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.
@Jayantha Loving someone is not always a delusion. That might be something you can only understand if you have children. But the love a parent feels for a child (especially when you carry that child in your body)is a bond unlike any other that can be formed. And the love small children show easily and unconditionally is not delusional either. Love can be delusional for sure. But it isn't always.
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.
The practice of body contemplation referenced is called in Pali patikulamanasikara, which is usually translated as "the repulsiveness of the body." I vaguely remember translations that do use the word "repulsive" with reference to the body, but I'd have to go through my books and seek it. It's definitely not an uncommon perception of what the Buddha was conveying, as witnessed by the Ajahn Chah anecdote above.
"The body as a biological machine" does not necessarily lead to disenchantment. Dismantling the body into its component parts, emphasizing form over function, concentrating on structural anatomy but ignoring physiology is a path to reductionism that does not really reflect the complexity of the system as a whole. There is no reason why studying the body should necessarily lead one to become disenchanted with sex; it is only when we buy the Buddha's connotation of repulsiveness, in other words superimposing the disgust response (which we naturally will have to things like phlegm, open wounds, feces, etc.) onto what's actually there, that we should come to regard the body as something to be disenchanted from.
I think a study of biology would be just as likely to forge a sense of wonder and amazement as dispassion.
@Jayantha, I feel bad because my previous posts may have seemed like I was attacking you. Sorry about that. I was only using your quote as a jumping-off point to discuss the Buddha's body contemplation, not about your post specifically.
Celibacy may be repulsive as may the under or over sexed. Love is never repulsive unless practiced in such a way . . . Increase in metta . . . as some like to remind us . . .
@Jayantha, I feel bad because my previous posts may have seemed like I was attacking you. Sorry about that. I was only using your quote as a jumping-off point to discuss the Buddha's body contemplation, not about your post specifically.
fear not, I am use to vigorous debate and I don't take or assume it to be personal. and you are right I'm pretty sure I have seen it translated as repulsive before as well.
@Jayantha Loving someone is not always a delusion. That might be something you can only understand if you have children. But the love a parent feels for a child (especially when you carry that child in your body)is a bond unlike any other that can be formed. And the love small children show easily and unconditionally is not delusional either. Love can be delusional for sure. But it isn't always.
the only type of love that is not fraught with Dukkha(and delusion) is metta itself, it is unconditional with a mind of equanimity. Family and romantic love are both filled with dukkha, eventually you will be separated from the person and/or they wont turn out how you wanted them to, etc, this stems from the sense of ego with "the child that I have a bond with"(Ajahn Brahm talks about never seeing the child as part of you or from you, but as a separate being whom you must take care of for a time). Of course that doesn't mean that it's a bad thing or outside the norm(for samsara), but it still stems from delusion, which we are all steeped in until we have seen the four noble truths for ourselves through our own wisdom.
Seems to me that the Buddha's body contemplation on foulness is really just an "expedient means" to bring your mind back to a correct and balanced view of the body, which is that it's neither beautiful or foul, but ultimately neutral. The foulness is not intended to be taken as an absolute truth. The foulness is to counteract the dukkha producing obsession with beauty that people generally have. You could say it's a spectrum of views where on very far left is complete foulness and aversion. On the very far right there is only beauty and attraction. In the very middle is neutrality, where there is neither attraction nor aversion. Most people minds are focused on the right side of the spectrum and hence attraction arises by being more focused on beauty, to the exclusion of foulness. Focusing on the left side of the spectrum is intended to bring your mind back to the middle, not to the far left. Of course if you overdo it, your mind will end up on the left side. But that would be just as incorrect as having your mind on the right side because you would just end up with aversion instead of attraction. The Buddha observed some of him monks doing that and saw their mind going to the left and he told them to stop. The purpose is to bring your mind back to the middle, which is what "the middle way" is all about. Many people mistake foulness contemplation as putting your mind on the left, but it's not about that. It's about bringing it back from the right. That is how it seems to me anyway.
In fact, those people in long term relationships are likely to develop a more realistic view of the body than someone who has not spent many years with a partner. They have seen he depredations of time on themselves and their partner. Have dealt with all the bodily functions that can be ignored by the individual who is single and perhaps only experiences bodies that are prepared for viewing so to speak. A man can go through most of his life without ever seeing a normal woman, aging normally. I know several guys like that. Also, childbirth teaches people about the reality of what bodies are for. So for a celibate monk, the females that he sees are often going to be covered in attractive clothing and scents and his imagination could get the better of him without some guidance.
@Jayantha *shrugs* I don't agree, nor do I believe someone who has never carried a child inside their body can have an accurate opinion of what kind of love it is. There does not have to be pain and suffering attached to loving someone. That is a choice. You do not have to fear losing them or fear them not being who you wish they would be. I love my family. But I am not here to own them or control them. We are all here to guide each other, and my kids are some of my best teachers.
In fact, those people in long term relationships are likely to develop a more realistic view of the body than someone who has not spent many years with a partner. They have seen he depredations of time on themselves and their partner. Have dealt with all the bodily functions that can be ignored by the individual who is single and perhaps only experiences bodies that are prepared for viewing so to speak. A man can go through most of his life without ever seeing a normal woman, aging normally. I know several guys like that. Also, childbirth teaches people about the reality of what bodies are for. So for a celibate monk, the females that he sees are often going to be covered in attractive clothing and scents and his imagination could get the better of him without some guidance.
This reminds me of when I've heard men completely taken aback just seeing a woman without her makeup for the first time, lol.
This reminds me of when I've heard men completely taken aback just seeing a woman without her makeup for the first time, lol.
Which reminds me of the famous Victorian-era English art critic John Ruskin, who allegedly rejected his wife after discovering that she was not up to the exacting standards of Greek/Roman sculpture.
Which reminds me of the famous Victorian-era English art critic John Ruskin, who allegedly rejected his wife after discovering that she was not up to the exacting standards of Greek/Roman sculpture.
I'd start with contemplating the repulsiveness of the body. If you go through the parts, you'll find sex much less appealing. Detach yourself from the notion of it being a person, and think of the body as a heap of flesh.
Buddha start with the morality, the harmlessness, for making compassion, to see woman like daughter, sister & mother. This making the heart warm towards the people.
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.
This confusing. Buddha teaching husband & wife can enjoy the pleasure together for mundane dhamma people. Buddha teaching in Sungyutta the woman have three power: beauty, wealth, morality. For husband & wife, to refuse sex can be selfish activity.
I think you is reading many scripture but not reading Buddha give the different dhamma teaching for the laypeople and the monk. For many people, to not have the sexual activity is the suffering.
Speaking from the perspective of the sutras and from personal meditative experience, I affirm that there is nothing worth lusting after.
I not believe. Is you saying you is Arahanta? Arahanta see the different people. Arahanta not teaching celibacy for all the people. Only some of the people.
I'd start with contemplating the repulsiveness of the body. If you go through the parts, you'll find sex much less appealing. Detach yourself from the notion of it being a person, and think of the body as a heap of flesh.
Not only that, but, really? It's downright silly looking. It's kind of like dancing. Sure, it feels good while you're doing it, but you don't realize how goofy you look while doing it.
Sex is probably the the most overrated thing next to personal identity. This coming from a 29 year old male who has only had one satisfying orgasm.
Not only is it overrated, but it can be so dangerous nowadays. Even with birth control and condoms, there are still risks for STD's, unwanted pregnancies, and broken hearts. Is it really worth it?
On the other hand I find sex to be a very powerful force. However, it all depends upon who, what, where, when, why, and how. Otherwise? Having sex with someone just to achieve pleasure/orgasm is basically masturbation with a friend.
Yep, I agree. Especially since sin is a product of Christianity and doesn't even really have a place in Buddhism. Where do you draw a line? Is noticing that someone is attractive mentally sexual? Because even the HHDL admits he finds women attractive. Not that he is the only source, of course, he is just the one I thought of first because I saw the interview where this came up not too long ago.
I would disagree and think that 'sin' does have a place in Buddhism.
The word sin in greek (as it is written in the Bible) means to 'miss the mark', as an archer would.
Therefore 'sin' implies unskillful actions that lead to negative karma (both Buddha and Jesus talk about reaping what you sow.)
I think the Christian churches have done a lot to associate 'sin' with 'guilt' and that has been very unhelpful but that is another matter.
@John_Spencer yes, you are right, but that is not how most Christians view sin, and because I was raised in a Christian family (and they remain Christian) I cannot talk about sin without them understanding it that way. It remains in most people's eyes something to be ashamed of, to feel guilt about, and so on. Because of that, I largely just do not use the word and find other ways to express the same sentiment. 99% of the time saying the word "sin" means something quite different for the people that I know and converse with on a regular basis.
I'm reading Ghandi's biography at the moment and he appeared to have firm opinions on celibacy, I felt sorry for his wife reading how he made the decision to become celibate, with no apparent concern for others whom that would affect. He made Brahmacharya vows, you can see more about it in the link below:
@Lee82 I agree with what you are saying, but intimacy and sex are not the same things. I have far more intimate moments with my husband with our clothes on, than with them off.
@Lee82 I agree with what you are saying, but intimacy and sex are not the same things. I have far more intimate moments with my husband with our clothes on, than with them off.
Does one not lead to the other? In my own experience, the feelings of intimacy shared with a loved one leads to 'other' things. Maybe there's a male/female difference there. The biggest turn on is the feeling of loving and being loved, intimacy and closeness. It's not sex for the sake of sex. The ultimate act of two people completely at one with each other, honesty, trust, respect and love. Of course it isn't always like that but I know I've met that one person who it was like that with and with any luck it will be again one day soon.
Sometimes, but not always. There are acts of intimacy that are not even physical at all. I suppose it depends how you define intimacy. To me, it is just a very special closeness, it doesn't have to be physical. Some of my most intimate moments with my husband have involved moments of parenting our kids, for example. Or just quite moments together on a hike, or a quick stolen kiss. We have intimate moments on pretty much a daily basis. Sex is far less frequent, LOL.
Defining it better (for me) I guess it is a unique sense of familiarity, one that comes only from a special trust and respect and closeness, like you have said. There are things I know about my husband and that he knows about me, that no one else in the world knows. There is a certain way I fit into his arm when we sleep, and a certain way our hands fit together when we hold hands, in a way that never happened with other people I've been with, even people I loved a whole lot. I treasure those moments more than actual sex, and if I had to give up one or the other permanently, the decision would be easy. But it's never one I'd make without my husbands input (unless it was impossible not to, like some sort of medical problem or something).
Celibacy was meant to apply to monks who have dedicated their lives to serious spiritual training. Lay people were only expected to refrain from sexual misconduct as per the 5 precepts, except during periods when they engage in serious meditation where the 8 precepts are recommended (The 8 precepts require abstention from all sexual activity).
Sex within a healthy, loving relationship is not regarded as sinful or condemnable in Buddhism. Even stream-enterers who are laypeople can still have families and children. For example, Visakha, one of the Buddha's chief female lay disciples, attained stream entry (first stage of enlightenment) at seven years of age. Later on in life, she got married and was said to have 10 sons and 10 daughters. She was well known for her wisdom and generosity.
There are acts of intimacy that are not even physical at all. I suppose it depends how you define intimacy. To me, it is just a very special closeness, it doesn't have to be physical.
As someone who has had a VERY long distance relationship with someone since 2005 (I live in the US and she lives in New Zealand) this makes perfect sense to me. I have only been in her physical presence a total of 100 days since 2007 (three months in 2007, one week each in 2008 and 2009--the reason why I'm not living there yet has to do with her caring for her mother, the current economy in NZ and immigration difficulties).
There were some times early in our relationship where we were rather "creative" online together, but more than anything we have a strong connection in terms of sharing our feelings, thoughts, experiences, memories--often just spending time together talking or watching documentaries, reading books together and discussing them.
Most importantly though, Angie and I trust one another with things about ourselves that we would never (and have never) shared with anyone else. We know one another deeply because of those conversations more than the very few times we've had any sexual contact (the last time was at least two years ago). Although, granted, even minus the few moments of specifically sexual intimacy shared, I admittedly doubt I could have a similar online relationship with this kind of intimacy with a male!
Comments
@Jayantha Loving someone is not always a delusion. That might be something you can only understand if you have children. But the love a parent feels for a child (especially when you carry that child in your body)is a bond unlike any other that can be formed. And the love small children show easily and unconditionally is not delusional either. Love can be delusional for sure. But it isn't always.
"The body as a biological machine" does not necessarily lead to disenchantment. Dismantling the body into its component parts, emphasizing form over function, concentrating on structural anatomy but ignoring physiology is a path to reductionism that does not really reflect the complexity of the system as a whole. There is no reason why studying the body should necessarily lead one to become disenchanted with sex; it is only when we buy the Buddha's connotation of repulsiveness, in other words superimposing the disgust response (which we naturally will have to things like phlegm, open wounds, feces, etc.) onto what's actually there, that we should come to regard the body as something to be disenchanted from.
I think a study of biology would be just as likely to forge a sense of wonder and amazement as dispassion.
Increase in metta . . . as some like to remind us . . .
A man can go through most of his life without ever seeing a normal woman, aging normally. I know several guys like that. Also, childbirth teaches people about the reality of what bodies are for.
So for a celibate monk, the females that he sees are often going to be covered in attractive clothing and scents and his imagination could get the better of him without some guidance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ruskin#Sexuality
I think you is reading many scripture but not reading Buddha give the different dhamma teaching for the laypeople and the monk. For many people, to not have the sexual activity is the suffering.
On the other hand I find sex to be a very powerful force. However, it all depends upon who, what, where, when, why, and how. Otherwise? Having sex with someone just to achieve pleasure/orgasm is basically masturbation with a friend.
The word sin in greek (as it is written in the Bible) means to 'miss the mark', as an archer would.
Therefore 'sin' implies unskillful actions that lead to negative karma (both Buddha and Jesus talk about reaping what you sow.)
I think the Christian churches have done a lot to associate 'sin' with 'guilt' and that has been very unhelpful but that is another matter.
You still here? Hope people's reactions haven't chased you away.
It's a shame that such distortions can put differences between stories which bear such similarities.
http://www.dlshq.org/teachings/brahmacharya.htm
Celibacy is something I have no interest in; I think intimacy is an important part of a loving relationship.
Sex within a healthy, loving relationship is not regarded as sinful or condemnable in Buddhism. Even stream-enterers who are laypeople can still have families and children. For example, Visakha, one of the Buddha's chief female lay disciples, attained stream entry (first stage of enlightenment) at seven years of age. Later on in life, she got married and was said to have 10 sons and 10 daughters. She was well known for her wisdom and generosity.
There were some times early in our relationship where we were rather "creative" online together, but more than anything we have a strong connection in terms of sharing our feelings, thoughts, experiences, memories--often just spending time together talking or watching documentaries, reading books together and discussing them.
Most importantly though, Angie and I trust one another with things about ourselves that we would never (and have never) shared with anyone else. We know one another deeply because of those conversations more than the very few times we've had any sexual contact (the last time was at least two years ago). Although, granted, even minus the few moments of specifically sexual intimacy shared, I admittedly doubt I could have a similar online relationship with this kind of intimacy with a male!