Self-Reported Attainments

I occasionally read a few practice forums of interest to me. One of those is the www.dharmaoverground.com forum, where I recently found this thread: www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discu...ards/message/5637836 .

The traditional and orthodox Theravada view is that after attaining third path, there's no sexual desire at all. That would imply not being able to have sex. I think this view is too strict. I think what happens is that there's no trace of sexual obsession, worrying, frustration, etc, but it's possible to be sexualy aroused. I can let go of the burden related to sex. But to let go of sex itself so thoroughly, to the point of never wanting it anymore, is too much for me, right now. I can't deal with that now, even though I've suffered a lot because of sexuality.

So, for those who have attained the 3rd path, can you have sexual intercourse? If it's not too personal, can you describe briefly the difference before and after 3rd path with regards to sex?

I really feel this yogi's conundrum.

Is this yogi's issue really about letting go of sex in order to achieve so-called 3rd path? It may call into question the self-reporting of Path attainments. Some/many of those self-reporting path attainments do so based on a variety of measurement standards, many based on Pragmatic Dharma standards.

Perhaps this yogi could consider that if he's not ready to let go of sex itself, then he's not ready to let go of sex itself.

Perhaps this yogi could consider that a prerequisite might be letting go of definitions of attainment.

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

What advice would you give to this yogi?

I'm curious, why do you ask?

....and now that I think about it, How are you doing? Things good? It's kinda odd, but no big deal, that your last two posts were this one and bowing to Chris... although we all bow to Chris.

Best wishes!

See, that's why we bow to Chris.

Or maybe with that snarky comment, we're now going to stop bowing to Chris???

shargrol wrote: I'm curious, why do you ask?

Because I would like to know what your view is.

Why?

shargrol wrote: Why?

The young man in question (I'm assuming he's a young man) seems to be feeling some significant amount of existential pain regarding the conflict between his sexual nature and his spiritual goals.

Are you able to help with that?

Honestly. I think he knows the answer already.

Chris Marti wrote: That person is also apparently lacking something in the common sense realm. My advice to him would be to address that problem first. As a famous pop quartet once said, "Free your mind... the rest will follow."

Thanks for your response, Chris.

shargrol wrote: Honestly. I think he knows the answer already.

Why do you think that? Have you dialogued with him about this?

Just a hunch. I have not talked with him.

shargrol wrote: Just a hunch. I have not talked with him.

Okay. Loving kindness.

Honestly, that's why I was wondering why you were interested.

i already talked to him about it before his post. If he is following the fetters model perhaps he should qualify that and ask for advice from those who follow that model and can speak from it. Otherwise it seems to be a fishing expedition in the wrong fishing hole.
~D

@ august leo
I would advise him to question his assumptions about the path, Paths, etc.
And to do a little more reading to see the breadth of possible approaches to spirituality, many of which not only do not repress/re-engineer/rearrange instinctual aspects of life but incorporate them (ha! good pun!) into the body of spirituality itself

Honestly when this particular issue comes up (particularly on a forum which often seems dominated by young men) PART of my reaction is exasperation. It's so easy and seductive to use spirituality to avoid necessary, normal and appropriate developmental tasks (like feeling into one's sexuality, learning how to have a healthy sexual/romantic relationship, learning how not to suffer from sexual instincts without pretending one doesn't have them... etc.). So yeah: question assumptions.

To me it seems like this dude is asking a simple yes or no question, and it's completely understandable. "If I reach 3rd path, will I lose my ability to have sex as it says in the 10 Fetters Model." The answer to that is no, at least not using the Pragmatic Dharma model. It seems like a basic and understandable question to have, especially considering some of the intense crazy claims made in the 10 Fetters Model.

I don't understand people's consternation here.

Jeffrey Nieves wrote: To me it seems like this dude is asking a simple yes or no question...

I don't understand people's consternation here.

But he didn't ask us, some other guy asked about a guy he heard about somewhere else, so we just took it as an opportunity to have the usual cocktail conversation, which is some people's idea of fun. I, at least, didn't feel consternated. The forum's much more interesting when people ask off the wall questions. It gives folks the chance to stand up and wave their arms around making grand proclamations.

And it isn't as simple as yes or no, because lots of people are really terrible at evaluating what "path" they are at anyway, so they say "I have third path and can do xyz" but really they have no idea what they are talking about, which skews any reliability in saying "this or that always happens". And each individual's personal stuff impacts things that happen. Perhaps the guy has certain psychological or physical conditions that will impact his sexual behavior in unpredictable ways. In fact, everything's unpredictable.

If I were talking to the guy personally and felt bad for him because he was really sad and worried that he might lose his ability to have sex, maybe I'd say "no, it won't happen" just to make him feel better. Or maybe based on how he said it I'd think it was better for him to hear "yes, it will happen." And either one would be fine, because I have no fricking clue, due to above paragraph, particularly last sentence. Maybe I'd tell him that I have no clue. Sometimes that's helpful, sometimes it just frightens people too much, so depends on the circumstances whether it's the right thing to say or not.

Hey Ona,

On second reading, I realize my post might come off more antagonistic than necessary. So I apologize for that.

While I do get that life, and thus by default awakening, is an unpredictable thing, it does seem like "will meditation spiritually castrate you?" would be a relatively straightforward question deserves investigation. Of course, everyone's different and has different health issues, but I can't think of any examples of any contemporary awakened person making this claim.

On some level, we always make predictions about the path. For example - "If you note your experience, you will gain insight into importance, not self and the dissatisfactory nature of life." Or, if you meditate, you will learn to see the world differently.

I also think that testing the accuracy of the 10 Fetters model would/should be an important element of Pragmatic Dharma. One of the central arguments the Daniel Ingram made in MTCB was "enlightenment will not make you a perfect human being." This stands in conflict with the 10 Fetters model. Another prediction of the Theravadan/10 Fetters model is that Arahants must die or take the robe in 7 days. This seems to have been refuted.

So it would seem to me that "will meditation spiritually castrate" you is a relevant thing to try and sort out.

Best,
Jeff

I think it's fascinating, really. Less the specific topic than the bigger theme: a similar fear is expressed often when people ask whether enlightenment will ruin their ability to hold down a regular job, or do other activities that are part of their identity or daily routine.

So traditions like Buddhism and Christianity notoriously describe a loss of attachment to worldly things (from sex to food to money and social status) as part of advanced practice. These things are deliberately cultivated through renunciatory practices and are also described as naturally developing eventually.

So if you (generic you) think that sounds kinda crappy, one strategy is to say "well, we'll just pretend that part doesn't happen, and change the teachings so that they don't say that anymore" and another is to practice a different tradition that doesn't teach that.

The Big Question is: do these things inevitably develop eventually, if a person's practice goes deep enough? The other question that people over look is: by the time that stuff happens, why would you even care? [ETA: by definition when one is no longer attached to something, or it no longer is entangled with ones sense of self and identity, then it doesn't matter much if it happens or not, no?] There's all sorts of stuff to investigate in terms of fear, identity, social constructs etc.

The other thing to consider is that even if you start practice when you are 20, by the time you get into that kind of territory you are likely to be 50 or more, if ever, so the chances of having to deal with it are slim.

My two cents is probably worth very little, but there ya go.

Chris Marti wrote: I remain consterned

Maybe if I had dangly bits I might be more consterned.

Rumor has it that angels have no dangly bits to cherish-- so "spiritual castration" is a self-contradictory phrase and an impossibility.