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.
Sexual predators, serial killers, and true Buddhists are worlds apart in terms of how they contemplate the body. I'd suggest a thorough reading of the Pali Canon if you doubt that the Buddha taught to view the body as it is, not as a "Self".
I don't doubt that he taught it. I do not follow the Pali because I am not Therevedan, but I have read it. But Buddha also said to investigate everything and determine if it is true for you not just because he said it. And if you choose to view the human body (minus the self) as a heap of flesh, then that is your choice and your perception. I choose to view it differently. I can still see it as a form of skin, bones, muscles, blood and everything else without reducing it to a "heap of flesh" and finding it reprehensible. I can still detach from my body or delight in others bodies, without having to see it the way you see it, or even the way Buddha sees it.
I'm taking a biology course right now (to make up for what I didn't do back in high school), and learning about the human body in so much detail makes me realize how gross we are! :eek:
I was always taught to compare the body to a lotus. At one point a lotus blooms and is lovely, but later it grows old, wilts, and dies. Almost the same with the body. I think going further than that is counterproductive.
Following the Pali isn't a matter of being Theravadin or not- the different schools of buddhism build on each other, they aren't mutually exclusive. To ignore the Pali is like denying the basics of the Buddha's teaching. Teachers of the Mahayana and Vajrayana will explain this the same way.
The question that was asked was how to go about becoming celibate, and I answered in line with what the Buddha taught. If anyone wants to contest it, they should find the Buddha and debate his techniques with him. : )
I love anatomy, and I find the human body (and other bodies too) fascinating, the way it all works together and how intricate the parts and processes are. When I had an MRI on my knee a couple months ago, the doctor gave me pictures to keep and it was so awesome to look at them. Kind of gross, yes, lol, but fascinating. I wish I had been so interested in it when I was still deciding on college.
It's not a sad view of life- it's a realistic one. You aren't viewing your fellow humans as repulsive, either. If you're calling this a sad view of life, you're kind of going against the Buddha's teaching. He specifically recommended contemplating the repulsiveness of the body to counteract lust.
There is a story that many monks committed suicide after doing this.
And the Buddha realized -after the point of almost starving himself to death and physically punishing his body to the extreme- that there was a "middle way" and knew that the body was to be cherished and cared for.... not viewed as some "lump of flesh" with no value at all.
I'm not buying your justification, Awakening. Celibacy is (IMO) a huge attachment into self-centeredness and selfishness... all in the name of being a better [insert your religious identity here] .
Celibacy is (IMO) a huge attachment into self-centeredness and selfishness... all in the name of being a better [insert your religious identity here] .
Sorry, I don't see how choosing to not engage in sexual activity is selfish.
Celibacy is (IMO) a huge attachment into self-centeredness and selfishness... all in the name of being a better [insert your religious identity here] .
Sorry, I don't see how choosing to not engage in sexual activity is selfish.
I also don't see how- it almost seems like the opposite to me, whether it be the mundane or the supramundane noble path.
Sexual predators, serial killers, and true Buddhists are worlds apart in terms of how they contemplate the body. I'd suggest a thorough reading of the Pali Canon if you doubt that the Buddha taught to view the body as it is, not as a "Self".
Aaah... there it is. That phrase.... "True Buddhists".
Gotcha now. Fundamentalism at work. True Buddhists, indeed. No sense continuing any discussion along this road...
I think like anything, it can be selfish, or it might not. But I think a person should investigate why they feel the need to force themselves into something they have not come upon naturally. As with the OP, it is something he *wants* to do but doesn't know how to do it. To me, that comes across as someone who is not ready to understand celibacy, and if they do it for the wrong reasons, will likely fail at it.
I know what @MaryAnne is saying about the selfish aspect, but I can't find the words to explain it so I won't try, lol.
Sexual predators, serial killers, and true Buddhists are worlds apart in terms of how they contemplate the body. I'd suggest a thorough reading of the Pali Canon if you doubt that the Buddha taught to view the body as it is, not as a "Self".
Aaah... there it is. That phrase.... "True Buddhists".
Gotcha now. Fundamentalism at work. True Buddhists, indeed. No sense continuing any discussion along this road...
I think, once again, you're assuming what I don't assume. By true buddhists I simply mean those who practice the path, as opposed to those who speculate about buddhism. Buddhism is a path of practice, not one of gab.
Sexual predators, serial killers, and true Buddhists are worlds apart in terms of how they contemplate the body. I'd suggest a thorough reading of the Pali Canon if you doubt that the Buddha taught to view the body as it is, not as a "Self".
Aaah... there it is. That phrase.... "True Buddhists".
Gotcha now. Fundamentalism at work. True Buddhists, indeed. No sense continuing any discussion along this road...
Arrogance, by the way, is not seen as part of the path of practice.
I originally said: " Celibacy is (IMO) a huge attachment into self-centeredness and selfishness... all in the name of being a better [insert your religious identity here] . "
change that to:
" Celibacy is (IMO) very often a huge attachment into self-centeredness and selfishness... all in the name of being a better [insert your religious identity here] . "
I usually try to stay away from arguing or opining in absolutes. That one slipped by me.
Sexual predators, serial killers, and true Buddhists are worlds apart in terms of how they contemplate the body. I'd suggest a thorough reading of the Pali Canon if you doubt that the Buddha taught to view the body as it is, not as a "Self".
Aaah... there it is. That phrase.... "True Buddhists".
Gotcha now. Fundamentalism at work. True Buddhists, indeed. No sense continuing any discussion along this road...
Yikes, I missed that "true Buddhists" the first time around.
Sexual predators, serial killers, and true Buddhists are worlds apart in terms of how they contemplate the body. I'd suggest a thorough reading of the Pali Canon if you doubt that the Buddha taught to view the body as it is, not as a "Self".
Aaah... there it is. That phrase.... "True Buddhists".
Gotcha now. Fundamentalism at work. True Buddhists, indeed. No sense continuing any discussion along this road...
Yikes, I missed that "true Buddhists" the first time around.
:thumbdown:
Well I can see that you two apparently don't believe in any difference between someone practicing buddhism and someone speculating on it. I guess if I check out a Bible, that makes me a practicing Christian?
The Buddha was wise for his times but his ideas on women, social order, cosmology and nutrition are dated. The Dharmakāya is nothing to lust over as anything but a pile of bones . . .
And the Buddha realized -after the point of almost starving himself to death and physically punishing his body to the extreme- that there was a "middle way" and knew that the body was to be cherished and cared for.... not viewed as some "lump of flesh" with no value at all.
I'm not buying your justification, Awakening. Celibacy is (IMO) a huge attachment into self-centeredness and selfishness... all in the name of being a better [insert your religious identity here] .
Cherished is a strong word. The Buddha actually said that the body is to be cared for the way a wound would be cared for, not cherished. The Buddha's two extremes were self mortification and sensual indulgence, both called ignoble. Check your Pali Canon. If you don't want to follow the Buddha's way, take it up with him, not with me. I'm only referencing what he taught, not what I wish he would have taught.
I'm reminded of a story of Ajahn Chah. Some people asked him something about sex. He said sex is a vile and disgusting act! Then he picked his nose and stuck his finger in the air and said, it's like that!
No, you're thinking of Christianity. For Buddhists, the third precept just tells us to abstain from Sexual Misconduct. Eg: That's things like rape, or having sex which will harm ourselves or others, etc. So sex outside marriage is fine, as long as it's not harmful to anyone.
Ah, no, Lobster had mentioned Judaism, and that's what I was talking about. Not Buddhism. My apologies if that was unclear!
@Awakening But again, remember, that the Pali Canon is mostly utilized by Thervedans. Not that it should be disregarded by everyone else, but it is not the Buddhist Bible to all of us the way it is to Therevadans. Like I said, I have read it, but it is not a text that is a guiding text for me. You seem to be saying that for someone to truly practice the path of Buddhism they need to read and practice all that is said in the Pali Canon, and that is just not true.
0
BhanteLuckyAlternative lifestyle person in the South Island of New ZealandNew ZealandVeteran
I originally said: " Celibacy is (IMO) a huge attachment into self-centeredness and selfishness... all in the name of being a better [insert your religious identity here] . "
change that to:
" Celibacy is (IMO) very often a huge attachment into self-centeredness and selfishness... all in the name of being a better [insert your religious identity here] . "
I usually try to stay away from arguing or opining in absolutes. That one slipped by me.
Sorry @MaryAnne. I still don't quite see how it's selfish. I can sort of see that if you force celibacy onto yourself in a conscious effort to attempt to be a more "pure" practitioner of a religion, then it's a bit egotistical. But I don't think that's necessarily "selfish" or "self-centred."
I still think that saying "very often" is a very big assumption on your part. I'm curious - what makes you come to that conclusion?
When I was about 18 I tried because I read some books. That was the most stupid and futile thing I had ever done.
Please don't. You'll fail in the end and will have one heck of a guilt trip before you do. Learn to accept your sexuality and express it in a healthy manner. Seek professional help if it is a challenge for you. And disengage yourself from those individuals that tell you to "abstain from all sex". They are seriously and dangerously sick.
hey no fair, I've said what Awakening said in other threads and that didn't explode a topic 20+ new posts hahaha.
Awakening is 100% right this is directly from the teachings of the Buddha to contemplate the 32 parts of the body and to see the body as a heap of flesh.
This is not mean't to create hatred or negative thoughts in any way, but to see the body for what it truly is. I recently found an artist who uses people to create paintings/tattoos of what is under the persons skin.
[In this body there is:] hair of the head, hair of the body, nails, teeth, skin, muscle, tendons, bones, bone marrow, spleen, heart, liver, membranes, kidneys, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, gorge, feces, gall, phlegm, lymph, blood, sweat, fat, tears, oil, saliva, mucus, oil in the joints urine, brain.
"Now this body that has material form consists of the four great elements, it is procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled rice and bread, it has the nature of impermanence, of being worn and rubbed away, of dissolution and disintegration. It must be regarded —
as impermanent — as (liable to) suffering, as a disease — as a cancer, as a dart — as a calamity, as an affliction — as alien, as a falling to pieces — as void, as without a self. "When a man regards it thus, he abandons his desire for the body, affection for the body, and his habit of treating the body as a basis for his inferences."[1]
you want to have sex with a pile of the above held together by a sack of skin ?:P
Yep, I do, I wouldn't currently give it up easily. If at some point I find my practice takes me there, well, then I might find myself divorced, lol. Probably not, actually, sex isn't a big part of our marriage, but it is part of it and I have no intent on giving it up.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it dangerous or those who practice celibacy sick and dangerous. Not everyone has the same primal needs, and if celibacy truly works for some, then terrific. I don't think it works for most in the way that we usually think. I don't think it's as easy in a lay person's life to make the decision to not only not have sex, but to not be influenced by it at all. If they want to try, then hey, it's not on me to tell them not to. But I still think if they don't have a clue how to go about it, what the downfalls and challenges might be etc, then they probably aren't ready to take on a promise like that. I can't imagine saying "no way, I don't want to do that, not ever, not for my entire life" to something you don't even really understand. At least not for something that is so built into our biology.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it dangerous or those who practice celibacy sick and dangerous.
Good points. I did not mean to say that the celibate are sick and dangerous. I called that those who tell others to be celibate. Especially young people which I suspect OP is.
Yep, I do, I wouldn't currently give it up easily. If at some point I find my practice takes me there, well, then I might find myself divorced, lol. Probably not, actually, sex isn't a big part of our marriage, but it is part of it and I have no intent on giving it up.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it dangerous or those who practice celibacy sick and dangerous. Not everyone has the same primal needs, and if celibacy truly works for some, then terrific. I don't think it works for most in the way that we usually think. I don't think it's as easy in a lay person's life to make the decision to not only not have sex, but to not be influenced by it at all. If they want to try, then hey, it's not on me to tell them not to. But I still think if they don't have a clue how to go about it, what the downfalls and challenges might be etc, then they probably aren't ready to take on a promise like that. I can't imagine saying "no way, I don't want to do that, not ever, not for my entire life" to something you don't even really understand. At least not for something that is so built into our biology.
as I said in my original post in this topic, celibacy comes naturally with practice.. otherwise it is silly to try and force it on yourself, or others, vows are meant to be broken because they are forces of will, not natural dispassion.
Yep, I do, I wouldn't currently give it up easily. If at some point I find my practice takes me there, well, then I might find myself divorced, lol. Probably not, actually, sex isn't a big part of our marriage, but it is part of it and I have no intent on giving it up.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it dangerous or those who practice celibacy sick and dangerous. Not everyone has the same primal needs, and if celibacy truly works for some, then terrific. I don't think it works for most in the way that we usually think. I don't think it's as easy in a lay person's life to make the decision to not only not have sex, but to not be influenced by it at all. If they want to try, then hey, it's not on me to tell them not to. But I still think if they don't have a clue how to go about it, what the downfalls and challenges might be etc, then they probably aren't ready to take on a promise like that. I can't imagine saying "no way, I don't want to do that, not ever, not for my entire life" to something you don't even really understand. At least not for something that is so built into our biology.
as I said in my original post in this topic, celibacy comes naturally with practice.. otherwise it is silly to try and force it on yourself, or others, vows are meant to be broken because they are forces of will, not natural dispassion.
I think celibacy comes naturally if you are practicing celibacy. Is that what you mean? Practicing meditation, concentration, insight, does not eventually lead to celibacy for everyone. It depends on your situation of course. Celibacy makes sense for a single person at some point. For someone whose path is in relationship, it is not a necessary or desirable outcome of practice.
If for a minute you consider sex with someone you love, the body doesn't even come in to it. It's the person you want to share the experience with and not the body. It's the mental connection as well as the physical. I can't see how anyone who is in a loving relationship or who has experienced a loving relationship could consider celibacy. And if you seek celibacy because of your experience of relationships or the pain in searching for love then you deny yourself the joy of what you will later discover.
you want to have sex with a pile of the above held together by a sack of skin ?
It is the best form of celibacy I know of. Sado masochistic full lotus sitting, yep it releases sexually similar body highs, is not celibacy. Taking sensual delight in dharma, practice and teachers metta is not celibacy. Celibacy is a natural inclination of advanced beings such as the Buddha, who only screwed with the closed minds of his contemporaries. She was such a tease . . .
Inappropriate sexual activity was rife in the Buddhas sangha as he developed it. Monks having sex with each other when this may not have been their inclination, sex with defenceless trees etc. Men no matter how refined are, how can I put this kindly - hormonal.
Catholics have sex outside marriage and feel guilty, Jews feel guilty whatever they do, so why worry if married.
As far as I am concerned, the Middle Way should involve a threesome. Healthy mind, body and spirit.
Yep, I do, I wouldn't currently give it up easily. If at some point I find my practice takes me there, well, then I might find myself divorced, lol. Probably not, actually, sex isn't a big part of our marriage, but it is part of it and I have no intent on giving it up.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it dangerous or those who practice celibacy sick and dangerous. Not everyone has the same primal needs, and if celibacy truly works for some, then terrific. I don't think it works for most in the way that we usually think. I don't think it's as easy in a lay person's life to make the decision to not only not have sex, but to not be influenced by it at all. If they want to try, then hey, it's not on me to tell them not to. But I still think if they don't have a clue how to go about it, what the downfalls and challenges might be etc, then they probably aren't ready to take on a promise like that. I can't imagine saying "no way, I don't want to do that, not ever, not for my entire life" to something you don't even really understand. At least not for something that is so built into our biology.
as I said in my original post in this topic, celibacy comes naturally with practice.. otherwise it is silly to try and force it on yourself, or others, vows are meant to be broken because they are forces of will, not natural dispassion.
I think celibacy comes naturally if you are practicing celibacy. Is that what you mean? Practicing meditation, concentration, insight, does not eventually lead to celibacy for everyone. It depends on your situation of course. Celibacy makes sense for a single person at some point. For someone whose path is in relationship, it is not a necessary or desirable outcome of practice.
eh.. not so much.. the Buddha doesn't talk about the ending of all craving except sex ... he talks about the ending of all craving and the attainment of the deathless. Now how far someone wants to go down that road.. THAT is definitely up to them.
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Gaya, at Gaya Head, with 1,000 monks. There he addressed the monks:
"Monks, the All is aflame. What All is aflame? The eye is aflame. Forms are aflame. Consciousness at the eye is aflame. Contact at the eye is aflame. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too is aflame. Aflame with what? Aflame with the fire of passion, the fire of aversion, the fire of delusion. Aflame, I tell you, with birth, aging & death, with sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs.
"The ear is aflame. Sounds are aflame...
"The nose is aflame. Aromas are aflame...
"The tongue is aflame. Flavors are aflame...
"The body is aflame. Tactile sensations are aflame...
"The intellect is aflame. Ideas are aflame. Consciousness at the intellect is aflame. Contact at the intellect is aflame. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too is aflame. Aflame with what? Aflame with the fire of passion, the fire of aversion, the fire of delusion. Aflame, I say, with birth, aging & death, with sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs.
"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with the eye, disenchanted with forms, disenchanted with consciousness at the eye, disenchanted with contact at the eye. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye, experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain: With that, too, he grows disenchanted.
"He grows disenchanted with the ear...
"He grows disenchanted with the nose...
"He grows disenchanted with the tongue...
"He grows disenchanted with the body...
"He grows disenchanted with the intellect, disenchanted with ideas, disenchanted with consciousness at the intellect, disenchanted with contact at the intellect. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect, experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain: He grows disenchanted with that too. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"
That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted at his words. And while this explanation was being given, the hearts of the 1,000 monks, through no clinging (not being sustained), were fully released from fermentation/effluents.
If for a minute you consider sex with someone you love, the body doesn't even come in to it. It's the person you want to share the experience with and not the body. It's the mental connection as well as the physical. I can't see how anyone who is in a loving relationship or who has experienced a loving relationship could consider celibacy. And if you seek celibacy because of your experience of relationships or the pain in searching for love then you deny yourself the joy of what you will later discover.
According to the teachings, this someone you love is nothing but conditions that have come together to which you, also being a set of conditions and causes, have grown an attachment to. The whole " someone we love" thing is part of the layers and layers of delusion we create with the ego. Now there is nothing necessarily wrong with it.. but if you are trying to escape delusion then it the layers will begin to peel off one by one as you begin to see the reality behind the illusion.
(to Awakening) "... You seem to be saying that for someone to truly practice the path of Buddhism they need to read and practice all that is said in the Pali Canon...."
That is exactly what is being implied, quite clearly. Buddhist bible thumping.
According to the teachings, this someone you love is nothing but conditions that have come together to which you, also being a set of conditions and causes, have grown an attachment to. The whole " someone we love" thing is part of the layers and layers of delusion we create with the ego. Now there is nothing necessarily wrong with it.. but if you are trying to escape delusion then it the layers will begin to peel off one by one as you begin to see the reality behind the illusion.
Thankfully we can see that the reality and the illusion are inseparable. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Before I had studied Chan (Zen) for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and rivers as rivers. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and rivers are not rivers. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and rivers once again as rivers.- D.T. Suzuki
0
BhanteLuckyAlternative lifestyle person in the South Island of New ZealandNew ZealandVeteran
Here's my 2c on the Contemplation On The Repulsiveness Of The Body meditation:
If someone is already celibate, and they need some way to reduce the lust and craving, then the contemplation of repulsiveness is a great way to reduce the craving. I've been there, done that.
It's a tool, just a tool, and it can be picked up and put down once it has served its purpose. You don't need to practise it, it is not compulsory, it's just a useful tool.
The desire for sex is a perfectly normal human desire. The problem with perfectly normal human desires is that perusing them ultimately will only end in suffering. That is why humans are said to be stuck in "endless rounds" of samsara, because they will not stop perusing the normal human desires. The abandonment of normal human desires equals freedom from suffering.
To completely leave behind normal human desires is the end goal of what the Buddha taught. Seems odd when other people try to dissuade others to not try to make progress towards the end goal of Buddhism.
Of course it's inappropriate to tell people they should be celibate when they don't wish to be. But if that's inappropriate, then it should follow that it's equally inappropriate to try to tell people they should not be celibate, when they do wish to be.
When someone (anyone) makes a (any sort of) life-changing decision and proclamation, there will always be some who just shrug and say "Yea, that's cool..." and there will always be some who respond with "Why?" I tend to fall into that latter category.
Sometimes the answer to that Why? is pretty evident; as in the case of someone with an obvious drinking problem proclaiming they are giving up alcohol. Not hard to figure out the why of it, right?
When someone is asking about the possibility of undertaking a life-altering change of belief or practice, it's also normal for others to ask Why? What made you decide to try that? etc. If they are asking others - in a community forum- for input on this potentially life changing endeavor, then obviously they need to be prepared for varying degrees of support- as well as challenges to their plan and motivation.
People are fascinating creatures; at least I think so. We do so many good things - for stupid reasons, and so many stupid things for good reasons.
I have seen too much damage to young girls, young guys, gay and straight men and women in general- as the result of religious sexual oppression and the suppression of natural sexual desires and expression by way of vilifying the act of sex and the gender target of their desires; convincing them it is not natural, or that to indulge is sinful or weak...
I can't help myself - when I hear a young person proclaiming (or considering) the 'need' to be celibate, to shun relationships, to avoid "temptations" of the flesh - in order to be a better Buddhist, better Christian, better Muslim, (or whatever), well, it just makes me cringe. Are we supposed to encourage the thought that we ALL should live like 'clergy' - be it a Buddhist monk or a Catholic priest - celibate, separate, 'above' all the trappings of mundane life, love, relationships, raising children? Really? What would become of our species if this "ideal" was reached?
I think sometimes some Buddhists forget that most of Buddha's words and teachings were specifically directed towards those who were to be MONKS, not lay people. There can not be a humanity filled only with monks. There would BE no humanity with only monks.
I regret having posted my last post above. Not because I don't still believe what I've said in it, but because I realized it just didn't need to be said, as it will change nothing.
I had a computer glitch immediately after posting it, and was without internet for a bit, so I could not get back in time to edit or delete it myself.
I am bowing out of the conversation at this point.... (listens to the crowd cheer)
I could never be serious enough about Buddhism to give up sex. I'm in a loving monogamous relationship; it's not causing me any problems; it strengthens the bond I have with my partner. And I enjoy it.
I am, however serious about practising compassion - I give up a lot of my spare time and often find it inconvenient too, but I still do it - and my meditation practise is getting more serious too. Bang on top of that an ethical life (as I understand it and as best I can) and I think I'm covering the best part of the 8fold path.
I admit, I'm not a true Buddhist though.
2
BhanteLuckyAlternative lifestyle person in the South Island of New ZealandNew ZealandVeteran
I think sometimes some Buddhists forget that most of Buddha's words and teachings were specifically directed towards those who were to be MONKS, not lay people.
That's a really good point @MaryAnne, a lot of people don't realise that, and instead try to apply the monastic teaching to everyday life. And as a result the teachings don't fit, don't sit right, and seem ridiculous.
The Buddha mostly taught monks and laypeople separately, he didn't mix the teachings too much. I guess today, with easy access to the suttas, and many teachers interpreting them for us, the target audience has gotten confused. Celibacy is a clear example of this. I don't know of any passages where he preaches celibacy to regular city or village folk.
I know @MaryAnne's supposedly out of this conversation, but I think her big post above is a bit of a strawman.
Although there are indeed many Buddhists (both monastic and lay) that believe celibacy is ideal, I don't think anyone is actually saying that an individual is not a "true" Buddhist until they practice celibacy. Especially not in this thread. Hell, not even all monastics practice celibacy as part of their vows.
I don't see why this topic has to be turned into some sort of crusade, as if someone was suggesting that it would be mandatory for all Buddhists to be celibate.
According to the teachings, this someone you love is nothing but conditions that have come together to which you, also being a set of conditions and causes, have grown an attachment to. The whole " someone we love" thing is part of the layers and layers of delusion we create with the ego. Now there is nothing necessarily wrong with it.. but if you are trying to escape delusion then it the layers will begin to peel off one by one as you begin to see the reality behind the illusion.
But here's the thing: you AREN'T seeing the reality of the body as it really is. "Repulsiveness" is a value judgment stemming out of the disgust response, conditioned into our biology to protect us from disease or illness. It's just as much a manifestation of illusion as romance. Regarding the body as a "skin sack with entrails inside" is as much of a mind-game as regarding it as beautiful or attractive.
Here is an alternative mind-game: In my 20s, I went back to university for a second career in a medical field. I had to take a year of gross anatomy/physiology and several units of anatomy of individual systems. Those classes BLEW. MY. MIND!!! The fact that matter could arrange itself into such complex, nuanced, and elegant system as the human body was astounding. And that such systems would eventually evolve consciousness as a macro-level emergent property was beyond comprehension, quite literally. Not even a team of our most brilliant biologists, physicists, chemists, engineers, software programmers, et al. could ever assemble a machine of such staggering complexity. Yes, it is simply causes and conditions... but causes and conditions organized into such a superstructure of evolutionary efficiency, it is easy to understand why some people believe in a creator god.
One of the anatomy units I took was an entire semester on the human eye and ear. You could not imagine all the tiny microscopic structures, all the disparate biochemical mechanisms (membranes, plasma, chemical sheaths and various proteins), and the mind-boggling level of mechanical, chemical, and electrical coordination that gives us the ability to see and hear. There is a LOT going on in between your two pinna. The structure of a single cochlea in your inner ear is insanely complex; it took us two weeks to cover just that.
And this is all the more stupefying and humbling if you are a physicalist, if you don't believe in a God or a soul or atman. That, through billions of years of natural selection, the matter thrust out of the Big Bang eventually organized itself into the form of us. And that we evolved, not only as structures, but the ability to be conscious of ourselves and the world around us. And, more than that, that we evolved the ability to think, to plan, to remember, to predict. And, beyond that, to empathize, to care for others, to care about and wonder at our place in the universe.
^THAT is every bit as "real" as the Buddha's rhetoric of the body. To think that repulsion of the body is any more realistic or representative of what is going on than the sheer wonderment of an anatomist, or astronomer, or a poet... that I find someone shortsighted.
I don't know of any passages where he preaches celibacy to regular city or village folk.
I don't know of any either. Although he preached the eradication of desire and craving being the cause of dukkha to everyone, not just monks, which is really where the Celibacy thing comes from.
According to the teachings, this someone you love is nothing but conditions that have come together to which you, also being a set of conditions and causes, have grown an attachment to. The whole " someone we love" thing is part of the layers and layers of delusion we create with the ego. Now there is nothing necessarily wrong with it.. but if you are trying to escape delusion then it the layers will begin to peel off one by one as you begin to see the reality behind the illusion.
But here's the thing: you AREN'T seeing the reality of the body as it really is. "Repulsiveness" is a value judgment stemming out of the disgust response conditioned into our biology. It's just as much a manifestation of the illusion as passion. Regarding the body as a "skin sack with entrails inside" is just as much of a mind-game as regarding the body as beautiful or attractive.
Here is an alternative mind-game: In my 20s, I went back to university for a second career in a medical field. I had to take a year of gross anatomy/physiology and several units of anatomy of individual systems. Those classes BLEW. MY. MIND!!! The fact that matter could arrange itself into such complex, nuanced, and elegant system as the human body was astounding. And that such systems would eventually evolve consciousness as a macro-level emergent property was beyond comprehension, quite literally. Not even a team of our most brilliant biologists, physicists, chemists, engineers, software programmers, et al. could ever assemble a machine of such staggering complexity. Yes, it is simply causes and conditions... but causes and conditions organized into such a superstructure of evolutionary prowess, it is easy to understand why some people believe in a creator deity.
One of the anatomy units I took was an entire semester on the human eye and ear. You could not imagine all the tiny microscopic structures, all the disparate biochemical mechanisms (membranes, plasma, chemical sheaths and various proteins), and the mind-boggling level of mechanical, chemical, and electrical coordination that gives us the ability to see and hear. There is a LOT going on in between your two pinna. The structure of a single cochlea in your inner ear is insanely complex.
And this is all the more stupefying and humbling if you are a physicalist, if you don't believe in a God or a soul or atman. That, through billions of years of natural selection, the matter thrust out of the Big Bang eventually organized itself into the form of us. And that we evolved, not only as structures, but the ability to be conscious of ourselves and the world around us. And, more than that, that we evolved the ability to think, to plan, to remember, to predict. And, beyond that, to empathize, to care for others, to care about and wonder at our place in the universe.
^THAT is every bit as "real" as the Buddha's rhetoric of the body. To think that repulsion of the body is any more realistic or representative of what is going on than the sheer wonderment of an anatomist, or astronomer, or a poet... that I find someone shortsighted.
I struggle to see where I (or the suttas) ever said the word repulsiveness.. that is aversion, the opposite of the attachment and craving for the body and still delusion..
seeing the body as it truly is is meant to do exactly what the fire sutta says - for you to become " disenchanted".. You see the body as a biological machine made up of the elements, and all the attachment and aversion you had of it disappears.
Comments
The question that was asked was how to go about becoming celibate, and I answered in line with what the Buddha taught. If anyone wants to contest it, they should find the Buddha and debate his techniques with him. : )
I'm not buying your justification, Awakening. Celibacy is (IMO) a huge attachment into self-centeredness and selfishness... all in the name of being a better [insert your religious identity here] .
Aaah... there it is. That phrase.... "True Buddhists".
Gotcha now. Fundamentalism at work. True Buddhists, indeed.
No sense continuing any discussion along this road...
I know what @MaryAnne is saying about the selfish aspect, but I can't find the words to explain it so I won't try, lol.
I originally said:
" Celibacy is (IMO) a huge attachment into self-centeredness and selfishness... all in the name of being a better [insert your religious identity here] . "
change that to:
" Celibacy is (IMO) very often a huge attachment into self-centeredness and selfishness... all in the name of being a better [insert your religious identity here] . "
I usually try to stay away from arguing or opining in absolutes. That one slipped by me.
:thumbdown:
The Buddha was wise for his times but his ideas on women, social order, cosmology and nutrition are dated. The Dharmakāya is nothing to lust over as anything but a pile of bones . . .
I still think that saying "very often" is a very big assumption on your part. I'm curious - what makes you come to that conclusion?
When I was about 18 I tried because I read some books. That was the most stupid and futile thing I had ever done.
Please don't. You'll fail in the end and will have one heck of a guilt trip before you do. Learn to accept your sexuality and express it in a healthy manner. Seek professional help if it is a challenge for you. And disengage yourself from those individuals that tell you to "abstain from all sex". They are seriously and dangerously sick.
Awakening is 100% right this is directly from the teachings of the Buddha to contemplate the 32 parts of the body and to see the body as a heap of flesh.
This is not mean't to create hatred or negative thoughts in any way, but to see the body for what it truly is. I recently found an artist who uses people to create paintings/tattoos of what is under the persons skin.
[In this body there is:]
hair of the head,
hair of the body,
nails,
teeth,
skin,
muscle,
tendons,
bones,
bone marrow,
spleen,
heart,
liver,
membranes,
kidneys,
lungs,
large intestines,
small intestines,
gorge,
feces,
gall,
phlegm,
lymph,
blood,
sweat,
fat,
tears,
oil,
saliva,
mucus,
oil in the joints
urine,
brain.
"Now this body that has material form consists of the four great elements, it is procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled rice and bread, it has the nature of impermanence, of being worn and rubbed away, of dissolution and disintegration. It must be regarded —
as impermanent — as (liable to) suffering,
as a disease — as a cancer,
as a dart — as a calamity,
as an affliction — as alien,
as a falling to pieces — as void,
as without a self.
"When a man regards it thus, he abandons his desire for the body, affection for the body, and his habit of treating the body as a basis for his inferences."[1]
you want to have sex with a pile of the above held together by a sack of skin ?:P
you can learn more at this link - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/khantipalo/wheel271.html
"bag of bones" a miscellany of the body"
I wouldn't go so far as to call it dangerous or those who practice celibacy sick and dangerous. Not everyone has the same primal needs, and if celibacy truly works for some, then terrific. I don't think it works for most in the way that we usually think. I don't think it's as easy in a lay person's life to make the decision to not only not have sex, but to not be influenced by it at all. If they want to try, then hey, it's not on me to tell them not to. But I still think if they don't have a clue how to go about it, what the downfalls and challenges might be etc, then they probably aren't ready to take on a promise like that. I can't imagine saying "no way, I don't want to do that, not ever, not for my entire life" to something you don't even really understand. At least not for something that is so built into our biology.
Sado masochistic full lotus sitting, yep it releases sexually similar body highs, is not celibacy. Taking sensual delight in dharma, practice and teachers metta is not celibacy.
Celibacy is a natural inclination of advanced beings such as the Buddha, who only screwed with the closed minds of his contemporaries. She was such a tease . . .
Inappropriate sexual activity was rife in the Buddhas sangha as he developed it. Monks having sex with each other when this may not have been their inclination, sex with defenceless trees etc. Men no matter how refined are, how can I put this kindly - hormonal.
Catholics have sex outside marriage and feel guilty, Jews feel guilty whatever they do, so why worry if married.
As far as I am concerned, the Middle Way should involve a threesome.
Healthy mind, body and spirit.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.028.than.html
Adittapariyaya Sutta: The Fire Sermon
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Gaya, at Gaya Head, with 1,000 monks. There he addressed the monks:
"Monks, the All is aflame. What All is aflame? The eye is aflame. Forms are aflame. Consciousness at the eye is aflame. Contact at the eye is aflame. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too is aflame. Aflame with what? Aflame with the fire of passion, the fire of aversion, the fire of delusion. Aflame, I tell you, with birth, aging & death, with sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs.
"The ear is aflame. Sounds are aflame...
"The nose is aflame. Aromas are aflame...
"The tongue is aflame. Flavors are aflame...
"The body is aflame. Tactile sensations are aflame...
"The intellect is aflame. Ideas are aflame. Consciousness at the intellect is aflame. Contact at the intellect is aflame. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too is aflame. Aflame with what? Aflame with the fire of passion, the fire of aversion, the fire of delusion. Aflame, I say, with birth, aging & death, with sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs.
"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with the eye, disenchanted with forms, disenchanted with consciousness at the eye, disenchanted with contact at the eye. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye, experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain: With that, too, he grows disenchanted.
"He grows disenchanted with the ear...
"He grows disenchanted with the nose...
"He grows disenchanted with the tongue...
"He grows disenchanted with the body...
"He grows disenchanted with the intellect, disenchanted with ideas, disenchanted with consciousness at the intellect, disenchanted with contact at the intellect. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect, experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain: He grows disenchanted with that too. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"
That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted at his words. And while this explanation was being given, the hearts of the 1,000 monks, through no clinging (not being sustained), were fully released from fermentation/effluents.
According to the teachings, this someone you love is nothing but conditions that have come together to which you, also being a set of conditions and causes, have grown an attachment to. The whole " someone we love" thing is part of the layers and layers of delusion we create with the ego. Now there is nothing necessarily wrong with it.. but if you are trying to escape delusion then it the layers will begin to peel off one by one as you begin to see the reality behind the illusion.
(to Awakening) "... You seem to be saying that for someone to truly practice the path of Buddhism they need to read and practice all that is said in the Pali Canon...."
That is exactly what is being implied, quite clearly. Buddhist bible thumping.
No need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Before I had studied Chan (Zen) for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and rivers as rivers. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and rivers are not rivers. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and rivers once again as rivers.- D.T. Suzuki
If someone is already celibate, and they need some way to reduce the lust and craving, then the contemplation of repulsiveness is a great way to reduce the craving.
I've been there, done that.
It's a tool, just a tool, and it can be picked up and put down once it has served its purpose. You don't need to practise it, it is not compulsory, it's just a useful tool.
To completely leave behind normal human desires is the end goal of what the Buddha taught. Seems odd when other people try to dissuade others to not try to make progress towards the end goal of Buddhism.
Of course it's inappropriate to tell people they should be celibate when they don't wish to be. But if that's inappropriate, then it should follow that it's equally inappropriate to try to tell people they should not be celibate, when they do wish to be.
Sometimes the answer to that Why? is pretty evident; as in the case of someone with an obvious drinking problem proclaiming they are giving up alcohol. Not hard to figure out the why of it, right?
When someone is asking about the possibility of undertaking a life-altering change of belief or practice, it's also normal for others to ask Why? What made you decide to try that? etc.
If they are asking others - in a community forum- for input on this potentially life changing endeavor, then obviously they need to be prepared for varying degrees of support- as well as challenges to their plan and motivation.
People are fascinating creatures; at least I think so. We do so many good things - for stupid reasons, and so many stupid things for good reasons.
I have seen too much damage to young girls, young guys, gay and straight men and women in general- as the result of religious sexual oppression and the suppression of natural sexual desires and expression by way of vilifying the act of sex and the gender target of their desires; convincing them it is not natural, or that to indulge is sinful or weak...
I can't help myself - when I hear a young person proclaiming (or considering) the 'need' to be celibate, to shun relationships, to avoid "temptations" of the flesh - in order to be a better Buddhist, better Christian, better Muslim, (or whatever), well, it just makes me cringe.
Are we supposed to encourage the thought that we ALL should live like 'clergy' - be it a Buddhist monk or a Catholic priest - celibate, separate, 'above' all the trappings of mundane life, love, relationships, raising children? Really?
What would become of our species if this "ideal" was reached?
I think sometimes some Buddhists forget that most of Buddha's words and teachings were specifically directed towards those who were to be MONKS, not lay people. There can not be a humanity filled only with monks. There would BE no humanity with only monks.
I had a computer glitch immediately after posting it, and was without internet for a bit, so I could not get back in time to edit or delete it myself.
I am bowing out of the conversation at this point.... (listens to the crowd cheer)
I am, however serious about practising compassion - I give up a lot of my spare time and often find it inconvenient too, but I still do it - and my meditation practise is getting more serious too. Bang on top of that an ethical life (as I understand it and as best I can) and I think I'm covering the best part of the 8fold path.
I admit, I'm not a true Buddhist though.
The Buddha mostly taught monks and laypeople separately, he didn't mix the teachings too much. I guess today, with easy access to the suttas, and many teachers interpreting them for us, the target audience has gotten confused.
Celibacy is a clear example of this. I don't know of any passages where he preaches celibacy to regular city or village folk.
Although there are indeed many Buddhists (both monastic and lay) that believe celibacy is ideal, I don't think anyone is actually saying that an individual is not a "true" Buddhist until they practice celibacy. Especially not in this thread. Hell, not even all monastics practice celibacy as part of their vows.
I don't see why this topic has to be turned into some sort of crusade, as if someone was suggesting that it would be mandatory for all Buddhists to be celibate.
Here is an alternative mind-game:
In my 20s, I went back to university for a second career in a medical field. I had to take a year of gross anatomy/physiology and several units of anatomy of individual systems. Those classes BLEW. MY. MIND!!! The fact that matter could arrange itself into such complex, nuanced, and elegant system as the human body was astounding. And that such systems would eventually evolve consciousness as a macro-level emergent property was beyond comprehension, quite literally. Not even a team of our most brilliant biologists, physicists, chemists, engineers, software programmers, et al. could ever assemble a machine of such staggering complexity. Yes, it is simply causes and conditions... but causes and conditions organized into such a superstructure of evolutionary efficiency, it is easy to understand why some people believe in a creator god.
One of the anatomy units I took was an entire semester on the human eye and ear. You could not imagine all the tiny microscopic structures, all the disparate biochemical mechanisms (membranes, plasma, chemical sheaths and various proteins), and the mind-boggling level of mechanical, chemical, and electrical coordination that gives us the ability to see and hear. There is a LOT going on in between your two pinna. The structure of a single cochlea in your inner ear is insanely complex; it took us two weeks to cover just that.
And this is all the more stupefying and humbling if you are a physicalist, if you don't believe in a God or a soul or atman. That, through billions of years of natural selection, the matter thrust out of the Big Bang eventually organized itself into the form of us. And that we evolved, not only as structures, but the ability to be conscious of ourselves and the world around us. And, more than that, that we evolved the ability to think, to plan, to remember, to predict. And, beyond that, to empathize, to care for others, to care about and wonder at our place in the universe.
^THAT is every bit as "real" as the Buddha's rhetoric of the body. To think that repulsion of the body is any more realistic or representative of what is going on than the sheer wonderment of an anatomist, or astronomer, or a poet... that I find someone shortsighted.
I struggle to see where I (or the suttas) ever said the word repulsiveness.. that is aversion, the opposite of the attachment and craving for the body and still delusion..
seeing the body as it truly is is meant to do exactly what the fire sutta says - for you to become " disenchanted".. You see the body as a biological machine made up of the elements, and all the attachment and aversion you had of it disappears.