Buddhism_A Serious Discussion

[VincentRJ]

I've been a member of ThaiVisa for quite a while and on occasions my comments have been censored by the moderators on other sections of the forum.

I gravitated towards this section of the forum, not only because I'm very interested in Buddhism, but because this section of the forum contains some thoughtful and sensible comments, as opposed to the constant blathering one gets in certain other sections of the forum.

Nevertheless, I don't know how far I can go without offending certain sensibilities, which might require moderator intervention. The moderator on this forum appears to be a fellow with a long beard and long hair, called Camerata. I this an Avatar or the real 'him'?

Anyway, here's hoping I don't get into trouble with my following post.

The issue of sexual inequality in Buddhism was raised by Camerata in a recent topic, but didn't get much response.

I guess matters of 'sex' are too sensitive, so I hope I'm not getting into troubled waters here, but for 'God's sake' lets not deny the issue.

The life of celibacy that a Buddhist monk must adhere to, must be the most difficult situation to bear. I know when I was a young man, and first encountered the concepts of Buddhism, I thought I would like to try the life of a Buddhist monk, at least for a while.

However, a life of celibacy, including refraining from masturbation, seemed unrealistic and even impossible at the time, so I didn't attempt it.

From my own perspective, this requirement for celibacy, not only for Buddhist monks, but also for Catholic priests, must be the source of some huge problems.

The sexual urge is one of the most powerful urges we have. Is it any wonder that Buddhist monks who might have to desperately contend with such powerful drives would deny equal opportunities to women to become nuns?

If a monk is struggling to dispel all sexual thoughts for the opposite sex, is it not likely his job will be more difficult if he frequently encounters nuns or Bhikkhunis?

I think this topic merits discussion.

[trd]

I think this is a very worthy topic Vincent, and merits discussion. But is it about sex or desire, of which you can say sex is just one of many different kinds of desire, albeit it a particularly strong one. For me the question is how does desire fit into the framework of spiritual growth. A very important subject.

Edited November 19, 2014 by trd

[VincentRJ]

I think this is a very worthy topic Vincent, and merits discussion. But is it about sex or desire, of which you can say sex is just one of many different kinds of desire, albeit it a particularly strong one. For me the question is how does desire fit into the framework of spiritual growth. A very important subject.

Good! We're getting into the definition of words and concepts here. Sex is a differentiation between male and female. Sexual desire, on the other hand, is an innate, instinctual, drive or force which is necessary for the human species to reproduce. Freudian theories, whether right or wrong, claim it is at the basis of all our activities, including a death drive to explain violence.

To be able to have complete control over that force is admirable, and is what Buddhism teaches. To be in control of oneself is the goal, rather than be motivated by the sight of external, alluring phenomena, such as images of tasty food, the latest seductive car or iPhone, or semi-clad females offering the possibility of a very temporary Nirvana-like experience.

Desire in general often has sexual connotations. A person may have a desire for great wealth, or a desire for the latest, coolest, model of car, but ultimately the motivation may simply be to impress the opposite sex.

[rockyysdt]

I'd say it's agreed that complying with 227 precepts is quite a tall order.

Particularly if one is a novice and has to contend with their personally constituted mix of conditioning (greed, aversion & delusion).

Although still quite difficult, a lay person has a better chance of keeping to the 5 or 8 precepts, including:

I undertake the training rule to avoid sexual misconduct.

Kāmesumicchācāra veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi

Rather than eliminating sexual practice, this rule focuses on avoidance of harm to ones self and others.

Even though we may have good intentions, those who are more aware than others will realize that we are often unaware of the level of harm that we maybe inflicting to others through our conduct.

This is why the Monk will totally abstain.

Whether conscious or not, abstinence ensures no harm occurs.

I suspect the answer lies within practice.

The more one practices (Mindfulness & Sitting), the more one is exposed to actual experience.

The more actual experience one has, the less powerful becomes the allure of sexuality.

I am told that sexual pleasure pales into insignificance in comparison to what is for the Awakened ones.

The closer one becomes to those who are awakened (practice), the more one realizes how insignificant attachment to pleasure really is.

Until such insights occur, continue to live ones normal life, but pay particular attention to anything obsessive and that which causes harm to others.'

Edited November 19, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

Rather than eliminating sexual practice, this rule focuses on avoidance of harm to ones self and others.

Even though we may have good intentions, those who are more aware than others will realize that we are often unaware of the level of harm that we maybe inflicting to others through our conduct.

I am not sure what you mean by "harm" in this context. Can you give me an example.

[VincentRJ]

I'd say it's agreed that complying with 227 precepts is quite a tall order.

Crikey! I'm so ignorant I didn't know there are 227 precepts. I had to do an internet search to find out what they are.

I was perhaps not surprised to find that there are even more precepts for nuns, an additional 84. Here's a summary from the following website. http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=227_bhikkhu_precepts

"There are 227 total precepts for monks and 311 for nuns. The added rules for nuns were for the protection of the nuns and for some of the biological differences. Rules or Precepts that appear to place the nuns in a less than equal rank to the monks were probably written in later times by male dominated cultures. The most important Precepts are the Ten Precepts. The 227 and 311 are mostly an elaboration and further clarification of the Ten Precepts. Today fully ordained women nuns share full equal ranking with the monks." (Is this really true??)

"The 227 and 311 Precepts are organized into four incurable offenses which require expulsion from the Order, 13 very serious offenses, and the rest are minor offenses, wrong actions, and minor rules. The four incurable offenses are: intentional sexual intercourse of any kind, murder, theft, and boasting of spiritual attainments which one does not really have. Most of the rules are minor instructions, such as the maximum size of living quarters, the type of robe that is allowed for wearing, etc"

I'm having trouble with this idea of placing sexual intercourse in the same category as murder. Surely murder is a much greater sin.

[rockyysdt]

Rather than eliminating sexual practice, this rule focuses on avoidance of harm to ones self and others.

Even though we may have good intentions, those who are more aware than others will realize that we are often unaware of the level of harm that we maybe inflicting to others through our conduct.

I am not sure what you mean by "harm" in this context. Can you give me an example.

Harm can occur at many levels.

Examples may include.

Casual sexual liaison with a person who turns out to be married (possible hurt to innocent third party as well as possible hurt should feelings of love develop, not to mention feelings guilt).

Casual sexual liaison with a person who secretly has feelings and desires to pursue a relationship.

Casual sexual liaison which may elicit jealousy and pain in the other.

Edited November 19, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

I think what you are referring to is commonly known as "Life". There is always the potential for harm in personal interrelationships. Desire is part of normal human behaviour. In fact some desires are crucial for survival. Sex and procreation are certainly necessary for survival of the species.

It is not the suppression of desire, but the letting go of desire that should be practised. Suppression of sexual desire leads to the kind of problems we see in the form of abuse with catholic priests. Suppression leads to tension and frustration, while practices which connect with the unconditioned state leads to a letting go of desires or unattachment to desires. Action (or desire) without attachment to the fruits of action is the goal, but it must come about in a natural way.

[trd]

There are very practical and commonsense reasons for prohibiting sex within a closed monastic community. But for the householder who wishes to have a normal family life, there is absolutely no reason to take on such monastic rules. There are many examples of awakened masters with families.

[VincentRJ]

But for the householder who wishes to have a normal family life, there is absolutely no reason to take on such monastic rules.

Unless one is a devout Catholic, Trd. I understand that contraception techniques are still not allowed by the Catholic Church. Their idea is that sex is for procreation only, not just for pleasue. I can therefore only draw the conclusion that a Catholic married couple who have decided that they have a sufficient number of children, and perhaps even more children than they can properly support, are advised to lead the life of a Bhikkhu and Bhikkhuni, as regards refraining from sexual activity.

It's interesting that Buddhist principles do not seem to include any objection to contraception. Abortion is considered wrong, because that comes under the broad umbrella of 'killing'. Life begins at conception, after the egg has been fertilized.

There are very practical and commonsense reasons for prohibiting sex within a closed monastic community.

Absolutely! If one's goal is to quieten the mind and rid oneself of all desire, then one has to strive to reduce, and eventually eliminate all sexual thoughts, perhaps the most difficult task of all, for some. Even for the average, healthy male, that task must surely be more difficult if he frequently encounters Bhikkunis.

I'm simply putting forward a theory here that the misogyny that appears to be prevalent in Buddhism, and the difficulty experienced by women who want to try the life of a Bhikkhuni, is due to the difficulty that the average male monk experiences in controlling his sexual desires.

A similar situation applies in devout Muslim communities. The woman must cover herself, even her face, in case she arouses sexual desire in other Muslim males, causing them to have evil, adulterous thoughts.

[trd]

If one's goal is to quieten the mind and rid oneself of all desire, then one has to strive to reduce, and eventually eliminate all sexual thoughts, perhaps the most difficult task of all, for some. Even for the average, healthy male, that task must surely be more difficult if he frequently encounters Bhikkunis.

You would be entirely forgiven for thinking that one should strive to eliminate desire because monks are observed by outsiders as living this lifestyle and believe it should be emulated. The word "strive" should be banned from the dictionary of authentic teaching. But if you asked the average monk in a temple about "letting go", I doubt many would understand. You have to remember that most temples here are just buildings inhabited by people wearing robes who have a superficial understanding of Buddhism and merely display an outward appearance that integrates well with the community which supports it. There have been certain exceptions within the forest tradition which has an understanding of the more profound aspects and puts it into practice.

[VincentRJ]

Okay! I'll rephrase that.

One has to strive to reduce, and eventually eliminate all sexual thoughts, through a process of 'letting go' and 'not resisting'. The presence of Bhikkunis may hinder that process of 'letting go'.

Is that better?

[trd]

It will do for now.

[rockyysdt]

Okay! I'll rephrase that.

One has to strive to reduce, and eventually eliminate all sexual thoughts, through a process of 'letting go' and 'not resisting'. The presence of Bhikkunis may hinder that process of 'letting go'.

Is that better?

Or a different way of putting it.

Concentrate on regular practice of sitting & mindfulness.

This will naturally bring about diminished sexual attachment.

In the mean time work towards keeping the 5 precepts.

In our case refrain from harming others sexually.

If in doubt, refrain.

Continue to have a healthy sexual outlet using ethics as your guide until it naturally diminishes through the insights achieved by practice.

But refrain from striving or attempting to inhibit sexual urges (with the exception of those which cause harm).

Edited November 21, 2014 by rockyysdt

[Brucenkhamen]

One has to strive to reduce, and eventually eliminate all sexual thoughts, through a process of 'letting go' and 'not resisting'. The presence of Bhikkunis may hinder that process of 'letting go'.

No pain no gain, you don't gain the ability to overcome a craving for something by avoiding it, so it would be like saying going to the gym would be easier if there were no weights.

Besides I would have thought the laywomen who bring the food each day could be more alluring than Bhikkunis.

[Brucenkhamen]

I'm having trouble with this idea of placing sexual intercourse in the same category as murder. Surely murder is a much greater sin.

Sin is a Judeo Christian concept.

Of course murder is also a criminal matter (as would non consenting sexual intercourse), so expulsion from the sangha would only be a small part of the consequences.

[VincentRJ]

One has to strive to reduce, and eventually eliminate all sexual thoughts, through a process of 'letting go' and 'not resisting'. The presence of Bhikkunis may hinder that process of 'letting go'.

No pain no gain, you don't gain the ability to overcome a craving for something by avoiding it...

Of course you do. At the very least, it certainly helps. Why do you think that 2/3rds of the population in some countries are overweight? It's because they don't avoid the sight, smell and taste of delicious food. They expose themselves to the opportunity to gorge on tasty food throughout the day, and they subject themselves to the sight of images of tasty food during the commercial breaks when they watch TV. Such constant exposure increases the frequency of thoughts about food.

so it would be like saying going to the gym would be easier if there were no weights.

And so it would be easier. That's a true statement. How can you deny that?

Besides I would have thought the laywomen who bring the food each day could be more alluring than Bhikkunis.

They might well be more alluring. However, the difference is that the Bhikkhunis might be in the vicinity 24 hours a day. There would therefore be a greater opportunity for misbehaviour to take place.

[VincentRJ]

I'm having trouble with this idea of placing sexual intercourse in the same category as murder. Surely murder is a much greater sin.

Sin is a Judeo Christian concept.

Sin is an English word with a long etymology and various connotations. Here's an explanation from the internet:

The word “sin” comes from the Old English “synn”, which has the meaning of a crime and is associated with doing evil. The Old Norse is “synd”, and the German Sünde. But its inclusion in the Bible is as a translation from the Latin “peccatum,” which doesn’t mean the same thing at all; its meaning is more in the sense of a religious error. In the original Greek version of the New Testament, the word is “hamartia,” which literally means to miss the target – a word normally associated with archery. In biblical Hebrew, the generic word for sin is het. It means to err, to miss the mark. Judaism teaches that sin is an act, and not a state of being, while Christianity (at some point) decided we were all born in a state of sin. All of which indicates that it’s easy for meaning to get mangled in translation.

Of course murder is also a criminal matter (as would non consenting sexual intercourse), so expulsion from the sangha would only be a small part of the consequences.

I hope I have never even hinted that murder is not a criminal matter. My point was that sexual intercourse should not be considered even nearly as serious an offense as murder. I'm not referring to rape here, which would clearly be in a different category to consensual intercourse.

[Brucenkhamen]

Of course you do. At the very least, it certainly helps. Why do you think that 2/3rds of the population in some countries are overweight? It's because they don't avoid the sight, smell and taste of delicious food. They expose themselves to the opportunity to gorge on tasty food throughout the day, and they subject themselves to the sight of images of tasty food during the commercial breaks when they watch TV. Such constant exposure increases the frequency of thoughts about food.

You missed my point. Buddhist training is interested in giving people the ability to overcome craving, one doesn't learn that ability by hasving no opportunity.

And so it would be easier. That's a true statement. How can you deny that?

Again missing my point, The training not about making it easier if we wanted to make celibacy easier then chemical castration would probably be the best bet.

They might well be more alluring. However, the difference is that the Bhikkhunis might be in the vicinity 24 hours a day. There would therefore be a greater opportunity for misbehaviour to take place.

... and not to mention all those cute novice monks, yeck a pot of vaseline and a strong wrist is temptation enough for many people. So basically there is no way to remove temptation which is why it's about learning the ability to rise above the craving.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Brucenkhamen

[Brucenkhamen]

The word sin comes from the Old English synn, which has the meaning of a crime and is associated with doing evil. The Old Norse is synd, and the German Sünde. But its inclusion in the Bible is as a translation from the Latin peccatum, which doesnt mean the same thing at all; its meaning is more in the sense of a religious error. In the original Greek version of the New Testament, the word is hamartia, which literally means to miss the target a word normally associated with archery. In biblical Hebrew, the generic word for sin is het. It means to err, to miss the mark. Judaism teaches that sin is an act, and not a state of being, while Christianity (at some point) decided we were all born in a state of sin. All of which indicates that its easy for meaning to get mangled in translation.

The Greek, hebrew, and even the latin look closer to relevance to Buddhism. The old english though no way as it brings up the wrong connotations. I don't find the concept of evil relevant to Buddhism where we talk in terms of the unskillfulness or unwisesness of an action rather than the perpetrator being inherently evil.

I hope I have never even hinted that murder is not a criminal matter. My point was that sexual intercourse should not be considered even nearly as serious an offense as murder. I'm not referring to rape here, which would clearly be in a different category to consensual intercourse.

Of course it wouldn't be, the point is while some actions would end one's monastic career only some of those are also notifiable to the police, it's purely a matter of actions and their consequences and not about judging the relative sinfulness or evilness.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Brucenkhamen

[trd]

What is harmful is the false association of a desire with a personal self and saying "this is my desire."

[VincentRJ]

The word sin comes from the Old English synn, which has the meaning of a crime and is associated with doing evil. The Old Norse is synd, and the German Sünde. But its inclusion in the Bible is as a translation from the Latin peccatum, which doesnt mean the same thing at all; its meaning is more in the sense of a religious error. In the original Greek version of the New Testament, the word is hamartia, which literally means to miss the target a word normally associated with archery. In biblical Hebrew, the generic word for sin is het. It means to err, to miss the mark. Judaism teaches that sin is an act, and not a state of being, while Christianity (at some point) decided we were all born in a state of sin. All of which indicates that its easy for meaning to get mangled in translation.

The Greek, hebrew, and even the latin look closer to relevance to Buddhism. The old english though no way as it brings up the wrong connotations. I don't find the concept of evil relevant to Buddhism where we talk in terms of the unskillfulness or unwisesness of an action rather than the perpetrator being inherently evil.

I hope I have never even hinted that murder is not a criminal matter. My point was that sexual intercourse should not be considered even nearly as serious an offense as murder. I'm not referring to rape here, which would clearly be in a different category to consensual intercourse.

Of course it wouldn't be, the point is while some actions would end one's monastic career only some of those are also notifiable to the police, it's purely a matter of actions and their consequences and not about judging the relative sinfulness or evilness.

Since I don't engage in criminal activities, this issue for me is entirely about judging or justifying, rationally, the relative sinfulness or wrongness of whatever action is under discussion. In some countries (which I won't name, but you can use your imagination) the most trivial offense, by my standards, could result in a jail sentence, or even capital punishment. I wouldn't want to visit such countries.

[VincentRJ]

What is harmful is the false association of a desire with a personal self and saying "this is my desire."

Very wise.

[VincentRJ]

You missed my point. Buddhist training is interested in giving people the ability to overcome craving, one doesn't learn that ability by hasving no opportunity.

I don't see it that way. To be alive is to have the opportunity. Buddhist training doesn't really give people abilities. It gives advice on how the individual might attain certain abilities through their own efforts or practices. In a similar way, going to school doesn't mean that you have become educated. It means you have had the opportunity to become educated through your own efforts.

If you want to achieve something, it would be foolish to put unnecessary obstacles in your way. Either foolish or just plain egotistical.

Again missing my point, The training not about making it easier if we wanted to make celibacy easier then chemical castration would probably be the best bet.

Chemical castration might certainly be easier for some people. However, the analogy is not relevant in a Buddhist context because chemical castration is harmful. Many artificial drugs have harmful side effects. For example, some of the side effects of Depo-Provera, used for chemical castration, include depression, fatigue, diabetes, and blood clots. Chemical castration would definitely be against Buddhist principles, which include refraining from taking any mind-altering, or intoxicating substances, or harming others.

So basically there is no way to remove temptation which is why it's about learning the ability to rise above the craving.

One way to remove temptation would be to spend a few years living alone in a cave, but I guess that would be too easy for you.

Perhaps you imagine that someone who has achieved control over all desire and craving as a result of spending years living in a cave, or a hut in a forest, suddenly may go on a sexual rampage after leaving the cave, because he hasn't faced the challenge of practicing control of his desires in the presence of alluring, semi-clad females.

My understanding is, when people emerge from a long retreat where they have removed themselves from the normal hustle and bustle of everyday-life in order to practice meditation with the minimum of distraction, such people achieve such a lasting and deep understanding of the illusory nature of external phenomena that they are no longer adversely or uncontrollably influenced or motivated by the sights that previously disturbed them. They see reality for what it is, a smorgasbord of tricks and sleights-of-hand; a show put on for fools.

[Brucenkhamen]

Buddhist training doesn't really give people abilities. It gives advice on how the individual might attain certain abilities through their own efforts or practices. In a similar way, going to school doesn't mean that you have become educated. It means you have had the opportunity to become educated through your own efforts.

Un-necessary hair splitting, of course training gives nothing unless somebody actually does the training, that goes without saying.

If you want to achieve something, it would be foolish to put unnecessary obstacles in your way. Either foolish or just plain egotistical.

Unless the achievement of such requires obstacles, hence my no pain no gain example likening buddhist mental development to the physical development of weightlifting.

Again missing my point, The training not about making it easier if we wanted to make celibacy easier then chemical castration would probably be the best bet.

And not generally recommended by the Buddha, he had his followers living in communities and depending on lay people for food and other requisites. A Theravadin bhikkhu or bhikkuni can't handle money, cook, or grow food because the interdependence with lay people is an important part of the training.

My understanding is, when people emerge from a long retreat where they have removed themselves from the normal hustle and bustle of everyday-life in order to practice meditation with the minimum of distraction, such people achieve such a lasting and deep understanding of the illusory nature of external phenomena that they are no longer adversely or uncontrollably influenced or motivated by the sights that previously disturbed them. They see reality for what it is, a smorgasbord of tricks and sleights-of-hand; a show put on for fools.

There is more to Buddhist training than what kind of roof is over ones head and whether one has the opportunity to see people of the opposite sex.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Brucenkhamen

[VincentRJ]

Brucenkhamen,

Even if people go through the motions of completing the training, they may not achieve much that is worthwhile without the right attitude and the right motivation. That was my point.

Your attitude that one should introduce further obstacles that don't already exist in one's life, in order to train oneself like a weightlifter to gradually lift heavier and heavier weights, just doesn't seem right to me. I can't equate it with anything I've read about Buddhism.

However, I have an open mind. Can you give me a specific example, with details, of a Buddhist practice which involves introducing or creating new and more difficult obstacles as a challenge?

Just for the record, in your 3rd point about chemical castration you have quoted me as making a statement which in fact was made by you, and you then proceed to reply to your own statement. That's a bit confusing for new readers. However, in part of that reply to your own statement, you make the following comment: "A Theravadin bhikkhu or bhikkuni can't handle money, cook, or grow food because the interdependence with lay people is an important part of the training."

That's worth discussion. It's certainly not something that appeals to me. I would prefer to join a Buddhist community that allows such practices, such as the Santi Asoke community who are self sufficient, grow their own food, and even sell some of the food they grow, in order to raise funds instead of accepting donations.

[Brucenkhamen]

Your attitude that one should introduce further obstacles that don't already exist in one's life, in order to train oneself like a weightlifter to gradually lift heavier and heavier weights, just doesn't seem right to me. I can't equate it with anything I've read about Buddhism.

However, I have an open mind. Can you give me a specific example, with details, of a Buddhist practice which involves introducing or creating new and more difficult obstacles as a challenge?

That's a straw man argument. I never said one should introduce further obstacles. Women are a part of everyone's lives, everyone has a mother, many have sisters, so having women in a monastery is not introducing something to one's life that is not already there. In Theravada Buddhist practice it's not possible for monastics to sever all contact with women, the training rules and etiqeutte make acts or the appearances of indiscretion unlikely.

However though off topic here are some specific examples of a Buddhist practice which involves introducing or creating new and more difficult obstacles as a challenge... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhutanga

Just for the record, in your 3rd point about chemical castration you have quoted me as making a statement which in fact was made by you, and you then proceed to reply to your own statement. That's a bit confusing for new readers. However, in part of that reply to your own statement, you make the following comment: "A Theravadin bhikkhu or bhikkuni can't handle money, cook, or grow food because the interdependence with lay people is an important part of the training."

Sorry about that, I find the quoting function on this site difficult to work with. It was in reply to your suggestion of living in a cave.

That's worth discussion. It's certainly not something that appeals to me. I would prefer to join a Buddhist community that allows such practices, such as the Santi Asoke community who are self sufficient, grow their own food, and even sell some of the food they grow, in order to raise funds instead of accepting donations.

You are of course welcome to join such a community, as in Thailand Theravada is the main practice you'll find most replies on this board will be from the Theravada perspective. I can't really comment so much on how things happen in Mahayana but I know in some Mahayana countries there are far more bhikkhunis than bhikkhus, mind you in a lot of Theravada monasteries I've been to women tend outnumber men even though bhikkhunis proper are rare.

[VincentRJ]

Your attitude that one should introduce further obstacles that don't already exist in one's life, in order to train oneself like a weightlifter to gradually lift heavier and heavier weights, just doesn't seem right to me. I can't equate it with anything I've read about Buddhism.

However, I have an open mind. Can you give me a specific example, with details, of a Buddhist practice which involves introducing or creating new and more difficult obstacles as a challenge?

That's a straw man argument. I never said one should introduce further obstacles. Women are a part of everyone's lives, everyone has a mother, many have sisters, so having women in a monastery is not introducing something to one's life that is not already there. In Theravada Buddhist practice it's not possible for monastics to sever all contact with women, the training rules and etiqeutte make acts or the appearances of indiscretion unlikely.

Well I have to say, Brucenkhamen, if you really think that's a straw man argument, and that you never stated that one should introduce further obstacles, then I have completely misunderstood what you meant. Sorry for that.

This issue was started by my comment in reply #12, namely: One has to strive to reduce, and eventually eliminate all sexual thoughts, through a process of 'letting go' and 'not resisting'. The presence of Bhikkunis may hinder that process of 'letting go'.

Your responses to that statement of mine included the following comments.

1. No pain no gain, you don't gain the ability to overcome a craving for something by avoiding it, so it would be like saying going to the gym would be easier if there were no weights.

2. Buddhist training is interested in giving people the ability to overcome craving, one doesn't learn that ability by having no opportunity.

3. The training is not about making it easier. If we wanted to make celibacy easier, then chemical castration would probably be the best bet.

I then replied with the following statement: "If you want to achieve something, it would be foolish to put unnecessary obstacles in your way. Either foolish or just plain egotistical."

And your response was, "Unless the achievement of such requires obstacles, hence my no pain no gain example likening buddhist mental development to the physical development of weightlifting."

The only explanation I can think of to explain this confusion is that we both have a different understanding of the term 'obstacle' in this context of the Buddhist path towards enlightenment, and your following comment implies this.

However though off topic here are some specific examples of a Buddhist practice which involves introducing or creating new and more difficult obstacles as a challenge... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhutanga

I'm getting the impression from this example you've linked to, that perhaps all along you have been using the term 'obstacle' to mean 'austerity'. Is this true? If this is what you mean by 'obstacle', then I have no argument, except to say that for me, austerity and obstacle have different meanings.

For example, if one considers that the purpose of Buddhism is to achieve enlightenment, then a craving for fine food would be considered as an obstacle to achieving that goal, and a craving for fine clothes would be considered another obstacle. It is the craving which is the obstacle.

The austere practices themselves, designed to overcome such obstacles to enlightenment, are not obstacles.

Since every person is different to some degree in their innate capacity or talent to overcome a particular obstacle, different austerities, or different degrees of austerity should be available and recommended, as they are in that list of the 13 Dhutanga practices you linked to.

The description in the article, of these Dhutanga Austerities, seems to imply that I am correct in this view, namely, "All Forest Monks will observe at least one of the dhutanga austerities. The dhutanga austerities are meant to deepen the practice of meditation and assist in living the Holy Life. Their aim is to help the practitioner to develop detachment with material things including the body."

For example, let's consider the first of the Dhutanga Austerities listed, namely, "wearing robes made up from discarded or soiled cloth and not accepting and wearing ready-made robes offered by householders."

This is not a rule that applies to all monks regardless of their circumstances. There will be certain monks who were once very attached to fine clothes before they embarked upon the life of a monk. This attachment may sometimes carry over to their new lifestyle as a monk so that they remain particularly fussy about the niceness of their saffron robe, and their appearance in general. If their robe accidentally gets torn, they may insist on getting a new one immediately.

Other monks might not be concerned at all about such matters and might wear any robe that's available without a second thought.

The first group of monks who are vane about their appearance and fussy about their saffron robes, would be advised to observe the first of these Dhutanga Austerities.

Another group of monks, who might have been conditioned in their upbringing and previous lifestyle to develop a craving for fine food, might be advised to observe Dhutanga Austerity #5, ( eating one meal a day and refusing other food offered before midday, or #6 (eating food from his bowl in which it is mixed together rather than from plates and dishes), or #7 (not taking any more food after one has shown that one is satisfied, even though lay-people wish to offer more.)

In other words, 'different courses for different horses', to use a popular idiom. Hope I've succeeded in clarifying this issue for you.

[Brucenkhamen]

Well I have to say, Brucenkhamen, if you really think that's a straw man argument, and that you never stated that one should introduce further obstacles, then I have completely misunderstood what you meant. Sorry for that.

Women are not an obstacle, they are part of our lives from the day we are born.

Bhikkhunis are not an obstacle, they have a right to practice to live in a monastery and to have lodgings just like men.

The Dhutangas are not an obstacle either, obstacle is your word and I've only use it in response to you here. You asked for an example of a challenge and of course dhutangas are an example of a challenge one can choose to undertake. If one chooses to undertake them but doesn't have the mental capacity to cope with them then yes they could be an obstacle in ones mind.

Sexual intercourse is not an obstacle, it's normal for lay people, and for monastics a cause for disrobing.

Celibacy is not an obstacle, it's a choice and a commitment.

Craving is not an obstacle, it's the normal state of an unawakened person.

Obstacles are created by the mind in relation to a challenge, task, or experience, ie we choose whether or not to regard something as an obstacle.

If you think that head shaven middle aged women wearing robes that obscure their figure living in a seperate compound at the same monastery as you would create an obstacle in your mind then yes best to avoid such living arrangements. Lots of men are able to live in such circumstances without creating an obstacle in their minds.

Rather than speculating it would be more interesting to hear your experiences of living in monasteries where mixed gender, sex, craving, or obstacles became an issue. Lets hear about a real problem rather than an imaginary one.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Brucenkhamen

[trd]

In a state of ignorance:

Craving is not an obstacle, it's the normal state of an unawakened person.

On the path of knowledge:

Craving is an obstacle, it's the normal state of an unawakened person.