Did the Buddha teach consent?

The Watercooler
21

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:

  1. “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?

7 Likes
22

To add a few points:

Killing is also stealing, hence the notion of taking someone’s life, which illustrates that ultimately there is no ethical reason to kill someone, even if it seems justified like killing a killer.

As well as virginity is seen as a transaction, i.e. they took their virginity.

Relations are a transaction, there’s even a field of psychology called “Transactional analysis”, and people even play psychological games to win these transactions, see the book “Games people play” by Eric Berne, and the transactional analysis book “I’m ok, you’re ok” is great and will teach you to easily spot narcissists who manipulate these transactions.

Even self-esteem and dignity are a commodities that are traded and can be taken unethically, i.e. “they took their innocence”, which is usually used to describe victims of pedophilia who are mentally abused as a result.

Since everything people do with others is a transaction, then taking and giving, theft and consent, are sufficient words for describing the ethics behind these transactions. So I think the Buddha’s choice of words in the 2nd precept to describe stealing is very clear and genius.

5 Likes
23

Certainly the ultimate teachings involve celibacy. on the other hand, the vast majority of Dhamma followers were/are non-celibate, and there are plenty of teachings about lay life.

2 Likes
24

Not really, IMO. I see it as the focus of the EBT texts being on the choice of wholesome action to be made in the present moment, rather than on discussing the how/what/why of that which has already occurred (and must be accepted as what has come to be). Its the same with the story of Subha too - for the details, we must turn to the commentaries. AFAIK though, Subha’s case did elicit a consideration of the circumstances of the rape and led to rules being passed about how nuns should seek seclusion.

I agree! Female wanderers already existed, as documented in the EBT. However, it seems to have been rare for women who were not in trouble/distress of some sort to leave the home life. Certainly, it was rare for upper class women such as the Buddha’s step mother to not only be allowed, but even facilitated in their quest for spiritual awakening. As a clansman, the Buddha would have known he was opening himself up to censure by acting in this way.

An insight into the thinking of a clansman - Trigger warning

Patriarchal clans still exist in India - I belong to one on my mother’s side (Jat). In that milieu, the thought that a decent woman might entertain any ambition outside her home and hearth or without her parent’s/ husband’s permission is itself ludicrous :roll_eyes:… a telltale sign of bad upbringing and weak authority figures. Any woman who might dare to do such a thing risks excommunication or even death. And the same goes for any clansman who might facilitate such rebellious behavior. I don’t agree with such views - but I can understand them.

Yet another triggering reply. I don't personally agree with it but its just how a clansman thinks

Well, as we have seen so far, in its specific cultural context it’s a misdemeanor - an offence against property. And may I add, partially the fault of the keeper- why did he allow his woman to be wandering around without an escort? Is this how a well behaved woman should behave? And btw, it is the patriarch who has the right of redress, not the woman.

Murder? Now that’s another ball game.

Just my mod mind, and nothing to do with your post or the piece! This topic has usually elicited extremely strong reactions on this forum in the past, so much so that any civilized discussion of the specific cultural context of these issues within the EBT seems well nigh impossible.

Perhaps it was. Just as eating real live animals or having skin on skin live contact with other humans is for our current culture and value systems as compared to say, Spacer culture, many eons hence. One must consider all such views as conditioned, right? And understand how such views come about, their advantages, their pitfalls, and ultimately go beyond them?

Well, how else does a wise, compassionate teacher teach? We must teach our children how to thrive in a future which we cannot anticipate after all. And that means teaching timeless methods, not absolute rules.

I’d say its our to duty to practice and teach Buddhism according to what is wholesome and expected to lead to good outcomes for both oneself and others. But what constitutes a good outcome is conditioned by culture after all, so on the whole, probably… Yes. We certainly need to keep the time, place and culture in mind. And what fits one doesn’t necessarily fit another.

3 Likes
25

Looking a bit more into this word, the Pali Text Society’s Pali-English Dictionary entry is

Atipāta, (ati + pat) attack, only in phrase pāṇâtipāta destruction of life, slaying, killing, murder D. I, 4 (pāṇātipātā veramaṇī, refraining from killing, the first of the dasasīla or decalogue); DA. I, 69 (= pāṇavadha, pāṇaghāta); Sn. 242; Kh II, cp. KhA 26; PvA. 28, 33 etc. (Page 19)

From Cone’s Dictionary (I found two entries, not sure if they are the same word or similarly related terms)

image

image
image496×699 98.6 KB

So it seems the term is ambiguous and could mean killing or injuring. But this is a tentative assessment, as I do not have the philological expertise for this.

But the PTS dictionary directly states that in phrase pāṇâtipāta it literally means to kill. I wonder what the rationale for this is? Why can’t it just mean to injure/harm “breathers”?

Can anyone weigh in?

2 Likes
26

There is a lot to unpack in this statement … and much of it is bound to be controversial… :sweat_smile:
I’d say it is because it is made up of the other explicitly proscribed behaviours and at that time was not seen as categorically different, and speculate that in that time and place ‘rape’ was conceived off in a way different to today and was adequately addressed by the principles, and didn’t need to be brought out as something apart from the other precepts. It is inherent in the teachings.

  1. rape, theft and murder are examples of what is harmful. It is the principles that the Buddha taught, which can be applied to all kinds of circumstances and permutations of actions. I really don’t believe the intention was to make exhaustive lists, and to have individuals comply to them - but rather to teach the cause and effect of harm versus harmlessness, that then gets applied by those on the Path. For everyone else, there is the ‘law of the land’. Just as @Javier says with regards to the 1st Precept, and @Thito says with regard to the 2nd Precept, the Precepts very clearly cover all the principles that should clearly preclude ‘rape’ by practitioners.

  2. Along the lines of what @faujidoc1 is saying, it is important to recognise our own conditioning in how we (society) conceptualises ‘rape’. There is no such thing as an absolute Truth here - it is a subjective experience. One can clearly see that there is active conditioning going on creating the templates for how to think about it. These are no doubt very different today than in that society 2500 years ago. Please note, I am not taking any position on ‘right or wrong’ ways of thinking. Rape is a very specific type of assault, and again there are many principles that the Buddha taught that would make it clear how it is harmful.

  3. It might be helpful to turn this question around and ask… Why would the Buddha specifically talk about rape, additionally to murder and adultery? In my own conceptualisation of the issue, I see that murder (the principle of harming others) can also be applied to the specific type of assault known as rape. The same goes for sexual misconduct (since the Buddha spoke about this much more broadly than just adultery). The same goes for taking what is not given, as Thito said. In fact, I think that every aspect of Sila that the Buddha taught (steps 2-6 of N8P) - ALL - make it obvious that the type of behaviours that underpin rape, lead only to the suffering of others and oneself. I think it is impossible to read and understand what the Buddha taught and to come away with a belief that rape is ok.

Regarding conceit of self … this is about believing that the way one sees things, is somehow more true or universal than it actually is. The more one is aware of conditioning, the less likely one is to be attached to ones own perspective or views as somehow being more representative of the Truth, than other views or perspectives over time and space. At this point in time, I feel that it is this conceit that drives the desire to ‘correct’ the teachings - to be in line with ones own conditioning … in the present time.

6 Likes
27

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.

1 Like
28

@Javier these are goods points. It’s worth noting that MN 41 and MN 114 both use the 10-point formula for morality, not the 5 precepts.

29

Indeed, because the five precepts are not a complete account of ethics.

This is similar to how, as Sujato pointed out,

kamma is not a complete account of ethics

However, I still think that rape is covered by the five precepts in some way or another.

Sure, but main ideas found in the five precepts are still in there. Alternatively, one could argue that the ten wholesome actions are a more complete account of ethics than the five precepts. Or that they are complementary teachings.

30

I was actually arguing that precepts (particularly the 5 precepts) aren’t a complete account of kamma — it’s clear enough from various suttas that one can produce bad kamma from things that aren’t covered by the 5 precepts. Discussion about whether ethics goes beyond kamma strikes me as a different matter (and I can’t say I agree with Bhante @sujato entirely in regards to that blog post, but that’s a different story that isn’t relevant to this topic).

I don’t know whether rape is covered in the 5 precepts, but it’s a bad thing to do.

31

Rape is about sexual assault without consent. It should be covered in the 5 precepts for laypersons:

I take the precept to abstaining from taking what is not given (or from stealing, adinnādānā).
I take the precept to abstaining from wrong behaviour in sensual pleasure (or from sexual misconduct, kāmesu micchācārā).
I take the precept to abstaining from false speech (musāvādā).

32

The issue and hidden context, assumed from the first post here is that the definition of sexual misconduct seems to left out protected by oneself.

Typically it says a man shouldn’t have sex with a woman protected by family, dhamma (nuns), in prison (no choice), etc… There seems to be lacking protected by oneself (consent). Which is what I take it to be extended by implication here.

This precept can be broken by oneself
only—no one can break it for another. It is
broken when the following four conditions
are all present:

  1. The forbidden person.
  2. Intention to have sexual intercourse
    with the person.
  3. Effort made in committing the sexual act.
  4. Consent to the sexual act. (Here means that the person initiating it wants it, consents to it, doesn’t state about the person receiving it.)

The forbidden person can only refer to
the opposite sex and not to the same sex. For
males this person may be:

  1. A female who is under protection,
    such one who is unmarried, engaged
    or protected by [law with threat of]
    penalty.
  2. A female who is married to or is
    cohabiting with another male,
    including a prostitute whose services
    are currently contracted to another
    client.

In the case of females, three categories of
males are forbidden:

  1. For a married or cohabiting female,
    any male other than her husband or
    cohabitant respectively.
  2. For an engaged female, any male
    other than the one she is engaged to.42 The Importance of Being Morally Virtuous
  3. For a female protected by [law with
    threat of] penalty, any male prohibited by the law.
    In our modern context, “a female protected by [law with threat of] penalty” would
    refer to any female decreed by law to be a forbidden sexual partner, e.g. a female convict, a
    close female relative, someone under the age
    of consent.
    From: The Importance of Being Morally Virtuous | Sāsanārakkha Buddhist Sanctuary (sasanarakkha.org)

Some way of strictly following the details leads to this gender imbalance: Issue of gender imbalance in 3rd precept on forbidden partners - Q & A - Discuss & Discover (suttacentral.net)

Come to think of it, since female prisoners are forbidden, then that’s one way of seeing that consent as opposed to forced sex is important.

2 Likes
33

I interpret the words kāmesu micchācārā (“from wrong behaviour in sensual pleasure, or from sexual misconduct”) as any sexual behaviour that brings harm to oneself (yourself and other) physically, mentally, and socially.

34

When and where did the concept of sexual consent develop? Was it current in India 2500 years ago? Would the Buddha have taught a concept that was irrelevant to ordained people following celibacy, and which would have made no sense to the lay people according to the societal norms of the time? I submit that the answer is “No” to all of these.

Consent as we understand today is a startling modern concept:

In the late 1980s, [my emphasis] academic Lois Pineau argued that society must move towards a more communicative model of sexuality so that consent becomes more explicit and clear, objective and layered, with a more comprehensive model than “no means no” or “yes means yes”.[3]. (Wikipedia.)

Historically, in much of the world, rape was seen as a crime or tort of theft of a man’s property (usually either a husband or father). In this case, property damage meant that the crime was not legally recognized as damaging to the victim, but instead to her father or husband’s property. (Wikipedia.)

Consent within marriage received support from law in Australia only in1981, the UK in 1991, the USA also very late (I think the European countries have done a little better). The current Wikipedia entry for India heartbreakingly reads,

In India there are no law provisions related to the marital rape and are being demanded by the commission to enact laws to bring it in the criminal jurisdiction.[163]

It boggles my mind that it could be suggested that The Buddha might have taught about consent, when it was a concept that didn’t exist in time to be eplained to my own generation when we were teenagers in the 1950s and 60s. Yet - despite the vast difference between society in the Buddha’s day and in our own - I think that we can and should use the Buddha’s teaching to inform our 21st century ethics. Two comments made above absolutely nail it.

and

It really seems that simple. How can it be more complex?

16 Likes
35

I thoroughly agree. Good points.

2 Likes
36

Given that rape is sexual assault and battery, and given that assault and battery always involves harming another living being, and given that the Buddha condemned harming other living beings, I don’t understand why there is any controversy over this issue.

6 Likes
37

I second that!
In another thread on “why do you read the EBT” (or so) I’ve been tempted to answer: “because I’m not confronted with musings about “killing without emotion” (or so) or whether “the buddha [did] teach consent” (in the sense of sexual activity/of rape)”. Or with similar fruitless triggers.

I fill the gap now here, at your similar comment. I took as my avatar-name “Nessie”, alluding to that unseen monster in the Loch Ness, which takes the most time of its life to dive down underwater and study the EBT in quietness&silence and only some little times at rare occasions to come up and be existent when no photographers are around … :slight_smile:

2 Likes
38

Welcome David to D&D! :wave:t3::grin:

2 Likes
39

Folks, I am late to this party, but I’m sorry this is all missing an important point.

Did the Buddha teach consent?

Yes. Consent is fundamental to the discussion of sexual morality as found in the Vinaya, which is the only place in the early Buddhist texts to discuss sexual morality in detail. In particular, the precept against sexual intercourse for nuns was modified from that for monks specifically to state that a nun is innocent if she has sex without consent (chandaso). In the monks rule, this is made clear in the analysis, but for the nuns, it is in the rule itself. The rape of a nun is regarded as one of the most heinous crimes possible.

The relative paucity of mention of consent in the Suttas is because sexual morality is not discussed extensively there. Nonetheless, the Buddha did emphasize, for example, in teaching the Vajjians, that protection of the womenfolk from attack was an essential pillar of a stable society.

13 Likes
40

Isn’t Kamesu micchachara wrongful behavior by way of sensual lust and craving (of mind, sight, sound, smell, taste, touch) for form or sensual objects? Kamesu micchachara imho implies sensual/sexual misconducts as in adultery, rape, gluttony, pornography, violence and such.

1 Like