His Holiness the Dalai Lama on Homosexuality

Posted: March 8, 2007 in Buddhism, Christianity, Gay, Lesbian, LGBT, Religion, Sex & Sexuality

Dalai LamaThe following is a comment to the article, Reflections on a Meeting with the Presiding Bishop, posted on the blog From Glory Into Glory. That article offers insight into Episcopal Church in the USA Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and her positions regarding demands made of her and the Episcopal Church by certain primates in the Anglican Communion to change its progressive stance on full-inclusion of LGBT at all levels. The writer, Rev. Michael Hopkins, and Rev. Susan Russell, president of Integrity, USA, met with Jefferts Schori to ascertain her thoughts and intent regarding the primates’ ultimatum. The article inspired a host of comments both negative and positive. Unfortunately, I lost the copy of my comment that I placed in my laptop’s clipboard which means I lost the links included in the comment. Therefore, I invite you to read it in its original form.

The question of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama’s stance on homosexuality bothered me and so I decided to see for myself. In his 1996 book Beyond Dogma: Dialogues and Discourses, he said that homosexuality was wrong. He later clarified that homosexuality was wrong because it involved the use of the mouth, rectum and/or hands as opposed to only using genitalia. He added that the use of the mouth, rectum and hands are also proscribed in heterosexual encounters.

The primary issue is whether an act is “sexual misconduct.” The problem is that “sexual misconduct” was not defined by Buddha. An article published on the World Tibet Network News website of a transcript between an interviewer and the Dalai Lama, he explains that sexual activity, and therefore sexual misconduct, has to be separated into two different categories. The first category is for those who are in religious communities–nuns and monks. The second category is for those who are not celibate–everyday Buddhists. In the first instance, any form of sexual activity, including masturbation would be wrong because there would be ejaculate (he obviously had men in mind). However, the same could not be said of masturbation for someone not in a religious community.

In actuality, there is a third category: non-Buddhists. Although he viewed homosexuality as “sexual misconduct” for Buddhists, he said that it was “non-harmful” for non-Buddhists. The San Francisco Chronicle quotes him as saying, “From society’s viewpoint, mutually agreeable homosexual relations can be of mutual benefit, enjoyable and harmless.”

The article linked to the World Tibetan News site is difficult to read in that the DL doesn’t always know how to say things in English and relies on his interpreter. Nevertheless, what is clear is that he is a celibate man who has never really considered these issues. The first time he did so in depth was during a private meeting with a number of LGBT Buddhists who were deeply concerned about the statements in his book. That meeting was the beginning of a shift in his position toward greater study and concern.

Fast forward to 2006 when the DL sent greetings and support to the International Lesbian and Gay Association on the occasion of their 28th World Congress. In the interim, as he stated during his visit with LGBT Buddhists in 1997, I believe he reflected on several of the supposed methods of committing “sexual misconduct” and realized, as he hinted at that time, that they may have been shaped by their culture and point in history. I also believe that he followed through on his desire to learn more about LGBT people through scientific study.

It seems to me that the DL has done/is doing exactly what LGBT Christians of all faith traditions want their leadership to do–come into the 21st Century and realize that the Bible should be referenced in the context of place, time and culture. I’m surprised no one has mentioned that it has gone through several translations into its current form and many things could easily have been mistranslated “accidentally on purpose.”

I think it would be instructive for others to read the evolution of the Dalai Lama’s thoughts. While not a direct line of progression, a Google search using the terms “dalai lama homosexuality” brought me to all of the articles referenced above.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

  1. […] Read More  His Holiness the Dalai Lama on Homosexuality […]

  2. […] In the years when I simply could not write at all, I never forgot TWW. Apparently, neither did a bunch of other people. I checked the readership statistics eventually after semi-returning and was shocked, amazed, happy and grateful to see that “The little blog that could,” my unofficial sobriquet for TWW, had received nearly 40,000 individual hits in my absence. The most popular article then and now is about the Dalai Lama’s evolving views on homosexuality. […]

  3. Let’s play a game called “The Pope or Dalai Lama: Who Said That?”

    1. Who told a San Francisco press conference on 11 June 1997 that men-to-men sex and woman-to-woman sex was sexual misconduct?
    2. Who told the Swiss magazine Dimanche in its January 2001 issue that sexual organs were created for reproduction between the male element and the female element? And that anything that deviates from this is not acceptable?
    3. Who endorsed an anti-abortion lobby group called Consistent Life on 22 January 2001?
    4. Who published a collection of religious teachings in 1996 declaring that masturbation, oral and anal sex, even between a husband and a wife, are forbidden?
    5. Who said having sex during the day is sexual misconduct?

    If your answer to any of the above questions was the Pope, you’d be wrong. Kudos to the ridiculously talented John Safran for this list. The Dalai Lama really isn’t as hip and happening as people think.

    • Ricemonster says:

      In 1997, I was a different teen than I have become in 2014. If the Dalai lama has evolved his way of thinking since 1997 and 2001, then kudos to the Dalai Lama. Today is 2014, 13 years after he made the last statement.

      Oh and guess what? If you believe a person can never be trusted because s/he shoplifted something 30 years ago, then it is you who is the problem and not the people who has the ability to evolve their way of thinking over time.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s