I have often noticed lots of questions & debates about the standard definition of sexual misconduct from the suttas, namely:
And how is one made impure in three ways by bodily action? He gets sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man. AN 10.176
While AN 10.176 seems to say sexual misconduct makes a person “impure” and right sexual conduct makes a person “pure”, MN 41 goes further in relation to sexual conduct, by stating refraining from sexual misconduct leads to rebirth in the heavenly world:
Householders, it’s by reason of un-Dhamma conduct, dissonant conduct that some beings here, with the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. It’s by reason of Dhamma conduct, harmonious conduct that some beings here, with the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in the good destinations, in the heavenly world. MN 41
In the cultural context of 500BC, just as Gotama did, I assume it was a social norm for Indian people to marry when they were very young, whilst still living protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters & their relatives. I trust there might be some social norms written in the Brahman Vedas. For example, the Pali suttas state:
Nakula’s father said to the Blessed One: “Lord, ever since Nakula’s mother as a young girl was brought to me [to be my wife] when I was just a young boy, I am not conscious of being unfaithful to her even in mind, much less in body”. SN 4.55
In five ways, young householder, the parents thus ministered to as the East by their children, show their compassion:… (iv) they arrange a suitable marriage… DN 31
Generally, I have always found the teachings in the EBTs to be very straightforward, at least for me, except on sexual misconduct.
For example, it is difficult for me to accept or believe that engaging in sex in many of the myriad ways exempted by the standard definition would automatically lead to rebirth in a heavenly world.
I have read & heard the older generation of Buddhist teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh, Buddhadasa & possibly Dalai Lama essentially say marriagec/commitment is the appropriate sphere for sexual relations. To me, AN 4.55 does appear to express the Buddha’s most lofty “ideal” about sexual relations (for lay people).
However, in the EBTs, unlike the Abrahmic religions, it seems obvious ‘marital sex’ was not simply given as the precept.
Therefore, is there any information from the period 500BC that would explain the social circumstances or norms for why such a definition of sexual misconduct was given (e.g. concubines; upper class norms; non-Brahman norms; etc).