Is sex considered vulgar to Buddhists?

[Ikkyu]

There you have it. Buddhism is a life-denying religion which is unhealthy if we pay attention to these ridiculous and frankly harmful injunctions. Human sexuality is a wonderful and natural thing that is part of a healthy and normal life. I understand subduing cravings as a way to achieve peace, but the fact that Buddha said this makes me think twice.

But did the Buddha mean this teaching as an absolute truth or as clever help for someone tormented with lust? As for Shantideva, he meant those teachings only for people who can't meditate because they keep thinking about the opposite gender.

I dunno. Frankly I keep hearing about how "Buddha said such and such at such and such a time for such and such reasons and take it in context yada yada" and while that's all well and good I don't see how we can interpret likening sexual activity in general to a child playing with excrement as a specific teaching for the well-being of one person at that time. What kind of dumb advice is that? Like I said... I understand from a practical standpoint how limiting the passions depletes suffering but this kind of stuff just seems to crop up over and over -- Buddhist texts and all the "sex is evil" business reminding me of Catholic schools and repressed nuns -- and I get the impression that not only are the Buddhist texts very contradictory, they simply have a perspective that is, in modern times, untenable. You can't propose a religion for enlightening the world and bringing peace and harmony when its founder says that sex is like playing with poop it's so bad. Sex is the reason we're even using this forum. Our parents did it and now we're here. Isn't a human birth supposed to be favorable for enlightenment anyway? I don't get it.

[viniketa]

I get the impression that not only are the Buddhist texts very contradictory, they simply have a perspective that is, in modern times, untenable.

Then, don't tenet them...

[Konchog1]

Yes, you're completely right.

But "sex is like playing with shit" was something the Buddha said once to one person. If it was an important part of his teachings, then you would see it everywhere, including in prayer and vows. That is to say, common teachings everyone hears over and over again. But the third lay vow is "No sexual misconduct", not no sex. In other words, sex is OK just don't hurt other people in order to have it.

Since the lay vows are teachings he gave to everyone with the intention that all Buddhist laypeople should follow them, it follows that "sex is OK just don't hurt other people in order to have it" is the Buddha's position on sex in general. Thus it follows that "sex is like playing with shit" is either from a fake Sutra, is from a mistranslation, or was a teaching meant for ONE person and one person only.

Now, different Buddhists sects have different views on sex, but in Vajrayana, according to Lama Yeshe's Introduction to Tantra, sex isn't bad. In fact, broadly speaking, no actions are bad. Intentions make them good or bad. Padmasambhava had two mistresses and Tilopa (may have had) a mistress too.

Your caution is proper though. After reading Nietzsche's The Antichrist, I've become wary of life denying philosophies too.

[catmoon]

There you have it. Buddhism is a life-denying religion which is unhealthy if we pay attention to these ridiculous and frankly harmful injunctions. Human sexuality is a wonderful and natural thing that is part of a healthy and normal life. I understand subduing cravings as a way to achieve peace, but the fact that Buddha said this makes me think twice.

Life denying? You're talking about a religion that makes a habit out of stepping over bugs. Harmful? Perhaps harmful to your preconceived ideas.

This teaching is intended as a antidote for severe lust. It's medicine. Healthy people don't need it. Sheesh.

[nilakantha]

If you're married and only practice sex that is in line with shila (i.e. right time, right place, right person, right organ, etc.), there is no sin (papa); however, if you're serious about active bodhicitta, sex must be given up. The first Noble Truth, "All existence is nightmare," and the Second, "This nightmare is caused by the three desires (desire for life, desire for death, desire for sensual pleasures)" show us that sexual desire is one of the hooks of Mara that keep us in this samsaric nightmare. The Lord is not the creator of the moral law, but He did show us the path to Buddhahood. From the Middle Length Discourses:
"Misguided man, in many discourses have I not stated how obstructive things are obstructive, and how they are able to obstruct one who engages in them? I have stated how sensual pleasures provide little gratification, much suffering, and much despair, and how great is the danger in them. With the simile of skeleton… with the simile of the piece of meat… with the simile of the grasstorch… with the simile of the pit of coals… with the simile of the dream… with the simile of the borrowed goods… with the simile of the tree laden with fruit… with the simile of the slaughterhouse… with the simile of the sword stake… with the simile of the snake's head, I have stated how sensual pleasures provide little gratification, much suffering, and much despair, and how great is the danger in them. But you, misguided man, have misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a long time."

[dakini_boi]

. . . I get the impression that not only are the Buddhist texts very contradictory, they simply have a perspective that is, in modern times, untenable. You can't propose a religion for enlightening the world and bringing peace and harmony when its founder says that sex is like playing with poop it's so bad. Sex is the reason we're even using this forum. Our parents did it and now we're here. Isn't a human birth supposed to be favorable for enlightenment anyway? I don't get it.

You're quite right. Actually, that is precisely the reason why Buddha taught Vajrayana, because in these times, giving up sex is untenable - so Vajrayana gives us ways the desire energy can be harnessed and used for enlightenment.

[JKhedrup]

I think it is well known what an intense drive the sexual urge is. It can overpower rationality and leads to all sorts of problems if misused. That is why I think it is a force that should be dealt with with caution.
And for renunciates, who forsake all sense pleasures, it definitely makes sense to renounce one of the most intense sense pleasures of all, which leads to perhaps the most powerful form of attachment.
For laypeople, of course it is another story as marriage and family life is a completely different paradigm.

[viniketa]

... because in these times, giving up sex is untenable - so Vajrayana gives us ways the desire energy can be harnessed and used for enlightenment.

dakini-boi - Forgive my curiosity, but why would 'giving up sex' be more 'untenable' today than 2500 years ago??

I've already posted on this thread earlier and don't have any desire to argue with anyone. However, I cannot 'grasp' this idea...

[dakini_boi]

My understanding is that the strength of the afflictive emotions is stronger in the degenerate age, so the path of renunciation is more difficult. Transformation, on the other hand, is quite practical for those with intense emotions. It's said that tantric methods actually work better in these degenerate times because the emotions (including desire) provide fuel for successful practice.

[Konchog1]

... because in these times, giving up sex is untenable - so Vajrayana gives us ways the desire energy can be harnessed and used for enlightenment.

dakini-boi - Forgive my curiosity, but why would 'giving up sex' be more 'untenable' today than 2500 years ago??

I've already posted on this thread earlier and don't have any desire to argue with anyone. However, I cannot 'grasp' this idea...

Well, in the West: Materialism. Hedonism. Heck, you can get aroused driving to work with all the billboards and radio ads. This Hedonism mixes with a subtle Christianity and a knowledge of what is right, causing massive sexual repression and . . . creepy stuff. Like Toddler Beauty Pageants.

The rest of the world seems to be similar.

During the Buddha's time (it seems to me), people got married at 16. Hedonism was openly condemned (Buddhism for one, states it assures a rebirth in hell). There was no media or porn.

I wouldn't say giving up sex is untenable, but it's a lot harder.

[viniketa]

OK, thanks dakinii_boi & Konchog1 - you both make good points.

[gregkavarnos]

During the Buddha's time (it seems to me), people got married at 16.

They started getting married at an earlier age and if they wished to and polygamy was openly practiced amongst the richer and more powerful members of ancient India. http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_polygamy.asp

Hedonism was openly condemned (Buddhism for one, states it assures a rebirth in hell).

Hedonism was not openly condemned by all. Hedonism was only openly condemned by some (Buddhists and Jains). Actually the adherents of Cārvāka/Lokāyata believed quite the opposite:

Cārvāka believed that there was nothing wrong with sensual pleasure. Since it is impossible to have pleasure without pain, Cārvāka thought that wisdom lay in enjoying pleasure and avoiding pain as far as possible. Unlike many of the Indian philosophies of the time, Cārvāka did not believe in austerities or rejecting pleasure out of fear of pain and held such reasoning to be foolish.

The berries of paddy, rich with the finest white grains,
What man, seeking his true interest, would fling away because covered with husk and dust?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cārvāka

There was no media...

Actually it would be more correct to say that there was no mass media as we know it. Mass media is a VERY modern phenomenon. There was theater, music, song, poetry, dance, writing, public announcements, etc... These are all forms of media (for communication of ideas, theories etc...)

...or porn.

Actually there was lots of pornography. Pornography as the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter existed in literature, sculpture, painting, etc... Both religious and secular. Actually there are bits of the Ramayana that are considered much to explicit to be read in public.

So it seems that as long as people (Indian and non-Indian) have had sex organs (like always), they have been preoccupied with their use!

[Konchog1]

Hedonism was not openly condemned by all. Hedonism was only openly condemned by some (Buddhists and Jains). Actually the adherents of Cārvāka/Lokāyata believed quite the opposite:
Cārvāka believed that there was nothing wrong with sensual pleasure. Since it is impossible to have pleasure without pain, Cārvāka thought that wisdom lay in enjoying pleasure and avoiding pain as far as possible. Unlike many of the Indian philosophies of the time, Cārvāka did not believe in austerities or rejecting pleasure out of fear of pain and held such reasoning to be foolish.

The berries of paddy, rich with the finest white grains,
What man, seeking his true interest, would fling away because covered with husk and dust?

Regardless, it was openly condemned period.

Besides, there are arguments that the Carvaka are misunderstood as the only writings of theirs that survives is the quotes in their opponent's attacks on them.

Actually it would be more correct to say that there was no mass media as we know it. Mass media is a VERY modern phenomenon. There was theater, music, song, poetry, dance, writing, public announcements, etc... These are all forms of media (for communication of ideas, theories etc...)

Yes yes that's what I meant.

Actually there was lots of pornography. Pornography as the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter existed in literature, sculpture, painting, etc... Both religious and secular. Actually there are bits of the Ramayana that are considered much to explicit to be read in public.

Porn in the sense that it was everywhere and widely available to all? Didn't exist.

[greentara]

I don't know if Buddhists consider sex vulgar? but......"When the Buddha heard that the monk Arittha was going around saying that indulging in sense pleasures (i.e. sex) is not really a hindrance to liberation he repeatedly called him ‘Stupid man!"

[gregkavarnos]

Would the fact that he is a monk have anything to do with the Buddhas comment. And it is important to note that Ven. Arittha wasproposing his idea to other monks, not to lay followers.

Now on that occasion a monk called Arittha, formerly of the vulture killers, had conceived this pernicious view: "There are things called 'obstructions'[footnote 1] by the Blessed One. As I understand his teaching, those things are not necessarily obstructive for one who pursues them."
...
Then those monks, wishing to dissuade Arittha from that pernicious view, urged, admonished, questioned and exhorted him thus: "Do not say so, friend Arittha, do not say so! Do not misrepresent the Blessed One! It is not right to misrepresent him. Never would the Blessed One speak like that. For in many ways, indeed, has the Blessed One said of those obstructive things that they are obstructions, indeed, and that they necessarily obstruct him who pursues them. Sense desires, so he has said, bring little enjoyment and much suffering and disappointment. The perils in them are greater. Sense desires are like bare bones, has the Blessed One said; they are like a lump of flesh, like a torch of straw, like a pit of burning coals, like a dream, like borrowed goods, like a fruit-bearing tree, like a slaughter house, like a stake of swords, like a snake's head, are sense desires, has the Blessed One said.[2] They bring little enjoyment, and much suffering and disappointment. The perils in them are greater."

[footnote 1]Things called "obstructions" (antaraayikaa dhammaa). Comy gives here a list of ideas and actions that obstruct either heavenly rebirth or final deliverance or both. Arittha, so says Comy being a learned exponent of the Teaching, was quite familiar with most of these "obstructions"; but, being unfamiliar with the Code of Discipline (Vinaya), he conceived the view that sex indulgence was not necessarily an obstruction for a monk. Arittha is said to have used a rather sophistic argument, saying, "If some of the five sense enjoyments are permissible even for lay adherents who are stream-enterers (sotaapanna), etc., why is an exception made as to the visible shape, voice, touch, etc., of women?" According to Comy, Arittha goes so far as to charge the Buddha with exaggerating the importance of the first grave offence (paaraajikaa) for a monk (i.e., sexual intercourse), saying that the emphasis given to it is like the effort of one who tries to chain the ocean.

The similes about sense-desires, given in the following section of the discourse, seem to support the commentarial reference to sexual intercourse.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... html#fnt-1

Sexual intercourse is frowned upon by monastics of all religious traditions, otherwise they would not be monastics: Monasticism (from Greek μοναχός, monachos, derived from μόνος, monos, "alone")

[Ikkyu]

Yes, you're completely right.

But "sex is like playing with shit" was something the Buddha said once to one person. If it was an important part of his teachings, then you would see it everywhere, including in prayer and vows. That is to say, common teachings everyone hears over and over again. But the third lay vow is "No sexual misconduct", not no sex. In other words, sex is OK just don't hurt other people in order to have it.

Since the lay vows are teachings he gave to everyone with the intention that all Buddhist laypeople should follow them, it follows that "sex is OK just don't hurt other people in order to have it" is the Buddha's position on sex in general. Thus it follows that "sex is like playing with shit" is either from a fake Sutra, is from a mistranslation, or was a teaching meant for ONE person and one person only.

Now, different Buddhists sects have different views on sex, but in Vajrayana, according to Lama Yeshe's Introduction to Tantra, sex isn't bad. In fact, broadly speaking, no actions are bad. Intentions make them good or bad. Padmasambhava had two mistresses and Tilopa (may have had) a mistress too.

Your caution is proper though. After reading Nietzsche's The Antichrist, I've become wary of life denying philosophies too.

You make a very good point. It can be an issue of context. But how do we determine what portions of the Buddha's teachings are all-encompassing and opposed to specific tidbits? Is it an issue of repetition? Does the fact that he may have said something only once diminish the teaching's importance?

Yes. I'm quite fond of some of Nietzsche's work as well.

[Ikkyu]

There you have it. Buddhism is a life-denying religion which is unhealthy if we pay attention to these ridiculous and frankly harmful injunctions. Human sexuality is a wonderful and natural thing that is part of a healthy and normal life. I understand subduing cravings as a way to achieve peace, but the fact that Buddha said this makes me think twice.

Life denying? You're talking about a religion that makes a habit out of stepping over bugs. Harmful? Perhaps harmful to your preconceived ideas.

This teaching is intended as a antidote for severe lust. It's medicine. Healthy people don't need it. Sheesh.

It's also the same religion that Konchog1 says espouses that people will go to HELL if they are hedonistic. I understand the idea of karma -- cause and effect -- but in what rational worldview would someone who enjoys sensual pleasure be tortured for aeons? I guess it depends upon what we mean by hedonism, and to what degree of hedonism someone is engaged in. I can't say how the karmic fruit of seeing sensual pleasure as a good thing warrants thousands, if not millions of years of torture. Perhaps mass murderers and rapists bear that karmic fruit, but all these young people at parties just enjoying themselves are going to be tortured in a naraka?

I suppose this was a question more for Konchog1 but in any case I'd like to hear anyone's views on this.

[Ikkyu]

Buddha to a monk who broke the monastic code and indulged in sex:

"'Worthless man, [sexual intercourse] 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.'"

-- Pattimokkha

[Konchog1]

You make a very good point. It can be an issue of context. But how do we determine what portions of the Buddha's teachings are all-encompassing and opposed to specific tidbits? Is it an issue of repetition? Does the fact that he may have said something only once diminish the teaching's importance?

Yes. I'm quite fond of some of Nietzsche's work as well.

Repetition yes. But also importance placed on it. Is it a fundamental belief or something said once? Even something said once is very important and meaningful, but as it was only taught once it is reasonable to think the teaching was meant only for the context is which it was spoken.

It's also the same religion that Konchog1 says espouses that people will go to HELL if they are hedonistic. I understand the idea of karma -- cause and effect -- but in what rational worldview would someone who enjoys sensual pleasure be tortured for aeons? I guess it depends upon what we mean by hedonism, and to what degree of hedonism someone is engaged in. I can't say how the karmic fruit of seeing sensual pleasure as a good thing warrants thousands, if not millions of years of torture. Perhaps mass murderers and rapists bear that karmic fruit, but all these young people at parties just enjoying themselves are going to be tortured in a naraka?

Sorry for not being clear. By Hedonism I meant and only meant Hedonism born from Nihilism (or as its called today Atheistism or Materialism). This is not because Nihilism, Hedonism, or pleasure are EVIL IN THEMSELVES but because if you don't have any morals and do anything to gain pleasure you will gain great negative karma.

Enjoying things is not hedonistic. The amoral act done to gain enjoyment is.

For example: having fun at a party is karmically neutral. Raping someone with a roofie because the rapist wants to have sex is karmically bad. The rapist's action is born from his belief that there is no karma or other consequence.

Nihilism -> Hedonism -> Negative Actions

Buddha to a monk who broke the monastic code and indulged in sex:

"'Worthless man, [sexual intercourse] 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.'"

-- Pattimokkha

[gregkavarnos]

It's also the same religion that Konchog1 says espouses that people will go to HELL if they are hedonistic.

Where do you come up with this nonsense from? Hell is "reserved" for those whose mental state is mainly based around anger, hatred, aversion, agression...

And you say you understand karma yet you state:

- but in what rational worldview would someone who enjoys sensual pleasure be tortured for aeons?

Tortured by whom? What is tortured? Is water tortured when it runs down an incline? That's how karma works. No torturer, no victim. Pour water on an incline, it runs down the incline (the whole procedure is that mechanical). Engage in actions based in anger, hatred, etc... take rebirth in a hell realm. The only difference is that, in the case of your actions, you have a choice on the actions you will perform (knowing the outcomes). Water has no choice when it is poured.

As for the Pattimokkha quote, are you a monk? NO! So why do you believe that you have to abide by the rules of conduct of a monk?

Three threads running at over 5 pages each just because you don't want to understand karma!