On correct view...

[icarus]

Sometimes the simplest concepts in Buddhism are blown out of proportion. Correct View is one of them.

It's practical. It makes sense.

Yet so many think it's about a pretense, pretending to see your teacher as perfect, pretending to be aware of something special... making up 'specialness' all around you.

It isn't.

Correct View is simply that. Correct.

Let's give an example. In the Middle Ages, healers did blood-letting, with the best of intentions, when people were ill. They often made the condition worse, or even killed their patient. But they believed they were helping. They just held an Incorrect Belief, or... Incorrect View, on which they based their actions.

So Incorrect View is quite dangerous. As dangerous as it is... innocent in a sense.

Incorrect View can be pretty easy to spot by the results: usually, people suffer.

Racism is an example of Incorrect View - see? It's not all high-falutin' spiritual. So is taking ones religion to bolster your ego, Sectarianism.

This is why I've stood up to those in the Buddhist community who teach Incorrect View, who distort Dharma for their own ends. It's not only that they pillage their students. They also self-servingly teach their students a belief system that will cause them nothing but harm.

I don't apologize for being a whistle-blower. I've presented the evidence of the damage, in what they've done. But I believe the greater harm is what they teach. That's the 'gift' that keeps on 'giving.'

~Icarus

This has been a public service announcement on behalf of the Buddhist Community at large.

Comments

[tboy.livejournal.com]

I think I'm carrying around an incorrect view. I hope I am, anyway! Please correct me.

I'm told that women in Buddhism are regarded as being in a state lower than males, but above animals.

This sounds preposterous, however the person who told me this astounding tidbit was completely sincere, so I've been left to wonder.

Help?

Women in Buddhism

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

I had this long answer, but clearly it was too long, 'cause it vanished when I tried to post it.

The person who told you this was likely from a literalist form of Buddhism called (somewhat perjoratively) 'Hinayana' that is practiced primarily in Thailand, Singapore, Burma and Vietnam. They stick to the Buddha's exact words without regard to the Buddha's intent, or the context.

The issue of equality of women came up when the Buddha's aunt wanted to be ordained. The Buddha said no, it would cause people of India to turn against Buddhism (and he had already pushed it by ordaining Untouchables).

Bear in mind that in the culture of the time monks were supported by begging - daily handouts. If people turned against them, they'd starve to death and the entire religion would be stamped out. Also bear in mind the Buddha didn't ordain people with physical handicaps for the same reason. It had to do with prevailing cultural beliefs, not Buddhist beliefs.

Other sects of Buddhism that do not follow the Hinayana, point to teachings of the Buddha that directly contradict this idea. They say either the Buddha couldn't make up his mind (that's sarcastic by the way) or the teaching on women was something to be kept in context and superceded by the larger meaning. Technically this is referred to as 'Provisional' meaning, when something is true only particular circumstances - a crutch, basically. While something that was fundamentally true is called 'Definitive' meaning.

The Buddha's aunt was damned persistant, so he did ordain nuns eventually; but he gave them special restrictions so that wouldn't behave in a 'equal' way that would freak the people of India out. Then just before he died he said that many of the 'lesser vows' could be disregarded. Unfortunately, he passed away before we got any specifics on which vows he meant by 'lesser' - just the 'don't chew with your mouth full' ones? It was hotly debated, and in the end people kept all of them just to be on the safe side. Many believe that the restrictions on nuns were among the 'lesser vows' that were meant to abandoned after his death.

Don't think this means that Hinayana is 'lesser than' the other sects. All of the sects of Buddhism learn Hinayana, they are the fundamental teachings of the Buddha. But later teachings contradict some points, and those are understood through debate to be 'Provisional' (crutch!) teachings.

From a very profound point of view, all the teachings of the Buddha are provisional. But it's arrogant to think that we don't need them, because that is saying we don't have contradictory attitudes (racism, sexism, etc) that need to be weeded out with Correct View.

I feel that even within the very cautious Hinayana view, the Buddha made it clear it is inappropriate to teach the 'inferiority of women.' Only someone who was really unqualified to teach would ignore the Buddha's directive that 'O monks, when teaching the Dharma in foreign lands, learn first the customs of that land, so as not to offend.' And teaching that women are lower is very offensive.

~Icarus

Re: Women in Buddhism - addendum

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

I can't resist... The texts quoted in argument that 'women are lower rebirths' are the Prajnaparamitrasutra (which teaches all inner and outer phenomena are empty of self-nature, how can something that is empty being lower than something else that is empty?) and the Uttaratantrashastra (which teaches all beings have the Buddhanature, so are fundamentally equal).

The Hinayana or Theravada Buddhists do not accept either of these texts.

Mahayana Buddhism was a little more esoteric in India, and was only taught to the Buddha's more devloped students. Conceptually, it is very easy to get these wrong, which is why one needs the practical Hinayana approach as a foundation.

~Icarus

Re: Women in Buddhism

[tboy.livejournal.com]

Thanks so much for going into such detail! I can now see the comment that was made in much clearer context.

I suppose all orthodoxies are similarly constructed. Taking Judaism as an example, it seems to me the Talmud attempts to reapply the basic Judaic tenets for each era, each culture, for each circumstance and indeed for each student who studies it, a dynamic set of studies that never stops growing. What becomes an accepted set of 'laws' for one group in a country in time is not necessarily viable in entirety to other groups, and the teachings are discussed and studied and built upon to help each group or individual to arrive at their own levels of acceptance. Labelling them Orthodox or strict or Progressive or Liberal doesn't detract from the underlying basis for the faith; it simply shows the diversity the followers have found in the interpretations, each to their own time and culture.

I shouldn't be surprised (and I'm not, now that I think about it) to find that Buddhism has a similar history of differing interpretations and degrees of orthodoxy.

Re: Women in Buddhism

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Yep. Every religion is like that. They have conservative and not-so-conservative interpretations. There's one (Vajrayana Buddhism) where women are considered to have a superior natural capacity.

Heh. For me on the subject, that was brevity. I didn't drag in any quotes or textual references (read: show off).

*blushes*
~Icarus

Re: Women in Buddhism

[tboy.livejournal.com]

Heh. At least you can remember what to quote! My memory's shot, and it's been about 13-14 years since I last studied Judaism in any detail. I typically become quite expert in any given subject while it interests me, then fail to retain more than impressions when I move onto something else *g*. It's an odd way to learn.

Showing off *g*, I was something of a brilliant student in certain areas, many, many years ago. Don't ask me about those subjects now though. If I reread old essays and such, I amaze myself with what I knew.

I'm quite sorry I seem to have lost my musicological skills. I used to be able to hold my own quite competently; now can barely recall names of composers let alone pieces, styles and history!

I think this is my middle age crisis looming. DUCK! *g*

Re: Women in Buddhism

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

*ducks* Tell me about it. It took me 15 minutes to remember the name 'Fidel Castro' the other day. "It was... it was... Cuba, leader, you know, beard... darn it, Cuban Missle Crisis.. cripes. The guy who said about GW 'I hope he's not as stupid as he seems.' Darn it! Whathisname -!"

~Icaru