"3) Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami.
I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct."
I can't get a clear idea of what sexual misconduct (kamesu micchacara) actually is.
Particularly, I'd like to know what it means in the Suttas for lay people. For example, is looking at "dirty" pictures and/or masturbating to them kamesu micchacara. Did "dirty" pictures even exist when the precepts were formulated? What if you look at "dirty" pictures with your spouse as foreplay? Is that kamesu micchara?
&
"5) Suramerayamajja pamadatthana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami.
I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness."
If this:
Suramerayamajja: ‘sura = fermented liquors, merya = distilled liquors, majja = intoxicating liquors’
Pamadatthana: ‘anything which destroys mindfulness’
is accurate, I don't see how translators get "drugs" out of the Pali. Drugs as we know them didn't exist when the precepts were formulated. And does pamadatthana stand on its own? That is, if intoxication means or is qualified by anything which destroys sati, why bring a particular intoxicant into it, like ethanol? It seems to leave open the possibility that not all "mind-altering" substances qualify as sati destroyers, just the ones that destroy mindfulness. Ethanol always destroys my mindfulness, but that's just me.
DanieLion
Sex, Drugs & Precepts 3 & 5
Re: Sex, Drugs & Precepts 3 & 5
Misconduct should be seen, in my opinion, in the sense of unskillful behaviour.
Ask yourself: "Is behaviour xy skillful or is it unskillful?"
For example: "Is looking at dirty pictures on purpose skillful or unskillful?"
Ask yourself: "Is behaviour xy skillful or is it unskillful?"
For example: "Is looking at dirty pictures on purpose skillful or unskillful?"
Re: Sex, Drugs & Precepts 3 & 5
Just my opinion:
For lay people, the precepts are not 'enforced' by anyone. One takes it voluntarily, for a purpose. You are the one to bear the consequences for keeping or breaking them, so you have to be aware of the causes and effects, and whether or not you want to continue doing these things.
You can always justify doing these things, and might not be 'wrong' in doing so. But I think the precepts also function as a framework. In the end desire and aversion cause suffering, and abstaining from things that you enjoy brings you face to face with the desire/aversion related to those activities, and allows you to understand and manage the suffering.
For lay people, the precepts are not 'enforced' by anyone. One takes it voluntarily, for a purpose. You are the one to bear the consequences for keeping or breaking them, so you have to be aware of the causes and effects, and whether or not you want to continue doing these things.
You can always justify doing these things, and might not be 'wrong' in doing so. But I think the precepts also function as a framework. In the end desire and aversion cause suffering, and abstaining from things that you enjoy brings you face to face with the desire/aversion related to those activities, and allows you to understand and manage the suffering.
Re: Sex, Drugs & Precepts 3 & 5
For me, sexual misconduct is any sexual behaviour which could cause harm to others or myself.danieLion wrote:I can't get a clear idea of what sexual misconduct (kamesu micchacara) actually is.
The heart of the path is quite easy. There’s no need to explain anything at length. Let go of love and hate and let things be. That’s all that I do in my own practice.
- Ajahn Chah -
- Ajahn Chah -
Re: Sex, Drugs & Precepts 3 & 5
It is indulging in sensual pleasures.danieLion wrote:"3) Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami.
I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct."
I can't get a clear idea of what sexual misconduct (kamesu micchacara) actually is.
Is it indulging in sensual pleasures or not?danieLion wrote: Particularly, I'd like to know what it means in the Suttas for lay people. For example, is looking at "dirty" pictures and/or masturbating to them kamesu micchacara.
Does it foster bondage or not?
Kind regards
Re: Sex, Drugs & Precepts 3 & 5
Yes; MN 19:TMingyur wrote:Is it indulging in sensual pleasures or not?
Does it foster bondage or not?
"And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued with sensuality arose. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with sensuality has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding.'
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: Sex, Drugs & Precepts 3 & 5
The Buddha expected strict abstinence from ALL forms of sexual gratification from his ordained bhikkhus, but he did not expect this of laypeople. We are not breaking 'Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami' if we look at pictures on the internet and masturbate to them (afaik), so long as those pictures are of women of legal age (ie over 18). Here is an excerpt that might be of assistance:
Is masturbation akusala? Yes. Is it breaking the precept Kamesu micchacara? Judging by what I have read of the Buddha's instructions, no. But it's a good thing to bring it under control, and eventually give it up completely. And voluntarily observing strict brahmacariya is great for spiritual practice, yes! But a layman should not be putting themselves through guilt-trips about it (masturbation). Just work towards it's restraint using skilful means. It's the above (bolded) paragraph that need to be strictly observed by lay Buddhists, afaik.Before turning to our main theme, it is as well to have some idea of the sexual mores of ancient India in the Buddha's time. Gotama himself, as a prince, was brought up surrounded by concubines and dancing-girls as a matter of course. Polygamy was common. Ambapali, the courtesan from whom the Buddha accepted gifts, was a person of some consequence. It was not expected that young men would lead a life of much restraint, and the Buddha with his profound understanding of human nature knew well what demands to make of people in this respect. Thus we find the following formulation of what a man should avoid:
He avoids unlawful sexual intercourse, abstains from it. He has no intercourse with girls who are still under the protection of father or mother, brother, sister, or relative; nor with married women, nor female convicts; nor lastly with betrothed girls.
source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el225.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
To the Buddha-refuge i go; to the Dhamma-refuge i go; to the Sangha-refuge i go.
Re: Sex, Drugs & Precepts 3 & 5
Thanks manasikara.
I don't see adultery in this, i.e., a married man "is allowed to" have intercourse with a single, independent, (non-criminal?), of-age woman? And sex between (among?) single, independent, (non-criminal?) of-age individuals doesn't seem covered at all.
D
Please clarify "unlawful" and "convicts".manasikara wrote:We find the following formulation of what a man should avoid:
He avoids unlawful sexual intercourse, abstains from it. He has no intercourse with girls who are still under the protection of father or mother, brother, sister, or relative; nor with married women, nor female convicts; nor lastly with betrothed girls.
source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el225.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I don't see adultery in this, i.e., a married man "is allowed to" have intercourse with a single, independent, (non-criminal?), of-age woman? And sex between (among?) single, independent, (non-criminal?) of-age individuals doesn't seem covered at all.
D
Re: Sex, Drugs & Precepts 3 & 5
Thanks TMingyur,
D
Sensual pleasure covers much more territory than sexual misconduct. But the indulgence piece suggests a line between non-indulgence and indulgence. For instance, how many of us can say we clearly know the distinction between eating non-indulgently and eating indulgently? So, can one have sex non-indulgently? And does meditating involve the total absence of sensual pleasure?TMingyur wrote:It is indulging in sensual pleasures.danieLion wrote:"3) Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami.
I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct."
I can't get a clear idea of what sexual misconduct (kamesu micchacara) actually is.
D
Re: Sex, Drugs & Precepts 3 & 5
Thanks David2,
D
"On purpose" seems an important qualifier to me because my understanding of kusala/akusala is taken largely from Thanissaro who always contextualizes skillfulness in terms of kamma. Skillfulness per se does not provide a moral directive.David2 wrote:Misconduct should be seen, in my opinion, in the sense of unskillful behaviour.
Ask yourself: "Is behaviour xy skillful or is it unskillful?"
For example: "Is looking at dirty pictures on purpose skillful or unskillful?"
D
Re: Sex, Drugs & Precepts 3 & 5
Thanks, nameless,
No greed, no orgasm, right? Why bring heady concepts like "sexual misconduct" into it? The point is to see how greed is inherently harmful, no? Yet, when I have intercourse with my spouse, I don't feel like I'm behaving harmfully.
D
The three "unwholesome [unskillful] roots of consciousness"--greed, hate, delusion--seem to me a better guide than a preceptual understanding of the Buddha's ethics. But I can also see how the precepts are themselves an expression of taming and hopefully eradicating greed, hate and delusion.nameless wrote:Just my opinion:
For lay people, the precepts are not 'enforced' by anyone. One takes it voluntarily, for a purpose. You are the one to bear the consequences for keeping or breaking them, so you have to be aware of the causes and effects, and whether or not you want to continue doing these things.
You can always justify doing these things, and might not be 'wrong' in doing so. But I think the precepts also function as a framework. In the end desire and aversion cause suffering, and abstaining from things that you enjoy brings you face to face with the desire/aversion related to those activities, and allows you to understand and manage the suffering.
No greed, no orgasm, right? Why bring heady concepts like "sexual misconduct" into it? The point is to see how greed is inherently harmful, no? Yet, when I have intercourse with my spouse, I don't feel like I'm behaving harmfully.
D
Re: Sex, Drugs & Precepts 3 & 5
Thanks Upasaka,
D
Please clarify "harm".Upasaka wrote:For me, sexual misconduct is any sexual behaviour which could cause harm to others or myself.danieLion wrote:I can't get a clear idea of what sexual misconduct (kamesu micchacara) actually is.
D
Re: Sex, Drugs & Precepts 3 & 5
The Buddha's instructions are pretty clear. A layman is allowed to have sex with a woman who does not fall into any of the 'forbidden' category listed above, and still call himself a Buddhist. It's obvious that the Teaching taken as a whole inclines toward giving up sensual pleasures per se, but this particular rule seems to have the specific purpose of restraining the worst types of wrongful conduct with regards to sex, and not for the giving up of all sexual activity (which is done in the eight precepts, changing the wording to: abrahmacariya veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami).TMingyur wrote:It is indulging in sensual pleasures.danieLion wrote:"3) Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami.
I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct."
I can't get a clear idea of what sexual misconduct (kamesu micchacara) actually is.
To the Buddha-refuge i go; to the Dhamma-refuge i go; to the Sangha-refuge i go.
Re: Sex, Drugs & Precepts 3 & 5
Thanks manasikara
D
Isn't "skilful means" a strictly Mahayana notion?manasikara wrote: Just work towards it's restraint using skilful means.
D
Re: Sex, Drugs & Precepts 3 & 5
manasikara wrote:The Buddha's instructions are pretty clear. A layman is allowed to have sex with a woman who does not fall into any of the 'forbidden' category listed above, and still call himself a Buddhist. It's obvious that the Teaching taken as a whole inclines toward giving up sensual pleasures per se, but this particular rule seems to have the specific purpose of restraining the worst types of wrongful conduct with regards to sex, and not for the giving up of all sexual activity (which is done in the eight precepts, changing the wording to: abrahmacariya veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami).TMingyur wrote:It is indulging in sensual pleasures.danieLion wrote:"3) Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami.
I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct."
I can't get a clear idea of what sexual misconduct (kamesu micchacara) actually is.
Ah, clarity.