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.
Sexual (mis)conduct (and other precepts)
<table id="post140827" class="tborder" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"></tr><tr valign="top"><td class="alt1" id="td_post_140827" style="border-right: 1px solid rgb(192, 192, 192);"> Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset;"> Originally Posted by CPaul
figure it out for yourself.
There is no "buddhist" stance on anything. Most precepts are left intentionally vague for that very reason. What is ok for you isn't necessarily ok for someone else (i.e. most people can have a beer without a problem. some people have a beer and they need 20 more. for the first, alcohol isn't a problem; for the latter, it obviously is). if you're morbidly obese, chances are, you have a problem with food. if you have untold number of STD's, chances are, you have a problem with sex. so on and so forth.
You don't get brownie points for finding the strictest interpretation of the precepts you can find and adhering to them as if they are the word of God.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Dear Cpaul,
I think the precepts are not left, intentionally or otherwise for any reason.
The precepts are clear and precise, no lying, no killing, no stealing, no use of intoxicants (e.g: alcohol) and no sexual misconduct.
The precepts came about when the general discipline of Lord Buddha's disciple decreased to an unacceptable level. Then the precepts are established according to several incidents. That is how all the 200+ precepts are established, by a series of inciting incidents.
Drinking a beer whatever the quantity is a violation of the precept that states no consumption of intoxicants.
No sexual misconduct means being faithful to your wife and not to be promiscuous.
Abiding by the precepts have its own benefits. And violating the precepts have their own effects.
END QUOTE
This is a quote from a different thread (sensual pleasures or something similar, it should be in the top 10 or 20 on the page).
Sexual Misconduct is exactly that; sexual misconduct. It doesn't (necessarily) mean being faithful to your wife and not to be promiscuous. If both partners are ok with sleeping around and do it in a safe manner, and everyone involved knows about the situation, then how I'd wager to say it's not misconduct. Swingers do that sort of thing all the time. It's not for everyone, but *it doesn't have to be*. For some people, Sexual misconduct is exactly what the quote says, staying faithful to your partner. For other people, it's not at all. There is no one size fits all rule.
I think a better way of phrasing that precept would to be "don't use sexuality maliciously."
most of the other precepts are similar to this...The other one that normally has a lot of contention is the dont drink alcohol (and other fun substances). In the monastic community, This makes much sense. I favor the other translation of "don't abuse alcohol (and other fun substances)" simply because in a lay community, that makes much sense. Someone in the other thread made mention that alcohol screws with your practice...For them that may be true, but for other people (I would include myself here) it may not be.
You've got to figure out what the precepts mean to you. and this isn't advice to go around having unprotected sex with monkey that have AIDS, or to start shooting up heroin. So don't take it that way. just advice that if you try to live by the rules someone else has made up for their own life, it's likely just to cause problems and resentment.
</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset;"> Originally Posted by CPaul
figure it out for yourself.
There is no "buddhist" stance on anything. Most precepts are left intentionally vague for that very reason. What is ok for you isn't necessarily ok for someone else (i.e. most people can have a beer without a problem. some people have a beer and they need 20 more. for the first, alcohol isn't a problem; for the latter, it obviously is). if you're morbidly obese, chances are, you have a problem with food. if you have untold number of STD's, chances are, you have a problem with sex. so on and so forth.
You don't get brownie points for finding the strictest interpretation of the precepts you can find and adhering to them as if they are the word of God.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Dear Cpaul,
I think the precepts are not left, intentionally or otherwise for any reason.
The precepts are clear and precise, no lying, no killing, no stealing, no use of intoxicants (e.g: alcohol) and no sexual misconduct.
The precepts came about when the general discipline of Lord Buddha's disciple decreased to an unacceptable level. Then the precepts are established according to several incidents. That is how all the 200+ precepts are established, by a series of inciting incidents.
Drinking a beer whatever the quantity is a violation of the precept that states no consumption of intoxicants.
No sexual misconduct means being faithful to your wife and not to be promiscuous.
Abiding by the precepts have its own benefits. And violating the precepts have their own effects.
END QUOTE
This is a quote from a different thread (sensual pleasures or something similar, it should be in the top 10 or 20 on the page).
Sexual Misconduct is exactly that; sexual misconduct. It doesn't (necessarily) mean being faithful to your wife and not to be promiscuous. If both partners are ok with sleeping around and do it in a safe manner, and everyone involved knows about the situation, then how I'd wager to say it's not misconduct. Swingers do that sort of thing all the time. It's not for everyone, but *it doesn't have to be*. For some people, Sexual misconduct is exactly what the quote says, staying faithful to your partner. For other people, it's not at all. There is no one size fits all rule.
I think a better way of phrasing that precept would to be "don't use sexuality maliciously."
most of the other precepts are similar to this...The other one that normally has a lot of contention is the dont drink alcohol (and other fun substances). In the monastic community, This makes much sense. I favor the other translation of "don't abuse alcohol (and other fun substances)" simply because in a lay community, that makes much sense. Someone in the other thread made mention that alcohol screws with your practice...For them that may be true, but for other people (I would include myself here) it may not be.
You've got to figure out what the precepts mean to you. and this isn't advice to go around having unprotected sex with monkey that have AIDS, or to start shooting up heroin. So don't take it that way. just advice that if you try to live by the rules someone else has made up for their own life, it's likely just to cause problems and resentment.
</td></tr></tbody></table>
0
Comments
What if you or your partner are not married? How about homosexual relations between two single, non-involved people?
I think it's pretty darn vague, and that's a good thing.
P.S. You can see HHDL's views on these things on the website of the Central Tibetan Administration.
You'd be surprised how many Buddhists believe that taking vows, observing the precepts, is only for monks. Lay people in the Mongol regions don't pay any attention to the precepts, and they still consider themselves Buddhists. I can't speak for Tibetans, but a lama I discussed this with said that's the case to some extent among Tibetans, as well. We're not required to observe all the precepts. Compassion and meditation are important components of Buddhist practice as well.
In regard to Buddhist sexual ethics, the third precept states: "I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct." This, of course, will naturally lead one to the question, What is the definition of sexual misconduct? To answer that question, however, we must take into account the other four precepts. The five precepts are an integrated whole, and each precept helps to support the others. The other four precepts are (1) to refrain from harming living beings, (2) to refrain from taking what's not given, (3) to refrain from false speech and (4) to refrain from taking intoxicants that lead to carelessness.
Therefore, generally speaking, we can say that sexual misconduct consists of any sexual conduct that involves violence, manipulation and/or deceit. 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."
To summarize, from what I've been taught by my teachers, as well as from what I've read in the suttas, 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.). 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, 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, but there's no such prohibition found in any Theravadin source. The same goes for masturbation. These were most likely introduced by later commentators such as Vasubandhu.
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.
I don't think that HHDL condemns homosexuals, he merely says that from the point of view of certain Tibetan texts it is viewed as sexual misconduct. My gay friends have never faced censure because of their sexual orientation in many decades of practice. Moreover, look at Trungpa's vajra regent who had many male partners.
The focus is on not harming. As HHDL says in a 1994 magazine with Out magazine:
"If someone comes to me and asks whether homosexuality is okay or not, I will ask 'What is your companion's opinion?' If you both agree, then I think I would say 'if two males or two females voluntarily agree to have mutual satisfaction without further implication of harming others, then it is okay'."
I'm not blaming you for anything at all, it's just that even that phrasing, "not intended for" is also incredibly vague. I'd wager that eye sockets, ears, and nostrils weren't intended for sexual use simply due to their size (or the fact that they have eyeballs in them), and that is what is meant by the phrase.
My point was that even that phrasing of the precept is incredibly vague