I am a Buddhist, a woman, an American, a mother, a wife. The article below is reproduced with permission from The Buddhist Study Center in Honolulu, Hawaii. It is taken from the publication, "Metta". (July 1997 issue Vol.XXIV No.7) I came upon this article at the same time a wonderful friend, also a woman ( and Jewish) wrote me about her frustration in becoming a mother. She experienced refusal by six doctors to help her, because she is gay. By profession she works diligently to eradicate hate crimes in our culture, and is a Boddhisattva, in my opinion , if I ever knew one. She sometimes sends me articles she finds about Buddhism in our culture, and asked me about the Buddhist position on women's roles and same sex marriages. It was at the same time that I coincidentally received this particular issue of "Metta" from another friend in New York. In constructing these pages for Amida Trust, a link dedicated to Women's Issues was conceived, and I was also contacted by a Canadian woman who is a Shin Buddhist. She was interested in women and Buddhism. After writing to her about this article her comment was that perhaps some groups in power subverted the original teachings to their own prejudiced interpretations or warped it with cultural biases. She said "Anything as old as Buddhism is going to be muddled by history. The trick is to find the pure teachings and use them without personal agendas today." This article touches on several issues regarding women, same sex marriages, and historical influences, etc. What do YOU think? You, the reader are invited to comment, if you wish. RETURNING TO BASICS By Rev. Bruce Nakamura The past issues discussed regarding same-sex marriages and its legality might seem moot in light of the recent development in Hawaii politics that provides a constitutional amendment to restrict same-sex marriages and certain economic advantages to households, same-sex and otherwise. Past discussion in the Buddhist Wheel has given a sense that Buddhist practice is replete with rules of "shall and shall nots." Given this background I would like to shift some that we should know and apply to our Buddhist practices--whether monk or laity. Buddhist practice should not judge others as simply bad or good. In the course of everyday conversation, we immediately fall into unconscious categorizing. Our human observations and experiences are either bad or good. Our Buddhist practice reflects on the cause and root of our own behavior through our thoughts, words, and deeds. When...., a noble disciple understands the unwholesome and the root of the unwholesome,....in that way he is one with right view, whose view is straight,....in perfect confidence in,.... and has arrived at this true Dhamma. And what, friends, is the unwholesome, what is the root of the unwholesome,....? Killing living things is unwholesome; taking what is not given...., misconduct in sensual pleasures...., false speech...., malicious speech,....gossip...., covetousness..., ill will..., wrong view is unwholesome... And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed is the root..., hate..., delusion is the root of the unwholesome... Sammandhitthi Sutra: Right View Theraveda and Mahayana Buddhism have clearly like many Institutional religions, a responsibility to set moral standards and ethical practices based upon religious principal. Valuating behavior as right or wrong is part of individual and collective responsibility. This is wholesome. Unwholesome behavior leads to minimized suffering for self and others. It is however, when we extend this value to agree or disagree by judging others...Judging others as either evil or righteous tends to dehumanize all of us and will no doubt by Buddhist practice, intensify the roots of suffering as greed, hate, and delusion. Evaluating and reflecting upon our thoughts, words, and deeds as hurtful or helpful is crucial to individuals and religious communities for fruitful dialogue and understanding. Judging others as good or bad, evil or righteous are both extremes that tend to leave no grey area. These labels of black or white we put on each other prevent us from critical self-reflection on one hand and humane behavior toward others divergent with our own thinking on the other. Critical self-reflection and the practice of humane behavior to self and others inform the practice of self responsibility and interdependence--both necessary dharmas for wholesome behavior. As a basic point of view traditional Japanese Buddhism recognizes the intrinsic condition of life, with the term "haikku" or eight kinds of pain: We encounter the pains of birth, aging, disease, death, parting with loved ones and objects of affection, meeting with what/who one dislikes; of not obtaining what one seeks or maintaining what one already has attained; and, in the dissolution of the body made up of five elements, that is, the body itself produces pain. Though I have seemed to focus on sexual misconduct, basic Buddhist rght view does not preclude as unlawful desires for carnal pleasures in the following: the 5 senses of sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch; and, the passion for property, sex, eating and drinking, fame and sleep. Thus we find that no matter how righteous one seems to think one is, individually or collectively, religious or secular, the consequences of limited points of view may lead to unwholesome behavior as described in the Sammandhitthi Sutta. These types of behavior are symptomatic of their base roots as greed for self righteousness, hate, or contempt toward those who do not uphold the same point of view, and the delusion that one's self view as truth is the only path which brings harmony, righteousness and goodness to the world. One's initial "right view" when limited may lead one to speech which is false, malicious, harsh, gossipy--all leading to a wrong view which is unwholesome. One unwholesome view I believe to be found in the Buddhist traditions of the past is the belief that women must have contempt for their own bodies and aspire to become a man in the next life so they may then practice to attain Buddhahood. This dehumanizing point of view towards women in all stations of life was not held by Sakyamuni Buddha. But somehow, women through the necessary role of mothership, sistership, and good daughters should provide the only environment for nurturing the male gave rise to blaming women when men did something bad. That somehow women did not fulfill their role-- a role dictated by men. Directly or indirectly, the culture and phenomena of marriage tended to fault women no matter what social station they held. Ultimately, they were lesser, yet held accountable for the shortcomings of men. Another clear example in the dehumanizing of women which developed in the Buddhist traditions came from the meditation and exercise of monks whose sexual misconduct as the most dangerous of all obstacles to attain Buddhahood. Monks were encouraged to meditate upon women as bags of skin filled with bile, impure blood, pus and viscera. This image of women ignores the need for humane physical contact and the expression of our sexuality. They are suppressed in favor of dehumanizing women-- the very excuse used to betray the monk's own weakness. The dehumanizing of other human beings such as women can be found, I believe, in the beginnings and evolution of the American Constitution. The founders of the American Constitution were religious laity in general pursuit of religious freedom, etc. They were also white men and property owners. They preconsciously held the ideal that a man, a white man of means, e.g., ownership of property was the highest ideal of the American individual. Consciously or otherwise, everyone fell under the domain of their property and interest enabling them to pursue their own assessment of freedom and equality for all (white men). Women and slaves, like the land which they owned for all practical purposes would be considered their property-- not their equals. The experience of marriage has for its best part, emulated solidarity, love, reverence, respect, values, etc., all contributing to the individual pursuit of happiness. This sanctity of family is best and most popularly manifest, in my opinion, through the Judeo-Christian story-- a sacred story of creation and pro-creation through the person of Adam and Eve. The sacred story of Christianity requires a man and a woman. It is of no surprise therefore that "Marriage" provides the religious as well as secular vehicle that coincidentally verifies the rights, privileges, and advantages for social, economic, cultural, and even gender advantage that white prosperous men have had in our short American history. Our history is not the exception. Too many cultures, religious tenets and social thinking have reinforced the notion that only by marriage and giving birth to a male heir can a woman fulfill her place next to her man, and that is the natural disposition of a man's right to benefit and inherit the fruits of his labor. If a woman could not give birth to a male heir, the husband had grounds to divorce in favor of one who would leave him an heir. The sanctity of religious and secular family characterized by man and woman has shown a darker side only in the 20th century, where various accounts of abuse of women within the boundary of marriages are now being recorded and somewhat accounted for. Women did not have access to civil rights and the right to vote, let alone indigenous and other minority groups until into the last half of the 20th century. These facts alone speak for themselves to the architects of power and the compelling evidence of abuse becoming clearer into the 21st century of "modern man." This issue of power and its abuse can trace itself to basically two individuals in relation. The development of their relationship gives rise to issues of power and control. A man has naturally evolved as more physically powerful. In the final analysis, overpowering the weaker is the most efficient means to appropriate getting one's way over the other. In other words, "I'm bigger than you, I get to tell you what to do!--or else!" That the writers of scripture throughout all world religion was revealed by a "Male" figure is no accident as is no accident that for the greatest part, yet still into the 21st century, leadership is a man's role--"I'm bigger, I get to lead!" If our male politicians and male religious leaders can see that "family" does not necessarily and automatically mean procreation, they would recognize their limited understanding of it as to mean husband and wife. They would see that a family is not necessarily headed by a male heir or by two married heterosexuals. They would wish to see not just ideal homes, but acknowledge real households of parents and children, elderly and caregivers, brothers and sisters, single parenting and individuals of varying values, religious beliefs, and cultures. They would see that an ideal home does not necessarily begin and end with a husband and wife--that in order for an individual and community to pursue and sanctify religious freedoms, etc., and equal protection under the same laws, the most popular religious center by one traditional understanding and giving narrow economic advantages to specific gender relationship under the advantage of marriage must evolve into more rigorous examples of humane inclusion and equality. We must refrain from dehumanization of other human beings by using such pretenses that the most popular or predominant view is the "right view". Let's return to basics.