Heartland

These discussion occurred in Heartland and one of the members thought it would be interesting for Yawningbread and he posted it here. I basically ripped the entire page and posted it here, hope YB don’t mind

The conversation will be a bit difficult to read for those not very familiar with Buddhists talking, unfortunately. However, the whole premise of this discussion is base around how sometimes when non-gay Buddhists discuss Buddhism with gay people, it will be inadvertently centred around “giving up sexual desires”. So my question was why must only gay people give up sexual desires and not the non-gay people? When on says they are getting married or going have to have kids, does it not involves around sexual desires too? How come no one tells them to give up sexual desires when couples want to get married or have babies?

1. From: Zeras; 30 August 1999

I just joined this mailing list and visited Heartland. And may I say that it is a job well done that such a Buddhist support group is created in Singapore! Sadhu!

I have some points to make, strictly personal opinions though… I hope you find them useful.

1) Buddhism is about ultimately transcending sexuality. The Buddha is not human; He was human, transcending humanity when He attained Enlightenment. Thus the famous conversation:

Are you God?
“No.”
Are you an Angel (Deva)?
“No.”
Are you Man?
“No.”
Then who are you?
“I am Awake”

(The word “Buddha” means “the Awakened one”

He was neither male nor female. He was neither gay nor bisexual or straight. He had gone beyond the limits of being mere human, beyond gender, like all other Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. “He” is proof that we can all be like “Him.”

2) If we, be we gay or bisexual or straight, are to make too much a fuss out of sex or sexuality, becoming obsessed with sexual pleasure instead of renouncing our lust, which is a form of greed, part of the Three Poisons (Greed, Hatred and Ignorance), then we are more animal than human, as the animal mindstate is concerned only with fulfilling animal instincts with no nobler cause in life. One might then be reborn in the animal realm after death.

3) Be we gay or bisexual or straight, we are all affected by the Three Poisons. A different sexual orientation only means the “subject or object of one’s affections” is different. For example, the sexual desire (greed) a straight guy has for a girl is no different from the desire a gay has for another person. The point is not to focus excessively on what form of desire is legitimate (as it is proven controversial)- the point is to cure ourselves of the Three Poisons as soon as possible- this is the practice of the Buddhist Teachings- to purify our Minds.

4) Sexual desire is one of the main impediments of the spiritual path. We are largely reborn because of our attachment to worldly pleasure- the peak of which is sexual pleasure. The last lingering image in the dying’s mind is usually the “beloved,”- the person we are attached to in more ways than one, including sexually. Because of this, we are reborn again.

In Section 24 of “The Sutra of 42 Sections,” The Buddha taught that there is no desire as powerful as the desire for sexual pleasure- if there was one more such desire in this world, it would be impossible for sentient beings to cultivate the Dharma.

5) Sexual pleasure is not a need if we are mindful- it is a want. Sexual pleasure is a need only for those who are unmindful, overwhelmed by craving. It is not necessary for one’s survival, not essential to becoming Enlightened.

By the way, I am not gay, am attached, and am not against any sexual orientation as long as it does not invoke any more Greed, Hatred or Ignorance in this world.

Yours in the Dharma,
Bro.Zeras

* * * * *

2. From: Kelvin Wong; 1 Sep 1999

My heart felt thanks to bro. Zeras for the kind and encouraging comments. I entirely agree with all the points he have made and encourages all to practice in that direction….

After reading the posting, I realize that the GAY STEREOTYPE in the straight world’s view is suffering from some illnesses. I hope that the replies below don’t not offend anyone nor do I mean to. I would like to apologise for any transgression first. I want to be as direct as possible in this issue, without beating around the bush.

Before I begin, I would like to set the stage clear first. I would assume that bro. Zeras does not have very close relationships with the gay community (maybe only one or two gay friends), as such, he might not have a deep view about it, but rather understanding is based on what have been presented as a stereotype from books, movies and society. It is indeed true that the only real dividing line between a gay person and a straight person is sexual preference. However, the mistake of many straight person(s) giving their first advise to a gay community is to centre on the issue of SEX. The theme would usually be on how we should transcend sex, avoid it or cut it all out.

My question would be why is it so important for a gay person to give that all up, whereas a straight person is always encouraged to have babies, get married, etc. Why are there always less emphasize for the straight people on the issue of sexual desires? To say that we are straight or attached, we are really saying that we have sexual desires for the opposite sex, no?

It is actually understandable as most people would stereotype a gay person as a sexual deviant or sex-crazed maniac, simply because they have not had personally touched or understood the pysche of the gay person or community.

Already sexual desire is so primal and difficult to detach (How many straight Buddhist Dharma farers have really succeeded?) For the gay person, its an addition burden of guilt, shame and fear. If we were to advise a gay person to avoid or cut off his sexual desire, that aversion and suppression is not healthy and may not help.

That is why, the objective has never been to practice to cut off sexual desire. Of course, if a Dharma farer is able to transcend his/her own sexual desire, its wonderful!

If we examine closely, we will realize that these guilt, shame and fear that a gay person has is not because gay sex is a dirty, unclean, sinful or shameful. Rather its society’s hang up on SEX and on talking about it and its view on sexual preferences, that the problem rose. Don’t misunderstand that I want society to remove the hang up on SEX, so that everyone can have sex as and when they like. I would like everyone, really, to cultivate the RIGHT VIEW about sex and sexual preferences.

We must understand that there are and have been societies where homosexuality is accepted as part of the society and could even be considered more “high class” that heterosex, so the view that we hold is not absolute.

So far the question has mostly been: Why gay people are like that? How can they change? etc. In fact, it should have been: Why did we (the society) have such narrow views? Why are we giving them guilt, shame and fear? How can our families, friends, work and government help them to be part of a big family as a gay person?

I understand that this issue has more to it the just this. I hope that it clears the path to greater mutual understanding and development of a correct view.

Metta
Kelvin Wong

* * * * *

3. From: Zeras; 1 Sep 1999

Thank you for apreciating the article. I apologise if the mail seemed like it emphasised on severing sexuality from our lives right here and now, be we gay, bi, straight or whatsoever. I was speaking in the ultimate sense as in- in the end, Enlightenment, to be achieved, requires, beyond the shadow of a doubt, going beyond sexuality and any attachment to any minute form of sensual/ sexual pleasure. A slightest yielding to a mere simple pleasure of the senses on the Diamond Seat of Enlightenment will yank one miles away from seeing the ultimate light.

One should not proud to be straight. And I believe no one has to be ashamed that they are not straight- as long as they are not harming anyone physically or mentally, in the mundane sense and in the spiritual sense.

I am still human, too human- I experience lust too- and I watch it- careful it doesn’t manifest in spiritually or physically unhealthy ways… sometimes I fail, sometimes I succeed. And yes, I try to transcend it, as I walk the Middle Path. It isn’t easy, but hey! The Buddha never told me it was going to be. That’s where Right Effort comes in, ever so crucial. :-]

Metta
zeras

* * * * *

4. From: LLA; date unclear, probably 1 Sep 1999

This is in response to Bro Zeras’s comment below on the Heartlanders.

I refer to paragraph (2). 2. I find that this statement is fundamentally flawed and repulsive. Although the author tries to emphasise that it is a noble cause to reduce, if not renounce, sexual pleasure, he inadvertently elevate sexual orientations of different nature to par level. No, I don’t think if Buddha were alive he would agree with such recognition of equal status among gay, bisexual and straight orientation. The Buddha taught about the ways of householder’s life towards blessings and happiness. However, deviant sexual practice by gays (such as anal intercourse) will never be accepted in Buddhism, for it goes directly against the very institution of family life! As Buddhists, we may accommodate different sexual orientations, but we should never go to the extent of jeopardising the core values of our beliefs. This is what the Buddha meant by the middle path. The spirit of the statement might be positive but the presentation is definitely misleading in a suggestive manner.

Next, I would like u to look at paragraph (3). 3. This statement is basically a recurrence of 2nd paragraph content, but with more intensity and force. If para 2 serves as a disguise, this statement must be the give away of the author’s fallacy. He took one step further to synchronise the different types of sexual orientation into one – “sexual desire without discrimination”. He meant that no matter what forms sex take, the culprit is the same – desire. This is most ridiculous. Even for Buddhists couples, certain deviant sexual practice (such as oral sex) are not approved. Secularly, Singapore has also outlawed oral sex and anal sex as unnatural sex, punishable with heavy jail sentences and canning. If the author is unable to distinguish between right and wrong, light and darkness, he is therefore unfit to utter his views, for these are deviant and illegal views, and in Buddhism, it is wrong view. The author’s intention might be towards compassion, but in this instance he is decisively unskilful in his words and style of writing.

[quoted passages snipped, since they can be seen above]

Sadhu!
LLA

* * * * *

5. From: TQK; 1 Sep 1999

If i remember correctly the Dalai Lama said that if the Dharma contradicts scientific knowhow or proven facts then we shd abide by the latter instead. Let’s question the concept of what is ‘natural’ or ‘unnatural’ sex.Is it natural simply because the majority engages in it? Until today there is suppose to be only the missionary position which is deemed acceptable by certain religious stds. Even other forms of vaginal but natural sex is forbidden. I’m sure to gays ‘oral’ sex is the most natural sex. Must the minorities resigned themselves to be be deemed as ‘of lower status’ by the majority simply because of their different acts and behaviour? In a famous incident the Buddha encouraged his disciple to continue to honour and support his previous religious teacher even when their teachings differ. Such is the grace and magnanimity of the Lord Buddha. Must we then renounce or worse prosecute gays in our self defined concepts or ‘family values’. Let’s discuss the concept of ‘the institution of family life’. Every species exist to fulfil one and only role i.e. to procreate. As i mentioned in the last gathering, every yr in the US they have a deer hunting season. Void of natural enemies the deers breed like rabbits. Without attempts at culling the deer population, the deers will run out of leaves to feed and start on the barks thereby killing the trees. Ultimately they will starve themselves to death by killing their very own source of food. Ironically they will have to depend on deer hunters to kill some of their kin to ensure the survival of their own species. Talk about mercy killing.

We human beings do not have the luxury of a superior being to cull our overpopulation of planet Earth. As Boney M once sang’ Don’t kill the world; she’s all we have’ , how different are we from the deers when we insist on maintaining the status quo of ‘the institution of family life’ and continue to increase the world’s population? No other species can compete with humans for food and resources and every additional human being born will rob the place of another soon to be extinct species unless there is a corresponding dead. Even then the human instinct of neverending greed will still tax the earth’s resources regardless of the amount of recycling we do. I’m inclined to hope for the best but prepare for the worse and at the rate we are going it is difficult to be optimistic.

The inherent need to procreate is not altruistic love but selfish desire or love). Otherwise we can do like what our pragmatic govt does; whatever we do not produce let’s import (incl. foreign talents and babies (why not?)). Try persuading our fertile couples to adopt a China baby girl which may be on the verge of being another victim of infanticide. As i wrote in an article about sexual attraction in The Daily Enlightenment at http://www.kmspks.org, the entire premise of sexual attraction is based on input skewed input of our imperfect senses. In computer jargon: Garbage in garbage out. That’s why its futile to debate of what is natural or unnatural sex when both are but manifestations of an unenlightened mind.

So for the sake of argument; why not gays? Isn’t this the answer to one of the biggest problem the world is facing today? That of overpopulation? Don’t worry about human extinction, the same argument applies to Buddhist and Catholic monks and nuns. They will always be the minority, likewise for gays. Yet no Buddhist or Catholic will dare suggest we discourage renunciation.

Gandhi said ,’The lower part of man is an animal’. Animals live solely by instincts and it is by instinct that the moth takes it suicidal flight to the source of light. Let us have the wisdom to see clearly despite the Light.

Metta
TQK

* * * * *

6. From: Song, 2 Sep 1999

Hi Zeras,

I’m glad you’ve found heartland and added your name to the mailing list. I have enjoyed and learnt from your contributions to the TDE [3]. Like Kelvin, I would also like to thank you for your well-meaning advice on Mon, 30 Aug and here, below. The points you’ve made are indeed relevant and I do agree with them. Nevertheless, after reading your postings, I can’t help but feel that you have not spent much time considering the issue of gay sexuality and frustrations borne by the gay buddhist and the gay community in general. Please do not take offense at what I’ve just said because I mean no offense at all.

One of the objectives in cultivating the Dharma is to ultimately transcend sexuality. But before we are able to do that – transcend sexuality – I’m sure you’ll agree with me that sex forms a part of our behavioural landscape. As you’ve pointed out in Section 24 of “The Sutra of 42 Sections”, the Buddha taught that there is no desire as powerful as the desire for sexual pleasure – if there was one more such desire in the world, it would be impossible for sentient beings to cultivate the Dharma. So, what’s the point here? It is that while it is okay for people to succumb to their desires and engage in heterosexual sex, gay people have no such leeway; gay sex is forbidden as it constitutes a violation of the precept on sexual misconduct. Well then, what is the gay buddhist to do? Remain celibate? Is that what is expected of him/her? How is he/she to reconcile himself/herself with the proscription on gay sex? How is it fair that heterosexual sex is condoned to the degree that a married couple can have sex up to 5 times a night while a man who has sex with his beloved, another man, for just once in his lifetime is deemed to have committed sexual misconduct? Do you see how absurd and exasperating this is?

Gay people do not choose to be gay any more than straight people made the conscious decision to be straight. Sexual orientation is inborn. Given the choice, if that were possible, gay people would gladly choose to be straight so as to avoid the associated prejudice and discrimination. Many have tried to turn straight – some have even gone to the extent of getting married and having children – only to come to the painful realisation some time later that they have only managed to betray themselves and create more suffering.

Dear Zeras, I’m more than sure that your advice and views were dispensed with good intentions and sincerity. But just like sweeping the dust under the carpet to keep the room clean doesn’t get rid of the dust, shoving the issue of gay sex and sexuality under the umbrella of transcending desires does nothing to address the situation and ameliorate circumstances. Look closely, the issue is not really about sex, sex, sex alone. It is much more; it encompasses the struggle for full human rights and the opposition to discrimination based on sexual orientation. Zeras, I hope I haven’t appeared hostile to you, but if I do, I sincerely apologise because it is not my intention to be unfriendly. You have been kind and open-minded and I hope that you gain a better understanding of the plight of gay people.

Your sis, Song

* * * * *

7. From: Kelvin Wong, 3 Sep 1999

Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu!
What beautiful Dharma!
What great teachings we have received!
A good brother has spoken,
you all should listen, carefully!

> I refer to paragraph (2). 2. I find that this statement is
> fundamentally flawed and repulsive. Although the author tries to
> emphasise that it is a noble cause to reduce, if not renounce, sexual
> pleasure, he inadvertently elevate sexual orientations of different
> nature to par level.

When Bodhidharma went to China,
The China men say: “How disgraceful and barbaric this man,”
“To not wear shoes nor have one to wear!”
How can he be a great Zen master?

When the Englishmen saw Buddha eating his alms
They thought: “How unsightly, rude and uncultivated this man,”
“To use his hands to eat without a drop of shame!”
How can he be the one to deliver the true teachings!

> No, I don’t think if Buddha were alive he would
> agree with such recognition of equal status among gay, bisexual and
> straight orientation. The Buddha taught about the ways of
> householder’s life towards blessings and happiness. However, deviant
> sexual practice by gays (such as anal intercourse) will never be
> accepted in Buddhism, for it goes directly against the very institution
> of family life!

When Mara went to Buddha, he said “I am tired”
“Tired that people curse me, avoid me and repulse me”
Buddha said, “I am not better off than you!”
“People put words into my mouth and hold their views and says it mine!”

> As Buddhists, we may accommodate different sexual
> orientations, but we should never go to the extent of jeopardising the
> core values of our beliefs. This is what the Buddha meant by the
> middle path. The spirit of the statement might be positive but the
> presentation is definitely misleading in a suggestive manner.

Sun suns, moon moons, rain rains, is the true way,
Right path, left path, middle path, there are no paths,
Right view, wrong view, mistaken view, hold on to any one, you fall to hell.
Are you thirsty? Then, go drink tea!

> Next, I would like u to look at paragraph (3). 3. This statement is
> basically a recurrence of 2nd paragraph content, but with more
> intensity and force. If para 2 serves as a disguise, this statement
> must be the give away of the author’s fallacy. He took one step
> further to synchronise the different types of sexual orientation into
> one – “sexual desire without discrimination”. He meant that no matter
> what forms sex take, the culprit is the same – desire. This is most
> ridiculous. Even for Buddhists couples, certain deviant sexual
> practice (such as oral sex) are not approved. Secularly, Singapore has
> also outlawed oral sex and anal sex as unnatural sex, punishable with
> heavy jail sentences and canning. If the author is unable to
> distinguish between right and wrong, light and darkness, he is
> therefore unfit to utter his views, for these are deviant and illegal
> views, and in Buddhism, it is wrong view. The author’s intention might
> be towards compassion, but in this instance he is decisively unskilful
> in his words and style of writing

Two monks argued, “The flag is moving!”,
“No, the wind is moving the flag!”
Zen Master Hui Neng replied: “It is your mind that moved!”

Buddha picks up a lump of shit and smiles,
Everyone understands and smiles except one,
He says: “Buddha you are such supreme being,”
“you should not be touching shit, it is too low for you!”

Metta
Kelvin Wong

* * * * *

8. From: Zeras, 3 Sep 1999

Bravo Brother! :-]
Well said.
I have one line to add…

If we can “Leave all forms, and see all Buddhas” (Diamond Sutra),
then what is form, what is Buddha?
What is gay and what ungay?

* * * * *

9. From: Zeras, 3 Sep 1999

Hilo Sis,

>I’m glad you’ve found heartland and added your name to the mailing list. I
>have enjoyed and learnt from your contributions to the TDE.

Thank you for the support of TDE! :-]

>Like Kelvin, I would also like to thank you for your well-meaning
>advice on Mon, 30 Aug and here, below. The points you’ve
>made are indeed relevant and I do agree with them. Nevertheless,
>after reading your postings, I can’t help but feel that you have not
>spent much time considering the issue of gaysexuality and
>frustrations borne by the gay buddhist and the gay community
>in general. Please do not take offense at what I’ve just said because
>I mean no offense at all.

It is true- I’d not understood enough… :-[ Though it may seem so in my article, it had never occured to me that the gay Buddhist's life is an easy one to live. In fact, I strongly believe it is with much more trials and tribulations than the "normal" life.

>One of the objectives in cultivating the Dharma is to ultimately
>transcend sexuality. But before we are able to do that - transcend
>sexuality - I'm sure you'll agree with me that sex forms a part of
>our behavioural landscape. As you've pointed out in Section 24 of
>"The Sutra of 42 Sections", the Buddha taught that there is no
>desire as powerful as the desire for sexual pleasure - if there was
>one more such desire in the world, it would be impossible for
>sentient beings to cultivate the Dharma. So, what's the point here?
>It is that while it is okay for people to succumb to their desires and
>engage in heterosexual sex, gay people have no such leeway; gay
>sex is forbidden as it constitutes a violation of the precept on
>sexual misconduct. Well then, what is the gay buddhist to do? Remain
>celibate? Is that what is expected of him/her? How is he/she to
>reconcile himself/herself with the proscription on gay sex? How is it
>fair that heterosexual sex is condoned to the degree that a
>married couple can have sex up to 5 times a night while a man who
>has sex with his beloved, another man, for just once in his lifetime
>is deemed to have committed sexual misconduct? Do you see
>how absurd and exasperating this is?

I see what you mean.

>Gay people do not choose to be gay any more than straight people
>made the conscious decision to be straight. Sexual orientation is
>inborn. Given the choice, if that were possible, gay people would
>gladly choose to be straight so as to avoid the associated prejudice
>and discrimination. Many have tried to turn straight - some have
>even gone to the extent of getting married and having children - only
>to come to the painful realisation some time later that they have
>only managed to betray themselves and create more suffering.

I disagree one point- if we speak in terms of karma, we must have planted the cause somehow in the past to influence our sexual orientation to be so now- be it mindfully or not. In this sense, we did choose to be the way we are. Otherwise, we would have to attribute the cause of our behavioural tendencies to some designer a.k.a. God.

>Dear Zeras, I'm more than sure that your advice and views were
>dispensed with good intentions and sincerity. But just like sweeping
>the dust under the carpet to keep the room clean doesn't get rid of
>the dust, shoving the issue of gay sex and sexuality under the
>umbrella of transcending desires does nothing to address the
>situation and ameliorate circumstances.

If you read the mail again, you will notice that it isn't about hiding the problem. It is a mere emphasis that the problem to be solved ultimately, gay or not, is with the transcendence of sexuality in the course of spiritual cultivation- which WILL definitely happen naturally as part of the path to Enlightenment. And we all have the power to put in Right Effort to mindfully quicken (without hurrying madly) the process of cultivation

> Look closely,
>the issue is not really about sex, sex, sex alone. It is much more; it
>encompasses the struggle for full human rights and the opposition to
>discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Yes.

>Zeras, I hope I haven't appeared
>hostile to you, but if I do, I sincerely apologise because it is not my
>intention to be unfriendly. You have been kind and open-minded and
>I hope that you gain a better understanding of the plight of gay people.

Thanks for the elaboration. :-]

Metta
zeras

* * * * *

10. From: Ibix, 3 Sep 1999

Dear Bro LLA

I’m sure most, if not all, of our dharma brothers in Heartland find your
[letter #4] a little harsh, if not downright ignorant.

In fact, from your references to terms such as ‘family institution’ and the laws of Singapore, you sound like an active promoter of the PAP’s ideals rather than the Buddha’s teachings. Let’s not confuse the issue – what our government lays down as ‘laws’ have absolutely nothing to do with Buddhism. Just because it’s legal does not mean it agrees with the principles of Buddhism.

Consider these examples:
1) Is it inherently ‘wrong’ to bring chewing gum into Singapore just because our local laws forbid it?
2) Would the Buddha approve of abortion, although it is legal in Singapore?
3) What about the death sentence? Would the Enlightened One condone it?

It is amazing that, as a Buddhist, you are still so hung up on your imagined ‘status’ confusion between gay, bisexual and straight people. These are all ‘labels’ conveniently slapped on individuals for the sake of identity and discrimination. That’s all there is to it. Labels, nothing more.

I believe there is no way you can understand the true complexity of homosexuality. Science offers no clear answers, although I’m very sure one’s sexual inclination is already determined from birth. A straight person (especially from the man’s point of view) has no way of really understanding what it means to be gay. Unless you put yourself in the shoes of the opposite sex and ask yourself, ‘Do I still prefer girls, or has the fact that I’m now a biological female changed my sexual preference too?’

I hope you find the wisdom to end your obsession with labels and stereotypes. You should really be concentrating on eradicating one of the ‘roots’ of our suffering: attachment and desire. Please refrain from enforcing your suffocating views on anyone. Especially non-buddhists. My advice to you, as a brother in Dharma, is to meditate on the Heart Sutra. I hope you will find the realization to change your misguided views on homosexuality and other similar issues.

I find it highly appropriate to end with a quote from the Heart Sutra:

“Therefore, Shariputra, in emptiness there no form, no feeling, no discrimination, no compositional factors, no consciousness… …Likewise, there is no suffering, origin, cessation or path; no exalted wisdom, no attainment and also no non-attainment.”

Simple Metta
Ibix