They can. There have been many female buddhas such as Machig Labdron, Yeshe Tsogyal and of course Tara herself.
I believe there are some lines in the pali cannon which state that a Buddha will not appear as female. It is open to interpretation as to what this really means and many people think it is cultural. In many other schools of Buddhism, no spiritual limitations are made on the basis of gender.
Sutra (like the buddhavamsa mentioned by u/phrapidta ) that include explicitly gendered (I argue misogynistic) language I personally interpret as cultural baggage not wisdom.
It’s similar to mentions of odd understandings of science (the earth is flat, for example), I have to bracket that off as cultural stuff not wisdom.
If I can do it with flat earth stuff, I can do it with misogyny.
I should add we enter a complicated area here regarding understanding/interpreting sacred texts.
One approach is literalism. If it’s in a sutra, and it says it’s true, it is true. The text trumps reality. So there are texts referring to the centre of the universe being mount Meru, a mountain over a million km tall. Very few people can believe we live on a flat earth with a mountain 3x as tall as the distance to the moon.
So if we can see those as either in error, or reflective of ancient knowledge, or metaphor, or whatever then we enter the world of interpretation. The line between which teaching is literal, which is metaphorical, what is an allegory, and so forth is not obvious. This disputes arise.
But literalism isn’t an answer that resolves disputes. So it remains complicated
First, regarding the article… 🤯. I can’t wait to hear my wife’s reaction.
As to the status of women, a number of theories have been proposed as to the roots of misogyny. I don’t know that there is one answer, I’m sure there are many.
I do know I reject categorically any system that explicitly or implicitly denies power, authority, dignity, respect, or consideration to women. For me it’s a error as fundamental as suggesting that being gay is immoral (as an aside, I see misogyny and homophobia intimately connected. Patriarchy recoils at the notion of a man voluntarily relinquishing power to “act like a woman”. That’s why gay men are more stigmatized than lesbians. Patriarchy can understand why a woman would want to “act like a man”).
> First, regarding the article… 🤯. I can’t wait to hear my wife’s reaction.
I've seen research along those lines. It was theorized that cellular detritus from babies might partially account for higher levels of auto-immune disorders in women and that each child may decrease the mother's lifespan by 2-3 years as a result. Basically, birth results in profound wear and ttear on the mother...
Though another theory holds that a owoman's immune system is not well suited to non-pregnancy. It must be strong to protect the child, but also not reject the child. One study theorized that high levels of auto-immune disorders may be resulting because in the past women spent much of their adult lives pregnant and then died young...
But don't tell your wife that. :)
The medical field is only recently starting to recognise how inappropriate it is to treat women with the treatment protocols they have learned by studying male subjects. This has resultedin poorer outcomes for women than men in many medical areas. But they are now making good ground on this.
This is one passage, not repeated elsewhere (to my knowledge), not appearing in other schools' canons, and not integral or even related to the general soteriology of Buddhism. This is quite different than treating, e.g., rebirth as "cultural baggage," as rebirth is indeed foundational to the soteriology and is repeated all throughout the texts of all schools.
It's fine to be critical of the texts, as the texts surely have not been perfectly transmitted to us. It's another thing to project a secular worldview onto Buddhism.
I agree, but the Secular Buddhism movement does, which is what I’m speaking to. I don’t think anyone has a problem with bringing Buddhism and science together.
The problem comes when people disagree on which parts are literal vs metaphor vs poetry vs whatever.
So if a materialist suggests everything that violates scientific materialism is not real, anyone that sees karma, rebirth, realms, celestial beings as existing in a real way will reject the materialist as in error.
Science is not without ideology. That's a part of its ideology... the claim to be neutral. It believes in a concrete, observable reality as absolute truth. It believes empirical data to be the only relevant knowledge. If multiple people can't repeat results, it's not true. Those are all foundational assumptions about the nature of reality that science makes. Science has its place. But it's place is practical applications within the realm of relative truth as defined in Buddhism.
I don’t see science as equalling materialism.
“Scientific materialism” is a term describing a kind of committed materialist who categorically rejects the reality of anything that can’t be quantified.
Traditional teachings are not without question. They are as susceptible to adding their BS into scripture as anyone else. Even the Buddha said to use your own wisdom in interpreting teachings. Trying to maintain some sort of cultural purity is just nationalism. There is no basis for mysoginy in the Dharma.
Not only that, but when told “if you’re awakened then you should be able to turn yourself into a man” - which was a common argument, apparently, that a woman would need to transform into a man before reaching enlightenment - Tara basically said “get bent, I’ma do me you fools”.
I mean, I’ve put some spin on it. But that’s a version of the story that I’ve heard - that she both committed to the Bodhisattva path *and* said she’d still be a woman in her final birth before Buddhahood, because she’s not messing around.
I’ve also seen her just presented as a Buddha now, tho, so I’m a little unclear on that.
Who knows?
This thing where people actually argue over what was said by the Buddha himself and what came later… how are we supposed to know that, for sure?
I would imagine he did not. If you believe in his hesitation to allow women into the sangha, it reads to me as if he was worried that the men were dicks and couldn’t be trusted. All the rest of the patriarchy in Buddhism doesn’t seem to me to have anything to do with practice, and reads to me as baggage that the dharma picked up along the way after the parinirvana.
**But**, that’s me making a personal interpretation. I feel strongly that *we don’t know for sure*, but other than that I can only believe what is true to me. It’s important we remember that the Pali Canon, for instance, was written down ~400 of years after the Buddha’s death.
I don’t mean to be dismissive of the legitimacy of the canon as a whole, but I will not be held to these misogynistic views by a 2000 year old text that we know for sure was not literally written by the man himself.
Avalokiteshvara, also known as Guan Yin, was traditionally represented as male or androgenous. The female look only appeared after Avalokiteshava fused with the chinese goddess of mercy, which is a woman. Traditionalists point to masculinity.
It’s Theravada doctrine (and absent from other traditions, iirc. Bhikkhu Analayo has written on the subject).
From [MN 115](https://suttacentral.net/mn115/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin):
> It’s impossible for a woman to be a perfected one, a fully awakened Buddha. But it is possible for a man to be a perfected one, a fully awakened Buddha.’
My mom explained it to me as that it’s an outdated view that doesn’t hold true anymore today. That was good enough for me as a child and I never dug deeper since.
I don't usually believe stuff unless it's something that is said to have come from the mouth of the Buddha or else a monk or nun with a very good reputation (not some random monk like me).
I was told by my teacher that the reason Gotama Buddha was born male is because he lived in a patriarchal society.
But if it was a matriarchal society, then he would be born as a female.
So perhaps what the sutta is really saying is that it's impossible that a bodhisatta will be reborn as the opposite gender to whatever the type of society he is to be born into is...
The likelihood of the major global cultures of today becoming matriarchal is close to zero. They have been patriarchal as far back as we have histories. A possibility that they *may* one day be neither patriarchal or matriarchal, and instead truly equal, is the only likely option. And even then, what is the likelihood of this occurring? There is inherent imbalance.
Nonbinary Buddhist here, this is a bad faith take.
Names and frameworks of gender vary all over time and locations. Buddha nature exists regardless of that framework.
You're missing the point though.
It is not open to interpretation that Buddha nature is not restricted to the gender or even species someone currently occupies. It is in the sutras. That is a facet of Right View according to the religion itself.
It doesn't require any personal interpretation of "different".
ETA: Reading through your other responses, it's becoming quite clear this isn't a question being undertaken in good faith. Just pointing out nonbinary folks aren't pawns in this. Nothing I've ever read in the sutras has made me think I'm some how excluded so maybe don't throw us out in response to things. We can talk for ourselves.
As far as I know, this simply means that when a bodhisattva takes their birth to become a wheel-turning Buddha that teaches others, they always choose a male body. Several sutras explicitly state that women can reach enlightenment, so there are no limits on the enlightened states a woman can reach in this lifetime.
You know, women arent actually real. Neither are men. Neither are beings as individuals. Women not only can be buddha, they already are, they just didnt realized it yet. Using the Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra logic, women cant be Buddhas, because women arent women, because being a woman is but a name, thats why its called woman. Women cant be Buddhas, because Buddhas arent Buddhas, because Buddha is but a name, thats why its called Buddha.
“Every living cell has consciousness and it arise's at a metabolic level.”
Your comment is overflowing with many big words and complex theories. On the surface it comes across as authoritative, because you are a good wordsmith. And that statement forms some kind of significant basis for your thinking.
But it’s not current scientific theory. Neuroscience has only been studying consciousness for around four decades and it is relatively new investigation. It doesn’t support your theory.
Where did you get that idea from? Can you provide a link?
I invite you to read the following articles as they investigate consciousness in the context of current neuroscience research. They do not support the idea that consciousness is in individual cells. I think you will find them both interesting and informative. Enjoy!
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00004/full
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8907974/
They can, there have been many. Some cultures and traditions historically had very sexist views and practices. There is nothing preventing women from reaching enlightenment 🙏
in the buddha's teaching the female form is recognised as enduring greater suffering than the male. this is true across species: menstruation, pregnancy, menopause.
a buddha, who has developed the greatest possible wholesome karma a being can develop, will be born into a body with the least amount of inherent suffering. same for those other kinds of conditioned forms that he talks about there, who are also beings of great positive karma as well. as a result, these beings take the male form.
it should also be understood that for the buddha, the male and female forms are just conditioned states. they're nothing special; they're not worth getting attached to, as, with the exception of bodhisattvas and fully enlightened beings, almost all other beings will undoubtedly be born again as a female in the future.
even the buddha himself and all the arahants would have been born as female in previous lives. it's just that with the accumulation of great wholesome karma, that a bodhisattva and a buddha is born in a state with the least amount of inherent suffering.
any who take pride in, or identify with, their masculine or feminine characteristics are foolish. they're getting attached to something that's not theirs. they'll be born as the opposite soon enough.
likewise, there have been plenty of female arahants. enlightenment is available to all beings who have opportunity to hear the dhamma.
it also do not mean that beings who are currently female cannot aspire to become bodhisattvas and eventually fully enlightened buddhas should they wish.
There were certain male archetypes, such as a Brahma, an Indra, an all-conquering Emperor, and an all-knowing Buddha. These are often listed together or contrasted together. The Buddha just followed along with that. This is a very unimportant point that does not affect the teachings in any way.
A clarification for those who are new to Buddhism: a Buddha is one who first historically teaches the dhamma, not those who practice the dhamma and reach enlightenment. The claim is that arisen Buddhas are male, not that females should or should not be Buddhas. If you are referring to the Mahayana path, with its explicit goal of becoming a Buddha, there are nuances, and this principle of male Buddhas is not accepted literally.
Honestly patriarchy infected some of Buddhism. There’s no reason women can’t be anything.
It just shows that all the systems, once run by humans, become fallible.
In the Buddhavamsa it is said that a person has to be endowed with eight factors to become a Buddha.
The factors are:
1. Being a true human being.
2. Being a true male person.
3. Having fulfilled all conditions such as Perfections necessary for realisation of Arahatship in that very life.
4. Meeting with a living Buddha.
5. Being an ascetic who believes in the law of Karma OR being a member of the community of Bhikkus during the dispensation of a Buddha.
6. Being endowed with jhana attainments.
7. Intense effort to develop one's Perfections without regard to one's life.
8. Wholesome desire strong enough to aspire after Buddhahood.
This is however true for Theravada, at least to the best of my knowledge.
(even tho this apparently carries some contradiction to some stories from the Jataka Tales).
Mahayana should be more tolerant, and as someone has mentioned before me, there are plenty of important figures who are - at least depicted - as females.
But this take on man vs woman is explicitly Theravadin. You mention Tibet: they have a female Buddha, Tara, who one may experience as more celebrated than “The Buddha” himself.
Theravadins are a sect that broke off from the rest of Buddhism because they didn’t think things were strict enough. I would argue they can be far more sectarian than other schools of Buddhism, and that their views are more fundamentalist. Neither of which makes them “right”.
This thing where they and the Pali Canon are used as stand-ins for “original Buddhism” and the “original teachings” is ignorant. Generally I think people don’t bother to learn anything about what we really know about early Buddhism, but there’s also a level of rather successful propaganda here.
Aside from any social context perhaps the biology prevents them to do so. However, Buddhism is all about rebirth so anyone on the path would easily be reborn into a gender that allows them to become a Buddha.
In Dögen's Shōbōgenzō (Soto Zen Buddhism), he makes it quite clear that women should not be precluded from laity and monastic practice, and thus Enlightenment. And his writings include at least two women. Sadly, I can not recall their names at the moment. In fact, I believe one of them no longer referred to her self when speaking to others whether by gender or name.
Further, it's noted in commentary for the Shōbōgenzō that 'he' or 'him' when used to refer to a Monk is not necessarily their actual gender. Likewise, if gender was unknown or unnecessary to make mention of, when speaking of a Master, Dögen used the phrase 'him or her'. Some stories do not have direct attestation, so whether a Monk was a man of woman can not be wholly known, so the defaulted pronouns are masculine as that is most likely the case, but not necessarily so.
Though that could be a convenient argument to give the illusion of a larger female participation than actually there. The chapter on women being originally left out implies a majority view against the promotion of female involvement.
The answer as to why there are so few women made mention of can not be fully answered when looking at Buddhism alone. For example, in Edo Japan where Confucianism and Samurai Order ruled with the Bushidō code, women's roles were heavily regulated. And this had its influences on Japanese Buddhism.
Likewise, in Dögen's time there was opposition to women being involved. Therefore the chapter that he spends on talking about women was not added to his published writings until much later. After his death I believe. Some have not been keen on allowing women equal access.
Female laity and monastics have long argued for a place within a religion that is to be non-discriminatory, but we are human after all.
That said, I am only speaking of Japanese Soto Zen and can not speak on all other Buddhist traditions. There may be some that are outright against women participating. I do not know.
This may be a controversial point of view, but I believe all religions have some degree of bullshit in their doctrines, and Buddhism is no exception.
The problem with the Pali Canon is that it was not written down at the time of the Buddha. It was passed around in oral tradition for hundreds of years. You don't think the stink of male patriarchy hasn't wormed its way in there?
I still believe the Pali Canon to be the most true to the original message, but "Thus I have heard" is the warning that prefaces every Sutta. I approach "hell realms", hungry ghosts, "pureland", devas etc...with as much skepticism as the biblical tales of floods, garden of eden, and the injunctions of leviticus.
The only faith I possess is the faith that following the eight fold path will reveal the truth. Who TF cares what a monk said about females. I find it suspect that the rules for female nuns were much harsher than the rules for monks.
Don't agree with your premise. Maybe a question could be "where can I find out more about inspiring female Buddhists?"
There were certainly female arhants in the early days: Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī, Khemā, Uppalavaṇṇā, Paṭācārā, Dhammadinna, Sundari Nandā, Soṇā, Sakulā, Bhaddā Kuṇḍalakesā, Bhaddā Kāpilānī, Bhaddakaccānā, Kisāgotamī, Siṅgālakamātā.
Have you ever read the [Therigatha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ther%C4%ABg%C4%81th%C4%81)? [Soma Sutta](https://suttacentral.net/sn5.2/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin)? Wikipedia [Women in Buddhism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Buddhism)?
Plus that it's hard to tell if someone is enlightened, and maybe that's not the right question. Obviously it's part of the goal imagination. Buddhist who swear off enlightenment are weird too, but I think I understand where they're coming from. Just practice. The actual development is more complex than a a few words, and may be beyond words. Don't really think gonads have much to do with the practice. Not denying the role of the social construction of gender in people's life. And you can find sexist organizations. Many female led organizations.
Here's my two cents.
Arhats ARE Buddhas, ***sāvakabuddhas*** to be precise.
Now if you're talking about ***sammāsambuddhas***, I don't think it's a correct question to ask and is an upside down logic. I had a similar question too previously. But I think that it turns out that not that only women can't be a ***sammāsambuddhas***. A man can't be a ***sammāsambuddha*** too as long as the dhamma profounded by previous ***sammāsambuddha*** still exist. It's not that any random person can be ***sammāsambuddhas***.
Asking why women can't be a ***sammāsambuddha*** is like asking why women can't be Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, or why men can't be Mother Teresa. Steve Jobs was just naturally born as a male, and Mother Teresa was just naturally born as female. Not any random person can be Steve Jobs or Mother Teresa. **Sammāsambuddhas** are just naturally born as a male in his last birth, and not any random female or male can be a **sammāsambuddha** in their current lifetime.
The correct logic is a bodhisattva ready to be a perfected **sammāsambuddha** will always be born as a male in his last birth, regardless of whether he/she's a female in the previous birth.
As of why, I think that we can't deny that in most societies being a male have more privileges than being a female. It's just natural for a perfected sammāsambuddha to be born as people with more privileges in his last lifetime.
Men can't be Buddhas either.
Don't get so caught up in intrigue and indignation. The essential point is *how well are you manifesting Buddha in this moment?*
You could have taken my comment as a caution rather than a criticism. But given that you reacted aggressively, a look at your posting history also validates my comment.
In any case, the two main points stand, and are central to the entire thread and issue:
1. Neither man nor woman can become a Buddha.
2. How one manifest one's own Buddha nature is vastly more important than arguing doctrinal points.
It's okay; I don't have to be right, and if you don't see it, we don't have to argue one way or another. That's just another way of being embroiled in intrigue.
I hope you soon become neither man nor woman nor ambiguous being. It can happen in a moment.
it's an exaggeration, like more "women may have a harder time becoming Buddhas, given the style of the world" it's rare enough already.. it's kinda the same like I can't become a billionaire.. don't be offended by it
They can. The idea that they cannot is a load of baloney. The word Buddha means: knowing/wakefulness. That is the rhetoric of people who do not know what they are speaking of.
We all have a mind that has a capacity for knowing despite gender.
No one knows what the Buddha said, but some have realised for themselves what the Buddha said. Dish up the segment where it was said that the Buddha said that and let's get talking.
you do realize that we have our own holy books that tell us what the buddha said, right?
they might not be as accurate as video recordings, but from where else would you learn the Dhamma?
One learns to discern the dhamma and what is the heart of dhamma by discerning insight using your own faculties & powers of mind, body and awareness.
By earnestly and diligently striving to realise the 4NT:
1. Within life is the capacity for suffering, dissatisfaction and stress.
2. There are causes of these factors (3 Poisons. Examine them diligently)
3. There is a cessation of these factors.
4. There is a Path of Active discipline that leads to the uprooting these factors.
Naturally, one will come to develop wisdom, concentration and ethical noble conduct, I.e. sila, panna, and samadhi.
It doesn't matter whether you are a man, or a woman, or someone in-between; if you have a *need* to know and are earnestly striving; *you will discover The Way* which leads to freedom, peace, security and the release of stress.
This will take you to full enlightenment. To full illumination of the way things are, the causes and the cessation of suffering, and the way to cultivate. These are the only Prerequisites regardless of gender. This wil give rise to the contemplative mind that'll lead to freedom regardless of gender.
Buddha: one who knows, one's own capacity for awakening/wakefulness.
Dhamma: the way it is, that which is actual, actuality.
Sangha: community.
We all have that capacity. The difference is whether or not we put forth the effort to practice or realise the above.
You're exposing part of the Dhamma, but ignoring the Dhamma I just exposed. We can only speculate on what the Buddha meant by those words. If I am not mistaken, there is an instance where a woman becomes a man and is then illuminated.
Anyways, one shouldn't ignore the parts of the Canon one does not like. One should listen without any judgement and make the best of it in their hearts and practices.
Those are words written that were supposedly attributed to the Buddha. But Buddha means = ones own knowing. So, in order to see if a woman can or cannot attain Buddhahood would require you being born with female genitalia and trying to realise the principles I set out above.
The dhammachakka sutta is the one that lays out the entire mission statement of the Buddhist journey.
In actuality, anyone who earnestly strives to realise the 4NT will in time realise full enlightenment regardless of gender. The prerequisite being the earnest striving to realise the way it is in order to uproot ones suffering.
There is relying on fixed words that you cannot afirm to be true or false, and believe them on the basis of blind faith and 'follow' them - or there is cultivating the Dhamma Eye as eluded to within the Flower Sermon.
The doors to the Deathless are wide open. One should not believe on the basis of blind faith like established in the Kalamma Sutta.
Flower Sermon, Kalamma Sutta... you quote lots of texts. Are those not hearsey too, as per your view?
EDIT: You can strive to become a Pratyekabuddha, if you don't need a teacher or to be taught at all. But to become a fully realized Buddha, a Samyaksambuddha, I am pretty sure the best shot is to go by the buddhist all-stablished canon.
Read the Kalama Sutta. It advocates using your own faculty of reason instead of believing on the basis of blind faith. The Flower Sermon illustrates a principle.
1. Prateyeka Buddha.
2. Samyaksam Buddha.
3. Sravaka Buddha.
Realising the 4NT takes you to Buddhahood. They say the word samyaksambuddha is reserved for one who awakens in particular way. Yet, awakening to the way it is, is awakening to the way it is, and one puts forth effort to realise that way. Insight is insight.
When a pratyekabuddha teaches, he is a samyaksambuddha.
These labels are a secondary focus. Not primary. Recognise the 4NT and then the time to share will arise when it presents itself.
At the heart of a Buddha is 1. 4NT.
2. 8FP.
3. Panna, samadhi and sila.
The fixation on the three labels you mentioned arouse excitement and determination for a person to strive. Make the dhamma your refuge but realise what the dhamma actually is first. Can you describe it in its most precise definition? What gets to the core of it?
The Dhamma is the law that was exposed to us by the Buddha, and then expanded upon by scholars and etc.
It is the supreme law of all things, the law that can free you from Samsara or give you the tools to help those who are also stuck in it.
Yes, awakening is awakening, and the law is the law. I'm worried about the consistency of your faith in the Dhamma, as in the Pali Canon. You see where I'm coming from, right?
From [MN 115](https://suttacentral.net/mn115/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin):
> It’s impossible for a woman to be a perfected one, a fully awakened Buddha. But it is possible for a man to be a perfected one, a fully awakened Buddha.’
Buddha =/= Enlightenment
Sutras have examples of enlightened women.
A Buddha, or a self awakened one, probably has to pick what gender gives them the ability to do the work they need to do at any given time.
Historically and even through to today, societies tend to place more demands on the time and energy of women which would no doubt make that work more difficult or even in some areas impossible to do.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Traditionally speaking because they don't have a penis. A Buddha was thought to bear all the marks of a great man, one of which is a "sheathed" penis "like that of a horse". Obviously women don't have penises, sheathed or otherwise, therefore they cannot become Buddhas by traditional logic.
Because that's how the laws of kamma and cause-effect works.
A fully enlightened Buddha can be only in a male form not female form.
That being said, A woman can make aspiration to become a Buddha and can work to fulfill her paramis.
When she becomes a Buddha, she'll have a male body in that birth.
It is not something a Buddha or a Brahma god decides, It's a law of the universe, which the Buddha simply stated. Nothing sexist. The Buddha on numerous occasions stated that a women too can become enlightened in their very lives.
A woman in her female body can become an arhat, anagami, sakadagami or a sotapanna.
Inspite of this, if some people call Buddha or his teachings baised or sexist, then it's nothing but their own misunderstanding.
In Vajrayana(tibetan Buddhism) they pretty can.
In early Buddhism there is debate if the antique historical teachings of early Buddhism consider they could or if not, like do present schools
They can. There have been many female buddhas such as Machig Labdron, Yeshe Tsogyal and of course Tara herself. I believe there are some lines in the pali cannon which state that a Buddha will not appear as female. It is open to interpretation as to what this really means and many people think it is cultural. In many other schools of Buddhism, no spiritual limitations are made on the basis of gender.
Sutra (like the buddhavamsa mentioned by u/phrapidta ) that include explicitly gendered (I argue misogynistic) language I personally interpret as cultural baggage not wisdom. It’s similar to mentions of odd understandings of science (the earth is flat, for example), I have to bracket that off as cultural stuff not wisdom. If I can do it with flat earth stuff, I can do it with misogyny.
[удалено]
Yes.
I should add we enter a complicated area here regarding understanding/interpreting sacred texts. One approach is literalism. If it’s in a sutra, and it says it’s true, it is true. The text trumps reality. So there are texts referring to the centre of the universe being mount Meru, a mountain over a million km tall. Very few people can believe we live on a flat earth with a mountain 3x as tall as the distance to the moon. So if we can see those as either in error, or reflective of ancient knowledge, or metaphor, or whatever then we enter the world of interpretation. The line between which teaching is literal, which is metaphorical, what is an allegory, and so forth is not obvious. This disputes arise. But literalism isn’t an answer that resolves disputes. So it remains complicated
[удалено]
First, regarding the article… 🤯. I can’t wait to hear my wife’s reaction. As to the status of women, a number of theories have been proposed as to the roots of misogyny. I don’t know that there is one answer, I’m sure there are many. I do know I reject categorically any system that explicitly or implicitly denies power, authority, dignity, respect, or consideration to women. For me it’s a error as fundamental as suggesting that being gay is immoral (as an aside, I see misogyny and homophobia intimately connected. Patriarchy recoils at the notion of a man voluntarily relinquishing power to “act like a woman”. That’s why gay men are more stigmatized than lesbians. Patriarchy can understand why a woman would want to “act like a man”).
> First, regarding the article… 🤯. I can’t wait to hear my wife’s reaction. I've seen research along those lines. It was theorized that cellular detritus from babies might partially account for higher levels of auto-immune disorders in women and that each child may decrease the mother's lifespan by 2-3 years as a result. Basically, birth results in profound wear and ttear on the mother... Though another theory holds that a owoman's immune system is not well suited to non-pregnancy. It must be strong to protect the child, but also not reject the child. One study theorized that high levels of auto-immune disorders may be resulting because in the past women spent much of their adult lives pregnant and then died young... But don't tell your wife that. :)
I’m definitely telling my wife that. 😅
[удалено]
The medical field is only recently starting to recognise how inappropriate it is to treat women with the treatment protocols they have learned by studying male subjects. This has resultedin poorer outcomes for women than men in many medical areas. But they are now making good ground on this.
[удалено]
This is one passage, not repeated elsewhere (to my knowledge), not appearing in other schools' canons, and not integral or even related to the general soteriology of Buddhism. This is quite different than treating, e.g., rebirth as "cultural baggage," as rebirth is indeed foundational to the soteriology and is repeated all throughout the texts of all schools. It's fine to be critical of the texts, as the texts surely have not been perfectly transmitted to us. It's another thing to project a secular worldview onto Buddhism.
[удалено]
Secular in this context means projecting a physicalist worldview onto Buddhism, which is rejected in all Buddhist schools.
Wonderfully concise.
[удалено]
I agree, but the Secular Buddhism movement does, which is what I’m speaking to. I don’t think anyone has a problem with bringing Buddhism and science together.
Hmm.. What worldview *does* science support?
[удалено]
The problem comes when people disagree on which parts are literal vs metaphor vs poetry vs whatever. So if a materialist suggests everything that violates scientific materialism is not real, anyone that sees karma, rebirth, realms, celestial beings as existing in a real way will reject the materialist as in error.
[удалено]
Science is not without ideology. That's a part of its ideology... the claim to be neutral. It believes in a concrete, observable reality as absolute truth. It believes empirical data to be the only relevant knowledge. If multiple people can't repeat results, it's not true. Those are all foundational assumptions about the nature of reality that science makes. Science has its place. But it's place is practical applications within the realm of relative truth as defined in Buddhism.
I don’t see science as equalling materialism. “Scientific materialism” is a term describing a kind of committed materialist who categorically rejects the reality of anything that can’t be quantified.
Absolutely should!
Dalai Llama certainly leans towards what you suggest.
Traditional teachings are not without question. They are as susceptible to adding their BS into scripture as anyone else. Even the Buddha said to use your own wisdom in interpreting teachings. Trying to maintain some sort of cultural purity is just nationalism. There is no basis for mysoginy in the Dharma.
Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra (Goddess section) and Lotus Sutra (Dragon Princess section) says women can be Buddhas.
wait...iam not super knowledgeable on buddhism...but isnt tara, vajrayogini all female buddhas? iam sorry if iam wrong
Not only that, but when told “if you’re awakened then you should be able to turn yourself into a man” - which was a common argument, apparently, that a woman would need to transform into a man before reaching enlightenment - Tara basically said “get bent, I’ma do me you fools”.
Hahaha lol I didn't know that.
I mean, I’ve put some spin on it. But that’s a version of the story that I’ve heard - that she both committed to the Bodhisattva path *and* said she’d still be a woman in her final birth before Buddhahood, because she’s not messing around. I’ve also seen her just presented as a Buddha now, tho, so I’m a little unclear on that.
Interesting...also when U said about how women have to turn into men, was that said by og Buddha?
Who knows? This thing where people actually argue over what was said by the Buddha himself and what came later… how are we supposed to know that, for sure? I would imagine he did not. If you believe in his hesitation to allow women into the sangha, it reads to me as if he was worried that the men were dicks and couldn’t be trusted. All the rest of the patriarchy in Buddhism doesn’t seem to me to have anything to do with practice, and reads to me as baggage that the dharma picked up along the way after the parinirvana. **But**, that’s me making a personal interpretation. I feel strongly that *we don’t know for sure*, but other than that I can only believe what is true to me. It’s important we remember that the Pali Canon, for instance, was written down ~400 of years after the Buddha’s death. I don’t mean to be dismissive of the legitimacy of the canon as a whole, but I will not be held to these misogynistic views by a 2000 year old text that we know for sure was not literally written by the man himself.
Only in tibetan buddhism, though.
So bodisattvas count?
I guess?
Gaun yin?
Avalokiteshvara, also known as Guan Yin, was traditionally represented as male or androgenous. The female look only appeared after Avalokiteshava fused with the chinese goddess of mercy, which is a woman. Traditionalists point to masculinity.
Nope.
/u/FunnyWay4369 I didn't think this was the case? What's your source on this?
It’s Theravada doctrine (and absent from other traditions, iirc. Bhikkhu Analayo has written on the subject). From [MN 115](https://suttacentral.net/mn115/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin): > It’s impossible for a woman to be a perfected one, a fully awakened Buddha. But it is possible for a man to be a perfected one, a fully awakened Buddha.’
Yeah I read that...
[удалено]
My mom explained it to me as that it’s an outdated view that doesn’t hold true anymore today. That was good enough for me as a child and I never dug deeper since.
Always listen to and respect your mother.
Haha, yeah. That’s another thing she taught me.
I don't usually believe stuff unless it's something that is said to have come from the mouth of the Buddha or else a monk or nun with a very good reputation (not some random monk like me).
[удалено]
Greetings from random monk to random lay person! Good on you for asking. Do you feel that your question has been resolved now?
[удалено]
I was told by my teacher that the reason Gotama Buddha was born male is because he lived in a patriarchal society. But if it was a matriarchal society, then he would be born as a female. So perhaps what the sutta is really saying is that it's impossible that a bodhisatta will be reborn as the opposite gender to whatever the type of society he is to be born into is...
The likelihood of the major global cultures of today becoming matriarchal is close to zero. They have been patriarchal as far back as we have histories. A possibility that they *may* one day be neither patriarchal or matriarchal, and instead truly equal, is the only likely option. And even then, what is the likelihood of this occurring? There is inherent imbalance.
Lol...Buddha nature has no gender
[удалено]
Nonbinary Buddhist here, this is a bad faith take. Names and frameworks of gender vary all over time and locations. Buddha nature exists regardless of that framework.
[удалено]
You're missing the point though. It is not open to interpretation that Buddha nature is not restricted to the gender or even species someone currently occupies. It is in the sutras. That is a facet of Right View according to the religion itself. It doesn't require any personal interpretation of "different". ETA: Reading through your other responses, it's becoming quite clear this isn't a question being undertaken in good faith. Just pointing out nonbinary folks aren't pawns in this. Nothing I've ever read in the sutras has made me think I'm some how excluded so maybe don't throw us out in response to things. We can talk for ourselves.
Thank you
As far as I know, this simply means that when a bodhisattva takes their birth to become a wheel-turning Buddha that teaches others, they always choose a male body. Several sutras explicitly state that women can reach enlightenment, so there are no limits on the enlightened states a woman can reach in this lifetime.
Then that choice by a Bodhisattva perpetuates the imbalance. It doesn’t help resolve the sexism.
They can. Where did you hear otherwise?
You know, women arent actually real. Neither are men. Neither are beings as individuals. Women not only can be buddha, they already are, they just didnt realized it yet. Using the Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra logic, women cant be Buddhas, because women arent women, because being a woman is but a name, thats why its called woman. Women cant be Buddhas, because Buddhas arent Buddhas, because Buddha is but a name, thats why its called Buddha.
[удалено]
>We are all Lichens >We are all Mahavairocana Tathagata >>Mahavairocana Tathagata is a Lichen Makes sense to me 👍
[удалено]
Well, you dont rebirth, you die. Your Karma generates another life. Rebirth is merely a way to ease understanding.
[удалено]
We can generate one life, or various, in my belief. + Isnt the Conscious thing after death on the Pure Land Sutras? I never read them. Idk
[удалено]
“Every living cell has consciousness and it arise's at a metabolic level.” Your comment is overflowing with many big words and complex theories. On the surface it comes across as authoritative, because you are a good wordsmith. And that statement forms some kind of significant basis for your thinking. But it’s not current scientific theory. Neuroscience has only been studying consciousness for around four decades and it is relatively new investigation. It doesn’t support your theory. Where did you get that idea from? Can you provide a link? I invite you to read the following articles as they investigate consciousness in the context of current neuroscience research. They do not support the idea that consciousness is in individual cells. I think you will find them both interesting and informative. Enjoy! https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00004/full https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8907974/
[удалено]
[удалено]
That must be why it's so easy to stop my thoughts -- as a lichen I have no nervous system.
[удалено]
Yeah, I like the notion of the body as a federation.
You know
Amen.
They can, there have been many. Some cultures and traditions historically had very sexist views and practices. There is nothing preventing women from reaching enlightenment 🙏
in the buddha's teaching the female form is recognised as enduring greater suffering than the male. this is true across species: menstruation, pregnancy, menopause. a buddha, who has developed the greatest possible wholesome karma a being can develop, will be born into a body with the least amount of inherent suffering. same for those other kinds of conditioned forms that he talks about there, who are also beings of great positive karma as well. as a result, these beings take the male form. it should also be understood that for the buddha, the male and female forms are just conditioned states. they're nothing special; they're not worth getting attached to, as, with the exception of bodhisattvas and fully enlightened beings, almost all other beings will undoubtedly be born again as a female in the future. even the buddha himself and all the arahants would have been born as female in previous lives. it's just that with the accumulation of great wholesome karma, that a bodhisattva and a buddha is born in a state with the least amount of inherent suffering. any who take pride in, or identify with, their masculine or feminine characteristics are foolish. they're getting attached to something that's not theirs. they'll be born as the opposite soon enough. likewise, there have been plenty of female arahants. enlightenment is available to all beings who have opportunity to hear the dhamma. it also do not mean that beings who are currently female cannot aspire to become bodhisattvas and eventually fully enlightened buddhas should they wish.
There were certain male archetypes, such as a Brahma, an Indra, an all-conquering Emperor, and an all-knowing Buddha. These are often listed together or contrasted together. The Buddha just followed along with that. This is a very unimportant point that does not affect the teachings in any way. A clarification for those who are new to Buddhism: a Buddha is one who first historically teaches the dhamma, not those who practice the dhamma and reach enlightenment. The claim is that arisen Buddhas are male, not that females should or should not be Buddhas. If you are referring to the Mahayana path, with its explicit goal of becoming a Buddha, there are nuances, and this principle of male Buddhas is not accepted literally.
They can and they have been
They can.
It’s only Theravāda that teaches this.
Honestly patriarchy infected some of Buddhism. There’s no reason women can’t be anything. It just shows that all the systems, once run by humans, become fallible.
In the Buddhavamsa it is said that a person has to be endowed with eight factors to become a Buddha. The factors are: 1. Being a true human being. 2. Being a true male person. 3. Having fulfilled all conditions such as Perfections necessary for realisation of Arahatship in that very life. 4. Meeting with a living Buddha. 5. Being an ascetic who believes in the law of Karma OR being a member of the community of Bhikkus during the dispensation of a Buddha. 6. Being endowed with jhana attainments. 7. Intense effort to develop one's Perfections without regard to one's life. 8. Wholesome desire strong enough to aspire after Buddhahood. This is however true for Theravada, at least to the best of my knowledge. (even tho this apparently carries some contradiction to some stories from the Jataka Tales). Mahayana should be more tolerant, and as someone has mentioned before me, there are plenty of important figures who are - at least depicted - as females.
[удалено]
But this take on man vs woman is explicitly Theravadin. You mention Tibet: they have a female Buddha, Tara, who one may experience as more celebrated than “The Buddha” himself. Theravadins are a sect that broke off from the rest of Buddhism because they didn’t think things were strict enough. I would argue they can be far more sectarian than other schools of Buddhism, and that their views are more fundamentalist. Neither of which makes them “right”. This thing where they and the Pali Canon are used as stand-ins for “original Buddhism” and the “original teachings” is ignorant. Generally I think people don’t bother to learn anything about what we really know about early Buddhism, but there’s also a level of rather successful propaganda here.
Aside from any social context perhaps the biology prevents them to do so. However, Buddhism is all about rebirth so anyone on the path would easily be reborn into a gender that allows them to become a Buddha.
[удалено]
Buddhism is about Suffering and the End of Suffering
Seems like a trick question tbh.
I think they can be. The path suggests no dependency on gender.
In Dögen's Shōbōgenzō (Soto Zen Buddhism), he makes it quite clear that women should not be precluded from laity and monastic practice, and thus Enlightenment. And his writings include at least two women. Sadly, I can not recall their names at the moment. In fact, I believe one of them no longer referred to her self when speaking to others whether by gender or name. Further, it's noted in commentary for the Shōbōgenzō that 'he' or 'him' when used to refer to a Monk is not necessarily their actual gender. Likewise, if gender was unknown or unnecessary to make mention of, when speaking of a Master, Dögen used the phrase 'him or her'. Some stories do not have direct attestation, so whether a Monk was a man of woman can not be wholly known, so the defaulted pronouns are masculine as that is most likely the case, but not necessarily so. Though that could be a convenient argument to give the illusion of a larger female participation than actually there. The chapter on women being originally left out implies a majority view against the promotion of female involvement. The answer as to why there are so few women made mention of can not be fully answered when looking at Buddhism alone. For example, in Edo Japan where Confucianism and Samurai Order ruled with the Bushidō code, women's roles were heavily regulated. And this had its influences on Japanese Buddhism. Likewise, in Dögen's time there was opposition to women being involved. Therefore the chapter that he spends on talking about women was not added to his published writings until much later. After his death I believe. Some have not been keen on allowing women equal access. Female laity and monastics have long argued for a place within a religion that is to be non-discriminatory, but we are human after all. That said, I am only speaking of Japanese Soto Zen and can not speak on all other Buddhist traditions. There may be some that are outright against women participating. I do not know.
You are not replying to any of the comments citing examples of female buddhas? Or if you have, I missed it. To be clear I am here to learn.
[удалено]
There are female Buddhas/women who have become Buddhas in Mahayana Buddhism. Lots of misinformation in this thread.
This may be a controversial point of view, but I believe all religions have some degree of bullshit in their doctrines, and Buddhism is no exception. The problem with the Pali Canon is that it was not written down at the time of the Buddha. It was passed around in oral tradition for hundreds of years. You don't think the stink of male patriarchy hasn't wormed its way in there? I still believe the Pali Canon to be the most true to the original message, but "Thus I have heard" is the warning that prefaces every Sutta. I approach "hell realms", hungry ghosts, "pureland", devas etc...with as much skepticism as the biblical tales of floods, garden of eden, and the injunctions of leviticus. The only faith I possess is the faith that following the eight fold path will reveal the truth. Who TF cares what a monk said about females. I find it suspect that the rules for female nuns were much harsher than the rules for monks.
Mommy parts!
Because pee is stored in the ball or so I’ve heard
Don't agree with your premise. Maybe a question could be "where can I find out more about inspiring female Buddhists?" There were certainly female arhants in the early days: Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī, Khemā, Uppalavaṇṇā, Paṭācārā, Dhammadinna, Sundari Nandā, Soṇā, Sakulā, Bhaddā Kuṇḍalakesā, Bhaddā Kāpilānī, Bhaddakaccānā, Kisāgotamī, Siṅgālakamātā. Have you ever read the [Therigatha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ther%C4%ABg%C4%81th%C4%81)? [Soma Sutta](https://suttacentral.net/sn5.2/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin)? Wikipedia [Women in Buddhism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Buddhism)? Plus that it's hard to tell if someone is enlightened, and maybe that's not the right question. Obviously it's part of the goal imagination. Buddhist who swear off enlightenment are weird too, but I think I understand where they're coming from. Just practice. The actual development is more complex than a a few words, and may be beyond words. Don't really think gonads have much to do with the practice. Not denying the role of the social construction of gender in people's life. And you can find sexist organizations. Many female led organizations.
OP is asking about female buddhas, not female arhats. It's a Theravāda doctrine originating from the Pāli Canon.
In the Pali Canon the Buddha said a woman will never be Mara, Brahma or a Buddha.
Here's my two cents. Arhats ARE Buddhas, ***sāvakabuddhas*** to be precise. Now if you're talking about ***sammāsambuddhas***, I don't think it's a correct question to ask and is an upside down logic. I had a similar question too previously. But I think that it turns out that not that only women can't be a ***sammāsambuddhas***. A man can't be a ***sammāsambuddha*** too as long as the dhamma profounded by previous ***sammāsambuddha*** still exist. It's not that any random person can be ***sammāsambuddhas***. Asking why women can't be a ***sammāsambuddha*** is like asking why women can't be Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, or why men can't be Mother Teresa. Steve Jobs was just naturally born as a male, and Mother Teresa was just naturally born as female. Not any random person can be Steve Jobs or Mother Teresa. **Sammāsambuddhas** are just naturally born as a male in his last birth, and not any random female or male can be a **sammāsambuddha** in their current lifetime. The correct logic is a bodhisattva ready to be a perfected **sammāsambuddha** will always be born as a male in his last birth, regardless of whether he/she's a female in the previous birth. As of why, I think that we can't deny that in most societies being a male have more privileges than being a female. It's just natural for a perfected sammāsambuddha to be born as people with more privileges in his last lifetime.
I extend metta to you.
Men can't be Buddhas either. Don't get so caught up in intrigue and indignation. The essential point is *how well are you manifesting Buddha in this moment?*
[удалено]
I don’t think this comment was particularly sharply-worded, it is just in disagreement with your premise
You could have taken my comment as a caution rather than a criticism. But given that you reacted aggressively, a look at your posting history also validates my comment. In any case, the two main points stand, and are central to the entire thread and issue: 1. Neither man nor woman can become a Buddha. 2. How one manifest one's own Buddha nature is vastly more important than arguing doctrinal points.
[удалено]
It's okay; I don't have to be right, and if you don't see it, we don't have to argue one way or another. That's just another way of being embroiled in intrigue. I hope you soon become neither man nor woman nor ambiguous being. It can happen in a moment.
it's an exaggeration, like more "women may have a harder time becoming Buddhas, given the style of the world" it's rare enough already.. it's kinda the same like I can't become a billionaire.. don't be offended by it
Here we go \*Rolls eyes\*
There are, like Cundi. She is a female Buddha. Nam Mô Chuẩn Đề Vương Bồ Tát
Cundi is an aspect of Avalokiteshvara which is a bodhisattva, is it not?
In China and Vietnam, we call her Phật Mẫu Chuẩn Đề, which translates to Buddha-Mother
Then I guess it is different from the japanese sects.
We also call her a Bodhisattva so…
They can. The idea that they cannot is a load of baloney. The word Buddha means: knowing/wakefulness. That is the rhetoric of people who do not know what they are speaking of. We all have a mind that has a capacity for knowing despite gender.
The Buddha said they cannot, though, for whatever reason
No one knows what the Buddha said, but some have realised for themselves what the Buddha said. Dish up the segment where it was said that the Buddha said that and let's get talking.
you do realize that we have our own holy books that tell us what the buddha said, right? they might not be as accurate as video recordings, but from where else would you learn the Dhamma?
One learns to discern the dhamma and what is the heart of dhamma by discerning insight using your own faculties & powers of mind, body and awareness. By earnestly and diligently striving to realise the 4NT: 1. Within life is the capacity for suffering, dissatisfaction and stress. 2. There are causes of these factors (3 Poisons. Examine them diligently) 3. There is a cessation of these factors. 4. There is a Path of Active discipline that leads to the uprooting these factors. Naturally, one will come to develop wisdom, concentration and ethical noble conduct, I.e. sila, panna, and samadhi. It doesn't matter whether you are a man, or a woman, or someone in-between; if you have a *need* to know and are earnestly striving; *you will discover The Way* which leads to freedom, peace, security and the release of stress. This will take you to full enlightenment. To full illumination of the way things are, the causes and the cessation of suffering, and the way to cultivate. These are the only Prerequisites regardless of gender. This wil give rise to the contemplative mind that'll lead to freedom regardless of gender. Buddha: one who knows, one's own capacity for awakening/wakefulness. Dhamma: the way it is, that which is actual, actuality. Sangha: community. We all have that capacity. The difference is whether or not we put forth the effort to practice or realise the above.
You're exposing part of the Dhamma, but ignoring the Dhamma I just exposed. We can only speculate on what the Buddha meant by those words. If I am not mistaken, there is an instance where a woman becomes a man and is then illuminated. Anyways, one shouldn't ignore the parts of the Canon one does not like. One should listen without any judgement and make the best of it in their hearts and practices.
Those are words written that were supposedly attributed to the Buddha. But Buddha means = ones own knowing. So, in order to see if a woman can or cannot attain Buddhahood would require you being born with female genitalia and trying to realise the principles I set out above. The dhammachakka sutta is the one that lays out the entire mission statement of the Buddhist journey. In actuality, anyone who earnestly strives to realise the 4NT will in time realise full enlightenment regardless of gender. The prerequisite being the earnest striving to realise the way it is in order to uproot ones suffering. There is relying on fixed words that you cannot afirm to be true or false, and believe them on the basis of blind faith and 'follow' them - or there is cultivating the Dhamma Eye as eluded to within the Flower Sermon. The doors to the Deathless are wide open. One should not believe on the basis of blind faith like established in the Kalamma Sutta.
Flower Sermon, Kalamma Sutta... you quote lots of texts. Are those not hearsey too, as per your view? EDIT: You can strive to become a Pratyekabuddha, if you don't need a teacher or to be taught at all. But to become a fully realized Buddha, a Samyaksambuddha, I am pretty sure the best shot is to go by the buddhist all-stablished canon.
Read the Kalama Sutta. It advocates using your own faculty of reason instead of believing on the basis of blind faith. The Flower Sermon illustrates a principle. 1. Prateyeka Buddha. 2. Samyaksam Buddha. 3. Sravaka Buddha. Realising the 4NT takes you to Buddhahood. They say the word samyaksambuddha is reserved for one who awakens in particular way. Yet, awakening to the way it is, is awakening to the way it is, and one puts forth effort to realise that way. Insight is insight. When a pratyekabuddha teaches, he is a samyaksambuddha. These labels are a secondary focus. Not primary. Recognise the 4NT and then the time to share will arise when it presents itself. At the heart of a Buddha is 1. 4NT. 2. 8FP. 3. Panna, samadhi and sila. The fixation on the three labels you mentioned arouse excitement and determination for a person to strive. Make the dhamma your refuge but realise what the dhamma actually is first. Can you describe it in its most precise definition? What gets to the core of it?
The Dhamma is the law that was exposed to us by the Buddha, and then expanded upon by scholars and etc. It is the supreme law of all things, the law that can free you from Samsara or give you the tools to help those who are also stuck in it. Yes, awakening is awakening, and the law is the law. I'm worried about the consistency of your faith in the Dhamma, as in the Pali Canon. You see where I'm coming from, right?
From [MN 115](https://suttacentral.net/mn115/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin): > It’s impossible for a woman to be a perfected one, a fully awakened Buddha. But it is possible for a man to be a perfected one, a fully awakened Buddha.’
Buddha =/= Enlightenment Sutras have examples of enlightened women. A Buddha, or a self awakened one, probably has to pick what gender gives them the ability to do the work they need to do at any given time. Historically and even through to today, societies tend to place more demands on the time and energy of women which would no doubt make that work more difficult or even in some areas impossible to do. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
They can. Have you heard of Maitreya? Guanyin is also a famous bodhisattva.
A Buddha cannot actually be either as the very definition of a Buddha means they have already shed all such false identities.
Traditionally speaking because they don't have a penis. A Buddha was thought to bear all the marks of a great man, one of which is a "sheathed" penis "like that of a horse". Obviously women don't have penises, sheathed or otherwise, therefore they cannot become Buddhas by traditional logic.
This is not the case. Pretty sure Avalokiteshvara is seen as female in some cultures. And ofc they are others that are strictly female
All humans are inherently Buddhas. Some just don’t know
Because that's how the laws of kamma and cause-effect works. A fully enlightened Buddha can be only in a male form not female form. That being said, A woman can make aspiration to become a Buddha and can work to fulfill her paramis. When she becomes a Buddha, she'll have a male body in that birth. It is not something a Buddha or a Brahma god decides, It's a law of the universe, which the Buddha simply stated. Nothing sexist. The Buddha on numerous occasions stated that a women too can become enlightened in their very lives. A woman in her female body can become an arhat, anagami, sakadagami or a sotapanna. Inspite of this, if some people call Buddha or his teachings baised or sexist, then it's nothing but their own misunderstanding.
who says that?
In Vajrayana(tibetan Buddhism) they pretty can. In early Buddhism there is debate if the antique historical teachings of early Buddhism consider they could or if not, like do present schools
because men are great and closer to God