NEW
同性恋者而无回
I must begin with a very simple but important question. Is an apparent individual first a human creature and then heterosexual as a man and a woman? Clearly that is so.
We must conclude then with certainty that a person so inclined is first a human creature and second homosexual. Since Avaivartika is about the conduct of human creatures it cannot then exclude the homosexual.
It is clear however in most societies that homosexual behavior is a sin against God. Since there is no God within the Dharma can we conclude that it would be correct to declare that homosexuality is a "sin" against Dharma? It would not, for there is no such thing as sin within Dharma.
We must talk then of Sexual Preference. What does Buddha have to say about sexual preferences? The answer is nothing at all. It must be clear then that any discrimination against homosexual preference has no place in and of itself within Buddha Dharma and that homosexual impediments must be treated exactly as heterosexual impediments.
But Buddha Dharma sometimes ebbs and flows in its opinion according to the circumstances.
The Tibetan Gelupga leader has said that "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".
Yet in a 1994 interview with OUT Magazine, the Dalai Lama explained "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'".
However, in his 1996 book Beyond Dogma, he clearly states, "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."
It is time that those teaching Dharma are very clear on the issue. What Chan Dharma would certainly say is, "What is improper is the use of ANY organs for inappropriate conduct, whether it is a sexual organ or not or whether the person is homosexual or not."
However, society's position, which offers the palm of the hand with an understanding smile but slaps with the back, causes problems for individuals who are homosexual by preference. It is fear and anxiety connected with many other sensual, emotional and mental impediments that are specific to homosexuality, induced by society and not nature, which must be addressed here.
NEW
作曲或演奏 而无回
When I introduced the idea of MUSIC AND AVAIVARIKA in this page it was with the clear idea to present the abstract sense of music as having something in common with Avaivartika. It does, but in my mind was clearly classical music and for me the sound of the violin that is so expressive in the hands of Masters.
I knew it would be quite an easy task, akin to talking about true expression of human nature within the Dharma.
Then two things happened-
I heard of certain Masters talking about such topics as "the rebel Buddha" and there were comparisons made with various great examples of the fight for human dignity and liberty.
It seemed so far from the Dharma, for Buddha never was a Rebel... "Rebel" is just a word and his apparent rebellion can only be imagined by a dual mind, no matter how romantic that mundane idea may be.
The second event was that I saw a video, a comedy, but with very serious undertones about "PIRATE RADIO" in the era of "ROCK N' ROLL" and I saw that in comparison to the folly of not understanding the Buddha's message, indeed Rock and Roll was worthy of investigation.
It may sound like sacrilege, but the interesting question is, within Rock n' Roll, can Avaivartika be expressed? An even greater question is, has Rock n' Roll really been an AVAIVARTIKA medium that has existed but not been revealed?
So that is my task in this section.
In fact, in considering the question for a moment we can regard Rock n' Roll rather like a Gay or Lesbian "coming out from the cupboard."
And if indeed that is the case, perhaps we should dig deeper into apparently Mundane Behaviour to see if the Transcendental is perhaps always present. Perhaps we should even examine pompous Dharma and discard it forever as shallow expedient means.