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.
Sin and Puritanism in Buddhism
Dakini
Veteran
The term "Puritanism" has been bandied about this site loosly on occasion, but so-called Puritanical views are not exclusive to Christianity; they can be found in Buddhism as well. Below, a brief comparison, for the sake of discussion. As Mahayana is the source of my instruction, that's the basis of the info representing the Buddhism side.
Christianity:
1) sex is sinful and should be for procreation only
2) Babies are born as sinners
3) Sin originates in the estrangement from the Divine principle. "Sins" (moral errors) are committed as a result of clinging to worldly, rather than spiritual, values.
Buddhism:
1) "Sex is for procreation" --HH the 14th Dalai Lama (www.gaytibet.blogspot.com/2006/12/dalai-lama-and-sexual-minorities.html) Using orifices for sex other than the vagina, or using the hand, is for pleasure and therefore increases attachment. Sex during daytime is prohibited.
2) As soon as a child is born, he/she starts becoming conditioned to the world of illusion, the material world.
3) A "sin" is defined as an unskillful or unwholesome action originating from the erroneous belief that the material world is the true reality. (estrangement from the true nature of reality)
Is a certain amount of "puritanism" inherent in the nature of religion?
Christianity:
1) sex is sinful and should be for procreation only
2) Babies are born as sinners
3) Sin originates in the estrangement from the Divine principle. "Sins" (moral errors) are committed as a result of clinging to worldly, rather than spiritual, values.
Buddhism:
1) "Sex is for procreation" --HH the 14th Dalai Lama (www.gaytibet.blogspot.com/2006/12/dalai-lama-and-sexual-minorities.html) Using orifices for sex other than the vagina, or using the hand, is for pleasure and therefore increases attachment. Sex during daytime is prohibited.
2) As soon as a child is born, he/she starts becoming conditioned to the world of illusion, the material world.
3) A "sin" is defined as an unskillful or unwholesome action originating from the erroneous belief that the material world is the true reality. (estrangement from the true nature of reality)
Is a certain amount of "puritanism" inherent in the nature of religion?
0
Comments
best to be careful with words like 'unskilful', 'unwholesome', 'sinful', etc
buddha advised there are two kinds of pleasure
http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara1/2-dukanipata/007-Sukhavaggo-e.html
I checked out your reference, briefly, and he does advocate for ("encourage") renunciation of pleasure and of "pleasantness" as the better choice.
buddha simply said one kind of pleasure is better than the other
If by renouncing a lesser happiness
one may realize a greater happiness,
let the wise one renounce the lesser,
having regard for the greater.
Dhammapada 290
but the Buddha was not Mahayana. the Buddha did not say the path of non-attachment was suitable for all. the Buddha did not have fantasies about 'saving all sentient beings'
in the following suttas, the Buddha certainly advocated sensual pleasures in the proper way
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.062.than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.055.than.html
Having followed the Dhamma here in this world,
both in tune in precepts & practices,
they delight in the world of the devas,
enjoying the pleasures they desire. :nyah:
.
Right, but that wasn't the point DD was trying to make, as I understood it. He was saying the Buddha encouraged sensual pleasure, but said renouncing it is better. The texts he provides are primarily on "householder pleasure".
:-/
:buck:
There's a huge difference between being "good" so that God doesn't disapprove of you, vs. being "good" to reduce your own suffering. The first is based on external validation and fear, the second on simply being healthy.
if we can gain more blissful pleasure, at no cost, from mere meditation, surely that is "better" than having to depend on whether my squeeze is horny and still loves me, who I must buy gifts for, take out to expensive restaurants, etc
buddha said the pleasure of sensuality amounts to 1/16 the pleasure of renunciation
have we not discovered this for ourselves?
:om:
if one finds the highest happiness, one has no inclination to partake in lower happiness
for example, the Buddha taught it is not possible for a fully enlightened being (an arahant) to engage in a sexual act
believe me, if you actually enjoy sex, there will be withdrawal symptoms - guaranteed
:-/
.
:rockon:
Thanks very much.
In Buddhism it known as aggregates, or skandhas, refer to the five aggregates, which are the five components of a sentient being: rūpa (form), vedanā (sensory reception), samjñā (perception), samskāra (mental processing), and vijñāna (consciousness). Skandha means that which covers or conceals. Of the five skandhas, the first one is physical and the remaining four are mental. Since these four are non-form, thus in name only, the five aggregates are summarized as name and form. An ordinary being perceives the existence of a self founded on these five constantly changing skandhas (see sixty-two views). This self-view is a fundamental delusion which hinders one's realization of the truth.
:om:
He's not "enjoying suffering and disturbing"; to the contrary, he's given it up as a way of life (as I understand).
Impressive. :bowdown: You really think you won't feel any pain? Have you ever been dumped before?
To believe "non-clinging" to unhappiness is "bliss" is surely folly.
:rolleyes:
For example, dog shit. Most intelligent people CHOOSE not to step in it.
I don't want you to have what I have. I want you to have what you want.
Example, an infant needs a pram. But when they grows up, they walk on their own two feet.
Similarly, to some, worldly things are like the "pram". Simply not needed anymore.
:-/
:-/