DN31 Advise to Sigalaka

Each week we study and discuss a different sutta or Dhamma text

Moderator: mikenz66

SarathW
Posts: 11110
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

DN31 Advise to Sigalaka

Post by SarathW » Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:48 am

When I was young the tabular form of DN 31 displayed in my father's restaurant.
I had a habit of reading this over and over again.
I am sure this teaching help me shape my early adolescence.
I did not know it was from DN 31 until about a few years back.

This is one of memorable advises from Buddha to the householder.

===========
Parents are the east,
teachers the south,
wives and child the west,
friends and colleagues the north,

servants and workers below,
and ascetics and brahmins above.
By honoring these quarters
a householder does enough for their family.

https://suttacentral.net/dn31/en/sujato
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

Srilankaputra
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:56 am
Location: Sri Lanka

Re: DN31 Advise to Sigalaka

Post by Srilankaputra » Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:59 am

:anjali:
O seeing one,we for refuge go to thee!
O mighty sage do thou our teacher be!

paul
Posts: 1512
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 11:27 pm
Location: Cambodia

Re: DN31 Advise to Sigalaka

Post by paul » Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:15 pm

This version was compiled by three students of religion in 2005 and includes extensive notes:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .ksw0.html

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 4262
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: DN31 Advise to Sigalaka

Post by DooDoot » Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:42 am

I gained enlightenment from DN 31. I used to practise non-duality of not judging good & bad as taught by the wanna-be Zen master named Bhikkhu Buddhadasa. But later by judging the good & bad in the world using DN 31, I actually had more harmony with the world than the bright ignorance of non-duality. DN 31 helps the mind see what's going on in the world; including why & how the bad stuff is occurring. DN 31 rules! :thumbsup:
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

SarathW
Posts: 11110
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: DN31 Advise to Sigalaka

Post by SarathW » Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:53 am

DN 31 rules! :thumbsup:
:thumbsup:
I never thought that way however DN31 (not knowing it is from Sutta or whatever when I was young) ruled my life.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 4262
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: DN31 Advise to Sigalaka

Post by DooDoot » Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:33 am

I gained enlightenment trying to a help a wanna-be lesbian. I had just started reading suttas, including DN 31, and was also involved in meditation retreats, where I had to interview the students. My once bright non-duality had been gradually failing because listening to so many female problems was making me realise i did not understand what was going on nor how to help. It was all falling apart. Frustration. Then this young lady came to talk to me (sent to the retreat by another young female who was difficult to deal with), about three times, telling me how she used to have her 1st love boyfriend and all of the families thought they would get married. Then they broke up and she travelled around Asia and a lesbian seduced her. She was not sure if she was a lesbian or not and, mostly, was anxious her mother would not accept she might be a lesbian. Then DN 31 just popped out of my mouth. I lost my patience with her and just said: "Well, your mother didn't have children with the wish they become lesbians. Of course it will be difficult for your mother to accept this. How could it be otherwise!". That's the moment I gained enlightenment. From that day, people's relationship, sex, abuse & family problems never really affected me again because I could understand what was going on. Lesbians rule! :thumbsup:
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
AgarikaJ
Posts: 211
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:21 pm

Re: DN31 Advise to Sigalaka

Post by AgarikaJ » Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:20 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:33 am
I lost my patience with her and just said: "Well, your mother didn't have children with the wish they become lesbians. Of course it will be difficult for your mother to accept this. How could it be otherwise!".
That's the moment I gained enlightenment. From that day, people's relationship, sex, abuse & family problems never really affected me again because I could understand what was going on. Lesbians rule! :thumbsup:
What a very, very weird thing to write. And I very much see a contradiction to what DN 31 actually says:
- https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... ml#parents
In five ways, young householder, a child should minister to his parents as the East:
(i) Having supported me I shall support them,
(ii) I shall do their duties,
(iii) I shall keep the family tradition,
(iv) I shall make myself worthy of my inheritance,
(v) furthermore I shall offer alms in honor of my departed
relatives.

"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.

"In these five ways do children minister to their parents as the East and the parents show their compassion to their children. Thus is the East covered by them and made safe and secure.
Going on:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_view_of_marriage
The Pali Canon - the scriptures of the modern Theravada School - acknowledges homosexuality at some length in the Vinaya, or monastic code, which bars both male and female monastics ("Bhikkhus") from both heterosexual and homosexual activities. Although this clear and quite detailed acknowledgement of homosexuality exists in the monastic discipline (Vinaya), there is not one instance in which homosexuality is condemned or spoken of as evil or unskillful (Pali, "akusala") in the voluminous recension of discourses and teachings given by the Buddha and his disciples (the Suttas).
In general, Theravada does not know something like a 'marriage ceremony'. It is true that partnerships about which the Buddha specifically advised consist of a husband/wife couple. However, he makes strong points that such couplings are there for the reason of wealth preservation and children. In no way are they a reflection on a/his rejection of same sex partnerships for other, emotional reasons -- he never told us either or.

As such, even though parents are held to arrange a "suitable marriage", a mother would not reject the wish of her daughter to enter in a lesbian relationship outright, given that the partner is able to give proper care to her.

Actually, it is a very uncompassionate and hurtful thing to have said to this woman, whose life circumstances clearly, by your own admission, overtaxed your understanding. Stating that an uncompassionate act led to your 'enlightenment' makes me truly wonder.
The teaching is a lake with shores of ethics, unclouded, praised by the fine to the good.
There the knowledgeable go to bathe, and cross to the far shore without getting wet.
[SN 7.21]

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 4262
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: DN31 Advise to Sigalaka

Post by DooDoot » Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:40 pm

AgarikaJ wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:20 pm
What a very, very weird thing to write.
Why? It might sound very weird compared to American left-wing libertarian ideology. DN 31 appears to say a "libertine" is a dangerous friend.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:20 pm
And I very much see a contradiction to what DN 31 actually says: the parents thus ministered to as the East by their children, show their compassion: (iv) they arrange a suitable marriage
What I wrote is perfectly consistent with DN 31. Are you suggesting the parents have a duty to arrange a "gay marriage"?
AgarikaJ wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:20 pm
Going on:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_view_of_marriage
So Wiki has the same authority as the suttas?
AgarikaJ wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:20 pm
The Pali Canon - the scriptures of the modern Theravada School - acknowledges homosexuality at some length in the Vinaya, or monastic code, which bars both male and female monastics ("Bhikkhus") from both heterosexual and homosexual activities. Although this clear and quite detailed acknowledgement of homosexuality exists in the monastic discipline (Vinaya), there is not one instance in which homosexuality is condemned or spoken of as evil or unskillful (Pali, "akusala") in the voluminous recension of discourses and teachings given by the Buddha and his disciples (the Suttas).
So?
AgarikaJ wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:20 pm
In general, Theravada does not know something like a 'marriage ceremony'.
What? So the Buddha never referred to "marriage"? Evidence please. Thanks
AgarikaJ wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:20 pm
It is true that partnerships about which the Buddha specifically advised consist of a husband/wife couple.
Yes. Indeed.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:20 pm
However, he makes strong points that such couplings are there for the reason of wealth preservation and children.
Where? Please quote. Thanks. The above sounds like Feminist Anti-Patriarchy ideology.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:20 pm
In no way are they a reflection on a/his rejection of same sex partnerships for other, emotional reasons -- he never told us either or.
There is zero evidence for the claim above. The Buddha's silence about homosexuality does not mean he approved of it or promoted it. Regardless, there was nothing I said to the young lady that disapproved of her lesbianism. The allegations against me are unwarranted & baseless. :)
AgarikaJ wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:20 pm
As such, even though parents are held to arrange a "suitable marriage", a mother would not reject the wish of her daughter to enter in a lesbian relationship outright, given that the partner is able to give proper care to her.
Her mother was a Christian :roll: . Regardless, it does not change the ordinary sentiment the average parent would have. Click on this video and view the discussion of the white English mother in the car:

Regardless, the young lady never discussed marrying the lesbian predator who seduced her in Thailand. They were simply two young ladies having a promiscuous sexual affair on a tropical island in Thailand.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:20 pm
Actually, it is a very uncompassionate and hurtful thing to have said to this woman
Not at all. The women was not hurt and it was not hurtful. It was simply an empathetic statement about her mother.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:20 pm
whose life circumstances clearly, by your own admission, overtaxed your understanding.
Please take care with your speech. I said the situation created understanding. I never said it overtaxed my understanding. Please take care with your speech.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:20 pm
Stating that an uncompassionate act led to your 'enlightenment' makes me truly wonder.
We have discussed sex before together. I recall you were labelled an "organismic Buddhist" by another member. My action was not uncompassionate. It was a straightforward statement that it would be difficult for her Christian & conventional mother to accept lesbianism. In other words, it was a statement that the young lady should adjust her expectations rather than her mother.

What you posted sounds, to me, like weaponized homosexuality. In Buddhism, celibate monks do not impose their celibacy upon others. Celibate monks reflect every day they live a different kind of life than the ordinary person. Imo, homosexuals should follow this example. I have posted this on the forum before. Most parents do not want their children indoctrinated with homosexual propaganda. Homosexuality in the West was decriminalised around 40 years ago. That is sufficient. The more homosexuals push their doctrine onto ordinary people, the more ordinary people will push back. Homosexuality is a "fringe" orientation. Homosexuals are best to acknowledge this; just as celibate monks acknowledge celibacy is a "fringe" orientation. There is no evidence the Buddha's statement about arranging a suitable marriage included homosexual marriage. Also, the Commentaries make it absolutely clear that a girl is "protected by her parents" until she is married into a good family of a man. In the Buddha's time, I would imagine or speculate overt homosexuals & transgenders would live in their fringe community, which, according to reports, was the actually history of homosexuality in India. I doubt it would be considered "marriage". In short, I think your ideas have nothing to do with Buddhism. The suttas show the Buddha supported the convention of marriage within caste. It is unlikely, based on the social divisions of Indian society, that the Buddha would have regarded homosexuality or transgender as something "mainstream". In India, "jati" or "social group identity" is something characteristic of Indian society and the Buddhist viewpoint (refer to MN 98). I suggest to read this PDF: HOMOSEXUALITY IN INDIA . Regards & best wishes :smile:
Male to female transgender people of India have traditionally organized themselves in communities, usually called Jamaat. A unit of matriarchal structure features an older Hijra or aravani as a ‘guru’ (or motherly figure with several chelas), younger, newly initiated Hijras/ aravani and her acolytes. There are elaborate rituals that mark one’s entry into a jamaat and acceptance as a chela. These rituals with their mytho-religious underpinnings bind them to a structure of kinship in which relationships, roles and duties are both implicitly suggested and explicitly performed.

HOMOSEXUALITY IN INDIA
Last edited by DooDoot on Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:23 pm, edited 17 times 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
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20740
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: DN31 Advise to Sigalaka

Post by retrofuturist » Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:50 pm

Greetings,

Fair points have been made vis-a-vis DN31 and the Dhamma, but there's also a little bit too much in the way of irrelevant conjecture about one another.

Out of respect to the OP, one another, and the sutta in question, please try to desist from making this topic about one another.

:thanks:

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)

User avatar
Idappaccayata
Posts: 177
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2017 8:54 pm

Re: DN31 Advise to Sigalaka

Post by Idappaccayata » Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:41 am

Isn't there a sutta that says a lot person would have to ordain if them became enlightened, otherwise they couldn't survive?
A dying man can only rely upon his wisdom, if he developed it. Wisdom is not dependent upon any phenomenon originated upon six senses. It is developed on the basis of the discernment of the same. That’s why when one’s senses start to wither and die, the knowledge of their nature remains unaffected. When there is no wisdom, there will be despair, in the face of death.

- Ajahn Nyanamoli Thero

User avatar
bodom
Posts: 6341
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: DN31 Advise to Sigalaka

Post by bodom » Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:22 am

Idappaccayata wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:41 am
Isn't there a sutta that says a lot person would have to ordain if them became enlightened, otherwise they couldn't survive?
It is a commentarial idea not found in the suttas and only if one realizes arhatship.

:namaste:
To study is to know the texts,
To practice is to know your defilements,
To attain the goal is to know and let go.

- Ajahn Lee Dhammadharo


With no struggling, no thinking,
the mind, still,
will see cause and effect
vanishing in the Void.
Attached to nothing, letting go:
Know that this is the way
to allay all stress.

- Upasika Kee Nanayan

User avatar
AgarikaJ
Posts: 211
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:21 pm

Re: DN31 Advise to Sigalaka

Post by AgarikaJ » Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am

As @RetroFuturist asked to not make this personal, I make it short.
DooDoot wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:40 pm
American ... ideology
To note: I am not American, this alone makes it difficult to understand what you are going on about so often.

Anyway, I have brought up the point here several times, there are some posters on here who frequently use terms loaned from social sciences, but in a fashion that is far off their actual definition. As they never explain how their private usage is actually meant in detail, their whole argument becomes largely undecipherable.

Definition libertarianism: "an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens." I see no issue with this concept, but you seem to have a problem with citizens living their lives unmolested by political intervention?
Definition feminism: "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." Again, from a purely compassionate standpoint, which I am sure every Buddhist will inherently have, it would be impossible to deviate from this idea; every Buddhist must therefore be a feminist, or he is already fettered to an attachment of overly ego-based views centered around one's gender.
Definition patriarchy: "a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it." This is a phenomenon wholly pertaining to the world of laypeople; if other laypeople are somehow against this hierarchical stratification based on gender, this does not sound overly concerning to me. As a Buddhist I would largely advise to let those laypeople work it out between themselves and if to "choose sides", to do it on the basis of being emotionally disengaged and guided by the concept of compassion.

You however seem to get worked up pretty bad about 'Feminist Anti-Patriarchy ideology'. As you inherently must be a feminist, but an ideology condemning patriarchy would not tangent you much, it seems -- to use the word from my last post intentionally -- really "weird" that you are so strongly attached to your emotional reaction.
DooDoot wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:40 pm
Are you suggesting the parents have a duty to arrange a "gay marriage"?
No, I am suggesting that parents are held to arrange a ***suitable*** marriage, based on emphathy and compassion towards the needs of their children and that their partner is able to take care of them financially, emotionally and give them a lasting, secure place in the world.
DooDoot wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:40 pm
AgarikaJ wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:20 pm
In general, Theravada does not know something like a 'marriage ceremony'.
What? So the Buddha never referred to "marriage"? Evidence please.
Are you unable to read? The Buddha did not define what marriage is. He obviously preferred a monogamous heterosexual relationship of equitable partners, as this was seen by him in general as the most stable relationship, wholly seen through the prism of under which circumstances there would be the greatest likelihood to accumulate Good Kamma.

But he was obviously quite disinterested to try to shape or change local customs for laypeople, so referring to 'marriage' says nothing about how and in which form such a marriage should be executed.

How far those acceptable (to the Buddha) local customs went can be seen that he did not admonish any of the nobility he interacted with about their harems, and he himself was most likely part of such a polygamous relationship in his youth (it would go against local tradition of the time if he would not have had such a harem, his royal family loosing all social respect if they were unable to uphold one for the main prince; it was a question of prestige, you see?).

More importantly, he acknowledged the existence of many alternative ways of organizing a partnership (naming homosexual partnerships specifically). Therefore: there is not one instance in which homosexuality [or having a whole harem of partners] is condemned or spoken of as evil or unskillful (Pali, "akusala"); it was accepted by the Buddha as valid laypeople behaviour.
DooDoot wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:40 pm
The Buddha's silence about homosexuality does not mean he approved of it or promoted it.
See above; the Buddha was not silent about homosexuality, and in the context of lay behaviour did not disapprove of it. There is a difference between 'approving' and 'promoting', so I am unsure why you try to conflate the two things. I did not.
DooDoot wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:40 pm
there was nothing I said to the young lady that disapproved of her lesbianism
I am sorry, I must have misunderstood your post. But you writing "Well, your mother didn't have children with the wish they become lesbians." made it sound like you implicitly found it impossible that her mother -- and in extension you -- would approve of it. Actually, you seem to strengthen this idea by writing further that the "ordinary sentiment the average parent" would have would be disapproving.

So, are you telling me that you do approve? Please make this very clear, because the whole slant of your posting so far in this thread did not make it sound that way to me.
DooDoot wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:40 pm
Her mother was a Christian
What has that to do with anything?
DooDoot wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:40 pm
the young lady never discussed marrying the lesbian predator who seduced her
You are changing your story here. What you wrote was: "Then this young lady came to talk to me (sent to the retreat by another young female who was difficult to deal with), about three times, telling me how she used to have her 1st love boyfriend and all of the families thought they would get married. Then they broke up and she travelled around Asia and a lesbian seduced her. She was not sure if she was a lesbian or not and, mostly, was anxious her mother would not accept she might be a lesbian."

DN 31 is solely concerned with the relationship between parents and their children and between married partners. You were the one bringing up marriage and how parents would be upset about a lasting same-sex relationship. I have answered you on the basis of that.

Even if this was just a confused person asking for advice on how to deal with an emotionally disturbing event during a holiday, your answer was uncompassionate, careless and as far away from "empathetic" as I could imagine.
If this was just a crisis of self-identity, as you now make it out to be, it was still wholly inappropriate (especially based on DN 31) to bring her mother into it: this person was -- again an assumption on my side -- already an adult, albeit maybe a young one without much life experience, or she would not have been in a meditation retreat in a foreign country to begin with.

What would have been appropriate to say, in your case: that you cannot give an opinion, because you are already completely out of your depth (you called it: "My once bright non-duality had been gradually failing because listening to so many female problems was making me realise i did not understand what was going on nor how to help"; I made out of that "overtaxed your understanding" and I stand by it).
Sometimes it is not a bad idea to give no (worldly) advice, if one does so obviously not know what one is talking about. Just as an aside: loosing your patience over a laypersons matter as a teacher of a meditation retreat does also not lend credibility to any position you might bring forward to this or the other students.

But what you could have said beyond not saying much: you should have based any answer in calm, simple, compassionate terms; that a one-off experience is actually just that and to not attach too strong a meaning to it beyond that it happened; to analyse the feelings and the situation going forward and in case that future partners are female, to think if this would be a strategy likely to give her the chance to arrive in a stable, emotionally secure environment (neither approving nor disapproving, as it would be wholly inappropriate for you as a family outsider to give a moral opinion on this).

If you rather would feel the need to address this in Theravadin terms instead, it should have had to go along the line that one should meditate on self-identity and how this leads to suffering; that it is advisable to detach oneself from any emotional turbulence and, by noting the upset caused, that this is a feeling which has risen, but will inevitably fall and fade away. Maybe to add some Metta meditation to express her being thankful for the loving upbringing she has experienced by her mother, to make the point -- in the most tangential and subtle way -- that her feelings about the incident, if it ever would be discussed, should also be considered.

It was a meditation retreat after all, and you were her teacher.
DooDoot wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:40 pm
The more homosexuals push their doctrine onto ordinary people, the more ordinary people will push back. Homosexuality is a "fringe" orientation. Homosexuals are best to acknowledge this
To note this upfront: I am not homosexual. But I feel compassion for those who are and explicitly live their life this way. How could I not, I am a Buddhist.

And I have no idea why you would feel threatened by this or express any need to "push back" against anything or be uncompassionate to the point that it starts to sound absurd. It should frankly not concern you, or actually anybody, as long as this chosen self-expression is not infringing on the rights of other people to express themselves.
In the same way you or I should not worry about people going into a church, a temple, a mosque, going to a rave, kissing their partners in public, walking around in funny clothes, having a vocation outside their caste, living in a cave or on a boat, or deciding to eat only raw meat or no meat at all; it is an obsession being attached to having to have an opinion on it beyond feeling compassion for their life decisions.
The teaching is a lake with shores of ethics, unclouded, praised by the fine to the good.
There the knowledgeable go to bathe, and cross to the far shore without getting wet.
[SN 7.21]

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 4262
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: DN31 Advise to Sigalaka

Post by DooDoot » Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:24 pm

AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
To note: I am not American, this alone makes it difficult to understand what you are going on about so often.
Of American origins...
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
Definition libertarianism: "an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens." I see no issue with this concept, but you seem to have a problem with citizens living their lives unmolested by political intervention?
People can live however they want. But it doesn't mean this is a Buddhist lifestyle.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
Definition feminism: "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes."
False definition. Mere propaganda.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
Again, from a purely compassionate standpoint, which I am sure every Buddhist will inherently have, it would be impossible to deviate from this idea; every Buddhist must therefore be a feminist, or he is already fettered to an attachment of overly ego-based views centered around one's gender.
Sorry but 2nd Wave Feminism was part of the Sexual Revolution, which promoted drug taking & sexual promiscuity of women; even extolled prostitution & pornography as female empowerment. This is contrary to Buddhism.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
Definition patriarchy: "a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it."
:roll:
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
You however seem to get worked up pretty bad about 'Feminist Anti-Patriarchy ideology'.
Again, take care with speech. Try to discuss the issues. Thanks
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
As you inherently must be a feminist, but an ideology condemning patriarchy would not tangent you much, it seems -- to use the word from my last post intentionally -- really "weird" that you are so strongly attached to your emotional reaction.
Definitely not a Feminist and definitely not a Patriarch. With the Middle Way of Buddha-Dhamma, these divisive dichotomies can be abandoned.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
No, I am suggesting that parents are held to arrange a ***suitable*** marriage, based on emphathy and compassion towards the needs of their children and that their partner is able to take care of them financially, emotionally and give them a lasting, secure place in the world.
Irrelevant. The young ladies were just having sex. If I told her she should get married to her lesbian lover, she probably would have screamed or fainted. :D
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
Are you unable to read? The Buddha did not define what marriage is.
So for Buddha, the relationship of "husband & wife" was not marriage?
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
He obviously preferred a monogamous heterosexual relationship of equitable partners, as this was seen by him in general as the most stable relationship, wholly seen through the prism of under which circumstances there would be the greatest likelihood to accumulate Good Kamma.
Actually, I disagree entirely with you here. For me, the Buddha viewed what was natural & ordinary according to how the disposition of individuals was created by the elements (dhatu). Thus, the Buddha would understand a lesbian is a lesbian and a mother would like her daughter to get married and have children.

Also, i completely disagree with your views about heterosexual good kamma. I have homosexual friends who make super good kamma.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
But he was obviously quite disinterested to try to shape or change local customs for laypeople, so referring to 'marriage' says nothing about how and in which form such a marriage should be executed.
Again, not sure what you are saying here? Just because monks don't perform marriage ceremonies does not mean the Buddha did not view marriage as a usual custom or institution. Maybe you can start a new thread on it.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
How far those acceptable (to the Buddha) local customs went can be seen that he did not admonish any of the nobility he interacted with about their harems
Sure. But he did not praise it either.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
he himself was most likely part of such a polygamous relationship in his youth (it would go against local tradition of the time if he would not have had such a harem, his royal family loosing all social respect if they were unable to uphold one for the main prince; it was a question of prestige, you see?).
Unlikely. I disagree. He entered jhana as a child and the suttas report has was discontented, unhappy and brooding in the palace. Since he did not bear a child until he left home at 29 years old, it appears probable he was not interested in sex due to his lofty consciousness. Since the suttas report his parents wept in front of him when he left home, it seems possible he made a deal with his father to bear an heir so he could become a monk. There is more evidence Gotama was not interested in sex than he was having orgies.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
More importantly, he acknowledged the existence of many alternative ways of organizing a partnership (naming homosexual partnerships specifically).
Where?
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
Therefore: there is not one instance in which homosexuality [or having a whole harem of partners] is condemned or spoken of as evil or unskillful (Pali, "akusala"); it was accepted by the Buddha as valid laypeople behaviour.
No instance it is discussed or praised either. The Buddha did not micro-manage people, like a Jewish Rabbi. The Buddha only taught those who were interested in Dhamma.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
See above; the Buddha was not silent about homosexuality, and in the context of lay behaviour did not disapprove of it. There is a difference between 'approving' and 'promoting', so I am unsure why you try to conflate the two things. I did not.
Nothing to see above since you wrote nothing relevant.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
I am sorry, I must have misunderstood your post.
Yes, you did.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
But you writing "Well, your mother didn't have children with the wish they become lesbians." made it sound like you implicitly found it impossible that her mother -- and in extension you -- would approve of it.
Not really. I would say the same thing today; however in a better way.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
Actually, you seem to strengthen this idea by writing further that the "ordinary sentiment the average parent" would have would be disapproving.
Indeed. A more appropriate phrase is: "Difficult to accept".
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
So, are you telling me that you do approve? Please make this very clear, because the whole slant of your posting so far in this thread did not make it sound that way to me.
I am only interested in Dhamma. A young lady came to me with a dilemma about her mother not accepting she might be a lesbian. I said, yes, its ordinary for your mother to feel like that.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
What has that to do with anything?
Well, i got the impression you expected the mother to follow the teaching in DN 31.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
You are changing your story here.
Of course not. Again, focus on the topic.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
What you wrote was: "Then this young lady came to talk to me (sent to the retreat by another young female who was difficult to deal with), about three times, telling me how she used to have her 1st love boyfriend and all of the families thought they would get married. Then they broke up and she travelled around Asia and a lesbian seduced her. She was not sure if she was a lesbian or not and, mostly, was anxious her mother would not accept she might be a lesbian."
And?
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
DN 31 is solely concerned with the relationship between parents and their children and between married partners. You were the one bringing up marriage and how parents would be upset about a lasting same-sex relationship. I have answered you on the basis of that.
DN 31 is concerned about relationship between parents and their children. Parents have five duties, which includes restrain from evil, train to do good & arrange marriage. Obviously, her mother was and wanted to do these duties. But now the mother could not because the girl was having sexual affairs. The girls situation was unrelated to Buddhism. The mothers situation was related to Buddhism. Buddhism really had nothing to offer the girl because Buddhism does not teach a path of promiscuous sexual relationships.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
Even if this was just a confused person asking for advice on how to deal with an emotionally disturbing event during a holiday, your answer was uncompassionate, careless and as far away from "empathetic" as I could imagine.
My answer was fine. As I said, Buddhism had nothing to offer this girl. Compassion is not encouraging people to be sexually promiscuous or have unrealistic expectations towards their parents.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
If this was just a crisis of self-identity, as you now make it out to be, it was still wholly inappropriate (especially based on DN 31) to bring her mother into it:
It was the girl who brought her mother into it. The girl asked about her mother.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
this person was -- again an assumption on my side -- already an adult, albeit maybe a young one without much life experience, or she would not have been in a meditation retreat in a foreign country to begin with.
The girl was a backbacker. I had many female fans at that time and they would send girls they met to the retreat. They were mostly backpackers.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
What would have been appropriate to say, in your case: that you cannot give an opinion
No. I disagree. My advice was perfect. :smile:
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
because you are already completely out of your depth
I never said that. Please take care with your speech. It was the time I was actually in my depth because of DN 31.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
(you called it: "My once bright non-duality had been gradually failing because listening to so many female problems was making me realise i did not understand what was going on nor how to help"; I made out of that "overtaxed your understanding" and I stand by it).
No. I had little understanding before that. Please do not twist people's words. Be respectful.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
Sometimes it is not a bad idea to give no (worldly) advice
No. I disagree. My advice was perfect. :smile:
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
if one does so obviously not know what one is talking about.
But I knew what i was talking about because of DN 31. My mind knew the advice was right. :smile:
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
Just as an aside: loosing your patience over a laypersons matter as a teacher of a meditation retreat does also not lend credibility to any position you might bring forward to this or the other students.
Actually, I helped so many people, particularly women. In fact, I turned some bad lives around. Your statement above is completely false. Try to focus on facts. The Buddha taught to speak facts. Avoid the allegations style of attack. Its not Buddhist. Its not compassionate.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
But what you could have said beyond not saying much: you should have based any answer in calm, simple, compassionate terms;
You are talking around in circles. It was not possible for me to be calm at that time. If your mind was actually calm when you read my 1st post here, you would have realised that and understood.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
that a one-off experience is actually just that and to not attach too strong a meaning to it beyond that it happened; to analyse the feelings and the situation going forward and in case that future partners are female, to think if this would be a strategy likely to give her the chance to arrive in a stable, emotionally secure environment (neither approving nor disapproving, as it would be wholly inappropriate for you as a family outsider to give a moral opinion on this).
This seems to be completely overstepping the mark, here. I was not her Savior for Christ's sake. She was just a backpacker getting lost in sex with a very experienced lesbian. All I cared about was my own enlightenment. As long as I could finally see straight; that is all that mattered. If you can't see straight, you can't help anyone.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
If you rather would feel the need to address this in Theravadin terms instead, it should have had to go along the line that one should meditate on self-identity and how this leads to suffering;
For years i talked to people without self-identification. But that is not enough. If you don't understand DN 31 & morality, you cannot help people. And not having self-identification will not be useful.

Its best to end here because you seem to be reinventing the wheel. I started without self-identification but that brightness wore off due to my compassion. My compassion saw I was not helping people enough. Then DN 31 awakened me. Then I could understand people plus be free of self-identity.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
that it is advisable to detach oneself from any emotional turbulence and, by noting the upset caused, that this is a feeling which has risen, but will inevitably fall and fade away.
No. The above is totally wrong. If you are teaching meditation retreats, you must know how to deal with people's abuse & relationship issues. You must understand DN 31 and the other teachings of relationships and skilful. Its got nothing to do with meditation.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
Maybe to add some Metta meditation to express her being thankful for the loving upbringing she has experienced by her mother, to make the point -- in the most tangential and subtle way -- that her feelings about the incident, if it ever would be discussed, should also be considered.
No. It has nothing to do with metta or emptiness or meditation. It is 100% a moral issue.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
It was a meditation retreat after all, and you were her teacher.
No. I was not her teacher. It was not a "meditation retreat". Most people on meditation retreats are not meditating. They come to retreats to talk about their worldly problems.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
To note this upfront: I am not homosexual. But I feel compassion for those who are and explicitly live their life this way. How could I not, I am a Buddhist.
A high level Buddhist has morality in their Path. Also, personally, I do not look upon homosexuals any differently to non-homosexuals. My best friends are homosexuals. I treat homosexual equally. Where you appear to feel sorry for them and think they need to be offered special sympathy.

Homosexuals who are interested in Buddhism should give up promiscuity and develop virtue. Then they can be an example to the world, like my homosexual friends.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
And I have no idea why you would feel threatened by this
Again, you appear to be getting carried away, again. Post facts. Don't post conjecture. Its not Buddhist practise.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
or express any need to "push back" against anything or be uncompassionate to the point that it starts to sound absurd.
Again, the above is too opinionated.
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
It should frankly not concern you, or actually anybody, as long as this chosen self-expression is not infringing on the rights of other people to express themselves.
Buddhist does not teach "self-expression".
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
In the same way you or I should not worry about people going into a church, a temple, a mosque, going to a rave, kissing their partners in public, walking around in funny clothes, having a vocation outside their caste, living in a cave or on a boat, or deciding to eat only raw meat or no meat at all; it is an obsession being attached to having to have an opinion on it beyond feeling compassion for their life decisions.
Compassion is not encouraging people to do whatever they want.

Oh. Finally finished. Anyway. What I said to the girl was correct. And everything you wrote I disagreed with and would completely ignore. Since I have helped so many people in my life, particularly since that event, I am completely confident I am correct.

:anjali:
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
AgarikaJ
Posts: 211
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:21 pm

Re: DN31 Advise to Sigalaka

Post by AgarikaJ » Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:16 pm

Apologies to @SarathW for derailing his thread. But what @DooDot wrote simply cannot be left to stand, as it promotes ignorance and discompassion.


DooDoot wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:24 pm
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
Definition feminism: "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes."
False definition. Mere propaganda.
...
Sorry but 2nd Wave Feminism was part of the Sexual Revolution, which promoted drug taking & sexual promiscuity of women; even extolled prostitution & pornography as female empowerment
So which one is "your" definition for "feminism" then. You still do not tell. To note: whatever "2nd wave feminism" is, as you bring it up only now, it has obviously nothing to do with feminism, and if the "Sexual Reviolution" really did promote the list you cite (it did not), you still do not create a relationship that links feminism with either of them.

Maybe you are simply not able to give a clear definition of concepts you talk about. I get that very often with people acting out in a politically and emotionally charged environment, where they are ranting on and on with great conviction, but asked for detail are not able to back any of their arguments up with facts.

I think you should keep to discourse about Suttas, where your knowledge is quite impressive, as of course, ranting and rambling about something one does know little about is not the proper form of discourse, neither in a Buddhist setting nor elsewhere.
At least you acknowledge that the terms you brought into the discussion, both 'feminists' and 'patriarchs' as you use them are divisive dichotomies to be abandoned; but why did you mention them then in the first place?

This alone makes me wonder if you were even trying to have a considered discussion. You then go on to bask in the unreflected impression of your own perfection, shutting down discussion where points go over your head.

A good example would be this (I would have thought you would have understood a term like 'greatest likelihood', in opposition to an absolute statement, but in your eager to answer you must have overread it):
DooDoot wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:24 pm
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
He obviously preferred a monogamous heterosexual relationship of equitable partners, as this was seen by him in general as the most stable relationship, wholly seen through the prism of under which circumstances there would be the greatest likelihood to accumulate Good Kamma.
Also, i completely disagree with your views about heterosexual good kamma. I have homosexual friends who make super good kamma.
And of course, some of your "best friends are homosexuals". Do you have any self-awareness of what you write?!

Maybe not, as then your post devolves into true rambling without any discernible connection to arguments made:
DooDoot wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:24 pm
Again, take care with speech. ... Irrelevant ... Again, focus on the topic. ... My answer was fine. ... I had many female fans at that time ... My advice was perfect. :smile: ... Please take care with your speech. ... Be respectful. ... My advice was perfect. :smile: ... My mind knew the advice was right. :smile: ... It was not possible for me to be calm at that time. ... She was just a backpacker ... All I cared about was my own enlightenment. ... I started without self-identification but that brightness wore off due to my compassion. ... Anyway. What I said to the girl was correct. And everything you wrote I disagreed with and would completely ignore.
And yes, you are changing your story, now for the third time, because the facts -- as you wrote them the first time -- do not fit to your later argumentation any more...
DooDoot wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:33 am
I had just started reading suttas, including DN 31, and was also involved in meditation retreats, where I had to interview the students. ... Then this young lady came to talk to me (sent to the retreat by another young female who was difficult to deal with) ... I lost my patience with her
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:57 am
It was a meditation retreat after all, and you were her teacher.
DooDoot wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:24 pm
No. I was not her teacher. It was not a "meditation retreat". Most people on meditation retreats are not meditating. They come to retreats to talk about their worldly problems.
But did you not say the following as well?
DooDoot wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:24 pm
Try to focus on facts. The Buddha taught to speak facts. Avoid the allegations style of attack. ... Post facts. Don't post conjecture. Its not Buddhist practise.
Really good advice. I would advise you to keep to it.

But I think further discourse on this matter with you really is beyond usefulness.
The teaching is a lake with shores of ethics, unclouded, praised by the fine to the good.
There the knowledgeable go to bathe, and cross to the far shore without getting wet.
[SN 7.21]

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20740
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: DN31 Advise to Sigalaka

Post by retrofuturist » Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:46 pm

Greetings,
AgarikaJ wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:16 pm
But I think further discourse on this matter with you really is beyond usefulness.
Speaking as someone who has read this interaction, however, I think it's actually been an incredibly useful exchange in terms of looking at DN 31, which is more of a worldly Dhamma teaching (i.e. Right View with Effluents) than a transcendent Dhamma teaching (i.e. Right View without Effluents), and how it can be applied in a world that is in many ways far removed from that in which is was originally spoken. Even the interpersonal quibbling was effective at highlighting differences in views, expectations and social standards in the two times.

Sincere thanks to both you and DooDoot for the interaction.

:anjali:

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)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests