Sexual pleasure and the concept of "sin"
.
Reduced to essentials, the great debate about sex revolves, for many people, around the [Christian] concept of sin.
To the Puritan, indulgence in sexual activity for the sake of pleasure is evil, wicked, or, as our society tends to say, "sinful" (i.e., displeasing to the God).
To the permissive, this is nonsense. Many reject the term "sin" [which is an archery term meaning "to miss the mark" not all of the attendant connotations now associated with it] as meaningless. Many not only see nothing "evil" in sexual pleasure but regard it as highly legitimate perhaps the highest pleasure there is, certainly something to which, in principle at least, everybody has a right.
Many people who come from a more or less [Judeo-]Christian background with 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. If they have, it may have seemed too technical for them, and they have not grasped the point.
The point, in fact, is of considerable importance. So it is worthwhile to attempt to make it clear. It involves a proper and elementary grasp of what is meant by karma — something many "Buddhists" have never had.
What about "sin"?
It may be profitable to consider the word "sin."
Sin to Christians is thought of as a breach of some God's commands. This explanation may make sense in Christian theology, but it does not apply in Buddhism, where there are no such commands to infringe.
Buddhist precepts are undertakings to oneself, which is something different. They are on par with the instruction, "Look both ways before crossing the road." There is much agreement between the content of Buddhism's 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" itself which, though less well-known, comes much closer to the Buddhist view of things.
In the Bible, "sin" translates Hebrew and Greek words that literally mean "missing the mark," that is to say, behaving unskillfully or inadequately.
The "sinner" person, then, is like an unskillful archer who misses what that person aims at. (Could this be the real meaning behind
Zen and the Art of Archery?) This comes very close to the Buddhist idea of
akusala karma or "unskilled action."
The Pali word kamma (Sanskrit karma) literally means "action" (volition, intention, underlying motivation, cetana), which can either be skillful (kusala) or unskillful (akusala).
The results of action (karmic results) come back to the doer as resultants (vipaka), which are pleasant when the action previously performed was skillful, unpleasant when it was unskillful.
If I look before I cross the road, I get across safely, which is pleasant; if I don't look both way, I may get run over, which will be very unpleasant.
- The FEELINGS we experience are of the nature of karmic results: They are dependent on past karma. And, of course, we are constantly creating new karma most of the time.
It should therefore be noted that
the feeling of pleasure (sexual or otherwise) is not an action, not karma, but a result of karma. There is, therefore, nothing either "skillful" or "unskillful" about experiencing such a feeling.
We should therefore not regard it as either "virtuous" or "sinful." So far, so good. Such pleasant feelings can be enjoyed with a clear conscience free of guilt feeling. If this were all, there would be no problem. Puritans would be routed and the permissive justified.
However, there is another side to the matter. We may recall that a few years ago there was a song called "Money is the Root of all Evil." The careful pointed out that it is not money, but the love of money that the Bible calls the root of all evil (of a lot of evil, anyway).
And here is the snag. Sexual pleasure (like money) is not "evil," not unskillful, but attachment to sexual pleasure is. If we can experience the pleasure without grasping and clinging, we are all right; if we become attached to it, we are far from "hitting the mark."
 |
| What mindfulness help? - It is always helpful. |
Now of course it is rather difficult, to put it mildly, to experience pleasure of any sort without feeling (or exciting the habit) attachment to it. Attachment is karma, unskillful karma at that. The results of that will inevitably, according to Buddhism, be unpleasant in the future. It needn't be this way.
Many might find this explanation novel. Some might find it puzzling. Some will undoubtedly reject it — without investigation — with the excuse that it is overly subtle, arbitrary, or something of the sort.
What they mean is that they find it inconvenient. But it repays a lot of consideration and mindful investigation.
Careful study, in fact, should show that it is the key to the whole problem. The matter can also be considered in terms of [the 12 causal links of]
Dependent Origination:
- "Contact is the basis for the arising of feeling;
- feeling... of craving;
- craving... of clinging;" and so on,
- the ultimate outcome being the continued process of becoming, with all the suffering that entails.
So if we wish to adjudicate between the Puritans and the permissive, we cannot say that either side is entirely right. However, we might suggest that 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 they are able to refrain altogether (nor are they being urged to), but there is merit in moderation.
More
.svg){kind=link}
