Talk:Buddhism and sexuality

About this article
This article is an attempt to create an article dealing with the different aspects of sexuality and Buddhism. Right now, content is based on pieces from these:


 * Homosexuality and Buddhism
 * Tantra techniques (Vajrayana)
 * Religion and sexuality
 * Buddhism and the body

A major clean-up, rewrinting and shortening is needed, since the content is basicaly right now just pieces of articles brought together. Siru108 (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The first section quotes the Buddha from the Kamma Sutta, which is within the Sutta Nipata, but the two translations I checked did not contain the excerpts at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.14.8 (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Western Buddhism section
Ole Nydahl is in the minority in his homophobia and controversial statements. His negative opinions of homosexuality are not representative of western Buddhism, and do not belong in this article. Noisy Crew (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Misconduct
According to texts this statement was attributed to Gautama Buddha (although I've found another scholarly work which possibly attributes to another arhant):


 * "One conducts oneself wrongly in matters of sex; one has intercourse with those under the protection of father, mother, brother, sister, relatives or clan, or of their religious community; or with those promised to someone else, protected by law, and even with those betrothed with a garland" (Book of Tens, Anguttara Nikaya, X, 206).

or


 * "Abandoning sexual misconduct, one abstains from sexual misconduct; he does not have intercourse with women who are protected by their mother, father, mother and father, brother, sister, or relatives, who have a husband, who are protected by law, or with those already engaged" (See Bhikkhu Bodhi translation, In the Buddha's Words, p. 159, based on MN41; Saleyyaka Sutra; I 286-90).

They are from the Theravada tradition and I do not know if the other traditions have any explicit definitions of misconduct but to say that no Buddhism has no explicit definitions is untrue. This material was deleted from the article and I think that was a mistake. Alatari (talk) 05:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Narada Thera's book Everyman's Ethics Four Discourses of the Buddha states: (1) "What are the four vices in conduct that he has eradicated? The destruction of life, householder, is a vice and so are stealing, sexual misconduct, and lying. These are the four vices that he has eradicated." Thus spoke the Exalted One. And when the Master had thus spoken, he spoke yet again: Killing, stealing, lying and adultery, These four evils the wise never praise. Where this is from? Not sure yet but I've seen adultery mentioned as sexual misconduct in other readings on Buddhism. Alatari (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC) This material was in this version as late as February this year. I'm not sure why it was deleted but I found it sourced in other articles. Alatari (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Problematic section
This section is completely unsourced and partly weasel worded: "In fact, Buddhism in its fundamental form, does not define what is right and what is wrong in absolute terms for lay followers. Therefore the interpretation of what kinds of sexual activity is acceptable for a layperson, is not a religious matter as far as Buddhism is concerned."

Saying In fact or fundamentally are weasel words which appeal to authorities but the authorities (secondary or primary sources) are not named. Stating that types of sexual activity for the entire religion of Buddhism is not a religious matter is a VERY strong statement and is unsourced. It needs sources or it just appears to be the conclusion drawn by us editors and thus WP:OR. Plus it's not true... There are pronouncements in the literature against specific types of sexual behavior. If there are differences between the sects or complete omissions in some then we can spell that out. I'd suggest a rewrite but ATM I'm at a loss of what to say. Alatari (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a blog that has some interesting things to say. but somewhere on Google Scholar I found (and misplaced) a comment that these phrases weren't said by Gautama but another arhant. Alatari (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the "in fact" part should be removed.


 * My read that by saying "in its fundamental form" the writer intended to mean that Buddhism at its base, setting aside traditional differences. For one Buddhism is not a dualistic good vs evil, right and wrong religion.  And Gautama Buddha a teacher, not an authority.  Regarding sexuality, nothing is painted in absolute terms.  Only the advice that sexual misconduct can be a hindrance.  For a lay person, they are the ultimate judge of whether their sexual activity is misconduct or not.  You have pointed out elsewhere that adultery is mentioned several places within the Pali Canon as sexual misconduct.  Even in those places it could not be accurately described as an absolute definition for what is "wrong".  It is quote easy to propose a scenario where two married people have consensual sex with two other married people, and in that case, for them, that is not sexual misconduct.  Within Buddhism, others may well have different opinions or values, however it is not their Sanga's place to judge them.  They know whether it is sexual misconduct or not.  SO even in that strongly stated case it is not absolute, and not misconduct, and not a religious matter for their Sangha.


 * I agree that we should have as many citations or references as we can backing up the text of this article. But consider what the article would look like if we needed to back up each and every sentence or logical thought.  Many articles in Wikipedia are to some degree written by consensus with the more important things cited.


 * In this specific case, how do you think you could cite a statement that "Buddhism states in absolute terms what is right and wrong regarding sexual conduct." Of course that could not be cited, and is absurd.  There are few things that you could say in Buddhism are absolute.  Especially when no Sanga has any authority over any lay Buddhist, and Buddhists may seek enlightenment through any source they choose.  All Buddhists monks are merely teachers giving advice.  Their role merely to have compassion for others and offer direction where they can as they themselves seek wisdom and enlightenment.


 * Your tradition may offer a substantial amount of teaching and may be able to point any number of religious writings to explain why they have such an opinion. But those words do not represent all of Buddhism.  The accumulation of that wise advice is, in fact the body of your tradition.  In this article, it would be right for you to say in a section what the teachings are regarding Sexuality and sexual misconduct for your tradition.  The point is though, that those teachings do not represent an "absolute" determination of what is right and what is wrong regarding sexual conduct, but only are opinions offered for a Buddhist to take, or not as they choose.  They certainly are not rulings or judgments, or a list of rules or sins.  (The interpretation of what is sexual misconduct is up to the lay person themselves, and no one else.)  Atom (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Also this section is problematic "Some Buddhist leaders, like the 14th Dalai Lama[16][17][18] and Chan master Hsuan Hua,[citation needed] have explicitly spoken against the act of homosexuality, which is considered harmful to the individual." One must see the context of his replies. If he is asked about the definition of sexual misconduct or how Buddhism sees this topic, he will reply according to the authoritative texts within Indo-Tibetan Buddhism. These are mainly – but not exclusively – Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakosha and Tsongkhapa’s Lam Rim Chen Mo. The Dalai Lama has expressed himself less strict in reconsidering or even redefining these explanations. It is therefore not really correct to claim that he had "explicitly spoken against the act of homosexuality" because he spoke out just how it is defined in certain texts of the Buddhist traditions. This sentence has to be revised and changed because it is inaccurate and misleading or reduces a rather complex point of view to a very simplistic pov. I added a template before the sentence to indicate this problem. To balance the section for the time being I added after the sentence:
 * Though the Dalai Lama explained "sexual misconduct" from the point of view of classical Indian texts, and as they are usually explained in indo-Tibetan Buddhism e.g. by Tsongkhapa, the Dalai Lama expressed also “the possibility of understanding these precepts in the context of time, culture and society … If homosexuality is part of accepted norms [today], it is possible that it may be acceptable … However, no single person or teacher can redefine precepts. I do not have the authority to redefine these precepts since no one can make a unilateral decision or issue a decree … Such a redefinition can only come out of sangha discussions within the various Buddhist traditions. It is not unprecedented in the history of Buddhism to redefine [moral] issues, but it has to be done on the collective level.”; and the Dalai Lama called for further research and dialogue on this topic, "and concluded by reiterating the fact that, however the notion of sexual misconduct comes to be defined, it can never be used to justify discrimination against sexual minorities."

together with a link to the lecture "Thinking through Texts: Toward a Critical Buddhist Theology of Sexuality". I will also add the link at the end of the article as further reading. 213.182.68.42 (talk) 13:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Sexuality
— Assignment last updated by Bunny322 (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)