Homosexuality in Buddhism - Sharing from a Kalyana Mitra

Homosexuality was practised in ancient India; it is not unique to the 21st century! It is explicitly mentioned in the Vinaya and prohibited for all Monks and Nuns. Sexual behaviour, whether with a member of the same or the opposite sex, where the sexual organ enters any of the bodily orifices (vagina, mouth or anus), results in expulsion from the monastic order.

A unique person called a 'pandaka' is mentioned in the Vinaya as a sexual non-conformist. The Vinaya stipulates that pandakas are not allowed to be ordained, and if, inadvertently, one has been, he is expelled . According to the commentary, this is because pandakas are "full of passions, unquenchable lust and are dominated by the desire for sex."

The term pandaka however, does not refer to homosexuals in general but rather to the openly effeminate, self-advertising and promiscuous homosexual who is not suitable as a candidate for the celibate, restrained and mindful life of a monk.

The lay Buddhist is not required to be celibate. The third Precept says: 'Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami .' The word kama literally refers to any form of sensual pleasure but the emphasis here is on sexual pleasure.

To understand what constitutes "wrong", we need to examine the methods that Buddhism uses to make ethical judgments.
The Buddha questioned many of the assumptions existing in his society, including moral ones, and tried to develop ethics based upon reason and compassion rather than tradition, superstitions and taboo .
The Buddha gives three criteria for making moral judgments.

The first is to act towards others the way we would like them to act towards us. He uses this principle to advise against adultery: "What sort of Dhamma practice leads to great good for oneself?... A noble disciple should reflect like this: 'If someone were to have sexual intercourse with my spouse I would not like it. Likewise, if I were to have sexual intercourse with another's spouse they would not like that. For what is unpleasant to me must be unpleasant to another, and how could I burden someone with that?' As a result of such reflection one abstains from wrong sexual desire, encourages others to abstain from it, and speaks in praise of such abstinence."
In the Bahitika Sutta, Ananda is asked how to distinguish between praiseworthy and blameworthy behaviour. He answers that any behaviour which causes harm to oneself and others could be called blameworthy while any behaviour that causes no harm to oneself and others could be called praiseworthy.

Therefore, in determining right and wrong one has to look into the actual and possible consequences of the action. Behaviour can be considered good or bad according to the consequences or effects it has.
Behaviour can also be considered right or wrong according to whether or not it helps us to attain our goal. The ultimate goal of Buddhism is Nibbana, a state of mental peace and purity, and anything that leads one in that direction is good. "The doctrines of which you can say: 'These doctrines lead to letting go, giving up, stilling, calming, higher knowledge, awakening and to Nibbana' - you can be certain that they are Dhamma, they are discipline, they are the words of the Teacher."
This utilitarian attitude to ethics is highlighted by the fact that the Buddha uses the term kusala to mean 'wholesome', 'skillful' or 'appropriate' or its opposite, akusala, when evaluating behaviour.

The other thing that is important in evaluating behaviour is intention. If a deed is motivated by good (based upon generosity, love and understanding) intentions it can be considered skillful.


The Buddha specifically mentions several types of unskillful sexual behaviour, the most common of which is adultery. The Buddha says that someone practicing the third Precept "avoids intercourse with girls still under the ward of their parents, brothers, sisters or relatives, with married women, with female prisoners or with those already engaged to another." Girls still under the protection of others are too young to make a responsible decision about sex, prisoners are not in a position to make a free choice, while an engaged woman has already made a commitment to another.

As homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in the Buddha's discourses, we can at best only evaluate it in the same criteria as we judge heterosexuality.

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.

Thus should it not be the same when the two people are of the same gender? Similarly promiscuity and the disregard for the feelings of others would make any sexual act unskillful whether it be heterosexual or homosexual.

The Buddha sometimes advised against certain behaviour not because it is wrong from the point of view of ethics but because it would put one at odds with social norms .

In these cases, the Buddha says that refraining from such behaviour will free one from the anxiety and embarrassment caused by social disapproval or the fear of punitive action . Homosexuality would certainly come under this type of behaviour and the social consequences could not be simply ignored as it affects one's life immanently, negatively and without respite. One must realise that in reality such prejudices, no matter how unfair or unwarranted do and will exist, and one must be prepared to face it on chosing a lifestyle not in tune with social 'norms'.

The most common objection to homosexuality is that it is unnatural and "goes against the order of nature". Miriam Rothschild, the eminent biologist who played a crucial role in the fight to decriminalize homosexuality in Britain, pointed out that homosexual behaviour has been observed in almost every known species of animal.
Whatever the cause of homosexuality one certainly does not 'choose' it in the same way one would, for example, choose to have tea instead of coffee. It is either inborn or develops in early childhood. And it is the same with heterosexuality. Laws does not change people's sexual inclinations.
The Buddhist monk's role has always been to teach the Dhamma and to act as a quiet example of how it should be lived. Generally the attitude to homosexuality has been one of tolerance. Theravada Buddhist countries like Sri Lanka and Burma had no legal statutes against homosexuality between consenting adults until the colonial era when they were introduced by the British . Thailand, which had no colonial experience, still has no such laws. In such countries, when homosexuals are thought of, it is likely to be in a good-humored way or with a degree of pity.


Buddhist monks are expected to live lives of celibacy, meaning abstinance from any type of sex. There is no explicit rule prohibiting those with a homosexual orientation from joining the monastic life as long as they maintain their precepts post ordination .

Lay Buddhists are expected to adhere to Five Precepts, the third of which is "not to engage in sexual misconduct." "Sexual misconduct" has traditionally been interpreted to include actions like coercive sex, sexual harassment, child molestation and adultery.


These manifestations of sexual misconduct can apply equally to homosexual and heterosexual behaviour.
The Buddha's teachings does not exhort us to a life of pursuit of pleasure, sexual or otherwise. While the Buddha did not deny the existence of enjoyment in this world, he pointed out that all worldly pleasure is bound up with suffering, and enslavement to our cravings will keep us spinning in a vortex of disappointment and pain.

It cannot be said that homosexuals in countries where Buddhists are in the majority are any more free from prejudice and discrimination than they are in other countries. Neither is it true to say that Buddhists are themselves any more free from prejudiced views than those of other religions. However it is clear that there is nothing in the Buddha's teachings to justify condemnation of homosexuality.
For lay Buddhists, a sexual act would not be breaking the third precept

* where there is mutual consent,
* where there is no harm done to anyone,
* where the breaking of a commitment to another person is not involved,
* and where the intention is to express affection with respect to each other.