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.
Celibacy
Amida
Explorer
I've been celibate for many years, and wish to remain so. I'm 33 years old. But now that I'm 33, I find craving arising strongly and a desire for a wife and child. I wish to overcome these strong desires and remain celibate all my life.
Any advice or methods to quiet the perpetual desires for wife and child?
Any advice or methods to quiet the perpetual desires for wife and child?
1
Comments
I'm sorry I can't be of more help.
Can I ask why you don't want a wife and child and are celibate? Okay, sure you could lock yourself away in some cave somewhere and practise Buddhism, but there's more virtue to practising Buddhism in a demanding family environment IMO.
In my own family, it's still only early and I've been practising compassion already; for example my teenage daughter (who knows how to press my buttons) is going to school to do yet more exams, so I made a strong effort to be kind and encouraging; not over bearing; and try to help her lighten her mood.
I find it's easy to be all 'Buddhist' when I'm alone, or with people I don't really know; but it's tough to be 'Buddhist' in a family environment when these people you live with day-in-day-out are trying to drive you crazy. But it's the tough stuff that teaches me the most.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tara_(Buddhism)
I'm going to play "devil's advocate" here for a minute or two and ask the following...
Have you ever considered that your strong conviction to remain celibate, wife-less and childless, against all odds (cravings, sentimental yearnings, etc) is in actuality a form of attachment and craving in and of itself?
Have you asked yourself why you have this attachment to celibacy and alone-less?
Is being alone and celibate elevating your Buddhist practices - or merely facilitating avoidance of things unfamiliar or 'difficult' to accomplish on some level?
IMO you may never "overcome" your desires and cravings leading you away from celibacy until you realize why you are grasping onto it in the first place....
Maybe, just maybe, there is a subconscious message trying to come through now (hence the heightened desires and cravings) that celibacy is something that has served its purpose already and it's time to move on from there?
Once a practice or routine (ANY practice or routine) becomes a form of suffering, it's time to re-evaluate that practice or routine and why it should /not be discontinued.
Peace.
It's nice to have family, and there's nothing wrong with it. It won't slow you down on your path to enlightenment if that's what you're worried about.
It's really just a matter of preference, it's not a choice between being on the path and straying from it.
Like someone said above, it's easy to be all Buddhist when you're alone, it's much different to be Buddhist in the face of life and all of its challenges, but they're both still the path.
Like that you can program yourself into basically anything, so be a bit careful and kind for yourself
Don't get me wrong: It's a worthwhile trade-off for me. But I would never advise someone that a sexual relationship won't slow down their spiritual path.
Dharma is about life. It's what you do when you're faced with whatever life throws at you. With drama there is an opportunity to practice peace, you know?
I just see no difference, other than a matter of preference, whether you choose a hermit style or celibate life, or whether you choose to have relationships and families, because a difference in terms of better or worse is illogical. There is no difference.
I currently have this Welsh wife. Amida, avoid Welsh women, and those from Middlesbrough too; they're as rough as old boots.
maybe you can seek the best of both words and partner up with a Buddhist woman?
I'm serious- why not? Then you and your wife can make Buddhist practices and mindset the foundation for home life and child raising. Seems like a win-win to me!
And I didn't see anything in the OPs post about living a monastic lifestyle. Which is why I asked the first questions I did. If that is what they are after, then the advice is going to be far different, I think. The only thing the OP said was that they have been celibate and would like to remain so. Nothing at all in there about motivations, and assuming they are celibate because they are living a monastic lifestyle is assuming too much, I think.
Wait-- what??
So the OP was directed ONLY to others who are/want to be celibate? Huh, I didn't get that distinction.... Nor did I see any inference that the OP was pursuing a monastic life.
What is going on here lately... can't we please let the OPs speak for themselves when it comes to replying to comments or questions posed in order to clarify the OP?
Seems to me this is how too many misunderstandings start around here.
For sure your life will be different if you choose to remain alone than it would be with a family.
I guess it will be one of those things you might ponder on your death bed. Were the realizations that I have gained worth the trade off?
Of course, if there are physical or other reasons why a family is not in the cards it would not come up. Move ahead and don't waste energy worrying about it.
As for celibacy, I don't really have an opinion about how one deals with it. If you remain celibate, will the urges subside entirely?
I have not had intimate relations for a number of years now. The sex drive is greatly diminshed, but not gone altogether. But I am 57. At 33 the urges were much stronger.
I suppose it would be best to ask a celibate monk for his view.
It's not really that appropriate to try to persuade someone who wants to be celibate, to not be. Just like it's not appropriate to try to persuade someone who is not celibate, to be celibate.
I think suppressing emotions or desires doesn’t really work, and it’s better to accept them; welcome them even. Face the pain and cry if you want to.
Some stupid koan says: “If you want to cross the ocean of suffering, you must take the ship with no bottom”.
Don’t avoid it, drown in it.
:clap:
That was me sharing my experience. The grass is always greener on the other side. Amida is suffering with the desire to have a wife and child and I am suffering with the having a wife and child.
Different polar situations; same suffering! There's got to be something 'Buddhist' about that.
I'm sorry to hear things aren't going well for you. Everything that happens to you is a lesson. Good luck!
Warning; A little venting... nothing personal, just something that set my fingers a-twitching to say...
This comment is not aimed at you, seeker242, but about the ideas and instructions put forth in your copied writings re the section on Happiness (Sukha),
If there is anything that deeply and profoundly 'puts me off' about Buddhism, it's exactly that kind of rhetoric in which we humans are supposed to resist/deny/suppress our very humanity and all its natural emotions and psychological needs for human companionship, care-taking of others, and love, in order to be "good" Buddhists. (on the same order as monks, or not)
Actually, it more than puts me off; on some level, deep down, it grates my last nerve really, because it seems (to me) to go against so many of the most cherished attributes touted as a 'good Buddhist life' - selflessness, kindness, compassion, love, connectedness to all life around us, etc etc.
To me, to imply, no- to preach that to be separate, celibate, detached from human love or the responsibilities of caring for others/family, to deny our deeply engrained psychological need for that contact and intimate level of human interaction (you know, because it's always a "bad thing") is the only true path to becoming enlightened, or even just a 'devout Buddhist' -- well.... I just gotta call BS on that.
Many Buddhists agonize over the death of insects, or animals we/some of us eat for food and yet we are asked to dismiss -out of hand- the selfishness and self-indulgence we embrace when we refuse taking part in anything outside ourselves /our religion - only for the delusion that it makes us better Buddhists overall.
That is dogma, religious dogma.
And there is something deep down inside of me that tells me this was not the true intent of the Buddha, (at least not for lay-Buddhists) but instead evolved through the interpretations of those who recorded/translated/recited his teachings.
You know, kind of like the way the Bible/Gospels were written long after Jesus came and went, and have been edited, expounded, changed, reinterpreted and translated over the centuries; to reflect the times, biases and the mindset of those doing the editing...
And call me cynical, but there is also the chance that these unreasonable and most importantly unnatural hurdles to jump are specifically set up as a means to put a wedge between those who MIGHT attain enlightenment and those who most certainly (they claim) never will.
All religions use that wedge; all to hold to their own systematic elitism.
This is one of the biggest reasons I prefer my 'secular' Buddhism over religious Buddhism.
Because the religious dogma (of all religions, not just Buddhism!) is just so much..... contradictory BS.
OK, there you have it. My honest truest feelings about an aspect of Buddhism that always sets me off. But like I said, it's not just Buddhism alone- it's all 'religious' rules that contradict themselves - and our most primal nature, time and time again.
No offense to anyone, honest. I just feel better sorting that jumble of thoughts and feelings reeling around in my head, and getting it out. Thanks.
Peace.
I think for monastics, there is something to be said, at least in part, for rejecting the things daily life has to offer. Listening to my teacher talk this weekend, it seemed apparent *to me* that he could not do what he does, if he lived in the same world I live in. But at the same time, he cannot truly understand my challenges not having lived any of them.
However, for lay people, I think avoiding everything that is our very human nature, is not a good thing for most people. Being hermits, renouncing everything in the world (it's tempting to me sometimes, lol, but not realistic), rejecting affection and normal human attachment, is just not good for human beings. Being social is part of our makeup. Look what happened in all the studies where affection was removed from various animals. They suffer in their growth in all areas. We cannot be healthy without it. That doesn't mean you have to get married and have children, of course, but a person is craving affection/attention because that is what people do and we're not meant to live without it. Even monks do not, they just don't experience it the same as we do.
The point is not to never love another person. The point is to experience so deep a love (that IMO most people can only experience via a deep adult relationship and in a different way, having children) that you can then begin to learn how to expand that huge amount of love, kindness and compassion, to everyone. Not just your spouse, your children, your family, but to everyone. You don't stop loving people, or avoid loving them. You start loving everyone more like you love those closest to you.
You can definitely do either (celibacy, or family life) and remain on the dharma path.
Of course, if you decide on 'Option B', there is the small matter of finding a wife. Although I hear there are websites for that these days.
"The point is not to never love another person. The point is to experience so deep a love (that IMO most people can only experience via a deep adult relationship and in a different way, having children) that you can then begin to learn how to expand that huge amount of love, kindness and compassion, to everyone. Not just your spouse, your children, your family, but to everyone. You don't stop loving people, or avoid loving them. You start loving everyone more like you love those closest to you. "
Wow... That's beautiful. Thank you. :thumbup:
I'm 40 and I don't have any kids but I wouldn't mind if I did. I won't regret it if it doesn't happen but if it does, I will still do the best I can to help those around me.
Also, get Shantideva's The Bodhisattva Way Of Life. It has a section on how to deal with such cravings.
Yes, it is religious dogma, for monks! Monks don't have a problem with dogma. They follow it voluntarily. "At least not for lay-Buddhists." Yes, this is correct! This is why this thread has nothing whatsoever to do with layperson teaching. NONE of what I said, in this context, applied to laypersons! The Buddha never did that. That can be considered unreasonable for laypersons who do not wish to be celibate. They are not unreasonable to people who do want this and that is the only people they are directed towards. And this preference is precisely why my comments do not apply to you, but only to someone who wants to be celibate. You do not want to be celibate. This is why a normal layperson life is more appropriate for you. However, none of the Buddhas teaching are contradictory. Some were for laypersons and some were for monks, who willingly followed "dogma". They are different teachings. The section I posted above is not for you! Or anyone else who does not wish to remain celibate. Which seems pretty much like everyone here, except the OP. Which is why I was talking only to Amida, and not to any of you. If your name is not Amida, then you can ignore my previous comments. They are not for you! You don't like monks teachings, you don't like dogma, that is fine. However, they are appropriate teachings for someone who does like it. Which is why the Buddha taught this to his monks. Once it is realized that, as a layperson, it's ok to flat out ignore some of the Buddha's teachings, and doing so is appropriate, then these teachings will no longer be bothersome. They are only for people who want to live that way. They are only for people who want to follow "dogma" and have no issue doing so. It's not appropriate for a layperson to follow ALL of the Buddha's teachings.
This thread turned into a challenging by laypeople, of Amida's decision to be celibate, and almost totally ignored his actual question.
Neither did I sense anyone else who agreed with me and/or added their own perspective to mine was 'challenging' others.
My comments were about the specific teachings chosen (to answer the OP) and how I feel about them.
As for the usual divisive
nonsensewedge about living the "monastic life" vs the plain ol' lesser beings (laypersons) life; well... if the OP is not wearing the robes, living a secluded life amongst other monks, devoting all his time, study, energy and focus to meditation and the Buddhist path, but instead, is going to work every day, lives in a regular neighborhood, drives a car or rides a bike, pays his bills, engages with co-workers, friends & family (if he has any) what makes his life style so -- monastic? Simply the choice of being celibate? Really? I didn't know that's all it took to be considered monastic.As for ignoring the original question- I don't feel I did that. I may approach things differently than you do @seeker24 or @JamestheGiant, but my first response to the OP very much addressed the issue he raised... which was how to deal with this relatively new surge of desires and cravings to stray from celibacy.
I merely suggested to start at the source of his suffering and re-evaluate the attachment to remaining celibate in the first place.
What bothers (or challenges) you more, my advice to Amida, or the fact that apparently I practice a form of Buddhism you don't approve of, nor respect?