Why is adultery and prostitution bad?

[Thomas Amundsen]

There is a subtle distinction between unwholesome deeds and deeds which are conducive to the path. Sex, alcohol, music, etc. would be things that would be advised to abstain from, but they are not naturally unwholesome. That is to say, if you don't have a particular vow to refrain from these things, there's nothing wrong in engaging in them. If you do have a vow, then you are breaking a vow by engaging in it, which is a problem.

All sensual desires are unwholesome since they are a roadblock for those who want to achieve more than stream entry.

Creating a barrier to stream entry doesn't mean that an action is unwholesome. Unwholesome implies that the action is "black karma" that ripens as unpleasant results in our mindstream.

[Ricky]

There is a subtle distinction between unwholesome deeds and deeds which are conducive to the path. Sex, alcohol, music, etc. would be things that would be advised to abstain from, but they are not naturally unwholesome. That is to say, if you don't have a particular vow to refrain from these things, there's nothing wrong in engaging in them. If you do have a vow, then you are breaking a vow by engaging in it, which is a problem.

All sensual desires are unwholesome since they are a roadblock for those who want to achieve more than stream entry.

Creating a barrier to stream entry doesn't mean that an action is unwholesome. Unwholesome implies that the action is "black karma" that ripens as unpleasant results in our mindstream.

It can be implied by breaking the precepts and creating bad karma but also sensual desires as a whole which is why the Buddha renounced them and spoke out against.

[Thomas Amundsen]

All sensual desires are unwholesome since they are a roadblock for those who want to achieve more than stream entry.

Creating a barrier to stream entry doesn't mean that an action is unwholesome. Unwholesome implies that the action is "black karma" that ripens as unpleasant results in our mindstream.

It can be implied by breaking the precepts and creating bad karma but also sensual desires as a whole which is why the Buddha renounced them and spoke out against.

Right. As I said, if you took a vow to abstain from sex (like a monk), then it's unwholesome to break the vow. But sex in general isn't unwholesome. Again, there's a difference between what is naturally unwholesome and what should be renounced by a Buddhist practitioner.

[Fortyeightvows]

Renunciation of course has a place in Mahayana practice but it is seen has provisional.

It doesn't seem that Lama Tsongkhapa sees it as provisional...he calls renunciation one of the three main aspects of the path!

[Tiago Simões]

Renunciation of course has a place in Mahayana practice but it is seen has provisional.

It doesn't seem that Lama Tsongkhapa sees it as provisional...he calls renunciation one of the three main aspects of the path!

I am not very learned on Gelug teachings, so I can't comment on that.

[Wayfarer]

In the Christian West, it was always understood that if sex was an expression of conjugal love was wholesome but if driven by carnal desire, then it was not. My, how quaint that distinction sounds today!

Generally speaking, the drive to have sex is the most basic, most fundamental and naked expression of tṛṣṇā, the craving for continued existence, that we are likely to experience in human form. That is why being able to remain aloof from it is a fundamental virtue in Buddhism (as in other wisdom traditions).

[Bristollad]

Alex Berzin covers the discussion points of this topic quite thoroughly.

https://studybuddhism.com/en/tibetan-bu ... ain-issues

[Bristollad]

Renunciation of course has a place in Mahayana practice but it is seen has provisional.

It doesn't seem that Lama Tsongkhapa sees it as provisional...he calls renunciation one of the three main aspects of the path!

I am not very learned on Gelug teachings, so I can't comment on that.

viewtopic.php?t=5181

See this topic - it’s not just a Gelug point.

[Tiago Simões]

It doesn't seem that Lama Tsongkhapa sees it as provisional...he calls renunciation one of the three main aspects of the path!

I am not very learned on Gelug teachings, so I can't comment on that.

viewtopic.php?t=5181

See this topic - it’s not just a Gelug point.

That topic just makes my point stronger.

[Wayfarer]

Alex Berzin covers the discussion points of this topic quite thoroughly.

Good article, very sensitively written and balanced. I noticed these passages in particular:

Biological drives, although part of what we in the West would call “natural,” are, from the Buddhist viewpoint, part of the mechanism of samsara. What we want to do in Buddhism is to overcome being under the control of these instinctive drives that perpetuate the suffering and problems of our uncontrollably repeating samsaric existence. Along the way to gaining liberation from these biological drives, we want to become less and less dependent on them and not be ruled by them. Despite our biological drives, we can still be of help to others, so long as we are not ruled by them.

Many people in the West do not hold God as sacred, but instead, regard Nature as sacred. This means regarding biology as sacred. They think that whatever is natural is automatically good. Buddhism, on the other hand, is suspicious of what comes naturally, since many disturbing emotions and attitudes arise automatically, as do urges to act destructively. We need to discriminate carefully.

[Bristollad]

I am not very learned on Gelug teachings, so I can't comment on that.

viewtopic.php?t=5181

See this topic - it’s not just a Gelug point.

That topic just makes my point stronger.

You think that renunciation taught in Gelug is only renunciation of sense objects? It has exactly the same meaning as explained by Malcolm in that thread.

[Tiago Simões]

viewtopic.php?t=5181

See this topic - it’s not just a Gelug point.

That topic just makes my point stronger.

You think that renunciation taught in Gelug is only renunciation of sense objects? It has exactly the same meaning as explained by Malcolm in that thread.

Like I said, I am not familiar with Gelug teachings. The topic just shows that there appears to be various meanings and levels to the word "renunciation" in Buddhadharma.

The type we are talking about in this topic is renunciation of sense objects.

[Bristollad]

That topic just makes my point stronger.

You think that renunciation taught in Gelug is only renunciation of sense objects? It has exactly the same meaning as explained by Malcolm in that thread.

Like I said, I am not familiar with Gelug teachings. The topic just shows that there appears to be various meanings and levels to the word "renunciation" in Buddhadharma.

The type we are talking about in this topic is renunciation of sense objects.

What has been translated as renunciation is the mind that wishes to be rid of samsara - this is the same in hinayana, mahayana and tantra, and is essential. The methds used to be rid of samsara, differ.

[Fortyeightvows]

Quite secluded from sense pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states of mind, he enters and dwells in the first jhana, which is accompanied by applied thought and sustained thought with rapture and happiness born of seclusion. (M.i,1818; Vbh.245)

Also see the five hindrances:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... el026.html

[conebeckham]

There is a subtle distinction between unwholesome deeds and deeds which are conducive to the path. Sex, alcohol, music, etc. would be things that would be advised to abstain from, but they are not naturally unwholesome. That is to say, if you don't have a particular vow to refrain from these things, there's nothing wrong in engaging in them. If you do have a vow, then you are breaking a vow by engaging in it, which is a problem.

All sensual desires are unwholesome since they are a roadblock for those who want to achieve more than stream entry.

Not a fan of Vajrayana, are you?

[Drenpa]

After looking through some Tv shows and forums, I finally got to the point where I needed to find out why adultery and prostitution is bad. I always wondered , prositutes - they and I myself , we both agree to have sex and are ok with it ( there is no pain for us in the process ). We are not forcing the other to have sex with one another - perhaps if I call for a prositutiye , she would be happy to have sex with me , so do I. Is this okay regarding third precept ? I didn’t cause harm to anyone because she is willing to do it .

The problem is that the prostitute does feel forced to trade sex for money s(he) doesn't have a real choice in the matter as you (the john) would in this scenario. Show me a woman who really wants to sell her body (it could happen, but would be .999999 percentile) and I'll show you some man's creation or fantasy.

Also adultery , well I’m not really talking adultery , but another vswrsion of adultery. What if I have 5 wives , whom I love very much. They all love me too and are aware that I have 5 spouses and are totally fine with it. Suppose they become best friends too and we would often hang out in a group. We have sex at times one on one occasions and we are perfectly fine with it. Is that a violation of third precept? Again , I am not harming anyone feelings with having sex and going out with 5 girls.

Polygamy or polyandry =/ adultery. Adultery is a legal term, but you're talking here about being unfaithful when you have a vow. This is never okay. It happens but doesn't mean its okay and we get a pass from the karmic consequences. If one isn't happy in a relationship, better to man up, or woman up, and end it rather than hurting someone by deceiving them. Like intoxication, some negative actions can lead to an entire host of negative activities.

I just feel that , imagine , a group of unique and maverick thinking people , who they break away from the social conditioning of the world , decides to reinvent culture and ethnics of their own. So like , being naked in streets is considered normal , scolding children and elders are considered equally bad or good depending on ones motivation eg. I will say that my thinking is weird and out of the world. I am still a teenager, which means I reject social etiquettes and conditioning.

Nothing wrong with questioning etiquette or conditioning at all, including religious conditioning. Buddhadharma is, at its essence, beyond convention, culture or conditioning. Unless of course, we're doing it to justify our own a priori ideas. Don't feel that your questioning is weird or out of this world. Lol. Far from it. There's nothing new under the sun.

It's hard to conceive of a way that prostitution could do no harm. Even the most willing participant (seemingly) isn't there manifesting that vision except for a host of causes and conditions that are painful. Even if you're young, attractive and her/his nicest trick of the day, in the end, they're still turning tricks to survive a life of abuse.

Even in the more modern instances of the "sugar baby" movement where girls & guys trade favors for college still carries nothing but suffering at the core, doesn't it?

[Ricky]

There is a subtle distinction between unwholesome deeds and deeds which are conducive to the path. Sex, alcohol, music, etc. would be things that would be advised to abstain from, but they are not naturally unwholesome. That is to say, if you don't have a particular vow to refrain from these things, there's nothing wrong in engaging in them. If you do have a vow, then you are breaking a vow by engaging in it, which is a problem.

All sensual desires are unwholesome since they are a roadblock for those who want to achieve more than stream entry.

Not a fan of Vajrayana, are you?

I don't know much about Vajrayana, but earlier writings are clear on this matter.

[MatthewAngby]

There is a subtle distinction between unwholesome deeds and deeds which are conducive to the path. Sex, alcohol, music, etc. would be things that would be advised to abstain from, but they are not naturally unwholesome. That is to say, if you don't have a particular vow to refrain from these things, there's nothing wrong in engaging in them. If you do have a vow, then you are breaking a vow by engaging in it, which is a problem.

All sensual desires are unwholesome since they are a roadblock for those who want to achieve more than stream entry.

Not a fan of Vajrayana, are you?

Wait , so you mean vajrayana is ok with sensual desires not being unwholesome?

[Wayfarer]

The thought does sometimes occur to me that vajrayana itself might become corrupted by unwholesome desire. Is this something that could ever happen?

[Adamantine]

Wow I'm quite surprised by some of the binary and purely
culturally-conditioned thinking exhibited in most of the answers here.

Polyamory is the closest parallel to our biologically developed human sexual needs as evidenced by humans for the majority of our existence on the planet...which only changed at the advent of agriculture and the resulting property/land -ownership which denigrated the role of women and tranformed sexuality into a business-transaction called marriage. See the book "Sex at Dawn". If polyamory or any number of relationship custom-designs are mutually agreed on then there's no sexual misconduct. Also in the Mahayana the idea of skillful methods create space for quite a number of activities to be seen as permissible relative to the distinct situation and one's ability to benefit others. Not to mention Vajrayana!

One need look no further than Guru Rinpoche himself, or Yeshe Tsogyal.. or the more contemporary Chogyam Trungpa, to see successful examples of Buddhist saints who were also polyamorous. Some might find the book "Work Sex Money" by Trungpa illuminating in the section on sex... as well as his wife Diane Mukpo's personal accounts in her memoir Dragon Thunder.