Bernat Font

Essay for the Buddhist Ethics Module

MA in Buddhist Studies

University of South Wales

Buddhism and Homosexuality

Bernat Font !1
 Master Hsing Yun, founder and former abbot of the Fo Guang Shan school, has said:

People often ask me what I think about homosexuality. They wonder, is it right,
is it wrong? The answer is, it is neither right nor wrong. It is just something that
people do. If people are not harming each other, their private lives are their own
business; we should be tolerant of them and not reject them. (Sujato, 2012,
paragraph 8)

This reflects well the position most consistent with both early Buddhist thought and the
core values of Buddhism as a whole. Sexual orientation is no moral issue. As Hsing Yun’s
statement shows, a main criterion for assessing morality is whether or not behaviours create
dukkha. The relevance, or irrelevance, of homosexuality is what will be explored here. Given
length limitations, a general evaluation of Buddhism’s view of sexuality will no be attempted. The
discussion will revolve around the extent to which the various Buddhist traditions have regarded
homosexuality as problematic and why, and whether such views are likely to remain significant
today.

This paper argues that the considerable tolerance that contemporary Buddhism exhibits
towards homosexuality, compared to other world religions, is due to the fact that homosexuality
per se is not problematic on Buddhist grounds —and particularly as we understand it today. As a
consequence, Buddhism has not propagated a negative view of homosexuals, has never promoted
their persecution (Harvey, 2000, p.434) and whenever it has met with a culture which accepts and
embraces them, it has not resisted it.

However, to what extent this means that “Buddhism has been for the most part neutral on
the question of homosexuality,” as Cabezón (1993, p.82) affirms, is someting to be explored. For
under the categories of ubhatobyañjanaka and paṇḍaka, effeminate passive homosexuals —together
with transgender people— have been banned ordination, and this is hardly ‘neutral’.

The truth in Cabezón’s statement is that the more we go back to the early teachings, the less
we find same-sex attraction being described as problematic in itself. As put by Zwilling (1992, p.
209), “when homosexual behavior is not ignored in Indian Buddhist writings it is derogated much
to the same degree as comparable heterosexual acts.” As will be developed below, for monks and
for nuns homosexual acts are either equally or less serious than heterosexual acts. And the
teachings on sexual misconduct (kāmesu-micchācāra) for lay people (Thanissaro, 1997) only
regulate the activity of heterosexual men in terms of what kind of female partners are
inappropriate, foremost among them the wives of others (De Silva, no date, paragraph 6). Without
this ground it would not be easy to explain the Japanese tradition of monastic male love, nor how
certain movements and teachers in the West that were reluctant at first have changed their minds
within only few decades (Wilson 2012, pp.33-34), nor the current widespread acceptance of
homosexuality across Buddhist traditions.

Other factors have to be considered too. Buddhism is not a pro-natalist religion (Loy 2013, p.
1) and with respect to lay conduct it has no theological reasons to regard sex as only for

Bernat Font !2
procreation. Eventually it did, in Tibet, but only as the result of a ‘monasticizing’ process that will
be discussed below. Alarmist arguments about the extinction of the human race would not be
coherent with the cosmology of Buddhism, which can see the increase or decrease of a certain
species as the result of beings being reborn in another realm. One isolated occasion in which this
argument is used is in 17th-century Japan and in a context of humorous literature (Schalow 1992,
p.223). Buddhism is also heavily monastic and so besides the (originally) very liberal lay sexual
ethics, the rest of the teachings on sexuality are thoroughly negative, since monks and nuns
should be celibate.

Works dealing with the subject of homosexuality and Buddhism always draw attention to
how sexuality is a culturally conditioned phenomena, and how it is inappropriate to apply our
modern Western notion of homosexuality unto past times and distant cultures which seem to
have judged homosexual acts but lacked any notion of “the” homosexual (Cabezon, 1993, p.85;
Harvey, 2000, p.411). However, there is no reason to believe that individuals whose main or
exclusive sexual preferences were those of his or her same gender did not exist at the time of the
Buddha or in other Buddhist cultures. Nor can we conclude that they were not aware of their own
tastes just because they lacked any social category with which to identify. Moreover, the Buddhist
tradition has indeed spoken of individuals and not only mere of acts, especially in the works of
commentators. Reasonings along these lines can be found in Faure (1998, location 2841 to 2854)
and Zwilling (1992, p.203).

What becomes clear from the outset is that the categories found in early Buddhist texts do
not match our current ones and conflate notions of sexual orientation and gender, something
common in the history of both East and West (ibid., p.206).

The Pali term ubhatobyañjanaka —‘those who have the characteristics of both sexes’— may
include hermaphrodites, which is the standard translation, homosexuals, bisexuals (ibid.) and
transgenders. People may fall into this category for either biological or psychological reasons
(Jackson, 1996, paragraph 3) although biological ones seem to be more distinctive and, in fact, the
Vinaya describes them as having a vagina (Vin 3.29, p.122).

In contrast, the criterion for being a paṇḍaka is largely behavioural. In stories in the Vinaya
this word refers almost exclusively to male homosexuals (Zwilling, 1992, p.205) in the passive role,
effeminate and possibly transvestites, while the 5th-century commentator Buddhaghosa classifies
paṇḍakas into five types, including those who enjoy fellating others and ingesting their semen
(āsita-paṇḍaka) —homosexuals by today’s standards—; but also voyeurs, fetishists and two kinds of
impotent males (ibid., p.204). The word paṇḍaka means ‘without balls’ in both the literal and
metaphorical senses, as not being ‘a real man’ or ‘lacking maleness’ (napuṃsaka). There are
occasional references to the female paṇḍaka (itthipaṇḍakā) (Harvey, 2000, p.414) but according to
Rylance (2011, pp.129-130) they are more likely to refer to physical abnormalities than to what we
understand as lesbianism.

It should be kept in mind, however, that the terms paṇḍaka and ubhatobyañjanaka are not
used in a coherent way throughout the Pali canon or across the various early Buddhist textual
traditions, and the meanings of these two words are flexible and sometimes overlap (ibid.). From

Bernat Font !3
here onwards, the term paṇḍaka will be used to denote the particular type of effeminate passive
homosexual; voyeurs, fetishists or impotent males will not be dealt with.

So why are paṇḍakas not allowed to ordain? A story in the Vinaya cited in Zwilling (1992, pp.
207-208) recounts how on one occasion a paṇḍaka monk approached other monks, novices and
laymen and offered himself sexually. Only the laymen agreed, and they later criticised the
community of monks for either being paṇḍakas or mingling with paṇḍakas. On hearing this, the
Buddha banned paṇḍakas from ordaining and commanded the expulsion of those already
ordained. If this story is to be trusted we can infer, in the first place, that there was no a priori
discrimination against paṇḍakas. And secondly, that the ban responded to a certain irrepressible
promiscuity and self-advertisement inherent in paṇḍakas rather than to their same-sex
preferences. For when the monk Sudinna had sexual intercourse with his former wife (the story is
told starting at Vin 3.12, p.101) the Buddha expelled him and laid down the explicit rule
forbidding sexual intercourse for monks, but he did not expel nor deny future ordination for all
‘normative’ males. Hermaphrodites (ubhatobyañjanaka) are likewise not accepted in the monastic
community (Harvey, 2000, p.413).

Two more things support the idea that the Buddha did not see same-sex attraction as a
problem in itself. The first is that the lay teaching on sexual misconduct does not mention it,
although inferences from silence are problematic. However, it is safer to conclude that that which
is excluded from sexual misconduct is permissible than to argue that it is not. The second is that,
whenever a homosexual act is condemned for a monk or a nun, it is done so just for being sex
(Cabezón, 1993, p.82).

Not only are homosexual acts not singled out for special censure in the rules for monastics,
but they are often seen as less serious than heterosexual acts (Zwilling, 1992, p.207). One can
speculate that this is perhaps because homosexual sex can not lead to offspring and all the
complications derived from that, including the discredit of the monastic institution (Higgins, no
date, paragraph 20; Loy, 2013, p.5). Jones (2001) in Rylance (2011, p.137) observes that homosexual
acts entailed less danger of exposure. Faure (1998, location 2830) speculates that in Japan male
homosexual relationships were seen as having overcome defilement, for defilement was
connected to women.

But Japan seems to have forgot that for a monk (and for a nun), voluntary sexual
intercourse (penetration) with any being is an offence entailing expulsion. Twelve possibilities are
described for monks (Vin 3.29, p.122): with a female, a hermaphrodite, a paṇḍaka and a male; and
each of this human, non-human and animal. In the preceding paragraph, all the possible holes are
explicitly condemned —three for females and hermaphrodites, two for paṇḍakas and males. The
penalty is the same in all cases.

On one occasion to novices studying under Sariputta had sex with each other (Sujato, 2012,
paragraph 26). Since no expulsion followed, Gombrich (2009, p.176) is right in assuming that the
act was probably masturbation. Whatever the case, the Buddha prohibited that a monk have two
novices as students at the same time, although he later allowed it again as long as the monk in
question was competent enough. Masturbation between monks is an offence not entailing

Bernat Font !4
expulsion, and according to Zwilling (1992, p.207) non-orgasmic genital contact is even less
serious. As a rule of thumb, he says that acts commited with a woman are the most serious,
followed in descending order of seriousness by paṇḍakas and ‘normative’ males. (The androcentric
viewpoint should be noted.) Yet this acts are often of a non-sexual nature, like sitting together in
a secluded place (Harvey, 2000, p.416). Masturbation between nuns is a lesser offence, as is sharing
the same couch (ibid., p.420). This rule is usually read in sexual terms, but Rylance (2011, pp.
36-37) disagrees arguing that the Vinaya is very explicit on matters of sex and it is therefore
unlikely that these things depend upon insinuation.

All these are general regulations aimed at specifying that absolutely no sexual activity is
permitted for monastics, while also minimizing occasions for its arising. From the twelve
possibilities of sexual intercourse discussed above it is also clear that the category of ‘normative’
male included those who, either regularly or occasionally, penetrated or were penetrated by other
men (Cabezón, 1993, p.86). This reinforces the idea that the discrimination against paṇḍakas
should not be understood as concerning homosexuals in general. This is how De Silva (no date,
paragraph 3) puts it:

It is more probable that ancient Indians, like most modern Asians, considered
only the extremely effeminate, exhibitionist homosexual (the screaming queen
in popular perception) to be deviant while the less obvious homosexual was
simply considered a little more opportunistic or a little less fussy than other
'normal' males.

Few lines before, De Silva cites a commentary that states that paṇḍakas are "full of passions,
unquenchable lust and are dominated by the desire for sex." Vasubhandu regards paṇḍakas and
hermaphrodites as sensualists, chronically overcome by the defilements of both sexes;
Buddhaghosa claims they are hindered by defilements like those of fixed wrong view and, like the
Milindapañha, denies them the possibility of spiritual progress (Harvey, 2000, pp.417-418). Zwilling
(1992, p.206) speculates that the negative view of the behaviour and characteristics of paṇḍakas is
a result of social stigmatization, and queer thinkers like Michaelson (2011, location 1652) go
further and consider stigmatization as a cause of the behaviour itself.

Vasubhandu’s view may suggest a confusion about one’s sex. Let us discuss transgenderism
for a moment. Sex change was not problematic for the Buddha (Vin 3.35, pp.128-129): the former
monk simply changed to following the rules for nuns, or viceversa. The text says that “At one time
the characteristics of a woman appeared on a certain monk” and later those of a man on a certain
nun. At first, ‘characteristics’ suggests biology. Yet since describing sexual behaviour in terms of
manifesting sexual organs was not uncommon, as seen in Buddhaghosa (Zwilling, 1992, p.206),
these instances probably refer to transvestism or to ordained transgenders wanting to live
according to their perceived sex. While this may sound like too modern a reading, it still makes
more sense than other interpretations. For in general sex-change does not happen naturally and
nothing suggests that sex reassignment surgery existed in India in those times.

In many ancient cultures it was a man taking on the female, passive role that was badly seen
(Michaelson, 2001, location 1607). But according to what has been discussed about the early

Bernat Font !5
Buddhist tradition, it can be inferred that a man who engaged in homosexual acts, even in the
passive role, but did not display exhibitionist lustful attitudes was not perceived as a paṇḍaka —
especially if he was not effeminate— and therefore not as problematic. Going one step further, it
could be said that the paṇḍaka is the personification of what was specifically seen as problematic
within homosexual behaviour. It is a stereotype. But those whom we call homosexual today are
found in the three categories of hermaphrodites, paṇḍakas and males.

The Cakkavattisīhanāda Sutta (Thanissaro, 2002) talks about the moral decay of society, and
one of the examples it mentions is ‘micchā-dhammo’, which according to Sujato (2012, paragraph
22) is “about the most generic term for wrong doing that it’s possible to make in Pali.” In his
commentary to it, however, Buddhaghosa interprets this as meaning, among other things, same-
sex attraction. Nonetheless this “has no basis in the text, it stands as a record of the attitude of a
medieval commentator” (ibid.). Buddhaghosa’s attitude reflects more than just a common Indian
view (Zwilling, 1992, p.209): providing examples of Western history, Michaelson (2011, location
2078) remarks how every age has perceived itself as the first in which homosexuality is rife and he
cites an interesting theory in Robb (2004) that “in every person’s personal history, sexuality is ‘on
the rise’ simply because we grow from children into adults. We all remember a time when things
were less sexual, because we were.”

In the same century that Buddhaghosa was writing down his commentaries, a Mahayana
work containing moral teachings for lay followers of the bodhisattva path, the Upāsakaśīla-sūtra,
was being translated into Chinese. Paralleling the ordination procedure, the text states that one
cannot formally undertake the lay precepts if one is “a hermaphrodite or one without sexual
organs” (Heng-ching Shih, 1994, p.76). One century earlier —4th century CE— Vasubhandu
broadened the scope of the lay teaching of sexual misconduct to include oral and anal sex. This
probably applies to same-sex relationships by analogy, but no explicit mention of homosexuality
is made (Corless, 1998, p.329 note 5). The explicit mention comes at the beginning of the second
millenium in Tibet. Gampopa elaborates on Vasubhandu and broadens sexual misconduct even
more. In addition to using the mouth and the anus, it now includes having intercourse near a
religiously significant place, where many people have gathered, in daylight, more than five
successive times and with a male or a eunuch (ibid., p.254). Here ‘eunuch’ is, according to
Guenther (1959, p.76) as cited in Harvey (2000, p.422), a translation of paṇḍaka. Few centuries
later, the Tibetan scholar Tsongkhapa adds masturbation to the list of immoral sexual behaviour
(Cabezón, 2008, p.3). As an exception, given the androcentric viewpoint of all these texts,
homosexual acts between women are not discussed.

Thus, from early Buddhism in India to medieval Tibet, lay sexual ethics suffer a process of
increasing restriction as a result of which they resemble monastic rules more and more and come
to include homosexuality. Indeed, Cabezón (ibid., p.13) argues that the authors of these later
works, being scholastic monks, began “reading monastic norms (like where penises can and
cannot be inserted) into lay behavioral codes,” applying the categories with which they were
familiar: places, times, partners, etc. Therefore, the looking upon anal and oral sex and
homosexuality as immoral sexual acts in Tibetan Buddhism is the result of this ‘monasticizing’
process, which leaves sex only for procreation. Other factors may also contribute, like the bad
Bernat Font !6
rebirths assigned to males who indulge in homosexual sex according to a compilation by
Śāntideva (Zwilling, 1992, p.209) and a widespread negative view of homosexuality among Tibetan
laity (Harvey, 2000, p.424), not necessarily related to the teachings discussed. However, there
seems to be a generalised Tibetan perception of homosexuality as something that happens in
monasteries, especially among a type of non-studying monks known as ‘dob dob’ (Ldab-ldobs).
Information on this can be found in Goldstein (1964, pp.134-135) and Cabezón (1993, p.93).

Thailand is another interesting example for it mirrors the early situations, differences
notwithstanding. Traditionally, homosexual behaviour did not necessarily deny status as a
‘normative’ male and was not considered sexual misconduct (Jackson, 1995, section 2). Elsewhere,
Jackson (2003, paragrah 7) observes that “same-sex and transgender behaviours have historically
been ignored by Thai religious and legal authorities” and discusses how Western influence has
shaped gender identities in Thailand. A current problematic concerns not same-sex attraction per
se, but effeminate passive homosexuals and transgenders or ladyboys, refferred to by the Thai
term ‘kathoey’ which is used as a translation of both hermaphrodite and paṇḍaka (Jackson, 1996).
Different opinions coexist (Rylance, 2011, p.62; Harvey, 2000, p.423), some linking homosexuality
and HIV/AIDS (Jackson, 1995, section 3). But while intentions to keep loyal to the scriptures are
influential, there is evidence that the ban on paṇḍakas is often not enforced (Olay Sugarfree, 2012).
Hardline positions are basically a perpetuation of the views of the early commentators and could
also be understood as partly the response to the increasingly bad reputation of Buddhism in
Thailand due to scandals of all types (Fiefeld, 2015). An episode in a popular Thai TV program
shows the current debate quite well (WoodyTalk, 2014).

Before moving to East Asia, it might be important to briefly discuss the affective side of
homosexuality. Although Buddhism’s emphasis has been almost exclusively on genital activity
(Corless, 2002, p.2), few stories in the Jataka literature suggest romantic feelings between males.
Harvey (2000, p.422) dismisses Jones’ (1979) readings of those tales as suggestive of homosexuality
for involving too much assumption but, as Rylance (2011, p.139) points out, Harvey overlooks his
own heteronormative expectations. One could wonder how would we read those stories of close
and devoted friendship, sometimes even involving commitments of exclusivity (ibid., p.138;
Cabezón, 1993, p.89), if the characters were not of the same gender.

A culture which did explicitly value same-sex relationships was China. Its history is full of
romantic stories of male love dating back as early as the 6th century BCE (Crompton, 2003, p.214),
before the birth of the Buddha. While the ‘status’ of homosexuality seems to have decreased from
Taoism, then Confucianism, to Buddhism, the latter actually having the least favourable opinion
on the subject (ibid., p.222), it seems that homosexuality continued to be widely and openly
practiced, as evidenced by the writings of a horrified Jesuit missionary, Mateo Ricci (ibid., p.228;
Faure, 1998, location 2763).

Amongst the many things Japan imported from China was male love. A legend of dubious
historical veracity, of which there is no written evidence before the 14th or 15th centuries,
attributes such import to the founder of the Shingon school, Kūkai, in the 9th century (Schalow,
1992, p.215-216). Nevertheless, Japan appears to have been already accepting of same-sex

Bernat Font !7
relationships (Crompton, 2003, p.413). The result was a form of male love (‘nanshoku’), usually
between an older monk and a younger acolyte, that became rife in Shingon, Tendai and Zen
monasteries (Faure, 1998, location 2974). Another shocked Jesuit missionary, Francis Xavier, first
discovered this practice in a Zen monastery (Crompton, 2003, p.411). The Japanese tradition of
male love is described at length in Schalow (1992), and it generated literary genres and works
including a 16th-century manual discussing methods for seduction and anal intercourse with
acolytes.

The perception of ‘nanshoku’ as sinful, as found in the Tendai monk Genshin, was a minority
view (Faure, 1998, position 2827). Other criticisms were rather pragmatic: as sterile or as leading
to jealousies and conflicts in monasteries (Harvey, 2000, p.428), this being the only instance in
Buddhist history in which same-sex attraction is described specifically as a hindrance or
distraction to monastic spiritual practice (Cabezón, 1993, p.89). Monastic homosexuality was
enthusiastically praised, was given theological justification and was used to counter the trend of
monks (priests) marrying (ibid., p.92). After the Kamakura period this practice extended beyond
Buddhist institutions, and one can even find complaints that the price of boy prostitutes had
risen (Faure, 1998, location 2942).

In its encounter with the modern West, Buddhism has found a new understanding of sexual
attraction and love between males and between females. Some features of this understanding are
that anyone with an exclusive sexual preference for those of the same gender is identified as
‘homosexual’, from the paṇḍaka-like to the non-recognizable; same-sex attraction is not seen as
the result of being particularly lustful; and most homosexuals attempt to live openly the same
kind of life than heterosexuals, even marrying and raising a family.

To this Buddhism has generally responded positively. While at first the Vipassana teacher S.
N. Goenka and the Nichiren Shōshū of America (currently Soka Gakkai International) were
reluctant about homosexuality, both became more open (Wilson, 2012, pp.33-34). Teachers from
traditions as different as Ajahn Brahm and Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche have videos on youtube
explaining how irrelevant sexual orientation is with regards to understanding the true nature of
reality (BuddhistSocietyWA, 2012; Sky Yogi, 2015). And although traditionally Buddhism has never
been concerned with marriage, considering it a civil matter (Wilson, 2012, p.45), the Buddhist
Churches of America, a Shin Buddhist organisation, has been conducting same-sex weddings since
1969 (ibid., p.31), with or without legal recognition of the marriages, as some teachers of other
traditions have done as well (ibid., p.36).

In contrast, Lama Ole Nydahl, leader of the Diamond Way, has repeatedly expressed negative
views of homosexuality, occasionally promoting homophobia within his organization (Scherer,
2011, pp.96 & 101), but such instances are a minority voice in contemporary Buddhism. Most
Buddhist schools in the West remain true to the core values of their tradition: developing
compassion for all beings and reducing dukkha.

Since most Buddhist practitioners today are sexually active lay people, monastic-like rules
that forbid certain sexual practices are not likely to remain relevant. Apart from that, the
negative comments regarding paṇḍakas do not apply to the whole LGBT community but only to

Bernat Font !8
few individuals that match the stereotype of the self-advertising, promiscuous ‘queen’. They may
feel called upon to reflect on how their behaviour feeds their lust and whether this is supportive
or not for their spiritual path. Popular culture and the era of dating apps may facilitate and
promote promiscuity, but at the same time the stigma is removed. Openness and social
acceptance allows homosexual lifestyles that are healthy, harmless and settled, and against this
Buddhism has the least, if anything, to say.

To summarize, there is nothing in the early texts that speaks against homosexual people,
acts and relationships when these are not overtly promiscuous, and especially in lay contexts.
There is nothing in favour of it either, but the accepting attitude of contemporary teachers
inclines us to read that silence positively. Those who read it differently will do so because of a
misunderstanding of such an exhibitionist promiscuity as intrinsic to all homosexual behaviour —
a sign of extremely intense lust. Also nothing in Buddhist doctrine supports the idea that intense
lust in a homosexual person is any worse than in a heterosexual one. Prohibitions on homosexual
intercourse came about as a result of modeling lay sexual ethics in light of monastic rules, which
restricted morally acceptable sex in several ways. Some commentators saw homosexuality as part
of a morally degenerating society, but such conception has no basis in the early texts, and to what
extent this reflected a commonly held view of their time we cannot know. What we do know is
that in cultures with a history of appreciation for same-sex love, particularly male, either nothing
was done to change it (China) or it was welcomed and even praised (Japan) in however surprising
ways. This same tolerance and flexibility has allowed Buddhism to be generally accepting of
homosexuality in the modern West. The few tensions are well illustrated by the figure of the Dalai
Lama, who tries to be true to the restrictive lay sexual teachings of his tradition while finding no
theological or ethical grounds in Buddhism to condemn homosexual individuals and couples
(Cabezón, 2008, p.3). Consenting to the mores of contemporary society, he even empowers them
(ibid.): “It is not unprecedented in the history of Buddhism to redefine [moral] issues, but it has to
be done on the collective level.”

References

BuddhistSocietyWA (2012) ‘Gay Marriage, Why Not?’, Youtube, 21 March [Online]. Available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOPcbFhCEj0 (Accessed: January 2016).

Cabezón, J. I. (1993) ‘Homosexuality and Buddhism’, in Swidler, A. (ed.) Homosexuality and world
religions. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, pp. 81-101.

Cabezón, J. I. (2008) ‘Thinking through Texts: Toward a Critical Buddhist Theology of Sexuality’,
Frederick P. Lenz Distinguished Lecture, Naropa University, 23 September [Online] Available at:
https://www.naropa.edu/academics/academic-affairs/visiting-scholars/thinking-through-
texts.pdf (Accessed: January 2016).

Bernat Font !9
Corless, R. (1998) ‘Coming out in the Sangha: queer community in American Buddhism’, in
Prebish, C. S. and Tanaka, K. K., (eds) The faces of Buddhism in America. London: University of
California Press, pp. 253 - 265.

Corless, R. (2002) ‘Sex for Queer Buddhists’, Gay Buddhist Fellowship, August/September Newsletter,
pp.1-4 [Online]. Available at: http://www.gaybuddhist.org (Accessed: January 2016).

Crompton, L. (2003) Homosexuality & Civilization. Cambridge and London: The Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press.

De Silva, A. L. (no date) Homosexuality and Theravada Buddhism. BuddhaNet [Online] Available at:
http://buddhanet.net (Accessed: January 2016).

Faure, B. (1998) The Red Thread: Buddhist Approaches to Sexuality. Electronic ed. Kindle format [ebook
reader] Princeton University Press. Available at: http://www.amazon.com

Fiefeld, A. (2015) ‘Hardliner tries to reform Thailand’s Buddhist monks behaving badly’, World
section of The Guardian, 15 May [Online]. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/world/
2015/may/15/thailand-buddhist-monks-bad-behaviour-crackdown (Accessed: January 2016).

Goldstein, M. (1964) 'A Study of the Ldab Ldob', Central Asiatic Journal, 9 (2), pp.123—141 [Online].
Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41926608 (Accessed: January 2016).

Gombrich, R. (2009) What the Buddha Thought. London and Oakville: Equinox.

Harvey, P. (2000) An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics: Foundations, Values and Issues. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Heng-ching Shih (1994)  The Sutra on Upasaka Precepts  (BDK English Tripitaka).  Berkeley: Numata
Center for Buddhist Translation and Research.

Higgins, W. (no date) Buddhist Sexual Ethics. BuddhaNet [Online] Available at: http://buddhanet.net
(Accessed: January 2016).

Jackson, P. (1996) ‘Non-normative Sex/Gender Categories in the Theravada Buddhist Scriptures’,

Australian Humanities Review, 1 (April-June). [Online]. Available at: http://
www.australianhumanitiesreview.org (Accessed: January 2016).

Jackson, P. (2003) ‘Performative Genders, Perverse Desires: A Bio-History of Thailand's Same-Sex

and Transgender Cultures’, Intersections: Gender, History and Culture in the Asian Context, 9
[Online]. Available at: http://intersections.anu.edu.au/ (Accessed: January 2016).

Loy, D. (2013) ‘What’s Wrong with Sex? A Buddhist Perspective’, Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 28
( 1 - 2 ) [ O n l i n e ] . A v a i l a b l e a t : h t t p : / / w w w. t a n d f o n l i n e . c o m / d o i / a b s /
10.1080/14681994.2012.758839 (Accessed: January 2016).

Michaelson, J. (2011) God vs. Gay? The Religious Case for Equality. Electronic ed. Kindle format [ebook
reader] Beacon Press. Available at: http://www.amazon.com

Bernat Font !10

Olay Sugarfree (2012) ‘Homosexual Monk’, Youtube, 12 October [Online]. Available at: https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI1e7hAcebY (Accessed: January 2016).

Rylance, V. J. (2011) Lesbian Buddhism? Unpublished MPhil thesis. SOAS, University of London.

Schalow, P. G. (1992) ‘Kūkai and the Tradition of Male Love in Japanese Buddhism’, in Cabezón, J.I.
(ed.) Buddhism, Sexuality and Gender. Albany: State University of New York Press, pp.215-230.

Scherer, B. (2011) ‘Macho Buddhism: Gender and Sexualities in the Diamond Way’, Religion and
Gender, 1 (1), pp.85-103. [Online]. Available at: https://www.religionandgender.org (Accessed:
January 2016).

Sky Yogi (2015) ‘Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche about Homosexuality and Buddhism (traduit en
français)’, Youtube, 22 January [Online]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=qA_Kp9v9ZtA (Accessed: January 2016).

Sujato (2012) ‘Why Buddhist Should Support Marriage Equality’, Sujato’s Blog, 21 March [Online].
Available at: https://sujato.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/1430/ (Accessed: January 2016).

Thanissaro (1997) ‘Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta: To Cunda the Silversmith’, Aṅguttara Nikāya 10.176
[Online] Available at: http://www.accesstoinsight.org (Accessed: January 2016).

Thanissaro (2002) ‘Cakkavatti Sutta: The Wheel-turning Emperor’, Dīgha Nikāya 26 [Online]
Available at: http://www.accesstoinsight.org (Accessed: January 2016).

Wilson, J. (2012) ‘"All Beings Are Equally Embraced By Amida Buddha": Jodo Shinshu Buddhism
and Same-Sex Marriage in the United States’, Journal of Global Buddhism, 13, pp.31-59 [Online]
Available at: http://www.globalbuddhism.org (Accessed: January 2016).

WoodyTalk (2014) ‘Gay Monk On Woody TalkShow, Parts 1-5’, Youtube, 21 April [Online]. Available
at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z63YdzMzBsY (Accessed: January 2016).

Zwilling, L. (1992) ‘Homosexuality as Seen in Indian Buddhist Texts’, in Cabezón, J.I. (ed.)
Buddhism, Sexuality and Gender. Albany: State University of New York Press, pp.203-214.

References to the Vinaya

Horner, I. B. and Bhikkhu Brahmali (tr.) (2014) The Book of Discipline. SuttaCentral [Online] Available
at: http://suttacentral.net (Accessed: January 2016).

Bernat Font !11