Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
"the volition that drives the act of sexual transgression is always rooted in greed, i.e. desire to enjoy sexual pleasure with the illicit partner" on section 23, page 208 of the translation from Bhikkhu Bodhi.
Bhikkhu Bodhi - A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma.
Does this mean sexual enjoyment also just like eating and drinking?
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Aloka wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 7:45 am
"desire to enjoy sexual pleasure with the illicit partner" is likely to be different to having a wife or husband or long-term partner.
Does this mean sexual enjoyment also just like eating and drinking?
Who knows ? Maybe try to find out by having sex with your wife or partner while you are eating a fancy cake and having a cup of coffee ?
.
I don't want to spoil my cake and spill the coffee.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Sex is never wholesome but sex with a loving partner can involve moments of pure lust and of love, making the whole act rather mixed.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
All sensory gratification is to be limited and controlled.
And sexuality is one of the most powerful.
It is to be remembered though that even the Buddha had a son.
"Therein monks, that Dimension should be known wherein the eye ceases and the perception of forms fades away...the ear... the nose...the tongue... the body ceases and the perception of touch fades away...
That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."
Cause_and_Effect wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:13 am
All sensory gratification is to be limited and controlled.
And sexuality is one of the most powerful.
Ultimately all sense pleasure, including sex, has to be given up.
It is to be remembered though that even the Buddha had a son.
Before giving up being a householder and enjoyment of sense objects, yes. That said, interestingly the suttas never say he had a son. I believe it's only in the Vinaya and commentaries. I think he likely was his son, but it's interesting to note.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sun Aug 01, 2021 12:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
SarathW wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 7:29 am
Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
"the volition that drives the act of sexual transgression is always rooted in greed, i.e. desire to enjoy sexual pleasure with the illicit partner" on section 23, page 208 of the translation from Bhikkhu Bodhi.
It depends upon what "greed" means. The common understanding of greed is wanting more than you need. Therefore, having sexual relationship with a legitimate partner is not greed.
Also, attachment is not necessarily greed. Try avoid confusing terminology.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
It is considered an attachment by those who value non-attachment.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"
SarathW wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 7:29 am
Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
"the volition that drives the act of sexual transgression is always rooted in greed, i.e. desire to enjoy sexual pleasure with the illicit partner" on section 23, page 208 of the translation from Bhikkhu Bodhi.
Bhikkhu Bodhi - A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma.
Does this mean sexual enjoyment also just like eating and drinking?
In order to know it we should ask ourselves: if my partner refuses to have sex with me or will have sex with some one else - will it cause me suffering? If the answer is YES, there is a greed involved in this relationship.
Food and water are vital needs. Sex is not vital to our body and mind.
We don't live Samsara, Samsara is living us...
"Form, feelings, perceptions, formations, consciousness - don't care about us, we don't exist for them"
Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:38 am
That said, interestingly the suttas never say he had a son. I believe it's only in the Vinaya and commentaries. I think he likely was his son, but it's interesting to note.
You are saying that there is nowhere in the suttas where Rahula is specifically identified as being his son?
"Therein monks, that Dimension should be known wherein the eye ceases and the perception of forms fades away...the ear... the nose...the tongue... the body ceases and the perception of touch fades away...
That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."
Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:38 am
That said, interestingly the suttas never say he had a son. I believe it's only in the Vinaya and commentaries. I think he likely was his son, but it's interesting to note.
You are saying that there is nowhere in the suttas where Rahula is specifically identified as being his son?
Yup. It's unlikely the Buddha was a prince either with 4 palaces.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:38 am
Before giving up being a householder and enjoyment of sense objects, yes. That said, interestingly the suttas never say he had a son. I believe it's only in the Vinaya and commentaries. I think he likely was his son, but it's interesting to note.
Rahula makes the claim in Thag 4.8. Worth noting that others have alluded to being the Buddha’s offspring in Dhamma, however Rahula’s makes a clear distinction between his arahantship and being his son:
I am known as “Fortunate Rāhula”,
because I’m accomplished in both ways:
I am the son of the Buddha,
and I am seer of truths.
Pending, of course, you find the Thag or Thig worthy of consideration.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Cause_and_Effect wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:13 am
It is to be remembered though that even the Buddha had a son.
Yeah before he left the lay life.
You sound like Richard Gere. He also loves to humanize the Buddha’s greatness.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:38 am
Before giving up being a householder and enjoyment of sense objects, yes. That said, interestingly the suttas never say he had a son. I believe it's only in the Vinaya and commentaries. I think he likely was his son, but it's interesting to note.
Rahula makes the claim in Thag 4.8. Worth noting that others have alluded to being the Buddha’s offspring in Dhamma, however Rahula’s makes a clear distinction between his arahantship and being his son:
I am known as “Fortunate Rāhula”,
because I’m accomplished in both ways:
I am the son of the Buddha,
and I am seer of truths.
Pending, of course, you find the Thag or Thig worthy of consideration.
Yes I forgot it was there too. I had in mind the 4 Nikāyas. As I say, I think he was his son but it's interesting it's not in the main body of texts.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 2:06 pm
Yes I forgot it was there too. I had in mind the 4 Nikāyas. As I say, I think he was his son but it's interesting it's not in the main body of texts.
All in all it was meaningless to either of them. So there wasn’t much point talking about it. The Dhamma was what mattered. His former wife entered the order as well, and she and Rahula both became arahants.
That’s why I always find it funny when people are like “Bro, he left his family behind. He’s so selfish.”
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3