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.
would someone who is enlightened still go to the pub with friends and party and go on holiday etc.
According to 'your' definition of enlightenment, would a that person still do 'fun' things with friends and family, would they party and dance all night long..
No, because They know that 'friends and family' are just perceptions of Their mind so They know it is absurd to party and dance with perceptions
Would they go to football matches and support their team..
No, because They would see 'their team' is a perception of the mind so They see that there is no need to support that perception of the mind
Would they book all inclusive holidays and sun bath in the sun..
Would jump in the pool naked with their friends for fun..
Would they enjoy gettin tickled..
No, because They know how to meditate until They reach to 'sagna vedaita nirodha' (No- pain-no-perception state) which is beyond our imagination of happiness or fun
Would they still go on a date if they fancied someone
Do they still fancy other people - lol
No, because They know 'someone or other people' are just perceptions of the mind so They are wise not to involve with perceptions
Would they still be wanted to achieve better career success
No, because They are beyond the wants of Worldly things
Would they still go gym to keep fit?
No, because They know the best exercise for humans is walking
Would they eat chocolate cake on a friends birthday?
Of course, but someone has to offer it to Them otherwise They would'nt take it because Noble persons do not take anything that does not offer to them, that is why Arahants (Enlightened ones) can not lead a household life
We could debate this forever I reckon, so I mean, I'm agreeing to disagree here. I reckon a Buddha would touch a boob here and there and I'm sticking to it.
I would say he had his share of boobs. I'm sure he touched many, many boobs. He did have a wife and a son, and many concubines probably. He probably touched hundred of boobs! But your life changes when you become a monk and get enlightenment.
Yes. If someone is completely aware in the present moment, how could they experience touching a boob as anything other than what it is? Handling a skin covered lump of fatty tissue. Why would that be special? The pleasure of touching someone else's body is tied to the imagination. And to a growing up and living in a world where boobs are hidden and access to them is only in a sexual or intimate setting. Insight removes the fantasy that inspires lust for sex. In order to experience pleasure from touching someone's body a Buddha would have to relinquish some of the clarity that he has worked so hard to achieve. It might be like trying to have sex with your sister. Pretty hard to get excited about.
"I want to be enlightened, but I don't want to give up my sensual pleasures", that's what I smell (infer) in this post. But it's just an attachment.
Since I've started practicing, I've seen my desire for sensual pleasures slowly decrease. This is a natural effect from following the path. I can't say they are fully gone, but I can very well imagine how they could be one day.
When the Buddha got enlightened, in theory he could have gone back to his old life of sensual gratification. But he didn't. He stayed a renunciate monk, eating little, sleeping little, wearing simple clothes, travelling by foot. That's because he lost his interest in sensual things and preferred a simple life.
So the way an enlightened being would behave really reflects their release. Enlightenment is not something you do on the side, as sort of like an extra to life.
I think it's important to differentiate the housholder from the wanderer or monk. As householders we do not have the same goal (I don't even think most monks have the goal to become enlightened in this life). If we had, the first step would be to leave our homes, friends and family, stuff and money behind and go seek enlightenment as the only thing. I know I'm not up to that. I seek to become a better, more balanced person from practicing. Even that's attachment, but like the buddha said there are good and bad friends (friends being attachments), I think there are good and bad goals in life..
What I'm saying is, there's nothing wrong with doing all those things (in a balanced and peaceful way bla bla) for us, regular people. An enlightened being just wouldn't have any need to do it, whatsoever. We don't have to compare ourselves to or live up to buddhas, we just follow their guidance the best we can to the benefit of everyone
This might be a dumb question, but if someone who is enlightened sees people as *only* perceptions of the mind, they why spend their time teaching things to people who are only perceptions?
I don't think they do, karasti. Having formerly been a "person" themselves, they still recognize and work to alleviate suffering. The walls of "self" and "other" have been removed for them, so the suffering of others is really the suffering of all. It's not something that's none of their concern (they are selfless)... we're all "this", so if they know there's a problem and how it's overcome, why wouldn't they help? They can't help but help; you could even say that's their purpose. It's their functioning, what they do. All buddhas who are able to teach do so.
We're all one, but it's not a fixed one... it's a flowing, changing process. The great compassion of the buddhas is founded on understanding reality and the origin and cessation of suffering. The conventional and the supramundane co-exist (appearance and nature), but it's fully understanding this nature (our Buddha-nature) that ceases suffering.
This might be a dumb question, but if someone who is enlightened sees people as *only* perceptions of the mind, they why spend their time teaching things to people who are only perceptions?
Because that does not deny that those beings experience suffering.
Craving isn't a prerequisite to sex.
Of course it is.
It's really not.
You can have sex with craving, or sex without craving.
Just like you can drink a beer without being an alcoholic.
And sometimes it just happens. In the morning for example lol
According to Buddhism, romantic love is considered a form of craving. You have to remember, most people here are speaking in the context of Buddhism and what the Buddha taught. The Buddha taught that the desire to have sex comes from craving. Of course you are free to disagree, but this is what Buddhism teaches.
Just about everything, or maybe even everything, we worldly people do is founded on craving... it's the background force that gives rise to our intentions, and then we act. That's the Second Noble Truth, a foundational teaching of Buddhism. The Four Noble Truths are important to understand in this case or else much of Buddhism won't make sense.
And sometimes it just happens. In the morning for example lol
Not love. Nope. Never. Always purely to do with attraction and how long since "last time".. How easily it happens is almost an equation: Attractiveness of subject x time since last ejaculation = easiness of boner
I always thought he taught it as being more of a distraction rather than as something intrinsically bad. So everything else is a distraction I guess, but we have to work with what we've got - we could call having a job a distraction but we have to pay the bills so we go to work.
I mean, if you're already in a relationship I don't see why you'd have to give that up (and the sex that goes with it) to practice Buddhism or even be enlightened. I know some people opt to, but I can't see it as being essential because it would cause pain to your loved one. Divorce is up there with death of a loved one in terms of how stressful and painful it is.
I can see why monks would vow celibacy, and how sex has the potential to be a form of craving, and definitely how it can be a distraction, but I don't think it has to be that way. Just as drinking a beer doesn't necessarily mean you're an alcoholic, having sex doesn't mean that you crave it.
I mean, I'll find out eventually either way, right? So I'm not too worried about it and I'll keep enjoying my marriage in the meantime because romantic love is still love, and at this point on my journey learning to love in any way is a step forward for me.
I guess your view on it depends on where you're at in your spiritual evolution, and maybe the view from Buddhahood is very different (though I've never seen the Buddha call sex bad) but I'm right at the beginning here and from where I'm stood sex is great. :buck:
And sometimes it just happens. In the morning for example lol
Not love. Nope. Never. Always purely to do with attraction and how long since "last time".. How easily it happens is almost an equation: Attractiveness of subject x time since last ejaculation = easiness of boner
And sometimes it just happens. In the morning for example lol
Not love. Nope. Never. Always purely to do with attraction and how long since "last time".. How easily it happens is almost an equation: Attractiveness of subject x time since last ejaculation = easiness of boner
I think that's really sad
It's the way of the body I don't think it's more or less sad than if you hold your breath, at some point you really need to inhale. Love is a feeling and it won't give you a hard on more or less than other feelings in themselves - but of course feelings influence the ability. It's not easy working out in the gym if you're sad, but it's easier eating sweets.
I think you mix up how monks are required to live due to their vows, how a buddha lives due to it's awakening and how laity lives due to their obligations - try googling "buddhism householder" or "buddhism laity" and the like. Find the appropriate suttas, where Buddha teaches layfolk on how to live best, but still have spouses, children, money, jobs, houses and employees.
A lay person may never awaken (and too bad for his/her family if he/she does!), but that's not the point - the goal for a lay person/householder is to lead a peaceful life, practicing simpler, not awakening but maybe ensuring a better next life and making things better for everyone
I mean, if you're already in a relationship I don't see why you'd have to give that up
You don't! Unless you want to become a celibate monk or nun. The Buddha never told laypersons to give up sex, marriage or love relationships. But he did say that to monks, a lot! So you really have 2 paths in the practice of Buddhism, layperson and renunciates. Both are very beneficial to follow I would say.
Ven. Ajahn Chah, the teacher under whom we both trained for many years, similarly taught that sexual practises had to be given up if one aspired for Enlightenment. For example, I remember a Westerner coming to see Ajahn Chah once and saying that he was sexually active but without being attached to the sex. Ajahn Chah completely ridiculed the statement as an impossibility, saying something like "Bah! that's like saying there can be salt which isn't salty!" http://www.buddhanet.net/rejoiner.htm
Actually I think that was about using money without being attached, unless it happened the same way twice (well except the sex part). I remember the salty thing... eat salt without saying it's salty. If you say it's not salty, then eat the entire bag!
Ok, maybe I didn't see the irony at first. There were people in the past that thought along similar lines and they took it quite seriously. Imperial Way Zen is an example. It is very, very easy to justify all sorts of behaviour as "crazy wisdom" or "no mind", imo.
This is exactly why it's a bad joke. A tremendous amount of suffering has been caused in the name of "enlightened masters" or "crazy wisdom".
I mean, surely sex without desire is just an expression of love.
This is a big assumption. Sex without desire is just sex.
A Buddha, having overcome all attachments, would have no reason to touch a boob. The conditions leading to the arising of such an impulse would no longer exist. Could you imagine a female Buddha going around touching intimate parts of the male anatomy?
Could you imagine a female Buddha going around touching intimate parts of the male anatomy?
I thought not.
When I'm a female Buddha, I'm going to call you and tell you all about the touching.
I mean, you seem very sure of yourself, to the point of being a bit of an ass about it, but who knows, right? I've heard different things all over the place. I'm inclined leaning towards enlightened beings totally going for it, some people disagree. The Buddha didn't say anything concrete on the subject really so it's all just guesswork.
I think both sides of the argument have valid points and good reasons for choosing whatever side they have, but I don't think any of us have the authority to say "it is this way absolutely without any doubt whatsoever".
A quick question. I believe I read somewhere that the Buddha said that lay people are just as equal to monks when it comes to the ability to achieve "enlightenment" in this life. Has anyone else seen or read this quote? I'm sure I can find it again if pressed ...
The idea seems relevant in regards to this topic. An "enlightened" being can get up, go to work, have kids, all of that, even while understanding the four noble truths and following the eight-fold path.
@ThePensum, Some monks never reach enlightenment, some lay people do. There are a lot of factors really. I do think though that if a lay practitioner gets to a certain level of enlightenment, anagami in the old texts (non-returner, next-to-last stage of enlightenment), they will give up householder life. (Not sure.)
But yes, lay practitioners are capable. Monk/nun-hood only helps provide ideal conditions.
Hi Cloud- I'm wondering why you'd think an Anagami would give up householder life? If they had a loving spouse, home and whatever responsibilities- why would they leave and where would they go?
I might actually be wrong about that, so I struck that line out. I'm more sure about the sexual desire thing...
One source for the sex thing: "What is the Buddhist attitude to sex? For a lay person, there is nothing sinful or shameful in sex, nor does it carry lifelong burdens of guilt. Sexual desires, in its personal aspect, is just like another form of craving and, as craving, leads to suffering. Sexual desire, too, must be controlled and finally totally eradicated. This happiness[2] arises only at the third stage of Sainthood, that of Anagami. When a lay Buddhist becomes an Anagami, he leads a celibate life." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel294.html
The Buddha was Enlightened and said quite a bit about rising above sensory pleasures (including the passage quoted on pg 1 of this thread). He also was a living example of that. He practiced what he preached, refreshingly.
Not poor anagami's wife! You don't think they'd help lead their wife to enlightenment, and so there wouldn't be much suffering at all over it? Their wife would be extremely fortunate IMHO to have a husband that was that enlightened (and it goes the other way too, with the wife being the one enlightened).
More likely, since it would've started at following the Path and stream-entry and then progressed to once-returner and non-returner, the wife would've been a part of that journey. She'd probably be enlightened to some degree already. Even if not, an anagami would be skillful enough to lead someone else to enlightenment much faster than if they didn't have such a teacher.
If I had a wife and experienced Nirvana to any degree, the first thing I'd do would be to try and show her how things really are. If we were in love I'm sure she'd try to understand, and I'd be as persuasive as I could be. Either that would set her on the path to the same realization, or she'd be averse to enlightenment and distance herself from me. In either case, it wouldn't be the whole way to anagami before there was an issue! It would have to be resolved early on in some way.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Talking about sex here we need to differentiate between that which is harmful and that which cultivates love.
Giving up love is giving up being there for others and flies in the face of the dharma.
Craving sex and being with our mate are not the same thing. I abstain from having meaningless sex and will never have sex with a woman I think wouldn't be mother material but I will not deny my humanity or con myself into believing I'm too good to be natural.
Sex is how life happens.
Also I think it is silly to believe an enlightened individual wouldn't play with children in a water park.
They still tie their shoes because they don't wish to trip and fall and they still have preferences.
Being enlightened doesn't make a person any less of an individual, they just know that being an individual is only half of the truth.
If I had a wife and experienced Nirvana to any degree, the first thing I'd do would be to try and show her how things really are. If we were in love I'm sure she'd try to understand, and I'd be as persuasive as I could be. Either that would set her on the path to the same realization, or she'd be averse to enlightenment and distance herself from me. In either case, it wouldn't be the whole way to anagami before there was an issue! It would have to be resolved early on in some way.
She would probably still want to touch your rude parts though.
If my husband hit Nirvana and I didn't, yeah, I'd want him to show me the way and everything, but I'd still want to see him naked now and then.
Yeah well at least as far as I know, stream-entrants and once-returners are still more than capable of sex.
Here's some more information about Anagami (not sure about this source): "There is no great difference between a Sotapanna and a Sakadagami, but in a person who becomes an Anagami, sexual desire and anger will be completely annihilated. There will be no one anywhere who can cause the slightest anger or sexual desire to appear in him what ever the provocation. Fear will also be totally absent in him." http://www.thisismyanmar.com/nibbana/nu5.htm
I think Anagami is really where someone is recognizable to other people as a saint. As someone who would be described as "holy". They're more unworldly than worldly at that point, so far beyond worldly craving.
When Gopi Krishna began experiencing a Kundalini rising (as a result of years of intense meditation practice), he had to stop having sex with his wife, because that just aggravated the sensation. Eventually, he had to change his diet completely, because his system became very sensitive. Years later, after the Kundalini integrated itself into his system and settled down, he no longer was interested in sex, anyway. He wrote and lectured on how Kundalini is the evolutionary destiny of mankind, and how realizing the enlightened state that comes from Kundalini will eventually result in world peace. This might be the closest thing to a truly enlightened person in modern times. He pretty much lost all sensory cravings, and was spontaneously motivated to share his insights to the extent possible.
Sounds like the Buddha in some respects. Interesting case study.
@Dakini, To add to that I think Ajahn Chah was fully enlightened (Thai Forest Tradition). He might not have made it to this century, but he got close... so modern. He had a lot of health issues but always made a point to ask people (who worried about him) why they thought he suffered. He didn't, but they didn't understand. All the bodily pain in the world is beyond causing suffering to such a one.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Dakini, To add to that I think Ajahn Chah was fully enlightened (Thai Forest Tradition). He might not have made it to this century, but he got close... so modern. He had a lot of health issues but always made a point to ask people (who worried about him) why they thought he suffered. He didn't, but they didn't understand. All the bodily pain in the world is beyond causing suffering to such a one.
So if pain can be experienced without suffering, why can't pleasure?
It doesn't make sense.
Experiencing pleasure and enjoying it is not the same as craving it.
Deja vu, I've had this discussion before @ourself. First off you have to define suffering in the Buddhist sense. Here's a wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha. Suffering in Buddhism isn't restricted to things like pain. Making it the word "suffering" might be part of the problem. Dukkha means much more than "the opposite of happiness" (as we often think suffering means). The word "unsatisfactoriness" comes closer to the actual meaning.
Pleasure doesn't last, pain doesn't last. Attaching to them, identifying with them as what we are or belonging to us, is unsatisfactory. A buddha will recognize them and let them go at the same time, without it effecting them whatsoever. The mind doesn't chase after them, doesn't crave toward the pleasure or have aversion toward the pain. It's just feathers in the wind, nothing to worry about. Real "suffering" is an act of mind.
Sex is one of the very last fetters to go along with aversion. The Buddha was very well aware of the strong forces involved.
Rūpādivaggo 1.Thus have I heard at one time the Blessed One was staying at Sāvatthi in the Jeta Grove in Anāthapindika’s monastery.Then the Blessed One addressed the monks “Monks.” “Yes, Lord,” those monks replied to the Blessed One. Then the Blessed One said Monks, I do not know of any form that takes hold of a man’s mind like the form of a woman. A woman’s form, monks, takes hold of a man’s mind like no other form.” 2. “Monks, I do not know of any sound that takes hold of a man’s mind like the sound of a woman. A woman’s sound, monks, takes hold of a man’s mind like no other sound.” 3. “Monks, I do not know of any scent that takes hold of a man’s mind like the scent of a woman. A woman’s scent, monks, takes hold of a man’s mind like no other scent.” 4. “Monks, I do not know of any taste that takes hold of a man’s mind like the taste of a woman. A woman’s taste, monks, takes hold of a man’s mind like no other taste.” 5. “Monks, I do not know of any touch that takes hold of a man’s mind like the touch of a woman. A woman’s touch, monks, takes hold of a man’s mind like no other touch.” 6. “Monks, I do not know of any form that takes hold of a woman’s mind like the form of a man. A man’s form, monks, takes hold of a woman’s mind like no other form.” 7. “Monks, I do not know of any sound that takes hold of a woman’s mind like the sound of a man. A man’s sound, monks, takes hold of a woman’s mind like no other sound.” 8. “Monks, I do not know of any scent that takes hold of a woman’s mind like the scent of a man. A man’s scent, monks, takes hold of a woman’s mind like no other scent.” 9. “Monks, I do not know of any taste that takes hold of a woman’s mind like the taste of a man. A man’s taste, monks, takes hold of a woman’s mind like no other taste.” 10. “Monks, I do not know of any touch that takes hold of a woman’s mind like the touch of a man. A man’s touch, monks, takes hold of a woman’s mind like no other touch.”
@Dakini, To add to that I think Ajahn Chah was fully enlightened (Thai Forest Tradition). He might not have made it to this century, but he got close... so modern. He had a lot of health issues but always made a point to ask people (who worried about him) why they thought he suffered. He didn't, but they didn't understand. All the bodily pain in the world is beyond causing suffering to such a one.
So if pain can be experienced without suffering, why can't pleasure?
It doesn't make sense.
Experiencing pleasure and enjoying it is not the same as craving it.
Pain if fully accepted just as it is, neither fostering nor rejecting it, doesn't result in suffering. Sex if fully accepted just as it is, if objectively examined will show itself to be something that we actually did foster and so can't be equally compared to the pain/ suffering question.
@how, Pleasure isn't really pleasure, not to a buddha. To a buddha it's a sensation that, if attached to and "enjoyed", creates a mental tendency that craves for its re-arising in the future. If that craving when it arises is not satisfied, that becomes suffering. Buddhas don't create the causes of suffering for themselves or others. Pleasure and pain hold no sway over them; their state of mind is actually so peaceful that they have no reason to attach to worldly pleasure... it's well beyond worldly pleasure.
They understand karma fully. What the mind does, how it associates with phenomena, can create karma. Buddhas do not create any further karma... they're done, finished. Creating karma leads to rebirth. Buddhas have gone beyond the world of pleasure and pain, gain and loss, praise and blame, fame and disgrace. They are not deceived by dualities or the causes of suffering.
Is it any surprise that enlightenment/Nirvana is so difficult to understand? It's soooo far "out there" compared to how our minds normally work and we think of things like pleasure (as good) and pain (as bad). We're stuck in these dualities, constantly switching back-and-forth between them, driven forth by our craving and our suffering. Buddhas have nothing to worry about, they've finished with all of it.
@Cloud I think your speaking to the converted. I was saying why pain might not, if free from attachment, continue into suffering. Sex however actually does require fostering, and the seeds of that attachment will result in suffering.
Ah! Well you changed your post. Don't worry, I change my posts several times before I'm happy with them. There's always refining to do... I have that bad habit. I can't put it all out there perfected, I have to reflect on how it could've been said better.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Ok, so if pleasure is undesireable, what is desirable without resorting to what is pleasure?
If we are for compassion, is that not taking a stand to what we find pleasurable? Even if we find pleasure in others happiness, it is still a desire.
Either way, it seems to go along with preference.
I am sure Buddha was following what he felt pleasurable when he decided to teach the dharma.
If it is foolhardy to try and run from our pain, it is just as foolhardy to run from our pleasure. Just as desire for happiness can lead to suffering, so can the desire for pain.
However experiencing pain and happiness is just that. Has nothing to do with suffering until we try to intervene and try to make it lasting or to make it stop.
Trying to stop our own happiness from happening seems nhilistic to me.
@ourself, That's still talking about worldly happiness. In our normal mode of being we're always seeking happiness and avoiding suffering. We have to struggle for happiness, struggle to maintain it, but it doesn't last... even trying to hold on to that happiness is suffering for us. Then we experience suffering doubly in the absence of happiness, and are driven again to try and achieve it. There's no middle ground here, there's only happiness-suffering-happiness-suffering-happiness-suffering... why else do we struggle so much? We're never really happy. Nothing lasts. And so even worldly happiness, being a part of this cycle, is a subtle form of suffering. Worldly happiness is Dukkha, worldly suffering is Dukkha.
The Middle Way is that middle ground, the avoidance of the extremes which only keep us in this perpetual struggle... detaching from likes and dislikes, from the struggle that is resultant from chasing what we like and avoiding what we dislike. Nirvana is a true peace, and is a greater happiness than anything experienced in the worldly sense. Nothing about enlightenment is "stopping our own happiness", it's just stopping our suffering... we have to come to understand worldly happiness as part of that suffering, and I understand that can be (very) hard to do.
Pleasure is only a problem because we want it; we like it. Experiencing joy in worldly pleasure is telling (training or conditioning) the mind that this is something desirable, something satisfactory. And so when there's not pleasure, we'll crave for pleasure. We'll suffer in its absence. The Second Noble Truth is the cause of suffering, and that cause is this very Craving. If we don't see the danger in finding pleasure "satisfactory", unsatisfactoriness is actually the result of our wrong view. Suffering. We create our own suffering because we don't see this danger and its karmic consequences. We don't see that mental tendencies have their roots in this ignorance, and we need to uproot them by seeing Dukkha in all its forms.
If we understood Dukkha fully, we'd be enlightened already. Dukkha is just the First Noble Truth... the problem. It's very obvious that the problem has dimensions of subtlety that take a while to grasp. The Noble Eightfold Path is meant to show us just how much our likes and dislikes spin us around. It separates us from doing what we want or avoiding what we don't want, and we have to face Dukkha directly. Once we've identified that the problem is within our own minds, we'll know what we have to do. Real practice begins there, when we're no longer deluded by likes and dislikes.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@ourself, That's still talking about worldly happiness. In our normal mode of being we're always seeking happiness and avoiding suffering. We have to struggle for happiness, struggle to maintain it, but it doesn't last... even trying to hold on to that happiness is suffering for us. Then we experience suffering doubly in the absence of happiness, and are driven again to try and achieve it. There's no middle ground here, there's only happiness-suffering-happiness-suffering-happiness-suffering... why else do we struggle so much? We're never really happy. Nothing lasts. And so even worldly happiness, being a part of this cycle, is a subtle form of suffering. Worldly happiness is Dukkha, worldly suffering is Dukkha.
Happiness is a choice. It is really as simple as that. It isn't something that needs to be acheived, we can be happy any time we want despite suffering. All we have to do is choose it. That we can make that choice seems to be obscured to many but it is the truth nonetheless.
Sure, nothing lasts but nothing really goes away either. It's all right here and right now. Now is the ultimate middle ground and now is where we make the choices.
The Middle Way is that middle ground, the avoidance of the extremes which only keep us in this perpetual struggle... detaching from likes and dislikes, from the struggle that is resultant from chasing what we like and avoiding what we dislike. Nirvana is a true peace, and is a greater happiness than anything experienced in the worldly sense. Nothing about enlightenment is "stopping our own happiness", it's just stopping our suffering... we have to come to understand worldly happiness as part of that suffering, and I understand that can be (very) hard to do.
As far as I know there is only worldly happiness. You seem to be saying that if we choose to be happy we choose to suffer. This may sound odd to some but even when I am saddened I am happy. There is absolutely no struggle to be happy when it is a choice we make that doesn't depend on circumstance.
The joy of simply being has no opposite and so there is no extreme to cling to.
Do enlightened beings smile? If so is it because they suffer?
Pleasure is only a problem because we want it; we like it. Experiencing joy in worldly pleasure is telling (training or conditioning) the mind that this is something desirable, something satisfactory. And so when there's not pleasure, we'll crave for pleasure. We'll suffer in its absence. The Second Noble Truth is the cause of suffering, and that cause is this very Craving. If we don't see the danger in finding pleasure "satisfactory", unsatisfactoriness is actually the result of our wrong view. Suffering. We create our own suffering because we don't see this danger and its karmic consequences. We don't see that mental tendencies have their roots in this ignorance, and we need to uproot them by seeing Dukkha in all its forms.
Who doesn't see? Why do you believe happiness has a prerequisite in craving?
Somehow I believe Buddha was happy without having to struggle for happiness. I also believe the suffering of others saddened him without causing him suffering.
If we understood Dukkha fully, we'd be enlightened already. Dukkha is just the First Noble Truth... the problem. It's very obvious that the problem has dimensions of subtlety that take a while to grasp. The Noble Eightfold Path is meant to show us just how much our likes and dislikes spin us around. It separates us from doing what we want or avoiding what we don't want, and we have to face Dukkha directly. Once we've identified that the problem is within our own minds, we'll know what we have to do. Real practice begins there, when we're no longer deluded by likes and dislikes.
Then real practice doesn't happen. If this was the case Buddha would have remained neutral and died under that tree. He rose because he cared.
And you're free to have that opinion. If you don't suffer, or don't suffer much, none of it really makes sense. People are driven to Buddhism because they do suffer, and some can pick it up rather quick. Others have to practice for a while to understand. Those who don't experience much suffering in the first place think there's no real problem, and mostly don't come to Buddhism at all (or they might study it, but not practice it).
I'm glad you're happy!
If happiness were really simply a choice, the problems would end there. If anyone was unhappy, they'd just choose to be happy and have done with it. Whatever it is you have going for you is not what people normally experience. However things are, there's always something "unsatisfactory", and craving to change those conditions. There's never true lasting peace for normal people. They can experience more happiness than suffering, and so not seek a way out... and that's okay.
I can tell this has the potential to become a Neverending Debate, but see little point in that because we see things completely differently and haven't found agreement on a single issue that I can tell. So I'm going to call it a night.
Comments
so They know it is absurd to party and dance with perceptions No, because They would see 'their team' is a perception of the mind
so They see that there is no need to support that perception of the mind No, because They know how to meditate until They reach to 'sagna vedaita nirodha' (No- pain-no-perception state) which is beyond our imagination of happiness or fun No, because They know 'someone or other people' are just perceptions of the mind
so They are wise not to involve with perceptions No, because They are beyond the wants of Worldly things No, because They know the best exercise for humans is walking Of course, but someone has to offer it to Them otherwise They would'nt take it because Noble persons do not take anything that does not offer to them, that is why Arahants (Enlightened ones) can not lead a household life
The pleasure of touching someone else's body is tied to the imagination.
And to a growing up and living in a world where boobs are hidden and access to them is only in a sexual or intimate setting.
Insight removes the fantasy that inspires lust for sex.
In order to experience pleasure from touching someone's body a Buddha would have to relinquish some of the clarity that he has worked so hard to achieve.
It might be like trying to have sex with your sister. Pretty hard to get excited about.
Since I've started practicing, I've seen my desire for sensual pleasures slowly decrease. This is a natural effect from following the path. I can't say they are fully gone, but I can very well imagine how they could be one day.
When the Buddha got enlightened, in theory he could have gone back to his old life of sensual gratification. But he didn't. He stayed a renunciate monk, eating little, sleeping little, wearing simple clothes, travelling by foot. That's because he lost his interest in sensual things and preferred a simple life.
So the way an enlightened being would behave really reflects their release. Enlightenment is not something you do on the side, as sort of like an extra to life.
Metta!
I know I'm not up to that. I seek to become a better, more balanced person from practicing. Even that's attachment, but like the buddha said there are good and bad friends (friends being attachments), I think there are good and bad goals in life..
What I'm saying is, there's nothing wrong with doing all those things (in a balanced and peaceful way bla bla) for us, regular people. An enlightened being just wouldn't have any need to do it, whatsoever. We don't have to compare ourselves to or live up to buddhas, we just follow their guidance the best we can to the benefit of everyone
You can have sex with craving, or sex without craving.
Just like you can drink a beer without being an alcoholic.
We're all one, but it's not a fixed one... it's a flowing, changing process. The great compassion of the buddhas is founded on understanding reality and the origin and cessation of suffering. The conventional and the supramundane co-exist (appearance and nature), but it's fully understanding this nature (our Buddha-nature) that ceases suffering.
And sometimes it just happens. In the morning for example lol
I mean, if you're already in a relationship I don't see why you'd have to give that up (and the sex that goes with it) to practice Buddhism or even be enlightened. I know some people opt to, but I can't see it as being essential because it would cause pain to your loved one. Divorce is up there with death of a loved one in terms of how stressful and painful it is.
I can see why monks would vow celibacy, and how sex has the potential to be a form of craving, and definitely how it can be a distraction, but I don't think it has to be that way. Just as drinking a beer doesn't necessarily mean you're an alcoholic, having sex doesn't mean that you crave it.
I mean, I'll find out eventually either way, right? So I'm not too worried about it and I'll keep enjoying my marriage in the meantime because romantic love is still love, and at this point on my journey learning to love in any way is a step forward for me.
I guess your view on it depends on where you're at in your spiritual evolution, and maybe the view from Buddhahood is very different (though I've never seen the Buddha call sex bad) but I'm right at the beginning here and from where I'm stood sex is great. :buck:
I think you mix up how monks are required to live due to their vows, how a buddha lives due to it's awakening and how laity lives due to their obligations - try googling "buddhism householder" or "buddhism laity" and the like. Find the appropriate suttas, where Buddha teaches layfolk on how to live best, but still have spouses, children, money, jobs, houses and employees.
A lay person may never awaken (and too bad for his/her family if he/she does!), but that's not the point - the goal for a lay person/householder is to lead a peaceful life, practicing simpler, not awakening but maybe ensuring a better next life and making things better for everyone
A Buddha, having overcome all attachments, would have no reason to touch a boob. The conditions leading to the arising of such an impulse would no longer exist. Could you imagine a female Buddha going around touching intimate parts of the male anatomy?
I thought not.
I mean, you seem very sure of yourself, to the point of being a bit of an ass about it, but who knows, right? I've heard different things all over the place. I'm inclined leaning towards enlightened beings totally going for it, some people disagree. The Buddha didn't say anything concrete on the subject really so it's all just guesswork.
I think both sides of the argument have valid points and good reasons for choosing whatever side they have, but I don't think any of us have the authority to say "it is this way absolutely without any doubt whatsoever".
A quick question. I believe I read somewhere that the Buddha said that lay people are just as equal to monks when it comes to the ability to achieve "enlightenment" in this life. Has anyone else seen or read this quote? I'm sure I can find it again if pressed ...
The idea seems relevant in regards to this topic. An "enlightened" being can get up, go to work, have kids, all of that, even while understanding the four noble truths and following the eight-fold path.
What do you think?
Mark
But yes, lay practitioners are capable. Monk/nun-hood only helps provide ideal conditions.
One source for the sex thing:
"What is the Buddhist attitude to sex? For a lay person, there is nothing sinful or shameful in sex, nor does it carry lifelong burdens of guilt. Sexual desires, in its personal aspect, is just like another form of craving and, as craving, leads to suffering. Sexual desire, too, must be controlled and finally totally eradicated. This happiness[2] arises only at the third stage of Sainthood, that of Anagami. When a lay Buddhist becomes an Anagami, he leads a celibate life."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel294.html
Maybe you guys are right, I don't know anymore :buck:
More likely, since it would've started at following the Path and stream-entry and then progressed to once-returner and non-returner, the wife would've been a part of that journey. She'd probably be enlightened to some degree already. Even if not, an anagami would be skillful enough to lead someone else to enlightenment much faster than if they didn't have such a teacher.
If I had a wife and experienced Nirvana to any degree, the first thing I'd do would be to try and show her how things really are. If we were in love I'm sure she'd try to understand, and I'd be as persuasive as I could be. Either that would set her on the path to the same realization, or she'd be averse to enlightenment and distance herself from me. In either case, it wouldn't be the whole way to anagami before there was an issue! It would have to be resolved early on in some way.
Giving up love is giving up being there for others and flies in the face of the dharma.
Craving sex and being with our mate are not the same thing. I abstain from having meaningless sex and will never have sex with a woman I think wouldn't be mother material but I will not deny my humanity or con myself into believing I'm too good to be natural.
Sex is how life happens.
Also I think it is silly to believe an enlightened individual wouldn't play with children in a water park.
They still tie their shoes because they don't wish to trip and fall and they still have preferences.
Being enlightened doesn't make a person any less of an individual, they just know that being an individual is only half of the truth.
JMHO
If my husband hit Nirvana and I didn't, yeah, I'd want him to show me the way and everything, but I'd still want to see him naked now and then.
Here's some more information about Anagami (not sure about this source):
"There is no great difference between a Sotapanna and a Sakadagami, but in a person who becomes an Anagami, sexual desire and anger will be completely annihilated. There will be no one anywhere who can cause the slightest anger or sexual desire to appear in him what ever the provocation. Fear will also be totally absent in him."
http://www.thisismyanmar.com/nibbana/nu5.htm
I think Anagami is really where someone is recognizable to other people as a saint. As someone who would be described as "holy". They're more unworldly than worldly at that point, so far beyond worldly craving.
Sounds like the Buddha in some respects. Interesting case study.
It doesn't make sense.
Experiencing pleasure and enjoying it is not the same as craving it.
Pleasure doesn't last, pain doesn't last. Attaching to them, identifying with them as what we are or belonging to us, is unsatisfactory. A buddha will recognize them and let them go at the same time, without it effecting them whatsoever. The mind doesn't chase after them, doesn't crave toward the pleasure or have aversion toward the pain. It's just feathers in the wind, nothing to worry about. Real "suffering" is an act of mind.
Sex if fully accepted just as it is, if objectively examined will show itself to be something that we actually did foster and so can't be equally compared to the pain/ suffering question.
They understand karma fully. What the mind does, how it associates with phenomena, can create karma. Buddhas do not create any further karma... they're done, finished. Creating karma leads to rebirth. Buddhas have gone beyond the world of pleasure and pain, gain and loss, praise and blame, fame and disgrace. They are not deceived by dualities or the causes of suffering.
Is it any surprise that enlightenment/Nirvana is so difficult to understand? It's soooo far "out there" compared to how our minds normally work and we think of things like pleasure (as good) and pain (as bad). We're stuck in these dualities, constantly switching back-and-forth between them, driven forth by our craving and our suffering. Buddhas have nothing to worry about, they've finished with all of it.
I think your speaking to the converted.
I was saying why pain might not, if free from attachment, continue into suffering.
Sex however actually does require fostering, and the seeds of that attachment will result in suffering.
If we are for compassion, is that not taking a stand to what we find pleasurable? Even if we find pleasure in others happiness, it is still a desire.
Either way, it seems to go along with preference.
I am sure Buddha was following what he felt pleasurable when he decided to teach the dharma.
If it is foolhardy to try and run from our pain, it is just as foolhardy to run from our pleasure. Just as desire for happiness can lead to suffering, so can the desire for pain.
However experiencing pain and happiness is just that. Has nothing to do with suffering until we try to intervene and try to make it lasting or to make it stop.
Trying to stop our own happiness from happening seems nhilistic to me.
The Middle Way is that middle ground, the avoidance of the extremes which only keep us in this perpetual struggle... detaching from likes and dislikes, from the struggle that is resultant from chasing what we like and avoiding what we dislike. Nirvana is a true peace, and is a greater happiness than anything experienced in the worldly sense. Nothing about enlightenment is "stopping our own happiness", it's just stopping our suffering... we have to come to understand worldly happiness as part of that suffering, and I understand that can be (very) hard to do.
Pleasure is only a problem because we want it; we like it. Experiencing joy in worldly pleasure is telling (training or conditioning) the mind that this is something desirable, something satisfactory. And so when there's not pleasure, we'll crave for pleasure. We'll suffer in its absence. The Second Noble Truth is the cause of suffering, and that cause is this very Craving. If we don't see the danger in finding pleasure "satisfactory", unsatisfactoriness is actually the result of our wrong view. Suffering. We create our own suffering because we don't see this danger and its karmic consequences. We don't see that mental tendencies have their roots in this ignorance, and we need to uproot them by seeing Dukkha in all its forms.
If we understood Dukkha fully, we'd be enlightened already. Dukkha is just the First Noble Truth... the problem. It's very obvious that the problem has dimensions of subtlety that take a while to grasp. The Noble Eightfold Path is meant to show us just how much our likes and dislikes spin us around. It separates us from doing what we want or avoiding what we don't want, and we have to face Dukkha directly. Once we've identified that the problem is within our own minds, we'll know what we have to do. Real practice begins there, when we're no longer deluded by likes and dislikes.
Sure, nothing lasts but nothing really goes away either. It's all right here and right now. Now is the ultimate middle ground and now is where we make the choices. As far as I know there is only worldly happiness. You seem to be saying that if we choose to be happy we choose to suffer. This may sound odd to some but even when I am saddened I am happy. There is absolutely no struggle to be happy when it is a choice we make that doesn't depend on circumstance.
The joy of simply being has no opposite and so there is no extreme to cling to.
Do enlightened beings smile? If so is it because they suffer? Who doesn't see? Why do you believe happiness has a prerequisite in craving?
Somehow I believe Buddha was happy without having to struggle for happiness. I also believe the suffering of others saddened him without causing him suffering. Then real practice doesn't happen. If this was the case Buddha would have remained neutral and died under that tree. He rose because he cared.
Again, just my honest opinion.
I'm glad you're happy!
If happiness were really simply a choice, the problems would end there. If anyone was unhappy, they'd just choose to be happy and have done with it. Whatever it is you have going for you is not what people normally experience. However things are, there's always something "unsatisfactory", and craving to change those conditions. There's never true lasting peace for normal people. They can experience more happiness than suffering, and so not seek a way out... and that's okay.
I can tell this has the potential to become a Neverending Debate, but see little point in that because we see things completely differently and haven't found agreement on a single issue that I can tell. So I'm going to call it a night.