Interesting topic. My thoughts:
- The Buddha said developing a heart of metta for a finger snap is more meritorious than taking the five precepts. See AN 9:20. Surely rape violates the spirit of Metta?
- According to MN 136, The Longer Analysis of Deeds, it would seems as though the 5 precepts alone aren’t enough to assure a good birth. Mental deeds like thoughts of maliciousness, covetousness, and wrong view can also send someone to hell. Would it be possible to rape someone without thoughts of “maliciousness” and/or “covetousness”? I doubt it.
- Similarly, MN 135, “The Shorter Analysis of Deeds,” talks about how things not covered by the 5 precepts (like jealously and anger) can result in bad karma.
- Related to the above points, but there are places in the nikayas where morality is defined in ways other than the 5 precepts. The 10-fold list given in MN 136 is given in lots of other places, including, not surprisingly, the AN book of Tens.
I suppose the point of what I’m trying to say is that, even if rape isn’t forbidden by the 5 precepts, there are other reasons to not rape on Buddhist grounds. We shouldn’t overrate the 5 precepts — Buddhist morality is more than that.
My guess is that the 5-precepts were singled out the way they were because they were the “low hanging fruit” for people in that particular culture to understand. At least that’s the case for the first 4 — In the the famous Kalama Sutta, the Buddha and his interlocutors seem to take for granted that abstaining from killing, stealing, lying, and sexual misconduct are “skillful, blameless, praised by sensible people” (italics mine). But just because the precepts are the most societally acknowledged in the Buddha’s time and place doesn’t mean they are the be-all-end-all, karmically.