Womanizing?

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 2802
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: 9581
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: 2802
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: 9581
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: 4028
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: 9581
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: 215
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: 4028
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.

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3348
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Womanizing?

Post by Mr Man » Tue Jan 06, 2015 7:46 am

Dhammanando wrote: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.
And homosexuality in countries where homosexuality is illegal?

User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 4028
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 10:58 am

Mr Man wrote:
Dhammanando wrote: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.
And homosexuality in countries where homosexuality is illegal?
Homosexual acts are not mentioned at all in the Pali texts in connection with the third precept.

Among Buddhist moral writers I have encountered two opinions on what observance of the third precept would entail for a gay Buddhist who takes his sīla seriously.[*] The more common one is that he should simply take the same strictures as would apply to a heterosexual lay Buddhist and apply them to his own orientation. For example, he would refrain from relations with men already attached, men living dependent on their parents, etc. If a gay Buddhist takes this approach then when residing in, or travelling through, countries where homosexuality is illegal, he would regard other men as saparidaṇḍa and refrain from having sex with them.

[*] Or three if you count the Tibetan view that all homosexual acts transgress the third precept.

The other, less common, view is that homosexual acts are not mentioned in connection with the third precept on account of their not being regarded by the ancient Indians as sexual acts at all. It is claimed by some scholars that having oral or anal sex with other men was viewed as simply a recreation, on a par with having a massage or climbing a tree or going for a swim, in which any young batchelor (except a brahmin) might indulge prior to settling down in marriage. If a gay Buddhists adopts this view, then he may not regard any homosexual acts at all as contravening his sīla. Should he happen to live in a country where homosexuality is illegal, whether he would refrain from homosexual sex would depend on whether he acknowledged any religious obligation to obey the law of the land. In the case of a bhikkhu there is an explicit Vinaya obligation to obey the law. According to Namdrol on Dharmawheel there is such an obligation for Buddhist laypeople too, but I’ve never seen this stated in any Pali text.

So those are the two views. My own is preference is for the first, for even if it’s true that the Indians in general didn’t regard homosexual acts as sexual, there seems little doubt that the Buddha did. E.g., in the Vinaya it’s decreed that breaches of chastity between a bhikkhu and another man entail exactly the same class of offence as breaches involving a female.

Coyote
Posts: 845
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:42 pm
Location: Wales - UK

Re: Womanizing?

Post by Coyote » Tue Jan 06, 2015 11:49 am

On the issue of homosexuality I have read that the commentator (ven. Buddhaghosa) considered homosexual acts as being part of the "perverted acts" mentioned in DN 26 leading to the downfall of the world. Interesting that this is the case and yet the canon makes no mention of what constitutes these "perverted acts" or why they are not prohibited for lay people.
"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared."
Iti 26

User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 4028
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 3:11 pm

Coyote wrote:On the issue of homosexuality I have read that the commentator (ven. Buddhaghosa) considered homosexual acts as being part of the "perverted acts" mentioned in DN 26 leading to the downfall of the world.
Yes, though in the case of the Anguttara’s Palokasutta, where one finds the Canon’s only other occurrence of micchādhamma in conjunction with adhammarāga and visamalobha, the commentator glosses it more vaguely, saying nothing about homosexuality.

Coyote wrote:Interesting that this is the case and yet the canon makes no mention of what constitutes these "perverted acts" or why they are not prohibited for lay people.
Whatever it might be, the micchādhamma mentioned in the Cakkavattī-Sīhanāda Sutta is one that appears during a “dark period” (i.e. one in between Buddha-sāsanās) in which the world has already arrived at a very advanced stage of anthropo-degeneration. Since nothing taught by the Buddha would still be present in the world, there would be no point in his going into any detail about it or laying down any guidance for the beings who live at this time. The message of the Cakkavattī-Sīhanāda Sutta is a message left for us, not for them:

“Keep to your own pastures, bhikkhus, walk in the haunts where your fathers roamed. If ye thus walk in them, then shall Māra no lodgement find.” (DN. 26)

("Own pastures" = four satipaṭṭhānas)

Coyote
Posts: 845
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:42 pm
Location: Wales - UK

Re: Womanizing?

Post by Coyote » Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:23 pm

Dhammanando wrote:
Whatever it might be, the micchādhamma mentioned in the Cakkavattī-Sīhanāda Sutta is one that appears during a “dark period” (i.e. one in between Buddha-sāsanās) in which the world has already arrived at a very advanced stage of anthropo-degeneration. Since nothing taught by the Buddha would still be present in the world, there would be no point in his going into any detail about it or laying down any guidance for the beings who live at this time. The message of the Cakkavattī-Sīhanāda Sutta is a message left for us, not for them:

“Keep to your own pastures, bhikkhus, walk in the haunts where your fathers roamed. If ye thus walk in them, then shall Māra no lodgement find.” (DN. 26)

("Own pastures" = four satipaṭṭhānas)
But the sutta seems to be describing our current time, is it not? It is hard to tell from this translation which era is associated with homosexuality by the commentary without reading the Pali myself.
from the increase of harsh speech and idle chatter, covetousness and hatred increased, and
from the increase in covetousness and hatred, false opinions increased, and
from the increase in false opinions, incest, excessive greed and deviant practices increased, and
from the increase of excessive greed and deviant practices,
lack of respect for mother and father,
for ascetics and Brahmins, and
for head of the clan increased,

and in consequence, people's life-span decreased, their beauty decreased,
and as a result of this decrease of life-span and beauty,
the children of those whose life-span had been two-and-a-half centuries
lived for only a hundred years.

19. 'Monks, a time will come when the children of these people will have a life-span of ten years.
And with them, girls will be marriageable at the five years old.
And with them, these flavours will disappear: ghee, butter, sesame-oil, molasses and salt.
Among them, kudrusa-grain will be the chief food, just as rice and curry are today.
http://www.basicbuddhism.org/index.cfm?GPID=29"

The impression I get is that the degenerate state of humanity described here, including the deviant practices(whatever they are) are a direct result of unwholesome kamma, and nearly all are mentioned elsewhere as being something avoided by a virtuous person. The only exception is unexplained deviant practices.
"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared."
Iti 26

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests