Here is a great discussion and explication on the Buddhist views on homosexuality. This is an often misunderstood issue, especially with the Dalai Lama having stated that homosexuality is "wrong" on several occasions. We need a more measured and compassionate view that relies on the original teachings of the Buddha.
Daily Buddhism offers this wider context (I am including almost the whole post here, so be kind and go visit the blog for other great content):
My personal sense is that if we follow the five precepts in our sexual conduct, then any loving, consensual sexual relations are cool. And as far as sexual misconduct, I think the four points above on right and wrong behavior cover the issue well.Buddhism and Homosexuality
Question:
What is the view on Homosexuality and Buddhism? Is it condemned or accepted or just something they don’t want to talk about? Hope your nor offended by me asking you to answer this topic.
Answer:
Offended? Nope. Actually, I’m surprised no one asked before the election. As you might imagine, opinions are all over the place on this topic.
***Next, for laypeople:
We are supposed to follow the five precepts, which includes the promise not to engage in sexual misconduct. What exactly is sexual misconduct?
(from religionfacts.com see source links below):
Right and wrong behavior in Buddhism is generally determined by considerations such as the following:
* Universalibility principle - “How would I like it if someone did this to me?”
* Consequences - Does the act causes harm and regret (in oneself or others) or benefit and joy?
* Utilitarian principle - Will the act help or harm the attainment of goals (ultimately spiritual liberation)?
* Intention - Is the act motivated by love, generosity and understanding?“Sexual misconduct” has thus traditionally been interpreted to include actions like coercive sex, sexual harassment, child molestation and adultery. As Homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha’s sayings recorded in the Pali Canon (Tripitaka), most interpreters have taken this to mean that homosexuality should be evaluated in the same way as heterosexuality, in accordance with the above principles.
The above seems to point to the acceptability of homosexuality. There are plenty of opposition opinions on this, and there are even some important people who don’t seem fully committed either way.
***
Overall, Buddhism is more accepting of gays than most of the other “big” religions. My own point of view is that consensual sexual activity by a committed couple, whether engaged in by a heterosexual or homosexual couple, is not sexual misconduct, and this is a point of view shared by many others. It really all hinges upon whether or not harm is being done and the motivations behind the relationship, and the same goes for heterosexual relationships for that matter!
Here are a few sites that discuss the issue more fully. I have quoted from a few them above.
http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/buddhism.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_budd.htm
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-18-2004-56791.asp
Here is another view on this topic:
Homosexuality and Sexual Misconduct
The third of the five precepts refers to sexual behaviour. In the Theravada tradition of Buddhism, with which I am most familiar, the third precept is perhaps more precisely rendered as "I undertake the rule of training not to go the wrong way for sexual pleasure". What then would constitute "going the wrong way" and would this include homosexual acts? To determine this, we need to consider the criteria which Buddhists are advised to use in making ethical judgements. From the Buddha's discourses, there can be discerned three bases on which we can make judgements about our behaviour:-
- we should consider the consequences of our actions, their effects on ourselves and others
- we should consider how we would feel if others did the same thing to us
- we should consider whether the behaviour is instrumental to our goal of Nirvana.
Using these criteria, Buddhist commentators have usually construed sexual misconduct to include rape, sexual harassment, molestation of children, and unfaithfulness to one's spouse. Clearly, these manifestations of sexual misconduct can apply equally to homosexual and heterosexual behaviour. The third precept is not a blanket prohibition, nor a simplistic depiction of some behaviours as wrong and other behaviours as right.
In fact, Buddhist ethics have been described as utilitarian, in that they are concerned less with "good" and "evil" and more with whether an action is "skilful", ie conducive to a good end in relation to the criteria mentioned above and whether it is motivated by good intentions (based upon generosity, love and understanding).
The sayings of the Buddha, as recorded in the Pali Canon, do not I believe include any explicit reference to homosexuality or to homosexual acts. This has been taken to mean that the Buddha did not consider that one's sexual orientation was relevant to his message, which was how to escape from suffering and achieve enlightenment. If it was not important enough to mention, homosexuality could not have been considered a barrier to one's moral and spiritual development.
On the other hand, the Buddha's teachings in no way exhort us to a life of hedonistic pursuit of pleasure, sexual or otherwise. While the Buddha did not deny the existence of enjoyment in this world, he pointed out that all worldly pleasure is bound up with suffering, and enslavement to our cravings will keep us spinning in a vortex of disappointment and satiation. The Buddhist's objective is not to eliminate sensual pleasures but to see them as they are through the systematic practice of mindfulness.
One feature of Buddhism which may interest gays and lesbians is that the teachings place no particular value on procreation. Marriage and the raising of children are seen as positive but are by no means compulsory. On the contrary, celibacy is in most traditions considered to be a requirement for those seeking higher levels of development as Buddhists. Monks and nuns take vows of strict celibacy, and even pious lay people undertake to be celibate at certain times in order to pursue their mental and spiritual development. This means that from the religious perspective there is no stigma which is necessarily attached to being unmarried and childless, although there may of course be social and cultural pressures which override this.
I agree with their take on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment