Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

Keeping 5 precepts, sexual misconduct

hermitwinhermitwin Veteran
edited February 2011 in Buddhism Basics
I know there has been many discussion on this topic. But I think for the sake of beginners, a simple guideline is necessary.
Sexual misconduct is:
Incest
Paedhophilia
Rape
Sex with other people's spouse.

Having sex with a prostitute is NOT considered breaking the 5 precepts.
Neither is masturbation.
«1

Comments

  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    Sex with women under the care of their parents, teachers having sex with dharma students are also sexual misconduct. Whether or not masturbation is, is another can of worms. Most sources say it is. Can you cite your source?
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    Sexual misconduct is any sexual activity that is indulged in where the dignity, free will, and compliance of a participant is disrespected or compromised.
    Homosexuality is also not breaking the third precept.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    What sources say masturbation is sexual misconduct?
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    edited February 2011
    HHDL. Masturbation is sexual misconduct because it is for pleasure only, and thus increases attachment. He has said sex is for procreation, only. (I posted that on an earlier thread.) Homosexuality is misconduct insofar is the mouth and/or the anus are used. For a complete analysis of the historical sources for Buddhist sexual ethics see:
    www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/audio/fundamentals_tibetan_buddhism/level_graded_path_material/initial_scope/buddhist_view_sexual_ethics/transcript.html
    I'll post a more concise source when I can find it.
    Sex during daytime hours is also misconduct.
  • DazzleDazzle

    It's worth remembering that HHDL isn't the head of Buddhism and also that the Tibetan cultural attitude towards sex is different to that of westerners.

    .
  • DaltheJigsawDaltheJigsaw Mountain View Veteran
    Is masturbation wrong when masturbation is focused on their own spouse?
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    The Tibetan cultural attitude toward sex would make a good thread of its own. Like Westerners' view of sex, it has contradictory elements.

    But I was surprised to discover that some of the prohibitions come from way back during the Sarvastavadins, and so apply to Theravadins as well. I think the prohibition on masturbation comes from the Vinaya, but I'm not sure. Will dig around and see what I can find. It's clearly misconduct for monks and nuns, but I assume we're discussing misconduct for lay people.
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited February 2011
    My understanding, which is based on the Pali Canon, is that 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. Neither is masturbation.

    And just for reference, 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. In my opinion, these prohibitions were most likely introduced by later commentators such as Vasubandhu.
  • DazzleDazzle
    edited February 2011
    As far as I know masturbation isn't considered to be 'wrong',except probably for monks - but obviously excesses in general need to be avoided.
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    edited February 2011
    Some were, indeed, introduced by Vasubandhu, Jason. And there was a bit about the fact that dharma students traditionally took up celibacy while under the tutelage of teachers, so sex with students was prohibited.

    So Vasubandhu's prohibitions don't apply to Tharavadan Buddhism? Good to know.
  • DeformedDeformed Veteran
    Every precept contains every other precept. It's simply not realistic to expect any doctrine to outline every single circumstance that would be generally seen as "unmindful".

    You, I and everyone else who is practicing mindfulness should already have an idea of what is sexual misconduct. What causes suffering? It's pretty simple.
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    You'd be surprised the extent to which "what causes suffering" in this context can and has been argued.
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    edited February 2011
    A good article summing up "the rules", by Buddhism scholar Jose Cabezon:
    archive.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2009/summer/sex.php

    Among the list of "prohibited organs" are: the hand, the place between the thighs of a partner (as in the mutual masturbation method used by Tibetan monks), and any "orifice or fold of skin" other than the vagina. This applies to lay people as well as monastics, but as Jason points out, Theravadan Buddhism doesn't follow these prohibitions.

    Poor hermitwin thought he was keeping it simple, and immediately, complexities flourished!
  • zombiegirlzombiegirl beating the drum of the lifeless in a dry wasteland Veteran
    why is having sex with prostitutes considered okay?
    Among the list of "prohibited organs" are: the hand, the place between the thighs of a partner (as in the mutual masturbation method used by Tibetan monks), and any "orifice or fold of skin" other than the vagina. This applies to lay people as well as monastics, but as Jason points out, Theravadan Buddhism doesn't follow these prohibitions.
    personally, i feel like the point at which we start labeling body parts as inappropriate for sex... we start sounding a little crazy. i'm so tempted to be like, "but what about sex with dildos?" or any other different sexual practice that might fall in the loophole (i'm sure i could think of a few if i really tried). i find myself wondering what the point is of making things off limits if your sex life falls under the generally accepted checklist of no incest, no rape, no pedophilia, and both partners are consensual etc etc.

    what is inherently wrong with having sex with use of the hand or the mouth or anus or whatever? unless we're back to the whole "sex for procreation only" thing. because if that's the reasoning, heh, well i just find that a little overly idealistic.

    also, this isn't aimed at dakini in any way. just happened to use the quote :)
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    edited February 2011
    We /are/ back to the "sex for procreation only" thing, according to HHDL.

    Sex with prostitutes was considered ok back then, because prostitutes didn't fall under any of the categories of women w/whom sex was prohibited (juveniles, married or celibate women), and it was considered that no harm was being done. But norms have changed, understanding of what prostitution is about has changed. In the West, at least, it's no longer considered ok.

    Yeah, making lists of body parts seems strange, but that's the way things were done back then, and the OP asked about rules, so ... here they are.

    I'd like to add to the list, coercion into sex, maybe after rape. The definition of consent can be very tricky. Consent given under duress or manipulation isn't really consent.
  • zombiegirlzombiegirl beating the drum of the lifeless in a dry wasteland Veteran
    We /are/ back to the "sex for procreation only" thing, according to HHDL.
    oic.

    Sex with prostitutes was considered ok back then, because prostitutes didn't fall under any of the categories of women w/whom sex was prohibited (juveniles, married or celibate women), and it was considered that no harm was being done. But norms have changed, understanding of what prostitution is about has changed. In the West, at least, it's no longer considered ok.

    Yeah, making lists of body parts seems strange, but that's the way things were done back then, and the OP asked about rules, so ... here they are.
    i suppose that makes sense, it's just very surprising to me that people could ever look at prostitutes and not think that there is a certain amount of suffering as a result of the profession. (i'm not talking about sex workers here, btw. i feel it is different if you arrive at this decision by your own volition. this is not typically the case though.)

    I'd like to add to the list, coercion into sex, maybe after rape. The definition of consent can be very tricky. Consent given under duress or manipulation isn't really consent.
    word.
  • DazzleDazzle
    edited February 2011
    why is having sex with prostitutes considered okay?
    Among the list of "prohibited organs" are: the hand, the place between the thighs of a partner (as in the mutual masturbation method used by Tibetan monks), and any "orifice or fold of skin" other than the vagina. This applies to lay people as well as monastics, but as Jason points out, Theravadan Buddhism doesn't follow these prohibitions.
    personally, i feel like the point at which we start labeling body parts as inappropriate for sex... we start sounding a little crazy. i'm so tempted to be like, "but what about sex with dildos?" or any other different sexual practice that might fall in the loophole (i'm sure i could think of a few if i really tried). i find myself wondering what the point is of making things off limits if your sex life falls under the generally accepted checklist of no incest, no rape, no pedophilia, and both partners are consensual etc etc.

    what is inherently wrong with having sex with use of the hand or the mouth or anus or whatever? unless we're back to the whole "sex for procreation only" thing. because if that's the reasoning, heh, well i just find that a little overly idealistic.

    also, this isn't aimed at dakini in any way. just happened to use the quote :)
    All that stuff is about the extraordinary rules for sex they had in Tibet zombiegirl. It has no relevance to sex between lay couples in the west who are either straight or gay.

    Some of it might have been because they didn't wash, so would get even more smelly - though I've no idea why even the touching of one's own or anothers sex organs wasn't allowed.

    anyway, its irrelevant to couples anywhere else in general and was just a
    cultural thing with one particular race of people.
    I doubt if young lay Tibetans in the modern world outside of Tibet pay much attention to it either.
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    what is inherently wrong with having sex with use of the hand or the mouth or anus or whatever? unless we're back to the whole "sex for procreation only" thing. because if that's the reasoning, heh, well i just find that a little overly idealistic.

    All that stuff is about the extraordinary rules for sex they had in Tibet zombiegirl. It has no relevance to sex between lay couples in the west.
    Well, HHDL seems to expect Western Buddhists to follow this stuff, but nobody's really paying attention, except the gay community, and he tends to change his tune and preach to the choir when he meets with them, though not always. On some occasions he's said,when addressing the gay community, that if no one is being harmed, then everything's ok. He's never said that to heterosexual practitioners, though.

    What tradition to you practice, ZG? HHDL's views are only relevant to Vajrayana, and maybe Mahayana, in that the sources for his views come from commentators way back, whose statements Mahayanists adhere to. Really, it would be helpful to have a thread to sort out to whom Vasubandhu's and others' commentaries pertain.

  • DazzleDazzle
    edited February 2011
    You are misquoting me Dakini, I only said the last 2 sentences in that quote you just gave supposedly from me. The first part was said by zombiegirl.

    Actually,if you talked offline to a cross section of western Tibetan Buddhist lay practitioners you might find that they don't actually pay any attention to the Dalai lamas views on sex between lay couples.

    Also,the Dalai Lama is not the head of all the schools of Tibetan Buddhism, nor as I've said before is he some kind of 'pope' for Buddhism in general.
  • dorjedorje
    HHDL's answers have been misunderstood by those who pick and choose the things they want to hear.

    If you have any idea about Tantra, the restrictions have to do with the flow of the tsa, lung and thigle (nadi, prana and bindu) of the body.
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    edited February 2011
    Right, I said that no one is paying attention to HHDL on that score.

    Sorry about the misquote--the quote mechanism on this new program is a little tricky.
    HHDL's answers have been misunderstood by those who pick and choose the things they want to hear.

    If you have any idea about Tantra, the restrictions have to do with the flow of the tsa, lung and thigle (nadi, prana and bindu) of the body.
    Well, this is interesting, dorje, thanks for the input! So do you think that these restrictions pertain mainly to tantric practitioners? This is a view I haven't heard before.
  • [DeletedUser][DeletedUser]
    edited February 2011
    Seemed mentioning sexual misconduct that did not specify any clause such as other than this & that type of sexual conducts, so rightly, it should be all sexual activities. Practice like Pure Land is more lenient on the basis that based on buddha-power of Pure Land, that draw the ultimate blessing prowess on the last breath. Nonetheless, if can avoid is good because it may open a string of problem later on lest you can totally handle it with calmness and your alaya-mind have plenty of pure land seeds to make you what it is on the last breath. Moreover, it is a general distaste :p
  • VincenziVincenzi Veteran
    if considering ahimsa as the basis of the five precepts: every sexual conduct that is hurtful in any way.
  • dorjedorje
    edited February 2011
    @Dakini

    AFAIK these restrictions mainly are reserved to tantric practitioners who have reached the level of around the Kyerim and Dzogrim stages. So far in my practice I have not encountered the restrictions yet.

    Then again I'm not at any stage of my practice which I can seriously call Tantra.
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited February 2011
    HHDL. Masturbation is sexual misconduct because it is for pleasure only, and thus increases attachment. He has said sex is for procreation, only.
    It's worth remembering that HHDL isn't the head of Buddhism.

    Many people need to have sex because, if they don't, the internal pressure will be too much.

    The Lord Buddha did not teach the same as the Dalai Lama.

    The Dalai Lama is not the Buddha.

    The Dalai Lama is simply the leader of one sect within Tibetan Buddhism.

    :)

  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    ....
    Poor hermitwin thought he was keeping it simple, and immediately, complexities flourished!
    Well you started it....! :D
    It's worth always mentioning that according to a specific tradition, *this, that and the other* is considered misconduct, but other traditions may vary....;)

  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
  • SabreSabre Veteran
    edited February 2011
    You can't break precepts or do 'wrong' things. You can only do right things towards yourself or others. The movie above is clearly not understanding what following a precept means (maybe DL doesn't, but it is probably a sad misinterpretation of his words). He also said: "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'"


    Now obviously abusing a child is very very unwise.
    Having sex outside a relationship is very unwise.
    Having sex out of lust instead of love is unwise.
    Masturbating a lot is also not very good for your mind.

    Where does it stop? It's just a training. Just a training, guys. :) And everybody is on another part of the training.


  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    The purpose of the precepts is to create the kind of karma to allow you to practice the dharma.

    End of story.
  • MindGateMindGate United States Veteran
    Random question: Is it bad for a monk to have a nocturnal emission?
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    No, it's natural. Then again it depends on if you dream too. If you don't have dreams, you don't have wet dreams; if you don't have wet dreams, you don't have nocturnal emissions.
  • SherabDorjeSherabDorje
    Random question: Is it bad for a monk to have a nocturnal emission?
    No. It's considered an uncontrollable occurrence.

  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    Random question: Is it bad for a monk to have a nocturnal emission?
    No. According to the Vinaya, "Intentional emission of semen, except while dreaming, entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community." Nocturnal emissions, being involuntary, don't constitute as an offense.
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    edited February 2011
    HHDL. Masturbation is sexual misconduct because it is for pleasure only, and thus increases attachment. He has said sex is for procreation, only.
    It's worth remembering that HHDL isn't the head of Buddhism.

    Many people need to have sex because, if they don't, the internal pressure will be too much.

    The Lord Buddha did not teach the same as the Dalai Lama.

    The Dalai Lama is not the Buddha.

    The Dalai Lama is simply the leader of one sect within Tibetan Buddhism.

    :)

    lol! No one is suggesting following HHDL's restrictions--it's just information in response to the OP. Interesting to note that some forms of BUddhism have their Puritanical side.
    if considering ahimsa as the basis of the five precepts: every sexual conduct that is hurtful in any way.
    Good point, V. That keeps it simple.
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    Random question: Is it bad for a monk to have a nocturnal emission?
    No.

    :)

  • VictoriousVictorious Grim Veteran
    edited February 2011


    Random question: Is it bad for a monk to have a nocturnal emission?
    Only if it gets in the way of cultivation.
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    How would that occur?
  • laurajeanlaurajean
    Sexual misconduct is any sexual activity that is indulged in where the dignity, free will, and compliance of a participant is disrespected or compromised.
    Homosexuality is also not breaking the third precept.
    Agreed. And Dakini; "Sex during daytime hours is also misconduct.."??? That's ridiculous.

  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited February 2011
    I think buddhism in the west will change. I cannot imagine any westerner attracted to the belief in 'only sex at night'. They are not the type of people to say 'Mommy will I be enlightened if I follow all your rules."
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    edited February 2011
    Agreed. And Dakini; "Sex during daytime hours is also misconduct.."??? That's ridiculous.
    haha! I know! It just illustrates how unpracticable many of the restrictions are. A Tibetologist friend of mine told me that there were cultural reasons for it back when that was formulated.
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    I think people need to sort out priorities and what is most important. And think for themselves. What do you think enlightenment is REALLY about? Do you think it has to do with sex at night or day? I think the only reason in Tibetan buddhism that these aren't changed is because some traditional uptight people might disagree and it might cause a schism which would be detrimental.
  • laurajeanlaurajean
    Yeah, and the Christian bible also says: "But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, and hath not ... come near to a menstruous woman...." Ezekiel 18:5.

    I think A LOT of things were written based on the times and I don't think for a second we are "bad buddhists" if we tweak these guidelines to fit the modern era. As Federica said, as long as we aren't compromising or disrespecting ourselves or others, it is perfectly acceptable sexual conduct.
  • Ada_BAda_B
    Why are we so keen to find "The Rules" in a subject which, surely, our own consciences can guide us? Do we really need some outside authority to tell us not to sleep with someone else's partner, a child, or our own sister? As for other situations, we need to weigh-up the pros and cons and work out what is right for us - no morality on earth can tell you precisely what to do in every conceivable situation. Even though many try (the church, for instance, to mention one obvious example).

    Is masturbation wrong? Well, it depends. I've met many women whose husbands masturbate over pornography, and I've seen the emotional results. They're not good. One woman was telling me her husband clocked-up over 40 hours a week on online porn channels, and spent a fortune. He was causing her a lot of suffering, and in the long run, himself, since she divorced him over it.

    But masturbating in the everyday sense, who does it hurt? If the answer is no one, it is difficult to argue against.

    It isn't easy or necessarily comfortable to have to work out morality for yourself, but IMHO it is far better. It is so easy to get attached to rules, or teachings of a particular person, and bypass our own brains in doing so.
  • shanyinshanyin Novice Yogin Sault Ontario Veteran
    The purpose of the precepts is to create the kind of karma to allow you to practice the dharma.

    End of story.
    QFT
  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran
    edited February 2011
    I know there has been many discussion on this topic. But I think for the sake of beginners, a simple guideline is necessary.
    Sexual misconduct is:
    Incest
    Paedhophilia
    Rape
    Sex with other people's spouse.

    Having sex with a prostitute is NOT considered breaking the 5 precepts.
    Neither is masturbation.
    "Furthermore, abandoning illicit sex, the disciple of the noble ones abstains from illicit sex. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the third gift..."

    If you are risking any danger by visiting a prostitute, you are most certainly breaking the precept and one could argue that you are always risking a danger by visiting a prostitute. You can't be free from danger if you are putting yourself in danger, to satisfy your sexual urges.

    If you are allowing your sexual desires to oppress you, and then engaging in masturbation to satisfy those desires, then I would say you are breaking it.

    @Ada_b "But masturbating in the everyday sense, who does it hurt? If the answer is no one, it is difficult to argue against."

    One could argue that relying on temporary physical sensations for your happiness, is itself, hurtful to yourself.

  • hermitwinhermitwin Veteran
    What is the purpose of the 5 precepts? Does anyone even know the reason we have 5 precepts instead of 10 or 20 precepts? A case of the blind leading the blind.
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    Maybe they relate to the 5 lower chakras?

    truth - throat
    intoxication - heart
    stealing - navel
    sexual - sacral
    killing - root
  • compassionate_warriorcompassionate_warrior Veteran
    The purpose of the 5 precepts is to provide a framework for practitioners to develop a discipline in their lives that will support their practice of the 4 noble truths, the eightfold path, and meditation. I understand that in the Buddha's time one purpose was also to allow his followers to be role models in society, and of course, to avoid any scandal or criticism, and also to attract followers by their exemplary behavior. The same holds true today.
    What is the purpose of the 5 precepts? Does anyone even know the reason we have 5 precepts instead of 10 or 20 precepts? A case of the blind leading the blind.
    We do have 10 precepts. And more. You may take as many vows as you want, but the first 5 are considered to be for lay practitioners, then those planning to enter the monastic system take a further 5, in preparation. But there's nothing to stop lay practitioners from taking the full 10.

    I don't see how "the blind leading the blind" enters into this.


    But masturbating in the everyday sense, who does it hurt? If the answer is no one, it is difficult to argue against.

    .
    Anything that increases attachment, like masturbation, and distracts us from seeing the true nature of reality is a hindrance to reaching our eventual goal, Enlightenment. That's the reasoning behind that prohibition. But no lamas have ever taught this strict version of sexual misconduct that I'm aware of. It would be almost like taking a vow of celibacy for lay people, except for procreation. I don't think anyone expects lay practitioners to follow this, except HHDL, and I'm not sure he really thinks that his Tibetan followers and the rest of us will do so. Maybe he's just going through a phase...:)
  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran
    edited February 2011
    What is the purpose of the 5 precepts? Does anyone even know the reason we have 5 precepts instead of 10 or 20 precepts? A case of the blind leading the blind.
    "Many single men today believe that sleeping with prostitutes does not go against the third Buddhist precept, which is to avoid adultery. This is because they feel that they are not being unfaithful to anybody. These ladies have consented to the activity. Is this thinking right or wrong?"


    "There are two issues to address. First, it is against the third precept. Second, it is an opening to hell. Lord Buddha called this the road to ruin. What kind of person sleeps with prostitutes?" ~Venerable Dhattajeevo Bhikku

    http://www.dmc.tv/pages/en/good_questions_good_answers/men_prostitute.html
  • hermitwinhermitwin Veteran
    Buddha went to great length to describe the categories of women you should not have sex with. He did not mention prostitutes even though there were plenty of prostitutes during his time.
    Masturbation is wrong because its for pleasure?
    Do you watch TV and play computer games for fun?
Sign In or Register to comment.