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

[Zenny]

Theravadan monks are not married, of course. And sexual intercourse is a disrobing offence for a monk. Which is of course more evidence (if it were needed) for the Buddha being absolutely celibate according to the suttas. He didn't disrobe.



I don't know Magandiya's motivation, but it's ridiculous to think that celibate people don't get offered sex. Ask any young good-looking Catholic priest.



I'm doing nothing other than quoting suttas. The inhumanity, coldness, and monstrosity are what you are reading into it. Perhaps that's something that's worth reflecting upon.

Many mahayanan monks are married.

Indeed. But the point is that the Buddha expected celibacy from those who went forth in his dispensation, and was himself celibate.

With magandiya your comment doesn't really make sense.
He's basically asking for a marriage proposal not a jump in the hay.

It makes perfect sense if you take a little time and apply a little good will. Magandiya possibly knew of the Buddha's celibacy, but nevertheless thought that it could be overcome with the right offer. Many people - possibly including yourself - seem to think that celibacy cannot be sustained.

I'm not reading anything extra than what the text is demonstrating.

What the text "demonstrates" is subjective, isn't it? It certainly doesn't use the words "inhuman", "cold", or "monster". I've known many celibate monks who were the reverse of these qualities.

Your making monks out to be dour,inhuman rude verbose people.

No, I'm not. I'm just quoting the suttas, and again if you think that then your issue is with the suttas rather than me. Your subjective opinions are your own affair.

I'm sure mahayanan monks consider they are following the Buddha's instructions,just like you think that.
Are you trying to suggest your views are Not subjective?

Are you a monk by the way?
And if not,why not? If you believe in the suttas and want the best escape from suffering you should,shouldn't you?

[Sam Vara]

Many mahayanan monks are married.

Indeed. But the point is that the Buddha expected celibacy from those who went forth in his dispensation, and was himself celibate.

With magandiya your comment doesn't really make sense.
He's basically asking for a marriage proposal not a jump in the hay.

It makes perfect sense if you take a little time and apply a little good will. Magandiya possibly knew of the Buddha's celibacy, but nevertheless thought that it could be overcome with the right offer. Many people - possibly including yourself - seem to think that celibacy cannot be sustained.

I'm not reading anything extra than what the text is demonstrating.

What the text "demonstrates" is subjective, isn't it? It certainly doesn't use the words "inhuman", "cold", or "monster". I've known many celibate monks who were the reverse of these qualities.

Your making monks out to be dour,inhuman rude verbose people.

No, I'm not. I'm just quoting the suttas, and again if you think that then your issue is with the suttas rather than me. Your subjective opinions are your own affair.

I'm sure mahayanan monks consider they are following the Buddha's instructions,just like you think that.
Are you trying to suggest your views are Not subjective?

Are you a monk by the way?
And if not,why not? If you believe in the suttas and want the best escape from suffering you should,shouldn't you?

Can you see how you tend to generate a new controversy when the old one (in this case, whether the Buddha was sexually active) is laid to rest? Something else that might be worth reflecting on, and in any case you should start new threads addressing these three new topics.

[Zenny]

Indeed. But the point is that the Buddha expected celibacy from those who went forth in his dispensation, and was himself celibate.



It makes perfect sense if you take a little time and apply a little good will. Magandiya possibly knew of the Buddha's celibacy, but nevertheless thought that it could be overcome with the right offer. Many people - possibly including yourself - seem to think that celibacy cannot be sustained.



What the text "demonstrates" is subjective, isn't it? It certainly doesn't use the words "inhuman", "cold", or "monster". I've known many celibate monks who were the reverse of these qualities.



No, I'm not. I'm just quoting the suttas, and again if you think that then your issue is with the suttas rather than me. Your subjective opinions are your own affair.

I'm sure mahayanan monks consider they are following the Buddha's instructions,just like you think that.
Are you trying to suggest your views are Not subjective?

Are you a monk by the way?
And if not,why not? If you believe in the suttas and want the best escape from suffering you should,shouldn't you?

Can you see how you tend to generate a new controversy when the old one (in this case, whether the Buddha was sexually active) is laid to rest? Something else that might be worth reflecting on, and in any case you should start new threads addressing these three new topics.

You could address your answers here if you could.
I see no need to overcomplicate with 3 threads.
Nothing has been laid to rest. You are just assuming your subjectivity is the case. When it's patently not.
I fail to see how non monks justify their not being monks,yet talk so imperiously about its benefits.

[Sam Vara]

I'm sure mahayanan monks consider they are following the Buddha's instructions,just like you think that.
Are you trying to suggest your views are Not subjective?

Are you a monk by the way?
And if not,why not? If you believe in the suttas and want the best escape from suffering you should,shouldn't you?

Can you see how you tend to generate a new controversy when the old one (in this case, whether the Buddha was sexually active) is laid to rest? Something else that might be worth reflecting on, and in any case you should start new threads addressing these three new topics.

You could address your answers here if you could.
I see no need to overcomplicate with 3 threads.

You might not, Zenny, but as a moderator I'm reminding you of ToS 2.i. If you choose to ignore that, you'll find it very hard to post here. If you start new threads and they look interesting, I might contribute to them.

Nothing has been laid to rest

I meant that you seemed to have dropped the issue of whether the Buddha was celibate in favour of the next bit of reflex nay-saying.

I fail to see how non monks justify their not being monks,yet talk so imperiously about its benefits.

Again, a different topic which threatens to derail this thread even further, and which will be subject to deletion unless taken up in a new thread.

[Zenny]

Can you see how you tend to generate a new controversy when the old one (in this case, whether the Buddha was sexually active) is laid to rest? Something else that might be worth reflecting on, and in any case you should start new threads addressing these three new topics.

You could address your answers here if you could.
I see no need to overcomplicate with 3 threads.

You might not, Zenny, but as a moderator I'm reminding you of ToS 2.i. If you choose to ignore that, you'll find it very hard to post here. If you start new threads and they look interesting, I might contribute to them.

Nothing has been laid to rest

I meant that you seemed to have dropped the issue of whether the Buddha was celibate in favour of the next bit of reflex nay-saying.

I fail to see how non monks justify their not being monks,yet talk so imperiously about its benefits.

Again, a different topic which threatens to derail this thread even further, and which will be subject to deletion unless taken up in a new thread.

Still no proof.
Buddha was married with a family. Fact.

[Sam Vara]

You could address your answers here if you could.
I see no need to overcomplicate with 3 threads.

You might not, Zenny, but as a moderator I'm reminding you of ToS 2.i. If you choose to ignore that, you'll find it very hard to post here. If you start new threads and they look interesting, I might contribute to them.

Nothing has been laid to rest

I meant that you seemed to have dropped the issue of whether the Buddha was celibate in favour of the next bit of reflex nay-saying.

I fail to see how non monks justify their not being monks,yet talk so imperiously about its benefits.

Again, a different topic which threatens to derail this thread even further, and which will be subject to deletion unless taken up in a new thread.

Still no proof.
Buddha was married with a family. Fact.

Sure. Before his enlightenment, it appears he was.

[Zenny]

You might not, Zenny, but as a moderator I'm reminding you of ToS 2.i. If you choose to ignore that, you'll find it very hard to post here. If you start new threads and they look interesting, I might contribute to them.



I meant that you seemed to have dropped the issue of whether the Buddha was celibate in favour of the next bit of reflex nay-saying.



Again, a different topic which threatens to derail this thread even further, and which will be subject to deletion unless taken up in a new thread.

Still no proof.
Buddha was married with a family. Fact.

Sure. Before his enlightenment, it appears he was.

Appears?
And after he was married with a family as well.

[DooDoot]

It is to be remembered though that even the Buddha had a son.

The enlightened Buddha never had a son. It was the unenlightened Gotama that had a son.

Your idea is similar to the common idea that there were prostitutes that attained enlightenment. No prostitute ever attained enlightenment. Only ex-prostitutes come bhikkhunis attained enlightenment.

[Sam Vara]

Still no proof.
Buddha was married with a family. Fact.

Sure. Before his enlightenment, it appears he was.

Appears?

Yes, I've no direct evidence, but infer it from what the suttas say and what the tradition holds.

And after he was married with a family as well.

There, the inference from the suttas is much stronger and points to him not living the home life but going forth into homelessness; and being completely celibate, as per the suttas provided above and in many other places.

[Zenny]

Sure. Before his enlightenment, it appears he was.

Appears?

Yes, I've no direct evidence, but infer it from what the suttas say and what the tradition holds.

And after he was married with a family as well.

There, the inference from the suttas is much stronger and points to him not living the home life but going forth into homelessness; and being completely celibate, as per the suttas provided above and in many other places.

So basically just speculative inferences.

[Zenny]

It is to be remembered though that even the Buddha had a son.

The enlightened Buddha never had a son. It was the unenlightened Gotama that had a son.

Your idea is similar to the common idea that there were prostitutes that attained enlightenment. No prostitute ever attained enlightenment. Only ex-prostitutes come bhikkhunis attained enlightenment.

Comparing Family life to prostitution!
Is this what is called spiritual?

[Sam Vara]

Appears?

Yes, I've no direct evidence, but infer it from what the suttas say and what the tradition holds.

And after he was married with a family as well.

There, the inference from the suttas is much stronger and points to him not living the home life but going forth into homelessness; and being completely celibate, as per the suttas provided above and in many other places.

So basically just speculative inferences.

No, inferences because - like you and I assume everyone else here - I have no direct knowledge and have to infer the truth from the scriptures. But certainly not speculative.

Now, , please!

[Zenny]

Yes, I've no direct evidence, but infer it from what the suttas say and what the tradition holds.



There, the inference from the suttas is much stronger and points to him not living the home life but going forth into homelessness; and being completely celibate, as per the suttas provided above and in many other places.

So basically just speculative inferences.

No, inferences because - like you and I assume everyone else here - I have no direct knowledge and have to infer the truth from the scriptures. But certainly not speculative.

Now, , please!

Yes the topic. Still no concrete proof.

[Sam Vara]

So basically just speculative inferences.

No, inferences because - like you and I assume everyone else here - I have no direct knowledge and have to infer the truth from the scriptures. But certainly not speculative.

Now, , please!

Yes the topic. Still no concrete proof.

Of what?

[Zenny]

No, inferences because - like you and I assume everyone else here - I have no direct knowledge and have to infer the truth from the scriptures. But certainly not speculative.

Now, , please!

Yes the topic. Still no concrete proof.

Of what?

That Buddha abandoned his wife and child after 45.