Being a Buddhist with only a little knowledge on Christianity and being a Sri Lankan who has not set foot on US yet, I’d prefer to limit this post to a Sri Lankan Buddhist context and start a fresh discussion on what the future impacts would be ‘when’ this issue hits Sri Lanka. I emphasize on ‘when’ since I feel it’s inevitable that this discussion will arrive on Sri Lankan national matters someday; may be not as quickly as one would hope given the Sri Lankan culture and the society, but someday it definitely will. As the conventional system of human society is changing on the lights of cultural and religious freedom, the issues that once deemed to be hidden and subsided as sacrilegious are blooming and Sri Lanka won’t be an exception to this rising.
When most of the western countries acknowledge the existence of a gay/lesbian community, e.g. US, even amidst significant objections from religious parties,
So, what does future has for
From a personal perspective I wish to say that, even though I respect a person’s right to be accepted in the society as a gay or a lesbian, the implications of a person’s open declaration of him/herself as homosexual would be contrastingly enormous to what we may observe in the western society. In a community where open discussion on sexuality is frowned upon at times, the topic ‘homosexuality’ will have to travel a long way to reach a position where it would be worthy of open discourse. This would arise largely due to the conventional and religious upbringing the rest of the community will accompany with them owing to the influence of Buddhism on a greater proportion. I must declare that I’ve never heard of any incident in the 2500 year old Buddhist history or even the recallable Sri Lankan history of Buddhism where the word ‘homosexuality’ would appear and this may well hold true to almost all the Sri Lankans. Though I’m not certain whether Lord Buddha has mentioned this fact anywhere in his teachings, I feel certain that with very little awareness among us on this matter we are far away from even agreeing to accept the homosexual community. (Interestingly, in the CNN program several participants of the program extracted certain citations from the bible where Jesus had mentioned certain matters on homosexuality. According to them, even these few lines were rather ‘implicitly’ included, once again stressing the matter as blasphemous. Since I’m unable to comment on the contents of the bible, I’ll leave it open to the Christian readers to follow up further)
So, here are the questions. Would homosexuality be a violation of the 3rd precept of the five precepts taught to us in Buddhism? How would the conventional unit ‘family’ be affected with the introduction of two male parents or two female parents? Will such a family structure be accepted by the community at large in the first place? How would the children of a same sex couple (obviously adopted or brought up from a marriage before revealing oneself as homosexual) face the society and would the society accept them? Can we actually make them straight again or is it fair to even try that in the first place? (I strongly suggest reading the page linked above at the very beginning). Will the Sri Lankan community accept them as they are? How would the community respond to their demands for their rights and would the rest of the community support them? These are some of the questions that occurred to me while I acknowledge there would be plenty more for the readers.
On a personal note; I found it a little difficult to accept the whole concept of homosexuality in the beginning and even with a strong notion of equal human rights, democracy etc, I used to defy my beliefs when it came to gays and lesbians. With the Buddhist upbringing and the society I live in, the subject was too much to swallow. With time the issue became commonplace and I’ve started to accept that though it may sound awkward it’s a truth we have to accept and respect. But as with my case, there would be thousands who still refuse to accept and live with the issue as it is.
So have your say and know what others have to say about homosexuality in
Anyway, warm regards for a prosperous, peaceful Sinhala and Hindu New Year for everyone out there….
19 Comments:
Ok Im not going to answer the questions that you've put up :) But counter question, whats the deal with Buddhism in this matter? I didnt quite get the connection. In theistic religions (specially christianity and Islam, which are the only ones I know enough to comment on), woman was made as a companion to man and thus it is 'right' only for a woman and a man to be together. However I cant understand what sort of a complication Buddhism would bring in.
"(specially christianity and Islam, which are the only ones I know enough to comment on)" - this is exactly the reason why i wanted to discuss this in a buddhist context - because just like you, i don't have the capability to relate this to other religions. there's no special deal with buddhism. i believe different religions would approach this issue in different ways, i just wanted to open a conversation how buddhists would see this.
Now that i've clarified myself, hope u can fill up your ideas. i'd be happy to receive your views from a christian and islamic perspective as well.
thanx for the comment :)
this is actually a really interesting topic, and i just finished writing a paper about it through which i found out a couple things i didn't know regarding homosexuality in Sri Lanka. For instance, I wasn't aware that it is actually considered illegal to be gay. From a Buddhist perspective, it turns out that we, along with maybe Hinduism, are considerably tolerant of homosexuality in comparison with other religions. Since Buddha preached tolerance among all, and that is the foundation on which the religion is built, it adopts, to put it very simply, a live and let live attitude.
However I feel it is high time Sri Lankans recognized that sexual preference should be a human right, and no one has the right to constrict someone from living their life due to narrow minded social perspectives.
Is it really illegal to be gay? didn't know that.
Very simple.
IF Sri Lanka is a Buddhist country, this will never be an issue. If this is an issue, then Sri Lanka is not a Buddhist country.
Here is my old blog post regarding this subject. There is one very important comment left by al juhara you may want to read.
We Sri Lankans are very tolerant at homosexuality. Mangala Samaraweera openly gay and still he is very accepted leader figure. His sexual preference really doesn’t matter to people. But I’m not sure how long that tolerance will last since Buddhism is already very rare commodity in Sri Lanka.
By the way, if you have little knowledge about other religions – you are not really a serious Buddhist. ;) (pls take in good sprit :)
Niro may wish to consult personally with some Buddist scholars within his/her own community, then take the time to study thoroughly study the predominant religion to better understand the history behind why Sri Lanka does not openly discuss this matter. Thorough and earnest education, although time-consuming and requiring great effort, is often the best way to a truly educated, personal understanding.
Yes. Male Homosexuality is officially outlaws by our Penal Code 365A till 1995. But then Ministry of Justice found out it is gender biased and unfair, they added lesbians also in to that.
Even though we do not practice those laws, and even though very reputable homosexuals like Author C Clark, Jorge Kiete home in Sri Lanka, our Minister of Justice, specially G.L Peris make sure our law is 100% compatible with Christian law. So it is. (This is one reason why I strongly believe Sri Lanka is not a Buddhist country)
I personally find it is very ridicules act. If you are gay, government will put you in a place you take bath naked, openly and hang around with whole bunch of half naked men.
sam:
First of all, I went through your post. very interesting indeed. by and large i'd agree with most of the facts u've pointed out. However u had mentioned "In Buddhism homosexual Buddhist and heterosexual Buddhist both are equal humans. None superior to other." i doubt if buddha has mentioned anything about homosexuality in his teachings. isn't there any chance that this was not an issue in india 2500 years ago and hence buddha didn't preach about it? isn't there any chance that it is one of the things he left out in his teachings? if that is the case it would be incorrect to presume that he didn't differentiate between the homosexual and heterosexual people. just because buddha didn't mention anything about homosexuality doesn't necessarily mean that he considered both kinds equal. i doubt we can make that statement with enough confidence.
I agree with this - "Dalai Lama's quote is not the Buddhist point of view as he claim." this is the exact opposite argument to the above. just because we can't find a place where buddha has mentioned anything pertaining to this matter does no way mean that he prohibited it. besides, to the best of my knowledge, dalai lama follows Mahayana buddhism while we in Sri Lanka follow Therawada buddhism. So we have fundamental differences there as well.
and just to deviate a bit from the subject; i find that u firmly believe that sri lanka is not a buddhist country. apperently, buddhists are the majority in sri lanka, and on that basis i believe we can identify it as a buddhist country. we see other countries being identified by there respective religions based on the majority of the population. i can recall you bringing up this issue in one of my earlier posts as well. just thought i should repeat it here. however, i think this is totally a subjective decision. i'd still prefer to see sri lanka as a buddhist country.
and i really doubt many people know that mangala is gay. it is so not the case among the simpletons in the country.
i admit that i don't know the tiniest bit about islam although i may have a very little knowledge on christianity. guess it's time that i turned few books.
thanx for your comments
// isn't there any chance that it is one of the things he left out in his teachings?//
In Vinaya there is a mention about a homosexual person call Pandaka expelled from monastic life because he was dominated by desire for sex and become a nuisance. In the other hand Buddha’s two chief disciples, Sariyuth & Mugalan known to be homosexual couple when they were lay person. So I don’t think Buddha left that issue behind.
// isn't there any chance that this was not an issue in india 2500 years ago and hence buddha didn't preach about it?//
Most probably. It was not an issue back then. Issue started with Leviticus visit to this part of the world. (If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Leviticus 20:13). Even I had difficulty understanding Buddhist approach to the world first, since I also grown up under Christian value system in Sri Lanka – I also used to think homosexuals are inferior until I really understand Buddhism.
// if that is the case it would be incorrect to presume that he didn't differentiate between the homosexual and heterosexual people. Just because buddha didn't mention anything about homosexuality doesn't necessarily mean that he considered both kinds equal.//
There are no bad people in Buddhism. There are only ‘people’ who had done bad things – like all of us. I have to agree; I used the wrong word “equal”, because Buddha rejected all three ‘superior, inferior and equal’ comparisons.
The world worst serial killer has same rights and opportunities like all of us and he is not inferior to any of us in Buddhism. Buddha never condemned any person, only the act. So with confident I can say homosexuals are not superior or inferior to heterosexuals.
// buddhists are the majority in sri lanka, and on that basis i believe we can identify it as a buddhist country.//
I defiantly understand that logic. Yes. We have Buddhist buildings, Buddhists arts, Buddhist cloths and People born as Buddhists. The problem is in Buddhism, action makes you who you are rather than birth. Since this is a separate subject – and long subject, I save it for some other time :-) Oh Yes. I would like to see Sri Lanka as a Buddhist country too.
Sam on the last comment, first point. I have come across the story of the Pandaka. However I havent come across the refernces on sariyuth and mugalan. Do u have any sources?
Hell No! They was dead long time back.. All I know is the story passed from mouth to mouth and end up in my ear couple of times. I’m pretty sure they didn’t keep any legal records back then. I remember in school text books they talk about two men – “best friends” from previous lives - looking for something better.. But school books didn’t say anything their sexuality though.
Don't know what all the fuss is about. Homosexuality has been around from time immemorial and hasn't appeared to have caused any severe problems to anyone except those homophobes who are probably so repressed by their religious and other beliefs, that although they may dig the trip, they are afraid to get into it for all the reasons their conditioning has made imperative in their makeup.
Anyone who has been in boarding school or the forces or any other facility that confined members of the same sex would know that homosexuality is not uncommon in these places. However, the long-term relationships that gay couples have been advocating in attempting to apply fundamental rights regardless of people’s sexual preferences is what has started the more vociferous objections by the opposers of same-sex marriages.
With the incredible rate of change in our world today, mostly brought about by the virtual instant access to information, it is most likely that opposition to same sex marriages would be looked on as some aberration on the part of their forefathers by the generations to come.
Fundamental human rights must apply to ALL – regardless of sexual preferences, religious preferences or any other preferences
Before I strat responding to your post, I'll briefly voice my comments on the CNN article.
To me is sounds more in the lines of brainwashing. She talks of going through counselling and advise, and what I can gather is that she was in effect "brainwashed" by conservative chirstians.
Now, back to your post.
With my limited understanding of the 3rd precept, it states not to "misbehave"... "Kamaye Waradawa Hesirima"...
So, I think what lord Buddha preached was, for one to define "wrongs", and then live according to your "right". So, in my humble opinion, it won't be wrong.
As for the next couple of questions you raise, so called "Conservatives" who are the worst bunch of fuckarounds, will have a field day when we talk of same sex marriages and same sex parents!
Wishes for the New Year!
PS: It's not illegal to be lesbian, it's just illegal to take it up the arse, be it "straight", gay or lesbian-with-a-strap-on...
Something the Brits left us with :)
The monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity & Islam, have specific rules and laws governing the interaction between the sexes, marriage rites and requirements, etc. Thereby it is clearly stated in their scriptures that physical/sexual contact between human beings is only allowed thorugh a legal process of marriage solemnnized as per the stated requirements, between a man and a woman, only. Islam, allows for a man to have four wives at any one time.
Buddhism does not specify such rules and regulations for the interaction between sexes or even in the requirements of legal marriages between men and women.
The concept of Buddhism itself, based on the philosophical teachings of the Buddha, are simply guidelines for good living, based on compassion and abstnence, and do not tread on such matters as legality of marriage, divorce, inheritance, crime etc.
Thus one may conclude, reasonably, that Buddhist teachings would infer the deterrence of sexual pleasure between human beings, based on the theory of abstinence, as much as is humanly possible.
I do not think that Buddhism lays down any strict rules prohibiting same sex relationships as long as it will not bring harm or injustice to anyone.
thanx everybody for your thoughts.
However, i must say that little was achieved as for the original intention of my post. My basic idea was to discuss how this issue will affect the Sri Lankan community, obviously within a buddhist context. however, i noticed that most of you have misunderstood my post and commented how this issue is dealt in buddhism.
anyway, thanx again.
Niro, In reality this issue should never affect the people of SL from a Buddhist context becaise Buddhish has nothing to say or do about it.
However, the Sinhalese Buddhists of Sri Lanka are more inclined to act and behave, in society, based on their culture rather than on Buddhism, and this issue will certainly cause ripples in their hearts and minds from a cultural and social standpoint.
The majority of Sinhala Buddhists in SL do not adhere to the true teachings of Buddhism perse as taught by the Buddha. Most practices are ritualistic and concerted on later man-made innovations and acts, sadly.
Well said anonymous. My sentiments exactly.
Generally speaking Lord Buddha did not say anything specifically about homosexuality because it has never being an issue, however this is not to say that there was no homosexual activity in the time of Lord Buddha. The Tripitaka (Buddhist scripts) refer to incidents of homosexuality and transexuallity. Specifically the Tripitaka highlights the case of a bhikku (monk) Wakkali who became a monk purely because he was physically attracted to how handsome Lord Buddha was. The Tripitaka also highlights a transsexual incident in which a married man with children was physically attracted to a monk, following this the man underwent metamorphosis and became a female and eventually married a man.
This is excerpted from a longer article on the compatibility of buddhism and homosexuality. It could be found at:
http://mihisara.wordpress.com/2007/09/05/homosexuality-buddhism-and-srilankan-society/
Niro, Thank you for initiating this discussion.In addition to the previous post, which is basically quoted from another article, I wish to express the following:
1. The Buddha has made references to homosexual individuals as per the tripitaka (e.g. Wakkali who ultimately became an arahant).
2. If you wish to intertwine Buddhism with Sri Lankan culture, then the comments made by all the participants on this forum are valid. This is because Buddhism, whether practiced in Sri Lanka, Burma or Germany should ideally remain the pure teaching of the Buddha, the truth, the path to enlightenment. Any cultural distortion that you may speak of remains just that- a cultural distortion. Although our culture maybe influenced by Buddhism, Buddhism never becomes "Sinhalese". The entire existence of an ethnonationalistic brand of Buddhism, i.e. Sinhalese Buddhism is a contradition to the teachings of the "selfless" teachings of the Lord Buddha.
3. I agree with Sam on the fact that there are no "evil" or "saintly" people in buddhism, only wholesome and unwholesome acts. Even serial killers like Angulimala had the potential for enlightenment.
4. Buddhism speaks of Raga, one of the three main defilements. In a sexual perspective, this could arise both as heterosexual and homosexual lust. We see no distinction being made by the Buddha.
5. Homosexuality was only criminalized in Sri Lanka under British rule as per Judeo- Christian values, which indicates that it existed at that time and that it was accepted (atleast not criminalized by "Sinhalese Buddhist" society) prior to colonial rule.
Thanks again for your thought provoking post Niro.
Post a Comment