Sex is always unwholesome

[Aloka]

It is important to seek the advice of the wise.

All very well in theory, but it seems increasingly difficult to find and communicate with any living people who are truly "wise" these days!

.

I had in mind the suttas themselves and the commentaries.

Oh, okey dokey, my mistake!

[SteRo]

Yes, sex is always immoral, unskillful and unwholesome and is the great obstacle to the Path.

How can you say that when there are suttas referring to householders that attain sotapanna and are called "virtuous" due to abstaining from sexual misconduct but NOT due to renouncing sex generally?

i mean there might be experiential grounds to regard sexual activity with disgust and to regard sexual activity as a hindrance if one's own sphere of experience is that way. But as a matter of fact only sexual misconduct is taught as being generally wrong for householders.

[sunnat]

"Bhikkhus, that one shall here and now make an end of suffering without abandoning the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feeling, without abolishing the underlying tendency to aversion towards painful feeling, without extirpating the underlying tendency to ignorance in regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, without abandoning ignorance and arousing true knowledge- this is impossible."

"Bhikkhus, that one shall here and now make an end of suffering by abandoning the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feeling, by abolishing the underlying tendency to aversion towards painful feeling, by extirpating the underlying tendency to ignorance in regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, by abandoning ignorance and arousing true knowledge - this is possible. "

"Seeing thus, bhikkhus, a well-taught noble disciple becomes disenchanted with the eye, disenchanted with forms, disenchanted with eye-consciousness, disenchanted with eye-contact, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with craving. He becomes disenchanted with the ear...He becomes disenchanted with the nose...He becomes disenchanted with the tongue...He becomes disenchanted with the body...He becomes disenchanted with the mind, disenchanted with mind-objects, disenchanted with mind-consciousness, disenchanted with mind-contact, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with craving."

"Being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, his mind is liberated. When it is liberated, there comes the knowledge: 'It is liberated.' He understands: 'Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being.'"

[MettaDevPrac]

Another thread on this issue, which gives some particular attention to laity vs ordained.
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=35711

[cappuccino]

If everybody in the world followed what you say in the quote above, the human race would die out altogether!

everybody, in general, is ignorant…

hence they value sex

[MettaDevPrac]

Are there ever threads asking, is anger always unwholesome?
The behaviors of anger can occur in body, in speech, and in thoughts. It (too) is conditioned. The path towards liberation from it is gradual. The delusion in "he/she/they/it made me angry is pretty apparent on examination.

Why do we often fail to consider sexual conduct the same way?

[Aloka]

Why do we often fail to consider sexual conduct the same way?

Because most men are obsessed with it in one way or another. They either preach its the work of Mara or the Devil, or wallow in lasciviousness ....and sometimes both!


.

[SteRo]

Are there ever threads asking, is anger always unwholesome?
The behaviors of anger can occur in body, in speech, and in thoughts. It (too) is conditioned. The path towards liberation from it is gradual. The delusion in "he/she/they/it made me angry is pretty apparent on examination.

Why do we often fail to consider sexual conduct the same way?

It seems you want to imply that anger and sexual conduct are the same in terms of unwholesomeness. Anger is always unwholesome but sexual activity may be based on love and affection. Is love and affection unwholesome? I am reluctant to say so although worldly love and affection are always contaminated.
Of course the 'dark side' of sexual activity is sensual desire and giving in to sensual desire once necessarily supports this fetter.
I think the Buddha did not reject sexual activity in case of laymen merely due to social reasons and social order. After all monks need a society that supports them.
On the other hand why is there mention of laymen sotapannas? Do we know whether those laymen sotapannas had regular sex before or after attaining sotapanna? We don't know that. I don't think they had.

[MettaDevPrac]

@SteRo

Anger is always unwholesome but sexual activity may be based on love and affection. Is love and affection unwholesome? I am reluctant to say so although worldly love and affection are always contaminated.
Of course the 'dark side' of sexual activity is sensual desire and giving in to sensual desire once necessarily supports this fetter.
I think the Buddha did not reject sexual activity in case of laymen merely due to social reasons and social order. After all monks need a society that supports them.
On the other hand why is there mention of laymen sotapannas? Do we know whether those laymen sotapannas had regular sex before or after attaining sotapanna? We don't know that. I don't think they had.

Actually, I tend to agree. I'm glad you saw the contrast.

To cause trouble in marriages, over concerns that all allowed pleasures are unwholesome, should be a frightful thing for a celibate, especially one under Vinaya training rules, to do. Yet so many leap into these discussions and make absolutist statements, posting the statements as representative of Dhamma to the world...

I recall the story when one Bhikkhu wanted the Buddha to mandate vegetarianism for the Sangha; the Buddha refused. The health of marriages is an even more sensitive issue.

[Dan74]

There is also the realistic aspect of this, which is that most of us are not ready for celibacy and forcing it would cause more craving and aversion, more trouble than benefit.

We practice with what we have right now and I find it worthwhile to look carefully at my motivation. If it is aversion and fear of intimacy, a romantic notion of a holy renunciate, rather than a sober readiness to renounce sensual pleasure, then it is bound to end badly.

It is interesting that the Bhikkhus who participate here do not wade into this conversation. They know it first-hand how hard celibacy can be and anyone seriously entertaining this practice should speak to an experienced Bhikkhu in private, I think. Otherwise there are many other sources of craving in our lives that one can attempt to give up and see how that goes. Sugar, meat, distraction of different sorts, addictive habits, etc etc..

[MettaDevPrac]

Dan, good post.

[Aloka]

Dan, good post.

Yes, good to see some calm, mature and reasoned comments in this topic.

[SteRo]

There is also the realistic aspect of this, which is that most of us are not ready for celibacy and forcing it would cause more craving and aversion, more trouble than benefit.

There are these two sides of any kind of renuncitation: 1. clear insight into the ignorance of that which is renounced entails effortless renunciation and 2. trying to effortfully renounce is a condition for this clear insight because without that effort the ignorance could not be detected.
There are however intermediate states where the ignorance is detected yet the insight lacks clarity and/or depth so that renunciation cannot be effortlessly attained.

[Bundokji]

To say that sex is always unwholesome would be based on a view of morality having an objective/independent existence that is inseparable from the fabric of the universe. Based on such a view of morality, certain actions can be always wholesome or unwholesome.

Other discussants made meaningful distinctions between lay and monastics, and where the individual practitioner is on the path. Also i find santa's presentation of sex as a phenomena belongs to kamma loka is useful. Within the realm of kamma loka, meaningful distinctions can be made between wholesome sexual activities and unwholesome sexual activities. If kamma loka operates in time, then paying attention to context is the key.

However, kamma loka, when approached as one unified realm, can be seen as a state of entanglement, or a thicket of views, of which renunciation is associated with ownership. To renounce sex can be a mundane right view. It is mundane because it is an outcome of the very same entanglement that makes kamma loka what it is.

Entanglement takes the form of obsession: should i engage in sex? or should i become celibate? is sex wholesome, or is sex unwholesome?

Can the idea of celibacy mean the arising of the fermentation of sensuality (in disguise)?

"And what are the ideas unfit for attention that he attends to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality increases; the unarisen fermentation of becoming arises in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming increases; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance increases. These are the ideas unfit for attention that he attends to.

"And what are the ideas fit for attention that he does not attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of becoming does not arise in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance is abandoned. These are the ideas fit for attention that he does not attend to. Through his attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his not attending to ideas fit for attention, both unarisen fermentations arise in him, and arisen fermentations increase.

"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

[Garrib]

It has to be abandoned at some point along the path - if not now, then when?