Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 5683
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Post by Sam Vara » Sun Sep 16, 2018 6:22 am

bksubhuti wrote:
Sun Sep 16, 2018 3:02 am
Sex is synonymous with marriage in the East. Even if you go to a prostitute, they are considered temporary wives. You have to understand that the East and the West are very different today, although the Internet is closing the gap. Never the less, as far as 30 years ago were concerned, the East and West cultures were very different. Add 2600 years ago and then you are in for some bugger problems. Can you really guess as a Westerner what it is like in the East and 2600 years ago? Here is a post from my blog that illustrates that point. https://americanmonk.org/only-in-the-west-only-in-asia/

Protector is a husband in some cases and father or even younger brother in other cases of the unwed. It is a general term and that covers the rule.
I'm nominating this post for the "Typo of the Year" award...

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 6173
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Post by DooDoot » Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:58 am

TRobinson465 wrote:
Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:49 pm
There doesnt seem to be a basis for the no sex at all before marriage argument. If that was so im pretty sure the Buddha would have said :roll: something like "a woman who is not married to you is forbidden" rather than saying under the protection of father, mother, dhamma, under conviction, who is married to someone else, betrothed, etc. are forbidden.
Ironic how those who push reincarnation/rebirth the strongest often also have the dodgiest views about morality. :? According to the suttas (DN 31), the Buddha taught parents marry their children when the children come of age. As described in AN 4.55, life-long monogamy with teenage marriage partner is the Buddhist ideal. There appears little scope for sex outside of marriage for a Buddhist practitioner.

I imagine the Buddha provided his definition of sexual misconduct because he and his benefactors were from the wealthy upper military class; who had concubines, courtesans and women captured in war; and other sexual luxuries the upper class (deva) have. But for those in the human realm, having a wife is enough.
TRobinson465 wrote:
Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:49 pm
And people do have a tendency to alter things to thier own views. I was reading the scriptural basis as to why the Catholic church considers birth control a sin and the logic was quite faulty.
Birth control has lead to widespread promiscuity and breakdown of families and thus community. That is probably why the Catholic Church was against it. As for strong beliefs in reincarnation without morality, this is similar to Protestantism; belief in salvation via faith rather than by deeds.

From 2:50:
bksubhuti wrote:
Sun Sep 16, 2018 3:02 am
Here is a post from my blog that illustrates that point. https://americanmonk.org/only-in-the-west-only-in-asia/
Lol. This post is illogical. Bhante. The Buddha declared he was the perfect teacher, who taught the Dhamma perfectly. Why would a perfect teacher need footnote explanations for the Suttas? :roll:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 5683
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Post by Sam Vara » Sun Sep 16, 2018 12:26 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:58 am
Ironic how those who push reincarnation/rebirth the strongest often also have the dodgiest views about morality. :? According to the suttas (DN 31), the Buddha taught parents marry their children when the children come of age. As described in AN 4.55, life-long monogamy with teenage marriage partner is the Buddhist ideal. There appears little scope for sex outside of marriage for a Buddhist practitioner.
There may be other grounds for claiming that there is little scope for sex outside of marriage for a Buddhist practitioner, but it is not here in the suttas provided. I can't find anything in DN 31 which claims that parents marry their children when they come of age, much less that they should do so. (I looked at Sujato's translation on Sutta Central - is that selected excerpts, and the bit you are referring to is found elsewhere?) AN 4.55 is about marital equality. Both suttas include praise for certain forms of conduct within marriage, but from neither can we derive the idea that sex outside of marriage is proscribed. It may be, but these suttas don't seem to support the idea.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 6173
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Post by DooDoot » Sun Sep 16, 2018 12:31 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Sun Sep 16, 2018 12:26 pm
There may be other grounds for claiming that there is little scope for sex outside of marriage for a Buddhist practitioner, but it is not here in the suttas provided. I can't find anything in DN 31 which claims that parents marry their children when they come of age, much less that they should do so. (I looked at Sujato's translation on Sutta Central - is that selected excerpts, and the bit you are referring to is found elsewhere?) AN 4.55 is about marital equality. Both suttas include praise for certain forms of conduct within marriage, but from neither can we derive the idea that sex outside of marriage is proscribed. It may be, but these suttas don't seem to support the idea.
New to me. I understand how liberals are attracted to Buddhism in the West thus they might leave Buddhism if they knew the truth of the suttas. Sujato appears to have not translated the passage. As for AN 4.55, it seems to also be about marriage for life and even in future lives (depending on translation).
"In five ways, young householder, the parents thus ministered to as the East by their children, show their compassion:

(i) they restrain them from evil,
(ii) they encourage them to do good,
(iii) they train them for a profession,
(iv) they arrange a suitable marriage,
(v) at the proper time they hand over their inheritance to them.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nara.html
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 5683
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Post by Sam Vara » Sun Sep 16, 2018 12:40 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Sun Sep 16, 2018 12:31 pm
New to me. I understand how liberals are attracted to Buddhism in the West thus they might leave Buddhism if they knew the truth of the suttas. Sujato appears to have not translated the passage. As for AN 4.55, it seems to be about marriage for life and even in future lives.
"In five ways, young householder, the parents thus ministered to as the East by their children, show their compassion:

(i) they restrain them from evil,
(ii) they encourage them to do good,
(iii) they train them for a profession,
(iv) they arrange a suitable marriage,
(v) at the proper time they hand over their inheritance to them.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nara.html
Thanks - Sujato does tend to leave bits out, doesn't he!

This sutta, even as amended, doesn't support the view that extra-marital sex is proscribed. Parental solicitude is one thing, and sex outside of marriage is another. Support for one does not imply a criticism of the other. Exactly the same applies to AN 4.55: praise for lifelong marriage and post-mortem reunions does not entail that extra-marital sex is to be avoided. If there is a case to be made for the proscription of extra-marital sex which relies on "the truth of the suttas", this is not it.

chownah
Posts: 8374
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Post by chownah » Sun Sep 16, 2018 1:16 pm

So same sex involvement was "no holds barred....the sky's the limit"?.....or is it completely forbidden?....or what were the restrictions on that?....certainly there was no sanctioning of same sex marriage?
chownah

santa100
Posts: 3785
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Post by santa100 » Sun Sep 16, 2018 5:07 pm

DooDoot wrote:Sujato appears to have not translated the passage.
It appears Sujato deliberately skips the item for suttacentral still hasn't replied after I sent an email requesting them to correct the error thru their contact address: suttacentral.net@gmail.com. It's one thing to differ in interpretations regarding a sutta passage but it's just plain wrong to deliberately tinker with the original source by adding/removing sutta text. One's already made a fool out of himself for in this case, the paragraph clearly states five items but only list four. Actually this is worse than what's described in Drum Peg sutta for in that sutta, the Dasaharas folks only inserted a peg after the drum was splitted, but in this case, the Dhamma drum was deliberately splitted first!:
DN 31 - Sujato's translation wrote:Parents served by the children in these five ways show compassion to them in five ways. 1. They keep them from doing bad. 2. They support them in doing good. 3. They train them in a profession. 4. They transfer the inheritance in good time. Parents served by their children in these five ways show compassion to them in these five ways. And that’s how the eastern quarter is covered, kept safe and free of peril.

TRobinson465
Posts: 532
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Post by TRobinson465 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:19 am

DooDoot wrote:
Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:58 am

Ironic how those who push reincarnation/rebirth the strongest often also have the dodgiest views about morality. :? According to the suttas (DN 31), the Buddha taught parents marry their children when the children come of age. As described in AN 4.55, life-long monogamy with teenage marriage partner is the Buddhist ideal. There appears little scope for sex outside of marriage for a Buddhist practitioner.
TRobinson465 wrote:
Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:49 pm
And people do have a tendency to alter things to thier own views. I was reading the scriptural basis as to why the Catholic church considers birth control a sin and the logic was quite faulty.
Birth control has lead to widespread promiscuity and breakdown of families and thus community. That is probably why the Catholic Church was against it. As for strong beliefs in reincarnation without morality, this is similar to Protestantism; belief in salvation via faith rather than by deeds.
I didnt realize i was pushing rebirth the strongest simply by saying i actually believe what the buddha said. Especially since i always say "if you dont beleive in literal rebirth its fine" whenever i have such discussions. since i dont particularly care if others do or don't.


As for the catholics im sure they had reasons for adding it. im just saying this is very poorly put "into" the bible using a dodgy interpretion of a passage. I dont doubt they had valid reasons for adding it in.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"At Varanasi, in the Deer Park at Isipatana, the Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta

"Go forth, monks, for the good of the many, for the happiness of the many, out of compassion for the world, for the welfare, the good and the happiness of gods and men. Let no two of you go in the same direction." - First Khandhaka, Chapter 11, Vinaya.

User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 4745
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Jaroen Dhamma Cave, Mae Wang Huai Rin, Lamphun

Re: Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Post by Dhammanando » Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:20 am

bksubhuti wrote:
Sun Sep 16, 2018 3:02 am
Sex is synonymous with marriage in the East. Even if you go to a prostitute, they are considered temporary wives.
This is true of the Vinaya Piṭaka, but I'm curious to know where in modern Asia you've encountered this usage? Personally I’ve heard brothel-visiting Thai males refer to sex-workers using a variety of terms, but none of them is any of the Thai words for ‘wife’ or even ‘girlfriend’.
bksubhuti wrote:
Sun Sep 16, 2018 3:02 am
You have to understand that the East and the West are very different today, although the Internet is closing the gap.
And to avoid misunderstanding and misrepresenting the key terms in the third precept, such as piturakkhitā, it’s as well to remember that 5th century BCE Magadha is a world away from 21st century Myanmar or Thailand or Sri Lanka.
Can you really guess as a Westerner what it is like in the East and 2600 years ago?
I can, because I’ve read the Manusmṛti, a text that gives a much more accurate picture of familial relations and social conditions in BCE India than that which one is likely to hear from modern Asian Theravādin teachers; the latter, as I mentioned in my earlier post, are handicapped by their unquestioning assumption that how familial and sexual matters stand in their country are how they have always stood and how they ought to stand. Now obviously they can’t all be right about this because (in contrast with the other four precepts, which are interpreted almost the same way everywhere) there are no two Asian countries where the third precept is understood in exactly the same way.

Let me say, furthermore, that the Manusmṛti, though a Brahminical text, is actually essential reading for any classical Theravādin who aims to give an exposition of the third precept that’s wholly faithful to the commentarial understanding of it. And for this reason:

1. The wrongness in the transgression of this precept is said to consist in one’s “having overstepped the boundaries set in the world, (loka’mariyādaṃ atikkamitvā)”

2. The setter of those boundaries is none other than King Mahāsammata, the wise monarch elected at the enactment of the primeval social contract at the start of the present kalpa (see the DN’s Aggañña Sutta for details).

3. Mahāsammata, the primeval monarch of Buddhist tradition, is identified by the commentators with none other than Manu, the primeval lawgiver of the Brahminical tradition.
“Manu is the name for the one belonging to the first aeon, who, after setting the boundaries of the world, occupied the station of Father of Sentient Beings and Primeval Provider of What is and What is Not to Their Benefit, and who, in the [Buddha’s] Dispensation, is known as Mahāsammata Rājā. Sentient beings established in the instruction contained in his exhortation, whether at first hand or through his lineage, are called 'human' (manussa) since they are like unto his sons.”
(Vimānavatthu Atthakathā 19)
“Keep to your own pastures, bhikkhus, walk in the haunts where your fathers roamed.
If ye thus walk in them, Māra will find no lodgement, Māra will find no foothold.”
— Cakkavattisīhanāda Sutta

User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 4745
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Jaroen Dhamma Cave, Mae Wang Huai Rin, Lamphun

Re: Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Post by Dhammanando » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:02 am

I have some further comments on your article, bhante.
Ven. Subhūti’s article wrote:In Buddhism, rules are made only because of kamma and for the purpose of Liberation.
Not according to the Upāli Sutta (AN. v. 70) where ten reasons are given, several of which pertain only to mundane benefits to be obtained in the present life.
Ven. Subhūti’s article wrote:There is no other reason and, they [the precepts] are universal in nature.
What do you mean by universal? And how does universality work out when the Dhamma is being taught in some time and place where the “boundaries set in the world” happen to differ from those set by the primeval monarch Mahāsammata?
Ven. Subhūti’s article wrote:There is no such thing as "Modern Buddhism." Dhammas exist in the past, present and future.
Oh? When did you convert to the Sarvāstivāda, bhante?

But seriously, I believe what you meant to say is that there are certain regularities (dhammaniyāma) that hold good throughout the three periods of time.
Ven. Subhūti’s article wrote:[Sex] is actually defined in the Vinaya Pitaka or The Discipline Basket under Pārājika 1, the first training rule ever made by the Buddha. I will be brief here and summarize what is said. There are the male and female genitals, anus, and mouth. A matrix of all of these is given and mouth to mouth combinations are excluded. Every other combination is considered sex.
Mouth-to-mouth isn’t actually ‘excluded’. It just isn’t mentioned:
Vinaya 1st pārājika wrote:There is an offence entailing expulsion if he has sexual intercourse with a human female through three orifices, the anus, the vagina or the mouth … with a non-human female … with a female animal … with a human hermaphrodite … with a non-human hermaphrodite … with an animal hermaphrodite through three orifices, the anus, the vagina or the mouth. There is an offence entailing expulsion if he has sexual intercourse with a human paṇḍaka through two orifices, the anus or the mouth … with a non-human paṇḍaka … with an animal paṇḍaka … with a human male … with a non-human male … with a male animal though two orifices, the anus or the mouth.
And for the sake of formal completeness, we might add that mouth-to-vagina, mouth-to-anus, anus-to-anus and anus-to-vagina are also unmentioned. And as this part of the Vinaya is concerned only with the things that a male might do, vagina-to-vagina, [female] mouth to vagina, etc. are omitted.

Nevertheless, although these unmentioned acts don’t constitute penetrative sex (methuna), they would certainly be instances of “things fettering one to sex” (methunasaṃyoga) as described in the Methunasutta (AN. iv. 54). The question then might arise: Does indulgence in methunasaṃyoga acts with a female of the prohibited sort amount to sexual misconduct? I must admit I don’t know the answer to that, but perhaps, bhante, you might like to research the question when producing a revised version of your article.
Ven. Subhūti’s article wrote:In Brief: Oral, vaginal and anal sex count as sex, among other things. Anything not listed in the matrix, is not considered sex for this rule.
Assuming of course that the kāmesu in kāmesu micchācāra refers only to methuna and not to methunasaṃyoga. This may (for all I know) be a correct assumption, but your article hasn’t yet shown it to be so.
Ven. Subhūti’s article wrote:The "protector" is an Asian term from Asian texts. The term is still in use today without ambiguity. One is protected for as long as she is alive or formally given away in marriage.[1]

Footnote:

This rule actually excludes normal adult males because of pregnancy and protecting her for marriage. Of course, it applies to boys who are not of age or able to give proper consent.
This isn’t quite correct. If you were to search the Pali texts for the masculine forms piturakkhito, māturakkhito, etc., you would come up empty-handed. Likewise if you searched Brahminical texts for the cognate Sanskrit terms. No male is ever described in this way. In saying this I don’t of course mean to imply that a male child was not subject to some sort of guardianship, nor that it would be morally blameless to have sex with him. My point, rather, is that in the boundaries set by King Mahāsammata, the very particular (and peculiarly Indian) mode of guardianship called rakkhakā was applicable to females only.
“Keep to your own pastures, bhikkhus, walk in the haunts where your fathers roamed.
If ye thus walk in them, Māra will find no lodgement, Māra will find no foothold.”
— Cakkavattisīhanāda Sutta

User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 4745
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Jaroen Dhamma Cave, Mae Wang Huai Rin, Lamphun

Re: Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Post by Dhammanando » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:15 am

Ven. Subhūti’s article wrote:The law and the Dhamma sometimes agree and sometimes they do not agree. As morality among the people deteriorates, so will the laws for its citizens made by those very same people.
In the accounts of the Cakkavattī Sutta and Mahāsupina Jātaka, deterioration starts at the top with the rājā and his ministers and then works downwards.
Ven. Subhūti’s article wrote:Lastly, there may be ways where one keeps a precept, keeps the law, but it still leads one downwards. For instance, it is allowable in the third precept to go to a licensed government recognized brothel and hire a prostitute because the Madams or Pimps are considered the protectors and you have their permission if you pay. However, we know this is wrong and the Dhamma says this is wrong in a very famous paritta called The Parābhava Sutta (SN1.6)

"..he is seen with prostitutes..ṭhat is the cause for his downfall."
Yes, but ‘wrong’ in the sense of imprudent, for the ‘downfall’ referred to here is loss of wealth and reputation. But not ‘wrong’ in the sense of being any kind of akusala kammapatha.
Ven. Subhūti’s article wrote:Some countries which have a reputation for being moral and civil, like England, still have laws in place to prevent eloping to some degree. It should be noted that it is still illegal to elope immediately for the purpose of giving the parents a chance to stop the wedding.
But the Wikipedia entry that you quote in support of this doesn’t in fact support it. It says, in effect, that the purpose of the law (requiring the publishing of banns before a wedding) was to make bigamy difficult and that making elopement difficult was an unintended effect of it.
Ven. Subhūti’s article wrote:Birth control is not a problem in Buddhism unless it is possible to destroy the fertilized egg, like "the morning after pill," IUD, or any other form that works after fertilization. Otherwise, oral contraception and other modern birth control methods, which are new in human history, helped women escape from being "barefoot and pregnant" as a result of sex. Equality of gender has developed as a direct result of birth control. If sex happens without a protector's consent, the guardians will be burdened for support if pregnancy occurs. Not getting pregnant is a freedom for women. Melinda Gates of "The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation," has made injectable contraception availability one of the organization's main priorities for women.

So, sexual kamma is fairly strong. If one engages in sexual behavior, and both of the parties are fertile (and most are), a baby will result.
This looks like a non sequitur to me. I don’t dispute that “sexual kamma” (i.e., the akusala kammapatha of sexual misconduct) is strong, but this doesn’t seem to logically follow from anything that you’ve stated in the preceding paragraph in which nothing at all has been said about sexual misconduct.
Ven. Subhūti’s article wrote:If you are not willing to get married and you are taking on multiple partners in your adult life, you will develop a habit: a habitual kamma will result. There are two types of kamma that are very powerful, heavy kamma and habitual kamma. Heavy kamma may be something like killing with first degree murder, or donating an extremely large donation.
In the Abhidhammatthavibhāvinī (and in Pa-Auk Sayadaw’s book that you recommended to Doodoot) “heavy kamma”, when it’s akusala, refers to patricide, matricide, etc., along with the niyata wrong views that deny kammic efficacy, etc. When it’s kusala, it refers to attainment of the eight samāpattis.
If the act of taking life can be considered heavy kamma, then what could be said about the act that causes the giving of life? It has been said that:

"Even if one should carry about one's mother on one shoulder and one's father on the other, for a lifespan of 100 years...while doing...one still would not have done enough for one's parents, nor would one have repaid them."
(AN 2.4.2, Translation by Ven. Bodhi)
But the sutta then continues:
“For what reason? Parents are of great help to their children; they bring them up, feed them, and show them the world.”
And so contrary to what the Tibetans are always telling us, it would seem that the debt of gratitude is not incurred merely through our parents’ having begotten us (which, let’s face it, is not a terribly remarkable feat – any couple with properly-functioning reproductive organs could manage as much) but rather through the nourishing and nurturing they have given us.

The sutta then says:
“But, bhikkhus, if, when one’s parents lack faith, one encourages, settles, and establishes them in faith; if, when one’s parents are immoral, one encourages, settles, and establishes them in virtuous behaviour; if, when one’s parents are miserly, one encourages, settles, and establishes them in generosity; if, when one’s parents are unwise, one encourages, settles, and establishes them in wisdom: in such a way, one has done enough for one’s parents, repaid them, and done more than enough for them.”
So, taken as a whole, the sutta may be summarised:

“The debt children owe to their parents is a great one – too great to be repaid even by carrying them around on one’s shoulders for a hundred years. It can, however, be repaid in another way, namely, by establishing one’s parents in saddhā, sīla, cāga and paññā.”

And so the sutta’s central purpose appears to be that of making a rhetorically elaborate encomium to saddhā, sīla, cāga and paññā: “So great are these four things, that if you can establish your parents in them then you’ll have done them an even greater favour than carrying them around on your shoulders for a hundred years!”

And so, bhante, in taking the sutta as being concerned with “the kamma of giving life,” you are reading it as the Tibetans would read it (i.e., as a maudlin homily on filial piety, along with the favourite Tibetan cliché of the “precious human rebirth”) and not as it is clearly meant to be read.
Ven. Subhūti’s article wrote:In Buddhism, monks have standard Pāli phrases that are memorized. In one of these stanzas, we say kamma is the only thing you will inherit from life to life.

"It is actions that I own, it is actions that I am heir to, it is actions that I am born from, actions are my kinsfolk, actions are my refuge ... whatever actions I perform, whether good or bad, to that I will be the heir"
(A.10:48)
But the passage doesn’t say that “kamma is the only thing we will inherit from life to life. It says that we shall be the heirs of our kamma, not that we shall be the heirs of our kamma and nothing else. If you were the heir to your kamma and nothing else, then the ripening of some past kusala kamma might have caused you to encounter the Buddha’s teaching but it wouldn’t have caused you to respond to it in the way that you have. For example, if it wasn’t for natural decisive support condition (pakatūpanissaya-paccaya) you’d have been incapable of any sort of response beyond that of flopping about like a beached sea cucumber.
“Keep to your own pastures, bhikkhus, walk in the haunts where your fathers roamed.
If ye thus walk in them, Māra will find no lodgement, Māra will find no foothold.”
— Cakkavattisīhanāda Sutta

TRobinson465
Posts: 532
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Post by TRobinson465 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:28 am

DooDoot wrote:
Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:58 am
There appears little scope for sex outside of marriage for a Buddhist practitioner.
Regardless, while i dont see any grounds for the third precept specifically denying sex b4 marriage (which is what the OP was talking about) I do agree with you that it is better to stay within marriage and best to be totally chaste or keep the 8 precepts. In fact, for fear of creating bad kamma for my present and future rebirths by accidently misleading ppl otherwise, I will side with DooDoot and indeed advise for strictly sex within marriage. My reasoning is if you are unsure about the third precept it is better to go on the side of caution as it is not worth committing the bad kamma. And even if you truly can have sex outside of marriage without accumulating any bad kamma at all (note that u dont have to break a precept fully to commit bad kamma), something only an enlightened person would know for sure. it is more beneficial for your practice. Plus even the best birth control is not 100% effective and there's always a chance you would end up with a child outside of wedlock if you engage in such, which, even putting all religion aside, is certainly problematic for you.
Last edited by TRobinson465 on Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"At Varanasi, in the Deer Park at Isipatana, the Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta

"Go forth, monks, for the good of the many, for the happiness of the many, out of compassion for the world, for the welfare, the good and the happiness of gods and men. Let no two of you go in the same direction." - First Khandhaka, Chapter 11, Vinaya.

User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 4745
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Jaroen Dhamma Cave, Mae Wang Huai Rin, Lamphun

Re: Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Post by Dhammanando » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:36 am

Ven. Subhūti’s article wrote:As a Westerner, you are probably interested in Buddhism because you have practiced Buddhism in your past life. This is habitual kamma.
The Abhidhamma’s theory of conditional relations isn’t really my strong suit, but insofar as I understand it … When a sentient being of any sort encounters the Buddha’s teaching it is because of some kusala past kamma (though though there’s no need for it to be habitual kamma – just think of Sāriputta and the five hundred bats). But it isn’t past kamma that causes one to respond with faith or mild interest or disgust or indifference. The characters of one’s response is attributed to other paccayas.
Ven. Subhūti’s article wrote:The main reason we have right livelihood on top of right action is to emphasize the massive scale of kamma and habitual kamma effect that comes from one's livelihood.
Is that your own opinion or is it what the texts say? I would agree that how one makes one’s living is likely to be one of the more important spheres in which habitual kamma will be accumulated. Nevertheless, I should have thought the main reason (and in the paramattha sense, the only reason) we have right livelihood in addition to right speech and right action is because right livelihood is the function of a different virati cetasika.
Ven. Subhūti’s article wrote:One of the big problems with modern society is that we believe we will always have the modern amenities we have today: open communication lines, phones, Internet, free government and press. You should consider if birth control and the liberal sexual attitudes born in the sixties will always exist in the future. What will your habit be when the future takes a u-turn? How many years before all of this "stuff" disappears? How many lives will it take? Consider one life to be 100 years for easy calculation. Do you think that in 100 years we will have all of this "stuff?" What about two or three hundred years?
Bhante, do you very often meet Buddhists who are given to ruminating about how their sex life is likely to be in the next world? If so, then I can only say that I’m astonished, for I myself haven’t had the pleasure of meeting even one such ruminator. But if not, then what is the point of the observations that you’re making here?
Ven. Subhūti’s article wrote:There are no wrong or right actions. There are simply actions that lead to future results.
What do you mean by this? The first sentence seems to contradict everything that you’ve been saying up to this point. What are sammā- and micchā-kammantā if not right and wrong actions?
“Keep to your own pastures, bhikkhus, walk in the haunts where your fathers roamed.
If ye thus walk in them, Māra will find no lodgement, Māra will find no foothold.”
— Cakkavattisīhanāda Sutta

bksubhuti
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 3:17 pm

Re: Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Post by bksubhuti » Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:44 pm

Actually it would have been better not to say the first sentence. The main thing is that we don't want to tell people what to do (this is wrong or right). Instead, we need to tell people about the results and then let you decide what is the right or wrong thing to do according to your own knowledge.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 6173
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

Post by DooDoot » Tue Sep 18, 2018 12:17 pm

bksubhuti wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:44 pm
Actually it would have been better not to say the first sentence. The main thing is that we don't want to tell people what to do (this is wrong or right). Instead, we need to tell people about the results and then let you decide what is the right or wrong thing to do according to your own knowledge.
DN 31:
The ascetics and brahmans thus ministered to as the Zenith by a householder show their compassion towards him in six ways:

(i) they restrain him from evil,
(ii) they persuade him to do good,
(iii) they love him with a kind heart,
(iv) they make him hear what he has not heard,
(v) they clarify what he has already heard,
(vi) they point out the path to a heavenly state.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nara.html
:candle:
TRobinson465 wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:28 am
Regardless, while i dont see any grounds for the third precept...
Upon reflection, my new current view ('work in progress') is it is probably best to split unskilful sexual behaviour into two types: (i) sexual misconduct; and (ii) unskilful individual conduct. 'Sexual misconduct' as defined in the 3rd precept has a social or community dimension, namely, to not engage in sex in a manner that harms existing relationships (such as harming a husband & wife or parents & child relationship). 'Unskillful individual conduct' may not harm an existing relationship but because of having its root in mere lust & heedlessness leads to suffering or diminished personal growth in oneself or another individual. Something like this.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alīno, arkaprava, Cortadew, form, JamesTheGiant, Majestic-12 [Bot], mikenz66, robertk, SarathW and 101 guests