Why is the precept against sexual misconduct related to public order and good morals?

The five precepts address the precept against sexual misconduct. Non-misconduct is proper sexual conduct. The five precepts prohibit sexual misconduct but do not prohibit proper sexual conduct. What is proper sexual conduct? It is behavior permitted by national laws and regulations, in accordance with folk customs and in compliance with the law—that is, the normal sexual activity between married couples.

Then what counts as marriage, what counts as being husband and wife? In modern society, marriage or a legal marriage generally refers to a couple who have been reviewed and approved by the state's civil affairs bureau and issued a marriage certificate—only then are they formally married. The civil affairs bureau serves as the marriage witness, and the man and woman who form a family unit are considered husband and wife.

If a couple lives together without obtaining a marriage certificate, does that count as marriage, as being husband and wife? If the man and woman do not violate legal and moral norms, it counts as marriage and they count as husband and wife. If a man and woman obtain a sham divorce, and after receiving the divorce certificate still live together, are they still husband and wife? In principle, as long as they do not violate the law and moral norms, they are still considered husband and wife, and others have no objection, though some related benefits may no longer be available. From this we can see that with a marriage certificate, the relationship between a man and woman becomes public in society, like having a pass. But without a marriage certificate, there may still be a marriage in the practical sense. As long as it does not violate social moral norms, it can be counted as husband and wife, and the sexual activity between them counts as proper sexual conduct. Thus, in Jambudvīpa, proper and improper are defined by multiple factors: social recognition and the approval of parents and relatives, folk customs and traditions, moral norms, and so on.

In modern society there are also marriages of alliance; in old society there were arranged marriages and mercenary marriages, as well as the practice of child brides. Even though the two parties involved were unwilling, the elders in their respective families could make the decision, and people of power and influence could also make the decision; afterward, the marital relationship was considered publicly recognized. In ancient society, there was no civil affairs bureau and no marriage certificate—so what counted as being husband and wife, as being married? In ancient society, marriage was by the command of parents and the words of matchmakers; weddings required grand ceremonies, and these ceremonies had a certain function of public announcement. As long as the public was informed, the marital relationship was established, regardless of the opinions of the parties involved.

Then, sexual activity within such a relationship was regarded as proper; conversely, even if a man and woman were deeply fond of each other, if they had sexual relations together it was regarded as sexual misconduct and they would be condemned by the public. The definition of proper and improper is framed by the general public, the elders, and those with power and influence; the superficial proper and improper may not accord with the actual proper and improper. Buddhist precepts must take into account both the superficial and the actual situations. If there is a conflict, ultimately the mental conduct of the man and woman is the standard. But if the parties involved have accepted an existing marriage and then have another relationship outside the marriage, regardless of their feelings and wishes, it counts as sexual misconduct.

So-called marriage and being husband and wife require social recognition and public witness; otherwise it does not count as a marital relationship. Marriage lies in social recognition; only when the relationship is made public is it legal. The attitude of the parties themselves is not the first consideration. Thus, what counts as dharma and what counts as non-dharma depends entirely on the ideas and concepts of the masses—this is conceptual proliferation (prapañca). What is acknowledged by society is proper; what is not recognized by society is improper, or even evil—this is called public order and good customs.

Yet this public order and good customs is actually unreasonable. It is clearly a matter between two people, yet it becomes everyone's matter, a matter of society. Sometimes two people do not consent, but everyone else consents, so they must reluctantly be counted as one family, and the sexual activity is legal. But when two people are fond of each other and no one else approves, it is not legal, and the sexual activity counts as sexual misconduct. Thus, social norms and customs and the like are unreasonable, and so-called proper and improper are not truly proper and improper. When all dharmas are analyzed carefully, they are all conceptual proliferation (prapañca), false and illusory, forcibly named "all dharmas"; therefore none should be clung to. Worldly dharma is just this dull and devoid of substantive meaning.

The commentary of the masses is called public opinion. If you value public opinion, you will be influenced and controlled by it, constrained by the masses. Some people, wanting to destroy a person, fully exploit public opinion as a lethal weapon. If you can withstand the verbal attacks and written condemnations of public opinion, you survive; if you cannot withstand the pressure of public opinion, there is only a road to death. Whether one lives or dies depends entirely on one's own views: with correct views one lives, with incorrect views one dies. Life and death, on the surface, lie with the public, but in reality they lie with the individual. What is the masses, anyway? What are other people, anyway? What am I, anyway? None of them is anything, yet within all this there is birth and death, suffering and distress, conflicts and disputes—how foolish!