As a South Asian and Sri Lankan student of history, my study of ancient Indian and Sri Lankan cultures has revealed a rich tradition of gender fluidity and neutrality, a far cry from the rigid, binary notions of gender that dominate modern discourse. Sadly, much of this cultural openness has been overshadowed by colonialism and the introduction of British ideologies, Christianity, and Catholicism, which brought stricter interpretations of gender roles and contributed to the erosion of South Asiaâs gender-neutral traditions. As a practicing Buddhist who works as a Dhamma communicator in a Sri Lankan Buddhist institution, Iâve witnessed firsthand the transphobia and homophobia that have taken root in modern Buddhist communities. LGBTQ+ individuals are often labeled as sinful and are excluded from full participation in Dhamma practice.
I recall one incident vividlyâwhen a senior monk instructed a young man to leave the monastery simply because his voice was ânot masculine enough.â Similarly, in 2012, a popular Sri Lankan radio talk show targeted a novice monk who had cross-dressed in the past, leading to public ridicule and the monkâs forced disrobing. These incidents reveal the deeply entrenched prejudices against gender and sexual diversity within some contemporary Buddhist circles.
Yet, my deeper study of the Buddhist texts, particularly the Vinaya Pitaka, which governs monastic discipline, led me to a very different understanding. In the Parajika Pali, the Buddha addresses instances where the âsign of a womanâ appeared to a monk and where the âsign of a maleâ appeared to a nun. In these cases, the Buddha allowed teachers to meet with monks and nuns to address these gender-related issues. What is particularly fascinating is the term used in these passagesâlinga. In Pali, linga can refer to more than just physical genitals; it can also denote oneâs identity. This suggests that the Buddha was not solely concerned with anatomical features but also acknowledged the broader concept of gender identity.
When I read this passage, I was struck by the Buddhaâs nuanced understanding of gender. Buddha did not impose strict binary limitations on individuals but instead sought to create a space within the monastic community that recognized and responded to gender variance. For me, this was a powerful affirmation that the Buddha was practicing gender inclusivity over 2,500 years ago. Yet, this leads us to question: If the Buddha was so progressive, why do modern Buddhist communities often react with fear and exclusion?
This brings us to the concept of Pandaka, a term frequently mentioned in early Buddhist texts. Pandakas were barred from monastic life, but the Tripitaka itself does not provide a clear definition of who Pandakas were. Later Buddhist scholars, such as Buddhaghosa in the 5th century AD, offered more detailed explanations. According to his commentaries, Pandakas were divided into five categories:
- Napunsakapandaka:
Individuals who were sexually inactive from birth.
- Usuyapandaka:
Those who derived sexual satisfaction from watching others engage in sexual activity.
- Pakkhapandaka:
Individuals who were sexually inactive for a fortnight of the lunar month but active during the other fortnight.
- Asittapandaka:
People who experienced sexual satisfaction through oral intercourse.
- Opakkamikapandaka:
Those who ejaculated through unconventional techniques.
Itâs clear that Pandaka refers to a range of sexual behaviors rather than a single sexual orientation or identity.
Importantly, Pandakas were not simply homosexual individuals; they exhibited a variety of non-normative sexual behaviors. This further complicates the assumption that Buddhist prohibitions against ordaining Pandakas were solely about gender identity.
In recent years, the concept of gender has become even more complex, as illustrated by the global debate over transgender athletes in competitions like the Olympics. The case of a female boxer from Algeria, whose participation raised questions about hormones, chromosomes (XY vs. XX), and what defines gender, sparked significant discussion. These debates highlight that gender is not a simple binary but exists on a spectrum that includes biological, hormonal, and identity-based factors. Importantly, gender identity is not something that can change overnight; it is a gradual process that begins at birth or unfolds during puberty.
In light of this, the Buddhaâs use of the word linga is even more insightful. By allowing teachers to address instances where monks or nuns exhibited the âsignâ of another gender, the Buddha was recognizing that gender identity is not fixed, and it can manifest in various ways over time. This is especially relevant in the context of modern understandings of transgender identities, where gender is seen as a fluid, evolving aspect of a personâs life.
The question remains: Did the Buddha intend to exclude transgender individuals from monastic life, or was the restriction on Pandakas more about behavior than identity? It seems that the Buddhaâs main concern was the preservation of monastic discipline and celibacy. Any behaviorâwhether heterosexual, homosexual, or otherwiseâthat threatened the celibate life of a monk or nun was seen as problematic. Thus, the prohibition against Pandakas may have been more about their perceived inability to conform to the celibate lifestyle rather than their gender identity itself.
However, later commentarial texts, such as the Attakatha, took a much harsher stance, labeling homosexuality and other non-normative sexualities as âsinfulâ and calling them vishama raga (abnormal desires). But these interpretations reflect the cultural biases of their time and were not directly derived from the Buddhaâs teachings. Relying entirely on these later texts to justify exclusionary practices today is problematic, especially since these same commentaries also promoted outdated beliefs, such as the flat-earth theory.
In conclusion, the Buddhaâs approach to gender and sexuality was more complex and inclusive than many modern interpretations suggest. While certain behaviors were restricted in the monastic code, this did not necessarily equate to a condemnation of gender variance or transgender identities. The Buddhaâs recognition of lingaâboth as genitals and as identityâdemonstrates a deep understanding of the fluid nature of gender, which aligns with contemporary perspectives on transgender and non-binary identities. It is time for modern Buddhist communities to revisit these teachings and foster a more inclusive approach, honoring the Buddhaâs original message of liberation for all beings, regardless of gender or sexuality.
We are actively engaging in this discussion with the European Buddhist community through Rainbodhi Europe, a group dedicated to supporting LGBTQ+ Buddhists and their allies. If you are interested in joining this conversation as a community member or ally, I warmly invite you to reach out to us at rainbodhieurope@gmail.com . You can also visit our webpage for more information; https://rainbodhi.org/europe
With Metta,
Kaushal
P.S. This article is based on the Vinaya Pitaka, Attakatha, and my personal point of view! It does not target any individual or community but seeks to explore a nuanced understanding of gender inclusivity within Buddhist teachings.
Reference;
Middle way is to use codes as a way to navigate expectations and compatibility.