BG 176: The Place of the Erotic
Episode Description:
We’re joined this week by Insight meditation teacher and engaged activist Christopher Titmuss. Our main topic of exploration is the place of sexuality, eros, and love in the practice of Dharma. Contained within that topic we explore what is often meant by the word ‘desire’ in English, and how that differs from the what the Buddha taught as the source of suffering, tanha (often translated as thirst or craving).
Christopher explains some of the historical reasons that Buddhism has not be able to provide many helpful suggestions concerning sexuality, and also challenges what he sees as a common orthodox among Western teachers and practitioners in regards to sexuality and relationships. We conclude our conversation by exploring the importance—in a cultural climate where long-term monogamous relationships are becoming more and more rare—of treating the ending of relationships with greater care. “How,” Christopher asks, “if we are ending a relationship, can we make a transition from intimacy to that of a caring friendship?”
This is part 1 of a two-part series. Listen to part 2, Working with Sexual Energy.
Episode Links:
Transcript:
Vince: Hello Buddhist Geeks, this is Vincent Horn and I am here today joined by a very special guest in the UK, Christopher Titmuss. Christopher, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with the Buddhist Geeks today, I appreciate it.
Christopher: Thank you.
Vince: And I just want to share a little background as I usually do, for the people that aren’t familiar with you. You’re a former monk in the Theravada tradition. You spent time in Thailand and India, and that was back probably in the Sixties and Seventies right?
Christopher: Yes, so I left England and got on the hippie trail to India and that was 1967. And [in] 1970 I took ordination as a Theravada Buddhist monk as you mentioned and then I disrobed six years later in 1976.
Vince: Nice, and since then you’ve been teaching meditation around the world. You’ve been leading retreats all over the place, including an annual retreat you do in Bodh Gaya, India, which you’ve been doing since 1975—it’s like a month long retreat. And you’re also an engaged activist. You’re part of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship, on the advisory council.
Christopher: Yes. I don’t regard much difference between the inner and the outer. So to utilize the meditative of life and the created initiatives of the outer I think is a dynamic part of what the exploration of the Dharma is about.
Vince: Beautiful, and that ties really nicely into the topic that we wanted to explore with you today, which is basically sexuality and the dharma. But before I jump in I wanted to sort of ask you a little bit about a process you do called dharma inquiry. Because the reason I thought this would be a fun topic to explore with you is that I heard you in conversation on retreat with a young man who was asking you about sexuality, and asking you about desire. And in this conversation it wasn’t simply a Q&A. He was actually up there with you in front of everyone and you guys were doing what is called a dharma inquiry. And I was wondering if you could sort of share what that is and how that’s different than a traditional dharma talk?
Christopher: Yes, I’d be delighted to. Essentially around 20 years ago, I kept the dialogues, the inquiries, to either the one-to-one meeting, and on the larger groups, perhaps 6 or 7, and had some dialogue in the exchange. And from time to time, a person or persons would say, “Ah, Christopher it would’ve been lovely if that dialogue where you had…would’ve been of such interest to everybody in the whole.” So the outcome of that got me thinking. And I thought, well, could it be transferred into the whole, and sitting well with the silent meditation retreat? So then for a while I did some experiments. And then from that made the period of time for about an hour possibly up to an hour and a half, and I would put out an invitation in the whole to anyone to come and sit beside me at the cushion, beside yet in front of the whole, and from that the dharma inquiry got underway. So the person, as you refer to the guy who asked me about sexuality, the person would come up and ask me a question. I’d find ways to avoid answering, especially the difficult ones, and turned it around and asked that person some questions. With the view and the intention to contribute to insights and understanding for the person who is inquiring, for myself as the questioner and responder, and also to others listening in the whole as well. So over the last couple of decades, it’s now fitted in fairly seamlessly, I would say, into the rhythm of the retreat.
Vince: Nice and just as I was listening to some of your Dharma inquiries I was thinking, wow, it’s really neat. It’s so different to see people’s wisdom kind of being invited out in front of the whole group instead of maybe just the teacher being the holder of wisdom and sharing it. I thought that was interesting.
Christopher: I have to agree 110% on that. I know from the exchanging and the sharing…some of the insights and realizations and things that are being pointed out by the person I’m speaking to, I find for myself, inspirational. I learn a lot. I find it very beneficial, and for those who are listening as well, because many stories and accounts of the person who’s in the inquiry with myself, and I’m sharing my own experiences as well, of course, are also the stories and experiences of other people. So it’s a real collective gathering of the sangha, engaged in looking into some of the major issues of life.
Vince: Nice, nice. And in this particular conversation I was listening to, the young man asked you what seems like a really common question about something, like, if the Buddhist path is to end desire, and sexuality is clearly one of the most powerful ways we feel desire, how to work with sexual energy? That was kind of the beginning of the question, and I was surprised by your answer. It wasn’t sort of a simple, pat answer that I’ve sometimes heard, and no disrespect to the people who, you know, answer it in that way. But just that basically the Buddhist stance is, “We don’t harm people with our energy.” And that’s pretty much it, and there might be some guidelines around that. But I was wondering if you could share a little bit about the way that you approach that topic and that particular question?
Christopher: Yes. It is, clearly, a vitally important question, and it’s a question, which requires our deep interest in ethics, which some teachers very appropriately will make a reference to. But it’s more than that. That’s a foundation and a principle of exploration. But the act of making love…communication with another human being, whether you’re of the opposite sex, or of the same sex. What emerges after that dynamic, whether it’s in a short-term relationship or a long-term relationship—these are all areas of the heart, of energy, of the place of the erotic, which I find is precious, and beautiful in life, and the dynamic of the interaction. And that requires a lot of exploration and attention. Therefore, some of the inquiries are looking at that, and looking at the challenge of that, and the confusion. And it’s a kind of central confusion. The key, or the buzzword, is the word “desire”, which has such different kind of meaning in the language of the Buddha and the use of the language in the West. The word “desire” in the Pali language is tanha, T-A-N-H-A. It has a specific connotation to it.
It’s desire with other factors that are going along with it, which in some way or other are unhealthy. To take what’s called the three poisons of the mind: greed, it’s got desire in it, obviously; anger, violence, it has desire in it; fear, has desire in it; confusion, has desire in it. So, replication of the word is “desire” is something which is problematic, which has an impact on our own life. Stress has desire in it, worry has desire in it, anxiety, etc. And it also has its impacting consequence on others.
So when we use the word “desire”, [in the] British language, it has something unhealthy, unwise, unskillful, unclear about it. Problem is, [in the] English language, we use “desire” more freestyle. So we say, “Oh, I want to go to the toilet.” Or, “I want a cup of tea.” Or, “I have a desire to read the newspaper,” etc. So then it’s going back to love. Normal mind will say, “Oh, there has to be desire.” One of the teachers at Spirit Rock said to me, “Oh, you need desire to make love.” And I said, “Of course you don’t need desire to make love. To make love you need love.” [It’s] different.
So in other words, sometimes desire corrupts the act of making love. You know, in its most gross form, it would be rape, it would be sexual abuse, it would be a manipulation. Where is desire in the act of touch, or in the act of making love? When desire, in that corrupt way that the Buddha uses the word, is not in the picture, then the act of making love is precious, it’s loving, it’s got passion to it, it’s got Eros to it, it’s respectful, it’s sensitive, there is a deep mutual awareness. All of that doesn’t require desire in it, you get the picture?
Vince: Yes, yes
Christopher: Yeah?
Vince: Yes, there’s a distinction there for sure.
Christopher: Okay, that’s the distinction. So the act of making love can get corrupted with desire, and therefore it’s just having sex. No respect for how the people fit—the person feels—so to speak. And, the act of making love can be totally clear, pure and not corrupted with desire. And that’s the distinction, and it’s the critical distinction. The Buddhist world tends to confuse the two.
Vince: And, would you say a little bit about why you think that’s the case.
Christopher: A little bit historical. Initially, the tradition started off with men, and then, after […] resistance from the Buddha, but he overcame his resistance to women, as well. Going from the confinement, and it was a confinement, of the cast and home life—a very restricted way of life—and the men were expected to follow their father’s trade or whatever. Women were expected just to be mothers, and stay indoors, too. And a radical, and rather refreshing way, encouraged men and women to go from home to homeless. And, that also, for a whole variety of reasons, men and women [who] went into that way of life, abstained from sexuality—that was the tradition of India. It was a celibate way of life. Two and a half thousand years later, that hard and rather black and white division between the householder’s life and the homeless life—contemporary language called them monks and nuns—seems to me that division, that women and men have worked very very hard to dissolve that division.
Today, women and men can live a homeless way of life—they go wandering, they go traveling, they go to India, or whatever it may be. Men and women can also engage in close intimate sexual relationships, have the benefits on contraception, if they wish to use, and can engage in those activities in a loving and caring way. An opportunity which simply was not available two and a half thousand years ago. It is today and, therefore, sexual life for those men and women who are living a sexual life still requires the dharma of ethics, the dharma of respect, of sensitivity, passion, and a general insight and understanding of that whole dynamic.
Vince: And I guess my next question has to do with the specifics, like as a practitioner I hear that there is this possibility of making love that’s kind of free of what you’re calling tanha. But then it’s so clear the gap between how I currently experience myself as a sexual being and that possibility, there’s a gap there. How do I close the gap as a practitioner?
Christopher: Yes, it isn’t an easy area, quite a few Buddhist teachers, Western Buddhist teachers, and of course I’ve known plenty over the years and also in the ordained sangha as well… There’s a certain orthodoxy. And the orthodoxy for some men and women isn’t very helpful. What I mean by that is there is a tendency to view being in a relationship as something which, if it’s successful, it will be for the long term, that it should be absolutely monogamous, and it should fit into the kind of Western values and culture.
[…] a good sound, “moral” (quote, unquote”) reason for that.
But it’s not always quite that simple. Women and men of any age—and what I mean by that [is] the power of love, falling in love, of closeness, of intimacy—really has to be put, for some—as it were—in the heart of practice. And that means that, as the Buddha constantly pointed out, the […] element is both inner and outer. So it’s not only engaging in closeness and possibly touch and sexual intimacy with another, and to know what’s going, so to speak, within oneself (which is a challenge enough) but equally what is happening for the other. And that outer awareness matters as much. So in other words, one man or one woman can feel very clear, very comfortable in the act of making love, and the steps, or the process, or the procedure, or the development that brings two people to being lovers.
But, for the other person, the act of making love can carry all sorts of significances. It could be it shows the beginnings of a long term commitment, or it could bring the feeling of vulnerability or uncertainty. A person makes love, and then the following morning could be full of regret, or self-doubt, or confusion, or feeling manipulated, or whatever. So for two people to engage in the process towards intimacy, and in the act of it, have to know each other rather well to ensure that the dynamic of it isn’t going to generate a lot of dukkha, a lot of unhappiness and disappointment and feeling hurt. And the attitude towards that and after the act, or acts, of making love matter a great deal. And that whole process I do feel is important. Rather than just taking the view, Oh relationships should be for the long term, etc.—well, I don’t know how it is in the United States—but for we Europeans, I don’t think that’s a common view at all. The “until death do us part” view has shifted immensely in the last generation of people.
Vince: Right. I’d say it’s probably the same here looking at the divorce rates, for sure
Christopher: Exactly. Yes, exactly. And divorce is one thing…and so, a relationship, whether it lasts for one week, or one month, or one year, or one decade, or half a century, itself, may…and I can speak from experience here. I’ve had some wonderful and precious relationships over the years. The […] relationship, of course, over years for varying lengths of time. And it’s a constant exploration. So when your relationship comes to an end…I mean for some people it might be marriage and divorce, like you mentioned. It may be that it just comes to an end for multiple conditions. Just as the beginning of a relationship is important, equally important, if the relationship comes to an end (and figures show that most will), how do I meet the transition wisely and skillfully, in seeing impermanence, from intimacy to friendship, from lovers to an ongoing friendly communication? Even though there’ll be some heartache afterwards, some doubt or some sadness or whatever, yet keeping, [you] could say, a real metta, a real kindness ongoing, no matter what happens. And that beginning, middle and end of relationship, the arising, the staying, and the passing, as the Buddha would say, matters as much in a relationship as in any other area of life, and that’s part of our practice.
Vince: That’s so interesting. I’ve never really heard anyone talk specifically about the end of relationships and skillfulness around that.
Christopher: It’s a major one because relationships, and I’m talking personally for the moment, for about the past 12 to 13 years I had the privilege of being in three relationships. And three years, three years and two years over the period of time. And relationships come to an end. And sometimes it’s not because of any real conflict between two people. And I think in the Dharma world, and I can see this in myself as well, that sometimes the two people in the relationship, anyway, may be at different points in their evolution, where they are. Sometimes, in my case, the beautiful, very beautiful, I might add, women I had been in a relationship…at one point, they, being in their 30′s, have felt that urge to be parents, to be a mother. And I have a daughter and have no wish to increase the population any further.
Vince: [laughs]
Christopher: So, the outcome of that was a change. Sometimes, it’s geographical. I had one partner from Australia and I’m living here. That’s another factor. Sometimes, one person just wishes to move on for all sorts of extremely good reasons, or the two people agree. So, in the dynamics of change, whether it’s some personal conflict between the two people, whether it’s other factors which are arising from outer, biological, can we handle working with the endings well? And I think the major one is to go from being lovers, short or long term to being friends and making that shift. And I think it’s an essential part of the Dharma practice.
Author Info
There's been a lot of attempts throughout the ages to sugar-coat the Buddha's teaching. But the truth of the matter is that you cannot pick and choose aspects of the Buddha's teaching as you see fit. It's an all-or-nothing practice. In other words, either commit to do it wholeheartedly, as the Buddha asked us to do, or don't even bother.
The worst thing would be making a promise, making a commitment, and then reneging.
Sure you can pick and choose! Because the Buddha advised us not to accept any teachings on the basis of authority alone but to try them, test them, and accept as true only that which proved itself in personal experience – which is what it sounds as if Christopher Titmus is indeed speaking from.
So if something doesn't work for us we can chuck it out – although it might be the case, of course, that what we took for a 'teaching' was actually our own misunderstanding in the first place, such as the absurd notion (as the interview highlighted) that Buddhism aims at or is a cure for sexual desire.
The bad news is that dharma won't make our sexual insecurities or impulses go away. But the good news is that these don't stand in the way of enlightenment either. You don't have to give up sex in order to arrive at an understanding of the nature of reality, because sex is a part of that nature, not an obstacle to it. (How could it be? Stupid, when you think about it…)
My favourite part of the interview was when Christopher mentioned 'the beautiful, very beautiful, I might add, women I had been in a relationship [with]'.
Ha, ha! This was excellent! So it seems, in fact, that being involved in the dharma may not be all that bad for our sex appeal at all…
I don't think you can relativize the Buddha's teaching, i.e. the Dharma, the way you're suggesting here. There are many people who, upon trying the Dharma practice for themselves, will find that very little of the core teaching had proved itself in their experience. If they think that the Buddha suggested that they are then at liberty to chuck large portions of his teachings merely based on the fact that it does not feel right to them, they'd be gravely mistaken.
If one were to follow your line of reasoning, one could end up relativizing acts such as killing. Yes, the Buddha advised against killing, but so many people find in their daily experience that killing actually feels good to them (from killing an annoying mosquito to killing one's annoying parents and spiritual teachers).
But you see, these things cannot be relativized, not under any conditions. An act of killing always, under all circumstances, carries negative connotations, never positive.
The Buddha taught the fundamental virtues of solitude. Without embracing solitude, one cannot attain liberation and omniscience, so important for cultivating buddhahood. It is this aspect of the Dharma teaching that many people find unpalatable, and are hence interested only in embracing 'masters' who are not against watering the original teaching down and sugar-coating it by picking and choosing bits and pieces from it. Before you know it, you end up hearing about Buddhist teachers who advocate promiscuous sexual behavior.
Anyone who is a sincere Buddhist practitioner agrees on the unsurpassable value of observing and embracing solitude. And in solitude, there is no possibility of a sexual intercourse. It's as simple as that, even though you may vehemently dislike that aspect of the Buddha's teaching. Still, you cannot deny it.
I don't think that people abandon practice because it doesn't feel right, but because it doesn't feel good. I agree that people may abandon practice because it doesn't feel good, but I don't understand how telling them they are not at liberty to do so is any help, because the experience of being told one must do something generally doesn't feel very good either.
I agree that some people may kill because it feels good, but telling them it's not right doesn't stop it feeling good. In the same way, telling someone that dharma *is* right doesn't stop it feeling bad. Insight always comes from within, so it's pointless trying to impose it from outside by treating Buddhist practice like the letter of the law.
Solitude is not necessary for enlightenment because the nature of reality is already there to be understood whether we are with people or alone. And I assume it's not necessary for me to go into detail about how being alone doesn't eliminate in the slightest the opportunity for sexual desire, fantasy, activity, enjoyment and satisfaction!
Hey Duncan, thanks for taking the time to reply to my comment. I believe this type of discussion is extremely important, and it is great that you're game and willing to shed more light on the topic.
The starting premise of the Dharma teaching and practice is that beings don't know what is the right thing to do and what is the right thing to avoid. If they did know that, there wouldn't be any need for the Dharma at all.
The Buddha, in his infinite kindness, and feeling sorry for the innumerable beings who thus wander ensnared in samsara, taught the practice of accepting and rejecting. There are things that we must learn to accept (such as the absence of abiding self), and also there are things that we must learn to reject (such as the fabricated illusion that samsara is not necessarily that bad, after all). These things are prescribed by the Buddha, and they are to be taken on faith, regardless of whether we individually feel they are good for us or bad for us. There is something much bigger that is at stake here, and the Buddha urged us to pay attention to the teaching the same way we'd be paying attention to the exit signs if we get caught inside a burning house.
In that light, one of the things to reject is the notion that, after all, sexual urge is one good aspect of samsara, and that, by clinging to some 'good' aspects of samsara, we increase our chances of getting enlightened. The Buddha was very clear in his teaching that there isn't anything even remotely good to be found anywhere in samsara, because absolutely everything that can be knowable in samsara is based on the erroneous clinging to the non-existing self.
Knowing that, anyone who claims that the Buddha was wrong and that he wasn't able to see some aspect of samsara which are conducive to enlightenment, is not a true follower of his teaching.
I think there's a middle way between a dogmatically zealous and a feel-good laisse-faire approach to the dharma. On the one hand, there's no question that the Buddha clearly indicated that his teachings should not be accepted on faith alone, but should be tested through experience and effort. But, on the other hand, that's a very long way from saying that the dharma is whatever makes you feel good.
Feeling good is not that important, finally, and anyone who wishes to learn or experience anything worth learning or experiencing is going to have to brave trials of doubt, fear, pain, alienation, sadness, and more. There is no other way. Even Joseph Campbell (not exactly an ascetic) suggested that he wished that he had never said "Follow your bliss!" since it was so easily misconstrued as advocating hedonism.
So how can we find liberation from suffering? The Noble 8-fold path seems like a decent bet, and appears to have other good consequences, as well. How do we do so in such a way that we learn to see truly, and not merely through the lens of ignorance, grasping and aversion? I'm not sure, since any provisional conclusion is likely tainted with those very poisons. After all, becoming sure is the path to awakening. It would seem to be a tremendous undertaking, one that will likely require all of our resources in their fullest capacity. Those resources include rationality, faith, meditation, compassion, and the openness to accept that which is arising. Rules can help or hinder; it's up to us to decide when we should uphold them. But we shouldn't be surprised if, when we radically alter the recipe, the cake is not sufficiently leavened.
@Alex: I disagree that enlightenment is an escape from samsara. This view runs the risk of aversion towards everyday reality. An aversion of this kind might seem like 'non-attachment', but may actually be a denial or shunning of experience. The Buddha's ultimate statement was that samsara and nirvana are not different. If they were different then enlightenment would be impossible.
Having and enjoying a sexual relationship does not entail 'clinging' to sex any more than speaking entails 'clinging' to language. Indeed, some traditions employ sexual experience as a means advancing towards awakening, which is possible because it's not the experience itself that is at issue but the practitioner's insight into the nature of experience (impermanent, unsatisfactory, empty).
@Dan: I'm sure you're aware that if there are two views, it doesn't necessarily follow that an intermediate compromise between them is necessarily more true. That would be a style of thinking guaranteed to land us in trouble, and it's not what I understand as the meaning of 'the middle way'.
"I disagree that enlightenment is an escape from samsara. This view runs the risk of aversion towards everyday reality."
Not sure why are you indentifying everyday reality with samsara? There is definitely more to everyday reality than the nightmare of samsara.
To take things from the top, we must be clear on the fact that all beings, innumerable in quantity, are equal. All beings are equal in wanting happiness and not wanting suffering. In other words, it would be absolutely impossible to encounter a being who would not want happiness and who would want suffering instead.
Things being that way, the Buddha didn't have to teach beings to reorientate themselves towards wanting happiness. To want happiness is naturally inborn in each being, which is to say, to want happiness and to not want suffering is every being's inherent buddha nature. Pure and luminous, it is present in all of us, at all times. There is not even a slightest trace of a doubt that it is indeed so.
Where, then, is the problem? If all beings are already perfect in wanting happiness and not wanting suffering, why the need for the Dharma teaching? The need for the Dharma teaching arises because the beings, in their beginingless ignorance, are incapable of distinguishing which actions to take in order to eliminate suffering and which actions to take in order to obtain lasting happiness. All the Buddha has ever thought is how to go about accomplishing that task.
If a being makes an error in judgement, and concludes (erroneously) that an action that directly leads to suffering is an action that leads to happiness, that being will be ensnared in samsara. If, on the other hand, that being obtains the training necessary to distinguish harmful from beneficial actions, that being will gain liberation from the pains and sorrows of samsara.
To think that happiness can be found anywhere in samsara is a surefire sign of erroneous thinking. Also, to think that suffering can be eliminated in samsara, is equaly erroneous. No experience that is available to us in samsara is wholesome. All samsaric experiences, each and every one of them, is nightmarish in nature, because all samsaric experiences stem from the erroneous belief in a separate self. There is no exception to that karmic law.
I'm really finding your rhetoric on this topic to be completely over the top. Just in this short comment look at the many absolutistic statements that have been made:
1) "the fact that all beings…"
2) "it would be absolutely impossible to encounter a being…"
3) "There is not even a slightest trace of a doubt that it is indeed so."
4) "…is a surefire sign of erroneous thinking."
5) "No experience that is available to us in samsara is wholesome."
6) "ll samsaric experiences, each and every one of them, is nightmarish in nature"
7) "There is no exception to that karmic law."
I find it pretty incredible the certainty you are imbuing these statements with, and the rank arrogance of assuming that you know all of these things with such certainty. I've always meant for Buddhist Geeks to be a place where unexamined & absolutistic dogma like this was, and is, unwelcome. As such, I'd appreciate if you aren't willing to step into an actual exchange with people here, wherein there is some sense of give and take (not just you telling everyone how it is), that you find somewhere else to share your opinions.
Instead of obsessing about personalities (in this case, my personality), why don't you try and argue against the statements you found so offensive? It's easy to unleash an ad hominem attack, but perhaps not so easy to supply valid argumentation in an impersonal debate?
Just a thought…
I don't consider this a question of personality, but rather of orientation and vast differences in meaning-making. I find your views and the way you argue (which is what I pointed out above) not helpful or appropriate for this context, which is more about taking multiple perspectives into account as part of a larger dialogue. To argue with your statements, as you suggest, would be to fall into the exact trap that I'm pointing out, a strict right vs. wrong absolutistic mentality. Instead of wasting my time and yours, I'll simply ask that you bring your opinions elsewhere.
Nor is an intermediate compromise necessarily false. What do you suppose the middle way is, then? I had thought that it was, at least superficially, a mean between the extreme asceticism that Gautama had practiced before Buddhahood, and the relative liberality of desire exercised by most people. That is to say, one should eat enough food to support your body, but not much more; one should have few clothes and few possessions; one should sleep, but not overmuch, etc. As a lifestyle, it seems quite similar to Epicurianism. But maybe I'm confused about what 'the middle way' means. I also don't understand why that sort of thinking is "guaranteed to land us in trouble." But maybe I'm just too dense to understand these things clearly.
What you've just described is my understanding of 'middle way' too. Sorry if I misunderstood, but in your original post it seemed you were applying this term to the practice of seeking a compromise between any and all conflicting terms or views.
This is guaranteed to land us in trouble because it's often the case that one view is simply more helpful than another. If we automatically assume that the best path lies between the two then we opt for something less helpful than if we considered each view on its merit and simply chose the one that was better.
In Buddhism there's the important concept of 'right view'. But if Buddhism held to the principle that a compromise between all views is best, then there could be no such thing as 'right view' – unless 'right view' were that 'a compromise between all views is best'. But that's not what it is!
Isn't the crucial point in the talk the way Christopher is talking about 'tanha'. The English translation as 'desire' doesn't really capture the Buddha's meaning. We use 'desire' to cover a wide range of both deep emotional needs and relatively trivial 'wants'. He suggests that tanha is about desire in a negative way – and that our common use of 'desire' doesn't distinguish between a desire to make love with someone and the desire to sexually abuse them. I'm not sure if this is right – but its not an open invite to some kind of hedonistic licenciousness. The challenge is as he says having the skill to know when that desire is a genuine one which is hard on ones own behalf – but also to know that our desires (for good or ill) involve someone else makes it much more complicated.
"Isn't the crucial point in the talk the way Christopher is talking about 'tanha'."
The crucial point is that attachment, clinging and aversion (which all could be summed up under 'tanha' or thirst), all stem from the erroneous concept of selfhood. Buddhism teaches absolute absence of selfhood, at any conceivable level. As soon as anyone falls victim of believing that there is a distinct self, or ego, or "I", tanha arises, which is the thirst to protect that imaginary self by clinging on to anything that may appear as fortifying the ego, and reject anything that may appear as diminishing or threatening that imaginary self, or "I".
In the light of that explanation, is sexual activity (and especially promiscous sex) something that serves to fortify the false belief in the self, or is it something that serves to weaken it, to the point of eliminating it?
Sexual activity can weaken the impression of self, in that it produces certain powerful sensations which are seen to be impermanent, unsatisfactory and devoid of essence.
Sexual activity can strengthen the impression of self, in that it produces certain powerful sensations which are *not* seen to be impermanent, unsatisfactory and devoid of essence.
Sexual sensations arise in living beings according to instinct. We might argue that identifying with these sensations can strengthen the impression of self, but you seem to be arguing that the self somehow precedes these sensations and is strengthened by them – which is an odd view to take, for someone who asserts there is no self!
Just as an aside, Alex, Christopher Titmuss is by many accounts one of the most advanced yogis teaching today and a true meditation master.
He is also someone who has taken the Buddha's teaching to heart in impressive ways. For example, he refused to accept on faith even the idea that the path of austerities leads nowhere, and so, at one point in his practice, Christopher starved himself and engaged in David Blaine-like acts of deprivation to actually test whether the Buddha was right about austerities. To characterize him as a kind of lightweight who is insincere and, ultimately, just interested in self-gratification…well, that seems unfair to say the least.
From my reading of the Pali canon, and from personal experience, I cannot accept the idea that a sexual relationship can happen without tanha. Seriously, if you're mindful, equanimous, etc, you are simply not going to have an erection (I mean during the moment your mind is mindful and equanimous, in other words, without tanha). It just can't happen. Only with craving will you have an erection or have your genitals ready for sex. How can a sexual encounter happen without craving/tanha in the mind? Sex involves a desire to gain satisfaction from feelings, which IS tanha. If you are not craving for feelings, then why would you want a sexual relationship in the first place? If one claims it's to express metta, wonder why the Buddha didn't have sex once awakened. The Buddha said that after awakenening, all sensual desires seemed like enjoying burning coals, completely unatractive.
Hi Benoit -
Surely, mindfulness of sensations is what makes sex so pleasurable? Being mindful of our arousal and our desire makes the experience far more pleasurable than if we're not. Mindfulness of the sensations of an erection – for example – surely makes one *more* horny, rather than making the horniness go away?!
If mindfulness of something destroyed the arising of that thing, then mindfulness of anything would be impossible. It's not the presence or absence of 'tanha' that is at issue, in my view, but the recognition of the nature of 'tanha' – impermanent, devoid of essence, and unsatisfactory. And if we look, we can see that these apply even to mindfulness itself!
In fact, the Pali canon teaches that after the third stage of awakening (non-returning), sensual desire is eliminated completely. And generations of people who have attained this stage (from the time of the Buddha until today) have all automatically become celibate. Those who were in a relationship gave it up.
However, first stage awakening (stream-entry) does not eliminate sensual desire and many streamwinners at the time of the Buddha remained sexually active.
I think one can have a sex life and still be a good Buddhist, which means sex in the confines of sila (ethical behaviour). But also, not fooling oneself about the nature of sexuality and understanding that at one point along the way, it must be abandoned if Full-Awakening is what one aims for.
One more point, I read a lot a the quote that one is to accept a teaching as true only that which proved itself in personal experience. Well, that's not really what the Buddha said. In the Kalama Sutta, from which this misquote intends to refer, what is said is to accept a teaching if one finds it leads to one's benefit and is accepted by the wise (elsewhere the Buddha said the word wise refers to Arahants, fully-awakened ones). The same discourse rejects logical reasoning as a suitable base for accepting or refusing a teaching. "One's personal experience" is a little too vague as a criteria.
Hi Benoit -
Okay, so let's take the teaching that 'an Arahant is someone who has automatically become celibate'. How could we possibly verify this if we're expected to ask an Arahant? Who do we go to? Presumably to someone who has automatically become celibate, if this is the criteria for an Arahant, but in that case the teaching is merely a self-fulfilling article of faith. Or do we turn to someone who is sexually active, in which case how do we know we're talking to an Arahant?!
I'd suggest that who we regard as 'the wise' is therefore also a matter of personal experience. I think that personal experience and logic are very valuable faculties indeed, because I don't think we can escape the view that some of the suttas are far more valuable than others!
Was glad to finally hear a Dharma teacher address the issues of desire and relationships as part of practice. What really struck a chord with me in the conversation was that Christopher talked about dismantling of the ideas of what a "successfull" relationship should be (a long lasting,monogamus, etc). I believe in many cases ideas themselves (many of which we inherit from the culture) lead to relationships ending earlier that they need to as they put pressure on people to define something and stick to. I see relationships as something that changes with me and my partner(s), shifting, including the form of course, rather than something solid that I have to hold on to. I don't see ended relationships as "failed" (eg a very amical divorce after ten years of marriage) but this is where my mother and many in her circles disagree with me
because the relationship died as it was but got transformed into something different.
From what i understand marrying for love is a fairly new project even in the Western societies and the motivations to stay together might not be as strong and as lasting throughout life as those that were prevailing earlier (of economic or political interest, loyality to the blood family, etc). Globalisation, empowerment of women and other factors, is already affecting the way we build our relationships and the choices we make. In Stockholm we have the highest number of single households in Europe. There are more words in Swedish for different forms of relationships that I can care to remember, many of which do not involve living together. My belief is that a relationships doesn't have to die only because it cannot be sustained with the same level of committment or intensity. It can shift the form and transform into something new and different, but nevertheless wonderful.
This is where the second inspiring for me idea from Christopher comes along: how do we transition form one stage/form to another without necessarily losing the connection we might still have and not hurting each other? Or maybe even how do we handle conflicts in relationships? I hope Vince will invite other teachers who can speak on that. I've listened to Ken McLeod's podcasts on the subject and really appreciated his down-to-earth approach (Ken's been teaching in the Tibetan tradition for many years but I appreciate that he draws on the wisdom of all Buddhist traditions in his talks and teaching).
Palms together,
Irisha
(Alex wrote:) "The starting premise of the Dharma teaching and practice is that beings don't know what is the right thing to do and what is the right thing to avoid."
Is that statement true?????
From the perspective of the Four Noble Truths, the starting place is the fact of dukkha.
From the perspective of the Twelve Links, the starting place is basic ignorance about the nature of reality.
Christopher Titmuss' interview is interesting but misses an important point.
The Buddha distinguished between 2 kinds of desire: kamachanda is the desire for conditioned things – which cannot truly satisfy, whereas dhammachanda is the desire for the unconditioned, which does truly satsify. Thus it is wholesome and important to long for spiritual progress. Tanha, the craving/desire referred to in the second Noble Truth, refers to kamachanda, but not dhammachanda.
Sex clearly seems to me to fall into the first category: it can be generous, loving, beautiful etc but it is impermanent and it can't bear the weight of all the signficance we give it! And it necessarily is driven by craving for an "other". I am sure we don't have to give it up in order to move towards Enlightenment, but I am pretty sure that an Enlightened being has no further use for it. Having gone beyond the subject-object duality we normally experience,an Enlightened being is content, complete in him/herself and would have no further desire for impermanent, conditioned things, however beautiful they are!
Has there been any discussion here regarding Christopher's Sabbaticals from various Insight Meditation Centres due to engaging in sexal relationship with students? I feel this would be an important discussion point when discussing sexuality with a Buddhist teacher.
Hi Duncan,
I had not realized someone answered my posts until now (we are March 9 2001)! Thanks for your input. It`s true that in sexual rel. there is some kind of mindfulness involved. There are even sex therapists who teach a form a mindfulness to enhance the sex life of their patients. But even in that case, the reason it works is that it calms the nervous system down and allows the man to be able to prolong intercourse (if you get what I mean). If "too" mindful, you get to lose erection altogether.
But if we`re talking about mindfulness the way the Buddha talked about it, there is no way one can even have an erection in such a state. The Buddha described mindfulness (the kind that leads to liberation) as "connected with seclusion, dispassion, relinquishment, and ending in liberation".
In the 8fold path Right thought, which is to work conjointly with the other factors of the path such as mindfulness, it talks about "renunciation of sense desire".
Part 2 to my response:
Mindfulness does not really destroy the arising of anything. What it does is it prevents the arising of certain things when it`s present. Or when a state such as sense desirer has already arisen, the activation of Right Mindfulness (meaning as a path factor and not just ordinary awareness) will make it so that the desire will pass away on its own and not continue to re-arise in subsequent mind-moments. Without right mindfulness it would just rearise over and over for a while.
I meant March 9, 2011
Part 3
The point is that of course mindfulness can be used for anything, but it doesn`t necessarily make it Right Mindfulness (samma sati) in the Buddhist sense. A sniper can be extremely mindful when aiming his weapon at another human being. In fact, he needs mindfulness to be able to accomplish the killing. But this kind of mindfulness is not the kind that lead to liberation.
Mindfulness means being aware while tossing aside craving, hatred, and other defilements, as described in the satipatthana sutta and other discourses of the Buddha.
So try with your own experience. To use your example, mindfulness of the sensations of an erection, if you`re mindful of it… no, it won`t make you more horny, it will make you less horny.
Just try it and see for yourself, using mindfulness as the Buddha taught it of course.
To be horny one needs to be in a sympathetic mode (excited). When very mindful, one is in a parasympathetic mode (calm).
All the best on your path,
Benoit
Yes, I also find it can be a tricky thing to tell people to follow a teaching if it is "accepted by the wise", yet that's what the Buddha said in the Kalama sutta. Actually, in another discourse, he says it's about following a teacher whom one has seen as not manifesting greed, anger, and delusion, which is what I interpreted as meaning an Arahant in my post above. But even there, one may not "seem" to have greed and yet have it. I think logic and personal experience are indeed valuable, but not 100% reliable in terms of perceiving what's true, especially the logic b/c different poeple will have different logics. Personally, I regard the knowledge that emerges from inner silence to be the most reliable source of knowledge. Inner silence cannot corrupt the interpretation of a persaonal experience the way the conditioned thinking mind can.