quote:Originally posted by kresge:
Accessing the historical Buddha is just as much if not a greater challenge than accessing the historical Jesus.
What we have is a history of praxis in Buddhism as well as Christianity where women are subordinated. It is my understanding that a women, no matter their level of enlightenment status are always to be under the authority of a male.
You can blame Confucianism for that, not Buddhism. The misogynistic classes were formed before Confucius, but were codified by him as being necessary for a just and orderly society.
You are confusing Buddhism and Confucianism.
Confucianism was around long before the arrival of Buddhism. By the time Buddhism arrived, Confucian-backed patriarchy was well-established. Buddhism was probably modified to not rattle the cages of this institution.
quote:On a somewhat related note, I have heard scholars make the case that Buddhism perpetuates the status quo due to it maintaining a quietistic posture. [This has often been the case with Christianity as well. People often succumb to quietism, believing that they will be justified in the Sweet By and By, so they put up with suffering and injustice in the Nasty Now and Now.] It is thus not surprising that revolutionary impulses arrive from other sources.
I could see how that case could be made. But, I would counter-argue that Christianity and Buddhism are revolutionary religions based on questioning authority and creating change.
I'd say that Hinduism and Judaism are more status-quo protecting.