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.
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited May 2007
...But then, the question arises.... who began all this?
Where did the "taboo" of a relationship - platonic or otherwise - first embed itself in the minds of monks, priests, nuns, abbots, Lamas, gurus, lay-people... Where did a physical close connection between consenting adults first become a no-no?
And more's the point - why?
Why would abstention from sex be considered necessary to develop detachment, self-control, self-discipline?
why not refraining absolutely from eating meat, taking drugs, swearing, speaking, wearing specific clothing.... all recommendations, but certainly not as 'frowned upon' or as controversial as the thought of two conjoined human beings, which to my mind is fraught with far more elements of developing hang-ups and psychological problems than the above examples....
It's not a taboo actually. It's a way of cleansing the mind of outside distractions and a way of detaching from the pull of desire. In other words, it's an aid to one's practice. It's an external way of cutting attachment which will, hopefully, lead to an internal renunciation of desire, which is the cause of liberation. In an even deeper, tantric sense, it has to do with retaining one's vital fluids, which is an important yogic practice, but we won't go into that here, namely because I don't know any more than that! :doh:
Palzang
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited May 2007
Palzang-La, yes, I understand... But I just want to know why it all began. After all, the Buddha himself had been married and had a child. And I know that Monks of some Buddhist traditions may leave the order, have a family, go back... procreation is not forbidden to them... other schools dictate on the other hand, that chastity is a life-long requirement....
In Catholicism, priests are expected to remain celibate (let's not go there....) whereas anglican and protestant priests may marry.... Rabbis have families... so where did all this lifelong vow of chastity originate?
I understand the purpose of self-discipline and mastering the temptations of clinging and attachment...I see the point. I just don't understand how it all came about - and with such diversity!
I can't speak for other traditions (though I think in Christianity it has something to do with Paul's miscogyny, doesn't it?), but if you recall the story of the Buddha, he abandoned his wife and children, not because he didn't love them, but because he knew that he loved them too much and that he couldn't prevent their suffering and dying. He realized that only by giving them up could he hope to find the solution to samsara. Since it worked for him, he taught it to his monks, and it became the rule.
True, some Buddhist monks (or rather priests) can marry. This is true in many Japanese traditions (though not all) and has more to do with socio-political reasons than anything to do with the Dharma. Interestingly, some Zen traditions which have become transplanted into the West have reinstituted the celibacy tradition, such as Shasta Abbey in California and England. The monks I have spoken to there see it as a great thing as it really has helped their practice.
Oh, you say there are married lamas in Tibetan Buddhism? Well, they're not ordained. The Nyingma School in particular has a long tradition of lay lamas. That comes from the days of Langdarma, the Tibetan king who tried to repress Buddhism in favor of Bon. The Buddhists responded by going underground and living as laymen, sort of like what happened in Mongolia under communist repression.
Palzang
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited May 2007
Tnank you Palzang-La, and bless you for clarifying.
As the old lady said -
"Dying? I ain't got time to die - still learnin' tooooo much!!"
A question like this is a difficult one to answer. For one reason, each tradition might have a different view conerning sex and the Noble Eightfold Path. It is hard for me to say one way or the other, because as I am sure you are aware by now, I mainly focus my studies on the Pali Canon. I can at least, however, attempt to answer this from the perspective of Theravada.
The Pali literature basically states that there are obstructions or impedments (antarayika dhamma) to obtaining liberation—sexual intercourse being one of them. In AN 4.159, for example, Ananda explains to a bhikkhuni, who is apparently sick, that sexual intercourse is to be abandoned in the practice of the holy life. Incidentally, the background to this story details that the bhikkhuni in question was faking her illness so that Ananda would come to see her. She was very infatuated with him, and when he realized this, he gave her this particular discourse.
Another example can be found at the beginning of MN 22. Here, the Buddha rebukes a monk for his views regarding sex. While not explicitly stated in the sutta itself, the commentary to the sutta mentions that the wrong view of the offending monk, Arittha, dealt specifically with the first parajika training rule against sexual intercourse. The note given to this section of the sutta concerning "obstructions" by Nyanaponika Thera explains this in more detail.
Simply put, for a monastic who is dedicated fully to the holy life, it is a serious hindrance to their practice. After all, the duty of the noble disciple is to discern the allures and drawbacks of, and escape from, sensuality, physical form, and feeling (MN 13).
Why? is a really good question, I have just realised, Fede.
When I consider monastic 'denials', I find myself asking "Why is the abstaining from sexual relationships so incomprehensible to some people? Why this one rather than the vow of poverty or of silence or of stability or (my own stumbling-block) of obedience?"
The fundamental and underlying reason for the vows is to reduce impediments to and to focus the attention on the desired outcome, which is spiritual in nature.
To the Benedictine, a vow of stability means that they remain in the same monastery unlike you or me: we can, have and do move house more or less at will. Is a voluntary giving up of mobility any less 'incomprehensible' than celibacy?
It is a matter of real debate as to whether celibacy empowers the spiritual life. All extant religious traditions of which I know appear to have some such belief. Even in old pagan stories, chastity, virginity or their loss have mythic weight.
Palzang-la, you might like to know that the father of Western monasticism, Anthony of Egypt, was one of a number of enthusiastic Christians who were turning their backs on the way the official church was becoming part of the cursus honorum, the career ladder. I am convinced that they had encountered Buddhist ideas in Alexandria and that this meeting created a new Christian spirituality, just as is happening today. It always happens at the margins of the Christian churches. Perhaps it's another sign of the strength of the Jewels of Refuge that the organic growth of the Buddhisms seems to have caused far less schism and spilled less blood than Christian evolution.
BTW, I do agree that one of the 'Pauls' had a very unpalatable view of women. Realising that he was wrong in this and that it was OK to question and challenge was very important to me in learning a new way of reading Holy Writ.
Well, there was a lot of cross-pollination between the two, mostly via the Silk Road. For example, the story of the Three Wisemen in the Bible was originally a Jataka tale that got changed somewhat in the passage.
Early in this thread the argument was made that polyamory was more possible in theory than in practice, which gets a bit to the nub of the questions raised here.
The fact is, sex changes things. Suppose you and I meet, we have a meal together, we dance, perhaps go to church or sangha together, meditate together, and our relationship changes incrementally with each activity.
But throw us in bed together....odds are good that it will change the relationship much more than any of the other activities. (Not always, but odds are good.)
Or, in a negative sense, if someone is mugged, beaten, money stolen, etc, that is bad. Throw rape in and you have a greater trauma.
The one word I have not seen in this discussion so far (and I might have just missed it) is intimacy. Sex can create deep intimacy. (and yes, it can be used to avoid intimacy, but the act still circles around intimacy, or the avoidance thereof).
Intimacy and desire are closely related, not as like kinds, but contingent interactions. The whole notion of celebacy, in the Christian tradition, is that one "marries" God or the Church, or the Order...it is to trade one intimacy for another.
In Buddhism, would it then be to become detached from desire?
In Buddhism, would it then be to become detached from desire?
Yes, I see it that way. I also see it as simply avoiding distraction. Even if I hadn't become a Buddhist I would eventually have given up intimate romantic relationships because I just happen to be the sort of person who becomes too distracted by them. I've learned that I'm the sort of person who is not as happy and clear minded in a relationship as I am when I'm on my own. In the back of my mind I've always known, even from childhood, that I would never marry or have children. That's just me, though. I think it's different for everyone.
As to Simon's question about why sexual abstinence is so incomprehensible, I believe I, as a 17 year old guy can answer this one honestly enough.....Because it's fun. And the second most prominent drive in humans. Trumped only by survival.
If people want to have a polyamorous relationship, I as a Libertarian say go ahead. If you want to marry someone of your own sex, I say go ahead. Drugs? Go ahead. Just realize that the consequences are your responsibility. Polyamorous or gay marriage, drugs, or what have you, are not immoral in any reasonable sense.
I don't know exactly why sex is such a taboo. I can understand the privacy factor of it, but religion and old fashioned traditions have not helped in the cause of sex.
Besides sex, I have a strong desire for knowledge and I gain that knowledge by reading books. Relgion, Philosophy, History, or what have you. It would be incomprehensible to me to just stop reading books. "Well, they are a distraction when it comes to the holy life. And besides, I'll never be satisfied by reading just one book. I'll have to always find more books to fill the never ending thirst for knowledge. Wouldn't I be far more content if I just stopped reading books."
No. Like books, sex is fun. More fun than books though.:bigclap:
No. Like books, sex is fun. More fun than books though.
Reminds me of a joke. A rabbi, an Iman and a priest were sharing. The question came up about breaking their religious vows. The rabbi admitted that as a child, one of his gentile friends would invite him to spend the night, and they would have pancakes and bacon for breakfast. The Iman admitted that as a child, he often ate with family that would serve him ham.
The priest admitted that, as a seminarian, he had a one night stand with a woman.
The rabbi and the Iman looked at him and said, "Sure was better than pork, wasn't it!"
Polyamory can work. It just takes communication and a shift in ones concept of what love is made up of. The idea that jealousy and the act of feeling possessive is not changeable is not true. I can be with someone and love them with all my heart and be with someone else and feel the same. I would wish that they would have the freedom to do the same as long a we all communicated what our relationships entailed from the get go and be able to adjust if need be as they progress.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited December 2007
Hello GeorgeSand84.....
What a thought-provoking name.....
Thank you for posting, and welcome.
The Human Concept and definition of Love certainly needs revising. I would agree with that. The influence of Love as defined by Deistic religion has had a global, universal influence for aeons, but now that, to me anyway, Humankind is open to a new level of cognisance and consciousness, maybe the time is ripe for a change in attitude.
But as with anything, it should be 'Evolution, not revolution'.....
Nice to meet you!
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited December 2007
"...People think it very natural and pardonable to trifle with what is most sacred when dealing with women: women do not count in the social or moral order. I solemnly vow--and this is the first glimmer of courage and ambition in my life!--that I shall raise woman from her abject position, both through my self and my writing, God will help me!...let female slavery also have its Spartacus. That shall I be, or perish in the attempt." -George Sand (born Aurore Dupin) in a letter to Frederic Girerd, 1837
[B]Polyamory[/b]: the practice/lifestyle of being open to having more than one loving, intimate relationship at a time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved
I find it interesting these three people are studying/practicing Buddhism. It makes sense.
What do you all think of polyamory, and do you think Buddhism offers a philosophy that would prove beneficial for those considering such a lifestyle? (Personally, I would have to chant until I turned blue to accept this into my life, but anyway.......):-/
First, to state my personal bias I should say that I have been Buddhist since 2003 and I have been consistently polyamorous since around 2005.
Now, with that out of the way, my opinion on polyamory is this. It can be challenging in the extreme. It can force you to see, in very stark terms, many aspects of yourself that you really didn't care to see. Jealousy, attachment, why you want to be with another person, and so forth. It can also mire you in a muck of "stuff" so profoundly that it can delay your spiritual progress.
However, it can also be an agent of positive change if you are willing to put the work into making it so. It can be made Dharma but it is not at all easy to do so(not quite as difficult as eating feces but still quite hard). I've found that the question is simply how do you want to spend your time?
Speaking of time, I thank you for taking the time to read this, and I hope that my ramblings are of some small help.
"Open" relationships come and go as a fad of sorts and it seems we are in one of those phases. My concise answer is that "Polyamory" (LMAO at that title!!) is rubbish. Open relationships don't work except in the Playboy mansion (and that can only be loosely described as a relationship). I also think the underlying reasoning is completely ridiculous and insulting to both men and women. Monogamy has nothing to do with gender. It has to do with maturity.
I'm pretty firm on this one.
Brigid
I do not think that an idea is merely rubbish because you think it is insulting or ridiculous. Now, I'm not a Buddhist or that well trained in the religion, but doesn't Buddha teach to let go of your societal training and think for yourself? Words like ridiculous and insulting when conjoined together often imply that there's a certain societal training behind them.
People should find what works for them; I do not find it mine, nor anyone else's, position to determine what is right for everyone else except for themselves. Monogamy requires maturity to work; on the other hand, I don't think monogamy is the only form of maturity.
I think it interesting to revisit an old thread. This one caused me to chuckle: if you click back to Boo's post, you will see who is the first person to agree with her ROTFLMAO.
It is rather surprizing to me to see certain posters here engaging in knee-jerk and seriously misinformed opinionating on polyamory. I would expect buddhists to take some breaths, open their hearts and minds, and explore a little before declaring polyamorists to be cartoon figures or pathetic sex freaks, etc....
In my 40's, I dated a guy who had two women for a while ... he and his wife had "taken in" a friend whose husband had abandoned her. The three of them ended up sharing the same bed for a few years.
He said the women were friends and seemed comfortable with it ... as a matter of fact, they found the housework and childcare much easier, and their two votes often outweighed his one vote.
But he found it very difficult. Sexual issues aside, three in one bed with one set of covers aside ... he said that there were just TOO many people to keep everyone happy. He put it this way:
"When it's just you and me, there are only 3 entities to keep happy: you, me, and you+me.
But when they are 3 people, you have 7 entities: you, me, her, you+me, you+her, me+her, and you+me+her and you have to work really hard at it."
He said he was really happy when the woman finally decided she wasn't happy in a threesome and left.
People don't have to agree or be politically correct. If people don't like polyamoury then they can say so - as vehemently as they want. I myself side with Brigid. I also don't think it aligns with Buddhism, but that's my opinion and lots will and won't agree with me. And that's ok.
It is rather surprizing to me to see certain posters here engaging in knee-jerk and seriously misinformed opinionating on polyamory. I would expect buddhists to take some breaths, open their hearts and minds, and explore a little before declaring polyamorists to be cartoon figures or pathetic sex freaks, etc....
Oh, you say there are married lamas in Tibetan Buddhism? Well, they're not ordained. The Nyingma School in particular has a long tradition of lay lamas. That comes from the days of Langdarma, the Tibetan king who tried to repress Buddhism in favor of Bon. The Buddhists responded by going underground and living as laymen, sort of like what happened in Mongolia under communist repression.
Palzang [/quote]
Hi Palzang
Bear with me, I get back to the topic in the end! :
There is a slight adjustment I would make to your point, if I may. Yes, there are lay lamas, and 'ordination' is sometimes a little too loosely applied (as in calling the 5 lay Precepts a form of ordination).
However, the ordained Nyingma Sangha is divided into the Red Sangha (monastic Vinaya) and the White Sangha (not celibate) whose vows based on the Tantric Vows to avoid the 14 root downfalls and of course adhere to the Vows involved. These White Sangha are regared as fully ordained, but not monastics. 'White' as in wearing white robes.
Apparently they sometimes have a hard time from monastics who think the Ngakpa ordination is somehow lesser, but are equally as often fully accepted and supported e.g. by TGIE. (Based on my Google search recently).
If you Google 'Ngakpa' there is much on the net.
I think Lama Dawa (lamadawa.com), for example, is a Ngakpa.
There are also Ngakpas in other Tibetan schools. I imagine the heavily monastic Gelug tradition would have least.
It is also possible for a person to move between Red and White Sangha.
(I may be wrong but I'm assuming that's for Tantric consort reasons.)
Only stumbled across this a few weeks ago and it raises the principle that I've heard before that if one receives a full Highest Yoga Tantra empowerment from a Vajra Master, including the Tantric Vows, one is then ordained as a Ngakpa unless of course one is already a monastic.
As Ngakpas (to get back to the topic) I would imagine there to be no restriction on the sexual activity or number of partners, especially consorts, as long as there was no immorality (cheating etc) happening.
"When it's just you and me, there are only 3 entities to keep happy: you, me, and you+me.
But when they are 3 people, you have 7 entities: you, me, her, you+me, you+her, me+her, and you+me+her and you have to work really hard at it."
This is so true. I've been in poly relationships, and they were beautiful. But it's very hard to maintain. Probably why it doesn't work out very often - and why people generally don't accept it as possible.
But is it wrong for recently "awakened" ones to be ladies men for awhile at least?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited June 2010
That's for the 'recently awakened one' to decide, based on evaluation of his thoughts, words and actions, with the 4NT, The 8Fold Path and the 5 Precepts.
[SIZE=2 Oh, you say there are married lamas in Tibetan Buddhism? Well, they're not ordained. The Nyingma School in particular has a long tradition of lay lamas. Palzang
[/SIZE]
This is a very interesting topic, that I came upon quite late. ("Better late than never"..?)
Palzang-la, the Sakyas also have married lamas, and they're ordained. Sakya Trizin is married, and several of the Washington State Sakyas are married, including the head of the lineage/monastery. True, a couple of the younger ones gave up their robes and became "lay lamas"+ after marrying. Any insight you could share on this would be appreciated.
Women are not by nature monogamous. It's that for so many years, most anthropologists were male, and so didn't look for polyandrous customs around the world. The Tibetans are polyandrous; one woman marries 2 or 3 brothers. A number of Siberian tribes were polyandrous until the Soviet regime put a stop to it. In those tribes, the women had one steady partner who took responsibility for caring for the family, but the women had the right to seek out other partners to father children. It was considered that the women knew best who was the most fit, and therefore able to give the children a genetic advantage. Survival of the tribe was paramount. It's not unusual to see siblings in those tribes, each of whom has a different father.
The South Pacific and the Amazon have polyandrous societies. Women in Tibetan-related cultures in Yunnan Province, China, have certain polyandrous customs. It's more common than people think. There are polyandrous partnerships in the US, but they're well hidden, since it's not socially acceptable.
Marx said marriage was a bourgeois institution aimed at exploiting women (look at all that free labor they provide in the home, in addition to earning a paycheck--pretty sweet deal!) Lenin took that principle and put it into action, abolishing the institution of marriage. Women were free to leave a partnership that wasn't working, without going through a lot of bureaucratic hassle and fees, very important in an alcoholic society. Some women got very creative in the types of partnerships they chose. Stalin ended the party. Marriage certificates were reinstituted. So much for revolution.
Women are not by nature monogamous. It's that for so many years, most anthropologists were male, and so didn't look for polyandrous customs around the world.
really? What sources are there for this? As a wannabe Anthropologist I'd be very interested in this.
Marx said marriage was a bourgeois institution aimed at exploiting women (look at all that free labor they provide in the home, in addition to earning a paycheck--pretty sweet deal!) Lenin took that principle and put it into action, abolishing the institution of marriage. Women were free to leave a partnership that wasn't working, without going through a lot of bureaucratic hassle and fees, very important in an alcoholic society. Some women got very creative in the types of partnerships they chose. Stalin ended the party. Marriage certificates were reinstituted. So much for revolution.
Exploiting women? Today? Pfft!
I'm a partner in my marriage and my husband treats me with respect, love and kindness. He also does most of the cooking. Hardly a bad deal here.
really? What sources are there for this? As a wannabe Anthropologist I'd be very interested in this.
I'm a partner in my marriage and my husband treats me with respect, love and kindness. He also does most of the cooking. Hardly a bad deal here.
In metta,
Raven
You chose well, Dhammachick, congratulations!
As for your first question, I'm afraid I can't cite sources. I've read a lot of anthropology books in my life, I'm pulling this up out of my memory bank. You may also be interested to know that until a woman anthropologist researched (I forget which type of primate) chimps, or gorillas, the females were believed to be monogamous. But a woman anthro followed the females and discovered that they sneak away from their partner at night to be with other males. Women bring a whole different perspective to the field. Just keep an open mind, and don't believe everything in the textbooks.
Now that I think about it, the bit about the female anthro finding a polyandrous tribe was in a newspaper article some years ago. She was working in the western Amazon. I bet there are more polyandrous tribes there, there are still tribes that haven't been contacted. And probably some of those who have been contacted have a hidden polyandrous thing going. The tribe that woman anthro studied had already been studied before, but by a male anthro. He said they were polygynous. (Surprise! Humans are more complex than anyone might imagine.)
Good luck in your chosen field. I'm excited for you.
I don't know what the Sakyas do, CW, but the Vinaya is quite clear that you cannot be married and be ordained, so I doubt very much that the Sakyas would do that.
This is very interesting, Palzang. I'm going to look into it. (The "rules" take on a very relative quality in Tibetan Buddhism, so who knows?) Thanks for your input.
HH Sakya Trizin is not a monk, nor would any abbots of Sakya monasteries be married. What is your source for this information? There are Sakya monastics, but they do not marry. Many of the prominent Sakya lamas are not monastics. All schools of Tibetan Buddhism follow the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya, hence the rules are the same.
If you are talking about the great Dezhung Rinpoche, he was a monk throughout his life. The abbot of a monastery must hold the gelong (bhikshu) vows or he can not give ordination himself. Who specifically are you talking about?
This discussion is getting interesting. I'd like to have a better understanding of these details.
Karmadorje: I'm sorry, I didn't get specific names during the time that I participated in sangha activities at Sakya Monastery. I looked up Dezhung Rinpoche online, and learned he passed away in 1987, so it wasn't he who was abbott in the 1990's, when I was there. I didn't participate entirely regularly, and didn't get a lot of background information.
Sakya lamas who have wives do not take the gelong vows. Nor do any other lamas of any other lineages. They take another set of vows, which are tantric in nature.
Comments
Where did the "taboo" of a relationship - platonic or otherwise - first embed itself in the minds of monks, priests, nuns, abbots, Lamas, gurus, lay-people... Where did a physical close connection between consenting adults first become a no-no?
And more's the point - why?
Why would abstention from sex be considered necessary to develop detachment, self-control, self-discipline?
why not refraining absolutely from eating meat, taking drugs, swearing, speaking, wearing specific clothing.... all recommendations, but certainly not as 'frowned upon' or as controversial as the thought of two conjoined human beings, which to my mind is fraught with far more elements of developing hang-ups and psychological problems than the above examples....
Or am I missing something?
Palzang
In Catholicism, priests are expected to remain celibate (let's not go there....) whereas anglican and protestant priests may marry.... Rabbis have families... so where did all this lifelong vow of chastity originate?
I understand the purpose of self-discipline and mastering the temptations of clinging and attachment...I see the point. I just don't understand how it all came about - and with such diversity!
True, some Buddhist monks (or rather priests) can marry. This is true in many Japanese traditions (though not all) and has more to do with socio-political reasons than anything to do with the Dharma. Interestingly, some Zen traditions which have become transplanted into the West have reinstituted the celibacy tradition, such as Shasta Abbey in California and England. The monks I have spoken to there see it as a great thing as it really has helped their practice.
Oh, you say there are married lamas in Tibetan Buddhism? Well, they're not ordained. The Nyingma School in particular has a long tradition of lay lamas. That comes from the days of Langdarma, the Tibetan king who tried to repress Buddhism in favor of Bon. The Buddhists responded by going underground and living as laymen, sort of like what happened in Mongolia under communist repression.
Palzang
As the old lady said -
"Dying? I ain't got time to die - still learnin' tooooo much!!"
I love this forum!! :ukflag: :om: :rockon:
A question like this is a difficult one to answer. For one reason, each tradition might have a different view conerning sex and the Noble Eightfold Path. It is hard for me to say one way or the other, because as I am sure you are aware by now, I mainly focus my studies on the Pali Canon. I can at least, however, attempt to answer this from the perspective of Theravada.
The Pali literature basically states that there are obstructions or impedments (antarayika dhamma) to obtaining liberation—sexual intercourse being one of them. In AN 4.159, for example, Ananda explains to a bhikkhuni, who is apparently sick, that sexual intercourse is to be abandoned in the practice of the holy life. Incidentally, the background to this story details that the bhikkhuni in question was faking her illness so that Ananda would come to see her. She was very infatuated with him, and when he realized this, he gave her this particular discourse.
Another example can be found at the beginning of MN 22. Here, the Buddha rebukes a monk for his views regarding sex. While not explicitly stated in the sutta itself, the commentary to the sutta mentions that the wrong view of the offending monk, Arittha, dealt specifically with the first parajika training rule against sexual intercourse. The note given to this section of the sutta concerning "obstructions" by Nyanaponika Thera explains this in more detail.
Simply put, for a monastic who is dedicated fully to the holy life, it is a serious hindrance to their practice. After all, the duty of the noble disciple is to discern the allures and drawbacks of, and escape from, sensuality, physical form, and feeling (MN 13).
Jason
When I consider monastic 'denials', I find myself asking "Why is the abstaining from sexual relationships so incomprehensible to some people? Why this one rather than the vow of poverty or of silence or of stability or (my own stumbling-block) of obedience?"
The fundamental and underlying reason for the vows is to reduce impediments to and to focus the attention on the desired outcome, which is spiritual in nature.
To the Benedictine, a vow of stability means that they remain in the same monastery unlike you or me: we can, have and do move house more or less at will. Is a voluntary giving up of mobility any less 'incomprehensible' than celibacy?
It is a matter of real debate as to whether celibacy empowers the spiritual life. All extant religious traditions of which I know appear to have some such belief. Even in old pagan stories, chastity, virginity or their loss have mythic weight.
Palzang-la, you might like to know that the father of Western monasticism, Anthony of Egypt, was one of a number of enthusiastic Christians who were turning their backs on the way the official church was becoming part of the cursus honorum, the career ladder. I am convinced that they had encountered Buddhist ideas in Alexandria and that this meeting created a new Christian spirituality, just as is happening today. It always happens at the margins of the Christian churches. Perhaps it's another sign of the strength of the Jewels of Refuge that the organic growth of the Buddhisms seems to have caused far less schism and spilled less blood than Christian evolution.
BTW, I do agree that one of the 'Pauls' had a very unpalatable view of women. Realising that he was wrong in this and that it was OK to question and challenge was very important to me in learning a new way of reading Holy Writ.
Palzang
The fact is, sex changes things. Suppose you and I meet, we have a meal together, we dance, perhaps go to church or sangha together, meditate together, and our relationship changes incrementally with each activity.
But throw us in bed together....odds are good that it will change the relationship much more than any of the other activities. (Not always, but odds are good.)
Or, in a negative sense, if someone is mugged, beaten, money stolen, etc, that is bad. Throw rape in and you have a greater trauma.
The one word I have not seen in this discussion so far (and I might have just missed it) is intimacy. Sex can create deep intimacy. (and yes, it can be used to avoid intimacy, but the act still circles around intimacy, or the avoidance thereof).
Intimacy and desire are closely related, not as like kinds, but contingent interactions. The whole notion of celebacy, in the Christian tradition, is that one "marries" God or the Church, or the Order...it is to trade one intimacy for another.
In Buddhism, would it then be to become detached from desire?
If people want to have a polyamorous relationship, I as a Libertarian say go ahead. If you want to marry someone of your own sex, I say go ahead. Drugs? Go ahead. Just realize that the consequences are your responsibility. Polyamorous or gay marriage, drugs, or what have you, are not immoral in any reasonable sense.
I don't know exactly why sex is such a taboo. I can understand the privacy factor of it, but religion and old fashioned traditions have not helped in the cause of sex.
Besides sex, I have a strong desire for knowledge and I gain that knowledge by reading books. Relgion, Philosophy, History, or what have you. It would be incomprehensible to me to just stop reading books. "Well, they are a distraction when it comes to the holy life. And besides, I'll never be satisfied by reading just one book. I'll have to always find more books to fill the never ending thirst for knowledge. Wouldn't I be far more content if I just stopped reading books."
No. Like books, sex is fun. More fun than books though.:bigclap:
Palzang
And then you have Playboy. You've got the best of both worlds then.
Reminds me of a joke. A rabbi, an Iman and a priest were sharing. The question came up about breaking their religious vows. The rabbi admitted that as a child, one of his gentile friends would invite him to spend the night, and they would have pancakes and bacon for breakfast. The Iman admitted that as a child, he often ate with family that would serve him ham.
The priest admitted that, as a seminarian, he had a one night stand with a woman.
The rabbi and the Iman looked at him and said, "Sure was better than pork, wasn't it!"
Well, of course, I only read Playboy for the articles...
Palzang
Palzang
or "bed"...... :tonguec:
Palzang
What a thought-provoking name.....
Thank you for posting, and welcome.
The Human Concept and definition of Love certainly needs revising. I would agree with that. The influence of Love as defined by Deistic religion has had a global, universal influence for aeons, but now that, to me anyway, Humankind is open to a new level of cognisance and consciousness, maybe the time is ripe for a change in attitude.
But as with anything, it should be 'Evolution, not revolution'.....
Nice to meet you!
-George Sand (born Aurore Dupin) in a letter to Frederic Girerd, 1837
Quite a Woman....
First, to state my personal bias I should say that I have been Buddhist since 2003 and I have been consistently polyamorous since around 2005.
Now, with that out of the way, my opinion on polyamory is this. It can be challenging in the extreme. It can force you to see, in very stark terms, many aspects of yourself that you really didn't care to see. Jealousy, attachment, why you want to be with another person, and so forth. It can also mire you in a muck of "stuff" so profoundly that it can delay your spiritual progress.
However, it can also be an agent of positive change if you are willing to put the work into making it so. It can be made Dharma but it is not at all easy to do so(not quite as difficult as eating feces but still quite hard). I've found that the question is simply how do you want to spend your time?
Speaking of time, I thank you for taking the time to read this, and I hope that my ramblings are of some small help.
I-23
I do not think that an idea is merely rubbish because you think it is insulting or ridiculous. Now, I'm not a Buddhist or that well trained in the religion, but doesn't Buddha teach to let go of your societal training and think for yourself? Words like ridiculous and insulting when conjoined together often imply that there's a certain societal training behind them.
People should find what works for them; I do not find it mine, nor anyone else's, position to determine what is right for everyone else except for themselves. Monogamy requires maturity to work; on the other hand, I don't think monogamy is the only form of maturity.
Verb. sap.
I think my question still relevant.
He said the women were friends and seemed comfortable with it ... as a matter of fact, they found the housework and childcare much easier, and their two votes often outweighed his one vote.
But he found it very difficult. Sexual issues aside, three in one bed with one set of covers aside ... he said that there were just TOO many people to keep everyone happy. He put it this way:
"When it's just you and me, there are only 3 entities to keep happy: you, me, and you+me.
But when they are 3 people, you have 7 entities: you, me, her, you+me, you+her, me+her, and you+me+her and you have to work really hard at it."
He said he was really happy when the woman finally decided she wasn't happy in a threesome and left.
I found this oddly amusing.
Respectfully,
Raven
Oh, you say there are married lamas in Tibetan Buddhism? Well, they're not ordained. The Nyingma School in particular has a long tradition of lay lamas. That comes from the days of Langdarma, the Tibetan king who tried to repress Buddhism in favor of Bon. The Buddhists responded by going underground and living as laymen, sort of like what happened in Mongolia under communist repression.
Palzang
[/quote]
Hi Palzang
Bear with me, I get back to the topic in the end! :
There is a slight adjustment I would make to your point, if I may. Yes, there are lay lamas, and 'ordination' is sometimes a little too loosely applied (as in calling the 5 lay Precepts a form of ordination).
However, the ordained Nyingma Sangha is divided into the Red Sangha (monastic Vinaya) and the White Sangha (not celibate) whose vows based on the Tantric Vows to avoid the 14 root downfalls and of course adhere to the Vows involved. These White Sangha are regared as fully ordained, but not monastics. 'White' as in wearing white robes.
Here's a link:
http://www.nyingma.com/artman/publish/ngakpa_intro.shtml
Apparently they sometimes have a hard time from monastics who think the Ngakpa ordination is somehow lesser, but are equally as often fully accepted and supported e.g. by TGIE. (Based on my Google search recently).
If you Google 'Ngakpa' there is much on the net.
I think Lama Dawa (lamadawa.com), for example, is a Ngakpa.
There are also Ngakpas in other Tibetan schools. I imagine the heavily monastic Gelug tradition would have least.
It is also possible for a person to move between Red and White Sangha.
(I may be wrong but I'm assuming that's for Tantric consort reasons.)
Only stumbled across this a few weeks ago and it raises the principle that I've heard before that if one receives a full Highest Yoga Tantra empowerment from a Vajra Master, including the Tantric Vows, one is then ordained as a Ngakpa unless of course one is already a monastic.
As Ngakpas (to get back to the topic) I would imagine there to be no restriction on the sexual activity or number of partners, especially consorts, as long as there was no immorality (cheating etc) happening.
But if all the parties (however many
There are many weird things people like andI believe it's best to leave them to it unless they try to pull others in against their will...
This is a very interesting topic, that I came upon quite late. ("Better late than never"..?)
Palzang-la, the Sakyas also have married lamas, and they're ordained. Sakya Trizin is married, and several of the Washington State Sakyas are married, including the head of the lineage/monastery. True, a couple of the younger ones gave up their robes and became "lay lamas"+ after marrying. Any insight you could share on this would be appreciated.
Women are not by nature monogamous. It's that for so many years, most anthropologists were male, and so didn't look for polyandrous customs around the world. The Tibetans are polyandrous; one woman marries 2 or 3 brothers. A number of Siberian tribes were polyandrous until the Soviet regime put a stop to it. In those tribes, the women had one steady partner who took responsibility for caring for the family, but the women had the right to seek out other partners to father children. It was considered that the women knew best who was the most fit, and therefore able to give the children a genetic advantage. Survival of the tribe was paramount. It's not unusual to see siblings in those tribes, each of whom has a different father.
The South Pacific and the Amazon have polyandrous societies. Women in Tibetan-related cultures in Yunnan Province, China, have certain polyandrous customs. It's more common than people think. There are polyandrous partnerships in the US, but they're well hidden, since it's not socially acceptable.
Marx said marriage was a bourgeois institution aimed at exploiting women (look at all that free labor they provide in the home, in addition to earning a paycheck--pretty sweet deal!) Lenin took that principle and put it into action, abolishing the institution of marriage. Women were free to leave a partnership that wasn't working, without going through a lot of bureaucratic hassle and fees, very important in an alcoholic society. Some women got very creative in the types of partnerships they chose. Stalin ended the party. Marriage certificates were reinstituted. So much for revolution.
really? What sources are there for this? As a wannabe Anthropologist I'd be very interested in this.
Exploiting women? Today? Pfft!
I'm a partner in my marriage and my husband treats me with respect, love and kindness. He also does most of the cooking. Hardly a bad deal here.
In metta,
Raven
You chose well, Dhammachick, congratulations!
As for your first question, I'm afraid I can't cite sources. I've read a lot of anthropology books in my life, I'm pulling this up out of my memory bank. You may also be interested to know that until a woman anthropologist researched (I forget which type of primate) chimps, or gorillas, the females were believed to be monogamous. But a woman anthro followed the females and discovered that they sneak away from their partner at night to be with other males. Women bring a whole different perspective to the field. Just keep an open mind, and don't believe everything in the textbooks.
Now that I think about it, the bit about the female anthro finding a polyandrous tribe was in a newspaper article some years ago. She was working in the western Amazon. I bet there are more polyandrous tribes there, there are still tribes that haven't been contacted. And probably some of those who have been contacted have a hidden polyandrous thing going. The tribe that woman anthro studied had already been studied before, but by a male anthro. He said they were polygynous. (Surprise! Humans are more complex than anyone might imagine.)
Good luck in your chosen field. I'm excited for you.
Palzang
Palzang
Karmadorje: I'm sorry, I didn't get specific names during the time that I participated in sangha activities at Sakya Monastery. I looked up Dezhung Rinpoche online, and learned he passed away in 1987, so it wasn't he who was abbott in the 1990's, when I was there. I didn't participate entirely regularly, and didn't get a lot of background information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jigdal_Dagchen_Sakya
Palzang
Which is nothing new, since practitioners from all traditions return their vows if they feel they are unable to uphold them, and stop being monks.