Polyamorous relationships & Polyamorous marriage: Does this violate the 3rd Precept for Lay people

Discussion
22

What differentiates ethos from morality is the citta. In MN54 we read:

Potaliya the householder, while walking and wandering for exercise, wearing full dress with parasol and sandals, also went to the grove, and having entered the grove, he went to the Blessed One and exchanged greetings with him. When this courteous and amiable talk was finished, he stood at one side. The Blessed One said to him: “There are seats, householder, sit down if you like.”

When this was said, the householder Potaliya thought: “The recluse Gotama addresses me as ‘householder,’” and angry and displeased, he remained silent.

A second time the Blessed One said to him: “There are seats, householder, sit down if you like.” And a second time the householder Potaliya thought: “The recluse Gotama addresses me as ‘householder,’” and angry and displeased, he remained silent.

A third time the Blessed One said to him: “There are seats, householder, sit down if you like.” When this was said, the householder Potaliya thought: “The recluse Gotama addresses me as ‘householder,’” and angry and displeased, he said to the Blessed One: “Master Gotama, it is neither fitting nor proper that you address me as ‘householder.’”

“Householder, you have the aspects, marks, and signs of a householder.”

For a householder, genitalia is the sign to take as it lasts as long as the body lasts:

It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what’s called ‘mind,’ ‘intellect,’ or ‘consciousness’ by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what’s called ‘mind,’ ‘intellect,’ or ‘consciousness’ by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.

In traditional roles, households is the duty of a woman. Only a purisa can become sakka/indra:

Unchastity is the taint in a woman; niggardliness is the taint in a giver. Taints, indeed, are all evil things, both in this world and the next

So, the issue of superiority between monogamy and polyamory has more to do with moralizing than with ethos. In this context, may i share the following by Bertrand Russell:

Many a marriage hardly differs from prostitution, except being harder to escape from.

26

The last few posts have been flagged as off-topic. This topic is about:

4 Likes
28

Just to add my 2 cents, there’s never (to my knowledge) been a requirement in Buddhism, or Indian culture generally, that there has to be one and only one kind of relationship. So long as the partners are willing and consensual, the generally this does not violate the 3rd precept.

In addition to poly relationships, this also includes casual hookups or engagements with sex workers. The Buddha wasn’t a prude or a scold. Obviously he encouraged moderation, but he didn’t try to legislate how people could have relationships.

Bear in mind that the requirement of mutual consent is necessary not sufficient. In some cases even if both partners give willing consent the relationship is still against precepts and unethical, for example if one partner is underage.

7 Likes
29

Yes. Whilst he didn’t condemn sex outside of marriage, or polygamy etc, he did warn against being promiscuous (Itthidhutto). I don’t think he would look too kindly at today’s hook up culture.

31

And Bhante your two cents are greatly appreciated :clap: :bouquet: It’s a timely and important topic…kudos to @dj0710 for raising it :+1:. All monastic guidance on this topic is super-helpful IMO.

This is helpful for understanding the context.

For example, Precepts #1 and #5 (abstaining from killing and using cloudy intoxicants) seem more cut-and-dry in terms of how that looks, in practice. Precepts #2 and #4 (abstaining from stealing and false speech) may be a little less cut-and-dry but not by much. My opinion, obviously :roll_eyes:.

It’s Precept #3 that is not so cut-and-dry when it comes to how that actually looks, in practice. It can feel confusing because today’s norms as it relates to sexual relationships are heavily influenced by inherited culture.

I see a tendency in some other non-Buddhist circles to claim that a polyamorous lifestyle is simply Neo Tantra and why be such a stick-in-the-mud about it. (These are not individuals who are formally trained in Tantra.)

Because Neo Tantra is, after all, an enlightened way of moving through life, it’s just like zen, let’s do a downward-dog now, and so forth. I note confusuion amongst some of the audience by way of questions asked formally and informally.

Doesn’t account for non-Buddhist circles where it’s being introduced with clarity and transparency. I just haven’t been privvy to those and I haven’t looked for them.

This kinda touches on my comment that takes into account the welfare of children as a priority for any social contract. Because they are reliant on and trusting of the adults in the room.

3 Likes
32

Yes, great point. I think the thing with relationships that the Buddha would be most concerned with is not who you’re bonking or how you’re doing it, or how often, but that your actions are not just your own. We all exist in a wider context and our actions are part of a fabric that extends beyond us. This is something that, I think, gets lost in our hyper-individualized age.

3 Likes
33

Thank you very much Bhante for your comments on this topic.
As it relates to Kalyana Mittas, when you said

the Buddha would be most concerned with is not who you’re bonking or how you’re doing it, or how often , but that your actions are not just your own.

How might this relate to the lifestyles of partners one has as a Buddhist lay follower?
I’m thinking of, for example, casual hookups (especially those that are more easier to come by) might involve the person being hooked up with smoking weed, and/or drinking alcohol, or using other substances. As a Buddhist follower keeping the 5 precepts, is this wrong to have sex with such people on our part? And if it is not flat out wrong, might it be unskillful or might it be ok, provided we take proper steps to not engage in such behaviors ourself?

34

Well there are two issues. Generally we should seek out good friends, who support our practice. But this is not always easy to come by!

3 Likes
35

I think a general point, which can be overlooked, regarding the precepts is that these are choices which we make to protect ourselves and others. They are not commandments handed down from above and judged by some external system. The idea of sikkhapada/undertakings vs commandments can be confused when we are so heavily influence by Christian culture, even in previously colonised Buddhist countries.

8 Likes
36

Polyamorous relationships and defining oneself as a ‘polyamorist’ is another identity clinging.

If a person wants casual engagement with people, why not remain single, and not bother with further defining ones identity around ones cravings? I could never understand the reason to make a new label to further define oneself around the topic matter.

Instead, the whole seeming ‘polyamorous movement’ is rooted in identity clinging and craving. In my view, the whole premise is rooted in transaction and exchange instead of a relation rooted in love. Addiction to pleasure is frowned upon.

Procreation serves a function and that is to create living beings. Polyamory cannot keep a family together. Only loving devotion between husband and wife with conscious intention to nurture offspring can keep a family together. A meaningful relationship requires depth and attention. How can you give that to multiple people in a romantic setting at the same time? Therefore, to me, it says that people like this way of life because it enables people to come together to engage their procreative faculties for something other than procreative functions, pleasure fixation.

Laity and monastics are a symbiotic relationship. There is a way of governance of lay life and a way of governance for monastic. Ultimately, I see polyamory as something rooted in greed.

In short, my opinionated stance: yes, it breaches the third training principle, to avoid misconduct of ones procreative faculty.

How many beings, those born and unborn, are in states of turbulence and without wellbeing? How many of them would benefit from being raised by a devoted pair who love each other? Who teach them to maintain mindfulness and proper mental hygiene? A pair who consider the wellbeing, safety, security and welfare of their child with that as their single objective? How many have been fractured by pairs who lacked the depth and foresight to provide this? This considered, what function does polyamory serve other than to satisfy lust?

37

That suggests my labeling myself as monogamous is identity clinging. Or labeling myself as musically-inclined (or not). And so on. I can’t fathom navigating the world without labeling at some level. Not only does it clarify for myself how I show up in the world but it helps others to understand that as well. Seems like it would be rather chaotic and odd otherwise.

I agree, at an animal-like level that’s a function of the sexual act. Speaking as a cisgender woman who is post-menopausal, I couldn’t give a flip about the specific act now (and forever more)…PTL!!!

Before then, I had no intention to bring a child into the world. I know I’ve brought this up elsewhere but gushing everything out for 7 days every 3.5 weeks – ok, that leaves about 2 weeks per month of feeling normal – decidedly left me unenthusiastic about gushing out a big baby head. Know what I mean? Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the thought of perpetuating all the kammic and genetic mental illness and trauma through my poor, unsuspecting child.

I know plenty of single parents who are fantastic at raising kids. I’ve run across my fair share of hetero couples who are lousy at it.

I already discussed above how a license to raise children is about the child, not the parent(s). Arguably, that is why people are licesned for marriage today, although now (as before), the financial agreements are also defined. Frankly I don’t think marriage as a social contract was ever about love and devotion.

Besides, lots of us who admit we need emotional intimacy try to meet those needs in polyamorous style – not holding a partner captive to meeting all of our needs for emotional intimacy. To me, same rules apply.

1 Like
39

Back to what the Buddha had to say about marriage and our duties to our partner(s)

From DN31

A husband should serve his wife as the western quarter in five ways:
Pañcahi kho, gahapatiputta, ṭhānehi sāmikena pacchimā disā bhariyā paccupaṭṭhātabbā—
by treating her with honor, by not looking down on her, by not being unfaithful, by relinquishing authority to her, and by presenting her with adornments.
sammānanāya anavamānanāya anaticariyāya issariyavossaggena alaṅkārānuppadānena.
A wife served by her husband in these five ways shows sympathy to him in five ways.
Imehi kho, gahapatiputta, pañcahi ṭhānehi sāmikena pacchimā disā bhariyā paccupaṭṭhitā pañcahi ṭhānehi sāmikaṁ anukampati—
She’s well-organized in her work. She manages the domestic help. She’s not unfaithful. She preserves his earnings. She’s deft and tireless in all her duties.
susaṁvihitakammantā ca hoti, saṅgahitaparijanā ca, anaticārinī ca, sambhatañca anurakkhati, dakkhā ca hoti analasā sabbakiccesu.
A wife served by her husband in these five ways shows sympathy to him in these five ways.
Imehi kho, gahapatiputta, pañcahi ṭhānehi sāmikena pacchimā disā bhariyā paccupaṭṭhitā imehi pañcahi ṭhānehi sāmikaṁ anukampati

The words which is most interesting to this discussion is what Ven. Sujato translates as not unfaithful. The dpd removes the double negative
anaticārinī / anaticariyāya

  1. adj. faithful; not committing adultery; lit. not going too far [na + ati + √car + *ī]
aticariyā ¹ fem transgression ✘
aticariyā ² fem adultery

And shows sympathy
paccupaṭṭhitā

  1. pp. present (towards); standing by; lit. stood near [pati + upa + √ṭhā + ita]
  2. pp. in attendance; serving; waiting on; lit. stood near [pati + upa + √ṭhā + ita]

I am really curious about ananticāri and how this fits within kãmesumicchacara. Bhante @sujato how do you understand this based on your above statement and within a clearly non-monogamous culture?

40

In the commentarial glosses the husband and wife are held to different standards in this regard.

Whereas fidelity for a husband entails no more than not having sex with another woman…

Anaticariyāyāti taṃ atikkamitvā bahi aññāya itthiyā saddhiṃ paricaranto taṃ aticarati nāma, tathā akaraṇena.

… for a wife it entails not even desiring another man:

Anaticārinīti sāmikaṃ muñcitvā aññaṃ manasāpi na pattheti.

3 Likes
41

Thanks for checking this Venerable! :pray:
That’s interesting.

Sometimes I’m puzzled about how the commentaries draw their conclusions! But maybe that’s something I can answer by putting more effort into reading them.

2 Likes