i am a woman but i like women - is it really bad?

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

Monks and nuns are also deviants because we deviate from the normal and accepted behaviour of human beings, which is to get married, have children, etc.

Whatever name you give it, a rose is just as beautiful, or just as prickly, depending on your Point of View.

He may well be extremely knowledgeable about Dhammic teachings; but his interactive skills seem to leave a lot to be desired.

Your interactive skills also leave a lot to be desired. Accusing some unknown Thera of being wrong without making any inquiry about the context and what else was said. The Dhamma is not always going to make us feel good about ourselves, however skilfully it is taught. None of us have the skill of a Buddha to know exactly what a person needs to hear, so chew on it a while before deciding whether it is good or not. If it's not good then spit it out — if it is, then swallow it.

[Shaswata_Panja]

You are committing no transgression, nor offence against the Dhamma.

As far as i am aware - but I'm pretty sure I'm right - nowhere, in the Tripitaka does homosexual love contradict or fly against the Buddha's teachings.
Even an ordained person, who is homosexual, must be celibate, but this would in any event, cover any ordained members, no matter what their persuasion.

Please try to relax.
This isn't like a Theistic religion, where homosexuality is condemned and considered sinful.

Some Mahayana Schools declare it to be unskillful, and that homosexuals should refrain form intercourse, but this is more indicative of inserted dogma, and not an original teaching.

I await correction; but homosexuality is not covered by the 3rd precept, in any significant or specific manner, of this I am sure.

Wasnot there a businessman who developed intense sexual feelings after seeing Kaccayana and male member fell off (something like this happened in my dream also--strange) ? Didnot he become a woman and run away into another city and marry a man and bear children?

Ven, Yuttadhammo spoke about this in one Dhammapada series video I think...from 2013 as far as I can remember...I would love to find out that video

Donot know whether this incident condones or condemns homosexuality...One thing I must say that the Buddha had very little to say about sexual ethics among the laity though he had tonnes of things to say about the monks....


In the same vein if an unmarried man visits a prostitute...is it against the sexual ethics of the Buddha?

[waterchan]

If the monk told her matter-of-factly, without unwholesome volition "You are homosexual because you committed adultery in a past life," then that is not technically unskillful behavior.

I don't care what 'volition' the monk had, what he said was not from the suttas, it was wrong, he should not have said it to wolf, and we here who are not so ignorant about these issues should not countenance such ignorance by justifying it in any way, especially as she has come here for help and support - just look at the title of her topic. In my case, I don't regard being bisexual as the result of bad kamma at all. I actually quite like it. I reckon I must have done something good to end up this way. So what if gays etc sometimes cop abuse? Lots of folks cop abuse. Many monks in Tibet got abused by the Chinese. Did they end up as monks due to bad kamma? This is ridiculous.

We are in the 21st Century here. Time to consign any trace of homophobia to the dustbin of history where it belongs.

manas.

I don't think what the monk said is in the suttas but I'm pretty sure it's in the Vinaya and perhaps in the Commentaries. All of which are more or less part of Theravada and should be taken into at least partial consideration.

I'm not concerned with what anyone in this thread with strong personal opinions have to say on the issue. This isn't the Open Dhamma or Lounge section of the forum. The issue is whether the monk's statement was justified from the Theravadin perspective of that monk's tradition. And the jury is still out on that one.

[manas]

None of us have the skill of a Buddha to know exactly what a person needs to hear, so chew on it a while before deciding whether it is good or not. If it's not good then spit it out — if it is, then swallow it.

True, Bhante; and also as I recall, none except a Buddha has the skill of knowing what particular kamma led to what particular result in a person's life - therefore this statement that monk made:

he told to me that i did adultery in a past life and this is the reason.

- can be safely called out as 'BS'. (I am not attacking the person, only that statement.)

kind regards
manas.

[TheNoBSBuddhist]

Prejudice: carefully weighing up the evidence with your thumb on the scales.

(The 'you' is generic.)

[Mr Man]

I don't think what the monk said is in the suttas but I'm pretty sure it's in the Vinaya and perhaps in the Commentaries. All of which are more or less part of Theravada and should be taken into at least partial consideration.

I'm not concerned with what anyone in this thread with strong personal opinions have to say on the issue. This isn't the Open Dhamma or Lounge section of the forum. The issue is whether the monk's statement was justified from the Theravadin perspective of that monk's tradition. And the jury is still out on that one.

Hi waterchan
Which statement of the monk are you referring to here?

[waterchan]

I don't think what the monk said is in the suttas but I'm pretty sure it's in the Vinaya and perhaps in the Commentaries. All of which are more or less part of Theravada and should be taken into at least partial consideration.

I'm not concerned with what anyone in this thread with strong personal opinions have to say on the issue. This isn't the Open Dhamma or Lounge section of the forum. The issue is whether the monk's statement was justified from the Theravadin perspective of that monk's tradition. And the jury is still out on that one.

Hi waterchan
Which statement of the monk are you referring to here?

According to the thread starter, this is the monk's statement that was reported:

... he told to me that i did adultery in a past life and this is the reason.

Though I am reluctant to take for granted such quotes that are severely lacking in context.

[seeker242]

maybe. thanks. but he told to me that i did adultery in a past life and this is the reason.

If you think about it, it really does not matter what you did or did not do in a past life. Even if what the monk said is true, what matters is what you are doing now, in this life. Simply liking women can't be "making bad kamma" because it's not intentional.

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."

Did you intend to like women instead of men? Of course not!

[Modus.Ponens]

This is becoming completely irrelevant.

Is the OP hurting someone? No? Then it's fine.

The Buddha spoke of ethical behaviour one should abide to, or at least aspire to have. These include not lying, not speaking frivolously, not wearing perfume, not sleeping in tall beds. He never said anything particularly about homnosexuality, afaik. And even if he did, if it was of significant importance, there would be a lot more of it in the suttas.

So if the OP doesn't consider wearing perfume or sitting on a high chair a shameful thing, then it makes even less sense to feel shame of being homosexual.

This guilt and shame is due to society, not to buddhism.

[manas]

Something is not quite right here. Are we as a whole perhaps ignoring the anguish and sincere reaching out for help of the person who made this original statement "I am a woman but I like women - is that really bad?" The answer is, no, it's not bad at all, don't feel bad about it, and I am saddened at any justification of the ignorance of what the monk who made a statement that he is not fit to make, himself not being a Buddha and therefore not having the power to know what particular action led to what particular result in a person's life. I do hope that wolf comes away from all of this arguing feeling better about herself, but I don't know if I would. Instead of closing ranks around that monk just because he happens to wear the yellow robe - remember that the Buddha himself said that just wearing a yellow robe doesn't make one wise in and of itself - let's instead close ranks in support of someone who has reached out to us for help. The answer is and remains, no, it is not bad. It's ok to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. And as I said earlier, nowhere in the suttas are any homophobic notions found, and that's what really counts, not the personal (erroneous) opinion of one monk.

manas.

[Mr Man]

I don't think what the monk said is in the suttas but I'm pretty sure it's in the Vinaya and perhaps in the Commentaries. All of which are more or less part of Theravada and should be taken into at least partial consideration.

I'm not concerned with what anyone in this thread with strong personal opinions have to say on the issue. This isn't the Open Dhamma or Lounge section of the forum. The issue is whether the monk's statement was justified from the Theravadin perspective of that monk's tradition. And the jury is still out on that one.

Hi waterchan
Which statement of the monk are you referring to here?

According to the thread starter, this is the monk's statement that was reported:

... he told to me that i did adultery in a past life and this is the reason.

Though I am reluctant to take for granted such quotes that are severely lacking in context.

Hi waterchan
But the monk's statement, as reported, seems to be specifically aimed at the OP. Is there anything in the texts that says adultery will lead to rebirth as someone who has a same gender sexual orientation?

[TheNoBSBuddhist]

Something is not quite right here. Are we as a whole perhaps ignoring the anguish and sincere reaching out for help of the person who made this original statement "I am a woman but I like women - is that really bad?" The answer is, no, it's not bad at all, don't feel bad about it, and I am saddened at any justification of the ignorance of what the monk who made a statement that he is not fit to make, himself not being a Buddha and therefore not having the power to know what particular action led to what particular result in a person's life. I do hope that wolf comes away from all of this arguing feeling better about herself, but I don't know if I would. Instead of closing ranks around that monk just because he happens to wear the yellow robe - remember that the Buddha himself said that just wearing a yellow robe doesn't make one wise in and of itself - let's instead close ranks in support of someone who has reached out to us for help. The answer is and remains, no, it is not bad. It's ok to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. And as I said earlier, nowhere in the suttas are any of those homophobic notions found, only in later commentaries which, of course, were not spoken by a Buddha, but by fallible beings.

manas.

Take it as read. I back your every post on the matter....!

[seeker242]

This is becoming completely irrelevant.

Is the OP hurting someone? No? Then it's fine.

.

Have to say I agree.

Even with the monk's statement, and even if we do consider it to be 100% true, he's talking about past kamma causing current Vipaka. He's talking about Vipaka! Not about the kind of kamma that is being made right now. Having to endure Vipaka does not alone make more bad kamma, if it did, enlightenment would be impossible!

Kamma is kamma, vipaka is vipaka. The monk's statement could easily be true, but it doesn't really matter. He is saying adultery is bad action, not that liking the same sex is bad action. Everyone has done bad action in the past, everyone! So what! Who cares?! What matters is what you are doing now.

[LXNDR]

Ashamed of what's not shameful,
not ashamed of what is,
beings adopting wrong views
go to a bad destination.

Seeing danger where there is none,
and no danger where there is,
beings adopting wrong views
go to a bad destination.

Imagining error where there is none,
and seeing no error where there is,
beings adopting wrong views
go to a bad destination.

But knowing error as error,
and non-error as non-,
beings adopting right views
go to a good
destination.

[LXNDR]

To complete the offence of un-chastity (sexual misconduct), four conditions are necessary, viz: the mind to enjoy the forbidden object, the attempt to enjoy, devices to obtain, and possession. The effects of un-chastity are: having many enemies, getting undesirable wives, birth as a woman or as an eunuch.

Women have to endure the effects of menstruation and childbirth. Gay men and women have to endure the additional suffering of rejection by their own parents or siblings, social ostracism, prejudice and discrimination in the workplace, and oppression from unjust laws in many countries. Those who know Buddhism well are neither sexist nor homophobic. They understand that sexual desire is the cause of birth, and that from birth the whole mass of suffering arises. Whether one is heterosexual, homosexual, or celibate, sexual desire leads to suffering.
They understand that the diversity of living beings is due to the diversity of their kamma, it is not just an accidental or random occurrence without any cause.

in your opinion, if adverse social conditions for women and gays disappear totally, will then un-chastity still result in birth as a woman?

this quote from Niddesa however doesn't say anything about birth as gay, whereas it's the OP being gay that the thera linked to un-chastity in her previous life

you can equate being gay to having many enemies but this is not an inevitability of being gay and still would be a stretch