Nothing is wrong with liberal attitudes to sexuality - I endorse precisely such an attitude.
Moreover, I endorse it against
conservative and puritanical attitudes.
But the point is that when
I endorse it, I am quite explicitly defending one normative attitude against others.
I know that I am entering normative terrain in doing this.
What I find deeply problematic on this thread, is the attempt to defend a particular normative attitude against other particular normative attitudes, whilst simultaneously denying the possibility that anyone should have
It is a little absurd.
You can't have it both ways: if forming moral judgements is the
problem (and it has been consistently argued to be so) - then one cannot
form the moral judgement that Christianized ways of thinking are bad or problematic in some way (and that implicitly, liberal-tolerant-post 1960's attitudes are good).
I think one either has to genuinely commit to a non-conceptual, non-discursive mode of being - which would clearly imply not
getting on internet boards to establish and defend particular normative values.
Or, one can enter the terrain of discourse and accept that conceptual judgements are part of that territory - which would clearly imply that you have
a normative position and that you grant that it is acceptable for other people to have a normative position.
In short: if you're going to defend a normative position (and that's fine, wonderful), it's not wise to do so by denying the grounds for normativity.
Well let me say like this... if one engages in zen practice, then mostly after some time one receives so called JUKAI... this is very important, for many many reasons. First to become Buddha disciple, second to be able to receive most important teachings, third to receive blessing of the Buddha lineage and protect it well... this is sort of very private thing but very important..
In Jukai we have 5 precepts relating to the outer action, however they have different meaning finally, and the root text is in KYOJUKAIMON, the outer text is in Brahmajala. Out of the 10 the second set of 5 is about inner set of mind of the bodhiattva who has developed in bodhicitta and samaya... here comes the point... there are one after the other which bounds us to bodhisattva sangha, and most important to honshi, which Tibetans call root teacher, one can translate as well as original teacher or root master etc. since there are 16 precepts, the first 3 determine the rest, and number 16th closes the whole circle in relation to first 3.. the first three are triple refuge in triple jewel of the 3 kayas.. the last one is taught to be the 3 jewels of nirmanakaya, represented by honshi... actually he is that nirmanakaya from whom we do receive refuge, and the last set of 5 says not to denigerate 3 jewels... now if one engaged in zen practice, received jukai from honshi and gets into trouble, how is going to uphold the samaya??? I wonder...
This what from logical or intellectual point of view seems to be illogical or irrational, is not at all in the light of receiving full zen precepts... this is so important.. I never see any slightest consideration to it. Not in the West... greg calls it nihilism, that is sort of nice
but it is not so from the zen standpoint. hmmm what would you do then?