During a discussion about literalism and where to draw the line on NewBuddhist, certain things the Buddha said were being examined and criticized. OK, fine. The first quote in question was, "Worthless man! It would be better to put your penis into the mouth of a Black Viper than into the vagina of a woman." Yikes!
Out of context, some take this passage to mean that the Buddha had a low opinion of women. And while the wording admittedly seems rather harsh and startling, in context, I understand the meaning to be, "It would be better to put your penis into the mouth of a black viper than to break your vow of celibacy," not that women are bad. The monk in question did just comeback from a romp in the woods with his former wife, after all, and the rebuke is found in a back story in the Patimokkha, the monks rules of discipline.
It should be noted that nothing like this is ever said to lay-followers, male or female, who haven't take vows of celibacy. Moreover, the Buddha seems to have had a very high/strong opinion about the benefits of the celibate holy life (brahma-cariya) for those who do decide to 'take the going forth.' Part of this, I think, is due to the efficacy of the holy life in attaining the goal. Another part, in my opinion, is due to the Buddha trying to protect both his monastic community and his lay-followers from potential misconduct, abuse, and scandal. That's why intentionally breaking the vow of celibacy entails a defeat for monastics—it was that serious of a danger in his eyes. (I'm sure he wasn't any more lax with nuns in this regard.)
Later on in the discussion, apparently keeping with the whole 'the Buddha seemed to have a lowly opinion of women' theme, the same poster asked, "And what of this from the Samyutta Nikaya 4: 'Women with their two-fingered wisdom (i.e. limited) cannot fully understand my teachings'"? I'd never seen that quote before, so I googled it to see if I could find the exact sutta in question and found a number of places that said the same thing, albeit without any further elaboration. I thought, "Damn, that's pretty harsh. Is this legit?"
None of the online sources I found, however, such as the women wikiquote page, referenced the exact sutta, nor any other additional info, so I had to do some more digging. The Samyutta Nikaya is a large, two volume collection of discourses attributed to the Buddha and his disciples after all, and chapter 4 in Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation contains 25 suttas over 25 pages. After some searching, though, I found the sutta in question, which I think further illustrates just how important both context and reviewing sources are.
Turns out that the Buddha is wrongly quoted as saying, "Women, with their two-fingered wisdom, have a difficult time understanding what I teach." This paraphrase, plastered all over the internet, is taken completely out of context; and if one were to read the sutta in question, SN 5.2, one would see that this is a line from Mara (the Buddhist equivalent of the Devil I interpret as representing Soma's doubts) who, desiring to make a bhikkhuni named Soma 'fall away from concentration,' voices an ancient bias, saying:
That state so hard to achieve
Which is to be attained by the seers,
Can't be attained by a woman
With her two-fingered wisdom"
But Soma's response not only shows her wisdom, but expertly counters the bias that women are intellectually and spiritual inferior by replying:
"What does womanhood matter at all
When the mind is concentrated well,
When knowledge flows on steadily
As one sees correctly into Dhamma.
One to whom it might occur,
'I'm a woman' or 'I'm a man'
Or 'I'm anything at all' —
Is fit for Mara to address."
A rejoinder that's, in the words of Bhikkhu Bodhi, "a forceful reminder that enlightenment does not depend on gender but on the mind's capacity for concentration and wisdom, qualities accessible to any human being who earnestly seeks to penetrate the truth." Not only did the Buddha not say this, the sutta in question is actually saying the opposite of what the misattribution is implying.
So to reiterate, the moral of the story is, try not to accept everything you hear or read at face value, especially if it's from a secondhand source. Take the extra time to research things and remember that context matters and always, always cite/review source material.
