Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Buddhism & Bigotry ...Are some sects of Buddhism more tolerant than others ?
Shoshin
No one in particularNowhere Special Veteran
Kia Ora,
The Buddhist group I attend are a mixed bunch of people both females and males including one or two members of the LGBTQI community...I like to think we are one big happy family...Fortunately the area where I live is quite liberal, people (Buddhist and non Buddhist alike) are pretty laid back when it comes to diversity (lots of alternative eco-friendly lifestylers)...
If you belong to a Buddhist group, are you (along with other members) open and accepting of difference or are certain people shunned because of their sexual or gender identity ?
I'm interested to see ones interpretation of the 5 precepts along with what they understand about karma...
Metta Shoshin 
0
Comments
I've never come across any problems like this in the various Buddhist groups I've been involved with.
Some of the traditional Chinese Sanghas are very homophobic.
The very large group that was formed around Master Hsuan Hua in San Francisco for example promise hell fire and damnation for participation in gay sex.
And in the interests of fairness, so are a few Tibetan Sanghas. Including some of the Gelupa.
The Dalai Lama has been quite outspoken in his negative views re. gay sex...
Most Tibetan or Tibetan inspired, Sanghas though are pretty relaxed about it.
Kia Ora,
That's good to hear...It sounds like they actually practice what is preached...
Metta Shoshin
The most homophobic group is that around the City Of Ten Thousand Buddhas in California.
It is a very large Sangha of tens of thousands of adherents.
Curiously, they are also the most uncompromising in their espousal of veganism..
Meat eaters and practising homosexuals are going to hell states according to them..
Go figure...
Never seen or heard any sign of it, anywhere, either IRL or on,any forum I have visited.
incidentally, although some teachings of some schools in the Mahayana Tradition are quite specific with regard to the 3rd Precept being violated, by homosexuality, the Theravada Tradition, as far as I am hitherto aware, does not condemn, reject or even advise against homosexuality for either gender. It merely counsels against inappropriate or unskillful sexual conduct.
What that is, is up to you, but broadly speaking, it is any sexual conduct that abuses the will, dignity and volition of any person involved. In other words, when you - or they - would rather not.
According to Theravada, unskillful sex involved being intimate with a minor, an ordained person, an incarcerated person, a betrothed (to someone else) person.
This article by our very own @Jason, explains it well.
You will find followers of Master Hsuan Hua cropping up regularly on Dharma Wheel @federica and repeating their teachers words on homosexuality.
It invariably leads to the thread being closed after a good deal of aggro.
Does it matter...?
Only in knowing what groups to avoid. And The City Of Ten Thousand Buddhas is very large and very vociferous and organised.
In many other ways its an admirable mainstream Buddhist school..
On a side note, it's the first time I encountered the "QI" tacked onto the LGBT and I had to look it up. Wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a world where nobody cared about something so benign as what turns people on? Yet in some parts of the world, we're going backwards as a society. Russia is going down a terrible road and some African countries are even worse.
Thanks, @Citta; definitely one of the aspects of Mahayana that prevented me from adhering to it as a prime-choice tradition... Have never visited Dharma Wheel, and frankly, have no intention of doing so.
(What is 'QI'...? I always considered it the Japanese spelling of 'Chi'....!)
According to various websites, the QI (and sometimes QIA is even tacked on) is for Queer (or "questioning" on one PC website), Intersex, and Asexual.
(I thought it might have been "Questionable Intentions"...!)
The head Zen Master, Barbara Rhodes, of the Kwan Um School of Zen, the largest zen school in the west, is in same sex relationship for many years. No one cares, it doesn't matter.
What is interesting is that they never mention that Hsuan Hua said near the same things about heterosexual desires also! He did not limit his "hellfire" to homosexuals. He said that about most everyone, LOL.
(Freud would have had a field day....)
My dharma cult is completely selective. We don't let anyone in. When they found out I had allowed a Buddha into my garden, they rightly ordered a drone strike . . .
YinYana Cult: http://yinyana.tumblr.com/day/2013/06/10
Drone strike video: http://yinyana.tumblr.com/video_file/54820463035/tumblr_mpk7lr6FX11r9532p
Well thats OK then..
But actually Hsuan Hsa does reserve particular venom for gays..
He described them on several occasions as a ' scourge on humanity '.
Its all on public record.
And , once more in the interests of fairness;
The Dalai Lama in a public teaching on the Kalachakra said ( on film ) that homosexual practices cause the nadis ( the channels through which the chi/ki energy flows ) to flow in the wrong direction..gulp.
He later back -tracked and apologised for any offence caused...but didn't change his view.
Other Tantric Buddhist teachers btw, said that he was plain wrong. That homosexual practices do not do that.
Hsuan Hsa says everyone who indulges in lust, regardless of what kind homosexual, heterosexual, etc. is actually a demon, not a follower of the Buddha. He considers lust, in and of itself, to be a "scourge on humanity" and any activity that comes from it.
Well I guess its reassuring to know that he was a equal opportunities bigot and fanatic.
Might as well level the playing field...
Yup..
The first Sangha I approached was one near my home. It served a particular racial group. They offered a intro Dharma course for westerners. It was kinda strange. Over the weeks that the class ran, no attempt was made to bring us closer to the sangha and include us in services. The monastic presiding over the sangha never stopped by to meet or teach us. The course was ended suddenly because the lay teacher decided to stop and noone else stepped up to take his place. We were on our own.
I've heard many complaints over the years that Sanghas set up to serve an immigrant population are exclusive and uninviting to westerners. It's also one reason why the children of immigrants supposedly don't stick with Buddhism, when the monks many times don't even know how to speak english and devote all their effort into serving the older, first generation population.
Actually, DW isn't a bad choice of forums. It seems to have taken on a defite Dzogchen Community flavor in recent years, but it's still a good sourse of info for those interested in Buddhism in general and Mahayana in particular. Very no-nonsense. They take the Dharma seriously and it shows.
Yes, same here, but it's not always the case.
There's a simlar sangha that started up a few years ago, not far from home. They seemed to be working hard on the gardens. After they finished, I stopped in on a Sunday afternoon and asked to walk in the gardens. Beautifull. I was invited to meet the redident manatic. After exchanging pleasantries he invited me to lunch with the Sangha. Very open and friendly.
Well, I got my "fingers burnt" a (long) while ago, when I commented that I incorporated some Mahayana practices in with my Theravada thinking.
I received some decidedly "un-Buddhist" responses (whatever they are, but you get my drift) and made to feel distinctly unwelcome...
Still, perhaps there have been more positive changes since then so....
Lets see. Some people gang up on you, and your feelings get hurt, so you blame that on the Mahayana.
I've been repeated insulted by people "claiming" to be Theravedins. Should I call Theraveda shit because of that? I don't think so.
No, I didn't blame it on Mahayana.
I blamed it on some people who purported to practise Mahayana, and who made it abundantly clear that they thoroughly disapproved of my "mixing" Mahayana with Theravada, told me in no uncertain terms that, to paraphrase, I was extremely ignorant, stupid and misguided to meld the two, and that it was not the done thing.
They advised me that it was an impossible thing to do, and that practice would be neither dedicated nor sincere.
Hopefully, that's clearer, now.
Which would of course be news to Ajahn Amaro, abbott of Amaravati who is a Dzogchen practitioner, and would have been news to Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche who sent some of us to learn Vipassana from Theravadin teachers @federica.
Whoa. How does someone believing that lust is a scourge on humanity make them a "bigot and fanatic"? And where is that line when it is crossed that turns one into a bigot and/or fanatic. And can't one deciding that one's beliefs are making someone a bigot and/or a fanatic making oneself a bigot and/or fanatic.
I don't believe that mere lust is a scourge on humanity or that it makes one demonic, but just open-minded are we if we condemn others for merely their beliefs?
In a couple of the Thai sanghas in the D.C. area, I was always made most welcome, and there were a number of other Westerners there, as well. It helped that I had spent so much time in Thailand and would bring some pretty good Thai food, but I always felt very welcome, despite not speaking Thai...and so were other Westerners.
Beliefs are all well and good if they sustain, inform, improve and support.
When they are clearly prejudicial, biased, condemnatory and closed-minded, they deserve the brunt of criticism.
It's all very well protesting on their behalf, but it's possible you have not had to endure such vitriol and prejudice.
I bet if you did though, you were quick to defend yourself.
>
Of course.
But it happened nevertheless, and that kind of experience can leave a bitter taste in one's mouth about certain so-called practitioners.
as I mentioned earlier, one of the reasons I cannot see myself adhering more to Mahayana, is the view in many schools, regarding homosexuality.
One of the reasons I happily gave up on Catholicism was the out-dated and extremely antiquated rule regarding priestly celibacy, and that women cannot conduct mass.
It's hard to affiliate yourself to a practice where some of the principles completely contradict your own...
That's a nice vague response. But you didn't answer a specific that I posed.
And I would remind you that I am gay, so I have certainly felt "vitriol and prejudice". And have lived in a foreign culture, so I have certainly felt "prejudice".
which question?
you posed a couple...
Why do some only equate sexual activity with lust (like the person mentioned abov, whom I am not familiar with). I've been a lustful person before, those darn teen and young adult raging hormones, lol. But even though I still have a sexual relationship with my husband it's not often that lust is involved. It's a very different kind of desire, IMO.
@Citta, I might be wrong, but I thought HHDL has more recently said that if the people are consenting adults, what they do in their sex life is only their business, and he was fine with that as long as they were not harming others. I know he said something to that effect in his interview with Larry King a couple months ago. But maybe that is only what he says when he's on tv in the US. I certainly don't know what he truly thinks on the subject. I know he has in the past also said that any sex that is not standard sex strictly for the purpose procreation, was considered unskillful/wrong/incorrect/whateveryouwannasay. Something to that effect anyhow.
Anyhow, in our sangha, we don't have problems with people being excluded. There are several openly gay members and they feel quite welcome, as far as I know. A couple of them are friends and they are happy and comfortable. The only person I know who was vocally uncomfortable was a curious woman who came to the first retreat held here with my teacher. When it was over, she said "All this compassion stuff sounds nice, but I don't think I can get on board with it considering I'm a strict Republican." I was shocked at her honesty in saying so.
Soto Zen...
Never saw anyone care.
Female master/ monks of all different sexual backgrounds/
I heard from one transgendered practitioner in the UK who blamed the reason he/she was eventually asked to leave was because of the gender confusion. The abbot of that temple said that while he did not handle the situation well, the reasons for asking that practioner to leave was for different reasons.
There was some other weird warning I once read about not ordaining hermaphrodites without much of an explanation beyond not knowing where to place them in a male/ female monastic framework
People are people..but I think that a sincere meditation practice that is incorporated into daily life is the most direct route towards addressing anyones prejudices of anything.
@karasti being the D.L.can't be an easy gig.
But his thoughts on the subject do seem to be a work in progress. which is perhaps a good thing.
Ok, let's see what I can do about that...
>
When their views are contrary to the mass opinion, and they speak as if they are the be-all and end-all authority, which is probably what he did. If the general consensus of opinion is contrary to an isolated voice, chances are the isolated voice is in error, misguided or plain and simple incorrect. And if, as reported, he is vehement and hostile in his approach, then it's quite likely he is a bigot. Most Bigots are...
>
When their opinion is clearly at odds with the majority, and the majority condemns the opinion as biased, prejudiced and thoroughly unskilful...
>
That depends how you express the sentiment. Does my condemnation of those who are so fanatically vocal against homosexuality, make me a bigot and a fanatic? or a supporter of equality?
>
I don't think he's being condemned just for his beliefs. I think he's being condemned for the way he projects them and advertises them.
>
Well, let's start with, "How does someone believing that lust is a scourge on humanity make them a "bigot and fanatic"?"
>
How does believing that lust is a scourge on humanity make one bigoted.
>
In Thailand, you will find the scourges of hell a result of lust in many depictions of Buddhist hell realms. And many, many Thai Theravadans actively believe in Buddhist hell realms.
>
70% of Americans believe in hell. How does that make them bigoted or fanatical? Now, if they cross a line and start acting against others, then perhaps they are being bigoted or fanatical (such as that one Christian group who would protest funerals, whose leader recently died...some Baptist group, as I recall). Yet, I have had friends who were born again Christians who have stated to me that they believed that active homosexuality was a very serious sin...yet we were still friends, still socialized together, and I was still invited to their homes for dinners and social events. They had a belief, they stated it, but I was still treated well by them.
It seems to me that we are getting very close in our increasingly liberal society to having a sort of universal "mind police" attitude. It used to be that we condemned people who acted based on their prejudices. Now it seems as if we condemn even things in the privacy of one's own mind.
wow, the program certainly messed up that posting.
@Federica, I won't try use the quote feature for your above post...that doesn't seem to be working well.
But you seem to place a lot of reliance on "When their views are contrary to the mass opinion". History shows us that "mass opinion" is very dangerous. In half the United States up through the Civil War, mass opinion was that Blacks were inferior and that slavery was morally right. South Africa was governed under apartheid based on White mass opinion. What was mass opinion in Germany about Jews at least up through the 1940s? What was mass opinion about gay rights up until recently? What was mass opinion for much of Great Britain's history about its right to rule other countries? What was mass opinion in much of America's history regarding Indians?
I think it is one thing when people have thoughts, and it's another then when they use their words unskillfully and end up hurting people as a result. As the saying goes, they want people to be tolerant of their intolerance. Where do we draw the line at acting? When someone uses their beliefs to vote against the rights of others, that is an action. Once words come out of your mouth, that is an action. What is in your mind belongs only to you...until you share it with others. Then you are responsible for your words and you have to accept that people (sometimes a lot of people) won't like what you have to say. Like Sterling and Cliven Bundy and the cop who lost his job for calling President Obama a n*****. Their harmful thoughts become actions when they come out of their mouths.
I think the question comes down to -- where is the line? And sometimes the line may be that delicate area between free speech and right speech.
For example -- does not a religious person even have the right to say what they feel is moral or immoral? What is the sliding scale of speech that is right and not right, and I don't mean that only in a Buddhist sense?
.
The programming certainly needs looking at..
I tried to rectify your post as best I could.
I think we're back to the old chestnut "Freedom of Speech does not = Freedom from responsibility". The nitty-gritty of when the rubber hits the road....
If someone holds particularly strong views, it's important they have the wisdom to discern when, in current climate relevant to them, it is appropriate to express those views, and when it's wiser to keep the yap shut.
For example, I hold some pretty strong views on the social effects that immigration is having on the UK (I know immigration is a world-wide issue, for many, but I can only consider the implications from where I personally stand).
However, there are certain situations in which it may be appropriate for me to voice those concerns, and when it would be wholly inappropriate to do so.
That's not being dishonest. That's just balancing the situation and evaluating the wisdom of expressing my views.
How many politicians have been caught out by phone cameras, expressing things they should not say and definitely could not say in public?
There has been a flurry of several VIP's having to re-think their positions - careers even - in light of certain, publicly-estimated, inappropriate comments made, at times they really should have thought more carefully..
As they say, "Measure it twice lad - ye'll only be cuttin' it the once...."
I don't think as a society we know where the line is. I'm pretty darn liberal, but there are times stories make the news about someone losing a job or whatever for something they said and I think "What? I really don't agree with them but should they really have lost their job over that?" And sometimes, I agree. The instant communication world we now live in leaves zero time to take back something before it has reached millions of people who immediately are phoning and emailing for consequences. Everyone has to be quite careful of what they choose to say because in an instant, thousands and even millions of people say it...and might disagree to a point they think you no longer deserve your job. Is it right? Not necessarily. Maybe it is something that'll simmer after a while. But considering people have found that they will get their way if they take their problem to social media, perhaps not. Sometimes, it leads to really good things, and overall, maybe the good outweighs the bad. It's a hard lesson to learn when one misstep of speech can cost you your career. But perhaps it is something happening on a global scale to force people into being more conscious of their speech.
Life moves too fast to permit the pendulum to find its centre...
He didn't say that lust was a scourge on humanity.
Or he may have done on other occasions..
He said that homosexuals are a scourge on humanity.
He also said that they are going to hell as a direct result of their sexual orientation.
And he didn't merely think it. He preached it frequently and encouraged his large group of followers to confront the gay community with it.
>
It just occurs to me that all the matters you have highlighted, are actually all now despicable in the eyes of the majority...
Apart from Colonial rule, that is.
Joking aside, I don't think there is as much resentment about British rule, up to the point when 'the natives began to get restless'.... Before then, it wasn't a globally entirely bad thing. Colonialism had its advantages, whereas the other matters you cite, well...not one good thing at all can be said about them.
And thus has the tide most vociferously turned.
Only this morning there was much rejoicing on Facebook at Oregon's decision to overturn the ruling against 'gay marriage'.
It's now known as just..... 'marriage'.
As should always have been the case.
_And sometimes, the historically oppressed don't actually help their own 'cause'... what is it with 'African American'...?
You don't hear 'Jamaican American' or 'Trinidadian and Tobagan American'.... Odd...._
So, perhaps, with the tide having turned so emphatically against such heinous matters of social injustice, it is easier to understand why someone persisting in holding blinkered, backward and archaic views, could be so roundly, and loudly condemned...
So are you saying he doesn't have the right of free belief and free speech?
Well, being on the "right side of history" debate only works from a position of hindsight.
I am saying he does.
And so do I. I also have the right to draw attention to the dissemination of hate.
Southern Baptist preachers or ultraright Buddhist teachers should have the same rights and expect the same responses.