masturbation what's wrong?

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.
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Post by kc2dpt »

To address a point that's come up a few times...

While I don't think that engaging in sexual activity necessarily puts one on a slippery slope to sexual deviancy, I do think it is the Buddha's teaching that whatever we engage in contributes to strengthening that habit, creates underlying tendencies to continue that habit, and in the case of unwholesome activities strengthens our bonds to samsara.

In other words... what's wrong with masturbation? Every time we engage in it we strengthen the tendency to engage in it in the future, we strengthen our delusion than it is good or harmless, we tighten our bonds to samsara. (insert joke about tightening bonds and BDSM here)

That said, I think we can say the same thing for eating ice-cream. The more times we finish off dinner with a bowl of ice-cream the closer we are going to get to the point where we feel the meal just isn't complete without that bowl of ice-cream.

I have experienced abstaining from something for a long time and then finding as a result I don't desire it as much any more. For me it's Coca Cola. I've drunk Diet Coke for so long that regular Coke tastes way too sweet and I no longer crave it. For my wife it's meat. She's abstained for so long she has no more craving for it. I think indulging in something, while not necessarily lead to us wanting it more, does lead to us wanting it the same. The aim of the Path is to want it less.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Post by kc2dpt »

One more thing...
there is a more tempered, more skillful, approach than what is presented here.
I think this is a larger issue than just Buddhist teachings on masturbation. I think there is a pervasive tension between presenting the teachings in a complete way and presenting them in a truncated or sugar-coated way in order to make it more palatable for the listener. I think this is really a thread in itself.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Post by Jechbi »

Wow, that was awesome, Peter.
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Post by tiltbillings »

Peter wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Just to be clear, that is not what I have said.
That is clear to no one but you, I think.
So, you are now speaking for everyone, you think. Cool.
If every time someone said "Candy is bad for you" you replied with "Is candy really bad for you?" it would be reasonable if people assumed you thought candy wasn't bad for you. I think after 200 posts you might want to try a different approach.
Except your caricature is hardly an accurate portrayal of what was said by me over the number of posts I discussed this. As you said, it is probably better to accurately quote the individual's msgs in question. Sort of a practice what you preach thing, it would seem.
Peter wrote:
I wrote:Where, at what point, and how does one start drawing the line without incurring unnecessary guilt and shame and mental turmoil?
Guilt and shame are unnecessary regardless of where one draws the line. Unwholesome thoughts arise due to causes. We engage in unwholesome behaviors due to causes as well. These things cease due to causes too. Guilt and shame are simply not necessary.
If you say so; however, for many Westerners coming out of guilt mongering Christian backgrounds, the Ajahn Brahm approach could easily foster guilt and unnecessary shame if it is spoken with the ball-peen hammer subtlety and nuance of his article.
Claiming (or suggesting) unwholesome things are really not unwholesome just so as to avoid guilt and shame is, in my opinion, only going to cause more problems down the line.
That is probably true. Thank the goddess I never claimed such, but if you think I have, quote my words and my follow up words as they appear in the dialogue about this. Not very nice, really, to make a statement such as this without actually doing your homework.
Peter wrote:
I wrote:What I am talking about is the idea of healthy, not guilt/shame ridden, relationship to one's own sexuality for the layperson
I don't think there is anything unhealthy or guilt/shame ridden about calling the unwholesome as unwholesome, about discussing the negative effects of indulging in sensuality. On the contrary, that strikes me as a normal Buddhist conversation.
Let us see here. For you lay people the Buddha has not proscribed sexual relations, but keep in mind this is really unwholesome, unskillful - and by not much extension - a pāpa activity, but you are not violating the precepts if you do the in-and-outs in a consenting, of legal age, free individuals relationship. No basis whatsoever for conflict here.

Conversation requires context, and while it certainly should acknowledged that sexual activity is something that involves attachment, for the lay person one need not feel guilt about it; it does not stop one from keeping the precepts, and sexually active individuals can meditate. In time, however, with insight one’s relationship to sex will very likely change.
Peter wrote:
I wrote:there is a healthy Buddhist context from which we can approach sexuality without getting all twisted out of shape by it.
I really don't know who all these people getting twisted out of shape are that you keep arguing against. I don't think it is getting twisted out of shape to call an unwholesome act as unwholesome. It's just discussing Buddhist teachings.
Yes, who are they?
Peter wrote:
I wrote:This article presents what I see as being a healthy Buddhist approach to sexuality: http://www.buddhanet.net/winton_s.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I think it presents a very incomplete approach. The view presented keeps one from running afoul of the five precepts but really comes no where near eradicating fetters or realizing Nibbana. It is so striking as to it's omissions as to strike me as irresponsible. Even just one sentence hinting that there is more to the Path would have been sufficient. And lines like "there's nothing wrong with dancing lightly with your desires" is plainly a misrepresentation of the Buddha's teachings.
Not necessarily. So, do answer this, Peter, give a careful, exampled answer: if you are a lay person, and you want to have sex with your appropriate partner, you should respond to your desires how?

Higgins’ “dancing lightly” is in a broader context of the precepts and awareness.
Peter wrote:One could certainly cultivate aversion toward snakes. One could also simply be heedful without indulging in aversion.
Are you suggesting that one can have heedful sex? Or what?
Peter wrote:
I wrote:This is not wrong. Though one wonders if this accurately reflects how Ajahn Chah would or would not state this point in every case. When stated in this way without any attempt at context, which the Buddha understood as a supreme virtue, most likely it would be guilt and shame producing. Higgins offers a far better response.
Hmm... a response in line with the Dhamma that could lead to guilt and shame... or a response not in line with the Dhamma that avoids guilt and shame? I'd personally rather the correct response and then if guilt or shame arise we can have further discussion.
Let us hear from you how heedful sex is approached from your standpoint.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Post by kc2dpt »

tiltbillings wrote:Let us see here. For you lay people the Buddha has not proscribed sexual relations, but keep in mind this is really unwholesome, unskillful - and by not much extension - a pāpa activity, but you are not violating the precepts if you do the in-and-outs in a consenting, of legal age, free individuals relationship. No basis whatsoever for conflict here.
There is no conflict as long as one realizes the five precepts are a starting point, and not the whole, of the Path.
Conversation requires context
Yes, and I was the only one who asked the OP for context. The rest of you dived right in to what you thought he was asking and what you thought he needed to hear. Absent any context, as the OP never gave, I think the appropriate response to a question about Buddhism on a Buddhist forum is to give a plain answer in line with the Buddhist teachings.
while it certainly should acknowledged that sexual activity is something that involves attachment, for the lay person one need not feel guilt about it; it does not stop one from keeping the precepts, and sexually active individuals can meditate. In time, however, with insight one’s relationship to sex will very likely change.
I think this is a wonderful answer.
if you are a lay person, and you want to have sex with your appropriate partner, you should respond to your desires how?
This is a question which cannot be answered without counter-questions. Any question phrased as "what should one do" is too broad. What one should do depends on what one's aims are. The Buddha does not presume what other people want. For example, the Buddha said one who's aim is Nibbana should avoid all sexual activity. He also said one who's aim is to give freedom from danger, animosity, and oppression to limitless numbers of beings should abstain from illicit sex. He also said other shoulds for other aims. So the counter-question could be something like "What is it you want? What is your aim?"

Christianity assumes a goal for everyone: rebirth in heaven. So presuming this it can say "You should do X. You should not do Y." But Buddhism does not make that presumption. Rather it discusses various aims and then elaborates on the wisest way to attain those aims.

One could reform the question as "What does the Buddha say about the desire to have sex with an appropriate partner?" The we can answer "Buddha said different things to people with different aims. To people seeking happiness here and now he said one thing. To people seeking a good rebirth he said something else. To people seeking to end the cycle of rebirth he said something else." (Actually, in the case of sex I don't think there is a different teaching between the first two, but there is a difference on some other topics.)
Higgins’ “dancing lightly” is in a broader context of the precepts and awareness.
I see your point. Still, I worry it is a subtle point easily overlooked.
tilt wrote:
Peter wrote:One could certainly cultivate aversion toward snakes. One could also simply be heedful without indulging in aversion.
Are you suggesting that one can have heedful sex? Or what?
No, I am suggesting that one who avoids sex may do so out of aversion or they may do so out of heedfulness. Likewise, one who discusses the dangers of sex may do so out of aversion or out of heedfulness. In other words, not everyone who discusses the Buddha's teachings on the dangers and drawbacks of indulging in sensual pleasures is an uptight Puritan.
Peter wrote:Let us hear from you how heedful sex is approached from your standpoint.
Personally, I do not believe heedful sex is possible. One may eat delicious foods while being heedful. After all, one may have received something delicious on alms round. They did not seek it out. Still a delicious food is delicious whether one seeks it out or not. So one can eat and try to be mindful of the arising of pleasure and if it arises the arising of craving. But I believe sex to be different. One is a willing participant in maintaining arousal. Also physical arousal will affect one's mindset in very non-subtle ways. There is an interplay here between the physical and the mental that I think is not the same as when eating food. If one pays attention to the mindstate immediately before and immediately after orgasm one can see what I mean. Maybe I am wrong and it is simply a matter of degree. Regardless, I do not believe heedful sex is possible.

And I will remind you that one cannot infer what I personally do or don't do from the above statements.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Post by kc2dpt »

"if you are a lay person, and you want to have sex with your appropriate partner, you should respond to your desires how?"

I recall someone asked about one's relationship to one's child. He didn't ask "How should one relate to one's child?" He acknowledged the Buddha's teachings on attachment, noted his own attachment, and asked how others here with kids deal with this. A few of us answered what we do. It was a good question which in turn allowed for good answers. As such, one might ask "Given the Buddha's teachings on the dangers of sensual indulgence, how do those of you who are married relate to you're spouses?" To such a question I could answer from my own experience, and I could point out how my choices do and do not accord with the Buddha's teachings.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Post by kc2dpt »

Frankly I am just not comfortable with answering "there is nothing wrong with X" when what I really mean is "X is the wrong way to attain goal Y but then again there are so many things keeping us from Y that if you don't want to worry about X right now and instead focus on something else relating to Y then that's fine." Again, it comes from this Christian background of "X is wrong and if you do X then you are bad and I'm not going to hang out with you and you can't receive communion" etc, etc. Buddhism just ain't like that.* "X is the wrong way to attain Y. But even if you choose to do X you can still hang out here and talk and learn and do all the same stuff people who don't do X do. We all move down the Path at our own pace."

Maybe any question asking "what is wrong with X" should be changed to "what does the Buddha teach are the drawbacks of X"?

(* Jews aren't like that either. Perhaps that's why I don't assume these hangups in others. No one ever says "Oh you don't keep kosher? Then you can't carry the Torah." :shrug: )
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Post by christopher::: »

Excellent points, Peter. One of the things that made me extremely uncomfortable with the Higgins example is that he was talking about sexual relations as a business situation. That's what set my "alarm" off. The idea of bondage or sexual play for a commited couple with an established relationship where metta is present is very different from a situation where one is paying for sex with a complete stranger, imo.

To encourage prostitution without consideration for its effects on the people involved in that as employment just seems well, counter to Buddha's position, for me. Maybe not in all cases but in many (perhaps most)... Kitty's club may employ enlightened staff who do their work as a form of dharma practice, but i tend to think that's quite unlikely. The "statement of ethics" was very good, but can be deceptive if one thinks this somehow means all employees there are adopting these ethics mindfully, or really wish to be doing what they are doing as a profession. Sex slavery is a big problem in our world now, and many women are forced into prostitution. A statement of ethics can make it sound like Kitty's is different, and serve as a good cover.

It's one thing to talk about masterbation, and the dangers there. Once we start bringing in prostitution and presenting it as exemplary and "positive" it just sounds like self-deception to me, no offense, Tilt. That's in large part why i felt that encouraging such behavior (especially to pay for sex) can turn out to be such a "slippery slope"...
Last edited by christopher::: on Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Post by BlackBird »

Jechbi wrote:Wow, that was awesome, Peter.
I second that Peter, good work.

:anjali:
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Post by tiltbillings »

christopher::: wrote:Excellent points, Peter. One of the things that made me extremely uncomfortable with the Higgins example is that he was talking about sexual relations as a business situation. That's what set my "alarm" off. The idea of bondage or sexual play for a commited couple with an established relationship where metta is present is very different from a situation where one is paying for sex with a complete stranger, imo.
Higgins did not talk not about “sex relations” as a “business situation.” His reference to Salon Kitty was to it rules, using them to make a point, which - again - is being missed.

This following paragraph is quite astounding:
To encourage prostitution without consideration for its effects on the people involved in that as employment just seems well, counter to Buddha's position, for me. Maybe not in all cases but in many (perhaps most)... Kitty's club may employ enlightened staff who do their work as a form of dharma practice, but i tend to think that's quite unlikely. The "statement of ethics" was very good, but can be deceptive if one thinks this somehow means all employees there are adopting these ethics mindfully, or really wish to be doing what they are doing as a profession. Sex slavery is a big problem in our world now, and many women are forced into prostitution. A statement of ethics can make it sound like Kitty's is different, and serve as a good cover.
Higgins is not promoting Salon Kitty; he made no comment to suggest that its employees are “enlightened.” While sexual slavery is a stark, harsh reality in countries such as Thailand as well as many Western countries, does the author of the above paragraph know that Salon Kitty employs sexual slaves? But all of that has not a thing to do with Higgins point.
It's one thing to talk about masturbation [sic], and the dangers there. Once we start bringing in prostitution and presenting it as exemplary and "positive" it just sounds like self-deception to me, no offense, Tilt. That's in large part why i felt that encouraging such behavior (especially to pay for sex) can turn out to be such a "slippery slope"...
Higgins is hardly presenting prostitution as exemplary. But let us not forget that in the Pali Canon there was a courtesan who was a supporter of the Buddha, and he never spoke of her in a condemnatory way, but again, that is beside the point.

As a challenge, Christopher, go back to Higgins' talk and see if you can actually get the point he was making by his referring to Salon Kitty’s rules. It is not hard to see.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Post by christopher::: »

I did read Higgins, carefully, Tilt. It is possible that I misunderstood something, but check out the parts in bold. He wasn't only praising the idea of ethics and mutual respect (which i support as well) he praised Salon Kitty, as a business...

I agree that we should not pass judgment on gays, lesbians or other "sexual minorities" but that is quite different from praising intensely pleasurable sexual activities between strangers, and calling them "close to the dhamma"...

The appropriate Buddhist attitude to other sexual minorities is just the same. I tested this by visiting the website of Salon Kitty, a very fastidious local establishment which describes itself as 'one of the world's leading BDSM houses.' BDSM stands for bondage, discipline and sado-masochism. On Salon Kitty's main menu is a statement of ethics, which the duty of care and overall responsibility ' the dominant' owes 'the submissive,' not least around the obviously crucial issue of consent. In part the statement of ethics says: Implied in consent is the responsibility of the dominant partner in any BDSM scene to monitor the wellbeing of the submissive to ensure that the submissive is stable and that the consent is still operative.

It is also the responsibility of the dominant to ensure that the submissive is not consenting to an act that is not in his or her best longterm interests. Neither party should indulge in heavy drinking or drug taking as this can impair judgement… A description follows of the mechanism for instantly withdrawing consent - the uttering of a pre-agreed 'safe word' - which immediately brings the procedure in question to an end.

Then the statement of ethics resumes: In order to enjoy the possibilities that the world of BDSM offers, one must first discover respect and trust both of oneself and of others. Elements of all five precepts are there, including the last. On the basis of this statement we can conclude that Salon Kitty comes closer to Dhamma than fundamentalist, social engineering killjoys of various religious persuasions!
How is an employee in a sexual trade going to have the wisdom to know that someone is not consenting to an act that is not in his or her best interest? This description by Higgins sounds quite self-deceptive, to me. On the basis of a website's statements we can conclude that this particular sex shop, that we really know nothing about beyond its advertising, comes closer to the dhamma?

Deceptive logic of this sort is very human. As Jechbi noted about taking things out of context, its something we all do. This is how the samsaric mind works. We hide the truth from ourselves by constructing false beliefs and then forming attachments to those beliefs. I do it, you do it, most of us do it, in my opinion. That's why we have to be so so so very mindful, to unknot these deceptions, and observe how our minds work with these things...

That's my view, anyway.

Please check out this short Wikipedia article on Self Deception, it provides a pretty good summary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deception" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It has been theorized that humans are susceptible to self-deception because most people have emotional attachments to beliefs, which in some cases may be irrational. Some evolutionary biologists, such as Robert Trivers, have suggested that deception plays a significant part in human behaviour, and in animal behavior, more generally speaking. It has been theorized that an instinct for self-deception can give a person a selective advantage, based on the rationale that if a person can believe their own "lie" (i.e., their presentation that is biased toward their own self-interest), the theory goes, they will consequently be better able to persuade others of its "truth."

This notion is based on the following logic. In humans, awareness of the fact that one is acting deceptively often leads to tell-tale signs of deception. Therefore, if self-deception enables someone to believe their distortions, they will not present such signs of deception and will therefore appear to be telling the truth. It may also be argued that the ability to deceive, or self-deceive, is not the selected trait but a by-product of a more primary trait called abstract thinking. Abstract thinking allows many evolutionary advantages such as more flexible, adaptive behaviors and innovation. Since a lie is an abstraction, the mental process of creating a lie can only occur in animals with enough brain complexity to permit abstract thinking...
I would expect that there are corresponding descriptions of this made by the Buddha. I'm reading an excellent book right now by Dzigar Kongtrul, called "It's Up to You: The Practice of Self-Reflection on the Buddhist Path" which talks about this extensively...

:namaste:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Post by tiltbillings »

christopher::: wrote:I did read Higgins, carefully, Tilt. It is possible that I misunderstood something, but check out the parts in bold. He wasn't only praising the idea of ethics and mutual respect (which i support as well) he praised Salon Kitty, as a business...
As usual, the actual point Higgins was making is not addressed.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Post by tiltbillings »

Peter wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Let us see here. For you lay people the Buddha has not proscribed sexual relations, but keep in mind this is really unwholesome, unskillful - and by not much extension - a pāpa activity, but you are not violating the precepts if you do the in-and-outs in a consenting, of legal age, free individuals relationship. No basis whatsoever for conflict here.
There is no conflict as long as one realizes the five precepts are a starting point, and not the whole, of the Path.
The precepts are ways of cultivating awareness, and to some degree reflect what awakened behavior might look like(, though, of course, there things an awakened individual would not do that are allowed in the precepts).
Conversation requires context
Yes, and I was the only one who asked the OP for context. The rest of you dived right in to what you thought he was asking and what you thought he needed to hear. Absent any context, as the OP never gave, I think the appropriate response to a question about Buddhism on a Buddhist forum is to give a plain answer in line with the Buddhist teachings.
It was a drive-by question, which was obvious very early on, given that there was no follow up, but the OP is still around. Leave him a PM.
Peter wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:while it certainly should acknowledged that sexual activity is something that involves attachment, for the lay person one need not feel guilt about it; it does not stop one from keeping the precepts, and sexually active individuals can meditate. In time, however, with insight one’s relationship to sex will very likely change.
I think this is a wonderful answer.
Yeah, it is the answer in line with the Dhamma.
Peter wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Higgins’ “dancing lightly” is in a broader context of the precepts and awareness.
I see your point. Still, I worry it is a subtle point easily overlooked.
I think we have seen that repeatedly in this thread. The obverse is Ajahn Brahm’s presentation.
tilt wrote:
Peter wrote:One could certainly cultivate aversion toward snakes. One could also simply be heedful without indulging in aversion.
Are you suggesting that one can have heedful sex? Or what?
No, I am suggesting that one who avoids sex may do so out of aversion or they may do so out of heedfulness. Likewise, one who discusses the dangers of sex may do so out of aversion or out of heedfulness. In other words, not everyone who discusses the Buddha's teachings on the dangers and drawbacks of indulging in sensual pleasures is an uptight Puritan.
But the uptight Puritans are out there.
And I will remind you that one cannot infer what I personally do or don't do from the above statements.
As for what you personally do or don’t do, I don’t give a rat’s ass. It is simply none of my business.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Post by kc2dpt »

I don't think it matters, tilt. You get all up in arms that someone is going to read what the Buddha taught regarding sensual pleasures and think we're all uptight Puritans, or that they should feel shame and guilt that they don't live up to those standards... yet you see nothing wrong with an article which says "it's ok to dance lightly with sensual pleasures" and which speaks of a BDSM business as close to the Dhamma. Misunderstanding happens in both directions. Your fears of misunderstanding are not somehow more valid than christopher's or mine.

I think articles, and there are many, which say "there's nothing wrong with X as long as you are a lay person" are misleading people into a false Dhamma. And yes I understand that articles which present straight-up Dhamma can, through misunderstanding, scare people away from the Dhamma. It's a tricky thing trying to teach people.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: masturbation what's wrong?

Post by kc2dpt »

tiltbillings wrote:
Peter wrote:And I will remind you that one cannot infer what I personally do or don't do from the above statements.
As for what you personally do or don’t do, I don’t give a rat’s ass. It is simply none of my business.
Oh please!
tiltbillings wrote:So, you must eat rather bland boring food, never do anything that that brings any sort of enjoyment to yourself.
You have littered comments like this throughout the thread.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
Post Reply