Ven. Pandita on the third precept

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6491
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Ven. Pandita on the third precept

Post by Dhammanando »

ABSTRACT

In this paper, I attempt a new approach to the concept of sexual misconduct prohibited by the Third Precept, and argue that the underlying spirit of the Third Precept can be alive anywhere, any time.
https://www.academia.edu/35658593/Sexua ... ach_Draft_
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 3071
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: Ven. Pandita on the third precept

Post by Pondera »

Read the article. A very good read. I notice the quote “marriage was NOT sacred during the Buddha’s time.”

I notice the distinction of the prostitute as an “independent woman” who can rightfully sell her body for sex.

I think the Buddha, as a prince with many consorts, would have understood the kamma of sexual relations as quite different consequentially from the very complicated familial implications.

In other words, having sex with a somewhat independent woman would not have been as bad as one thought were it not for the complicated problems that would arise for her male patrons looking to get her married as a virgin.

The complicated traditions associated with marriage and sex do not, in comparison, override the main drive to engage in sexual intercourse - that is - unless and until the women becomes pregnant.

Just my thoughts.
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
User avatar
confusedlayman
Posts: 6231
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:16 am
Location: Human Realm (as of now)

Re: Ven. Pandita on the third precept

Post by confusedlayman »

Pondera wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 8:57 am Read the article. A very good read. I notice the quote “marriage was NOT sacred during the Buddha’s time.”

I notice the distinction of the prostitute as an “independent woman” who can rightfully sell her body for sex.

I think the Buddha, as a prince with many consorts, would have understood the kamma of sexual relations as quite different consequentially from the very complicated familial implications.

In other words, having sec with a somewhat independent woman would not have been as bad as one thought were it not for the complicated problems that would arise for her male patrons looking to get her married as a virgin.
in india till last century everyone have xx only after marriage ... before that they will be kicked out of house... this applies to hindu, jain and buddhist tradition but the question is what is marriage?
I may be slow learner but im at least learning...
User avatar
confusedlayman
Posts: 6231
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:16 am
Location: Human Realm (as of now)

Re: Ven. Pandita on the third precept

Post by confusedlayman »

Dhammanando wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 7:45 am
ABSTRACT

In this paper, I attempt a new approach to the concept of sexual misconduct prohibited by the Third Precept, and argue that the underlying spirit of the Third Precept can be alive anywhere, any time.
https://www.academia.edu/35658593/Sexua ... ach_Draft_
if lust feeling arises. if I let it go ... am I safe from doing misconduct?
I may be slow learner but im at least learning...
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6491
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Ven. Pandita on the third precept

Post by Dhammanando »

confusedlayman wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 9:01 am
if lust feeling arises. if I let it go ... am I safe from doing misconduct?
One is safe so long as hiri and ottappa are habitual states. These are the mainstay of sīla, being relatively easy to arouse. Letting go is harder and so most people can't rely upon their ability to do it on each occasion when a temptation presents itself.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
SarathW
Posts: 21226
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Ven. Pandita on the third precept

Post by SarathW »

The Buddha points to two mental qualities as the underlying safeguards of morality, thus as the protectors of both the individual and society as a whole. These two qualities are called in Pali hiri and ottappa. Hiri is an innate sense of shame over moral transgression; ottappa is moral dread, fear of the results of wrongdoing. The Buddha calls these two states the bright guardians of the world (sukka lokapala). He gives them this designation because as long as these two states prevail in people's hearts the moral standards of the world remain intact, while when their influence wanes the human world falls into unabashed promiscuity and violence, becoming almost indistinguishable from the animal realm (Itiv. 42).

While moral shame and fear of wrongdoing are united in the common task of protecting the mind from moral defilement, they differ in their individual characteristics and modes of operation. Hiri, the sense of shame, has an internal reference; it is rooted in self-respect and induces us to shrink from wrongdoing out of a feeling of personal honor. Ottappa, fear of wrongdoing, has an external orientation. It is the voice of conscience that warns us of the dire consequences of moral transgression: blame and punishment by others, the painful kammic results of evil deeds, the impediment to our desire for liberation from suffering. Acariya Buddhaghosa illustrates the difference between the two with the simile of an iron rod smeared with excrement at one end and heated to a glow at the other end: hiri is like one's disgust at grabbing the rod in the place where it is smeared with excrement, ottappa is like one's fear of grabbing it in the place where it is red hot.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... ay_23.html
“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 »

The article appears deranged to me:
If she is single but her sexuality is protected by parents, etc:

a. She is a forbidden object to all men unless her protectors permit;
b. But no man is a forbidden object to her;
c. Therefore, if she has sex with any man without the permission of her protectors, her partner would be guilty of sexual misconduct, but she remains innocent

“Married women need to be faithful to their husbands, but single women can do whatever they like without any moral guilt.”

If we remember that no man is off-limit to a single woman

we can say that a prostitute does not commit sexual misconduct by doing business even with clients married to other women

Moreover, the list of wrong trades does not mention prostitution.

Therefore, the profession itself is not viewed in Buddhism as immoral.

If sex is bought and sold purely on commercial basis, this is prostitution. If mutual attraction happening in a bar leads to a night spent together, this is aone-night stand. If a couple leads separate lives but occasionally spends time together, this is dating.

I cannot find any sutta reasoning for why men should abstain from sex with single, protected women without the permission of their protectors, unless the sutta argument against adultery that we have seen above (p. 7) covers protected women as well.
A "protector" cannot permit a girl to have unmarried sex; otherwise they would not be a "protector". The writer has failed to be logical from the outset. This illogicalness is affirmed by a quote from the article that the writer appears has not comprehended:
There is no misconduct on the part of eight (kinds of) women—those protected by mothers, etc. —because they (i.e., the former) have no proprietors (i.e., no husbands) . . . On the other hand, mothers, etc., are not authorities over their touch (i.e., sexuality). Indeed, mothers, etc., protect them not for the sake of enjoying their sexuality themselves. Rather, they (i.e., mother etc.) prohibit their intercourse with other men purely to prevent bad conduct. But there is misconduct on the part of men in (having intercourse with) those eight types. For, they happen to steal and touch the sexuality protected by others, given that mothers, etc., protect those (women) so that (the latter) do not have intercourse with a man.
The article appears more deranged, in saying it is OK to disobey parents and in comparing the Bodhisatta leaving his family to a child disobeying parents to have sex. The writer is comparing the search for sex with the search for enlightenment:
And disobedience in itself is neither good nor bad (we should remember that our own bodhisatta himself disobeyed his parents to renounceand achieve Buddhahood). This is is why single women are not guilty of sexual misconduct despite their sexual adventures.
The suttas appear to define immorality as that which harms onself, or another, or both onself & another. Since the suttas explicitly say consorting with prostitutes leads to the downfall of a man, it appears prostitution is immoral because it harms the man.
Unsatisfied with his own wife,
with others’ wives he’s seen in tow,
corrupted too with prostitutes—
that’s the way to disaster’s woe.

https://suttacentral.net/snp1.6/en/mills#sc20
The writer probably needs to read DN 31, particularly the six directions re parents & children and husbands & wives. :smile:
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: 21226
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Ven. Pandita on the third precept

Post by SarathW »

In my opinion, Buddha looks at sex from four angles.
- Hindrance to attain Nibbana or even one-pointedness
- Generally accepted social norms.
- Kindness towards powerless. (children, poor people, women in Buddhas time)
- Law of the land.

If the above is not violated, laypeople are allowed to have sex as they wish.
“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: Wed Mar 03, 2021 11:49 am if the above is not violated, laypeople are allowed to have sex as they wish.
Obviously the above is from ignorance.
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: 21226
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Ven. Pandita on the third precept

Post by SarathW »

DooDoot wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 11:52 am
SarathW wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 11:49 am if the above is not violated, laypeople are allowed to have sex as they wish.
Obviously the above is from ignorance.
Please give me an example where it can go wrong.
“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: Wed Mar 03, 2021 11:49 am In my opinion, Buddha looks at sex from four angles.
If the above cannot be substantiated with sutta it slanders the Buddha.
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: 21226
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Ven. Pandita on the third precept

Post by SarathW »

DooDoot wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 11:53 am
SarathW wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 11:49 am In my opinion, Buddha looks at sex from four angles.
If the above cannot be substantiated with sutta it slanders the Buddha.
You find all of them some way or another.
Use your intelligence instead of becoming a bookworm.
However, I am not saying Buddha endorse sensual pleasures but allowed for lay people.
“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: Wed Mar 03, 2021 11:49 am In my opinion, Buddha looks at sex from four angles.
- Hindrance to attain Nibbana or even one-pointedness
- Generally accepted social norms.
- Kindness towards powerless. (children, poor people, women in Buddhas time)
- Law of the land.

If the above is not violated, laypeople are allowed to have sex as they wish.
All sex is a hindrance to attain Nibbana therefore obviously all sex is a violation according to you.

If the above is not what you meant, the majority of people probably now accept pornography as a social norm, which is not against the law of the land, such as girls/ladies getting gang banged. You say girls/ladies getting gang banged is recommended by the Buddha. You say gang bangs "cannot go wrong".

Then, as has been attempted, the law of the land may allow sex with 12 year olds, then maybe 10 years, then 8 year olds, then 6 year olds. The law of the land is always changing. Once homosexuality was illegal under the law of the land. Yet you say the law of the land accords with what is moral.

The law of the land no longer punishes adultery. Most Western lands now have no-fault divorce. Yet you say the law of the land is the same as Dhamma.
SarathW wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 11:55 amIf the above is not violated, laypeople are allowed to have sex as they wish.
The Buddha did not ever allow or disallow people. The Buddha only taught what leads to suffering or non-suffering. It seems what was posted about "allowed" comes from another religion. :smile:
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: 21226
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Ven. Pandita on the third precept

Post by SarathW »

You have to tick all the boxes of four to make the evaluation.
Having sex with underage children may be disqualified on people with the powerless category.
Perhaps instead of the word allowed we have to use the word tolerated.
Visaka who was a Sotapanna had many children.
Not every householder can attain the final Nibbana.
We should not attempt to convert every layperson to a monk.
“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: Wed Mar 03, 2021 11:40 pm Visaka who was a Sotapanna had many children.
Visaka who was not a hungry ghost constantly searching for and having sex with many different sex partners.

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
Post Reply