Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
As regards the method of acquiring practical spiritual knowledge, if you find a certain practice increases your evil passions and tends you toward selfishness, abandon it, though it may appear to others virtuous. And if any course of action tends to counteract your evil passions, and to benefit sentient beings, know that to be the true and holy path, and continue it, even though it should appear to others to be sinful. -Milarepa
does porn increase your evil passions? i think that's the point... it lets all sorts of elements into the subconscious, and alters one's psychology with delusion, greed, and violence. pretty straight forward.
does porn increase your evil passions? i think that's the point... it lets all sorts of elements into the subconscious, and alters one's psychology with delusion, greed, and violence. pretty straight forward.
I totally agree. I would also add that, since the foundation of Buddhist practice is moral conduct, 'getting off' on the exploitation of other human beings cannot be conducive to liberation, or even happiness (except, maybe, for a few minutes of being blinded by carnal lust and loaded up with dopamine). I don't think Pornography is healthy for anyone on any serious spiritual path. And if you think you can be a practicing Buddhist who enjoys watching a little orgy on the internet once in awhile, you're either deluding yourself, or you're just not really taking your practice seriously.
I'm not preaching, because I am not innocent in regards to porn. I just know how destructive pornography is for everyone involved: actors, actresses, and viewers.
As I see it, the Christian church is based on committment. Jesus said:
(...)
Well today nobody really give a damn about what Jesus said about divorces, and they get divorced all the time. It has nothing to do with being cold or devoid of feelings, but sometimes it just does not work out. The time in which the Christian myths play out was a lot different. Today you get a divorce and live on, back then if you got a divorce you'd screw your wife. She would have no chances of getting back on track, and would die early from illness and poverty. Of course a divorce can (but not always will) entail a lot of pain for the parts involved, but it will eventually save a lot of pain too from living in a bad relationship.
The practical nature of the rule of non-divorce is not as much a display of passion and love, as it is of a how-to. Back then you got a marriage to secure a living, today we choose partners because we like it and want to love someone and get love in return. Therefore you'd want to know that your partner didn't just bail out when your family had used all that energy arranging a wedding and possibly paying a lot of money to the in-laws. Men being the leaders back then secured themselves by not allowing the women to divorce, while luring women to accept marriage by either a)making it difficult or taboo (jews), or b)making it ethically wrong for a man to divorce. It was thus impossible for women to divorce, and possible for men to. Hardly a religious rule of significance.
The first Jesus says in The New Testament is, that not the smallest bit of The Law (the 630 Jewish rules from The Old Testament/the Tora) would be discarded. Then he proceeds to tell how even thinking about another woman is adultery, how even thinking about killing someone is ethically the same as murder etc.
Thus Jesus made it impossible to be human without guilt, as everyone will have these thoughts - especially in a society where weddings are planned. The way to escape your sinful nature is to believe in Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah, and in God's never-ending love. So you will live a life in guilt for you sinful nature, hoping to be saved from the pits of hell by God. Therefore Christianity is based on guilt (and fear).
Then he proceeds to tell how even thinking about another woman is adultery, how even thinking about killing someone is ethically the same as murder etc.
Thus Jesus made it impossible to be human without guilt, as everyone will have these thoughts - especially in a society where weddings are planned. The way to escape your sinful nature is to believe in Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah, and in God's never-ending love. So you will live a life in guilt for you sinful nature, hoping to be saved from the pits of hell by God. Therefore Christianity is based on guilt (and fear).
Thoughts carry karma, acted upon or un-acted upon. It seems more like he was providing a road toward compassion. The guilt and fear were already well rooted in Judaic thought... its not surprising it would be projected into his words.
The divorce part of your post though seems well directed... moral subjectiveness vs absolute law. Nice!
Thoughts carry karma, acted upon or un-acted upon. It seems more like he was providing a road toward compassion.
Christianity is on a whole other level than Buddhism. It makes no sense to claim that Jesus was in fact speaking of some kind of karma. Theres no reason to suspect he was meaning anything else than the simple thought of humans as sinful beings, and himself as the Messiah who was to radicalize Judaism and prepare the world for the soon to be Apocalypse.. He was wrong, though (not that historians or researchers of religion has found any proof of an actual, historic Jesus - unlike the Buddha)
Christianity is on a whole other level than Buddhism. It makes no sense to claim that Jesus was in fact speaking of some kind of karma. Theres no reason to suspect he was meaning anything else than the simple thought of humans as sinful beings, and himself as the Messiah who was to radicalize Judaism and prepare the world for the soon to be Apocalypse.. He was wrong, though (not that historians or researchers of religion has found any proof of an actual, historic Jesus - unlike the Buddha)
Sounds like you have some animosity. I'm sorry Jesus' words and journey appear so empty of wisdom to you. I hear it, others don't. Such is the way of things!
I'm sorry Jesus' words and journey appear so empty of wisdom to you.
Well I'm not, 'cause I've seen, heard and read enough about Christianity both of today and historical to find the movement completely devoid of any humanist views or feelings of compassion. It may be on paper somewhere, but it utterly lacks any real practicing.
Top that with the ever-present gospel of how stupid and wrong it is to be human, and right, I'm outta there.
Furthermore, there are over 30'000 Christian sects, all having "the Truth", one extreme barely recognizing the teachings of the other. They do not even agree about any specific core teaching. I Denmark where I come from, the biggest Christian movement has abandoned The Old Testament teachings and degraded them to "a mythical background" while still maintaining some religious rules from it, despite Jesus proclamation of the opposite to be right. There is no coherence and no real-world compassion or love in Christianity - some of the most devout Christians are also among the richest people on earth. Jesus taught to worship God and not Mammon.. So many examples of contradiction, so few of true compassion
Well I'm not, 'cause I've seen, heard and read enough about Christianity both of today and historical to find the movement completely devoid of any humanist views or feelings of compassion. It may be on paper somewhere, but it utterly lacks any real practicing.
Top that with the ever-present gospel of how stupid and wrong it is to be human, and right, I'm outta there.
Furthermore, there are over 30'000 Christian sects, all having "the Truth", one extreme barely recognizing the teachings of the other. They do not even agree about any specific core teaching. I Denmark where I come from, the biggest Christian movement has abandoned The Old Testament teachings and degraded them to "a mythical background" while still maintaining some religious rules from it, despite Jesus proclamation of the opposite to be right. There is no coherence and no real-world compassion or love in Christianity - some of the most devout Christians are also among the richest people on earth. Jesus taught to worship God and not Mammon.. So many examples of contradiction, so few of true compassion
Hmm.....
I see the bible as thus:
Man goes into the world with his mental formations by which he is seperate from other, and is thereby naked upon self identification. For him the world is a desert, deluded he persues the land of milk and honey.
Man muddles throught the desert, and those that are in touch with the divine nature are often killed by the deluded.
"In the fullness of time" the divine nature expresses itself in form, and divulges how man is to express himself in his state of being.
Followers pick up the message and through the filters of there own dillusions project the recieved message to the masses.
The fianal two chapters reveal what happens to him who takes to heart the message of the master living simply through creative artistic expression.
The time in which the Christian myths play out was a lot different. Today you get a divorce and live on, back then if you got a divorce you'd screw your wife. She would have no chances of getting back on track, and would die early from illness and poverty.
Possibly. But there is still a spiritual element to it. Jesus was talking about divorcing one's wife due to looking for some entertainment elsewhere; due to not understanding the needs of a woman.
Of course a divorce can (but not always will) entail a lot of pain for the parts involved, but it will eventually save a lot of pain too from living in a bad relationship.
Possibly. But you are diverging from the topic. The topic is faithfulness & commitment and nurturing that.
Do you think watching pornography is a loss of faithfulness?
How does watching pornography differ from actually having sex with another different from your partner?
If one watches pornography, probably, one will have images & fantasies in one's mind of other people having sex and having sex with other people.
Is this unfaithfulness?
Is this taking refuge in sexuality outside of one's relationship?
Is it potentially dangerous?
Does it make one's own mind & heart fickle, weak & distracted?
"In five ways, young householder, should a wife as the West be ministered to by a husband:
(i) by being courteous to her,
(ii) by not despising her, (iii) by being faithful to her,
(iv) by handing over authority to her,
(v) by providing her with adornments.
"The wife thus ministered to as the West by her husband shows her compassion to her husband in five ways:
(i) she performs her duties well,
(ii) she is hospitable to relations and attendants (iii) she is faithful,
(iv) she protects what he brings,
(v) she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties.
"In these five ways does the wife show her compassion to her husband who ministers to her as the West. Thus is the West covered by him and made safe and secure.
1.Monks, I do not know of any form that takes hold of a man’s mind like the form of a woman. A woman’s form, monks, takes hold of a man’s mind like no other form.”
2. “Monks, I do not know of any sound that takes hold of a man’s mind like the sound of a woman. A woman’s sound, monks, takes hold of a man’s mind like no other sound.”
3. “Monks, I do not know of any scent that takes hold of a man’s mind like the scent of a woman. A woman’s scent, monks, takes hold of a man’s mind like no other scent.”
4. “Monks, I do not know of any taste that takes hold of a man’s mind like the taste of a woman. A woman’s taste, monks, takes hold of a man’s mind like no other taste.”
5. “Monks, I do not know of any touch that takes hold of a man’s mind like the touch of a woman. A woman’s touch, monks, takes hold of a man’s mind like no other touch.”
6. “Monks, I do not know of any form that takes hold of a woman’s mind like the form of a man. A man’s form, monks, takes hold of a woman’s mind like no other form.”
7. “Monks, I do not know of any sound that takes hold of a woman’s mind like the sound of a man. A man’s sound, monks, takes hold of a woman’s mind like no other sound.”
8. “Monks, I do not know of any scent that takes hold of a woman’s mind like the scent of a man. A man’s scent, monks, takes hold of a woman’s mind like no other scent.”
9. “Monks, I do not know of any taste that takes hold of a woman’s mind like the taste of a man. A man’s taste, monks, takes hold of a woman’s mind like no other taste.”
10. “Monks, I do not know of any touch that takes hold of a woman’s mind like the touch of a man. A man’s touch, monks, takes hold of a woman’s mind like no other touch.”
But for what reason is it necessary for human beings to have sexual thoughts about others apart from their partners?
There is an enormous difference between some kind of biological/mental attraction and actually thinking about having sex with a woman.
If one's mind is thinking about having sex with another woman, is that not committing adultery in one's heart as Jesus said?
You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery. 'But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
“On seeing a form with the eye, he is not passionate for it if it is pleasing; he is not angry at it if it is displeasing. He lives with attention to body established, with an immeasurable mind and he understands realistically the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. Having abandoned favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels - whether pleasant or painful or neither-pleasant-nor-painful - he does not delight in that feeling, welcome it or remain holding to it. As he does not do so, delight in feelings ceases in him. From the cessation of his delight comes cessation of clinging; from the cessation of clinging, the cessation of becoming; from the cessation of becoming, the cessation of birth; from the cessation of birth, ageing-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair cease. Thus is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering.
Is guilt something others make one feel or is it part of our individual psychological make-up?
If there was no capacity for guilt within us then obviously others could not make our mind feel it.
So what is the purpose of this guilt? Is it something entirely negative or undesirable? Or is it part of our survival mechanisms? Is it related to wisdom? Are we denying a part of us by denying this guilt?
"Bhikkhus, these two bright principles protect the world. What are the two? Shame and fear of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, these two bright principles did not protect the world, there would not be discerned respect for mother or maternal aunt or maternal uncle's wife or a teacher's wife or the wives of other honored persons, and the world would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens, pigs, dogs, and jackals. But as these two bright principles protect the world, there is discerned respect for mother... and the wives of other honored persons."
The Healing Power of the Precepts
By
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
The Buddha was like a doctor, treating the spiritual ills of the human race. The path of practice he taught was like a course of therapy for suffering hearts and minds. This way of understanding the Buddha and his teachings dates back to the earliest texts, and yet is also very current. Buddhist meditation practice is often advertised as a form of healing, and quite a few psychotherapists now recommend that their patients try meditation as part of their treatment.
After several years of teaching and practicing meditation as therapy, however, many of us have found that meditation on its own is not enough. In my own experience, I have found that Western meditators tend to be afflicted more with a certain grimness and lack of self-esteem than any Asians I have ever taught. Their psyches are so wounded by modern civilization that they lack the resilience and persistence needed before concentration and insight practices can be genuinely therapeutic. Other teachers have noted this problem as well and, as a result, many of them have decided that the Buddhist path is insufficient for our particular needs. To make up for this insufficiency they have experimented with ways of supplementing meditation practice, combining it with such things as myth, poetry, psychotherapy, social activism, sweat lodges, mourning rituals, and even drumming. The problem, though, may not be that there is anything lacking in the Buddhist path, but that we simply haven't been following the Buddha's full course of therapy.
The Buddha's path consisted not only of mindfulness, concentration, and insight practices, but also of virtue, beginning with the five precepts. In fact, the precepts constitute the first step in the path. There is a tendency in the West to dismiss the five precepts as Sunday-school rules bound to old cultural norms that no longer apply to our modern society, but this misses the role that the Buddha intended for them: They are part of a course of therapy for wounded minds. In particular, they are aimed at curing two ailments that underlie low self-esteem: regret and denial.
When our actions don't measure up to certain standards of behavior, we either (1) regret the actions or (2) engage in one of two kinds of denial, either (a) denying that our actions did in fact happen or (b) denying that the standards of measurement are really valid. These reactions are like wounds in the mind. Regret is an open wound, tender to the touch, while denial is like hardened, twisted scar tissue around a tender spot. When the mind is wounded in these ways, it can't settle down comfortably in the present, for it finds itself resting on raw, exposed flesh or calcified knots. Even when it's forced to stay in the present, it's there only in a tensed, contorted and partial way, and so the insights it gains tend to be contorted and partial as well. Only if the mind is free of wounds and scars can it be expected to settle down comfortably and freely in the present, and to give rise to undistorted discernment.
This is where the five precepts come in: They are designed to heal these wounds and scars. Healthy self-esteem comes from living up to a set of standards that are practical, clear-cut, humane, and worthy of respect; the five precepts are formulated in such a way that they provide just such a set of standards.
Practical: The standards set by the precepts are simple — no intentional killing, stealing, having illicit sex, lying, or taking intoxicants. It's entirely possible to live in line with these standards. Not always easy or convenient, but always possible. I have seen efforts to translate the precepts into standards that sound more lofty or noble — taking the second precept, for example, to mean no abuse of the planet's resources — but even the people who reformulate the precepts in this way admit that it is impossible to live up to them. Anyone who has dealt with psychologically damaged people knows that very often the damage comes from having been presented with impossible standards to live by. If you can give people standards that take a little effort and mindfulness, but are possible to meet, their self-esteem soars dramatically as they discover that they are actually capable of meeting those standards. They can then face more demanding tasks with confidence.
Clear-cut: The precepts are formulated with no ifs, ands, or buts. This means that they give very clear guidance, with no room for waffling or less-than-honest rationalizations. An action either fits in with the precepts or it doesn't. Again, standards of this sort are very healthy to live by. Anyone who has raised children has found that, although they may complain about hard and fast rules, they actually feel more secure with them than with rules that are vague and always open to negotiation. Clear-cut rules don't allow for unspoken agendas to come sneaking in the back door of the mind. If, for example, the precept against killing allowed you to kill living beings when their presence is inconvenient, that would place your convenience on a higher level than your compassion for life. Convenience would become your unspoken standard — and as we all know, unspoken standards provide huge tracts of fertile ground for hypocrisy and denial to grow. If, however, you stick by the standards of the precepts, then as the Buddha says, you are providing unlimited safety for the lives of all. There are no conditions under which you would take the lives of any living beings, no matter how inconvenient they might be. In terms of the other precepts, you are providing unlimited safety for their possessions and sexuality, and unlimited truthfulness and mindfulness in your communication with them. When you find that you can trust yourself in matters like these, you gain an undeniably healthy sense of self-respect.
Humane: The precepts are humane both to the person who observes them and to the people affected by his or her actions. If you observe them, you are aligning yourself with the doctrine of karma, which teaches that the most important powers shaping your experience of the world are the intentional thoughts, words, and deeds you choose in the present moment. This means that you are not insignificant. Every time you take a choice — at home, at work, at play — you are exercising your power in the on-going fashioning of the world. At the same time, this principle allows you to measure yourself in terms that are entirely under your control: your intentional actions in the present moment. In other words, they don't force you to measure yourself in terms of your looks, strength, brains, financial prowess, or any other criteria that depend less on your present karma than they do on karma from the past. Also, they don't play on feelings of guilt or force you to bemoan your past lapses. Instead, they focus your attention on the ever-present possibility of living up to your standards in the here and now. If you are living with people who observe the precepts, you find that your dealings with them are not a cause for mistrust or fear. They regard your desire for happiness as akin to theirs. Their worth as individuals does not depend on situations in which there have to be winners and losers. When they talk about developing loving-kindness and mindfulness in their meditation, you see it reflected in their actions. In this way the precepts foster not only healthy individuals, but also a healthy society — a society in which the self-respect and mutual respect are not at odds.
Worthy of respect: When you adopt a set of standards, it is important to know whose standards they are and to see where those standards come from, for in effect you are joining their group, looking for their approval, and accepting their criteria for right and wrong. In this case, you couldn't ask for a better group to join: the Buddha and his noble disciples. The five precepts are called "standards appealing to the noble ones." From what the texts tell us of the noble ones, they are not people who accept standards simply on the basis of popularity. They have put their lives on the line to see what leads to true happiness, and have seen for themselves, for example, that all lying is pathological, and that any sex outside of a stable, committed relationship is unsafe at any speed. Other people may not respect you for living by the five precepts, but noble ones do, and their respect is worth more than that of anyone else in the world.
Now, many people find it cold comfort to join such an abstract group, especially when they have not yet met any noble ones in person. It's hard to be good-hearted and generous when the society immediately around you openly laughs at those qualities and values such things as sexual prowess or predatory business skills instead. This is where Buddhist communities can come in. It would be very useful if Buddhist groups would openly part ways with the prevailing amoral tenor of our culture and let it be known in a kindly way that they value goodheartedness and restraint among their members. In doing so, they would provide a healthy environment for the full-scale adoption of the Buddha's course of therapy: the practice of concentration and discernment in a life of virtuous action. Where we have such environments, we find that meditation needs no myth or make-believe to support it, because it is based on the reality of a well-lived life. You can look at the standards by which you live, and then breathe in and out comfortably — not as a flower or a mountain, but as a full-fledged, responsible human being. For that's what you are.
I am intrigued, but would someone show me the reasons why you think masturbation is bad? or tell me the message numebers that give good explanations? There would be good arguments on the thread, but you know more than 170 posts are there on the thread, too much to read through ...
Thanks for all the reactions to my posts. It's nice to have something to reflect on. Be sure that I think about your reactions, even when not writing my answer.
IAWA
I see the bible as thus: ( ... )
That is a completely liable view of the Bible, albeit it does not have much resemblance with the way Christians would read it (granted you do not count cultural Christians, but they do not really count as Christians, as they for the most part do not live up to the objective standards of being Christian).
It has more to do with a Buddhist way of reading the Bible. In that sense, you could probably get some good and wise things out of it, like the philosopher Løgstrup (who i like btw) did.
Christianity it isn't though.
DD
I give a damn. I care. Others care. Alot of suffering comes from divorce, including for children.
I have to agree with you. It does not always however. The general rule of divorce = suffering is true enough. Sometimes more suffering would come from being together, however. In such cases divorce is difficult to rule out. A short period with pain can be necessary to avoid years of suffering.
Possibly. But there is still a spiritual element to it. Jesus was talking about divorcing one's wife due to looking for some entertainment elsewhere; due to not understanding the needs of a woman. [/
Yes, and that has been a factor. The universality of the rule and the practical nature of it in historical and religious scientific sense points to the fact, that is has more to do with birth-control and social coherence. As artificial birth-control has gained ground, this rule is more and more overlooked. Therefore we must, from a scientific view, count it as more of a practical how-to than an ethical prescript.
Possibly. But you are diverging from the topic. The topic is faithfulness & commitment and nurturing that.
I may wander a little off-topic, true.
Do you think watching pornography is a loss of faithfulness?
How does watching pornography differ from actually having sex with another different from your partner?
I think porn is unfaithfulness it's used in a relationship where such practises, by agreement between the partners, is forbidden.
I do not consider abstract actions, such as fantasizing directly harmful. Thoughts can lead to action, but will not. Small children can hate their parents and want to get rid of them, or to "move away". They never will do either. It's just passing thoughts arisen from feelings. Lust for sex, and wanting to watch other people have sex, can but will not lead to actually having real-life sex with others.
There's a distinct difference between thought and action. We should not try to subdue our thoughts, as they are often unvolunteer. We can recognize them for what they are, and live with ourselves the way we are. I'm speaking of the normal here, not obsessiveness which requires treatment. If we from meditiation ie. experience such thoughts and lusts to go away, we should just recognize that and live with it.
Nothing is inherently evil in itself, for if we say that, we also say that humans are of an evil nature. Hardly very profitable for anyone, and not of any value whatsoever. It could also easily lead to arrogance towards less "awakened" ones.
Furthermore, we are not to impose our own ideals and values on others. We can help them guide themselves, but if they are happy with what and where they are, and realize that, then we must accept that as their choice of life style. Again, this applies to the norm.
But for what reason is it necessary for human beings to have sexual thoughts about others apart from their partners?
It is not necessary, but it seems inevitable. Why are we even having this discussion? Because humans from the dawn of time has been sexual beings, who, by the power of their minds, can fantasize.
I don't say its irreversible, but it should not be something we beat ourselves and others in the head with. It's the way of things. If some escape it through the teachings of Buddha, good for them. And they might (but not always will, depending on their situation) escape some suffering by doing that.
If one's mind is thinking about having sex with another woman, is that not committing adultery in one's heart as Jesus said?
If not, what is it?
First of all, adultery does not equal unfaithfulness qua my earlier posts. Again, Jesus pleaded monogamy more of practical reasons, than ethical. Remember he was a Jew, and as such followed Judaistic rules, which he radicalized. He may have thought about the compassionate in loving your partner unconditionally, forever - but it has not been the driving factor.
Also, love was different then. Our modern view of love comes from the Romantic era.
Is guilt something others make one feel or is it part of our individual psychological make-up?
Contemporary psychologists, such as Martin Hoffman, agree that empathy is biologically inherited, whereas feelings of guilt and shame are the internalization of the parents' and societies norms.
I am intrigued, but would someone show me the reasons why you think masturbation is bad? or tell me the message numebers that give good explanations? There would be good arguments on the thread, but you know more than 170 posts are there on the thread, too much to read through ...
Hi Nescafe,
ahee hee that's the first thing I noticed too it must be a mile long thread by now. So many people are interested in it. Its just sooo long now. Course I sorta don't qualify anyway cause I haven't had sex in um....since 1974. (I wonder if sex has improved somewhat over my missing out years cuz I know I haven't improved at all not having had any recent esperience with it.
I haven't had sex because my interest in men as sexual objects has just seemed to fade over time (not their fault i stress) and of course so has my legendarie beauty....but now that I think about my looks. Hmmm..... and looking back I think a bonified looker has to have substantial boobs and at least a nice butt. So I have to say I had neither of those and my face wasn't enough of a looker to compensate for the other two..... dammit.
So as I am looking back into my past the kinds of men I hooked up with weren't the kinds of men who go out searching for a looker. They are the kinds of men who are just there ready to pounce on the bevy of lonely women (me) who are also there waiting for the last call for alcohol.
So those kinds of men usually are still there for last call also. And of course me too cause I liked to stay for last call..........ok ok ok....and possibly meet some nice guy. But in actuallity this is usually what happens.
So outside he presents himself to me as having no car, and could I give him a ride. Why sure cowboy hop on in and so he does happy to have found a ride home.....and so I start the car and as I put the key into the ignition he smiles warmly and thats where I realize (EGAGS) he is missing his two front teeth.
So he gabs a little before I realize not only does he have no car but he also has no Job and by the look of him his prospects of getting one in this lifetime has shrunk to any forseeable eternity. But I missed what he was trying to say to me cuz I was still stuck on him not having his two front teeth. I am thinking up all kinds of senarios as I wonder how he lost them. Probably he may have gotten into a fight with....well....with anybody I suppose. Leaving me to wonder that he might not have the best sort of any winning personality.
Sooooo....anyway.....sigh...It isn't that I stopped being interested. Its more like the time got away from me and here I am 61 years old and I am not sure now if I was ever a looker or not but the signs are pointing to "NOT!" And if I ever got a good lay now I would be astonished. I might just do it if I could wrestle up a cheap camera cuz it would be a FREAKING KODAK MOMENT! I kid u not!
Thanks for sharing your story BuddhaBee. The good news is that being unlucky in love does not mean we have to be unlucky in Dhamma. In fact, not getting what we want might turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to us.
Comments
:smilec:
Yeah Yeah... I said IF implying a hypothetical scenario. Anyway it's not important. I didn't read your comment properly in the first place
little by little maybe you want to see something more hardcore..
it's like a serial killer your needs EVOLVE..
until you are downtown in an abandoned warehouse with some poor little girl
and BOOM its over:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
OMFG I'll match that WOW and raise it a YIKES!
I totally agree. I would also add that, since the foundation of Buddhist practice is moral conduct, 'getting off' on the exploitation of other human beings cannot be conducive to liberation, or even happiness (except, maybe, for a few minutes of being blinded by carnal lust and loaded up with dopamine). I don't think Pornography is healthy for anyone on any serious spiritual path. And if you think you can be a practicing Buddhist who enjoys watching a little orgy on the internet once in awhile, you're either deluding yourself, or you're just not really taking your practice seriously.
I'm not preaching, because I am not innocent in regards to porn. I just know how destructive pornography is for everyone involved: actors, actresses, and viewers.
Well today nobody really give a damn about what Jesus said about divorces, and they get divorced all the time. It has nothing to do with being cold or devoid of feelings, but sometimes it just does not work out. The time in which the Christian myths play out was a lot different. Today you get a divorce and live on, back then if you got a divorce you'd screw your wife. She would have no chances of getting back on track, and would die early from illness and poverty. Of course a divorce can (but not always will) entail a lot of pain for the parts involved, but it will eventually save a lot of pain too from living in a bad relationship.
The practical nature of the rule of non-divorce is not as much a display of passion and love, as it is of a how-to. Back then you got a marriage to secure a living, today we choose partners because we like it and want to love someone and get love in return. Therefore you'd want to know that your partner didn't just bail out when your family had used all that energy arranging a wedding and possibly paying a lot of money to the in-laws. Men being the leaders back then secured themselves by not allowing the women to divorce, while luring women to accept marriage by either a)making it difficult or taboo (jews), or b)making it ethically wrong for a man to divorce. It was thus impossible for women to divorce, and possible for men to. Hardly a religious rule of significance.
The first Jesus says in The New Testament is, that not the smallest bit of The Law (the 630 Jewish rules from The Old Testament/the Tora) would be discarded. Then he proceeds to tell how even thinking about another woman is adultery, how even thinking about killing someone is ethically the same as murder etc.
Thus Jesus made it impossible to be human without guilt, as everyone will have these thoughts - especially in a society where weddings are planned. The way to escape your sinful nature is to believe in Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah, and in God's never-ending love. So you will live a life in guilt for you sinful nature, hoping to be saved from the pits of hell by God. Therefore Christianity is based on guilt (and fear).
Thoughts carry karma, acted upon or un-acted upon. It seems more like he was providing a road toward compassion. The guilt and fear were already well rooted in Judaic thought... its not surprising it would be projected into his words.
The divorce part of your post though seems well directed... moral subjectiveness vs absolute law. Nice!
With warmth,
Matt
lol indeed.....
the warehouse part did it....
Sounds like you have some animosity. I'm sorry Jesus' words and journey appear so empty of wisdom to you. I hear it, others don't. Such is the way of things!
With warmth,
Matt
Well I'm not, 'cause I've seen, heard and read enough about Christianity both of today and historical to find the movement completely devoid of any humanist views or feelings of compassion. It may be on paper somewhere, but it utterly lacks any real practicing.
Top that with the ever-present gospel of how stupid and wrong it is to be human, and right, I'm outta there.
Furthermore, there are over 30'000 Christian sects, all having "the Truth", one extreme barely recognizing the teachings of the other. They do not even agree about any specific core teaching. I Denmark where I come from, the biggest Christian movement has abandoned The Old Testament teachings and degraded them to "a mythical background" while still maintaining some religious rules from it, despite Jesus proclamation of the opposite to be right. There is no coherence and no real-world compassion or love in Christianity - some of the most devout Christians are also among the richest people on earth. Jesus taught to worship God and not Mammon.. So many examples of contradiction, so few of true compassion
The observerver and participants are bound in their mental formations and are an expression thereof.
Until I came to understand the realtionship between form and the infinite I was deluded and was provoked with lustful desire.
Sex is the engaging of energy, and matter, and it's pentacle creates new thought expressed in the reality of continuation.
If one is caught in the pleasurable aspect, rather than the awareness of union of the infinate with form it's all mental masterbation.
Hmm.....
I see the bible as thus:
Man goes into the world with his mental formations by which he is seperate from other, and is thereby naked upon self identification. For him the world is a desert, deluded he persues the land of milk and honey.
Man muddles throught the desert, and those that are in touch with the divine nature are often killed by the deluded.
"In the fullness of time" the divine nature expresses itself in form, and divulges how man is to express himself in his state of being.
Followers pick up the message and through the filters of there own dillusions project the recieved message to the masses.
The fianal two chapters reveal what happens to him who takes to heart the message of the master living simply through creative artistic expression.
Possibly. But there is still a spiritual element to it. Jesus was talking about divorcing one's wife due to looking for some entertainment elsewhere; due to not understanding the needs of a woman.
Possibly. But you are diverging from the topic. The topic is faithfulness & commitment and nurturing that.
Do you think watching pornography is a loss of faithfulness?
How does watching pornography differ from actually having sex with another different from your partner?
If one watches pornography, probably, one will have images & fantasies in one's mind of other people having sex and having sex with other people.
Is this unfaithfulness?
Is this taking refuge in sexuality outside of one's relationship?
Is it potentially dangerous?
Does it make one's own mind & heart fickle, weak & distracted?
Can this result in suffering, hurt & harm?
But for what reason is it necessary for human beings to have sexual thoughts about others apart from their partners?
There is an enormous difference between some kind of biological/mental attraction and actually thinking about having sex with a woman.
If one's mind is thinking about having sex with another woman, is that not committing adultery in one's heart as Jesus said?
If not, what is it?
Is guilt something others make one feel or is it part of our individual psychological make-up?
If there was no capacity for guilt within us then obviously others could not make our mind feel it.
So what is the purpose of this guilt? Is it something entirely negative or undesirable? Or is it part of our survival mechanisms? Is it related to wisdom? Are we denying a part of us by denying this guilt?
IAWA
That is a completely liable view of the Bible, albeit it does not have much resemblance with the way Christians would read it (granted you do not count cultural Christians, but they do not really count as Christians, as they for the most part do not live up to the objective standards of being Christian).
It has more to do with a Buddhist way of reading the Bible. In that sense, you could probably get some good and wise things out of it, like the philosopher Løgstrup (who i like btw) did.
Christianity it isn't though.
DD
I have to agree with you. It does not always however. The general rule of divorce = suffering is true enough. Sometimes more suffering would come from being together, however. In such cases divorce is difficult to rule out. A short period with pain can be necessary to avoid years of suffering.
Yes, and that has been a factor. The universality of the rule and the practical nature of it in historical and religious scientific sense points to the fact, that is has more to do with birth-control and social coherence. As artificial birth-control has gained ground, this rule is more and more overlooked. Therefore we must, from a scientific view, count it as more of a practical how-to than an ethical prescript.
I may wander a little off-topic, true.
I think porn is unfaithfulness it's used in a relationship where such practises, by agreement between the partners, is forbidden.
I do not consider abstract actions, such as fantasizing directly harmful. Thoughts can lead to action, but will not. Small children can hate their parents and want to get rid of them, or to "move away". They never will do either. It's just passing thoughts arisen from feelings. Lust for sex, and wanting to watch other people have sex, can but will not lead to actually having real-life sex with others.
There's a distinct difference between thought and action. We should not try to subdue our thoughts, as they are often unvolunteer. We can recognize them for what they are, and live with ourselves the way we are. I'm speaking of the normal here, not obsessiveness which requires treatment. If we from meditiation ie. experience such thoughts and lusts to go away, we should just recognize that and live with it.
Nothing is inherently evil in itself, for if we say that, we also say that humans are of an evil nature. Hardly very profitable for anyone, and not of any value whatsoever. It could also easily lead to arrogance towards less "awakened" ones.
Furthermore, we are not to impose our own ideals and values on others. We can help them guide themselves, but if they are happy with what and where they are, and realize that, then we must accept that as their choice of life style. Again, this applies to the norm.
Hi Nescafe,
ahee hee that's the first thing I noticed too it must be a mile long thread by now. So many people are interested in it. Its just sooo long now. Course I sorta don't qualify anyway cause I haven't had sex in um....since 1974. (I wonder if sex has improved somewhat over my missing out years cuz I know I haven't improved at all not having had any recent esperience with it.
I haven't had sex because my interest in men as sexual objects has just seemed to fade over time (not their fault i stress) and of course so has my legendarie beauty....but now that I think about my looks. Hmmm..... and looking back I think a bonified looker has to have substantial boobs and at least a nice butt. So I have to say I had neither of those and my face wasn't enough of a looker to compensate for the other two..... dammit.
So as I am looking back into my past the kinds of men I hooked up with weren't the kinds of men who go out searching for a looker. They are the kinds of men who are just there ready to pounce on the bevy of lonely women (me) who are also there waiting for the last call for alcohol.
So those kinds of men usually are still there for last call also. And of course me too cause I liked to stay for last call..........ok ok ok....and possibly meet some nice guy. But in actuallity this is usually what happens.
So outside he presents himself to me as having no car, and could I give him a ride. Why sure cowboy hop on in and so he does happy to have found a ride home.....and so I start the car and as I put the key into the ignition he smiles warmly and thats where I realize (EGAGS) he is missing his two front teeth.
So he gabs a little before I realize not only does he have no car but he also has no Job and by the look of him his prospects of getting one in this lifetime has shrunk to any forseeable eternity. But I missed what he was trying to say to me cuz I was still stuck on him not having his two front teeth. I am thinking up all kinds of senarios as I wonder how he lost them. Probably he may have gotten into a fight with....well....with anybody I suppose. Leaving me to wonder that he might not have the best sort of any winning personality.
Sooooo....anyway.....sigh...It isn't that I stopped being interested. Its more like the time got away from me and here I am 61 years old and I am not sure now if I was ever a looker or not but the signs are pointing to "NOT!" And if I ever got a good lay now I would be astonished. I might just do it if I could wrestle up a cheap camera cuz it would be a FREAKING KODAK MOMENT! I kid u not!
Budhabee