How do gay Buddhists explain this one?

[Dechen Norbu]

Try Alan Wallace too and compare. Here: http://www.alanwallace.org/
But it's better to leave that for another topic alright. It's a cool discussion, though and your questions are fair.

[Ikkyu]

Try Alan Wallace too and compare. Here: http://www.alanwallace.org/
But it's better to leave that for another topic alright. It's a cool discussion, though and your questions are fair.

I'm actually glad you bring up Alan Watts. His book "The Book" is probably one of the most eye-opening works of literature I've ever encountered in my study of philosophy and comparative religion.

[Dechen Norbu]

Not Watts.
Wallace, so that you can compare Batchelor's take with his. Wallace has a lot of texts online, so you can get a good idea if you explore his site and its links. You can also try to read something by Matthieu Ricard. Take a look at this article for instance: http://www.matthieuricard.org/en/index. ... _the_mind/
But I also dig a few writings of Alan Watts.

OK, let us not hijack this topic now.

[Steveyboy]

I am not so sure about discussing the topic of sexuality based on scriptural sources and I heard from some scholarly friends that the Buddha almost did not mention anything about homosexuality. Perhaps. it was taboo to talk about at that time or it was simply not an important subject matter. Anyway, I have read from somewhere that prominent Buddhist masters do consider homosexuality the same like money, power and other desires, not a good thing but it is something that we cannot live without for now. It is also not as important as more important delusion of selfishness and so forth.

[shel]

I think you are heading in the right direction with this reasoning.
I also wonder if there were health reasons for the prohibition.
While female homosexual acts are considered the safest sex one can have AFAIK, with male homosexual activity there is a heightened health risk.
So in the age before condoms, STD testing and Hepatitis vaccines, proscribing such acts was the best option.
But now that there are measures for people to take to protect themselves it seems a more modern approach is warranted.

I think this becomes clear also when you look at the fact that certain heterosexual activity was also prohibited. So it was more the acts themselves than the fact it was same-gender
activity.

Hello JKhedrup,

Just noticing that the answer to your wondering is evident. Female homosexual acts are no less proscribed than male...

[Ikkyu]

Not Watts.
Wallace, so that you can compare Batchelor's take with his. Wallace has a lot of texts online, so you can get a good idea if you explore his site and its links. You can also try to read something by Matthieu Ricard. Take a look at this article for instance: http://www.matthieuricard.org/en/index. ... _the_mind/
But I also dig a few writings of Alan Watts.

OK, let us not hijack this topic now.

Haha. I don't know how I missed the name But thank you in any case for the references and links. I'll have to check out these authors and that article.

[GarcherLancelot]

Ok if you don't believe in rebirth after death,what do you think will happen?.. .

[Nilasarasvati]

Just so that I could have the 108th post in this highly controversial topic...

I will say, with great joy

"I don't have to explain! The straight ones did it for me! (And Yudron. Praise her virtues! Praise them!)"

Also, I just want to say for any queers reading this in days to come: it took me years of studying the history and scripture (which as you can see from this thread seems very conflicted) and hearing over and over again from affirming and compassionate Lamas and Sangha that I was not broken, disgusting, or unable to "fit" into the Dharma. It was really really hard for me to feel like I really belonged or could practice without a gigantic contradiction. My hang ups were all the garbage of my puritanical upbringing, however--the Dharma has no intrinsic sexual ethics that prizes or favors heterosexual sex over homosexual or vice versa.

Basically:
they'll both send you to hell.

And the comments of some people in this thread who cling to that as some kind of justification for heterosexism are really just garbage. Alexander Berzin has an amazing article written about this on his site:

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/ar ... thics.html

" But there’s no mention here as to whether the woman in this case wants to have sex or not. So, from our point of view we would look at this and say, “Hey, what about these parents in Southeast Asia who are so poor and they give permission and sell their daughter into prostitution. Is that OK because the girl has permission from her parents?” It’s not specified in the texts whether it is dependent on whether the woman wants sex or not."

It gives you a whole lot more reasons to realize--we have to figure out our own practice of sexual ethics. It has to be consistent with the buddhadharma...it has to come from a lineage authority, but as laypeople, we can't haul the cultural baggage of Feudal India or Tibet or China around with us. I was mortified with the thought of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, and that's why I agonized about it for so long. But fortunately, for us, we have teachers who can help us clean the issue of "baggage" and yet maintain, as much as we can, the pure vows.

WORST case scenario, you can't take 1 out of 5 lay vows. That limitation is negligable next to the merit and benefit of keeping even just one of the precepts. Or even just the refuge vows. <3 <3 <3

I'm okay.

[invisiblediamond]

Interesting discussion. I personally don't mind libidinous and kinky sex involving whatever. I'm a libertine. But I do wonder about some stuff I've read. Doesn't the anus correspond (in tantric and dzogchen) to the animal or hell realm? I wonder if really loving the pleasure of that aperture might lead to a rebirth in the corresponding realm? But then, if someone were able realized at some level, can't one take that onto the path? Or if you really love receiving oral sex, might that have a quality of exploitation or at least strong attachment to the enhancement of pleasure, and might that not be negative? I feel obviously anyone can join dharma, and obviously one does so hoping for some help with the behaviors. I don't know.

[invisiblediamond]

If a certain speech makes your blood boil that doesn't necessarily give you the right to call it hate speech. I tend not to ignore statements, for example, made by this indiviual:

Too many people in the West have given up on marriage. They don't understand that it is about developing a mutual admiration of someone, a deep respect and trust and awareness of another human's needs. The new easy-come, easy-go relationships give us more freedom - but less contentment.

I don't think people have become more selfish, but their lives have become easier and that has spoilt them. They have less resilience, they expect more, they constantly compare themselves to others and they have too much choice - which brings no real freedom.

A gay couple came to see me, seeking my support and blessing. I had to explain our teachings. Another lady introduced another woman as her wife - astonishing. It is the same with a husband and wife using certain sexual practices. Using the other two holes is wrong.

A Western friend asked me what harm could there be between consenting adults having oral sex, if they enjoyed it. But the purpose of sex is reproduction, according to Buddhism. The other holes don't create life. I don't mind - but I can't condone this way of life.

The Dalai Lama

It’s part of what we Buddhists call bad sexual conduct. Sexual organs were created for reproduction between the male element and the female element – and everything that deviates from that is not acceptable from a Buddhist point of view.

The Dalai Lama

It should hardly be news to anybody that this is the view according to the tradition.

But neither do I ignore this individual's speech:

Do not believe in what you have heard; do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations; do not believe anything because it is rumored and spoken of by many; do not believe merely because the written statement of some old sage is produced; do not believe in conjectures; do not believe merely in the authority of your teachers and elders. After observation and analysis, when it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

The Buddha

I have a problem with the Dalai Lama on this quote. It seems a contradiction of Buddhism. There's no creator. We are self created. According to the sutras, sex organs are a result of desires, and they have no point other than to fulfill the desires. Furthermore, there's no "life" or "creation" only illusion. If there is a "purpose" of sex organs in Buddhism, it wouldn't be to create life, but to circumvent it.

It seems this is a capitulation to a theistic world view. I've often wondered if much of even the early Buddhist social structures were modeled on existing ones, and I've wondered if Buddha (who seemed to understand the formless nature of everything) was practicing a kind of aikido. That is to say, was Buddha redirecting the social energy of the day into a system that would gradually breakdown all those built up biases?