☸️ Wisdom of Buddha ❤️

"So it is, Ānanda, that feeling is a cause of craving. Craving is a cause of seeking. Seeking is a cause of gaining material possessions. Gaining material possessions is a cause of assessing. Assessing is a cause of desire and lust. Desire and lust is a cause of attachment. Attachment is a cause of ownership. Ownership is a cause of stinginess. Stinginess is a cause of safeguarding. Owing to safeguarding, many bad, unskillful things come to be: taking up the rod and the sword, quarrels, arguments, and disputes, accusations, divisive speech, and lies." - Buddha in the Mahānidāna Sutta (Digha Nikaya 15)

And so, with all one's heart, one can declare: I go to the Buddha as my refuge. For the second time, I go to the Buddha as my refuge. For the third time, I go to the Buddha as my refuge. ☸ > *"It is good to take refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma (the teachings of the Buddha), and the Saṅgha (the comminity of the monks who follow the footsteps of the Buddha). For those who take this refuge with wisdom, they will be freed from fear, sorrow, and suffering."* (Dhammapada, verses 188–192) And that, dear friend, is the measure of a truly great teacher. Sādhu! Sādhu! Sādhu! 🙏🏼

The Jayamangala Gatha (Verses of Joyous Victory) is a revered set of eight Buddhist stanzas that recount the Buddha’s triumphs over various adversities. Chanting or listening to these verses invokes spiritual protection, brings profound peace of mind, and helps practitioners overcome obstacles and misfortunes through the power of positive virtues. The Greatness of the Jayamangala Gatha The true greatness of these verses lies in their message that ultimate triumph is achieved through spiritual virtues and inner strength rather than force. Each stanza highlights a specific victory: Defeating Mara: Conquering the personification of evil/temptation using the power of generosity. Subduing Alavaka: Overcoming the fierce, arrogant demon through patience and forbearance. Taming Nalagiri: Pacifying a wild, charging elephant with the power of loving-kindness (Metta). Stopping Angulimala: Stopping a notorious serial killer using spiritual resolve and psychic powers. Handling Ciñcā's Accusation: Enduring a false, malicious accusation through imperturbable serenity and grace. Defeating Saccaka: Winning an intellectual debate against a boastful debater using the lamp of wisdom. Subduing Nandopananda: Taming a proud serpent king through the spiritual guidance of the Buddha's disciple. Curing Brahma Baka: Overcoming the "snake" of wrong views and dogma with the medicine of ultimate truth. In Buddhist tradition, simply listening to or reciting these verses with a pure, focused mind carries significant spiritual and mental benefits: Dispelling Fear and Negativity: Chanting the powerful truths creates a calming vibration that counteracts anxiety, negative energies, and doubt. Mindfulness and Protection: Remembering the Buddha's virtues helps calm the mind and acts as an emotional shield against life’s hardships. Encouraging Right View: Hearing the stories reminds us how to face our own internal "demons" (anger, ignorance, and greed) using peaceful means. Spiritual Awakening: Consistent daily recitation and meditation on these verses are believed to help a practitioner overcome the cycle of suffering and ultimately attain Nirvana (deliverance). Namo Buddhaya Sadhu! Sadhu!! Sadhu!!! 🙏🏼

Final Closing – In the Spirit of an Arahant: And now, let us be clear about something deeper – something that both the angry accuser and many sentimental Buddhists forget. Yes, Buddhism does not condemn loving, consensual homosexual relationships for lay people. Yes, the third precept is about harm, not gender. But do not mistake tolerance for the goal. Whether you sleep with a man or a woman, you are still sleeping in the fire. Sensual pleasure – of any kind, with any gender – is not freedom. It is a chain, however gilded. The ultimate aim of Buddhism is not to find a more inclusive way to enjoy sense desires. The ultimate aim is to go beyond all sensual craving – to see the void (*suññatā*) in every pleasure, to uproot the very thirst (*taṇhā*) that drives beings from one bed to another, one life to another, one death to another. Homosexual or heterosexual – both are still *sexual*. Both arise from the same ignorance: the delusion that happiness lies in contact between bodies. The Arahant looks at both with the same eye: *this too is suffering (dukkha), this too is impermanent (anicca), this too is not self (anatta).* Listen to the Buddha himself – not to comfort, but to wake up: “Suppose a dog, overcome with weakness and hunger, came across a skeleton left in a slaughterhouse. What do you think, monks? Would that skeleton satisfy the dog’s hunger or dispel its weakness?” “No, venerable sir.” “Why not?” “Because a skeleton is nothing but dry bone – it cannot satisfy hunger or remove weakness.” “In the same way, monks, sensual pleasures are compared to a skeleton – providing little satisfaction, bringing much suffering and despair, and the danger in them is great.” – Mahādukkhakkhandha Sutta (MN 13) And again: “Even if it rains gold coins, sensual desires are never satisfied. ‘They give little joy and bring much pain’ – knowing this, the wise take no delight even in heavenly pleasures. A disciple of the Fully Awakened One delights only in the destruction of craving.” -- Dhammapada (vv. 186–187) This is not morality. This is physics of the mind. The more you feed a fire, the more it burns. The more you chase any sense pleasure – by any orientation – the more you fuel the craving that keeps you bound to birth, aging, sickness, and death. So go ahead: defend your right to love whom you wish. I defend it too – for lay life. But do not pretend that any form of sensuality leads to Nirvana. It does not. The path goes *through* virtue, not *to* pleasure. > If you want liberation – whether you are gay, straight, or neither – you will eventually have to let go of *all* sensual grasping. That is the Buddha’s hard, beautiful, logical truth. > Now, on this day of Vesak – when the Buddha himself, under the Bodhi tree, tore apart every chain of craving and walked free from the skeleton of sensual longing – may you too find the courage to look beyond the skeleton too. Not next life. Not tomorrow. But right now, in this very mind that clings to pleasure as if it were food. That is the Dhamma. That is the fire that burns illusion. And that is where I leave this conversation. 🙏🏻

4. What the article actually says (please read fully) The article I shared begins by mentioning that the Vinaya prohibits homosexuality for monks – because all sex is prohibited for monks. Someone who only reads the first few lines might mistakenly think Buddhism condemns homosexuality. But the article then devotes many paragraphs to showing that for lay Buddhists, homosexuality is not a violation of the third precept, and that the Buddha’s ethics are based on intention and harm, not on sexual orientation. I kindly ask anyone who wants to discuss this to read the whole text before judging. Final words I am not homophobic. I have no hatred for anyone. I shared that text to show that Buddhism, rightly understood, is not homophobic – and to help both Buddhists and non‑Buddhists see the compassion and wisdom in the Buddha’s teachings. Name‑calling helps no one and only creates more suffering – exactly what the Dhamma teaches us to let go of. With mettā and peace for all beings, regardless of who they love. 🙏🏻 ☸️ https://t.me/BuDdHiStChAnNeLjOiNin/2818

What Buddhism Really Says About Homosexuality – A clarification after an unfortunate exchange Dear friends, On Vesak day here in Sri Lanka and South-east Asia, I would like to share how the early Buddhist tradition viewed regarding homosexuality. Because recently someone has misunderstood and replied angrily due to an article by A.L. De Silva I had shared earlier, who probably might have not read the full article. That reaction was painful, but it showed me that many people, even within Buddhist circles, still misunderstand what the Buddha actually taught about same‑sex relationships. So let me set the record straight – based on the Pali Canon, early commentaries, and the very article that was attacked. I will also share the link to the article, so whoever is interested and have time may read it. 1. Did the Buddha ever condemn homosexuality for lay people? No. The Pali Canon (the oldest Buddhist scriptures) contains no discourse in which the Buddha forbids sexual relations between two people of the same gender for lay followers. The Buddha’s ethical criteria for lay sexuality are universal: - No harm to oneself or others - No adultery (sex with someone who is married or in a committed relationship with another) - No deceit, coercion, or exploitation - Mutual consent These criteria apply equally to heterosexual and homosexual relationships. As A.L. De Silva writes: > *“It is not the object of one’s sexual desire that determines whether a sexual act is unskillful, but rather the quality of the emotions and intentions involved.”* A consensual, loving, faithful same‑sex relationship does not break the third precept (*kāmesu micchācāra* – sexual misconduct). 2. What about the word *pandaka* in the Vinaya? The Vinaya (monastic code) mentions a type of person called *pandaka* who cannot be ordained. Some have mistakenly claimed this means all homosexuals. But the early commentaries explain *pandaka* as someone “full of passions, unquenchable lust, dominated by the desire for sex” – extremely effeminate, exhibitionist, or promiscuous. It does not refer to homosexuals in general. There is no evidence that the Buddha excluded people based solely on their sexual orientation. What mattered for monks and nuns was the ability to remain celibate – not which gender they were attracted to. In the monastic *Pātimokkha*, any sexual act involving penetration (vagina, anus, or mouth) – with a person of the same or opposite sex – is a *pārājika* offense, leading to automatic expulsion. This rule applies equally to both orientations. It is not a judgment against homosexuality. It is simply the boundary for celibacy. Monks and nuns are required to abstain from all sexual activity, regardless of the gender of the partner. For lay Buddhists, the precept is about avoiding harm, not about the gender of the person you love. 3. Homosexuality in Buddhist societies – historically tolerant As A.L. De Silva notes, Buddhist societies have generally been far more tolerant of homosexuality than Christian or Muslim societies: - Thailand (never colonised) has no anti‑homosexuality laws. - In Sri Lanka and Burma (Myanmar), such laws were introduced only by British colonial rulers, not by Buddhist tradition. - Traditional Japan, Korea, and China – heavily influenced by Buddhism – had periods where homosexuality was accepted or even idealised (e.g., *hwarang* in Korea, samurai love poems in Japan). Matteo Ricci, a Jesuit missionary in China (1583–1610), was horrified at how openly and without shame the Chinese spoke of homosexuality. That horror came from his Christian background – not from Buddhism.

What Buddhism Really Says About Homosexuality – A clarification after an unfortunate exchange Dear friends, On Vesak day here in Sri Lanka and South-east Asia, I would like to share how the early Buddhist tradition viewed regarding homosexuality. As you see someone has misunderstood and replied angrily due to an article by A.L. De Silva I had shared earlier, who probably have not read the full article. That reaction was painful, but it showed me that many people, even within Buddhist circles, still misunderstand what the Buddha actually taught about same‑sex relationships. So let me set the record straight – based on the Pali Canon, early commentaries, and the very article that was attacked. I will also share the link to the article, so whoever is interested and have time may read it. 1. Did the Buddha ever condemn homosexuality for lay people? No. The Pali Canon (the oldest Buddhist scriptures) contains no discourse in which the Buddha forbids sexual relations between two people of the same gender for lay followers. The Buddha’s ethical criteria for lay sexuality are universal: - No harm to oneself or others - No adultery (sex with someone who is married or in a committed relationship with another) - No deceit, coercion, or exploitation - Mutual consent These criteria apply equally to heterosexual and homosexual relationships. As A.L. De Silva writes: > *“It is not the object of one’s sexual desire that determines whether a sexual act is unskillful, but rather the quality of the emotions and intentions involved.”* A consensual, loving, faithful same‑sex relationship does not break the third precept (*kāmesu micchācāra* – sexual misconduct). 2. What about the word *pandaka* in the Vinaya? The Vinaya (monastic code) mentions a type of person called *pandaka* who cannot be ordained. Some have mistakenly claimed this means all homosexuals. But the early commentaries explain *pandaka* as someone “full of passions, unquenchable lust, dominated by the desire for sex” – extremely effeminate, exhibitionist, or promiscuous. It does not refer to homosexuals in general. There is no evidence that the Buddha excluded people based solely on their sexual orientation. What mattered for monks and nuns was the ability to remain celibate – not which gender they were attracted to. In the monastic *Pātimokkha*, any sexual act involving penetration (vagina, anus, or mouth) – with a person of the same or opposite sex – is a *pārājika* offense, leading to automatic expulsion. This rule applies equally to both orientations. It is not a judgment against homosexuality. It is simply the boundary for celibacy. Monks and nuns are required to abstain from all sexual activity, regardless of the gender of the partner. For lay Buddhists, the precept is about avoiding harm, not about the gender of the person you love. 3. Homosexuality in Buddhist societies – historically tolerant As A.L. De Silva notes, Buddhist societies have generally been far more tolerant of homosexuality than Christian or Muslim societies: - Thailand (never colonised) has no anti‑homosexuality laws. - In Sri Lanka and Burma (Myanmar), such laws were introduced only by British colonial rulers, not by Buddhist tradition. - Traditional Japan, Korea, and China – heavily influenced by Buddhism – had periods where homosexuality was accepted or even idealised (e.g., *hwarang* in Korea, samurai love poems in Japan). Matteo Ricci, a Jesuit missionary in China (1583–1610), was horrified at how openly and without shame the Chinese spoke of homosexuality. That horror came from his Christian background – not from Buddhism.

But the article then devotes many paragraphs to showing that for lay Buddhists, homosexuality is not a violation of the third precept, and that the Buddha’s ethics are based on intention and harm, not on sexual orientation. I kindly ask anyone who wants to discuss this to read the whole text before judging. Final words I am not homophobic. I have no hatred for anyone. I shared that text to show that Buddhism, rightly understood, is not homophobic – and to help both Buddhists and non‑Buddhists see the compassion and wisdom in the Buddha’s teachings. Name‑calling helps no one and only creates more suffering – exactly what the Dhamma teaches us to let go of. With mettā and peace for all beings, regardless of who they love. 🙏🏻 ☸️ https://t.me/BuDdHiStChAnNeLjOiNin/2818

What Buddhism Really Says About Homosexuality – A clarification after an unfortunate exchange Dear friends, On Vesak day here in Sri Lanka and South-east Asia, I would like to share how the early Buddhist tradition viewed regarding homosexuality. As you see someone has misunderstood and replied angrily due to an article by A.L. De Silva I had shared earlier, who probably have not read the full article. That reaction was painful, but it showed me that many people, even within Buddhist circles, still misunderstand what the Buddha actually taught about same‑sex relationships. So let me set the record straight – based on the Pali Canon, early commentaries, and the very article that was attacked. I will also share the link to the article, so whoever is interested and have time may read it. 1. Did the Buddha ever condemn homosexuality for lay people? No. The Pali Canon (the oldest Buddhist scriptures) contains no discourse in which the Buddha forbids sexual relations between two people of the same gender for lay followers. The Buddha’s ethical criteria for lay sexuality are universal: - No harm to oneself or others - No adultery (sex with someone who is married or in a committed relationship with another) - No deceit, coercion, or exploitation - Mutual consent These criteria apply equally to heterosexual and homosexual relationships. As A.L. De Silva writes: > *“It is not the object of one’s sexual desire that determines whether a sexual act is unskillful, but rather the quality of the emotions and intentions involved.”* A consensual, loving, faithful same‑sex relationship does not break the third precept (*kāmesu micchācāra* – sexual misconduct). 2. What about the word *pandaka* in the Vinaya? The Vinaya (monastic code) mentions a type of person called *pandaka* who cannot be ordained. Some have mistakenly claimed this means all homosexuals. But the early commentaries explain *pandaka* as someone “full of passions, unquenchable lust, dominated by the desire for sex” – extremely effeminate, exhibitionist, or promiscuous. It does not refer to homosexuals in general. There is no evidence that the Buddha excluded people based solely on their sexual orientation. What mattered for monks and nuns was the ability to remain celibate – not which gender they were attracted to. In the monastic *Pātimokkha*, any sexual act involving penetration (vagina, anus, or mouth) – with a person of the same or opposite sex – is a *pārājika* offense, leading to automatic expulsion. This rule applies equally to both orientations. It is not a judgment against homosexuality. It is simply the boundary for celibacy. Monks and nuns are required to abstain from all sexual activity, regardless of the gender of the partner. For lay Buddhists, the precept is about avoiding harm, not about the gender of the person you love. 3. Homosexuality in Buddhist societies – historically tolerant As A.L. De Silva notes, Buddhist societies have generally been far more tolerant of homosexuality than Christian or Muslim societies: - Thailand (never colonised) has no anti‑homosexuality laws. - In Sri Lanka and Burma (Myanmar), such laws were introduced only by British colonial rulers, not by Buddhist tradition. - Traditional Japan, Korea, and China – heavily influenced by Buddhism – had periods where homosexuality was accepted or even idealised (e.g., *hwarang* in Korea, samurai love poems in Japan). Matteo Ricci, a Jesuit missionary in China (1583–1610), was horrified at how openly and without shame the Chinese spoke of homosexuality. That horror came from his Christian background – not from Buddhism. 4. What the article actually says (please read fully) The article I shared begins by mentioning that the Vinaya prohibits homosexuality for monks – because all sex is prohibited for monks. Someone who only reads the first few lines might mistakenly think Buddhism condemns homosexuality.