masturbation what's wrong?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Consider, the case of Nanda who had to be tempted to remain in the holy life with the promise of "five hundred pink-footed nymphs" in the next life.

Ud 3.02: Nanda Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .irel.html

Nanda was later ashamed of his desires and became one of the arahants.

Metta,
Retro.

[chownah]

chownah said we must indulge our desires in order to be able to gain insight into them. To not indulge our desires he called asceticism falling outside the middle way. If this were true, then the Buddha gave his monastic order instructions which fall outside the middle way. Since it is absurd that the Buddha would have done this, we can conclude chownah's statements are likewise absurd.

Peter,
I hope that in the future you will be more careful in trying to relate what I have posted. I hope that in the future you will give direct quotes from my previous posts to indicate what I have said because it seems that your interpretations fall far enough from what I posted that I feel that you are misrepresenting my posts. For example you say "chownah said we must indulge our desires in order to be able to gain insight into them." where as what I actually said was "you can't gain the insight into how attachments arise without them arising in my view"....you say I was talking about indulging desires while I was talking about attachments arising".

Also, I have no Theravada reference to support this view but it could be that the middle path is not a fixed formula but rather something that needs to be applied on an individual basis....that monastics would have a different "middle path" than a lay person would have for instance. I could discuss how and why this might be but it would just be me telling my views and would not have any Canonical backing. I don't know alot about the "middle path" and would be glad to learn more...if you (or anyone else) have a reference that talks about it and does so in a way that I can see what Threravada references are used for supporting the views given, I would be very happy if you (they) posted it here.

Also, I do know SOMETHING about the path.

Also, you say that you think that masturbating strengthens the fetter of sensual desire....and for all I know it may be true that for some people some time it does....on the other hand for all I know it may be true that for some people some time it doesn't. Ask an 18 year old newly wed male to stop having sex with his wife and instead masturbate and see if he thinks this will strenghten his fetter of sensual desire!!!!! Perhaps you have overrated masturbation and the power it exerts over those who do it....it seems quite likely to me that masturbation is probably one of the least desireable forms of sexual outlet for at least a large percentage of the population. And this brings me to a point I'm very interested in....that being I'd like to come to a better understanding of how your views on masturbation compare with your views on other forms of sexual behavior (should all of them equally be forgone?) and other forms of sensual desire (should rich deserts, watching video, listening to music be equally forgone?) . I'm just wondering if you have singled out masturbation for some reason and if so what is that reason why it deserves special attention.

Also, I haven't read the entire thread and am wondering if there is any Theravada Canonical reference which indicates that masturbation is a violation of the precept on sexual behavior.

Chownah
P.S. you want examples of people who indulge every day.....pick 10 people at random off of the street and odds are that at least half of them qualify........as for eventually eradicating the fetter of sensual desire I guess I'm assuming that at least someone who indulges every day will eventually eradicate the fetter....seems like the Suttas probably have examples of people who indulged whole heartedly every day and then eventually became arahants.....or at least stream entereres I guess
chownah

[Ngawang Drolma.]

Hi all,

I hope you don't mind me asking some basic, uninformed questions here.

1. Did the Buddha say that having sex is unwholesome (other than the list of sex partners that aren't appropriate)?

2. In that list of inappropriate partners (such as a minor living with parent, and so on), is sex with oneself mentioned?

3. I don't intend any disrespect to those who are of the opinion that sex with the self is harmful or has the potential to be harmful. But do you see self-sex as more unwholesome than sex with an appropriate partner?

The OP was this:

What's wrong to masturbate once in a while, what has buddhism got to say about that?

And then Craig wrote this:

Nothing if your a layman
If your a monk its a no no
However it is engaging in lust, so we should work towards going beyond sexual desire, but nothing "evil" with the act itself (as a layman/woman)
metta

But a lot of issues have come up, it's interesting to me. Thanks for taking time with my inquiries.

Best,
Drolma

[Dan74]

In case anyone is interested, there is a current related thread on ESangha Chan/Zen forum which gives the Mahayana take on this:

http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=92376&hl=

_/|\_

[Peter]

I don't know alot about the "middle path" and would be glad to learn more.

Very briefly, it is the way between the extremes of indulging wants and denying needs.

I'd like to come to a better understanding of how your views on masturbation compare with your views on other forms of sexual behavior

I have said this already in this thread, but it is a long thread so I would understand you missing it. Sensual indulgence is sensual indulgence. I have not singled out masturbation at all. It merely happens to be the topic of this thread. We could be discussing eating pie and my posts would be about the same. You might want to ask the OP why he singled out masturbation...

should all of them equally be forgone?

As I've already said in this thread, "should" is a tricky word to use. In short, it depends what one knows and what one is aiming for.

[is masturbation] a violation of the precept on sexual behavior[?]

No, it isn't.

[Peter]

1. Did the Buddha say that having sex is unwholesome (other than the list of sex partners that aren't appropriate)?

No. Keep in mind, however, that one could engage in nothing but wholesome acts and still be trapped in samsara. Wholesome/unwholesome isn't the whole story.

2. In that list of inappropriate partners (such as a minor living with parent, and so on), is sex with oneself mentioned?

No.

3. do you see self-sex as more unwholesome than sex with an appropriate partner?

No.

The OP was this:

What's wrong to masturbate once in a while, what has buddhism got to say about that?

And then Craig wrote this:

Nothing if your a layman
If your a monk its a no no
However it is engaging in lust, so we should work towards going beyond sexual desire, but nothing "evil" with the act itself (as a layman/woman)
metta

Yeah, and that pretty much covered it. Nothing more needed to be said. But then people tend to get worked up over this topic.

[Ngawang Drolma.]

Yeah, and that pretty much covered it. Nothing more needed to be said. But then people tend to get worked up over this topic.

In my forum-experience, threads with the word "sex" in the subject line, or any allusion to it always reach at least ten pages!

[tiltbillings]

As we used to say in Catholic grade school: Shake twice to clean the bore; shake it again and you sinned some more.

Probably not much else to say on the subject.

[kannada]

What's wrong to masturbate once in a while, what has buddhism got to say about that?

Buddhism says that we should let go of our attachments...

[tiltbillings]

What's wrong to masturbate once in a while, what has buddhism got to say about that?

Buddhism says that we should let go of our attachments...

Maybe one should not just let go, but one could cut off one's attachments....

[appicchato]

... could cut off one's attachments....

Too tough to whiz...(I think)...

[retrofuturist]

Oh bhante, that was hilarious.

Metta,
Retro.

[kannada]

...could cut off one's attachments....

Too tough to whiz...(I think)...

Yes... That might cause a wee problem...

[Ngawang Drolma.]

...could cut off one's attachments....

Too tough to whiz...(I think)...

Yes... That might cause a wee problem...

[tiltbillings]

...cut off one's attachments....

Too tough to whiz...(I think)...

Yes... That might cause a wee problem...

It depends.

[Fede]

or doesn't, as the case may be....

depend
• verb (depend on) 1 be controlled or determined by. 2 rely on.

— PHRASES depending on, according to.

— ORIGIN Latin dependere ‘hang down’.

[tiltbillings]

"Depends" is a brand name for adults diapers.

Fortunately this thread, while having actually presented some good discussion and information, has come to this.

[Ngawang Drolma.]

I got the joke

[Fede]

"Depends" is a brand name for adults diapers.

Fortunately this thread, while having actually presented some good discussion and information, has come to this.

yup, I think we've "found the level"......

[Peter]

An analogy occurred to me the other day which I wanted to share.

Consider a person in average health intent on training for, running in, and completing his first marathon. He has never run a marathon before, nor run any distance even comparable. He might ask, "What's wrong with carrying a 50 lb backpack while I run the marathon?" One who knows about such things might answer, "Because it will hinder you. It will make you more unlikely to reach your goal. Wise runners do not recommend carrying a 50lb backpack while running a marathon if one doesn't need to."

Some questions we've seen in this thread...

"So you're saying I shouldn't run with a 50lb backpack?" I wouldn't say should or shouldn't. I would say it isn't recommended.

"Does that mean anyone who runs with a backpack will not reach the goal?" Some will and some won't. Depends on the individual. Whether you will or won't is beyond my ability to tell.

"Does that mean those that run with a backpack aren't properly called 'runners'?" They are runners. They might be unwise runners, they might be non-serious runners, they might be deluded runners... but they are runners.

Just wanted to share this as I think it makes my view of the OP's question clearer and thought it might prove useful to some of you.