Womanizing?

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
SarathW
Posts: 9039
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Womanizing?

Post by SarathW » Mon Dec 29, 2014 10:40 pm

The test to be applied here may be:

"What makes any kamma unwholesome is the mental states associated with it. If there is anger or ill-will, then it's unwholesome (akusala)".

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 95#p323617" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Should we include "delusion" as well?

PS: I like to know what Bhante Pesala's openion on this.

:thinking:
Last edited by SarathW on Mon Dec 29, 2014 11:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 2703
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Womanizing?

Post by Modus.Ponens » Mon Dec 29, 2014 11:04 pm

This is a can of worms the size of an olympic pool. I will only post if the moderators say it's ok to proceed with the discussion, or put this in the DW hot topics. I just closed a can of worms and don't want to open an even bigger one.
"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

perkele
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:37 pm

Re: Womanizing?

Post by perkele » Mon Dec 29, 2014 11:32 pm

SarathW wrote:The test to be applied here may be:

"What makes any kamma unwholesome is the mental states associated with it. If there is anger or ill-will, then it's unwholesome (akusala)".
And of course there would always be lust involved in "womanizing" of any kind. So, of course it would be largely unwholesome. I cannot understand the point of your ruminations.
Ven. Dhammanando has given straightforward answers to straightforward questions. You could say they are "legalistic". That doesn't invalidate them in any way, but quite to the contrary makes them perfectly clear.

I can't but suspect that there may be a language barrier here that somehow causes misunderstandings in the communication. Otherwise I can't quite get my head around the direction the thread is going.

@Sarath: Perhaps you can make your point clearer, what it is that you are asking? What is it that you want to know?
Modus.Ponens wrote:This is a can of worms the size of an olympic pool. I will only post if the moderators say it's ok to proceed with the discussion, or put this in the DW hot topics. I just closed a can of worms and don't want to open an even bigger one.
@Modus: The thread is about womanizing, not wormanizing. Just in case that you got confused about the topic. :idea:

I wonder what more speculation about possible cicumstances and conditions, of prositutes, human trafficking, etc. etc. or whatever one could bring up in relation to this would be of further help here? The thread asked what the Buddha had to say about womanizing in general and how it is viewed in relation to the five precepts specifically. Straightforward answers were given, by pointing to the Parabhava Sutta concerning the habit of "womanizing" in general, and by clarifying the extent of the third precept.

:shrug:

It is clear that prostitution is a dirty business, and there might be many more and clearly immoral things going on around it than just the paid sex. But that was not the subject of this thread.

:anjali:
Last edited by perkele on Mon Dec 29, 2014 11:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 2703
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Womanizing?

Post by Modus.Ponens » Mon Dec 29, 2014 11:39 pm

perkele wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote:This is a can of worms the size of an olympic pool. I will only post if the moderators say it's ok to proceed with the discussion, or put this in the DW hot topics. I just closed a can of worms and don't want to open an even bigger one.
@Modus: The thread is about womanizing, not wormanizing. Just in case that you got confused about the topic.
Do you have any suggestion of how I could have a more respectful intervention before posting my opinion on the present aspect of the topic at hand?
"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

perkele
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:37 pm

Re: Womanizing?

Post by perkele » Mon Dec 29, 2014 11:50 pm

Modus.Ponens wrote:Do you have any suggestion of how I could have a more respectful intervention before posting my opinion on the present aspect of the topic at hand?
Sorry. I was just making light fun. I did not want to be offensive or disrespectful and I apologize if it was felt like that. Maybe I should restrain myself more when I spot the opportunity for some silly, corny pun.

To answer your question: No, I don't have any suggestion for an intervention. My suggestion would be to just say what's on your mind without any intervention if you think it is useful and brings clarity to the topic.

:anjali:

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

Re: Womanizing?

Post by Anagarika » Tue Dec 30, 2014 1:16 am

Bhante's comment, to me, is a correct understanding of the precept. Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami, "I undertake the training rule in refraining from wrong-doing in respect of sensuality." This suggests to me, for laypeople, an element of inquiry into harm and intention as the qualifiers.

The If people wish to take the meaning of the proscription, and extend it beyond the strict letter of the "law," then you're into a discussion of skillful vs. unskillful behaviors, and whether engaging in sexual acts with a willing partner for money is bright, neutral, or dark kamma. If you believe that the person with whom you are to have sex is being forced into the act, or you feel that in general, there is a backstory of neglect or abuse behind every sex worker, then it is better that one refrains from any willing sex with another for money, as it may involve, even unwittingly, the cultivation of harm.

From Walsh: "Many people, coming from a more or less Christian background with at least some puritanical overtones, find the true Buddhist attitude to this problem rather difficult to see. Perhaps they have never even been given a clear explanation of it or, if they have, it may have seemed too technical for them, and they have not grasped the point. The point, in fact, is of considerable importance, so it is worthwhile attempting to make it clear. It involves a proper elementary grasp of what is meant by kamma — something which many people, who may have been "Buddhists" for years, have never had."

If the "one night stand" leaves you, and/or your partner, with a feeling of emptiness or regret, then perhaps you're not cultivating bright kamma. This does not violate the lay third precept, but as a practitioner on the path, it's up to you to decide the brightness of the kamma.

As an eight preceptor, my decision making is easier than that of the five preceptor.

User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6417
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California

Re: Womanizing?

Post by Mkoll » Tue Dec 30, 2014 1:46 am

Mkoll wrote:
Dhammanando wrote:
santa100 wrote:Hold on Bhante, are you saying Buddhist men can freely have sex with prostitutes and still their observance of the third precept remains intact?
Yes.

And Buddhist women with gigolos, if they're so inclined.
What if it's a prostitute who is a sex slave and the trick either doesn't know or asks about her condition and she lies and says she is free because that's what her owners told her to say, fearing to tell the truth because of the threat of violence?

With all due respect, I think you're getting into very muddy water if you're responding to such an open-ended question with a blanket "yes" with no caveats.
Apparently I didn't read santa100's post carefully enough. It definitely wasn't an open-ended question but a very specific one. :embarassed:

Regardless, such action would not be in accordance with the Dhamma in certain situations such as the one I described, which is probably why I responded negatively to Bhante's concise response.
MN 41 wrote:8. "And how are there three kinds of bodily conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct? Here someone is a killer of living beings: he is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, and merciless to all living beings. He is a taker of what is not given: he takes as a thief another's chattels and property in the village or in the forest. He is given over to misconduct in sexual desires: he has intercourse with such (women) as are protected by the mother, father, (mother and father), brother, sister, relatives, as have a husband, as entail a penalty, and also with those that are garlanded in token of betrothal. That is how there are three kinds of bodily conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa

User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 2703
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Womanizing?

Post by Modus.Ponens » Tue Dec 30, 2014 2:39 am

Anagarika wrote:Bhante's comment, to me, is a correct understanding of the precept. Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami, "I undertake the training rule in refraining from wrong-doing in respect of sensuality." This suggests to me, for laypeople, an element of inquiry into harm and intention as the qualifiers.

The If people wish to take the meaning of the proscription, and extend it beyond the strict letter of the "law," then you're into a discussion of skillful vs. unskillful behaviors, and whether engaging in sexual acts with a willing partner for money is bright, neutral, or dark kamma. If you believe that the person with whom you are to have sex is being forced into the act, or you feel that in general, there is a backstory of neglect or abuse behind every sex worker, then it is better that one refrains from any willing sex with another for money, as it may involve, even unwittingly, the cultivation of harm.

From Walsh: "Many people, coming from a more or less Christian background with at least some puritanical overtones, find the true Buddhist attitude to this problem rather difficult to see. Perhaps they have never even been given a clear explanation of it or, if they have, it may have seemed too technical for them, and they have not grasped the point. The point, in fact, is of considerable importance, so it is worthwhile attempting to make it clear. It involves a proper elementary grasp of what is meant by kamma — something which many people, who may have been "Buddhists" for years, have never had."

If the "one night stand" leaves you, and/or your partner, with a feeling of emptiness or regret, then perhaps you're not cultivating bright kamma. This does not violate the lay third precept, but as a practitioner on the path, it's up to you to decide the brightness of the kamma.

As an eight preceptor, my decision making is easier than that of the five preceptor.
I'm glad someone who is skilled in speaking agreeable words, said what I basically wanted to say _ as I would fail to do it agreeably.
"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
Wri
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 4:45 am
Location: United States

Re: Womanizing?

Post by Wri » Tue Dec 30, 2014 3:28 am

To me it seems that womanizing, whether permissible by the precepts or not, is counter-productive to a Buddhist goal and one should not womanize. If one wants to be unconditionally at peace / free from suffering, then one should not depend on sex or "scoring" women to be happy. It makes the mind dependent on certain conditions to be satisfied, which causes suffering in each moment we cannot have what we desire. So, do we need advice from a precept on this issue? I don't think so. It is counter-productive either way.

It also seems to treat women like expendable pleasure objects rather than beings on their own path to enlightenment deserving of compassion. We could say that under all the right conditions, the person being womanized would suffer no harm. But when you are just picking up women quickly as opposed to taking the time to really get to know them and commit to them, we really have no idea how much they are lying or withholding information. We can very well be causing a great deal of harm without knowing it.
Keep your mind steady and rest within the winds of experience.
May I show unconditional love to all beings.

User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 2703
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Womanizing?

Post by Modus.Ponens » Tue Dec 30, 2014 3:43 am

Wri,

You are trivialising sex as a physical activity. We need sex and it's not unimportant for men to have sex just for the sake of sex, even though there's a risk of feelings getting hurt. Our feelings can get hurt too, right? Can't the woman being seduced hide information? Maybe even regarding STDs?
"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
robertk
Posts: 2653
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Womanizing?

Post by robertk » Tue Dec 30, 2014 11:00 am

of course it is not breaking the precept to go with a prostitute.
However there is the case given of a man who tries to buy(outbid) or seduce a prostitute already hired by another man: that is breaking the precept.

SarathW
Posts: 9039
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Womanizing?

Post by SarathW » Tue Dec 30, 2014 11:11 am

Hi Robertk
The way I understand now, precepts are not rules or law.
So there is nothing to be broken.
However if it is unwholesome act you may reap the consequences.
The person might get caught by the police or he may catch STD.
Worst case scenario is,if his wife get to know that, he will be sleeping in the dog's house.
:)
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 2653
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Womanizing?

Post by robertk » Tue Dec 30, 2014 11:18 am

are you talking about kamma or kilesa. Or are you only referring to the precepts?

SarathW
Posts: 9039
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Womanizing?

Post by SarathW » Tue Dec 30, 2014 8:15 pm

I am referring to wrong action which produce unfavourable results.
You can have anything as your precepts.
You may have your own precepts saying "I may refrain from going to prostitutes"
If you break your precepts nobody there to punish you except you reap the result of your action. (good or bad depend on your intention etc)
:thinking:
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 3861
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Ban Sri Pradu Cremation Ground, Phrao District, Chiangmai

Re: Womanizing?

Post by Dhammanando » Tue Dec 30, 2014 11:49 pm

SarathW wrote:The way I understand now, precepts are not rules or law.
So there is nothing to be broken.
That's a non sequitur. The words "kept" and "broken" apply just as well to vowed observances as they do to rules or laws.

SarathW
Posts: 9039
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Womanizing?

Post by SarathW » Wed Dec 31, 2014 12:35 am

Thanks Bhante.
:juggling:
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

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

Re: Womanizing?

Post by Shaswata_Panja » Sat Jan 03, 2015 8:17 am

Dhammanando wrote:
SarathW wrote:When is womanizing would not break the third precept?
For example, a budding Casanova goes to a singles bar every Friday or Saturday night in quest of a woman for a one-night-stand, but takes care not to go home with anyone who's married or engaged or still living in dependence on her parents or brothers, etc. etc. By confining his amatory attentions to women who are not in any of the prohibited classes, the Buddhist philanderer's observance of the third precept remains intact.

Edit: If you are living in Sri Lanka or some other Theravada country, it's possible that my answer will differ from what you are used to being told about the third precept. I am aware of the widespread popular view in Buddhist Asia which, as in the Abrahamic religions, holds all acts of "fornication" (sex between unmarried persons) to be breaches of the third precept. This opinion is not, however, supported in the texts, which allow that lawful sexual acts may be between married persons, engaged persons, "or even a temporary arrangement" (khaṇikāyapi).

I have my answer..Yay! as long as I donot lose my sexual desire through meditation , I might occasionally engage in such behaviour..But regarding pay sex-----other than high-class call girls, it is very difficult to ascertain whether the sex worker you are having sex with has been abused and coerced and forced or not

hermitwin
Posts: 214
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:35 pm

Re: Womanizing?

Post by hermitwin » Sat Jan 03, 2015 8:26 pm

Thank you bhante. I have long thought about this.
Yes, indeed many people confuse prostitution with breaking the precept on sexual misconduct.
I think that a person who asks this type of question is not willing to give up illicit sex yet.
I know many people struggle with this and so did i.

SamBodhi
Posts: 199
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 6:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Womanizing?

Post by SamBodhi » Tue Jan 06, 2015 5:31 am

Dhammanando wrote:
santa100 wrote:Hold on Bhante, are you saying Buddhist men can freely have sex with prostitutes and still their observance of the third precept remains intact?
Yes.

And Buddhist women with gigolos, if they're so inclined.
I think it is important here to note that Ven. Dhammanando is not saying a Buddhist man/woman can freely have sex with any prostitute/gigolo. I imagine there are a number of disqualifying factors, as is the case with any sexual relationship. This may help clarify many of the what-if questions that have arisen.


with Metta,
SamBodhi
"An inward-staying
unentangled knowing,
All outward-going knowing
cast aside."
--Upasika Kee Nanayon

User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 3861
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Ban Sri Pradu Cremation Ground, Phrao District, Chiangmai

Re: Womanizing?

Post by Dhammanando » Tue Jan 06, 2015 5:55 am

SamBodhi wrote:I think it is important here to note that Ven. Dhammanando is not saying a Buddhist man/woman can freely have sex with any prostitute/gigolo. I imagine there are a number of disqualifying factors, as is the case with any sexual relationship. This may help clarify many of the what-if questions that have arisen.
Indeed.

What I said wouldn't apply, for example, in the case mentioned by Robert where the woman is already contracted. Nor would it apply in countries where prostitution is illegal, for in this case a sex-worker would be an improper partner of the saparidaṇḍā type: a woman with whom sex would entail punishment.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests