remm wrote:The Venerable Master only condemned the 'act' of homosexuality--in other words, oral and anal sex.
No he didn't - In his referenced writings he was quite clear that anyone 'abnormal' (presumably in any way - see my earlier posts) is 'bad' by nature of their being - necessarily implying
essential existence, i.e. that there is an
essential self that is
essentially 'bad' and therefore generates homosexual desires and so on. What makes desires for homosexual/anal/oral sex 'bad' is not explained clearly, but let's all remember that in the days before 'safe sex', there was a clear risk of disease -not to mention unhappy marriages (marriage being expected)- attached to following through on such urges. From a monastic point of view, moreover, homosexuality is a no-no for obvious reasons. I'd also like to introduce the sense of cognitive splitting that we all feel (but few seem to have noticed) when contemplating two completely different things, such as male and female, gay and straight, or (in my case) autistic and born-normal. The feeling is of being split between two separate, self-contained realities, naturally inducing resentment at the fact that such differences exist between human beings.
However, I notice that Mandarin Chinese, being so different to my 1'st language, seems to be a difficult language to translate into English, so with the associated lack of a common ancestral culture within the last 10K years or so (such as the Indo-European) taken into account, I suspect that the implied meaning in English is different to the meaning you found in this (apparently acknowledged) Master's words.
On the subject of linguistic and cultural differences, you rightly explain this:
remm wrote:Many of you now a days hear a Chinese Master preach about homosexuality and if they are against it, you all frantically sneer at him and begin questioning his realizations. But when someone like the Dalai Lama or Karmapa makes a comment about homosexuality, you all gasp a little but let it go with ease.
and this
remm wrote:When Karmapa was in Taiwan, someone in the audience did ask about homosexuality and to everyone's surprise Karmapa advised against the acts as they defile tantric practice.
by means of this:
remm wrote:Sure, he was an extremely stern teacher who was very straightforward, and perhaps outright 'in-your-face' so to speak
and this:
remm wrote:Perhaps the words in which they used were of a lighter scale than what Master Hua initially said
, highlighting the difference between languages/cultures which include overstatement (such as Arabic and -presumeably- Chinese) and those that make use of understatement (such as English and -presumeably- Chinese).
As far as China-bashing goes, it's a bit early to expect this from anyone who doesn't fully support America as the current sole superpower (i.e. anyone who isn't a Republican-voting American) - The rising superpower, remaining 'fresh' and somewhat mysterious in the eyes of the rest of the world seems likely to enjoy a 'honeymoon period' on its ascendance, simply owing to the fact that it isn't America (or Russia).
remm wrote:So many of you have such negative views about the Chinese Mahayana tradition, you start thinking that these Chinese masters were racist and that they hated Tibetans, none of which you can even back up your claims for since you did not even know these Masters personally.
I agree with some previous replies that the greater degree of monasticism in Chinese Buddhism likely explains Hsuan's more flippant-sounding comments about Tibetan lamas. I did notice, though, a distinctly Mantric/'Pure Land' feel to what I read of Hsuan's teachings, and would add that myself and other Buddhists are probably just as suspicious of that tradition (which can appear more like Christianity at first glance) as Hsuan and still-other Buddhists are of Vajrayana. However, I see plenty of reasons to keep this to the level of musing as opposed to preaching, since if others are on a less-efficient Path, that's their business alone. {Also, I can't see how 'Pure Land' Buddhism could be harmful.} I certainly don't think Chinese 'hate' Tibetans any more than the English hate the Welsh {Wales has officially been part of England since 1536
}
remm wrote:Society nowadays is so accepting when it comes to homosexual acts that so many of you are so glued to the fact that homosexual acts are the norm and that it is 'okay', but once someone stands up and says it's not okay, you all wave your red flag and denounce these masters right away simply because what they state goes against what you believe. At the end of the day, you're all protecting your own egos from being hurt, and only self-seeking something that you want for yourself. So much for renunciation, and leaving birth and death, eh?
Given what I said, 'homosexual acts' weren't really OK in ages past, but
are OK now if you use a strong condom
and don't belong to a same-sex community like an army or an abbey. I can't see how anyone can argue otherwise without an appeal to
atman. FYI, I suspect that one of the main attractions of Buddhism is that it
does protect one's ego from being hurt -
by denying that such an ego can possibly exist. How can one renounce death (as well as birth) if one feels that the fabric of their own being is eternally evil?
remm wrote:He knew very well the outcome his words and the impact it would have on society, but he nonetheless said it because it needed to be heard. He fully knew the cause and effect of things and only spoke words that would benefit sentient beings.
I can't see the balance here - How can sentient beings benefit if they've all been put off Buddhadharma by an image that projects hatred and condemnation of all mental differences between human beings? I suspect this goes back to translation again. In reply to later comments, I don't see that Buddhism has anything to do with what is normally seen as 'conservatism' or 'modern-ism' or any other political movement, but like all successful spiritual movements it has always adapted to and accepted its environment, hence its apparent 'conservatism'. For example, many Buddhist teachers have made it clear that abortion is indeed problematic from a Buddhist point of view, but have been careful to clarify that it's not as bad as murder (albeit nearly) and even that prayers can be said for the 'wandering being' directly affected. {Sorry I can't find the source}.