Dalai Lama: Sexual intercourse spells trouble

[suchandra 1]

Could be that the Dalai lama isn't informed about the difference of licit and illicit sexual relation?

 

Sexual intercourse spells trouble, says Dalai Lama

 

Sexual intercourse provides but fleeting satisfaction, while chastity offers a better life and "more freedom", the Dalai Lama has said.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3534994/Sexual-intercourse-spells-trouble-says-Dalai-Lama.html

Last Updated: 5:18PM GMT 29 Nov 2008

The Dalai Lama believes a life of celibacy offers more peace of mind Photo: REUTERS

Conjugal life causes too many "ups and downs", the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader told reporters in a Lagos hotel.

"Sexual pressure, sexual desire, actually, I think is short-period satisfaction and, often, that leads to more complication," he said.

"Naturally as a human being...some kind of desire for sex comes, but then you use human intelligence to make comprehension that those relationships are always full of trouble."

Problems arising from conjugal life could even lead to suicide or murder, the Dalai Lama warned.

Moreover, he added, the "consolation" in choosing a life of celibacy is that, although "something" is missing, one can have a life with "more independence, more freedom".

Considered a Buddhist Master exempt from the religion's wheel of death and reincarnation, the Dalai Lama waxed eloquent on the Buddhist credo of non-attachment.

"Too much attachment towards your children, towards your partner," was "one of the obstacles or hindrances of peace of mind," he said.

The Dalai Lama arrived in Nigeria on Wednesday for a three-day visit to attend a conference. He has made no political speeches in the west African country.

[sambya 0]

whatever he said is perfectly correct. right at the begining it has to be remembered that these words are spoken for the highest spiritual aspirants and not for half hearted individuals who just want to follow some society's teachings. while there is no doubt that most people dont just have it in them to choose celibacy it is also an undisputed fact that celibacy is the highest virtue. without celibacy god realization is impossible.infact proper advancement also becomes problamatic.

 

at this point one might ask that many grihastas have been self realized souls,what about them? true,but it has to be remembered that all of them maintened strict celibacy afted giving birth to children.for them sex was never a means for bodily enjoyment.such high people are extremely rare( i doubt whether it exists right now).it is impossible to mary and live with one's spouse and refrain from sexual activities forever in life.

 

in all hindu doctrines celibacy is held to be the highest , but licit sex is given as the next best alternative.both are never held in same virtue.

 

but here it should be noted that being a householder never reduces the eligibility of attaining god by any amount. a grihasta can claim equal right to self realization as a sannyasi. but living inside samsrar is trecherous and falldowns are inevitable. ramakrishna always said that grihasta are equally potent as the sannyasis but he added " if you live in a room made of ink you are bound to get stained ,no matter how carefull you are. "

 

so although therotically reaching the highest platform is possible from grihasta life also , practically it is impossible without sannyasa(in body and mind).that is how brhmachrya is superior to all else.

 

but as long as a person is not attaining to this level of perfect renunciation he is made to live in grihasta.after all how many becomes a true sannyasin????!!!!

 

read the book 'brahmacharya in krishna conciousness' by bhakti vikasa swami of isckon( gave an example according to your beliefs). best of luck.

[Sheki 0]

<!--[if gte mso 10]> .......> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} ........> <![endif]--> We should also not forget that he is a Buddhist. Different sadhanas have different requirements. It is easier to develop spiritually in bhakti yoga (that is based on surrender and devotion) than in raja/jnana (that is more based on the personal effort) living a grihasta life. Actually bhakti yoga is maybe the only way for a grihasta to reach the goal, in a lot of other spiritual practices it might be even impossible to reach the goal without celibacy. As he is a representative of Buddhism that is very much about renunciation, detachment and so on it is just natural that this form of spirituality very often requires complete (including outer one) renunciation to fulfill itself. In my opinion it is a big mistake to explain one spiritual tradition with the principles and philosophy of another.

[sambya 0]

its true that bhakti yoga is best suited for grihastas. and why only grihastas ,it is the easiest option for most people. but as i said pratically speaking there is hardly anyone who attains to that hieghts from grihasta.he might be a sincere devotee and with firm belief and unparralelled dedication etc etc.but as we all know that these are merely prerequisites for real realization of the supreme. and how far a person has advanced is judged from the quality of his spiritual experiences (for ex satwik bikars when nearing the goal ).

 

that is rarely seen even with sannyasis ,what to speak of grihastas.grihastas quit everything for lord mentally whereas sannyasis quit everything for lord both mentally and physically.

 

and it is also not such big a mistake as you are suggesting because buddism is a direct offshoot of hinduism and cannot be strictly seperated.both these are sister religions who have adapted and borrowed each other's concepts over centuries.any attempt to seperate the two would severely cripple both of them. and since both of them believes in sannyasa and nirvana and such concepts , i guess its not that great a mistake as it would have been , had i commented on islam and hinduism (say for ex) .

 

but obviuosly its my own perspective and there are an infinte number of ways to look at things.

[Sheki 0]

Depends how you define Hinduism. Today's Hinduism most probably is a combination of different influences – Vedic Brahmanism, local cults, Tantrism, Shramana traditions... Buddhism is in its teachings much more linked with Shramana traditions (Jainism for example and some now extinct) that were probably to some extent independent from Vedic ones than to Brahmanic traditions of the time (modern Hinduism was not there at all, it developed with the Vedanta Acharayas). All this influences (including Buddhism and even Islam) affect to some extent the Hinduism of our days, but when Buddhism was founded .. well again you can say that Christianity is an offspring of Judaism and Islam of Judaism and Christianity.. or that they are separate... in a way no religion is completely separate, there are always influences and backgrounds.. so it depends on the perspective, but I don't look on Buddhism as a part of Hinduism.

That is if we talk from a historical perspective of course. If we look at it from the scriptural perspective (of a specific religious tradition) and consider them more factual than historical evidence than it is about faith and there is nothing really to discuss about the subject.

[Sheki 0]

But it is not about differences in organizations and religions as much as in the approach. For example Christianity and Vaishnavism as they are both based on a devotional approach will be guided by more similar principles than for example Vaishnavism and Hatha/Kundalini Yoga. Or Buddhism and Jainism or Advaita Vedanta will have more similarities than with devotional religions. So I was talking more about the general approach (jnana/bhakti/raja/hatha and so on) than abut outer religious differences.

[sambya 0]

 

Buddhism is in its teachings much more linked with Shramana traditions (Jainism for example and some now extinct) that were probably to some extent independent from Vedic ones than to Brahmanic traditions of the time (modern Hinduism was not there at all, it developed with the Vedanta Acharayas). All this influences (including Buddhism and even Islam) affect to some extent the Hinduism of our days, but when Buddhism was founded .. well again you can say that Christianity is an offspring of Judaism and Islam of Judaism and Christianity.. or that they are separate... in a way no religion is completely separate, there are always influences and backgrounds.. so it depends on the perspective, but I don't look on Buddhism as a part of Hinduism.

i think the shramana buddhism your are talking about is mainly the esoteric buddhism of tibet formerly known as vrajajan. but in the mahayan buddhism there is less of shramana. infact buddhism was a complete new philosophy.

 

just as shankya, nyay , vaisheshika etc sprung up in india at various point of time similarly buddhism also originated as a distinct hindu philosophy thats different from the rest . in this context it should be noted that buddha was an hindu monk in every sense.only his teachings differed a bit from mainstream hindu taught. even his eightfold paths and such concepts were a direct adaptation of hindu thought. its only after his parinirvana that his followers eventually gathered themselves into a seperate religion.

 

i feel buddhism was , in its initial stages just a seperate wing of hindu thought much like the famed but currently extinct charvaks.

 

its true that no religions are seperate but as per my knowledge based on studies of vivekananda , buddhism and hinduism are more intricately linked together than any other faiths . same is the case with crhistianity and judaism.these two pairs are sister religions.

[sambya 0]

 

Buddhism is in its teachings much more linked with Shramana traditions (Jainism for example and some now extinct) that were probably to some extent independent from Vedic ones than to Brahmanic traditions of the time (modern Hinduism was not there at all, it developed with the Vedanta Acharayas). All this influences (including Buddhism and even Islam) affect to some extent the Hinduism of our days, but when Buddhism was founded .. well again you can say that Christianity is an offspring of Judaism and Islam of Judaism and Christianity.. or that they are separate... in a way no religion is completely separate, there are always influences and backgrounds.. so it depends on the perspective, but I don't look on Buddhism as a part of Hinduism.

 

i think the shramana buddhism your are talking about is mainly the esoteric buddhism of tibet formerly known as vrajajan. but in the mahayan buddhism there is less of shramana. infact buddhism was a complete new philosophy.

 

just as shankya, nyay , vaisheshika etc sprung up in india at various point of time similarly buddhism also originated as a distinct hindu philosophy thats different from the rest . in this context it should be noted that buddha was an hindu monk in every sense.only his teachings differed a bit from mainstream hindu taught. even his eightfold paths and such concepts were a direct adaptation of hindu thought. its only after his parinirvana that his followers eventually gathered themselves into a seperate religion.

 

i feel buddhism was , in its initial stages just a seperate wing of hindu thought much like the famed but currently extinct charvaks.

 

its true that no religions are seperate but as per my knowledge based on studies of vivekananda , buddhism and hinduism are more intricately linked together than any other faiths . same is the case with crhistianity and judaism.these two pairs are sister religions.

[Sheki 0]

Well most probably the Theravada Buddhist tradition is the closest to the original, while others are more influenced by other Hindu, Tantric, Taoistic, Shamanistic and other traditions.

Yes but there is the difference between astika and nastika. Buddhism rejects Vedas that are accepted at least formally by almost all Hindu sects, rejects the social structure and so on. It accepts reincarnation and karma, but it is a big questions if that is a Brahmanic/Vedic concept or Shramanic (together with ahimsa, asceticism and some other things) that was in time incorporated in Hinduism.

Buddha was not a Hindu monk. He developed a monastic order on his own and later Shankara reformed the sannyas inspired by his order, so it would be more accurate to say that sannyasis are an offspring of Buddhist monasticism.

But again it’s just a meter of perspective. Religion is in a permanent change and interaction so... doesn’t meter really...

[sambya 0]

 

Buddha was not a Hindu monk. He developed a monastic order on his own and later Shankara reformed the sannyas inspired by his order, so it would be more accurate to say that sannyasis are an offspring of Buddhist monasticism.

 

but as far as i know there have been numerous hindu monks living within the fold of hinduism with atheistic doctrines.for example charvak samradaya was also atheistic and rejected vedas and such things but at the same time they were not kicked out of hinduism. similarly shankara developed his own monastic order,ramanujaachrya gave his vishistadwita and kapila gave shankha philosophy.in a like manner buddha also was a hindu monk donning saffron but propagating a different philosophy.and as always he wasnt kicked out of hinduism.but his views were so drastically different that it eventually formed a seperate religion.buddha never seperated himself from hindu ways of sannyasa like madhukari, saffron,meditation etc.

 

also , i feel hindu monasticism had existed long before buddha as is evident from historical and scriptural records.buddha himself followed the age old path of sannyasa. but those monks were solitary seekers hiding away from society. proper organised monastic order as we know it today was surely modeled by shankara on the model of buddhist sangha.

 

 

[Sheki 0]

Sannyas is linked directlly to Shankara, even Chaitannya took sannyas in a lineage coming from the mayavadis. And Shankara formed his sannyas on the model of the Buddhist sangha. There were ascetics before as there are sadhus and babajis even now and Buddha was one of them before forming a monastic order, most probably a Jain ascetic (though born in a Hindu family). But the formal Hindu monastic order was developed on the example of Buddhist monasticism.

 

There are a lot of different philosophies within Hinduism and in some less popular Upanishads there are views somewhat similar to Buddhism. Only on the account on that it would not become a separate religion. But we should consider time and again that the Hinduism of the time was not the same as the one we have today, and the one we have today was developed between other things under the influence of Buddhism too and therefore it is probably more compatible now than it was at the time.. after all at the time the very word Hinduism would not have much sense… Of course in this development the modern Vedantic Hinduism often incorporated Buddhism as a part of the theology and mythology but that is somewhat questionable.