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.
Homosexuality: Ethical or Unethical to Buddhists?
Hi everyone. Is homosexuality ethical or unethical to Buddhists? What about sexually active homosexual relationships?
0
Comments
As a lesbian, I feel very supported by my spiritual community. My partner and I were married by a Lama and our whole community joyously attended. We've been together for 25 years and we met at a Buddhist meditation retreat in 1985.
If there was any dhamic reason that could show why such things would be important in the cessation of suffering or right view, then Dharma would have to be a cruel a joke.
I think the Buddha may have been against overly flamboyant neckerchiefs, howver;)
Buddha doesn't hate butt sex.
Ah okay. Thanks Pietro Pumokin. I was just reading at www.religioustolerance.org on their section about homosexuality and Buddhism and here is a quote from it which purportedly comes from the Dalai Lama:
You can read more at the following link:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_budd.htm
Cool.
I don't understand the first paragraph of your quote. Could you please explain in simpler terms?
Oh okay. So, where would homosexuality fall in consideration of whether or not it prevents or eliminates suffering? Obviously homosexual sex is pleasurable to homosexuals or they wouldn't engage in it so it at least temporarily alleviates suffering. However, homosexual sex can also cause suffering by spreading STDs. But then again, so can heterosexual sex. And then you have the fact that sex between lesbians has a far reduced incidence of STDs as compared to heterosexual and gay sex. So, I think that maybe sex between homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals is considered okay so long as it is done in a manner which prevents the spread of STDs which cause harm. So, therefore, sex between any two people would be fine so long as safer sex practices are used, right?
In terms of a Moral Compass, what dharma gives is a kind of frameworkn for making your own moral decisions. This framework is one that is directed to the cultivation of happiness, truth and peace.
Dharma does have the golden rule (treat others as you would be treated) but it has this more layer of morality that gives reasons why compassionate kind acts are desired (because they will have wholesome karmic effects in all directions - incidentally this isnt selfish altruism, there is no self).
So when I said: "If there was any dhamic reason that could show why such things would be important in the cessation of suffering or right view, then Dharma would have to be a cruel a joke."
I meant that if you could get from these simple dharmic moral truths to homophobic hate doctrine then there would have to be some hateful seed in dharma itself, and thus, Dharma would be a curel joke on us all.
Luckily, its not:)
Ah okay. I think I am understing what you are saying now. But there is a difference between homophobia and saying that homosexual sexual acts are wrong, is there not?
Homophobia is one thing, and unskilful, according to Buddhism.
To say homosexual acts are wrong is another, and applies only in Mahayana Buddhism. but it is not part of the Buddha's original teaching, but a tradition-based teaching.
Theravada Buddhism does not distinguish between homosexuality, heterosexuality or bisexuality.
providing you are not breaking the 5th precept, there is nothing wrong with any kind of sexuality.
Oh. So Mahayana Buddhism teaches that homosexual acts are wrong?
The Dalai Lama himself does not condemn homosexuality and feels that it is not wrong, but Traditional Tibetan Buddhism does not see it as appropriate to following the Path.
Theravada makes no such distinction.
I am not saying one is 'better' than the other. I am merely indicating the different Points of View.
I would say some forms of Mahayana believe that anal sex, no matter what your sexuality, is wrong. I'm pretty sure some forms of Theravaden would also say the same. As already stated, it's down to personal interpretation, rather than doctrine.
Nios.
Oh okay. So Theraveda Buddhism does not condemn the use of certain orifices in a sexual act but Mahayana Buddhism does? Do all Mahayana Buddhists condemn the use of certain orifices for a sexual act? I thought that I wanted to be a Mahayana Buddhist but now I am not so sure. I don't really want to follow a Buddhist sect that dictates what I can do as far as my sexual life goes. I mean, I have nothing against a prohibition on adultery, rape, or molestation but when it comes to consensual sex between two adults, I wouldn't want a religion's teachings telling me what I can and can't do.
Oh okay. Wow. Do you or does anyone else know where I can learn more about Mahayana Buddhism and sexual activity?
.
You don't have to be any type of Buddhist. Took me nearly 20 years to decide which tradition to follow. I still use some Mahayana practices, event though I adhere largely to Theravada.
No Buddhist sect 'dictates' anything. They try to guide you insofar as what they consider to be skilful or unskillful.
But the bottom line rests with you.
If you'll excuse the pun!!
In my humble opinion, The Third Precept(I vow to refrain or abstain from unskilful or inappropriate sexual behaviour) means not putting anybody into a position where their will is compromised, or they are made to do something they don't want to do, and as such harms their dignity and well-being.
That's it, as far as I am concerned. The first precept applies to the following four.....
Google Mahayana Buddhism and see where it takes you.....
Hi Buddhagirl,
It's important to remember that there are many different forms of buddhism, especially within Mahayana. Each one of these schools will have different interpretations of the suttas and sutras. But even within one particular school like rinzai zen for example, you'll have many different teachers who'll have differing opinions on certain things. The Dalai Lama is not the voice of mahayana buddhism, so not all mahayana buddhists do as he says.
Sexual misconduct is usually based on the social and ethical laws and structures of the country in which that form of buddhism originates. Western forms of mahayana are generally more liberal than eastern ones, but even many eastern forms are liberal too.
Each different forms of mahayana have their own rules and codes of conducts.
What attracts you to mahayana?
You don't have to choose now. Some of us have taken years to decide, some have never decided. Take your time, think about things. Join a group and see for yourself what it's like.
Nios.
Well, one thing that attracts me to Mahayana is the teaching that the soul does not immediately rebirth itself.
We do not consider re-birth to have anything to do with a soul, at all. In any tradition.....
In buddhism there is no soul http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta
is that what you are referring to?
it should be made clear that it's not condemned and certainly nit for lay practitioners. Sex, period, is not allowed in the mastic code. It's not about gay sex. The Dalai Lama essentially said that for lay people it's between the two individuals whether they're gay or straight...
And in regards to homosexual practices spreading STDs that's as much an argument as it is for straight sex.
And as for sex relieving suffering... This is not what Buddhism is concerned with. Dukkha is a deep and nuanced term and suffering isn't. An adequate translation. I'm typing with one finger on a phone so in short the happiness and pleasure fealt from sex is dukkha as well so long as there is clinging to it for happiness.
I agree with Mat. Yup.
No, I don't think so:) Dharma is utterly pure, it isn't even about humans, let alone our biological types. If a theory says homosexuality is wrong but does not say the same about hertrosexuality, its homophobic.
Rangtong means emptiness of self. Shentong means emptiness of other.
Note: the skandas are: form (bodies) feeling (is it good bad or neutral) perception (classifying things by another thing such as green) formation (string of ideas. karmic formations.) Consciousness (eye, nose, tongue, ear, body, mind)
:eek:
Please remember that Tibet is a very different society than you find in the US and the West in general. There never was anything like a gay identity there, so when the Tibetan lamas came to the West they were quite shocked by gay culture. Which also means they didn't (and still don't, for the most part) understand it. Many of them think that gay = bad, mainly because of the (to them) shocking behavior they see gays engage in publicly. It's simply a case of culture shock. Westerners who are Tibetan Buddhists don't have that problem. I have seen discrimination against gays by Tibetan lamas who didn't know any better, but I have never seen discrimination against gays by Western Tibetan Buddhist teachers and Western Tibetan Buddhist practitioners. In fact, I have seen very little by Tibetan lamas either, but I have seen some, unfortunately. This is not a doctrinal issue though; it's a cultural one.
Buddhism in general, and Tibetan Buddhism in particular (as well as Zen and other schools) are very attractive to gays and lesbians because of the lack of discrimination against them. Therefore you find that there are more Western Tibetan Buddhists who are gay/lesbian than you would in the general population. Certainly this is true at my temple where our teacher is very gay-friendly and positive. In fact, one of her two sons is gay. About half of our ordained community (which is large by Western standards) is gay/lesbian. Our teacher also instructed her gay and lesbian sangha not to try to push their gayness onto the back burner. Rather we should use it as a bridge builder to connect with our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters who are hungry for spirituality but find no satisfaction in traditional religions. It is our responsibility, she said, to prove to the world that gays and lesbians can be both moral and spiritual.
Palzang
Palzang
I think as the OP is new to the forum, and this is the Beginner's forum, it would be more appropriate to keep to context. This would be a good discussion for the more advanced practitioner.
Fede: OP's got what she wanted. Can we play now?
But watch the road.
And don't go into the neighbour's yard without asking.
To begin with, it should be made clear that Buddhist precepts aren't equivalent to commandments in that precepts are training rules that are voluntarily undertaken rather than edicts or commands dictated by a higher power and/or authority. In essence, these precepts are undertaken to protect oneself, as well as others, from the results of unskillful actions. Actions are considered unskillful when they arise out of the mental defilements of greed, hatred and delusion and lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others or to both (MN 61).
In regard to Buddhist sexual ethics, the third precept states: "I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct." This, of course, will naturally lead one to the question, "What is the definition of sexual misconduct?" To answer that question, however, we must take into account the other four precepts. In other words, the five precepts are an integrated whole, and each precept supports the others. The other four precepts are (1) to refrain from harming living beings, (2) to refrain from taking what's not given, (3) to refrain from false speech and (4) to refrain from taking intoxicants that lead to carelessness.
Therefore, generally speaking, we can say that sexual misconduct consists of any sexual conduct that involves violence, manipulation and/or deceit. As the Ven. S. Dhammika elaborates, "If we use trickery, emotional blackmail or force to compel someone to have sex with us, then this is sexual misconduct. Adultery is also a form of sexual misconduct because when we marry we promise our spouse that we will be loyal to them. When we commit adultery we break that promise and betray that trust. Sex should be an expression of love and intimacy between two people and when it is it contributes to our mental and emotional well-being."
To summarize, from what I've been taught by my teachers, as well as from what I've read in the suttas, sexual misconduct includes any sexual activity that leads to self-affliction, to the affliction of others or to both, or that involves any person who's (1) already in a committed relationship (e.g., engaged, married, etc.), (2) protected by law (e.g., under age, etc.) or (3) under religious vows entailing celibacy (e.g., monks, nuns, etc.). Hence in Theravada, sex between consenting persons of legal age who aren't already in committed relationships and haven't taken vows of celibacy isn't considered misconduct.
In regard to anal and oral sex, there's a prohibition against sex concerning "inappropriate orifices" (i.e. anal and oral) that can be found in Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosabhasyam, as well as a few other Sarvastivadin texts, but there's no such prohibition found in any Theravadin source. Personally, I think that a lot of the views concerning marriage and sex are influenced more by cultural, religious and social norms than by any universal constant. For a few quick references, please see Buddhist Sexual Ethics, Good Question, Good Answer and The Healing Power of the Precepts.
Basically, what I said, but in a far more scholarly and informed, referenced way.....
Jase, you rock!
See, BG02, if you want any reference to Theravadin tradition, teaching or practice, This is the guy to ask, in my opinion.
The Dalai Lama is simply the leader of one Tibetan Buddhist sect. The Dalai Lama's views are often 'Tibetan' rather than representing the Buddha himself. He should take a little more responsibility for his often wayward speech causing other Buddhists to enter into 'damage control'.
There are no recorded teachings of the Buddha about homosexuality, apart from those found in the monk's discipline (Vinaya).
The Buddha encouraged laypeople to develop lasting relationships based on mutual goals as a vehicle for developing human virtues in their lives.
As a person who was intimately in tune with nature, the Buddha would have not spoken against homosexual relationships. The Buddha said human beings come together based on 'elements', ie, their nature produced dispositions.
Kind regards
:buck:
Where does sexuality come from? Choice? Or biological drive?
Human folks who often think very highly of themselves will mostly answer: "From choice of course!". "I am a consenting human being following my free will and choices!"
But from an enlightened viewpoint, it is sexual drive, which is dukkha and often strong dukkha.
So it is enlightened activity to 'manage' this dukkha skilfully via engaging in it.
Many monks & nuns disrobe due to their sexual drives.
In the Bible, Paul said with realistic wisdom:
Not only Dalai Lama but any religious teacher of Buddhism should take care when they talk because there are so many many instances that I have found them recklessly misinterpreting the original Buddha's teachings and preaching things the Buddha himself never said anywhere in the pali suttas. At least they should mention that these ideas are their own and not the Buddha's. Otherwise beginners who get into Buddhism really get misled or even abandon the Dhamma without reaping the real fruits of Buddhist teachings.
Well I see the point of your message