Talk:Buddhism and sexual orientation

message: This is listed as the fourth source yet I can't find a transcript of this. Is there any way of verifying sources like these posted as books without looks? It's important I think for people to be able to locate the source and check exactly what it says. It might be alternately spelled Pandaka Vatthu. I did find something mentioning it on Google Books but it seems to be almost verbatim, which makes me worry if it is too close? If someone could find a website which explains "the Pandakavatthu section of the Mahavagga. 1:61, 68, 69" it would be valuable. If we could provide links in the references, that would be great. The article here on Mahavagga links to AtI.org as a reference, yet the word 'Pandakavatthu' is not one I can find there. The latter two have similar-ending names "Kucchivikara-vatthu (The Monk with Dysentery)" and "Dighavu-kumara Vatthu (The Story of Prince Dighavu)". Since vatthu lacks an article I can only guess at it's meaning (monk, prince?) and I'm similarly mystified as to what Pandaka would refer to. If we are going to be citing oddly-named texts in explaining Buddhism, a link is essential, not everyone compiling and verifying information on it can be expected to be familiar with the existance (or nonexistance) of works like these. Tyciol (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A paṇḍaka got ordained as a monk. [Meaning, he looks like a male.] Later, he approached some young monks and asked them to defile him. [Meaning, he's sexually attracted to males.] They shooed him away, referring to him as a “paṇḍaka”. Then he approached some large novice monks (less than 20) and asked them to defile him. They too shooed him away, referring to him as a “paṇḍaka”. Then he approached some wranglers and mahouts and requested the same. They obliged, then spread it about, “These Sakyan-son monks are paṇḍakas. And those among them who are not paṇḍakas defile paṇḍakas. They are all not divine-practitioners (celibates).” Mahavagga 109.
From the above, it's obvious that he is gay, besides one who can't adhere to celibacy.
Elsewhere, there's a reference to a female paṇḍaka (itthipaṇḍaka) with little context to draw from. Nonetheless, paired with the above, this seems to refer to “lesbian”.
The above should be classified as manussapaṇḍaka (human paṇḍaka), which is contrasted with amanussapaṇḍaka ('unhuman' paṇḍaka), and tiracchānagatapaṇḍaka (animal paṇḍaka). I swear I've seen 2 male dogs engaging in a sexual act!
JamesWangi (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Pandakavatthu?

message: I strongly questioned the credibility of the sources. I am pretty familiar with Buddhist canons. None of them even mentions homosexuality. Since the source says it's a sin which is to be punished in one of the hells. Which canon is he source referring to? It's pointless to quote some second handed source if the original canons are available.Tricia Takanawa (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the author forced his own belief upon his interpretation of Chinese tradition.Tricia Takanawa (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually a sin punished by hell doesn't sound buddhist at all. It sounds more like something found in one of the Abrahamic religions. Misinterpretations of buddhist concepts is quiet commen, so lets guess thats the case. Just delete it. Siru108 (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Pali Canon is full of sins punished in hell, & I'm sure this applies to other canons too. The difference is that Buddhist hells are temporary. Homosexuality isn't mentioned in the Pali Canon, except in the Vinaya, unless we accept the commentary's interpretation of an obscure term. Peter jackson (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I was using the terms loosely. Behaviour that results in rebirth in hell. Peter jackson (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  about in Chinese Buddhism 

message: There are no page numbers, and I find the analysis to paint the picture with too broad a brush. Can anyone explain just what she says? Mitsube (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In particular what is "the developing Vinaya tradition"? I have removed the Gyatso material until it can be explicated. Mitsube (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gyatso source 

message: Early Buddhist texts do not define what is right and what is wrong in absolute terms for lay followers and so the determination of whether or not homosexuality is acceptable for a layperson is not a religious matter. 
This line is just not true and needs rebuilding.  Follow my logic:
*Sexual Misconduct is explicitly mentioned as a hindrance to wisdom and is a religious matter.
*Homosexuality is a sexual conduct
*Does homosexuality fall into acceptable conduct or misconduct?
*Discussions of Sexual Misconduct are a religious matter.
*Discussions of homosexuality as classifying as not sexual misconduct is a religious matter.
At least for many Temples Lay people and Sangha the discussion would be a religious matter.  The article needs views from published and notable secondary and primary sources and the lead-in paragraphs need to summarize what the rest of the article has to say.  Alatari (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Homosexual sex is a sexual conduct.  Homosexual orientation that is unexpressed is obviously not sexual conduct because no sex is had. But there are Sangha in traditions that express opinions about homosexual behavior. Alatari (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

text: This needs to be sourced.  A Buddhist scholar needs to make the statement.  We can not make this statement. Alatari (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

text: This needs a source.  Not our personal opinions. Because of AIDs there are Thai monks with positions dead set against homosexual behavior.  That is a group of Sangha making it a religious matter.  Alatari (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that there are people (some of whom are Monks) concerned about AIDS and some of them have personal opinions regarding homosexuality does not make it a religious matter.  Buddhism does not judge.  Each Buddhist is responsible for judging their own behavior.  Opinions of others in a Sangha are teaching and guidance only, and are not binding on a layperson.  Atom (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For someone coming from other religious backrounds this is odd tasting.  How can I source the lack of catechism in Buddhism in this context? Alatari (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

text: This needs a source. I and others have provided Theravadan sources with very specific definitions about what is misconduct.  Saying that early text have no specific definitions is untrue.  The Tens are some of the earliest written suttas of Buddhism. Alatari (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Unless the statement can be taken from the mouth of a religious scholar it is unacceptable statement.  Alatari (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure all Buddhism is like this.   Dalai Lama is a central authority and his statements carry great weight.  A member can be asked never to show their face at the temple again.  Eating meat at the table that the Sangha presides at is enough to have you asked to leave.   Sangha can and do modify lay people's behaviors.  There is always some central authority even if it comes down to publications and maintaining the integrity of the published works.  Alatari (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

text: The opinion of the Dalai Lama (as much as I respect him) does not make it a religious matter.  He is a teacher, and he offers his guidance.  He is not a judge, and his opinion does not prohibit a layperson from that  behavior, or from continuing to be a Buddhist, or from finding enlightenment.  He has said elsewhere "If someone comes to me and asks whether homosexuality is okay or not, I will ask 'What is your companion's opinion?'. If you both agree, then I think I would say 'if two males or two females voluntarily agree to have mutual satisfaction without further implication of harming others, then it is okay'".OUT Magazine February/March 1994  Again, our teacher offering his opinion.  Not a judge enforcing a law.  Atom (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We will not be able to agree on this point.  If he believes the behaviors are a hindrance and hindrances prevent enlightenment (the goal of this religion) then these behaviors become a religious matter.  All behaviors that are hindrances to enlightenment become religious matters.  Alatari (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

text: The Tens description that sexual misconduct includes sleeping with a woman under the care of her mother, father, etc. is precise about what is misconduct.  I don't see references to homosexuality in the Tens but the sentence we are discussing is repeated in three articles on Religion and Sexuality, here and Sexuality and Buddhism so what we decide here will radiate to those spots.  Of course that is Theravada tradition.  What you mean by 'Fundamental Buddhism' (Buddhism in it's fundamental form) and then how the other major traditions differs are what I see past disputes over this phrasing.  Alatari (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Input into rebuilding a section of the lead 

message: The opening sentence of this article reads: Asian societies shaped by Buddhist traditions take a strong ethical stand in human affairs and sexual behavior in particular. Yet, Cambodia, Burma, Vietnam, Thailand and India have the worst incidence of child prostitution in the world. Official United Nations statistics state that one third of prostitutes in these countries are children. In Thailand and India the figure is as high as 40%. Furthermore, according to UNODC Thailand and Japan are home to some of the worst forms of modern-day sex slavery in the world in which thousands of young women are forced to be prostitutes against their will. I bring these facts up to highlight the fact that the first sentence constitutes weasel words which should not be used in Wikipedia articles.
The second sentence of the opening reads: 'However, the Buddha himself did not speak negatively of homosexual relations, as one do [sic] not find homosexual cases during his time' These statements are also questionable because although the Buddha did not speak negatively of homosexual relations (presumably what is meant here is specific prohibition for lay people - because the Buddha does explicitly forbid homosexual acts between monks in the Vinaya) per se he does speak negatively of all sexual activity (there are so many references to this in the Pali scriptures that to deny it would be to know nothing about the Buddha's teaching) which therefore includes sexual activity between homosexual couples. All indulgence in sexual activity is an outside path with respect to the dhamma-vinaya. So, if you are a gay couple the Buddha recommends - just as he does for married heterosexual couples - that you practise Brahmacarya (sexual abstinence). The first part of the second sentence, therefore, also constitutes weasel words.
Lastly, is it true that one does not find homosexual cases in the time of the Buddha? Well, the idea that there were no homosexuals in the time of the Buddha is of course ridiculous. However, as for what guidance the Buddha gave to people who are exclusively or principally attracted to the same sex, we are left only with the scriptures. It is true that there does not seem to be the phenomenon of 'the gay couple' coming to the Buddha for advice in the Pali Canon but there are many accounts of interesting and diverse personages having exchanges with the Buddha which does suggest that there was just as much human diversity two and a half thousand years ago as there is today. The only real candidate in the scriptures is the so-called pandaka which has been discussed elsewhere but which Buddhist scholar and monk A.L. De Silva believes "does not refer to homosexuals in general but rather to the effeminate, self-advertising and promiscuous homosexual." (Homosexuality and Theravada Buddhism by A. L. De Silva)  So I am just highlighting the fact that the opening sentences of this article constitutes what in Wikipedia are called weasel words - statements that are unverifiable and present a biased view. Because of this they are in the proces of being removed. 
81.107.150.246 (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: weasel words

message: The most common formulations of Buddhist ethics are the five ethical precepts for laypeople and the monastic rules, which contain precepts against sexual misconduct (for the former) and all sexual activity (for the latter). These precepts take the form of voluntary, personal undertakings, not divine mandate or instruction.
 But, as per Buddhism rebirth in any of 31 planes depend upon observance of these precepts. Those who break these precepts take rebirth in lower planes while those who observe these precepts may get rebirth in upper planes. For the Theravada commentary's explanation of the precept against illicit sex, see ; the commentary does not list homosexual partners as being illicit, however any coercive sexual act is a violation, homosexual or otherwise.
Early Buddhism appears to have placed no special stigma on homosexual relations.James William Coleman, The New Buddhism: The Western Transformation of an Ancient Tradition. Oxford University Press 2002, page 146.
People in two gender categorizations in use at the Buddha's time are barred from ordination; this reflects the need for the early monastic community to retain the respect and material support of the lay community of the time, without which Buddhism would have died out.Jackson, Peter A. (1998). Male Homosexuality and Transgenderism in the Thai Buddhist Tradition. In "Queer Dharma: Voices of Gay Buddhists", edited by Winston Leyland.  San Francisco : Gay Sunshine Press. Peter Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics. Cambridge University Press, 2000, page 390. Quoting Sponberg  1992, 13-18.
:The above text was the INTRO to the article, however the subject was never even introduced. Instead it just appears like a bunch of childish in-fighting. NO CONCLUSIONS should be drawn in the introduction to an article. NO PERSONAL VIEWS should be drawn in the introduction of an article. These things should be common sense, but apparently some Wikipedians are not mature enough to write a decent article that accurately covers the subject at hand. For now, I am moving this content to the discussion page, and those who want to use the material or references in more appropriate areas may do so. Hopefully responsibly. Tengu800 01:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro in-fighting 

message: There is a growing list of LGBT groups being added to the article and this is a violation of Wikipedia Spam except under some circumstances.  Each organization has to have had significant coverage in scholarly publications or in several reliable news organization s over an extended period of time.  Even so, just generating a list of organizations like below is Spam and significant organizations as I described above would be included in the body of the article as part of the 'story' of the article.  
Which of these groups qualifies as significant under the criteria of notable?  
An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. 
Remember according to Wikipedia:External links even links to web sites that ARE mentioned in the article are not necessarily considered to be added.  Alatari (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:SPAM]] and organizations 

message: I think a section should be added relating to this. For example, a couple weeks ago, the Federation of Australian Buddhist Councils announced their support for same-sex marriage, reference in . --DrkFrdric (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Buddhism views on same-sex marriage

message: The Dalai Lama’s pov is a bit more complex. I added a link to an academic paper that expresses his views and the background on them:
:Thinking through Texts: Toward a Critical Buddhist Theology of Sexuality by José Ignacio Cabezón, Public Lecture, Naropa University, September 23, 2008 213.182.68.42 (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Dalai Lama’s pov

message: Homosexual practices were tolerated in Tibetan monasteries as long as they were limited to the thighs and did not involve anal penetration.
http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/tibetanMonks/documents/Tibetan_Buddhism_and_Mass_Monasticism.pdf
http://faculty.washington.edu/stevehar/Drepung.pdf
https://tibetanhistory-20thcentury.wikischolars.columbia.edu/The+Struggle+for+Modern+Tibet
http://www.academia.edu/1470188/_Macho_Buddhism_Gender_and_Sexualities_in_the_Diamond_Way_in_Religion_and_Gender_1_2011_pp._85-103
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7538.html
http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/files/2014/07/Stoltz-Tibetan-Polyandry-final1.pdf
http://www.iep.utm.edu/santideva/
https://collab.itc.virginia.edu/wiki/tibettourism/Gay%20%26%20Lesbian%20Travelers.html
Rajmaan (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Tibetan Buddhist monks and homosexuality

message: Talk of Buddhist ethics and The Five Precepts here on the talk page has been mostly, if not all, Theravada centered despite being only about 30% of the world's Buddhists. Bodhisattva vows and the Brahmajala Sutra form the Mahayana basis for morality. The Diamond Chalice Precept does it for Nichiren Buddhism which is a unique case in Mahayana where that one precept takes the place of all other precepts. Samaya does it for all forms of Vajrayana. 
Despite all of the above facts, the focus has been on what Theravada commentaries on the Five Precepts say is or isn't a sexual misconduct to the exclusion of all other forms of Buddhism that aren't Theravada basically. The article doesn't do this so much as the talk page. 
Basically the talk page needs the conversation to take a compete view of Buddhism rather than a Theravada centric one. 50.178.142.148 (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precepts 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:LGBT in Islam which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 12:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Buddhism and sexual orientation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101123025839/http://www.tpuuf.org:80/2008/08/03/glbt-in-world-religions/ to http://www.tpuuf.org/2008/08/03/glbt-in-world-religions/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://badpuppy.com/gaytoday/garchive/events/051397ev.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.q-notes.com/top01_040905.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040804014757/http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/1993/7/1_7.html to http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/1993/7/1_7.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Buddhism and sexual orientation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tpuuf.org/2008/08/03/glbt-in-world-religions/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091129000209/http://www.shambhala.org/about_shambhala.php to http://www.shambhala.org/about_shambhala.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm pretty interested in attitude the different branches of Theravada in thailand towards ordinating LGBT people. I see that section was changed and I read that lgbt are more friendly seen in sangha than previous year. But I predict that quotaion of this monk can be only his personal attitude not all thai sangas at all. I doubt if sanga attutude towards lgbt ordination has so much rapedly change in perspective of 1-2 years. I think that in this section iformation about former lgbt ordionation ban should be mentioned. We dont know if it's opinion of one monk given to interview or official pssition of any brunch of thai theravada. I'm so sceptical that attitudes towards ordinations has changed at all in the structure of some thai branches of sangha. I'm convinced it was only one monk's opinion rather any official statement or official tendencion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Wolak (talk • contribs) 22:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thai shanga and theirs attitude towards LGBT people ordination