watching porn can be adultery?

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: watching porn can be adultery?

Post by culaavuso » Fri Jan 16, 2015 8:56 pm

Mkoll wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:Anyhow it is a Dukkata offence found in the first Sanghadisesa.
I took a brief look at the 13 saṃghādisesas on this site but couldn't find it. Can you tell me where it is?
Bhikkhu Vibhaṅga: Saṅghādisesā 1 wrote: At one time a certain monk, being lustful, stared at the private parts of a woman and semen was emitted. … “There is no offence entailing suspension. But when filled with lust one should not stare at the private parts of a woman. If one does, there is an offence of bad conduct.”
It's interesting to note that Saṅghādisesā 1 is a rule specifically about the emission of semen, and the dukkaṭa requires the emission of semen. The lesser penalty appears to be due to a lack of physical effort to bring about the result.

Another interesting consideration is that while Saṅghādisesā 1 is a rather serious offense for monks, it is not necessarily contrary to the five precepts at all. A dukkaṭa is minor compared to a saṅghādisesā offense, and so in the context of the five precepts this appears to mean it would be minor relative to a non-offense.

While the five precepts are a matter of virtue (AN 8.25), watching with passion and lust would seem to be a matter of sense restraint (MN 107).

User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6504
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: Texas

Re: watching porn can be adultery?

Post by Mkoll » Fri Jan 16, 2015 9:03 pm

culaavuso wrote:
Mkoll wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:Anyhow it is a Dukkata offence found in the first Sanghadisesa.
I took a brief look at the 13 saṃghādisesas on this site but couldn't find it. Can you tell me where it is?
Bhikkhu Vibhaṅga: Saṅghādisesā 1 wrote: At one time a certain monk, being lustful, stared at the private parts of a woman and semen was emitted. … “There is no offence entailing suspension. But when filled with lust one should not stare at the private parts of a woman. If one does, there is an offence of bad conduct.”
It's interesting to note that Saṅghādisesā 1 is a rule specifically about the emission of semen, and the dukkaṭa requires the emission of semen. The lesser penalty appears to be due to a lack of physical effort to bring about the result.

Another interesting consideration is that while Saṅghādisesā 1 is a rather serious offense for monks, it is not necessarily contrary to the five precepts at all. A dukkaṭa is minor compared to a saṅghādisesā offense, and so in the context of the five precepts this appears to mean it would be minor relative to a non-offense.

While the five precepts are a matter of virtue (AN 8.25), watching with passion and lust would seem to be a matter of sense restraint (MN 107).
Thanks and :goodpost:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6637
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: watching porn can be adultery?

Post by Cittasanto » Fri Jan 16, 2015 10:46 pm

Hi Mkoll,
Had to chop the quoted discussion slightly so sorry, but everyone please read Mkoll's previous post for proper context.
Mkoll wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:If we limit our practice to guidance only aimed at laypeople we ignore guidance that may be relevant for changes in circumstances from the textuse context.
I'm not saying it's not relevant. I'm just saying that copying monks' rules and directly attaching them to the precepts for laymen doesn't always work. For example, monks aren't supposed to touch women. Should we apply that rule to the third precept for laymen? Of course not!
And how about this rule? I kept an earlier comment I made just to point out that it is relevant guidance I have been on about, not irrelevant to context. It seems you looked at the unworkable rules and decided all are incompatible.
Mkoll wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:Anyhow it is a Dukkata offence found in the first Sanghadisesa.
I took a brief look at the 13 saṃghādisesas on this site but couldn't find it. Can you tell me where it is?
You would need the actual vinaya texts but more specifically the sections I.B. Horner didn't render into english.
sanghādisesa 1. Translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote:(40) On one occasion a certain bhikkhu, filled with lust, stared at the private parts of a woman and semen was emitted: “There is no āpatti of sanghādisesa, bhikkhu. But when filled with lust you should not stare at the private parts of a woman. Whoever should stare commits an āpatti of Dukkaṭa.”
or as rendered by
Petra Kieffer-Pülz wrote:Now at one time a certain monk, sexually aroused, while meditating about the sexual organ of a woman, emitted semen. He was remorseful. “Monk, this is not an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order.”3
“Monks, one who is sexually aroused should not meditate about the sexual organ (angajāta) of a woman. [If] one meditates [in that way, it] is an offence of wrong-doing.”4 ||12||
Kind Regards
Cittasanto
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6637
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: watching porn can be adultery?

Post by Cittasanto » Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:00 pm

Here is what Thanissaro writes about this rule in BMC1
One case that does not fulfill the factor of effort, according to the Vinitavatthu,
is when one is filled with lust and stares at the private parts of a woman
or girl. In the case dealing with this contingency, the bhikkhu emits semen, but
again the Buddha does not ask whether he intended to. Instead, he lays down a
separate rule, imposing a dukka˛a for staring lustfully at a woman’s private
parts. This suggests that efforts with one’s eyes do not count as bodily efforts
under this saºgh›disesa rule, for otherwise the penalty would have been a
saºgh›disesa if the bhikkhu had intended emission, and no offense—not a
dukka˛a—if he hadn’t. And this also suggests that the dukka˛a under this
separate rule holds regardless of intention or result. The Commentary adds that
this dukka˛a applies also to staring lustfully at the genitals of a female animal or
at the area of a fully-clothed woman’s body where her sexual organ is, thinking,
“Her sexual organ is there.” At present we would impose the penalty on a
bhikkhu who stares lustfully at a woman’s private parts in a pornographic
photograph.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6637
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: watching porn can be adultery?

Post by Cittasanto » Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:04 pm

culaavuso wrote:
Bhikkhu Vibhaṅga: Saṅghādisesā 1 wrote: At one time a certain monk, being lustful, stared at the private parts of a woman and semen was emitted. … “There is no offence entailing suspension. But when filled with lust one should not stare at the private parts of a woman. If one does, there is an offence of bad conduct.”
I did not realise the sections I.B. Horner left untranslated were available there thank-you.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6504
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: Texas

Re: watching porn can be adultery?

Post by Mkoll » Sat Jan 17, 2015 1:00 am

Cittasanto wrote:Hi Mkoll,
Had to chop the quoted discussion slightly so sorry, but everyone please read Mkoll's previous post for proper context.
Mkoll wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:If we limit our practice to guidance only aimed at laypeople we ignore guidance that may be relevant for changes in circumstances from the textuse context.
I'm not saying it's not relevant. I'm just saying that copying monks' rules and directly attaching them to the precepts for laymen doesn't always work. For example, monks aren't supposed to touch women. Should we apply that rule to the third precept for laymen? Of course not!
And how about this rule? I kept an earlier comment I made just to point out that it is relevant guidance I have been on about, not irrelevant to context. It seems you looked at the unworkable rules and decided all are incompatible.
Mkoll wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:Anyhow it is a Dukkata offence found in the first Sanghadisesa.
I took a brief look at the 13 saṃghādisesas on this site but couldn't find it. Can you tell me where it is?
You would need the actual vinaya texts but more specifically the sections I.B. Horner didn't render into english.
sanghādisesa 1. Translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote:(40) On one occasion a certain bhikkhu, filled with lust, stared at the private parts of a woman and semen was emitted: “There is no āpatti of sanghādisesa, bhikkhu. But when filled with lust you should not stare at the private parts of a woman. Whoever should stare commits an āpatti of Dukkaṭa.”
or as rendered by
Petra Kieffer-Pülz wrote:Now at one time a certain monk, sexually aroused, while meditating about the sexual organ of a woman, emitted semen. He was remorseful. “Monk, this is not an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order.”3
“Monks, one who is sexually aroused should not meditate about the sexual organ (angajāta) of a woman. [If] one meditates [in that way, it] is an offence of wrong-doing.”4 ||12||
Kind Regards
Cittasanto
I'm sorry, but I'm not clear what you're saying here.

My main point is that what you said earlier ("voyeurism in the texts which is also a breach of the precept") is not mentioned in the wording of the precept ("He engages in sensual misconduct. He gets sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man") as a breach.

To get back to the OP, watching porn cannot be adultery because adultery is defined as:
"Consensual sexual intercourse between a married person and a person other than the spouse."
-American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.

Other definitions all have some form of sexual relations outside of marriage in common.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6637
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: watching porn can be adultery?

Post by Cittasanto » Sat Jan 17, 2015 9:38 am

Mkoll wrote:I'm sorry, but I'm not clear what you're saying here.
what are you unclear about?
My main point is that what you said earlier ("voyeurism in the texts which is also a breach of the precept") is not mentioned in the wording of the precept ("He engages in sensual misconduct. He gets sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man") as a breach.
And as I tried to explain, we live in a different context, and interpretation of the rules we choose to live by needs to be informed by precedence, similarity.... but you seem unwilling to look at any vinaya rule for usefulness in understanding a rule in a different context from the textual origins, which clearly is different.

To get back to the OP, watching porn cannot be adultery because adultery is defined as:
"Consensual sexual intercourse between a married person and a person other than the spouse."
-American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.

Other definitions all have some form of sexual relations outside of marriage in common.[/quote]
there is the famous saying by Jesus in Matthew. which does ring bells with Dhammapada 1&2. and how a male in your definition of the precept is easily able to have sex with someone other than their partner by going with a single unprotected... woman.

Kind Regards
Cittasanto
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

spiral
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 2:53 pm

Re: watching porn can be adultery?

Post by spiral » Sat Jan 17, 2015 3:06 pm

re: "amateur" porn and "consent" - can one ever really know?

User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 2984
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: watching porn can be adultery?

Post by Modus.Ponens » Sat Jan 17, 2015 5:01 pm

spiral wrote:re: "amateur" porn and "consent" - can one ever really know?
No, we can't.

Should we assume that every homevideo is rape? I think that doesn't make much sense. I'm not saying it's not possible and there are probably some homevideos which are coherced sexual activity. But if we always take the stance of "What if this was done imoraly?" towards anything, we will ultimately not get out of the house, or not move. So we should exercise our judgement when watching homevideos.
"He turns his mind away from those phenomena and, having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' " - Jhana Sutta

User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6504
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: Texas

Re: watching porn can be adultery?

Post by Mkoll » Sat Jan 17, 2015 9:27 pm

Cittasanto wrote:
I've made my point and I'm quite weary of your accusations and assumptions. So I think I'll leave it at that.

:hello:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa

spiral
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 2:53 pm

Re: watching porn can be adultery?

Post by spiral » Sun Jan 18, 2015 1:06 am

Modus.Ponens wrote:
spiral wrote:re: "amateur" porn and "consent" - can one ever really know?
No, we can't.

Should we assume that every homevideo is rape? I think that doesn't make much sense. I'm not saying it's not possible and there are probably some homevideos which are coherced sexual activity. But if we always take the stance of "What if this was done imoraly?" towards anything, we will ultimately not get out of the house, or not move. So we should exercise our judgement when watching homevideos.
I think you have exaggerated what I am saying. I will not attempt to discuss with someone who is trying to put words in my mouth.

Shaswata_Panja
Posts: 195
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 5:49 pm

Re: watching porn can be adultery?

Post by Shaswata_Panja » Sun Jan 18, 2015 2:44 am

Watching Porn will eventually cause you Porn-Induced Erectile Dysfunction..I am pretty sure if you are watching porn you donot achieve the same level or duration of erection as before, leaving both you and your partner unfulfilled..donot watch porn or masturbate, this almost gurantees great sex with your partner or if you are single , the unresolved sexual energy will force you to approach pretty girls (yes you will see yourself doing cold approaches on the some busy street) and ask for a date..eventually after may be 20, or 50 or 100 approaches you will find a girl who suits you..So both ways its a win win situation..by the way not masturbating and not having sex gives you greater energy for meditation... :toast: :toast: :toast: :twothumbsup:

User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 2984
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: watching porn can be adultery?

Post by Modus.Ponens » Sun Jan 18, 2015 3:52 am

spiral wrote: I think you have exaggerated what I am saying. I will not attempt to discuss with someone who is trying to put words in my mouth.
Yes, I used hyporbole.

To clarify, my intention was to say that if we question the morality of things we are just indirectly involved with, we end up worrying with things we cannot change. If we do it with amateur homemade porn, we should also do it with eating meat, with using products coming from China (where slavery is not uncommon), with eating chocolate (one of the big producers of the chocolate plant uses child slaves), etc., etc.

On another point, don't assume the worse of people on this forum. As you can see, I just clarified my position and I had no intention of manipulating your discourse to meet some kind of private agenda. It was just a misplaced hyperbole.
"He turns his mind away from those phenomena and, having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' " - Jhana Sutta

lotus flower
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:04 pm

Re: watching porn can be adultery?

Post by lotus flower » Sun Apr 12, 2015 9:41 am

Some persons says porn is not adultery, some says it can be adultery. What if the porn star has a boyfriend/girlfriend while someone watch the porn star's porn video and masturbate? Adultery?
We found the teaching of the Buddha. Be grateful for it... We can meditate... Be grateful for it... We know that this universe is the samsara. Be grateful for it... We have THE CHANCE TO ATTAIN NIBBANA. Be grateful for it... :buddha1: :buddha2:

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 5666
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: watching porn can be adultery?

Post by Sam Vara » Sun Apr 12, 2015 12:10 pm

lotus flower wrote:Some persons says porn is not adultery, some says it can be adultery. What if the porn star has a boyfriend/girlfriend while someone watch the porn star's porn video and masturbate? Adultery?
According to all legal and dictionary definitions, what you describe is not adultery.
adultery
[uh-duhl-tuh-ree]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
noun, plural adulteries.
1.
voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse.
It might be unskillful or unwholesome or unwise, of course, but that is a different matter.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests