Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 6421
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Post by Ceisiwr » Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:55 pm

60+ years ago, when children grew up with the only sexual option of becoming a wife, husband, father, mother, etc, similar to their parents, life was very unconfusing. How society was structured and perceived was very unconfusing. When married partners saw their primary role to be parents, they were very unconfused. When women were looked upon as wives, mothers, etc. it was unconfusing.
That isn't what the sutta is discussing. The sutta is discussing the role of shame in stopping incest. By seeing my mother as "mother" instead of a sex object. Out of all the suttas you could have chosen to back up your point, you choose quite a poor one.
My impression is you are attempting a Cultural Marxist weaponized assault upon the Dhamma.
That would be a false impression. Firstly, I am not a Marxist in any way. Secondly, I'm not attacking Dhamma. I'm attempting to apply Dhammic standards to modern Britain and beyond. What is the essence of marriage? Commitment.
Society can arrange an alternate to gay marriage, such as "civil union", and retain the term "marriage" for the contact of child bearing & parenting. This keeps things unconfused for the children.
Once again, denying people the right to marry is a violation of their human rights. Its not for you or the state to determine what is or isn't acceptable marriage for consenting adults. It is for the individual. However, even with gay marriage there can be child rearing and parenting. Gay marriage doesn't confuse children.

Sure, its like saying banning pedophilia or banning a so-called "homeland" for Kurdish ex-refugees in Syria violates human rights. This Cultural Marxist arguments & jargon are pretty old now. All around the world, voting for Hippy Governments is declining.
You obviously have no understanding of human rights. A ban on paedophilia isnt a violation of a human right as the act involves rape. The act itself violates another human being's rights. Its illegal for the same reason that theft and murder are illegal. Also, once again this isn't "cultural marxism". Its standard classical liberalism/libertarianism. Its a shame you don't understand the difference.

Yes, more Cultural Marxism. More viewing marriage from the narcissistic point of view rather than viewing marriage as the basic building block of civil society.
I think committed relationships and family life are the building blocks of society, which historically has taken the form of marriage but, from what we see today, it can take other forms (such as long-term co-habitation). Privitising marriage doesn't undermine that. Why do you need the state to give marriage meaning?
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Wed Dec 04, 2019 9:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.
“Jhãyatha, mã pamãdattha, mã pacchã vippaìisãrino ahuvattha!”

“Meditate, don’t be negligent, lest you may later regret it!”

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 6421
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Post by Ceisiwr » Wed Dec 04, 2019 9:01 pm

In DN 31, the Buddha taught about the six directions of society, which included "husbands & wives" and not heterosexual couples living in sin nor included any kind of homosexual relationship. As I originally posted, I imagine the Buddha would say unmarried so-called committed couples have a distortion of view. As I already posted, it is fortunate intelligent society has deemed such (negligent) couples as "defacto" thus to protect/create legal rights for them (in the event of separation, etc).

Indeed. Its not that strange considering how girls were given away to men in arranged marriages at the time. Heterosexual arranged marriage was seen as the only way of entering into a committed relationship back then. Today isn't 5th century BC India. It seems to me that the Buddha was advising people how best to live within that cultural framework, and less that that cultural framework is what is best for all of time. The question then arises, how would the Buddha advise us today? As I said, I can't see why Buddha would tell a couple who have been together 40+ years in a committed and lifelong relationship, with kids, to go and get married. That would seem to attach to much meaning to rites and rituals (marriage).


What distorted views do said couples have and why are they "negligent"?
“Jhãyatha, mã pamãdattha, mã pacchã vippaìisãrino ahuvattha!”

“Meditate, don’t be negligent, lest you may later regret it!”

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 7245
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Post by DooDoot » Wed Dec 04, 2019 9:10 pm

Ceisiwr wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:55 pm
That isn't what the sutta is discussing. The sutta is discussing the role of shame in stopping incest. By seeing my mother as "mother" instead of a sex object. Out of all the suttas you could have chosen to back up your point, you choose quite a poor one.
Not at all. The sutta describes the moral power of holistically viewing women as "wives" of certain men in society. The sutta describes the extended family unit.
Ceisiwr wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:55 pm
That would be a false impression.
Not in my opinion.
Ceisiwr wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:55 pm
Firstly, I am not a Marxist in any way.
I didn't say you were an (economic) Marxist.
Ceisiwr wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:55 pm
I'm attempting to apply Dhammic standards to modern Britain and beyond.
My impression is you are attempting to apply British Left Wing Cultural standards to ancient Buddhism and beyond.
Ceisiwr wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:55 pm
What is the essence of marriage? Commitment.
Both commitment and social construct that creates social boundaries & structure plus legal obligations and rights.
Ceisiwr wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:55 pm
Once again, denying people the right to marry is a violation of their human rights.
Nonsensical words, for homosexuals to have the right to something heterosexual. Historically, marriage assumed the right & deeming of fatherhood to the child of a woman. For example, if it was found the child had a different biological father, the marriage could be annulled. "Marriage" assumes a far greater social dhamma (support) than the mere romantic narcissism of Cultural Marxist Hollywood movies. As I said, marriage involves legal rights of parents and children; which is why Family Law is so extensive.
Ceisiwr wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:55 pm
Its not for you or the state to determine what is or isn't acceptable marriage for consenting adults.
Quite a contradictory statement that the state nor I cannot but other adults can. Its like saying consenting adults can choose to murder people.
Ceisiwr wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:55 pm
However, even with gay marriage there can be child rearing and parenting.
Yes, another illogical contradiction. I am gay but will find a surrogate mother or sperm donor so i can have children. :roll:
Ceisiwr wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:55 pm
Gay marriage doesn't confuse children.
Are you sure? Evidence?
Ceisiwr wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:55 pm
You obviously have no understanding of human rights.
Human rights is used to start wars, for example. I understand the B.S. of "human rights". The Buddha 1st defined what the word "human" means; which was the result of non-greed, non-hatred & non-delusion.
Ceisiwr wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:55 pm
Paedophilia isn't a violation of a human right as the act involves rape.
Some argue depriving a child of a mother & father is a violation of human rights. The Buddha said it is wrong view to believe "there is no mother; no father".
Ceisiwr wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:55 pm
I think committed relationships and family life are the building blocks of society
How can others know there is commitment if there is no marriage? Your ideas sound like Anarchy. :spy:
And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 6421
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Post by Ceisiwr » Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:52 pm

Not at all. The sutta describes the moral power of holistically viewing women as "wives" of certain men in society. The sutta describes the extended family unit.
Yes, but the sutta isn't making a claim about the family being the bedrock of society. Its about shame and incest.

Not in my opinion.
Of course its your opinion. Who elses would you give? Obvious is obvious, but its still a misapprehension.

I didn't say you were an (economic) Marxist.
Do try to actually read what I wrote. I said:

"Firstly, I am not a Marxist in any way.
My impression is you are attempting to apply British Left Wing Cultural standards to ancient Buddhism and beyond.
If you can't tell the difference between a classical liberal and a left winger then you really are confused. The aim of the Buddha's advice is to reduce suffering and harm within the laypersons life. The advice he gave was apt to the cultural conditions of the time. If he were alive today would he really advise parents to arrange marriages, or to get married if they are in a long term relationship? I fail to see any reason as to why, and you have failed to provide any reason as to why. His advice to Brahmins was specific to them. His advice to a modern day Brit would be specific to us.

Both commitment and social construct that creates social boundaries & structure plus legal obligations and rights.
The essence is commitment, usually with a view to start a family life. The legality comes in to protect that commitment.

Nonsensical words, for homosexuals to have the right to something heterosexual. Historically, marriage assumed the right & deeming of fatherhood to the child of a woman. For example, if it was found the child had a different biological father, the marriage could be annulled. "Marriage" assumes a far greater social dhamma (support) than the mere romantic narcissism of Cultural Marxist Hollywood movies. As I said, marriage involves legal rights of parents and children; which is why Family Law is so extensive.

Marriage might be viewed as being exclusively between a man a woman in your eyes, and you are entitled to hold that view. What you cannot do however is enforce your beliefs on society and others. Legal rights have moved on beyond that. Family law now extends to non-married couples.

Quite a contradictory statement that the state nor I cannot but other adults can. Its like saying consenting adults can choose to murder people.
You are free to define it as you wish, and approve of what you like. What you can't do is force others to adhere to your view via the power of the state.

Yes, another illogical contradiction. I am gay but will find a surrogate mother or sperm donor so i can have children.
You forgot adoption. It is a real thing.
Are you sure? Evidence?
A meta-analysis shows this:

https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.e ... n-parents/

Human rights is used to start wars, for example. I understand the B.S. of "human rights". The Buddha 1st defined what the word "human" means; which was the result of non-greed, non-hatred & non-delusion.
An authoritarian who dislikes human rights. Shock.

People have fought for their human rights, yes. Human rights also protect individuals from oppression from others, or worse.

Some argue depriving a child of a mother & father is a violation of human rights. The Buddha said it is wrong view to believe "there is no mother; no father".
Who is advocating for that?
How can others know there is commitment if there is no marriage? Your ideas sound like Anarchy
The same way people know that someone is your husband. You introduce them as your partner. No one thinks a relationship isn't less committed because you co-habit instead of being married. Both are seen as being committed, in the UK at least.


So, back to the Dhamma. There is no substantial Dhammic argument to criticise people who are in long term and committed relationships outside of marriage, nor gay marriage.
“Jhãyatha, mã pamãdattha, mã pacchã vippaìisãrino ahuvattha!”

“Meditate, don’t be negligent, lest you may later regret it!”

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 7245
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Post by DooDoot » Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:42 am

Ceisiwr wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:52 pm
Yes, but the sutta isn't making a claim about the family being the bedrock of society.
Oh dear. I trust DN 31 implies the family being the bedrock of society. DN 16 literally says not removing girls/women from the "protection" of their families it is the bedrock of society:
"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis refrain from abducting women and maidens of good families and from detaining them?"

"I have heard, Lord, that they refrain from doing so."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.

dn 16
:candle:
Ceisiwr wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:52 pm
Its about shame and incest.
It is literally about sexual promiscuity; as gay men often engage in in nightclubs.

Again, as with Cultural Marxism, you appear to be shifting the moral goal posts so to make sexual promiscuity acceptable under the Dhamma and only make extremes such as incest as evil.

The impression is you are definitely engaged in "virtue signalling" by saying the sutta is about incest. The sutta literally says:
"Monks, these two bright qualities guard the world. Which two? Conscience & concern.[1] If these two bright qualities did not guard the world, there would be no recognition of 'mother' here, no recognition of 'mother's sister,' 'uncle's wife,' 'teacher's wife,' or 'wife of those who deserve respect.' The world would be immersed in promiscuity, like rams with goats, roosters with pigs, or dogs with jackals. But because these two bright qualities guard the world, there is recognition of 'mother,' 'mother's sister,' 'uncle's wife,' 'teacher's wife,' & 'wife of those who deserve respect.'"

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
:alien:

Ceisiwr wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:52 pm
Obvious is obvious, but its still a misapprehension.
Not at all. It appears, similar to the smashed crab in MN 35, the Buddha is smashing you in debate, here.

:strawman: :jedi:

Ceisiwr wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:52 pm
If you can't tell the difference between a classical liberal and a left winger then you really are confused.
I don't really care about the labels. Narada's translation of DN 31 says any "libertine" is a false-friend to be avoided, as follows:
(e) "There are, young householder, these six evil :twisted: consequences in associating with evil companions, namely: any gambler, any libertine :o , any drunkard, any swindler, any cheat, any rowdy is his friend and companion

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nara.html
It is quite clear your ideas are of a classic Cultural Marxist nature to subvert society. You, in classical Cultural Marxist manner:

1. Extol marriage as a virtue for gay people.

2. Disparage marriage as a virtue for heterosexual people.

The above causes confusion by confusing biological & social reality.

As a gay attempting to change Dhamma into a doctrine of a Gay Buddha, imo, you are contributing to a backlash against gay people (who the Dhamma has always treated with non-violence & loving-kindness). My gay friends cringe when they see the George Soros Weaponized Gay Agendas on the TV news.

:spy:
Ceisiwr wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:52 pm
So, back to the Dhamma. There is no substantial Dhammic argument to criticise people who are in long term and committed relationships outside of marriage, nor gay marriage.
But there is. The suttas only refer to wholesome sex within marriage. It does not matter what non-Dhamma Western, Liberal, Cultural Marxist, LBGQT, etc, arguments you make. The Dhamma is "timeless" ("akaliko") and only refers to wholesome sex with marriage. This is what the suttas literally say. This is what the Buddha literally taught. I am required to quote every sutta with the words "marriage, husband & wife"? :shrug:

You continue to make nonsense claims the Buddha conformed to social norms in respect to sex & marriage. In reality, the Buddha conformed to Dhamma (Law of Nature). :bow:

Its is Dhamma when implemented that creates Social Norms. It is not Social Norms that create Dhamma. :roll:

What intrigues me is your apparent authoritarian need for Buddhism to authoritarianly approve your personal behaviour. :shrug:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 6421
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Post by Ceisiwr » Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:57 am

Oh dear. I trust DN 31 says the family being the bedrock of society. DN 16 literally says not removing girls/women from the "protection" of their families it is the bedrock of society:
"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis refrain from abducting women and maidens of good families and from detaining them?"

"I have heard, Lord, that they refrain from doing so."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.

dn 16
I agree that family is the bedrock of society. Nothing I have said so far has said otherwise. I also agree that abducting women and raping them is bad.

It is literally about sexual promiscuity; as gay men often engage in in nightclubs.
Yes, and incest. Still, its not about family being the bedrock of society.

I agree that gay culture is a hook up culture and too hedonistic. This is partly due to social reasons, where historical oppression made it difficult to form long lasting relationships and so gay relationships tended to be brief and discreet. It is also due to the lack of women within our relationships, as they can act as a break upon a man's sexual desire. Still, these are problems that can be overcome. Not all gay men are sexual hedonists. By removing the social stigma and legalising gay marriage more gay men can leave the filth of sexual hedonism and enter into more stable and Dhammic relationships with each other. Even more so if they are Buddhists. Apart from human rights this is also why I support gay marriage, for every nation and tribe.

Again, as with Cultural Marxism, you appear to be shifting the moral goal posts so to make sexual promiscuity acceptable under the Dhamma and only make extremes such as incest as evil.
No where have I advocated for sexual promiscuity. I oppose it. Throughout this discussion I have talked about long term and committed monogamous relationships, either with formal marriage or without, gay or straight. None of that entails sexual hedonism. The sexual standards Buddha promoted for heterosexuals I also promote for homosexuals.

The impression is you are definitely engaged in "virtue signalling" by saying the sutta is about incest. The sutta literally says:
As with cultural marxism I don't think you know what virtue signalling is. Best not to use phrases you don't understand.

Not at all. It appears, similar to the smashed crab in MN 35, the Buddha is smashing you in debate, here.
The Buddha is not here, you are and you are not "smashing" anything.
I don't really care about the labels. Narada's translation of DN 31 says any "libertine" is a false-friend to be avoided, as follows:
Classical liberalism/Libertarianism do not make someone a "libertine". Do explain how it does?

It is quite clear your ideas are of a classic Cultural Marxist nature to subvert society. You, in classical Cultural Marxist manner:

1. Extol marriage as a virtue for gay people.

2. Disparage marriage as a virtue for heterosexual people.

Libertarianism do not seek to change society via cultural means towards socialist ends, thus it is not "cultural marxism". Do at least know your foe before you attack him, otherwise you will make a fool of yourself (which you are currently doing).

Taking a libertarian approach to gay marriage does not mean someone agrees with it. I do, but that is incidental. For example, as a classical liberal I would legalise every drug and allow them to be sold on a regulated market, yet I would personally oppose the taking of drugs on Dhammic grounds. As for the rest, I never disparaged marriage for anyone. Please quote me where I trashed marriage?

As a gay attempting to change Dhamma into a doctrine of a Gay Buddha, imo, you are contributing to a backlash against gay people (who the Dhamma has always treated with non-violence & loving-kindness). My gay friends cringe when they see the George Soros Weaponized Gay Agendas on the TV news.
The backlash against gay rights has come from the excess of trans rights in the form of social justice warrior acts, which we get lumped with because of LGBT organisations. I oppose that excess because of its authoritarianism, as much as I oppose the authoritrarian backlash from the right which would see gay rights and, with increasing frequency, other rights abolished too. I cringe at the weaponisation of LGBT rights by authoritarian left wingers as much as i cringe at the authoritarian right wing backlash. To me both are just awful and are as bad as each other.
Attachments
libertarian.png
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:48 am, edited 4 times in total.
“Jhãyatha, mã pamãdattha, mã pacchã vippaìisãrino ahuvattha!”

“Meditate, don’t be negligent, lest you may later regret it!”

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 6421
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Post by Ceisiwr » Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:05 am

But there is. The suttas only refer to wholesome sex within marriage. It does not matter what non-Dhamma Western, Liberal, Cultural Marxist, LBGQT, etc, arguments you make. The Dhamma is "timeless" ("akaliko") and only refers to wholesome sex with marriage. This is what the suttas literally say. This is what the Buddha literally taught. I am required to quote every sutta with the words "marriage, husband & wife"? :shrug:

You continue to make nonsense claims the Buddha conformed to social norms in respect to sex & marriage. In reality, the Buddha conformed to Dhamma (Law of Nature). :bow:

Its is Dhamma when implemented that creates Social Norms. It is not Social Norms that create Dhamma. :roll:

What intrigues me is your apparent authoritarian need for Buddhism to authoritarianly approve your personal behaviour

Once again, the essence of the Buddha’s teachings for lay folk is to reduce suffering and the potential to make bad kamma. In his time committed relationships were only expressed in the form of arranged marriages. Today they can be expressed in homosexual monogamous marriages or heterosexual co-habitation. His advice would have been the same in terms of not cheating, abusing each other and likely still with monogamy as an ideal. You are, I’m afraid, attaching too much value to rites and rituals in the form of heterosexual marriage.

I agree that the Dhamma is timeless. Indian cultural norms are not.

Making an argument is not authoritarianism, since I’m not forcing anyone to agree with it. If the Buddha was alive today and were to advise against homosexual relationships or long term committed heterosexual relationships outside of marriage, then I would accept it. I just don’t see any reason as to why that would be the case, and so far your attempts to argue to the contrary are rather, shall we say, pitiful.
“Jhãyatha, mã pamãdattha, mã pacchã vippaìisãrino ahuvattha!”

“Meditate, don’t be negligent, lest you may later regret it!”

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 6421
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Post by Ceisiwr » Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:35 am

Just to be clear, I’m not advocating for sexual hedonism. For homosexuals I would advocate entering into long term, committed and monogamous relationships with no cheating or abuse of each other. The same for heterosexuals. For either I think that can take the form of official marriage or co-habitation.
This is the minimum practice for those who can’t be celibate. I am not advocating for polygamy, sleeping around or causal relationships.

Within said relationships I think it would be even better if sex was limited, if the couple is capable of this. Even better if they can stick to celibacy, gay or straight.

Where is the anti-Dhamma thinking here?
“Jhãyatha, mã pamãdattha, mã pacchã vippaìisãrino ahuvattha!”

“Meditate, don’t be negligent, lest you may later regret it!”

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 7245
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Post by DooDoot » Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:49 am

Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:05 am
Today they can be expressed in homosexual monogamous marriages or heterosexual co-habitation.
Again, you are mixing things up. You don't say: "Today they can be expressed in heterosexual monogamous marriages or homosexual co-habitation." :roll:
Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:05 am
His advice would have been the same in terms of not cheating, abusing each other and likely still with monogamy as an ideal. You are, I’m afraid, attaching too much value to rites and rituals in the form of heterosexual marriage.
Sorry. The Buddha never ever said what you are imputing. I said many times but you ignore the reality that:

1. Marriage is a legal contract of commitment, obligations & rights

2. Civil society imputes "defacto marriage" status upon sloppy heedless couples to protect their legal rights

3. A Buddha would never be so sloppy to recommend sloppy relationships that do not define rights & obligations.
Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:05 am
I agree that the Dhamma is timeless. Indian cultural norms are not.
Indian culture's norms arise from Dhamma. Your idea is non-sequitur because you appear to not appreciate the scope of Dhamma, which is more than mere individual personal culture.
Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:05 am
If the Buddha was alive today and were to advise against homosexual relationships or long term committed heterosexual relationships outside of marriage, then I would accept it.
There were homosexuals & swingers during the Buddha's time. The Vinaya is loaded with various sexual behaviours.
Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:05 am
I just don’t see any reason as to why that would be the case, and so far your attempts to argue to the contrary are rather, shall we say, pitiful.
I extensively quoted the suttas. The Buddha taught:
In five ways, young householder, the parents thus ministered to as the East by their children, show their compassion:

(i) they restrain them from evil,
(ii) they encourage them to do good,
(iii) they train them for a profession,
(iv) they arrange a suitable marriage,
(v) at the proper time they hand over their inheritance to them.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nara.html
If the above was not Dhamma, the Buddha would not have taught it. The above is the context in which the precept on sexual misconduct is described, as affirmed by the Buddhist commentaries. A girl is "protected" until her marriage is arranged.

:buddha1:
Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:35 am
Where is the anti-Dhamma thinking here?
I can't remember. I have other things to do. All I know is I disagree with you. :jumping:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 6421
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Post by Ceisiwr » Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:16 am

Again, you are mixing things up. You don't say: "Today they can be expressed in heterosexual monogamous marriages or homosexual co-habitation."
I've quite clearly said in either throughout this.

Sorry. The Buddha never ever said what you are imputing. I said many times but you ignore the reality that:

1. Marriage is a legal contract of commitment, obligations & rights
Yes.

2. Civil society imputes "defacto marriage" status upon sloppy heedless couples to protect their legal rights
As with "official" marriage, the commitment comes first and the legal rights later. Why are they heedless and sloppy?
3. A Buddha would never be so sloppy to recommend sloppy relationships that do not define rights & obligations.
Of course not, because in his time official marriage was the only option. The alternative just wasn't viable. Thanks for making my point.
Indian culture's norms arise from Dhamma. Your idea is non-sequitur because you appear to not appreciate the scope of Dhamma, which is more than mere individual personal culture.
False. These cultural norms existed before the Buddha. The Buddha then recommended the best practice within these cultural norms in terms of Dhamma. The same applies for Anglo or Celtic folk in 2019, within our cultural norms.

There were homosexuals & swingers during the Buddha's time. The Vinaya is loaded with various sexual behaviours.
Correct.

In five ways, young householder, the parents thus ministered to as the East by their children, show their compassion:

(i) they restrain them from evil,
(ii) they encourage them to do good,
(iii) they train them for a profession,
(iv) they arrange a suitable marriage,
(v) at the proper time they hand over their inheritance to them.
You seem to be misunderstanding this passage. Arranged marriage was the norm in Buddha's time. He isn't saying arranged marriage is good. He is saying that it is compassionate for parents to arrange a suitable marriage within that framework. An uncompassionate mother or father would not arrange a suitable marriage within the cultural framework of arranged marriage.
“Jhãyatha, mã pamãdattha, mã pacchã vippaìisãrino ahuvattha!”

“Meditate, don’t be negligent, lest you may later regret it!”

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 7245
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Post by DooDoot » Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:26 am

Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:16 am
False. These cultural norms existed before the Buddha. The Buddha then recommended the best practice within these cultural norms in terms of Dhamma.
Sheer unsubstantiated nonsense. Like Jesus, the Buddha would have revised many social norms. But, with his Divine Eye or Eye of God, the Buddha knew this social norm of arranged marriages was the best possible norm in an imperfect moral world.

Even today in India, many educated people in their 30s with failed relationships are returning to the old way and getting their family to help identify a new marriage partner. There are many videos in You Tube about this.

The extended family is very important in marriages. Grandpas, grandmas, aunts, uncles & other relatives can greatly help the maintaining of individual marriages via the social support & culture they provide. Marriage is often more than merely two people. It often must be harmonious for both extended families.

For example, i know a young vague guy who hooked up with a similar young vague lady and she suddenly became pregnant and she already has two young children. When the young guy would (instinctively) worry about becoming a dad (given he ain't got any money & no solid employment or qualifications), all I would say to him is you have your parents to help you. I know his parents and they are solid parents. Without his parents the new couple would have no chance (because her parents are fruitcakes). I now see his mum often looking after the two older children while young mum is obviously with the baby. Respective families are very important & helpful. This is why arranged marriages are said to have a very high success rate when done with the right intention.

Lastly, your master Bhikkhu Buddhadasa taught about arranged marriages. :smile:
Last edited by DooDoot on Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 3491
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Post by robertk » Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:32 am

mod note:
This topic is leaning into politics a little too much. However, for now I am inclined to let it go as the protagonists are both referencing Buddhist texts and precedents. And the arguments are, I think, of interest to Buddhists in general. Please keep up the general tone of polite debate and insist on keeping a clear Buddhist flavor.

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 6421
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Post by Ceisiwr » Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:37 am

Sheer unsubstantiated nonsense. Like Jesus, the Buddha would have revised many social norms. But, with his Divine Eye or Eye of God, the Buddha knew this social norm of arranged marriages was the best possible norm in an imperfect moral world.
With his understanding of how society worked at the time, and with a view to reduce suffering for layfolk who engage with sex and relationships, he advised the best practice within those frameworks. The Buddha wasn't a massive social reformer. He tended to work with what was available within India at the time, for layfolk. There is no basis for your reactionary attempt to shoehorn Indian cultural norms into European civilisation. Instead, the Dhamma should teach best practice within said European cultural norms.
Even today in India, many educated people in their 30s with failed relationships are returning to the old way and getting their family to help identify a new marriage partner. There are many videos in You Tube about this.
As a libertarian I have no objection to arranged marriages as long as its voluntary, naturally. If that is what they want and what works for them, that is fine. If arranged marriages become the norm in the UK then I will promote arranging suitable marriages for the children of layfolk. With the society as it is, I will promote the Dhamma in other ways.
“Jhãyatha, mã pamãdattha, mã pacchã vippaìisãrino ahuvattha!”

“Meditate, don’t be negligent, lest you may later regret it!”

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 6421
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Post by Ceisiwr » Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:38 am

robertk wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:32 am
mod note:
This topic is leaning into politics a little too much. However, for now I am inclined to let it go as the protagonists are both referencing Buddhist texts and precedents. And the arguments are, I think, of interest to Buddhists in general. Please keep up the general tone of polite debate and insist on keeping a clear Buddhist flavor.
Duly noted
“Jhãyatha, mã pamãdattha, mã pacchã vippaìisãrino ahuvattha!”

“Meditate, don’t be negligent, lest you may later regret it!”

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 7245
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Post by DooDoot » Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:40 am

Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:37 am
Instead, the Dhamma should teach best practice within said European cultural norms.
Dhamma is timeless. Plus there is no such thing as "European cultural norms". Today, Europe is strongly culturally divided.

The nonsensical nature of the above idea would be similar to saying: "Instead, Islam should teach best practice within said European cultural norms" or "Instead, Christianity should teach best practice within said European cultural norms". :roll: :?
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests