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
what does buddhism say on homosexuality? on gay marriages? this was one of the reasons i lost faith in christianity.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
From what I've read in the suttas, the Buddha gave no indication that one's sexual orientation or gender identity has any bearing on one's spiritual practice. The five precepts, which form the most basic foundation of a moral life in Buddhism, encourage the abstention from "sexual misconduct," a term that generally refers to sexual activity between two people outside of a long-term committed relationship. It has nothing to do with "orientation."
The Buddha did, however, have strong words to say about sexuality/sensuality in general, as it is one of the most powerful expressions of human craving and attachment. And craving — the second Noble Truth — is a root cause of human suffering. The Buddha was very clear: if you're genuinely concerned about your long-term happiness, then it's worth reflecting deeply on the value of engaging in any activity — be it sexual or non-sexual — that feeds your cravings:
Even if it's with pain,
you should abandon
sensual desires
if you aspire
to future safety from bondage.
Alert,
with a mind well-released,
touch release now here,
now there.
An attainer-of-wisdom,
having fulfilled the holy life,
is said to have gone
to the end of the world, gone
beyond.
— Iti 109
It is worth noting that the Buddha explicitly discouraged his followers — men and women, alike — from dwelling on their sexual identity (AN 7.48). Although in this particular sutta he was describing heterosexuals, the message clearly applies to us all."
Promiscuity of any stripe is considered unskillful, as of course is causing harm in a sexual manner . Consensual sexual relationships between consenting adults who have not taken a vow of celibacy is a non-issue.
As Richard has said, it is a non-issue for lay people. However, I think it is important to acknowledge that if we want to take this Path all the way to Arahantship then we are going to have to give up all forms of sexuality at some point.
This is true, but generally speaking, attachment to lust is going to be a much stronger distraction on the Path than attachment to purity.
The above is equally applicable to homosexuals.
Do we give it up, or does it just drop off at a certain point? ..er I mean craving that is. Try do be mindfully horny, the mindfulness deprives the hornyness of oxygen by taking attention off the object of lust and putting it on lust itself. It goes from being a unconscious negative draw on a positive object, to a positive object in its own right with no more draw on anything.
"Bhikkhuni Sutta: The Nun" (AN 4.159), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight, July 3, 2010, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.159.than.html
A newbie deserves to hear different perspectives within Buddhism. Zen for instance has a different perspective, as does Vajrayana I am told.
a) I am capable of putting forth consistent effort
b) I am not ordaining as an attempt to avoid responsibility
Really, that is quite odd. I would have thought he would have no problem with somebodies sexual orientation.. After all, it really does not make a difference and should not be a reason to judge. I may get slammed for saying this, but maybe he himself is in the closet and in denial..
- Dhammapada 252
It seems to me all individuals to varying degrees are born with heterosexual, gay, and transexual tendancies and these are normal for each individual and to be condemned for this expression is harmful and divisive and not consistent with Buddhist understandings.
Also from my practice it has been shown to me that trying to forcibly make people change just doesn't work - lol, doesn't work and often results in repression, and suffering.
There is nothing about Buddhist practice which expects people who haven't taken monastic vows to suddenly give up sex.
Lay practitioners aren't expected to refrain from sex within loving relationships though in my experience practice has an affect upon all desires and our relationship to them.
Have heard a debate on the wrong orifice argument, at a centre, though haven't read about this online - and have heard HHDL says that it's not good for straight people to have oral and anal sex though he did not discuss same sex relationships in response to this question - he was taking a health and safety approach and admitted logical reason can see that there is alternative, these days, to abstinence with increased knowledge about safe sex.
With that out of the way, there is the precept against misusing sexuality, but that is purposefully vague. what is misusing sexuality for me is not what is misusing sexuality for you.
Gay people can practice just the same as straight people. I mean heck, all you're doing is sitting in an upright posture in front of a wall...I don't see how your taste in women or men has anything to do with that!
What I mean by this is that I've noticed many of the heavily Chinese influenced temples around here seem to be fairly conservative on social issues, one temple's website even had talks by their late Venerable Master decrying homosexuality as "devaluing nature" and whatnot. It was pretty disturbing.
Now I'm not saying that all Chinese people are homophobic, but it's definitely a taboo in the culture, and it can carry over into the way they practice religion.
Different cultures and values flavour a tradition's practice, and sometimes the true teachings get bogged down?
Absolutely.
Being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, shouldn't be a problem for others when there's a loving relationship between 2 people.
Enlightenment is beyond gender.
.
Correct.
This is completely inaccurate. HH the DL does not disapprove at all.
Please be careful what you say.
He states quite categorically that the Tibetan Buddhist tradition makes certain provisos with regard to sexual intercourse regarding unusual orifices, but this is Tradition based, not Buddha-based. Furthermore, he himself stipulates that while he alone cannot change Doctrine, even if he believes it should be, he considers all humnan being to be deserving of undersytanding, compassion and that matters are not as clear cut as they seem.
Consider yourself slammed. Your statement is way too much. Just because he disapproves as a simple monk gives you no reason to make that statement.
Heard. I didn't say he condemns or decries, just that he disapproves. Your information shows that he disapproves, because he disapproves of sex that is other than penile-vaginal. HH is always tactful and diplomatic, and he is in this case. But obviously he does not approve of sex that is other than penile-vaginal. But he leaves room for a live-and-let-live approach and approaches the subject compassionately, and does not personalize the issue or condemn or decry.
(A) slightly disapprove or (B) strongly disapprove?
Let's try to use a bit of diplomacy here, eh?
The point here was that your statement that maybe HH the DL is in the closet and in denial about homosexuality was a unskillful act. It was not about you not praising the ground HH walks on. So why be sorry about the latter?
Palzang
Just as a general rule of thumb, it is never a good idea to make jokes about pure teachers like the Dalai Lama. They have chosen to be born in this shithole life for the sake of sentient beings, for us, so the least we can do is show some respect in return. And I agree totally with Fede. The Dalai Lama is not in the least big homophobic. He comes from a different society with different values than us, but he has also modified his position on the issue after meeting with Western gays, much to his credit. And my own teacher, a Western woman, has absolutely no problem with gays. Many of her students are, and so is one of her sons.
Palzang
That joke is in poor taste. Learn from this experience.
The flip-side of the coin is that what a person's sexual persuasion is, has no bearing whatsoever on who they are and what they do.
I just think it should be made clear that we're not objecting to the insinuation that HH the DL is a homosexual. We're objecting to the inference that he's a hypocrite and might be lying.
Plenty of straight folks get down with butt-sex too.
This Buddhist doesnt think there is anything wrong with butt-sex or homosexuality as long as both parties are into it.
Word. You rock, Palzang.
But for some individuals, the two are related so it's still problematic.
Also, there are issues related to the subtle energies of the body from a Vajrayana perspective.
actually, a long time ago i read what HHDL said about homosexuality and took it to be quite negative as well. as a result, i dropped the idea of pursuing buddhism. i was in high school at the time and thought he was more like the pope of buddhism, lol. sometime later i was reintroduced to buddhism and feeling more secure in myself, i decided to pursue it. but then i got to a point where i realized that knowing what i know and have experienced as a lesbian in a culture that does not condone homosexuality, there is no way i could follow a teaching that did not support me as well. my thoughts were, if these are enlightened teachings, there is no way that they could discriminate against homosexuals in the way the christians do and still be considered enlightened. so, i got up my nerve and determined i would tell my young women's division leader in the SGI. i remember i was so nervous because i was ready to walk away depending on her reaction.
but honestly, i have never experienced less of a shock on an individual. i told her i was gay and she was just like, "okay." she actually seemed confused why i was all stressed out about it, lol. after i discussed this with her for a while she told me that as a result of my experiences, i should try and put my passion towards making things better for homosexuals.
i find this statement incredibly interesting. i think i've discussed this before, but it has long been my belief that i was incredibly lucky to be a homosexual. basically, where i grew up, if i wasn't gay i would probably be a homophobe. i would so much rather be on the side experiencing the discrimination as it helps to develop my compassion and it does allow me to sympathize with others who may be experiencing the same problems i once experienced.
(As an aside - Sherab, your avatar of Kwai Chang made me fan-squeal
As for myself, I consider myself to be bisexual because I think love has no boundaries. I'd be interested to hear some thoughts on bisexuality as well... would it be considered sexual misconduct? Sensual indulgence? Or just non-discriminatory love?
Hippie.
you can't help being bisexual any more than i can for being gay or others for being straight. it's all the same. what's most important is to have a consensual relationship that is mutually beneficial to both partners.
at any rate, i still say that if i was single and met a guy i liked, i would pursue it. as it seems though, it still has yet to happen. if being bisexual to you is about non-discriminatory love, then love who you love and stop worrying about it.
Prepare yourself for the influx of lonely Buddhist men spamming your inbox.
Wait, that doesn't sound right... :zombie:
Back to John's original query, I find it amusing / depressing that some Christians use issues like this as a cleaving point to distinguish themselves from inclusive belief systems like Buddhism. "See? They have no moral fiber because they think that crap is OK!" :rolleyes:
Further, it worries me that there are a lot of people out there who think that's the way all belief systems are and give up their own spiritual growth because they're so turned off by what they experience in their native religion.