Say What?! Brahmacharya, Buddhism & the Language of Sexuality
I heard "I came across this koan by typing into Google the words “sex koan.” What showed up was a list of all the koans where women are the main characters…" and I thought "Oh sh*t, here we go".Through the Buddhist teachings of emptiness and form, we come to understand (or at least to explore the idea…) that we operate in a world that takes a particular shape, yet those shapes are not fixed or their characteristics inherent. For example, we understand sexuality to be [fill in the blank], yet [fill in the blank] is not inherently sexual. Our experience of [fill in the blank] is influenced by our own opinions, preferences and worldviews, as well as the conditioning of culture, history, etc.
Ok… so what am I trying to say exactly?
Brahmacharya is most frequently translated as "the wise use of sexual energy". Yet the term "wise" leaves the teaching a bit ambiguous. What is considered wise? Do we take the familiar view of sex as sin? Are we to be celibate like Buddhist monks and nuns? For me, brahmacharya becomes clear in reference to the other precepts. Is it hurting yourself or another? Is it dishonest? Are you being greedy? Are you taking something which is not being freely given? Non-harming, honesty, non-greed, and non-stealing become the filters through which sexual energy must pass in order to be considered wise.
It is a rare experience to get 30+ people into a room to discuss sex, misusing of sexual energy, and the teaching of brahmacharya. And I could not, for a second, operate within the naive belief that communication can occur without generalizations and common understandings. That said, I wonder --- as part of the practice of integrating the precepts into our thoughts, words and actions both internally and externally --- if we should not also be looking at our language, and the usefulness (or not) of those generalizations and stereotypes.
We have the form (gender, sexual preference, an accepted understanding of what is considered provocative or sexy). But can we now see these things as empty? And, to get really honest with our investigation of brahmacharya, what is our actual experience? Much of my experience of sex, gender, sexuality, what attracts and repels has operated outside of the mainstream 'accepted' form.
Biological sex is defined by our physical bodies (what parts do you have?), whereas gender is something defined by culture, religion, historical context, etc. Sexual preference ranges from hetero to homo and much between. What parts of the human body are considered sexually arousing? In the Victorian era, the list would include a woman's bare ankle (oh my!). And how to men factor into all of this? Can men not be sexually provocative?
What all of this typing boils down to is the following: when we sat around as a group talking about sex in pop culture, low-cut shirts, short skirts, and awareness of the attention attracted through a woman's attire, what sprang to mind was a bit in Ms. magazine about a girl who had been raped but not allowed to press charges because she was wearing heels and a short skirt. In order for us to talk openly and honestly about brahmacharya, at least a part of our conversation must reference mainstream or pop culture representations of sexuality. And then we should look deeper. Are our generalizations a useful communication tool? Or are they unskillful, dishonest and perhaps harming?
Sometimes a bit of cleavage is just another part of a body covered partially by clothes. Part of a body that will age, die, and decay (there's a meditation on that). Sometimes bare legs are just bare legs. High heels might make a person feel feminine, not mean that they want to… well you get the picture.
As David Loy said in "The Great Awakening,"
Although Buddhist teachings have sometimes been used to challenge state power, more often than not Buddhist institutions have been implicated in justifying and therefore helping to preserve oppressive social relationships… This suggests that Buddhism needs the contributions of Western modernity --- such as democracy, feminism, and the separation of church and state --- to challenge its institutional complacency and liberate its own teachings from such traditional social constraints.Amen.
---
1 comment:
Oh! Wonderful post, Nicole!
I thought I'd add some fodder to the 'discussion' with the 14th Mindfulness Training as taught and practiced within the Order of Interbeing. First, the version for 'lay practitioners:'
14. Right Conduct
(For lay members): Aware that sexual relations motivated by craving cannot dissipate the feeling of loneliness but will create more suffering, frustration, and isolation, we are determined not to engage in sexual relations without mutual understanding, love, and a long-term commitment. In sexual relations, we must be aware of future suffering that may be caused. We know that to preserve the happiness of ourselves and others, we must respect the rights and commitments of ourselves and others. We will do everything in our power to protect children from sexual abuse and to protect couples and families from being broken by sexual misconduct. We will treat our bodies with respect and preserve our vital energies (sexual, breath, spirit) for the realization of our bodhisattva ideal. We will be fully aware of the responsibility of bringing new lives into the world, and will meditate on the world into which we are bringing new beings.
Personally, I really appreciate the opening statement. As one very experienced in sexual behavior as an attempt to distract myself from loneliness (and other uncomfortable emotional states), I can vouch for the truth that a) it never really alleviated my suffering, and b) it often resulted in the suffering of others.
Now, the following statement can cause reactivity. "What's love got to do with it?" AND, what counts as a "long-term commitment?" I think these kind of questions generated by the precepts actually show the relevance of the functioning of the precepts themselves! It's when we stop asking questions, that they cease to be precepts and become rigid, dogmatic 'rules of conduct.'
I've heard at least one teacher frame 'long-term commitment' in the context of asking yourself, if in the future, this person with whom I am about to have sexual relations, comes to regret it or have mixed or negative feelings about our tryst, will I be willing to engage, listen and be there for him/her? If the answer is no, perhaps that's reason enough not to pursue the sexual behavior with that person.... I think at the very least, it's a thought-provoking position, eh?
As for gender as a social construct; the Mahayana tradition at least gives lip-service to this idea in several sutras. In one, Shariputra is changed into a female form after asking a female bodhisattva how she can be enlightened while being a female. It's actually kind of funny! She totally nails him with his own supposed mastery of the prajna-teachings!
Here's the wording for monastic members of the Order of Interbeing:
Aware that the aspiration of a monk or a nun can only be realized when he or she wholly leaves behind the bonds of worldly love, we are committed to practicing chastity and to helping others protect themselves. We are aware that loneliness and suffering cannot be alleviated by the coming together of two bodies in a sexual relationship, but by the practice of true understanding and compassion. We know that a sexual relationship will destroy our life as a monk or a nun, will prevent us from realizing our ideal of serving living beings, and will harm others. We are determined not to suppress or mistreat our body or to look upon our body as only an instrument, but to learn to handle our body with respect. We are determined to preserve vital energies (sexual, breath, spirit) for the realization of our bodhisattva ideal.
Thay often disabuses his students of the idea that monastics are asexual. He says that as humans, they are of course sexual beings. His poetry and gardening, he says, are ways he expresses his sexual energy. I think all too many folk see celibacy as merely repression and THAT'S where it can become extremely unhealthy.
metta
frankjude
Post a Comment