Buddhism and sex

maitri

It seems to me that many branches of Buddhism have had a kind of “negative view” on sex throughout the history of Buddhism – and I’m looking for some more opinions about this.

These “negative” view on sex and sexuality seems to have been built on some statements from Buddhist sutras, like:

"One should not pursue sensual pleasure (kama-sukha), which is low vulgar, coarse, ignoble and unbeneficial; and one should not pursue self-mortification, which is painful, ignoble and unbeneficial. So it was said. And with reference to what was this said? The pursuit of the enjoyment of one whose pleasure is linked to sensual desire - low, vulgar, coarse, ignoble and unbeneficial - is a state beset by suffering, vexation, despair and fever, and it is the wrong way. Disengage from the pursuit of the enjoyment of one whose pleasure is linked to sensual desire - low, vulgar, coarse, ignoble and unbeneficial - is a state without suffering, vexation despair and fever, and it is the right way. The pursuit of self-mortification... is the wrong way. Disengagement from the pursuit of self-mortification... is the right way... The Middle Way discovered by the Tathagata avoids both these extremes... it leads... to Nibbana."(Ven Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the Buddha's words in The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, p. 1080f)

And:

"Now, Udayin, the pleasure and joy that arises dependent on these five cords of sensual pleasure are called sensual pleasures - a filthy pleasure, a coarse pleasure, an ignoble pleasure. I say of this kind of pleasure that it should not be pursued, that it should not be developed, that it should not be cultivated, that it should be feared... (whereas the pleasure of the Four Jhanas). This is called the bliss of renunciation, the bliss of Enlightenment. I say of this kind of pleasure that it should be pursued, that it should be developed, that it should be cultivated, that it should not be feared." (No 66 of the Majjhima Nikaya)

I’ve also seen references to a Buddhist story (sutra?) where the Buddha is said to have rebuked some people for saying that sexual practice is not a hindrance to Enlightenment (I have never read that story so I’m not really familiar with the context):

“Misguided man, in many discourses have I not stated how obstructive things are obstructive, and how they are able to obstruct one who engages in them? I have stated how sensual pleasures provide little gratification, much suffering, and much despair, and how great is the danger in them. With the simile of skeleton... with the simile of the piece of meat... with the simile of the grasstorch... with the simile of the pit of coals... with the simile of the dream... with the simile of the borrowed goods... with the simile of the tree laden with fruit... with the simile of the slaughterhouse... with the simile of the sword stake... with the simile of the snake's head, I have stated how sensual pleasures provide little gratification, much suffering, and much despair, and how great is the danger in them. But you, misguided man, have misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a long time." (The Buddha in the simile of the Snake)

These examples are taken from a Therevada article ([URL="nhttp://www.bswa.org/modules/icontent/index.php?page=52"]link to article[/URL] ), but I have seen a quite similar attitude also in some of the Mahayana schools which have for instance very strict rules also for sexuality in married life (rules so strict that they IMO probably are almost incompatible with much sexual pleasure for the woman).

It seems to me that most people here (and almost any contemporary Buddhist that I have ever met) don’t agree with this “negative” view on sexuality, and I wonder if you believe that the Buddha was actually being wrong about it, or if he has been misquoted or misunderstood? Or do you think he was just speaking for the monks and nuns perhaps?

What is a “Buddhist view” on sexuality as you see it?
(Or is there a "Buddhist view" on sexuality at all?)

Regards,

M.

BBM77

From what I have read to date the middling way applies to sex. You know, not to much but don’t ignore it all together. Sex that does not harm or hurt anybody in any way is expectable. A normal sex drive is expectable but when excessive desire becomes obsession, this is undesirable.

That is what I like about Buddhism; it is up to you to find what is right for you. And not this do what we tell you or you’ll go to hell.

MeditationMom

Maitri - this will most likely be a long string Good for you to bring it up. The first thing that came to mind was what the Dalai Lama said about it when he was asked. He said something to the effect that there is no problem with sex at all, his choice is just not to have it in his life as it makes life too complicated. That all through his youth he had difficulties with it in dreams, but he has not been troubled by it later in life - which would be natural. (I am too tired to find a link)

Sex is neither good nor bad. It becomes good or bad, depending on the people involved. At higher levels of love most people find they end up having to give up sex occasionally, or forever, anyway. Be it for the wife after giving birth, the husband who just had surgery, or comes home from war disabled. Sex is not guaranteed for life just because one gets married, and maybe even less so if one stays single. Let's say the husband or wife becomes disabled, is sex more important or the friendship and marriage? For a monk the question is is sex more important than the devotion to the spiritual path of solitude, poverty, simplicity etc.

It is the attachment to sex - or anything else - that is the problem, not sex itself. In Tantra sexual energy is used for Enlightenment. Most of the time it turns into sexual addiction instead of Enlightenment and therefore it is called the most dangerous path. So it is very tricky. Very complicated -;)

Following any "Sex is evil and defiling" thinking leads to much trouble and suffering in the world. Just like the opposite thinking of "Sex is so good we will be forever miserable if we don't get it, have it, want it" kind of thinking. Sex is what we make of it. A Dalai Lama, or Buddha's "No" to sex has the "Yes" in it also.

Dagon

Find out for yourself...

I'm a Vipassana student, and I have found that my obsession with my partner is quite a big obstacle to my peace of mind at times. It makes my path more difficult. When I was single, I was a little lonely, but in some ways, life was simpler and fraught with less challenges, and spiritual progress came quite fast. Perhaps in a highly charged sexual relationship there will be misery, frustration, unhappiness, craving, despair. Maybe we just have to pay that price for such extreme pleasure/sensual gratification... Personally, I think we have to somehow find the middle path when it comes to sexuality, but I still have a lot of work to do in this area.

Make no mistake though, anything that gives you such pleasure, and inspires to you crave it endlessly, will also bring your mind into the gutter and will give you great misery in life!

Asiaprod

Interesting question maitri. I studied this a while ago as it concerned me directly as I very much enjoy an active life in this area, and was very impressed with what Winton Higgins (a contributer to Buddha net) had to say. I have combined much of what he said with what I also think and present it here for further debate, It is a fascinating subject, that has something for us all to learn. Sorry its a bit long.


Buddhism does takes a strong ethical stand in human affairs and sexual behaviour in particular, these are referred to in the the five precents:

I undertake the training precept of:
1. Refraining from harming living beings/practising loving kindness
2. Refraining from taking the non-given/practising generosity
3. Refraining from committing sexual misconduct/practising contentment
4. Refraining from false speech/practising truthful communication
5. Refraining from intoxicants/practising mindfulness.

These precepts are voluntary, personal undertakings and not commandments since there are no gods in Buddhism to issue any. The precepts express basic principles rather than fixed, legalistic rules. Buddhism provides us with general guiding principles while in no way relieving us of the obligation to make appropriate moral judgements in each morally significant situation we come across. Moral judgement is never a question of blindly applying a rule. The five precepts constitute an integrated set - each precept supports the others. To know what 'sexual misconduct' means you look at the other precepts. 'Sexual misconduct', in the spirit of the precepts as a job lot, means any sexual conduct involving violence, manipulation or deceit - conduct that therefore leads to suffering and trouble. By contrast good sexual conduct is based on loving kindness, generosity, honesty, and mental and emotional clarity - conduct that has good results. The third precept about sexual misconduct is considered by many to be superfluous - if in our sexual lives we act non-violently, do not take what is not freely given, do not deceive and do not act out of delusive and irresponsible mindstates, we cannot fall foul of the third precept, which many believe is really only there for the sake of emphasis. Sexuality is a very strong energy, the focus of many cravings, vanities and delusions so it actually has been given its own precept! If we have a propensity to make fools of ourselves, to act stupidly and destructively we are likely to manifest it in our sex lives. On the other hand, each of us also has the opposite propensity to act out of friendliness, generosity and wisdom. With moral and meditative training our sex lives can powerfully express this propensity too.

Other religions have long lists of no-no's, of forbidden sexual practices. Some object to partial or total nudity, or masturbation, or cross-dressing, or sado-masochism, or homosexuality, or fetishism, or premarital sex, or oral, anal or group sex, or contracepted sex. Buddhism is notorious for its habit of putting points of practice and doctrine into lists. In this case, Buddhism doesn't have a list. The reason it doesn't have a list is significant. There are two 'pure types' of religion - ethnic ones and universal ones. Ethnic religion seeks to regulate many civic aspects of a particular tribe or people, and especially to regulate the biological and cultural reproduction of the tribe. It thus stipulates all sorts of rules to do with marriage, family, sex roles, bringing up children, etc. Judaism could well stand as a sophisticated example of an ethnic religion.
A universal religion, by contrast, is indifferent to ethnic civic life, transcends cultural particularism, and stands aloof from issues to do with the reproduction of the tribe. One is born into an ethnic religion, but the only real way into a universal religion like Buddhism is by personal conversion.

Any ethnic religion contains what might be called a social engineering element. Social engineers, both the religious and the secular ones, make it their business to regulate relations between the sexes so that plenty of babies are born to reproduce and even expand the tribe, and to see that the children are looked after and properly inducted into the folkways and traditional (gender and other) roles of the tribe. Social engineers want to manipulate people so that their sexual energies are channelled into babymaking, and not frittered away on non-procreative sexual activity ( recreational sex). A social engineering God or state tends to promulgate laws that criminalise, stigmatise and pathologise non-procreative sex. Buddhism as a pure case of universal religion has no social engineering element. So much so that it does not even have a marriage service. Marriage is a civil matter in Buddhist countries, it has nothing to do with spiritual practice as such. Nor does the Buddhist canon contain a 'holy family' with prescribed sex roles. The Buddha was in fact a social engineer's worst nightmare. Not only did he not waste a word of condemnation on non-procreative sex (hence no list of no-no's), but he inspired thousands to ordain into celibate monasticism and so leave babymaking behind altogether. This was not because he disapproved of sex or babies, but in an era when a non-celibate usually ended up with many children to feed, clothe and house and so had little freedom or time for spiritual pursuits, celibacy made a lot of practical sense for many people with a spiritual urge. If you want to get married in a Buddhist country, the civil authorities provide the appropriate official celebration. Afterwards the bridal couple can go, as many do, to a monastic and ask for her or his blessing, which usually consists in a relaxed word of advice about how to make the match actually work. (Ajahn Chah, a Buddhist meditation master in modern Thailand, would tell newlyweds that sought out his blessing that 'You have given your hand in marriage. Your hand has five fingers. Think of them as the five precepts. Practice the precepts in your marriage, and it will be a happy one. That is all you need.')

I would agree with

Dagon's point "Anything that gives you such pleasure, and inspires to you crave it endlessly, will also bring your mind into the gutter and will give you great misery in life".
MeditationsMom's "A Dalai Lama, or Buddha's "No" to sex has the "Yes" in it also".
Ballybrickenman's "it is up to you to find what is right for you. And not this do what we tell you or you’ll go to hell".

In conclusion, Buddhism has nothing against sex as such. Practiced skilfully in the spirit of the precepts, it can bring a lot of happiness. Buddhism does have a strong sexual ethic, but not a repressive one. The main point of this ethic is non-harming in an area of life where we can do a lot of damage by acting violently, manipulatively or deceitfully. These and breaches of the other precepts are the Buddhist no-no's in sexual practice. Because of its universalistic character, Buddhism as such certainly does not buy into prejudices and inhibitions associated with social engineering, the reproduction of the tribe. Of course, one can/will meet Buddhists from traditional backgrounds that do have a problem with non-procreative sex like homosexuality, just as we run into ones that are still challenged by gender equality. But this sort of inhibition or prejudice comes from a particular ethnic culture or national tradition only. You can confidently tell anyone who expresses these sorts of attitudes that they have nothing to do with Dhamma as such.

I will leave the final words to Winton Higgins:
"There's nothing wrong with dancing lightly with your desires, so long as both can hear the music and all hearts are open. Indeed, I think Buddhism probably improves our sex life in meditation training, where we learn the core skill of mindfulness - of keeping our heart, mind and body in the same place at the same time. So when your body is having a wonderful time with a cuddly friend, your mind is not having a miserable time obsessing about the details of your tax return, for instance - it is free to come to the party too."

MeditationMom

great post, Asiaprod.
Looking at your Buddhist quotes, and then back at Maitri's Buddhists sutra quote, it is also clear how confusing the messages are. It is nice to live in the times we are in where we are truly free to experiment in this direction, then in that direction, until we find the Golden Middle Path - in all areas of life, and especially this one.

scojones

MeditationMom wrote:

It is the attachment to sex - or anything else - that is the problem, not sex itself. .

I recently read a book of interviews from the Dalai Lama and was about to quote this as well. I may look for the book when I go home and use some of the quotes from there as he had a very good way of putting things. He basically said that the sex is great for its' duration, but after that complications arise - complications which will last a lot longer than the sex itself and because of this he doesn't think it's worth it. He also said that while the member of the opposite sex may be attractive, but he/she will eventually turn into a decaying skeleton. A very interesting view.

Asiaprod

MeditationMom wrote:

Looking at your Buddhist quotes, and then back at Maitri's Buddhists sutra quote, it is also clear how confusing the messages are.

True indeed. It has taken me the longest time to really understand that Sutras and writings are only there as a guideline. We have to bring them to the next step, where they actually come to mean something in our lives. The key, as far as I can see, is common-sense. Apply the lessons to life in the 20th century. That is the beauty of Buddhism, it cannot remain static, it expands as we grow in our understanding and application of its principles.

maitri

Thanks for all your good and thought-provoking answers everybody. Will take some time to digest it all.

It seems to me that you all see sex as part of the middle path – unlike the article I referred to - though you also emphasize its trouble-making qualities.
You also underline the importance of common sense (wisdom) and non-violence/loving-kindness in all matters (not only sex) and stress that there are no absolute rules in Buddhism, as you see it.

Just a thought: I see in the sutra-examples that the Buddha is talking about seeking “sensual pleasures”. It seems to me that there is much more to sex and sexuality than “sensual pleasure” alone, but I guess it’s easy to get obsessed about the physical part of it and forget about the rest - and also to stay ignorant about less conscious motives (than the obvious purely physical ones) for seeking sexual experiences.
Just a thought. I don’t know how relevant it is.

maitri

MeditationMom wrote:

Following any "Sex is evil and defiling" thinking leads to much trouble and suffering in the world. Just like the opposite thinking of "Sex is so good we will be forever miserable if we don't get it, have it, want it" kind of thinking. Sex is what we make of it. A Dalai Lama, or Buddha's "No" to sex has the "Yes" in it also.

Hi Could you please explain the last sentence a little? I'm not totally sure whether I understand the meaning correctly.

MeditationMom

A Dalai Lama, or Buddha's "No" to sex has the "Yes" in it also.

What I mean by this is that there is no resistance to sex, no issue with sex.

When we say Yes to something it is an openness, a relaxed state. When we say No to something it is a tense, restricted state. Often judgemental. So this No to sex is quite relaxed, a personal choice, without judgeing others for making the opposite choice. It comes out of freedom - unlike the no of the "followers" who try to make a rule out of it, enforce it on others, and who are often forcing a no-sex-rule on themselves.

In a sence the Dalai Lama's or Buddha's choice is the same as the prostitute's who has overdosed on it, or the mother of ten who has experienced the long term consequenses. They are just done with it, but they wouldn't go around enforcing any rules on others. Through reflection and contemplation this conclusion can be reached before having to live through it all first. You override your natural urges with insight and then relaxed resolve. Temptation will still be there even if you have made a choice, and then mental tricks, like the Dalai Lama's, of imagining the woman who has temporarily blinded you with her beauty, as a corpse, come in handy. It is different from the repressive "No", pretending you are celibate/holy, or trying to be celibate to - greedily - reach an even higher goal, as in trading sex for enlightenment.

Enlightenment is completly independent from having or not having sex, being celibate or not being celibate. Many people are confused about that. Sex and its consequenses keeps us busy and distracted, physically, emotionally, mentally, be that from work, family, or spiritual practise, but so do many other things too! - like fighting to free Tibet from the Chinese

The whole problem with pleasures, and all other things - is "Seeking" them. No problem if they come to you, receive them with gratitude and then don't go into "I want to do this again - seeking" mode. Wait and see what shows up next instead. Keeps life sweet and interesting. In this "receiving gratefully" attitude one also stays relaxed enough to say "No" when important. In my experience the "tense no" of repression or judgement or fear, too often ends up biting me in the neck and I end up doing what I didn't want to do to begin with. Instead I have developed more of an attitude of "Yes, this would be wonderful and, No. No, Thank you." (Notice "and" and not "but") More and more I can say a kind and compassionate No to so many distractions.

I also turn this around. If my Yes doesn't have a No in it, it is usually still too greedy. Having the No in my Yes means that if whatever I have said Yes to, in the last minute gets snatched away, I won't be upset. It is not half- hearted-ness. That would be the wrong interpretation of this. It is a little bit of wisdom after a long life of going whole-heartedly into many directions, and actulally having learned to respond, rather than react to things. But... there are new challenges every day until we die.

Asiaprod

scojones wrote:

I recently read a book of interviews from the Dalai Lama and was about to quote this as well. He basically said that the sex is great for its' duration, but after that complications arise - complications which will last a lot longer than the sex itself and because of this he doesn't think it's worth it. He also said that while the member of the opposite sex may be attractive, but he/she will eventually turn into a decaying skeleton. A very interesting view.

This illustrates one of the big issues I face with putting someone on a pedestal. Though I have great respect for the man, even wish I was half the person he is, it is easy for the Dalai Lama to say these things when sex is not a part of his lifestyle. Realistically speaking, I find this a selfish approach (he/she will eventually turn into a decaying skeleton). A couple had to have sex to create him, in a way to give him the gift of life. If we were all to follow his line of thought the human race would expire in what, a 100 years? The Dalai Lama is a spiritual leader, and as such, he leads a celibate life. He has had no experience of sex whatsoever. His situation is similar to that of the Pope in Christianity who also has no experience of sex. I do not think these people should be making serious decisions on situations they do not fully understand. Some do chose to lead celibate lives, I and my wife chose to raise a family, and sex is an integral part of that commitment.

maitri

Asiaprod wrote:

This illustrates one of the big issues
(…)
Some do chose to lead celibate lives, I and my wife chose to raise a family, and sex is an integral part of that commitment.

Don’t worry, Asia. I would think you and your wife have the Dalai Lama's full blessing here.
I have never heard him – or any other Buddhist – argue against sex in marriage, (though some very traditional schools have some funny rules about how to do it and on what hours of the day.)

The only religion I have heard of that actually discourages sex even in marriage (except when the spouses plan having a child) is the Hare Krishna movement and even they don’t make a strict rule for everybody. (Also Gandhi who was Hindu tried to abstain from sex with his wife, though, according to wife, not very successfully, naturally enough…)

Asiaprod wrote:

The Dalai Lama is a spiritual leader, and as such, he leads a celibate life. He has had no experience of sex whatsoever. His situation is similar to that of the Pope in Christianity who also has no experience of sex.

Provided that the Buddhist reincarnation theory is right, he must have had lots and lots of experience of sex (in previous lives). And if he is a conscious incarnation, he might even remember vividly.:)

Or in might be like MeditationMom says that he has the insight to see that sex would bring more trouble than gain in his situation. I don’t think he tries at all to force a no-sex-rule on people who want to marry and have a family.

But I would ask, can you respect and understand that some people choose (as a “free choice” or because of things or situation in their life) to be celibate, Asia?

maitri

Thanks for your answer, MeditationMom! That cleared it up for me.

MeditationMom wrote:

The whole problem with pleasures, and all other things - is "Seeking" them. No problem if they come to you, receive them with gratitude and then don't go into "I want to do this again - seeking" mode. Wait and see what shows up next instead. Keeps life sweet and interesting. In this "receiving gratefully" attitude one also stays relaxed enough to say "No" when important. In my experience the "tense no" of repression or judgement or fear, too often ends up biting me in the neck and I end up doing what I didn't want to do to begin with. Instead I have developed more of an attitude of "Yes, this would be wonderful and, No. No, Thank you." (Notice "and" and not "but") More and more I can say a kind and compassionate No to so many distractions.

I also turn this around. If my Yes doesn't have a No in it, it is usually still too greedy. Having the No in my Yes means that if whatever I have said Yes to, in the last minute gets snatched away, I won't be upset. It is not half- hearted-ness.
That would be the wrong interpretation of this. It is a little bit of wisdom after a long life of going whole-heartedly into many directions, and actulally having learned to respond, rather than react to things. But... there are new challenges every day until we die.

maitri

scojones wrote:

I recently read a book of interviews from the Dalai Lama and was about to quote this as well. I may look for the book when I go home and use some of the quotes from there as he had a very good way of putting things.

Would be interesting to hear what he says if you still have that book.:)

Asiaprod

maitri wrote:

But I would ask, can you respect and understand that some people choose (as a “free choice” or because of things or situation in their life) to be celibate, Asia?

I can indeed respect and understand the choice to be celibate, unfortunately my particular gripe that I have not yet learned to control is dealing with the idea of others making rules that I am expected to follow when I do not agree with the rule in the first place. I have come up against this time and time again with my own school. In one case, the sexual antics of our Head Priest with some ladies of the night in Seattle, which were in total contradiction with what he taught, led to the a mass excommunication of millions of followers, and the demolition of a head temple that was deemed to be a National treasure.

maitri wrote:

Provided that the Buddhist reincarnation theory is right, he must have had lots and lots of experience of sex (in previous lives). And if he is a conscious incarnation, he might even remember vividly

That made me smile, a very smart comment. Now I have something new to think about. Thank you:)

DublinWriter

maitri wrote:

These “negative” view on sex and sexuality seems to have been built on some statements from Buddhist sutras, like:

"One should not pursue sensual pleasure (kama-sukha), which is low vulgar, coarse, ignoble and unbeneficial; and one should not pursue self-mortification, which is painful, ignoble and unbeneficial. So it was said. And with reference to what was this said? The pursuit of the enjoyment of one whose pleasure is linked to sensual desire - low, vulgar, coarse, ignoble and unbeneficial - is a state beset by suffering, vexation, despair and fever, and it is the wrong way.

I would consider that to be more of a statement against negative-sexuality rather than being a statement which is negative about sexuality.

For example, it is a common problem in victims of early sexual abuse to seek similiar situtations later in life, or to repeat such situations taking on the role of the abuser as a roundabout way of coming to terms with their earlier sexual abuse. The Sutra you quoted sums that situation up perfectly..."is a state beset by suffering, vexation, despair and fever, and it is the wrong way"

maitri

DublinWriter wrote:

I would consider that to be more of a statement against negative-sexuality rather than being a statement which is negative about sexuality.

For example, it is a common problem in victims of early sexual abuse to seek similiar situtations later in life, or to repeat such situations taking on the role of the abuser as a roundabout way of coming to terms with their earlier sexual abuse. The Sutra you quoted sums that situation up perfectly..."is a state beset by suffering, vexation, despair and fever, and it is the wrong way"

This is an interesting view. I havn't thought about that aspect before. It sure could be read as an accurate description of what you call «negative-sexuality». And I would think it could probably also describe the experience of those who hurt themselves by taking on the role of the victim later in life as well as those who hurt others as well as themselves by taking on the role of the abuser, as you say.

It reminds me of a true story I just heard by somebody I interviewed about a man called Walter who lived in Seattle and who at the age of 45 had spent 21 of those years in prison for various crimes of violence and sexual abuse. Every time he got out of jail he committed new horrible crimes and was eventually caught and was put inside again. When he moved into a new neighbourhood after having done his time people would put big posters in the streets warning against him. He was considered very dangerous and very evil. And he considered himself evil and loathed himself, and decided at last that he didn't deserve to live. He tried to jump off a bridge to end it all since life for him was a hell. But in the last second he heard a voice inside his head saying: «Walter, there is another way...»

To make a long story shorter, he got help at last by somebody who had the insight to treat him with kindness and empathy (and to not identify him with his previous actions) and he finally learned to look inside himself to find out why he had committed those horrible crimes – to look for what deep needs had been driving him.

He found out that what he saw in the eyes of his victims was his own fear and pain and helplessness – a pain he had been carrying in his own «system»from a time of horrible abuse from the age of three to the age of seven when he ran away from home for good – and that he for a brief moment felt understood.

What was driving him to hurt others so cruelly was ironically enough a deep need for empathy and understanding.

He had thought he would only find evil inside him but when he dared to look inside he actually found the pain and needs of an abused child – which of course is not an excuse for his crimes towards other people, nor did he see it as an excuse.

When he finally understood what was driving him, he also saw that his strategy had been a hopeless one – he didn't really get understanding and empathy by hurting other people, on the contrary he just ended up being feared and hated and hating himself - and seeing this - and learning to have empathy towards the child he had once been as well as towards other people - he started to change the way he related to himself and the world.
Today he is working in the same prison where he was once an inmate to help other people as he was helped.

I was told this story by somebody who hat actually met Walter and was deeply impressed by him and his life story. I think it is also written down in the book «Nonviolent Communication» by Dr Marshall Rosenberg.

Perhaps I'm a little beside the topic here, but what you said just brought this story up again.

PS: I still think MeditationMom has a good point when she emphazises the term "seeking":

MeditationMom wrote:

The whole problem with pleasures, and all other things - is "Seeking" them. No problem if they come to you, receive them with gratitude and then don't go into "I want to do this again - seeking" mode. Wait and see what shows up next instead. Keeps life sweet and interesting. In this "receiving gratefully" attitude one also stays relaxed enough to say "No" when important. In my experience the "tense no" of repression or judgement or fear, too often ends up biting me in the neck and I end up doing what I didn't want to do to begin with. Instead I have developed more of an attitude of "Yes, this would be wonderful and, No. No, Thank you." (Notice "and" and not "but")

I experience more and more often that when I place my happiness in some "hoped for" and hypothetical bliss in the future I almost inevitably rob myself of (finding happiness in) the present moment.

maitri

Asiaprod wrote:

unfortunately my particular gripe that I have not yet learned to control is dealing with the idea of others making rules that I am expected to follow when I do not agree with the rule in the first place.

Why would anybody follow rules they don't agree with?
IMHO you are expressing a strong, sound healthy need for freedom here.

I have actually heard the basic human need for freedom described as our strongest emotional need. For what I know there might be something to that description.

I believe that a lot of the conflicts in this world occur when people feel that "the other part" step on or violate this basic need for freedom. Therefore I believe that we all do well in respecting this sound need in others as well as in ourself.

As I see it another curious problem is that people (including me) also tend to do very silly things every now and then just to prove to ourselves and the world that "I am free".
This I believe is very often a reaction of defiance to all the inner I should or I should not's (that make us feel unfree and like we are told to act from principles and ideology insted of acting from our own will), perhaps even more than a reaction to other people's opinions.

Maybe we would do well in changing all our should/ought's and should/ought not's into I will/ I want to and I will not/ I don't want?

But that would of course require that we find out what we really want...:p

PS: You said "my school", are you still a Soka Gakkai?

Asiaprod

maitri wrote:

PS: You said "my school", are you still a Soka Gakkai?

I would say yes, in spirit anyway. I got a great grounding in Buddhism from them and I have great respect for their policies and work for educational and peace. They also do tremendous good with their social activities and I support them fully here. It would be true to say that without this great grounding they gave me I would either be dead by now or in prison somewhere. I am not the same person I was 20 years ago, thank Buddha and our little corner of Cyberspace here on Boards IE for this.

I do have some issues with the Soka Gakkai as I do with other Buddhist groups and religious paths in general. For some reason humanity seems to need to place leaders on god-like pedestal. No matter how cleaver these leaders are, they are still only human and humans are prone to making mistakes. In particular, with respect to my own school, I believe that they have incorporated the Japanese ethos of "Everything for the good of the Company" into the practice, and for me, this is beginning to turn the organization into Japan's largest corporate conglomerate. We are even involved with politics and have a national presence in this arena. This, while having the potential for good, has a far greater potential to turn bad based on man's anger, pride, greed and stupidity. I firmly support the division of Religion and State as I fear that no division is eventually destructive to society. I would love to see religion banned from politics, but it will never happen, well not in my lifetime.

Over the last year I have questioned many things and have begun to see the real danger in labeling groups and organizations. I do not believe that we need these kinds of identities. All Christians should be Christians, all Buddhists should be Buddhist, all Atheists should be Atheists, and at the end of the day we are all humans sharing the same planet. We do not need to circle wagons in defense of what "our" group deems to be the ONLY way to practice correctly, which really should come from within the individual. I find myself constantly reminded that Shakyamuni tried many paths, excelling in each of them and moving on in his search, before finally finding the true way on his own. I agree with his approach, one must reach any conclusion based on ones own experiences. Having all these groups and the one up-manship that goes with many of them only serves to further dirty the water and leads to conflicting ideals, which in reality are really just esoteric in aspects.

I now classify myself as an Independent Buddhist. Independent in the reasoning that only I can guarantee my own enlightenment. To do this, I must make any choices that need to be made by myself and not according to someone else's concept or some group rules. I think I am finally beginning to understand the phrase "I have a choice." I will continue to practice in the Soka tradition and study the sutras because I see it working in my life, but any organization I am a party to will always take second place to the necessity of finding out for myself and accepting responsibility for my choices. This is my way, but we must each find our own. In as much as Karma is unique to the individual, I believe that process of ataining enlightenment is just as unique to the individual. What works for me, may not work for someone else, but the principles driving the search remain the same for us all.

Sorry for the long rant, twas good to get that of my chest. Matri, I think I am going to have to refer to you from now on as my personal Shoten Zenjin. And happily so.

maitri

Thank you for those very kind words, Asiaprod.

Asiaprod wrote:

Nor does the Buddhist canon contain a 'holy family' with prescribed sex roles.

Yet the relation (love) between husband and wife is called sadãra-Brahmacariya, meaning "sacred family life" (in The Sigala Sutta - No. 31 of the Digha-nikaya). According to Walpola Rahula (who probably is much better in Pali than I am) the use of the term Brahma means that the highest respect is actually given to this relationship.
In this Sutta guidelines are given concerning marriage and family life. Most are very general, like the recommendation of mutual faithfulness, respect and devotion between husband and wife.
Now there is also some more concrete advice, like one that made me smile: a very sweet advice that husbands would be wise to buy the wife nice clothing and jewellery from time to time just to please her. (It's obviously from a culture were husbands were the breadwinners).

I also found another quote that might be relevant when I tried to find out what traditional Buddhist teachings has to say about the topic (though I am very aware that Buddhists do not view these teachings as "absolute truths"):

"My teaching does not require anyone to become homeless or reseign the world unless he wants to, but it does require everyone to free himself from the illusion that he is a permanent self and to act with integrity while giving up his craving for pleasure."
"And whatever people do, whether in the world or as a recluse, let them put their whole heart in it (...) and if they have to struggle, let them do it without envy or hatred." (Majjhima Nikaya)

maitri

And maybe this one too is relevant?

Passing wonders

"There are people who suffer but do not understand why. They don’t know how the suffering arose or when it will end or how to get to that end.
They have not understood that grasping is one of the causes of suffering. People grasp at circumstances, they attach themselves. But often this results in a new misery. They grasp things out of ignorance because they are confused and muddled, and thus they wander endlessly on. If they could stop acting on impulse, could walk toward knowledge, and could let go of grasping, they would not go on suffering.

Contact, the point where the senses meet the object, is enthralling for some people. It is so exciting and gripping that they are washed by tides of desire and drift along a pointless road. But whether the sensation is pleasant or unpleasant or merely neutral, it should always be remembered that it’s a fragile experience and one should see its beginning and end. That is the way to help one to loosen one’s grasp.

All the delightful things of the world – sweet sounds, lovely forms, all the pleasant tastes and touches and thoughts – these are all agreed to bring happiness if they are not grasped and possessed.
But if you regard them merely as pleasures for your own use and satisfaction and do not see them as passing wonders, they will bring suffering.Be aware of this paradox, for if you are blind to the way things are you will not be able to make out anything, even though you might be right on top of it.

The teaching about the way things are is not a way to enlightenment for someone who is still filled with desires or who still longs to be this or that. But those who understand it will become beings of distinction, dispersing all the forces of confusion." (Sutta Nipata)