Buddhism, free sex in.

[Dancing David]

I have a question: Has the person that's been criticizing Buddhism been any stronger about it than people are about questioning Christianity on this forum?

There has been a long evolution here, many points have been discussed endlessly, such as Yrreg not citing his sources, manufacturing fiction for our benefit, and how when asked pointed questions about his statments and arguments he just runs away and doesn't answer them. Most of the points in his post have been made attempts to discussion that he simply ignores and then never responds to our critiques.

Then there are things like him saying that westerners are not sceptical of buddhism and that buddhists on this board do this or that, well we have almost all agreed that there are many things to be sceptical of in buddhism , and he ignores that. We show him that many westerners are sceptical of buddhism , and he ignores that.

He will then say this or that, and when asked where he got that impression, he says he can't or won't tell us. Take his asking someone recently to research the historical writings of the buddha, this particular point has been discused at least six times in various thread (most were recorded 400 years after the buddha's death or made much later) this point is well discussed on most sites about buddhism that discuss the teachings of the buddha, it has been discussed and explained here endlessly. Then Yrreg will just come out with it again and again.

Then there is the fact that he says that there is nothing original in buddhism, he has never substantiated that cklaim, although asked to do so. It turns out that he doesn't even know what the eightfold path consists of (this about a month ago), but he has made many statements concerning it.

It goes on, and on.

My guess is that he is not a sceptic at all, I feel he has a secret desire to write one of those books that proves to other Xians that buddhism is wrong.

 

[Dancing David]

Current thinking is that Yrreg is quite a devout christian living in a country with a large Buddhist population, probably the Philippines. The Philippines is one of those mations in which christianity is the mainstream (about 95%) but the 2% Buddhist minority is enough to remind the nation that there are some people who don't hold with the Jesus thing. This pluralism offends Yrreg. If there are non-christians in the world, that casts doubt on the idea that christianity is a clear universal truth.

You can test this theory by attempting to engage him in any critical discussion of christianity or even by attempting to apply the same thinking to christianity as he does to Buddhism. For example, Yrreg believes that the focus on the individual spirit in Buddhism is suicidally misguided as Buddhists would not even duck if a rock were thrown at them. However, you will not be able to get him to comment on the fact that christianity, with its emphasis on the afterlife, also leads to the logical conclusion that all one should do day and night is pray to God and hope to die before tempted to sin. The two schools of thought appear to lead to the same absurd conclusion but he will never admit it.

Then there are the statements made by Pachomius (on IIDB) that 'an empty philosophy with god is better than an empty philosphy without god' or some such.

 

[yrreg]

I decided to specialize in critical Buddhology.

Critics of Christianity tend to also participate in theads about subjects other than criticizing Christianity.

I used to do messages on several topics here in JREF forum and also in several other forums, but for more than a year now I have been doing critical Buddhology; I aspire to be the #1 critiical Buddhologist in the world and in history. Life is short and knowledge long, so better to master in one particular subject and in one particular subgenus of the topic than to scatter one's interest everywhere and be master of none.


Incidentally, I forgot to mention that I am angry at the skeptics here who while proclaiming themselves to be adherents of the skepticism as practiced by James Randi and similar researchers like the folks in CSICOP, conspicuously make an exception of Buddhism.

Well, they will tell me Buddhism is compatible with skepticism; but they should ask really established authorities of skepticism to see whether whatever strain of Buddhism they are into, it is compatible with skepticism.

If you ask me: they should be like me, fashion their own religion or spirituality and like Wikipedians continuously revise it, and most importantly consider it a luxury which they can do without but they tend to, only as a concession to the what? the natural longing for some religion or spirituality, remnant of evolution, but liberated minds and hearts can discern in themselves and do without, except as I said, for a luxury.


Yrreg

 

[Mojo]

Well, they will tell me Buddhism is compatible with skepticism; but they should ask really established authorities of skepticism to see whether whatever strain of Buddhism they are into, it is compatible with skepticism.

Does Buddhism make any testable paranormal claims?

 

[Lonewulf]

Does Buddhism make any testable paranormal claims?

Well, considering that the core tenets of Buddhism seem to be that all of reality is really an illusion, and that emotion is part of that illusion, I'd have to say "No"...

 

[Ryokan]

I used to do messages on several topics here in JREF forum...

That is true.

For example, his threads on acupunture and meditation in the Science subforum.

I highly reccomend reading all of it.

 

[Ryokan]

Well, considering that the core tenets of Buddhism seem to be that all of reality is really an illusion, and that emotion is part of that illusion, I'd have to say "No"...

Huh? This is new to me, and I'm a Buddhist. Care to provide evidence for your claim?

 

[yrreg]

Back to Buddhism, free sex in.

I came upon several texts on sex in Buddhism and I noticed that the writers keep on beating the bush and never saying anything that is really what I want to hear, namely, is free sex allowed and even advocated in Buddhism?

The position of the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, now that is one very daring and frankly open policy and in effect advocative of free sex, in the sense that people can have sex without marriage, and it is even good for their spirituality.

That is one incentive to sign up with the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, for me also, except I am by choice self-bound to my promise in marriage to one partner, my dear wife; it is an elected destiny in my sex life and I would honestly even though the pleasure is enticing feel bad for turning false to my promise of fidelity to my dear wife.

If you need a cite for the preceding paragraph, about free sex in the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (FWBO), approach my dear friend, Ryokan, he is an or some kind of headman in the FWBO in his area, Norway, isn't it?

Yes, if I were single I would consider or it would be an irresistible temptation to sign up with the FWBO, then I could have sex with single women all for the advancement of our spirituality. Sex is the best thing in life, most specially now if you practice safe sex, i.e., safe from pregnancy and safe from diseases and safe from any kind of legal complaints from people in charge of your sex partners -- make sure that your sex partners are of age.

There is so far one write-up on sex in Buddhism which I find to be most honest and instructive for Buddhists and informative to outsiders like myself as a Buddhologist but doing critical Buddhology -- that is my most recent title, critical Buddhologist, conferred by me, myself, and I, as founder and operator and owner of my own University of Hard Knocks.

Look up that topic on sex in Buddhism in the About.com website, and read what I consider to be a most balanced account of free sex in Buddhism. The author is certainly a sympathizer of if not a Buddhist himself. Here is my precis of his article.

Buddhism is a flexible religion and can and will adopt to the local customs of the people it comes to. In the West today people engage in free sex and no one is complaining, outside marriage and specially without marriage. So, Buddhism is not against free sex in that sense.​

That is also my observation even though I don't see with my eyes Buddhist men and women doing sex without marriage, in the act, but from Buddhists who do write frankly about their sex life.

Take this account written by a Zen Buddhist in the uproar about the Zen headman in his Zen sangha: every night there were female slippers outside his door, and no one had any complaint, because he said, this informant, it was accepted for members to have sex among themselves.

What happened to bring their sex life to the attention of journalists? Some people did complain to the press or it got to the press how else but from insiders, because this Zen headmaster knew he had aids of the HIV variety, and he continued to infect knowingly his sex partners both men and women, that is why it got to the press -- in his society for health reasons people are supposed to report themselves to the health authorities if they have Aids and they know it, so that they could be treated and be properly instructed how to have sex without infecting other people, and also be solemnly admonished for the love of mankind to not infect other people by using the most available safeguard around, condom. How did it get to the press? some Zen members there noticed their health declining and sought medical help and that started the ball rolling to the press.


But I am really after the role of sex in the whole karmic cosmos of Buddhism.

In Western society there is among learned folks a place for sex in the whole universe of life, and that it is a device from evolution for the propagation of life, the pleasure there being the incentive while the propagation of the species in particular in the case of the animal, man, the end determined and effected by evolution; and Western civilization surrounds sex with all kinds of safeguards for the preservation of the species of man on the one hand, and on the other for maintainance of peace and order, which is also contributive to the preservation of the species.

Now, do we have some kind of a most general role of sex in Buddhism, superseding the question whether free sex is all right for Buddhists?


Yrreg

 

[nescafe]

I came upon several texts on sex in Buddhism and I noticed that the writers keep on beating the bush and never saying anything that is really what I want to hear, namely, is free sex allowed and even advocated in Buddhism?

IIRC, the Buddha said something about avoiding improper sexual conduct, but anyone who is not a horny teenager can see the benefits in that. Adhering to it is harder, thanks to the odd monogamous/polygamous sexual dynamic that human nature seems to have and our bias towards choosing short-term rewards over long-term rewards. Such is life.

You seem to want to hear that the Buddha said either that Teh Sex is evil and that no Buddhist should ever engage in such an icky act or that Buddha said that all Buddhists should plan and participate in orgies all the time, and that anyone who does not cannot call themselves Buddhist. Neither of these is the case, and thinking of Buddhist sexual ethics in these terms is missing the point.

The position of the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, now that is one very daring and frankly open policy and in effect advocative of free sex, in the sense that people can have sex without marriage, and it is even good for their spirituality.

Just wrong. The FWBO merely takes the stance that Buddhist teaching is equally applicable and practicable by both genders. Interpreting that as "free sex" is quite a stretch.

The rest of your post is baseless speculation and burning down strawmen you have erected.

 

[Ryokan]

If you need a cite for the preceding paragraph, about free sex in the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (FWBO), approach my dear friend, Ryokan, he is an or some kind of headman in the FWBO in his area, Norway, isn't it?

Where did you get that from?! I'm in no position of authority whatsoever in the FWBO, I'm simply a passive member. And being a member hasn't gotten me any sex, either. Should I complain?

No comment on the fact that the quote in your first post has got nothing to do with the subject matter, as sex in the contexts of the quote means gender and not sexual activity? Or doesn't this matter to you?

 

[Loss Leader]

he had aids of the HIV variety

Just exactly how many other varieties are there?

 

[Lonewulf]

Huh? This is new to me, and I'm a Buddhist. Care to provide evidence for your claim?

May be mixing this up with other philosophies.

I'm also thinking Zen Buddhism.

Core tenet of Buddhism: Desire leads to suffering, so get rid of desire. At least, that's what I understand to be one of the main tenets.

Beyond that, I may be getting it mixed up w/ stuff like Taoism, Shinto, etc.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

I used to do messages on several topics here in JREF forum and also in several other forums, but for more than a year now I have been doing critical Buddhology; I aspire to be the #1 critiical Buddhologist in the world and in history. Life is short and knowledge long, so better to master in one particular subject and in one particular subgenus of the topic than to scatter one's interest everywhere and be master of none. Yrreg

You already seem to be the #1 critic of Buddhism… that is, of the particular (or peculiar) form of Buddhism you have created in your own mind in order to examine it critically. Oddly enough, many here appear not to share that same interpretation. But on the positive side, I now think I understand some of the unresponsiveness to attempted rectifications: Marshall McLuhan called it “Narcissus as Narcosis”.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, considering that the core tenets of Buddhism seem to be that all of reality is really an illusion, and that emotion is part of that illusion, I'd have to say "No"...

Buddha taught that the notion of the transcendant self or soul is illusion. Some of his followers have kind of garbled it up. The buddha was rather materialistic in his alleged statements.

 

[Dancing David]

Incidentally, I forgot to mention that I am angry at the skeptics here who while proclaiming themselves to be adherents of the skepticism as practiced by James Randi and similar researchers like the folks in CSICOP, conspicuously make an exception of Buddhism.

Continue to ignore all the sceptical statements made of buddhism by most of the buddhists on this board that you are allegedly mad at. We have almost all said that there are certain notions and beliefs that we are sceptical of, but hey have fun talking to yourself.

There is no soul, and that bothers you.

 

[Pragmatist]

Well, I'm quite happy with the idea of free sex in Buddhism, it's a bummer if you have to pay for it!

 

[yrreg]

Sex is one thing you can grab whatever the slippery eel with Buddhists.

Originally Posted by yrreg
If you need a cite for the preceding paragraph, about free sex in the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (FWBO), approach my dear friend, Ryokan, he is an or some kind of headman in the FWBO in his area, Norway, isn't it? ​

Where did you get that from?! I'm in no position of authority whatsoever in the FWBO, I'm simply a passive member. And being a member hasn't gotten me any sex, either. Should I complain?

No comment on the fact that the quote in your first post has got nothing to do with the subject matter, as sex in the contexts of the quote means gender and not sexual activity? Or doesn't this matter to you?

I wonder whether to congratulate you or to commiserate with you; more likely commiserate because you bring it on yourself to join such a controversial Buddhist outfit as the FWBO.

But please don't think that I have anything personal against the FWBO except clinical interest in re critical Buddhology.

They can believe anything and do anything they want with themselves; public opinion as well as governments can step in everytime they breach peace and order and law, which I prefer to believe they don't, for the sake of people like yourself, Ryokan, who notwithstanding being a member are still deserving of respect and a good hearing on the merits of Buddhism.

That is why I am dismayed with skeptics here who are into Buddhism in spite of their embrace of rational skepticism -- for there is also cultish skepticism whose adherents worship literally the cult heroes of skepticism and can't think for themselves, so that whereas their heroes have already abandoned some skeptical positions they still not properly informed continue to drum on now abandoned tenets.


Okay, Ryokan, you must have read a lot of Buddhism and presumably thought as much and even more than you have read; in fact there is only so much to read about Buddhism until very quickly you come to the conclusion that everything else is repetitious and unnecessary refurbishing of the main and essentially Buddhist beliefs and practices for the reinforcement of faithful but undiscerning disciples, of no further information to critics outside.

Suppose you tell me what is the place of sex -- and no I am not talking gender -- in Buddhism? For me and I assume as for the rest of learned folks identified with the modernized West, sex is a device worked out by evolution to keep the species continuing on and on indefinitely, and with man erotic pleasure is the incentive.

Tell me from your knowledge of Buddhism, although you also as a believer exhibit the fancy for hide and seek with words just to keep up the pretense of rationality in Buddhism; I want to hear from you the perspective of sex in Buddhism that should go beyond such questions as whether free sex is allowed or not in Buddhism.


Yrreg

 

[Lonewulf]

Suppose you tell me what is the place of sex -- and no I am not talking gender -- in Buddhism? For me and I assume as for the rest of learned folks identified with the modernized West, sex is a device worked out by evolution to keep the species continuing on and on indefinitely, and with man erotic pleasure is the incentive.

In Vajrayana, (AKA, Tantric Buddhism), it's a ritual that allows one to try to find enlightenment through the orgasm. I linked it up above. Please read the link before asking questions that demonstrate your ignorance. ---^

 

[Loss Leader]

That is why I am dismayed with skeptics here who are into Buddhism in spite of their embrace of rational skepticism -- for there is also cultish skepticism whose adherents worship literally the cult heroes of skepticism and can't think for themselves, so that whereas their heroes have already abandoned some skeptical positions they still not properly informed continue to drum on now abandoned tenets.

Similar to your worship of the cult heroes of christianity? Will you engage in rational skepticism about whether Jesus was actually the son of God?

Or are you really just a Buddhole?

 

[Lonewulf]

Or are you really just a Buddhole?

You're paying for my new monitor.