Sexual Pleasure and the Concept of "Sin"
Reduced to essentials, the great debate about sex revolves, for many people, around the [Christian] concept of "sin."
To the Puritan, indulgence in sexual activity for the sake of pleasure is evil, wicked, or "sinful" (i.e., displeasing to God). To the permissive person, this is nonsense.
We probably reject the term "sin" as meaningless, and not only see nothing evil in sexual pleasure but regard it as highly legitimate, perhaps as the highest pleasure there is and certainly as something to which, in principle at least, everybody has a right.
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 karma -- something which many people, who may have been "Buddhists" for years, have never had.
We may, however, perhaps begin more profitably by considering the word sin. Sin to a Christian is primarily thought of as a breach of God's commandments. This explanation is, of course, not wrong in terms of Christian theology. But it is not applicable in Buddhism, where there are no such "commandments" that one can infringe.
As already indicated, the so-called precepts are in fact undertakings to oneself, which is something different. They are more on a par with the instruction, "Look both ways before you cross the road."
Still there is much agreement between the content of the Five Precepts and some of the Ten Commandments, so it may be wise in many cases to behave accordingly, whichever formulation one follows.
However, there is another rendering of the word "sin" itself. In fact, although less well-known, it comes much closer to the Buddhist view of things. In the Bible "sin" [is an archery term that] actually renders Hebrew and Greek words which literally mean "missing the mark," that is, behaving inadequately or unskillfully.
The sinner, then, is like an unskillful archer who misses his or her target aimed at. (Could this be the real meaning of Zen and the Art of Archery?) Surely this comes very close to Buddhism's idea of akusala kamma ("unskilled action").
The Pali word kamma, or English and Sanskrit karma, literally means "action" (an act resulting from volition or cetana, the mental/heart motivation that impels it. It can be either skillful (kusala) or unskillful (akusala).
The results of action (called vipaka and phala) accrue to the doer as resultant (vipaka), which is pleasant when the action was skillful, unpleasant when it was unskillful.
- SKILLFUL: karma motivated by the broad categories of non-greed, non-hatred, non-fear, or non-delusion.
- UNSKILLFUL: karma motivated by greed, aversion, fear, or delusion.
If I look before I cross the road, I shall get across safely, which is pleasant. If I don't look, I may get run down, which is unpleasant. The feelings we experience are in fact of the nature of mental resultants (vipaka): They are dependent on past karma. And, of course, we are continually creating more karma for a good part of our time.
It should therefore be noted that the feeling of pleasure (sexual or otherwise) is NOT an action, but a result. There is, therefore, nothing either "skillful" or "unskillful" about experiencing such a feeling. We should therefore not regard it as either "virtuous" or "sinful." So far, so good. [But we should be wary of what we
do for the sake of getting that feeling.]
Such pleasant feelings can be enjoyed with a clear conscience and no guilt feeling. If this were all, there would be no problem. The Puritans would be routed and the permissive people justified.
Unfortunately, there is another side to the matter. We may recall that a few years ago there was a song "Money is the Root of all Evil." Some people pointed out that [biblically] not money but the love for money is the root of all evil (well, of a lot of evil anyway). And here is the snag.
Sexual pleasure (like money) is not "evil" or unskillful. But attachment to sexual pleasure (like the love of money) is. If we can experience the pleasure without attachment we are all right; if we become attached to it, we are not "hitting the mark." [We become susceptible to the Seven Bonds of Sensuality and other troubles and disappointments.]
Now, of course ,it is rather difficult (to put it mildly) to experience pleasure of any sort without feeling attached to it.
But attachment is karma. And it is unskillful karma at that. The results of that will inevitably, according to the Buddha, result in something unpleasant in the future. [The time of ripening is hard to know because it is opportunistic, coming to fruition when circumstances permit, which may not be for aeons or in this very life.]
What?!
Many people will find this explanation novel. Some will find it puzzling. Some will undoubtedly reject it -- with or without investigation -- with the excuse that it is overly subtle, or arbitrary, or something of the sort.
What we mean, of course, is that we find it inconvenient. But it will repay a lot of consideration and mindful investigation. Careful study, in fact, shows that it is the key to the whole problem.
The matter can also be considered in terms of the lawful [regular] operation of Dependent Origination:
- "Contact is the basis for the arising of feeling; feeling... of craving; craving... of clinging;" and so on, the ultimate outcome being the continued process of becoming, with all the suffering and disappointment entailed.
Thus, if we wish to adjudicate between Puritans and permissive folk, we cannot say that either side is entirely right. We might, however, suggest that the Puritans are partly right for the wrong reasons. Sexual indulgence is not "wicked," but it may be to some degree inadvisable. Most people will not feel able to refrain altogether (nor are they being urged to). There is merit in moderation.
Marriage
Setting aside all ideas derived from other sources, other religions and philosophies of life, what is the Buddhist attitude towards marriage?
For many Buddhists, East or West, there is no great problem. They live a reasonably normal married life just as do many Christians, humanists, and others. We may say they are lucky, or enjoy the results of favorable karma in this respect. For others, of all creeds or none, serious problems arise and must be somehow faced.
In the Christian tradition, marriage is usually termed a "sacrament." In some branches of Christianity it is treated as an indissoluble bond, though usually there are a few loopholes. Other branches of Christianity permit divorce in certain rather narrowly defined circumstances. And, of course, in most (though by no means all) countries the state permits divorce and the remarriage of divorced persons, with or without the approval of the Church.
In Buddhism, marriage is not a "sacrament." Such a concept does not exist. And it is not any part of the functions of Buddhist monastics to join lay people together in holy wedlock (or deadlocked). If it is occasionally done today in Japan, this is just a modern idea in conformity with a general tendency among Japanese Buddhists to imitate (often perhaps unwisely) Christian institutions.
In the Buddhist tradition it is often the custom for monastics to give their "blessing" (or "protective chanting"] after the civil wedding-ceremony has been performed. But even this is really more of a concession to the laity than anything else.
If the marriage does not turn out a success, no monastic has any authority to say that the marriage should not be dissolved. Divorce, like marriage, is strictly a civil affair. Likewise, if a married couple decides to practice contraception, that is entirely their business. The Monastic Order (Sangha) will not feel called upon to interfere or object.
It must be admitted that certain monastics have been heard to declare that contraception is wrong and should be banned -- but that is their private opinion. It is no part of the Buddhist teaching.
Abortion is a different matter. Because this involves the taking of life, it contravenes the first precept. It can only be condoned in cases of serious health hazards, where it may represent the "lesser of two evils."
In getting married, people obviously take on a responsibility, both towards each other and towards whatever children they have [and society or the human world beyond their new nuclear unit].
Any form of irresponsible behavior is clearly reprehensible by any reasonable standards, whether we call ourselves Buddhists or anything else. If we bear in mind, and try to observe, all five precepts, the chances of a successful marriage are obviously increased. Excessive drinking, for instance (in breach of the fifth precept), is a potent source of unhappy marriages.
What, it may be asked, about "adultery," that is, hurtful extramarital sexual relations? The short answer is that, quite obviously, this is something to be avoided. But the point should be made that Buddhism does not regard this, or any other sexual irregularities and deviations, as somehow uniquely "wicked."
- Sexual misconduct, it will surprise Christian and Islamic readers, is not as concerned with whether an actor or agent is married. That is not the special concern -- as it is for Americans -- making it "adultery." The special concern, the great karmic harm, results from the status of the other person. Yes, of course, it would be unskillful to cheat on one's partner. But is the person one is cheating with being caused or encouraged to cheat on someone? If this were the case in Islamic countries, unmarried rapists would be stoned rather than married rape victims as the "adulterers."
In nominally Christian countries the special kind of horror with which such things are, or recently were, regarded can be pushed to grotesque extremes.
Not many years ago a certain politician was solemnly declared by some to be unfit to become prime minister because he had been the innocent partner in a divorce case! More recently, another politician was hounded from office because of acts of adultery of which his wife forgave him. Yet many politicians in all countries have gotten away with far worse things of a non-sexual character without a word being said.
Buddhists should try to behave themselves sexually, as in other respects, to the best of their ability -- but we should learn to exercise the maximum of charity towards the lapses of others.
If a marriage has irretrievably broken down, even though it may continue in name, the situation is of course quite different. In such circumstances one may well feel that complete abstinence is a burden greater than one can reasonably be expected to bear.
The things that can go wrong with a marriage are legion. A partner can be impotent, ill, irresponsible, jealous, drunken, a compulsive gambler, deranged, promiscuous, miserly, unemployable, or more than one of these things.
Or both partners can be perfectly charming people yet utterly unsuited to each other. It may be that only the children hold the "marriage" together. At the same time, there may be many reasons which make a dissolution impossible or impracticable.
An extramarital relationship in such circumstances may serve to make the situation tolerable. Those who find themselves in such a situation must make the best job of it they can. It is not for others, more fortunate or more timid, to be excessively censorious.
Sex Outside Marriage
Here again, we look at things calmly and clearly and, above all, responsibly. Nowadays there is pretty frank acceptance of what has always been the case, that a lot of people in fact have sex without going through the formality of getting married.
