lotwell wrote:If sexual misconduct is defined as sexual activity that leads to harm/suffering, then is there anything that can be considered proper sexual conduct?
If certain chemicals which are released during physical intimacy create emotional attachment to the other party and, due impermanence , the other the party will either die, leave, change etc. it naturally follows that we suffer.
Can there be any sexual activity without subtle traces of harm?
KeithBC wrote:It is true that all sexual activity is samsaric. But even in the field of samsara, some actions can be right and some wrong.
Any action motivated by an intention to cause harm is wrong. Any action that can be reasonably expected to cause harm is at best unskillful, and is probably wrong. Any action that is motivated by a wish to reduce harm and cause happiness is good. Even if it is samsaric and therefore doesn't totally succeed.
Om mani padme hum
(1) Betrothed or engaged to be married.Skillful Bodily Action
"And how is one made pure in three ways by bodily action? There is the case where a certain person, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from the taking of life. He dwells with his rod laid down, his knife laid down, scrupulous, merciful, compassionate for the welfare of all living beings. Abandoning the taking of what is not given, he abstains from taking what is not given. He does not take, in the manner of a thief, things in a village or a wilderness that belong to others and have not been given by them. 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 (1). This is how one is made pure in three ways by bodily action.
Well then, I guess they saved themselves and others from a host of suffering then! But realistically this merely shows that they had ignorance of the consequences of the action. It could also be that the victim did not have the requisite karma to experience suffering from the action OR that the victim has developed their mind to a point where it is not swayed by the eight worldly dharmas. But really, only a Buddha can know the exact consequences of a particular action. This is why, before one has developed a degree of wisdom, it is smart to engage only in actions that are considered wholesome by the Buddha and avoid actions that are considered unwholesome.xtracorrupt wrote:What if someone did an action expecting to bring harm but ended up bringing only happiness?
Want to rephrase this? It doesn't really make sense.That perspective would be dissatisfied but the sentient being causing the action would lose attachment to the dissatisfied perspective as he would be only bringing happiness therefore avoiding attachment to dissatisfaction.
Refer to the first answer.I guess one would need to have complete control over ignorance in order to want suffering yet bring only happiness...
Ummmm... no. You see if your intention is to cause harm and you mistakenly cause happiness YOUR mindstream will still be effected by your intention. It is more than possible that you will feel ever more anger, hatred and aversion due to the victim experiencing happiness and thus cause even more suffering for yourself.Well then maybe it actually isn't the desire of suffering then as it brings only happiness. I guess the complete desire to bring happiness is just as good the complete unsuccessful desire to bring suffering.
The five precepts constitute an integrated set - each precept supports the others. To know what 'sexual misconduct' means you look at the other precepts. 'Sexual misconduct', in the spirit of the precepts as a job lot, means any sexual conduct involving violence, manipulation or deceit - conduct that therefore leads to suffering and trouble. By contrast good sexual conduct is based on loving kindness, generosity, honesty, and mental and emotional clarity - conduct that has good results.
The third precept about sexual misconduct is strictly superfluous - if in our sexual lives we act non-violently, do not take what is not freely given, do not deceive and do not act out of delusive and irresponsible mindstates, we cannot fall foul of the third precept anyway. Buddhism's very tough sexual ethic would be complete without the third precept. It's really there for the sake of emphasis. Sexuality is a very strong energy, the focus of many cravings, vanities and delusions. It calls for its very own precept!
seeker242 wrote:Sexual misconduct for a layperson does not mean "causing no harm whatsoever" IMO. Because you could argue that engaging in any sexual activity causes some harm to yourself, if only to perpetuate attachment to sense pleasures that is already existing. It mean more like "not causing additional excessive harm" by doing some other wrong act because of it, like committing adultery (lying), etc, etc.
This sums it up well, for a layperson that is.
The footnote was referring specifically to the phrase: "crowned with flowers by another man".Zealot wrote:You forgot protected people, Greg! Meaning don't go after a horny daughter with a disagreeable father (or mother, or anyone else protecting them). Well, I guess the quote covered it, but you only said "(1) Betrothed or engaged to be married." /end nit picking
gregkavarnos wrote:The footnote was referring specifically to the phrase: "crowned with flowers by another man".Zealot wrote:You forgot protected people, Greg! Meaning don't go after a horny daughter with a disagreeable father (or mother, or anyone else protecting them). Well, I guess the quote covered it, but you only said "(1) Betrothed or engaged to be married." /end nit picking
nilakantha wrote:Geshe Jampa Gyatso’s book Everlasting Rain of Nectar wrote:or ignorance (e.g., thinking that sexual intercourse is a way to gain spiritual realizations).
Thus Tantra is like licking nectar off a razor blade.Lhug-Pa wrote:Nothing wrong with that; although if one is a Vajrayana practitioner, then the above does not apply.
Users browsing this forum: Lukeinaz and 13 guests