Buddhist Nudists
A group for those practicing nudism and buddhism to chat about life and things. I am a member of the SGI buddhist organisation
- created by eaglepete
Gay identity and the Buddhist idea of non-self
Return to DiscussionsHi Steve, given the post was quite a while ago, the issue has probably resolved itself one way or another. however, I wanted to add some thoughts, though they are far from clearly formed thoughts. For my own thinking I do not see any clash between an 'identity label' or category and the concept of no-self or non-attachment. Attachment refers to a quality of grasping to something (object or concept) not the object or concept itself.No-self is a little trickier for me to address, but for me (currently) it refers to 'emptiness' and the lack of a solid essential irreducible thing. There is no 'standalone self, there is one whole of which we are a part, everything interbeing. If we add a category of 'gay' to the self, it does not change the fact that there is no 'standalone' self (gay or not). The tree may be an oak or an elm, but it still has the quality of 'emptiness'.Ok well that was probably my best shot, please keep in mind i am a very 'baby' Buddhist, and only recently set out on the middle path.Namaste
PS I am so delighted to have found this group, it was a long shot when I entered the search, but here it was already in existence
I like your oak-or-elm analogy; it's a nice springboard for thought.
The group has met several times and will meet again on Friday, but has remained small - three to seven attendees, including my partner and myself each time - and there has been little discussion of the question I raised. What was made plain that for some of the attendees, knowing they were in gay company mattered a great deal to their willingness to enter the practice - a genuine, present-moment reality that trumps any concern about the identity issue.
I think a lurking issue, for me, and not a religious one at all, is that I have never felt that gayness is more than a tendency or potential, that takes form only in the context of a particular culture, and whose expressions can vary widely: basically, that the modern gay identity is not inherent like oak-ness; it's something we invent or adopt, more like Republican-ism or Cubs-fan-dom - and that by deciding more or less how we will feel about a situation before we encounter it, takes us out of the moment.
I like your oak-or-elm analogy; it's a nice springboard for thought.
The group has met several times and will meet again on Friday, but has remained small - three to seven attendees, including my partner and myself each time - and there has been little discussion of the question I raised. What was made plain that for some of the attendees, knowing they were in gay company mattered a great deal to their willingness to enter the practice - a genuine, present-moment reality that trumps any concern about the identity issue.
I think a lurking issue, for me, and not a religious one at all, is that I have never felt that gayness is more than a tendency or potential, that takes form only in the context of a particular culture, and whose expressions can vary widely: basically, that the modern gay identity is not inherent like oak-ness; it's something we invent or adopt, more like Republican-ism or Cubs-fan-dom - and that by deciding more or less how we will feel about a situation before we encounter it, takes us out of the moment.
Hi Steve, your response got me thinking, and I seem to have altered my thinking somewhat as i consider your words.
At first i was going to make a distinction between 'gay' as a sexuality category and 'gay' as an identity category. I was going to say, that for me at least my sexuality seems more integral to existence, and less fluid or changeable (though sometimes i wonder about that too). And i was going to add that how I express my gay identity is very much socially constructed and a reflection of the culture and society i find myself in.
HOWEVER, this no longer seems a satisfactory idea to me after reading your post;
If I think about young folk these days and the social context they are growing up in and exploring their sexuality in, it is clear that how they express their sexuality (not just identity) is vastly different from my era. Young folk (obvious generalization here), seem more comfortable exploring sexuality outside traditional categories. So perhaps you are quite right, that even sexuality (and not just identity) is not inherent, but socially constructed and socially shaped.
Thanks for the challenge to my thinking.