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 conformity 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 means that the couple has been reviewed and approved by the state's civil affairs bureau and issued a marriage certificate; only then is the marriage official. The civil affairs bureau serves as the marriage witness, and the man and woman who form a family unit thereby become 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, they may be considered married, considered husband and wife. If a man and woman divorce in name only, and after obtaining 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; others raise no objection, though some related benefits may no longer be obtainable. From this we can see that with a marriage certificate, the relationship between the man and woman is made 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 social moral norms are not violated, they 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 social recognition and the acceptance of parents and relatives, folk customs and habits, moral norms, and many other factors.

Modern society also has arranged alliances through marriage; in the old society there were arranged marriages and marriages by purchase, as well as the practice of child brides. Even though the two parties involved were unwilling, the elders in their respective families could decide for them, and people with power and influence could also decide; afterward, the marital relationship was considered publicly acknowledged. 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, no matter how much the man and woman were devoted to each other, if they had sexual relations together, it was regarded as sexual misconduct and would be condemned by the public. The definition of proper and improper is framed by the general public, the elders, and those with power; the superficial proper and improper may not accord with the actual proper and improper. The Buddhist precepts must take into account both the superficial and the actual; if there is a conflict, ultimately the standard is the mental conduct of the man and woman involved. But if the parties 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 the spousal relationship require social recognition and public witness; otherwise it does not count as a marital relationship. Marriage lies in social acknowledgment; only when the relationship is made public is it legal. The attitude of the parties themselves is not the primary consideration. From this we can see that what counts as dharma and what counts as non-dharma rests entirely on the ideas and concepts of the masses—this is conceptual proliferation (prapañca). What is acknowledged by the general public is proper; what is not recognized by the general public is improper, or even deviant. This is called public order and good custom.

Yet this public order and good custom is actually unreasonable. It is clearly a matter between two people, yet it becomes everyone's matter, society's matter. Sometimes the 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 devoted to each other and no one else approves, it is not legal, and the sexual activity counts as sexual misconduct. From this we can see that social norms and customs and the like are unreasonable; thus so-called proper and improper are not truly proper and improper. When all dharmas are analyzed carefully, they are all conceptual proliferation, false and illusory, forcibly named "all dharmas"; therefore none of them 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, will fully exploit public opinion as a murderous weapon. If you can withstand the verbal condemnation and written attacks of public opinion, you survive; if you cannot withstand the pressure of public opinion, it is a dead end. Whether one lives or dies depends entirely on one's own concepts: with correct concepts one lives, with incorrect concepts one dies. Life and death, on the surface, lie with the public, but in reality lie with the individual. What thing is the masses? What thing are other people? What thing am I? None of them is anything, yet within all this there is birth and death, suffering and distress, conflicts and disputes—how foolish!