Sexual Misconduct query

That doesn’t seem plausible to be @Gillian. The suttas are sprinkled throughout with frequent denigrations of the pursuit of sensory pleasure and the inferiority of the household life. And these clusters of ideas are all connected. What basis is there for thinking that the Buddha thought sexual pleasure was good and wholesome when sought by a householder but harmful and unwholesome when sought by a monk? Isn’t there only one path to the end of suffering? And if he did think it was sometimes good and wholesome, where are the passages honoring or praising it?

3 Likes

@Gillian, @Akaliko, I think that what @DKervick is trying to say is that the Buddha was always pointing in the direction of restraint leading to cessation. His choice of words about division I read non-literally. It may have been unfortunate in that it seems to have created some division (!). I would reword what @DKervick to say that the monastic/laity rules are clearly delineated steps moving in one direction, they are not opposed views in the Heaven/Hell sense.

In fact, from the Vinaya origin stories and rules, we have some former monks sometimes trying to do things that repulse us as lay people who haven’t even contemplated such behavior (having sex with a corpse? Ewwww!). I learned things from the Vinaya that I didn’t even know where humanly possible.

And there are also lay people in the suttas who were celibate by loving choice and kindness. Etc.

The gradation, the separation between monastics and laity is the strictness of the rules. We are all bound for extinguishment, bound for the ethical life. We all respect and uphold the need for the monastic life.

3 Likes

I agree with everything you’ve said, @DKervick, the Buddha does repeatedly disparage “the act which ends in a wash.” However, in this instance, the topic was regarding how to interpret sexual misconduct in relation to the five lay precepts. Yes, any indulgence in sense desire is unbeneficial in the larger view, and those who understand this will act upon it, but as relating to the foundational training, sex was allowed so long as it involved willing participants in the proper context.

3 Likes

Nevertheless, the OP, while acepting that sleeping with prostitutes might not be misconduct, “technically speaking”, finds that answer doesn’t “sit well with him.” I think we should l attend to those feelings in us that don’t sit well, because they are are indicators of underlying sources of unhappiness or suffering.

6 Likes

It’s that little voice…

May others not know this of me.

4 Likes

I totally agree. Well said.

3 Likes

This reliance on that voice as @timothy calls it, or heart , as @Viveka called it, or feeling as @DKervick calls it, all fail to take into account the social construction of attitudes to behaviours and activities that are rooted in specific places and times. For many, it’s these cultural constructed scruples that are responsible for feelings of shame and guilt or wrongdoing when it comes to sex. For example homosexuality was commonplace and socially acceptable in ancient Greece, so one wouldn’t necessarily have a sense of guilt or shame (the feeling, the voice, the heart) but for someone growing up in an zealously religious Irish Catholic household in the 1950s, for example, would have felt guilt and shame, a sense of not quiet sitting right… Why? Because they had been conditioned to regard that behaviour unnatural and ‘sinful’. Repent! Similarly our idea of visiting prostitutes has also been culturally conditioned, and is perhaps quite different in some cultures today from say an Australian context, or Japanese context, and certainly from the time of the Buddha. In Tibet the practice of women having more than one husband was common, in Saudi Arabia having more than one wife is fine. Examples abound in different cultural attitudes to sexual behaviours and what is considered ‘normal’ or ‘taboo’. (Its a bit ‘left field’ but I’m just thinking now about how even something like left handedness was made out to be ‘sinister’, a source of shame and guilt.)

Having grown up gay myself, knowing the pain and suffering of feeling judged and shamed and excluded by society in my youth, I am sceptical of the feeling based approach to morality. After all, if we were going on feelings alone, most people would say sex feels good! However… I was repeatedly told that gays were unnatural - I even felt that i was, believed I was a freak, a pevert, even though I also knew that it was a completely natural feeling too! I now understand that those feelings were nothing to do with my sexuality itself, but rather the culture that I live in. It’s interesting that young queers today are feeling this sort of shame less and less, because of changes in society’s attitude.

My point is if something was genuinely wrong doing, the voices/feeling/heart should be the same across all cultures at all times, yeah? But unless we are enlightened and can see into the truth of cause and effect, the best we can do is reply upon the words of an enlightened being like the Buddha and hope to understand good and bad from things like the precepts, whilst understanding that they were also a product of people’s attitudes at that time.

I’d like to restate what I said earlier:

11 Likes

I suppose we need to clarify between a ‘mundane’ solution and a ‘Buddhist path’ solution.

Mundane situation; Ease comes when there is congruence between values, beliefs, desires, actions and acceptance. Stress and suffering are the result of dissonance and lack of congruence. The way to a solution is to bring about this congruence, either by 're-conditioning of values and beliefs, or changing behaviours or environments. This then results in less stress and less suffering, and is the approach of psychological type interventions…
I’d classify all of this as operating within the mundane system and “re-conditioning

Buddhist style reduction of suffering; To reduce suffering by reducing ignorance and delusion > to identify conditioning and to dissolve it. N8fp, precepts, mind training. The result being a cessation of conditioning, seeing reality as it truly is, realisation of non-self all the way to Nibbana.

So horses for courses… While one can have compassion for those stuck in Samsara, the only way to really be free from suffering is the Buddhas path. I always feel this tension when people ask for advice… does one address it mostly in mundane terms or does one try to communicate some aspects of the 4 noble truths. Normally I stumble through with some combination of the two :slight_smile: But as far as I can ascertain there is no ideal solution or attitude that can be applied, apart from universal compassion and kindness.
:anjal: :dharmawheel:

4 Likes

I absolutely agree that this is where we do the work. May we all make progress on the path. :anjal:

@karl_lew I don’t see ‘division’ here because the shared commitment to doing this work binds us in community. :pray:

5 Likes

Just a clarification: When I said “we I think we should l attend to those feelings in us that don’t sit well, because they are are indicators of underlying sources of unhappiness or suffering,” I did not mean to imply that those feelings always proceed from conscience, conceived of as some reliable guide to the distinction between those mysterious moral categories of “right” and “wrong”, but only that they are indicators of some kind of underlying unhappiness, and we should investigate their source since our goal is to understand and bring an end to suffering.

I don’t doubt at all, as @Akaliko says, that in some cases we might be experiencing unwholesome or arbitrary culturally conditioned feelings of guilt or shame, and it is the cultural conditioning that needs to be addressed and let go of, rather than the behavior that is eliciting the negative feelings imparted by that conditioning. For example, a convert Buddhist with a non-Buddhist religious upbringing might even feel guilt over meditation and Buddhist practice itself! They certainly don’t wan’t to heed the “voice of conscience” in that case.

But in the case of sexual behavior, we are assisted by the fact that the Buddha himself practiced celibacy, and has a great deal to say about sexual behavior. His main focus doesn’t seem to be on whether the sex is heterosexual or homosexual, whether it is onanistic or with a partner or with multiple partners, whether it is legitimized by marriage vows or not, or whether or not there is a short-term or long-term economic contract involved. He just seems to think it is always the occasion of more dukkha for both partners, despite the brief, ephemeral and largely illusory pleasure that is involved.

In some ways there doesn’t seem to be any more compelling image of the cyclical, rather absurd futility of everyday samsaric existence than the sad Sisyphean comedy of sex.

Think: you begin your evening at ease and are joyfully contemplating the peace of your own mind and permeating the four directions with metta. Then a restless and irritating discomfort arises in your body and mind. You begin to have obsessive and jumbled thoughts of sexual acts and human forms and bodily parts. The turbulent thoughts and bodily sensations have an addictive quality that is a weird mix of pleasure and dissatisfied pain. Soon they are swamping and clouding everything else that was in your mind. You shower and dress, you get in your car, you withdraw a not insignificant amount of cash from your bank account. You begin your hunt for the object of your need. Maybe you locate a prostitute, or maybe you go to a bar determined to engage in hours of mostly meaningless chit-chat with some candidate, hoping it all pays off in the end. Finally, everything works out and you achieve that short episode of rapidly intensified craving followed by a briefly but intensely pleasurable discharge of the craving.

A moment later, you are thinking: “What was that all about?” The craving that motivated your hunt is completely gone, so the pursuit of its satisfaction seems unintelligible. You get dressed and realize you just wasted a few hours of your life, as well as some money, in the pursuit of something that generates no lasting achievement of any kind, but merely restores you to the non-craving state of mind with which you began your evening.

Actually it’s a bit worse than that, because you haven’t been meditating or doing something peaceful and contemplative, and you are still experiencing the lingering, numbing aftereffects of several hours of heightened bodily and mental stress, confusion, bewilderment and obsession. You’re like a boxer sitting in the corner of the ring after a match you just lost, trying to to come to your senses, dispel the aching cloud in your mind and remember who you are and what you were doing before you wandered into your opponent’s fists.

The whole thing seems a bit ridiculous, no? But the joke is on you. You are bound to the preposterous wheel of samsaric human existence, a complete slave to your genetic programming by the mad scientist of evolution and to the rushing tsunami tides of vain and manic idiocy that consume much of our lives. Surely, you would have been better off if those cravings never arose in the first place. Any path out of these cravings would be worth seeking no?

If one, longing for sensual pleasure,
achieves it, yes,
he’s enraptured at heart.
The mortal gets what he wants.
But if for that person
—longing, desiring—
the pleasures diminish,
he’s afflicted,
as if shot with an arrow.

Whoever avoids sensual desires
—as he would, with his foot,
the head of a snake—
goes beyond, mindful,
this attachment in the world.

A man who is greedy
for fields, land, gold,
cattle, horses,
servants, employees,
women, relatives,
many sensual pleasures,
is overpowered with weakness
and trampled by trouble,
for pain invades him
as water, a cracked boat.

So one, always mindful,
should avoid sensual desires.
Letting them go,
he’d cross over the flood
like one who, having bailed out the boat,
has reached the far shore.

4 Likes

While I personally agree with this, hence my commitment to the Buddhas path, and Nibbida at many aspects as you so evocatively portray, this may not be the same goal or be expressed with the same degree of commitment by every participant in this forum.

With the issue of renunciation, again relying on personal experience, when one is ready for it, it comes with ease and a sense of freedom. If I had been compelled to renunciation before I was ready (in gradual training/understanding, maybe even kamma) I have no doubt that it would have been both unsuccessful and seen as not beneficial.

Indeed isn’t this exactly why the Buddha had different expectations of different people. Trying to force someone to ‘see things as they truly are’ before they have the capacity to do so, while having no benefit, may even have harmful results :slight_smile:

12 Likes

I think perhaps the institutional arrangements of traditional religious Buddhism, Theravada Buddhism at least, create an image of a stark and yawning gap between renunciants and worldlings. But maybe we can just see it all on a continuum. The Buddha is the spiritual pinnacle, the ideal, and everyone else can inspired by the ideal, and let go of whatever cravings and dukkha-generating activities they can manage to let go of. Some monks seem very worldly, some lay practitioners seem very abstemious and contemplative.

11 Likes

Inspied by several comments and commentators in this thread, these thoughts occurred:

The Buddha’s entire life is instructive but not a model to be emulated. He spent many years in extreme asceptic disciplines, some under instruction of a teacher, some self imposed. Explicitly, he rejected this as not The Way.

He established a four fold sangha.

He established the Noble 8 Fold Path. It is Noble, not worldly, because it leads to liberation.

His liberation was enough for that life stream to finish. But he taught, for 45 years, out of compassion for life. He established rules for monastic disciples. He counseled and taught lay disciples.

He did not appoint a successor to rule the sangha.

Based on this, it seems best imo to accept that diversity of practice is neutral or a goodness, and to be restrained in instruction or rule making for the Buddha’s disciples.

5 Likes

Being open to different practices does indeed allow one to clarify understanding and develop awareness. For me each sutta studied has been a different training, a different consideration, a different checkpoint for understanding. And where the study of suttas get most interesting is when conflicts in understanding come up. The Buddha was quite consistent in his teachings, so the conflicts perceived during study are really points of ignorance. This becomes most sharply apparent with regard to rules, the Vinaya.

I really look forward to the forthcoming Vinaya translations and the origin stories in particular. Many rules make sense. Some seem downright daft. Yet it is the daft rules that need to be studied exactly for their point of confusion. I still have no idea why bhikkhunis cannot shave their armpits. It seems quite illogical. I think of armpit shaving as hygiene, like wiping one’s butt or shaving one’s head or brushing one’s teeth. Why should there be a counter-hygiene rule? Did the Buddha make that rule? Did bhikkhunis make that rule on their own? Did the bhikkhus make that rule for the bhikkhunis to avoid being swept into lust by a bare bhikkhuni armpit? All these questions will be answered in the study of the origin stories.

Till then I simply have a neutral feeling.

2 Likes

I’ve been on several monastic led retreats (Ajahn Chah tradition), of three days and seven days, and visited a monastery quite regularly, over a period of about eight years.
My felt-sense, was that the ordained, and the lay practitioners, were on parallel paths.
What separated them, was aspiration and commitment. The monks, first and foremost, were a refuge for each other. Unlike in economics, there was a trickle-down effect, and the householders did appear to take some benefit from their teachings and their example.
Still, I sometimes think (perhaps erroneously), that lay dhamma followers would be best served sympathetically, by an awakened lay teacher.

4 Likes

The mutual support of monastics is also available amongst laity. I do see it here on DD every day. Each of us lay folk has experiences from outside the Vinaya to share that can help others new to such struggles.

Even though I have learned things from both monastics and laity here, I would find myself hesitant to seek out a lay teacher simply because the Vinaya itself is quite the rigorous test. Doubt would arise whether such a lay teacher could effortlessly abide by the Vinaya.

4 Likes

It seems like this discussion is moving away from the query posted by the originator of this thread, so I searched some on Sutta Central and found a few teachings that mention prostitution in the times of the Buddha. It is apparent that prostitution was common in the lands where the Buddha traveled. There is some denigrating language regarding prostitution, but it would also seem that prostitutes themselves were afforded more dignity than is the case in some places in the contemporary world.

While prostitution was common in ancient India and surrounding lands, it also is obvious that the Buddha’s teachings advised against indulging one’s desires involving paid sex. The Buddha did not advocate for universal celibacy as a way to extinguish human suffering (i.e., he did not advocate for the total cessation of procreation which would lead to species extinction), but it’s fairly obvious that paying for sex is not conducive to cultivating the path to Nibbana.

Of course, as has been noted, the rules for monastics and laypeople are different. To use a metaphor, a layperson has a wider path than monastics to stray from. So patronizing sex workers would seemingly entail fewer negative consequences for a layperson than a monk. Still, whether or not it technically violates the five precepts for laypeople, it’s probably not advisable for promoting one’s practice.

6 Likes

Thanks @Metaphor for returning us to the topic.

There are a variety of views on this topic and a variety of approaches from strictly textual and exact definitions of precepts, to inferences made from general trends in the sutras, to heart based responses, ethical and and moral perspectives and contemporary ideas about sex positivity…
As you said in a previous post (to a thread I’ll link to below)

I agree with your sentiment but not your conclusion! :yum: I also don’t concur that the things you mention as ‘obvious’ in your post above are actually so clear cut.

I don’t think people will ever agree entirely, there have always been those with tendencies towards puritanism and those who tend towards more liberal views and a wide variety in between…

Just one thing I’d like to add; I note that the OP left the conversation early on. I think thats a significant thing for us to take on board.

A thread from last year on sex work:
Is sex work micchā-ājīva

A more general thread on desire:

For those interested in what the 3rd precept meant in a historical context, and a discussion of this topic that is more rigorously academic, this essay might be useful:

6 Likes

It seems like a good moment to close the thread. Bhante A has left us some useful threads to read, and where we can consider whether there is value in continuing discussion.

7 Likes