There’s a Little Wayman in all of us

What can a Jataka tale about a dullard novice whose brother attempts to expel him from the Buddha’s Sangha teach us about our own potential as gay practitioners? Quite a bit, it seems, as long as we persevere even when facing what seems to be the darkest of times and we allow ourselves to be guided by the calling that comes from within our own hearts rather than the admonitions and even shouts from the world around us.

This isn’t always easy, particularly when stories like this continue to occur.

The Buddha taught that how we live our present life will determine the condition and circumstances of our rebirth. The simplistic way of looking at this leads us to conclude that living a good, moral life will not only bring us happiness now, but also greater happiness in our next life. But kamma isn’t so simple, not so linear. And it’s easy for us as gay people to fall into a line of thinking that the fact we are born gay is a negative consequence for something we may have done in a previous life – that is if you accept the notion of rebirth. Not all Buddhists do.

In some instances within the Tipitika, the Buddha explicitly states that living a good life now will lead to a good or better next life, but these situations usually involve the laity and times when the Buddha crafted his teaching according to his audience. When one considers the entirety of the Tipitika, however, one sees that what the Buddha was more likely attempting to convey was that living a good moral life would bring one closer to Nibbana, to total release, with each successive rebirth, regardless of the specific circumstances one was born into each time.

Humans in general have many hang-ups regarding sex, so it stands to reason that many Buddhist teachers – even very well-respected teachers – have hang-ups not just about sex in general, but about homosexuals in particular. Many of these teachers suggest that being homosexual is a consequence of our previous lives, the results of kamma. I agree with this, but not the same way as these teachers suggest. This is because I don’t subscribe to a linear notion of kamma and rebirth, that not every successive existence is necessarily better than the last even when the prior existence was an exemplary life. And I offer the Cullaka-Setthi-Jātaka to explain this.

In this Jātaka tale, we have two brothers, Wayman and Little Wayman, who come from humble beginnings. The elder Wayman joins the Buddha’s Sangha and, finding the monastic life to be fulfilling, entices his younger brother to become a monk as well. But Little Wayman proves to be a dullard, unable to learn the teachings and fails to remember even the simplest of gathas. So Wayman takes it upon himself to expel his brother from the Sangha.

Being omniscient, the Buddha becomes aware of this and intercedes. There are some really wonderful passages in this story, but I don’t want to bog things down, so I will skip over many of the details. But the Buddha gives Little Wayman a clean cloth for the novice to wipe his face and head. When Little Wayman does this, he sees how the cloth becomes soiled and eventually comes to realize that it represents how he is removing the soil of his delusions and expelling them from his mind. This young novice was ready for this teaching and became an arahant. The Buddha explains to the others how this happened by revealing what he knows about Little Wayman’s previous lives.

In a previous life, Little Wayman was destitute and poor, but, as a young man then, he overheard a wealthy treasurer make a statement about taking an opportunity and profiting from it. That young man took that advice and within four months became extraordinarily wealthy. He returned to the wealthy treasurer (who was the Buddha in a previous life) who gave the young man a job and allowed him to marry his daughter. In this previous life, Little Wayman was no dullard, but a very apt pupil with the potential to realize great things as long as he persevered. But here’s an interesting twist.

Despite rising to be a wealthy merchant in that previous life, Little Wayman was re-born poor to parents of mixed parentage. His mother came from wealth, but she married a slave, bringing shame to her offspring. So Little Wayman was not reborn into steadily rising social circumstances; rather, he was reborn into circumstances that prepared him for his eventual enlightenment.

As homosexuals we aren’t reborn gay as a negative consequence for something that we did in a previous life. And heterosexuals aren’t reborn straight as a positive consequence. It just simply is. But the circumstance of our present life is the result of what has happened before and probably reflects our growing ability to “hear” the Dhamma with the right ears. We are where we are because of the path we took, regardless of whether we are conscious of how far we have traveled over the eons. Those who sit in a self-exalted state to proclaim they know why we were born gay are only revealing their stubborn clinging to delusion.

Little Wayman almost gave up because he believed his older brother who told him he failed. As a result, they both were about to fail by giving up not only on each other, but on themselves. The cycle of their rebirths, fortunately, brought the two of them to the Buddha who helped them see release despite their humble beginnings.

The photo with this post is not mine, and I want to express thanks for the permission to use it.

Let’s talk about sex

Despite the temptation to be puerile, and goodness knows I have the capacity to be as campy as the next person (no promises here either, I might let something slip), the topic of sex is particularly important to lesbigay practitioners. The issue of right versus wrong sexual behavior – or more specifically skillful versus unskillful – is relevant to all Buddhist practitioners regardless of orientation. But it’s particularly important to gay and transgendered Buddhists because for our breeder brethren, sexuality per se is not the relevant issue. For us, however, it is.

As an aside, there has been a lot of debate, particularly within the Theravada monastic community, regarding the ordination of women. Arun at Angry Asian Buddhist has chronicled much of this, and at Sujato’s Blog, you can read more detail about the recent flap prompted by the ordination of women in Australia. The subject has also been drawing great interest in the gay Buddhist Yahoo! e-mail list Heartland. A debate like this, despite the discomfort it may create, is important to have. It provides an opportunity to not only examine the Buddha’s teachings about these things, but to evaluate how that teaching may have become staid, or even turned into a dogmatic principle that may constitute Wrong View. As the Buddha taught the Kalamas, just because something is a tradition doesn’t mean it is skillful or leads to knowing the truth.

A similar discussion about homosexuality is just as important; however, this discussion has largely been limited to the gay Buddhist community, which presents the danger that this discussion will be perceived by the larger straight community as simply being the queers trying to justify their abnormal behavior. Such a situation is paralleled in the Christian community where Christian gays are put into the rhetorical position of having to defend their sexuality against those who smugly point to biblical passages that unmistakably condemn same-sex activity, while at the same time ignore other passages that have been interpreted to be irrelevant in modern society.

It’s not a debate when all one side does is sit back and reply with the childish, “I’m right and you’re wrong.” Yet the same sophomoric response is frequently encountered by gays in the Buddhist community as well. And there is a supreme irony in all of this that seems to escape many Buddhists, particularly those in positions of authority. These individuals point to the Tipitika to justify the position that same-sex activity violates the Third Precept as if they are saying, “See there? It is written!” (Although they frequently and misleadingly point to the Vinaya, which specifically addresses behavior in the monastic community, not the lay community) We come back to the teaching of the Kalamas, when the Buddha said not to rely on something as being true simply because it is written. But somehow, this is ignored because we’re talking about the Buddha’s teachings here. How convenient that these alleged “scholars” forget that the Buddha didn’t write anything down. His teachings were oral. They were written down later, and he wasn’t around at the time to provide editing. The Buddha knew that someday, everything he said would be written down, and because not all monks hold Right View, some of those transcriptions would be erroneous.

Complicating the matter is culture and its misunderstanding. For example, many Westerners have a perception that Thai society is accepting of homosexuality. This simple view fails to appreciate that just as in American society, there are urban versus rural sensibilities. And what happens and passes as acceptable in Bangkok or Phuket isn’t necessarily acceptable in Satun or Phayao. Even in locations like Phuket, much is taken for granted by Western tourists. I can remember seeing the local Thai men staring at the European women sunbathing topless on Patong Beach, but the Thai men weren’t ogling these women. Their stares held contempt for women who were showing disrespect for the local culture by carrying on as if they were at a nude beach in a Berlin park.

I also believe that many white Buddhists fail to appreciate the influence Confucianism and Taoism has on East Asian society and thought. Recognizing the fact that homosexuals exist and not harboring any outward ill-will for them does not equate with acceptance. Some of my Chinese friends who live in Asia tell me that they would never out themselves to their parents because the consequences would be swift and severe: the thinking with their parents is, “it’s OK that I know gay people, but if my son were gay, I would abandon him in a second!” The pressure on many of these individuals to marry and sire children is tremendous; failure to do so continues to bring shame on the family.

So it should come as no surprise to Anglo American and European Buddhists that the Dalai Lama hedges in his response to questions about his view on homosexuality, or that many well-known monks from both Theravada or Mahayana traditions tell gays that it’s OK, but you should remain celibate because gay sex violates the Third Precept, speaking as if they were Christian Evangelicals who say “love the sinner but hate the sin.” Nor should we be surprised by how the fruits of kamma are brought into this discussion by those who explain being born gay is the result of kamma, with the implication that it was some wrong act in a previous life that caused this.

We ought not be surprised by any of this, but that does not mean that such views are Right View; and in the case of kamma, even if it may be Right View, that does not mean that we ought to view our current condition as a punishment.

So how should we apply the Third Precept to our lives as lesbigay people? And what did the Buddha say about sexuality? My attempts to answer these questions shall be in another blog post.

Part 2 of this post can be read at zenfant's home for dirty Dharma.

Buddhavagga: Awakened

I’m feeling better today, albeit just slightly. There is still a lot of emotional shit I need to deal with and resolve, or at the least come to terms with. These things happen, and I am frankly very thankful that I have challenged myself to blog daily about the Dhammapada. It gives me something to focus on and pull myself out of my maudlin moods. I’ve never been called a queen, but thankfully, I resisted pulling out the Judy cds.

Reading the Buddhavagga makes me feel more optimistic (however, notice that my state of mind continues to be dependent on external stimuli, in this case, a chapter in the Dhammapada). The first set of verses inspire that optimism by reminding me that the Buddha was an enlightened being, and in his teachings I can place my unwavering trust.

“Whose conquest can’t be undone,
whose conquest no one in the world
can reach;
awakened, his pasture endless,
pathless:
by what path will you lead him astray?

In whom there’s no craving
— the sticky ensnarer —
to lead him anywherever at all;
awakened, his pasture endless,
pathless:
by what path will you lead him astray?”

Indeed, craving is a “sticky ensnarer.” The fact the Buddha had gone beyond that (this isn’t faith, it’s a fact) instills confidence and encourages my perseverance. Skipping a verse, I come to a set that also comfort me with the knowledge that sometimes my whining is not without justification.

“Hard the winning of a human birth.
Hard the life of mortals.
Hard the chance to hear the true Dhamma.
Hard the arising of Awakened Ones.”

The hackneyed retort of “life sucks and then you die” is more than just a sarcastic quip that has found its place in the day-to-day lexicon. It is, in fact, the truth. But understanding this doesn’t mean I cave into endless feelings of remorse or melancholy. It means that the hardships I deal with are only different in content from what everybody else deals with. We all have to deal with it, we all have the choice to act with skill or be guided by greed, hatred and delusion.

Some may say it was chance that a past boyfriend of mine introduced me to Buddhism, but I am more inclined to believe that it was my kamma. Whether it was good or ill, things that I have done in this life as well as in prior lives brought themselves together into a force of direction that led me to that Dhammasala where I met my teacher. I was made aware that the place existed, and that this monk had said something while I was visiting that stuck with me. So a year later when the bottom of my bucket fell out, I instantly knew what to do: I drove the 90 minutes back to that Dhammasala and sought out that monk.

“The non-doing of any evil,
the performance of what’s skillful,
the cleansing of one’s own mind:
this is the teaching
of the Awakened.

Patient endurance:
the foremost austerity.
Unbinding:
the foremost,
so say the Awakened.
He who injures another
is no contemplative.
He who mistreats another,
no monk.

Not disparaging, not injuring,
restraint in line with the Patimokkha,
moderation in food,
dwelling in seclusion,
commitment to the heightened mind:
this is the teaching
of the Awakened.”

It’s easy to dismiss the above verses as pertaining only to monks, but to do so would mean missing some points that are important for laypeople as well. Such as the focus on simply the “non-doing of any evil,” and the effort on being skillful. By putting effort into these activities, which are at the heart of the Four Right Efforts, we cleanse our minds. It takes practice. I can’t call myself a Buddhist if all I do is read a lot of clever books and listen to inspiring speakers; Buddhism is a practice, a way of life. I have to live it. So I work at not disparaging others (really hard for me) and not injuring others (very easy for me as I abhor violence), and show moderation in my food and drink consumption (also quite difficult for me because I love good food and wine). To accomplish that, I occasionally, though not frequently enough, examine the Five Hindrances to see which one(s) are problematic for me at the moment, then work more diligently at cultivating the opposite.

“Not even if it rained gold coins
would we have our fill
of sensual pleasures.
‘Stressful,
they give little enjoyment’ —
knowing this, the wise one
finds no delight
even in heavenly sensual pleasures.
He is one who delights
in the ending of craving,
a disciple of the Rightly
Self-Awakened One.”

I wouldn’t mind some gold coins raining on my life, but it’s still true, a windfall would not erase my troubles, just replace my present troubles with different ones. Ah, but to experience those different troubles!

“They go to many a refuge,
to mountains and forests,
to park and tree shrines:
people threatened with danger.
That’s not the secure refuge,
not the supreme refuge,
that’s not the refuge,
having gone to which,
you gain release
from all suffering & stress.

But when, having gone
to the Buddha, Dhamma,
& Sangha for refuge,
you see with right discernment
the four noble truths —
stress,
the cause of stress,
the transcending of stress,
& the noble eightfold path,
the way to the stilling of stress:
that’s the secure refuge,
that, the supreme refuge,
that is the refuge,
having gone to which,
you gain release
from all suffering & stress.”

These verses are so inspiring for me. Granted, I tend to “seek refuge” when I’m frightened and want a bit of protection. But regardless of the motivation, it’s the right thing to do, and each time, a bit more is absorbed and brought into my life.

Skipping to the last verse, I find something of value, but something that bugs me as well.

“If you worship those worthy of worship,
— Awakened Ones or their disciples —
Who’ve transcended
complications,
lamentation,
& grief,
who are unendangered,
fearless,
unbound:
there’s no measure for reckoning
that your merit’s ‘this much.’”

First, what bugs me. “If you worship those worthy of worship …” This is a case of when I disagree with Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s translation, because Buddhism has got nothing to do with worshipping anything. So the translation by Acharya Buddharakkhita is more appropriate to the verse’s meaning: “He who reveres those worthy of reverence …”

What is of value here is that the verse reveals that one’s reverence need not be limited to the Buddha himself, but can be extended to his disciples. So finding a teacher that teaches the true Dhamma and is skilled with his or her own instruction is a blessing of great magnitude that should not be ignored. This reminds me of a song from “The Sound of Music,” when Julie Andrews sings, “Somewhere in my youth or childhood, I must have done something good.”

That lyric is the essence of merit. And the fact that I was led to my teacher must mean that somewhere in my past, whether it be this life or a previous life, regardless of how wicked I might have been, I had done something worthy of merit and that led me to the Dhamma.

That is no small thing. And it can be said of all of us who have found Buddhism. We are extraordinarily fortunate to have the opportunity to learn the Buddha’s teachings and to practice them. But that’s the key, it’s just an opportunity. The rest is work we must do.

The issue of kamma

The issue of kamma (in Pali, in Sanskrit it’s karma) frequently comes up during discussions of both race and homosexuality; it’s a subject within the larger discourse that cannot be ignored. But what is kamma? And why does it have anything to do with me being gay? And if it does, why is it presumed that my kamma is negative?

I was prompted to think about this by a couple links I found at Angry Asian Buddhist. One link is to a post by GK Sandoval, a Navaho from Arizona who found Buddhism. At the blog The Drums of Dharma, Sandoval explains that his unlikely finding of Buddhism most probably had to do with the seeds of kamma planted in previous lives. Through some good deeds, gestures, acts, or even thoughts, Sandoval found the Dhamma in this life.

There was another link to a 2008 Tricycle article by David Loy titled “Rethinking Karma.” Loy writes about how kamma (remember, I tend to prefer to use Pali terms rather than the Sanskrit terms) is used by others, particularly in terms of race, to justify not doing anything to correct injustices, because the fruition of one’s kamma is already bringing on the necessary consequences.

These are, to me, very peculiar perspectives, and I don’t just mean the perspectives presented by the two authors. I also mean the larger perspective held by the large culture that asserts, in my case anyway, that being gay must be a negative consequence brought on by my personal kamma, which results from past misbehavior in previous lives.

But that would presume homosexuality is necessarily inferior from heterosexuality. It can’t be a punishment unless being gay is inferior to being straight. It can’t be a punishment unless being poor is inferior to being wealthy. It can’t be a punishment unless being black is inferior to being white.

What kind of presumption is that? I will be returning to this subject.