a vague part of the buddhism rules? need answering.

searchingone

I am finally considering finalizing my conversion to it, however before I do, I want to make sure I have everything down correctly on rules. I understand the noble truths and all that, but can someone fill me in on one tiny detail?

I noticed 'sexual misconduct' is in the list, but I never found any real details on the matter

Does it mean things such as rape and sexual assault? does it mean things such as pre-marital sex? does it mean we cannot use condoms? I would like to understand this rule a bit more.

You see, earlier, I ended up in a rather impulsive sexual encounter. It didn't go all the way to penetration, however I would like to have this clarified, simply as something to follow once I am in the know and willing to abide by these laws and truths from this moment on?

many thanks

Jeffrey

I can't answer all of that but in my opinion the precepts are about preventing suffering. Therefore no condom might BE sexual misconduct unless you are prepared to raise a child. I would definitely say so.

searchingone

hmm, so really its more just about being responsible and safe than the madness of my relatives beliefs 'sex before marriage is evil' and all that?

vinlyn

This issue, like others related to the Precepts, are imprecise, and if you follow this board, you'll find rather cyclical discussions on similar topics.

The best guidepost is, in my view, what Jeffrey mentioned -- preventing suffering.

searchingone

so it doesnt mean pre marital is bad? personally im not the sort of person who would ever like to be tied down, but Im only a human and have needs too

vinlyn

You know, in Buddhism -- in my view -- there's less of an emphasis on a list of sins, and more an emphasis on making mindful and wise decisions. Generally speaking, most Buddhists don't think in terms of the Western concepts of heaven and hell. One thing that is often discussed on this forum is whether the results of kamma (karma) are real or in one's mind.

searchingone

Im aware on the whole no real heaven or hell (though Im still undecided if the six plains of existence are literal or metaphorical personally) I am however curious as too what is meant by 'misconduct.' I could understand a monk not having sex, but in an ordinary human who could never become one after 20 years of life beforehand and haing already been active in that respect, what is this meant to mean?

It sounds like a western christian rule, yet the whole sin thing isnt the same. It's most perculiar in my eyes

Vastmind

Are you asking what was Buddhas general advice for having sex before getting hitched?

searchingone

no, Im asking where it stands in terms of karma and what is meant by misconduct

Dakini

Uh-oh. Here we go again. :rolleyes:

To keep it simple, sexual misconduct means anything that's harmful to self or others. It means not using people without regard to their feelings, no affairs with people who are already in a relationship with someone else. We don't know anything about your "impulsive sexual encounter", so we can't say. Maybe if both people involved were being impulsive and it was consensual, like a one-night stand, and both understood that was all it was (i.e. no false promises of a relationship, no manipulation or dishonesty), then it wouldn't have been misconduct.

Now, if you look at the traditional rules in Buddhism, the rules for lay practitioners, there are a lot of strict rules. I posted a link on the "Issues at Sangha" thread that you can click on for a long essay discussing everything, and the history of it, and the reasons for the rules. Sex is supposed to be for procreation only, because if it isn't, then it's motivated by lust, regarded as a form of attachment to sensory phenomena, is involved. I don't know any contemporary Buddhists who go by this rule. But the info is there, if you want to explore it.

Vastmind

Golden Rule: Never let Passion override Compassion (M. O’C. Walshe, Buddhism and Sex 1975)

searchingone

Uh-oh. Here we go again. :rolleyes:

To keep it simple, sexual misconduct means anything that's harmful to self or others. It means not using people without regard to their feelings, no affairs with people who are already in a relationship with someone else. We don't know anything about your "impulsive sexual encounter", so we can't say. Maybe if both people involved were being impulsive and it was consensual, like a one-night stand, and both understood that was all it was (i.e. no false promises of a relationship, no manipulation or dishonesty), then it wouldn't have been misconduct.

Now, if you look at the traditional rules in Buddhism, the rules for lay practitioners, there are a lot of strict rules. I posted a link on the "Issues at Sangha" thread that you can click on for a long essay discussing everything, and the history of it, and the reasons for the rules. Sex is supposed to be for procreation only, because if it isn't, then it's motivated by lust, regarded as a form of attachment to sensory phenomena, is involved. I don't know any contemporary Buddhists who go by this rule. But the info is there, if you want to explore it.

So then from what you've desribed it seems pretty much fine. There wasnt any promise of a relationship or anything like that, so really theres nothing problematic too karma.

I just wanted that clearing up is all.

Thanks to everyone who has commented on the matter

Dakini

Golden Rule: Never let Passion override Compassion (M. O’C. Walshe, Buddhism and Sex 1975)

Short, and sweet.

person

I think @Dakini summed it up well. The precepts are mostly about non-harming so no cheating, no manipulation. The teachings about sex for procreation only are for further spiritual development and are more than what that precept entails.

If you plan on converting make sure you learn all 34 gestures of the secret handshake down to a T or you'll never get the super secret Buddhist decoder pin and tinfoil hat sent to you.

searchingone

I think @Dakini summed it up well. The precepts are mostly about non-harming so no cheating, no manipulation. The teachings about sex for procreation only are for further spiritual development and are more than what that precept entails.

If you plan on converting make sure you learn all 34 gestures of the secret handshake down to a T or you'll never get the super secret Buddhist decoder pin and tinfoil hat sent to you.

well then, best get started on dem gestures. Dat hat

Jason

Generally speaking, we can say that sexual misconduct consists of any sexual conduct that involves violence, manipulation and/or deceit.

More specifically, sexual misconduct includes any sexual activity that leads to self-affliction, to the affliction of others or to both, or that involves any person who's already in a committed relationship (e.g., engaged, married, etc.), protected by law (e.g., under age, etc.), or under religious vows entailing celibacy (e.g., monks, nuns, etc.). As the Ven. S. Dhammika elaborates:

If we use trickery, emotional blackmail or force to compel someone to have sex with us, then this is sexual misconduct. Adultery is also a form of sexual misconduct because when we marry we promise our spouse that we will be loyal to them. When we commit adultery we break that promise and betray that trust. Sex should be an expression of love and intimacy between two people and when it is it contributes to our mental and emotional well-being.

As for sex between unmarried couples, masturbation, and the use of contraception, they generally aren't considered misconduct, especially in Theravada. Some tradition do have extra rules, however, such as prohibitions against sex concerning "inappropriate orifices" (i.e., anal and oral) due to the belief that sex should only be for procreation; but it should be kept in mind that these come from later commentators (e.g., Vasubandhu) and aren't universally shared.

In short, my opinion is that sex between consenting persons of legal age who aren't already in committed relationships and haven't taken vows of celibacy isn't considered misconduct. All the rest about sex being purely for procreation, inappropriate orifices, etc., is tradition specific and not universally shared by all Buddhist traditions.

Raven

The thing about sx for procreation always bugged me. What about committed people who don't want kids? What about those who can't have them? So exclusive.

Sexual misconduct is about harm. For example, not disclosing that you have an STD would be misconduct, or pretending to be single when you're not. I don't think it relates to being married or not, or condoms or not - those issues are more personal imo.

vinlyn

Generally speaking, we can say that sexual misconduct consists of any sexual conduct that involves violence, manipulation and/or deceit.

More specifically, sexual misconduct includes any sexual activity that leads to self-affliction, to the affliction of others or to both, or that involves any person who's already in a committed relationship (e.g., engaged, married, etc.), protected by law (e.g., under age, etc.), or under religious vows entailing celibacy (e.g., monks, nuns, etc.). As the Ven. S. Dhammika elaborates:

If we use trickery, emotional blackmail or force to compel someone to have sex with us, then this is sexual misconduct. Adultery is also a form of sexual misconduct because when we marry we promise our spouse that we will be loyal to them. When we commit adultery we break that promise and betray that trust. Sex should be an expression of love and intimacy between two people and when it is it contributes to our mental and emotional well-being.

As for sex between unmarried couples, masturbation, and the use of contraception, they generally aren't considered misconduct, especially in Theravada. Some tradition do have extra rules, however, such as prohibitions against sex concerning "inappropriate orifices" (i.e., anal and oral) due to the belief that sex should only be for procreation; but it should be kept in mind that these come from later commentators (e.g., Vasubandhu) and aren't universally shared.

In short, my opinion is that sex between consenting persons of legal age who aren't already in committed relationships and haven't taken vows of celibacy isn't considered misconduct. All the rest about sex being purely for procreation, inappropriate orifices, etc., is tradition specific and not universally shared by all Buddhist traditions.

Very well written, although I prefer your closing remark -- "my opinion is...", rather than your opening statement that "we can say...".

Jason

Very well written, although I prefer your closing remark -- "my opinion is...", rather than your opening statement that "we can say...".

I don't see why as these are points which are universally shared across the board. It's really only when we get to the other things that commentators and traditions begin to differ, and distinctions need to be made.

vinlyn

Very well written, although I prefer your closing remark -- "my opinion is...", rather than your opening statement that "we can say...".

I don't see why as these are points which are universally shared across the board. It's really only when we get to the other things that commentators and traditions begin to differ, and distinctions need to be made.

I said it was well written, but I think different people might agree or disagree with individual examples which could come up. For example, I have known Thai Buddhists who believe there is nothing wrong with prostitution, and I have known other Thai Buddhists who believe it is very wrong.

Jason

Very well written, although I prefer your closing remark -- "my opinion is...", rather than your opening statement that "we can say...".

I don't see why as these are points which are universally shared across the board. It's really only when we get to the other things that commentators and traditions begin to differ, and distinctions need to be made.

I said it was well written, but I think different people might agree or disagree with individual examples which could come up. For example, I have known Thai Buddhists who believe there is nothing wrong with prostitution, and I have known other Thai Buddhists who believe it is very wrong.

Yes, and I certainly appreciate that. I guess I just don't see the problem with my opening statement as they're points that, as far as I'm aware, are universally shared across the board, which is why I think they make a good starting point and why I said "we can say" rather than "my opinion is."

Spaceless

Is better not to have sex and sexual indulgence less Pureland Amitabha. All methods relies on self-power that ought to sever world crave due to delusion, and sex develops craving. Pureland Amitabha relies on both powers, the power of Amitabha and the power of one faith, vow and practice and if the last breath is Amitabha, will land one to Amitabha Pureland to become Buddha for complete bodhicittaness. Other methods has to eliminate defilement along the way, even in the lowest level of liberation, stream enterer, needless to mention, Arahat level
Namo Amituofo. May all be well, be safe and be compassionate for world peace.

federica

@Spaceless, sex is not a defilement per se.
It's not the sex that develops the craving, and celibacy is neither required nor recommended for lay people.

lamaramadingdong

Maybe that's why they're called lay people...

federica

I was wondering if (and when) someone would air that old chestnut.... :rolleyes:

Iktomi

There are plenty of Buddhist clergy or non-lay practitioners who are sexually active.

Iktomi

Generally speaking, we can say that sexual misconduct consists of any sexual conduct that involves violence, manipulation and/or deceit.

Actually violence, manipulation and/or deceit are only symptoms, grasping can be sexually expressed in many ways.

Jeffrey

You forgot the 6th precept: no icecream! Ice cream is better than sex and produces more craving...

caz

That which is harmful to others is the general basis for misconduct.

Spaceless

@Spaceless, sex is not a defilement per se.
It's not the sex that develops the craving, and celibacy is neither required nor recommended for lay people.

Buddha never said it is a requirement, it mentioned that the past and future is delusion and the present is fruition.