dorjeshugden.com
General Buddhism => General Buddhism => Topic started by: Big Uncle on April 01, 2011, 04:35:53 AM
-
I know in Christianity, majority of churches condemn homosexuality and calling it a bane for going against God's creation or something.
What about in Buddhism? There is surprisingly little information in the Sutras that mention homosexuality specifically. Perhaps, it is considered a branch of sexuality and so it increases desire. So, that is not good for us either. What do you guys think?
-
As far as I know, homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha's sayings recorded in the Pali Canon. So, many have taken this to mean that homosexuality should be evaluated in the same way as heterosexuality, in accordance with the principles of no sexual misconduct, one of the precepts to be taken during refuge.
In modern society, where adultery is not involved and where the sexual act is an expression of love/respect/loyalty, I think it is not considered sexual misconduct if we go according to the above principles.
Also, as Buddhism does not traditionally place great value on procreation, hence sexual act that is not meant for procreation is not considered a “sin”.
What do you think?
-
As far as I know, homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha's sayings recorded in the Pali Canon. So, many have taken this to mean that homosexuality should be evaluated in the same way as heterosexuality, in accordance with the principles of no sexual misconduct, one of the precepts to be taken during refuge.
In modern society, where adultery is not involved and where the sexual act is an expression of love/respect/loyalty, I think it is not considered sexual misconduct if we go according to the above principles.
Also, as Buddhism does not traditionally place great value on procreation, hence sexual act that is not meant for procreation is not considered a “sin”.
What do you think?
Dear Vajraprotector,
I think you are right about this topic. I guess in Buddhism, sexuality is merely an expression of desire. And desire is not something overtly bad in itself as it does not harm others overtly. After all, we live in the desire realm and everything is motivated one way or another with desire. So it is not something the Buddha can say cut and we all cut out our attachments and desires. Hence, the Buddha very skillfully taught the Tantras for qualified practitioners to use desire in order to end Samsara.
-
I came across these statistics some years back regarding suicide rates for gay youths.
It is very sad how our society have degenerated so badly and have not much tolerance at all for diversity nor in a nutshell, value human lives!! What contributed towards this? Did religion have a hand in it, when religion's role is to make us better people?!
Looking at our situation, Buddhist teachings gives me so much hope and strength that things can change for all of us.
Here's some information which may be of interest to you.
1. Extracted from Stopping Gay Teen Suicide
Source : http://www.healthyplace.com/gender/gay-is-ok/stopping-gay-teen-suicide/menu-id-1420/ (http://www.healthyplace.com/gender/gay-is-ok/stopping-gay-teen-suicide/menu-id-1420/)
For a number of years, researchers have known that one-third of all teenagers who commit suicide are gay. In one sense, this statistic is incredibly shocking because, according to the Kinsey Report, gay teens only comprise one-tenth of the teen population. This means that they are 300 percent more likely to kill themselves than heterosexual youth. In another sense, it is predictable that gay teens kill themselves more often than other young people simply because their life chances are so limited by social and legal discrimination. Only when this discrimination is eliminated will these shocking statistics change.
....
Thus young gay individuals realize that they must hide their identity for fear of social and legal consequences which can destroy their lives. Homosexuals can be fired, evicted, kept from their own biological children, restricted from adopting children, and imprisoned for sodomy. The homosexuality of historical figures has been systematically left out of education in the public schools, giving gay youth the false impression that gays have never affected history in a positive way.
2. Buddhist perspective
Extracted from Buddhism and Homosexuality
Source : http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana/Archive/T/Trembath/buddhismAndHomosexualityTrembath.html (http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana/Archive/T/Trembath/buddhismAndHomosexualityTrembath.html)
HOMOSEXUALITY AND SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
The third of the five precepts refers to sexual behaviour. In the Theravada tradition of Buddhism, with which I am most familiar, the third precept is perhaps more precisely rendered as "I undertake the rule of training not to go the wrong way for sexual pleasure". What then would constitute "going the wrong way" and would this include homosexual acts? To determine this, we need to consider the criteria which Buddhists are advised to use in making ethical judgements. From the Buddha's discourses, there can be discerned three bases on which we can make judgements about our behaviour:-
- we should consider the consequences of our actions, their effects on ourselves and others
- we should consider how we would feel if others did the same thing to us
- we should consider whether the behaviour is instrumental to our goal of Nirvana.
Using these criteria, Buddhist commentators have usually construed sexual misconduct to include rape, sexual harassment, molestation of children, and unfaithfulness to one's spouse. Clearly, these manifestations of sexual misconduct can apply equally to homosexual and heterosexual behaviour. The third precept is not a blanket prohibition, nor a simplistic depiction of some behaviours as wrong and other behaviours as right.
In fact, Buddhist ethics have been described as utilitarian, in that they are concerned less with "good" and "evil" and more with whether an action is "skilful", ie conducive to a good end in relation to the criteria mentioned above and whether it is motivated by good intentions (based upon generosity, love and understanding) 2.
The sayings of the Buddha, as recorded in the Pali Canon, do not I believe include any explicit reference to homosexuality or to homosexual acts. This has been taken to mean that the Buddha did not consider that one's sexual orientation was relevant to his message, which was how to escape from suffering and achieve enlightenment. If it was not important enough to mention, homosexuality could not have been considered a barrier to one's moral and spiritual development.
On the other hand, the Buddha's teachings in no way exhort us to a life of hedonistic pursuit of pleasure, sexual or otherwise. While the Buddha did not deny the existence of enjoyment in this world, he pointed out that all worldly pleasure is bound up with suffering, and enslavement to our cravings will keep us spinning in a vortex of disappointment and satiation. The Buddhist's objective is not to eliminate sensual pleasures but to see them as they are through the systematic practice of mindfulness.
One feature of Buddhism which may interest gays and lesbians is that the teachings place no particular value on procreation. Marriage and the raising of children are seen as positive but are by no means compulsory. On the contrary, celibacy is in most traditions considered to be a requirement for those seeking higher levels of development as Buddhists. Monks and nuns take vows of strict celibacy, and even pious lay people undertake to be celibate at certain times in order to pursue their mental and spiritual development. This means that from the religious perspective there is no stigma which is necessarily attached to being unmarried and childless, although there may of course be social and cultural pressures which override this.
-
Wow, this thread is getting quite deep. For me, it's quite simple:
We have been a man, animal, spirit, woman... man, animal, spirit, woman... man, woman, man, woman etc etc in our previous lives.
We have been of both sexes countless times in our previous lives.
Who said that men had to be attracted to women? Society creates all the rules. There is nothing instilled in us that we MUST choose the opposite sex. What is "natural" and "acceptable" is all subjective.
I would find it more natural if we were attracted to both sexes, since we have been both a male and female in our previous lives.
However, when it comes to tantric practice, I have not yet seen any male-on-male consorts. It's always male-and-female.
Perhaps there's a reason for that. It is still possible to reach organism (and hence open our most subtle mind) during male-on-male intercourse, so I don't see why not....
-
Well in buddhism the labels don't exist so I doubt very much that homosexuality has much to do with whether or not you can become a buddha. And for myself also, sexual preference doesn't bother me at all.
Besides what I find amusing is that once people are put in prison, male or female, they all become homosexual anyways.
Outside prison you are are harassed because you are... inside your harassed because your not.
Funny that?!?
-
Thought provoking topic.
I read the comments with interest.
Eventually, I would conclude this:
in Buddhism, there is no interest in talking about homosexuality or heterosexuality, there is only something to be said about sexuality.
Why? The processes at work (mind and body) are EXACTLY the same man-man / woman-woman / man-woman.
And it is the process that interests us not the gender of our sexual partner.
-
Personally, I don't think labels such as homosexuality and others do not matter because if we are reincarnated through many lifetimes, we would have been one or the other - male, female, gay, straight, bisexual, etc. So, it would not surprise me at all that we could be any of them in any given lifetime. And what is so great about Buddhism is that it provides a path of liberation to everyone regardless of what your sexual preference is.
-
I never really understood the obvious distinction society gives to one's sexual preference. I really do not because I believe whomever one chooses to spend the rest of their lives or even copulate (to put it bluntly!) with is really none of anyone's business. We are all sexual in nature, who we chose, if we chose at all, is irrelevant! Are we not ALL living beings?
Why we continue to put labels on everything to pigeon hole each other is really beyond me. Who really cares? On that note, Buddhism for me personally is healthy as it views everyone as who they are "inside" and that we all are striving towards the same goal (at least we hope!), regardless of gender, race, age, etc...
There is NOTHING wrong with either being in touch with our feminine side nor or masculine side whatever sex you may be because at the end of this life we are not the sum of what our sexual preferences were but who we were as a "person"... We answer only to our Karma. :-*
-
The February/March 1994 issue of OUT magazine quoted the Dalai Lama as saying:
"If someone comes to me and asks whether it is okay or not, I will first ask if you have some religious vows to uphold. Then my next question is, What is your companion's opinion? If you both agree, then I think I would say, if two males or two females voluntarily agree to have mutual satisfaction without further implication of harming others, then it is okay."
But bear in mind that in Beyond Dogma: Dialogues and Discourses, a collection of talks and discussions from the Dalai Lama's 1993 visit to France, His Holiness also said that:
"A sexual act is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended for sexual intercourse and nothing else....Homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact. Is this clear?"
So His Holiness is not condemning homosexual relationship but rather homesexual sex, because homosexual activity (and heterosexual sex) through orifices other than the vagina, including masturbation or other sexual activity with the hand are considered sexual misconducts.
Do you agree?
-
The February/March 1994 issue of OUT magazine quoted the Dalai Lama as saying:
"If someone comes to me and asks whether it is okay or not, I will first ask if you have some religious vows to uphold. Then my next question is, What is your companion's opinion? If you both agree, then I think I would say, if two males or two females voluntarily agree to have mutual satisfaction without further implication of harming others, then it is okay."
But bear in mind that in Beyond Dogma: Dialogues and Discourses, a collection of talks and discussions from the Dalai Lama's 1993 visit to France, His Holiness also said that:
"A sexual act is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended for sexual intercourse and nothing else....Homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact. Is this clear?"
So His Holiness is not condemning homosexual relationship but rather homesexual sex, because homosexual activity (and heterosexual sex) through orifices other than the vagina, including masturbation or other sexual activity with the hand are considered sexual misconducts.
Do you agree?
I agree with the first quote. That if both partners agree to the sexual intercourse, regardless of the gender, then it's okay.
With the second quote, it's a little misleading. I see why masturbation and other sexual activities (using hands, mouth etc) is deemed improper and inappropriate, but what about the anus?
The quote seems to suggest that only the penis and vagina can be used for "proper" sexual activity.
IF the anus is not considered as a "proper" organ for "proper" sexual activity, then homosexual activity is improper. No?
-
The February/March 1994 issue of OUT magazine quoted the Dalai Lama as saying:
"If someone comes to me and asks whether it is okay or not, I will first ask if you have some religious vows to uphold. Then my next question is, What is your companion's opinion? If you both agree, then I think I would say, if two males or two females voluntarily agree to have mutual satisfaction without further implication of harming others, then it is okay."
But bear in mind that in Beyond Dogma: Dialogues and Discourses, a collection of talks and discussions from the Dalai Lama's 1993 visit to France, His Holiness also said that:
"A sexual act is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended for sexual intercourse and nothing else....Homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact. Is this clear?"
So His Holiness is not condemning homosexual relationship but rather homesexual sex, because homosexual activity (and heterosexual sex) through orifices other than the vagina, including masturbation or other sexual activity with the hand are considered sexual misconducts.
Do you agree?
This is what I think:
If we talk technicalities, the proper sexual use of male and female genital organs is to come in contact, they come to their proper functions in such action, technically also with a purpose to pro-create.
Now, if one seeks sexual satisfaction otherwise, it is technically improper, just as if I was using my pencil to stir my coffee. But this does not necessarily mean un-virtuous -such as sexual mis-conduct, for as long as it is not damaging to others.
And I think His Holiness is very clear on this aspect, and I see no contradiction between HH's two statements.
And I don't see that there is a "condemnation" entailed in HH's comments, I don't see it.
There is really nothing to condemn about me using my pencil to stir my coffee is there?
-
I read that in an interview with the French magazine Dimanche, January, 2001, the Dalai Lama said that:
“Q: Your Holiness, what do you think of homosexuality?
DL: It’s part of what we Buddhists call “bad sexual conduct.” (Pause.) Sexual organs were created for reproduction between the male element and the female element — and everything that deviates from that is not acceptable from a Buddhist point of view. (He counts off on his fingers.) Between a man and [another] man, a woman and another woman, in the mouth, the anus, or even using a hand (the DL mimes masturbation)…
Q: So you share this view with Christianity?
DL: We share much more than that: the same philosophy of love of one’s neighbor, the aspiration to elevate a human being above his/her vices, compassion and forgiveness…”
Now, does that make sense in terms of karma or ethics? I'm just trying to understand the point of view of His Holiness.
-
There is really nothing to condemn about me using my pencil to stir my coffee is there?
I think sexual activities or misconduct reaffirm the ego of sexual "fulfilment" and the attachment to sexual activities? The pencil stirring the coffee has nothing to do with reaffirming our desire? But again I may be wrong? It could be sexual innuendo for some people - this day and age there is just so many types of fetish we cannot be sure anymore ;D
-
I think sexual activities or misconduct reaffirm the ego of sexual "fulfilment" and the attachment to sexual activities?
Couldn't this be said equally for heterosexual and homosexual activities?
Thus... what really makes sexual misconduct? If not the basis, then certainly the delusion and also the consequences of the action: is anyone hurt in the process?
A sexual activity that has for motivation a selfish indulgence in desire, in physical pleasure, and perhaps in the ego pleasure also of seducing someone, is basically useless.
It can be between m/f, f/f, m/m, it can be masturbation, I don't see the difference...
If it hurts nobody, if it does not consist of a sexual misconduct, then doesn't it fall in the category of "idle gossip" kind of non-virtuous activity?
Interesting topic we have here... I wonder how many readers this topic gets...
-
On the popularity of the topic, I just checked the count of visits on the list of topics, and it looks like suicide is generating more interest than homosexuality...
-
I think sufficient has been said here, including the Dalai Lama’s view, on what is appropriate and correct re- sexual conduct of homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Here, I’d like to share what I have garnered from reading the opening Chapters of Lama Yeshe’s book –“Introduction To Tantra”. According to Lama Yeshe, we have in each of us both male and female 'emotions' and energies. The labels we use ‘male’ and ‘female’ are actually based on our physical forms. Then, males generally like to emphasis their male ‘macho-ness’ and project an image of being brawn and rugged and females generally like to be seen as feminine and fair.
These labels that we use ‘box’ us in and we make projections of people based on them. That’s why we socially and often morally condemn a pair of males or females, who are sexually drawn to each other, as we perceive them to be the most perverted beings around.
If the Path of Buddhism requires us to open up our narrow and limited conceptual minds, then we must see ‘homosexuality ‘ as just a label and not continue to feed our narrow conceptual minds by pandering to our projections of beings and phenomena, based on these labels.
-
Hey guys,
Thank you for sharing and I have concluded that in Buddhism, homosexuality has not been mentioned explicitly its views on homosexuality probably because it was unheard of during the Buddha's time and because sexuality is an act of desire and increases desire so there are vague references that seems to indicate that homosexuality is inappropriate. However, Buddhism being an enlightened religion does not openly prohibit homosexuality but rather an understanding of where sexuality increases desire - our most powerful drug and downfall. There are many other more destructive aspects of our human nature that deserves greater attention and practice. Hence, unlike certain theistic religions, Buddhism have never placed central importance to it but only a peripheral mention. Anyway, it does make for an interesting discussion. Thank you.
-
The February/March 1994 issue of OUT magazine quoted the Dalai Lama as saying:
"If someone comes to me and asks whether it is okay or not, I will first ask if you have some religious vows to uphold. Then my next question is, What is your companion's opinion? If you both agree, then I think I would say, if two males or two females voluntarily agree to have mutual satisfaction without further implication of harming others, then it is okay."
But bear in mind that in Beyond Dogma: Dialogues and Discourses, a collection of talks and discussions from the Dalai Lama's 1993 visit to France, His Holiness also said that:
"A sexual act is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended for sexual intercourse and nothing else....Homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact. Is this clear?"
So His Holiness is not condemning homosexual relationship but rather homesexual sex, because homosexual activity (and heterosexual sex) through orifices other than the vagina, including masturbation or other sexual activity with the hand are considered sexual misconducts.
Do you agree?
Hi all,
1) I'm totally agree, if both parties agree to have a mutual satisfaction, I don't see that's any problem. No matter we are homosexual or heterosexual. Both of these terms is just a label that we use to judge the "moral". Base on my understanding about Buddhism, no matter we're born as heterosexual or homosexual, boy or girl, makes no different to me. Since both of straight and gay are still in deep shit (samsara) why do we still judge who is better? or who is more sinful ? Sexuality is just a "label" to show others what do we like, eg : vegetarian or meat eater. so matter you're straight or gay makes no different to me .
2) I think sexual misconduct means when we create problem or trouble for others, and maybe we hurt someone directly or indirectly while doing anything related to sex issue. Eg: if we having affair with someone who is willing to have sexual contact with us, but indirectly we hurt our spouse, to me this is sexual misconduct. But if we are single and we are not going to hurt anyone directly or indirectly due to any sexual contact, I think this is not consider sexual misconduct.
This is quite similar with the protector issue. Why is it so important to know or to label whether this Lama or that Lama is a Dorje Shugden practitioner, is it that's all you care ? We should see whether this Lama have benefit a lot of other beings in all direction and whether he/she is or not a Dorje Shugden practitioner is not important. If this Lama creates a lot of problem to the all beings, just because he/she want to clarified he/she is or is not a practitioner to me this is a fake Lama. No matter how high your status is , you will not grant my respect. If you have found your inner peace, no matter what has happen you will still be remain peace. But just to clarified you're not a practitioner and create a lot of problem for others, this is non dharmic at all...
What do you think ?
-
Dharma already has a way to liberate us humans from samsara, so does it matter whether if one is homosexual or not? ugly or not? Similarly, if we see an animal got injured, we developed compassion and offer our help. But do we question if that dog is homosexual or not? Humans, animals, in fact all sentient beings are regarded as one in Buddhism. So should homosexual not consider as one?
Homosexual or straight, they share the same kind of problems. Working problems, relationships, sexual issues, family problems, financial issues etc how does it differ from any other human beings? I guess, in Buddhism in general; its primary practice is to truthfully recognize who you really are, be very truthful and honest about oneself. From there, we learn the dharma and improve ourselves through practice of dharma and become a better person, a better self. And it is not about using the knowledge we gained to prove that we are smarter. Similarly, just like the protector issue, it is very sad to see among own practitioners, we created this label among us. Just like we almost forgotten where we came from, where dharma came from and where we are heading. Aren't we suppose to work towards the same goal?
Us humans only relies on what we hear, what we see & touch so it is only regard as real. But there are things that only higher foam can see, hear & touch, so the purpose is higher. This explains why our gurus need to lower down themselves to talk in our manner, or even act in our manner to convey dharma to us. What we cant see or touch doesn't mean it does not exist. It just just that we don't know. That's why sometimes I personally feel i appear to be so small in the world of dharma, I have lived so long yet know so little dharma.
But it is never too late. We should already practice what we have learned from our precious guru and no questions asked. Our guru will only have the best interest for us. So we should trust our guru all the way. I really hope among us practitioners, Shugden or not; put dharma really close to our hearts and practice dharma as one. And not create more problems for our gurus and affect the minds of others anymore.
That is my very wish...
-
I read that in the bardo, one will be attracted to a copulating male and female (can be copulating human, or animals or etc). It is said that if one is attracted to the female, one will be reborn as a male and vice versa.
So I guess it depends at the time of taking rebirth or which gender we were attracted to then that decides our fate of being male or female?
-
I read that in the bardo, one will be attracted to a copulating male and female (can be copulating human, or animals or etc). It is said that if one is attracted to the female, one will be reborn as a male and vice versa.
So I guess it depends at the time of taking rebirth or which gender we were attracted to then that decides our fate of being male or female?
Then how would you explain homosexuals? and transvestite? What were they attracted to when they saw the copulation happening and what were they thinking???
Especially transvestite/queens... what kind of karma did they collect to be trap in a body they do not wish to be in?
-
I remember reading in the Lamrim that sexual misconduct includes sticking a man’s genitals into anywhere else but a woman’s genital?? But this was during the time of Pabongkha Rinpoche. Could it be that homosexuality was not an issue back then and Rinpoche saw that having too much fun while having sex would become an issue?
Personally, I think a good Buddhists do good deeds with sincerity. Their sexual preference is not very important.
God created homosexuals too?
-
“Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects.
While emphasizing the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history [...] An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life. [...] A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist.”
—Kinsey, et al. (1948). pp. 639, 656)
The above talks about the Kinsey scale and in the scale the following are rated
Rating Description
0 Exclusively heterosexual
1 Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2 Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3 Equally heterosexual and homosexual.
4 Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5 Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6 Exclusively homosexual
X Asexual, Non-Sexual
I found this interesting because this shows that we as the human race have many different facets and some of these facets happen to be of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual, like biological sex, gender identity, or age. It is all part of the make up of our species hence why should there be any distinction at all?
-
The Kinsey scale
Rating Description
0 Exclusively heterosexual
1 Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2 Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3 Equally heterosexual and homosexual.
4 Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5 Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6 Exclusively homosexual
X Asexual, Non-Sexual
I found this interesting because this shows that we as the human race have many different facets and some of these facets happen to be of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual, like biological sex, gender identity, or age. It is all part of the make up of our species hence why should there be any distinction at all?
Dear Positive Change,
I did not know of this "Kinsey table", thank you for sharing.
I intervene again in this topic, even though I think we have said most that could be said about the topic of homosexuality and Buddhism, I would like to say 4 things (A to D):
A.
The above table shows us that there is more to this topic than the opposition between heteroX and homoX.
B.
Having said that, we can also say that from ratings 0 to 6, there would be also ratings 0.5 - 1.5 - 2.5 and even 0.4, or 0.45 or 0.45673...
And then these ratings would change constantly through time and by our actions.
It is a purely virtual business to allocate categories to living beings, and it should be taken as a a tool to think not as the truth.
One day I am rated 2, the next I am rated 4...
I quote you again "should there be any distinction at all?"
C.
actions (sexual actions here) are a result of a train of thoughts. That train of thoughts deserve our full attention, by understanding what fuels it, we can change our habits, we can refrain from actions by working upstream. The key aspect to remove is the delusion that hinges this train from being just thoughts into becoming actions.
Why? How? Simple: the delusion "justify" a non-virtuous action in our mind, once justified, we just DO IT.
D.
Now, the reason really why I decided to answer your comment PC is this: at the end of the Kinsey scale there is: Asexual / Non-sexual.
This can be a new topic all together!
a) I do not understand asexual and non-sexual as the same thing.
b) Does "non-sexual" mean non attraction to neither sex or does it mean abstinence from sexual intercourse for reasons xyz? I see a difference here too.
c) Many religions have abstinence as a vow for their clergy, many also do not have it (for example a rabbi that is not married is seen as awkward) -in Buddhism some schools, like the Gelug ask of their lamas a vow of abstinence, others schools have married lamas. Some Gelug lamas disrobe, marry and have children and remain teachers, lay teachers.
This brings this question: what is the meaning of the abstinence vow for lamas, and why do some lamas need not take them?
Would you like to start a new topic with that?
-
Homosexuality in Buddhism
I do not see anything wrong with being gay. It is better to be gay with a kind heart than a straight with an evil heart. Just in the human realm alone, we have taken millions of rebirth in a male or female body like what jessicajameson wrote. Maybe all humans are gay, in this respect. Sexual preference is a choice to whet our sexual desire as a human being. What is not right is when we hurt others.
-
This is such a hot discussion I could see. Well for me I see that being a gay is not a problem as long as they have a good heart. I remember that at every end of our prayer we always do a dedication to all sentient being (seen or unseen). So if we do such dedication then the person is gay or not it not a problem.
I have quite some friend that are gay and one of them is a close high school friend of mine. We always make fun of him and have a lot of good time together. He is very soft spoken, helpful when ever I have problems with my project he will help me and also have a very kind heart. But few years ago he kill himself as he could not take the pressure of the words that people used on him and when the family and the religious school he is in found out of his sexual preference they disowned him.
My point is one should except gay no matter what faith you are in as all faith teaches us to be kind and have compassion for others.
-
Quote
A Buddhist author of an article on homosexuality concludes:
"In the case of the lay man and woman where there is mutual consent, where adultery is not involved and where the sexual act is an expression of love, respect, loyalty and warmth, it would not be breaking the third Precept. And it is the same when the two people are of the same gender. Likewise promiscuity, license and the disregard for the feelings of others would make a sexual act unskillful whether it be heterosexual or homosexual. All the principles we would use to evaluate a heterosexual relationship we would also use to evaluate a homosexual one. In Buddhism we could say that it is not the object of one's sexual desire that determines whether a sexual act is unskillful or not, but rather the quality of the emotions and intentions involved. "
-
Do we NEED to discuss homosexuality in this age and time?
Whether a person chosed to be or was born a gay, we have no right to interfere with their way of lives as long as they do not harm anyone. In Buddhism, all sentient beings are EQUAL (human beings, animals, need I say more??) and I dont think Buddha is going to be selective in helping sentient beings based on their sexuality..
So, do we have the right to discriminate our fellow human being just because they happen to be attracted by the same sex?
-
Do we NEED to discuss homosexuality in this age and time?
Whether a person chosed to be or was born a gay, we have no right to interfere with their way of lives as long as they do not harm anyone. In Buddhism, all sentient beings are EQUAL (human beings, animals, need I say more??) and I dont think Buddha is going to be selective in helping sentient beings based on their sexuality..
So, do we have the right to discriminate our fellow human being just because they happen to be attracted by the same sex?
I agree with Tammy. Even still, it helps new people or people who are condemned by various religions to discuss. It is a big issue because intolerance, prejudice and bigomy has made it so.
-
“Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects.
While emphasizing the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history [...] An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life. [...] A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist.”
—Kinsey, et al. (1948). pp. 639, 656)
The above talks about the Kinsey scale and in the scale the following are rated
Rating Description
0 Exclusively heterosexual
1 Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2 Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3 Equally heterosexual and homosexual.
4 Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5 Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6 Exclusively homosexual
X Asexual, Non-Sexual
I found this interesting because this shows that we as the human race have many different facets and some of these facets happen to be of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual, like biological sex, gender identity, or age. It is all part of the make up of our species hence why should there be any distinction at all?
I find this most interesting. I too have not heard of the Kinsey scale but I think it is already inadequate as it does no cover all manner of gender and sexual identities. However, I do find males who are effeminate or identify themselves more as women were probably women in many of their previous lives and vice versa so the gender identity remains very strong in them although in this life they have taken rebirth a biological man. I think this would not answer all questions regarding the origin of gender identity issues but it does give a better answer than anything else i have read. The premise of a previous life and karma does answer many of the questions about the way we operate and develop predispositions. But I don't fully understand in the karmic sense of how homosexuality came about. Perhaps it is a genetic development to limit overpopulation as some sociologists have suggested.
-
This is a very interesting topic. First of all, I am pretty sure that Buddha did say that homosexuality was part of sexual misconduct, I cannot quote the source, but I seem to remember it was part of a sutra detailing the establishment of the vows of an ordained person. 2 Anagarika monks were engaging in sexual activity (they wre both attendant to one monk and therefore spent a lot of time together), other monks approached Buddha for his comment, and Buddha's response was to say "No monk will have more than one attendant".
My own teacher produced a translation of The Bodhisattvas Way of Life, and I was quite crestfallen to see the list of activities that were deemed to be sexual misconduct, to name a few: use of the hand; use of the mouth;use of the anus; in front of an image of Buddha; during hours of daylight; whilst menstruating etc. The next edition of the book omitted most of these (in front of an image of Buddha is still included).
I had the good fortune to be able to meet my teacher in a relatively small group for an open question and answer session. I was surprised that of an hour, 40 minutes were taken to discuss homosexuality. At the end of this session a resident in a Buddhist Centre asked directly, "I am in a same-sex relationship. Is this wrong? Do I have to leave?". The response was "No, no, no. You do not have to leave, I am not saying you are wrong. If you do anything to bring disrepute to the Centre, then you will be asked to leave in the same way as anyone else, but you do not have to leave. But you should think about it". I think this last point was also aimed at all of us present - to think about how our actions affected our practice. Excessive sexual activity is one of the 10 causes of untimely death (7 are to do with eating).
The same teacher explained that sexual misconduct basically includes anything that causes harm or offence to others or oneself. I think also included was anything that broke the law.
I don't think Buddha would ever discriminate against any person in any way: but he did sugegst that we discriminate against unskilful actions. I don't believe in this day and age this would include homosexuality, but it is interesting to note that ordained people take a vow of celibacy.
-
Well in buddhism the labels don't exist so I doubt very much that homosexuality has much to do with whether or not you can become a buddha. And for myself also, sexual preference doesn't bother me at all.
I like "lables don't exist". May be in other planets, man is supposed to marry man, and it is normal :)
-
Then how would you explain homosexuals? and transvestite? What were they attracted to when they saw the copulation happening and what were they thinking???
Especially transvestite/queens... what kind of karma did they collect to be trap in a body they do not wish to be in?
I have asked this question before, but did not get a satisfactory answer. What I have heard is that, if in a previous life one is intensely attracted to people of a particular gender, then in the next life, this attraction continues, regardless of their gender. Which would explain homosexuality a little better.... but it doesnt explain why transgender and transexual people are born that way. I would love to get a proper explanation about this.
-
All of us (all sentient being) are still controlled by our desire, attachment, hatred as we are so ignorant until we achieve enlightenment or at least we realized emptiness.
Some attached to food, some have desire for sex, some like women, some like man, some prefer attach to themselves, so there is no answer whether Homosexuality is good or bad. It depends on the time periods, situation and the mind set of people.
I think due to the people during Buddha's time cannot accept homosexuality, hence there are rules or statement been made just to avoid them to have negative thoughts or misunderstanding toward Buddhism.
-
I know in Christianity, majority of churches condemn homosexuality and calling it a bane for going against God's creation or something.
What about in Buddhism? There is surprisingly little information in the Sutras that mention homosexuality specifically. Perhaps, it is considered a branch of sexuality and so it increases desire. So, that is not good for us either. What do you guys think?
In Buddhism, my guru tells me that desire is desire. Just like our attachment to food, our choice of food varies from one individual to another. As long as our actions are not against another person's wishes and hurting them as a result, then it's fine. Whether it's man with woman, woman with woman or man with man, it's not important. What's more important is understanding that it's only a form of attachment. And, attachments are the cause for us to stay in Samsara.
-
Also, as Buddhism does not traditionally place great value on procreation, hence sexual act that is not meant for procreation is not considered a “sin”.
Dear Vajraprotector,
It is interesting how you think whether homosexuality is a 'sin' basing on the fact that it does not lead to creation of lives. Personally I do not agree with your view, I think whether a sexual act is misconducted depends very much on the motivation and the situation of the person conducting the act.
For example, sexual activity between two married men - misconduct
However, if both of them are not married/in a serious relationship - not misconduct
Comment, anyone?
~ Tammy
-
Also, as Buddhism does not traditionally place great value on procreation, hence sexual act that is not meant for procreation is not considered a “sin”.
Dear Vajraprotector,
It is interesting how you think whether homosexuality is a 'sin' basing on the fact that it does not lead to creation of lives. Personally I do not agree with your view, I think whether a sexual act is misconducted depends very much on the motivation and the situation of the person conducting the act.
For example, sexual activity between two married men - misconduct
However, if both of them are not married/in a serious relationship - not misconduct
Comment, anyone?
~ Tammy
For me, sexual misconduct is sexual misconduct regardless of the gender you are or the gender you are attracted to. Sexual misconduct is the motivation/situation of the sexual act itself that potentially could cause hurt to either party or both or to others associated with both parties regardless of sexual preference.
If based on the argument/debate that a sexual act has to culminate in procreation in order for it not to be a sexual misconduct then, I think the whole planet is actually guilty of sexual misconduct. How many of us actually have sex to make babies? Come on!!!
I do not mean to be rude or disrespectful, but for those of you who are sexually active and honestly ask yourself if you are having sex to procreate or for "pleasure", you will know exactly what I mean...
Hence I would suggest we look within ourselves before we make an assumption on whether a person/persons are "wrong" in their actions based solely on his or her sexual preferences. :)
-
Then how would you explain homosexuals? and transvestite? What were they attracted to when they saw the copulation happening and what were they thinking???
Especially transvestite/queens... what kind of karma did they collect to be trap in a body they do not wish to be in?
I have read somewhere that homosexuality and transversite/transsexuals are all the results of disrespecting women in their past life, as in disrespecting their feelings, using their bodies and being a playboy etc. Does make sense because most gay friends i know tend to make more snide comments against women in general. Its the same mind continuing.
-
Then how would you explain homosexuals? and transvestite? What were they attracted to when they saw the copulation happening and what were they thinking???
Especially transvestite/queens... what kind of karma did they collect to be trap in a body they do not wish to be in?
I have read somewhere that homosexuality and transversite/transsexuals are all the results of disrespecting women in their past life, as in disrespecting their feelings, using their bodies and being a playboy etc. Does make sense because most gay friends i know tend to make more snide comments against women in general. Its the same mind continuing.
Hmmm.... I disagree that disrespecting women (disrespecting their feelings, using their bodies, being playboy... etc) in one's past lives creates the causes for the person to have homosexual tendencies or become a transvestite/transexual... Why? Because by the logic of Karma, if we cause harm to someone, that very harm will return to us (in a nutshell!). So, how can we "return" and cause the same harm again. Surely the person would be born in less opportune conditions and suffer the "same fate" as what they caused in their previous life?
I would be more inclined to think the person in question would come back as a bitter spinster that has no love and will still be disrespecting (same mindstream) to other women because they are jealous.
Perhaps I am wrong but it makes more sense to me...
-
I think we should re-instate here that the refuge vows are not based on "NOT HURTING OTHERS" exclusively, the bias conclusion from that posit is that, as long as we do not hurt others, it is fine, and we can bend or brake the vows. No, I don't think it is like that.
Refuge vows are based on "REFRAINING FROM SELF-DESTRUCTIVE ACTIONS."
And indeed, hurting others is definitely a self-destructive action, but self-destructive actions are not limited to that aspect only.
This becomes a hot topic when we approach sexual mis-conduct, and instead of bending the vow with a bias logic over it, I think one needs to humble down a bit and seek knowledge and advise.
If one's Guru's advise is that it is permissible to engage in homosexual relationships, I think one should still contemplate this and not take this as a "waver from above," indulge and tell everyone else that it's "ok" to have this or this sexual behavior (for this may be misunderstood also). Maybe the advise was not meant for everyone, and certainly it was not meant to contradict any of the refuge vows in any of its nuances.
Sexual activity, heterosexual or homosexual works with EXACTLY the same dynamics.
Never mind which hole we use (excuse my language), the attachment is just as dangerous.
Those of us that are attractive and often face situations where it is just easy to engage in sexual activities without anyone knowing about it will know how hard it is to remind ourselves of Dharma and vows there and then... And this works the same M/F - F/F or M/M.
That is a discussion topic that I would find more interesting actually, or at least more constructive.
What is at stake here is our enlightenment, not the acceptance or rejection of social behaviors or sexual preferences, that would be irrelevant.
And I do not think that the Buddha ever said "homosexuality is bad and evil", yet I am certain that the Tatagatha said that attachment to sexual behaviors or compulsions are self-destructive.
There is a reason why monks are not to engage in ANY sexual activity.
My 2 cents of thoughts.
-
Wow, very active topic! After reading all the posts on this, I still am not clear whether Buddhism has a particular stand on homosexuality per se. I would be inclined to believe that Buddhism is more concerned with sexual misconduct and the black karma that is created therefrom, which is dependent on the fulfilment of four components (basis, intention, deed, and final step). According to the Lamrim, sexual misconduct is:
For lay people the basis is: any wrong orifice, in other words, all orifices except the vagina; any wrong time, such as when the woman is pregnant or during one-day vows; at any improper place, such as before one's guru or a stupa; any wrong partner, such as one's own mother, and so on.
For ordained people, all sexual activity becomes sexual misconduct.
The recognition is: one must be in no doubt that the act is sexual misconduct; but when you break a major monk's vow of celibacy, they say it does not matter if you are mistaken or not.
The delusion is one of the three poisons.
The motive is wanting to engage in perversion.
The deed is the tow organs coming into contact, and so forth.
The final step is completed when one experiences orgasm.
Hmm...
-
I think that as long as the sexual preference; as it any act; does not hurt others, then it is acceptable in Buddhism in general. However, we must consider since most society frown on homosexuality, most parents are hurt if their children in a homosexual. So in this case, we are in a catch 22 situation. What is natural for that person is not acceptable to society.
-
I found this when I googled...
In 1999,an interview with Alice Thompson,he stated: "They want me to condone homosexuality. But I am a Buddhist and, for a Buddhist, a relationship between two men is wrong. Some sexual conduct in marriage is also wrong" speaking regarding masturbation and oral sex. Also sayng that "If an individual has no faith, that is a different matter"..."If two men really love each other and are not religious, then that is OK by me."
In an interview with Wikinews, Tashi Wangdi, Representative to the Dalai Lama, further elaborated his perspective on these views. If a person was to engage in homosexuality, "a person would not be considered as following all the precepts of Buddhist principles. People don’t follow all the principles. Very few people can claim they follow all the principles. For instance, telling a lie. In any religion, if you ask if telling a lie is a sin—say Christian—they will say yes. But you find very few people who don’t at some point tell a lie. Homosexuality is one act, but you can’t say [a person who is homosexual is] not a Buddhist. Or someone who tells a lie is not a Buddhist. Or someone who kills an insect is not a Buddhist, because there’s a strong injunction against that."
It is very interesting to read more about it here. There are quotes from Dalai Lama as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_sexual_orientation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_sexual_orientation)
-
Well... to answer the original question...lol...
There's two separate things we need to consider... one is ordained, the other lay people.
Ordained people which is monks... any type of sexual encounter is prohibited, which means they are to be celibate. However, I once heard a friend of mine mentioning that homosexuals cannot be ordained... I don't know how true his claims are and I need to do further research regarding this matter... I'll update this post if I get the answer (Or even better, someone with the knowledge please enlighten us on this matter!)
For Lay people, Buddhist lay people are not expected to celibate (except on some occasions like doing retreats etc.). However, we are governed by sexual misconduct. What is considered as sexual misconduct?
Sexual activities that are motivated by these are considered as sexual misconduct:
1) What is the consequences of such action? If it brings harm to the other person or even ourselves.
2) If the action will harm our spiritual attainment/goal
3) The universalibility of of the action... doing an action that we would not want others to do to us.
4) If the motivation of the act is wrong - ie lust, feeling of possession, to degrade, anything negative
In the event when any sexual relationships does not contain any of the above, then it is considered within the context of Buddhism regardless of it being a heterosexual or homosexual relationship.
-
Then how would you explain homosexuals? and transvestite? What were they attracted to when they saw the copulation happening and what were they thinking???
Especially transvestite/queens... what kind of karma did they collect to be trap in a body they do not wish to be in?
I have read somewhere that homosexuality and transversite/transsexuals are all the results of disrespecting women in their past life, as in disrespecting their feelings, using their bodies and being a playboy etc. Does make sense because most gay friends i know tend to make more snide comments against women in general. Its the same mind continuing.
This is very interesting. I have thought about it and my views defer from Ensapa's view. I can't explain the Tantric view of gender formation but I do believe that transvestites have very strong imprints of being females from previous lives. The imprints are so strong that they do not identify with their male physical bodies. Hence, they identify themselves as females. This is most likely a result of negative karma because this gender crisis consumes them and creates a lot of suffering. However, there are exceptions but that's what I have observed.
-
Then how would you explain homosexuals? and transvestite? What were they attracted to when they saw the copulation happening and what were they thinking???
Especially transvestite/queens... what kind of karma did they collect to be trap in a body they do not wish to be in?
I have read somewhere that homosexuality and transversite/transsexuals are all the results of disrespecting women in their past life, as in disrespecting their feelings, using their bodies and being a playboy etc. Does make sense because most gay friends i know tend to make more snide comments against women in general. Its the same mind continuing.
Hmmm.... I disagree that disrespecting women (disrespecting their feelings, using their bodies, being playboy... etc) in one's past lives creates the causes for the person to have homosexual tendencies or become a transvestite/transexual... Why? Because by the logic of Karma, if we cause harm to someone, that very harm will return to us (in a nutshell!). So, how can we "return" and cause the same harm again. Surely the person would be born in less opportune conditions and suffer the "same fate" as what they caused in their previous life?
I would be more inclined to think the person in question would come back as a bitter spinster that has no love and will still be disrespecting (same mindstream) to other women because they are jealous.
Perhaps I am wrong but it makes more sense to me...
@PositiveChange I disagree with your statement. We all know that karma is complex, so it could turn out either way, but disrespecting women (disrespecting their feelings, using their bodies, being playboy... etc) in one's past lives does and can create the cause for the person to become a transvestite/transexual in their next life.
We don't have to come back with the exact same fate, coz the harm that comes back to us is equally as suffering if we are reborn as a transvestite/transexual. It's suffering looking down at our body and feeling trapped that our appearance doesn't reflect the gender that we feel we are. It's suffering that our family rejects us and our "friends" make fun of us. It's suffering that society rejects us. It's suffering to go through surgical changes, only to find ourselves still getting jobs when the sun sets.
For men that beat up their wives, they hate women, they mistreat them, they make them suffer physically, emotionally and psychologically. That suffering can be translated into becoming a transvestite in their next life only to feel that physically, emotionally and psychological suffering they themselves inflicted on another person in their previous life.
-
In the Vinaya (regulations for Buddhist monks), the Buddha states that those who openly expressed cross-gender features or strong homosexual desires and actions may not become a monk. Note that just having homosexual desires eliminates the person from the possibility of being a Buddhist monk.
What about the Buddhist lay person? The answer is still, no, it does not allow homosexuality.
In answering this question shouldn't the actual teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, the original Buddah and the founder of Buddhism, be followed? The basic teachings of classical Buddhism (Theravada Buddhism) are found in the Four Noble Truths and the Eight Fold Path.
-
In the Vinaya (regulations for Buddhist monks), the Buddha states that those who openly expressed cross-gender features or strong homosexual desires and actions may not become a monk. Note that just having homosexual desires eliminates the person from the possibility of being a Buddhist monk.
What about the Buddhist lay person? The answer is still, no, it does not allow homosexuality.
In answering this question shouldn't the actual teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, the original Buddah and the founder of Buddhism, be followed? The basic teachings of classical Buddhism (Theravada Buddhism) are found in the Four Noble Truths and the Eight Fold Path.
In being a monk one has to renounce sexual desire, so what is the difference if that person becoming a monk has heterosexual or homosexual tendencies? Surely at that point it really does not matter or does it? How can one be pigeon holed into what one can or cannot do in this age?
I dare not challenge the Vinaya... but surely this has some room for interpretation? I really do not see the relevance of one's sexual desires when it comes to be a monk. Everyone has it regardless of one's preferences. Surely sexism does not exist in Buddhism or am I being a bright eyed bushy tailed rabbit!?
-
i understand that in Buddhism, we are not defiant or support Homosexuality.
As long as you do not break the vow of sexual misconduct that will be fine. Which mean it can be between man-man, man-woman, woman-woman etc as long as you not harm or hurt other, you partner by having affair with the third person who is single or have family then you do not break the vow.
What is the cause to become a Homosexual because of previous life you look down of woman, play boy, not respect woman etc
Since we know what is the cause for that, be mindful and careful, do not act in that such way to create the cause to become that.
-
i understand that in Buddhism, we are not defiant or support Homosexuality.
As long as you do not break the vow of sexual misconduct that will be fine. Which mean it can be between man-man, man-woman, woman-woman etc as long as you not harm or hurt other, you partner by having affair with the third person who is single or have family then you do not break the vow.
What is the cause to become a Homosexual because of previous life you look down of woman, play boy, not respect woman etc
Since we know what is the cause for that, be mindful and careful, do not act in that such way to create the cause to become that.
There has been much said about homosexuality in this thread... not surprising as it is a thread about just that. It is however, interesting to note how homosexuality is still perceived by some in this day and age. It is almost archaic to a point of being rude and derogatory. For me this is a shame really as that reflects the mindset and perception one still has for the minority.
Just because homosexuality is not the norm in society, does that mean it is something negative and as such a repercussion of bad karma? Are homosexuals not sentient beings as well? What makes a heterosexual person any better than a homosexual person? Why I say this is because some of the posts presented here view homosexuality as a result of bad karma. I on the other hand tend to disagree with this not because I reckon homosexuality is better but purely because there are variants with regards to karma.
Perhaps being born homosexual is a result of good karma because one does not have the "problems" of heterosexuals, in that the pressure to have children or the in cling to have children that sometimes hinders our practice. Not everyone is suited to have children... that in itself is another can of worms entirely.
Hence my point is, homosexuality though not the norm may not be the result of negative karma but perhaps of good merits. It all depends on how one views or sees the situation. There are many different existences out there... are heterosexual people the "promised" ones? Ridiculous no if one looks at the big picture!
-
Hmmm.... I disagree that disrespecting women (disrespecting their feelings, using their bodies, being playboy... etc) in one's past lives creates the causes for the person to have homosexual tendencies or become a transvestite/transexual... Why? Because by the logic of Karma, if we cause harm to someone, that very harm will return to us (in a nutshell!). So, how can we "return" and cause the same harm again. Surely the person would be born in less opportune conditions and suffer the "same fate" as what they caused in their previous life?
I would be more inclined to think the person in question would come back as a bitter spinster that has no love and will still be disrespecting (same mindstream) to other women because they are jealous.
Perhaps I am wrong but it makes more sense to me...
I have actually read that story many years ago amongst my father's collection of Dharma books. It was from the biography of a thai monk whose name slips my mind. It was more than 10 years ago, but i vividly remember the story as the monk's nephew was sent to stay with him as the nephew was effeminate and was essentially a woman in a man's body as he was shy to walk around bare chested and acted in other kinds of feminine ways. Also, halfway through the story, there was a rock that had a male ghost residing in it and it was brought to the temple. Not too long after, a haunted broom with a female ghost was brought to the temple and placed next to the rock. The monk commented that it was a true love united at last but the nephew commented that if the man was a real man, he would have loved him and that they were monsters in love. The monk scolded him back and said he was the monster by acting like a woman when he was a man and further added that he was born this way as a result of being a playboy and breaking the hearts of many women. It was a really funny story and I remembered it for years. The entire biography was actually set during the 1920s.
I have been thinking about that and the possibilities as thai culture is much more accepting of homosexuality so there must be some sort of proof to it because i do see a lot of gay friends of mine make snide remarks against females and perhaps although they have created the karma to have a male body, they also create the karma to suffer the same things that a woman would, the same way they insult and deride women in their past life. I have also read somewhere before that a man dissuading a woman from being a woman by highlighting the flaws results to the man being born in a woman's body in the next life and that is a Tibetan text that I read but not turn gay and as different karmas can mix and ripen at the same time and not neutralize each other.
In any case, whether or not one is gay or not, there is nothing much we can do about it. If we turn out to be homosexual, its too late to be straight again as it is a physical wiring in the brain that causes us to be this way. best is not to ponder upon it, but make the best use of this human life and make a wish to not be burdened by the sufferings that come with having an unconventional sexual orientation so that it will not affect Dharma practice.
-
I like what Ensapa said and comments a lot of times
Aside to PS,
Homosexual is definitively a result of bad karma incurred, heterosexual too. U can check with your Guru to confirm on this
-
I like what Ensapa said and comments a lot of times
Aside to PS,
Homosexual is definitively a result of bad karma incurred, heterosexual too. U can check with your Guru to confirm on this
There is no need to mention that being born gay is a result of negative karma because it covers all of us.The very fact that we are in samsara is the result of bad karma incurred. There is no denying about it so people will still be people. Gays are still normally functioning human beings despite the fact that they are a little different from what everyone is brought up to believe due to centuries of mental conditioning, but they are still people. There is no need to discriminate against them, nether is there any need to make them feel worse than they already are going through. Many have gone to Buddhism for refuge because the only thing the Buddha said about them is, they cannot become monks and it ends there, although the Buddha was not clear cut. He used the term Pandaka to describe homosexuality which also seem to include other nonstandard sexual orientations:
asittakapandaka—A man who gains sexual satisfaction from performing oral sex on another man and from ingesting his semen, or who only becomes sexually aroused after having ingested another man's semen (ibid. :235-236).
ussuyapandaka—A voyeur, a man or woman who gains sexual satisfaction merely from watching a man and a woman having sex (ibid. :236).
opakkamikapandaka—Eunuchs, that is, castrated men lacking complete sexual organs. Unlike the other four types of pandaka Bunmi describes, these men attain their condition after birth and are not born as pandaka (ibid.:236). 15
pakkhapandaka—PeopIe who by the force of past misdeeds become sexually aroused in parallel with the phases of the moon, either becoming sexually aroused during the two week period of the waning moon (Pali: kalapakkha) and ceasing to be sexually aroused during the fortnight of the waxing moon (Pali: junhapakkha) or, conversely, becoming sexually aroused during the period of the waxing moon and ceasing to be sexually aroused during the period of the waning moon (ibid.:236). 16
napumsakapandaka (also sometimes called simply napumsaka)—A person with no clearly defined genitals, whether male or female, having only a urinary tract (ibid. :237). Another definition of a napumsaka given by Bunmi is, "a [male] person who is not able to engage in activities like a man" (ibid. :239). Elsewhere Bunmi adds that napumsakapandaka are born without any genital organs as punishment for having castrated animals in a past life (ibid. :267). 17
A more contemporary definition from Buddhagosha, the monk who wrote Vishuddi Magga (the path to purification, essentially, the Lamrim for the theravardans) defines pandaka as:
According to Buddhaghosa pandakas are full of defiling passions (ussanakilesa); their lusts are unquenchable (avapasantaparilaha); and they are dominated by their libido (parilahavegabhibhuta) and the desire for lovers just like prostitutes (vesiya) and coarse young girls (thulakumarika) (Samantapasadika III, p.1042). Thus the pandaka . . . was considered in some degree to share the behaviour and psychological characteristics of the stereotypical "bad" woman.
It seems that pandakas refer to people who are unable to control their lust or sexual deviants. These people are not allowed to be monks as it would be complicated.
It appears that Ananda himself was born as a gay/transgender for many lifetimes before his last rebirth as Ananda as a result of adultery. This seems to be a Thai belief(?)
In previous existences Phra Ananda, the Buddha's personal attendant, had been a gay or kathoey for many hundreds of lives. In his last life he was born as a full man who was ordained and was successful in achieving arahantship three months after the Buddha attained nibbana. The reason he was born a kathoey was because in a previous life he had committed the sin of adultery. This led to him stewing in hell for tens of thousands of years. After he was freed from hell a portion of his old kamma still remained and led to him being reborn as a kathoey for many hundreds of lives (Prasok 1989:10).
And here is the vinaya rule and the story behind it on why pandakas are not granted ordination. I am not sure if exceptions are allowed in any case, but it is interesting to know:
The Story of the Prohibition of the Ordination of Pandaka
At that time a Pandaka had been ordained in a residence of monks. He went to the young monks and encouraged them thus, 'Come all of you and assault 23 me." The monks spoke aggressively, "Pandaka, you will surely be ruined. pandaka, you will surely be [spiritually] destroyed. Of what benefit will it be?" Having been spoken to aggressively by the monks, he went to some large, stout novices and encouraged them thus, "Come all of you and assault me." The novices spoke aggressively. "Pandaka, you will surely be ruined. Pandaka, you will surely be destroyed. Of what benefit will it be?" Having been spoken to aggressively by the novices, the pandaka went to men who tend elephants and horses and spoke to them thus. "Come all of you and assault me." 24 The men who tend elephants and horses assaulted him and then publicly blamed, rebuked and criticised [the sangha], saying, "A samana of the lineage of the son of the Sakyas is a pandaka and these samanas, even those who are not pandakas themselves, assault the ordained pandakas. When such is the case these samanas are not practising brahmacariya (celibacy)." The monks heard the men who tend elephants and who tend horses blaming, rebuking and criticising thus and informed the Blessed One of the matter.
The Blessed One then ordered the monks, "Behold monks. a pandaka is one who is not to be ordained. Monks should not give them ordination and those who have been ordained must be made to disrobe" (Vinaya, Vol. 4, pp. 141-142).
-
Archeologists had findings to prove that homosexuality existed in ancient civilization such as ancient greece. Ancient people has no concept of homosexuality in the 'modern sense', its just simple expression of love and affection through the act of intimacy with their own gender, nothing more than this. Heterosexual marriage legalization has degraded the concept of love in the same gender and in further conservative mindset concludes that its against the law of 'nature'. In buddhism, there's no mentioning of homosexuality is evil or 'dirty' (not that i know of). But there's vow of 'sexual misconduct' and this vow doesn't only apply to heterosexual but also homosexual.
-
Let us for a moment throw our perceptions to the wind and see sexuality from a wider perspective. Here are some interesting articles that may perk one's interest. I have taken the liberty in highlighting some pertinent and interesting points. In these articles, there are some strong hypothesis but nothing conclusive as such, so perhaps the missing key or link in this case could well be the spiritual or should I say, the "Karmic Key". Now wouldn't THIS be interesting to prove!:
Sexual Orientation:
Sexual Orientation is a term used to describe our patterns of emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction—and our sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions. Recent research suggests that a person's sexual orientation is not a black or white matter; sexual orientation exists along a continuum, with exclusive attraction to the opposite sex on one pole and exclusive attraction to the same sex on the other.
Heterosexuality (attraction to members of the opposite sex), homosexuality (attraction to members of the same sex), and bisexuality (attraction to members of either sex) are the three most commonly discussed categories of sexual orientation.
Few issues are as hotly contested as what determines a person's sexual orientation. While most scientists agree that nature and nurture both play complex roles, the determinants of sexual orientation are still poorly understood. Current reseach into its underpinnings frequently focuses on the role of genes, environment, brain structure, and hormones.
Finding the Switch:
If there is one thing that has always seemed obvious about homosexuality, it's that it just doesn't make sense. Evolution favors traits that aid reproduction, and being gay clearly doesn't do that. The existence of homosexuality amounts to a profound evolutionary mystery, since failing to pass on your genes means that your genetic fitness is a resounding zero. "Homosexuality is effectively like sterilization," says psychobiologist Qazi Rahman of Queen Mary College in London. "You'd think evolution would get rid of it." Yet as far as historians can tell, homosexuality has always been with us. So the question remains: If it's such a disadvantage in the evolutionary rat race, why was it not selected into oblivion millennia ago?
Twentieth-century psychiatry had an answer for this Darwinian paradox: Homosexuality was not a biological trait at all but a psychological defect. It was a mistake, one that was always being created anew, in each generation, by bad parenting. Freud considered homosexuality a form of arrested development stamped on a child by a distant father or an overprotective mother. Homosexuality was even listed by the American Psychiatric Association as a mental disorder, and the idea that gays could and should be "cured" was widely accepted. But modern scientific research has not been kind to that idea. It turns out that parents of gay men are no better or worse than those of heterosexuals. And homosexual behavior is common in the animal kingdom, as well—among sheep, for instance. It arises naturally and does not seem to be a matter of aloof rams or overbearing ewes.
More is known about homosexuality in men than in women, whose sexuality appears more fluid. The consensus now is that people are "born gay," as the title of a recent book by Rahman and British psychologist Glenn Wilson puts it. But for decades, researchers have sought to identify the mechanism that makes a person gay.
Something seems to flip the sexuality switch before birth—but what? In many cases, homosexuality appears to be genetic. The best scientific surveys put the number of gays in the general population between 2 and 6 percent, with most estimates near the low end of that range—contrary to the 10 percent figure that is often reported in the popular media. But we know gayness is not entirely genetic, because in pairs of identical twins, it's often the case that one is gay and the other is not. Studies suggest there is a genetic basis for homosexuality in only 50 percent of gay men.
No one has yet identified a particular gay gene, but Brian Mustanski, a psychologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago, is examining a gene that helps time the release of testosterone from the testes of a male fetus. Testosterone masculinizes the fetal genitalia—and presumably also the brain. Without it, the fetus stays female. It may be that the brains of gay men don't feel the full effects of testosterone at the right time during fetal development, and so are insufficiently masculinized.
But if that gene does prove to be a gay gene, it's unlikely to be the only one. Whatever brain structures are responsible for sexual orientation must emerge from a complex chain of molecular events, one that can be disrupted at many links. Gay genes could be genes for hormones, enzymes that modify hormones, or receptors on the surface of brain cells that bind to those hormones. A mutation in any one of those genes might make a person gay.
More likely it will take mutations in more than one gene. And that, as Rahman and Wilson and other researchers have suggested, is one solution to the Darwinian paradox: Gay genes might survive because so long as a man doesn't have enough of them to make him gay, they increase the reproductive success of the woman he mates with. Biologists call it "sexually antagonistic selection," meaning a trait survives in one sex only because it is useful to the other. Nipples—useless to men, vital to women—are one example, and homosexuality may be another. By interfering with the masculinization of the brain, gay genes might promote feminine behavior traits, making men who carry them kinder, gentler, more nurturing—"less aggressive and psychopathic than the typical male," as Rahman and Wilson put it. Such men may be more likely to help raise children rather than kill them—or each other—and as a result, women may be more likely to choose them as mates.
In this way, over thousands of generations of sexual selection, feminizing genes may have spread through the male population. When the number of such genes exceeds a certain threshold in a man, they may flip the switch and make him want to have sex with other men. Evolutionarily speaking, that is bad for him. But for the women who are doing the selecting, the loss of a small number of potential mates may be a small price to pay for creating a much larger number of the kind of men they want.
Some gay genes may benefit women more directly—to the detriment of their own sons. The evidence comes from groundbreaking studies by Andrea Camperio-Ciani, a researcher at the University of Padua in Italy. Camperio was interested in understanding the evolutionary paradox and began by replicating a family-tree study done in the early 1990s by geneticist Dean Hamer of the National Institutes of Health. Hamer had concluded that some cases of homosexuality are passed down on the X chromosome, which a boy receives from his mother. Camperio and his colleagues compared the family trees of gay men to those of straight men, and confirmed that homosexuals had more gay male relatives on their mother's side than on their father's side—which suggests an X-linked trait. But the Italian researchers also found something more intriguing: Compared with the straight men, the gay men had more relatives, period.
-
Homosexuality is not mentioned as something bad in Buddhism. Anyone is allowed to be gay. People are just very homophobic and they will attempt to say that having a relationship with a person of the same gender is bad and it is stated in the bible or sutras. But in fact, even the Bible does not disapprove heavily for acts of homosexuality. Therefore, it is not against creation. However, in Buddhism, having desire is bad too. So, in this case, homosexuality is a type of desire too. As long as the act of desire does not harm people, animals or other sentient beings, I guess it would be okay.
-
There seems to be quite a debatable subject this is, but recently I read from an article about interviewing Dalai Lama which took place in San Francisco year 1997. So that means Homosexual is prohibited since it is mentioned by Dalai Lama as that?
In a 1997 interview, the Dalai Lama was asked about homosexuality. He did not offer any strong answer either way, but noted that all monks are expected to refrain from sex. For laypeople, he commented that the purpose of sex in general is for procreation, so homosexual acts do seem a bit unnatural. He said that sexual desires in themselves are natural, perhaps including homosexual desires, but that one should not try to increase those desires or indulge them without self-control.
In a 1993 talk given in Seattle, the Dalai Lama said:
Nature arranged male and female organs "in such a manner that is very suitable... Same-sex organs cannot manage well." But he stopped short of condemning homosexual relationships altogether, saying if two people agrees to enter a relationship that is not sexually abusive, "then I don't know. It's difficult to say."
The Dalai Lama was more specific in a meeting with Buddhist leaders and human rights activists in San Francisco in 1997, where he commented that all forms of sex other than penile-vaginal sex are prohibited for Buddhists, whether between heterosexuals or homosexuals. At a press conference the day before the meeting, he said, "From a Buddhist point of view, [gay sex] is generally considered sexual misconduct." But he did note that this rule is for Buddhists, and from society's viewpoint, homosexual relationships can be "of mutual benefit, enjoyable, and harmless."
-
Here's another view of homosexuality by the famous master Hsuan Hua who is very attained and pretty much a mahasiddha in his own right:
Next Life?I Want to Be a Siamese Twin
from Venerable Master Hsuan Hua's talk given in 1994?
Chapter 6? - Next Life?I Want to Be a Siamese Twin
The opinion I just expressed is not at all over-stated?and I am certainly not scolding people? Such depraved behavior actually does go on in Buddhism?and that is why Buddhism cannot prosper?
Although I could have avoided mentioning that matter?there is another?more serious issue concerning all mankind?which I must bring up? That is?homosexuals nowadays are getting more rampant all the time? In New York and San Francisco?for instance?there are several hundred thousand homosexuals? These days?even government officials openly admit to being homosexual?support homosexuality?and proclaim that the society should support homosexual marriages? You should know that homosexuality is an evil practice which goes against the principles of Heaven and Earth and contradicts human obligations? Behind it are demons?ghosts?and goblins egging people on?fanning the flames?telling people to head straight for the gates of the hells?
Earlier I mentioned the stupid love between a man and a woman?and their oath?"In the heavens?we vow to be birds who share a wing? On the earth?we vow to be trees whose branches intertwine?" The marriage of a man and a woman is the accepted custom everywhere? As it is said?"The matter between a man and a woman is the great obligation of mankind?" If you're following the road of birth and death?then getting married and having children does not go against the way of Heaven? On the other hand?homosexuality is a perverted behavior which contradicts natural law?human ethics?and biological structure? Its retribution is to be born as a Siamese twin in the next life? In the world now?we have heard about the birth of Siamese twins for some time? In the near future?many Siamese animal twins will appear? Since these people have committed perverse acts of evil and engaged in the most vulgar and depraved sort of conduct?they will inevitably undergo rebirth in the lower path of animals?
Sometimes, certain masters whose attainments are narrowed down by cultural barriers may have interesting views on things. Perhaps he did have clairvoyance but he happened to gaze on the gay couple that was heavily afflicted with negative karma and imprints and they ended up in hell or that their homosexuality were influenced by other beings (as a result of karma as well) that he came to this conclusion.
Master Hsuan Hua is a very realized master, by the way:
Throughout his life the Venerable Master was totally selfless. He vowed to take the suffering and hardships of all living beings upon himself, and to dedicate all his own blessings and joy to the living beings of the Dharma Realm. He practiced what was difficult to practice and endured what was difficult to endure, persevering in his heroic and pure resolve. He was a candle that refused to be blown out by the gale, an irreducible lump of pure gold in the hot fire. The Venerable Master composed a verse expressing his principles:
Freezing to death, we do not scheme.
Starving to death, we do not beg.
Dying of poverty, we ask for nothing.
According with conditions, we do not change.
Not changing, we accord with conditions.
We adhere firmly to our three great principles.
We renounce our lives to do the Buddha's work.
We take the responsibility to mold our own destinies.
We rectify our lives as the Sangha's work.
Encountering specific matters,
we understand the principles.
Understanding the principles, we apply
them in specific matters.
We carry on the single pulse of the patriarchs'
mind-transmission.
From the time he left the home-life, the Venerable Master firmly maintained the six great principles do not fight, do not be greedy, do not seek, do not be selfish, do not pursue personal advantage, and do not liebringing benefit to the multitudes. Teaching with wisdom and compassion, dedicating himself to serving others, and acting as a model for others, he influenced countless people to sincerely change their faults and head towards the pure and exalted Bodhi Way.
http://www.cttbusa.org/founder/biography.htm (http://www.cttbusa.org/founder/biography.htm)
So the only explanation would be that his attainments were moulded by cultural barriers and lack of exposure.
-
Extract from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_sexual_orientation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_sexual_orientation)
Within the earliest monastic texts such as the Vinaya (c. 4th century BCE), male monks are explicitly forbidden from having sexual relations with any of the four genders: male, female, ubhatovyanjañaka and pa??aka; various meanings of these words are given below. Later, the Buddha allowed the ordination of women, but forbade ordination to these other types of people. The Buddha's proscriptions against certain types of people joining the monastic sangha (ordained community) are often understood to reflect his concern with upholding the public image of the sangha as virtuous; in some cases, this is explicitly stated. Social acceptability was vital for the sangha, as it could not survive without material support from lay society.
The word ubhatovyanjañaka is usually thought to describe people who have both male and female sexual characteristics: hermaphrodites. In the Vinaya, it is said that hermaphrodites should not be ordained, on account of the possibility that a hermaphrodite would entice a fellow monk or nun into having sex.
The pa??aka is a complex category that is variously defined in different Buddhist texts. In the earliest texts, the word seems to refer to a socially stigmatized class of promiscuous, passive, probably transvestite homosexuals, who were possibly prostitutes.
Pa??aka are categorized with others who are also excluded from ordination; either those with physical abnormalities such as deafness or dwarfism, or those who have committed crimes. "The Story of the Prohibition of the Ordination of Pandaka" from the Vinaya explains that the ban is a response to the example of a monk with an insatiable desire to be sexually penetrated by men, who requested and received this from some animals handlers, who then in turn related the incident to the wider community and brought disgrace upon the sangha.
The current Dalai Lama follows the traditional Tibetan Buddhist assertion that inappropriate sexual behaviour includes lesbian and gay sex, and indeed any sex other than penis-vagina intercourse with one's own monogamous partner, including oral sex, anal sex, and masturbation.
In a 1994 interview he stated "If someone comes to me and asks whether homosexuality is okay or not, I will ask 'What is your companion's opinion?' If you both agree, then I think I would say 'if two males or two females voluntarily agree to have mutual satisfaction without further implication of harming others, then it is okay'".
However, in his 1996 book Beyond Dogma, he states, "A sexual act is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended for sexual intercourse and nothing else ... homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact."
For me, those people are recognized even back then during Buddha's generation, this state that these "in between" gentle does exist by nature, just like any other animals and beings. Personally I do not see homosexual is something bad, it's just their living nature.
-
Traditional Buddhist teachings make no special mention of homosexuality. The third percept in classical Buddhism forbids sexual miscounduct (which is an extremely broad term). Although the Dalai Lama have stood against the persecution of the gay community, the Buddha may not have been so easy going. The extract below tells us that Buddha forbade the admittance of certain homosexuals – those who took the passive role during the sex act (pandaka) – into his order:
"The Story of the Prohibition of the Ordination of Pandaka" from the Vinaya explains that the ban is a response to the example of a monk with an insatiable desire to be sexually penetrated by men, who requested and received this from some animals handlers, who then in turn related the incident to the wider community and brought disgrace upon the sangha.
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_sexual_orientation) ;D
I think modern Buddhism is generally free of prejudice against homosexuality and treats it just like any other form of sexual expression. For example, San Francisco is home to the Gay Buddhist Fellowship (GBF) (http://gaybuddhist.org/v3-wp/) for men and the Dharma Sisters for gay women. GBF regards its main mission as healing the internal homophobia with which many gay people are afflicted. Their mission statement: We respect and care for each other in a compassionate way as an expression of the full realization of the Dharma. We cultivate a social environment that is accepting, open, inclusive, and caring.
-
Not much is said about homosexuality in Buddhism. Teachings on matters of sexuality, especially sexual misconduct are clearly stated.
Society has put up a huge barrier when it comes to homosexuality and is not accepted in many societies. Not having gain acceptance, does not mean that something is wrong. There is much discrimination against homosexuals.
What is so beautiful about Buddhism is that it does not discriminate. You are responsible for your own actions.
I personally see nothing wrong in homosexuality. Sexual preference is a very personal matter. After all it is between two consenting adults and does not harm anybody. Some homosexual couples are just as loving, just as happy as any other heterosexual couples.
-
Buddhism does not speak out against homosexuality but as you have read and as the examples in this thread has provided, the Buddha has spoken out against homosexuals from joining the sangha as spending the night with other males every night and bathing with them would ignite lust or undesirable cravings in homosexuals and cause them to break their vows. With that said, if a homosexual person is able to rid his desires and reactions to another man and not cause problems for the sangha, I believe there is no problems for ordination for this individual.
However, one must also consider the cultural influences that might affect the Buddhist view of homosexuality. In countries such as Thailand, although the culture there has accepted homosexuality as part of being human and the consequences of adultery, it is more of a toleration than acceptance. It might be okay for laypeople to be gay, but a homosexual ordained as a monk is unheard of at all as they adhere strictly to the vinaya with little or no compromise.
In China however, there is less tolerance towards homosexuality and because even sex itself is viewed as an impure act, and the impression that homosexuals are sex maniacs and are very dirty due to the nature of anal sex, and this view was enforced and intensified by the Jesuit priests that visited China (The Chinese seems to accept homosexuality before that), and also due to lack of understandings of its workings, many Chinese Buddhist masters from the previous generation spoke out against it.
Now in our generation, homosexuality is no longer considered a disease there are measures to ensure a clean sexual experience between two partners without risking any sort of infection, and thus the concerns from the older generation of catching infections and disease from not properly cleaning prior to sexual activity has been somewhat nullified which is why Buddhism no longer has any issues with homosexuality because there is no need to.
-
Here's another milestone in Buddhist gay rights:
([url]http://img1.cna.com.tw/Eng/WebEngPhotos/CEP/20120707/20120707000411.jpg[/url])
Taipei, July 7 (CNA) Two devout Buddhist women will hold the first Buddhist wedding for gay couples next month as part of an effort to push for the legalization of same-sex marriages in Taiwan.
"We are not only doing it for ourselves but also for other gays and lesbians," said Fish Huang in a telephone interview with CNA.
The 30-year-old social worker at a non-governmental organization said that marriage never crossed her mind until she saw a movie last year.
The film portrayed two lesbians whose ill-fated relationship concluded when one died and the other was left heartbroken over the denial of spousal benefits.
"It's so sad," said Huang.
She plans to wed her partner of seven years on August 11 at a Buddhist altar in Taoyuan County in northern Taiwan.
Both brides will wear white wedding gowns and listen to lectures given by Buddhist masters about marriage, accompanied by a series of chanting and blessings from monks and nuns.
Although homosexual marriages are not legally recognized in Taiwan, Huang insisted on tying the knot because she wants to make her relationship complete and raise awareness about the adversities faced by sexual minorities.
Alternative sexual orientation and marriage have yet to receive wide acceptance by the general public in the country, despite years of effort by activists to secure equality.
The first public gay marriage in Taiwan took place in 1996 between a local writer and his foreign partner. The event drew widespread media attention and inspired many gays to follow his footsteps. But Huang's wedding will be the first with a Buddhist theme.
While planning for her wedding, Huang found out, to her surprise, that some of her Buddhist friends were hesitant about attending the ceremony.
"They are not sure if it would break their vows and expressed much anxiety," Huang said.
She messaged a Buddhist master on Facebook, asking her if she could find grounds in Buddhism for condemning the practice of homosexuality.
To Huang's surprise, the master quickly replied that Buddhism shows no bias toward homosexuality. In a demonstration of support, the master is willing to host a ceremony for the couple -- the first public same-sex Buddhist wedding in Taiwan.
"It is meaningful to us that our wedding can give hope to other homosexuals and help heterosexuals understand how Buddhism views sexuality," said Huang.
The Buddhist master Shih Chao-hwei, who is also a professor at Hsuan Chuang University, said Buddhist teachings do not prohibit homosexual behavior.
Compared to western religions, Buddhism on the whole is more tolerant toward homosexuality because there is no concrete rule banning the practice in Buddhist scriptures, Shih said.
"It's difficult enough to maintain a relationship ... how could you be so stingy as to begrudge a couple for wanting to get married, regardless of their sexual orientation," she said in a telephone interview.
But Shih recognized there is disagreement on the issue both within and outside the Buddhist circle. Shih noted that Huang and her partner could face criticism.
"The first step is always the hardest," Shih said.
(By Nancy Liu)
-
Here's an interesting view on transgenderism that is based on theravardan scriptures. Perhaps through this we can understand why Thailand is so tolerant of transsexuals, compared to the rest of the world who view them with scorn. In certain schools in Thailand, there is even a toilet for the 3rd gender! How would we react when we come face to face with a transgender person? What if they work together with us as a colleague? Perhaps by understanding that they were this way due to their karma, we would be able to sympathise them more the way the thai people do.
Thai Ladyboy
In most of societies, homosexuals and transgenders are very much frowned upon but not in Thailand. In Thailand transgenders are known as either "kathoey" or "ladyboy". Transgenders enjoy acceptance and much more respect in Thailand than their counterparts elsewhere. Why is this so ? Studies conducted on this have concluded that tolerance towards transgenders in Thailand could be attributed to Buddhism.
(1) Throughout the Theravada Buddhism 'Tipitaka', from the beginning right to the end, there are many references as to what or who are deemed good or bad but there was no mentioned at all on homosexuals. This could imply that the proper behaviour of heterosexuals and homosexuals are to be judged on the same basis. In other words, both groups are to be treated as "equal". The Tipitika recognizes 4 sexes. In addition to male and female, there are two other genders namely " ubhatobyanjanaka " and "pandaka".
The term "ubhatobyanjanaka" has different interpretations within the Tipitika but generally it refers to hermaphrodite.
The Pali-English dicitionary - describes "ubhatobyanjanaka" as "having the characteristics of both sexes, hermaphrodite"
A reformist Thai writer Phra Ratchaworamuni describes "ubhatobyanjanaka" as "being with the genital organs of both sexes"
Bunmi Methangkun, head of the traditionalist Abhidhamma Foundation in Thailand considers the physchological factors in his intepretations. He describes two types of hermaphrodite namely
" itti-ubhatobyanjanaka" ( physically female but physically attracted to another woman ) and "purisa-ubhatobyanjanaka" ( physically male but physically attracted to another man )
Like "ubhatobyanjanaka", the term "pandaka" also has different interpretations by different writers but the basic concept appears to be that of a deficiency in male sexual capacity. Subsequently, the denotation of the term appears to have expanded to incorporate notions of non-normative male sexuality. Pandaka may be derived from anda, which variously means `egg' or `testicle' in Pali, and probably originally denoted male reproductive deficiency or incapacity. The Pali-English dictionary describes "pandaka" as "a eunuch".
In Thailand both "ubhatobyanjanaka" and "pandaka" have been translated as "kathoey (ladyboy)"
(2) Buddhists believe in Karma. where we are reborn into a type of being that is based on our past deeds. Kathoeys are thought to be predetermined from birth as the direct result of karma. Being born as something as a result of past actions / deeds is not perceived to be due to one's fault. Therefore it is not the fault of Kathoey to be born as Kathoey and they should be treated with compassion.
The above two reasons will probably best explain why transgenders are accepted and respected in Thailand. Though like their counterparts in other countries, many kathoeys in Thailand join the sex industry but there are as many who are successful in other industries such as entertainment, beauty and fashion. A number of movies have been made on the kathoeys in Thailand but interestingly they were potrayed positively in those movies rather than the stereotype roles of prostitutes or undesirable characters. As much as they want to be recognised as women, many are willing to leave their "feminity" to enter the monkhood to make merit for their parents. Once there, they will wear what the rest of the male monks wear.
In a school in Thailand, the Kathoeys even have their own toilets ( separated from the girls and boys toilets )
-
Well sex is a very strong drive for our subtil consciousness and leaves a very strong imprint in the mind,gross and subtle.
Lord Buddha explained many solutions to this problem,(the problem of strong attachment),in the Hinayana path
He talks of morality for monks and lay,in the mahayana again He points out the facts that attachment is an hindrance for the development of concentration and wisdom.
In the Vajrayana quite advanced practice,after you have realized renunciation,bodhicitta and sunyata then you can after having received the proper initiation use desire as a mean to destroy the subtle obscurations to Enlightenment.
So according to Hinayana desire is the enemy you have to control,in the Mahayana again you control it untill you reach renunciation,bodhicitta and Sunyata once you are introduced in the Tantric vehicle you can use it to destroy the subtle obscurations.
Regarding the sexual act in the society of human beings is still a taboo,beside the bla bla of modern thinking,so if you follow the Hinayana you control desire,Mahayana in order to obtain the Wisdom you control the gross aspect of desire,Tantra you can use the sexual act to destroy the most subtle imprint of grasping at desire as concrete.
So you chose at wich level are you.
At least be sincere with yourself,try.
good luck.
Paolo
-
Homosexuality and Buddhism are not incompatible. Gays, lesbians and even trans-gendered are welcome by the Buddha. It is one of the only religions open to the idea.
Indeed, homosexuality is accepted for the lay person. If one wants to be ordained, all sexual intercourse are banned so it doesn't matter if your a homosexual or not, you will not be active.
Sexuality in the Buddhist texts
In Buddhist texts, especially the Vinaya, four genders are described: Male, female, Ubhatovyanjanaka and Pandaka.
Ubhatovyanjanaka is accepted as meaning anyone who has both male and female sexual characteristics: hermaphrodites. It is specified that hermaphrodites should not be ordained, on account of the possibility that a hermaphrodite would entice a fellow monk or nun into having sex. Many later texts include in the category people who are not physically hermaphrodites but also are mentally of the other sex. For example, a someone in a woman's body who feels like a man inside.
5th century Buddhist writer Buddhaghosa describes Ubhatobyanjanaka as people with the body of one gender but the "power" of the other, often accepted as meaning gays and lesbians.
The Pandaka is a complex category and there are many commentators who tried to define it. In the earliest texts, it meant that the person belonged to a socially stigmatized class of transvestite homosexuals, who were possibly prostitutes.
Pandaka are categorized with others who are also excluded from ordination; either those with physical abnormalities such as deafness or dwarfism, or those who have committed crimes.
This category was expended to include most other sexually deviant or marginal people, voyeurs, sodomite, impotents, eunuchs and other people with 'abnormal' physical or mental sexual characteristics are among them.
The reason for this is usually accepted as being because Buddha wanted the Sangha to be socially recognized as of the upmost respectability.
The Pandaka are often excluded from a variety of Buddhist practices (in addition to ordination):
acting as preceptors in ordination ceremonies
making donations to begging monks
being preached to
meditating and
ability to understand the Dharma.
Homosexuality and Buddhism in the West
Since its introduction in the West, Buddhism has been at the avant-garde of social issues and especially since the 1990s, gender roles and sexual orientation have been widely discussed and generally accepted.
When talking and homosexuality and Buddhism, Western Buddhists often emphasize the importance Buddha placed on tolerance, compassion, and seeking answers within one's self. For them, these values are more important than examining specific passages or texts.
Many people think that homosexual relationships are no better or worse than heterosexual relationships and that only unhealthy relationships in general are to be avoided.
Some associations in the United States perform same-sex marriage. Among them are: SGI announced in 1995 that they would start holding wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples;
A Buddhist temple in Salt Lake City connected with Jodo Shinshu, another Japanese school of Buddhism, also holds religious rites for same-sex couples.
The Dalai Lama's point of view
The Dalai Lama has been asked numerous times his point of view about homosexuality and Buddhism and his answer changed through the years.
In general his point of view is that inappropriate sexual behaviour includes lesbian and gay sex, and indeed any sex other than penis-vagina intercourse with one's own monogamous partner, including oral sex, anal sex, and masturbation.
In 1994, he stated in an interview with OUT magazine that "If someone comes to me and asks whether homosexuality is okay or not, I will ask 'What is your companion's opinion?' If you both agree, then I think I would say 'if two males or two females voluntarily agree to have mutual satisfaction without further implication of harming others, then it is okay'".
In 1996, though, in his book Beyond Dogma: Dialogues and Discourses he stated that "A sexual act is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended for sexual intercourse and nothing else ... homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact."
Now, the Dalai Lama has repeatedly "voiced his support for the full recognition of human rights for all people, regardless of sexual orientation.' and doesn't not condemn homosexuality. He basically says that the sexual act itself is not approved of by Buddhism but that the person is not condemned.
To this effect, he says that he can't rewrite the texts. He thinks that this is the type of issue that would need to be discussed by a council of Buddhist elders from all Buddhist traditions. Only such a council could amend issues concerning Vinaya and ethics. The Dalai Lama also recommends the issue of the equality of women, particularly in monastic rituals and ceremonies, to be reconsidered and revised.
In conclusion
The homosexual act is considered against the basic Buddhist precepts, as killing a sentient being or lying. The act might prevent you from attaining illumination as long as you are attached to it, like many other attachments but it doesn't prevent you from seeking illumination.
Thus, it doesn't make a homosexual a non-Buddhist. It just makes him or her a suffering being, at the same level as a liar is a suffering being or someone who killed a mosquito, or even the man who likes having heterosexual intercourse with many partners.
The best way to be a Buddhist is to follow, as much as possible, the eightfold noble path.
Finally, if I wasn't clear before: homosexuality and Buddhism are not incompatible. Not perfect, but not forbidden.
-
I found an interesting article on this topic, which I thought would be nice to share with everyone here about homosexuality:
Why Buddha was not anti-gay
While many gays are rejecting religion, others are choosing to walk a different path. GSN meets the Tibetan Buddhists who are living a life beyond dogma, intolerance and the very concept of sexuality
05 SEPTEMBER 2012 | BY MATTHEW JENKIN
Religion has become a dirty word among many in the gay community.
With preachers from a myriad of faiths around the world still condemning homosexuality as a disease, the root of all evil and even the Pope claiming it will lead to the extinction of the human race, it’s understandable.
But despite extremist fire and brimstone, many lesbian, gay and bisexual people still choose to have a belief, finding inspiration, guidance, hope and happiness in their faith.
With its emphasis on tolerance, compassion, peace and equality, it’s no surprise that Buddhism is drawing more and more interest from gay men and women tired of the dogma and institutional homophobia of other religions.
But is Buddhism really that liberal, progressive and gay friendly? Or are followers merely compromising on their sexuality in the hope of Nirvana or a cushy rebirth?
David Quirke Thornton was a Franciscan Catholic monk before he became disillusioned with the church and left the monastery.
‘I was very happy as a monk but not happy as a Catholic,’ he said.
‘I knew I was gay, not a problem as I was celibate, but obviously I didn't agree with the Church's teaching and so I left the Franciscans and came to London.’
After finding a job in the UK capital, he hit the scene before finding his partner Paul, entering a civil union in 2006.
But his passion for religion and philosophy remained and after years of study, he found himself returning again and again to Buddhism.
He explained: ‘What I was searching for, apart from the meaning of life, was insight without prejudice and I wanted to make that journey among a community of equals.
‘Buddhism's liberal views on being gay certainly made me feel welcome and accepted as an equal.
‘I don't go for tolerance, you tolerate a bad hair day - acceptance, equality and kindness was what I was looking for and I found that in our Buddhist community.’
Buddhism is a spiritual tradition that was founded over 2,500 years ago in India during the time of the historical Buddha, Shakyamuni.
The faith quickly spread throughout Asia and was introduced to Tibet in the 7th century, teaching followers to avoid doing harm, encouraging them to perform ‘wholesome’ actions and emphasizing the importance of training the mind through meditation.
‘I've known guys commit suicide because they were gay and Christian,’ Thornton said.
‘I've seen guys and girls rejected by their families because they're gay and their families hold religious views that won't accept this. That unnecessary suffering is heartbreaking.
‘My experience of Buddhism has been so positive and helpful, but challenging in a constructive way, that I've been able to focus on the teachings and the practice, in the company of friends, because ignorance and prejudice don't get in the way.
‘The values at the heart of Buddhism make it, in my experience, a wonderful religion for all. For gay folk who've experienced prejudice and hurt elsewhere, the loving kindness and warmth can also be healing, help you to let go of that pain and to find happiness in your life.’
James, a teacher who asked not to be named because of his job in a London Catholic school, said he became a Buddhist after entering a relationship with a former Tibetan Buddhist monk.
He said sexuality just isn’t an issue in Buddhism.
‘It’s beyond sexuality. In the end, you are a person,’ he said.
James added the onus of responsibility is on the individual. It is self-empowering, rather than dogmatic and judgmental.
‘Buddhism is not a top down religion. It’s bottom up. It’s down to you and the choices you make,’ he explained.
‘There’s a recipe to being Buddhist. Every generation makes their own cake and every cake is slightly different. But the recipe is still the same.’
According to Lama Zangmo, a Tibetan Buddhist nun and teacher who runs the Kagyu Samye Dzong center in London, the Buddha was simply not concerned with sexuality.
‘The Buddha was a monk. So the Buddhist view toward sexuality is maybe unique,’ she revealed.
The 59-year-old added: ‘He didn’t really encourage anybody to get together, whether you are homosexual, heterosexual or whatever sexuality you have. It wasn’t really a question.
‘But it’s not as if the Buddha or Buddhism was against marriage either. The Buddha’s choice was renouncing the world and his message is about renunciation.
‘He taught that through grasping we cause ourselves a lot of suffering and distress. We are being pulled between attachment and aversion constantly.
‘So the Buddha meditated and saw the underlying causes of suffering. That was his whole mission, to transcend suffering.
‘Buddhism goes beyond all these dualities in every aspect, male, female, ultimately beyond good and bad. So the result would be ultimate transcendence. That’s where Buddhism comes from.’
However, a set of guidelines on sexual conduct do exist, but are applied to all, whether in a straight or gay relationship.
‘It’s about trying to live in a way that causes the least suffering,’ Lama Zangmo said.
‘The Buddha’s guidelines were, when you’re in a relationship, for example, be faithful. If you are not, it’s going to cause a lot of upset and hurt, a lot of jealousy and mistrust and basic suffering.’
But she claims she has never seen anything which directly talks about the morality of same-sex relationships.
She added: ‘I don’t think there’s anything in the teachings which tell you that because it’s all about the mind. It’s about the emotions.
‘The key thing is dealing with the mind and recognizing what are the causes of suffering and happiness. For that reason, don’t practice sexual misconduct because it causes suffering.
Lama Zangmo explains that the Buddhist teachings are also about overcoming our strong emotions, such as desire, anger, jealousy and pride.
‘If one is completely ruled by one’s desires and emotions, one is not a free person,’ she said.
‘It’s about having a more balanced perspective and seeing that happiness doesn’t equal fulfilling one’s desires.
‘Desire is desire, whether it is for a man or woman, same-sex or opposite sex.’
Despite reverence towards enigmatic teachers such as the Karmapa and Dalai Lama, she insists their role is not to lay down the law.
‘It’s not that there is someone at the top like the Pope dictating that this is the way it is because everybody is following the Buddha’s teaching,’ Lama Zangmo said.
‘Everybody is free to adopt any part of Buddhism which they feel works for them and leave the rest.
‘You can’t be excommunicated in Buddhism. It’s all about you and your mind. It’s your own personal path.’
Tibetan teacher Akong Tulku Rinpoche admits same-sex relationships are an alien concept to many in the roof of the world.
But then again, the reincarnate lama who fled his homeland after the Chinese invasion in 1959 explains many relationship norms in Tibet might seem outrageous to many Westerners.
He said: ‘Tibetan society is very much based on a family unit. But if you have three brothers, you can have the same wife for three brothers. It’s about the unity of two families together, so a big family can have 20 people in one house.
‘That can be very different from other countries too. Although we don’t have a system of same-sex marriage, I don’t think anybody minds.’
In 1967, Rinpoche helped found Kagyu Samye Ling, the West’s first ever Tibetan Buddhist center in Scotland.
He says Buddhism does not exist in a cultural time capsule and when the world changes, so must your ideas.
‘There aren’t many things which do not change when you come from Tibet to Europe,’ he explained on how he has adapted to living in the West.
‘I suppose we take on whatever the European system says. We don’t say that the Tibetan system is better. When you go to another country, there are different beliefs, different languages and ideas. If you want to stay in that country, you have to accept it.’
The Buddhist path, of course, is not for everyone. Indeed, religion is still a turn off for many, no matter how sweet the honey pot at the end of the rainbow may be.
But flippantly dismissing people’s beliefs, no matter how ludicrous they sound, can lead to the same bigoted, narrow mindedness which has blinded the very homophobes who the gay community are fighting to overcome.
Maybe it’s time we all took a leaf out of Buddha’s book and walked our own paths instead of tearing up others.
-
Let hear the view point of homosexuality in Buddhsim from Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche.
From the Buddhist point of view, is engaging in a gay relationship or gay sexual activity a Breaking of the Precepts? … ((Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche, Love & Relationship Q & A)
Question: One more question; this is a popular topic. Just adding onto the gay issue – from the Buddhist point of view, is engaging in a gay relationship or gay sexual activity - a breaking of the precepts?
Rinpoche: NO, that’s easy. (Laughter). And this is; I need, I need to build my answer for this one otherwise a partial answer might miss, make you, mislead you.
Every religion has an enemy; looks like. Like Christians and Muslims, they have like Satan and so on and so forth – right, every religion. And Buddhism also has one – that, that devil of Buddhism – and what is that? It’s called DISTRACTION.
Constant distraction – that is the Satan of Buddhism, so this. So understandably the main quintessence of the Buddhist practices – obviously, MINDFULNESS; this is where mindfulness is taught in the Theravada tradition, in the Mahayana tradition, in the Vajrayana tradition. Mindfulness is the thing, okay.
So what I want to say is this. Eh, that, that’s one part; I want you to keep that in your head. - okay. Distraction is the main problem, okay. Now in connection to that, in Buddhism morality is secondary, wisdom is the primary. Shantideva said (Tibetan phrase) – a morality without the wisdom is a pain in the neck. It is, it actually makes you hypocritical, it makes you judgmental; it makes you puritanical, so on and so forth.
This is true, you know. When I was growing up, my tutors – they used to really, you know like “Watch out for this, you know like Western girls. They’re immoral, they’re, you know, they’re like blah, blah, all of this; you know like American girls, you know English girls, they’re immoral. American girls are so immoral, they wear short skirts, all these blah, blah, you understand.”
They used to tell me this. Much years, years later when I went to America, for my surprise, I found out and I realize Americans are much more moralistic. American society, American value is so much into more moral, moralistic; this is why, if you can recall, the whole nation debated where, where Clinton’s cigar went in – remember? Who cares? (Laughter)
As long as he’s doing his job, good as a President, who cares what he, did with his cigar. But Americans care so much about morality; so this is the thing.
Actually in Buddhism, wisdom is much more important. Without the wisdom, everything makes you proud, makes you hypocritical – basically it’s pain. You got that. I want to keep that in your head to answer this question.
So, in Buddhism, generally they; these are general, you know, very, very general sort of rule; such as like, eh, you should not kill, you should be generous, you should not steal, so on and so forth – so-called non-virtuous action and virtuous action. You must have heard this before: ten non-virtuous actions and ten virtuous actions and so on and so forth.
But how do you define what is virtuous and what is not? If an act, if an act brings you closer to the truth, it’s a virtuous action in Buddhism – okay. If an act; okay, so if an act of whatever, for instance, if in order to save like these two; let’s say these two are being chased by a, you know, murderer. In order to save these two; the murderer asks me – have you seen these two? I say no; that’s a blatant lie. There’s an act “lying” but I’m saving them. Such kind of act; see outwardly it’s a non-virtuous but actually it’s bringing you closer to the truth, through the compassion, love and all that.
So therefore, especially in Mahayana Buddhism, action that brings you closer to the truth is virtuous. Action that does not bring closer, that brings you further from the truth, even though it may be seemingly virtuous such as going to Bodhgaya and do hundred thousand prostrations; and making sure anybody looking at you so that you become famous, whether anybody is taking photographs of you, you know, to cherish all of that. This brings you further from the truth.
That is not virtuous. So therefore there are categories - such as non-virtuous and virtuous. In the non-virtuous there is something called, you know, like sexual activities are generally considered non-virtuous. But it’s never specified without what orientation; even on the Mahayana level. I am even talking about the Tantra; that’s, that’s even more beyond our normal thinking; but even on the Mahayana level.
So it doesn’t matter what kind of orientation you belong to. As long as you have this kind of sexual activity that takes you away from the truth – yes, it is non-virtuous action. But that could be anything; it could be shopping too. It could be, I don’t know, anything that takes you. So, bottom line – my answer this is; my answer to you is that, eh, what you call it; Buddhist sutras and shastras would not say, eh, heterosexual is lesser non-virtuous than, you know, homosexual, understand. That, there is no this, you know what you call it, eh, discrimination like that.
Having said that though - Buddhism is influenced by culture a lot; a little bit unfortunate but unavoidable. So when Buddhism travelled to Tibet, Japan, China, of course India, that’s where it originated – the cultural value may have an influence, right. So this is why even in Singapore, I’m sure many of the Mahayana Buddhists; I don’t know whether any are here today; when Tibetan Buddhism come here with these hideous thangkas, you know, like thangkas with the father and mother consort embracing – basically PORNOGRAPHIC, you understand. (Laughter)
So, so the Mahayana people go bananas – oh, what is this? What is, THIS is Buddhism? Can’t be; this is some, you know, Hindu, I don’t know, some cult stuff. So culturally, you know, I cannot wipe out that problem. That is so much into the culture. So, of course, the tantric method of this practice of consort and the deities with the consort is not; eh, it has amazing wisdom, amazing, amazing wisdom.
Eh, if you want to make a fire, what do you need? - Wood. If you want to make, if you want to bring wisdom, what do you need? – Emotion. That is the intuition. And if you have water inside your ear, what do you do? The simple and most economic way is put more water, and it comes out. Likewise if you want to get rid of emotions, what do you? - The best and the simplest way – practice emotion, so on and so forth. But those are, eh, X-rated; the best, exclusive, only exclusive, only for people who can chew it basically, who can digest it.
Yes, we have problems with mm, eh, more orthodox, you know, thinking, of course but you know, like, it’s quite interesting actually, it’s really interesting. When you go to places like Sri Lanka, they have like Avalokiteshvara, they have like Manjushri also, but they are treated as, you know, like, eh, clerk; you know, like go for the boys. You know like - oh, yeah, they’re Buddha’s students, you know, those lay people. They happen to be one of those nice boys, but they didn’t have the guts to renounce the world, so they still wear jewels, they’re still lay people basically - but, so that level.
But now we come to Mahayana, Mahayana places like China, Japan; of course Avalokiteshvara, even the Taoist shrine, you find her, you know like great bodhisattvas; accepted even though they are not a monk, accepted as an object of refuge – right. Even in the Mahayana monastery the monks shave head, all of that – they prostrate to Kuan Yin, who is a woman, with all the jewels and all of that. Mahayana - so the wisdom is much more different. But in the Vajrayana, also it’s much more different than that level; that, that depends on the culture and how much you can; you know different culture, acceptance and stuff like that. Okay one more question and then I think we can end. Two more questions, is it?
Transcribed from YouTube video: Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche on Love & Relationships - Q&A section, 8 April 2012, Singapore.