Lightly Lashed Raft

Burmese karma rising, y'all. I just stumbled upon the loveliest blog, called 'a raft,' authored by a monk inside Burma named Ashin Sopaka. No politics, just dharma blended with gently humorous observations, in English so flawless it'll put you to shame (hmm, now I see elsewhere he says he's a native English speaker; curiouser and curiouser...). Brother Sopaka made me laugh right out loud with this anecdote from a recent post entitled "Sesame Seeds":

"There are four rules (pârâjika) in the Vinaya (Code of Discipline for Monks), that if broken, entail immediate expulsion from the monkhood, the first being sexual intercourse. Intercourse is defined as penetration of one of three orifices even just to 'the extent of a sesame seed'. In other words, not at all!

Today at lunch, we had a dessert made from sesame seeds. A monk held up a seed and asked me what it is called in English. After telling him, I recounted the above, at which he chuckled.

After a brief pause, he then told me that there are some who say that sesame seeds at the time of the Buddha were the size of bananas."

Needless to say, 'a raft' should be in your bookmarks and on your blogrolls. Make sure you click the "me" tab at the top, so you can discover why it's called that.

 

Comments

[Christian]

Let me recommend here a book by Prof. Bernard Faure, entitled "The Red Thread", subtitled "Buddhist Approaches to Sexuality."

The sesame seed does not come from the Vinayapit.aka itself, but from a commentary by Buddhaghosa (5th c.) entitled Samantapaasaadikaa: "[...] when the external part of the male organ is inserted, even as much as a sesame seed, into the female organ---the humid region where the wind itself does not reach."

Interestingly: "The act comprises four phases: `the initial entrance, the time of staying in, the time of taking out, and the subsequent period. If the monk feels pleasure during any of these four phases, he is guilty; otherwise he is innocent."

The commentator is kind enough to explain that, although the mouth of a frog may be large, to introduce one's penis in it would hardly produce any pleasure and would therefore constitute an offense liable only to penitence. The same is true about the trunk of an elephant etc.

Also according to B. Faure, male partners were omitted from the rule, but added in the commentaries.

The Vinayapit.aka and its related litterature is really fascinating stuff.

[Konchog]

Well, Christian. I see you've studied this matter quite closely! I remember seeing that much of the celibacy section of the Vinaya Pitaka published by the Pali Text Society in Victorian England was redacted. When I saw the full scripture, I understood why. It's quite unblushing and forthright in stating in great detail what can and cannot be done, and why. "Better it would have been for you to have placed your male member in a pile of hot coals..." I always contended the Vinaya scriptures were quite entertaining, and here's a glimpse why. I never thought the Theravadin monks had a sense of humor about it; Ashin Sopaka is a breath of fresh air.

[Christian]

Faure warns that we should not deduce from the many details that each one of them was considered because of a real case: the Indian taste for extensive classifications and compilations probably lead to many imagined cases. Hence a misunderstanding in Victorian England, perhaps.

Apart from the entertainment, all these texts hint at why some monks seem to break their celibacy vows whilst they would deny it: the key is the absence of sexual pleasure or the absence of pleasure for itself (without a purpose).

I feel that the understanding that we, Western Buddhists, have of sexuality, in particular with regards to religion, is so much formatted by thousands of years of Christianity, that it has become urgent to reassess the topic in the light of the Vinayapit.aka.

Think about all the divisive talk we hear about such and such master who allegedly slept with students etc.

It is time to revisit the meaning of sexuality in this context.

[Ashin Sopāka]

Hi Christian,

Thanks for that additional comment and the food for thought. To be honest, I am neither a Pali nor Vinaya scholar, however, if I recall correctly this phrase does appear in the Parajika section of the Vinaya as: "...tilaphalamattampi paveseti..."

Also, it seems to me that there is a list of forbidden partners, including males, but with all the exceptions, penetration of the two "paths" with another male could amount to a lesser offense.

I think one of the misunderstandings of the Vinaya is that they were laid down for spiritual practice, and while some of the rules are indeed directly for one's spiritual practice and indeed, all good behavior is geared towards perfecting one's morality,they were really meant as a very worldy organisational tool for a growing institution, or corporate body. For me they are just tools for mindfulness. Having to remember these 227 with all the exceptions 24/7 is fantastic training!

They of course give pause for thinking about one's mind state, be it imbued with greed and/or aversion, before acting. But, like the Dhamma itself, just another raft to be discarded once the other shore has been reached.