[AnattaRage] Introducing AnattaPunk Rage Comics

[AnattaBlog] We Can Haz teh Ghey Boodizum?

Das fairy Lolcat and his Boodizt boyfriend.

An announcement earlier this month proclaimed that Taiwan will soon hold its first Buddhist wedding ceremony for a gay couple, prompting the world to end, people to start marrying animals, gays to start giving away free toasters for new Taiwanese recruits, well, nothing at all. But surely the concept of gay marriage must be controversial in the Buddhist world. Why else would his be news?

The Dalai Lama, (mistakenly) considered by many Westerners to be a pope-like figurehead of all things Buddhist, opened a can of worms in 2004 when he said that gay sex is sexual misconduct. The concept of avoiding sexual misconduct comes from precept #3 traditionally observed by Buddhists. When Buddha gave the third precept was he condemning homosexuality?

“Is it weird that I violate precept number three with these three fingers?”

To make sense out this Westerners first need to rid themselves of the knee-jerk attempt to compare the 10 Buddhists precepts to the 10 commandments of Abrahamic religion. The 10 precepts (which differ to a certain extent based on sect, translation, etc., here reported as listed in Wikipedia) are:

1. Refrain from killing living things.
2. Refrain from stealing.
3. Refrain from unchastity (sensuality, sexuality, lust).
4. Refrain from lying.
5. Refrain from taking intoxicants.
6. Refrain from taking food at inappropriate times (after noon).
7. Refrain from singing, dancing, playing music or attending entertainment programs (performances).
8. Refrain from wearing perfume, cosmetics and garland (decorative accessories).
9. Refrain from sitting on high chairs and sleeping on luxurious, soft beds.
10. Refrain from accepting money.

The first five precepts are for all Buddhists. The second five are additions for bhikkhu, i.e. monks. Unlike Moses’ 10 commandments, Buddha’s 10 precepts don’t define sins or acts punishable by God. God’s will is not the driving factor that mandates these precepts. In fact, the precepts are more like helpful advice than mandates (except, maybe for some hardline traditional bhikku). They are not rules imposed externally to protect the universe from the devotee. They are guidelines for the devotee to internalize as a way to minimize or eliminate his/her own suffering.

The third precept is a reminder that physical pleasure (whether gay, straight, fetish, bdsm, skin flute playing, rusty trombones, hot carls, Turkish pancakes, cosplay, furries, Dutch rudders, et al.) can give rise to cravings and attachments. Cravings and attachments are precisely what Buddhists seek to minimize in their lives. There is no moral judgment attached to these precepts. They’re more like a warning label on a happy meal toy –  “This is meant to be played with, but know in advance that there are potential safety hazards when it is used improperly.”

See what I did there?

The only other applicable guideline concerning sexuality is compassion. Any act which is hurtful or harmful to another is to be avoided. Irrelevantly, there are people out there like this poor guy who will misconstrue statistics (in the article he suggests, for example, that a higher rate of suicide in the gay community is evidence) to argue that homosexuality is harmful. There are groups who refuse to draw a distinction between being gay and being a pedophile. Many have suggested that AIDS in God’s punishment for “the queers.”

Let’s be clear. Being a pedophile = Not cool. Being a rapist = Not cool. Spreading AIDS = Not cool. Suicide = Not cool. But only the truly bigoted believe that any of these things is the result, exclusive domain, or logical conclusion of homosexuality. Period.

Given this context it seems incredibly irresponsible to suggest that homosexuality has a lower place on the (non-existing-)totem-pole-of-Buddhist-sexual-orientation than heterosexuality. The Dali Lama has taken a well-deserved licking over his anti-gay statements and has clarified that the teachings he references may have only been appropriate in a certain historical context. He also says that consensual homosexual relationships between adults are fine, and that he fully supports the human rights of everyone regardless of orientation. But the damage has already been done. Hopefully “His Holiness” will be more careful when he opens his fat dumb mouth in the future. In a society where horrible anti-gay violence like this is happening, and this, and this, and a thousand others, not to mention buckets of denied rights for gays that act as a de facto cultural endorsement of second-class citizenry, any comment that suggests gays are lesser members of society is not in-line with the heart of Buddhist teachings.

The bottom line is that there is no conflict between Buddhism and gays. Anything other than kindness and compassion for everyone, including gays, straights, choking chickens, and Kirk Cameron, is not the Buddhist way.

[AnattaBlog] Newddhism?

A recent New York Times article [here] discusses the state of Western Buddhism. Some highlights: A claim that Buddhism is the fourth largest religion in the United States and that more Americans convert to Buddhism than to Mormonism.

I haven’t been able to find data on the web to corroborate this claim, but:

• [This article] claims Buddhism in the U.S. grew 170% from 1990-2000 and is still growing at the same rate. [This related article] says Buddhism, alarmingly, has the second-lowest retention rate of American religions.

• [This Wikipedia entry] says Buddhism is recognized as the fastest growing western religion (and other interesting tidbits, like Buddhism being the fastest growing religion in British prisons).

• Mormonism is the fastest growing U.S. religion according to this [Huffington Post article] from last May. Mormonism, of course, has come under tremendous scrutiny due to a certain high-profile political candidate being a member of this uniquely American (arguably) Christian sect.

These statistics don’t really mean much. Categorization of Buddhism as a “religion” is controversial to begin with. Buddhist principles just don’t seem to be comparable to faiths for many of us. Then there are the “night-stand Buddhists,” “Jewddhists,” etc., who claim allegiance to another religion while benefiting from part-time study of the dhamma. Altogether it’s a nightmare for any statistician who wants an accurate report of the number of Buddhists in the U.S.

The original article points out that Western Buddhism is often not cased in the cultural leanings of the Eastern cultures from whence it came, which presents an interesting conundrum for the American Buddhist community. Are we going to follow traditional Buddhist paths, dressing in silly costumes and chanting incomprehensible eastern language mantras? Or are we, like every other culture Buddhism has encountered, going to incorporate the dhamma in a way that makes the most practical sense for our day-to-day lives?

I’m obviously not neutral here. Purists (fair to call them fundamentalists?) will argue that Buddhism has been passed down successfully through traditional paths for centuries, and that these time-honored traditions are therefore the best methods for us to adopt. But the fact remains that you can’t take the Japan out of Zen. You can’t take the Tibet out of the Dalai Lama. These methods came from a specific time and place where the dhamma was put into terms that were understandable to the people who lived there. Tibet should have its own style of Buddhism, even if it’s full of Tibetan culture magic and mysticism which objectively contradicts the original Buddha’s teachings in many ways, but nonetheless works as an effective metaphor for Tibetans to understand the dhamma in their own terms. We should also read and interpret the dhamma for ourselves. If we reject the uniforms and rituals of our Eastern Buddhist ancestors does that make us not-Buddhist? Rather, does it make us Newddhists (kudos to the original article for this hilarious moniker)?

In the end, different kinds of Buddhism work for different people. On an individual level it doesn’t matter which kind of Buddhism you subscribe to. All those extra bells and whistles of various cultural interpretations have kept the teachings from dying and disappearing over the centuries. Those cultural artifacts make the teachings seem exotic and exciting to a lot of westerners, but in order for Buddhist ideas to become mainstream (and therefore take up a permanent position in western culture) we will have to cut out the hocus-pocus and find ways for post-modern westerners to see the dhamma at work in the 21st century.