Is Buddhism Anti-Gay?

Great Debates
1

I was surprised to see this news item on the Advocate’s web site:

“A former interpreter for the Dalai Lama and critic of Buddhism’s traditional ban on homosexuality will lead the Tibetan Buddhism program at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Jose Ignacio Cabezon will be the first professor to hold the endowed XIV Dalai Lama Chair for the program. The son of Cuban immigrants, the former Buddhist monk currently is a philosophy professor at the Iliff School of Theology in Denver. He has challenged the Dalai Lama’s position that gay sexuality is misconduct and violates Buddhist ethics. However, he has also praised the exiled religious leader for opposing violence and discrimination against gay people.”

—Admittedly, I know nothing about Buddhism, but always had a rather high opinion of it, as religions go. Do the “Buddhist ethics” really condemn homosexuality, and if so, on what grounds?

[Please feel free to move this thread to whereever—since it involved religion, I thought I’d plant it here]

2

I thought they were opposed to “desires” in general. Homosexuality would be a desire.

3

Buddhist laymen (and laywomen) are encouraged to follow the Five Precepts, which stipulate:[ul][li]don’t kill[/li][li]don’t steal[/li][li]don’t tell lies[/li][li]don’t drink intoxicating beverages, and[/li][li]don’t commit adultery (or engage in “inapproriate” sexual conduct)[/ul]I imagine the Dali Lama’s policy regarding homosexuality is based on the last precept.[/li]
To my knowledge, the Buddha himself never explicitly discussed homosexuality, but the last precept is open to interpretation, I guess. In addition, you have to remember that Buddhism is a pretty large religion with a number of different sects, and the Dalai Lama doesn’t speak for all of them as a whole. Having said that, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that homosexuality is generally frowned upon by Buddhists.

Buddhism is “world-denying” religious philosophy, which means that, taking the teaching in its most extreme form, it is arguably even anti-heterosexual. All attachments to the world of forms, even emotional bonds between people, are shackles that hinder one on the path to enlightenment. Thus, a Buddhist marriage ceremony ends with an admonishment to the newlyweds: may you live in happiness together, but remember, all things are impermenant – even love.

4

First, a little background:

This of course goes on for a while and in some detail. Very distilled Buddhism would be: all unhappiness stems from desire, so if one does not desire, then one will not be unhappy.

Buddhist monks and nuns are supposed to maintain vows of celibacy.

I can’t cite anything specific on homosexuality, however, I believe the logic might be something like this: devout Buddhists should restrict their activites to those which are involved in procreation. Since homosexuality does not (AFAIK, but K. Vonnegut might disagree) aid in the reproductive process, then this would fall into the sensual craving (Kamachanda) category, and thus be shunned by the devout.

So, the Dalai Lama, who is seen (by some) as the spiritual leader of Hinayana Buddhism, would probably view homosexual contact as a disfavourable activity, since it would impede one’s path to enlightenment (as would fornication without the purpose of procreation of anyone, or masturbation, etc)
Please note this is my personal inference, but does not reflect my personal views.

On the other hand, Theravada Buddhism is more accepting of these things, since they happen in the modern world. They probably would also not condone them (I will dig deeper for cites, time allowing), but they seem to be pretty laidback, non-judgemental kind of folks.

Hope this helps.

5

The short answer is that it Buddhism is not against gay people, but the stance on homosexual acts depends on what sect you’re talking about.

The fine folks over at religioustolerance.org have put together a page detailing the teachings of many religions on homosexuality. From there, we learn that Zen and Theravada Buddhism do not make a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. The Dalai Lama says that, while homosexual acts are inappropriate for Tibetan Buddhists, “…some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context.”. The page dealing with Buddhist teachings is located at http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_budd.htm, for those who are interested in further reading.

6

All very enlightening—thanks for the input!

7

Guess there wouldn’t be much of an audience for a “Buddha hates fags!” web page, eh? :slight_smile:

8

Originally posted by ultrafilter

Good point - The Dali Lama is from the Gelugpa (?) sect of Tibetan Buddhism that focuses primarily on monastic living, so any form of sexuality would probably be looked upon by the Dali Lama as an attachment (that is, a hinderence to achieving enlightenment/nirvana). My understanding of Buddhism (in general - not necessarily sect specific) is that engaging in any form of sexual activity hinders the person’s ability to achieve enlightenment.

ShibbOleth,

Not really a nitpick, but a clarification. In general you are correct that there are two primary schools of thought in Mahayana and Hinayana. However, many Theravedans (the only remaining sect of the Hinayana school of thought) do not like the term Hinayana as it was a term coined by the Mahayanas and used somewhat derisively.

Some scholars identify a third school of thought - Vajrayana - to refer to the Buddhism developed and practiced by the Tibetans. Others classify it as part of the Mahayana school in that it adheres to many of the tenets of the various Mahayana Buddhists sects. A major distinction between Tibetan Buddhism and the other sects of Mahayana Buddism are elements of Tantrism derived from Hinduism.

The Dali Lama is the spiritual leader of the Gelugpa sect of Tibetan Buddhism, and is recognized by most (if not all) Tibetans as its political leader as well. There are other Tibetan Buddhist sects that have their leaders - however, the Dali Lama has considerable influence throughout the worldwide Buddhist community.

9

There is NO buddhist doctrine of any kind prohibiting homosexuality in general. Buddhism doesn’t have anything similar to “sin” or “10 commandments” so this article is based on a deliberate misinterpretation of buddhism. I know many gay and lesbian buddhists who were attracted to my sect because of its open acceptance of homosexuality.

10

eponymous, thanks for the edification! I am not Buddhist, nor do I pretend to be an expert on it, just trying to relay a layperson’s perspective. My exposure to Buddhism has been via Thailand, so there is a bit of a filter as such. I did know that not every Buddhist sees the viewpoint as black and white as I quoted, and should have indicated such. I was not aware that Hinayana could be viewed as a pejorative term; I shall strive to avoid its use in any future discussion.

11

I dug around a bit and found a few sites that discuss Buddhism and homosexuality, for anyone who might be interested.

This page, written by Kerry Trembath, gives a sympathetic (if somewhat Westernized) take on the question. An article by A. L. De Silva, found here, is similar but a bit more in-depth.

Unfortunately, the issue is more complicated than these sources would lead one to believe. If you’re interested in a more scholarly approach to the question, go here. Very interesting reading, I must say. I didn’t realize the old Buddhists were quite so kinky. To summarize, the author argues that there are two opposing views of homosexuality that can be derived from Buddhist scripture, and that these views are in turn promulgated by two separate factions within the Thai monastic tradition (the article focuses exclusively on Buddhism in Thailand). The older, more conservative understanding views homosexuality as the result of karma from previous lives, which implies that it cannot be changed; accordingly, this view tends to have a more compassionate and accepting attitude towards homosexuality. The second view, more modern and more reformist, is connected to an emerging tendency within modern Thai Buddhism to downplay the role of karma and emphasize the control individuals have in their own lives. This progressive view tends to see homosexuality as a choice made by individuals, and is thus much more aggressive in its condemnation of gays and lesbians.

To complicate matters even further, our modern gender concepts don’t really apply well to ancient India. For one thing, the old Pali texts (original Buddhist scripture) identify four genders, rather than the two we are currently acquainted with. In addition to male and female, they also list the * Ubhatobyanjanaka*, or hermaphrodite, and the Pandaka – which nobody really knows what it is, like, but seems to be something akin to an “unmanly man,” probably a transsexual (from Transylvania, maybe?). And the Buddha did ban the Pandaka from becoming monks after a rather unfortunate incident involving some monks, some “stout novices”, an elephant trainer, and a particularly randy pandaka. Thai translators have translated the Pali word “pandaka” in Buddhist scripture as “Kathoey,” a Thai term which has in modern usage become a somewhat demeaning term for homosexuals. Hence the confusion.

By the way, just in case you’re wondering, the Buddha also condemns the following sorts of behaviors: sex with dead people who haven’t been gnawed on by animals (!), sex with dead people who have gnawed on by animals (!!), “auto-fallatio” “The Case of the Nimble-Backed Monk”, and (is this even possible, I wonder?) “auto-sodomy” “The Case of the Monk with a Long Penis”. All of these are straight-forwardly discussed in Buddhist scripture, along with such dubious activities as “monkey-fucking,” which, to judge by the words of the Enlightened One himself, is right out:

However, since I suspect that this is a bit more info that you asked for, Eve, I guess I’ll just shut up now.

12

That’s very, um, enlightening, Mr. Svinlesha.

Also, AFAIK, katoey is not generally used as a term for homosexual women, but can be broadly used to describe effeminate men, gay men, and a wide variety of transgendered individuals. Do you know if this is somehow derived directly from Pali Sanskrit? Or perhaps of more recent origin?

13

ShibbOleth:

I don’t speak Thai myself, but, at least according to the article quoted above, you are correct regarding the usage of kat[h]oey (sp?). Sorry if I didn’t make that clear. Pandaka also appear to be biologically male, and the term is sometimes translated as “eunuch.” There are some Ubhatobyanjanaka, however, that can change their stripes; upon becoming aroused, they transform into the opposite sex. So even our category of hermaphrodite doesn’t really describe them accurately.

If I remember correctly, the word “Kathoey” is not Pali or Sanskrit. Here is the quote from the text:

14

You’re leaving me hanging here …

15

There is no entirely correct way to spell Thai words in English, although there usually is an official way. The “h” in this case would be aspirative. Mrs. ShibbOleth and older Thai speakers may pronounce this with a very subtle “r” sound after the “k”. Net, don’t sweat it, I just used one of the more common spellings I have seen. And apropos of nothing, “katoey” is often translated as “lady boy”, although this does not seem to be a literal translation.