Guest Song Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 Gay or straight or bi, nothing wrong with anal nor oral sex in Buddhism as long as it's not destructive behaviour. Constructive behaviours have good intentions, motivations and good effects. Destructive is the opposite.In Buddhism, "good" sex is when it is done unselfishly and because you love and want to be intimate with the other person. "Bad" sex eg. Prostitution, etc Friend. Don't be mislead by what others tell you about this constructive/destructive thing. Are you enlightened ? If not, then better not participate in any anal/oral sex if you really believe in Buddhism. It's very easy to say constructive/destructive, but the standards are not our layman understand if good/bad. You might think you are doing something constructive but you might be wrong. Unless one has achieve Arahant level, do not believe in oneself. Cause one's views are not correct.
Guest Guest Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 I really feel for this new rinpoche. Child sex-abused by guardian monks. For real? HOW SAD IF TRUE!!!!!! And... does that mean he is to remain celibate for the rest of his life? Pooor thing!!
仙人掌 Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 大乘汉传佛教的观点。这是一位大德高僧所写。 Feel free to download and save into your pc. (1) Chinese(2) English
booms Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 Buddist never say wat sex can or cannot be done rite. So kind of buddist. So kind of buddist.
booms Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 Buddist say feel free 2 love.wow.tat is veri sweet.
Guest tru Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 The word and actual laws of karma, is not understood by many, but infact it is used loosely by many ignorants.Monks are just monks, no better than a layman who shaves his head and wears a robe.Its just an outer form of change, but the inner remains very ignorant.Subscribing to a belief system ( here means a religion) it is just a form of conditioning of the mind.When a mind is conditioned, it has no freedom on its own to understand oneself. You rather understand yourself through what others have decided, think for and about you, than to find out who you are, by your own meansFor information about karma, suggested readings are works by Annie besant, Helena Blavantsky, Ramtha the White Book, Conversations with God, Franz Hartman, Brian Weisis, and the Bhavagita by Stephen MitchellIf one has lived one's life strictly based on karma, I would have to be so strict and calculative in all my acts, then I will end up being the most calculative and miserable person on earth. I cannot enjoy life at its fullest.What if karma doesn't really exist, but somehow, a slight distortion from the earlier Buddhist who didn't quite understood its actual meaning?Maybe it is man made.Does this universe needs to be determined by laws made by men?Not all acts and thoughts have karmic consequences. Only some, where some adjustments or regulatings are done to maintain an equilibrium. If you look at karma in this sense, it is not so frightening after all.Otherwise you self-inflict your pain and suffering, thus you can't blame anyone, you can't accuse it as karma.Can you blame anyone for the pain , when you choose to cut yourself with a knife ?In the purest sense, I truly believe the Universe does not judge men.Men created all these beliefs and unsound concepts, which then judged themselves with their own creations, thus creating their own sufferings.Julian, being weak minded, unfortunately, fells victim to the teachings of the many ignorants. Wow...simply amazing. You actually read stuff by AB, HPB and the Bhagavad Gita! Most people shouldn't start there since they are unfathomable to the general population or rather that at their stage, they are simply not ready for it. I'm just glad there are people who have come across Theosophy and are able to grasp it to a certain extent.
Guest Sunny Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 Generally speaking, Buddhism tolerates gay sex and gay relationships among home-based Buddhists who haven't taken any vow to observe relevant precepts. The same cannot be said for those who are entering or who have entered the Order of the Sangha (ie monks and nuns), as well as those who are observing the one-day "8+1 Precepts" （八关斋戒），both of which require refrain from any sex. What Buddhists are most concerned about is the psychological effects (e.g. attitude, attachment to the physical form, cravings for sensual pleasure), rather than the sexual acts themselves. As such, there is a distinction between rightful sexual acts (e.g. sex between husband and wife with the purpose to reproduce instead of deriving sensual pleasure) and wrongful sexual acts (sexual acts for other purpose than that for rightful sexual acts). Wrongful sexual acts, thus, can occur even between husband and wife if the purpose is to indulge in sensual pleasure. Such acts would be wrong like that between two gay men who have sex for the same purpose-- sexual pleasure--is. The only reason why sex between a man and a woman may be right is because the purpose of reproduction is a possibility. It can, thus, be said that all forms of protected sex-- both between gays and between straights--which purpose is clearly not to reproduce are wrong. But wrongful acts differ in the degree of wrongness. The degree of wrongness depends on:1) harm (e.g. on physical health and psychological wellness) caused to the doer as well as to others 2) whether theft (e.g. unfaithfulness to one's spouse/ partner, or stealing another's spouse/partner ) is involved3) whether it is consensual 4) degree of attachment to physical form reinforced 5) violation of any precepts if a vow to observe them had been voluntarily taken (opt-in) The above-listed 5 general criteria can expand into much wider implications, so it's not within the scope of this post to cover them in detail. Regarding gay marriage, I think the Buddhist community should, if asked for its view by the legislators, support the legalization of gay partnership that's equivalent to straight marriage. But I'd think that the Sangha (i.e. monks and nuns) should not be requested to officiate gay weddings before gay marriage is legal in a jurisdiction. Buddhists should realize that, by so doing, they are asking the Sangha to break the law, which is prohibited under their codes of conduct. Instead, what I think is more appropriate, if a Buddhist gay couple really wish to invite a monk/nun to witness their relationship, is to call the ceremony a declaration of monogamous relationship agreed upon privately between the couple, instead of a "gay marriage". Marriage--between straights or gays--is just a social-legal construct, but not a pre-requisite to the spiritual goals of Buddhism. However, beyond its spiritual goals, Buddhism does acknowledge and embrace the need for social social constructs that contribute to building a social environment that is conducive to achieving these spiritual goals. It is in this context that Buddhist leaders endorse or reject specific worldly customs including marriage. Like all physical forms, social constructs are impermanent, and change from time to time, realm to realm. For example, only in the realm of Lust does genders and sex exist. In the other two realms-- Form and Formless--sex is not required for birth, and the lives there are gender-neutral. As such, marriage wouldn't be a necessary social construct there. Just sharing my thoughts as a Buddhist.
answer Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Just to share the following talk given by Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche....He shared his view on homosexuality...please forward to 1:01:42 of the video:
Guest Guest Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Very profound statement : "......Ok as I said earlier, eh, there has been a lot of questions mm, I don’t think I have time today to go through all of that so just eh, this quite an interesting question about you know sexual orientation like gays and lesbians. What to do, you know how, how does this sort of fit with Bhutanese sort of the Buddhist world? And I would like to just speak this a little bit. Eh, in Buddhism, as Shantideva said – Wisdom is the most important, ALL the others is secondary, you understand. To see the truth is the most important........ So eh, what I want to say is that, first of all I want to say – therefore your sexual orientation has got NOTHING TO DO with understanding or not understanding the truth. You could be eh, gay, you could be a lesbian, you could be straight; who, we never know which one will get enlightened first....."
fab Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Buddhism is against sexual misconduct, not orientation. 鍾意就好，理佢男定女 never argue with the guests. let them bark all they want. 结缘不结怨 解怨不解缘 After I have said what I wanna say, I don't care what you say. 看穿不说穿
Guest Guest Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Buddhism is against sexual misconduct, not orientation. Good point.
Guest Guest Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Excerpt of the Talk 1:01:42 (The Guru Rinpoche Principle) posted by answer on 26 Jan2015 Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche about Homosexuality in Buddhismhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA_Kp9v9ZtA
Guest Guest Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 In this aspect, I think Buddhism is consistent with Christianity: Love the sinner, hate the sin. I don't really understand Rinpoche's point about tolerant. He says something like, if you tolerate, then you think it's no good ?? But as far as I know, Buddhist has 忍辱. Isn't this tolerate ? 忍辱 is a very basic teaching of Buddhism.
answer Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 In this aspect, I think Buddhism is consistent with Christianity: Love the sinner, hate the sin. I don't really understand Rinpoche's point about tolerant. He says something like, if you tolerate, then you think it's no good ?? But as far as I know, Buddhist has 忍辱. Isn't this tolerate ? 忍辱 is a very basic teaching of Buddhism. 忍辱 should be translated as Patience. It is accepting totally what you are facing now with confidence & courage. IMO, the tolerance that Rinpoche referring to is being closed/ narrow minded which is against the open mind attitude that Buddhism advocates.
fab Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 I believe he meant:If you tolerate homosexual, it means that homosexual is no good. Instead of tolerating homosexual, you should 'accept' it instead as homosexual is nothing 'no good'.I stand corrected. 鍾意就好，理佢男定女 never argue with the guests. let them bark all they want. 结缘不结怨 解怨不解缘 After I have said what I wanna say, I don't care what you say. 看穿不说穿
esel Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Just my two cents: The word tolerance implies that "I don't like/ accept/ agree with something, but I will bear with it." Similar to what Fab understood, I understand Rinpoche's meaning to be "tolerance is not the ideal, instead the ideal is to accept it." As for "loving the sinner and hating the sin", nowhere in the Pali Canon (the collections of Teachings from the Theravada tradition) says that homosexuality is a misconduct. Sexuality and matrimony has never been a concern to Buddhists. These are cultural constructs created to regulate society and varies from place to place.Like what Rinpoche had said, culture plays a big influence. We have inherited our code of law and many of our ways of thinking due to colonialism in the past. These colonialists themselves are influenced by Abrahamic religious ideas which clearly define matrimony and sexuality. " The Buddha says: “I say that intention (cetana) is kamma, for having intended ones thinks, speaks or acts.... To paraphrase a comment recently made by a well-known Buddhist teacher – it is not whether you are homosexual but what kind of homosexual you are." (Dhammika, S. , Buddhism and LGBT Issues. Buddhist Ethics. Retrieved from http://www.bhantedhammika.net/buddhism-and-lgbt-issues/buddhist-ethics)
Guest Guest Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 忍辱 should be translated as Patience. It is accepting totally what you are facing now with confidence & courage. IMO, the tolerance that Rinpoche referring to is being closed/ narrow minded which is against the open mind attitude that Buddhism advocates. In English, it's Patience but if you read the explanation of this Paramita, it more tolerance (able to tolerate) than patience (able to wait). And if you translate to Patience, then you have a problem with this story used to illustration 忍辱, ie 忍辱仙人 - 歌利王割截身体. 忍辱仙人 is our buddha's previous life. 歌利王 slice his flesh piece by piece and the Buddha is able to 忍. Buddha Shakyamuni was supposed to become buddha after Buddha Maitreya but because of this incident, Buddha Shakyamuni became buddha before him.
Guest Guest Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 I believe he meant:If you tolerate homosexual, it means that homosexual is no good. Instead of tolerating homosexual, you should 'accept' it instead as homosexual is nothing 'no good'.I stand corrected. First of all, homosexual is good or no good has nothing to do with how we react to it. So homosexuality is not my contention here. It's that To Tolerate something means it's no good is something I don't agree with. As in the story of 忍辱仙人, it was actually a good thing cause it help to bring forward Buddha Shakyamuni buddhahood.
Guest Guest Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Just my two cents: The word tolerance implies that "I don't like/ accept/ agree with something, but I will bear with it." Similar to what Fab understood, I understand Rinpoche's meaning to be "tolerance is not the ideal, instead the ideal is to accept it." As for "loving the sinner and hating the sin", nowhere in the Pali Canon (the collections of Teachings from the Theravada tradition) says that homosexuality is a misconduct. Sexuality and matrimony has never been a concern to Buddhists. These are cultural constructs created to regulate society and varies from place to place.Like what Rinpoche had said, culture plays a big influence. We have inherited our code of law and many of our ways of thinking due to colonialism in the past. These colonialists themselves are influenced by Abrahamic religious ideas which clearly define matrimony and sexuality. " The Buddha says: “I say that intention (cetana) is kamma, for having intended ones thinks, speaks or acts.... To paraphrase a comment recently made by a well-known Buddhist teacher – it is not whether you are homosexual but what kind of homosexual you are." (Dhammika, S. , Buddhism and LGBT Issues. Buddhist Ethics. Retrieved from http://www.bhantedhammika.net/buddhism-and-lgbt-issues/buddhist-ethics) Same thing again... you quoted Theravada but Mahayana does and there are a lot, a lot of Mahayana Buddhist. To them, if you are gay, no problem. If you do oral or anal sex, or even think about it. It's a sexual misconduct.
Guest Guest Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Why is it a sexual misconduct to perform oral or anal sex?
esel Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) Same thing again... you quoted Theravada but Mahayana does and there are a lot, a lot of Mahayana Buddhist. To them, if you are gay, no problem. If you do oral or anal sex, or even think about it. It's a sexual misconduct. My same thoughts? Why is it a sexual misconduct? Please explain and quote some sutras (I admit I am not familiar at all with Mahayana sutras).On another note (which may create some contention), Mahayana, Theravada or Vajrayana, the written words are just that; i.e. words written by humans many hundred years after the Buddha's passing. They contain a wealth of wisdom, but they are not "Words of Buddha" per se. Many of the texts have been composed much later by monastics who may or may not be enligthened (but attributed to the Buddha).Hence, returning to the spirit of the Kalama Sutta, the Buddha taught that"one should not believe something just because it is stated in some scriptures,one should not believe something just because it is widely believed as such and such by the world,one should not even believe the Buddha's own words....."It is here where I find the beauty of Dhamma in the sense that we never need to accept anything just because it is stated in some sutta or sutra. Instead through personal reflection and understanding, one derives the truth for oneself. As in this case, through my years of learning Dhamma, and the many wise monks whom I learned from (I must admit mostly Theravada), none had ever taught that homosexual sex is wrong. Edited January 28, 2015 by esel
Guest Guest Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 My same thoughts? Why is it a sexual misconduct? Please explain and quote some sutras (I admit I am not familiar at all with Mahayana sutras).On another note (which may create some contention), Mahayana, Theravada or Vajrayana, the written words are just that; i.e. words written by humans many hundred years after the Buddha's passing. They contain a wealth of wisdom, but they are not "Words of Buddha" per se. Many of the texts have been composed much later by monastics who may or may not be enligthened (but attributed to the Buddha).Hence, returning to the spirit of the Kalama Sutta, the Buddha taught that"one should not believe something just because it is stated in some scriptures,one should not believe something just because it is widely believed as such and such by the world,one should not even believe the Buddha's own words....."It is here where I find the beauty of Dhamma in the sense that we never need to accept anything just because it is stated in some sutta or sutra. Instead through personal reflection and understanding, one derives the truth for oneself. As in this case, through my years of learning Dhamma, and the many wise monks whom I learned from (I must admit mostly Theravada), none had ever taught that homosexual sex is wrong. Yes, of course, you can use your reasoning and analysis. But that would be your own private version of Buddhism. I don't want to quote the sutra here lah. If you want, you can learnt it yourself. I'm not doing any religious propagation work here. Just relating what Mahayana believes. Well, if you don't think that, based on your Theravada exposure, homosexual sex is wrong, that's fine. But Mahayaha does say that organs should be use for that purpose. And we are buddhist also. We also don't go out to condemn gay man or even condemn gay sex. I just state what we believe. And I also never did ask you to believe. Just like I don't expect Christians to believe Buddhism. Fair ? So you can continue with what you are doing but do not expect me to endorse what you are doing as correct. I will not interfere. But if the day comes that there is ever a vote on this issue, I will vote what I believe to be correct. As for your comment on the sutra as not the words of the Buddha. I hope you don't get offended. You are really just using the sutra as a reference while creating your own version of your own religion. And that's fine also. I don't know about other people. I started out using analysis approach to Buddhism. What I do is that I start comparing what buddhism teaches, what other religion teaches and what I think it right or wrong. Somehow, Buddhism come up top. There are things which I do not understand then, but I gve it the benefit of the doubt that I'm not there yet.... After some year, I look back and I started to understand something... There are still many thing I don't understand fully.. there things that are really beyond one ability to analysis anymore. You can ask but nobody can give you an answer, like what we say in buddhism 法而如是....
esel Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 Yes, of course, you can use your reasoning and analysis. But that would be your own private version of Buddhism. I don't want to quote the sutra here lah. If you want, you can learnt it yourself. I'm not doing any religious propagation work here. Just relating what Mahayana believes. Well, if you don't think that, based on your Theravada exposure, homosexual sex is wrong, that's fine. But Mahayaha does say that organs should be use for that purpose. And we are buddhist also. We also don't go out to condemn gay man or even condemn gay sex. I just state what we believe. And I also never did ask you to believe. Just like I don't expect Christians to believe Buddhism. Fair ? So you can continue with what you are doing but do not expect me to endorse what you are doing as correct. I will not interfere. But if the day comes that there is ever a vote on this issue, I will vote what I believe to be correct. As for your comment on the sutra as not the words of the Buddha. I hope you don't get offended. You are really just using the sutra as a reference while creating your own version of your own religion. And that's fine also. I don't know about other people. I started out using analysis approach to Buddhism. What I do is that I start comparing what buddhism teaches, what other religion teaches and what I think it right or wrong. Somehow, Buddhism come up top. There are things which I do not understand then, but I gve it the benefit of the doubt that I'm not there yet.... After some year, I look back and I started to understand something... There are still many thing I don't understand fully.. there things that are really beyond one ability to analysis anymore. You can ask but nobody can give you an answer, like what we say in buddhism 法而如是.... Dear Guest, no offence was taken. In fact I appreciate that you took the time to try to reason, discuss and present your views.We are not on the same page here, and I don't intend to convince you or anyone of anything as well. But on the same note, just as you attempt to present the Mahayana view, I am also just attempting to present the Theravada view regarding this matter (which again is limited to my own understanding, experiences and shortcomings).=)
Guest Guest Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 Dear Guest, no offence was taken. In fact I appreciate that you took the time to try to reason, discuss and present your views.We are not on the same page here, and I don't intend to convince you or anyone of anything as well. But on the same note, just as you attempt to present the Mahayana view, I am also just attempting to present the Theravada view regarding this matter (which again is limited to my own understanding, experiences and shortcomings).=) Only problem I see here is some people, even a number of ang mo masters, trying to confuse things by throwing a Theravada blanket over Mahayana on this issue, even to the extent of saying "Same Sex Marriage, why not ?". So without going deeper, I don't know initially, what your intention was. I think the phrase "Agree to disagree" is most suitable here. And not try to use the Theravada stand to represent Mahayana and vice versa.
Guest Guest Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 What's the purpose for sex ? Why do we need to have sex ?
Recommended Posts