PDA

View Full Version : Zen and Sex



luar
29th May 2001, 03:34
According to my readings into Zen, it is stated that thou shalt not abuse sex. Can someone who really knows zen elaborate further as to what this means? Is there more to this than simply saying that lust is bad?

Thanks

PHILBERT
29th May 2001, 06:31
After reading over what I said, I realized I lost myself. I deleted it then.

DJM
29th May 2001, 23:45
Originally posted by luar
According to my readings into Zen, it is stated that thou shalt not abuse sex. Can someone who really knows zen elaborate further as to what this means? Is there more to this than simply saying that lust is bad?

Thanks

Raul,
I was wondering - could you perhaps tell us where, and in what context, you saw the above stated? I don't profess to know enough about Zen to formulate an answer for you that applies to Zen, but I can say that any path that professes even a swipe at wisdom will counsel against abuse in any form. After all, the first step to any form of understanding is to master yourself - not others..
Also, as many Eastern paths contain some form of inclusiveness, of interconnection between seemingly disparate entities, any abuse is, ultimately, an abuse of yourself..
Peace,
David

kenshin
30th May 2001, 06:50
If you guys wanna see something amusing in regards to eastern religion and sex, check out Tachikawa ryu Shingon. :)

luar
30th May 2001, 23:12
What I was refering to was one Buddhist precepts that states Don't Misuse Sex. This is listed next to Don't Kill, Steal, Lie. Become Intoxicated, etc.

I had seen this in the Idiot's Guide to Zen Living and Suzuki Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, as well as other resources, but I can never find any kind of elaboration as to what this means.

PHILBERT
31st May 2001, 05:59
ok, from what I've heard, when you meditate, you learn new things about sex. Like your knowledge of sexual drives increases and the weak minded like this new knowledge and will try it out, only to abuse it. I sent this to luar in Private Messages and he asked why I did not post it here, so here I am posting it. If anyone can confirm what I posted to be true or if I am somewhat close to it, tell us please.

luar
31st May 2001, 11:04
Originally posted by PHILBERT
ok, from what I've heard, when you meditate, you learn new things about sex. Like your knowledge of sexual drives increases and the weak minded like this new knowledge and will try it out, only to abuse it. I sent this to luar in Private Messages and he asked why I did not post it here, so here I am posting it. If anyone can confirm what I posted to be true or if I am somewhat close to it, tell us please.

And my reply to Philbert was that I suspect there is something more to this than some special technique. I think it has to do with not letting your urges control you.

I would even add that it is possible that those indulgences tend to reinforce duality.

koshoT
3rd June 2001, 03:29
I don't know anything about Zen, and I certainly don't know anything about sex... (wish I did though), but anyway I was thinking and something popped into my head:
Basically all religions, philisophies and ways of life preach, or teach that sex is a thing to be cherished and not abused. This makes sense. Sex is what drives our species, but it is not the only thing. I was watching a show about Siberian tigers last night. The tigers would breed in captivity, but when the kittens were born the mother would not take care of them. She would in fact neglect them... this did not make sense to me. I wonder if this relates to love, and sex? What if just sex is not enough to produce healthy, pshycologically fine children. What if the child needs to be loved, and to know that it's parents care for each other, or else why would the child exist? Why would the parents want the child unless they loved each other enough that they wanted to raise a child of their own? I don't know where I am going with this, so I'll live it at that.

Jeff Hamacher
8th June 2001, 03:07
Originally posted by luar


And my reply to Philbert was that I suspect there is something more to this than some special technique. I think it has to do with not letting your urges control you.


i think you hit upon something here, Raul. Buddhism, and Zen as one sect of Buddhism, often speak of "illusions" or "deceptions" which we confuse for "the real world". enlightenment ("satori" in japanese) is reaching a state of being able to perceive "the *real* real world", that which lies covered beneath layers of illusion.

illusions of pleasure come in many forms, but all lead us not to satisfaction but rather to greater levels of desire. the more we buy the more we wish to own; the more we use (or abuse) intoxicants the more we come to depend upon them; the more we pursue sexual gratification the higher our expectations rise for our next sexual encounter. when your urges control your actions you allow yourself to be taken in by illusion and cannot reach enlightenment.

this is not to say that Zen advocates a life of full-on asceticism. i have come across a translation of one comment which states simply, "When hungry, eat; when tired, sleep." the body and the mind have natural needs which should be satisfied only to an appropriate degree. beyond necessity lies indulgence, and therefore illusion.

my suggestion? grab a copy of Alan Watts' *The Way of Zen*. originally published in the 1950's, it's still a wonderfully concise and accurate description of Buddhism from its origins in India, leading to the birth of Zen in China and its transmission to Japan. the late Dr. Watts stated that Dr. Suzuki's writings on Zen were not the best source of information for "beginners", and many readers of Watts agree that his book is a far clearer introduction. Dr. Watts' son has more recently released a series of books containing his father's writings related to Zen of which i know nothing. be careful to look for the specific title *The Way of Zen*.

to continue a line of discussion from the Jo forum: if you really want to learn Zen, find a teacher and attend zazen sessions. i've only been to 2 or 3 "sits", but i promise they'll bring you closer to satori than any number of rambling posts from some guy on a martial arts board. :D

cheers, jeff hamacher

luar
10th June 2001, 02:19
I thought I had posted this but for some reason it didn't go through so here we go again


OK, no one can't seem to answer my original question so I went out tonight
to buy a book and here is what it says:

Avoid Sexual Misconduct
"Buddhism is remarkable among the major religions of the world for not
flatly proscribing nonviolent sexual activities that often meet with social
disapproval, like masturbation, sex without marriage or homosexuality. It
tends to affirm the beauty and "rightness" of nature and, by extension, of
sex, which can be an especially intimate and valuable way of going beyond
self to relate to another.

In this spirit, Buddhism counsels people to refrain from abusive or
manipulative sex as well as from sexual obsession, jealousy, or deception.
Among the acts that are clearly harmful to oneself, as well as one's
partner, are rape, molestation, and, at least in many situations, adultery.

Most schools of Buddhism require that monks and nuns take vows of chasity,
but the ratuonale is that sex in a monastic setting can distract one from
spiritual work and disrupt group harmony, not that it's in any way
intrinsically evil. In some schools, monks and nuns are allowed to marry or
even pursue stable, monogamous realtionships without marrying"

--- "Essential Buddhism: A Complete Guide to Beliefs and Practices" by Jack
Maguire

:nin:

Tracy
11th June 2001, 19:57
It appears what your getting at is the eightfold path and although this subject probably should not be in meditation I will provide you with a excerpts from a speech entitled "the world as emptiness" by Alan Watts. I would recommend any of Mr. Watts books or his lectures. Especially the Way of Zen. Also a good book is Buddhism plain and Simple or Zen Mind Beginners Mind.

This may help you. Excerpted from a speech:

…See, Buddhism is not essentially moralistic. The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile. Because what happens is he simply sweeps the dust under the carpet, and it all comes back again somehow. But in this case, it involves a complete realization that this is the case. So that's what the teacher puts across to begin with…

… the eightfold path has really got three divisions in it. The first are concerned with understanding, the second division is concerned with conduct, and the third division is concerned with meditation. And every step in the path is preceded with the Sanskrit word _samyak_. In which you remember we ran into _samadhi_ last week, 'sam' is the key word. And so, the first step, _samyak- drishti_, which mean--'drishti' means a view, a way of looking at things, a vision, an attitude, something like that. But this word samyak is in ordinary texts on Buddhism almost invariably translated 'right.' This is a very bad translation. The word IS used in certain contexts in Sanskrit to mean 'right, correct,' but it has other and wider meanings. 'Sam' means, like our word 'sum,' which is derived from it, 'complete, total, all-embracing.' It also has the meaning of 'middle wade,' representing as it were the fulcrum, the center, the point of balance in a totality. Middle wade way of looking at things. Middle wade way of understanding the dharma. Middle wade way of speech, of conduct, of livelihood, and so on.
Now this is particularly cogent when it comes to Buddhist ideas of behavior. Every Buddhist in all the world, practically, as a layman--he's not a monk--undertakes what are called _pantasila[?]_, the Five Good Conducts. 'Sila' is sometimes translated 'precept.' But it's not a precept because it's not a commandment. When Buddhists priests chant the precepts, you know: pranatipada[?]: 'prana (life) tipada (taking away) I promise to abstain from.' So the first is that one undertakes not to destroy life. Second, not to take what is not given. Third--this is usually translated 'not to commit adultry'. It doesn't say anything of the kind. In Sanskrit, it means 'I undertake the precept to abstain from exploiting my passions.' Buddhism has no doctrine about adultry; you may have as many wives as you like. But the point is this: when you're feeling blue and bored, it's not a good idea to have a drink, because you may become dependant on alcohol whenever you feel unhappy. So in the same way, when you're feeling blue and bored, it's not a good idea to say 'Let's go out and get some chicks.' That's exploiting the passions. But it's not exploiting the passions, you see, when drinking, say expresses the vivacity and friendship of the group sitting around the dinner table, or when sex expresses the spontaneous delight of two people in each other. Then, the fourth precept, _musavada[?]_, 'to abstain from false speech.' It doesn't simply mean lying. It means abusing people. It means using speech in a phony way, like saying 'all niggers are thus and so.' Or 'the attitude of America to this situation is thus and thus.' See, that's phony kind of talking. Anybody who studies general semantics will be helped in avoiding musavada, false speech. The final precept is a very complicated one, and nobody's quite sure exactly what it means. It mentions three kinds of drugs and drinks: sura, mariya[?], maja[?]. We don't know what they are. But at any rate, it's generally classed as narcotics and liquors. Now, there are two ways of translating this precept. One says to abstain from narcotics and liquors; the other liberal translation favored by the great scholar Dr [?] is 'I abstain from being intoxicated by these things.' So if you drink and don't get intoxicated, it's ok. You don't have to be a teatotaler to be a Buddhist. This is especially true in Japan and China; my goodness, how they throw it down!...

Now you see these are, as I say, they are not commandments, they are vows. Buddhism has in it no idea of there being a moral law laid down by some kind of cosmic lawgiver. The reason why these precepts are undertaken is not for a sentimental reason. It is not that you're going to make you into a good person. It is that for anybody interested in the experiments necessary for liberation, these ways of life are expedient. First of all, if you go around killing, you're going to make enemies, and you're going to have to spend a lot of time defending yourself, which will distract you from your yoga. If you go around stealing, likewise, you're going to acquire a heap of stuff, and again, you're going to make enemies. If you exploit your passions, you're going to get a big thrill, but it doesn't last. When you begin to get older, you realize 'Well that was fun while we had it, but I haven't really learned very much from it, and now what?' Same with speech. Nothing is more confusing to the mind than taking words too seriously. We've seen so many examples of that. And finally, to get intoxicated or narcotized--a narcotic is anything like alcohol or opium which makes you sleepy. The word 'narcosis' in Greek, 'narc' means 'sleep.' So, if you want to pass your life seeing things through a dim haze, this is not exactly awakening.

So, so much for the conduct side of Buddhism. We come then to the final parts of the eightfold path. There are two concluding steps, which are called _samyak-smriti_ and _samyak-samadhi_. _Smriti_ means 'recollection, memory, present-mindedness.' Seems rather funny that the same word can mean 'recollection or memory' and 'present-mindedness.' But smriti is exactly what that wonderful old rascal Gurdjieff meant by 'self-awareness,' or 'self- remembering.' Smriti is to have complete presence of mind. …

Jeff Hamacher
12th June 2001, 12:56
tracy,

thank you very much for a most informative post. i knew i'd come across this point in *Way of Zen* and yet hesitated to come flat out and say something like, "Zen is not a religion as such, it's a way of liberation", which is one of Dr. Watts' principal comments in that book. i'm inclined to disagree with your statement that this discussion doesn't belong in the Meditation forum, since Zen puts a great deal of emphasis on zazen. however, i suppose it could be argued that zazen is not meditation precisely, and furthermore i don't know what role meditation plays in other Buddhist sects. any comments would be appreciated.

and one other thing: where did that speech come from? is it published somewhere? i'd be interested to find out more. please post or write me off-board, if you can spare the time and trouble.

cheers, jeff hamacher

luar
12th June 2001, 15:13
Just an FYI to everyone but I tried to get the Admins to start a seperate Zen discussion group but I was told that they tried this before and it was unsucessful.