20 illicit partners

General discussion of issues related to Theravada Training of Sila, the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).

20 illicit partners

Postby Coyote » Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:13 pm

According to this: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... html#prec2

Misconduct is regard to sense pleasures is formally defined as "the volition with sexual intent occurring through the bodily door, causing transgression with an illicit partner".[8] The primary question this definition elicits is: who is to qualify as an illicit partner? For men, the text lists twenty types of women who are illicit partners.


There are 20 types of illicit sexual partner for men. I have only ever seen the 3 groups mentioned later in that essay, but never the whole list.
Anyone know what they are, or where I can find it? And also the list for women.

Thanks,
Coyote
"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared."
Iti 26
Coyote
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:42 pm
Location: Wales - UK

Re: 20 illicit partners

Postby Cittasanto » Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:06 pm

Coyote wrote:According to this: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... html#prec2

Misconduct is regard to sense pleasures is formally defined as "the volition with sexual intent occurring through the bodily door, causing transgression with an illicit partner".[8] The primary question this definition elicits is: who is to qualify as an illicit partner? For men, the text lists twenty types of women who are illicit partners.


There are 20 types of illicit sexual partner for men. I have only ever seen the 3 groups mentioned later in that essay, but never the whole list.
Anyone know what they are, or where I can find it? And also the list for women.

Thanks,
Coyote

you will find that the three caragories state the 20 in an abreviated form. the text would list them individually.
(1) a woman who is under the protection of elders or other authorities charged with her care, e.g., a girl being cared for by parents, by an older brother or sister, by other relatives, or by the family as a whole;

(2) a woman who is prohibited by convention, that is, close relatives forbidden under family tradition, nuns and other women vowed to observe celibacy as a spiritual discipline, and those forbidden as partners under the law of the land; and

(3) a woman who is married or engaged to another man, even one bound to another man only by a temporary agreement.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5742
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: 20 illicit partners

Postby Coyote » Sat Mar 02, 2013 11:44 am

Sorry I haven't replied earlier. Thanks for your post.

The article mentions Majjimanikaya Atthakatha, Vol. I, p. 202 as the source of the list. What is this text, is it the same as Papañcasūdanī ? Anyone know where I can get/read a copy?

Thanks,
Coyote
"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared."
Iti 26
Coyote
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:42 pm
Location: Wales - UK

Re: 20 illicit partners

Postby ricebowl » Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:14 am

Dear Coyote and all,

My present romantic partner is somehow or other in the sensory trade industry, she offers and provides sensual services for men possibly a fraction who are tourists, such a phenomenon is apparent in many South East Asian countries that are primordially Thervada Buddhists.

There are several Buddhist teachings on spousal and sexual relationships, as such I am still keen to explore a step further along the boundaries of Buddhist layperson precepts. The Sigalovada Sutta as well as various instructions by the Buddha to ordinary folks are good, there was another one that described the seven types of wives to Sujata the wife of Anathapindika, still the humour being I stopped short of going into the Indian Kamma Sutra until I chanced upon this thread today.

Is there a known English translation of this Majjimanikaya Atthakatha, Vol. I, p. 202 (Burmese ed.). that is being mentioned, a quick Duck Duck Go search led me gradually to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/index.html however from the list of Majjhima Nikaya The Middle-length Discourses I could not find a Atthakatha Sutra. Please correct me should my interpretation be incorrect here.

:) Thanks very much.

.. ..
ricebowl
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:26 pm

Re: 20 illicit partners

Postby Dennenappelmoes » Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:20 pm

I would advocate letting go of detailed specifications. I think we'd be crossing a line from "practising in line with Buddhism" to "practising resemblance to a culture that was there at the time a source was written". In this talk, Ajahn Brahmali argues that these things are deliberately unspecified because they differ from culture to culture, so it would be pointless to ask "is having 2 women wrong or not?" - whether this is a violation depends on which culture you live in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNXeAK591Nc

For example, I find this particular specification quite odd. A woman being cared for by her parents? That means living with her parents? Maybe I am understanding this all wrong here, but that would mean you're doing something wrong if your girlfriend lives with her parents? I've done some terrible crimes then. Doesn't make any sense to me, but maybe I just don't really get it :shrug:

And anyway how much weight should we put into the source? I am certain this Bhikkhu Bodhi is a highly respectable and wise man, but it seems to me that these are still just one individual's interpretations. Just saying that we don't need to get all stuck on this source since all teachers have slightly different interpretations, right?
:anjali:
Dennenappelmoes
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:34 pm

Re: 20 illicit partners

Postby Lazy_eye » Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:46 pm

The advice I've been given (by Bhikkhu Pesala, I believe, in a post here long ago) is to regard sexuality as being similar to a fire. In that case, a non-celibate layperson -- or, as the suttas so nicely put it, a "white-robed lay follower, partaking of sensual pleasures" -- would be seeking to manage the fire and prevent it from causing harm to himself/herself or to others.

A long-term monogamous relationship is one way, and perhaps the best way. Given societal changes, etc, I'm not sure we can say it's the only way. I agree that some of the specific language used in the Canon sounds a bit too reflective of an earlier culture. But I think we can probably stay on the right course by keeping the principle in mind, while not getting too legalistic about the specifics.
User avatar
Lazy_eye
 
Posts: 811
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD

Re: 20 illicit partners

Postby Kim OHara » Wed May 01, 2013 4:43 am

:goodpost:

"A woman being cared for by her parents" or "under the protection of her parents" reflects the fact that young women were not expected (or allowed) to be truly independent: they went from their parents protection and control to their husband's protection and control. We don't do that in the west any longer, but it is not very long ago in historical terms that women were legally the property and responsibility of their parents or husband in exactly this way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women%27s_rights_(other_than_voting)#19th_century makes interesting reading in this context.

Back in the modern world, the intent of the precepts is clear - very simply, "do no harm" - and we need to use our common sense about the specifics.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia


Return to Ethical Conduct

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest