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.
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)?
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.
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.
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
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.”
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)?
Is that proof for Buddha's divorce or the "legally dead" going to be ready anytime soon?
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Focus!
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
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.”
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)?
You said in effect he was no longer married.
Do read your own implications.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Focus!
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
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.Zenny wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:39 pmSam Vara wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:30 pmSure.
(SN 42.7)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 35.28)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.
And how are these quotes related clearly to Buddha's divorce?
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?
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
So you have no proof from the suttas basically.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:14 pmThey 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?
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Focus!
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
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.”
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)?
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.Zenny wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:15 pmSo you have no proof from the suttas basically.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:14 pmThey 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?
With that, I'll bid you a peaceful good night.
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
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
-
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 2:19 pm
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
From Webster's dictionary...
By this definition a sexually abstinent, homeless, mendicant renunciate hardly counts as a "family man".Family man - man with a spouse and child or children dependent on him.
especially : a man devoted to his family.
-
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 2:19 pm
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
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.
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
SDC wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:37 pm
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.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Focus!
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
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.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:24 pmYes, 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.Zenny wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:15 pmSo you have no proof from the suttas basically.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?
With that, I'll bid you a peaceful good night.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Focus!
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
This is not a general or explicit proof.Mr Albatross wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 2:12 amIn 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.
Any explicit proof?
What stands is the Buddha never divorced.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Focus!