“The Dalai Lama’s views on gay sex.”

Via on May 28, 2012

Dalai Lama has thrown his considerable moral weight behind gay marriage, condemning homophobia and saying sex was fine as long as it was consensual.”

The Dalai Lama’s views on gay sex: “If two males or two females voluntarily agree to have mutual satisfaction without further implication of harming others, then it is okay.”

 

 

“If two people — a couple — really feel that way is more practical, more sort of satisfaction, both sides fully agree, then okay.”

We are all equally possessed of fundamental human goodness.

The tradition of Buddhism (I’m Buddhist, this is what I’ve been taught) is this:

“Always trust the principle one.” Meaning, trust your own judgment before any outside (theistic) wisdom.

“Do not follow what I say. Only do what I say if it meets your experience.” ~ Buddha

Dalai Lama: “If Buddhism and science conflict, we go with Science.”

I don’t have the exact quotes, but that’s the gist.

The Dalai Lama’s views on homosexuality.

Excerpt from Wikipedia:

In his discussions of the traditional Buddhist view on appropriate sexual behavior, he explains the concept of “right organ in the right object at the right time,” which historically has been interpreted as indicating that oral, manual and anal sex (both homosexual and heterosexual) are not appropriate in Buddhism or for Buddhists, yet he also says that in modern times all common, consensual sexual practices that do not cause harm to others are ethically acceptable and that society should not discriminate against gays and lesbians and should accept and respect them from a secular point of view.[75] In a 1994 interview with OUT Magazine, the Dalai Lama clarified his personal opinion on the matter by saying, “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.’”[76]

In his 1996 book Beyond Dogma, he described a traditional Buddhist definition of an appropriate sexual act as follows: “A sexual act is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended for sexual intercourse and nothing else… Homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact.”[77]

He elaborated in 1997, explaining that the basis of that teaching was unknown to him and acknowledging that “some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context,” while clarifying the historical Buddhist position (in contrast with his personal opinion) by saying, “Buddhist sexual proscriptions ban homosexual activity and heterosexual sex through orifices other than the vagina, including masturbation or other sexual activity with the hand… From a Buddhist point of view, lesbian and gay sex is generally considered sexual misconduct”. Nonetheless, he reiterated, Buddhism calls for respect, compassion, and equal treatment for all, including homosexuals.[78]

[With thanks to Reddit for the heads up on this. Many of his public statements of tolerance go back to (at least) his 1994 interview with Out Magazine, so he is not late to the civil rights/tolerance cause]

About Waylon Lewis

Waylon Lewis, founder of elephant magazine, now elephantjournal.com & host of Walk the Talk Show with Waylon Lewis, is a 1st generation American Buddhist “Dharma Brat." Voted #1 in U.S. on twitter for #green two years running, Changemaker & Eco Ambassador by Treehugger, Green Hero by Discovery’s Planet Green, Best (!) Shameless Self-Promoter at Westword's Web Awards, Prominent Buddhist by Shambhala Sun, & 100 Most Influential People in Health & Fitness 2011 by "Greatist", Waylon is a mediocre climber, lazy yogi, 365-day bicycle commuter & best friend to Redford (his rescue hound). His aim: to bring the good news re: "the mindful life" beyond the choir & to all those who didn't know they gave a care. elephantjournal.com | facebook.com/elephantjournal | twitter.com/elephantjournal | facebook.com/waylonhlewis | twitter.com/waylonlewis | Google+ For more: publisherelephantjournalcom

36,071 views

Appreciate this article? Support indie media!

(We use super-secure PayPal - but don't worry - you don't need an account with PayPal.)

62 Responses to ““The Dalai Lama’s views on gay sex.””

  1. krista says:

    I grew up Catholic and seeking a 'different,' 'more enlightened' spiritual path I gravitated towards Buddhism. People seem to think that Buddhism is simply a spiritual way of being, but a few months into the teaching and practice I realized that Buddhism IS A RELIGION (which, yes, is obvious but somehow Buddhism in American culture is viewed separate from)- and the teachings had the same strictness, the same closed minded mentality as those taught in Catholic school- this article really exemplifies this….I steer clear of all organized religion now- I find my spirituality within and from there look out and find the beauty and joy and love I need to give life meaning.

    • elephantjournal says:

      This article actually emphasizes the opposite, I'd say. Not that Buddhism is superior one way or the other, but as the Dalai Lama says, if Buddhism disagrees with Science, we'll go with Science. Not sure if you read the whole article?

      Religion must evolve. Buddhism acknowledges this, since it's based on reality, hopefully, not myth.

      • krista says:

        YES I read the entire article. Buddhism has some great, wonderful points, but many religions do. My problem is with how hypocritical the teachings and practice can be- which I think is exemplified by what Buddhism says with regard to homosexuality and sexual acts such as oral sex and masturbation.

        • Padma Kadag says:

          Krista…please inform us of another "church" with the leniency and honesty shown here by HH? Much of the precepts as explained by HH are monastic in nature and will therefore be more strict. But he shows honesty and compassion in his responses. Sexual misconduct whether gay or straight is interesting because on many levels there is no differentiation in regard to dharma. Karma is accrued either way. The subject/object and good/bad dualities are the reasons for karma and samsara. Yogically speaking is even more interesting because if you adhere to the yogic laws and system of Buddhist Tantra then our democratic PC concepts fall away. In the land of subtle energy what energetically is required for enlightenment is precise method and result. Gay or straight does not determine enlightenment…It is your effort to attain that which is effortless while dropping all concept of who or what you desire.

        • Jen says:

          It just seems you try and find things that fit your opinions- is there no absolute truth? I am not Buddist, but seems you leave shen you cant create a religion.

      • Suri_k8 says:

        Here is your dogma 
        “right organ in the right object at the right time,” which historically has been interpreted as indicating that oral, manual and anal sex (both homosexual and heterosexual) are not appropriate in Buddhism or for Buddhists…“

        and some more dogma
        "A sexual act is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended for sexual intercourse and nothing else..Homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact.”[77]

        “Buddhist sexual proscriptions ban homosexual activity and heterosexual sex through orifices other than the vagina, including masturbation or other sexual activity with the hand… From a Buddhist point of view, lesbian and gay sex is generally considered sexual misconduct”.

        He is not stupid he doesnt want to get into trouble that is why he is quick to say his opinion is different   from what traditional budhism says. As you can see traditional buddhism IS dogmatic and you provided us with the  best example here . Also it is obvious that  he and all the other monks are following  this dogmatic teachings  otherwise they would have sex like everyone else . 

         Buddhism is profoundly relativistic , science deals with the objective , i dont see how they will ever be compatible …. buddhists love to play the "buddhism is super open" card but this is not true ….like krista said buddhism is just as dogmatic as any other religion . 

      • __MikeG__ says:

        What I see in the article is not a strong stand by the DL for science, obviously the opposite of what you saw. I see dogma and a lack of transparency in explaining his belief system.

        And you really need to stop assuming that just because someone disagrees with a post you make that he/she did not read the article.

    • Kelsey says:

      Because Buddhism is inherently rooted in our own experience, it is only our encounter with our very own "closed minded mentality" that could lead to such rigidity and "strictness". Buddhism teaches you trust your own experience beyond all else, while simultaneously providing guidance for waking up to your own mind and this world. When we're approaching our experience from a perspective of fear, however, everything begins to look more dogmatic and polarized…it's what provides us with that false sense of security and groundedness that we crave, since it feeds our human longing for a feeling of control. Unfortunately (or really, quite fortunately), that security is completely illusory and that thing we've labeled as "truth" (or "strictness" or "closed mindedness") proves empty, transparent, and a living ghost of our own fear. Let go. Open up. Lean into your fear of dogma and fall through its empty shell.

      • elephantjournal says:

        Beautiful. Fundamentally, Buddhism talks about buddha nature, basic goodness—the notion that all beings have inherent wisdom and compassion, equally. As Trungpa said, everyone has a soft spot for something–if only tortillas.

    • guest says:

      I agree. thanks Krista.

    • Dylan says:

      i disagree here….
      Buddhism interpreted by humans is often religious.
      Buddhism itself is not "religious"
      Just as hatha yoga is a study and science of the physical body,
      Buddhism is a study and science of the mental body.

      • whatcanisay says:

        Maybe it was like that before or still is for the very few. But most of the buddhists i've met are far far away from what you say. I guess it's like any other religion.. you have those that actually follow it in its purest form and those that manipulate it to what they want and claim to be its purest form.

        • Anthony says:

          There is a difference between those who call themselves "Buddhists" and Buddhism itself. An individual does not represent the religion. Are all Muslims blood thirsty murderers simply because a few misguided extremists are? Are all Christians horrible people because of the Crusades, Residential schools, etc? The answer is no.

          • Cristian Lang says:

            Good point, although there is some truth in looking at religions and at least on the relative level judging them… by their founders, not their followers. So how was the founder of Islam. What about the founders of Christianity or Buddhism? What about Jainism? Absolutely, the real nature of beings and phenomena is beyond judgement and concept, but relatively it may be useful NOT to go certain paths… How can we know which not? Look at the FOUNDERS! Look at their lives!

  2. I am encouraged to hear that somethings are to be one way, while there are many ways available, and that while we can do certain things, they are not acceptable. I seek meaning from a culture that has sustained itself through time and space and a God that exits beyond it.

    Here we must discrimiante between a truth, that is like a beautiful color, each seperate, and distinct, however it is in finding THE TRUTH that we combine all colors and obtain no color; hence the way to the truth about LIGHT.

  3. …and yes we must respect all people, we are not God to JUDGE them.

  4. elephantjournal says:

    Pawo: What's the point of this article ?

    #
    elephantjournal.com What are you asking, exactly? Did you read the article? I guess the point is two things: 1) tolerance is a wise and compassionate thing and 2) if your religion "traditionally" advises doing something other than compassion and tolerance, change your religion.
    ~ Waylon.

  5. David Lewis says:

    I appreciate the DL's views, and his flexibility. However, when it comes to conflicts between Buddhist teachings and science, beware: my experience is that there is far more fraud, and less skepticism, in science than in Buddhadharma.

    • suri_k8 says:

      oh , yeah the typical science bad , spirituality good response ….its getting kind of old you know.

      • Padma Kadag says:

        First of all…Buddhism does not pretend to be for everyone…nor does it intend to tell one how to live. Every precept in Buddhism depends on the path you have taken within Buddhism whether monastic or lay. All of them share the one attribute to guide them towards realization of the natural mind. That is for the individual. If you do not believe that we are capable of attaining something called enlightenment then you have made up your mind before you have implemented your own scientific inquiry. Buddhists should never argue against science nor should scientists argue against Buddhism. Buddhists employ and have employed scientific method long before standardized scientific method. This the point of HH Dalai Lama. There is nothing in Buddhism which will not withstand scientific scrutiny. There are cultural ideas and customs which become part of the display of buddhism within the host country which may not withstand scientific scrutiny.

        • __MikeG__ says:

          Finding the a DL rebirth by using astrology and other mystical signs is what you believe will withstand scientific scrutiny? That is the logic you want to hang your hat on?

          • Padma Kadag says:

            First of all .I do not wear hats. "Mystical signs"? praytell which mystical signs are you referring? The use of astrology is a cultural system displayed by the host country and it would not stand up to scientific scrutiny in it's current methodology…if you read my last sentence. I assume that becuase you profess logic you would have read my entire previous comment…so much for scientific methodology. In a country such as ours where science is currently king we surely should not fault Tibet for relying on astrology for thousands of years when our own scientific culture cannot feed the starving in this country, keep health costs down, develope WMD's, produce drugs without serious side effects.After all doesnt science bear some responsibility for global warming? Is technology not science? is tecnology creating a better more healthy life? Please do not accuse me of bashing science…just consider my questions. Astrology hardly has created real problems for the entire world to experience as those problems created by scientific technological method.

          • __MikeG__ says:

            So much for scientific methodology? Err, what? My comments are just comments and nothing to do with scientific methodology.

            I get your point about cultural ideas an customs being just a part of the display of Buddhism. But you are making a false association between Tibetian astrology and failures of modern science. The link does not make sense.

            Sorry about pissing you off with the hat comment. PeaceOut.

          • Padma Kadag says:

            Not pissed about the hat….buddhists dont get pissed they get even! Haha. You understand the point about about Buddhism's host country displays can be cultural and not scientifically logical. Many of these cultural displays have nothing to do with Buddhism's ultimate teaching but are intertwined relatively. So relative that without them Buddhism would still be 100% intact. In regard to my assertions between astrology in Tibet and sciences less than moral applications or sciences inability to be applied solely as a positive method for change is just that. Your astrological view is warranted under scientific scrutiny so far as science has determined thus far. My point was that at least Tibet's astrology is harmless in comparison to what science and technology have done to us and our planet. Science has both a positive and negative application depending on who is benefacting what. Buddhism only has a positive application.

          • __MikeG__ says:

            I like your response about the relative cultural displays. Buddhism has always intrigued me but I could not wrap my head around and get past what I saw as antiquated mystical beliefs in a religion which espouses waking up. Gives me something to think about. PeaceOut again.

          • @Suri_k8 says:

            Blaming science and technology for our current environmental crisis is definitely not accurate …there are soooo many other factors involved ….you are oversimplifying a very , very complex issue.

          • Padma kadag says:

            Of course science is the basis for all of the planets ills! This does not demonize science one bit either. Science has no moral imperative. Science goes where the money takes it.

        • @Suri_k8 says:

          Ok, can you give me 3 examples of "buddhists employing the scientific method" and can you give 3 more examples of buddhist displays which can withstand scientific scrutiny?

          • Padma Kadag says:

            Buddhists say that they can calm the mind…brain waves have shown this is true. Buddhists say that Impermanence of all phenomena is true…nothing lasts. The method is through first watching all thought and like a good little scientist do not judge good or bad…simply observe. From where does it come and when the thought is exhausted to where does it go? Impermanent. No one alive 150 years ago is alive today. All beings spend their lives wanting to be happy by chasing all phenomena which happen to be as impermanent as our thoughts. This is a fact…this is scientific.

          • Padma Kadag says:

            This is all there is to Buddhism except the most unscientific point of all and that is the Loving compassion for all beings who put so much effort into gaining happiness from phenomena which eventually disperse.

          • @Suri_k8 says:

            Anyone budhist or not can come to the same conclusions about impermanence , its not like buddhists own the rights to the observation that things change ….. This is just a logical conclusion that any observer can come to . Observation is just the first step of the scientificmethod,the others being
            measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypothesis….I. Dont see any buddhists applying any of the other 3 in order to prove their doctrines are right…so you can use "scientific method " any way you want but that doesnt mean buddhist doctrines and observations are scientific.

            Other buddhist things like reincarnation and karma are just absurd beliefs and not very different from the heaven and hell of christianism…..more creative though, i. Have to admit …recycle your mental continuum…very ecofriendly…..if only themind could exist apart from the body…ridiculous and just another example of how buddhism is not "going with science" like mr dalai says. In fact i havent seen any instances where buddhism has gone with science, so just another example of how mr dalai is being a hipocrite.

          • Padma Kadag says:

            Suri it is easy to say the nature of all phenomena is impermanent. You are right. However to really understand that is to realize it through very disciplined concentration and method. The science of Buddhism is the empirical observations of one;s own mind and the nature of it without elaboration or fantasy. I am not sure what science means to you but to me it means observing everything as it is without some preconceived notion of purpose or value judgement. Of course this would be science at it's very elemental level. In regard to your "measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypothesis"…modification of hypothesis is not always necessary and the other 3 you mention are done of course during very disciplined guided contemplation and realization. As a scientist surely you should not make unremarkable statements about what Buddhism …is not..if you have not tried it

          • Padma Kadag says:

            By the way what is so difficult to understand about karma? You place your hand in a fire and it burns your flesh? Maybe your misunderstanding of karma is due to your frequenting blogs such as this one where karma is mis-stated regularly. As for reincarnation, of course science does not support it. Suri if you stopped all of your inner chatter and self justifications and just relaxed on a regular basis and dropped all of those things that really do not need to be defended and just let your mind be "as it is" you would find out some very important expansive things about the nature of our mind. And you could still be a scientist

          • @Suri_k8 says:

            Sorry , but i dont understand why you need to say buddhism is scientific in order to validate it ….in the strict sense of the word it is not… Like it or not it is just another religion …a philosophical system at best …the firststep towards religious delusion is thinking yours is the best religion and the only one that holds they keys to some higher truth … I wish you could speak for yourself instead of just repeating what buddhist dogma teaches you to say …. All budhists say the exact same things and it really gets boring.

          • Padma Kadag says:

            Suri,,,where have i attempted to validate buddhism with science? Never crossed my mind. Where have I said that buddhism is the best religion in the world? What makes you think I cannot speak for myself? Tell me all of your original thoughts? Tell us something which has not been said before Suri… You do not know the first thing about buddhism and yet you have opinions which you want to share…not very scientific. I will agree with you that probably if your exposure to buddhism has been primarily from this blog then your view of buddhism is a bit scewed.

          • @Suri_k8 says:

            An opinion is a personal view , there is no such thing as "scientific opinion" you dont need to back up an opinion with evidence….and you are assuming mistakenly that i dont know anything about buddhism …i dont care about buddhism…been there , done that ,boring ….and 95 % of what is posted in EJ is bs anyway including all the buddhist stuff ….in my opinion of course … And i think i will shut up now because im really not Contributing to the debate …but you already know that because this has been said before many times ,right?

          • Anthony says:

            It is unfair to refer to Buddhist principles as "bull shit." You can not disprove Buddhist teaching, just as you can not truly prove them. I am a man of science, but one of my most firm beliefs is that science is imperfect. Science is not necessarily based on fact. We would like it to be based on fact, but it is often based on blind faith that past "discoveries" are true. Example: Our notion of gravity is always changing, yet for each brief snap-shot in time, we label our current theory as absolute truth and base other theories off of this supposed "fact." The problem is these "facts" often change, just as the theories behind the nature of gravity change. We are always in a state of being incorrect with no way of proving what is true. We are and will be slaves to our current limitations. Much of what we have professed as fact in the past has been wrong, just as much of what we profess as fact now will one day be dis-proven. Science is not infallible, it is not perfect. Science, in many ways, is itself a religion, as it is based on faith that what we "know" now is in fact correct, which it is often not. I hope this post made some sense to you.

          • Cristian Lang says:

            Science is modern nihilistic religion led by the greed for money, power and fame.

    • __MikeG__ says:

      Yeah, requiring that someone provide evidence for a statement or position is always bad. It is much better to accept without question all statements made from religious authority. Those jerks who refuse to believe everything they are told need to change their ways.

  6. guest says:

    Somehow I feel the Dalai Lama doesn't want to make a stance. so he tells everyone what they want to hear. very disappointing, he should know that he as a leader has the ability to change our rather bigoted society (societies) Not sure what all the hype around this man is, he doesn't seem to be any better than the pope. (at least the pope has an opinion, even if it sucks)

    • whatcanisay says:

      buddhism is in shambles, it's more of a fad now so he's got to please the masses. Meanwhile in the back room….

      • Anthony says:

        Ignorant comment. This is your highly biased opinion with no factual basis to it. I am not a Buddhist myself, but this post still offends me. Respect others beliefs, you are not the master of all knowledge. You will realize this in time when you have grown up a bit.

    • Tony says:

      Just because the Dalai Lama's comment didn't "please" your belief doesn't mean he does not make a stance. If that were true, then imagine how many buddhist or Tibetans would be offended by his stance on equality for homosexuals. C'mon!

    • Peter says:

      I'm Buddhist and I am also gay, and whilst I see where you are coming from, I must say that The Dalai Lama does not represent all Buddhists, he is a teacher of Tibetan Buddhism. Yes, he may be a Leader and he may have some power to change a few peoples views, but he is still a Non-Christian, Non-Muslim, Non-Catholic etc teacher, his words will mean little or nothing to a majority of the people who follow those faiths, Tibetan Buddhists only make up a small percentage of Buddhists.

      As for the hype, though we may have differing ideologies, I deeply respect the man, you may find his stance on Homosexuality disappointing, but that does not retract the good he has spread in the world, if you actually took the time to study this man you would understand why he is popular with many people in the world. If you want change, then why not go out and do something to bring it about, it is easy to point out apparent flaws in others and yet disregard our own, he is a teacher but he is one man like you and I, we are both capable of helping others, he is neither greater or better than any other human on this Earth, we all have the power to help make the world a better place. “An act to make another happy, inspires the other to make still another happy, and so happiness is aroused and abounds. Thousands of candles can be lighted from a single candle, and the life of the single candle will not be shortened."

      Speaking on behalf of myself and the other Buddhists I know, we share the same view on Homosexuality as we do Heterosexuality, as long as it is between two consensual adults who are in a loving relationship it is completely acceptable, what we find immoral or "wrong/sinful" is promiscuity, whether you are gay or straight. We show respect and compassion to all not the select few.

  7. JOsh says:

    "from a buddhist point of view"- notice the indefinite article. there's no single view, dalai lama is referencing i think gampopa who wrote close to a millenium ago, for a particular audience. at roughly the same time in japan, kobo daishi was being credited with bringing the art of male love to japan. a bit later we get records in letters of complaint by shingon monks that the richer rinzai zen monks were driving up the price of male prostitutes in kyoto. best not to oversimplify the issue i think.

  8. __MikeG__ says:

    It is still my belief that all religious leaders should make unequivocal stances on all moral issues. In my limited knowledge of the DL it does not appear to me that he did so on this particular issue. To me, he appeared to brush aside the issue with the call to for "respect, compassion, and equal treatment for all". Which, BTW, is still a fantastic sentiment. There is no way I can argue against a statement like that. I wish all people would emulate the DL in that.

    • whatcanisay says:

      He wanted to make his religion seems better then the others by acting compasionate about other ways opposite to his belief. Kinda like the high school kid whos your friend to your face and a back stabber when you're not around.

      • Anthony says:

        By all account the DL is an extremely compassionate and open human being. He has suffered for his people and spent the entirety of his life preaching compassion and acceptance. You calling him the kid who is a back stabber is beyond idiotic and ignorant. You have come across as a small, petty individual who feels the need to insult those who are more pure and good-hearted than themselves. I am fully willing to admit the DL is a greater man than I could ever hope to be, and I am not even Buddhist. He as a man worthy of the utmost respect.

  9. Jogan says:

    Okay, I only read the top comments so I don’t know if anyone else has said anything like I’m about to. Buddhism for monks and other people who are culturally exposed directly to the religion can have its affects, depending on local traditions and its historical background, same as any religion. Look at modern Christianity, there are so many different factions and beliefs and interpretations its mind-boggling. Tenzin Gyatso (The 14th Dalai Lama) was practically born and rasied in a monastery. Being chosen as the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama and being formally recognized as such when he was 15! Imagine you were raised in your local church and taught by the clergymen (I think that’s the right word for it) for the greater part of your life. Do you think someone with that much religion ground into his very core would throw out his beliefs just to please a minority? If he thought it was wrong he would have said so, and gave his reasoning as to why. Reason and understanding are practically the core of Buddhist teaching. They are taught not to let ignorance get in the way of what is actually happening. They are taught to see without anger, fear, and other emotions that will twist your view on life. He was not placating the homosexual community, hell he probably made more straight people angry than he would ever have made gay people by saying that. Why would someone as firm in his own beliefs as he was even give homosexuals as much ground as he did? Because he realized that times and circumstances change and what was appropriate in the past might not be now. If you don’t believe me read Beyond Religion. It’s a book he wrote on how Buddhist beliefs and gteachings can be useful in a sefcular context to achieve happiness in life

  10. Jogan says:

    Sorry, my kindle has problems with these kinds of text boxes.

    If you don’t believe me read Beyond Religion. It’s a book he wrote on how Buddhist beliefs and teachings can be useful, in a secular (as in non-religous or atheistic), to achieve happiness in life. I’m an atheist and this book helped me a great deal (being a teenager I tend to have a lot of unruly emotions and unrealistic views about things). And please don’t give me crap about being young, we don’t all watch Jersey Shore.

    I’m telling you, READ THE BOOK, it’s amazing if you take the time to understand what he’s saying. Hope I helped. (:

  11. There are thousands of sects of Buddhism from Zen to followers of the Dalai Lama. Shakyamuni expounded his highest teaching, the Lotus Sutra, in the last years of his life which teaches the enlightenment and equality of all humanity.

    After I tried practicing other forms of Buddhism and being a former Catholic, I wanted to find a philosophy that set me free from constraints and regulations.

    That is when someone introduced me to Nam myoho renge kyo (the Mystic Law of Cause and Effect through Sound and the Buddha’s teachings) and the SGI-USA.

    Chanting this creates inner peace, compassion, wisdom and courage to overcome any problem or obstacle in life. It creates true happiness from within.
    We believe in actual proof that chanting actually creates tangible change within our lives and unlocks limitless potential and our Buddha Nature.

    Many people forget that the Buddha is not a god like figure. He was an ordinary human who awakened to the truth of life.

    We have that same ability, just as we are.

    Check out: http://www.sgi-usa.org

    Thank you!

  12. [...] mention the gays though. Sad [...]

  13. Robert A. says:

    Lets not forget that the Dalai Lama's form of Buddhism is unique to Tibetans and does not, in any way, represent any official stance from a buddhist perspective. Tibetan Buddhism, in particular, if filled with many unique cultural traditions, ritual and folkways not found in any other form of Buddhism.

    The Buddha taught one thing and one thing only: suffering and the release from suffering. Many of these questions are inconsequential to the path of ending one's suffering and working towad enlightenment.

  14. anthony tran says:

    I believe Buddhism is a religion. however the strictness of it varies on how dedicated you are. there really no pressure. if you can handle to a certain amount of strictnesss you stop at whatever level your comfortable with. you just try your best. so really there is no strictness at all becuase you just do all you can. and about "the same closed minded mentality as those taught in Catholic school". if you study budhism well you know that it isn't close minded at all. its rather open to other ideas and thought process. as budhha said before he died he only taught a small fraction of what he knows, so always try to listen and learn new ideas and theories. throw away the rubbish and take the good. Buddha also taught us to never hold on to his word or anything for that matter. he even said I've said nothing in 48 years of teaching (obliviously a metaphor) . that why buddhism can be so adaptive because the whole point of buddhism is doing the right thing and becoming enlightened. Buddhism is so flexible and adaptive depending on environment I highly doubt its a close minded, strict religion. if it is, its not Buddhism that close minded, instead its the Buddhist practitioner that your getting your information from that close minded.

  15. Pratit Gurung says:

    To be precise, the goal of Buddhism is to find true happiness, to be enlightened and be free from 'Samsara'. Please, check wikipedia if you do not know what 'Samsara' means.The goal here is to be free from all samsaric desires, defilements and attachments…to shed what is not real and realize what is real…to realize the ultimate truth. Buddhists believe in the middle way. We neither support nor discourage or judge homosexuality.As long as the act is consensual, non violent and hurts anybody(including yourself;which is very very important!) in any way whatsoever, we do not judge or say our way is the highway. We believe in equality, respect and compassion and once again the main purpose of a Buddhist practitioner is to be free from Samsara and rescue others from Samsara if you are willing to do so as a Boddhisattwa.

  16. Kate says:

    I think the Dalai Lama knows the difference between his personal views but has ensured that they do not conflict with his overall message of tolerance. While his generation and culture are as a whole going to be less understanding and supportive of homosexuality, he is more concerned with finding peace and tolerance in the world than giving into his own personal aversions.

  17. mrchokeys says:

    I remain astounded that people are still obsessed with other people's sex lives. Unless one is invited to participate, or wishes to participate in the act, it should not be a matter of concern. Unsatisfied with their own obsession, they must ask a spiritual teacher (not a sexual research scientist) whether their own reaction is justified by doctrine, and supported by authority. It is such a profound, and convoluted viewpoint; a hall of mirrors – if it's not something that you would want to do, or believe should be done, than don't do it – leave it at that. Manifestations of consensual adult sexuality all have healthy and dysfunctional aspects, without regard to the gender or sexual orientation of those involved.

  18. Tanukisan says:

    The Dalai Lama is entitled to his views, but he does not speak for all Buddhists. Tibetan Buddhism is only one school; there are others in which sexual misconduct is seen only as sexual acts which do not involve mutual consent, which involve coercion, or which are between partners clearly unequal in terms of power relations. Essentially, those schools see the sexual act as mutually consensual and pleasurable, and ideally the ultimate expression of love between two people, regardless of gender. If the Dalai Lama thinks otherwise, then perhaps he still has some things to learn.

  19. Cristian Lang says:

    Tibetan Buddhism is… Five schools, not just one! As HH also accepted the Bon school as being Buddhist. How much more compassion does one want from the Dalai Lama? He even practices Dzogchen, which in his school (Gelugpa) had been seen as heresy by many… Look up Dzogchen, it is the peak of all Tibetan teachings, and was taught also in the previously non-Buddhist Bon school…

Leave a Reply