Hi guys, of the Five Precepts of Buddhist morality, four are pretty well-defined, and one is "refrain from sexual misconduct". Could someone point me to a canonical definition of what "sexual misconduct" is. Thanks

As far as I understand it Buddhists do not regard sexuality as being 'bad' in and of itself. They simply see attachment to pleasure or even the self-centered love of wanting to be in a pleasure sharing relationship (another question if one is already in one) as being a hindrance in achieving Nirvana.

Regarding Misconduct I have heard this from a Goenka Vipassana Instructor (I had the same question). He said that the misconduct was on a scale, from the rapist/killer, to the adulterer, to the Casanova, to the serial monogamist, etc. He referred it back to our ability to work stating that it would be difficult to hold the peace of mind necessary (the rest of our Sila) whilest juggling all these conflicting dalliances into the mundane life.

What I have noticed and perhaps others may chime in. Is that virtue is an important qualifier. Whenever I put myself to practice I observe my own virtue rise along with the 'vibration' that I carry with me. It is truly remarkable the connection. From what I understand those Catholic Priests should put a little time on the cushion and they might be able to see through the demons creating sexual misconduct in their lives and those that they come into contact with.

As far as Canon is concerned... I believe that they meant Brahmacharya.

The Xzanth's post is relatively accurate.

Don't get too hung up on silabbata paramasa, as it can quite a fetter.

Yes, it helps to view oneself as aspiring to live a noble life. That aspiration can sometimes override unwholesome intentions, keeping the mind focused on the ideal behavior.


(Sorry if this next comment seems to be a bit "off topic." But I can't help sharing for the edification of the group.)

Oh, now you've gone and done it. You've opened the door on an area of discussion that is a pet peeve observation of mine.

[indent]Full disclosure: Between the years 1982 and 1989 I was a monk and priest in an old-Catholic religious Order (Order of the Christian Brotherhood, or OCB for short). By the term "old-Catholic" I mean, the Order practiced the original Latin liturgy (hence the term "old" descriptive of Catholic) rather than the vernacular Mass as was prescribed in the Second Vatican Council of the mid-1960s. OCB was not connected with the Roman Catholic Church. Most lay people aren't generally aware of this fact, but there are Christian organizations within Catholicism, such as the Order I was in, which are not tied to the so-called "Holy See" at the Vatican.

I trained under the American branch superior general of the Order. The American branch itself (at least the part of it that I was aware of) was relatively small and kept to themselves, out of the limelight of publicity. Reverend Father often was heard to lament that Roman Catholic priests (diocesan priests) were not being trained properly, which was the underlying reason why they began to be uncovered and outed in their sexual abuse of their congregations. He often said, "You won't find an OCB priest ever being charged with sexual misconduct. They will never advance far enough in their training to ever be ordained and for that to occur. They'll be ousted from the Order before something like that ever occurs." And I can vouch for the strictness of the Order on that account. [/indent]
The point being that Roman Catholic diocesan priests are basically viewed as being just "worker bees" (and therefore aren't trained properly) for the whole scam that is the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). If the RCC had any integrity in itself, then you wouldn't be seeing and reading about these multitude of abuse scandals having happened under the Roman church's watch and sanctioning of these atrocities. The RCC is a fraud and an abomination upon the populace. (Note: To be clear here, I said the Roman Church itself (and those who run it) are responsible for the fraud, and not the Christian religion that spawned the Church.)

On a related note, I've been studying the law and its origins for the past four years, and what most people around the world are also not cognizant of is the fact that Roman Civil law runs the legal system in most developed nations in the world. That includes here in the United States of America. This type of law is based on Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical canon law. This is the same Roman Civil law that was in place at the time of the so-called Christian Messiah (Yeshua, more popularly known as Jesus of Nazareth) and which he was attempting (according to some accounts) to teach the people about.

When you enter any courtroom in this country, you are not presumed innocent until proven guilty; rather, you are a defendant having to defend yourself against the accusations of a legal fiction (the state or a municipality), a system held in place by a contractual obligation with the prevailing government. People who admit to being a "U.S. citizen" before a municipal, state or federal court, thereby admitting prima facie evidence that they are therefore "subject to" the jurisdiction of the "United States" (which is a corporation under merchant law), are now subject to that jurisdiction (and not the jurisdiction of the common law) by their own misguided (and often fraudulently obtained) "consent."

End of OFF TOPIC discussion.

Wow, far out. Can you post any good links to follow up on your off topic points about common law vs. being subject to a 'legal fiction' etc? Neat.

In one of Ayya Khema's youtube talks about jhana practice she mentions that jhana is the key to happy celibacy.

I'll respond briefly to this inquiry only. But I do not want to take this thread any further off topic that has already occurred.

I'm in the process of composing some information about the law and the legal system as it is being exercised in this country. If there is an interest in learning about this subject here, I can begin a thread on it somewhere (if I can find a category that will be appropriate in which to maintain it).

One's best bet for informing themselves about this area of study is to examine the historical origins of the systems being studied to apprise oneself directly of the information. That said, there is a lot of disinformation and confusing information on the Internet designed to keep people in the dark and confused about the law and what applies to whom.

While I don't subscribe to everything talked about in the following recommendation, it will help give people here in the U.S. a better idea of the forces they are up against when it comes to enforcing your rights within the present system of "justice" and law. The two most important things to keep in mind with regard to the establishment of personal liberty are being able to withdraw one's "consent" and cognizance of the jurisdiction one is in. One needs to know how to avoid what are called "franchise agreements" with the state and federal government (and how to exist within that system without drifting over into statutory jurisdiction).

Following are two PDFs that will help lay the groundwork for a comprehensive study of the controlling aspects of the current system in play. If you ever find yourself having to attend court, you will learn that most courts in the U.S. act upon "presumption." It is up to the person himself to rebut this presumption in the proper way before his standing as a flesh and blood man (and therefore access to the common law) will be recognized. The common law is where the truth will be found in order to be adjudicated, where the judge's (or in most cases the magistrate's) discretion within statutory law will be attenuated and therefore must yield to the common law. This can all be quite confusing until you begin to see how the system has historically been systematically set up over the years into the system we presently have in place today.

Consent.pdf

Presumption.pdf

Yes. That can be true. But one needs to understand the context of that comment in order to understand it properly. I don't have time to go into detail here. But if you look into it, you may find some discussion of it somewhere on the Internet.

Xzanth says it perfectly. It's all a matter of how deep you want your sila to go.

Are you saying that a person can live in a country but renounce the state and its laws? I think I've heard something like this before.

[quote=Conor O'Higgins]Are you saying that a person can live in a country but renounce the state and its laws? I think I've heard something like this before.
First, you have to understand that the "state" is a fiction. It is considered a fiction at law and therefore subservient to the non-fiction at law. This is how black letter law considers this issue.

Second: Who created the fictional state?
Answer: "We the People." Through the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance, and finally, the Constitution for the united States of America. These documents, along with the Declaration of Independence, constitute organic law for the inhabitants of the north American continent in the area known as the union of States in America. (It is interesting to note that neither the Articles of Confederation nor the Northwest Ordinance have ever been repealed and were never nullified by the Constitution and are therefore still in effect. Think about the implications of that!)

Next question: Who are the People?
Answer: Those non-fiction, flesh and blood men and women who inhabit this geopolitical area known as the United States of America (or their own State without said national boundaries).

Third: Realize that the 14th Amendment is where "the People" become confused and mixed up. Anyone consenting to being identified as a "14th Amendment citizen," who is therefore "subject to the jurisdiction" of the "United States" (read: the corporate state created and sanctioned by the de facto and not the de jure Congress in 1871 in the city of Washington, district of Columbia) has now transferred, by consent, their state Citizenship to a diminutive national citizenship, thereby becoming "subjects of" the corporate State. (This is no different that those who may have, at one time or other, been subjects of a king or queen in a European state or nation.) This condition of "citizenship" is further "evidenced" by the claim of ownership of the Social Security number, the state issued "certificate of birth" and "driver license," among other documents issued by this corporate conglomerate State.

Fourth: Realize that within the founding documents of this nation state at the First Judiciary Act of 1789 at section 9 of that document reads the following:

[indent]SEC . 9. And be it further enacted, That the district courts shall have, exclusively of the courts of the several States, cognizance of all crimes and offences that shall be cognizable under the authority of the United States, committed within their respective districts, or upon the high seas; . . . and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under laws of impost, navigation or trade of the United States, where the seizures are made, on waters which are navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burthen, within their respective districts as well as upon the high seas; saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it;...[/indent]
Fifth: Realize that you have a choice of law (where there have been no contracts or agreements brought forth as evidence) in any court situation and your choice or preference for the common law where the common law is competent to give it, is inviolable. (This speaks to your inalienable "right of avoidance" of statutory law.)

Sixth: Realize that there is no need to formally renounce anything. Just establish your identity as being within the substantive law realm (where law goes unwritten and is based on universal observations of law such as the writings on law composed by Fredric Bastiat in 1850) and therefore outside the statutory realm (written law, laws written by men – legislative congress – who are self-serving sycophants existing at the leisure of their benefactors who intend to diminish and thus enslave their fellow man).

Seventh: Realize that the majority (if not all) courts in America these days (municipal, state and federal courts) are set up to adjudicate statutory law (and ordinances) and not the common law. If you wish to access the common law, you need to know how to go about doing that! (Also, make certain you are in a "court of record" and not a "court of no record", and keep – document – "the record" of your truth yourself.)

Kalu Rinpoche was also big on this theme. I tried it for about fifteen minutes once but didn't notice any effects.

Apply the golden rule. Then get down to it, meditation I mean.

That's not exactly what I meant. I meant to say that the work itself created virtue. When immersed there are no more unwholesome intentions. I wonder if it is possible to take an 'evil' man and through it's application clear him of his self centered intentions.