Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "البوذية والتوجه الجنسي" in Arabic language version.
Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: آخرون (link)The lay man is told to abstain from sex with "unsuitable partners" defined as girls underage, women betrothed or married and women who have taken vows of religious celibacy. This is clear, sound advice and seems to suggest that sexual misconduct is that which would disrupt existing family or love relationships. This is consonant with the general Buddhist principle that that which causes suffering for oneself or others is unethical behaviour. ("Unskillful behaviour" would be closer to the original.) There is no good reason to assume that homosexual relations which do not violate this principle should be treated differently.
The lay man is told to abstain from sex with "unsuitable partners" defined as girls underage, women betrothed or married and women who have taken vows of religious celibacy. This is clear, sound advice and seems to suggest that sexual misconduct is that which would disrupt existing family or love relationships. This is consonant with the general Buddhist principle that that which causes suffering for oneself or others is unethical behaviour. ("Unskillful behaviour" would be closer to the original.) There is no good reason to assume that homosexual relations which do not violate this principle should be treated differently.
Now the obvious historical question then becomes this: If the early doctrine of sexual misconduct is so simple and elegant, when and why did it get so complex and restrictive – that is, when do we find the transition to "organ/orifice mode"? The answer to the "when" question is simple. We don't find any examples of the more elaborate formulation of sexual misconduct before the third-century CE.
The Pali scriptures make no mention of homosexuality being unwise sexual conduct. For monastics, all sexual intercourse is a root downfall. It doesn't specify the gender of one's partner. Vasubandhu, a teacher who came several centuries after the Buddha, discouraged homosexuality. He wrote: "Personally speaking, I think what's most important is the motivation behind how we use our sexuality. In other words, if people use their sexuality unkindly or unwisely, it doesn't matter if it is directed to someone of their own sex or the opposite sex.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: الأرشيف كعنوان (link){{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: الأرشيف كعنوان (link)Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: آخرون (link)The lay man is told to abstain from sex with "unsuitable partners" defined as girls underage, women betrothed or married and women who have taken vows of religious celibacy. This is clear, sound advice and seems to suggest that sexual misconduct is that which would disrupt existing family or love relationships. This is consonant with the general Buddhist principle that that which causes suffering for oneself or others is unethical behaviour. ("Unskillful behaviour" would be closer to the original.) There is no good reason to assume that homosexual relations which do not violate this principle should be treated differently.
The Pali scriptures make no mention of homosexuality being unwise sexual conduct. For monastics, all sexual intercourse is a root downfall. It doesn't specify the gender of one's partner. Vasubandhu, a teacher who came several centuries after the Buddha, discouraged homosexuality. He wrote: "Personally speaking, I think what's most important is the motivation behind how we use our sexuality. In other words, if people use their sexuality unkindly or unwisely, it doesn't matter if it is directed to someone of their own sex or the opposite sex.
Now the obvious historical question then becomes this: If the early doctrine of sexual misconduct is so simple and elegant, when and why did it get so complex and restrictive – that is, when do we find the transition to "organ/orifice mode"? The answer to the "when" question is simple. We don't find any examples of the more elaborate formulation of sexual misconduct before the third-century CE.