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.
"Women embody emptiness, men awareness." Sure. The world is full of female arahants and male samadhi freaks.
This yoga sounds like a woman lying on her back renounced like a stoned prostitute and a boy with eyes wide open eagerly lusting to get on board.
Vajrayana is not speculative, it is practice-oriented. Nobody said that women are arhats, or that men are naturally in samadhi. The point is that pure view transforms the ordinary into empty awareness. This is not primarily a matter of sexuality, as *very few* practitioners ever practice these yogas and typically only at the conclusion of decades of retreat. Most vajrayana practitioners never practice such yogas in their entire lifetime.
One vows that one will regard all women as the embodiment of wisdom, the mother Prajnaparamita. That is a core precept.
Buddha said women embody craving & men embody ignorance.
This is viewed in vajrayana as a provisional teaching aimed at those that are still attached to samsaric agendas to help spur their dispassion. Vajrayana views all as pure, particularly that the passions freed from the veil of ignorance are in actuality wisdom. Obviously, you disagree with this but rather than denigrate the precepts and practices of other buddhists surely you can agree to disagree.
I cannot disagree that women embody wisdom. But, imo, their wisdom is not that of emptiness. Women embody moral or mundane wisdom.
One can talk to a young uncorrupted teenage girl and she can lecture you on the ethical solutions for the universe. In fact, she can be younger than a teenager. One often can witness young girls, four, five, six years old, lecturing their fathers and brothers on how to behave.
Children are not tabula rasa, and morality is not gender specific. By saying that women embody wisdom, vajrayana is not saying that they are necessarily wise in a mundane or supramundane way. It means that Prajnaparamita appears in this way in the world, as women. Though in reality, we are all manifestations of her there is particular resonance with the female form.
As least Padmasambhava agreed with me that women may have more trouble breaking away from attachment to children. This demonstrates a woman's love is designed for committment.
Designed by whom? I thought that the buddha said that sentient beings were a product of dependent origination.
In short, this male/female Tibtetan theory is merely that. Just theory. (But excellent for enticing naive women into the clutches of horny, randy, kinky lamas).
Again, this is not a theory. These are precepts and practices. They are not Tibetan, they were brought to Tibet from India and Uddiyana. Naive women are not qualified to perform these practices at all. They are only meant to be practiced by advanced male AND female practitioners that know full well what they are doing and enter into this relationship freely and willingly. Again, you don't have to agree but you should not speculate on the morality of people you have not met, particularly when they are committed buddhists that have spent many years in the service of the dharma. We all have a core of beliefs that we share as buddhists. We should not be disagreeable with each other based on the theory and praxis we do not share.
Hello all again, I have been following the conversation a couple of times but didnt have time to post again as I was studying for an exam. Gladly, now I'm free from it, and can past once again without problems.
Eventually it is my fault to have been looking for love in all the wrong places , just having such noble expectations from a place such a night club wasnt a smart thing to do. When I wrote this post I was most probably, in a pessimist mood in which I led myself fell in because of the media and overall, the samsara. As a 21 year old student, I'm usually "bombarded" by the outside world to consume... all through the mean of sex but indirectly leading to the consume of alcohol, to smoke, and to do drugs, naturally.. Gladly, I don't practice such stuff.
It is my opinion that in the West there has been usually a misinterprtation about buddhism, in which people believe buddhism to be a "soft shield" to their lack of discipline and self commitment. No doubt that nowadays we can even find shallow places with Buddhist names! (Buddha bar, Dharma Bar in my country, among many) I once read online a guy claiming how undiscriminated sex and jerking off werent problems, he was practically claiming how such practices arent negative at all... which is something completely untrue.
Some of you have asked what is sex for me, and well I regard sex as a highly powerful and meaningful spiritual practice in which two beings unite each other. That is what in the middle ages was the concept of Alchemy, and also why most of the religions consider sex as something to be taken seriously. I oppose to one night stands and other sexual practices without love as I see them as a downward spiral, where the energy doesnt filtrate to the highest part.
After two days of thinking, I have come to the simple conclusion that I won't be going to parties nor clubs with such frequency, and that when I eventually go, it will be only with friends and just to actually have fun dancing nothing else.
Please continue with the discussion, since through it one learns a lot
Could you explain the part about how women who are searching for a man support men's self-fulfilling sexual views? How does that benefit women looking for a committed relationship (I assume this is what you meant)? That's the only part I don't quite follow.
I see I complicated my point by mentioning tantra. I was talking about the spiritual high that sometimes comes with sex, because it's part of the Kundalini energy that can sometimes get a little stirred up.
I like your take on tantra, though. And I liked the power-and-leadership part.
I also like the reciprocity in both members of the couple serving/loving each other. But I think we need to bear in mind that the Buddha was a product of his culture and time. I don't agree with point2 2&5: a) I've never had vacillating moods b) I've never, nor do I intend to, carry child or give birth c) Enjoy serving my family? BO-ring! I''m much more into serving Humanity. That is my mainstay, rather than having children. "Co-wife"--haha! That's funny! co-husband, anyone?
WHen did BUddhism start sounding like CHristianity? Or worse, Mormonism? Sorry, but many of us aren't the domestic type.DOes that make me a bad Buddhist, because I'm not with the 500 BCE program? Some of the teachings don't translate well into a 21st century context.
In Tibet before the Chinese took over and made new laws, polyandry was common and often a woman married 2 or more brothers. Men having several consorts was also acceptable. It didn't necessarily work out well for the people concerned however and in the case of wives with more than one husband, inevitably there would be a preferred partner. (I was told this by Tibetans)
Most partners that love you will not understand you having sex with others eventhough you say there was no love there.
. If somebody comes along that you know is alone aswell and chooses to be alone, and isn't repulsive. There's no way you would have sex with him? Eventhough you know there would be no harm in it? Or do you think there would be harm in it anyway?
One of the problems with having sex outside of a relationship is (hello?) STDs. Is there a reason why no one seems concerned with this?
The reason women don't take up with whoever comes along, who is alone and "not repulsive" is that--hopefully you've noticed--sex is not so simple for women as for men. In order to avoid feeling used (the "Wham-bam, thank-you, ma'am" syndrome) during casual sex (whatever that is) or a FWB arrangement, women need to check out a guy thoroughly to make sure he'll be thoughtful and considerate enough to make sure our needs get met, rather than just his needs. So we need to meet the guy several times, at least, get to know him, watch his every gesture, his speech, his demeanor, everything, before we decide we can trust him at the most intimate of times. We have what you guys want, and you're not going to get it until you pass muster. (Or...is it just me? I don't see how women can have 1-night stands. Some complain afterwards about the quality of the encounter, but it's their own fault for not being more discerning, IMO) This doesn't necessarily mean we're looking for a long-term committed relationship; it means we're looking for someone who'll be respectful, who will be generous and considerate, and who, at worst, won't turn violent. We have physical vulnerability to worry about, as well as a more complex sexual function.
In Tibet before the Chinese took over and made new laws, polyandry was common and often a woman married 2 or more brothers. Men having several consorts was also acceptable. It didn't necessarily work out well for the people concerned however and in the case of wives with more than one husband, inevitably there would be a preferred partner. (I was told this by Tibetans)
Tashi Tsering, in his autobiography "The Struggle For Modern Tibet", says that in his family, there was no tension at all between the two fathers. Maybe it's difficult to paint the whole situation with one brush. Yeshe Tsogyal and other Dakinis had a number of consorts while married (Y. Tsogyal was married to the King, and he was ok with her having consorts.)
P.S. I thought Vincenzi made an interesting comment, that sexism means men aren't allowed to experience spirituality in sex.
Cat: glad you're feeling better, and have figured out what you want to do. Thanks for a great topic.
No tension between the men involved doesn't mean that the woman they're married to doesn't have personal preferences though. Yes I know all about the stories of Yeshe Tsogyal and other women known as 'dakinis'. My understanding is that she didn't have any choice in marrying the king when she was a teenager and he eventually gave her to Padmasambhava (her guru) as an offering. Later on she was directed by Padmasambhava to take a younger boy as a consort...and so on.......
No tension between the men involved doesn't mean that the woman they're married to doesn't have personal preferences though.
Possibly. Tashi Tsering's comment was that his mother "must have done a good job", keeping her two husbands happy. Maybe secretly she had a preference, we'll never know. I think women appreciate each "husband"/partner for each one's unique qualities, and therefore is capable of caring for them equally. I think situations vary.
Tibetan polyandry update: the NY Times had an article a couple of months ago about changing customs among Tibetans in Ladakh: as the local economy develops and more jobs become available, Tibetan men are taking wage work, and using the money to buy land, so they don't have to share land with their brothers, and they can then have a wife to themselves. Turns out, if given a choice, they prefer to not share.
Designed by whom? I thought that the buddha said that sentient beings were a product of dependent origination.
Designed by nature, what are called the 'elements' or 'faculties' (indriya) of 'femininity' & 'masculinity'
"Whom?" This is not Christianity.
Dependent origination is about the origination of suffering, which is psychological. Dependent origination is not about the origination of physical life.
You sound like a Christian that believes the Book of Genesis (Origination) in the Bible is about the creation of the physical universe rather than about the mind's dualistic perceptions & knowledge of good & evil that causes spiritual death (dukkha).
Possibly read the following words of Lord Buddha before we comment on what we believe the Buddha said:
"Whoever sees dependent co-arising sees the Dhamma; whoever sees the Dhamma sees dependent co-arising." And these things — the five aggregates subject to clinging — are dependently co-arisen. Any desire, embracing, grasping & holding on to these five aggregates is the origination of stress. Any subduing of desire & passion, any abandoning of desire & passion for these five aggregates is the cessation of stress.
On seeing a form with the eye, he lusts after it if it is pleasing; he dislikes it if it is unpleasing. He abides with mindfulness of the body unestablished, with a limited mind, and he does not understand as it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. Engaged as he is in favoring and opposing, whatever he feels he feels - whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant - he delights in that feeling, welcomes it, and remains holding to it. As he does so, delight arises in him. Now delight in feelings is clinging. With his clinging as condition, being [comes to be]; with being as condition, birth; with birth as condition ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering [on seeing a form with the eye].
There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form... feeling... perception... mental fabricating... consciousness to be 'self'. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication [of 'self'] is born of that. And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving... That feeling... That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen.
Could you explain the part about how women who are searching for a man support men's self-fulfilling sexual views? How does that benefit women looking for a committed relationship (I assume this is what you meant)? That's the only part I don't quite follow.
a) I've never had vacillating moods b) I've never, nor do I intend to, carry child or give birth c) Enjoy serving my family? BO-ring
Well, if one is shopping around, one is still sampling & test-driving. One is not exactly going to be preaching views about commitment if one has only paid a deposit. Also, most people do not want to be critical of their past behaviour.
"Co-wife". In 500BC, this meant a woman does not want to share a husband, which was common back then. I means a woman wants one husband, despite the alternative 500BC social norm. Today, it means the same thing, despite polygamy not being the social norm. Woman wants commitment & one man, the Buddha held.
Yes. We know about you Dakini, a born Bodhisatva. All I can sugggest is for your mind to start letting go of perceiving yourself as a "woman". This is mere coventional perception.
Like, when my lady friend & I were having our six hour chat last week, regarding my sex abstainence, she said to me: "But you are still a man". I replied to her: "I am not a man".
Yes. We know about you Dakini, a born Bodhisatva. All I can sugggest is for your mind to start letting go of perceiving yourself as a "woman". This is mere coventional perception.
Like, when my lady friend & I were having our six hour chat last week, regarding my sex abstainence, she said to me: "But you are still a man". I replied to her: "I am not a man".
"...a born Bodhisattva"? How do you get that from anything I said? I'd think that my postings might indicate the opposite; all too human. :-/
My point was simply that times have changed, we should take that into account when considering some of the teachings, and many people-whom-society-perceives-to-be-women :rolleyes: (we can't escape how people perceive us, not even you, whom everyone perceives to be male, no matter how you see yourself) no longer fit the image the Buddha held for women in your quote, and so, hopefully, we won't be held to an out-of-date image. And I was making fun of the co-wife tradition (I couldn't resist ), nothing personal to do with you or your post.
You have no idea how I perceive myself, anyway.
People who make sarcastic comments (" a born Bodhisattva") shouldn't sign their posts "kind regards".
Could you explain the part about how women who are searching for a man support men's self-fulfilling sexual views? How does that benefit women looking for a committed relationship (I assume this is what you meant)? That's the only part I don't quite follow.
Well, if one is shopping around, one is still sampling & test-driving. One is not exactly going to be preaching views about commitment if one has only paid a deposit. Also, most people do not want to be critical of their past behaviour.
I don't think that many (most?) women who are looking for a man (I assume you mean committed relationship or husband) support men's self-fulfilling sexual views. I didn't think that's what you believed, either, going by your earlier posts. Women looking for a serious relationship aren't, to my understanding, "test-driving". They're going through a process of becoming acquainted with someone, then if there's serious mutual interest, a relationship develops which, I think many women assume, involves commitment. This isn't "test-driving". I think if a relationship develops, many women expect it will become "THE" relationship, i.e. a lifelong one. If it doesn't work out that way, it's not because the women was only enjoying a test-drive. Didn't you write about how women are programmed for love, not "mere sex"? The "test-driving" view seems to contradict that, which is why I asked for clarification about your women supporting men's view comment.
The "test-driving" view seems to contradict that...
Certainly not. I have given my view that one's behaviour does not neccessary reflects one's inner aspirations.
Oh, well, that's a little more clear. But wouldn't one's beliefs (i.e. in whether the male agenda were appropriate for oneself) be guided by one's inner aspirations? This reminds me of another point I wanted to make. You commented that KD was taking a "Western" (male-centric) view, meaning the idea that women could or perhaps should be "free" to behave as men. But I think many women wish that men would hold values and manifest certain behaviors that are closer to women's, don't you think?
rel="Vincenzidoes anyone know of a sutra for telepathy? (sorry for being even more off-topic)
Maybe post this question on the "Magic" thread, and we can discuss. But I think one can develop telepathy during the "siddhi" stage of meditation. But one isn't supposed to grasp at "siddhis".
Follow the spiritual path. Dun let woman have a chance to enjoy in the expense of your loving-kindness. Besides, never give sperm a chance to get wild under the command of lust of women
Designed by whom? I thought that the buddha said that sentient beings were a product of dependent origination.
Designed by nature, what are called the 'elements' or 'faculties' (indriya) of 'femininity' & 'masculinity'
"Whom?" This is not Christianity.
That was my point. Saying something is designed implies that there is a designer. There is not. Neither the five bhutas nor the five indriyas are conscious, hence they are not capable of designing anything. So your statement that women were designed to be anything at all is false. Women, like men are simply the way that they are and claims about human nature do nothing to disentangle nature from nurture.
Dependent origination is about the origination of suffering, which is psychological. Dependent origination is not about the origination of physical life.
Your reading of pratityasamutpada is certainly widely divergent from both the Mahayana sutras and the abhidharmapitaka which view it as the source of *all* phenomena, not just as a psychological factor. I would be amazed if there isn't a variety of such readings in Theravadin sources.
You sound like a Christian that believes the Book of Genesis (Origination) in the Bible is about the creation of the physical universe rather than about the mind's dualistic perceptions & knowledge of good & evil that causes spiritual death (dukkha).
And you sound like every other religious zealot that smugly promotes his own views while denigrating others with condescension. Who cares what we sound like? Stick to the argument at hand. Mahayana dharma is vigorously phenomenological. You can disagree with its conclusions, but you would do more for this discussion if you could keep the tone of this discussion civil and genuinely try to understand the viewpoint of others instead of thinking that you are the sole gatekeeper of truth in the universe.
"Whoever sees dependent co-arising sees the Dhamma; whoever sees the Dhamma sees dependent co-arising." And these things — the five aggregates subject to clinging — are dependently co-arisen. Any desire, embracing, grasping & holding on to these five aggregates is the origination of stress. Any subduing of desire & passion, any abandoning of desire & passion for these five aggregates is the cessation of stress.
On seeing a form with the eye, he lusts after it if it is pleasing; he dislikes it if it is unpleasing. He abides with mindfulness of the body unestablished, with a limited mind, and he does not understand as it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. Engaged as he is in favoring and opposing, whatever he feels he feels - whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant - he delights in that feeling, welcomes it, and remains holding to it. As he does so, delight arises in him. Now delight in feelings is clinging. With his clinging as condition, being [comes to be]; with being as condition, birth; with birth as condition ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering [on seeing a form with the eye].
There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form... feeling... perception... mental fabricating... consciousness to be 'self'. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication [of 'self'] is born of that. And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving... That feeling... That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen.
:bowdown:
This says absolutely nothing different than what I believe. You are saying that they apply specifically to psychological factors and the tradition which I follow says that the entire world has arisen in the manner of a dream, a water bubble, a city in a mirror, etc. through dependent origination just as described and that to try to find an ens within the skandhas or apart from them is delusion. These interpretations of the relevance of Shakyamuni's words are hermeneutical frameworks that lie outside of the text you are quoting.
Thinking that there is only one right way and that you are in sole possession of it is simply arrogance and self-promotion. If you want to continue this discussion, I expect you to show the same respect for traditions you do not practice as for your own ruminations.
I was not refering to the five indriya (faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration & wisdom). I am referring to a biological indriya or faculty. This is the language of Theravada.
So you are saying women are not designed to carry child for nine-months, to feed that child with their breast milk and then look after than child until the child is independent?
Are you saying a man is capable of doing those things?
Are you disagreeing with the Buddha, who said there are least five qualities peculiar to women, such as menstruation, pregnancy & dangerous/painful child birth?
Are your asserting sexual equality & asserting men are capable of menstruation, pregnancy & dangerous/painful child birth?
My reading of pratityasamutpada accords with the Buddha, experience & the cessation of suffering. Yours accords with blind faith, guru worship & impracticality.
Your reading of pratityasamutpada cannot end suffering. It follows it is not in anyway connected with the core teachings of the Buddha. How can it if suffering occurs in a future life?
The Buddha did not speak abhidharmapitaka.
Any doctrine that asserts pratityasamutpada over three-lifetimes and asserts mental factors such as ignorance & volition create nama-rupa (mind-body) is not phenomenological.
Your assertion regarding "phenomenological" is false. Your assertions are unverified speculative views. Such things are not phenomenological. Phenomenological means directly experienceable. As you have not experienced what you are asserting, your viewpoints are not phenomenological.
Phenomenological pratityasamutpada is as follows:
Due to ignorance, a mind has the tendency to crave & attach to things because it does not understand the 4NTs & emptiness. Ignorances concocts formations which condition consciousness, mind-body & the sense organs. There occurs what the Buddha called "contact with ignorance". From ignorant contact comes feeling, craving & attachment. For example, a man falls in love with a woman and has children. He regards that woman & children (sense objects, aggregates) as "I" and "mine". His self-identity is inseparable from that woman & children. This is birth or jati. Jati is self-identification & social status. His wife & children are killed in a car accident. This does not cause me suffering because they are not "my" wife & children. But for him, due to birth as their "husband" & "father", he experiences the aging & death of being a "husband" & "father". The aging & death of his wife & children immediately results in his psychological aging & death (sense of loss, loss of self-identity), sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair.
Best we focus on understanding dukkha rather than wasting our time with speculative non-sense.
What you believe is not what is spoken in the suttas because you original said male & female bodies are due to Dependent Origination.
Designed by whom? I thought that the buddha said that sentient beings were a product of dependent origination.
Jāti (in Devanagari: जाति) (the word literally means thus born) is the term used to denote clans, tribes, communities and sub-communities in India. It is a term used across religions. In Indian society each jāti typically has an association with a traditional job function or tribe, although religious beliefs (e.g. Sri Vaishnavism or Veera Shaivism) or linguistic groupings define some jatis.
Wikipedia
Now this word jati has many meanings. For in the passage 'he recollects one birth, two births, etc', it is becoming. In the passage 'Visakha, there is a kind (jati) of ascetics called Niganthas (Jains)', it is monastic order. In the passage 'birth is includes in two aggregates', it is whatever is formed. In the passage 'his birth is due to the first consciousness in the mother's womb' (Vin.i,93), it is rebirth-linking. In the passage 'as soon as he was born (sampatijata), the Bodhisattva' (M.iii,123) it is parturition [childbirth]. In the passage 'one who is not rejected and despised on the account of birth', it is clan. In the passage 'sister, since i was born with noble birth', it is the Noble One's virtue.
...the tradition which I follow says that the entire world has arisen in the manner of a dream, a water bubble, a city in a mirror, etc. through dependent origination just as described....
That a female body is designed with a womb & breasts for feeding is unrelated to a "dream".
That our bodies are designed to eat & digest food via mouth, tongue, stomach, digestive organs, liver, kidneys, etc, is not related to a "dream".
That we have nervous systems designed to feel pleasure & pain is not related to a "dream".
The Dhamma you are attempting to assert is too lofty & irrelevent for this thread (imo).
All this talk of what it means to be a man or a woman does NOT take into account those born with ambiguous genitalia or chromosomal abnormalities, and therefore, it does not account for all the relationships between the many "kinds" of persons. Thus it is incomplete and biased.
What is a woman? Only a person that can bear a child?
What is a man? Only a person that can sire a child?
All this talk of what it means to be a man or a woman does NOT take into account those born with ambiguous genitalia or chromosomal abnormalities, and therefore, it does not account for all the relationships between the many "kinds" of persons. Thus it is incomplete and biased. What is a woman? Only a person that can bear a child? What is a man? Only a person that can sire a child? Then what of those that do neither?
Upalabhava to the defense of eunuchs and hermaphrodites! While noble, it doesn't really relate to the thread title (True Love, Sex and Women) or to the OP.
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
Yeah, guys. stick to topic, be nice and say thank you.
Upalabhava to the defense of eunuchs and hermaphrodites! While noble, it doesn't really relate to the threat title (True Love, Sex and Women) or to the OP.
Do you imply that true love is necessarily between those with definite genitalia? Or that sex is only performed with women?
All this talk of what it means to be a man or a woman does NOT take into account those born with ambiguous genitalia or chromosomal abnormalities, and therefore, it does not account for all the relationships between the many "kinds" of persons. Thus it is incomplete and biased.
Upalabhava
I have mentioned the elements (dhatu) or faculties (indriya) of masculinity & feminity, what you have referred to as genitalia and chromosomal.
Indeed, you raise an excellent point where the combinations or strengths of these elements are varied.
Mahayana is phenomenoligical. It is observation of the nature of mind pointed out by a guru. It is not guru worship. The guru can only point out the nature of mind. Your mind. In your observation.
This is called upadesha pointing out instructions.
The sutras are not phenominological to a greater degree than a guru. They also only point to the nature of mind.
One must form a relationship to the guru in the same way that they would form a relationship to the sutras. If you don't listen to the guru you stay lost. If you don't read the sutras the same. Make sense?
If you comprehended the route from chicago to detroit on the highway it would not be the same thing as driving from chicago to detroit. You could tell someone who was heading the wrong way that they were going the wrong direction. But that wouldn't mean that you had gotten there.
It is irrelevant whether you worship a buddha, a guru, or a sutra. What is relevant is that you understand your mind.
One must form a relationship to the guru in the same way that they would form a relationship to the sutras. If you don't listen to the guru you stay lost.
Yes that's the party line - taken to extremes of brain washing if one reads 'Guru Yoga' which is part of the TB four foundation practices.
If you have no clear unimpeded mind you have no basis to evaluate a buddha, guru, sutra, or anything.
If you do have a basis to evaluate then none of those things can harm you.
Buddha cannot take away your sin by his enlightenment. Neither can comprehending the sutras.
What is relevant is that you understand your mind. And overcome suffering for yourself and others. If a guru does not work for you then fine. I know you had a bad experience.
Comments
One vows that one will regard all women as the embodiment of wisdom, the mother Prajnaparamita. That is a core precept.
This is viewed in vajrayana as a provisional teaching aimed at those that are still attached to samsaric agendas to help spur their dispassion. Vajrayana views all as pure, particularly that the passions freed from the veil of ignorance are in actuality wisdom. Obviously, you disagree with this but rather than denigrate the precepts and practices of other buddhists surely you can agree to disagree.
Children are not tabula rasa, and morality is not gender specific. By saying that women embody wisdom, vajrayana is not saying that they are necessarily wise in a mundane or supramundane way. It means that Prajnaparamita appears in this way in the world, as women. Though in reality, we are all manifestations of her there is particular resonance with the female form. Designed by whom? I thought that the buddha said that sentient beings were a product of dependent origination. Again, this is not a theory. These are precepts and practices. They are not Tibetan, they were brought to Tibet from India and Uddiyana. Naive women are not qualified to perform these practices at all. They are only meant to be practiced by advanced male AND female practitioners that know full well what they are doing and enter into this relationship freely and willingly. Again, you don't have to agree but you should not speculate on the morality of people you have not met, particularly when they are committed buddhists that have spent many years in the service of the dharma. We all have a core of beliefs that we share as buddhists. We should not be disagreeable with each other based on the theory and praxis we do not share.
Eventually it is my fault to have been looking for love in all the wrong places
It is my opinion that in the West there has been usually a misinterprtation about buddhism, in which people believe buddhism to be a "soft shield" to their lack of discipline and self commitment. No doubt that nowadays we can even find shallow places with Buddhist names! (Buddha bar, Dharma Bar in my country, among many) I once read online a guy claiming how undiscriminated sex and jerking off werent problems, he was practically claiming how such practices arent negative at all... which is something completely untrue.
Some of you have asked what is sex for me, and well I regard sex as a highly powerful and meaningful spiritual practice in which two beings unite each other. That is what in the middle ages was the concept of Alchemy, and also why most of the religions consider sex as something to be taken seriously. I oppose to one night stands and other sexual practices without love as I see them as a downward spiral, where the energy doesnt filtrate to the highest part.
After two days of thinking, I have come to the simple conclusion that I won't be going to parties nor clubs with such frequency, and that when I eventually go, it will be only with friends and just to actually have fun dancing nothing else.
Please continue with the discussion, since through it one learns a lot
Could you explain the part about how women who are searching for a man support men's self-fulfilling sexual views? How does that benefit women looking for a committed relationship (I assume this is what you meant)? That's the only part I don't quite follow.
I like your take on tantra, though.
I also like the reciprocity in both members of the couple serving/loving each other. But I think we need to bear in mind that the Buddha was a product of his culture and time. I don't agree with point2 2&5:
a) I've never had vacillating moods b) I've never, nor do I intend to, carry child or give birth c) Enjoy serving my family? BO-ring! I''m much more into serving Humanity. That is my mainstay, rather than having children.
"Co-wife"--haha! That's funny! co-husband, anyone?
WHen did BUddhism start sounding like CHristianity? Or worse, Mormonism? Sorry, but many of us aren't the domestic type.DOes that make me a bad Buddhist, because I'm not with the 500 BCE program? Some of the teachings don't translate well into a 21st century context.
In Tibet before the Chinese took over and made new laws, polyandry was common and often a woman married 2 or more brothers. Men having several consorts was also acceptable. It didn't necessarily work out well for the people concerned however and in the case of wives with more than one husband, inevitably there would be a preferred partner. (I was told this by Tibetans)
The reason women don't take up with whoever comes along, who is alone and "not repulsive" is that--hopefully you've noticed--sex is not so simple for women as for men. In order to avoid feeling used (the "Wham-bam, thank-you, ma'am" syndrome) during casual sex (whatever that is) or a FWB arrangement, women need to check out a guy thoroughly to make sure he'll be thoughtful and considerate enough to make sure our needs get met, rather than just his needs. So we need to meet the guy several times, at least, get to know him, watch his every gesture, his speech, his demeanor, everything, before we decide we can trust him at the most intimate of times. We have what you guys want, and you're not going to get it until you pass muster. (Or...is it just me? I don't see how women can have 1-night stands. Some complain afterwards about the quality of the encounter, but it's their own fault for not being more discerning, IMO) This doesn't necessarily mean we're looking for a long-term committed relationship; it means we're looking for someone who'll be respectful, who will be generous and considerate, and who, at worst, won't turn violent. We have physical vulnerability to worry about, as well as a more complex sexual function.
Yeshe Tsogyal and other Dakinis had a number of consorts while married (Y. Tsogyal was married to the King, and he was ok with her having consorts.)
P.S. I thought Vincenzi made an interesting comment, that sexism means men aren't allowed to experience spirituality in sex.
Cat: glad you're feeling better, and have figured out what you want to do. Thanks for a great topic.
Yes I know all about the stories of Yeshe Tsogyal and other women known as 'dakinis'. My understanding is that she didn't have any choice in marrying the king when she was a teenager and he eventually gave her to Padmasambhava (her guru) as an offering. Later on she was directed by Padmasambhava to take a younger boy as a consort...and so on.......
.
"Whom?" This is not Christianity.
Dependent origination is about the origination of suffering, which is psychological. Dependent origination is not about the origination of physical life.
You sound like a Christian that believes the Book of Genesis (Origination) in the Bible is about the creation of the physical universe rather than about the mind's dualistic perceptions & knowledge of good & evil that causes spiritual death (dukkha).
Possibly read the following words of Lord Buddha before we comment on what we believe the Buddha said:
"Co-wife". In 500BC, this meant a woman does not want to share a husband, which was common back then. I means a woman wants one husband, despite the alternative 500BC social norm. Today, it means the same thing, despite polygamy not being the social norm. Woman wants commitment & one man, the Buddha held.
Yes. We know about you Dakini, a born Bodhisatva. All I can sugggest is for your mind to start letting go of perceiving yourself as a "woman". This is mere coventional perception.
Like, when my lady friend & I were having our six hour chat last week, regarding my sex abstainence, she said to me: "But you are still a man". I replied to her: "I am not a man".
Kind regards
My point was simply that times have changed, we should take that into account when considering some of the teachings, and many people-whom-society-perceives-to-be-women :rolleyes: (we can't escape how people perceive us, not even you, whom everyone perceives to be male, no matter how you see yourself) no longer fit the image the Buddha held for women in your quote, and so, hopefully, we won't be held to an out-of-date image. And I was making fun of the co-wife tradition (I couldn't resist
You have no idea how I perceive myself, anyway.
People who make sarcastic comments (" a born Bodhisattva") shouldn't sign their posts "kind regards".
:bowdown:
...sorry for going off-topic.
I'm just happy ッ about this, that's why I will say it: that's my case! ッ
I have given my view that one's behaviour may not neccessary reflects one's inner aspirations.
:bowdown:
Besides, the 1st 5 are a piece of cake, except for the one against killing, which is a fascinating challenge for kids.
maybe vajrayana is more a bon/buddhism/yoga hybrid than a school of buddhism?
does anyone know of a sutra for telepathy? (sorry for being even more off-topic)
This says absolutely nothing different than what I believe. You are saying that they apply specifically to psychological factors and the tradition which I follow says that the entire world has arisen in the manner of a dream, a water bubble, a city in a mirror, etc. through dependent origination just as described and that to try to find an ens within the skandhas or apart from them is delusion. These interpretations of the relevance of Shakyamuni's words are hermeneutical frameworks that lie outside of the text you are quoting.
Thinking that there is only one right way and that you are in sole possession of it is simply arrogance and self-promotion. If you want to continue this discussion, I expect you to show the same respect for traditions you do not practice as for your own ruminations.
So you are saying women are not designed to carry child for nine-months, to feed that child with their breast milk and then look after than child until the child is independent?
Are you saying a man is capable of doing those things?
Are you disagreeing with the Buddha, who said there are least five qualities peculiar to women, such as menstruation, pregnancy & dangerous/painful child birth?
Are your asserting sexual equality & asserting men are capable of menstruation, pregnancy & dangerous/painful child birth?
:coffee:
Your reading of pratityasamutpada cannot end suffering. It follows it is not in anyway connected with the core teachings of the Buddha. How can it if suffering occurs in a future life?
The Buddha did not speak abhidharmapitaka.
Any doctrine that asserts pratityasamutpada over three-lifetimes and asserts mental factors such as ignorance & volition create nama-rupa (mind-body) is not phenomenological.
Your assertion regarding "phenomenological" is false. Your assertions are unverified speculative views. Such things are not phenomenological. Phenomenological means directly experienceable. As you have not experienced what you are asserting, your viewpoints are not phenomenological.
Phenomenological pratityasamutpada is as follows:
Due to ignorance, a mind has the tendency to crave & attach to things because it does not understand the 4NTs & emptiness. Ignorances concocts formations which condition consciousness, mind-body & the sense organs. There occurs what the Buddha called "contact with ignorance". From ignorant contact comes feeling, craving & attachment. For example, a man falls in love with a woman and has children. He regards that woman & children (sense objects, aggregates) as "I" and "mine". His self-identity is inseparable from that woman & children. This is birth or jati. Jati is self-identification & social status. His wife & children are killed in a car accident. This does not cause me suffering because they are not "my" wife & children. But for him, due to birth as their "husband" & "father", he experiences the aging & death of being a "husband" & "father". The aging & death of his wife & children immediately results in his psychological aging & death (sense of loss, loss of self-identity), sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair.
Best we focus on understanding dukkha rather than wasting our time with speculative non-sense.
What you believe is not what is spoken in the suttas because you original said male & female bodies are due to Dependent Origination.
That our bodies are designed to eat & digest food via mouth, tongue, stomach, digestive organs, liver, kidneys, etc, is not related to a "dream".
That we have nervous systems designed to feel pleasure & pain is not related to a "dream".
The Dhamma you are attempting to assert is too lofty & irrelevent for this thread (imo).
What is a woman? Only a person that can bear a child?
What is a man? Only a person that can sire a child?
Then what of those that do neither?
Thank you.
So it seems like not much has changed.
I have mentioned the elements (dhatu) or faculties (indriya) of masculinity & feminity, what you have referred to as genitalia and chromosomal.
Indeed, you raise an excellent point where the combinations or strengths of these elements are varied.
Kind regards
Mahayana is phenomenoligical. It is observation of the nature of mind pointed out by a guru. It is not guru worship. The guru can only point out the nature of mind.
Your mind. In your observation.
This is called upadesha pointing out instructions.
The sutras are not phenominological to a greater degree than a guru. They also only point to the nature of mind.
One must form a relationship to the guru in the same way that they would form a relationship to the sutras. If you don't listen to the guru you stay lost. If you don't read the sutras the same. Make sense?
If you comprehended the route from chicago to detroit on the highway it would not be the same thing as driving from chicago to detroit. You could tell someone who was heading the wrong way that they were going the wrong direction. But that wouldn't mean that you had gotten there.
It is irrelevant whether you worship a buddha, a guru, or a sutra. What is relevant is that you understand your mind.
.
If you do have a basis to evaluate then none of those things can harm you.
Buddha cannot take away your sin by his enlightenment. Neither can comprehending the sutras.
What is relevant is that you understand your mind. And overcome suffering for yourself and others. If a guru does not work for you then fine. I know you had a bad experience.
plus La la Land Yoga ?