Salt * Wet * Fish

The dsuen dialogues is a series of conversation between someone by the pen name of Dsuen. He started a thread in the ST forums (or was it CNA forum?), which formed the dialogues. This was the follow-through from the October 2000 interview with the then SM Lee by Terry Gross of National Public Radio in the USA. This lead to a number of discussions on the gay issues on the net.

Many people associate fundamentalism with Christians and Muslims, but within the Buddhists community there do exist fundamentalists, that is those who belief is formed by the words that they read literally. However, I guess one main difference is that mostly these are individuals, whereas in the other 2 religions, these are usually the entire organisation, for example, the NCSS which represents most of the churches in Singapore. Of course, there are occassions when a head of a buddhist organisation or temple did make homophobic remark, but these are usually few and far.

Its also very unfortunately that the America media and Buddhists have cast Tibetian Buddhism and the Dalai Lama as the sole source and authority of Buddhism. Many people think that people who are deeply devout or have high training in meditation would have more wisdom and less aversion. Dalai Lama’s comments on homosexuality with his own Tibetian Buddhist tradition have shown that this is not necessarily true. I have also known of a very popular lay person in Singapore who teaches meditation very well to be homophobic. And Dsuen, according to my friend whom he suspected was someone he knew at a Tibetian temple, was nontheless a devout Buddhist.

What seems to be interesting is that most fundamentalists seems to suffer the same problem, irregardless of religion. They will tell you want they want you to hear and cite whatever “research” to support their arguement. But when you point out the flaws in their “research” and put up more evidences that says otherwise and you use logic to question their rational, you often get the same repeated reply from them, never refuting your queries. They just keep repeating their assertions. Of course, this is not to say that those on the non-fundamentalist side of the argument are always lucid and rational.

I don’t think that I copied the entire thread, as it seems to have ended abruptly, my apologise. The conversation is very lengthy and I hope that the way which I have formatted it makes it easy to read…

dsuen - 9:11pm January 31, 2001 Spore time (13.)

Keep it private for your own and others’ sakes

Like I said, I believe in the privacy of the individual. It doesn’t matter to me what you do in your private life as long as it hurts nobody.

But if you want to bring your ‘private’ struggle into the public arena and condemn the mainstream, and since I’m not the ‘objective to the point of stupidity’ or the ‘tolerance into coma’ type, you are not going to emerge the victim and good old society the culprit. I’ll promise you that.

S’poreans don’t even take kindly to a white man ridiculing our acronyms, what makes you think they will tolerate aberrant sexual behaviour? What makes you think that they will let their sons and daughters grow up in a homosexual-tolerant environment to become sissy Johns and butch Janes?

I hope you will have your cake and eat it ——- in private.

BUT I’m amenable to a good scholarly discussion, if you will. Just quit talking like some intoxicated lesbian and you won’t light my fuse.

kelvinw - 11:56pm January 31, 2001 Spore time (13.1)

DSuen’s Homophobia

As I Buddhist, I feel saddened by DSuen’s reply. Worst still, he insists that his incorrect views are also shared by ALL BUDDHISTS. I shudder to think that people may think that Buddhism is such a prejudiced, unloving, uncompassionate, foolish and ignorant religion.

The issue here is about discrimination without proper understanding. I am sure DSuen is an expert in homosexuals and homosexuality by the way he proclaims homosexual behaviours and lifestyles, almost like he lived it himself. (hmmm.. I wonder). How can he claim to be correct when he doesn’t really understand about the real issues of homosexuals and homosexuality. This can be easily seen by all the incorrect and stereotyped judgements and statements he made about homosexuals. As much as a Westerner may think that all Chinese have yellow skin, slanted eyes, buck tooth and talks with bad grammer.

As a Buddhist, he made all the mistakes that Buddhism is telling us to avoid: wrong view/thought, wrong perception, wrong speech, misguided wisdom, hatred, prejudice and ignorance. So what is the use of showing a beautiful flower to a blind man or play soothing music to a deaf person? What is the point of arguing with a person whose cup is already full of his own ideas?

As the moderator of Heartland, the Gay Buddhist Fellowship here in Singapore, I must say that having talked to monks, nuns and lay Buddhist persons, they will agree that DSuen’s view is indeed unskillful. They accept homosexuals as equal to heterosexuals and does not see any reasons (scientifically or in the Buddhist texts) why homosexuals should change to be heterosexuals. In fact, to not able to accept the differences of others and to want others to become like ourselves is a cruel, uncompassionate, unloving and foolish thing that a Buddhist should avoid.

Buddhism respects all things and accepts all phenomenon. It does not practice discrimination, incite disharmony, fear and hatred, nor does it encourage incorrect views and biasness and prejudice.

This link should provide some insight on that: http://www.heartlandsg.org/homosexnqueerness.htm

dsuen - 6:41am February 01, 2001 Spore time (13.1.1)

Kelvin’s crap

Kelvin’s crap and psuedo-Buddhism passing off as the real doctrine

Kelvin practises a level of fudging of the truth that is synonymous with a con job. He is like what he is; he just is not straight. I have never seen a greater travesty of truth than his pathetic contorting of the tenets of a major religion like Buddhism to suit himself.

He has not pointed out how my account of Buddhist belief in rebirth and its explanation of how homosexual people came to be is prejudiced or uncompassionate. Instead all I get is a litany of unexplained accusations of wrong this, wrong that, borrowed from Buddhist-speak, including a dirty suggestion that I could have been one of his shunned kind. How morbid can he get?

I had actually visited his website, Heartland, and read every single one of the articles in there. One theme that ran through those articles was that of a Western Buddhist man who kept badgering the Dalai Lama to sanction homosexual practice.

His Holiness clarified with his interviewer unequivocally that homosexual sex is taboo in Buddhism — even between two consenting adults. The interviewer was incredulous and kept appealing to His Holiness to sanction homosexuality. But no, His Holiness, true to himself, cannot be pressured nor cajoled into pronouncing what essentially is a perversion as a norm. I heaved a big sigh of relief when I read up to that point on the website and smiled broadly to myself. My knowledge of Buddhism had not been in vain.

I would like also to quote the Venerable Master Hsuan Hua, the Patriarch of the Zen School who was descended from an unbroken lineage since Bodhidharma (the Indian Patriarch) brought Zen Buddhism from India to China 1,500 years ago. The Venerable Master Hua categorically declared that homosexuals are pitiful, perverted people whose homosexual practices must be avoided by ALL people, not just Buddhists.

These two heads of Buddhism had categorically stated that homosexuality is not a sanctioned sexuality in Buddhism. It remains a taboo for monks and nuns to practise homosexuality. In the third precept for lay Buddhist followers, the precept against sexual misconduct, sex using the mouth and anus are expressly forbidden. This covers homosexuality as much as heterosexual couples who want to seek their sexual pleasures in these ways.

So who’s the liar having the wrong view here? Surely Kelvin the homosexual who claims that Buddhism sanctions homosexuality when it does not. He sullies the good name of Buddhism by calling himself a gay Buddhist.

I do not doubt that the monks, nuns and lay Buddhist followers accept homosexuals as equal to heterosexuals. But Kelvin is not speaking the whole truth here. It is well known that Buddhists regard all living beings as deserving of life, from the smallest disease-causing bacteria to the biggest man-eating tigers, from atheists to those of other religions (one reason why there are no religious wars for Buddhism). In that sense all living beings are equal — in their right to live.
But that should not be construed as a comment on the equality of sexual practices. For just as a Buddhist would tell you that a tiger is equal to a deer (in their rights to life), he would just as soon tell you that the tiger’s practice of eating other animals is NOT equal to the deer’s herbivorous habits.

So Kelvin is guilty of fudging the truth here. If you do not read carefully between the lines, he would have succeeded in pulling the wool over your eyes so that you think a general view of equality in terms of the right to live is taken to mean that the practice of homosexuality is acceptable or equal to heterosexuality. Nothing could be further from the truth.

His statement that ‘Buddhism …..accepts all phenomenon’ is another falsehood. Buddhism NEITHER ACCEPTS NOR REJECTS all phenomena in its higher wisdom. Yet the Buddha was not so inane as to tell his followers that it makes no difference then whether they consumed rice or cyanide as food. Rice is to be ACCEPTED as food and cyanide is to be REJECTED at all costs. Heterosexuality is acceptable and homosexuality is to be rejected. This is abundantly clear in Buddhism. Human beings are finite, vulnerable beings to whom some things are healthful and some detrimental. I don’t think we can accept everything and Buddhism certainly did not teach that.

Kelvin has committed falsehoods, misrepresentations and distortions and lived a way of life that is taboo in Buddhism. In addition, he has also propagated a sexuality that is not sanctioned in Buddhism by setting up a Gay Buddhist Fellowship.

At this point one must ask the question if this man is even a Buddhist in the first place. He has done nothing but go against the religion that he subscribes to and misrepresent it publicly. Never has Buddhism been more maligned since this shameless charlatan and pervert came onto the scene. Exposing him is the most appropriate and ‘skillful’ thing to do here.

kelvinw - 10:05am February 01, 2001 Spore time (13.1.1.1)

Kelvin’s crap?

The Dalai Lama is not an authority in Tibetan Buddhism, he only belongs to 1 of the 4 major traditions. Zen Master Hsuan Hua is not the authority in Mahayana nor Zen Buddhism.

Its no point in talking to someone whose cup is full of his own opinions. I shall let my actions, mind and thought be the judge. But I would suggest to Daniel that he asks his Tibetan teachers in his centre about this matter and what he have said and see how they reply him.

I do not deny that there are homophobia monks, nuns and lay Buddhists, all I can say is that it takes time to learn how to play the violin properly.

Metta

dsuen - 1:52pm February 01, 2001 Spore time (13.1.1.1.1)

Kelvin’s full cup of crap

Full cup of crap from Kelvin the homosexual pseudo-Buddhist

Kelvin you will stop at nothing to have your morbid homosexuality intact, won’t you? Even the Dalai Lama and a Zen Patriarch are not authoritative enough for you to detach yourself from your madness. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Never mind that there are homophobic monks or whoever, you yourself suffer from reality-phobia or wisdom-phobia. Empty your full cup of crap before you start calling yourself Buddhist again!

Have some metta for yourself and others! Stop preaching the goodness of homosexuality! With Buddhists like you, Buddhism doesn’t need enemies!

proud_to_be_gay - 2:58pm February 01, 2001 Spore time (13.1.1.1.1.1)

same stale homophobia

Dear all,

Here we have a dsuen becoming vitriolic and spiteful Dsuen, in case the words and views of some masters matter that much to you, remember the Buddha once said that all teachings by everyone ought to be doubted, including your teachers.

Let me remind you once again that homosexuals are not preaching the goodness of homosexuality, nor promoting it. We just don’t want to live in a state of persecution, that’s all.

You don’t seem able to prove the intrinsic perversion of Buddhism you have been shouting about. Ultimately, homophobia is rooted in you and not that Buddhism disapproves of homosexuality.

Just how authoritative are you to pronounce us heretics and that we are promoting a perverse union of Buddhism and homosexuality?

Stop conflating your homophobia with Buddhism. It’s already bad enough that you should see some people as lesser beings as a Buddhist. It’s a shame you try to incorporate homophobia into Buddhism.

We certainly don’t need a fascist Buddhist.

Kouros

dsuen - 3:40pm February 01, 2001 Spore time (13.1.1.1.1.1.1)

Don’t be taken in

Don’t be taken in by Your own words Kouros

I doubt if I had vitriolic for Kelvin in my previous post, ‘Kelvin’s full cup of crap’.
Some clarification:

I was referring to Kelvin when I said that he is promoting the goodness of homosexuality. Go to his ‘feel good’ website and you will see for yourself.

Don’t misread me. I am not persecuting here. I’ve said before you are free to do what you like in your own privacy. But if you want to bring that private ‘struggle’ of yours into the public eye, and worse, accuse mainstream society of all kinds of persecution, then be prepared to face up to an analysis of your case.

I guess being homosexual DOES affect how you learn Buddhism. What’s the relevance of quoting the spirit of critical analysis the Buddha preached? If you would just go to Kelvin’s Heartland website, you can read in all clarity, the Dalai Lama’s statement that homosexuality is taboo in Buddhism. He is saying that as an authoritative statement of Buddhism.

Moreover, it is clear in the third precept, the one against sexual misconduct, the use of the mouth and anus with the sex organs for sex is taboo as well. I don’t suppose when homosexuals get passionate you just shake hands, right? So is your homosexual practice as a Buddhist breaking or antitheitcal to the spirit of the third precept?

Is it authoritative enough for you now? Would you like to call Buddhism homophobic now?
I have shown you that homosexuality is antithetical to Buddhist doctrine. Kelvin had intrinsically perverted the latter by his words and conduct.

I am arguing about the rights and wrongs of your sexuality, I’m sure many of you are otherwise upright citizens of society. As a Buddhist I wouldn’t say you are a lesser person outright without some qualification. In the area of sexual conduct, you are indeed at fault for you practise a sexual perversion. If you allow homosexuality to affect your wisdom so that you do not see it as a sexual perversion then you are indeed a lesser person – in comparison to someone who does.

I don’t know what you meant by fascist Buddhist. All I did was to keep referring to what the Dalai Lama and what a Zen patriarch said and the third precept against sexual misconduct in Buddhism.

Perhaps the vitriolic and spite is coming from you?

jonahss - 11:22pm January 31, 2001 Spore time (15.)

Challenge your thoughts and dump those stereotypes.

dsuen,

The stereotype you have of gays and lesbians as sissies and butches just illustrates how little you know about homosexuals here.

We don’t want to thrust our grievances into public and scream societal murder. Given a choice, most of us want to ‘just be’ (courtesy of Calvin Klein), preferably without even accusatory looks from people in the public who can tell that we are homosexual. The episode of coos started off when they put that banner up which is a gesture of dragging us out as a boxing sandbag to train their holy punches.

I am a Buddhist but I don’t see any conflicts between my religion and my sexuality. I am what I am. And Buddhism respects that. There isn’t a fixed formula saying that you have to be heterosexual, want to start a family, etc, to be a Buddhist. The fact that you are intrigued and obssessed with the specific and rather mystical causes as to why people are gay or women, etc, shows that you have forgotten the ultimate teaching in Buddhism: that nothing really ‘matters ultimately’ (emptiness). I shall not dwell on this.

We are not hurting anyone here. Bigots are. Why then do you think the coos incident has spurned numerous letters from gays and lesbians in this forum?

I see a fear lurking in you - characteristic of so many heterosexual people, a fear of the challenge more awareness and recognition would post to the sexual identity of the heterosexual individual and to the obstinate view of a ‘flawless’ world. I know it is suddenly destabilising that the world is no longer perceived to be so heterosexual, so ‘perfect’, but that it how it really is.
We are open to scholarly discussions too, that is if really open up your mind and challenge yourself.

Kouros

dsuen - 6:44am February 01, 2001 Spore time (15.1)

You got it wrong

What you espouse is not Buddhism, [jonahss]

I don’t think I know too little about homosexuals, [jonahss]. You mentioned that you get ‘accusatory looks from people in the public who can tell that we are homosexual’. If they didn’t see the apparent sissies and butches in homosexuals, how in the world could they tell? Wasn’t I right to say that homosexuals have this image of being sissies and butches?

Buddhism does respect your right to live as a living being. BUT it does not respect your homosexuality. Buddhism is famous for its institution of monkhood, which requires celibacy, and does not advocate heterosexuality, marriage or setting up a family. BUT that does not mean that it had sanctioned homosexuality!

I think homosexuals suffer chronically from bouts of over-optimism and selective blindness to passages in any religion that prohibits homosexuality.

You have also taken the highest doctrine of Buddhism, the doctrine of emptiness, in vain. It does not mean ‘nothing really matters ultimately’. That’s a lunatic’s dream come true, not Buddhism. The Buddha did not walk around naked or sat on his head, etc, as the One most awakened to this highest wisdom and as its expounder. If you had read the Shurangama Sutra, you would know that you have fallen into a demonic understanding of Buddhism.

I am quite happy to hear that you are a Buddhist (there’s hope for you yet). But you are like a tiger chewing on a piece of meat thinking that you have not run counter to vegetarianism and muttering, ‘Nothing really matters ultimately. Vegetable or meat they don’t matter, I am still a vegetarian no matter what I am chewing.’ I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at this bit of ‘nothing really matters’ wisdom of yours.

You are wrong to think that every time a heterosexual opposes your homosexuality it is because he feels threatened by your sexuality.

We are human beings. We take an avid interest in what is happening to our society. We would leave you to your privacy but you have come out charging against a social norm and accusing all and sundry of perpetrating discrimination and bigotry against you.

You don’t see how perverse you are but keep saying that mainstream society is persecuting you. Most lunatics in Woodbridge feel that they are misunderstood Einsteins put into strait jackets too.

I respect more the homosexual who says he/she couldn’t help himself/herself despite understanding that he/she is suffering from a perversion., rather than one who has turned into a prophet of a new horizon for homosexuality, misquoting and blaspheming established religions along the way.

Gay Buddhists, gay Christians, gay Muslims, gay Hindus, or so they claim. But they are the children of those respective religions that had never sired them through their doctrines in the first place.

proud_to_be_gay - 11:41am February 01, 2001 Spore time (37.)

a bit more on Buddhism, homosexuality and society

Dsuen,

It is true that some gays and lesbians are sissies and butches respectively. But NOT ALL. The problem of heterosexual images of gays and lesbians are that they are ALL sissies and butches which, being a gay man and having seen considerable number of homosexuals, are false.

You say that Buddhism does not respect my homosexuality. I think it is more of you, as a Buddhist, who doesn’t agree with homosexuality. Buddhism doesn’t condone nor encourage, on the other hand, homosexuality. Yet this is different from discouraging homosexuality. All I know is that my religion accepts me as what I am and does not tell me that I am a lesser being.
Homosexuals don’t suffer from over-optimism. This is an overstatement from homophobes who would rather that homosexuals remain the miserable beings who are the boxing sandbag of society.

Of course, understanding emptiness doesn’t mean that I can a lunatic next. In a way, understanding of emptiness is a very personal affair: it is not meant to be practised accordingly lest one be seen as a lunatic. I haven’t read the Shurangama Sutra but I am sure I am not demonised. Demons are rather those, in the name of religion, persecutes others to attain ascendancy and enhance their sense of security.

The meat/vegetable allegory; I agree with it. Ultimately, and I say Ultimately, the understanding of emptiness is such that, again, nothing really matters. I stand by it and don’t wish to dwell further. Laugh or cry as much as you want. You are holding on to something tightly because you fear no grounds for you to stand on and feel secure, but in the process delimiting your scope of thinking.

We homosexuals are human beings too. You seem to suggest that we have destabilised society. By this “society”, you are referring a majority society of heterosexuals. You imply that homosexuals have no place in this society and ought to, if possible, somehow disappear. So, would you consider that as a Buddhist worldview?

Perhaps you might try to justify how perverse homosexuals are. I mentioned in my first letter to this forum before: in case you think nature is a perfect order of union of man with women and yin and yang, this has not been the case. You stand by a simplistic belief of a purely heterosexual world because you have been turning a blind eye to the fact that homosexuals do, I emphasise again, do exist.

Do dwell on your understanding on homosexuality before you write further, because so far your views reek of the same-old bigoted staleness many of us homosexuals have seen numerous times.

Kouros

dsuen - 2:30am February 02, 2001 Spore time (37.1)

Ever hopeful and optimistic
[Kouros],

Your optimism is in the face of odds is commendable. But it is proving more of an impediment to you than anything else.

The point about the image of homosexuals as sissies and butches. Yes, of course, I know not all of them exhibit apparent effeminate or butch behaviour. But there are enough of them like that to make it a lingering image in people’s minds.

Indeed Buddhism does not respect homosexuality. It has no respect for killing, lying, stealing, etc., too. The fact that Buddhism has precepts against sexual misconduct (which covers homosexual sex) and killing, lying and stealing, says more than that no respect is accorded such karmic offenses. It is actively preached against! Get your perspective right.

The fact that you can conjure an interpretation of Buddhism being non-committal about homosexuality from facts to the contrary shows how overly-optimistic you are. And I am being very generous with my comment here already.

Your utterance that ‘ultimately nothing really matters’ is not a sign of some esoteric enlightenment on your part. You have merely dropped into a delusional state of mind (demonic lust) that grabs at the surface of a profound truth as an excuse for carrying on as a homosexual. It’s very dangerous of you to do that to yourself. Go read the Shurangama Sutra and find out for yourself.

Please stop that ‘the mainstream is insecure’ mode of thinking. You are bleeding from so many holes yet you tell the first-aider who’s patching you up, “You are bandaging me up because you want to make me look sick, right? You are getting a kick out of doing this, aren’t you?”
You have mistaken my intentions. It usually happens when there is a flurry of postings fast and furious. I’m not persecuting. I’m asking that you please wake up from your gay pride and see the light. And failing that to please retreat to your own privacy as one whose sexuality finds little empathy in society and mull over yourself and the universe. I think those are wise or at least pragmatic suggestions.

You haven’t destabilized society yet. And we intend to keep the status quo the way it has been —- so that society will not be destabilized in future. As people you have a place in human society; but I can’t say the same of your homosexuality. That’s the Buddhist worldview —- we keep the persons, we banish or cultivate away the delusions afflicting them. Buddhism is not some hedonistic cult that is non-committal about the banes of society.

At this point it is timely just as you have asked, for me to justify how perverse homosexuals are. I’ll show you how perverse homosexuality is. It is undeniable that homosexuality exists inasmuch as cancer does. Both beg that preventive and curative measures be taken.
Please find following this posting two postings which I had written to another poster, [witness], back in September of last year. I have re-titled them as “WHY HOMOSEXUALITY IS PERVERSE AND IMMORAL”, the text remains un-edited.

It gives me no pleasure to brand you as perverse. I hope that after reading them, you will be able to renew yourself.

Metta

dsuen - 2:42am February 02, 2001 Spore time (37.1.1)

WHY HOMOSEXUALITY IS PERVERSE
WHY HOMOSEXUALITY IS PERVERSE AND IMMORAL (I)

Dear Witness,

This is essentially a reply to your questions in your posting ‘Why Immoral?’. I have no malice towards homosexuals except disgust at their sexual practices and compassion for the mental delusion that they suffer from —- homosexuality.

In order for you to understand why I think homosexuality is immoral, I think there is a need for you to understand my view of morality.

I consider morals to be virtuous values, in other words, values that one holds and practices that: bring benefits to oneself and others; bring only benefits to oneself but no harm to others; bring only benefit to others but no harm to oneself;

Morals also mean values and practice that do not subvert the natural order of things. Benefits could be anything that is materially, physically, mentally, psychological or spiritually benefical. Harm, likewise comes in these five categories.

Let me first say why heterosexuality is moral; assuming that it is not carried out as a crime or extra-marital.

Human beings are born into the two sexes, with physical bodies that are different but sex organs that match like a lock and its key. Sexual desire arises, the urge to copulate comes, and a man will, with a consenting woman, join in embrace and find the greatest ecstasy and fulfilment in the merging of their sex organs. It is in the natural order of things in life.

Say, instead, two men engage in anal sex.

What’s the physical harm done? Physically, the rectum suffers more micro-tears than the elastic vagina in this instance and the rectum being the repository for faeces, the man runs the risk of infection. He runs the even greater risk of developing fissures in the rectal walls from repeated lacerations that fail to heal.

For the other man, he too suffers more micro-tears on the glans of his penis as the rectum is a tighter and less elastic space than the vagina. He runs the risk of infection due to the unhygienic nature of that place.

What’s the psychological and spiritual harm done? Both men had ceased to regard the anus/rectum as the defecatory organ that it actually is, and instead saw it as the sex organ that it never was, disregarded the repugnant odours and filthiness from the anus/rectum and finally, let sexual desire reign supreme even though they know that what they were going to do was against the natural order of things.

The values held and activities engaged in in anal sex brought physical, psychological and spiritual harm. Verdict: anal sex is immoral.

So homosexuality is immoral in the sense that it very often entailed anal sex between gay partners. However this is still not the fundamental reason why homosexuality is immoral. Because there are gay men and lesbians who don’t engage in anal sex.
The most fumdamental reason that homosexuality is immoral is the inversion of the natural order of things. Let me explain.

Male shall be male and female shall be female. The physical bodies and the psyche of men and women complement each other. Where one protrudes, the other invaginates,; where one asserts and and is aggressive, the other complies and is sensitive and understanding. That is the natural order of things.

In homosexuals, there exists in their psyche, EXTREME JEALOUSY regarding the form of someone of the same sex. For example, a gay man, even though he professes homosexual love for another man, actually has his so-called ‘love’ rooted in an extreme jealousy for the other man, so deep that he does not detect it and takes it as part of his normal self. The same is true for homosexual females.

This extreme jealousy led the homosexual to fascinate about, to pursue and to want to ‘possess’ that person of the same sex……….

It can be said that this extreme jealousy exists in heterosexuals as well. But here the extreme jealousy that men feel for the wonderful beauty of the female form and likewise, women for the awesome power of the male form are natural —- human beings want what they themselves do not have.

But in homosexuals, the extreme jealousy is unwarranted because they are born with the similar physical form as their ‘loves’. It is also often deeply entwined with an inability to realise the sex that they are born as. THIS, ladies and gentlemen, —— is the inversion of the order of nature, the fundamental root of homosexuality deep in their minds.

At this deepest level, even if the homosexual does not engage in anything physical, there is already psychological and spiritual harm done by harbouring an unwarranted extreme jealousy for someone of the same sex.

Verdict: homosexuality is immoral.

Witness, you have asked if there cannot be a moral homosexual or an immoral heterosexual. The homosexual can be moral in other spheres of his life, but his sexuality is immoral. The heterosexual is fundamentally moral in his sexuality but can be immoral in its practice or in other spheres of his life.

The disgust that mainstream society feels for homosexuals stems from a deep intuition that homosexuality is immoral, even though very few of them can articulate it. But more than that, it stems from the fear that they themselves may be unduely influenced into suffering the same delusions that are peculiar to homosexuality. And with that, the very core of their beings, their heterosexuality, will be changed and as a result so will their characters and their lifes.
As to the hows and wherefores for the arisal of this fundamental state of mind of the homosexual, that is another topic by itself.

proud_to_be_gay - 6:15pm February 01, 2001 Spore time (47.)

Other Tibetan Masters’ View on Homosexuality

Although H.H. the 14th Dalai Lama considered non-vaginal sex as sexual misconduct, and he also considered masturbation as against the precept, when asked for any Buddhist scripture reference, H.H. the Dalai Lama simply acknowledged that he did not know where the Buddha has actually said that and he has indicated that he is opened to further research on homosexual behaviour and suggested the broader Buddhist community to sit together to further the changes in current prohibition as he admits that he is not the pope of Buddhism.

I include the following information on other Tibetan Masters view which is not the same as H.H. the Dalai Lama.

Metta,

Karma Sherab

Venerable Khandro Rinpoche on Homosexual Behavior and Buddhist Practice Steve Peskind, Buddhist AIDS Project Newsletter, 1997; Updated, March, 2000

Khandro Rinpoche is one of Tibetan Buddhism’s highest and most esteemed woman Lamas. She is the daughter of one of the most accomplished Tibetan Lamas of this century, Mindroling Techen Rinpoche, and was “recognized” by the 16th Gyalwa Karmapa as a “continuation” of the mindstream of the esteemed Tibetan Woman Teacher, the Great Khandro of Tsurphu, who was the Tantric Consort of the 15th Karmapa and Revealer of Sacred Teachings in her own right.
At 31, Khandro Rinpoche is the former Abbess of the Gyalwa Karmapa’s Nunnery at Rumtek, Sikkim, and now heads her own nunnery and her father’s monastery in India. In 1994, in a week of teaching in San Francisco entitled “AIDS: Compassion and Skillful Means”, I asked her for her views on homosexual behavior and the Dharma. The following is her response:

“With respect to sexual relations, guidelines for all are the same no matter who one is. Homosexuality is nothing different, nothing new. This is something that was there a long time ago — in Tibet, in the East, in the West, everywhere. Human beings have always been human beings. It has come into more focus today. People talk about it more openly. A sexual relationship is very much a personal choice, a personal matter. Spirituality is everybody’s matter. One can grow spiritually by being a monk, through getting married, through homosexual relations. If you really love another man as a man, no problem. Within the Buddha’s doctrine itself homosexuality is nothing special, nothing new. Such a thing as Realization means being free from attachment to whomever it may be — a man to a man, a man to a woman, a woman to a woman or whoever it may be. Each person is responsible for his or her own mind, own thoughts, emotions, understanding, awakening, Realization. If it’s possible for a heterosexual person, it’s possible for a homosexual person. It’s possible for all sentient beings.”

Khandro Rinpoche “okayed” my transcription of her response for distribution in October, 1997. (She is more fluent in English –and several other languages than I, so an accurate record from the videotaped record was not difficult).

According to Buddhist poet John Giorno, the above view was also expressed by the late, great Head of the Tibetan Nyingmapa Lineage, H.H. Dudjom Rinpoche, and H.H. Drukchen Rinpoche, current Head of the Drukpa Kagyupa Lineage. Since the meeting between His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, and gay and lesbian buddhists and activists in June, 1997, Gelek Rinpoche, a senior Gelugpa Lama in the U.S, and the last formal teacher of Allen Ginsberg, has said that in his view, the “proscribed sexual behaviors” at the heart of the “controversy” are in fact,in his humble opinion, “all right” and “appropriate.” for lay buddhist practitioners in the West (personal correspondence)

Many of the new generation of “high” lamas in their twenties and thirties share the views expressed by Khandro Rinpoche above. One is 37 year-old H.E. Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche, a Lama who recently directed the much acclaimed Tibetan language film, “The Cup”, and who is the rebirth of one of Tibet’s most highly esteemed Lamas, Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo. Dzongsar Rinpoche presently is not a celibate monk, and he has recently and openly acknowledged that he is “bisexual.” In addition, at least two “recognized rebirths” or “mindstream continuations” of Tibetan Lamas are American gay men — one in his 30’s, one in his 40’s. Each is working and teaching in his own way.

NOTICE: FYI: Khandro Rinpoche, quoted above, gives very clear, challenging, and helpful teachings ever

dsuen - 3:56am February 02, 2001 Spore time (47.1)

THIS IS A CLEARER UNDERSTANDING

Your account of the Dalai Lama not being able to recollect in which scriptures the Buddha preached against sexual misconduct, is no indictment of the authenticity of such a principle in Buddhism.

Ask any of the Rinpoches listed here to quote chapter and verse where the source of any tenet can be found and they would most likely draw a blank too —- unless they happened to have a CD-ROM compilation of the scriptures nearby with a computer search facility to help them find it.

H.H. the Dalai Lama, being the much-travelled and honoured guest of Western hospitality that he is, has the habit of expediently espousing democratic principles of majority rule for effecting change in age-old Buddhist practices and customs. But please do not read it as carte blanche for revisionist fervour. It is merely an expedient of the Dalai Lama to placate Western dissenters who are too arrogant or deeply perverse to accept His Holiness’ words as gospel.

Look at it this way. Assuming that you take up His Holiness’ suggestion, how on Earth are you going to muster enough scholarly brainpower to overcome in debate, the many brilliant Geshes (professors of Buddhism) and get enough majority votes from Buddhists (most of whom would sooner go to hell than ‘vote’ against His Holiness’ exhortations) to overturn any precept or principle?

Besides, His Holiness did not instruct anyone to take up this revisionist task, as your posting is suggesting here. He had only indicated that you may do so, if it so moves you. He hopes you would see through your own folly by yourself or if you are so foolhardy to attempt something like this, to let the many Geshes you have to debate with convince you otherwise. Either way, the precepts or principles remain unperturbed from their sacred status.
Now wasn’t the Dalai Lama being very expedient and wise?

Where in the huge transcript of Khandro Rinpoche’s speech did she sanction homosexuality? Homosexuality is not new, so is cancer. Whether heterosexual or homosexual, one has to work for one’s salvation. True enough. Where’s the sanctioning for homosexuality? Her Excellency Khandro Rinpoche had spoken in general and not sanctioned the practice of homosexuality at all!

H.H. Dudjom Rinpoche and H.H. Drukchen Rinpoche echoed Khandro Rinpoche’s words. So? All three had merely echoed one another’s wisdom that cultivation is personal. They have not expressly sanctioned homosexuality. If you had read between the lines, you would have seen that your homosexuality should not be the object of sanction or normalization but the object of your renunciation, in their exhortations!

My guru, Gelek Rinpoche, referred to the ‘proscribed sexual behaviours’; that pertains to specifics in his personal correspondence, not homosexuality. Find out what exactly those ‘proscribed sexual behaviours’ meant before you take his advice in vain.

Again, I applaud the many new generation ‘high’ lamas who share Khandro Rinpoche’s views. Yep, that cultivation is a personal matter. None of them had sanctioned homosexuality too.
I have met H.E. Jamyang Khyentze Rinpoche before. He is not a lama who practices anal and/or oral sex with another man. The reincarnation of Manjushri is not under the throes of homosexual attachment! He is a very witty and tongue-in-cheek lama who will readily tell you that because he loves all sentient beings, which included men, you can consider him ‘bisexual’ too. His love is not limited to women, he’ll have you know cheekily.

The two American Tulkus, are they practising homosexuals? Or lamas who had renounced homosexuality together with the rest of all mundane concerns?

In your eagerness to vindicate homosexuality, you have dragged the holy names of so many lamas through the mud when they had not made clear that they had sanctioned homosexuality. Only the Buddha knows of the extent of the blasphemous karma that you have created.
In fact they had advised that homosexuality is nothing new during the Buddha’s time —— meaning that the Buddha was not unaware of homosexuality when he formulated the various principles and precepts against homosexuality! Most importantly you are too thick to realize that Khandro Rinpoche was actually telling you to ‘drop’ the subject! She’s saying that the Buddha knew of and had considered about the matter already —- and still proceeded to preach against homosexuality!

This is the very clear, challenging and helpful teachings for you. Wake up, fellow Vajrayanist!

proud_to_be_gay - 10:53am February 02, 2001 Spore time (47.1.1)

Dsuen Clearer Understanding?

The late H.H. Dudjom Rinpoche’s western personal attendant is gay living with a partner and he considered his partner as a blessing from his root guru the late H.H. Dudjom Rinpoche. He has served the late H.H. Dudjom Rinpoche for 14 years as his personal attendant and his partner is also Dudjom Rinpoche disciple. He has said that Dudjom Rinpoche view is that homosexual relationship is not sexual misconduct. Even Jeffrey Hopkins, the famous Tibetan Buddhism scholar, is also an openly gay man and he has served as Interpreter to H.H. the 14th Dalai Lama from 1979 to 1989. His response to H.H. Dalai Lama comment is that he can understand that the Dalai Lama is not a pope of Buddhism but he is glad that Dalai Lama is opened to change on this matter. Jeffrey Hopkins has written a book called Gay Man and the 64 Arts of Love. In his article “Reason and Orgasm in Tibetan Buddhism”, he mentioned the possibility to attain bliss and emptiness in same-sex tantric union. Both of them have served these 2 great Tibetan Masters for more than 10 years and I am sure they understand their root guru more than DSuen. If DSuen still insists that he is right, I have nothing to say but follow Buddha’s example to remain silence. I think I should not waste people time to sidetrack the discussion from the banner to Buddhism. Silence is also a response in Buddhism. Buddha often responded in silence to people who asked curious question, not that he did not have an answer but he knew they are not in the capacity to comprehend. Note that Kandro Rinpoche actually use the term ‘homosexual relations’ when she said those who are monk, married, or in homosexual relations can also attain spiritual progress.

Metta, Karma Sherab

dsuen - 4:20pm February 02, 2001 Spore time (55.1)

YOU ARE INDEED PITIFUL

Karma Sherab,

Again you have written cleverly to hide the whole truth

Homosexuality is taboo under the precept against sexual misconduct, i.e. the use of the mouth and/or the anus with the sex organs is taboo. This is clear and unequivocal in Buddhism.
I am sure H.H. Dudjom Rinpoche is very clear about this point.

If it is true that Dudjom Rinpoche considered homosexual sex as not tantamount to sexual misconduct, especially when it is practised in an open relationship by someone none other than his personal assistant, why has there been no public pronouncements or teachings to that effect? What you have here is only his personal assistant’s statement that his guru deems it okay.

You next mentioned Jeffrey Hopkins who served H.H. the Dalai Lama. Jeffrey Hopkins had commented on the Dalai Lama’s utterances BUT he was unable to quote any statement from the Dalai Lama sanctioning, his, Jeffrey Hopkin’s, homosexuality.

You mentioned that Jeffrey Hopkins ended his service to the Dalai Lama in 1989. Might his open homosexuality be the reason why his service to the Dalai Lama was cut short in 1989? The Dalai Lama must have deemed his open homosexuality an affront to Buddhism and politely rejected his service. You know the Dalai Lama’s stand on homosexuality and we all know that Jeffrey Hopkins was not known to be a gay in 1979.

The material in Jeffrey Hopkin’s book remains his private hallucinations. It is not and has not been admitted as orthodox tantric Buddhism.

Similarly his statement pertaining to ‘the possibility to attain bliss and emptiness in same-sex tantric union’ in his article remains his personal opinion. It is not to be construed as orthodox tantric Buddhist teachings.

Service to great Buddhist masters by both Western men does not mean that they have been given the licence to go against Buddhist tenets or to claim that their practice of homosexuality is a new definitive affirmation that homosexuality is sanctioned in Buddhism. You know better than that, Karma Sherab.

What Khandro Rinpoche said was customary of lamas to give hope and to express the truth that all beings can attain spiritual progress. She was trying to prevent hardcore homosexuals from going into despair.

Haven’t you heard the Buddha preach that all beings have the seed of Bodhicitta, that even a butcher, a man-eating tiger, a ghost, a hell-being, etc, can also attain Enlightenment one day. But we all know that the Buddha did not mean that they would all become butchering Buddhas, carnivorous Buddhas, and ghostly or hellish Buddhas.

In the same way, Khandro Rinpoche was not prophesying for an enlightened practising homosexual. The spiritual progress Khandro Rinpoche hopes you would make is to transcend homosexuality, not be mired in it, and definitely not to ask for sanctioning so as to indulge in homosexuality further. That is the proper understanding of the entire context of Khandro Rinpoche’s speech. You have grasped nothing from her holy speech.
You have made three grave mistakes here.

One, you have relied on flimsy anecdotal testimony and circumstantial speculation to paint Buddhism as sanctioning homosexuality.

Two, you have not taken the Buddha’s advice to Ananda, His personal assistant, when Ananda asked the Buddha who we should take as our master if He passed away to Nirvana. The Buddha replied that the Vinaya, the basket of precepts and ethics, should serve as master to all Buddhists after He has gone. H.H. the Dalai Lama had not contravened the Buddha’s instructions and neither has any single one of the Holinesses or Rinpoches whose holy names you quote and sully here.

Three, you have mistaken the kindness and compassion that these great masters have for their disciples as sanctioning homosexuality. It is well-known in tantric circles that there are disciples who do not fulfill their tantric obligations —- a karma more than a billion times heavier than homosexuality —- and yet they have not been excommunicated by their masters.
Instead these compassionate masters have given numerous teachings to help such disciples while taking on their karmic retributions. They are doing the same for their pitiful homosexual disciples who can’t seem to extricate themselves. It would be the greatest ignorance and ingratitude from you if you were to blaspheme these masters in return for their profound kindness.

You have the right to remain silent against my posting. But I would not say yours is the enlightened response —– more that of guilt and dumbfoundedness at my exposure of your follies.

I would advise you to follow the Buddha’s parting instructions to take the Vinaya as your master in Buddhism. That should help you in your path, and not your blasphemous and ignorant actions here. It is enough that you are pitifully homosexual yourself; do not confound and harm others. Evil cannot overcome virtue and wisdom. Metta

dsuen - 5:28pm January 31, 2001 Spore time (8.)

It’s healthy to be homophobic; at least you won’t be tempted to try the madness
I support the banner put up by that church. It demonstrates courage and virtue.

I’m Buddhist but I support the virtuous action of that Christian church. Instead of huffing and puffing here, I’d advise homosexuals to walk right into that church and get some redemption before their time on Earth is up. There are no homosexuals up in the heavens.

To the homosexuals who have gathered here in force:– your sexuality is not protected by the Constitution. In fact your sexual practice of anal sex is punishable by law. So stop talking like you are some disenfranchised minority.

Your clamouring here makes you sound like patients with sexual perversions glamourizing their illness. You should stop reading literature or perusing homosexual pornography that only deepens your disturbed sexuality to the point of incorrigibility.

In Buddhism, we believe some of you were women in your previous lives, who, through a split second change in thought as you took rebirth, chose a male birth in this life. However as you grew up your thought patterns and habits of your previous life(s) as women returned. So you are now stuck in a male body but possessing a woman’s mentality. You can use the same reasoning for lesbians who think they are men.

As with all habits, they are rooted in the mind and are changeable. That’s why I support the idea that homosexuals can change, if they want to.

Well, sex being the deepest passion known to mankind, if you are so dead-set on being a homosexual, at least go do it in your own privacy and stop your unseemly lobbying here. You know that banner is not going to make a difference in your life.

But be warned, if you keep indulging in anal sex, you are unlikely to attain a human body in your next life (the heavens are out of the question for you, in the first place). You will most likely be born as an animal or some kind of a phantom (ghost with plenty of lust) if you are lucky enough not to go straight to hell.

And one more caveat, don’t lobby for homosexuality or influence others to be homosexual; you’ll just be cementing your fate as a homosexual for this life time and future ones as well. I fail to see how your sexuality can be a blessing, it’s a wretched curse at best.

If you are predisposed to the idea of an almighty God up there, then seek out religions like Christianity, Islam or Hinduism. If you think you are a microcosm of the universe and the master of your own destiny, then seek out Buddhism or Taoism.

Don’t be disheartened if you can’t change overnight and follow the precepts or commandments of your religion. Some religious heterosexuals have their own perversions they are working to eliminate too. But if you keep at it, you’ll get there. It’s the end result that matters; of course make sure to keep your journey set in the right direction.

flamingo69 - 6:53pm January 31, 2001 Spore time (8.1)

Spirituality and Sexuality

dsuen said: “your sexuality is not protected by the Constitution. In fact your sexual practice of anal sex is punishable by law. So stop talking like you are some disenfranchised minority” I found this a rather strange (to put it mildly) statement. It is precisely because there are laws against homosexual sex that homosexuals are a disenfranchised minority. If there were laws protecting them, they would be better off, and hence *less* disenfranchised.

I am also highly suspicious of dsuen’s speaking for all Buddhists (as I am of anyone speaking for all Christians, or all homosexuals, or all heterosexuals. I think such an attitude displays incredible arrogance and lack of awareness of the diversity of human beings) when he says Buddhists believe in gay men being women in prior lives (and lesbian women being men). I’d also be interested in how he thinks this theory explains bisexuality.

dsuen also said: “if you are so dead-set on being a homosexual, at least go do it in your own privacy and stop your unseemly lobbying here. You know that banner is not going to make a difference in your life” The fact that so many of us have responded to the poster shows that it has *already* made a difference in our lives. It has driven a wedge between us and our church(es). It has sent a message to the public that it is acceptable to regard homosexuals (that’s us, by the way) as inferior or defective. For those of us who are still questioning our sexuality, it misleads us into thinking we can turn to heterosexuality (there is overwhelming evidence that programs to change homosexuals, religiously based or otherwise, have had minimal, if any, success).

Why doesn’t dsuen tell COOS to keep its homophobia in its own house/church? Why is it *our* love, and not their belief that must be kept hidden? Why are we made to feel shame while they bask in self-righteousness?

— END —