Question: Is being gay or lesbian unacceptable in Buddhism? What are the effects of being so? How do I know if I’m prone to being homosexual?
Answer: From our knowledge, there is no record of the Buddha’s teachings saying homosexuality is unacceptable. As with heterosexuality, both sides are subject to lust, which is eventually to be transcended as part of Dharma practice, for liberation to be possible. In the mean time, the Third Precept of respect for personal relationships by avoiding sexual misconduct such as infidelity is equally applicable for both kinds of sexuality. E.g Although there might be no gay/lesbian marriage between two, the equivalent of expressed commitment might be there.
The effects of being gay/lesbian are wide and varied, as in the case of heterosexuals too. Some live lives exactly like heterosexuals openly, while many more keep their sexuality secret in fear of discrimination by society. In this sense, some homosexuals might live more troubled lives. However, for those who have no fear of discrimination and can handle it well, they might not feel troubled at all. Then again, there are heterosexuals who lived troubled sexual lives too, who fret and suffer from discrimination in similar ways.
If general attraction, attachment and lust arises continually and strongly from same gender persons, one might be gay/lesbian. However, the truth is, in the rounds of rebirth, everything is dynamic. People can change their preferences, although in the realm of sexuality, it is a slower long-drawn process. E.g. most are born homosexual or heterosexual due to past life influences, and do not so much consciously choose to suddenly change their orientation in this life. If any form of sexuality is fixated upon as a form of attachment from life to life, it would be impossible to transcend sexuality altogether.
All in all, be it heterosexuality or homosexuality, everyone sexual in nature is still trapped by lust, which means no one is particularly better off and all should strive towards the eventual dissolution of lust in good time, as lust is one of the key factors that fuels the rounds of otherwise endless rebirth. In this sense, being homosexual or heterosexual is equally okay, yet equally not okay too! This is why, for monastics, being more focused on Dharma practice, practise to renounce all forms of sexuality.
I find it odd and somewhat offensive that you feel the need to discuss a lesbian or gay orientation in terms of how sexual preference can be changed over time, albeit a long-drawn process that could take multiple lifetimes.
When you discuss a gay or lesbian orientation in terms of being “due to past life influences” you add fuel to the harmful misconception that being gay or lesbian needs some sort of explanation. It reminds me of when black people were called “colored” – as if it’s normal to be white and if you’re not, you’re “colored.”
We’ve known for quite some time now that being an LGBT person is not any kind of social/spiritual/psychological illness, and in fact studies seem to suggest that a very consistent 5-10% of the population is gay or lesbian.
Please engage in right speech by stating things that are accurate and not likely to cause harm. I don’t think you meant any harm here at all, but I do think your level of awareness and sensitivity could use some sharpening.
It is odd that if believed that sexual preference cannot change, because no one has had fixed preferences over all lifetimes. It is thus true that it can change. Remember Anicca and Anatta? It was never mentioned that sexuality should be changed from one to another. As the last lines read, sexuality is to be transcended.
If sexual orientation is not due to past influences, what is it due to? Note again, that there is no judging here. There was no suggestion at all that being gay is an illness. In fact, as the last lines read, being fixated on being gay or straight as being ‘right’ is the real illness, that binds us to rebirth.
Please engage in right speech by commenting accurately. I don’t think you mean any harm here at all, but I do think your level of awareness and sensitivity could use some sharpening.
Straight or not, coloured or not, life per se is a disease. What we are now is due to what we did in the past. That’s just karma. Anyway we should look beyond labels and transcend fixations on everything, including sexuality to go beyond the cycle of life & death.
In response to these comments, wonder if I may contribute an article that I wrote recently summarizing a more learned speach? There is no comment here on how one should know how to identify your inclinations, but I believe this might go some way into explaining thoughts of sexuality in Buddhist terms. I hope this is allowed. If so, please continue reading.
Reflections on Sexuality By Daniel Moreau
A commentary on the transcript of “Thinking Through Texts: Toward a Critical Buddhist Theology of Sexuality” By José Ignacio Cabezón
A talk delivered at Naropa University, September 28, 2008
One of the pivotal factors in my decision to take up the serious study of Buddhism (aside from the flirt with the philosophy which was being discussed at uni, way back when) was the perceived level of tolerance and acceptance of my own personal way of life. Indeed, I had been led to believe that my lifestyle presented no conflict. However, since that time and after reading innumerable commentaries and texts, I was forced to concede, with some trepidation, that not all of Buddhism would embrace me as an openly gay man. I remember, more than once, being dismayed by some rather (I call them) unfortunate writings by some of the best known Buddhist thinkers through the ages. By then, it had been explained to me that nothing was to be taken for granted as truth unless I could reconcile all the arguments, both pro and con, to my own satisfaction. Therefore, I began an eager search to find out what the Buddha himself has said on the subject. I continue to search; however, Senór Cabezón has eased my search somewhat, in this talk, delivered on the occasion of the Frederick P. Lenz Distinguished Lecture, held at Naropa University in September, 2008.
I cannot possibly do justice to his talk in a two-page synopsis; however, I can relay the impact that it has had on me. The following is a summary of some of the main points of the lecture as well as this related account:
In June of 1997, a meeting between HH Dalai Lama and a group of gay and lesbian Buddhists was held at The Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco. Here is some of what HH had to say on this occasion: “It is wrong for society to reject people on the basis of their sexual orientation.” “In a society at large there is no harm in mutually agreeable sexual acts…It is wrong for anyone to look down on gay people.” The main discussion turned to the specific, i.e. what is acceptable (or not) in the Buddhist tradition. Tsong kha pa’s formulation (in the Lam Rim Chen mo) prohibits solitary masturbation, both hetero- and homosexual oral and anal intercourse, and even sex during daylight hours. …similar formulations are found (by) Gampopa and Dza Patrul. HH spoke about “the possibility of understanding these precepts in the context of time, culture and society…” and added: “ I do not have the authority to redefine these precepts…a redefinition can only come out of sangha discussions…it has to be done on the collective level.”
JIC has taken up HH’s call for more scholarly research on the issue of sexuality. This required an examination of what Indian and Tibetan texts have to say about such things as the differentiation of the sexes in the Buddhist cosmological narratives, the nature of the body and of the sexual act, the psychology of sexual arousal, the classical interventions for dealing with sexual desire, and the doctrinal construction of sexual ‘deviance,’ or ‘queerness’. To his astonishment, JIC discovered that there is no single classical work that deals with sexuality in its entirety, so he had to collect materials from a variety of individual texts of different periods and genres and subject them to critical scrutiny.
Buddhist scholastic literature ‘lists’ inappropriate partners, organs, times and places and then goes into exquisite detail about when, where, how and with whom Buddhists may and may not have sex. In other sources we find long lists of both men and women who are to be denied Buddhist ordination on the basis of their sexual preferences, gender identity, and sexual anatomy. So…lists there are aplenty. Western Buddhists were either unaware of what the classical Indian and Tibetan tradition had to say about sexuality, or else, when not unaware, were ready to dismiss it because it did not jive with their preconceptions of what the Buddhist tradition is all about. JIC came to see a fundamental disconnect between what the classical Buddhist tradition has to say about sexuality and what contemporary Western Buddhists believe about the subject.
Indian and Tibetan (literary) sources tell us:
-that male homosexuality is prohibited, but that lesbianism is not (not even acknowledged).
-that nothing but penile-vaginal coitus is permissible, and then only at night
-that it is acceptable for married men to hire prostitutes
-that polygamy is allowed
-that men have the right to their wives’ bodies at all times except for one – when the wife has taken the one-day precepts (if she has received prior permission to do so)
-and finally, that a variety of individuals are to be denied ordination on the basis of their sexual/gender identity or anatomical characteristics.
JIC asks the question: “…is this really the kind of sexual ethics we want to buy into – a life dictated by centuries-old Indian norms?…how do we justify a different (more just) sexual ethic?”
…three problems that needed to be addressed: (1) pervasive misinformation about what the traditional texts said, (2) a tendency to dismiss the textual tradition in and ad hoc fashion, and (3) when not dismissed, to accept the tradition literally without any felt need to engage in critical reflection .
At the centre is a more fundamental problem that confronts all religions: the issue of authority. What hold should these doctrines and tenets have on our lives? JIC’s method can be outlined in three basic points:
(1) …commit ourselves to learning the Dharma. Atisha says, we must be ever willing to ‘seek more learning.’…refusing to confront the textual tradition…is not an option…nor is it an option…to sweep under the rug…all those aspects of the textual tradition that make us uncomfortable. It is incumbent on us to learn the classical tradition.
(2) Buddhists…should not be content to be spoon-fed the truth by those who claim to be representing and interpreting the tradition…they should subject the theological interventions of specialists to analysis…making them accountable both to the tradition and to reason. The higher type of faith…is one that begins…with skepticism. We must appropriate the tradition critically.
(3) Critical reflection…is a process of analysis that tests doctrines by determining whether they are consistent with our perceptions of the world, and whether they are rational. …the tradition is not inerrant…something is true and worthy of our allegiance, when, in the words of Tsong khapa, “it has been analyzed with and stood the test of stainless reasoning.” JIC: “When I sometimes find…disagreement with Tsong kha pa, Asanga, or Buddha, I remind myself that these great men themselves disagreed with others that came before them…and…none of them asked us to follow them blindly. We should approach analysis using all the tools at our disposal, including the tools of modern scholarship.
HHDL’s comments…opened up the possibility of rethinking the doctrine of sexual misconduct as a whole.
Our scholastic authors tell us that sex is unethical if it involves: Inappropriate partners (“protected” women). The list of inappropriate partners explicitly excludes prostitutes; inappropriate organs (mouth, anus, the hand, and between the thighs of one’s partner); inappropriate time (refers both to the daylight hours and…for example, when the woman is menstruating, breastfeeding or when she has taken the one-day precepts), but also the number of times that orgasm is permitted (up to five times in a night).
Critically reflecting on such a doctrine involves paying attention to the subtleties of the text, including its gaps, i.e. the presumed audience here is ONLY men. What constitutes sexual misconduct for women was simply not considered. Critical appraisal involves understanding the context in which these ideas were elaborated. It was thought that when a man takes a young girl or the wife of another as a sexual partner, the party whose rights have been violated are the guardians: the parents of the girl and the husband. …rape is not explicitly mentioned. The ancient authors were operating under a very different set of presuppositions than those that we operate under today. The earliest mentions of sexual misconduct in the Buddhist canon know nothing of the fourfold division into partners, organs/orifices, time and place. In the sutras – sexual misconduct is understood simply as adultery. The women’s agency is disregarded (no mention is made of women taking married men as sexual partners).
The obvious historical question then becomes this: If the early doctrine of sexual misconduct is so simple and elegant, when and why did it get so complex and restrictive? We don’t find any examples of the more elaborate formulation…before the third century CE. Those authors are, first of all, celibate monks, and secondly, scholastic philosophers…who used familiar terms…because they were the categories used to discuss the breaking of rules in the monastic code. In their exuberance to elaborate, they went overboard, inappropriately reading lay sexual ethics through the filter of monastic discipline…to make lay sexuality increasingly more restrictive and monastic-like.
Why should lay people refrain from engaging in sexual misconduct? To avoid actions that are harmful to oneself, and…to others. What reason can be given for restricting sex to penile-vaginal penetrative intercourse performed only at night? What possible Buddhist reason could be given for dooming gay men (and more generally, people who work at night) to a life of celibacy while allowing heterosexual men five orgasms per night, and lesbians complete sexual freedom? Is this rational or just?
JIC concludes:
1. That there is no scriptural warrant for the more restrictive, scholastic formulation of the doctrine. That it was the concoction of celibate monks who inappropriately read monastic norms into lay sexuality. The individuals who did this were great scholars and saints, but
on this issue, they simply got it wrong.
2. That the doctrine, both in its earlier simplified version and in its later, more elaborate scholastic one, is androcentric (it privileges men), and is therefore unjust. Any sexual ethic worth its salt must see women and transgender people as moral agents.
3. And finally, quite independently of historical or other criteria, the more elaborate doctrine cannot be justified on rational grounds.
It leaves us with the task of having to rethink sexual ethics in a way that is both rational and just…and that does not discriminate against anyone on the basis of their sexual tastes or anatomies…while acknowledging that sexual pleasure (like all sense-pleasure) can be a source of attachment. Such an ethic must be based on general Buddhist principles like the commitment not to do harm.
I hope this helps…with love Daniel Moreau
I understand how some might not find this author’s posting troubling, as what’s happening here is very subtle and something that seems to come up a lot for LGBT people–this idea that when it comes to our sexual orientation, there must be some “reason” to explain it.
Of course as Buddhists we understand that nothing happens independently of other causes and conditions–but the question this person was purportedly answering was simply whether there is any Buddhist judgments against homosexuality, and there is no record of the Buddha saying anything about this topic as the author rightly points out.
I took issue however when s/he felt it necessary to explain our orientation as being the byproduct of other lifetimes. If this person were writing an article about people of color or any other minority group, I doubt they’d have made such a statement.
The whole of science and even Buddhism is based on cause and effect. Sexuality is not so special that it is ‘uncaused’. There are reasons for the way we are – good, bad and neutral ones.
Why take issue with cause and effect? If sexuality is not caused by our past, what is it caused by? Cosmic lottery? Lady luck? Such ideas run counter to cause and effect of karma. There is nothing that happens by chance, scientifically or according to Buddhism.
It is also true that race is based on cause and effect. But this surely does not mean any race is superior, just as no one here insists any sexuality is superior.
With due respect, I think you need to read up more about karma and three universal characteristics. The way you said it is like sexuality is the only thing that is not subjected to change over many lifetimes. That is obviously not the case. As one commenter had clearly pointed out, there is Annica and Anatta at play. Looks like you are rather attached to sexuality and aren’t monastics supposed to be less attached?
I am aware of what karma is. I am not attached to sexuality, nor do I think that a gay/lesbian orientation is superior to a heterosexual one.
As a monastic I am committed helping alleviate suffering whenever and wherever possible. Statements like those made in the post above can inadvertently cause others to suffer so I was merely trying to explain why.
I am sorry if you are misunderstanding or not getting what I am saying.
The main article is one of the most balanced I’ve ever seen on the subject. Crisp and to the point – advocating equanimity and the big picture of the need for ALL to ultimately equally transcend sexuality. It would be good to reread it. As a straight with gay Buddhist friends, I don’t see how any of them would take offense with it. They would even welcome it.
I am sorry if anyone misunderstands it or does not get what it is saying.
The capacity for intimacy whether with the same gender, opposite gender or both genders is a powerful way to share love. The pure natural mind (Mahamudra)attaches no negative value judgement to our capacity for intimacy and appreciates the beauty of this sharing. HH is but one leader of one of four sects of the three divisions of Buddhism. Though highly enlightened I expect that Like Ajun Cha (Theravada) he would not be content for His view to replace or overlay the inner discovery of a student. I have capacity for intimacy for my own gender and I am not a monk. As I have come to love my Self, (Self in the Buddhist Sense) I see no value in the opinion of another who attaches value judgement to this facet of Self. Why are there almost exactly 50% females and 50% males born? Because it is part of the inherent design of the species. Why in every human population study is there an incidence of 5-15 % with capacity for same-gender intimacy? Same answer; It is part of the inherent design also. Why do so many humans have trouble being at peace with this? –> Humans have always have difficulty with makin peace with what is. No news there!
Namaste
Forrester Tongpa-Nyi
Hi,
It’s my understanding of the buddha’s teaching that the cause of suffering is not sexual attraction or familial connection, but the attachment to the desire that arises in those connections.
Couldn’t someone be in a sexual relationship, completely unattached from desire, but still experience it and act compassionately from that connection? Or, in your understanding, does buddhism require that all sexual activity always be considered a manifestation of negative karma?
They cannot say that your sexuality comes from your past lives – where is the proof? It is no good talking about past or future lives. We should talk about this life and ensure everyone is treated equally.
Whoever wrote this don’t know the Dharma from a donut.
1. There was no mention about (in)capacity of anyone to love.
2. The pure natural mind attaches no value to any form of sexuality. This is why no Buddhas have any form of sex, as they transcend sexuality upon realisation of purity.
3. There is no judgement here, other than some judging some to be judging here…
4. Loving one ‘self’ in a fixated way, if it becomes an attachment in the Buddhist sense, leads to non-realisation of Anatta, keeping enlightenment at bay.
5. It is far from true that there are exactly 50% females/males, and this is so as there is no one designing the human species perfectly other than sentient beings, through their karma. The Buddha taught that there is no creator: http://thedailyenlightenment.com/2012/03/the-buddhas-victory-over-a-god-demon/ If there is a perfect creator, there would be no suffering of any kind created in the first place, including sexual discrimination among his ‘creation’.
6. The causes of suffering are the Three Poisons of greed (attachment), hatred (aversion) and delusion (ignorance). Being attached to sexuality and sexual desire is in the domain of the first – for BOTH heterosexuals and homosexuals.
7. What the Buddha taught about attachment to sexuality, and why transcending ALL kinds of sexuality leads to liberation: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.048.than.html (Saññoga Sutta) Please read the sutta in the context of being for everyone of every sexuality.
8. If it is possible to keep having sex while having no desires, ‘not having sex’ would not be set by the Buddha as one of the four major precepts, which upon breaking, automatically expels monastics, who are supposed to abstain from all sexual activity, so as to help them transcend lust as one of the most major causes of rebirth. Please read up on the process of rebirth and how lust plays a crucial role.
9. No one said that all sexual activity is due to manifestation of negative karma. This idea is fatalistic – that whatever you do you are destined or forced to. The Buddha set guidelines for laypeople in terms of the Third Precept to guide how to ensure sexual activity does not become immoral. Only when it becomes immoral does it create negative karma. However, it cannot be denied, as according to the Sannoga Sutta, that feeding sexual desire does feed attachment. Which is why, for the monastics, as they are supposed to focus on transcending sexuality, one of their major precepts is to abstain from all sexual activity. Also, laypeople are encouraged to observe the 8 precepts when they can, twice a month, where the Third Precept is transformed to be similar to the monastics.
10. In the Saññoga Sutta link above, the Buddha explained how sexuality is maintained through attachment in each life, and from life to life. There is no proof that sexuality comes from nowhere or some creator in the Buddhist texts. If sexuality is fixed involuntarily by ‘design’, it would be impossible to transcend it, as the ‘designer’ didn’t want it in the first place.
11. The main article is pro-equanimity. Again, it says everyone of all sexual orientations are in the same boat. It is strange why there is insistence that it is biased. Perhaps it is due to attachment to a form of sexuality. If so, the article should be reread… with renewed mindfulness.
12. Whoever wrote ‘Whoever wrote this don’t know the Dharma from a donut’ needs to know the Dharma more.
Saññoga Sutta (By the Buddha)
“I will teach you a Dhamma discourse on bondage & lack of bondage. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak.”
“Yes, lord,” the monks responded.
The Blessed One said: “A woman attends inwardly to her feminine faculties, her feminine gestures, her feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voice, feminine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, she attends outwardly to masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voices, masculine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, she wants to be bonded to what is outside her, wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Delighting, caught up in her femininity, a woman goes into bondage with reference to men. This is how a woman does not transcend her femininity.
“A man attends inwardly to his masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voice, masculine charms. He is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, he attends outwardly to feminine faculties, feminine gestures, feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voices, feminine charms. He is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, he wants to be bonded to what is outside him, wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Delighting, caught up in his masculinity, a man goes into bondage with reference to women. This is how a man does not transcend his masculinity.
“And how is there lack of bondage? A woman does not attend inwardly to her feminine faculties… feminine charms. She is not excited by that, not delighted by that… does not attend outwardly to masculine faculties… masculine charms. She is not excited by that, not delighted by that… does not want to be bonded to what is outside her, does not want whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Not delighting, not caught up in her femininity, a woman does not go into bondage with reference to men. This is how a woman transcends her femininity.
“A man does not attend inwardly to his masculine faculties… masculine charms. He is not excited by that, not delighted by that… does not attend outwardly to feminine faculties… feminine charms. He is not excited by that, not delighted by that… does not want to be bonded to what is outside him, does not want whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Not delighting, not caught up in his masculinity, a man does not go into bondage with reference to women. This is how a man transcends his masculinity.
“This is how there is lack of bondage. And this is the Dhamma discourse on bondage & lack of bondage.”
___
The above is applicable to heterosexuals, homosexuals and bisexuals because so long as there is any fixation on form(s) of sexuality, one is trapped by that very attachment. The Buddha is a perfect example of what we can ‘evolve’ to be – an enlightened one who is spiritually whole, who does not pine for anyone else to ‘complete’ one’s being physically. This is possible because he does not hanker on any physical sexuality, seeing it as transient and unsubstantial.
Thanks for the long quotes but you still aren’t getting Grecco’s point. Which (unfortunately) means you are most likely not gay and therefore clueless as to the subtleties of homophobia that most of us have to contend with.
An article about the Buddhist view on whether its “ok” to be gay that arbitrarily goes on to speciulate about “why” someone is gay is indeed offensive. No one wonders what karmic reasons there are for being straight–it would seem absurd to bring up such a thing but when it comes to gay people there is a fixation on “how” and “why”.
If you don’t understand this now, I hope you one day will. A lot less people will suffer as a result.
This article is in the letters’ section, from a reader, who asked if being gay is okay. It’s a reply, and a balanced one I would say.
Why is it offensive to to say sexual orientation is based on cause and effect? Is it better to say it is due to random ‘luck’, which doesn’t exist. Is it better to say it is due to some ‘creator’, who doesn’t exist either? Both such replies are against the Dharma.
No one here says any form of orientation is due to bad karma, but some keep reading it as so. Why judge anyone, straight or gay? I know wonderful gay friends. I know wonderful straight friends. I know terrible gay friends. I know terrible straight friends. There is no way to judge anyone by sexuality alone, which is why no one should, and no one does here. This is what the article is about – equanimity instead of discrimination.
There is instead fixation in some comments, that cause and effect is absurd in the realm of sexuality, which the Sutta above clearly says is not. By the way, the Sutta does explain how straights are so. The Sutta says in short, that any form of sexuality attached to keeps one in spiritual bondage, and that ALL forms of sexuality can be transcended. In good time of course – the Buddha leaves it up to us.
If you don’t understand this now, I hope one day you will.
Instead of being fixated by ‘how’ or ‘why’ just go beyond it. I thought someone mentioned not to dwell in the past? This is exactly what the author is trying to say – go beyond gender and sexuality. To be enlightened as the Buddha.
Is being gay or lesbian unacceptable in Buddhism? Don’t know the answer. But I wonder if I am attached to a girlfriend or boyfriend, it will cause rebirth. What are the effects of being so? Don’t know the answer. But I wonder if it will cause rebirth in future life, and reduce the time that I can allocate towards buddhist study since I will need to allocate some time for the girlfriend or boyfriend that I am attached to. How do I know if I’m prone to being homosexual? Don’t know the answer. Guess I really feel that life is short and so I need to ensure I spend my time meaningfully. Maybe because I am new in Buddhism and so I feel that I have got so much to read and understand, and also need to be able to apply them in daily life. Therefore, I will not want to allocate time to think or find out if I am prone to being homosexual, Guess maybe for my case…because I am short of time… this helps reduce the need for me to think of this question on whether I am prone to being homosexual, esp. when it may or may not happen. Guess I would rather deal with it when it really happens. Need to focus on “correcting”/”improving” my current “self” to meet Buddha’s standard…I am new in buddhism but old in age..so not much time left already. But I will work hard to catch up with the rest.
Any form of sexual attachment to anything or anyone in Samsara fuels rebirth, as there is desire to be with the beloved, even if subtle in nature. This is why Non-returners (Anagamis) are those who have cut off greed, including lust.
The last thought on many people’s mind when dying is usually another person. This is why mindfulness of Buddha (e.g. Amituofo) is powerful in redirecting aspiration, not for samsaric rebirth but birth in Pure Land, to train well, before returning as a liberated Bodhisattva to help others be free from Samsara.
(The article answers a reader’s questions. If it doesn’t apply to other readers, it’s ok.)
I’m not a buddhist scholar, so I’m going simply on what is presented here and the basic study I’ve undertaken on buddhism in the past four years.
My understanding of reading the Sannoga Sutta is not that “delighting in feminity” or “delighting in masculinity” is the concern, but rather the “excitement” and “get[ting] caught up in feminity” and “mascultinity” part is what causes bondage.
That relates more closely to the idea of “trishna” or “thirst” as the cause of suffering, rather than the initial act of delight, which as many people know, the buddha didn’t teach “non-delight”, he taught the middle way, not aceticism or indulgence.
To relate to the twelve nidanas — it is not “sensation” (the 7th nidana – or “attraction” in the scenario in the sutta) which causes re-birth, but the 8th Nidana of “craving” (which in this scenario would be ‘getting caught up in’)
To respond to further comments, it seems that the “getting caught up” part IS what causes discrimination based on sexuality in our culture. For any one person to say that “such and such” is my sexuality and anyone with a different relationship to sexuality is wrong — is in fact “getting caught up” in their own self image of sexuality. That might have been a great addition to make to the initial post, which may respond more directly to the query “Is being gay okay?”
From the Sannoga Sutta by the Buddha, as paraphrased and sectionised for balance and clarity –
‘And how is there lack of bondage?
[1] A woman/man does not attend inwardly to her/his feminine/masculine faculties… feminine/masculine charms.
[2] She/He is not excited by that, not delighted by that…
[3] does not attend outwardly to masculine/feminine faculties… masculine/feminine charms.
[4] She/He is not excited by that, not delighted by that…
[5] does not want to be bonded to what is outside her/him,
[6] does not want whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond.
[7] Not delighting, not caught up in her/his masculinity, a woman/man does not go into bondage with reference to men/women.
This is how a woman/man transcends her/his femininity/masculinity.’
It is clear from the above that being ‘not delighted’ [clinging] by femininity/masculinity is part of step [2] towards transcending sexuality. Being ‘excited’ precedes the delight, which leads to being in bondage. If there is equanimity, there would not be delighting in the first place. Such sexual delight is based on mundane attachment of lust, very different from the practice of rejoice (mudita) of goodness and purity, which is a virtue. The delight in the sutta thus already falls in the category of craving.
The Middle Path in terms of when near liberation should not be mistaken as delighting in some sex in moderation then. When nearing the goal, sexuality has to be transcended altogether. This is why the Buddha and monastics are celibate, as celibacy aids walking the path and is one of the natural end results of the path, to be free from sexuality.
Indeed, being caught up in sexuality is what causes sexual discrimination – which works both ways, for straights and gays, sometimes against each other. Anyone who is attached to one’s own sexuality or others’ suffers.
The article’s answer says clearly in its opening line that ‘there is no record of the Buddha’s teachings saying homosexuality is unacceptable’. This is already a clear statement. It would be erroneous however, to imagine this means all forms of sexuality are totally acceptable for liberation to be possible, with no need to transcend sexuality at all, forever and ever. This is reflected in the article’s last lines in a balanced way – ‘being homosexual or heterosexual is equally okay [as it is a natural effect of being unenlightened], yet equally not okay too [as being attached to sexuality will continually keep enlightenment at bay]. This is why, for monastics, being more focused on Dharma practice, practise to renounce all forms of sexuality.’
Besides going far beyond what the original question actually required in a response, I find this statement to be patently absurd:
“In this sense, being homosexual or heterosexual is equally okay, yet equally not okay too! This is why, for monastics, being more focused on Dharma practice, practise to renounce all forms of sexuality.”
In what respect, and upon what basis, is celibacy superior to non-celibacy? If coming off the mountain top and mixing it up with life in the village is the great test of one’s skillfulness and one’s stability of practice, than what better village to mingle in with than that of one’s own sexuality?
I also would ask that we all consider the vast weight of misogyny that has long shadowed the practice of celibacy. This is not irrelevant.
Finally, doesn’t the original comment seem to be advancing a dualism, one that posits that sex is somehow wrong or needs to be diffused or suppressed? Western practitioners should be very, very watchful of uncritical acceptance of western spiritual and cultural notions. As a one-time, but still deeply, irish-catholic new englander, there is plenty of stuff to pass on in my teaching without my full awareness of it.
I suggest that the excerpt above would be oddly at home amongst the palatial celibacy of the current catholic church hierarchy.
If celibacy is without value, why did the Buddha-to-be became celibate? And why did he made it a basic monastic precept to be celibate? The answer is simple, because sexual desire is a very clear, powerful and present distraction from the path to liberation.
Do remember that Mara sent his daughters to seduce the Buddha-to-be under the Bodhi tree. But he remained unflinching and conquered Mara, because he transcended sexual desire. Try to reread the comments above on how lust fuels the rounds of rebirth.
However, the Buddha did not insist that everyone must be celibate. In fact, most Buddhists are not, as they are laypeople. All in good time, according to one’s motivation.
The Buddha never suggested suppression of sexual desire, but to, with insight into its dissatisfactory nature, transcend it naturally. If you study the Buddha’s teachings more, you will discover many ways to do this.
@lebanon
Thank you for breaking it down more clearly.
However, if one were to break a single link in that chain, wouldn’t the whole chain fall apart, and liberation be attained?
In terms of celibacy, couldn’t it be argued that celibacy for monks is more of:
a) a protection from social norms to help him/her in practice? (as opposed to an absolute requirement)
b) a political choice made by a teacher to avoid confusion among students about the purpose of the teacher/student relationship (as opposed to an absolute necessity, or manifestation of transcendence)?
I ask only because I am in a long-term partnership that has me confronting much of my relational karma head on in a way that I don’t think would be happening were I monastic. I find this relationship quite supportive to the practice of non-attachment. Am I completely deluded, or just in a certain “phase” of practice?
Unfortunately, many here are still missing the point but the author seems to have gotten it, which explains why s/he altered the original version of the posting which used to say:
….”However, the truth is, in the rounds of rebirth, everything is dynamic. People can change their preferences, although in the rounds of rebirth, everything is dynamic. People can change their preferences, although in the realm of sexuality, it is a slower long-drawn process. E.g. most are born gay/lesbian due to past life influences, and do not so much consciously choose to suddenly change their orientation in this life….”
but now says:
“E.g. most are born homosexual or heterosexual due to past life influences, and do not so much consciously choose to suddenly change their orientation in this life. If any form of sexuality is fixated upon as a form of attachment from life to life, it would be impossible to transcend sexuality altogether.”
Fortunately, the word “preferences” was removed and the author now includes “homosexual or heterosexual” orientation rather than singling out the former.
I have a screen shot of the original post and its wording as well as a blog post of my own about this issue at the below link if anyone cares to see it:
No matter where one is on the cycle of 12 links, as long as there is the element of craving permeated throughout, the cycle cannot be broken. The 12 links are interdependent, not so much of only one strictly after another in operation. They inter-connect – there is an element of each link in each other.
Celibacy for monastics is for very clear reasons. As taught unequivocally by the Buddha in the Surangama Sutra, which is highly regarded in the Mahayana tradition and the first sutra to disappear in the Dharma-ending age due to neglect and failing standards in Dharma practice:
“You should teach worldly men who practice Samadhi to cut off their lustful minds at the very start. This is called the Buddha’s profound teaching of the first decisive deed. Therefore, Ananda, if carnality is not wiped out, the practice of dhyana (meditation) is like cooking gravel to make rice; even if it is boiled for hundreds and thousands of eons, it will be only gravel. Why? Because instead of rice grains it contains only stones.”
The above is in terms of perfecting Samadhi (meditative concentration) to realise wisdom to break free from rebirth. If one has a trace of lust left, liberation cannot be attained. Recall a commenter above on how the Buddha defeated Mara when in his Samadhi. The Buddha is however clear, that not all are ready for liberation, though they do want to get closer. As many commenters mentioned above, all in good time, as according to one’s wishes.
Here is an analysis of the changes…
1. Nope. The word ‘preferences’ has not been removed. Which is reasonable, as it is true that preferences can and do change over time as part of the truth of impermanence and non-self. In fact, sexual preferences, as realised by the Buddha, can change to be no preference for any form of sexuality at all, which is when liberation is realised.
2. ‘most are born gay/lesbian…’ was extended to be ‘most are born homosexual or heterosexual…’ Even if it is not extended, it is alright, as the topic of the article is on homosexuality anyway, and on the questioner’s question about his//her ‘proneness’ to ‘turn’ homosexual in this life. Guess the change was in case there are over-sensitive readers who imagine themselves to be singled out.
3. This line was added to the article, probably to reinforce its balanced views – ‘If any form of sexuality is fixated upon as a form of attachment from life to life, it would be impossible to transcend sexuality altogether.’
None of the alterations change the original views intended to be shared.
Mr Grecco, please approve my comments at your blog for the sake of accuracy and fairness. To continue this conversation without acknowledging that the original contents of the above letter have been misintepreted would be absurd and unfair to all readers. Thank you.
May this be a lesson to all on how to be more sensitive (but not over-sensitive) with words, including how we write AND read them. May all be well and happy.
Thank you, everyone, for your interesting comments, and especially for the author’s article.
Reading through everything helped me to see the larger picture of what the Buddha means by being fixated on sexuality in all its forms, which can be very subtle indeed, manifesting in many ways across the board.
Dear Moderator(s), please remove Mr Greco’s weblink if he is not being fair – in sharing his views openly but not letting others share on his just as openly. Thank you.
I am a lesbian woman and practicing Buddhist and I find the original wording of this letter offensive as well.What I get from Ven Laurence is that he is trying to point out a fine point as to how we are sometimes treated, and he wants to prevent anyone from feeling hurt. What I am getting from some others here is the need to disparage him and defend their views instead of exercising two of the most important aspects of practice: kindness and compassion. If we find we’ve hurt or offended someone, intentionally or not, can’t we just communicate that wasn’t our intention but use the experience to sensitize us more? This is sad to me.
Am a straight reader who has gay friends, who is not homophobic, and I can imagine, if the author is straight, to be offended or hurt by Grecco’s first presumptuous comment right under the post, which suggests that he/she added fuel to some ‘harmful misconception’. As several readers have pointed out, the article is actually very balanced, and the alterations, which are not even needed (as pointed out by ‘cookingnoodle’), only made it even more clearly so. Grecco even digresses by suggesting that the author thinks LGBT is some kind of illness, and even reprimands him/her by saying, ‘Please engage in right speech by stating things that are accurate and not likely to cause harm.’ Wow, some amazing ‘holier than thou’ here. In words similar to his, I do think his level of awareness and sensitivity could use some sharpening. There is no ground to even imagine the author to be homophobic, or the article would not even exist in speaking up for fairness. I hope the homosexual community does not imagine themselves to be the only victims of discrimination in this world. Heterosexuals are also often hurt when accused of being homophobic by over-sensitive homosexuals or pro-homosexuals too. Oversensitivity to assumed homophobia can make people who are originally not so become more homophobic. Indeed, let’s exercise kindness and compassion – for all.
Wow people-can’t we all just get along? lol
As a gay person I can tell you that we are more sensitive to certain things because we live in a society in which wer’e discriminated against in all kinds of ways. We watch young people get bullied and harmed and some kill themselves, we don’t have the same basic rights as other, blah blah.
I think it is kind of nice to hear from straight people “with gay friends” but I am sorry it is just not the same if you yourself are not gay or lesbian. I agree with Greeco’s point and think he worded it skillfully but firmly, however the voracity with which people seem to take issue with it further illustrates his point about how subtle but pernicious homophobia is. when you offend someone, intentionally or not, just say you are sorry and explain what you meant.
and what’s with the “sex” tag up there? ha. I’m a lesbian and I almost NEVER have any…:-( Seriously though I hope this helps more people realize that words matter. When a group that is traditionally discriminaed against shows more sensitivity than might seem understandable by those who are not part of a minority group, I hope you can understand that.
Am a long-time lurker, have to say Greco’s comments are amongst the least skilful encountered in this web. He should apologise to the author for his words, as pointed out by RR. When you offend someone, intentionally or not, just say you are sorry. On homophobia being subtle but pernicious being illustrated here… huh? There is zero homophobic comment above at all by anyone, if I recall correctly. Hope this is not another case of being oversensitive.
What’s wrong with the ‘sex’ tag? What better word? Sexuality? Hairsplitting… Sexuality is about sex, about how it is perceived, whether engaged in or not. Hope this is not another case of being oversensitive.
I have phobias against the…
[1] ‘heterophobic’
[2] homophobic
[3] the over-sensitive who assume others are ‘heterophobic’
[4] the over-sensitive who assume others are homophobic
Maybe I’m just over-sensitive. Hope this is not another case of being oversensitive.
___
2 Extra Comments:
Gregory K (a commenter): Here is another interesting perspective: I am an IT (Internet Technology) guy. And I can tell that someone (?) is posting multiple attacks against Lawrence from the same computer using different names. Just saying’.
___
Nvidia (another commenter): Here is yet another interesting perspective: I am an IT (Internet Technology) guy. And I can tell that (Lawrence) Grecco’s computer is the same as Gregory K’s. So much for claiming he is not anonymous in one of his blog’s comments, IF they are the same person. Whether someone (?) else is using different names or not, what they say is still the truth if it’s the truth, that no one should miss by taking it personally as being ‘attacked’. If only Grecco reads mindfully, he will realise how no one was attacking him at all. Just saying’.
Dear Moderator/s,
The last few comments seem to show that this discussion is going out of hand. E.g. a reader claims there are many homophobic views here, when upon careful look, there is none, despite there being so many comments. Just when the discussion seems to become more peaceable, it strays away. Will there be an end to it all?
I sincerely hope the homosexual or heterosexual community does not hereby further stereotype itself to be insensitive or over-sensitive via further unjustified comments, which can make heterosexuals become homophobic or homosexuals “heterophobic”.
Personally, it is clear to me, as some other readers reflected, that the article reads good, and the comments on it are plentiful and adequate already, covering many diverse views. As such, it might thus be a good idea to close this thread, lest more come to comment unfairly to confuse more readers, before reading the many comments to see the whole picture. For new readers, if you find the comments to be too many, please read the main article mindfully. It is clearly against sexual discrimination, and should not be misunderstood.
Thank you for considering this.
May peace reign with compassion and wisdom everywhere!
Upon consideration of the last comment, this thread is hereby closed. As in the spirit of the article and comments, may both the homosexual and heterosexual communities be more sensitive to each other, with right sensitivity that is on the Middle Path, that does not veer towards insensitivity or over-sensitivity.
(2 extra comments came in around the time this thread closed, and have been added to the 3rd last comment above for saving space without creating another entry. Although the comment by Nvidia is verified true, it should be noted that since no one here knows one another personally, with or without names, nothing should be taken personally. No one can expect everyone to be non-anonymous online. Everyone is free to use multiple identities. This can even ease tension when discussions get ‘too personal’, though some become more tense if they really take this personally. In any case, Right Speech should still be practised. We should be here only to share and discuss the Dharma, with as much compassion and wisdom as possible. Thank you for your understanding.)
[Reminder: As with all articles and comments in this website, they are automatically copyrighted by their authors and are not to be reproduced in any form elsewhere without permission.]