Buddhist Pancasila

[steve19800]

Hello guys,

First of all, we all know what Pancasila is.
First precept refrain from killing, this precept is quite clear to be understood, the same as second, fourth and fifth precept. But the third precept has always been questioned by most people, at least from what I know.
That's why I like to ask monk and ask another monk when I visit another temple. Their perspective could be different about this precept but basically the same, only when you ask monks from different Buddhist traditions.

So I asked a Bhikkhuni from Theravada tradition, her answer is same as those written on the Theravada Sutta i.e. no sexual relationship with a person under protection of parents, with other people's partner, etc, etc. This is very clear. Then I asked her why in some of other tradition say Tibetan, they have their own definition of sexual misconduct i.e. no intercourse when there is sunlight coming into the room or in the presence of sunlight, outdoor sex in open space also considered as sexual misconduct, five times intercourse in a day also sexual misconduct, etc, etc.
From what I know, the latter one perhaps an individual interpretation from particular Tibetan sages at that time regarding Sakyamuni Buddha's Pancasila. Maybe this precept is supposed to be interpreted individually, and therefore Buddha let every person to observe and decide it for their own self. As sexual behavior is very different from one person to another, three times a week maybe perfect for some couple and another couple maybe need more often and so on and so on.

So I think the definition of misconduct here is obviously relate to relativity besides hurt other people of course. And maybe that's why that Bhikkhuni also said it depends on what level you are on, Tibetan one is pretty strict. It is strict perhaps like I said before it is an interpretation from a certain person who maybe had different level of accomplishment. I think all sexual activities are actually misconduct, that's why Buddha encourage his disciple to live a pure life, celibate life, abandoning sexual desire. But obviously that precept is not a 'live or die' rule therefore there is Buddhist monk and there is Buddhist lay people and Buddha understood this.

So to make it clear I just want to know everyone's perspective, do you agree Buddha let his followers to decide it for themselves according to their capability regarding this precept? And please share if you have other thoughts. Thanks a lot.

[Sekha]

Interesting question.
Here is the definition in Pali with translation, to get a more precise grasp of the instructions found in the suttas:

http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/angu ... micchacara

Kāmesumicchācārī hoti yā tā mātu-rakkhitā pitu-rakkhitā mātā-pitu-rakkhitā bhātu-rakkhitā bhagini-rakkhitā ñāti-rakkhitā gotta-rakkhitā dhamma-rakkhitā sa-sāmikā sa-paridaṇḍā antamaso mālā-guḷa-parikkhittā-pi, tathārūpāsu cārittaṃ āpajjitā hoti.

One is kāmesumicchācārī, he is one who falls into such a conduct with a woman who is protected by her mother, protected by her father, protected by both her parents, protected by her brother, protected by her sister, protected by her relatives, protected by her clan, protected by the Dhamma, one who has a husband, who is liable to punishment, or even one on whom wreaths (of flowers) have been spread.

I think the last one gives pretty much the spirit: "one on whom wreaths (of flowers) have been spread" is understood as referring to one's fiancée. So, here sex before formal "marriage" (ie. social recognition and acceptation of the existence of the couple) is included in sexual misconduct.

But it seems the precept has variable geometry according to the particular cultural features of a given society. I can imagine ancient India was mostly pretty conservative (at least in urban areas) and more "liberal" behavior would be seen among less educated people (sexual intercourse is often described as "the villager's way" see here). I think nevertheless the main problem about sexual misconduct is that it gets people really angry (especially in a caste-based society), since its main bad result is to meet with enmity (see here).

However, some monks nowadays argue that for a layman sex with a prostitute is not sexual misconduct. Bhante Aggacitta (in his book The Importance of Being Morally Virtuous) even says that cheating on one's wife is no sexual misconduct if the third party is a prostitute or another such "compatible" person. Personally, I wouldn't dare to make such claims.

[Cittasanto]

Hi
The first four precepts are known as worldly precepts as they are blameable by the world, but the third precept is a tricky one, governs social interaction more than others, so as the social context changes the acts the rule encompasses {changes also}.
If you look at the texts for a man even when married to one woman, they can marry again or hire a prostitute; yet today in the west having multiple wife's or hiring a prostitute when married is looked down upon, and seen by many as a breech of the precept by letter, even if the letter isn't there, so you do need to be aware of this with how people answer, i.e., what social norms are they from and have these influenced the texts or interpretation. Plus the spirit, like you said, is to do with not hurting another person.

However, the Buddha did have two forms of the Atthasila, one where chastity is emphasised, and one where sexual misconduct is emphasised depending on ones ability, see the dhammika sutta in Sn, but I do not believe he had a similar alternative for the Pancasila, however that is not saying he let people decide what was and was not in keeping with the precept, it reminds me of the fifth precept interpretation of every thing in moderation, well that works great until you realise it isn't there and could easily be applied to the other precepts also. he layed down ground rules for each precept, i.e., consenting adults not bound to another through law or promise.

I do however disagree with Sekhas interpretation of the meaning of the clarification of "wreaths" it is to my knowledge understood as someone engaged/promised to another, i.e., another's fiancée, or fiancé, or other relationship, not that the person can not be with their partner, i.e. sex before marriage is not against the precept here, rather sex that separates parters is.

[robertk]

Excellent explanation Cittasanto.

[Cittasanto]

Excellent explanation Cittasanto.

Thanks,
had good oportunity to study the precepts with the vinaya and the rest of the canon in hand
here is a condensed version of the end result although this is only about a quater of the study.

[Sekha]

I do however disagree with Sekhas interpretation of the meaning of the clarification of "wreaths" it is to my knowledge understood as someone engaged/promised to another, i.e., another's fiancée, or fiancé, or other relationship, not that the person can not be with their partner, i.e. sex before marriage is not against the precept here, rather sex that separates parters is.

I recognize what I expressed is only one opinion, and rather a strict one. But from the text, the compound mālā-guḷa-parikkhittā (one on whom a wreath of flowers has been thrown around) does not let us know who is the person who has thrown the flowers. Thus, either assumption can be criticized, and I would be curious to know how you back up the claim that it is only about "someone engaged/promised to another".

The easy thing about sila is that the stricter interpretation is always safer. Concluding it means no sex before marriage, that would be relevant in a super-conservative society, as I believe it was at the time of the Buddha (knowing what present day India's is!), and might not be exactly relevant to all environments in current day western society.

[daverupa]

The easy thing about sila is that the stricter interpretation is always safer.

Be careful here: a strict interpretation of certain precepts can become Jain-ish, which would be a mistake. We can see this easily with the first precept, where a strict interpretation might say that even unintentionally stepping on insects has kammic consequences. This stricture is inappropriate to Buddhist practice, and is therefore not safer.

With respect to the flower wreath issue, it's probably fair to say that if one is trying to interpret the precept to allow for a certain sex act, ones intention should be examined, and not so much the letter of the stricture. After all, to say that a certain act has kammic consequences irrespective of intention is to miss the point.

More significant here is the intention "i seek to engage in sex/orgasm", which is a sensual pursuit in any context - white-clad householders in the Suttas are juxtaposed on this point, some practicing chastity/hands-off and others not. The precepts highlight relatively common intentions which are greatly problematic, and the intention "i seek to engage in pre-marital sex with my/another betrothed" has fluid consequences which depend in large part upon social mores.

To remain embedded in such distant social mores would have us say that married sex was okay according to the precept, even if an old person married a minor. This, today, is sexual misconduct... but wasn't in the Buddha's day, simply because of the social differences. Intention matters so much...

[David N. Snyder]

Speaking of culture, in the Buddha's time and even not that far back in India it was common for men and women to marry as young as 15 to 16 years of age. So there probably was no time for courting/dating and marriages were arranged anyway, so pre-marital sex was not an issue. Today it is common for men and women to wait until they are about 30 and sometimes even older before getting married, due to establishing themselves in education, career, etc. The sutta reference appears to be referring to an engaged person, so in light of this and modern realities, I would say the importance is to intention and maturity of the people involved and therefore, pre-marital relations among consenting adults, not 'promised' to another would not be misconduct.

[daverupa]

Precisely so; you headed off my last post at the edit pass...

[Sekha]

The easy thing about sila is that the stricter interpretation is always safer.

Be careful here: a strict interpretation of certain precepts can become Jain-ish, which would be a mistake.

True. However, I think the problem arises with excessive attachment to the precept, to the point of forgetting that it is the intention that counts, and that the physical act is secondary.

With respect to the flower wreath issue, it's probably fair to say that if one is trying to interpret the precept to allow for a certain sex act, ones intention should be examined, and not so much the letter of the stricture.

I think we have to understand both

More significant here is the intention "i seek to engage in sex/orgasm", which is a sensual pursuit in any context - white-clad householders in the Suttas are juxtaposed on this point, some practicing chastity/hands-off and others not. The precepts highlight relatively common intentions which are greatly problematic, and the intention "i seek to engage in pre-marital sex with my/another betrothed" has fluid consequences which depend in large part upon social mores.

What about the following line: "if I have to hide my relation with whoever to part or the rest of society, that is a sure sign I am engaging in misconduct"?

[daverupa]

What about the following line: "if I have to hide my relation with whoever to part or the rest of society, that is a sure sign I am engaging in misconduct"?

Non-Jews hiding Jews in Nazi Germany (and similar), therefore whether there is hiding or not doesn't work as a criterion. It also makes no reference to intention, whereas the precepts are framed in terms of undertaking restraint, not comparing behavior to social expectations.

[Sekha]

well, I was talking about sexual intercourse actually, not just about anything. We could be talking about hiding one's intention or not... : )

It would be in the spirit of AN 2.27:

Paṭicchannakammantassa, bhikkhave, dvinnaṃ gatīnaṃ aññatarā gati pāṭikaṅkhā – nirayo vā tiracchānayoni vāti. Appaṭicchannakammantassa, bhikkhave, dvinnaṃ gatīnaṃ aññatarā gati pāṭikaṅkhā – devā vā manussā vā.

For one who acts with dissimulation, bhikkhus, of these two destinations, one is to be expected: either hell or the animal womb. For one who acts without dissimulation, bhikkhus, of these two destinations, one is to be expected: either deva or human.

Paṭicchannakammanta: paṭicchanna means "covered, concealed, hidden" and kammanta of course action.

[daverupa]

I haven't read that Sutta, but the word seems to be about concealed intention, not acts concealed from the populace. Indeed, intent is naturally concealed from others, and it must be inferred based on behavior. So "acting one way & thinking another" might be meant ("...but the animal is open enough...").

[Cittasanto]

I recognize what I expressed is only one opinion, and rather a strict one. But from the text, the compound mālā-guḷa-parikkhittā (one on whom a wreath of flowers has been thrown around) does not let us know who is the person who has thrown the flowers. Thus, either assumption can be criticized, and I would be curious to know how you back up the claim that it is only about "someone engaged/promised to another".

you also come to the same conclusion!

"one on whom wreaths (of flowers) have been spread" is understood as referring to one's fiancée.

The customs as described, and currently practices in india, I can not actually remember the exact source, although there may be a more revealing mention of this term within the canon I think it could of even been from an analysis of the rule by a current monk, and certainly came to my attention through a former monk/translator I am friends with.

The easy thing about sila is that the stricter interpretation is always safer. Concluding it means no sex before marriage, that would be relevant in a super-conservative society, as I believe it was at the time of the Buddha (knowing what present day India's is!), and might not be exactly relevant to all environments in current day western society.

I do not see what you have said as a "strict interpretation" of the texts, but a misrepresentation.
If you look at the texts wives hire courtesans to entertain their husbands so that they can focus on dana for the sangha and other practice related things, kings had multiple wives (I can not recall anyone else engaged in poligamy in the texts although probably upper class and rich people did.)
but just to note the conservitive india you know today was influenced by Empire, and the strict morality was implanted then as a means to control the masses so it is not necessarily demonstrative of India without that influence, either before or after.
Edit= just to add what I initially said

The first four precepts are known as worldly precepts as they are blameable by the world, but the third precept is a tricky one, governs social interaction more than others, so as the social context changes the acts the rule encompasses {changes also}.

added last two words in {...} and adding them to the original now.
Although if you are getting your interpretation from the texts I would be interested as to where, Although if not,

[Cittasanto]

well, I was talking about sexual intercourse actually, not just about anything. We could be talking about hiding one's intention or not... : )

It would be in the spirit of AN 2.27:

Paṭicchannakammantassa, bhikkhave, dvinnaṃ gatīnaṃ aññatarā gati pāṭikaṅkhā – nirayo vā tiracchānayoni vāti. Appaṭicchannakammantassa, bhikkhave, dvinnaṃ gatīnaṃ aññatarā gati pāṭikaṅkhā – devā vā manussā vā.

For one who acts with dissimulation, bhikkhus, of these two destinations, one is to be expected: either hell or the animal womb. For one who acts without dissimulation, bhikkhus, of these two destinations, one is to be expected: either deva or human.

Paṭicchannakammanta: paṭicchanna means "covered, concealed, hidden" and kammanta of course action.

Hi Sekha
Well just to note sex is an act described as an act one doesn't do in public within the texts, and the norm is to do it in private among all cultures I believe, so using this link seams tenuous to me.

Hi Dave,
this is the whole text translated by sister Upalavanna (#61&62 added for symetry between this and the pali which are from different sources)
27.
61 Bhikkhus, one with secret actions should expect one of these courses of action, either hell or the animal world.
62 Bhikkhus, one with straightforward should expect one of these courses of action, birth among gods or men.
27.
61“Paṭicchannakammantassa, bhikkhave, dvinnaṃ gatīnaṃ aññatarā gati pāṭikaṅkhā— nirayo vā tiracchānayoni vāti.
62Appaṭicchannakammantassa, bhikkhave, dvinnaṃ gatīnaṃ aññatarā gati pāṭikaṅkhā— devā vā manussā vā”ti.

[steve19800]

Hi
The first four precepts are known as worldly precepts as they are blameable by the world, but the third precept is a tricky one, governs social interaction more than others, so as the social context changes the acts the rule encompasses {changes also}.
If you look at the texts for a man even when married to one woman, they can marry again or hire a prostitute; yet today in the west having multiple wife's or hiring a prostitute when married is looked down upon, and seen by many as a breech of the precept by letter, even if the letter isn't there, so you do need to be aware of this with how people answer, i.e., what social norms are they from and have these influenced the texts or interpretation. Plus the spirit, like you said, is to do with not hurting another person.

However, the Buddha did have two forms of the Atthasila, one where chastity is emphasised, and one where sexual misconduct is emphasised depending on ones ability, see the dhammika sutta in Sn, but I do not believe he had a similar alternative for the Pancasila, however that is not saying he let people decide what was and was not in keeping with the precept, it reminds me of the fifth precept interpretation of every thing in moderation, well that works great until you realise it isn't there and could easily be applied to the other precepts also. he layed down ground rules for each precept, i.e., consenting adults not bound to another through law or promise.

Greetings Cittasanto,

From what I know, Tibetan Buddhism does not consider sleeping with prostitute is sexual misconduct. However, in Pancasila the point is refraining except the third, it does not sound 'refrain from sexual activity', that would be eight precepts.
What would be your understanding of sexual misconduct if I may ask?

[steve19800]

Interesting question.
Here is the definition in Pali with translation, to get a more precise grasp of the instructions found in the suttas:

http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/angu ... micchacara

Kāmesumicchācārī hoti yā tā mātu-rakkhitā pitu-rakkhitā mātā-pitu-rakkhitā bhātu-rakkhitā bhagini-rakkhitā ñāti-rakkhitā gotta-rakkhitā dhamma-rakkhitā sa-sāmikā sa-paridaṇḍā antamaso mālā-guḷa-parikkhittā-pi, tathārūpāsu cārittaṃ āpajjitā hoti.

One is kāmesumicchācārī, he is one who falls into such a conduct with a woman who is protected by her mother, protected by her father, protected by both her parents, protected by her brother, protected by her sister, protected by her relatives, protected by her clan, protected by the Dhamma, one who has a husband, who is liable to punishment, or even one on whom wreaths (of flowers) have been spread.

I think the last one gives pretty much the spirit: "one on whom wreaths (of flowers) have been spread" is understood as referring to one's fiancée. So, here sex before formal "marriage" (ie. social recognition and acceptation of the existence of the couple) is included in sexual misconduct.

But it seems the precept has variable geometry according to the particular cultural features of a given society. I can imagine ancient India was mostly pretty conservative (at least in urban areas) and more "liberal" behavior would be seen among less educated people (sexual intercourse is often described as "the villager's way" see here). I think nevertheless the main problem about sexual misconduct is that it gets people really angry (especially in a caste-based society), since its main bad result is to meet with enmity (see here).

However, some monks nowadays argue that for a layman sex with a prostitute is not sexual misconduct. Bhante Aggacitta (in his book The Importance of Being Morally Virtuous) even says that cheating on one's wife is no sexual misconduct if the third party is a prostitute or another such "compatible" person. Personally, I wouldn't dare to make such claims.

The easy thing about sila is that the stricter interpretation is always safer. Concluding it means no sex before marriage, that would be relevant in a super-conservative society, as I believe it was at the time of the Buddha (knowing what present day India's is!), and might not be exactly relevant to all environments in current day western society.

The core teaching of Buddhism is to reduce greed, hatred and delusion and developing love and compassion, this is not against any precepts, regardless of our backgrounds. Some people born and raised in a conducive Kamma or circumstances or environment, this is not to say some culture is better than the other. There are many things may not be relevant to our daily lives these days but that does not mean the relevant one or demanded by society is always better or purer if we speaking in terms of truth or Dhamma. That is why Buddha told his disciples to strive and work hard to safe themselves.

Regarding Bhante Aggacitta's speech, firstly it is good to know his entire speech at that time, on what occassion, what circumstances and so on and so on. Another thing is I would like to take a look at Kalama Sutta.

The strictest might be safer but what Buddha taught is middle way, it is not fixed way otherwise everyone has to be a monk. First Pancasila then if we ready we take another precepts, more mature then add another precepts. Things such as eating mushroom is forbidden because they are parasites; Eating potatoes, carrots are forbidden; Honey is forbidden as the excrement of bees are all Jainism. It is not the teaching of Samma Sambuddha. But I do get what you mean by stricter is safer though.

[Cittasanto]

Hi
The first four precepts are known as worldly precepts as they are blameable by the world, but the third precept is a tricky one, governs social interaction more than others, so as the social context changes the acts the rule encompasses {changes also}.
If you look at the texts for a man even when married to one woman, they can marry again or hire a prostitute; yet today in the west having multiple wife's or hiring a prostitute when married is looked down upon, and seen by many as a breech of the precept by letter, even if the letter isn't there, so you do need to be aware of this with how people answer, i.e., what social norms are they from and have these influenced the texts or interpretation. Plus the spirit, like you said, is to do with not hurting another person.

However, the Buddha did have two forms of the Atthasila, one where chastity is emphasised, and one where sexual misconduct is emphasised depending on ones ability, see the dhammika sutta in Sn, but I do not believe he had a similar alternative for the Pancasila, however that is not saying he let people decide what was and was not in keeping with the precept, it reminds me of the fifth precept interpretation of every thing in moderation, well that works great until you realise it isn't there and could easily be applied to the other precepts also. he layed down ground rules for each precept, i.e., consenting adults not bound to another through law or promise.

Greetings Cittasanto,

From what I know, Tibetan Buddhism does not consider sleeping with prostitute is sexual misconduct. However, in Pancasila the point is refraining except the third, it does not sound 'refrain from sexual activity', that would be eight precepts.
What would be your understanding of sexual misconduct if I may ask?

hi steve,
where do I get the two panca & attha mixed up?
I would stick to the textual as a base "intercourse with those protected by one or both parents, sibling, or other relative, married, engaged, or protected by the law, & having their monthly period should be refrained from." anything more is up to you to decide for yourself.
[Edit =also noted it your quoted section now underlined]

[Sekha]

you also come to the same conclusion!

"one on whom wreaths (of flowers) have been spread" is understood as referring to one's fiancée.

The customs as described, and currently practices in india, I can not actually remember the exact source, although there may be a more revealing mention of this term within the canon I think it could of even been from an analysis of the rule by a current monk, and certainly came to my attention through a former monk/translator I am friends with.

I would nevertheless appreciate greater precision on this

The easy thing about sila is that the stricter interpretation is always safer. Concluding it means no sex before marriage, that would be relevant in a super-conservative society, as I believe it was at the time of the Buddha (knowing what present day India's is!), and might not be exactly relevant to all environments in current day western society.

I do not see what you have said as a "strict interpretation" of the texts, but a misrepresentation.

just to remind, in the sentence "one on whom wreaths (of flowers) have been spread", there is no mention of whose fiancée it is supposed to be, and I don't see how you back up the claim that interpreting it as one's own has to be "misrepresentation". If you refer to the no sex before marriage thing, I underlined that would be relevant only to a super conservative society, and whether it was the case at the time of the Buddha or not is only a side issue.

the conservitive india you know today was influenced by Empire, and the strict morality was implanted then as a means to control the masses so it is not necessarily demonstrative of India without that influence, either before or after.

I am curious to know how you back up this statement, as from what I have seen in rural India, a young boy can spend over 3 months in jail for unwanted contact with a girl, but that would be going off-topic.

[Sekha]

well, I was talking about sexual intercourse actually, not just about anything. We could be talking about hiding one's intention or not... : )

It would be in the spirit of AN 2.27:

Paṭicchannakammantassa, bhikkhave, dvinnaṃ gatīnaṃ aññatarā gati pāṭikaṅkhā – nirayo vā tiracchānayoni vāti. Appaṭicchannakammantassa, bhikkhave, dvinnaṃ gatīnaṃ aññatarā gati pāṭikaṅkhā – devā vā manussā vā.

For one who acts with dissimulation, bhikkhus, of these two destinations, one is to be expected: either hell or the animal womb. For one who acts without dissimulation, bhikkhus, of these two destinations, one is to be expected: either deva or human.

Hi Sekha
Well just to note sex is an act described as an act one doesn't do in public within the texts, and the norm is to do it in private among all cultures I believe, so using this link seams tenuous to me.

depends how one understands "dissimulation". doing something in private to me is not quite the same as dissimulating it, and as we said, the focus is not on the act but on the intention. You may act privately, without having to dissimulate your intentions. The problem is dissimulating one's intentions.