tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post7549508610823661848..comments2024-03-27T23:37:20.556-07:00Comments on dhamma musings: Buddhism And Same-Sex MarriageShravasti Dhammikahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06246408068143301108noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-27129390805106196402012-04-16T03:14:42.310-07:002012-04-16T03:14:42.310-07:00Caldorian: "CSA is harmful. This consensus mi...Caldorian: "CSA is harmful. This consensus might change, pending further research. For now, however, this is the common scientific opinion and matter of law."<br /><br />CSA as "abuse" falls into the category of law which defines any contact with s.o. below the age of consent as "abuse" and therefore punishable. There is of course no naturally defined age limit, this is an individual process. <br /><br />If s.th. is actually felt as "abuse", it is harmful, but it is not harmful only because s.o. defines it as "abuse". As you know from homosexuality, it was for a long time defined by law as harmful, contrary to the actual experience of homosexuals. <br /><br />Scientific views differ from common law. The same goes for exhbitionism and other fields of sexology where the law does not follow the scientific findings. Law is decades behind research in the field of sexology.GiDohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00037285400565881820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-60124756440281316802012-04-15T08:17:18.480-07:002012-04-15T08:17:18.480-07:00[Sorry, the previous post contained an error.]
Gu...[Sorry, the previous post contained an error.]<br /><br />Gui Do:<br />Re 1): Sorry, I used pedophila in the popular sense. My bad. Of course, if we were to talk about this on a scientific level, we would have to differentiate between the diagnosis "pedophilia" and pedophilic behavior/child sexual abuse (CSA).<br /><br />Re 2): Being a PhD student in psychology (although not in clinical psych), I am actually qualified methodically to correctly interpret the meta-analysis by Rind et al. (1998). I will not comment on it here because a) I do not have time to read through 32 pages of a meta-analysis that only marginally interests me, and b) much more qualified people than I have done so already in excess. Let us just say that from a quick browsing, my main criticism is how it defines harm; just because it does not result in diagnosable pathology, it does not mean that it was not experienced as suffering.<br /><br />Anyway, my actual point is: yes, of course, we can talk about this. Within the right context (among scientists in this field) and with people who have the necessary expertise and who can correctly interpret the results of analyses like this. Science, especially the social sciences, is a messy process. (Believe me, it is my daily work.) So much depends on definitions of variables, operationalisations, appropriate statistical approaches, etc. All results are tentative and provisional; they not only have to be from a philosophical point of view (cf. Popper), but also from a purely empirical point of view. In order to find a conclusion, usually more and more specific research is needed, and results must be replicated. As an example, Rind et al. (1998) gives us a good reason to conduct a longitudinal study that tries to falsify the hypothesis that child sexual abuse causes pervasive and enduring harm. Meta-analyses help with aggregating scientific results, but bring their own methodological problems. Because science is messy and hard to interpret, we have to be cautious how how to bridge the gap between a scientific audience and the public, without falling into the trap of reductionism or distortion. (This is also one of the reasons why I tend to cringe when monks cite a 50 years old book full of case studies as scientific "evidence", or sometimes even "proof", of rebirth.) In the meantime, it's better to err on the side of caution.<br /><br />It is good and necessary if the sciences are involved in decision making processes. I welcome that! However, please be careful regarding your own epistemological beliefs; please do not follow science blindly. Logical empiricism has basic epistemological and ontological assumptions, and many actual scientists do not question or reflect on their own assumptions in the scientific research process. Empiricism does not invalidate philosophy (and ethics), even if many scientists I know would wish so...<br /><br />Again, my point being, context is relevant! The common scientific consensus at the moment is that CSA is harmful. This consensus might change, pending further research. For now, however, this is the common scientific opinion and matter of law. Opening such a can of worms (a highly controversial scientific debate) would have overextended the aims of Ven. Sujato's post in my opinion. On the other hand, regarding homosexuality and families with same-sex parents, the peer-reviewed, reputable research is much less controversial. <br /><br />I do agree with you, however, that we should constantly keep our own assumptions and biases in mind. <br /><br /><br />In the end, I think we have to agree to disagree here, and that is fine. Therefore, this will be my last post on this topic. In any case, I am looking forward to reading your planned article on your blog.Caldorianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06989909658718386418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-8182362315749724232012-04-15T07:47:38.377-07:002012-04-15T07:47:38.377-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Caldorianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06989909658718386418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-67787010553594331222012-04-15T04:46:37.148-07:002012-04-15T04:46:37.148-07:00Caldorian: "Today, we do know (from a scienti...Caldorian: "Today, we do know (from a scientific point of view) what terrible harm pedophilia or rape can cause."<br /><br />Well, here we can clearly see how your thinking works - and you are not alone with it. <br /><br />1) You list a "philia" (meaning love, not to be mixed up with the term "(pedo)sexuality") next to rape. So your view is biased already, and rhetoric. <br /><br />2) You do not know the facts, the biggest research on the topic of intergenerational sex (note: NOT just "philia") was done by Rind, Bauserman, a meta-analysis, including many studies on the topic. The outcome was so surprising that the US-senate couldn't live with it and intervened. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy<br />At least it can be debated. As with discussions about Buddhist and other secular topics it comes to the point that we have different viewpoints without an absolute right or wrong, of course. <br /><br />What I wanted to point out simply is that Sujato falls into the same mind trap. He is projecting the (rather opportunistic and much welcome) view on pedophilia back on the Shakyamuni - which is of course wrong. <br /><br />"We also know that adultery is usually experienced as a big breach of trust, depending on the individual couple, of course."<br /><br />This is also wrong. According to a research by Prof. Habermehl (called "Playboy report" in Germany) about 50 % of those who had extramarital affairs said that it did not damage their marriages. With s.th. that has a chance to work 50:50, one has a reasonable argument to look into its wholesome potential instead of radically and dogmatically denying that 50 %.<br /><br />You suggest that I try to make s.th. out of Sujato's post that is not justified. But I tell everyone that in respect of sexual matters you should rather not trust the advice of s.o. who is supposed to avoid sex at all. You should instead ask researchers and specialists on those topics. This is in accord with the dhamma because it helps to destroy illusions. As I said, I might talk about an extramarital affair myself in my blog soon to make the point. Me having that affair brought the woman her husband back(who himself had an extramarital affair at that time) - probably out of greed/jealousy, but whatever, she is happy now, as are her five children, and me too because I did not attach.GiDohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00037285400565881820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-10744890601586558632012-04-11T22:06:02.146-07:002012-04-11T22:06:02.146-07:00We talk of the spirit of the teaching:
What is the...We talk of the spirit of the teaching:<br />What is the nirvana of the Buddha?<br />We know it is both subtle and most profound.<br />It is the loss of individuality.<br />Constantly being preoccupied with the senses and pleasure and what's best for this here individual is not the path of sages or the Buddha.j dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11132872831065085838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-85267845854434716852012-04-11T13:08:44.947-07:002012-04-11T13:08:44.947-07:00The Buddha knew, of course, that sexual gratificat...The Buddha knew, of course, that sexual gratification in general is part of the bigger problem (Dukkha and its causes) and thus completely abstained from sexuality. <br /><br />This is also the reason why we have to disentagle ethical questions for laity and for monastics. Monastics have much stricter rules, which (as I mentioned before) can be explained by teleological arguments: what is the purpose of a Buddhist monastic community? To enable people to liberate themselves from Dukkha. Everything that is conductive for this purpose is therefore allowed or supported, while everything that is not conductive or even harmful for this purpose is forbidden or discouraged. Since monastics live in communities, and these communities are dependent on the laity's support, there are also some rules that were instituted solely to make living together easier or rules that are socially motivated in order to increase the laity's acceptance and support. <br /><br />As a last point, I want to stress that the Dhamma, while without question representing eternal truths, is always presented in a way reflective of the culture that it is presented in. This, in turn, means that the Sangha has the responsibility to respond to a given culture and its challenges. Just as the Dhamma was refined in response to challenges by non-Buddhist philosophers in ancient India, we are responsible to make the Dhamma meaningful in a worldly society that has a multitude of ethical lines of arguments, has a multitude of laws that are influenced by customs and the ethical approaches of other religious traditions, and so on. We have to step up and apply the Dhamma to today's problems and questions, certainly strongly informed by the traditional interpretation, but also informed by newer philosophical considerations and scientific findings. Why? Because, in the end, we want to live in a society that allows the Dhamma to thrive and to be practiced, and that serves for the benefit of the largest possible number of people. That said, we also shouldn't forget that, from a perspective of reality as it is, these are all meaningless concepts based on our wrong view. <br /><br />So applicable ethical princples and precepts will always be based on our conventional reality. These ethical questions change dramatically in significance and meaning when viewed from a perspective of ultimate reality. We should keep that in mind lest we conflate these perspectives in our argumentation. <br /><br />In the end, I am still convinced that you completely missed the intentions (and audience) of Ven. Sujato's post and are trying to make his post into something that it was not supposed to be in the first place. At the same time, I remain sceptical about your intentions; if Ven. Sujato's post is able to convince people to be less harmful and prejudiced to others, why would you want to object to that? (Even if it is not comprehensive or a hundred percent accurate. It remains in the spirit of the teachings.) What good does it serve to devalue the post? Just to show that you know more or are more right by the letter? Seriously, regardless how it plays out, it does not reflect well on you.Caldorianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06989909658718386418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-3494328687546614692012-04-11T13:06:49.851-07:002012-04-11T13:06:49.851-07:00[Due to length restrictions, I had to split my res...[Due to length restrictions, I had to split my response into two parts. Sorry!]<br /><br />Gui Do: I am honestly sorry if I misunderstand you... are you seriously criticizing that Ven. Sujato does not advocate child marriages and pedophilia?! (I really hope not.) In any case, in the following, I will give your post(s) the most positive reading I can think of, that is, that you are criticizing that Ven. Sujato is selective in what is considered ethical based (partly) on his modern outlook. <br /><br />First of all, there is no doubt, whatsoever, that the precepts will always be interpreted based on contemporary cultural assumptions. You just cannot prevent it, as we are conditioned by the culture we are living in. So it is obvious to me that cultural norms will always play some role in any actual ethical decision making. <br /><br />However, there are also certain strict underlying principles as stated, for instance, in the Bāhitika Sutta (MN 88), the Kālāma Sutta (AN 3.65), or the Bālavaggo (Dhp). These principles basically boil down to "do not cause harm to others or yourself". From this, it would seem that Buddhist ethics are strongly consequentialist, but I do not think that it is so easy. Since intentions are essentially responsible for Kamma formation, Buddhism seems closer to virtue ethics with strong consequentalist leanings. In any case, the Pāli Canon gives us specific principles that allow us Buddhists to make ethical arguments. <br /><br />Anyway. Today, we do know (from a scientific point of view) what terrible harm pedophilia or rape can cause. We also know that adultery is usually experienced as a big breach of trust, depending on the individual couple, of course. Based on that, we can say that they are unwholesome, as they cause harm (and are motivated by delusion and greed anyway). <br /><br />Now, you could point out that the Buddha was selective in what he named as unwholesome and what not (e.g., based on cultural norms). So: if Ven. Sujato is arguing that there is no passage of the Buddha condemning homosexuality, this argument could also be used as support for child marriage and pedophilia, since the Buddha did not mention them as unwholesome explicitly either. Maybe this line of reasoning even caused people to have sexual relations with children, while feeling justified by their reading of the Pāli Canon. HOWEVER, this line of argument completely ignores that there is still the underlying principle of non-harm, which by now we know these acts definitely violate.Caldorianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06989909658718386418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-51699595523119162222012-04-10T13:07:01.167-07:002012-04-10T13:07:01.167-07:00Caldorian: "Ven. Sujato's post clearly fa...Caldorian: "Ven. Sujato's post clearly falls into the second category". I don't think so. He is helping one sexual minority (the bigger one) while condemning another (smaller) one. This is not very useful, it is rather opportunistic. And because he is referring to the canon and Buddha's lifetime, he himself mixes things up.GiDohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00037285400565881820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-2981937962946251142012-04-09T12:21:02.779-07:002012-04-09T12:21:02.779-07:00Gui Do: Ah, so you are basically pointing out hist...Gui Do: Ah, so you are basically pointing out historical and scriptural inconsistencies or inaccuracies in his post. (I honestly didn't know how to read your previous post.) I can get behind that. However...<br /><br />We have to disentangle two things here: first, there is the question of historical Buddhism and how Buddhist teachings were understood and applied in their native culture. Second, there are today's issues, and how the Buddhist teachings are applied with regard to these issues. You'll agree that these are two very different questions, and based on these, we would expect different groups of people to have useful answers (i.e., scholars vs. monks, respectively). I feel a disconnect in your post because, from my perspective, Ven. Sujato's post clearly falls into the second category while you seem to interpret it as belonging to the first category. <br /><br />Ven. Sujato is trying to make a topical statement about why there is good reason, based on Buddhist ethical decision making, why same-sex marriage should be supported. Since there are a lot of irrational arguments against same-sex marriage, he argues both from a general Buddhist ethical framework and a scriptural perspective (in order to counter arguments based on scripture). With regard to the scriptural perspective, whether completely accurate or not, we shouldn't forget one of the main points of his post: an argument from scripture is never a good point to make if it results in the exclusion and suffering of a whole group of people. So, whether his scriptural argumentation is a hundred percent accurate misses the larger point! The larger point being that there is nothing harmful or unwholesome about consensual homosexual acts or relationships (whatever form they may take), nor about a society's legal and spiritual acknowledgement of such relationships. <br /><br />Maybe Ven. Sujato paints the historical Buddha anachronistically as a modern thinker. Were that the case, then he would be a bad historical scholar indeed; however, by applying the essence of the Dhamma to today's issue, he is also a skillful monk. <br /><br />My impression is that you fight hard to make the Dhamma relevant to our everyday lives, for instance, by dismantling non-sensical "feel good" phrases and empty and reductionist doctrine. I appreciate that, I really do. I was also really glad when you relentlessly tackled the issues at the Pagode Phat Hue in Frankfurt. I just feel that Ven. Sujato's post, when understood as a message both to prejudiced Buddhists and a general non-Buddhist audience, is exactly doing its job and should be lauded for that. <br /><br />Do you understand my point?Caldorianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06989909658718386418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-59567883228355069962012-04-09T09:57:44.347-07:002012-04-09T09:57:44.347-07:00Caldorian: Shakyamuni first spoke, rather conserva...Caldorian: Shakyamuni first spoke, rather conservatively, of the protection of sanctioned relationships like marriages (thus undermining the complexity of them, I will give an example later this month in my own blog showing you how "effective" it can be to interfere with the marriage of others). In the way he did it, it cannot be uphold by the findings within sexology. There are, for example, couples who spiced up their lifes through breaking this precept. It is not that black and white for all of us.<br /><br />Secondly, when Sujato used the term "paedophilia", I got suspicious. He neither quoted the respective passages nor was he thinking of the long tradition of child marriages in India that was, to my knowledge, (mostly) ended with the influence of colonialism and reformers like Ghandi etc. Thus I suspect that Sujato wants to paint the Buddha as a kind of modern thinker whereas I believe he may have just supported some common ideas of his time, and that was the acceptance of things that are widely untolerated now (as child marriages) and widely accepted now (as homosexuality). About the first point, Sujato does of course not dare to speak.<br /><br />On the contrary I believe that the Vinaya was from the beginning not hindering both - homosexuality and homosexuality or at least homophilia beween adults and boys (pederasty). I have personally seen young boys sleeping next to older monks (with bodily contact) when roaming through Theravada temples in the daytime. When it is true that the Pandaka does NOT mean the homosexual per se, than it is obvious that monkhood can be an invitation for homosexuals. I think I pointed that out earlier somewhere, there should be research on that topic, and I bet that the rate of homosexuals in monkhood is higher than in laity.GiDohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00037285400565881820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-5975669746826120642012-04-09T04:54:45.981-07:002012-04-09T04:54:45.981-07:00I think gui do is trying to say there is no basis ...I think gui do is trying to say there is no basis from the records in the palicanon that clearly clears or affirms if society at that time was aware of the label we now term "homosexual" and that somehow undermines ven. Sujato's points in the essay. However I fail to see this. The message of the essay seems echo that the buddha taught the dhamma in such a way that we won't have much to cling to and miss the point entirely.<br />Which beings are said to be incapable of enlightenment? What does a label define? Mother, husband, grand nephew, doctor, maid, politician, rival, benefactor, friend, straight, brother, gay.<br /><br />Do we not put these labels aside when we immerse ourselves in working, playing, do spiritual practice, eat, sleep, breathe, sincerely engage another?Soe am ihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869851945241376624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-34446589222790996222012-04-09T03:14:52.199-07:002012-04-09T03:14:52.199-07:00What exactly is your point, Gui Do?
For one, even...What exactly is your point, Gui Do?<br /><br />For one, even if Ven. Sujato is projecting today's conceptualisations of sexuality on the scriptures, so are you by clinging to the idea that the pandaka was "obviously an effeminated homosexual". As far as I know, there is not clear consensus on who the pandakas were exactly.<br /><br />In addition, the precepts and how the Dhamma is always embedded in the language and culture of the times. It has to be, if it is to remain significant and meaningful to people. There seems to be no question that the precepts were always formulated in a way that specifically allowed for cultural appropriation. Don't forget that the precepts aren't holy law by some divine entity, they are behavioural guidelines for a spiritually productive life and a harmonious society. <br /><br />Finally and most importantly, again, what exactly is your point? Do you want to hear, "the Buddha spoke against homosexuality"? He didn't, at least not specifically. And even if he did, what good would it do to constantly point it out? In a wider context, this would only act against the whole rest of his teachings. <br /><br />With regard to the Vinaya Pitaka, this part of the canon is about the monastic life. Let's say there was actually a ban on gay people from ordination (I'm not sure there is, but I don't know enought about the Vinaya); it simply makes sense from a teleological perspective: monastics are supposed to remove themselves from sensual "temptations". How would you do this if you are a gay monk? If you join the monk community, you'll be around your preferred gender all the time. If you'd go into the community of the different gender (e.g., a gay monk among nuns), it still wouldn't work, as the straight nuns might feel attraction to the man. Now, of course, people are not slaves to their desires and maybe that is an unnecessary precaution, but at least I can see the point. <br /><br />I don't know whether you are personally involved in this issue (from reading your blog, I don't think so), but I am. I'm gay; I am not allowed to marry here in Germany for some arbitrary reason. Ven. Sujato's post was well-articulated, inclusive, and helpful, as far as I'm concerned. It made some good points and gave a good overview over the topic of why Buddhists should support marriage equality. Please explain what you want to achieve by contesting Ven. Sujato's post?Caldorianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06989909658718386418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-22187510928468721102012-04-08T07:15:50.630-07:002012-04-08T07:15:50.630-07:00This essay is not well-informed at all. When talki...This essay is not well-informed at all. When talking about sexuality, one should get some information from sexology, the science that deals with it. How could the Buddha for example know of any difference between "paedophilia" (which was rather socially accepted around the globe at his time) and "homosexuality" (which was sometimes even the same, not yet differentiated, when an educational aspect of homosexuality directed at male children)? So it is Sujato projecting his definitions on the palicanon. Females in India were often - legally - married as children (according to our current definition of childhood) during Shakyamuni's lifetime, so obviously that would be considered "paedophilia" today, but it wasn't in older times. <br /><br />When women are mentioned, it is of course clear that this was a matter of a power game - controlling their integrity and virginity or the "possession" of the male (husband). You can thus not abstract that any rules for women were meant for men, too. On the contrary, there were no words for it, and thus we cannot find them. On the other hand, if we look at the common laws at Buddha's time that he wished to be respected, we might of course abstract an argument like Sujato's.<br /><br />Sujato is wearing a robe. (Practiced) Homosexuality is prohibited for monks in the Vinaya. One might believe that only goes for monks. But the Pandaka, obviously an effeminated homosexual, is not allowed to ordain. So at least there were some differentiated classes or "castes" of homosexuals, according to the authors of the palicanon.GiDohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00037285400565881820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-2658528849427905982012-04-07T00:48:27.895-07:002012-04-07T00:48:27.895-07:00Bhante, thank you for sharing this.Bhante, thank you for sharing this.Soe am ihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869851945241376624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-62126954921075433582012-04-03T08:22:03.644-07:002012-04-03T08:22:03.644-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Affiliate Marketing Singaporehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12262588935530322967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-32154498955297852882012-04-03T08:21:43.120-07:002012-04-03T08:21:43.120-07:00But in the article, it states very clearly "t...But in the article, it states very clearly "the Dalai Lama has repeatedly maintained that homosexual acts are a violation against the precepts". Whether we would like to believe this monk, or the Dalai Lama (His holiness)'s view is truly up to the individual who has researched well enough on this topic.Affiliate Marketing Singaporehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12262588935530322967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-67706215900099824732012-04-02T00:37:51.285-07:002012-04-02T00:37:51.285-07:00Read this on Ven. Sujato's blog and again here...Read this on Ven. Sujato's blog and again here -- couldn't agree more!Ken and Visakhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16713910044241151429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-34317404129265767182012-04-01T20:51:52.278-07:002012-04-01T20:51:52.278-07:00The Dalai Lama has repeatedly maintained a positio...The Dalai Lama has repeatedly maintained a position of courage when he has to speak out and compassion through difficult times.j dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11132872831065085838noreply@blogger.com