Celibacy

A forum for discussion of Buddhist ethics.

Re: Celibacy

Postby Zhen Li » Sun Aug 04, 2013 7:32 am

Children are being exposed to graphic sexual content before they even reach puberty. There are obvious domain names that have terrabytes of free, completely explicit sexual content on them, that anyone can access with no age checks, no credit card or anthing other than a mouse-click.

This is a failure of parents, porn companies, or legal systems (whichever you believe to be more culpable). I don't think Buddhists should be okay with this. Nor do I think Greg or I rationalised it in any way shape or form.
I think if your motivation is anti-Christian, then you are still being conditioned and influenced by Christian attitudes, only by way of aversion rather than imitation.

This is pretty naive about the direction the thread has been going. I think arguments have been given which go far beyond anti-Christian attitudes.
Image
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 806
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am

Re: Celibacy

Postby Lhug-Pa » Sun Aug 04, 2013 7:46 am

To first of all reply in response to the recent postings in this thread in general, I don't think anyone here implied that masturbation would lead to anything near "eternal damnation or hell" (because for one, no Buddhist school that I know of believes in eternal hell; just temporary (albeit loooong in some cases) hell-realm stays). I've only said that masturbation is negative, and that if one wants to get the most out of their practice, they'll probably want to keep their vows the best they can and also conserve Ojas or mDangs (Virility & Vital Energy/Radiance) in order to be able to more-positively fuel their Dharma practice. And, that a more powerful way to sublimate the sexual impulse is with 'Khrul-'Khor or Tsa-Lung practices—or at least Pranayama coupled with Hatha Yoga—for controlling the Winds (Srog/rLung), Drops (Thigle), and Channels (rTsa).


Zhen Li,


Zhen Li wrote:That's true. But there is an added social dimension with real people which takes up people's entire lives. Yes, I know there are people who's lives are taken up entirely with masturbation, but it's probably rare and not as socially acceptable as spending every night in a pick up lounge - which makes it far more likely to be unable to break out of the cycle of being sexually active.


Believe it or not most men and women don't usually enter sexual encounters with each other via bars & nightclubs so much. Women and men are more likely to become involved sexually with one another by meeting through other avenues such as social-circles, jobs, school, etc. including Dharma centers. But that's another topic. Anyway, perhaps it can depend on the individual to some degree when put the way you put it here^. Nevertheless, if one has a method that is powerful enough to coordinate one's Winds, Drops, and Channels despite all the ills of contemporary existence (i.e. getting bombarded by constant distractions & temptations, and pollution, chemicals, & radiation which disturb the Winds/Drops/Channels, etc.); then neither of the above scenarios (i.e. addiction to casual sex and/or masturbation) would become indulged in or distract one from their Dharma practice.


Yes, I accept this. And with a qualified Tantric Guru as one's guide, I think this is fine.


:thumbsup:


I agree, and the Bodhisattva vows require one to break precepts when the circumstances require it. I laugh trying to come up with examples for this topic though. :D


Haha :thinking:


Actually though...:


Berzinarchives.com wrote:Secondary Bodhisattva Vows

Alexander Berzin, August 1997

(4) Not committing a destructive action when love and compassion call for it

Occasionally, certain extreme situations arise in which the welfare of others is seriously jeopardized and there is no alternative left to prevent a tragedy other than committing one of the seven destructive physical or verbal actions. These seven are taking a life, taking what has not been given to us, indulging in inappropriate sexual behavior, lying, speaking divisively, using harsh and cruel language, or chattering meaninglessly. If we commit such an action without any disturbing emotion at the time, such as anger, desire, or naivety about cause and effect, but are motivated only by the wish to prevent others' suffering - being totally willing to accept on ourselves whatever negative consequences may come, even hellish pain - we do not damage our far-reaching ethical self-discipline. In fact, we build up a tremendous amount of positive force that speeds us on our spiritual paths.

Refusing to commit these destructive actions when necessity demands is at fault, however, only if we have taken and keep purely bodhisattva vows. Our reticence to exchange our happiness for the welfare of others hampers our perfection of the ethical self-discipline to help others always. There is no fault if we have only superficial compassion and do not keep bodhisattva vows or train in the conduct outlined by them. We realize that since our compassion is weak and unstable, the resulting suffering we would experience from our destructive actions might easily cause us to begrudge bodhisattva conduct. We might even give up the path of working to help others. Like the injunction that bodhisattvas on lower stages of development only damage themselves and their abilities to help others if they attempt practices of bodhisattvas on higher stages - such as feeding their flesh to a hungry tigress - it is better for us to remain cautious and hold back.

Since there may be confusion about what circumstances call for such bodhisattva action, let us look at examples taken from the commentary literature. Please keep in mind that these are last resort actions when all other means fail to alleviate or prevent others' suffering. As a budding bodhisattva, we are willing to take the life of someone about to commit a mass murder. We have no hesitation in confiscating medicines intended for relief efforts in a war-torn country that someone has taken to sell on the black market, or taking away a charity's funds from an administrator who is squandering or mismanaging them. We are willing, if male, to have sex with another's wife - or with an unmarried woman whose parents forbid it, or with any other inappropriate partner - when the woman has the strong wish to develop bodhichitta but is overwhelmed with desire for sex with us and who, if she were to die not having had sex with us, would carry the grudge as an instinct into future lives. As a result, she would be extremely hostile toward bodhisattvas and the bodhisattva path.

Bodhisattvas' willingness to engage in inappropriate sexual acts when all else fails to help prevent someone from developing an extremely negative attitude toward the spiritual path of altruism raises an important point for married couples on the bodhisattva path to consider. Sometimes a couple becomes involved in Dharma and one of them, for instance the woman, wishing to be celibate, stops sexual relations with her husband when he is not of the same mind. He still has attachment to sex and takes her decision as a personal rejection. Sometimes the wife's fanaticism and lack of sensitivity drives her husband to blame his frustration and unhappiness on the Dharma. He leaves the marriage and turns his back on Buddhism with bitter resentment. If there is no other way to avoid his hostile reaction toward the spiritual path and the woman is keeping bodhisattva vows, she would do well to evaluate her compassion to determine if it is strong enough to allow her to have occasional sex with her husband without serious harm to her ability to help others. This is very relevant in terms of the tantric vows concerning chaste behavior.

As budding bodhisattvas, we are willing to lie when it saves others' lives or prevents others from being tortured and maimed. We have no hesitation to speak divisively to separate our children from a wrong crowd of friends - or disciples from misleading teachers - who are exerting negative influences on them and encouraging harmful attitudes and behavior. We do not refrain from using harsh language to rouse our children from negative ways, like not doing their homework, when they will not listen to reason. And when others, interested in Buddhism, are totally addicted to chattering, drinking, partying, singing, dancing, or telling off-color jokes or stories of violence, we are willing to join in if refusal would make these persons feel that bodhisattvas, and Buddhists in general, never have fun and that the spiritual path is not for them.


Yes it is, but my point is that sex is worse.


Then we agree to disagree.


This is true, but I think that Lewis is referring to proper sexual conduct, rather than sexual misconduct.


Better said I think, that he was emphasizing proper sexual conduct. Even still, his words didn't imply that masturbation is not worse than casual sex.


I can't disrespect any lay person simply for having a committed relationship and having sex out of love. That's fine. The issue is that sexual misconduct can occur with real women, but not with masturbation, making it worse. I.e. You can actually cause harm to other people with sex, plus your own mind, whereas masturbation only causes harm to your own mind. Plus, there is the issue of greater social consequences and attachments to other people.


Like I'd said, in consensual sex, both partners usually enjoy it if neither has any intent to harm or humiliate; and there is also at least some exchange of Solar and Lunar energies, instead of the sterile loss of Ojas that comes with lone self-abuse.


I apologise if I made it sound as if women are an object. I am more or less talking from the hypothetical approach of someone who may possibly be engaging in either masturbation or sexual misconduct, in which case that person would likely view women as an object. This is what I understand as the one of the issues behind sexual misconduct, i.e., when we talking about women under the protection of parents (i.e. minors), they are not mentally or socially developed enough to make an adult consensual decision; this is more or less equivalent to rape or bestiality. :pig:


Well viewing women as objects during masturbation is more objectifying of women than is actual sexual contact between two living breathing humans who are both enjoying it (again, assuming that neither have any intent to harm or humiliate).

Also, I never said anything about those under protection of parents/guardians.

In any case, consensual sex with an eighteen year old for example—even one who is under the protection of parents/guardians—could hardly be compared with rape or bestiality.


I agree, from the Vajrayana perspective you are correct. Once again, we are presupposing it is proper sexual conduct, rather than misconduct. But even when one is philandering and indulging in debauchery, one's energies are hardly in balance, and more problems would arise than were that person to just release themselves in private.


Again, maybe we agree to disagree, that is assuming both partners in a casual sexual encounter actually enjoy it, and neither has any intention to harm or humiliate the other.


It's all upaya.


Yes, and some Upaya are more effective than others.


The issue is simply this: "The way I see it, if one is going to masturbate, then might as well go out and have some casual sex."

But I think that you may come to agree with me?
:anjali:


I still basically stand by what I wrote, given my above responses.

:anjali:
Last edited by Lhug-Pa on Sun Aug 04, 2013 8:44 am, edited 8 times in total.
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: Celibacy

Postby Indrajala » Sun Aug 04, 2013 7:48 am

jeeprs wrote:I hope, as I said before, Buddhists would provide some moral clarity around this topic, not rationalize it.


As I said above, the issue of pornography is, based on traditional Buddhist thinking, up in the air given that it didn't exist until recently.

Even if we do denounce it as wrong, the problem of it being so readily available will not be resolved despite it being contraband according to us. The pornography industry operates legally in the western world. As you have stated, to challenge its proliferation is often seen as an attack on freedom and moreover the freedom of expression.

On one hand, I think it is unhealthy, but legally if you value freedom of expression then you need to concede that it permissible albeit undesirable.

The funny thing is that historically many Buddhist cultures have been and arguably still are quite sexually liberal. Look at modern Japan and Thailand. Look at even Taiwan where prostitution was a huge part of business culture up until recently, and these were the same people funding the massive Buddhist organizations that started over the last few decades. Look at the Tang Dynasty where in Chang'an you had flourishing monastic communities within walking distance of massive brothels.

Some scriptures even state that having sex with a prostitute (as a layperson) is only misconduct if you fail to pay for the services rendered.

In Buddhist cultures it has often been the case that "casual sex" and prostitution were (and usually still are) commonplace. People might see it as ultimately dodgy and disagreeable, but it still has a place in society. The renunciates are seemingly empowered by being exposed to such things yet maintaining celibacy in the face of it all.

Now, granted, that doesn't lend justification to the existence of pornography, but we might be making an issue out of something that really can't be addressed without recourse to increased policing. We might also be seeing things while heavily influenced by Christian values where sin has to be eliminated rather than begrudgingly tolerated.

Sometimes tolerating sin is unfortunately necessary as the alternative may do more harm than good. This is why I don't support censorship.

Understandably, this goes contrary to a lot of conventional western ideas where doing the right thing is seen as the highest good, the outcome of which ultimately will be for the best. There's a different approach to ethics, though, where evils are tolerated for the sake of preserving long-term stability. What is moral is not necessarily in the best interests of society. What is fair may not necessarily be the optimal course of action with respect to the community.
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog)
Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog)
Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog)
Dharma Depository (Site)

"Hui gives me no assistance. There is nothing that I say in which he does not delight." -Confucius
User avatar
Indrajala
Former staff member
 
Posts: 5570
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Location: India

Re: Celibacy

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun Aug 04, 2013 7:59 am

Lhug-Pa wrote: I've only said that masturbation is negative, and that if one wants to get the most out of their practice,
If you asked your teacher if jerking off once or twice a week is going to negatively effect your practice I think you will find they will just smile amusedly, especially if you consider at what level our practices are right now.
...they'll probably want to keep their vows the best they can
Who's "they"? If it is lay practitioners then there is no vow "forbiding"masturbation.
...and also conserve Ojas or mDangs (Virility & Vital Energy/Radiance) in order to be able to more-positively fuel their Dharma practice.
If I remember correctly Malcolm (a Tibetan medicine doctor and an extremely qualified practitioner) once pointed out to you that in hot weather one can ejaculate up to five times a day without negative consequences (less in cold weather). So I think I'll follow his advice right now, given I don't know your qualifications.
And, that a more powerful way to sublimate the sexual imulse is with 'Khrul-'Khor or Tsa-Lung practices—or at least Pranayama coupled with Hatha Yoga—for controlling the Winds (Srog/rLung), Drops (Thigle), and Channels (rTsa).
Ditto on the practice advice too.
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7937
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Celibacy

Postby jeeprs » Sun Aug 04, 2013 8:08 am

Indrajala wrote:Sometimes tolerating sin is unfortunately necessary as the alternative may do more harm than good. This is why I don't support censorship.


I'm sure nearly all my friends, and indeed my dear departed father, would agree with you. But in the circumstances, I now see it as misplaced idealism. I think 'the industry' actually exploits such democratic notions for base ends. That is where the argument over censorship is a bit artificial. I think the founders of liberalism assumed a certain standard of morality amongst members of society, but in practice, it hardly exists in western culture, save for the prohibitions around children. Furthermore, I think that spiritually, extreme sexual license can actually end up 'owning' you. This is how it appears as an 'addiction' - it is something you know that is not beneficial, but you feel powerless to break free. There are huge numbers of people in that grip. It's not called 'vice' for nothing.

I think what is happening is that Western society is being hollowed out from the inside. It is like a termite infestation - outwardly the structure looks sound, but the beams and pillars are all being eaten from within. Nobody will notice until the structure collapses. I don't find it too hard to see as being another manifestation of the kali yuga, the age of degeneracy. OK, I know it is a myth, but it says that one of the symptoms is that 'Lust will be viewed as socially acceptable and sexual intercourse will be seen as the central requirement of life.' Furthermore it seems that anyone who speaks out against it is marginalized. Meanwhile there are epidemics of sexual diseases amongs the young and sexual harrasment is widespread in military, religious and educational institutions. The few writers who campaign against it - mainly women - are heavily outgunned by 'the industry'.

Hey I know that is a rant. It might well be because I am older, it is said people become more conservative as they age, and I will cop to that. And I am not speaking from any moral high-ground, either, more one of 'clear and present danger'.
He that knows it, knows it not.
User avatar
jeeprs
 
Posts: 1427
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Celibacy

Postby Zhen Li » Sun Aug 04, 2013 8:15 am

Lhug-Pa wrote:Nevertheless, if one has a method that is powerful enough to coordinate one's Winds, Drops, and Channels despite all the ills of contemporary existence (i.e. getting bombarded by constant distractions & temptations, and pollution, chemicals, & radiation which disturb the Winds/Drops/Channels, etc.); then neither of the above scenarios (i.e. addiction to casual sex and masturbation) would become indulged in or distract one from their Dharma practices.

This is true.
Lhug-Pa wrote:Well it seems that some interpret that Pratimoksha vow in its definitive meaning to mean that it is actually ejaculation with loss of Ojas or mDangs that leads to defeat, and not the actual sexual act between the woman and man itself (meaning when the Buddha says "sex" here, it is seemingly allegedly definitively interpreted to be read as ejaculation with loss of Ojas/mDangs).

I have no clue what you're saying.

But if you're talking about Tibetan stuff, remember that they have a different Vinaya from the Theravada one (which I was referring to) and I have no clue what is inside it.
Lhug-Pa wrote:Better said I think, that he was emphasizing proper sexual conduct. Even still, his words didn't imply that masturbation is not worse than casual sex.

The question is, do you consider casual sex, sexual misconduct?

I feel like we're just veering into a world of ambiguities if we are using Sutras as our reference. Unless one is willing to accept the Sutric definition on face value, which I feel is not going to happen in this thread, the matter more or less comes down to a matter of opinion and social conventions in the time and place.
jeeprs wrote:Hey I know that is a rant. It might well be because I am older, it is said people become more conservative as they age, and I will cop to that. And I am not speaking from any moral high-ground, either, more one of 'clear and present danger'.

I more or less agree with you jeeprs. But what can you do? Just cultivate as best you can and set an example for the rest of society by avoiding pornography.
Image
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 806
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am

Re: Celibacy

Postby greentara » Sun Aug 04, 2013 9:02 am

Wisdom, Of course I agree with you "I believe some effort has to be made because otherwise its too easy to remain content with giving into desires whenever they call" Thats why I used the word struggle......so you don't give in and above all you don't give up but it's still a struggle!
greentara
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:03 am

Re: Celibacy

Postby Lhug-Pa » Sun Aug 04, 2013 9:07 am

gregkavarnos wrote:especially if you consider at what level our practices are right now.


Agreed. The greater the heights, the more terrible the fall.

Whereas if someone falls off the first rung of the ladder from the bottom, they might end up with only a small goose-egg. Of course this shouldn't be an excuse to think: "I'm only on the first rung of the ladder, so it won't hurt very much if I fall".


If I remember correctly Malcolm (a Tibetan medicine doctor and an extremely qualified practitioner) once pointed out to you that in hot weather one can ejaculate up to five times a day without negative consequences (less in cold weather). So I think I'll follow his advice right now, given I don't know your qualifications.


Well not quite correctly, as it is the opposite there regarding the seasons. And I'd actually posted a link to that very post of Malcolm's on page three of this thread.

And the general advice of Tibetan Medicine regarding things like alcohol and sexual conduct does not always apply to all practitioners, considering that there are many different kinds of vows and Samayas that one can receive. But I would say that the general advice of Tibetan Medicine regarding sexual conduct is the minimum for most practitioners who are serious.


Zhen Li wrote:I have no clue what you're saying.


May be better that way, as I might have even said too much already. Anyone interested in knowing about these things should actually find a qualified Teacher to learn from. Also, a lot of it is available in public books and websites, even public books and websites authorized by qualified Teachers. And I myself am not a qualified teacher, so I'll leave it at that.


...remember that they have a different Vinaya from the Theravada one (which I was referring to) and I have no clue what is inside it.


Right, the Tibetan Vinaya is from the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya.


The question is, do you consider casual sex, sexual misconduct?


I've pretty much stated the long answer to this question already.

The short answer to this question however is basically yes.

:anjali:
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: Celibacy

Postby shaunc » Sun Aug 04, 2013 11:24 am

Hi guys, I'd like to answer the question about sex from a lay-mans point of view. I'm married with 4 kids, so of course if I was to engage in casual sex, I believe I would be breaking the 3rd precept, & that is what really matters, what I believe regarding my circumstances, not what anyone else believes. However, if I was a single man, as far as sex goes it's pretty much open slather. Most unskilful sexual activities are covered by either the law or advice given to us by the Buddha. Masturbation is as far as I'm concerned pretty much harmless, as a matter of fact as a teenager I considered it a hobby. The only advice I'd be giving to a single man is to first ask himself is it legal & secondly is anyone being hurt. If he can answer both of these questions satisfactorily then it's all systems go.
shaunc
 
Posts: 268
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 8:10 am

Re: Celibacy

Postby Zhen Li » Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:12 pm

Lhug-pa wrote:May be better that way, as I might have even said too much already. Anyone interested in knowing about these things should actually find a qualified Teacher to learn from. Also, a lot of it is available in public books and websites, even public books and websites authorized by qualified Teachers. And I myself am not a qualified teacher, so I'll leave it at that.

The other thing is that these are views which tend to be sect-specific. I.e. Tibetan Vajrayana in this case.
Lhug-pa wrote:
Zhen Li wrote:The question is, do you consider casual sex, sexual misconduct?
I've pretty much stated the long answer to this question already.

The short answer to this question however is basically yes.

Well then we are in agreement.

This is what I had an issue with in the first place: the fact that you believe lay people would be better breaking the third precept rather than do something which does not break the third precept.
Image
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 806
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am

Re: Celibacy

Postby JKhedrup » Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:58 pm

Right, the Tibetan Vinaya is from the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya.


Which is in not way significantly different from the Theravada Vinaya other than the way the precepts are enumerated. Mulasarvastivada was one of 18 Sravakayana or Hinayana schools, so the language and import of the precepts is strikingly similar. It is a shame that the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya has not been published broadly because people have a strange idea that the rules Tibetan monastics follow might be different than those in the Theravada or East Asian Mahayana traditions. They aren't.

For those who are curious about the Mulasarvastivada precepts can be accessed on the website of His Holiness the Dalai Lama:

http://dalailama.com/messages/buddhism/ ... -tradition

There is also a misguided notion that monastic precepts are not a key element of Tibetan Buddhist culture. His Holiness comments here (from the same webpage):

His Holiness the Dalai Lama says:


In particular the moral code of individual liberation is the essence of Buddha's teachings, such that it is said that wherever there is gelong, a holder of the Vinaya, there the teachings of Buddha abide and that place is not devoid of the Teacher himself.(2)

Lord Buddha himself says in the Vinaya Bases:

Wherever there is a gelong, a holder of the vinaya, that place is luminous; that place is illuminated. See that place as not devoid of me. I also abide unperturbed in that place.(3)
A foolish man proclaims his qualifications,
A wise man keeps them secret within.
A straw floats on the surface of water,
But a precious gem placed upon it sinks to the depths
-Sakya Pandita
JKhedrup
Former staff member
 
Posts: 1964
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:28 am
Location: the Netherlands and India

Re: Celibacy

Postby Indrajala » Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:23 pm

jeeprs wrote:Hey I know that is a rant. It might well be because I am older, it is said people become more conservative as they age, and I will cop to that. And I am not speaking from any moral high-ground, either, more one of 'clear and present danger'.


There is a movement in some countries towards making adult content on the net something you opt in for with your ISP. I don't know the logistics, or if it would interfere with normal web browsing (maybe a forum could be made inaccessible if the vocabulary is too taboo).
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog)
Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog)
Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog)
Dharma Depository (Site)

"Hui gives me no assistance. There is nothing that I say in which he does not delight." -Confucius
User avatar
Indrajala
Former staff member
 
Posts: 5570
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Location: India

Re: Celibacy

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:50 pm

Lhug-Pa wrote:Agreed. The greater the heights, the more terrible the fall.

Whereas if someone falls off the first rung of the ladder from the bottom, they might end up with only a small goose-egg. Of course this shouldn't be an excuse to think: "I'm only on the first rung of the ladder, so it won't hurt very much if I fall".
Well, I am under no delusions. I am under the impression that I still haven't found the right ladder yet.


Well not quite correctly, as it is the opposite there regarding the seasons. And I'd actually posted a link to that very post of Malcolm's on page three of this thread.
Oooops! I stand corrected! Thanks for pointing that out!
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7937
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Celibacy

Postby Lhug-Pa » Sun Aug 04, 2013 7:39 pm

Zhen Li wrote:This is what I had an issue with in the first place: the fact that you believe lay people would be better breaking the third precept rather than do something which does not break the third precept.


No I still think that lay people would generally-speaking be worse off masturbating than having casual sex, not only as far as the third precept is concerned but also in general i.e. related to the Winds & Channels and such (assuming that those engaging in casual sex are not doing it with those under the protection of parents/guardians, etc.).

(Also, since the physical body 'houses' the Vajra Body and Mandalas of Deities, etc., "condoms" and other unnatural means are offensive).

It would be pretty silly to assume that masturbation is not sexual misconduct. Of course lay-people having casual sex is also sexual misconduct, i.e. lay people—rather than having casual sex—would be better off having a 'monogamous' relationship. And they also ought to have a method for sublimating their sexual energy until they meet their said 'monogamous partner'.

Of course monks and nuns should not have any type of sexual contact according to the precepts. Yet for lay-people it's somewhat different.

And again, all of this becomes irrelevant if lay-people and ordainees can both be taught a method (the already-mentioned Pranayama, physical Yogas, etc.) to include with their daily Meditation/Sadhana practice that helps them to not engage in any kind of sexual misconduct.
Last edited by Lhug-Pa on Sun Aug 04, 2013 7:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: Celibacy

Postby Dronma » Sun Aug 04, 2013 7:54 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:If you asked your teacher if jerking off once or twice a week is going to negatively effect your practice I think you will find they will just smile amusedly, especially if you consider at what level our practices are right now.


There is no mass level of "our" practice. Someone can talk only about himself/herself.
My teacher suggests to male practitioners who aspire to practice liberation through sensation that they should never loose their pure essence (sperm).
And as far as I know, he is not the only teacher who is giving this advice.
However, who is capable to follow his advice and who is not, is a totally different story... ;)
"My view is as vast as the sky, but my actions are finer than flour"
~ Padmasambhava ~
User avatar
Dronma
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:29 pm
Location: Athens - GR

Re: Celibacy

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun Aug 04, 2013 9:13 pm

Dronma wrote:There is no mass level of "our" practice. Someone can talk only about himself/herself.
Yes, well, I don't think we here are quite on the verge of realising rainbow body right now, are we?
My teacher suggests to male practitioners who aspire to practice liberation through sensation that they should never loose their pure essence (sperm).
Your teacher has how many children? I imagine they didn't come about because his wife sniffed a lily? ;)
Lhug pa wrote:It would be pretty silly to assume that masturbation is not sexual misconduct. Of course lay-people having casual sex is also sexual misconduct, i.e. lay people—rather than having casual sex—would be better off having a 'monogamous' relationship. And they also ought to have a method for sublimating their sexual energy until they meet their said 'monogamous partner'.
Dude, do you make this sh*t up as you go along or has somebody actually taught it to you? Causal sex is not sexual misconduct as spelled out by the Buddha. Masturbation is not sexual misconduct as spelt out by the Buddha. So where are you getting this nonsense from?
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7937
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Celibacy

Postby Dronma » Sun Aug 04, 2013 9:48 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
Dronma wrote:There is no mass level of "our" practice. Someone can talk only about himself/herself.
Yes, well, I don't think we here are quite on the verge of realising rainbow body right now, are we?

Innumerable beings, innumerable levels...

gregkavarnos wrote:
My teacher suggests to male practitioners who aspire to practice liberation through sensation that they should never loose their pure essence (sperm).
Your teacher has how many children? I imagine they didn't come about because his wife sniffed a lily? ;)

Procreation is not considered as "losing one's pure essence", but as an act of immense compassion.
"My view is as vast as the sky, but my actions are finer than flour"
~ Padmasambhava ~
User avatar
Dronma
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:29 pm
Location: Athens - GR

Re: Celibacy

Postby Lhug-Pa » Sun Aug 04, 2013 10:13 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:Causal sex is not sexual misconduct as spelled out by the Buddha.


I'm willing to concede that for lay-people casual sex is not misconduct in so far as they at least follow the previously-mentioned general guidelines of Tibetan Medicine.


gregkavarnos wrote:Masturbation is not sexual misconduct as spelt out by the Buddha.


Zhen Li wrote:As for wanton self-abuse in the Sanghadisesa, the reasons why it is disallowed would be obvious to anyone who thought about it:
1. That one would eat alms with the same hand used for the wanton self-abuse is conducive to anger in modest monks.
I. 1, 1-2; III.111 wrote:But do you, reverend Seyyasaka, eat alms with the very same hand as that which you use to emit semen?"
"Yes your reverences," he said.
Those who were modest monks became annoyed, vexed and angry, saying:
"How can the venerable Seyyasaka emit semen in this way?"

2. That it is not worthy of a recluse because it is an act of passion.
I. 1, 2-2, 1; III. 112 wrote:It is not fit, foolish man, it is not becoming, it is not suitable, it is not worthy of a recluse, it is not right, it is not to be done. How can you, foolish man, emit semen using your hand? Foolish man, have I not uttered dhamma in many ways for the stilling of passion, and not for the sake of passion, taught dhamma for the sake of being without grasping, and not for the sake of grasping?

3. That it is to the detriment of propagation:
I. 1, 2-2, 1; III. 112 wrote:Foolish man, it is not for the benefit of unbelievers, nor for the increase in the number of believers, but it is, foolish man, to the detriment of unbelievers as well as of believers, and it causes wavering in some.


And masturbation would also be unwise for lay-people too, because with masturbation there is not the exchange of Solar (female) and Lunar (male) energy that comes with actual sex.
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: Celibacy

Postby Zhen Li » Mon Aug 05, 2013 2:39 am

Dude, do you make this sh*t up as you go along or has somebody actually taught it to you? Causal sex is not sexual misconduct as spelled out by the Buddha. Masturbation is not sexual misconduct as spelt out by the Buddha. So where are you getting this nonsense from?

It's all Tibetan medicine and astrology. I have a feeling that it is more or less culturally specific.

I'm also really confused about Lhug-pa's actual stance regarding the precepts in general, since he both advocates breaking the 3rd precept, and holds that one should not break it at the same time.
Image
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 806
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am

Re: Celibacy

Postby Sherab Dorje » Mon Aug 05, 2013 6:45 am

Zhen Li wrote:As for wanton self-abuse in the Sanghadisesa, the reasons why it is disallowed would be obvious to anyone who thought about it:...
Lhug-pa: the quoted section is in reference to monastics. I'm not a monastic, you are not a monastic and the OP is not a monastic... Get over it, Buddhism does not forbid masturbation (for lay people). It does not forbid casual sex (for lay people). It does not forbid homsexuality (for lay people). I does not lay stress on monogamous relationships (for lay people). The rules for right sexual behaviour are quite clear, you are just importing Western Christian notions and values.
And masturbation would also be unwise for lay-people too, because with masturbation there is not the exchange of Solar (female) and Lunar (male) energy that comes with actual sex.
I am going to need a scriptural source from you.
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7937
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

PreviousNext

Return to Ethical Conduct

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

>