• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Buddhism, free sex in.

yrreg

Master Poster
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
2,420
I have said earlier I believe in that thread on "Buddhism, sense and nonsense in," that it would seem for some Buddhists in the West there is nothing to give up but to do meditation the Buddhist way. That was a brief digression from the topic, owing to my participation in the Buddhachat Forum where a Buddhist was seeking guidance from fellow Buddhists about free sex -- he himself later fearing a Buddhists war on sex requested that the thread be locked up and it was locked up by the moderator in charge.

A member here, a Buddhist, asked me to try meditation and I would discover the benefits it could work in me, because he himself banished the unkind habit of gossip by meditation the Buddhist way. I told him that I don't have any problem with overcoming gossip, and the Golden Rule in the negative formula, "Do not to others what you don't want others to do to you," is enough to keep me from gossip.

This morning I was thinking of a thread on "Buddhist meditation, fact and fiction," and I came to a Buddhist site where they sell meditation courses for all purposes, like lessening stress -- it's really internet commerce.

On looking up the Buddhist folks running this website, it turned out they are members of the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order. Further searches brought me to an interesting pronouncement of faith and practice in this Buddhist group. Here read about it.

2. The movement is unified. The FWBO ordains men and women on an equal footing, unlike most traditional Buddhist schools. The movement does regard single-sex activities as vital to spiritual growth, but men and women are considered equally able to practise and develop spiritually.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_the_Western_Buddhist_Order

Now, that is really interesting, because most established religions have a negative bias toward sex, and if it has a positive bias toward sex it is accompanied with explanations making sex acceptable as a concession to the flesh, to the duty of human propagation.

I think it was Kopji here who told me in that thread of mine on "Buddhism as amusement," that masturbation is almost a sacrament with Buddhists; I disagreed because I have read that traditional Buddhism as cultivated in the Far East, home of the birth and development of Buddhism, has a negative bias toward sex, except for a fringe sect called Tantra.

Anyway, I believe that sex in Buddhism is an absorbing topic for me to do research on, to find out exactly what is the role of sex in the whole karmic cosmos of Buddhism.

Right away I will say that I have read in the web that Gautama himself was not so happy about sex, he is reported to have expressed at least regrets about sex, it being the vehicle of rebirths which Buddhists want to stop.

Once you are no longer subject to rebirth, then you have arrived at Nirvana, the be all and end all of Buddhism. So, if sex is or if Buddhists should have achieved the feat of abolishing sex in the phenomenon of sentient life forms, then no more rebirth for Buddhists.

Is that or isn't that an example of Buddhist illogic?

But seriously, I am interested as a student of human institutions of nature and civilization in what Buddhism teaches as regards the role of sex in Buddhism and for the sentient life form that is mankind.


Yrreg
 
Allright, I'll just throw this out. I'm a member of Friends of the Western Buddhist Order ;)

Also, sex in the context you quoted means gender. Not sexual activities.
 
There is an aspect of sex in Highest Yoga Tantra practice that is both symbolic as well as descriptive of the practice of using sexual intercourse to transform one's sexual energy into a blissful consciousness directed towards achieving enlightenment. The purpose is to refrain from ejaculating and this is the most important part, as one should be able to control the winds and energies of one's body. It is also important for the consort to be as equally realised a practitioner as oneself. This practise is not a necessity to practise Vajrayana, as it is well known that Lama Tsong Khapa gained enlightenment without this practise. This is an extremely advanced practise and should only be performed once realisations of the path have been achieved.[1] Sexual symbolism is common in Vajrayana iconography, where it basically represents the union of wisdom and compassion or wisdom and method. This is of utmost importance as it shows that enlightenment can be gained only through cultivating both wisdom and compassion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajrayana
 
I suppose I'm not up on my JREF forum history. Now, I'm not Buddhist, but, honestly yrreg, what is the origin of your apparent vendetta against Buddhism?
 
Most buddhist sect's terat sex much like they treat intoxicants. It is discouraged in it's form of attachments and avoidance. The traditions have many hangups on sex, gender and same sex relationships. One of the greatest sectarian splits occured over wether arhants would have night emissions of the 'seed'. Much silliness there.

I would imagine that the quate about the buddha and sex and sentient beings could be found somehwere in the Larger Vehicle, rather silly stuff(the comment not the vehicle).

I believe it was the buddha who stated 'if sex was anymore attractive and enjoyable, I would have never made it'.

I am sure you will find the usual amount of stuff to be sceptical of, about 90%.
 
I think it was Kopji here who told me in that thread of mine on "Buddhism as amusement," that masturbation is almost a sacrament with Buddhists; I disagreed because I have read that traditional Buddhism as cultivated in the Far East, home of the birth and development of Buddhism, has a negative bias toward sex, except for a fringe sect called Tantra.

Anyway, I believe that sex in Buddhism is an absorbing topic for me to do research on, to find out exactly what is the role of sex in the whole karmic cosmos of Buddhism.



Yrreg

Actually Christianity which was from the Beginning has always been sex positive even though the religionists and church system changed it around 180 degrees so as to control the people and control liberation from spreading.

Yantra, just takes some of the Lord's truths and twists them for their own ends.. And the Lord is the Lord of Lords, not a mere underling lord

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/SexualMysteries.html
 
Actually Christianity which was from the Beginning has always been sex positive even though the religionists and church system changed it around 180 degrees so as to control the people and control liberation from spreading.

Yantra, just takes some of the Lord's truths and twists them for their own ends.. And the Lord is the Lord of Lords, not a mere underling lord

Twisting the “truth” seems to be the general trend when making it something social; thus we have different kind of interpretations (sometimes dogmas) of anything that’s supposed to be absolute and divine. Funny how people refuse to acknowledge the larger picture… i.e. not seeing the forest from the trees.

I think proclaiming one particular god as the ubergod makes only sense from a personal standpoint; such proclamation appears to loose its meaningfulness in a transpersonal setting, except when creating a social movement (dogma) of course.
 
I am asking myself the question all the time.

I suppose I'm not up on my JREF forum history. Now, I'm not Buddhist, but, honestly yrreg, what is the origin of your apparent vendetta against Buddhism?


I was just reading Russell's problems in philosophy, starting with his first chapter on appearance and reality, where he mentions that the color of a table can be different to different viewers dependent on how light is reflected from the table to the particular viewer owing to his location and position in the room.

Dear Cosmo, you ask a very flattering question, to be honest any attention to my person is a compliment to my presence.

You see from your observation that I to your perception appear to have a vendetta against Buddhism, and you are asking specifically for the origin of this vendetta as perceived by you from the appearances of my continual posting on Buddhism in criticism of the system.

If you have read my last posts in the thread that is moved to the Community Board which is described as for entertainment, and which matter I have to bring to the Complaint Board to ask the power figure here whoever did it why he did it, whether he has a vendetta against me, and then to make an appeal to bring it back here to this board on philosophy and religion... if you have read my last posts there you will hear me saying that I am doing criticism of Buddhism for amusement, for a mental pastime, and for a hobby of research. enriching to my mind and heart.

Is that enough and justifiable motivation to write about Buddhism in a critical vein, even though one does not have any vendetta grudge against Buddhism and Buddhists?

But perhaps I do have an axe to grind against Buddhism and Buddhists as I said in the second to the last post of mine in that referred to thread which is entitled and pursued accordingly, namely, "Buddhism, guessworks, discoveries, inventions in" [and that is why I have to ask whomever move that thread to the community board why he did so, when it is obviously and substantially about philosophy and religion even though the author is pursuing it as an amusement, a mental pastime, and a hobby of research], here, read it below.

But when I examine why I am angry at Buddhism and Buddhists, I realize that for the first because it is such a depressing system of a life philosophy and world-view, for the second because I am flabbergasted how people can do this to themselves, taking up with Buddhism.


I will make a confession, I do have some vain ambition that people doing research on Buddhism will find in my writings in web forums expressive of critical observations on Buddhism, some input for them to arrive at a balanced view of Buddhism. The way I see it Buddhism is today the fair-haired child of a religion in the West among supposedly intellectuals some that is, nothing can be said or should be uttered about Buddhism except praises.

I also entertain the plan of just writing on Buddhism in the Wikipedia which is oriented toward neutral points of views, but I believe it can be improved with a perspective toward critical approaches.

The Wikipedia is a very free forum in a way, no one ever gets banned and no message ever gets deleted, they save everything in perpetuity so that behind the commonly concurred on write-up of an encyclopedic article which is continually being revised by registered members and even non-registered contributors, you have the whole history of discussions, concurring positions, and the impasses among writers and men with ideas to share with mankind in the world of learning.


No, I have no vendetta against Buddhism and Buddhists, but I am unhappy and even angry it can be said, against Buddhism and Buddhists: the first because it is such a depressing system for a life philosophy and a world-view, and the second because I am dismayed with how people can do such a sad thing to themselves, taking up with Buddhism. Well, to each his own kind of life philosophy and world-view, and to each his commendation of or criticism on in its regard.


Oh yes, but why choose Buddhism, why not Scientology or Islam? because it is the easiest and safest one to do criticism on, and I have already invested so much time and research or reading and thinking into it, and honestly I simply fancy that there are people who do find my thoughts worth their attention and reflection and assimilation, they finding scant materials in the web critical of Buddhism.



Yrreg
 
No comment on the fact that your quote has nothing to do with your subject matter?
 
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?
 
By and large yes.

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

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

Critics of Christianity tend to be critical of other religions as well.
 
By and large yes.

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

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

Okay, fair enough.

Critics of Christianity tend to be critical of other religions as well.

So if he threw in a few complaints about Christianity, he'd get off scott free? :D
 
Hehehe... No, but it might indicate he's a little more balanced...

and a little less obsessed.

Still, I suppose he's harmless enough.
 
Well, I got bored before I went far enough into that thread to see if my suspicions were warranted, but I suspect that his point was to label Buddhism as the 'least intelligent' religion.

He seemed to be a bit coy about it, implying up front that he had a candidate for the 'least intelligent' label, but not naming it.


Maybe Mr. yrreg will enlighten me here as to how that played out, and what he was aiming for.
 
I suppose I'm not up on my JREF forum history. Now, I'm not Buddhist, but, honestly yrreg, what is the origin of your apparent vendetta against Buddhism?

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.
 

Back
Top Bottom