Buddhism's Perspective On Homosexuality & Gay Marriage (Compiled)

juliet · April 23, 2012

First of all, non-Buddhists have to know that there are so many branches of Buddhism, of which Theravada and Mahayana being the most prominent sect. The writer of the article seems to a Theravada Buddhist monk(well,I think so based on the colour of the robe ,also I am a Theravada Buddhist and all Theravada Buddhist monks' robe are similar to what the venerable is wearing)

Theravada is widely practiced in Sri Lanka, Laos,Myanmar,Cambodia and Thailand.

I do not know if there are any substantial differences between Theravada and Mahayana. But from Theravada Buddhist point of view,being gay is absolutely okay. the reason for being gay is that we raped someone without their consent in our past lives,if I remember correctly what I read in scriptures. However, it doesn't mean gays are filthy and gays will be sent to hell after death. Buddhism does not condemn a person based on their sexuality,this is for sure.

In fact, Buddhism states that non-Buddhists can be reincarnated in heaven while being Buddhists does not mean he/she is guaranteed a place in heaven. Take note that the notion of Heaven in Buddhism is also vastly different from other religions.It is hard to explain since I am not very knowledgeable in Buddhism yet.

The same hold true for the case of sexuality. Being gay doesn't mean life is doomed and god will forsake you(anyway, Theravada Buddhists do not believe in god,Buddha is not considered god by Buddhists) . So long as we are kind,passionate,adhere to five basic rules,practice "metta" as much as you can, sexuality doesn't matter at all.

I realized I am gay at the age of 15(now 21) and when I first realized that,I just accepted it and didn't have to think about whether this is morally right or wrong. I didn't have to go through a period of constantly asking myself if I am possessed by evil forces or some extreme questions. To be exact,I didn't cry or cringe once for finding out that I am gay.

I felt really sad for Julian and the Taiwanese monk is utterly unreasonable.I am wondering if he even studied Buddhist scriptures thoroughly. There seems to be a bit of irony since Taiwan is known as Asia's gay paradise. It is also disgusting to know that some religious leaders abuse their influence and religion,which results in more and more teenagers getting confused and some end up like Julian.

juliet · April 23, 2012

Seven olours denotes each seven charkras.
Each charkras is actually 7 layers.
Thus 7x7= 49.
If you look carefully.
Christ was tempted in the wilderness for 49 days
The Buddha sat under the Bodhi tree and attain his enlightenment for 49 days.
Mohamad was in the cave for 49 days.

I am puzzled because Buddha spent six years in forest to attain Enlightment ,not 49 days. There are other aspects of Buddhism which do not relate with number7 .

babooshame07 · April 23, 2012

But they all forget, if the seven colours are all together,they give us the beauiful colours rainbow.
Seven notes that make up a music scale. If you lack just one note, the music is incomplete.
Seven colours denotes each seven charkras.
Each chakras is actually 7 layers.

I am always curious about the 7 chakras and have seen people take chakra photos, it always intrigues me when it comes to life and death issues. What exactly are chakras? I seek for more violet and green ray than orange ray.

Edited April 23, 2012 by babooshame07

April 23, 2012

Dalai Lama Speaks on Gay Sex

He says it's wrong for Buddhists but not for society

Read more: http://www.sfgate.co...L#ixzz1ssPn3Rvn

As he prepares to meet today with gay Buddhist leaders, the Dalai Lama has clarified his position on the morality of homosexuality for Buddhists and non-Buddhists.

``We have to make a distinction between believers and unbelievers,'' the exiled Tibetan leader said at a press conference yesterday in San Francisco. ``From a Buddhist point of view, men-to-men and women-to-women is generally considered sexual misconduct.

``From society's viewpoint, mutually agreeable homosexual relations can be of mutual benefit, enjoyable and harmless.''

His comments were an effort to clarify statements in a book -- ``Beyond Dogma,'' published last year by North Atlantic Books in Berkeley -- that upset some gay Buddhists.

The Dalai Lama said the same Buddhist scripture that advises against gay and lesbian sex also urges heterosexuals to refrain from oral sex, anal sex and masturbation. ``Even with your own wife, using one's mouth or the other hole is sexual misconduct,'' he said. ``Using one's hand, that is sexual misconduct.''

Read more: http://www.sfgate.co...L#ixzz1ssQ9V3tq

April 23, 2012

Dalai Lama Speaks on Gay Sex
He says it's wrong for Buddhists but not for society
Read more: http://www.sfgate.co...L#ixzz1ssPn3Rvn
As he prepares to meet today with gay Buddhist leaders, the Dalai Lama has clarified his position on the morality of homosexuality for Buddhists and non-Buddhists.
``We have to make a distinction between believers and unbelievers,'' the exiled Tibetan leader said at a press conference yesterday in San Francisco. ``From a Buddhist point of view, men-to-men and women-to-women is generally considered sexual misconduct.
``From society's viewpoint, mutually agreeable homosexual relations can be of mutual benefit, enjoyable and harmless.''
His comments were an effort to clarify statements in a book -- ``Beyond Dogma,'' published last year by North Atlantic Books in Berkeley -- that upset some gay Buddhists.
The Dalai Lama said the same Buddhist scripture that advises against gay and lesbian sex also urges heterosexuals to refrain from oral sex, anal sex and masturbation. ``Even with your own wife, using one's mouth or the other hole is sexual misconduct,'' he said. ``Using one's hand, that is sexual misconduct.''
Read more: http://www.sfgate.co...L#ixzz1ssQ9V3tq

Excerpt from Sujato's Blog -post dated 21March 2012:

In some cases we find Buddhist leaders who state the ethical case plainly. Ajahn Brahm has been very forward in supporting the gay community for many years, both in Australia and overseas. Master Hsin Yun, the leader of the international Fo Guang Shan order, said:

‘People often ask me what I think about homosexuality. They wonder, is it right, is it wrong? The answer is, it is neither right nor wrong. It is just something that people do. If people are not harming each other, their private lives are their own business; we should be tolerant of them and not reject them.’

On the other hand, the Dalai Lama has repeatedly maintained that homosexual acts are a violation against the precepts. At the same time, he insists on compassion and full human rights for all. His stance is solely concerned with what is appropriate behaviour for a Buddhist practitioner, not what should be made law.

His argument is that the sexual organs are designed for procreation and should be used solely for that purpose. So any form of sex that is not for procreation is out.

This is, to my mind, an extreme and unrealistic position. The Dalai Lama says it is based on certain medieval Indian scholars (Vasubandhu, Asanga – but I have never seen the passages myself). It certainly has no basis in the Suttas. On the contrary, the Suttas freely acknowledge that sex is for pleasure, and they never make a problem out of that. Buddhism is not a fertility religion, so why we should insist that sex be for procreation is beyond me.

The precept as found in the early Buddhist texts mentions nothing about whether sex is for procreation or not. What it talks about, solely, is whether the sexual relation involves the betrayal of a social contract. Here’s the text. It’s a stock passage, found for example in Majjhima Nikaya 41, and Anguttara Nikaya 10.176 and 10.211:

http://sujato.wordpress.com/

April 23, 2012

In that case, it should be ok to fxxx a cat, dog, cow, monkey, tiger, lion, chim, panda and whatever is out there. And the other way around is ok too ;-)

April 23, 2012

Why is the anus so small that it needs to tear in order for the penis to enter ?

April 23, 2012

KALU RINPOCHE
KALU RINPOCHE

So handsome

TheVisitors · April 24, 2012

I am puzzled because Buddha spent six years in forest to attain Enlightment ,not 49 days. There are other aspects of Buddhism which do not relate with number7 .

He spent 6 years in alone searching for the truth life, including 49 days of deep meditation and overcoming the tests and temptations by Maya,

under the Bodhi tree, to attain his Enlightment

For those of you who are dieheart Buddist ( I am not althought I find Buddhist teachings extremely logical and wise ) there is a Ceylonese Buddhist Temple and school at St.Michael's estate.

There is a very old big Bodhi tree at the yard of the temple.

I was told. this tree, is actually an offspring, direct descendent of the original Bodhi tree which the Buddha sat under, 2500 years ago.

TheVisitors · April 24, 2012

I am always curious about the 7 chakras and have seen people take chakra photos, it always intrigues me when it comes to life and death issues. What exactly are chakras? I seek for more violet and green ray than orange ray.

I wish I can explain to you in a short note but it can't be done so.

Chakras collectively are energy spots corresponding to the meridien energies of the Universal Life force, which each spots and colours also corresponds to each diffrent emotions of a person.

Chakras are also part of how a martial arts exponent channels his energy into full force, maintaining his own life force, while absorbing external Prana

force, for his own well being while he also executes each of his strokes, be it hard or a soft blow

Interestingly enough, in Jin Yong's novels, where he mentioned the Jiu Yin Zhen Jin, it was originally a Taoist way of meditation using the knowledge and the secrets of the Chakras.

7 of the energy field resides in each human, while the other two, resides in the Superconscious Power of the Universal Force.

When all the nine are connected and aligned, these is where a person's spiritual. psychic, etc awareness as surpassed the ordinary mortals,

including the increase of the mind power

Please note. Chakras are just energy spots and fields, which can heal illness if understood clearly, but vice versa, if a corresponding emotion of each energy field is damaged, by negative thoughts etc, it can caused an ilness pertaining to that chakra.

Thus chakras is not the human soul.

permanent-guest · April 24, 2012

One relatively famous monk, the Venerable Sujato, argues that Buddhist Should Support Gay Marriages in his blog at http://sujato.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/1430/

Singapore's Venerable Dhammika has also reproduced Sujato's artilce in Ven Dhammika's own blog at http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/search?q=marriage+equality

I reproduce the article below:

Why Buddhists Should Support Marriage Equality

Marriage equality is one of the key social and legal issues of our time. I’d like to offer a Buddhist perspective.

As with so many ethical and social questions, especially those that involve sexuality, we find that religion wants to be at the core of things. The conservative Christian churches are leading the opposition to marriage equality. We can’t generalise on the basis of religion, though. Many Christians believe that Christ’s message of compassion and love, and the fact that he never made any statement on homosexuality, provide a basis for support of marriage equality.

In Australia there was an interesting exchange between the highly conservative Catholic leader Cardinal George Pell and the group Australian Marriage Equality. The AME asked to meet Cardinal Pell, and he consented to do so as long as the AME agreed that not all opposition to same-sex marriage was a result of homophobia or discrimination. The AME agreed, and came out with the following statement:

‘Just as we acknowledge that it is possible to oppose marriage equality without hating homosexuals, so we ask those who differ with us on this important issue to acknowledge that it is possible to support marriage equality without seeking to undermine, marriage, family, or religion.’

That’s a great starting point, and an all-too-rare example of dialogue as it should be.

But what of Buddhism? As with any issue, you’ll find a variety of positions; and as with any issue – and I apologise if this sounds cynical – most of those positions have little to do with anything the Buddha himself said or did.

In some cases we find Buddhist leaders who state the ethical case plainly. Ajahn Brahm has been very forward in supporting the gay community for many years, both in Australia and overseas. Master Hsin Yun, the leader of the international Fo Guang Shan order, said:

‘People often ask me what I think about homosexuality. They wonder, is it right, is it wrong? The answer is, it is neither right nor wrong. It is just something that people do. If people are not harming each other, their private lives are their own business; we should be tolerant of them and not reject them.’

On the other hand, the Dalai Lama has repeatedly maintained that homosexual acts are a violation against the precepts. At the same time, he insists on compassion and full human rights for all. His stance is solely concerned with what is appropriate behaviour for a Buddhist practitioner, not what should be made law.

His argument is that the sexual organs are designed for procreation and should be used solely for that purpose. So any form of sex that is not for procreation is out.

This is, to my mind, an extreme and unrealistic position. The Dalai Lama says it is based on certain medieval Indian scholars (Vasubandhu, Asanga – but I have never seen the passages myself). It certainly has no basis in the Suttas. On the contrary, the Suttas freely acknowledge that sex is for pleasure, and they never make a problem out of that. Buddhism is not a fertility religion, so why we should insist that sex be for procreation is beyond me.

The precept as found in the early Buddhist texts mentions nothing about whether sex is for procreation or not. What it talks about, solely, is whether the sexual relation involves the betrayal of a social contract. Here’s the text. It’s a stock passage, found for example in Majjhima Nikaya 41, and Anguttara Nikaya 10.176 and 10.211:

‘One is a person who misconducts himself in sexual pleasures. One has intercourse with a woman who is protected by mother, father, mother and father, brother, sister, family, clan, law (or custom, ‘dhamma’), or one who has a husband, who is punishable, or even with one garlanded for betrothal.’

‘

Kāmesu micchācārī hoti, yā tā māturakkhitā piturakkhitā mātāpiturakkhitā bhāturakkhitā bhaginirakkhitā ñātirakkhitā gottarakkhitā dhammarakkhitā sasāmikā saparidaṇḍā antamaso mālāguḷaparikkhittāpi, tathārūpāsu cārittaṃ āpajjitā hoti.

’

Most of these are straightforward. They refer to women who are not ‘independent’ women in our modern sense, but who live under the authority of others. Typically, of course, this would have been young girls living at home, then in a family with a husband. There are significant variations, though, so arrangements were flexible.

It’s noteworthy that, while the Hindu texts say that a woman must always be under the authority of a man, here we find that living under the authority of a motheris next to father, and a sister is next to brother, with no implication that one of the other is preferable.

In some cases, it seems, women lived under the protection of the wider family. The one ‘guarded by dhamma’ is probably adopted, orphaned, or in some other way taken care of. The one who is ‘punishable’ is ambiguous: does it mean that the woman is to be punished (as a criminal)? Or does it mean that having intercourse with her is punishable? The text doesn’t make it clear. The woman ‘garlanded for betrothal’ refers to a woman who is, in our modern sense, ‘engaged’ but not yet married.

Obviously, the passage as stated above only refers to the man as agent. That doesn’t mean that women can’t break this precept! Like so many of the Buddhist texts, it is phrased from a male point of view (andocentric), and would apply equally to both genders. The assumption of the passage is that it is women who are under protection. This reflects the social reality of the Buddha’s time; it doesn’t endorse this situation, nor does it say that women can’t or shouldn’t live independently. It just says that if a woman (and presumably a man) is living in a committed relationship then one should not betray that.

This much is clear: the precept against sexual misconduct has nothing to do with homosexuality (or any other form of sexual activity as such.) It is concerned with breaking the bonds of trust with those that we love, and nothing else. While the specifics of the social relations in the Buddha’s time are different than today, it is not problematic to work out how to apply this in our own context, at least in most cases.

So if the precept does not concern homosexuality, what did the Buddha say on the topic? We are very lucky in Buddhism to have thousands of discourses, with the Buddha making observations or criticisms regarding many kinds of ethical issues. Rape, paedophilia, adultery: these and many other problems are clearly mentioned in the early texts, and the Buddha made it clear that he didn’t approve of them.

In the case of homosexuality, however, we have nothing in the Suttas. In all the thousands of discourses, not a single one regarded homosexuality as a significant issue.

There is one passage in the Cakkavattisihanada Sutta, which is sometimes cited by those who are trying to prove that the Buddha was anti-gay. The text discusses various examples of moral decay in society. One of the practices it mentions is, in the Pali, micchā-dhamma. This is about the most generic term for wrong doing that it’s possible to make in Pali. You could translate it as ‘wrong teachings’, ‘bad practices’, ‘misguided actions’, and so on. The commentary, compiled nearly 1000 years later in Sri Lanka, however, says it means, ‘Lustful desire of men for men, and women for women.’ (Micchādhammoti purisānaṃ purisesu itthīnañca itthīsu chandarāgo.) Since this has no basis in the text, it stands as a record of the attitude of a medieval commentator. There’s no evidence, so far as I am aware, that this attitude was representative of ancient Theravadin or Sri Lankan culture in general.

The Suttas essentially ignore any issues around homosexuality. Now, arguments from absence are always difficult. But the presence of thousands of discourses detailing lists of many kinds of ethical violations, strongly suggests that the Buddha tried to be reasonably comprehensive in addressing ethical concerns, and homosexuality was not one of them.

The picture in the Vinaya is a little different. The Vinaya is a legal code for monastics, and since it regulates the conduct of a celibate order, it deals with all kinds of possible sexual behaviours. It does so with a degree of frankness and candour that so shocked the early European translators that they simply omitted large chunks of text, or, with a quaint regard for the delicate sensibilities of young readers, translated them into Latin.

Homosexual acts, like just about any other imaginable sexual act, are depicted many times in the Vinaya, both among monks and nuns. In each case, the Buddha is shown as responding in his usual direct and common sense manner. Obviously, homosexual behaviour, like any sexual behaviour, is inappropriate among the celibate monastic community, so the Buddha prohibits it. However, this is done in a straight, matter-of-fact tone, and there is never a suggestion that there is anything wrong with gay sex per se.

In several cases the penalty is actually less in the case of homosexual behaviour. For example, for a monk to erotically touch another man is a less serious offence than the same act with a woman. Sex between women, likewise, is treated less seriously than between a woman and a man. There is one passage where the Buddha’s chief disciple, Venerable Sariputta, is said to have had two novices as students. But they had sex with each other. The Buddha laid down a rule that one should not take two novices as students at the same time! (This rule, like many others, was later relaxed.)

However, it would be a mistake to read this as implying that the Buddha regarded same-sex sexuality as somehow more permissible in the Sangha. The Vinaya, as a legal code, frequently makes judgements for various technical reasons, and there is no strong correlation between the moral weight of an act and the severity with which it is treated in the Vinaya. For example, building an overly-large hut is a serious offence, while bashing someone within an inch of their life is a minor offence.

So we shouldn’t read too much into the relative leniency of how some homosexual acts are treated in the Vinaya. The main point is simply that homosexuality is treated in pretty much the same way as any other expression of sexuality.

In these accounts there is nothing that really corresponds with our modern notion of sexual orientation. For the most part, same-sex acts are just that, acts. There’s no idea of a person who solely or primarily is attracted to people of the same sex.

The texts do speak of a certain kind of person, called a paṇḍaka. These are typically male, but there were females too (itthīpaṇḍikā). A paṇḍaka is forbidden to ordain, and is regularly associated with unbridled sexuality. It is, however, unclear exactly what paṇḍaka means. The descriptions of the paṇḍaka are few, and not always consistent, but there seems to have been some physical attribute involved, as well as a set of cultural behaviours. Perhaps they were some form of eunuchs who performed sexual services. In any case, the paṇḍaka is clearly not a homosexual in the modern sense of the word. They may be connected with the modern classes of Hijras and the like, who are considered a ‘third sex’ in India, including transsexuals, hermaphrodites, and eunuchs.

To sum up, early Buddhism is well aware of homosexual acts, and never treats them as an ethical problem. Homosexuality as a sexual orientation is not found.

This is completely in line with the Buddha’s take on ethics. The Buddha did not ethically judge persons, he judged deeds. People are simply people, who do various kinds of things, some good, some bad. If a person does a deed that causes harm, this is what the Buddha considered ‘unskilful’. If the deed causes no harm, it is not unskilful.

The basic problem in sexual ethics, addressed in the third precept, is betrayal. ‘Sexual misconduct’ is sexual behaviour that causes harm by breaking the trust that a loved one has placed in us. The Buddha was compassionate, and he never laid down ethical rules that caused harm or distress. Making a moral proscription against homosexuality marginalises and harms people who have done no wrong, and it is against the basic principles of Buddhist ethics.

It’s so important to keep this essential ethical question in mind. In discussions on homosexuality, as with just about any other controversial ethical issue, there is a pervasive tendency to confuse the issue. Why do we find it so difficult to look at an ethical question rationally? It is true, there are some issues that are complex and the details can be difficult to work out. But this is not one of them.

Countless times we are told, for example, that homosexuality is ‘unnatural’. Surely a moment’s reflection should show us this is not true, because there’s plenty of homosexuality in the animal world. And anyway, how is gay sex more unnatural than, say, typing on a keyboard, or wrapping food in plastic? But this is all beside the point. Being ‘unnatural’ is not an ethical issue. The issue is whether it causes harm, not whether it is natural or not. That is no more an ethical issue than is the choice, say, to eat organic or non-organic vegetables.

Homosexuality is also regularly linked with sexual ‘decadence’ in general. Homosexuals are said to be paedophiles, or promiscuous, or to cause diseases such as AIDS. Allowing homosexual relations is to licence all manner of debaucheries. This objection, too, is not valid: gays behave in all sorts of ways, just as do straight people.

Blaming gays for AIDS is one of the most cruel arguments possible. We feel compelled to look for examples that show the absurdity of these views. What of babies born with AIDS? What of those who get AIDS via blood transfusion? Incidence of malaria is much greater among poor people – are we to blame them, too? And why is incidence of AIDS among lesbians so very low – is lesbianism kammically preferable?

But we shouldn’t have to look for such examples. Like the arguments mentioned above, the whole thing is missing the point. Take the ‘worst case’ scenario, the cliché of the promiscuous, irresponsible, drug-taking, careless gay man. We might not think his behaviour is praiseworthy or wise, but does it deserve a slow, lingering, and painful death? Are we really comfortable to righteously proclaim the justice of destroying a human life, because we think that the way they have sought pleasure is irresponsible? This whole argument is inhuman and unworthy.

If there are behaviours that gay people do that increase transmission of HIV, for example, then we can try to change those behaviours, just as we would try to help any people who were inadvertently causing harm. What the marriage equality movement wants is to enable people of various sexual orientations to live in an accepted, recognised, and legal framework which supports the development of loving, committed relationships. Banning gay marriage is the very best way to ensure gays remain marginalised.

Another red herring, in my view, is the ‘born this way’ argument, which is often used by those who support marriage equality. Homosexuality, so the argument goes, is not a choice, some people are just like that and can’t change. While this is an important, if contested, fact, it misses the ethical issue. What if some gay people don’t feel like they were ‘born this way’? What if they feel like they have made a conscious choice? Whether this is the case or not, or whether there are in fact hidden biological factors involved, so what? Having sex with someone of the same gender is not a harmful deed, nor is marrying someone of the same gender. Whether it’s by biological determinism or free will, nothing harmful is done, so there’s no ethical problem.

Perhaps the single most fallacious argument against gay marriage is simply that it upsets the customs of society. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, therefore it will damage society to do it any other way.

This argument, favoured by conservatives, once again completely misses the point. The damage is already here. Violence, trauma, and abuse is a part of the living reality of millions of perfectly good people all over the world, simply because the have, or want to have, sex with persons of their own gender. Part of society is broken, and it needs fixing.

This is the same argument that was used to oppose abolishing slavery, votes for women, property rights for all, and so on. In each case, those in the position of privilege strive to keep others from getting the same rights. And since the cost of inequality is borne by the ‘others’, it does not exist for the privileged.

When we introduce compassion into the equation, however, we recognise that society has always been imperfect. Just because something was done in the past does not make it right. Perhaps it was the case that in certain times and places our marriage customs made more sense than they do now. But that’s not the point. The point is, what is the right thing to do now? To continue to exclude, marginalise, and discriminate? Or to broaden our moral horizons, to fully accept and include all people?

If homosexuality as such is not a problem, what then of same-sex marriages? In this area we find that the Buddha had even less to say. In fact, there is no such thing as a Buddhist marriage. Buddhists have simply adopted the marriage customs of the culture they find themselves in. The most basic model, therefore, was the customs of ancient India. These have been the basis for Buddhist family customs, adapted in each society that Buddhism has gone to.

In ancient India, there were several forms of marriage. As with all things Indian, there is no insistence on one true, correct way of doing things. Some Hindu texts list a whole range of marriage possibilities, which are correlated with the levels of Indian cosmology. The highest form of marriage is the ‘Brahma wedding’, where the bride and groom, each pure in lineage and caste, is united in the most perfect of ceremonies. If the marriage is lacking in some perfections of detail, it is reckoned as pertaining to the lower classes of deities. The lowest of the auspicious weddings is the gandharva wedding, where the bride and groom simply elope. Then there are the various inauspicious unions, those of the yakkhas or rakkhasas, where, for example, the woman is abducted by force.

Along with this diversity in wedding style, there were different marital arrangements. Monogamy seems to have been common, and of course these were often arranged marriages – but ancient Buddhist texts also record a strong struggle by women for autonomy in the marriage choices. Polygamy is also common, and was the norm for kings. Polyandry is less common, but is central to the most famous of all Hindu texts, the Mahabharata. Apparently polyandry is common in Tibet.

I’m not trying to uphold the Indian marriage system as superior to that in the West. It has its own problems with inter-caste marriages, arranged marriages, domestic violence, and so on. I’m merely making the point that there has traditionally been an adaptive diversity of living arrangements that were considered to be valid forms of marriage, and that this can be seen in some ways as a precedent for the modern idea of same-sex marriages.

So there has always been a flexibility and diversity in marriage customs in the Indian sphere that stands in clear contrast with the ‘one and only’ correct form of marriage that is, in the main, endorsed by the contemporary monotheistic religions. Same-sex marriages were not, so far as I’m aware, historically acknowledged within the Indian cultural sphere. Nor am I aware of any laws against them, such as we find in the modern day. Given the wide variations in marriage customs, including many forms of marriage that would not be considered valid in modern times, it would seem that the typical Indian approach was that of tolerance and inclusion. Accordingly, when the British law that made gay sex a crime was repealed in India in 2009, some Hindu authorities applauded the move, saying homosexuality was part of the divine order.

Unfortunately, this tolerant attitude is not always the case today. One sometimes finds Hindutva polemics against homosexuality. Such discourse, sadly enough, often rails against the supposed debauched influence of ‘Western’ morals, oblivious to the fact that anti-gay attitudes were themselves imported into India by the monotheistic religions. This ambiguity has been expressed by the highest authorities in India. Goolam Vahanvati, then solicitor-general and current attorney-general, stated to the UN Human Rights Council:

‘Around the early 19th Century, you probably know that in England they frowned on homosexuality, and therefore there are historical reports that various people came to India to take advantage of its more liberal atmosphere with regard to different kinds of sexual conduct.

‘As a result, in 1860 when we got the Indian Penal Code, which was drafted by Lord Macaulay, they inserted Section 377 which brought in the concept of “sexual offences against the order of nature”.

‘Now in India we didn’t have this concept of something being “against the order of nature”. It was essentially a Western concept, which has remained over the years. Now homosexuality as such is not defined in the IPC, and it will be a matter of great argument whether it is “against the order of nature”.’

A similar situation prevails in other Buddhist countries, too. In Japan, China, and elsewhere, the early generations of Christian missionaries were shocked at the casual acceptance of homosexual behaviour among the Buddhists. They immediately set about trying to persuade the world that their own version of sexual propriety was the right one for everyone.

Sadly enough, modern generations of Buddhists and Hindus are now doing this work for them, oblivious to their own more accepting and compassionate past. When a Thai monk like Thattajiwo, one of the leaders of Dhammakaya, rails against the ‘sexual perverts’, who have called down the kammic justice of AIDS (‘the executioner of the sex-mad’) upon them, oblivious of the pit of sin they have fallen into, and the even greater sufferings that await them in future disease-ridden hells of torment, he is merely parroting the frothing excesses of Christian and Islamic fundamentalists. (Phra Thattajiwo Bhikku. Waksiin pxxng-kan Rook Eet (A Vaccine to Protect Against AIDS). Pathumthani: Thammakay Foundation.) Such apocalyptic and condemnatory ‘ethics’ have no basis in the Buddha’s teaching.

So in today’s climate, what are we to do? For the Buddha, homosexuality was clearly not an issue. Nor was making laws proscribing valid forms of marriage. What was an issue, on the other hand, was compassion. The very essence of compassion is to reach out to those who are suffering, those who are marginalised. and persecuted. People whose sexual orientation varies from the majority suffer discrimination, bullying at school, violence, and emotional trauma. As Buddhists we should recognise a clear moral imperative to help wherever we can.

One might object that since the Buddha made no statement on the legalities of gay marriage, we should do the same. But the problem is a little more subtle than that. We are living in a culture where, based on certain religious and cultural ideas, certain ways of living one’s life have been made illegal. This is an artefact of the conditioned and always arbitrary course of history, not a timeless feature of the human landscape. In Australia, for example, there was no clear Federal law that prohibited same-sex marriage until 2004.

Supporting marriage equality is not to introduce something new, but simply to abolish laws that discriminate. The injustice is already in place. The harm is being done. The change is merely to remove the harmful influence of discriminatory laws, which should never have been there in the first place.

People are people, regardless of their gender, colour, nationality, or sexual orientation. The Buddha taught ‘for one who feels’. That’s the only requirement for Buddhist practice: one who feels. In the past our society decreed that marriage should not be between people of a different race, or a different colour, or a different religion, or a different nationality. Over time, we decided that these rules were harmful, and we abolished them.

Catastrophes were predicted: they didn’t come true.

What has happened, rather, is that we have become a little more open minded, and a little more aware of the suffering of others. The test of our generation is whether we can continue this move towards a more accepting and loving way of living, or whether we are to regress to a meaner, hard-hearted place.

My society, my culture, the one that I’m proud of and want to belong to, is this one. The society that is kind, questioning, accepting. Let us take up the best aspects of our own cultures, whether they be Buddhist or modern cultures, and discard all that is unjust, discriminatory, and harmful. Let us give our full support for marriage equality, for if we do not we are betraying the best part of our humanity.

Edited April 24, 2012 by permanent-guest

April 24, 2012

Next time, ask the Buddhist monk does gay sex (oral. anal sex) affect the realm a person borns into in his next life ? I believe that if the monk does really practiss well, he should be able to see the rebirth of these people.

I believe the Dalai Lama does have reach such attainment.

permanent-guest · April 24, 2012

Next time, ask the Buddhist monk does gay sex (oral. anal sex) affect the realm a person borns into in his next life ? I believe that if the monk does really practiss well, he should be able to see the rebirth of these people.
I believe the Dalai Lama does have reach such attainment.

What is the basis of your belief that the Dalai Lama has already reached the attainment of knowing the future rebirth of people who engages in oral or anal sex? What evidence do you have that the Dalai Lama has such an attainment?

April 24, 2012

You don't have to believe what I believe. And I don't have to proof to you anything... Just ask the monk next time the question. Does such acts affect the rebirth...

April 24, 2012

Why would a monk be bothered by such worldly matters.

When ppl ask Buddha how does the world starts and how does the world ends , did you know his reply?

To crave, to be ignorant, not understanding impermanence create suffering.......

permanent-guest · April 25, 2012

Should Buddhists be concerned with "worldly affairs" such as gay marriages?

The wise monks such as Master Xing Yun of the Mahayanna tradition (he founded the largest Chinese Buddhist organisation in the world - Fo Guang Shan or Buddha Light), Venerable Ajahn Brahm & Venerable Sujato of the Theravada Tradition rightly get themselves involved with "worldly affairs". Especially Master Xing Yun who believes that Buddhism should be humanistic Buddhism, i.e. it ought to be concern with the worldly affairs to help to reduce the sufferings there - hence his term: "Pure Land on earth".

Furthermore, in the Mahayana tradition, there is the important Heart Sutra that talked about the error of seeing worldly affairs as the opposite of spiritual affairs. "Form is emptiness, Emptiness is Form" "Nirvana is Samsara, Samsara is Nirvana". Nirvana is found within Samsara - so Buddhism is not about escaping from worldly affairs by living in the mountains - retreating up in the mountains is to prepare one to better serve the world.

(this reminds me also of Christianity's idea of "in the world but not of the world")

Hence prominent Mahayana monk, Master Xing Yun, is correct to give his affirmation to homosexual relationships. Theravada monks such as Ajahn Sujato, Ajahn Brahm, & Venerable Dhammika are right to voice their support for homosexual relationships.

When one looks at the great traditions of Islam, Buddhism & Christianity, one sees that there ought not to be a dichotomy between spirituality and worldly affairs. So it is very right for some Christians such as the retired Singapore Methodist Bishop Yap Kim Hao to be involved in worldly affairs to voice his support for homosexual relationships.

TheVisitors · April 25, 2012

Should Buddhists be concerned with "worldly affairs" such as gay marriages?
The wise monks such as Master Xing Yun of the Mahayanna tradition (he founded the largest Chinese Buddhist organisation in the world - Fo Guang Shan or Buddha Light), Venerable Ajahn Brahm & Venerable Sujato of the Theravada Tradition rightly get themselves involved with "worldly affairs". Especially Master Xing Yun who believes that Buddhism should be humanistic Buddhism, i.e. it ought to be concern with the worldly affairs to help to reduce the sufferings there - hence his term: "Pure Land on earth".
Furthermore, in the Mahayana tradition, there is the important Heart Sutra that talked about the error of seeing worldly affairs as the opposite of spiritual affairs. "Form is emptiness, Emptiness is Form" "Nirvana is Samsara, Samsara is Nirvana". Nirvana is found within Samsara - so Buddhism is not about escaping from worldly affairs by living in the mountains - retreating up in the mountains is to prepare one to better serve the world.
(this reminds me also of Christianity's idea of "in the world but not of the world")
Hence prominent Mahayana monk, Master Xing Yun, is correct to give his affirmation to homosexual relationships. Theravada monks such as Ajahn Sujato, Ajahn Brahm, & Venerable Dhammika are right to voice their support for homosexual relationships.
When one looks at the great traditions of Islam, Buddhism & Christianity, one sees that there ought not to be a dichotomy between spirituality and worldly affairs. So it is very right for some Christians such as the retired Singapore Methodist Bishop Yap Kim Hao to be involved in worldly affairs to voice his support for homosexual relationships.

To be involved or not, it is still a very personal choice at the end of the day.

What you wrote reminded me of a famous quotation from the famous Jiddu Krishnamurti

" To be vulnerable is to Live, To Withdraw is to Die "

Jiddu Krishnmurti had already attained a vey high level of spiritual awareness, which he was called the World Teacher, an honourable term which he refused to accept , for he only wanted men to free themselves from all their conditioned thoughts that were causing their suffering, when in reality, there is no suffering, because all thoughts are illusions of the mind, fear, lack of questioning things and lack of awareness of the powerful of the present.

For 6o years of his life, he travelled around the world giving discussions and sermons, even with enminent figurs like Dr Houston Smith and Dr David Bohm.

He even gains much respect from Osho and writers as Dr Deeprak Chopra

Many even suspected he was one of Maitreya's incarnation

Edited April 25, 2012 by TheVisitors

juliet · April 25, 2012

Why would a monk be bothered by such worldly matters.
When ppl ask Buddha how does the world starts and how does the world ends , did you know his reply?
To crave, to be ignorant, not understanding impermanence create suffering.......

My exact sentiment. Monks involving in worldly affairs is not encouraged in Buddhism,at least in Theravada,I presume.

Buddha emphasized a lot on attaining Nirvana and mindfulness throughout 45 years of preaching. In Tipitaka set, example given is a poisoned arrow hitting a man chest,and the man should think about saving his life. Knowing how universe is formed will not lead to attaining Nirvana.

TheVisitors · April 25, 2012

My exact sentiment. Monks involving in worldly affairs is not encouraged in Buddhism,at least in Theravada,I presume.
Buddha emphasized a lot on attaining Nirvana and mindfulness throughout 45 years of preaching. In Tipitaka set, example given is a poisoned arrow hitting a man chest,and the man should think about saving his life. Knowing how universe is formed will not lead to attaining Nirvana.

If monks are not encouraged to be involved with wordly affairs, then the more Bodisattvas shouldn't be busybodies, helping others with their wisdom and compassion.

Are you implying this is what Theravada is teaching you ?

permanent-guest · April 25, 2012

My exact sentiment. Monks involving in worldly affairs is not encouraged in Buddhism,at least in Theravada,I presume.
Buddha emphasized a lot on attaining Nirvana and mindfulness throughout 45 years of preaching. In Tipitaka set, example given is a poisoned arrow hitting a man chest,and the man should think about saving his life. Knowing how universe is formed will not lead to attaining Nirvana.

The Theravada tradition does not discourage monks from involving themselves with the world to help reduce the sufferings in the world even though it is perfectly alright within the perspective of that tradition to hide in a cave to care only for one's own spiritual development.

Gotama Buddha did not apply the story of the poison arrow to the issue of whether or not to be involved in worldly affairs. That story was applied to the issue of people being fascinated with metaphysics when the more urgent task is to be concern with liberation from their own sufferings.

The issue of monks getting involved in the world to reduce sufferings there is a totally different issue from the issue of one being fascinated with the questions such as how the world began. That story was not meant to discourage monks to reduce sufferings in the world.

The practice of Compassion is very important in Buddhism for both Theravada & Mahayana traditions - and compassion means getting involved in the world to help to reduce the sufferings in the world. Compassion does not mean escaping from the society and be concerned only with one's own nibbana.

Edited April 25, 2012 by permanent-guest

April 25, 2012

As to my question - Next time, ask the Buddhist monk does gay sex (oral. anal sex) affect the realm a person borns into in his next life ?

Interestingly, the answer came from Venerable Sujato. The article says -

Countless times we are told, for example, that homosexuality is 'unnnatural'’. Surely a moment's reflection should show us this is not true, because there's plenty of homosexuality in the animal world.

I didn't know about homosexuality and the animals until now.

Is is very interesting that the buddhist writer supports the assetion that homosexuality is not unnatural by referencing the animal realm. Rebirth into the animal realm is due to ignorance. Animal realm is also lower than the human realm. So why would one use a lower realm to support the assetion ?

So, right to say that homosexual acts would cause one to be born in the animal realm ?

Now, at the other end, there are form and formless heavens. The beings there does not practise sex as they are able to curb these desires. Then comes desire heaven, where the beings still practise sex but has lesser urge than humans. Then comes human and animals.

So my mental picture now is:

formless heaven -> no sex

form heaven -> no sex

desire heaven -> straight sex but lesser desire than human (not sure about gay sex)

human -> straight sex stronger than desire heaven, gay sex weaker than animals

animal -> both straight and gay sex

OK. Don't take the above as sutra truth. But if what I guess is correct, then gay sex will bring us to a lower realm.

Now, should Buddhist support gay marriage. I can say, Buddhist should not condemn gays just as a buddhist would not condemn you if you tell a lie (lower realm). But should buddhist support you if you lie and should a buddhist support legalising lying... that brings you to a lower realm ?

April 25, 2012

Excerpt from the talk on Homosexuality by Ven Ajahn Brahm :
".....Very often, they ask the question, Is homosexuality breaking the 5 precepts? Particularly, this concerns the 3rd precept, which concerns sexual misconduct. However, the studies of Buddhist meaning of the term sexual misconduct certainly does not include homosexual activities. And its fascinating that the Buddha was certainly aware about homosexuality in his time. There were many cases mentioned in old scriptures, especially the Vinaya (the code of ethics for monks and nuns) of homosexual acts and those who were that way inclined and he certainly never included it under the 5 precepts...."

I have a comment to these people who ask this question. Do not equate Buddhism with the 5 precepts. Buddhism is far greater than the 5 precepts. The precepts, if you practise well, ensures you a rebirth at the minimum, in the human realm. But, but, but you are still within the 6 realm ! With the 5 precepts, you can't even go further than the desire heaven. And if you practise well, you will reborn as human or in the desire heaven, but how many rebirths you think you can sustain and not being reborn in the lower realms ? How many ?

As I've posted earlier, the form and formless heaven, tbe beings there do not even engage in sex, and that is including straight sex. So while we cannot overcome our urge now, we should always aspire to improve and go up the realms and finally exist the 6 realms, not stay put or go down. We should practise well, and overtime, our urges will lighten and we will be free.

April 25, 2012

Start Quote

On the other hand, the Dalai Lama has repeatedly maintained that homosexual acts are a violation against the precepts. At the same time, he insists on compassion and full human rights for all. His stance is solely concerned with what is appropriate behaviour for a Buddhist practitioner, not what should be made law.

His argument is that the sexual organs are designed for procreation and should be used solely for that purpose. So any form of sex that is not for procreation is out.

This is, to my mind, an extreme and unrealistic position. The Dalai Lama says it is based on certain medieval Indian scholars (Vasubandhu, Asanga – but I have never seen the passages myself). It certainly has no basis in the Suttas.

End Quote

The Dalai Lama says that homosexual acts are a violation against the precepts. How I interpret this. We don't have to argue from a micro level. You just look at the different realms and their sexual desire in my previous post and you can see my arguement from a macro level. The 5 precepts are to protect one from being reborn in the lower realms. But if we do stuff that shift us towards the lower realm, isn't that against the 5 precepts ? I know there are a number of Buddhist out there that takes a different stand but I have explained my point. I'm offering another point of view. I may be wrong, of course.

The Dalai Lama says sexual organs are designed for procreation. While not mentioned in the sutra, as the article has said, the medieval Indian scholars may not be wrong ! The Platform Sutra is not by the Buddha but we accept it as Buddhist teaching. If we accept the writer's arguement, we should also throw out the Platform Sutra. I have a question: Why does a gay man eject sperm when he engages in homosexual sex ? Does it not tell us that the body expects the person to procreate ? Doesn't this itself proves the Dalai Lama's point about procreation ?

The important thing here is when one arrives at such a situation where we cannot tell what is "right" or "wrong", we should focus on our practice and listen to the Buddha from within.

April 25, 2012

The issue of monks getting involved in the world to reduce sufferings there is a totally different issue from the issue of one being fascinated with the questions such as how the world began. That story was not meant to discourage monks to reduce sufferings in the world.
The practice of Compassion is very important in Buddhism for both Theravada & Mahayana traditions - and compassion means getting involved in the world to help to reduce the sufferings in the world. Compassion does not mean escaping from the society and be concerned only with one's own nibbana.

Errmm I didn't know gay marriage or homosexuality is one of the roots of suffering. If I were a monk and I wanna reduce suffering I would have teach ppl on the what are the roots of suffering.

Every life cycle is a learning experience. This life I am born gay, I learn and experience this life and hope to gain wisdom. May it be through thousands of cycle I attain the wisdom I seek but don't talk abt the great compassion of the Bodisattvas. To give up the right to attain buddhahood, to make vows of the impossible - is the true great compassion of Bodisattvas.

Words are meaningless and forgettable ....so I shall end here.

Buddha's teaching are simple but it depends on each individual wisdom to understand it.

If u think we need a higher power to justify our existence that belongs to another religion .

juliet · April 26, 2012

If monks are not encouraged to be involved with wordly affairs, then the more Bodisattvas shouldn't be busybodies, helping others with their wisdom and compassion.
Are you implying this is what Theravada is teaching you ?

Monks and Bodisattvas are different in a way that monks's main duty is to study Tipitaka and adhere to the rules set by Buddha,whereas Bodisattvas has to do good deeds for countless number of lives to become Buddha(The Gautama Buddha had to fulfill that in ( 4*10^140 + 100000 ) worlds.There are three types of Buddha according to Theravada tradition,some Buddhas may need (8*10^140 + 100000) and some (16*10^140 + 100000 ) ,depending on the type. It may seem strange,but in Theravada, monks are not even allowed to construct pagodas,let alone worldly affairs like advocating for gay marriage.However,I do acknowledge that many Theravada Buddhist monks do not /cannot adhere to every rules described in the Tipitaka.

Edited April 26, 2012 by juliet

April 26, 2012

Here is one of the clearest and most compassionate statements on this controversial issue from a Buddhist teacher to date:

Venerable Khandro Rinpoche, a highly esteemed Tibetan Woman Lama in San Franciso, 1994, speaking on “AIDS — Compassion and Skillful Means.”

“With respect to sexual relations, guidelines for all are the same no matter who one is.

Homosexuality is nothing different, nothing new. This is something that was there a long time ago — in Tibet, in the East, in the West, everywhere. Human beings have always been human beings. It has come into more focus today. People talk about it more openly.

A sexual relationship is very much a personal choice, a personal matter. Spirituality is everybody’s matter.

One can grow spiritually by being a monk, through getting married, through homosexual relations. If you really love another man as a man, no problem.

Within the Buddha’s doctrine itself homosexuality is nothing special, nothing new.

Such a thing as Realization means being free from attachment to whomever it may be — a man to a man, a man to a woman, a woman to a woman or whoever it may be.

Each person is responsible for his or her own mind, own thoughts, emotions, understanding, awakening, Realization. If it’s possible for a heterosexual person, it’s possible for a homosexual person. It’s possible for all sentient beings.”

http://heartlandsg.org/2006/12/30/updated-the-dalai-lama-and-sexual-minorities-a-personal-view/

permanent-guest · April 26, 2012

As to my question - Next time, ask the Buddhist monk does gay sex (oral. anal sex) affect the realm a person borns into in his next life ?
Interestingly, the answer came from Venerable Sujato. The article says -
Countless times we are told, for example, that homosexuality is 'unnnatural'’. Surely a moment's reflection should show us this is not true, because there's plenty of homosexuality in the animal world.
I didn't know about homosexuality and the animals until now.
Is is very interesting that the buddhist writer supports the assetion that homosexuality is not unnatural by referencing the animal realm. Rebirth into the animal realm is due to ignorance. Animal realm is also lower than the human realm. So why would one use a lower realm to support the assetion ?
So, right to say that homosexual acts would cause one to be born in the animal realm ?
<snip>
But if what I guess is correct, then gay sex will bring us to a lower realm.

Your idea/guess that "gay sex causes rebirth to a lower realm) is not correct in the sense that it is extremely misleading. Assuming that the Buddhist idea of rebirth is true, then heterosexual sex and homosexual sex are both equal in status in the sense that, everything else being equal, both heterosexual sex and homosexual sex have the same impact on one's spirituality. From a Buddhist perspective base on the original Buddhist scripture (and not those Tibetan writings which were written many many hundreds of years later), homosexual sex is not inferior to heterosexual sex. Both can be said to be equally good to the extent they both serve human needs without causing harm to others, and also both can be said to be EQUALLY bad to the extent they both are a manifestation of one's craving and ignorance.

If gay sex causes rebirth to a lower realm, then heterosexual sex causes rebirth to a lower realm in the same way too, if everything else being equal.

It is extremely misleading to say "gay sex causes rebirth to a lower realm'. Whether it is gay sex per se or straight sex per se, both are equally a manifestation of "craving" (or to put it in a differnt way, both straight and gay sex are just two examples of the manifetation of the 3 roots of suffering - ignorance, attachment, and aversion). Both are equally good at the same time.

Now, to the extent that Buddhists support straight marriage, Buddhists should in the same way support gay marriage and not oppose it, since from the Buddhist perspective base on the original scripture, gay sex is not inferior to straight sex, and since straight sex per se and straight marriage among the lay Buddhists has not be opposed by Buddhists but instead have been supported by Buddhists. The monk Ajahn Sujato's article should be read with this understanding in mind.

[by the way, rationally speaking, there is nothing moral or immoral when an action is natural or unnatural - Being natural or being unnatural has nothing to do with morality. This is also Ajahn Sujato's thinking too]

Now, should Buddhist support gay marriage. I can say, Buddhist should not condemn gays just as a buddhist would not condemn you if you tell a lie (lower realm). But should buddhist support you if you lie and should a buddhist support legalising lying... that brings you to a lower realm ?

It is incorrect to put gay sex or gay marriage in the same category as lying,

just as it is incorrect to put straight sex or straight marriage in the same category as lying.

Buddhists ought to support gay marriage in the same manner they support straight marriage. Both straight and gay marriages have the same spiritual consequences - Buddhists should not support one while withhold support from the other. If Buddhists do not support gay marriage, they ought to also do the same for straight marriage.

Gotama Buddha opposed lying but did not oppose gay sex even though from the evidence we have, he knew about gay sex. Lying and gay sex really are very different in category whether from a Buddhist spirituality point of view or from a moral point of view.

Edited April 26, 2012 by permanent-guest

TheVisitors · April 26, 2012

Monks and Bodisattvas are different in a way that monks's main duty is to study Tipitaka and adhere to the rules set by Buddha,whereas Bodisattvas has to do good deeds for countless number of lives to become Buddha(The Gautama Buddha had to fulfill that in ( 4*10^140 + 100000 ) worlds.There are three types of Buddha according to Theravada tradition,some Buddhas may need (8*10^140 + 100000) and some (16*10^140 + 100000 ) ,depending on the type. It may seem strange,but in Theravada, monks are not even allowed to construct pagodas,let alone worldly affairs like advocating for gay marriage.However,I do acknowledge that many Theravada Buddhist monks do not /cannot adhere to every rules described in the Tipitaka.

With all that you have just written, it merely shows your mnd thinking and every action is a a conditioned thought held down and controlled by a set of prescribed set of rules, laid down by some school of thoughts. All the diffrent school of thoughts were formed much later after Buddha's death, once again, by men and his differences in opinion. This has nothing has to do what the Buddha taught.

I really doubt you , even as a Buddhist ( I assumed or pursuing an interesting in Buddhist studies) really know what Emptiness in Buddhist really means.

If even one can write a book about Emptiness, or even described about it ( like alot of Monks and lamas did) it shows they are just like you and I, doesn't know what Emptiness really is all about.

You can't talk about about something that you yet to experience.

Even you have experienced it, such truth cannot be explained or described with words.

It is just like Love. Many talked endlessly about it, but how many can really experience and know how and what it is like, unless they have experienced pure love , beyond the guts and means of another ordinary laymen mortal

Emptiness in Buddhism, is the same as the Tao Way in Taoist, the Atman in Hinduism, and the Kingdom of God what Jesus was trying to teach all along.

Empiness does not discrinimate you gay or not, what is right wrong, left right, love hate, etc

It is a an very neutral state of non existence where all forms and labels ceases to exist and loses their " value" which is awarded by the relative reality.

Emptiness is so neutral yet it is of pure Bliss where the true Universal Love resides.

It is from Emptiness where all life and forms, material or immaterial, animate or inanimate comes from.

And when all ceased their life span while they have a form, all have to return back to the source- which is Emptiness itself

Your five senses are empty because they are merely sensory senses,that decode and judge things according to an individual. They are not real as they are as transcient and temporal with and as long as your body exist on this plane

Thus the object you observe with your senses, is also merely and illusion, its is empty. Because it is impermanent as, like you, it came from the Source ( Emptiness), thus it has to return to the Source when time is up for it to return

When one virtual illusion judges another what is really real here?

When two virtuall ilusions judge each other, where is the truth?

Have you thought about that before?

( Please note - Time doesn't exist. Eternity does. It was men who compartmentalizes Eternity into past present future that Time was created.

All exist in a single dot of Eternity )

Emptiness does not decides what different duties monks or Bodisattvas are to do or observe.

All these are man made.

The higher beings which are so much evolved than us, doesn't even bother with such pettiness, like human does, because, humans belong to a very low vibration, lowly evolved realm.

I cannot explained to you what is Emptiness or the bliss of death which so many people failed to accept and understand, because years ago, I was someone who died in a car accident but was revived back to live once more.

What I see and expereince, I cant share it here.

Till you have been to the other side and then back, then you will know, all these earthly mortal labels, achievements, rules, laws diffrerences hatred etc, are so meaningless.

Take care.

Edited April 26, 2012 by TheVisitors

April 26, 2012

will master xing yun be happier knowing that i am using his photo while masterbating, instead of going to the saunas and screwing the fat ah pek backside?

he's saving me from potential exposure to fatalistic illnesses.

he so cute! i love the way he hold the mic so close to his mouth.

April 26, 2012

No discussing of religion in this forum please.

April 26, 2012

Assuming that the Buddhist idea of rebirth is true

You are definitely not a buddhist. A buddhist would not make such a comment.

Since you are not a buddhist, why are you using (could be misusing) buddhist teachings/concept to lobby for support for gay marriage ?

TheVisitors · April 26, 2012

You are definitely not a buddhist. A buddhist would not make such a comment.
Since you are not a buddhist, why are you using (could be misusing) buddhist teachings/concept to lobby for support for gay marriage ?

So when did the Buddha ever taught and said that a non Buddhist cannot comment on a Buddhist?

Never heard of that teaching or logic

permanent-guest · April 26, 2012

You are definitely not a buddhist. A buddhist would not make such a comment.
Since you are not a buddhist, why are you using (could be misusing) buddhist teachings/concept to lobby for support for gay marriage ?

Whether or not I am a Buddhist is besides the point. What is important is whether or not the arguments are correct. The important point is, Buddhist monks such as Master Xing Yun, the founder of the largest Mahayana Chinese Buddhist association Fo Kuang San, as well as important Theravada Buddhist monks such as Ajahn Brahm, Ajahn Sujato and Ajahn Dhammika all supports gay sex. And they supports gay marriage.

And Ajahn Brahm and Ajahn Sujato have recently actively lobby for support for gay marriage.

They are much more learned than you do with regards to what is the proper Buddhist perspective on gay sex and gay marriage. More important than that, they have provided solid arguments on why gay sex is ok and why gay marriage is ok, in the same way that straight sex and straight marriage are being supported by Buddhists.

Gay sex and gay marriage is of the same spiritual status as straight sex and straight marriage.

April 26, 2012

Assuming that the Buddhist idea of rebirth is true, then heterosexual sex and homosexual sex are both equal in status in the sense that, everything else being equal, both heterosexual sex and homosexual sex have the same impact on one's spirituality.

I really can’t say whether straight / gay sex are the same. Really. You have just made some statements and then conclude it’s true. We still cannot conclude whether gay sex (contrast with gay love) falls under misconduct.

From a Buddhist perspective base on the original Buddhist scripture (and not those Tibetan writings which were written many many hundreds of years later), homosexual sex is not inferior to heterosexual sex.

Why not those Tibetan writings ? I have already said that Platform Sutra is not from the Buddha, we should throw it out ?

I would like to know where it is written that homosexual sex it not inferior to heterosexual sex. You referring to love or the sex ?

If gay sex causes rebirth to a lower realm, then heterosexual sex causes rebirth to a lower realm in the same way too, if everything else being equal.

Yes. Straight sex would lead to a lower realm if you engage in sexual misconduct. And I heard before, that man should not do oral/anal with a woman.

You are making a very big IF without statement if what. What are the things being equal ? Venerable Sujato has offer the information that “there's plenty of homosexuality in the animal world”. Doesn’t that start you thinking ?

since straight sex per se and straight marriage among the lay Buddhists has not be opposed by Buddhists but instead have been supported by Buddhists. The monk Ajahn Sujato's article should be read with this understanding in mind.

If a being from the form heaven wants to get married and ask the Buddha, can I get married ? The Buddha would not support this. Why ? Cause in the form heaven, they have already curb their sexual desires and to start it again would bring them down to the desire heaven or the human realm. If the being from the form heave were to insist on getting marriage, would the Buddha oppose it ? No. Each is responsible for their own karma. But humans have not curbed their sexual desires. That’s why the Buddha does not oppose it. For there more important things (the arrow, right?)

Now, I can’t proof that gay sex (as oppose to gay love) is sexual misconduct or whether it will bring us to a lower realm. But I have already paint my mental picture of the different realms and their sexual desire based on what I have read and what the info that Venerable Sujato has offered. I don’t want to argue that my picture is the correct one but it could be the case. Let the readers decide, ok ? But if I guess is correct, then would the Buddha support gay sex ? We can only get the answer from the Buddha within us. And for gay Buddhist, please if you find my argument reasonable, do practice well and you will get your answer yourself.

Buddhists ought to support gay marriage in the same manner they support straight marriage. Both straight and gay marriages have the same spiritual consequences - Buddhists should not support one while withhold support from the other. If Buddhists do not support gay marriage, they ought to also do the same for straight marriage.

Same spiritual consequence ? There are still many things not conclusive. If you really a Buddhist, you will encourage people to engage less in sex and that is more important than trying to balance straight / gay sex. Cause the so called equality that you are claiming does not bring one out of the six realms but if you invest your efforts in helping people exit the 6 realms, you are truly a PU SA ! That is the real compassion.

April 26, 2012

I'm not saying cannot comment. I'm asking "why are you using (could be misusing) buddhist teachings/concept to lobby for support for gay marriage ?" I just don't want people to use a religion for their own agenda.

So when did the Buddha ever taught and said that a non Buddhist cannot comment on a Buddhist?
Never heard of that teaching or logic

retri · April 26, 2012

I think, having anal sex, and that leading to reincarnation to a lower realm, please, it's unfounded. It's extremely circumstantial - there's no hard and fast rule to these things.

You go to a different, lower realm because of the bad karma you've reaped - the damage and the hurt that you have caused to others in this present life time. If you had anal sex with a willing party, and there was no hurtful feelings created, I don't see how that is one of the reasons you'll be going to a lower realm for, since there is no creation of negative energy.

April 26, 2012

Increase ignorance.

I think, having anal sex, and that leading to reincarnation to a lower realm, please, it's unfounded. It's extremely circumstantial - there's no hard and fast rule to these things.
You go to a different, lower realm because of the bad karma you've reaped - the damage and the hurt that you have caused to others in this present life time. If you had anal sex with a willing party, and there was no hurtful feelings created, I don't see how that is one of the reasons you'll be going to a lower realm for, since there is no creation of negative energy.

April 26, 2012

Whether or not I am a Buddhist is besides the point. What is important is whether or not the arguments are correct. The important point is, Buddhist monks such as Master Xing Yun, the founder of the largest Mahayana Chinese Buddhist association Fo Kuang San, as well as important Theravada Buddhist monks such as Ajahn Brahm, Ajahn Sujato and Ajahn Dhammika all supports gay sex. And they supports gay marriage.
And Ajahn Brahm and Ajahn Sujato have recently actively lobby for support for gay marriage.
They are much more learned than you do with regards to what is the proper Buddhist perspective on gay sex and gay marriage. More important than that, they have provided solid arguments on why gay sex is ok and why gay marriage is ok, in the same way that straight sex and straight marriage are being supported by Buddhists.
Gay sex and gay marriage is of the same spiritual status as straight sex and straight marriage.

From what is quotes here from Master Xing Yun,

‘People often ask me what I think about homosexuality. They wonder, is it right, is it wrong? The answer is, it is neither right nor wrong. It is just something that people do. If people are not harming each other, their private lives are their own business; we should be tolerant of them and not reject them.’

He certainly did not say he support gay sex. He does not reject homosexuality and we should tolerate it. Now, when he says homosexuality, is he referring to homosexual love or homosexual act ? We also don’t know. And interesting choice of word… tolerate… you don’t tolerate something you think is GOOD. You tolerate something that is not so good. It has a negative connotation. So can I conclude that Master Xing Yun does not think that homosexuality is not good but we just tahan it lah ?

Just as you can quote the number of monk supporting gay marriage, there will be many others not supporting it, eg Dalai Lama.

TheVisitors · April 26, 2012

From what is quotes here from Master Xing Yun,
‘People often ask me what I think about homosexuality. They wonder, is it right, is it wrong? The answer is, it is neither right nor wrong. It is just something that people do. If people are not harming each other, their private lives are their own business; we should be tolerant of them and not reject them.’
He certainly did not say he support gay sex. He does not reject homosexuality and we should tolerate it. Now, when he says homosexuality, is he referring to homosexual love or homosexual act ? We also don’t know. And interesting choice of word… tolerate… you don’t tolerate something you think is GOOD. You tolerate something that is not so good. It has a negative connotation. So can I conclude that Master Xing Yun does not think that homosexuality is not good but we just tahan it lah ?
Just as you can quote the number of monk supporting gay marriage, there will be many others not supporting it, eg Dalai Lama.

So end of the day, if you want to think what you like and choose to think, then good for you.

Why bother the rest of us?

At least those monks are non violent passive activists speaking for gays' right.

You are a gay, yet all you can do here is to fart very meaningless wisdom.

And seriously who cares a fxxk what the Dalai Lama said about homosexuality

Edited April 26, 2012 by TheVisitors

April 27, 2012

Non-buddhist can comment on buddhism but buddhist cannot comment on non-buddhist's comment on buddhism ?

If you want to lobby for gay marriage, go ahead lah.. but don't use buddhism as the platform.

So end of the day, if you want to think what you like and choose to think, then good for you.
Why bother the rest of us?
At least those monks are non violent passive activists speaking for gays' right.
You are a gay, yet all you can do here is to fart very meaningless wisdom.
And seriously who cares a fxxk what the Dalai Lama said about homosexuality

permanent-guest · April 27, 2012

Yes. Straight sex would lead to a lower realm if you engage in sexual misconduct. And I heard before, that man should not do oral/anal with a woman.
You are making a very big IF without statement if what. What are the things being equal ? Venerable Sujato has offer the information that “there's plenty of homosexuality in the animal world”. Doesn’t that start you thinking ?
So my mental picture now is:
formless heaven -> no sex
form heaven -> no sex
desire heaven -> straight sex but lesser desire than human (not sure about gay sex)
human -> straight sex stronger than desire heaven, gay sex weaker than animals
animal -> both straight and gay sex
OK. Don't take the above as sutra truth. But if what I guess is correct, then gay sex will bring us to a lower realm.

Due to a lack of time I will first address the above quoted point. I will find time to come back to say more things.

When I said in my earlier post to the effect that "If gay sex causes rebirth in a lower realm, then straight sex would also cause rebirth in a lower realm", I am not referring to just "sexual misconduct" type of straight sex, but to straight sex per se (i.e. even those not within "sexual misconduct"). If straight sex per se (referring to those not within the category of "sexual misconduct") does not cause rebirth in a lower realm, then gay sex per se would also not cause rebirth in a lower realm.

This is what I meant by gay sex and straight sex having the same spiritual status.

If a Buddhist (assuming he understands his Buddhism in accordance to the teaching of Gotama Buddha) is to find problem with gay sex, then to be consistent, he ought to find problem with straight sex too.

You inferred that since gay sex is found among human beings and lower animals, and not among higher deities and other beings, therefore those who perform gay sex would be reborn to a lower realm. In that case, straight sex is also found among human beings and lower animals, and not among higher deities and other beings, then the inferrence should also be that those who engage in straight sex (even those that are not sexual misconduct type of straight sex) would also be reborn into a lower realm.

In other words, going by your reasoning, one should treat straight sex in the same way as one treat gay sex.

Hope you understand the thinking involved.

I will come back one of these few days to address other points.

Edited April 27, 2012 by permanent-guest

April 27, 2012

Increase ignorance.

I think, having anal sex, and that leading to reincarnation to a lower realm, please, it's unfounded. It's extremely circumstantial - there's no hard and fast rule to these things. You go to a different, lower realm because of the bad karma you've reaped - the damage and the hurt that you have caused to others in this present life time. If you had anal sex with a willing party, and there was no hurtful feelings created, I don't see how that is one of the reasons you'll be going to a lower realm for, since there is no creation of negative energy.

I don't quite understand when you said 'Increase ignorance' in reply to retri.

What is even more puzzling when you added the quote from Master Xing Yun that ends with "we should be tolerant of them and not reject them". How can retri's thought (as he typed "I think") be an 'increase ignorance' should one embraces Master Xing Yun further remarks "The answer is, it is neither right nor wrong. It is just something people do."

Overall, it is an interesting discussion here.

April 27, 2012

Side point. Putting Buddhism aside for a while. To the gay man, if you support gay sex, would you support bisexual or man/animal sex as well ? Just want to see how you view this.

April 27, 2012

Due to a lack of time I will first address the above quoted point. I will find time to come back to say more things.
When I said in my earlier post to the effect that "If gay sex causes rebirth in a lower realm, then straight sex would also cause rebirth in a lower realm", I am not referring to just "sexual misconduct" type of straight sex, but to straight sex per se (i.e. even those not within "sexual misconduct"). If straight sex per se (referring to those not within the category of "sexual misconduct") does not cause rebirth in a lower realm, then gay sex per se would also not cause rebirth in a lower realm.
This is what I meant by gay sex and straight sex having the same spiritual status.
If a Buddhist (assuming he understands his Buddhism in accordance to the teaching of Gotama Buddha) is to find problem with gay sex, then to be consistent, he ought to find problem with straight sex too.
You inferred that since gay sex is found among human beings and lower animals, and not among higher deities and other beings, therefore those who perform gay sex would be reborn to a lower realm. In that case, straight sex is also found among human beings and lower animals, and not among higher deities and other beings, then the inferrence should also be that those who engage in straight sex (even those that are not sexual misconduct type of straight sex) would also be reborn into a lower realm.
In other words, going by your reasoning, one should treat straight sex in the same way as one treat gay sex.
Hope you understand the thinking involved.
I will come back one of these few days to address other points.

I like the way you argue your case. You make an assumption, then conclude that the assumption is true and expect your opponent to disprove it !

How is straight/gay sex the same ? Woman has virgina, man does not. How is it the same ? And in some of my previous sutra session, there are very strict rules in the precept. Even in straight sex, we can break the precepts, eg no oral/anal. Sex must take place in a proper place for it (only bed, I think) and not anywhere and so on. So with my knowledge, gay sex already break the rules for straight sex. I admit I'm not an expert in Vinaya. I just listen to buddhist speaker as you would to Ajahn Brahm.

Now, if man/woman have sex via the correct tools, in the correct place, and so on, they will not break the precepts. But if they don't, they also break the precepts. But how is a gay bottom gonna get a virgina to do the same leh ?

Another thing I want to repeat here. If gay sex is not unnatural, then the man should not eject semen during sex. A man born straight should eject semen but a man born gay should not. If the male organ is not made for procreation during sex, then why would it eject semen ? No 2. The anus should naturally be bigger and not tear during gay sex if it's designed for that purpose. No 3. The anus should self lubricate like the virgina.

Another interesting question I've asked me. What is the purpose of pubic hair ? There are a number of theories.. You can Yahoo Answer. One of them is "One thought is that the hair that grows around the genitals and under the arms lock in sexually stimulating scents called pheromones". Then No 4. If the anus is for sex, then there should be much more hair around it like the pubic hair.

Now, then the question, why buddhist leaders do not outright say that gay sex breaks the precepts ? I think they are focusing on the gay love not the sex part... Or may be they actually did say that gay sex does not break the precept but I didn't come across it... my assumption lah... everything I say here, I stand corrected... It's just a discussion, right. We are not going to change the world with these posts.

April 27, 2012

Listening to Ajahm Brahm on "Gay Marriage - Why not ?" on Youtube.

About 50min, he says that he doesn't want religion, especially Buddhism, to control marriage. He says you (lay person) should have power over marriage. The lay man have power over marriage but the lay person has given the power to religion to decide. He want the power to be with the lay person.

Am I a bit bias ? But I think it's a little contradictory when he says this and yet supports gay marriage.

April 28, 2012

Side point. Putting Buddhism aside for a while. To the gay man, if you support gay sex, would you support bisexual or man/animal sex as well ? Just want to see how you view this.

xing yun sifu will say "...boy, be kind to animals...."

beastiality is more a case of man imposing his will over a poor defensiveless animal.

it is more akin to rape.

the only consenting animal sex is when a dog instinctively sticks its cock into a man's or a woman's receptive hole.

only like this, can xing yun sifu approve.

juliet · April 28, 2012

With all that you have just written, it merely shows your mnd thinking and every action is a a conditioned thought held down and controlled by a set of prescribed set of rules, laid down by some school of thoughts. All the diffrent school of thoughts were formed much later after Buddha's death, once again, by men and his differences in opinion. This has nothing has to do what the Buddha taught.
I really doubt you , even as a Buddhist ( I assumed or pursuing an interesting in Buddhist studies) really know what Emptiness in Buddhist really means.
If even one can write a book about Emptiness, or even described about it ( like alot of Monks and lamas did) it shows they are just like you and I, doesn't know what Emptiness really is all about.
You can't talk about about something that you yet to experience.
Even you have experienced it, such truth cannot be explained or described with words.
It is just like Love. Many talked endlessly about it, but how many can really experience and know how and what it is like, unless they have experienced pure love , beyond the guts and means of another ordinary laymen mortal
Till you have been to the other side and then back, then you will know, all these earthly mortal labels, achievements, rules, laws diffrerences hatred etc, are so meaningless.
Take care.

I am sorry.I really don't know why you are subtly attacking me and my way of thinking.You asked me a question,and I simply answered.Sorry,I don't like arguing.

My stand is clear: monks are supposed to obey rules described in Vinaya Pitaka,practise compassion,meditate on a regular basis and study Tripitaka ,while preaching Buddha teachings to the laymen(followers).Because some religious institutions have firm stands regarding homosexuality, many(presumably non-Buddhists) thought Buddhism must have something to say about this too. Apart from vague mention of same-sex in a book about Metta,I have never encountered a lengthy discussion of homosexuality in all the books I read pertinent to Buddhism.Buddhism neither condemns nor endorses homosexuality. As written before,it is not gender that matters.

Buddha said the downfall of Buddhism will be due to the weakened Sangha society where monks are more concerned with gaining favors with their patrons,not studying tripitaka, instead practicing witchcraft,fortune-telling,black magic,astronomy whereas laymen are struggling to understand the essence of Buddhism which leads to the shaky belief,laymen being unable to distinguish between a good monk and a monk who loosely obeys to Vinaya. That's why I am standing on the ground that monks should not heavily involved in worldly affairs. When the percentage gets high,it certainly does not cast a good outlook for Buddhism.

Yup,you were right about emptiness. The real treasure of Buddhism is meditation . Very profound concepts in Buddhism are to be understood through meditation,definitely not like what western-educated philosophers are doing. In fact,what these philosophers are doing dilute the essence of Buddhism.Buddhism is not a philosophy.

Edited April 28, 2012 by juliet

juliet · April 28, 2012

Non-buddhist can comment on buddhism but buddhist cannot comment on non-buddhist's comment on buddhism ?
If you want to lobby for gay marriage, go ahead lah.. but don't use buddhism as the platform.

I agree. I wonder why Buddhism is dragged into this Religion and Homosexuality issue.

April 28, 2012

世尊的开示：什么是邪淫及邪淫的果报

《优婆塞戒经》业品第二十四

佛经原文：

……

若于非时非处非女处女他妇。若属自身是名邪淫。唯三天下有邪淫罪。郁单曰无。若畜生若破坏。若属僧若系狱。若亡逃若师妇。若出家人近如是人。名为邪淫。出家之人无所系属。从谁得罪。从其亲属王所得罪。恶时乱时虐王出时。怖畏之时。若令妇妾出家剃发。还近之者是得淫罪。若到三道是得淫罪。若自若他。在于道边塔边祠边大会之处。作非梵行得邪淫罪。若为父母兄弟国王之所守护。或先与他期。或先许他。或先受财。或先受请。木泥画像及以死尸。如是人边作非梵行。得邪淫罪。若属自身而作他想。属他之人而作自想。亦名邪淫。如是邪淫亦有轻重。从重烦恼则得重罪。从轻烦恼则得轻罪。

……

经文解释：

对优婆塞来说，除了夫妇之间的男女关系外，一切不受国家法律或社会道德所承认的男女关系，均为邪淫。有关邪淫在戒律上，有详细的规定。本经在这里仅讲了其中的几个主要方面，优婆夷可参照领会，同样适用。

1、若在：

非时——制戒律所规定的不应行淫的日期及时间；

　　非处——指戒律所规定的不应行淫的处所及「三道」；

　　非女——指同性恋、人畜之间行淫；

　　处女——未婚女；

　　他妇——有夫之妇；

　　自身——自身行淫，如手淫；

这些情况下行淫的，均为邪淫。

邪淫罪，四大部洲中只有东，西，南三大洲有，北郁单越洲则无邪淫罪。

2、若对：

畜生——动物；

　　破坏——已经坏烂的女尸；

　　若属僧——僧人；

　　若系狱——狱中女犯；

　　若亡逃——逃亡的女性；

　　若师妇——师长的妻子；

做非梵行，就是邪淫。

3、已经出家的人，虽已无所系属，但对自己的亲属，王属等作非梵行的，得淫罪。

4、在恶世时，乱世时，暴君出世时，怖畏时刻，若强令自己的妻妾剃发出家，当出家后，仍同她作非梵行的，得淫罪。

5、若在三道（指：口道、小便道、大便道）作非梵行时，得淫罪。

6、若自己或者与其他人在道路边，塔庙边，祠寺边，大众集会之处作非梵行的，得邪淫罪。

7、若在父母，兄弟，国王死亡后守护（守灵）期内，或先与他人约会，或先应允他人，或先接受财礼，或先接受邀请（其目的是为了作非梵行的），得邪淫罪。

8、若在木像、泥像、画像（一解指圣贤像；二解死亡的亲属、王者像）、死尸等边，作非梵行的，得邪淫罪。

9、若在自淫时或就自己意淫时，把自己的配偶想象为他人的配偶；把属他人之妻，产生了自己与之作非梵行想，这种单方面的意淫，也名邪淫。

以上所列举的邪淫罪，也有轻重，如果烦恼重（贪嗔痴比较强烈），则得重罪；如果烦恼轻，则得轻罪。

对于现在这个社会，常见的：用性具自淫是邪淫；卖淫嫖娼就更是邪淫，邪淫有罪，必有恶报；一夜情是邪淫；婚外恋婚外情包二奶婚外通奸均是邪淫；婚前同居偷尝禁果是邪淫（没有登记领取结婚证得到法律承认保护即未婚同居）。如果再由于这种邪淫引起的堕胎杀生更是罪过无量无边，要在地狱受无量无边的痛苦。希望大家谨慎小心。纵使百千劫，所作业不亡。因缘会遇时，果报还自受。

permanent-guest · April 29, 2012

Just in case this discussion develops into personal attacks, name-calling, speculation of bad motives, I suggest participants to discuss the topic rationally, coolly and calmly, focusing on the ideas, the points, the reasoning and the logic involved (instead of focusing on the persons involved). I say this first, JUST IN CASE the discussion develops toward that sort of emotional nature. Let not emotions govern our discussion.

I suggest we should also focus on ideas or the points instead of putting forth accusations or speculations of others' motive (such as hinting people are using religion to advance their hidden agenda). If others' ideas are wrong, just point out why their ideas are wrong - e.g. where in their reasoning is wrong. We do not have supernatural powers to see what their motives are - so it seems better to just focus on what the mistakes are in others' reasoning or ideas.

It would also be a bonus if participants can discuss with some compassion, love, kindness and charity too. For example, one can exercise compassion, love, kindness and charity by trying to apply charitable interpretation and charitable reading: see in what way can we interpret or read another discussion-participant's text in way that makes the text as much sense as possible or makes the text as favourable as possibel to other party's reasoning. If for example, if what a person types APPEARS to contradict something else that persons typed, then we would be exercising interpretative charity by FIRST assuming we are misreading the meaning of what that person siad, and then ask ourselves is there some other interpretation that would remove that contradiction. If such attempts fail, that we can raise the point that "there seems to be a contradiction..." or "there seems to be a mistake in the reasoning etc"

The spirituality of love and compassion (whether you are a Buddhist, a Christian, a Muslim, a Taoist, an atheist, a Hindu and so on) can be practiced in discussion this way.

So lets do the discussion rationally, coolly &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp; calmly.

I try to list out the various ideas in point form and then elaborate a little under each point below. I hope fellow forumer "Balance" can respond to every point below (I humbly request the responses be in English just in case later the responses appear in Chinese):

Point 1. Gay Sex &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp; Straight Sex having same spiritual status in Buddhism in accordance to Gotama Buddha's version

According to forumer "Balance"'s guess from his line of reasoning, gay sex leads to rebirth in a lower realm. "Balance" provided the following reasoning:

As to my question - Next time, ask the Buddhist monk does gay sex (oral. anal sex) affect the realm a person borns into in his next life ?
So, right to say that homosexual acts would cause one to be born in the animal realm ?
Now, at the other end, there are form and formless heavens. The beings there does not practise sex as they are able to curb these desires. Then comes desire heaven, where the beings still practise sex but has lesser urge than humans. Then comes human and animals.
So my mental picture now is:
formless heaven -> no sex
form heaven -> no sex
desire heaven -> straight sex but lesser desire than human (not sure about gay sex)
human -> straight sex stronger than desire heaven, gay sex weaker than animals
animal -> both straight and gay sex
...But if what I guess is correct, then gay sex will bring us to a lower realm.

If the above reasoning by "Balance" is true, THEN IT WOULD ALSO BE TRUE that engaging in straight sex (even those that are not sexual misconduct) would lead one to be reborn in a lower realm. In this sense, gay sex and straight sex would have the same spiritual status - both leads to a rebirth in lower realm (if the above reasoning provided by "Balance" is true}. Does "Balance" agree with that his line of reasoning would also imply that straight sex (those that are not sexual misconduct) would also lead to rebirth in the lower realm?

The above reasoning provided by "Balance" is basically this: if an action occurs in the lower realms but does not occur in the higher realms, then it means that doing that action would lead one to be trapped or reborn in a lower realm. Now such a line of reasoning has this problem as illustrated by the action of eating: Eating vegetables (or any kind of eating) is is not done by very high spiritual beings... eating (including eating vegetables) is done by those in lower realms. According to the above reasoning given by "Balance", the implication is that eating vegetable (or any kind of eating) would lead to rebirth in a lower realm. This example is to point out that something not being done in the higher realms does not mean that it is wrong to do that in the lower realm. The rightness or wrongness of an action does not depend on whether or not it is done in a higher realm.

Point 2. One should not put gay sex and lying in the same category otherwise one should also put straight sex in the same category as lying

I mention this point because "Balance" said something to the effect that Buddhists should not support gay sex just as Buddhist should not support lying. Gotama Buddha has negative things to say against lying, but he did not say anything against straight sex per se or gay sex per se for lay Buddhists.

Point 3: There is no one single fixed purpose of sex - sex is not just for procreation

The Dalai Lama says sexual organs are designed for procreation...I have a question: Why does a gay man eject sperm when he engages in homosexual sex ? Does it not tell us that the body expects the person to procreate ? Doesn't this itself proves the Dalai Lama's point about procreation ?
The important thing here is when one arrives at such a situation where we cannot tell what is "right" or "wrong", we should focus on our practice and listen to the Buddha from within.

There is no one fixed single purpose for such bodily organs including sexual organs. What an organ can be used for is SITUATIONAL. While the mouth is usually used for talking, eating, drinking and kissing, there is nothing wrong with using the mouth to hold a brush to do painting (especially so in the SITUATION of people without arms). In the SITUATION of gays (actually among some straights too), the purpose of mouth could include oral sex, the purpose of anus could include anal sex, the purpose of sex could include several things such as the mutual giving of pleasure, the building of bond among couples.

The feet is typically used for walking but this is also situational - in the SITUATION of someone without arms, his feet could take up the purpose of holding a pen to write.

I am curious if anyone can give good reasoning to show that it is wrong to use the feet to hold a pen to write, that it is wrong to use the mouth for oral sex, or that it is wrong to use the mouth to do painting, or that it is wrong to use a penis to fxxk water melon and so on. I have read many professional philosophers' articles and books on sex and so far no one has provided good reasons to oppose gay sex, oral sex or anal sex. Any purpose of any such bodily organs is SITUATIONAL. Many times, something like mouth, the hands, the feet etc has no inherent fixed single purpose. In addition, in Buddhism, there is no Creator/Designer to determine the purpose of such organs. The basic thing for lay Buddhist is not to use such organs to cause harm (e.g. not to use our hands to rob/steal and not to use our mind to plan a murder)

4. The Implication of "Listening to the Buddha Within"

The important thing here is when one arrives at such a situation where we cannot tell what is "right" or "wrong", we should focus on our practice and listen to the Buddha from within.

Listening to the Buddha within means that it is ok for one Buddhist to say "gay sex is wrong" while another Buddhist to say "it is ok for lay Buddhists to engage in gay sex". It means that those Buddhists (e.g. "Balance") who thinks that gay sex is wrong should not oppose other Budhists who think that "it is ok for lay Buddhists to have gay sex" and who think that lay Buddhists should support gay marriage. Let each practice in accordance to each's own Buddha within. If one thinks that it is wrong to do gay sex, then he just avoids doing it. He should respect others who think differently; he should respect others whose Buddha within them says "it is ok to do gay sex for lay Buddhists".

5. Certain Tibetan Rules on Sex Are At Most True Only For Those who Choose to Come Under Tibetan Rules

How is straight/gay sex the same ? Woman has virgina, man does not. How is it the same ? And in some of my previous sutra session, there are very strict rules in the precept. Even in straight sex, we can break the precepts, eg no oral/anal. Sex must take place in a proper place for it (only bed, I think) and not anywhere and so on. So with my knowledge, gay sex already break the rules for straight sex.

I have heard such rules which you mentioned above spoken by certain lineage of Tibetan Buddhists (not all Tibetan lineages, only certain ones). At most, it is applicable to those Buddhists who belong to those particular lineages. Unless such rules are shown to be taught by Gotama Buddha, all other Buddhists (i.e. those not under those Tibetan lineages) can doubt the truthfulness of such rules. Such rules are written in scriptures not recognised by Buddhist of other traditions. These rules are written many many hundreds of years and do not reflect the teachings of Gotama Buddha. So Buddhists of other traditions can reject the validity of such ideas.

6. Teachings of Gotama Buddha can be discerned only from the Tipitaka (and at most the earliest writings outside the Tipitaka)

Those who accept those very late writings as part of Buddhist scripture should respect those Buddhists who do not accept the late writings (such as those late Tibetan writings) as Buddhist scripture and do not agree with some things in such late writings.

Late writings can be considered when they do not contradict the original writings, when they are clearly an elaboration or extension of the teachings contained in the Tipitaka, and ALSO when they do not impose unnecesarily burden (such as having sex only at certain time, at certain place, using only certain organs etc) on other Buddhists.

It is important to differentiate between Gotama Buddha's teaching from many other Buddhist teachers' teachings. Gotama Buddha is enlightened and gave enlightened views, while we cannot say the same for the other Buddhist teachers who might now and then give mistaken views (such as wrongly thinking that sex is only for pro-creation, and wrongly thinking that the tongue cannot serve to lick a dick or lick a clitoris/vagina).

7. Essence of the Buddhist argument that Gay Sex is ok to be done by Gay Buddhists

a. From the original writings, we know that Gotama Buddha is aware of many kinds of sex, including gay sex.

b. While Gotama Buddha made negative statements about various types of improper sex (e.g. having sex with someone engaged to another person), he did not make any negative statements of gay sex for lay Buddhists. Given that the Buddha had given comments on types of improper sexual behaviours and given that he was aware of gay sex during his time, certainly if he had found something wrong with gay sex per se, he would not have hesitated to comment on it. He made so much comments on all kinds of behavious including various sexual behaviours, but he chose not to make any negative comment about gay sex. This implies that he did not find anything wrong with gay sex per se among lay Buddhists.

c. The outworking of Core Buddhist principles of ethics as taught by Gotama Buddha (the kind of intention one has and whether one is causing harm) does not find anything wrong about gay sex.

d. So gay sex is alright for lay Buddhists - the principles for it would be like the principles governing straight sex. (in the manner straight sex hinders Buddhist spiritual developement, so does gay sex. In the manner straight sex is accepted among Gotama's Buddhism, so it is the same for gay sex)

8. Fo Guang San Master Xing Yun's Teaching

Let me first quote him from one of his books Buddhism Pure and Simple:

“The basic meaning of morality is this—do not harm or violate other sentient beings in any way. Do not interfere with them. Do not trouble them. Do not cause them to feel fear or worry…. If you have not learned to restrain yourself, however, you may cause harm when you think that you are bringing help” (p.131)."

This means, at least from his perspective, it is already already wrong for one to cause trouble to gays by preventing them to be married. He gave an example where people failed to restrain themselves from interfering into others' lives:

“For example, in America there are still people who use force to prevent others from getting an abortion. No one should get an abortion without good reason, but the decision of whether to do so or not should be made by the people who are most closely involved. Some stranger who adamantly declares that abortion is wrong is just speaking words. He is not the one who is going to have to raise the child. The woman who is pregnant is the one who should have the most say in the matter. She should consult her conscience and decide what she thinks is right.

One who thinks gay sex is wrong should not go out of his way to make others to think the same way:

"The Buddha emphasized the importance of understanding our intentions in all that we do…. Buddhism is a religion of self-awareness. This is another reason why it is wrong to force others to do what we think is right. We should encourage others to look at themselves; that is enough” (pp.131-132).

Again, in the quote below, the Maste repeats the importance of keeping our own right and wrong rules to ourselves (i.e. those Tibetan Buddhists who follow certain sexual rules should keep those rules to themselves and not expect those rules to be valid or be true to other Buddhists - those rules are not treated as truth by other Buddhists)

“Patience teaches us to tolerate others and to leave them alone, to not interfere with their happiness because of some belief that we have about what is right or wrong. Morality should teach us to be restrained in our behavior; it is not a guidebook for interfering in the lives of others. People who cling to rigid moral rules are no different from people who cling to wealth or fame or sensual pleasure. Buddhism is a religion that teaches the elevation of consciousness by understanding the truth. It does not teach us to cling to a single system of understanding, or a limited set of moral injunctions” (pp.132-133).

Another example: people tends to interfer in others' life such as insisting that people should not have sex outside of marriage. This is what Master Xing Yun has to say:

“Marriage is an institution that reflects the values of the society that supports it. If the people of a society no longer believe that it is important to be married, then there is no reason why they cannot change the institution of marriage. Marriage is a custom. Customs can always be changed. We can find the same core point in this question as we have in others—the ultimate truth of the matter is that individuals can and should decide for themselves what is right. As long as they are not violating others or breaking the laws of the society in which they are living, then they are free to do what they believe is right. It is not for me or anyone else to tell them that they must get married if they want to live togather. That is therir choice and their choice alone."

And the Master continues with the example of homosexuality (where again, people likes to interfere with others' lives saying thngs like "you should not engage in gay sex"

“The same analysis can be applied to homosexuality. People often ask me what I think about homosexuality. They wonder, is it right, is it wrong? The answer is, it is neither right nor wrong. It is just something that people do. If people are not harming each other, their private lives are their own business; we should be tolerant of them and not reject them. However, it will still take some time for the world to fully accept homosexuality. "

Take note of the last sentence in Xing Yun's quote. His expectation is for the world to move towards the FULL ACCEPTANCE of homosexuality. The whole tone of the passages suggests that the Master's "tolerance" includes acceptance of homosexuality and not just mere tolerance.

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality - it is up to people to choose it. Master Xing Yun would not say what he said about homosexuality for things such as murder, rape, robberly and theft. He would not said "let us tolerate murder and rape, it will take some time before the world can fully accept murder and rape".

.

Edited April 29, 2012 by permanent-guest

Sign In

Buddhism's Perspective On Homosexuality & Gay Marriage (Compiled)

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

TheVisitors

juliet

permanent-guest

Guest Same Me

Guest Guest

Guest Same again ?

Guest Same Same

Guest 2012

Guest Balance

Guest Balance

Guest Ironrod

Guest Balance

Guest Balance

Guest Balance

Guest Ironrod

Guest Guest

Guest Guest

Guest Guest

Guest Balance

Guest Balance

Guest Balance

Guest Balance

Guest Balance

Guest Balance

Guest Am I Ignorant Too?

Guest Balance

Guest Balance

Guest Balance

Guest beast master

Guest Balance

Popular Now