What is Pandaka? (Paṇḍaka) Gay?

[User13866]

I am not convinved that it doesn't mean gay

[Mahabrahma]

Give a context in a Sutta. I am curious as to the specific meaning the Buddha gave it, the view on it, and it's discussion.

[User13866]

Give a context in a Sutta. I am curious as to the specific meaning the Buddha gave it, the view on it, and it's discussion.

In the origin story for this prohibition, a paṇḍaka who had received Acceptance unsuccessfully propositioned some bhikkhus and novices, then succeeded in propositioning some horse- and elephant-trainers, who spread it about, “These Sakyan-son monks are paṇḍakas. And those among them who are not paṇḍakas molest paṇḍakas.”

https://www.dhammatalks.org/vinaya/bmc/Section0054.html

Basically a pandaka approached the various bhikhhus and even novices inviting intercourse saying 'attack me'.

The monks all declined him saying 'go away pandaka, surely you will be destroyed.'

Then he went to the elephant stables and the laymen engaged him in intercourse abd spead it about.

Since then there is a prohibition against ordaining pandakas and the ordained pandakas were made to disrobe.

[Mahabrahma]

Doesn't sound like they are gay.

It sounds more like they are promiscuous, lustful, willing to "do it with anyone." etc. I don't think it's referring to gay people who have a healthy attitude. It seems like even these "pandakas" could be homophobic.

[Sam Vara]

Previous discussions:

viewtopic.php?t=1698

viewtopic.php?t=34441

viewtopic.php?t=33620

[Ceisiwr]

I am not convinved that it doesn't mean gay

If it meant gay, why is it the monk who received the sex called a pandaka whilst the men who were “top” during sex are not? It’s because in accent India, as in Ancient Rome, it wasn’t considered too bad if a man assumes the dominant position whilst having sex with another man, but the man who was “bottom” was looked down upon. They were looked down upon because they were seen as compromising their masculinity. This then hints at what a pandaka is. It’s a man who is considered to be overtly breaking traditional gender norms. We might think of them as cross dressers, or overtly camp and submissive acting gay men today. The “screaming queens” as they say. I’d have to check again, but if I recall the term appears in the Atharvavedaḥ.

[User13866]

It is generally agreed upon that a pandaka is certainly gay because he only tried to have intercourse with men.

The question is therefore whether all gays are pandaka.

Those who assert that not all gays are pandaka do so based on some or all of these assertions

Assertion 1.

Having homosexual intercourse makes one gay

A pandaka can not mean gay because only gay men have intercourse with men. If pandaka meant gay then it wouldn't be possible to have an intercourse with a pandaka without being a pandaka.

Assertion 2.

Being very fond of seeing the Buddha makes one gay

Vakkali was fond of seeing the Buddha and this makes him gay. Therefore because Vakkali was gay and wasn't made to disrobe the word pandaka can not mean gay because Vakkali would've been made to disrobe if it did mean gay.

Assertion 3.

A pandaka must be female-like

Because apparently there is a vedic passage where Pandaka is used in a curse. "May your son be born a pandaka!" It is said that pandaka there have long, wavy, oily hair, and wear rings and jewlery like a woman.

They all must also all assert #4

Assertion 4.

A man suggesting intercourse to a man doesn't make him a pandaka

A gay monk could suggest another monk to have intercourse with him and not have to disrobe because he is not a pandaka but merely a gay. The situation is interpreted to be analogical to a monk suggesting intercourse to a bhikkhuni rather than a pandaka suggesting intercourse to a novice.

[Ceisiwr]

It is generally agreed upon that a pandaka is certainly gay because he only tried to have intercourse with men.

The question is therefore whether all gays are pandaka.

In Theravada the commentarial explanation of the rule would allow for gay men to ordain as a type of pandaka, but not other pandakas. Whilst pandakas would include gay men, it would also include non-gay men too. That said, some monasteries just read it as “homosexual”. I know Pa Auk won’t ordain any known homosexual.

[Mahabrahma]

It's kind of a joke. Does Arhatship not allow for one gay thought? Or do a majority people go throughout their entire adult life without a gay thought? What would be the purpose of specifically training your mind not to, to become a monk? It's unheard of in the Suttas as far as I've read.

[User13866]

I am not convinced that it doesn't mean gay.

In the sutta a pandaka approaches men asking them to have sex with him.

Then people complain saying the monks are pandaka and even those who are not pandaka have intercourse with the pandaka.

Now given that monastic collective is segregated by sex i think this can be likened to prison environment as to homosexuality.

In prison some men have have intercourse with men because they are homosexuals and even some straight men will have intercourse with the homosexuals because of their general degeneracy and lack of women.

Therefore it is a similar situation. Even those who are not gay have intercourse with the gays.

An argument can be made as to pandaka being only the receptive man. However we should assume that a pandaka can have intercourse with another pandaka because the statement
'Even those who are not pandaka have intercourse with the pandakas'
Doesn't make sense otherwise because if pandaka is only the receptive party then all monks could be pandaka and they wouldn't have intercourse with eachother.

Therefore i think the natural reading is that
'monks are accused of being gay, having intercourse with eachother and let alone the gay, even those who are not gay are having intercourse with the gays'.

As to those who assert
1.

Having homosexual intercourse makes one gay

This is not really agreed upon in the world. There are those who will only do gay things for money or due to a lack of women.

2.

Being very fond of seeing the Buddha makes one gay

Vakkali could simply be fond of being in Buddha's presence due to his devotion & admiration.

3.

A pandaka must be female-like

The vedic description can be taken as a stereotypical description of a gay person.

As to the assertion #4

which is made by all who differentiate between pandaka and gay.

They must allow that an ordained gay could literally do everything a pandaka is said to have done up until actually having intercourse and not have to disrobe because they hold that this wouldn't make him a pandaka but merely a gay.

This is just rediculous to me.

[User13866]

In Theravada the commentarial explanation of the rule would allow for gay men to ordain as a type of pandaka, but not other pandakas. Whilst pandakas would include gay men, it would also include non-gay men too.

Maybe written by gays for all i know... I wouldn't support gay ordination. It's just not convincing enough of an argument to me.

[User13866]

Suppose a gay is allowed a going forth
Then the Gay goes to elder monks suggesting intercourse and they tell him
- Go away Gay, surely you will perish!
Then the Gay goes to junior monks suggesting intercourse and they tell him
- Go away Gay, surely you will perish!
Then the Gay goes to young novices suggesting intercourse and they tell him
- Go away Gay, surely you will perish!

Then the Gay goes to the laymen who are elephant keepers suggesting intercourse and they have intercourse with him and furthermore spread it about saying;

"These Buddhist monks are gay, surely even those who aren't gay have intercourse with the gays!"

Then the monks who ordained the gay say to eachother 'Well at least he wasn't a pandaka'...

I think this demonstrates beyond any doubt that the rule is meaningless if it's not taken to mean gay. I think gays aren't to be allowed ordination and all gay monks should be expelled.

[Sam Vara]

Suppose a gay is allowed a going forth
Then the Gay goes to elder monks suggesting intercourse and they tell him
- Go away Gay, surely you will perish!
Then the Gay goes to junior monks suggesting intercourse and they tell him
- Go away Gay, surely you will perish!
Then the Gay goes to young novices suggesting intercourse and they tell him
- Go away Gay, surely you will perish!

Then the Gay goes to the laymen who are elephant keepers suggesting intercourse and they have intercourse with him and furthermore spread it about saying;

"These Buddhist monks are gay, surely even those who aren't gay have intercourse with the gays!"

Then the monks who ordained the gay say to eachother 'Well at least he wasn't a pandaka'...

I think this demonstrates beyond any doubt that the rule is meaningless if it's not taken to mean gay. I think gays aren't to be allowed ordination and all gay monks should be expelled.

I'm not sure I understand the point you are making here. Why would gay men having gone forth go to the elder monks suggesting intercourse? The gay monks I know remain celibate, as that is part of the understanding at the going forth. We don't have many elephant-keepers around here, but I suppose they might be more tempting...

[User13866]

Suppose a gay is allowed a going forth
Then the Gay goes to elder monks suggesting intercourse and they tell him
- Go away Gay, surely you will perish!
Then the Gay goes to junior monks suggesting intercourse and they tell him
- Go away Gay, surely you will perish!
Then the Gay goes to young novices suggesting intercourse and they tell him
- Go away Gay, surely you will perish!

Then the Gay goes to the laymen who are elephant keepers suggesting intercourse and they have intercourse with him and furthermore spread it about saying;

"These Buddhist monks are gay, surely even those who aren't gay have intercourse with the gays!"

Then the monks who ordained the gay say to eachother 'Well at least he wasn't a pandaka'...

I think this demonstrates beyond any doubt that the rule is meaningless if it's not taken to mean gay. I think gays aren't to be allowed ordination and all gay monks should be expelled.

I'm not sure I understand the point you are making here. Why would gay men having gone forth go to the elder monks suggesting intercourse? The gay monks I know remain celibate, as that is part of the understanding at the going forth. We don't have many elephant-keepers around here, but I suppose they might be more tempting...

I don't think you want to understand.

[User13866]

I'm not sure I understand the point you are making here. Why would gay men having gone forth go to the elder monks suggesting intercourse? The gay monks I know remain celibate, as that is part of the understanding at the going forth. We don't have many elephant-keepers around here, but I suppose they might be more tempting...

I think you might not want to understand.

It's a very clear point.

Many monks intend to be celibate until they change their mind.

I am not saying all Gays will do it but some will...

The only way to get rid of it from the bhikkhusangha is to forbid gay ordinations.

Also what do you know about what these gays do and do not do, they don't report to you.

There is a lot of gay stuff going on in the monasteries, pederasty, pedophilia and all... you are naive if you think this isn't the case.

We don't have many elephant-keepers around here, but I suppose they might be more tempting...

Do you really think these Gays do not find other bhikkhus attractive?

Of course it happens...