The Buddha counsels a bereaved mother named Patachara
‘Just don’t give him your heart yet’ – the monk advised the daughter of a devout Buddhist mother. The monk’s advice was in response to the daughter’s fear that she might lose her long time boyfriend if she didn’t give into his insisting demand of sleeping together as a proof of her ‘commitment’ and ‘love’ for him. The monk tried to reassure the girl that ‘commitment’ and ‘love’ for one’s ‘potential life partner’ does not at all mean giving into premarital adventures. ‘Giving yourself into his demand though may seem to you the right thing to do for the moment to save the relationship, I don’t think it is safe enough yet to hope for the best out of it’, warned the monk. Pieces of ‘moral backups’, as the Monk calls it, of this nature are extremely important to spell out clearly the need for a stronger and deeper relationship that transcends demands of premarital sex among modern youths. Girls (mostly of Asian origins) by nature tend to be self-reserved and self-esteemed possessed of moral conscience that prevents them from jumping into being objects of easy approach. Yet they are often forced to forsake their moral conscience especially when they are left out with two options: yes or no. The Western culture of ‘sex on first date’ may have taken its form ‘kiss on first date’ in Asian contexts but the fact that the rate of teenage pregnancies and abortions is equally alarming in some Asian countries shows that Asian youths have gone some steps further in their adaptations of Western culture while forgetting to take a step back. The reason why Asian girls tend to be more self-reserved than their Western counterparts is that unlike Western people, Asian people are made to get heavily influenced by dos and don’ts of cultural and religious values. Virginity preserved for marriage or at least the first time is a serious business and a lifelong commitment for majority Asians and may it be long that way! But the world keeps on changing in favour of modern wants and needs producing some of the most terrible epidemics and trends witnessed ever such-as HIV/AIDS, free sex, sex industry and abortions to name but a few; and monks can no longer sit down eye-closed in their cave-cells when their Buddhist societies are collapsing. Hence you ought not to be surprised when you hear the monk counseling that girl on intimacy, love, sex and marriage. Sometimes you may ask ‘what does a monk know about such things?!’ Well, not much!!! But a monk is trained to be an ‘onlooker’, someone trained to observe and understand a problem at hand without being involved in it in person. Football players engaged in a football match inside an enclosed field may not be aware of what goes on inside the entire football field but an onlooker, say, the coach at the gallery, not involved in the game himself, is most likely to observe everything that goes on in the field. A monk is like that coach who instructs the players playing in societies. Nowadays, it is not that rare for a monk to get demanded to give instant solutions to social problems. ‘What possible advice would you give as a Buddhist (not as a monk) to a girl who is about to undergo an abortion?’, someone asked the Monk. ‘Why is the Buddhist commandment of having premarital sex a crime?’, asked another. Point noted. The two questions asked by two different persons refer to the cause-effect theory of Buddhism. The first question is the answer to the second question and vise versa. ‘Why would you have premarital sex if you are not ready for a child?! And why would you undergo an abortion fully knowing that it is your child who would be deprived of a precious human life?!’ If sex was not the only purpose of ‘reproduction’ (as the Monk was made to understand) then the Monk certainly thinks that ‘responsibility’ and ‘commitment’ should have been the core essence of that very act in the first place. Lets be informed that in Buddhism, prenuptial sex is not a crime in itself if, and only if, it is exercised under highest level ‘responsibility’ and ‘commitment’ rather than reckless explorations of sex. Sexual misconduct (not so much as sex outside marriage or before marriage), the kind of sex Buddhism forbids as wrong is rapes, promiscuity, adultery and prostitution. The physical relationship between an independent, committed and responsible man and a woman (i.e. boyfriend and girlfriend) therefore is certainly not a crime in Buddhism, provided they commit to their promises and together take up any responsibility that is likely to arise from their act. The problem of unwanted teenage pregnancies and girls wanting to undergo abortions is not a religious crime that needs to be dealt harshly so much as it is an irresponsible part played by the parties involved that needs social awareness and education.
The social institution of marriage at the time of the Buddha needed no much attention because ‘intimacy, love and sex’ was understood to be no different from marriage itself. Today, ‘intimacy, love and sex’ is one thing and marriage is another. But for many, intimacy, love and sex still refer to the institution of marriage. Marriage for a Buddhist is a deep bond of emotional and even spiritual involvement of a couple who are often believed to have the same karmic aspiration and connection. The karmic connectedness of a couple of course does not guarantee their eternity together. If marriage were to be viewed as a karmic connectedness then divorce would also have to be viewed from the same angle. The question of why is it so hard finding the right guy or the right woman would, then, be a question of when is karmic operation going to play its part. But modern experts on relationships would not view the same question from the same angle as a Buddhist would. ‘Approaching the wrong guy or the wrong woman at the wrong phase of time’ would seem for them to be more acceptable than attributing the same to karmic operation. But the question still is ‘when is the right time?’ In search of this ‘right time’, experts have given ‘methods’ and ‘ways’ to attract the right guy or right woman. But obviously, attracting someone and being attracted is no harder than holding onto him/her for longer as successful couples. Ultimately it is the weaknesses, goodness, failures and kindness of a person that counts in relationships and not how beautifully and attractively one attires, walks and talks.
Consideration, respect, trust, self-sacrifice and care are the five pillars of any relationship. By consideration, the Monk means reflecting upon one’s own actions (before they are exercised) for the long-term welfare and happiness of oneself, the partner and the child. By respect, it is meant respecting the values and principles of the partner by not demanding and insisting on things not mutually agreeable. Trust means not making assumptions about the partner. By self-sacrifice, the Monk means not working or acting on the dictation or fulfillment of self-interest; and by care, the Monk means being attentive and loving to the partner. Consider the following mutual expectations as recognized by Buddha himself some 25 centuries ago:
The man from his woman:
• — love
• — attentiveness
• — family obligations (for couples)
• — faithfulness
• — child-care (for couples)
• — thrift
• — to calm him down when he is upset
• — sweetness in everything
The woman from her man:
• — tenderness
• — courtesy
• — sociability
• — security
• — fairness
• — loyalty
• — honesty
• — good companionship
• — moral support
The high rate of divorce and break ups are therefore due to the lack of compromise and exercise of these mutual expectations in relationships. They constitute what a Buddhist may understand as intimacy, love, sex and marriage aspects of any relationship whose goal is that of a long-term basis. Sexual act alone, therefore, seems so trivial in the face of these more essential qualities that Buddhism can accommodate homosexuality and lesbianism. Now the question is: why would Buddhism accommodate that? Sex, though an integral part of a man-woman relationship, is never the main reason why people should become couples. Some people cannot accept homosexuality and lesbianism on the argument that these people don’t have sex in the usual way (i.e. involving vagina and penis). But the irony is that the people who argue like this forget to denounce oral and anal sex as well! According to their argument, if homosexuality was improper because it doesn’t involve the combination of vagina and penis, then certainly oral and anal sex would also be improper because they also don’t involve the combination of vagina and penis. Now the main reason why Buddhists could accommodate homosexuality is because by the term sexual intercourse, we understand as all kinds of sexual intercourse involving genitals (literally, the "urine path" — i.e., a woman's vagina or a man's penis), the anus and/or the mouth. In summary, the combination of genitals, anus and/or mouth implies sex in Buddhism (mouth-to-mouth is not sex). Now as to whether Buddhism does really allow oral and anal sex is a tricky question. The third of the five Buddhist precepts states that ‘the wrongful exercise in sensualities’ is to be avoided. The wrongful exercise in sensualities is explained by Buddhist commentators as ‘sexual misconduct’ involving rapes, adultery, promiscuity and prostitution. Not only that, some Buddhist commentators even went as far as explaining that any sexual act other than the combination of vagina and penis, which is the traditionally assumed way of having sex, is to be considered as sexual misconduct! If the first explanation is taken separately, then homosexuality, lesbianism, oral and anal sex could be accommodated in Buddhism. But if the second explanation is also taken into consideration then even a lawfully married husband and wife could break the third Buddhist precept if they engage in oral and anal sex! However, having examined every possible canonical passages connected with this issue, the Monk found out that Buddha often gave discourses on ‘indulgence in sensuality’ which has sexuality as its integral part. In describing this ‘indulgence in sensuality’, He himself repeatedly used the words – ‘low’, ‘vulgar’, ‘ordinary’, ‘ignoble’ and ‘meaningless’. Note that words like ‘wrongful’, ‘unacceptable’, ‘illegal’ and ‘crime’ were not used. The Buddha’s understanding and acceptance of sex in any form performed by worldly people seems all the more practical by his usage of terms like ‘low’, ‘vulgar’, ‘ordinary’, ‘ignoble’ and ‘meaningless’. Obviously, sex cannot be that noble, holy and spiritual, especially because animals also can perform that, sometimes even better than humans. Buddha refuses to accept sex in any form for a higher spiritual life because sex makes people slave to their desires, cravings and endless sensual gratifications; and being a spiritual type, Buddha certainly cannot accommodate sex in any form within the context of a higher spiritual life. And this is why monks and nuns cannot have sex in any form because they are meant to represent that higher spiritual life whose ideal model is the Buddha himself.
No comments:
Post a Comment