All anyone has is the suttas for evidence, and they very definitely point to him going forth from the home life into homelessness, and being celibate from then on. It seems to me that anyone disagreeing with that needs to show suttas that say the enlightened Buddha had sex, or come up with an alternative, non-sutta piece of evidence.
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)?
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
As I said. There is oral tradition and common sense.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:44 amAll anyone has is the suttas for evidence, and they very definitely point to him going forth from the home life into homelessness, and being celibate from then on. It seems to me that anyone disagreeing with that needs to show suttas that say the enlightened Buddha had sex, or come up with an alternative, non-sutta piece of evidence.
There are also different buddhist traditions that differ on what a "monk" is.
There is zero evidence of abandonment.
His wife and Rahula were part of the sangha,so you are suggesting he never talked or taught them ever?
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Focus!
-
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:39 am
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
Yes this is all very obvious and doesn't need to be stated.DooDoot wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:14 amThe enlightened Buddha never had a son. It was the unenlightened Gotama that had a son.Cause_and_Effect wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:13 amIt is to be remembered though that even the Buddha had a son.
His son remained his son after he had attained enlightenment.
Also the Bodhistatta knew in advance that this was to be his final birth, so on some level it was also a willful decision to have a son in his final life when he knew he would attain to Buddhahood.
"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."
(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
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."
(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
Is there an oral tradition and a common sense view that the Buddha continued to live the householder life and have sex after his enlightenment? I've not heard of it...Zenny wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:50 amAs I said. There is oral tradition and common sense.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:44 amAll anyone has is the suttas for evidence, and they very definitely point to him going forth from the home life into homelessness, and being celibate from then on. It seems to me that anyone disagreeing with that needs to show suttas that say the enlightened Buddha had sex, or come up with an alternative, non-sutta piece of evidence.
There are, but I don't know of any that differ as to the Buddha himself living as a celibate monk. Which is what the topic is here...There are also different buddhist traditions that differ on what a "monk" is.
Apart from the suttas? You're right.There is zero evidence of abandonment.
Not at all. If Rahula was indeed the Buddha's biological son (see upthread) he taught him. But as a monk, not as a son, it seems.His wife and Rahula were part of the sangha,so you are suggesting he never talked or taught them ever?
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
You can't change biology I'm.afraid. No matter what sutta you bring.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:01 pmIs there an oral tradition and a common sense view that the Buddha continued to live the householder life and have sex after his enlightenment? I've not heard of it...Zenny wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:50 amAs I said. There is oral tradition and common sense.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:44 am
All anyone has is the suttas for evidence, and they very definitely point to him going forth from the home life into homelessness, and being celibate from then on. It seems to me that anyone disagreeing with that needs to show suttas that say the enlightened Buddha had sex, or come up with an alternative, non-sutta piece of evidence.
There are, but I don't know of any that differ as to the Buddha himself living as a celibate monk. Which is what the topic is here...There are also different buddhist traditions that differ on what a "monk" is.
Apart from the suttas? You're right.There is zero evidence of abandonment.
Not at all. If Rahula was indeed the Buddha's biological son (see upthread) he taught him. But as a monk, not as a son, it seems.His wife and Rahula were part of the sangha,so you are suggesting he never talked or taught them ever?
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Focus!
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
Yes. His remains his son always. His wife remains His wife always. And they remain family always.Cause_and_Effect wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:56 amYes this is all very obvious and doesn't need to be stated.DooDoot wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:14 amThe enlightened Buddha never had a son. It was the unenlightened Gotama that had a son.Cause_and_Effect wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:13 amIt is to be remembered though that even the Buddha had a son.
His son remained his son after he had attained enlightenment.
Also the Bodhistatta knew in advance that this was to be his final birth, so on some level it was also a willful decision to have a son in his final life when he knew he would attain to Buddhahood.
Those who say he abandoned his Family are seriously wrong.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Focus!
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
Well, you might think the suttas are wrong. Me, I think they contain important truths. It takes all sorts, I guess. I've known lots of people who became celibate, and some who had no feelings whatever for their children or parents. So this isn't too big a stretch for me.Zenny wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:03 pmYou can't change biology I'm.afraid. No matter what sutta you bring.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:01 pmIs there an oral tradition and a common sense view that the Buddha continued to live the householder life and have sex after his enlightenment? I've not heard of it...
There are, but I don't know of any that differ as to the Buddha himself living as a celibate monk. Which is what the topic is here...There are also different buddhist traditions that differ on what a "monk" is.
Apart from the suttas? You're right.There is zero evidence of abandonment.
Not at all. If Rahula was indeed the Buddha's biological son (see upthread) he taught him. But as a monk, not as a son, it seems.His wife and Rahula were part of the sangha,so you are suggesting he never talked or taught them ever?
-
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:39 am
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
A son is a biological hereditary relationship.Zenny wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:13 pmYes. His remains his son always. His wife remains His wife always. And they remain family always.Cause_and_Effect wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:56 amYes this is all very obvious and doesn't need to be stated.
His son remained his son after he had attained enlightenment.
Also the Bodhistatta knew in advance that this was to be his final birth, so on some level it was also a willful decision to have a son in his final life when he knew he would attain to Buddhahood.
Those who say he abandoned his Family are seriously wrong.
A wife is a social arrangement.
Leaving his family didn't suddenly stop him from being his son.
In terms of the Dhamma, the Buddha called Ven. Sarriputta his 'son in the dhamma'.
In a sense any of us are who are on the path.
"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."
(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
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."
(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
Yes,but you are venerating those who have no feelings for their children or parents.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:18 pmWell, you might think the suttas are wrong. Me, I think they contain important truths. It takes all sorts, I guess. I've known lots of people who became celibate, and some who had no feelings whatever for their children or parents. So this isn't too big a stretch for me.Zenny wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:03 pmYou can't change biology I'm.afraid. No matter what sutta you bring.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:01 pm
Is there an oral tradition and a common sense view that the Buddha continued to live the householder life and have sex after his enlightenment? I've not heard of it...
There are, but I don't know of any that differ as to the Buddha himself living as a celibate monk. Which is what the topic is here...
Apart from the suttas? You're right.
Not at all. If Rahula was indeed the Buddha's biological son (see upthread) he taught him. But as a monk, not as a son, it seems.
As for celibates,just by some of the posts here that doesn't mean sexually inactive.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Focus!
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
Do you think Buddha was closer to some members of the sangha than others?Cause_and_Effect wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:23 pmA son is a biological hereditary relationship.Zenny wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:13 pmYes. His remains his son always. His wife remains His wife always. And they remain family always.Cause_and_Effect wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:56 am
Yes this is all very obvious and doesn't need to be stated.
His son remained his son after he had attained enlightenment.
Also the Bodhistatta knew in advance that this was to be his final birth, so on some level it was also a willful decision to have a son in his final life when he knew he would attain to Buddhahood.
Those who say he abandoned his Family are seriously wrong.
A wife is a social arrangement.
Leaving his family didn't suddenly stop him from being his son.
In terms of the Dhamma, the Buddha called Ven. Sarriputta his 'son in the dhamma'.
In a sense any of us are who are on the path.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Focus!
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
Note how you change the debate yet again, in order to maintain a position.Zenny wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:37 pmYes,but you are venerating those who have no feelings for their children or parents.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:18 pmWell, you might think the suttas are wrong. Me, I think they contain important truths. It takes all sorts, I guess. I've known lots of people who became celibate, and some who had no feelings whatever for their children or parents. So this isn't too big a stretch for me.
As for celibates,just by some of the posts here that doesn't mean sexually inactive.
But no, I am not venerating those who have no feelings for children or parents. If anything, I venerate those who have transcended clinging to people in favour of dispassionately helping them to attain their own liberation.
And yes, by celibate I mean sexually inactive, whatever other posters say or do.
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
Nope. I don't see changing. I see nuance.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:45 pmNote how you change the debate yet again, in order to maintain a position.Zenny wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:37 pmYes,but you are venerating those who have no feelings for their children or parents.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:18 pm
Well, you might think the suttas are wrong. Me, I think they contain important truths. It takes all sorts, I guess. I've known lots of people who became celibate, and some who had no feelings whatever for their children or parents. So this isn't too big a stretch for me.
As for celibates,just by some of the posts here that doesn't mean sexually inactive.
But no, I am not venerating those who have no feelings for children or parents. If anything, I venerate those who have transcended clinging to people in favour of dispassionately helping them to attain their own liberation.
And yes, by celibate I mean sexually inactive, whatever other posters say or do.
You are venerating those who develop dispassion. Which is the same thing as no feelings.
Whatever happened to compassion?
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Focus!
-
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:39 am
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
This conversation is extremely strange.
Maybe it's trying to be 'zen provocative' I don't know.
According to the Suttas, the Buddha renounced the householder life at age 29, and was celibate for the remainder of his life.
He abandoned his wife and child yes, but they were wealthy royals of sorts so would have been looked after without concern.
He reached enlightenment at age 35.
Even if he had not already been celibate as a renunciant before this, doing sexual acts is one of the nine impossible actions of an Arahant.
"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."
(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
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."
(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
No , but you can check out the details .
No bashing No gossiping
Re: Is a sexual relationship with a legitimate partner not considered attachment (greed)?
Yes, dispassion is good: virāgā vimuccati, because of dispassion he/it is freed. I don't see it as being the same as having no feelings at all. I don't even see how it's possible to have no feelings. The Buddha taught out of compassion, so when he taught those who were biologically related to him the compassion was presumably as much in evidence then as elsewhere.Zenny wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:54 pmNope. I don't see changing. I see nuance.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:45 pmNote how you change the debate yet again, in order to maintain a position.
But no, I am not venerating those who have no feelings for children or parents. If anything, I venerate those who have transcended clinging to people in favour of dispassionately helping them to attain their own liberation.
And yes, by celibate I mean sexually inactive, whatever other posters say or do.
You are venerating those who develop dispassion. Which is the same thing as no feelings.
Whatever happened to compassion?