The explicit restrictions against “sexual misconduct” in the Vinaya demonstrate that Buddhist philosophy views sexuality as a threat to a monk’s virtue and ability to attain spiritual enlightenment. Buddhist monastic law is centered on the resistance of one’s desires, bringing one closer to successfully cultivating discipline. Translated into English, Vinaya means discipline. The emphasis in Buddhist philosophy on resisting sexual desire helps illustrate that the central tenet of Buddhism is self-restraint. Translated into English, Vinaya means discipline and is a code of conduct for monks to follow (Holt 1987, 266). The successful acquisition of discipline is a “process of mental and spiritual purification whereby the bhiksu is increasingly
…show more content…
This is reflected in monks’ daily lives; they are limited to a single meal per day, cannot own jewelry, must beg for food with alms bowls, are restricted to owning few possessions, etc. The life of a monk is supposed to be devoid of material comforts. However, comforts besides sex, such as money, medicine, and silk blankets, while disallowed, are not as heavily restricted. For instance, nearly all of the “food”-related rules are pācittiya offenses, merely entailing confession to a fellow monk. An example is eating food that has not been given, which is a pācittiya offense (Bhikkhu 2013). According to the Vinaya, the act of having sex is worse than almost any other offense, including indulging in food. In addition, many of the “sexual misconduct” rules are designed to discourage emotional intimacy and/or physical proximity between bhikkhus and bhikkhunis/women, as Buddhist philosophy fears this could lead to sexual conduct. For example, sewing a robe-or having it sewn-for an unrelated bhikkhuni and traveling by arrangement with a woman from one village to another are pācittiya offenses. The heavier regulation of sexuality compared to other categories can either be attributed to monks traditionally struggling more to resist sex and/or sexuality being more of a threat to enlightenment than other pleasures. Thus, the heavy punishment could be due to the frequency of monks engaging in sexual conduct and serve as a deterrent to monks who might otherwise be tempted to break their vows by engaging in sexual intercourse.
This is reflected in monks’ daily lives; they are limited to a single meal per day, cannot own jewelry, must beg for food with alms bowls, are restricted to owning few possessions, etc. The life of a monk is supposed to be devoid of material comforts. However, comforts besides sex, such as money, medicine, and silk blankets, while disallowed, are not as heavily restricted. For instance, nearly all of the “food”-related rules are pācittiya offenses, merely entailing confession to a fellow monk. An example is eating food that has not been given, which is a pācittiya offense (Bhikkhu 2013). According to the Vinaya, the act of having sex is worse than almost any other offense, including indulging in food. In addition, many of the “sexual misconduct” rules are designed to discourage emotional intimacy and/or physical proximity between bhikkhus and bhikkhunis/women, as Buddhist philosophy fears this could lead to sexual conduct. For example, sewing a robe-or having it sewn-for an unrelated bhikkhuni and traveling by arrangement with a woman from one village to another are pācittiya offenses. The heavier regulation of sexuality compared to other categories can either be attributed to monks traditionally struggling more to resist sex and/or sexuality being more of a threat to enlightenment than other pleasures. Thus, the heavy punishment could be due to the frequency of monks engaging in sexual conduct and serve as a deterrent to monks who might otherwise be tempted to break their vows by engaging in sexual intercourse.