jacx wrote:The "wrong orifice" edict is from Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosabhasyam. But I don't know whereabouts in that massive text to find it. Nor do I have access to a copy.
So, neither a Tibetan nor a Mahayana text I suppose!
Also, I never want to perform that particular Google search again!
If you have the English translation by Prude, of de la Vallee Poussin's French of the Abhidharma kosa bhasya, it is Vol II, pp. 651ff.
"... 2. Intercourse with one's own wife through a forbidden way;330 ..."
This is footnoted n330 to references in the Mahavyutpatti, Siksasamuccaya, and Suttavibhanga.
The Chinese - which de la Vallee Pousin was basing this on, has:
「二於非道行不應行。謂於自妻口及餘道。」
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷16〈4 分別業品〉 (CBETA, T29, no. 1558, p. 87, a16-17)
"2. It is inappropriate to engage in intercourse through the wrong orifice, namely: one's wife's mouth or other orifice."
Maybe de la Vallee Poussin was a bit bashful about leaving that out.
And the Skt:
"2. anaṅge vā gacchati svāmapi bhāryām apāne mukhe vā"
Elsewhere, there are similar statements, such as this from the Upadesa:
「非道之處,則非女根,女心不樂,強以非理,故名邪婬。」《大智度論》卷13〈1 序品〉 (CBETA, T25, no. 1509, p. 156, c17-18)
"The wrong orifice is not through the female organ, the lady does not like this, and so forcing it [upon her] is inappropriate, therefore it is said to be "sexual misconduct"."
And likewise:
「云何邪婬。此邪婬人。若於自妻。非道而行。或於他妻。道非道行。」《正法念處經》卷1〈1 十善業道品〉 (CBETA, T17, no. 721, p. 2, c19-20)
and
「何者邪行。謂於婦女。非道行婬。彼不隨順。自力強逼。」《正法念處經》卷6〈3 地獄品〉 (CBETA, T17, no. 721, p. 33, c13-15)
both of which describe it as either towards one's wife, or forced.
And in the Satya-siddhi
「邪婬名若眾生非妻與之行婬。是名邪婬。又雖是其妻於非道行婬。亦名邪婬。」《成實論》卷8〈116 十不善道品〉 (CBETA, T32, no. 1646, p. 304, c22-24)
But in one or two of these examples, it is difficult to 100% ascertain if the phrase 非道 is "wrong orifice" or simply "inappropriate manner". I am very sure for the majority of these citations, however.
A couple of things about all these statements:
1. They are not in sutra, but in sastra and upadesa.
2. They only refer to the "wrong orifice" with respect to women, not to men (and even then, to one's own wife).
3. They seem to reject it on the grounds that it is forced upon the women (nowadays a kind of domestic rape).
Thus, they do not really say anything about homosexuality (which in itself it not identical with that particular type of intercourse).
Still, this doesn't say much about "Gay marriage: What would Buddha do?"
Probably he'd still say that any sort of marriage relationship is a bond to samsara and an obstruction to liberation. Still, not at all some instant ticket to hell, or anything like that. One could still practice the path as a lay person, and make a fair degree of progress.
In other words, same as any other marriage! haha!