-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Dwayne Monroe
> weighted down by the woman-bashing modern eyes so eagerly see.
** Despite the plethora of feminist readings of Buddhism... the tradition is drenched with misogynist writings, images, and practices. Buddhist practices continually call upon women to embody abstract ideals for spectators. The heyday of 'progressive' readings of Buddhism is over (Foley, Bode, Horner). Women have had to struggle for basic rights and access to the public sphere within all strands of Buddhism (historically speaking), just as they have in nearly every single other religious tradition. Female flesh is quite often the bait for the hook of Dharma. It is simply gross to assert that modern eyes are weighted down by feminist-historical criticism rather than liberated from sexist practices and sexist readings of history.
From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of BklynMagus
>Dear List: My own take on Buddhism and body parts... Since Buddha taught...
** I gladly agree with Jon Johanning here --> Strictly speaking, we should speak of "the traditional accounts of the Buddha's teachings," not "the Buddha's teachings."). With that being said... I don't know how to take the rest of your post. If this is you personal confession of Buddhism then, well... guess what - you're my data. If your providing a brief summary of Buddhist ideas I'll simply note that you points are idealistic and abstract. Who believes this? Where do they live? What do they do on the weekends? The 10 points summary of belief is common to Introductory texts to the study of religion and, for the most part, is little more than a reification: no one actually believes the systematic outlay that the phenomenological approach is so fond of. In this sense, "Buddhism as such" does not exist. But there are Buddhists, in specific communities. Historiography, not phenomenology. I'm interested in the history of religion, not the philosophy of religion. And I *totally* excuse myself from discussing doctrine / belief / or authentic tenets.
From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Jon Johanning
> One can make serious errors of fact by reading a few texts written for
particular purposes and trying to infer the behavior of the whole lay
population from them, as Ken and others on this list seem to want to do. The
same thing is true of Christianity, BTW: common medieval folks tended to be
much more joyful about sex than the gloomy theologians, as any student of
medieval life knows.
** This concerns me. I provided my references which will lead any follower of this thread to a specific*community or practice as researched by a particular scholar. I haven't been using any of my resources outside their frame of reference or made any pretenses towards generalising specific illustrations of misogyny to the Buddhist community at large (I have made several generalisations, but I admit this is careless and irresponsible on my part). It strikes me as obvious that there are anti-sexist and feminist Buddhists all over the place, some of them might have even lived a couple decades ago. I haven't encountered anything in the tradition(s) of Buddhism that escape the snare of wider cultural and religious sexism. Sure, there are traces of a liberative ethic that could be consciously torn from their historical context for modern political purposes... but that's not my concern. As for the sex life of common medieval folks... supply the reference and I'll look it up. I'd like to read about sexually satisfied women and men from the time period.
For example, he quotes something like
> ** "The infidels burst into the monastery, and Eusebia urged the holy
virgins, caring more for preserving their purity than their life, to cut off
their noses in order to irritate by this bloody spectacle the rage of the
barbarians and to extinguish their passions. With incredible zeal, Eusebia
and all her companions accomplished this act; the barbarians massacred them
in the number of forty, while they confessed Christ with an admirable
constancy." (monastery of Saint Cyr, southern France).
as though it were typical of the attitudes of ordinary Christians toward sex. And he claims to be a student of history. <shaking head>
** Well, I happen to be mostly correct about this one. The phrase "to cut off your nose to spite your face" comes from these chronicles. For much of the Middles Ages the ideal state for a woman was articulated as integritas: total virginity. The church even advocated suicide for virgins as preferable to sexual assault. *Most* Christians of the time period would have held this to be true, even if they themselvs happened to be married. Chasity was viewed of as preferable to marriage, pretty much across mainstream Christianity. As Jerome stresses, "although God can do all things, He cannot raise up a virgin after she has fallen." What's more --> if my source is to be trusted, some 10-15% of the female population of southern Europe was cloistered at one time or another; it was one of the only 'safe' places a woman could go --> virtually mandatory if she was unmarried. Jane Tibbetts Schulenburg, "The Heroics of Virginity" in Rose, ed. Women in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Naturally you will have noticed that I've backpeddled here a bit and qualified any claim I might have inadvertently made about the attitudes of ordinary Christians (I haven't double checked my irresponsible responses, but I'll accept your point here).
> In sum, yes, there is plenty of joy of sex in the Buddhist world.
** Provide me with an ethnographic report (prior to the 20th century) and I'll drink to that (20th c. reports are probably easy to come by).
ken