Are "working Girls" Considered Immoral In Buddhism

[Brucenkhamen]

Well there's to many but ya gotta start some where.

Lord Buddha encouraged Ahimsa/ Non violence.

So how does one (Buddhist) rationalize it's OK to kill and eat animals, birds, fish etc when it's obvious one can be healthy and strong without causing pain, suffering and death to other living entities...

Good question, best to start a new thread.

[chutai]

Well there's to many but ya gotta start some where.

Lord Buddha encouraged Ahimsa/ Non violence.

So how does one (Buddhist) rationalize it's OK to kill and eat animals, birds, fish etc when it's obvious one can be healthy and strong without causing pain, suffering and death to other living entities...

Good question, best to start a new thread.

Yes, that is a question that's been debated over and over by Buddhists without any firm conclusions to the question on either side. Fortunately, there is nothing that is de riguer for a Buddhist on this subject.

For me, if I'm not directly involved in the killing of an animal then it's a neutral area with no karmic consequences. However , each person should act as their conscience dictates on the question of whether to eat meat or not.

"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison."

Vanijja Sutta - Business (Wrong Livelihood)

Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

[Pepe']

Well there's to many but ya gotta start some where.

Lord Buddha encouraged Ahimsa/ Non violence.

So how does one (Buddhist) rationalize it's OK to kill and eat animals, birds, fish etc when it's obvious one can be healthy and strong without causing pain, suffering and death to other living entities...

Good question, best to start a new thread.

Yes, that is a question that's been debated over and over by Buddhists without any firm conclusions to the question on either side. Fortunately, there is nothing that is de riguer for a Buddhist on this subject.

For me, if I'm not directly involved in the killing of an animal then it's a neutral area with no karmic consequences. However , each person should act as their conscience dictates on the question of whether to eat meat or not.

"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison."

Vanijja Sutta - Business (Wrong Livelihood)

Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

-------------------------

Hummmm, interesting.

Thanks...

[jumnien]

All buddhist practice is founded in moral discipline (sila).

[AsiaCheese]

In America, there is an organization called "Hookers for Jesus". To my knowledge, in Thailand there is no comparable "ho's for Buddha".

Thank God [pun fully intended] for that. Once that happens, Thailand will be where the Bible Belt (and bordering states) are today, and it'll be time to look for another planet

Maybe its time for you to start looking.....in small villages if a girl goes to the big city and makes alot of money as a sex worker it is not uncommon for her to come back to her village from time to time to donate funds for the local temple.....as rural Thai Buddhism goes this is considered to be a very pious and reverant act.....

Chownah

Yep. Quite common with "good catholics" too, the washing-off-sin bit. But that's quite okay and still a far cry from the super-evangelist bit (quoting Genesis/Jesus he loves me: "just do as I say; don't do as I do...")

[suegha]

The byline about Jesus and Mary Magdalene is beside the point. Especially since it's false. Jesus, however, refused to stone a woman caught in the very act of adultery, although he referred to it as a sin. Most commentators on the passage point out that the MEN who brought the WOMAN to Jesus had failed to also drag in the MAN, who was also in the act. Mary Magdalene is never called a prostitute nor a sexual sinner. Nor was the woman caught in adultery accused of prostitution.

Now, back to Buddhism....

Good post PB. Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute and was never referred to as a sinner. As for the woman taken in adultery, you're right, they should have had the man there as well. The words of Jesus are relevant to this thread though. He said "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

And one by one they left. He did indeed add "...go and sin no more!"

[AYJAYDEE]

Is it right to judge them?

immorality is a subjective concept. unskillful is the word that i have seen suggested rather than immoral.

[Pepe']

The byline about Jesus and Mary Magdalene is beside the point. Especially since it's false. Jesus, however, refused to stone a woman caught in the very act of adultery, although he referred to it as a sin. Most commentators on the passage point out that the MEN who brought the WOMAN to Jesus had failed to also drag in the MAN, who was also in the act. Mary Magdalene is never called a prostitute nor a sexual sinner. Nor was the woman caught in adultery accused of prostitution.

Now, back to Buddhism....

Good post PB. Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute and was never referred to as a sinner. As for the woman taken in adultery, you're right, they should have had the man there as well. The words of Jesus are relevant to this thread though. He said "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

And one by one they left. He did indeed add "...go and sin no more!"

----------------------

We learned in Catholic school that MM was a prostitute. I see from the web now that there are sites that says she was and sites that says she wasn't.

Guess I have to brush up on my Roman Catholicism.

Nooowww, back to Buddhism...

[suegha]

The byline about Jesus and Mary Magdalene is beside the point. Especially since it's false. Jesus, however, refused to stone a woman caught in the very act of adultery, although he referred to it as a sin. Most commentators on the passage point out that the MEN who brought the WOMAN to Jesus had failed to also drag in the MAN, who was also in the act. Mary Magdalene is never called a prostitute nor a sexual sinner. Nor was the woman caught in adultery accused of prostitution.

Now, back to Buddhism....

Good post PB. Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute and was never referred to as a sinner. As for the woman taken in adultery, you're right, they should have had the man there as well. The words of Jesus are relevant to this thread though. He said "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

And one by one they left. He did indeed add "...go and sin no more!"

----------------------

We learned in Catholic school that MM was a prostitute. I see from the web now that there are sites that says she was and sites that says she wasn't.

Guess I have to brush up on my Roman Catholicism.

Nooowww, back to Buddhism...

Don't brush up on your Roman Catholicism, brush up on your bible. A detailed reading will show you that she wasn't. MM was the one out of whom Jesus cast 7 demons. Mark 16.9 In fact there are no woman called Mary who were prostitutes!

[Pepe']

The byline about Jesus and Mary Magdalene is beside the point. Especially since it's false. Jesus, however, refused to stone a woman caught in the very act of adultery, although he referred to it as a sin. Most commentators on the passage point out that the MEN who brought the WOMAN to Jesus had failed to also drag in the MAN, who was also in the act. Mary Magdalene is never called a prostitute nor a sexual sinner. Nor was the woman caught in adultery accused of prostitution.

Now, back to Buddhism....

Good post PB. Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute and was never referred to as a sinner. As for the woman taken in adultery, you're right, they should have had the man there as well. The words of Jesus are relevant to this thread though. He said "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

And one by one they left. He did indeed add "...go and sin no more!"

----------------------

We learned in Catholic school that MM was a prostitute. I see from the web now that there are sites that says she was and sites that says she wasn't.

Guess I have to brush up on my Roman Catholicism.

Nooowww, back to Buddhism...

Don't brush up on your Roman Catholicism, brush up on your bible. A detailed reading will show you that she wasn't. MM was the one out of whom Jesus cast 7 demons. Mark 16.9 In fact there are no woman called Mary who were prostitutes!

--------------

OK. I'll take your word for it...

[suegha]

Good. I have just done a detailed study of the 'Marys' in the NT and none of them is a prostitute. And certainly not MM.

[Pepe']

Good. I have just done a detailed study of the 'Marys' in the NT and none of them is a prostitute. And certainly not MM.

---------------

I believe I said "uncle."

What do you think about when you think about Mary Magdalene?

For the stereotypical Catholic schoolboy, she's an equal part of his two-fold dilemma concerning each woman he meets:

Are you another face of Mary, the mother of God, full of grace and free from sin - someone who could be my true love?

Or are you another face of Mary Magdalene, the prostitute and sinner who repented after Jesus saved her from being stoned by a mob - the same Mary who then saw the risen Christ first?

According to some Christians and scholars, it's time to rethink the Mary Magdalene part - at least the prostitute and stoning stuff, anyway.

Mary Magdalene is becoming a role model for women who expect more important roles for themselves in their respective churches. And scholars use Mary Magdalene as a symbol of the important role of women in early Christianity, as they work out the implications of recently-discovered ancient literature.

The current reform of Mary Magdalene has centuries of church and art tradition to overcome. The non-biblical image of Magdalene as a repentant whore is an image that had been officially sanctioned by the Catholic Church in the sixth century. And it's that image that has been perpetuated by dozens of Christian paintings and movies ever since.

The misreading of Mary Magdalene is almost as ancient as the Gospels of the New Testament themselves, if only because there are up to five different Marys in the Gospels and seven in the New Testament as a whole.

The greatest damage done to Magdalene's reputation, however, is only partly the confusion of these Marys, says Sister Evelina Belfiore, director of Catholic education for the Colorado Springs diocese. The main problem is the way some decided to identify an unnamed woman with Magdalene in the Gospel of Luke.

In 7:37-38, Luke tells the tale of a woman, "a sinner" who goes into a dinner party and anoints Jesus' feet. The following chapter immediately introduces "Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out. ..."

"In the early church," Belfiore says, "as people have placed her in art and legend and misinterpretation, they linked her with the sinner from the chapter before."

Take Martin Scorsese's "Last Temptation of Christ" as one of the more recent examples. In the film, based on the Nikos Kazantzakis novel, Magdalene blatantly is portrayed as a prostitute and is identified with another episode often included in the Gospel of John 8:3-11, where Jesus stops a crowd from stoning a woman for prostitution.

[suegha]

Interesting post Pepe. Just goes to prove what 'not' reading the bible for yourself does. The woman who was a 'sinner' was not MM. The woman taken in adultry (not stoning for prostitution either!) was not MM and despite what history, legend, paintings or hearsay says MM is never refered to as a sinner or a prostitute!

It is true that there are 7 Marys mentioned in the NT so it easy to see how the confusion arises.

[Brucenkhamen]

It is true that there are 7 Marys mentioned in the NT so it easy to see how the confusion arises.

The more the Mary-er!

[chownah]

Interesting post Pepe. Just goes to prove what 'not' reading the bible for yourself does. The woman who was a 'sinner' was not MM. The woman taken in adultry (not stoning for prostitution either!) was not MM and despite what history, legend, paintings or hearsay says MM is never refered to as a sinner or a prostitute!

It is true that there are 7 Marys mentioned in the NT so it easy to see how the confusion arises.

I don't have a copy of the Bible...do you know of a good website for looking up references or for reading it?

Chownah

[Plus]

This is a Buddhism forum, guys.

[camerata]

Exactly. Back to Buddhism or the thread will be closed.

[CuriousGeorge77]

As a segway back into Buddhism, King Mogkut said (regarding Christianity) "What you teach us to do is wise, what you teach us to believe is foolish."

Question: Is prostitution slavery? Certianly if the prostitute in question is a slave, then it would be immoral not to do something to break the pour soul free .... however, if the person is in their profession of choice, by choice, then is it the business of selling humans, or is it providing a service, not that far away form, say, carpentry?

[suegha]

Hi Chow, last reference to bible as you asked for a link. Obviously there are loads, this is the most universal, it has loads of different versions on it and is very easy to use. PM me if you have any probs, I have loads more links.

http://www.biblegateway.com/

Faithful Tiger

[camerata]

Question: Is prostitution slavery? Certianly if the prostitute in question is a slave, then it would be immoral not to do something to break the pour soul free ....

That's not exactly a Buddhist attitude though. The Buddha said involvement in slavery was Wrong Livelihood, but he didn't advocate saving prostitutes or say that non-intervention was immoral.

[CuriousGeorge77]

Thats not quite what I meant. When i said "do something about it" I meant "do something useful" ... and that isn't always o change the situation. Afterall, you can't change someone's mind for them - they have to do it themselves. However, there are things you can do to help change minds, even if it is simply demonstrating another way of existing... Is this closer? thanks!

[fabianfred]

It is obviously not correct to group any type of person together and treat them as one..

since every individual is unique...their previous lives and karma and family backgrounds are all unique....everyone has a different story and reason for entering prostitution

work dealing in humans is immoral...that would apply to the pimps and brothel owners rather than the girls

girls kidnapped or forced into prostitution are not acting of their own accord....so a customer of theirs would be creating more negative karma for themselves than for a girl working voluntarily

some girls just do it for easy money and fun...some to support family at home...every girl and every situation is different so i would say that for some it is immoral and for others not.....

we can never know the background story which has brought them to this point

we cannot therefore judge them...but should have compassion that they are acting in a manner which is detrimental to their health, well being, status in the eyes of society, and possibly their spiritual progress

a girl cannot know if a customer is single, married, attached or not...so her part in the mans transgression against the third precept can only be slight.....he is more to blame if his act is adulterous or not...a mistress is more acting wrongly than a prostitute as far as breaking the thrid precept