The Dalai Lama, the Pope & monkly mistakes
Published May 22nd, 2006 in Buddhism, HomosexualityThe problem with some Western folks (actually most people) is that they like to apply their world view of how things should be to the rest of the world. It is not any better that the American media continuously portray the Dalai Lama like he owes the Buddhist world and like he is the only spoke person for Buddhism, like a Pope. Of course, the popularity of the Dalai Lama have, in part, a lot to do with the fact that Tibet was taken over by China, and there are good political agenda and interests to use that fact against China, by some government agencies.
I don’t really blame them for being ignorant, but what is worst is that some Buddhists themselves seems to take Dalai Lama’s words as fully authoritative for all Buddhists and that some of his views of Buddhism IS the only Buddhist view. That I am puzzled. What have they been learning?
So for the record, the Dalai Lama is not the Pope of Buddhism. Buddhism does not have a Pope. Neither are he views nor practices on Buddhism necessarily reflective or representative of all Buddhists views and practices.
Basically, Buddhism, as of currently, can be divided into 4 main traditions (or practices). All these traditions point to a different way of achieving the same thing: elightenment.
You have the Theravada, popular in Sri Lanka and most parts of Indo-China like Thailand and Laos. Next is a whole class of practice under Mahayana, which springs 2 more different practices: Zen and Tibetan Buddhism.
Each traditions have their own authorities. Now, the Dalai Lama belongs to the Tibetan Buddhism traditions. Within that tradition, there are currently four major sects, each with its own head and authority. The Dalai Lama is not the head of any of these sects. But he is considered a political head of Tibet. His spiritual authority, thus, is only derived from students who has taken him as a guru or those who see him as a teacher, and the rest of the “feel-good” junkies.
So its really frustrating that whenever the DL says that gay sex is a sexual misconduct in Buddhism, (homophobic) Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike then claim that Buddism is, thus, homophobic and use it to no ends to condemn gay people with it. What he should be saying is that gay sex is a sexual misconduct only within the form and tradition of Buddhism that he knows and practices. What this means that if you are not a Tibetan Buddhist nor is he your guru or beloved teacher, you can safely ignore that part of his message.
The other day, someone posted a reply by Ajahn Brahm to the Dalai Lama’s comments in heartland, which I thought would help of those out there confused by the DL’s message:
Ajahn Brahm today has written to the West Australian newspaper in response to an article published last week in which the Dalai Lama was quoted as saying that homosexuality was immoral. This article was first brought to the attention of Ajahn Brahm - the elected head of the Australian Sangha Association - by members of the BSWA’s Armadale Meditation Group who felt that the Dalai Lama’s comments were not in line with the Buddhist ethos. In his response Ajahn Brahm explains why, as follows….
*Dear Sir/Madam,
The Dalai Lama was out of line when he said (according to your article in the West, April 15, Page 7) “if you are a Buddhist, homosexuality is wrong. Full stop.” The Dalai Lama is not the ‘Pope’ of Buddhism and, charming as he often is, he sometimes gets it wrong. He is only the head of one of the four main sects of Vajrayana (Tibetan Buddhism) and he speaks only for his group.
The greater majority of Buddhists throughout the modern world are inspired to learn that the Buddha certainly did not discriminate against homosexuality. The core teachings of original Buddhism clearly show that it is not whether one is heterosexual, homosexual or celibate that is
good or bad, but it is how a person uses their sexual orientation that makes for good or bad karma. For example a gay man in a committed, loving and joyful relationship with a male partner is definitely morally superior to a straight married guy who is unfaithful to his wife. omosexuality is not wrong per se. However, it is bad karma to condemn homosexuality out of hand!The Dalai Lama’s error is to look for his guidance in dodgy scriptures composed many centuries after the time of the Buddha. So the fact is that the Buddha, and therefore Buddhism, embraces gays and lesbians and transexuals with equity and respect. Too long has religious bigotry caused suffering to minority groups in our society. All religions should be more loving. Full stop!*
Ajahn Brahm
Glad to see your point of view. It can get a bit tedious the way the media seems to treat the DL like a Pope. Although on the other hand he generally gives a good image to Buddhism.
I agree with you that the Dalai Lama do help to increase the profile of Buddhism in the world stage and gave it prominence. With it, sometimes, whatever he says is also given the same prominence on the world stage, good or bad!
It’s true that the Dalai Lama does not necessarily speak for all Buddhists. However, because of his courage and compassion, many of us, Buddhists and non-Buddhists, look to him for moral leadership and guidance.
Personally, whether it’s the Dalai Lama or Ajahn Brahm, I think they are all men who have given their lives to the Dharma, and for that we should be deeply grateful. The Buddha is not physically with us, but thankfully we have such leaders who are willing to teach and propagate the Dharma and share their insight. Sure, there may be an occasional difference on a point of view, but we lay people should concentrate on only the essential Dharma.
In Buddha’s days, people used to pester him with all kinds of questions. As long as these questions are not related to the essential teaching of the Four Noble Truths, he refused to waste his time answering them. Life is short.
Hsiao Shuang
Hi
Love ur blog , found out by accident.
Actually we wrote to each other before long ago
I am the guy who live in a small town in Perak
A gay buddhist too, remember me? I think I use the nick name Nge Jung then which of course is a tibetan word although I am closer to theravada buddhism.
Keep up the good work and would share some of ur writings with my friends.
Viriya
To Viriya,
Are you still living in Perak, or moved elsewhere?
I know for a fact that Buddhism meditation practice, especially Burmese-based Vipassana, is very active and vigorous in Malaysia. I follow the Vipassana approach although I believe all forms of Buddhism are correct. After all, in the Lotus Sutra, Buddha says there are 84,000 expedient means to lead us, poor creatures, to enlightenment.
There’s no mention of sexual preferences as far as I can remember of my own reading of the sutras.
In fact, the key advice is to refrain from sexual misconduct which is usually taken to be having a relationship with another person’s spouse.
Last Thursday (June 1), Ajahn Brahm was in Singapore giving a talk on “What is Enlightenment”, a most enlightening talk indeed. His key point can be summarised thus:
“Just keep two precepts — not doing harm to another being, and not doing harm to oneself.
“By refraining from doing anything in thought or conduct that will result in harm or hurt (whether to another living being or to oneself), we help to create more happiness.
“The precepts are there for happiness, and people who actually keep the precepts are happy people.”
I couldn’t agree more with Ajahn Bhram on this.
Hsiaoshuang (Francis Chin)
Ya I am still in my hometown Kampar Perak
Ajahn Brahm is my favorite and try to listen to his talk online in the net
Hi Viriya,
Yes, I still remember you. I hope that you are doing well in Perak. Perhaps we can meet up if I make a holiday trip to Perak next time. I thought you are still on the Heartland email list?
Glad to know that with the Internet, everyone can attend and hear Ajahn Brahm’s talk anytime and anywhere.
Metta
Kelvin Wong
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.
One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.
The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.
Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.
You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.
So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling-block or obstacle in your brother’s way.
…I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.
If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother…
Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil.
For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness…
Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.
Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.
It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.
So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves.
But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
The above rather windy passage quoted by :-D, on food and eating is taken from this chap called “Saint Paul” who wrote a lot of letters where he set forth his own loud dogma of Christ’s teachings. Whether his dogma tallied with Christ’s actual teaching no one knows for sure, since the chap wasn’t around when Christ was physically teaching — he claimed though that he did meet Christ, albeit transfiguratively, on the road to Damascus.
The last part where Paul condemned anyone who has a lack of faith contradicts the earlier part where this chap says we shouldn’t judge or condemn anyone. Also, it doesn’t sound quite saintly, though, coming from a man with a “saint” in his honorific.
By the way, I don’t think we should just eat anything that is edible. As a Chinese, I know the awful attitude of many Chinese who will cook and eat anything that moves, whether it’s a pig or puppy, a snake or a centipede.
There is a sickening practice of almost all Chinese restaurants keeping tanks of live fish, lobsters, crabs, shrimps and frogs. Customers go to the restaurant, pick the live creatures that they want, and the creatures are then scooped up and thrown into a heated wok to be cooked alive so as to provide absolutely fresh meat.
My young son was so distressed by what he saw in the restaurants that he eventually became a vegetarian. Personally I think a diet of purely plant food is the healthiest, considering how tough, agile and strong are those vegetarians in nature — the elephant, rhino, hippo, horse, buffalo, deer, giraffe, etc.
IMHO, I don’t think the passages that I quoted from “Romans 14″ are literally about food, i.e. eating and drinking but instead, of tolerance, respect and love for one another, regardless of our differences. This is not incompatible with the Buddhist philosophy and worldview. Many things written in the Bible are also not meant to be taken literally, i.e. they are “parables”. Perhaps not in the same vein as Zen “koans”, discerning the underlying meaning of parables nevertheless requires, amongst other things, a measure of faith, introspection and spiritual growth that is again, not unlike one seeking enlightenment.
And also, contrary to what has been taken literally from some of its pages (and used regrettably by fundamentalists to further their own personal agendas of fear, guilt and hate), I believe that the central and abiding message of the Bible is of one of selfless love, of God and neighbour, that enables us to transcend the pain and suffering of our own mortality.