If attachment to sex was simply rooted in the ignorance of its impermanence, then this particular attachment would evaporate as soon as we recognise that the feeling of pleasure doesn't last after the first coitus. Obviously, this is not the case. I am afraid it is much more complicated than that.Dhammakid wrote:Sex, on the other hand, is a sense pleasure. Attachment to sex comes from ignorance of the anicca characteristic of temporarily pleasurable phenomena.
Neither you nor I require sex for survival, but the species does. As a species, we would do quite badly if we decided to abandon sex. And what would happen then to the "precious human birth"?Dhammakid wrote:You don't need any amount of sex to survive in this lifetime.
Yeah, that sounds convincing. I think regular physical exercise has been suggested for the same purpose with similar success. Mind you, I am not against celibacy, only I would be more careful with trivialising the matter.Dhammakid wrote:All the stress and tension released from sexual activity can be just as effectively released by other means, such as, oh I don't know, meditation.
Common knowledge... according to whom?Dhammakid wrote:...it's common knowledge among practitioners that ordaining is simply a better way to acheive the goal.
Again, according to whom? You are phrasing these statements as if they were proven facts, which they are clearly not. I am afraid that monasticism itself can present a huge obstacle to many people. It depends. Marriage or bachelor's life, monkhood or householder life - these are very personal decisions that no one can make for us. Everyone has to decide this for him/herself.Dhammakid wrote:But there's no doubt that lay life presents many more obstacles to liberation than monasticism does.