Buddism and Homosexuality

Hi All,

It's been awhile but thought I'd offer up an interesting post. One of my 'students' left me an IM this morning with this message:

Thompson Nguyen: in buddhism,
Thompson Nguyen: does it say ANYTHING about homosexuality?
Thompson Nguyen: Sage?

So I e-mailed him the two pieces of explicit information I knew on the subject. As an afterthought I decided to post them here as well in two parts. Here is part one, please forgive the 'bloated whale' of my post if it's a boring read for you. :profileright:

Discussion, comments, criticisms anyone? :thumbright:


Buddhism and Homosexuality
By Kerry Trembath
INTRODUCTION
In browsing through the Net, I have come across a number of articles relating to religion and homosexuality. Almost all of these assume a Judeo-Christian viewpoint, perhaps with passing references to Islam and an occasional glance over the shoulder at the ancient Greeks and Romans. As I am a practicing Buddhist, I would like to share with you my perspective on how homosexuality is treated in Buddhism. We should start with a very brief outline of Buddhism, particularly in relation to how the Buddha advised us to regulate our behavior.

WHAT IS BUDDHISM?
This is not an easy question to answer, because Buddhism is comprised of many systems of belief and practice, or what we call traditions. These traditions have developed in different times and different countries, and in some degree of isolation from each other. Each has developed distinctive features which to a casual observer might appear to be major differences. However, these differences are frequently merely cultural overlays, and in other cases they are only differences in emphasis or approach. All traditions in fact are underpinned by a central core of common belief and practice.

THE TEACHINGS OF THE BUDDHA
One of the fundamental insights achieved by the Buddha through his experience of enlightenment was his analysis of suffering or unhappiness. This has been passed down to us in the form of a teaching which is traditionally described as the Four Noble Truths:

The first of these truths is that life is characterized by suffering. Most human endeavor is concerned with trying to avoid suffering and achieve happiness.

The second identifies the causes of suffering. Directly or indirectly, all the suffering we experience is caused by craving and ignorance. We crave so many things, and our ignorance leads us to believe that these things will make us happy.

The third states that it is possible to transcend suffering and attain the freedom and contentment of Nirvana. This is the state attained by the Buddha, where all the characteristics we associate with this existence (birth, death, movement in time and space, and the feeling of being a separate self) do not apply.

The fourth states that the way leading to the end of suffering is eightfold, and involves the cultivation of our speech, action, livelihood, thought, understanding, mindfulness, effort and concentration. These are sometimes summarized in three groups - morality, concentration/meditation and wisdom.


BUDDHIST PRECEPTS
Let us look more closely at morality, which provides the essential behavioral foundation on which further mental cultivation and spiritual development can take place. Ordinary Buddhists (i.e. those who are not monks or nuns) try to live in accordance with five precepts, which are in effect promises or undertakings which we make to ourselves. Ordained Buddhists take vows to observe additional precepts, including celibacy. The usual English translation of the five precepts is:
I undertake to observe the precept to abstain from

destroying or harming living beings

taking things not given

sexual misconduct

false speech

taking anything that causes intoxication or heedlessness.
Observation of these precepts helps in cultivating the positive virtues of

compassion

generosity and non-attachment

contentment

truthfulness

mental clarity and mindfulness.
These are not commandments, but training rules which Buddhists undertake voluntarily. They are undertaken not because we fear punishment by a deity but for our own benefit and the welfare of all other living beings. Buddhists believe that everything is subject to cause and effect, and all volitional actions have karmic consequences. If we do not behave in accordance with the precepts, we will cause suffering to others and ultimately make ourselves unhappy too.

HOMOSEXUALITY AND SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
The third of the five precepts refers to sexual behavior. In the Theravada tradition of Buddhism, with which I am most familiar, the third precept is perhaps more precisely rendered as "I undertake the rule of training not to go the wrong way for sexual pleasure". What then would constitute "going the wrong way" and would this include homosexual acts? To determine this, we need to consider the criteria which Buddhists are advised to use in making ethical judgments. From the Buddha's discourses, there can be discerned three bases on which we can make judgments about our behavior:


we should consider the consequences of our actions, their effects on ourselves and others

we should consider how we would feel if others did the same thing to us

we should consider whether the behavior is instrumental to our goal of Nirvana.
Using these criteria, Buddhist commentators have usually construed sexual misconduct to include rape, sexual harassment, molestation of children, and unfaithfulness to one's spouse. Clearly, these manifestations of sexual misconduct can apply equally to homosexual and heterosexual behavior. The third precept is not a blanket prohibition, nor a simplistic depiction of some behaviors as wrong and other behaviors as right.
In fact, Buddhist ethics have been described as utilitarian, in that they are concerned less with "good" and "evil" and more with whether an action is "skillful", i.e. conductive to a good end in relation to the criteria mentioned above and whether it is motivated by good intentions (based upon generosity, love and understanding) 2.
The sayings of the Buddha, as recorded in the Pali Canon, do not I believe include any explicit reference to homosexuality or to homosexual acts. This has been taken to mean that the Buddha did not consider that one's sexual orientation was relevant to his message, which was how to escape from suffering and achieve enlightenment. If it was not important enough to mention, homosexuality could not have been considered a barrier to one's moral and spiritual development.
On the other hand, the Buddha's teachings in no way exhort us to a life of hedonistic pursuit of pleasure, sexual or otherwise. While the Buddha did not deny the existence of enjoyment in this world, he pointed out that all worldly pleasure is bound up with suffering, and enslavement to our cravings will keep us spinning in a vortex of disappointment and satiation. The Buddhist's objective is not to eliminate sensual pleasures but to see them as they are through the systematic practice of mindfulness.
One feature of Buddhism which may interest gays and lesbians is that the teachings place no particular value on procreation. Marriage and the raising of children are seen as positive but are by no means compulsory. On the contrary, celibacy is in most traditions considered to be a requirement for those seeking higher levels of development as Buddhists. Monks and nuns take vows of strict celibacy, and even pious lay people undertake to be celibate at certain times in order to pursue their mental and spiritual development. This means that from the religious perspective there is no stigma which is necessarily attached to being unmarried and childless, although there may of course be social and cultural pressures which override this.

BUDDHIST DEPICTIONS OF SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS
Buddhist texts contain many examples of deeply affectionate relationships between members of the same sex. One of the most popular of all Buddhist texts, the Jatakas, comprises a large collection of stories of the lives of the Buddha before his final life on this earth. The Jatakas repeatedly extol love and devotion between men, although this is never of an overtly sexual nature. In these stories the bodhisattva, or Buddha-to-be, is often shown as having a close male companion or attendant. Other texts describing the life of the historical Buddha relate the lifetime friendship of the Buddha and Ananda, who was his constant companion and personal attendant. Some writers have seen homoerotic elements in these texts 3. It is sufficient to say that loving relationships between unmarried men are treated very positively in Buddhist scriptures.
Unfortunately, it cannot be said that homosexuals in countries where Buddhists are in the majority are any more free from prejudice and discrimination than they are in other countries. Everywhere it has taken root, Buddhism has absorbed aspects of the dominant culture, and this has sometimes been to its detriment. Neither is it true to say that people who espouse Buddhism are themselves any more free from prejudiced views than those of other persuasions. However it is clear that there is nothing in the Buddha's teachings to justify condemnation of homosexuality or homosexual acts. It seems to me that many gays and lesbians, particularly in Western countries, are drawn to Buddhism because of its tolerance and its reluctance to draw rigid moral lines, although of course I have no hard evidence for this.

CONCLUSION
From my readings of the Buddhist texts, and from the answers of the Buddhist monks I have questioned on this issue, I have concluded that, for lay Buddhists, any sexual act would not be breaking the third precept

where there is mutual consent,

where there is no harm done to anyone,

where the breaking of a commitment to another person is not involved,

and where our intention is to express affection with respect, and give pleasure to each other.

This would apply irrespective of the gender or sexual orientation of the parties involved. The same principles would be used to evaluate all relationships and sexual behaviour, whether heterosexual or homosexual.
* * * * * * * * * *

POSTSCRIPT: BUDDHISM AND GOD
I feel I must take issue with the assertion that belief in and reverence for deities is necessarily a defining characteristic of religions. Buddhism clearly meets most definitions of a religion, yet it is possible to practice as a Buddhist with no belief in a God or superhuman being(s)4. Buddhism does not deny the existence of gods or of other worlds, and indeed the devotional practices of many Buddhist traditions involve the veneration and invocation of special beings such as Avalokitesvara (known as Kwan Yin to many Chinese, or Kannon to the Japanese). However, at its core Buddhism is a non-theistic religion and, unlike other world religions, Buddhism is not a doctrine of revelation. The Buddha did not claim to be the bearer of a message from on high. He made it clear that what he taught he had discovered for himself through his own efforts.
The Buddha himself is revered not as a deity or supernatural being but as a very special kind of human being. He was a human who achieved the ultimate in development of his human potential. The Buddha taught that this achievement is within the reach of every human being, and he spent his life teaching a practical methodology which, if followed with purity of mind and great diligence, would enable others to reach the same objective. In other words, he taught a method rather than a doctrine. When questioned about the validity of his teachings, the Buddha did not refer to the higher authority of a deity. He explained that his teachings were based on his own direct personal experience, and he invited all who were interested to test for themselves whether the method he taught was effective.
________________________________________

References:
1. There are many excellent introductions to Buddhism on the Web. Two good sources which emanate from my own country, Australia, are: The Buddhist Council of New South Wales, an Introduction to Buddhism by Graeme Lyall at http://www.zip.com.au/~lyallg/buddh.html and BuddhaNet, operated by the Venerable Pannavaro at http://www2.hawkesbury.uws.edu.au/BuddhaNet/

2 A L De Silva, Homosexuality and Theravada Buddhism, not currently in print, but can be found at http://www2.hawkesbury.uws.edu.au/BuddhaNet/

3 Leonard Zwilling, Homosexuality As Seen in Indian Buddhist Texts, in Buddhism, Sexuality and Gender, edited by Jose Ignacio Cabezon, State University of New York Press, New York, 1992.
4 William Herbrechtsmeier, Buddhism and the Definition of Religion: One More Time, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1993, 32 (1), 1-18.

Email the author Kerry Trembath

[x in pattaya]

Rather a lot to digest, but some thoughts:


The deed which causes remorse afterwards and results in weeping and tears is ill-done. The deed which causes no remorse afterwards and results in joy and happiness is well-done.

This is what might be called the consequential principle, that behaviour can be considered good or bad according to the consequences or effects it has.

Rather simplistically stated criteria, if remorse & tears or their absence determines what is or is not well done. In fact we are usually indoctrinated by our families & culture in what should generate remorse, and the degree of our reactions also seems to be determined by our own set of emotions & hormones. People have done a lot of things sure in the belief that they are serving the greater good and proud/ joyful in their accomplishments ... Nazis, practioners of Apartheid or Jim Crow, Jim Jones, suicide bombers, Timothy McVeigh ....

Consequences may be the result of behavior, but quite often repeated behavior is the result of its consequences тАж or so Skinner & other behaviorists would have us believe.



If a deed is motivated by good (based upon generosity, love and understanding) intentions it can be considered skillful.

There are times when we do things that we feel express our generosity, love and understanding, but when we look back on them or when others consider them, the motivation can seem largely self-serving & intended to gain some benefit to ourselves.

Would these acts be considered skillful in one time frame or from one perspective and then become unskillful after the passage of time or a change in viewing position?


In another passage, the Buddha says that someone practicing the third Precept "avoids intercourse with girls still under the ward of their parents, brothers, sisters or relatives, with married women, with female prisoners or with those already engaged to another." Girls still under the protection of others are presumably too young to make a responsible decision about sex, prisoners are not in a position to make a free choice, while an engaged woman has already made a commitment to another. Although only females are mentioned here no doubt the same would apply to males in the same position.

Is SOMEONE only MALE ? It sounds like prescriptions about sexual behavior are only being addressed to men. Given the vast amount written concerning behavior it seems that this does explicitly address men and only men who would be engaged in intercourse with women.

Why not address women who choose to have sex with men, or same sex sexual relations? Why only girls under the protection of their parents or only female prisoners? Are boys not protected?

If someone claims to build a position defining BuddhismтАЩs attitude toward homosexuality based on the religious writings and then resorts to extrapolating with comments like:тАЭ no doubt the same would apply to males,тАЭ then thatтАЩs based on the authorтАЩs assumptions, not textual authority.



What then would constitute "going the wrong way" and would this include homosexual acts? To determine this, we need to consider the criteria which Buddhists are advised to use in making ethical judgments. тАж

In fact, Buddhist ethics have been described as utilitarian, in that they are concerned less with "good" and "evil" and more with whether an action is "skillful", i.e. conductive to a good end in relation to the criteria mentioned above and whether it is motivated by good intentions (based upon generosity, love and understanding)

Certainly people do things motivated by (what they believe to be) generosity & love, and their (culturally inculcated) understanding, and the unanticipated consequences can be horrendous despite their intentions.

As Samuel Johnson or some such said,тАЭ The road to hell is paved with good intentions.тАЭ

I should add that I am not questioning what Buddhism teaches or fails to address on certain subjects, but I think the author of the article who claims he is providing insight into what Buddhism says about homosexuality has done a very superficial job and at times simply inserts his own feelings into his commentary without any reference to authoritative sources.

As a practising Buddhist, I found the author's explanation of Buddhism sound and coherent . Understandably it is somewhat simplistic. And his points about Buddha and god were useful. Gutama Buddha specifically stated that he was not a god. Buddhism is certainly not theistic.

Then the author attempts to justify homosexuality from a Buddhist perspective. I have no problem with that. Over the centuries, men have attempted to explain just about everything using the teachings of the founders of the belief systems.

The article has to be seen as just that - an interpretation. If it fails it is partly because the perceived attitudes of others don't coincide with his. The second post here is such an example. It also might fail as the original teachings rarely specifically refer to any one issue and if this does happen it is usually imprecise. There is the added problem for us today attempting to comprehend the nature of things of those times.

The key issue is the five precepts. Whilst they are very fine concepts, they are understandably vague. They are not laws but rather ideals that an individual attempts to rationalise for himself. Here Buddhism differs markedly from say Christianity which does prescribe laws such as the ten commandments, that have to be obeyed.

As I've said elsewhere, the issue can't be resolved as the term homosexuality hasn't been defined. I'm happy to say that just what homosexuality is and isn't is not known properly at all. So any attempt to justify one's attitude to it is doomed to failure.

I must add that the antics of many posters to this forum certainly violate the precept of destroying or harming living beings. Abusing young men for one's own personal gratification is not only a violation of this precept but in my opinion, it is not homosexual behaviour.

[x in pattaya]

The article has to be seen as just that - an interpretation. If it fails it is partly because the perceived attitudes of others don't coincide with his. The second post here is such an example. It also might fail as the original teachings rarely specifically refer to any one issue and if this does happen it is usually imprecise. There is the added problem for us today attempting to comprehend the nature of things of those times..

I have no problem with that, but when one sets out to teach or explain something he has to consider his audience. There is little point in teaching something only to those who already possess the same attitudes, understandings and experiences.

I also agree that the broader precepts indicate how one should behave. I wouldn't call them vague as you do. But the author(s) of the articles then proceed to try to align specific quotations to fit the point he is trying to make, and in doing so he seems to fail to make his case whereas he might have succeeded without using the quotations.

I have no intention of becoming a Buddhist, but what I have been able to understand of its teachings has been useful to me. Some things I have read or heard are fairly incomprehensible while others seem quite clear. I find I am better able to read things written by native English speakers, but generally I find that native English speakers lack depth or fundamental understanding. Their approach seems more academic and less practical.

I have listened to some Thai monks responding to questions (with both questions & answers translated into English more or less successfully) and found their answers to be quite understandable, practical and based on their own fundamental understanding. Their approach was to address the people who posed the questions, not just those who already had the same attitudes as the monks had.

I can easily understand that two men in a caring relationship would best describe a homosexual relationship and stand a better chance of conforming to Buddhist ideals; and that what most of us talk about on this board is exploitation in one form or another. But then Buddhism exists in the real world, in fact it came into existence because human behavior was counterproductive in achieving happiness.

For those of us who have spent our lives in situations that didnтАЩt allow us to form an ideal homosexual relationship and now want to enjoy some intimacy with someone who appeals to us sexually, I wonder what the Buddhist solution would be.

If we establish a long-term relationship with a considerably younger man, allowing him a more comfortable existence and helping him to establish a better life for himself and his family, is this potentially suitable in terms of the Buddhist philosophy? Not quite the same thing as having sex with different strangers every night for cash, but is someone still necessarily exploiting someone else unjustly even in these longer term relationships?

I find it frustrating that what little I have been able to comprehend about Buddhism has been a truly awakening experience, but that so much remains incomprehensible. Undoubtedly thatтАЩs because I carry a lot of conflicting baggage with me, but also I think there are not that many teachers of Buddhist philosophy who can make the concepts available to western minds тАж or at least IтАЩve only come across a few so far.

You have made excellent points! Firstly, I agree that the real purpose of teaching is to expose ideas to those without them. For example I have always queried the need to teach rock 'n roll to secondary students. But this wasn't my point above. This is an area of belief. When someone has established beliefs, it's almost impossible trying to convince him to change them. I feel that the author Tembath (whom I respect by the way) is not attempting to teach per se. Rather he is offering an explanation of his perceived understanding of Buddhism wrt homosexuality. Hence someone with contrary views of homosexuality will not accept his interpretation. It is likely they will be examining different issues. We don't know what Trembath's idea of what homosexuality is. Perhaps it is the same one that you bring up - two men in a caring and intimate relationship. I said before that we must first ensure that we are talking about the same thing.

I was truly convergent with your thoughts on understanding Buddhism. For those brought up on a different system, such as Christianity, the contrast is remarkable. But I want to suggest that acquiring Buddhism successfully is not determined by language. Though it is hard here finding a local sufficiently bi-lingual to achieve this. I have the notion that the hardest thing for a Westerner to cope with is that Buddhism is not really a religion at all, rather a philosophy of life. It is an introverted system, whereas Christianity is extroverted. Is that too simplistic? Buddhism challenges many fundamental Western beliefs and for a Westerner to take on Buddhism requires I feel a rejection of the Western lifestyle, at least to some extent.

I don't think it matters if a Westerner has but an intellectual approach. Buddhism doesn't require overt behaviour anyway.

Your second point is a can of worms. You have correctly noted that my understanding of homosexuality is not one of hanging out in sleazy bars picking up one night stands. After all, homosexuals are not obliged to have sex at all, anymore than heterosexuals are.

To me, homosexuality is all about relationships, long term ones. I don't feel that the age of the partner is all that important so long as the relationship is good. That an older man may well achieve giving a young Thai man a stable safe life, whist laudatory, it's peripheral to the issue. I don't see how this is exploitation. I don't think Buddhism is opposed to this.

What I do find unpleasant is Westerners taking advantage of the Thai nature and poverty.

There's much more I could add. The trouble is that this is a most unsatisfactory medium to exchange views.

[Dodger]

X Wrote:


If someone claims to build a position defining BuddhismтАЩs attitude toward homosexuality based on the religious writings and then resorts to extrapolating with comments like:тАЭ no doubt the same would apply to males,тАЭ then thatтАЩs based on the authorтАЩs assumptions, not textual authority.

X...

When an author takes the time to research a subject, he has just gained the right to make certain assumptions based on his learned knowledge. The thing you're referring to as "textual authority" doesn't exist, unless you're suggesting that one mans perspective out weighs anothers.

Buddha himself taught people not to get too hung up with the words in his teachings, rather focus on understanding the intent.

In fact most of Lord Buddha's teachings were not written by him but rather his disciples who unquestionably interpreted them. It's why there are various versions of Buddhism.

[x in pattaya]

When an author takes the time to research a subject, he has just gained the right to make certain assumptions based on his learned knowledge. The thing you're referring to as "textual authority" doesn't exist, unless you're suggesting that one mans perspective out weighs anothers.

Buddha himself taught people not to get too hung up with the words in his teachings, rather focus on understanding the intent.


Yes, well my personal experience with scholarly journals and academic publishing (and I do realize this forum is neither) has been based in science, math, experiment-based research and is not so free & easy about rights to make certain assumptions. I suppose in the arts, philosophy & religion things are a bit more easy going.Certainly scholarly things I've read concerning Christianity tend to be better developed and referenced.

I didn't really look into his credentials and I'm not sure to whom the original article was aimed, but I still contend that the development of his explanation would not have earned him high marks even as a casual essay in a graduate class. Possibly he just rattled it off in response to someone's question posed in some popular magazine or blog or whatever.

In any event I think he would have been better off stating the broader aims of Buddhism and drawing on those in making his assumptions. It was he who chose to introduce text with fairly specific references (you can't get much more specific than" women in prison").

Stating something using broad generalities and then applying those to particular situations is fine. Inserting some specific references that don't really fit the situation under discussion seems to weaken the assumptions rather than support them.

I still contend that I have heard monks speak in response to questions about real life situations with a greater sense of authority, with practical applications based on their (right to make) assumptions and a great deal more clarity than this particular person.

But then, the topic is well worth exploring, his article did make me (us ??) think more about the topic, and it has generated some reasonable discussion ... so I guess that's a good thing. I still think there must be better answers out there somewhere. I do find Buddhist thought to be well worth understanding ... as difficult as I may find that ... so I guess I'll continue to explore. Maybe if someone finds something else on the same topic it would be worth adding that to the thread too.



There's much more I could add. The trouble is that this is a most unsatisfactory medium to exchange views.

Yes. Even reading the original article(s) and responding to them was difficult. Should have printed it/them out to refer to.Not even sure right now if it was one or two articles by the one or two authors.

[gearguy]

http://borngay.procon.org/viewsource.asp?ID=6998

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_budd.htm

[x in pattaya]

http://borngay.procon.org/viewsource.asp?ID=6998

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_budd.htm


Thanks. I haven't gone through it all yet, but your second link looks like a good attempt (at least better organized than the OP's article in my mind) to deal with the subject.

The first link lead to something I haven't yet figured out how to navigate, but will give another look when I have more time.

Thanks again.

X Wrote:
If someone claims to build a position defining BuddhismтАЩs attitude toward homosexuality based on the religious writings and then resorts to extrapolating with comments like:тАЭ no doubt the same would apply to males,тАЭ then thatтАЩs based on the authorтАЩs assumptions, not textual authority.

X...

When an author takes the time to research a subject, he has just gained the right to make certain assumptions based on his learned knowledge.

Agreed Dodger, but only from "his learned knowledge". My problem with this interpretation is much the same as X's, namely the words "no doubt", which are very explicit . Had he said "possibly" or "I would suppose" then I would have no problems with that.

What I personally find most interesting on this particular subject is the apparently widely accepted Buddhist view (at least in Thailand) that homosexuality is a punishment for something you did wrong in a former life, much like being born with a physical or mental disability or handicap. Thought provoking ...

[giggsy]

Not wanting to detract from homosexuality I was wondering if anyone knew the Buddhist stance on organ donation after death ?

[Dodger]

BuddhaтАЩs teachings, which were either scribbled on palm leaves or carved in sand, went on to be interpreted (or, misinterpreted) by people just like us who had an interest in learning, although sometimes challenged with the concept of focusing on the big picture versus the actual words, where the words were written by someone other than the Buddha and тАЬtextual authorityтАЭ really doesnтАЩt exist.

BuddhaтАЩs teachings (sutras) are essential guides for Buddhists to practice, but they need to be read carefully to understand them, usually with the help of a teacher if you want to understand their true meaning and put it into practice. After reading BuddhaтАЩs teachings a person is supposed to feel lighter, no heavier, because the teachings are intended to awaken our true-self, not merely to add to our storehouse of knowledge. Getting hung up on one personтАЩs interpretations, or a few phrases added to a particular sentence in order to share oneтАЩs perspective, has no value whatsoever, if in fact your mission is to see the big picture. This is a subject for open minds, not literary correctness.

тАЬIf you get caught by the words and notions presented by the Buddha, youтАЩll miss the reality. The Buddha said many times, my teaching is like a finger pointing to the moon. Do not mistake the finger for the moonтАЭ.

Quote from:
Thich Nhat Hanh
The Heart of the BuddhaтАЩs Teaching

As far as gays are concerned, I have never interpreted the intent of anything IтАЩve read to indicate that homosexuals are a karmic consequence resulting from bad deeds performed in an earlier life, although the fact that females, in general, are placed in this category, is mentioned in several discourses of the Pali Cannon, a concept which I personally struggle with.

As far as us homoтАЩs are involved, we can perform goods deeds, live a life where right-thinking and right-actions are at our center stage, which results in good karma in the eyes of Buddha, or, live a life where the effects result from wrong-thinking and wrong-actions and return in the next life as a crippled frog, destined to live a lifetime stranded on a single lily pad as life passes us by. Wrong-thinking and wrong-actions of course would apply to many of us. Specifically those (lke myself) who are lustful and use the services of prostitutes to feed that lust. Yes, sad as it is to admit, this is a big Buddha no-no.

I donтАЩt know about the rest of you homoтАЩs, but I think thereтАЩs a lily pad out there with my name on itтАж555.

Mai pen rai

They certainly need to be read carefully!

A most thoughtful post! I too have not heard that homos are singled out for punishment for their lifestyle.

Homos are no different to anyone else. They do good, they make errors. One can only hope that the good merit points outweigh the bad ones!

Lust! A fascinating topic on its own. In twenty words contrast the difference between lust and love.

[Dodger]

Quote:


Lust! A fascinating topic on its own. In twenty words contrast the difference between lust and love

Lust is the process in which we attempt to feed our inner desires. Love is the result of being fed. (20 words)

Not wanting to detract from homosexuality I was wondering if anyone knew the Buddhist stance on organ donation after death ?

The "Thai" Buddhist view, so I am told, which probably has as much to do with superstition as Buddhism, is that if there are bits missing when you are cremated then they will still be missing when you return; they can, however, apparently be "added" in much the same way as a monk can "change" the colour of your car/motorbike if the original is unlucky just by writing "this bike is yellow/green/red, etc, etc" under the seat - presumably a message to that effect is written in the coffin!


A most thoughtful post! I too have not heard that homos are singled out for punishment for their lifestyle.

I can't have been clear. My point was that gays are being punished by being gay (not "normal") not for their current lifestyle but for misdeeds in a previous life. I had assumed it was reasonably well known - it is certainly the view of some Thai Buddhist gays, and was given quite a lot of publicity by Parinya Charoenphol / Nong Toom /Beautiful Boxer who has spoken about this in interviews both on Thai TV and on the National Geographic programme "Hidden Genders". Try http://www.thailawforum.com/Transsexual ... i-Law.html (http://www.thailawforum.com/Transsexuals-and-Thai-Law.html) for some leads.

So what you are saying is that they believe they have returned as gays for previous misdemeanours. So being gay is a punishment. That's a bit rough!

The trouble with the notion of reincarnation is that it can be tailored into covering just about anything.

Like all belief systems, the true nature of being gay is being ignored. This attitude of theirs is really just another example of gay bashing. One thing that can be said about all believers - they are most resilient maintaining their beliefs.

[rincondog]

Why do people spend so much time lusting after other people's dogma?

[Dodger]

Gonefishing wrote:


My point was that gays are being punished by being gay (not "normal") not for their current lifestyle but for misdeeds in a previous life. I had assumed it was reasonably well known - it is certainly the view of some Thai Buddhist gays,

I believe that some Thai Buddists consider transexuals to be in this category (as emphasized in the article you provided us linkage to), for the mere fact that transexuals are viewed as being women living inside a mans body. Not necessarily the same way that gays (non-transexual gays) are classified. Regardless if Thai law forbids transexuals to take on the legal identity of a man or not, they are still classified within the framework of the Buddhist community as being women. And women, according to Buddhist teachings, are born to a life of suffering for bad deeds performed in a previous life. As stated previously, I really struggle with this concept.

If that concept (interpretation) was true, all gay people would be judged in the same manner within the Buddhist community, and I don't believe that to be the case. I may change my opinion about this tomorrow, but in all my interactions with gay Thai boys (presumably many more interactions than the author of that article has had), I have never once heard a gay Thai boy comment about their belief in this concept. Maybe our Thai Boxer has been hit in the head too many times...who knows. Interestingly enough, I have been in conversations with Thai ladyboys who place themselves in the same category as transexuals, who view their present lives as being a karmic consequence resulting from a previous live (or lives).

All I know for sure, is that I am enjoying my life as a gay man and don't sense that I'm carrying any weighted luggage from a previous life or paying any grand penalties. I'll be back in Thailand for adventure # 20 in just 3 weeks time, and if this is punishment...then keep it cuming.

[giggsy]

Not wanting to detract from homosexuality I was wondering if anyone knew the Buddhist stance on organ donation after death ?

The "Thai" Buddhist view, so I am told, which probably has as much to do with superstition as Buddhism, is that if there are bits missing when you are cremated then they will still be missing when you return; they can, however, apparently be "added" in much the same way as a monk can "change" the colour of your car/motorbike if the original is unlucky just by writing "this bike is yellow/green/red, etc, etc" under the seat - presumably a message to that effect is written in the coffin!

Thanks for the answer GF.
I know other posters on here have been attack in the past for their religious beliefs.The thing is if I go in hospital and have to fill in a form asking what religion I am, I have now started putting "none".For some unknown reason I have always as long as I can remember believed that there was some kind of reincarnation.Don't ask me why ,I wouldn't know where to begin to explain it.If there is reincarnation I feel that when I am cremated I want my body to be cremated "whole" or as whole as can be.The reason being that if I do come back as something or somebody else I will need all of my parts of my body.Who knows,only people who believe in reincarnation will be reincarnated or people who donate organs or have vital organs missing might be the ones who get miscarried.Like I said "don't ask me why". I have not studied any religion, Thats why I'm asking if anyone can enlighten me about Buddhism and organ donation.
Strange subject and everyone will have their own view,but no doubt people will have their pound of flesh so to speak.

I think many people find the idea of reincarnation interesting and believable. Regardless of their beliefs. When as young people we first start grappling with the notion of death, it's nice to have the possibility that we are going to come back. Perhaps they don't understand that in Buddhism it could be far from desirable. Especially if you obtain a fair number of bad merit points.

Ladyboys. Hmmm. I've often wondered about this term. I have always assumed it was another way of saying "gay" and hadn't considered the possibility that it might include transvestites. If it does mean gay, then it's a telling word to use.

Then again, I've never encountered a male prostitute here that is anything but Straight. I wish I had. Perhaps soon.

I have 6 cigarette lighters and not one of them works. Is this a conspiracy?

So, I thought I'd look on the web for "ladyboy".

This is an interesting page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathoey

[Dodger]

Dek Wat wrote:


Ladyboys. Hmmm. I've often wondered about this term. I have always assumed it was another way of saying "gay" and hadn't considered the possibility that it might include transvestites. If it does mean gay, then it's a telling word to use.

According to a good friend of mine who is a ladyboy, ladyboys actually place themselves into two very distinct categories: One she referrs to as "gay ladyboys", and the other being classified as "real ladyboys," in her terms. She describes the gay ladyboy as being effeminate gay males who commonly prefer dressing like females, who are versatile in their sexuality enjoying playing either the dominant or passive sex role, although most commonly prefer having relationships (and sex) with dominant gay males.

Real ladyboys, again in her terminology, consider themselves in every sense to be females and prefer having relationships with bi or heterosexual males, and only prefer having sex in the passive role.

The major distinction seems to be the fact that gay ladyboys are sexually versatile and have both femine and masculine inclinations, whereas, the real ladyboy is 100% passive with no masculione inclinations whatsoever.

Now, how this plays into the topic at hand, I'm not sure. But the information I've gained regarding ladyboys placing themselves in the same category as transvestites (ladyboys who have had sex chance alterations), is derived from "real ladyboys". I'm not sure if those classified as "gay ladyboys" share the same feelings regarding their karmic fate is involved. Interesting though.