[BostonDoctorTTT]

Why sex is not a right action for sangha members?

Complete sexual continence is considered an essential feature of the monastic life. Intercourse of a heterosexual or homosexual character is automatically a Parajika offense. Could anyone give explanation on this matter please?

Thanking you in advance.

Respectfully,

[IntinyBut]

Hi Bothi,

This may be helpful to find out more about the rules for renunciants :

"The Bhikkhus' Rules - A Guide for Laypeople"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a...#relationships

If you look at the list at the link, you'll find 'Relationships - sexual intercourse'

...and there are explanations of why the rules were made by the Buddha for his ordained sangha.

kind regards

Aloka

[lE3l6Lgn]

Hope this can be of some help too:

Nyanaponika Thera's introduction to "The Discourse on the Snake Simile" (MN22) has a good commentary about sexual abstention:

For the monk, however, it was expected that the ardor of his quest for the final goal, the serenity of mind and emotional satisfaction derived from meditation, and his relative freedom from external sense titillation — that all these and other factors should enable him to keep the sex urge well in check and his mind tranquil enough for allowing further progress (or at least effort) on the road to radical detachment. He who could not attain to that degree of self-mastery, was free to leave the Order, and no stigma was attached; and he was also free to return whenever he wanted. But inside the Sangha no compromise could be admitted unless the Buddha was to invite disintegration from within and disrepute from without.

MN 22
Moreover, Nyanaponika Thera, gives a footnote (#1) in relation to this subject:

Ari.t.tha, 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. Ari.t.tha 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, Ari.t.tha 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 commentary reference to sexual intercourse.
It is noteworthy that sexual abstention seems to be a result of a tranquil mind and emotional satisfaction obtained through meditation from where one of the most powerful cravings -sexual intercourse- is transcended.

[medprof]

Because sex is a sensual pleasure for the most part which can cause disturbance of the mind and even addiction. It can also create social obligations such as parenthood, which a monk cannot spare time for. This is not the only sensual pleasure monks do not engage in. They avoid high seats, many meals a day, extra clothes, possession of money or property etc. Less baggage to carry around. Monks and nuns adjust their lives to directly support the practice. Celibacy is part of it.

[furious1]

Dear Kaarine Alejandra,

You have kindly stated that, '' It is noteworthy that sexual abstention seems to be a result of a tranquil mind and emotional satisfaction obtained through meditation from where one of the most powerful cravings -sexual intercourse- is transcended. ''

To me, a tranquil mind and emotional satisfaction can only be obtained in a natural way. That is all human natural needs should be satisfied in a natural way. If Buddha Dhamma is the law of nature, then this duality should be solved in the first place. There should be no difference in between lay people and the monks lifestyles.

Celibacy does not mean to abstein from natural sexual acts. Celibacy means a moderate use of the sexual energy.

Respectfully,

[tsaaapla]

Hello Bothi,

I ve asked myself the same question many times, why monks are not allowed to have sex??!! I thought the Buddha taught us to be free, not to be conditioned by his own teachings!

From my limited understanding, the Buddha did not ask us to starve or repress our desires, but to go beyond desire by observing it and seeing the futility of it. The Buddha himself enjoyed having sex during the first 29 years of his life and he got enlightened afterwards!

Regards,
Bundokji

[DoctorTOneery]

Celibacy does not mean to abstein from natural sexual acts. Celibacy means a moderate use of the sexual energy.

Hi Bothi

In a Buddhist context it means refraining from sexual intercourse -which is the result of sexual desire. (and this is a Buddhist website) .

Kind regards,

Aloka

[ZAtlLVos]

The Buddha himself enjoyed having sex during the first 29 years of his life and he got enlightened afterwards!

The Buddha spent 6 years as a celibate renunciate before he became enlightened. The Buddha also made the rules about celibacy for monks and nuns.

I ve asked myself the same question many times, why monks are not allowed to have sex??!!

Why would one want to be a monk if one was having sex ? - its a contradiction.


.

[lionsiy]

The Buddha spent 6 years as a celibate renunciate before he became enlightened. Correct, but his sexual activties before celibacy have not prevented him from getting enlightened.

Why would one want to be a monk if one was having sex ? - its a contradiction. Actually i did not know that being a monk implies "celibacy" by defintion. This might be true when we talk about Christianty or Buddhism, but Muslim clergymen for instance oppose celibacy and they consider it as a deviation from the middle path. They consider celibacy as one extreme and hedonism to be the other extreme (i always thought that Buddhism represent the middle way but not in this particular instance).

I know we are discussing Buddhism here hence i am trying to understand the Buddha's postion. If a monk has the ability to make sex without getting attached to sensual desire, is he doing anything balmeworthy? did the Buddha warned us against sex/desire itself or against attachement to desire?

What is the difference between sexual desire and other desires?? dont you agree that all worldly desires are of the same nature but the object that differs?

If a monk was offered nice food and he was hungry, should he refuse to eat it? Maybe he would not go and look for it, but if it was offered willingly, should he reject it?

Regards,
Bundokji

[AnthonyKing]

why monks are not allowed to have sex??!!

Hi Bundokji,
As I understand it, it's more a case of individuals making that choice in order to focus 100% on practice, rather than being somehow repressed.

I thought the Buddha taught us to be free, not to be conditioned by his own teachings! In what way free? Buddha taught the path to freedom. Sensuality is a nutriment, a conditioning factor of samsara. Sexual freedom is fine but it's not the same thing as liberation - even within Vajrayana.

the Buddha did not ask us to starve or repress our desires, but to go beyond desire by observing it and seeing the futility of it. Absolutely.

The Buddha himself enjoyed having sex during the first 29 years of his life and he got enlightened afterwards! He did. As you say, he saw the futility of it and renounced it. No one forced him to stop, it was a free choice.

Sex is a refuge because it provides satisfaction, relief and temporary happiness of a kind. If we take refuge in Buddhadharma we are prepared to seek another way. It's not like you need to view sex as sinful or bad. There's no moral judgement, no Buddha getting angry.

For laity, there needs be no celibacy but the states cultivated in meditation and the knowledge acquired from the teachings can be contrasted with desirous mental states. It's simple really and not as dramatic or black & white as it's sometimes painted.

For sangha, it's a burden they have put down. If they cannot, then they can disrobe and do what they want. I tend to think that taking ordination is an act of great will. Individuals see that they don't have forever to get it sorted. Respect to them for that choice.

Regards
Kris

[BariGrootrego]

Hello srivijaya,

For sangha, it's a burden they have put down. If they cannot, then they can disrobe and do what they want. I tend to think that taking ordination is an act of great will. Individuals see that they don't have forever to get it sorted. Respect to them for that choice. How about the monks who were brought to the temple at a very young age by their parents? did they have a choice?

Actually this whole discussion reminded me of my favourite movie "Samsara". I know that its only a movie but the message conveyed is so powerful in my opinion.

I would not ask you to watch the whole movie, but ony a small part (from 6:35 till 8:00 which is one minute and 25 seconds only)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jR0xlUiKYg

Regards,
Bundokji

[dodadaxia]

How about the monks who were brought to the temple at a very young age by their parents? did they have a choice? Personally I don't agree with small boys having to leaving their parents and be put into monasteries, that is something cultural rather than what was requested of children by the Buddha. I think becoming a monk should be a matter of choice for adults.

However, I think its very commendable when people decide to renounce worldly life as adults, if they're able to follow that discipline. There are some inspirational teachers who are celibate monks and nuns.

[idobestbuyonlinepp]

How about the monks who were brought to the temple at a very young age by their parents? did they have a choice?

Buddha never taught that. There isn't a single sutta where he encourages a family to give children into a monastery.

Actually this whole discussion reminded me of my favourite movie "Samsara". I know that its only a movie but the message conveyed is so powerful in my opinion. I saw the movie some time ago and as far as I can remember, it ends with him returning to the monastic life after having the experience of Dukkha from craving and all the mundane entanglements from where he got enmeshed when he disrobed. He felt the urgent need to renunciation.

But maybe I am not remembering well...

[somamasoso]

Dear Kaarine Alejandra,

You have kindly stated that, '' It is noteworthy that sexual abstention seems to be a result of a tranquil mind and emotional satisfaction obtained through meditation from where one of the most powerful cravings -sexual intercourse- is transcended. ''

To me, a tranquil mind and emotional satisfaction can only be obtained in a natural way. That is all human natural needs should be satisfied in a natural way. If Buddha Dhamma is the law of nature, then this duality should be solved in the first place. There should be no difference in between lay people and the monks lifestyles.

Celibacy does not mean to abstein from natural sexual acts. Celibacy means a moderate use of the sexual energy.

Respectfully,

Hello Bothi,

The path of definitive deliverance, -the Buddhadhamma-, acknowledges different levels of "Natural Law":

1. Utuniyama: the natural law pertaining to physical objects and changes in the natural environment, such as the weather; the way flowers bloom in the day and fold up at night; the way soil, water and nutrients help a tree to grow; and the way things disintegrate and decompose. This perspective emphasizes the changes brought about by heat or temperature.

2. Bijaniyama: the natural law pertaining to heredity, which is best described in the adage, "as the seed, so the fruit."

3. Cittaniyama: the natural law pertaining to the workings of the mind, the process of cognition of sense objects and the mental reactions to them.

4. Kammaniyama: the natural law pertaining to human behavior, the process of the generation of action and its results. In essence, this is summarized in the words, "good deeds bring good results, bad deeds bring bad results."

5. Dhammaniyama: the natural law governing the relationship and interdependence of all things: the way all things arise, exist and then cease. All conditions are subject to change, are in a state of affliction and are not self: this is the Norm.

The first four niyama are contained within, or based on, the fifth one, Dhammaniyama, the Law of Dhamma, or the Law of Nature. It may be questioned why Dhammaniyama, being as it were the totality, is also included within the subdivisions. This is because this fourfold categorization does not cover the entire extent of Dhammaniyama.

Good, Evil and Beyond
Seems that the path for ultimate deliverance deals with the knowledge about the Natural Law of the Dhammaniyama. Lets keep in mind that the teachings of Buddha are about the complete and everlasting liberation from the fetters of craving and clinging and it starts with sensual drives.

Any sort of sensual gratification, even the most subtle, -like a meditative absorption- end in Dukkha because of its impermanent nature and the absence of a self.

Also lay practitioners can take the option of celibacy. IMO, the decision of a celibate life grows in accordance to the natural law of Dhammaniyama as a result of meditation, as a result of a mind free from craving and clinging.

A tranquil mind will not seek for sensual gratification.

Buddha went further when he teaches deliverance, even from the enchantments of what is feminine and masculine transcending this mundane conditionality.

But all this is a gradual achievement. As the mind keeps more and more in a state of peace, ease and "insight-full-ness" the more and more its liberation from craving.

And this is the natural law of the Buddhadhamma.

[jhfkgkfdvjk]

Hi Bothi

In a Buddhist context it means refraining from sexual intercourse -which is the result of sexual desire. (and this is a Buddhist website) .

Kind regards,

Aloka

Dear Aloka,

I see that you are very often changing your beautiful avatars but, you don't show the same enthusiasm as for Buddhism. Let me put it this way, in Buddhist context refraining from eating food- which is the result of hunger desire -(FASTING). These type of desires are very natural and very instictive acts.

If Buddha Dhamma shows us natural laws then, refraining from natural actions do you think can still be natural?

With compassion,

[benderkoz]

hunger desire

Hi Bothi,

Hunger is not a desire but gluttony. To eat is a need. If we stop eating we die. If we stop the drive of sexual intercourse as a result of a higher developed mind, we do not die. Nothing bad happens, IMO.

[TainuibeFaimb]

From my limited understanding, the Buddha did not ask us to starve or repress our desires, but to go beyond desire by observing it and seeing the futility of it. The Buddha himself enjoyed having sex during the first 29 years of his life and he got enlightened afterwards!

Regards,
Bundokji

The Buddha taught a higher form of happiness - something beyond mundane sensual pleasures. To obtain this happiness, which is beyond mundane, refraining from mundane sensual pleasures is advised by the Buddha.

“Mahānāma, by a noble disciple, with his right wisdom, it is clearly seen that sensuality has little satisfaction, much unpleasantness, much trouble and many dangers; and if he does not attain a joy and pleasantness away from sensual desires and away from demeritorious thoughts or something more appeasing than that— until then he falls for sensuality.

When the noble disciple sees as it really is, with right wisdom, there is little satisfaction in sensuality, much unpleasanness, much trouble and many dangers, he attains a joy and pleasantness away from sensual desires and away from demeritorious thoughts or something more appeasing than that. Then he falls no more for sensuality.” Kamachanda is 1 hindrance to meditation. The Buddha, as a prince, enjoyed a lot of sensual pleasures in the palace but abandoned them after seeing their futility and incapability in giving him the kind of happiness he was looking for.

[vodaPlaps]

I see that you are very often changing your beautiful avatars but, you don't show the same enthusiasm as for Buddhism. Let me put it this way, in Buddhist context refraining from eating food- which is the result of hunger desire -(FASTING). These type of desires are very natural and very instictive acts.

If Buddha Dhamma shows us natural laws then, refraining from natural actions do you think can still be natural?

Thank you for your comments, Bothi.

You said in your introduction that you were trying to be a Buddhist yourself - and as you don't even know me, I fail to see how you feel that you are able to comment on my attitude to Buddhism.

The need for food and water to keep the body alive is different to lust for sex. Nobody will die if they don't have an orgasm.

As you are an old man, maybe its time to free your mind from the continuing desire for sexual relief.

[GeorgeEckland]

If Buddha Dhamma shows us natural laws then, refraining from natural actions do you think can still be natural?

It is a slippery slope trying to define what is "natural" when it comes to human desires. For example, is monogamy natural? Is it unnatural to have sexual desires towards minors? Is homosexuality unnatural?

Point here is not about what is natural and unnatural, a topic which you can sit here and debate for days. Point here is between mundane sensual pleasures and super mundane happiness. In order to achieve the latter, moderation of the former is advised.

[DariushPetresku]

Hi Bothi,

Hunger is not a desire but gluttony. To eat is a need. If we stop eating we die. If we stop the drive of sexual intercourse as a result of a higher developed mind, we do not die. Nothing bad happens, IMO.

My dear Kaarine Alejandra,

I am not talking exessive eating, I am talking bout natural instincts. If we do not eat we die for sure, ıf we do not use our sexual intercourse, our human race will be ended for sure. Sex is where we come from. No one has such a large cover to close over this truth yet...

Respectfully,