masturbation what's wrong?

[tiltbillings]

of the things we do that could be considered self-pleasuring, why is sexual self pleasure considered worse - or in some sort of different category - than any number of other common things people opt to do?

Who said it is worse or different?

You didn't, actually, but others here certainly have, in the very least, suggested as much.

[kc2dpt]

You didn't, actually, but others here certainly have, in the very least, suggested as much.

Maybe, maybe not. I've read a good chunk of this thread and I haven't noticed it. Maybe I just missed those posts.

I'm more concerned about what you've been suggesting, namely that the Buddha didn't teach indulgence in sexual pleasure as an obstacle to peace.

But I think we'd all be better off if we stopped responding to what we think people might be suggesting and stick to what people actually say. If there is any doubt as to what a person means, I suggest asking a direct question of that person.

Anyone here think sexual self pleasure should be considered worse - or in some sort of different category - than any number of other common sensual indulgences people opt to do?

Anyone here think the Buddha didn't teach masturbating as an obstacle to peace?

If anyone says 'yes' to either of these questions then we can take it from there.

[christopher:::]

It's pretty clear, i think, that the Buddha taught that sensual desires are an obstacle to liberation and peace. That would include lust in any form, whether "acted" upon or not.

From what i know of psychology certain desires and experiences are by nature quite powerful and for lack of a better word potentially "addictive"... Desires for food, sex and alcohol would all fit into that category.

That doesn't mean these desires are "wrong"... we need food. Also air and water. Some of the others though - especially sex and alcohol - can create difficulties. It may depend on the person though, on how much of an obstacle each desire will be. One person can have a glass of wine every Friday evening and be fine, another masterbates or has sexual experiences once a week and is fine.

You have to watch your own mind very carefully to judge that, to observe the effect these actions are having. But Buddha was pretty clear, I think, that if you want to go the full distance, do your best to drop these habits, they are obstacles on the path.

Just my 2 cents.

[Ben]

Thanks Peter for refocusing the topic.

I'm one person who believes that masturbation falls into a category of akusala action that is, say, more akusala than some other forms of self-pleasure. While I don't think the Buddha addressed the issue in explicit detail, I think we can infer the morality of masturbation through what he taught us in relation to the danger inherent in indulging in sensory desires, and the operation of sankharas. I don't think its a huge deductive leap. I'm sorry I don't have any references to support my contention. I'm currently at work and about to finish my break.
Kind regards

Ben

[christopher:::]

While I don't think the Buddha addressed the issue in explicit detail, I think we can infer the morality of masturbation through what he taught us in relation to the danger inherent in indulging in sensory desires, and the operation of sankharas. I don't think its a huge deductive leap. I'm sorry I don't have any references to support my contention....

How about this?

Dhp XXIV PTS: Dhp 334-359; Tanhavagga: Craving

[Guy]

Hello All,

It's pretty clear, i think, that the Buddha taught that sensual desires are an obstacle to liberation and peace. That would include lust in any form, whether "acted" upon or not.

...

You have to watch your own mind very carefully to judge that, to observe the effect these actions are having. But Buddha was pretty clear, I think, that if you want to go the full distance, do your best to drop these habits, they are obstacles on the path.

I agree, well said.

As you all know, people with 8 or more precepts are supposed to abstain from all sexual activity - for good reason. I believe the reasoning is as follows, but I could be wrong. Those of us who keep the 5 precepts are protected from some of the most harmful actions of body, speech and mind and are therefore relatively safe from harmful consequences which, although it's not the goal of Buddhism, is the foundation for deepening our practice. Liberation might be possible like this but if we are really serious about liberation we will naturally incline to a more pure and simple way of life, which the 8, 10, 227 and 311 precepts are more supportive of, thus giving ourselves the optimal conditions to realize Nibbana in this very life.

With Metta,

Guy

[kc2dpt]

As you all know, people with 8 or more precepts are supposed to abstain from all sexual activity...

As a counterpoint, the 8 precepts also include abstaining from music and shows... and high beds... and perfumes...

[tiltbillings]

You didn't, actually, but others here certainly have, in the very least, suggested as much.

Maybe, maybe not. I've read a good chunk of this thread and I haven't noticed it. Maybe I just missed those posts.

Seems so.

I'm more concerned about what you've been suggesting, namely that the Buddha didn't teach indulgence in sexual pleasure as an obstacle to peace.

Pay attention to what I am saying, I am not suggesting that at all,

But I think we'd all be better off if we stopped responding to what we think people might be suggesting and stick to what people actually say.

What we think people might be suggesting as in: I'm more concerned about what you've been suggesting, namely that the Buddha didn't teach indulgence in sexual pleasure as an obstacle to peace.

If there is any doubt as to what a person means, I suggest asking a direct question of that person.

I always do.

Anyone here think sexual self pleasure should be considered worse - or in some sort of different category - than any number of other common sensual indulgences people opt to do?

Seems so:

Drinking a favorite tea while reading our favorite author, listening to a beautiful piece of music, the company of good friends, exerise, wearing one's favorite shirt, playing with one's grandkids, petting one's dog, abowl of popcorn, video games, looking at sunsets, movies, are not seen by the Viññū (The Wise) as unwholesome actions to be avoided. But within our societies, past or present, I don't know of any culture or religion where the Viññū (The Wise) state that masturbation is a good and wholesome thing to be practised, pursued or encouraged.

Anyone here think the Buddha didn't teach masturbating as an obstacle to peace?

Is it more of an obstacle to peace than other sensually pleasurable activities deliberately engaged in?

[tiltbillings]

It's pretty clear, i think, that the Buddha taught that sensual desires are an obstacle to liberation and peace. That would include lust in any form, whether "acted" upon or not. . . .
You have to watch your own mind very carefully to judge that, to observe the effect these actions are having. But Buddha was pretty clear, I think, that if you want to go the full distance, do your best to drop these habits, they are obstacles on the path.

"Habits" is one of those words that can be used to cast something in a negative light. Any and all sensual pleasure is/are an obstacle to the path? Where, at what point, and how does one start drawing the line without incurring unnecessary guilt and shame and mental turmoil?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Somewhere in the suttas, there's a quote made by the Buddha to the effect that one cannot partake in sensual pleasures, without being defiled by them. It was stated with reference to someone who genuinely believed sensual pleasures were not actually a hindrance. Apologies I can't find the source at the moment - hopefully someone will recognise it.

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings,

Somewhere in the suttas, there's a quote made by the Buddha to the effect that one cannot partake in sensual pleasures, without being defiled by them. It was stated with reference to someone who genuinely believed sensual pleasures were not actually a hindrance. Apologies I can't find the source at the moment - hopefully someone will recognise it.

Metta,
Retro.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nypo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Several monks, hearing about it, went to the monk Arittha, formerly of the vulture killers, and asked him: "Is it true, friend Arittha, 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'?"

Just to be clear, that is not what I have said.

[christopher:::]

It's pretty clear, i think, that the Buddha taught that sensual desires are an obstacle to liberation and peace. That would include lust in any form, whether "acted" upon or not. . . .
You have to watch your own mind very carefully to judge that, to observe the effect these actions are having. But Buddha was pretty clear, I think, that if you want to go the full distance, do your best to drop these habits, they are obstacles on the path.

"Habits" is one of those words that can be used to cast something in a negative light. Any and all sensual pleasure is/are an obstacle to the path? Where, at what point, and how does one start drawing the line without incurring unnecessary guilt and shame and mental turmoil?

I have a friend who has joined a 12 step Sexual Recovery group. He was telling me about how they support one another, sharing their personal "issues" and such. Unless you are fortunate enough to have a teacher where you are able to discuss something like this comfortably I think that in our modern day there may be a need for something like this for Buddhists wrestling with these issues. Such groups may already exist, actually. Not 12 step focused, but dharma focused.

Unfortunately, a public forum like this may not be optimal for such discussions. But (imo) the support of fellow practitioners who are struggling with or have worked thru similar issues would provide the best opportunity for drawing those lines and then working through the painful emotions that might arise...

I feel that in Zen Buddhism this issue of sensual desires has been a major problem, for teachers as well as students, with an optimal solution not yet materializing...

[retrofuturist]

That's the one - thanks Tilt.

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

I have a friend who has joined a 12 step Sexual Recovery group. He was telling me about how they support one another, sharing their personal "issues" and such. Unless you are fortunate enough to have a teacher where you are able to discuss something like this comfortably I think that in our modern day there may be a need for something like this for Buddhists. Such groups may already exist, actually. Not 12 step focused, but dharma focused.

Unfortunately, a public forum like may not be optimal for such discussions. But the support of fellow practitioners who are struggling with or have worked thru similar issues would provide the best opportunity for drawing those lines and then working through the painful emotions that might arise...

Sigh. What I am talking about is the idea of healthy, not guilt/shame ridden, relationship to one's own sexuality for the layperson, such as spelled out in the Higgins article linked early on in this thread. As one's practice matures, deepen in insight, it become easier to see things a bit more clearly, to let go, but as sexual beings - as laity - who are likely to engage in sexual activity, there is a healthy Buddhist context from which we can approach sexuality without getting all twisted out of shape by it.

That there are sex addicts, like there are alcoholics and food-oholics, is something we should recognize, but they are not a basis for how the average person should come to grips with sexuality, alcohol or food. This article presents what I see as being a healthy Buddhist approach to sexuality:

http://www.buddhanet.net/winton_s.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This article, which is probably more favored by some here, presents a differing, more ascetic point of view:

http://www.buddhanet.net/rejoiner.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They represent nicely the contrast. One thing we need to be very careful with is aversion towards sexuality.

[tiltbillings]

I feel that in Zen Buddhism this issue of sensual desires has been a major problem, for teachers as well as students, with an optimal solution not yet materializing...

Which is a good illustration. Often people assume onto themselve the idea of the "holy": "I am on a holy path and I am above the carnal." The problem is that while on the holy path, if one does not come to grips with sexuality, it is likely to come to grip with you and not in a healthy way.