Buddhism General

[Ninja]

I hear he left his family to wander around as an ascetic.  Was this culturally acceptable back then, in India?

You know, I'm not sure what the cultural climate was like there in the time of the Buddha.  Whenever I hear the story though this piece is always mentioned just in passing or expressed as though he was making a big sacrifice in leaving his family because it was a very comfortable life full of loving family and friends.

Maybe he was just having a mid-life crisis and left his wife and kids, because they weren't enough.

[theKit]

You should look into SGI Nichiren Buddhism. It is all about being what Christians would call 'Worldly'. The reason for your practice is to improve your life state by means of material possession, social status, and other things most religions would qualify as sinful. It is actually considered a cult by Japanese society. These motherfuckers built a 35 BILLION yen (YEN - stronger than the dollar) building in the 1970s(?) off of member donations. and then promptly destroyed it after a dispute with another sect. The leader is worshiped like a God and the whole organization is run similar to what you'd expect of Scientology.

As far as I understand they teach that desires should be encouraged because that is what give people motivation to act but there is never any indication on how or when desire should be put in check. So as their leader (daisaku ikeda) has lived a live as a multi billiionaire off the backs of the members, they see this as ok because 1) hes the dear leader and 2) it is his desire to 'help the organization' and be successful (rich as fuck) himself. They strive for knowledge for knowledge sake but it's all institutionalized knowledge. Coincidentally most members strive to enter into the universities and schools founded by mr money bags as if they're Harvard. I think I got a little off track here... I fucking hate that guy. My friend is totally indoctrinated in his religion and it pisses me off that it's not REAL Buddhism.

What is your opinion on the validity of the Sutras as they were not in a written form for thousands of years after Sidhartha died? (as there was no written form of language back then so i've been told) Does it not bother you that later sutras denounce the teachings of the former sutras? The Lotus sutra claims ALL  the former sutra are incomplete and unreliable and that it is the only necessary text to acheive buddahood. 

[Ninja]

 Does it not bother you that later sutras denounce the teachings of the former sutras? The Lotus sutra claims ALL  the former sutra are incomplete and unreliable and that it is the only necessary text to acheive buddahood.

Lol.  If I wrote a religious book, that's what it would say too!

[Built To Last]

I hear he left his family to wander around as an ascetic.  Was this culturally acceptable back then, in India?

Yes, this  tradition of asceticism was called Sramana and it was a popular (and controversial) religious movement in North East India around the lifetime of the Buddha (500 BCE). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sramana

Can you say more about the desire thing?

Basically, there are some Buddhists (Specifically, Theravada) who say that Desire is Bad because Desire binds a person to continued existence and rebirth in another lifetime (Remember, existence is suffering; therefore, rebirth is bad). Thus, a Buddhist should strive to rid himself of desire by practicing moderation: abstaining from alcohol, drugs, sex; eliminating unnecessary material possessions and relationships; increasing charitable acts and generosity.

However, there are other Buddhists (Specifically, Non-Dualists like Chan, Zen, and Tantric Buddhists) who argue that there is no distinction between good and bad, reality and imagination, enlightenment and non-enlightenment. In other words, there is no such thing as "Desire" and "Non-Desire"; so, it is useless to practice abstinence because "Desire" does not really exist. For example, Zen Buddhists talk about becoming awakened through living a "Natural" life (as opposed to study of the sutras) and Tantric Buddhists practice ritual sex in order to become awakened.

[equanimity]

You should look into SGI Nichiren Buddhism. It is all about being what Christians would call 'Worldly'. The reason for your practice is to improve your life state by means of material possession, social status, and other things most religions would qualify as sinful. It is actually considered a cult by Japanese society. These motherfuckers built a 35 BILLION yen (YEN - stronger than the dollar) building in the 1970s(?) off of member donations. and then promptly destroyed it after a dispute with another sect. The leader is worshiped like a God and the whole organization is run similar to what you'd expect of Scientology.

As far as I understand they teach that desires should be encouraged because that is what give people motivation to act but there is never any indication on how or when desire should be put in check. So as their leader (daisaku ikeda) has lived a live as a multi billiionaire off the backs of the members, they see this as ok because 1) hes the dear leader and 2) it is his desire to 'help the organization' and be successful (rich as fuck) himself. They strive for knowledge for knowledge sake but it's all institutionalized knowledge. Coincidentally most members strive to enter into the universities and schools founded by mr money bags as if they're Harvard. I think I got a little off track here... I fucking hate that guy. My friend is totally indoctrinated in his religion and it pisses me off that it's not REAL Buddhism.

Wow that sounds pretty silly.  Guess if it works for some people that's cool, but honestly it sounds like a perversion of faith...

What is your opinion on the validity of the Sutras as they were not in a written form for thousands of years after Sidhartha died? (as there was no written form of language back then so i've been told) Does it not bother you that later sutras denounce the teachings of the former sutras? The Lotus sutra claims ALL  the former sutra are incomplete and unreliable and that it is the only necessary text to acheive buddahood.

This is something I know very little about.  Most of what I've learned over the years has come from the Theravada side of things.  I've been getting some into the Mahayana, but haven't come across anything claiming the other texts have it all wrong.  What really strike me are the similarities found across all the schools.

I've read from more than one author though that it doesn't matter too much how historically accurate any of this stuff is, because the teachings that comprise the core of Buddhist psychology are very simple (and amazingly complex, but yeah...) and they haven't changed since the time of Siddhartha.  Several different means to that same timeless map of the human mind, and all of experience.  And this is totally something I've seen in the different schools.  That focus on gentle and productive introspection (even in Zen, but you've gotta know what you're looking at), learning by firsthand experience, and some language alluding to the cessation of suffering by letting go.

Yes, this  tradition of asceticism was called Sramana and it was a popular (and controversial) religious movement in North East India around the lifetime of the Buddha (500 BCE). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sramana

Basically, there are some Buddhists (Specifically, Theravada) who say that Desire is Bad because Desire binds a person to continued existence and rebirth in another lifetime (Remember, existence is suffering; therefore, rebirth is bad). Thus, a Buddhist should strive to rid himself of desire by practicing moderation: abstaining from alcohol, drugs, sex; eliminating unnecessary material possessions and relationships; increasing charitable acts and generosity.

However, there are other Buddhists (Specifically, Non-Dualists like Chan, Zen, and Tantric Buddhists) who argue that there is no distinction between good and bad, reality and imagination, enlightenment and non-enlightenment. In other words, there is no such thing as "Desire" and "Non-Desire"; so, it is useless to practice abstinence because "Desire" does not really exist. For example, Zen Buddhists talk about becoming awakened through living a "Natural" life (as opposed to study of the sutras) and Tantric Buddhists practice ritual sex in order to become awakened.

To me, the non-dualism side of things seems to be strikingly similar to the letting go of desire.  Non-dualism is all about not judging things (good/bad) and accepting things as they are in their entirety.  In a sense, it's about letting go of all perceived notions and simply being.  Compared to the cessation of unwholesome attachment (desire) and developing an equanimous nature, what is the difference?

Dualism is in itself desire.  The human desire to name things, and create delusions of separation where none truly exist.  Non-dualism is the gentle refusal to attach oneself to said delusion- which is hard to do, because we desire that delusion on some level we rarely consider.

I hope that makes sense.

[equanimity]

Just what exactly is sexual misconduct in the Buddhist faith?  Is it okay to be gay?  Is it okay to have threesomes?  What do the scriptures say about anal sex, contraception, and BDSM?

That's a good question, equanimity!

The way I've heard it explained by modern (also Western) spiritual leaders/Buddhist authors is that sexual misconduct is when your actions may be harmful to yourself or someone else.  So, is it okay to be gay?  Of course it is.  A person can't help who they're attracted to, and in the event that someone is "hurt" by your sexuality (say, in the case of a very traditional parent) it wouldn't be you hurting them.  Rather, their understanding of societal norms and outlook on sexual morality is in direct conflict with reality.  Their delusion harms them, and you're unfortunately caught up in all that harmful delusion.

Are threesomes okay?  As long as everyone involved is adult enough not to get hurt, and everyone's consenting.  Might be best to avoid in many situation because of the possibility of jealousy and such, but if you can make it work then more power to you!

Anal sex?  Well, I have no idea what the writings have to say about it.  Probably something; there's always sex mixed up in our religions.  But again, it should be fine.  Same with contraception.  Religion needs to adapt to modern life, hopefully without losing sight of its initial vision.  Buddhism is attractive partly because it does just that.

Now BDSM is a very interesting piece to this topic.  The general rule is that if no one gets hurt everything is just peachy, right?  Well BDSM kind of hurts by nature.  Does that make it wrong?  I'd say no, but there are definitely exceptions.  If you find the light pain play pleasurable and hot then that would probably be totally okay.  Even the more hardcore stuff.  Where I see it potentially becoming an actual problem is when it crosses over into the realm of unhealthy psychological experience.  If your partner hurts you and you don't like it but don't want to upset them, you might be doing yourself some harm.  If you're into being humiliated and used this could pose a problem, and your self-esteem may suffer.  Each case is different and this stuff gets pretty complicated, but you should know if you're being hurt or if you're hurting someone else.  Unless you're really well steeped in delusion, these things are generally pretty clear.

Use your head.  Make good decisions.

[theKit]

Just what exactly is sexual misconduct in the Buddhist faith?  Is it okay to be gay?  Is it okay to have threesomes?  What do the scriptures say about anal sex, contraception, and BDSM?

That's a good question, equanimity!
So, is it okay to be gay?  Of course it is.

Shameless  self justification.
Don't be gay bro.