[Clarissa]

Stuka: Yeah, I hear you on the "dharma lite" stuff. That bothers me as well. It would be better if more skeptical Buddhists did not have to constantly defend themselves from the people who have a huge hard-on for being seen as The Real Buddhists(TM), but it does indeed seem to be the case. I'm just wary of drawing lines for who "counts" and who doesn't. If there is somebody who has the knowledge and authority to do that, it's not me.

Originally Posted by Cobalt Just because a teaching came first does not mean it is the best.

Who is better than the Buddha, in your opinion? In all honesty, if you know of a school or sect whose teachings are more worthy of study and practice than those of the Buddha, I would like to check them out. Early Buddhism could be pretty misogynist, actually. Still can be, depending on which tradition we're talking about and where. Yes, it's better than a lot of traditions, and yes the Buddha relented on the whole "ordination of women" thing, but Buddhism as a collection of established traditions still has some ground to cover on being equally accessible for men and for women.

I cannot stress enough, as a woman, how quickly it rings false for me when people assume things must have been so much better back in the day when everybody knew what was what and had everything right. Not for me, they didn't. Buddhism got a better start than a lot of traditions, but that doesn't mean we should uncritically accept anything in it just because it happens to be the oldest bit.