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.
Is sexual orientation an "ego-based notion of self"?
Sexual orientation per se is not an ego-based notion of self in the Buddhist sense. It is a set of conditioning which in principle can be experienced without clinging to an identity. The "ego-based notion of self" he is referring to is "the ways people choose to define themselves in terms of gender, sexual orientation, or whatever other factors." That is another layer on top of sexual orientation, and can cause suffering in forms such as reacting with annoyance and complaint careless misreading of reasonable and uncontroversial remarks.
I don't get it, to be frank. If clinging is the problem then it would seem most beneficial to focus on clinging, in all forms. ...
I think it kinda goes back to that common saying, "Don't sweat the small stuff"...the part of the saying I agree with (I don't agree with the second part of the saying -- "It's all small stuff").
Some things we cling to just don't matter. Why not concentrate on things that make a difference in the lives of you and others?
Distinct persona is not the same as innate being. The innate identifies with the inherent in all beings. In other words, there is an appearance or facade, a subjective self and an absolute. We identify with the accidents of samsara, really we are independent of the particular on an objective level . . .
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
I don't get it, to be frank. If clinging is the problem then it would seem most beneficial to focus on clinging, in all forms. ...
I think it kinda goes back to that common saying, "Don't sweat the small stuff"...the part of the saying I agree with (I don't agree with the second part of the saying -- "It's all small stuff").
Some things we cling to just don't matter. Why not concentrate on things that make a difference in the lives of you and others?
Make no mistake, Brad Warner's beliefs on homosexuality or whatever else has no bearing on my life. I was more just curious than anything. I really SHOULD have added the question into my OP on whether or not ALL sexual orientations are "ego-based notions of the self" because that was where my mind was going with it, I just somehow had trouble getting it in there. For me, and I assume many others, homosexuality is on the same level as heterosexuality in that I don't view either (and all degrees in between) as a choice, so that got me wondering if I was missing the point and that Brad was saying that all orientations were ego-based.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
Here's another question: Is a Buddha a non-sexual entity? If one becomes enlightened, does he/she cease to be sexual (gay, straight, or otherwise)?
Distinct persona is not the same as innate being. The innate identifies with the inherent in all beings. In other words, there is an appearance or facade, a subjective self and an absolute. We identify with the accidents of samsara, really we are independent of the particular on an objective level . . .
I guess that's helpful if you happen to be considering a sexual relationship with the absolute.
Gender is an ego-based notion of the self, too? Hm, heh. It'll be interesting to see what he says as you get further in the book. It's an interesting thing. When I read what you said @zombiegirl: He only labels the things he won't be discussing (gender, sexual orientation, etc.) as "ego-based notions of the self."
it made me think of the couple that had a child and did not assign any sort of gender to the child to see what the child would "choose." I get that, to a degree, and I certainly believe as a society we have a lot of growing room for accepting things that are different than what we think we know. I've always been a strict tomboy, even though I'm perfectly happy being a female and never felt like I was born the wrong gender like others feel. But it makes me wonder, if genitals didn't matter and we could all choose to be a "boy" or a "girl" what the world would be like. If we didn't have as much societal pressure to BE one or the other. If that makes any sense. I don't mean to drag the tread off topic, lol, it's just where thinking about it has taken me so far. Wondering what it would be like to live in a world where we didn't label ourselves or anyone else, where we didn't have a "norm" to deviate from.
I define myself by my friendships and family obligations. The "problem" of Ego IMO should arise only when one is being accused of misdoings. It is only then that an Ego is really helpful, in that it helps us rally up our memories giving us the evidence we need to acquit ourselves. "On the desert you can't remember your name, 'cuz there aint nobody for to give you no blame.". Or mostly or approximately so, anyways.
This guy apparently makes little attempt at clarity and so I dismiss what he has to say. I totally missed what Jason saw about his trying to impart something about our defining ourselves by a sexual identity, in part because that's not my way and in part because I'm not as quick as Jason.
So Brad believes that sexual orientation is a "choice" that people make? If, for example, someone "chooses" to define their sexual identity as gay, but they aren't gay, isn't that a lie?
This is a straw man. No one has said that sexual orientation is a choice. Choosing to define yourself in terms of it is.
No one has said that sexual orientation is a choice. Choosing to define yourself in terms of it is.
I dunno how everybody else is "wired," but I suspect that some people do get bullied around enough or flirted with enough that how they define themselves sexually is not a choice at all. Surely it can be an obligation or an illusion or even an assumed position. I do not intend the latter as a play on words.
For myself, I identify my being with the Heart. That is my Strong Hold.
I suspect that some people do get bullied around enough or flirted with enough that how they define themselves sexually is not a choice at all. Surely it can be an obligation or an illusion or even an assumed position.
Sorry, I don't understand. Can you expand on your point, please?
Nirvana may be touching on the point that identity is a necessarily social phenomena. Does anyone choose to be a subjugated minority, for example, or is that a position and identity forced on others?
In racial prejudice the issue isn't really identity at all, but taking advantage of a weaker position.
Thanks, Nevermind. I don't understand how prejudice and abuse entered the picture. What is there in the Warner quote which concerns that?
Keep in mind that "I'm a man/woman, therefore I behave in these ways" is as much an ego-based notion of self as "I'm a [insert your favorite gender identity], therefore I behave in these ways." At least from a Buddhist perspective. Remember that the Buddha forbade monastics to have any sex, homo or hetero. Whether you choose to identify with any sexual desire is absolutely a choice in the Buddhist framework, though it may take time to develop the insight necessary to see this.
This position is very different from telling someone that they're not really a lesbian, so they should just suck it up and ignore their desires, though, so I don't see how abuse or prejudice bears on the question.
Thanks, Nevermind. I don't understand how prejudice and abuse entered the picture. What is there in the Warner quote which concerns that?
Keep in mind that "I'm a man/woman, therefore I behave in these ways" is as much an ego-based notion of self as "I'm a [insert your favorite gender identity], therefore I behave in these ways." At least from a Buddhist perspective. Remember that the Buddha forbade monastics to have any sex, homo or hetero. Whether you choose to identify with any sexual desire is absolutely a choice in the Buddhist framework, though it may take time to develop the insight necessary to see this.
This position is very different from telling someone that they're not really a lesbian, so they should just suck it up and ignore their desires, though, so I don't see how abuse or prejudice bears on the question.
In my opinion it bears on the question of 'choice'. Does one choose the identity of a subjugated minority, for example. Probably not, right?
About an "ego-based notion of self," what exactly is an identity not ego based?
I suspect that some people do get bullied around enough or flirted with enough that how they define themselves sexually is not a choice at all. Surely it can be an obligation or an illusion or even an assumed position.
Sorry, I don't understand. Can you expand on your point, please?
You got me there, Fivebells! I failed to register in my mind the "choosing to" in your "Choosing to define yourself in terms of [sexual orientation]." What I meant is that defining oneself in terms of sexual orientation is not necessarily a choice and is quite often something foisted on someone. You are quite right, however, when you state that choosing to define oneself in terms of anything... is a choice. Unless, of course, one is forced to choose between choices one would not voluntarily choose?????
In my opinion it bears on the question of 'choice'. Does one choose the identity of a subjugated minority, for example. Probably not, right?
One does not choose to be identified by others as such. Attaching to that identity is a matter of choice, though.
Really? Does it work the same way for all your attachments? You can simply choose what you value and what you don't? My experience is quite different. I'm attached to many people and things, and I couldn't simply choose not to be, even when it would spare me a lot of pain if I were able to.
Unless, of course, one is forced to choose between choices one would not voluntarily choose?????
Warner is simply saying that he doesn't find such choices particularly interesting. The passage suggests that if you aren't prepared to voluntarily abandon a gender identity, it's none of his business.
My brain is going to explode if I keep reading this, lol. I don't agree with the statement that to be straight/lesbian/gay/bi/whatever means you are identifying with sexual desire. While I agree that often it is a big part of it, who you love and choose to enter relationships with does not always have to do with sexual desire. I was not actually sexually attracted to my husband when we first met. But I saw him every day and over time his personality grew on me and it was then that I started being attracted to him. Anyhow, being straight or gay is not simply a matter of sexual desire. I've had sexual desire for women in the past and I've never considered myself bi or lesbian because while I might be attracted to some of them, being in a relationship with another woman isn't something that would appeal to me. I could kiss another woman, but falling in love and entering a relationship has never been an interest. Whereas I have fallen in love with a man and been in a relationships where we didn't have sex, or a sexual relationship because of a lack of desire.
@karasti, you've certainly given us a lot to think about. This thread really confuses me and your post is the first one that has made any real sense to me. Thank you!
I really think you hit the nail on the head for me when you said that being gay or straight was not simply a matter of sexual desire.
Unless, of course, one is forced to choose between choices one would not voluntarily choose?????
Warner is simply saying that he doesn't find such choices particularly interesting. The passage suggests that if you aren't prepared to voluntarily abandon a gender identity, it's none of his business.
He said that he doesn't care. Significantly, you can't fault anyone for not caring. What better way to protect one's ego!
I really don't know how to answer that question. I was already interested in girls, even though I was only 12. The situation arose in the boy's locker room in gym class, had never thought about before, and afterwards thought, "Gee, this is an easy way to get a sexual kick", so I continued...but also continued (for the time being) to be interested in girls.
We an build identities around any desire or craving. As a social species we have a natural desire for meaning, for instance, and religion can help us build an identity around that. Maybe we should be weakening our religious identities?
Yes, although I'd say we should weaken our clinging to identities (as well as their creation) rather than weaken a specific identity.
Funny, because the article you posted a link to seemed to suggest that we should integrate rather than engage the apparently fruitless game of "weakening" or elimination.
My understanding is that, rather than simply trying to destroy the ego as if it's purely evil, Thanissaro's approach is to utilize the process of 'I-making' and 'my-making' in more and more skillful ways, weakening/relinquishing unskillful habits and endeavoring to create healthier senses of self until we eventually get to a point where we're able to drop (eliminate) the need to create a self and experience a level of peace and freedom that transcends space and time.
One of the images he often uses in other talks and works is that of the aggregates, which are the raw materials from which we create our sense of self, as bricks that we've been carrying in a sack over our shoulder, weighing us down. But instead of carrying them, we put them down on the ground and make them into a path (i.e., using the aggregates/our sense of selves skillfully until they've taken us as far as they can and we're finally able to let go of them all.
And even though Thanissaro doesn't talk about weakening our self-identity view in the "The Problem of Egolessness," he does talk about things like weaning the mind off its unskillful feeding habits (upadana having the double meaning of 'clinging' and 'to take sustenance') and providing it with healthier fare until we reach the point where we can really let go and be free (see especially Selves & Not-self). In addition, my understanding and approach doesn't rely solely on him.
Hmm, makes me think a lot can have to do with the people in our lives rather than a strictly boy or girl dichotomy.
Do I believe that most gay people are naturally gay? Yes. But 100%? Not even 1 person learned the behaviors? It gets kinda tough thinking that way when you consider all the straight men who participate in gay sex on the side.
Is sexual orientation an "ego-based notion of self"?
It's probably more accurate to say that identifying oneself as one's sexual orientation results in an ego based notion of self.
The important point is that "I am _____" is followed by attachment and clinging. I haven't read this guy's book, but would assume this is the point he is trying to get across.
Sexual orientation just is. Like everything it is dependently originated by cause and conditions. It is not you.
We all have a long list of I am's. But they are not self. These "I am's" only describe that do not define. The teachings on anatta are very helpful.
Hmm, makes me think a lot can have to do with the people in our lives rather than a strictly boy or girl dichotomy.
Do I believe that most gay people are naturally gay? Yes. But 100%? Not even 1 person learned the behaviors? It gets kinda tough thinking that way when you consider all the straight men who participate in gay sex on the side.
I guess that I don't understand what you mean by "learned" behaviors. I'm sure that many straight men have had sexual relations with men, I have myself in fact, but to call that a learned behavior?
I guess that I don't understand what you mean by "learned" behaviors. I'm sure that many straight men have had sexual relations with men, I have myself in fact, but to call that a learned behavior?
I'm making the distinction because it is popular today to believe that all gay people are born gay.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
I still think of sexuality as a spectrum. I think the majority of people fall somewhere in the middle, and then there are the truly "gay" or "straight" people which are less common.
I think most people on this board have heard my story by now, but it's very different from vinlyn's. I tried really hard to be straight, but it's just not in the dice. Idk if I was "born" this way, but I certainly can't be any other way so whether it was nature or nurture doesn't matter.
The "ego-based notion of self" he is referring to is "the ways people choose to define themselves in terms of gender, sexual orientation, or whatever other factors."
So Brad believes that sexual orientation is a "choice" that people make? If, for example, someone "chooses" to define their sexual identity as gay, but they aren't gay, isn't that a lie?
I don't believe that's his point. I think he's trying to say there are all sorts of ways to describe who we are, and we choose which ones define us and to what extent. Some of the things we focus on are inherited and some are choices we've made.
For instance, we didn't choose our skin color, but for some skinhead racists being "white" is almost totally how they choose to define themselves and their life is devoted to their identity. That's an extreme example. On the other hand, I was in the military for many years but never chose to define myself as a soldier, yet there are those where being a Marine or whatever is a huge part of who they think they are. Does that make sense?
I don't like that phrase "ego based notion of self" either, because it gives the wrong impression since ego also means pride and is something we're supposed to get rid of in Buddhism. Plus as pointed out, all notions of self are ego based so it's redundant. I'd say "how we choose to define ourselves" but it's not as catchy. After all, monks chose to define themselves as followers of Buddha. That's as ego-based as any choices. They look in a mirror and see a monk. We look at them and see a monk. They're just people wearing a robe who shave their heads and have joined a group.
3
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@Cinorjer beat me to the point that came to my mind reading the OP.
I may be white but just that fact of my being isn't the ego-identity, its when being white becomes a personal identifier for myself, like becoming a skin head.
It may be that I am obtuse...that is not merely rhetorical..but what exactly IS an " ego based notion of self "..how does " ego " differ from "self " ? Which has which ? Which corresponds to any view held in Buddhadharma ? Is there no atta..but somehow there is an ego ?
Hi ZB, I intentionally did not read anyone else's response and instead will respond to your original posting.
Yea, Mr. Warner has some kind of tension going on inside of himself. And I'm ill-at-ease with his mind-set... mostly because his opinion has been printed in a book and thus, by some people's thinking, the dude must know what he's talking about.
In the spirit of compassion, I would say that his premise leaves me ill-at-ease. My opinionated side tells me that a Buddha wouldn't be able to write this book - which is to say, Mr. Warner is not a Buddha. I think the evidence is in the title. I am not convinced that a Buddhist with a thriving dharma-practice (again my opinionated side speaking) would write a book entitled "Sin, Sex and Zen." That title is tawdry.
All that to say I question his perspective, and, in my mind, his premises may also be questionable.
I was in the military for many years but never chose to define myself as a soldier, yet there are those where being a Marine or whatever is a huge part of who they think they are. Does that make sense?
It's understandable if that's what you mean. But I hope you're not suggesting that denial is any better than egoism. You were a soldier and that means something. It would be best to accept that fact and integrate it in your life, if possible.
After all, monks chose to define themselves as followers of Buddha. That's as ego-based as any choices. They look in a mirror and see a monk. We look at them and see a monk. They're just people wearing a robe who shave their heads and have joined a group.
The latter is another way to define, merely, to suit a particular purpose.
@Cinorjer beat me to the point that came to my mind reading the OP.
I may be white but just that fact of my being isn't the ego-identity, its when being white becomes a personal identifier for myself, like becoming a skin head.
Or becoming a Buddhist? What's the difference there?
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@Cinorjer beat me to the point that came to my mind reading the OP.
I may be white but just that fact of my being isn't the ego-identity, its when being white becomes a personal identifier for myself, like becoming a skin head.
Or becoming a Buddhist? What's the difference there?
Then just be a Buddhist, don't get a Buddha embroidered on your jacket and put Buddhist bumper stickers on your car or decorate your living room with Buddhist thangkas and statues.
@Cinorjer beat me to the point that came to my mind reading the OP.
I may be white but just that fact of my being isn't the ego-identity, its when being white becomes a personal identifier for myself, like becoming a skin head.
Or becoming a Buddhist? What's the difference there?
Then just be a Buddhist, don't get a Buddha embroidered on your jacket and put Buddhist bumper stickers on your car or decorate your living room with Buddhist thangkas and statues.
That's funny. No embroidered Buddha but I assume a hand stitched rakusus is okay. No statues in the living room, but one on the alter is good. No bumper stickers but rituals, ceremonies, donations, chanting, meditation, etc etc, is all fine.
Maybe I missed the point. Identifying oneself as a Buddhist is okay, right?
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I'm just trying to make examples, the important point is the mental state. Are you being a genuine practitioner of Dharma or are you just putting on a show of your Buddhistness for the rest of the world to see.
I'm just trying to make examples, the important point is the mental state. Are you being a genuine practitioner of Dharma or are you just putting on a show of your Buddhistness for the rest of the world to see.
Which is supposed to be better, in terms of the dreaded **attachment** I guess?
Comments
Some things we cling to just don't matter. Why not concentrate on things that make a difference in the lives of you and others?
The innate identifies with the inherent in all beings.
In other words, there is an appearance or facade, a subjective self and an absolute.
We identify with the accidents of samsara, really we are independent of the particular on an objective level . . .
it made me think of the couple that had a child and did not assign any sort of gender to the child to see what the child would "choose." I get that, to a degree, and I certainly believe as a society we have a lot of growing room for accepting things that are different than what we think we know. I've always been a strict tomboy, even though I'm perfectly happy being a female and never felt like I was born the wrong gender like others feel. But it makes me wonder, if genitals didn't matter and we could all choose to be a "boy" or a "girl" what the world would be like. If we didn't have as much societal pressure to BE one or the other. If that makes any sense. I don't mean to drag the tread off topic, lol, it's just where thinking about it has taken me so far. Wondering what it would be like to live in a world where we didn't label ourselves or anyone else, where we didn't have a "norm" to deviate from.
This guy apparently makes little attempt at clarity and so I dismiss what he has to say. I totally missed what Jason saw about his trying to impart something about our defining ourselves by a sexual identity, in part because that's not my way and in part because I'm not as quick as Jason.
I do not intend the latter as a play on words.
For myself, I identify my being with the Heart. That is my Strong Hold.
I feel a song coming on... :rocker:
I would dance and be merry, life would be a ding-a-derry,
If I only didn't define myself as a scarecrow without a brain.
I could while away the hours, conferrin' with the flowers,
If I only didn't define myself as a scarecrow without a brain.
Ohh! Wonderful! Dorothy!
In racial prejudice the issue isn't really identity at all, but taking advantage of a weaker position.
Keep in mind that "I'm a man/woman, therefore I behave in these ways" is as much an ego-based notion of self as "I'm a [insert your favorite gender identity], therefore I behave in these ways." At least from a Buddhist perspective. Remember that the Buddha forbade monastics to have any sex, homo or hetero. Whether you choose to identify with any sexual desire is absolutely a choice in the Buddhist framework, though it may take time to develop the insight necessary to see this.
This position is very different from telling someone that they're not really a lesbian, so they should just suck it up and ignore their desires, though, so I don't see how abuse or prejudice bears on the question.
About an "ego-based notion of self," what exactly is an identity not ego based?
I don't agree with the statement that to be straight/lesbian/gay/bi/whatever means you are identifying with sexual desire. While I agree that often it is a big part of it, who you love and choose to enter relationships with does not always have to do with sexual desire. I was not actually sexually attracted to my husband when we first met. But I saw him every day and over time his personality grew on me and it was then that I started being attracted to him. Anyhow, being straight or gay is not simply a matter of sexual desire. I've had sexual desire for women in the past and I've never considered myself bi or lesbian because while I might be attracted to some of them, being in a relationship with another woman isn't something that would appeal to me. I could kiss another woman, but falling in love and entering a relationship has never been an interest. Whereas I have fallen in love with a man and been in a relationships where we didn't have sex, or a sexual relationship because of a lack of desire.
I really think you hit the nail on the head for me when you said that being gay or straight was not simply a matter of sexual desire.
One of the images he often uses in other talks and works is that of the aggregates, which are the raw materials from which we create our sense of self, as bricks that we've been carrying in a sack over our shoulder, weighing us down. But instead of carrying them, we put them down on the ground and make them into a path (i.e., using the aggregates/our sense of selves skillfully until they've taken us as far as they can and we're finally able to let go of them all.
And even though Thanissaro doesn't talk about weakening our self-identity view in the "The Problem of Egolessness," he does talk about things like weaning the mind off its unskillful feeding habits (upadana having the double meaning of 'clinging' and 'to take sustenance') and providing it with healthier fare until we reach the point where we can really let go and be free (see especially Selves & Not-self). In addition, my understanding and approach doesn't rely solely on him.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
It's probably more accurate to say that identifying oneself as one's sexual orientation results in an ego based notion of self.
The important point is that "I am _____" is followed by attachment and clinging. I haven't read this guy's book, but would assume this is the point he is trying to get across.
Sexual orientation just is. Like everything it is dependently originated by cause and conditions. It is not you.
We all have a long list of I am's. But they are not self. These "I am's" only describe that do not define. The teachings on anatta are very helpful.
Best Wishes
I think most people on this board have heard my story by now, but it's very different from vinlyn's. I tried really hard to be straight, but it's just not in the dice. Idk if I was "born" this way, but I certainly can't be any other way so whether it was nature or nurture doesn't matter.
For instance, we didn't choose our skin color, but for some skinhead racists being "white" is almost totally how they choose to define themselves and their life is devoted to their identity. That's an extreme example. On the other hand, I was in the military for many years but never chose to define myself as a soldier, yet there are those where being a Marine or whatever is a huge part of who they think they are. Does that make sense?
I don't like that phrase "ego based notion of self" either, because it gives the wrong impression since ego also means pride and is something we're supposed to get rid of in Buddhism. Plus as pointed out, all notions of self are ego based so it's redundant. I'd say "how we choose to define ourselves" but it's not as catchy. After all, monks chose to define themselves as followers of Buddha. That's as ego-based as any choices. They look in a mirror and see a monk. We look at them and see a monk. They're just people wearing a robe who shave their heads and have joined a group.
I may be white but just that fact of my being isn't the ego-identity, its when being white becomes a personal identifier for myself, like becoming a skin head.
I intentionally did not read anyone else's response and instead will respond to your original posting.
Yea, Mr. Warner has some kind of tension going on inside of himself. And I'm ill-at-ease with his mind-set... mostly because his opinion has been printed in a book and thus, by some people's thinking, the dude must know what he's talking about.
In the spirit of compassion, I would say that his premise leaves me ill-at-ease. My opinionated side tells me that a Buddha wouldn't be able to write this book - which is to say, Mr. Warner is not a Buddha. I think the evidence is in the title. I am not convinced that a Buddhist with a thriving dharma-practice (again my opinionated side speaking) would write a book entitled "Sin, Sex and Zen." That title is tawdry.
All that to say I question his perspective, and, in my mind, his premises may also be questionable.
Who has any authority on anything?
Maybe I missed the point. Identifying oneself as a Buddhist is okay, right?