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.
No sexual misconduct
msac123
Explorer
No sexual misconduct implies the obvious, no raping and doing anything sexual that would cause harm to others. However, I have read that no sexual misconduct means any sexual behavior that cannot procreate, masturbation, oral, anal, etc. An argument for this is because of the time, this was created. To me, I think it is natural to participate in any sexual activity as long as it healthy and non-harming. What are your thoughts on this?
0
Comments
My phone number is.........
OK seriously I say, well aware that my partners computer is 4 feet away from mine.
Dam... She says I should advise you it might be short but it sure is skinny.
She must of seen me straighten up for that last post.
There is a huge array of Buddhist thought on what is sexual misconduct.
From total abstinence to total indulgence. My personal take on it relates to whether the expression of that sexuality supports selfishness or selflessness.
It's going to vary based on the tradition, and your position (as in lay person or monastic which have many, many more precepts, lol).
Until or unless you happen to start studying with a teacher, as long as you are not using sex to harm someone, you are probably ok. But that includes emotional harm and not just rape. It means not using someone just for sex, not lying to get sex, and so on IMO anyhow. If you choose to become the student of a teacher, then you have to have those conversations with them and so on.
I really like Thich Nhat Hanh's mindfulness practices, which are his version of the precepts expanded. i think they make the most sense in our world today.
http://deerparkmonastery.org/mindfulness-practice/the-five-mindfulness-trainings
Where the bit about no sexual activity not for procreation comes from is Tibetan Buddhism, and more specifically, the Dalai Lama. When he's in the West, he tends to be more flexible about it, and sticks with the looser interpretation that sex shouldn't harm anyone (physically or emotionally, i.e. no manipulation or dishonesty should be involved).
But the more fundamental principle is that anything that could lead to attachment should be avoided. And sex does tend to lead to emotional attachment, by at least one of the parties involved. And since Buddhism is about overcoming attachment, then sex technically isn't compatible with a dedicated practice.
But then, some say the same rules don't apply for monastics as do for "householders", i.e. laypeople. It all depends on how far you want to take your vows.
Any Buddhist practice you do in this lifetime will bring you closer to Enlightenment in future lifetimes. (If you're into rebirth, that is.
) Even if it's only observing one vow to the fullest extent, doing your sincere best.
"Sexual Misconduct" is different in Buddhism, depending on if you're a monk or a lay practitioner. From what I've read, monks are (usually) expected (and required) to forgo any kind of sexual activity.
Lay Buddhists on the other hand - I think it comes down to personal opinion, as long as it doesn't result in emotional/physical harm to either party.
This is not to say for those who enjoy a "rougher" kind of physical activity are forbidden; the key word here is "misconduct" - as long as either party enjoys the activity, even if it might involve pain, I don't believe it would be "misconduct."
I'm currently reading His Holiness' book "In My Own Words" and he defines "Sexual Misconduct" as "Committing Adultery." That's it, nothing else. His Holiness' wiki entry expands a little bit about the subject - including some flip-flopping on his position of Same-Sex relationships: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Dalai_Lama#Sexuality
Hmm...
Well, as His Holiness has also said "Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively."
I guess to sum up, my personal opinion: As long as its mutual, its not misconduct.
I don't know if it was your intent but you made it sound here like sexual misconduct equals non procreation sex is the Dalai Lama's idea. Of course the origination goes back way further.
In the Tibetan tradition they do mention homosexuality, masturbation, oral, etc as part of sexual misconduct they also add sex more than 5 times in a night. I thought that seemed weird that gay sex was out but a marathon session was just fine, so I looked into it a bit. It seems there are some early Indian teachers that mention it but nothing in the original canon, Pali or Sanskrit so it appears to be an addition.
There is a wiki page on Buddhism and sexual orientation that the OP may find informative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_sexual_orientation#Tibetan_Buddhism
As was said, I'm sure what HHDL says on CNN in the US is different than what he says to Buddhist monks or strict Buddhists in Nepal. But when he was online on Larry King's show a couple weeks ago he said that as long as they are not hurting someone else, let people do what works for them within their agreed upon relationship.
The whole rational behind why spilling semen is considered a no no is because those are literally lives you are ending.
So there is a negative consequence to that.
Also one loses their jing, which is life energy. Generally that is used for spirituality rather than procreation if one is say a monk or a vajrayana student.
This is why semen retention can be useful as a male. This is separating orgasm from ejaculation. So that one can enjoy sex, yet not lose inner life energy.
Or people can just have sex, its not that big of a deal if its done with respect and knowledge of the consequences.
I can also see how sex can become a misconduct if that literally is what our whole life is orientated towards. Even not having sex is a problem. It's all about balance and being smart about it.
I don't think this applies to females though. I should have been born a female. =]
I have a similar view myself.
Generally speaking, sexual misconduct consists of any sexual conduct that involves violence, manipulation, and/or deceit, and in Theravada 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).
Hence in Theravada, 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.
In regard to anal and oral sex, etc., there's a 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 (which have greatly influenced Tibetan Buddhism), but there's no such prohibition found in any Theravadin source as far as I'm aware. The same goes for masturbation. These were most likely introduced by later commentators such as Vasubandhu, in my opinion.
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. On the upside, it's pleasurable and can strengthen already strong and intimate relationships (which may be due in large part to the complex chemical reactions that occur during and after). On the downside, it can complicate relationships and obsess our thoughts, leading to feelings of frustration, anxiety, and jealousy. In essence, it's not evil or bad, but it's not purely wholesome, either. It's a mixed bag that we need to be careful when reaching into.
That said, sex can create and increase attachments that aren't necessarily skillful. Moreover, I think 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, which may be why sex in and of itself is ultimately considered by many traditions to be a hindrance to awakening.
That's my two cents, at any rate.
Right.. I mean, where Westerners have heard that interpretation of sexual misconduct generally comes from the DL, since other Buddhist leaders don't speak publicly about it much, if at all. And it can be confusing, because he contradicts himself sometimes.
It was Nagarjuna and subsequent scholars/authors of commentaries who developed the idea, that's where the DL gets it. I was trying to keep things simple for the newbie.
Don't do what will hurt you, or someone else.
Easy to remember.
@Taiyaki, for once I don't agree with your view, that is that every sperm lost is another life ended.
Retaining it is prohibiting it from ever reaching a destination where it might generate a life. At least if you let them out once in a while one of the little buggers has a chance of becoming something!
mettha
A question: for those believe that non-procreational sex is misconduct (or understand the argument) - are married couples expected to refrain from sex after the childbearing years are over? i.e. a hysterectomy, etc.)
Maybe he meant seamen.
Your face looked wracked in a little contorted grin Captain Pugwash as you said that.
Are you OK? Do you need to lie down or something?
Mettha
By your logic it would seem to apply to them also. By failing to get their eggs impregnated in each cycle their bodies would "end" the "life" of the eggs.
The truth is however, and this may be quite disturbing to you, that sperm are not forever kept in storage or whatever. The body reabsorbs them if they are not used in a timely fashion. Their "lives" are ended one way or the other.
This is a good question, I can't remember ever hearing or reading anything about this point. I'd like to know too.
I don't think I agree much with this post, Taiyaki, sorry. Semen are not 'lives'; and remember even when copulation results in fertilisation, millions of those semen don't survive either. So justifying not masturbation by saying it kills millions is not much different from copulation where one life is produced; since millions still 'die' anyway.
And there's evidence to show that semen retention can be harmful to males and increase our chances of prostate cancer.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3072021.stm
I think in the Theravada that's pretty much the ideal to aim for.
@Tosh I don't think that was @taiyaki 's opinion on the matter but something he had seen elsewhere. Not to speak for him, just saying I have seen the same reference in places. It doesn't really hold water for me, either. If a sperm is alive, then so is the egg, and as women we get no choice in "killing" the egg every month, unless we plan to be pregnant every time, LOL.
Oh good grief, no, please!!
To answer this question, you can go back to the question of why sex is said to be only for procreation. It's because sex for pleasure is believed to increase attachment, and thereby create conditions for samsara. So in order to avoid the consequences of attachment (jealousy, clinging), one should avoid lustful or recreational sex. So the answer to your question would be, yes.
However, as stated earlier, this depends on how quickly a householder (layperson) wants to progress toward enlightenment. Some lay followers of the Buddha are said to have achieved Enlightenment during their lifetime. But if you're not in a hurry, any Dharma practice is constructive, and will sow the seeds for later Enlightenment.
I have read in multiple places that the Buddha didn't set an absolute standard for morality. Yes, he gave us the morality section of the Eightfold path, but I think he also said that any action that stems from greed, aversion, or delusion is unskillful. On the other hand, any action that stems from the three antidotes is skillful.
I'm not entirely sure how this applies to sex. Does it mean that if sex results from greed, aversion, or delusion it's wrong? How can sex not stem from greed (or craving)? One type of craving is for sensual pleasure.
I'm a new Buddhist so thoughts on my post would be welcome.
it cant, hence why monastics are celebate. the buddhas point on this for lay persons was skillfully explained by Jason. If full consent amongst adults then there is no misconduct. Its kind of like a "if you have to do it, do it skillfully" since we as practitioners don't just suddenly give up all our attachments at once, it happens gradually over time.
I'm not sure I'd agree (just my personal point of view of course) that as long as both adults are consenting, there is no misconduct. Most of the time when I've seen it discussed it's been used within terms such as loving, respectful relationships.
Men and women both can use sex against the other emotionally/psychologically even if it's technically consensual.
But perhaps one could pin that behavior on a different aspect of misdeed/unskillfulness rather than sexual misconduct.
I took me a minute to see where Jayantha and Karasti are differing. It seems to me that what Karasti is (IMHO) pointing out perhaps fits in Jayantha saying, "do it skillfully".
Or am I missing something?
I think when I typed my response, that second part of his was not there. I see he edited the comment, maybe it was added after? Or maybe I was being dense and didn't read the last part. I swear it ended at "if full consent amongst adults then there is no misconduct." Which is why I disagreed, lol.
ic, cool
You have highlighted a real issue.
Many, but not all Theravadin Buddhists and some Mahayanists do indeed see sex as irredeemably
the result of craving simply. And therefore as negative.
This I would contend is due to the extreme body-negativity found in the philosophies which stem from the Indian sub continent, and which are the ancestors of Buddhadharma.
Other Theravadins and many Mahayanists see the craving aspect more than balanced out when sexuality is mutually cherishing and life affirming.
Sex, is, well, very enjoyable.
OK it may involve a lot of huffing and puffing and sighing and whatnot, but as far as human activity is concerned, it is very enjoyable.
The consequences, may speak and argue for themselves and against you later in life, but who cares.
What is all this fuss about sex. A nice cuppa tea & Spiritual Friendship(kalyanamitta) is far superior anytime ---& lasts a lot longer.
Perhaps they do not need to be mutually exclusive?
Kind of depends on the sex/relationship. Many people have spiritual relationships with their partner/spouse, too. When you have a particular bond with someone, sex ceases to just be the act of intercourse anymore.
For some of us, it is sort of like a conquest - and that gives our ego great satisfaction. It is primitive, but it's there.
Sex is a conquest that satisfies the ego - please explain?
Oh Jesus, @anataman - why did you have to ask??
What? Does that have something to do with the new possible evidence that Jesus was married?
And had kids. It's all true.
Ask Dan Brown. He 'knows'.......
Major reasons for the path of renunciation to push abstinence are twofold: First, the whole renouncing causes for passions and thus craving, which stems from ignorance, which entails samsara and thus bondage. Second, revolves around not ejaculating and losing the seed essence. The seed essence is critical to hold onto because it revolves around the body storing the energy-volume-determining-the-scope-of-awareness, since the path of renunciation only passively raises it, losing parts of it stunts one's path. As the energy-volume is critical factor to experiencing nirvana. The reason then for no sexuality stems from the fact that this path lacks the methods which can control and transform sexual tension, which is also why people following this path are not "penalized" for ejaculating due to being asleep and dreaming a sexual dream, because the path doesn't provide the tools for someone to have that much control.
The path of transformation entails utilizing sexuality, either real or visualized, depending on whether or not it is a higher or lower tantric tradition. Either way one transforms sexual tension as it directly raises the energy-volume opposed to merely passively doing so as before. It is now even MORE critical to hold onto the seed-essence, as this path revolves around it for one, but for two energy itself is being risen by the very tension which is released through ejaculation. Tantrics are not even allowed to have wet-dreams, as they are expected to have control even in dreams (dream-yoga).
Finally, the path of spontaneous liberation utilizes sexuality while not in rigpa in the first series of teachings, as involves a similar lower master of the energy found in the path of transformation, while the second and third series use sexuality as a secondary supporter while not in rigpa most of the time, as it uses far more sudden and efficient methods to raise the energy volume (which are "unlocked" as an option once one has had an authentic introduction into Rigpa). Now then for the second and third series of teachings (they get progressively more subtle from 1-3, third being the most subtle and profound). While when Rigpa is activates, ejaculating is fine, but only while in Rigpa.
I have a hard time believing, in our time, the idea behind "losing the seed essence." Women lose an egg every single month for decades of their life when it is not fertilized. We have no choice but to lose our version of the seed essence, so it no longer makes logical sense in today's world to hold men to that standard,and not women. There is now medical evidence that shows that retaining sperm and not occassionally "discharging" it can actually be a health risk.
As with all things, we must keep the changing knowledge in mind when considering the sutras. Their medical and scientific understanding of such things was very limited, and often incorrect.
Does everyone who isn't ordained always avoid onions and garlic, too, despite their known health benefits because of the belief that they are aphrodisiacs? If that were true, I'd be spending a LOT more time in the sack, because I eat a ton of both of them.
Come on, let's stop pretending we're children. You know what I mean. For many, many people, especially men, sex is akin to a conquest. Let's say you bed a hot girl - don't you brag about it to your friends? Others couldn't climb that mountain. You have. It makes you feel like a winner, eh?
God you are so juvenile, it's breathtaking.
You are soooo in a world of your own, kiddo....
How old ARE you - 12 - ?!
I think you need to stop pretending that everyone else experiences the world exactly the same way that you do.
Perhaps you should just say, "I consider sex a conquest. When I bed a hot girl, I brag about it to my friends. I feel like a winner."
That statement, @betaboy, was much to reminiscent of the scene from "John Tucker Must Die" (I fear I just outed my embarrassing enjoyment of some teen drama movies, despite the fact I am almost 40...lol) where the guy in the locker room is talking about uncorking the new cheerleader. You know, behavior more for the 17-24 age range or so. I don't know which age range you are in, but most men do outgrow that. Some don't, of course, but most do. Thankfully. Otherwise most of them would not end up married and procreating. Women grow up faster than men do,and we see through their sex games far sooner than they think.
@federica, I will not ask such stupid questions again! I promise (However, because I'm a man iand I will ask stupid questions, please just moderate my stupid questions...
LA LA LA LA LA
Oh btw I'm a feminist @betaboy; that means I believe in the equality of men and women - this conquest you talk about is tantamount to saying rape is ok if I need to satisfy my ego. Not sure what girls you've bedded in your life, but I've always held them with high regard and respect. That's why they all bedded me! lol
Actually, there has been an on going debate throughout the course of Buddhist history concerning what the seed essence entails for woman. Some practices of the inner/higher tantras simply cannot be practiced by woman by virtue of aspects revolving around reversal of the prostate flow. However the aspects that can be practice do still revolve around retaining the seed-essence, the two major theories involve retention of the vaginal fluid, which in the some texts includes that which is discharged in one of the six or so types of orgasm a woman can have (that of female ejaculation). The methods there then were pretty straight forward, using energy practices, primarily heat-yoga, yantra yoga, and dispassion. Then the more complicated theory involved that of menstruation, back then, stopping this entailed the use of medicine as well the aforementioned heat-yoga and yantra yoga. The claim was that through which the menstruation could be ceased.
With all this said, there is no reason to not hold men to the standard, since we are biologically different, and from personal experience of tantrayana path of bliss, there is no question that it is absolutely critical. With that said, the general course of some tantrayana practice (at a certain point in attainment), entails a monthly discharge for a variety of reasons, such as determining one's health and the state of one's energy system.
With that said, the evidence for which you speak is what exactly? Are you sure you are not referring to prostate fluid discharge (there are two fluids which mix in normal ejaculation). As that is only if it is retained and it hasn't been causally established, just very loose apparent correlations. What is extremely important to understand here, is that during the course of practice, there IS discharge, as one reverses the flow of the prostrate (and in special cases the urethra), and there is a reverse ejaculation that occurs. Basically where the cerebrospinal fluid in the prostate is reversed ejected back up. Additionally, it is extremely normal for the mother tantra versions for the practitioner to leak small amounts of prostate fluid during the course of the stages where one has relaxed the heat and upward wheel flow that comes from heat-yoga (as there are stages in which you allow the flow to switch back downwards).
With this in mind, the supposed health risk doesn't seem to apply, as it didn't account for the yogic individuals which are inducing reverse ejaculations. However with this said, Tantra is always associated with risk, it actively engages the passions and uses extreme forms of bodily control, if anyone has ever told you that Tantra isn't risky, then they know nothing about tantra.
"Padmasambhava said "My
secret path is very dangerous; it is just like a snake in the bamboo, which, if it moves, must
either go up or come down."
"The methods [of tantrayana] often involve
higher risk than the lessor yanas (Hinayana and Mahayana), but this is considered a worthy price
for Buddhahood in a single lifetime (where in the Hinayana and Mahayana, this is by no means
guaranteed)."
"The transformation of the burden of the passions
into fuel for Awakening, is compared to alchemists who transform coarse metals into precious
metals. Utilizing the “principle of method”, it is like using a poison of passions to neutralize their
root, compared to manufacturing anti-venom serum from snake venom, to introducing the
causative agent of a disease into the body in order to induce immunity, and to using poisons in
the transformation of metals in alchemy. As mentioned, the use of poisons in this manner always
involves some risk. "
I don't drink redbull. It is a translation that stems from Elias Capriles, a personal student of ChNN who undertook very personal retreat with him for 6 or 8 years and also received personal pith instruction Dilgo Khyentse. He has criticized much of what he refers to as the "buddhist babble", in that most translators lack extensive training in the traditions and direct experience and so are providing lackluster translations that don't exactly relay the essential meaning.
I suggest you read 'Buddhism and Dzogchen' vol 1 by Elias Capriles.
He has made a number of corrections insofar as translation errors under the guidance of the Dzogchen master ChNN, such as re-rendering "self-liberation" to "spontaneous liberation".
However the "energetic-volume-determining-the-scope-of-awareness" is a translation for the Tibetan thig-le and the Sanskrit kundalini. This translation is remarkably useful in relaying what these things are. I advise to read the book for a much more in-depth discussion concerning how it relates to tension, but basically as the energy-volume increases the awareness undergoes a panoramification, it becomes more and more panoramic, with less and less distinction between periphery and center, between internal and external, and so cognitive dissonance and other mental hang-ups are unable to hide as well and so all the subtle tension and mental delusion is brought to the surface with very direct consequences, including the capacity to totally burn itself out. In tantra and Dzogchen, the thig-le/"enegetic-volume-determining-the-scope-of-awareness" is the KEY and by far the most critical factor in bringing about enlightenment/nirvana. There is so much that can be said about it, and how useful this translation is, but again I will just refer you to his book. Since again, he is a close personal student of ChNN and ChNN has personally supported and assisted his work. My personal experience with these traditions also compels me to unwaveringly support these translations as they are by far so much more accurate and informative insofar as how they pertain to direct practice.
I would challenge you to find a more descriptive translation of kundalini or thig-le, as this is phenomenologically accurate, and nothing short of brilliant (imo).
@karasti
Also friend, I am sorry and I should have mentioned in the last post, your mentioning of seed-essence seems to have the pretense of seed meaning something like: seed qua something related to reproduction. This isn't quite right and at most is quite secondary.
Maybe a better translation than seed-essence would be something along the lines of "that which stores the potentiality of a rising energy-volume", as seed essence refers to containing an activated and increasingly stimulated/active thigle. For the sake of conversation, with males it can be said to relate deeply to this increasing potential for bodily/energetic tension that arises with sexuality. The idea is that with release the tension is mostly gone, and the potential for intensive energetic activity is lowered and capped. In practices revolving around this, the energy activity has to be risen to extreme levels, as much of the bliss itself is derived from the tension co-mingling with the energy activity while being sublimated in emptiness. The whole process is not necessarily soft on the body and if raising it to extreme or even high levels and then simply emitting it outwardly (read:ejaculation), one will suddenly have the chances for a lot of physical problems, like prostate enlargement and energy-disorders. Furthermore it centers around reversing the flow of energy and fluid, and in order to do this the energy activity must have a very high upper limit and there must be fluid. While outward release drains the fluid, and as mentioned, caps and lowers the energy-activity and its potential, to not only be risen, but how high the energy-volume can go or put another way how dense it is capable of becoming.
From personal experience, it is like night and day. One simply cannot accomplish without a general retention during some of these core practices, without outward emissions, it is tremendously volatile energy, with a very high and intense upper limit, with outward emissions it is very lackluster, to say the least. Over time, the more that one reverses the flow of energy and accomplishes more instances of the reverse emissions, then during times of mistake where there is a loss of control due to a lack of total sublimation of emptiness, there is still a greater volume possible then without any prior reverse emissions, but even then still the difference is extremely blatant. I cannot emphasize the importance of this aspect of practice enough, the seed-essence is absolutely critical.
As mentioned before, it is more complicated with woman, as there are competing theories, and one has to navigate through which practices can and cannot be practiced by woman, again due to purely biological differences, the whole lacking a prostate thing, and it being absolutely critical in the practice for men. Critical not only for the practices related to the lower entrances, but even the ones focusing fully on the upper doors, as during the spasmodic-contraction cycles induced through diligent heat yoga, which is emphasized greatly for the upper door practices, the prostate still is relied on for the reverse emission as it is a key aspect to transform the great blisses together into the total pleasure leading to an authentic sample of primordial gnosis (rigpa), which is the point of the practice.
Sorry for not clarifying this last time!
I recently learned that the drive to eat, sleep, etc. are not considered cravings conditioned by ignorance. A person who understands that all phenomena are compounded will still feel the urges to eat and sleep and thus, those desires are not conditioned by ignorance.
Can the same be said for sex? If one understands that all phenomena are compounded will they still feel the urge to have sex?