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.
The best series I have seen is LOST because the characters are good people even if they are burdened by some history of problems they still all are noble and working on those. Best show I have ever seen.
I have yet to make it to the end of LOST. We watched through season...5 or so, and then had a family thing come up, and we never got back into it, LOL. What we saw was fantastic though! We stopped watching not long after Charlie died.
That was the saddest I was in the series. Charlie really got to me. The subsequent episodes were also very well done, but they left some questions unanswered. Personally I liked the ending even though it is much criticized with the reason being the loose ends.
I liked how there was a positive message. Courage and sacrifice and love.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@lobster said:
I felt much the same about 'Breaking Bad'. Wonderful, engrossing story, wonderful acting. I watched the first two series and then I had enough. I watched it because it deservedly won awards but ultimately it is just another soap opera. I have my own, literally.
I tried watching it after being bombarded with recommendations. I just could not get into a series about the awful consequences and proliferations of a bad choice made when other choices were available. I am a real downer sometimes.
We have not watched Breaking Bad yet. We've thought about it, but we personally know so many people who have had problems due to meth that I find it hard to consider watching a tv show about it.
I'm reading the vinaya now and turns out my initial guess was right. The op statement comes from the story of the first monk to have intercourse and how the first major rule came to being:
Ven. Sudinna, the story goes, had strong faith in the Buddha and had ordained after receiving his parents' grudging consent. He was their only child and, though married, was childless. His parents, fearing that the government would confiscate their property at their death if it had no heir, devised various schemes to lure Ven. Sudinna back to the lay life, but to no avail. Finally, his mother realized that he was firm in his intention to stay a bhikkhu and so asked him at least to have intercourse with his former wife so that their property would have an heir. Ven. Sudinna consented, took his wife into the forest, and had intercourse three times. Immediately he felt remorse and eventually confessed his deed to his fellow bhikkhus.
Word reached the Buddha, who called a meeting of the Community, questioned Ven. Sudinna, and gave him a rebuke. The rebuke fell into two major parts. In the first part, the Buddha reminded Ven. Sudinna of his position as a samaṇa — a monk or contemplative — and that his behavior was unworthy of his position. Also, the Buddha pointed out to him the aims of the teaching and noted that his behavior ran counter to them. The implication here was that Ven. Sudinna had not only acted inconsistently with the content of the teaching, but had also shown callous disregard for the Buddha's compassionate aims in making the Dhamma known. "'Worthless man, it is unseemly, out of line, unsuitable, and unworthy of a contemplative; improper and not to be done...
Haven't I taught the Dhamma in many ways for the sake of dispassion and not for passion; for unfettering and not for fettering; for freedom from clinging and not for clinging? Yet here, while I have taught the Dhamma for dispassion, you set your heart on passion; while I have taught the Dhamma for unfettering, you set your heart on being fettered; while I have taught the Dhamma for freedom from clinging, you set your heart on clinging. "'Worthless man, haven't I taught the Dhamma in many ways for the fading of passion, the sobering of intoxication, the subduing of thirst, the destruction of attachment, the severing of the round, the ending of craving, dispassion, cessation, unbinding?
Haven't I in many ways advocated abandoning sensual pleasures, comprehending sensual perceptions, subduing sensual thirst, destroying sensual thoughts, calming sensual fevers? Worthless man, it would be better that your penis be stuck into the mouth of a poisonous snake than into a woman's vagina. It would be better that your penis be stuck into the mouth of a black viper than into a woman's vagina. It would be better that your penis be stuck into a pit of burning embers, blazing and glowing, than into a woman's vagina. Why is that? For that reason you would undergo death or death-like suffering, but you would not on that account, at the break-up of the body, after death, fall into deprivation, the bad destination, the abyss, hell. But for this reason you would, at the break-up of the body, after death, fall into deprivation, the bad destination, the abyss, hell... "'Worthless man, this neither inspires faith in the faithless nor increases the faithful. Rather, it inspires lack of faith in the faithless and wavering in some of the faithful
Then the Blessed One, having in many ways rebuked Ven. Sudinna, having spoken in dispraise of being burdensome, demanding, arrogant, discontented, entangled, and indolent; in various ways having spoken in praise of being unburdensome, undemanding, modest, content, scrupulous, austere, gracious, self-effacing, and energetic; having given a Dhamma talk on what is seemly and becoming for bhikkhus, addressed the bhikkhus." This was where the Buddha formulated the training rule, after first stating his reasons for doing so. "'In that case, bhikkhus, I will formulate a training rule for the bhikkhus with ten aims in mind: the excellence of the Community, the comfort of the Community, the curbing of the impudent, the comfort of well-behaved bhikkhus, the restraint of effluents related to the present life, the prevention of effluents related to the next life, the arousing of faith in the faithless, the increase of the faithful, the establishment of the true Dhamma, and the fostering of discipline
So lots of good reasons to avoid sexual conduct for Bhikkhu and Bhikkhunis.
@Grayman said:
Well, if you ever need a backup singer with a washrag let me know. I've got your back.
Too kind. Best offer I have had all day . . . but it is early. First we find harmony. Then chords. Then we sing. Finally we are a song . . .
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
That is why I am wholly unwilling to watch horror movies, or programmes of an extremely violent nature. My own mind brings up random, dreadful images, completely "out of nowhere" as a result.
It's quite appalling what such imagery can do to a susceptible mind, and I don't consider myself all that susceptible...
As if we do not have enough misery, horror and desperation, IRL....
Ven. Sudinna consented, took his wife into the forest, and had intercourse three times. Immediately he felt remorse and eventually confessed his deed to his fellow bhikkhus.
Poor wife. First, you know that his family is blaming her, saying if she'd been a better wife their son would have never left her. Finally she has to go into the buggy forest and get it on. Also, immediately? It is to laugh. He enjoys it enough to do it three times (obviously not in one night) before denouncing their lovemaking after he's had his fill of sex once again.
And I notice they call her his "former wife". By the time this little story was written, the anti-sex arahats were firmly in control of the sangha and clamping down on discipline. I'd put this into the "too good to be true" category. There's more than one lesson here. The story is also about the problems new monks had with their families. There is no compassion at all for the family that would lose everything without an heir or for the novice monk who still cared for his parents. He apparently should have allowed his parents and wife to lose everything.
I can see the unnamed wife's expression as she brushed leaves and dirt off her butt and listened to her husband wail about how terrible he'd been, having sex. Hope the poor wife at least got a son out it.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I hope she didn't.
Bringing another daughter into the world would have been bad enough, but subjecting the world to another man? In that society? With that Mind-set?
But am I wrong again to think that with practice (in Buddhism or anything else) a willingness and capacity and faith kicks in ... something along the lines of "never mind believing anything you are unwilling to verify?"
And with this as a yardstick, the need to argue or dissect or elevate or dismiss seems to fall away and belief is not so necessary ... it's the exercise of verification that counts, and past pronouncements -- good, bad or indifferent -- lose their allure. Not overnight and not all at once, perhaps, but maybe it just makes better practical sense: "never mind believing anything you are unwilling to verify." Others can believe what they like -- no matter. Whether you agree with them or not, still, without verifying in your own life, it's all pretty much holy hot air, don't you think?
Just thinking out loud.
What's this "exercise of verification" to mentioned? I assume it's a process, but just what is that process?
@Cinorjer said:
And I notice they call her his "former wife". By the time this little story was written, the anti-sex arahats were firmly in control of the sangha and clamping down on discipline. I'd put this into the "too good to be true" category. There's more than one lesson here. The story is also about the problems new monks had with their families. There is no compassion at all for the family that would lose everything without an heir or for the novice monk who still cared for his parents. He apparently should have allowed his parents and wife to lose everything.
That's one way to look it. Another is to see it as a monastic breaking their vow of celibacy and feeling guilty enough to confess it rather than keep it a secret. I don't see anything inherently wrong with that, nor the fact that the Buddha made a breach of this particular precept a defeat for those who have gone forth as monastics. With all the sex abuse scandals coming out, I think taking a strong stand on this issue is preferable to a lax one. I don't see it as being anti-sex so much as seeking to protect both monastics and lay-followers from potential abuse, misconduct, and scandal. As for there being " no compassion at all for the family that would lose everything without an heir or for the novice monk who still cared for his parents," I'd disagree. The Buddha also instituted a rule prohibiting the going-forth of children without their parents’ permission out of compassion for such parents and legal guardians.
@Jason I'm talking about in this story. Like any huge, extensive body of writing compiled and edited over hundreds of years, some parts will contradict and sometimes have an entirely different message from others. That's part of the voyage of discovery, when we read the sutras or Biblical scriptures as literature written by people, for a purpose, not divine ordained revealed truth.
So the arahats, the leaders of the Sangha were faced with a problem. Celibacy is an almost universal requirement of a monastic order. But how do you get a bunch of young men with nothing much to do all day but sit around and meditate to not fool around? There's only so many cold showers a person can take.
Well, one thing we can keep in mind is that the reality is never as simple as the official line. Monks have been sneaking out and also staying in and engaging in mutual sex from the beginning. And been punished for it when and if caught. But this need to block a basic human instinct for orgasm also has the danger of blaming the object of the desire.
@Cinorjer said:
Jason I'm talking about in this story. Like any huge, extensive body of writing compiled and edited over hundreds of years, some parts will contradict and sometimes have an entirely different message from others. That's part of the voyage of discovery, when we read the sutras or Biblical scriptures as literature written by people, for a purpose, not divine ordained revealed truth.
So the arahats, the leaders of the Sangha were faced with a problem. Celibacy is an almost universal requirement of a monastic order. But how do you get a bunch of young men with nothing much to do all day but sit around and meditate to not fool around? There's only so many cold showers a person can take.
Well, one thing we can keep in mind is that the reality is never as simple as the official line. Monks have been sneaking out and also staying in and engaging in mutual sex from the beginning. And been punished for it when and if caught. But this need to block a basic human instinct for orgasm also has the danger of blaming the object of the desire.
I agree it's wrong to blame the object of desire. But in this story, I think the blame is on Sudinna and his parents, the former for breaking his vow and his parents for pushing him to do so and use his former wife as a means of producing an heir. From that point of view, she's the real victim here even though she gets ignored. But to be fair, this story is in the monks rules of discipline and only seeks to explain how this rule initially came about, so the focus is on the breach and the rule that arose from that breach rather than his parents or wife.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I can't help thinking that even though the emphasis was intended to underscore the Monk's transgression, blame would still, in any case, have been heaped on the wife.
Certainly, in some Middle Eastern and Asian countries, that is still the case today, although public outrage is growing. But that's only due to the techno-media being able to spread the news so much faster and more efficiently.
"Backward" countries (and I use the term advisedly) are only now having their consciences pricked with regard to their entrenched attitudes towards women.
Had it still been impossible to broadcast such incidents so widely, these situations would still be standard, normal accepted and unheard of.
@Cinorjer said:
Jason I'm talking about in this story. Like any huge, extensive body of writing compiled and edited over hundreds of years, some parts will contradict and sometimes have an entirely different message from others. That's part of the voyage of discovery, when we read the sutras or Biblical scriptures as literature written by people, for a purpose, not divine ordained revealed truth.
So the arahats, the leaders of the Sangha were faced with a problem. Celibacy is an almost universal requirement of a monastic order. But how do you get a bunch of young men with nothing much to do all day but sit around and meditate to not fool around? There's only so many cold showers a person can take.
Well, one thing we can keep in mind is that the reality is never as simple as the official line. Monks have been sneaking out and also staying in and engaging in mutual sex from the beginning. And been punished for it when and if caught. But this need to block a basic human instinct for orgasm also has the danger of blaming the object of the desire.
My experience has really shown me to question this whole " sex is a natural human instinct based on chemical reactions... bla bla bla"
The funny thing is that when the mind has lessened it's "need" (aka desire) for sexual activity, the physical part starts to magically "go away"... hmmm.. which was really running the show, the mind, or the body .
Personally I feel people should not attempt be monks until they have reached at least some sort of basic form of detachment or disenchantment for "the act that is the villagers way".... if you can't control the urges and are fully attached to them, it's no wonder people can't keep it in their pants.
@Jayantha said:
Personally I feel people should not attempt be monks until they have reached at least some sort of basic form of detachment or disenchantment for "the act that is the villagers way".... if you can't control the urges and are fully attached to them, it's no wonder people can't keep it in their pants.
In my experience the detatchment you speak of won't ofccur in males until around age 50 and this largely due to changes in the body and not due to some larger measure of self-control. After a certain age, sex becomes less and less of a driven thing.
And I think that at any age where the subject is sexually active, the activity is driven by physiology rather than psychology. Yes, you can, through force of will, abstain. This happens all the time.
Boxers in trainning often abstain because it's felt that sex weakens the legs.
Monks abstain because it is, after all, a huge distraction.
On a personal note, I think a celebate clergy is a ridiculous imposition. To serve us, they should share every aspect of our lives, including dealing with the personal, and social problems that come with a healthy sex life. If a monk want to be celebate, then more power to him. EXpecting a monk to remain celebate because we want him to be, is a recipe for failure.
No, I don't care what the Vinaya says. If we allow cherry-picking of other parts of the Dharma, then we must, in all fairness, allow and respect it here.
Personally I feel people should not attempt be monks until they have reached at least some sort of basic form of detachment or disenchantment for "the act that is the villagers way".... if you can't control the urges and are fully attached to them, it's no wonder people can't keep it in their pants.
@anataman said:
It's all about perspective... > Jayantha said:
Desire never goes away.
Hahha, speak for yourself ;-)
Oh and @chaz im just 36. Ive always had a very high sex drive... Until my practice took off the last few years. Its not a force of will thing for someone who has naturally developed a disenchantment for.. To the point that even achieving self pleasure requires some extraordinary measures.
Im not saying sexual desire is totally eradicated in me, but i can see how its not such an imposition to abstain for those who have developed enough nibida. I can begin to understand how they say an arahant can literally not have sex.... Certain things have to "arise" after all.
All too often when someone doesn't like a teaching, they'll say it's symbolic and misunderstood, but if they like the teaching they'll say it's very straight forward.
I think you have to use your own judgement. Also some teachings are provisional and some are definitive. It's really important to be able to decide what is what. For example the Mahayana takes a lot of the Pali Canon to be provisional.
The thing about a celibate society is, it is neither natural nor self-sustaining. So in spite of my admiration for people who voluntarily undertake celibacy in order to simplify their life and focus all their energy on a spiritual quest, there is something inside me that resists being told it's some exclusive path to enlightenment.
@vinlyn said:
All too often when someone doesn't like a teaching, they'll say it's symbolic and misunderstood, but if they like the teaching they'll say it's very straight forward.
I agree that people sometimes misinterpret symbols. I still think they're effective. Like how they use the word Mara or the Devil when saying things like "its the Devil's work" and causing a stir. I'll admit that I admire the use of symbols in other religions.
@vinlyn said:
All too often when someone doesn't like a teaching, they'll say it's symbolic and misunderstood, but if they like the teaching they'll say it's very straight forward.
It can also be that they see it as either symbolic or literal and how they like the teaching is irrelevant. In a world where cherry-picking teaching is acceptable, we must respect someone's choices regardless of why they make them.
It's like a monk ignoring the rules of Vinaya. If someone shooses to ignore it, even if they've taken vows, if we insist on picking and choosing for ourselves we must allow it in others.
@Cinorjer said:
The thing about a celibate society is, it is neither natural nor self-sustaining. So in spite of my admiration for people who voluntarily undertake celibacy in order to simplify their life and focus all their energy on a spiritual quest, there is something inside me that resists being told it's some exclusive path to enlightenment.
I read somewhere that the Buddha never actually said that celibacy were the exclusive path to enlightenment, only that a retired life made enlightenment easier to attain. That's why he offered a laxer set of precepts for lay people in the Dhammika and the Sigalowada Suttas, and a stricter one for those who chose to follow a religious path.
I personally have no hangs-up about sexual desire. I am not a nun, I did not choose celibacy, therefore I feel I can embrace my desires in a natural way. They do not run my life, but I don't berate myself nor feel I have to repress them either.
It takes a certain natural predisposition to choose celibacy and if someone feels that their urges are strong, then they simply should accept the fact that celibacy is not an option for them. Otherwise, the risk of falling off to hypocrisy and sexual molestation runs high.
I think the interpretation of ancient religious texts is inherently difficult, partly because we always bring our own preconceptions and biases. Are we really interested in understanding what meaning the original author(s) intended, or are we more concerned with imposing a meaning that fits with our own views?
Anyway I don't think there are any easy answers, since even the "experts" have preconceptions and biases. I think interpretation is always a subjective process.
I'd also challenge the implied assumption that somehow a literal interpretation is always inferior to a metaphorical one. It really depends on the context.
Which implies that we can discern the original intention. And that other people's interpretation of that original intention should conform to ours...and round it goes again.
Comments
The best series I have seen is LOST because the characters are good people even if they are burdened by some history of problems they still all are noble and working on those. Best show I have ever seen.
I have yet to make it to the end of LOST. We watched through season...5 or so, and then had a family thing come up, and we never got back into it, LOL. What we saw was fantastic though! We stopped watching not long after Charlie died.
...just another soap opera. I have my own, literally.
Well, if you ever need a backup singer with a washrag let me know. I've got your back.
That was the saddest I was in the series. Charlie really got to me. The subsequent episodes were also very well done, but they left some questions unanswered. Personally I liked the ending even though it is much criticized with the reason being the loose ends.
I liked how there was a positive message. Courage and sacrifice and love.
I tried watching it after being bombarded with recommendations. I just could not get into a series about the awful consequences and proliferations of a bad choice made when other choices were available. I am a real downer sometimes.
We have not watched Breaking Bad yet. We've thought about it, but we personally know so many people who have had problems due to meth that I find it hard to consider watching a tv show about it.
I'm reading the vinaya now and turns out my initial guess was right. The op statement comes from the story of the first monk to have intercourse and how the first major rule came to being:
Ven. Sudinna, the story goes, had strong faith in the Buddha and had ordained after receiving his parents' grudging consent. He was their only child and, though married, was childless. His parents, fearing that the government would confiscate their property at their death if it had no heir, devised various schemes to lure Ven. Sudinna back to the lay life, but to no avail. Finally, his mother realized that he was firm in his intention to stay a bhikkhu and so asked him at least to have intercourse with his former wife so that their property would have an heir. Ven. Sudinna consented, took his wife into the forest, and had intercourse three times. Immediately he felt remorse and eventually confessed his deed to his fellow bhikkhus.
Word reached the Buddha, who called a meeting of the Community, questioned Ven. Sudinna, and gave him a rebuke. The rebuke fell into two major parts. In the first part, the Buddha reminded Ven. Sudinna of his position as a samaṇa — a monk or contemplative — and that his behavior was unworthy of his position. Also, the Buddha pointed out to him the aims of the teaching and noted that his behavior ran counter to them. The implication here was that Ven. Sudinna had not only acted inconsistently with the content of the teaching, but had also shown callous disregard for the Buddha's compassionate aims in making the Dhamma known. "'Worthless man, it is unseemly, out of line, unsuitable, and unworthy of a contemplative; improper and not to be done...
Haven't I taught the Dhamma in many ways for the sake of dispassion and not for passion; for unfettering and not for fettering; for freedom from clinging and not for clinging? Yet here, while I have taught the Dhamma for dispassion, you set your heart on passion; while I have taught the Dhamma for unfettering, you set your heart on being fettered; while I have taught the Dhamma for freedom from clinging, you set your heart on clinging. "'Worthless man, haven't I taught the Dhamma in many ways for the fading of passion, the sobering of intoxication, the subduing of thirst, the destruction of attachment, the severing of the round, the ending of craving, dispassion, cessation, unbinding?
Haven't I in many ways advocated abandoning sensual pleasures, comprehending sensual perceptions, subduing sensual thirst, destroying sensual thoughts, calming sensual fevers? Worthless man, it would be better that your penis be stuck into the mouth of a poisonous snake than into a woman's vagina. It would be better that your penis be stuck into the mouth of a black viper than into a woman's vagina. It would be better that your penis be stuck into a pit of burning embers, blazing and glowing, than into a woman's vagina. Why is that? For that reason you would undergo death or death-like suffering, but you would not on that account, at the break-up of the body, after death, fall into deprivation, the bad destination, the abyss, hell. But for this reason you would, at the break-up of the body, after death, fall into deprivation, the bad destination, the abyss, hell... "'Worthless man, this neither inspires faith in the faithless nor increases the faithful. Rather, it inspires lack of faith in the faithless and wavering in some of the faithful
Then the Blessed One, having in many ways rebuked Ven. Sudinna, having spoken in dispraise of being burdensome, demanding, arrogant, discontented, entangled, and indolent; in various ways having spoken in praise of being unburdensome, undemanding, modest, content, scrupulous, austere, gracious, self-effacing, and energetic; having given a Dhamma talk on what is seemly and becoming for bhikkhus, addressed the bhikkhus." This was where the Buddha formulated the training rule, after first stating his reasons for doing so. "'In that case, bhikkhus, I will formulate a training rule for the bhikkhus with ten aims in mind: the excellence of the Community, the comfort of the Community, the curbing of the impudent, the comfort of well-behaved bhikkhus, the restraint of effluents related to the present life, the prevention of effluents related to the next life, the arousing of faith in the faithless, the increase of the faithful, the establishment of the true Dhamma, and the fostering of discipline
So lots of good reasons to avoid sexual conduct for Bhikkhu and Bhikkhunis.
Too kind. Best offer I have had all day . . . but it is early. First we find harmony. Then chords. Then we sing. Finally we are a song . . .
That is why I am wholly unwilling to watch horror movies, or programmes of an extremely violent nature. My own mind brings up random, dreadful images, completely "out of nowhere" as a result.
It's quite appalling what such imagery can do to a susceptible mind, and I don't consider myself all that susceptible...
As if we do not have enough misery, horror and desperation, IRL....
Ven. Sudinna consented, took his wife into the forest, and had intercourse three times. Immediately he felt remorse and eventually confessed his deed to his fellow bhikkhus.
Poor wife. First, you know that his family is blaming her, saying if she'd been a better wife their son would have never left her. Finally she has to go into the buggy forest and get it on. Also, immediately? It is to laugh. He enjoys it enough to do it three times (obviously not in one night) before denouncing their lovemaking after he's had his fill of sex once again.
And I notice they call her his "former wife". By the time this little story was written, the anti-sex arahats were firmly in control of the sangha and clamping down on discipline. I'd put this into the "too good to be true" category. There's more than one lesson here. The story is also about the problems new monks had with their families. There is no compassion at all for the family that would lose everything without an heir or for the novice monk who still cared for his parents. He apparently should have allowed his parents and wife to lose everything.
I can see the unnamed wife's expression as she brushed leaves and dirt off her butt and listened to her husband wail about how terrible he'd been, having sex. Hope the poor wife at least got a son out it.
I hope she didn't.
Bringing another daughter into the world would have been bad enough, but subjecting the world to another man? In that society? With that Mind-set?
Oh goody....
What's this "exercise of verification" to mentioned? I assume it's a process, but just what is that process?
That's one way to look it. Another is to see it as a monastic breaking their vow of celibacy and feeling guilty enough to confess it rather than keep it a secret. I don't see anything inherently wrong with that, nor the fact that the Buddha made a breach of this particular precept a defeat for those who have gone forth as monastics. With all the sex abuse scandals coming out, I think taking a strong stand on this issue is preferable to a lax one. I don't see it as being anti-sex so much as seeking to protect both monastics and lay-followers from potential abuse, misconduct, and scandal. As for there being " no compassion at all for the family that would lose everything without an heir or for the novice monk who still cared for his parents," I'd disagree. The Buddha also instituted a rule prohibiting the going-forth of children without their parents’ permission out of compassion for such parents and legal guardians.
@Jason I'm talking about in this story. Like any huge, extensive body of writing compiled and edited over hundreds of years, some parts will contradict and sometimes have an entirely different message from others. That's part of the voyage of discovery, when we read the sutras or Biblical scriptures as literature written by people, for a purpose, not divine ordained revealed truth.
So the arahats, the leaders of the Sangha were faced with a problem. Celibacy is an almost universal requirement of a monastic order. But how do you get a bunch of young men with nothing much to do all day but sit around and meditate to not fool around? There's only so many cold showers a person can take.
Well, one thing we can keep in mind is that the reality is never as simple as the official line. Monks have been sneaking out and also staying in and engaging in mutual sex from the beginning. And been punished for it when and if caught. But this need to block a basic human instinct for orgasm also has the danger of blaming the object of the desire.
I agree it's wrong to blame the object of desire. But in this story, I think the blame is on Sudinna and his parents, the former for breaking his vow and his parents for pushing him to do so and use his former wife as a means of producing an heir. From that point of view, she's the real victim here even though she gets ignored. But to be fair, this story is in the monks rules of discipline and only seeks to explain how this rule initially came about, so the focus is on the breach and the rule that arose from that breach rather than his parents or wife.
I can't help thinking that even though the emphasis was intended to underscore the Monk's transgression, blame would still, in any case, have been heaped on the wife.
Certainly, in some Middle Eastern and Asian countries, that is still the case today, although public outrage is growing. But that's only due to the techno-media being able to spread the news so much faster and more efficiently.
"Backward" countries (and I use the term advisedly) are only now having their consciences pricked with regard to their entrenched attitudes towards women.
Had it still been impossible to broadcast such incidents so widely, these situations would still be standard, normal accepted and unheard of.
....Just sayin'......
Literalism...Where do we We Draw The Line?
By calling it symbolism? Many things can lead to addiction/clinging and abuse besides intoxicants.
My experience has really shown me to question this whole " sex is a natural human instinct based on chemical reactions... bla bla bla"
The funny thing is that when the mind has lessened it's "need" (aka desire) for sexual activity, the physical part starts to magically "go away"... hmmm.. which was really running the show, the mind, or the body
.
Personally I feel people should not attempt be monks until they have reached at least some sort of basic form of detachment or disenchantment for "the act that is the villagers way".... if you can't control the urges and are fully attached to them, it's no wonder people can't keep it in their pants.
In my experience the detatchment you speak of won't ofccur in males until around age 50 and this largely due to changes in the body and not due to some larger measure of self-control. After a certain age, sex becomes less and less of a driven thing.
And I think that at any age where the subject is sexually active, the activity is driven by physiology rather than psychology. Yes, you can, through force of will, abstain. This happens all the time.
Boxers in trainning often abstain because it's felt that sex weakens the legs.
Monks abstain because it is, after all, a huge distraction.
On a personal note, I think a celebate clergy is a ridiculous imposition. To serve us, they should share every aspect of our lives, including dealing with the personal, and social problems that come with a healthy sex life. If a monk want to be celebate, then more power to him. EXpecting a monk to remain celebate because we want him to be, is a recipe for failure.
No, I don't care what the Vinaya says. If we allow cherry-picking of other parts of the Dharma, then we must, in all fairness, allow and respect it here.
It's all about perspective... > @Jayantha said:
Desire never goes away.
Hahha, speak for yourself ;-)
Oh and @chaz im just 36. Ive always had a very high sex drive... Until my practice took off the last few years. Its not a force of will thing for someone who has naturally developed a disenchantment for.. To the point that even achieving self pleasure requires some extraordinary measures.
Im not saying sexual desire is totally eradicated in me, but i can see how its not such an imposition to abstain for those who have developed enough nibida. I can begin to understand how they say an arahant can literally not have sex.... Certain things have to "arise" after all.
It's healthy for the prostate. I also have noticed that I am more relaxed.
All too often when someone doesn't like a teaching, they'll say it's symbolic and misunderstood, but if they like the teaching they'll say it's very straight forward.
I think you have to use your own judgement. Also some teachings are provisional and some are definitive. It's really important to be able to decide what is what. For example the Mahayana takes a lot of the Pali Canon to be provisional.
How nice of them.
The thing about a celibate society is, it is neither natural nor self-sustaining. So in spite of my admiration for people who voluntarily undertake celibacy in order to simplify their life and focus all their energy on a spiritual quest, there is something inside me that resists being told it's some exclusive path to enlightenment.
I agree that people sometimes misinterpret symbols. I still think they're effective. Like how they use the word Mara or the Devil when saying things like "its the Devil's work" and causing a stir. I'll admit that I admire the use of symbols in other religions.
It can also be that they see it as either symbolic or literal and how they like the teaching is irrelevant. In a world where cherry-picking teaching is acceptable, we must respect someone's choices regardless of why they make them.
It's like a monk ignoring the rules of Vinaya. If someone shooses to ignore it, even if they've taken vows, if we insist on picking and choosing for ourselves we must allow it in others.
I read somewhere that the Buddha never actually said that celibacy were the exclusive path to enlightenment, only that a retired life made enlightenment easier to attain. That's why he offered a laxer set of precepts for lay people in the Dhammika and the Sigalowada Suttas, and a stricter one for those who chose to follow a religious path.
I personally have no hangs-up about sexual desire. I am not a nun, I did not choose celibacy, therefore I feel I can embrace my desires in a natural way. They do not run my life, but I don't berate myself nor feel I have to repress them either.
It takes a certain natural predisposition to choose celibacy and if someone feels that their urges are strong, then they simply should accept the fact that celibacy is not an option for them. Otherwise, the risk of falling off to hypocrisy and sexual molestation runs high.
Kia Ora @dharmamom,
Celibacy, reminds me of this Buddhist joke :
.....
Metta Shoshin
Moderator note: Edited -
See joke here:
Let's not steer too far off topic here, please.
I think the interpretation of ancient religious texts is inherently difficult, partly because we always bring our own preconceptions and biases. Are we really interested in understanding what meaning the original author(s) intended, or are we more concerned with imposing a meaning that fits with our own views?
Anyway I don't think there are any easy answers, since even the "experts" have preconceptions and biases. I think interpretation is always a subjective process.
I'd also challenge the implied assumption that somehow a literal interpretation is always inferior to a metaphorical one. It really depends on the context.
Unfortunately drawing lines is what we tend to do.
Which implies that we can discern the original intention. And that other people's interpretation of that original intention should conform to ours...and round it goes again.
Discerning the original intention is much more difficult if we don't recognise our own biases.
I see no consensus among those who claim to recognise their own biases or the biases of others.
So I am not sure that furthers the debate beyond individuals who see themselves as uniquely unbiased.
Or theirs.