0

Is there a particular reason(s) for a Buddha to be only of male gender?

I'm interested in any explanation in scriptures as well as your interpretations and opinions.

mlomailom
  • 111
  • 5

3 Answers3

1

The question is a bit unclear, so here's an answer to what I think your question is.

I believe anyone -- regardless of gender -- can reap the same fruits of the path. It's all about diligence in practice; gender has nothing to do with it.

Now I recall some misogynistic passages and early injunctions against nuns, but I ignore all that. I don't think Buddhist scriptures or personalities (including The Buddha) are unerring. I think that despite having some profound things to say, Buddhism still was a product of its time and place and often failed to transcend those prejudices.

Fortunately, since Buddhist practice pays off in short order, there's no need for faith, so I don't have to rely on The Buddha being this or that, or claims that a transmission was preserved or any other claim that strains credibility. I simply see what works and use it.

With that said, Buddhism has some strong females. The one that comes to mind is Quan Yin (Guanyin), the archetype of compassion. My local Buddhist Temple gave more prominence to her than to the Buddha, even to the point of stressing her ideal (Bodhisattva) as the goal of practice. Furthermore, in all the Buddhist temples I attended, the Quan Yin statues were much more prominent than the Buddha ones; in fact, there's a nearby Buddhist Temple with a 50 foot tall statue that dominates the grounds. Who's on that statue? Quan Yin.

R. Barzell
  • 2,209
  • 11
  • 8
0

ChrisW answered. Answer is in this post titled Can the Buddha ever be a woman?

PS. No need to up/down vote. This is just to close this question by accepting it.

Community
  • 1
mlomailom
  • 111
  • 5
-1

There are reasons that explain why it is convenient for a Buddha to be male.

Namely that, for bad and for good, humans tend to form patriarchal societies. The good is unfortunately forgotten so often in modern times, that it seems strange, at first sight, that it is more likely that a Buddha is male. Men tend to be more charismatic, strong and respected. And women know by experience that they have to double their efforts to be as charismatic, strong and respected. And it's not just cultural because there is an unnavoidable biological component to human existence. We evolved from mostly patriarchal societies of apes. So there is a tendency to behave in the ways we inherited from our biological ancestors.

But if the future Buddha arises in a matriarchal human society, it's more likely that it will be a female Buddha. In the end it's just skillful means to teach. I don't think beings with this level of direct knowledge pay much attention to gender anyway. So I strongly doubt there is something inherently male about a Buddha.

EyeArrow
  • 563
  • 2
  • 7
  • Anyone cares to point any lie that I said, instead of reacting with aversion? Feminism has complained about the negative aspects of what I wrote for decades. Are there no positive aspects at all in the way humans tend to organise themselves, as it's the product of millions of years of natural selection? – EyeArrow Dec 29 '14 at 23:34
  • 2
    Remember natural selection can make someone HIV positive or wipe out New Orleans. Is there something noble about nature and what it produces? – Lowbrow Dec 30 '14 at 05:53
  • 1
    Maybe isn't much pointing of lies or aversion, but pointing the lack of solid grounds: it is too much, to hand-wave some seriously controversial opinions without a serious body of evidence behind it, and dodge disapproval. –  Dec 30 '14 at 07:35
  • Ok. Then there's nothing positive about males? Is that what you are saying? That we are like HIV? That women are better than men at everything? I would like to see the evidence of that, by the way. Because I hope you at least know that men and women are physically and psychologically different due to biology. Are men inferior to women in all aspects? – EyeArrow Dec 30 '14 at 10:29
  • @EyeArrow Thanks for your reply. I'Ve heard all my life (in Theravada Buddhism) that it's only a being born as a human male (in the life in which he attains Buddhahood) that can be a Buddha. As a matter of argument, your answer is appreciated. Any more arguments/evidence (or even solid conjecture) to either negate of back it up? Something from scriptures? – mlomailom Dec 30 '14 at 12:15
  • ChrisW (above) answered it with this post – mlomailom Dec 30 '14 at 12:25
  • I'm still waiting for arguments that invalidate what I said above. I am especially waiting for a rational explanation of why men were compared with HIV and hurricane Katrina. How much hatred for men is there for this comparisson to be made so casualy? – EyeArrow Dec 30 '14 at 13:08
  • This article suggests that of the two very closely-related species of chimpanzee, one species is more 'patriarchal' and the other is more 'matriarchal': and we don't know which ('patriarchal' or 'matriarchal') was our ancestor. Asserting that human society is 'biological' (i.e. 'nature') instead of cultural (i.e. 'nurture') is not a matter of fact, and neither (IMO) is saying that men are more 'charismatic'. – ChrisW Dec 30 '14 at 14:55
  • The most obvious "patriarchal society of ape" is the gorilla. But surely you are not saying that the Buddha is like a silverback gorilla who fights off other males (or scares them away with threat displays) and thus gets all the females to himself? I suspect that argument about the 'biological component to human existence' might be irrelevant, because that's more related to rebirth than to teaching enlightenement. – ChrisW Dec 30 '14 at 15:01
  • I said nothing of the sort of our precious teacher. Again, instead of reacting to words, analyse them objectively. The overwhelming majority of mamals form patriarchal societies. Matriarchal societies of mamals are rare exceptions to the rule. So the rational scientific assumption is to say that humans are biologically patriarchical. And the burden of proof lies with those who think otherwise. The natural inclination of human beings is to find males more charismatic. The most obvious example is the disproportion of men and women in stand up comedy. So it is convenient for a teacher to be male. – EyeArrow Dec 30 '14 at 18:25
  • I am not saying men are better than women. I am saying we are different. Women usualy do some things better and men usualy do other things better and some things are usualy equaly well done by us. That is the rational a priori view, that must be challenged by evidence. Just a final note: this path is to find the truth. If you preffer confortable lies, you will have trouble gaining insight. Especially if you consider that lies hurt more than inconvenient truths. – EyeArrow Dec 30 '14 at 18:31
  • You said "I'm still waiting for arguments", above, but I don't see a reason now to make any further arguments. – ChrisW Dec 30 '14 at 18:34
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – EyeArrow Dec 30 '14 at 18:35
  • I think there's a big misunderstanding here with mahayana inclined buddhists. When I say Buddha, I am using the theravada definition of Buddha. And that is a being that attains enlightenment when there is no dharma during his time. I did not say that women can't attain enlightenment. That would have absolutely no basis in the buddhist texts or reason. – EyeArrow Dec 31 '14 at 16:05