For a Buddhist who is single, do occasional "visits" to the brothel break the observing of the Third Precept? In other words, the Third Precept is perfectly "intact" when one engages in such activity (from the words of a venerable here )?
I am a Buddhist, happy, content prostitute. I am not a greedy person, nor am a sex addict (or anything of the like). This is the chapter in which my life is. I have used my current profession to touch the lives of many humans, male and female. I also do advocacy work for prostitutes and know that there are many different types of persons in the sex trade industry.
While I cannot answer the specific question regarding the Third Precept, I would like to offer that my work and my Buddhist practice have played on one another in regards to my own livelihood. Until another path appears to me where I can effect positive change AND make a living in NYC to support my children, I CHOOSE this work.
I am open to my friends, family, and community about my sex work. I don't walk in darkness, but in beauty and light. The compassion that I have is very much felt by all those around me, within and outside of my trade. I give of my true self, but I keep an open mind and heart until the next chapter (which is probably soon because I have done this work for almost five years).
I have gone a bit off topic, I know, but in my advocacy work I have met prostitutes from all over the world...all whom chose this, not all were necessarily happy while doing this, but often as a means to am end. Many while working on the undergrad, and a surprising percentage while working on their masters. Our goal is to humanize the the trade, and to give sex workers a voice because, as you see, not many out there are educated as to the actual lives of prostitutes.
Thank you for allowing me to share.
I think the issue isn't the brothel, but what the visits say about your clinging to (sexual) desire. How do your visits affect your clinging to this desire?
- Do they reinforce it?
- Do they have no effect?
- Do they reduce it?
That's the answer to whether this is misconduct or not.
Although some interpret this injunctions legalistically/moralistically, I think that misses the point. In fact, I think this site has the right idea. It states the abstention is from SENSUAL misconduct, including overindulgence in (say) chocolate.
At a more mature level how to look at this is to look at desire just as mere desire. Look at the implication of it on the 5 aggregates more particularly on sensations. Look at proliferation of thoughts what sensation this cause.
The act is to get rid of particular sensations or to create new sensation. Get rid of the burning sensation of desire and the sensation when doing the act. Notice a mind full of desire is not a pleasant situation and act to overcome it by looking lust as lust at the level of sensation and that is impermanent and you cannot absolutely manipulate the desire as you want and being in desire is not satisfactory.
Quote from the excellent Bill Hamilton's Saints & Psychopaths (pg. 94-95):
Buddhists are required to avoid sexual misconduct, but it is not clear what this means in California. Many Buddhist teachers suggest that people should not engage in sexual activities which result in anyone suffering. This is a vague standard that could be logically argued to be a total prohibition of sex, or an invitation to free love. Perhaps it is sufficient to simply practice continuous mindfulness in situations where the issue of sex arises
The purpose of Buddhist precepts is pragmatic in that they are directed at achieving a quiet mind. If your sex life is causing mental agitation in your meditations, you should change your behavior. While on retreat, you should avoid letting your senses wander to sexually stimulating objects and direct your attention to meditation objects. In the daily life situation this may result in becoming a horny, neurotic celibate which may not be good for your practice. It is better to be simple and direct in your views, intead of getting involved in elaborate logical reasoning about right and wrong.
I know it late but Simple answer is no for third precept. Third precept in Pali is "Kāmesumicchācāra veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi." the first Phrase Kāmesu/micchācāra >> Kāmesu=desires (may be sexual), micchācāra=wrong way or practice. This is the only and whole rule by Buddha. Other ideas are interpretation.
There are prostitutes who adhere 5 precept in Buddha time.
Feeding on desire is bad. Most answer emphasis on here. This not necessarily break the third precept. Even eating if you eat with desire , oh I love this taste, it is still feeding on desire. Don't we still eat all this time?
Long Answer: According Pali Cannon. to break third precept all 4 conditions must be met.
- with woman who should not have sex with ( say nothing about man)
- desire to have sex
- put afford to have sex
- enjoy it
and there is 20 type of women who should not have sex with. But this come from traditional teaching not Buddha teaching.
- who in care of mother
- who in care of father
- who in care of mother and father
- who in care of brothers
- who in care of sisters
- who in care of relative
- who in care of people ( of same kind??)
- who in care of dhamma friend
above are women who have guardian and who do not have person with sexual right
- who is pregnant
- wife that you bought.
- who is willingly married.
- who is married because of wealth.
- who is married because of gifts.
- who is married because of parents
- working women (lowely paid??) who is married
- women who king/government prohibit to have sex with
- slave women who also have sex with owner
- worker women who also have sex with employer
- POW who also have sex with captor
- prostitute belong to someone else ( without permission of the person who paid the service)
9 to 20 basically mean women who have someone with sexual right and you have no permission.
To conclude only exception in the above list is women who's guardian permit you to have sex with and one who have no one with sexual right. Example is ur wife who sexual right is you.
Any time you feed into a blind habitual pattern of grasping for a sense pleasure, you feed into and increase your capacity for suffering. The so called single individual who is seeking after a prostitute must already have enough clinging and grasping attachment to have fostered the intention to seek a prostitute, and is feeding into that attachment, creating volitional formation even as he or she acts on that intention and merely seeks. Even before the act itself this is unwholesome.
While there is no wife and family or significant other to offend by breaking a vow of monogamy, there are other considerations as well. The most important thing to consider is that by eliciting the services of a prostitute, that you are supporting the lifestyle and industries of prostitution and human trafficking.
Is prostitution right livelihood? What do you think? I promise you, there is no such thing as a happy, content prostitute. That is to say, if there were other options open to them, they would choose another path in life. The fact of the matter is that the vast, sweeping majority (if not all) of prostitutes are victims of human trafficking, they are modern day slaves that are subject to control and coercion via physical violence, threats against themselves and their loved ones, drug addiction, and brain washing. Many do not know any other way of life because they have been someone else's business property for so long, and they are afraid to leave. They are insecure and abused, and end up clinging to their traffickers.
There is no way around this. If you go to a prostitute you are feeding into you own suffering, but more importantly you are supporting the suffering and degradation of another human being, and ultimately supporting modern day slavery.
I'm not sure whether a perfect answer for your question is available in the scriptures. What I can offer you is my view on it.
A single man seeking sexual pleasures is the core of your question. That is nothing abnormal nor denounced by Buddhism. However, you mention a 'brothel'. That alone shouldn't taint my latter statement, though.
The clarity and purity of the intent of the pleasure seeker is what matters most here. Is he going there for sexual pleasures out of love for this prostitute? Is he seeking a relationship? Or, is he paying for different prostitutes each time? In the latter case, his sexual needs have gone overboard! Third Precept won't be intact there. It can also be explained in practical terms of sleeping around with many women just to satisfy sexual desires. It adds to suffering. It creates problems and complications. The Third Precept can't work there, can it?
However, if the sexual pleasure he seeks is on a consensual basis---based on a good understanding and honest intent of a possible future relationship---I guess the Third Precept may stay intact there. But I don't think one will go to a brothel looking for something as profound as a honest relationship. Rare cases exists, though.
Final answer for question 1: It depends on the case and on the individual. Above all, it depends on the intent of the person visiting the brothel. Sorry for the general answer. This is what I know and can do for you.
Final answer for question 2: I don't agree with that answer in your link you gave. In accordance with my explanation above, it depends on the true and honest intent of the pleasure seeker.
Ven. Dhammanando is perfectly correct. You break the third precept only if you have sex 1) Non-consensually or though violence 2) With a person 'under the protection of another' - what this means is that the person does not have the capacity to give consent as they are not able to look after themselves. This includes children; as with other cases in the Pali canon, age is not mentioned but rather the capacity of the person. It doesn't mean eg someone still living at home. 3) A married person whose partner has not given consent 4) A slave.
The commentators on that thread are quite wrong to conflate prostitution with slavery. This is a puritan-derived attitude. Instead we could point out that a woman running her own business is making more money and has more freedom than a women in a garment factory. Slavery is a separate matter and it is already clear that Buddhism is opposed to slavery.