Homosexuality
and Theravada Buddhism
by A. L. De Silva
Buddhism teaches to, and expects from, its followers a certain
level of ethical behaviour. The minimum that is required of the lay Buddhist is embodied
in what is called the Five Precepts (panca sila), the third of which relates to
sexual behaviour. Whether or not homosexuality, sexual behaviour between people of the
same sex, would be breaking the third Precept is what I would like to examine here.
Homosexuality was known in ancient India; it is explicitly mentioned in
the Vinaya (monastic discipline) and prohibited. It is not singled out for special
condemnation, but rather simply mentioned along with a wide range of other sexual
behaviour as contravening the rule that requires monks and nuns to be celibate. Sexual
behaviour, whether with a member of the same or the opposite sex, where the sexual organ
enters any of the bodily orifices (vagina, mouth or anus), is punishable by expulsion from
the monastic order. Other sexual behaviour like mutual masturbation or interfemural sex,
while considered a serious offense, does not entail expulsion but must be confessed before
the monastic community.
A type of person called a pandaka is occasionally mentioned in
the Vinaya in contexts that make it clear that such a person is some kind of sexual
non-conformist. The Vinaya also stipulates that pandakas are not allowed to be
ordained, and if, inadvertently, one has been, he is expelled. According to commentary,
this is because pandakas are "full of passions, unquenchable lust and are
dominated by the desire for sex." The word pandaka has been translated as
either hermaphrodite or eunuch, while Zwilling has recently suggested that it may simply
mean a homosexual. It is more probable that ancient Indians, like most modern Asians,
considered only the extremely effeminate, exhibitionist homosexual (the screaming queen in
popular perception) to be deviant while the less obvious homosexual was simply considered
a little more opportunistic or a little less fussy than other 'normal' males. As the
Buddha seems to have had a profound understanding of human nature and have been remarkably
free from prejudice, and as there is not evidence that homosexuals are any more libidinous
or that they have any more difficulties in maintaining celibacy than heterosexuals, it
seems unlikely that the Buddha would exclude homosexuals per se from the monastic life.
The term pandaka therefore probably does not refer to homosexuals in general but
rather to the effeminate, self-advertising and promiscuous homosexual.
The lay Buddhist is not required to be celibate, but she or he is
advised to avoid certain types of sexual behaviour. The third Precept actually says: 'Kamesu
micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami.' The word kama refers to any form
of sensual pleasure but with an emphasis on sexual pleasure and a literal translation of
the precept would be "I take the rule of training (veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami)
not to go the wrong way (micchacara) for sexual pleasure (kamesu)".
What constitutes "wrong" will not be clear until we examine the criteria that
Buddhism uses to make ethical judgments.
No one of the Buddha's discourses is devoted to systematic
philosophical inquiry into ethics such as one finds in the works of the Greek
philosophers. But it is possible to construct a criterion of right and wrong out of
material scattered in different places throughout the Pali Tipitaka, the scriptural basis
of Theravada Buddhism. The Buddha questioned many of the assumptions existing in his
society, including moral ones, and tried to develop an ethics based upon reason and
compassion rather than tradition, superstitions and taboo. Indeed, in the famous Kalama
Sutta he says that revelation (anussana), tradition (parampara), the
authority of the scriptures (pitakasampada) and one's own point of view (ditthinijjhanakkhanti)
are inadequate means of determining right and wrong.
Having questioned the conventional basis of morality, the Buddha
suggests three criteria for making moral judgments. The first is what might be called the
universalisability principle - to act towards others the way we would like them to act
towards us. In the Samyutta Nikaya he uses this principle to advise against adultery. He
says: "What sort of Dhamma practice leads to great good for oneself?... A noble
disciple should reflect like this: 'If someone were to have sexual intercourse with my
spouse I would not like it. Likewise, if I were to have sexual intercourse with another's
spouse they would not like that. For what is unpleasant to me must be unpleasant to
another, and how could I burden someone with that?' As a result of such reflection one
abstains from wrong sexual desire, encourages others to abstain from it, and speaks in
praise of such abstinence."
In the Bahitika Sutta, Ananda is asked how to distinguish between
praiseworthy and blameworthy behaviour. He answers that any behaviour which causes harm to
oneself and others could be called blameworthy while any behaviour that causes no harm
(and presumably which helps) oneself and others could be called praiseworthy. The
suggestion is, therefore, that in determining right and wrong one has to look into the
actual and possible consequences of the action in relation to the agent and those affected
by the action. The Buddha makes this same point in the Dhammapada: "The deed which
causes remorse afterwards and results in weeping and tears is ill-done. The deed which
causes no remorse afterwards and results in joy and happiness is well-done." This is
what might be called the consequential principle, that behaviour can be considered good or
bad according to the consequences or effects it has.
The third way of determining right and wrong is what might be called
the instrumental principle, that is, that behaviour can be considered right or wrong
according to whether or not it helps us to attain our goal. The ultimate goal of Buddhism
is Nirvana, a state of mental peace and purity and anything that leads one in that
direction is good. Someone once asked the Buddha how after his death it would be possible
to know what was and was not his authentic teaching and he replied: "The doctrines of
which you can say: 'These doctrines lead to letting go, giving up, stilling, calming,
higher knowledge, awakening and to Nirvana' - you can be certain that they are Dhamma,
they are discipline, they are the words of the Teacher."
This utilitarian attitude to ethics is highlighted by the fact that the
Buddha uses the term kusala to mean 'skillful' or 'appropriate' or its opposite, akusala,
when evaluating behaviour far more frequently than he uses the terms punna, 'good',
or papa, 'bad'. The other thing that is important in evaluating behaviour is
intention (cetacean). If a deed is motivated by good (based upon generosity, love
and understanding) intentions it can be considered skillful. Evaluating ethical behaviour
in Buddhism requires more than obediently following commandments, it requires that we
develop a sympathy with others, that we be aware of our thoughts, speech and actions, and
that we be clear about our goals and aspirations.
Having briefly examined the rational foundations of Buddhist ethics we
are now in a better position to understand what sort of sexual behaviour Buddhism would
consider to be wrong or unskillful and why. The Buddha specifically mentions several types
of unskillful sexual behaviour, the most common of which is adultery. This is unskillful
because it requires subterfuge and deceit, it means that solemn promises made at the time
of marriage are broken, and it amounts to a betrayal of trust. In another passage, the
Buddha says that someone practicing the third Precept "avoids intercourse with girls
still under the ward of their parents, brothers, sisters or relatives, with married women,
with female prisoners or with those already engaged to another." Girls still under
the protection of others are presumably too young to make a responsible decision about
sex, prisoners are not in a position to make a free choice, while an engaged woman has
already made a commitment to another. Although only females are mentioned here no doubt
the same would apply to males in the same position.
As homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha's
discourses (more than 20 volumes in the Pali Text Society's English translation), we can
only assume that it is meant to be evaluated in the same way that heterosexuality is. And
indeed it seems that this is why it is not specifically mentioned. In the case of the lay
man and woman where there is mutual consent, where adultery is not involved and where the
sexual act is an expression of love, respect, loyalty and warmth, it would not be breaking
the third Precept. And it is the same when the two people are of the same gender. Likewise
promiscuity, license and the disregard for the feelings of others would make a sexual act
unskillful whether it be heterosexual or homosexual. All the principles we would use to
evaluate a heterosexual relationship we would also use to evaluate a homosexual one. In
Buddhism we could say that it is not the object of one's sexual desire that determines
whether a sexual act is unskillful or not, but rather the quality of the emotions and
intentions involved.
However, the Buddha sometimes advised against certain behaviour not
because it is wrong from the point of view of ethics but because it would put one at odds
with social norms or because its is subject to legal sanctions. In these cases, the Buddha
says that refraining from such behaviour will free one from the anxiety and embarrassment
caused by social disapproval or the fear of punitive action. Homosexuality would certainly
come under this type of behaviour. In this case, the homosexual has to decide whether she
or he is going to acquiesce to what society expects or to try to change public attitudes.
In Western societies where attitudes towards sex in general have been strongly influenced
by the tribal taboos of the Old Testament and, in the New Testament, by the ideas of
highly neurotic people like St. Paul, there is a strong case for changing public
attitudes.
We will now briefly examine the various objections to homosexuality and
give Buddhist rebuttals to them. The most common Christian and Muslim objection to
homosexuality is that it is unnatural and "goes against the order of nature".
There seems to be little evidence for this. Miriam Rothschild, the eminent biologist who
played a crucial role in the fight to decriminalize homosexuality in Britain, pointed out
at the time that homosexual behaviour has been observed in almost every known species of
animal. Secondly, it could be argued that while the biological function of sex is
reproduction, most sexual activity today is not for reproduction, but for recreation and
emotional fulfillment, and that this too is a legitimate function of sex. This being so,
while homosexuality is unnatural in that it cannot leads to reproduction, it is quite
natural for the homosexual in that for her or him it provides physical and emotional
fulfillment. Indeed, for him or her, heterosexual behaviour is unnatural. Thirdly, even if
we concede that homosexuality "goes against the order of nature", we would have
to admit that so do many other types of human behaviour, including some religious
behaviour. The Roman Catholic Church has always condemned homosexuality because of its
supposed unnaturalness - but it has long idealized celibacy, which, some might argue, is
equally unnatural. Another Christian objection to homosexuality is that it is condemned in
the Bible, an argument that is meaningful to those who accept that the Bible is the
infallible word of God, but which is meaningless to the majority who do not accept this.
But while there is no doubt that the Bible condemns homosexuality, it also stipulates that
women should be socially isolated while menstruating, that parents should kill their
children if they worship any god other than the Christian God and that those who work on
the Sabbath should be executed. Few Christians today would agree with these ideas even
though they are a part of God's words, and yet they continue to condemn homosexuality
simply because it is condemned in the Bible.
One sometimes hears people say: "If homosexuality were not
illegal, many people, including the young, will become gay." 'This type of statement
reflects either a serious misunderstanding about the nature of homosexuality or perhaps a
latent homosexuality in the person who would make such a statement. It is as silly as
saying that if attempted suicide is not a criminal offense then everyone will go out and
commit suicide. Whatever the cause of homosexuality (and there is great debate on the
subject), one certainly does not 'choose' to have homoerotic feelings in the same way one
would, for example, choose to have tea instead of coffee. It is either inborn or develops
in early childhood. And it is the same with heterosexuality. Changing laws does not change
people's sexual inclinations.
Some have argued that there must be something wrong with homosexuality
because so many homosexuals are emotionally disturbed. At first there seems to be some
truth in this. In the West, at least, many homosexuals suffer from psychological problems,
abuse alcohol, and indulge in obsessive sexual behaviour. As a group, homosexuals have a
high rate of suicide. But observers have pointed out that such problems seem to be no more
pronounced amongst African and Asian homosexuals than they are in the societies in which
they live. It is very likely that homosexuals in the West are wounded more by society's
attitude to them than by their sexual proclivity, and, if they are treated the same as
everybody else, they will be the same as everybody else. Indeed, this is the strongest
argument for acceptance and understanding towards homosexuals.
Christianity grew out of and owes much to Judaism with its tradition of
fiery prophets fiercely and publicly denouncing what they considered to be moral laxity or
injustice. Jesus was very much influenced by this tradition, as have been the Christian
responses to public and private morality generally. At its best, this tradition in
Christianity to loudly denounce immorality and injustice has given the West its high
degree of social conscience. At its worst, it has meant that those who did not or could
not conform to Christian standards have been cruelly exposed and persecuted. The Buddhist
monk's role has always been very different from his Christian counterpart. His job has
been to teach the Dhamma and to act as a quiet example of how it should be lived. This,
together with Buddhism's rational approach to ethics and the high regard it has always
given to tolerance, has meant that homosexuals in Buddhist societies have been treated
very differently form how they have been in the West. In countries like China, Korea and
Japan where Buddhism was profoundly influenced by Confucianism, there have been periods
when homosexuality has been looked upon with disapproval and even been punishable under
the law. But generally the attitude has been one of tolerance. Matteo Ricci, the Jesuit
missionary who lived in China for twenty-seven years from 1583, expressed horror at the
open and tolerant attitude that the Chinese took to homosexuality and naturally enough saw
this as proof of the degeneracy of Chinese society. "That which most shows the misery
of these people is that no less than the natural lusts, they practise unnatural ones that
reverse the order of things, and this is neither forbidden by law nor thought to be
illicit nor even a cause for shame. It is spoken of in public and practiced everywhere
without there being anyone to prevent it." In Korea the ideal of the hwarang
(flower boy) was often associated with homosexuality especially during the Yi dynasty. In
Japan, a whole genre of literature (novelettes, poems and stories) on the love between
samurais and even between Buddhist monks and temple boys developed during the late
mediaeval period.
Theravada Buddhist countries like Sri Lanka and Burma had no legal
statutes against homosexuality between consenting adults until the colonial era when they
were introduced by the British. Thailand, which had no colonial experience, still has no
such laws. This had led some Western homosexuals to believe that homosexuality is quite
accepted in Buddhist countries of South and South-east Asia. This is certainly not true.
In such countries, when homosexuals are thought of at all, it is more likely to be in a
good-humored way or with a degree of pity. Certainly the loathing, fear and hatred that
the Western homosexual has so often had to endure is absent and this is due, to a very
large degree, to Buddhism's humane and tolerant influence.