The Third Precept

[camerata]

The third precept is usually translated as refraining from "sexual misconduct" (Kamesu michchachara), but this sounds pretty vague in English. The most comprehensive description of sexual misbehaviour is found in the Chunda Sutta:

Cunda, what are the three ways of bodily impurity?

Here, Cunda, a certain one destroys living things, is cruel with bloody hands, is engaged in destruction, without compassion for any living thing.

Takes the not given, gone to the village or forest takes the not given with a thievish mind.

Misbehaves sexually with those protected by the mother, father, mother and father, brother, sister, relations, the clan, protected by the Teaching, with those who have a husband and liable to be punished or even someone who is garlanded at a ceremony. Cunda, one becomes bodily impure in these three ways.

From this it appears that the precept is aimed mainly at illegal sex with people who are not free to consent because they are under the protection of another. In the Buddha's time it would have covered practically any woman other than a prostitute, but not relationships with adult men. These days, though, there are a lot more women not under anyone's "protection." So according to the above definition it would seem OK to engage in casual sex or even a threesome, as long as everyone consented. This is a bit different from how the third precept is viewed in Thailand.

[Plus]

In those days women were always considered under someone's protection. That means you had to ask for permission from her father or brother regardless of woman's own consent. The idea was that seducing a woman is a fairly easy task.

Even now there are plenty of women here, in Thailand, who'd need father's permission for any publicly acknowledged relationships.

As I understand, "hidden" sex is impure. I don't need scriptures to tell me that, there's always this feeling of having done something wrong.

[chutai]

The third precept is usually translated as refraining from "sexual misconduct" (Kamesu michchachara), but this sounds pretty vague in English.

I interpret the precepts as being guidlines to prevent self and other-suffering. Therefore, any sexual activity which would cause suffering for another, and by implication upon yourself, should be avoided. Adultery ,for instance, would be a case of 'sexual misconduct' for lay practicioners as an unskilful action, creating 'bad causes' .

[camerata]

Right. That's how I interpret the precepts too. But it's interesting how much difference there is between the letter of the third precept (mainly concerning illegal/illicit sex) and the summary of it as "misconduct," which could easily include homosexuality, casual sex, oral sex, or whatever. In fact, "misconduct" almost seems to imply the strict Christian idea that sex is only for the purpose of procreation.

Personally, I tend to go further than excluding anything that would cause my self or others to suffer. I include anything that is likely to cause suffering. In other words, one shouldn't take significant risks of creating suffering.

[camerata]

As I understand, "hidden" sex is impure. I don't need scriptures to tell me that, there's always this feeling of having done something wrong.

Sounds more like Judeo-Christian guilt to me. I always found "hidden" sex exciting.

[Brucenkhamen]

The third precept I think gives you pause to look at your sexual drive objectively.

Do you really need sex right now? Why? What happens if you don't follow your urge? or delay it? Is it that important?

I don't think there is anything wrong consesual sex between two adults who have no commitments to third parties as long as there is no liklihood of one getting hurt.

Like if one is drunk and may regret it in the morning, or one is in love while the other just wants a fling, or one has a transmittable disease which could infect the other, or one is currently abstaining for spiritual purposes. These kinds of situations can definately result in someone getting hurt so I would say would be against the precept.

[Plus]

As I understand, "hidden" sex is impure. I don't need scriptures to tell me that, there's always this feeling of having done something wrong.

Sounds more like Judeo-Christian guilt to me. I always found "hidden" sex exciting.

I think if you can't look the girl's father in the eye because you secretly deflowered her last night, it has nothing to do with the Bible. Girl's guilt must be a thousand degrees worse, I suppose.

The excitement is there, sure, but it has a rather blinding influence and you do not realise what you are actually doing, pretty much like alcohol.

Taken at the face value it's difficult to label homosex as misconduct, unless you commit homoadultery.

From that definition it appears that sex is misconduct if some sort of a punishment is coming.

[zzdocxx]

even someone who is garlanded at a ceremony.

What does it mean?

[camerata]

I think if you can't look the girl's father in the eye because you secretly deflowered her last night, it has nothing to do with the Bible.

But why would one feel bad about it? These days, I doubt anyone would care what father thinks (including the girl), assuming the girl is of legal age.

From that definition it appears that sex is misconduct if some sort of a punishment is coming.

That's what I thought too. According to the Pali Canon, the third precept seems mainly designed to protect people from the dukkha of being chased and punished by the king's men or a girl's clansmen.

[Plus]

I think if you can't look the girl's father in the eye because you secretly deflowered her last night, it has nothing to do with the Bible.

But why would one feel bad about it? These days, I doubt anyone would care what father thinks (including the girl), assuming the girl is of legal age.

Yeah, but those days were different. You can still get shot in Thailand for messing up with daughters of some fathers. Virginity is not a virtue in the West and is losing ground in Thailand, too, but this has nothing to do with Buddhism. Sleeping around before marriage was inconceivable in Buddha's times.

Shifting to the present day, I guess if the father doesn't care and there are no bad feelings, then it's ok.

Or take this example - you steal a girl from some village boy who has never even touched her but had plans since puberty. Do you think that really upsetting him is ok? I don't think so. Same with seducing a man. Actually there was a meaningful phrase in English - "spoken for" but I guess it's going the way of virginity.

[camerata]

Or take this example - you steal a girl from some village boy who has never even touched her but had plans since puberty. Do you think that really upsetting him is ok? I don't think so.

This brings up the question of intention. Action is not defined as Wrong Action if it is not intentional. In your example, the boy has no right to make plans without consulting the girl. If the girl chooses you, you wouldn't be stealing from him and it wouldn't be your intention to hurt him. But it's definitely a situation to be avoided if possible, and the boy's feelings need to be considered.

[Plus]

If you knew that they boy really fancies the girl, knew that you would hurt his feelings, is there a way to avoid the blame? The boy cannot claim that the girl is under his protection in the same way a father or husband would, but it is possible he didn't want to consummate their relationships until they were both ready (socially, not physically).

The girl, if she ever made any promises to the boy, would surely feel guilty.

As for stealing men - youtube that video of two Thai high school girls beating eachother senseless over a boy. Who can say that the sex was not a misbehaviour.

[chownah]

Interesting thread...so far everyone seems to be focused on what people will think of the sex act while noone has mentioned the common outcome of sex namely a child. No contraceptives in the Buddha's time.

Chownah

[bankei]

you wouldn't be stealing the girl unless you kidnapped her. People can decide who to marry.

I like to interpret sexual misconduct of the third precept as being sex that causes suffering - rape, under-age, animals etc.

I don't include anal, threesomes, 4somes (etc) or oral or even homosexual varieties of these. Uniforms are ok too. I would also not include adultery, per se, if it is done with free consent - but then you may fall into telling lies or hurting your loved one so it would be unwise.

[phibunmike]

you wouldn't be stealing the girl unless you kidnapped her. People can decide who to marry.

I like to interpret sexual misconduct of the third precept as being sex that causes suffering - rape, under-age, animals etc.

I don't include anal, threesomes, 4somes (etc) or oral or even homosexual varieties of these. Uniforms are ok too. I would also not include adultery, per se, if it is done with free consent - but then you may fall into telling lies or hurting your loved one so it would be unwise.

I suspect you are at odds with the precepts there. Here is the rule for monks, which is quite explicit on this point. I would assume that the generalised interpretation of this rule passes down to the rules for lay people. Uniforms seem ok though.

This First Defeater Offence is summarized:

"A bhikkhu who engages in any form of sexual intercourse is Defeated." (Paar. 1; See BMC p.45)

Every form and variety of sexual intercourse with sexual penetration — whether genital, oral or anal, whether with woman, man or animal — is forbidden. The penalty is the heaviest one of Paaraajika or Defeat.

edit> tried to get apostrophe in name part of quotation, but failed.

Edited December 1, 2007 by phibunmike

[bankei]

Hi phibunmike

Not sure what you think my interpretation is at odds with the precepts. You are comparing lay people to monastics who are prohibited to have sex with anything - including trees

Lay people are not prohibited from having sex, just sexual misconduct.

Not all rules for the monks can he passed down to laypeople - monks must not urinate standing up for example!

[rockyysdt]

The subject of sexual misconduct seems very unclear and open to interpretation for those on a spiritual path.

Reading your posts with interest, imy conclusion is that we all seem to be speculating rather than knowing the way.

I myself am unclear and attempt to find balance as a sexual being.

These are some of my thoughts currently.

For far too long sexual interaction between consenting adults has been demonised by many cultures and religions.

Sexual fulfilment can be a very healthy and balancing activity.

Sexual interaction with partners through coersion, deception, or force is unacceptible.

Sexual interaction with partners who are at a disadvantage and involve themselves in order to exist is also unacceptible.

Sexual interaction with children is definitely unacceptible.

Maybe others can add to this.

I'm not sure about adultery. If there is no deception and all parties are aware, it may depend on your vows.

One thing I do know.

All this is speculation and created by the ego.

As you grow spiritually you will automatically know the answers.

Don't by tied down by dogma and ancient writings of well meaning academics as many chrisitians do.

There is only one answer and you will know it when you experience God.

Part of the answer has to do with our ego.

[Plus]

Of course there's no God in Theravada Buddhism, but you sounded sincere.

To hel_l with scriptures, find you own way, what did they know about sex anyway... Is it a fair summary?

[chutai]

Of course there's no God in Theravada Buddhism, but you sounded sincere.

To hel_l with scriptures, find you own way, what did they know about sex anyway... Is it a fair summary?

More this, I suspect:

"Believe nothing merely because you have been told it.

Do not believe what your teacher tells you

merely out of respect for the teacher.

But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis,

you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit,

the welfare of all beings -- that doctrine believe and cling to,

and take it as your guide."

Shakyamuni Buddha

[seonai]

ChuThai - I agree

[chutai]

ChuThai - I agree

chutai (jpn. the truth of the Middle Way). Perhaps most fundamentally expressed as the middle way between the extremes of essentialism and nihilism.

"A harp emits no sound

If the strings are stretched too much.

It also sounds nothing

If they are stretched too little.

Only when the strings are stretched just right,

All music is in tune."

The Sutra of the Forty-two Chapters

[Plus]

"Believe nothing merely because you have been told it.

Do not believe what your teacher tells you

merely out of respect for the teacher.

But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis,

you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit,

the welfare of all beings -- that doctrine believe and cling to,

and take it as your guide."

Shakyamuni Buddha

How do you know that you have performed "due examination and analysis" before you decide it's time to abandon teachers and scriptures? Are you trying to imply that an average man is capable of passing a sound judgement on whether the sex with a young, attractive girl will be "conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings".

[camerata]

Regarding the Kalama Sutta and the evaluation of teachings, I follow Aj Thanissaro's view:

"Although this discourse is often cited as the Buddha's carte blanche for following one's own sense of right and wrong, it actually says something much more rigorous than that. Traditions are not to be followed simply because they are traditions. Reports (such as historical accounts or news) are not to be followed simply because the source seems reliable. One's own preferences are not to be followed simply because they seem logical or resonate with one's feelings. Instead, any view or belief must be tested by the results it yields when put into practice; and — to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise. The ability to question and test one's beliefs in an appropriate way is called appropriate attention. The ability to recognize and choose wise people as mentors is called having admirable friends. According to Iti 16-17, these are, respectively, the most important internal and external factors for attaining the goal of the practice."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an...3.065.than.html

[Oleg_Rus]

If nobody can clearly define the meaning of misconduct, maybe it will be easier to define the opposite ie

"sexual conduct" ?

Otherwise, if both phrases posses no meaning whatsover it will render the subject to nonsence.

And than, whoever in what sutra said is irrelevant ?

Well, what is "the sexual conduct" ?

[Plus]

Traditions are not to be followed simply because they are traditions...

At this point he is not talking about NOT following traditions, only about better understanding them.

Surely there are cases when after rigorous evaluation and "proper attention" one can decide to go against the established tradition, but how often that would happen in practice?

I still prefer the originally quoted sutra on this matter - it's ok if there are no undesirable consequences. Lots of sexual relationships outside marriage brings trouble sooner or later. Casual sex with no strings attached seems to be ok, though.

I also remembered Kamasutra - it's not all about sexual positions, there's also lot of recommendations for prostitutes on how to run their business. The general idea was the same if you look at it from this angle - how not to create trouble for anyone involved.

[chutai]

" The ability to question and test one's beliefs in an appropriate way is called appropriate attention. The ability to recognize and chose wise people as mentors is called having admirable friends. According to Iti 16-17, these are, respectively, the most important internal and external factors for attaining the goal of the practice."

I tend to agree with this in essence. It's a good thing to have a mentor, but not in overreliance that would diminish the use of ones own wisdom.This does happen sometimes.

I also agree with another post (above) who rightly says that as anyone developes in practice so does the abliity to discern what is beneficial conduct and to act with Wisdom and Compassion.

But although both good friends or sangha and a wise mentor ( ideally, whose example is to there to be transcended by the disciple ) are important ; the most crucial aspects of Budddhism are Faith, Practice and Study. Without any of these three component parts, then each other part is weakened -- or not strengthened enough to enable us to realise the full benefits, both conspicuous and inconspicuous.

[rockyysdt]

" The ability to question and test one's beliefs in an appropriate way is called appropriate attention. The ability to recognize and chose wise people as mentors is called having admirable friends. According to Iti 16-17, these are, respectively, the most important internal and external factors for attaining the goal of the practice."

I tend to agree with this in essence. It's a good thing to have a mentor, but not in overreliance that would diminish the use of ones own wisdom.This does happen sometimes.

I also agree with another post (above) who rightly says that as anyone developes in practice so does the abliity to discern what is beneficial conduct and to act with Wisdom and Compassion.

But although both good friends or sangha and a wise mentor ( ideally, whose example is to there to be transcended by the disciple ) are important ; the most crucial aspects of Budddhism are Faith, Practice and Study. Without any of these three component parts, then each other part is weakened -- or not strengthened enough to enable us to realise the full benefits, both conspicuous and inconspicuous.

Faith, & Practice are definitely two musts.

If "Study" encompasses techniques in achieving enlightenment, inspirational writings, and guidance then this is the third must.

If Study means to learn and repeat detailed dogma on the meaning of life without the proponent ever having first hand experience, exposes one to exploitation, panders to the ego, and can result in a form of auto hypnosis where this information seeps into the subconscious during the meditative state.

Through faith, practice & guidance you prepare yourself to receive.

Present yourself in silence and when you receive the miracle of enlightenment you will know.

That's my belief anyway.

What are your thoughts?

Edited December 5, 2007 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

There's a good explanation of the third precept in this article: Homosexuality and Theravada Buddhism by A.L. De Silva.

[chutai]

Faith, & Practice are definitely two musts.

If "Study" encompasses techniques in achieving enlightenment, inspirational writings, and guidance then this is the third must.

If Study means to learn and repeat detailed dogma on the meaning of life without the proponent ever having first hand experience, exposes one to exploitation, panders to the ego, and can result in a form of auto hypnosis where this information seeps into the subconscious during the meditative state.

Through faith, practice & guidance you prepare yourself to receive.

Present yourself in silence and when you receive the miracle of enlightenment you will know.

That's my belief anyway.

What are your thoughts?

Hi rockyysdt

My understanding is when we analyse faith, we find that it can be divided into three essential components: faith, practice and study. Basically, the makes the analogy of faith being a general; practice, the first officer; and study, the second officer. The purpose of practice is to assist and support faith, and the purpose of study is to support practice.

A simple analogy that's often used is a plane with either of the two wings missing will plummet back to the ground. When there is a gap in this relationship and it does not move smoothly, faith, practice and study fall out of synchronization.

We can also say that practice is led by faith, and that study follows practice. .As has been said, "faith is primary; its first lieutenant is practice; and its second lieutenant is study."

But neither is it helpful to "learn and repeat detailed dogma". Anyway once you get deeply involved in doctrinal studies, you tend to be negligent in your practice. But when we ask what the core of religion, of religious faith is, the answer is practice. Doctrine is meant to be a support for practice. We must never forget that practice does not exist for the sake of doctrine but that doctrine exists for the sake of practice.

I'm always quite impressed by listening to those venerable gentlemen of the Thai forest tradition, who undoubtedly well versed in the Sutras/Suttas applicable to their own tradition, still try and speak only from the heart. To speak otherwise becomes a cold and clinical exercise, and as you infer, something of an ego trip that doesn't connect with people. I'd even go as far as to say that getting carried away with doctrinal studies, is just playing with Buddhism

But in order to explain Buddhism to others, it does need both knowing what you're talking about and the efficacy/experience of practice. But our doctrinal studies must not lapse into an obsession with textual analysis but must always remain study based on faith, study for the sake of ourselves and others.

So as you can see, I'm not in anyway saying that study should be a form of meditative technique in the strong sense of the term (for me that's a question of both observing the mind and a means of tapping into, and revealing, ones own inherent Buddha nature). Nor solely a form of intellectual gratifcation. But only as food for the other two component parts of Buddhism, one might say.

[rockyysdt]

Thanks chutai.

I appreciate your words and thoughts.

I've been mindful of my path for some time but my progress has been slow due lifes circumstances and negative self talk.

Meeting like minded people is inspirational to me and assists me to refocus with my practice.

I try to live my life with a soft heart, and when mindful, use this when interacting with others.

This thread attracted my interest, as the discussion around sexual misconduct appeared to be unclear amongst practioners.

I think mindful people who are self aware will know how to behave as their practice deepens.

I find following rules such as christian, islamic, and jewish teachings fraught with danger as most fail in their interpretation.

That's why my only rules (other than the obvious) is to practice silence and follow ones heart.

I've found myself being drawn to Thailand and believe this is not a coincidence and it may relate to my lifes path.

Are there any places in Thailand which you recommend where one can get involved with spiritual practice free from the commercial world?

Perhaps initially for orientation, and inspiration, but later for serious contemplation with guidance.

I'm very tired of western style meditation centres and groups which in practice operate as fronts for businesses and seem to have little to offer in the way of true spritual growth.

Rocky