Women and Buddhahood

[ion]

3 hours ago, steve said:

This thread almost makes me want to be a moderator again...

Why?

[ion]

2 hours ago, moment said:

 

Is that enlightened data? 

Data is niether enlightened, nor unenlightened. That is why political ideologies that are formed by popular reason and virtue signaling often clashes with the Dharma which asxwe all know, the Dharma often defies popular reason and trends in thinking of what's right and wrong.

 

Yes, science often goes against what is popular to believe, and what those who are popular want to believe.

[ion]

9 hours ago, ilumairen said:

 

You mean, like a woman?

 

You can keep your buddha; the dakinis will dance all the same.

 

No, that is my point entirely. You will never see a woman in as low as a place as it is possible for men to go, or as far as Buddha went as far as positions on the status hierarchy.

 

It goes against the programming ebolution has provided our species with. Women DO NOT choose to have less access to resources by purposely climbing down the status ladder.

 

We have evolved In such a way that women are predisposed to do the opposite.

 

This has been shown by genuine scientific research..

 

This does notean women are less human the men, nor is it even mysogonistic.

 

It just is.

 

 

 

Edited March 26, 2020 by ion

[ion]

2 hours ago, moment said:

 

How do you know that your enlightened men were "enlightened, and how do you know that you have never met an enlightened woman?

Buddhism, and Taoism themselves are e idence that there have been enlightened men. Without this evidence I would not believe that there were enlightened men.

[ion]

Spoiler

 

Is this mysogony? If so, mysogony is inherently Taoist, a spirituality where in knowing the differences between male and female is one of the axioms.

 

Yes there are differences in the way we percieved, process, and respond to information. We have different mating strategies, different neurology, and different abilities based on all of our differences.

 

Like I pointed out Buddha could not have had a baby. I don't think that is sexist or unfair to say. It is obvious and so is the answer.asto why he couldn't have a baby.

 

The teaching point of Buddha's that there is no self is important to note here.

 

In a man or a woman there is no self defining what the characteristics of the organism are; in more cases and it is the opposite that is true, that the Characteristics that are the organisms define what the self is.

 

So ability does not belong to a self, it belongs to the characteristics and that is why it is not misogyny to say that certain characteristics provide a different utility than others do.

 

[moment]

52 minutes ago, ion said:

Data is niether enlightened, nor unenlightened. That is why political ideologies that are formed by popular reason and virtue signaling often clashes with the Dharma which asxwe all know, the Dharma often defies popular reason and trends in thinking of what's right and wrong.

 

Yes, science often goes against what is popular to believe, and what those who are popular want to believe.

 

That just blew right past you didn't it?

[ion]

1 minute ago, moment said:

 

That just blew right past you didn't it?

So far past me that it appears that you are holding a strawman.

 

Please don't respond by stating that you are not, but instead respond by showing you are not.

 

Otherwise, as it stands that you have posted twice without ever once saying anything.

 

Stop trying to be elusive if that's what you are doing because it doesn't work for you, it just appears that you aren't saying anything at all; be direct, maybe even respond directly to something I've said and try to make that clear.

[moment]

36 minutes ago, ion said:

Buddhism, and Taoism themselves are e idence that there have been enlightened men. Without this evidence I would not believe that there were enlightened men.

 

On one hand you want to argue with hard science, then on the other hand you want to use subjective hearsay as hard evidence.  Well, that certainly gives you wide latitude to spin anyway you want.

[moment]

1 minute ago, ion said:

So far past me that it appears that you are holding a strawman.

 

Please don't respond by stating that you are not, but instead respond by showing you are not.

 

Otherwise, as it stands that you have posted twice without ever once saying anything.

 

Stop trying to be elusive if that's what you are doing because it doesn't work for you, it just appears that you aren't saying anything at all; be direct even respond directly to something I've said and try to make that clear.

 

Is that enlighted data was a joke that you did not get at all.  Instead you are going to get all serious and philosophical with it. Geez, get a clue.  No one is being elusive.  You just either do not have a sense of humor or you are dense.

[moment]

@ion

 

I will tell you what.  I appoint you as my proxy and you can argue with yourself.

[ilumairen]

All hall the mighty penis - capable of making men the highest of the high and the lowest of the low. All extremes are theirs alone, while the dakinis dance in the space between.  

 

Thanks to the friendly faces I see here; your presence is heartening.

 

 

 

[ilumairen]

15 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

Good heavens, I was trying to find solutions to misogyny in Buddhism, not justifications for it.

 

Thank you for this. 

[ion]

2 hours ago, moment said:

 

On one hand you want to argue with hard science, then on the other hand you want to use subjective hearsay as hard evidence.  Well, that certainly gives you wide latitude to spin anyway you want.

I use the word evidence by the most scientific standard. Look it up to see what the word means and if you can comprehend what you read you will see that there is certainly a veryy large body of evidence to support that they existed.

 

But humanity is so screwed that I would not believe it without that evidence.

 

Do you really have a problem with that?

[moment]

3 minutes ago, ion said:

I use the word evidence by the most scientific standard. Look it up to see what the word means and if you can comprehend what you read you will see that there is certainly a veryy large body of evidence to support that they existed.

 

But humanity is so screwed that I would not believe it without that evidence.

 

Do you really have a problem with that?

 

"and if you can comprehend what you read"  Comments like that are exactly why you are not worth my time.

Edited March 26, 2020 by moment

[ion]

2 hours ago, moment said:

 

Is that enlighted data was a joke that you did not get at all.  Instead you are going to get all serious and philosophical with it. Geez, get a clue.  No one is being elusive.  You just either do not have a sense of humor or you are dense.

No, this was taken in context of people becoming irrationally polarized due to the controversial nature of the facts I presented, and coming from a person who says if I can't see that you are joking and take that joke gleefully then I must be "dense".

 

So you say it was just a joke but when you told it you failed to mention that if I failed to see it as a joke then that means I have certain character flaws for not getting it.

 

Nice

[ion]

"If you understand what you have read" is not a derogatory statement, but you are excused from the conversation and I will not be offended by you proclaiming my lack of value.

Edited March 26, 2020 by ion

[ilumairen]

Posture, and then protect. 

 

Kinda ironic given the subject matter. 

[moment]

6 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

Posture, and then protect. 

 

Kinda ironic given the subject matter. 

 

Is there something in the air other than Corona?  

Edited March 26, 2020 by moment

[ilumairen]

10 minutes ago, ion said:

"If you understand what you have read" is not a derogatory statement, but you are excused from the conversation and I will not be offended by you proclaiming my lack of value.

 

Your not presenting anything we haven't heard before. And, imo, you are presently entrenched in your paradigm - making conversation rather pointless. This however, isn't an overreaching negation of your personal value. 

[moment]

1 minute ago, ilumairen said:

 

Your not presenting anything we haven't heard before. And, imo, you are presently entrenched in your paradigm - making conversation rather pointless. This however, isn't an overreaching negation of your personal value. 

 

You are kinder than me today.

[ilumairen]

2 minutes ago, moment said:

 

Is there something in the air other than Corona?

 

This site seems to go through cycles with this stuff. They'll make noise, some may comment or make jokes, and after awhile the smell will dissipate - like any other fart. 

[ilumairen]

5 minutes ago, moment said:

 

You are kinder than me today.

 

If he keeps typing this could change. 

[ion]

6 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

Your not presenting anything we haven't heard before. And, imo, you are presently entrenched in your paradigm - making conversation rather pointless. This however, isn't an overreaching negation of your personal value. 

The research I'm referring to is recent, but at any rate, I think the fact that you are mentioning paradigms is actually more indicative of where you are standing, not where I am.

 

I'm not saying that women are of lesser value then men, and you could not really derive that that is my belief from anything I've said or any of the data I've provided.

 

The reason you guys are projecting that on to me is you have an ideology that you believe in and you believe that this ideology some how makes you a more advanced human than me, hence the remark about old paradigms.

 

So instead of me providing more data and logical statements about my belief how about you can tell me how the reality is that there is no differences between men and women?

 

I've provided charts, and can easily provide links to research on the differences between men and women,

 

so now you provide charts and links to research that supports the idea that there are absolutely no differences between men and women, and provide charts and links to research that suggests that anything a woman can do including birthing a child so can a man, and charts and research that shows that any thing a man can do a woman can also do. Also please provide research and charts showing how there are no differences between men and womens brains, cognitive ability and intellegence.

 

So please, be a spokesperson for the new paradigm and show me that there are no differences. Don't just try to convince me that your ideology is right because it is advanced, SHOW ME.

 

You guys have a habit of making lofty proclamations and when some provides evidence of the contrary you try to shame them into seeing things your way by using terms like " parardigm" or if you can't see that then you are dense"

 

Show me,  don't shame me.

 

It does not speak well of you, your argument or appearently the new paradigm just to try to make people you don't agree with look stupid with out ever providing support for your argument.

 

So how about evidence that there are no differences and men and women have the exact same uitility?

 

 

 

 

[ion]

21 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

If he keeps typing this could change. 

That would be pretty predictable coming from an ideolog.

 

It's quite common for ideologs to become aggitated and go rage when they've been confronted with data that is contrary to their ideology even when it is sensible information and nothing more than data and charts like I provided.

 

So if you do become unkind it will not only do nothing for your argument, it will just be more support that my own observations are correct which are that the claims against what I've presented are coming from an ideology not from facts or even evidence, and that there is no facts or evidence that you could provide to support the IDEA that men and women have the exact same utility and no differences, significant or otherwise.

 

I will also point out that I have been kind in all my words and interactions in this thread and that I have done or said nothing that should warrant unkind behavior from others in return.

Edited March 26, 2020 by ion

[silent thunder]

On 3/24/2020 at 4:17 PM, ion said:

I have never had any exposure to an enlightened woman. If I had never had any exposure to evidence that there have been enlightened men I would not believe enlightened men exist so along the same lines of thinking I do not believe there have been enlightened women.

 

TBH, from what I do believe about women it would take some convincing to get me to believe in the prospect. In fact it would take some hard peer reviewed research proving that they are even capable of thinking freely and for themselves before I'd believe it.

"I never found evidence for whales, when I dipped my pail In the ocean, i never had any whales In my pail, so there are no whales In the ocean."

 

I interpreted that for everyone.
using only letters from your projections

 

You're welcome

 

Edited March 26, 2020 by silent thunder