[zttrftwsq]

from post #19

Ok, thanks for the clarification, Sobeh. I thought I was missing something.

[Phouepou]

My point is that sexual urges - whether psychological or biological or whatever you care to say - are just another sensual pursuit, and once seen for what it is the struggle involving sexual urges becomes a non-struggle.

They are just one sort among the many ways we crave sensual desires. Sexual urges are sensual cravings.

I generally agree, but I think its useful to bring a lot of attention to and carefully distinguish between urge and pursuit.

Sexual urges are often the result of "external" factors. For example, weather fluctuation, seasons tides, lunar tides, circadian rhythms, etc... Our bodies and the natural world are deeply and intimately interfacing with each other right under our noses, and usually under our awareness. Also, we often eat foods that can unknowingly trigger sexual urges, and we're bombarded with sexual imagery in our "external" landscape that triggers sexual urges at a very primal visceral "internal" depth.

How we engage with these urges that result from this body/natural world interface and external imagery _can_ result in sensual pursuit, but it doesn't need to...it depends on our level of attentiveness - which determines whether we relate to urges with conscious intention or unconscious reactivity.

The more attention we bring to the interaction between the body and the natural world/external environment, the more clearly we recognize sexual urges for what they are and aren't. We begin to distinguish between urge and attachment (mental pursuit of the urge). We can stop mentally grabbing at urges and when we do this we're no longer dragged around by them, and we stop building stories of hunger or aversion on them. We just observe them as they rise and dissolve, like observing the breathe. They're just passing through.

[curcercanty]

from post #20

Hi Aloka-D,

You are right it was poorly referenced. The only reference I have for the quote was referenced prior, it was from the same book - the Dalai Lama's book - How to see yourself as you really are - I am assuming it can be trusted if it has come from the Dalai Lama, however in future I will add something to the effect of "within the same book the Dalai Lama quoted Buddha saying ..." Incidentally, it was pp 185 at the beginning of a chapter titled - Noticing how everything depends on thought" Apologies for my tardiness.

Pink wrote: "We just observe them as they rise and dissolve, like observing the breathe. They're just passing through."

I liked the mindful approach to this that involves acceptance and allowing, being, and impermanence.

Glow wrote: What exactly are these unwholesome behaviors? Is it something the OP said? I don't see anything in that post that is unwholesome except the aversive attitude towards the sexual urges. That is what is causing dukkha -- not the urges themselves.

I agree with this. It does happen from time to time across religions and generations that puritanism comes into religious and spiritual pursuits around the issue of sexuality. Why does this occur...?

Perhaps it is not recognised that these ideas are very imbedded in social values and interpretations of moral and sexual behaviour of the time. And that these have changed over time, and this has been a good thing? Sometimes people may read things from scriptures that have been written by a mere mortal, in another time, or from a different cultural, social value system or world view. Perhaps taking it literally, making today's understandings wrong and evidence of a corruption of spiritual values, without considering it as a writing of insight that came from a prior age and stage of contemplation on a subject? A trial consciousness if you will, one that we saw the karmic results of and have now changed as a group due to the learning? Do we actually need a social sanction and agreement about where sexuality fits within the spiritual pathway ... it seems within organised religion this has occurred, as if this is a necessity in order to control and manage it ... is the idea of an inherent danger within sexuality at it's base when this occurs and what is the karmic consequence of continuing with this? Or is it necessary within spiritual practice for reasons such as Sobeh quoted from the Alagaddupama Sutta (MN 22) : "Sense desires are like bare bones, have I said; they are like a lump of flesh... they are like a snake's head, have I said. They bring much suffering and disappointment. The perils in them are greater. "

In some religions there are cases of people taking vows of chastity, suppressing their sexuality, and polarising it against spirituality, for the reason that it is a seemingly debase or immoral pursuit, and then committing sexual crimes, murder of those considered too sexual for the times, or violations within their own spiritual value system as a result, which also must have been preceded by mental and bodily experiences aligned with these acts - can this be seen as karma emerging from demonising sexuality and suppressing it? Those who have taken chastity vows and succeeded with what the Dalai Lama and Pink trike describes perhaps getting the karma of their different intention and feeling at peace with their sexual feelings?

I have come across people speaking of Tantra as an area of Buddhism that does not respond to sexuality in spiritual practice using a subjective individualised mediative process like the Dalai Lama explored. Although, like everything, there have been misunderstandings of Tantra and misuses of it, it seems when spoken of with reverence by genuine practitioners to celebrate the sensual side of human experience and embrace sexual energy in a more direct experiential way... with the philosophy that it is, so we accept it as, and bring the spiritual values into it by treating it with respect, disciplined practice, and express it with loving regard for the experience it offers and the way it can evolve the consciousness of the people involved around love and connection with one another. Is this another choice in terms of a way of working with it for the OP?

I wonder if one way of working with sexuality comes from teachings given to Monks who were taking vows of chastity so were needing to find something they could do alone. The other may offer a path to people who do not choose to take this vow, however are still wanting to work on their spiritual consciousness to the same degree?

I guess part of the process of deciding how to work with this part of us involves what we are looking for in terms of an outcome - the relief of personal suffering - a capacity to immerse oneself in it and use it to evolve spiritual consciousness or union - or .... what exactly - is this also a question to ask yourself OP - what do you want instead of what you have right now? Maybe this will open a pathway of what type of practice would enable this to occur?

[siflversonemunk]

The other may offer a path to people who do not choose to take this vow, however are still wanting to work on their spiritual consciousness to the same degree?

"To the same degree." This is impossible, per the Sutta quoted. You are here claiming what Arittha claimed.

[cargo_brad]

Lust and urgency of sex vanishes by itself once mindfullness, dispasion and stilness of mind has been developed.

[Freedjome]

Lust and urgency of sex vanishes by itself once mindfullness, dispasion and stilness of mind has been developed.

So you are saying the suffering aspect of sexuality comes from an imbalance of this energy? And when people are in a state of imbalance with their sexuality it is experienced more as lust, or the urgency to get the need met ... which, from our previous discussion points, can only also occur from an original imbalance of thought focus on this part of one's being?

"To the same degree." This is impossible,

I am questioning this out of a interest in learning from you and exploring this further - with all respect to the Sutta - can we truly know it is impossible? If we believe the people who say it is, of course it is. However can we also see that this is an opinion and that opinion, although we choose to believe and see it is the truth of the path the Sutta describes, it is also born of ignorance regarding achieving this state on a different path? Only someone on that different path can comment on the truth and outcomes of that different path; or people who have travelled both paths?

[Seesspoxy]

So you are saying the suffering aspect of sexuality comes from an imbalance of this energy? And when people are in a state of imbalance with their sexuality it is experienced more as lust, or the urgency to get the need met ... which, from our previous discussion points, can only also occur from an original imbalance of thought focus on this part of one's being?

Saying that I was trying to evoke a sort of "Right View" when we witness our impuse and thoughts and how lust and urgency are at the root of a sexual misconduct. When we are not aware of our own urgency and lust there is no room for love, commitment and kindness and it will be probably that we will end in a kind of wrong sexual conduct haming our own and others feelings.

Sex has a biological impulse and it can not dissapear but we can be aware and mindfull about it.

For example, in Zen the precepts are known as "Kai"; Kais are not solid entities. A kai has branchings. Fujain Kai or "Sexual Misconduct" can divert into Futonyoku Kai that is a branch of Fukensho Kai, the eight Kai intended for Zen monks.

So in Futonyokukay, derived from Fukensho Kai, we have Fu as inner strength and Ton wich has an imagen of someone being persuaded by the environment; deluded by his mind. Then, when "Ton" and "Fu" are toghether they mean to be aware of "lust" and the urgency of having more.

So Futonyokukay is a mean for developing right view or thorugh right view we can practice Futonyokukay beeing aware about our "Lust" and "Urgency".

[hansen384cbh]

Failing all that, a cold shower.

[Wmshyrga]

...can we truly know it is impossible? ...can we also see that this is an opinion?

In the context of the Dhamma we can indeed discover and know for ourselves that it is impossible. Without parsing this epistemologically (I tried that first but the length and detail felt out of place in this thread), we can simply examine the claim:

"Monks, it is impossible indeed, that one can pursue sense gratification without sensual desire, without perceptions of sensual desire, without thoughts of sensual desire."

1. The pursuit of any sense gratification requires the desire to gratify the sense(s).

2. The desire to gratify the sense(s) is the sort of desire that lies at the root of suffering.

3. The pursuit of any sense gratification is at the root of suffering.

4. The pursuit of an orgasm is the pursuit of a sense gratification.

5. The pursuit of an orgasm results in suffering.

(3) is a necessary conclusion from premises (1) and (2), (4) is a tautology, and (5) is an extrapolation based on (3) & (4). We would want to pursue the analysis along these lines. Taking your lead, we can ask: is it mere opinion?

Claiming that (1)-(5) is mere opinion is claiming that, at some point in the reasoning, there is no evidence, or the evidence does not prove what is claimed. You might contend, for example, that (2) assumes that desire lies at the root of suffering, and I would have to respond to that.

In short, the counter-claim that this is mere opinion needs to be backed up with its own facts, or the counter-claim falls to its own critique (as being mere opinion).

As an aside, please note that nowhere is reference made to the Suttas being perfect with no defects (whereas, for example, Theism usually rests on a circular chain of "the text is perfect and divine because it says it is".) It is simply not a claim we need to make when we are examining whether the Dhamma is consistent and functions as claimed.

Finally, this addresses your last point about people being on a path meaning they are more able to ascertain the truth-claims their path makes. This is actually a strong claim, and needs evidence to support it. Until there is evidence, it also falls to the critique of being mere opinion.

However, as you can see from the process above, anyone can potentially analyze the Dhamma with equal felicity, whether or not they are actually practicing the Noble Eightfold Path. "To be known by the wise for themselves," we might say.

[TainuibeFaimb]

from post #29

IMO it is hadly to tell that premises 1 thorugh 5 are mere opinion. They resemble a good practice to deepen at the core meaning of the Four Noble Truths.

The logic of them is outsantding not because its intelecutal neatness but because it opens your mind into a deep insight, as a means of practice, so to explore deeply into something that ocures but were we have not been able to see due some deficit in the development of Right View.

[Vcwdldva]

Develop mindfullness, just simply be aware and observe the lust. That way you are not holding to it or averting from it. Dukkha does not arise and you can see the lust for what it is, anicca, dukkha and anatta


Just observe the way it is


metta

[Sdinozes]

Saying that I was trying to evoke a sort of "Right View" when we witness our impuse and thoughts and how lust and urgency are at the root of a sexual misconduct. When we are not aware of our own urgency and lust there is no room for love, commitment and kindness and it will be probably that we will end in a kind of wrong sexual conduct haming our own and others feelings.

This is very wise and I agree with you.

from post #29

I do not dispute the logic and process the Sutta outlines. I do think within it however, there is an underlying premis that suffering is naturally caused by seeking sense pleasure. Although No.2 seems to directly state this, the focus is more on desire for the sensual experience causing the suffering. So if the person was to experience the sense pleasure for what it is, explore the nature of it mindfully, whilst in it, and go into it with good intentions to connect with the other holistically through this process, without focus on an outcomes like orgasm - is it not possible that the process of sex could be part of one's practice and be something that does not result in suffering? Perhaps it could enhance the way someone is as a sexual person, improve it, enable them to be more respectful and loving within the process?

So the opinion part is that sex, full stop, is to be avoided, full stop, because it logically, as outlined in 1-5, leads to suffering full stop.

Although this advice starts - "Monks..." I guess what is being advised is for the Monks, who are being asked to conform to a specific discipline that is part of religious adherence. I have no comment about this and the recommendation, as think it is correct for them and what they are doing. I appreciate that the level of commitment to practice is naturally more devout, and comes with greater levels of discipline and degree of practice for them, than for other non Monks and what they can do in the living of a typical western life.

When we come to live the Dharma in 2010, as non Monks, this sort of reasoning however can result in people questioning the experience of their sexual feelings and considering they have to manage them at all levels to a degree that can make them feel guilty if they do not achieve it. Is that not suffering as well? I was wondering whether, unless the OP is a Monk or seeking to become one, whether the question was about how non Monk practitioners work with this part of them, whilst still adhering to the Buddhist precepts, eight-fold path, practices. I was thinking that perhaps Tantra was offering a path for them that integrated Buddhism into sexuality and enabled practices, which were following a slightly different path of practice, but the same path of awareness and intent, with the same values.

The truth of what could be gained from this can only be described by someone who has trialled it and a comparative analysis about whether either, or both, lead to reduced suffering can only be done by the two getting together to describe what occurs on each path, or by someone who has walked both paths letting us know.

I am not trying to, or mean to be difficult, just exploring the possibility that there is a truth on the tantric sex path that is as valid as the one on the sexual abstinence path. Perhaps both have a different method (with some opposing opinions - sense exploration will lead to suffering vs sense exploration is another Tao), Yet take the person to a similar place of awareness and spiritual capacity? And maybe the truth and methodology is one that could be worthwhile, for practitioners who are not needing to practice abstinence and want a way to integrate sexuality into their spiritual life? I guess asking by this - is it as black and white as all that? Is the advice for Monks, the same and appropriate ones that others should feel as bound by? As the degree of devout practice being recommended and it's rationale is more aligned to Monastry living and challenges, than to those faced by people living in a western world, within the context of relationships, having families etc.

[Cyclicymn]

I was thinking that perhaps Tantra was offering a path for them that integrated Buddhism into sexuality and enabled practices, which were following a slightly different path of practice, but the same path of awareness and intent, with the same values.

Hi Blue,

The Buddha didn't teach sexual abstinence for lay couples and as this is the beginners forum, I think its important to make it clear that the Buddha didn't teach "tantric sex".

Here is some advice given by Buddha to lay practitioners and advice to families and husbands and wives is included :

DN 31 Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala

The Layperson's Code of Discipline

URL

[ballerturfali]

Thank you.

Do you not think these are bound to another time period? For example such things as:

(b) sauntering in streets at unseemly hours;

(what constitutes unseemly and is walking ok if one is not sauntering per se?)

(c) frequenting theatrical shows;

(is this all theatre - cinema and live theatre ... what about rock concerts and other performing arts?)

[BliliBoopsy]

All the Buddhism we follow is from another time period. We have to interpret Buddha's words into what makes sense for the present day.

This article on Buddhist sexual ethics might possibly be of interest :

URL

[Larisochka]

Thank you Aloka-D. This is a good article and very relevant to the discussion. It was particularly good in pointing out the different moral attitudes towards sex in ethnic and universal religions and how the principles advocated by them fit within the spiritual focus and practice. It was also good to read how some teachers teach a strict discipline to lay and monks alike around sexual energy - that it is a deterrent to meditation practice and must be forgone in order to reach enlightenment. Whereas other teachers will not have a stance on sexual practices other than the quality of the connection being non harmful and in accordance with Buddhist values.

I think it commented on a lot of the incongruancies we were discussing. I can see I am more aligned to the universal religions and attitudes than the ethnic ones. However I can see and appreciate the views of those who choose to abstain and remove sexuality from their lives as a way of focussing their mind during their journey towards enlightenment. I respect what they are doing. Anything that results in increased peace of mind has to be a good step along the way - less distractions the better

Sorry if bringing up Tantric sex was uncomfortable. I have heard some people speak of it in ways that gave me the impression it was not "low vulgar, coarse, ignoble and unbeneficial" that they were practising a very spiritual focus in the foreground through the activity as if the activity could have been any mindfulness based activity, the point was more in the teachings and practices that enhanced the spiritual connection and state more than driven by desire and outcomes. If not from Buddha, where did it come from originally? Why did it emerge? What are it's links to Buddhism?

[Nypbscao]

'Tantra' probably came from Hinduism. 'Tantric sex' is something not really connected to Buddhism and might be more connected with Indian yoga. There is some connection with retention of semen in some Tibetan Buddhists texts I think....but it has nothing to do with core Buddhism whatever people you know say about it.
as a monk - the Buddha would hardly be practising it would he - and he certainly didn't teach it. Anything that says otherwise is a later add-on of some kind.

'Tantric' Buddhism was taken to Tibet from India by Padmasambhava in the 9th century AD - a long time after the death of the Buddha.

[Kafuuil]

Thank you Aloka-D, good to have this clarified.

[snislarne]

I was thinking that perhaps Tantra was offering a path for them that integrated Buddhism into sexuality and enabled practices, which were following a slightly different path of practice, but the same path of awareness and intent, with the same values.

Sexuality is just another sense experience; it is just another sense pursuit and just another sense gratification. Giving it a special pride of place is unwarranted.

On the other hand, if what you're saying is true, I see no reason why one couldn't integrate Buddhism into one's drug habit with great 'tantric' success.

[Thunderzee]

it is just another sense pursuit and just another sense gratification. Giving it a special pride of place is unwarranted.