My professor said that it is believed in Buddhism that to attain Buddhahood, you need to be a man, so a woman needs to become a man first. Then she added that Buddha on the contrary believed that addition of one woman into the Sangha would make the Sangha last thousand years more. Why this difference and what are the contexts behind them? What is the exact status of gender equality in Bhuddhism?

Is it true that the Buddha will never be a woman? If so, why is this? To be specific, I am particularly asking whether or not the Buddha itself can be female. I am *not* asking whether a woman can become a Buddha in her future life.

I read the following on an internet site: > First of all, there are no men or women, no gender at all. Only > arising and vanishing causes and effects. Where are the notions above found in the Tipitaka? Otherwise, where are the above notions refuted in the Tipitaka?

I can understand that within the social context of the historical Buddha, being homosexual or bisexual could have possibly been damaging to the Sangha's image as there is still a lot of gay/bisexual/transgender discrimination today. On Wikipedia, it said a pandaka is unable to attain enlightenment. It sounded like a pandaka might be someone who swings both ways to fulfill sexual desires but I am unclear. What about someone who has sexual relations with men but who is heterosexual? Possibly with the shedding of an identity view we lose our interpretation of ourselves as one way, but I don't know. I probably need to learn Pali.

I just read '. . . Bhadda Kapilani, a practitioner who for many lifetimes made the aspiration to be reborn as a woman.' What are the textural references for this?

I had a conversation with a friend and she was very upset that there were some gender division in the group I practice with. We have some single sex retreats and some study groups are single sexed. But mostly things are mixed. If my friend wanted to practice Buddhism with a group with no gender divisions whatsoever - what group would that be? So all study, retreats, events would be mixed and if there is a monastic community then that would be mixed too.

This may seem like a question that is far too modern for an ancient tradition, but when I traveled in Thailand I learned that katoeys (male-to-female) are a legal gender in Thailand. What does Buddhism say about the folks who experience discomfort or distress because there is a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity? As it becomes less dangerous for transgender folks to change, I am finding out that several of my friends are transgender and I would like to know what Buddhism offers them.

I know that in the early days of Buddhism, it was for men only. To practice, you had to be a monk, and to be a monk, you had to be a man. Perhaps this reflects the attitudes of the time, but today, my experience of Buddhism has been as something that welcomes men and women equally, even when that's still in a segregated way. Historically, when did this change come about, and what first triggered it?

What would be the Theravada approach to people who have a transgender experience? As far as I understand it, the mind does not have a gender. So should a Buddhist, out of compassion alone, indulge a transgender person in their request to be regarded as a gender opposite that which they are born; or is this not compassion at all, to indulge one in things which you understand to not be based in reality? Where is the line drawn where one crosses over from being compassionate to being dishonest to oneself and what you have experienced to be true? I know this may be a sensitive subject to some, and I'm not trying to marginalize anyone else's experience of reality; only trying to gain some perspective on how to relate to the world. Thank you

According to Buddhism & Science there is no gender to the mind but to the body.The difference between the male and female ideology is a difference between practicing two different ways of life. **Birth of gender according to Buddhism** When one era of a universe comes to an end almost all the beings get their birth in Brahma realm (**Aabhassara** ).Once the universe is set to its default (Universe as we know it) beings are born in Human realm as illuminating gender less creatures.As they become fond of touch they begin to form recognizable genders. But the reaction from others who are not in favor of this new sensation is negative (quite like what gay people experienced over the years), But just like society accepting LGBT groups in our time they learn to accept this gender+sex situation. So as of this point sex is not even considered normal and gender is an anomaly. If we drop the biological point of view and take only the teachings of Lord Buddha a new pattern start to appear beneath our acceptance of reality. --- *so my question is....* If we take Sutta+Abhidhamma point of view and focus on a human being,what we see is the same kind of species with two different Bone,Muscle,Brain,etc structures. As to Buddhism Humans do not have an essential need of sex for births to happen (**spontaneous birth - Ambapali**) . So sex is an alternative for a human birth. Human body,culture,way of life are all based on what gender that person belongs to (This may not be the reality where you live but travel the world enough and you will see the sad truth). But once you use something like **Vipassana meditation** to see a human being you see that there is no such thing called gender in this bag of flesh and bones.After all Lord Buddha said that if someone can come above Temptation he/she is free. --- - So is it right to think that one illusion of the mind defined all that we are as beings? - Is gender really an illusion or is there more to this? > Please note that this question does not ask for personal opinions,Please add sources to your answers so we can expand our knowledge.I have seen the question (Is gender a result of Kamma?) and this is not a duplicate of it.this address a whole different point of view.Please leave a comment before voting negative

I always thought that "Vajra Posture" and "Lotus Posture" were simply two names for the same thing. But recently somebody told me that Vajra Posture is for males and Lotus Posture for females, though without explaining any physical difference. Searching turns up mostly interchangeable usage, and a few instances that confirm the male/female difference, though without explanation -- for example https://goo.gl/fxIi2Y and https://goo.gl/U0KKb1 Anybody know the story? Is there a male vs female difference? If so, is it the same physical posture, differing only in the gender of the practitioner, or is there an actual physical difference? Does it vary by tradition? (I suspect the difference is mainly found in the Tibetan / Vajrayana tradition, where the vajra symbolizes a male genital organ and the lotus a female organ.) -------------------- Addendum 8/30/2015. I wonder if what's called "half lotus position" in yoga is lotus position in Buddhism. In other words, in Buddhism vajra position is both feet up on opposite thighs, lotus position is just one foot up with the other on the mat. Evidence for this comes from this web site -- http://www.himalayanart.org/pages/glossary.cfm -- which is associated with the Rubin Museum (http://rubinmuseum.org/) -- this entry: > Asana (Skt.): seated or standing postures of which there are a variety > of prescribed forms arising from iconographic descriptions found in > religious texts. The names of the postures differ between religious > traditions. For example the lotus posture in Hatha Yoga is called > vajra posture in Buddhism. The half yoga posture in Hatha Yoga is > called the lotus posture in Buddhism. A problem here is that the term "half yoga posture" is not a standard yoga term (according to a web search). But perhaps they meant "half lotus". Here, by the way, is a site showing both, using the names from yoga: lotus and half-lotus -- http://www.wildmind.org/posture/lotus . If my conjecture is correct, these are what's known in Buddhsim as vajra and lotus position respectively. Even if this is correct, however, it does not address the gender connection. Maybe that is just a Vajrayana (Tantric) convention -- male figures use the vajra position and female figures the lotus position. But even if so, I'm sure there is a story behind it.

Are the genders male/female a result of Kamma, or is it associated with it in any way?

There are definitions of *metta* and *karuna* here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/14307/254 There's a [tag:metta-bhavana] meditation. I'm wondering how to practice these socially, though, e.g. as a lay person when talking with people individually or in a group (or perhaps even as a monk talking with people). In particular what type of view should you try to have of (or see in) people? --- My question is sparked by [this comment](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/24561/does-buddhism-have-an-answer-to-disturbing-sexual-fantasies#comment41376_24571) : > I posted the way of the Buddha, which is metta plus asuba. Asuba alone won't work. Metta is to view women as mothers, sisters & daughters rather than to view them as sex objects. If you can see that sexual promiscuity of women diminishes & often destroys the capacity for good motherhood, then you might understand the teachings of Gotama better. In summary, asuba is not really necessary for laypeople. It is generally pointless suggesting asuba to a layperson who does not have the disposition to be a monk. I found that comment questionable, because why not view women as people? Viewing "women" as "mothers" sounds like pigeon-holing "them" as just another type of sex-object (gender-specific-object) or social role/stereotype/function (slave). I mean, "yes" to *metta* -- but "metta" isn't necessarily to "view women as mothers", or is it? But then the question occurred, if metta *isn't* as described in the comment then what *does* metta mean? The reason I found the above comment questionable is because I expect a person (a woman) might view him- or her-self in a variety of ways: as a mother, as an adult child, as a consumer, as a worker, an athlete, a friend, a volunteer, a voter, and so on ... different views (different ambitions or roles) at different times. I think that holding a view of someone that isn't the same as their own current view of themselves is a form of harm and a cause of suffering (e.g. a view like "you can't be a friend because you're a woman", "you can't be an employee because you're a mother", "you can't be political because you're a girl", while she wants to be a friend or employee or etc). So maybe "sympathy" means that you should see other people as they see themselves? But someone's view-of-self might be a cause of suffering too, so maybe it's better if you *don't* try to see each person as they see themselves? Perhaps it's fantasy to hope that you can see others as they themselves, except in limited circumstances (e.g. in a job interview)? In summary this question (about metta and interacting with people) has devolved towards views-of-self and the thicket-of-views. --- So what can be said about metta and karuna, if they interact with identity-view, self-view? What does a kind of transactional behaviour (attitude) sound like (is it good or bad?) e.g. a view like, "you're a bus driver and I'm here because I'm on the bus ... it doesn't matter who you think you are, nothing matters except your driving the bus and me having an absolute minimum standard of politeness so as not to be actually offensive"? Sorry if this is a confused question. The suttas (e.g. [Sigalovada Sutta](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.ksw0.html)) necessarily talk about general truths, and ends up maybe seeming impersonal, cold, robotic, and I'm not sure if that's the right impression or the whole lesson.

Was Buddha a Man or Woman? Was he/she sometimes know as a man and sometimes as a woman? Why was he/she sometimes know as a man and sometimes as a woman? What was his/her real gender? Give proof please.

Now before you read and answer i would like to invite you to keep the term "Sexism" aside as this is a discussion on gender and it is impossible to talk about it without pointing out some things that would look like stereotypes. --- We all belong to some gender and if we write a paragraph and ask someone to read it and guess the gender obviously that person can identify the gender that is represented in that particular paragraph. For example Men would like Bikes and women would like luxury cruse ships, Men would not give any attention to lighting when women would work hard to decorate with candle light because they think it is romantic... And the list goes on and on proving that we Humans who differ from each other in almost every way tend to be so much alike in some things. But how does this happen? Clearly no one would know the answer because if you ask some guy why did you started liking Bikes he would give many reasons but he would not be choosing a single answer to be the best fit as the answer, If you ask a girl why do you like Pink she would go trough the same situation. Now we can suggest that all of these can be influences from the environment,Good marketing,Social factors and etc. --- ***But then we end up with a question what exactly make "Gender" apart from a biological standpoint?*** or in a much simple term, Other than the body what makes a man and what makes a woman; Spiritually? --- Now there are dozens of videos on the internet, people hypnotizing others to change the gender attached behaviors and it works in fact it can permanently change someones idea about his or her own gender. After thinking about these things i came to an idea like this, Gender as a spiritual part is an illusion. As Lord Buddha has said "Gender is also subjected to "Anatta / Anatman", Even gender can change according to the desires and actons of a being". So as to Buddhism you and i,we all have been in both genders and we all have even been "Transsexual". So as there is no "Soul" it is OK to think that gender is a post Birth process that we learn and act after. Because there is no point that we can show to say that gender is real. --- Let me say one last thing before i rest my case.... *Imagine yourself going through a Transgender phase, by the end of it you will end up in the other side of the river. Now you have a mind that functions according to the rules of your last gender and a body which resembles the opposite gender. Now what reason do you have to show for the love you have for your last gender other than the attachment that you have? I suggest that Gender is an acceptance that we make while we are alive to behave in a certain pattern. And because like anything else we get attached to it we carry it in "Samsara" until some circumstance change it.* --- **What is gender apart from the body as to Buddhism?** **If gender is subject to Anithya (Anichcha) + Anatman is it right to think of gender (spiritually),an Illusion?**

The 14th Dalai Lama is about 80 now. How will the next one be chosen or elected? Does the Dalai Lama himself decide, and has this already been decided? Are they, like the Catholics, 'voting' on candidates? Is it like the different sects take "turns", so for example now it's the Nyingmas turn to have the Dalai Lama? If someone is picked, can he refute? And is there any chance for the Tibetans to get a female Dalai Lama?

The Zen center where I live is very male dominated. This might be because it's very small. Anyway, I think Zen sometimes tend to be a bit masculine in its form, wit a kind of quasi militaristic approach. I find this kind of fun and try to have an ironic attitude - irony is indeed a good medicine. There are plenty of famous women in different schools of Buddhism, esecially Tibetan. But not so much in Zen, it seems. Is there anyone who knows a good book on Zen practice written by a woman? And I'd also like some online resources/courses/training on Zen by women.

The introduction to the Dhamma Wiki's [Buddhism and Misogyny](http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Buddhism_and_Misogyny) article says, > Nevertheless, there are some non-Buddhists and even some Buddhists that contend that the Buddha was misogynistic. This is because of some passages in the Buddhist scriptures, the Tipitaka that appear sexist, that the Buddha was reluctant to ordain women, that the bhikkhuni line ended and cannot be revived, that the Buddha said that the teachings (religion) would only last 500 years because women were given permission to ordain as nuns (bhikkhunis), because of the extra rules that were imposed on the female monastics, including the eight ‘heavy rules,’ and the passage that states that only a man can be a samma-sam-buddha who teaches the masses after the teachings have died out. Was the Buddha misogynistic?

Does anyone have an explanation as to how Buddhism explains the reason(s) as to *why and how* humans are born as men and women? What governs the gender?

Is there a particular reason(s) for a Buddha to be only of male gender? I'm interested in any explanation in scriptures as well as your interpretations and opinions.