LGBT community and Buddhism describes the relationship between members of the LGBT community and the teachings of Buddhism. Various traditions and teachers in Buddhism have held different views on the subject of homosexuality. According to some scholars, early Buddhism appears to have placed no special stigma on homosexual relations.[1]
Contents |
In Buddhism, the acceptability of homosexuality for a layperson is effectively not a religious matter.[2] "Sexual misconduct" is a broad term, subject to interpretation according to followers' social norms. Early Buddhism appears to have placed no special stigma on homosexual relations.[1]
The situation is different for monastics. For them, the Vinaya (code of monastic discipline) bans all sexual activity, but does so in purely physiological terms, making no moral distinctions among the many possible forms of intercourse it lists.[3]
Among Buddhists there is a wide diversity of opinion about homosexuality. Buddhism teaches that sensual enjoyment and desire in general, and sexual pleasure in particular, are hindrances to enlightenment, and inferior to the kinds of pleasure (see, e.g. pīti, a Pāli word often translated as "rapture") that are integral to the practice of jhāna. However, most Buddhists do not pursue skill in meditation or aim for enlightenment. For most, the goal is a pleasant life and, after death, a pleasant rebirth. For these Buddhists, enjoying sensual pleasures in a non-harmful way is normative.
Regarding transsexual people, the earliest texts mention the possibility of a person changing sexes; such a person is not barred from ordination, and if already ordained, simply changes orders.[4]
Within the earliest monastic texts such as the Vinaya (c. 4th century BCE), male monks are explicitly forbidden from having sexual relations with any of the four genders: male, female, ubhatovyanjañaka and paṇḍaka; various meanings of these words are given below. Later, the Buddha allowed the ordination of women, but forbade ordination to these other types of people.[5] The Buddha's proscriptions against certain types of people joining the monastic sangha (ordained community) are often understood to reflect his concern with upholding the public image of the sangha as virtuous; in some cases, this is explicitly stated. Social acceptability was vital for the sangha, as it could not survive without material support from lay society.[6]
The word ubhatovyanjañaka is usually thought to describe people who have both male and female sexual characteristics: hermaphrodites.[7] In the Vinaya, it is said that hermaphrodites should not be ordained, on account of the possibility that a hermaphrodite would entice a fellow monk or nun into having sex.[8]
The paṇḍaka is a complex category that is variously defined in different Buddhist texts. In the earliest texts, the word seems to refer to a socially stigmatized class of promiscuous, passive, probably transvestite homosexuals, who were possibly prostitutes.[9][10]
Paṇḍaka are categorized with others who are also excluded from ordination; either those with physical abnormalities such as deafness or dwarfism, or those who have committed crimes.[11] "The Story of the Prohibition of the Ordination of Pandaka" from the Vinaya explains that the ban is a response to the example of a monk with an insatiable desire to be sexually penetrated by men, who requested and received this from some animals handlers, who then in turn related the incident to the wider community and brought disgrace upon the sangha.[12][13]
Some modern commentators interpret the word ubhatovyanjañaka as including those who are not physical hermaphrodites, but display behavioral and psychological characteristics of both sexes, such as a woman who is attracted to other women.[14] 5th century Buddhist writer Buddhaghosa describes ubhatobyanjanaka as people with the body of one gender but the "power" of the other. Leonard Zwilling argues that in this account Buddhaghosa does not in fact describe hermaphroditism but rather bisexuality or homosexuality;[15] other writers dispute this.
In other texts, the term paṇḍaka can include those born sexually indeterminate or with no sex, eunuchs, those whose sexuality changes every half month, males who gain sexual satisfaction by performing fellatio on other men, and voyeurs. It sometimes includes males or females with any sexual dysfunction, such as impotence or irregular menstrual cycles. The common element seems to be those whose sexuality is either limited physiologically, or those who have "perverse" or extra sexuality. Together these "third sex" types are almost always portrayed negatively as a pariah class, especially in the earliest texts. In modern contexts, paṇḍaka is often interpreted to include lesbians, gay men, and transgender and intersex people,[16] although in ancient times, a man who sexually penetrated another man or a paṇḍaka was not himself considered a paṇḍaka.[9]
In the Samantapasadika, a work of the fifth century CE Theravadin commentator and scholar Buddhaghosa's, paṇḍaka are described as being filled with defiling passions (ussanakilesa), unquenchable lusts (avapasantaparilaha) and are dominated by their libido (parilahavegabhibhuta). Fourth century Buddhist writer Vasubandhu contends that the paṇḍaka has no discipline for spiritual practice, due to their defiling passions of both male and female sexes. They lack the moral fortitude to counter these passions because they lack modesty and shame. Incapable of showing restraint, such a being is abandoned by their parents and lacking such ties are unable to hold strong views.[17]
The Abhidharma states that a paṇḍaka cannot achieve enlightenment in their own lifetime, but must wait for reincarnation as a normal man or woman. Ananda—Buddha's cousin and disciple—was said to be a paṇḍaka in one of his many previous lives, as was the Buddhist nun Isidāsī (from the Therigatha). In both cases birth as a paṇḍaka was a result of poor karma, and the idea that being a paṇḍaka stems from bad behaviour in a previous life is common in Buddhist literature.[18]
Buddha's proscriptions against certain types of people joining the monastic sangha (ordained community) are often understood to reflect his concern with upholding the public image of the sangha as virtuous. Thus, sexually active people, especially those with unusual sexual tastes, and people of a third gender—along with criminals and disabled people—run the risk of bringing the order into disrepute. Peter Jackson, scholar of sexual politics and Buddhism in Thailand, speculates that the Buddha was initially reluctant to allow women to join the sangha for this reason. Jackson explains:
Buddhism, the middle path, has always been concerned with the maintenance of social order and since the Buddha's time the sangha has never claimed to provide a universal vehicle for the spiritual liberation of all individuals in society, explicitly excluding those who are considered to reflect badly on the monkhood in terms of prevailing social norms and attitudes.[19][6]
Social acceptability was vital for the sangha, as it could not survive without material support from lay society.[6]
The third sex are excluded from a variety of Buddhist practices (in addition to ordination):
In contrast, later texts, particularly Tibetan Buddhist writings, occasionally value paṇḍaka positively for their "middleness" and balance. The paṇḍaka in these Tibetan works is translated with the term ma ning—"genderless" or "without genitals".[25] The 13th century Tibetan monk Gyalwa Yang Gönpa, who was one of the significant figures in the early Drukpa Kagyu sect,[26] writes about ma ning as a balanced state between maleness and femaleness. Yang Gönpa describes ma ning as "the abiding breath between male exhalation and female inhalation" and "the balanced yogic channel, as opposed to the too tight male channel, and the too loose female one".[27]
Gampopa (12th century), one of the main early masters of the Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism, followed the Indian Buddhist tradition, starting with the third-century Hinayana texts of Vasubandhu, that oral and anal sex, whether with a man or a woman, are violations of the third precept regarding inappropriate sexual behavior. Longchenpa, the 13th century founder of the Nyingma school, citing the third-century Mahayana texts of the Indian master Asanga, elaborated that inappropriate sexual behavior also include the hands among inappropriate parts of the body for sexual activity.[28] Subsequent Tibetan masters from all four schools of Tibetan buddhism accept all these specifications as delineated in the earlier Indian Buddhist texts.
The current Dalai Lama follows the traditional Tibetan Buddhist assertion that inappropriate sexual behaviour includes lesbian and gay sex, and indeed any sex other than penis-vagina intercourse with one's own monogamous partner, including oral sex, anal sex, and masturbation.[29][30][31]
In early interviews,he stated in 1994 that "If someone comes to me and asks whether homosexuality is okay or not, I will ask 'What is your companion's opinion?' If you both agree, then I think I would say 'if two males or two females voluntarily agree to have mutual satisfaction without further implication of harming others, then it is okay'".[32]
However, in his 1996 book Beyond Dogma, he clearly states, "A sexual act is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended for sexual intercourse and nothing else ... homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact."[29][30][31]
In this discussion, it should be understood that the controversial topic is inappropriate sexual conduct for a Buddhist practitioner, as the Dalai Lama has repeatedly "voiced his support for the full recognition of human rights for all people, regardless of sexual orientation."[30] He explained in 1997:[33] "It's part of what we Buddhists call bad sexual conduct. Sexual organs were created for reproduction between the male element and the female element—and everything that deviates from that is not acceptable from a Buddhist point of view",[34] while penis-vagina non-procreative sex is not considered to be sexual misconduct.[34] The Dalai Lama admitted that there is a difference between the views of believers and unbelievers, "From a Buddhist point of view, men-to-men and women-to-women is generally considered sexual misconduct. From society's point of view, mutually agreeable homosexual relations can be of mutual benefit, enjoyable and harmless."[35] He cited the Indian Buddhist texts of Vasubandhu, Asanga, and Ashvaghosha as his source concerning what constitutes inappropriate sexual behavior.
Four years earlier, he had been unsure if a mutually agreeable non-abusive same sex relationship would be acceptable within the general principles of Buddhism. However, he had difficulty imagining the mechanics of homosexual sex, saying that nature had arranged male and female organs "in such a manner that is very suitable... Same-sex organs cannot manage well."[36] The Dalai Lama has repeatedly said to LGBT groups that he can't rewrite the texts. He thinks that this is the type of issue that would need to be discussed by a council of Buddhist elders from all Buddhist traditions. Only such a council could amend issues concerning Vinaya and ethics. The Dalai Lama also recommends the issue of the equality of women, particularly in monastic rituals and ceremonies, to be reconsidered and revised.[37]
In an interview with Wikinews, Tashi Wangdi, Representative to the Dalai Lama, further elaborated his perspective on these views. If a person was to engage in homosexuality, "a person would not be considered as following all the precepts of Buddhist principles. People don’t follow all the principles. Very few people can claim they follow all the principles. For instance, telling a lie. In any religion, if you ask if telling a lie is a sin—say Christian—they will say yes. But you find very few people who don’t at some point tell a lie. Homosexuality is one act, but you can’t say [a person who is homosexual is] not a Buddhist. Or someone who tells a lie is not a Buddhist. Or someone who kills an insect is not a Buddhist, because there’s a strong injunction against that."[38]
In Thailand, traditional accounts propose that "homosexuality arises as a karmic consequence of violating Buddhist proscriptions against heterosexual misconduct. These karmic accounts describe homosexuality as a congenital condition which cannot be altered, at least in a homosexual person's current lifetime, and have been linked with calls for compassion and understanding from the non-homosexual populace."[39] Some more recent Thai Buddhist accounts (from the late 1980s) have "described homosexuality as a wilful violation of "natural" (hetero)sexual conduct resulting from lack of ethical control over sexual impulses."[40] Peter Jackson, an Australian scholar of sexual politics and Buddhism in Thailand, writes that these positions represent "two broad schools of thought on homosexuality [which] are current among contemporary Thai Buddhist writers, one accepting, the other unaccepting. The key factor differentiating the divergent stances is the author's conceptualisation of the origin of homosexuality; those who, taking a liberal stance, maintain that it is a condition which is outside the conscious control of homosexual men and women and has its origins in past misdeeds, whereas those who maintain that homosexuality is a wilful violation of ethical and natural principles takes an antagonistic position."
Peter Jackson argues that AIDS in the 1980s brought about a shift of perception in Thailand regarding kathoeys, "placing homosexuality rather than gender at the focus of the concept", which was associated with "a shift in Buddhist attitudes from relative tolerance of homosexuality to condemnation."[41]
In 1989, the supreme governing body of the Thai sangha affirmed that "gays" (here translated from Thai kathoey) are prohibited from being ordained.[42] Their declaration has apparently gone unheeded in some quarters, as Phra Pisarn Thammapatee (AKA Phra Payom Kalayano), one of the most eminent monks in the country, demanded in 2003 that 1,000 gay monks be ousted from the sangha, and that better screening processes are put in place to keep out any gay postulants.[43]
Several writers have noted the strong historical tradition of open bisexuality and homosexuality among male Buddhist institutions in Japan. When the Tendai priest Genshin denounced monks "...who have accosted another's acolyte and wickedly violated him" in a text printed in 985 AD, the main offence seems to have been that the acolyte wasn't one's own.[44] Chigo Monogatari, "acolyte stories" of love between monks and their chigo were popular, and such relationships appear to have been commonplace, alongside sex with women. In the 15th century, maverick Zen monk Ikkyu Sojun (1394–1481) wrote, "follow the rule of celibacy and you are no more than an ass." Later, "exhausted with homosexual pleasures", he took a wife.
Western Christian travellers to Japan from the 16th century have noted (with distaste) the prevalence and acceptance of forms of homosexuality among Japanese Buddhists[45]—Jesuit priest Francis Cabral wrote in 1596 that "abominations of the flesh" and "vicious habits" were "regarded in Japan as quite honourable; men of standing entrust their sons to the bonzes to be instructed in such things, and at the same time to serve their lust".[46]
A 17th century Japanese Buddhist scholar, Kitamura Kigin, wrote that Buddha advocated homosexuality over heterosexuality for priests:
It has been the nature of men's hearts to take pleasure in a beautiful woman since the age of male and female gods, but to become intoxicated by the blossom of a handsome youth ... would seem to be both wrong and unusual. Nevertheless, the Buddha preached that [Mount] Imose[47] was a place to be avoided and the priests of the law entered this Way[48] as an outlet for their feelings, since their hearts were, after all, made of neither stone nor wood.[49] Like water that plunges from the peak of Tsukubane to form the deep pools of the Minano River, this love has surpassed in depth the love between women and men in these latter days. It plagues the heart not only of courtier and aristocrat but also of brave warriors. Even the mountain dwellers who cut brush for fuel have learned to take pleasure in the shade of young saplings." —Wild Azaleas (1676)
Popular Japanese legend attributed the introduction of homosexuality to Japan to Shingon founder Kukai, although scholars now dismiss the veracity of this assertion.[50] Nonetheless, the legend served to "affirm same sex relation between men and boys in seventeenth century Japan."[50]
About Buddhism and homosexuality in China, A. L. De Silva writes, "Generally the attitude has been one of tolerance. Matteo Ricci, the Jesuit missionary who lived in China for twenty-seven years from 1583, expressed horror at the open and tolerant attitude that the Chinese took to homosexuality and naturally enough saw this as proof of the degeneracy of Chinese society."[51]
Venerable Hsing Yun, one of the premier figures in contemporary Chinese Buddhism, has stated that Buddhism should never teach intolerance toward homosexuality, and that people should expand their minds.[52]
Marriage is an institution that reflects the values of the society that supports it. If the people of a society no longer believe that it is important to be married, then there is no reason why they cannot change the institution of marriage. Marriage is a custom. Customs can always be changed. We can find the same core point in this question as we have in others—the ultimate truth of the matter is that individuals can and should decide for themselves what is right. As long as they are not violating others or breaking the laws of the society in which they are living, then they are free to do what they believe is right. It is not for me or anyone else to tell them that they must get married if they want to live together. That is their choice and their choice alone.The same analysis can be applied to homosexuality. People often ask me what I think about homosexuality. They wonder, is it right, is it wrong? The answer is, it is neither right nor wrong. It is just something that people do. If people are not harming each other, their private lives are their own business; we should be tolerant of them and not reject them.
However, it will still take some time for the world to fully accept homosexuality. All of us must learn to tolerate the behavior of others. Just as we hope to expand our minds to include all of the universe, so we should also seek to expand our minds to include all of the many forms of human behavior.
Tolerance is a form of generosity and it is a form of wisdom. There is nothing anywhere in the Dharma that should ever lead anyone to become intolerant. Our goal as Buddhists is to learn to accept all kinds of people and to help all kinds of people discover the wisdom of the teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha.—Hsing Yun, Buddhism Pure and Simple, pp. 137–138
Hsing Yun is a bestselling author throughout the Sinosphere, as well as an advocate of Humanistic Buddhism, an approach to reform Chinese Buddhism to match the needs of contemporary laypeople. As such, his views may not be wholly reflective of the older Buddhist views in China, which sometimes associate homosexuality with the dangers of sexual desire.
An example of an older view in opposition to homosexuality is given by the traditional master, Hsuan Hua, an important figure for Buddhism in both China and the United States. Master Hsuan Hua stated that homosexuality "plants the seeds that lead to rebirth in the lower realms of existence".[53] However, this statement does not clearly explain whether it is the status of being a homosexual that causes the seeds, or whether the seeds are associated with homosexual desires. Master Hsuan Hua was known for his strict traditional Buddhist positions on morality, and against desire in general, which is viewed as a force of saṃsāra. In his commentary on the Sutra of Forty-two Chapters, he described homosexuality as behavior caused by confusion, as the product of sexual desires.[54]
In contrast to Buddhism in Asia, modern Buddhism in the Western world is typically associated with a concern for social equality—partly as a result of its largely middle-class intellectual membership base, and its philosophical roots in freethought and secular humanism.[55] When applying Buddhist philosophy to the question of homosexuality, western Buddhists often emphasize the importance the Buddha placed on tolerance, compassion, and seeking answers within one's self. They stress these overarching values rather than examining specific passages or texts. As a result, western Buddhism is often relatively gay-friendly, especially since the 1990s. As interpretation of what is sexual misconduct is an individual decision and not subject to judgment by any central authority, a view of accepting all peoples, but rejecting certain types of sexual acts is more predominant. LGBT people such as Issan Dorsey, Caitriona Reed, Pat Enkyo O'Hara and Soeng Hyang have been ordained as Buddhist monastics and clergy.
An interesting position comes from the western scholar Alexander Berzin, "The texts in Buddhist traditions have been written from the point of view of a heterosexual male. We need to explore the intention of the teachings on sexual misconduct, which ultimately is to eliminate attachment, obsessive desire and dissatisfaction. If a heterosexual male finds no bounds to these disturbing emotions, he might have sex with someone elses partner, as well as other men. We can apply the same logic and explore what constitutes boundless attachment and dissatisfaction for homosexual and bisexual males or females. For example, having sex with somebody elses partner and so on could be destructive for these types of person as well".[37]
The Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche, holder of the Karma Kagyu and Nyingma lineages, in a 2008 talk delivered to LGBT Dharma practitioners at the Shambhala Meditation Center of New York, stressed that for vajrayana lay practitioners, homosexual relationships are no better or worse than heterosexual relationships and that only unhealthy relationships in general are to be avoided.[56] Both the Nalandabodhi sangha, which was founded by The Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche, and the Shambhala sanghas founded by Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche have stated that they are welcoming of all sexual orientations.[57][58] The Shambhala Meditation Center of New York hosts a weekly practice group, Queer Dharma, specifically catering to the needs of the LGBTQ Buddhist community.[59] According to the Danish Karma Kagyu Lama Ole Nydahl, Buddha saw homosexuality as circumstances making life more difficult, but also explained the reason for homosexuality could be aversion against the opposite sex in a former life.[60] Nydahl says however that sexual orientation is not really important in order to practice Buddhism.[60]
The U.S. branch of Soka Gakkai International, a Japan-based new religious movement (Shinshūkyō) influenced by Nichiren Buddhism, announced in 1995 that they would start holding wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples,[61] and in 2001 established a conference for LGBT members and their supporters.[62] A Buddhist temple in Salt Lake City connected with Jodo Shinshu, another Japanese school of Buddhism, also holds religious rites for same-sex couples.[63]
Another Buddhist organization founded in the West, Juniper Foundation, wrote an article A Buddhist Vote for Same Sex Marriage demonstrating how Buddhist thinking embraces same-sex marriage:
The heart of Buddhist thought is its insight philosophy, which uses critical inquiry to challenge dogma and to reveal how seemingly fixed ideas are more arbitrary than we might think. Applying this philosophy, we see that social customs are not fixed laws but evolving conventions that serve a purpose in a particular culture and time. Marriage is one of these conventions. It is not a rigid law but a social custom that evolves.[64]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||