To the permissive person, this is nonsense. One probably rejects the term "sin" as meaningless and not only sees nothing "evil" in sexual pleasure but regards it as highly legitimate, perhaps as the highest pleasure there is and certainly as something to which, in principle at least, everybody has a right.
Many [American and European] people, coming from a more or less Christian background with at least some Puritanical overtones, find the true Buddhist attitude to this problem rather difficult to see. Perhaps they have never even been given a clear explanation of it, or if they have, it may have seemed too technical for them, and they have not grasped the point.
 |
| Puritans were fond of the pillory for immodesty and more, 17th century art (pixels.com) |
.
 |
| "Purity" or pure hypocrisy? |
However, we may begin more profitably by considering the word. "Sin" to a Christian is primarily thought of as a breach of their God’s commandments. This explanation is correct so far as it goes in terms of theology, but it is not applicable in Buddhism, where there are no such "commandments" upon which one can infringe.
The Buddhist precepts are undertakings given to oneself, which is something different. They are more on a par with the instruction, "Look both ways before crossing the road." Of course, there is much agreement between the content of the Five Precepts and some of the Ten Commandments, so it may be wise in many cases to behave accordingly, whichever formulation one follows.
However, there is another rendering of the word "sin" which in fact (though less well-known) comes much closer to the Buddhist view of things.
In the Bible, "sin" is a rendering of Hebrew and Greek words that literally mean "missing the mark," that is, behaving inadequately or unskillfully.
The Pali word kamma (Sanskrit karma) literally means "action" (i.e., cetanā, "volitional deed"), which can be either skillful (kusala) or unskillful (akusala).
The results of action (karma) accrue to the doer as vipāka ("resultants"), which is pleasant when the action was skillful, unpleasant when it was unskillful. (If one looks before crossing the road, one shall get across safely, which is pleasant; if not, one may get run down, which is unpleasant).
The feelings we experience are of the nature of resultants (vipāka). They are dependent on past karma. And of course, we are continually creating fresh karma most of the time.
Gnostic Christianity on the "virgin birth"
It should be noted that the feeling of pleasure (sexual or otherwise) is not an action but a result. There is, therefore, nothing either "skillful" or "unskillful" about experiencing such a feeling, and we should therefore not regard it either as "virtuous" or "sinful." So far so good.
Such pleasant feelings can be enjoyed with a clear conscience and no guilt feeling, [Alanis]. If this were all, there would be no problem.
The Puritans would be routed and the permissive people justified. Unfortunately, there is another side to the matter.
Years ago, there was a song called "Money is the Root of all Evil." Some pointed out that it is not money, according to the Bible, but the love of money that is the root of all evil. And here is the snag. Sexual pleasure (like money) is not "evil" (or unskillful), but attachment to sexual pleasure (like the love of money) is.
 |
| What Bible says about sin as missing the mark |
Many people will find this explanation novel. Some will find it puzzling. Some will undoubtedly reject it — with or without investigation — with the excuse that it is overly subtle, or arbitrary, or something of the sort.
What they mean is that they find it inconvenient. But it will repay a lot of consideration and mindful investigation. Careful study should show that it is the key to the whole problem.
 |
| The Twelve Links of Dependent Origination |
Therefore, if we wish to adjudicate between the Puritans and the permissive people, we cannot say that either side is entirely right. We might suggest that the Puritans are partly right for the wrong reasons.
Sexual indulgence is not wicked, but it may be to some degree inadvisable. Most people will not feel able to refrain altogether, nor are they being urged to, but there is merit in moderation.
Marriage
 |
| Calm down, Hun. - Don't call me Hun, you SOB! |
Other branches of Christianity permit divorce in certain narrowly defined circumstances and of course in most countries the state permits divorce and remarriage, with or without the approval of the Church.
In Buddhism, marriage is not a "sacrament," as such a concept does not exist. And it is not any part of the functions of Buddhist monastics to join people together in wedlock (or deadlock). It is occasionally done in Japan as a modern idea in conformity with a tendency to imitate (perhaps unwisely) Christian institutions....
Sex Outside Marriage
 |
| That was awkward. - Good thing we didn't marry. |
No doubt there is more of it now than before because, for one thing, contraception is more effective than it formerly was and also because religious prejudices are fast breaking down.
This is a statement of fact, not of what ought or ought not to be. In the case of engaged couples, it is probably now the usual thing and is not heavily frowned on by most people. But it is not rare among couples who have not the slightest intention of getting engaged.
In the past, premarital sex was widely considered (and almost openly admitted) a good thing for young men but a bad thing for young women.
Now sexual equality has caught up. We may as well accept the fact that whatever we may think about it, preaching by older generations will, by and large, have precious little effect on the young. This is probably something most parents are worried about. More
- Maurice O'Connell Walshe, Buddhism and Sex, BPS.lk; edited by Wisdom Quarterly
