Buddhism and Sex... This is an age in which
sexual matters are discussed with great openness. There are many
who are puzzled to know what the Buddhist attitude towards sex is,
and it is therefore to be hoped that the following guidelines may
be found helpful towards an understanding. It is, of course, true
to say that Buddhism, in keeping with the principle of the Middle
Way, would advocate neither extreme puritanism nor extreme
permissiveness, but this, as a guiding principle without further
specification, may not seem sufficiently helpful for most
people.
In the first place, we must distinguish between the rules
undertaken by Buddhist monks for their own conduct, and any guiding
principles for lay people.
The Bhikkhu... A bhikkhu, or fully-ordained monk
in the Theravada tradition, has taken upon himself a set of 227
rules of conduct. The aim of all of these is to enable him to
conduct himself in such a way as is most conducive to the attaining
of Enlightenment. The rules are voluntarily undertaken, and if a
monk feels unable to live up to them, he is free to leave the
Order, which is considered much more honorable than hypocritically
remaining in the robe while knowingly infringing the rule. There
are four basic rules, infringement of which is termed Parajika or
"Defeat," and involves irrevocable expulsion from the Order. The
only one we are concerned with here is the first, which deals with
sexual intercourse.
Complete sexual continence is considered an essential feature of
the monastic life. Intercourse of a heterosexual or homosexual
character is automatically a Parajika offense. A monk who performs
such an act is considered to have expelled himself from the Order,
and is no longer in communion with the other monks. Any acts of a
sexually unbecoming nature falling short of intercourse result in
suspension and require expiation. Samaneras, or novice monks, who
break their training in this respect are disrobed.
The same principle applies to the Mahayana schools and of course,
to nuns in those schools where they exist. There is no such thing
as a "married monk," though in certain schools, especially in
Japan, a form of "quasi-monasticism" with married teachers who
retain a form of ordination is permitted under certain conditions.
But all this has no relevance to the Theravada Sangha.
Ancient India... Before turning to our main theme,
it is as well to have some idea of the sexual mores of ancient
India in the Buddha's time. Gotama himself, as a prince, was
brought up surrounded by concubines and dancing-girls as a matter
of course. Polygamy was common. Ambapali, the courtesan from whom
the Buddha accepted gifts, was a person of some consequence. It was
not expected that young men would lead a life of much restraint,
and the Buddha with his profound understanding of human nature knew
well what demands to make of people in this respect. Thus we find
the following formulation of what a man should avoid:
He avoids unlawful sexual intercourse, abstains from it. He has no
intercourse with girls who are still under the protection of father
or mother, brother, sister, or relative; nor with married women,
nor female convicts; nor lastly with betrothed girls.
If a man could observe greater restraint than this, so much the
better. The Buddha's outlook on this question was, then, realistic
for his age, and we should endeavor to view the subject as
realistically as possible in the light of modern conditions.
The Lay Buddhist... The third of the Five Precepts
undertaken by lay Buddhists runs: Kamesu micchacara veramani
sikkhapadam samadiyami, "I undertake the course of training in
refraining from wrong-doing in respect of sensuality." Some lay
people who, usually for a specified period, undertake more than the
usual five precepts, take this one in the stricter form:
Abrahmacariya veramani..., which commits them, for the duration of
the undertaking, to observe the same restraint as the monks. With
these, too, we are not further concerned, as their position is now
obvious.
For the average lay person, the Third Precept is on exactly the
same footing as the other four. There is, in the Buddhist view,
nothing uniquely wicked about sexual offenses or failings. Those
inclined to develop a guilt-complex about their sex-life should
realize that failure in this respect is neither more, nor, on the
other hand, less serious than failure to live up to any other
precept. In point of fact, the most difficult precept of all for
nearly everybody to live up to is the fourth to refrain from all
forms of wrong speech (which often includes uncharitable comments
on other people's real or alleged sexual failings!).
What precisely, then, does the Third Precept imply for the ordinary
lay Buddhist? Firstly, in common with all the other precepts, it is
a rule of training. It is not a "commandment" from God, the Buddha,
or anyone else saying: "Thou shalt not..." There are no such
commandments in Buddhism. It is an undertaking by you to yourself,
to do your best to observe a certain type of restraint, because you
understand that it is a good thing to do. This must be clearly
understood. If you don't think it is a good thing to do, you should
not undertake it. If you do think it is a good thing to do, but
doubt your ability to keep it, you should do your best, and
probably, you can get some help and instruction to make it easier.
If you feel it is a good thing to attempt to tread the Buddhist
path, you may undertake this and the other precepts, with
sincerity, in this spirit.
Secondly, what is the scope and purpose of this precept? The word
kama means in Pali "sensual desire," which is not exclusively
sexual. It is here used in a plural form which comes close to what
is meant by the Biblical expression "the lusts of the flesh." Greed
for food and other sensual pleasure is also included. Most people
who are strongly addicted to sexual indulgence are also much drawn
to other sense-pleasures. Though we are here only concerned with
the sexual aspect, this point should be noted. For those with any
grasp at all of Buddhist principles, the basic reason for such an
injunction should be immediately obvious. Our dukkha our feeling,
of frustration and dissatisfaction with life is rooted in our
desires and cravings. The more these can be brought under control,
the less dukkha we shall experience. It is as simple as that. But
of course, that which is simple is not necessarily easy.
Thus while there is, so to speak, a considerable overlap in the
content of the Third Precept with the Jewish and Christian
commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," there is a big
difference in the spirit and approach. Since most people in the
West have some Christian conditioning even if only indirectly
it is as well to be clear about this. The traditional Christian
view is that sexual intercourse is permissible solely within the
marriage-bond. Even then the implication is that, except as a
necessary means for the procreation of children, it is really
rather a bad thing, and should be restricted as far as possible
hence the debate about "the pill" and the like. Certain things such
as contraception, homosexual activity, and so on are often looked
on with horror and declared "unnatural" (which cannot be entirely
correct since, after all, they happen!). Some of these prohibitions
may today be more honored in the breach than the observance, but
there is no doubt that rigid views of this sort are still widely
held and officially propagated. The inevitable reaction, encouraged
by some real or alleged psychological experts, is towards an
attitude of total permissiveness, in which "anything goes." As was
said earlier, rigid puritanism and total permissiveness are extreme
views, to neither of which the Buddhist teaching subscribes. The
one is merely an inadequate reaction against the other. What we
have to do what Buddhism in fact teaches us to do is to map out
a sane course between the two.
