Clarifying Doubts on the Precept Against Sexual Misconduct for Lay Buddhists

Some people have doubts regarding the precept against sexual misconduct in the Sutra on the Five Precepts for Upasakas. Here, I will explain the original intent to clarify and resolve these doubts.

Original text: If an upasaka engages in sexual intercourse with a prostitute without paying, he commits sexual misconduct and incurs an unpardonable offense. If he pays, there is no offense.

The meaning of the original text is that if an upasaka engages in sexual intercourse with a prostitute without paying the fee, he commits the highest degree of unpardonable offense. This part is clear. The doubt lies in the latter part: paying the fee results in no offense. Some interpret this to mean that paying the fee does not incur the highest degree of unpardonable offense, implying that paying might incur a medium or minor degree of pardonable offense.

Then the question arises: What is the difference between paying and not paying? Both involve sexual intercourse. Does paying reduce the severity of the offense? Does the magnitude of the offense depend on payment? If so, would paying compensation after murder exempt one from hell? Can hell be redeemed with money? Clearly, this is untenable. Similarly, whether one pays or not, sexual intercourse still occurs. If an offense exists, can its severity be graded based on payment? Can money determine the magnitude of an offense? Obviously not. Karma is not about money but about the mind and the result. Therefore, the correct interpretation here is that paying the fee means no offense is committed at all; there is no concept of major or minor offense.

Why is this so? In ancient India, prostitution was a profession—what might be called an industry today. It was openly operated as a legal and legitimate trade, not only lawful but also protected by law. Why was it legal and protected? Because of the social living conditions at the time. On one hand, some women were impoverished and lacked means of sustenance, forcing them to rely on prostitution for survival. On the other hand, polygamy left some men unable to find wives, compelling them to seek prostitutes. To address these issues and stabilize people's lives, the prostitution industry emerged.

Thus, for an upasaka who has taken the Five Precepts, paying for sexual intercourse did not violate national laws, regulations, or customs. It was purely a transactional act between the upasaka and the prostitute, socially accepted and recognized, not contravening secular norms. Therefore, it was not considered precept-breaking. If society did not accept such behavior or if laws prohibited it, then sexual intercourse, regardless of payment, would be a criminal offense.

To determine whether an act is "misconduct," one need only define what is "proper." Whatever falls outside "proper" is "misconduct." "Proper" refers to what is collectively permitted by worldly laws, regulations, national conditions, and customs—what everyone agrees is acceptable. Thus, "sexual misconduct" refers to sexual acts that violate laws and regulations or are not socially or customarily recognized. If paying for sex were considered an offense, then polygamy would also be illegal and unreasonable. If an upasaka engaged in sexual relations with multiple women, especially long-term or lifelong ones, it would be considered an offense. If the state and society did not permit polygamy or polyandry, then polygamous upasakas or polyandrous upasikas would be considered precept-breakers and criminals. If polygamy or polyandry were socially accepted and not considered criminal, then paying for sex would not be considered criminal either.

To some extent, the Buddha established the Hinayana precepts to accommodate secular customs and social norms; otherwise, sentient beings would be unable to accept them, and the goal of guiding sentient beings would not be achieved. For example, if the Buddha had stipulated that upasakas, like bhikkhus, must abstain entirely from sexual activity and could not marry or have children, consider this: which ordinary beings, deeply mired in the quagmire of desire, would dare to learn and practice Buddhism? Even if Buddhist practice ideally requires this, if ordinary beings cannot accept it, the precepts cannot be established this way. Otherwise, if everyone who practiced Buddhism renounced household life like monastics, there would be no distinction between lay and monastic life.

As national conditions and customs continuously evolve with societal development, the connotation of precepts must also adapt accordingly. Certain precepts applicable in ancient times may not be suitable in the modern era and must change accordingly. Ancient societies practiced polygamy or polyandry, while monogamy is the modern norm—this is legal and aligns with social norms and customs. Within this framework, it is "proper sexual conduct"; beyond it, it is "sexual misconduct." However, in ancient times, the prostitution industry was also compliant with customs and regulations. Thus, paying a prostitute for sex was compliant and legal, and therefore not considered sexual misconduct.

The original Buddhist scripture does not imply that paying for sex incurs no highest-degree unpardonable offense. Personal conjectures do not represent the Buddha's intent. Interpreting the sutras and explaining the Dharma must always align with the Buddha's intent, not with any individual's opinion—no matter how renowned—as this is the fundamental principle of expounding the Buddhist scriptures. The Buddha established precepts based on the customs and regulations of the contemporary state and society, without departing from social ethics and moral norms. If these conditions change, the precepts taught by the Buddha would also change. Precepts conflicting with social laws and regulations would become obsolete—this was explicitly stated by the Buddha in the Vinaya texts. For example, in ancient India, women had no status and were subordinate to men. Thus, when a man renounced household life, he could freely give away his wife and children without her consent. If the Buddha were to propagate the Dharma in the modern world, he would not permit such practices.