Whenever I myself encounter a contradiction between doctrine and reason, I always give priority to reason.
H.H. the XIVth Gyalwa Rinpoche
Caveat 1: This article is purely speculative in nature, a search for reason presenting the ideas and opinions of its author alone. No sutric quotations were found in direct support thereof: only logic and mere statistical reasoning. While aparently sound, they are only outgrowths from what Buddha would caution as merely a thicket of ideas...
Caveat 2: Readers may also wish to know that author is a sentient being who in this present incarnation just so happens to have taken rebirth as a male, a condition with which he is satisified and not inclined to apologize for.
Why should the sutras tolerate gender-bias? This is something which has long troubled me. Enlightenment would seem to involve primarily the heart and mind. Mere corporeal trivialities might well be taken as inconsequential. Granted that in ancient times female problems presented a more compelling distraction — owing to the lack of specialized medicine, and also to the utter non-availability of many a modern hygienic convenience. But this would seem not at all sufficient. So it is that I suspected other factors of having weighed far more heavily in the equation. But what? I pondered. And for the longest time, nothing obvious sprang to mind. Then I got the glimmer of an idea.
Perhaps our karma forced the issue. I now think it possible that Buddha may have observed thus: Sentient beings are divided by halves, and the forces which separate them will not soon subside. Into whose hands do I entrust this treasure? If I reveal it mainly to the oppressed half it will quickly be extinguished by overwhelming karmic forces. And if I entrust it equally to both, still it will smother, just more slowly. But if I mainly transmit it to the dominant half, then it will endure a long time — long enough even for these karmic pressures to subside. I opine that Buddha, observing thus, chose to act in preservation of the Dharma so as to insure that these unfair influences might subside yet more quickly to the enduring benefit of one and all. Anyway, this is just how it seems to me.
There is, of course, no scriptural support. But consider: Buddha was omniscient, so doubtless he foresaw the unfolding of manifold alternate histories. Many surely would have precluded our ever evolving to a point where we could argue this question. Sometimes hiding a thing is the only sure way to keep it safe. Maybe in the long run things really couldn’t have worked out any better than they did. Considering the rabidly hostile proclivities of a great many sentient beings, very possibly, Buddha has indeed guided us along the smoothest path available. Many may have been the hazards, laying unseen to either side, which we have already safely passed by. This route, despite its occasional bumps and turns, may well be the only safe way past otherwise insurmountable obstacles. A skillful guide seldom leads his company straight away up the mountain’s steep slope.
How does this apply? Consider an imaginary triad of peoples, each with a differing gender bias, all in competition for the same resources. At bottom-left picture a male-biased nation: where only the men engage in combat and each is permitted to take more than one wife. At bottom-right picture one female-biased: where women alone are allowed to do battle and may also take any number of husbands. At the apex picture a bias-free, monogamous society. What are the odds on each group’s survival?
In times of peace they should balance out evenly. But should there be conflict, then the scales would tip most unfairly. In an old-fashioned war (supposing they all took equal causalities — moderately from among their general population, and heavily among their combat troops) the chauvinist group will lose very few women. The neutral group looses somewhat more women. And the feminists lose the most women of all.
The chauvinists now have a surplus of women, the feminists a surplus of men. The neutrals are balanced fifty/fifty. Then comes a decade or so of peace. In the chauvinist camp, the widows are taken as second and third wives. The feminists take on multiple husbands. Now then...in procreation the feminist women enjoy rights of refusal while wives of the chauvinists have no such privilege. Where now do matters stand?
Assuming equivalent degrees of fertility, which group’s population will likely suffer? Which group is going to stay nearly the same? And which of the three will surely increase? Now suppose there comes a new war, and then another, and another...on and on for hundreds of years. In hardly more than a few generations the feminist culture is entirely wiped out, the neutrals are reduced to a distinct minority, and chauvinists reign numerically supreme.
Not at all fair, but there it is. So if you had the seed of a wonderful ideal, one that the world needed desperately to endure, where would you then choose to plant it? Knowing that there will surely be wars, and knowing who’ll end up writing the histories, and that these are the ones who must be induced to preserve and disseminate the precious teaching, does one choice stand out? Fairness nowhere enters into it. One choice is skillful, two are not.
A two thousand five hundred-year insurance policy? Why not? After all, during the interim sentient beings all stood a fair chance of taking rebirth as either sex. Over the course of many rebirths, the share of unfairness could very possibly even itself out. Buddhas can afford to take a very [italicize "very"] long view.
So here is my thought: Buddha did not set out to cure all the ills of the world on his own. Rather, he gave us the tools whereby we ourselves might one day cure them. He therefor had no need of forespeaking certain things, as these would, in time, stand self-evident before all who had truly opened their eyes. Among these truths, some few, if shouted loudly into the darkness would have aroused such consternation as to invite attack from all who dwelt there. Their numbers were many, and they were well armed. How skillful would that have been?