Misandry and Mahayana

I read something by Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche the other day that really set me to thinking. He wrote a simple but compelling account of his mother, Mayum Kunsang Dechen, late consort of the late Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche. In the course of his narrative, he mentioned the following story:

"... a young American woman came to Nepal a few years ago. She was interested in the Dharma, but she didn't want to take refuge with a male Lama. She wanted a female teacher. She liked my mother and went to her many times asking if she could take refuge with her, but my mother said, 'No, this is not the proper way. You should go and see this Lama, that Lama.' The American girl said, 'If you won't give me refuge, I will not take refuge at all.' So my mother gave her refuge and teachings. In those days, the American girl was quite young and it seemed to me that she was doing some kind of practice afterwards. She has returned to America, so I don't know what she's doing these days."

The story is distressing, but not uncommon. We have all seen and heard of similar situations. I personally heard a Western woman, who earnestly felt herself to be a properly ordained nun, assert that she would leave Buddhism if she was forced to take instructions from a man. 

For some reason, it seems such thinking began to emerge in the 1980s -- possibly as a outgrowth of Western feminism, possibly from other factors -- and it continues to the present day. Incredibly, there was once even some sort of backlash against Guru Rinpoche, when a number of women sought to avoid visualizing him, and actually removed his image from their altars! This, and things like this, prompted Gyaltrul Rinpoche to comment:

"Maybe some of you women might prefer to focus on a female lama, but you needn't worry because a primordial wisdom being, such as Guru Rinpoche, is of both sexes. There's absolutely no distinction: he is lama, yidam, and dakini."

I do not intend to be critical, but I simply do not understand how misandry and Mahayana are supposed to fit. Are you professing to adhere to a particular faith, and then immediately bending that faith to suit your neuroses? Are you taking refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha for the benefit of all sentient beings just so long as no men are involved? 

Surely, you recognize that in the context of the Great Vehicle, yours might be a minority view?

In the West, gender issues in the context of sangha are sticky. Really sticky. For example: we have some Western female commentators -- some of them style themselves as gurus -- who stress gender issues to the point of featuring them, and engage in all sorts of hyperbole about "empowering dakinis," or "roaring" about this and that. 

Dakinis are already empowered, and we really should stop our roaring long enough to hear their roaring.

Some of these putative teachers claim all that befalls them is in result of their  status as women, i.e., if you disagree with them, you disagree "because they are women." Of course, they gather like-minded individuals, and spawn a great deal of rhetoric about their particular "lineage."  We even have the example of franchise sanghas based on alternative sexual preferences. Over time, this becomes a form of sectarianism -- nothing more, nothing less -- and that is something we need to very carefully examine. The Dalai Lama writes:

"It is sometimes said that a major cause of the decline of Buddhism in India eight hundred years ago was the practice of Vajrayana by unqualified people, and sectarianism caused by corruption within the Sangha. Anyone teaching Tibetan Buddhism should keep this in mind when they refer to the precept, 'every action of the guru is to be seen as perfect.' This is an extremely dangerous teaching, particularly for beginners."

Women do not -- and let me repeat: do not -- need to feel disenfranchised or oppressed in or by Tibetan Buddhism. The first Tibetan to achieve enlightenment following the teachings was in fact a woman: Yeshe Tsogyal. There are numerous instances of highly realized female teachers and practitioners ever since -- far more than most people realize -- so, we can say the trail has been well and truly blazed.

Misandry -- contempt of men -- together with misogyny -- contempt of women -- are nothing more than gender-specific expressions of misanthropy -- hatred of human beings. Since this is the very opposite of Buddhism, why should we give any voice at all to such thinking? Why should we pay this any attention, or give it any ground? Isn't this something we should try to overcome?

Really, this is self hatred -- another facet of the ego raging out of control.

I imagine there are numbers of women who might stop me at this point and say, "this isn't hatred of men, this is just a simple preference," and that is well within anyone's right to so state. However, preference born of attachment and aversion is just another reason to suffer, just another reason for things to go wrong, just another reason to fail. If you want to make Buddhism a dumping ground for malfunctioning appreciation of your actual status as a valuable human among other humans -- or let me say, as an ordinary sentient being among other sentient beings -- then I do not think you will be very successful.

In my own life, I have had the good fortune of meeting very great male teachers, and I have also encountered very great female teachers. When I met them, their gender was absolutely unimportant to the experience of their teaching. You know, when you see kindness and energetic wisdom in one place at one time, it is like seeing the sun. You don't stop to think, "Is this male? Is this female?"

Similarly, I have been many times to hospital, and many times quite ill. When I was at the hospital, I had female nurses, male nurses, female doctors, and male doctors. When I was all smashed up, or really very sick, I did not stop to consider the issue of gender at all. These were caring people who were trying to help me in a difficult situation. You know, if somebody gives you medicine, you should be grateful. Is it appropriate to refuse the medicine, saying, "Oh! I will not take this medicine unless a woman gives it to me!" or, do you just take the medicine and get well?

We bring enough baggage to Buddhism as it is. We really do. We don't need to manufacture issues, or cater to passing issues, or lead the charge up the hill to kill the windmill.

Our shared religion -- if you want to think about it that way -- is fundamentally about love.

No strings attached.

.