Before we discuss what Theravada Buddhism says about homosexually, it is important to understand that in Buddhism people are encouraged to look into inwardly when seeking guidance or a solution to a problem. In the words of Lord Buddha himself “be a lamp to yourself” which simply means do not search for wisdom outside of yourself, rather you should let your conscience be your guide and it is here that the teachings and scripts of Lord Buddha can be of assistance.
Generally speaking Lord Buddha did not say anything specifically about homosexuality because it has never being an issue, however this is not to say that there was no homosexual activity in the time of Lord Buddha. The Tripitaka (Buddhist scripts) refer to incidents of homosexuality and transexuallity. Specifically the Tripitaka highlights the case of a bhikku (monk) Wakkali who became a monk purely because he was physically attracted to how handsome Lord Buddha was. The Tripitaka also highlights a transsexual incident in which a married man with children was physically attracted to a monk, following this the man underwent metamorphosis and became a female and eventually married a man. Another section of the Tripitaka refers to an incident where a novice monk masturbated a high ordinated monk
While Buddhism itself makes no moral claim on any form of sexual behaviour, regardless of orientation, the vinaya (monastic rules) for monks, does states that monks are not allowed to enter their sex organ to bodily orifices (vagina, mouth or anus). But it makes no distinction between homosexual or heterosexual sex. Essentially monks are expected to be celibate so they cannot engage sex with anyone, including themselves. However it is important to note that the vinaya apply only to monks, there is nothing in the scripts that extend these rules to lay Buddhists.
The most important reference point lay practitioners of Buddhism have for homosexuality or sexual behaviour in Buddhism is contained within the third precept which refers to sexual misconduct. However this precept in itself is insufficient a guide as it makes no distinction in relation to sexual orientation or practice. In order to apply the principles within the third precept to homosexuality, one has to go back to the wider core Buddhist principle of “do no harm” and consider this precept in a holistic interpretation.
When considering the precept of sexual misconduct one can draw some specifics as to what is allowable and not. Issues of rape, adultery and paedophilia can be considered as incompatible with Buddhist teachings as they cause harm to others. Outside of these specificities one has to go beyond both ourselves and the scriptures in seeking a solution as to what is right or wrong in homosexuality, or as the famous Kalama Sutta puts it, “Revelation (anussana), tradition (parampara), the authority of the scriptures (pitakasampada) and one’s own point of view (ditthinijjhanakkhanti) are inadequate means of determining right and wrong.
Whether homosexuality is right or wrong is essentially a question of private morality. Having questioned the conventional basis of morality, the Buddha suggests criteria for making moral judgments. The criteria are what might be called the universalisability principle – to act towards others the way we would like them to act towards us. In the Samyutta Nikaya he uses this principle to advise against adultery. He says: “What sort of Dhamma practice leads to great good for oneself? A noble disciple should reflect like this: ‘If someone were to have sexual intercourse with my spouse I would not like it. Likewise, if I were to have sexual intercourse with another’s spouse they would not like that. For what is unpleasant to me must be unpleasant to another, and how could I burden someone with that?’ As a result of such reflection one abstains from wrong sexual desire, encourages others to abstain from it, and speaks in praise of such abstinence.”
So one must abstain from sexual practices which cause others harm. Whether you are gay or straight the most important thing in life is not to create harm and respect others lifestyles without creating them harm, this is a basic foundation of Buddhism as is the philosophy of seeking inner contentment, happiness and ease. Wherever you are and whatever you do, you must learn to accept and love yourself for what you are and feel at ease with yourself, and spread that ease across society.
Conventional modern day Sri Lankan morality is non accepting of homosexuals and homosexuality. The Dalai Lama recently stated that “if you want to be a Buddhist you cannot be a homosexual, full stop” surmises the modern day Sri Lankan approach to homosexuality. However this statement by the Dali Lama is totally without justification as there is nothing in the Buddhist scriptures to support this statement
Sri Lankan morality imposes guilt on homosexuals and Sri Lankan Law punishes it. The role of monks is to provide support to lay Buddhists in their day to day lives, yet currently monks live in fear of advising homosexuals because the may be labelled as homosexuals themselves. Sri Lanka is a Buddhist society and there is no place in the teachings of Lord Buddha for guilt and punishment. So how have we arrived today at the stage where the Dalai Lama can make such unjustified statements and Sri Lankan morality and legalisation opposes and punishes homosexuality?
The roots of this un-Buddhist approach to homosexuality can be traced back to the colonisation of Ceylon. There are stark differences between the pre colonial Ceylon and post colonial Sri Lankan attitude to homosexuality. The Ceylon attitude is illustrated in a 17th century book by Robert Knox An Historical Relation of the Island Ceylon in the East Indies
The un-Buddhist excommunication and punishment of openly practising homosexuals in Sri Lanka has its roots in the colonisation and modernisation of Sri Lankan Buddhism. As stated throughout this article the concept of what is right or wrong is based in morality which is directly derived from religion, or in the case in Buddhism, philosophy. The colonial powers brought with them and externally induced to Sri Lanka their own sense of morality derived from their own religion, namely Christianity. In relation to human biological reproduction practices (sex) contrasts can be drawn between the Christian religion and Buddhist philosophy. While the Christian Bible specifically categorises the spilling (spoiling) of Gods seed (sperm) as a sin, the Buddhist Scriptures contain no such reference.
As both Thailand and Sri Lanka share the same variety of Buddhism further analogies can be drawn here. Currently Thailand does not legally or morally punish homosexuality and adopts a more Buddhist approach to the matter preferring to adopt a live and let live philosophy so long as the principle of do no harm is adhered to. The main variable here the fact that Thailand was not subject to colonialism and therefore a purer and more traditional form of Buddhism has prevailed while the Sri Lankan form of Buddhism has been diluted, poisoned and rendered impure by its modernisation along the lines of western principles.
In order for Sri Lankan’s to be considered truly Buddhist they need to find inner ease and be happy with themselves and stop expecting others to live as they wish them to live. In order for Sri Lankan society to truly consider itself a Buddhist nation it needs to stop forcing its people to live as it wishes them to live.
The Buddhist theologians within Sri Lanka have a duty and an obligation to advocate for a return to the traditional and more tolerant teachings of Lord Buddha. It is not only homosexuals who will benefit from this return, the entire Island of Ceylon and all its people will benefit from the tolerance, acceptance, openness and celebration of difference that the Lord Buddha envisioned
this article is republished here with the kind permission of the original authors.
Posts
6 comments:
good article..
What Dalai Lama has to say about Buddhism dosnt mean a single thing in Sri Lanka. SL follows Therawada Buddhism, The Dalai Lama follows Mahayana.
Besides Sri Lanka is a gay friendly society.. How many people are actually "punished" for being gay in Sri Lanka a year?
All we have to do is go out in the street and there are men walking around holding hands (and women too I guess). No one gives a damn about them or thing it's "wrong".
Only time i here people gay bashing is when they want to do UNP bashing.
ohh great. i guess if you are talking about sri lanka in your comment, i ve been living in another sri lanka all this time. or else you are living in a dream world.
i dont know if you are gay or not, but with your understanding of the issue think you are not. i ll tell you one thing. try doing that "holding hands in public thing" and see what will happen.
what Dalai Lama say is not a problem to us directly. its true. but he is the most important and famous Buddhist icon to the rest of the world. hence what he says matters a lot to the world and with that in directly to us as well.
Even though Sri Lanka's population is mainly Buddhist, the minority Catholics and Muslims hold great power, out of proportion to the sizes of their communities, when it comes to the laws and revisions of laws. This is evident not only in Gay issues, but in other issues as well.
Buddhism in its true form is lost to most Sri Lankan Buddhists, so what they believe to be Buddhism is whatever the culture tells them it is. Culture is heavily influenced not only by Catholics, but in recent times also by Muslims who are quite vocal about what they think of gay people.
Most Sri Lankan Buddhist do not even know that there is no God in Buddhism, a central, essential part of the religion. If they did, they might understand that homosexuals are no different, better or worse than the rest of us. Sri Lanka should be leading the world in legalizing gay marriage and basically treating gays equal in every way. We can allow a Muslim to marry several wives, let them marry off their 12 year old daughters (both of which should be outlawed because of how it takes legal protection away from Muslim women and girls) but we can't treat gay people right in a Buddhist country. Pathetic, really. As a straight person, and someone who follows my own Buddhism, I've found this infuriating ever since I was 17 or 18, which is when I first became aware of the existence of homosexuality. I became quite vocal about their rights (because it bothered my sense of fairness) and got branded as a lesbian by some people at my international school. Apparently the only people who speak up about injustices in society are people who are directly affected by them. Why in the world would a straight person be so concerned? She must be lesbian. It did shut me up. Since the school was co-ed, I didn't want to lose the attention of the boys by being branded a lesbian.
It is sad that here in the U.S. the laws are now more progressive for homosexuals than back home in Buddhist Lanka.
@jeev
you are very true. many straight people who believe in equal rights for gay people are afraid to be branded as gay. so they keep their mouth shut. its sad.
about loosing the attention of boys........
guys like lesbians more.... thinking that there can be a 3 way with the girl and her "friend"
:-)
Hmmm... I should've mentioned that I was 17, like 20 years ago. I haven't been quiet or silent about my support for gay rights since my early twenties. That was just a blip in my teen years when I was a little too insecure and a little too socially awkward, just having transitioned from an all girls government school to a co-ed international school. I soon learned how and when to say things and still express by beliefs and justice for all. I also must stress that I didn't like being branded lesbian NOT because I thought or believe it is lesser or inferior in any way. But only because that's not what I am. It would have served no purpose to be identified as what I am not.
It saddens me to hear you say that a lot of straight people don't express their support for fear of being branded gay. I hope these are not grown ups you are talking about. There is no reason to be afraid. I went through that for a couple of years maybe, while I was 17-18, and quickly outgrew it. I sincerely hope, normal functioning adults are not afraid to express their view and support. All minorities and discriminated groups NEED the majority support to have the status-quo changed. Never in history has this been accomplished without the widespread support of the unaffected majority. So straight support is essential to the cause.
As for Buddhism, I love Buddhism because it is so all-inclusive and reality-based. What is in nature and natural (like homosexuality) is all good in Buddhism. I love that. However, even if Buddhism was against homosexuality, I still would have supported it. Basically, while I love that my religion is so great, it is not the religion that makes me support gay rights. It is what comes from within me. I have no hesitation about dropping parts of Buddhism that I don't find appealing or agree with. For example, anything that puts women even one rung below men. I don't believe any of that. A nun who's been ordinated for a 100 years must cowtow to a just-ordinated novice monk! What BS. I have no problem filtering out that stuff from Buddhism. That is what Buddha had to do because of the times he lived in to have nuns at all. Such was the resistance against women. It has nothing to do with eternal laws or the spirit of Buddhism. So if Buddhism had banned gays, I would've said, I don't care. That's what I love about Christian and the rare Muslims (at least here in the U.S.) who go against their religions, think for themselves and support gay rights.
Post a Comment