Is celibacy natural to humans?

[cacian]

I was just thinking about monks and nuns living a life of celibacy in the name of religion and wondered whether this harsh style of life affect them long term.

Does religion and moeurs justify celibacy?
In other words nuns and monks set an positive example to life and society in general?
On a literary point of you is one able to deduct that celibacy the same as single?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

No, no, and no.

[cacian]

No, no, and no.

I see.
Now I must work out another way of getting you to say the opposite.
Is a monk existence a guarantee to saintage and then heaven?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

...no.

[Charles Darnay]

I think Bocaccio dealt with this the best in The Decameron: see Third Day, Tenth story.

[cacian]

I think Bocaccio dealt with this the best in The Decameron: see Third Day, Tenth story.

Charles I thank you. I shall have a read.
Wow it took few minutes to realise what the story was about.
Rustico the story of putting the Devil in hell and Alibech is rather brash.
If it was not for the highlight text of ''about putting the Devil back into Hell '' and me having to click on it I would not have known what it meant.
I am not clear on why her family was incinerated and her becoming a hermit at the first place it must be somewhere in the stories.

On second thoughts if this served as a reminder to monks to abstaint from sex then what's with the nuns?
As far as I know there is no devil to be put anywhere it is physically unatainable.

[Lokasenna]

If God didn't want us to have sex, he wouldn't have made it such jolly good fun.

Of course sex is natural, given it's necessity for continuing the species. That said, celibacy is of course a viable lifestyle choice for those who want it. I know several people who call themselves celibate, and all for legitimate reasons - one is asexual, another intends to become a nun on finishing her PhD, and so on. These are all fine, though I do wonder whether a lot of people who call themselves celibate do so simply because they don't have much luck...

[cacian]

If God didn't want us to have sex, he wouldn't have made it such jolly good fun.

Of course sex is natural, given it's necessity for continuing the species. That said, celibacy is of course a viable lifestyle choice for those who want it. I know several people who call themselves celibate, and all for legitimate reasons - one is asexual, another intends to become a nun on finishing her PhD, and so on. These are all fine, though I do wonder whether a lot of people who call themselves celibate do so simply because they don't have much luck...

One can still have sex and be celibate.
Do you quote celibacy with sex?
I quote it with being a hermit ie living on your own and with ones similar to you like monks or nuns congregating together.

[Paulclem]

Celibacy is, of course not natural to humans. Adherence to it by religious people are for different reasons. It is not to teach that celibacy is superior, or to be copied, unless - in the Christian canon - someone has a calling. My understanding is that sex and procreation are to be celebrated, hence the elaborate rituals around marriage and birth.

Buddhist celibates adhere for a different reason. The foundation of suffering is said to be craving/ desire - for anything, not just sex, but food, life, status, riches etc etc. One of the ways that this can be eroded is to lead a celibate life, as most schools of Buddhism expect of their ordained people. (Just to note - a monk or a nun can renounce their vows a any time. If they break a vow then they are no longer considered ordained from that moment). It is one of the reasons that Monks and Nuns are paid respect - for their dedication to a religious life that aims to improve themselves and help others.

[Paulclem]

One can still have sex and be celibate.
Do you quote celibacy with sex?
I quote it with being a hermit ie living on your own and with ones similar to you like monks or nuns congregating together.

I think the first one is the usually accepted definition. It's not just not having sex, but deciding not to.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/celibacy

[cacian]

I think the first one is the usually accepted definition. It's not just not having sex, but deciding not to.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/celibacy

Yes but being single and one night stands one can still want to be on their own.
Sex is beside the point because that would be asexual nothing to do with chosing to live in a celibat manner.
A virgin comes to mind and that is not celibat right?!

[Paulclem]

Yes but being single and one night stands one can still want to be on their own.
Sex is beside the point because that would be asexual nothing to do with chosing to live in a celibat manner.
A virgin comes to mind and that is not celibat right?!

The definition of celibacy is to choose to abstain. A virgin may be celibate if they choose that path, or they may intend to have sex, and are thus not celibate despite being virgins. Children aren't celibate for example.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't know what definition you're thinking of, but when you says "celibate" to someone who speaks English as a first language, they're going to think you mean the act of *choosing* not to have sex--sometimes not even masturbating (as I believe is the case with catholic priests). It also has to be for a good amount of time for it to count in my mind. Anyone can be celibate for a few days.

So, no, for the average person it is not normal to be celibate. It goes against the natural, biological urges we have to ****.

[YesNo]

I look at celibacy as a misguided form of religious asceticism. As such, it doesn't make much sense to me. It would have to be something that a person chooses to do as Paulclem points out, but I don't see why anyone would want to make that choice even from a religious perspective.

[Paulclem]

I look at celibacy as a misguided form of religious asceticism. As such, it doesn't make much sense to me. It would have to be something that a person chooses to do as Paulclem points out, but I don't see why anyone would want to make that choice even from a religious perspective.

It does make sense to a Buddhist who wants to pursue the path full time as a Monk or a Nun. The whole of our lives - from the Buddhist perspective, are the tainted results of karma, and the aim is to achieve something that transcends that. We idealise love here in the West without really discerning the different components of it. The highest aspect is compassion, which they cultivate, the lowest aspect is lust, which is a recogniseably ambiguous passion, and may be a part of something good, or something bad.

A celibate is attempting to focus their practice by removing those aspects of love which potentially interfere with transcendence, or to put it another way, which increase attachment. Compassion is an outward flowing type of love, its highest expression being unconditional compassion - a compassion that gives without expectation. Lust is a selfish wanting which increases attachment. Both are lumped into a very imprescise idea of love.

[cacian]

I look at celibacy as a misguided form of religious asceticism. As such, it doesn't make much sense to me. It would have to be something that a person chooses to do as Paulclem points out, but I don't see why anyone would want to make that choice even from a religious perspective.

Very good point YesNo.
I often wonder whether forced abstention from sex is what drives many monks/nuns and priests to offend.
It is just a thought.

[Paulclem]

Very good point YesNo.
I often wonder whether forced abstention from sex is what drives many monks/nuns and priests to offend.
It is just a thought.

I'll just point out that Buddhist Monks and Nuns are not bound, but are free to become unordained.

In the past, with all monastic traditions - christian, Buddhist etc, members of families were sent as children to monasteries to train as monks and nuns. As it wasn't their choice, but their families - then you may well have seen abuse of position, misconduct etc. Nowadays, no-one is compelled in any tradition, but there will always be some people who are attracted to positions of status and power and whose intention is to abuse it.

[YesNo]

It does make sense to a Buddhist who wants to pursue the path full time as a Monk or a Nun. The whole of our lives - from the Buddhist perspective, are the tainted results of karma, and the aim is to achieve something that transcends that. We idealise love here in the West without really discerning the different components of it. The highest aspect is compassion, which they cultivate, the lowest aspect is lust, which is a recogniseably ambiguous passion, and may be a part of something good, or something bad.

A celibate is attempting to focus their practice by removing those aspects of love which potentially interfere with transcendence, or to put it another way, which increase attachment. Compassion is an outward flowing type of love, its highest expression being unconditional compassion - a compassion that gives without expectation. Lust is a selfish wanting which increases attachment. Both are lumped into a very imprescise idea of love.
My only cultural association with monks or nuns is with a few celibate Catholic priests whom I have known. So my experience is biased and my knowledge is limited. I think the positive motivation of celibacy is to perform a religious practice full time as you mention.

My understanding is that the reason Catholic religious people are celibate is to keep the property they might acquire during their lives within the church rather than passed on to their children. This was an early invention that doesn't seem linked to religion as much as politics. I think Protestants were right to reject it.

The Buddhist motivation may be grounded more in their belief in karma and hence more religious, so to challenge the Buddhist practice of celibacy would be to challenge the idea of karma or the need to overcome it. One way to potentially do that is to consider what the Christians call grace, which might be a way of having karma forgiven by some deity. However, Buddhists don't acknowledge the existence of any such deity so they are the only ones who can remove their karma.

What bothers me about celibacy is that I don't think it is a good religious practice even for monks and nuns. I lump celibacy with ascetic practices such as the medieval Christian practice of self-flagellation or the Buddhist terminal practice of self-immolation. Considering the Buddhist perspective, celibacy appears to be an extreme religious practice and not part of a "middle way" between no sex and debauchery.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Buddhism again?

[BienvenuJDC]

Christianity in it's purest form never required anyone to be celibate. In fact, it encouraged that the leaders of the church were to be married. There are even passages that encourage those who partake in temporary celibacy, not to do it for too long.

[Charles Darnay]

Hey Bien is back, that's exciting! He is also quite right, celibacy is aMedieval development (thank you Benedict) not a biblical one

[cacian]

My only cultural association with monks or nuns is with a few celibate Catholic priests whom I have known. So my experience is biased and my knowledge is limited. I think the positive motivation of celibacy is to perform a religious practice full time as you mention.

My understanding is that the reason Catholic religious people are celibate is to keep the property they might acquire during their lives within the church rather than passed on to their children. This was an early invention that doesn't seem linked to religion as much as politics. I think Protestants were right to reject it.

The Buddhist motivation may be grounded more in their belief in karma and hence more religious, so to challenge the Buddhist practice of celibacy would be to challenge the idea of karma or the need to overcome it. One way to potentially do that is to consider what the Christians call grace, which might be a way of having karma forgiven by some deity. However, Buddhists don't acknowledge the existence of any such deity so they are the only ones who can remove their karma.

What bothers me about celibacy is that I don't think it is a good religious practice even for monks and nuns. I lump celibacy with ascetic practices such as the medieval Christian practice of self-flagellation or the Buddhist terminal practice of self-immolation. Considering the Buddhist perspective, celibacy appears to be an extreme religious practice and not part of a "middle way" between no sex and debauchery.

That is a very sound post YesNo.
IT is to think that one of the reason celibacy is implied within the catholic church is because of secrecy and attainment of a knowledge that needs protecting from the outside world.
It makes you wonder about what is within the vatican and the catholic church. Secrecy of knowledge must be quite something one must wonder what it is they are trying to hide.

[Paulclem]

My only cultural association with monks or nuns is with a few celibate Catholic priests whom I have known. So my experience is biased and my knowledge is limited. I think the positive motivation of celibacy is to perform a religious practice full time as you mention.

My understanding is that the reason Catholic religious people are celibate is to keep the property they might acquire during their lives within the church rather than passed on to their children. This was an early invention that doesn't seem linked to religion as much as politics. I think Protestants were right to reject it.

The Buddhist motivation may be grounded more in their belief in karma and hence more religious, so to challenge the Buddhist practice of celibacy would be to challenge the idea of karma or the need to overcome it. One way to potentially do that is to consider what the Christians call grace, which might be a way of having karma forgiven by some deity. However, Buddhists don't acknowledge the existence of any such deity so they are the only ones who can remove their karma.

What bothers me about celibacy is that I don't think it is a good religious practice even for monks and nuns. I lump celibacy with ascetic practices such as the medieval Christian practice of self-flagellation or the Buddhist terminal practice of self-immolation. Considering the Buddhist perspective, celibacy appears to be an extreme religious practice and not part of a "middle way" between no sex and debauchery.

I have met a Nun and read about Monks/ Nuns who didn't believe in Karma.They were exploring the concepts along wth others in the Buddhist worldview - which is waht The Buddha said to do.

You're right - there's no concept of any deity or Enlightened Being having the ability to erase Karma. It is down to individuals to purify themselves.

the Buddhist terminal practice of self-immolation

This is not a Buddhist practice, despite instances of Monk or Nuns doing it.

I lump celibacy with ascetic practices such as the medieval Christian practice of self-flagellation

There is no concept of self flagellation. This kind of ascetic practice was specifically refuted by The Buddha in the development of The Middle way.

not part of a "middle way" between no sex and debauchery

This is an interesting point. The Middle way itsef is firstly a philosophical position between annihilation and eternalism.

As a guide to an individual, you can see that your middle way will be different to my middle way, which will be different to an advanced practitioner.

Many western Buddhist Monks and Nuns are older, and have chosen the ordained path after leading an ordinary life and being non-celibate. It is not an imposed state, but a condition of being ordained, which can be changed.

Celibacy for a an Monk or Nun is freeing. You no-longer have to consider many of the accoutrements of life, clothes, hair etc etc and this is the point. It frees the practitioner and allows them to focus their practice. I know they don't go into it blind.


Buddhism again?

Yes Mate. Get me going on it and I can rabbit all day long. Go on - ask me a question. :D

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Is the little fat Buddha statue I use ad an incense burner (and not I'm not a Buddhist) okay, or would a Buddhist take offense to it if he visits?

[Paulclem]

Is the little fat Buddha statue I use ad an incense burner (and not I'm not a Buddhist) okay, or would a Buddhist take offense to it if he visits?

I think that image is of a Chinese Bodhisattva, though he is sold as Buddha. The historical Buddha is like this:

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?num=10&hl=en&safe=off&biw=1280&bih=960&tbm=isch&tbnid=uCLMfwO5twbB4M:&imgrefurl=http://www.thaishop2you.com/index.php/cPath/9_10&docid=8RzRQLMOv8AtkM&imgurl=http://www.thaishop2you.com/images/12200671.jpg&w=400&h=491&ei=amspUImFDYfbtAbgtIHoCg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=172&vpy=286&dur=954&hovh=249&hovw=203&tx=92&ty=157&sig=115380638116382396457&page=1&tbnh=141&tbnw=106&start=0&ndsp=38&ved=1t:429,r:30,s:0,i:246

He's done in the Thai style, but generally the pics of Buddha look like that.

I presume that your version looks like this:

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&biw=1280&bih=960&tbm=isch&tbnid=i0xZ-WGB3QFvNM:&imgrefurl=http://namoamitoufo.com/Maitreya__Buddha.html&docid=7qnWvg6JUuVleM&imgurl=http://i778.photobucket.com/albums/yy64/tuyetvy1981/china-buddha-statues-4-2-1.jpg&w=598&h=622&ei=z2spUOWeF4TBtAa7hYDgDg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=901&vpy=594&dur=3531&hovh=229&hovw=220&tx=108&ty=133&sig=115380638116382396457&page=1&tbnh=140&tbnw=138&start=0&ndsp=40&ved=1t:429,r:30,s:0,i:163

This is an incarnation of the Future Buddha Maitreya.

No - no-one will complain about your using it for burning incense. :D

[Emil Miller]

Yes Mate. Get me going on it and I can rabbit all day long. Go on - ask me a question. :D

I went into a temple in Hangzhou in China and there were a whole line of Buddhas in larger than life size mounted on a kind of dais. The thing that strikes the visitor, apart from the outsize belly and the beatific smile, is the size of the statues ear lobes. I don't know what this signifies.

[Paulclem]

I went into a temple in Hangzhou in China and there were a whole line of Buddhas in larger than life size mounted on a kind of dais. The thing that strikes the visitor, apart from the outsize belly and the beatific smile, is the size of the statues ear lobes. I don't know what this signifies.

I'm not sure but it might be one of the marks of a Buddha.

Yes - I've just looked it up.

His ears are long like lotus petals.

This is one of the 80 secondary characteristics of a Buddha.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_characteristics_of_the_Buddha#The_32_Sign s_of_a_Great_Man

[YesNo]

IT is to think that one of the reason celibacy is implied within the catholic church is because of secrecy and attainment of a knowledge that needs protecting from the outside world.
It makes you wonder about what is within the vatican and the catholic church. Secrecy of knowledge must be quite something one must wonder what it is they are trying to hide.
Religious practices that only a few perform make one wonder whether there is something that the rest of us are missing or something that we are failing to do right. Celibacy might allow one to focus attention and energy on other things, but I don't think it gets one to any deeper understanding of reality than living in a family relationship does.

In general, extreme religious disciplines, such as long periods of fasting that the Buddha engaged in, may ultimately give one some spiritual experiences because of the stress caused to the body, but I don't think they are necessary to living a spiritual life or doing anything worthwhile from a religious perspective. But my experience is limited. I don't fast for long periods of time. I don't fling a whip to my back. I'm not celibate.

Also some people do have more natural talent for achieving religious experiences than others do just as some people are better swimmers that others.

[Paulclem]

Religious practices that only a few perform make one wonder whether there is something that the rest of us are missing or something that we are failing to do right. Celibacy might allow one to focus attention and energy on other things, but I don't think it gets one to any deeper understanding of reality than living in a family relationship does.

In general, extreme religious disciplines, such as long periods of fasting that the Buddha engaged in, may ultimately give one some spiritual experiences because of the stress caused to the body, but I don't think they are necessary to living a spiritual life or doing anything worthwhile from a religious perspective. But my experience is limited. I don't fast for long periods of time. I don't fling a whip to my back. I'm not celibate.

Also some people do have more natural talent for achieving religious experiences than others do just as some people are better swimmers that others.

I don't think it gets one to any deeper understanding of reality than living in a family relationship does.

I don't see this. The role of a parent is intensive and time consuming - and also extremely valuable - but it gives you much much less time to focus upon reality, and practices concerned with untangling it.

In general, extreme religious disciplines, such as long periods of fasting that the Buddha engaged in

The story of The Buddha expressly concerns his exploration of ascetic practice and the rejection of it. From this the Middle Way was developed.

I don't fast for long periods of time. I don't fling a whip to my back.

Nor do Buddhists. I think you are trying to lump celibacy with extreme ascetic practices, which is incorrect. Celibacy in Buddhist circles is only associated with ordination. Those who become ordained are firstly given a trial period, and also take advice from their teacher. A friend of mine who was ordained by HH The Dalai Lama had to ask permission of his father. My friend was in his forties when he did this, and had the usual life experience.

I don't think they are necessary to living a spiritual life or doing anything worthwhile from a religious perspective

This is correct for extreme practices like flagellation and self starvation. The people who choose to become ordained and thus celibate then have the opportunity to become daily focused upon their practice. remember there are spiritual goals for them to realise, and commitments to practice that are not really conducive to ordinary living. Their religion becomes their job and vocation. Some see this as selfish, but this is misguided. Developing all the positive qualities within oneself is a noble aim, and benefits everyone.

[Phocion]

It is both unnatural and unhealthy.

[YesNo]

I don't think it gets one to any deeper understanding of reality than living in a family relationship does.

I don't see this. The role of a parent is intensive and time consuming - and also extremely valuable - but it gives you much much less time to focus upon reality, and practices concerned with untangling it.

I often wonder what monks and nuns do, whether Christian or Buddhist, that other people cannot do because they are too busy with family life. Anyone, celibate or not, can recite mantras or meditate. They can contemplate and recite rosaries. They can attend prayer meetings or do whatever one might do in a monastery. It does not require a lot of time to develop these habitual behaviors to train the mind. One does not need to go to a monastery in the Himalayas to practice attention to the present moment. Anyone can do it anywhere whether they are married or not.

The idea that these religious people are "untangling" reality, however, adds to my confusion. What precisely do monks and nuns think they are accomplishing in a monastic setting?

Some people, religious or not, think that the universe is evil and that they need to somehow stop it. There was a recent thread about atheistic vegetarianism where reference was made to a moral philosopher who claimed that we should be the last generation by sterilizing everyone. This way suffering would be stopped. Such comments make me suspicious of moralistic arguments based on eliminating suffering.

This implied rejection of life makes me suspicious of any religious requirement for celibacy especially for the elite members of a religion, that is, its monks and nuns. Is that religion denying the value of life through the practice of celibacy? Are the intentions of that religious group something that I would be able to support?

Having a family is an affirmation of life. On the flip side, is monastic celibacy a rejection of life?

[Charles Darnay]

I think it has less to do with time, but more with emotional burden.

The act of celibacy is part of releasing yourself from any emotional, or human, attachments.

I agree with you YesNo that this is contrary to life. I have spoken with many spiritual and wise people who enjoy all aspects of human life.

The days of starving and depriving yourself into you have some prophetic vision all long gone, supplanted by the plethora of people having prophetic visions due to some drug or another.

[cacian]

I often wonder what monks and nuns do, whether Christian or Buddhist, that other people cannot do because they are too busy with family life. Anyone, celibate or not, can recite mantras or meditate. They can contemplate and recite rosaries. They can attend prayer meetings or do whatever one might do in a monastery. It does not require a lot of time to develop these habitual behaviors to train the mind. One does not need to go to a monastery in the Himalayas to practice attention to the present moment. Anyone can do it anywhere whether they are married or not.

The idea that these religious people are "untangling" reality, however, adds to my confusion. What precisely do monks and nuns think they are accomplishing in a monastic setting?
Some people, religious or not, think that the universe is evil and that they need to somehow stop it. There was a recent thread about atheistic vegetarianism where reference was made to a moral philosopher who claimed that we should be the last generation by sterilizing everyone. This way suffering would be stopped. Such comments make me suspicious of moralistic arguments based on eliminating suffering.

This implied rejection of life makes me suspicious of any religious requirement for celibacy especially for the elite members of a religion, that is, its monks and nuns. Is that religion denying the value of life through the practice of celibacy? Are the intentions of that religious group something that I would be able to support?

Having a family is an affirmation of life. On the flip side, is monastic celibacy a rejection of life?

Very true YesNo I often wonder that myself.
What is it they do that they think qualify them to whatever godliness they think they will get.
The congregate together in matrimony of celibacy and frankly it is rather odd and secular.
I see doing something for the goods of others/people is what should give you that godly recognition and not hybernating in a secular fashion and disappearing behind closed door into a hermit life .
This is kind of religious living is like a congragetional retirement from the world and what it is going on. A bit like burying one's head in the sands lots of prayers and books and not a lot to show for in terms of deeds.
I do not think God would think this setting a good example to the community nor it is useful to anyone let alone themselves. These monks lives are as far as I think are inactive and useless to God and anyone.
Action speaks louder then words and I think in this very case it is very true.

[Paulclem]

I often wonder what monks and nuns do, whether Christian or Buddhist, that other people cannot do because they are too busy with family life. Anyone, celibate or not, can recite mantras or meditate. They can contemplate and recite rosaries. They can attend prayer meetings or do whatever one might do in a monastery. It does not require a lot of time to develop these habitual behaviors to train the mind. One does not need to go to a monastery in the Himalayas to practice attention to the present moment. Anyone can do it anywhere whether they are married or not.

The idea that these religious people are "untangling" reality, however, adds to my confusion. What precisely do monks and nuns think they are accomplishing in a monastic setting?

Some people, religious or not, think that the universe is evil and that they need to somehow stop it. There was a recent thread about atheistic vegetarianism where reference was made to a moral philosopher who claimed that we should be the last generation by sterilizing everyone. This way suffering would be stopped. Such comments make me suspicious of moralistic arguments based on eliminating suffering.

This implied rejection of life makes me suspicious of any religious requirement for celibacy especially for the elite members of a religion, that is, its monks and nuns. Is that religion denying the value of life through the practice of celibacy? Are the intentions of that religious group something that I would be able to support?

Having a family is an affirmation of life. On the flip side, is monastic celibacy a rejection of life?


Anyone, celibate or not, can recite mantras or meditate. They can contemplate and recite rosaries. They can attend prayer meetings or do whatever one might do in a monastery. It does not require a lot of time to develop these habitual behaviors to train the mind.

I'm afraid it does. he meditation practices of Buddhist Monks and Nuns require them to complete their commitments, and to meditate three times a day, as well as study and perform pujas on particular days. You surprise me in suggesting you don't know what goes on and then say anyone can do it. It certainly isn't possible within a family. I have a family, and I know I could never have done these things and worked and raised them as they should be. I think there's a misconception in that this celibate ordination is what we should all aspire to. It is not. It is only suitable for certain people who can commit to a very rigourour religious life. Family life is considered very important to Buddhists - of course - and is celebrated.

One does not need to go to a monastery in the Himalayas to practice attention to the present moment.


One does not, but where has it een suggested that anyone should?

Anyone can do it anywhere whether they are married or not.

Not to the degree that Monks and Nuns do if you are an ordinary person.

The idea that these religious people are "untangling" reality, however, adds to my confusion. What precisely do monks and nuns think they are accomplishing in a monastic setting?


That's my phrase and only written in response to your post - so it's not a technical Buddhist term. What i mean is the effort to complete realisations such as the emptiness of phenomena, which in turn requires skills such as single pointed concentration. It's not the kind of everyday reality to which I assume you are referring. Again you surprise me by saying you don't know and then inferring something negative.

Some people, religious or not, think that the universe is evil and that they need to somehow stop it. There was a recent thread about atheistic vegetarianism where reference was made to a moral philosopher who claimed that we should be the last generation by sterilizing everyone. This way suffering would be stopped. Such comments make me suspicious of moralistic arguments based on eliminating suffering.

I'm not sure why you bring this up, but it has no relation to Buddhist practice. Your reference to "evil universe" really has no Buddhist equivalent. Remember that Buddhists practice life affirming meditations such as the |Preciousness of human life and compassion. The strengthening and deepening of these feelings is the aim of Buddhist practice - as well as realising the ultimate nature of reality. In fact Enlightenment relies upon the developement of compassion. Remember, The Buddha was Enlightened as a man. He did not fly off to another realm when he achieved this, but demonstrated that anyone can do it. They need the right conditions though, and it has never been suggested that everyone should just go off and join a monastery.

Is that religion denying the value of life through the practice of celibacy?

No - for the reasons I've given above.

Can I also say that Buddhist and Christian practice are very different, and I can only speak of Buddhism. There has been a mixing and a confusing of the two, which is unhelpful.

[Paulclem]

Very true YesNo I often wonder that myself.
What is it they do that they think qualify them to whatever godliness they think they will get.
The congregate together in matrimony of celibacy and frankly it is rather odd and secular.
I see doing something for the goods of others/people is what should give you that godly recognition and not hybernating in a secular fashion and disappearing behind closed door into a hermit life .
This is kind of religious living is like a congragetional retirement from the world and what it is going on. A bit like burying one's head in the sands lots of prayers and books and not a lot to show for in terms of deeds.
I do not think God would think this setting a good example to the community nor it is useful to anyone let alone themselves. These monks lives are as far as I think are inactive and useless to God and anyone.
Action speaks louder then words and I think in this very case it is very true.

Are you referring to Christian or Buddhist practice here? It reads as if you are referring to the Christian community of Monks and Nuns with your references to God.

[cacian]

Are you referring to Christian or Buddhist practice here? It reads as if you are referring to the Christian community of Monks and Nuns with your references to God.

Hi Paulclem I am refering to monks in general in chritianity and asia.
I have no knowledge of budhism as such.

[cafolini]

To ask a question like this one is the same as asking whether or not homosexsality, biting one's nails, or anything you could think is natural.

Noooooooooooo! It happens but it's not natural. Deviant like an Emerald!!! Rmaof. How stupid can we get about what's natural?

[cacian]

To ask a question like this one is the same as asking whether or not homosexsality, biting one's nails, or anything you could think is natural.

Noooooooooooo! It happens but it's not natural. Deviant like an Emerald!!! Rmaof. How stupid can we get about what's natural?

Haha as stupid as one can get about what is not natural.
I guess celibacy is as present as the weather and one must be careful not to take it being as that a natural to do because it is practice and well established amongst christianity and religious people.
By one asking if it is natural one might as well ask whether religions is too?
One is not without the other for some.

[Charles Darnay]

The question of "is or is not x natural" may not be a very good one, and it is not, but the question of "why, if x is or is not natural, do people do or not do x?"

[Paulclem]

I suggested earlier that it is not "natural" - in Buddhist terms - ordinary. The aim of Buddhism is to transcend this, because just having a natural approach leads a being back into uncontrolled rebirths, where natural is defined as the usual way a human life goes.

[cafolini]

I agree with both points of view of Charles and Paul. I find no conflict of any major scope between them. Both transcend the ordinary question.

[cacian]

I suggested earlier that it is not "natural" - in Buddhist terms - ordinary. The aim of Buddhism is to transcend this, because just having a natural approach leads a being back into uncontrolled rebirths, where natural is defined as the usual way a human life goes.

I guess celibacy is abstention from doing something or going against something that is the norm or that what is natural to humans.
It is a bit like veganism/vegetarianism/left/right/ these are all abstentions from the norm/the everyday.
It is trying to emphasise differences but in fact it is isolating itself from the majority or simply the reality of others.
Isolation causes others to react or desist against it which thus creates disillusionement tension and very often leads to arguments and feuds.
What celibacy does is goes against procreation and so the more celibacy the less people left to go around for worship which means the religion will eventually extinguish itself.

[YesNo]

Anyone, celibate or not, can recite mantras or meditate. They can contemplate and recite rosaries. They can attend prayer meetings or do whatever one might do in a monastery. It does not require a lot of time to develop these habitual behaviors to train the mind.

I'm afraid it does. he meditation practices of Buddhist Monks and Nuns require them to complete their commitments, and to meditate three times a day, as well as study and perform pujas on particular days. You surprise me in suggesting you don't know what goes on and then say anyone can do it. It certainly isn't possible within a family. I have a family, and I know I could never have done these things and worked and raised them as they should be. I think there's a misconception in that this celibate ordination is what we should all aspire to. It is not. It is only suitable for certain people who can commit to a very rigourour religious life. Family life is considered very important to Buddhists - of course - and is celebrated.
I'm sure they will spend more time meditating. What are they trying to accomplish with the meditation?



Some people, religious or not, think that the universe is evil and that they need to somehow stop it. There was a recent thread about atheistic vegetarianism where reference was made to a moral philosopher who claimed that we should be the last generation by sterilizing everyone. This way suffering would be stopped. Such comments make me suspicious of moralistic arguments based on eliminating suffering.

I'm not sure why you bring this up, but it has no relation to Buddhist practice. Your reference to "evil universe" really has no Buddhist equivalent. Remember that Buddhists practice life affirming meditations such as the |Preciousness of human life and compassion. The strengthening and deepening of these feelings is the aim of Buddhist practice - as well as realising the ultimate nature of reality. In fact Enlightenment relies upon the developement of compassion. Remember, The Buddha was Enlightened as a man. He did not fly off to another realm when he achieved this, but demonstrated that anyone can do it. They need the right conditions though, and it has never been suggested that everyone should just go off and join a monastery.
If Buddhists value life, why do they want to cease the cycle of rebirths? The motivations for such religious practices are puzzling me.

[Paulclem]

I'm sure they will spend more time meditating. What are they trying to accomplish with the meditation?


If Buddhists value life, why do they want to cease the cycle of rebirths? The motivations for such religious practices are puzzling me.

They are trying to end their suffering. Buddhism posits a human psyche that is fundamentally deluded. Due to the poisons of attachment, (this object, place or person will make me happy ever after), hatred, (this person/ situation is the cause of all my problems), and ignorence, (of the reality of things such as reincarnation, Karma, the absence of an I), humans tend to act in ways which increase their suffering. The meditations are designed to calm the mind and provide techniques by which the practitioner can examine and analyse their own tendencies which cause them problems, and then the antidotes to that problem and how to apply it.

For example the antidote to anger is patience. Responding with anger may lead to violence, but will certainly breed more anger and resentment. Patience, at the very least, will not escalate the problem.

Higher meditations aim at proving to the practitioner that their concept of an I is false. The benefits of this are that you no longer have an I which can be offended or threatened, and the person can act completely impartially without self interest, for example in developing a purer form of compassion.

This seems to be all about the practitioner, and so it is, the thinking behind it being that if I can cure myself, I can then guide others to cure themselves.

If Buddhists value life, why do they want to cease the cycle of rebirths? The motivations for such religious practices are puzzling me

The aim of a Mahayana Buddhist is to liberate all sentient beings from suffering and enable them all to achieve Enlightenment. Beneath all this is the fundamental fact that in our current state, we are all suffering. The subtle forms of suffering state that even when you are happy and contented, then this causes suffering because of impermanence. it will end, and this ending causes suffering.

In attempting to liberate all sentient beings - insects, animals, humans, hungry ghosts, etc, then they are trying to help beings become Buddhas. Any being can become a Buddha eventually. They are attempting to end the cycle of rebirth in Samsara which is all suffering, for an Enlightened state of no suffering - for all.

This is very sketchy - particularly the kinds of meditation, of which there are many.

[Pensive]

Natural or not, the point is it ought to be accepted and respected as any other personal choice which does no harm to others. Such people should not be seen as freaks or ridiculed as abnormal.

[YesNo]

For example the antidote to anger is patience. Responding with anger may lead to violence, but will certainly breed more anger and resentment. Patience, at the very least, will not escalate the problem.

Sorry for the late response.

It seems to me that a better environment in which to practice patience would a non-celibate environment not a celibate environment.



Higher meditations aim at proving to the practitioner that their concept of an I is false. The benefits of this are that you no longer have an I which can be offended or threatened, and the person can act completely impartially without self interest, for example in developing a purer form of compassion.


The Buddhist non-self doctrine is one that I do not accept. I think it goes too far. Certainly reducing egotism leads to more compassion. Regardless of whether one wants to eliminate a self entirely or just eliminate egotism, a celibate life, whether Buddhist or Christian, seems to be a way to avoid human interactions that would test on a daily basis whether one is egotistical or not.



If Buddhists value life, why do they want to cease the cycle of rebirths? The motivations for such religious practices are puzzling me

The aim of a Mahayana Buddhist is to liberate all sentient beings from suffering and enable them all to achieve Enlightenment. Beneath all this is the fundamental fact that in our current state, we are all suffering. The subtle forms of suffering state that even when you are happy and contented, then this causes suffering because of impermanence. it will end, and this ending causes suffering.

In attempting to liberate all sentient beings - insects, animals, humans, hungry ghosts, etc, then they are trying to help beings become Buddhas. Any being can become a Buddha eventually. They are attempting to end the cycle of rebirth in Samsara which is all suffering, for an Enlightened state of no suffering - for all.

When one becomes a Buddha and loses his or her self and is no longer part of the rebirth process, is that person still alive or has that person simply found a way to commit suicide in a culture that believes in reincarnation? Why is suffering such a problem? A totally enlightened state of no suffering would be the end of the universe.

Basically, the question is whether one accepts or rejects the universe. Celibacy, as a rejection of family life and child rearing, becomes symbolic of a rejection of the universe and that is the main reason I reject it.

[Paulclem]

Sorry for the late response.

It seems to me that a better environment in which to practice patience would a non-celibate environment not a celibate environment.



The Buddhist non-self doctrine is one that I do not accept. I think it goes too far. Certainly reducing egotism leads to more compassion. Regardless of whether one wants to eliminate a self entirely or just eliminate egotism, a celibate life, whether Buddhist or Christian, seems to be a way to avoid human interactions that would test on a daily basis whether one is egotistical or not.



When one becomes a Buddha and loses his or her self and is no longer part of the rebirth process, is that person still alive or has that person simply found a way to commit suicide in a culture that believes in reincarnation? Why is suffering such a problem? A totally enlightened state of no suffering would be the end of the universe.

Basically, the question is whether one accepts or rejects the universe. Celibacy, as a rejection of family life and child rearing, becomes symbolic of a rejection of the universe and that is the main reason I reject it.

It seems to me that a better environment in which to practice patience would a non-celibate environment not a celibate environment.


I don't know how you can make that judgement.Very few people become Monks and Nuns in the West, and they are guided by their teachers with a probationary period as well. Nothing is done lightly. The ones I know are older and make their choices from a worldly wise basis.

Community life is no cop out from society either. You still have to get on and co-operate with people, and deal with rules, regulations, personalities, arguments, disagreements etc etc.

a celibate life, whether Buddhist or Christian, seems to be a way to avoid human interactions that would test on a daily basis whether one is egotistical or not.

I can only speak from a Buddhist perspective - it's not about avoiding daily interactions. As I said a community is not a cop out. The Monks and Nuns have duties to perform on top of their meditations. They also have to attend and conduct religious events, daily pujas, prepare meals, clean up - all in co-operation with others. The opportunity to focus upon practice and remove certain pressures and expectations helps.

has that person simply found a way to commit suicide in a culture that believes in reincarnation? Why is suffering such a problem?

No. That would imply annihilation. The Buddha's Middle Way says it is neither eternalism - soul based - or annihilatuion, but something else. A different kind of being.

Basically, the question is whether one accepts or rejects the universe. Celibacy, as a rejection of family life and child rearing, becomes symbolic of a rejection of the universe and that is the main reason I reject it.

You are lumping the universe as we experience it with the beings that inhabit it. In trying to develop compassion, and become better at understanding themselves and others, those Buddhists who become Monks and Nuns are commiting themselves to a path whereby they are focusing full time on improving themselves - eradicating their root faults - and others through developing compassion and teaching the path, without distraction. It's like living in an unsuitable house that is dangerous, the universe, and wanting to get all the beings out safely. I don't see that as a rejection.

Celibacy, as a rejection of family life and child rearing

As I have said before, famiies and children are celebrated. What you are not considering is that from the Buddhist point of view, reincarnation means we have been all involved in families and children for countless lives - but on it's own it has not released people from suffering. The people within families are also often the cause of suffering. In itself, family life does not release people from suffering.

One of the meditations is based upon trying to develop loving kindness based upon the attitude of a mother to their child. This is a very powerful and virtuous mind, the aim being to view all beings as your own mother in order to develop that love for all beings. The logic of this is that if we have had countless lives, then it follows that we have had countless beings as our Mother at one time or another. These are the beings all around us. If you don't subscribe to reincarnation, then it makes no sense, but if you do then it is very logical.

What I'm saying is that The Buddha recognised that leading a virtuous family life is not enough in order to liberate all beings.

[YesNo]

Community life is no cop out from society either. You still have to get on and co-operate with people, and deal with rules, regulations, personalities, arguments, disagreements etc etc.
...
No. That would imply annihilation. The Buddha's Middle Way says it is neither eternalism - soul based - or annihilatuion, but something else. A different kind of being.
...
It's like living in an unsuitable house that is dangerous, the universe, and wanting to get all the beings out safely.
...
As I have said before, famiies and children are celebrated. What you are not considering is that from the Buddhist point of view, reincarnation means we have been all involved in families and children for countless lives - but on it's own it has not released people from suffering. The people within families are also often the cause of suffering. In itself, family life does not release people from suffering.
...
If you don't subscribe to reincarnation, then it makes no sense, but if you do then it is very logical.
...
What I'm saying is that The Buddha recognised that leading a virtuous family life is not enough in order to liberate all beings.

Recently, I saw the movie Melancholia, which I think was very well done and I recommend it since it presents a view of life on earth as a random mistake in the universe that is fixed when the larger planet, Melancholia, absorbs the earth ending all life on it. Since the movie portrayed life as a chance accident, and hence very, very rare, this collision removed life from the entire universe. When I mentioned this movie in a separate thread where atheistic vegetarianism was being discussed I was pointed to a moral philosopher, his name is irrelevant, who suggested that the best thing that we could do to avoid "suffering" would be for the human race to sterilize itself.

Now none of these ideas are very new or creative. I've heard similar things as an undergraduate and rejected them, as most people ultimately do, decades ago. What I find new, for me at least, is that the disagreements people have over atheism and theism is not the fundamental disagreement. That is a side issue. The fundamental disagreement is whether one thinks the universe, something you don't have to believe in since it is in your face on a daily basis, is good or not.

Listening to your defense of celibacy, I suspect that Buddhists believe the universe is fundamentally bad and I just want to see how close it comes to the positions of those non-Buddhists who would promote mass sterilization or hope to find a Melancholia planet coming our way.

As far as reincarnation goes, it is not something I am culturally comfortable with, however, the research by Ian Stevenson makes me think it is more likely the case than not. I suspect Stevenson's research would support the Hindu idea of "reincarnation" more than the Buddhist idea of "rebirth".

When you mentioned, "The Buddha recognised that leading a virtuous family life is not enough in order to liberate all beings", it made me question two things: (1) Since we are still suffering, is a celibate life any better than a virtuous family life to reach the goal of liberating all beings? (2) Is the goal of liberating all beings something worth pursuing?

[Paulclem]

Recently, I saw the movie Melancholia, which I think was very well done and I recommend it since it presents a view of life on earth as a random mistake in the universe that is fixed when the larger planet, Melancholia, absorbs the earth ending all life on it. Since the movie portrayed life as a chance accident, and hence very, very rare, this collision removed life from the entire universe. When I mentioned this movie in a separate thread where atheistic vegetarianism was being discussed I was pointed to a moral philosopher, his name is irrelevant, who suggested that the best thing that we could do to avoid "suffering" would be for the human race to sterilize itself.

Now none of these ideas are very new or creative. I've heard similar things as an undergraduate and rejected them, as most people ultimately do, decades ago. What I find new, for me at least, is that the disagreements people have over atheism and theism is not the fundamental disagreement. That is a side issue. The fundamental disagreement is whether one thinks the universe, something you don't have to believe in since it is in your face on a daily basis, is good or not.

Listening to your defense of celibacy, I suspect that Buddhists believe the universe is fundamentally bad and I just want to see how close it comes to the positions of those non-Buddhists who would promote mass sterilization or hope to find a Melancholia planet coming our way.

As far as reincarnation goes, it is not something I am culturally comfortable with, however, the research by Ian Stevenson makes me think it is more likely the case than not. I suspect Stevenson's research would support the Hindu idea of "reincarnation" more than the Buddhist idea of "rebirth".

When you mentioned, "The Buddha recognised that leading a virtuous family life is not enough in order to liberate all beings", it made me question two things: (1) Since we are still suffering, is a celibate life any better than a virtuous family life to reach the goal of liberating all beings? (2) Is the goal of liberating all beings something worth pursuing?

Sterilisation of the human race is not a Buddhist aim as I have said previously. It would be illogical. The reason for this is that in the Wheel of Life, the Human form is regardd as the most beneficial in achieving Enlightenment. Thus we have the Precious Human Life meditations based upon this great opportunity. Thus the idea of human sterilisation has nothing to do with Buddhism and would be regarded as illogical.

I suspect that Buddhists believe the universe is fundamentally bad and I just want to see how close it comes to the positions of those non-Buddhists who would promote mass sterilization or hope to find a Melancholia planet coming our way

What's to suspect? All the Buddhas teachings are online. As I said, although the state of beings - including humans is regarded as full of suffering, the human form is needed in order to provide the best opportunity to develop the path and achieve Enlightenment. Your constant reference to the universe neglects the Buddhist view that there are many realms and worlds within the Buddhist Wheel of Life, and the two - scientific and Buddhsit - probably don't equate.

As for deeper attitudes to reality - our world is considered to exist, but not in the way we perceive it. It is empty of inherent existence, and so you are referring to a state which is part of a delusion. I have not heard the universe described as good or bad - it is the previous karma of beings that propels them into a karmically appropriate environment.

I suspect Stevenson's research would support the Hindu idea of "reincarnation" more than the Buddhist idea of "rebirth"

I've read some Stephenson, but have since been informed that his methods have been discredited. It makes no difference. The Buddha's way was to find out for yourself. I know of a Monk and an Nun who did not believe in reincarnation, but accepted this as part of what they would discover. I think that's a healthy approach. Also, personal evidence and experience is powerful for the recipient, but weak as evidence for others.

(1) Since we are still suffering, is a celibate life any better than a virtuous family life to reach the goal of liberating all beings?

Not necessarily. There are examles of laymen and women who achieve Enlightenment without following a monastic route. In some Tibetan traditions Lamas can also marry. It's really about the appropriateness of their chosen route. Monasticism offers support and shelter in a community setting which no doubt suits some.

(2) Is the goal of liberating all beings something worth pursuing?

Of course. Each has their own path though. A friend of mine receives teachings from a lay Buddhist teacher in Birmingham. The teacher is not ordained, but has spent a significant amount of time in practice, including a three year solitary retreat. My friend combines a job with looking after his elderly father and meditation. Another friend of mine ordained in his forties. He is celibate, as is the requirement, but that is his chosen path, which he also combines with looking after his elderly father and teaching meditation. Each of these is a Mahayana practitioner, and has that as their aim.

In defending celibacy, I'm neither advocating it nor denigrating it. It is a choice taken freely by practitioners who wish to become ordained. I really can't see what your problem with it is, especially as western Monks and Nuns have often already had relationships/ marriages, and they choose with that experience.

[YesNo]

What's to suspect? All the Buddhas teachings are online.
...
As for deeper attitudes to reality - our world is considered to exist, but not in the way we perceive it. It is empty of inherent existence, and so you are referring to a state which is part of a delusion. I have not heard the universe described as good or bad - it is the previous karma of beings that propels them into a karmically appropriate environment.


Even if I read the Buddhist teachings, I doubt I would understand them. I don't understand the Hindu Vedic texts either. I do appreciate you taking time to discuss this with me.

[Darcy88]

Celibacy is natural. Its natural to me. I'm no altar boy but I turn down easy sex constantly and often go periods of time without it unthinkable to most people. There are many legitimate reasons to be celibate. The two reasons why I often choose celibacy is A) it gives you an extra fire and energy. When you are not having sex all your sexual energy (which is massive and potent) is put into other things, in my instance exercise and adventure and art. And B) I can't have sex without falling in love with the person, and since its extremely wise to be choosy regarding who one loves, it is in my case necessary to be very particular about who I go to bed with. Am I a saint? HECK NO! But I know that once I go to bed with a woman she rapidly begins to gain ownership over me. Many other people seem able to have emotionless sex. I cannot do it.

I think the ideal is to have regular sex with someone you care deeply for and would care deeply for even if your relationship with them was platonic.

[YesNo]

I agree with your reasons not to have sex, Darcy88. They do seem natural. I also agree with your ideal sexual relationship.

The celibacy that I think is unnatural is a deliberate refusal to have sex at all based on some religious or philosophic motivation. Then the celibacy becomes a form of asceticism like self-flagellation.

[Pensive]

Plus there are people who choose celibacy because they can't move on with life after having lost a beloved. I don't know what it is if not natural.

[lilimarlene]

I was just thinking about monks and nuns living a life of celibacy in the name of religion and wondered whether this harsh style of life affect them long term.

Does religion and moeurs justify celibacy?
In other words nuns and monks set an positive example to life and society in general?
On a literary point of you is one able to deduct that celibacy the same as single?

NO, NO and NO!!!!

[Paulclem]

Even if I read the Buddhist teachings, I doubt I would understand them. I don't understand the Hindu Vedic texts either. I do appreciate you taking time to discuss this with me.

There are modern commentaries, which are quite clear. A full understanding probably comes with engagement with teachings rather than just reading, though anyone can get the general idea. I should have elaborated.

[Paulclem]

I agree with your reasons not to have sex, Darcy88. They do seem natural. I also agree with your ideal sexual relationship.

The celibacy that I think is unnatural is a deliberate refusal to have sex at all based on some religious or philosophic motivation. Then the celibacy becomes a form of asceticism like self-flagellation.

a deliberate refusal to have sex at all

I find this phrase to be a bit odd. It suggests that someone is refusing sex with another - that there is another to refuse.

If you are suggesting that adopting celibacy despite being married/ in a relationship is wrong - then that is quite different from someone becoming ordained into a Buddhist tradition. As I said, no-one can just become ordained. they have to make the decision based upon what is right for them after - probably years - of study with a recognised teacher. A married person cannot ordain - they would need to be divorced or widowed. Like i said, people don't ordain to avoid life/ relationships/ reality - they do so in order to pursue their chosen path.

[cacian]

I guess the following words must find their place here in this thread

Henosis or Oneness
Henosis of the Divine world:


To get closest to the Monad, One, each individual must engage in divine work (theurgy) according to Iamblichus of Chalcis. This divine work can be defined as each individual dedicating their lives to making the created world and mankind's relationship to it, and one another, better. This is done by living a virtuous life seeking after one's Magnum opus. Under the teachings of Iamblichus (see the Egyptian Mysteries), one goes through a series of theurgy or rituals that unites the initiate to the Monad. These rituals mimic the ordering of the chaos of the Universe into the material world or cosmos. They also mimic the actions of the demiurge as the creator of the material world.
The Monad philosophy
The Dyad
Magnus Opus


How does one make a world a better place if one isolates itself from reality to lead a life of hermit or monk?

[YesNo]

a deliberate refusal to have sex at all

I find this phrase to be a bit odd. It suggests that someone is refusing sex with another - that there is another to refuse.

If you are suggesting that adopting celibacy despite being married/ in a relationship is wrong - then that is quite different from someone becoming ordained into a Buddhist tradition. As I said, no-one can just become ordained. they have to make the decision based upon what is right for them after - probably years - of study with a recognised teacher. A married person cannot ordain - they would need to be divorced or widowed. Like i said, people don't ordain to avoid life/ relationships/ reality - they do so in order to pursue their chosen path.
Perhaps we are talking about different things.

Regarding celibacy, I view this as something an individual might do who is not married who decides to not get married in the future nor have any extra-marital sexual relations with another person because of some religious or philosophic beliefs. It does not include someone as Pensive mentioned who has lost a lover and is not able to move on. It does not include people as Darcy88 mentioned who go through periods when they do not have a partner. It does not include people who for personal reasons never have a partner.

Buddhists and Catholics both have celibate religious communities. What I am questioning is this institutional celibacy based on religious motivation. On a practical level, I don't think celibacy works to achieve any of the aims of the celibate which is what I think cacian is also questioning.

In particular, the Catholic might view a celibate life as a metaphoric marriage with Jesus. Catholics are theists and so might be able to justify this asceticism and still maintain, as their Genesis story insists, that God made the world "good". Buddhists, however, are atheists. Celibacy is not a metaphoric marriage to any incarnation of God. Now the only thing I expect to see from any religion is a respect for life and a respect for the universe as a good thing--at least at a theoretical level.

So my question for Buddhists is whether celibacy is a denial of life, perhaps trying to meditate the universe away that is full of "suffering". I know next to nothing about Buddhism. When I see Buddhist monks immolate themselves or practice celibacy, I don't understand it. However, I am pretty sure that no Buddhist will ever, through any form of celibacy or meditative practice, remove suffering from the world, nor do I think that would be a good thing to accomplish if it were possible.

[cacian]

NO, NO and NO!!!!

OK let's just start with ONe NO and see what happens.
What is it I said you do not agree with?

[Paulclem]

I guess the following words must find their place here in this thread

Henosis or Oneness
Henosis of the Divine world:


The Monad philosophy
The Dyad
Magnus Opus


How does one make a world a better place if one isolates itself from reality to lead a life of hermit or monk?

It depends upon motivation. If a person secludes themselves for the purpose of avoiding life, then they are not making the world a better place. But then, would you deny them what they want?

If a person secludes themselves in order to develop those qualities which help them improve themselves and the people about them, then they may actually be reflecting upon reality in a more accurate and focused way than a person caught up in everyday concerns. In this case they will be making the world a better place.

[Paulclem]

Perhaps we are talking about different things.

Regarding celibacy, I view this as something an individual might do who is not married who decides to not get married in the future nor have any extra-marital sexual relations with another person because of some religious or philosophic beliefs. It does not include someone as Pensive mentioned who has lost a lover and is not able to move on. It does not include people as Darcy88 mentioned who go through periods when they do not have a partner. It does not include people who for personal reasons never have a partner.

Buddhists and Catholics both have celibate religious communities. What I am questioning is this institutional celibacy based on religious motivation. On a practical level, I don't think celibacy works to achieve any of the aims of the celibate which is what I think cacian is also questioning.

In particular, the Catholic might view a celibate life as a metaphoric marriage with Jesus. Catholics are theists and so might be able to justify this asceticism and still maintain, as their Genesis story insists, that God made the world "good". Buddhists, however, are atheists. Celibacy is not a metaphoric marriage to any incarnation of God. Now the only thing I expect to see from any religion is a respect for life and a respect for the universe as a good thing--at least at a theoretical level.

So my question for Buddhists is whether celibacy is a denial of life, perhaps trying to meditate the universe away that is full of "suffering". I know next to nothing about Buddhism. When I see Buddhist monks immolate themselves or practice celibacy, I don't understand it. However, I am pretty sure that no Buddhist will ever, through any form of celibacy or meditative practice, remove suffering from the world, nor do I think that would be a good thing to accomplish if it were possible.

Regarding celibacy, I view this as something an individual might do who is not married who decides to not get married in the future nor have any extra-marital sexual relations with another person because of some religious or philosophic beliefs.

What about those who have been married and are either widowed or divorced?

Buddhists and Catholics both have celibate religious communities. What I am questioning is this institutional celibacy based on religious motivation. On a practical level, I don't think celibacy works to achieve any of the aims of the celibate which is what I think cacian is also questioning.

What do you mean by practical level and the aims of the celibate? For the Buddhist, their practice is about realising the truths of the mind and reality. This path may provide them with the situation and means to better realise their aims. A situation in a monastery will give them the practical support they need.

So my question for Buddhists is whether celibacy is a denial of life, perhaps trying to meditate the universe away that is full of "suffering". I know next to nothing about Buddhism. When I see Buddhist monks immolate themselves or practice celibacy, I don't understand it. However, I am pretty sure that no Buddhist will ever, through any form of celibacy or meditative practice, remove suffering from the world, nor do I think that would be a good thing to accomplish if it were possible.

Meditate the universe away? Meditation is a tool designed to help a person - anyone, not just a Buddhist - deal with their internal problems and the problems that life may throw at them. For example dealing with anger and how to overcome it.

I suspect by that phrase that you suspect Buddhist philosophy of providing a practitioner with a door out of existence. It is not, but it is about dealing with everyday suffering and making sure that your response to situations are dealt with positively rather than in an unslkillful way which could result in negative karma. There is no meditating the universe away but the realisation that you are the originator of your own suffering. The practice is designed to increase self awareness in order to develop positivity and thus reduce suffering.

When I see Buddhist monks immolate themselves or practice celibacy

You are combining two very unrelated things here, much as you do when you refer to celibacy as self flagellation. It is very unfair to lump immolation with celibacy.

Celibacy is an expectation of Monks and Nuns, but you seem to be of the opinion that everyone will think like yourself, (and me), about sex. Whereas you and I might see it as a deprivation, for others it is a liberation; this is not just in not practicing the act, but also the expectations and responsibilities that come with relationships. Relationships are important and take time, which a serious practitioner may think they do not have time for.

Just to state, there is no practice of immolation. These cases are decisions made by individuals, no doubt with good intent. HH The Dalai Lama has instructed Tibetans not to do this.

However, I am pretty sure that no Buddhist will ever, through any form of celibacy or meditative practice, remove suffering from the world, nor do I think that would be a good thing to accomplish if it were possible.

You're right, no-one will remove suffering through celibacy. That's not the point. As I have stated before, it is to give space for practice. It is the meditative practice which could remove suffering from the world by making sure every living being achieves Enlightenment. That is the aim of Mahayana Buddhism.

nor do I think that would be a good thing to accomplish if it were possible.

It would be a good thing to accomplish, but there is a lot of mileage to make before suffering loses its value. The reason the human realm is seen as so useful in achieving Enlightenment is that humans suffer, but have enough intelligence and time to work towards the end of suffering through Buddhist practice. Humans are motivated to do good things through the suffering they see and experience. How many charities have been formed, or trusts set up by people who have had some connection with particular kinds of suffering. The ultimate eradication of suffering is the noble aim, but suffering is useful.

[YesNo]

What about those who have been married and are either widowed or divorced?

For me, it depends on the motivation, if the celibates are rejecting life or not. If celibacy implies a rejection of family life in general as something bad because the universe is somehow bad, then I would reject it.



Meditate the universe away? Meditation is a tool designed to help a person - anyone, not just a Buddhist - deal with their internal problems and the problems that life may throw at them. For example dealing with anger and how to overcome it.

I suspect by that phrase that you suspect Buddhist philosophy of providing a practitioner with a door out of existence. It is not, but it is about dealing with everyday suffering and making sure that your response to situations are dealt with positively rather than in an unslkillful way which could result in negative karma. There is no meditating the universe away but the realisation that you are the originator of your own suffering. The practice is designed to increase self awareness in order to develop positivity and thus reduce suffering.

I agree with you about the positive, and powerful, benefits of meditation along with other spiritual practices that many religions engage in in their own ways under various names, such as, mantra recitations, reciting rosaries, singing, chanting, contemplation, etc. On one level these are ways to control many bad personal habits. On a higher level they lead a person to a "skillful" approach to reality that some might also call "intuitive".

I think we are in agreement that such higher realities definitely exist and these are ways to access them.



You are combining two very unrelated things here, much as you do when you refer to celibacy as self flagellation. It is very unfair to lump immolation with celibacy.

Celibacy is an expectation of Monks and Nuns, but you seem to be of the opinion that everyone will think like yourself, (and me), about sex. Whereas you and I might see it as a deprivation, for others it is a liberation; this is not just in not practicing the act, but also the expectations and responsibilities that come with relationships. Relationships are important and take time, which a serious practitioner may think they do not have time for.

Just to state, there is no practice of immolation. These cases are decisions made by individuals, no doubt with good intent. HH The Dalai Lama has instructed Tibetans not to do this.

I'm glad to hear that the Dalai Lama has told Tibetans not to practice self-immolation. I was under the impression that he tolerated these practices. The last time I checked there were nearly 50 of these in the past few years, perhaps including some copy-cat suicides.

I'm sure those who commit such ritualistic suicides believe their intentions are good, but there is an old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions which I think applies here.

I'm only superficially familiar with the politics, but I suspect the main issue between Tibetan Buddhists and the Chinese government is the tension that comes from an old, feudal, religious political government being replaced by a modern, secular one. The ritual suicides are a way to achieve a political objective, not a religious one. I look at the Tibetan Buddhists as one might look at fundamentalist Christians in the US insisting that creationism be taught in the public schools. Both have a political agenda.



You're right, no-one will remove suffering through celibacy. That's not the point. As I have stated before, it is to give space for practice. It is the meditative practice which could remove suffering from the world by making sure every living being achieves Enlightenment. That is the aim of Mahayana Buddhism.

It would be a good thing to accomplish, but there is a lot of mileage to make before suffering loses its value. The reason the human realm is seen as so useful in achieving Enlightenment is that humans suffer, but have enough intelligence and time to work towards the end of suffering through Buddhist practice. Humans are motivated to do good things through the suffering they see and experience. How many charities have been formed, or trusts set up by people who have had some connection with particular kinds of suffering. The ultimate eradication of suffering is the noble aim, but suffering is useful.

I agree that an individual can remove a lot of individual and communal suffering by achieving an individual understanding that some might call "enlightenment" and others might call simply "growing up". Suffering is useful in that sense, because it leads one to a more mature life.

Perhaps we agree more than disagree.

[Paulclem]

For me, it depends on the motivation, if the celibates are rejecting life or not. If celibacy implies a rejection of family life in general as something bad because the universe is somehow bad, then I would reject it.



I agree with you about the positive, and powerful, benefits of meditation along with other spiritual practices that many religions engage in in their own ways under various names, such as, mantra recitations, reciting rosaries, singing, chanting, contemplation, etc. On one level these are ways to control many bad personal habits. On a higher level they lead a person to a "skillful" approach to reality that some might also call "intuitive".

I think we are in agreement that such higher realities definitely exist and these are ways to access them.



I'm glad to hear that the Dalai Lama has told Tibetans not to practice self-immolation. I was under the impression that he tolerated these practices. The last time I checked there were nearly 50 of these in the past few years, perhaps including some copy-cat suicides.

I'm sure those who commit such ritualistic suicides believe their intentions are good, but there is an old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions which I think applies here.

I'm only superficially familiar with the politics, but I suspect the main issue between Tibetan Buddhists and the Chinese government is the tension that comes from an old, feudal, religious political government being replaced by a modern, secular one. The ritual suicides are a way to achieve a political objective, not a religious one. I look at the Tibetan Buddhists as one might look at fundamentalist Christians in the US insisting that creationism be taught in the public schools. Both have a political agenda.



I agree that an individual can remove a lot of individual and communal suffering by achieving an individual understanding that some might call "enlightenment" and others might call simply "growing up". Suffering is useful in that sense, because it leads one to a more mature life.

Perhaps we agree more than disagree.

I think we do.

On the Tibetan/ Chinese politics, China invaded Tibet in the late 50s on the grounds that it had always been a part of the Chinese Empire, which it clearly had not. HH The Dalai Lama escaped to India to form the Tibetan government in exile. The Tibetans left fought guerilla war, but were not only greatly outnumbered, but cold not compete with Chinese weapons or their eonomy. Many, if not most, temples were destroyed in a great cultural vandalism. Mao himself engineered a Tibetan famine which killed over a million Tibetans. There were protests and riots, and Lamas were imprisoned. In the face of overwhelming force HH The Dalai Lama has always advocated peace, but has been a significant voice of protest. He has said he is willing to work with the Chinese, whilst receiving significant numbers of Tibetan refugees over the yeas. The Chinese response has been to move milions of Chinese into the region so that the indiginous population is swamped. It has not been good for Tibet, and there are probably the usual discriminations against minorities. Pictures of HH are banned in Tibet for example. The Chinese will claim they have brought housing, education and boosted the economy, which they no doubt have. Their education is of course culturally biased. Now the Chinese promote Tibet's cultural aspects, but the monasteries are run as tourist sideshows without the core of practice that used to exist. Chinese handling of Tibet over the years has been crass, and there are many reasons why Tibetans might use immolation to focus attention. A sad situation full of frustration.

[cacian]

I have to say that I do not agree that suffering is good for anyone and neither do I belive it helps us mature.
Suffering is unecassary and damaging to the personality. It makes us weak untrustworthy and incapable of taking mature decisions long term.
Suffering once established act as barrier to adapt around people and circumstances and prevent us from acting in a sensibile positive manner in decision making time.
It is often more then none the cause to depression.
Celibacy and suffering have a lot in common in that they both brew in isolation.

[YesNo]

I have to say that I do not agree that suffering is good for anyone and neither do I belive it helps us mature.
...
Celibacy and suffering have a lot in common in that they both brew in isolation.
I agree and disagree with this.

I don't think one should deliberately punish oneself or others nor should one practice forms of asceticism with the hope that such suffering will do oneself any good. I don't think it does any direct good. In that sense I agree.

However, suffering can be a guide on what to avoid or how to behave so as not to create more suffering. That's where I find suffering useful.

[Paulclem]

I have to say that I do not agree that suffering is good for anyone and neither do I belive it helps us mature.
Suffering is unecassary and damaging to the personality. It makes us weak untrustworthy and incapable of taking mature decisions long term.
Suffering once established act as barrier to adapt around people and circumstances and prevent us from acting in a sensibile positive manner in decision making time.
It is often more then none the cause to depression.
Celibacy and suffering have a lot in common in that they both brew in isolation.

Which is why the Buddhist aim is to escape from suffering, but the suffering referred to concerns exstential suffering as well as gross suffering such as pain and emotional pain. Don't you think people grow through suffering Cacian, given the widened definition? For example after suffering an unsuitable relationship, the person may make a more suitable choice in the future.

[cacian]

Which is why the Buddhist aim is to escape from suffering, but the suffering referred to concerns exstential suffering as well as gross suffering such as pain and emotional pain. Don't you think people grow through suffering Cacian, given the widened definition? For example after suffering an unsuitable relationship, the person may make a more suitable choice in the future.

I see what you mean and I think in a way suffering is still damaging to our personalities.
Take the example you gave about unsuitable relationship I think a suffering one takes away that spark naivety innocence and evertything that were you when you first entered that relationship.
I speak from experience and I know when I first entered into a proper relationship I was a very different person from when I left.
The experience I had was such that I lost a bit of what I used to be. The whole thing had altered my view on life in general and made me look and think of people and things differently.
I did not like the changes in me because it made me more aware/judgemental whereas before I was much more happy go lucky sort of person.
All in all suffering had altered me and affected my future relationships in a big way because I brought in negative baggage with me which I never had before prior to my first relationship.
This leads me to conclude suffering takes a lot away from you alters you you aura your well being and positivity and turns you into something very negative and problematic.

[Paulclem]

I see what you mean and I think in a way suffering is still damaging to our personalities.
Take the example you gave about unsuitable relationship I think a suffering one takes away that spark naivety innocence and evertything that made you when you first entered that relationship.
I speak from experience and I know when I first entered into a proper relationship I was a very different person from when I left.
The experience I had was such that I lost a bit of what I used to be. The whole thing had altered my view on life in general and made me look and think of people and things differently.
I did not like the changes in me because it made me more aware/judgemental whereas before I was much more happy go lucky sort of person.
All in all suffering had altered me and affected my future relationships in abig way because I brought in negative baggage with me which I never had before prior to my first relationship.
This leads me to conclude suffering takes a lot away from you alters you you aura your well being and positivity and turn them into something very negative and problematic.

That's the point Cacian. The Buddhist view is that suffering is bad, but we need it to motivate our actions towards a more skillful way of living. In your case you have the insight that suffering has provided you. You don't want to repeat it, and you can now warn others against experiencing the same. Buddhism is not saying that suffering is good, or trying to encourage it, it is trying to end suffering by learning from what it teaches. Learning from suffering is difficult, but necessary if anyone wants to progress.