Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 6:08 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 126 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 10:50 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Posts: 2995
Location: British Columbia
treehuggingoctopus wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:
Shouldn't there be a clause in the ToS about racism, homophobia, etc...?


Seconded. Very much so.
underthetree wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:
Shouldn't there be a clause in the ToS about racism, homophobia, etc...?


Thirded. The offensiveness of the opinions on this and other recent threads are matched only by their incoherence, and I suspect that, were they more coherent, they'd be much more offensive.


Fourthed. And I think we can take the departed Tobes as a fifth in absentia.

However, there are reasons those items do not appear in the ToS. I'm sure those responsible for their absence will be happy to explain those reasons to you.

_________________
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 10:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:36 pm
Posts: 343
How about common sense?

I reported this post a day ago, when it was made. Post still stands as is.

Is hatespeech allowed on Dharma Wheel? If it is, please tell us. It'd be less confusing that way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:55 pm
Posts: 1054
Location: Sunny California
I missed the "dirt" comment before, Greg, thanks for pointing that out.

Instead of removing his posts, I'd prefer they would be moved and prominently displayed in the Dzogchen forum -- where he usually posts -- so that everyone can know who they are dealing with.

_________________
My blog:
http://onsausalcreek.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:16 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Posts: 5771
Thread closed for temporary clean-up. (apologies for the slow response.)

**

I am unlocking the thread with a reminder of our Terms of Service:

Quote:
2. Do not be disruptive

Dharma Wheel is an environment for the discussion of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. All are welcome but are required to abide by the TOS. Special forums have been created for special areas of interest so please respect these boundaries. Dharma Wheel administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit inappropriate content, and to remove or transfer any posts or threads that are not relevant to the sub-forum in which they are posted. Any subject matter that may be off-topic or is intended only to cause disruption or harm to others may be removed without notice.


Posts that are clearly predicated in fantasy and intended merely to provoke dissension and disagreement have been removed.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3591

_________________
Need help getting on retreat? Want to support others in practice? Pay the Dana for Dharma forum a visit...

viewtopic.php?f=114&t=13727


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 4:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:03 am
Posts: 933
It's not only the brahmins who have a hand in this. The Dalai Lama has repeatedly maintained that homosexual acts are a violation against the precepts. At the same time, he insists on compassion and full human rights for all. His stance is solely concerned with what is appropriate behaviour for a Buddhist practitioner, not what should be made law. His argument is that the sexual organs are designed for procreation and should be used solely for that purpose. So any form of sex that is not for procreation is out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 5:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm
Posts: 1428
It's not that dramatic guys. I mean it's not like I've hurled insults at anybody or used pejoratives or anything like that. So we agree to disagree. Is that alright?

Anyway, in reply to Greentara:

"Procreation" can also refer to the creation of the Illusory Body: Karmamudra


Last edited by Lhug-Pa on Sun Sep 30, 2012 5:15 am, edited 5 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 5:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:56 pm
Posts: 74
Location: Port Townsend, WA U.S.A.
The deeper question here is how should Buddhism be defined? By what the Buddha allegedly said, or by what has actually been practiced for over 2000 years? Is sexual continance of any kind necessary? What about monks like Ikkyu who regularly visited the local whorehouse?

With an quasi-open cannon, there are many practices which can be either condemned or condoned (vegetarianism comes to mind.) While I'm not aware of any scripture that says 'Yeah, go ahead an screw members of your own sex', homosexuality, especially pederasty, has been a common practice for centuries in Buddhist monastaries throughout Asia and, unlike Catholicism which turned a blind eye to a practice which was definitely considered sinful, it was often practiced very openly as an acceptable form of sexual release for monks who couldn't get married.

Here's an interesting article: Homosexuality in Japanese Buddhist Tradition.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 5:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:55 pm
Posts: 1054
Location: Sunny California
greentara wrote:
It's not only the brahmins who have a hand in this. The Dalai Lama has repeatedly maintained that homosexual acts are a violation against the precepts. At the same time, he insists on compassion and full human rights for all. His stance is solely concerned with what is appropriate behaviour for a Buddhist practitioner, not what should be made law. His argument is that the sexual organs are designed for procreation and should be used solely for that purpose. So any form of sex that is not for procreation is out.


First of all, taking the five genyen vows is not mandatory--it is something one elects to do.

Secondly, people should follow the explanation of their preceptor about what the vows mean. My preceptor, a great monk and scholar, made it very clear what we as lay people should regard as sexual misconduct. That did not include renouncing all oral and anal sex, or masturbation, and certainly not all recreational sex. I think few contemporary lay vow holders (of any sexual preference) understood it that way when they decided to take that vow.

_________________
My blog:
http://onsausalcreek.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 5:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 3:10 am
Posts: 128
Lhug-Pa wrote:
It's not that dramatic guys. I mean it's not like I've hurled insults at anybody or used pejoratives or anything like that.


Your dramatic lack of self-awareness and insight into how intensely hurtful the things you've said, in this thread alone (not to mention the other similar things you've said elsewhere), is as astonishing as it is sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 5:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm
Posts: 1428
Lhug-Pa wrote:
So we agree to disagree. Is that alright?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 5:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 3:10 am
Posts: 128
Lhug-Pa wrote:
Lhug-Pa wrote:
So we agree to disagree. Is that alright?


Nope. Not when it comes to hate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 5:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:13 pm
Posts: 339
Adumbra wrote:
homosexuality, especially pederasty, has been a common practice for centuries in Buddhist monastaries throughout Asia and, unlike Catholicism which turned a blind eye to a practice which was definitely considered sinful, it was often practiced very openly as an acceptable form of sexual release for monks who couldn't get married.

Here's an interesting article: Homosexuality in Japanese Buddhist Tradition.


Homosexuality for lay Buddhists is one thing, but for oath-bound celibate monastics it is quite another. To suggest that it is openly acceptable for monks is completely incorrect. The problem is that your argument is based on a source that is not even remotely credible.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm
Posts: 1428
Kunzang wrote:
Nope. Not when it comes to hate.


Is H.H. the Dalai Lama's saying that homosexual acts are forbidden "hate"?

(By the way, he never retracted his statement, he only said he would consider revising his view if he ever found evidence which contradicts his statement)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:55 pm
Posts: 1054
Location: Sunny California
Lhug-Pa wrote:
Kunzang wrote:
Nope. Not when it comes to hate.


Is H.H. the Dalai Lama's saying that homosexual acts are forbidden "hate"?

(By the way, he never retracted his statement, he only said he would consider revising his view if he ever found evidence which contradicts his statement)


So no oral sex for you, Lhugpa?

_________________
My blog:
http://onsausalcreek.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 7:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 3:10 am
Posts: 128
Lhug-Pa wrote:
Kunzang wrote:
Nope. Not when it comes to hate.


Is H.H. the Dalai Lama's saying that homosexual acts are forbidden "hate"?

(By the way, he never retracted his statement, he only said he would consider revising his view if he ever found evidence which contradicts his statement)


No. I don't think so. I think his statements are understandable from his conservative position with regards the rigid definitions of the Mulasarvastivadin Vinaya and the way changes in vinaya take place. I don't think they are coming from a place of hate at all. I think his statements have been widely misunderstood.

Personally, I hope you, Lhug-pa, aren't actually coming from a place of hatred and contempt from your heart the way some of your posts appear and I want to believe the best in you, so I'll elaborate on your question. And this also ties in with OP's original question about the Upasika Sutra.

The way I understand it, is that he was talking about specific definitions of the layperson ordination with regards to the precept on "sexual misconduct". And he was discussing how he or other vow-conferrers can't unilaterally change definitions of those vows -- it takes a whole assembly of the sangha to vote on it. That's what that was about. My own main Nyingma teacher, a monk, also talked about it in this way when I came out to him 25 years ago. So, technically speaking, as a layperson, you can't in the Mulasarvastivadin tradition hold the precept against "sexual misconduct" if you are, as they say, a "practicing homosexual".

However, in the Mulasarvastivadin tradition, you can still be considered a layperson without taking all five precepts. As far as I understand, you only have to hold one (and that one has to be the first one against non-killing) to hold the layperson vow (which is also then necessary for the bodhisattva vow, which is also necessary for the vajrayana samayas).

My teachers, all of them, have stressed loving-kindness and compassion and the cultivation of bodhicitta as so much more important than this one technical definition of the layperson precepts. I first took refuge 25 years ago. My teachers have always been encouraging and helpful with regards to my relationship, even though my husband isn't a Buddhist though he has always shown great respect for Buddhism and my teachers. We had our 26th anniversary this past Tuesday, Sept. 25.

So, I know the traditional specific defintions about "sexual misconduct" in texts like the Upasika Sutra and other similar texts. Even if one considers them authoritative, it doesn't matter. That's not how Buddhism works. It's not like if you have one "flaw", you can't practice everything else not related to that one "flaw" or it won't work.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 8:43 am 
Online
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
Lhug-Pa wrote:
Kunzang wrote:
Nope. Not when it comes to hate.


Is H.H. the Dalai Lama's saying that homosexual acts are forbidden "hate"?

(By the way, he never retracted his statement, he only said he would consider revising his view if he ever found evidence which contradicts his statement)
Don't use the Dalai Lama to justify your hatred. It does nothing to bolster your position. In academic circles it is called an appeal to authority. Why not appeal to your own bodhicitta instead? You deal with your issues (homophobia) and let the Dalai Lama deal with his. In the mean time try applying right speech to your outbursts. Look at your statements and see how you would feel about them if they were directed at things that you may identify with (and even that is not quite enough, since homosexuality cannot be reduced to just a mode of identification). Look at your outbursts and see how you would feel if they were directed to an integral aspect of yourself: your skin colour, your sex, your height, the colour of your eyes, etc...
:namaste:

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 8:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm
Posts: 1428
Yudron, I have done oral sex with women in the past; yet I refrain from doing it now.

Thank you for elaborating Kunzang. I really do not wish to drag this out anymore; so as things currently stand here, I'd rather just leave it as us agreeing to disagree.

Although I do want to point out, Gregkavarnos, that using inapplicable words like "hatred" and referring to my posts as "outbursts" is every bit a logical fallacy as any "appeal to authority".

:anjali:


Last edited by Lhug-Pa on Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 3:10 am
Posts: 128
Lhug-Pa wrote:

Thank you for elaborating Kunzang.
:anjali:


You're welcome. I think I can understand where you are coming from.

Upon reflection, I don't think you're intentionally trying to be hateful in your comments, it just comes across that way in numerous places.

You might want to look into that.

Deeply.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2012 12:44 pm
Posts: 220
Location: UK
Lhug-Pa wrote:
I really do not wish to drag this out anymore; so as things currently stand here, I'd rather just leave it as us agreeing to disagree.


Agreeing to disagree with you would imply that your views had some validity or integrity. They do not. Whatever it is you intend to say, you are communicating a deep and hostile prejudice.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm
Posts: 1428
Agreeing to disagree means respecting other's right to have their own views, even if you don't think that the other individual's views have any validity or integrity.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 126 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group