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.
@dharmamom said:
The most wholesome attitude in this case would be to face the music and get to the bottom of why would anyone feel the need to control sexual tension if they have not chosen a celibate path.
One doesn't need to become a celibate monk in order to recognize that controlling impulses that cause suffering, is a skillful endeavor.
@Cinorjer said:
One, we have to admit that there is a tendency in the dharma for asceticism
I think that depends on how one defines "asceticism". Some people consider abstaining from sense pleasures as "asceticism". Some people think that not drinking any alcohol is an "ascetic" practice. Others regard that as not even being close to asceticism!
i am aware of the dangers of approaching any issue in Buddhism as though there was a consensus...within individual schools there sometimes is...but not across the Buddhist spectrum.
Sexuality is one such area.
To generalise, the Theravada has a tendency to see sexual expression as suspect per se and needing control..its ideal is celibacy for both monk and layperson.
The Mahayana view of sex ranges from a similar view to that of the Theravada to that of the Vajrayana which sees sex as natural and potentially liberating..
From a Vajrayana viewpoint sex should be genuinely mutually consenting..
Should not involve those unable to give informed consent due to immaturity or psychological problems.
Should be characterised by mutual regard...
If these elements are in place then sex between consenting adults hetero or homosexual, is not seen as a barrier to spiritual life. In fact it may well enhance it.
I've been re-reading "The wings of awakening" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu and came across this passage. I think it explains things very well:
The same point holds true for the contemplation of body parts mentioned in §30. This contemplation has been denounced in Western circles for promoting a negative self-image, but here it is necessary to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy negative images of one's own body. An unhealthy negative image is one that views the bodies of other people as attractive, and one's own as unattractive. This is unhealthy in that it creates feelings of inferiority concerning one's own body, compounded by lust and desire for the bodies of others. A healthy negative image sees that all bodies, no matter how attractive, young, or healthy they may seem at the skin level, are composed of the very same parts, all equally unattractive. The livers and intestines of even the most attractive people, if paraded down a walkway, would never capture a title in a beauty contest; if featured in an advertisement, they wouldn't sell. Thus there is no real reason to feel that one's body is inherently inferior to theirs. This perception of the equality of all bodies, if handled properly, is healthy in that it helps liberate one not only from feelings of inferiority and superiority, but also from the disease of lust and desire, promoting a sense of dispassion toward lustful thoughts in general.
Can anyone on here design a better human body, or say how it could be improved on?..They've been trying for a long time to build something that can compete with the human body in all capacities, & they've been failing for a long time....Every time we do a good deed our body helps us to do that good deed, & every time we had fun our body did it for us....No matter what we do our body does it for us & with us, & yet people don't love their bodies....I mean people love their cars, but not their bodies!lol....How did they get that car?, by using their body....If we didn't smell we wouldn't wash, & if we didn't plop we couldn't eat....It's how it is for a reason, & it's perfect as it is for now. :-)
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
What makes you think the human body has reached its peak and has stopped evolving?
What makes you think it hasn't federica, & how could you improve on it?....I see my body as a seed, & I'm in mother natures womb....So from my view point i haven't actually been born yet, & when i die i will be born into my proper body just like Adam was in the garden of Eden....I'm not religious at all, but that's how it seems to me....All I've ever used was logic, & that's the most logical answer to me.
The body i have now is my proper body, & I'm here to learn how to love it....I'm here to learn how to control all of my emotions & feelings properly, & the only way i can prove that is to be tested "to the max", with expected moments of death, jealousy, anger, depression etc....Can i learn to love my body & respect other peoples bodies, & can i learn to control my body, & all of my emotions & feelings because i create them myself....I highly suspect that when a person does all that, & really loves living life & has a zest for life....They then when they die they get eternal life with their perfect vision of their perfect body in it's prime, & when they see their partner they will see each others perfect image....The way i learned to love my body is when i truly realised, that i can't do anything without it, & I've had all that fun over the years with it....It's quite funny i reckon & very clever maybe even crafty, because only people in real love who have shed their ego's will ever ascend....Their the exact people who won't need a body in their prime, & so will be given one as a reward!lol. :-)
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited August 2014
@Daveadams said:
What makes you think it hasn't federica, & how could you improve on it?....
>
I have shown you that it hasn't, via a link to a comment on how the body has adapted to certain environments.
I can't decide how to 'improve' the body. Evolution does that according to the needs determined by several environmental factors.
I see my body as a seed, & I'm in mother natures womb....
>
This is just fanciful prose and imagination; you're muddying the waters by bringing the poetic into the practical.
So from my view point i haven't actually been born yet, & when i die i will be born into my proper body just like Adam was in the garden of Eden....I'm not religious at all, but that's how it seems to me....All I've ever used was logic, & that's the most logical answer to me.
>
There is no logic at all to your response. it is mere whim, fantasy and poetic imagery. The fact remains: You breathe, ingest, digest, fart, belch, defecate, urinate, and deteriorate every day. there is cellular destruction and cellular reconstruction. That's Science - Biology and part of the evolutionary process.
Did you know that once upon a time, our anuses were further up our backsides than they are now? That's because we used to naturally adopt a crouching stance, and we used to defecate in such a way as to enable the stools to fall further away from us, as waste products. Since we became more upright (to the detriment of our spines - hence the vast amount of sick days taken from work due to spinal and back problems) our anuses have moved south.
We're either going to talk about the evolution of the Human Body in scientific biological terms, or we're going to resort to whimsical, picturesque 'fantastic' terminology.
But you can't mix the two.
federica it's not science it's life, science did not create life science is trying to explain life....Their not laws of physics you know, their laws of nature....I've always been open minded about life, & like Sherlock Holmes used to say: Once you've eliminated all the possibilities there are, then what's left no matter how improbable has got to be the right answer....I do realise that Sherlock Holmes was not a real character but he was right, & no one has ever proved to me that we are or that life is impermanent....No one has proved it to you either, & your just assuming the worst if you do....I'll have a look at the link you mentioned, because i don't know if I've seen it....Science has only ever given words to things that are already here, or things that already happen....I mean take gravity for example no one can explain exactly how it works, but if you think about it logically things have to fall down otherwise what would happen?....I used logic in every thing I've looked into, & what I've said "is" the most logical theory. :-)
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited August 2014
The quotation is erroneous, and you give it to suit your argument; the correct Arthur Conan Doyle quotation (who DID exist, ergo, it is HIS quotation) is as follows:
“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”
>
He also wrote:
“There is nothing as deceptive as an obvious fact.”
>
Life IS impermanent because the Buddha tells us it is. We have proof that lives are impermanent.
If you say it isn't then the onus is on you to provide that evidence.
And your theory, is far from logical. It is merely based on a series of convoluted thoughts which have brought you to a personal conclusion - but they're not even a theory. They're simply random fanciful thoughts.
And it's 'they're' (They Are) not 'their' (possessive). Grammatically, mistaking the spelling confuses the issue.
Well I'll say this one last thing, & then you will hear no more from me again federica....No one will ever prove or disprove impermanence or permanence, & no one ever did because it's impossible to ever prove to another person....The Buddha was looking to end his own personally suffering, & in theory the worlds suffering if everyone followed his teachings....His original teachings which i haven't seen, & i doubt anyone ever will....Would have said that in order to start following the 8 fold path, you have to first be aware of yourself at all times by having a logical mind....Then at every interaction with another person or before we say anything or do anything, we first ask ourself if what we're about to do is logically the best decision for my self first, & other people who might be affected in a bad way because of my decision....So every decision we make & anything we say, we're at the time taking the red or the blue pill....Do we do the right good thing, or the wrong bad thing....Now i don't have an ego, & i was only on here with good intentions & so i do know for a 100% fact....The Buddha would have said that every single person we meet in our day to day life are there to see how we react to them, & how they react to us & whether or not we can learn to fully control ourselves....So we're here to learn, & what's wrong with that....Anyway that's it, & words are not important, & so who cares who thear spolt!lol. :-)
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited August 2014
@Daveadams said: His original teachings which i haven't seen, & i doubt anyone ever will....Would have said that in order to start following the 8 fold path, you have to first be aware of yourself at all times by having a logical mind....
>
If nobody has seen his original teaching, how would you know what 'they would have said'...? Again, this is fanciful conjecture. At least what I have expounded is supported by suttas and teachings; whether you personally choose to believe they are attributable to the Buddha or not, is entirely irrelevant. The question is, do they make sense? Are they logical? Are they provable through testing and examination? The answer is yes.
The whole point of following the Buddha's teachings is to DEVELOP a logical mind, fed by Wisdom and Compassion; This is the fundamental basis of any interaction, and should be well in place already, before any encounter with another.
You DO have an ego; if you had no ego you would not pursue this discussion with such insistence, or make light of the importance of accurate communication via the written medium. It's all we have; to speak in person is infinitely better, but that is not possible, therefore accuracy in the written word is very important, and prevents misunderstandings.
We all have egos. Mine just seeks to help you understand that while your thoughts and rationale may appear logical and thought out, they are in fact random and founded purely upon your own speculation and conjecture, and as such, useful in their implementation, to nobody but you. If at all.
If that is your final contribution, that's your decision. But I hope it won't be. Discussion is how we learn. And I for one, am always learning.
Why do some people insist on making a grand exit every time someone disagrees with their point of view?
Since when have we lost the ability to discuss amiably and hopefully reconcile divergent points of view?
@DhammaDragon said:
Why do some people insist on making a grand exit every time someone disagrees with their point of view?
Attachment to the body of our confused awakening.
If people have genuine insight, they are as independent of their thinking attachments as they are of others . . .
Since when have we lost the ability to discuss amiably and hopefully reconcile divergent points of view?
Indeed.
Dharma debate is not personal but friendly, even though it may seem critical and revelatory of another's limitations.
For those of us participating or observing, it is clear what is confused and limiting and personal and what is dharma.
Most of us are not prepared to have our opinions challenged. We want them confirmed as a body of wisdom. [i iz SO wize!]
Appreciate those are partly rhetorical questions . . . however . . . @Daveadams may just have the integrity to recognise that . . . well . . . let us leave that for @Daveadams potential staying . . .
Sex is the most normal thing in the world. And so is greed and hatred, covetousness, jealousy, pride etc. Not forgetting love, empathy, compassion and the like.
The point is normal is not necessarily good. It is sexual relations that needs to be avoided for the serious practitioners. And yes, without sex we wouldn't be here in the first place.
Quote:
Then Ven. Ananda approached the nun and, on arrival, sat down on a prepared seat. As he was sitting there, he said to the nun: "This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.
"This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.
"This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.
"This body comes into being through sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse is to be abandoned. With regard to sexual intercourse, the Buddha declares the cutting off of the bridge.
Comments
One doesn't need to become a celibate monk in order to recognize that controlling impulses that cause suffering, is a skillful endeavor.
I think that depends on how one defines "asceticism". Some people consider abstaining from sense pleasures as "asceticism". Some people think that not drinking any alcohol is an "ascetic" practice. Others regard that as not even being close to asceticism!
i am aware of the dangers of approaching any issue in Buddhism as though there was a consensus...within individual schools there sometimes is...but not across the Buddhist spectrum.
Sexuality is one such area.
To generalise, the Theravada has a tendency to see sexual expression as suspect per se and needing control..its ideal is celibacy for both monk and layperson.
The Mahayana view of sex ranges from a similar view to that of the Theravada to that of the Vajrayana which sees sex as natural and potentially liberating..
From a Vajrayana viewpoint sex should be genuinely mutually consenting..
Should not involve those unable to give informed consent due to immaturity or psychological problems.
Should be characterised by mutual regard...
If these elements are in place then sex between consenting adults hetero or homosexual, is not seen as a barrier to spiritual life. In fact it may well enhance it.
I've been re-reading "The wings of awakening" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu and came across this passage. I think it explains things very well:
The same point holds true for the contemplation of body parts mentioned in §30. This contemplation has been denounced in Western circles for promoting a negative self-image, but here it is necessary to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy negative images of one's own body. An unhealthy negative image is one that views the bodies of other people as attractive, and one's own as unattractive. This is unhealthy in that it creates feelings of inferiority concerning one's own body, compounded by lust and desire for the bodies of others. A healthy negative image sees that all bodies, no matter how attractive, young, or healthy they may seem at the skin level, are composed of the very same parts, all equally unattractive. The livers and intestines of even the most attractive people, if paraded down a walkway, would never capture a title in a beauty contest; if featured in an advertisement, they wouldn't sell. Thus there is no real reason to feel that one's body is inherently inferior to theirs. This perception of the equality of all bodies, if handled properly, is healthy in that it helps liberate one not only from feelings of inferiority and superiority, but also from the disease of lust and desire, promoting a sense of dispassion toward lustful thoughts in general.
Can anyone on here design a better human body, or say how it could be improved on?..They've been trying for a long time to build something that can compete with the human body in all capacities, & they've been failing for a long time....Every time we do a good deed our body helps us to do that good deed, & every time we had fun our body did it for us....No matter what we do our body does it for us & with us, & yet people don't love their bodies....I mean people love their cars, but not their bodies!lol....How did they get that car?, by using their body....If we didn't smell we wouldn't wash, & if we didn't plop we couldn't eat....It's how it is for a reason, & it's perfect as it is for now. :-)
What makes you think the human body has reached its peak and has stopped evolving?
What makes you think it hasn't federica, & how could you improve on it?....I see my body as a seed, & I'm in mother natures womb....So from my view point i haven't actually been born yet, & when i die i will be born into my proper body just like Adam was in the garden of Eden....I'm not religious at all, but that's how it seems to me....All I've ever used was logic, & that's the most logical answer to me.
@Daveadams YOU can't improve on your body. It's ownerless. Causes and conditions created the body. There's nothing to improve.
Hmm I like your viewpoints, they are very interesting. What would you say your proper body is?
The body i have now is my proper body, & I'm here to learn how to love it....I'm here to learn how to control all of my emotions & feelings properly, & the only way i can prove that is to be tested "to the max", with expected moments of death, jealousy, anger, depression etc....Can i learn to love my body & respect other peoples bodies, & can i learn to control my body, & all of my emotions & feelings because i create them myself....I highly suspect that when a person does all that, & really loves living life & has a zest for life....They then when they die they get eternal life with their perfect vision of their perfect body in it's prime, & when they see their partner they will see each others perfect image....The way i learned to love my body is when i truly realised, that i can't do anything without it, & I've had all that fun over the years with it....It's quite funny i reckon & very clever maybe even crafty, because only people in real love who have shed their ego's will ever ascend....Their the exact people who won't need a body in their prime, & so will be given one as a reward!lol. :-)
>
I have shown you that it hasn't, via a link to a comment on how the body has adapted to certain environments.
I can't decide how to 'improve' the body. Evolution does that according to the needs determined by several environmental factors.
>
This is just fanciful prose and imagination; you're muddying the waters by bringing the poetic into the practical.
>
There is no logic at all to your response. it is mere whim, fantasy and poetic imagery. The fact remains: You breathe, ingest, digest, fart, belch, defecate, urinate, and deteriorate every day. there is cellular destruction and cellular reconstruction. That's Science - Biology and part of the evolutionary process.
Did you know that once upon a time, our anuses were further up our backsides than they are now? That's because we used to naturally adopt a crouching stance, and we used to defecate in such a way as to enable the stools to fall further away from us, as waste products. Since we became more upright (to the detriment of our spines - hence the vast amount of sick days taken from work due to spinal and back problems) our anuses have moved south.
We're either going to talk about the evolution of the Human Body in scientific biological terms, or we're going to resort to whimsical, picturesque 'fantastic' terminology.
But you can't mix the two.
Which is it to be?
federica it's not science it's life, science did not create life science is trying to explain life....Their not laws of physics you know, their laws of nature....I've always been open minded about life, & like Sherlock Holmes used to say: Once you've eliminated all the possibilities there are, then what's left no matter how improbable has got to be the right answer....I do realise that Sherlock Holmes was not a real character but he was right, & no one has ever proved to me that we are or that life is impermanent....No one has proved it to you either, & your just assuming the worst if you do....I'll have a look at the link you mentioned, because i don't know if I've seen it....Science has only ever given words to things that are already here, or things that already happen....I mean take gravity for example no one can explain exactly how it works, but if you think about it logically things have to fall down otherwise what would happen?....I used logic in every thing I've looked into, & what I've said "is" the most logical theory. :-)
The quotation is erroneous, and you give it to suit your argument; the correct Arthur Conan Doyle quotation (who DID exist, ergo, it is HIS quotation) is as follows:
>
He also wrote:
>
Life IS impermanent because the Buddha tells us it is. We have proof that lives are impermanent.
If you say it isn't then the onus is on you to provide that evidence.
And your theory, is far from logical. It is merely based on a series of convoluted thoughts which have brought you to a personal conclusion - but they're not even a theory. They're simply random fanciful thoughts.
And it's 'they're' (They Are) not 'their' (possessive). Grammatically, mistaking the spelling confuses the issue.
Well I'll say this one last thing, & then you will hear no more from me again federica....No one will ever prove or disprove impermanence or permanence, & no one ever did because it's impossible to ever prove to another person....The Buddha was looking to end his own personally suffering, & in theory the worlds suffering if everyone followed his teachings....His original teachings which i haven't seen, & i doubt anyone ever will....Would have said that in order to start following the 8 fold path, you have to first be aware of yourself at all times by having a logical mind....Then at every interaction with another person or before we say anything or do anything, we first ask ourself if what we're about to do is logically the best decision for my self first, & other people who might be affected in a bad way because of my decision....So every decision we make & anything we say, we're at the time taking the red or the blue pill....Do we do the right good thing, or the wrong bad thing....Now i don't have an ego, & i was only on here with good intentions & so i do know for a 100% fact....The Buddha would have said that every single person we meet in our day to day life are there to see how we react to them, & how they react to us & whether or not we can learn to fully control ourselves....So we're here to learn, & what's wrong with that....Anyway that's it, & words are not important, & so who cares who thear spolt!lol. :-)
>
If nobody has seen his original teaching, how would you know what 'they would have said'...? Again, this is fanciful conjecture. At least what I have expounded is supported by suttas and teachings; whether you personally choose to believe they are attributable to the Buddha or not, is entirely irrelevant. The question is, do they make sense? Are they logical? Are they provable through testing and examination? The answer is yes.
The whole point of following the Buddha's teachings is to DEVELOP a logical mind, fed by Wisdom and Compassion; This is the fundamental basis of any interaction, and should be well in place already, before any encounter with another.
You DO have an ego; if you had no ego you would not pursue this discussion with such insistence, or make light of the importance of accurate communication via the written medium. It's all we have; to speak in person is infinitely better, but that is not possible, therefore accuracy in the written word is very important, and prevents misunderstandings.
We all have egos. Mine just seeks to help you understand that while your thoughts and rationale may appear logical and thought out, they are in fact random and founded purely upon your own speculation and conjecture, and as such, useful in their implementation, to nobody but you. If at all.
If that is your final contribution, that's your decision. But I hope it won't be. Discussion is how we learn. And I for one, am always learning.
Why do some people insist on making a grand exit every time someone disagrees with their point of view?
Since when have we lost the ability to discuss amiably and hopefully reconcile divergent points of view?
Attachment to the body of our confused awakening.
If people have genuine insight, they are as independent of their thinking attachments as they are of others . . .
Indeed.
Dharma debate is not personal but friendly, even though it may seem critical and revelatory of another's limitations.
For those of us participating or observing, it is clear what is confused and limiting and personal and what is dharma.
Most of us are not prepared to have our opinions challenged. We want them confirmed as a body of wisdom. [i iz SO wize!]
Appreciate those are partly rhetorical questions . . . however . . . @Daveadams may just have the integrity to recognise that . . . well . . . let us leave that for @Daveadams potential staying . . .
:buck: .
Sex is the most normal thing in the world. And so is greed and hatred, covetousness, jealousy, pride etc. Not forgetting love, empathy, compassion and the like.
The point is normal is not necessarily good. It is sexual relations that needs to be avoided for the serious practitioners. And yes, without sex we wouldn't be here in the first place.
Quote:
Then Ven. Ananda approached the nun and, on arrival, sat down on a prepared seat. As he was sitting there, he said to the nun: "This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.
"This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.
"This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.
"This body comes into being through sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse is to be abandoned. With regard to sexual intercourse, the Buddha declares the cutting off of the bridge.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.159.than.html