| September
2002
In search of absolute truth - the third precept
|
|
|
Please read the Foreword to grasp the context. I start with posting no. 565 of this thread:
Page 57: Observer What I found out. I spent the weekend to check up on the basics of Buddhism, here is what I found: In Buddhism, the 3rd Precept, stated as Sexual Misconduct, is defined as: (a) Sex outside marriage. Above 3 items are part of the list of items prohibited under Sexual Misconduct. As you can see in (a), (b) and (c), since homosexual practices is outside marriage and lewdness, oral and anal sex is the predominant practices in homosexuality, therefore it can be concluded that homosexuality is prohibited in Buddhism. In addition, husband and wife are not permitted to perform oral and anal sex with each other either. To top it all, Buddhism is compassionate to anyone, including homosexuals/ or persons with homosexual desires, but do not mistake the compassion for permission to indulge in perversion like homosexuality. * * * * *
Science Park Gay What You Found Out Is Spiritual Buddha don't just set a few rules for the sake of morality. The purpose of these precepts are as general guides for creating a conducive conditions for a greater purpose-Awakening. Firstly, by crossing the boundary to Buddhism, you are already crossing into the territory of spirituality-which is not in the mind of most worldly people. Secondly, I am afraid you will fall into the same mistake again for not looking in the whole context of concern-by just quoting one precept and lost sight of what the whole teachings is all about. The fifth precept says: No intoxications which include alcohol. Are you going to ask the government to ban all alcoholic drink? The first precept says: No killing. Have you read my previous posting about an hypothetical situation of a mad guy trying to to detonate all atomic bombs to destroy the whole of mankind. Is killing that guy a breach of precept, then? The answer is a clear definite NO! You should stop that guy from doing so in order to save more people. Then, what about the third precept. Do you what is the consequence for breaking the third precept? The KARMIC result as said in some sutras is rebirth in a dirty place. Now, do you believe in KARMA? If not, then why do you state this precept exclusively to discriminate against homosexual people? Again it cannot be taken as a basis for criminalising homosexual people in a secular law book. Having said that, I remain open that the precepts in Buddhism are open for re-interpretation as is permitted by the Buddha himself based on Wisdom- The Buddha as a great Teacher did realised that all things are impermanent and are subjected to changes. So what is applicable in one culture, one time, at a location may not be true in another culture, time and location. Thus Buddha allows flexibility and critical questioning of his teachings for the sake of achieving a greater goal (Enlightenment) and discouraged blind faith in his teachings without wisdom. * * * * * Observer What You Found Out Is Spiritual To Science Park Gay and other Buddhism commentators on homosexuality: My question to you is, if you cannot get the basics of Buddhism right, on what basis can you talk about high-level Buddhist concepts like compassion etc. ? So, get your basics right first. * * * * * Science Park Gay What You Found Out Is Spiritual You are completely out of the point. How can love of a person of the same gender hinder his ability to develop compassion and higher spiritual attainments? If this applies, it will also be true for heterosexual love. * * * * * Yawning Bread What I found out. Questions I can think of regarding the 3rd precept: (a) Sex outside marriage. What happens when two persons of the same sex are married to each other? What happens when a man has 4 wives? What happens when a woman has 2 husbands (at the same time)? What happens when a couple is considered married in one country, but that marriage is not considered valid in another jurisdiction? What happens when 2 people are in a committed relationship for years, but the jurisdiction they live in refuses to marry them? What's the spirit behind this precept? (b) Lewdness (approximate meaning). Isn't this highly dependent on culture? What is seen every day in many beer advertisements - won't they have been lewd in another age? Is sticking up my middle finger lewd? (c) Wrong channels of sexual intercourse (oral sex, anal sex etc.) Who inserted the qualifying parenthesis ''(oral sex, anal sex)''? It sounds very similar in construction to Victorian concerns - could it have been a notion taken from the religions of the book? What is the spirit behind this precept? * * * * *
lwirs Getting your basics right? Observer, Think you have got it all reversed, putting the cart before the horse. Which is more important? Rules or the rationale behind the rules? Are you going to follow all rules (religious or otherwise) to the letter simply because they are written down? I'm sure not. You are a thinking person. Before you follow a rule, you are going to think about the reason for that rule, the rationale and logic behind it, right? So much more so for a non-dogmatic religion like Buddhism. The precepts are not there to rule your life. The Buddha set them out to 'guide' Buddhists, not to control their lives, or just because He said so or even to please Buddha Himself (note this difference between Buddhism and other monotheistic religions). The precepts are laid out so that the followers can lead a peaceful life for themselves and for others. So the starting point of the precepts is that you do not do things that will harm yourself or others. How does loving another person who happens to be the same gender be harmful to a person, much less to you, an Observer? If it's a mutual and loving relationship, who are you to condemn gays and lesbians? Which is more conducive to a person's mental health: a quarrelsome and violent straight marriage or loving gay one? As for your Buddhist 'basics', I did a search in Google using the keywords 'buddhism condemn homosexuality'. Almost all the webpages states that Buddhism does not condemn homosexuality outright, while reminding the readers to reflect on the rationality behind Buddhist precepts before passing judgement. I am not a gay, nor a Buddhist (used to be one), but I find nothing in me could condemn another person simply of something they are born with and cannot be changed. * * * * * dan What I found out. observer, you say you have done some research into buddhism and you summarise the arguments against homosexuality into 3 points. please tell us where you got this information, so we can access that information in its original context and evaluate the trustworthiness of the source. your argument about buddhism seems to contradict what kelvinw says about buddhism and homosexuality. lets get to the bottom of this. * * * * *
|
|
|
|
Singaporean Ven. Dr. K. Sri Dhammananda on homosexuality/OBSERVER is not honest Dear Kelvin Wong (and a reaction to Observer's deception), I visited that link you gave in an earlier post, and read a response by an expert on Buddhism, Ven. Dr. K. Sri Dhammananda. I compared his reply to that by Observer's. I notice how Observer's post was very deceptive, although he went around accusing me and other pro-gays on this thread of not being honest . I will post the reply by the Ven. Dr. K. Sri Dhammananda here : [truncated, see box on the right] >>> * * * * * Page 59:
kelvinw What I found out. Observer: I find it very strange that you managed to do a search on the net on this said subject, but only pick up 1 hit that fits into your view, whereas ignoring all others hits. I would certainly like to know where you got your information from, so as to facilitate further discussion: Here, I have at least 3 websites that says otherwise, but I think you will ignore them: [see suggested reading 1 below] (a) Sex outside marriage. ''Sex outside marriage'' is used to mean adultery, that is, sex outside the knowledge of your committed spouse, which could lead to family breakup, lying, cheating, etc. So if one is not married, how can one commit adultery?
(b) Lewdness (approximate meaning).
(c) Wrong channels of sexual intercourse (oral sex, anal sex etc.) Here is a more widely accepted interpretation of the 3rd precept: [see suggested reading 2 below] The third precept reads: Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami, ''I undertake the training rule to abstain from misconduct in regard to sense pleasures.''
From there we understand that a violation of the precepts only occurs with: And in the definition of illicit partner, male to male sexual partnerships was never mentioned as illicit partner, even though historians and Buddhist scholars agree that homosexuality is known during Buddha's times. * * * * * Page 63:
observer What I found out. (a) Sex outside marriage. What Yawning Bread wrote: What happens when two persons of the same sex … [long quote here, edited out] More questions: What happens when an adult man wants to 'marry' a boy ? What happens when an adult woman wants to 'marry' a girl ? What happens when a person wants to 'marry' an animal ? What happens ? And so, from Yawning Bread's reasoning, when will it stop ? Doesn't that go back to the position of Absolute Truth (Unchangeable) vs Relative Truth (Changeable) ? Since Yawning Bread is arguing for legalisation of homosexuality, of course, he will use Relative Truth to back up his argument. The Absolute Truth, to use an analogy, is like the True North, of Earth. The True North is an absolute reference to ANY location on earth. No matter, where you are, on any part of the earth, by referencing the True North, you can tell another person your location. The Relative Truth, is like the Magnetic North, it is constantly changing it's position on Earth, and compasses use the deviation between the Truth North and Magnetic North to point to True North. If we use the changing Magnetic North, as a reference point, the same location on earth will 'shift' constantly on a map. That means all maps will have to be updated yearly, if we use the Magnetic North as a reference. The map that is use this year, will be obsolete next year. Similarly, Absolute Truth is a moral reference point that is unchanging. No matter what kind of moral activities that humans engage in, by referencing the Absolute Truth, they will know how moral or immoral their activites are. But, if humans use Relative Truth as the moral reference point, what is moral today, becomes immoral tommorrow. What is immoral in this generation becomes moral in the next generation. And, since Absolute Truth is unchangeble, through time and space, it means that what is moral in the past generations will be moral in this generation, and will still be moral in the future generations. That will keep humanity clean and moral, in the past, in the present, and in the future. As for the gay activists, their intention is to make homosexuality look harmless and lesser evil. But, unfortunately, the intrinisic nature of homosexuality is unchangeable throughout time and space. In the context of Singapore, Singaporeans always want BEST in value, of whatever thing they buy. So, in terms of moral values, the BEST lies in Absolute Truth. * * * * *
Observer What I found out. I have checked with my buddhist friends, whether Buddhism PERMITS homosexuality. All of them say NO. From the article that was posted, the conclusion is the same, Buddhism do not permit homosexuality. What I wrote earlier is the same too: To top it all, Buddhism is compassionate to anyone, including homosexuals/ or persons with homosexual desires, but do not mistake the compassion for permission to indulge in perversion like homosexuality. Another point in the article was highlighted, Buddhism do not condemn homosexuality either. I asked my buddhist friends why is this so. They explained that persons have to undertake the 5 precepts before they can be considered lay buddhists. By undertaking the precepts, the responsibility for observing the precepts shift towards the buddhists themselves. That means, it is up to the buddhists to work hard on following the precepts, or not, according to their individual abilities. Therefore, there is no need to condemn homosexuality in Buddhism, because the rules are set out, the consequences are spelt out, and the enforcement is left to the individual buddhists. If the buddhists ever break their precepts, they have no one to blame except themselves. That certainly, do not mean that Buddhism PERMITS homosexuality, and also mean that Christianity is right about homosexuality afterall. * * * * *
lriws What I found out. Observer, there is nothing wrong with your or Anti-gay's desire to find and adhere to the Absolute Truth. But please answer the following question: Who's Absolute Truth? Which map are you going to use to locate the True North? Buddhist map? Islamic one? Or the Celtic one? If you are going to insisting in shafting your Christian version of Truth in everyone's throat, then you are a through and out bigot. If there is an Absolute Truth, and if we happen to find it, and everyone agrees on the same version, then your post makes sense. Otherwise, in this diverse world, insisting on you having the only access to the Absolute Truth is naive to say the least. Anyway, even your analogy is flawed. True North does shift. In the days of the Pharaohs, True North is several degrees off where it is today... So much for Absolute Anything.... * * * * *
Observer What I found out. lriws Ah ha, there you go again, Relative Truth. I am at peace, at the Absolute Truth. You are cordially welcome too. * * * * *
Science Park Gay What You Found Out Is Not True And maps do have to be updated, maybe not once a year, but yes, they do have to be updated. So what is your analogy trying to say? And of course if there is no ''Absolute Truth'', you can still pretend that there is one and believe in it or rest in peace in it. That alone definitely does not prove that ''Absolute Truth'' exist. Your attitude has the best analogy with that of an ostrich. And those words from your Buddhist friends? We have posted words from well-respected Buddhist venerable Dr K. Shri Dhammananda. Why don't you read that? And I have referred to the original text of the five precepts. Nothing is mentioned about anal sex etc. or any condemnation of homosexuality. Moreover Buddha has permitted some conduct code to be revised with cultures and time. That is true Wisdom.
And some advise to you: if you have made a serious mistake in life, just learn
from it and do not expect others to follow your footstep. Think about it.
© Yawning Bread
|
|
|
|
Footnotes None Addenda
|
|
