Buddhist Pancasila

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
steve19800
Posts: 240
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Buddhist Pancasila

Post by steve19800 »

Cittasanto wrote: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
Posts: 240
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Buddhist Pancasila

Post by steve19800 »

Sekha wrote: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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Buddhist Pancasila

Post by Cittasanto »

steve19800 wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: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]
Last edited by Cittasanto on Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Sekha
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:32 am
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Buddhist Pancasila

Post by Sekha »

Cittasanto wrote: 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
Cittasanto wrote:
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.
Cittasanto wrote: 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.
Last edited by Sekha on Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Where knowledge ends, religion begins. - B. Disraeli

http://www.buddha-vacana.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
Sekha
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:32 am
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Buddhist Pancasila

Post by Sekha »

Cittasanto wrote:
Sekha wrote: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.
Where knowledge ends, religion begins. - B. Disraeli

http://www.buddha-vacana.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Buddhist Pancasila

Post by Cittasanto »

Edited
Sekha wrote:I would nevertheless appreciate greater precision on this
well it has been a while since I was reading or have access to the literature on the subject to be able to find it now.
Sekha wrote: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.
none of the others are refering to ones own, it isn't ones own wife, plus who spreads the "flowers", the person going to get married?
I also don't see any indication of possession in the pali.
but there is another problem with the hypothisis, if it meant no sex before marrage the Attha sila would not be necessary for non-married people, as the precept on celibacy is already there, the Buddha did not stipulate celibacy for all or marrage. I'll point you toward the Dhammika sutta again I linked to earlier on page one.
Last edited by Cittasanto on Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Buddhist Pancasila

Post by Cittasanto »

Sekha wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: 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.
The problem is Paṭicchanna = to cover over; conceal.
plus I know of no text which talks about concealing ones intention using the term Kamma (but that is only one meaning of the term you use and another is concealing in the outward sense), but just to note, ones intention is not known by others anyway so the text doesn't make sense when talking about actions, as intention on its own, without the manifest action. and I trust the Buddha would of used intention rather than the outward manifestation term if that was what was being meant.
although it seams strange to argue that sex between conscenting adults is going to be in any way not a hidden act as the norm.
Edit - but this still doesn't link hiding what one does and the precept on sexual misconduct.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: Buddhist Pancasila

Post by LonesomeYogurt »

Sekha wrote: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 the way the text is set up clearly states that it is inappropriate to have relations with "one on whom wreaths have been spread." So if that is referring to marriage, then the precept would be claiming that sex with your partner is unwholesome! Did I miss something?
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Buddhist Pancasila

Post by daverupa »

Do the garlands refer to some Vedic ritual perhaps, whereupon we might get the specifics?
  • "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]
Post Reply