Gender, Self and Enlightenment:
A Feminist Analysis of Buddhism
Emily McRae
Email: mcraee@union.edu
Union College
Table of Contents:
I.Women and Egolessness
A.Buddhist Conception of Ego: Concept of substantial self, suffering caused by ego
B.Buddhist Conception of Egolessness: Lack of substantial self, Egolessness leading to the cessation of Dukkha
C.Feminist Conception of the Socially Constructed Self
1.The Social Construction of Gender
2.Evidence for the Social Construction of Gender
3.Gender as Sameness
4.Gender as Difference
5.The Value System of Gender
D.Comparison of Feminist and Buddhist Conceptions of Ego and Egolessness
1.Feminist and Buddhist agreement that the underlying reality behind self is questionable
2.Debate over the influence of gender in the creation of ego
3.Feminist View of Egolessness as detrimental to women
4.Inconsistency of Buddhist egolessness and patriarchy
E.Feminists using egolessness to end patriarchy and Buddhists using genderlessness to attain egolessness
II.Women and Enlightenment
A.Buddhist Conception of Enlightenment
1.Buddha-nature
2.Gaining Buddha-nature: The Eightfold Path
a)Ethical Conduct: right speech, right action, right livelihood
b)Mental Conduct: right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration
c)Wisdom: right thought, right understanding
B.Characteristics of Enlightenment that Pertain to Women:
1.“tathagatagarbha” translated as “womb containing Buddha”
2.Equality of potential for Enlightenment
3.Body, sexuality and feelings as vehicles to Enlightenment in Vajryana Buddhism
4.Origin and Explanation of the Masculine and Feminine Principles
C.Sexual Transformation and Enlightenment
1.Story of the Sea Dragon’s Daughter
2.Reasons why women have to change sex before Enlightenment
a)The Five Hindrances: impurity, indulgence, arrogance concerning the Dharma, 84 latent bad qualities, attachment to the mundane
b)Theory of the 32 Marks
c)Idea of the Original Vows
d)Devadetta’s influence concerning sexual transformation in Buddhism
3.Enlightenment without Sexual Transformation: the story of Devi
III.Feminism and Buddhism: How Feminist-Buddhists Resolve Contradictions:
A.Women and Anger
1.Buddhist view of anger: ideal of non-violence, anger causes suffering
2.Feminist view of anger: anger as a means for social change, anger as a release for women
3.Inconsistency between Buddhist and Feminist views of anger
4.Resolving the inconsistency between Buddhist and Feminist views of anger: using anger as a creative force, separating social problems from theoretical inconsistencies
B.The Patriarchal History and Practices of Buddhism
1.The Buddha’s sexist comments undermining women
2.The inequality of the monastic life of Buddhism: Buddha did not want to ordain nuns, rules subjecting nuns to monks
3.Understanding
and moving beyond sexism: understanding the historical background of the
Buddha, understanding that the Buddha was wrong about women
To understand the possibility of a union between Buddhism and feminism, we must examine the key concepts of both philosophies to see where they are similar and how they differ. We will explore the Buddhist and feminist conceptions of the self (with a focus on Liberal and Radical feminism). We will also discuss the concept of Enlightenment and whether or not true spiritual enlightenment for women is possible within Buddhism. Finally, we will look at the lives of Buddhist-feminist laywomen and nuns to comprehend how these two philosophies interact on an everyday level for real women.
Women and Egolessness:
The Buddhist Conception of Ego and Egolessness:
One of the most fundamental concepts for Buddhism and feminism is the idea of the self or the ego. In Buddhism the concept of ego refers to an unchanging, permanent and individual self. Ego is the notion that “I” is a real thing, separate from all else in the world. According to Buddhism, this conception of the ego is considered to be destructive because it causes suffering. In Buddhist philosophy, the world and everything in it is permeable, ever changing and interdependent. Therefore to believe that one has a self that is separable and independent can only lead to suffering because no such substance exists in the world. The Second Noble Truth explains how suffering is based upon the ego. The Buddha tells us that suffering, or Dukkha, has three aspects. The first is suffering that is physical or mental, the second is suffering that is produced by change or impermanence, and the third is suffering produced by conditioned states (i.e. the concept that one is not separate from anything else). These three aspects of suffering apply to the idea of ego because through ego we often add mental pain and frustration to our physical pain, as well as find stability and permanence, and when we do not find these, due to constant changing and conditioned states, we suffer.
To overcome the suffering produced by the notion of ego, Buddhists aspire to attain egolessness. Egolessness means that there is no absolute and unchanging self. It is important to understand that egolessness does not mean that there is no self in general, only that there is no permanent and substantial self. “The self is broken down into its component parts, but no real essence is discovered underneath these component parts. There is no unmoving mover behind the movement. It is only movement” (Gross 159). According to Buddhist philosophy, if we had a permanent self, we would be able to locate and define it within ourselves, either in our minds or our bodies. Since we cannot find or define such a substance, we know that that substance does not exist. To better explain this point, the fifth Dalai Lama made an analogy between finding a self and finding a lost bull. He explains that if a farmer is looking for his/her bull (i.e. a permanent and unchanging ego) in his upper and lower fields (i.e. his mind and body) and cannot find it in either field, the farmer knows that the bull is not on his/her property. Similarly, we look for a consistent, permanent self in our mind and body and cannot find one; therefore we know it does not exist in us.
Egolessness is a significant concept in Buddhism.When we embrace egolessness, we accept that everything, including ourselves, is changing and interdependent. This acceptance is key to ending suffering. According to the Third Noble Truth, to eliminate suffering we must eliminate thirst or desire. Through egolessness we eliminate the desire for stability and individuality and this helps us to end the suffering associated with these desires. With the cessation of suffering, we can achieve ultimate reality or Nirvana, the absolute truth that everything in the world is relative, conditioned and impermanent with no unchanging, everlasting Self or Soul (Dharma Paths 145). The Dhammapada explains the link between egolessness and Nirvana. “When through wisdom one perceives, / ‘All Dharmas are without self’/ Then one is detached as to misery. / This is the path of purity” (Dhammapada verse 279).
The Conception of the
Socially Constructed Self in Liberal and Radical Feminism:
The concept of self is also important to Liberal and Radical feminist theory. The concept of the self is useful for understanding who women are and why we are oppressed. Although these feminists feel that every woman has an individual self, they insist that there is a common factor that plays a primary role in shaping every woman’s ego. Liberal and Radical Feminists claim that this common factor is the concept of gender. In order to clearly understand the conception of self, we need to understand what is meant by gender.
According to Liberal and Radical feminists, gender is a set of socially constructed norms. In other words, every characteristic that we attribute as masculine or feminine is actually taught to us by society and is not innate or instinctive. We learn gender from all areas of society, including our immediate family and friends, our communities and the media. Gender is so ingrained in us from these sources that we feel that gender characteristics are natural and better for society. As Radical feminist Catherine MacKinnon notes, “Gender, cross-culturally, was found to be a learned trait, an acquired characteristic, an assigned status, with qualities that vary independently of biology and an ideology that attributes them to nature” (MacKinnon 109).
There is substantial evidence that gender is a social construction and not an innate and natural characteristic. One way we know that gender is an acquired characteristic is by examining other cultures and their version of gender. For example, although western societies only have two genders, male and female, this is not the case in all cultures. Anthropological studies show that “some societies have three genders – men, women and berdaches or hijras or xaniths. Berdaches, hijras and xaniths are biological males who behave, dress, work and are treated in most respects as social women; they are therefore not men, nor are the female women; they are, in our language, “male women.” There are African and American Indian societies that have a gender status called manly hearted women – biological females who work, marry and parent as men; their social status is ‘female men’ ” (Lorder 17). Gender cannot be natural or instinctive because it is not the same in all cultures; in fact, not even the number of genders is agreed upon.
Another example of the social construction of gender can be found closer to home. In Rosabeth Moss Kantor’s Men and Women of the Corporation, she argues that women do not have innate characteristics that prevent them from succeeding in the corporate world, but rather their social conditioning and status prevents success. Similarly, Nancy Henley in Body Politics, convincingly argued that men and women’s differing styles of verbal and nonverbal communication are derived from their respective social status and not from instinctive characteristics.
Liberal and Radical feminists assert that gender is key to self identity mainly because gender stereotypes are so strict and so enforced that women (and men) accept these traits as their own personality. For individuals, gender forces sameness. The requirement of a socially constructed gender is that all members of a sex must embrace all the characteristics that society has prescribed for that sex. “…The social institution of gender depends on the production and maintenance of a limited number of gender statuses and of making the members of these statuses similar to each other. Individuals are born sexed but not gendered, and they have to be taught to be masculine or feminine” (Lorder 22). The similarity that gender encourages is enforced. Women who do not fit or resist the socially constructed gender role that they are expected to fulfill are considered to be less feminine or less of a women (MacKinnon 110). Women who do embrace their gender requirement are “elevated as models, tokenized if they succeed on male terms or portrayed as consenting to their natural place and dismissed as having participated if they complain” (MacKinnon 110).
Gender also requires strict differences. There is supposed to be no confusion between men and women, and strict, socially constructed gender roles assure that there is none. This does not entail that women and men must perform radically different actions, only that the actions of men and women must appear to be very different. “In the social construction of gender, it does not matter what men and women actually do; it does not even matter if they do exactly the same thing. The social institution of gender insists only that what they do is perceived as different” (Lorder 36).
The most harmful aspect of gender, according to Liberal and Radical feminists, is the system of values it entails. The social institution of gender is not only a set of prescribed roles, but is also a system of values assigned to each role. This system of value is detrimental to women because the gender roles assigned to women are always valued less than the gender roles assigned to men.Radical feminist Mary Daly summarizes this view when she claims that if, suddenly, women stopped menstruating and men started, menstruation would become an enviable, powerful and masculine phenomenon. We learn that female gender roles are devalued from all aspects of our family, community and society. “…Andocentric social practices communicate to all the participants in the social world, both male and female, as well as to any spectators – children, say, watching representations of that social world in movies or on the television news – that males are the privileged sex and the male perspective is the privileged perspective” (Bem 144).
Differences Between Buddhist and Feminist Conception of Self:
Both Buddhism and Liberal and Radical feminism claim that there is no underlying reality behind the ego. In Buddhism, this is true because nothing is permanent or static so any underlying reality behind an ego is inconceivable. For feminists, there is no underlying reality behind gender, since it is socially constructed. “For human beings there is no essential femaleness or maleness, femininity and masculinity, womanhood or manhood, but once gender is ascribed, the social order constructs and holds individuals to strongly gendered norms and expectations” (Lorder 25). Since there is no reality behind gender, there is little reality behind the self, which is primarily formed by gender. It is important to note that feminists do not deny the self completely, only the gendered aspects of self. This is a main distinction between feminists and Buddhists because Buddhists deny the self completely.
One difference between the Buddhist and Liberal and Radical Feminist conceptions of self is the role that gender plays in the formation of the ego. Liberal and Radical feminists assert that self-identity is directly and undeniably linked to gender. Therefore, to gain egolessness, we must concentrate on eliminating gender. Buddhists claim that the ego is formed by desire and craving. Hence, to transcend the ego we need to eliminate desire and craving. Buddhists do not completely ignore gender, for gender roles can create craving and desire. Because of these kinds of effects of gender roles, the social institution of gender is not compatible with Buddhist theory. However, feminists argue that gender is so important to the conception of ego that it should be examined as a primary, rather than secondary, factor.
Another difference between the Buddhist and the feminist conception of self is the way they perceive the connection between self and egolessness. For Buddhists, if we recognize the self as changing, interdependent and permeable, then we can attain egolessness. For feminists, if we recognize that the self has no permanent substance, then we can achieve genderlessness. However, genderlessness does not necessarily equate with egolessness. Feminists worry that, although genderlessness is a worthwhile goal, egolessness might be destructive for women. This is because the Buddhist ideal of egolessness does not address power differentials between men and women. Anne Klein offers an example of this. “If a woman is living with an abusive man, someone who beats her, in a situation where she has no independent means of financial support, how is egolessness going to help her? It won’t.” (Klein 132)
Even if feminists accept egolessness as a worthwhile goal, they still criticize Buddhism because its practices often do not reflect its principle of egolessness. Many practices in Buddhism are still very sexist. Some examples include the belief that sexual transformation is necessary before Enlightenment, the rules subjecting nuns to monks, and the patriarchal hierarchy of Buddhism. If egolessness were really applied to gender, then any sex-based discrimination would be utterly inconsistent. Because egolessness implies that there are no unchanging and permanent characteristics, then to discriminate on characteristics that do not permanently exist, like gender, would be foolish. Because Buddhists do encourage patriarchal practices, they would seem to deny egolessness. “Patriarchy is contrary to Buddhism…in fact it fosters one of the most samsaric [suffering causing] traps discovered by Buddhist spiritual practice…it fosters ego rather than egolessness” (Gross 167).
Despite the differences concerning the ego, Buddhism and Liberal and Radical feminism are compatible enough to be of some philosophical help to each other. Feminism can use Buddhism to help end patriarchy, which is feminism’s ultimate goal. Because patriarchy perpetuates ego, and Buddhism strives for egolessness, Buddhism would simultaneously end patriarchy. Buddhism can also use feminism. If Buddhists accept the feminist notion that the ego consists mostly of gender, then they would overcome gender in the process of attaining egolessness, which would make for a more complete form of egolessness.
Women and Enlightenment:
Complete egolessness is necessary to attain Enlightenment, or Nirvana, which is the ultimate goal of Buddhism. The Venerable Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche defines nirvana as “liberation form the cycle of conditioned existence based on ignorance and characterized by suffering” (Dharma Paths 281). Nirvana can eliminate suffering because it frees the mind from all craving and desire, which, according to the second Noble Truth, is the cause of all suffering. Enlightenment is not only the liberation from ignorance and suffering, but can also be defined as the perfect balance of wisdom and compassion. Many Buddhists feel that this balance is just as crucial for enlightenment as liberation from suffering is.
The Buddhist Eightfold Path to Enlightenment:
The Buddha taught his followers how to gain enlightenment in the fourth Noble Truth. This truth is often called Magga, or “The Middle Path” because it describes the path to enlightenment as a journey on which extremes must be avoided. One should avoid searching for happiness through the pleasure of the senses and one should avoid searching for happiness through self-deprivation and asceticism (Rahula 45). According to the Buddha, both extremes are equally detrimental to Enlightenment. Instead of concentrating on the extremes, which will not lead us to Enlightenment, the Buddha offers an eightfold path that will lead to calm, insight and eventually Nirvana.
The eightfold path promotes three basic concepts: ethical conduct, mental discipline and wisdom. The ethical conduct is based on the concept of universal love and compassion for all beings. The first part of ethical conduct is Right Speech, which means abstaining from lies, slander, disunifying talk that would breed hatred, harsh or abusive language, and idle, useless gossip. The second part is Right Action that promotes moral and peaceful conduct whereby one avoids stealing, dishonesty and illegitimate sex. Right Action also requires that one help others lead a peaceful and honorable existence. The final aspect of ethical conduct is Right Livelihood, which refers to abstaining from making one’s living from harming others.
The mental discipline aspect of the eightfold path includes Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration. Right Effort is the will to 1. Prevent evil states of mind; 2. Get rid of evil states of mind that are already in humans; 3. Produce good states of mind that have not arisen yet; 4. Develop and perfect the good states of mind already present in humans. Right Mindfulness is to be aware of sensations and feelings in the body, as well as of the activities of the mind and ideas, thought and conceptions. Right Concentration includes four stages: 1. Passionate desires are discarded while joy and happiness are maintained; 2. All intellectual activities are suppressed and “oneness” of the mind is developed; joy and happiness are maintained; 3. Joy disappears while happiness remains; 4. All sensations disappear, while only awareness remains.
Concepts pertaining to wisdom are also present in the eightfold path. These concepts are Right Thought and Right Understanding. Right Thought is the process of pursuing thoughts of detachment and universal love and non-violence towards all living beings. Right Understanding is the understanding of things as they are, with special focus on understanding the four Noble Truths. The eightfold path is very important to Enlightenment for it simultaneously delineates what Nirvana is and how to achieve it. It gives a detailed description of how to gain something that seems very elusive and impossible.
The Importance of Enlightenment for Women:
Enlightenment is of the utmost importance for all Buddhists but there are aspects of Enlightenment that particularly pertain to women. One such aspect is the symbolism of the feminine in Nirvana. When one is enlightened, we can say that they have achieved “tathagatagarbha,” which means that they are like the Buddha in that they now have the same essential characteristics. Tathagatagarbha is often translated in a gender neutral way as Buddha-nature, but can be more accurately translated as Buddha embryo or the womb containing Buddha (Gross 186). The feminine symbolism here is overwhelming, but often ignored. Besides linguistics and symbolism, Enlightenment is especially important to women for other reasons.
One aspect of Enlightenment that is very appealing for women is that all beings have an equal potential for enlightenment. In Buddhist sutras there are many examples of both men and women becoming enlightened. Women, who often do not have spiritual role models that are equal in status to those that men have, would find examples of women achieving nirvana to be very inspiring. Besides the inspiration of women becoming enlightened, the mere fact that women can be enlightened just like men sets a precedent for gender equality within Buddhism. Since women can achieve Enlightenment, and Enlightenment is the ultimate achievement, it would be ludicrous to think that women are inferior in any way. Because of the equality between the sexes in gaining nirvana, any sex-based discrimination would be contradictory.
Another aspect of Enlightenment that is especially interesting for women is the acceptance of the body, sexuality and feelings that is found in some forms of Buddhism. Vajrayana Buddhism is perhaps the most accepting of the body. Vajrayana Buddhism is “the third vehicle of the Buddhist path, in which profound methods are used to attain enlightenment swiftly” (Dharma Paths 282). In Vajrayana Buddhism the body, sexuality and feelings are considered to be vehicles, and not obstacles, to Enlightenment (Gross 194). This is important to women for two reasons: 1. Women are often accused of being “too emotional,” and to give emotions spiritual credibility would also give women more spiritual credibility 2. Women have known emotions contain wisdom in a way that has not been recognized by patriarchy, and so to recognize the wisdom in emotions would also recognize the wisdom in women.
It is also important to women that the masculine and feminine aspects of nirvana are equal and balanced. As was previously discussed, to achieve Enlightenment one must have a perfect and equal balance of wisdom and compassion. Wisdom is considered a feminine principle while compassion is considered to be masculine. Along with wisdom, the feminine principle includes space and accommodation. The masculine principle includes, along with compassion, activity. Both principles are needed equally for Enlightenment.
Even though an even balance of these two principles is needed, it seems at first glance that this sexual duality is still sexist. Since the feminine principle includes space and accommodation, it seems much more passive and less important than the masculine principle. This is not the case because space and accommodation are not considered to be passive traits in Buddhism as they often are in western culture. Space and accommodation are incredibly important to Buddhists, who seek egolessness and emptiness. Another way to convince ourselves that this sexual duality is not sexist is to look at its origins. The origins of the feminine principle probably stem from three facts: 1. The word wisdom in Sanskrit is “Prajna”, which is feminine. 2. Wisdom is the source, or mother, from which Buddha is born. 3. Accommodation and space are associated with the feminine because the female body can accommodate a child and her sexual partner. The masculine principle probably was defined by default. The fact that the masculine and feminine principles are equal and balanced with no hint of sexism is very important for women who can find solace knowing that they are respected equally with men.
Sexual Transformation and the Story of the Sea Dragon’s Daughter:
Unfortunately, Buddhism has some contradictions concerning women and Enlightenment. One of the most blatant contradictions is the concept of sexual transformation for Enlightenment. Sexual transformation is when a woman has to transform into a man in order to gain Enlightenment (note, men never have to change into women). This occurs in many different sutras and texts. One story that illustrates sexual transformation is the story of the sea dragon’s daughter found in Saddharmapundarika Sutra. In this story Prajnakuta asks Manjusri if there is anyone who is ready to gain Buddha-hood. Manjusri tells him about the eight-year-old daughter of the sea dragon who has entered profound meditation and understands the truths Buddha preached. She is eloquent and compassionate, humane and modest. Her thoughts are harmonious and refined. Prajnakuta finds it difficult to imagine that an eight-year-old girl could attain Enlightenment instantly when so many men have tormented themselves trying to attain Enlightenment. At that moment the daughter of the sea dragon appears before him. Sariputra says to her, “It is hard to believe that you could attain perfect enlightenment in a short time. Because a woman’s body is filthy, it is not a suitable receptacle for Dharma. How could you attain perfect Enlightenment?” The girl then instantly transformed into a man (Sunim 124).
Explanations of Sexual Transformation:
There are many reasons given to explain the necessity of sexual transformation. One is the theory of the Five Hindrances. This theory is a list of reasons of why women cannot attain enlightenment in their female form. The first hindrance is that women cannot be reborn as the god Sakra because of their impure and evil nature. The second is that women cannot be reborn as Brahma (the king of gods) because of their unbridled lust. The third is that women cannot be reborn as the king Mara because of their arrogance concerning the Dharma. The fourth is that women cannot be reborn as the universal sage king because they are born with 84 latent bad qualities. Finally, because of their hatred, ignorance, attachment to the mundane world, and karma accumulated through actions of body, speech, and mind, women cannot be reborn as a Buddha (Sunim 129).
Another reason that women must transform into men is the Theory of the 32 marks of the Buddha. The 32 Marks are characteristics of the Buddha that his disciples wrote down after his death. The 32 Marks were composed as an act of reverence to the Buddha. One of the characteristics of the Buddha is a retractable penis. Although the 32 Marks were written to praise the Buddha and not to discriminate against women, many people interpret the 32 Marks to be characteristics a person must have in order to achieve Buddha-hood (Sunim 131).
Along with the 32 Marks, the Original Vows also encouraged sexual transformation. The Original Vows are forty-eight vows taken by the Buddha in his previous life as a bodhisattva. The thirty-fifth vow is to transform a female body into a male body in order to become enlightened. This particular vow is often interpreted (and translated) in different ways. One way is literally, that is, a woman must be reborn as a man in order to attain Enlightenment. The other way is that a woman may want to transform her body to escape from the hardships of being a woman in traditional Indian society (Sunim 132). Either way a woman transforms her body into a man’s to achieve Enlightenment.
The final explanation of sexual transformation is more historical than theoretical. Some scholars believe that the idea of sexual transformation did not originate in Buddhism at all but rather in another religious sect led by the Buddha’s cousin, Devadatta. Devadatta started his own religion which was much more traditional and conservative than Buddhism. It is possible that the idea of sexual transformation infiltrated Buddhism later, through Devadatta’s influence. Buddhist Scholar Hae-ju Sunim notes, “It is very plausible that the idea of sexual transformation as necessary for enlightenment that is found in the Saddharmapundarika Sutra derives not from authentic Buddhist tradition, but from the tradition of Devadatta’s sect, which was under the influence of traditional, discriminatory Indian views of women” (Sunim 128).
Contradictions concerning Sexual Transformation:
Sexual transformation is a problem for Buddhist women in two ways. The first is that it is blatantly discriminatory and degrades the female body and mind. Stories of sexual transformation tell the reader that any woman is inferior to any man merely because she is a woman. It teaches us that the female body is filthy and cannot be used in a spiritual way, as a man’s can. Since these stories proclaim that women are inferior, they simultaneously encourage gender discrimination and stereotypical gender roles.
Sexual transformation is also a problem because it contradicts basic Buddhist teachings. Not only is sexual transformation inconsistent with the idea that all beings have an equal chance for enlightenment, but it also contradicts two other Buddhist concepts. One such concept is the theory of emptiness. In Western thought we often think of emptiness as synonymous with nothingness. In Buddhist thought, however, it is more than nothingness; it is actual nature of all real things. Emptiness is “the lack of self existence in things. It is the true nature of mind and phenomena” (Dharma Paths 277). The realization of emptiness occurs when we accept our own egolessness. The idea of emptiness assures us that there are no permanent or ultimate realities. Since nothing is permanent or has a self-existence, the fixed roles of male and female do not exist. According to Buddhist philosophy, there is no permanence in anything, yet sexual transformation and the rules prohibiting women from attaining Enlightenment make gender roles real, for it would not be necessary to change gender if gender was not real. To say that a woman cannot achieve Enlightenment because she is a woman is saying that womanhood is a permanent reality, but according to the theory of emptiness there are no permanent realities.
Another point of contradiction is the well-known claim that “All Dharmas are neither male nor female.” In this quotation “dharmas” refers to elements of existence (Dharma Paths 276). By claiming that all elements of existence are neither male nor female, then all elements of existence are genderless. If gender does not exist, it seems ridiculous to think that women would have to change something that does not exist in order to attain Enlightenment. Not only is it ridiculous, but also it is impossible. How can one change something that doesn’t exist?
Refusal of Sexual transformation and the Story of Devi:
In some Buddhist texts women refuse to change their sex to attain Enlightenment. This happens most often in Mahayana texts. Mahayana is “the great vehicle of the Buddhist path. It is the vehicle of the bodhisattva, concerned with developing loving-kindness and compassion towards limitless sentient beings, and realizing the emptiness and interdependence of the self and all phenomena” (Dharma Paths 279). One such story can be found in the Vimalakirtinirdesa Sutra. Here the goddess Devi is debating about sexual transformation with Sariputa. He asks her why she does not change her womanhood and she claims that it is impossible to change something that does not exist. She says, “For example, if a skilled magician creates an illusory woman through his magical powers, could you reasonably ask why she does not change her womanhood?” When Sariputa replies no, Devi answers, “Just so, all phenomena are unreal and illusory by nature. How could you think of asking someone to change her womanhood?” Then, through her magical powers, Devi changes herself into Sariputa and Sariputa into herself. At this point she tells Sariputa, “Just as you now appear as a woman, so all women appear in the form of a woman, but are not women. It is with intention that the Blessed One said that all dharmas are neither male nor female” (Sunim 137).
Stories like this are encouraging for women for they illustrate the meaninglessness of gender. They are also more consistent with other Buddhist thoughts and practices. Although stories like the Devi story are a major improvement on the stories about sexual transformation, they still do not convey gender equality. Stories like the one above always have the underlying theme of “even if one is a woman, she can still achieve Enlightenment” and never “even if one is a man, he can still achieve Enlightenment.” Devi’s comment that “all women appear in the form of a woman, but are not women” seems to convey less of a genderless notion than a notion that women are really men trapped in an inferior form. She emphasizes that womanhood is illusory and does not really exist. She does not make the same claim about manhood. Although Devi’s story does not reflect complete gender equality, it is possible that the goddess focused on womanhood because it is the gender always in question.
Feminism and Buddhism: How feminist-Buddhists resolve contradictions:
Despite the various differences between Buddhism and feminism, many women have resolved these inconsistencies and created a successful and gratifying Buddhist-feminist practice. This is not a simple task. Many women have struggled to try to combine Buddhism with their feminist leanings and only managed to after years of study. There are several issues that are especially difficult for women to come to terms with. These include dealing with their anger as feminists and coming to terms with the patriarchal history and practices of Buddhism.
Women and Anger:
One of the most common difficulties feminist-Buddhists face is dealing with their feminist anger on Buddhist terms. Buddhist-feminists are caught in an inconsistency because Buddhism and feminism each have radically different views on anger. Because of this, many feminist-Buddhists feel that to express their anger as a feminist would be in conflict with Buddhist philosophy while embracing Buddhism would only seem to lessen their credibility as feminists.
Buddhism embraces pacifism and non-violence. Since the religion is rooted in wisdom and compassion, to harm another sentient being is to only create suffering in the world. Anger and other strong emotions are attachments that we must try to move beyond if we are to ever attain Enlightenment. In fact, one of the strengths of Buddhism is the way that Buddhist theory and especially practice give us a way to bring insight on our strong emotions. We are not advised to latch on to any strong emotion but rather, through meditation, gain insight to overcome that emotion.
Anger is not useful for the Buddhist. The emotion is akin to craving and desire which, as we learn from the Second Noble Truth, only cause suffering. We only feel anger when we are wanting something that we cannot have (i.e. when we are craving). Buddhist-feminist Anita Barrows analyzes anger into two parts, rage and outrage, which is useful to understand how anger causes suffering. Rage is the emotion that is out of control. Outrage is rage directed toward injustice. Both of these types of anger do not appear to help the Buddhist gain awareness and eventually reach Enlightenment.
Most feminists have a completely different perception of anger. Anger is healthy, feminists tell us, because it makes a point and promotes social change. Without anger we cannot show our strength as women. Without anger, we cannot reform society and we cannot end patriarchy. We have learned through countless attempts in history that nothing changes unless people fight for it. According to feminists, if we want social change, we have to fight and if we have to fight, then we must be angry.
Not only is anger necessary for the feminist conception of social reform, but it is also a welcome outlet for many women. For centuries, women have been told (and are still being told) that they should be passive and suppress their anger. Women are so conditioned to not to display anger that when they do society conceives the emotion as silly or annoying and in no way sparked by any real conditions of society. Feminism provides a deeply needed outlet for a woman to release her anger in a productive way in an atmosphere where she is taken seriously. This aspect of feminism is very appealing to many women.
There is, therefore, an explicit inconsistency between the Buddhist conception of anger and the feminist one. If a feminist-Buddhist appeals to the Buddhist conception of anger it seems that she is acquiescing to patriarchy. By moving beyond her anger, the feminist-Buddhist only succeeds in further disempowering herself because she is actively suppressing her ability to fight for social change. If she appeals to the feminist conception of anger she is causing suffering and not moving toward gaining Enlightenment. Therefore she is stuck between outrage and pacifism while not being able to embrace either without hypocrisy. It seems, then, that the feminist-Buddhist cannot use either ideology to understand her anger.
Because the feminist-Buddhist can rely on neither feminism nor Buddhism to explain her anger, she must take the personal initiative to try to reconcile the theories concerning this issue. Most Buddhist-feminists find this task very overwhelming and it often takes years to come to terms with it. Anita Barrows, a Buddhist-feminist scholar, discusses this controversy in “The Light of Outrage: Women, Anger and Buddhist Practice.”Anger, according to Barrows, is not an entirely destructive force. It can actually be quite creative. It should not be annihilated by Buddhism but rather explored through Buddhist practice. Meditation could be very useful in exploring our anger and finding the positive and creative force in it.
The real problem between feminism and Buddhism, with regard to the concept of anger, is societal and not theoretical. In our society we equate anger with violence. Because Buddhists are committed to non-violence, they must reject anger. But, equating anger with violence is a social construct and does not accurately represent reality. In reality, anger is a much more versatile emotion, producing both negative and positive consequences. Merely because Buddhists reject violence and suffering it does not necessarily follow that they have to reject anger as well. Anger can be explored in meditative practices and channeled into productive energy.
Along with equating anger with violence, our society also conditions women to not see themselves as angry or capable of anger. Since women are constantly being bombarded with passive feminine representations, they are conditioned to see themselves as passive in all they do. Feminists fear that women (and men) will use Buddhism to suppress their anger in an effort to conform to social norms and not in an effort to attain Enlightenment. According to Barrows, feminists have to realize that the socially constructed passivity that women are forced to embrace is the reason that the Buddhist conception of anger could potentially be destructive. In other words, it is not the Buddhist conception of anger that is detrimental to women but rather it is the way in which men and women could misuse that conception to reinforce oppressive gender norms.
Theoretically, the feminist and Buddhist conceptions of anger can be compatible. If Buddhists can recognize the creative, non-violent aspect of anger, then feminists could feel that their philosophical notions have a real place in Buddhism and will not merely be suppressed. However, feminism needs to understand that Buddhism is not passive. By trying to move beyond anger Buddhists are not accepting injustice or trying to further disempower women. It is only when we misinterpret the Buddhist conception of anger and use it to annihilate our emotions that it becomes destructive. As Thich Nhat Hanh notes, “If we annihilate anger, we annihilate ourselves” (Barrows 55).
Feminists are quick to point out that the Buddha himself had a negative perception of women. The Buddha often made sexist comments about women. For instance, when one of his disciples slept with his ex-wife, the Buddha told him that “It would be better for you, foolish man, that your male organ should enter the mouth of a terrible and poisonous snake than that it should enter a woman” (Wheeler 58). When one of the Buddha’s disciples, Ananda, asked why women were not allowed to sit in court or participate in business, the Buddha replied, “Womenfolk are uncontrolled, Ananda. Womenfolk are envious, Ananda. Womenfolk are greedy, Ananda.Womenfolk are weak in wisdom, Ananda” (Harris 50).
The Buddha also did not even want women to participate in Buddhist monastic life. When his stepmother/aunt and her followers traveled barefoot to beg to be ordained as nuns, the Buddha rejected their request. It was not until one of the Buddha’s (male) disciples pleaded with him three times that the Buddha finally assented. Although the Buddha did eventually allow the ordination of women, he did not let it happen easily. The Buddha predicted that by ordaining women he cut the life span of the dharma by 500 years.
The Buddha also gave nuns special rules that subordinated them to monks including the following three regulations:
1.A nun must always pay proper homage to a monk, no matter what the age or seniority of each.
2.A nun may not criticize or abuse a monk in any way.
3.While nuns may not reprimand monks, monks may reprimand nuns.
The Buddha also curtailed the importance of the nun’s order by limiting the use of honorable titles for women, giving nuns harsher punishments than monks for similar infractions and by making the monks responsible for the final ordination of nuns (i.e., a nun cannot receive full and legitimate ordination without the formal sanction of a monk) (Findley 135).
The countless instances of sexism in Buddhist history, practices and texts contradict basic feminists ideals of sexual equality. Many feminist-Buddhists have struggled to find a way to move beyond the sexism of Buddhism without jeopardizing their feminist values. Buddhist-feminist, Kate Wheeler, described her attempt to do this in her essay “Bowing, Not Scraping.” Wheeler claims that the only way to overcome this contradiction is to only understand and respect Buddhist patriarchy as history and not as a modern and useful means of looking at the world. She claims that just because Buddhism was not immune to the social forces of patriarchy in the past does not imply that Buddhism is of no use to women.
In order to understand the sexism of Buddhism, it would be helpful to examine the time period in which the Buddha taught. The Buddha began to teach the dharma in the sixth century B.C.E. when he, at age 35, gained Enlightenment after a long period of asceticism. The Buddha began his practice in India where the current social system was the caste system. Women, even of upper castes, were not considered equals. The Buddha dismantled the caste system in Buddhism and many scholars think that he was already making waves by not discriminating by class. If the Buddha had insisted on equality for women in this time period, Buddhism probably would not have been taken seriously or else would have been too controversial for most people to join. By understanding Buddha’s time period we can begin to understand his discriminating views of women.
According to Wheeler, even more important than understanding why the Buddha discriminated against women is to understand why we need not adopt the Buddha’s perception of women. She states that as feminist-Buddhists, we need to understand that the Buddha’s perception of women is not only sexist but also absolutely inaccurate and that what he said was merely a reaction to his time period and social situation and not any spiritual message. As Wheeler notes, “In the case of women, the Buddha was wrong-and we have the courage to say so” (Wheeler 67).
Although it is clear why the Buddha discriminated against women and why we should not do the same, many feminists still wonder whether a religion that needs this kind of justification is even worth the effort for women. Feminist-Buddhists like Wheeler and Gross, insist that Buddhism is “worth it” for women. Buddhism provides spiritual enlightenment for a woman in a way that does not objectify or devalue her. Buddhism also allows women to attain genderlessness, a common feminist ideal. Merely because Buddhism was not immune to the patriarchal forces of society does not make it a worthless endeavor.
Buddhism and feminism share important, fundamental concepts that make them compatible philosophies. Both Buddhism and feminism embrace genderlessness. Buddhists want to attain genderlessness in an effort to attain complete egolessness. Feminists strive for genderlessness to end patriarchy. In addition to genderlessness, Buddhism has other gender-neutral concepts that are attractive to feminists. One such notion is the equality of men and women in achieving Enlightenment, which is the eventual aspiration of all Buddhists. Despite the discrepancies that arise between feminists and Buddhists, because of these basic, shared concepts of gender equality and eventual genderlessness, a Buddhist-feminist can have a meaningful practice. Buddhism can offer feminists a religious outlet that does not belittle them while feminism can help make Buddhism a more universal and less hypocritical religion. Therefore, with some understanding and reform, Buddhism and feminism can be compatible and consistent philosophies.
Barrows, Anita. “The Light of Outrage: Women, Anger and Buddhist Practice.” Buddhist Women of the Edge. Berkeley:
Bem, Sandra. The Lenses of Gender. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984.
Dhammapada. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Findley, Ellison Banks. “Women Teachers of Women: Early Nuns ‘Worthy of my Confidence’.” Women’s
Gross, Rita. Buddhism After Patriarchy. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993.
Harris, Elizabeth. “The Female in Buddhism.” Buddhist Women Across Cultures. New York: State University of New York
Karthar, Ven. Khenpo. Dharma Paths. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications, 1992.
Klein, Anne. Meeting the Great Bliss Queen: Buddhists, Feminists and the Art of Self. Boston: Beacon Press, 1994.
Lorder, Judith. Paradoxes of Gender. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984.
MacKinnon, Catherine. Toward a Feminist Theory of State. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989.
Rahula, Walpola. What the Buddha Taught. New York: Grove Press, 1974.
Sunim, Hae-ju. “Can Women Achieve Enlightenment?” Buddhist Women Across Cultures. New York: State University
Wheeler, Kate. “Bowing, Not Scraping.” Buddhist Women of the Edge. Berkley: North Atlantic Press, 1996.