-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Dwayne Monroe
> I'm not a Buddhist but I believe the "masculinist" focus is misplaced.
This word implies dominance of some sort but the renunciation story is not
about the Buddha's mastery - as a man - over the seductions of women but his
understanding of the impermanence of the
things to which we cling.... Since Buddha described men in exactly the same
terms when the opportunity presented itself I don't see how
this point of view can accurately be called "masculinist".
** Two points. First, we *never* find men described in the same (or similar) terms that women are. Liz Wilson writes: "I know of no comparable scene is post-Asokan Buddhist literature that presents a horrifically transformed male body to the female gaze as a source of edification." The mutilation, and stories of the mutilation of women, are used to quell male desire (ie. men are to meditate upon the mutilated and decaying bodies of women). Women are encouraged to reflect *on themselves.* Wilson writes, "Male bodies are undoubtedly disfugured in edifying ways, but the heroically sacrificed body of the bodhisattva is hardly comparable to the punitively disfigured body of a homicidal courtesan." Neither are women encouraged to view dead male bodies, only female bodies have the appropriate grotesque quality to bring about enlightenment. Wilson, Charming Cadavers (1996). There are graphic and horrific accounts of women gouging out their eyes, cutting of body parts and so on... there is simply no literature for male equivalents.
Second point: (this one is for Doug). For Buddhism, it is the mind that wields power over physical actions – and it is the intention behind an action that is the decisive factor determining whether that action is moral or immoral. e.g. Sudinna, who is an only child whose parents reluctantly give their consent to his ordination after he prepares to make good on a threat to starve himself to death. However, they persuade him to engage in sexual intercourse with his willing ex-wife in the hope of providing themselves with an heir. The Buddha severely criticizes Sudinna and tells him that it would have been better for him to have thrust his penis into the mouth of a poisonous snake or into a pit of blazing charcoal than into his ex-wife, for by breaking his commitment to chastity he will die and be reborn in hell. Any sexual offence involves a defeat in the battle against the enemy of sexual desire. As I'm sure you know, one of the most important doctrines of Buddhism is the notion of anatta (no-self, no permanent self, no immortal soul). Biology, cognition, and psychology rise and fall. Those who seek permanence of the self will suffer, for no self exists. The whole reality of the senses is, in a way, an illusion (maya). Suffering is the result of taking ‘reality’ too seriously, of assuming that the things that exist are permanent... a non-recognition of the transitory nature of this life and its reality. Attachment – to anything – constitutes suffering. Sexual desire, the desire for satisfaction or pleasure, is a desire which binds one to the world (illusion) and is therefore nothing more than deception and ignorance... The teachings of the Buddha are intended to curb passion and sensual pleasures. For the Buddhist, living a chaste life involves more than just physical virginity; chastity involves restraining the mind as well as the body. In all cases of sexual misconduct what is at issue is not simply the bodily offence, but control over the higher organ: the mind: “control over the mental organ is essential to Buddhist practice, since passion pollutes the mind and makes the experience of enlightenment impossible." What is masculinist about this process is this: the Buddha's procreative energy is not diminished but displaced upwards from his penis to his tongue: the sons and daughters of the Buddha are born of his mouth, his teachings. Buddhism begins with giving, sharing... in the case of the Buddha, a sharing of knowledge, the giving of enlightenment, teaching – dharma. The source of passion that Buddhist combat is not the penis per se, but the mind, since the mind is what coordinates the direction of all physical actions.
Now this might be all find and well and gender-neutral... but: Regarding the ordination of nuns: the Buddha was reluctant to ordain women. He eventually does agree to do so but lists eight conditions, which include placing the order of nuns under the rule of the order of monks. He also predicts the decline of his teachings as a consequence of the ordination of women. It is no small wonder that many of the orders of nuns literally died out. Similarly, within Mahayana Buddhism the question of whether or not women could achieve enlightenment was raised. We should not that it was not self-evident – the fact that the question was raised at all indicates a sharp distinction between male and female and an implicit account of their status within Buddhism. The answer is rather ambiguous, leaning toward no – and the narrative indicates that Sariputra, a Bodhisattva (on the path toward enlightenment), was magically transformed into a man, and then achieved enlightenment.
ken