Bellanvila Sudaththa Thero and Cecil J. Dunne in their attempts to justify homosexuality in Buddhism make rather casual references with regard to the incident where a novice monk masturbated the senior bhikku Wakkali. What we should ask ourselves is what their contemporaries thought of this sexual act. For example did they approve of this? Or did they take action against the senior bhikku for violating the code of ethics? Did he continue as a monk or was he de-robed? Answers to such questions would provide a wide range of thoughts that might help discuss the merits or demerits of this incident. But if this were an isolated incident then it would be wrong, if not sacrilegious, to make a case for the approval of homosexuality in Buddhism.

Ditto in the case where an individual took to robes because he couldn’t resist Gautam Buddha’s good looks. Let’s check the Buddhist scriptures to find out if the Buddha approved of his intention. Let’s ask ourselves if the Buddha was aware of the circumstances that led this monk to take to robes. If the authors of the tripitaka knew his intentions, then it’s safe to assume the Buddha too was in the know. But if there is no record of more information on this episode then it’s best not to use it to further the cause of homosexuality as per the Buddhist teachings.

Hameed Abdul Karim

Dear Michael,

You said in your last line, “I am nineteen. I am gay. And I am disgusted.”
Well, are you disgusted that your gay, OR are you disgusted that people in Sri Lanka cannot understand gays and their right to live the way they please…?

ps. One thing that I have personally been disgusted about most Sri Lankans is that they are so dense and can not understand that they now live in a Dictatorship, and not a democracy. (but that’s another story) 😀

…all the best Michael.

@ David

I agree with suntzu.Buddhism is definitely not a religion but a philosophy. But many Buddhists around the world including almost all Sinhala Buddhists have turned it into a religion.

You can not go to heaven or attain nirvana or become successful in life by praying to the Buddha or Buddha statues. Of course you can’t go to heaven or attain nirvana or become successful in life by praying to God either.(that’s my personal belief) But at least in Christianity,Islam and Hinduism their followers pray to a God or pantheon of Gods. But in the case of misguided Buddhists, they pray to a man and not a God.

Nothing else to say except that people have the right to believe what they want to believe. If people want to believe that the Buddha is some kind of a God and pray to him in the hope that he will grant everything they pray for…so be it.

Why can’t Buddhism be both “religion” and a “philosophy” and also a “way of life” at the same time as some say. Is there any valid reason as to why it should be confined to one of the option at a time?

I think that is thinking based on “Middle Excluded Two Valued Logic”.(Either A or opposite of A exists at a time, not both or no option in the middle.)This thinking is not sufficient to discuss deep subjects. Please read about Four Valued Logic, Multi Valued Logic, Fuzzy Logic etc. etc.

Two Valued Logic is sufficient to handle almost all mundane (worldly/social)issues of humans, but that alone is a weak tool to handle issues that are beyond the affairs of human needs. In the universe the subject area related to human needs is very very minute. So outside the domain of human needs and its related affairs, Two Valued Logic alone is not the sole tool.

So Buddhism is a religion, no, no it is not so but a philosophy or vice versa is not necessarily correct. It can have many different choices at the same time. In a way, it is a religion. In away, It is a philosophy. In a way it is a way of life. In a way, it is a ……

Thanks!

To say Buddhism relies on the brain instead of faith isn’t correct. Some things, such as reincarnation, the ability to achieve nirvana, etc, have to be accepted on faith. Their reality cannot be analysed by the brain. Similarly, veneration or worship (including tribute offerings) can hardly be said to be philosophical. Buddhism is definitely a religion.

Bellanvila Sudaththa Thero,

Venerable Sir, you state that “the concept of what is right or wrong is based in morality which is directly derived from religion, or in the case of Buddhism, philosophy.”

However, I notice striking similarities between Buddhist philosophy and the Hindu religion. I give the following links which discuss these similarities:

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_buddhism.asp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzWV0i5l-0A

Please enlighten us on this as we make our journey towards karmic consciouness.

Buddhism is not a religion.It is a pilosophy.

For me, for anything to be a crime, it needs to be an act of deliberate harm against another individual. I firmly believe that we are all entitled to a sphere of autonomy, wherein we may cause harm to ourselves, without the interference of the state or, by extension, the society. Be that harm an unhealthy food I consume, a wound I subject myself to, or even a diabolical sin I commit on my own. The state does not have the right to prevent me from doing so. So if homosexuality is a sin, (the contrary of which is proven by this article to all intents and purposes) then two consenting adults who wish to commit that sin, can do so without needing to suffer the judgement of the state. That’s one.

Then there is this. An act of sexuality is also an act of sexual misconduct when it causes harm to people (individuals) who are not consensually part of that sexual activity. Merely because homosexuality does not align with a majority’s idea of “normalness”, does not mean it therefore becomes a sexual misconduct. Prove that there is harm in homosexuality in itself, and then proceed to justify its criminalisation. That you, and your majority, don’t like it is not reason enough for something to be illegal in a justice system.

And then, “Prof” Wilfred, there is no corollary between the legalisation of homosexuality and abused juniors in boys’ schools. If it happens, it happens, and schools are supposed to prevent such things from happening. However, while I admit that such abuse is wrong, I do so not because it is homosexual, but because it is rape, (ie without the consent of both parties). All acts of sexual abuse is wrong, irrelevant of the genders of the instigator and victim, and should be prevented and punished. While illegalising homosexuality in itself will not prevent these crimes, neither will it serve justice to those people who have the right to engage in consensual homosexual activity. Finally, if you read the article, it clearly states that monks are to abstain from ANY form of sexual conduct, let alone the obvious prohibitions of child mollestation, so I really don’t like your vague insinuation that there are ulterior motives to the writer’s intent. Cheap hints and baseless accusations. That is all you are.

I am nineteen. I am gay. And I am disgusted.