The Third Precept (Sexual Misconduct)

[Rachel Green]

Let's discuss this precept - I hear it spoken about far less than the other ones.

In today's society which is far less sexually repressive than previously, this can be complicated, can't it? What is and is not sexual misconduct?

How do we deal with lust - a problem that Ajahn Chah talks about having a lot when he was a junior monk.

What of sexual fantasies?

[Saw Naw]

I am curious as to how the third precept came to be interpreted as "sexual misconduct".

As Bhante Nandiya said on the first page of this thread, I find "kamesu micchacara" to be rather vague when read without interpretation.

kama — senses or sense pleasures
miccha — wrong, the opposite of samma
cara — "going about"

The Pali for the precept, "kamesu micchacara" literally means "wrongly going about the senses" and there is nothing in the Pali that suggests that this strictly refers to sexual sense pleasures.

I find it most likely that it's a matter of connotation — the expression "getting laid" might not make sense to a person in India 2600 years from now, but most native English speakers would immediately agree and unanimously agree on its meaning. Interestingly, the word "kama" is often used in modern everyday Burmese language to refer to sexual intercourse, so it wouldn't be surprising if the term carried the same ambiguous connotation 2600 years ago.

The third precept for monastics is equally ambiguous if taken literally. For monastics, this is the only precept among the first five that is different from the other four, in that it demands a complete abstinence from sexual activity, and any ambiguity surrounding it is dispelled by how strictly it is enforced in the Vinaya.

"Abrahmacariya veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami", as different from the layperson's third precept:
"Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami"

"Brahma" refers to the supreme God and "cariya" means "to follow". And since "a-" is a negation, the third precept for monastics literally appears to call for abstinence from not following God. However when you consider that the term "brahmacariya" is used in Hindu religions to refer to the practice of celibacy, the whole thing makes sense.

I was wondering what everone's opinion is of sexual fantasies? That is, does having lustful thoughts, but not physically indulging in those thoughts, still constitute 'misconduct'?

As far as I'm aware, all the precepts, even all 227 monk precepts, have to do with actions, not thoughts. So it wouldn't be consistent for sexual fantasies, which occur in the mind, to constitute misconduct.

When I am at work I try to avoid interacting with young women, and if I have to, I always keep my eyes of their face and sometimes I try to be aware of what I really see (hear of the head, skin, teeth.. ).
In my moments of mindfulness I find lust to be an unpleasant kind of emotion, not to speak about all the troubles that are connected with blindly following our lusts.

In Ajahn Brahm's book "Opening The Door of Your Heart", there's a highly amusing anecdote about Ajahn Chah and a young monk who missed his girlfriend back in Los Angeles.

In my first year as a monk in northeast Thailand, I was travelling in the back of the car with 2 other Western monks, and with Ajahn Chah, my teacher, sitting in the front passenger seat. Ajahn Chah suddenly turned around and looked at the young American novice monk sitting next to me, and then said something in Thai. The third Western monk in the car was fluent in Thai and translated for us, "Ajahn Chah says that you are thinking about your girlfriend back in L.A."

The jaw of the American novice dropped almost to the floor. Ajahn Chah had been reading his thoughts -- accurately. Ajahn Chah smiled, and his next words were translated as, "Don't worry. We can fix that. Next time you write to her, ask her to send to you something personal, something intimately connected to her, which you can bring out whenever you miss her, to remind you of her."

"Is that allowable for a monk?" asked the novice, surprised. "Sure," said Ajahn Chah, through the translator.

Perhaps monks understand romance after all.

What Ajahn Chah said next took many minutes to translate. Our translator had to stop laughing and pull himself together first.

"Ajahn Chah says..." He struggled to get the words out, wiping away tears of mirth, "Ajahn Chah says you should ask her to send you a bottle of her shit. Then whenever you miss her, you can bring out the bottle and open it!"

Well, shit is something personal. And when we express our love for our partner, don't we say we love everything about them?

As I said, if you want the fantasy of romance, steer clear of our monastery.

[Saw Naw]

I am curious as to how the third precept came to be interpreted as "sexual misconduct".

As Bhante Nandiya said on the first page of this thread, I find "kamesu micchacara" to be rather vague when read without interpretation.

kama — senses or sense pleasures
miccha — wrong, the opposite of samma
cara — "going about"

The Pali for the precept, "kamesu micchacara" literally means "wrongly going about the senses" and there is nothing in the Pali that suggests that this strictly refers to sexual sense pleasures.

I find it most likely that it's a matter of connotation — the expression "getting laid" might not make sense to a person in India 2600 years from now, but most native English speakers would immediately agree and unanimously agree on its meaning. Interestingly, the word "kama" is often used in modern everyday Burmese language to refer to sexual intercourse, so it wouldn't be surprising if the term carried the same ambiguous connotation 2600 years ago.

The third precept for monastics is equally ambiguous if taken literally. For monastics, this is the only precept among the first five that is different from the other four, in that it demands a complete abstinence from sexual activity, and any ambiguity surrounding it is dispelled by how strictly it is enforced in the Vinaya.

"Abrahmacariya veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami", as different from the layperson's third precept:
"Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami"

"Brahma" refers to the supreme God and "cariya" means "to follow". And since "a-" is a negation, the third precept for monastics literally appears to call for abstinence from not following God. However when you consider that the term "brahmacariya" is used in Hindu religions to refer to the practice of celibacy, the whole thing makes sense.

[Rachel Green]

What a great question Sherylle, I have asked myself it too and not come up with a clean answer. If the sexual fantasies are part of "love making" with your partner and in fact make the "love making" a better experience then the intention is very different to wasting time in your day, dreaming up fantasies for no real reason? But them, me thinks, if we are fantasisig at all are we just giving into craving which is probably more along the lines of what Jerrod suggests.

Many layers of grey to this!

[Jerrod Lopes]

Sherylle,

I have thought about this for several days. Is it misconduct? I don't think so, technically. We are harming no one directly in the present by this act. Is it beneficial to our practice? No. If we are to follow these precepts as closely as is feasible in order to practice the Middle Path, then is doing something, willingly, that will contradict our practice be worthwhile whether or not it violates the precept? In other words we follow precepts to train ourselves toward liberation, then indulge in thoughts that train us away from liberation. I have found through the years that the tendency to fantasize has decreased exponentially. Maybe it has something to do with aging too? Though seeing where such fantasies can likely lead is enough to help me away from those thoughts.

Respectfully,

Jerrod : )

[Sherylle Baker]

It's been a while since anyone posted here, and I have read through some, though not all of the posts. I was wondering what everone's opinion is of sexual fantasies? That is, does having lustful thoughts, but not physically indulging in those thoughts, still constitute 'misconduct'?

[Rachel Green]

I remember Ajahn Brahm saying once that the question about what happened if everyone became celibate was irrelevant because it would never happen.

This precept is not about laypeople not having sex though - it is about living a life of harmlessness, and this includes in sexual relationships. Harmlessness includes emotional as well as physical aspects.

[Jo Tummers]

Hi Jerrod,

What is the title of the talk you are referring to?
As far as being celebate is concerned: The world is still over populated so if a few million more people decided to become Buddhist and stay celebate, it would not do any harm in my opinion.

[Tamara Williams]

Could you please provide links to a credible citation supporting this statement? Jerrod : )

Gosh, you could compose quite a ditty regarding all the scandals within Tibetan Buddhism ;-)

However, I have found a very thoughful piece on youtube from Stephen Batchelor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYIcsdzS20w

Tamara :-)

[Jerrod Lopes]

Absolutely, I'd never generalise about ALL men ;-)
Further, if a long list of Lamas (etc) have had difficulty keeping their robes on, what hope does the less learned of our species have?

Could you please provide links to a credible citation supporting this statement?

Then, there's the survival of the species. After all, if it wasn't enjoyable, or we didn't desire to do it; we would simply cease to exist.

So, for me, there's the nature versus behaviour argument (which I'm no expert in, to be honest).

:-)

I've often been asked: "If everyone became buddhists and was celibate, what would happen to the human race?"
My thinking is; does it really matter what happens to the human race? It sounds nihilistic, but it's not.
I think acting as a human animal and acting without desire and delusion is what we could perceive as a difference between a human and a buddha. One thing that really shed some light onto sex for me was when Ajahn Brahm in one of his talks pointed out how much work was entailed and how little pleasure there really is involved. Since then, I have through practice and reflection found it to be mostly true.

Metta,

Jerrod : )

[Tamara Williams]

Absolutely, I'd never generalise about ALL men ;-)

I agree with you, Oliver, that we "should" all be able to control ourselves and not be at the mercy of body chemistry. However, it's often our "urges" and our lack of control over them which is given up as an excuse for such things as promiscuity and rape. Further, if a long list of Lamas (etc) have had difficulty keeping their robes on, what hope does the less learned of our species have?

Then, there's the survival of the species. After all, if it wasn't enjoyable, or we didn't desire to do it; we would simply cease to exist.

So, for me, there's the nature versus behaviour argument (which I'm no expert in, to be honest).

:-)

[Oliver Rowland]

I'm glad you didn't generalise about ALL men, as personally I could not really see myself having sex with someone purely as a physical pleasure and with no emotional aspect, though having said that, if that is the arrangement and both people are happy about it I guess it is no worse than any other sensual indulgance. Also it seems to me there are an increasing amount of women whose behaviour in terms of sex is similar to the promiscuous "male" stereotype. Even in terms of biology, not all men have "lashings" of testosterone, and some women have, at least compared to the average for a women, quite a lot; but I think it would anyway be unfair to assume that people are just at the mercy of their body chemistry and those with a lot of testosterone just can't help jumping on everything that moves.

[Tamara Williams]

I'm new also and coming quite late to this forum.

I find this precept fascinating. In my own mind it makes perfect sense: I've never strayed, nor felt the need to stray. However, I do acknowledge that I am female and am not burdened with lashings of testosterone. I've had many conversations with male friends, and have been lucky enough to have them be honest and frank with me, with regard to male sexual behaviour (or at least their own male sexual behaviour!). What I found most liberating for me, was the difference (in my male friends' eyes) between the sexual act and love: and how these can be separated. As a woman (and I don't mean to stereotype here, I know I'm skating on thin ice!!) I believe our gender tend to lump sex and love in together, and often confuse the two. It's no wonder we all get ourselves into trouble! (and no wonder this precept came into existence).

From my own experience, removing the need/desire for sex has made my own life a whole lot less complicated. Not that I'm some crazy man hating rampant feminist either!! By committing to this precept I've been able to focus on my own internal happiness and acknowledge that I don't need to have a relationship with someone to obtain that happiness. I've also been able to focus on having strong and healthy platonic relationships.

What I find incredibly ironic is that the "Lama Dramas" of late have, on the whole, involved the shredding of this precept with a pile of deception thrown in for good measure (there goes right speech!!).

[Jerrod Lopes]

Roland,

I can tell you that in my experience, the cravings for sexual pleasure have certainly decreased with time and my practice. This is something I never thought would happen. So I would agree with Ajahn Brahm via experience that 'lower' pleasures do get replaced by more beneficial things after a time. Not to say I am celibate. I still enjoy sex with my girlfriend, yet I don't have near the libido I've had most of my life. Given personal knowledge of my own practice and such I really don't believe it's anything to do with andropause and the like either.

The precept is one of a moral nature. Basically not committing rapes, molesting children sexually and engaging in sexual relationships with people involved in other relationships thereby avoiding lots of problems out there in society (ie. fighting with jealous lovers, etc.). I've lost a friend of 20 years this way, so I can see where the Buddha was coming from, or so I think. I think moderating sexual activity lies more with the Noble Eigthfold Path than the Five Precepts (right action) as there are more beneficial things to do with one's time than to spend as much time as possible having sex and pursuing sense pleasure. Just think of all the time one would spend working in order to support the so many eventual children. No time left for much else. Doesn't sound to me to be the makings of a happy life. Just my two cents.

Jerrod : )

[Roland Zeitler]

hallo friends in the dhamma,
i am new here so please forgive if i repeat what might have been discussed already.
sexuality was very much on the agenda in the u.s. and most of the european countries 50 years ago. rooted in the findings of sigmund freud and its most outspoken disciple in that field wilhelm reich (the sexual revolution) it has changed societies bottom up.
for those of the younger generation not familiar with the topic. both above mentioned gentlemen considered sexuality extremely important in human life. while both agreed that repressed sexuality - as it was rampant in the western world until the hippy (flower power) and student revolution - was responsible for a whole range of psychic disorders and as a result immense social problems, the latter - wilhelm reich - went one step further and tried to prove that supressed sexual activity even leads to cancer. i am not in a position to judge reichs findings but - just recently i read that prostate cancer might be connected to a lack of sexual activity. why? because the prostate gland is not enough oxigenized.
of course as a yoga practicioner for most of my life i know what posture can do that instead but - not everybody is aware of or can practice that.
now comes my question: should one not think that in light of these findings (that includes the freeing of western societies from the curse of surpressed sexuality) the precept in question is not against sexuality per se (including masturbation) but only when harm is involved?
I think to answer that question once and for all is very important as the personal and social consequences are too serious if doubt - and/or guilt - by practicing sexuality creeps in through the backdoor.
as far as i understand ajahn brahms teaching: a lower pleasure is given up naturally when encountering a higher pleasure (Janas). until one has not tasted that higher pleasure which "is better than sex" to deny the bodymind a pleasure which it seems to need to function properly would be counterproductive.