship on the topic but I might suggest Douglas Osto's paper (not the book) "Altered States" which touches on asceticism and the Gaṇḍavyūhasūtra. Papers on the "Forest Hypothesis" touch on similar themes, but it is also worth considering counter arguments by David Drewes. In short it is more likely a question of perceived revelation of some kind. Additions to texts appear to have been a way to enhance them rather than bastardise them—Jan Nattier discusses the expansion of the Prajñāpāramitā litearture in this way in a footnote in her book A Few Good Men.

The Mahāyāna were certainly aware of objections to the authenticity of their sūtras—I think the MPNS is very clear in this regard when it discusses those who only accept the nine-division tripiṭaka in contrast accepting the twelve-division tripiṭaka including the Vaipulya (i.e. Mahāyāna) sūtras and discusses the grave issues with rejecting the Mahāyāna (but also some exceptions for those who simply can't know any better)—claiming that the Mahāyāna instead accepts all sūtras. Certainly each Mahāyāna Sūtra praises themselves, but I don't think it characterises the Mahāyāna to actually put down other sūtras (just as they don't "put down" caitya worship, but reframe it in a more practitioner-centric way)—but they do claim that other doctrines are more provisional (particularly as seen in the Laṅkāvatāra). This is within the logic of upāya. Moreover, there is no evidence for sūtra-based schools like we see in China in India.

This is where the question of the approach of a practitioner versus scholar or critic comes in. For a practitioner, traditionally all sūtras are considered to be valid, but depending on the circumstances, certain perspectives may be considered more suitable to one's purposes. If you don't believe in Mahāyāna Buddhism, that's your prerogative, but this forum takes it as a given for the sake of discussion, otherwise every conversation would descend into how we can know anything about anything, which would be a hindrance to practice. In our reality as it is presented to us, Buddhas and Bodhisattvas do manifest in various ways to help awaken us—sūtras are just one manifestation. At core, all is illusion except for Dharmakāya—so we have to be careful about supposing that positivistic logic which springs from within delusion somehow removes posibilities for something beyond our patterned view of reality.

[Giovanni]

I would say that from a Dzogchen p.o.v.our patterned view of reality includes believing that our original minds can be realized by a form of words, however lofty.

[Zhen Li]

I would say that from a Dzogchen p.o.v.our patterned view of reality includes believing that our original minds can be realized by a form of words, however lofty.

I'm not familiar with Dzogchen but I think this highlights the importance of skilful means. They are necessary for us as ordinary beings. If we could just conjure up non-duality we would have no need of the Buddha's assistance. If we could just create the Pure Land here in our minds entirely by our own power, there would have been no need for Śākyamuni to point out Amitābha's Pure Land. Our conceptual understanding of non-duality and freedom from words is itself another conceptual framework. This is why the Tathāgataguhya describes the Tathāgata's voice, which has never uttered a single word, to be a "secret." It is not known to anyone other than those who have themselves attained Buddhahood.

[Giovanni]

Dzogchen makes much use of skillful means. Some of those skillful means do not arise from verbalisation.
And do not rely on our own power. “Pointing Out ( our original minds) is one example. It transcends verbalisations, and does not happen without the appropriate agency..a teacher able to transmit that.

[Malcolm]

At core, all is illusion except for Dharmakāya—so we have to be careful about supposing that positivistic logic which springs from within delusion somehow removes posibilities for something beyond our patterned view of reality.

Even Dharmakaya is illusory.

[Lotomístico]

These texts were composed in separate, isolated communities.

Indeed, individual "chapters" in Sutras were in many cases entirely separate works composed by people who may have had no contact with one another and later put together to form a single "Sutra". Hence the many discrepancies. The writings and commentaries of ancient Buddhist writers seem to be unaware of this, apparently believing them to be the literal words of Shakyamuni and composed in their completed forms originally as they had them.

Many versions of the MPNS mention the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka (Lotus Sutra) by name and was clearly well known to the redactors. In fact, while it is less influential in India than it became in China, it appears that the SP was of quite a high level of importance to the Tathāgatagarbha texts and thought. It is there that we get the idea fleshed out in its earliest form that the Buddha is more than a historical personage—something at which the Aṣṭasāhasrikā only hints. Other Tathāgatagarbha texts that rely on the SP include the Mahābherīhārakasūtra (extensively), the Aṅgulimālīyasūtra, and the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra.

If anything, if the Andhra/Śātavāhana thesis of the MPNS's area of development is correct, the other Tathāgatagarbha texts are included in that milieu and the SP formed a central backbone of their understanding of the Mahāyāna. I don't know of any similar regional hypotheses for the SP, but it does not reflect attitudes on women that contradict the MPNS. If anything, the themes are consistent, e.g.:

Thereupon, in front of the entire world, and in front of Sthavira Śāriputra, the daughter of Sāgara, king of the nāgas, manifested the vanishing of her female genitalia, the appearance of male genitalia, and her transformation into a bodhisattva.
That bodhisattva now went to the south and, in a southern world realm named Vimalā, manifested the attainment of perfect buddhahood while seated at the foot of a tree made of the seven precious materials.

Interesting, though perhaps some later Buddhists took a more literalistic approach to the origin of Sutras in their current form, and perhaps some modern Buddhists are not even aware of this. Similar to followers of other religions who take their scriptures quite literally. And, as with all religions, favoring the particular portions that support their "views" as to the "correct" interpretation/school/understanding.

A modernist presupposition is that the redactors who composed sūtras did so thinking that they are forgeries. There's a lot of scholarship on the topic but I might suggest Douglas Osto's paper (not the book) "Altered States" which touches on asceticism and the Gaṇḍavyūhasūtra. Papers on the "Forest Hypothesis" touch on similar themes, but it is also worth considering counter arguments by David Drewes. In short it is more likely a question of perceived revelation of some kind. Additions to texts appear to have been a way to enhance them rather than bastardise them—Jan Nattier discusses the expansion of the Prajñāpāramitā litearture in this way in a footnote in her book A Few Good Men.

The Mahāyāna were certainly aware of objections to the authenticity of their sūtras—I think the MPNS is very clear in this regard when it discusses those who only accept the nine-division tripiṭaka in contrast accepting the twelve-division tripiṭaka including the Vaipulya (i.e. Mahāyāna) sūtras and discusses the grave issues with rejecting the Mahāyāna (but also some exceptions for those who simply can't know any better)—claiming that the Mahāyāna instead accepts all sūtras. Certainly each Mahāyāna Sūtra praises themselves, but I don't think it characterises the Mahāyāna to actually put down other sūtras (just as they don't "put down" caitya worship, but reframe it in a more practitioner-centric way)—but they do claim that other doctrines are more provisional (particularly as seen in the Laṅkāvatāra). This is within the logic of upāya. Moreover, there is no evidence for sūtra-based schools like we see in China in India.

This is where the question of the approach of a practitioner versus scholar or critic comes in. For a practitioner, traditionally all sūtras are considered to be valid, but depending on the circumstances, certain perspectives may be considered more suitable to one's purposes. If you don't believe in Mahāyāna Buddhism, that's your prerogative, but this forum takes it as a given for the sake of discussion, otherwise every conversation would descend into how we can know anything about anything, which would be a hindrance to practice. In our reality as it is presented to us, Buddhas and Bodhisattvas do manifest in various ways to help awaken us—sūtras are just one manifestation. At core, all is illusion except for Dharmakāya—so we have to be careful about supposing that positivistic logic which springs from within delusion somehow removes posibilities for something beyond our patterned view of reality.

This is what I wondered, since the Mahaparanirvana Sutra came after the Lotus Sutra (and those who composed it were clearly aware of the LS), why the MPNS would seem to expréss views on women that contradict the LS.

[GrapeLover]

This is what I wondered, since the Mahaparanirvana Sutra came after the Lotus Sutra (and those who composed it were clearly aware of the LS), why the MPNS would seem to expréss views on women that contradict the LS.

Zhen Li posits that the Lotus Sutra does not present particularly contradictory views on women, since the nāga king’s daughter transforms into a physical male before becoming a bodhisattva and then a Buddha. If she had remained physically female, this would be more contradictory.

[Lotomístico]

This is what I wondered, since the Mahaparanirvana Sutra came after the Lotus Sutra (and those who composed it were clearly aware of the LS), why the MPNS would seem to expréss views on women that contradict the LS.

Zhen Li posits that the Lotus Sutra does not present particularly contradictory views on women, since the nāga king’s daughter transforms into a physical male before becoming a bodhisattva and then a Buddha. If she had remained physically female, this would be more contradictory.

I see, thank you for clarifying that, I've been trying to catch up on the thread but quite a lot of information, in that case Zhen Li's understanding would make sense to me.

[Malcolm]

Zhen Li posits that the Lotus Sutra does not present particularly contradictory views on women, since the nāga king’s daughter transforms into a physical male before becoming a bodhisattva and then a Buddha. If she had remained physically female, this would be more contradictory.

But this is consistent with the idea that in order to attain anuttarasamyaksambodhi, one must do so in a male body. And this is also an inherently sexist idea.

[LastLegend]

Keep in mind I am Asian and I’ve grown up in a Asian society. You guys are liberal I get it, but doesn’t make your thoughts more accurate. Tibetan is matriarchal society. Most other Asians are partriarchal. Don’t be deleting posts just because they doesn’t agree with Western views. It was fair to say women have heavier karma than men because of child birth, etc. Common you don’t give a crap if you have a pimple on your face, yet the beauty gender freaks out. How can you say there is no different karma between carrying a female and male body?

[Hazel]

Keep in mind I am Asian and I’ve grown up in a Asian society. You guys are liberal I get it, but doesn’t make your thoughts more accurate. Tibetan is matriarchal society. Most other Asians are partriarchal. Don’t be deleting posts just because they doesn’t agree with Western views. It was fair to say women have heavier karma than men because of child birth, etc. Common you don’t give a crap if you have a pimple on your face, yet the beauty gender freaks out. How can you say there is no different karma between carrying a female and male body?

To set the record straight, statements about women bearing heavier karma were not why posts were removed. Blanket and sexist stereotypes regarding men and women were the reason.


The Terms of Service say

HATE SPEECH - speech attacking or denigrating a person or group on the basis ofattributes such as sex, gender, ethnic or national origin, religion, race, political views, disability, or sexual orientation. This provision will be applied expansively by the moderators to preclude speech evincing denigrating attitudes.

My bold.

[Malcolm]

Tibetan is matriarchal society.

No, actually, it isn't.

[Malcolm]

You guys are liberal I get it, but doesn’t make your thoughts more accurate.

Actually it does. If you investigate carefully, you will find reality has a liberal bias.

[LastLegend]

You guys are liberal I get it, but doesn’t make your thoughts more accurate.

Actually it does. If you investigate carefully, you will find reality has a liberal bias.

Accurate how? You would need to provide specific examples if you assume there isn’t a karma different between a male and a female. It doesn’t make them less becoming a Buddha if they pursue Dharma.

You would need to give specific examples on how women and men think behave through body speech and mind which associate with karma. It requires observation. If you want to say they are not different.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Reminder: The middle of a thread is not the place to make general complaints about moderation, take up your issues with individual mods, the team as a whole, or give (legitimate, serious) suggestions in the appropriate areas.

[LastLegend]

Facts:

Women do child birth and more nurturing to their child. Same in the animal kingdom. This is example of women have heavier karma. No?

[Malcolm]

Facts:

Women do child birth and more nurturing to their child. Same in the animal kingdom. This is example of women have heavier karma. No?

No, this is an example of how women have more opportunity to generate merit.