Ajahn Sujato and Marriage Equality

Author
Topic
#404

I have read quite strange article Why Buddhists Should Support Marriage Equality http://sujato.wordpr…012/03/21/1430/ It looks like author has some personal views – indeed strange for monk who on the first place should support idea of celibacy – views which perhaps can be clasiffy as ditthi-upadana.

For example autor says:

But in AN V 192 Buddha makes distinction between bramins:

Do not mention Sutta AN VII, 22 : Ananda,
(translation: Bhikkhu Bodhi)

What is even more strange, commentaries under Ven Sujato article are for the most part positive.

Bhikkhu Dhammanando seeks for clarification first:

Boris,

I wonder if you would care to clarify the point of your post. Is it your view that homosexuals ought not to be permitted to marry, or merely that the subject is one on which a bhikkhu ought to be silent?

Quote
as long the Vajjis do not decree anything that has not been decreed or abolish anything that has already been decreed but undertake and follow the ancient Vajji principles as they have been decreed, only growth is to be expected for them, not decline.

When one enlarges the scope of an existing decree by exploring and pursuing what may reasonably be taken to be intimated in it with respect to conditions not present at the time of its enactment is one necessarily decreeing something new?
Quote
boris wrote:”Ananda, as long the Vajjis do not decree anything that has not been decreed or abolish anything that has already been decreed but undertake and follow the ancient Vajji principles as they have been decreed, only growth is to be expected for them, not decline.”

boris gives a clarification:

Yes. it is exactly my view.
Quote
Dhammanando wrote:Boris,

I wonder if you would care to clarify the point of your post. Is it your view that homosexuals ought not to be permitted to marry,

Since I recognize the break of tradition as a dengerous thing, and homosexual marriage as something which base for the most part on sexual desire -in short, something which is akusala,
it’s obvious that the second is also true – to support this idea – it is not at all bhikkhu job. Why Buddhists Should Support Celibacy Movement Between Homosexuals – this sounds much better, but rather still not a bhikkhu job.
Quote
Dhammanando wrote: or merely that the subject is one on which a bhikkhu ought to be silent?

The problem is, for me everything here is quite clear – involvement in akusala action. You seem to disagree with me. If this is so, it’s very doubtful, that any kind of elaboration from my side will change your mind. I feel little bit like being asked by anthropophagy – what is my problem, with his diet.

Bhikkhu Pesala does the same like Ajahn Sujato, and pulls for followers:
Quote
James the Giant wrote:That’s a a great article by Bhante Sujato,
I don’t understand your problem with the article , Boris.
Perhaps you could elaborate?

All sexual desire and all sexual activity is unwholesome (akusala), even if it is only for procreation. However, that does not make it immoral or unethical.

Certain kinds of sexual activity are classified as sexual misconduct because they harm others, and lead to rebirth in the lower realms. If reborn in the human realm, the evil effects of sexual misconduct are: having many enemies, getting an unsuitable spouse, rebirth as a women, or rebirth as a transsexual.

These teachings are not popular nowadays, but there they are. As with any other teachings, you are welcome to dismiss them or accept them, or just to reflect on them without holding fast to views and opinions, which is the best option since none of us here have the power to know the previous lives or destiny of others do we?

There is even one example of sex change that occurred in that very life, in the Story of Soreyya.

So, people are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual, or inclined to celibacy due to their kamma. Since it is their own kamma, unless it is harmful to others, such as paedophilia, it doesn’t seem very skilful to legislate against it or be intolerant regarding it.

If there’s one thing I cannot stand — it’s intolerance.

______________________________

____________________________
There are plenty things Buddha could not stand:

* Monks who give suggestions in regard or marriage
* telling what is not true
* saying what was not said
* adding explaining where all needed is already explained
* tolerance of delusion
* Bhikkhus who get involved in worldly issues

So actually he was very intolerant with things one should be intolerant to. But when we seek for fellowship we start to be corrupt, we even pull for the weak to secure our livelihood. They even encourage people to unwholesome things and misconduct, taking their personal ethics according to their abilities as a measure, a ground for agreement, to be able to eat together the hunts.

Yet “Buddhism” is nothing but a pool of those who are not willing to be tamed. Strange isn’t it.

Johann,

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.