Issues in Buddhist Sexual Ethics
Alexander Berzin
Morelia, Mexico, Sept., 1998
lightly edited transcript
The topic for tonight is the Buddhist view toward sexual ethics. In general, in
Buddhism, we
always try to follow a middle path, and so regarding sexuality, we want
to avoid two extremes. One
extreme is that of being very strict and severe. This view looks at
sexuality as something dirty
and, basically, bad. But, then, we also want to avoid the other extreme,
which is the attitude
toward sex that anything is okay: "Just express yourself."
The Buddhist middle path that teaches an ethical approach toward
sexuality avoids these two
extremes. To follow it, however, we need to understand the Buddhist view
of ethics. As there are
many different ethical systems, we need to be careful not to project our
own systems of ethics onto
Buddhism. For example, Biblical ethics teaches a set of laws given by a
higher authority, by God.
Ethical behavior, then, is an issue of obedience to the laws. If we obey
God's laws, we are "good
persons" and will be rewarded. If
we disobey them, we are "bad" and will be punished.
Another major ethical system that we inherit in the West is from
ancient Greece. It's quite
similar to the Biblical one, but instead of the laws being given by God,
they are given by a
legislature of people elected to the government. And again, ethics is an
issue of obedience. If we
obey the civil laws, we are "good citizens"; if we disobey them, we are
"bad citizens." We are
criminals and are put in jail.
We can see that both these legalistic ethical systems involve and cause us to feel guilt. In
other words, both are based on judgment. There are certain acts that are
morally judged as "bad"
and others that are morally judged as "good." If we commit something
"bad," we are guilty. When we
transpose this type of judgmental ethical approach onto sexuality, then
often feelings of guilt
accompany our sexual behavior, even if no one catches us doing something
"naughty." This is because
we become the judges and we judge ourselves, even if nobody else is
judging us.
A third form of Western ethics is the modern humanistic one. This is
based on the principle of
not causing harm to others. Whatever we do is okay, so long as we do not
cause harm. If we cause
harm, it's unethical. Usually, we mix humanistic and legalistic ethics
together, so that if we hurt
someone, we feel very bad and guilty about that.
Buddhist ethics is completely different from all three. It is not
based on obeying laws. Nor is
it based on merely trying to avoid hurting others, although of course we
try our best not to cause
harm. But it goes deeper than that. According to Buddhism, the basis for
being an ethical person is
avoiding action motivated by longing
desire, anger, or naivety,
and having correct discriminating
awareness. The latter means the ability to discriminate
between which motivations and actions are
constructive
and which ones are destructive.
Constructive and destructive motivations and behavior,
here, refer to ones that build up tendencies and habits on our mental continuums that at some time
in the future will cause us to experience happiness
or suffering as their consequence.
Nobody has made up the rules as to what is constructive or
destructive. It's just the natural
way of the universe that some actions cause us suffering and others do
not. For example, if we
stick our hand in the fire, we're going to get burned and it's going to
hurt. That's a destructive
action, right? Nobody made up that rule: it's just the natural way
things are. So, if somebody
wants to stick their hand in the fire, that doesn't make them a bad
person. It makes them perhaps a
foolish person or a person who doesn't understand cause and effect, but
it certainly doesn't make
them a "bad" person.
The basic thrust of Buddhist ethics, then, is to try to understand
which types of motivation and
behavior are destructive and which types are constructive. In other
words, we need to learn to
discriminate between what's going to cause us unhappiness and what's going to bring us happiness.
And then, it's up to us; it's our responsibility
what we will experience in the future. It's like,
for instance, we learn about the dangers of smoking and then it's up to
us whether or not we smoke.
If somebody acts destructively and causes themselves harm, they are
appropriate objects of
compassion. It's
inappropriate to look down on them self-righteously and pity them.
That's not the
Buddhist attitude. It's
sad that they don't understand reality.
Buddhism takes this same approach to sexual ethics. It's
nonjudgmental. Certain types of sexual
behavior and motivations are destructive and cause us unhappiness, while
others are constructive
and bring us happiness. And again, it's up to us. If we want to have
lots of problems from our
sexual behavior, go ahead and indulge. But, if we don't want to have
problems, then there are
certain things that we need to avoid.
We can understand the difference quite easily from an example. If we
want to have unprotected
sex with a prostitute, well, that's naive and very foolish as we run the
risk of probably
getting infected with AIDS. But that doesn't make us a bad person. It's
our choice. You see, it's
quite a different attitude toward sex. That's the whole key to
understanding the Buddhist
approach.
In order to look at Buddhist sexual ethics in detail, we need to
understand the difference
between what's constructive and what's destructive according to the
Buddhist view. In general,
Buddhism differentiates between actions that are mixed with confusion
and those that are without
confusion. Those terms are usually translated as "contaminated" and
"uncontaminated" actions -
contaminated with confusion about the nature of ourselves, others, and
reality in general. The
contaminating confusion leads to longing desire, anger, or simply
naivety, which then motivates our
actions.
Actions without confusion require nonconceptual cognition
of voidness
– the understanding that
our projected fantasies about reality do not refer to anything real.
That kind of understanding is
very difficult to have, even conceptually. So, for
most of us, all of our actions are with
confusion. They arise from confusion and are accompanied by confusion.
These are the types of
actions involved with what we call "karma." They cause us to continue
experiencing uncontrollably
recurring rebirth – samsara
– filled with problems.
Confused actions can be destructive, constructive, or unspecified by Buddha to be either of the
two. Destructive actions are always mixed with confusion and are those
that ripen into unhappiness
or suffering. Constructive ones mixed with confusion ripen into
happiness, but into happiness that
doesn't last and is never satisfying. Unspecified actions may also be
mixed with confusion. They
ripen into neutral feelings, neither
happiness nor unhappiness.
We've already seen an example of a destructive action, namely, having
unprotected sex with a
prostitute. Such behavior is clearly mixed with confusion about reality,
naivety, and usually
longing desire.
As for an example of a constructive one mixed with confusion,
consider the case of the mother of
a 24 year-old son who always tries to do kind things for him, such as
preparing nice meals.
Nurturing her son is an act of love and a constructive deed. It will ripen into
her experiencing
happiness and well-being. However, she also cooks for him because it
makes her feel useful and
needed. This is where the confusion comes in. The 24 year-old son might
not want to be treated like
a child who, when he doesn't come home for meals, gets accosted with
"Why didn't you come home? I
made such a nice meal for you. You're so inconsiderate." Her preparing
the meal was mixed with the
confusion of grasping at "me, me, me. I want to feel useful, I want to
feel needed." Self-centered
concern underlay her constructive action and kind motivation. Any
happiness she might feel as a
result of her kind actions will be precarious and unstable. It will
never last and will never be
satisfying. In addition, her self-centered motivation will inevitably
bring her frustration,
unhappiness, and suffering.
An unspecified, neutral action, such as brushing our teeth, may be
mixed with the confusion that
by brushing them, we can really make our breath clean and ourselves
really good-looking. But, we
can never make our breath ultimately clean, since very quickly our teeth
will become dirty again
and our breath foul smelling. There is confusion here about reality, a
certain level of naivety,
and a strong self-centered concern about how we look. Although brushing
our teeth results in
feeling neither happy nor unhappy - we are merely doing what needs to be
done - we are also
perpetuating our samsaric situation. We will need to brush our teeth
repeatedly for the rest of our
life. Don't misunderstand this point. It doesn't mean that the best
course of action is to stop
brushing our teeth. It's simply that the neutral repetitive actions of
taking care of our samsaric
bodies, when mixed with grasping for a solid
"me," perpetuate our repetitive samsaric existence,
with all its problems.
We need to understand more clearly what Buddhism means by the
statement that actions mixed with
confusion "ripen" into unhappiness, samsaric happiness, or a neutral
feeling that is neither. This
principle pertains to all our ordinary behavior, including our sexual
behavior as well.
Buddhism speaks of the law of certainty of karma. It is certain that
destructive actions will
ripen into suffering, unless we purify ourselves of the karmic tendencies
they have built up. Or,
the other way around, if we're experiencing suffering now, this
experience has ripened from the
karmic tendencies built up by our own destructive behavior in the past.
The same law is true
regarding our usual happiness and constructive actions mixed with
confusion.
The important word to understand in the law of certainty is the word
"ripen." "To ripen" into
suffering is not just simply "to result" in suffering. This is because
our actions have many
results, and most of them are uncertain. For instance, it's uncertain
whether, while doing an
action, we're going to experience happiness or unhappiness. Consider
stepping on a cockroach. We
may step on it and really take great pleasure in killing what we
consider a horrible thing. Or,
while stepping on it, we may feel horror and disgust. While helping
someone carry out a difficult
task, we may feel happy or we may feel resentful of the hard work.
It's also uncertain what we're going to feel immediately following
our action. After having
unprotected sex with a prostitute, we may feel happy about having had
sex or frightened that we
might have become infected with AIDS. After giving someone a gift of
money, we might rejoice with
happiness or feel regret
and unhappy about it. The short-term results of our actions are also
uncertain. If we rob a bank, we may get caught by the police, or we may
never get caught. If we are
honest in our work, we may get a promotion and be happy, or despite our
good work, we may be laid
off and be miserable. All these types of result are uncertain. The law
of certainty of karma is not
talking about them.
It's not even certain whether our act is going to cause happiness or
unhappiness to the person
we commit it against - whether during our act, immediately afterwards,
in the short term, or in the
long run. We may lie to someone about their abilities, telling them they
are more competent than
they actually are. This may make them happy, both while speaking with
them and immediately
afterwards. In the short term, and even in the long run, it might give
them the self-confidence to
succeed. But, it might make them feel badly instead, because they know
we are only trying to
flatter them and what we say is untrue. Even if they believe us, they
may overextend themselves as
a result, and fail miserably in their future work. On the other hand, if
we tell them the truth,
they may feel depressed and, lacking any self-confidence, fail in
whatever they endeavor to
accomplish. Or, they might feel happy that we were
truthful with them and, applying themselves to
less challenging tasks in life, succeed very well and be happy.
It is completely uncertain, then, what will happen regarding these
types of results of our
actions. This is why we say that Buddhist ethics are not simply based on
not causing harm to
others. It's because we can never guarantee what the effects of our
actions will be on them. We try
not to cause harm to others, of course. But, unless we are Buddhas, we
can never know what these
effects will be.
So, when we talk about destructive actions "ripening" into suffering,
we're talking about a
complex process through which our ways of acting, speaking, and thinking
build up certain
tendencies and habits on our mental continuums that are going to affect our future experiences. For
instance, if we have extramarital affairs, we build up or reinforce the
habit of being dissatisfied
with our sexual partners and always going from one to another.
Being dissatisfied and restless regarding our sex life is an
experience of unhappiness, isn't
it? And then, if we're never going to be satisfied with our marriage
partners and will be unhappy
in those relationships, we're also not going to be satisfied with our
lovers. Those relationships
won't last either, and we will continue looking for another. Moreover,
our partners will also be
unfaithful. Why should they stay faithful to us, if we're not faithful
to them? So there are many
long-term repercussions and lots of problems that come about. That's
what's certain from acting
destructively.
Let's look a little more closely about what is destructive - what's
going to bring about
negative habits that give rise to our long-term future problems. The
main factor that determines
whether or not an action is destructive is the state of mind that motivates it. Destructive actions
may be motivated by longing desire - for instance, an obsession with
sex, which causes someone to
go from one sexual adventure to another. They may also be motivated by
anger or hostility,
like in
the case of somebody who rapes many women because he's angry with women
and wants to hurt them. Or
destructive behavior may be motivated by naivety - either naivety about
cause and effect, or about
reality, such as the example we cited before of unprotected sex with a
prostitute. Naivety is often
mixed with obsessive desire or hostility.
Other fundamental attitudes also always accompany destructive
actions. These are having no sense
of ethical self-dignity - not caring about how our behavior reflects on
us - and having no concern
about how our behavior reflects on others, such as on our families, spiritual
teachers, fellow
countrymen, and so on. We can understand this if we think of the example
of President Clinton and
his extramarital affair which has caused so much scandal.
Other disturbing emotions, such as jealousy, that accompany these destructive
motivations are
likewise destructive, as are the actions themselves that are motivated
by them. Then in general, we
would also say that samsara – uncontrollably recurring rebirth – is
destructive.
The Buddhist presentation of ethics also differentiates between the
causal motivation and the
contemporaneous one. The causal motivation is the one that initially
draws us to an action. The
contemporaneous motivation occurs right at the time of acting. In the
case of actions that are
ethically neutral by nature – Buddha did not specify them as either
constructive or destructive –
it is the contemporaneous motivation that determines whether the action
is constructive or
destructive, not the original causal one. In the case of actions that
Buddha did specify as
constructive or destructive, the contemporaneous motivation is the one
that has the stronger effect
on the heaviness or lightness of the karmic result.
Consider having sex with our partner, which in and of itself is an
ethically neutral act. We may
be causally motivated to have sex for a constructive reason. We may want
to make our partner happy
or we may want to have a child. But, when we actually start to have the
sexual act, if obsession
with pleasure and desire takes over as our contemporaneous motivation,
the action becomes
destructive despite the original positive causal motivation. Making love
with an obsession for sex
builds up a negative habit that, in the long run, will cause us
unhappiness.
The causal motivation itself may also be destructive. Obsession with
sex might draw us into
having sex and be the contemporaneous motivation as well. The causal
motivation, however, may also
be neutral. We might want to have sex in order to fall asleep more
easily. But then, when we
actually start to make love, we become overwhelmed with desire and our
obsession with it. Again,
the sexual act becomes destructive.
Since for most people the disturbing emotion that is going to make a
sexual action destructive
is obsessive longing desire, let's take a closer look at what that state
of mind means. Longing
desire is a disturbing emotion aimed at something we don't possess and
is the strong wish to
possess it, based on overestimating the good qualities of the object. This
can occur either when we
do not have any amount of that object or when we already have some
amount and are greedy for more.
Attachment is similar. It is a
disturbing emotion aimed at something we already have and, based on
overestimating the good qualities of the object, does not want to let go
of it.
In addition to aggrandizing the good qualities of something with such
attitudes as, "You're the
most beautiful, perfect person in the world," longing desire projects on
to the object qualities
that it does not possess. In Buddhist terminology, longing desire is
accompanied with "incorrect
consideration."
An example of incorrect consideration regarding a sexual partner is
considering something dirty
as clean. On a very tame level, it's exemplified by the attitude, "If
it's my lover's cup, it's
clean. I'll gladly take a sip from it. If it's the worker's cup, it's
dirty; it would be disgusting
even to touch it to my lips." If we think about it, there's no
difference between the two cups
here. Both of them are someone else's cup out of which the other person
has drunk a part.
Or if you excuse a more drastic example, we might think it's so
wonderful if our lover sticks
their tongue in our mouth when kissing us, but if that person were to
spit into our mouth, which is
pretty much the same, we would find it disgusting. Sticking their tongue
in our mouth while kissing
is an example both of exaggerating the qualities of something, making it
the most wonderful sexy
act, and incorrectly considering it as clean, or at least as not dirty.
Another type of incorrect consideration is to considering suffering
as happiness. For instance,
if our loved one rubs our hand, we think that's wonderful. But, if they
continue to rub the exact
same spot for five minutes, it's going to get very sore. Nevertheless,
we might still consider it
happiness and not ask our loved one to stop. Or I'm sure we've all had
the experience of lying down
embracing somebody and our arm falls asleep underneath the person. It
becomes very uncomfortable,
but we continue lying there anyway. Or we embrace somebody while trying
to fall asleep next to the
person, and then we're completely uncomfortable and can't fall asleep,
but we don't want to stop
embracing them. That's "considering suffering as happiness" – an example
of incorrect consideration
which is accompanying an obsession with physical contact and sexual
embrace.
It's important to differentiate here between obsessive longing desire
and biological desire.
These are two quite different things. It's like with food. When we have
biological hunger,
satisfying our desire for food is not destructive. We can do that
without exaggerating the good
qualities of the food or having incorrect consideration of it. But, if
we have obsessive longing
for a certain food, such as chocolate, and aggrandize it into the most
delicious thing in the world
and then stuff ourselves with it, that's destructive. It's going to lead
to many problems: we
become overweight and might even make ourselves sick by overeating.
It's the same thing with sex. Normal biological desire for sex based
on hormones is different
from obsessive desire for it. Buddhism is not saying that satisfying the
biological drive, without
exaggerating its good qualities, is destructive. But, like eating, it's
part of samsara: it's what
comes with having a samsaric body and will cause problems inevitably on
some level. Even if we
remain celibate, the drive for sex continues. And if we are not
celibate, then we're never going to
have enough sex. Having it just once will never suffice, the same as if
we only ate once. We want
to have it again and again. So, that's a samsaric situation - an
uncontrollably recurring situation
that never satisfies. That's obviously a form of suffering.
In fact, if we look at the tantric vows concerning sexual behavior, the
main one is not to
consider sex as a path to liberation or enlightenment. It's simply
a samsaric act! Engaging in sex
with the modern idea that if we could only achieve the perfect orgasm,
it will solve all our
problems is a good example of how we would violate our tantric vows.
Acting that way is total
confusion about reality and about behavioral cause and effect. Even if we do not have
tantric vows,
avoiding this aggrandizement of sex will need to be the main focus for
most of us as Buddhist
practitioners. We're not going out and raping all the people in a city
that we've conquered in a
war.
When we look into the details of the Buddhist enumeration of the
different types of
inappropriate sexual behavior, we discover that having sex more than
five times successively is
considered destructive, because it's obsessive. This implies that having
it four times successively
is not obsessive. Now, it's not clearly specified whether this statement
is referring to four or
five times in a row during one sexual encounter, or to four or five days
in a row. If it's the
former, as some people interpret it, it implies a very strange idea of
what is obsessive.
Similarly, to masturbate or to have oral sex once is destructive, also
because that would be
obsessive. Clearly, obsession with sex is a complex issue and cultural
criteria for defining it may
be involved.
To understand this issue, it might be helpful to look at the
historical development within
Buddhist literature concerning what is a destructive or inappropriate
sexual act. Such a study may
give us a clue about how to interpret Buddhist sexual ethics within our
modern society. Many
Western Buddhists would like to revise several aspects of Buddhist
ethics to fit our present-day
mentality. But, we need to be very careful in attempting to do so. If we
do it at all, we need to
do it based on knowledge of the full scope of the Buddhist teachings on
ethics and of how they've
developed historically and been applied in the various Asian societies
to which Buddhism has
spread.
In early Pali and Sanskrit Buddhist literature in Sri Lanka and
India, the only thing specified
as inappropriate concerning sexual behavior is having sex with an
inappropriate partner. The main
emphasis is on inappropriate women. They would include married or
betrothed women, or ones who are
restrained by someone else, such as an unmarried daughter restrained by
her parents or nuns
restrained by their vows. If a man were to have sex with any of these
types of women, the
motivation would usually be obsessive desire. Although the woman is an
inappropriate person with
whom to have sex, even by the societal standards of the time and
culture, yet because the man's
desire is so obsessive, he insists on having sex with her. The texts
make no mention about whether
the man already has a partner or about what the wishes of the
inappropriate woman might be.
At the end of the first century of the modern era, a Fourth Buddhist
Council took place in
Kashmir. A central Asian dynasty was ruling the area from northwestern
India to eastern Iran at the
time. Representatives from the Buddhist areas in what is present-day
Afghanistan came to the
council and reported certain Persian cultural customs in their homeland
that they found contrary to
the spirit of Buddhist ethics. They felt that explicit mention of them
needed to be included in the
Buddhist texts concerning ethics that were being compiled at that time.
Starting from this point,
various customs found socially acceptable in certain non-Indian cultures
slowly came to be added to
the list of destructive types of behavior, for example euthanasia and
incest. Although many of
these actions must have been occurring in India already, they were never
discussed openly. Hearing
of them in foreign cultures, however, provided the circumstance for
mentioning them explicitly in
the Buddhist texts, without losing "social face."
Consequently, in terms of unwise sexual behavior, the already
extensive list of inappropriate
partners was expanded to include one's mother and daughter. Gradually,
other forms of sexual
behavior were added as being inappropriate. For instance, certain
orifices of the body were listed
as inappropriate for sexual intercourse, such as the mouth and the anus,
even with one's own wife.
The rationale behind this was undoubtedly that having sex in an
inappropriate orifice would be
motivated by obsessive desire. Dissatisfied with vaginal sex with one's
wife, one would become a
sexual explorer and adventurer, and feel that one had to try every
posture and every orifice in
order to have more pleasure.
Inappropriate times for sex were also added, such as when a woman is
pregnant or when she's
nursing. Mothers always slept with their babies, and so it would be
inappropriate to take them away
from their babies in order to have sex. And then there were also
inappropriate places for having
sex, such as in a temple, and inappropriate times, such as during
daylight when someone could walk
into your room and embarrass everybody. Even today among Tibetans,
hardly anyone locks their door
when they are in their room, and Tibetans never knock before entering.
Homosexuality and
masturbation soon joined the list of inappropriate sexual behavior as
well.
When the Buddhist texts were translated into Chinese, the concubines
of others were added to the
list of inappropriate partners. This is a clear example of how the
translators and masters modified
the texts on ethics so that they related to the new society to which
Buddhism was spreading.
Traditional Chinese society allowed men to have several wives and
concubines. This was not
inappropriate. Only having sex with someone else's concubine was
inappropriate. In Tibet as well,
both polygamy and polyandry were commonly practiced. Having several
wives or several husbands was
never regarded as having sex with inappropriate partners.
Throughout this process, what's always happening is that more and
more things got added to the
list of what's inappropriate. Nowadays, many of us would like things
eliminated from the list, but
in fact historically things have always been added. The difficult
question with this, however, is
whether these additions were culturally influenced and, earlier, the
acts mentioned were not
considered inappropriate, or whether they were always considered
inappropriate, but just not
mentioned explicitly. Or, it could be that additions were made to the
lists ad hoc, only when
difficulties arose within the Buddhist community over certain issues.
This, after all, was how
Buddha gradually expanded the monastic vows.
If we ask what further amendments might need to be made to the list
of types of inappropriate
sexual behavior to accord with the modern West, we can learn another
lesson from Buddhist textual
history. According to the vinaya texts on monastic discipline, monastics
are not allowed to act as
go-betweens to arrange marriages with certain types of women. The lists
of such women correspond to
the lists of inappropriate sexual partners for laypersons. Among the
vinaya texts of five of the
eighteen schools of Hinayana which I have examined, two of the lists
are exclusively from the point
of view of a man and indicate only inappropriate women. These are the
vinayas of two of the three
Hinayana traditions extant today – Theravada (followed in Sri Lanka and
Southeast Asia) and
Sarvastivada (the Mulasarvastivada branch of which
is followed by the Tibetans and Mongols).
Now, this omission doesn't mean that according to these two
traditions, there are only
inappropriate women for men and that there's no such thing as an
inappropriate man for a woman.
It's just that the ethical codes have been written in these two
traditions only from the point of
view of a man. The other three vinaya traditions, however, specify lists
of inappropriate men
corresponding to their lists of inappropriate women. That implies that
sexual ethics are relative
to the persons involved – men, women, and so on – and need to be
specified in terms of each type of
person. Based on that textual evidence, then, I believe it would be
totally reasonable to add to
any list of inappropriate sexual partners those that would be
inappropriate from the point of view
of women.
Also, by the same line of reasoning, the texts in all these
traditions have been written from
the point of view of a heterosexual male. And so if a heterosexual male
already has a partner and
then, because of obsessive desire and dissatisfaction, goes exploring
and has sex with not only all
sorts of women that are under the guardianship or are the partners of
somebody else, but also with
men and cows and who knows what else, then obviously that's destructive.
But, in addition, I think
that we can also revise the whole system to speak about what would be
destructive or constructive
sexual behavior for male or female homosexuals as well, bisexuals too.
This is because having sex
with somebody else's partner and so on would be destructive for these
types of person as well. It
seems totally within the spirit of the Buddhist teachings on dependent
arising to assert that any
ethical guideline needs to be formulated relative to each and every
group to which it would
pertain.
It's quite interesting, during his travels, His Holiness the Dalai
Lama sometimes meets with
homosexual groups, particularly in San Francisco and New York. These
groups were extremely upset
about the usual Buddhist presentation of homosexuality as inappropriate
sexual behavior. His
Holiness has replied that he can't rewrite the texts on his own, but he
thinks that this is the
type of issue that needs to be discussed by a council of Buddhist
elders. Only such a council can
amend issues concerning vinaya and ethics. His Holiness recommends the
same procedure concerning
the issue of the equality of women, particularly in monastic rituals and
ceremonies. This also
needs to be reconsidered and revised. So it seems His Holiness also
thinks there may be something
problematic and open to question within the traditional Buddhist
presentation of sexual ethics.
The inclusion of the mouth and anus as inappropriate orifices for
sexual intercourse was
undoubtedly also made with heterosexual men in mind who already had a
female partner. From a
Buddhist point of view, such persons would be prompted to indulge in
oral or anal sex because of
boredom and dissatisfaction with vaginal sex. They could feel that
vaginal sex was either an
insufficient way to gain or give pleasure, or an insufficient way to
show love and affection. In
both cases, the conduct would be motivated by dissatisfaction, an
attitude that inevitably brings
problems.
This becomes a much more complicated issue, however, if we consider
these forms of sexual
behavior in the context of homosexual couples. The question is whether
these orifices are
inappropriate by nature, or just specified as inappropriate for certain
persons in certain
situations? If we say that the problem with the mouth and anus as sexual
orifices is that they are
unclean, this objection would pertain equally to the vagina as well.
This is not a simple
matter.
But what about sex for someone paralyzed from the neck down? The only
form of sexual behavior
that they can have is oral. So, again, I think that we need to make the
distinction of what's
appropriate and inappropriate in relation to specific groups of persons.
I don't think we could say
that it's obsessive for someone paralyzed from the neck down to have
oral sex.
I think a similar argument can be made concerning masturbation. One
has to see the traditional
Buddhist position regarding this in its original social context. In
ancient India at the time when
these points of ethics were formulated, people got married at puberty,
or even before. So, if we
are married and are so obsessed with sex that it's not enough to have
sex with our partner, we need
also masturbate, that would be considered as an obsession with sex.
Nowadays, however, people in the West do not get married at the onset
of puberty, and some
people remain single till late in life or even for their entire
lifetime. We need to think about
the issue of masturbation from the perspective of such people who do not
have partners at all or
who are not in a committed sexual relationship with anyone. If the
alternatives are being
promiscuous, going to prostitutes, or being totally celibate, then
masturbation is quite a
different issue for such persons than in the case of a married person.
The same thing is true
concerning a married person whose partner is very sick and is in the
hospital for months. What are
they supposed to do, go to a prostitute? No.
So, I believe it is consistent with the Buddhist teachings that
everything has to be considered
relative to a context. This is because, remember, what makes an
ethically neutral samsaric act such
as having sex destructive is its being motivated by a disturbing emotion
– dissatisfaction,
obsession with sex, and so on. That's what's going to cause problems.
Sexual behavior not mixed
with obsessive disturbing emotions is not going to cause the same kinds
of problems. It will just
cause the general problem that we're never going to be completely
satisfied by it, and undoubtedly
will want to do it again – and again, and again. And we can never
guarantee how we will feel after
a sexual act.
One of the most interesting points about the traditional Buddhist
presentation of inappropriate
sexual conduct, if we are looking to see how it can be modified for the
modern West, concerns what
is not included, and how this may be culturally influenced. Consider,
for example, the discussion
about having sex with a prostitute. In both the Indian and the Tibetan
texts, having sex with a
prostitute is perfectly okay, even for a married man, so long as the man
pays for the prostitute. A
prostitute is an inappropriate partner only if she is someone else's and
you haven't paid for her
yourself. Even more puzzling is that if the parents don't give
permission to their daughter to have
sex with someone, then the daughter is an inappropriate person to have
sex with. But if the parents
do give permission – as sometimes happens in Asia when poor parents sell
their daughters into
prostitution – not a word is said.
Also, as mentioned before, the Chinese translations added as an
inappropriate partner someone
else's concubine. This implies that it is perfectly okay for a married
man to have sex with his own
concubines. And among the Tibetans, it is perfectly okay to have more
than one wife or more than
one husband. In fact, it seems to be perfectly okay for a married man to
have sex with any woman
who does not fall into the category of an inappropriate partner, such as an
unmarried independent
woman who is neither betrothed nor a nun.
It's hard for us to understand the mentality behind this. Either all
of this was perfectly
acceptable in these societies and all the women felt perfectly fine
about their husbands having sex
with other women, or the married women didn't feel fine about this, but
kept their mouths shut. But
certainly that's not the case nowadays in the modern world. And so it
would seem as though, again,
the list of inappropriate sexual behavior needs to be expanded, rather
than contracted, to include
all these different forms of sexual relationships that cause problems,
are destructive, and are
based on obsession.
The issues, then, with inappropriate sexual behavior are not just
incorrect consideration and
confusion, such as how we regard certain orifices of the body, but it's
more about discontent and
being overly desirous. We want to explore and experience more and more.
Most people know that the
anus is not a clean orifice, and that having sex in it can be dangerous
from the health point of
view. So the issue is obsession: discontent and obsession. Because of
that, I think we need to
expand the list of inappropriate behavior to include such things as
indulging in high-risk sexual
activity, engaging in
activity in which we can transmit or contract a sexually transmitted
disease,
and so on.
Also, when we talk about the issue of sex and discontent, we need to
keep the cultural context
in mind. If we look at average traditional Indians or average
traditional Tibetans, for example,
most are perfectly content to eat the exact same thing every day of
their lives – such as rice and
dhal (lentils) or noodle soup. Modern Western people are not similarly
inclined. Western people
like to be individual and they like to have variety. It's part of our
culture. So, the same thing
goes with respect to sexuality, just like with food. If the normal thing
in our society is to eat
the same thing everyday, then if we were to want to eat something else,
that would be considered a
case of being overly desirous and obsessive about food. It's
understandable, then, that such a
society would have the same attitude toward sexuality.
What I mean is that suppose we have a certain mutually agreed form of
sexual comportment with a
partner. Of course, we could expand this to take into consideration the
relativity that we
discussed before. We have one way of having sex with our partner,
whether the partner is of the
opposite gender or the same gender, whether we are paralyzed or our
partner is, or even whether we
have no partner and our form of sexual behavior is masturbation. If we
have one preferred standard
way of having sex, then from a traditional Asian cultural point of view,
wanting to have something
different would be only because of over-desire and obsession with sex.
Of course, if that preferred form of sex is one that produces a lot
of pain and harm to the
other person or to ourselves, some sort of sado-masochistic thing – in
the texts they talk about
having sex on the cold wet ground with rocks underneath you, while in
the West we're more
imaginative with sado-masochism – that of course is not a healthy form
of sex. That's destructive.
But, given we have a preferred form of performing a sexual act with
someone that's not harmful like
that, still, for us Westerners, we would like some variety in our sexual
life. That doesn't have to
mean a variety of partners, but a variety of ways of expressing our love
and affection and having
pleasure with the other person. So, it would seem to me that we would
need to take that into
consideration in speaking about what is destructive from a Western point
of view. I think that we
need to make a difference between our normal cultural wish for variety,
on the one hand, and being
obsessive and trying just anything because of discontent and boredom, on
the other.
Although a sexual repertoire needs to be mutually decided upon within
a couple relationship, the
question is, "What are the limits?" Could the repertoire include having
sex in the so-called
"inappropriate orifices?" But in any case, whatever those limits might
be, when we become
completely discontent and obsessive, and go beyond them, then we start
getting into problematic
areas and destructive sexual behavior. That's my personal idea.
Thich Nhat Hanh, a modern Vietnamese Buddhist master, has given a
very interesting and I think
helpful guideline concerning Buddhist sexual ethics in our modern times.
Taking into consideration
that we do not have our marriages arranged for us by our parents, as
most people in traditional
Asia still do, and that we choose our own marriage partners and that
many of us have sex before we
get married, he said that an inappropriate partner would be someone with
whom we would not be
willing to spend the rest of our life with, if we had to. In other
words, if we're going to have
sex with somebody, it should be with someone that, if we needed to, we
would be willing to spend
the rest of our life with, let's say if the person got pregnant, and so
on. And we would be happy
to do so and not just do so out of a sense of duty. It doesn't mean that
we do have to spend the
rest of our life with this person. Also, the example of pregnancy is
just an example, because there
are obviously older single persons who are no longer able to have
babies, but who do engage in
sexual activity with partners. The same guideline would apply.
Although I don't know of any scriptural reference upon which this is
based, I think this is a
very useful guideline for our modern times. It means that we need to
avoid having casual sex with
just anybody we happen to meet, because of our obsession with sex, and
without really caring about
the other person or about having a deeper relationship with her or him.
In most cases, this
guideline would take care of the issue of having sex with a prostitute.
Although, of course, there
could be the case in which a serious committed love relationship
develops with a prostitute.
It is important not to overestimate sex. For instance, suppose our
motivation is to give to
someone temporary happiness and pleasure as an expression of love, and
not just to the other
person, but to ourselves as well. Then, as long as we don't naively deny
the discomforts that go
along with it and the reality of what's inside somebody's body – in
other words, if we have a
realistic view of the limitations of sex – and, again, as long as we
stay within a mutually decided
set of boundaries with the person – then I personally think that this is
not a grossly destructive
act, except for it perpetuating our samsara. In fact, having this type
of healthy sexual
relationship may be a positive developmental stage for someone in terms
of developing an attitude
of giving and caring, and showing affection and concern.
Even concerning masturbation, many Western psychologists say that it
is a part of healthy child
development. If an adolescent gets in contact with his or her own
sexuality, and can show affection
to himself or herself and be relaxed and enjoy it, that helps the person
to enjoy and be able to
relate sexually in a more healthy way to others. That of course is quite
a Western point of view,
but I think it has a certain validity, especially if we take into
consideration our way of raising
children. Western babies don't have the almost constant body contact
that a traditional Asian baby
has. Most traditional Asian mothers have their babies strapped to their
backs during the day and
have them sleep with them at night. As Western babies, on the other
hand, we are typically left
alone in a crib or a carriage, and many of us feel alienated from our
bodies. Masturbation, then,
is a possible step for overcoming that alienation. But again, what's
important is not to
overestimate the whole area of sexuality.
Now a question can be asked, what if we are obsessively against sex?
In other words, what about
somebody who is afraid of sex or is frigid? Such an attitude is also
unhealthy, I believe. It also
causes problems.
But we need to make a difference here. Being afraid of killing and
being afraid of sex are not
the same. If, for example, somebody is afraid of killing, that doesn't
imply it would be healthier
for that person to kill. So I think we need to differentiate between an
obsessive fear of the
biological desire for sex and a fear of being obsessed with sex. What's
unhealthy, I think, is fear
of the biological drive.
This is an important point in terms of people who decide to take vows
of total celibacy as a
monk or a nun. If we give up sex based on the feeling that every form of
sex is destructive
and are completely terrified of it, then this attitude undoubtedly
produces many problems. I
think we can see that. Very often this attitude in monks and nuns, not
only in the Buddhist
tradition, but in our Christian traditions as well, makes them very,
very uptight, filled with
guilt, and all these sorts of things. They feel guilty for their
biological sexual desires.
But, from the Buddhist point of view, what would be more appropriate
is to fear one's own
obsession with sex. "Fear," here, is not the right word. Fear
is also not the healthiest
motivation, since it implies making a big solid thing out of an
obsession. "Dread" is a better
word, since it implies merely a strong wish not to have this obsession.
If one wants to overcome
that obsession with sex and therefore decides to become a monk or a nun,
that's something quite
different. That's a healthier attitude. Such persons then become a monk
or a nun because they don't
want to be distracted by family obligations, and so on, and they want to
be in a situation in which
their sexual desire will be minimized. They don't want the external
circumstances around them that
would sexually stimulate them.
Now the final issues that I want to speak a little bit about
concerning sex are the issues of
birth control and abortion. When we speak about abortion, from a
Buddhist point of view, it falls
in the category of the destructive action of taking a life. There is no
denying that; it is
terminating the life of another being. Nevertheless, there may be
various types of motivation
involved with taking that life. If the motivation is selfish concern,
like not wanting the
obligation to take care of a baby, or not losing one's figure, or
something like that, this makes
the act a heavy destructive one of killing. This is because both the
motivation and the act itself
are destructive.
So, we really need to look at the causal motivation here. What is the
reason that would motivate
us to have an abortion? Our motivation may be naivety, thinking that we
can't give the baby a good
home, or we can't afford yet another baby. But, maybe our parents or
another relative could give
the baby a good home, or we could give the baby up for adoption.
On the other hand, our motivation may be a positive one of
compassion. If the baby will be
severely deformed or mentally deficient, then wishing the child to avoid
all the problems and
suffering that would follow, we might think to have an abortion. After
all, there is the secondary
bodhisattva vow to
avoid not committing a destructive action when the motivation is love
and
compassion. In such cases, however, we need to be perfectly willing to
accept on ourselves whatever
suffering consequences we might experience ourselves in future lives in
order to spare the unborn
child its suffering. With such an attitude, the suffering consequences
of the destructive action of
taking a life will be less intense.
This is tricky, however, since we have no idea whether or not the
child will be happy and no
idea of how much the child may be able to overcome his or her handicaps.
Also, it is very difficult
to have love and compassion as our sole motivation. It might easily be
mixed with the selfish wish
to avoid all the problems and suffering we would have as the parent of
such a handicapped
child.
Another very difficult situation is when we have to choose between
saving our own life as the
pregnant woman or that of the fetus. If going through with the pregnancy
or even going through with
the actual birthing process will, in sound medical
opinion, result in our death as the mother, our
causal motivation for having an abortion might be to save our own life.
Although, by definition,
such a motivation is one of self-concern over concern for the unborn
child, every case would be
slightly different. So many factors and circumstances would affect the
decision and the heaviness
of the karmic consequences that would follow.
Although there are many causal motivations that can be involved, the
Buddhist teachings say that
what really affects the heaviness of the karmic consequences is our
contemporaneous motivation.
Therefore, if we do decide to have an abortion for whatever reason, we
really need to be careful
about what's going on in our mind and heart right at the start of the
operation. That is more
crucial that what motivated us to go to the clinic.
Consider, for example, the case of a 13 year-old girl who becomes
pregnant as the result of
being sexually abused by her father. The girl and the family may decide
for a large complex of
reasons to terminate the pregnancy. What I am trying to emphasize here
is the attitude of the
family, and especially of the girl, at the time of the abortion. It's
very important that it not be
an attitude of hatred and hostility, especially not toward the baby
that's being aborted. It's not
that baby's fault.
And so what's very important at that time of having the abortion is
to have loving thoughts
toward the baby that's being aborted. One needs to wish it well in a
future lifetime and, in a
sense, apologize for the situation that has arisen. That doesn't make
having an abortion a
constructive act. Killing is killing. But it certainly minimizes the
suffering consequences that
will follow. At minimum, I think that it's almost impossible for a woman
to have an abortion and
not later on in her life to have the suffering of wondering, "What would
that baby have been like?
If the baby had lived, it would be such-and-such an age now." Certainly,
I think that almost every
woman who has had an abortion has had that sort of suffering. So, even
within this lifetime, we can
see that abortion is a destructive act, since it causes suffering. After
all, the definition of a
destructive action is one that ripens into suffering for the person who
committed it.
Some Buddhist traditions conduct ceremonies for the aborted fetus,
something like a funeral
service. This is extremely helpful for the mother, the rest of the
family, and certainly for the
aborted child. It's based on respect for this being as a sentient being.
One gives it a name and
sends it off with prayers for the well-being of its future lives. Women
who have had this done find
it very healing, very helpful.
The issue of abortion connects with the issue of birth control. The
real question here is, "When
does life begin?" From a Western scientific point of view, only when an
embryo is about twenty-one
days old is the physical matter of the embryo sufficiently developed so
that it can support neural
transmission of information. One could argue that this is the beginning
of life, since, in a sense,
this is the beginning of mental activity. From the Buddhist point of
view, on the other hand, after
the continuity of the subtlest mind of someone who has died has passed
through an intermediate
period (a bardo),
its next life begins when it connects with the physical substance of
its next
body.
Then the question is, "In the Buddhist explanation, when does that
connecting happen?" The
traditional Buddhist explanation is that the consciousness
of the bardo being who will be reborn
enters the future father's mouth, goes down through the father's body,
enters his sperm, and passes
with it into the future mother's body. Now, this is something that
obviously needs examination.
This explanation derives from the Guhyasamaja Tantra, and is given so that the process for
generating the mandala
of the deities in the womb of the visualized consort is analogous to
the
rebirth process. But, is this description to be taken literally as the
explanation of how a life
begins?
As His Holiness the Dalai Lama has said many times, if the scientists
can disprove certain
explanations given in Buddhism, he's very happy to drop them and to
adopt the scientific
explanation. So, we need to examine with logic the traditional Buddhist
presentation of how and
when a life begins. How we decide these questions will have far-reaching
ethical implications.
Obviously, if the consciousness of a future child is already there in
the sperm even before
conception, then
any form of birth control is abortion. But then, what about the fact
that the egg
might not fertilize? And even if it does fertilize, it might not implant
in the uterus wall. Does
the consciousness somehow know what will happen before it enters the
father's mouth? Or is there
some sort of karmic mechanism whereby it wouldn't enter the father's
mouth unless there was karmic
certainty that successful conception
would take place? And what about artificial insemination, test
tube babies, and cloning? These become difficult to explain with the
Buddhist theory, unless we
classify them under the categories of birth from heat and water.
The more we investigate when life begins, the more complicated it
becomes. According to the
Buddhist explanation of the twelve links of
dependent arising, when the consciousness of the future
being enters the physical basis for its future body, it merely has the
potential for mental
activity. That activity is not yet functioning. Only with the next link,
that of nameable faculties
with or without form, do the potentials of the consciousness start to
activate, step by step, and
begin to function. Does this mean that all fertilized eggs have the
potential to develop into a
child, or only some? If only some, then from a scientific point of view,
what needs to be present
to differentiate those that have the potential to develop and those that
do not – for instance
those that do not implant in the uterus wall?
[See:
The
Twelve
Links of Dependent Arising.]
So, we can see it's very difficult to answer the question, "When does
the consciousness actually
enter the physical substance of a next rebirth so that if you terminate
the rebirth after that
point, it's taking a life?" Also, from a Buddhist point of view, if
contraception occurs in such a
way that it prevents the consciousness from entering the physical
substance of a next rebirth, then
it's not an issue of taking a life. The ethical issue of killing, then,
has nothing to do with it.
One just needs to watch out for inappropriate sexual behavior.
Also, in terms of inappropriate sexual behavior, one needs to avoid
the possibility of
transmitting or contracting a sexually transmitted disease. Does this
mean that all persons with
such diseases need to remain celibate for the rest of their lives, even
people with herpes? If
using a condom were unethical, even for such persons, then the only
alternative would be for them
to remain celibate.
As His Holiness the Dalai Lama has said, these issues of abortion and
contraception need a great
deal of further investigation before anything really can be decided. So,
whether we use
contraception or we don't use contraception, again we go back to the
same issue as before. What is
the motivation? Are we using contraception so that we can indulge fully
in our obsession with sex?
Then surely, our sexual behavior is destructive. But, in that case, it's
destructive because of the
obsession, not because of the contraception.
In short, the whole issue of sexuality in Buddhism revolves around
the issue of the types of
attitude and motivation we have concerning it and which of these are
destructive ones that bring
problems. If we want to avoid the problems, we need to avoid those
destructive attitudes.
As I have said before, I think one of the things that can help a lot
is to have a realistic
attitude about sex and not make such a big deal out of it. Having sex is
not just the same as
eating. There is something more to it than just fulfilling a biological
need. It is a way of
showing affection, love, concern, comfort, and so on. But again, if we
think that having good sex
is going to solve everybody's problems, that's being naive. On the other
hand, to think that
there's something inherently
"bad" about it is also naive. Just be realistic about it. What
questions do you have?
Question: Here in Mexico, abortion is forbidden by law. Yet
thousands and thousands of
abortions are practiced everyday, and several tens of thousands of women
die every year because of
malpractice during abortion. So here, abortion is not just an ethical
issue, it is also a legal
issue. How do we deal with that?
Berzin: As I have tried to explain, from a Buddhist point of
view, if someone decides to
have an abortion, for whatever reason, the main thing to try to do is to
minimize the level of
destructiveness of the action as a whole, by working on the motivation.
For example, try to make
sure that the contemporaneous motivation at the time of the abortion is
not hostility toward the
fetus, and afterwards, give it a name and have a proper funeral. This
will help to minimize the
amount of suffering caused by the taking of this life.
The same principle is true regarding how we have an abortion, if we
decide to have one.
Obviously, we need to try to have it in a way that will minimize the
danger to the mother, both
medically and legally. We need to investigate extremely well what is the
medically safest way to
have the abortion, while staying within our budget. Of course, in the
case of extreme poverty,
hygienic scientific methods may not be available, but surely some
methods are safer than
others.
The legal issue is another matter, and quite complex. We need to
differentiate between the
destructiveness of the act of abortion itself from the destructiveness
of breaking a law of a
country. There are two cases to consider here: one is when the illegal
action is destructive from a
Buddhist point of view, the other is when the illegal action is either
constructive or ethically
neutral. Abortion is both illegal and ethically destructive, while
teaching Buddhism in a communist
dictatorship or parking our car in a no parking zone may be illegal, but
they are not ethically
destructive acts. In both cases, the question is, by breaking a civil
law, do we build up negative
tendencies and habits on our mental continuums that will ripen into
suffering in future lives?
Breaking a civil law can bring us suffering in this lifetime, if we
get caught, arrested, and
punished. This is called the "man-made result." But, we might not
get caught, and so there is no
certainty that we will experience any legal problems and penalties.
Also, like any action, it might
build up a habit that will cause us to repeat breaking a particular law,
although there is no
certainty about that. We might only break a certain law once.
Nevertheless, breaking a civil law
doesn't build up the type of tendency and habit that will ripen in
future lives into the experience
of unhappiness.
In the case of an illegal act that is ethically constructive, it is
not so difficult to choose
between possible punishment in this lifetime and the experience of
happiness in future lives. In
the case of ethically neutral acts, we can think of the bodhisattva
secondary vow to avoid not
going along with the preferences of others, so long as their preferences
are not destructive. If a
society does things in a certain way, there is no need to cause
disruption by insisting on doing
things our own way, especially if our own way is motivated by
self-interest and lack of
consideration of others.
Now in the case of having an abortion, which is not only a
destructive action of taking a life,
but also illegal in this country, again I think the guideline needs to
be, first of all, to avoid
naivety and then to try to minimize the amount of suffering
consequences. The choice of having an
abortion or not is basically the pregnant woman's, although the father
of the fetus and the family
may play a role in making the choice. If the decision is to have the
abortion, then, without being
naive about the possible legal consequences, try to do it in such a way
that the risks of
unhappiness and suffering are minimized in all areas – medical, legal,
and ethical.
Then, of course, if we wish, we can work to change the laws if they
seem unreasonable. When a
law is based on the influence of another religious system, however, then
it's very delicate.
Question: What is your personal opinion about the monastic vows
of chastity? Doesn't
keeping chastity go against nature? Shouldn't we, as a society, be well
over that by now?
Berzin: Keeping chastity is certainly going against samsara.
But, as for going against
nature, we need to take a closer look at what the Buddhist point of view
is toward what is
"natural." 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.
Usually those who become monks or nuns are either people with very
low sex drives, so that
celibacy is no big deal for them, or those who are obsessed with sex and
who want to overcome the
suffering that their obsession has been causing them. But even in the
latter case, one doesn't want
merely to suppress biological drives such as sex. In trying to do that,
the danger remains that at
some point one will explode and go wild. Such monastics work on the
longing desire and attachment
that make their sexual drives compulsive and obsessive. Also, with
tantra methods of transformation
of the subtle energies, one can transform that sexual energy and channel
it toward a more
constructive use to further one's spiritual path. That's not so easy to
do, however.
Also, I think we need to keep in mind that Tibetans and Indians, for
example, show physical
affection to people of the same gender, without that having any sexual
connotation. Because monks
and nuns commonly put their arms around each other and hold hands when
walking, these types of
physical contact help them to satisfy their need for physical contact
and affection. Total celibacy
does not include refraining from any physical contact with others or
from shows of affection.
Question: When we decide to have sexual contact with somebody,
that very act generates
karma. So, from the Buddhist perspective, what consequences follow in
the chain of karmic events
after making that decision? What are the advantages of celibacy?
Berzin: If we decide to have sex with someone and then actually
engage sexually with the
person, we certainly establish a strong link with the person that will
continue in future lives.
But the type of link and relationship that will follow depends on the
type of sexual relationship
we have with the person, on our own motivation and attitudes, on our
partners' motivation and
attitudes, and so on. Many factors will affect it.
And just because one is celibate doesn't mean that one avoids all
sorts of karmic consequences
with regard to sexuality. Somebody who's celibate could spend a
tremendous amount of time and
energy thinking about sex with a great deal of desire and attachment.
Such a monastic could think
about having sex with someone, but not carry out the act. This does not
build up the karmic
consequences of a physical act, but it still builds up the karmic
consequences of a mental act.
Everything depends, really, on the state of mind – on the level of
disturbing emotions and
attitudes one has or on the level of freedom one has from them.
Let's end with a dedication. We think that whatever understanding or insight we might have
gained, and whatever positive force has resulted from listening to this lecture and thinking about
it – may they grow more and more so that we can overcome our confusion
about sex. May we be able to
use whatever level or type of sexuality that we are drawn to in a
healthy way. May we do this by
not making sex the most important thing in life, but just another part
of life. May we overcome any
obsession we may have with sex, so that we can use our potentials and
talents more fully, and avoid
unnecessary problems, so that we can be of best help to ourselves and to
others. Thank you.