Dhamma that triggers SJWs

Some topics tend to get heated and go off track in unwholesome ways quite quickly. The "hot topics" sub-forum is a place where such topics may be moved so that each post must be manually approved by moderator before it will become visible to members.
budo
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Dhamma that triggers SJWs

Post by budo » Thu May 23, 2019 10:27 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 8:52 am
Greetings budo,
budo wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 8:29 am
Notice the word "co-wife", men could have many wives at that time, as is seen in the sutta where a lay disciple decides to become celibate and tells his many wives they're free to leave if they wish and only one or two stay from what I remember.
I wonder if that is also why (to best of my recollection, at least) why "sexual activity with anyone other than your wife" is not listed under the definition of the lay precept for sexual misconduct, which instead reads...
AN 10.167 wrote:He engages in sensual misconduct. He gets sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man. This is how one is made impure in three ways by bodily action.
Metta,
Paul. :)
"protected" from what I gather, implies virginity in the context of her family. Once a woman loses her virginity, she doesn't need to be protected by her family anymore, but only by her husband. This is why in the past in the Roman Empire women who lost their virginity before getting married ended up having to work in brothels to make a living and survive, as no men would want them since they cannot be 100% sure that the baby will be theres. The desire for legitimate babies goes back to the agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago, it's one of the reasons for land exclusion laws and private property laws. (Notice in most modern authoritarian countries it's nearly illegal to get a paternity test, unless it's court ordered by a feminist government which is unlikely to happen. People from France, where it's nearly entirely illegal, use Spain for paternity tests. It's a big business).

As for protected by the Dhamma, if she is celibate, then she is protected by the Dhamma, so manipulating her into breaking her precept is bad merit.
“He is given over to misconduct in sexual desires: he has intercourse with such (women) as are protected by the mother, father, (mother and father), brother, sister, relatives, as have a husband, as entail a penalty, and also with those that are garlanded in token of betrothal.”
-MN 41

Since if a woman were to get pregnant while still being dependent on her parents, that would be encumber the family further. So there needs to be a "handing off" of a woman to a new household, hence arranged marriages, dowries, etc..

Basically, being protected means 1) virginity is protected by parents or 2) if she has a husband, she's protected by him, so that if she has a baby, he can provide for the family, and the baby is protected.

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 5395
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Dhamma that triggers SJWs

Post by Ceisiwr » Thu May 23, 2019 10:41 am

budo wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 10:27 am
retrofuturist wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 8:52 am
Greetings budo,
budo wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 8:29 am
Notice the word "co-wife", men could have many wives at that time, as is seen in the sutta where a lay disciple decides to become celibate and tells his many wives they're free to leave if they wish and only one or two stay from what I remember.
I wonder if that is also why (to best of my recollection, at least) why "sexual activity with anyone other than your wife" is not listed under the definition of the lay precept for sexual misconduct, which instead reads...
AN 10.167 wrote:He engages in sensual misconduct. He gets sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man. This is how one is made impure in three ways by bodily action.
Metta,
Paul. :)
"protected" from what I gather, implies virginity in the context of her family. Once a woman loses her virginity, she doesn't need to be protected by her family anymore, but only by her husband. This is why in the past in the Roman Empire women who lost their virginity before getting married ended up having to work in brothels to make a living and survive, as no men would want them since they cannot be 100% sure that the baby will be theres. The desire for legitimate babies goes back to the agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago, it's one of the reasons for land exclusion laws and private property laws. (Notice in most modern authoritarian countries it's nearly illegal to get a paternity test, unless it's court ordered by a feminist government which is unlikely to happen. People from France, where it's nearly entirely illegal, use Spain for paternity tests. It's a big business).

As for protected by the Dhamma, if she is celibate, then she is protected by the Dhamma, so manipulating her into breaking her precept is bad merit.
“He is given over to misconduct in sexual desires: he has intercourse with such (women) as are protected by the mother, father, (mother and father), brother, sister, relatives, as have a husband, as entail a penalty, and also with those that are garlanded in token of betrothal.”
-MN 41

Since if a woman were to get pregnant while still being dependent on her parents, that would be encumber the family further. So there needs to be a "handing off" of a woman to a new household, hence arranged marriages, dowries, etc..

Basically, being protected means 1) virginity is protected by parents or 2) if she has a husband, she's protected by him, so that if she has a baby, he can provide for the family, and the baby is protected.

So what is sexual misconduct today, say in western societies?

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 5530
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Dhamma that triggers SJWs

Post by Sam Vara » Thu May 23, 2019 11:11 am

Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 9:59 am
The precept on sexual misconduct for example has general principles which were tailored to the cultural context of the time, which had different social attitudes and norms. From a first reading into the suttas above I get the message that within a relationship it’s good to have defined roles, to have one parent look after the child and to be attentive to your partner which are easily translatable into gay marriages.
I agree. There is a good deal of mileage in the idea that a lot of what passes for "ethics" in the Buddha's teaching is there to help one "fit in" and avoid unnecessary conflict. Hence my earlier point that strongly segregated sex roles were a recipe for domestic contentment in traditional societies. When both members of a couple know what they are supposed to be doing, then arguments tend not to arise.

The problem is, though, that modern relationships are based on choice; roles are adopted because they feel right or are fulfilling, rather than being ascribed. It's the same kind of argument that explains family break-up by showing how there are no externally-imposed traditions determining lifelong marriage.

Outside of the biological constraints of pregnancy and lactation (and possibly the gender pay differential based on them) there are no reasons for one partner rather than the other to adopt a particular role. This is a potential source of conflict or family break-up for nearly all modern families, and my guess is that it would present itself with more urgency in the case of gay couples.

User avatar
salayatananirodha
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Dhamma that triggers SJWs

Post by salayatananirodha » Thu May 23, 2019 12:56 pm

Jātaka book, the kernel of the whole, the verse. Each of these has a separate history.
The oldest form in which we find any Jātaka is, as might be naturally expected, the simple fable or parable itself, without the outer framework at all, and without the verse. Thus in one of the Nikāyas[Footnote: Saṃyutta, vol. 5, p. 146, of the M. Feer’s edition for the Pali Text Society.] we have an exhortation to maintain a constant presence of mind, for that is “the proper sphere ” of a religieux. Should he do otherwise, should he allow worldly things to agitate his mind, then will he fall—as the field quail, when he left his customary and ancestral haunts, fell into the power of the hawk. And the fable is told as an introduction to the exhortation. It has, as yet, no framework. And it contains no verse.[Footnote: M. Feer, indeed, prints two lines as if they were verse. But this is a mistake. The lines so printed are not verse.] It has not yet, therefore, become a Jātaka.
But one of the Jātakas is precisely this very fable, in identical words for the most part. It is decked out with a framework of introductory story and concluding identification, just as in the example just given. And two verses are added, one in the fable itself, and one in the framework. And there can be no question as to which is the older document; for the Jātaka quotes as its source, and by name and chapter, the very passage in the Saṃyutta in which the fable originally occurs.[Footnote: Jātaka, vol. ii. p. 58.]
This is not an isolated case. Of the Jātakas in the present collection I have discovered also the following in older portions of the canonical books, and no doubt others can still be traced.
2. Jātaka No. 1. Apannaka is based on Dīgha 2. 342
3. “ “ 9. Makhā-deva “ “ “ Majjhima 2. 75
4. “ “ 10. Sukha-vihari “ “ “ Vinaya 2. 183
5. “ “ 37. Tittira “ “ “ Vinaya 2. 161
6. “ “ 91. Litta “ “ “ Dīgha 2. 348
7. “ “ 95. Mahā-sudassana “ “ “ Dīgha 2. 169
8. “ “ 203. Khandha-vatta “ “ “ Vinaya 3. 1095
9. “ “ 253. Maṇi-kanṭha “ “ “ Vinaya 3. 145
10. “ “ 405. Baka-brahma “ “ “ Majjhima 1. 328
Saṃyutta 1. 142
16. 'In what has the world originated?' — so said the Yakkha Hemavata, — 'with what is the world intimate? by what is the world afflicted, after having grasped at what?' (167)

17. 'In six the world has originated, O Hemavata,' — so said Bhagavat, — 'with six it is intimate, by six the world is afflicted, after having grasped at six.' (168)

- Hemavatasutta


links:
https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/index.htm
http://thaiforestwisdom.org/canonical-texts/
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-conte ... _Heart.pdf
https://www.dhammatalks.org/index.html

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 5395
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Dhamma that triggers SJWs

Post by Ceisiwr » Thu May 23, 2019 1:10 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 11:11 am
Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 9:59 am
The precept on sexual misconduct for example has general principles which were tailored to the cultural context of the time, which had different social attitudes and norms. From a first reading into the suttas above I get the message that within a relationship it’s good to have defined roles, to have one parent look after the child and to be attentive to your partner which are easily translatable into gay marriages.
I agree. There is a good deal of mileage in the idea that a lot of what passes for "ethics" in the Buddha's teaching is there to help one "fit in" and avoid unnecessary conflict. Hence my earlier point that strongly segregated sex roles were a recipe for domestic contentment in traditional societies. When both members of a couple know what they are supposed to be doing, then arguments tend not to arise.

The problem is, though, that modern relationships are based on choice; roles are adopted because they feel right or are fulfilling, rather than being ascribed. It's the same kind of argument that explains family break-up by showing how there are no externally-imposed traditions determining lifelong marriage.

Outside of the biological constraints of pregnancy and lactation (and possibly the gender pay differential based on them) there are no reasons for one partner rather than the other to adopt a particular role. This is a potential source of conflict or family break-up for nearly all modern families, and my guess is that it would present itself with more urgency in the case of gay couples.

I think there is some merit in having one partner stay at home to care for the child at least for the first few years, finances willing.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 5530
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Dhamma that triggers SJWs

Post by Sam Vara » Thu May 23, 2019 1:43 pm

Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 1:10 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 11:11 am
Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 9:59 am


I think there is some merit in having one partner stay at home to care for the child at least for the first few years, finances willing.
Agreed. That's exactly what we did.

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 5395
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Dhamma that triggers SJWs

Post by Ceisiwr » Thu May 23, 2019 1:53 pm

I quite like this sutta on sexual ethics which doesn't rely upon roles and which can be followed by any person be they male, female, gay, straight or one of the new 72 genders:
Furthermore, a noble disciple reflects: ‘If someone were to have sexual relations with my wives, I wouldn’t like it. But if I were to have sexual relations with someone else’s wives, he wouldn’t like that either. The thing that is disliked by me is also disliked by others. Since I dislike this thing, how can I inflict it on others?’ Reflecting in this way, they give up sexual misconduct themselves. And they encourage others to give up sexual misconduct, praising the giving up of sexual misconduct. So their bodily behavior is purified in three points.
https://suttacentral.net/sn55.7/en/sujato

The ethical message being essentially the golden rule.

binocular
Posts: 6494
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Dhamma that triggers SJWs

Post by binocular » Thu May 23, 2019 5:40 pm

mikenz66 wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 6:38 am
Here's some other interesting suttas:
“Mendicants, there are these five powers of a female. What five? Attractiveness, wealth, relatives, children, and ethical behavior. These are the five powers of a female. A female living at home with these five powers has her husband under her mastery.”
https://suttacentral.net/sn37.26/en/sujato
This is romantic, wishful-thinking nonsense.
It's not possible to achieve mastery over a man that way. If a man doesn't care, he doesn't care, and not a woman's beauty, not her wealth, not fecundity, and certainly not ethical behavior can change that.
Every person we save is one less zombie to fight. -- World War Z

ehensens
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun May 06, 2018 1:12 am

Re: Dhamma that triggers SJWs

Post by ehensens » Thu May 23, 2019 6:21 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 11:11 am
Outside of the biological constraints of pregnancy and lactation (and possibly the gender pay differential based on them) there are no reasons for one partner rather than the other to adopt a particular role. This is a potential source of conflict or family break-up for nearly all modern families, and my guess is that it would present itself with more urgency in the case of gay couples.
Sam, do you not think that there are inherent tendencies regarding personal traits based on gender that lend themselves to excelling at different aspects of family life? For example, do you not think that women have a tendency toward greater compassion for their children, or that men have a greater tendency toward strictness (both of which are necessary for raising a child properly)? I am not saying that gay couples cannot have good families or properly raise children, of course, but the statement that there is nothing biological other than one's ability to carry and nurse a child that lends itself toward one role or another just seems patently false, if for no other reason than hormonal differences.

I hope this does not come off as antagonistic, I am genuinely curious.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 5530
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Dhamma that triggers SJWs

Post by Sam Vara » Thu May 23, 2019 6:35 pm

ehensens wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 6:21 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 11:11 am
Outside of the biological constraints of pregnancy and lactation (and possibly the gender pay differential based on them) there are no reasons for one partner rather than the other to adopt a particular role. This is a potential source of conflict or family break-up for nearly all modern families, and my guess is that it would present itself with more urgency in the case of gay couples.
Sam, do you not think that there are inherent tendencies regarding personal traits based on gender that lend themselves to excelling at different aspects of family life? For example, do you not think that women have a tendency toward greater compassion for their children, or that men have a greater tendency toward strictness (both of which are necessary for raising a child properly)? I am not saying that gay couples cannot have good families or properly raise children, of course, but the statement that there is nothing biological other than one's ability to carry and nurse a child that lends itself toward one role or another just seems patently false, if for no other reason than hormonal differences.

I hope this does not come off as antagonistic, I am genuinely curious.
Yes, I do certainly think that there are inherent biological tendencies as you suggest, and which partially determine parental roles. That was partly the point of my post, in that in the case of gay couples there is, apparently, nothing deeper than preference or convenience which underpins the roles. Like you, though, I'm not saying same-sex parents are any worse. Gay families I have known have tended to be a mixed bag, the same as others.

I didn't make that assumption clear, so apologies for that.

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 5395
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Dhamma that triggers SJWs

Post by Ceisiwr » Thu May 23, 2019 7:04 pm

ehensens wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 6:21 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 11:11 am
Outside of the biological constraints of pregnancy and lactation (and possibly the gender pay differential based on them) there are no reasons for one partner rather than the other to adopt a particular role. This is a potential source of conflict or family break-up for nearly all modern families, and my guess is that it would present itself with more urgency in the case of gay couples.
Sam, do you not think that there are inherent tendencies regarding personal traits based on gender that lend themselves to excelling at different aspects of family life? For example, do you not think that women have a tendency toward greater compassion for their children, or that men have a greater tendency toward strictness (both of which are necessary for raising a child properly)? I am not saying that gay couples cannot have good families or properly raise children, of course, but the statement that there is nothing biological other than one's ability to carry and nurse a child that lends itself toward one role or another just seems patently false, if for no other reason than hormonal differences.

I hope this does not come off as antagonistic, I am genuinely curious.

I’m not sure that gender specific parenting exists, at least based off my basic research into it or if it does exist that it has much of an impact.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16972
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Dhamma that triggers SJWs

Post by mikenz66 » Thu May 23, 2019 7:34 pm

binocular wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 5:40 pm
mikenz66 wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 6:38 am
Here's some other interesting suttas:
“Mendicants, there are these five powers of a female. What five? Attractiveness, wealth, relatives, children, and ethical behavior. These are the five powers of a female. A female living at home with these five powers has her husband under her mastery.”
https://suttacentral.net/sn37.26/en/sujato
This is romantic, wishful-thinking nonsense.
It's not possible to achieve mastery over a man that way. If a man doesn't care, he doesn't care, and not a woman's beauty, not her wealth, not fecundity, and certainly not ethical behavior can change that.
Yes, probably unrealistic, but I was trying to bring some balance to the thread by trying to find some suttas that might trigger people who are triggered by the concept of SJW.

:stirthepot:
Mike

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 21538
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Dhamma that triggers SJWs

Post by retrofuturist » Thu May 23, 2019 11:57 pm

Greetings,

Trigger warning: The following sutta extract depicts the self-inflicted suffering, ugliness and oppression that arises through the politics of envy.
AN 7.60 wrote:"Furthermore, an enemy wishes of an enemy, 'O, may this person not have any wealth!' Why is that? An enemy is not pleased with an enemy's wealth. Now, when a person is angry — overcome with anger, oppressed with anger — then whatever wealth he has, earned through his efforts & enterprise, amassed through the strength of his arm, and piled up through the sweat of his brow — righteous wealth righteously gained — the king orders it sent to the royal treasury [in payment of fines levied for his behavior] all because he is overcome with anger. This is the fourth thing pleasing to an enemy, bringing about an enemy's aim, that comes to a man or woman who is angry.
...
An angry person is ugly & sleeps poorly. Gaining a profit, he turns it into a loss, having done damage with word & deed. A person overwhelmed with anger destroys his wealth. Maddened with anger, he destroys his status. Relatives, friends, & colleagues avoid him. Anger brings loss. Anger inflames the mind. He doesn't realize that his danger is born from within. An angry person doesn't know his own benefit. An angry person doesn't see the Dhamma. A man conquered by anger is in a mass of darkness. He takes pleasure in bad deeds as if they were good, but later, when his anger is gone, he suffers as if burned with fire. He is spoiled, blotted out, like fire enveloped in smoke. When anger spreads, when a man becomes angry, he has no shame, no fear of evil, is not respectful in speech. For a person overcome with anger, nothing gives light.
Metta,
Paul. :)
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)

“Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.” (Flannery O'Connor)

User avatar
Will
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:26 pm
Location: California

Re: Dhamma that triggers SJWs

Post by Will » Fri May 24, 2019 12:17 am

Roy Rogers and Trigger are long dead, so we really should not keep beating that dead horse.
Wholesome virtuous behavior progressively leads to the foremost. -- AN 10.1

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 12478
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Dhamma that triggers SJWs

Post by DNS » Fri May 24, 2019 5:20 am

Will wrote:
Fri May 24, 2019 12:17 am
Roy Rogers and Trigger are long dead, so we really should not keep beating that dead horse.
I think most DW members are too young to know what you're talking about. :D

I might even be too young, but I'll take a shot at it.

Trigger was the name of his horse and is in reference to people being "triggered" and beating a dead horse saying is appropriate as it applies to discussions too.

Roy Rogers was famous for always saying "I never met a man I didn't like" so I assume that is in reference to pollyanna people who get triggered when that paradigm is not met?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests