Theravada and Sex: Sexual Misconduct

[bksubhuti]

Please read "the workings of kamma." By ven pa-auk Sayadaw.

[dharmacorps]

The trouble with interpretation here is there isn't anywhere in the Pali Canon where the Buddha makes statements in the positive about the "skillful" procedure for having sex with someone. I also have never heard the precept understood and taught in the way described.

[DooDoot]

Please read "the workings of kamma." By ven pa-auk Sayadaw.

I read one sentence, which I regarded as wrong & contrary to the suttas and to reality. It would be pointless for me to read the whole 504 pages. From what I read, having faith in the teachings of Pa-Auk would result in my rebirth in hell because I would not be able to end suffering relying on those teachings. They sound like Eternalism. The mind would spin around in paranoid self-views if those Pa-Auk teachings were taken to heart. The Buddha taught "kamma" is not a topic for intellectual speculation and conjecture (such as writing a 504 page book); which he said was a form of "insanity". Instead, it is a matter of realisation. When samadhi is properly developed, the kammic result of merely the slightest thought can be felt. This would appear why the Buddha taught the practise of Anapanasati is training in morality (kammic law), concentration and insight. Every step of Anapanasati starts with the phrase: "He trains himself", which appears to mean training in morality (kammic law), concentration & insight. I would suggest to stop reading lengthy books and develop Samma Samadhi, which is cultivated by letting go (vossagga) rather than the craving-based yogic exercises of Pa-Auk. Merely browsing the book Mindfulness of Breathing is sufficient for me to not place faith in Pa-Auk as a teacher.

[chownah]

The trouble with interpretation here is there isn't anywhere in the Pali Canon where the Buddha makes statements in the positive about the "skillful" procedure for having sex with someone. I also have never heard the precept understood and taught in the way described.

Although the buddha did not teach specifically as you say he did teach about intentions and I think that so much has been said about sex that perhaps some people have forgotten the simple idea of discerning ones intentions in sexual matters and discerning the possible consequences both intended and unintended which will I think get one most of the way towards an understanding of what constitutes sexual misconduct.

Also, note that the buddha also taught how to develop ones discernment so that a deeper understand about these kinds of issues can arise.
chownah

[bksubhuti]

If you don't want to interpret, then make sure you have the protector's permission. Seems to be a direct sutta reference.

[dharmacorps]

Although the buddha did not teach specifically as you say he did teach about intentions and I think that so much has been said about sex that perhaps some people have forgotten the simple idea of discerning ones intentions in sexual matters and discerning the possible consequences both intended and unintended which will I think get one most of the way towards an understanding of what constitutes sexual misconduct.

Also, note that the buddha also taught how to develop ones discernment so that a deeper understand about these kinds of issues can arise.
chownah

True. That is where most of this precept lies-- discernment.

[DooDoot]

True. That is where most of this precept lies-- discernment.

The suttas appear to offer social prescriptions (as follows), which appear contrary to the various posts you have made on this topic:

They don’t have sexual relations with women who have their mother, father, brother, sister, relatives, or clan as guardian. They don’t have sexual relations with a woman who is protected on principle, or who has a husband, or whose violation is punishable by law, or even one who has been garlanded as a token of betrothal.

https://suttacentral.net/an10.176/en/sujato

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

Nakula's father said to the Blessed One: "Lord, ever since Nakula's mother as a young girl was brought to me [to be my wife] when I was just a young boy, I am not conscious of being unfaithful to her even in mind, much less in body. We want to see one another not only in the present life but also in the life to come."

And Nakula's mother said to the Blessed One: "Lord, ever since I as a young girl was brought to Nakula's father [to be his wife] when he was just a young boy, I am not conscious of being unfaithful to him even in mind, much less in body. We want to see one another not only in the present life but also in the life to come."

[The Blessed One said:] "If both husband & wife want to see one another not only in the present life but also in the life to come, they should be in tune [with each other] in conviction, in tune in virtue, in tune in generosity, and in tune in discernment. Then they will see one another not only in the present life but also in the life to come."

when both are in tune in virtue.
Having followed the Dhamma here in this world,
both in tune in precepts & practices,
they delight in the world of the devas,
enjoying the pleasures they desire.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

If you don't want to interpret, then make sure you have the protector's permission. Seems to be a direct sutta reference.

In his translation of DN 31, the Bhikkhu Sujato appears to have not translated the part about parents marrying their children. According to Pa-Auk, what is this bhikkhu's future destination? What is this bhikkhu's future course?

Parents served by the children in these five ways show compassion to them in five ways.

Imehi kho, gahapatiputta, pañcahi ṭhānehi puttena puratthimā disā mātāpitaro paccupaṭṭhitā pañcahi ṭhānehi puttaṃ anukampanti.

They keep them from doing bad. They support them in doing good. They train them in a profession. They transfer the inheritance in good time.

Pāpā nivārenti, kalyāṇe nivesenti, sippaṃ sikkhāpenti, patirūpena dārena saṃyojenti, samaye dāyajjaṃ niyyādenti.

patirūpena = fit; proper; suitable; befitting.
dārena = a wife; wives.
saṃyojenti = joins; combines; binds.
https://suttacentral.net/dn31/en/sujato

[dharmacorps]

I'm comfortable with my understanding of the precept, and unless you see fit to start a meta-discussion over my posts on other threads, I don't think anything I have said contradicts these suttas you listed nor is it my interest to do so.

[DooDoot]

I'm comfortable with my understanding of the precept, and unless you see fit to start a meta-discussion over my posts on other threads, I don't think anything I have said contradicts these suttas you listed nor is it my interest to do so.

Personally, I am unsure exactly what you said (apart from disagree with the OP).

[santa100]

In his translation of DN 31, the Bhikkhu Sujato appears to have not translated the part about parents marrying their children. According to Pa-Auk, what is this bhikkhu's future destination? What is this bhikkhu's future course?

Good catch. Let's hope it was just some unintentional error on his side. Anyway, I've requested them to correct it through their contact email at: [email protected]

[AgarikaJ]

In his translation of DN 31, the Bhikkhu Sujato appears to have not translated the part about parents marrying their children. According to Pa-Auk, what is this bhikkhu's future destination? What is this bhikkhu's future course?

Parents served by the children in these five ways show compassion to them in five ways.

Imehi kho, gahapatiputta, pañcahi ṭhānehi puttena puratthimā disā mātāpitaro paccupaṭṭhitā pañcahi ṭhānehi puttaṃ anukampanti.

They keep them from doing bad. They support them in doing good. They train them in a profession. They transfer the inheritance in good time.

Pāpā nivārenti, kalyāṇe nivesenti, sippaṃ sikkhāpenti, patirūpena dārena saṃyojenti, samaye dāyajjaṃ niyyādenti.

patirūpena = fit; proper; suitable; befitting.
dārena = a wife; wives.
saṃyojenti = joins; combines; binds.
https://suttacentral.net/dn31/en/sujato

[/quote]

There is an interesting commentary on this, here:
https://learning.pariyatti.org/mod/page/view.php?id=804

"[15] The guidance for parents to find their son a suitable wife: ‘patirūpena dārena saṃyojenti’ – is highlighted by the commentary: ‘Patirūpenāti kulasīlarūpādīhi anurūpena’ – suitable in accordance to the family, their morality, representation and so forth’"

Even though marriage is not organized in the same way as it is (often still) in Asia, I am of no doubt that parents would have difficulties accepting a life partner to their children who is obviously unsuitable.

This statement is further qualified in the commentary 'suitable to their morality' which to my mind expresses a cultural and social leeway, how exactly a suitable partner for one's children has to be found. This is not a dictat of arranged marriage, this is a strong appeal for parents to take a guiding interest in the future life situation of their offspring (as always, I see the 'good intention' of the parent being the guiding principle).

As such I believe this to be practiced by the majority of families in western culture, so is not in opposition to what is described in the sutta.

[DooDoot]

This is not a dictat of arranged marriage, this is a strong appeal for parents to take a guiding interest in the future life situation of their offspring (as always, I see the 'good intention' of the parent being the guiding principle). As such I believe this to be practiced by the majority of families in western culture, so is not in opposition to what is described in the sutta.

I agree. Well-explained.

[Dhammanando]

I thought I would post the article here. It should be a classical take on the third precept, but because wrong information has been been spreading for the past 50 years in the West, you will question heavily what I write.

Bhante,

Having now read your article, I am certainly one of those who would question what you write. I question it, however, not because it's at odds with what is popularly taught by Buddhist teachers in the West, but because it's both textually and historically uninformed, with no citations provided in support of one its most pivotal contentions. I refer here (as Sam Vara did earlier in this thread) to your claim that a woman should be considered "guarded by her father [mother, brothers, etc.]" so long as she remains an unmarried woman and these people are still living. That is, she will still be piturakkhitā, māturakkhitā, etc., even if she has left home, obtained employment and established an independent life for herself. Your argument up to now seems to amount to no more than: "This is what modern Asian Theravādins believe, so it must be right." But this just won't do. In the Kathāvatthu we can find at least twenty views that were rejected as heretical at the Third Council, but which are nowadays widely believed in Asian Theravādin countries; in some cases even widely believed by learned ajahns and sayadaws.

Furthermore, I question what you say because my own investigation (admittedly many years ago) of the terms piturakkhitā, māturakkhitā, etc., led me to quite different conclusions. I began by surveying every occurrence of these terms in the Tipiṭaka, Atthakathā and Ṭīkā, and then ventured further afield by examining their use in Jainist sūtras and Brahminical legal texts. My conclusions, in brief, were:

1. Guardianship of the X-rakkhitā type is limited to custodial situations. That is, if Susan is not regularly domiciled with X, then she cannot be said to be X-rakkhitā.

2. The view of modern Asian Theravādins that you champion is not only not supported in the Pali Buddhist texts, it's not even supported in the (far more paternalistic) Brahminical works like the Dharmaśāstra or Medhātithi's commentary to the Laws of Manu.

3. I strongly suspect that the modern Asian view is a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it. In bygone ages the normal practice was that a daughter would reside at home until her menstrual cycle began and would then be wedded off at the earliest opportunity. But now we have parents who want to send their daughters away to college (which may entail their going away to another city or country) and yet they retain an emotional need for ownership and control of their daughters. To get the best of both worlds they've invented the fiction that piturakkhitā-ship is for life.

[TRobinson465]

^Yes i agree with this. 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 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.

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. Based on a passage where God commanded someone to impregnate his recently deceased brothers wife so he would have an heir and he pulled out and God smited him or something. Im pretty sure the birth control thing was just an invention created later by priests who just thought it should be a sin. So this happens in religion all the time.

[bksubhuti]

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.