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.
People can assess the posts and see who has the attitude. The truth is the truth. It doesn't matter what I say, it doesn't matter what you say, it doesn't matter what he says. Everything we say is perception.
Cuz the true thing is no thing, and therefore there is nothing to teach.
I am quite sure that there is a name for this type of mental/spiritual problem but I don't know what it is.Is it a fetter of some type? Sorry for the off topic posts.
Perhaps off topic, but the Buddha was a "player" in his youth and developed wisdom in later years.
There is no evidence of this in the Buddhist scriptures.
The scriptures report the Buddha lived in three palaces and was entertained by dancing girls and he found it all rather boring.
Possibly my account above is inaccurate.
I have read this scripture in a number of translations (one which is not available to me). Possibly, the Prince did induldge in sexuality but who knows? Personally, I doubt it. The scripture simply states he was entertained by 'female musicians'.
Sndymorn, the story of the Buddha is certainly one of evolution, as you inferred, from the foremost life of luxury & sensuality to one of disenchantment with those things.
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 February 2011
Now we can quit this bickering, can't we? Really, in light of recent minor turmoil, I fail to see why some persist in making waves, while others rock the boat. It has all the makings of tears before bed-time... :rolleyes: :grumble:
My impression is your views are from a modern perspective.
People often forget the 'sexual revolution' in the West is only 50 years old.
yes, but I think you'll find sexual desire precedes that by a good pinch....
Most people cannot image how life was and how sexual views were before widespread birth control, which is only around 45 years old.
Yes, but some can, and let me tell you, it was a far more sensual and erotic time than you imagine.
Like Jesus, the Buddha lived in a religious society. The Bible reports Jesus was a master of the Jewish scriptures at 12 years old. That Jesus was a carpenter is probably fiction. The brother of Jesus, James the Just, was a Pharisee. It follows Jesus must have come from a priestly family.
Although Buddha was not of the Brahmin caste, most if not all of his chief disciples were. It is highly probable the Prince Siddharta was raised with standard religious views, including moral precepts.
The Buddha taught according to the norms of his Brahministic society. He taught, according to custom, it is the duty of a parent to help arrange the marriage of their children. This generally occurred when the children were 16 years old.
To imagine the Buddha was 'a player' is inconsistant with the religious norms of his Brahministic society.
This is so far off base, as a supposition, it's hard to know where to start, so let me just point something out to you, if I may:
The Kama Sutra is the most ancient Indian text to ever have come to light, and while evidence shows it was not compiled as a complete literary work until 1 or 2 CE, there is a great deal of evidence to support its existence in smaller and separate chapters, pre-dating this comprehensive work by at least 600 or 700 years. It's composed on the basis of the Vedas, and is not pornographic.It is a composition denoting the ways of fulfilling in the best way possible, the three prerequisites of Life, one of which is procreation.
Life necessitates three kinds of activity: to assure its survival, its means of existence, and its nourishment; to realise its reproduction according to forms of activity generally connected with sexuality; and, lastly, to establish rules of behaviour that allow different individuals to perform their roles within the framework of the species. In human society, this is represented as three necessities, three aims of life: material goods (artha) assure survival; erotic practice (kama) assures the transmission of life; and rules of behaviour, a moral nature (dharma), assure the cohesion and duration of the species. (The Complete Kamasutra, translated by Alain Danielou, 1994)
Ancient India was a sexy place. And the Buddha may well have had his share, as was expected of a young up-and-coming handsome, virile and healthy male. I know nothing about the Kama Sutra otherwise, but assumptions that the Buddha was one way or the other, are exactly that. Assumptions. With a little dose of wishful thinking thrown in, I suspect....
A bit off topic aswell, but where do you (all) get the knowledge about the Buddha before he was the Buddha? Is it from all the seperate suttas or are there books that tell his life story as a story?
edit: or are there books that tell the suttas chronologically according to the Buddha's life?
@Supertramp, I'd imagine that's where everyone gets their info. Either that or books that use the sutras as sources.
The sutras detail the Buddha's pre-enlightened life, but the different traditions have different sutras with... wait for it... different accounts. So it's hard to say really. It's at least true that he was born a Prince, renounced his title, spent some time seeking liberation (performing ascetic practices, etc.), eventually awakened and then taught for 45 years until his death. There's a lot of variation in the traditional accounts, some supernatural/mystical sounding.
I am ignorant. I am here in "Beginning Buddhism." I heard the Buddha was a man and assumed he was therefore heir to all men's concomitant challenges. If he "entered jhana at four or six years old" then I simply have nothing to learn from him. I would not take a science class from ... fill in the name of some eminent scientific thinker. I would not waste his (or her) time. I am not interested in Sanskrit or elaborate imagery from the beginning of recorded history. Practically, I want to get over my self (I believe I may , on some level attain this through Buddhism) so that I can quiet(not silence) my inner dialogue. This discussion I have been having (less so the older I get) for the last fifty years has proved fruitless in terms of my desire to feel comfortable with myself. I am , perhaps , a sufferer of attention deficit disorder. I eschew the drugs of modern medicine, but it may come to that . Bio feedback does not appeal to me . Meditation and yoga do. I am accomplished. I am financially secure. I have a loving family and a long- term marriage. I do not ask, "what is all this for?" (Life I mean) I will not renounce earthly pleasures. (I know! It is O.K. as long as i do not "crave.") Perhaps children's books on Buddhism are for me. I began my recent interest in Buddhism because of listening to and reading Alan Watts. Is there another person / explainer like him I might turn to? Should I go back to Ram Dass as in my youth? I do not mean to challenge the Buddhist aesthetes I have heard from in this post. I am , clearly not one but I respect and admire such devotion. Is there a "Buddhism in a Box" I might purchase? A kit ?
This whole thread is generalizations seems to me. Some men are less muscular than some women. Even if they both don't work out and have similar lifestyles/ages. There is more variation among women (or men). Within variants of same sex. Than there is between the sexes in general. Aside from cultural. Example its arbitary that pink is associated with women. If culture had grown differently pink could be for men.
Thanks for bringing us back on-topic, Jeffrey. Much earlier someone mentioned that there are suttras that discuss the personality/psychological differences between men and women, but no info was given. Could someone provide that?
Men and women share approximately 98% of the same DNA. That's roughly the same as a male homosapien and a male chipanzee. In the latter case that 2% makes a huge difference. How that 2% difference translates between male and female homosapiens is hard to say, but I do believe that males and females are biologically predisposed in certain ways. To act like there are no differences in how males and females relate to the world would fly in the face of common sense. We are indeed different,one is just not "better" than the other. Each sex tends to balance the other and both are very necessary and unique. All the best, Todd
Cuz the true thing is no thing, and therefore there is nothing to teach.
I am quite sure that there is a name for this type of mental/spiritual problem but I don't know what it is.Is it a fetter of some type? Sorry for the off topic posts.
it borders on nihilism; but it is mostly an incorrect understanding and conclusion from shunyata (emptyness).
yes, but I think you'll find sexual desire precedes that by a good pinch....
Yes, but some can, and let me tell you, it was a far more sensual and erotic time than you imagine.
This is so far off base, as a supposition, it's hard to know where to start, so let me just point something out to you, if I may:
The Kama Sutra is the most ancient Indian text to ever have come to light, and while evidence shows it was not compiled as a complete literary work until 1 or 2 CE, there is a great deal of evidence to support its existence in smaller and separate chapters, pre-dating this comprehensive work by at least 600 or 700 years. It's composed on the basis of the Vedas, and is not pornographic.It is a composition denoting the ways of fulfilling in the best way possible, the three prerequisites of Life, one of which is procreation.
Ancient India was a sexy place.
And the Buddha may well have had his share, as was expected of a young up-and-coming handsome, virile and healthy male.
I know nothing about the Kama Sutra otherwise, but assumptions that the Buddha was one way or the other, are exactly that. Assumptions. With a little dose of wishful thinking thrown in, I suspect....
Fede, dear
Most societies thru out history have had moral systems to manage sexuality, such as marriage.
Before the sexual revolution, in general, not always, when people thought about having sex with eachother due to attraction & feeling "erotic", they thought about marrying eachother.
When we watch Hollywood movies of certain eras, who do not watch attractees humping eachother during one night stands. They propose, blush & kiss.
You talk about the Kama Sutra as though it was as widely distributed as the Bible. It is just a book about sex. Your opinion about the Kama Sutra is similar to believing each modern human being has been sexually instructed watching 'Debbie Does Dallas'.
I already included links about the Brahmin lives of Kassapa, Sariputta & Mogallana.
I already mentioned when Indian children reached 16 years of age, their parents would become frenzied about finding a marriage partner for them. This custom still occurs in many cultures today, including Indian culture.
The Buddha himself taught it is the duty of parents to help arrange a suitable marriage for their children.
Personally I disagree with the view of your good self & The Journey.
A man is attracted to a woman because a woman has certain qualities and a woman is attracted to a man because a man has certain qualities.
The Buddha said:
1. Bhikkhus, I do not know of a form that captivates the mind of man as that of woman. The form of a woman indeed captivates the mind of a man. This is the first.
2. Bhikkhus, I do not know of a sound that captivates the mind of man as that of woman. The sound of a woman indeed captivates the mind of a man. This is the second.
3. Bhikkhus, I do not know of a smell that captivates the mind of man as that of woman. The smell of a woman indeed captivates the mind of a man This is the third.
4. Bhikkhus, I do not know of a taste that captivates the mind of man as that of woman. The taste of a woman indeed captivates the mind of a man. This is the fourth.
5. Bhikkhus, I do not know of a touch that captivates the mind of man as that of woman. The touch of a woman indeed captivates the mind of a man. This is the fifth.
6. Bhikkhus, I do not know of a form that captivates the mind of woman as that of man. The form of a man indeed captivates the mind of a woman. This is the sixth..
7. Bhikkhus, I do not know of a sound that captivates the mind of woman as that of man. The sound of a man indeed captivates the mind of a woman. This is the seventh
8. Bhikkhus, I do not know of a smell that captivates the mind of woman as that of man. The smell of a man indeed captivates the mind of a woman This is the eighth..
9. Bhikkhus, I do not know of a taste that captivates the mind of woman as that of man. The taste of a man indeed captivates the mind of a woman. This is the nineth.
10. Bhikkhus, I do not know of a touch that captivates the mind of woman as that of man. The touch of a man indeed captivates the mind of a woman. This is the tenth.
As Freud theorised, this also happens in children. A son is attracted to his mother because she may have certain qualities and a daughter may be attracted to her father because he may have certain qualities.
The disposition of a woman generally creates less fear in children when a mother is angry. The comely features of a woman make her less threatening to a child. So a woman can play a core role in moralising children. Also, a mother generally (but not always) can play a more significant role in providing affection to children.
Regardless, both parents have unique roles in offering different nurturing qualities to children.
I live in a small community, where there are many single mothers. I see young boys often seek trust from a male figure and young girls seek affection from a male figure.
The Dalai Lama often states women have an important role if society is to improve itself. However, due to political correctness, the Dalai Lama generally does not explain in detail what this 'role' is. This role, imo, is that of 'moralising' sons. A woman, due to her capacity for mushy lovingness, has the capacity to 'moralise' sons, so they respect & love women instead of looking upon them as sex objects.
Men & woman are generally as different as ying & yang.
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
I personally think it matters not a jot what the Buddha did in his private life, before he was Buddha. He might well, as DD points out, been a righteous, rigorous, disciplined and worthily chaste young man. He might have equally indulged in lustful activities and "put it about a bit". It's uncertain. it's an unknown. It's speculation. It's frankly futile to ponder on it. And who could blame him, either way? Frankly, it matters more what service any person offers humanity, than what they indulge in behind closed doors. The legacy of the Dhamma is evidence enough that he had his head on straight.
Good Post, DD. The Yin and Yang bit is spot on. Particularly if one considers the symbol of these intertwined energies... ever moving ever fluctuating ever twisting this way and that, ever performing in different patterns, but nevertheless always equal in substance and volume, balanced and mutually supportive, co-dependent, with a portion of Yin in Yang, and a portion of Yang in Yin... nothing is ever completely one way or the other, and determining its "Yin-ness" or "Yang-ness" depends on what we compare it to.....
Much earlier someone mentioned that there are suttras that discuss the personality/psychological differences between men and women, but no info was given. Could someone provide that?
CW
These are not available on the internet.
There is a division in the Samyutta Nikaya (Matugama-samyutta) about women.
There is at least one discourse in the Anguttara Nikaya about the different aims of different human beings.
002.07. Bhikkhus, in eight ways the woman binds the man. What eight?
Bhikkhus, by crying the woman binds the man. By laughing, ... re ... by talking, ... re ... by the deportment, ... re ... by presenting wild flowers, fruits and gleanings ... re ... by the scent, ... re ... by tastes, ... re ... and by the touch. Bhikkhus, in these eight ways the woman binds the man. Bhikkhus, those beings bound by the touch are well bound.
8. Dutiyabandhanasusttaü Second on bonds
002.08. Bhikkhus, in eight ways the man binds the woman. What eight?
Bhikkhus, by crying the man binds the woman. By laughing, ... re ... by talking, ... re ... by the deportment, ... re ... by presenting wild flowers, fruits and gleanings ... re ... by the scent, ... re ... by tastes, ... re ... and by the touch. Bhikkhus, in these eight ways the man binds the woman. Bhikkhus, those beings bound by the touch are well bound.
But a male doesn't have to be stereotypically "masculine" or a female "feminine." Whatever seems right.
Hear, hear!
One can be not "stereotypically masculine of feminine" and still be in conformance with the characteristics given above. Journey's and my comment came after participating in a couple of discussions about how Anglo-Germanic culture (speaking mainly of the US, but it could be true elsewhere) has a strong tendency to reinforce a macho extreme in boys and men, which can be a difficult and painful place to be, when one can't express one's more feminine side. Others on this site have complained about being trapped by expectations that they behave a certain way and not show a more feminine side, or lamented that there are no male role models for young men that reflect a more balanced male/female personality. But men with a gentle side (one member reported, and I've observed myself) are exactly what appeals to women.
Women have a bit more freedom, because there's the tomboy role, which is an accepted role, but may not have as much flexibility in adulthood (this would make a good dedicated thread). In any case, I think that all of us have characteristics of the opposite sex in us, and that in order to be whole, we shouldn't deny that part of ourselves. Society would benefit from everyone having well-integrated male and female sides, that's the healthiest state, psychologically, rather than repressing or denying part of ourselves.
So that is the context from which the comments were posted.
Personally I disagree with the view of your good self & The Journey.
A man is attracted to a woman because a woman has certain qualities and a woman is attracted to a man because a man has certain qualities.
The Buddha said:
1. Bhikkhus, I do not know of a form that captivates the mind of man as that of woman. The form of a woman indeed captivates the mind of a man. This is the first.
2. Bhikkhus, I do not know of a sound that captivates the mind of man as that of woman. The sound of a woman indeed captivates the mind of a man. This is the second.
3. Bhikkhus, I do not know of a smell that captivates the mind of man as that of woman. The smell of a woman indeed captivates the mind of a man This is the third.
4. Bhikkhus, I do not know of a taste that captivates the mind of man as that of woman. The taste of a woman indeed captivates the mind of a man. This is the fourth.
5. Bhikkhus, I do not know of a touch that captivates the mind of man as that of woman. The touch of a woman indeed captivates the mind of a man. This is the fifth.
6. Bhikkhus, I do not know of a form that captivates the mind of woman as that of man. The form of a man indeed captivates the mind of a woman. This is the sixth..
7. Bhikkhus, I do not know of a sound that captivates the mind of woman as that of man. The sound of a man indeed captivates the mind of a woman. This is the seventh
8. Bhikkhus, I do not know of a smell that captivates the mind of woman as that of man. The smell of a man indeed captivates the mind of a woman This is the eighth..
9. Bhikkhus, I do not know of a taste that captivates the mind of woman as that of man. The taste of a man indeed captivates the mind of a woman. This is the nineth.
10. Bhikkhus, I do not know of a touch that captivates the mind of woman as that of man. The touch of a man indeed captivates the mind of a woman. This is the tenth.
Men & woman are generally as different as ying & yang.
As different as ying and yang in part because Western society demands that they hold to stereotypical extremes. Certainly some of the ying/yang differences are real, no argument there. But looking around the world at other cultures, and even within the US at different ethnic cultures, one can see models for male and female that are not as rigid as those in most of the West, and yet individuals still "sound, taste, feel, captivate by form" as above. These are physical characterists. What I'm talking about is psychological characteristics. A liberation from the straight jacket of tough macho with no feelings, or frilly, helpless, ______ fill in the blank, ladies.)
Buddha must not have been aware of homosexuality either. I think buddha would have sung a different tune in a more liberal place such as Oregon or San Fransisco.
Dazzle, of course he was not literally unaware, but in the passage DD quoted he says the most pleasing thing to men is women of all senses. Whereas women men. Obviously for a homosexual man they are pleased by men. And women pleased by women. I think if buddha taught in modern liberal part of the world he might not have stated his teaching on dispassion in that manner.
It appears the Buddha was well aware of homosexuality because there are rules about homosexuals who wish to become monks in the Vinaya.
Obviously, homosexuality was not a mainstream phenomena and merely a fringe element & the Buddha treated it as such by never addressing the topic (apart from in the Vinaya).
Homosexuality would have existed in most if not all human societies.
Kind regards
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
homosexuality in some ancient cultures was considered a more sacred and pure persuasion than heterosexuality.
Some people believe that homosexuality and heterosexuality are both societal constructs , like girls given dolls, which will disappear when the fetters of such constructs are no more.
yes, but I think you'll find sexual desire precedes that by a good pinch....
Yes, but some can, and let me tell you, it was a far more sensual and erotic time than you imagine.
This is so far off base, as a supposition, it's hard to know where to start, so let me just point something out to you, if I may:
The Kama Sutra is the most ancient Indian text to ever have come to light, and while evidence shows it was not compiled as a complete literary work until 1 or 2 CE, there is a great deal of evidence to support its existence in smaller and separate chapters, pre-dating this comprehensive work by at least 600 or 700 years. It's composed on the basis of the Vedas, and is not pornographic.It is a composition denoting the ways of fulfilling in the best way possible, the three prerequisites of Life, one of which is procreation.
Ancient India was a sexy place.
And the Buddha may well have had his share, as was expected of a young up-and-coming handsome, virile and healthy male.
I just found a book that quotes historical sources that say the Buddha had several wives, one for each of his palaces, and apparently a few extra, and that he was entertained with sensual girls. More later after I get the book in the mail.
The reference in the Mahàvastu to the Yogàcàras brings us down to the fourth century (I, 120); and so do the allusions to the Huns and the most interesting ones to the Chinese language and writing and the characterisation of astrologers as ßHoràpàñhakaû (III, 178). But the core of the Mahàvastu is old and probably was composed already two centuries before Christ, although it has been expanded in the fourth century after Christ and perhaps even at a later period.
Comments
I have read this scripture in a number of translations (one which is not available to me). Possibly, the Prince did induldge in sexuality but who knows? Personally, I doubt it. The scripture simply states he was entertained by 'female musicians'.
Sndymorn, the story of the Buddha is certainly one of evolution, as you inferred, from the foremost life of luxury & sensuality to one of disenchantment with those things.
Really, in light of recent minor turmoil, I fail to see why some persist in making waves, while others rock the boat.
It has all the makings of tears before bed-time... :rolleyes: :grumble:
yes, but I think you'll find sexual desire precedes that by a good pinch.... Yes, but some can, and let me tell you, it was a far more sensual and erotic time than you imagine. This is so far off base, as a supposition, it's hard to know where to start, so let me just point something out to you, if I may:
The Kama Sutra is the most ancient Indian text to ever have come to light, and while evidence shows it was not compiled as a complete literary work until 1 or 2 CE, there is a great deal of evidence to support its existence in smaller and separate chapters, pre-dating this comprehensive work by at least 600 or 700 years. It's composed on the basis of the Vedas, and is not pornographic.It is a composition denoting the ways of fulfilling in the best way possible, the three prerequisites of Life, one of which is procreation. Ancient India was a sexy place.
And the Buddha may well have had his share, as was expected of a young up-and-coming handsome, virile and healthy male.
I know nothing about the Kama Sutra otherwise, but assumptions that the Buddha was one way or the other, are exactly that. Assumptions. With a little dose of wishful thinking thrown in, I suspect....
edit: or are there books that tell the suttas chronologically according to the Buddha's life?
The sutras detail the Buddha's pre-enlightened life, but the different traditions have different sutras with... wait for it... different accounts. So it's hard to say really. It's at least true that he was born a Prince, renounced his title, spent some time seeking liberation (performing ascetic practices, etc.), eventually awakened and then taught for 45 years until his death. There's a lot of variation in the traditional accounts, some supernatural/mystical sounding.
I heard the Buddha was a man and assumed he was therefore heir to all men's concomitant challenges. If he "entered jhana at four or six years old" then I simply have nothing to learn from him. I would not take a science class from ... fill in the name of some eminent scientific thinker. I would not waste his (or her) time.
I am not interested in Sanskrit or elaborate imagery from the beginning of recorded history. Practically, I want to get over my self (I believe I may , on some level attain this through Buddhism) so that I can quiet(not silence) my inner dialogue. This discussion I have been having (less so the older I get) for the last fifty years has proved fruitless in terms of my desire to feel comfortable with myself. I am , perhaps , a sufferer of attention deficit disorder. I eschew the drugs of modern medicine, but it may come to that . Bio feedback does not appeal to me . Meditation and yoga do.
I am accomplished. I am financially secure. I have a loving family and a long- term marriage. I do not ask, "what is all this for?" (Life I mean) I will not renounce earthly pleasures. (I know! It is O.K. as long as i do not "crave.")
Perhaps children's books on Buddhism are for me.
I began my recent interest in Buddhism because of listening to and reading Alan Watts. Is there another person / explainer like him I might turn to? Should I go back to Ram Dass as in my youth?
I do not mean to challenge the Buddhist aesthetes I have heard from in this post. I am , clearly not one but I respect and admire such devotion.
Is there a "Buddhism in a Box" I might purchase? A kit ?
All the best,
Todd
Most societies thru out history have had moral systems to manage sexuality, such as marriage.
Before the sexual revolution, in general, not always, when people thought about having sex with eachother due to attraction & feeling "erotic", they thought about marrying eachother.
When we watch Hollywood movies of certain eras, who do not watch attractees humping eachother during one night stands. They propose, blush & kiss.
You talk about the Kama Sutra as though it was as widely distributed as the Bible. It is just a book about sex. Your opinion about the Kama Sutra is similar to believing each modern human being has been sexually instructed watching 'Debbie Does Dallas'.
I already included links about the Brahmin lives of Kassapa, Sariputta & Mogallana.
I already mentioned when Indian children reached 16 years of age, their parents would become frenzied about finding a marriage partner for them. This custom still occurs in many cultures today, including Indian culture.
The Buddha himself taught it is the duty of parents to help arrange a suitable marriage for their children.
Oh dear.
All the best
All i can offer is my opinion, which is your misunderstandings are common.
If we wish to understand Buddhism clearly, we can start here:
1. There are two levels of teachings, one for monks & another for householders.
2. Monks practise 100% sexual abstainence whereas householders engage in sexual activities if they chose.
For example, the following teaching of the Buddha about marriage is for laypeople.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.055.than.html
It ends by stating husband & wife enjoy the pleasures they desire.
Often, we wish to believe the Buddha was like us. He was not. He was a monk and it appears he spent most of his life inclined towards monkish things.
Christians generally do not take offense that Jesus was born of a virgin & spent his life celibate.
The Buddha had the eye of stainless insight. He saw the human condition. I trust humanity can learn alot from him.
Personally I disagree with the view of your good self & The Journey.
A man is attracted to a woman because a woman has certain qualities and a woman is attracted to a man because a man has certain qualities.
The Buddha said: As Freud theorised, this also happens in children. A son is attracted to his mother because she may have certain qualities and a daughter may be attracted to her father because he may have certain qualities.
The disposition of a woman generally creates less fear in children when a mother is angry. The comely features of a woman make her less threatening to a child. So a woman can play a core role in moralising children. Also, a mother generally (but not always) can play a more significant role in providing affection to children.
Regardless, both parents have unique roles in offering different nurturing qualities to children.
I live in a small community, where there are many single mothers. I see young boys often seek trust from a male figure and young girls seek affection from a male figure.
The Dalai Lama often states women have an important role if society is to improve itself. However, due to political correctness, the Dalai Lama generally does not explain in detail what this 'role' is. This role, imo, is that of 'moralising' sons. A woman, due to her capacity for mushy lovingness, has the capacity to 'moralise' sons, so they respect & love women instead of looking upon them as sex objects.
Men & woman are generally as different as ying & yang.
It's uncertain. it's an unknown. It's speculation. It's frankly futile to ponder on it. And who could blame him, either way?
Frankly, it matters more what service any person offers humanity, than what they indulge in behind closed doors. The legacy of the Dhamma is evidence enough that he had his head on straight.
Good Post, DD. The Yin and Yang bit is spot on. Particularly if one considers the symbol of these intertwined energies... ever moving ever fluctuating ever twisting this way and that, ever performing in different patterns, but nevertheless always equal in substance and volume, balanced and mutually supportive, co-dependent, with a portion of Yin in Yang, and a portion of Yang in Yin... nothing is ever completely one way or the other, and determining its "Yin-ness" or "Yang-ness" depends on what we compare it to.....
These are not available on the internet.
There is a division in the Samyutta Nikaya (Matugama-samyutta) about women.
There is at least one discourse in the Anguttara Nikaya about the different aims of different human beings.
I was merely suggesting the evidence points to Prince Siddharta being a rather serious young man.
I would recommend Fede that you begin a thread at www.dhammawheel.com on the subject for the sake of accuracy.
As you would know, DD & his hundreds of multi-nics are banned from that forum.
:buck:
002.07. Bhikkhus, in eight ways the woman binds the man. What eight?
Bhikkhus, by crying the woman binds the man. By laughing, ... re ... by talking, ... re ... by the deportment, ... re ... by presenting wild flowers, fruits and gleanings ... re ... by the scent, ... re ... by tastes, ... re ... and by the touch. Bhikkhus, in these eight ways the woman binds the man. Bhikkhus, those beings bound by the touch are well bound.
8. Dutiyabandhanasusttaü Second on bonds
002.08. Bhikkhus, in eight ways the man binds the woman. What eight?
Bhikkhus, by crying the man binds the woman. By laughing, ... re ... by talking, ... re ... by the deportment, ... re ... by presenting wild flowers, fruits and gleanings ... re ... by the scent, ... re ... by tastes, ... re ... and by the touch. Bhikkhus, in these eight ways the man binds the woman. Bhikkhus, those beings bound by the touch are well bound.
http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara5/8-atthakanipata/002-mahavaggo-e.html
Women have a bit more freedom, because there's the tomboy role, which is an accepted role, but may not have as much flexibility in adulthood (this would make a good dedicated thread). In any case, I think that all of us have characteristics of the opposite sex in us, and that in order to be whole, we shouldn't deny that part of ourselves. Society would benefit from everyone having well-integrated male and female sides, that's the healthiest state, psychologically, rather than repressing or denying part of ourselves.
So that is the context from which the comments were posted.
Personally I disagree with the view of your good self & The Journey.
A man is attracted to a woman because a woman has certain qualities and a woman is attracted to a man because a man has certain qualities.
The Buddha said:
As different as ying and yang in part because Western society demands that they hold to stereotypical extremes. Certainly some of the ying/yang differences are real, no argument there. But looking around the world at other cultures, and even within the US at different ethnic cultures, one can see models for male and female that are not as rigid as those in most of the West, and yet individuals still "sound, taste, feel, captivate by form" as above. These are physical characterists. What I'm talking about is psychological characteristics. A liberation from the straight jacket of tough macho with no feelings, or frilly, helpless, ______ fill in the blank, ladies.)
Obviously, homosexuality was not a mainstream phenomena and merely a fringe element & the Buddha treated it as such by never addressing the topic (apart from in the Vinaya).
Homosexuality would have existed in most if not all human societies.
Kind regards
However, i look forward to reading the 'historical sources'
Could be stories from the Mahavastu. As the Mahavastu is in Sanskrit, it must be a later work
the Mahavastu story sounds like the story of the arahant Ratthapala in the Ratthapala Sutta
http://www.buddha-kyra.com/wife.htm
The reference in the Mahàvastu to the Yogàcàras brings us down to the fourth century (I, 120); and so do the allusions to the Huns and the most interesting ones to the Chinese language and writing and the characterisation of astrologers as ßHoràpàñhakaû (III, 178). But the core of the Mahàvastu is old and probably was composed already two centuries before Christ, although it has been expanded in the fourth century after Christ and perhaps even at a later period.
http://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/Buddhist-Texts/XX-Early-Buddhist-Texts/03-EBT-Mahavastu.htm