Talk:Women in Buddhism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice[edit]

I ask you from all my fellow friends and buddhism people please don't use wikipedia as a reference when it comes to Buddhism. cause anyone can insert anything into this. our religion exist for 2500 years purely without changing a bit (Theravadha) our Monks and People especially in Srilanka have been protecting the Damma with hard effort. they sacrificed their lives ,families,happiness to conserve for future generation.we shouldn't allow people to change it that's because they think their notion is perfect. whatever Lord Buddha said should be remained in Buddhist scriptures and articles. if you want to modify it please go and make your own religion. I have been noticing there are lot of false details in Wikipedia regarding Buddhism. most of valuable articles about Buddhism were written in Sinhalese nowadays which is the native language of Srilanka. the center of Theravada Buddhism. if you are really interesting about Buddhism please first study about Pali and Sinhalese languages. then you can read the accurate information. people often make mistakes when translate Buddhism articles cause they use their own notions.that should NOT be happened with Buddhism. Thanks. ~~Avaloan~~

Maybe[edit]

Maybe we can add a section about women in Chinese Chan Buddhism? because of that:

Austerlitz -- 88.75.208.223 (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or a section about Mothers in Buddhism?
Austerlitz -- 88.72.29.200 (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Women as Dharma heirs[edit]

"Chokyi Dronma [1422-1455] not only persuaded one of the highest spiritual teachers of her era to give her full ordination but also established orders for other women practitioners and became so revered that she was officially recognized as one of the two prinicpal spiritual heirs to her main master." -- 88.72.13.10 (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- 88.72.13.10 (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • [1] there is Bhikshuni Shri as Lineage holder ("Lineage: Avalokiteshvara, Bhikshuni Shri,......")
Austerlitz -- 88.75.196.36 (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • [2] Here she is mentioned with "Preserved in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition there are seven principal traditions that contain extensive teachings on the practice of Avalokiteshvara. The first of these is the [1] King's Tradition (gyal lug) of Tri Songtsen Gampo, [2] Bhikshuni Shri Tradition (gelongma palmo lug) of the Kashmiri nun, Gelongma Palmo [top right corner], .]

Bhikshuni Shri Tradition (gelongma palmo lug) of the Kashmiri nun, Gelongma Palmo

Austerlitz -- 88.75.196.36 (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • [3] No. 24 of footnotes: "For the legend of dGeslongma dPalmo, a tenth century nun born a princess into a royal Kashmiri family and descriptions of the fasting rite she founded, see among others:......."
Austerlitz -- 88.75.196.36 (talk) 11:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Literature[edit]

The First Buddhist Women: Translations and Commentaries on the Therigatha Author: Susan Murcott, ISBN 0938077422 According to table of contents there is a chapter about mothers.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.198.250 (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Austerlitz -- 88.72.21.149 (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Traveller in Space: Gender, Identity and Tibetan Buddhism (Paperback), Author: June Campbell, ISBN 0826457193 (10), ISBN 978-0826457196 (13)

Austerlitz -- 88.75.205.175 (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Traveller in Space: In Search of Female Identity in Tibetan Buddhism by June Campbell (Hardcover - April 1996), Publisher: George Braziller; 1 edition (April 1996), ISBN 0807614068 (10), ISBN 978-0807614068 (13)

Austerlitz -- 88.75.83.90 (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- 92.78.131.208 (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Table of Contents The Power of Denial: Buddhism, Purity, and Gender (Buddhisms) by Bernard Faure

What a pity that there is no separate table of contents! I would like to add it to the book within the article's page.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.10.229 (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Style?[edit]

DakiniJones, you've changed the previous text into the following: "According to Thubten Chodron, the current Dalai Lama has said on this issue:" why?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.221.82 (talk) 14
54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Change mainly to accomodate moving the link to external source from body of article since wikipedia policy not to include such links in an article. I'm not committed to any particular phrasing so do feel free to edit if you'd prefer something different. --Dakinijones (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sexuality perspective[edit]

To my knowledge, there is no sexuality perspective on Women and Buddhism - and neither does sexuality as such appear to be an academic discipline in the sense of the other perspectives cited here with wiki links. Perhaps what you've got in mind could be achieved by a section on sexuality and Buddhism? That would link nicely with the section on motherhood. If you have some sources please do feel free to create such a section as I'd be happy to see it. When we get round to including a specific section on feminism and Buddhism, I'm sure that sexuality will be a theme there too. I agree the subject needs to appear in the article but I'd argue that it's not so much a perspective that needs mentioning in the lead section as a theme that needs to appear in the body of the article.--Dakinijones (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you are right in saying that sexuality is not considered to be an academic discipline. I was not aware of the fact that you wanted to name special type of perspectives only. Actually I have not thought much about the topic within this article until now. We will see what is going to happen. Of course one need not stick to one type of perspectives only. Let it appear in the body of the article, if you want to.

Austerlitz -- 92.78.140.209 (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Buddha[edit]

I'm assuming what you mean by the term historical Buddha is the kind of Buddha where Shayamuni is the 4th one of this age? Or do you mean one who is visible in historic times on this planet and is not purely resident in other (Buddha) realms largely inaccessible to humans? Either way, I think the concept needs clarifying for the readers and a citation of your source provided. I'm glad you're here to work with me on this as I think we need to be quite meticulous if we're not going to confuse ourselves or our readership! The sources vary a great deal according to which branch of Buddhism they're from - and even the Vajrayana/Tibetan Buddhist sources are not always entirely compatible in the readings and opinions they give. --Dakinijones (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Buddha means a Buddha whose existence on earth is believed to have taken place, according to history. You ever heard the term historical figur? There is no source, this is common knowledge according to my perception and awareness. You ever heard anybody talk about a female Buddha having lived on earth (except Karmapa)? When monks are not even used to bow to a nun or greet her, how can a woman enlightened as she may be find any acknowledgement in reality?

Agreed. The monastery system has a very uneasy relationship with the Vajrayana practice tradition. Yet Indian tantric buddhist sources in Sanskrit record women's spiritual achievements and many of these are recorded in the Tibetan Canon.--Dakinijones (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The sources vary a great deal according to which branch of Buddhism they're from - and even the Vajrayana/Tibetan Buddhist sources are not always entirely compatible in the readings and opinions they give." I don't agree with what you are saying here from my perspective. Can you give an example?

Austerlitz -- 92.78.140.209 (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. See example in article of Miranda Shaw quoting a Tibetan source for 1,000 fully enlightened women and hundereds of fully enlightened men. Numerous other examples since in Vajrayana Buddhism full enlightenment in this lifetime is seen as a definitely achievable goal - with no particular gender barrier. (Although it must be said that in monastic Tibetan Buddhism the Gelugpa have far fewer records of successful female practitioners - they tend to be outside the monastery system. The schools most likely to acknowledge female attainments are Kagyu and Nyingma). One sign of full enlightenment is achievement of the rainbow body... something women are even said to be better able to achieve than men. Tsultrim Allione's book Women of Wisdom describes the spiritual life-stories of half a dozen enlightened women - they don't keep namthars of the unenlightened. 4 of the 84 Mahasiddha's are women... again, proof of enlightenment. Most of the 80 male ones had fully enlightened consorts - or they couldn't have achieved their own enlightenment (tantric union is only so good as what you're uniting to) although not all had a living consort. So yeah... in as far as the Vajrayana records many fully enlightened male historical figures, it also records many fully enlightened female historical figures. Not - of course - as well advertised as the males, but present in the source literature (often untranslated from the Tibetan or Sanskrit) nonetheless.

Of course non-Vajrayana Buddhists record very few male fully enlightened historical figures and no women - and non-Mahayana Buddhists record only 4 historical fully enlightened males. And of course non-Buddhists would record only one, male, fully enlightened historical figure.

Well, seems as if he (has) had the biggest propaganda machine.
Austerlitz -- 88.75.216.211 (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main sources for my position would be Shaw, Simmer-Brown and Allione, who've all done in-depth, scholarly research on the primary source materials in Sanskrit and Tibetan.

So... perhaps you could clarify your position and share some sources for it? I understand why your personal experience would be as you've stated but what goes in the article does need to be backed up by academic or primary source material. If you can clarify your terms and provide academic sources that support that position then I'd agree it has a place in the article. After all, we're not here to convince each other... just to give the reader an insight into what the academics and sources say. If they don't agree that's really ok - as long as we let the readership know that. --Dakinijones (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've made more comments and asked questions on other aspects of the article but not addressed this issue that you originally raised... I'm wondering where you want to go with this on the article page? --Dakinijones (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's because I've expressed myself already. Now I just wait until somebody quotes the buddha or some of the thousands of arahants saying that there has been no female historical buddha until now, on this earth.
Austerlitz -- 92.78.140.11 (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Well in that case you're referring to the Theravadin perspective (arahants) which already appears in the previous paragraph with a reference to the Bahudhātuka-sutta which clearly states no female Buddhas. This paragraph is about the Vajrayana Buddhist perspective. Since you say you have no quotation to offer yourself I'm going to remove the unsupported statement... but please do feel free to re-instate it if at any time you do have a source to support that statement with. --Dakinijones (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quotating Khandro Rinpoche ==[edit]

"When there is a talk about women and Buddhism, I have noticed that people often regard the topic as something new and different. They believe that women in Buddhism has become an important topic because we live in modern times and so many women are practicing the Dharma now. However, this is not the case. The female sangha has been here for centuries. We are not bringing something new into a twenty-five hundred-year-old tradition. The roots are there, and we are simply re-energizing them.[3]"

Really, I don't know whom she is talking about, what people. Buddhist, non-buddhist, male, female? Does she talk about the universal buddhist female sangha? Whom and what is she angry about? What kind of roots we are simply reenergizing?

Maybe you cannot answer those questions of mine, but for sure you can tell me what you have chosen this quotation for. Do you?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.215.107 (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I chose it because this is an article on women and buddhism and she is talking about the subject of women and Buddhism. It balances the quotation that the subject of women and buddhism has been little explored and demonstrates that people in the field of Buddhist studies don't always have a uniform perspective on the subject - thus providing the reader with a more balanced overview of the topic.

BTW I find it interesting that you perceived her statement as angry. It's not an interpretation I would have expected. Khandro Rinpoche herself is well-known for a statement that "anger is always a waste of time". I saw her statement as simply pointing out that there is a long history of women in Buddhism and if we're not aware of it that's more a matter of cultural factors than of the subject being only recently of interest. --Dakinijones (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find her statement unclear, I don't know what she actually wanted to point at. When se says "The roots are there, and we are simply re-energizing them.", What is she talking about? The roots of what? What does re-energizing mean or refer to? The roots of female strength, equality or what?

She doesn't say that "the subject" of "women and buddhism" has been "explored" in the past. BTW I understand your motivation now, I think. You perceive a contradiction between people who allegedly state that the status of women in buddhism has not been explored and others who allegedly state that the situation or status of women in Buddhism has been deeply explored in the past.

I find it interesting that according to your impression she wanted to point out "that there is a long history of women in Buddhism". I am not aware of the fact that there are people believing that for example Tenzin Palmo has been the first buddhist nun. What do you mean by the "subject being only recently of interest"? the existence of buddhist women in roles whatsoever or the discriminating against buddhist nuns? or something else?

Austerlitz -- 92.78.140.11 (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe these questions of yours are something that should be explored in the article as our readership will probably have similar questions? You may not have been aware of the issues Khandro Rinpoche is speaking to - but as one of the key female figures in Tibetan Buddhism today I'd assume that she knows what she's talking about. Academics and feminists can both see women and Buddhism as a modern interest - practitioners tend to know their history a little better - but still, even practitioners are often unaware of the full extent of women's spiritual attainments in Buddhism. Meanwhile, practitioners are often unaware of the perspective of academics. Here at Wikipedia there's a wonderful opportunity for both perspectives to meet. As a whole, the article can give an overview of these varying perspectives so that the readership has the information to allow for a balanced view. --Dakinijones (talk) 12:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music[edit]

Austerlitz -- 88.75.219.88 (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something lacking[edit]

Tibetan Buddhist Tulkus and Emanations 

   * Khandro Rinpoche[30]
   * Tsultrim Allione

Two people have been deleted, I don't have an idea for what reason. The title has been changed, what for? Has this been you, Dakinijones?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.202.239 (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not my edit. Check the page history if you want to know details like that ;-) Oh... come to think of it I did change the title for clarity - not my deletions though. --Dakinijones (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity[edit]

However, despite some less positive images of women in Early Buddhism, there are also examples in the Pali Canon demonstrating that a central belief in Buddhist philosophy is that clinging to beliefs based on gender is a hinderance to attaining nirvana, or enlightenment. In the Bhikkhuni-samyutta, found in the Sagatha-vagga of the Samyutta Nikaya, gender discrimination is stated to be the work of Mara, a personification of temptation from the Buddhist spiritual path. In the Soma Sutta, Soma states: "Anyone who thinks 'I'm a woman' or 'a man' or 'Am I anything at all?' — that's who Mara's fit to address"[9], linking gender equality to the Buddhist concept of anatta, or "not-self", one of the three marks of existence according to the Buddhist perspective.

Soma Sutta from Discourses of the Ancient Nuns(Bhikkhuni-samyutta)[edit]

oh... to change something for clarity you first have to understand the topic. I don't try to discuss with you any more.

Austerlitz -- 92.78.137.151 (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, maybe not my best edit summary... maybe it should have read "edited for several violations of WP:MOS, WP:NPOV and WP:sources" Your experiences editing here may be much less frustrating if you familiarize yourself with those articles. --Dakinijones (talk) 10:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samyaksambuddha in women and Buddhahood[edit]

The Types of Buddha article defines Samyaksambuddha in a way that would not cover Yeshe Tsogyal's type of Buddhahood. The term appears to be reserved for founders of Buddhism - Gautama being 4th in the current line. The article Buddhahood says: "perfectly self-enlightened (Skt: samyak-saṃbuddha". This is not viewed as necessary for Buddhahood in the Vajrayana. I've no idea what the sanskrit term used to describe Yeshe Tsogyal is - although from the article it appears that the Pali Canon term "anubuddha" might apply. Translations of Tibetan works simply say "fully-enlihtened Buddha" and I don't know what term is being translated there. Do you have any sources to back up using samyak-saṃbuddha/Samyaksambuddha in this context? I've searched but found nothing useful... I'd really like to know what term the Tibetans are using in this context just for my own interest but we also need to be sure we're being accurate. --Dakinijones (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC) I'd like to know, too. Austerlitz -- 88.75.86.200 (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • [7] Here the historical Buddha is quoted with having said that he is an Arahant, meaning a Fully-enlightened Buddha.

As far as I remember (without source) women can be Arahants, but no teaching Buddhas.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.93.130 (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Words[edit]

Austerlitz -- 88.75.88.205 (talk) 11:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

says for bu (for example):

bu son [ry]

bu - children, son, offspring, boy, maiden, sonny, child, copy of any document, son, young boy, disciples, indicates male in modern Tibetan, but included both sexes in ancient times, followers [JV]

bu - 1) son, child, boy; 2) male person; 3) particle [IW]

says for bu mo (same page):

bu mo - daughter [ry]

bu mo - daughter, girl, dame, lass, virgin (1 of khyim bcu gnyis), maiden, daughter, young girl, female [JV]

bu mo - girl, daughter [ry]

bu mo - maidens [ry]

Austerlitz -- 88.75.88.205 (talk) 11:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link[edit]

That Link

  • ^ MAJJHIMA NIKAAYA III III. 2. 5. Bahudhaatukasutta.m-(115) The Discourse on Many Elements

doesn't work anymore. As far as I have noticed, there is no other link with the same text available online. At least until now I could not find another translation.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.223.80 (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that's it [8]?

There is no number 115, I could find it. added -- 88.75.208.7 (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation from the link: ""Er weiß: 'Unmöglich ist es und kann nicht sein, daß in ein und derselben Weltordnung zwei Heilige, vollkommen Erwachte zugleich auftreten mögen: ein solcher Fall kommt nicht vor'; er weiß: 'Möglich aber ist es wohl, daß in ein und derselben Weltordnung ein Heiliger, vollkommen Erwachter auftreten mag: ein solcher Fall kommt vor.'

"Er weiß: 'Unmöglich ist es und kann nicht sein, daß in ein und derselben Weltordnung zwei Könige als Erderoberer (cakkavatti) zugleich auftreten mögen: ein solcher Fall kommt nicht vor'; er weiß: 'Möglich aber ist es wohl, daß in ein und derselben Weltordnung ein König als Erderoberer auftreten mag: ein solcher Fall kommt vor.'

"Er weiß: 'Unmöglich ist es und kann nicht sein, daß das Weib einen Heiligen, vollkommen Erwachten oder einen König Erderoberer darstellen mag: ein solcher Fall kommt nicht vor'; er weiß: 'Möglich aber ist es wohl, daß der Mann einen Heiligen, vollkommen Erwachten oder einen König Erderoberer darstellen mag: ein solcher Fall kommt vor.'

"Er weiß: 'Unmöglich ist es und kann nicht sein, daß das Weib Herrschaft über den Himmel, Herrschaft über die Natur, Herrschaft über die Geister erlangen mag: ein solcher Fall kommt nicht vor'; er weiß: 'Möglich aber ist es wohl, daß der Mann Herrschaft über den Himmel, Herrschaft über die Natur, Herrschaft über die Geister erlangen mag: ein solcher Fall kommt vor.'" added -- 88.75.208.7 (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation from the link: "14. „Er versteht: ,Es ist unmöglich, es kann nicht geschehen, daß zwei Verwirklichte, vollständig Erleuchtete, gleichzeitig in einem Weltsystem erscheinen könnten – eine solche Möglichkeit besteht nicht.‘ Und er versteht: ,Es ist möglich, daß ein Verwirklichter, vollständig Erleuchteter in einem Weltsystem erscheinen könnte.‘ Er versteht: ,Es ist unmöglich, es kann nicht geschehen, daß zwei Universalherrscher gleichzeitig in einem Weltsystem erscheinen könnten – eine solche Möglichkeit besteht nicht.‘ Und er versteht: ,Es ist möglich, daß ein Universalherrscher in einem Weltsystem erscheinen könnte – eine solche Möglichkeit besteht.‘“ 15. Er versteht: ,Es ist unmöglich, es kann nicht geschehen, daß eine Frau ein Verwirklichter, ein vollständig Erleuchteter sein könnte4) – eine solche Möglichkeit besteht nicht.‘ Und er versteht: ,Es ist möglich, daß ein Mann ein Verwirklichter, ein vollständig Erleuchteter sein könnte – eine solche Möglichkeit besteht.‘ Er versteht: ,Es ist unmöglich, es kann nicht geschehen, daß eine Frau ein Universalherrscher sein könnte – eine solche Möglichkeit besteht nicht.‘ Und er versteht: ,Es ist möglich, daß ein Mann ein Universalherrscher sein könnte – eine solche Möglichkeit besteht.‘ Er versteht: ,Es ist unmöglich, es kann nicht geschehen, daß eine Frau die Stelle von Sakka einnehmen könnte – eine solche Möglichkeit besteht nicht.‘ Und er versteht: ,Es ist möglich, daß ein Mann die Stelle von Sakka einnehmen könnte – eine solche Möglichkeit besteht.‘ Er versteht: ,Es ist unmöglich, es kann nicht geschehen, daß eine Frau die Stelle von Màra einnehmen könnte – eine solche Möglichkeit besteht nicht.‘ Und er versteht: ,Es ist möglich, daß ein Mann die Stelle von Màra einnehmen könnte – eine solche Möglichkeit besteht.‘ Er versteht: ,Es ist unmöglich, es kann nicht geschehen, daß eine Frau die Stelle von Brahmà einnehmen könnte – eine solche Möglichkeit besteht nicht.‘ Und er versteht: ,Es ist möglich, daß ein Mann die Stelle von Brahmà einnehmen könnte – eine solche Möglichkeit besteht.‘“" added -- 88.75.208.7 (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • [11], [12]. All those speaches of the Buddha are German only, as it seems to be. The English site is about news.

added -- 88.75.208.7 (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Austerlitz -- 88.75.223.80 (talk) 09:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Core of the matter[edit]

"The Soma Sutta, as part of the Pali Canon, is considered to be buddhavacana, or the words of an enlightened one. Since the Pali Canon is accepted by both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhists as buddhavacana, this is considered to be mainstream Buddhist philosophy[citation needed]."

Tenzin Palmo somewhere stated that the Gelugpa are the buddhist people best trained in intellectual debate. Most probably somewhere they must have debated the idea of women being of "minor birth". What is the explanation given by them?

-- 83.236.99.253 (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some other text of the Bahudhātuka-sutta in English. http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima3/115-bahudhatuka-e.html

Austerlitz -- 88.75.208.7 (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation from the english text: " It is impossible that two rightfully Enlightened Ones should be born in the same world element at one and same time. It is possible that a single rightfully Enlightened One should be born in the world element at one time. It is impossible that two Universal Monarches. should be born in the same world element at one and same time. It is possible that a single Universal Monarch should be born in the world element at one time. It is impossible that a woman should be the perfect rightfully Enlightened One. It is possible that a man should be the perfect rightfully Enlightened One. It is impossible that a woman should be the Universal Monarch It is possible that a man should be the Universal Monarch. It is impossible that a woman should be the King of Gods. It is possible that a man should be the King of Gods. It is impossible that a woman should be the King of Death. It is possible that a man should be the King of Death. It is impossible that a woman should be Brahmà. It is possible that a man should be Brahmà."

Austerlitz -- 88.75.216.194 (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • [13]. I am going to think about.
Austerlitz -- 88.75.95.50 (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Online sources

Austerlitz -- 88.72.18.168 (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello you, reading the change you have made: "Throughout the Mahāyāna world, Avalokiteśvara, who takes on both male and female form [e.g., Guan Yin, and Tara, a female Vajrayana yidam, are bodhisattvas who embody karuṇā, and Prajnaparamita is a female buddha who embodies wisdom." at first sight I didn't like it. I am going to think about, sooner or later. In the meantime I leave it the way you've put it.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.221.68 (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section starts by talking about "mainstream". What does that mean? It's liable to be weaselish. Mahayana attitude is that the Pali Canon is a sort of "Old Testament", valid up to a point but superseded by Mahayana sutras. On the particular point in question, the traditional Mahayana doctrine is that Buddhas are no longer human beings, so neither male nor female. Peter jackson (talk) 10:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Words[edit]

There is a current project from Nalanda Translation Committee, founded by Chogyam Trungpa, Eliminating Gender-Biased Language.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.71.101 (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Meaning[edit]

There is a secton mentioning the "Bahudhātuka-sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya in the Pali Canon", saying this sutta decrees the limitations of women in certain roles; "King of Death" for instance. The statement uses a link to what appears to be a realtively poor translation. I therefore wonder if the 'impossibilities' mentioned in this sutta arise from grammatical limitations (i.e. gender-based titles and nouns) than spiritual or gender limitations. I also wonder if a better translation or the sutta in its original language might either support or undermine this section's conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.153.201.189 (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.kosei-shuppan.co.jp/english/text/mag/2008/08_456_3.html

-- 88.75.212.19 (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maithuna

Austerlitz -- 88.75.221.25 (talk) 08:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mother of compassion?[edit]

Quote from the article's site: "...in Buddhism the image of the mother as the embodiment of compassion is used a lot."

Sorry, but this is not true at all.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.91.201 (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the "six major points"[edit]

What's with the strange "6 major points" part of this article? This is about women in buddism, not what some anonymous author thinks Buddha would do... "it is undoubtedly clear that the Buddha affirmed the ability of women to attain complete spiritual development."

This is about Buddhism... not Budda... and what's the source of all this stuff? It's clearly a soapbox section. It needs to be removed per WP:NPOV and probably many other WP policies. --Retran (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Women and Buddhahood - Wikipedia, Change It[edit]

It took me 10 minutes of research to see that this is nonsense. Information like this should at least be added. From The Bahudhātuka-sutta and its Parallels On Women’s Inabilities, Journal of Buddhist Ethics :

"The present article offers a comparative study of the Bahudhātuka-sutta, based on a translation of one of its parallels found in the Madhyama-āgama preserved in Chinese translation. The study focuses in particular on the dictum that a woman cannot be a Buddha, which is absent from the Madhyama-āgama version."

Then :

"This Madhyama-āgama parallel to the Bahudhātuka-sutta was translated into Chinese by Gautama Sanghadeva towards the end of the fourth century, apparently based on a Prākrit original transmitted within the Sarvāstivāda tradition(s). Besides this Madhyama-āgama discourse and the Pāli Bahudhātuka-sutta, other parallel versions are a discourse translated individually into Chinese; a discourse preserved in Tibetan translation; a full sūtra quotation in the Dharmaskandha of the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma, preserved in Chinese; and a full sūtra quotation in Śamathadeva’s commentary on the Abhidharmakośabhāya, preserved in Tibetan."

Another source that should be referenced for those still in doubt is the Vajira Sutta: Vajira, from the Samyutta Nikaya (SN 5.10) :

"Then, having understood that "This is Mara the Evil One," she replied to him in verses:

What? Do you assume a 'living being,' Mara? Do you take a position?

This is purely a pile of fabrications. Here no living being can be pinned down.

Just as when, with an assemblage of parts, there's the word, chariot, even so when aggregates are present, there's the convention of living being.

For only stress is what comes to be; stress, what remains & falls away.

Nothing but stress comes to be.

Nothing ceases but stress.

Then Mara the Evil One — sad & dejected at realizing, "Vajira the nun knows me" — vanished right there."


If Mara has no hold on a meditator, that meditator is then capable of becoming a Buddha.

Sources :

So do you want me to carry on researching this until I have lists of sources, or can it be changed? --Medresearch888 (talk) 09:30, 5 April 2013 (GMT)

Help with missing biographies of women Tibetan Buddhists[edit]

Added redlinks and citations to missing biographies of women Tibetan Buddhists at Jetsunma. (If you really want to get fancy writing these articles, here's the Infobox religious biography template). Djembayz (talk)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Women in Buddhism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guan Yin[edit]

It's not that important, but I guess Guan Yin Statue is smaller than Statue of Liberty. All the best! --DiHri (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Section on early Buddhism should quote from experts in the field[edit]

Currently the section on Early Buddhism refers to a number of studies that are either generalist or from scholars who specialize in later forms of Buddhism. In addition, they are quite out of date. Gender studies in early Buddhism has been an active field in the past couple of decades. It would be good to more accurately reflect the current state of the field. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.75.80.139 (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article for deletion[edit]

The current article is a mish-mash of unsourced and original research making very vague points - and serving as an index to other more relevant pages. The quality is extremely low to the point of being nonsense, and it seems like the point of the full article is to try to validate or rehabilitate women in buddhism - Not cover the encyclopedic entries regarding actual women in buddhism. It reads like a religious-political statement loaded with agendas, not like a neutral sourced encyclopedic article. --2A02:AA7:4009:CD8A:409C:C020:AAA7:8B29 (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC) AK[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Women_in_Buddhism&oldid=1204286013"