Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "同性戀與佛教" in Chinese language version.
As homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha's discourses (more than 20 volumes in the Pali Text Society's English translation), we can only assume that it is meant to be evaluated in the same way that heterosexuality is. And indeed it seems that this is why it is not specifically mentioned. In the case of the lay man and woman where there is mutual consent, where adultery is not involved and where the sexual act is an expression of love, respect, loyalty and warmth, it would not be breaking the third Precept. And it is the same when the two people are of the same gender.
As homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha's discourses (more than 20 volumes in the Pali Text Society's English translation), we can only assume that it is meant to be evaluated in the same way that heterosexuality is. And indeed it seems that this is why it is not specifically mentioned. In the case of the lay man and woman where there is mutual consent, where adultery is not involved and where the sexual act is an expression of love, respect, loyalty and warmth, it would not be breaking the third Precept. And it is the same when the two people are of the same gender.
As homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha's discourses (more than 20 volumes in the Pali Text Society's English translation), we can only assume that it is meant to be evaluated in the same way that heterosexuality is. And indeed it seems that this is why it is not specifically mentioned. In the case of the lay man and woman where there is mutual consent, where adultery is not involved and where the sexual act is an expression of love, respect, loyalty and warmth, it would not be breaking the third Precept. And it is the same when the two people are of the same gender.
As homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha's discourses (more than 20 volumes in the Pali Text Society's English translation), we can only assume that it is meant to be evaluated in the same way that heterosexuality is. And indeed it seems that this is why it is not specifically mentioned. In the case of the lay man and woman where there is mutual consent, where adultery is not involved and where the sexual act is an expression of love, respect, loyalty and warmth, it would not be breaking the third Precept. And it is the same when the two people are of the same gender.
Rous' mother helped organize the wedding, which included blessings from four Buddhist monks.
坐而世尊言具壽跋迦梨曰：……「跋迦梨！汝於自戒有所責否？」「大德！我於自戒無所責。」「跋迦梨！若於自戒無所責者，有何惡作，有何追悔？」「大德！欲詣見世尊已久，但雖欲往見世尊，唯我身缺乏力。」「止止！跋迦梨！何必見此爛壞之身。跋迦梨！得見法者則見我，見我者乃見法。跋迦梨！見法則見我，見我乃見法。」
尊重當時當地的風土人情，順從當時當地的國家法令，是能使得佛法廣被人間的必備條件，這正所謂「入鄉問俗，入國問禁」的做人原則。佛教的戒律，當然也富有這樣的性格...中國古人例如天台智者大師（537～597）的《仁王經疏》卷二，則將佛教的五戒，配合儒家的五常來解釋，次第是不殺生為仁，不偷盜為智，不邪淫為義，不妄語為信，不飲酒為禮
有關五戒，最早在《阿含經》中出現...從東晉到南北朝初期，有關五戒的經典相繼譯出，同時，有關出家戒及菩薩戒的經典也逐漸譯出...因為五戒通大、小乘戒律，這些菩薩戒經的傳播推動了五戒的流行。隨著五戒的流行、實踐者的增多，在五戒的闡釋及理論方面必定有進一步的要求。於是，出現了有關五戒的疑偽經。因為瞭解五戒持犯的要求的進一步提出，所以首先從律部中採摘撰述成經典。如依《十誦律》撰成《佛說優婆塞五戒相經》， 從《優婆塞五戒威儀經》中撰成《離欲優婆塞優婆夷具行二十二戒》。這完全為了佛教徒本身持戒及瞭解戒相的需要，是佛教內部的自我要求。五戒畢竟是佛教的倫理道德，佛教徒生活在社會中，肯定會受到來自儒家的綱常倫理的強大壓力，所以，如何將五戒與儒家的五常調和是佛教弘揚者必須解決的問題。
在很大程度上，台灣的宗教主要是佛教和道教，而這兩種信仰沒有多少抵制同性戀的教義。台灣共有2300萬人口，雖然基督教徒所佔的比例不到5%，但他們築起了反對的壁壘。
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...I believe that they chose they these terms – partners, organs, orifices, times and places – because these are the terms with which they were familiar. And why were they familiar with these categories? Because they were the categories used to discuss the breaking of rules in the monastic code, the Vinaya. Hence, what a historical analysis shows us is that Indian authors began to read lay sexual ethics through the lens of monastic discipline, reading monastic norms (like where penises can and cannot be inserted) into lay behavioral codes...In their exuberance to elaborate, I would argue, they went overboard, on the one hand leaving behind the earlier, more elegant, and simpler formulation of sexual misconduct, and on the other inappropriately reading lay sexual ethics through the filter of monastic discipline. The end result was to make lay sexuality increasingly more restrictive and monasticlike...But what benefits are forthcoming from the more elaborate and restrictive scholastic sexual code?
第二個問題談到同性戀，我倒不覺得這是個很奇怪的現象。如果我們說這件事情奇怪呢，其實人本來就是非常奇怪的東西，從無始以來我們作了許多奇怪的事情，如 果你真的是頭腦比較清楚的一個人，你走到今天的一個百貨公司裡面，你就會知道人類這麼多世代以來作了多少瘋狂的事情。也許這樣講你會認為從道德的觀念判斷 也許是這個樣子，但是在這邊這點你要非常小心，你什麼東西都從道德的角度去看呢，很容易讓你自己認為你好像高人一等，你好像比別人更清淨更聖潔這樣子
Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct, I undertake to cultivate responsibility and learn ways to protect the safety and integrity of individuals, couples, families, and society. I am determined not to engage in sexual relations without love and a long- term commitment. To preserve the happiness of myself and others, I am determined to respect my commitments and the commitments of others. I will do everything in my power to protect children from sexual abuse and to prevent couples and families from being broken by sexual misconduct
有關五戒，最早在《阿含經》中出現...從東晉到南北朝初期，有關五戒的經典相繼譯出，同時，有關出家戒及菩薩戒的經典也逐漸譯出...因為五戒通大、小乘戒律，這些菩薩戒經的傳播推動了五戒的流行。隨著五戒的流行、實踐者的增多，在五戒的闡釋及理論方面必定有進一步的要求。於是，出現了有關五戒的疑偽經。因為瞭解五戒持犯的要求的進一步提出，所以首先從律部中採摘撰述成經典。如依《十誦律》撰成《佛說優婆塞五戒相經》， 從《優婆塞五戒威儀經》中撰成《離欲優婆塞優婆夷具行二十二戒》。這完全為了佛教徒本身持戒及瞭解戒相的需要，是佛教內部的自我要求。五戒畢竟是佛教的倫理道德，佛教徒生活在社會中，肯定會受到來自儒家的綱常倫理的強大壓力，所以，如何將五戒與儒家的五常調和是佛教弘揚者必須解決的問題。
感情問題在佛教而言，是一種執著，不論同性、異性，一旦執著，都是痛苦的來源
人身為有情動物，不可能完全沒有情慾，但要練習將情感、緣份的聚合看得淡一點
在很大程度上，台灣的宗教主要是佛教和道教，而這兩種信仰沒有多少抵制同性戀的教義。台灣共有2300萬人口，雖然基督教徒所佔的比例不到5%，但他們築起了反對的壁壘。
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. 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.
坐而世尊言具壽跋迦梨曰：……「跋迦梨！汝於自戒有所責否？」「大德！我於自戒無所責。」「跋迦梨！若於自戒無所責者，有何惡作，有何追悔？」「大德！欲詣見世尊已久，但雖欲往見世尊，唯我身缺乏力。」「止止！跋迦梨！何必見此爛壞之身。跋迦梨！得見法者則見我，見我者乃見法。跋迦梨！見法則見我，見我乃見法。」
在台灣佛教大師們眼中，看到的是自古以來同志存在的事實，對於同性戀是與異性戀相同都是情慾，情慾可能帶來煩惱，因此既不鼓勵，也不反對
佛教、道教和其他本土宗教对待同性欲望的态度基本上是保持沉默，尽管这两种宗教都支持关于家庭结构和家庭责任的传统观念，并提倡摆脱包括性欲在内的各种欲望以获得自由
有關五戒，最早在《阿含經》中出現...從東晉到南北朝初期，有關五戒的經典相繼譯出，同時，有關出家戒及菩薩戒的經典也逐漸譯出...因為五戒通大、小乘戒律，這些菩薩戒經的傳播推動了五戒的流行。隨著五戒的流行、實踐者的增多，在五戒的闡釋及理論方面必定有進一步的要求。於是，出現了有關五戒的疑偽經。因為瞭解五戒持犯的要求的進一步提出，所以首先從律部中採摘撰述成經典。如依《十誦律》撰成《佛說優婆塞五戒相經》， 從《優婆塞五戒威儀經》中撰成《離欲優婆塞優婆夷具行二十二戒》。這完全為了佛教徒本身持戒及瞭解戒相的需要，是佛教內部的自我要求。五戒畢竟是佛教的倫理道德，佛教徒生活在社會中，肯定會受到來自儒家的綱常倫理的強大壓力，所以，如何將五戒與儒家的五常調和是佛教弘揚者必須解決的問題。
佛教、道教和其他本土宗教对待同性欲望的态度基本上是保持沉默，尽管这两种宗教都支持关于家庭结构和家庭责任的传统观念，并提倡摆脱包括性欲在内的各种欲望以获得自由
在台灣佛教大師們眼中，看到的是自古以來同志存在的事實，對於同性戀是與異性戀相同都是情慾，情慾可能帶來煩惱，因此既不鼓勵，也不反對
As homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha's discourses (more than 20 volumes in the Pali Text Society's English translation), we can only assume that it is meant to be evaluated in the same way that heterosexuality is. And indeed it seems that this is why it is not specifically mentioned. In the case of the lay man and woman where there is mutual consent, where adultery is not involved and where the sexual act is an expression of love, respect, loyalty and warmth, it would not be breaking the third Precept. And it is the same when the two people are of the same gender.
As homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha's discourses (more than 20 volumes in the Pali Text Society's English translation), we can only assume that it is meant to be evaluated in the same way that heterosexuality is. And indeed it seems that this is why it is not specifically mentioned. In the case of the lay man and woman where there is mutual consent, where adultery is not involved and where the sexual act is an expression of love, respect, loyalty and warmth, it would not be breaking the third Precept. And it is the same when the two people are of the same gender.
As homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha's discourses (more than 20 volumes in the Pali Text Society's English translation), we can only assume that it is meant to be evaluated in the same way that heterosexuality is. And indeed it seems that this is why it is not specifically mentioned. In the case of the lay man and woman where there is mutual consent, where adultery is not involved and where the sexual act is an expression of love, respect, loyalty and warmth, it would not be breaking the third Precept. And it is the same when the two people are of the same gender.
As homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha's discourses (more than 20 volumes in the Pali Text Society's English translation), we can only assume that it is meant to be evaluated in the same way that heterosexuality is. And indeed it seems that this is why it is not specifically mentioned. In the case of the lay man and woman where there is mutual consent, where adultery is not involved and where the sexual act is an expression of love, respect, loyalty and warmth, it would not be breaking the third Precept. And it is the same when the two people are of the same gender.
尊重當時當地的風土人情，順從當時當地的國家法令，是能使得佛法廣被人間的必備條件，這正所謂「入鄉問俗，入國問禁」的做人原則。佛教的戒律，當然也富有這樣的性格...中國古人例如天台智者大師（537～597）的《仁王經疏》卷二，則將佛教的五戒，配合儒家的五常來解釋，次第是不殺生為仁，不偷盜為智，不邪淫為義，不妄語為信，不飲酒為禮
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...I believe that they chose they these terms – partners, organs, orifices, times and places – because these are the terms with which they were familiar. And why were they familiar with these categories? Because they were the categories used to discuss the breaking of rules in the monastic code, the Vinaya. Hence, what a historical analysis shows us is that Indian authors began to read lay sexual ethics through the lens of monastic discipline, reading monastic norms (like where penises can and cannot be inserted) into lay behavioral codes...In their exuberance to elaborate, I would argue, they went overboard, on the one hand leaving behind the earlier, more elegant, and simpler formulation of sexual misconduct, and on the other inappropriately reading lay sexual ethics through the filter of monastic discipline. The end result was to make lay sexuality increasingly more restrictive and monasticlike...But what benefits are forthcoming from the more elaborate and restrictive scholastic sexual code?
在很大程度上，台灣的宗教主要是佛教和道教，而這兩種信仰沒有多少抵制同性戀的教義。台灣共有2300萬人口，雖然基督教徒所佔的比例不到5%，但他們築起了反對的壁壘。
感情問題在佛教而言，是一種執著，不論同性、異性，一旦執著，都是痛苦的來源
人身為有情動物，不可能完全沒有情慾，但要練習將情感、緣份的聚合看得淡一點
Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct, I undertake to cultivate responsibility and learn ways to protect the safety and integrity of individuals, couples, families, and society. I am determined not to engage in sexual relations without love and a long- term commitment. To preserve the happiness of myself and others, I am determined to respect my commitments and the commitments of others. I will do everything in my power to protect children from sexual abuse and to prevent couples and families from being broken by sexual misconduct
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. 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.
第二個問題談到同性戀，我倒不覺得這是個很奇怪的現象。如果我們說這件事情奇怪呢，其實人本來就是非常奇怪的東西，從無始以來我們作了許多奇怪的事情，如 果你真的是頭腦比較清楚的一個人，你走到今天的一個百貨公司裡面，你就會知道人類這麼多世代以來作了多少瘋狂的事情。也許這樣講你會認為從道德的觀念判斷 也許是這個樣子，但是在這邊這點你要非常小心，你什麼東西都從道德的角度去看呢，很容易讓你自己認為你好像高人一等，你好像比別人更清淨更聖潔這樣子
梭儒亞回答道：「朋友！我首先是男子，後來變成女人，現在又變回男人；同樣地 ，先是兩個女兒的父親，最近又是兩個兒子的母親。一生中經歷過這兩次性別的轉變後 ，我已經厭倦世俗生活了，我現在要出家為比丘，並在尊者指導之下修行。以後照顧孩 子就是你的責任了，請不要疏忽了！」。……不久之後，就證得阿羅漢果，同時具有非凡的智慧和神通。人們再問同樣的問題時，他就說自己對任何人都沒有執著。
坐而世尊言具壽跋迦梨曰：……「跋迦梨！汝於自戒有所責否？」「大德！我於自戒無所責。」「跋迦梨！若於自戒無所責者，有何惡作，有何追悔？」「大德！欲詣見世尊已久，但雖欲往見世尊，唯我身缺乏力。」「止止！跋迦梨！何必見此爛壞之身。跋迦梨！得見法者則見我，見我者乃見法。跋迦梨！見法則見我，見我乃見法。」
Rous' mother helped organize the wedding, which included blessings from four Buddhist monks.
