Zhen Li wrote:Sorry, but it's a bit ironic that a Nichirener is saying I am being a sectarian
There cannot have been a wholesome motivation behind such a statement, your intention was to insult me. That was not very nice. All major Buddhist circles have had sectarian issues. We are no different in this regard than any other school of Buddhism.
No insult was intended. But if you were insulted, I apologise. I would have thought you'd know what I meant.
Zhen Li wrote:Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean I am pushing a sectarian view
I never said you were, I said that as we do not see the nature of awakening in the same way, this discussion could only devolve into a sectarian headache, some people have patience for that, I do not. It was as if we were discussing the length of the great wall of China, but I only accept metric and you the imperial system. Once that is clear, we cannot get anything but an argument and insults. The sectarian headache was not here, but I saw one coming, I wanted to jump ship before it came.
Like I said, I had no idea Nichiren teaches that Buddhas engage in casual sex for means other than upaya. It's far more likely to be a debate between you and me, about your personal views on Buddhas, than between me and Nichiren.
Zhen Li wrote:I never heard of them teaching that Buddhas have sex just for the sake of a casual "sex life" as you put it.
I have been saying a Buddha can have a sex life, not that they must, Buddhas are people, with different lives. Some have a sex life, some don't. I never said a sex life is necessary for awakening either. Its an option that is not contradictory, fundamentally incompatible with, or otherwise detrimental to the achievement of awakening.
How long have you been a Buddhist? I just get the feeling you're not that familiar with Buddhist literature and what has been written on Buddhahood. If you're new, by all means forgive my presumptiveness, but I think you should know better, because this just doesn't make sense. If you have no desire, there's no reason to have sex, except as upaya.
Please quote me the Sutra where the Buddha has sex just for the sake of it. You really aren't making any sense here, and as far as I know, you are just uncomfortable with and culturally awkward with the idea of celibacy, so you reject it as something your ideal Buddha wouldn't do. Your image of the Buddha is the ideal image of yourself. But you fundamentally haven't made any argument as to why the Buddha would have sex for reasons other than upaya. I would also be perfectly satisfied for you to quote me something Nichiren said about this, and I will let it stand as a sectarian difference and not argue it, but I don't believe that Nichiren would say that personally.
Myoho-Nameless wrote:If you think differently, I don't care, I am happy and content with my religion and my attitude towards sex. It does not bother me, keep me up at night, nor cause me any confusion.
This isn't black and white. The fact that some people can live without sex doesn't mean that they stay up at night or are bothered in any way. Some people are, some people aren't, it all depends on your point of view and reasons for living without sex. If some people are voluntarily celibate, it might be because they don't want it, like a Buddha wouldn't, or because they don't want to want it, in which case they may be frustrated until they either overcome their want, or don't, and continue to be frustrated. People who are involuntarily celibate may simply my asexual, or they could just be desiring sex and never come across it. Once again, there is a spectrum. The world has people who fit your expectations, and people who don't.