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.
Question on Tibetan Buddhism and Homosexuality
This is my first post and let me preface by saying I am totally new to Buddhism and have just started my exploration of it, so please forgive me if I seem naive or unkowledgable (it's probably because I am.)
I've been doing a little bit of research into Buddhism and I've particularly been interested in Tibetan Buddhism. I've specifically enjoyed some of the works and talks of HHDL, and am even considering hearing him speak at an upcoming event in my city.
However I am aware that the DL stance on homosexuality is that, as an activity it is not something he condones, and in fact from his view/understanding only vaginal intercourse is acceptable sexual activity.
I personally am not gay so this view may not affect me as strongly as others, but in my personal view this seems to be a stance that that could be hurtful to the gay community and as someone with many gay friends I wouldn't want to be a part of a spiritual path that requires me to endorse a view that I see as being hurtful.
So without debating the merits of what counts as improper Buddhist sexual conduct, I want to know that if I chose to follow the Tibetan Buddhist path or even HHDL as my teacher, would I therefore be obligated to uphold/endorse the view and practice with the understanding that anything outside of vaginal intercourse is not acceptable.
Again, being new to this I may be misunderstanding HHDL or the DL role to Buddhist or so on and so forth, but this just something I would love some clarity on.
Thanks in advance.
I've been doing a little bit of research into Buddhism and I've particularly been interested in Tibetan Buddhism. I've specifically enjoyed some of the works and talks of HHDL, and am even considering hearing him speak at an upcoming event in my city.
However I am aware that the DL stance on homosexuality is that, as an activity it is not something he condones, and in fact from his view/understanding only vaginal intercourse is acceptable sexual activity.
I personally am not gay so this view may not affect me as strongly as others, but in my personal view this seems to be a stance that that could be hurtful to the gay community and as someone with many gay friends I wouldn't want to be a part of a spiritual path that requires me to endorse a view that I see as being hurtful.
So without debating the merits of what counts as improper Buddhist sexual conduct, I want to know that if I chose to follow the Tibetan Buddhist path or even HHDL as my teacher, would I therefore be obligated to uphold/endorse the view and practice with the understanding that anything outside of vaginal intercourse is not acceptable.
Again, being new to this I may be misunderstanding HHDL or the DL role to Buddhist or so on and so forth, but this just something I would love some clarity on.
Thanks in advance.
0
Comments
Also, he has kind of flip-flopped on the issue sometimes. At one time he said as long as nobody is hurt, it's fine.
Whatever the case may be, you're not required to uphold or endorse any views.
* Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing,
* nor upon tradition,
* nor upon rumor,
* nor upon what is in a scripture,
* nor upon surmise,
* nor upon an axiom,
* nor upon specious reasoning,
* nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over,
* nor upon another's seeming ability,
* nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher."
* Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them.'
As long as no harm is done to a person's body or dignity, non-vaginal sex just should not be a problem. Just because HHDL says what he says doesn't mean we have to accept that if it's inconsistent with our most honest view of the reality of sex. Part of Buddhism is the principle that if something is inconsistent with our own honest view of reality, we don't have to accept it. Just because a celibate monk who was born in a near-medieval culture and who has been insulated from everyday reality his whole life says something about a daily-life matter that he has no experience with, we don't have to believe it or follow it.
I for one am a great believer in oral sex.
I really like everyones posts, and I agree with Cinorjer, he problem doesn't contemplate on the topic much, if anything it's just about finding what's harmless or harmful. There's plenty of harmful and harmless sexual relationships no matter the sexual orientation. Keeping a goal of creating compassion and harmlessness will allow issues like this to fall into place and toward the right track.
But he's human and has the life and background I described. He just happens to be incorrect about this.
Which brings up a good point. I happen not to be gay (not that there's anything wrong with that) but I'm very friendly at my Sangha. Makes me slightly upset when I'm being nice to someone, a newcomer, and they misinterpret (or maybe start wishful thinking about) my motives.
IMO, and believe me this is totally NOT thought out, I'm just chatting. Sexual stuff (flirting, touching, being affectionate) should be totally prohibited when Buddhists congregate. I like being nice to all people especially if they have a nice smile or aura (figuratively speaking about the aura). Do to my lack of skill unfortunately it's easier for me to be nice to women: shouldn't be that way. Sometimes I'm very nice to a woman and I can tell she starts to think I might eventually be asking her for a date: I feel VERY bad when that happens. Really. It's like I messed up terribly (which I did not INTEND to) and I feel bad on the drive home.
Our Sangha should say ZERO dating motives allowed!
OH! I'm very sorry of this has been discussed before. Actually I went waaaay OT.
Sensual desire is a hindrance for a reason. However, it's one thing to come to that conclusion yourself and another to read a scripture or listen to a monk and then spend time convincing yourself so. To me, Buddhism is about direct experience, not following a code of conduct. While listening to people who are more advanced can be a great guidance, it's not simply a matter of "this is permitted, that is forbidden".
Dear Sir/Madam,
The Dalai Lama was out of line when he said (according to your article in
the West, April 15, Page 7) "if you are a Buddhist, homosexuality is wrong.
Full stop." The Dalai Lama is not the 'Pope' of Buddhism and, charming as he
often is, he sometimes gets it wrong. He is only the head of one of the four
main sects of Vajrayana (Tibetan Buddhism) and he speaks only for his group.
The greater majority of Buddhists throughout the modern world are inspired
to learn that the Buddha certainly did not discriminate against
homosexuality. The core teachings of original Buddhism clearly show that it
is not whether one is heterosexual, homosexual or celibate that is good or
bad, but it is how a person uses their sexual orientation that makes for
good or bad karma. For example a gay man in a committed, loving and joyful
relationship with a male partner is definitely morally superior to a
straight married guy who is unfaithful to his wife. Homosexuality is not
wrong per se. However, it is bad karma to condemn homosexuality out of hand!
The Dalai Lama's error is to look for his guidance in dodgy scriptures
composed many centuries after the time of the Buddha. So the fact is that
the Buddha, and therefore Buddhism, embraces gays and lesbians and
transexuals with equity and respect. Too long has religious bigotry caused
suffering to minority groups in our society. All religions should be more
loving. Full stop!*
Ajahn Brahm
Abbot of Bodhinyana Buddhist Monastery
Spiritual Director of the Buddhist Society of Western Australia
Venerable Tejadhammo: No, in one word, No. I think this whole idea of Western Buddhism is a bit of a red herring. I think it’s far too early at this stage to think in terms of a ‘Western Buddhism’. I don’t see it as liberal Buddhism either, to me it goes right back to the original teachings of the Buddha. When the Buddha says, for example, that he’s concerned about only two things, suffering and unsatisfactoriness, and the overcoming of those, and the Buddha places great emphasis on the development of loving kindness and compassion, I think we can find the source of a right Buddhist attitude in those teachings.
Venerable Tejadhammo: I think I understand what you mean, and I suppose at one level the answer is Yes. But I think that Buddhism also recognises that each of us are unique individuals and we’re all at different stages in our growth and development. And so for some people it may be appropriate to let go of the strong desire that’s associated with sexuality for example, and for other people it may not be. It’s not a moral judgement or a saying, ‘Well if you can’t, there’s something wrong with you.’ So it’s not exclusively a kind of monastic club, the club of enlightenment. I think it’s a case of different paths within the tradition.
by Asha Dyson
April 26, 2006
The holy Dalai Lama is under scrutiny by West Australians over a comment made in relation to homosexuals.
The Dalai Lama was quoted in an article (the West, April 15, p.7), “If you are a Buddhist, homosexuality is wrong. Full stop.”
In contrast to this statement, Ajahn Brahm, spiritual director of the Buddhist Society of WA stated in a letter, “The Dalai Lama is not the ‘Pope’ of Buddhism and, charming as he often is, he sometimes gets it wrong.”
Despite concerns about fuelling homophobic attitudes, ABC News Online quoted figures from an article published in July, 2005 which stated, “A new report says about 35 per cent of Australians believe homosexuality is immoral.”
“I think our society is very much hung up about getting revenge, whether you’re heterosexual or gay, we need to be loving,” said Sol Hanna, President of the Buddhist Society of WA.
“I just don’t separate gays from straights. As a Buddhist I try to live a life of harmlessness, I don’t judge people on their sexuality.
“Buddhism is about compassion and Dalai Lama is not the head of the Buddhist religion, although he is a very wise and wonderful man,” said Georgina Green, Armadale Meditation Group member.
Brahm also stated in his letter, “The Dalai Lama’s error is to look for his guidance in dodgy scriptures composed many centuries after the time of the Buddha.”
Trustee of The Buddhist Library and Education Centre said, “We would prefer to consider the words of the Buddha, Buddha was non judgemental.”
“The comment is coming from a very specific view of the world. He’s a political figure and he’s certainly no fool, and he’s not going to say anything to offend the Tibetan community,” said Venerable Bhante (Tejadhammo Bhikku), abbot and spiritual director of the Association of Engaged Buddhists Inc.
“We need to look at the way in which a person lives their life, not just single out one aspect,” he said.
So I personally feel we should shift the focus from him specifically, to Tibetan Buddhism generally - as was detailed in the original question.
It is no secret that the Dalai lama is torn on this, but as he pointed out 'it is difficult for one man alone to over-rule or transform a thousand years' worth of teachings.'
Or words to that effect.
What he meant was that he has his current, more worldly and compassionate opinion - but the texts of his specific lineage say something else. So he is bound in some circumstances to abide by them and uphold them as guiding and correct.
So I think we should leave focussing on His Holiness right there, and bring back our attention to Tibetan Buddhism (in general) and concentrate on that.
OK?
"Homosexuality, Marriage, and Religion in Tibet: An Endlessly Complicated Situation"
http://gaytibet.blogspot.com/
(originally posted in tricycle Buddhist magazine)
If the Dalai Lama has stated his position, then you choose to accept or reject it.
Come on, there are more important things in life.
Not, I think.
it is unfortunate that most non-buddhists (at one time, myself included) believe the dalai lama to be the "pope" of buddhism. as others have said, he is nothing of the sort.
i enjoy the books i have read by the dalai lama, and i do respect him. i used to feel a lot more "meh" about his statements as i don't practice tibetan buddhism so i never felt that they applied to me. but i think after the surge in gay teen suicides last year, i'm feeling a little less forgiving. i really really wish he would ammend his statements because in my opinion, he can do great harm with them. but alas, i cannot blame him for what he does not seem to know and i can definitely say that i know a great deal more about the topic than he appears to.
I'm just curious. Which other noteworthy (i.e. powerful) international leaders say either:
1. GLB is just fine with them and should be accepted and if it's not, it will eventually be fully accepted in the future in their countries.
OR
2. GLB is an unnatural situation and they discourage it and just wish it would go away because it's not going to be accepted during their watch and hopefully never would be.
Again I'm just beginning my investigation of Buddhism and TB, and I'm hearing alot of things like "You don't have to accept anything as truth if it doesn't ring true to you...etc." and a recent post I saw elswhere with HHDL talking about how Buddhism is not about blind faith.
These are really wonderful sentiments, and part of what draws me to Buddhism, but I guess what I'm wondering (and maybe there's no clear answer) is could I practice TB with the view that non vaginal sex and Buddhism are a-okay together, or would that be considered analagous of skirting a core tenant(s) of the TB path, like saying "I believe you don't need to believe in reincarnation/karma/enlightenment to be a buddhist!"
Thanks again for everyones help! The input so far has been very informative and much appreciated.
P.S I apologize if I'm being redundant.
I bring up HHDL's restrictions (which are not his own, they come from commentaries on ancient texts) on these threads only as a sort of "artifact". Although the DL usually says that the rules are the rules, and even he doesn't have the authority to change them, as I said above, I don't know any TB practitioners who follow the restrictions. You don't have to follow them to be a TB practitioner. If you think about it, vaginal-sex-only isn't considerate of women's sexuality, it's a kind of a male-orgasm-only thing for some women. That wouldn't endear Buddhism to a lot of women, if the rules were followed.
Of course, people are people everywhere. If the people who follow the particular school of Buddhism or the teachings make you uncomfortable, why not look for more accepting sanghas? There are schools of Buddhism where Gays are welcomed and in fact hold honored positions as Teachers and Masters.
One of my teachers has expressed concern about "the gay community", but appeared to think that "Queer as Folk" was a documentary
We're a lot less exciting than some heterosexuals believe
To my mind, Buddhism requires that we be honest, loyal, kind and compassionate. Anything that contradicts that, like sleeping around behind your partner's back, is sexual misconduct. Not using safe-sex could also be seen as sexual misconduct because there is the potential to hurt others through it.
Individual Buddhists may disagree and believe a gay lifestyle is sexual misconduct, but that's their personal opinion, not some kind of Holy Writ. Even if it's the Dalai Lama.
:eek:
So that's all relative. Who is to say what is "less Buddhist" because of the pre-existing cultural context? The counter-argument, to keep this thread somewhat on topic, is that mixture with a Western culture that is more accepting of homosexuality, makes Western Buddhism "less Buddhist". I don't believe that, but it's a potential obverse point of view.
In that case buddhism is dead. Because its been 2500 years. I think India and Sri Lanka or wherever have also had changes.
Seriously, when can I stop?
What's more, I'm half British (part Scot) half Italian (with strong Jewish East-European roots)....Hybrid? I think so!!
pardner....:D
But I think in some discussions it is a delicate and risky option to start questioning the validity of a tradition that's been around a whole lot longer than we have....
As in all matters, examination, scrutiny and discernment counts.
How things resonate, what sense they make to us, and how we can apply the practice skilfully, is important.
And each person must consider that tradition and practice and see not only how well it sits with them, but how skilfully they themselves are able to adhere to its conditions and teachings.
This is simply how it is, with me:
It took me a very long time to decide whether I wanted to concentrate my practice on Theravada or Mahayana.
Much of the literature I had read had been by authors following, or representative of, the Mahayana tradition, and the teachings I absorbed were sound, logical and inspirational.
BUT:
There are certain aspects of some Mahayana teachings which simply do not sit well with me, and the attitude towards Homosexual relationships is one of them.
I daresay there are aspects of Theravada I'm none too comfortable about, but there is less in Theravada which does not sit well, than there is in Mahayana teachings.
However: The teachings in both traditions, are what they are.
It is not through any flaw or deficiency in the teachings that I have laid aside Mahayana.
It is because of my own inability to be able to hold them to my heart and mind, that I have laid it aside.
homophobia is against ahimsa, which is (or should be) integral in any type of buddhism. what's with the hostilty to simple preferences? that's not ahimsa!
Really it's about aversion, people being different. It doesn't matter what it is. Sexuality. Politics. Religion. It's all about having aversion toward people who are different from you. This has to be let go of.