Gays, Marriage & Buddhism

[marc11864]

The subsequent passage of of Prop 8 as well as a number of other states propositions that have defined marriage in the United States using a narrowly defined (un)Christian view of what marriage is make me wonder... What would Buddha do? Or at least, what would the Buddhist definition of marriage be in relation to GLBTs?

[fabianfred]

The reading i have done suggests that gays are born that way because they are suffering the karmic results of having broken the third precept in the past.

The normal family unit produces a comfortable continuity to the rearing of children and having them around to take care of us when we are old,

Gays will be missing out on this cycle. They are advised to practice Vipassana meditation to try and reduce their karma ..... as should everyone.

I have read somewhere that some scriptures suggest a gay person cannot attain the fruits of Sotapannahood.

[camerata]

AFAIK, the Buddha never defined marriage. For a fairly modern view on the subject of sexuality in Buddhism, see De Silva's essay on Homosexuality and Theravada Buddhism.

"As homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha's discourses (more than 20 volumes in the Pali Text Society's English translation), we can only assume that it is meant to be evaluated in the same way that heterosexuality is. And indeed it seems that this is why it is not specifically mentioned. In the case of the lay man and woman where there is mutual consent, where adultery is not involved and where the sexual act is an expression of love, respect, loyalty and warmth, it would not be breaking the third Precept. And it is the same when the two people are of the same gender."

[marc11864]

Grateful for both of your answers! Much thanks!

[Tilakkhana]

The reading i have done suggests that gays are born that way because they are suffering the karmic results of having broken the third precept in the past.

The normal family unit produces a comfortable continuity to the rearing of children and having them around to take care of us when we are old,

Gays will be missing out on this cycle. They are advised to practice Vipassana meditation to try and reduce their karma ..... as should everyone.

I have read somewhere that some scriptures suggest a gay person cannot attain the fruits of Sotapannahood.

Well, I can tell you that I know a number of 'normal' families where the parents don't get along with their children whatsoever... And we all know that there are many heterosexual parents living their last days abandoned in institutions / old people's homes. On the other side, there are many homosexual people with biological or adopted children so this reason you give us is not good enough

It's true that we all are the products of our kamma (either being gay / heterosexual / black / poor / rich / ... ) that's why we all should practice Vipassana Meditation to reduce our kamma.

T.

[Jingthing]

I was curious to know that the Dalai Lama had to say about sexual matters in general for Buddhists:

Buddhist sexual proscriptions ban homosexual sexual activity and heterosexual sex through orifices other than the vagina, including masturbation or other sexual activity with the hand. Buddhist proscriptions also forbid sex at certain times - such as during full and half moon days, the daytime, and during a wife's menstrual period or pregnancy - or near shrines or temples. Adultery is considered sexual misconduct, but the hiring of a female prostitute for penile-vaginal sex is not, unless one pays a third party to procure the person.

http://www.quietmountain.org/links/teachings/gayrites.htm

However, unlike many Christians he does not think Buddhist views should be imposed on non-Buddhists.

[Tilakkhana]

Well, the Dalai Lama IS NOT the "world-revered leader of millions of Buddhists" but the leader of the Vajrayana Buddhism, i.e. Buddhist branch practised in Tibet. As this is Thai forum perhaps it could be more meaningful to read what a Theravada Bhikkhu could say on this topic and here you can read Ven. Ajahn Brahmavamso's (and Theravada Buddhism's) point of view:

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"

Ps: Why aren't I allowed to post a URL in this forum?

T.

[chakran]

The reading i have done suggests that gays are born that way because they are suffering the karmic results of having broken the third precept in the past.

The normal family unit produces a comfortable continuity to the rearing of children and having them around to take care of us when we are old,

Gays will be missing out on this cycle. They are advised to practice Vipassana meditation to try and reduce their karma ..... as should everyone.

I have read somewhere that some scriptures suggest a gay person cannot attain the fruits of Sotapannahood.

"The reading" that u have done......may i know the name of the book or is it from which Sutta ??? .......

also the "scripture" that u have read....please share the name of it .....

thank you....

[camerata]

I was curious to know that the Dalai Lama had to say about sexual matters in general for Buddhists:

Buddhist sexual proscriptions ban homosexual sexual activity and heterosexual sex through orifices other than the vagina, including masturbation or other sexual activity with the hand. Buddhist proscriptions also forbid sex at certain times - such as during full and half moon days, the daytime, and during a wife's menstrual period or pregnancy - or near shrines or temples. Adultery is considered sexual misconduct, but the hiring of a female prostitute for penile-vaginal sex is not, unless one pays a third party to procure the person.

According to this article, the above text is not a direct quote from the Dalai Lama. It seems to be a hodge podge of ideas taken from the Monastic Code for monks, the code for those following 8 precepts and other stuff from Tibetan texts written long after the Buddha died. Almost none of it relates to advice given to Buddhist lay persons in the Pali Canon. Ajahn Brahm is right. The Dalai Lama looks at this issue from a Tibetan cultural perspective and a Vajrayana Buddhist perspective only.

[Ijustwannateach]

AFAIK, the Buddha never defined marriage. For a fairly modern view on the subject of sexuality in Buddhism, see De Silva's essay on Homosexuality and Theravada Buddhism.

"As homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha's discourses (more than 20 volumes in the Pali Text Society's English translation), we can only assume that it is meant to be evaluated in the same way that heterosexuality is. And indeed it seems that this is why it is not specifically mentioned. In the case of the lay man and woman where there is mutual consent, where adultery is not involved and where the sexual act is an expression of love, respect, loyalty and warmth, it would not be breaking the third Precept. And it is the same when the two people are of the same gender."

Yet another reason Buddhism is cool.

(p.s. to Tittakhana, url posting is restricted for new members- keep posting and you will gain access; however, please be advised that forum rules restrict many types of urls, so be careful)

[Tilakkhana]

(p.s. to Tittakhana, url posting is restricted for new members- keep posting and you will gain access; however, please be advised that forum rules restrict many types of urls, so be careful)

Ok, thank's for the info

[Tilakkhana]

(p.s. to Tittakhana, url posting is restricted for new members- keep posting and you will gain access; however, please be advised that forum rules restrict many types of urls, so be careful)

Ok, thank's for the info I just wanted to post the url for Ajahn Brahm's Letter to Dalai Lama... It's always good to mention the sources.

T.

[camerata]

Although Ajahn Brahm's reply was to an article in the West Australian, the Dalai Lama's reported comments all seem to come from a clarification in the San Francisco Chronicle of what he said in the book, Beyond Dogma: Dialogues and Discourses.

But the original material - never actually identified - is described as "traditional texts" or "traditional Buddhist scriptures," which sounds like something written in Tibet to me. There's nothing like this in the Pali Canon, AFAIK: "As for when sexual intercourse takes place, if it is during the day, it is also held to be a form of misconduct, as is having intercourse with a partner who professes to certain principles such a sexual abstinence or celibacy, even if those vows are only temporary. To force someone to have intercourse also comes under the category of improper time. Inappropriate locations include temples, places of devotion, or positions where one partner is uncomfortable."

[fabianfred]

The reading i have done suggests that gays are born that way because they are suffering the karmic results of having broken the third precept in the past.

The normal family unit produces a comfortable continuity to the rearing of children and having them around to take care of us when we are old,

Gays will be missing out on this cycle. They are advised to practice Vipassana meditation to try and reduce their karma ..... as should everyone.

I have read somewhere that some scriptures suggest a gay person cannot attain the fruits of Sotapannahood.

"The reading" that u have done......may i know the name of the book or is it from which Sutta ??? .......

also the "scripture" that u have read....please share the name of it .....

thank you....

sorry but i cannot link you to the scripture.... it was just some memory from a discussion i saw at the E-sangha site some time ago

My understanding of the law of karma has mostly come from reading the books (in Thai) by Suchitra Onkhom about the life of Luang Por Jaran, the Abbot of Wat Ampawan Singhburi.

[chakran]

sorry but i cannot link you to the scripture.... it was just some memory from a discussion i saw at the E-sangha site some time ago

My understanding of the law of karma has mostly come from reading the books (in Thai) by Suchitra Onkhom about the life of Luang Por Jaran, the Abbot of Wat Ampawan Singhburi.

Thanks for your reply.....

I am sure there is no Suttas mentions such ideas.....

Correct me if I am wrong.....

[sabaijai]

The reading i have done suggests that gays are born that way because they are suffering the karmic results of having broken the third precept in the past.

The normal family unit produces a comfortable continuity to the rearing of children and having them around to take care of us when we are old,

Gays will be missing out on this cycle. They are advised to practice Vipassana meditation to try and reduce their karma ..... as should everyone.

I have read somewhere that some scriptures suggest a gay person cannot attain the fruits of Sotapannahood.

"The reading" that u have done......may i know the name of the book or is it from which Sutta ??? .......

also the "scripture" that u have read....please share the name of it .....

thank you....

sorry but i cannot link you to the scripture.... it was just some memory from a discussion i saw at the E-sangha site some time ago

My understanding of the law of karma has mostly come from reading the books (in Thai) by Suchitra Onkhom about the life of Luang Por Jaran, the Abbot of Wat Ampawan Singhburi.

Nohere in the Tipitaka does it say that vipassana or any other practice or experience can 'reduce' your karma. Your karma is in the past, and the results of that karma, ie, vipaka, are unavoidable. Even the Buddha experienced vipaka, eg, illness and death post-arahant.

The most one can do is refrain from unskilful/unwholesome/akusala kamma and instead practice skilful/unwholesome/kusala kamma, thereby transforming the nature of vipaka towards more kusala and less akusala -- until it is all kusala and finally no more kamma arises.

Whether one's sexual orientation is a result of past kamma or action is irrelevant since one can't change one's past.

Furthermore I don't see that we can necessarily conclude that being homosexuality is less preferable, in the sense of worldly satisfaction, than heterosexuality. There are many kinds of family units and if creating a bilogical family were so desirable, then the monastic vow of celibacy wouldn't make a lot of sense.

Notions such as those attributed to Aj Jaran (whether or not they really are his views) seem more like a Buddhist mask for social bigotry.

[rockyysdt]

Nohere in the Tipitaka does it say that vipassana or any other practice or experience can 'reduce' your karma. Your karma is in the past, and the results of that karma, ie, vipaka, are unavoidable. Even the Buddha experienced vipaka, eg, illness and death post-arahant.

The most one can do is refrain from unskilful/unwholesome/akusala kamma and instead practice skilful/unwholesome/kusala kamma, thereby transforming the nature of vipaka towards more kusala and less akusala -- until it is all kusala and finally no more kamma arises.

Doesn't this conflict with the meaning of the word arahant which is:

In the sramanic traditions of ancient India (most notably those of Mahavira and Gautama Buddha) arhat (Sanskrit) or arahant (Pali) signified a spiritual practitioner who had—to use an expression common in the tipitaka—"laid down the burden"—and realised the goal of nirvana, the culmination of the spiritual life (brahmacarya). Such a person, having removed all causes for future becoming, is not reborn after biological death into any samsaric realm.

Isn't to "remove all causes for future becoming", equivalent to squaring off your kamma?

[sabaijai]

Nohere in the Tipitaka does it say that vipassana or any other practice or experience can 'reduce' your karma. Your karma is in the past, and the results of that karma, ie, vipaka, are unavoidable. Even the Buddha experienced vipaka, eg, illness and death post-arahant.

The most one can do is refrain from unskilful/unwholesome/akusala kamma and instead practice skilful/unwholesome/kusala kamma, thereby transforming the nature of vipaka towards more kusala and less akusala -- until it is all kusala and finally no more kamma arises.

Doesn't this conflict with the meaning of the word arahant which is:

In the sramanic traditions of ancient India (most notably those of Mahavira and Gautama Buddha) arhat (Sanskrit) or arahant (Pali) signified a spiritual practitioner who had—to use an expression common in the tipitaka—"laid down the burden"—and realised the goal of nirvana, the culmination of the spiritual life (brahmacarya). Such a person, having removed all causes for future becoming, is not reborn after biological death into any samsaric realm.

Isn't to "remove all causes for future becoming", equivalent to squaring off your kamma?

Vipaka isn't 'becoming'. The conditions of illness and death are vipaka and these are unavoidable even for an arahant. 'Squaring off' of karma doesn't exist or at least I've never seen it described as such. The 'burden' laid down is one of kilesa or defilements.

[jumnien]

It is worth noting that the Buddha explicitly discouraged his followers — men and women, alike — from dwelling on their sexual identity (AN 7.48). Although in this particular sutta he was describing heterosexuals, the message clearly applies to everyone. (accesstoinsight.com)

One would hope that gays would lose their gayness on the road towards enlightenment. This clinging to sexual identity is most painful and self-wounding. When one sheds the bounds of one's sexual identity one is on the road to great freedom and happiness.

[rockyysdt]

Vipaka isn't 'becoming'. The conditions of illness and death are vipaka and these are unavoidable even for an arahant. 'Squaring off' of karma doesn't exist or at least I've never seen it described as such. The 'burden' laid down is one of kilesa or defilements.

I thought one had to account for accumulated negative kamma to overcome the cycle of rebirth?

As an arahant has attained nibbana, then I thought the above was so.

Wouldn't the "laid down burden" not only include defilements but the kamma these produce?

How can one achieve enlightenment if they have outstanding kamma?

[Ijustwannateach]

It is worth noting that the Buddha explicitly discouraged his followers — men and women, alike — from dwelling on their sexual identity (AN 7.48). Although in this particular sutta he was describing heterosexuals, the message clearly applies to everyone. (accesstoinsight.com)

One would hope that gays would lose their gayness on the road towards enlightenment. This clinging to sexual identity is most painful and self-wounding. When one sheds the bounds of one's sexual identity one is on the road to great freedom and happiness.

So why focus on gays? This means straights should lose their straightness, and generally everyone becomes ambisexual. Sounds liberated to me.

[Brucenkhamen]

So why focus on gays? This means straights should lose their straightness, and generally everyone becomes ambisexual. Sounds liberated to me.

I'd think straights would lose their compulsion to seek sex for pleasure alone, and sex would be relegated to what it's designed for, reproduction.

[Brucenkhamen]

I thought one had to account for accumulated negative kamma to overcome the cycle of rebirth?

As an arahant has attained nibbana, then I thought the above was so.

Wouldn't the "laid down burden" not only include defilements but the kamma these produce?

How can one achieve enlightenment if they have outstanding kamma?

I don't think this is the case. The Buddha had sicknesses and other negative things happen to him after his enlightenment, the difference is presumably he created no future negative kamma by reacting to them.

Edited January 12, 2009 by Brucenkhamen

[Ijustwannateach]

So why focus on gays? This means straights should lose their straightness, and generally everyone becomes ambisexual. Sounds liberated to me.

I'd think straights would lose their compulsion to seek sex for pleasure alone, and sex would be relegated to what it's designed for, reproduction.

That's usually what the fundamentalist Christians say about sex. Sorry, but sex is an integral part of social interaction among primates- it plays a role in social bonding and stability, not to mention status roles in the family and in society. If sex were still only for reproduction, humans would go into heat and get it over with.

I would imagine that healthy, moderate sex lives would be just as much a part of a good Buddhist life as eating properly- as a physical and social need- at least as long as social attachments are still necessary for human beings... It would be the attachment to the pleasure of it, or the practice of harmful acts against oneself or others, that would be the thing to avoid.

I'm no expert, however.

Afterthought- it also strikes me that since the thread is about marriage, which is definitely a human social institution, that to the extent that one still feels such institutions are necessary they might as well exist between men as well as between women. Sexuality itself is a separate issue.

Afterthought 2- I believe there were some strains of thought in traditional Japanese Buddhism which claimed that since homosexual love did not result in the greater attachments and distractions of children, it was actually favoured over heterosexual love.

[sabaijai]

I thought one had to account for accumulated negative kamma to overcome the cycle of rebirth?

As an arahant has attained nibbana, then I thought the above was so.

Wouldn't the "laid down burden" not only include defilements but the kamma these produce?

How can one achieve enlightenment if they have outstanding kamma?

I don't think this is the case. The Buddha had sicknesses and other negative things happen to him after his enlightenment, the difference is presumably he created no future negative kamma by reacting to them.

Exactly. Kamma doesn't 'stick' to the heaps. There is no 'outstanding kamma'. Kamma happens now, and is instantly gone, vipaka is the result, and it also happens in the present (or in the future, in relation to kamma). How one reacts to vipaka is further kamma. An arahant creates no further kamma, but still experiences vipaka.

[sabaijai]

So why focus on gays? This means straights should lose their straightness, and generally everyone becomes ambisexual. Sounds liberated to me.

I'd think straights would lose their compulsion to seek sex for pleasure alone, and sex would be relegated to what it's designed for, reproduction.

That's usually what the fundamentalist Christians say about sex. Sorry, but sex is an integral part of social interaction among primates- it plays a role in social bonding and stability, not to mention status roles in the family and in society. If sex were still only for reproduction, humans would go into heat and get it over with.

I would imagine that healthy, moderate sex lives would be just as much a part of a good Buddhist life as eating properly- as a physical and social need- at least as long as social attachments are still necessary for human beings... It would be the attachment to the pleasure of it, or the practice of harmful acts against oneself or others, that would be the thing to avoid.

I'm no expert, however.

Afterthought- it also strikes me that since the thread is about marriage, which is definitely a human social institution, that to the extent that one still feels such institutions are necessary they might as well exist between men as well as between women. Sexuality itself is a separate issue.

Afterthought 2- I believe there were some strains of thought in traditional Japanese Buddhism which claimed that since homosexual love did not result in the greater attachments and distractions of children, it was actually favoured over heterosexual love.

Yes, even sex for reproduction is an attachment that would presumably fall away after enlightenment.

[Brucenkhamen]

I would imagine that healthy, moderate sex lives would be just as much a part of a good Buddhist life as eating properly- as a physical and social need- at least as long as social attachments are still necessary for human beings... It would be the attachment to the pleasure of it, or the practice of harmful acts against oneself or others, that would be the thing to avoid.

True enough for lay people. But remember that the Buddha setup celibacy as the standard for serious practitioners

Not because there was anything wrong with being responsibly sexually active but presumably rather because the path to enlightenment is very difficult undertaking and one can't afford the luxury of distractions.

[camerata]

Afterthought 2- I believe there were some strains of thought in traditional Japanese Buddhism which claimed that since homosexual love did not result in the greater attachments and distractions of children, it was actually favoured over heterosexual love.

Japanese Buddhism went so far off track that I don't think it can be used as an example of what is accepted in Buddhism in general. In the medieval period, some monks apparently had sex with novices in the (erroneous) belief that this somehow didn't violate their precepts. In other words it was just an excuse to get some sex. I've never heard of the idea being presented to the laity as Buddhist doctrine, though. Samurai also had sex with boys, but they weren't Buddhists and it was more of a martial thing, similar to the situation in Sparta's military society.

Rather than pushing this as evidence that homosexuality is OK in Buddhism - as some gay websites do - I think it's better to look at what the original scriptures say about homosexuality in lay life. The Pali Canon doesn't condemn it and I'm pretty sure the original Mahayana sutras didn't either. It was probably later "explanations" of the precepts by gurus and scholars that did this.

[Ijustwannateach]

That's why I added it as an afterthought- I don't consider it as serious evidence of mainstream thought in Buddhism, but it *is* kind of interesting- and in light of what I've been told by certain Thais about their experiences as novices, some of the Thais may unfortunately not be so far from the historical Japanese in practice, if not in theory.

But surely the rules or expectations or aspirations of the laity and the priests would be different? In which case, it doesn't seem Buddhism has anything more negative to say about gay marriage (for laity, natch) than it does about straight marriage, all other things being equal.

[camerata]

But surely the rules or expectations or aspirations of the laity and the priests would be different? In which case, it doesn't seem Buddhism has anything more negative to say about gay marriage (for laity, natch) than it does about straight marriage, all other things being equal.

Right. That's the way I understand it, with regard to the core Buddhist teachings and gay relationships.