Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

Sex in Buddhism: Good, Bad, or Meh?

MindGateMindGate United States Veteran
edited March 2011 in Buddhism Today
In Buddhism, is it okay for lay people or monks to have sex? Or is this a detriment to the path to enlightenment? If so, why? And, for lay people and/or monks, does this involve masturbation?

What is your personal opinion?
«1

Comments

  • genkakugenkaku Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
    None of us would be around to discuss sex if someone hadn't had sex, so I reckon Buddhists would be as well-advised as anyone else to get used to it and not misuse it.
  • DaozenDaozen Veteran
    edited March 2011
    Refer to 3rd precept.

    For lay people - sex is OK as long as it's not 'sexual misconduct'.

    For monks - sex, or even 'sensuality', is out. The reason? Probably because it's rather distracting.
  • hermitwinhermitwin Veteran
    Monks cant masturbate.
  • hermitwinhermitwin Veteran
    Intention man, always question your intention.
  • hermitwinhermitwin Veteran
    Are you doing it for pleasure?
  • compassionate_warriorcompassionate_warrior Veteran
    None of us would be around to discuss sex if someone hadn't had sex, so I reckon Buddhists would be as well-advised as anyone else to get used to it and not misuse it.
    haha--that's right, gen; if nobody had sex, Buddhism would die out.

    For monks - sex, or even 'sensuality', is out. The reason? Probably because it's rather distracting.
    Distracting, definitely. But they say it's because it tends to cause attachment, and monks are supposed to be cultivating non-attachment.

  • hermitwinhermitwin Veteran
    You know what Buddha says about sensual desire.
  • compassionate_warriorcompassionate_warrior Veteran
    Are you doing it for pleasure?
    Does this matter for secular followers? HHDL says, "for procreation only", but...how realistic is that? Of COURSE people do it for pleasure! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
  • compassionate_warriorcompassionate_warrior Veteran
    Well, DD has posted some rules to live by for lay practitioners, and the Buddha said marriage (etc.) is ok
  • hermitwinhermitwin Veteran
    nobody said its not ok , I think so far.
  • compassionate_warriorcompassionate_warrior Veteran
    You know what Buddha says about sensual desire.
    I was responding to this. It sounds like there's an implication that sensual desire is to be avoided. But you tell me, hermitwin, what you meant here.

  • DaozenDaozen Veteran
    .. there's an implication that sensual desire is to be avoided.
    Replying to this from my own perspective, not hermitwins - yes, i think there is this implication to Buddha's teaching. When it comes right down to it, sensual desires are something to be overcome, like all such attachments and desires. I know this sounds very pious and not very practical for most people, but i think if we look closely at Buddha's teaching, that's what he was saying. That's why there's a different set of rules for monks - they are more committed to getting enlightened, pronto, and so they get rid of any distracting factors. It doesn't mean a sexually active lay person can't become enlightened, but i suspect it is much much harder. No pun intended.

    Now i can already here some people saying "but it's not the sex itself that is bad, it is our attachment to sex, and hey, we should have sex and learn to overcome our attachment to it that way", to which i say yes, that's true and that's possible, and good luck!
  • compassionate_warriorcompassionate_warrior Veteran
    edited March 2011
    I agree, daozen, that it's not very realistic to expect to have sex without attachment. For most people.

    But what about those lay followers I keep hearing about on this forum, who, during the BUddha's time, did reach enlightenment? And what about the guidelines for lay followers the Buddha spoke about that condone marriage? How do we put all that in perspective?

    And what about the tantric tradition, that says that one can use sexual desire in order to overcome desire, and reach enlightenment via ritual sex practices? What about that whole long-established tradition?
  • hermitwinhermitwin Veteran
    Honesty, man.
    If I like smoking, admit it.Its bad for me.but i like it anyway. Nope, I dont think romping is bad for health.
    I have a friend who says smoking is not bad for health.
  • TheswingisyellowTheswingisyellow Trying to be open to existence Samsara Veteran
    Well.......I have had good, bad and meh sex :D
  • TheswingisyellowTheswingisyellow Trying to be open to existence Samsara Veteran
    edited March 2011
    Are you doing it for pleasure?
    Is there another reason? The pleasure factor is biologically built in, it gives us humans the motivation to accomplish what is necessary for species survival, reproduction.
  • VincenziVincenzi Veteran
    this is maybe the 3rd thread about the same topic (in the first pages).
  • TheswingisyellowTheswingisyellow Trying to be open to existence Samsara Veteran
    I can see how it is said that it would be difficult to have sex without attachment to that. But this can be said to just about anything. Do you have an attachment to food? To me it really is about how one relates to things. I can freely share my love with my wife in an intimate way, but there is no compulsion or controlling drive about. It is a joy in this world, it is not tainted. To me it is as natural as sleeping, breathing and eating. An example is food; one can be driven by it, feel a complusion towards it and overeat. Or one can realize this is nourishment and it is enjoyable but when it is done it is done. Not being attached or adverse it. Sex is the same way.
    With metta,
    Todd
  • hermitwinhermitwin Veteran
    We are attached to food. I like certain types of food.
    I find some food disgusting.
    Would you sleep with other women, is it the same?
  • taiyakitaiyaki Veteran
    i feel food, sleep, and sex are all the same. sometimes you want a steak, sometimes you don't. it's all biological functions.
    we are governed by our biological functions. we can choose where to pee but we cannot choose when we're going to pee.

    just have sex with honesty and sincerely. and as long as you're not hurting yourself or another, I believe sex is fine.
    and i mean all kinds of sex. whether you're a swinger, into s&m, or normal casual sex with a partner. what framework and rules you place on yourself is your business.

    and if you need to choke the chicken every once and a while to release some sexual build up. awesome. if you don't. awesome. whatever helps you get by.
  • DaozenDaozen Veteran
    But what about those lay followers I keep hearing about on this forum, who, during the BUddha's time, did reach enlightenment? And what about the guidelines for lay followers the Buddha spoke about that condone marriage? How do we put all that in perspective?
    I think it's possible for lay/laid people to become enlightened, just harder than for the non-lay/un laid types. See what i did there :)
    And what about the tantric tradition, that says that one can use sexual desire in order to overcome desire, and reach enlightenment via ritual sex practices? What about that whole long-established tradition?
    Tantra is not my area of expertise, but from what i've heard, it is about sublimating our desires to a greater, divine force. ie 'Spiritual sex', not sweaty, lust-fuelled sex. Personally, i think there may be quite a bit of bad teaching that goes on under the name 'tantric xyz' by people who are not necessarily qualified Buddhist teachers.

  • compassionate_warriorcompassionate_warrior Veteran
    Swing, I don't think one can compare sex to food or anything else. It's the nature of sex to create a bond between people (on another thread, someone mentioned oxytocin being produced during or after sex, which is a sort of hormonal bonding agent). Bonding = attaching, there's going to be some emotional attachment happening, for at least one, if not both, of the people involved, usually. (People with emotional disorders that preclude them forming normal, healthy bonds excluded from the discussion.) I think it's very tricky. Some people may manage, I've seen that mentioned on this forum. To love without expectation for the future. I think it's difficult, probably impossible for the average person. Granted, we do have our food preferences, we can get attached. But would you be able to calmly say goodbye to your wife for good, tomorrow, if she said she wanted out of the marriage? (I don't mean to get personal. I think this would be challenging (if not impossible) for most people. ) Maybe there are a few exceptions in the Buddhist world, maybe you're one of those exceptions. If so, that would be impressive.
  • compassionate_warriorcompassionate_warrior Veteran
    edited March 2011
    And what about the tantric tradition, that says that one can use sexual desire in order to overcome desire, and reach enlightenment via ritual sex practices? What about that whole long-established tradition?
    from what i've heard, it is about sublimating our desires to a greater, divine force. ie 'Spiritual sex', not sweaty, lust-fuelled sex.
    You're right, Daozen; from what I understand, it's very much a spiritual exercise (when done correctly). But it's still sex, so it's relevant to the question the OP raises. Sex in Buddhism apparently is good if it's a spiritual discipline.

  • DaozenDaozen Veteran
    edited March 2011
    In comparing food, sleep & other biological functions to sex, I would say that it is possible to become overly attached or obsessive about any of these things.

    As Buddhists, we can be mindful in observing how these things affect us, and hopefully learn through experience the best way we can integrate them with our core values.
  • hermitwinhermitwin Veteran
    spiritual sex, gimme a break.
    I am going to get hammered for this.
    I suggest that some monks want to have sex and invented this
    spiritual sex business.
    Very common in many cults.
  • compassionate_warriorcompassionate_warrior Veteran
    edited March 2011
    It's a technique that requires a lot of physical discipline and preparation, yogic stuff, meditations, etc. It used to be practiced in Judaism and Christianity as well, from what I read. It began outside of Buddhism in India, then was brought to Tibet by Padmasambhava. (Do you think it's easy to retain your sperm upon orgasm? It's a physical discipline as well as a spiritual one.) But I won't deny that there's fake tantric sex happening. That's another issue, a different conversation.
  • TheswingisyellowTheswingisyellow Trying to be open to existence Samsara Veteran
    In comparing food, sleep & other biological functions to sex, I would say that it is possible to become overly attached or obsessive about any of these things."
    I would agree with this.
    To compassionate warrior,
    How I would react to the loss of my wife, I do not know. I can say that my practice has put me in a position where I could accept a situation like that much better than say 2 years ago. Our relationship spans 22 years and involves 2 sons, sex would be my last consideration. I think one can love without expectation, in fact it is IMO the only true love. Fully accepting, without conditions....I am not there yet though:D
    With metta,
    Todd
  • VincenziVincenzi Veteran
    the title may be changed so that threads are more different... maybe "sex between buddhists: good, bad or meh?"
  • compassionate_warriorcompassionate_warrior Veteran


    How I would react to the loss of my wife, I do not know. I think one can love without expectation, in fact it is IMO the only true love. Fully accepting, without conditions....I am not there yet though:D Todd
    Thanks for an honest answer, Swing. That's my point--it's impossible to do for most people, very challenging even for advanced practitioners. And I agree, unconditional love is the goal. Thanks for a good discussion.
  • GuyCGuyC Veteran
    edited March 2011
    Hi Mindgate,

    Sex in-and-of itself is neither good nor bad. If someone is seeking sex outside of a monogamous relationship, or someone wants to have sex with a minor, or against the other person's will, then it becomes a moral issue. Apart from this, and perhaps a few other considerations, there is no moral issue regarding sex between two consenting adults. So, "good" and "bad" do not apply.

    Sex is pursued due to craving. No craving = no sex. If we want to abandon craving then giving up sex seems like a necessary step to take at some point. Having not personally experienced the abandoning of craving I do not have any authority with regards to this claim, it is just what makes sense to me.

    Much progress can be made on the Noble Eightfold Path though as a sexually active lay person.

    But if we think we can have our cake and eat it too (i.e. be an Arahant and still be sexually active - which is what some people claim is the case) then I think we are mistaken.

    Metta,

    Guy
  • taiyakitaiyaki Veteran
    http://suicidegirlsblog.com/blog/brad-warners-hardcore-zen-the-benefits-of-porn-why-staring-at-breasts-is-good-for-your-health/

    not about sex but about pornography.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    Oh good grief....
    And we're supposed to take this as a skilful teaching?

    Gimme a break..... :rolleyes: :screwy: :shake:
  • DaozenDaozen Veteran
    edited March 2011
    http://suicidegirlsblog.com/blog/brad-warners-hardcore-zen-the-benefits-of-porn-why-staring-at-breasts-is-good-for-your-health/ not about sex but about pornography.
    Gee, could the fact he is advocating 'staring at breasts' be connected to the fact he is blogging for a website that makes profits from people doing exactly that?

    Shame on you Mr Warner, shame.
  • ShiftPlusOneShiftPlusOne Veteran
    Hmm, I guess that gives everyone the "I have high blood pressure, you insensitive clod!" excuse. It's a shame they are lying and no such paper was ever published in any medical journal.
  • HappyMondaysHappyMondays
    Chogyam Trunpa Rinpoche was highly sexually active in his lifetime, with many different women even though he was married. I believe he felt sex was a spiritual experience between people and a way along the path to enlightenment..... For him. If you can duplicate his mind then do like him, if not, it's up to you to find the healthiest way to relate to sex. And I think that fundamentally, it's all about relating to sex in the healthiest way. Openness, honesty, gentleness, acceptance, and kindness towards yourself and others for living with and thinking about this great force of nature which is sexual drive!
  • HappyMondaysHappyMondays
    I think sex can be beautiful in its tenderness and in its primal side too. Each can make you aware of the present moment and of feelings and thoughts arising and of your direct relationship, in the moment, with another human. It can be humbling and moving and fun and brought into your spiritual life, I think.
    It's definitely a good question, and a great thread. Very interesting.
  • TheswingisyellowTheswingisyellow Trying to be open to existence Samsara Veteran
    edited March 2011
    "Thanks for a good discussion."

    Indeed a good discussion. Thank you CW:)
  • hermitwinhermitwin Veteran
    Two former students of Trungpa, John Steinbeck IV and his wife, wrote a sharply critical memoir of their lives with him in which they claim that, in addition to alcohol, Trungpa used $40,000 a year worth of cocaine, and used Seconal to come down from the cocaine. The cocaine use, say the Steinbecks, was kept secret from the wider Vajradhatu community.
    On Trungpa's orders his Vajra Guard forced entry into the poet's locked and barricaded room; brought him and his girlfriend, Dana Naone, against their will, to the party; and eventually stripped them of all their clothes, onlookers ignoring Naone's pleas for help and for someone to call the police.[58] The next day Trungpa asked Merwin and Naone to remain at the Seminary as either students or guests. They agreed to stay for several more weeks to hear the Vajrayana teachings, with Trungpa's promise that "there would be no more incidents," and Merwin and Naone's assertion that "it would be with no guarantees of obedience, trust, or personal devotion to him.
  • compassionate_warriorcompassionate_warrior Veteran
    edited March 2011
    The regent Trungpa set up as his successor had AIDS, and caused several followers to contract the disease (Trungpa had told him that magically, his disease would not spread to others because of his high yogic achievements) before he (the regent) himself died of AIDS. Sex is bad if you're completely irresponsible about it, or abusive. Are we through with Trungpa stories now?
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    spiritual sex, gimme a break.
    I am going to get hammered for this.
    I suggest that some monks want to have sex and invented this
    spiritual sex business.
    Very common in many cults.
    I see I missed the excitement last night! Hermitwin, you won't get hammered for this. Six months ago you would've, but it's a different membership now, and that's a good thing.
    What intrigues me no end is that one of the lamas who came to the West to teach this technique now regrets it. He has set up a number of dharma centers in the West now where he refuses to teach Vajrayana at all, he says it's not appropriate for our time (in West or East). He teaches the Bodhisattva path. At least somebody amid all the scandals has a conscience.
  • taiyakitaiyaki Veteran
    i mean have you ever had tantric sex?

    it's a whole different process than normal sex. normal sex is when you start and the goal is to finish. Usually this kind of sex is very selfish and one sided.

    where as tantric sex is like slow motion sex and the purpose is to just be present with the person you're inside. cuddle, kiss, stare into their eyes. the pleasure felt can be described as wide and gradual. the goal for spiritual seekers is union.
    so a lot of people meditate prior and such. but idk i think it's a more healthy approach to sex if you really want to see sex for what it is.

    i'm not advocating it. i am just saying there are other ways to have sex. different paradigm.
  • compassionate_warriorcompassionate_warrior Veteran
    the goal for spiritual seekers is union.
    Union with what, Tai? Each other? A spiritual bliss state? From what I've read, the goal is to raise the Inner Fire, thereby bringing about a state of profound spiritual bliss. There's more to it that "slow motion" sex. (Sad that more couples don't do as you describe, isn't it? I think if more did, there would be fewer divorces.)

  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    edited March 2011
    Some of these threads are overlapping....
    I'm coming to the conclusion that this bliss state that is supposed to be the in-one-lifetime Enlightenment promised by the tantric practices isn't true, lasting Enlightenment, like the Buddha reached. I think it's a temporary spiritual bliss state, like what one experiences with Kundalini, that fades after the "practice" is over. So I'm not sure "sex is in Buddhism is good if it's a spiritual discipline". If it doesn't deliver the Enlightenment that is its justification for being a Buddhist practice, then it's just another distraction from true, bona-fide practice. But I wouldn't know for sure.

    Slow-motion sex is what most women expect, Tai. It's guys who think "the goal is to finish". For women, the goal is to enjoy the whole process. (I think MindGate is getting quite an education on this thread...) ;)
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited March 2011
    If it's about experiencing bliss, it's not about the dispassion of liberation. It's like people who get caught up in jhana, become "jhana junkies" spending all of their time in meditative absorption. It's attaching to the experience, just like all of our other attachments in life that have to do with the mind seeking happiness. It won't last, it's powered by the same craving born of ignorance. Jhana isn't about the bliss, but bliss is (initially) a part of it and so it can be a trap for some minds.
  • DazzleDazzle
    "Slow-motion sex is what most women expect, Tai. It's guys who think "the goal is to finish". For women, the goal is to enjoy the whole process."

    How can you possibly know what 'most women expect' Dakini. lol!

    "If it's about experiencing bliss, it's not about the dispassion of liberation"

    Well said, Cloud !
  • taiyakitaiyaki Veteran
    the goal for spiritual seekers is union.
    Union with what, Tai? Each other? A spiritual bliss state? From what I've read, the goal is to raise the Inner Fire, thereby bringing about a state of profound spiritual bliss. There's more to it that "slow motion" sex. (Sad that more couples don't do as you describe, isn't it? I think if more did, there would be fewer divorces.)

    i have no idea what the goal is. i am just typing what i've heard. haha and guys its great to switch it up every once and a while. slow motion sex, fast sex, normal sex, off the wall sex. it's all good stuff.
  • compassionate_warriorcompassionate_warrior Veteran
    Thanks for the how-to, Tai. :lol:
  • GuyCGuyC Veteran
    edited March 2011
    Hi Cloud,
    If it's about experiencing bliss, it's not about the dispassion of liberation. It's like people who get caught up in jhana, become "jhana junkies" spending all of their time in meditative absorption. It's attaching to the experience, just like all of our other attachments in life that have to do with the mind seeking happiness. It won't last, it's powered by the same craving born of ignorance. Jhana isn't about the bliss, but bliss is (initially) a part of it and so it can be a trap for some minds.
    It would appear to me that the Buddha encouraged us to indulge in jhanas, the same cannot be said about sex. There is a different between "skilful" and "unskilful" pleasures. Jhana is of the skilful variety:
    "Now, there is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of concentration, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. With the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' With the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is called renunciation-pleasure, seclusion-pleasure, calm-pleasure, self-awakening-pleasure. And of this pleasure I say that it is to be cultivated, to be developed, to be pursued, that it is not to be feared.
    "Latukikopama Sutta: The Quail Simile" (MN 66), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight, 14 June 2010, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.066.than.html.

    Metta,

    Guy
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited March 2011
    @GuyC, Not to "indulge" in an attached way, no. To learn. To progress through the stages and see that the mind can be at peace without anything else (sensual pleasures or thoughts of self, views, etc.). It's not to stop there and keep going back to jhana because it's blissful. Some people do, taking this to be enlightenment itself in some cases, bliss beyond all sensual pleasure.

    It's really to the fourth jhana that we're trying to get, to see the peace of equanimity, neither pleasure nor pain. That's what the mind of a fully enlightened being is like all of the time. This is what we can learn from. If we get attached to jhana, we don't move on. We have to move on. Our detachment from the first jhana leads to the second jhana. Detachment from the second jhana leads to the third jhana. See? :) It's all about letting go. The pleasure the Buddha is talking about is the pleasure of dispassion and detachment that is cultivated through knowing jhana states. Not the experience of jhana itself.

    It's akin to telling a man to put his hand in a fire to realize that it burns. It's not the point to keep putting your hand into the fire, but the knowing of burning.

    Anyway we're getting off-topic.
  • GuyCGuyC Veteran
    edited March 2011
    Hi Cloud,
    Not to "indulge", no. To learn. To progress through the stages and see that the mind can be at peace without anything else (sensual pleasures or thoughts of self, views, etc.). It's not to stop there and keep going back to jhana because it's blissful. Some people do, taking this to be enlightenment itself in some cases, bliss beyond all sensual pleasure.
    I believe that if we are exposed to the Teachings of the Buddha, and we understand the Jhanas in the context of the Teachings of the Buddha, then when we experience the Jhanas it will be "Samma-Samadhi"...whereas if we experience Jhana but interpret them through wrong views (e.g. "union with god") then this is "Miccha-Samadhi"...but this is just a hunch I have, I could be wrong.

    I believe there is a Sutta (sorry I can't remember which one) that says for one who pursues the Jhanas often then the outcome is one of the stages of Enlightenment. But then we see that Devadata developed the Jhanas and didn't come close to Enlightenment. I think it is possible that this is because he misinterpreted the Jhanas (i.e. he didn't reflect on them in the context of the Buddha's Teachings)...but this is all just speculation.

    Metta,

    Guy
Sign In or Register to comment.