The best part about Buddhism...

is the stupidity.

Buddhist monk cuts off his cock and renounces refix

 

Did buddhism cut its penis of, or did the monk?

you fail.

 

As a monk he had presumably got a Buddhist mindset of some sort. Maybe he was taking the Buddhist anti-sex anti-pleasure thing too far.

There is a history of such self mutilation in many spiritual traditions.

 

did a Buddhist Monk fall into the rediculousness of believing something so silly he mutilated himself because of it?

according to Buddhism, there is no failure...there is only being.

I am. You are. Buddhism is. This monk ain't.

you, clearly don't get it.

 

What don't I get?

 

I am tempted to quote that story that everyone probably already knows:

Two monks were at the edge of a river they wished to cross when a woman approached them. She said that she probably wouldn't be able to cross on her own and would appreciate some help. The younger of the monks remained silent and let the more established practitioner speak - he said that yes, he could carry her across.

He did so without much fanfare and bid her farewell on the other side of the river. Then the younger monk exploded. The older monk had been defiled by touching her! He'd renounced sex and yet had his hands all over that woman! That went directly against his vows! The older monk calmly replied: "I put her down a long time ago. Why are you still carrying her?"

If you define yourself by the negation of something, you are still its slave.


The Vinaya prohibits bhikkhus from doing such a thing.

"Now at that time a certain monk, tormented by dissatisfaction, cut off his own male organ. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: "This foolish man, monks, cut off one thing when another should have been cut off. Monks, one should not cut off one's own male organ. Whoever should cut it off, there is a grave offence."
(Vinaya Piṭaka, Mahāvagga 110. Horner trans.)

People have done a lot of wacky things in religious history to try and control the sexual urge artificially. If I remember my reading of history, there was a Doukhobor Sect in Russia who cut off women's nipples so they wouldn't be distracted by them. Then, they went naked and burned their houses and clothing to protest the Government. Gotta be a better way!

Fanatacism and misunderstanding are also available to Buddhist monks.

 

It is the inner state of non attachment that is essential. We can live in a monstery or abstain from anything or cut off anthing yet, still be attached. The inner process of letting go cannot be substituted for any other action or situation. The person engaging is letting go does not need to call attention to himself or herself becuase the process of letting go creates it's own liberation, bliss and fulfilment.

 

The question is not whether we should let them do it or not, for everyone has the freedom and right to self mutilation if that is their choice. The debate is about what can be accomplished by it. If the debate establishes that it may not be of much value, then it might help inform those predisposed to self mutilation not to hurt themselves, as it is unnecessary. The intention is to help save others suffering unnecessarily, to be compassionate or at least try to be, not to judge them or call them stupid.

Peace and love
Jnanic

 

this is the essence of irony.

 

uh, someone cutting their cock off in the name of any religion is STUPIDITY.

 

A good question. It is a shame we cannot ask him if that is the case! But I would be astonished if the monk did hold to that conclusion over time.

If the Buddha is to be believed, the principles of enlightenment are the same for everyone - which is why he taught the 4 Noble Truths and the 8 Fold Path.

The Buddha also taught not to practice harm to sentient life forms and self mutilation can be classed as self harm. So one could easily argue this action is contrary to Buddhist teaching.

Peace and love
Jnanic

 

the monks desire to renounce desiree is stoping him from reaching Nirvana. Go figure.

 

The Terry Carr science fiction classic "Hop-friend" explains it well.

http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/classics/classics_archive/carr2/carr21.html

 

and there you have it, folks.