Re: Sexuality, Marriage, Promiscuity and the Dharma
Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 5:59 pm
I hope he remembered all their anniversaries.
A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
https://www.dharmawheel.net:443/
Gopa was the principle wife, Yaśodharā was the mother of Rahula, and Mrigajā was the third wife. There are other sūtras that mention six wives.pael wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2017 5:56 pmIt is often said to be Yasodhara. Who was third wife? Gopa was not Rahula's mom, right?Malcolm wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:45 pmNo, the Buddha had at least two wives, and according to some sources, three; as well as many mistresses. The Lalitavistara reports he had a wife named Gopa, who was his head wife:Fortyeightvows wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:36 pm Buddha for sure supported traditional marriage. For one he himself only took one wife...
Then indeed, in order to conform to worldly conventions, the Bodhisattva dwelt among 84,000 women and showed himself to partake of the amorous games with pleasure. Among the 84,000 women, the Śākya girl Gopā was consecrated as the foremost wife.
"Traditional" marriage exists in many forms: polygamy, polyandry, monogamy, and everything in between.
This must be why he was so knowledgeable regarding women!Malcolm wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2017 5:57 pm Just to add a bit more here, the Abhiniṣkramaṇa-sūtra states that the Buddha had three main wives, Gopa, Yaśodharā, and Mrigajā, as well as 60,000 other wives, that is to say, 20,000 wives as the retinue for the three main wives. Buddha's palace was literally crawling with wives.
I haven't used it myself, but I've heard positive reports from those who use Bumble. Evidently it helps people get laid.Stefos wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:24 am Hi everyone,
I have a multi-faceted question to ask re. sex & the Dharma:
Is sexually moving from one "partner" (bizarre word meaning nothing to me) to another ethical per the Dharma?
I understand about consenting adults, MY being aware of the act, the consequences, etc.
Is this not being promiscuous even if there is a large gap of time between sexual partners?
Also, What place does marriage and a commitment have? Please cite sources if you quote texts.
Thank you,
Stefos
The Cicada wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2017 3:15 pmLet's address the buck deer, then. Pretending that the Buddha would have approved of modern sexual mores or that he didn't preach anything resembling our concept of "family values" to householders is just one more illusion. Not that I'm one to talk. My dedication to Dharma, among other factors, has left me a serial monogamist—but I only have to keep the Diamond Precept.
Just replace the phrase "high school" with the word "college." I'm not going to fool myself, or try to convince others, into thinking this is Brahma conduct, though.
These days, even married women are on the prowl for "new experiences." That's one kind of demon's mouth I steer clear of.
However you like, as long as it does not harm others.
It's not so easy as to just passively avoid doing harm, though, is it? We all have obligations and debts of gratitude to take care of in this life—to the Buddha, to society, our nations, our ancestors, and our children. We can't just avoid this world as laypeople—maybe not even as monastics.Malcolm wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:35 pmHowever you like, as long as it does not harm others.
One can understand that, of course, "modern family values" which are joke by the way due to a LOT of issues with people and their images of the perfect man, woman, child, family, etc.Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2017 8:42 am Modern 'family values' did not exist in the Buddha's time, because people did not conceive of the nuclear family the way we do, fairly obviously. Neither did the silly 'sex postivity' one currently finds on the other end of the spectrum.
Define "harm others" according to the Sutras please.....IMalcolm wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:35 pmHowever you like, as long as it does not harm others.
The Lord Buddha's wives died Malcolm........He was running a concurrent "wife brothel."Malcolm wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2017 6:06 pmGopa was the principle wife, Yaśodharā was the mother of Rahula, and Mrigajā was the third wife. There are other sūtras that mention six wives.pael wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2017 5:56 pmIt is often said to be Yasodhara. Who was third wife? Gopa was not Rahula's mom, right?Malcolm wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:45 pm
No, the Buddha had at least two wives, and according to some sources, three; as well as many mistresses. The Lalitavistara reports he had a wife named Gopa, who was his head wife:
Then indeed, in order to conform to worldly conventions, the Bodhisattva dwelt among 84,000 women and showed himself to partake of the amorous games with pleasure. Among the 84,000 women, the Śākya girl Gopā was consecrated as the foremost wife.
"Traditional" marriage exists in many forms: polygamy, polyandry, monogamy, and everything in between.
The point of this exercise of course is to dispel the notion that the Buddha advocated the "traditional family" based on Western monogamous values.
I think that there needs to be Sutra support behind your statement sir/ma'am and I clearly asked for that earlier and I see none.Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2017 8:55 am
No thanks, there are enough moralizers who want to deny others their autonomy in Dharma already. We don't have to like others sexual choices, but having 'urgency' about another person's (consensual ) sex life, and offering unsolicited advice is just asinine behavior, period.
Really? That's discouraging. I regret bringing it up.
Naw I'll say what I want without needing to follow your specifications, thanks, not here to make you happy or play into whatever little diatribe you are setting up for. Your OP didn't demand sources, and too bad even if it did, not your call as long as replies are within the ToS.Stefos wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2017 8:03 pmI think that there needs to be Sutra support behind your statement sir/ma'am and I clearly asked for that earlier and I see none.Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2017 8:55 am
No thanks, there are enough moralizers who want to deny others their autonomy in Dharma already. We don't have to like others sexual choices, but having 'urgency' about another person's (consensual ) sex life, and offering unsolicited advice is just asinine behavior, period.
What I mean by "urgency" is that follows of Buddha Dharma, not "modern Buddhism," come to a consensus about what is right action
insofar as sexuality is concerned.
As I stated to Malcolm, Define "hurting others" in the context of sexuality.
Finally, I never "offered unsolicited advise" I merely said........There should be an urgency to define sexual (proper) morality here.
Stefos