Sexuality, Marriage, Promiscuity and the Dharma

[Johnny Dangerous]

In reality, the Buddha said almost nothing about family life. He said absolutely nothing about monogamy, promiscuity, and so on. Why? These things belong to worldly social customs and really have nothing do with Dharma.

This.

In chunks of the Pali Canon I'm familiar with what I find is a general disillusionment with sensuality, including sex, where obviously 90% of the advice is for monks, and obviously simply comes from the renunciation point of view.

With the Maha Yana Canon, I don't even know why people bother citing this or that sutra as definitive on sexuality, if you count Chinese sources you can cherry pick the hell out of things to support any convenient position. As far as I'm concerned the Buddha said very little that would definitively apply to modern sexual politics.

[Johnny Dangerous]

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.

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.

I asked for Textual sources sir.

Can you provide any for your particular stance please?

Thank you,
Stefos

I didn't mention a particular stance, other than that the Buddha (obviously) had little to say about modern sexual politics or ideas. I don't really feel like pulling anything up from access to insight because I'm on a mobile device.

Obviously though, if you are looking for Pali sources it is a mostly very dim view of sensual pursuits period, promiscuity would certainly fall under that, but the approach is so different from modern moralizing about it that there is no comparison really. That, and the fact advice on sex for celibate renunciation is obviously it's own deal.

The Buddha In Pali sources takes a negative view of household life period, that ain't no 'family' values.

Mahayana sources are all over the map...so exactly what kind of 'source' are you looking for?

Shore up your own ability to steer the conversation and be specific before complaining about not having sources etc.

[Malcolm]

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.

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.

I asked for Textual sources sir.

Can you provide any for your particular stance please?

Thank you,
Stefos

I didn't mention a particular stance, other than that the Buddha (obviously) had little to say about modern sexual politics or ideas. I don't really feel like pulling anything up from access to insight because I'm on a mobile device.

Obviously though, if you are looking for Pali sources it is a mostly very dim view of sensual pursuits period, promiscuity would certainly fall under that, but the approach is so different from modern moralizing about it that there is no comparison really. That, and the fact advice on sex for celibate renunciation is obviously it's own deal.

The Buddha In Pali sources takes a negative view of household life period, that ain't no 'family' values.

Mahayana sources are all over the map...so exactly what kind of 'source' are you looking for?

Shore up your own ability to steer the conversation and be specific before complaining about not having sources etc.

When the Chinese were dismayed that they could not find any mention of such things as filial piety and so on, they composed sūtras to reinforce those values.

[Grigoris]

I hope he remembered all their anniversaries.

He's a Buddha, he knows EVERYTHING! Which is pretty handy if you are going to have 84,000 wives!

[DGA]

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.

Behold, the ultimate significance of the myriads of emanations Buddha Shakyamuni distributes through space

viewtopic.php?f=39&t=26717

[madhusudan]

My understanding is that ethics within Dharma can change according to different yanas. In Mahayana the most important thing is Bodhicitta rather than the specific action.

So, if any type of sex is motivated by the intention to achieve complete enlightenment as quickly as possible for the sake of all sentient beings, then it would be the right action to perform.

Another way of looking at it is if sex is motivated by any of the 8 worldy winds, such as seeking after pleasure, then it would be mere clinging.

[Wayfarer]

if any type of sex is motivated by the intention to achieve complete enlightenment as quickly as possible for the sake of all sentient beings, then it would be the right action to perform.....

...my dear.

[Stefos]

I didn't mention a particular stance, other than that the Buddha (obviously) had little to say about modern sexual politics or ideas. I don't really feel like pulling anything up from access to insight because I'm on a mobile device.

Obviously though, if you are looking for Pali sources it is a mostly very dim view of sensual pursuits period, promiscuity would certainly fall under that, but the approach is so different from modern moralizing about it that there is no comparison really. That, and the fact advice on sex for celibate renunciation is obviously it's own deal.

The Buddha In Pali sources takes a negative view of household life period, that ain't no 'family' values.

Mahayana sources are all over the map...so exactly what kind of 'source' are you looking for?

Shore up your own ability to steer the conversation and be specific before complaining about not having sources etc.

First, I wish I could go back and edit my original post......I can't now however.

Second, By sources I mean cite the Pali, Chinese, Tibetan or any Mahayana source.

Third, I'm not here to cause issues or to provoke anyone but rather just get a clear cut answer from the sutras ONLY.
People's opinions mean something to me but let's find out what the sources say........not what people of the modern day Left or Right socio-economical propaganda say.

That's it my friend............Stay cool.


Stefos

[Pero]

if any type of sex is motivated by the intention to achieve complete enlightenment as quickly as possible for the sake of all sentient beings, then it would be the right action to perform.....

...my dear.

[Stefos]

When the Chinese were dismayed that they could not find any mention of such things as filial piety and so on, they composed sūtras to reinforce those values.

And how do we Fair Folk know that the Pali redactors OR Tibetan redactors didn't compose sutras Malcolm?

What about the other 17-23 ancient schools and their positing of sexual behavior in regards to right action?

I have 2 valid questions here.



Stefos

[Dan74]

Intelligent skepticism is only ever applied to other people's beliefs.

You should know that.

When the Chinese were dismayed that they could not find any mention of such things as filial piety and so on, they composed sūtras to reinforce those values.

And how do we Fair Folk know that the Pali redactors OR Tibetan redactors didn't compose sutras Malcolm?

What about the other 17-23 ancient schools and their positing of sexual behavior in regards to right action?

I have 2 valid questions here.



Stefos

[madhusudan]

if any type of sex is motivated by the intention to achieve complete enlightenment as quickly as possible for the sake of all sentient beings, then it would be the right action to perform.....

...my dear.

That's neat the way you used a nice word like dear for ridicule.

Some gurus use unconventional means to reach certain beings. I'm sorry if that rubs you the wrong way.

Ask Drukpa Kunley and he might penetrate more deeply into your mind than I can.

[Pero]

if any type of sex is motivated by the intention to achieve complete enlightenment as quickly as possible for the sake of all sentient beings, then it would be the right action to perform.....

...my dear.

That's neat the way you used a nice word like dear for ridicule.

Some gurus use unconventional means to reach certain beings. I'm sorry if that rubs you the wrong way.

Ask Drukpa Kunley and he might penetrate more deeply into your mind than I can.

And if not he could always penetrate other things.

Seriously though, I don't think it was so much ridiculing as pointing out that some might use exactly such words to get laid.

[Ricky]

Not 100% sure about this but a married buddhist man can go see hookers on the side and not break the sexual misconduct precept. If a man were ever to do this in modern western society all hell would break loose and would be like an episode on jerry springer.

[liuzg150181]

I hope he remembered all their anniversaries.

He's a Buddha, he knows EVERYTHING! Which is pretty handy if you are going to have 84,000 wives!

It is safe to assume that everyday is birthday for at least one of the wives.

[justsit]

Not 100% sure about this but a married buddhist man can go see hookers on the side and not break the sexual misconduct precept. If a man were ever to do this in modern western society all hell would break loose and would be like an episode on jerry springer.

Did you mean, "if a [married? buddhist?] man were ever to do this in modern western society and his wife found out all hell would break loose..."?

Because plenty of men - married and unmarried- in modern western society visit hookers. Not much data available on western male buddhist promiscuity.

[justsit]

Reply to Stefos: if you are looking for sutta references you might try this https://dhammawheel.com//viewtopic.php?t=30046 recent thread from Dhamma Wheel.

[Ricky]

Not 100% sure about this but a married buddhist man can go see hookers on the side and not break the sexual misconduct precept. If a man were ever to do this in modern western society all hell would break loose and would be like an episode on jerry springer.

Did you mean, "if a [married? buddhist?] man were ever to do this in modern western society and his wife found out all hell would break loose..."?

Because plenty of men - married and unmarried- in modern western society visit hookers. Not much data available on western male buddhist promiscuity.

Correct but it is not socially acceptable behavior even for non-married men.

[DGA]

When the Chinese were dismayed that they could not find any mention of such things as filial piety and so on, they composed sūtras to reinforce those values.

And how do we Fair Folk know that the Pali redactors OR Tibetan redactors didn't compose sutras Malcolm?

I'm not Malcolm, but I would like to propose an answer to your questions. First: scholars use evidence and reason to make their claims. The consensus of scholars is that there have been a number of sutras that are canonical in Chinese Buddhism but not in other traditions were composed in China for Chinese audiences. You can research this yourself if you are interested.

Do you have any evidence that any of the Pali or Tibetan redactors composed sutras? And if we suppose for the sake of argument that they did: what would that have to do with the topic at hand? Even if any of the Pali or Tibetan canon is apocryphal, you'd still find scarcely anything in it on the topic of family life for laypersons. This question looks like our old friend whataboutism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

What about the other 17-23 ancient schools and their positing of sexual behavior in regards to right action?

What about them? How are these ancient schools relevant to the discussion at hand? Again: this looks like whataboutism, comrade.

[A Ah Sha Sa Ma Ha]

If men are SNEAKING behind their partners backs seeing prostitutes or lovers...married or not....(IMHO) it's SEXUAL MISCONDUCT.

DUH.

Buddha didn't sneak around...did he ??????? Oh, i suppose it was expected of men anyways.....but NOT of women...thus, the DOUBLE STANDARD.