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.
Is the Dalai Lama an ethical relativist?
From what I've read of his work, it would appear that he does. For example, when speaking to Buddhist practitioners, he holds that non-vaginal intercourse is counter-productive to enlightenment and counts as sexual misconduct. When speaking to Western audiences, however, His Holiness seems to take a more, well, relative view. Why would the incarnation of compassion shield the true, destructive nature of certain actions from the beings he's vowed to liberate?
0
Comments
One member here did, received a reply, and even got to see him.
The Dalai Lama has to adhere to the strictures placed upon him by tradition.
But he doesn't have to necessarily agree with them.
I hve to abide by certain laws, even though I don't always think they're either valid or fair.
You may, indeed, read HHDL in this way.
Alternatively, you may like to imagine what the world looks like to one for whom compassion is the only absolute.
Because persecution and discrimination has no part to play in compassion.
I find the stance of some churches that telling LGBT people that they are sinning is for their own good problematic as it leads to persecution and discrimination.
He is usually not speaking to Buddhists, so he is dealing with people who have no idea of Buddhism.
He is also spending most of his time doing politic, knowing very well that any words he say will be interpreted by many parties and that anything he says has the potential to alienate and entire country and be counter productive of his many political, social and human goals.
Well, that's the thing, wouldn't compassion entail informing his audiences about certain actions that will inevitably lead to suffering and delay their own liberation?
it doesn't seem like a big deal though anyways
Buddhism teaches sexual morality (non-harming) but does not teach sexual abstinence.
Many homosexuals have taken refuge in the Buddha-Dhamma & to teach non-vaginal intercourse is sexual misconduct alienates homosexuals.
Also, in relation to homosexuals, to teach non-vaginal intercourse is sexual misconduct is contrary to the Buddha's teachings, which does not mention such things.
The Dalai Lama's view is a Tibetan view. It does not exist in other Buddhist countries.
KM3,
When speaking to different audiences, its important to keep focused on what is the best thing for them to be hearing. For instance, if your wisdom tells you that compassion is the needed lesson, and you have an audience of people who question about sexuality, then the answer might simply be an honest "it takes looking" so that you may move beyond it into matters that are important.
Moral deviance is an important issue, but not because having sex with a mouth or anus is going to lead into destruction. 95% of tantric love making has nothing to do with a penis or vagina for instance. In the case of alternate sex, I can see no dissonance that arises from within. In modern society, with respect to the norms of cleanliness and sexual responsibility, what harm can you say befalls those who engage in oral or anal sex?
For the Dalai Lama, I hear him speak in two ways. One, from the traditions of his culture, which has certain perceptions that he honors as what they are, perceptions. Two, from the momentary arising of wisdom, in which he usually speaks of the guidelines that people should be using to direct their lives. This isn't ethical relativism, its wisdom, knowing that some grounds are irrelevant to walk, and time and effort is better spent where it is needed.
With warmth,
Matt
If you think that LGBT people's actions have a 'destructive nature' then you certainly have a problem yourself.
Tibetan culture is very different from ours, which western people often don't understand. All they see is a happy lama giving teachings, so they try to be like Tibetans themselves calling each other by Tibetan names and hailing each other with Tibetan phrases so on -yet rarely actually understanding or ever coming into contact with a real Tibetan community. Polygamy, for example, was normal for lay Tibetans before they came to the west.
The Dalai Lama isn't the head of all the Tibetan Buddhist schools so he doesn't speak for all of them. Personally I never saw any discrimination against LGBT's in the Tibetan Buddhist Kagyu and Nyingma centres I attended in the past myself.
In London there is also a LGBT Tibetan Buddhist centre which has Ringu Tulku as its spiritual head.
One's sexuality is irrelevent if one isn't harming anyone and if one practises the Dharma. However too much emphasis on any kind of sex isn't helpful to spiritual progress, in my opinion.
.
As Ajahn Chah says one can be ‘true but not right; right but not true’. This is practising Dhamma in accordance with Dhamma (Dhammanupata patipattaa).
Pure relativism in ethics is a bad idea, it is called "aperspectival madness". Both relativism and absolutism lead to madness when taken to their logical ends.
It is two different things to TRY to practice ethics and actually practice. You need wisdom of what is needed in the situation to ACTUALLY practice ethics. We can be inspired by truly ethical people and by admiring them attempt to take on their good qualities.
In some sense it is like Utilitarianism in a way only the twist of the importance of intentions. At least it seems similar to me though the Da Lai Lama has not stated he is a utilitarianist.
So for this reason I would conclude that the Da Lai Lama believes one message is skillful in one culture and another in another. For example think of all the homosexuals in the west who could be hurt by the message that non-penis to vagina sex is wrong.
"A gay couple came to see me, seeking my support and blessing. I had to explain our teachings. Another lady introduced another woman as her wife - astonishing. It is the same with a husband and wife using certain sexual practices. Using the other two holes is wrong...The other holes don't create life. I don't mind - but I can't condone this way of life."
If the Dalai Lama believes this, that he can't even condone, let alone endorse this kind of behavior, then why would he water it down for anyone? He certainly doesn't downplay ahimsa or logical thinking, so...why this? It would seem that, in his eyes, homosexual intercourse just as "unskillful" murder and rape, so, I don't understand. I also find it interesting that so many here are afraid of proclaiming non-vaginal intercourse as wrong, not because of the relative silence on the subject from Sakyamuni, but because it might "alienate" others. The truth is still the truth, even if it alienates the entire world. Surely, radical fundamentalists must find the Buddhist concepts of ahimsa atheism absolutely repugnant, yet I don't see Buddhists refraining from embracing these ideals.
*More specifically, TIBETAN Buddhism.
Further, he stated:
His perspective has matured from the time he once stated flatly that homosexuality was a sin. He understands that certain elements of his religion might indeed be cultural artifacts and that he has no rational argument for his previous position. He appreciates that not all people are Buddhists and respects individuals' paths.
Can you explain why it matters, why it's a "sin," from a Buddhist perspective? How is it unethical? Are you sure that is what the Dalai Lama stated, or was he speaking in terms of what is and isn't conducive towards Enlightenment?
Well, I would ask that you date those quotes. They both appear to come from between 1996-97, and, even then, in effect he's stating, "Tibetan Buddhism, the religion I've devoted my life to preserving and propogating, says that gay sex perpetuates suffering. But, if we ignore this reality and simply look at things as if Buddhism isn't true, then, it's fine." He's speaking from 2 completely different points of view, one secular and one religious. If he's devoted his life to the liberation of all sentient beings through the Buddhadharma, which, according to him, recognizes gay sex as an obstacle to enlightenment, why would he even waste his time speaking from a secularist point of view? Every second he speaks as a secularist postpones the liberation of beings, does it not?
Also, the Christian concept of sin is basically identical with the, "skillful, unskillful" distinction. Sins are actions that inhibit union with God, and the word "sin" actually stems from a Greek word meaning, I think, "to miss the mark."
Maybe because he know it's bullshit.
I don't think it's wrong and neither did the Buddha. The idea originated with later commentators from a particular school of Buddhism (see my post on sexual misconduct).
You realize that straight people use their hands, mouths, asses, and god knows what else, just as much as gay people? Why are you saying "gay sex"?
Once again, he cannot logically support the claim that "gay sex is an obstacle to enlightenment" nor that it "perpetuates suffering" and admits it might be nothing more than cultural residue. Clearly he is an intelligent man, then, if he chooses not to ram dogma down the throats of others.
Ok?
You managed to talk a whole lot, and without answering the single question I asked in the the quote of mine which you were responding to.
And let me add: How it "perpetuates suffering"?
You are making a consistent mistake in labeling non-vaginal sexual activity as an inhibitor to liberation, which is not what has been said by HHDL. A major difference that you might notice in Buddhism vs Catholicism is that as Buddhists connect to people, meditate and reflect on experiences, they evolve based on a growing of inner wisdom. Its not following a strict set of laws handed down from "God".
You seem to be suffering from a prejudice against gay people that makes you project meanings into words and attitudes of others... don't you find it odd that many people here interpret the Dalai Lama's words so differently than you do?
With warmth,
Matt
If His Holiness said it was "wrong" and that he, "...can't condone" it on religious grounds, I would think that, in his mind, it inhibits liberation. At least, thats what I and many other have gleaned from his words.
And if its not about following laws conducive to enlightenment, why don't Buddhists kill or use hallugenagenics (sp?)?
I harbor no prejudice against anyone. I am a Catholic and, as such, I embrace the Church's teachings on sexuality. I thought I saw reflections of the Catholic position in His Holiness' teaching, as do many other Catholics, and I was curious. Would I like if His Holiness agreed with Christ? Of course I would. If he does not, well, I'll cope. In the mean time, I'm just looking for understanding.
basically gay sex is like hetero sex without the goal of procreation (sex with protection (condoms,pills...)
If you regard hetero sex without the goal of procreation to go against liberation than you have a point. I guess it can lead to craving etc...
But it would be difficult to describe this potential show of affection, love and intimacy as bad don't you think?
What if a men is sterile, or the woman cannot have a baby due to a medical condition or age? Should this couple stop having sex forever?
And if you do regard hetero sex without the goal of procreation to be "bad", then you must ban all kind of sexual interraction with this.
Such as kissing.
it certainly is not sexual misconduct as understood in Buddhism.
In Buddhism, there are different paths for different people.
This is your view and not the Dalai Lama's.
The Buddha did not teach absolute "wrongs". The Buddha taught certain behaviours are wrong according to non-harming (moral) & according to Nibbana (liberation).
So, in terms of meditation & liberation, non-vaginal intercourse can be "wrong" because these are more indulgent sexual behaviours. They may cause the mind to be more obsessive due to being a bit more "kinky" and "voyeuristic".
But on a moral level, they are not wrong. If husband & wife or partners engage in these kinds of sex, they are not wrong.
However, the health risks of anal sex has been well documented.
Anal sex has physical dangers for people living in moral relationships but it is not morally wrong.
You are evangelising & preaching. What you have said is not the "truth".
The ironic matter is your mind seems to be not free from ahimsa or non-harming.
It seems your mind is behaving in ways that may hurt others.
Have you considered following another religion...say fundamentalist Christianity?
KM3Young, perhaps you can consider Buddhism?
Don't you think that perhaps you could feel much "lighter" without that craving to control others and to make them conform?
One cannot compare the psychological (karmic) results of non-vaginal sex to killing or using hallugenagenics.
Your point here is irrelevent.
That is questionable & subject to dispute & debate.
That was quite obvious. I previously suggested you follow another religion.
But what is astonishing is your portraying yourself as a Buddhist.
That is questionable. The impression to me is you are looking to evangelise, moralise & preach rather than looking for understanding.
Jesus taught to be liberated, one must "remove the log in their own eye that sees the specks in the eyes of others".
You are judging the behaviour of certain people without considering the nature of those people.
I live in a small comminity and have many friends who are homosexual, who are loved by the community because they are so nice and because they help so many people in their jobs.
All religions have some similar teachings. But where did Christ teach against homosexuality. Only St Paul did.
Your view is mistaken here.
Christ accepted there were eunuchs in the world. Thus he would have also accepted there are homosexuals.
St Paul taught in Greece where homosexuality was normal behaviour between ordinary men so he was promoting a maintstream religion & discouraging homosexuality in men who were not naturally homosexual.
Jesus taught in Israel, where moral law was the norm. He did not teach anything about homosexuality.
Matthew 19:12
For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.
If we just exclude everyone not an arhant that would increase suffering because people can benefit from the teachings even if they haven't mastered Shila. Each sangha can decide for itself if it allows homosexuals into the sangha. I do not require you to have my values in your sangha.
Similarly, Jesus or even Paul did not teach this.
That the Catholic Church may teach such things is a teaching contrary to the Bible.
Paul said:
1 Corinthians 7:9
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
These teachings of St Paul clearly states people should engage in moral sex to enable them to control their passions.
Why did Paul say such a thing?
The reason is he understood human nature. Paul did not have a log in his eye which viewed the sexuality of human beings from a subjective personal ideal. Paul viewed the reality of human life.
The Dalai Lama is not the spokesman for the whole of Buddhism.
The nature of the mind is neither male nor female and as I've said before somewhere, ones sexual orientation makes no difference at all to liberation.
All through my life I've had gay friends, and I find that this kind of talk about condemning or excluding them in some way is depressingly prejudiced and closed minded .
.
i believe this homophobia to be quite absurd.
There are so many gays in the industry i work in that if you hold such hateful or intolerant views, you will be one miserable chap
would you happen to be Korean by any chance (your username)?
I know that Korean society is very conformist and that many hold homophobic views out of strong pressure to conform (from the family and society).
Knowing where your conditioning come from might be helpful to loosen it and overcome it.
In any way, perhaps if you investigate how other people can accept what seem to be unnacceptable to you, you will find alternative views and at least you will have the freedom to make your own choice on the subject.
Yes, I can see why you would do that. That is not the case though. He said that he could not condone any sex that was not intent on breeding. If you wish to quote HHDL, keep the context alive.
He accepts that some people have sex for recreation and says it doesn't bother him. Sex can very directly create craving in people, so having sex for purposes other than having children is a concern. Its not that homosexuality itself is wrong, its that sex for pleasure can cloud the senses. In fact, many who become monks and nuns swear to celibacy in order to prevent this confusion.
With reluctance,
Matt
.
instead...i must catch the bus
The Buddha preached to those who were interested. He did not preach to everyone (just like Jesus & Paul did not recommend celibacy to everyone).
Further, he did not teach the path to liberation of mind or Nirvana to everyone.
The Buddha said:
Action follows natural law. Actions have natural results based on psychological reality; based on having a nervous system.
Men go to war and kill. They return home with psychiatric disorders and even suicidal.
This karmic result does not occur to partners having non-vaginal sex.
One cannot compare the fruits sown from killing & drug taking to the fruits of non-vaginal sex between two married or committed people.
Paul said "Do not be deceived, you cannot make a fool out of God".
OK. Fine. If what I said was inaccurate, I trust in your forgiveness.
Each religion has various sects & schools and each wishes to declare their subjective opinion about the message of the messenger.
Jesus did not persecute or condemn the behaviour of any individuals. He ate with prostitutes and tax collectors, to show his unconditional love.
If a prostitute asked him to help her in changing her life, he did. If not, he did not.
Jesus said: "I do not condemn you, go [relying on yourself] as sin no more".
I have not distored the position of Christ. His position is so easily understood, we understood it when we were little children, watching movies about his life on television.
Indeed appearances are deceiving, which is why Jesus often taught with parables to challenge the rigid thinking of his listeners.
Such parables are those like that of the Good Samaritan.
I know many homosexuals (who practise non-vaginal sex) who could certainly fit the part of the Good Samaritan.
What do you think????
A "good" moral Catholic who thinks they adhere to the religion but does not give to charity & help others verses homosexuals who practise non-vaginal sex & give to others through charity & social work.
Which would Jesus praise?
Which would belong to the goats and which would belong to the sheep?
I will choose to speak as I feel is fit. Thank you.
John taught God is love. Jesus taught the pure in spirit will see God.
Pure means a heart & mind free from greed, hatred & delusion.
You should be aware, 500 years before Jesus, the Buddha also taught the path to God.
Many religious people came to consult the Buddha, including those who believed in God (Brahma).
When none of those people could tell Buddha of anyone who had seen God 'face to face', the Buddha replied to them indeed they were like a string of blind men.
Then the Buddha taught them the way to God, which was to radiate boundless love (friendship, non-hatred) in every direction, without limit; to radiate boundless compassion (welfare wishing) in every direction, without limit; to radiate boundless appreciation (of good qualities) in every direction, without limit; and to radiate boundless equinimity (non-judgment) in every direction, without limit.
This is what the Buddha advised was the path to God.
Tell me, how does this compare with what Jesus taught?
:smilec:
What is this 'union' you are referring to?
This, I think, DD, is what the bien pensants try to shut their eyes and ears to. They remind me of my late mother-in-law, of whom her daughters said (and I can only concur) that she knew of only two ways to do things: HER WAY AND THE WRONG WAY. It is linked to the need that some people appear to feel to assert that their historical teacher was a one-off, sui generis, and that their message is entirely new and original. Alas for them, as Ecclesiastes says, "there is nothing new under the sun."
As for why the same or a similar "workshop manual" keeps cropping up in teachings across the centuries and around the world may be that, as Virginia Satir put it, we humans are infinitely educable but only very slowly and with much repetition.
What an excellent statement!
As I stated, the Dalai Lama is but one of many teachers of Buddhism, and if you went to a hundred different Buddhist teachers, you'd more than likely get a hundred different answers. As a follower of Vajrayana (Tibetan Buddhism), I can tell you that the opinion of only one teacher matters to the practitioner, and that is the opinion of one's own root lama, whoever that may be. My teacher, for example, an American woman with two children of her own (one of whom is gay), has said on many occasions that there is nothing at all contrary to the teachings of the Buddha in being gay, nor does it matter what you do with your willy or your tush or your fanny (British meaning). Of course, that doesn't apply to monks and nuns who are celibate. What is important regarding sexual conduct (assuming you are a Buddhist) is not causing harm. This means not engaging in sex with multiple partners, underage partners, forced sex, etc. as these all can result in a lot of harm being done to someone else. So it's not so much the method as the motivation. Causing harm to others is definitely an obstacle to attaining enlightenment.
Perhaps that will give you a better understanding of the Buddhist view on sex.
Love,
Palzang
Palzang
Palzang
Does Buddhism teach ethical relativism?
I dont think so. Both relativism and absolutism are off the mark. In practice moral action is situational and spontaneous. Self conscious goodness has a hook, spontaneous action has no notion of goodness, and does not have a hook. From a conventional perspective it may look inconsistant.
I don't know the answer in this case, but you have to remember that the DL wears many hats. Sometimes he speaks for the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism, which he effectively heads. Sometimes he speaks as the head administrator of the Tibetan Government in Exile, and sometimes he speaks as the head diplomat of the TGIE. And sometimes he speaks for himself.
As far as I know, opposition to non-vaginal intercourse is standard Gelug teaching. In this context it doesn't matter whether this has any scriptural basis or it's only social conditioning; it's what Tibetan Gelugpas are brought up to believe. As the alpha Gelugpa, it's what you would expect the DL to say to other Gelugpas.
Speaking for himself, the DL has expressed at least the possibility that some Buddhist teachings may have to be reconsidered in the light of scientific evidence.
As the top administrator of the TBIE, pointing out the difference between religious teaching and secular law at least pays lip service to the idea of separation of church and state.
As the top diplomat of the TBIE, the DL is responsible for keeping good relations with the various groups of people who support the TGIE's struggle for Tibetan autonomy. If he comes out in support of non-vaginal sex, he risks alienating the US conservative politicians who find him a convenient way of embarrassing the Chinese. If he comes out in opposition to non-vaginal sex, he risks alienating gay supporters. Some ambiguity on this issue is diplomatically useful.
He's human, and humans are sometimes hypocritical.
And finally, maybe he's a moral relativist!
Sounds like a political catch 22, so he fudges.