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.
Does Buddhsm say celibacy is better than sex?
Does Buddhsm say celibacy is better than sex? Is it true that some Buddhists believe sex is only right for reproduction. I read that the Dalai Lama said only sex that involved vagina is right and that oral and anal sex is wrong.
0
Comments
Buddhism doesn't say this or that. It provides a means to cultivate egoless wisdom and make skillful choices which lead to wellbeing.
>>Is it true that some Buddhists believe sex is only right for reproduction.
Again, see above. Buddhists have varying personal beliefs and I'm sure you could find a Buddhist with that one and any other.
>>I read that the Dalai Lama said only sex that involved vagina is right and that oral and anal sex is wrong.
He's said that what two consenting adults do with their butts or what-have-you in the privacy of their own bed is their business so long as it isn't harming anyone. And either way he isn't the authoritative voice on all of Buddhism.
He stated that the Dalai Lama stated that any organ other than the vagina should not be used in sexual intercourse.
According to this book the Dalai Lama even stated that masterbation is proscribed for Buddhist practitioners and is improper.
I don't know if the Dalai Lama still holds these views.
(to reiterate, he is not the authoritative voice of Buddhism, and he was not speaking from a "Buddhist-point-of-view" but from his own point-of-view within his own tradition of Buddhism.
He has also said:
That sounds like a very one sided view.
as with the majority of teachings by the Buddha, it's left to your own personal discernment to evaluate what you feel is sexual misconduct.
In my own personal opinion, I think that any type of sexual encounter which compromises a person's comfort, will or co-operation, and that uses and abuses their prticipation, and coerces them to take part even though they are not comfortable - is sexual misconduct.
The sexual persuasion of individuals is not an issue.
To begin with, it should be made clear that Buddhist precepts aren't equivalent to commandments in that precepts are training rules that are voluntarily undertaken rather than edicts or commands dictated by a higher power and/or authority. In essence, these precepts are undertaken to protect oneself, as well as others, from the results of unskillful actions. Actions are considered unskillful when they arise out of the mental defilements of greed, hatred and delusion and lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others or to both (MN 61).
In regard to Buddhist sexual ethics, the third precept states: "I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct." This, of course, will naturally lead one to the question, "What is the definition of sexual misconduct?" To answer that question, however, we must take into account the other four precepts. In other words, the five precepts are an integrated whole, and each precept supports the others. The other four precepts are (1) to refrain from harming living beings, (2) to refrain from taking what's not given, (3) to refrain from false speech and (4) to refrain from taking intoxicants that lead to carelessness.
Therefore, generally speaking, we can say that sexual misconduct consists of any sexual conduct that involves violence, manipulation and/or deceit. As the Ven. S. Dhammika elaborates, "If we use trickery, emotional blackmail or force to compel someone to have sex with us, then this is sexual misconduct. Adultery is also a form of sexual misconduct because when we marry we promise our spouse that we will be loyal to them. When we commit adultery we break that promise and betray that trust. Sex should be an expression of love and intimacy between two people and when it is it contributes to our mental and emotional well-being."
To summarize, from what I've been taught by my teachers, as well as from what I've read in the suttas, sexual misconduct includes any sexual activity that leads to self-affliction, to the affliction of others or to both, or that involves any person who's (1) already in a committed relationship (e.g., engaged, married, etc.), (2) protected by law (e.g., under age, etc.) or (3) under religious vows entailing celibacy (e.g., monks, nuns, etc.). Hence in Theravada, sex between consenting persons of legal age who aren't already in committed relationships and haven't taken vows of celibacy isn't considered misconduct.
In regard to anal and oral sex, there's a prohibition against sex concerning "inappropriate orifices" (i.e. anal and oral) that can be found in Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosabhasyam, as well as a few other Sarvastivadin texts, but there's no such prohibition found in any Theravadin source. Personally, I think that a lot of the views concerning marriage and sex are influenced more by cultural, religious and social norms than by any universal constant. For a few quick references, please see Buddhist Sexual Ethics, Good Question, Good Answer and The Healing Power of the Precepts.
Thanks.
I would like to add that a Buddhist will want to avoid anything that is watering a weed so it become a giant tree as well...
perversions were once only tiny little seeds.
The craving for sex is just another programming that can be dealt with by a Buddhist like any other craving in life.
The only difference is, like eating, the seed of this craving came from your dna.
That said, the Buddha did not recommend all people seek non-sensual happiness.
It depends on personal disposition.
it comes down to partners and what they are into, its nobody elses business.
Excellent point, DD.
It's important to remember that Buddhism doesn't have right and wrong, but skillful and unskillful. Unskillful thoughts, speech, or action result in the suffering of others or oneself, and thus have a negative karmic impact and are unskillful.
On the question of sex, the five precepts for lay people doesn't say anything against it, only the monastic vows. I've heard from both Bikkhu Bodhi and Reverend Kusala that it's not the act of sex that is unskillful, but rather the craving for it. Indulging in the desire for sex reinforces the desire, so this is why the monastics, who devote their lives to enlightenment and the destruction of all desire, are forbidden to indulge in sex. In terms of lay people, it would be a fine way to help reduce your craving in this life, but it's not in any way a moral imperative.
In terms of anal or oral sex, I believe it wasn't a slight against homosexuality, but rather the indulgence of the desire for sex in general. Vaginal sex is used for procreation, but if people were to indulge in sex simply for the sensual pleasure, it would be unskillful. Since anal and oral sex are indulgences sensual pleasure without the purpose of procreation, the Dalai Lama probably assumed they default to unskillful. But as others have said, it's up to the individual as to how fervently they want to pursue enlightenment.
HAHAH that is hillarious...
nor did he recommned that all people who seek sensual happiness make sure that there is a vagina present
That also depends on personal disposition.
Good post DD
And if the Dalai Lama did in fact say those things, he is in error or only speaking for Tibet as its spiritual leader. He is not the Pope of Buddhism, and such things were not of the Buddha's concern nor should they be of ours.
HH Dalai Lama is certainly not the spokesperson for all Buddhist traditions.Anything that he said about sex would probably be cultural. Tibetan's have a variety of cultural prohibitions regarding sexual matters and time of day etc Some of them may have been for practical reasons because nomads didn't wash as they often had limited access to water and so on -- who knows.
There is a TB centre in London for GLBT buddhists with Ringu Tulku as its spiritual director.
In general, the ultimate is beyond relative gender and sexual orientation anyway.
.
Respectfully,
Raven
The point of view has changed. Also, my earlier post identifies the real reason that they were discouraged.
Can a romantic relationship exist without sex?
It really depends on what your definitions are. Romantic relationships can absolutely exist without intercourse...
I would have said that 'romance' implies a love-affair which would end in sex at some stage, or which would have hopes of sexual fulfillment.
We can have close, loving, non-sexual friendships, and close spiritual friendships (or a combination of both) - but I can't quite see how romance would fit in with that.
.
Here's what the Buddha had to say.
Two Kinds of Happiness
" There are two kinds of happiness, O monks. The happiness of the home life and the happiness of monkhood. But the happiness of monkhood is the higher of the two.
The happiness of the senses and the happiness of renunciation. But the happiness of renunciation is the higher of the two.
Tainted happiness and taintless happiness. But taintless happiness is the higher of the two.
Carnal and non-carnal happiness - the non carnal is the higher. Noble and ignoble happiness - the noble is the higher. Bodily and mental hapiness - the mental is the higher.
(AN 2:7; selected)
.
The Pali literature basically takes the position that sexual intercourse is an obstruction or impediment (antarayika dhamma) to obtaining awakening. In AN 4.159, for example, Ananda explains to a bhikkhuni, who's apparently sick, that sexual intercourse is to be abandoned in the practice of the holy life. (Incidentally, the background to this story details that the bhikkhuni in question was faking her illness so that Ananda would come to see her. She was very infatuated with him, and when he realized this, he gave her this particular discourse.)
Another example can be found at the beginning of MN 22. Here, the Buddha is portrayed as rebuking a monk for his views regarding sex. While not explicitly stated in the sutta itself, the commentary to this sutta mentions that the wrong view of the offending monk, Arittha, dealt specifically with the monastic training rule prohibiting sexual intercourse.
The note given to this section of the sutta concerning "obstructions" by Nyanaponika Thera explains this in more detail. Simply put, for a monastic who's dedicated fully to the holy life, it's a serious hindrance to their practice. After all, the duty of the noble disciple is to discern the allures and drawbacks of, and escape from, sensuality, physical form and feeling (MN 13). And if you look to the Buddha's teachings in general, there's nothing in them that suggests there's anything skillful in giving in to sensual desires, including those of a sexual nature.
As lay-followers, of course, we're not required to remain celibate; however, it seems to be the general consensus among Theravadin orthodoxy that sex and masturbation do nothing for spiritual awakening. Moreover, Buddhism doesn't encourage the casual fulfillment of sensual desires as much as it encourages their eventual abandonment, which further supports the idea that sex is ultimately an obstruction to awakening.
This is essentially the case made by Ajahn Brahm and Ajahn Nanadhammo in "Buddhist Sexual Ethics - A Rejoinder." While this shouldn't be taken as an absolute rejection of sex as it mainly pertains to monastics who have gone forth, it does strongly suggest that sex is ultimately a hindrance to awakening for those of us that are interested in pursuing the path the very end. Nevertheless, even if this is true, I think our old friend Kris (who I wish was still around) made an excellent point in a similar discussion we had a few years ago:
but that:
The accompanying commentary (perhaps unsurprisingly) provides a very “monastic” slant on the above quotes. Rather than issuing a blanket command to “give it up”, as some teachers do, Buddha demonstrated the means by which this attachment will fade of itself - the bliss of Jhana.
That bliss and renunciation are the same thing, indicates that this is no miserable, cold-shower-style repression, rather something quite different and unique. So how can renunciation of something we enjoy be blissful? It can only be blissful when we see the nature of the agitation of the mind (insight) from within the calm of Jhana (samatha). This is entirely unlike any kind of worldly bliss and is termed a pleasure not-of-the-flesh.
A blissful process is also utilised in the inner fire teachings of highest yoga tantra but as a means to an end - not an end in itself.
Just “giving it up” won’t work for most people and could be the first step on the path of self-mortification. It involves denial and what help is that when one dies? The desire, the volition, is still latent within the stream (although repressed). Only when true relinquishment occurs, through meditation, can it be deemed worthwhile and I feel that Buddha’s Middle Way must be interpreted in this way.
My relationship with my husband began as a romance without sex for the first at least six months as we lived in different states and rarely saw each other.
It goes further. Improper person (Eunich, Relative, Same Sex, Monk or Nun) Improper Place (in front of a stupa, your Guru, any spiritual place you practice) Improper Time (During one day vows, While the woman is pregnant)
anyhow,
You absolutely don't have to believe or follow anything HHDL says
- but I think it is helpful to know that HHDL didn't dream this up. He is merely talking from a scriptural point of view that goes back to the beginning of the Gelug lineage back to Je Tsong-Khapa. I'm sure Je Rinpoche didn't dream it up either and I am sure he found the same teachings in his studies which covered basically all of Tibetan Buddhism at the time including Kagyu, Sakya, and Nyingma and some say all of the Kadam teachings as well.
Je-Tsong-Khapa, Gampopa, Milrepa, Kalu Rinpoche, Pabongkha Rinpoche
What you read from the Dalai Lama is in the books written by the above authors, who agree without question.
It comes down to what you want to do though. HHDL is just one teacher.
Well, if you're certain of your baseless assumptions, then it's case closed, people. [/thread]
The Dalai Lama has even said that it's possibly nothing more than cultural residue.
What I was thinking as well. It maybe true that there can be long distance relationships where two people do not get the chance of a close physical relationship but they have it in mind to eventually... It's very hard to think if two people will be romantically involved without any sex at all and only love.
The initial attraction of any romantic relationship is based on physical attributes and sex or physical intimacy is the driving force of most romantic relationships. But then again, what do I know
As far as awakening is concerned, it's really only beneficial in the context of a well-developed meditation practice, or for someone who's in the process of developing one.
Different strokes for different folks ! (to coin a phrase
Personally I have found that my decision some years ago to become celibate has brought much greater peace of mind and general contentment.
.
Sorry to disillusion you, but "soulmates" can turn to "hatemates" sometimes when the romantic bubble starts to get thin and bursts. Feelings and needs can change due to impermanence.:)
.
If there is no other benefit then preventing the many complexities that romantic relationships inevitably bring is enough in itself.
I have to agree that romantic relationships bring complexity. I am not convinced that the complexity brings harm, but it does require you to look at more items, and be more flexible in what surrounds you. Its pretty good stuff though.
With warmth,
Matt
"No faultfinding, no hurting, restraint in the patimokkha,
Knowing the measure regarding food, solitary bed and chair,
Application, too, of higher perception:
This is the instruction of the Awakened Ones." (185 )
and, perhaps, the whole of section XVI "The Pleasant".
Buddhists, of course, like all people who use texts, will spin these to their own ends.