Resolving Doubts on the Upāsaka Precept Against Sexual Misconduct

Some people have doubts about the precept on sexual misconduct in the Sūtra on the Precepts for Upāsakas Spoken by the Buddha. Here I will explain the original circumstances together with everyone, to resolve doubts and clear up confusion.

Original text: 若优婆塞共淫女行淫。不与直者。犯邪淫。不可悔。与直无犯。

The meaning of the original text is that if an upāsaka engages in sexual intercourse with a prostitute and does not pay the fee, he commits the grave offense of sexual misconduct, which is beyond redemption (cannot be repented). This is beyond doubt; the doubt lies in what follows: if the fee is paid, there is no offense. Some people interpret this to mean that paying the fee means one does not commit the grave, irredeemable offense. If that were the case, then paying the fee would constitute a middling, redeemable offense, or a minor, redeemable offense.

Then the question arises: what is the difference between paying and not paying? In both cases sexual intercourse has taken place. Could it be that paying the fee makes the offense smaller, while not paying makes it greater? Does the severity of the offense have anything to do with payment? If so, then after killing someone, would paying compensation to the dead person spare one from falling into hell? Can hell be redeemed with money? Clearly this does not work. It is the same with sexual intercourse: whether or not the fee is paid, the act has occurred. If there is an offense, can the offense be divided into greater and lesser on this account? Can money solve the problem of the magnitude of an offense? Clearly it cannot. Karma and its results are not a matter of money, but a matter of the mind, and of the result. Therefore, the correct interpretation of this passage is that if the fee is paid, there is no offense at all; there is simply no such thing as greater or lesser offenses.

Why say this? Because in ancient India, prostitution was a profession—what we might today call an industry—a legally and legitimately operated, openly run trade. It was not only not illegal, it was protected by law. Why was it legal, legitimate, and protected? Because of the social living conditions of the time. On the one hand, some women were forced by circumstances, with no means of livelihood, and had to rely on prostitution to sustain their lives; on the other hand, the polygamous system left some men unable to find wives, forcing them to seek out prostitutes. To solve these problems and stabilize people's lives, the prostitution industry came into being.

Thus, for an upāsaka who has received the five precepts, paying for sex did not violate the nation's laws and regulations or its customs. Between him and the prostitute it was entirely a transactional act, accepted and recognized by society, not in violation of worldly norms, and therefore it did not count as breaking the precept. If society did not accept such behavior and the laws and regulations did not permit it, then engaging in sexual intercourse, no matter how much money was paid, would be a criminal act.

To judge whether a certain behavior is wrong, it suffices to determine what is right; whatever lies outside the right is wrong. What is called "right" is what is jointly acknowledged by the world's laws and regulations, national conditions, and folk customs—if everyone agrees that it is acceptable, then it is acceptable. Sexual misconduct, then, refers to sexual behavior that does not conform to laws and regulations and is not recognized by social customs. If paying for sex counted as a crime, then polygamy would be neither legal nor legitimate, and would be unreasonable; an upāsaka having sexual relations with multiple women, moreover on a long-term, lifelong basis, would count as a crime. If the state and society do not allow polygamy or polyandry to exist, then an upāsaka with multiple wives and an upāsikā with multiple husbands would both be breaking the precepts and committing offenses. If multiple wives and husbands are recognized by society and not considered a crime, then paying for sex is not a crime.

When the World-Honored One established the Hīnayāna precepts, to a certain extent He had to accord with worldly customs and social norms; otherwise sentient beings could not accept them, and the purpose of guiding sentient beings could not be achieved. For example, if the Buddha had stipulated that upāsakas, like the bhikṣus, must have no sexual conduct and must not marry or have children, just imagine—who among ordinary people mired in the mire of greed and desire would still dare to come learn Buddhism and practice? Even if learning and practicing Buddhism ought in principle to be like this, if ordinary people cannot accept it, the precepts cannot be established this way; otherwise, if everyone who learned Buddhism left home just like the monastics, there would be no distinction between the lay life and the monastic life.

Moreover, national conditions and folk customs change continually with the development of society, so the content of the precepts must also change accordingly. Certain precepts that applied in ancient times no longer apply in modern times, and must change along with them. In ancient times polygamy or polyandry was practiced; in modern times monogamy is the rule, and this is legal, conforming to social norms and customs. Within this scope it is proper sexual conduct; beyond this scope it is sexual misconduct. But in ancient times the prostitution industry was also legitimate and conformed to custom, so having sex with a prostitute with payment was lawful and legitimate, and therefore did not constitute sexual misconduct.

The original sūtra text does not contain any meaning to the effect that paying for sex avoids the grave, irredeemable offense; personal speculation does not represent the Buddha's intent. In interpreting sūtras and explaining the Dharma, one should take the Buddha's intent as the standard, not the personal views of anyone outside the Buddha, no matter how famous that person may be—this is the fundamental principle of expounding Buddhist sūtras. When the Buddha established precepts, He did so in accordance with the customs, rules, and institutions of the state and society at the time, never departing from social moral and ethical norms. If these contents change, the precepts the Buddha taught would change accordingly; precepts that conflict with social laws and regulations must be abolished—this was explicitly stated by the Buddha in the precept sūtras. For example, in ancient India women had no status and were subordinate to men, so when a man left home, he could casually give away his wife and children without his wife's consent. If the Buddha were to come to today's world to spread the Dharma, He would not allow such things to happen.