lonelywombat
January 14th, 2012, 10:43
posted Bangkok Post 14 jan
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/2 ... f-buddhism (http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/275069/does-a-coyote-dancing-gay-monk-spell-end-of-buddhism)" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The ear-slapping customs official abusing his power at Suvarnabhumi Airport was not the only act of inappropriate behaviour caught on camera this week. Video footage of a man dancing like a Soi Cowboy coyote dancer has also been circulated through social networking sites and the Thai media.
Those contemplating joining the monkhood should first try and walk a mile barefoot.
Many might argue that men in Thailand dancing like coyotes is a pretty regular occurrence, so what made this time different? The fact that the booty-shaking man in question was a fully ordained monk!
I am sad to say, but my previous statement is probably not entirely true. This dancing monk is only the latest example of what has become a pretty regular thing among monks as well. So, nothing out of the ordinary here.
Images of novices and monks partaking in homosexual activities can easily be found all over the net. Not that I've ever looked, my mate told me about them.
Now Thai people tend to forget things pretty quickly, so the last incident to hit the headlines back on Dec 18, when four male prostitutes alleged that monks had been paying for their services, is but a distant memory.
For now, however, the image of an 80kg man in saffron robes shaking his backside seems to have stuck in people's minds. Religious, Dhamma web boards are now full of concerned Buddhists debating whether homosexuals should be allowed into the monkhood.
There also seems to be a lot of argument over what constitutes as homosexual with regard to Buddhism and who is allowed to ordain. So before we can decide if gays can be monks we should, of course, define what "gay" is.
The original term used in the Tripitaka to describe someone excluded from ordaining was a "pandakas" or "ubhatobyanjanaka". There is much argument over the meaning of these words with regard to modern definitions.
Peter A Jackson, a professor of Thai cultural studies at the College of Asia and the Pacific, the Australian National University, argues that the words traditionally refer to hermaphrodites.
It is only because they have been translated and interpreted by more modern languages that they have come to mean homosexual. For example, the Thai Sangha has the term written as kathoey rather than khon song phes.
Once we get through the discussion on who exactly the Tripitaka is against becoming a monk, the real fun begins. Let's assume for a moment that, yes, the Lord Buddha did indeed want a "don't ask, don't tell" operation. How exactly then do you define who is a homosexual?
Well, the Tripitaka has an answer to that, too.
The problem is, the definition of who is homosexual according to the Tripitaka, sounds like it was written by the Brothers Grimm.
There are at least five types of homosexuals according to the list (I swear I'm not making this up):
1. Men who enjoy performing oral sex on other men and ingesting semen.
2. Men who enjoy watching other men perform sexual intercourse.
3. Men who become attracted to men during a full moon.
4. Hermaphrodites.
5. Eunuchs.
While eunuchs somehow made the list, I was surprised to see that "men who enjoy a loving relationship with a male life-partner" was omitted.
No matter. A wiser man than me wrote this list, so I will not argue. Now, according to the Tripitaka, the first two types of homosexuals listed are still permitted to be ordained as monks. The final three are not allowed, which is strange as they seem the least gay to me.
While traditionalists, liberals and purveyors of human rights argue over whether homosexuals should have the right to following the teachings of Buddha in whichever manner they see fit, I can't help but wonder if this is all a non-issue?
The basic ideals of Buddhism are supposedly to achieve a life free from struggle, and thus attain Nirvana, through the elimination of desire and want. Anyone, gay or straight, seriously considering becoming a monk should be prepared to rid themselves of sexual desire, no matter who they lust after.
Essentially, once you put on the robes you should be prepared to consider yourself as asexual as Cliff Richard.
If this is true, which I absolutely believe it is, then the Sangha, at least if they believe in the ability of their institution, have nothing to fear.
Perhaps instead of fighting to prohibit an entire social group from partaking in our country's national religion, the Sangha should be looking to their own house? Why is it that so many people who have clearly forgotten or ignore the tenets of Buddhism are able to enter monkhood and disrespect the religion so blatantly?
It is not homosexuals that are ruining the monkhood, it is poor teaching and a society that uses the act of ordaining to their own personal benefit. Becoming a monk to make parents happy, to get rid of unwanted children, to avoid dealing with the pressures of modern society are not good reasons to ordain.
You should only become a monk if you are willing to leave your past life behind and embrace the rules set by Buddha. If you're not, then you are doing nothing but disrespecting everything the religion stands for, whether you're gay or straight.
Arglit Boonyai is Multimedia Editor, Bangkok Post.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/2 ... f-buddhism (http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/275069/does-a-coyote-dancing-gay-monk-spell-end-of-buddhism)" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The ear-slapping customs official abusing his power at Suvarnabhumi Airport was not the only act of inappropriate behaviour caught on camera this week. Video footage of a man dancing like a Soi Cowboy coyote dancer has also been circulated through social networking sites and the Thai media.
Those contemplating joining the monkhood should first try and walk a mile barefoot.
Many might argue that men in Thailand dancing like coyotes is a pretty regular occurrence, so what made this time different? The fact that the booty-shaking man in question was a fully ordained monk!
I am sad to say, but my previous statement is probably not entirely true. This dancing monk is only the latest example of what has become a pretty regular thing among monks as well. So, nothing out of the ordinary here.
Images of novices and monks partaking in homosexual activities can easily be found all over the net. Not that I've ever looked, my mate told me about them.
Now Thai people tend to forget things pretty quickly, so the last incident to hit the headlines back on Dec 18, when four male prostitutes alleged that monks had been paying for their services, is but a distant memory.
For now, however, the image of an 80kg man in saffron robes shaking his backside seems to have stuck in people's minds. Religious, Dhamma web boards are now full of concerned Buddhists debating whether homosexuals should be allowed into the monkhood.
There also seems to be a lot of argument over what constitutes as homosexual with regard to Buddhism and who is allowed to ordain. So before we can decide if gays can be monks we should, of course, define what "gay" is.
The original term used in the Tripitaka to describe someone excluded from ordaining was a "pandakas" or "ubhatobyanjanaka". There is much argument over the meaning of these words with regard to modern definitions.
Peter A Jackson, a professor of Thai cultural studies at the College of Asia and the Pacific, the Australian National University, argues that the words traditionally refer to hermaphrodites.
It is only because they have been translated and interpreted by more modern languages that they have come to mean homosexual. For example, the Thai Sangha has the term written as kathoey rather than khon song phes.
Once we get through the discussion on who exactly the Tripitaka is against becoming a monk, the real fun begins. Let's assume for a moment that, yes, the Lord Buddha did indeed want a "don't ask, don't tell" operation. How exactly then do you define who is a homosexual?
Well, the Tripitaka has an answer to that, too.
The problem is, the definition of who is homosexual according to the Tripitaka, sounds like it was written by the Brothers Grimm.
There are at least five types of homosexuals according to the list (I swear I'm not making this up):
1. Men who enjoy performing oral sex on other men and ingesting semen.
2. Men who enjoy watching other men perform sexual intercourse.
3. Men who become attracted to men during a full moon.
4. Hermaphrodites.
5. Eunuchs.
While eunuchs somehow made the list, I was surprised to see that "men who enjoy a loving relationship with a male life-partner" was omitted.
No matter. A wiser man than me wrote this list, so I will not argue. Now, according to the Tripitaka, the first two types of homosexuals listed are still permitted to be ordained as monks. The final three are not allowed, which is strange as they seem the least gay to me.
While traditionalists, liberals and purveyors of human rights argue over whether homosexuals should have the right to following the teachings of Buddha in whichever manner they see fit, I can't help but wonder if this is all a non-issue?
The basic ideals of Buddhism are supposedly to achieve a life free from struggle, and thus attain Nirvana, through the elimination of desire and want. Anyone, gay or straight, seriously considering becoming a monk should be prepared to rid themselves of sexual desire, no matter who they lust after.
Essentially, once you put on the robes you should be prepared to consider yourself as asexual as Cliff Richard.
If this is true, which I absolutely believe it is, then the Sangha, at least if they believe in the ability of their institution, have nothing to fear.
Perhaps instead of fighting to prohibit an entire social group from partaking in our country's national religion, the Sangha should be looking to their own house? Why is it that so many people who have clearly forgotten or ignore the tenets of Buddhism are able to enter monkhood and disrespect the religion so blatantly?
It is not homosexuals that are ruining the monkhood, it is poor teaching and a society that uses the act of ordaining to their own personal benefit. Becoming a monk to make parents happy, to get rid of unwanted children, to avoid dealing with the pressures of modern society are not good reasons to ordain.
You should only become a monk if you are willing to leave your past life behind and embrace the rules set by Buddha. If you're not, then you are doing nothing but disrespecting everything the religion stands for, whether you're gay or straight.
Arglit Boonyai is Multimedia Editor, Bangkok Post.