SuttaCentral
Hey Majjhima,
Thanks for your post - who is your teacher if you don’t mind my asking?
Also, I am pretty sure that most people here meditate in addition to taking an interest in the suttas; although it is a fair point - perhaps we are not meditating as much as we should be!
This thread is pretty funny, and interesting.
PS: MN22 is pretty clear that sexual activity is always the result of sensual desire or lust, there’s no other way. You of course can be compassionate during sex, but that is merely alongside the sensual desire and lust that caused it. There’s no such thing as compassionate sex without sensual desire and lust, it’s just impossible. And even if the buddha didn’t say that (he did), it still just makes logical sense. Without desire you would never want to have sex, not even out of compassion, because a truly 100% compassionate arahant wouldn’t lead someone down the path of just more desire and suffering by having sex with them. Just thought I’d throw that out there.
Which exactly words make you think so?
Did Buddha ever say so?
I think it’s a misconception based on illusory duality of “lay - monastic” - which actually has no substance.
Also it’s not logical, because no desire for X doesn’t mean no X.
If there is no craving for existence doesn’t mean there should be non-existence.
Someone who knows the Suttas well may be able to answer your question: did the Buddha say this? I think there are accounts somewhere of lay ‘Arahants’ in the teachings. From what I remember, they past away shortly after their attainment. As to where these stories of lay Arahants are located is an important question. Did the Buddha teach this in the Suttas? Can someone provide source material? I guess the only way we could confirm or refute the theory would be to realise complete freedom as lay practitioners and see how long we live - without joining the monastic Sangha! I had an amusing exchange with ‘Ajahn Brahm’ years ago when I said I was going to wake up completely just to disprove this stupid theory - it was good for a laugh!
You don’t even have to be a noble one to come to this. Sex is a reasonably coarse thing when you consider it! Sweat and anticipation for a sticky momentary pleasure 
and then there’s the relationship part! I think a good portion of meditators are happier in samadhi.
“Bhikkhus, that one can engage in sensual pleasures without sensual desires, without perceptions of sensual desire, without thoughts of sensual desire—that is impossible.“
That’s pretty straightforward I think.
Not at all. It doesn’t say “sexual activity is always the result of sensual desire or lust, there’s no other way.”
It says that engaging in sensual pleasures is accompanied by sensual desires.
“Accompanied” is not necessarily “caused by”.
And “sexual activity” is not necessarily “engaging in sensual pleasures”.
Otherwise you should consider such body activities as eating food, drinking water, having bath etc. as “engaging in sensual pleasures”, too.
Then you should conclude that whenever Buddha was eating food, drinking water, having bath etc., he did that because of sensual desire or lust.
Well accompanied or caused, you can’t have one without the other. And you’re really gonna say sexual activity is not engaging in sensual pleasure? Please explain. Also eating and drinking is not the same at all, those are required to survive so that you can continue helping people. Sexual activity is not necessary to survival. The argument that sexual activity is not engaging in sensual pleasure is pretty ridiculous, and to compare sexual activity to eating or drinking is just as ridiculous. You can keep yourself alive out of compassion and without sensual desire, you can’t have sex out of compassion and without sensual desire. There’s really no argument against that.
To change an outcome, correct understanding of causal relations is important.
In my understanding, desire in this context (e.g. sensual desire) means basically thirst for stimuli.
(See how does it work according to Twelve nidanas).
So the Buddha taught how to perform activities without attachment – without being immersed in desire.
Practising that, people realize the difference between activity and attachment to that activity.
So it becomes clear that it’s quite possible to do pleasant things (such as eating pleasant food, which the Buddha did) without having thirst for stimulation.
So I think that engaging in sensual pleasure means there acting under the influence of desire (i.e. acting with developed or developing thirst).
Without that thirst, doing a pleasant thing is not engaging in sensual pleasure.
Then what is the reason to think that sexual activity is necessarily engaging in sensual pleasure?
Some people might think it is so, because they always do sexual activity for sensual pleasure. But their views should not be taken as true without examination. Dharma views can differ from ordinary views created with attachments. Compare them with views of people who always eat for sensual pleasure. They might think that any eating activity is always engaging in sensual pleasure, but then you would need to admit: Buddha did that.
According to what you initially said, any eating must be “the result of sensual desire or lust”. So, Buddha acted out of sensual desire or lust.
Or, as you say now, “you can’t have one without the other”. So, Buddha had sensual desire or lust when he ate.
Do you think so?
Do you mean that Buddha allowed himself to experience “sensual desire or lust” for the sake of survival?
No, the buddha had compassion when he ate because it kept him alive to teach. Having sex is not the same thing. Why would you ever have sex if you didn’t have sensual desire? There would be no reason to do it. The only reason you ever have sex is sensual desire, maybe not even for the sex itself, but because of some desire. And don’t say compassion because you don’t have sex out of compassion that’s ridiculous. If you just had pure compassion for someone and no desire then you’d teach them the Dhamma, you wouldn’t sleep with them. That’s the same nonsense that people like sogyal rinpoche spewed to get his female followers to bang him in the back of his temple. Without desire, there is no sex, unless you’re being raped or something. Honestly the fact that you can’t understand that is making me seriously doubt your claim, and I can’t imagine I’m the only one. And don’t take it personally, it’s only out of compassion for the people that might reach out to you for advice because they actually think you’re an arahant that I’m grilling you so deeply about this.
Hi Zhao,
Eating, for most people (myself included), is probably usually associated with sensual desire. However, it need not be - for instance, there are some extremely disgusting things you could eat out there. The Bodhisatta and other ascetics apparently feasted on cow feces, and then on their own urine and feces for as long as they could. Do you think there is sensual desire and/or pleasure there? God I would hope not!
Oh and Have you ever read the Puttamamsa Sutta ( SN 12.63 ) :
"“And how, bhikkhus, should the nutriment edible food be seen? Suppose a couple, husband and wife, had taken limited provisions and were travelling through a desert. They have with them their only son, dear and beloved. Then, in the middle of the desert, their limited provisions would be used up and exhausted, while the rest of the desert remains to be crossed. The husband and wife would think: ‘Our limited provisions have been used up and exhausted, while the rest of this desert remains to be crossed. Let us kill our only son, dear and beloved, and prepare dried and spiced meat. By eating our son’s flesh we can cross the rest of this desert. Let not all three of us perish!’
“Then, bhikkhus, the husband and wife would kill their only son, dear and beloved, prepare dried and spiced meat, and by eating their son’s flesh they would cross the rest of the desert. While they are eating their son’s flesh, they would beat their breasts and cry: ‘Where are you, our only son? Where are you, our only son?’
“What do you think, bhikkhus? Would they eat that food for amusement or for enjoyment or for the sake of physical beauty and attractiveness?”
“No, venerable sir.”
“Wouldn’t they eat that food only for the sake of crossing the desert?”
“Yes, venerable sir.”
Extremely gruesome simile. The Buddha seemed to recognize the need to consume food, as well as the inherent danger. Mind you, I don’t think I have ever eaten a single meal in my whole life with the kind of attitude advocated for above!
Regarding sexuality - in the Bhikkhuni sutta ( (AN 4.159 ) we find Ananda speaking to a sick Bhikkhuni:
"This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.
"This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.
"This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.
"This body comes into being through sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse is to be abandoned. With regard to sexual intercourse, the Buddha declares the cutting off of the bridge.
This seems to directly address some of the points you were raising.
Respectfully,
Brad
I expected you to review my statements, trying to understand and to answer them. If you just repeat your ideas, you’ll learn nothing.
they don’t conduct arguments in a fair and aboveboard manner: misrepresenting their opponents, pouncing on the other side’s minor lapses, not acknowledging the valid points the other side has made. People of this sort, the Buddha said, aren’t even worth talking to
Hi Brad,
what I’m saying is that: people mistake body functions and “engaging in sensual pleasures”. According to scriptures, Buddha and monks ate pleasant food. Was that “engaging in sensual pleasures”?
I don’t think it means Buddha wanted people to die from starvation.
PS. I get the impression that you and @jimisommer don’t make any efforts to understand what I’m saying. So it’s quite pointless to say anything more.
Hey Zhao,
I concede your point, the Buddha didn’t want people to die from starvation. And yes, I’m sure that people sometimes conflate indulgence in sensual pleasure with taking care of basic needs (eating). The Buddha did eat pleasant food, but without being attached to it.
The Sutta I referenced does not mean you should give up eating - I believe the word translated as “food” in that passage has a broader meaning than just edibles, although that is included. My understanding is that to “abandon” food here implies something like stopping the cycle of rebirths. No body = no food. But the point is that you need to eat and stay alive in order to support your practice and realize enlightenment. That is why one ‘relies’ on food in order to abandon it.
But notice, The Buddha did not engage in sexual intercourse (after enlightenment, and neither 6+ years before that) and his monastic disciples were/are celibate. Notice again how the sutta passage I quoted has an unchanging pattern for the first three stanzas. When it comes to sex - the Buddha says it is to be abandoned (straight away) - “The Buddha declares the cutting off of the bridge.”
This was the whole point - sex is treated differently than other “bodily functions” and so called “basic needs.” Why is that?
MettaKaruna,
Brad
I did review what you said, it’s wrong. I’m legitimately asking if you can explain how sex is not the result of sensual desire. As I said, compassion doesn’t make sense, so what is it You can eat and drink and keep yourself alive out of compassion to teach others, so sensual desire isn’t necessary for those things. But sex isn’t necessary to stay alive, so compassion for others doesn’t work. Why would you ever have sex if you have no sensual desire?
Oh dear we’ve got another arahant here to dispense the dhamma to us…
One could eat the most nasty food, drink the the dirtiest water, have the coldest bath with absolute zero sensual pleasures. But when it comes to sex, sorry for being blunt, but with absolute zero sensual desire, how the h… can you get your “ICBM” ready for launch??
This from DN29
And any monk who is an Arahant, whose corruptions are destroyed, who has lived the life, done what was to be done, laid down the burden, gained the true goal, who has completely destroyed the fetter of becoming, and is liberated by supreme insight, is incapable of doing nine things:
- He is incapable of deliberately taking the life of a living being;
- he is incapable of taking what is not given so as to constitute theft;
- he is incapable of sexual intercourse;
- he is incapable of telling a deliberate lie;
- he is incapable of storing up goods for sensual indulgence as he did formerly in the household life;
- he is incapable of acting wrongly through attachment;
- he is incapable of acting wrongly through hatred;
- he is incapable of acting wrongly through folly;
- he is incapable of acting wrongly through fear.
These are the nine things which an Arahant, whose corruptions are destroyed, cannot do…ʺ[134]