Talk:LGBT issues and Buddhism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Gelugpa

I'm in the Gelugpa tradition of Tibetan B. and was a bit surprised by some of what I read on this page, especially the sentence beginning with "No Buddhist school..." It doesn't coincide with what I've been taught about ancient texts or what Dana has written here. I would suggest adding a link to "Homosexuality and Theravada Buddhism" by A. L. De Silva. [1] --65.147.4.242 08:57, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Looks good. I'll drop it in. In the future, feel free to make this sort of edit yourself, though it's also always good to discuss changes on talk pages like this. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 09:11, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

I think this article is just beating around the bush. I understand that for western buddhist, they do not wish Buddhism to be against political correctness, but this is not the place to impose one's wishful thinking on facts. FWBOarticle 07:45, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what political correctness you are referring to, but I think your edits improved the article. - Nat Krause 08:34, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, previous article sounded like "I don't believ Buddhism condem homosexuality but I'm bit embarrased that most traditional school doesn't endorse my position. I'm going to muddle the issue by mentioning things which is not really relevant such as buddhist view on "right and wrong" or Buddah's view on compassion". I believe there are several commentaries in the past which discussed and indeed condemed homosexuality. Dalai Lama made reference to it and that cause bit of stir. He often walk fine line between between liberalism and traditional Tibetan heritage. So I don't really consider him to be bigotted though. FWBOarticle 08:51, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To say "Prior to colonialism under Abrahamic countries homosexuality was sanctified by Buddhist leaders throughout Asia," is accurate after a fashion, but I think possibly misleading. There were Buddhist leaders throughout Asia who accepted it, maybe even sanctified, but I'm not sure how widespread that was in reality. From what I've read I kind of get the sense it was more that Buddhism generally had no set or strong opinion on homosexuality so whatever cultural view prevailed before continued. That's not really "sanctification" unless sanctified means something very different then I think it means.--T. Anthony 11:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Can there be found any information on pre-modern Tibetan views of homosexuality and how/if it changed through time??

Problems with page

Louis Crompton's Homosexuality and Civilization documents that Buddhism in at least the Geco-Buddhism, and Japanese Buddhism, and East Chinese Buddhism accepted homosexuality. I think the current editor is using Tibetan Buddhism which developed hostility towards homosexuality around the same time the nearby area converted to Islam. This is unfair. Tibetan Buddhism is but a small branch. For example Japanese society fully accepted homosexuality until Christian contact in the 1800s, it was common among the monks, and the warriors, and recently it accepts it again (someone deleted the link). Japanese literature such as the Tale of Geji even mentions the lead character Genji having homosexual sex without any negative connotation. In East China with have numerous tales of Buddhist Emperors taking male lovers and it being celebrated. Outside of the Buddhist areas around the Indian subcontinent when Islam invaded it the precepts do not interpret homosexuality as sexual misconduct. And the vague term you use Pandaka is highly disputed and most scholars believe it was aimed the Hijras and trannsgender people, not homosexuals. 71.213.29.162 18:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you a gay male American? Your recent edits appear to me to be aimed more at affirming your own identity through Buddhism than giving an accurate and dispassionate account of the relationship between Buddhism and homosexuality. You seem happy to interpret the traditional Buddhist censure of variant sex/gender types as solely a criticism of transgender people; i guess you aren't transgender yourself, so you can feel comfortable that these criticisms are really about someone else — too bad for transgender Buddhists. As you can see from the article, many scholars of Buddhism (some who are queer Buddhists themselves), do interpret these ancient categories as overlapping with modern notions of homosexuality.

Please don't continue to add these unsourced sweeping statements:

• the historically prevelant view is that same-sex relationships are acceptable.
• teachings critical of homosexuality are solely a result of influence by Abrahamic faiths.
• the majority of orders in East Asia do not prohibit ordination for homosexuals.

Also, this is an article about Buddhism and homosexuality, not about Conficianism or Japanese/Chinese cultures in general. Please try to keep your edits on topic. ntennis 05:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

All the article is saying is that there is broad variety of interpretations within Buddhism, which is a broad and diverse religion. There is NO unified world-wide stance within Buddhism on the subject of Homosexuality. The article merely seeks to documents those various interpretations. And yes, ntennis, culture DOES affect how religious ideas develop, so it is OK to include examples of that where relevant. Contributers to the article do not neccessarily have an agenda to push, as you seem to imply, but are actually trying to document the subject as best they can. Indisciplined 11:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are aware of the history of the article and the edits that sparked the above dicussion (e.g. [2], [3]). There are other articles on Homosexuality and Confucianism, Homosexuality in China and Homosexuality in ancient Greece. The anonymous editor wrote: "The historically prevelant view in Buddhist thought has been that same-sex relationships, when practiced with self-control, is ethically acceptable. In eastern and northern China it was allowed with the precondition that a son fufills his Confucian duty to reproduce. The second sentence says nothing about Buddhism, yet is offered as evidence for the first. These two assertions have no citations, and were repeatedly added, despite other cited evidence to the contrary. Does this say something about what people want to believe, rather than what they honestly observe?

Having edited on many pages regarding both homosexuality and religion, I have to say that many editors do indeed have an agenda. For example, variations on the following statement occur again and again on wikipedia: "all religions and all cultures have embraced gay men throughout history, except those tainted by Christianity and Islam". Sadly, this is simply not true, and relies on a very selective reading of history. It also serves as a rhetorical device to validate sexual minorities in the west (particularly gay men), while rendering invisible the censure and persecution that gender variant and homosexually-active people have experienced in the heartland of these religions.

However, our own personal biases and interests don't have to be an obstacle, as long as we try to present notable published views and verifiable data. I sincerely apologise if my tone was discouraging. I would love to see other editors contributing and engaging in vigorous debate. Do you have any thoughts on how the article could be improved? ntennis 01:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

User:ntennis You keep changing the section relating homsexuality and Buddhism back to your own views, and don't specify any source. As others have said previously, Buddhism does not have a central authority, as does the Catholic Church. There are many branches of Buddhism, and none of them are against homsexual members in their laity. Some of them might interpret homosexual acts to be sexual misconduct, but those are two different things. As to what a lay Buddhist decides for themselves what is sexual misconduct, that is an individual choice.

I would not call this "laissez faire", but more a matter of other buddhists having love and compassion for all beings, regardless of their sexual orientation, or regardless as to whether the other person shares their interpretation of Buddhism, or their interpretation of "sexual misconduct". It is true that if you wanted to become a priest, they may place themselves in a position to judge whether you were compatible. Most Buddhists are not priests, or nuns, and do not want to be priests or nuns, nor do buddhist priests or nuns feel that the laity should abide by their more strict sets of rules. Not abiding by other buddhists interpretation (whether they be priests or not) does not prohibit you from being a Buddhist, or from practicing your religion. They do not, like the catholic church, ex-communicate you and cast you out of the church, forbidding you to take communion or the Buddhist equivalent (there is no equivalent).

When you say "This precept has been interpreted variously, sometimes to include any same-sex sexual acts, or acts that involve the mouth, hands or anus" you are accurate so far as that the different buddhist sects would apply such thinking to their priests (a small minoroty of buddhists).

When I say "As Buddhism does not have a common authority, among the laity adoption of the five precepts, and interpretation of what is sexual misconduct is an individual decision and not subject to judgement by any central authority. " every bit of it is true.

Certainly there is organization within Buddhism, see Category:Branches_of_Buddhism, and most of them claim an unbroken line of teaching all the way back to Siddhartha Gautama. Perhaps you could document (I am not sure that I could) that a large majority of these would consider what we call homosexual acts, as being sexual misconduct, and would prohibit someone who admitted to them from being a priest or nun. But, they could not, and would not prohibit that person from being a buddhist. Being a Buddhist is a personal decision. The path that a buddhist follows is their own path. One needs no approval, affiliation, sanction, certification, proclamation or declaration.

Also, there is a difference between participating in "homosexual acts" and in being a homosexual. There are, and will continue to be many Buddhist monks and nuns who are homosexual, and yet abide by their many self imposed rules, including not participating in sexual misconduct.

A priest might indeed feel that some act involving the mouth, hands or anus done by someone in the laity is sexual misconduct. But, it is not their place to judge others, nor not interfere with their path.

So, it is my position that

1. There is no central authority in Buddhism. (a multitude if different schools with differing views, none of whom claim that their views are authoritative within buddhism, would qualify as a central authority.) If every one of them vanished in a puff of enlightenment, there would be no effect on buddhism, as the priesthood holds no special role.
2. Buddhism does not discriminate against homosexuals. (it discriminates against priests who are guilty of sexual misconduct.) And is not in a position to judge anyone outside of the priesthood. (priests hold no special role in buddhism. One does not need to have ever spoken to a single priest in order to be "enlightened".)

My statement "As Buddhism does not have a common authority, among the laity adoption of the five precepts, and interpretation of what is sexual misconduct is an individual decision and not subject to judgement by any central authority." is as well supported as your position.

I've made this attempt to explain the accuracy of the statement, in order to see if we can find consensus. But, moving forward I don't see why it is that we need your approval before someone else can add their perspective of the facts. Buddhism is vast, and the view that you have may be correct, but only one of many correct views. Atom 00:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. You raised several points that I would like to respond to.

I respect you and your views as well. I think your view is much narrower than my own. Atom 02:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• You keep changing the section relating homsexuality and Buddhism back to your own views, and don't specify any source.

No, I'm just leaving the lead section as a summary of the article, which is well sourced. Did you specify a source for your own claims?

My comments clarified yours, as your suggested that all of Buddhism looks on homosexuals unfavorably, which isn't true.

• As others have said previously, Buddhism does not have a central authority, as does the Catholic Church.

Buddhism does not have a single central authority. Neither does christianity. However, there is the Catholic church and the Pope, and there is the Thai Buddhist heirarchy and the Supreme Patriarch.

All of christianity has come from catholicism (I know a few sects argue this) and are fruit of that tree. How many Buddhists are influence by Thai Buddhism. I have no idea, what, 3%?

• There are many branches of Buddhism, and none of them are against homosexual members in their laity.

How then do you explain the words of the Dalai Lama (surely one of the most "liberal" Buddhist leaders): “It’s part of what we Buddhists call bad sexual conduct. Sexual organs were created for reproduction between the male element and the female element — and everything that deviates from that is not acceptable from a Buddhist point of view.” (It's in the article). He specifically referred to the Buddhist laity, stating that same-sex relationships could be OK for non-Buddhists. Do you mean that these orders welcome homosexual members who are celibate? This puts Buddhism on the same footing as Christianity, who love to distinguish between "acts" and "inclination". In both cases, sexual desire is said to able to be overcome by faith.

Dalai Lama, someone who I admire and respect immensely, is yet again, merely another buddhist on the path. He has spoken variously, and said that although he believes himself that homosexuality is sexual misconduct, does not condemn those in the laity who are homosexual. Again, as for sexual misconduct, that can only be interpreted by the individual, the priesthood has no standing to judge any buddhist, other than whether they choose to let one participate as a priest or not in their Sangha.

• They do not, like the catholic church, ex-communicate you and cast you out of the church

Well, even the Pope says that lesbians and gays can be members of the church. But what is your point here? The statement in dispute is not a comparison to Catholicism.

Certainly there is no comparison. The point is that they aren't remotely the same. In Catholicism, without the priests, there is no church, no path to god, no redemption. Without priests in Buddhism, it makes no difference. Granted we cherish the wisdom, learning and teaching of some priests, but they are merely other buddhists, nothing more. Buddhism exists as long as one buddhist exists.

• [B]uddhists [have] love and compassion for all beings, regardless of their sexual orientation, or regardless as to whether the other person shares their interpretation of Buddhism, or their interpretation of "sexual misconduct".

Yes, Christians often make the same claim. Perhaps we can find a prominent Buddhist leader who says this and quote them in the body of the article?

I will look for such, but some, like myself, give no credence to Buddhist leaders. Why is what they think of any importance?

• When you say "This precept has been interpreted variously, sometimes to include any same-sex sexual acts, or acts that involve the mouth, hands or anus" you are accurate so far as that the different buddhist sects would apply such thinking to their priests (a small minority of buddhists).

The five precepts are expected to be upheld by laity, and indeed are specifically for them. Members of the ordained communities have additional restrictions of complete celibacy. Again, this is just summarising the article. Some Buddhist traditions go further, as you can see below and in the article, with an ongoing dispute about the appropriateness of monks of a gay disposition, not just homosexually active monks, in Thailand.

Again, the priesthood holds no special relationship with Buddhism. They aren't there to judge or confirm buddhist belief. They can not require anything from the laity, they teach, and provide the five precepts to those who wish to adopt and adhere to it. The five precepts are not a requirement for buddhism, they are a path towards enlightenment. The precepts are for all Buddhists. Priests choose to abide by them, and others additionally, of their own choice. Like yourself I am dismayed about prejudice against homosexuals by Buddhists in Thailand, but they will find their path eventually. There is no reasons to condemn all of Buddhism because of a few.

• Perhaps you could document (I am not sure that I could) that a large majority of these would consider what we call homosexual acts, as being sexual misconduct, and would prohibit someone who admitted to them from being a priest or nun. But, they could not, and would not prohibit that person from being a buddhist. Being a Buddhist is a personal decision.

There are important differences between the claim you are asking me to justify and the actual claim made in the article. You use the words "large majority", and the article uses the word "sometimes". Nowhere does it make the claim that a person in breach of one of the five precepts is prohibited from considering themselves a Buddhist. Again, this is true of Christianity.

• Also, there is a difference between participating in "homosexual acts" and in being a homosexual. There are, and will continue to be many Buddhist monks and nuns who are homosexual, and yet abide by their many self imposed rules, including not participating in sexual misconduct.

Yes, where is this distinction lost? The sentence specifically refers to "same-sex sexual acts". Of course there are lesbian nuns and gay monks; again this is not disputed, and again, this is very true of Christian monks, nuns and priests as well.

• Buddhism does not discriminate against homosexuals. (it discriminates against priests who are guilty of sexual misconduct.) And is not in a position to judge anyone outside of the priesthood. (priests hold no special role in buddhism.

I disagree, as do the quoted sources in the article. For example, Peter Jackson claims that a condemnation of homosexuality has emerged in Thai Buddhism. The Sangha does indeed hold a special role in Buddhism, right from the time of Buddha.

We aren't talking about Thai Buddhism, we are speaking about Buddhism in general. That Buddhists do not represent all of Buddism. Priests are not the Sangha, you, I, and any gathering of Buddhists are Sangha. Certainly the large majority of Buddhists are not priests or Nuns, and do not favor discrimination against homosexuals. Atom 02:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

ntennis 01:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a serious issue with the founding paragraph that states that Buddhists distrust sexual pleasure, and in fact desire in general. It is true that in the lesser path, celibacy is practiced. Most Buddhist monks and nuns practice it. Celibacy is not, however, abstinence from sexual contact. There are practices in Buddhism that require sexual union, and are indeed practiced by monk and nuns, from time to time. They don't talk about this (obviously) to the public, as most would not understand that they are using an experience to free themselves from attachment to it. You would be very hard pressed to get any monk or nun to admit to this, as it is considered secret and personal, and not to be discussed. The same goes for practices that use human bones as instruments, and drums that use human skin. They are simply too powerful, and would be considered crazy to a normal person, and so are not discussed openly. All of these practices come from the Buddhist Tantra, which is quite different from what most talk about as Tantra. Did you think that those paintings of Buddha in union with a consort were just for show, and merely symbolic? Sure, that is the stock answer. It is not, however, the complete one.

Secondly, there is a whole class of Tibetan (and some other sects have this class) Lama which are Yogins (Yogini for female). Yogins are as respected and accomplished as Monastic Lamas, and in some cases more so. Their practice is different though. They can marry or not, have sex with a partner of any kind or not, and have children. They are not required to take a vow of celibacy. They use every experience as a road to enlightenment, and everything they do is their practice. In the past many have been 'Crazy Yogis'.. solitary Yogis that live an ascetic lifestyle in order to more tightly focus their practice. The ones that are not so often written about are the ones who simply lived among the villages, providing guidance and as a source of the teachings for the laity. They are fully empowered, and some are Tulkus (reincarnated masters). There are few Tibetan Yogins, as very few are actually ordained. This is not political.. it is incredibly rigorous training, and so very few are able to attain that status. Also, the Yogin's nature has not been written about that much in the West. Unsurprising.. imagine everything you do, every moment, being practice. Monks have it easier compared to that, given they have set rules to follow. Imagine someone addicted to something ordinary (such as sex, coffee or sweets) and having to either (a) abstain from it, except under strict guidelines, and thus be free from its power or (b) use it normally, with no guidelines, and for every moment you are practicing and meditating on your desires to have more.. but you simply do not. Now imagine it is alcohol.

Buddhism has many, many layers that are beyond what is printed in the texts, and what is spoken to 'the public'. Sects that seem similar may actually be radically different in secret or hidden teachings and practices. It is a very, very deep practice and goes well beyond this sort of categorization.

Essentially, Homosexuality both is, and is not approved of in Buddhism, exclusive of sect. Regardless of culture, the heads of various sects are in fact human, and they conduct themselves in such a way that they believe will offer the largest number of people the chance for enlightenment. Sometimes this involves misdirection, definitional issues, and even oppression. Sometimes a sect gets 'spoiled' by a succession of teachers whom are not fully realized, and still cling to some distinctions that are meaningless. Sometimes a teacher will espouse something that is not actually what he believes personally, however it is still truth since he is saying it in a vehicle that only includes ordinary speech to the deluded, and what he personally believes only applies to certain levels of practitioners.

There are many levels of meaning in any statement by a Lama/Priest/etc. You have to look for them beyond the words spoken, and always, always include the context since that is principle in determining what is considered 'truth'. Knomegnome 02:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Inquiry

I am startled to read that many contemporary Buddhist orders specifically prohibit ordination of homosexual men and women. I'm a Buddhist monk of many years standing, and in all my life I've never come across that information. Could sources be sited for this infomation? I'd be interested in persuing it further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.181.91 (talk • contribs)

I think the sentence needs to be revised, although there are certainly examples of contemporary Buddhist prohibitions against the ordination of gays and lesbians. As the article explains, Bunmi Methangkun, the late head of the Abhidhamma Foundation in Thailand, described same-sex attracted women and men as ubhatobyanjanaka and therefore ineligible for ordination. In 1989, the supreme governing body of the Thai sangha affirmed that "gays" (here translated from Thai kathoey) are prohibited from being ordained. [Reference: Khamhuno. 1989 (B.E. 2532). Gay Praakot Nai Wongkaan Song (Gays Appear in Sangha Circles). Sangkhom Saatsanaa (Religion and Society Column). Siam Rath Sut-sapdaa (Siam Rath Weekly), 18 November, 1989 (B.E. 2532). 36 (22):37-8.] The debate continues in Thailand, with Phra Pisarn Thammapatee (AKA Phra Payom Kalayano), one of most eminent monks in the country, recently demanding that gay monks be ousted from the sangha, and that better screening processes are put in place to keep them out.[4]

The question is complex, in part because the notion of "homosexual" is really a modern western one that has no exact match — but overlaps with — sex/gender categories in Buddhism's heartland, Asia. For example, a kathoey is a Thai gender category that covers part of what a queer-friendly westerner might call transgender and part of what they would call homosexual or gay. Others (including some kathoey themselves) prefer to define kathoeys as members of a third sex, or as a kind of woman. The Pali pandaka is usually equated with kathoeys in Thailand, and kathoeys with gays. Therefore, for those scripturally-minded Thai Buddhists, gays/kathoeys are ineligible for ordination. The sangha is an institution for men only.

In addition, as some Buddhists understand it, being "homosexual" is not a fixed orientation and identity, but a set of behaviours caused by an excess of desire and lack of moral restraint. Thus, a person would have to give up being homosexual before being considered for monkhood.

Where do you live? What Buddhist order do you belong to? Have you heard of a Christian ban on gays in the priesthood? The Vatican recently published it's first explicit position on (celibate) gays in the priesthood, which declared that men with "deep-seated" gay tendencies should not be ordained but that those with a "transitory problem" could be if they had overcome it for three years. Obviously, it's pretty hard to prevent a gay or lesbian person who appears to be more or less straight acting and keeps quiet about their orientation from becoming ordained, whether in Christianity or Buddhism. ntennis 06:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Some proposed additions/edits for the sake of clarity, not controversy

As a copy-editor, not a scholar, I have several points:

At the end of the first section, it says "In contrast, some later texts, particularly Tibetan Buddhist writings, begin to positively value pandaka for their 'middleness' and 'balance.'" Yet, in the (next) section on tibetan buddhism, only negative views of homosexuality are mentioned. Was this sentence meant as some sort of segue, because it seems out-of-place? The two divergent perspectives in tibetan buddhism should be discussed within the section on tibetan buddhism, and the first assertion (that tibetan writings valued pandaka) should be substantiated with quotes or sources.

Also, Peter Jackson's perspective is noted in the section on theravada buddhism. I think there should be some explantation of who he is, (i.e "Peter Jackson, prominant buddhist scholar" or whater...I have no idea who he is) especially because his name is both American and common.

Although I appreciate that westerners' ideas of buddhism and homosexuality are not rooted in buddhist dogma, they are also not JUST rooted in "freethought and secular humanism." Western buddhists believe their views on homosexuality are in complete accordance with the over-arching Buddhist values of tolerance, non-violence and compassion. For the sake of objectivity and non-POV, it's important to explain their perspective. I'm going to wait a few days to allow for further discussion, and then change it myself.- Singlewordedpoem

Your points are well taken. I'll look into some sources and see what I can offer. My initial reaction to your question about Tibetan Buddhist teachings is that they may not represent "two divergent perspectives" on the same phenomena (homosexuality). Those writers who positively value pandaka (or ma ning, the Tibetan equivalent) for their middleness see pandaka as a kind of mid-way point between men and women; a kind of (asexual?) third gender. In contrast, the section under the Tibetan Buddhism heading is about sex between women or sex between men, which is seen as excess sexuality and imbalance — third gender types are not involved. Secondly, those instances of positive valuing of pandaka (outside monasticism of course) are hundreds of years old, as far as I know. One example of this writing is from the 13th century, by Gyalwa Yang Gönpa (AKA rgyal ba yang dgon pa, rgyal mtshan dpal), who calls ma ning "the abiding breath between male exhalation and female inhalation" and "the balanced yogic channel, as opposed to the too tight male channel, and the too loose female one" (these are quoted in Gyatso 2003, see the article refs). We should be careful not to see modern (western) heterosexuality and homosexuality, or women and men, as identical with the sex and gender categories of Yang Gönpa's time. Personally, I'd rather expand the article to include "gender variance" as well as homosexuality, as the two are very difficult to separate, but the article is part of a series on religion and homosexuality, so we have to fudge it a bit.

Peter Jackson is an Australian scholar of sexual politics and Buddhism in Thailand. "Peter Jackson" is not an American name! See Peter Jackson and Peter Jackson (footballer). Jackson is English ("son of Jack") and Peter is an Anglicised version of a Greek name that appears in many languages. There's nothing American about it! :P

On your third point, can you suggest an improved wording and/or a source that can be quoted? My first thought is that "tolerance, non-violence and compassion" are not JUST Buddhist values! They could also be seen as secular humanist values (or for that matter, the values of any number of religious and non-religious traditions).

Now I want to ask a question of you as a copy editor :) — I feel that the first paragraph ("Buddhist texts") is long and dense, as it is not broken up with headings or pictures, and even the paragraph breaks get lost because of the wierd line spacing produced by superscript footnote numbering. Can you think of a way to make the article more readable and enticing? ntennis 04:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You win...Peter Jackson's not American. Lol. Thanks for explaining who he is. I added your explanation to the article.

You're right that "tolerance, non-violence and compassion" are not JUST buddhist values at all. However, when explaining the reasoning behind a people's belief system, it is important to note their own explanation. While Easterners or sociologists could debate that Western buddhists' tolerance of homosexuality is solely the result of the influence of their secular, humanist society, Western Buddhists believe otherwise, and that's worth mentioning. It is not up to us to determine the accuracy of their beliefs, but rather to record them without bias. End of diatribe.  :)

I agree that the first section is very long. I personally did not find it boring or intimidating, but that may have been because I was fascinated by its content. I don't think any of the information can simply be cut, because fully understanding all the ambiguities behind the term "pandaka" seems crucial to understanding Buddhism's stance on homosexuality. Similarly, your explanation of the tibetan views of panaka was so helpful, I think it should be added to the article! I appreciate that you didn't explore the issue of gender further because that's not what this article is about, but because of the term pandaka's ambiguity, the brief mention of "middleness" only serves to create further confusion between gender and homosexuality. Explaining that tibetans valued the middleness of a third gender, while simultaneously shunning homosexual practices would help make the distinction between homosexuality and gender a lot less blurry.

Creating a sub-heading under "buddhist texts" on pandaka, and its various definitions and ambiguities would both clean up that first section and make a place to briefly explore the tibetan views on "middleness." It could be called "Pandaka: The Third Gender," for instance. What do you think? And where do you think it could go?

Singlewordedpoem 05:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the change I suggested in the section on western buddhists. In retrospect, I should have posted it here, first. Sorry!! In any case, feel free to edit it further, especially because it's a bit awkward and it definetly lacks a segue, but for the sake of progress, please don't just revert back to your version. :) Singlewordedpoem 07:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem :) Please go ahead and make changes to the article as you see fit. It's refreshing to meet an editor without an apparent agenda other than making an accurate and readable article — a rare beast, especially on pages relating to homosexuality or religion, where people can be very defensive, combative and inflexible. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the lead section too.

I'm just reading over my post above about Tibetan Buddhism, and I'm hesitant to add it to the article just yet until I can get answers to a few nagging questions. I suspect it's too simplistic to suggest that Early Tibetan Buddhists were "pro gender variance" and "anti sexual deviance". I guess I need to read more widely! But don't let me discourage you from editing the article. ntennis 09:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you may have overlooked my suggestion that we make a new sub-head under "buddhist texts" specifically on pandaka and gender, to break up that long section. How do you feel about that?

Singlewordedpoem 05:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the entire 'buddhist texts' section is about third gender types in one way or another? The more I think about it, the more inseparable homosexuality becomes from gender variance. Sorry I'm not more helpful! How exactly do you imagine breaking up or reorganising this content? ntennis 03:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Gyalwa Yang Gönpa's quote misinterpreted

I'm very sorry, could someone correct the interpretation from the master Gyalwa Yang Gönpa? The term maning in this case doesn't refer to an individual, but to a quality of breathing (male, female, neutral) linked to channels (left, right, and both or central). Please correct it, because as it stands it doesn't even make much sense.

The term maning indeed doesn't have so much negative connotations in Tibetan Buddhism. For example, there is the famous Mahakala Maning, characterised by the snakes in his hair, one of the most important Guardian of all Mahakala classes, especially revered by the Nyingmapas. He is maning because he is neither male nor female, and he is considered a manifestation of an enlightened being.

This term also appears in many other contexts, meaning just "neutral". The quote from the master Gyalwa Yang Gönpa is interpreted incorrectly. I don't know Wikipedia, I don't know how to make changes and I don't want to break anything so I will not even try to correct it, but you don't need to be an expert to see it's plain wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.76.37.180 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for the pointer to Mahakala Maning. I've added an image of this deity to the article. I'm not sure I understand your objection entirely; it seems clear that Yang Gönpa is referring to a state between maleness and femaleness. The term ma ning (or maning) is also translated as "eunuch" and can specifically refer to persons termed "pandaka" in other traditions. I've tried to address your concerns by rewording the reference, and in fact I've moved it into the main body of the article. Perhaps if you still think the interpretation is wrong you could suggest an alternate wording here? Cheers, ntennis 01:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

My objection is very simple - there is no relation between an eunuch and neutral breathing, it's a kind of metaphor. It's like father and mother tantras - they have nothing to do with mother and father. In tantric literature the term :maning: is used very often, and even though sometimes it has a literal meaning (eunuch), it's also used in a metaphoric sense, and that's the case with GY quote. I don't know how to explain it more clearly, it's as if you were including "mother and son wisdom" quotations (there are plenty of them in higher tantras) in an article about relations between parents and children in Buddhism.

I don't know how to reword it. I would personally just remove it because it doesn't mean any sense in this context. If anything, I would add "The term ma ning in Tibetan literature has a similar meaning to pandaka - it means "eunuch" or "hermaphrodite", but as an adjective it can also mean "neutral".

And, to be honest, including a picture of Mahakala, considered to be a holy being (neither male, nor female, but definitely not homosexual) in an article about homosexuality may offend some people. Like putting angels, which are neither male nor female, but it doesn't make them related to homosexuality in any way. 212.76.37.180 17:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Kukai introduced homosexuality in Japanese Buddhism

Firstly, what was common in feudal Japanese Buddhism was pederasty between child novice and adult monks. Secondly, it is highly defamatory to Japanese Shingon Buddhist to state as a fact that Kukai, the founder of Shingon Buddhism, introduced it. Shingon Buddhism is one of few Buddhist sects along Nara sects in Japan which still practice full set of Vinaya which specifically rule out anal sex. Please find citation/reference if you want to revive the allegation that Kukai was a vinaya breaker, which effectively make him unfit to be a member of Sangha, not to mention the fact that he was a child abuser. Vapour

I changed the wording from "it is said that.." to "a popular myth holds that..." to make it clear that the article is not presenting it as fact. I've added a reference for this claim; the author writes: "The degree to which Buddhism tolerated same-sex sexual activity even among its ordained practitioners is clear from the popular myth that the founder of the Shingon school, Kooboo Daishi (Kuukai), introduced homosexual acts upon his return from study in China in the early ninth century. This myth was so well known that even the Portuguese traveller, Gaspar Vilela had heard it."

Also, I would like to point out that homosexuality does not equal anal sex. ntennis 02:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

An article published in FWBO, with rather controvercial history regarding spiritual/sexual friendship between men, cannot be a neutral or verifiable source. As of "anal sex=homosexuality", are you now going to argue that Kukai only introduce anal sex in Sanga but not homosexuality? Anyway, you should be aware that interpretation of vinaya code is a specific discipline in Buddhism, and rule about what constitute sexual intercourse is somewhat detailed and somewhat technical (in rather Monica/Clinton kinda way). Vapour (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have done a bit of google research in Japanese. It appear to be the case that it was common myth during Edo period that Manjusri discover pederasty and Kukai brought it to Japan from Tang Dynasty. No wonder I have never heard about it. It is a feudal version of urban myth. Feel free to restore it with verifiable citation. Wasn't Queen Victoria crushed to death when she was having sex with a horse. Vapour (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)