[Buddha-l] Is polyamory kilesa?

[Vicente Gonzalez]

Christopher wrote:

CF> Polyandry was fairly common in parts of Tibet and polygamy in parts
CF> of Bhutan. In both cases one of the main reasons seems to have been to prevent
CF> the breakup of ancestral land.

at least I understand kilesas are not directly related with polyamory
Neither having multiple sex partners doesn't have to do with adultery
in a direct way.

In the sex misconduct topic, many people manage the strange
commentaries of Buddhaghosa, despite they are really bizarre.
Probably still are useful for somebody.

But at least to me, the following sounds more clear, simple, and
definitive:

AN 10.176
"And how is one made pure in three ways by bodily action? There is the
case where a certain person, abandoning the taking of life, abstains
from the taking of life. He dwells with his rod laid down, his knife
laid down, scrupulous, merciful, compassionate for the welfare of all
living beings. Abandoning the taking of what is not given, he abstains
from taking what is not given. He does not take, in the manner of a
thief, things in a village or a wilderness that belong to others and
have not been given by them. Abandoning sensual misconduct, he
abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved
with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their
brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with
husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with
flowers by another man. This is how one is made pure in three ways by
bodily action."             

central point seems to be not damaging other being who already is
involved in a relation of love and care, because from here there is
a feeling of protection (or property) which must be respected.
Perhaps from damaging this feeling then arises serious troubles.

Specially interesting is the line "even those crowned with flowers by
another man". I'm ignorant of the exact meaning but, It isn't a
mention to homosexuality?. In this case, it can invalidate the
bizarre Buddhagosa comments about anal sex, because it implies the
existence of a right sex behavior for homosexuals not related with
any body orifice, which is a complete absurdity.

Although maybe the meaning of that phrase is another one. Perhaps some
Pali expert can say something. I have never read any explanation of
this interesting phrase.

The "French" (universal?) case of a shared acceptance of adultery
that Joanna wrote sounds more problematic.

Anyway, it seems that having multiple partners doesn't have to do with
sex misconduct in a direct way, Some people can have sex in group
and in common agreement and they can be well and happy. Specially when
the bed is enough large.


best regards,