The pretense of objective supremacy that Buddhism comes with in a western context seems imprisoning and misleading. Asceticism, as it must be practiced in this time, cannot consist of loafing around and dying of starvation like it once could. At best, the most ascetic person (in mind, spirit and body), would have to take on a very unlikely form, at least in this shape of society.
Part of this criticism is subjective, part of it should be taken seriously: I happen to take very seriously the tenants of asceticism, and view sexuality and other vices as "one less thing to deal with", but that's also because I can't think for myself. Is it not somewhat irresponsible, however, to be seen as the most objective moral authority, and reinforce people's dogmas and fears of not being good people by just repeating, "Yes, avoid all desires", until the end of the time? It could actually be very dangerous to one's soul if they, are for example, never having sex. Buddhism says nothing of this, just, "You might want to consult someone who knows about that", but not even very.
What this thinly veiled self-help diary post is actually for is: could the most moral and sensible thing to be doing actually be to be having sex, granted if the alternative is extreme disconnection from one's own self and humankind?
I mean, I'll ask /r9k/, but you see why I'd rather post it here. Maybe somebody knows this pain of having to view the religious practices of a people you can't help but take more seriously than yourself and just also feel that what they're doing doesn't answer your questions at all.
Lincoln Nguyen
>The pretense of objective supremacy Elaborate
Gavin Sanders
how does not having sex disconnect you from humankind? >reinforce people's dogmas and fears of not being good people by just repeating, "Yes, avoid all desires" who even says that kind of thing? the most they say is to counter at least the delusions of wrong views and improperly holding onto bad views to ascertain weather the fear of not being good people is based in objectivity or delusion because of the noise of some other thoughts. It might even reveal that they're genuinely not a good person in that case they'd have to face the idea and take steps to fix it.
Jonathan Nguyen
The tenants of Buddhism claim to be ultimate, and that the sciences should be left to scientists and progress should be left to the revolutionaries, but some facts never change. Those exact tenants are much more agreeable if you live in a culture where everybody practices those lay-principles, but they cast a very unlikely beneficial set of rules to always be following if you're living in the west, or a westernized place.
My belief anyhow is simply that too little sex will put you out of touch with how connected other people are, and too much will make you out of touch by being too in touch. This is important, at least, if your goal is to be in touch.
>Is it not somewhat irresponsible, however, to be seen as the most objective moral authority, and reinforce people's dogmas and fears of not being good people by just repeating, "Yes, avoid all desires",
no, avoid unwholesome desires
Juan Butler
>My belief anyhow is simply that too little sex will put you out of touch with how connected other people are
I don't think a Buddhist would care about staying popular with normies
John Sanders
>how does not having sex disconnect you from humankind? Well because sex is an expression of your biology. There are other ways to express that, but take as an example that you are a musician, but you've never had love (let's say), chances are your message won't be received, and you'll feel to have as much efficacy for expression. I think there are obvious reasons. You definitely feel more tolerance for some norms when you're in love, and that's going to be fairly standard. >who even says that kind of thing? Avoid all desires? A lot of religious people, dude. I actually can't find reference to a Buddhist document that says "don't avoid ALL desires". Do you think that, with right view and right mind, it can't change the impact of all that you do? Even things that are furiously chemical? I know that's kind of complicated, but the point is just more often than not a religious layperson says, "Avoid desires based in wrong mind" i.e all sexual immorality, all non-procreative sex. Is all theft unwholesome, as an example? Is all non-procreative sex unwholesome? So many would say yes, they are.
Jacob Cox
...
Nathan White
Who says Buddhists aren't the normies? You never know who you're talking to on here. I might have a lot more experience with Buddhists in real life than you have. In my opinion, they're very contemporary, extremely in touch with norms. At least where I've lived.
Caleb Jackson
Buddhism rejects extreme asceticism. Abstaining from sex is not asceticism it's normal for anyone with more self control than a bonobo. Read a book.
Asher Lewis
you can get highly enlightened as a sex-having layman, you just can't be an Arahant (or Anagami) by Theravada standards. Mahayana and Vajrayana see it differently though. For them, laymen can realize Nirvana and freedom from suffering. Just ignore the sectarian stuff (but practice in whichever tradition is most conducive to your development), follow the eightfold path, cultivate wisdom and compassion, and you will be good. Buddhism is a gradual path, not an abrupt one. Plus, 'Arahant,' 'Bodhisattva,' these are all just conventional designations anyhow.
Ryder Carter
avoiding all desires is supposed to be final goal, you don't arrive at that right away or even in this lifetime or a couple of next lifetimes
Ian Brown
Any modern buddhist tradition other than Zen is pseudo-religious and NOT actual buddhism.
Josiah Green
Much of modern Zen (not all) is incredibly ritualistic though and practically indivisible from Pure Land
Mason Harris
Well yeah but if you want Buddhism without the retarded rituals you would just seek the Tao.
Grayson Walker
Such as? Interesting. I don't necessarily derive from the eight-fold path that it excludes all action that might superficially seem bad, but I've only read interpretations that do make up normative claims that all appear to say the same thing. I think I wanted to be an Arahant, but fuck that.
Jaxson Ortiz
you might be interested in the Tantric stuff where the Bodhisattva, though without any actual desires or attachments (since he has fully realized emptiness) still manifests/maintains an appearance in 'Samsara' to worldlings for the purpose of guiding them to Nirvana. They supposedly appear in endless forms to suit and inspire beings of all kinds of temperments and inclinations. This might include playing the role of a layman with a family (all the while not truly being attached) for the purpose of being connected to "normal people" who would otherwise be completely averse to monastic Buddhism due to their perception of it being "holier than thou" or something. This is supposedly what Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche was doing. His alcohol use and excessive sex made him relatable and inspiring to all the american beatniks of the time who would be turned off by a more traditional, restrained monk who would appear too far removed from their lifestyle, for them to gain any interest. Although keep in mind, this is all completely heretical if you're going by a purely early Buddhist texts-based approach. Regardless, you can still make very meaningful progress as a layman even in the Theravada.
Alexander Wilson
(Maybe I should specify I'm not asking, "Such as?" to ask for a recommendation, but rather to instigate where Buddhism is known to reject extreme asceticism. Obviously I've read the middle path idea, but that definitely doesn't mean go out and have sex if you need to.) You're just posturing anyway though so it doesn't matter. This pretty much covers it for me. I wonder why all vipassana meditation centers and internet resources exclusively forbid desires in ways Zen seems openly lenient to.
Julian Brown
>This is supposedly what Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche was doing Bullshit. He could have just pretended to drink alcohol if that's what he was really doing.
Adam Moore
well that's why I said "supposedly" you can make up your own mind whether you believe it or not
Asher Richardson
Zen has the same basic idea of desires it's just that the approach is different. Zen school adheres to the position that not wanting to have sex is a desire as much as wanting to have sex. Abstaining from sex is just as much of a desire motivated action as having sex all the time. If you are truly without desire then there is nothing you should or shouldn't do, there is no prescription, someone who has reached a basic form of "enlightenment" doesn't ask themselves whether an action is "right" or "wrong" they simply act effortlessly.
Isaiah Gray
Heh, that's an extraordinarily fascinating concept, and I've had that thought before. With that comes the negation of self-doubt where it's improbable to believe oneself to be setting an example of "the way" for others when you barely have life figured out yourself. It's all just complicated though...
Logan Flores
It's not complicated at all. Meditate, everything else is just ritual trappings.
Jacob Nguyen
yea this is why you pretty much have to become highly enlightened before you start trying to guide others or it'll be like the blind leading the blind. There's a sutta that flat out says you can't pull out someone who is sunk in the mire when you yourself are sunk in the mire
Cooper Diaz
It is from a mechanical point of view. Imagine contriving yourself to be fitted for a theoretical audience that might not even exist? That comes easier to some that others, which is why it's doubtful simplicity isn't utterly complex on the flip-side. You don't have to respond to that though. Fuck, that's true. I do need to read a book lol. It's been a long time since I bookmarked all them wikipedia articles way back.
Kevin Harris
>can't act like a student >sure go act like the master he doesn't do these student things either another idiot casual in the making
Kayden Gray
>retarded rituals you're the one who is retarded faggot
Elijah Harris
"Tenants of Asceticism" is a good euphemism for slum dwellers, and also a not-cool edgy band name.
Ayden Price
>if the alternative is extreme disconnection from one's own self and humankind
these are not things to ward off, but rather to be accepted in their useful sense.
the connection to "one's own self" that is sustained by sexual acts is really a connection to an illusory "self" that is transient and inimical to the righteous path that is to be traveled by your true being.
the connection to humankind that is sustained by sexual acts is really a connection to, or rather a dependence upon, this illusory world and all its sufferings, many of which are brought on by pleasures, especially those of the flesh.
take care of your body, for it is your means of receiving and spreading wisdom in this life, but do not indulge such idle desires as sexual pleasure.
have compassion for your fellow man but do not lust for and defile his physical body.
Anthony Cox
it's not like he'd be able to learn Tantra even if he wanted to since Tibetans reserve those teachings pretty much exclusively for highly realized practitioners. They require you to master Sutrayana teachings first. I was just telling him about it to address his concerns about Buddhism as a whole (and how it considers reaching those fully immersed in "the world") rather than his ideas of how he himself should go about practicing it. Obviously even in Mahayana, you still need to strictly follow the precepts as a layman (they have even more lay precepts than the Theravada); it's just that they accept the possibility of a layman realizing Nirvana.
