Should Buddhists(lay) be virgins till marriage?

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
LXNDR
Posts: 697
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 5:15 am

Re: Should Buddhists(lay) be virgins till marriage?

Post by LXNDR »

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:
The Milindapañha gives the following explanation:
8. “Which is the greater demerit, conscious or unconscious wrong-doing?”
“Unconscious wrong-doing, O king.”²
“Then we should doubly punish those who do wrong unconsciously.”
“What do you think, O king, would a man be more seriously burned if he seized a red-hot iron ball not knowing it was hot than he would be if he knew.”
“He would be burned more severely if he didn’t know it was hot.”
---
² All wrong-doing is rooted in ignorance, so one who does wrong knowingly will feel remorse and correct himself sooner than one who is deluded.
Nagasena's analogies are killers, seizing a red-hot iron ball is not wrong-doing or an unwholesome act, there's no comparison between the two

also according to Vinaya unintentional theft by a bhikkhu is a no-offense, as opposed to intentional, a principle which knocks down Nagasena's argument

this is also a principle of criminal justice, where motive is crucial in establishing the degree of guilt

and it accords with Buddha's statement
Nibbedhika Sutta (AN 6.63) wrote:"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.
culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: Should Buddhists(lay) be virgins till marriage?

Post by culaavuso »

LXNDR wrote: Nagasena's analogies are killers, seizing a red-hot iron ball is not wrong-doing or an unwholesome act, there's no comparison between the two
It may be instructive to consider both seizing a red-hot iron ball and other unwholesome acts in terms of the standards described in the suttas. Both cases seem to be examples of an unskillful act resulting in suffering as a consequence of the action. Seizing a red-hot iron ball is an action arising dependent on intention and resulting in harm and suffering.
MN 135: Cūḷakamma­vibhaṅga Sutta wrote: What, having been done by me, will be for my long-term harm & suffering? Or what, having been done by me, will be for my long-term welfare & happiness?
MN 61: Ambalaṭṭhikā­rāhulovāda Sutta wrote: If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do.
AN 4.235: Sikkhāpada Sutta wrote: And what is kamma that is dark with dark result? There is the case where a certain person fabricates an injurious bodily fabrication, fabricates an injurious verbal fabrication, fabricates an injurious mental fabrication. Having fabricated an injurious bodily fabrication, having fabricated an injurious verbal fabrication, having fabricated an injurious mental fabrication, he rearises in an injurious world. On rearising in an injurious world, he is there touched by injurious contacts. Touched by injurious contacts, he experiences feelings that are exclusively painful, like those of the beings in hell. This is called kamma that is dark with dark result.
AN 6.63: Nibbedhika Sutta wrote: The result of kamma is of three sorts, I tell you: that which arises right here & now, that which arises later [in this lifetime], and that which arises following that.
LXNDR
Posts: 697
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 5:15 am

Re: Should Buddhists(lay) be virgins till marriage?

Post by LXNDR »

culaavuso wrote: It may be instructive to consider both seizing a red-hot iron ball and other unwholesome acts in terms of the standards described in the suttas. Both cases seem to be examples of an unskillful act resulting in suffering as a consequence of the action. Seizing a red-hot iron ball is an action arising dependent on intention and resulting in harm and suffering.
we're talking of unconscious/unintentional acts
Last edited by LXNDR on Sun Jul 13, 2014 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: Should Buddhists(lay) be virgins till marriage?

Post by culaavuso »

LXNDR wrote:
culaavuso wrote: It may be instructive to consider both seizing a red-hot iron ball and other unwholesome acts in terms of the standards described in the suttas. Both cases seem to be examples of an unskillful act resulting in suffering as a consequence of the action. Seizing a red-hot iron ball is an action arising dependent on intention and resulting in harm and suffering.
we're talking of unintentional acts
This does not seem to be what is described by Nagasena. The act of grasping is intentional, but the nature of what is being grasped is misunderstood. Because of this misunderstanding, the intentional act of grasping will be done in such a way that the resulting injury is more severe. With the knowledge that the object being grasped is a red hot iron ball, the grasping would be more likely to be done in a way that minimized injury. In either case, the act of grasping still seems to be an intentional action.
LXNDR
Posts: 697
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 5:15 am

Re: Should Buddhists(lay) be virgins till marriage?

Post by LXNDR »

culaavuso wrote:
LXNDR wrote: we're talking of unintentional acts
This does not seem to be what is described by Nagasena. The act of grasping is intentional, but the nature of what is being grasped is misunderstood. Because of this misunderstanding, the intentional act of grasping will be done in such a way that the resulting injury is more severe. With the knowledge that the object being grasped is a red hot iron ball, the grasping would be more likely to be done in a way that minimized injury. In either case, the act of grasping still seems to be an intentional action.
well, to understand his answer the Milinda's question must be taken into consideration, leave aside the simile

what is of greater demerit, conscious or unconscious?

the answer is - unconscious is of greater demerit

which, again, contradicts Vinaya principles for example

the question is obviously has to do with morality/ethics and kamma
culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: Should Buddhists(lay) be virgins till marriage?

Post by culaavuso »

LXNDR wrote: well, to understand his answer the Milinda's question must be taken into consideration

what is of greater demerit, conscious or unconscious?

the answer is - unconscious is of greater demerit

which, again, contradicts Vinaya principles for example
Being unaware of the nature of what is being grasped is being unconscious of the consequences and nature of the action. It is precisely this unawareness that serves as a condition for unskillful conduct resulting in greater harm. This does not seem to change the grasping itself being an intentional action.

The Vinaya does not seem to be an exact mapping to the results of kamma, but appears to have other considerations in the origination of the rules. If the Vinaya were solely a description of the results of kamma, then it seems there would not be rules whose origin stories were based on the conduct of arahants. One example of this is Pācittiya 38.
[url=http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books9/Buddhist_Monastic_Code_1.pdf]Buddhist Monastic Code vol. 1[/url] (p. 326) by Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote: This is one of the few rules where the original instigator was an arahant: Ven. Beḷaṭṭhasīsa, Ven. Ānanda's preceptor and formerly the head of the 1,000 ascetics who attained Awakening on hearing the Fire Sermon (SN XXXV.28). The origin story here reports that he made a practice of keeping leftover rice from his alms round, drying it, and then moistening it to eat on a later day. As a result, he only rarely had to go out for alms. Even though he was doing this out of frugality rather than greed, the Buddha still rebuked him. The story doesn't give the precise reasons for the rebuke. Perhaps it was because the Buddha saw that such behavior would open the way for bhikkhus to avoid going on alms round, thus depriving themselves of the excellent opportunity that alms-going provides for reflecting on their dependency on others and on the human condition in general; and depriving the laity of the benefits that come from daily contact with the bhikkhus and the opportunity to practice generosity of the most basic sort every day. Although frugality may be a virtue, there are times when other considerations supercede it.
Additionally, if the goal were merely the enforcement of the cause and effect of kamma then the Vinaya would seem to be superfluous.
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: Should Buddhists(lay) be virgins till marriage?

Post by Mkoll »

AN 4.77 wrote:"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[1] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[2]

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."
[my emphasis added]

I think another reason for this, other than what is stated, is that in not knowing the precise working out of the results of kamma, one is more inclined to avoid doing even the slightest bad kamma. Or at the very least, one sees a good reason to avoid doing so.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
LXNDR
Posts: 697
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 5:15 am

Re: Should Buddhists(lay) be virgins till marriage?

Post by LXNDR »

culaavuso wrote: Being unaware of the nature of what is being grasped is being unconscious of the consequences and nature of the action. It is precisely this unawareness that serves as a condition for unskillful conduct resulting in greater harm. This does not seem to change the grasping itself being an intentional action.
unawareness is neither intention nor action and, though unwholesome mental state, by itself cannot produce kamma, whereas intention is what kamma is according to Buddha

unintentional unskillful action is by no means always of greater harm than intentional one, it's all up to chance, it can be either of a greater, of a lesser or of an equal harm, but it must be intention behind it which determines its gravity

conscious and unconscious i understand not as a mode of awareness of consequences (similarly to the principle 'ignorance of the law is no excuse') but as a mode of harmful action, premeditated or not

when for example you punch someone by accident it's done with lesser force than a punch landed consciously to specifically inflict harm and so the accidental punch is less harmful, it's also easily forgivable, and thus must be of lesser demerit
Dr. Dukkha
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 3:02 am

Re: Should Buddhists(lay) be virgins till marriage?

Post by Dr. Dukkha »

David N. Snyder wrote:
Shaswata_Panja wrote:Did the Buddha ever say anything about premarital sex? Did he recommend virginity till marriage? Did he discourage virginity till marriage? Did he have nothing to say on this?
It wasn't much of an issue in ancient India. The Buddha and other males and females of the time married around the age of 16 or earlier. There wasn't much time before that (age) to do dating or anything. Even until fairly recently, this may have been the case in India. My tour guide in India was a 65 year old Hindu man. He and his wife were married at the age of 15.

As that article linked above suggests, I think there can be some middle way. I am kind of conservative in this area so I especially like the admonition against:
Having sex with those still in the care of their parents/guardians;
If a person wants to engage in adult actions, then they should take on adult responsibilities, that is pay their own rent some place, mortgage, bills, etc. It is not about age or marriage (in my view) and more to do with taking on responsibilities and showing maturity. Today many people do not get married until age 25, 30 or even later so expecting complete abstinence until then is not realistic, however, expecting them to take responsibilities seriously is, in my opinion.
What would be specified as "the care of parents/guardians?" I live on my own but my parents help me a little with rent and they pay my car insurance, health insurance, and medical bills. Should I not have sex until I'm completely independent from them?
"There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting."
Dr. Dukkha
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 3:02 am

Re: Should Buddhists(lay) be virgins till marriage?

Post by Dr. Dukkha »

LXNDR wrote:
Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta (AN 10.176) wrote:Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man.
Saleyyaka sutta (MN 41) wrote:He engages in sensual misconduct. He gets sexually involved with those who are [1] protected by their mothers, [2] their fathers, [3] their brothers, [4] their sisters, [5] their relatives, or [6] their Dhamma; [7] those with husbands, [8] those who entail punishments, or even [9] those crowned with flowers by another man.
as it appears, premarital sex of a non-betrothed adult person with another free, non-betrothed, mentally competent adult person will not constitute sexual misconduct
What is considered crowned with flowers?
"There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting."
User avatar
TheNoBSBuddhist
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:06 pm
Location: Loch Lomond, via the High AND Low road....

Re: Should Buddhists(lay) be virgins till marriage?

Post by TheNoBSBuddhist »

Dr. Dukkha wrote:
LXNDR wrote:
Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta (AN 10.176) wrote:Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man.
Saleyyaka sutta (MN 41) wrote:He engages in sensual misconduct. He gets sexually involved with those who are [1] protected by their mothers, [2] their fathers, [3] their brothers, [4] their sisters, [5] their relatives, or [6] their Dhamma; [7] those with husbands, [8] those who entail punishments, or even [9] those crowned with flowers by another man.
as it appears, premarital sex of a non-betrothed adult person with another free, non-betrothed, mentally competent adult person will not constitute sexual misconduct
What is considered crowned with flowers?
Engaged, betrothed. I believe it was a promissory ritual. Rather like having a diamond engagement ring.

It was a common ritual in many different cultures.
:namaste:

You will not be punished FOR your 'emotions'; you will be punished BY your 'emotions'.



Image

Pay attention, simplify, and (Meditation instruction in a nutshell) "Mind - the Gap."
‘Absit invidia verbo’ - may ill-will be absent from the word. And mindful of that, if I don't respond, this may be why....
Dr. Dukkha
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 3:02 am

Re: Should Buddhists(lay) be virgins till marriage?

Post by Dr. Dukkha »

Are you sure it isn't really a metaphor for someone being in love with them and flirting with them and this lustful praise is being accepted? Or it could even mean not accepted. Who knows?
"There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting."
User avatar
TheNoBSBuddhist
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:06 pm
Location: Loch Lomond, via the High AND Low road....

Re: Should Buddhists(lay) be virgins till marriage?

Post by TheNoBSBuddhist »

No. Given the amount of different cultures that use this symbolism as an indication of promissory betrothal, it is clear, from the Buddha's distinction and specific mention of this ritual, within his directions, that he meant this category of person. Otherwise he would have made further distinctions.
:namaste:

You will not be punished FOR your 'emotions'; you will be punished BY your 'emotions'.



Image

Pay attention, simplify, and (Meditation instruction in a nutshell) "Mind - the Gap."
‘Absit invidia verbo’ - may ill-will be absent from the word. And mindful of that, if I don't respond, this may be why....
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Should Buddhists(lay) be virgins till marriage?

Post by Alex123 »

Shaswata_Panja wrote:Did the Buddha ever say anything about premarital sex? Did he recommend virginity till marriage? Did he discourage virginity till marriage? Did he have nothing to say on this?
Buddha recommended following Noble Eightfold path that avoids extremes of indulgence in self mortification or sensual pleasures.

The brahmin Pokkharasati is tied to these five cords of sensual pleasure, infatuated with them and utterly committed to them; he enjoys them without seeing the danger in them or understanding the escape from them. That he could know or see or realise a superhuman state, a distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones - this is impossible." - MN99 Bhikkhu Bodhi translation
This is scary thought...
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: Should Buddhists(lay) be virgins till marriage?

Post by Mkoll »

Alex123 wrote:
The brahmin Pokkharasati is tied to these five cords of sensual pleasure, infatuated with them and utterly committed to them; he enjoys them without seeing the danger in them or understanding the escape from them. That he could know or see or realise a superhuman state, a distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones - this is impossible." - MN99 Bhikkhu Bodhi translation
This is scary thought...
I don't understand. What's particularly scary about that?
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Post Reply