Выбрать перевод / язык

A Lady

Перевод: Бхиккху Суджато

sn / sn37

Linked Discourses 37.1 · 1. Abbreviated Texts

“Mendicants, when a lady has five factors she is extremely undesirable to a man. ^[1]

What five?

She’s not attractive, wealthy, or ethical; she’s idle, and she doesn’t beget children.

When a lady has these five factors she is extremely undesirable to a man.

When a lady has five factors she is extremely desirable to a man.

What five?

She’s attractive, wealthy, and ethical; she’s deft and tireless, and she begets children.

When a lady has these five factors she is extremely desirable to a man.” ^[2]

Предыдущая сутта Следующая сутта

Выбрать перевод / язык

[1] Mātugāma literally means “motherkind” (cf. the archaic “motherkin”). It is a word for women in Pali, but it appears unique to Buddhist texts, and hence may be a technical or formal term (cf. puggala, SN 22.22:2.2). Grammatically it is always singular, but it sometimes takes a plural sense as a collective noun. In this sentence, for example, mātugāma is paired with “man” so it must be a singular “woman”, whereas at SN 37.3:1.1 it is paired with “men” in plural so it must be “womankind”. The commentary says it is any human woman, even one born that very day. As to the connotations of the term, “mother” is probably meant in an affectionate and respectful sense, perhaps to remind the monks not to fall into objectification (cf. SN 35.127:1.6). There are different patterns of usage in different texts. Throughout the Pātimokkha—the quintessential text for monks—mātugāma is used with bhikkhu, whereas itthī (“woman”) is used with purisa (“man”). But there is no corresponding male form, so bhikkhunī takes purisa. However, this distinction does not obtain in the Suttas, where mātugāma is used with purisa. Overall, I think mātugāma is respectful and slightly formal, so I use “lady” for mātugāma and “woman” for itthī.

[2] As to why the Buddha should be listing the traits that make a woman desirable, your guess is as good as mine. The next discourse says the exact same thing with genders reversed, so perhaps the purpose was to subvert expectations. One noteworthy detail is that this leaves out questions of caste and family, in contrast with, say, Manu 3.5–19.