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.
Avoid all Sexual Abuse..
samahita
Veteran
Friends:
All Adultery, Incest, and Paedophilia is Harmful Sexual Abuse!
Once in Savatthi the Blessed Buddha said this:
What, householder friends, is the Dhamma explanation befitting for oneself?
Here, householder friends, a Noble Disciple reflects thus: If someone were to
commit adultery with my wife, that would neither be pleasing, nor agreeable to me.
Similarly, if I were to commit adultery with another man's wife, that would also
be illicit sex, & horny fornication, which would neither be pleasing, nor agreeable
to that other man either....
What is displeasing and disagreeable to me, is also displeasing and disagreeable
to any other being too. How can I harm & hurt another being with what provoke,
annoy and exasperate myself? Having reflected repeatedly thus, then gradually:
1: He/she will carefully avoid all adultery, sexual and sensual abuse...
2: He/she will persuade others also to abstain from all adultery & sexual abuse...
3: He/she will speak praising behaving faithfully, loyal, in trustworthy fidelity...
In this very way is this advantageous bodily behaviour purified in it's 3 respects!
One should never mentally hurt or harm other beings, even when Greedy for Sex!
What is Sexual Abuse (kamesu-micchacara)?:
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/What_is_Sensual_and_Sexual_Misbehaviour.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/g_m/kaamesu_miccaacaara.htm
Source (edited extract):
The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. [V:354]
section 55: Sotapattisamyutta. Thread 7: To the people at the Bamboo gate...
Avoid all Sexual Abuse..
All Adultery, Incest, and Paedophilia is Harmful Sexual Abuse!
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Not_Abusing.htm
All Adultery, Incest, and Paedophilia is Harmful Sexual Abuse!
Once in Savatthi the Blessed Buddha said this:
What, householder friends, is the Dhamma explanation befitting for oneself?
Here, householder friends, a Noble Disciple reflects thus: If someone were to
commit adultery with my wife, that would neither be pleasing, nor agreeable to me.
Similarly, if I were to commit adultery with another man's wife, that would also
be illicit sex, & horny fornication, which would neither be pleasing, nor agreeable
to that other man either....
What is displeasing and disagreeable to me, is also displeasing and disagreeable
to any other being too. How can I harm & hurt another being with what provoke,
annoy and exasperate myself? Having reflected repeatedly thus, then gradually:
1: He/she will carefully avoid all adultery, sexual and sensual abuse...
2: He/she will persuade others also to abstain from all adultery & sexual abuse...
3: He/she will speak praising behaving faithfully, loyal, in trustworthy fidelity...
In this very way is this advantageous bodily behaviour purified in it's 3 respects!
One should never mentally hurt or harm other beings, even when Greedy for Sex!
What is Sexual Abuse (kamesu-micchacara)?:
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/What_is_Sensual_and_Sexual_Misbehaviour.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/g_m/kaamesu_miccaacaara.htm
Source (edited extract):
The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. [V:354]
section 55: Sotapattisamyutta. Thread 7: To the people at the Bamboo gate...
Avoid all Sexual Abuse..
All Adultery, Incest, and Paedophilia is Harmful Sexual Abuse!
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Not_Abusing.htm
2
Comments
"Infidelity" threatens and yes, sometimes demolishes a marriage/commitment to another. It does not have to "destroy lives."
If the breaking of a marriage vow truly 'destroyed lives'.... no one would ever get married, nor stay married to anyone that cheated on them.
Many times adults, with good communication skills (or a marriage counselor) and real compassion and love for each other can over come infidelity and a host of other broken promises and unmet expectations.
To say that a divorce or broken vow means someone's life is "destroyed" is a bit over dramatic, IMO. Your life and self worth should never ever depend solely on another to start with. OK, I just had to say that. It was buggin' me.
I just don't see adultery in open marriages or
incest amongst consenting adults where children are not possible
as innately harmful.
I think sexual abuse requires dishonesty or a manipulative power imbalance to occur and any sexual exchange that contains those ingredients crosses the line, whether society accepts it or not.
I have never known anyone who committed incest (that I know of) but I think I'm with how on this. It grosses me out, but that's just me. It may not be innately harmful.
I've also never known anyone who sexually abused a child. But clearly this is disgusting, harmful, and wrong. Clearly to me, anyway.
I'm in agreement- I never thought "adultery" could happen in an "open" marriage. Isn't that the point of a marriage being Open? There are also circumstances where married or committed people do go outside their committed partnership for sex for other reasons as well. Sometimes the other partner knows about it, and sometimes they don't want to know.
So there's that...
Now, about the incest thing, that one is always a little hard to filter into the well-it's-ok-sometimes pile, or into the Never-EVER-under-any-circumstances pile...
Can you give me an example when incest (among adults, I assume) would not be innately harmful, or overall acceptable?
If two consenting adults are related and want to have an intimate relationship and there is not a possibility of children resulting then you tell me what makes that more of a description of sexual abuse than if they are not related.
This is the same question that folks used to ask me about homosexuality 20 years ago.
as for the whole adultery thing.. I'm fairly sure Bhante is not talking about rare things like open marriages. It's pretty much a valid assumption that 90% or more of married people would get hurt if their spouse slept with another person. Obviously the INTENTION behind every action is the important part, so if it is the intent of the couple to have an open relationship then there is no harm(other then the aforementioned harm above :P anyways)
The Buddha talks about not having sexual relations with those protected by their family(minors) or their dhamma(monastics) or those engaged to be married or married, as all of these situations under normal circumstances would cause much pain and trouble not only for those directly involved but the family and social group around them.
I agree with @how about the incest thing. Incest, multiple spouses, whatever, as long as the adults are consenting then where is the intention of harm behind it?
He/she thereby intentionally seeks pleasure that inherently COST another being PAIN...
Pedophilia is ALWAYS ALL OUT whether there is consent or not.
One the long run: ANY Craving and Urge for any sense pleasure ALWAYS
causes more Suffering than enjoyment! That is indeed = Second Noble Truth:
http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/II/The_4_Noble_Truths.htm
Better Come Clean friends or pay the excessively costly bill later!!!
Don't fool around messing up your own and others (karmic) future...
What is Sexual Abuse (kāmesu-micchācāra)?:
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/What_is_Sensual_and_Sexual_Misbehaviour.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/g_m/kaamesu_miccaacaara.htm
causes more Suffering than enjoyment!"
I don't agree with that.
Why so?
Self-deception is often quite rigid, stupid & opinionated!
The importance of any statement comes from
whether it indeed is TRUE on the absolute level!
Non-Buddhists, traditionally called "outsiders",
often of Hedonistic views and habits, cannot
swallow these 4 Noble Truths, yet that would
save them A LOT of tribulation mildly speaking...
Any being have a choice and thus a chance...
Well so be it!
Craving for sense pleasure is basically, what makes beings come back here.
This craving thus causes rebirth. When having been born one also have to age,
decay and die. It is an astronomic understatement that this very craving for pleasure
already have killed you a billion-billion-billion-billion-billion-billion-billion times...
And yet the Hedonist always WANTS MORE MORE MORE (suffering...) hehehehe
The Buddha on these captivating "Flowers" of sense pleasure:
SURPRISE
Death carries off the man while distracted
by gathering flowers of sensual pleasures,
exactly & even so as a great flood carries
away a sleeping village.
Dhammapada 47
OFF GUARD
Death sweeps away the man distracted,
not yet had his fill of sensual pleasures,
even as he gathers these flowers.
Dhammapada 48
See also:
On Sense-Desire (Hedonism=Kama):
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Why_Not.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/V/Wild_Horses.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Just_a_Flash.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Craving_is_Pain.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/Canon/Sutta/AN/AN.I.1-2.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/Canon/Sutta/AN/AN.I.3-4.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_Charcoal_Pit.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/Canon/Sutta/AN/AN.I.3-4c.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Mistaken_Reference.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/g_m/kaama.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Crushing_the_Carrot.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Colourful_but_Muddy.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_Fishermans_Hook.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_Ocean_of_Stimuli.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Obstructing_Corruption.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Craving_is_Catastrophic.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Constructive_Destruction.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_Fire_of_Sense-Desire.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/What_is_Disadvantageous.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Joys_of_the_Flesch_and_Beyond.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Happiness_of_the_Flesh_and_Beyond.htm
There is no "Self" anywhere to be found ;-)
On this No-Self (Anatta) Doctrine:
Self-&-Substance-lessness
please dig deep here:
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Pride.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Not_Yours.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Conceit_I_Am.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Ego-Projection.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/I-dentification.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Sandcastles.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Prison_of_Pride.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Double_Problem.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/The_Egoless.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/We_Are_Not.htm
Freezing to death before we awaken.
If you don't exist then waking up is a non-issue.
Ooops there goes the non-believers down the barbecue drain ever again.
Knowing they have been told otherwise makes their perpetual screaming
like barbwire-gagged pigs in a bonfire somewhat pathetic IMHO.
But then again: Well so be it...
@ourself
>If you don't exist then waking up is a non-issue.
There IS something that awakens, but this is NOT a "me-you-I-ego-or-self"...
In fact is any EGO barred out per definition by this giant 'self'-deception.
As the Buddha said (U wont like that one either..., but R U Buddhist at all then???):
"Blissful is content solitude in the Dhamma. More blissful is total harmlessness. Even more blissful is absence of all craving. Yet, the supreme bliss, is the elimination of this abysmal conceit “I am” !"
Source: Udana 11
On the No-Self (Anatta) Doctrine: Self-&-Substance-lessness
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Conceit_I_Am.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Ego-Projection.htm
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/I-dentification.htm
If Sidhartha ignored his senses and didn't eat he would have died under that tree. Instead he saw the middle way and because of this Buddha awoke in him and we have the dharma.
I hear a lot of people claiming there is no self but they like to say something experiences bliss beyond the senses.
Who says a self must be permenent?
Sexual abuse is one thing... Denying the bodies basic needs is quite another.
:coffee:
@how,
I was asking for some clarification, honest. I wasn't ready to state my firm stance on incest being innately harmful - or not. I'm not even sure I have one!
I wanted to make sure we were both talking about incest with the same criteria in mind...
In more than half the states in the US, first cousins can legally marry each other. What makes you first cousins? You share a set of grandparents.
I really don't have a problem with adult cousins doing this, as long as marriages are not pre-arranged by parents, and/or neither of the cousins is "groomed" for this as they grow up- or coerced into doing this.
But in many cultures that is exactly what's behind most familial marriages. That's where things get into a grey area with me, personally.
Otherwise, I agree... if it's a free choice between two adults of sound mind, then cousins doesn't set off any (moral) alarms with me at all.
And studies show that the alleged "higher" incidents of birth defects as a result of cousins producing children is actually so small a jump, as to be insignificant overall.
Brother and sister? For health and genetic reasons as well as because of the potential for sexual grooming and abuse through family dynamics (power/ rank or importance among siblings), this is a circumstance of incest that seems "wrong" to me- and I don't think it should be sanctioned legally.
I think where I see a potential problem with incest, in any culture, but especially in cultures where females are still treated as second class citizens (if citizens at all) or as property of men, is that very often the female is subjected to the wants and desires of men, and like I mentioned, that's when 'grooming' takes place if not downright denial of choice - for the female.
In many cultures if a female is raped by a male cousin or even a brother, not only is she deemed "sullied" and not marriage material any longer, but now the male cousin or brother can claim her as a "wife" (without any privileges or legal rights like other wives) because that's now her only option. Sure, ultimately it's her "choice"... but what other choice did she really have?
Incest is a grey area with many facets of potential harm .... I don't think one should make blanket condemnations, nor allow blanket acceptance, either. JMO
. . . and now back to the restricted emissions . . . :om:
"In many cultures if a female is raped by a male cousin or even a brother, not only is she deemed "sullied" and not marriage material any longer...."
That should read "In some cultures if a female is raped by a male cousin or even a brother......"
I don't want to be accused of blatant exaggeration...
I'm going to use the only one cuppa morning coffee so far, excuse.
Try again.
Are Hungry Ghosts real? Absolutely.
A Buddhist can be imperfect. A Buddhist can even be flat out wrong. A Buddhist can be secular, or non-secular. A Buddhist can be judgmental, or fundamental, stingy, generous, open-minded, narrow minded, sexually free, sexually repressed, up, down, in, out, who cares... A Buddhist is many things and nothing.
If I take refuge and claim I am Buddhist, then I am. Regardless how other Buddhists 'rate' me.
Marriages and partnerships survive infidelity just as often as they don't.
Infidelity itself doesn't 'destroy lives' unless one believes that a failed marriage/ partnership (or a broken "promise") means one is then worthless and doomed forever. Please. Such archaic notions.
No one else is responsible for OUR happiness, worthiness, respect or regard, that's up to US.
I'm not saying infidelity doesn't hurt others, it does, of course. So does arguing, calling names, fighting, disrespect, and a million other things people who "love each other" do to each other all the time.
But these things don't 'destroy lives'... not if you have any sense of self worth and esteem.
As for being an actual Bhikkhu...
does that title come along with a certificate of infallibility?
He is not secular. He is teaching in these threads.
If you don't want a flat tire, don't drive over pot holes to begin with. But, you are missing the whole point. The point is about how WE ourselves behave, not how other people behave. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how other people behave. The precepts are about our own behavior and only our own behavior. When it comes to quoting Buddhist scriptures word for word, pretty much yea.
:om:
"Ooops there goes the non-believers down the barbecue drain ever again.
Knowing they have been told otherwise makes their perpetual screaming
like barbwire-gagged pigs in a bonfire somewhat pathetic IMHO.
But then again: Well so be it..."
It makes it fine to ask "Just what exactly is he trying to teach?"
Fear mongering doesn't have to go unquestioned no matter who is doing it.
I've had some pretty serious, but still respectful, discussions with Clergy of other faiths over the years; catholic priests, baptist ministers, Presbyterian pastors, etc.
Just because one is of the clergy or a religious teacher, doesn't mean their views and or teachings can't be questioned or countered.
I will admit though, I had no idea of his 'credentials' when I read his first comments in this thread. Now I do know them, but I still see no reason to respectfully disagree or question things.
And as @ourself pointed out... our resident Bhikkhu wasn't exactly utilizing "right speech" now was he? He wasn't only quoting religious scriptures... he gave his own "IMHO" as well.
We have members who are not Buddhists at all, including me.
We have members who claim to be Buddhists but but really have not grasped the meaning of Buddhism at all.
We have wiccans, and Christians.
And we have an ordained Bikkhu who takes the time every day to post teachings, for everyone's benefit.
I finally figured out that if we didn't have some fundamentalist Buddhists here this would be no more than a prolonged bullshit session.
What do folks think is being taught in a monastery if it isn't straight up fundamentals of Buddhism.
I would ask @samahita to comment on my post in response to @vastmind but to see past both of our ego driven comments prior.
With all due respect (and let's face it... The time and effort you have put into your practice is quite inspiring and for that alone, you have my respect and undying gratitude) you can't post the scripture and then have your speech go against it.
Not all Buddhists believe in hell. Some of us can see people in hell right here and right now.
I am sorry if I have helped in marring an otherwise great thread but this forum doesn't adhere to any one sectarian view of the dharma and so any fear mongering should expect questioning period. IMHO
Remember, before we disagreed, you addressed me as "friend".
I have been seeing his posts on various buddhist forums for years but only recently came across his videos. I have not found anything very objectionable as a theravadin buddhist in his talks yet. English is definitely not his first language btw.
I've mentioned this before. In my business where I'm out there, basically alone at sea to figure out how to make it pay and stay alive, I have made a point of paying attention, with respect, to what older, more experienced fishermen have to say when they are speaking.
I'm not about to interrupt someone who is clearly more knowledgable than my self about any subject and start arguing my own opinions. It just doesn't make sense. I'd never learn anything that way.
And if a Bikkhu who has spent the last ten years in a monastery meditating isn't more knowledgable about Buddhism than me, no one is.
I personally would have to give some more than just a passing thought as to whether Samahita was using wrong speech or not.
The thread is posted properly IMO.
I'm just quoting your post to bounce my views off. No offence intended.
Man! I thought we had long since established that hell is a metaphorical teaching tool in Buddhism. And Christianity for that matter.
Give your head a shake!
"The time and effort you have put into your practice is quite inspiring and for that alone, you have my respect ..."
It's apparent that the assumed "even playing field" for discussion has been tipped.
It has now become words between "learned teacher" and "lowly students". It's also become Non-secular vs secular. I see no sense trying to continue with that lingering behind our words. So I respectfully bow out.
Peace
and also to @maryanne
I would hope not, even the Buddha told others to question his motives and teachings. When we feel that monks and priests and whatever religious heads there are can do no wrong, we allow for many problems and issues, just look at child sexual abuse in the clergy of Christianity and monkhood of buddhism. Questioning is fine, but I agree with Robot's assessment about an experienced Bhikkhu being a good source of helpful insight. For me when I hear a new monastic I am always comparing what he is saying to what the buddha said, if that matches up then they become part of my "to watch" list.
I personally know a few people living in hell right here and now.
did I miss something... who said this?
Unless I totally misunderstood the intent behind his ire for differing views.
Anyways, I'm starting to feel like a troll so that's it for me unless addressed by the O/P.