[mazabotman]

I have read a few books that touch on the subject of homosexuality and buddhism. One was titled "Lust for Enlightenment: Buddhism and Sex" by John Stevens. I myself identify as a gay man, so this is of particular interest to me.

They detail the extensive and particularly refined culture of socially accepted homosexuality between monks in japanese monasteries.

The Dalai Lama himself has flip-flopped on this issue. I recall him once referring to homosexuality as sexual misconduct, but then in a later statement saying that buddhism does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

**Particularly open to other approaches to this topic**

The LGBT question is particularly interesting when you question these notions of self. Sexual orientation is incredibly personal to most people. Indeed, there is much paranoia trumped up by amateur psychologists about the phenomena of "sublimation" and "repression". But that aside. What does it mean to take such a deep part of someone's identity and surrender it to the scrutiny of insight meditation?

I also factor in my knowledge of certain studies that indicate that sublimated conflicts of sexual orientation and/or gender identity can result in psychosis. No, aloka, I can't site those studies, but it's still an interesting prospect.

[gghrdfffhfyj]

I think attitudes to LGBT people are mostly cultural, rather than the Buddha having said anything specific in his teachings about them.

Personally I haven't seen or heard any discrimination at offline centres for two different Buddhist traditions.

I've read that Ajahn Brahm (Theravada) is openly supportive of gays.

Anyway, I found this video called 'The Buddhist attitude to sensuality' which is relevant for everyone, whatever their sexual orientation happens to be.

[Frogzlovzy]

For lay practitioners there is the precept of sexual misconduct which goes through not harming, not abusing and not cheating if you are engaged in a love commitment. So sexual or gender orientation seems to be irrelevant any time this precept is observed in its wholeness.

There are also the eight and ten precepts that can be observed by laity and have to be observed by Bhikkhus and Bhikkhunis. With them goes sexual abstention and abstention from wearing garlands, perfumes and cosmetics.

So, IMO, the chosen gender and sexual orientations are OK until the sexual misconduct precept is observed. If one chooses to observe the eight or ten precepts the gender and sexual diversity becomes irrelevant.

I think that the issue becomes a fetter for awakening if one gets enmeshed with such issues, as any other aspect about craving, clinging or self identification.

[Z3s9vQZj]

A bit of context here. From http://www.existentialbuddhist.com/tag/misconduct/

"The fourth-century Abhidharma-kośa-bhāsya included the use of “unsuitable” orifices, places, or times. The Upāsaka-śīla-sūtra included frequenting brothels and the use of “instruments.” Gampopa’s (1079-1153) Jewel Ornament of Liberation included overly frequent sex (more than five successive times!) and homosexuality, whereas Patrul Rinpoche (1808-1887) proscribed masturbation in his Kuzang Lama’i Shelung. Buddhaghosa and Śāntideva both considered homosexual behavior to be a violation of the third precept, but homosexuality was tolerated and accepted in Japan, even as part of monastic life." The Abhidharma orifice restriction (vaginal, only) makes male homosexuality an improper behavior, that is, if you believe that what's in the Abhidharma Kosha should govern your life.

I don't. I see dependence on sex as a means of achieving happiness to be a negative mental state that should be overcome. I can't even imagine that there is any qualitative difference for a gay man with a long term monogamous partner, who is a Buddhist practitioner and his straight married (monogamous) friend who does the same practice.

I see homosexual behavior in a different context from Vasabandu or Gampopa or Shantideva, and I'd further assert that, were they alive today, they would agree with me by and large. HHDL has specifically stated, in fact, that the orifice restriction would not seem to apply to male homosexuals and that further, there are certainly homosexual couples who have a loving and committed monogamous relationship, and that the doctrine with respect to this needs to be re-examined. His stating a mere fact ---that's it's traditionally been considered to be misconduct, is in no way at odds with any of his other statements. It is technically misconduct within the Tibetan lineage merely due to statements in old texts. These statements do need to be reexamined in light of what we now know about homosexuality. He's said just that.

Homosexuals are recognized today, by most educated people, at least, as genetically distinct from heterosexuals. They are phyically attracted to others of the same sex. Back in the day when these prohibitions were authored and commented upon, homosexuality was (at least I posit this to be so) viewed as an excess of sexual desire, or a desire for more unusual types of sex (reflecting craving for sex), etc. People were not seen as being homosexual or heterosexual; they were seen as being married and faithful or unfaithful, promiscuous or non-promiscuous, having a craving for sex or not having one.

Homosexuality, I would argue, was viewed more as behavior engaged in by those who were (choose one or more of the following) unfaithful, promiscuous, and sex-craving than as the means of expression between two people of the same sex who love each other and whose also had mutual sexual desire. The additional overlay, as stated by Gampopa, is that homosexual men had been females in prior births and they took with them their sexual orientation when they took rebirth as men. (so this may be seen as a type of clinging as well, since Gampopa may have (wrongly) assumed that, being born as a man one is able to have satisfactory sex with women). Reading the literature from back then there's absolutely no discussion and seemingly no understanding of biological differences between gay and straight. (I have read Gampopa's Lam Rim text and Shantideva's Guide and a small part of the "Kosha".

[RobertLS]

I see a person's sexual orientation to be simply the result of that person's accumulated past karma. What type of karma would cause a person to have homosexual tendency? I don't know. But since it is the result of their karma, I do know that there is no need treat people with different sexual orientation differently.

[77chawzence]

I see a person's sexual orientation to be simply the result of that person's accumulated past karma. What type of karma would cause a person to have homosexual tendency? I don't know. But since it is the result of their karma, I do know that there is no need treat people with different sexual orientation differently
.

Speculating about the results of karma was unconjecturable according to the Buddha.




AN 4.77 - Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable


"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....077.than.html
For a Mahayana article about karma, its worth reading 'Karma doesn't explain anything" by the American teacher Ken Mcleod, who was a student of the late Kalu Rinpoche:

http://www.unfetteredmind.org/karma-two-approaches/2

[miel]

Speculating about the results of karma was unconjecturable according to the Buddha.

Hi Aloka-D,

I am not speculating about the result of the karma. I am saying that I see the result of the karma, but I do not speculate or conjecture on the cause(working out) of the karma.

I agree with the sutta where it said "The [precise working out of the] results of kamma.." should not be conjectured.

If we take Buddhism terms out of my post, what I am saying is that

"I see that these people are homosexuals. I know that they are homosexuals for a reason. I do not know what the reason is. So there is no reason to treat them differently than non-homosexual people. Because non-homosexual people are not homosexual for reasons that I cannot fathom either."

While I agree with some of Mr. Mcleod's article, I do not agree with some others. But since this thread is about LGBT and not karma, I will refrain from making comments about his articles here.

[obHQNsY2]

I see dependence on sex as a means of achieving happiness to be a negative mental state that should be overcome.

I can't even imagine that there is any qualitative difference for a gay man with a long term monogamous partner, who is a Buddhist practitioner and his straight married (monogamous) friend who does the same practice

Absolutely.

[gundos]

Homosexuals are recognized today, by most educated people, at least, as genetically distinct from heterosexuals. They are phyically attracted to others of the same sex.

The Buddha said:

Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the world with its many and different elements. That too is a Tathagata's power...

Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is how beings have different inclinations. That too is a Tathagata's power...

Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the disposition of the faculties of other beings, other persons. That too is a Tathagata's power...

MN 12 Monks, it is by way of elements that beings come together & unite. In the past they did so, in the future they will do so and in the present they do so.

Just as excrement comes together & unites with excrement, urine with urine, spittle with spittle, pus with pus and blood with blood come together, so too monks, it is by way of elements that beings come together & unite.

SN 14.15

[casinobonbone]

My fav passage...
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....002.bodh.html
What does womanhood matter at all
When the mind is concentrated well,
When knowledge flows on steadily
As one sees correctly into Dhamma.

One to whom it might occur,
'I'm a woman' or 'I'm a man'
Or 'I'm anything at all' —
Is fit for Mara to address. And from the Yangsi Kalu Rinpoche...
http://kalurinpochela.org/gays-lesbi...e-in-my-world/
In a lot of religions in this world, gays and lesbians are not accepted… from my point of view, and I would say from a Buddhist point of view, gay and lesbian are welcome in my world. I’m happy to see how they love and take responsibility for each other and for their family.

Buddha never said to be gay is not good; to be lesbian is not good.
Buddha only cares about your happiness. God only cares for your happiness.
If they do not care about your happiness, what are they talking about? What is their point?
So don’t be sad, don’t be unhappy if you are gay or lesbian.

In a relationship, it is appreciation of the other that is most important.
This is the quality that will bring you happiness… whether you are heterosexual, gay or lesbian.
In some relationships love comes first, deep appreciation comes later; in others appreciation comes first and love comes later.
It doesn’t matter as long as you are happy in yourself and happy in your relationship

[trubreTab]

I smiled when I read Aloka mention how the buddha discouraged speculation about karma. It's so tempting to do it though!

Not that you get anywhere... Everything always trails off into the distance back to adam and eve or some disappearing monkey...

We know that people are commonly attracted to the same gender. The frequency of the occurance of that attraction is a job for the sociologist to catalogue, but i assume that homosexual fantasies cross the minds of most healthy women and men... I reveal my bias so there's no suspicion about what it is.

As a gay man, I question what it means to be gay. I don't feel different from heterosexuals. I don't feel like I'm a woman trapped in a man's body, as pat robertson might theorize. I don't, even as my own grandmother suggested to me some time ago, have a testosterone deficiency. I would have to shave much less frequently if that were the case. Hell, I'd almost welcome that (ouch!)

my consciousness is not different. It's that I project my mind towards different objects than straight men do. I allow myself to cultivate a sense of self that is labeled "gay"

Being "gay" is a choice. I choose to have sexual relationships and indulge in sexual fantasies of that sort because that's my comfort zone. I trust men on an intimate level to a degree that I don't with women. I don't have the sanity to pick apart why that is and ascribe crude freudian formulas to try to twist myself into the shape of someone who has socially acceptable sex. It's just not a priority for me to do that. I'm sure that sort of psychological transformation is possible, that a gay or lesbian man could enjoy straightness... eventually, with practice... But for heaven's sake, why? It's just sex. And that sounds like a lot of work anyway. I have enough on my plate just trying to accept my self as I am during and after meditation

At a certain point I think the most helpful way for the buddha to come to the rescue in this arena is to assert that we need to start seeing reality the way it is... that means stop seeing healthy sexuality as a problem. Humans have sex. That's realistic, and we practice in order to accept truths of our existence. And I say this with the desire to mention that I have lots of Gay friends who are completely chauvinistic, completely homophobic (and yet they're gay! can you believe that?), hateful towards straight people and women, degrading the female anaotmy... and I think it's just as wrong-headed as the cliche of the roughneck straight guy that votes republican and watches fox news.

now i'm just ranting. sorry.

[WaicurtaitfuT]

Interesting article here on Thai Theravada Buddhist attitudes towards homosexuality and transgenderism. It seems there are several distinct perspectives, some quite puritanical, others more open.

http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana...haJackson.html

This is an area where I have difficulty accepting the views of Ajahn Buddhadasa. His stance appears to have been similar to the Dalai Lama's, in that he believed sex was only for reproduction.

Buddhadasa,an influential reformist thinker, calls reproduction "an activity that is distasteful, dirty and tiring" (Buddhadasa 1987:24) and says that sexual desire is a defilement (Pali: kilesa) that arises from ignorance (Pali: avijja), which Buddhist doctrine generally describes as the source of human suffering. Phra Buddhadasa says that in the past people were "employed" or "engaged" (Thai: jang) by nature in the "work" (Thai: ngan) of reproducing the species, but people now "cheat" nature by using contraception and having sex without being engaged in the work of reproduction. He maintains that this "cheating," i.e. engaging in sex for pleasure rather than reproduction, is "paid back" because it causes problems such as nervous disorders, madness and physical deformities.

Phra Buddhadasa calls on laypeople to be mindful and establish spiritually informed intelligence (Pali: sati-panna) and to have sex only for reproduction. Furthermore, he maintains that the highest ideal in marriage is to live together without sex, describing the solitary life dedicated to the achievement of nibbana as a higher ideal than married life (ibid. :35) ... He provides an example from the Tipitaka (no source cited) of ten year old children in the Buddha's time becoming arahants, perfected beings who have achieved nibbana, and maintains that this would be possible today if children were educated in Buddhist principles and led to see the truth revealed by Buddhism. Phra Buddhadasa adds that as adults such children would have no interest in sex because of their high spiritual status. In "Two Kinds of Language," Buddhadasa writes:

Now, let us look at the words “female” and “male”. In everyday, worldly language, these words mean the two sexes – the female sex and the male sex. In Dhamma language, however, they refer to the distinguishing marks and signs of certain duties which Nature has assigned to human beings: duties which must be performed co-operatively, in partnership. Female and male have nothing to do with the exchange and consumption of sexual flavors. Rather, they point to the fact that human being must exist in the world and that the species must not become extinct. This means that the human race must be preserved through the duty of reproduction for as long a time as is necessary for humanity to realize the highest Dhamma – nibbana. The duties called for by this necessity must be divided between the female and male. Once the female and male exist, they help each other to lighten their burdens by dividing their everyday responsibilities and work, which, when done correctly, is Dhamma practice.

In Dhamma language, the signs of the duties which Nature has stipulated in this way are known as “female” and “male”. This isn’t the lowly meaning assumed in everyday language. We shouldn’t think of female and male solely in terms of an instinctual animal activity. Rather, we ought to think of them as signs of the division of those duties which can be carried out properly only in co-operation. There doesn't seem to be any room here for sex as an expression of intimacy between partners, whether heterosexual or non-heterosexual. Consensual sexuality between LGBT partners would appear, in Buddhadasa's view, to be "cheating nature" -- i.e., ruled out because it is non-reproductive and simply amounts to "the exchange and consumption of sexual flavors" or cultivation of emotional attachment.

[ycMC0PLg]

I know there's poetry out there written by zen monks that focuses on homosexual love. I'd love someone to help me find some samples.

Generally speaking, what is with the dalai lama and his stance on homosexuality? I know little about tantric practice, but I thought part of it involves working with sexual energies in a way that can reveal the path?

[usacomm]

There doesn't seem to be any room here for sex as an expression of intimacy between partners, whether heterosexual or non-heterosexual. Consensual sexuality between LGBT partners would appear, in Buddhadasa's view, to be "cheating nature" -- i.e., ruled out because it is non-reproductive and simply amounts to "the exchange and consumption of sexual flavors" or cultivation of emotional attachment.

Does Buddhadasa actually mention LGBT relationships in "Two Kinds of Language"? No, he definately doesn't - so I don't see how your quote is relevant to the thread.

[8Uxtkz7F]

Hi Aloka,

I do find the views attributed to Buddhadasa -- and confirmed by some of the writings of his which I've seen -- to be rather puritanical and extreme (and I feel the same way about similar views expressed by the Dalai Lama). Perhaps someone here who is more familiar with Buddhadasa's work can put his statements into context.

Clearly if he believes that the only legitimate purpose of sex is to reproduce the species, then there would be no valid basis (in his view) for lesbian or gay sexuality. So his views as discussed above are quite relevant to the thread. And the first excerpt came from an article about "homosexuality and transgenderism in the Thai Buddhist tradition" which referenced him specifically.

[qilmuz6v]

Lets not forget that Buddhadasa was a celibate monk and as far as I know monks in Thailand did practices focusing on the unpleasant aspects of the body in order to lessen desire/ attachment to it.

Clearly if he believes that the only legitimate purpose of sex is to reproduce the species, then there would be no valid basis (in his view) for lesbian or gay sexuality

This is just speculation unless you can find a specific quote from him.

[QvhhbjLy]

This is just speculation unless you can find a specific quote from him.

Yes. In the first passage excerpted, he is quoted as saying:

in the past people were "employed" or "engaged" (Thai: jang) by nature in the "work" (Thai: ngan) of reproducing the species, but people now "cheat" nature by using contraception and having sex without being engaged in the work of reproduction. He maintains that this "cheating," i.e. engaging in sex for pleasure rather than reproduction, is "paid back" because it causes problems such as nervous disorders, madness and physical deformities. In the second passage, he writes:

(Female and male are) the distinguishing marks and signs of certain duties which Nature has assigned to human beings: duties which must be performed co-operatively, in partnership. Female and male have nothing to do with the exchange and consumption of sexual flavors. Rather, they point to the fact that human beings must exist in the world and that the species must not become extinct. The message is clear: only reproductive sex is valid; anything else is the "consumption of sexual flavors" and hence unwholesome.

So yes perhaps he is ok with LGBT relationships as long as the partners do not engage in sexual activity.

[Lkemybab]

my consciousness is not different. It's that I project my mind towards different objects than straight men do. I allow myself to cultivate a sense of self that is labeled "gay"

Hi kagyupa,
That's the crux of it. There is really no difference. It's all about our objects of refuge, be they of the spiritual or worldly kind. Gay or hetro have exactly the same work to do. Attachment, aversion & ignorance - the rest is window dressing IMHO.

[horoshevapola]

exactly the same work to do. Attachment, aversion & ignorance -

I agree completly Kris.

[JaK_MarkoV_Pi]

This is an except from an account of a meeting between HHDL and LGBT activists. This occurred in 1997. I believe that HHDL has been moving towards a more tolerant position in terms of what scripture permits and prohibits. These statements show that he's at least willing to examine the context in which these prohibitions were conceived in.

The private meeting between representatives of the lesbian and gay community and the Dalai Lama was described as "warm and relaxed."

The Dalai Lama also expressed interest in the insights of modern scientific research on homosexuality and its value in developing new understanding of Buddhist texts that nix homosexual activity, participants said.

Reiterating in the private meeting that he did not have the authority to unilaterally reinterpret Buddhist scriptures, the Dalai Lama also urged those present to build a consensus among other Buddhist traditions and communities to collectively change the understanding of the Buddhist scriptural references on sexuality for contemporary society, according to a joint statement issued by participants.

During the meeting, the Dalai Lama also candidly acknowledged that he did not know the foundations of scriptural proscriptions against sexual activity or where they originated, Peskind said.

Participants also said the Dalai Lama expressed the "willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context."
HHDL also stated the following:
From a "Buddhist point of view," lesbian and gay sex "is generally considered sexual misconduct," the Dalai Lama told reporters at a press conference a day earlier.

However, such proscriptions are for members of the Buddhist faith - and from "society's viewpoint," homosexual sexual relations can be "of mutual benefit, enjoyable, and harmless," according to the Dalai Lama. I think this greatly clarifies HHDL's view on this subject. He refuses to ignore Abhidharma materials and Gampopa and others out of respect for those works; on the other hand he's always stated that scientific proof always trumps scriptural assertion. As in the case of the earth being flat, for example. And he's open to re-evaluation on this issue in light of new scientific discovery.

There's far more evidence now than in 1997 that homosexuality is greatly influenced, if not outright determined, by genetics rather than learning or choice. I hope that HHDL's views continue to evolve. After all it took people like him to finally get Tibet's backward lamas to even accept that the earth was indeed....a sphere (Ok....oblate spheroid).