Debating a monk is dukkha

Have you ever tried to point out to a monk that he just might be full of shit? It’s not an easy thing to do, because let me tell you, some monks are very adept at turning the tables and making you out to be the problem, that it’s your delusion operating here, not theirs.

I stumbled into such a debate after seeing a post on the Heartland Singapore Facebook page. It was referring to a post at buddhavacana.net, which appears to be a message board. There are other, blog-like pages on this site, but it doesn’t appear to be very active. Anyway, you can read my heresy by following the link I provided.

The gist of this began with a question emailed to the monk administering the page: “Can a gay person be ordained as a monk/nun?”

Bhante Shi Chuanguan replied with this: “Heterosexual men and women have to transcend their heterosexual desires if they are going to be ordained. Similarly, gay person can be ordained as a monk/nun, as long as this person can transcend this inclination.”

Me thinks I detect a double standard here.

As an aside, the Venerable Ashin Sopaka had a very pithy comment on the Heartland Facebook page, to which I will return later. But my response on the forum was to say I thought the answer provided, as well as an answer provided by another presumed monastic, was drawing a distinction between straight people seeking ordination and gays seeking ordination, that each was to be treated differently.

The Bhante said that straights had to “transcend their heterosexual desires,” while a gay person had to “transcend this inclination.”

This inclination? So the straight person need only renounce his or her sexual desires, while the gay has to renounce being gay? In other words, renounce his or her sexuality. What’s up with that?

You can read my entire reply on the message board, as I waxed very eloquent and pontificated like a true queen in heat. Perhaps that was a bit rash, because Bhante replied and suggested that, “Your inference that there is such a prejudicial idea is what is prejudicial.”

Moi? OK, OK, you can read my reply to that bit of obfuscation, because clearly this Bhante wanted to paint me the ignorant dualistic thinking bitter fag and a poor victim of all that nasty hate in the world, which, I would point out, often begins with narrow-minded and atavistic interpretations of religious doctrine by Paleolithic thinkers such as him. But I digress.

What I want to do is now return to Ashin Sopaka’s comment on the Heartland Facebook page. Ashin Sopaka succinctly points out that apparently the requirement to enter the monastery and seek ordination is to already be an enlightened being. Doesn’t the requirement that a gay first “transcend this inclination” mean that one must have renounced all notion of self, which can only be achieved upon enlightenment?

Seems to me that all the monastic code requires is that the monk or nun abstains from any form of sexual activity. That living in a monastery is the venue through which a monk or nun practices the doctrine to eventually transcend all fabricated notions of identity, whether they are sexual or otherwise. What “inclinations” remain in the unenlightened mind is irrelevant to anyone else in the monastery, as it is the duty of the monk or nun to peel back the layers of delusion and clinging within his or her own mind to ultimately attain freedom.

I’m sure Bhante Shi Chuanguan is a very wise man and knows his Dhamma pretty well. But his understanding of gay people, in my opinion, is no better than your average homophobe.

Update: I am pleased to say that Shi Chuanguan replied to my comments in a manner suggesting that we are coming together to a closer understanding.

What about only on Tuesdays?

So I laid it out in my previous post, I made the assertion that monogamy was more skillful than polygamy or polyandry. And I asked if anyone disagreed to challenge my assertion.

And someone did. And it was successful. At least I cannot see any legitimate retort.

The counter argument came from Shane Hennesey, who authors Zenfant’s Home for Dirty Dharma. If you haven’t read his blog, you ought to. The brother is a righteous writer. But Shane’s rebuttal wasn’t on his blog. He’s still working out the details for that. Rather, his retort was posted as a comment on this blog’s Facebook page. And here’s what he said in part:

“first off, i disagree that a monogamous situation is better than a multiple partner situation. they are both just situations, neither good or bad. they both have their stories we give them and they are just that…stories. Both situations can be done with skillful means on in unskillful ways. People can thrive in these situations or crater or something in between. One is not better than the other. Why be limited by these two situations? What about celibacy by choice? What about only sex with toys and only on Tuesdays?”

Shane is very persuasive here. Because if I’m honest in my self-evaluation – and what does Buddhism teach if not to evaluate what is self? – I must recognize that my preference for monogamy may be a form of rejection of my own behavior of going through multiple partners to “find the one.” By stating that monogamy is better, am I not merely trying to prettify my own life, to rationalize how I go through other guys ostensibly to find the perfect partner? And what if it is? What’s wrong with that? And if I feel uncomfortable with that, isn’t that discomfort coming from within me rather than from the rubric of multiple partners in and of itself?

However, I also acknowledge this line of thinking does lend itself to a slippery slope. There must be legitimate consent involved here. But by and large, where consent is involved and all those participating are granting informed consent, sex is sex, whether with one or many, all at once or one at a time. After all, I have to admit that I met a couple one time involved in a happily monogamous and committed relationship that had gone on for years, and you know where they met? In a bathhouse. At least that's what they told me, and I have no reason to disbelieve them.

I do want monogamy for myself. But that doesn’t make it superior to anyone else’s situation or preferences. And for me to assert that was pretty damned arrogant.

Regardless of what you do, it’s about skillfulness. It’s about not doing harm. And I’d be a liar if I were to say I’ve never harmed someone through living a “superior” lifestyle.

Thanks Shane for setting me “straight.” Now would you get on with writing your freaking blog?

Is one too many and a hundred not enough?

First, let’s get the abject apology out of the way. Seriously, I haven’t been blogging lately. And maybe you’ve been wondering, “What’s that My Buddha is Pink dude been up to? He hasn’t posted anything in, like, for-ever!” And you’d be right to wonder that. But I have to admit, I’ve been stymied.

I ran into a discussion on my Facebook page (and if you haven’t visited, please do and help me get some discussions going, I mean seriously, all day I’m talking to people about successful use of social media and my Facebook page is a black hole for silence) that positively left me clueless as to a response. And it was about sex for goodness sake! Me clueless and unable to give a response about sex? I may have to give my toaster back! (you may only get that last reference if you were a diligent viewer of Ellen DeGeneres’ ill-fated TV series, you know, before she became the talk-show goddess that she is today)

Ellen, can you hear me? Can you feel me near you? Ellen, can you feel me? Can I help to cheer you? Ooo-oo-oo, Ellen, Ellen, Ellen.

OK, enough references to 1960s rock operas (but seriously, don’t you think Tommy was just a tad gay?)

Someone had posited that having multiple sex partners was fine and within the intention of the Third Precept as long as everything was consensual. Why would there be a preference inferred within the Third Precept for monogamy over polygamy or polyamory? And I have to say when this question was asked, I had no easy response. Instead, I asked more questions. And one of the questions I asked was whether this individual (who I know will read this because it will be posted to my Facebook page) had read any of the Buddhist literature, such as the Pali canon.

His reply was he had not.

His position that as long as one was behaving through proper social norms, having multiple sex partners would be within the intent of the Third Precept; just don’t be possessive of another and make sure that it’s consensual. I have to admit it’s a very beguiling argument, but my gut told me it was specious nonetheless. But what to say?

Look, I’ve never presented myself as an “expert” on Buddhism. I’ve “studied” a lot of the literature, and while my grounding is in the Thai Forest tradition, I’ve read a great deal of other publications in the Mahayana sphere. But I’m no academic, and I’m certainly no monk. Although, I have to admit that I’ve met some monks that my initial reaction was to think, “How can I get this monk to disrobe?” And I mean that both metaphorically and literally.

But I digress.

I had to agree that if one remained uncommitted, multiple sexual partners under the rubric of everything being consensual was probably not necessarily a violation of the Third Precept. But was such activity skillful? That was what was troubling me. Because my gut said no, it is not skillful, and it holds tremendous potential for future pain, suffering, anguish, misunderstanding, mistrust, and – not to forget – some nasty little diseases that may crop up.

Having said that, I needed something to back me up, to support my conclusion. Because sometimes the trouble with Buddhism is there are a lot of people who will identify as Buddhist who really don’t know much about what the Buddha taught. And it just seemed prudent to me that if you are going to identify as Buddhist, it would be wise to know something about the subject before deciding what is considered skillful Buddhist behavior.

I’m just sayin’.

And finally, I found my response. All it took was me picking up my copy of the Majjhima Nikāya and start reading it again. You see, I had stopped reading it regularly. In fact, I had stopped reading any Buddhist doctrine or literature on a regular basis. My practice had become irrelevant. It was time to make it relevant.

And what I found was the Ratthapala Sutta! Oh yeah, this guy Ratthapala had it goin’ on! While I’m sure there are other suttas that will address this question more specifically, I found Ratthapala’s discussion on the four teachings of the Buddha that attracted him to Buddhism very, how shall we say? – Enlightening.

The first: The world is swept away. It does not endure.

The second: The world is without shelter, without protector.

The third: The world is without ownership. One has to pass on, leaving everything behind.

The fourth: The world is insufficient, insatiable, a slave to craving.

When I read these, I was like, whoa! And the fourth item is what really clicked with me regarding my dilemma over multiple sexual partners.

When asked what he meant when he said, “The world is insufficient, insatiable, a slave to craving,” Ratthapala asked King Koravya if he was informed of another rich country that he could conquer and add to his own kingdom, what would he do? The king replied he would attack and conquer that country. And if another? He would conquer that too. On and on and to what end?

So, for someone who believes it’s OK to have multiple sexual partners as a regular lifestyle, someone comes up to you and says, “Hey, I know this hot dude who’d love to meet you.” Would you want to meet him? And if so, what if someone else comes along and says, “Hey this hot dude wants to get with you?’ Hey, why the heck not? And then maybe even this hot dude says, “Hey, I know this really hot guy who’d love a threesome.” Are you gonna go for it?

It’s all well and good except for one thing: you remain a slave to sensuality. You remain a slave to sensual indulgences. You think you’re free, but in reality, you’re a slave.

The other issue is the lack of intimacy in these relationships. I know someone who fits this, who told me he thinks he found someone he could “make a relationship with,” although it was clear to me there was no love. It was a matter of convenience. And even after saying he was interested in this guy, he was still sleeping with other men.

Now, lest you think that I am some holier-than-thou puritan of gay sex, let me make clear I am not. But I am seeking someone who can be a true partner. I don’t want multiple sex partners as much fun as it is. I’m like Hedwig. I seek my other half. And even as I say that, I realize that the fact that I am searching for that, for that man, means I still cling to sensuality.

But I accept that. I am fully aware that my desire to be with someone – one man – to share what’s left of my life means that I remain bound to the cycle of birth, life, and death. Despite that, this is how I believe a skillful lay person should live, even if you’re not getting laid much.

As I said earlier, I’m not a monk. Don’t even want to be one. And maybe my sentiment is condescending to those who accept a polyamorous lifestyle. But don’t you think there is more skill in wanting to make up your mind than in refusing to make up your mind?

Challenge me. I like it.

Chicago temple gets some unwelcomed attention

Well drat, I missed an opportunity this weekend to join a group of protesters rallying outside of a Chicago-area Theravada temple, bringing attention to allegations that a monk at the temple had sexually assault a girl there. I only found out about it via Barbara O’Brien’s blog the day after the demonstration. Had I known about this event, I would certainly have gone.

There was also a related demonstration in Long Beach, Calif. I love the quote from the Orange County Chapter of SNAP, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, which organized the two demonstrations: “It’s a different religion, but it’s the same story.”

I wrote about this situation not too long ago, and my conclusion then remains the same: There needs to be some type of oversight of these temples, regardless of whether they be Theravada, Zen, Tibetan – whatever. But the reality of the situation remains true as well, because these organizations do have members, and these members are the ones who should be raising hell about this.

As mentioned in my earlier post, I had contacted some monks I know for their thoughts. Two replied to my queries with the same message: While the monk’s action is deplorable, these “ethnically oriented” temples are not interested in outside pressure to police monks and we “outsiders” should just leave them alone and let them figure out how to deal with this on their own.

Now this is where my reaction could easily be taken out of context to portray me as a reactionary anti-immigration xenophobe, because to that notion of just “let them deal with it themselves” I say a loud and forceful, “Fuck that!”

We are in America, not Thailand or Cambodia, or anywhere else where the locals might sheepishly avoid confrontation with their religious leaders. And while I have no problem with immigrants bringing with them their homeland culture to add richness and diversity to our American culture, when that culture is one of silence and fear, then fuck that. You can send that attitude back on the boat.

Regardless of what this monk told his Sangha, regardless of what the Vinaya says about this, there is the Third Precept, which in numerous places throughout the Tipitika identifies inappropriate sexual contact with a child as constituting sexual misconduct.

This monk doesn’t need to go back to Thailand. He needs to go to jail.

BTW, the photo with this post is from Bali and has nothing to do with the temple in Chicago. It's just a nice photo of some cute boys with slingshots. Yes, they had slingshots. Hunting for rats maybe?

Who will watch the watchers?

A recent story in the Chicago Tribune has rightly outraged many. The specter of clergy sexually abusing minors has revealed itself in the Sangha, as well as the pernicious practice of enabling the monk perpetrators through “sending them away” to places where they wind up re-offending. The sad thing, in my mind, is that you could substitute “priest” wherever you see “monk” and “Catholic Church” for the temple’s cited. It’s the same enabling behavior: rather than directly dealing with the offender, he is shuffled off to re-offend.

But don’t get carried away with that analogy.

Our reactions to this story, which by the way is not “new” because even this specific event has been developing for more than a decade, reflect both our bewilderment and our anger. But while for many of us our initial reaction is to “rage against the machine,” where does it get us? Is that our best response?

It is easy to see parallels in this situation, which I repeat is nothing new, with what’s happened in the Catholic Church. Both have traditions in which the clergy take vows of celibacy and both are dealing inappropriately with violations of that vow through secrecy and shuffling clergy around. But the similarity ends there.

The Catholic Church is a world-wide organization with a central authority. Its entire administrative structure is based upon this authority, and while the Vatican moves agonizingly slow, it is an authority to which congregants can turn to petition or seek to influence. There is a dearth of similar administrative structures or hierarchies for Buddhism in America, and with Theravada, there are none.

This is not a “Theravada” problem as it is not an institutional problem. Theravada, or the way of the elders, is not broken. Theravada is no more broken than Zen is broken, the latter of which has also seen its share of sexual misconduct among its clergy. To say that there is a problem within Theravada that needs to be addressed is no different from the one made by the editors of “Buddhist Warfare,” that Buddhism has a problem with violence.

There is a problem, yes, but not with Theravada per se.

With the Catholic Church, it is an institutional problem because the failure of appropriate response lies within the institutional hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. But there is no “institution” of Theravada. All the individual congregations have their own boards that answer to no higher authority. Proclamations of “Theravada, fix yourself” are specious and meaningless.

Whose problem is it then? Because clearly this is a problem that requires our attention. While I knew how I felt, I didn’t know how to respond. So I asked four monks who reside both in the U.S. and Southeast Asia. What can a layperson do? Are there oversight organizations that can be pressured? Reasoned with?

While I have not heard back from all of them, the responses I did receive were simultaneously unsurprising and vexing. It goes back to the culture issue: many of these congregations are based upon an ethnic community that doesn’t have the same tradition of openness and confrontation that we have in America in particular and in the West in general. And the other issue is what ecumenical or administrative organization is there that exists to exert pressure on? When you’re angry, who do you shout at? Who has authority over these sanghas?

Shravasti Dhammika replied, in part, to my query with the following: "I have long been an advocate of the idea that ultimately, to move ahead, Western Buddhists will have to gently and politely ‘part company’ from traditional Asian Buddhism. The values, assumptions and attitudes of the two are just too different...We Westerners have enough problems of our own, getting involved in ethnic Buddhists’ wastes energy, leads to resentment and changes nothing. Let’s walk our own path."

While I do not subscribe to the notion of Hinayana – the Lesser Vehicle – when describing Theravada or the Thai Forest Tradition, the way it is manifested, the practices that it adheres too, certainly make it come off as a teeny-weeny wagon mired in twisted and misogynistic doctrine.

And after viewing the vibrant and at times acrimonious discussion at Sujato’s blog regarding secular Buddhism versus traditional practices, I am increasingly of the mind that Buddhism in America needs a Reformation of its own.

This is an important question for American and other Western Buddhists as more and more Westerners adopt Buddhism while at the same time its various iterations are increasingly co-existing literally closer to each other: Thai and Cambodian Theravada temples within blocks of Tibetan meditation centers that are close to Zen groups operating in store fronts and SGI groups meeting informally in homes in many neighborhoods. No longer are the various schools and vehicles physically separated by countries or other much larger geographic divisions. For crying out loud, I bet 90 percent of the non-Buddhist world thinks that the Dalai Lama is the leader of all Buddhists!

Many of us may rebel against the idea of a “centralized” Buddhist structure that oversees congregations and establishes parameters, and there is merit in their worry. But if Buddhism is allowed to gradually erode into a populist practice in which anyone who writes anything and gets it published is suddenly a guru who doesn’t know or care a whit about Dhamma, then we all might was well start dropping acid right now and walk the road of hedonism and nihilism, because that’s where such a road leads.

Conversely, Buddhism cannot be and never really was a fixed doctrine. Frankly, most of the Vinaya the Buddha made up as he went along, reacting to certain situations that arose at the time. Now that the Buddha’s gone, however, the Vinaya and Tipitika are treated like some sacrosanct text that cannot be changed and even contemplating a review of it would be considered heresy.

Yet it is this blind allegiance to doctrine that gives us a Thai Forest Tradition that can’t come to grips with ordaining women, a Zen culture in which the teacher is considered infallible, a Mahayana sentiment filled with bodhisattvas that can’t pay their own bills but they’re gonna save every sentient being, and a Tibetan culture that deifies superstition.

Things have changed in the monastic community and many of us may not be aware of that. Arun from Angry Asian Buddhist reminded me of an excellent point. In the past, families in Asia sent their children to the Sangha for education, but nowadays, education has been largely secularized. Trips to the Sangha are less frequent. In fact, it is losing support in some regions. Add to this the growing desire and pressure to succeed in life, to get a professional degree; in the past those motivated to learn, think abstractedly and were of high intelligence were attracted to the monastic tradition, but has that attraction disappeared? And if so, how is that affecting the quality of those who do enter the Sangha to seek ordination? If all the smart and ambitious ones are going to graduate school, what does that leave for the Sagha in terms of new recruits?

Granted, the Sangha has done great things for young men who made poor decisions, drank excessively, gambled, used drugs, etc. But some of these men are also being ordained and sent off to the U.S. to guide their own community of immigrants and do so on their own without guidance or support. These young men are placed in positions of authority to watch over a devout and, most likely, naïve congregation.

Who is watching the watchers?

In the meantime, young women and boys are preyed upon by those whom they thought they could trust.

Perhaps it is time that Buddhism in America takes a look at how physicians are managed. Medical doctors who received their degree overseas, but who desire to practice in the U.S., are treated just like residency students and required to go through a residency program before being licensed here. I know two medical doctors, one who received his degree in the Philippines and the other who received his degree in Taiwan. Both are licensed physicians in their home country, but for them to practice in the U.S. they must go through a residency program here just like someone fresh out of an American medical school.

But someone trained to be a Buddhist cleric and ordained in Thailand, Nepal, Japan, or anywhere else can come here and start a congregation with virtually no oversight.

Maybe that needs to change.

Making a chai tae out of a kathoey, or real man out of a fag

Got a sissy-boy child? Send him to a reparative therapist who attests he or she can “straighten” your boy out. Even if it kills him. Literally.

These types of “clinics” and “therapists” were fairly common in the not-too-distant past in the United States, but for the most part have been professionally ridiculed as not only ineffective, but as psychological quackery and mental torture. There remain a few who still push this dangerous fake therapy, the most infamous being the laughable George Rekers.

More recently, similar clinics have turned up in Malaysia, which is led by a homophobic Islamic (is that redundant?) government that has for years been trying to convict a dissident of sodomy. These clinics were for “sissy boys” and asserted they could turn your sissy boy into a real man. Unsurprisingly, many reparative therapists took up the torch – oh, how ironic – to practice this voodoo psychology in Malaysia where they found a willing client: The Malaysian government, which allegedly forced boys into the treatment centers. Despite international condemnation, the Malaysian government essentially replied with a hearty “fuck you.”

A side note: To really understand Malaysia’s antipathy toward gays, you need to know the history behind the government’s attempt to denounce and prosecute dissident Anwar Ibrahim. The government wants to get rid of him so badly, but the only thing they can come up with is an accusation of sodomy.

But I digress. Because that’s not the end of it. While it may not surprise you that conservative Christian groups and Islamic groups continue to support efforts to change one’s sexuality, it may surprise you to learn that Buddhist organizations, teachers and even various Sanghas have been involved in reparative therapy as well. And a recent news report of a particular Thai Sangha’s involvement in treating so-called “ladyboys” infuriates me no end, as this strikes me as a complete corruption of the Dhamma as well as some of the worst kind of homophobia I’ve seen.

To get a good grasp about how this issue operates in Thailand and most of Southeast Asia, one needs to understand both how the Sangha fits into Thai culture, as well as understand the history of the kathoey, or ladyboy, both in Thai culture and Buddhist history. For this explanation, I’m going to rely heavily on a work by Peter A. Jackson called “Male Homosexuality and Transgenderism in the Thai Buddhist Tradition.” Granted, this work dates back to 1993, but it nonetheless presents excellent background on this issue.

There remains a very strong link between the Sangha and lay community in SE Asia, where families in Thailand, Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia send their boys to the Sangha for short periods where they learn Dhamma and live as a novice monk. Some decide to stay. Most return to their families and lay life. This is such a strong tradition that a recent survey revealing that many Thais no longer support the Sangha like they had in the past has made headlines in the local press.

Many may have a perspective that Thais are generally very tolerant and accepting of homosexuality. After all, sex clubs have been ubiquitous in Bangkok and Pataya (not as much so in Phuket), and if you type the search terms “ladyboy” and “Thailand” into Google, you’ll get a plethora of results for various websites offering a variety of services performed by such ladyboys.

True, there are no laws against homosexual activity in Thailand as there are in Malaysia to the south, but to conclude that homosexuality is widely accepted in Thailand would be very unskillful. It’s not uncommon for Thai police to raid gay bars just for the hell of it, much like police did in the U.S. during the 1950s and 1960s. What made the attitude different in Thailand from that in the West, Jackson points out, was the Thai attitude toward homosexuality was largely diffused: it lacked a specific target. The AIDS epidemic in Thailand changed all that; it gave people who initially harbored vague feelings of antipathy toward homosexuals an opportunity to target aggressive hatred.

But where did this seed of homophobia come from? Believe it or not, it came from several Thai Buddhist teachers from the past whose homophobic interpretations of the Tipitika have been carried forward by more recent members of the Thai Sangha. As was largely the case with Christianity and Biblical texts, the Buddhist canon contains sections referring to certain, specific sexual activity and attitudes. But given the fact that there was no Western concept of homosexuality 2,500 years ago in Asia, modern Buddhist “interpreters” have tended to force the concept of homosexuality onto Pali terms and descriptions of activity that appear similar to what the Western mind labels as “homosexual.”

Another thing to keep in mind is the Pali canon, and Thai Buddhism in particular, contains a very strong anti-sex message directed specifically toward monks.

“That which is called methunadhamma is explained as: the dhamma of an unrighteous man (asattapurisa), the conduct of the common people, the manners of the low, dhamma which is evil and crude, dhamma whose end is but water, an activity which should be hidden, the dhamma which couples should perform together.” (Vinaya, Vol. 1, p.49)

While the message was strident, it did not differentiate between forms. All types of sex were covered: it didn’t matter what a monk stuck his penis into, such activity always carried the same result – the monk had failed and was usually expelled from the Sangha. But a distaste for all forms of sex, even among the laity, found its way into the commentaries of many Thai Buddhist writers. Jackson writes:

“Significantly, contemporary Thai Buddhist views on laypersons' sexual behaviour are often more proscriptive and extreme than attitudes reflect in the Pali canon or in traditional or popular Thai accounts of Buddhist doctrine and ethics. Phra Buddhadasa's work has been especially influential among educated and middle class Thai Buddhists. However, his views on sexuality are at variance with Thai Buddhism's traditional distinction between lay and clerical ethical conduct. The ethical extremism of Phra Buddhadasa and other contemporary Buddhist reformists in Thailand such as Phra Phothirak results from a clericalising trend whereby ethical demands traditionally made only of monks are now increasingly also being required of laypersons.”

This anti-sex attitude remains to this day not only in the Thai Sangha, but to a large extent within general Thai society among the laity in the form of homophobia.

The term "kathoey" in Thai loosely translates as "ladyboy" and has a somewhat interesting history in Buddhist literature. The term has been translated to include everything from hermaphrodites to being a descriptive term for a weakling or eunuch. The Pali term pandaka has been used to describe virtually any sexual deviant, but was most frequently used to describe homosexual activity. Jackson writes:

“But whether or not Buddhism has been instrumental in influencing the development of the popular Thai notion, a very similar mixing of physical and psychological sex, gender behaviours and sexuality occurs both in the Pali terms pandaka and in the Thai term kathoey. Both terms are parts of conceptual schemes in which people regarded as exhibiting physiological or culturally ascribed features of the opposite sex are categorised together. If Buddhism was not the source of the popular Thai conception of kathoey then at the very least it has reinforced a markedly similar pre-existing Thai cultural concept.”

Jackson further states that the term kathoey has largely transformed in general Thai vernacular to be used to describe any gay man, whether a cross-dresser or straight-acting, so nowadays it essentially translates as "fag."

It is unfortunate that so many Thai commentators and their subsequent followers developed and promoted such anti-gay sentiments as there are some very interesting references in the Pali canon to the Buddha showing great tolerance toward those whose sexual identity did not follow the norm.

There was Ananda, the Buddha’s cousin and personal attendant, who allegedly was born a kathoey in many previous lives and who became an arahant shortly after the Buddha became enlightened. And there is the story of Vakkali, who was enamored with the Buddha. The Buddha rebuked Vakkali for constantly staring lustfully at the Buddha, but his rebuke was not a “stop looking at me that way gay boy,” but rather, stop falling into the trap of sensual attachment. Nonetheless, the Buddha told Vakkali to go away. Jackson writes:

"Vakkali was so shattered by this command that he attempted to kill himself by jumping off a mountain. But deva or spiritual beings informed the Buddha of Vakkali's dejection and he quickly went to the monk's aid in time to save him from committing suicide. With an extremely brief exposition of the dhamma, 'The eyes see dhamma,' the Buddha gave Vakkali the insight he needed in order to attain enlightenment and he immediately attained arahantship."

Nonetheless, there is a proscription against ordaining a pandaka that is attributed to the Buddha based on a tale in the Vinaya about a monk who was running around the Sangha asking the young monks to “fuck me, fuck me.” When they didn’t oblige, the pandaka went to the elephant stables and again pleaded with the men there to “fuck me, fuck me.” When the Buddha heard about this, he expelled the pandaka because he was concerned what the lay community might think about the Sangha. This has created considerable controversy today over whether openly gay men should be allowed to be ordained.

Now we arrive to the year 2011 when effeminate boys are being sent to Sanghas where monks are attempting to transform them from being pandaka or kathoey into real men, or chai tae. At work here is probably centuries of indoctrinated homophobia.

The renunciation of sexual desire, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, is for the monastic community and has everything to do with renouncing sensual pleasure of all types. For the monks to teach these “ladyboys” to become "real men" would mean guiding these boys in the ways of hetero sex. The fact that monks would even venture into that territory at all with young novices strikes me as a serious corruption of Dhamma, as well as a particularly virulent form of homophobia sustained by reactionary abbots who don't know what to do with the ordained ladyboys in their midst.

And again we come back to the psychological trauma such reparative therapy can create in young minds. This isn’t the ending of suffering, this constitutes the nurturing and encouragement of suffering. Many of these boys will simply reject the efforts and return to their previous ways after they leave the Sangha. But others may likely be so traumatized that they commit suicide or develop seriously self-destructive behaviors. From being happy, these boys are “transformed” into miserable waifs.

Shameful. Shameful. Where is Rahula when you need him? Where is the water dipper?

His Holliness on Homo-ness

Here is another post that is part of the Great Article Swap among us Buddhist bloggers, this one from the Rev. Danny Fisher. If you're not familiar with him and his blog, you ought to be. Here it is.

First, many thanks to Richard for hosting my comments here, and to Nate for making this whole Buddhist blog swap happen.

When Richard and I got in touch, he suggested as possible topic the confusion among gay Buddhists and straight allies “by what we perceive as the Dalai Lama’s waffling on the gay issue in Buddhism.” In addition, he suggested clarification about “what is more important for gays as they approach Buddhism: personal acceptance of who we are prior to taking up Buddhism, or using Buddhism as a vehicle for self acceptance.”

I’ve examined the first issue, His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s stance on homosexuality, in some depth in a past post at my blog. Richard suggested that I rework some of what I said there and elsewhere, though, so I will begin by doing that.

In my post, I concluded that it would be difficult to characterize His Holiness as homophobic. If we’re defining a homophobe as someone who demonstrates an “irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals,” then His Holiness does not qualify: statements like those he made to the XXIII World Conference of the International Lesbian and Gay Association, as well as his willingness to meet and listen to gay Buddhists like the late Steve Peskind, demonstrate a much more open mind and heart than that, I think.

Still, other things he has said (in the context of conversations about sexual misconduct “according to the Buddhist tradition”) have been less than satisfying and even confusing. Additionally, there are things His Holiness could say that he’s not saying. In my post, I suggested that while he is right to remind us that he’s not the pope of all Buddhists, I think Peskind too is right to note that he could do more to “commit himself to helping correct harmful Buddhist teachings still on the books–including the conduct codes which can fuel homophobic behavior among Buddhist teachers and students.” While His Holiness can’t change the tradition, I suspect certain kinds of statements would be enormously influential coming from him. Imagine if he said, “According to the Buddhist tradition, homosexuality is sexual misconduct…but that’s an idea that’s a product of the time of the tradition’s origins and we should throw it away.” Call me overly optimistic, but I think that would have a pretty big ripple effect. He’s not a Buddhist pope, but, when this Dalai Lama speaks, a lot of people–a lot of Buddhists in the world–listen. With all due respect, it doesn’t quite do to say “According to the Buddhist tradition…” and leave it at that.

Holding to these Buddhist sexual ethics suggest that being a “good Buddhist” and being gay are mutually exclusive. (You can have heterosexual sex and still be a good Buddhist, but you can’t ever have homosexual sex and be a good Buddhist it seems.) And to keep saying “According to the Buddhist tradition…” with no postmodern, critical, scientific reflection is problematic in that it can (intentionally or unintentionally) enable homophobic behavior. His Holiness has frequently said that if modern scientific findings contradict our beliefs—even our most deeply held Buddhist beliefs—we must change. I would agree. On that point, the American Psychological Association has rightly noted that there have been many compelling studies about the biological and psychological origins of homosexuality and that “most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.” The sciences are speaking loudly and clearly to us, and we have a responsibility to respond.

In addition, great compassion and loving-kindness are important values in every Buddhist tradition. Is it not an extraordinarily uncompassionate, unloving, and unkind thing to (grossly or subtly) dehumanize others and (implicitly or explicitly) deny them their civil rights? I would certainly not like it if I were denied equal protection under the law. How about you?

Consider this: Civil unions offer many of the same rights and privileges of marriage, but exclusively at the state-level—they are not recognized by the United States Federal Government the way that marriages are. Furthermore, under the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA), other U.S. states are not obliged to recognize these unions (nor are they required to recognize legal gay marriages in other states). The General Accounting Office lists over 1,100 benefits and protections for married couples–which relate to things like Social Security and VA benefits, health insurance and visitation rights, family leave, immigration law, taxes, and more–and civil unions protect only some of these rights. Because civil unions are not recognized by the federal government, this means, among many other things:

• gay couples cannot file joint-tax returns and enjoy some of the same tax protections as married couples;
• a United States citizen cannot sponsor a non-American for immigration through a civil union the way he or she could through marriage;
• if someone in a civil union receives benefits through their employer for their partner and/or children from that union, they must report the entire premium—including the share he or she paid and the share the employer paid—as income on his or her federal tax return.

Where is there love and compassion in allowing our fellow human beings to be treated in such an unjust way?

There have been powerful words and gestures of support for the gay community in the past couple of years from such Buddhists as B.P.F. Executive Director Zenju Earthlyn Manuel, Jodo Shinshu priest William Briones, Chaplain Mikel Monnett, and others. There need to be more. For my part, I am committed to serving the LGBTQ community as a straight ally. I hope more of my fellow Buddhists will join me. For resources on being an ally, I refer readers to Safe Zone For All.

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.

Nirayavagga: Hell

There’s a song on the “Darklands” album by the Jesus and Mary Chain titled “Nine Million Rainy Days” that has a line that pretty much summed up a relationship I had with another person. Granted, this relationship was not a love relationship; he was not a boyfriend. But for a while we believed we were close until the relationship completely disintegrated, largely because of our mutual yen for hedonism and mass quantities of drugs and alcohol. Here’s the lyric:

“As far as I can tell/I’m being dragged from here to hell/And all my time in hell is spent with you.”

That song sums up the nature of that relationship; it was hell. Took me a while to realize it, but I finally did. I can honestly say I’ve been to hell.

Because of that experience, I tend to take all references to hell within the Tipitika as metaphorical. I don’t believe in a place, a destination, beyond my current reality that is “hell.” Hell is inside my mind, and if I’m not careful, my mind will very willingly take me there again. And even if there is a real place, a real destination called “hell,” the fact I don’t believe it exists is moot. Because as long as I pay attention to how I think, act and speak, as long as I behave with skill, I not only stop creating a hell during my lifetime, but I enhance the nature of my rebirth, thus avoiding this place if it is there.

The Nirayavagga covers some of the acts that result in “hell,” largely following the content of the Five Precepts. For example, false speech is addressed in the first verse.

“He goes to hell,
the one who asserts
what didn’t take place,
as does the one
who, having done,
says, ‘I didn’t.’
Both — low-acting people —
there become equal:
after death, in the world beyond.”

Liars live unhappy lives, as the liar must always keep track of his or her lies. And when the ruse is revealed, the consequences can be severe. So the liar is always trying to outrun the hell he or she created; but it always catches up. It’s kind of like the Fram oil filter motto – you will either pay now or pay later.

“Four things befall the heedless man
who lies down with the wife of another:
a wealth of demerit;
a lack of good sleep;
third, censure;
fourth, hell.

A wealth of demerit, an evil destination,
& the brief delight of a
fearful man with a
fearful woman,
& the king inflicts a harsh punishment.
So
no man should lie down
with the wife of another.”

An act of sexual misconduct is addressed here. While Buddhism teaches us to avoid attachment, the Buddha nonetheless recognized that in the layperson’s life, there are certain cultural norms that the wise and skillful pay attention to. The trouble created by sleeping with someone else’s partner is far reaching. Think about it this way.

A long time ago I was chatting up a fellow online and it looked like a rendezvous was possible. But then the guy said he needed to be very discreet, I couldn’t contact him later because he couldn’t risk his wife finding out. I said, “Wait a minute! If you’re going to all this trouble to be dishonest with your wife, someone you took a vow with, how can I possibly expect you to be honest with me about anything? Like your HIV status for example?” His response was like, “Huh? What are you talking about?” But the conversation was over.

“Just as sharp-bladed grass,
if wrongly held,
wounds the very hand that holds it —
the contemplative life, if wrongly grasped,
drags you down to hell.

Any slack act,
or defiled observance,
or fraudulent life of chastity
bears no great fruit.

If something’s to be done,
then work at it firmly,
for a slack going-forth
kicks up all the more dust.

It’s better to leave a misdeed
undone.
A misdeed burns you afterward.
Better that a good deed be done
that, after you’ve done it,
won’t make you burn.”

To behave with skill, constant vigilance over our motives is necessary. Even when we “think” we practice the Dhamma well, our squirrel minds will find clever ways to lead us astray if we’re not vigilant. And the consequences of the “lapses” can lead us into a self-made hell that may take us a very long time to crawl out of. Right on point is the next verse:

“Like a frontier fortress,
guarded inside & out,
guard yourself.
Don’t let the moment pass by.
Those for whom the moment is past
grieve, consigned to hell.”

Wrong view is problematic for all people, but sometimes I think my fellow brethren in “the life,” as it used to be known, have some real issues with this.

“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,
& 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.”

Talk about emptiness, the Circuit Scene – particularly among gay men – is as empty as you can get. The circuit boys see danger in stable relationships, in monogamy, and see no danger in promiscuity. The line of thinking that justifies promiscuity is not limited to just sex; it reaches far beyond that to other areas. Of course, we may think there is no harm in such hedonism because we don’t observe any negative consequences being experienced by these fellows. But that’s only what we can see.

Pupphavagga: Blossoms

While the first three chapters of the Dhammapada lay out the basic notions that we create and own our own kamma, as well as outline the characteristics and consequences of skillful versus unskillful acts, the fourth chapter and much of the remaining chapters go into greater detail and describe more specific issues and concepts. With the Pupphavagga, the qualities and rewards of skillfulness are explained using similes of blossoms and flowers. And at the start, a template is laid out for the reader.

“Who will penetrate this earth
& this realm of death
with all its gods?
Who will ferret out
the well-taught Dhamma-saying,
as the skillful flower-arranger
the flower?

The learner-on-the-path
will penetrate this earth
& this realm of death
with all its gods.
The learner-on-the-path
will ferret out
the well-taught Dhamma-saying,
as the skillful flower-arranger
the flower.”

It’s an invitation to be a “learner-on-the-path,” to develop the skill to “ferret out the well-taught Dhamma saying.” But what is this simile saying?

Let’s consider the Third Precept. What is the “well-taught Dhamma saying” that can be found in the Third Precept? And how do we “ferret out” its meaning?

The easy way to explain the Third Precept is to merely recite it, and then inject our own cultural bias into what it means. The Third Precept directs us to refrain from sexual misconduct, or others might say that it prohibits wrongful sexual conduct. The lazy way of explaining this is to say that homosexual conduct qualifies as wrongful sexual conduct because it is perceived negatively by the larger culture, or that it’s misconduct because it departs from the norm. But an answer like that is not ferreting out anything, let alone what may be within a “well-taught Dhamma saying.”

Because further investigation leads us to various suttas (such as this one) that quote the Buddha as specifically identifying what sexual misconduct entails. And if we further investigate these examples, we see it to be well-taught because of its consistency with the Four Noble Truths. An act is misconduct – or rather, unskillful – because it results in pain, suffering, disappointment, hardship, separation: It results in dukkha. And the reason it results in dukkha is that the conduct was motivated by either greed, hatred or delusion. In other words, the intention behind the act, not the act itself, is what defines the outcome.

And that is what is meant with the simile of the flower arranger. Given a certain set of flowers, the skilled arranger “ferrets out” the best display. Likewise, the skillful student of Dhamma seeks the appropriate lesson for the circumstances facing him or her at the moment.

Blossoms in the Pupphavagga are used to both represent good and skillful qualities as well as unskillful qualities. For example, in verses 47-48:

“The man immersed in
gathering blossoms,
his heart distracted:
death sweeps him away —
as a great flood,
a village asleep.

The man immersed in
gathering blossoms,
his heart distracted,
insatiable in sensual pleasures:
the End-Maker holds him
under his sway.”

Contrast that with verse 53:

“Just as from a heap of flowers
many garland strands can be made,
even so
one born & mortal
should do
— with what’s born & is mortal —
many a skillful thing.”

In the former, the blossoms are a distraction, an intoxicant, that lead the man astray. Yet, the fact that flowers are beautiful is not a bad thing on its own, because in the latter verse, things of beauty can be arranged and turned into pleasing things. And there are many things of beauty within ourselves – undeveloped skillful qualities – that can be nurtured and brought forward.

The fact that some blossoms are scentless and others have sweet scents is used as a simile to explain the pointlessness of hearing the Dhamma and not acting on it.

“Just like a blossom,
bright colored
but scentless:
a well-spoken word
is fruitless
when not carried out.

Just like a blossom,
bright colored
& full of scent:
a well-spoken word
is fruitful
when well carried out.”

Verses 54-56 continue with the metaphor of scent, demonstrating that even the pungent scents of flowers like jasmine or sandalwood are carried by the wind, whereas the “scent” of virtue can go against the wind.

And the final verses of this chapter bring back the image of the lotus flower rising out of the mud.

“As in a pile of rubbish
cast by the side of a highway
a lotus might grow
clean-smelling
pleasing the heart,
so in the midst of the rubbish-like,
people run-of-the-mill & blind,
there dazzles with discernment
the disciple of the Rightly
Self-Awakened One.”

It doesn’t matter who we are, what circumstances we come from, how deluded we might have been in the past or how deluded we are right now: we all have the potential to turn into that lotus flower, we all have the Buddha nature inside of us. We just have to get out of the way.

The Third Precept

There were many things that attracted me to Buddhism, but perhaps none was more persuasive than the Third Precept.

The Third Precept states: Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami, (in Pali) “I undertake the course of training in refraining from wrong-doing in respect of sensuality.”

More simply put, it guides one to refrain from wrongful sexual conduct. However, let’s not lose sight of the issue of ‘sensuality” as this involves much more than just sex. That may be discussed another day.

I have a much fuller understanding now of what those five words mean – refrain from wrongful sexual conduct – than when I first heard them, but even upon my first inkling of what was entailed in the notion of “wrongful sexual conduct,” I felt like I had finally found a home. Of course, while the meaning of these words was and remains crystal clear to me, it is nonetheless the focus of an endless debate within the Buddhist community. And comments by the Dalai Lama have perplexed what might be described as the more liberal, Western, element of Buddhism. As James Shaheen writes in his blog for The Huffington Post:

“At a conference some 12 years ago, when gay leaders met with him (the Dalai Lama) in San Francisco to discuss the Tibetan Buddhist proscriptions against gay sex, he reiterated the traditional view that gay sex was ‘sexual misconduct.’ This view was based on restrictions found in Tibetan texts that he could not and would not change. He did, however, advise gay Buddhist leaders to investigate further, discuss the issue, and suggested that change might come through some sort of theological consensus.”

Jeff Wilson from Tricycle (Shaheen is Tricycle’s editor) writes an excellent follow-up blog that I strongly recommend you read. But suffice it to say that, unlike what many Westerners think (particularly Westerners who only have a passing knowledge of Buddhism), the Dalai Lama’s word on Buddhist doctrine is hardly the last. I’m frequently asked about this when I reveal that I practice Buddhism, and each time I reply that the Dalai Lama is an important Buddhist leader, but he does not lead all Buddhists.

But I digress.

When I first learned of the Third Precept, the words were spoken by an Anglo-American monk at a dhammasala near Lansing, Mich., during a Dhamma talk for the celebration of the Buddha’s birth, enlightenment, and death. He laid things out quite simply; that sex is sex, regardless of whether it involves two men, two women, or a man and a woman. Buddhist doctrine does not prohibit sex for lay people. What matters is whether the behavior, and the motive, was skillful.

Skillful? Does that mean only good sex is OK, and bad sex is not? As silly as that may sound, it seemed an odd way to speak about this. Yet, the choice of the word “skillful,” I soon learned, was both deliberate and correct. In fact, the precept could be read to say, “To refrain from unskillful sexual conduct.” Because use of the English word “wrongful” in most Buddhist references has nothing to do with some moral code (although Buddhism does promote living by a moral code).

What confuses many people, I think, is that the Third Precept is also occasionally presented with these words: “To refrain from sexual misconduct.” As a gay man who grew up under an oppressive Christian doctrine and Catholic hegemony that portrayed homosexuals as sinners doomed to eternal damnation, I really needed to understand the nuances of how this precept was being presented. Because the more you study the Dhamma, the more it becomes apparent that nuance is very important.

As I soon learned from that monk I first heard speak about the Third Precept, it often helps to ask the question, “What did the Buddha say about this?” Because many Buddhists have much to say about homosexuality and sex, but not every Buddhist has his or her opinion well-grounded in what the Buddha actually said.

For example, in the Sammaditthi Sutta: The Discourse on Right View, from the Majjhima Nikaya (MN9), the Buddha explains what is skillful and unskillful, identifying sexual misconduct as unskillful, refraining from such conduct as skillful. And in the Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta: To Cunda the Silversmith, from the Anguttara Nikaya (AN 10.176), the Buddha is more explicit in his description of sexual misconduct. Speaking of a skillful man, the Buddha says:

“He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man.”

As I learned through attending Dhamma classes, the Third Precept is very closely linked with the Second Precept: To refrain from taking what is not given. Obviously, forced sex was very unskillful – it’s rape. But even having willing sex with someone married or “attached” with someone else was unskillful. As was sex with minors; minors were still under the protection of “their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters,” etc. And someone betrothed to another was off limits as well.

So it became clear to me that having sex, per se, was not the problem, nor was the gender of my partner: the issue was whether the sexual activity was a form of taking something that was not freely given. This was all basic common sense, really, when you think about it.

I started to think that I was going to like this Buddhism thing. But there was a point that bothered me. I could understand the relationship between the Second and Third precepts, but did that mean I could have all the sex I wanted, with whomever I wanted, as long as it was freely given? Of course, I quickly learned that unrestrained sexual activity was just as unskillful as having sex with the wrong person.

Those peculiar words again, skillful and unskillful. Promiscuity was not a sin, or wrong, in a Buddhist sense, but it was unskillful. And thinking about my past activities and the consequences they brought, I began to understand what this skillful and unskillful meant.

Buddhist talk about wrong actions, but an action is not wrong because it offends a law laid down by some deity. An action can be wrong if it’s unskillful, and an action is unskillful if it brings you pain, suffering, loneliness, depression, anxiety, any of these negative feelings. And it’s unskillful when the consequences also include pursuit by the police, the courts, a jealous boyfriend, or contracting a disease.

And there it was; something very important was arising within me. I began to realize that any pain and suffering, loneliness and self-pity I had experienced in life was largely my own responsibility. I created all this through my unskillful acts, it wasn’t the outside world against me. And if all the times that I felt bad were the result of my unskillful acts, then I could reduce my bad feelings, my suffering, by choosing to act more skillfully.

What a novel idea.