“Language is the liquid / That we’re all dissolved in / Great for solving problems / After it creates the problem”
-Modest Mouse
Sherab Dorje wrote:Queequeg wrote:OK. But seriously, what is this " sex per se"? For me it conjures an image of stick figures bumping into each other.
Some traditions, schools or religions consider sex itself as a negative activity. Even during sex for reproductive purposes (when allowed), they take steps to ensure that the sexual partners (obviously married) minimise all physical contact. In this case we see that sex, in of itself (per se, that is) is considered a negative activity. It is not even the desirous aspect of sex that is considered negative (which is normally the lay Buddhist take, in most Buddhist traditions), the act of having sex itself is considered negative.
Part of the problem here, and its the same problem since your initial response to my comment - you have a tendency toward the broad, categorical statements. As I've pointed out, we can't really talk about dharmas without balancing in mind their conventionality. In Buddhist discourse, we can only talk about "sex, per se", as a convention, and convention is by definition problematic even as we resort to it as an expedient.
Sex simpliciter is a logical impossibility; a false view. Dharmas are always qualified. The compulsive sex of a nymphomaniac is as representative of sex as the sex of an enlightened yogi. To say that both are unproblematic is problematic to say the least. If that's indeed what Vajrayana holds, its problematic from basic Buddhist analysis.
Anyway, its clear now that you have a comparison of the views on sex among non-Buddhists and Vajrayana Buddhists in mind. The views of tirthikas are irrelevant here. But since you are bringing up the views of tirthikas as a contrast to Vajrayana...
Actually, I wonder how familiar you are with this broad category of views that generally falls under the umbrella of Abrahamic religion. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Judaism, the granddaddy Abrahamic religion, being that Abraham was a Jew. In my understanding of it based on growing up in New York around Jews and marrying a Jew, I can say pretty confidently, Jews like their sex and don't have Abrahamic hang-ups about it.
In Jewish law, sex is not considered shameful, sinful or obscene. Sex is not a necessary evil for the sole purpose of procreation. Although sexual desire comes from the yetzer ra (the evil impulse), it is no more evil than hunger or thirst, which also come from the yetzer ra. Like hunger, thirst or other basic instincts, sexual desire must be controlled and channeled, satisfied at the proper time, place and manner. But when sexual desire is satisfied between a husband and wife at the proper time, out of mutual love and desire, sex is a mitzvah.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... m/sex.html
Sex is a mitzvah! Sure, there are qualifications to that, but all sex is always qualified. That's the nature of human activity - always qualified.
Sherab Dorje wrote:Now, with the neo-con resurgences in most western countries, and especially in the US, these hang-ups are coming to the fore again. I can't see why we would be afraid to admit to that?
Another example of your tendency to simplify matters into hard and fast categories.
Actually, in the US, there are other trends with regard to the subject of sex that seem to project into the future. We will see, of course. If you're paying attention, though, one by one, laws that precluded same-sex marriage have been either reversed by legislatures or struck down by the courts. Even these laws in the most conservative states are getting struck. The trend is clearly toward the codification of the acceptance of sex, in its variety, as a fact of life. Sure there is a vocal minority complaining about all the sex everyone is having, but they're far from the majority. And many of the most vocal are proven hypocrites suggesting there is something else going on with their public pronouncements, whether its their own hangups about their sexuality and overcompensation in dealing with it, or just plain old political advantage.
The point is, and this is something we all need to work on, the only thing absolute about absolute statements is that they will lead to problems before they lead to resolutions. Sex is a subject that suffers because of all the absolute statements that tend to be made about it. If Vajrayana's approach to sex is something other than madhyamika, it's bound to end in problems. Fortunately, I don't think your expressed views on the subject are representative of the rest of your fellows.
