The Precept About Sexuality - Part I


by Jim Wilson

Transcribed from a Dharma talk given at
the November 1, 1998, GBF sitting.

The precepts play a pivotal role in our practice and in our entry
into the Buddhadharma and the realm of the Buddha. The
Fourth Precept (in some precepts the Third) is the sex precept.
Soen Sa Nim used to tell me that if your audience is getting
bored, tell them a pithy Zen story. He says if they're still bored,
bring up sex. So the Fourth Precept is not to commit
sexual misconduct.

The traditional interpretation of the Fourth Precept is twofold.
In the monastic context, it means celibacy. So, when I became
a monk, I took the whole 250 precepts. I think that the first
twenty precepts were about all the ways that I couldn't do sex.
They were very specific and very thorough. The monastic
prohibition on sex includes the prohibition on masturbation.
They really mean it. And the interpretation of the Fourth Precept
for lay people is monogamy. This means that you're supposed
to get married and only have sex within a married context. My
teacher used to say to people, "Become a monk or get married."
He was pretty intense about that, actually. And it's interesting
about this traditional interpretation, this kind of twofold
interpretation between a monastic interpretation and a lay
interpretation. It brings to the forefront a kind of tension in
Buddhist practice between the monastic ideal and the lay ideal.
The monastic ideal is not very strong in the West. There are
few traditional Buddhist monasteries in the West, very few.
There's one or two in England that I'm aware of. I'm not really
aware of a traditional Buddhist monastery outside of the
ethnic communities in the United States.

In the history of Buddhism, there has always been this kind of
conflict which occasionally bubbles to the surface about whether
a life that includes the sexual component is conducive to
enlightenment. In many traditions of Buddhism, notably
Theravada Buddhism, and also some Mahayana schools of
Buddhism, the idea is that you can't become enlightened until
you become a celibate monastic. Usually in those traditions,
you have to become a celibate monk; being a celibate
nun won't do.

I was a monk for six years. One of the things that was really
interesting for me is how in traditional Buddhism lay people
really want that component of Buddhism present. I'm talking
about countries like Korea where I spent some time. One of
the questions that I haven't been able to resolve in my own
mind is, what is it about someone giving up sex that's supposed
to make them more holy and more spiritually advanced. It's
very interesting that celibacy is considered very admirable.
My experience is that it makes most people who do that
extremely cranky.

In the history of Buddhism, one of the topics that divided schools
of Buddhism is whether or not lay people could become
enlightened. In some schools of Buddhism, that is definitely
denied. There are sutras which in fact specifically say that it is
not possible for householders to become enlightened. It is
possible for householders to gain tremendously good karma
and have a very good rebirth, but in the context of these schools
of Buddhism, it is not possible for them to become enlightened.
Why? Because they are attached to sex. In other schools of
Buddhism, that is not considered the case. And of course, the
premier sutra expressing the householder's point of view is the
Vimalakirtinirdesha-sutra. For those of you who haven't read
this sutra, Vimalakirti was a layman who was ill. The Buddha
sent his disciples to visit Vimalakirti to express concern about
his illness. And when the Buddha asked his disciples to go one
by one to visit him, they all declined. They all said they didn't
want to go visit him. And the Buddha says, "Well, why?" And
they said, "Well, because the last time we had a conversation
with him, he corrected us on the Buddhadharma." And they
recite this conversation about how this lay person explains
the Buddhadharma much better than the monastic disciples.
And, of course, the implication is very clear that it is possible
for a lay person to be thoroughly versed and to thoroughly
practice the Dharma.

Another Sutra relevant to this is the Shrimala-"the lion's roar."
Queen Shrimala is a lay woman who has a similar relationship
to the Dharma and teaches the Dharma. So you have this kind
of division in Buddhism, very ancient, about what is the role of
the monastic. The monastic presence in Buddhism can be
looked upon-well, let me give a metaphor. I often compare
the Buddhist monastic Sangha to a symphony orchestra. A
symphony orchestra specializes in the performance of a certain
kind of music. And in many cities throughout the world, the
symphony orchestra is supported at public expense. There is
no obvious economic benefit to having a symphony orchestra,
but it is considered beneficial to the community to have it and
support it. In a similar sort of way, you can view the Buddhist
monastic Sangha as specialists in the Dharma. If you value the
Dharma and support it, that kind of specialization would be
considered valuable. And they give performances of the Dharma.
That's not so far-fetched as it may sound because in the
beginning the monastic Sangha did chant and recite Buddhist
scriptures for the lay people at the quarters of the moon, and
they would come and listen to it. Does that mean that the
monastic Sangha is superior to the lay Sangha? That view does
not seem to have taken root in the West, but it is a view, and
I want everyone here to understand this, it is a view that you
will encounter in Buddhism.

So, it's an interesting question. Why is sex such a strong
division, a dividing point in the history of Buddhism? Food is
not such a strong dividing point. For example, there are
disagreements in Buddhist schools about what constitutes
proper diet. But they don't go to the extreme of saying that
if you don't follow our diet you will never become enlightened
or something like that. It's not the same kind of issue. The
reason I bring up food is that if you compare the drive for sex
to the drive for food, there are a lot of comparisons you can
make. It's natural to eat; it's natural also to want to engage
in sexual activity. But, on the other hand, it is certainly the
case that sexual activity is a field for immense suffering. And
people do in fact use sexual activity to generate a great deal
of harm and suffering among each other. So, given that-and
it seems to have always been the case-everybody is confused
about it, right? Everybody seems to lack clarity on this issue.

Putting this Fourth Precept about no sexual misconduct within
a larger ethical context, like the overall context of the precepts,
it perhaps becomes a little clearer. The precepts are specific
examples of a general ethical understanding to do no harm.
And sexual misconduct means doing harm to others. For example,
in some of the monastic precepts there are prohibitions against
gossip and harmful speech. One of the facets of the Eightfold
Path is Right Livelihood. Right Livelihood is understood as a
livelihood that does not harm others. So similarly, sexual
misconduct is conduct in the sexual arena which harms others.
I think there are fairly obvious examples of that. Rape would
be an obvious example of sexual activity which harms others.
But then it quickly becomes really foggy, and also sexual activity
that harms oneself is questionable. But primarily, I understand
this as remembering that when we engage in sexual activity,
there is another person present. That to me is the key to
understanding this precept. It is often the case that in the
heat of sexual passion, the fact that there's someone else
there falls away. And to remain present to the presence of
the other person is to me the ground of operating in an ethical
manner in this arena. Being aware of the other person. Does
that make sense? Do people have questions or comments
at this point? Yes, Clint.

Clint Seiter: That's not the sole criterion.

Jim: No, it's just the beginning.

Harv Whitten: When you talked about the presence of another
person, that somehow it gets so intense that it falls away-what
I translate that into is the impermanence of the ego and the
impermanence of the body, the non- substantiality of the
emptiness of both. And if that condition takes place and one
gets as close to formlessness as you can in form, then that's
outside of the precept and it becomes so intense, it makes
people so frightening and overwhelming. It's like the visitation
of the gods. And that overwhelming quality has frightened people
for a long period of time. Would you make a comment about
getting us as close to the formless in form as you can, and
sexual union, and the falling away of virtually everything at
that form? You're just trembling on the edge of formlessness.

Jim: Oh! [laughs] I knew it would move in this direction. You see, to me, if I had one wish about sex it would be that people would view it as ordinary and not extraordinary. To me what you're talking about is like losing someone else. Being present isn't significantly different from abusing someone at work and not recognizing if you are in a supervisory position and you treat someone like they're a thing to be disposed of, or work to be disposed of, and then fired. You know that's an extreme example, but it does happen. Like your company will work someone and they're exhausted and then, they can't do the work anymore, so they're dismissed. You know, that's not being present to the presence of a person. Similarly in a sexual relationship, if one's sole criteria is to find someone to fulfill your desire and then dismiss them, that would be a similar kind of relationship. That's the kind of thing that I was talking about. One of the difficulties in speaking about sex is that there's so much else wrapped up in it that it's hard to see it. A sense of self- esteem, one's sense of identity, one's money are intimately wrapped up with sex. Like when you get ready for a date, and you want to go to a good restaurant. And money is, of course, involved in prostitution. But it's also involved with getting new clothes, with impressing someone. Money brings in a lot of issues about self-worth. So, it's hard to put all of that aside and just look at sex without all that other attendant stuff. And that's what I mean: if I had one wish about sex, it would be that people would view it as ordinary, not extraordinary.

There are people who have extreme difficulty with food-you know, anorexia, bulimia, that kind of thing. Usually, the reason they have such difficulty with it is that they can't see through it for what it is. What's wrapped up in food for them is their sense of self-esteem, their sense of identity. In a sense, they're not even eating when they're engaged in this. To get through that, you have to unpack all of it. But in our culture the packaging around sex is really pushed. You know, because people have found that you can sell things by attaching sexual energy to it. Am I responding to your question in a useful way?

Harv: That's an interesting comment. I guess my basic experience would be with like, let's say, Body Electric, which is Taoist tantric. It is very vague in a sort of Body Electric mode. But nevertheless, there are substantial numbers of men who can live and who do that, who channel and use those energies, experience them to an extraordinary fullness in an ordinary way.

Jim: (laughs)

Harv: Only your ego can suffer. Only your ego suffers during sex. Well, just leave your ego behind and just go ahead and fly! And there are some people, in my opinion, who get close to a formlessness through that. Now admittedly it isn't formlessness, and admittedly you should have a practice on the side that helps you go even further.

Jim: Any activity can be used as a door to the transcendental. Sex is not peculiar in this area. I mean, I'll be honest with you. I'm more than a little skeptical when I meet people who tell me that they can use sex in that way. Of course, it's possible. But it's also possible that a walk in the woods will open that door. Many people have had that experience when listening to music or reading poetry. But a genuine experience in the transcendental is not dependent upon conditions. For example, transcendental change. By transcendental change, I mean everything is changing. The fact that everything is changing means that all colors are changing. But change itself is not a color. Shapes and forms are changing. Change itself is not a form or shape. Sounds are changing, but change itself is not a sound. That's what I mean by saying that change is transcendental or a facet of the transcendental. So it is possible to access transcendental change through sexual union or sexual experience. It is possible to access transcendental change by observing the flowing of a river. And many people have accessed the transcendental, the realm of the transcendental, by observing the flow of the river. So, all I'm saying here is that I don't believe that sexual activity is special in this realm. And it's fraught with difficulties that observing the river does not present.

Ding Hao Ma: To me, I think it's quite simple. First of all, I would say I couldn't compare food and sex. Food you need. But sex, simple sex-looking to the precept of desire-it's only desire. The reason with food, for example, is that certain monastic practices of monks do not allow them to eat certain kinds of food. Put simply, certain kinds of food stimulate the system connected with desire that's sexual. That's the reason behind that with food-the desire not to kill. A Chinese monk is not allowed to eat garlic because garlic will stimulate your hormone level. That's what I think. But, with sex, sex is probably desire that will destroy anything. If you really want to be a monk and simplify your life, if you really want to practice, follow the teaching of Buddhism. If you really aim in that direction, practice. Once you put yourself at a higher level, sooner or later, with this sexual desire, you can go above this sexual desire. You will live; you can go along without that. You can't even sit to meditate if you have that urge in your feeling. You know, therefore, I think it's so simple. Basic Buddhism teaches us this. That's what I see.

Jim: I understand your view. It would be interesting to have a long discussion with you. I'm not sure that I agree with it or not. You know, if I'm sitting in meditation and the sexual desire appears, which sexual desire does appear in my mind when I'm meditating? If it moves through me in the way that any other thought moves through me, then I do not see it as a problem. So the simple appearance of sexual desire in meditation does not seem to me to be the issue. Unless I misunderstood what you said.

Ding Hao: It is an issue.

Jim: Oh, okay. So, we have a disagreement about that. That's good.

Clint: Quick question: If these monks who are celibate all these years are cranky, it doesn't seem like celibacy is such a factor in enlightenment after all. It sounds like it creates frustration and, normally, compulsiveness. How do you respond to that?

Jim: Well, I'm sure Ding Hao would also want to respond to this, because we might have a different view. But it's been my experience that when someone is going to engage in celibacy that they need to know what they're doing. They need to know how to handle the energies that will appear. When they enter into celibacy, it's also been my experience that very, very few Buddhist monks are given this information. You know, what do you do when you wake up at 3:30 in the morning and you have a hard-on? I mean, it's that simple. So, that kind of information is not available. At least, I have not found it available within the Buddhist monastic context, so what I've seen in Buddhist monasteries is that Buddhist monks go to the red light district. That is the normal outlet for that energy.

Ding Hao: A Buddhist monk would go to the red light district?

Jim: Are you shocked?

Ding Hao: I am shocked.

Jim: (laughs) I didn't-

Ding Hao: Maybe-you could be right. But in China or in Thailand, you'll be out.

Jim: Yes, you'll be out if you're caught.

Ding Hao: To be a monk, you have to have self-discipline; otherwise you don't get respect. To become a Buddhist monk, first you need discipline. You need to practice yourself, to have a center, so you will rise to a higher level in human kind.

Jim Wilson: But my question to you, Ding Hao, is this: why is it of a higher level to be celibate? I question that. I'm raising the question that being celibate is, in fact, being spiritually higher than being non-celibate.

Ding Hao: I'm not saying that. The problem with desire, sexual desire, comes from the desire for anything else. If you want that desire to occupy you, then you will not have the center.

Jim: Well, I'm not sure that's true.

Ding Hao: It's not easy. I'm not saying it's easy.

.