Buddhism, free sex in.

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.
You have yet to prove that the sceptics at the JREF are less scpetical of buddhism. The polls you have talken and the thread you have started would indicate otherwise.

So again you are just shooting out the straw. No evidence, no data. the threads and polls would indicate most scpetics here, including the buddhists do not believe in reincarnation.
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.
How would you come to that conclusion when you haven't even read the eightfold path and can't cite what you have read of buddhism?

Gee the same thing can be said of physsics. Or just about anything.
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 the precepts as espoused by the more recent schools, sex that is harmful is discouraged.

Is that simple enough for you, sex that is harmful is discouraged.

Now with Potrezeebie! Sex with new and improved Potrezeebie that is harmful is discouraged.
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.
Everything is allowed in buddhism, it is up to the individual how to best take care of themselves.

Unlike the unexplained Yrregism where one must conform to the wishes of the Master Yrreg!

There is no soul and that bothers you.

A dog vomits should it bark or barf?
 
Last edited:
Peasants have broader and deeper insights.

No, to the present I have not read anything here that bespeaks of broader and deeper insight into sex, which peasants who take care of livestocks have without all the fancy pretentious gab among Buddhists about sex being according to the fourth precept of Buddhism or not.

I am still waiting, or are some people incapable of seeing beyond the close range as to miss the dimensions of a question that supersede the close range like whether free sex is all right with the Buddha or not since they can't decide for themselves.

Break out of your self-enslaved hollow shell of a system of thinking and feeling, then you will really be liberated and congratulate yourselves for rebirths if such be a fact.

Time and again I have noticed this peculiarity of Buddhists' self-limitation on the one hand, and authoritarian attitude toward outsiders on the other, from their basking in their self-deluded assurance of being enlightened or knowing better.


Here:

You discuss with them about an issue and ask them what the issue consists in and of in their system of Buddhism whatever the particular school they belong to, you keep on asking further and further, like what I am doing asking them about the place of sex in the karmic cosmos of Buddhism distinct from and even opposite to the place of sex in evolution, the theory as propounded by one researcher Darwin, but they keep on harping on superficials like sex in Tantra is an access to spirituality betoken of enlightenment.

Then they want to end the discussion blaming you for not wanting to learn, but what they mean is that you have to accept their verbal mantras even though these are a-rational chatterings, besides you are destined for indefinite rounds of rebirths where suffering is the order until you come out of ignorance, to the light that is their Buddhism of karma, rebirth, Nirvana, and everything is all emptiness.



Yrreg
 
No, to the present I have not read anything here that bespeaks of broader and deeper insight into sex, which peasants who take care of livestocks have without all the fancy pretentious gab among Buddhists about sex being according to the fourth precept of Buddhism or not.

Or the pretentious gab that premarital sex is a sin? Wait, that's Christianity and Islam...
 
Peasants have broader and deeper insights.

No, to the present I have not read anything here that bespeaks of any broader and deeper insights into sex, which peasants who take care of livestocks have without all the fancy pretentious gab among Buddhists about free sex being according to the third precept of Buddhism or not.

I am still waiting, or are some people incapable of seeing beyond the close range as to miss the dimensions of a question that supersede the close range like whether free sex is all right with the Buddha or not since they can't decide for themselves.

Break out of your self-enslaved hollow shell of a system of thinking and feeling, then you will really be liberated and congratulate yourselves for rebirths if such be a fact.

Time and again I have noticed this peculiarity of Buddhists' self-limitation on the one hand, and authoritarian attitude toward outsiders on the other, from their basking in their self-deluded assurance of being enlightened or knowing better.


Here:
You discuss with them about an issue and ask them what the issue consists in and of in their system of Buddhism whatever the particular school they belong to, you keep on asking further and further, like what I am doing asking them about the place of sex in the karmic cosmos of Buddhism distinct from and even opposite to the place of sex in evolution, the theory as propounded by one researcher Darwin, but they keep on harping on superficials like sex in Tantra is an access to spirituality betoken of enlightenment.

Then they want to end the discussion blaming you for not wanting to learn, but what they mean is that you have to accept their verbal mantras even though these are a-rational chatterings, besides you are destined for indefinite rounds of rebirths where suffering is the order until you come out of ignorance, to the light that is their Buddhism of karma, rebirth, Nirvana, and everything is all emptiness.​




Military service is a compulsory stint in many a modern democratic society in Europe, meaning not necessarily going to combat duty overseas including that if necessary but the minimum of taking up military training of as much as a year and a half's time when a citizen must be full-time into military knowledge and skills.

Buddhist monks and all such kinds of people into quests of enlightenment of any analogous kindreds, in countries where there is compulsory military service, their government should instead assign them to work in farms where they have to take care of livestocks, so that they get acquainted with life as it really is instead of their wishy-washy guesswork about non-self and emptiness and extinction in Nirvana, and not knowing anything that is themselves that do eat and ease their bowels and emit gonadal fluids and cells like the chickens, and pigs, and goats, and dogs, and cats everyone else is familiar with at close range.





For example, you read about Tantra sex among Buddhists of that persuasion and practice, you keep on reading and ne'er will you ever come to any treatment of what they do when these Tantra practitioners get a girl pregnant, or get into diseases, or get in trouble with parents and husbands or family or boyfriends or among themselves from jealousy, and get in trouble with the law. Police dossiers should be most revealing and hospital records about people who do get into the devotion of Tantra sex.

That is one very useful study for anyone thinking of a topic to do for an academic dissertation. I will offer my service to him free of charge, in thinking up multiple points of approaches for him to choose from, and how to narrow down the subject so as to be as close as should be in every treatment of any material worth investigating on, instead of being wishy-washy and nothing washes.


Yrreg
 
No, to the present I have not read anything here that bespeaks of any broader and deeper insights into sex, which peasants who take care of livestocks have without all the fancy pretentious gab among Buddhists about free sex being according to the third precept of Buddhism or not.

Yrreg, why would knowing what sorts of sexual antics farm animals get up to give one any greater insight into the proper sexual behaviour for any given person? I doubt that most farm animals are capable of reflecting on the possible long term consequences of their actions in any sense that would be covered by the third precept.

If you perceive that promiscuity (which is what I presume you mean by "free sex") is harmful or likely to be harmful to yourself or to your partner(s), then refrain from it.

I am still waiting, or are some people incapable of seeing beyond the close range as to miss the dimensions of a question that supersede the close range like whether free sex is all right with the Buddha or not since they can't decide for themselves.
I do not wish to spend my time enumerating all possible forms of sexual conduct and creating a should/should not matrix for each one. I imagine that the Buddha had better things to do with his time as well.
Break out of your self-enslaved hollow shell of a system of thinking and feeling
Ironically enough, you appear to want an ironclad thou shalt/thou shalt not rule instead of a more generally applicable and useful heuristic.

then you will really be liberated and congratulate yourselves for rebirths if such be a fact.
Well, I do not plan on being reborn -- that is usually the province of those of the Christian persuasion. Perhaps you meant reincarnated (although I do not believe in that either)?

(rest of post snipped)
 
Last edited:
Buddhist monks and all such kinds of people into quests of enlightenment of any analogous kindreds, in countries where there is compulsory military service, their government should instead assign them to work in farms where they have to take care of livestocks, so that they get acquainted with life as it really is instead of their wishy-washy guesswork about non-self and emptiness and extinction in Nirvana, and not knowing anything that is themselves that do eat and ease their bowels and emit gonadal fluids and cells like the chickens, and pigs, and goats, and dogs, and cats everyone else is familiar with at close range.

Do you have any evidence at all that Buddhist monks do not care for livestock? This monastary in England seems to have animals. These Buddhists in Thailand are inordinately interested in caring for stray dogs and cats. According to this website, the main livelihood in Mongolia is raising livestock and Buddhists outnumber all other religions 13 to 1.

It would appear from a cursory glance that your assertion that Buddhist monks do not spend time raising livestock is not based in evidence. This is unsurprising given your prejudice and refusal to actually research Buddhism.

For example, you read about Tantra sex among Buddhists of that persuasion and practice, you keep on reading and ne'er will you ever come to any treatment of what they do when these Tantra practitioners get a girl pregnant, or get into diseases, or get in trouble with parents and husbands or family or boyfriends or among themselves from jealousy, and get in trouble with the law.

Please cite any evidence you have that practitioners of Tantric sex are performing the same outside of the bonds of matrimony at a greater rate than non-Tantric sex practitioners. Please cite your evidence that people who enjoy Tantric sex are less likely to practice safe sex than non-Tantric sex practitioners. Please cite your evidence that people who practice Tantric sex do so with more partners or with more frequency than others.

If Tantric sex caries the same risks as all other sex acts in the same proportions, I see no reason to single them out.

Frankly, since Tantric sex requires study, concentration, trust and a willingness from both partners, I would think that Tantric sex practitioners are MORE likely to be in long-term, stable relationships. After all, one is not going to pick up a drunk chick in a bar, take her home and read for an hour about Tantric sex; one is going to bang her the old fashioned christian way. However, I would be glad to review your evidence to the contrary.

Police dossiers should be most revealing and hospital records about people who do get into the devotion of Tantra sex.

Please provide them.

If you are the great student of Buddhology and you believe these records will show that Buddhists are crazy sex freaks, do what any real student of a subject would do - research it. Go to the police stations and gather the statistics. Then present them here.

Otherwise, stop pontificating based on nothing but your prejudice.
 
I am still waiting, or are some people incapable of seeing beyond the close range as to miss the dimensions of a question that supersede the close range like whether free sex is all right with the Buddha or not since they can't decide for themselves.
Yrreg

Sex is fine with Buddhism. There is no authority in Buddhism that one must obey or face hellfire.

It has been pointed out to you that Tantra is Buddhist (also Hindu and present in other eastern religions). Some forms of Tantra are explicitly sexual. Throughout history some have viewed Tantra as a defilement, others as legitimate.

One's views on sex within Buddhism are much more likely to be influenced by pre-existing ideas than from Buddhism. In this sense it is like not killing things. Some take this to mean they must be vegetarian. Others take this so seriously they won't leave their dwelling during the bug season as it would be impossible to not step on a bug. Many eat double whoppers with cheese to the sound of their bug zapper frying insects.

There are concepts, if you will, but these are not commandments. They are to be understood and contemplated. The practitioner will then decide the appropriate way to understand the concept and incorporate it into their life.

It has been said that Buddhism fits pretty well into pretty much any culture. The extent to which sex would be viewed as something to avoid within Buddhism is likely to be about the same as is true within the broader culture of the place|time.

I think you get repeatedly tripped up in your queries because you ask the wrong questions. You seem to believe that Buddhism has commandments. You seem to believe that people on this board take the entire body of literature attributed to Buddha seriously and on blind faith.

This isn't a bible thumping believe it or burn kind of thing.

Read the 4 noble truths and the 8 fold path. Think on it a bit. If it makes sense to you, pursue it further. If it doesn't, then don't.

That is about as close to a commandment as Buddhism gets.
 
I am about to postgraduate from critical Buddhology.

Honestly, there is only so much to know about a system like Buddhism, the rest is as I said repeition and refurbishing for the reinforcement of true believers or truly credulous adherents, who have exercised their free choice by suicide of their intelligence, to do away with critical approach to anything and everything that is ultimately beyond the senses and of no genuine use to life, to namely give their all to Buddhism.

I know everything there is to know about Buddhism in its barebone guesswork constructs; its discoveries and inventions if true and useful are not worth any patent even in the times of Gautama, they are the common heirloom of thinking men from the dawn of consciousness, civilization, culture, and learning.

I told someone here in this thread that I ask myself everyday what I am doing criticizing Buddhism, what I mean is that why am I wasting time, although I justify it on the ground of amusement for myself, a mental pastime, and a hobby of research.

The truth is that there are more interesting things to have amusement of, pastime for the mind, and hobby of research, and very important that is really useful to mankind. I am working on that.

So, adieu to Buddhists who still want to defend and throw up smokescreen to shield their blind faith in Buddhism, you will have less purpose in life, i.e., Buddhist life, for I am leaving critical Buddhology, even though I have only recently called my study critical Buddhology.


There is a member from IIDB who asked me by email to give him consultation on Buddhism, because he is wondering whether to leave it and to pursue a presumably fuller and more meaningful life, I told him to read all my posts in IIDB and also here in JREF.

One day he might register here. I will give him consultation in public forums if and when he does appear here.

He wanted to have email correspondence with me, but I told him most convenient is to read my posts critical of Buddhism in all the web forums he can find my presence in, and best to enroll here and exchange views with me and others here on Buddhism.


I will continue to attend to him in his quests for criticism of Buddhism from yours most truly humble person.


In the meantime I am looking for a subject to do research on, that is really more interesting and more down to earth useful to myself and to mankind.


Yrreg
 
Interesting how my mind is inclined to make the distinction between ‘criticism’ and ‘critical examination’ here. So far, much of the “critical buddhology” seems to have fallen under former category.

It appears that the major issue yrreg has with the teachings of Buddha is his inability to find any usefulness (or purpose) in the “Buddhist” way of thinking – that from a rather particular point of view it seems. Well, not to despair; a “critical” look at why there must to be a particular purpose for anything might be a good issue to ponder on. Perhaps taking a "critical" look at general semantics could be a starting point.
 
Honestly, there is only so much to know about a system like Buddhism, the rest is as I said repeition and refurbishing for the reinforcement of true believers or truly credulous adherents, who have exercised their free choice by suicide of their intelligence, to do away with critical approach to anything and everything that is ultimately beyond the senses and of no genuine use to life, to namely give their all to Buddhism.
Funny statement for a man who doesn't even know what the eightfold path is.
I know everything there is to know about Buddhism in its barebone guesswork constructs; its discoveries and inventions if true and useful are not worth any patent even in the times of Gautama, they are the common heirloom of thinking men from the dawn of consciousness, civilization, culture, and learning.
Unproved and funny for someone who doesn't even know what the eightfold path is.
So, adieu to Buddhists who still want to defend and throw up smokescreen to shield their blind faith in Buddhism, you will have less purpose in life, i.e., Buddhist life, for I am leaving critical Buddhology, even though I have only recently called my study critical Buddhology.
Aww whats the matter still no substance and not getting the converts you want.

hasta la lista
 
I know everything there is to know about Buddhism...

I will continue to attend to him in his quests for criticism of Buddhism from yours most truly humble person.


In the meantime I am looking for a subject to do research on, that is really more interesting and more down to earth useful to myself and to mankind.


Yrreg

Wow.
 
He sure does talk funny!

Bye, Yrreg. Don't let the screen door...

The funny thing is this: Yrreg doesn't understand how his war on Buddhism has served to provoke interest in it.
 
Buddhism is interesting to me, but I consider it just as silly as any other religious belief. The only difference is that Buddhism doesn't make conversion part of it's major agenda, so it isn't really a threat.
 
So if the Buddhist are all busy screwing each other senseless, then why would I NOT want to be a Buddhist?

Honestly, are you sure he's not part of some reverse-psychology marketing campaign?



Bring on the Transcendental Nookie!!
 

Back
Top Bottom