Journey To Jambi

One of the places I visited during my recent teaching tour of Indonesia was Jambi in north-east Sumatra. The ruins of the ancient city, the capital of the Srijiviya Empire, are about 30 kilometers from the modern town of the same name and are located in relatively thick jungle. The ruins of some 80 temples, monasteries, shrines and palaces are strung out for about 8 kilometers along the north bank of the Batanghari River. When we arrived at Candi Tinggi, the largest temple at Jambi, we met a group of archaeologists who very kindly showed us around, explained things for us and answered our questions. The small museum on the site houses all the antiquities found in the area. The most important of these is a fragmentary image of Prajnaparamita very similar to the famous Candi Singasari Parjnaparamita now in Jakarta’s National Museum, although it is slightly less finely carved. We took motorcycles along jungle tracks to look at the most significant ruins. The famous Chinese pilgrim I-tsing visited Sumatra twice, for six months on his way to India in 673 and for four years on his return journey. He almost certainly stayed at Jambi and wrote his famous Nanhai-jigui-neifa-zhyan while there. This fascinating book is an account of monastic practice in India and Java/Sumatra. I-tsing recommended to Chinese monks going to India that they should stop in Sumatra for a while to learn Sanskrit and monastic etiquette in order to prepare for their arrival in India. Asita, one of the pivotal characters in the establishment of Buddhism in Tibet had spent some years in Sumatra, again probably at Jambi, studying logic with the famous Dharmakirti.

Picture Of The Month

Of course I’m not an expert in these things, but I would swear that the one second from the left has had a face lift.

Now we have the Summer Olympics, the Winter Olympics, the Paralympics, the Youth Olympics and the Gay Olympics. I think what we really need now is an Articulation Olympics judging by some of the pronouncements made during the current Games.

1. Paul Hamm, gymnast: ‘I owe a lot to my parents, especially my mother and father.’

2. Boxing analyst: ‘Sure there have been injuries and even some deaths in boxing, but none of them really that serious.’

3. Softball announcer: ‘If history repeats itself, I should think we can expect the same thing again.’

4. Basketball analyst: ‘He dribbles a lot and the opposition doesn’t like it. In fact you can see it all over their faces.’

5. Tennis commentator: ‘One of the reasons Andy is playing so well is that, before the final round, his wife takes out his balls and kisses them...Oh my God, what have I just said?’

Birth Control

Birth control is the practice of preventing birth from taking place. There are two ways this can be done - by preventing conception from happening or by destroying the foetus at some stage before it is born; i.e. abortion (gabbhapatana). Buddhism teaches that life begins at or shortly after conception and thus considers abortion to be a type of killing (M.I,265). To prevent conception from happening, either by using condoms, contraceptive pills, cervical devices or spermicides does not involve killing and is thus morally neutral. The ancient Indians practised douching to prevent conception and also made condoms out of animals' intestines.

That pretty much does it as far as sex and Dhamma is concerned. If there is any other aspects of the subject that you would like discussed please let me know and if I think I can say anything meaningful about it I will. From the 1st of next month I will discuss the positive emotions from the Buddhist perspective.

Masturbation

Masturbation (sukkavisatthi) is the act of stimulating one’s own sexual organs to the stage of orgasm. At the time of the Kama Sutra, male masturbation was referred to as ‘seizing the lion’ (simhakranta). Interestingly, some people during the Buddha’s time believed that masturbation could have a therapeutic effect on the mind and the body (Vin.III,109), although the Buddha strongly disagreed with this. The Parajaka section of the Vinaya gives rather graphic descriptions of different ways males masturbated and also mentions a nun using a device called a matthaka, probably a dildo (Vin.IV,261). In the Kama Sutra dildos are called sahayya.
According to the Vinaya, it is an offence of some seriousness for monks or nuns to masturbate (Vin.III,111) although the Buddha gave no guidance on this matter to lay people. However, I Buddhism could agree with contemporary medical opinion that masturbation is a normal expression of the sexual drive and is physically harmless and psychologically harmless as long as it does not become a preoccupation or a substitute for ordinary sexual relations. Guilt and self-disgust about masturbating is certainly more harmful than masturbation itself.

I had tried to find a picture for yesterday’s posting on pornography but had difficulties locating an image that was appropriate for the theme and yet not offensive. I settled on the pictures of some old Man and Adam magazines ( they did a great service in the 60’s in introducing numerous young Australian males including myself to the mysteries of sex although in the most tame and innocuous way I might add). Having finished my posting I happened to find this hilarious picture. I couldn’t use it yesterday so I’m sharing it with you today.

Pornography

Pornography is media meant to arouse sexual feeling. Unlike erotica, pornography is devoid of subtlety and artistic content and is usually perceived as obscene. Whether reading or looking at pornography would amount to breaking the third Precept would require us to first consider what effect it has on ourselves.

While the Buddha accepted that it is ligitimate for lay people to ‘indulge in and enjoy the pleasures of the senses’ (A.IV,280), he also reminded us that sense pleasures are ‘impermanent, hollow, false, deceptive, illusory, the prattle of fools’ (M.II,261). He further pointed out that sensual desire (kama raga) is a hindrance to mental calm and clarity which ‘overspreads the mind and weakens wisdom’ (A.III,63). Next, we need to think of the effect of pornography on others, as most pornography today consists of images of people. As in the case of prostitution, some of these people may work as ‘models’ because it is an easy source of income, whereas others are compelled to do it because of poverty or social deprivation. Thus, looking at such material may associate one with the exploitation of others and therefore be against the first and third Precepts. Perhaps another factor should be taken into account as well - the so-called Golden Rule. One should ask oneself; ‘How would I feel if I were to see one of my children, one of my siblings or one of my friends in a pornographic magazine of film?’

Homosexuality

Homosexuality is the tendency to be sexually attracted to persons of the same rather than the opposite gender. According to the ancient Indian understanding, homosexuals were thought of simply as being ‘the third nature’ (trtiya prakti), rather than as perverted, deviant or sick. With its emphasis on psychology and cause and effect, Buddhism judges acts, including sexual acts, primarily by the intention (cetana) behind them and the effect they have. A sexual act motivated by love, mutuality and the desire to give and share would be judged positive no matter what the gender of the two persons involved. Therefore, homosexuality as such is not considered immoral in Buddhism or against the third Precept, although this is not always understood in traditional Buddhist countries. If a homosexual avoids the sensuality and licence of the so-called ‘gay scene’ and enters into a loving relationship with another person, there is no reason why he or she cannot be a sincere practising Buddhist and enjoy all the blessings of the Buddhist life.
None of the legal codes of traditional Buddhist countries criminalized homosexuality per se, although of course there were penalties against homosexual rape and homosexual acts with minors just as there were for similar offences committed by heterosexuals. In most Buddhist countries today, homosexuality is usually considered strange and laughable although not wicked or evil. Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Mongolia, Japan and South Korea have no laws against homosexuality between consenting adults. Homosexuality is illegal in Burma and Sri Lanka mainly because their legal codes were in part drawn up during the colonial era. Recently in Sri Lanka, the penalty for homosexuality was increased in an ill-considered response to the growing problem of sex tourism in the country.
The Dalai Lama and Homosexuality
At a press conference in 1997 the Dalai Lama said; ‘From a Buddhist point of view (lesbian and gay sex)...is generally considered sexual misconduct.’ He very soon found that he had stumbled into a pink minefield when some Western Buddhists, a significant number of who are gay, loudly expressed their outrage. Together with promoting the Dhamma, the Dalai Lama’s main purpose in touring the West is to win support for his cause, and to this end he defiantly does NOT want to alienate anyone. As soon as he realized what he had done he immediately back-peddled. He called a meeting with gay and lesbian representatives, during which he expressed the ‘willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context’. Dawa Tsering, spokesperson for the Office of Tibet released a suitably politically correct and safe statement; ‘His Holiness opposes violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation. He urges respect, tolerance, compassion and the full recognition of human rights for all.’ Ruffled feathers were smoothed, gay Western Tibetan Buddhists left convinced that the Dalai Lama approved of their sexual orientation and the Dalai Lama continued believing that homosexuality is wrong - only now making a careful note never to say so again in public.
The truth is that while the Dalai Lama is one of the kindest people imaginable, he is also a very traditional Tibetan in many ways – and traditional Tibetan culture, like most cultures, has very skewed and confused ideas about homosexuality. Tibetan Buddhism does not derive its ideas about homosexuality from the earliest teachings of the Buddha but from Mahayana sutras and sastras, the earliest of which dates from approximately 500 year after the Buddha. By this time Indian Buddhists were being influenced by various popular Indian notions and incorporating them into their understanding of the Dhamma; sometimes with not very happy results. One such notion was the idea that sexual acts could be judged right or wrong depending on ‘place, person and orifice.’ Thus having sex anywhere near a temple or stupa was a wrong place, with anyone other than one’s spouse was a wrong person and anywhere other than the vagina was a wrong orifice. To be frank, this is a rather good example of the numbering, sub-dividing, categorizing mentality that became dominant in Buddhist clerical thinking. I do not know when this strange idea evolved but I think the earliest mention of it that I know of is in the Ugrapariprccha (or maybe it is the Upasakashila Sutra) which may date from about the 2nd century CE. And it doesn’t take much sense to see how unfounded it is from the Buddha’s point of view. Exactly how does the law of kamma distinguish one orifice from another? Other problems arise when we realize that many male homosexuals practice intercural sex and mutual masturbation rather than penetrative sex. And exactly which sexual organ do lesbians use to penetrate the vagina of their partner? The Dalai Lama is also reported to have said that he had difficulty imagining the mechanics of homosexual sex, saying that nature had arranged male and female organs ‘in such a manner that is very suitable…Same-sex organs cannot manage well.’ With all due respect to the Dalai Lama, and I do have the highest respect for him, this statement shows both his ignorance and naivety concerning sex, and I might add, of some aspects of the Dhamma as well. What on earth have Buddhist ethical judgments got to do with two body-parts fitting together ‘properly’ or not? I often clean my ear with my finger despite it not fitting into my ear canal very well. Does mean I make negative kamma every time I clean my ear? Also, the old argument ‘It’s unnatural’ is both unsound and irreverent as far as the Dhamma is concerned. If homosexuality is ‘unnatural’ then celibacy is more so and all Gelupa monks are breaking the fifth Precept by abstaining from sex. The Buddha’s criteria of right and wrong is not based on ideas of ‘natural’ or ‘unnatural’ which are usually social constructions, but on the intention behind the act. I am sorry to say that the Dalai Lama’s ideas about homosexuality are on a par with his (and other Tibetans’) belief that turning a prayer wheels will ‘pray’ for you, that the Tibetan state oracle gets messages from gods, that seeing the Karmapa’s black hat will get you enlightenment within seven lifetimes and in the existence of wrathful deities like Dorje Shukden. In short, it is medieval.

The two most sensible things on the issue of homosexuality and Dhamma I have found on the internet are Homosexuality and Theravada Buddhism by A. L. De Silva at http://www.buddhanet.net/ and Kerry Trembath’s Buddhism and Homosexuality at http://www.yawningbread.org/guest_1997/guw-010.htm. And if you would like to know what some Tibetans other than the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan monastic hierarchy think about homosexuality, have a look at gaytibet.blogspot.com. This website and particularly its posting on the rapping rimpoche would have to be the last nail in Shangri La’s coffin.

Prostitution

Prostitution is the selling of one’s body for sexual purposes. Today as in ancient India, people considered prostitution to be ‘the lowest type of livelihood’ (antimajivaka, Mil.122). Because it involves sex and the exchange of money, prostitution pertains to the third Precept and also to the Buddha’s teachings of Right Livelihood (samma ajiva). The issue of prostitution has to be looked at taking into account the prostitute and the customer. Roughly speaking, we can say that there are two types of prostitutes: (1) those forced into prostitution by poverty or social deprivation and (2) those who choose to do it because they feel it is a convenient and easy way to make money. This first type of prostitute is called a harlot (vesiya) or a streetwalker (bandhakã) in the Buddhist scriptures while the second type is called a courtesan (ganika or nagarasobhini). The intention of the first is probably just to survive and is therefore kammically far less negative than the second whose motive might be greed, laziness or lack of self-respect. The first is not willingly involved in wrong livelihood while the second clearly is.
Now what of the customer? Customers of the first type of prostitute are definitely breaking both the first and third Precepts because they are sexually exploiting another person, taking advantage of their dire circumstances. The customers of the second type may not be breaking the third Precept, but they are hardly involving themselves in an activity likely to benefit themselves spiritually. Generally speaking, prostitution is a sordid and unedifying affair and sincere Buddhists would not involve themselves in it.
One of the Buddha’s supporters was a woman named Ambapali who was a wealthy courtesan of Vesali and who later gave up her trade to become a nun (D.II,95). In the scriptures we read of prostitutes charging 500 or even a 1000 coins a night for their company (Vin.I,268-9).