[Buddha-l] Is polyamory kilesa?

[Vicente Gonzalez]

Erik wrote:

EH> The problem seems to me that some see the rules about sexual
EH> conduct as commandments.  [...] I think that is confusing Buddhism
EH> with Christendom. 

I agree

EH> The  Buddha mainly intended to say that it is not wise to have
EH> many  sexual contacts because you get more children then you can
EH> remember and the children will not be properly educated.

that sounds related with avoid many children because economics, not
directly with the sexual activity.

EH> Secondly sexual contacts tend to increase the usual samsaric emotional
EH> disturbances, and in the least your agenda gets overloaded, so you
EH> don't have time to meditate. 
EH> Then there's a more subtle danger the integration of a pattern of
EH> behaviour into the selfapprehension, also called  'the I and
EH> mine'. Some people tend to regard their sexual life as an integral
EH> and necessary part of their life, they need it because it's part
EH> of what they are. It is a field of exploitation

I agree. Specially related with the actual notion of stressing sex to
have a happy and complete life. It doesn't have sense, and here there
is reaction against Christian values. Today many people think sex is
a passport to be a free and "complete" person, while this same defence
reveals a complete attachment. We are not monkeys and our true
happiness is not that.

Although I don't agree with the idea of getting more free time
avoiding sex or other daily things. At least I understand meditation
is much more close with bhavana, not about an isolated task seated in
the floor. There is a precept for "not lying" and obviously if we
don't talk then that's accomplished. Same with sex. However, it would
be related with a monk discipline. In the lay life the sense is not
that. Precept is about having a healthy sex behavior, then driving to
welfare and a peaceful mind. It's not about quantity or modality
because both things are subjective. For many lay people, the absence
of sex can cause more attachment than a frequent activity.
So it depends of the person. Perfect situation would be not having
disturbances with sex. If I'm right, this situation appears with the
Once-time returning people but such achievement sounds very difficult
possible when still are these inner fights. I suppose it depends of
every case but I don't read rules about modalities or frequence as
impediments to be awakened. 

EH> What they don't see is that it is in fact
EH> nature playing with them, it seems as though they exploit nature
EH> to get pure pleasure, but the pleasure is a trick of nature to let
EH> them play the reproduction game. But nature is Mara, it wants to
EH> keep you away from nirvana, it tends to involve you in all kinds
EH> of illusions.

that notion of exploitation is very right when nature is Mara but it
only exist when there is a fight against nature.
This fight only can disappear with disenchantment. For sure there are
many means, among them the experience of fulfillment even excess,
which also drives to disenchantment. How many people know this?.
Many people start love relations only because sex attraction and they
are blind regarding who is in front. When sex is fulfilled then they
can start to know the other person. Sex is felt more powerful while it
is not accomplished. I think the real difficult with sex remains in
a constant uprising; it is not like other experiences in where one
is disenchanted and this will be useful for the future. For this same
reason, many times an high number of sex experiences is very
recommendable before start a religious way. At least I understand it
was the case of same Siddharta.


EH> Now there are the tantrics of course who would contradict this,
EH> but they never managed to come with a consistent theory of how
EH> there sexual alchemy works,

I don't know really, I'm not tantric, although I don't know where is
the impossibility to maintain the practice while one is engaged in
sex activity. I mean, in example there is a practice to be natural.
When one is eating, he eat. When one has sex, there is sex.
And that's all. It is a practice with a related awareness and
contemplation regarding a position to live in the reality.
However, we know there are many understandings. There is people
applying special methods of breathing and mindfulness when they eat.
So in the same maybe way, other people can apply similar things to sex
activity. On my side I don't know exactly because I don't practice
tantrics, although it sounds quite possible to me.

EH> The Buddha comes with an empirical explanation,  well, if the
EH> tantrics say they can do better, they have to come  with a better
EH> empirical theory and not with quotes from tantras,  texts they
EH> don't understand themselves. 

neither I have read a tantric episode in the Pali Canon. Although at
least I understand Buddha leave the door open to check the teaching
with any human activity not involving suffering for other beings.
Well, we know tantric practice is a risky matter because the role of
sex in our society, although it doesn't mean it doesn't work.
I don't know really.

best regards,