Buddha Dharma & Polyamory

I wrote: "Running from non-attachment is silly." Then I edited the post to say "Running from attachment is silly." That's what I had meant to say. But the edit, strangely, did not stick. And then it timed out on the site's software, so I cannot fix it!

... flowingly, River ...
 
arrival!

this is the vivid inside of the poem
this is the end of all searching
this is the indwelling of the found world
gone is the shroud of seeking
what was known at a distance
is now
the vivid inside of the world

images fall away

this is no fiction
this is the essence of life
this is the falling away of masks
this is the dropping away of armor
this is the unfolding mystery

this is home!

this i've always known
this is the final truth
this is the nature of things
this is home!

all of the givers know it
all who shiver glow it
any of us may instantly bestow it
this is home!
 
In my opening post here I said,

"We realize, deeper and deeper, that while we are distinct individuals we are also utterly continuous and identical with all of life, all of existence."​

At the time I wrote these words I had some understanding about them but little depth of experience and living of this supreme reality about what we are, and where we are--and who we are.

I had the fire of intuitive insight without the "miracle" of the watery element of feeling. It is far from enough to have firey insight, and such vision leaves us thirsty enough to be bitter, angry, frustrated, broken, and messy. I've been all of these things ... and now I am growing watery roots in this world.

I wrote those words. But I did not know them.

Amazing, isn't it?
 
Chores

What a chore and a bore
mindfulness seemed! Washing the dishes mindfully
in order that one day I can win the prize!
-- Gawd I hated washing dishes! --
There must be a pot at the end of the rainbow, somewhere!
Surely this cannot be it!

Yet--just moments ago--turning the lid on the saki bottle
to close it!
 
From Start Where You Are: A Guide to Compassionate Living, by Pema Chodron


Only to the degree that we've gotten to know our personal pain, only to the degree that we've related with pain at all, will we be fearless enough, brave enough, and enough of a warrior to be willing to feel the pain of others. To that degree we will be able to take on the pain of others because we will have discovered that their pain and our own are not different. (p. 4)

*****

The basic notion of lojong is that we can make friends with what we reject, what we see as "bad" in ourselves and in other people. At the same time, we learn to be generous with what we cherish, what we see as "good". If we begin to live in this way, something in us that may have been buried for a long time begins to ripen. Traditionally, this "something" is called bodhichitta, or awakened heart. It's something that we already have but usually have not discovered. ...

The basic message of the lojong teachings is that if it's painful, you can learn to hold your seat and move closer to that pain. Reverse the usual pattern, which is to split, escape. ... Lojong introduces a different attitude toward unwanted stuff; if it's painful, you become willing not just to endure it but also to let it awaken your heart and soften you. You learn to embrace it.

If an experience is delightful or pleasant, usually we want to grab it and make it last. We're afraid that it will end. We're not inclined to share it. The lojong teachings encourage us, if we enjoy what we are experiencing, to think of other people and wish for them to feel that. Share the wealth. Be generous with your joy. Give away what you most want. Be generous with your insights and delights. Instead of fearing that they're going to slip away and holding on to them, share them.

Whether it's pain or pleasure, through lojong practice we come to have a sense of letting our experience be as it is without trying to manipulate it, push it away, or grasp it. The pleasurable aspects of being human as well as the painful ones become the key to awakening bodhichitta. (p. 7)
 
Loving this thread!

I identify as Buddhist myself and it is nice to see this thread :) I feel in polyamory I really get the chance to practice the 4 brahmaviharas very well--lovingkindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity. My spiritual practice is a definite must in going poly because it helps me deal with old conditioning and discomfort as it comes up in a healthy, constructive way--being present with complete acceptance of whatever arises, giving myself unconditional love and compassion rather than looking outwardly to my partner for validation when I feel insecure, etc. Again, thanks for starting this thread!
 
agreed

:) I agree this opinion fully...

BlackUnicorn said:
Okay, somewhat old-ish thread, but hey, I'll post my two cents anyway.

From a Tibetan perspective, the Buddhist teaching (dharma) is a ladder, composed of three steps;

1) Theravana or Souther Buddhist tradition, which is mostly concerned with liberating an individual. This is sometimes in the West seen as the 'essence' of or 'original' Buddhism, as per our obsession with age (the older it is, the more original it must be, and originality is good).
2) Mahayana or Northern Buddhist tradition, which is concerned with grasping two spiritual concepts; 'emptiness' and 'lovingkindness' or 'compassion', and cultivating a 'boddhichitta' consciousness instead of the 'arhat' consciousness of the Southern Tradition..
3) Vajrayana or Tibetan Buddhism, which is concerned with becoming a Buddha through meditation, yoga and adequate grasp of the two, from this perspective, 'preliminary' steps.

Mahayana tradition is in general more accepting of women and homosexuality. However, the Western idea of Buddhism being a sort of 'If it harms none, do as thou wilt' of the East in what comes to issues of sexuality is often somewhat wishful thinking. I understand the thorough disappointment with Western patriarchal monotheist traditions which fuels this search for a more accepting tradition, but there is no religion on Earth which is free from prejudice or can be totally harmonized with our personal understanding of sexuality.

That being said, I feel that the Vajrayana Tradition is perhaps most accessible to Westerners who seek to transform desire and positive self-image into spiritual tools. Buddhist concerns of non-duality and interbeingness speak to profoundly feminist concerns, as well. However, polyamory coming from a language of 'needs' isn't really coherent with Buddhism in my mind. The point in most Eastern esoteric traditions is realizing that the Experience, the Experiencer and the Experienced are one and the same. Thus I seek to become free of addictions in the form of 'needs' and 'wants' instead of constantly looking for new partners to feed into them.
Click to expand...
 
I don't see how they could really conflict buddhism to me never was about believing any particular thing deffinetly all about the dharma I sometimes look into it. (^^)› If one needs more info I’m sure I can probably help but I’m not teacher.
 
It reads as if we have very different definition about what poly means to us in each case :rolleyes:, I do use it pretty narrowly. anyway i'd prefer never having a single minute of sex for the rest of my life than monogamy to be honest and I kind of always knew that.
anyway buddhism is a-lot about taking the middle path between extremes even with regard to the teachings themselves, technically, trying to give up desires is quite important. but teaching being actually compatible with any genuine form of love doesn't mean that practitioners will understand or accept it.
 
Last edited:
I've been a practicing Buddhist for a little over a year now, in the tradition of Thich Nhat Hanh, in a very non-dogmatic and westernized Sangha.

It was learning to care for my suffering, and to look deeply at the roots of my suffering, that led me out of jealousy (which I came to recognize as fear), and allowed my husband and I to start the poly conversation.

I was so interested in finding this thread here, even though it is old now. My Sangha practices the version of the five mindfulness trainings that commits us to sex only in the bounds of a monogamous and public relationship. I pretty much vocalize against this every time we study them :) And I have found that despite that, the only people I can talk to about nontraditional sexual and romantic relationships are in my Sangha. I'm so grateful for this practical application of loving kindness and deep listening!
 
Similar interest

River said:
I was recently browsing a local bookstore when I stumbled upon a book, Touching Enlightenment, by Reggie Ray. Subtitle: Finding Realization in the Body. Sounded like my cup of tea, so I opened it and examined it to see if it wanted to come home with me. It did. And since then I've purchased Reggie's ten CD audio set, Your Breathing Body, part one--and I've been listening and viewing his stuff online. Wow! What a fine man and teacher/teaching! I'm hooked. - - - Interesting thing -- I've never been attracted to the vajrayana / Tibetan traditions until now. I've always been most attracted to zen, primarily, and to the insight/vipassana approaches. But Reggie is a unique dude, and a one-time very close student of Chögyam Trungpa.

Just over the last couple of weeks I feel real shifting happening in my awareness. Somatic (bodily) mindfulness is the essential key!

http://www.dharmaocean.org/default/index.cfm
Click to expand...

Happy to read your post here that you also enjoyed reading and listening to REggie Ray.... I am also into his teaching and practicing as well. I am from Nepal, beginner of Vajrayana Buddhism.... with Love...
 
Very good thought

BlackUnicorn said:
Okay, somewhat old-ish thread, but hey, I'll post my two cents anyway.

From a Tibetan perspective, the Buddhist teaching (dharma) is a ladder, composed of three steps;

1) Theravana or Souther Buddhist tradition, which is mostly concerned with liberating an individual. This is sometimes in the West seen as the 'essence' of or 'original' Buddhism, as per our obsession with age (the older it is, the more original it must be, and originality is good).
2) Mahayana or Northern Buddhist tradition, which is concerned with grasping two spiritual concepts; 'emptiness' and 'lovingkindness' or 'compassion', and cultivating a 'boddhichitta' consciousness instead of the 'arhat' consciousness of the Southern Tradition..
3) Vajrayana or Tibetan Buddhism, which is concerned with becoming a Buddha through meditation, yoga and adequate grasp of the two, from this perspective, 'preliminary' steps.

Mahayana tradition is in general more accepting of women and homosexuality. However, the Western idea of Buddhism being a sort of 'If it harms none, do as thou wilt' of the East in what comes to issues of sexuality is often somewhat wishful thinking. I understand the thorough disappointment with Western patriarchal monotheist traditions which fuels this search for a more accepting tradition, but there is no religion on Earth which is free from prejudice or can be totally harmonized with our personal understanding of sexuality.

That being said, I feel that the Vajrayana Tradition is perhaps most accessible to Westerners who seek to transform desire and positive self-image into spiritual tools. Buddhist concerns of non-duality and interbeingness speak to profoundly feminist concerns, as well. However, polyamory coming from a language of 'needs' isn't really coherent with Buddhism in my mind. The point in most Eastern esoteric traditions is realizing that the Experience, the Experiencer and the Experienced are one and the same. Thus I seek to become free of addictions in the form of 'needs' and 'wants' instead of constantly looking for new partners to feed into them.
Click to expand...


Thanks for your healthy and balanced thought !
 
Years ago now, BlackUnicorn said,

"The point in most Eastern esoteric traditions is realizing that the The point in most Eastern esoteric traditions is realizing that the Experience, the Experiencer and the Experienced are one and the same. are one and the same."

That older post was recently quoted, so I guess it's okay to comment on it these years later.

BlackUnicorn's statement about the relation of Experience, the Experiencer and the Experienced is roughly accurate. However, I'd ditch the capital E, since it vaguely suggests a theistic bent, which need not be there.

Anyway, the phrase "the same" is only roughly true, in some cases. In most of the traditions there have been a diversity of metaphysical stances taken. Personally, I'm inclined toward the naturalistic stance in which the perceiver / experiencer is simply regarded as non-separate from the perceived / experienced. Sometimes this relationship is called "not two". But in the type I have in mind this "not two" relationship is not simply reduced to "one" (oneness) either. Instead, the emphasis is on the radical, deep relatedness of all things -- including what in the modern West is often called "subject / object relationship".

There are some folks, whom I regard as a bit nutty, who insist that everything in the world, universe, cosmos... is nothing more than "awareness". One prominent such person is a guy named Rupert Spira, who has set himself up as some kind of spiritual guru. His teaching centers on the notion that nothing exists other than awareness.

Well, I don't see it like that at all. For me, there are real mountains and rivers which exist whether anyone is aware of them or not. If it's night time and everyone is asleep, the mountains and rivers keep going on being mountains and rivers. They don't disappear.

Still, the mountains and rivers are not separate from me or you, nor are we separate from one another. We are distinct, and individual, yes. But not separate. The universe (cosmos) is a whole, and the nature of this wholeness is such that nothing whatsoever exists independently within it. Awareness and "objects" of awareness are, indeed, "one" in some sense. But it is not in the sense that reduces them to ... well, vaporous nothing, as that loon Spira does.
 
IMO ...

Things are only "one" in the sense that they share space in the same universe, and that they interact to some degree. I myself am but an organized system of individual atoms, and an atom is an organized system of subatomic particles.

IMO ...

There is no awareness after death.
 
kdt26417 said:
IMO ...

Things are only "one" in the sense that they share space in the same universe, and that they interact to some degree. I myself am but an organized system of individual atoms, and an atom is an organized system of subatomic particles.
Click to expand...

I think there are highly problematic and rather stupid forms of the "oneness" notion, but I also think it perfectly consistent with modern science and reason to say "all is one".

According to the best available cosmology, our universe was -- very long ago -- a tiny point of mysterious something ... which existed (at the time) outside of time and space. When it suddenly exploded one fine non-day, it burst forth as time and space as timespace expanded into what we now call our universe. That's science, not mythical mumbo jumbo or religion. That's cosmology.

Maybe this theory of our cosmic origins is importantly flawed? Who knows? I'm not an expert in physics or math. But that's what the scientists are saying. Everything which sprung from this cosmic beginning -- all energy and matter and timespace is part of a whole and a totality, and we can observe this wholeness and totality all around us in the astonishing intricacy of all things (such as ecosystems, which are amazingly complex wholes, which is to say that they are "one".

But this one manifests as both unity AND diversity (and complexity, and many).... The universe is both one and many.

All local events, on any scale of an event, is part of the total and single event which is the ongoing unfolding of the universe.

I don't care if there is any ongoingness of "my" awareness after my personal death. Why should I? (And I doubt there will be.)

I've experienced eternity. It is right at the very core of now. Any now. One need not believe in rainbow flying unicorns, or gods demons and devils (or heavens...) to experience eternity in this very now moment. One simply has to learn how to accord with the eternal within this moment. Its is always here.

(Well, generally we have to learn how. But sometimes it happens by pure accident, without trying. Especially when we are children -- or when we are in very beautiful and serene places..., etc.)
 
Last edited:
I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't believe in an afterlife. :cool:

I do "believe in the Big Bang," so to speak, and from what I understand, it was as you describe it. To wit, the origins of everything in the universe, including space and time, were an infinitely small point (outside of the dimensions of space) in an infinitely brief moment (outside the passage of time). Looked at another way, this infinitely small point "did not exist." The only thing that existed was the explosion of space and time and everything therein that issued from it. The point did not "exist;" the explosion did. That's how I think it was, anyway. Put another way, it was an explosion of existence itself. Of the stuff of existence.

I don't know if there are other universes besides The Universe. I'm leaning in the direction of, "Probably not," but who knows.
 
Chalk

kdt26417 said:
I don't know if there are other universes besides The Universe. I'm leaning in the direction of, "Probably not," but who knows.
Click to expand...

You'll have to ask Sheldon Lee "Bazinga" Cooper, Ph.D. If anyone knows, it will be him. Problem is, though, he'll answer with a bunch of indecipherable squiggly lines on a chalk board, and only three people in the whole (or the many) universe/s will know what he said with that chalk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top