Celibacy

Celibacy (brahmacariya) is the practice of abstaining from sexual intercourse (methuna). Buddhist monks and nuns must be celibate as are lay people during the time they practise either the eight or the ten Precepts. While sex can give a great deal of pleasure and emotional fulfilment it can also stimulate excessive fantasizing, intense desire, frustration and physical and emotional turbulence. A person trying to develop mental calm and clarity through meditation may find this a hindrance to their practise and choose to minimize it by becoming celibate, at least for certain periods. Thus, Buddhism’s advocacy of celibacy is not because it sees sex as dirty, animalistic or sinful, but for purely practical reasons. However, like other religions in which some people are encouraged to practise celibacy, Buddhism emphasizes the problems of sexuality and the advantages of celibacy but has little to say about the problems of celibacy.

Same-sex Marriage

A same-sex marriage is a legally recognized union between two people of the same gender, i.e. two homosexuals. Same-sex marriages have only of late become legal in several European countries and in a few states in the United States. However, such unions may have existed in some parts of the ancient world, including in India. The Kama Sutra (II, 9, 36) says; ‘There are citizens who love each other and with great faith in each other, who take each other as a husband.’ The word for husband here is parigraha and the Pali equivalent is patigaha. In his commentary on his verse Yasodhara says; ‘Citizens so inclined, reject women, willingly do without them and get married, bound by a deep and trusting friendship.’ It is not clear if these marriages, if this is the right word for such unions, were performed by Buddhist monks or Hindu priests or were recognized by the state, probably not.
What would be the Buddhist attitude to such marriages? Buddhism sees marriage as a secular institution (see yesterday’s posting), an arrangement between two people, and thus Buddhist monks or nuns do not perform marriages, although they are often called upon to bless the couple either just before or just after the marriage. Monks also often give short sermons and chant a few suttas during the opening of new businesses, at birthdays, funerals and at the bedside of the sick or the dying. If two men or two women were genuinely committed to each other and wanted a monk or nun to bless their union and wish them well in their life together, it is not difficult to imagine that he or she would be happy to do this for them.
I often think how lucky I am being a Buddhist. One of the many advantages of this apart from peace of mind, contentment, happiness, a realistic world-view, rational moral principles to live by, inspiration from the Buddha and having good Dhamma friends, is that when a contentious issue arises I can always adhere to the ‘middle way’ and not endorse any one side in an argument. Take same-sex marriage for example. I happen to think both sides of this issue, at least as it is playing itself out in America, have got it wrong. For goodness sake! What is the big deal if two men or two women wish to marry each other? God may disapprove but he disapproves of many thing that are legally acceptable and nowadays commonplace. According to Leviticus ‘prawns are an abomination’ but no one wants to ban seafood platters. I Corinthians 11,14 says that long hair on males is a ‘disgrace’ and unnatural but no one boycotts Steven Segal movies (although I can think of many other good reasons for doing so). More relevant to the issue at hand, divorce is absolutely forbidden in the New Testament unless one partner commits adultery. Despite this, Christian social activists are conspicuously silent about America’s very liberal divorce laws. Surely if anything is ‘against the family’ it would have to be the ease with which one can get divorced, and yet I know of no Christian groups in the US crusading to have it made more difficult. Could it be that in opposing homosexuality they only alienate approximately 10% of the population, whereas if they opposed easy divorce they would rattle just about everyone? Not necessarily relevant to the gay marriage issue but certainly worth pointing out anyway, is the interesting fact that most churches in the southern US considered inter-racial marriage to be ‘unnatural’ and ‘immoral’ until the early 1960’s and supported the laws that made it illegal. South Africa’s Dutch Reformed Church took a similar stand until just recently. If you were white male and you wanted to marry a black woman you had to leave the so-called ‘Bible Belt’ or South Africa. If you were black male and wanted to marry a white woman you were risking your life. In short, the churches’ ‘moral compass’ is not a very reliable one. The decision as to whether or not homosexuals should be granted the right to marry should be based on common sense reasons and the principle of equality. And on this basis I can see no good reason why same-sex marriages should not be allowed.
On the other hand, being just a simple monk I cannot understand why homosexuals would want to get married. For goodness sake! What’s the big deal if two men or two women walk down an aisle and then get a certificate with both their names’ on it? How does that make their commitment to each other more binding? Why pressure churches to do something they clearly don’t want to do, something which goes against scripture and 2000 years of Christian tradition? Creative hermeneutics may bypass what the Bible says about homosexuality, willfulness may ignore it, wishful thinking may reinterpret it - but none of this changes what it says. And as for the churches that will perform same-sex marriages – who would want to be a member of an organization that so casually compromises its long-held, scripturally sound teachings just to be popular? Of course, not all homosexuals who want to marry are religious. But it seems to me, and of course I’m just a simple monk, that such people are motivated by a rather childish ‘they’ve got one so we want one too’ attitude. What’s wrong with a legally binding and recognized civil union which gives the couple all the rights, privileges and obligations of heterosexual couples? Homosexuals who wish to have legally recognized marriages should also consider that in doing so they will presumably becomes libel to all the problems that arise when conventional marriages break down (and in America, UK, Australia, etc. about 1 in 3 do) – bitter divorce proceedings, mutual recriminations, quarrels over property and so on.
So when people ask me what my position on same-sex marriage is (no one has asked me yet, but I’m ready when they do) I say ‘I do not adhere to one side or the other’ (Naham ettha ekamsavado, M.II,197).

Marriage In Buddhism

Marriage (avaha vihaha) is the formal and legal joining of a man and a woman. It is a secular institution, an arrangement between two people or two families and thus Buddhism does not insist upon monogamy, polygamy, polyandry or any other form of marriage. There were several forms of marriage in ancient India, the most common being those arranged by the parents or guardians, those where the couple chose each other with the parents approval, and elopement. The ancient law books called this second form Svayamvara and the third Gandharva. According to the Buddha, monks and nuns should not get involved in ‘the giving or taking in marriage’ and thus they have never been marriage celebrants (D.I,11).
We have almost no information in the Tipitaka about the ancient Buddhist marriage ceremony other than that the bride was bedecked with garlands (A.V,264) and that her father tipped water over her's and the groom’s hands as a symbol of giving her away (Ja.III,286).
Traditionally, Buddhists practised the form of marriage which prevailed in the society in which they lived. Although the Buddha did not advocate any particular form of marriage, we can assume that he favoured monogamy. His father Suddhodana had two wives and as a prince he could have had several wives also, but he chose to have only one. In a discourse on marriage the Buddha only discusses monogamy, again implying that he accepted this as the best form of marriage (A.IV,91). Having been both a husband and a father, the Buddha was able to speak of marriage and parenthood from personal experience. A husband, he said, should honour and respect his wife, never disparage her, be faithful to her, give her authority and provide for her financially. A wife should do her work properly, manage the servants, be faithful to her husband, protect the family income and be skilled and diligent (D.III,190).
The Buddha said that if a husband and wife love each other deeply and have similar kamma they may be able to renew their relationship in the next life (A.II,161). He also said that a couple who are following the Dhamma will ‘speak loving words to each other’ (annamannm piyamvada, A.II,59) and that ‘to cherish one’s children and spouse is the greatest blessing’ (puttadarassa samgaho etam mamgalam uttamam, Sn.262). He criticized the brahmans for buying their wives rather than ‘coming together in harmony and out of mutual affection’ (sampiyena pi samvasam samaggatthaya sampavattenti, A.II,222), implying that he thought this motive for marriage far better. Upholding fidelity in marriage he taught that adultery (aticariya) is against the third Precept.
The ideal couple in the Buddhist scriptures are Nakulamata and Nakulapita. Nakutapita said that since his wife ‘was brought to my house when he was a young man and she a young girl, I have never transgressed against her even in thought much less in deed’ (A.II,61). The Buddha told him that he was ‘blessed, truly blessed to have Nakulamata full of compassion for you, concerned with your welfare, as your mentor and counsellor’ (A.III,298).
It seems that throughout history most ordinary Buddhists have been monogamous, although kings were sometimes polygamous and polyandry was common in Tibet until just recently. In the highlands of Sri Lanka during the medieval period polyandry was practiced. Today monogamy is the only legally accepted form of marriage in all Buddhist countries although the king of Bhutan has two wives, both sisters. There is no specific Buddhist wedding ceremony; different countries have their own customs which monks do not perform or participate in. However, just before or after the marriage the bride and groom often go to a monastery to receive a blessing from a monk.
Because Buddhism sees marriage as a social arrangement and not as a sacrament as in Christianity, it accepts that if two married people agree to end their relationship they can do so. Buddhism and all Buddhist countries have always seen marriage as an institution worth supporting and maintaining but at the same time they have never had legal restrictions on divorce. I have been unable to find any information in the Tipitaka about divorce. It seems, at least during the Buddha’s time, that divorce was an informal affair. If a wife did not like her husband she would simply leave, return to her home and if she wanted, try to find another husband. Law books like Manusurti show that divorce, at least for Hindus, became subject to various legal restrictions and obligations.

The pictures above are (from top to bottom) a Burmese, a Thai, a Sri Lankan and a Tibetan bride and groom.

How The Ancients Did It

We often think of ourselves as living in a society of great sexual license and experimentation and assume that in this respects we are different from previous generations. A quick look through the Parajika section of the Vinaya will show that actually nothing is new when it comes to sex; that it has all been done before. The Vinaya is familiar with bestiality, various fetishes, incest, auto-sodomy, necrophilia, frotteurism (I had to look this one up in the encyclopedia) and several other types of sexual behavior not yet clinically named. It even mentions a monk who had - how can I put this? - a very close relationship with a wooden doll! (Vin.II,35).
And if that doesn’t convince you that nothings new, read the Kama Sutra’s section on rough sex, group sex, sex toys and penis enlargement. If you intend doing so, avoid Richard Burton’s translation, the most widely available and the most unreliable. Burton misunderstood much of the terminology and left out several sections, not because he thought them too racy for Victorian readers, but because he couldn’t make head nor tail of them. Alain Danielou’s The Complete Kama Sutra is better but he imposes too many of his own prejudices into the text and I still don’t know what ‘buccal coitin’ is supposed to be a translation of. One good thing about Danielou’s book is his inclusion of selections from Yasodhra’s commentary which is not available anywhere else in English. Indra Sinha’s translation is very good and includes selections from the important but less well-known Koka Sastra and Anangra Ranga. Some editions also include reproductions of beautiful miniatures, not it should be noted, those poor quality fakes that were made for English tourists in the early 20th century and which are usually used to illustrate editions of the Kama Sutra. However, by far the best translation of the Kama Sutra is that of Wendy Doniger and Sudhir Kakar, recently published by Oxford World’s Classics.

Although written many centuries after the Buddha (perhaps 4th century CE), the Kama Sutra helps to give some background to the early Buddhist attitude to sensuality; the second of the two extremes which the Middle Way avoids.

The Third Precept

Sexual behaviour (kama or methuna) is any actions motivated by erotic desire and usually involving the genital region. This includes all forms of coitus, intercrural sex, masturbation, sexual fondling and perhaps even voyeurism. The third of the five Precepts, the basic principles of Buddhist ethics, says that one should avoid sexual misconduct (kamesu micchacara). What would make a sexual (kama) behaviour (cara) wrong (miccha)?
Once, while addressing an audience of brahmans the Buddha said that intercourse with (1) girls under the guardianship of their parents (maturakkhita, piturakkhita), i.e. under-aged; (2) protected by Dhamma (dhammarakkhita), nuns or those who have taken a vow of celibacy; (3) married (sassamika); (4) undergoing punishment, (saparidanda), i.e. prisoners; or those (5) bedecked in garlands (malagunaparikkhitta), i.e. engaged to be married, would be wrong (A.V,264). Because this discourse was addressed to men the Buddha spoke only of female sexual partners. Had he been addressing to women he would of course had spoken of male equivalents.
A child is unlikely to have the maturity or experience to make an informed decision concerning sex while having sex with 2, 3 and 5 would involve them in breaking a solemn vow or promise, i.e. lying. An incarcerated person can be cohered into doing something they really don’t wish to do and thus cannot make a genuinely free choice. It is clear from this that sex involving exploitation, dishonesty or cohersion or that is in any way non-concentual, would be breaking the third Precept. Although not mentioned here, using or threatening physical force (i.e. rape) to compel someone to have sex, and intercourse with an intoxicated or a mentally disabled person would also qualify as sexual misconduct. From the Buddhist perspective therefore, sex before marriage or during menstruation (forbidden in Hinduism and Islam), masturbation, homosexuality, with a person of a lower caste (forbidden in Hinduism) or sexual gluttony, while perhaps being inadvisable, socially unacceptable or not conducive to spiritual development, would not per ce be breaking the third Precept.
As in many societies, sex in ancient India was surrounded by numerous superstitions, restrictions and taboos. Brahmans believed that having intercourse when one's wife was pregnant would defile the foetus (atimilhaja) or when she was nursing make her milk impure and thereby defile the baby (asucipatipita). They taught that it was proper to have sex only to produce offspring and not for pleasure (kama), for sport (dava) or out of sensual delight (rati). They also believed that it was wrong for a couple to have sex during the wife's menstruation (utuni). The Buddha praised brahmans who followed such rules, not because he agreed with them, but because they were being true to what they preached (A.II,226). There are no examples of where he subscribed to any sexual superstitions or taught them to his disciples. Another widespread belief was that indulging in too much sex could cause cough (kasa), asthma (sasa), joint pain (daram) and lack of judgment (balaym, Ja,VI,295).
While accepting that sex is a normal part of lay life, the Buddha generally had a poor opinion of it. He dismissed it as ‘a village thing’ (gama dhamma, D.I,4); i.e. common, unsophisticated and worldly. He understood that a heightened desire for sensual pleasure (kamacchanda) causes physical and psychological restlessness and that this diverts one’s attention from spiritual aspirations and hinders meditation. He encouraged his more serious disciples to limit their sexual behaviour or to embrace celibacy (brahmacariya). Monks and nuns, of course, are required to be celibate. However, experience shows that taking a vow of celibacy when one is not ready for it can be anything but helpful. Constantly struggling against and denying sexual desire can create more problems than it solves and in fact can even be psychologically harmful.

The Olympic Spirit

Well, the Olympics have started. I’m going into hibernation for the next two weeks. Being just a simple monk, I find it difficult to get excited about one athlete beating another by 200 ths of a second. Or by someone I’ve have never heard of breaking a record set by someone else I’ve never heard of, in a sport I can’t understand. The recrimination, denials and legal maneuvers when an athlete is caught cheating also holds little interest for me. I happened to be in Australia staying with friends during the last Olympics. One evening we all sat watching the events broadcast from Athens. An Australian athlete was in a race and was expected to win. Everyone (except me) was glued to the television. When the Auzzie did win, my friends when completely berserk. ‘We won!’ they screamed and shouted, hugging each other and jumping up and down as they did so. Now for a simple monk like me this was difficult to understand. None of my friends normally take an interest in any sports, all of them are decidedly flabby and a bit overweight and none of them had moved from the couch for the last four hours. ‘We?’ I thought to myself. I at least, had nothing to do with the young man winning, although I am happy he did.
Now don’t get me wrong. I find the ideas embodied in the Olympic Spirit thoroughly noble ones. The idea of young people coming together to test their strength, their skills and their endurance against each other has the potential for much that is wholesome and good. According to legend, the Bodhisattva was quite the sportsman and competed in athletic games to win the hand of Yasodhara. However, the Olympic Spirit did not exist in ancient Greece where the purpose of the Games was to keep young warriors in shape for war. It was very much the creation of the eccentric Hellenphile dreamer Baron de Coubertin. We definitely needs more eccentrics- they do a great deal of good for the world. It’s the ‘realists;’ those who’s ‘heads are properly screwed on’ who spoil everything. They are the ones who have taken over the Olympics and turned them into a profit-making business and an exercise in jingoism. No wonder governments spend a fortune training their sports men and women – if their athletes win it ‘proves’ their country is better than the others. Is it a surprise that athletes cheat? – the endorsements they get if they win can make them millionaires. The Olympic Spirit was probably given the coupe de grace by Hitler when he used the Games as a showpiece for his ‘master race.’ I found the above cartoon from that time protesting Hitler’s perversion of the Games. The Chinese government is using the Games to win respectability from the outside world and divert their own peoples’ attention away from the rubber truncheons, the electric cattle prods, the public executions and the ‘reform through labor’ camps. This is, in de Coubertin own words, the Olympic Spirit – ‘The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.’

Do you remember Mark Spitz? He had everything – stunning good looks, intelligence, stamina, grace and he won 9 gold medals, 1 silver, I bronze and set 33 world records. Then he quietly retired from sports to marry and raise a family and never used his fame to promote his ego or bloat his bank account. Now THAT’S the Olympic Spirit.

Tomorrow I will start my series of blogs on Buddhism and sex.

Three Images

Next time you are in India and if you happen to be visiting the holy places in Bihar, make a point of going to the Patna Museum. Its your typical Indian museum; housed in a once grand but now badly neglected British-period building, poor lighting, sometimes no lighting, dusty display cases, poor labeling and a book shop displaying a range of publications, none of which are available. The only innovation over the last 40 years seems to be that foreigners now have to pay R. 100 instead of the traditional 50 paice to get in. But for all that, the Patna Museum is a treasure-house of Buddhist art. There are Buddhas and bodhisattvas, Tantric deities and nagas and most of the bronzes from Kurkihar are there too. You could spend hours gazing at these products of Buddhist devotion. To me though, the finest pieces on display are a statue of Avalokitesvara and another of Maitriya which were originally placed on either side of a Buddha which happens to be in the museum also. The Buddha is okay but does not have the delicate proportions and the smiling expressions of its companions. It is also a little stiff and formal whereas the bodhisattvas have a pleasing, almost sensuous, fluidity. The eyes of both are downcast – Avalokitesvara as if to say; ‘I understand your pain’ and Maitriya as if whispering; ‘Be patient. I will come in good time.’
These three lovely statues are from the small village of Visnupur (Bishnupur on some maps) not far from Sobnath, just off the main road between Gaya and Rajgir. They were discovered, if I remember correctly, by Aural Stein during his tour of Bihar in the early 1900’s. In the report of his tour published in Indian Antiquary there is an interesting photo of the three statues in situ.

I am shutting down until the 12th because I will be on a teaching tour in Indonesia until them. Log in then when I will be exploring at all aspects of sexuality from a Buddhist perspective.