A lot of people ask me what the "Buddhist take" on gay marriage is. Well, it depends on who you talk to. A few years back, in an interview with the CBC, the Dalai Lama rejected same-sex relationships to the surprise of many convert Buddhists, who sometimes too easily assume that Buddhist ethics are consistent with their typically progressive views.
As the Canadian interview bounced around the internet, some people were shocked and perplexed, but the Dalai Lama's position shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone who has followed the issue. After all, he has been consistent. At a conference some 12 years ago, when gay leaders met with him in San Francisco to discuss the Tibetan Buddhist proscriptions against gay sex, he reiterated the traditional view that gay sex was "sexual misconduct." This view was based on restrictions found in Tibetan texts that he could not and would not change. He did, however, advise gay Buddhist leaders to investigate further, discuss the issue, and suggested that change might come through some sort of theological consensus. But at a time when same-sex marriage has taken front-stage center in American politics, the Dalai Lama's more recent statements come as unwelcome news to proponents of civil rights.
Does this mean Buddhism condemns same-sex relationships? Not at all. Contrary to popular perception, the Dalai Lama does not speak for all Buddhists. As the leader of the dominant Gelug sect of Tibetan Buddhism, he speaks for one slice of the world's Buddhist population. The vast majority of Buddhists do not practice in his tradition -- however much they respect and admire him -- and the Tibetan texts the Dalai Lama refers to were written centuries after the Buddha had come and gone.
Buddhism is perhaps even more diverse than Christianity. In fact, the differences among schools can be so vast that some scholars consider them different religions. Indeed, according to Thanissaro Bhikkhu, abbot of the Metta Forest Monastery in southern California, the Buddha never forbade gay sex for lay people as far as we know. "When he drew the line between licit and illicit sex, it had nothing to do with sexual tastes or preferences," he says, citing early texts. "He seemed more concerned with not violating the legitimate claims that other people might have on your sexual partner."
The Buddhist monastic code, which contains detailed -- and sometimes ludicrous -- guidelines (think Leviticus), applies only to monks, leaving the rest open to debate.
Western dharma communities are known for their tolerance, and the Dalai Lama himself has openly gay students. It's rare to hear of anyone being drummed out of a Western Buddhist community for being gay, and in most Buddhist traditions practiced in the West--including the Tibetan communities--sexuality is rarely if ever an issue. Nonetheless, in the current political climate, hearing the world's most famous Buddhist declare homosexuality to be "sexual misconduct" can't help but lead people to believe that the Buddha's teachings proscribe same-sex relationships. They don't, any more than they promote them.
Friends of mine have argued that the Dalai Lama doesn't really look askance same-sex relationships, that he has no choice but to uphold his tradition's dictates; and that maybe the Dalai Lama is just stuck with the old texts' proscriptions in the same way that a Catholic, say, must deal with Thomas Aquinas. Of course, we can't know and must take his public statements at face value. In his case, though, our expectations tend to be different than they might be for the local minister, priest or orthodox rabbi. And so many of us who have benefited greatly from his teachings are apt to feel disappointed.
James Shaheen is the editor and publisher of Tricycle: The Buddhist Review.
Follow James Shaheen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/tricyclemag
You did such a great research throughout long period of time, I really appreciate that. As I am curious!
I just wanted know your ultimate motivation and what are you going to do if you have found ultimate and a true answer? Have you got any proper clue that Buddha had not abandoned HOMSXL or something deals with it? And finally what makes you so interested regarding these?
Some of my friends told me that dinosaurs do speak Chinese? Is it realistic? I wonder !
I assume you have got more detail answers!
Jampa,
That said, sexual respect is one of the essential cardinal precepts in all schools (Theravada, Zen, Pure Land, Vajrayana, etc). Moreover, I suspect the Buddha would heartily agree with the modern proposition that gender is not sex; gender being a construct, like "self." Some of the amazing writing coming out under the rubric of "Queer Dharma," reminds me of the potent, sharp feminist critiques of a few decades ago (and earlier in the century).
We must too recognize the culture-bound context of the Buddha's own times, and those of his disciples and commentators. Thus, while I take his ordination of women as being very important, his native land (and beyond) has yet to come fully to a normative level of appreciating that impact (as, no less, with his teaching regardless of caste).
What would the Buddha blog? Am looking forward to more provocative salient writing (and dialogue!) from James Shaheen.
palms _/|\_ joined
Gary Gach http://word.To
Thank you for your post. I appreciate your call for accuracy.
While the Ganden Tripa is the nominal head of the Gelugs, there is no doubt about who wields the most authority, both within the school and, with regard to matters of ethics, to the outside world. There is no one among the Gelugs—and indeed, most of the Buddhist world—who approaches the Dalai Lama in this respect (Thich Nhat Hanh, who approves of same-sex relationships, is one of the few who do). So while you are right to point out that he is not technically the head of the school, he is nonetheless its most prominent member. When he speaks to a general Western audience, his words carry a moral and spiritual weight the Ganden Tripa's cannot.
About the Vinaya: The point is that in many cases, rules in the Vinaya are no longer relevant. Specifically, the contemporary understanding of sexuality developed in the West would render some its rules downright silly. But read carefully: I did not say that the Vinaya as a whole is ludicrous, and meant only that certain parts of it can sound ludicrous to the contemporary ear. Likewise, nowadays we consider fanatics those who would defend Leviticus to the letter.
As for expecting more from the editor of Tricycle--an expectation can be a dangerous thing!
Many thanks again for your comment and all best,
James Shaheen
As a gay woman and a student of the dharma, I have come to believe that the difference between spirituality and religion is the difference between adaptability and dogmatism. So, I am not surprised to discover that 2500 years ago in the Indian subcontinent, homosexuality was considered a form of sexual misconduct. But still for practitioners who are looking to avoid the three poisons of greed, anger and delusion, the hungry ghost of the soul, and the cravings of the mind, Buddhism still offers a vehicle for understanding the nature of mind. The fundamental truths of the Buddha still speak to the spiritually minded.
Yet as gay Buddhists, our activism must extend to the meditation cushion. When we let our sanghas know that we are gay, we provide an opportunity for transformation to occur. So, while Buddha may not have accepted gay marriage, our Buddhist communities can.
There is no evidence to suggest that the Buddha did not accept same-sex relationships. That's part of the point I was making. Monastic proscriptions on sex were categorical but lay Buddhists were not bound by them. "Sexual misconduct" for a lay person is open to interpretation, and different schools will interpret sexual misconduct differently. The Dalai Lama, for his part, considers homosexual sex misconduct.
Therefore, to talk about "Buddhism" and "Buddhist attitudes" toward this and that ignores all this diversity of adaptation and interpretation, including personal interpretation. Presenting the Dalai Lama as some sort of Buddhist pope or at least spokesman and his words as decrees and rulings is totally unjustified, certainly as far as non-Tibetan schools of Buddhism are concerned. Furthermore, there are many Buddhists, especially esoteric Buddhists, for whom Buddhism is not a religion but an attitude and a way of life, a way outside dualist concepts like "good and bad". Numerous, probably most, Buddhist communities, especially in the West, do not condemn homosexuality. Prejudice, judgment, condemnation and exclusion are definitely not what the essence of Buddhism is about.
Maybe then all of this "I'm so terrified of another guy's weenie" crap would end in religion, the scared straight men would shut up and stop trying to demonize the gay men whom they often use as a free escort service during their later married years, and sanity would prevail.
When he originally made his statement he claimed that the Buddha himself stated homosexuality was sexual misconduct --- he was asked "Where did the Buddha say this?", to which he replied "I don't know.". He was then asked "When did the Buddha say this?" and he likewise replied that he didn't know.
There's a humorous pseudo-Confucian analect that's quite appropriate when it comes to the Dalai Lama's erroneous pronouncement:
"It is better to shut one's mouth and appear ignorant, than open it and remove all doubt."
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/
There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.
Firstly, the supreme head of the Gelugpa school of Buddhism is His Holiness Gaden Tripa. HH Gaden Tri Lungrik Namgyal is currently the 101st Gaden Tripa in an unbroken lineage from Lama Tsongkhapa, the father of the Gelugpa tradition. While HH The Dalai Lama is probably the most well known Buddhist in the world as mentioned, he is the spiritual and temporal head of the exiled government of Tibet.
This is what HH Gaden Tripa said about homosexuality:
http://mahajana.net/texts/kopia_lokalna/interview_2003.pdf
Homosexuality seems to be getting more common in the world these days. Homosexuality,like heterosexuality, are both activities of samsara. Neither seems to be particularly better or worse than the other. Whether a man or woman is straight or gay does not make him or her any particularly better or worse than the other. In general, both are activities of lay people. Not that, however, that there is no karma involved in homosexuality, only that it is just like heterosexuality, another activity of samsara.
Secondly, Buddha said that we should look at his teachings and accept the teachings that is logical and make sense to us and discard the ones that don’t.
I’d personally discard this advice as it definitely doesn’t make sense to me.
I've written on this topic as follows:
http://fridae.com/lifestyle/2009/06/25/8540.is-it-okay-to-be-buddhist-and-gay
Sharon
http://www.twitter.com/sharonsaw
Many thanks for the clarification. While His Holiness Gaden Tripa is indeed the nominal head of the Gelug order, His Holiness the Dalai Lama is certainly the most influential. The Dalai Lama's words, therefore, carry more weight not only with Tibetans but also with Westerners. I should make it clear, however, that the Dalai Lama opposes any discrimination and, of course, violence, against gay people.
Still, point taken.
From www.merriam-webster.com:
1 : amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity
2 : meriting derisive laughter or scorn as absurdly inept, false, or foolish
Those people who are eliciting your derisive laughter with their amusing or laughable rules are among the most respectable people I have ever met.
I expect a lot more from you, Mr Shaheen.
"Should any bhikkhu chew or consume staple or non-staple food, having received it with his own hand from the hand of an unrelated bhikkhunī in an inhabited area, he is to acknowledge it: 'Friends, I have committed a blameworthy, unsuitable act that ought to be acknowledged. I acknowledge it.'"
"A bhikkhunī who has been fully accepted even for more than a century must bow down, rise up from her seat, salute with hands palm-to-palm over her heart, and perform the duties of respect to a bhikkhu even if he has been fully accepted on that very day. This rule is to be honored, respected, revered, venerated, never to be transgressed as long as she lives."
Plus there is a very long chapter explaining ad nauseum the types of semen (10!) and the various acceptable and unacceptable circumstances in which semen may appear.
In short, these rules don't have a lot to do with most of Buddhism as it is practiced today.
No offense was intended. The monks who most recently discussed the Vinaya (the Buddhist monastic code) with me were themselves amused and enjoyed regaling me with anecdotes.
Maybe it would have been better to say that the monastic code can sound ludicrous by today's standards. For instance, monks are prohibited from having sex with monkeys or corpses although no monk I spoke with had ever considered such things.
I could go on, and I see someone else has supplied a few examples. No disrespect was meant to monks who follow the Vinaya, rather, I cited the monastic code only to draw a distinction between what is expected of monks and what is expected of lay people. The aside is extraneous to the point at hand and really a matter of opinion, no more.
Thank you for your comment.
James Shaheen
I think the saner approach is that taken by the Zen Buddhists, who would tell you to worship Buddha if you want to, or if you don't, that's fine too. I am almost certain that if you asked a Zen master what he thought Buddha would say about same-sex marriage, he would smack you upside the head in response. And rightly so. What a ridiculous question to be asking a Zen master in the first place!
If you have to ask
The Dali who?
I wonder if some day we'll wonder what the Flying Spaghetti Monster has to say to us about our sexualities?.