Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 3:28 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 141 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:36 pm
Posts: 432
I don't see how you can separate the whole sex/birth process from awakening. No birth, no Buddha. Quite simple. Nothing holy about it. Pretty straightforward in its non-duality. The process of lotus is pretty filthy too, all that muck and mud to give birth to purity... or is it?? Personal preference (aversion, desire, indifference) on gooey or slimy characteristics of life's coming to be is irrelevant. Like opinions on karma are irrelevant to the nature of the causality. Agreed people LIKE birth but may not LIKE death. Again irrelevant to its being vulgar or distasteful. Human imagination is rich and varied, and dreams up all sorts of things into 'reality.'

Who is it who deems this or that vulgar? Your ego? Your social conditioning? Who is this who is thinking?

Womb as 'hell realm' is extreme - definitely sounds like pure Mahayana to me. I can see its application the way I can see commuting daily in a small car without air conditioning on a cramped hot freeway as a 'hell realm' as well... lots of being crunched and burnt. Again, the price of living, you get through it, you keep finding the way you need to move forward and suffer less. (this womb description was probably explained by a man :stirthepot: ) ... am I the only woman posting in response to this? Perhaps the ladies of dharma wheel might have very different perceptions by the sheer having of wombs and intimate knowing of the monthly natural cycles as well as the natural housing for the very body you are using to post and find sex and birth processes eww with... :rolling:

The question is sex considered vulgar to Buddhists? I'd say it's whatever Buddhists are about sex. Which from this tiny posting sample population is not one thing at all.

_________________
Image Made from 100% recycled karma

The Heart Drive Word Press
Mud to Lotus

"To love. To be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and the vulgar disparity of life around you. To seek joy in the saddest places. To pursue beauty to its lair. To never simplify what is complicated or complicate what is simple. To respect strength, never power. Above all, to watch. To try and understand. To never look away. And never, never, to forget." –Arundhati Roy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:31 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10289
Location: Greece
I recommend that those that view the process of sex and birth and everything female as negative and vulgar to go read the Vajrayogini Tantra. It goes a little (that's an understatement) beyond the second turning teachings of the Buddha.
:namaste:

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Posts: 732
Location: South Florida, USA
Quote:
"And what, Ananda, is contemplation of foulness? Herein, Ananda, a monk contemplates this body upward from the soles of the feet, downward from the top of the hair, enclosed in skin, as being full of many impurities. In this body there are head-hairs, body-hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, intestines, intestinal tract, stomach, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, grease, saliva, nasal mucous, synovium (oil lubricating the joints), and urine. Thus he dwells contemplating foulness in this body. This, Ananda, is called contemplation of foulness.


This is done to reduce clinging to the body. Clinging to the body is never a skillful thing and only ever leads to suffering!

_________________
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2012 12:44 pm
Posts: 220
Location: UK
gregkavarnos wrote:
I recommend that those that view the process of sex and birth and everything female as negative and vulgar to go read the Vajrayogini Tantra. It goes a little (that's an understatement) beyond the second turning teachings of the Buddha.
:namaste:


Excellent advice!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:45 pm
Posts: 739
Location: Magga ~ Path to Liberation.
Huseng wrote:
Wesley1982 wrote:
You might think sex is "vulgar" only to forget how you were born.


Mammal procreation, pregnancy and birth are all quite filthy processes when you think about it.

Semen and blood mixing to create a new life.

A parasitic organism in the womb, quite uncomfortable for the mother. For the infant it is said to be perpetual pain.

Birth is bloody and full of bodily fluids.


If you're not a Ob-Gyn Delivery doctor then I can see how that would be pretty gross.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm
Posts: 1500
Huseng wrote:
Semen and blood mixing to create a new life.

I think you forgot an essential ingredient. Typical... :tongue:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:36 pm
Posts: 432
shel wrote:
Huseng wrote:
Semen and blood mixing to create a new life.

I think you forgot an essential ingredient. Typical... :tongue:



... last I checked semen and blood did not create the zygote. :oops:

*face palm* Finally someone else caught that too... See where I'm coming from?! Case and point -the argument in thread is pretty weak and one-sided for the most part... :rolling:

Wesley, unless you're a doctor, by that logic, then just about everything having to do with the human body could be considered "pretty gross." It is not limited to sexuality-related processes and sex. I thought as adults, perhaps we were over the "cooties" stage in life...? I stand once again, corrected. :tongue:

_________________
Image Made from 100% recycled karma

The Heart Drive Word Press
Mud to Lotus

"To love. To be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and the vulgar disparity of life around you. To seek joy in the saddest places. To pursue beauty to its lair. To never simplify what is complicated or complicate what is simple. To respect strength, never power. Above all, to watch. To try and understand. To never look away. And never, never, to forget." –Arundhati Roy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:45 pm
Posts: 739
Location: Magga ~ Path to Liberation.
Maybe the Biblical Theist model of Adam & Eve and procreation didn't always work. Possibly some tribesman with different genes got lucky and shagged a female from another ancestry tree.

(speaking of darwinist evolution + diversification of species)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:45 pm
Posts: 739
Location: Magga ~ Path to Liberation.
Ogyen wrote:
Wesley, unless you're a doctor, by that logic, then just about everything having to do with the human body could be considered "pretty gross."


Yes, I would be a doctor if I passed all the exams for the doctorate degree.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am
Posts: 2552
I have a mixed view of Ken Wilbur, but he introduced a useful phrase.
He describes spiritual philosophies as "life/body positive " or "life/body negative."

He says that due to various psychological factors inherent in much spiritual philosophy , which in turn is related to the degree of religiosity they embody, there is a spectrum of attitude towards being incarnated. ( whether one sees this as a single or multiple event )

At one end of the spectrum there is the absolute rejection of the embodied state found in Gnosticism which sees the material world as the creation of an evil Demigod..(.please note those naive enough to see Gnosticism as having similarities with Dharma ) at the other the view of the material as sacred... Most forms of Judaism, Orthodox Christianity ..but not Catholicism which takes its legacy from Augustine of Hippo who was a convert from Gnosticism.

" Buddhism " which is not and never has been a single entity, largely shares its world view with the life/body negative philosophy which shaped all of the spiritual thought of the Indian Subcontinent from which it sprang.
To whatever degree its founder or founders shaped its subsequent development Buddhism bears the imprint of that life/body negative view.
We are now in the fortunate position of having a choice..we take take the best of the legacy of Dharma without the accretions of the ages.
We can avoid both the "whiskers and kittens " of the New Age and the life denying propensities
shared by Indo-Chinese Buddhist/Vedic philosophy.
One means of pursuing that middle course is by means which owe nothing to cultural heritage..such as Dzogchen.
:namaste:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:02 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10289
Location: Greece
Simon E. wrote:
I have a mixed view of Ken Wilbur, but he introduced a useful phrase.
He describes spiritual philosophies as "life/body positive " or "life/body negative." ... To whatever degree its founder or founders shaped its subsequent development Buddhism bears the imprint of that life/body negative view.
We are now in the fortunate position of having a choice..we take take the best of the legacy of Dharma without the accretions of the ages.
We can avoid both the "whiskers and kittens " of the New Age and the life denying propensities
shared by Indo-Chinese Buddhist/Vedic philosophy.
One means of pursuing that middle course is by means which owe nothing to cultural heritage..such as Dzogchen.
:namaste:
Hogwash, Buddhism got over it's life/body negative view and pure/impure dualism with the third turning teachings. Like I said above, go read the Vajrayogini Tantra and then come back and make an informed comment.
:namaste:

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am
Posts: 2552
I guess that you are used to a particular response to your habitually aggressive tone. Which in the context of the larger cyberworld is normative but probably has mileage with a Buddhist forum used as it is to hushed tones.
I find it merely amusing..apart from anything else I was acquainted with the Vajrayogini Tantra ( which only has context and meaning within the prevailing life negativity of " Buddhism ". ) before you were born.. :lol:

Try again sonny. :smile:
:namaste:

Having had a closer look at your photograph I would qualify that by saying " POSSIBLY before you were born "


Last edited by Simon E. on Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Posts: 1934
Location: Sydney AU
I have heard quite a few people remark over the years, in connection with Buddhist meditation, that they would be interested in learning about 'Tantric Buddhism', because it means they can continue having sex. There was even a porno star who used to talk about 'tantric orgasms'. I would call all of that 'gross delusion', myself. Sexual pleasure and sexual freedom is massively over-rated in Western society, and if you speak out against it, you're vilified.

[watch this space....]

_________________
Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:27 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10289
Location: Greece
So you believe that the Vajrayogini Tantra is a continuation of the anti-feminine and body negative stance of the second turning? To me it seems to be an affirmation of all feminine qualities, even those considered negative. And what about karma mudra practices? Are they also body negative practices? What about their use in ganachakra? What about the offerings of the meats and fluids as nectars? I'm sorry but you don't get away with the condescending brush off. Pretty please, with dutsi and rakta on top, clarify your position (is that hushed enough for you? ;) ) and please leave the Dzogchen triumphalism and "I'm older than you and thus know better" out of it. ie shine the light of your decrepit wisdom upon us :tongue:
:namaste:

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am
Posts: 2552
It really must be hard carrying all that.
And at the same time having to maintain an outward adherence to equanimity and compassion.

If you ever grow tired of it send me a personal message and indicate the general area where you live..I may be able to point you towards someone who can help you.

In the meantime communication between us is probably not helpful to you.
I suggest that you ignore any posts I make.

I will do the same.

:namaste:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:49 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10289
Location: Greece
Another brush off? I know it doesn't come across too clearly (this medium is hardly conducive to subtle nuances in emotion), but I was joking about the "decrepit" bit, I am actually very interested in hearing your opinion on the questions I asked. So please stop sulking needlessly, I do value your opinion regarding these points. You are reading stuff into my post which is not there.
:namaste:

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am
Posts: 2552
I am not sure which bit of " and I will do the same " is unclear.
If it helps you to emote and project, (and it may )..please feel free.

This is after all just a screen with pixels on.
Its safe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 10:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Posts: 639
Location: Mudhole? Slimy? My home, this is.
gregkavarnos wrote:
I recommend that those that view the process of sex and birth and everything female as negative and vulgar to go read the Vajrayogini Tantra. It goes a little (that's an understatement) beyond the second turning teachings of the Buddha.
:namaste:


If one wants to see the difference between sutra teachings and tantra/Dzogchen teachings in all its starkness, one needs to look no further than here.

Simon E. wrote:
At one end of the spectrum there is the absolute rejection of the embodied state found in Gnosticism which sees the material world as the creation of an evil Demigod..(.please note those naive enough to see Gnosticism as having similarities with Dharma ) at the other the view of the material as sacred...


Simon, Wilber knows nothing about Gnosticism. Really. Not a clue. What you're presenting above is a common overgeneralization, which pertains to some Gnostic sects - and is correct if we read their texts literally, and if we construe the words they use (or, rather, our translations of those words) in the light of their contemporary meaning. Obviously, Gnostics did use some twilight language - which is one reason why the Gnostic tradition is lost beyond all hope; imagine understanding Dzogchen tantras without any commentary whatsoever.

_________________
. . . there they saw a rock! But it wasn't a rock . . .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 10:04 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10289
Location: Greece
Simon E. wrote:
I am not sure which bit of " and I will do the same " is unclear.
If it helps you to emote and project, (and it may )..please feel free.

This is after all just a screen with pixels on.
Its safe.
:crazy:

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 11:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am
Posts: 2552
treehuggingoctopus wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:
I recommend that those that view the process of sex and birth and everything female as negative and vulgar to go read the Vajrayogini Tantra. It goes a little (that's an understatement) beyond the second turning teachings of the Buddha.
:namaste:


If one wants to see the difference between sutra teachings and tantra/Dzogchen teachings in all its starkness, one needs to look no further than here.

Simon E. wrote:
At one end of the spectrum there is the absolute rejection of the embodied state found in Gnosticism which sees the material world as the creation of an evil Demigod..(.please note those naive enough to see Gnosticism as having similarities with Dharma ) at the other the view of the material as sacred...


Simon, Wilber knows nothing about Gnosticism. Really. Not a clue. What you're presenting above is a common overgeneralization, which pertains to some Gnostic sects - and is correct if we read their texts literally, and if we construe the words they use (or, rather, our translations of those words) in the light of their contemporary meaning. Obviously, Gnostics did use some twilight language - which is one reason why the Gnostic tradition is lost beyond all hope; imagine understanding Dzogchen tantras without any commentary whatsoever.

Thank you for that treehuggingoctopus.
Most interesting.
While accepting that it is likely that there was a spectrum of views within Gnosticism it seems to me that the legacy of one form of Gnostic thought that has shaped the western worlds view in many ways in that of Augustine who was a convert from ( I think, from memory ) Manicheaism . which was certianly fundamentally Dualistic.
And he in turn influenced Aquinas whose Dualistic spin on Christianity became the official line of the Catholic church, and indirectly Protestant Christianity..and even led to Descartes.
This schemata is much simplified of course.

The existence of a body of thought within the Buddhist corpus which values the Feminine ( whether it values females is a separate issue, the evidence is that it sort of doesn't ) ) should not distract from the evidence that this body of thought has risen in response to the overwhelmingly life/body/sexuality- negative view predominate in most forms of Buddhist expression.
Even if the Buddha had anything to do with later developments, he was a man. And a man of his time and place. Where disgust towards things of the body and sexuality were seen as healthy.
An attitude which as we have seen still maintains a firm grip on Buddhists.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 141 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group