Page 5 of 37

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:02 pm
by Macavity
tiltbillings wrote:It may be a hindrance, but that does not mean it has to hinder anything.
Here is Mahakaccayana on the hindrances
  • Q. Herein, as to ‘hindrances’, what is the word-meaning? What do they hinder?
    A. Whatsoever partakes of wholesomeness, all that the hindrances hinder.

    Q. How do they hinder?
    A. Desire for sense-pleasures hinders the perception of foulness.
    Ill will hinders lovingkindness.
    Sloth hinders tranquillity.
    Torpor hinders the initiation of striving.
    Restlessness hinders samatha.
    Worry hinders non-remorse.
    Doubt hinders understanding of dependent origination.

    Or in brief:
    Desire for sense-pleasures, ill will, restlessness, and worry hinder the development of samatha.
    Sloth, torpor, and doubt hinder the development of vipassanā.

    That is why they are called ‘hindrances’.
    (Pet. 138)

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:19 pm
by Thanavuddho
Dhammabodhi wrote: I only meant eradication for those who keep the relevant precepts, i.e. monks and laity who decide to abstain completely from any sexual activity.
Surely for these people it would be quite a bother to have to "see", time and again, the temptations that they want to get away from(related question: is it possible to just "observe" dreams)?

This is something that nearly all monks have to face in some point of their monastic career. The sanghadisesa rule states that there has to be an intention to masturbate in to make it an offense. Many monks have wet dreams when they indulge in some types of food or drink, like cheese or coffee in the afternoon. This is an individual thing, that one has to know for oneself. It is very important to pay attention to food if you want to keep celibacy. Also there has to be sense restraint. This not an easy practice to do well.

Tan Ajahn Pannavaddho said that contemplating the body as asubha helps to keep the females away in dreams and in real life. it's by far the most effective way to reduce lust. The contemplation has to be done with wisdom.

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:22 pm
by Dhammabodhi
Thank you for your response, Santeri.
Many monks have wet dreams when they indulge in some types of food or drink, like cheese or coffee in the afternoon.
Is there any particular reason behind this? What other kind of foodstuff have such effects?

Thank you :thanks:
Dhammabodhi

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:30 pm
by Individual
Dhammabodhi wrote:Thank you for your response, Santeri.
Many monks have wet dreams when they indulge in some types of food or drink, like cheese or coffee in the afternoon.
Is there any particular reason behind this? What other kind of foodstuff have such effects?

Thank you :thanks:
Dhammabodhi
Some of it might be superstition, but certain foods are capable of stimulating libido:
http://www.askmen.com/dating/love_tip_2 ... e_tip.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

With coffee, the possible sexual side effects may stem from the caffeine, but I don't know why drinking coffee at a certain time would have a distinct effect.

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 5:36 am
by tiltbillings
However, if a hindrance does not have a set unchanging nature, it does not necessarily have to hinder anything.

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 5:53 am
by Jechbi
Hi Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:However, if a hindrance does not have a set unchanging nature, it does not necessarily have to hinder anything.
I may not be properly understanding what you're saying here. Can you provide a sutta or commentarial or other authoritative reference that reflects the notion that a hinderance does necessarily hinder. I keep on thinking about the view expressed by Arittha as told in the Alagaddupama Sutta. Of course I realize you're not espousing that view, but to me it sounds the same, so I must not be understanding you correctly.

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 5:58 am
by tiltbillings
If a hindrance always hindered, you would never get free of it. A hindrance arises, a sensual thought arises, what happens?

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:04 am
by Jechbi
tiltbillings wrote:If a hindrance always hindered, you would never get free of it. A hindrance arises, a sensual thought arises, what happens?
In that moment, it hinders. But it is anicca. Yet to say it does not hinder in that moment appears to me to be an error. I stand to be corrected.

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:07 am
by cooran
Hello Tilt,
Tilt said: If a hindrance always hindered, you would never get free of it. A hindrance arises, a sensual thought arises, what happens?
For anyone not yet of perfect Sila ~ the odds are that you grasp it, get lost in day dreaming, perform unwholesome actions and thereby strengthen the underlying tendency to colour your thinking with greed and lust via the serial story playing on all forty-seven channels.
These channels have the two things in common. They never go off the air, and they all have the same lead actor ... the 'so precious' I.
Additionally, imbedded in the story are the justifications and excuses (some quite sophisticated) for the intentional actions of thought, word and deed, and their continuance.

metta
Chris

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:11 am
by tiltbillings
Or you can be mindful of it.

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:17 am
by Macavity
tiltbillings wrote:Or you can be mindful of it.
Not at the moment when it is present.

A hindrance arises only with an akusala citta and mindfulness only with a kusala one. So one is mindful of a hindrance only in the moment just after it has passed away.

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:18 am
by Jechbi
tiltbillings wrote:Or you can be mindful of it.
A hinderance is not a basis for upaya. That might be the view in a different tradition (maybe). I'm pretty sure that in this tradition, however, if you are mindful of a hinderance, you recognize it's nature, which is dukkha, as well as anicca.

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:33 am
by Macavity
Jechbi wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Or you can be mindful of it.
A hinderance is not a basis for upaya. That might be the view in a different tradition (maybe). I'm pretty sure that in this tradition, however, if you are mindful of a hinderance, you recognize it's nature, which is dukkha, as well as anicca.
I don't think Tilt is suggesting that it can be an upaya. What is more often claimed in some Theravadin circles is that there can be mindfulness of a hindrance while the hindrance is present. But to claim this is to claim that there can be beautiful mental factors and unwholesome mental factors arising with one and the same citta.

This would be possible according to the Sarvastivada Abhidharma, which treats mindfulness as an ethically variable mental factor, but not according to Theravada Abhidhamma (nor in reality) where sati is invariably a beautiful mental factor and hindrances invariably hinder its arising.

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:38 am
by Jechbi
I assume I'm not understanding Tilt correctly.

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:55 am
by tiltbillings
Macavity wrote:
Jechbi wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Or you can be mindful of it.
A hinderance is not a basis for upaya. That might be the view in a different tradition (maybe). I'm pretty sure that in this tradition, however, if you are mindful of a hinderance, you recognize it's nature, which is dukkha, as well as anicca.
I don't think Tilt is suggesting that it can be an upaya. What is more often claimed in some Theravadin circles is that there can be mindfulness of a hindrance while the hindrance is present. But to claim this is to claim that there can be beautiful mental factors and unwholesome mental factors arising with one and the same citta.
I am not much worried about the Abhidhamma analysis, but I would say that one follows the other. It can be kind of a back and forth, though does not quite capture the dynamic nature of it. One can sit with mindfulness, watching the rise and fall of mental events, which can include lust. If we cannot be mindful of an unwholesome state of mind, we are lost.

Herein, monks, a monk knows the consciousness with lust, as with lust; the consciousness without lust . . . Herein, monks, when sense-desire is present, a monk knows, "There is sense-desire in me," or when sense-desire is not present, he knows, "There is no sense-desire in me." He knows how the arising of the non-arisen sense-desire comes to be; he knows how the abandoning of the arisen sense-desire comes to be; and he knows how the non-arising in the future of the abandoned sense-desire comes to be. - MN 10