Male Homosexuality and Transgenderism in the Thai Buddhist Tradition
by
Peter A. Jackson
Excerpted from the book "QUEER DHARMA: VOICES OF GAY BUDDHISTS" edited by Winston Leyland
PETER ANTHONY JACKSON Ph.D. (Melbourne, Australia) was born in Sydney in 1956 and is currently Research Fellow in Thai History at the Australian National University, Canberra. His books include Buddhadasa: A Buddhist Thinker for the Modern World (1988), Buddhism, Legitimation and Conflict: The Political Functions of Urban Thai Buddhism (1989), and Dear Uncle Go: Male Homosexuality in Thailand (1995).
1. INTRODUCTION
In the early to mid 1980s the official Thai response to the spread of HIV infection in that country was characterised by denial and silence. It was only in the latter years of the decade that the threat HIV/AIDS posed to public health in Thailand was formally acknowledged by government and public health officials and that public education campaigns began to be formulated and implemented. As in many other countries, the initial responses of many public figures in Thailand to the recognition of the serious issues posed by the rapid spread of HIV/AIDS were informed more by prejudice and fear of seropositive people than by reasoned consideration of the evidence on modes of infection. In this period homosexual men and female prostitutes were widely condemned as sources of AIDS and threats to public health by many Thai journalists, politicians, public health officials, Buddhist monks and other public figures.1
In my 1995 book Dear Uncle Go: Male Homosexuality in Thailand I argued that popular Western perceptions of a general tolerance of homosexuality in Thailand are to an extent inaccurate. While there are no legal or formal sanctions against homosexuality in Thailand, a wide range of cultural sanctions operate to stigmatise Thai homosexual men and women. These anti-homosexual sanctions are diffused throughout Thai Society rather than being focussed in any clearly definable institution or set of homophobic practices, as has historically been the case in most Western societies.
However, this situation changed somewhat in the late 1980s. The initial "shock-horror" response to AIDS provided a focus for the previously diffuse anti-homosexual sentiments as homosexual men were publicly labelled as the "source" or "origin" (Thai :tonhet) of HIV infection in Thailand. A number of Buddhist writers were involved in this stigmatisation of homosexual men, drawing on Buddhist teachings to construct arguments against homosexuality that contributed to the fear and angst surrounding much public discussion of HIV/AIDS in the country in the late 1980s.
In this article I consider the background to some Thai Buddhists' anti-homosexual arguments by reviewing scriptural and doctrinal references to homoeroticism in the Thai Buddhist tradition. I begin by describing accounts of male homoeroticism in the Thai language translation of the Tipitaka, the canonical scriptures of Theravada Buddhism, noting, firstly, divergences in ethical judgments made on homosexuality in the canon and, secondly, similarities between scriptural descriptions of pandaka (Thai: bandor) and the popular Thai notion of the kathoey (transvestite, transsexual, male homosexual). Ethical attitudes presented in the canon are reproduced in many contemporary Thai Buddhist commentators' discussions of homosexuality and an appreciation of the ancient scriptural accounts is important in understanding views on homosexuality that are now represented as being sanctioned by religious authority.
I then consider traditional Thai accounts which propose that homosexuality arises as a kammic consequence of violating Buddhist proscriptions against heterosexual misconduct. These kammic accounts describe homosexuality as a congenital condition which cannot be altered, at least in a homosexual person's current lifetime, and have been linked with calls for compassion and understanding from the non-homosexual populace.
Lastly, I mention more recent Thai Buddhist accounts from the late 1980s that described homosexuality as a wilful violation of "natural" (hetero)sexual conduct resulting from lack of ethical control over sexual impulses. These accounts presented homosexuality as antithetical to Buddhist ideals of self-control and were associated with vehement anti-homosexual rhetoric and vociferous attacks on male homosexual behaviour as the purported origin of HIV/AIDS.
2. REFERENCES TO MALE HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE THERAVADA SCRIPTURES
The Pali canon of Theravada Buddhism contains numerous references to sexual behaviour that today would be identified as homoerotic and to individuals who would be called homosexual and transvestites. However, as would be expected of a series of texts composed over two milennia ago in a non-European culture, sexual categories found in the Pali canon do not match contemporary notions of homosexuality or of homosexual people. Most notedly, the canon does not clearly distinguish between homosexuality from cross-gender behaviour such as transvestism. Nevertheless while not being given a single, distinctive name, male-male sex is referred to in many places in the Vinayapitaka ,2 the monastic code of conduct, being listed amongst the many explicitly described forms of sexual activity which are proscribed for monks. As Leonard Zwilling (1992:203) states, we
should not expect any term with the precise connotation of homosexuality to appear in Buddhist literature. However, homosexual behaviour stemming from an apparent disposition to seek sexual gratification through relations with members of one's own sex in preference to the other did not go unnoticed . . .
Indeed, careful exegesis of the references in the Vinayapitaka can provide us with insights into early Buddhist attitudes towards homoeroticism. It is important, however, that Theravada Buddhist accounts of homosexuality are understood in the context of the religion's general disdain of sexuality and distrust of sensual enjoyment. It is also important to keep in mind that Buddhism began as an order of celibate male renunciates, the sangha, and that the Vinaya is predominantly a clerical not a lay code of conduct.
Theravada Buddhism's Anti-Sex Attitude
In Buddhism all forms of sexuality and desire must be transcended in order to attain the religious goal of nibbana, literally, the extinction of suffering. The first section of the Tipitaka,3 the Parajika Kandha of the Vinayapitaka , provides detailed guidelines on the practice of clerical celibacy in the form of often explicit examples of the types of sexual misconduct which lead to "spiritual defeat" (parajika) and automatic expulsion from the sangha. To quote an often repeated formula in this section of the Vinaya, "Whichever monk has sexual intercourse is parajika, a defeated one, and will not find communion [in the sangha]" (VinayaVol. 1, p. 27, passim). The definition of sexual intercourse (methunadhamma) given in the Vinaya reflects the strong distaste for sex within the early Buddhist tradition,
That which is called methunadhamma is explained as: the dhamma of an unrighteous man (asattapurisa), the conduct of the common people, the manners of the low, dhamma which is evil and crude, dhamma whose end is but water, an activity which should be hidden, the dhamma which couples should perform together. (Vinaya, Vol. 1, p.49)
The precision with which monks' conduct is monitored is shown in the canonical definition of "perform" in the expression "to perform sexual intercourse" which is described as a monk inserting his penis into a vagina, mouth, anus, etc. "even if only as far as the width of a sesame seed" (Vinaya, Vol. 1, p. 49).
The extreme imagery evoked in the Buddha's denunciation of a monk who was found to have kept and trained a female monkey to have sex with him, denunciation whose core descriptions of hell are repeated in the condemnation of several other forms of clerical sexual misconduct, graphically portrays the kammic consequences that were believed to follow from a monk's violation of his vow of celibacy or brahmacariya,
Behold O worthless man (moghapurisa), the penis you insert into the mouth of a poisonous snake is yet better than the penis you insert into the vagina of a female monkey. It is not good. The penis you insert into the mouth of a cobra is yet better than the penis you insert into the vagina of a female monkey. It is not good. The penis you insert into a pit of blazing coals is yet better than the penis you insert into the vagina of a female monkey. It is not good.
For what reason do I say the mentioned points are better? Because the man who inserts his penis into the mouth of a poisonous snake, and so on, even if he dies or suffers to the point of death because of that action . . . , after death and the dissolution of his body will not enter the state of loss and woe (apaya), the states of unhappiness (duggati), the place of suffering (vinipata), hell (naraka). As for the man who inserts his penis into the vagina of a female monkey, after death and the dissolution of his body, he will enter the state of loss and woe, the states of unhappiness, the place of suffering, hell (Vinaya, Vol. 1, p. 29).
According to the canon, sexual misconduct (kamesu micchacara) should be avoided by the pious laity as well as by monks and nuns. On early Buddhist attitudes to lay sexuality, Zwilling (1992:207) observes,
Buddhist tradition essentially conceives of sexual misconduct in terms of sexual relations with various types of prohibited women (agamya) and the performance of non-procreative sexual acts. Among the commentators only Buddhaghosa4 and the anonymous author of the commentary to the Abhidharmasamuccaya include men among forbidden sexual objects.
In Thailand lay sexual misconduct (kamesu micchacara) has traditionally been glossed as phit mia khon eun, "violating another person's wife," or as phit phua-mia khon eun, "violating another person's spouse (husband or wife)". Homosexual activity between laypersons has traditionally fallen outside the scope of kammically significant sexual misconduct in Thailand.
Most contemporary Thai Buddhist writers follow early Buddhist attitudes and describe sex as extremely distasteful, even for the laity. One Thai writer on Buddhism, Isaramuni, equates sexuality with tanha (Thai: khwam-yak—craving or desire) and raga (Thai: kamnat—sexual lust), which are the antithesis of the Buddhist ideal of dispassionate equanimity (Isaramuni 1989:4). And while the Vinaya in general details an explicitly clerical code of conduct, similar anti-sex attitudes are now expressed in many Thai Buddhist writers' discussions of lay sexual ethics. In a discourse on married life Phra Buddhadasa, 5 an influential reformist thinker, calls reproduction "an activity that is distasteful, dirty and tiring" (Buddhadasa 1987:24) and says that sexual desire is a defilement (Pali: kilesa) that arises from ignorance (Pali: avijja), which Buddhist doctrine generally describes as the source of human suffering. Phra Buddhadasa says that in the past people were "employed" or "engaged" (Thai: jang) by nature in the "work" (Thai: ngan) of reproducing the species, but people now "cheat" nature by using contraception and having sex without being engaged in the work of reproduction. He maintains that this "cheating," i.e. engaging in sex for pleasure rather than reproduction, is "paid back" because it causes problems such as nervous disorders, madness and physical deformities (ibid. :25).
Phra Buddhadasa calls on laypeople to be mindful and establish spiritually informed intelligence (Pali: sati-panna) and to have sex only for reproduction. Furthermore, he maintains that the highest ideal in marriage is to live together without sex, describing the solitary life dedicated to the achievement of nibbana as a higher ideal than married life (ibid. :35). Indeed, Phra Buddhadasa maintains that marriage is a stage of life for those who have not yet realised absolute truth, saying that once the inherent transience and unsatisfactoriness of the world is understood there will be no more desire for sex. He provides an example from the Tipitaka (no source cited) of ten year old children in the Buddha's time becoming arahants, perfected beings who have achieved nibbana, and maintains that this would be possible today if children were educated in Buddhist principles and led to see the truth revealed by Buddhism. Phra Buddhadasa adds that as adults such children would have no interest in sex because of their high spiritual status (ibid. :36-37).
Significantly, contemporary Thai Buddhist views on laypersons' sexual behaviour are often more proscriptive and extreme than attitudes reflect in the Pali canon or in traditional or popular Thai accounts of Buddhist doctrine and ethics. Phra Buddhadasa's work has been especially influential among educated and middle class Thai Buddhists. However, his views on sexuality are at variance with Thai Buddhism's traditional distinction between lay and clerical ethical conduct. The ethical extremism of Phra Buddhadasa and other contemporary Buddhist reformists in Thailand such as Phra Phothirak results from a clericalising trend whereby ethical demands traditionally made only of monks are now increasingly also being required of laypersons. The much publicised asceticism and celibacy of the prominent political figure and strict Buddhist Major-General Chamlong Srimuang, epitomises the monastic regimen that some contemporary reform movements within Thai Buddhism (e.g. Santi Asoke) require of their devout lay followers.
Heterosexuality and Homosexuality as Equivalent Defilements
In the context of Buddhism's general anti-sex attitude, the Vinayapitaka often describes homosexuality in terms that place it on a par with heterosexuality. But this ethical equivalence is negative, with heterosexuality and homosexuality being described as equally repugnant sources of suffering and as constituting equivalent violations of clerical celibacy. The Vinaya identifies not two but four gender types, proscribing monks from having sexual relations with any of these four. The four gender types are male, female, ubhatobyanjanaka and pandaka. The latter two Pali terms are used to refer to different things in different sections of the canon and I attempt to define them precisely in the next section. But broadly it can be said that ubhatobyanjanaka6 refers to hermaphrodites, while pandaka7 refers to male transvestites and homosexuals. The Vinaya lists those sexual activities with men, women, pandaka and ubhatobyanjanaka that entail spiritual defeat and a monk's automatic expulsion from the order. These proscribed sexual activities are:
-1.Anal, vaginal or oral intercourse with a female human, non-human (i.e. an immaterial being) or animal;
-1.Anal, vaginal or oral intercourse with an ubhatobyanjanaka human, non-human or animal;
-1.Anal or oral intercourse 8 with a pandaka human, non-human or animal; and
-1.Anal or oral intercourse with a male human, non-human or animal.
Considering proscribed sexual activities with each gender type in detail, the Vinaya then lists twenty-seven types of sexual intercourse with a human female which entail spiritual defeat. These are: anal, vaginal and oral sex with a waking or sleeping woman, a drunk woman, a mentally deranged woman or a woman with a nervous disorder, an intellectually deficient woman, a dead woman, a dead woman whose body has not yet been eaten by animals and a woman whose body has been gnawed at by animals (Vinaya, Vol. 1, pp. 53-69). These same examples of proscribed sexual conduct are then repeated for the three other gender categories, with vaginal sex being deleted from the lists of proscribed sexual acts between monks and pandaka and males.
Together with bestiality (see "The Case of the Female Monkey," Vinaya, vol. 1, p. 27), necrophilia (see "The Two Cases of Open Sores [in Dead Bodies]," Vinaya, Vol. 1, pp. 221-222) and sex with inanimate objects (see "The Case of the Moulded Image," Vinaya, Vol. 1, p. 222 and "The Case of the Wooden Doll," Vinaya, Vol. 1, p. 222), the Vinaya also proscribes a range of homoerotic or strictly speaking autoerotic forms of sexual activity such as auto-fellatio (see "The Case of the Nimble-backed Monk," Vinaya, Vol. 1, p. 221) and auto-sodomy (see "The Case of the Monk with a Long Penis," Vinaya, Vol. 1, p. 221).
In the Vinaya's listings of proscribed sexual activities, sex between monks and the various categories of women, hermaphrodites, transvestites, men, dead bodies, animals and inanimate objects are all described in equivalent terms, none being presented as any more morally reprehensible than any other and all entailing spiritual defeat, although sex with inanimate objects was regarded as a lesser infraction entailing penance but not expulsion from the sangha. However, elsewhere in the Vinaya and in other sections of the Tipitaka it is made clear that ubhatobyanjanaka and pandaka are spiritually and ritually inferior to men, often being compared with women and criminals. But before reviewing these scriptural references I first consider in detail the definitions of the Pali terms ubhatobyanjanaka and pandaka and their relationship to the Thai notion of kathoey.
Defining Ubhatobyanjanaka, Pandaka and Kathoey
The Pali Text Society Pali-English Dictionary defines ubhatobyanjanaka as "Haying the characteristics of both sexes, hermaphrodite" (Rhys Davids 1975:154) and the reformist Thai Buddhist writer Phra Ratchaworamuni9 provides a similar definition in his Dictionary of Buddhist Teachings, namely, "Beings with the genital organs of both sexes" (Ratchaworamuni 1984:435). Khamhuno, author of a weekly newsmagazine column on Buddhist affairs, has defined ubhatobyanjanaka in Thai as kathoey thae or "true kathoeys" (Khamhuno 1989:37), that is, hermaphrodites. However, Bunmi Methangkun, head of the traditionalist Abhidhamma Foundation, indicates that psychological as well as physiological factors are involved when, following the Abhidhammapitaka (no reference cited),10 he describes two types of hermaphrodites, namely, female (Pali: itthi-ubhatobyan janaka) and male (Pali: purisa-ubhatobyanjanaka). According to Bunmi, an itthi-ubhatobyanjanaka is physically female, including having normal female genitals, but when physically attracted to another woman,