I must be thinking of the movie's title "An Inconvenient Truth".
What I meant is that the Buddha's teachings can be either
/conventional/ teachings or /ultimate/ teachings. This is widely
recognised in all Buddhist schools. It is a non-dogmatic
characteristic of the Buddha's teachings, which can be difficult for
people from a non-Buddhist background to comprehend.
On the other hand, there may be some others who think this is not
/conventional/, but unauthentic, and probably a later addition. This
is possible, and Buddhists have no problem if it can be shown this
passage is really not authentic. Until then, it shall not be used to
avoid a meaningful discussion.
A good example is the case of bhikkhuni ordination. Buddhism is the
first religion in the world to endorse and give official recognition
to women taking up religious oaths. We may extend this discussion if
someone like to deliberate on this case, or cite other examples.
--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Ong Yong Peng wrote:
At times, when we read the suttas, we have to understand that the
Buddha is saying the "conventional truth", i.e. what is acceptable at
his time, _not_ the "ultimate truth", i.e. women can do equally well
if given equal opportunities as men.