Musings about Tantra...

[form]

The equanimity from sex even at its highest level is mundane. It is not the same as that without the five cords of sense pleasures.

This is true, at least from a Theravada viewpoint. It does however not invalidate the point, that Tantra is not about the sex itself, but it is seen as a form of meditative process to achieve higher states of enlightenment.

From my limited understanding, tantra is related to channeling the energy from libido towards awakening. Sexual energy is the rawest form of psychic energy currency. Terms like kundalini are related to this also. Some taoists used similar ways but to enhance their health, that could work for their goals. But all these are conditioned and hence not supramundane path.

The pleasure need not be coming from sexual contact, it can be from jhanas, which the pleasure is of higher level. But as long as one delights in it, their progress is halted at that level.

[AgarikaJ]

since I was born in the noble birth

I think you are overstressing the metaphor of being born in the noble birth. Nothing is 'reborn' or 'born anew'. The actual phrase in MN 86 is as follows:

Angulimala, go to that woman and on arrival say to her, 'Sister, since I was born in the noble birth, I do not recall intentionally killing a living being'.
‘yatohaṃ, bhagini, ariyāya jātiyā jāto, nābhijānāmi sañcicca pāṇaṃ jīvitā voropetā, tena saccena sotthi te hotu, sotthi gabbhassā’

'Jati' would be translated as 'social-identity'; from this perspective, certainly a transformation has happened, but it is on a (mundanely spoken) personal level. No new being has been created at all by going forth or becoming an Arahant, even though socially and -- in the case of an Arahant -- super-mundanely the transformed entity is considerably changed.

In the case of Angulimala, interestingly, he still had to burn off residual Kamma at this stage and was, in this sense, not different to the woman he spoke to.

Further examples, to illustrate my thinking:
- DooDot having an accident and breaking his arm would be still the same DooDot, merely physically changed.
- DooDot entering the monkhood would be still the same DooDot, albeit socially and emotionally changed
- DooDot becoming an Arahant would be still the same DooDot, merely freed from the burden of creating new Kamma and released from the cycle of rebirth

Interestingly, and this is where things are less clear: at least the first two examples are roughly reversible. It is wholly unclear following the Pali Suttas what actually happens in the case of an Arahant, who is not able to create further Bad Kamma and only needs to burn through the residual Kamma accumulated previously)...? He truly might have entered into the state of a "new" being.

But again, Aṅgulimāla was not an Arahant yet as he spoke with this woman; and neither reached Āmrapālī instant Arahant-ship merely on the decision to ordain as a bhikkhunī.

[Manopubbangama]

since I was born in the noble birth

I think you are overstressing the metaphor of being born in the noble birth. Nothing is 'reborn' or 'born anew'. The actual phrase in MN 86 is as follows:

Angulimala, go to that woman and on arrival say to her, 'Sister, since I was born in the noble birth, I do not recall intentionally killing a living being'.
‘yatohaṃ, bhagini, ariyāya jātiyā jāto, nābhijānāmi sañcicca pāṇaṃ jīvitā voropetā, tena saccena sotthi te hotu, sotthi gabbhassā’

'Jati' would be translated as 'social-identity'; from this perspective, certainly a transformation has happened, but it is on a (mundanely spoken) personal level. No new being has been created at all by going forth or becoming an Arahant, even though socially and -- in the case of an Arahant -- super-mundanely the transformed entity is considerably changed.

In the case of Angulimala, interestingly, he still had to burn off residual Kamma at this stage and was, in this sense, not different to the woman he spoke to.

Further examples, to illustrate my thinking:
- DooDot having an accident and breaking his arm would be still the same DooDot, merely physically changed.
- DooDot entering the monkhood would be still the same DooDot, albeit socially and emotionally changed
- DooDot becoming an Arahant would be still the same DooDot, merely freed from the burden of creating new Kamma and released from the cycle of rebirth

Interestingly, and this is where things are less clear: at least the first two examples are roughly reversible. It is wholly unclear following the Pali Suttas what actually happens in the case of an Arahant, who is not able to create further Bad Kamma and only needs to burn through the residual Kamma accumulated previously)...? He truly might have entered into the state of a "new" being.

But again, Aṅgulimāla was not an Arahant yet as he spoke with this woman; and neither reached Āmrapālī instant Arahant-ship merely on the decision to ordain as a bhikkhunī.

Sounds like there will be no response to the baseless, amateurish accusations leveled against Theravada......



As always:

Real Buddhism: 1
Orgasmic Buddhism: 0

[AgarikaJ]

As always:

Real Buddhism: 1
Orgasmic Buddhism: 0

If your practice and behaviour is on the level of a football match, where there must be winners and loosers, or there must be right and wrong, I have the feeling that there is really little useful that could be said to you, as your adversarial emotional state is impeding your ability to take in information.

I am of course able and forthcoming to answer any questions about my posts, if their content goes beyond polemics and show engagement with the topic of the thread.

[Manopubbangama]

As always:

Real Buddhism: 1
Orgasmic Buddhism: 0

If your practice and behaviour is on the level of a football match, where there must be winners and loosers, or there must be right and wrong, I have the feeling that there is really little useful that could be said to you, as your adversarial emotional state is impeding your ability to take in information.

I am of course able and forthcoming to answer any questions about my posts, if their content goes beyond polemics and show engagement with the topic of the thread.

Meh, thats the saddest copout I ever heard before in my entire life.

First the insult to Theravada Buddhism and Ananda because they don't conform to wishy-washy new age nonsense, and when called out on said wild claims that can't be backed up at all, proceeding to the expected ad-hominems.

Clearly, the ideas expressed above are refuted and indefensible, and therefore, the constant passive-aggressive, snarky comments is all that can be given.

A crystal clear example of illogic 101. Its good enough for write a master's degree in womynnist theology on.

So now that we see that the mindless slanders towards Ananda are refuted, lets proceed to talking about new age orgasmic Buddhism.

[AgarikaJ]

First the insult to Theravada Buddhism and Ananda because they don't conform to wishy-washy new age nonsense

That you not even read my post is clearly recognizable in the way that you manage to confound my musings on a 5th century Tamil Mahayana poem and 8th-12th century early Vajrayana philosophy with something "new-age". I am sure there is a connection somewhere, about which I do not know about, but without you explaining where this logical jump came from, I am quite helpless to react.

Or, maybe should I ask, what do you know about early Vajrayana, that you have such a strong opinion on it? You have noted that you are posting here, repeatedly, in the 'other faiths' section, have you?

In any case you seem to have asked me to defend the thinking of people who are dead for more than a millenium; I have no way of asking why they thought as they did, I merely described it. Why the use of whores (as you choose to label them) would have been deemed useful can actually be read about in the book I linked to. I am sure you have read those particular passages -- why else bother to comment? -- but I have actually no opinion on this, as this occured in later Tibetan traditions.

And please list exactly, where I have insulted Ananda! I have made clear that a filtering of the Dhamma has happened, which is irrefutable, and that he himself had gaps in his knowledge of the full Dhamma (was there not something about minor rules he got ripped into for?). Or do you seriously hold the position that we have in the Suttas a gapless transmission of every single moment and word of the life of the Buddha?

In any case, from simply reading the Suttas and their Parallels, it is clearly visible that the Buddha thought and acted well beyond the confines of the extant Sutta transmission, or maybe said better, for many of his teachings we are lacking context and an explanation tailored to our exact ability to understand (as he did regularly with people he met).

Neither can we ask Ananda, as you seem to suggest with your quote.

To bring up an example from another discussion on here:
How high was the percentage of meat in the daily meals of the Buddha? How common was it that laypeople offered meat and monks ate it? Was there a difference in the amount of meat consumed by monks depending on attainment? Did the Buddha ever have to refuse meat as it did not follow the three rules? Did the Buddha ever make it known to laypeople less versed in Sangha rules, subtly or not, that certain foods would be less acceptable than others and how often did he need to do that?

If the Dhamma as extant in the Pali Suttas would be complete, we would know in detail and there would be no need to discuss any of this, looking for interpretations between the lines. If this stating of a fact somehow offends you, I advise you to reflect why that might be so; I actually have not the slightest idea what makes you react in the way you have.

[Manopubbangama]

....

Again more verbal proliferation of nothing that has to do with the claims that were made here:

It is quite interesting, to my mind, that this less threatened, more open view of womanhood spread very quickly throughout Sri Lanka and the whole of maritime Southeast Asia and was only centuries later overcome by Mahaviharan dogmatism (what we call nowadays 'Theravada').

Tell us how Theravada is "threatened" by womanhood.......



It seems if anything, Ananda's views of women were much more* "progressive" than the Buddha, wouldn't you agree?

If anything, Ananda's recollection of the Buddha's teaching would be more liberal regarding women's role than less....

*Go look that up now, you will figure it out

Regarding the new ageness of the thread, the book you linked to is new age fluff, with little to no connection to an ancient indian sex cult.

[DooDoot]

I think you are overstressing the metaphor of being born in the noble birth.

I didn't refer to any "metaphor".

'Jati' would be translated as 'social-identity'

Yes. No longer a murderer. No longer a prostitute engaged in unwholesome self-harming & other-harming sexual behaviours.

But again, Aṅgulimāla was not an Arahant yet as he spoke with this woman; and neither reached Āmrapālī instant Arahant-ship merely on the decision to ordain as a bhikkhunī.

Yes. Aṅgulimāla was not an Arahant at that time but Aṅgulimāla had ceased to be a murderer; just as Āmrapālī could not be a Buddhist until
she stopped harming herself & stop harming and beguiling men with delusions that promiscuous sex brings happiness to women rather than suffering & rebirth into the three lower realms.

Āmrapālī was not a high class prostitute that attained enlightenment. Āmrapālī was a former high class prostitute that attained enlightenment.

[AgarikaJ]

If anything, Ananda's recollection of the Buddha's teaching would be more liberal regarding women's role than less....

*Go look that up now, you will figure it out

For which he got in hot water, as well. Your recollection of the Suttas seems spotty, bossy comments (which I find rather unbecoming if you want to be taken serious) cannot gloss over that.

And from your post, once more: I must deduce that you have not read Chapter 8 specifically quoted in my post. As you are therefore unable to engage with the topic at hand, I will conclude any further discussion with you on this thread.

If this makes you feel "the winner" -- I have seen in other discussions from you that this is important to you -- I am quite happy with that.

[AgarikaJ]

I think you are overstressing the metaphor of being born in the noble birth.

I didn't refer to any "metaphor".

'Jati' would be translated as 'social-identity'

Yes. No longer a murderer. No longer a prostitute engaged in unwholesome self-harming & other-harming sexual behaviours.

But again, Aṅgulimāla was not an Arahant yet as he spoke with this woman; and neither reached Āmrapālī instant Arahant-ship merely on the decision to ordain as a bhikkhunī.

Yes. Aṅgulimāla was not an Arahant at that time but Aṅgulimāla had ceased to be a murderer; just as Āmrapālī could not be a Buddhist until
she stopped harming herself & stop harming and beguiling men with delusions that promiscuous sex brings happiness to women rather than suffering & rebirth into the three lower realms.

Āmrapālī was not a high class prostitute that attained enlightenment. Āmrapālī was a former high class prostitute that attained enlightenment.

"Born into the noble birth" is really just a metaphor and an alliteration to 'going forth', as *no new being* is created, which would be completely impossible following the Theravada interpretation of rebirth and Kamma. Only a (reversible!) social transformation is actually happening and the Suttas are clear about this.

To note: even *after* becoming an Arahant, Aṅgulimāla had to suffer specifically named Kammic consequences for specifically named deeds in his actual, current life. "Just" becoming a Buddhist or even being a Bikkhu (a Duthanga monk even) for a considerable time actually did nothing transformative for him, he had to observe a specific event before first realization of knowledge came to him. The Buddha was quite clear about both these facts and it is impossible to misunderstand him on this.
- https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Now it so happened that at that time Ven. Angulimala was a wilderness-dweller, an alms-goer, wearing one set of the triple robe made of cast-off cloth.
...

Then Ven. Angulimala, early in the morning, having put on his robes and carrying his outer robe & bowl, went into Savatthi for alms. As he was going from house to house for alms, he saw a woman suffering a breech birth. On seeing her, the thought occurred to him: "How tormented are living beings! How tormented are living beings!"

...

Responding, "As you say, lord," to the Blessed One, Angulimala went to that woman and on arrival said to her, "Sister, since I was born in the noble birth, I do not recall intentionally killing a living being. Through this may there be wellbeing for you, wellbeing for your fetus." And there was wellbeing for the woman, wellbeing for her fetus.

Then Ven. Angulimala, dwelling alone, secluded, heedful, ardent, & resolute, in no long time reached & remained in the supreme goal of the holy life for which clansmen rightly go forth from home into homelessness, knowing & realizing it for himself in the here & now. He knew: "Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world." And thus Ven. Angulimala became another one of the arahants.

Then Ven. Angulimala, early in the morning, having put on his robes and carrying his outer robe & bowl, went into Savatthi for alms. Now at that time a clod thrown by one person hit Ven. Angulimala on the body, a stone thrown by another person hit him on the body, and a potsherd thrown by still another person hit him on the body. So Ven. Angulimala — his head broken open and dripping with blood, his bowl broken, and his outer robe ripped to shreds — went to the Blessed One.

The Blessed One saw him coming from afar and on seeing him said to him: "Bear with it, brahman! Bear with it! The fruit of the kamma that would have burned you in hell for many years, many hundreds of years, many thousands of years, you are now experiencing in the here-&-now!"

I agree however that my language was imprecise -- you point out that both Āmrapālī and Aṅgulimāla changed their behaviour and ceased all harmful actions before attaining Arahantship; this is without doubt true; however, until this very precise moment, this was at any time a reversible state.

Your language is in the end not more precise than mine when you state that they only became Buddhists upon ceasing unheedful acts. The whole Vinaya is a collection of sanctions for not just 'Buddhists' but ordained monastics of various attainments engaging in a multitude of heedless and unbecoming acts.
Murder and sex crimes by monks -- looking at the back stories to Pārājika 1 and Pārājika 3 and looking at the likely size of the Sangha at the Buddhas' time -- were so frequent that any modern cult would have long been shut down by authorities.

This is an uncomfortable point, another one not answered by the Dhamma as canonized at the First Council: why did the omniscient Buddha accept reoffending murderers and rapists as monks in his Sangha?
I believe that there has been a capacity for him to see beyond such mundane issues (in contrast to super-mundane, not to confuse me meaning that murder is not a big matter), and look to a general betterment of humanity in the long run by offering even those individuals the chance to accumulate merit for future lives. But the Dhamma as we have it is utterly quiet on this question and my answer on it falls already beyond strictly Theravada doctrine.

Alternative answers within the strict, orthodox doctrine are therefore very welcome, to improve my lacking understanding.

[Manopubbangama]

If anything, Ananda's recollection of the Buddha's teaching would be more liberal regarding women's role than less....

*Go look that up now, you will figure it out

For which he got in hot water, as well. Your recollection of the Suttas seems spotty, bossy comments (which I find rather unbecoming if you want to be taken serious) cannot gloss over that.

And from your post, once more: I must deduce that you have not read Chapter 8 specifically quoted in my post. As you are therefore unable to engage with the topic at hand, I will conclude any further discussion with you on this thread.

If this makes you feel "the winner" -- I have seen in other discussions from you that this is important to you -- I am quite happy with that.

The argument was lost the moment it begun.

Because it was based on a lie and a slander against the Buddha's word.

Up until now it has not been defended, because it is indefensible.

The rest has been ad-hominem insults against others who question the validity of the insertion of new-age sex manuals on a Theravada website.

Its called wrong view.

No one wins with wrong view.

[DooDoot]

"Born into the noble birth" is really just a metaphor and an alliteration to 'going forth', as *no new being* is created, which would be completely impossible following the Theravada interpretation of rebirth and Kamma. Only a (reversible!) social transformation is actually happening and the Suttas are clear about this.

In India today, as probably back them, "jati" means "social identity". Personally, I have found no evidence in the suttas "jati" refers to the physical birth or "rebirth" you appear to be referring to. The definition of "jati" includes "sattanikāye" or "classes of beings". "A bhikkhu" is a class of beings.

Yā tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye jāti sañjāti okkanti abhinibbatti khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho.

SN 12.2

Jati, meaning “birth-group”, is a system in which Hindus are categorized. Caste is another name for the over two thousand Jati groups that exist. These groups are usually based upon occupation, although they can also be categorized in different ways, such as by clan, region, or language. Typically, a Hindu will not marry outside of the caste in which they are born. The exception would be women, who sometimes will marry into a higher caste, although this is frowned upon by some. Jati, is related to Varna as well (Mittal and Thursby 357). Varna, meaning “colour”, is first described in the Rg Veda, which is the first sacred book of the Hindus, composed around 1500-1400 BCE. Varna is a class system of four categories which are the Brahmin (priestly class), Kshatriyas (nobility class), Vaishyas (merchant class), and Shudras (servant class). Particular groups of Jati will sometimes claim to be a part of one of the Varna classes. Sometimes, these designations that Jati groups make to be a part of a Varna class are not supported by fellow Hindus (Rodrigues 103-104). Jati, as well as Varna, is said to be subject to Karma. In addition to Varna, Karma was also first presented in the Rg Veda. Karma, meaning act or deed, is the concept that people’s actions in this life or past lives, will alter their next lives. Hence, a Hindus Karma will decide what Jati one is born into. Since one cannot control their birth status, some lower caste Jatis believe they are being discriminated against (Mittal and Thursby 357). Creation, mobility, and modern ideas and practices are all important in understanding the Jati system.

http://www.mahavidya.ca/2015/06/26/jati ... -hinduism/

*no new being* is created

"A being" ("satta") is defined in SN 5.10 as "a view" or "convention".

Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .bodh.html

This appears consistent with MN 98, which says:

For name and clan are assigned
as mere convention in the world.
Arising by mutual agreement,
they’re assigned to each individual.

For a long time this misconception
has prejudiced those who don’t understand.
Ignorant, they declare
that one is a brahmin by birth (jātiyā).

You’re not a brahmin by birth (jaccā),
nor by birth a non-brahmin.
You’re a brahmin by your deeds,
and by deeds a non-brahmin.

You’re a farmer by your deeds,
by deeds you’re a professional;
you’re a trader by your deeds,
by deeds are you an employee;

you’re a bandit by your deeds,
by deeds you’re a soldier;
you’re a sacrificer by your deeds,
by deeds you’re a ruler.

In this way in accord with truth,
the astute regard deeds.
Seeing dependent origination,
they’re expert in deeds and their results.

Deeds make the world go on,
deeds make people go on;
sentient beings are bound by deeds,
like a moving chariot’s linchpin.

By austerity and spiritual practice,
by restraint and by taming:
that’s how to become a brahmin,
this is the supreme brahmin.

https://suttacentral.net/mn98/en/sujato

New Concise Pali English Dictionary
jātiya
mfn.
being of such a kind, of such a class; \ or type of birth, class, lineage;

Note: "A being" ("satta") is officially defined in SN 23.2 as a state of "clinging" although "satta" can be used conventionally, such as when Sariputta called the Buddha a "Maha Satta" (Great Being).

[AgarikaJ]

"Born into the noble birth" is really just a metaphor and an alliteration to 'going forth', as *no new being* is created, which would be completely impossible following the Theravada interpretation of rebirth and Kamma. Only a (reversible!) social transformation is actually happening and the Suttas are clear about this.

In India today, as probably back them, "jati" means "social identity". Personally, I have found no evidence in the suttas "jati" refers to the physical birth or "rebirth" you appear to be referring to. The definition of "jati" includes "sattanikāye" or "classes of beings". "A bhikkhu" is a class of beings.

Maybe we have really talked past each other, because this was my exact argument, while you seemed to make the point that 'born into a noble birth' did not just mean a (social) re-labelling, but actually the genesis of a different being.

If I misunderstood, we are actually in complete agreement on the meaning of jati.

[DooDoot]

a different being.

I posted suttas, which appear to say "a being" is merely "a view", thus something changeable in the here & now.

'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications...

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

"Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles: as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them.

But when they become free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, then they smash them, scatter them, demolish them with their hands or feet and make them unfit for play.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[Grigoris]

From my limited understanding, tantra is related to channeling the energy from libido towards awakening.

Oh, that is limited!

The pleasure need not be coming from sexual contact, it can be from jhanas...

Or from a combination of both. It seems you think that they are mutually exclusive.