Resolving Doubts on the Upāsaka Precept Regarding Sexual Misconduct

Some people have doubts about the precept against sexual misconduct in the Sūtra on the Precepts for Upāsakas spoken by the Buddha. Here I will clarify the matter together with everyone, resolving doubts and dispelling confusion.

Original text of the Sūtra on the Precepts for Upāsakas: 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 explain 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 occurred. Could it be that paying makes the offense smaller, and not paying makes it greater? Does the severity of the offense involve the question of payment? Then, after killing someone, if one gives compensation to the dead person, would one not fall 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 graded as greater or lesser on that account? Can money resolve the question of the severity of an offense? Clearly not. Cause and effect 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 a greater or lesser offense.

Why say this? Because in ancient India, prostitution was a profession—what today might be called an industry—a legally and legitimately operated, openly conducted trade that not only did not violate the law but was even protected by it. Why was it legal, legitimate, and protected? It was due to 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 resort to 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 the people's livelihood, the prostitution trade came into being.

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

To judge whether a certain behavior is wrong, it suffices to determine what is right; what lies outside the right is wrong. The so-called right is what is jointly sanctioned by the world's laws and regulations, national conditions, and folk customs—if everyone agrees that something 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 society's customs. If paid sexual intercourse were counted as a crime, then polygamy would be illegitimate and non-compliant, unreasonable, and an upāsaka having sexual relations with multiple women, moreover over a long term or for life, would count as a crime. If a nation and society do not allow polygamy or polyandry to exist, then an upāsaka with multiple wives and an upāsikā with multiple husbands would both count as breaking the precepts and committing offenses. If multiple spouses are recognized by society and not counted as a crime, then paid sexual intercourse 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 aim 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 whatsoever and must not marry or have children, just imagine: among ordinary worldlings mired in the mire of craving and desire, who would still dare to come and study Buddhism and cultivate? Even if studying and cultivating Buddhism ought originally to be like this, if ordinary worldlings cannot accept it, the precepts cannot be established this way; otherwise, if everyone who studied Buddhism left home to become a monastic just like the monks, 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 change accordingly. Certain precepts applicable in ancient times are not applicable in modern times, and must be changed accordingly. In ancient times polygamy or polyandry was practiced; in modern times it is monogamy—which is legal, conforming to social norms and folk customs. Within this scope it is licit sexual conduct; beyond this scope it is sexual misconduct. But in ancient times the prostitution trade was also legitimate and conformed to folk customs, so having sexual intercourse with a prostitute with payment was legitimate and lawful, and therefore did not constitute sexual misconduct.

The original text of the Buddhist sūtra does not contain the meaning that paid sexual intercourse does not constitute the grave, irredeemable offense; personal conjecture 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 intent of any individual apart from 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 nation and society of the time, never departing from social morality and ethical norms. If these contents change, the precepts spoken by the Buddha will change accordingly, and precepts that conflict with society's 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 to others without his wife's consent. If the Buddha were to come to today's world to propagate the Dharma, He would not allow such a thing to happen.