Sex in pureland?

[Adamantine]

Anyway, I was just curious, it was meant as a tounge in cheek question. Although I really am curious. I suppose it wouldn't matter at that point, but a few fit birds wouldn't hurt.

You mean, like 7 virgin brides?

[Adamantine]

I think if Chogyam Trungpa had his own pureland there may be some "fit birds" there.

Maybe Drukpa Kunleg's too.


And Guru Rinpoche is "surrounded by many dakinis", so perhaps the Copper-colored palace is a good destination if you have to pick and choose purelands. .

[AlexanderS]

Anyway, I was just curious, it was meant as a tounge in cheek question. Although I really am curious. I suppose it wouldn't matter at that point, but a few fit birds wouldn't hurt.

You mean, like 7 virgin brides?

No perhaps more like some sexy kitty cat dakini's.

[Adamantine]

Anyway, I was just curious, it was meant as a tounge in cheek question. Although I really am curious. I suppose it wouldn't matter at that point, but a few fit birds wouldn't hurt.

You mean, like 7 virgin brides?

No perhaps more like some sexy kitty cat dakini's.

something like this?

[gregkavarnos]

Put it back in your pants guys, there are women present who might consider your boyish nonsense somewhat sexist.

[AlexanderS]

something like this?

Yes yes and yes!

[Adamantine]

Put it back in your pants guys, there are women present who might consider your boyish nonsense somewhat sexist.

put what where? how do you know i'm not a woman?

[Adamantine]

Seriously though, I have it on good faith that the mundane-bliss of sensuality is really not even remotely comparable to the bliss of liberation... so what use would there be for sensual desire in a pureland? For now though, it is hard to really understand or relate to that maybe, and perhaps the closest thing we can imagine involves a sexy kitty cat dakini-- so?

[Nighthawk]

[Lhug-Pa]

http://sacred-sex.org/scriptures/buddhi ... woman.html

[ronnewmexico]

I don't know.

Certainly I am not a expert at all in pureland but am not necessarily a slow read in this thing.

Any sex mentioned as described amounts to a thing but not a thing of sex as we may know them as human in human realm even in a other sense utilizing energetic pathways..

more akin to the union of consort and member as per a union of emptiness and awareness....a thing of that sort...being not really sexual as we know it.
A union of sorts which we may describe as sexual as it is such a close union(that may serve as closest example)...but not human sex.

We actually do this thing a male puts his thing in another thing as human does and then a emission occurs....I find that hard to believe, even if one considers this thing impossibly done as human does with not a speck of desire.....if none then way arbitrarily engage at all....what the need?
If it is a union then why the thing of entrance and acceptance...would not a hug suffice as well?
Escept perhaps to show or display how closely is this union but not actually how is that union in such a place.

[narraboth]

if you just say pureland, not specifically amitabha's pureland, then there are male and female:
akshobia buddha sutra clearly mentioned that there are female in the pureland, they are beautiful and without any illness or inconvinence of women. But it's not very clear that if they give birth, or having a baby through intercourse like the 'four kings heaven' beings.
there are also 'worldly pureland' such as avalokesrivara's Bodala. It locates in this world and if there are human beings there, i guess they also generate children through the normal way?

There are many different kinds of purelands really.

[Mr. G]

Anyway, I was just curious, it was meant as a tounge in cheek question. Although I really am curious. I suppose it wouldn't matter at that point, but a few fit birds wouldn't hurt.

You mean, like 7 virgin brides?

No perhaps more like some sexy kitty cat dakini's.

The Pure Land you want is Khechari!

[Adamantine]

The Pure Land you want is Khechari!

Wait Kechari is not a dakini-only club, guys can get in too?

[gregkavarnos]

Why does it make no impression on me whatsoever that the only pure land jam packed with "fit birds" is completely absent of the presence of objectifying male gazes? What a surprise that drooling, overtestosteroned, lower head thinking males aren't allowed there! I mean really!

[Konchog1]

Lord Tsongkhapa says it's okay to purchase prostitutes in the Lamrim Chenmo. As long as grasping isn't present, everyone consents, and no one gets hurt; sex is fine. That is to say, there is nothing inherently wrong about sex.

[gregkavarnos]

Who said there is anything inherently wrong with sex? As for the "pure" sex, who said there's anything impure about sex? The problem here is the objectification of women (women are merely "fit birds" for sex) and the attachment and desire being expressed.

PS It's dakini day today so a little respect for our vajra sisters may be in line.

[Adamantine]

Hey greg, admiring a girl and wanting to spend time with her = objectifying male gaze? I don't think you'll find many girls who would agree with this PC nonsense.

I mean, unless you have totally transcended subject-object duality -----> anything you perceive as an object = objectifying gaze... so women then are equally guilty of objectifying men the moment they set their eyes on them. . Are we all supposed to keep our eyes closed?

[Nighthawk]

I hope the mods put this thread out of its misery. Funny at first, but now ridiculous.

[Adamantine]

I hope the mods put this thread out of its misery. Funny at first, but now ridiculous.

lighten up, you don't need to read it if you don't like it!