SuttaCentral
This is not surprising 
As Nibidda towards bodies, and entanglements grows, one will not view sex as a pleasurable activity⌠rather it becomes distasteful. No desire, no craving, A long way down the path.
In order to get to this state, one follows the N8fp, and renounces those things which stimulate attachment and craving. As Karl says below, the attitude becomes one of
Yes, I agree. But I donât think thatâs the whole source of the negative tradition. Because even if one views sex as distasteful, one could still regard it as a necessity.
For example, urination and defecation are distasteful, but they cannot be given up, and any rational social order has to have some practices and systems in place governing where are the appropriate places to carry out these necessities, and what do to with the results. Even the very ancient Harappan culture seems to have had public sewer systems.
Similarly, one could have the idea that sexual reproduction is necessary for any society to sustain itself over time, and that sexual activity must therefore be encouraged to some degree, but regulated and structured by institutions for courtship, marriage, family life, etc. Thatâs the more or less universal approach in all societies. And pretty much every society that views its own existence as a good thing finds marriage and childbirth to be occasions for the greatest celebrations of the renewal of life.
But the Buddha doesnât seem to have had any interest in promulgating such norms. Instead, he seems to have had a negative attitude toward the very existence of human society, and saw all that repetitive birth, reproduction, accumulating, aging and death as a futile and pointless samsaric cycle - as Maraâs realm. His focus seems to have been entirely on the path to liberation from the cycle.
On the other hand, perhaps the Buddhaâs attitudes werenât as negative as the texts seem to portray. It could be that the monastic order that carried those teachings forward and set them down for us had a particularly harsh and negative attitude.
the whole point of the EBT seems to be a kind of eutanasia then, except that this is not achieved by suicide but by ending rebirth (assuming thereâs such a thing and, if so, that it can be ended).
Then the question arises whether there isnât a higher purpose in life than to view it as something repulsive which ought to be ended for good (since I gather this is the supreme purpose in EBT).
The teachings of the Lotus Sutra, as interpreted by Daisaku Ikeda, are diametrically opposite, as they view life as something sacred and humanâs worth and dignity as the highest value.
One thing that is surprising in EBT teachings though, is that if life is such a valueless and repulsive thing, why is there so much emphasis on respect? (I get the impression that itâs very important to show respect to the Buddha - some people were arrested in Burma because of bar sign depicting the Buddha without showing him respect - and I get the impression the monks quite enjoy being respected).
If life itself is to be view as something of no worth so that that the only sensible thing is to end it, then the Buddha and the Sangha, since they are part of life, also belong to this category of worthless existence. Why should they be worthy of respect, when they are part of this repulsive thing called life, which we should practice to end?
Only nothingness seems to be something of value in the EBT system, if I understand it correctly.
Well, i think one orthodox view would say that they are worthy of respect because only they know the path out of the repulsiveness.
But, increasingly, I canât avoid what seem to me all kinds of internal tensions in the suttas. Nothing in the suttas was composed by the Buddha. They are all based in part on what people remembered the Buddha to have said, but the people doing the remembering came from many diverse traditions, and carried the presuppositions from those traditions into their encounters with him. And then the original oral texts were amended with quasi-commentaries and long scholarly lists, as well as background stories from imperfectly remembered community folklore.
Also, the popular Buddhism that took hold when Buddhism really exploded in Indian life and became the dominant religion was to a large extent based on art and story-telling from the Jatakas, which seem to have on the whole a somewhat more cheerful and life-affirming moral vision, where people and their animal friends move up and down in the great drama of life, according to their actions, and where nibbana is just some vaguely heaven-like, but unimaginable, blissful paradise that comes at the end of an unimaginably long picaresque pilgrimage through the aeons.
Not to get too technical here, but purely as a thought experiment, if the whole world were to follow monastic precepts and abstain from sexual relations, as the last monks enter old age, who is going to be around to provide them with alms, assuming everyone has taken to heart the Buddhaâs teachings to end the cycle of (literal) rebirth?
As I see it, the supreme purpose in the EBT is to overcome suffering. This is ultimately done by dispelling the illusion of an unchanging, personal subject, or âmeâ, behind our experiences through developing insight â particularly insight into dependent origination. With this kind of insight, one understands that the idea of annihilating the self (what I think you meant by euthanasia) doesnât apply. When this distorted view is cleared up, there is no more basis for craving, and with no more craving, there is no more basis for suffering.
So I donât think the Buddha ever says that life is repulsive, but he does imply that becoming (bhava) is. And by this, I believe he refers to the becoming of a âmeâ, a separate and personal subject of experience.
A human life is valuable to the extent that one uses it to practice the path to eliminate suffering and to help others to eliminate suffering too.
I think the emphasis on respect is because when one shows respect, one reminds oneself of the value of that which one is respecting. Practitioners show respect to the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha because they deeply value them. This (hopefully) leads one to preserve them and put the teachings into practice, which will be of great benefit to onesefl.
Although some modern countries force these displays of respect even on non-Buddhists, I donât see the Buddha doing the same in the suttas. In fact, itâs very common to find suttas in which a crowd comes to hear him talk, and some show respect and others donât. He doesnât seem to care either way. I can remember another sutta in which he teaches his monks not to get angry if others disparage him, but only to calmly correct any points of his teaching that they may be misrepresenting. (He also teaches them not be elated when people praise him.)
Not to repeat myself, but again, this seems to be a view that was common in the EBTs called âannihilationismâ â the view that there is a self or soul that the Buddha and his followers want to destroy. The Buddha took great pains to say âLook â thereâs nothing solid or substantial in oneâs experience â no âmeâ to be found. Each âthingâ only arises because of conditions and disappears when those conditions cease. So weâre not destroying anything â there was nothing there to destroy in the first place.â
And yet, we canât say that thereâs nothing there (the ânothingnessâ you mentioned), because these ever-changing conditions are there. So thereâs not just ânothingâ, and yet neither is there a solid âsomethingâ â just a stream of experience of constantly arising and passing phenomena.
Exactly. This will never happen as we will never have 100% of humans at the same stage of cultivation of the path and ready to take on the right livelihood of contemplative lifestyle.
Once lust has been seen and understood as a fever of the mind, then its cessation will be seen as blissful and liberating. All arguments that try to justify indulging in it (including reproduction), will then be understood as compromises. This is why the Dhamma is described as patisotagami - against the way of the world, which is mired in delusion, ache, stress and insatiable thirst.
Jain ascetics will voluntarily starve to death with deep equanimity even when they have ready access to alms food so that they may attain liberation. So how much easier should it be for an arahant to starve due to there being no ready access to alms? From a Sutta perspective, starving to death for the sake of nibbana is totally worth it, no problem at all really.
âBhikkhus, suppose there were a man with a life span of a hundred years, who could live a hundred years. Someone would say to him: âCome, good man, in the morning they will strike you with a hundred spears; at noon they will strike you with a hundred spears; in the evening they will strike you with a hundred spears. And you, good man, being struck day after day by three hundred spears will have a life span of a hundred years, will live a hundred years; and then, after a hundred years have passed, you will make the breakthrough to the Four Noble Truths, to which you had not broken through earlier.â
âIt is fitting, bhikkhus, for a clansman intent on his good to accept the offer. - SuttaCentral
I have found in practice that most people donât need a whole lot of encouragement to have sex. 
Actually. I donât understand your comparison to a sewage system either. A sewage system doesnât encourage people to deficate more does it?
No but it does rationally organize that whole necessary social process.
I used to delight in sugar. Now I see its danger and just let it alone as I can. I know now how it really screws with my metabolism and makes me suffer. Iâm not repulsed by it nor attracted. Itâs just sugar. What has changed is a perspective that encompasses the unavoidable suffering of eating sugar. It is the realization that becoming diabetic is not worth it. Sugar is just sugar. Sugar is a part of life.
Sex is a wee bit different. Sex creates life. And itâs fun and addictive. Itâs addictive because raising a kid is hard work. So we get paid in advance.
A householderâs role is to participate in life. A monkâs role is to end suffering. For a monk to have sex is exactly like dating your boss or your best friendâs spouse. Itâs not role appropriate. If you take up a role, commit to it. If creating life is a priority, donât be a monk. If you want to end suffering, look to the Vinaya. You can also change your mind. Monks do disrobe. And re-ordinate.
The perceived strictness of the Vinaya is really a direct result of past delusion. Past monks have split hairs and been found out. They just didnât get it. Honey isnât sugar is it? So I will switch to honey. That is delusion. Oh Iâll just eat lots of fruit. That is delusion. Sugar is sugar in all its forms. And the same holds true for sex. Especially for sex not used to create life, in which case sex is just a fancy form of sugar. Now we are playing with sex dolls, which are just a sugar substitute.
When we put sex aside, we treat people as people. Not as sex objects. We talk with them. We hear what they have to say. We learn about how wonderful people are deep inside. We see their inner light.
Of the two ideas propsed, neither seems unskillful; if the second got us contemporary knowledge of the Triple Gem, that is imo a great goodness. And if the first about deep meditation is true, hooray for excellent teaching.
But i think celibacy can support insight and sila too. I understand those two plus tranquility to be requisites for achieving nibanna. And i think one point of a monastic life in the EBTs is doing what needs to be done to become Enlightened, Perfected onesâŚ
I have not been able to read the while thread as yet, so this might be already said better by others!
Hi! Thanks for asking the question(s). Thereâs been a lot said here, and I only want to add whatâs not been mentioned. Iâll address 3 things:
why the Sangha is held to a higher standard of celibacy;
2.whether celibacy is required for jhanas;
why Ajahn Brahm goes through commercial publishers
The Sangha is held to a higher standard, as the whole point of them to ordain is to renounce. So they are held to a higher standard of renunciation than lay persons. If they lapse, provided they havenât already committed a parajika, thereâs actually no issue if they disrobe first then do whatever sexual act they want.
While there are lay persons who are in the first few stages of enlightenment (streamwinner to non-returner), the reality is that general lay life is completely not conducive for practice, as there is no seclusion, physical nor mental (from the five senses).
The Vinaya rules also increases the visibility of just how many defilements you actually have left. A bhikkhuni I know was living a lay life, and told me that she had also wondered if ordaining will make a difference to her practice. After ordaining, she found that it did indeed make a difference, because she realised from her reactions to the 300+ Vinaya rules that she had a lot more defilements to deal with than she had earlier realised, such as pride and envy over little things.
But ultimately, monasticism is for more happiness. If the bhikkhu or bhikkhuni does not have the right conditions, then itâs perfectly ok to disrobe and seek happiness elsewhere. After all, as Ajahn Brahm quoted the Buddha before, âthis is a Path without groaning!â
Ajahnâs first experience of jhanas as a lay person happened when he was on a retreat. He would likely have been celibate during that retreat too, and so there would have been a time-lapse of a few days from the sexual act to his experience of deep meditation.
If you think about Suttacentral users, there is a fair degree of self-selection too. So in a way itâs great that Ajahnâs works reach a much larger audience through commercial channels.
(Incidentally, all the money goes to Ajahnâs parent Buddhist society, BSWA.)
But also, the BSWA publishes all his podcasts, including his guided meditations, Friday evening talks, as well as his excellent analyses of suttas. All those are free and available on YouTube and Podbean.
Hope this helps!
With much metta
PJ
To also add to the comments about Ven Nanavira, Iâve no idea about his story as Iâm not super familiar.
But I would add that the Buddha repeatedly warned against seclusion until a practitioner has samadhi (i.e. jhanas). Prior to that, the Buddha in one of the suttas (canât remember which) recommends staying in a community rather than staying alone.
There is also the vinaya story of the monks who committed suicide because they contemplated the unbeautiful aspect of the body too much: the Buddha then advocated mindfulness of breathing as a meditation object instead.
All this points to the need to strike a healthy balance in oneâs practice. Balance, afterall, is implied by the âMiddleâ in the âMiddle Wayâ.
with much metta
PJ
yes but he claimed he was a stream enterer or whatever. In one of S Batchelorâs books I read that Nanavira wrote to a monk friend (I think he was called Nanamoli) saying he wasnât going to write him any longer since he had seen things as they really are and as a stream winner it was not worth discussing with someone who wasnât. This btw sounded a bit arrogant to me as a lay person, but there you go. If you believe him, he was supposed to be a stream winner and thus highly attained as far as I understand.
I have found on the web the writings by S Batchelor I was referring to, here:
https://www.stephenbatchelor.org/index.php/en/existence-enlightenment-and-suicide
Sorry I am unable to quote the relevant passage, but basically he thought he was no longer in a relationship of Parity with Nanamoli so he stopped writing to him after becoming a stream winner
From the back ground stories my sense is that the rules have to do with maintaining order within the monastic community and also maintaining good relations with the lay community. Consider the problem of having lots of men wandering around the country side in small groups regularly visiting lay supporters to meet their daily needs. Without these strict rules I think the sangha would have died out before the buddha. Sexuality doesnât prevent anyone from awakening per se - just consider how many lay stream winners are mentioned in the suttas - presumably living by the 5 precepts.
Thanks Irene.
I think it is safe to say that was probably delusion (especially conceit) at play, much like the self proclaimed âarahantsâ like Daniel Ingram. A streamwinner would have seen non-self, and thus where would there be the sense of âI am betterâ? Ajahn Brahm quoted one of the suttas where two monks came up to the Buddha and said âan enlightened being never thinks it is better, worse or the same as everybody else.â The Buddha agreed, then later turned to Ananda and said that is how monks say they are fully enlightened.
I think a challenge for all of us is figuring out who is at the different stages of enlightenment. Because when you reach those stages, apparently it is clear to the person involved and there is no uncertainty. The danger arises when it is actually âwrong liberationâ due to the wrong eightfold path. I think the only real test is, if someone claims to be enlightened, but the actions show conceit and other signs of delusion, then that person is probably not there yet. âŚ
Ven Nanavira sounds like he really suffered a lot⌠I hope he is free from suffering finally!
Also to clarify, I was merely addressing the point that he had kept himself isolated and unable seclusion. It seems like he might have done so when his mind wasnât quite ready.
Hi Irene
Sex, sexuality, sensualityâŚwere never meant to be seen as evil or problems in and of themselves.
It is us humans, interpreting the teachings through the lenses of our almost constantly conditioned delusion that has led to such unfortunate and useless, indeed potentially harmful, ways of viewing these aspects of the kamaloka.
In Buddhism, when you talk about the âwholesomeâ and âunwholesomeâ, you are not talking about âgoodâ and âevilâ. You are talking about that which leads to the realisation of truth and the experience of freedom. And that which leads away from it.
So sex may be wholesome or unwholesome, depending on the person in question, their life, personality, tendencies and so on. Thus we have options: to keep the five precepts or to move towards celibacy.
In effect, we are given a Path to grow.
But we are also presented with two things on either end of that Path. The first is the fact that there is a problematic nature to the sensual world (world of the 5 senses or kamaloka). The second is that there is an alternative to this experience and that it leads away from trouble and problems of all kinds.
I think the âmoving towardsâ is an important point. Itâs not one or the other. Often, most of us are somewhere in the middle.
In this middle place, you find lay people who are perhaps keeping celibacy to some degree on some days. Just to experiment and find out for themselves what it does for them. In this middle place you will find monastics who may be keeping the precepts strictly but are still struggling to understand fully why they need to be kept and are thus still plagued by their sensual conditionings.
I can understand, after the experience youâve shared, why youâve placed the latter in your question as an option:
This is gross and is harmful to Buddhism in two ways:
The monastic is not true to his purpose, to himself and his highest aspirations. In not developing himself honestly, courageously, openly he is not his best and thus is not best placed to help others in any way.
The lay people are defiling their own spiritual lives in practising deceit. They are not helping the monk to achieve his highest goals.
These lay folk clearly donât understand what the Dhamma truly can be for them, nor do they understand what the rules for monastics are, because according to the rules, this monk is no longer a monk, no longer a bhikkhu, a renunciate. He is parajika and even though he wears the robes, is no longer a monk.
In the case of Ajahn Brahm, the telling thing, in attempting to answer your question, is that when he was a young lay person, he did not remain with his girlfriend after the experience he had in his meditation. He renounced his sexuality and his old lay life and has been a monk now for over 40 years. And an exemplary, open one at that.
Everyoneâs story is different and specific. While there are general tendencies there are many other factors to take into account. Conditioning from the past (lives) is one in particular. I believe it is unusual, though not unheard of, for lay people to achieve jhanas. (Indeed, I believe, it is unusual to hear of lay people who even experience the deep states of meditation that ocurr on the way to jhanas proper.) Often, apparently, the lay people seem to âflukeâ them (for theyâre natural mental states) and then never seem to have them again. Though they are forever changed after the experience. Some are drawn, for however many years, to monasticism. The jhanas, as I understand them in my limited way and from the suttas, are lofty states. I believe it is rare for even monks and nuns to achieve them even once or twice, let alone regularly. However, the format of monastic life is meant to be a vehicle to propel one towards just this. Thus it is meant to be the fastest way to develop the 8 fold path - provided one doesnât forget the crucial aspects of Right Intention and Right View and is thus both honest and open (truth seeking) and kind - and move towards itâs final factor: Samma Samadhi/Jhanas. This is meant to be a springboard into Awakening proper.
Itâs a gradual path requiring patience of monumental proportions. But weâre not going to get there at the same rates - because weâre all different and have different things to work on and with, within ourselves.
The journey to that place, where celibacy becomes a blessing, (and then just becomes easier and easier, until itâs just as natural as breathing) is a graduated one that can only ocurr with any success with investigation, honesty and a great deal of compassion and understanding towards ourselves.
I hope this helps you on your own journey to understand these difficult and important questions. And may I say how sad I am to hear that you encountered a community where a lack of honesty, courage and openness has already caused widespread harm - I mean, it has hurt your sensibilities and it has certainly hurt mine. But the world is never going to be perfect, we have to keep investigating, keep being kind, keep going inwards.
Thanks for your open, honest questions Irene.
With much metta