Womanizing - Page 2 - Dhamma Wheel

3/9/2558
Womanizing?Page2DhammaWheel
Dhamma Wheel
ABuddhistdiscussionforumontheDhammaoftheTheravada
Skiptocontent
Search
Search Advancedsearch
Womanizing?
Forumrules
PostReply
Printview
Searchthistopic
Search Advancedsearch
46posts
Previous
1
2
3
Next
Re: Womanizing? (#p323619)

Quote(./posting.php?mode=quote&f=42&p=323619)
(javascript:void(0))
PostbySarathWMonDec29,201410:40pm
The test to be applied here may be:

"What makes any kamma unwholesome is the mental states associated with it. If there is
anger or illwill, then it's unwholesome (akusala)".
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=22595#p323617 (http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?
f=16&t=22595#p323617) " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Should we include "delusion" as well?
PS: I like to know what Bhante Pesala's openion on this.
LasteditedbySarathW(./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=5915)onMonDec
29,201411:22pm,edited1timeintotal.
Top

PostbyModus.PonensMonDec29,201411:04pm
This is a can of worms the size of an olympic pool. I will only post if the moderators say it's ok
to proceed with the discussion, or put this in the DW hot topics. I just closed a can of worms
and don't want to open an even bigger one.
Top

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=22572&p=323681#p323681
1/11
3/9/2558
PostbyperkeleMonDec29,201411:32pm
SarathW wrote:
The test to be applied here may be:
"What makes any kamma unwholesome is the mental states associated with it. If
there is anger or illwill, then it's unwholesome (akusala)".
And of course there would always be lust involved in "womanizing" of any kind. So, of course
it would be largely unwholesome. I cannot understand the point of your ruminations.
Ven. Dhammanando has given straightforward answers to straightforward questions. You
could say they are "legalistic". That doesn't invalidate them in any way, but quite to the
contrary makes them perfectly clear.
I can't but suspect that there may be a language barrier here that somehow causes
misunderstandings in the communication. Otherwise I can't quite get my head around the
direction the thread is going.
@Sarath: Perhaps you can make your point clearer, what it is that you are asking? What is it
that you want to know?
Modus.Ponens wrote:
This is a can of worms the size of an olympic pool. I will only post if the
moderators say it's ok to proceed with the discussion, or put this in the DW hot
topics. I just closed a can of worms and don't want to open an even bigger one.
@Modus: The thread is about womanizing, not wormanizing. Just in case that you got
confused about the topic.
I wonder what more speculation about possible cicumstances and conditions, of prositutes,
human trafficking, etc. etc. or whatever one could bring up in relation to this would be of
further help here? The thread asked what the Buddha had to say about womanizing in general
and how it is viewed in relation to the five precepts specifically. Straightforward answers
were given, by pointing to the Parabhava Sutta concerning the habit of "womanizing" in
general, and by clarifying the extent of the third precept.
It is clear that prostitution is a dirty business, and there might be many more and clearly
immoral things going on around it than just the paid sex. But that was not the subject of this
thread.
Lasteditedbyperkele(./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3233)onMonDec29,
201411:42pm,edited1timeintotal.
Top
2/11
3/9/2558

PostbyModus.PonensMonDec29,201411:39pm
perkele wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote:
This is a can of worms the size of an olympic pool. I will only post if the
moderators say it's ok to proceed with the discussion, or put this in the
DW hot topics. I just closed a can of worms and don't want to open an
even bigger one.
@Modus: The thread is about womanizing, not wormanizing. Just in case that
you got confused about the topic.
Do you have any suggestion of how I could have a more respectful intervention before posting
my opinion on the present aspect of the topic at hand?
Top

PostbyperkeleMonDec29,201411:50pm
Modus.Ponens wrote:
Do you have any suggestion of how I could have a more respectful intervention
before posting my opinion on the present aspect of the topic at hand?
Sorry. I was just making light fun. I did not want to be offensive or disrespectful and I
apologize if it was felt like that. Maybe I should restrain myself more when I spot the
opportunity for some silly, corny pun.
To answer your question: No, I don't have any suggestion for an intervention. My suggestion
would be to just say what's on your mind without any intervention if you think it is useful and
brings clarity to the topic.
Top

PostbyAnagarikaTueDec30,20141:16am
Bhante's comment, to me, is a correct understanding of the precept. Kamesu micchacara

veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami, "I undertake the training rule in refraining from wrong
3/11
3/9/2558
doing in respect of sensuality." This suggests to me, for laypeople, an element of inquiry into
harm and intention as the qualifiers.
The If people wish to take the meaning of the proscription, and extend it beyond the strict
letter of the "law," then you're into a discussion of skillful vs. unskillful behaviors, and
whether engaging in sexual acts with a willing partner for money is bright, neutral, or dark
kamma. If you believe that the person with whom you are to have sex is being forced into the
act, or you feel that in general, there is a backstory of neglect or abuse behind every sex
worker, then it is better that one refrains from any willing sex with another for money, as it
may involve, even unwittingly, the cultivation of harm.
From Walsh: "Many people, coming from a more or less Christian background with at least
some puritanical overtones, find the true Buddhist attitude to this problem rather difficult to
see. Perhaps they have never even been given a clear explanation of it or, if they have, it
may have seemed too technical for them, and they have not grasped the point. The point, in
fact, is of considerable importance, so it is worthwhile attempting to make it clear. It
involves a proper elementary grasp of what is meant by kamma something which many
people, who may have been "Buddhists" for years, have never had."
If the "one night stand" leaves you, and/or your partner, with a feeling of emptiness or
regret, then perhaps you're not cultivating bright kamma. This does not violate the lay third
precept, but as a practitioner on the path, it's up to you to decide the brightness of the
kamma.
As an eight preceptor, my decision making is easier than that of the five preceptor.
Top

PostbyMkollTueDec30,20141:46am
Mkoll wrote:
Dhammanando wrote:
santa100 wrote:
Hold on Bhante, are you saying Buddhist men can freely
have sex with prostitutes and still their observance of the
third precept remains intact?
Yes.
And Buddhist women with gigolos, if they're so inclined.
What if it's a prostitute who is a sex slave and the trick either doesn't know or
asks about her condition and she lies and says she is free because that's what
her owners told her to say, fearing to tell the truth because of the threat of
violence?
With all due respect, I think you're getting into very muddy water if you're
responding to such an openended question with a blanket "yes" with no
4/11
3/9/2558
caveats.
Apparently I didn't read santa100's post carefully enough. It definitely wasn't an openended
question but a very specific one.
Regardless, such action would not be in accordance with the Dhamma in certain situations
such as the one I described, which is probably why I responded negatively to Bhante's concise
response.
MN 41 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.041.nymo.html) wrote:
8. "And how are there three kinds of bodily conduct not in accordance with the
Dhamma, unrighteous conduct? Here someone is a killer of living beings: he is
murderous, bloodyhanded, given to blows and violence, and merciless to all
living beings. He is a taker of what is not given: he takes as a thief another's
chattels and property in the village or in the forest. He is given over to
misconduct in sexual desires: he has intercourse with such (women) as are
protected by the mother, father, (mother and father), brother, sister,
relatives, as have a husband, as entail a penalty, and also with those that are
garlanded in token of betrothal. That is how there are three kinds of bodily
conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct.
Top

PostbyModus.PonensTueDec30,20142:39am
Anagarika wrote:
Bhante's comment, to me, is a correct understanding of the precept. Kamesu
micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami, "I undertake the training rule in
refraining from wrongdoing in respect of sensuality." This suggests to me, for
laypeople, an element of inquiry into harm and intention as the qualifiers.
The If people wish to take the meaning of the proscription, and extend it
beyond the strict letter of the "law," then you're into a discussion of skillful vs.
unskillful behaviors, and whether engaging in sexual acts with a willing partner
for money is bright, neutral, or dark kamma. If you believe that the person with
whom you are to have sex is being forced into the act, or you feel that in
general, there is a backstory of neglect or abuse behind every sex worker, then
it is better that one refrains from any willing sex with another for money, as it
may involve, even unwittingly, the cultivation of harm.
From Walsh: "Many people, coming from a more or less Christian background
with at least some puritanical overtones, find the true Buddhist attitude to this
problem rather difficult to see. Perhaps they have never even been given a
clear explanation of it or, if they have, it may have seemed too technical for
them, and they have not grasped the point. The point, in fact, is of
considerable importance, so it is worthwhile attempting to make it clear. It
involves a proper elementary grasp of what is meant by kamma something
5/11
3/9/2558
which many people, who may have been "Buddhists" for years, have never had."
If the "one night stand" leaves you, and/or your partner, with a feeling of
emptiness or regret, then perhaps you're not cultivating bright kamma. This
does not violate the lay third precept, but as a practitioner on the path, it's up
to you to decide the brightness of the kamma.
As an eight preceptor, my decision making is easier than that of the five
preceptor.
I'm glad someone who is skilled in speaking agreeable words, said what I basically wanted to
say _ as I would fail to do it agreeably.
Top

PostbyWriTueDec30,20143:28am
To me it seems that womanizing, whether permissible by the precepts or not, is counter

productive to a Buddhist goal and one should not womanize. If one wants to be
unconditionally at peace / free from suffering, then one should not depend on sex or "scoring"
women to be happy. It makes the mind dependent on certain conditions to be satisfied, which
causes suffering in each moment we cannot have what we desire. So, do we need advice from
a precept on this issue? I don't think so. It is counterproductive either way.
It also seems to treat women like expendable pleasure objects rather than beings on their
own path to enlightenment deserving of compassion. We could say that under all the right
conditions, the person being womanized would suffer no harm. But when you are just picking
up women quickly as opposed to taking the time to really get to know them and commit to
them, we really have no idea how much they are lying or withholding information. We can
very well be causing a great deal of harm without knowing it.
Top

PostbyModus.PonensTueDec30,20143:43am
Wri,
You are trivialising sex as a physical activity. We need sex and it's not unimportant for men to
have sex just for the sake of sex, even though there's a risk of feelings getting hurt. Our
feelings can get hurt too, right? Can't the woman being seduced hide information? Maybe even
regarding STDs?
Top

PostbyrobertkTueDec30,201411:00am
6/11
3/9/2558
of course it is not breaking the precept to go with a prostitute.

However there is the case given of a man who tries to buy(outbid) or seduce a prostitute
already hired by another man: that is breaking the precept.
Top

PostbySarathWTueDec30,201411:11am
Hi Robertk
The way I understand now, precepts are not rules or law.
So there is nothing to be broken.
However if it is unwholesome act you may reap the consequences.
The person might get caught by the police or he may catch STD.
Worst case scenario is,if his wife get to know that, he will be sleeping in the dog's house.
Top

PostbyrobertkTueDec30,201411:18am
are you talking about kamma or kilesa. Or are you only referring to the precepts?
Top

PostbySarathWTueDec30,20148:15pm
I am referring to wrong action which produce unfavourable results.

You can have anything as your precepts.
You may have your own precepts saying "I may refrain from going to prostitutes"
If you break your precepts nobody there to punish you except you reap the result of your
action. (good or bad depend on your intention etc)
Top

PostbyDhammanandoTueDec30,201411:49pm
SarathW wrote:
The way I understand now, precepts are not rules or law.
So there is nothing to be broken.
That's a non sequitur. The words "kept" and "broken" apply just as well to vowed observances
7/11
3/9/2558
as they do to rules or laws.

Top

PostbySarathWWedDec31,201412:35am
Thanks Bhante.
Top

PostbyShaswata_PanjaSatJan03,20158:17am
Dhammanando wrote:
SarathW wrote:
When is womanizing would not break the third precept?
For example, a budding Casanova goes to a singles bar every Friday or Saturday
night in quest of a woman for a onenightstand, but takes care not to go home
with anyone who's married or engaged or still living in dependence on her
parents or brothers, etc. etc. By confining his amatory attentions to women
who are not in any of the prohibited classes, the Buddhist philanderer's
observance of the third precept remains intact.
Edit: If you are living in Sri Lanka or some other Theravada country, it's possible
that my answer will differ from what you are used to being told about the third
precept. I am aware of the widespread popular view in Buddhist Asia which, as
in the Abrahamic religions, holds all acts of "fornication" (sex between
unmarried persons) to be breaches of the third precept. This opinion is not,
however, supported in the texts, which allow that lawful sexual acts may be
between married persons, engaged persons, "or even a temporary arrangement"
(khaikyapi).
I have my answer..Yay! as long as I donot lose my sexual desire through meditation , I might
occasionally engage in such behaviour..But regarding pay sexother than highclass call
girls, it is very difficult to ascertain whether the sex worker you are having sex with has been
abused and coerced and forced or not
Top

8/11
3/9/2558
PostbyhermitwinSatJan03,20158:26pm
Thank you bhante. I have long thought about this.

Yes, indeed many people confuse prostitution with breaking the precept on sexual
misconduct.
I think that a person who asks this type of question is not willing to give up illicit sex yet.
I know many people struggle with this and so did i.
Top

PostbySamBodhiTueJan06,20155:31am
Dhammanando wrote:
santa100 wrote:
Hold on Bhante, are you saying Buddhist men can freely have sex with
prostitutes and still their observance of the third precept remains intact?
Yes.
And Buddhist women with gigolos, if they're so inclined.
I think it is important here to note that Ven. Dhammanando is not saying a Buddhist
man/woman can freely have sex with any prostitute/gigolo. I imagine there are a number of
disqualifying factors, as is the case with any sexual relationship. This may help clarify many of
the whatif questions that have arisen.
with Metta,
SamBodhi
Top

PostbyDhammanandoTueJan06,20155:55am
SamBodhi wrote:
I think it is important here to note that Ven. Dhammanando is not saying a
Buddhist man/woman can freely have sex with any prostitute/gigolo. I imagine
there are a number of disqualifying factors, as is the case with any sexual
relationship. This may help clarify many of the whatif questions that have
arisen.
9/11
3/9/2558
Indeed.
What I said wouldn't apply, for example, in the case mentioned by Robert where the woman
is already contracted. Nor would it apply in countries where prostitution is illegal, for in this
case a sexworker would be an improper partner of the saparida type: a woman with
whom sex would entail punishment.
Top
Displaypostsfromprevious: Allposts
Sortby Posttime
Ascending
Go
PostReply
Printview
46posts
Previous
1
2
3
Next
ReturntoEthicalConduct
Jumpto
Welcome
TERMSOFSERVICE(includingreportingprocedures)
Announcements
Introductions
Suggestionbox
ModernTheravda
DiscoveringTheravda
GeneralTheravdadiscussion
Theravdaforthemodernworld
Dhammaduta(Dhammapropagation)
PhenomenologicalDhamma
OrdinationandMonasticLife
StudyGroup
ClassicalMahaviharaTheravda
ClassicalTheravda
Abhidhamma
Pali
TheravdaMeditation
TheravadaMeditation
EthicalConduct
SamathaMeditationandJhana
InsightMeditation
GeneralDhamma
OpenDhamma
OpenDhammaHotTopics
EarlyBuddhism
DhammicStories
ShrineRoom
PersonalExperience
Wellness,Diet&Fitness
Lounge
NonEnglishResources
Who is online
Usersbrowsingthisforum:Noregisteredusersand3guests
10/11
3/9/2558
GoogleSaffron,TheravadaSearchEngine
PoweredbyphpBBForumSoftwarephpBBLimited
GZIP:Off
DhammaWheel.comisassociatedwithDharmaWheel.net,DhammaWiki.com,andTheDhamma.com
11/11

Womanizing - Page 2 - Dhamma Wheel

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Womanizing - Page 2 - Dhamma Wheel

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

3/9/2558

Re: Womanizing? (#p323619)

The test to be applied here may be:

Re: Womanizing? (#p323623)

Re: Womanizing? (#p323628)

Re: Womanizing? (#p323629)

Re: Womanizing? (#p323630)

Re: Womanizing? (#p323646)

Bhante's comment, to me, is a correct understanding of the precept. Kamesu micchacara

Re: Womanizing? (#p323652)

Re: Womanizing? (#p323667)

Re: Womanizing? (#p323681)

To me it seems that womanizing, whether permissible by the precepts or not, is counter

Re: Womanizing? (#p323684)

Re: Womanizing? (#p323732)

of course it is not breaking the precept to go with a prostitute.

Re: Womanizing? (#p323733)

Re: Womanizing? (#p323734)

Re: Womanizing? (#p323758)

I am referring to wrong action which produce unfavourable results.

Re: Womanizing? (#p323773)

as they do to rules or laws.

Re: Womanizing? (#p323776)

Re: Womanizing? (#p324077)

Re: Womanizing? (#p324118)

Thank you bhante. I have long thought about this.

Re: Womanizing? (#p324377)

Re: Womanizing? (#p324383)

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen