Sexual Misconduct
The Third Zen Precept

By Roshi Nancy Mujo Baker

This is a time of great sexual freedom, which most people think is a good thing. Sex is everywhere these days—in newspapers, on TV, in advertising, in literature, in movies, in the classroom, in jokes, on the Internet, in our conversations. There is no avoiding it—not that anyone wants to. And along with these sex stories, sexual misconduct is frequently discussed. This includes both ordinary and scandalous infidelities as well as downright criminal behavior. We human beings are fascinated by the misdeeds of others, particularly when they are sexual.

The third Zen precept, refraining from impure sexuality, probably originated in a monastic setting where celibacy was practiced. As laypeople who are not tempted to engage in physically violent sexual misconduct, such as rape, or psychologically violent sexual misconduct, such as the abuse of young children, we might wonder how this precept relates to our lives. In fact, if we look more closely, it is a subtle and interesting precept; there is more to it than first meets the eye. There are several different translations of its subject matter: “adultery,” “impure sexuality,” “sexual misconduct,” “unchaste conduct,” and “misuse of sex.” What causes the misconduct and the impurity has been translated as “attachment,” “greed,” “grasping,” and “desire.” A consideration of some of the differences among these translations actually allows us to see the richness of the precept. Here, I will examine two ways of understanding this precept: sexual misconduct and misuse of sex.

First, we should consider the notion of sexual misconduct. Misconduct invites condemnation, whether legal, moral, or social. When it comes to violence, rape is the far end of a spectrum. Closer to the middle of that spectrum is what Robert Aitken Roshi in his book The Mind of Clover called “boorishness.” I laughed when I first read the term—it seems like such a 1950s word. Nowadays we have the word “groping,” which has actually become a legal term. I remember a few blind dates in college where I was returned to my dorm in the dead of winter in an unheated car driven by a “groper.” Not pleasant! I don’t know if young men are “boorish” any more. Now we have date rape. I was watching the news recently, and a woman was asked if it was true that she had had a sexual encounter with a certain man. She said, “Yes, it was consensual—and brutal.” We may consent to a sexual encounter, but what that encounter turns out to be may not be what we expected. “Consensual” doesn’t always mean mutual or shared or mutually generous. And what seems consensual may not actually be so. What about sexual relations between teacher and student? Or between therapist and client? Or between two adulterers? Are these consensual? Here, perhaps, what we need to look at—on both sides—is self-deception and motive, particularly unconscious motives. We then might see what the unintended consequences could be before it’s too late. All this is to say that there are forms of sexual violence that are much closer to home than we realize. Failing to speak up in all these cases, whether we are speaking for ourselves or for others, is a serious failing.

While sexual misconduct addresses our treatment of people—our conscious and unconscious impulses to take advantage of the susceptibility of others for our own emotional or physical gratification—misuse of sexuality addresses our relationship to our own sexuality. If we look at the translations of the word for the causes of sexual misconduct—greed, attachment, grasping, desire—we see some interesting differences. “Sex addiction,” for which people get treatment, is our contemporary version of repetitive grasping, a must-have. Then there is addiction to pornography, which (thanks to the Internet) is increasingly and easily accessible. One of my undergraduate female students told me that many of her male contemporaries are not only addicted to pornography but actually learn about sex from it. She said it does not make them good lovers. In the case of “desire,” which sounds less harmful to the other than “greed,” there might be desire for someone else’s spouse or partner and actually acting on that desire. On the surface that might not appear harmful to the object of your desire, but what about the harm done to the spouse or partner of the other or to your own?

Infidelity, and not speaking up about the possible abuse of others, relate to both the third precept and the fourth precept, non-lying. Another intersection of the third and fourth precepts is demonstrated by Jean-Paul Sartre’s “bad faith” scenario, in which a woman in a restaurant wants to hold hands with the man she is with. Instead of acknowledging and assuming responsibility for her desire, she puts her arm on the table between them, basically treating her hand as an object. It is very common that we arrange for ourselves to be seduced and thus not conscious subjects of our own desire. Instead of lying to our partner, as in the case of adultery, we lie to ourselves.

One of the best treatments of sexuality that I know of is in a chapter called “The Body and the Earth” in Wendell Berry’s splendid book The Unsettling of America. Berry points out that we are all in some sense attracted to everyone; to deny that and to deny it of our partner is to practice not fidelity toward that partner, but rather possessiveness. We then end up in what he calls “a sexual cul-de-sac.” Most importantly, he talks about sexuality as energy, like a renewable energy, to be used with great care and consciousness. The so-called sexual revolution that made birth control so easily available has enabled us to use its methods as a way of avoiding consciousness of our sexuality and of the valuable energy it is.

We might even say that sex is a sacred energy. It keeps the life of the world renewing itself. Without it we wouldn’t be here. All religious traditions know this deeply, and some actually use sexual symbols and sexual practices to tap into this sacred energy. These practices have hardly anything to do with our ordinary experience of sexuality. In fact, sacred sexual energy and its transformations are well known by those who engage at a deep and mature level in the practice of celibacy. It is important to realize that our human sexuality is not like animal sexuality. It is highly cognitive, with many conceptual dimensions. Sigmund Freud wrote at great length about the Oedipal stage of development, in which the child has a passionate attachment to the parent of the opposite sex and has to work through a very complicated step in his or her development. As far as I know, no one gets through that perfectly, which contributes to the unconscious patterns found in our particular conditioning.

What would it be like to be fully in touch with, fully honoring that sacred energy? Perhaps it is easier to ask what it is like not to be in touch with it. Consider the differences between our relationship to pleasure and our relationship to pain. We’re pretty good at dealing with pain. We know that if we avoid pain and want it over with, we only make it worse. Our various practices have taught us that if we can be right here, present with the pain, we will discover something about it. Even modern medicine has begun to use this wisdom. But we don’t tend to think of pleasure in these terms. When it occurs, even when just eating a cookie, our attention is focused on having more, or, in the case of sexual pleasure, on the outcome. Yet the practice of actually trying to be present from moment to moment is to give up any goal—any efforts, ideas, control, or self-images.

Being present with pleasure is to be fully in touch with that sacred energy and the generous sharing of it with another. As Bodhidharma’s One-Mind Precept puts it: “Self-nature is inconceivably wondrous. In the dharma where there is nothing to grasp, not giving rise to attachment is called the precept of refraining from impure sexuality.” The translation makes it sound as if “not giving rise to attachment” and “refraining” are things that we do or ought to do. Actually, “where there is nothing to grasp,” there is oneness and therefore there is no refraining and no not-refraining. Zen Master Dogen’s version is: “When the three wheels are empty [body, mouth, and consciousness], there is nothing to desire. This is the Way of the Buddhas.” Namely, the Way of Oneness, which is not the same as the merging of self and other.

Much of the language around sexuality has to do with fire: “in the heat of passion”; “a burning desire”; “she has a new flame.” This is the fire of creation. It’s not just my sacred energy I need to be in touch with and aware of, it is the fire of all creation from moment to moment to moment. It is continual creation. And we are part of that, being created from moment to moment, being manifested. It is the love that burns the world into existence, and our sexuality brings us in touch with it, however we experience it—in action, in celibacy, in life, in power, in charisma, in making love.

Roshi Nancy Mujo Baker a dharma successor of Roshi Bernie Glassman, is the teacher for the No Traces Zendo in New York City. She is also a professor of philosophy at Sarah Lawrence College.

– Should any bhikkhu — participating in the training and livelihood of the bhikkhus, without having renounced the training, without having declared his weakness — engage in sexual intercourse, even with a female animal, he is defeated and no longer in affiliation [and is to depart the Sangha]

– Intentional emission of semen, except while dreaming, entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

– Should any bhikkhu, overcome by lust, with altered mind, engage in bodily contact with a woman, or in holding her hand, holding a lock of her hair, or caressing any of her limbs, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

– Should any bhikkhu, by arrangement, travel together with a woman, even for the interval between one village and the next, it is to be confessed.

– Tickling with the fingers is to be confessed.

from: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit…kkhu-pati.html

Gudo: The precept ‘Do not desire to excess’ is the precept of not giving way to lust and desire. The precept is sometimes stated as ‘Do not misuse sexuality,’ specifically referring to carnal, sexual relationships, and asks us to be conscious and loving in our relationships, not greedy or driven but by physical desire. It too asks us to act with respect for others, no less for ourselves. I prefer to state it as ‘Do not desire to excess,’ referring not only to sexual matters, but to all forms of desire which should be kept in moderation.

Sekishin: I think that, traditionally, this precept was directed at monks both male and female who, having left their homes to take up residence in Buddhist monasteries, were often expected to avoid sexual conduct altogether. But, is it completely necessary to avoid everything sexual? How would this apply, for example, to Buddhists who are not residing in monasteries, who have home lives?

Gudo: Yes. Traditionally, there have been certain puritanical strains in Buddhism which sought to condemn all sexual feelings and contact, especially in the case of Buddhist monks, male and female, isolated in monasteries. There have always been some schools of Buddhism seeking to escape from the world, escape from the physical. But such is not the only way this precept has been viewed. In other interpretations, and especially for Buddhists with families and home lives, this precept has been understood traditionally as encouraging healthy relationships, that we should be conscious and loving in our relationships. For example, it directs us away from adultery, and encourages the wholesome, monogamous relationship of husband and wife. This is also a precept, not seeking escape from the world and the physical, but guiding us to a nourishing life within it.

…

Sekishin: I understand that Zazen is good before bed ….. I’m just curious about the case of married individuals and sex ….. Would that fit in with Zazen?

Gudo: An interesting question! Well, I will give you a frank answer! As we discussed once before, I decided many years ago to be celibate, and I am now. However, until about 6 months before I became a priest, I continued my sexual life as a married man. I did not find a particular conflict. I recall, for example, that after love making, I might have a bit of a nice bath, followed by my Zazen, then off to sleep ….

Sekishin: Didn’t you feel some conflict in sexual passions followed by Zazen?

Gudo: Well, if we were to think abstractly about the matter, we might reasonably feel that there is some conflict or incongruity between the two. But, in reality, it is possible to have a time for all things ….. a certain time for love making, a certain time devoted to Zazen ….. and the passage of time can be something like a blade which cleanly divides the two, allowing time for all things – each in its proper time. Accordingly, an intellectual bridge can be built between these two realities, because in Buddhism we do not think by dividing ‘this’ from ‘that,’ lost in ideas of ‘this’ and ‘that’ ….. Rather, for lay people with home and family lives, their practice of Buddhism can encompass the total reality of the situation, and they can deal with it all in a harmonious and good manner.

…

Gudo: I was ordained as a Buddhist priest, received Shukke Tokudo, on December 16, 1973. I retired from sexual activity from approximately 6 months prior to that time, from that May.

Sekishin: Since you had a wife, how was it possible for you to do that?

Gudo: Well, until I really tried to do so, I myself doubted whether it was possible, and I did not have confidence that I could. However, when I really tried, I was able to get my family’s understanding, and I was able to do it without too much difficulty. However, from the point of view of being a husband, it was something I pushed upon my wife for my own selfish reasons, and so I was always thinking that I had to compensate for it in other ways. Let me say that it was a personal choice, and may not be appropriate for all Buddhist practitioners, whether lay or ordained. For some, having a spouse and family, having a home life, love and physical relationships ….. such things may all be forms of Buddhist practice too.

Sekishin: Roshi ….. At that time, when you made that decision, you were already in your 50’s. Do you think that it would have been possible to do such a thing as a younger man of 20 years of age, or in your 30’s?

Gudo: Frankly, it would have been absolutely impossible. Let me spell that out clearly.

Sekishin: Is that because our sexual impulses are too strong when we are young?

Gudo: That is right. The human sexual drives, when we are young, and as powerful as those drives are, are just not something which can be repressed by force of the ordinary human will. In addition, our possession of those drives is a most natural thing, and the fact that we have those sexual drives is the very reason that our human species still exists on this planet today.

Sekishin: So, what you are saying is that you do not deny our sexual side and drives?

Gudo: Yes, that is right. It is all a natural part of us. Because of the influence of Western religions, and their moral standards with puritanical aspect, we are apt in our current age to feel that some problem exists in our having those sexual drives, and to impose some feelings of sin and uncleanliness upon our sexual nature. I think that to do so, is in fundamental error.

On the other hand, I also do not agree with that portion of people who believe that sex, sexual pursuits, satisfying sexual urges and the like represent the highest happiness of human life, and that if only one could satisfy the sexual needs, all one’s problems in life would be solved thereby ….. Well, that is not the way either. The issue of our sexual desires is at the root of the human condition, a fact which we human beings cannot escape or avoid. For that reason, if we are to handle and manage such a reality which goes to our most basic biological nature, what is necessary on our part is a great degree of care, discretion and balance.

III. To seek as you can, in this body and life, to refrain from misusing sexuality and all desire;