An interesting development on the Bhikkuni ordination from Ajahn Sujato’s blog:

———————————-

Source

We have heard rumors that a press conference held by ‘Wat Pa Pong’ was going to call for increased control over Western monks. Thanks to Sanitsuda Ekachai, here’s a preliminary report.

I’m not sure who took part in the press conference, as it mainly uses the formal titles which are never used in conversation. And i don’t know to what extent this ‘press conference’ represents a collective action by WPP. The whole thing is so unprecedented. There are no pre-existing procedures in WPP circles that would enable such things, so whatever happens it is new. It is highly unlikely that the Western Ajahns were consulted, certainly not all of them or in detail. Like the Dhammalight website, or the emails from the supposed watpahpong@gmail.com address – which this interview says were not from WPP – it is unclear whose agenda is being pushed here. The claim is that the conference represents the views of a council of 12 senior monks at WPP. I believe this is an ad hoc committee set up in the wake of the bhikkhuni ordination.

In the statement from the WAM and elsewhere, the Western Ajahns have been at pains to claim that their system is a slow and consensual one, and that deliberation and discussion must proceed any move. Clearly this is not how things are going on. They need to start acknowledging this reality, or else their brothers in Thailand are going to just keep going further off the wall. If WPP is really as consensual as they claim, then they must accept full responsibility for these attacks and views. If it is not consensual, then they need to stop hiding behind this smokescreen and admit that there simply is no way that bhikkhuni ordination could have been reasonably pursued within WPP circles.

Phra Kru Opaswuthikorn presided at the press conference today to urge the Office of National Buddhism and the Council of Elders to issue rules and regulations to empower the Thai Sangha to punish monks overseas who violate the Sangha’s mandates.

Phra Kru Opas spoke on behalf of the Wat Pah Pong executive board which made this decision last week.

Rough summary of press releases:

The Perth ordination is against the Vinaya-Dharma of Thai Theravada Buddhism as well as violating the Wat Pah Pong’s prohibition against female ordination. Aj Brahm was summoned to admit his mistake which refused to do, resulting in the excommunication. This decision was later approved by Somdet Phra Puttajarn who said Aj Brahm’s preceptorship was therefore automatically revoked.

Apart from ordaining women, Aj Brahm was also accused of temple mismanagement. The Bodhinyana Temple came into being through the faith and donations of Thai Buddhists in Perth. After the first abbot left monkhood, Aj Brahm was appointed as abbot and he later changed the temple bylaws and change the temple committee members for “his own interest” despite disagreement from the Bodhinyana Sangha.

Given that the Bhikkhuni ordination and temple ownership problems have greatly troubled the Thai Buddhists in Australia, a committee should be set up to investigate land ownership and temple mismanagement at Bodhinyana in order to return the land and temple to the Thai Buddhists and to ensure that the temple management is in line with Dhamma Vinaya.

To prevent future problems, rules and regulations should be issued so the Thai Sangha can punish the monks overseas who violate th laws and the clergy’s mandates.

On temple ownership overseas, this poses a problem of control because temples are owned by associations not the Thai Sangha like temples in Thailand. Should the abbots err, they still can stay if the temple committee support them. Or, when the abbots are in the right, they cannot stay if they don’t have support of the committee. The management of temples in Thailand, however, is under Thai Sangha’s administrative structure. When problems occur like in the case of Bodhinyana, it is then difficult to move due to lack of uniform rules which effectively govern temples in Thailand. To prevent similar problems, there should be a state agency to enforce the Thai Sangha law and to cover temples overseas.

I asked whether WPP sent emails to the Thai embasy and Sinporean organisers of Aj Brahm’s talks, the answer is no, WPP did not do that.

Asked if this control effort have been approved by the Western clergy since it would affect the Western monks’ relative autonomy which is useful to their dharma work, the answer that it is the decision of the WPP board consisting of 12 senior monks. That it was approved by LP Liam. But the answer was not clear if the Western Sangha was fully consulted or not.

Phra Kru Sudhamprachote said many Thai Buddhists in Perth are unhappy with Aj Brahm and are trying to find way to get him out the temple. But this is up to the people, WPP cannot do anything to support this action.

I asked if WPP has an alternative to Bhikkhuni. Aj Kevali is in favour of the Siladhara order. But Phra Kru Opas outrightly dismissed it, saying it it would be difficult for the order to be accepted in Thailand. He described Bhikkhuni ordination as against the Dhamma Vinaya. That the Buddha advised monks to stay away from women, because women and monks are like fire and fuel.

I asked what is the real issue concerning Aj Brahm, Bhikkhuni ordination or Aj Brahm’s secrecy and failure to consult the WPP clergy. Phra Kru Opas said the main issue is Bhikkhuni ordination. That there is no way that Thai Theravada Buddhism to have Bhikkhuni. And as far WPP concerns, Aj Brahm is no longer a Thai Theravada monk, but a Mahayana monk.

My hunch : This might be part of the existing problems of internal politics between Thai and Western monks in the WPP order. Luang Por Chah wanted the Western clergy to oversee the Western monks. Consequently, Thai monks have no say on temples overseas. But the Perth ordination shows Aj Sumedho’s failure to keep the monks under his supervision in line so the Thai monks have the reason to step in to control the Western monks and the temple properties abroad.

There are a number of critical points here.

Phra Kru Opas clearly states that the real issue is bhikkhuni ordination, which he says can never be accepted in Thai Buddhism. One the other hand, we have been told again and again by Western Ajahns that the real issue is not bhikkhuni ordination, but the ‘way it was done’. I give the Western Ajahns the benefit of the doubt here: I don’t think they are lying, I think they are just naive. They need to actively develop a culture of denial if they are to maintain the status quo and convince themselves that it is possible to remain with integrity within the existing structures of Thai State Buddhism. As I have said all along, and as the statement here confirms, there never was any possibility of advancing bhikkhuni ordination within the existing structures.

And, as I have also stated repeatedly, siladharas are no better in the eyes of the conservative Thai Sangha. Ordaining siladharas is just as illegal in Thailand as ordaining bhikkhunis – if the 1928 ruling is still in force – and Phra Kru Opas dismisses any chance that that order might make any headway in Thailand. The only advantage of the siladhara order is that it’s easy to dismiss it and not take it seriously. The plain fact is that if these ultra-conservative monks have their way, there is no chance of any improvement in women’s lot in Thai Buddhism.

The most astonishing accusations in Phra Opas’ statement concern the alleged temple mismanagement at Bodhinyana. These claims are so wrong that they beggar belief. Anyone who knows Ajahn Brahm would know that he is the most scrupulous and dedicated manager imaginable. He goes so far as to personally check every call on the phone bill, and will harass Telstra if there’s the slightest problem. The irony is that it was, in fact Wat Nanachat that was badly mismanaged for many years, because most of the other Ajahns, understandably enough, are not so concerned or knowledgeable about such matters. It ended up with lay committee members ripping off much of the donations. The rorts were only ended by Ajahn Nyanadhammo, who set up a rigorous system of checks on finances, which he had learnt to do from his time at Bodhinyana with Ajahn Brahm.

The notion that there are a set of ‘uniform rules’ that ‘effectively govern’ monasteries in Thailand is utter nonsense. Mainstream Thai Buddhism is rotten to its core. This is a staple part of Forest Tradition ideology. You don’t have to take my word for it, look at the actions of Phra Mongkut, or Ajahn Mun, or Ajahn Chah. They all operated under the quite reasonable knowledge that mainstream Thai Buddhism was bereft of any genuine Dhamma, and that only by reforming or living on the margins of the system could one live with integrity.

Things have not improved since their times. On the contrary, it has got much worse. The past generation has seen unprecedented wealth pour into the coffers of the Thai Sangha. There is precious little oversight and no proper policies on how to deal with this. The situation in the past at Wat Nanachat was not the exception but the norm – and not every monastery has an abbot trained in Australian accounting procedures. Everyone agrees that the existing system is inadequate at best and needs overhauling, yet no-one has been able to do it. So it just lurches along from scandal to scandal.

In the forest monasteries you will constantly hear stories of how corrupt the city/village monks are: the monks who set up a still to brew the leftover sticky rice from alms-round – and then tried to sell the liquor back to the villagers; the monastery that was running a brothel out the back; the use of temple boys to pleasure the monks; the monk who had an affair with a novice, and then when he got jealous, murdered his unfaithful lover; the tudong monk who stayed overnight in a village monastery, only to wake up with a naked monk in his bed; the village who got so sick of their monks’ behaviour they took their Buddha image to Bangkok, dumped it and declared they would no longer be Buddhists; the monastery that was so jealous when a nearby monastery actually started teaching meditation that they accused the meditation teacher of being a communist spy; the monks who salt away all the temple money for years, then disrobe and retire rich; selling drugs from monasteries; or the claim by the Thai Religious Affairs department that 10% of Thai monks were addicted to methamphetamine. And on it goes.

But none of these are the problem: ordaining bhikkhunis is the problem.

A few more specifics need mention.

After the first abbot left monkhood, Aj Brahm was appointed as abbot and he later changed the temple bylaws and change the temple committee members for “his own interest” despite disagreement from the Bodhinyana Sangha.

The interesting thing about these claims is not just the fact that they are so utterly without foundation, but that the monks are so out of touch with what is actually happening that they can actually believe them (I presume) and that they can imagine that they don’t just make themselves look silly. Of course, in the media you can say anything, and since most people know even less about the issues some people will always believe it. But it is such a radically unethical approach it is hard to see how it cannot but rebound on the accusers.

To prevent future problems, rules and regulations should be issued so the Thai Sangha can punish the monks overseas who violate th laws and the clergy’s mandates.

“Rules and regulations, punishment, violations, and mandates”. Everything that this interview is about is exactly the opposite of why we became Buddhists, or were attracted to practicing Buddhism, in the first place. Give Buddhism over to these people, and the end is just around the corner.

Phra Kru Sudhamprachote said many Thai Buddhists in Perth are unhappy with Aj Brahm and are trying to find way to get him out the temple. But this is up to the people, WPP cannot do anything to support this action.

Thai people, as I have said again and again, are like people anywhere – diverse and varied. WPP and the Thai Sangha officials do not have a monopoly of what Thai people want or believe. There are, quite probably, some Thais in Perth who do not like the bhikkhuni ordination. There are certainly many who are fully supportive. But the claim that WPP can do nothing about this is untrue: in fact, a senior monk from WPP has been ringing the Thai people in Perth to urge them to act to have Ajahn Brahm removed. This is, of course, just more evidence of how out of touch they are. The committee and lay community in Perth is fully behind Ajahn Brahm.

If this movement gains any momentum, what we may see is the development of a Thai temple in Perth separate from Bodhinyana. It’ll become like every other Thai temple: a place for Thais to go, speak their language, perform their rituals, and be reminded of home. Then they’ll realize that their children are completely alien in this environment, and go to Bodhinayana asking the monks to help teach their children.

The most interesting thing for now will be to see how the other Western Ajahns react – and even more so, what about the junior monks and nuns, and those considering ordination. How do they feel entering such an environment? If these things had been happening when I was new to all this, I would have run a million miles. After a long slow drift towards conservatism, reactionary politics, and sexist institutionalization, now there’s a rapid and dramatic lurch to the extremes.

You know, throughout the whole Ming Yi saga, Buddhists and non-Buddhists have continuously pointed fingers at the man and accusing him of everything including bringing horrendous damage to Buddhism.

Although, I don’t know him at all (only met him once), I believe that he is not a bad person at heart, just silly and someone who despite being a monk have not looked beyond material and personal desires. Sometimes when you become popular and no one questions your decisions, it can make you feel a bit godly. Anyone in those position can make such mistakes. Personally, I continue to believe that he has genuine care for the things that he do, maybe some people don’t like him (this is common in the Buddhist circle, I like you, I don’t like you, etc), just maybe he should not be a monk but a business man.

For me, a monk is a home leaver. A person who has made the resolve to leave behind his desires for worldly attachments and to cultivate an unmovable mind in order to save himself and perhaps advice others how to save themselves later. When a monk is constantly engaged as part of a worldly organization, involved in managing assets and are constantly distracted from that goal, then I prefer that person to not to become a monk, but just someone aspiring to be one but have not enough resolve to give up worldly needs yet. That is why  I don’t buy in to the western media portrayal of the safron revolution nor care too much about Tibetan monks and their politics. Monks should not be involved in politics. PERIOD.

Too much attention has been given to Ming Yi’s problem, but I find that the focus is wrong.

Ming Yi’s problem arises from his followers, yes Buddhist lay persons. Without the blind obedience and faith of his followers and their support, how could a monk like Ming Yi be able to commit such mistakes?

One of the biggest problem here in Singapore is that too many Buddhist lay persons sees a monk or nun as a god-like person, to be worship, to blindly follow and to be pampered. There are countless examples of Buddhists give Mercedes Benz as gifts to the monastics, rolex watches, beautiful house and many other expensive and luxurious material gifts. Why does a monk need a rolex watch when a $12 casio is good enough?

It is the lay Buddhists who does not question the behaviours of their monastics nor encourages them to perform the role the monastics should do; providing Buddhist teachings, give up the desire for worldly affairs and wants and needs and most of focus on their own spiritual development.

We all know how difficult it is to unwind at the end of a hectic work day, so too it will be difficult of monks/nuns to unwind if they need to constantly tend to worldly affairs in the office or money matters. So when monks/nuns are engaged in daily worldly affairs, how can they get time to focus on their own spiritual development and continue to let go of their worldly desires and attachments?

I can only say that the Ming Yi disaster is a disaster waiting to happen because it was supported by silly lay persons and somewhere out there other similar disasters are just waiting to happen…

By now a lot of people would have heard about Ajahn Brahm being expelled from Wat Pa Phong organisation based in Thailand. Here are some links about what is happening:

• Ajahn Sujato’s blog: Black Sunday
• Why Ajahn Brahmavamso was excluded from the Wat Pa Phong Sangha
• Ajahn Brahm’s letter on the exclusion

I believe that most if not all Heartland members would be saddened by this act from part of the Thai Sangha of WPP. However, we should all remember that our alignment is to the buddhadhamma and not to any Thai laws or organisation. Its really a big lost to WPP to have excluded Ajahn Brahm from their organisation.

Here is Ajahn Chandako’s personal letter on this issue and reply from Bodhiyana monastery:

• Ajahn Chandako’s personal letter
• Reply from Bodhiyana monastery (read the comments)

Here a letter from Bhikku Thanissaro on why the oridination of the nun is invalid and a reply

• Bhikku Thanissaro’s letter
• Ajahn Brahmali’s reply

I continue to believe that there are many more members of the Thai Sangha and including the lay Thai Buddhists who may agree with Ajahn Brahm’s actions, but have not spoken out and may their wisdom and compassion shine through the Thai Sangha over time.

Source: http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2009/04/aware-saga-buddhist-view.html

Singapore is a pretty boring place. By ‘boring’ I mean no school massacres, no ‘no-go areas’, no corruption scandals, no gang warfare and not much crime. Even elections are low-key, unexciting and predictable affairs. But of late Singaporeans have been treated to a bit of real excitement. People are talking about it, it is getting wide coverage in the media and the internet is positively humming with opinions about it. And because all the excitement has a religious element to it I’m dealing with it on my blog today. I will return to the promised subject of the five and ten Precepts in two days.
For 26 years an organization called AWARE has promoted women’s rights, birth control, lesbian self-respect, everything you would expect from a modern progressive women’s advocacy group. Last month AWARE had their annual general meeting and to everyone’s astonishment a large group of members who had only joined during the previous month, voted out all the old members and took over. Interesting in itself, but even more interesting is that six of the 11 new office-bearers all just happen to be members of the same religious organization. In its reporting of this matter the media has mentioned the new offices holders’ have a particular ‘religious affiliation’, that they have a ‘faith-based’ outlook and that ‘certain beliefs’ are involved, seemingly unable to bring themselves to actually use the word – Christian; or more precisely, fundamentalist Christian; or to be exact the Church of Our Savior.
Now the Church of Our Savior is – how can I put this? – let’s just say that a guy with a beard and turban hiding in a cave in Afghanistan is a moderate by comparison. On the side-bar of the church’s web site, the fourth item after ‘Home’, ‘Welcome’ and ‘About Our Church’ is ‘Position Statement on Homosexuality’ so presumably what homosexuals do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is of particular interest to the COS. The church even run an operation called Choice Ministries which ‘cures’ homosexuals. Apparently COS also has close links with the controversial Hillsong Church in Perth, Australia, characterized by its many critics, including Christian critics, as having an abusive, cohesive, mind-control approach to religion (see http://dogemperor.livejournal.com/147779.html). I always refer to these types of setups as Taklakamakan churches – ‘go in, can’t get out’.
The new AWARE committee have publicly stated that they did not know each other previous to their election, that they haven’t yet decided whether there will be new policies on gender issues, and that they intend to keep their religious views in the background. Many people in Singapore of late have reported seeing pigs flying. After all this got in the papers, the new committee appointed the mother of a former MP as its ‘feminist mentor’. Within days, alleged ‘private and confidential’ emails between this woman and some of the new committee appeared on the internet and these suggest very strongly that there had been a carefully planned, religiously motivated, conspiracy to take over AWARE because of its stance on matters relating to sexuality.
Religious fundamentalists of all persuasions are pretty much the same, aren’t they? While claiming to promote the highest moral standards, they are quite willing to use underhand, dubious or even immoral means to promote those standards. Typically, they also want to impose those standards on everyone else.
Because of their excellent organizational abilities and fierce determination, fundamentalist Christians in Singapore have a profile and an influence far beyond their numbers. If your neighbor, fellow student, boss, work colleague, local shopkeeper or the driver of the taxi you just hired, is a Christian, you’ll know it because he or she will very soon tell you. They may even tell you so often that you start to feel as if you are being verbally harassed. And they are very determined to use each and every opportunity to promote their particular view of things. Some observers maintain that they are also prepared to do almost anything to stifle or suppress opposing or different views.

Whether the AWARE saga turns out to be an example of this, we should know within a few days. The ousted committee has called an extraordinary general meeting for the 2nd of May and both sides are urging sympathizers to quickly join AWARE, attend the extraordinary general meeting and give their support. For more on this, have a look at http://www.we-are-aware.sg/

Source: http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2008/08/homosexuality.html

Homosexuality

Homosexuality is the tendency to be sexually attracted to persons of the same rather than the opposite gender. According to the ancient Indian understanding, homosexuals were thought of simply as being ‘the third nature’ (trtiya prakti), rather than as perverted, deviant or sick. With its emphasis on psychology and cause and effect, Buddhism judges acts, including sexual acts, primarily by the intention (cetana) behind them and the effect they have. A sexual act motivated by love, mutuality and the desire to give and share would be judged positive no matter what the gender of the two persons involved. Therefore, homosexuality as such is not considered immoral in Buddhism or against the third Precept, although this is not always understood in traditional Buddhist countries. If a homosexual avoids the sensuality and licence of the so-called ‘gay scene’ and enters into a loving relationship with another person, there is no reason why he or she cannot be a sincere practising Buddhist and enjoy all the blessings of the Buddhist life.

None of the legal codes of traditional Buddhist countries criminalized homosexuality per se, although of course there were penalties against homosexual rape and homosexual acts with minors just as there were for similar offences committed by heterosexuals. In most Buddhist countries today, homosexuality is usually considered strange and laughable although not wicked or evil. Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Mongolia, Japan and South Korea have no laws against homosexuality between consenting adults. Homosexuality is illegal in Burma and Sri Lanka mainly because their legal codes were in part drawn up during the colonial era. Recently in Sri Lanka, the penalty for homosexuality was increased in an ill-considered response to the growing problem of sex tourism in the country.

The Dalai Lama and Homosexuality

At a press conference in 1997 the Dalai Lama said; ‘From a Buddhist point of view (lesbian and gay sex)…is generally considered sexual misconduct.’ He very soon found that he had stumbled into a pink minefield when some Western Buddhists, a significant number of who are gay, loudly expressed their outrage. Together with promoting the Dhamma, the Dalai Lama’s main purpose in touring the West is to win support for his cause, and to this end he defiantly does NOT want to alienate anyone. As soon as he realized what he had done he immediately back-peddled. He called a meeting with gay and lesbian representatives, during which he expressed the ‘willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context’. Dawa Tsering, spokesperson for the Office of Tibet released a suitably politically correct and safe statement; ‘His Holiness opposes violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation. He urges respect, tolerance, compassion and the full recognition of human rights for all.’ Ruffled feathers were smoothed, gay Western Tibetan Buddhists left convinced that the Dalai Lama approved of their sexual orientation and the Dalai Lama continued believing that homosexuality is wrong – only now making a careful note never to say so again in public.

The truth is that while the Dalai Lama is one of the kindest people imaginable, he is also a very traditional Tibetan in many ways – and traditional Tibetan culture, like most cultures, has very skewed and confused ideas about homosexuality. Tibetan Buddhism does not derive its ideas about homosexuality from the earliest teachings of the Buddha but from Mahayana sutras and sastras, the earliest of which dates from approximately 500 year after the Buddha. By this time Indian Buddhists were being influenced by various popular Indian notions and incorporating them into their understanding of the Dhamma; sometimes with not very happy results. One such notion was the idea that sexual acts could be judged right or wrong depending on ‘place, person and orifice.’ Thus having sex anywhere near a temple or stupa was a wrong place, with anyone other than one’s spouse was a wrong person and anywhere other than the vagina was a wrong orifice. To be frank, this is a rather good example of the numbering, sub-dividing, categorizing mentality that became dominant in Buddhist clerical thinking. I do not know when this strange idea evolved but I think the earliest mention of it that I know of is in the Ugrapariprccha (or maybe it is the Upasakashila Sutra) which may date from about the 2nd century CE. And it doesn’t take much sense to see how unfounded it is from the Buddha’s point of view.

Exactly how does the law of kamma distinguish one orifice from another? Other problems arise when we realize that many male homosexuals practice intercural sex and mutual masturbation rather than penetrative sex. And exactly which sexual organ do lesbians use to penetrate the vagina of their partner? The Dalai Lama is also reported to have said that he had difficulty imagining the mechanics of homosexual sex, saying that nature had arranged male and female organs ‘in such a manner that is very suitable…Same-sex organs cannot manage well.’ With all due respect to the Dalai Lama, and I do have the highest respect for him, this statement shows both his ignorance and naivety concerning sex, and I might add, of some aspects of the Dhamma as well.

What on earth have Buddhist ethical judgments got to do with two body-parts fitting together ‘properly’ or not? I often clean my ear with my finger despite it not fitting into my ear canal very well. Does mean I make negative kamma every time I clean my ear? Also, the old argument ‘It’s unnatural’ is both unsound and irreverent as far as the Dhamma is concerned. If homosexuality is ‘unnatural’ then celibacy is more so and all Gelupa monks are breaking the fifth Precept by abstaining from sex. The Buddha’s criteria of right and wrong is not based on ideas of ‘natural’ or ‘unnatural’ which are usually social constructions, but on the intention behind the act. I am sorry to say that the Dalai Lama’s ideas about homosexuality are on a par with his (and other Tibetans’) belief that turning a prayer wheels will ‘pray’ for you, that the Tibetan state oracle gets messages from gods, that seeing the Karmapa’s black hat will get you enlightenment within seven lifetimes and in the existence of wrathful deities like Dorje Shukden. In short, it is medieval.

The two most sensible things on the issue of homosexuality and Dhamma I have found on the internet are Homosexuality and Theravada Buddhism by A. L. De Silva at http://www.buddhanet.net/ and Kerry Trembath’s Buddhism and Homosexuality at http://www.yawningbread.org/guest_1997/guw-010.htm. And if you would like to know what some Tibetans other than the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan monastic hierarchy think about homosexuality, have a look at gaytibet.blogspot.com. This website and particularly its posting on the rapping rimpoche would have to be the last nail in Shangri La’s coffin.

Source: http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2008/08/same-sex-marriage.html

Same-sex Marriage

A same-sex marriage is a legally recognized union between two people of the same gender, i.e. two homosexuals. Same-sex marriages have only of late become legal in several European countries and in a few states in the United States. However, such unions may have existed in some parts of the ancient world, including in India. The Kama Sutra (II, 9, 36) says; ‘There are citizens who love each other and with great faith in each other, who take each other as a husband.’ The word for husband here is parigraha and the Pali equivalent is patigaha. In his commentary on his verse Yasodhara says; ‘Citizens so inclined, reject women, willingly do without them and get married, bound by a deep and trusting friendship.’ It is not clear if these marriages, if this is the right word for such unions, were performed by Buddhist monks or Hindu priests or were recognized by the state, probably not.

What would be the Buddhist attitude to such marriages? Buddhism sees marriage as a secular institution (see yesterday’s posting), an arrangement between two people, and thus Buddhist monks or nuns do not perform marriages, although they are often called upon to bless the couple either just before or just after the marriage. Monks also often give short sermons and chant a few suttas during the opening of new businesses, at birthdays, funerals and at the bedside of the sick or the dying. If two men or two women were genuinely committed to each other and wanted a monk or nun to bless their union and wish them well in their life together, it is not difficult to imagine that he or she would be happy to do this for them.
I often think how lucky I am being a Buddhist. One of the many advantages of this apart from peace of mind, contentment, happiness, a realistic world-view, rational moral principles to live by, inspiration from the Buddha and having good Dhamma friends, is that when a contentious issue arises I can always adhere to the ‘middle way’ and not endorse any one side in an argument. Take same-sex marriage for example. I happen to think both sides of this issue, at least as it is playing itself out in America, have got it wrong. For goodness sake! What is the big deal if two men or two women wish to marry each other? God may disapprove but he disapproves of many thing that are legally acceptable and nowadays commonplace.

According to Leviticus ‘prawns are an abomination’ but no one wants to ban seafood platters. I Corinthians 11,14 says that long hair on males is a ‘disgrace’ and unnatural but no one boycotts Steven Segal movies (although I can think of many other good reasons for doing so). More relevant to the issue at hand, divorce is absolutely forbidden in the New Testament unless one partner commits adultery. Despite this, Christian social activists are conspicuously silent about America’s very liberal divorce laws. Surely if anything is ‘against the family’ it would have to be the ease with which one can get divorced, and yet I know of no Christian groups in the US crusading to have it made more difficult. Could it be that in opposing homosexuality they only alienate approximately 10% of the population, whereas if they opposed easy divorce they would rattle just about everyone? Not necessarily relevant to the gay marriage issue but certainly worth pointing out anyway, is the interesting fact that most churches in the southern US considered inter-racial marriage to be ‘unnatural’ and ‘immoral’ until the early 1960’s and supported the laws that made it illegal. South Africa’s Dutch Reformed Church took a similar stand until just recently. If you were white male and you wanted to marry a black woman you had to leave the so-called ‘Bible Belt’ or South Africa. If you were black male and wanted to marry a white woman you were risking your life. In short, the churches’ ‘moral compass’ is not a very reliable one. The decision as to whether or not homosexuals should be granted the right to marry should be based on common sense reasons and the principle of equality. And on this basis I can see no good reason why same-sex marriages should not be allowed.
On the other hand, being just a simple monk I cannot understand why homosexuals would want to get married. For goodness sake! What’s the big deal if two men or two women walk down an aisle and then get a certificate with both their names’ on it? How does that make their commitment to each other more binding? Why pressure churches to do something they clearly don’t want to do, something which goes against scripture and 2000 years of Christian tradition? Creative hermeneutics may bypass what the Bible says about homosexuality, willfulness may ignore it, wishful thinking may reinterpret it – but none of this changes what it says. And as for the churches that will perform same-sex marriages – who would want to be a member of an organization that so casually compromises its long-held, scripturally sound teachings just to be popular?

Of course, not all homosexuals who want to marry are religious. But it seems to me, and of course I’m just a simple monk, that such people are motivated by a rather childish ‘they’ve got one so we want one too’ attitude. What’s wrong with a legally binding and recognized civil union which gives the couple all the rights, privileges and obligations of heterosexual couples? Homosexuals who wish to have legally recognized marriages should also consider that in doing so they will presumably becomes libel to all the problems that arise when conventional marriages break down (and in America, UK, Australia, etc. about 1 in 3 do) – bitter divorce proceedings, mutual recriminations, quarrels over property and so on.
So when people ask me what my position on same-sex marriage is (no one has asked me yet, but I’m ready when they do) I say ‘I do not adhere to one side or the other’ (Naham ettha ekamsavado, M.II,197).

Source: http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2008/08/third-precept.html

The Third Precept

Sexual behaviour (kama or methuna) is any actions motivated by erotic desire and usually involving the genital region. This includes all forms of coitus, intercrural sex, masturbation, sexual fondling and perhaps even voyeurism. The third of the five Precepts, the basic principles of Buddhist ethics, says that one should avoid sexual misconduct (kamesu micchacara). What would make a sexual (kama) behaviour (cara) wrong (miccha)?

Once, while addressing an audience of brahmans the Buddha said that intercourse with (1) girls under the guardianship of their parents (maturakkhita, piturakkhita), i.e. under-aged; (2) protected by Dhamma (dhammarakkhita), nuns or those who have taken a vow of celibacy; (3) married (sassamika); (4) undergoing punishment, (saparidanda), i.e. prisoners; or those (5) bedecked in garlands (malagunaparikkhitta), i.e. engaged to be married, would be wrong (A.V,264). Because this discourse was addressed to men the Buddha spoke only of female sexual partners. Had he been addressing to women he would of course had spoken of male equivalents.

A child is unlikely to have the maturity or experience to make an informed decision concerning sex while having sex with 2, 3 and 5 would involve them in breaking a solemn vow or promise, i.e. lying. An incarcerated person can be cohered into doing something they really don’t wish to do and thus cannot make a genuinely free choice. It is clear from this that sex involving exploitation, dishonesty or cohersion or that is in any way non-concentual, would be breaking the third Precept. Although not mentioned here, using or threatening physical force (i.e. rape) to compel someone to have sex, and intercourse with an intoxicated or a mentally disabled person would also qualify as sexual misconduct. From the Buddhist perspective therefore, sex before marriage or during menstruation (forbidden in Hinduism and Islam), masturbation, homosexuality, with a person of a lower caste (forbidden in Hinduism) or sexual gluttony, while perhaps being inadvisable, socially unacceptable or not conducive to spiritual development, would not per ce be breaking the third Precept.

As in many societies, sex in ancient India was surrounded by numerous superstitions, restrictions and taboos. Brahmans believed that having intercourse when one’s wife was pregnant would defile the foetus (atimilhaja) or when she was nursing make her milk impure and thereby defile the baby (asucipatipita). They taught that it was proper to have sex only to produce offspring and not for pleasure (kama), for sport (dava) or out of sensual delight (rati). They also believed that it was wrong for a couple to have sex during the wife’s menstruation (utuni). The Buddha praised brahmans who followed such rules, not because he agreed with them, but because they were being true to what they preached (A.II,226). There are no examples of where he subscribed to any sexual superstitions or taught them to his disciples. Another widespread belief was that indulging in too much sex could cause cough (kasa), asthma (sasa), joint pain (daram) and lack of judgment (balaym, Ja,VI,295).

While accepting that sex is a normal part of lay life, the Buddha generally had a poor opinion of it. He dismissed it as ‘a village thing’ (gama dhamma, D.I,4); i.e. common, unsophisticated and worldly. He understood that a heightened desire for sensual pleasure (kamacchanda) causes physical and psychological restlessness and that this diverts one’s attention from spiritual aspirations and hinders meditation. He encouraged his more serious disciples to limit their sexual behaviour or to embrace celibacy (brahmacariya). Monks and nuns, of course, are required to be celibate. However, experience shows that taking a vow of celibacy when one is not ready for it can be anything but helpful. Constantly struggling against and denying sexual desire can create more problems than it solves and in fact can even be psychologically harmful.

Indignation 2008

Indignation 2008 official open its doors tonight with an opening event introduction the upcoming calendar of events and the launch of the Rascals Prize. The prize is intended as a biennial award to encourage academic and research work that adds to knowledge of gay issues in Singapore, and is in line with People Like Us’ mission statement which says: “…to promote an informed understanding” of LGBT issues.

For more of the upcoming events please visit the link below:

http://www.plu.sg/indignation/?p=441

The article was recently posted on Ven. Dhammika’s blog. Bhante is currently the spiritual advisor of Buddha Dhamma Mandala Society.

Note: Not all gay male like to dress up in women’s clothes. This is only one aspect of some gay males. In fact, some straight man loves to cross dress themselves.

A Gay Tragedy

(http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2008/05/gay-tragedy.html)

Occasionally someone, usually a young man but sometimes a young women or an older man or women, will approach me and after a few minuets of hesitation or beating around the bush, ask me what the Buddhist position on homosexuality is. When they do I tell then that intentional actions (kamma) modify consciousness and that our kamma conditions our future. Positive intentional acts have positive effects (vipaka) and negative intentional acts have a negative effect. Sexual acts motivated by the usual intentions, feelings and emotions which exist between two people who love each other, would have a positive effect and would not infringe the third Precept, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual. I underline this point by saying that Buddhist ethics about sex are primarily concerned with the motives behind out sexual behavior, rather than the gender of our partner. This being so, if two people of the same gender express their love for each other physically there is no good reason why the kamma this creates should be any different from when two people of the opposite gender do the same. Having said this I then try to change the subject, not because I am embarrassed talking about homosexuality, but because I do not like the ‘single issue’ approach to Dhamma. However, a few years ago I had an encounter which made me realize that inquiries about homosexuality, whether from gays themselves or their families, should be given my whole attention. However theoretical or marginal this issue may be to me it is likely to be of considerable import to the people who ask such questions.

A young man named Julian rung me asking if he could come and talk to me about Buddhism. I said he could and on the appointed day and time he came. Julian turned out to be about 20 old, of slight build and with pleasant features. He was well groomed and neatly dressed. He started by asking me a few questions about some aspects of Buddhism but I sensed that these were not really what he was interested in. Finally the question came, “Venerable, can a gay person be a good Buddhist?” I gave my usual reply but it soon became clear that this did not please him. He kept interjecting and expressing doubts about what I said. I answered all his objections but he remained unconvinced. Arriving at a deadlock and not knowing what more I could say I asked him if he was gay. He blushed, cleared his throat and said that he was. Then he told me his story. Since his early teens he noticed that he was attracted to other boys and had a particular interest in woman’s clothes. Horrified by these feelings he kept them well under control. A year ago while doing his national service he had met another soldier who was gay and since that time they had been having a relationship, although a guilt-filled and fugitive one. Once or twice a month they would pool their recourses and book a hotel for the night. He would dress in woman’s clothes, put on makeup and they would spend the night together. For Julian at least, this would be followed by days of self-loathing and resolutions never to do it again. After he had finished telling me this he hung his head and said, “This must be wrong.” “Well,” I said, “some people would find it a bit strange. But from a Buddhist perspective I really can’t see that it is particularly harmful. Satisfying sexual urges is a perfectly natural thing to do and it is acceptable where it does not involve adultery or harming others. The conflict you create within yourself by hating what are completely harmless feelings hurts you much more than being gay ever could. There is no reason why you can’t practice the Precepts – respecting the life, the prosperity and the sexual feelings of others, their right to know the truth and keeping your mind free from intoxicants – while being gay.” He was silent but I could see that I had not been able to still his doubts. Julian visited me two more time over the next two month and our conversations were about the Dhamma in general although we also went over the same territory concerning homosexuality with very much the same results.

Then, after not having seen or heard from Julian for nearly six month I got a call from him. He told me that a famous Taiwanese monk was in town giving a series of talks and that he had managed to get a few minuets with him. He had asked the monk the same question he had asked me and the monk had told him that homosexuality was a filthy, evil thing and that homosexuals get reborn in the lowest hell where they are boiled in excrement for eons. Julian said this with in an almost triumphant tone, seemingly glad that he had proved me wrong or that he had found someone who agreed with him. I asked him what else this venerable monk had said. “Nothing,” he replied. “He was going somewhere and only had a few minuets to talk.”

How often has this happened to me? I have told an inquirer something about Buddhism which I know to be sound, sensible and in accordance with the Tipitaka, they go to another monk who tells them the exact opposite and then they come back to me asking me to explain the anomaly. Then I am stuck with the problem of either saying that the other monk doesn’t know what he is talking about (which is often the case) and appearing to be an arrogant upstart, or biting my lip, saying nothing and letting the person go away with yet another half-baked notion or superstition thinking that it is Dhamma. How often? Very often! In most cases this is just frustrating. In this case it had tragic consequences.
“Look Julian” I said, “You asked me what Buddhism would say about homosexuality and I told you based on my 20 years of studying the Buddhist scriptures and thinking about various issues in the light of the Buddha’s Dhamma. I don’t know what else I can say.” I told him that if he wanted to talk with me at any time he was welcome to do so and then we hung up.

Four days later I was browsing through the paper and a small article tucked away on the eighth page caught my eye. The heading read ‘Man’s Body Found in Park.’ I scanned the article briefly and was about to turn to something else when the name Julian sprung out at me. In an instant my attention was riveted. I read the part where this name appeared and sure enough it was about the Julian who had come to see me. I returned to the top of the article and read it all the way through. Four days earlier, perhaps only a few hours after ringing me, Julian had gone to a park in the centre of Singapore late at night, taken an overdose of sleeping tablets and been found dead the next morning. A suicide note had been found in his pocket but the article did mention what it said. I was overwhelmed by sorrow. The thought of him lying there utterly alone, hating himself and in such despair that he would kill himself almost made me cry. But soon anger was welling up through the sadness and diluting it until it had completely replaced the sadness. I pictured the Taiwanese monk blithely dispensing his ignorant and ultimately toxic opinion before rushing off to give a sermon about compassion or receive the accolade of the crowd. I became so angry that I resolved to write him a letter and tell him what he had been responsible for. Then I thought it would probably be a waste of time. He probably wouldn’t even remember talking to Julian.

It seems to me that most thoughtful people would agree that sex without love is a pretty unattractive thing. Physically, it is little more than ‘exchanging fluids’ as the AIDS awareness literature so delicately puts it. What lifts sex above the fluids exchange level is the motives and emotions behind it – affection, tenderness, the desire to give and receive, the bonds of companionship, fun even. This fits well into the Buddha’s famous statement, “I say that intention is kamma.” Is sticking a knife into someone a positive or a negative action? It depends! If the knife was held by an enraged violent person it would probably be negative. If it is held by a surgeon performing an operation to save someone’s life it would certainly be positive. From the Buddhist perspective, sexual behavior is not judged primarily by the gender of the people involved, by the dictates of a code of behavior drawn up in the Bronze Age or by whether a legal document has been signed, but by its psychological components. Homosexuals are as capable of wanting and of feeling love and affection towards their partners as heterosexuals are and where such states are present homosexual sex is as acceptable as heterosexual sex.

This is a simple and logical truth and it is in accordance with Buddhist teachings but circumstances were such that I was unable to help Julian see it. All his experience had told him that being attracted to people of the same gender is wrong. Those around him had always expressed disapproval towards homosexuality and sniggered at gays. The law (in Singapore) told him that homosexuality is so heinous that it must be punished by 10 years imprisonment, more than for manslaughter. He knew that religious teachers, Christian, Muslim and even some Buddhists, consider it so evil that it will have dreadful consequences in the life hereafter. All this denigration and ignorance prevented him from hearing the gentle, reasonable and kindly words of the Buddha. It caused him inestimable suffering and finally drove him to suicide.

I am reminded of Julian because three weeks ago I represented Buddhism in a seminar on religion and homosexuality at Catholic Junior Collage (Boy! Haven’t Catholic collages changed!). Of the 800 students in the audience I assumed that a certain number would probably be homosexual and may be struggling to understand their feelings. Knowing that what I said may well have something to do with them growing up either happy and well-adjusted or tortured and self-loathing, I did took great care to explain the Buddhist position on homosexuality.

If you would like to help out with the disaster relief effort via donations in Myanmar, it would be best, at the moment, to send donations to organisations working with the monastries in Myanmar. It seems to be the most effective method at the moment as reliefs from NGOs like red cross and world aid are being delayed by the government of Myanmar.

If you would like to donate, please visit Buddhist Fellowship (www.buddhistfellowhip.org) or Bright Hill Temple as they are working with FireFly Mission who are working with the monastries in Myanmar to get relieves to the people.

Also we received a short description of what is happening on the ground from Ashin Sopaka

Dear all,

Thank you very much for the public and personal emails regarding the cyclone in Myanmar. I will try to respond personally to each one, but please bear with me.

I am currently in Bangkok for fund and supply raising efforts. My teacher went to Irawaddy Division to assess the needs and will be bringing a shopping list with him sometime this coming week. Before he went, he wanted to focus on hospital supplies (he started a hospital many years ago in a town called Bogalay, the eye of the storm), and apparently it was completely wiped out. When he gets to Bangkok this week, the list will probably be longer and more inclusive. By the time I left yesterday, our monastery in Yangon was practically a warehouse of food for distribution in the South – people think our organisation can get the goods out better than the government!!! You have probably heard about the 37 tons of food being held up at the airport from World Food Program.

Apparently, we have a “branch” monastery in Bogolay, but are not at all sure about the monks who live there.

My own personal observation fo the damage is limited to yangon. Ancient and gigantic trees completely uprooted – seems the only trees to survive are coconut trees. All the billboards are gone (thank goodness!) Power lines down everywhere, meaning no electricity for the next 3 months or so. No water. Lots of building damage, but it appears mostly superficial. With the exception of the shacks so many people live in – most of those, at least around the monastery, were completely blown away. Prices have doubled and trebled.

If anyone is wanting to help, the best way is through a Buddhist, preferable monk, organisation. The NGO’s, as you can see from the news, are having major logistical and political problems, and while the government wrath was turned against the monks last year, the Sangha is still very, very highly respected, so clearing supplies through customs will be a breeze, as well as the distribution. I believe Jim posted a link to such an organisation. Further, these kinds of organisations usually do not have overhead, so the supplies go directly to the needy. Indeed, we will be using all the money we raise outside Myanmar to buy supplies for import.

Even with pictures, it is really difficult to imagine how these poor people live on a day to day basis, much less in these horrid conditions. This is the hot season, so temperatures are over 100 F with no breeze and almost 100% humidity, no rain and no shade, and apparently a stench that reaches the stars. Even living around this I am still touched to the core at their incredible suffering. Even if you don’t meditate, please sit for a short period everyday radiating all the loving kindness you can muster for these people.

with metta Ashin Sopaka