Peter wrote:I don't think it matters, tilt.
Probably not
You get all up in arms that someone is going to read what the Buddha taught regarding sensual pleasures and think we're all uptight Puritans,
Your practice has gotten to a level of mind reading now? Keep at it; you are not quite there yet.
or that they should feel shame and guilt that they don't live up to those standards...
People do feel shame and guilt for not living up to what they see as the ideal. It gets expressed repeatedly on forums such as this.
yet you see nothing wrong with an article which says "it's ok to dance lightly with sensual pleasures" and which speaks of a BDSM business as close to the Dhamma. Misunderstanding happens in both directions.
Not the business. The point Higgins is suggesting that rules the Salon Kitty has set up are more humane and compassionate than the rigid fundamentalist sort of “You damn well better not do this very thing or that very thing” rules that we see in what he characterizes as the “ethnic religion” as opposed to the “universal religion.” of Buddhism.
Your fears of misunderstanding are not somehow more valid than christopher's or mine.
I think you are now arguing with yourself here, or something, but what is not clear.
I think articles, and there are many, which say "there's nothing wrong with X as long as you are a lay person" are misleading people into a false Dhamma. And yes I understand that articles which present straight-up Dhamma can, through misunderstanding, scare people away from the Dhamma. It's a tricky thing trying to teach people.
Kinda my point. I don’t think Higgins’ presentation is perfect. Obviously, his referencing the Salon Kitty’s rules, while graphically making a point, was too distracting to his point for some, but at least he made an attempt at putting things into a context that is accessible.
Ajahn Brahm:
Buddhism means many things to many people. To some, it offers wise and compassionate advice on how to lessen the suffering of modern lay life. To others, it is the path to Enlightenment which ends all suffering. Mr Higgins' article in the November issue of Bodhi Leaf refers to the former kind of Buddhism only. The Buddhism which leads to Enlightenment is somewhat different, as we will now show. This is kind of sad, actually. People need to start from where they are.
I rather doubt Higgins would deny the truth of
”. . . 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 could be a bit more skillfully presented.
Peter wrote:tiltbillings wrote:Peter wrote:And I will remind you that one cannot infer what I personally do or don't do from the above statements.
As for what you personally do or don’t do, I don’t give a rat’s ass. It is simply none of my business.
Oh please!
Okay.
Peter wrote: tiltbillings wrote:So, you must eat rather bland boring food, never do anything that that brings any sort of enjoyment to yourself.
You have littered comments like this throughout the thread.
That is an eyeroller. I
don’t give a rat’s ass what you do. It was kind of sort of in a way meant to be a rhetorical question.