Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Buddhist Sexual Ethics
Silouan
Veteran
in Philosophy
If anyone is interested I came across what seems to be a rather informative discussion on the topic of Sexual Ethics in Buddhism. It includes a brief mention of marriage too.
berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/sutra/level2_lamrim/initial_scope/karma/buddhist_view_sexual_ethics/transcript.html
berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/sutra/level2_lamrim/initial_scope/karma/buddhist_view_sexual_ethics/transcript.html
0
Comments
In regard to sexual ethics that are common to all traditions of Buddhism, sexual misconduct consists of any sexual conduct that involves violence, manipulation, and/or deceit, and it specifically includes sex with "those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma [i.e., monastics who have taken vows of celibacy]; those with husbands [or wives], those who entail punishments [i.e., those protected by law, such as if they're underage], or even those crowned with flowers by another man [i.e., engaged]" (MN 41). As the Ven. S. Dhammika elaborates: However, in regard the prohibition against sex concerning "inappropriate orifices" (i.e. anal and oral) that can be found in Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosabhasyam, as well as a few other Sarvastivadin texts, there's no such prohibition found in any Theravadin source sans those that violate vows of celibacy. The same goes for masturbation. These were most likely introduced by later commentators such as Vasubandhu and shouldn't be mistaken as applying to all traditions equally.
Personally, I think that a lot of the views concerning marriage and sex are influenced more by cultural, religious and social norms than by any universal constant. And regardless of what any tradition of Buddhism has to say about, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with sex or masturbation; although I do think that strong sexual desires can cause discomfort in the mind when in deep states of concentration, and can actually make it difficult to develop more refined states of mind in the first place.
This is a good article on the topic shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1977 HHDL also brings up Ashvaghosa and speculates that the controversial prohibitions may reflect the moral codes of India at the time.
Just the other day I came across a few note worthy verses while examining the first volume of the Philokalia that I think are quite relevant to the actual root of the topic. They are attributed to St Mark the ascetic in a chapter titled “No Righteousness by Works”
Verse 119: “He who hates the passions gets rid of their causes. But he who is attracted by their causes is attacked by the passions even though he does not wish it.”
Verse 122: “We cannot entertain a passion in our mind unless we have a love for its causes.”
Verse 128: “He who enjoys bodily pleasure beyond the proper limit will pay for the excess a hundredfold in sufferings.”
Well, anyway, I really like the Buddhist sexual ethic as Jason has described it so very carefully below ( @Jason ). It does seem to me, and always has, that so much of what people describe as "cheating" on a spouse or intimate friend is an example of what The Lord Buddha called "clinging." [Cheating being all the Jerry Springer Show is about] It seems to me that if one were truly to love, he or she would not claim ownership over the Beloved. The crux of the matter in sexual misconduct in most cases, I think, is in the deception. When we deceive the ones we love, we are exposing everyone to the dangers of being badly hurt; and in so doing we are more than likely to bring more sorrow into the world. And that is not in keeping with our Buddhadharma, which is to bring joy to others; for it is only in bringing joy to others that we can ourselves be happy.
My question in all this (and my interest) is in what Wilhelm Reich called sexual economy. He believed and taught that human life was grounded in love, work, and knowledge, and that what "the kingdom of heaven" was really symbolic of was the act of experiencing bodily love with another person. I think that there must surely be a golden mean. I mean, most people would not want to be in the company of people who "go about it" like dogs, would they? And that idea of propriety (not acting as dogs but as responsible and caring people) is in itself quite the ethical force, I think.
I guess that very deep down in both my mind and heart I BELIEVE that we are all tied down too much by rules made in the deserts millennia ago to keep the herd governable. I believe that people who live like the kings and queens did a few hundred years ago might do better...
However, in regard the prohibition against sex concerning "inappropriate orifices" (i.e. anal and oral) that can be found in Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosabhasyam, as well as a few other Sarvastivadin texts, there's no such prohibition found in any Theravadin source sans those that violate vows of celibacy. The same goes for masturbation. These were most likely introduced by later commentators such as Vasubandhu and shouldn't be mistaken as applying to all traditions equally.
Personally, I think that a lot of the views concerning marriage and sex are influenced more by cultural, religious and social norms than by any universal constant. And regardless of what any tradition of Buddhism has to say about, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with sex or masturbation; although I do think that strong sexual desires can cause discomfort in the mind when in deep states of concentration, and can actually make it difficult to develop more refined states of mind in the first place.
One of those early sources, either Vasubandhu or Ashvagosha, included in the definition of sexual misconduct sex between student and teacher. This was because in the old days, students took temporary vows of celibacy to study under a teacher. I think that's a good rule to continue to follow.
Buddhist ethics are, without question the most objective ethics in the world. I say this because they do not even favor our own species over others and are everywhere concerned with questions of right action, in whatever aspect that action is clothed: be it the way we view things, whether we have good will, nurturing of right speech, pursuing vocations unencumbered by greed or exploitation of others, and treating ourselves as noble beings by delving deeply into our true natures. The five precepts of the lay Buddhist include one of not engaging in sexual misconduct, but that does not seem to necessitate a promise not to engage in any sexual activity whatsoever. It seems to me that secular society draws at least some of the lines we see. I would argue that we [American and British] human beings are working against ourselves, keeping our heads in horses’s blinders and keeping out the fullness of life, as it were, by forcing ourselves to go “the straight and narrow” sexually. There’s a wide river of life running through our arteries and veins, and we feel compelled to drink only from the trickles coming down the descending lymphatic vessels.
I take Jason’s guide above as a reasonable interpretation of the Buddhist sexual misconduct precept for a layman. Here it is again: AWESOME!!!!!
My argument in this particular post revolves around the idea of THE PROMISE. Perhaps I read too much G.E. Moore in college, but keeping one’s promises is at least an ethical value held across all cultures, so we ought not to hold the promise in itself as insignificant. Perhaps some people best never make marriage vows if they just cannot keep their feet out of the deeper waters of sexual experience with more than one partner past a certain age. Perhaps it’s a mistake, afterall, for some people to make such a huge investment, just to have themselves or their partner clutching and clinging or punching and stabbing at everything. One day a husband, the next day branded a cheater? What kind of life is that. Who is to judge what’s better? Not to dare ever to step ones toes ever so gently into the river of life and be always tormented (if such be the case), or to be able just to feel a little more free without having to worry about what “the others” might think? But WHAT IS Right Action? I’d argue that in matters of sexuality it would consist in not using people but in being there for them. I think there’s a lot of manipulation in a lot of marriages, and if I read Jason right, that’s kind of exploitation would be misconduct. Is it wrong not to pursue bliss for the sake of bliss? Is it healthy to hide who we are?
As for “strong sexual desires causing discomfort in the mind...” Well, sometimes it is hard to get into deep states of concentration, but those times or days will come. The fact is a lot of energy is used in suppressing these desires, too. If you try to hard to keep under a lid something seething to erupt, the consequences can be not only counterproductive but also unwholesome at times.
Sexual drive is coded in our genes and will erupt in sundry ways. It is a profoundly strong urge that is also unitive. Not only does it provide the impetus for the survival of the species and the formation of families, but it seduces people to come together and enjoy each other’s company in cheer and embraces. It is co-anchor, along with devotion to those we love, of the will to live, and a potent resource for genuine companionship.
I, for one, think it not only unwise to condemn people for putting their toes in the river of life, but also harsh, judgmental, and inflexible. Life is to be lived —not to be charted out in prescribed orbits. Just as parents have to let go of their children and let them move on, a true lover (i.e., somebody who does truly love the Beloved in itself) will let the Beloved go and be where and who it wants. But, for the sake of this discussion, what the Beloved does or doesn’t do is beside the point. It’s the Doer (The one who loves) that must not be the one possessing, the one clutching, the one grasping.
As for ego-clinging, I don't see that as a sexual thing, but an emotional byproduct that women often feel more strongly than men. We are wired differently that way, I think.
Personally, I think that a lot of the views concerning marriage and sex are influenced more by cultural, religious and social norms than by any universal constant. And regardless of what any tradition of Buddhism has to say about, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with sex or masturbation; although I do think that strong sexual desires can cause discomfort in the mind when in deep states of concentration, and can actually make it difficult to develop more refined states of mind in the first place.
Adultery pertains to thinking thoughts of lust with someone as well.
Where most ethical systems go adrift onto some subjective island is precisely in their grounding in some arcane philosophy, metaphysic, or even exclusivistic bent.