[Buddha-l] To whom should teachings be given

[Vicente Gonzalez]

Dave wrote:

due> Do you think that the objectification of women in classical Indian
due> society, in which women were seen as property passing from patriarchal
due> family to family, is the same sort of objectification of women that
due> occurs in a monastic context, which portrays them as "sexually 
due> insatiable" and a "snare for monks," as you note? They seem consonant
due> with each other but perhaps reflect some differing perspectives and
due> concerns.

in "Buddhist monks and business matters..", Gregory Schopen
wrote in chapter XI a picture really strange:
we see some monks and nuns engaged in a fight (including a kill
attempt), because a hard behavior of a monk against the relics of
a defeated nun. Later, nuns thought in some revenge.
When we read this episode, it is quite reasonable to think the nuns
order was an independent, powerful statement in the Buddhist
community. 

Probably you have read the article of Mettanando B.
"Was the Lord Buddha a sexist?"
http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=8,2666,0,0,1,0 

I was shocked by this article because in my damaged brain, many times
I have asked myself if Mahayana perhaps was a Buddhist development
mainly designed or performed by women.

Why?. We know the Pali Cannon is deliberately ignorant about the women
role. The general tone is about a religious development performed
exclusively by men. Only scarce and sporadic episodes with women.
However, in some episodes we find nuns who were enlightened, arhants.
Where is the development of that female heritage in the early Buddhist
History?, Where are the dialogues of Buddha with the female
counterpart of Sariputra?. 
In example, nuns order also had two chief nuns. Who remember their
names?. I fear it is exactly the intention underlying in the Pali
Canon regarding women.

We think Buddha did not dedicate more time to talk with these
nuns?. I don't believe it. On the contrary, the logical thing is that
he spent more time than with men, precisely because they were women in
a men's world. If they had more difficulties because the environment
or whatever, then more time is needed. In example, when can check the
amount of time devoted to Ananda.

Few centuries later, we are seeing the Mahayana arising. Mahayana is
born around the "Perfection of Wisdom" idea. From its early
conception, this idea was characterized as the "mother of all
Buddhas". ("Figments and fragments of Mahanaya Buddhism in India".
Schopen G.). Prajnaparamita was a subject of a hard mockery and
contempt in those times. And reading the Schopen stuff, it seems
this mockery arises from monks, not nuns.

Remembering what we can read in the Pali Canon and rest of literature,
and if we suppose the Mahayana development was performed mainly by
men, then today we would have much more material: a lot of discussions,
biographies, points of view, etc.. .  We check it is the general tone
in the Buddhist literature in front the arising of opposite views.
Why we don't have a lot of stuff discussing of Mahayana when it is the
main doctrinal discussion in the Buddhist History?.

And if we add the many points summarized by Mettanando B. (including
the possibility of eradication of Buddhism in India because the
pressure to nuns order), then it is not a silly thing.
We can think in a doctrinal fight with gender implications between
monks and nuns in times of the Mahayana arising.

If we imagine the Indian society in those times, the logical thought
it's the Nuns order as a place for many women to develop their
intellectual potentialities guarded of the strong Indian patriarchate.
Being nuns they were allowed to study, discussing, etc.. In fact, when
we read the Schopen's book episode, it's clear those nuns were not a
submissive group to monks. 

If those situations described by Schopen were frequent, and those
conflicts have arrived at some critical point where nuns thought their
female teaching-style was in danger, a very efficient way to guarantee
the continuity of a different teaching-style is developing a new
Buddhist revision including their female religious notion.
In fact, from the first time we see Mahayana including the conception
of a creative, positive emptiness, a pure wisdom, the so-called
"mother of all Buddhas"; the prajnaparamita.

Prajnaparamita appears in a similar way to Virgin Mary,  "the mother
of God". In fact, Edward Conze wrote that both appears 400 years later
of their religious founders. ("Thirty years of Buddhist Studies").
With both, this female side to investigate the truth is partially
rescued. At least giving some opportunity to followers to harmonize
both faces.

It is a crazy thought?.

Who was the Buddhist Magdalena?.
I yield the rights of my delirium in the hope that somebody can gain
some cents with a Buddhist Da Vinci code. 

best regards,