One City

One City


No sex during the day for Buddhists?

posted by Greg Zwahlen
Buddhist academic and translator Jose Cabezon has a great article in the latest issue of Buddhadharma about some of the peculiar ideas many Buddhist traditions have about sex (about which most Western practioners are unaware), and how he reconciles those ideas with the love and esteem he feels for the textual tradition as a scholar. And he quotes Salt-N-Pepa.
You can read the beginning of the article free here, but it is totally worth buying the issue to read the whole thing.
The Buddha himself, in the early Sutra Pitika, did not attempt to micromanage anyone’s sex life. As Cabezon describes it, sexual misconduct “was simply understood as adultery.” However, later Indian Mahayana heavies like Asanga and Vasubandhu, through to Tibetan luminaries of all traditions such as Gampopa, Tsongkhapa, and Dza Patrul, got a lot more, er, involved when it came ot making rules for the laity. Among their lists of dos and don’ts:

  • No gay sex, period.
  • No oral or anal for straights–keep it very vanilla, folks
  • No masturbation
  • No sex during the daytime
  • Five orgasm per night limit for dudes.

Rather generous that last one, at least. Oh, and hookers are no prob. 
This list is, I’m sure, more than a little onerous for everyone, but as a gay man Cabezon was really feeling the squeeze. I guess he’s expected to just hold out for fun dreams once in while.
He resists the temptation to blow off the texts causally, however. What he recommends is much more interesting–a three step process of 1) becoming as familiar with the textual tradition as possible, because ignoring or refusing to confront it is not an option 2) reflecting critically on it, to see if it accords with reason and our sense of right and wrong, and 3) using modern critical tools to assess the context in which these rules were formulated, to get a sense of why they make have been instituted (monks who thought too much in vinaya-like terms and got carried away, in this case), and what the spirit of the law may have been. As he writes
When we put together these various aspects–philological, historical, rationalist–this is where I believe we end up: First, there is no scriptural warrant for the more restrictive, scholastic formulation of the doctrine. It was elaborated by celibate monks who inappropriately read monastic norms into lay sexuality. The individuals who did this were great scholars and saints, but on this issue, they simply got it wrong. . . Second, the doctrine is androcentric and therefore unjust . . and third . .  . the more elaborate doctrine cannot be justified on rational grounds.
Have to say I’m with him on this one.


Advertisement
Comments read comments(8)
post a comment
Julia May

posted June 2, 2009 at 5:29 pm


Five orgasms per night per man!
I want to meet a man above 24 who feels restricted by that limit.
To talk to him. About what that is like. While talking.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 2, 2009 at 6:04 pm


It’s interesting that the writer’s name in spanish means “big head”.
But I guess that’s not the topic at hand….. or is it?
In other words I just can take that seriously.



report abuse
 

Damaris

posted June 2, 2009 at 6:05 pm


Correction.
I just “can’t” take that seriously.
I wrote the comment above.



report abuse
 

Ethan

posted June 2, 2009 at 6:15 pm


This is awesome. There are many “textual” ethical commentaries that are way out of date.
I want to read more from Cabezon.
And yes, 5 orgasms a night, wow. Of course, Viagra is very similar to the sanskrit word for “Tiger” so maybe they had a little help from medicine back in the day that we don’t know about.



report abuse
 

Charles Cosimano

posted June 3, 2009 at 2:11 am


Texts are made to be ignored, or in this case, laughed at.



report abuse
 

bhiksuni Ratana

posted June 3, 2009 at 3:31 am


The list here given pertains specifically to the Himalayan or Tibetan traditions. One of the lists with so-called bodhisattva vows as used in this tradition is rather specific on the subject. The Tibetan tradition centers mainly around commentaries written by Indian and Tibetan commentators, and around these bodhisattva vows of later years. We do not find these very specific details in the early Small Vehicle text, i.e. not in the Pali canon, not the Chinese Agama, and probably not even the Tibetan Kanjur, the sutras. Which is to say that prohibitions of the kind described by Cabezon are basically culturally influenced. Compare it with the “obligation” of wearing the chador by Muslim women. This rule is nowhere found in the Qu’ran, and yet it’s presented as a “the Prophet says …” This is not to say that there are no general guidelines on sexualtity in the early canons. These rules pertain solely to the communities of monks and nuns, and do not have any bearing on the communities of lay-followers. In these guidelines, that are inclued in the “vinaya”, the rules of conduct for monastics, we indeed find a prohibition on sexual activity in all its forms and shapes. If you do, you’re out. Further minor rules speak e.g. about the prohibition of “using a lack”, i.e. masturbation.
The problem with Buddhism in the West is that lay-followers think they should incorporate the conduct and practice of the monastics into their own lives. This is not the case. Even the five Precepts are no “rules” to be followed, but rather advice on how one could conduct oneself if one desires to make progress on the path to enlightenment. That is to say, Rule 1 does not say: Thou shalt not kill. It rather says, I promise myself that I shall not kill. And so on.
After so many years in the West these things should be clarified. There are two interrelated paths towards the goal. One path is that of the monastic – it has rules. Another path is that of the lay-follower – it has advice. It would be well if Buddhist magazines devoted some space on these different paths.



report abuse
 

gza

posted June 3, 2009 at 9:29 am


Yes Bhiksuni Ratana, you are correct that this pertains specifically to Indian and Tibetan Mahayana Buddhists, as I clearly state in the article.
However, Asanga, Vasubandhu, Gampopa, Tsongkhapa and Dza Patrul are made rules specifically for the laity. I edited the post lightly to make this more clear. You are correct that this would not apply to Theravada at all.



report abuse
 

Paul Griffin

posted June 3, 2009 at 10:21 am


Here’s to say, I’m with you on this one, Greg. Human sexuality is an odd geometry, and as Nietzsche said, my sexuality reaches into the utmost pinnacle of my spirit. I’ll trust my personal conscience, and not ancient texts written by celibates, to be my guide.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting One City. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Most Recent Buddhist Story By Beliefnet Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!

posted 2:29:05pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

Mixing technology and practice
There were many more good sessions at the Wisdom 2.0 conference this weekend. The intention of the organizers is to post videos. I'll let you know when. Here are some of my notes from a second panel. How do we use modern, social media technologies — such as this blog — to both further o

posted 3:54:40pm May. 02, 2010 | read full post »

Wisdom 2.0
If a zen master were sitting next to the chief technical officer of Twitter, what would they talk about? That sounds like a hypothetical overheared at a bar in San Francisco. But this weekend I saw the very thing at Soren Gordhamer's Wisdom 2.0 conference — named after his book of the same nam

posted 1:43:19pm May. 01, 2010 | read full post »

The Buddha at Work - "All we are is dust in the wind, dude."
"The only true wisdom consists of knowing that you know nothing." - Alex Winter, as Bill S. Preston, Esq. in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure"That's us, dude!" - Keanu Reeves, as Ted "Theodore" LoganWhoa! Excellent! I've had impermanence on my mind recently. I've talked about it her

posted 2:20:00pm Jan. 28, 2010 | read full post »

Sometimes You Find Enlightenment by Punching People in the Face
This week I'm curating a guest post from Jonathan Mead, a friend who inspires by living life on his own terms and sharing what he can with others.  To quote from Jonathan's own site, Illuminated Mind: "The reason for everything: To create a revolution based on authentic action. A social movemen

posted 12:32:23pm Jan. 27, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.