Here's a question (playing devil's advocate now).

If God exists in a similar sense that justice, truth, beauty, etc. exist, then why is it that some cultures and religions have no notion of God (in a transcendent sense, I'm not talking about the immanent Devas) - for example, Buddhism? How could they have missed it?

Okay, so then you're saying that facts, faith and reason are directly emergent from this fundamental block. I would call this "life" or "being" perhaps.

Also, in Mahayana, in a sense, "love" is eternal. But, again "anatta" makes that proclamation impossible. — boundless

Why do you say that in a certain sense, "love" is eternal in Mahayana? Love has different aspects - largely, we have two kinds of love: non-preferential love, and preferential love. Preferential love is the love you feel towards mother, father, children, wife/husband (and even here, love breaks down into multiple categories). Non-preferential love is the love of neighbour, the love of God, etc. Above we were talking about the kind of preferential love mentioned - I'm not sure if Buddhism talks positively about this love. For example, Buddhism often emphasises allowing the loved one to be free, but, for example, is allowing one's child to be free equivalent to allowing them to snort cocaine? Or is allowing one's wife/husband to be free the equivalent of allowing them to be unfaithful? How are we to draw the boundary? How does Buddhism propose to manage such cases, where the stock answer "compassion, letting go, etc." isn't a clear cut answer?

Love cannot exist without the lover and the beloved, and so if anatta is true, and all things are non-self, then how can love be eternal?

I see. Same as above. On this point, however, I would like to note that a somewhat similar idea is found in Buddhism. I think that in a sutta it is said that a husband and a wife, in order to live again in a future life, should both behave virtously, be faithful to each other and so on. So, the idea of the "bond" is IMO present, in a more limited sense, in Buddhism. — boundless

Yes, I agree, I am aware of the story. However, even in this case, their love may be countless of lives, but how can it be eternal?

Unfortunately, not everyone has faith :sad: — boundless

Do you think that not everyone can have faith? Faith, is really the will to believe. It's not a matter of intellect. You will not gain faith by more study, and more reasoning. The faithful know exactly the same as the unfaithful. But the faithful focus on the glimmer of light, whereas the unfaithful focus on the larger darkness.

Faith is fundamentally a movement of the will. It's the will that must be changed, the will that must want to have faith, to cling onto God.

I think that regarding the importance of Love, Christianity and Mahayana Buddhism share many similarities. The greatest difference is due to the different views about Samsara and the self. — boundless

Do you think Love extends beyond Samsara?

At the basis of all three there is experience. — Mariner

What is experience? (not saying I disagree with you, but this term itself must be clarified)

And you don't think this "cultivated" immoral traits and characteristics that would adversely affect his Presidency? — Maw

Well, he is quite old now to be promoting promiscuity, and it doesn't appear that he is.

I say that this side of Trump is definitely something that developed out of the cultural milieu he was positioned in. That's what he saw around himself, and that's what he did. It's the media who made promiscuous sex more acceptable after all.

I wonder how it is that Agustino thinks casual sex is immoral, and further, that it "cultivates selfishness", "treats persons as objects", and "damages loyalty and devotion", and yet shows devoted admiration towards Donald Trump, who not only engaged in casual sex many many many times, but cheated on his pregnant wife with a porn star. — Maw

Well, I don't admire Trump in that respect, I think it is a very shameful thing, and he should be ashamed of those actions.

That is what has to be discovered — Wayfarer

And do you mean to say that it is not possible to communicate this discovery to others?

Don’t forget the origin of the word ‘person’, which is from ‘persona’, the masks worn by dramatists classical Greece. — Wayfarer

Fair enough, I actually agree with that, but only because we are who we are by choice. Therefore, "in essence" we are nothing - meaning we decide who to be, what mask to wear. On the other hand, what we decide does say something about who is behind the mask so to speak.

dying to the self — Wayfarer

It really depends on what you mean by "self". Do you think the "self" is always something negative? I mean, as far as I see it, lots of things in life require a STRONG self. Going on the example below, romantic love, for example, requires a sense of self who is relating with another. Without a sense of self, how can you even relate to another? Who is relating to who?

Mahāyāna is not particularly bound to monasticism, as a bodhisattva can appear in any kind of guise - or persona! - ‘for the benefit of sentient beings’. — Wayfarer

Okay, I agree.

And if they are not, what does that mean?

As much as I personally dislike the idea of abortion, I don't think the govt should get involved in this issue, or should legislate morality more generally outside of those issues which clearly impact others in the community in adverse ways.

In my naivety I think people should be led to do what's right and honorable and noble through free choice rather than through government or other forms of external compulsion. And I say that as someone who identifies as a social conservative in many ways. Best to work at shifting public opinion at the grassroots level. — Erik

I agree, long term that is the adequate strategy. At the same time... is everyone capable of it?

For example, the idea of an original/ancestral sin really disturbs me and seems to me very implausible. — boundless

Why not? How is "original sin" different from the beginningless Avidya (or Samsara) in Buddhism? The presence of evil in the world makes it most clear that the world is fallen - something is not right.

Now there are multiple interpretations of Original Sin. The Eastern Orthodox view is that while we're not "guilty" of the sin of Adam and Eve, we are born in a corrupt world. So while we are a clean mirror at birth (free of sin), it's very easy for dirt to get stuck on us, since we're born in the mud so to speak. So there is always a very strong tendency towards sin.

https://oca.org/questions/teaching/original-sin

Nirvāṇa is not non-existence, but the extinction of ego. The meaning is very similar to the Biblical injunction 'He who looses his life for My sake will be saved.' — Wayfarer

Okay, thanks for sharing that. So what is left after the extinction of ego? Is the personality wiped away?

On the other hand, if I had memories of such a long time, then maybe I will get somewhat bored and annoyed from the cycle. — boundless

Bingo. That's the point, Osho raised the same point too. But the point only resonates with one who does have such memories. The fact that nature wipes away the memories makes Samsara bearable, so to speak. One does not feel any urgency to escape.

Anyway, as you say, love is, in the highest sense of the word, a disposition where you always want the best for others (which IMO coincides with the full expression of metta (good-will), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion)). Sometimes, sadly, I feel that Buddhism, especially Theravada, is presented in a way in which the importance of metta, karuna and mudita is neglected. — boundless

I agree with you. There is another important point of difference with regards to love I think. In the Christian approach to romantic love (between a husband and a wife) and the Buddhist one. Kierkegaard writes very well with regards to the Christian POV in his Works of Love (an amazing book).

Namely, the love between a man and his wife opens up an area of Being that is otherwise closed. It brings up some unique problems that one cannot use the same stock answers against. For example, ever lover, as Kierkegaard states, needs to proclaim that their love for the beloved is eternal. Now the question is, how can such a proclamation be made in good faith? Because if it can't, then the lover is doomed from the very beginning. And Kierkegaard answers from the Christian side that this proclamation and vow is made in good faith when the two lovers swear their love not by themselves, but by the third, God. It is only when their love is anchored in the eternal, that it can take on the character of the eternal.

This is one issue. Another issue is how Buddhism and Christianity would deal with things like "becoming one flesh". It is clear that in a romantic relationship, two people form a spiritual bond - indeed, in some regards, they become one, where the distinction/boundary between the one and the other starts to vanish. Christianity would claim that each one has authority and ownership over the other.

The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife. — 1 Corinthians 7:4

And yet, Buddhism I think would be unable to negotiate this kind of relationship to achieve this level of intimacy or merging of the two together. The common answer, it seems, is that because of anatta, any such merger is a form of attachment, that will surely bring about great sadness. To me though, this seems something that again would block some important, life-affirming possibilities. What's your take?

Just as I'm sure others will say that a person's right to possess a firearm for self-defence is more important than other people's desire not to have firearms in their community. — Michael

I disagree on that.

Because a woman's right to have an abortion (performed by a willing doctor) is more important than other people's desire not to have abortions performed in their community. — Michael

I disagree. There needs to be a point when the desires of the collective trump the desires of the individual.

She isn't. There are plenty of doctors who are willing. What Roe vs Wade ensured is that no state can make it illegal to have an abortion. That's not the same as ensuring that no doctor can refuse to perform it. — Michael

Yes, but the community should be able to control its own standards of decency. If liberal Cali's want to have abortion after abortion, that's their problem. But maybe Texans want no abortions in their communities. So that's precisely the problem, that Roe v Wade is controlling how communities are organised. One cannot organise a community where abortions are prohibited.

Hence the great debate. Some say it is, others say it isn't. Some say people have the natural right to use firearms in self-defence, others say they don't. — Michael

There are some matters which don't concern merely the person in question. The life of a child, for example, doesn't concern just the mother. It concerns the rest of society as well. An abortion isn't something the mother does herself, it's something that we, the rest of us, have to do for her. She shouldn't be able to force us to do it for her.

b) women have the natural right to choose to end their pregnancy, and so states shouldn't have the legal right to restrict it. — Michael

I don't think this is a "natural" right at all.

a) the Constitution gives women the right to have an abortion, and so the states don't have the right to restrict it — Michael

Then the Constitution is wrong, how about we change it?

I don't see what's so bad about it going to state level. Maybe some communities don't want all kinds of abortions to be legal. They should have this right.

end to Roe v Wade — Baden

When I was telling you it's gonna happen, you didn't believe me :wink:

I will comment in more detail soon, but for now:

If there is no God, resurrection is not possible. So, Paul says that faith is vain if there is no resurrection. Hence, as I see it, Paul says that if there is no God, faith is vain.
So, how can you say that faith is not vain if there is no God and, at the same time, be in agreement with Paul? — boundless

As I explained, when Paul refers to "faith" in that quote, I read him as referring to the Christian religion. When I said that even if there is no God, faith in Him is sufficient to grant all that one needs for THIS LIFE, I use faith with a different sense. The sense I quoted:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

So in summary, I agree, if there is no Resurrection, then there can be no Christian religion (faith in one sense). But the Resurrection is itself a matter of faith (different sense here), and it cannot be any other way.

In the "negativistic" interpretation of "Nirvana", the ONLY reason to leave Samsara is to avoid endless and (ultimately) aimless. — boundless

But then, in the negativistic interpretation, Nirvana becomes the real suicide. Shooting yourself in the head is not a real suicide, because you will reincarnate, and in a much worse state than before, it will take you much longer until you can get to the human stage again, from where you can commit the real suicide (Nirvana). I see this interpretation as the essence of the life-denying, impotent, impulse.

Because it is aimless and endless. — boundless

But... that cycle is endless. Above all, it is endless in the sense that it is aimless. There is no purpose. I think that such a perspective is very distressing and frustrating. — boundless

But... if that cycle had a purpose, then it would have an end. And an end means precisely a death. There can be no end without death, for how can life, whose very nature is change, suddenly come to a halt without ceasing to be life?

So I don't think that the perspective of an endless Samsara, which contains both pain and pleasure is necessarily distressing and frustrating. It is like an adventure - you never know what you will find the next time around. It is sort of exciting - once you get to see the big picture, and you stop anchoring yourself merely in your present condition as if this was all that there will ever be. In a way, an eternal Samsara is a good thing - it means that all pain (and pleasure alike) will ultimately come to an end. So if you are suffering now... fret not, it too will end.

If desires will be fulfilled, then one should not fear death. In fact, I think that some biographies of Christian figures show people that are not afraid of death because they have faith. On the other hand, Buddhists Arahants do not fear death because they are "unattached". — boundless

Yes.

Does anyone have any arguments against Stoicism? — Clare

I haven't really seen any. But going based on experience, I would say that Stoicism is great as a philosophy of resilience. But thriving in an environment requires that you know how to leverage the forces around you and direct them towards some purpose. Stoicism doesn't teach you that.

And while I don't agree with the extreme position Trump takes on some issues, I am sympathetic to his overall approach. I think we do need more protectionism, we do need to reform the global economy to make it easier to do business, we do need to escape political correctness, we do need all these things.

Listen to this speech, and tell me you disagree:



This speech was a political earthquake, you cannot find one like it in recent history.

Why is a poisonously unhealthy beverage like Coca Cola the most popular soft drink in the world? — Baden

Because 95%+ of people are idiots. But if I say that, you'll call me an anti-social elitist!

Why has Trump's job approval been on the rise ever since December 13 2017?

https://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

What are we to make of this? — Banno

That you have no idea what the context is, and you cannot make a difference between written speech and spoken speech. Watch it here:

I'm pretty sure Jesus wouldn't stand for this, right, Agustino? — Baden

I agree.

However, the unanimous coalition against Trump means that one should support Trump, since the world needs an element to shake it up. The alternative to Trump at the moment is going down the same path we've gone until now, and it's worse.

Is DPMartin same as this guy: https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/390/dp-brah ?

Okay, seems like a decent decision.

But for whoever is unable to "let go", thinking about the end of life is certainly painful and causes distress (meaning if one fears death, then death is certainly linked to suffering). — boundless

Depends. It's not just being unable to "let go" that causes the pain. There are other beliefs associated with it that are responsible for causing pain. For example, if someone isn't able to "let go" of their desires, then the end of life can be painful and cause distress SO LONG AS the person in question does not see a possibility to fulfil the said desires AFTER death. In this case, a Christian would believe that God will "wipe away every tear", and so they may not feel such pain and distress when death comes, even though they cannot let go of their desires.

Also, Buddhists believe in rebirth and, for them, "death" is either Nirvana without remainder or leads to another life marked by old age, illness and so on (which, except for the case of a partially awakened one, means the continuation of a potentially endless cycle of rebirths and redeaths). — boundless

See, it's only when one sees the endless cylce of rebirths and redeaths as something negative that being unable to let go makes it painful.

Personally, I would like to experience the state that you describe. But, IMO, this also means a reduction of "self concern" or more precisely a reduction of our tendency to strive to control things ("anatta", in a more experiential level, means "lack of control", see Anatta-lakkhana sutta (regarded to be the second discourse of the Buddha)). I think that the effect of "letting go" is roughly the state you describe. — boundless

I largely agree with this here - it's also what happens when you stop wishing that things were different than they are. But even that is not a great way to put it. Because it implies that you don't have any wants or preferences (such as preferring that there is no pain). But those wants and preferences, at least for me, still existed in that state. Just that I wasn't "troubled" by the pain. It's difficult to explain.

I do not understand, however, how it can be reconciled with the "traditional" position that if there is no resurrection, faith is vain (of course, I am not saying that you have to agree with that perspective but I wonder how you "deal" with this) (see e.g. 1 Cor 15:32 link "If the dead do not rise, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!”"). In fact, there are a lot of Christian dogmas that I can find very hard to accept and, sadly, no one was able to give me a satisfactory answer to my doubts. — boundless

But the resurrection is itself a matter of faith. Afterall, even if you saw the risen Christ, you always have at your disposal alternative explanations. So if you lack faith, if you lack the will to believe, and are instead cursed by unbelief (it's a problem of the will), then regardless of what you see, you will not believe.

So St. Paul is right - if there is no resurrection, our faith (I read this as religion) is in vain.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

So the resurrection is something that is, by default, not seen. It is rather hoped for.

1) I think that "attachment" means clinging to positive experience in our life, in such a way that we cannot accept negative situations (which in my mind means we feel aversion). — boundless

Right, so then attachment can be the opposite of aversion, and Buddha's way being the Middle Way would strive to neither attachment to the positive (pleasure, let's say), nor aversion for the negative (pain).

So, an unattached love might mean that I can accept that, for example, my son chooses a way of life that I would not like for him and I can still love him. — boundless

Well, I think this centers around how we define love. See below.

Or, that I can be able to have positive feelings even to my "enemies" (i.e.desiring for them happiness and so on...). — boundless

See, this I see as a problem. Love does not require positive feelings. I can be very upset at someone I love, or I can be disappointed with them, or even, why not, angry with them. All these feelings do not suggest in the least that I don't love them. Love is rather the choice, or better said, the will to like them REGARDLESS of how I feel. The will not to give up on them.

So in the case of my enemies, I may still feel anger towards them, but only because they are doing wrong and destroying their own souls for example. Or in the case of my son, I may feel upset because he is harming himself. Or just like the Japanese Samurai, I can feel great compassion while slashing my enemies in half. All these actions do not necessitate the absence of love. Sometimes, it may be the loving thing to do to be angry at someone you love.

Maybe a possible Buddhist answer is that, there is nothing wrong in it but unfortunately that (alone) will not save you from samsara (honestly, I find this answer as disturbing but unfortunately it has some truth in it...) and in order to "achieve" release from samsara you should accept to "let go" even loved ones without, of course, stopping to love them. — boundless

Why should being saved from Samsara be this important?

A strong point of Christianity is that "love" is the highest virtue and there are various way for expressing it. Christianity has the strong point to be able to give meaning and value to suffering. Also, in Christianity we are not expected to change our condition and become somewhat "super-human", but we can give meaning and value to our experiences, actions and so on: something that everybody can do (in a way or an another depending on their possibilities...). — boundless

I agree.

*see how Ananda is described here. I like him in particular, because unlike other famous disciples looks very "human" and I can relate to him much more than the others more "awakened" ones! :smile: — boundless

Yes, agreed!

That's what 'non-attachment' is for - detach from what is unwholesome or deleterious. — Wayfarer

And what should you attach to? And where is this referenced?

But of course if the superiority of Christianity over Buddhism is your fundamental point, then that is not something which is resolvable by debate. — Wayfarer

:brow:

Agreed, the spirit is somewhat similar (especially if one considers Mahayana Buddhism)!

I want also to add that many "hard" expressions were typical in that cultural contexts. So, for example, the quote of the Gospel according to St. Luke provided by Janus:

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

probably meant that, in order to follow the "vocation", one should be able to "let go" even of her/his family attachments. Problem is, IMO, that translations cannot capture the intended meaning nowadays. We need also commentaries and interpretations. — boundless

I actually disagree with you guys on this.

'For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it'. Matt 16. — Wayfarer

This is non-attachment to one's life in favour of attachment to "lose [your] life for [his] sake". So it is still quite far from promoting non-attachment as a value in itself. Whereas Buddhism seems to promote non-attachment as a virtue. Christianity on the other hand promotes attachment to the right things as a virtue. There is an important difference over there.

Same for the below:

'If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me' Mark 10 — Wayfarer

'Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that fail not, where no thief approaches, neither moth corrupts. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.' Luke 12 — Wayfarer

'Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.' Luke 12 — Wayfarer

So far from "non-attachment" being a basic theme of the New Testament, I would say the theme is rather attachment to the right things.

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

probably meant that, in order to follow the "vocation", one should be able to "let go" even of her/his family attachments. Problem is, IMO, that translations cannot capture the intended meaning nowadays. We need also commentaries and interpretations. — boundless

To me, this means that you must love God more than anyone or anything else, and relative to your love of God, you hate brother, mother, sister, etc.

In other words, I don't see this "let go" stuff to be the emphasis of the New Testament. The emphasis is rather "be attached to what matters most - God".

Yet, according to Buddhism, to "escape" from samsara one must reduce attachments. On the other hand, in Christianity, Salvation is not "gained" by reducing attachments but by accepting God's Grace. Hence, in Christianity it is love is much more emphasized. — boundless

YES!

Been a bit busy today, I'll be getting back to all these posts, hopefully soon! My apologies!

You need an Abrahamic religion for that. :wink: — Pattern-chaser

Did you check?

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/26711/sex-before-marriage — Agustino

Interestingly, while scouting the website for some Buddhist views (for another thread), I came unto this thread on this subject:

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/26711/sex-before-marriage

Either by scientific data or personal experience. — Maw

There are several studies I've linked to in a previous thread, there is evidence on both sides. I base my statements about what I observe in my own soul, and what I've seen in the lives of others. There are some people who cannot have normal relationships, because they never did in the past. They don't know how. Their whole worldview and conception about sex, and its role is affected by their actions.

And of course, you can say my own worldview and conception about sex affects me, but I would say that it affects me towards creating a stable family that can withstand all external pressures. That's in line with my goals.

Or, take for example religions that aspire at "union with God" — boundless

Like Christianity? :P

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Christian_theology)

They cause suffering, pain, distress and so on. — boundless

Well, I don't think death necessarily causes suffering, pain and distress, at least for the one dying. But old age, illness, etc. obviously do.

At the same time, I think it is possible to, psychologically so to speak, not mind your own suffering. In other words, the suffering is still there, the pain, for example, is still there, but you don't mind it. It's hard to describe this state, I've sometimes experienced it. So I think it is possible to accept life, and see the pains as inseparable from the joys, and say yes to the whole ride, without "extinguishing" yourself as per Buddhism.

I agree to that to an extent. I think that "preferences" in a sense are still there, even in "liberated individuals". For example, the last thing Sariputta (the "wisest disciple" in the suttas) did was to "liberate" his mother. If he had no preference, why did he went to free his mother and not an unkwnown person? On the other hand, however, I think he is depicted as "unattached" to his preferences. And non-attachment does not mean "indifference".

But note that in Theravada, the total freedom from craving is gained at Arhant level (full liberation). Stream-enterers (who are partially liberated) can also enjoy "wordly" pleasures, live an "ordinary" life etc. They, however, have abandoned all "self-views". Again, I think that in this radical "transcendence" of the human condition is due again to the belief in Samsara. For Indians it is "normal" that humans can become even more "worthy" than the devas. So, in such a cultural landscape I am not too surprised to see somewhat disturbing ideas. — boundless

Yes, anatta seems to point towards that. But, as far as I know, only an ancient school of Buddhism apparently interpreted Nirvana in that way! So, I think that it is not simply "oblivion". Also in the discourses themselves the Tathagatha is said to be "deep, boundless..." (see e.g. the sutta MN 72). Of course we have the "extinction of the fire" analogy, but we have also a "hint" to some "ineffability". Also, there are some hints in discourses like: Udana 8.1 and Iti 43. But, indeed you are correct in saying that both eternalism and annihilationism were criticized for poisiting an "abiding self". So, sadly, the nihilist view has its textual support (and, in fact, you find a lot of people who say that). I do not deny that!

Regarding what is that "eternal bliss", if not "mere absence", I agree that it is not developed. This is meaningful in the "Buddhist soteriological context", because if one "conceives things" about Nirvana, one begins to grasp his concept of Nirvana and therefore can miss Nirvana itself. Personally, I think that "mere absence" can be considered as a "worthwile goal" only if one thinks that anatta means that we do not exist at all.

Anyway, I think that even in Christianity we do not know what the promised "eternal bliss" is! After all, I have no clear idea of "what is like" to be in Communion with God? Or, take for example religions that aspire at "union with God". What does that mean, experientially? So, IMO, the fact that Buddhism does not want to describe Nirvana is due to a strict "apophatic" approach (and yes, I think it is sometimes misunderstood as "oblivion"). — boundless

I mostly agree on all these points.

I think that the problem is egoism here, i.e. wanting to control others for selfish reasons. — boundless

Yeah, I sort of agree, but this point is disputable. Suppose you have a son who is addicted to hard drugs - stuff like cocaine. In one sense, you do want to control him (so that he no longer takes the drugs). I think this desire to control him is, in this case, natural and justified. But the desire to control him will not be JUST for your own good, but also for his (your good is also related to his good, the two are, to some extent, mutually dependent). So in what sense do you say you should be unattached to saving your son?

What I meant is that we can develop positive qualities easier if we remove "negative ones". — boundless

Okay, I agree! How do we go about developing positive qualities?

On the other hand, if there is no God and we are in a Samsara the situation is different... — boundless

The interesting thing on this point, is that I don't think there has to be a God. It is sufficient to have faith in Him. Faith transcends the rational, but is not thereby irrational. Having faith will still transform THIS LIFE.

Also, by "ethical teachings" I also meant something like: — boundless

I see, I agree.

I think that, however, we should try to find a balance here, i.e. trying to love and also trying to avoid too much attachment. — boundless

Can you clarify what attachment means, and also why we should avoid attachment in love? For example, I love my son and I am attached to him, if he dies, I will be devastated. But I am not afraid of being devastated in that case... I would not want NOT to be devastated. The devastation is the expression of my love, I want to let it happen, why would I want to stop it?

Have you never had casual sex Agustino? — Maw

No, I've never had sex outside of committed relationships. Nor did my partners for that matter, but then it's only natural that I am attracted to such people given my own views.

This requires a citation. The average person has around 11-20 unique sexual partners in his or her lifetime (if memory serves), and I sincerely doubt that after merely 20 or so partners, the brain is so radically transformed and immutable so that you can't form a special sexual relationship with anybody. — Maw

Wow dawwwwwg, 11-20 is a lot man!

Is that true? Do you think men should be in charge? — T Clark

Can there be two Alexanders on Earth or two suns in the sky? (well ignoring binary solar systems for now) No.

I do think that there should be one person who is in charge of the household ultimately. Whether this is the man or the woman is less relevant. But this is important because there can sometimes be disagreements on the common course of action between the partners. In such cases, one partner must have the power to decide for the two of them, and the other one must acknowledge this power as justified. Otherwise, the disagreement can become corrosive, and dissolve the unity of the family.

The Bible for example states:

For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

The reason behind such rules is precisely this. If there is not such a possibility for final arbitration in case of disagreements, then they cannot be dissolved, since each partner will perceive that they are in the right to hold onto their side. Then what happens? They go two seaprate ways on an issue, and therefore, in-so-far as they go two separate ways they are no longer united.

I mean, how else could unity in the family be achieved, if there is no final place of arbitration, no final place to issue a verdict that all members acknowledge as justified, and will follow?

To encapsulate all of this in a trope: sex is not a toy, it is a nuclear weapon, and should be handled with care. — gurugeorge

I agree with this, but more based on emotional and psychological effects, not so much based on the "instrumentalisation" of sex model you have presented. Talking about "market-value" and some such ignores the fact that, naturally, relationships develop between people based on love, not based on a calculative, methodical approach of obtaining a desired result. The problem in our world is that people have all but forgotten about love - they no longer want to love, instead, they want to have fun, that has become the goal.

How? — Maw

Lots of reasons really, but:

• Treats the other person as an object (or as a means to an end), and does not accord them the value they deserve (nor you the value you deserve)
• Is damaging towards your (and your partner's) possibility for emotional bonding (https://www.thetrumpet.com/7750-the-emotional-corrosion-of-casual-sex)
• The brain gets used to having multiple partners, and then a relationship is no longer as special - you become less capable of a serious relationship.
• It damages the loyalty and devotion that could otherwise exist between the partners through sexual bonding.
• It cultivates and promotes feelings of lust and selfishness since the only possible motivation to have casual sex is egoism (ie, your own pleasure).

Though if you're not really interested in having a family and some such, then probably you'll find it more difficult to perceive the harm.

Why? — Maw

Based on the harm it can otherwise cause.

(about the temporality and fragility of everything which makes it more precious, not less) — 0 thru 9

Let's look at the story:

The Broken Glass

You may say, "Don't break my glass!" But you can't prevent something breakable from breaking. If it doesn't break now, it'll break later on. If you don't break it, someone else will. If someone else doesn't break it, one of the chickens will! The Buddha says to accept this. He penetrated all the way to seeing that this glass is already broken. This glass that isn't broken, he has us know as already broken. Whenever you pick up the glass, put water in it, drink from it, and put it down, he tells you to see that it's already broken. Understand? The Buddha's understanding was like this. He saw the broken glass in the unbroken one. Whenever its conditions run out, it'll break. Develop this attitude. Use the glass; look after it. Then one day it slips out of your hand: "Smash!" No problem. Why no problem? Because you saw it as broken before it broke. See?

But usually people say, "I've taken such good care of this glass. Don't ever let it break." Later on the dog breaks it, and you hate the dog. If your child breaks it, you hate him, too. You hate whoever breaks it — because you've dammed yourself up so that the water can't flow. You've made a dam without a spillway. The only thing the dam can do is burst, right? When you make a dam, you have to make a spillway, too. When the water rises up to a certain level, it can flow off safely to the side. When it's full to the brim, it can flow out the spillway. You need to have a spillway like this. Seeing inconstancy is the Buddha's spillway. When you see things this way, you can be at peace. That's the practice of the Dhamma.

Can you please show me where the story highlights that temporality and fragility makes everything more precious rather than less? I may be wrong, but I think this really is your own addition. There's nothing wrong if you believe this, but I see no indication for it in the story.

I can see indications in the story that you should be at peace when things and people break down because that is their nature - to ultimately break down. But there's nothing in there as far as I can see about the fact that things are temporal and fragile, that they are therefore more valuable rather than less.