watching porn can be adultery?

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
User avatar
khlawng
Posts: 225
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:28 pm

Re: watching porn can be adultery?

Post by khlawng »

spiral wrote: ... And all in all I cannot imagine someone watching porn, cleaning up and then pulling out the zafu for an hour of meditation with any amount of sincerity...
lust as a tanha is no different from greed or hatred.
each individual have those difficult to root cravings which takes time and effort to overcome.
meditation allows us to id these cravings and gradually overcome them.
for most people, certain cravings are easy to overcome and others takes effort and time.

As your meditation progress, those easy to overcome cravings are first to go.
but that leaves quite a big void for the rest of the cravings to fill.
which means, one may find themselves back tracking on certain bad habits before overcoming them.
but the key is not to give up and continue patiently with resilience.
as your wisdom grows, you will be able to navigate around these tanhas and destroy them eventually.

my point is one should continue placing effort in meditating sincerely no matter what cravings one suffers from.

User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 3111
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: watching porn can be adultery?

Post by Modus.Ponens »

khlawng wrote:
spiral wrote: ... And all in all I cannot imagine someone watching porn, cleaning up and then pulling out the zafu for an hour of meditation with any amount of sincerity...
lust as a tanha is no different from greed or hatred.
each individual have those difficult to root cravings which takes time and effort to overcome.
meditation allows us to id these cravings and gradually overcome them.
for most people, certain cravings are easy to overcome and others takes effort and time.

As your meditation progress, those easy to overcome cravings are first to go.
but that leaves quite a big void for the rest of the cravings to fill.
which means, one may find themselves back tracking on certain bad habits before overcoming them.
but the key is not to give up and continue patiently with resilience.
as your wisdom grows, you will be able to navigate around these tanhas and destroy them eventually.

my point is one should continue placing effort in meditating sincerely no matter what cravings one suffers from.
That is very inspiring. Thank you.
"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
Cittasanto
Posts: 6636
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: watching porn can be adultery?

Post by Cittasanto »

Hi,
Adultery (for the one who has undertaken the precept being... and in a committed & exclusive relationship) would be against the third precept. porn would be considered akin to voyeurism in the texts which is also a breach of the precept, however I am uncertain if it would be a full breach. I believe the relevant rule is in the sanghadisesa collection of rules.

It is up to the each party to understand the limitations of their relationship with their partner and what the other considers inappropriate as times have changed and etiquette in this area is different for different people. Having a temporary spouse (possibly swinging) wouldn't necessarily constitute a breach of the precept as the texts mention wives hiring coresans for their husband for while they are away...

This is a delicate area for couples and we should know what our partner is more than comfortable with (and not).

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
Mkoll
Posts: 6541
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: Texas

Re: watching porn can be adultery?

Post by Mkoll »

Cittasanto wrote:porn would be considered akin to voyeurism in the texts which is also a breach of the precept, however I am uncertain if it would be a full breach.
Hi Cittasanto,

Can you reference the text you've mentioned? Is it in the Vinaya?

:thanks:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa

User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 3111
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: watching porn can be adultery?

Post by Modus.Ponens »

Cittasanto wrote:Hi,
Adultery (for the one who has undertaken the precept being... and in a committed & exclusive relationship) would be against the third precept. porn would be considered akin to voyeurism in the texts which is also a breach of the precept, however I am uncertain if it would be a full breach. I believe the relevant rule is in the sanghadisesa collection of rules.

It is up to the each party to understand the limitations of their relationship with their partner and what the other considers inappropriate as times have changed and etiquette in this area is different for different people. Having a temporary spouse (possibly swinging) wouldn't necessarily constitute a breach of the precept as the texts mention wives hiring coresans for their husband for while they are away...

This is a delicate area for couples and we should know what our partner is more than comfortable with (and not).

Kind regards
Cittasanto
Hello.

I don't know the implications of voyerism on the 3rd pprecept. But isn't voyerism to watch without permission, while porn is watching with the permission of the actors?

Metta
"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
Cittasanto
Posts: 6636
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: watching porn can be adultery?

Post by Cittasanto »

Hi Avuso
Modus.Ponens wrote: Hello.

I don't know the implications of voyerism on the 3rd pprecept. But isn't voyerism to watch without permission, while porn is watching with the permission of the actors?

Metta
It is either.

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
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 3111
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: watching porn can be adultery?

Post by Modus.Ponens »

:anjali:
"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
Cittasanto
Posts: 6636
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: watching porn can be adultery?

Post by Cittasanto »

Hi Mkoll
Mkoll wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:porn would be considered akin to voyeurism in the texts which is also a breach of the precept, however I am uncertain if it would be a full breach.
Hi Cittasanto,

Can you reference the text you've mentioned? Is it in the Vinaya?

:thanks:
Like I said I think it is a sanghadisesa, maybe found in the first parajika rule but I am uncertain, and would need to look. but after a search for voyeur I con not find it, but I know gazing upon the opposite sex and the act itself are in the rules.
As I am going to bed send me a message to remind me when I get home tomorrow

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
Mkoll
Posts: 6541
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: Texas

Re: watching porn can be adultery?

Post by Mkoll »

Cittasanto wrote:Hi Mkoll
Mkoll wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:porn would be considered akin to voyeurism in the texts which is also a breach of the precept, however I am uncertain if it would be a full breach.
Hi Cittasanto,

Can you reference the text you've mentioned? Is it in the Vinaya?

:thanks:
Like I said I think it is a sanghadisesa, maybe found in the first parajika rule but I am uncertain, and would need to look. but after a search for voyeur I con not find it, but I know gazing upon the opposite sex and the act itself are in the rules.
As I am going to bed send me a message to remind me when I get home tomorrow

Kind regards
Cittasanto
What I was getting at is that what you're referring to is a rule for monks. As far as laymen are concerned, this is the only stock passage that I know of that explains what sexual misconduct is, i.e. what a breach of the third precept is. Here, the Buddha is talking to Cunda the householder.
AN 10.176 wrote:"And how is one made impure in three ways by bodily action? There is the case where a certain person takes life, is a hunter, bloody-handed, devoted to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings. He takes what is not given. He takes, in the manner of a thief, things in a village or a wilderness that belong to others and have not been given by them. 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. This is how one is made impure in three ways by bodily action.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6636
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: watching porn can be adultery?

Post by Cittasanto »

Hi Mkoll,
Ok, just to point out, many non vineya texts only reference monks should we only look at texts that are directed to laypeople and ignore any directed to monks?. But where does it say a man can't have multiple partners at the same time? The texts them selves indicate that a man can, but not a woman.
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. Not to mention I would consider polygamy or multiple partners a breech of the precept for men today.


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
Anagarika
Posts: 915
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:25 pm

Re: watching porn can be adultery?

Post by Anagarika »

Watching porn is not adultery by definition. One interpretation of the lay training rule is Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami, "I undertake the course of training in refraining from wrong-doing in respect of sensuality."

Watching porn may involve wrongdoing on a number of levels. It is unskillful activity of mind, focusing on fantasy objects and acts of played out sex, vs. stilling the mind and cultivating skillful insights. Watching porn while in a committed relationship potentially creates a barrier between a person and that person's partner, where sexual gratification comes from a source other than the partner; that is unskillful. Some people by mutual consent implement porn into their partnered lives and use it to elevate their mutual sexual experiences. However, this ignores the fact that many of the participants in porn videos do so through ignorance, or force, or coercion. Some actresses that have left the porn business say that they drugged themselves just to get through the experiences with numbed minds. There have been cases of some young people pulled into porn for need of money, and then, despondent, killed themselves, when the videos went viral to their parents or their school.

It seems to me that in 98 percent of the cases, watching porn is unskillful, and harmful. It may not be adultery per se, but it can be very much part of a chain of harmful causality, and best avoided.

User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 3111
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: watching porn can be adultery?

Post by Modus.Ponens »

Anagarika wrote:Watching porn is not adultery by definition. One interpretation of the lay training rule is Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami, "I undertake the course of training in refraining from wrong-doing in respect of sensuality."

Watching porn may involve wrongdoing on a number of levels. It is unskillful activity of mind, focusing on fantasy objects and acts of played out sex, vs. stilling the mind and cultivating skillful insights. Watching porn while in a committed relationship potentially creates a barrier between a person and that person's partner, where sexual gratification comes from a source other than the partner; that is unskillful. Some people by mutual consent implement porn into their partnered lives and use it to elevate their mutual sexual experiences. However, this ignores the fact that many of the participants in porn videos do so through ignorance, or force, or coercion. Some actresses that have left the porn business say that they drugged themselves just to get through the experiences with numbed minds. There have been cases of some young people pulled into porn for need of money, and then, despondent, killed themselves, when the videos went viral to their parents or their school.

It seems to me that in 98 percent of the cases, watching porn is unskillful, and harmful. It may not be adultery per se, but it can be very much part of a chain of harmful causality, and best avoided.
Sorry for the detail, but perhaps homemade amateur pornography eliminates most of the ethical problems with the actresses and actors involved.
"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: 6541
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: Texas

Re: watching porn can be adultery?

Post by Mkoll »

Cittasanto wrote:Hi Mkoll,
Ok, just to point out, many non vineya texts only reference monks should we only look at texts that are directed to laypeople and ignore any directed to monks?.
One is free to look at whatever texts one wants.
Cittasanto wrote:But where does it say a man can't have multiple partners at the same time? The texts them selves indicate that a man can, but not a woman.
It seems that men having multiple partners at a given time was not an uncommon practice in the Buddha's time and place, especially among kings and, I'd assume, others of high status. It also seems uncommon then, and still today, that women want multiple partners at a given time. I'd say this is due to biology and the biological concept of sexual selection.
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 never said we should only only look at guidance aimed at laypeople. But I would say that taking monks' Vinaya rules and applying them to laymen, which is what it appears you're trying to do here, isn't always appropriate.
Cittasanto wrote:Not to mention I would consider polygamy or multiple partners a breech of the precept for men today.
I'd agree that it's certainly breaking the spirit of the precept. I'd say it's breaking the letter of the precept only in places where it is illegal, which happens to be most of the world.

And just to be clear, I'm not advocating or trying to excuse watching pornography or polygamy or anything of the sort.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6636
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: watching porn can be adultery?

Post by Cittasanto »

Hi Mkoll,
Mkoll wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:Hi Mkoll,
Ok, just to point out, many non vineya texts only reference monks should we only look at texts that are directed to laypeople and ignore any directed to monks?.
One is free to look at whatever texts one wants.
OK
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 never said we should only only look at guidance aimed at laypeople. But I would say that taking monks' Vinaya rules and applying them to laymen, which is what it appears you're trying to do here, isn't always appropriate.
So not all references to voyeurism as a breach of a rule within the canon are relevant to a discussion on voyeurism as a breach of the precepts for laypeople? I wonder if the great standard is relevant? because the question at hand is one on voyeurism.

Anyhow it is a Dukkata offence found in the first Sanghadisesa.
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
Mkoll
Posts: 6541
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: Texas

Re: watching porn can be adultery?

Post by Mkoll »

Cittasanto wrote:
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 never said we should only only look at guidance aimed at laypeople. But I would say that taking monks' Vinaya rules and applying them to laymen, which is what it appears you're trying to do here, isn't always appropriate.
So not all references to voyeurism as a breach of a rule within the canon are relevant to a discussion on voyeurism as a breach of the precepts for laypeople? I wonder if the great standard is relevant? because the question at hand is one on voyeurism.
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!
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?
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa

Post Reply