To begin with, it should be made clear that the precepts aren't equivalent to commandments in that they're training rules that are voluntarily undertaken rather than edicts or commands dictated by a higher power and/or authority. In essence, these precepts are undertaken to protect oneself, as well as others, from the results of unskillful actions. Actions are considered unskillful when they arise out of the mental defilements of greed, hatred, and delusion and lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both (MN 61).
In regard to Buddhist sexual ethics, the third precept states: "I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct." This, of course, will naturally lead one to the question, What is the definition of sexual misconduct? To answer that question, however, we must take into account the other four precepts. The five precepts are an integrated whole, and each precept helps to support the others. The other four precepts are (1) to refrain from harming living beings, (2) to refrain from taking what's not given, (3) to refrain from false speech, and (4) to refrain from taking intoxicants that lead to carelessness.
Therefore, generally speaking, we can say that sexual misconduct consists of any sexual conduct that involves violence, manipulation, and/or deceit, and it specifically includes sex with "those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma [i.e., monastics who have taken vows of celibacy]; those with husbands [or wives], those who entail punishments [i.e., those protected by law, such as if they're underage], or even those crowned with flowers by another man [i.e., engaged]" (MN 41). As the Ven. S. Dhammika elaborates:
If we use trickery, emotional blackmail or force to compel someone to have sex with us, then this is sexual misconduct. Adultery is also a form of sexual misconduct because when we marry we promise our spouse that we will be loyal to them. When we commit adultery we break that promise and betray that trust. Sex should be an expression of love and intimacy between two people and when it is it contributes to our mental and emotional well-being.
So, to summarize, from what I've been taught by my teachers, as well as from what I've read in the suttas, sexual misconduct includes any sexual activity that leads to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both, or that involves any person who's already in a committed relationship (e.g., engaged, married, etc.), protected by law (e.g., under age, etc.), or under religious vows entailing celibacy (e.g., monks, nuns, etc.). Hence in Theravada, sex between consenting persons of legal age who aren't already in committed relationships and haven't taken vows of celibacy isn't considered misconduct.
In regard to anal and oral sex, there's a prohibition against sex concerning "inappropriate orifices" (i.e. anal and oral) that can be found in Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosabhasyam, as well as a few other Sarvastivadin texts, but there's no such prohibition found in any Theravadin source. The same goes for masturbation. These were most likely introduced by later commentators such as Vasubandhu.
Personally, I think that a lot of the views concerning marriage and sex are influenced more by cultural, religious and social norms than by any universal constant. And regardless of what any tradition of Buddhism has to say about, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with sex or masturbation; although I do think that strong sexual desires can cause discomfort in the mind when in deep states of concentration, and can actually make it difficult to develop more refined states of mind in the first place.
"…regardless of what any tradition of Buddhism has to say about [it], I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with sex or masturbation…"
ReplyDeleteBuddhist texts are, of course, not my reference, but in general I feel the same way. However, that isn't what God, as He is revealed in the Bible, has to say about it. For you, brother, I know there is no reason to even consider it, because you do not hold to a concept of "revelation" from a personal Deity that must be obeyed. As for me, it's different. I accept the reality of that Deity because I have experienced Him, and so for me it follows that I either meet Him in the Bible or I don't. If the Deity I have experienced turns out to be the same one who is speaking in the Bible, then I'm bound to accept that Book as His "revelation", that is, it reveals what His mind is with regard to us. So much for the explanation. I believe in the Bible and the God of the Bible through personal interaction with both, and so I am not bound by a religious preoccupation.
Sexual union is the reincorporation into one physical organism of two half-organisms, by means of periodic liaisons. The liaisons produce new creatures, and that is one of the functions of sex, perhaps, on the physical or purely natural level, the only function. We know, however, that we are more than meets the eye. Sexual union, from an Orthodox and biblical point of view is a microcosmic manifestation of a dichotomy that cleaves all universes into two so that they can be reunited. Why shouldn't they have been already unified, and permanently? Religion and philosophy have many explanations. It is basically a mystery, in fact, THE mystery of existence that it should be this way.
Though sexual organs and acts can have many meanings and functions, they really are by nature what they appear to be: the vehicles and functions of procreation and personal union. The biblical God, if He is the originator of both, commands both, though we can sidestep His commands. You can use a spoon to feed food into your mouth, or you can use it to open a paint can. It works admirably for both, but there are better tools to open a paint can, and if you use a spoon to open a paint can you may deform it. Better to use a different tool to do that.
The Bible tells us that adultery is wrong. So what else is new? We all seem to be in agreement with that, though for different reasons. It is silent on masturbation, but many of its supporters have found ways to trick us into believing that it also condemns it. That is untrue, but it really doesn't matter. The tools in question are meant to be used a certain way by their designer: in this case, He has written the instructions all over nature, so who needs the Bible? So masturbation is not a proper use, but a possible, and sometimes a necessary use, of these tools. It fulfills a lesser function of this body part and activity, emotional and physical release. You'd better do it, or you'll make yourself very, very sick.
ReplyDeleteOral sex, on the other hand, has honorable mention in Yahweh Sabaoth's pillow book, the Song of Solomon. The Bible again has been abused by foxes envious of grapes they cannot reach to be used to condemn such acts, but these are not wrong or sinful either when performed in fulfilling the commandments.
Anal sex, on the other hand, is a big no-no to the God of the Bible, and I won't even venture to say why, other than because He said so. I can think of plenty of reasons, though.
Then there's the big question, homosexual activity, yes or no. Well, homosocial activity is permitted and in some cases encouraged, but sexual liaisons between men where one of them takes the female role is unequivocably condemned. Sexual acts between women is not even mentioned in the Law (Torah), but holy apostle Paul does include it in the list of prohibitions, without going into detail. Historically, that means that women have been usually left alone, but men have been usually punished for sexual activity between them, even when some forms of same sex intimacy are not prohibited. The case of David and Jonathan is cited by gay activists inside the Christian community, but their relationship, though homosocial to a remarkable depth, was still not what we can call homosexual, unless one includes the former in the latter.
I do not usually write on this subject, as it is an esoteric thing usually passed down in oral teaching, but I thought I'd give you a sample of it since you're not likely to find it in print elsewhere—well, maybe you would, but you're probably not really interested in looking at sexual topics from a Judaeo-Xtian viewpoint, and that is understandable to me.
Hope this comment finds you well, and maybe we will cross paths again.
Interesting, thanks for sharing that. Some of it I already knew, but some of it's new to me. Incidentally, the idea that we're two half-organisms seeking to reincorporate into one physical organism via sexual union is also presented by Aristophanes in Plato's Symposium (385–380 BCE). If you haven't already read it, I highly suggest it; it's a good read.
ReplyDeletePlato writes about it, yes, but it is already present in Judaic tradition, though I am not sure how far back it goes. Judaic esoteric wisdom owes a lot of Hellenistic Judaism, which owes a lot to the ancient Greeks. This all carries over into Christian esoteric tradition. It's a continuum.
ReplyDeleteOh, yes, I have read the Symposium. Thanks.