masturbation what's wrong?

Some topics tend to get heated and go off track in unwholesome ways quite quickly. The "hot topics" sub-forum is a place where such topics may be moved so that each post must be manually approved by moderator before it will become visible to members.
User avatar
Fede
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: The Heart of this "Green & Pleasant Land"...
Contact:

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Post by Fede »

is 'grip' the operative word here?

It might, in all seriousness, well be.....

If we cease to be so 'intense' and loosen our grip on desire for sensual satisfaction, then the release is far greater, isn't it?
"Samsara: The human condition's heartbreaking inability to sustain contentment." Elizabeth Gilbert, 'Eat, Pray, Love'.

Simplify: 17 into 1 WILL go: Mindfulness!

Quieta movere magna merces videbatur. (Sallust, c.86-c.35 BC)
Translation: Just to stir things up seemed a good reward in itself. ;)

I am sooooo happy - How on earth could I be otherwise?! :D


http://www.armchairadvice.co.uk/relationships/forum/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Post by christopher::: »

tiltbillings wrote:
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.
Yes, I very much agree with you there.
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;
Here I think the waters get murky. The tolerance shown by Western Buddhists toward gays and lesbians is a breath of fresh air, definitely, compared with how things had been in the past. On the other hand, in this day and age its a "slippery slope" (pardon the pun) between healthy sexual habits (actions) and potentially unhealthy ones, imo.

From your link...
Buddhism and Tolerance

Buddhism has nothing against sex as such. Practised skilfully in the spirit of the precepts, it can bring a lot of happiness. As one of my favourite meditation teachers sums it up, there's nothing wrong with dancing lightly with your desires, so long as both can hear the music and all hearts are open. Indeed, I think Buddhism probably improves our sex life in meditation training, where we learn the core skill of mindfulness - of keeping our heart, mind and body in the same place at the same time. So when your body is having a wonderful time with a cuddly friend, your mind is not having a miserable time obsessing about the details of your tax return, for instance - it is free to come to the party too.

Over the years I have gained some familiarity with a number of English-speaking Dhamma centres in western countries, and I'm struck by the unproblematic presence of gays and lesbians in them. In keeping with tradition their sexuality is not an issue and this aspect of their identity is affirmed as straightforwardly as anyone else's. Everyone's structure of sexual desire is unique, and when we leave social engineering considerations behind, there is no warrant for setting one structure of desire above the rest, so long as all can be lived out within the spirit of the precepts.

The appropriate Buddhist attitude to other sexual minorities is just the same. I tested this by visiting the website of Salon Kitty, a very fastidious local establishment which describes itself as 'one of the world's leading BDSM houses.' BDSM stands for bondage, discipline and sado-masochism. On Salon Kitty's main menu is a statement of ethics, which the duty of care and overall responsibility ' the dominant' owes 'the submissive,' not least around the obviously crucial issue of consent. In part the statement of ethics says: Implied in consent is the responsibility of the dominant partner in any BDSM scene to monitor the wellbeing of the submissive to ensure that the submissive is stable and that the consent is still operative.

It is also the responsibility of the dominant to ensure that the submissive is not consenting to an act that is not in his or her best longterm interests.Neither party should indulge in heavy drinking or drug taking as this can impair judgement… A description follows of the mechanism for instantly withdrawing consent - the uttering of a pre-agreed 'safe word' - which immediately brings the procedure in question to an end.

Then the statement of ethics resumes: In order to enjoy the possibilities that the world of BDSM offers, one must first discover respect and trust both of oneself and of others. Elements of all five precepts are there, including the last. On the basis of this statement we can conclude that Salon Kitty comes closer to Dhamma than fundamentalist, social engineering killjoys of various religious persuasions!
Beep beep, warning, warning, red alert, red alert! Danger Will Robinson..!

:toilet:

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.
Quote from above:

Ven. Ajahn Chah, the teacher under whom we both trained for many years, similarly taught that sexual practises had to be given up if one aspired for Enlightenment. For example, I remember a Westerner coming to see Ajahn Chah once and saying that he was sexually active but without being attached to the sex. Ajahn Chah completely ridiculed the statement as an impossibility, saying something like "Bah! that's like saying there can be salt which isn't salty!" Ajahn Chah taught all who came to him, monastic and lay, that sexual desire is KILESA (defilement of the mind), it is a hindrance to success in meditation and an obstruction to Enlightenment. He taught that sexual activity should be abandoned if one wants to end suffering. He would never speak in praise of sex. He would only speak in praise of letting go.
It's a contrast, indeed, a very stark contrast. I agree, we need to be careful with aversion, but we also need to be honest with ourselves.

:group:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Post by christopher::: »

tiltbillings wrote:
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.
I agree, absolutely.

:spy:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Post by tiltbillings »

Fede wrote:
If we cease to be so 'intense' and loosen our grip on desire for sensual satisfaction, then the release is far greater, isn't it?
Aaaahh, yes.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Post by tiltbillings »

The tolerance shown by Western Buddhists toward gays and lesbians is a breath of fresh air, definitely, compared with how things had been in the past. On the other hand, in this day and age its a "slippery slope" (pardon the pun) between healthy sexual habits (actions) and potentially unhealthy ones, imo.
Much of sex is play, unless one is uptight and unimaginative. Unless you want the grim missionary style, man always on top with no variation and side trips, as the only true god-given way to do the ins-and-outs, there is always going to be variations in that play, some of which some of us might find a bit odd, weird, strange, and distasteful, but Higgins makes an interesting point with his referencing Salon Kitty's rules, and Will Robinson, if he follows Salon Kitty's rules has little to worry about.

And you quote this from the ascetic side: For example, I remember a Westerner coming to see Ajahn Chah once and saying that he was sexually active but without being attached to the sex. Ajahn Chah completely ridiculed the statement as an impossibility, saying something like "Bah! that's like saying there can be salt which isn't salty!" Ajahn Chah taught all who came to him, monastic and lay, that sexual desire is KILESA (defilement of the mind), it is a hindrance to success in meditation and an obstruction to Enlightenment. He taught that sexual activity should be abandoned if one wants to end suffering. He would never speak in praise of sex. He would only speak in praise of letting go.

Ajahn Chah was right to ridicule such a silly claim, but there is a more tempered, more skillful, approach than what is presented here.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Post by christopher::: »

tiltbillings wrote:
The tolerance shown by Western Buddhists toward gays and lesbians is a breath of fresh air, definitely, compared with how things had been in the past. On the other hand, in this day and age its a "slippery slope" (pardon the pun) between healthy sexual habits (actions) and potentially unhealthy ones, imo.
Much of sex is play, unless one is uptight and unimaginative. Unless you want the grim missionary style, man always on top with no variation and side trips, as the only true god-given way to do the ins-and-outs, there is always going to be variations in that play, some of which some of us might find a bit odd, weird, strange, and distasteful, but Higgins makes an interesting point with his referencing Salon Kitty's rules, and Will Robinson, if he follows Salon Kitty's rules has little to worry about.
The view you present is representative of our generation, definitely. Freedom, creativity, imagination, variety is what we value. Unfortunately, based on discussions I had with friends while back home this summer (for our high school reunion) i have to disagree that there is "little to worry about." A sizable portion of my graduating class appeared to be struggling with either sexual, food and/or alcohol issues. It all started innocently enough for most, but over time the problems (and habits) seem to have grown...

Salted food is salted food. What you have described is kinda like saying cigarettes are "safe" or Hagan Daz won't make you fat in the long run, imo... There's a cumulative effect with habits like these, when the acts and/or attitudes are continued over time...
And you quote this from the ascetic side: For example, I remember a Westerner coming to see Ajahn Chah once and saying that he was sexually active but without being attached to the sex. Ajahn Chah completely ridiculed the statement as an impossibility, saying something like "Bah! that's like saying there can be salt which isn't salty!" Ajahn Chah taught all who came to him, monastic and lay, that sexual desire is KILESA (defilement of the mind), it is a hindrance to success in meditation and an obstruction to Enlightenment. He taught that sexual activity should be abandoned if one wants to end suffering. He would never speak in praise of sex. He would only speak in praise of letting go.

Ajahn Chah was right to ridicule such a silly claim, but there is a more tempered, more skillful, approach than what is presented here.
More tempered, more skillful then the approach of Ajahn Chah? Please explain.
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Post by tiltbillings »

christopher::: wrote:
The view you present is representative of our generation
“Our generation?” Probably not.
Freedom, creativity, imagination, variety is what we value. Unfortunately, based on discussions I had with friends while back home this summer (for our high school reunion) i have to disagree that there is "little to worry about." A sizable portion of my graduating class appeared to be struggling with either sexual, food and/or alcohol issues. It all started innocently enough for most, but over time the problems (and habits) seem to have grown...
i have to disagree that there is "little to worry about." You have a remarkable capacity to take things out of context, which is to say, you do not at all understands what is being said to you. First of all, your description your “sizable portion” of your class illustrates not having a healthy relationship to sexuality and other the things, and from that you cannot reasonably then turn around and make a generalized statement about “my generation” as an example of possible problems with what I am saying. That is simply absurd, and shows that you are not at all listening.

Salon Kitty, a place I likely would never go, functions with a set of carefully spelled out rules to protect the participants based upon “respect and trust both of oneself and of others.” Go back and reread - carefully this time - what Higgins said about those rules and see if this time you can actually get his point. And let me make a point here, which unfortunately is obviously necessary based upon the misreading of what has been said by you on this: Higgins is not advocating BDSM. He is making a point about a need for rules that foster self respect and respect of others. Healthy sexuality does not mean anything goes. It functions within a set of rules that protects oneself and others; it functions - in a Buddhist context - within a framework of awareness, respect and caring for oneself and one’s partner.

Your “sizable portion” of your graduating class has not a damn thing to do with what I am talking about, except, most likely, in terms of negative example of what not to do, how not to act.
Salted food is salted food. What you have described is kinda like saying Hagan Daz won't make you fat in the long run, imo...
And obviously you have not a clue as to what have described.
More tempered, more skillful then the approach of Ajahn Chah? Please explain.
Ajahn Chah taught all who came to him, monastic and lay, that sexual desire is KILESA (defilement of the mind), it is a hindrance to success in meditation and an obstruction to Enlightenment. He taught that sexual activity should be abandoned if one wants to end suffering. He would never speak in praise of sex. He would only speak in praise of letting go.

This is not wrong. Though one wonders if this accurately reflects how Ajahn Chah would or would not state this point in every case. When stated in this way without any attempt at context, which the Buddha understood as a supreme virtue, most likely it would be guilt and shame producing. Higgins offers a far better response.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Post by christopher::: »

Once again, we are engaged in a discussion and the tone of conversation has shifted, Tilt.

I grew up in the 1960s and went to high school in the 1970s. The values we are discussing have been part of the culture for many who have grown up since that time. There is no need to become personal in this manner, to draw a sharp line in the sand between us.
tiltbillings wrote:
You have a remarkable capacity to take things out of context, which is to say, you do not at all understands what is being said to you.

That is simply absurd, and shows that you are not at all listening.


.. obviously you have not a clue as to what have described.

You have gone from discussing the topic to making personal statements that sound hostile in nature. It may have been that i said something which triggered this change in tone. I will go back and re-read the thread to see if this is so, and will try to be more mindful in the future.

But as i've said before, when discussions start to get antagonistic like this, rather then exploratory and respectful, I (and many others i think) tend to disengage from the discussion...
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Post by tiltbillings »

christopher::: wrote:Once again, the tone of conversation has shifted, Tilt. I grew up in the 1960s and went to high school in the 1970s. The values we are discussing have been part of the culture for many who have grown up since that time. There is no need to become personal in this manner, to draw a sharp line in the sand between us.
You grossly take out of context what is said, you make a gross generalization that is totally irrelevant to the point I am discussing. You make this insulting comment: Salted food is salted food. What you have described is kinda like saying cigarettes are "safe" or Hagan Daz won't make you fat in the long run, imo... I have to wonder, are you really, actually listening..
You have gone from discussing the topic to making statements about me, as a person. It may have been that i said something which triggered this change in tone. If so, I apologize.
As a person, I don’t know you. What I am pointing to is your taking out of context what is being said. Your classmate problems have absolutely no bearing upon my point, but you use that as a way of trying to dismiss what I am saying. You are doing this. No one else is, and if you are going to take it personally my pointing out that you are taking what is said out of context, making really bad arguments, not understanding what is said, that is your choice.
But as i've said before, when discussions start to get antagonistic like this, rather then exploratory and respectful, I (and many others i think) tend to disengage from the discussion...
That is your choice. I’d rather you try to carefully read what is said, and respond to that. It has been pointed out to you before by others; you take things out of context, misrepresenting what is said. You did it here big time. Disengage, if you feel you must; that is your choice, but try to learn something from this about listening to what others say, and try to respond to the actual argument. “Can you understand that?”
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Post by tiltbillings »

Christopher,

Whether you respond to me or not, look at what your first reference to Will Robinson; look at my response which contained this line has little to worry about and then look at how you used it in your rersponse. Did your response actually address my point? Did your initial "will Robinson" comment address Higgins' point? There is something for you to learn here.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Post by christopher::: »

I'm gonna go the extra mile here, Tilt, and respond to you, but my body is out the door with this discussion for today, so I won't be back for a bit.

First, I have done some research on this, have read articles and books on Sexual Addiction. I also have a degree in psychology, so I'm not simply talking off the top of my head or only in relation to my classmates. Neither am I an expert, as this is not my field.

The problem I have with Higgen's description is that sexual addiction can easily start out that way, as fun, respectful and exploratory. People can even begin where sexual play is a part of a loving relationship. Over time though people change, frequently some people want more, and more and more. Others want less and less. This may not be your situation, but it is for many people in the world right now.

Thus I said it has a cumulative "negative" effect, over time, just like cigarettes and hagen-daz. Now, i should have probably said it can have a cumulative effect, cause as we know not everyone who enjoys cigarettes gets lung cancer, and not everyone who eats hagen daz becomes obese.

Among my "crowd" a lot of people seemed to have substituted food for sex in their lives. Others have become addicted to online pornography, massage parlors, prostitutes, etc. In many cases these people had open "healthy" attitudes initially, but over time the situation changed.

This relates to what I said earlier, about moderation and watching your own mind....
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 hope this clarifies what i was saying. As you accuse me of missing things said and taking statements out of context i think you also do the same thing at times. It happens, we do a lot of posting and sometimes misunderstand what people meant, fail to explain ourselves, or overlook something said. Its not the end of the world, or a reason to get angry - miscommunication happens.

With that, I need to get back to tasks here in my local world for tonight.

Take care.
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Post by tiltbillings »

christopher::: wrote:
The problem I have with Higgen's description is that sexual addiction can easily start out that way, as fun and exploratory.
First of all, people who have tendency to sexual addiction in all likelihood are going to stumble into it no matter what, but that is beside the point.

As I said, Higgins is not advocating BDSM; he is not advocating BDSM as an exploration. He is pointing to the surprising rules of the BDSM club to make a point, the point of which seems to have been missed by you, again.
People can even begin where sexual play is a part of a loving relationship. Over time though people change, frequently some people want more, and more and more.
First of all, unless it is a grim man on top 3 minute in-and-out-roll-over-go-to-sleep coupling, most adults indulge in some sort of play, which does not lead to ever escalating need for more, and that is totally beside the point Higgins and I are making concerning the need for rules, guidelines that foster self-respect and respect and concern for the other within a context of Buddhist cultivated awareness.
Others want less and less. This may not be your situation, but it is for many people in the world right now.
Again, this is beside the point.
Thus I said it has a cumulative "negative" effect, over time, just like cigarettes and hagen-daz. Now, i should have probably said it can have a cumulative effect, cause as we know not everyone who enjoys cigarettes gets lung cancer, and not everyone who eats hagen daz becomes obese.
But I am not talking about sexual addiction or those with a predisposition towards it, or those with unhealthy, unaware, immoderate sex lives, which is what the immediately above paragraph seems to be alluding to. Nor am I talking about BDSM exploration, nor is Higgins. What we are talking about is the need for rules that fosters respect for self and the other and an ongoing awareness in one’s sexuality, which would be indicative of Buddhist practice.
Among my "crowd" a lot of people seemed to have substituted food for sex in their lives. Others have become addicted to online pornography, massage parlors, prostitutes, etc. In many cases these people had open "healthy" attitudes initially, but over time the situation changed.
I do not think we are talking about the same thing when you say ‘"healthy" attitudes’ and when I say healthy attitude.
This relates to what I said earlier, about moderation and watching your own mind....
Moderation? Ins-and-outs once a week? Three minutes?
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.
As insight develops one’s relationship to sexuality changes, one’s response to its drive changes, and I am not talking about becoming like the Western fool that Ajahn Chah ridiculed. (I wonder what Ajahn Chah’s TOS was?)
I hope this clarifies what i was saying.
Yes. We are clearly not talking about the same things.
As you accuse me of missing things said and taking statements out of context i think you also do the same thing at times.
Maybe, but that is why I tend to go line-by-line when I respond to a msg.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Post by BlackBird »

26. Vasettha, it is just as if this River Aciravati were brimful of water so that a crow could drink out of it, and a man should come wishing to cross over,... but he was bound an pinioned on this side by a strong chain, with his hands behind his back. What do you think, Vasettha? Would that man be able to get to the other side? 'No Reverend Gotama.'
27. "In just the same way, Vasettha, in the Ariyan discipline these five strands of sense-desire are called bonds and fetters. Which five? Forms seen by the eye which are agreeable, loved, charming, attractive, pleasurable, arousing desire; sounds heard by the ear...; smells smelt by the nose...; tastes savoured by the tongue...; contacts felt by the body which are agreeable,... arousing desire. These five in the Ariyan discipline are called bonds and fetters.
- DN:13 Tevijja Sutta

Secondly, what is the scope and purpose of this precept? The word kama means in Pali "sensual desire," which is not exclusively sexual. It is here used in a plural form which comes close to what is meant by the Biblical expression "the lusts of the flesh." Greed for food and other sensual pleasure is also included. Most people who are strongly addicted to sexual indulgence are also much drawn to other sense-pleasures. Though we are here only concerned with the sexual aspect, this point should be noted. For those with any grasp at all of Buddhist principles, the basic reason for such an injunction should be immediately obvious. Our dukkha — our feeling, of frustration and dissatisfaction with life — is rooted in our desires and cravings. The more these can be brought under control, the less dukkha we shall experience. It is as simple as that. But of course, that which is simple is not necessarily easy.
...

The biological function of sex is obvious and requires no discussion here. But the interesting thing for us to note is how sex — like everything else — is a purely impersonal force. We tend to think of it in intensely personal terms, but in actual fact it is a force that just flows through us and uses our most wonderful and inspiring emotions for its own ends, which are totally concerned with the continuance of the race as a whole. The idea that it is just a private and wonderful thing between you and me is merely a part of our general illusion. Altogether, it is a prolific breeder of illusions. It can lead a man to think he has found the most wonderful woman in the whole world while everybody else is thinking, "What on earth can he possibly see in her?"

...

Sex and Rebirth

As long as there remains even a latent craving (including that for sex), according to the Buddhist teaching rebirth will inevitably continue to take place. For we are reborn, not merely because of the sexual drive which brought about the union of our parents, but also because of that same sexual drive in "ourselves," i.e., in that stream of consciousness which produces the changing series of patterns of our own particular individuality. And this is in fact the deeper significance of the Oedipus complex and other such matters unearthed by Freud. According to the "Tibetan Book of the Dead" those whose karmic predispositions destine them for rebirth in human form see couples in sexual union and experience desire for an attractive member of the opposite sex among those couples. By this desire they thereupon find themselves drawn into the womb and reborn — which was not at all what they wanted! The Theravada scriptures do not specifically describe the process, and it may be rather symbolic than literal, but psychologically at least something like this is what happens.

Quite obviously, the average Buddhist lay person has no present intention of living a celibate life — nor is this being urged here. But some knowledge of the nature of sexuality and of how it can be transcended can help him to solve his sexual problems, if only by helping him to avoid self-deception.
Buddhism and Sex", by M. O'C. Walshe. Access to Insight, June 7, 2009, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el225.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.


The last sentence I quoted there is very important in my eyes. Nobody's saying 'give it up'... just saying it doesn't lead to the goal :console:

:anjali:
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
User avatar
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Post by Jechbi »

tiltbillings wrote:You have a remarkable capacity to take things out of context
This is a truism that applies to all of us. When I read it, I laughed, because I can imagine any good teacher saying this to any one of his or her pupils kindly, and it would be true. It's almost like a Lojong slogan. It would be great for a fortune cookie.
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Post by kc2dpt »

tiltbillings wrote:Just to be clear, that is not what I have said.
That is clear to no one but you, I think. If every time someone said "Candy is bad for you" you replied with "Is candy really bad for you?" it would be reasonable if people assumed you thought candy wasn't bad for you. I think after 200 posts you might want to try a different approach.
Where, at what point, and how does one start drawing the line without incurring unnecessary guilt and shame and mental turmoil?
Guilt and shame are unnecessary regardless of where one draws the line. Unwholesome thoughts arise due to causes. We engage in unwholesome behaviors due to causes as well. These things cease due to causes too. Guilt and shame are simply not necessary.

Claiming (or suggesting) unwholesome things are really not unwholesome just so as to avoid guilt and shame is, in my opinion, only going to cause more problems down the line.
What I am talking about is the idea of healthy, not guilt/shame ridden, relationship to one's own sexuality for the layperson
I don't think there is anything unhealthy or guilt/shame ridden about calling the unwholesome as unwholesome, about discussing the negative effects of indulging in sensuality. On the contrary, that strikes me as a normal Buddhist conversation.
there is a healthy Buddhist context from which we can approach sexuality without getting all twisted out of shape by it.
I really don't know who all these people getting twisted out of shape are that you keep arguing against. I don't think it is getting twisted out of shape to call an unwholesome act as unwholesome. It's just discussing Buddhist teachings.
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;
I think it presents a very incomplete approach. The view presented keeps one from running afoul of the five precepts but really comes no where near eradicating fetters or realizing Nibbana. It is so striking as to it's omissions as to strike me as irresponsible. Even just one sentence hinting that there is more to the Path would have been sufficient. And lines like "there's nothing wrong with dancing lightly with your desires" is plainly a misrepresentation of the Buddha's teachings.
One thing we need to be very careful with is aversion towards sexuality.
I agree. Aversion is really just another attachment. However, one can discuss what is unwholesome and be heedful of it without being aversive.

"Whoever avoids sensual desires — as he would, with his foot, the head of a snake — goes beyond, mindful, this attachment in the world."

One could certainly cultivate aversion toward snakes. One could also simply be heedful without indulging in aversion.
there is a more tempered, more skillful, approach than what is presented here.
Well, by now you know my approach. Give the whole story and then address concerns as they are brought up. I do not like giving partial stories like Higgins did in that article. I think it is irresponsible. I think if someone wants advice tailored to just what they need to hear then public internet forums are the wrong place to go.
This is not wrong. Though one wonders if this accurately reflects how Ajahn Chah would or would not state this point in every case. When stated in this way without any attempt at context, which the Buddha understood as a supreme virtue, most likely it would be guilt and shame producing. Higgins offers a far better response.
Hmm... a response in line with the Dhamma that could lead to guilt and shame... or a response not in line with the Dhamma that avoids guilt and shame? I'd personally rather the correct response and then if guilt or shame arise we can have further discussion.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
Post Reply