Right understanding on sexual misconduct
-
In this age especially, where we can see, hear and read about news which talk about sex, explicitly or otherwise, I feel it is important for me as a Buddhist, to have the right understanding on what is sexual misconduct as stated in the five precepts observed by layman Buddhists or even by virtuous men or women who are inclined towards following the Buddha's teaching.
What is sexual misconduct? In many Buddhist scriptures, sexual relations or behaviour outside marriage is considered sexual misconduct. Then how about self-practised sexual stimulation like masturbation or oral/anal sex between couples who are married?
How to help myself and others to understand sexual misconduct and its implications on oneself and others without having to refer to religious teachings all or most of the time? Is it possible to help, say a free-thinker or an atheist to refrain from sexual misconduct?
I hope this post will not be deleted or edited cos I sincerely want to build up the right views and understanding on human sexuality based on Buddhist teachings.
I'm very concerned for both myself and others, on the incessant and unrestrained exposure to the endless range of visual and/or audio content around us, that directly or indirectly spur the growth of lustful feelings and thoughts and have them spread their roots deeply into our minds and sub-consciousness.
The first aspect of Eightfold path : Right View.
Don't expect to leave home (of samsara) without it. -
Hi, as I see it, there is no reasons for this topic to be closed and edited. There has actually been some similar threads previously on this. To this I replied:quote:Originally posted by Scania N113CRB luver:
Erm ... Is masturbation a sin ?
Masturbation itself does not constitute a sexual misconduct for a lay person, though masturbation in the monastic order is not allowed and constitutes and offense which requires the monk to confess to the sangha (monastic community). But anyway the difference is because monks are supposed to uphold celibacy -- that means avoiding ALL sexual activities. For lay persons we do not need to uphold celibacy, but we have to follow the third precept of 'no sexual misconduct'.
Which are,
Wrong partner-- a married person, a minor, someone in a relationship, an incompetent.
Wrong time -- day time
Wrong place -- in public, in shrine, etc.
Wrong orifice -- oral, anal.
Gender is not specified. These above can be found in the Abhidharmakosha. I do not think masturbation is mentioned.
But we must take note that it depends on your mind state. Masturbation is not only a physical act, it depends on your mental state as well, as it usually involves strong craving and sometimes lustful thoughts of sexual misconduct. This is creating a form of mental karma. Do know that karma has three forms: Mind karma, Speech karma, and Action karma. All these are volitional action (karma) and will have its karmic consequences in the future.
Negative unwholesome seeds and habit energy are planted into our 8th consciousness and may become a habit and might eventually become a monster in future or even future lifetimes as well.[/quote]
[quote]Originally posted by An Eternal Now:An explanation of Loppon Namdrol in E-Sangha (http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=5439&hl=) states:
It has to do with the fact that the anus and penis/vagina/urethra serve as organs of elimination; while the mouth is an organ of consuming.
Therefore, it is considered inappropriate for the mouth to touch the penis or vagina.
The anus is considered very unclean in general, and so it is considered to be an inappropriate orifice for sexual conduct.
I feel however the main intent behind the prohibition of sexual misconduct is non-harming.
Incidentally, according to Vasubandhu, if one does not observe the vow against intoxicating drinks, one also does not observe the vow against sexual misconduct, the latter being dependent on the former.
He also elaborated elsewhere: "The orifice thing has very much to do with notions of clean and unclean, and in a society where cholera and other fecally transmitted diseases were common, such prohibitions about mouth/genital sexual stimulation, and so on, make hygenic sense."
I'm not exactly sure of the reason for 'no daytime'. -
Masturbation is not a sin but create tension among ur frens and relatives
becos a person after masturbation will have an aura of desire that seek to attract the evil spirit to disturb one from the daily work
take heed. this advice is from the curb sexual misconduct book written by incidents which happen in Qing dynasty and republican china
-
I too do not understand why 'daytime' is inappropriate for sexual activity and why it applies to married couples as well.
-
In the medical context, masturbation is considered normal, but I don't think so. As said by AEN, it practically involves lustful thoughts most of the time.
If I know a fellow buddhist has started on masturbation, and he/she's a beginner, what should I do? Should I just tell myself it's normal and just let him/her be?
How about for married friends who are buddhists? If I do know they engage in sexual activity in wrong orifices, do I ignore for simply this is a private matter or if not, what can I do as a friend and fellow buddhist? -
Stay rational, mindful and logical... these are the hallmarks of awareness and "right" views, thoughts and so on.. look at each case and situation on its own merits and do not try to establish principles... because those are dualistic thoughts....
-
tell your fren that masturbation is a output of semen and tires himself in the daytime .According to Buddha's teaching our seven kinds of impurities flowed out contain much of our energyOriginally posted by Spnw07:In the medical context, masturbation is considered normal, but I don't think so. As said by AEN, it practically involves lustful thoughts most of the time.
If I know a fellow buddhist has started on masturbation, and he/she's a beginner, what should I do? Should I just tell myself it's normal and just let him/her be?
How about for married friends who are buddhists? If I do know they engage in sexual activity in wrong orifices, do I ignore for simply this is a private matter or if not, what can I do as a friend and fellow buddhist?
Masturbation generates energy associated with the 3 evil realms ,those spirit will always give trouble to one in the work life ,love life and friendship
so tell him its best to stop masturbation
also one could reflect one's body is rotten , and worms flying ard , this slowly extinguishes lust on woman or man becos eventually all will die and rot away in death
the reflection approach
swollen
oozing of blood
greenish
burst of skin
maggots crawling ard body
bone revealed
heaps of bone -
I think you can try to advise but know the limits. If you pursuade him too much he may feel personally offended as these things are quite personal.Originally posted by Spnw07:In the medical context, masturbation is considered normal, but I don't think so. As said by AEN, it practically involves lustful thoughts most of the time.
If I know a fellow buddhist has started on masturbation, and he/she's a beginner, what should I do? Should I just tell myself it's normal and just let him/her be?
How about for married friends who are buddhists? If I do know they engage in sexual activity in wrong orifices, do I ignore for simply this is a private matter or if not, what can I do as a friend and fellow buddhist? -
Buddhism and Sex... This is an age in which sexual matters are discussed with great openness. There are many who are puzzled to know what the Buddhist attitude towards sex is, and it is therefore to be hoped that the following guidelines may be found helpful towards an understanding. It is, of course, true to say that Buddhism, in keeping with the principle of the Middle Way, would advocate neither extreme puritanism nor extreme permissiveness, but this, as a guiding principle without further specification, may not seem sufficiently helpful for most people.
In the first place, we must distinguish between the rules undertaken by Buddhist monks for their own conduct, and any guiding principles for lay people.
The Bhikkhu... A bhikkhu, or fully-ordained monk in the Theravada tradition, has taken upon himself a set of 227 rules of conduct. The aim of all of these is to enable him to conduct himself in such a way as is most conducive to the attaining of Enlightenment. The rules are voluntarily undertaken, and if a monk feels unable to live up to them, he is free to leave the Order, which is considered much more honorable than hypocritically remaining in the robe while knowingly infringing the rule. There are four basic rules, infringement of which is termed Parajika or "Defeat," and involves irrevocable expulsion from the Order. The only one we are concerned with here is the first, which deals with sexual intercourse.
Complete sexual continence is considered an essential feature of the monastic life. Intercourse of a heterosexual or homosexual character is automatically a Parajika offense. A monk who performs such an act is considered to have expelled himself from the Order, and is no longer in communion with the other monks. Any acts of a sexually unbecoming nature falling short of intercourse result in suspension and require expiation. Samaneras, or novice monks, who break their training in this respect are disrobed.
The same principle applies to the Mahayana schools and of course, to nuns in those schools where they exist. There is no such thing as a "married monk," though in certain schools, especially in Japan, a form of "quasi-monasticism" with married teachers who retain a form of ordination is permitted under certain conditions. But all this has no relevance to the Theravada Sangha.
Ancient India... Before turning to our main theme, it is as well to have some idea of the sexual mores of ancient India in the Buddha's time. Gotama himself, as a prince, was brought up surrounded by concubines and dancing-girls as a matter of course. Polygamy was common. Ambapali, the courtesan from whom the Buddha accepted gifts, was a person of some consequence. It was not expected that young men would lead a life of much restraint, and the Buddha with his profound understanding of human nature knew well what demands to make of people in this respect. Thus we find the following formulation of what a man should avoid:
He avoids unlawful sexual intercourse, abstains from it. He has no intercourse with girls who are still under the protection of father or mother, brother, sister, or relative; nor with married women, nor female convicts; nor lastly with betrothed girls.
If a man could observe greater restraint than this, so much the better. The Buddha's outlook on this question was, then, realistic for his age, and we should endeavor to view the subject as realistically as possible in the light of modern conditions.
The Lay Buddhist... The third of the Five Precepts undertaken by lay Buddhists runs: Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami, "I undertake the course of training in refraining from wrong-doing in respect of sensuality." Some lay people who, usually for a specified period, undertake more than the usual five precepts, take this one in the stricter form: Abrahmacariya veramani..., which commits them, for the duration of the undertaking, to observe the same restraint as the monks. With these, too, we are not further concerned, as their position is now obvious.
For the average lay person, the Third Precept is on exactly the same footing as the other four. There is, in the Buddhist view, nothing uniquely wicked about sexual offenses or failings. Those inclined to develop a guilt-complex about their sex-life should realize that failure in this respect is neither more, nor, on the other hand, less serious than failure to live up to any other precept. In point of fact, the most difficult precept of all for nearly everybody to live up to is the fourth — to refrain from all forms of wrong speech (which often includes uncharitable comments on other people's real or alleged sexual failings!).
What precisely, then, does the Third Precept imply for the ordinary lay Buddhist? Firstly, in common with all the other precepts, it is a rule of training. It is not a "commandment" from God, the Buddha, or anyone else saying: "Thou shalt not..." There are no such commandments in Buddhism. It is an undertaking by you to yourself, to do your best to observe a certain type of restraint, because you understand that it is a good thing to do. This must be clearly understood. If you don't think it is a good thing to do, you should not undertake it. If you do think it is a good thing to do, but doubt your ability to keep it, you should do your best, and probably, you can get some help and instruction to make it easier. If you feel it is a good thing to attempt to tread the Buddhist path, you may undertake this and the other precepts, with sincerity, in this spirit.
Secondly, what is the scope and purpose of this precept? The word kama means in Pali "sensual desire," which is not exclusively sexual. It is here used in a plural form which comes close to what is meant by the Biblical expression "the lusts of the flesh." Greed for food and other sensual pleasure is also included. Most people who are strongly addicted to sexual indulgence are also much drawn to other sense-pleasures. Though we are here only concerned with the sexual aspect, this point should be noted. For those with any grasp at all of Buddhist principles, the basic reason for such an injunction should be immediately obvious. Our dukkha — our feeling, of frustration and dissatisfaction with life — is rooted in our desires and cravings. The more these can be brought under control, the less dukkha we shall experience. It is as simple as that. But of course, that which is simple is not necessarily easy.
Thus while there is, so to speak, a considerable overlap in the content of the Third Precept with the Jewish and Christian commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," there is a big difference in the spirit and approach. Since most people in the West have some Christian conditioning — even if only indirectly — it is as well to be clear about this. The traditional Christian view is that sexual intercourse is permissible solely within the marriage-bond. Even then the implication is that, except as a necessary means for the procreation of children, it is really rather a bad thing, and should be restricted as far as possible — hence the debate about "the pill" and the like. Certain things such as contraception, homosexual activity, and so on are often looked on with horror and declared "unnatural" (which cannot be entirely correct since, after all, they happen!). Some of these prohibitions may today be more honored in the breach than the observance, but there is no doubt that rigid views of this sort are still widely held and officially propagated. The inevitable reaction, encouraged by some real or alleged psychological experts, is towards an attitude of total permissiveness, in which "anything goes." As was said earlier, rigid puritanism and total permissiveness are extreme views, to neither of which the Buddhist teaching subscribes. The one is merely an inadequate reaction against the other. What we have to do — what Buddhism in fact teaches us to do — is to map out a sane course between the two. -
Sexual Pleasure and the Concept of "Sin" ... Reduced to essentials, the great debate about sex revolves, for many people, around the concept of sin. To the puritan, indulgence in sexual activity for the sake of pleasure is evil, wicked, or, as he tends to say, "sinful" (i.e., displeasing to God). To the permissivist (to coin an awkward but convenient term), this is nonsense. He probably rejects the term "sin" as meaningless, and not only sees nothing evil in sexual pleasure but regards it as, highly legitimate, perhaps as the highest pleasure there is and certainly as something to which, in principle at least, everybody has a right. Many people, coming from a more or less Christian background with at least some puritanical overtones, find the true Buddhist attitude to this problem rather difficult to see. Perhaps they have never even been given a clear explanation of it or, if they have, it may have seemed too technical for them, and they have not grasped the point. The point, in fact, is of considerable importance, so it is worthwhile attempting to make it clear. It involves a proper elementary grasp of what is meant by kamma — something which many people, who may have been "Buddhists" for years, have never had.
We may, however, perhaps begin more profitably by considering the word "sin." "Sin" to a Christian is primarily thought of as a breach of God's commandments. This explanation is of course not wrong in terms of Christian theology, but is not applicable in Buddhism, where there are no such commandments that one can infringe. As already indicated, the so-called precepts are in fact undertakings to oneself, which is something different. They are more on a par with the instruction "Look both ways before you cross the road." Still there is much agreement between the content of the Five Precepts and some of the Ten Commandments, so it may be wise in many cases to behave accordingly, whichever formulation one follows. However, there is another rendering of the word sin itself which in fact (though less well-known) comes much closer to the Buddhist view of things. In the Bible, "sin" actually renders Hebrew and Greek words which literally mean "missing the mark," i.e., behaving inadequately or unskillfully. The sinner, then, is like an unskillful archer who misses his aim (could this be the real meaning of Zen and the Art of Archery?). But this comes, surely, very close to the idea of akusala kamma or "unskilled action" in Buddhism.
The Pali word kamma (Sanskrit karma) literally means "action" (i.e., volition: cetana), which can be either skilled (kusala) or unskilled (akusala). The results of action (kamma) accrue to the doer as vipaka, which is pleasant when the action was skilled, unpleasant when it was unskilled (if I look before I cross the road, I shall get across safely, which is pleasant; if I don't look I may get run down, which is unpleasant). The feelings we experience are in fact of the nature of vipaka — they are dependent on past kamma. And of course we are continually creating fresh kamma for a good part of our time. It should therefore be noted that the feeling of pleasure (sexual or otherwise) is not an action, but a result. There is, therefore, nothing either "skillful" or "unskillful" about experiencing such a feeling. We should therefore not regard it as either "virtuous" or "sinful." So far, so good. Such pleasant feelings can be enjoyed with a clear conscience and no guilt feeling. If this were all, there would be no problem. The puritans would be routed and the permissivists justified. Unfortunately, there is another side to the matter. We may recall that a few years ago there was a song "Money is the Root of all Evil" Some people pointed out that not money, but the love for money is the root of all evil (well, of a lot of evil, anyway). And here is the snag. Sexual pleasure (like money) is not "evil" (or unskilled), but attachment to sexual pleasure (like the love of money) is. If we can experience the pleasure without attachment we are all right; if we become attached to it, we are not "hitting the mark." Now of course it is rather difficult (to put it mildly) to experience pleasure of any sort without feeling attached to it. But attachment is kamma, and unskilled kamma at that. And the results of that will inevitably, according to Buddhism, be something unpleasant in the future.
Many people will find this explanation novel. Some will find it puzzling. Some will undoubtedly reject it — with or without investigation — with the excuse that it is overly subtle, or arbitrary, or something of the sort. What they mean is, of course, that they find it inconvenient. But it will repay a lot of consideration and mindful investigation. Careful study, in fact, should show that it is the key to the whole problem. The matter can also be considered in terms of the law of Dependent Origination: "Contact is the basis for the arising of feeling; feeling... of craving; craving... of clinging;" etc., the ultimate outcome being of course the continued process of becoming, with all the sufferings entailed.
Thus, if we wish to adjudicate between the puritans and the permissivists, we cannot say that either side is entirely right. We might, however, suggest that the puritans are partly right for the wrong reasons. Sexual indulgence is not wicked, but it may be in some degree inadvisable. Most people will not feel able to refrain altogether (nor are they being urged to), but there is merit in moderation.
http://www.gotaro5.homestead.com/Page32.html -
I think Lord Buddha has considered that not letting sex to be the dominant activity in married life. Daytime should be the time to do house chore or go to work.Originally posted by Spnw07:I too do not understand why 'daytime' is inappropriate for sexual activity and why it applies to married couples as well.
Unlike nowadays where there are lightings and air-conditionings, etc, where we could do our work at night.
So probably Lord Buddha hoped people to do the right thing at the right time. -
Agreed.Originally posted by yamizi:I think Lord Buddha has considered that not letting sex to be the dominant activity in married life. Daytime should be the time to do house chore or go to work.
Unlike nowadays where there are lightings and air-conditionings, etc, where we could do our work at night.
So probably Lord Buddha hoped people to do the right thing at the right time.
And as IsIs has posted, sexual misconduct can also includes over- indulgence in seeking one's pleasures of the senses. So there is a limit. If the whole time, day or nite, think of pleasures of the senses, then bad effects will manifest itself soon. -
This thread is an eye-opener... there are still many "believers" in Buddhism rather than thinkers... hmmmmmm.......
I would think that Buddhism at the apex is a system to teach people how to think, how to see reality for what it is rather than a belief system...
Beliefs are for beginners.... -
I think the best soln is to spread the Buddhadharma as much as possible through supporting, sponsoring, volunteering etc, the eduction n projects of Buddhism. With more n more ppl being exposed to the Dharma, the roots of the problem will then be removed. What we see now is already the effects of past ills imposed n cultivated unconsiously by the indivduals or even the society at large. But all is not lost yet, as Buddhists we can start fr ourselves first.Originally posted by Spnw07:I'm very concerned for both myself and others, on the incessant and unrestrained exposure to the endless range of visual and/or audio content around us, that directly or indirectly spur the growth of lustful feelings and thoughts and have them spread their roots deeply into our minds and sub-consciousness.
The first aspect of Eightfold path : Right View.
Don't expect to leave home (of samsara) without it.
-
Originally posted by Isis:
True, I feel and think the same way about the Five precepts and the Ten commandments. Unfortunately, members from other religions are not able to acknowledge and appreciate the common good preached in all religions.
Sexual Pleasure and the Concept of "Sin" ...
[quote]We may, however, perhaps begin more profitably by considering the word "sin." "Sin" to a Christian is primarily thought of as a breach of God's commandments. This explanation is of course not wrong in terms of Christian theology, but is not applicable in Buddhism, where there are no such commandments that one can infringe. As already indicated, the so-called precepts are in fact undertakings to oneself, which is something different. They are more on a par with the instruction "Look both ways before you cross the road."
Still there is much agreement between the content of the Five Precepts and some of the Ten Commandments, so it may be wise in many cases to behave accordingly, whichever formulation one follows. However, there is another rendering of the word sin itself which in fact (though less well-known) comes much closer to the Buddhist view of things. In the Bible, "sin" actually renders Hebrew and Greek words which literally mean "missing the mark," i.e., behaving inadequately or unskillfully. The sinner, then, is like an unskillful archer who misses his aim (could this be the real meaning of Zen and the Art of Archery?). But this comes, surely, very close to the idea of akusala kamma or "unskilled action" in Buddhism.
But there's still a lot of things I don't understand about Buddhist precepts. Will start a thread on that area of doubt some day...It should therefore be noted that the feeling of pleasure (sexual or otherwise) is not an action, but a result. There is, therefore, nothing either "skillful" or "unskillful" about experiencing such a feeling. We should therefore not regard it as either "virtuous" or "sinful." So far, so good. Such pleasant feelings can be enjoyed with a clear conscience and no guilt feeling. If this were all, there would be no problem. The puritans would be routed and the permissivists justified.
Personally, I not only find it difficult to experience pleasure without attachment, it is equally difficult to experience humiliation and suffering without attachment as well.
Unfortunately, there is another side to the matter. We may recall that a few years ago there was a song "Money is the Root of all Evil" Some people pointed out that not money, but the love for money is the root of all evil (well, of a lot of evil, anyway). And here is the snag.
Sexual pleasure (like money) is not "evil" (or unskilled), but attachment to sexual pleasure (like the love of money) is. If we can experience the pleasure without attachment we are all right; if we become attached to it, we are not "hitting the mark." Now of course it is rather difficult (to put it mildly) to experience pleasure of any sort without feeling attached to it. But attachment is kamma, and unskilled kamma at that. And the results of that will inevitably, according to Buddhism, be something unpleasant in the future.
Many people will find this explanation novel. Some will find it puzzling. Some will undoubtedly reject it — with or without investigation — with the excuse that it is overly subtle, or arbitrary, or something of the sort. What they mean is, of course, that they find it inconvenient. But it will repay a lot of consideration and mindful investigation. Careful study, in fact, should show that it is the key to the whole problem. The matter can also be considered in terms of the law of Dependent Origination: "Contact is the basis for the arising of feeling; feeling... of craving; craving... of clinging;" etc., the ultimate outcome being of course the continued process of becoming, with all the sufferings entailed.
Thus, if we wish to adjudicate between the puritans and the permissivists, we cannot say that either side is entirely right. We might, however, suggest that the puritans are partly right for the wrong reasons. Sexual indulgence is not wicked, but it may be in some degree inadvisable. Most people will not feel able to refrain altogether (nor are they being urged to), but there is merit in moderation.
http://www.gotaro5.homestead.com/Page32.html
Thanks isis, for taking the trouble to post so much relevant information here. -
I agree. But what if it's your sibling, your close relative or even your parents?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:I think you can try to advise but know the limits. If you pursuade him too much he may feel personally offended as these things are quite personal.
Can you afford to leave it as it is? Telling yourself that 'out of sight, out of mind'? Or adopting a self-righteous attitude that I have advised him/her for more than 3 times, or more than X number of years to seek help for his/her addiction (even if it's just a short period since he/she started), therefore it's ok for me not to bothered with the person anymore.
I don't know how much to care, and when to care as a person, or a buddhist.
Do anyone of you think it is advisable to employ some force to make the person concerned comply? Or some threats of certain restrictions? -
I wholeheartedly agree with you. I do hope all is not lost, but yet we have to recognise the limits of our efforts at the same time in spreading, supporting matters to do with Buddha dharma.Originally posted by cycle:I think the best soln is to spread the Buddhadharma as much as possible through supporting, sponsoring, volunteering etc, the eduction n projects of Buddhism. With more n more ppl being exposed to the Dharma, the roots of the problem will then be removed. What we see now is already the effects of past ills imposed n cultivated unconsiously by the indivduals or even the society at large. But all is not lost yet, as Buddhists we can start fr ourselves first.
If Buddha couldn't save his clan from being massacred, then what more can we as mere unenlightened sentient beings do? Can we surpass the Buddha in wisdom and compassion? These are my doubts, a recognition of the limits of human efforts, no matter how good or persevering they may be.
I need to find more peers, more teachers to spread Buddha dharma actively, than waiting for people (especially the younger generation) to come to visit the Buddha (get in touch with basic Buddhist teachings).
Just my own thoughts to myself: I'm so afraid that by the time I find that I'm 'pure and upright' enough in strictly observing the five precepts and hence earn respect from those I share with, I would find that I have done nothing at all in the meanwhile. -
Precisely. Because the four Noble truths and eightfold paths are guidelines with little further elaboration or specification on life issues relevant to a particular age or time period, it worries/troubles me greatly as a beginner buddhist.Originally posted by Isis:Buddhism and Sex... This is an age in which sexual matters are discussed with great openness. There are many who are puzzled to know what the Buddhist attitude towards sex is, and it is therefore to be hoped that the following guidelines may be found helpful towards an understanding.
It is, of course, true to say that Buddhism, in keeping with the principle of the Middle Way, would advocate neither extreme puritanism nor extreme permissiveness, but this, as a guiding principle without further specification, may not seem sufficiently helpful for most people.
I'm so worried that I may make mistakes without knowing them. So worried that I may know them, but not willing/unable to acknowledge them.
At times like these, I ease my fears by thinking of Christianity's concept of salvation by a Creator God, something that seems much more easier and quicker than inner spiritual effort emphasised or taught in Buddhism.
My fear comes so very often, especially upon reflection that Buddhism believes in past and present and future rebirths. Good in that I have many chances to learn from my mistakes, and maybe build up on my strengths, but that's asssuming I can become a human and get to hear the dharmma, meet a wise and compassionate teacher in every lifetime, till I get full enlightment.
But the truth is, from the previous life stories of Buddha's disciples recorded in scriptures, only one of them managed to cultivate a very strong good cause that enables him to be reborn as a human and get to listen and understand the profound dharmma in almost every lifetime. The rest went through a very long and tedious way to attain sainthood/arahathood/pacceka buddhahood during Sakyamuni Buddha's lifetime. -
One very important thing is to observe the causes and conditions of the person... if there is causes and conditions to change him, then do it. Otherwise don't push too hard because there will not be much results, might even be negative.Originally posted by Spnw07:I agree. But what if it's your sibling, your close relative or even your parents?
Can you afford to leave it as it is? Telling yourself that 'out of sight, out of mind'? Or adopting a self-righteous attitude that I have advised him/her for more than 3 times, or more than X number of years to seek help for his/her addiction (even if it's just a short period since he/she started), therefore it's ok for me not to bothered with the person anymore.
I don't know how much to care, and when to care as a person, or a buddhist.
Do anyone of you think it is advisable to employ some force to make the person concerned comply? Or some threats of certain restrictions?
You may also have to do things gradually, for example instilling them some knowledge and understanding of the Buddhadharma, and slowly transform them through that. That is a way of planting the right conditions for transformation. -
True, I heard of the above advice from Buddhist scholars and Sangha members as well.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:One very important thing is to observe the causes and conditions of the person... if there is causes and conditions to change him, then do it. Otherwise don't push too hard because there will not be much results, might even be negative.
You may also have to do things gradually, for example instilling them some knowledge and understanding of the Buddhadharma, and slowly transform them through that. That is a way of planting the right conditions for transformation.
However, the difficult part is, how can I, as a beginner Buddhist, know exactly, what are right causes and conditions to change the person concerned? I know I have to do it gradually, constantly improving on my conduct and knowledge of the dharma as a Buddhist, but still it sounds like....
Well, no choice but to try harder loh. haha. -
Through observation and experience. I am also not very sure myself and it differs case to case. For example, you use method A but it doesn't seem to work, bcos due to his causes and conditions method A wouldn't work, then you have to find other methods that can help him. If you insist on method A then it might not be much help.Originally posted by Spnw07:True, I heard of the above advice from Buddhist scholars and Sangha members as well.
However, the difficult part is, how can I, as a beginner Buddhist, know exactly, what are right causes and conditions to change the person concerned? I know I have to do it gradually, constantly improving on my conduct and knowledge of the dharma as a Buddhist, but still it sounds like....
Well, no choice but to try harder loh. haha. -
10s for sharing
-
Buddhism is also about traing the mind, in the event of masking, it is also creating a dellusion in the mind. for one who's bend on training the mind, it should be avoided.Originally posted by Spnw07:In the medical context, masturbation is considered normal, but I don't think so. As said by AEN, it practically involves lustful thoughts most of the time.
If I know a fellow buddhist has started on masturbation, and he/she's a beginner, what should I do? Should I just tell myself it's normal and just let him/her be?
How about for married friends who are buddhists? If I do know they engage in sexual activity in wrong orifices, do I ignore for simply this is a private matter or if not, what can I do as a friend and fellow buddhist?
-
How is masturbation different from normal sex? I dun understand why do u say masturbation evokes 3 evil to trouble one's work n relationship while normal sex will not???Originally posted by bohiruci:tell your fren that masturbation is a output of semen and tires himself in the daytime .According to Buddha's teaching our seven kinds of impurities flowed out contain much of our energy
Masturbation generates energy associated with the 3 evil realms ,those spirit will always give trouble to one in the work life ,love life and friendship
so tell him its best to stop masturbation
also one could reflect one's body is rotten , and worms flying ard , this slowly extinguishes lust on woman or man becos eventually all will die and rot away in death
the reflection approach
swollen
oozing of blood
greenish
burst of skin
maggots crawling ard body
bone revealed
heaps of bone -
i have never mentioned in the posting that normal sex will not ...in fact the problem is worst , cause it will lead to more problem, family quarrel , accidents on the road , tension among friends and finally isolationOriginally posted by snowstar:How is masturbation different from normal sex? I dun understand why do u say masturbation evokes 3 evil to trouble one's work n relationship while normal sex will not???
3 evil realm spirit ... read carefully