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.
Buddhism and Sex?
Hello everyone,
I am very new to Buddhism. I have been studying it off and on for about two years now--very casually. Today I was reading different websites and came across this:
A core teaching of Buddhism is the Buddha's Eightfold Path.
<!--msthemelist--><table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <!--msthemelist--><tbody><tr><td width="42" valign="baseline">
</td><td width="100%" valign="top">The second of the eight steps is called Samma sankappa: right thinking or right resolve. It has been stated as:<!--msthemelist--></td></tr> <!--msthemelist--></tbody></table>
Engage in no pleasurable activities at all, including both masturbation and sexual pursuits with another person.
Why is this considered bad?
Thank you,
Amanda
It came from this site: http://www.religioustolerance.org
I am very new to Buddhism. I have been studying it off and on for about two years now--very casually. Today I was reading different websites and came across this:
A core teaching of Buddhism is the Buddha's Eightfold Path.
<!--msthemelist--><table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <!--msthemelist--><tbody><tr><td width="42" valign="baseline">
</td><td width="100%" valign="top">The second of the eight steps is called Samma sankappa: right thinking or right resolve. It has been stated as:<!--msthemelist--></td></tr> <!--msthemelist--></tbody></table>
"You must renounce the pleasures of the senses; you must harbor no ill will toward anyone, and harm no living creature." <sub></sub>
When applied to sexual behavior, this step would seem to imply that one must:Engage in no pleasurable activities at all, including both masturbation and sexual pursuits with another person.
Why is this considered bad?
Thank you,
Amanda
It came from this site: http://www.religioustolerance.org
0
Comments
Unless you are an ordained bhikkhu or bhikkhuni, it is rather the absense of sensual (and sexual) misconduct, not the absence of sex altogether. You can be a Buddhist and still have a family. It's just that at some point, if you wish to continue on the path to ultimate Nibbana, you will realize the harmful attachment that goes with sexuality and the desire for sex will then fall away.
Am I understanding that right?
Can you explain to me what you mean by "Buddhist layman"? Sorry, I am still very new.
So there is nothing really "wrong" with having sex within a committed relationship, but the ultimate goal is to get rid of your desires, which would include sex? Is that right?
Thanks again!
he he he he
but, the ultimate goal is to attain a state of emptiness, which is just synonymous with nirvana. this does not mean to cease sexual desire, it just means to live in the mind in a state of desirelessness, to end thirst. but to end thirst does not mean you cease drinking water.
Wise words!
Is sex same as water?
Fluids do come into it.:rolleyes:
Both are essential for life.
Correction water is essential to life and sex for life.
No, not at all.
It is treated as an attachment to gradually free yourself from, just as any form of attachment to anything else, is worked upon.
Buddhists see nothing wrong with sex at all, providing it is practised in a manner which does not compromise the third Precept.
And that factor, is largely a decision to be made by those actively involved.
I think you're confusing sexual discrimination with 'sex'.
But that's a whole 'nuther story.....;)
I think some Buddhist do, but that will be cultural rather than spiritual:)
Mat
so it's nothing to do with 'Buddhism' as Buddhism is, it's more to do with a personal inference and interpretation.
For laypeople, the Buddha advised to practise sexual morality or fidelity as follows:
Kind regards
What has anything to do with masculine orthodoxy?
Those who pursue the life of a monk or nun renounce sex.
If something was not controlling you, why would you do it?
If you were okay without it, then why would you do it or be concerned with it?
The Buddha taught there are monks & laypeople. For laypeople, having sexual relations is generally a necessity, otherwise they will burn up with sexual craving.
Sexual craving is a natural element connected to reproductive instinct or mechanisms. If we examine nature, we can see all creatures, human, animal, fish, insects, plants, etc, have sexual craving.
The Buddha encouraged those who need to engage in sexual activity to do so in ways that minimise harm & lead to the development of social & spiritual virtues.
The Buddha's teachings of non-attachment are not really related to sex.
Kind regards
I've had a husband in the past (now dead) and plenty of fantastic sexual encounters - but sex itself is just a desire which is satisfied (or not).
One can also still have very loving, lasting and meaningful relationships with others without body fluids being involved.
Sex can be a digusting pustule of a timewaster, or a very healthy and wholesome, and wholistic, part of life. It depends on you. Buddhist dont have to be the anti-sex league.
How would you know the answer if you have not tried it?
Personally, I am not sure what kind of "awakening" you are referring to?
There is an awakening that passes through every mental emotion, especially the most primal of fear, loneliness and the feeling of death.
This is the awakening into viveka or perfect aloneness. Viveka = Nibbana
Your sex life is your business. But to cynically say to another "I bet you're great in the sack"....nothing to do with dirty dirty sex.
Just a statement of our life's priorities and how we view & relate to & objectify others....
What an extremely coarse and unnecessary comment to make !
.... and I bet you're not matey !
.
No disrespect dazzle.
terribly unenlightend:dunce:
However I accept your apology - but you must quite rightly stay in the self appointed, unenlightened drivelling bloke corner for the moment.
.
.
In world religions, I think lots.
The best advice I can give is to NOT read too much. Experience is the best teacher you can have. A lot of newbies go right to the written stuff. In western society we are taught that because of books like the bible. Go out and take a walk in a park. Sit down, close your eyes, and listen.
I'm not sure if people ever actually find this to be a problem, but I can see how it could be, potentially. After reading this thread I just started to ponder about it.
If you honestly do not feel a sexual relationship with your partner, then you would have to be honest . If your partner loves you and is committed there can be accomodations. Insincere sexuality is more harmful than whatever comes of your honesty.
I don't really understand this line of reasoning. Are you saying it is impossible to do something without it controlling you or being attached to it? By this logic, are we not then controlled by food whenever we eat, no matter how attached or unattached we are to the eating itself? I'm not sure I agree, I think it is possible to take action without necessarily being attached to the action or the outcome.
Just curious, are you an Epicurean?
Heh, I don't call myself an Epicurean, but I would say I have been influenced by the philosophy. While Epicureanism is often defined as a hedonistic philosophy, it is actually closer to the middle path of Buddhism than either extreme of self-mortification/self-indulgence. Epicurus was devoted to overcoming stress and anxiety in this life in order to reach a state of tranquility, in a manner similar to the Buddha's devotion to eliminating suffering.
Where I think the difference arises is that Epicureanism is a more "complete" philosophy in the sense of defining a theory of metaphysics, epistemology, ontology, ethics, etc. while Buddhism considers everything secondary in the face of the problem of suffering and the goal of the cessation of suffering. Reflecting this singularity of focus, the Buddha understood much more completely than Epicurus did how suffering arises and how it can be ended.
I don't think this need be a problem. People change over the course of a relationship whether they're practicing Buddhism or not. It's only natural that a person's sexual appetite will vary over time. You know the old saying about if a newly married couple put a bean in a jar every time they consummated the marriage in the first year and then took one out of the jar every time after the first year the jar would never get empty! If it's a healthy relationship I think it would work itself out naturally. And I do think that one's sexual desire does decline as one's practice deepens. That's only natural as well.
Palzang
Buddha taught selflessness (non-selfishness). I think sex or my desire for sex for my own pleasure stems from just that, the desire for my own pleasure, and it comes down to craving/selfishness. But sex in, say, a committed relationship, where I am not having sex to please myself, but to please my wife/partner/whatever is a more correct way to look at sexual desire. And in seeking to please my wife and make her happy, i too am pleased and made happy. When we have the desire for our own self, then often times when we can't get sex, we are not content, we are suffering. But if we can eliminate the selfish desire behind it, and embrace the loving (devotion to another) aspect of it, it becomes something more wholesome, more fulfilling. And when it is understood in this way, it becomes not sexual desire, for that is gone, but it becomes the devotion to enriching someone else's experience of life, which enriches our own, and maybe others' through this understanding in a less direct way as well.
Note: I still have the selfish part of sexual desire from time to time, so that may be a sign that my understanding is not yet fully correct or right. But this is how i feel currently
Thanks to everyone who posted their views on this, and thanks for taking the time to read my current understanding of it.