third precept interpretation

A forum for discussion of Buddhist ethics.
Post Reply
User avatar
dawn of peace
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2022 6:59 am

third precept interpretation

Post by dawn of peace »

should the third precept be reinterpret in order to fit the modern western social thinking? the traditional interpretation of sexual misconduct mainly focus on men's right to their wives or daughter's body. women are considered to be sexual objects rather than agents.

also,do Chinese Buddhism interpret the precept more conservatively regarding sexual misconduct than Theravada and Tibetan Buddhism?

Chinese Buddhists consider sex before marriage to be sexual misconduct,but Theravada and Tibetan masters would hardly talk about this issue, unless they are Chinese themselves, grew up in East Asian environment, or at least most of their students are Chinese, otherwise, very few non Chinese Buddhist masters would straightforwardly banning sex before marriage.

teaching against sex before marriage cannot be found in pali suttas, not explicitly mention in Tibetan Lamrim, nor in Chinese Buddhist commentaries which were written before tang dynasty.
User avatar
Ayu
Global Moderator
Posts: 13254
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: third precept interpretation

Post by Ayu »

It seems to me, the interpretations of the precept against sexual misconduct may differ extremely amongst the manifold buddhist traditions.

But there must be one common sense: as soon as anybody is being harmed we can call it 'Sexual Misconduct'. That rule is not complicated.
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: third precept interpretation

Post by Zhen Li »

dawn of peace wrote: Sat Nov 05, 2022 5:23 am teaching against sex before marriage cannot be found in pali suttas, not explicitly mention in Tibetan Lamrim, nor in Chinese Buddhist commentaries which were written before tang dynasty.
It's in the Upāsakaśīlasūtra, translated by Dharmakṣema in the 4th century.
Upāsakaśīlasūtra, fascicle 6 wrote: “If one has sex at an inappropriate time or place, with someone who is a virgin, not one’s wife, or not a woman, one is guilty of the sin of sexual misconduct. This sin is committed on three continents, but not on Uttarakuru, the northern continent.
“If a monk has sex with an animal, another monk, a prisoner, a fugitive, or his teacher’s wife, he is guilty of the sin of sexual misconduct. If the monk does not belong to the Saṅgha, against whom has he sinned? He has sinned against his country’s law.
“Suppose during evil or tumultuous times, or under the rule of a tyrannical king, out of fear one orders one’s wife and concubines to become nuns. If one is still intimate with them, using any of the three orifices, one is guilty of the sin of sexual misconduct.
“If one has sex with oneself or someone by the road, beside a pagoda or temple, or in an assembly, one is guilty of the sin of sexual misconduct. If one has sex with someone who, though under the protection of the king, or parents or brothers, has kept a tryst or accepted one’s invitation or payment, one is guilty of the sin of sexual misconduct. If one has sex beside a holy statue or painting, or a corpse, one is guilty of the sin of sexual misconduct.
“One is guilty of the sin of sexual misconduct if, while having sex with one’s wife, one thinks of her as another woman; or if, while having sex with another’s wife, one thinks of her as one’s own wife. The sin of sexual misconduct can be grave or minor. If it is driven by strong afflictions, it is a grave sin; if it is driven by weak afflictions, it is a minor sin.
dawn of peace wrote: Sat Nov 05, 2022 5:23 am should the third precept be reinterpret in order to fit the modern western social thinking? the traditional interpretation of sexual misconduct mainly focus on men's right to their wives or daughter's body.
I think this is not what the sūtras say. Body, property, or agency are never brought up in the topic. Clarify: is this your interpretation of the precepts or do you have some evidnece to back this up.
Clearly we should definitely read "husband" and "man," etc. in the upāsikā and bhikṣuṇī's case.
dawn of peace wrote: Sat Nov 05, 2022 5:23 am also,do Chinese Buddhism interpret the precept more conservatively regarding sexual misconduct than Theravada and Tibetan Buddhism?
This needs an anthropological survey to uncover. But you can probably poll members of the forum or see their opinions here—probably most are fairly liberal. I think the question really depends on to what extent you see the need to interpret versus accept the wording as-is.
dawn of peace wrote: Sat Nov 05, 2022 5:23 am Chinese Buddhists consider sex before marriage to be sexual misconduct,but Theravada and Tibetan masters would hardly talk about this issue, unless they are Chinese themselves, grew up in East Asian environment, or at least most of their students are Chinese, otherwise, very few non Chinese Buddhist masters would straightforwardly banning sex before marriage.
There's one big generalisation, I guess you don't need to do the anthropological survey then. Is this just your impression or do you have some evidence to back this up?
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9437
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: third precept interpretation

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Ayu wrote: Sat Nov 05, 2022 8:31 am It seems to me, the interpretations of the precept against sexual misconduct may differ extremely amongst the manifold buddhist traditions.

But there must be one common sense: as soon as anybody is being harmed we can call it 'Sexual Misconduct'. That rule is not complicated.
That is pretty much it, applicable to all cultures and time periods.
But added to it should be whatever is of a sexual nature that veers one’s mind off from the path of liberation. For a monk, there’s not a lot of room for interpretation. But for laypeople, it does’t mean you can’t ever think about sex. But if you are postponing meditation practice because you are too busy being obsessed with Japanese cartoon porn, then that’s also misconduct. It’s not always about the effect it has on others, but also about one’s own mind.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
dawn of peace
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2022 6:59 am

Re: third precept interpretation

Post by dawn of peace »

Zhen Li wrote: Sat Nov 05, 2022 9:49 amI think this is not what the sūtras say. Body, property, or agency are never brought up in the topic. Clarify: is this your interpretation of the precepts or do you have some evidnece to back this up.


the video below was made by Gelek Rinpoche, according to Rinpoche, rape should be sexual misconduct in modern sense even though the sutras did not explicitly mention, while wrong places or wrong times may be more like cultural things.

Last edited by dawn of peace on Sat Nov 05, 2022 7:26 pm, edited 8 times in total.
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: third precept interpretation

Post by Zhen Li »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Nov 05, 2022 6:39 pm
Ayu wrote: Sat Nov 05, 2022 8:31 am It seems to me, the interpretations of the precept against sexual misconduct may differ extremely amongst the manifold buddhist traditions.

But there must be one common sense: as soon as anybody is being harmed we can call it 'Sexual Misconduct'. That rule is not complicated.
That is pretty much it, applicable to all cultures and time periods.
But added to it should be whatever is of a sexual nature that veers one’s mind off from the path of liberation. For a monk, there’s not a lot of room for interpretation. But for laypeople, it does’t mean you can’t ever think about sex. But if you are postponing meditation practice because you are too busy being obsessed with Japanese cartoon porn, then that’s also misconduct. It’s not always about the effect it has on others, but also about one’s own mind.
FWIW I think this is a popular kind of interpretation which bypasses the tradition. It fits well in the category of Right Intention (samyaksaṃkalpa) but is not quite in the Right Action category—the Third Precept is not actually about thoughts, it's about engaging in sexual activity. This isn't to say they are not related, but if you just have sexual thoughts but do not act on them, you are definitely not breaking the third precept just because it distracts you from meditation... That would be far too strict an interpretation that almost no laypeople could live up to.
User avatar
Ayu
Global Moderator
Posts: 13254
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: third precept interpretation

Post by Ayu »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Nov 05, 2022 6:39 pm
Ayu wrote: Sat Nov 05, 2022 8:31 am It seems to me, the interpretations of the precept against sexual misconduct may differ extremely amongst the manifold buddhist traditions.

But there must be one common sense: as soon as anybody is being harmed we can call it 'Sexual Misconduct'. That rule is not complicated.
That is pretty much it, applicable to all cultures and time periods.
But added to it should be whatever is of a sexual nature that veers one’s mind off from the path of liberation. For a monk, there’s not a lot of room for interpretation. But for laypeople, it does’t mean you can’t ever think about sex. But if you are postponing meditation practice because you are too busy being obsessed with Japanese cartoon porn, then that’s also misconduct. It’s not always about the effect it has on others, but also about one’s own mind.
:thumbsup:
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9437
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: third precept interpretation

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Zhen Li wrote: Sat Nov 05, 2022 7:23 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Nov 05, 2022 6:39 pm
Ayu wrote: Sat Nov 05, 2022 8:31 am It seems to me, the interpretations of the precept against sexual misconduct may differ extremely amongst the manifold buddhist traditions.

But there must be one common sense: as soon as anybody is being harmed we can call it 'Sexual Misconduct'. That rule is not complicated.
That is pretty much it, applicable to all cultures and time periods.
But added to it should be whatever is of a sexual nature that veers one’s mind off from the path of liberation. For a monk, there’s not a lot of room for interpretation. But for laypeople, it does’t mean you can’t ever think about sex. But if you are postponing meditation practice because you are too busy being obsessed with Japanese cartoon porn, then that’s also misconduct. It’s not always about the effect it has on others, but also about one’s own mind.
FWIW I think this is a popular kind of interpretation which bypasses the tradition. It fits well in the category of Right Intention (samyaksaṃkalpa) but is not quite in the Right Action category—the Third Precept is not actually about thoughts, it's about engaging in sexual activity. This isn't to say they are not related, but if you just have sexual thoughts but do not act on them, you are definitely not breaking the third precept just because it distracts you from meditation... That would be far too strict an interpretation that almost no laypeople could live up to.
Maybe not ‘breaking the precept’ but the point is to avoid unskillful behavior
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
dawn of peace
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2022 6:59 am

Re: third precept interpretation

Post by dawn of peace »

Zhen Li wrote: Sat Nov 05, 2022 9:49 am It's in the Upāsakaśīlasūtra, translated by Dharmakṣema in the 4th century.
Upāsakaśīlasūtra, fascicle 6 wrote: “If one has sex at an inappropriate time or place, with someone who is a virgin, not one’s wife, or not a woman, one is guilty of the sin of sexual misconduct. This sin is committed on three continents, but not on Uttarakuru, the northern continent.
the phrase "not one' wife" is not correct translation. the Chinese text said:
若於非时、非处、非女、处女、他妇、若属自身,是名邪淫。唯三天下有邪淫罪,郁单越无。
the word "他妇" mean other's wife. this does not explicitly include single women, not explicitly against sex before marriage. it more against adultery than fornication. some modern Chinese translators would translate in the way that fit their cultural beliefs.

the word "处女" (virgin) in modern Chinese means a woman who have never have sex before,but in ancient Chinese, it have more than one meaning, it also mean a girl who is unmarried,not independent and still being taken care by her parents. I believe the second meaning may be more appropriate. if the first meaning is correct, one will be guilt of sexual misconduct even have sex with one's own wife for the first time.
Last edited by dawn of peace on Sun Nov 06, 2022 12:19 am, edited 9 times in total.
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: third precept interpretation

Post by Zhen Li »

dawn of peace wrote: Sat Nov 05, 2022 11:46 pm
Zhen Li wrote: Sat Nov 05, 2022 9:49 am It's in the Upāsakaśīlasūtra, translated by Dharmakṣema in the 4th century.
Upāsakaśīlasūtra, fascicle 6 wrote: “If one has sex at an inappropriate time or place, with someone who is a virgin, not one’s wife, or not a woman, one is guilty of the sin of sexual misconduct. This sin is committed on three continents, but not on Uttarakuru, the northern continent.
the phrase "not one' wife" is not correct translation. the Chinese text said:
若於非时、非处、非女、处女、他妇、若属自身,是名邪淫。唯三天下有邪淫罪,郁单越无。
the word "他妇" mean other's wife. this does not explicitly include single women, not explicitly against sex before marriage. it more against adultery than fornication. some modern Chinese translators would translate in the way that fit their cultural beliefs.

the word "处女" (virgin) in modern Chinese means a woman who have never have sex before,but in ancient Chinese, it have more than one meaning, it also mean a girl who is unmarried,not independent and still being taken care by her parents. I believe the second meaning may be more appropriate. if the first meaning is correct, one will be guilt of sexual misconduct even have sex with one's own wife for the first time.
Yes, you are right. This is Ruli's translation. Now I go over the Chinese I see a number of other issues... I like Ruli's efforts but this sometimes happens when you do a deep dive on his translations—I don't know his methodology but there are definitely some issues there.

As for 處女, looking at the Buddhist Chinese dictionaries it seems fairly conclusive that this means a virgin. This is the implication of kumārī and sometimes kanyā in Sanskrit, which is not only a virgin youth but an unmarried woman. I don't think it has the sense of dependent specifically but that would be a necessarily implication.
User avatar
dawn of peace
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2022 6:59 am

Re: third precept interpretation

Post by dawn of peace »

Zhen Li wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 6:02 am As for 處女, looking at the Buddhist Chinese dictionaries it seems fairly conclusive that this means a virgin. This is the implication of kumārī and sometimes kanyā in Sanskrit, which is not only a virgin youth but an unmarried woman. I don't think it has the sense of dependent specifically but that would be a necessarily implication.
I think it imply dependent woman, which probably not include independent unmarried women in modern society.

if we cross reference with other sutras, such as The Flower Garland Sutra, it said:
性不邪淫,菩薩於自妻知足,不求他妻,於他妻妾、他所護女、親族媒定及為法所護,尚不生於貪染之心,何況從事?況於非道?
also, there is a translation by the students of Master Hsuan Hua, it said:
His nature does not engage in sexual misconduct. The Bodhisattva is content with his own wife and does not seek the wives of others. Towards the wives and concubines of others, the women protected by others, by relatives or those betrothed, and those protected by the law, he does not even give rise to a thought of greedy defilement, much the less follow it into action, and much the less give himself over to what is not the Way.
The Flower Garland Sura use the phrase "他所護女" rather than the word "處女",it's literal translation is "the women protected by others",this does not seem to include all unmarried women.
Last edited by dawn of peace on Wed Nov 09, 2022 1:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: third precept interpretation

Post by Zhen Li »

dawn of peace wrote: Wed Nov 09, 2022 1:51 am I think it imply dependent woman, which probably not include independent unmarried women in modern society.
I don't think it just means dependent, but would include dependent.
Soma999
Posts: 702
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: third precept interpretation

Post by Soma999 »

Live from your heart, and don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want others do to you. Then it should really clarify what is proper and improper. Use your intelligence and sensitivity. You don’t need a rigid rule to tell you what is proper or improper. If you are heart-centered, you will live morally.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethical Conduct”