I would go even further than the second precept (though you could make an argument about it since rape could be seen as a kind of stealing, taking away someone’s bodily autonomy). I would argue that rape breaks the first precept. This makes sense if you interpret the first precept as being more inclusive than just “not killing”.
IMO the first precept is not just about not killing, its also about a general attitude of ahimsa. In MN 41 and 114, it is defined in the following way:
- “Someone gives up killing living creatures”, they “renounce the rod and the sword”, “They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of compassion for all living beings.”
Therefore, in this more positive formulation (and more complete IMO), there is not just a negative “do not kill” statement, but also a positive injunction (“act kindly and compassionately”).
Rape is a violent act, its physical abuse. It therefore breaks the first precept. It does so literally (sexual abuse is not compassionate) and also it breaks the spirit of it.
Therefore, I totally reject the idea that rape is some kind of blind spot for Buddhist ethics. It’s pretty clear that rape is rejected in the Buddhist texts as there are various stories of nuns being raped and so on.
Also, I wonder if even the more negative and shorter formulation might not be broader than it seems. It says pāṇātipātā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi. Now the key word is atipāta. I have generally seen it translated two ways: killing / destroying or onslaught / attacking. I do not have enough knowledge to be able to say if the term is more exclusive (meaning only killing) or if it is more inclusive (general non-harming). Anyone have any insights on atipāta?
Of course, if we interpret it based on my argument above and passages like MN 41, it is not just killing. But I am seeking a more linguistic answer here that I do not have the knowledge to answer, that is, is tipātā always used in the context of killing?