Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
I feel like I’m in a Cathy Newman interview.
“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.”
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.”
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
Was there "divorce" in the Buddha's time? Divorce is one way in which marriage ends today. The going forth was a way in which marriage ended in those times.Zenny wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 3:54 pmYes,but the Buddha didn't divorce.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 3:52 pmDunno. But you are wrong.
I'm not sure what you mean by "begging the question". If petitio principii, please state the premises and conclusion you think I am claiming.Your begging the question.
That doesn't follow, does it? I have quite a few past partners who survived my attentions, and are still alive. But I'm not married to them.He was still married. His Partner was still alive.
You can't change this no matter what you say.
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
Their are degrees of addiction and infinite circumstances through which it can be maintained. Control comes in to play, so sure, there is room for it, but to what end? Control for a sensual person is an investment - they invest in the mechanism that provides them comfort. They are willing to exercise control to protect their sensual world. Some people do this subtly others not.
The uniting factor is the delight in prospect of sensuality. No matter what, whoever accepts that delight is addicted and dependent on sensuality for escape from pain.
“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
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
“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.”
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.”
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
Speak for yourself,rather than putting a procrustean idea to everyone.SDC wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 4:19 pmTheir are degrees of addiction and infinite circumstances through which it can be maintained. Control comes in to play, so sure, there is room for it, but to what end? Control for a sensual person is an investment - they invest in the mechanism that provides them comfort. They are willing to exercise control to protect their sensual world. Some people do this subtly others not.
The uniting factor is the delight in prospect of sensuality. No matter what, whoever accepts that delight is addicted and dependent on sensuality for escape from pain.
You free of delight and sensuality yet?
Because I see a pattern of people talking a lot of ideology but in their actual life being married and eating nice food,nice clothes,having family etc.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Focus!
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
You think there wasn't a concept of divorce back then?Sam Vara wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 4:18 pmWas there "divorce" in the Buddha's time? Divorce is one way in which marriage ends today. The going forth was a way in which marriage ended in those times.Zenny wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 3:54 pmYes,but the Buddha didn't divorce.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 3:52 pm
Dunno. But you are wrong.
I'm not sure what you mean by "begging the question". If petitio principii, please state the premises and conclusion you think I am claiming.
That doesn't follow, does it? I have quite a few past partners who survived my attentions, and are still alive. But I'm not married to them.
You can't change this no matter what you say.
We are getting a bit twilight zone now.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Focus!
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
I don't know whether there were divorces then. The point is that marriages were ended by the going forth, such that monks were not married and were not "family men".Zenny wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 4:45 pmYou think there wasn't a concept of divorce back then?
We are getting a bit twilight zone now.
What would be the criterion for divorce? A decree nisi and decree absolute?
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
You don't know yet you make a judgement?Sam Vara wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 4:51 pmI don't know whether there were divorces then. The point is that marriages were ended by the going forth, such that monks were not married and were not "family men".
What would be the criterion for divorce? A decree nisi and decree absolute?
To think that they had no concept of divorce Is ludicrous.
Buddha has always been known as married and with a child.
No changing that by semantics.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Focus!
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
Yes, I don't know whether there was divorce in the Buddha's society, but that has no bearing on the judgement I am making. That judgement is that your claim that
is incorrect. The reason for this is that divorce is not the only way in which a person who is married and a family man ceases to be one.he was still married and a Family man.
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
I am not free form sensuality but I aspire to develop restraint because I have confidence in the Buddha. I am married, but I’m not indulging in that choice.Zenny wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 4:44 pm Speak for yourself,rather than putting a procrustean idea to everyone.
You free of delight and sensuality yet?
Because I see a pattern of people talking a lot of ideology but in their actual life being married and eating nice food,nice clothes,having family etc.
Please stop asking us to help you cover up the fact that you have a serious deficit when it comes to what is there in the suttas. That’s your problem. If you had even half a clue what was described there, you’d see how absurd most your objections look to those who are trying to power through the things that hinder their progress. You want to quit and enjoy yourself, go ahead, but it would be nice if you had even a small concept of what you are trashing before you just come here and piss into the wind.
I get the role of the antagonist that you try to play here, some deserve the slap in the face, but you show serious signs of worry and desperation. It’s clear as day, but you’re not gonna put that on others who aren’t afraid of those things, especially those who face their own on a daily basis. smh
“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
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
Read your own post back.SDC wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 5:32 pmI am not free form sensuality but I aspire to develop restraint because I have confidence in the Buddha. I am married, but I’m not indulging in that choice.Zenny wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 4:44 pm Speak for yourself,rather than putting a procrustean idea to everyone.
You free of delight and sensuality yet?
Because I see a pattern of people talking a lot of ideology but in their actual life being married and eating nice food,nice clothes,having family etc.
Please stop asking us to help you cover up the fact that you have a serious deficit when it comes to what is there in the suttas. That’s your problem. If you had even half a clue what was described there, you’d see how absurd most your objections look to those who are trying to power through the things that hinder their progress. You want to quit and enjoy yourself, go ahead, but it would be nice if you had even a small concept of what you are trashing before you just come here and piss into the wind.
I get the role of the antagonist that you try to play here, some deserve the slap in the face, but you show serious signs of worry and desperation. It’s clear as day, but you’re not gonna put that on others who aren’t afraid of those things, especially those who face their own on a daily basis. smh
You are assuming things that you have no knowledge of at all.
Fact is these inhuman standards you claim to aspire to you cannot meet at all.
I don't and never have aspire to these inhuman standards because they make zero sense. Its like running away from the world and yourself.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Focus!
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
Sam Vara wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 5:22 pmYes, I don't know whether there was divorce in the Buddha's society, but that has no bearing on the judgement I am making. That judgement is that your claim that
is incorrect. The reason for this is that divorce is not the only way in which a person who is married and a family man ceases to be one.he was still married and a Family man.
Yet he still was married with a family.
Historically this is fact.
Are you going to say he never had contact with his wife and family after 45? Where are your suttas to say he didn't have contact with them?
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Focus!
-
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
- Location: United States
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
That quote was in the section of "unwholesome" conduct. So I think it's just saying sex with a legitimate partner is not unwholesome. Sexual activity with a legit partner is probably similar to other sense pleasures. Being attached to it is bad but it's not like the activity in and of itself is bad. For instance. The Buddha and his arahant disciples are free from desire and are not attached to delicious food. However they did eat delicious food all the time, since many laypeople would offer it to them. Eating good food itself is not bad in any way, but being attached to it is a hindrance to enlightenment. I think this is a similar concept. Theoretically it could be possible an arahant could have sex and not be attached to it the same way they eat good food offered to them but aren't attached to it. But of course arahants would not do such a thing since, unlike eating, sex isn't necessary to live and if this theory is true it would look bad on the sangha if someone tried even if there was no greed involved (think the rule against bhikkhus teaching a woman dhamma out of ear shot of anyone else)
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama
"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
I'm not sure that it was a historical fact. The evidence falls far short of modern historical standards. It's really just a convention, based on a few lines in the suttas. But even that convention - the idea that he "was married with a family" - does not support your idea that "he was still married and a Family man". He might have been once, but not when he was actually the Buddha, an enlightened being. Unless you deny that a person can renounce that status without a formal declaration of a recognised divorce, and if so I would like to know why you think that.Zenny wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 6:07 pmSam Vara wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 5:22 pmYes, I don't know whether there was divorce in the Buddha's society, but that has no bearing on the judgement I am making. That judgement is that your claim that
is incorrect. The reason for this is that divorce is not the only way in which a person who is married and a family man ceases to be one.he was still married and a Family man.
Yet he still was married with a family.
Historically this is fact.
Are you going to say he never had contact with his wife and family after 45? Where are your suttas to say he didn't have contact with them?
The suttas say that the Buddha was impeccable in conduct and understanding (vijjācarana sampanno), which means of course that he was celibate, so any contact that he had with them would not have involved sex. The Brahmachariya, or Holy Life, which according to the suttas was lived and completed by the Buddha, is the chaste life.
If you are relying on "historical fact", then it's an indubitable historical fact that if he existed at all, he would have been a tiny baby who fed only on milk. But he didn't stay like that, did he?