Sex positive movement

[Dhammanando]

The supposed transformation of passions posited by Tantric Buddhists (as opposed to the abandoning of them taught by the Buddha) is premised upon the Sarvāstivādin conception of dharmas, i.e. that dharmas are entities that persist through the three periods of time. If they didn't persist in this way there would be no possibility of grasping hold of a nasty dharma, so to speak, and transforming it into a nice one. However, since the Sarvāstivādin conception of dharmas was soundly refuted by Moggalliputtatissa at the Third Council we may safely dismiss the Vajrayāna’s preaching.

https://suttacentral.net/en/kv1.6

This is interesting, albeit somewhat surprising for me.

I think it was poorly phrased by me. Rather than “premised upon...” I ought to have written, “... compatible with the Sarvāstivādin conception of dharmas, but contradicted by the Theravādin conception.”

[Dhammanando]

“The pursuit of sensual happiness in sensual pleasures … is low, vulgar, the way of worldlings, ignoble, and unbeneficial,” (Vin. i. 10; SN. v. 421)

How can the practitioner hold such a view without looking down on people who choose to live this way?

Ultimately it’s done by cutting off the fetter of conceit by attaining arahatta, whereupon one ceases to conceive: “I am better than...”, “I am inferior to ...” or “I am equal to...”

In the meantime, as a non-arahant I do it by just minding my own business and not concerning myself with others’ tastes.

[Javi]

“The pursuit of sensual happiness in sensual pleasures … is low, vulgar, the way of worldlings, ignoble, and unbeneficial,” (Vin. i. 10; SN. v. 421)

How can the practitioner hold such a view without looking down on people who choose to live this way?

Ultimately it’s done by cutting off the fetter of conceit by attaining arahatta, whereupon one ceases to conceive: “I am better than...”, “I am inferior to ...” or “I am equal to...”

In the meantime, as a non-arahant I do it by just minding my own business and not concerning myself with others’ tastes.

And probably a good dose of metta and karuna to go with it

[binocular]

Dhammanando: “The pursuit of sensual happiness in sensual pleasures … is low, vulgar, the way of worldlings, ignoble, and unbeneficial,” (Vin. i. 10; SN. v. 421)
Bundokji: How can the practitioner hold such a view without looking down on people who choose to live this way?
Dhammanando: Ultimately it’s done by cutting off the fetter of conceit by attaining arahatta, whereupon one ceases to conceive: “I am better than...”, “I am inferior to ...” or “I am equal to...” In the meantime, as a non-arahant I do it by just minding my own business and not concerning myself with others’ tastes.
Javi: And probably a good dose of metta and karuna to go with it

Suttas like AN 5.162 give instructions on such things, too.

[binocular]

Then how do you comment on modern trends within Buddhism that promote a "very positive view of sexuality" (to put it mildly)?

To not appreciate that the Buddha’s doctrine is a doctrine of ascesis, at least with respect to its highest ends, and to not understand that, “The pursuit of sensual happiness in sensual pleasures … is low, vulgar, the way of worldlings, ignoble, and unbeneficial,” (Vin. i. 10; SN. v. 421) is already to be misguided.

The title says it all -- Buddhism as the Opiate of the (downwardly-mobile) Middle Class -- an essay by an author who considers himself a Buddhist, that criticizes asceticism.

There are people who claim to be Buddhists who have not only not read the Pali Canon, but who even say they don't need it and that it is not relevant to Buddhism.

For me, the problem is -- What exactly is the Buddha's doctrine? Why, on the grounds of what should one person who claims to be a Buddhist and to know what the Buddha really taught, be believed more than another person who also claims to be a Buddhist and to know what the Buddha really taught, but who presents as the supposed Buddha's teachings something quite different than the first?

Or are we to take for granted that since this is a Theravada forum, the Theravada position is automatically right (even though it's not always clear what the Theravada position is ...)?

But to go further and take methods prescribed for ascetic ends and apply them to the pursuit of enhanced hedonic enjoyment is to go risibly astray.

As in "how to use Buddhist meditation practice to increase your sexual enjoment / business profits" ...

However, it seems that some people pursue various hedonic enjoments not for the sake of those enjoyments themselves, but because of what they believe pursuing and obtaining those enjoyments will mean for them, especially socially. For example, it seems that some people pursue sex not for the sake of sex pleasure, but because they want to appear normal in the eyes of society which believes that pursuing sex makes one a good, normal person (although some restrictions apply) and that celibacy is an aberration.

In fact, in some psychological diagnostic tools, there are questions about a person's sexuality, and not engaing in sex as often as the official psychology thinks you should is interpreted as an indication that there could be something mentally wrong with you.

[dhammarelax]

From the above quoted article,

... One can easily read his works...

my experience is not that, I read "Right Mindfulness" maybe 10 times, not yet understood it in full.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu never pretends to be presenting a secular truth, and is quite explicit about his faith in the existence of an eternal atman in which we will all live in eternal bliss when we escape this fallen world.

I think I read all his work maybe BMC not in full never came across such an affirmation.

he is explicit about his understanding that there is a core “mind” that is separate from the thoughts and mental formations of our conventional selves:

Although the mind often acts under the force of habit, it doesn’t have to. It has the option of making new choices with every moment. The more clearly you see what’s happening in the present, the more likely you are to make skillful choices: ones that will lead to genuine happiness—and, with practice, will bring you closer and closer to total freedom from suffering and stress—now and into the future.

There is nothing in this quote that makes me think of a core "mind". Author is taking off. Adjust your seatbelts.

His position is that this core mind is the only place for true happiness, because it is the only thing that is eternal and permanent—there is an assumption that there can be no pleasure at all in anything impermanent, that we cannot enjoy something unless it is eternal and unchanging, and only the core mind is eternal, uninfluenced by any conditions:

There are many dimensions to the mind, dimensions often obscured by the squabbling of the committee members and their fixation with fleeting forms of happiness. One of those dimensions is totally unconditioned. In other words, it’s not dependent on conditions at all. (11)

Not dependent of conditions does not mean permanent.

Even if you simply want help in managing pain or finding a little more peace and stability in your life, meditation has plenty to offer you. It can also strengthen the mind to deal with many of the problems of day-to-day life, because it develops qualities like mindfulness, alertness, concentration, and discernment that are useful in all activities, at home, at work, or wherever you are. These qualities are also helpful in dealing with some of the larger, more difficult issues of life. (7)

The goal of meditation is to prepare the core, unconditioned, mind to better manage the impermanent, worldly thoughts, which are causing it stress.

The quote and the affirmation again are not connected. I live in Washington, so you must be 12 years old.

My question again: if we were being taught this by Geoff from New York, instead of a Monk with an exotic Thai name, if he were wearing khakis and a polo shirt, instead of saffron robes, if he explained the source of this ideology as early-capitalist Romanticism, instead of ancient-eastern texts in a lost language, well, how would we respond?

VERY low quality article, superficial at best, displays an outstanding hability to imagine stuff that TB never says, maybe is good for the creative industry, for salvation... no.

Smile
Dhammarelax

[justindesilva]

Is this in line with the teachings of the Buddha?

Smile
Dhammarelax

With psncssila in buddism it is stated "Kamesu mijjacara veramani dukka pada samadiyami" which explains that one will not misuse sex .or kama pleasures.
Sex is for continuity of this earth by producing beings to replace the dead Sentient beings are a necessity for this earth and the universe
If sex is misused karma will be the Dakrma that will punish these misuses. For example social diseases occur with the misusing of sex. Misusers of sex will not find a good after life to enjoy the next birth too as of bad karma.

Hi justindesilva

Where did you find this quote?

Smile
Dhammarelax

Hi smile
I like your question, because I wrote " kamesu mijjacara veramani sikka padam samadiyami" and
This system had converted "sikka" to dukka. Such things are beyond our control and at times goes undetected.
I hope you will understand. And thank you for giving this opportunity to explain.
With metta.

[binocular]

VERY low quality article, superficial at best, displays an outstanding hability to imagine stuff that TB never says, maybe is good for the creative industry, for salvation... no.

I had actually contacted the author of this article and brought up my concerns that he is misrepresenting Thanissaro Bhikkhu. He refused to discuss the matter and insisted that he does not misrepresent Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
And yet the author claims to be a Buddhist.
I also know a man who claims to be a Buddhist and to "know exactly what the Buddha knew" who is rather proud that he has never read the Pali Canon and who says he has neither use nor need for an ancient text because he is "living in the present moment."
Why should such Buddhists be any less Buddhist than any other person claiming to be a Buddhist?

Unless we clarify what exactly Buddhism is, it's impossible to answer the OP's question. Unless we're supposed to be content with getting a multitude of mutually exclusive answers.

[mikenz66]

This seems to be getting rather away from the topic and I'm getting lost.

I couldn't see any relevance of the article that Binocular linked to the subject of this thread. Where did the article criticise asceticism? It seemed to be a critique of TB's views about atman, etc (which appear to represent a particular strand of Thai Buddhism, and are analysed much more eruditely in other places). What does that have to do with the Sex positive movement?


Mike

[dhammarelax]

VERY low quality article, superficial at best, displays an outstanding hability to imagine stuff that TB never says, maybe is good for the creative industry, for salvation... no.

I had actually contacted the author of this article and brought up my concerns that he is misrepresenting Thanissaro Bhikkhu. He refused to discuss the matter and insisted that he does not misrepresent Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
And yet the author claims to be a Buddhist.
I also know a man who claims to be a Buddhist and to "know exactly what the Buddha knew" who is rather proud that he has never read the Pali Canon and who says he has neither use nor need for an ancient text because he is "living in the present moment."
Why should such Buddhists be any less Buddhist than any other person claiming to be a Buddhist?

Unless we clarify what exactly Buddhism is, it's impossible to answer the OP's question. Unless we're supposed to be content with getting a multitude of mutually exclusive answers.

Lets define it as the links of DO plus the 4 noble truths.

[chownah]

should we refer to the monkhood as the "sex negative movement"?
chownah

[dhammarelax]

should we refer to the monkhood as the "sex negative movement"?
chownah

No, we should refer to Buddhism as the "sex negative movement".

Smile
Dhammarelax

[binocular]

This seems to be getting rather away from the topic and I'm getting lost.
I couldn't see any relevance of the article that Binocular linked to the subject of this thread. Where did the article criticise asceticism? It seemed to be a critique of TB's views about atman, etc (which appear to represent a particular strand of Thai Buddhism, and are analysed much more eruditely in other places). What does that have to do with the Sex positive movement?

The article criticizes asceticism/renunciation -- it criticizes the willingness for downward mobility. Because asceticism/renunciation tend to be less or more connected to downward socio-economic mobility (depending on the extent of one's asceticism/renunciation). The article criticizes this on the example of Thanissaro Bhikkhu's teachings (or at least the way the author interprets Thanissaro Bhikkhu's terachings.)

I was replying to Ven. Dhammanando's point:

To not appreciate that the Buddha’s doctrine is a doctrine of ascesis, at least with respect to its highest ends, and to not understand that, “The pursuit of sensual happiness in sensual pleasures … is low, vulgar, the way of worldlings, ignoble, and unbeneficial,” (Vin. i. 10; SN. v. 421) is already to be misguided.

There are people, who claim to be Buddhists, who take issue with ascesis/renunciation. And this isn't just a rarity, it seems to be a modern trend (including anti-monasticism).

Like I already said, you could state that this is a Theravada forum, so the Theravada position is automatically right, we can quote the sutta with Ananda and the nun, and a few more suttas, and be done with the topic.

Yet at this very forum, there have been posters/moderators active who would probably say Yes to the OP's question. There have in the past been many discussions about this topic and some visible posters argued that engaging in sex is not detrimental to spiritual attainment.

I really don't know anymore.

[mikenz66]

This seems to be getting rather away from the topic and I'm getting lost.
I couldn't see any relevance of the article that Binocular linked to the subject of this thread. Where did the article criticise asceticism? It seemed to be a critique of TB's views about atman, etc (which appear to represent a particular strand of Thai Buddhism, and are analysed much more eruditely in other places). What does that have to do with the Sex positive movement?

The article criticizes asceticism/renunciation -- it criticizes the willingness for downward mobility. Because asceticism/renunciation tend to be less or more connected to downward socio-economic mobility (depending on the extent of one's asceticism/renunciation). The article criticizes this on the example of Thanissaro Bhikkhu's teachings (or at least the way the author interprets Thanissaro Bhikkhu's terachings.).

Sorry, I can't see where the article says that. He does seem to have the opinion that people pay attention to him because he is a monk, but I didn't see a criticism of renunciation itself. Perhaps I'm missing something.


Mike

[dhammarelax]

This seems to be getting rather away from the topic and I'm getting lost.
I couldn't see any relevance of the article that Binocular linked to the subject of this thread. Where did the article criticise asceticism? It seemed to be a critique of TB's views about atman, etc (which appear to represent a particular strand of Thai Buddhism, and are analysed much more eruditely in other places). What does that have to do with the Sex positive movement?

The article criticizes asceticism/renunciation -- it criticizes the willingness for downward mobility. Because asceticism/renunciation tend to be less or more connected to downward socio-economic mobility (depending on the extent of one's asceticism/renunciation). The article criticizes this on the example of Thanissaro Bhikkhu's teachings (or at least the way the author interprets Thanissaro Bhikkhu's terachings.).

Sorry, I can't see where the article says that. He does seem to have the opinion that people pay attention to him because he is a monk, but I didn't see a criticism of renunciation itself. Perhaps I'm missing something.


Mike

yes, are we missing a piece of the article or something?