What Makes A Real Man?

by **Aemilius** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 11:51 am

In his highly readable style Venerable S. Dhammika discusses here such things as whether Buddha's manly organ is beautiful or not ?
http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-makes-real-man.html

by **Annapurna** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:27 pm

Forgive me if I am missing something, but why would the Buddha's male organs interest me? Or any person's that I am not intimate with?
Why would the Buddhas potency interest me, after he became a monk, and when I know he had a son before that?

Like I said, perhaps I am missing the Tantra aspects, but as far as I know, the Buddha didn't practice tantra after enlightenment, so where does this strange interest for his organs come from?

What's this good for? Is it conducive to my progress?

It would appear a similar nonsense to me if the sexual organs of Buddhist females were the center of debate, and a speculation about their functionality.

Since impotence was insinuated as a reason for the Buddha's celibacy, perhaps we can also speculate some about the role of his wife in his withdrawal from a (sexual) worldly life?

Really weird, but who knows, perhaps I'm missing something.

by **Luke** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:36 pm

Being enlightened should be "manly" enough. Shakyamuni's mind was both beautiful and perfectly enlightened. These are the most important things. Although scholars have certainly researched almost everything at one time or another.

by **plwk** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 3:18 am

This reminded me of this Sutta...and in relation to the topic...

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the simsapa forest. Then, picking up a few simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the monks, "What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?"

"The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord. Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous."

"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught].
And why haven't I taught them?
Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them."