Do Buddhists believe sex is a negative thing or unskillful?

[bodom]

Well then alex I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

[Individual]

Dhammika Sutta:

The Buddha notes that a householder's obligations prevent a householder from fully pursuing a monk's path.[5] Thus, the Buddha articulates "the layman's duty" (Pali: gahatthavatta), what are essentially the Five Precepts, as follows:

...

Observe celibacy or at least do not have sex with another's wife

That sutta can be read here:

Those that cannot observe the holy life, should at least not go to others' wives.

On the same page, but different sutta (#7 of the Sutta Nipata), the Buddha recollects ancient Brahmins who were moral, by not buying wives and by maintaining celibacy when "not in season", whatever that means:

290. Brahmins never went to another's wife, nor did they buy a wife
With mutual agreement they met, on equal terms.
291. Except in the season, at other times they abstained from sexuality,
Brahmins never went to women out of season.
292. . They honoured the holy life, virtues, straightforwardness, gentleness,

We should make a distinction here between householders seeking merit and householders seeking enlightenment. Sensual desire is a hindrance to enlightenment (for monks and laypeople alike) and sex is a form in which it is entertained, but sensual desire is not a hindrance to merit. Thus a householder seeking enlightenment would be wise to be celibate, but the Buddha did not require it. I would add that if a householder doesn't see the wisdom in celibacy of course he shouldn't practice it. Seeing the true nature of things and trusting yourself is what enlightenment is all about; not arbitrary attachments to certain moral codes.

[Kim OHara]

It does not mean you don't have sexual feelings, which are simply biological. It means that they feelings no longer have hooks.

I think so too.

But what does it mean to not have hooks?

If hunger has no hooks does that mean we never eat? Does it mean we experience hunger without being troubled by it and experience eating without being troubled by it either? Or does it mean we only ever eat in order to not die? And that we only have sex in order to procreate?

Something not having hooks in my experience doesn't necessarily mean that I don't act in the way that the hook would have directed me. It means that I don't blindly follow impulses. It means I have a choice and can remain aware whatever I choose to do.

Not having hooks means, to me, not clinging to the action, sensation or appetite (whether sexual or other), either by anticipation or by looking back, or by giving it undue importance. A zen parable on the subject occurred to me. I read it years ago and don't think I could find it now if I tried, but maybe someone else can.
In brief:
Two monks were walking from their monastery into town and they came to a stream which was normally easy to wade across. But there had been rain recently, and it was deep enough to be a bit dangerous.
A young woman was standing fearfully on the edge. 'Please sirs,' she said, 'I need to go to town to help my sick mother, but I am afraid to cross the stream.'
Without a word, the older monk picked her up in his arms, carried her across, and set her down on the other side. She thanked him and hurried off.
The monks continued on their way together, not talking. The older monk was tranquil, but the younger was seething. Eventually he burst out, 'Master, you know we are not allowed to touch women. How could you do such a thing?'
The older monk replied, 'I put her down beside the stream. You are still carrying her.'

Kim

[bodom]

I always liked that story. Thanks Kim.

[Spiny O'Norman]

Sensual desire is a hindrance to enlightenment (for monks and laypeople alike)....

Does the sexual urge eventually subside if not indulged? I'm curious because I've never been completely celibate.

Spiny

[chownah]

Sensual desire is a hindrance to enlightenment (for monks and laypeople alike)....

Does the sexual urge eventually subside if not indulged? I'm curious because I've never been completely celibate.

Spiny

The sexual urge is impermanent and will subside eventually whether indulged or not.
chownah

[5heaps]

Do Buddhists believe sex is a negative thing or unskillful?

according to the documented levels of mental activity, the desire realm is by definition broken and only functions to perpetuate results of similar type (unless we work hard). features of the desire realm include: impossibility of achieving meaningful satisfaction, mental and sense bases are coarse, plus many other nasty things.

one of the features of moving into 1st jhana is realizing all these negative qualities of the desire realm (through one's analysis using a developed mind - shamata) and achieving a cessation with regard to them. therefore one gives up interest, desire, jealousy, greed, etc pertaining to the desire realm. this means the objects in the desire realm (ie. objects of the senses, sensual pleasures) and everyone in it. some yogis in the past thought the bliss of this cessation (of no longer having much connection to coarse objects) was nirvana, but its only temporary.

[Kenshou]

So how exactly does that address the subject of the thread?

[ground]

Does the sexual urge eventually subside if not indulged?

Only if understood that it is completely unsatisfactory and that it is only disadvantagous in the context of the path.
How could mere renunciation entail the elimination of an urge?

But really, nobody can be persuaded through "Hey it is 'completely unsatisfactory' and 'only disadvantagous' in your case".

Kind regards

[alan]

"Mere" renunciation?
Are you sure you understand renunciation?

The Suttas make it clear that sensual indulgences are detrimental.

[ground]

"Mere" renunciation?
Are you sure you understand renunciation?

I am not sure whether you understood what I was trying to express with "mere renunciation".

What I intended to express with "mere rununciation" was: There arises the urge but you do just not follow it by means of applying will/intention not to follow it.

Therefore I have written
"Only if understood that it is completely unsatisfactory and that it is only disadvantagous in the context of the path."

That means: Will/intention alone does not do the job.

What "job"?

The question was: "Does the sexual urge eventually subside if not indulged?"


Kind regards

[alan]

The Suttas make it clear that sensual indulgences are detrimental.

[ground]

The Suttas make it clear that sensual indulgences are detrimental.

I did not state something contradictory to that.

The question was: "Does the sexual urge eventually subside if not indulged?"

Or do you want to assert that "the sexual urge eventually subsides" because "The Suttas make it clear that sensual indulgences are detrimental"?

Kind regards

[5heaps]

So how exactly does that address the subject of the thread?

relative to buddhists who understand the desire realm to be suffering, sex is bad as all ordinary objects in the desire realm are bad. relative to buddhists who understand all 3 realms (samsara) to be suffering, sex is bad as all objects in all of the 3 realms (samsara) are bad. relative to a buddhist who understands that only the lower rebirths are bad, being a human is good and sex is good. relative to buddhists who are confused about the realms and follow materialism, sex is "healthy" and "biological".

[Lazy_eye]

So how exactly does that address the subject of the thread?

relative to buddhists who understand the desire realm to be suffering, sex is bad as all ordinary objects in the desire realm are bad. relative to buddhists who understand all 3 realms (samsara) to be suffering, sex is bad as all objects in all of the 3 realms (samsara) are bad. relative to a buddhist who understands that only the lower rebirths are bad, being a human is good and sex is good. relative to buddhists who are confused about the realms and follow materialism, sex is "healthy" and "biological".

That's how I understand it too. The question arises, though, as to whether this rules out liberation/enlightenment as a focus of practice for most laypeople.

It seems to me that if one does not wish to abandon sex (or the rest of worldly life, for that matter), it makes more sense to focus one's practice on merit. Because otherwise the practictioner finds himself/herself in a position of cognitive dissonance or even hypocrisy -- i.e. continuing to cultivate something despite having deemed it "negative".

When we continue to do something, it must be because at some level we think it's good. It's a bit silly -- and disrespectful to the other person involved, I'd add -- to regard marriage and sex as an illness, while still being married and having sex.