[Buddha-l] Re: Rational or mythological Buddhism and WesternBuddhist lay practice

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 00:44 +0200, Mikael Aktor wrote:

> Even without a very thorough knowledge of Vinaya texts, is seems logical 
> that attaining nirvana must rest on transcending the attachments created 
> by - among other things - a sexual life. 

That is completely illogical. Nirvana IS the extinction of desires, so
it cannot possibly depend on it. Giving up desires is not a precondition
of attaining nirvana. Rather, it is a description of what has happened
in the attainment of nirvana. What is necessary to attain the abandoning
of desires is simply knowing that desires, when fulfilled, leave one's
craving unfulfilled. It could be argued (and probably would be argued by
many psychologists today) that indulging in one's desires and studying
the consequences of doing so is far more effective in abandoning the
habit of fulfilling desires than simply abstaining from something
because someone else says it is a good idea.

> The idea of being without sensual attachments (a prerequisite for
> nivana, I guess) and still having a sexual life seems absurd.

Yes, it may seem absurd to have a sexual life without sexual desire, but
I'm not sure it's that simple. I can easily imagine doing things without
having any desire at all to do them. But that issue aside, it is simply
false to think that abandoning sexual activity is a prerequisite of
nirvana. Here, I am speaking mostly of earlier Buddhism. It's true that
there are Mahayana texts making the rather ridiculous claim that anyone
who has had sexual relations in this life cannot attain nirvana in this
life. If that were true, then Gotama was not a buddha after all.

> For what reason would one have a sexual life if there were no "thirst"
> or impulse driving one to sexual activities? 

As I'm sure you know, the story is that the polymath monk Kumarajiva was
forced by a king to procreate children when he was 60. The monk agreed
to do so, says the standard story, so that he could continue to
translate dharma texts, a task that would have been much more difficult
for him if he were dead.

> That is why I took it as self-evident that sexual abstinence 
> (and with that the monastic, virtuoso lifestyle) is meant as a 
> prerequisite for nivana in the preachings of the Buddha. That is, on the 
> ideal, doctrinal level.

I hope that by now you can see why even on the ideal, doctrinal level
that claim which you previously took to be self-evident is not only
false but absurd.

> Can we conclude that I have argued from a doctrinal, ideal level, and
> you from the human-social-reality level (which may very well, as you
> suggest, actually (and wisely) be accounted for - and embedded in -
> the articulations of the Buddha)?

We can conclude that I have argued from a doctrinal level as those
doctrines are articulated in Buddhists texts. We could add that Buddhist
doctrines were usually crafted with a pretty good understanding of human
nature.

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico