Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Locked
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?

Post by Coëmgenu »

Obviously Ceisiwr believes water is wet. It's its svabhāva to be both wet and cohesive.

That's a joke. I'll cease joking now and get to responding to the things that I said I would respond to.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:52 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:49 pm
Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:42 pm

Well, some points need to be emphasised.
Water really is wet, yes.

So you accept common sense facts.
The plot thickens.
Not familiar with common phrases too it seems.
“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.”
Zenny
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed May 12, 2021 12:09 pm

Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?

Post by Zenny »

Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:57 pm
Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:52 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:49 pm

Water really is wet, yes.

So you accept common sense facts.
The plot thickens.
Not familiar with common phrases too it seems.

Is that proof for Buddha's divorce or the "legally dead" going to be ready anytime soon?
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:04 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:57 pm
Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:52 pm

So you accept common sense facts.
The plot thickens.
Not familiar with common phrases too it seems.

Is that proof for Buddha's divorce or the "legally dead" going to be ready anytime soon?
At 00:08, not likely. I also never said that the Buddha was divorced. That’s the second time now. Do try to keep up.
“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.”
Zenny
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed May 12, 2021 12:09 pm

Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?

Post by Zenny »

Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:08 pm
Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:04 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:57 pm

Not familiar with common phrases too it seems.

Is that proof for Buddha's divorce or the "legally dead" going to be ready anytime soon?
At 00:08, not likely. I also never said that the Buddha was divorced. That’s the second time now. Do try to keep up.
You said in effect he was no longer married.
Do read your own implications.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?

Post by Sam Vara »

Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:39 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:30 pm
Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:21 pm

Have you got a reference for these proofs from the suttas?
Sure.
I teach the Dhamma which is lovely in its beginning, lovely in its middle and lovely in its ending, in spirit and in letter, I display to them the holy life, perfectly fulfilled and purified. Why? Because these people adhere to me as their island, their shelter, their resort, their refuge.
(SN 42.7)
Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done.
(SN 35.28)


And how are these quotes related clearly to Buddha's divorce?
They don't have to be. As I have repeatedly shown, your claim that the Buddha "was still married and a Family man" can be refuted with no reference to divorce, which you mistakenly think is the only way in which a renunciate can stop being married and a family man. He was once married and a family man, and stopped being so, without any necessity of a pronouncement of decree absolute.

Some people think that a married person remains married until death, regardless of mundane pronouncements of secular courts. Others (you seem to be in this camp) think that a married person remains married until death or legal divorce. But neither of these are accepted by Theravada.

If you want to insist that the Buddha remained married because there was no Tammy Wynette-style D.I.V.O.R.C.E. then that's fine, but it has no more currency here than a Roman Catholic hard-liner insisting that marriage is a union persisting until death. It's just a view, isn't it?
Zenny
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed May 12, 2021 12:09 pm

Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?

Post by Zenny »

Sam Vara wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:14 pm
Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:39 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:30 pm

Sure.



(SN 42.7)



(SN 35.28)


And how are these quotes related clearly to Buddha's divorce?
They don't have to be. As I have repeatedly shown, your claim that the Buddha "was still married and a Family man" can be refuted with no reference to divorce, which you mistakenly think is the only way in which a renunciate can stop being married and a family man. He was once married and a family man, and stopped being so, without any necessity of a pronouncement of decree absolute.

Some people think that a married person remains married until death, regardless of mundane pronouncements of secular courts. Others (you seem to be in this camp) think that a married person remains married until death or legal divorce. But neither of these are accepted by Theravada.

If you want to insist that the Buddha remained married because there was no Tammy Wynette-style D.I.V.O.R.C.E. then that's fine, but it has no more currency here than a Roman Catholic hard-liner insisting that marriage is a union persisting until death. It's just a view, isn't it?
So you have no proof from the suttas basically.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?

Post by Ceisiwr »

It’s like being in Greece at the birth of Philosophy.
“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.”
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?

Post by Sam Vara »

Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:15 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:14 pm
Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:39 pm


And how are these quotes related clearly to Buddha's divorce?
They don't have to be. As I have repeatedly shown, your claim that the Buddha "was still married and a Family man" can be refuted with no reference to divorce, which you mistakenly think is the only way in which a renunciate can stop being married and a family man. He was once married and a family man, and stopped being so, without any necessity of a pronouncement of decree absolute.

Some people think that a married person remains married until death, regardless of mundane pronouncements of secular courts. Others (you seem to be in this camp) think that a married person remains married until death or legal divorce. But neither of these are accepted by Theravada.

If you want to insist that the Buddha remained married because there was no Tammy Wynette-style D.I.V.O.R.C.E. then that's fine, but it has no more currency here than a Roman Catholic hard-liner insisting that marriage is a union persisting until death. It's just a view, isn't it?
So you have no proof from the suttas basically.
Yes, the suttas showing how the Buddha had fulfilled the Holy Life of celibacy were given above; there are dozens more. I'll let you find them yourself because your claim that the only way a once-married man can stop being married is through divorce has been refuted so often that I cannot believe you are posting in good faith.

With that, I'll bid you a peaceful good night. :anjali:
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?

Post by SDC »

Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:13 pm
SDC wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:06 pm
Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 9:50 pm So why are you not a monk?
Because I was married before I got serious about all of this. And now I have two children.
On a serious note. I have full respect for you being married with children. I really mean that.
Which is why I'm saying your better self overcomes ideology and does what you instinctively know is best by being there for your wife and children.
:smile:

I am there for my wife and children. I am extremely lucky to have a supportive spouse who fully understands how deeply I am committed to this, even if that means that things will change about me that she did not expect when she married me. Luckily for her I have a workhorse mentality when it comes to our home and children and will run things entirely for days on end when she a deadline at work even though I was up at 5:15 and worked all day in NYC; so as far as she can tell, the Dhamma has worked wonders for her lol. She knows that ultimately my goal is to practice even longer periods of abstaining from sex than I already do now and we’ve worked out how to deal with it. If she ever said, “It’s me or the Dhamma”, she knows I would never choose her, but she enjoys the fact that I’m trying to stand for something, even if she doesn’t agree with it, so I don’t think she would ever give the ultimatum.

Point being (and returning to the topic), I practice having understood that mindlessly indulging in the pleasures of marriage does hinder me and have worked tirelessly to find a suitable balance that didn’t alienate my wife. If she was unwilling and if I were not as driven as I am, I sure our relationship would never had made it this far. Bottom line, I couldn’t be in a marriage where I had to pretend like it was my life’s ambition. She has the same mentality but for totally different reasons. Like I said, super lucky because we can both say it outright. Up until recently this was the source of volcanic passion between us but now has settled into something more for us both. For me, I don’t have to nurture the ideal that being a sex partner is a requirement in a marriage and I don’t have to panic-skim the suttas for a loophole that says sex is wholesome just to make me feel better about not committing to some degree of restraint.
“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
Mr Albatross
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 2:19 pm

Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?

Post by Mr Albatross »

Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 2:54 pm I'm saying he was still married and a Family man.
From Webster's dictionary...
Family man - man with a spouse and child or children dependent on him.

especially : a man devoted to his family.
By this definition a sexually abstinent, homeless, mendicant renunciate hardly counts as a "family man".
Mr Albatross
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 2:19 pm

Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?

Post by Mr Albatross »

Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:16 pm No sutta proof that the Buddha got divorced.
In the story of Sudinna becoming a bhikkhu there is no mention of him ever formally divorcing his wife. Yet from the time he gets ordained his wife is always referred to as his "former wife". This indicates that for married men bhikkhu ordination was tantamount to getting divorced.
Venerable Sudinna’s former wife took hold of his feet and said, “What are these nymphs like, young master, for which you lead the spiritual life?”
“Sister, I don’t lead the spiritual life for the sake of nymphs.”
His former wife thought, “From today the young master calls me ‘sister’,” and she fainted on the spot.
Zenny
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed May 12, 2021 12:09 pm

Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?

Post by Zenny »

SDC wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:37 pm
Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:13 pm
SDC wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:06 pm

Because I was married before I got serious about all of this. And now I have two children.
On a serious note. I have full respect for you being married with children. I really mean that.
Which is why I'm saying your better self overcomes ideology and does what you instinctively know is best by being there for your wife and children.
:smile:

I am there for my wife and children. I am extremely lucky to have a supportive spouse who fully understands how deeply I am committed to this, even if that means that things will change about me that she did not expect when she married me. Luckily for her I have a workhorse mentality when it comes to our home and children and will run things entirely for days on end when she a deadline at work even though I was up at 5:15 and worked all day in NYC; so as far as she can tell, the Dhamma has worked wonders for her lol. She knows that ultimately my goal is to practice even longer periods of abstaining from sex than I already do now and we’ve worked out how to deal with it. If she ever said, “It’s me or the Dhamma”, she knows I would never choose her, but she enjoys the fact that I’m trying to stand for something, even if she doesn’t agree with it, so I don’t think she would ever give the ultimatum.

Point being (and returning to the topic), I practice having understood that mindlessly indulging in the pleasures of marriage does hinder me and have worked tirelessly to find a suitable balance that didn’t alienate my wife. If she was unwilling and if I were not as driven as I am, I sure our relationship would never had made it this far. Bottom line, I couldn’t be in a marriage where I had to pretend like it was my life’s ambition. She has the same mentality but for totally different reasons. Like I said, super lucky because we can both say it outright. Up until recently this was the source of volcanic passion between us but now has settled into something more for us both. For me, I don’t have to nurture the ideal that being a sex partner is a requirement in a marriage and I don’t have to panic-skim the suttas for a loophole that says sex is wholesome just to make me feel better about not committing to some degree of restraint.

I comend you on your trying to make things work. Both of you.
Hopefully you sound like you have got over the worst and can both get stronger.
I still don't feel your ideas are correct. But humans have a great knack of making things work well despite their bad ideas.
:namaste:
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Zenny
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed May 12, 2021 12:09 pm

Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?

Post by Zenny »

Sam Vara wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:24 pm
Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:15 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:14 pm

They don't have to be. As I have repeatedly shown, your claim that the Buddha "was still married and a Family man" can be refuted with no reference to divorce, which you mistakenly think is the only way in which a renunciate can stop being married and a family man. He was once married and a family man, and stopped being so, without any necessity of a pronouncement of decree absolute.

Some people think that a married person remains married until death, regardless of mundane pronouncements of secular courts. Others (you seem to be in this camp) think that a married person remains married until death or legal divorce. But neither of these are accepted by Theravada.

If you want to insist that the Buddha remained married because there was no Tammy Wynette-style D.I.V.O.R.C.E. then that's fine, but it has no more currency here than a Roman Catholic hard-liner insisting that marriage is a union persisting until death. It's just a view, isn't it?
So you have no proof from the suttas basically.
Yes, the suttas showing how the Buddha had fulfilled the Holy Life of celibacy were given above; there are dozens more. I'll let you find them yourself because your claim that the only way a once-married man can stop being married is through divorce has been refuted so often that I cannot believe you are posting in good faith.

With that, I'll bid you a peaceful good night. :anjali:
There is no explicit proof. If there was you and others would have posted it already. Let's see if anyone else posts some suttas.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Zenny
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed May 12, 2021 12:09 pm

Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?

Post by Zenny »

Mr Albatross wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 2:12 am
Zenny wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:16 pm No sutta proof that the Buddha got divorced.
In the story of Sudinna becoming a bhikkhu there is no mention of him ever formally divorcing his wife. Yet from the time he gets ordained his wife is always referred to as his "former wife". This indicates that for married men bhikkhu ordination was tantamount to getting divorced.
Venerable Sudinna’s former wife took hold of his feet and said, “What are these nymphs like, young master, for which you lead the spiritual life?”
“Sister, I don’t lead the spiritual life for the sake of nymphs.”
His former wife thought, “From today the young master calls me ‘sister’,” and she fainted on the spot.
This is not a general or explicit proof.
Any explicit proof?
What stands is the Buddha never divorced.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Locked