Image
nazbags
The Dalai Lama has spoken out against a promiscious lifestyle, saying celibacy brings a person more peace. He said, "Naturally as a human being...some kind of desire for sex comes, but then you use human intelligence to make comprehension that those relationships are always full of trouble." A celibate life allows one to not be attached to partners and children, he said.
  1. groups:
    News and Politics,   Sex and Love,   Sex,   Current News UK,   1 more
  2. tags:
    News and Politics Current News UK Sex and Love Sex 3 more
  3.     
    |

82 comments // Sex brings trouble, says Dalai Lama

  • AJRW
    • 0
      AJRW  
    • Having grown up in a "buddhist" home, I think the ideals are great, the path is great-however, the unattachment modality/mindset of the path allows and enables a family to grow distant emotionally and spiritually due to the principle that we are all on our own path.
      That path is, I have found, unfortunatley used as an easy escape or defense mechanism to keep people-even ones own children- at 'arm's length'.

      Personally I have been in life-threatning situations where others would call my family about involving me and only to be met with a simple "Oh, she's not on my path"...

      I say go 'do it' until the llamas come home!...
      Hey, it's your path, as long you're 'mindful' and treat your body with sacred respect.

      My cousin Matt has worked closely with Dali to the L, as well as almost all spiritual 'guides' in all the NY borroughs in an effort to maintain peace and respect.

      Matt said D.L. is just as human as anyone. Just as human as say...oh let me throw a rusty wrench in there...Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon Church..

      I'm just so bored with all the Buddhist talk...Sorry!
      Ali

    • 2 years ago
  • majormajor
  • jonbrooks
  • Mr_Costello
  • Beta_Boy
    • 0
      Beta_Boy  
    • Sex brings trouble?

      Dalai Lama is celibate, does that mean his life is perfect, cause last time I checked he had troubles of his own.

    • 3 years ago
  • DeliaTheArtist
    • 0
      DeliaTheArtist  
    • Just to be clear, Buddha taught that desire leads to suffering in all cases, not just sex. Everything is impermanent, so getting too attached to anything only brings pain. This is not to say that you can't have sex (though monks in a variety of different religions remain celebate), have friends, have a spouse, kids, etc and love them. Indeed, Buddha taught about universal love and interdependence. Buddhism is all about moderation or the "middle way". It's not about stripping us of our humanism or happiness, but being able to have more control over your emotions and lifestyle.

    • 3 years ago
  • DeliaTheArtist
    • 0
      DeliaTheArtist  
    • Petarro said "How fake is people at Current.com... Reality is that if this would have been said BY ANY OTHER PERSON, then the comments would have been quite dramatically different.comments like "Religions, get out of our Beds!" "Religions always messing up with bla bla bla"

      If you actually look at the comments here, you will see that indeed there is a wide range of opinion just like any other post dealing with religion.

      The Dalai Lama said "Too much attachment towards your children, towards your partner," was "one of the obstacles or hindrances of peace of mind,"
      As I mentioned, branches of Buddhism frequently have different "rules" for monks and laypeople. Most buddhists are expected to get married, have sex and have children. Celibacy is only expected of monks.

    • 3 years ago
  • ashcatash
    • 0
      ashcatash  
    • Why is everyone picking on the Dalai Lama? If he doesn't want to have sex, then fine with me. It doesn't mean we have to do whatever he says.

    • 3 years ago
  • extracrazykiwi2008
  • atarikg
    • 0
      atarikg  
    • Just look at the animals, they have sex different partners and they haven't actual wife. If you wanna be like them then do what they do but if you're a human then you need to stop your desires and stop having sex with who you see. Just marry and be a human.

    • 3 years ago
  • Denica_Cassandra
  • CalgarC
  • GeoffNI
    • 0
      GeoffNI  
    • Celibacy should not be inflicted on anyone. This is why there are pedos and all sorts in the Catholic Church. The bible even speaks of this doctrine as a Doctrine of Demons. Celibacy can be a path for people that are choosen for it, but as the word also says its better to marry than to burn with lust. Therefore many Catholic Priests that are forbidden to marry under there church rules should actually be allowed to marry rather than burn with lust.

    • 3 years ago
  • DJMatt2
    • 0
      DJMatt2  
    • GeoffNI:

      Solution to the priest issue:

      Get them hooked on computers and turn them into nerds. Guaranteed they will be the least attractive to anyone of the opposite sex.

      Problem solved.

      (Note: all sarcasm is intentional.)

    • 3 years ago
  • LarzNero
  • DJMatt2
  • DJMatt2
  • Tayllerand
    • 0
      Tayllerand  
    • Dalai Lama with all due respect , I think that depends of the kind of women you are dating , If you date a B!@#$ of course your life is going to be a living hell , but if you date a sexshy lady thats knows what she wants, everything is "perfecto mundo" Dalai Lama Im telling you out there , there are a bunch of sexshy MILFS that wants to have fun , so please dont tell me that will bring me trouble.
      Dont do that, because you are the last hope that humanity have in this planet dont blow it away with this.One thing is for sure Dalai Lama, I will never get married too much BS after you do that.

    • 3 years ago
  • nakedhand
    • 0
      nakedhand  
    • I have great respect and admiration for this human being, but following his advice on this matter would leave us a lush green planet void of humans very quickly.

      Is he telling us, we should get this humanity thing over with and move on to not existing?

      ...attachement to your partner and children is a bad thing now?! I thought detachment was a core problem in human relations of this modern era.

    • 3 years ago
  • lj111
  • mitmy
    • 0
      mitmy  
    • He's right of course, if everybody in the world practiced celibacy from this point in time and I'm pretty sure that this planet will become very peaceful. Peaceful and empty of humans.

    • 3 years ago
  • richardmetcalf
    • 0
      richardmetcalf  
    • very interesting to hear some of the views expresed here. I suspect there may be a much fuller and sensemaking explanation of what's being said by the dalai lama here.

      In mainstream western psychology healthy Attachment is at the core of normal and healthy development, What about jelousy, rage and fear, all associated with attachment and problematic attachment. I guess theres some weight in what the dalai lama says in that, all that can be avoided, there's a lot of conditions needed to make that choice (celebacy)a positive one.
      personally i think sex is good and natural.as is attachment ,

    • 3 years ago
  • anglcazn
    • 0
      anglcazn  
    • I have to entirely disagree with what he says and the ideas of Buddhism. What he and the ideology argues for is what humans greatly needed. Human contact, intercourse, it's all part of human nature. If taken away, it can lead to some psychological trauma.

      What he promotes is what other religions has promoted as well. It's nothing but superstitious logic.

    • 3 years ago
  • charmedkitten
  • petarro
    • 0
      petarro  
    • WOW! How fake is people at Current.com... Reality is that if this would have been said BY ANY OTHER PERSON, then the comments would have been quite dramatically different.

      I can comments like "Religions, get out of our Beds!" "Religions always messing up with bla bla bla"

      Reality is that as any other Religion, -Sex- Itself, when not in a relationship and/or planned does bring a lot of Trouble.

      I will read up and see who's credibility/-BEIN REAL- can be taken under ZERO.

    • 3 years ago
  • anphan78
  • phillyharper
  • Humdrum
  • Katmai512
  • cinco5
    • 0
      cinco5  
    • #1-celibacy does not bring trouble.not wearing a condom brings trouble.
      #2-if it's sex it's sex. not love.
      #3-not having sex is very bad for you.(if you doubt this why do you miss it?)
      #4-women are so beautiful

    • 3 years ago
  • SonofLiberty1
  • Katmai512
    • 0
      Katmai512  
    • As the Buddha told one of his disciples:
      Use my teachings like how you use a raft to cross a river. Once you've used the raft and crossed the river, you must leave the raft and find your way.

    • 3 years ago
  • Katmai512
  • ianakaeeen
  • TheJellz
  • ashcatash
  • starr111
    • 0
      starr111  
    • I am glad someone the "left" might listen to is saying this as well. There is a lot of greatness that comes from monogamy... and it's definately not monotonous. Not just in marriage, but the sanctity of marriage should be protected. This prop 8 hype is making their cause look bad( diff. subj._sorry), just let them have all the taxes and hospital visits... whatever. Just call it something similar to marriage, and let's PROMOTE MONOGAMY ACROSS ALL BARRIERS AND GIVE THESE PEOPLE A MODEL OF LOVE WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND LOVE THAT'S UNCONDITIONAL

    • 3 years ago
  • anglcazn
  • tmfs
  • NoGodsNoMasters
    • 0
      NoGodsNoMasters  
    • Funny thing is the Buddha had a wife and kid. My one friend who is a Buddhist teacher in training jokes about how the Buddha is a dead beat dad because he just packed up one day and left his wife and kid behind to go find enlightenment.

      But the Buddha never told anyone they couldn't have kids. All he said was that relationships both emotional and sexual come with a certain amount of suffering and you can decrees that suffering by not participating in either but if you decide to that you know what you are getting yourselves into.

    • 3 years ago
  • federicoharo
    • 0
      federicoharo  
    • I for one, respectfully disagree. I believe that love is only real if its shared. You can be loving yourself a whole lot, but if you don't share that love, it can never become real - And as human beings, we need a lot of love during these hard times in order to heal ourselves.

    • 3 years ago
  • Dangron
  • Dangron
  • unimatrix0
    • 0
      unimatrix0  
    • If you read the gospels Christ advocates something very similar. For Jesus the best thing to do is avoid sex altogether. But if you can not, he advises to just have sex with one person your whole life (marriage).

    • 3 years ago
  • JohnA
  • freetalk
    • 0
      freetalk  
    • unimatrix0:

      I'm pretty sure that Paul is the one who really advocated that it was better to not marry. Given the context of the Roman persecution at the time he was writing, that really did make a lot of sense. A Christian who refused to renounce his faith would often be forced to watch as his family was murdered.

      "Jesus replied, 'Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.' " Matthew 19:11-12

      In other words, not everyone can stand to abstain from getting married, and that is okay.

    • 3 years ago
  • DJMatt2
    • 0
      DJMatt2  
    • unimatrix0:

      It was Paul that did that, and given his history you can understand why he had issues with sex. (Here's a hint: his temporary blindness had less to do with divine intervention and more to do with the company he kept before his supposed conversion.)

    • 3 years ago
  • ashcatash
  • JohnA
  • Johnny_Danger
  • frankenbatthumb
  • atarikg
  • infinity9
    • 0
      infinity9  
    • sex certainly complicates things for some people--especially single individuals--but is arguably beneficial for others. note that the catholic church recently encouraged couples to have sex more often.

    • 3 years ago
  • chapter12
    • 0
      chapter12  
    • "..but then you use human intelligence to make comprehension that those relationships are always full of trouble"

      talk about some faulty logic.. the guy is justifying his opinion by speaking in absolutes.. the opposite of promiscuity is not necessarily celibacy.. there is a moderate road inbetween that many people travel.. additionally, relationships are NOT ALWAYS full of trouble.. if anything, human intelligence dictates that man is a social being by nature and that.. when the right match is made.. a woman and a man compliment each other in such a way that the whole is greater than the sum..

      relationships take effort.. just like most things of value in this world.. and they do not happen on their own or overnight.. it is very true that relationships with the wrong type of person or in the wrong manner can bring you down.. but on the flip side, relationships can serve as sources of strength and happiness..

      an individual's ability to develop such meaningful relationships is one of the more rewarding challenges in life that we all face.. those that transcend beyond short-term desires and superficial gains are often the ones that are most successful in their relations with others as well as in many other aspects of life..

      for someone who is admired by so many, i think its kinda sad for him to discourage pursuing one of the most spiritually satisfying bonds that a human could achieve..

      my opinion, of course..

    • 3 years ago
  • naty_forty
    • 0
      naty_forty  
    • chapter12:

      If I could have put into words what I thought it would have likely read like what you wrote... "for someone who is admired by so many, i think its kinda sad for him to discourage pursuing one of the most spiritually satisfying bonds that a human could achieve."

    • 3 years ago
  • cantucwearebrothers
    • 0
      cantucwearebrothers  
    • I thought forming attachments with other humans was part of a fully lived life? It's what enriches our experiences and brings us happiness.

      He can have his celibacy and the rest of us can have our sex. Thank you.

    • 3 years ago
  • asherp
  • Leonidis
  • naty_forty
  • AutifK
    • 0
      AutifK  
    • I currently have very little respect for the Lama's intelligence right now. Lama claims that if you think about sexual relationships, then you will understand how they are full of trouble. Prove it Lama. Tell me how. Also, what kind of trouble. When you acquire trouble, you acquire a kind of trouble. If sexual relationships are 'full of trouble', then tell me what kind of trouble sexual relationships entail. E.g. When I buy a car, I don't just buy a car, I buy a type of car (e.g. Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, Mazda 626... etc.)

      "A celibate life allows one to not be attached to partners and children."

      Lama... did you hear what you just said? Why would you not want to be attached to partners and children? In other words, why would you want to be detached from partners and children. Why do you think that is a good thing? I'll tell you right now, if your parent's were following your pseudo-philosophy, you wouldn't be able to preach this, Lama.

      One last note to the article provider:
      "The Dalai Lama has spoken out against a promiscious lifestyle, saying celibacy brings a person more peace."

      Nazbags, Lama is not speaking out against a promiscuous lifestyle. He is speaking out against any desire for sex what so ever. Promiscuity pertains to a person or people having frequent sexual encounters. The Lama doesn't say anything about frequent sexual encounters. He says that he is against "some kind of desire for sex". He proposes that people should totally abolish any desire for sex regardless of how slight because he is opposed to having a desire for sex. As you presented him, he doesn't say anything about having a promiscuous desire.

    • 3 years ago
  • DeliaTheArtist
    • 0
      DeliaTheArtist  
    • AutifK:

      Buddhists monks are trying to separate themselves from all earthy attachments, family and children included. As I said before, most branches of Buddhism have different rules for monks than regular people.

      This doesn't have so much to do with his intelligence as the lifestyle he grew up in. He was taken at 8 yrs old to learn Buddhism. If you've ever read any of his books, you'll see he really is a very smart and insightful man.

      Suffering is at the heart of Buddhist thought, and desire brings suffering. So, most buddhists think that if you can eliminate desire, you eliminate suffering.

    • 3 years ago
  • Johnny_Danger
  • AutifK
    • 0
      AutifK  
    • AutifK:

      Reply to 'DeliaTheArtist':

      To be fair, I have neither read any of his nor any Buddhist teachings, but I still don't fully see the reasoning in Lama's beliefs. Perhaps, this would be more clear if I read his books. Regardless, these are my thoughts:

      I'll concede that the more intense a person's desires are, the more he/she will suffer from having those desires. That is, the more intolerable a person is of not satisfying their desires, the more they will feel they are suffering, but I'm not sure how desires in general cause suffering. Nor do I think it is possible to fully eliminate one's desires. I mean, to take that literally again, we wouldn't be alive if we didn't have at least some desire, so for one to... desire to ELIMINATE one's desires sounds kind of extreme. Perhaps I should be more charitable. Do they really want to eliminate their desires or am I taking that too literally? Are their particular desires they want to eliminate or all of them? A person who desires to eliminate his desires still has a desire. Namely, he/she will always have the desire to eliminate his/her desires.

      On another note, I am not sure of a couple things. First, what counts as an earthly attachment? Intuitively, I want to say that anything coming from Earth is an object of Earth. So, I'm not sure how you break your attachment from Earth. But, to be fair, again, I am probably taking that too literally. Second, why is it considered bad to have earthly attachments (whatever those may be...) ?

      I don't doubt that Lama is a nice guy, that is, he hasn't harmed anyone and nor does he have any intention to, but I don't want to hold off critique from anyone. I don't feel like I have received good reasons for someone having the beliefs that I have been presented with in this article so far. However, again, I concede that it is perhaps partly because I myself do not have a strong enough awareness of Lama's background.

    • 3 years ago
  • asherp
  • AswegoAsdego
  • AutifK
    • 0
      AutifK  
    • AutifK:

      Reply to 'asherp' and 'AswegoAsdego':

      "So you're saying that because you're ignorant of his culture, you get angry at what you don't understand..."

      "Ignorance such as this is the most dangerous thing in the world."

      Hopefully, if you have both read my second post, I already conceded that I do not have sufficient awareness of Lama's background. When I said background, I meant the content of his Buddhist teachings. What I am annoyed by is the lack of reasons that I have received insofar as THIS article is concerned.

      I conceded to 'DeliaTheArtist' that I do not know entirely know what Lama's reasons are, but I t feel like the reasons I was presented so far are inadequate or not explicit enough.

      I will also concede that my first response was kind of harsh. And, my only justification for that response (although I concede its inadequacy) is that I get annoyed when people make claims and don't back them up with defensible reasons. But, I forgot that in general, when articles are posted, they can sometimes be posted out of context. So I accept fault for the tone of my first post.

      In regards to my ignorance of Dalai Lama, I will get annoyed if when giving me an explanation he doesn't give me all his reasons that makes what he is saying true. If the nature of Lama's commentary that 'nazbags' provided is accurate, then I cannot understand his beliefs per se. I can only know what his beliefs are, but based on the presentation of 'nazbags' post, I cannot know whether it is a practice worth following or why he would encourage such beliefs. But, as I just stated in my previous paragraph, it might be due to the lack of context that I had, so for that reason, it's possible that I spoke prematurely. However, if I see frequent commentary of Lama not providing some kind of defensible reasons for his beliefs, then I will be more inclined to believe that he doesn't have any.

      Anyway, on a final note, I apologize for my initial harsh response. If people don't provide reasons for why they believe something, then it is interpretable in so many ways. More the reason why someone's beliefs without reasons has the potentiality to be applied falsely by others. So, I don't like it when people profess what is false. I am not yet asserting that Lama has stated something false, but if he continues to lack reasons for why he believes what he does, then he leaves his beliefs at the hands of followers (his direct disciples or not) who may apply them falsely. That's why I replied so angrily (I am not justifying my anger. I am just explaining its origin)

    • 3 years ago
  • zk278206
    • 0
      zk278206  
    • AutifK:

      just FYI AutifK, Dalai Lama is a title, not a name.

      A lama is a Tibetian guru, and Dalai means "Ocean [of wisdom]".

      So to refer to the Dalai Lama as "Lama" is incorrect, he is but one of many lamas. His name is Tenzin Gyatso, though he renounced it along with all other attachments to the material world.

      Buddhism really can be a very logical and rational way of thinking, if you chose to look into it. If you did want to know more about Buddhism, www.buddhanet.net is a good place to start.

      Ohm Mani Padme Hum

    • 3 years ago
  • Valentin0o
    • 0
      Valentin0o  
    • AutifK:

      AutifK I understand where you are coming from, but I must disagree with you.
      We could start a very long discussion from this, but I will not try at the moment.
      All I can say is, keep an open mind.

    • 3 years ago
  • petarro
  • AutifK
  • AutifK
    • 0
      AutifK  
    • AutifK:

      Reply to 'Valentin0o':

      Ok, I will try, but as I stated earlier, if I am consistently not given justified reasons for believing his convictions, I'll be more inclined to believe that he doesn't have any.

    • 3 years ago
  • AswegoAsdego
    • 0
      AswegoAsdego  
    • AutifK:

      Judging subjects and people that you have no experience with (this means anyone) is a dangerous thing, it is the starting point for persecution and segregation, it is dangerous for anyone to do.

    • 3 years ago
  • kennyJ
    • 0
      kennyJ  
    • AutifK:

      Hey I'm pretty sure the Buddhist message about SECULAR attachments is NOT actually all that different then Jesus' teachings on this basic TRUTH...

      Am I wrong about that?

    • 3 years ago
  • AutifK
  • DeliaTheArtist
    • 0
      DeliaTheArtist  
    • Buddhism is all about freeing yourself from attachment. It should be clarified however that in most branches of Buddhism, there are different rules for monks and "laypeople". Regular folks typically marry and have a family- here's a good description I found on a Buddhist site:
      "The Buddhist views on marriage are very liberal: in Buddhism, marriage is regarded entirely as personal and individual concern, and not as a religious duty. There are no religious laws in Buddhism compelling a person to be married, to remain as a bachelor or to lead a life of total chastity. It is not laid down anywhere that Buddhists must produce children or regulate the number of children that they produce. Buddhism allows each individual the freedom to decide for himself all the issues pertaining to marriage. It might be asked why Buddhist monks do not marry, since there are no laws for or against marriage. The reason is obviously that to be of service to mankind, the monks have chosen a way of life which includes celibacy. Those who renounce the worldly life keep away from married life voluntarily to avoid various worldly commitments in order to maintain peace of mind and to dedicate their lives solely to serve others in the attainment of spiritual emancipation. "

    • 3 years ago
  • Kashmir
  • marpunk
more from News and Politics:

top videos