Buddhahood and Sexy Women

[Individual]

Bodhisattvas in their lives certainly have wives. But when they become Buddhas, they have to chuck them aside and the girl doesn't like that. Right?

What's that I remember hearing about how a bodhisattva is taunted by a female spirit, or something along those lines? How does that work?

Is it possible for one's Buddhahood to be realized through a relationship, sex, marriage, and children? Why or why not?

If a bodhisattva, such as Gautama, had forsaken Buddhahood for his wife and became a wheel-turning monarch, what would his destination be in the next life? How many eons would it set him back before he could try for Buddhahood again?

[ground]

Bodhisattvas in their lives certainly have wives.

Why is this certain?

But when they become Buddhas, they have to chuck them aside and the girl doesn't like that. Right?

What do the scriptures say?

What's that I remember hearing about how a bodhisattva is taunted by a female spirit, or something along those lines? How does that work?

Never heard of such.

Is it possible for one's Buddhahood to be realized through a relationship, sex, marriage, and children? Why or why not?

What do the scriptures say?

If a bodhisattva, such as Gautama, had forsaken Buddhahood for his wife and became a wheel-turning monarch, what would his destination be in the next life? How many eons would it set him back before he could try for Buddhahood again?

If ... Would he have been a bodhisattva then?


Kind regards


BTW:
Is obsession with the other sex (heterosexuality presumed) or obsession with matters of sexuality in general, conducive (as to the path) or not?

[Individual]

Sigh

[Mr. G]

Guru Padmasambhava did not leave Mandarava or Yeshe Tsyogyal in his practice and achieved realization.

[Individual]

Guru Padmasambhava did not leave Mandarava or Yeshe Tsyogyal in his practice and achieved realization.

How did Padmasambhava understand this:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el048.html

Several monks, hearing about it, went to the monk Ari.t.tha, formerly of the vulture killers, and asked him: "Is it true, friend Ari.t.tha, that you have conceived this pernicious view: "There are things called (obstructions) by the Blessed One. As I understand his teaching, those things are not necessarily obstructive for one who pursues them'?"

"Yes, indeed, friends, (I do hold that view)."

Then those monks, wishing to dissuade Ari.t.tha from that pernicious view, urged, admonished, questioned and exhorted him thus: "Do not say so, friend Ari.t.tha, 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."

See the snake simile also. It could possibly be understood in the context of the kundalini too, maybe?

[ground]

Guru Padmasambhava did not leave Mandarava or Yeshe Tsyogyal in his practice and achieved realization.

How did Padmasambhava understand this:

He wasn't a monk.

It seems as if there is a tendency to mix up everything in the "Mahayana section": Lays, monks, sutra, tantra

Kind regards

[Individual]

Dharmas are not more or less skillful for a sentient being merely because they are called "monk" or "Padmasambhava", or "sutra" and "tantra."

[ground]

Dharmas are not more or less skillful for a sentient being merely because they are called "monk" or "Padmasambhava", or "sutra" and "tantra."

Your situation may be this: Lack of basic studies/introductions while having access to a mixture of reading materials at the same time.


Kind regards

[Mr. G]

He wasn't a monk.

It seems as if there is a tendency to mix up everything in the "Mahayana section": Lays, monks, sutra, tantra

Kind regards

I think this is true and a good reminder TMingyur.

Dharmas are not more or less skillful for a sentient being merely because they are called "monk" or "Padmasambhava", or "sutra" and "tantra."

Well, this is not true. There's a difference between a layperson taking the 5 precepts and a person taking on the full vows of a monk.

[Astus]

I think Individual has a valid point with quoting the Alagaddupama Sutta. Hindrances are not restricted to vows but they're valid for every being, so sensual desire is an obstruction no matter whether it's a lay or a monastic practitioner. Well, that is the "sravaka view" at least. Padmasambhava adds (in Garland of ViewsPDF) for the bodhisattva vehicle: "So if it is sustained by great compassion, regardless of whatever acts one might engage in, be it virtuous or non-virtuous, one’s vows will not degenerate. For the bodhisattva vow is, in brief, to act with taking great compassion as its ground." Finally, on the ultimate Buddha vehicle (identified with Dzogchen in the Padmasambhava text) even engaging in the five sensual desires causes no problem.

[Mr. G]

That was quite helpful Astus, thanks.

[Individual]

Today at the Tibetan meditation center in Frederick, Maryland I asked a Tibetan monk about this, about the contrast between Gautama's view of women and Padmasambhava's view.

He said they were different, mentioning something about emptiness, but I didn't really understand.

My view now is: Women are dangerous and 99% of them are devils who will destroy you (same goes for men, if you're a woman). But it's OK if you meet the right woman, in the right situation, with the right intentions, because then all of that comes together to bear the right consequences.

Hmm. Saying that... I guess it means I agree with Tmingyur. Thanks Astus, but I guess Tmingyur was right.

It depends on the context. Buddhist monks shouldn't start being non-celibate, but it's OK for Lamas and laypeople. But then, it seems appropriate for even some Lamas and laypeople to be celibate. It depends on why they are celibate or non-celibate, and what they would gain from it.

[Astus]

"It depends on the context."

[Individual]

Thanks.

Also, again, sorry Tmingyur.

It's annoying how we as human beings tend to only agree with the truth when we're the ones reciting it.

[Individual]

Ugh... I'm so screwed.

(Literally and metaphorically)