Ven. Pandita on the third precept

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
SarathW
Posts: 21227
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Ven. Pandita on the third precept

Post by SarathW »

It is a good video.
Howeve it is not the job of the Buddha to produce a video like this.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Ven. Pandita on the third precept

Post by DooDoot »

SarathW wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:38 am It is a good video.
Howeve it is not the job of the Buddha to produce a video like this.
The above appears to have no hiri-ottappa and wrong view about the results of kamma. The paper in the OP appeared to say women having sex with men cannot be sexual misconduct; therefore cannot harm women.
Attachments
tara white.jpg
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
SarathW
Posts: 21227
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Ven. Pandita on the third precept

Post by SarathW »

Indulge in sex is no different to indulge in any other sensual pleasures (eye,ear,tongue,smell etc).
It harms you and others some or another way.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Ven. Pandita on the third precept

Post by DooDoot »

SarathW wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:57 am Indulge in sex is no different to indulge in any other sensual pleasures (eye,ear,tongue,smell etc).
It harms you and others some or another way.
The above is wrong. It sounds like u have no life experience.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
SarathW
Posts: 21227
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Ven. Pandita on the third precept

Post by SarathW »

DooDoot wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:59 am
SarathW wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:57 am Indulge in sex is no different to indulge in any other sensual pleasures (eye,ear,tongue,smell etc).
It harms you and others some or another way.
The above is wrong. It sounds like u have no life experience.
Perhaps you may be correct.
But it appears killing and stealing are worse than sex.
Are you saying third precepts applicable only to sex and not other sensual indulgences?
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Ven. Pandita on the third precept

Post by DooDoot »

SarathW wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 5:05 am Perhaps you may be correct.
I am correct.
SarathW wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 5:05 amBut it appears killing and stealing are worse than sex.
No. Killing a mosquito or animal for food; or stealing; is not worse than sexual misconduct. Have you ever met a woman who attempted to commit suicide; or suffered from years of heartbrokenness; or spent years paying money to psychotherapists; because she killed a mosquito or ate a rare steak?
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
SarathW
Posts: 21227
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Ven. Pandita on the third precept

Post by SarathW »

DooDoot wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 5:27 am
SarathW wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 5:05 am
SarathW wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 5:05 amBut it appears killing and stealing are worse than sex.
No. Killing a mosquito or animal for food; or stealing; is not worse than sexual misconduct. Have you ever met a woman who attempted to commit suicide; or suffered from years of heartbrokenness; or spent years paying money to psychotherapists; because she killed a mosquito or ate a rare steak?
This is ridiculous. You have no concerns or mercy for animals.
So you think that animals are here for human consumption?
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Ven. Pandita on the third precept

Post by DooDoot »

SarathW wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:48 amSo you think that animals are here for human consumption?
Actually, based on nature, it appears the animals are here for human consumption; just as other animals are here for the consumption of other animals. This appears why the human body can digest & live on meat.
SarathW wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:48 am This is ridiculous. You have no concerns or mercy for animals.
The above is irrelevant & ridiculous. The Buddha said: "separation from the loved is suffering". Do you think when women have sex, there is no emotion to cause suffering when a man leaves them?

It seems your ideas are not Buddhist but, instead, appear to be similar to Cultural Marxism.
212. From endearment springs grief, from endearment springs fear.

213. From affection springs grief, from affection springs fear.

214. From attachment springs grief, from attachment springs fear.

215. From lust springs grief, from lust springs fear.

216. From craving springs grief, from craving springs fear.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ati/tip ... .budd.html
Then the brahman Nalijangha, delighting in & approving of the Blessed One's words, got up from his seat and went to Queen Mallika. On arrival, he told her all that had been said in his conversation with the Blessed One.

Then Queen Mallika went to King Pasenadi Kosala and on arrival said to him, "What do you think, great king: Is Princess Vajiri dear to you?"

"Yes, Mallika, Princess Vajiri is dear to me."

"And what do you think: would sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair arise in you from any change & aberration in Princess Vajiri?"

"Mallika, any change & aberration in Princess Vajiri would mean an aberration of my very life. How could sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair not arise in me?"

"Great king, it was in connection with this that the Blessed One — the One who knows, the One who sees, worthy, & rightly self-awakened — said, 'Sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are born from one who is dear, come springing from one who is dear.'

"Now what do you think, great king: Is the noble Queen Vasabha dear to you?... Is [your son] General Vidudabha dear to you?... Am I dear to you?"

"Yes, Mallika, you are dear to me."

"And what do you think: would sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair arise in you from any change & aberration in me?"

"Mallika, any change & aberration in you would mean an aberration of my very life. How could sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair not arise in me?"

"Great king, it was in connection with this that the Blessed One — the One who knows, the One who sees, worthy, & rightly self-awakened — said, 'Sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are born from one who is dear, come springing from one who is dear.'

"Now what do you think, great king: Are [your subjects] the Kasis & Kosalans dear to you?"

"Yes, Mallika, the Kasis & Kosalans are dear to me. It is through the might of the Kasis & Kosalans that we use Kasi sandalwood and wear garlands, scents, & ointments."

"And what do you think: would sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair arise in you from any change & aberration in the Kasis & Kosalans?"

"Mallika, any change & aberration in the Kasis & Kosalans would mean an aberration of my very life. How could sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair not arise in me?"

"Great king, it was in connection with this that the Blessed One — the One who knows, the One who sees, worthy, & rightly self-awakened — said, 'Sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are born from one who is dear, come springing from one who is dear.'"

"It's amazing, Mallika. It's astounding: how deeply the Blessed One sees, having pierced through, as it were, with discernment. Come Mallika: Give me the ablution water." Then King Pasenadi Kosala, rising from his seat and arranging his upper robe over one shoulder, paid homage in the direction of the Blessed One with his hands palm-to-palm in front of his heart, and exclaimed three times:

Homage to the Blessed One, worthy & rightly self-awakened!
Homage to the Blessed One, worthy & rightly self-awakened!
Homage to the Blessed One, worthy & rightly self-awakened!

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ati/tip ... .than.html
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
zerotime
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Ven. Pandita on the third precept

Post by zerotime »

according V.Pandita, the sexual behaviour of prostitutes wouldn't be wrong, therefore it couldn't be a cause for bad consequences in society. However, we know the social reputation of prostitutes don't confirm the claim.

So maybe something don't work in the equation because we can read:
"Five blessings, householders, accrue to the righteous person through his practice of virtue: great increase of wealth through his diligence; a favorable reputation; a confident deportment, without timidity, in every society, be it that of nobles, brahmans, householders, or ascetics; a serene death; and, at the breaking up of the body after death, rebirth in a happy state, in a heavenly world."
— DN 16
Moreover, he writes:

"we can say that a prostitute does not commit sexual misconduct by doing business"

however, the Buddha taught to avoid the business in human beings.:
"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.
"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in."
AN 5.177

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Question is: Should the business with the own human being be excluded?
Where is the explanation of this point?

Although the paper clarifies other points, it is a good reading.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22390
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Ven. Pandita on the third precept

Post by Ceisiwr »

zerotime wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 9:46 am according V.Pandita, the sexual behaviour of prostitutes wouldn't be wrong, therefore it couldn't be a cause for bad consequences in society. However, we know the social reputation of prostitutes don't confirm the claim.

So maybe something don't work in the equation because we can read:

"Five blessings, householders, accrue to the righteous person through his practice of virtue: great increase of wealth through his diligence; a favorable reputation; a confident deportment, without timidity, in every society, be it that of nobles, brahmans, householders, or ascetics; a serene death; and, at the breaking up of the body after death, rebirth in a happy state, in a heavenly world."
— DN 16
A problem with your reasoning here is that someone can behave righteously yet still be treated with scorn by society.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
zerotime
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Ven. Pandita on the third precept

Post by zerotime »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 10:40 am A problem with your reasoning here is that someone can behave righteously yet still be treated with scorn by society.
that's very right, this is not guaranteed. Just this is in the right direction.

The doubt is to know if the prostitution is an activity with the same potential. Perhaps in some cases the prostitution can be virtuous, performed under some type of morality, to benefit others, etc. Although most cases we know this is realized just for money, or the survival in a botched civilization, because threats, etc.

Another issue is the arising of dukkha in the perception of the relation between mind and body. In example, we know the old and long discussion in the Buddhist literature to know if arhants are totally free of dukkha because they are alive and still keeping a relation with the body.

Well, so this would be the case of somebody selling the own body, therefore doing business with humans. Perhaps in some occasions the prostitute can wish the relation but many others for sure not. Is the prostitute able to disentangle the relation between mind and body so the dukkha doesn't arise?.

Perhaps this is just a personal perception although I suspect there is a common thread in those business to avoid, which is the possibility of an strong dukkha together with a difficult control of the consequences. If we believe the prostitution can exist without implying dukkha for the prostitute, this is not realistic. There is need of a forced moral dissociation in order to sell the body for that activity, because the relation between body and mind in moral terms is very difficult to unveil. Well, in fact to preserve the underlying moral in the relation body-mind is what many people name "human dignity". Despite many times it is mentioned without being aware about what it can means. Anyway, many prostitutes should suffer an strong dukkha in different degrees precisely because neither they can know that.

"Dignity" comes from the latin dignus which means "to accept, to deserve". And probably this is in the core of a moral relation between mind and body, which can be broken doing such business with the own body, with the own human being.

In short, my main doubt with the prostitution activity is knowing if the Buddha prescription to avoid the business with human beings should include the prostitution or not. I believe the Buddha advice to avoid this business could include the prostitution, at least under a first view. This is also a business with human beings. Although I'm not sure about the analysis of that advice. In fact I've never read a good explanation of this issue.

Hope more people can add ideas to this topic
User avatar
zerotime
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Ven. Pandita on the third precept

Post by zerotime »

I have found this thread and help me to clarify the point in some way
viewtopic.php?t=31706

Bhikkhu Bodhi in "Noble Eightfold Path":
"The Buddha mentions five specific kinds of livelihood which bring harm to others and are therefore to be avoided: dealing in weapons, in living beings (including raising animals for slaughter as well as slave trade and prostitution), in meat production and butchery, in poisons, and in intoxicants (AN 5:177). He further names several dishonest means of gaining wealth which fall under wrong livelihood: practicing deceit, treachery, soothsaying, trickery, and usury (MN 117). Obviously any occupation that requires violation of right speech and right action is a wrong form of livelihood, but other occupations, such as selling weapons or intoxicants, may not violate those factors and yet be wrong because of their consequences for others."
here the business with human beings includes prostitution. Therefore maybe there are 2 issues mixed.

According the Ven. Pandita, the sexual behavior of the prostitute wouldn't be wrong, although at same time one sees the business of prostitution seems to be included inside the wrong livelihood. So the 2 views can be right by its own side, although how to join both in practical terms.
It sounds difficult, although maybe both can be joined in that space of a blurred meaning of "prostitution" in ancient times with female partners under other roles like the courtesan, etc.. which today are quite missed. This is mentioned in V.Pandita paper.. Better if I read this again. I'm sorry for many useless words :?
TRobinson465
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: Ven. Pandita on the third precept

Post by TRobinson465 »

zerotime wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 6:25 pm I have found this thread and help me to clarify the point in some way
viewtopic.php?t=31706

Bhikkhu Bodhi in "Noble Eightfold Path":
"The Buddha mentions five specific kinds of livelihood which bring harm to others and are therefore to be avoided: dealing in weapons, in living beings (including raising animals for slaughter as well as slave trade and prostitution), in meat production and butchery, in poisons, and in intoxicants (AN 5:177). He further names several dishonest means of gaining wealth which fall under wrong livelihood: practicing deceit, treachery, soothsaying, trickery, and usury (MN 117). Obviously any occupation that requires violation of right speech and right action is a wrong form of livelihood, but other occupations, such as selling weapons or intoxicants, may not violate those factors and yet be wrong because of their consequences for others."
here the business with human beings includes prostitution. Therefore maybe there are 2 issues mixed.




According the Ven. Pandita, the sexual behavior of the prostitute wouldn't be wrong, although at same time one sees the business of prostitution seems to be included inside the wrong livelihood. So the 2 views can be right by its own side, although how to join both in practical terms.
It sounds difficult, although maybe both can be joined in that space of a blurred meaning of "prostitution" in ancient times with female partners under other roles like the courtesan, etc.. which today are quite missed. This is mentioned in V.Pandita paper.. Better if I read this again. I'm sorry for many useless words :?
That sutta doesnt actually say prostitution is a wrong livelihood, it was inserted by the author. the sutta literally says "A lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings (or living beings), business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.", but what constitutes business in human beings isnt explained. Im guessing Bhikkhu Bodhi just interpreted business in human beings as including both the slave and prostitute trades, or hes pulling from a different commentary than Ven Pandita who thinks business in humans doesnt count prostitution.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
TRobinson465
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: Ven. Pandita on the third precept

Post by TRobinson465 »

Thanks for the share. i thought this was rather interesting. Although i think Ven. Pandita is being way too literal in reading the suttas, i think its pretty far fetched to say rape counts as the 2nd precept rather than the third. That's like saying doing crack, heroin, and meth is not a breach of the 5th precept because the precept only literally talks about alcohol.

I wouldn't say Ven. Pandita is actually guilty of being one of those annoying "debate only" Buddhists but he seems to be on the side of clinging too much to the literal words of the suttas rather than just focusing on their meaning.
"Monks, there is the case where some worthless men study the Dhamma: dialogues, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question & answer sessions [the earliest classifications of the Buddha's teachings]. Having studied the Dhamma, they don't ascertain the meaning (or: the purpose) of those Dhammas [5] with their discernment. Not having ascertained the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment, they don't come to an agreement through pondering. They study the Dhamma both for attacking others and for defending themselves in debate. They don't reach the goal for which [people] study the Dhamma. Their wrong grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their long-term harm & suffering. Why is that? Because of the wrong-graspedness of the Dhammas"
I think its pretty safe to say rape is third just like meth is 5th.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
User avatar
zerotime
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Ven. Pandita on the third precept

Post by zerotime »

TRobinson465 wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 6:22 pm That sutta doesnt actually say prostitution is a wrong livelihood, it was inserted by the author. the sutta literally says "A lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings (or living beings), business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.", but what constitutes business in human beings isnt explained. Im guessing Bhikkhu Bodhi just interpreted business in human beings as including both the slave and prostitute trades, or hes pulling from a different commentary than Ven Pandita who thinks business in humans doesnt count prostitution.
thanks for the clarification. It would be interesting to know if Ven B.Boddhi writes from some commentary or source

I understand Ven Pandita writes thinking in a wider sense of prostitution which was proper of those times with female partners who were outside business like the courtesans and others. And maybe Ven B. Bodhi writes thinking in our modern notion of prostitution which always include a business.
Although I'm not sure completely.
Post Reply