Hsuan Hua on Homosexuality

[treehuggingoctopus]

Going the way of Origen could possibly help. Provided one has really good karma.

[Lotus415]

Hsuan Hua: "Homosexuals exist due in part to the influence of a certain religion. This religion used to be underground and did not dare to promote homosexuality openly, but now that we're in an age where Dharma is on the decline, all kinds of strange phenomenon are happening."

What religion is he talking about?

[Fu Ri Shin]

Interpretations of marriage, sexual life and many other social customs are not relevant to the path of liberation. They are just ideas of a culture in an era.

Perhaps, but what about Ven. Hsuan Hua in this particular case? It looks like this goes beyond a simple interpretation into intolerance (which I would argue is divorced from compassion altogether).

[Nighthawk]

Why are you shocked; Asian Buddhism has been oh so very sexist and misogynistic for millenia. As a gay woman it's no suprise to me; I'm more than happy in a Japanese sect that accepts me as I am & knows that being Buddhist has nothing to do with one's particular sexuality

I agree, in this aspect Japanese Buddhism is a lot less narrow minded which is a great thing.

[catmoon]

Why are you shocked; Asian Buddhism has been oh so very sexist and misogynistic for millenia. As a gay woman it's no suprise to me; I'm more than happy in a Japanese sect that accepts me as I am & knows that being Buddhist has nothing to do with one's particular sexuality

I am shocked because I am familiar with this master and the writings and sayings I am familiar with have always been exemplary. Now I must resolve the dilemma correctly.

I think the right way is: "This mess does not negate the whole of the master's teachings. The good stuff stands on its own merit and the ... um ... other stuff will simply have to be disregarded. "

[Jnana]

I think the right way is: "This mess does not negate the whole of the master's teachings. The good stuff stands on its own merit and the ... um ... other stuff will simply have to be disregarded. "

I also think that there are a couple of points worth mentioning: (1) a bodhisattva practicing on any of the first six or seven bhūmis isn't perfect, they still have cognitive and afflictive obscurations; and (2) there's no reason why an āryabodhisattva would have to automatically adopt liberal Western values upon attaining the first bhūmi.

[Indrajala]

I also think that there are a couple of points worth mentioning: (1) a bodhisattva practicing on any of the first six or seven bhūmis isn't perfect, they still have cognitive and afflictive obscurations; and (2) there's no reason why an āryabodhisattva would have to automatically adopt liberal Western values upon attaining the first bhūmi.

I still have to wonder where he got the idea that most Lamas have AIDS.

[Malcolm]

I also think that there are a couple of points worth mentioning: (1) a bodhisattva practicing on any of the first six or seven bhūmis isn't perfect, they still have cognitive and afflictive obscurations; and (2) there's no reason why an āryabodhisattva would have to automatically adopt liberal Western values upon attaining the first bhūmi.

I still have to wonder where he got the idea that most Lamas have AIDS.

He is a racist, obviously.

[Indrajala]

I also think that there are a couple of points worth mentioning: (1) a bodhisattva practicing on any of the first six or seven bhūmis isn't perfect, they still have cognitive and afflictive obscurations; and (2) there's no reason why an āryabodhisattva would have to automatically adopt liberal Western values upon attaining the first bhūmi.

I still have to wonder where he got the idea that most Lamas have AIDS.

He is a racist, obviously.

I think it has more to do with the widespread fear among Chinese Buddhist bhikṣus about Tibetan Buddhism.

Tibetan Buddhism in many ways potentially undermines their authority as "Dharma Masters" and all the privileges that come with it. For instance there is a widespread notion that only formal renunciates are qualified to teach the Dharma and that the laity should just faithfully make offerings and learn from them. It is inappropriate for a bhikṣu to prostrate before a layman, even if he is realized. In Tibetan Buddhism you can have no formal renunciate precepts and still become liberated and worthy of veneration (Milarepa is one case example). Sakya Trizin too for example isn't a bhikṣu, but widely held as a true Dharma Master. Chinese bhikṣus have a lot to lose if the laity emulate the eminent lay practitioners you see in TB both historically and presently. It would undermine their monopoly on Dharma (not just the teachings, but the rights to do rituals and so on).

[Malcolm]

I think it has more to do with the widespread fear among Chinese Buddhist bhikṣus about Tibetan Buddhism.

Which is fundamentally based on racism against Tibetans.

[Indrajala]

I think it has more to do with the widespread fear among Chinese Buddhist bhikṣus about Tibetan Buddhism.

Which is fundamentally based on racism against Tibetans.

Where do you get that idea?

[Malcolm]

I think it has more to do with the widespread fear among Chinese Buddhist bhikṣus about Tibetan Buddhism.

Which is fundamentally based on racism against Tibetans.

Where do you get that idea?

History.

[Blue Garuda]

Um - I got that idea from a thread started by Huseng - history includes what is recent. :

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=9198

Banners in Taiwan declaring: ' To avoid religious sexual abuse, please stay away from the lamas of Tibetan Buddhism'.

Fear in this context is racism. Xenophobia (fear of...) is but a hair's breadth away from hatred.

[LastLegend]

The Buddha suggested that it is better to stick your male member in a snake's mouth than into a woman's organ.

If you are married, heterosexual, and a Buddhist, why would you want to stick it down a snake's mouth? Married heterosexual people made up the majority of the population. So the precept of no sexual misconduct in general applied to these people. If you are homosexual, a Buddhist, and have a partner, should Buddha condemn you? No. Does the precept apply to you? Yes. That's what meant by standard. Got it?

If you are a monk, you don't want to stick it in any hole. That's standard.

[Jnana]

I think it has more to do with the widespread fear among Chinese Buddhist bhikṣus about Tibetan Buddhism.

Tibetan Buddhism in many ways potentially undermines their authority as "Dharma Masters" and all the privileges that come with it. For instance there is a widespread notion that only formal renunciates are qualified to teach the Dharma and that the laity should just faithfully make offerings and learn from them. It is inappropriate for a bhikṣu to prostrate before a layman, even if he is realized. In Tibetan Buddhism you can have no formal renunciate precepts and still become liberated and worthy of veneration (Milarepa is one case example). Sakya Trizin too for example isn't a bhikṣu, but widely held as a true Dharma Master. Chinese bhikṣus have a lot to lose if the laity emulate the eminent lay practitioners you see in TB both historically and presently. It would undermine their monopoly on Dharma (not just the teachings, but the rights to do rituals and so on).

That, plus there are different views on just what is authentic Buddhadharma, plus various cultural issues, etc.

[Jnana]

I still have to wonder where he got the idea that most Lamas have AIDS.

I wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with hearing about the situation surrounding Ösel Tendzin.

[undefineable]

there's no reason why an āryabodhisattva would have to automatically adopt liberal Western values upon attaining the first bhūmi.

-Except the so-called 'western value' (actually widespread across eras and cultures) in question is that of not expressing aversion towards other human beings. In any case, shouldn't the aversion itself have atleast been dulled a bit by the practice of the hinayana[s] already?

[Jnana]

there's no reason why an āryabodhisattva would have to automatically adopt liberal Western values upon attaining the first bhūmi.

-Except the so-called 'western value' (actually widespread across eras and cultures) in question is that of not expressing aversion towards other human beings.

I'm not so sure that that's the value in question. It's quite likely that Ven. Hua thought he was giving good council regarding what he considered to be a very harmful act. Homosexuality still isn't deemed acceptable in many places in the world, and according to some traditional value systems homosexuality is thought to be as immoral and criminal as pedophilia. (And FTR I don't agree with that notion nor with what Ven. Hua said.)

In any case, shouldn't the aversion itself have atleast been dulled a bit by the practice of the hinayana[s] already?

In post-meditation -- not necessarily. And a bodhisattva on the first half-dozen bhūmis still isn't as liberated from defilements as an arhat would be.

[undefineable]

-Except the so-called 'western value' (actually widespread across eras and cultures) in question is that of not expressing aversion towards other human beings.

I'm not so sure that that's the value in question. It's quite likely that Ven. Hua thought he was giving good council regarding what he considered to be a very harmful act. Homosexuality still isn't deemed acceptable in many places in the world, and according to some traditional value systems homosexuality is thought to be as immoral and criminal as pedophilia.

Well, 'HH' seems to have literally written the book on homophobia. Buddhism, however, is clear -as is contemporary western morality, by coincidence- that it is the intention to harm and harming of sentient beings -rather than [intending] to harm some kind of 'cosmic order' (a concept that shunyata clearly renders risible)- that is at the crux of morality. {Don't forget HH goes beyond Christian homophobia in demanding that homosexuals immediately remove their desires, despite the fact that Buddhism acknowledges all attachments as taking time/patience, energy/application, and -most importantly- a series of methods to remove.} Phenomena such as homosexuality (I'm str8-going-on-asexual ftr) can only be considered harmful to sentient beings if they are practiced non-consensually, with those who don't [yet] have the maturity to know they naturally want to be a part of such things, or without hygienic protection. I think we're all aware that the idea that gays can't and/or won't reproduce is a myth, but I can't see how having 99-100% of adults reproducing could ever have been an unmixed blessing.

In any case, shouldn't the aversion itself have atleast been dulled a bit by the practice of the hinayana[s] already?

In post-meditation -- not necessarily

Ofcourse, a lot of previously-buried aversion -as well as hopefully some of the meditation itself- might spill out of the session. But surely any practitioner -let alone a supposed 'realised master'- should recognise aversion as poison, rather than present it (in itself) as dharma?

If one remains as eaten up by aversion to the extent that 'HH' appears to have been, any Boddhisattva vows clearly shredded, then how can rebirth outside the lower realms -let alone further realisation in one's next life- be expected? It seems to me that you're appealing to a romantic notion of an Anakin Skywalker/'flawed hero' -type figure that Buddhism isn't 'big on' to my knowledge.

a bodhisattva on the first half-dozen bhūmis still isn't as liberated from defilements as an arhat would be.

If he's 'skipped over' the hinayana[s] relatively lightly, then I can see your point - After all, an arhat's liberation is still partly conditional on his/her avoiding objects that give rise to defilements. The main impression I'm getting, though, is that you see meditation as some kind of psychedelic trip with no potential relevance to one's everyday life. If that's Buddhism, then maybe I'm not Buddhist, but I'd still be interested in how you do regard Buddhist practice (assuming I haven't just said it all ).

[Jnana]

Well, 'HH' seems to have literally written the book on homophobia. Buddhism, however, is clear -as is contemporary western morality, by coincidence- that it is the intention to harm and harming of sentient beings -rather than [intending] to harm some kind of 'cosmic order' (a concept that shunyata clearly renders risible)- that is at the crux of morality. {Don't forget HH goes beyond Christian homophobia in demanding that homosexuals immediately remove their desires, despite the fact that Buddhism acknowledges all attachments as taking time/patience, energy/application, and -most importantly- a series of methods to remove.} Phenomena such as homosexuality (I'm str8-going-on-asexual ftr) can only be considered harmful to sentient beings if they are practiced non-consensually, with those who don't [yet] have the maturity to know they naturally want to be a part of such things, or without hygienic protection. I think we're all aware that the idea that gays can't and/or won't reproduce is a myth, but I can't see how having 99-100% of adults reproducing could ever have been an unmixed blessing.

Yes, and I have no intention of defending his views on the subject, just suggesting a bit of context.

It seems to me that you're appealing to a romantic notion of an Anakin Skywalker/'flawed hero' -type figure that Buddhism isn't 'big on' to my knowledge.

I have little time for romantic notions. What I will offer, though, is some very unromantic realism. We are all human beings who are much better at being human, warts and all, than at being buddhas.

The main impression I'm getting, though, is that you see meditation as some kind of psychedelic trip with no potential relevance to one's everyday life.

Then you clearly don't know much about what I think.