Kunzang wrote:Nope. Not when it comes to hate.
Is H.H. the Dalai Lama's saying that homosexual acts are forbidden "hate"?
(By the way, he never retracted his statement, he only said he would consider revising his view if
he ever found evidence which contradicts his statement)
No. I don't think so. I think his statements are understandable from his conservative position with regards the rigid definitions of the Mulasarvastivadin Vinaya and the way changes in vinaya take place. I don't think they are coming from a place of hate at all. I think his statements have been widely misunderstood.
Personally, I hope you, Lhug-pa, aren't actually coming from a place of hatred and contempt from your heart the way some of your posts appear and I want to believe the best in you, so I'll elaborate on your question. And this also ties in with OP's original question about the Upasika Sutra.
The way I understand it, is that he was talking about specific definitions of the layperson ordination with regards to the precept on "sexual misconduct". And he was discussing how he or other vow-conferrers can't unilaterally change definitions of those vows -- it takes a whole assembly of the sangha to vote on it. That's what that was about. My own main Nyingma teacher, a monk, also talked about it in this way when I came out to him 25 years ago. So, technically speaking, as a layperson, you can't in the Mulasarvastivadin tradition hold the precept against "sexual misconduct" if you are, as they say, a "practicing homosexual".
However, in the Mulasarvastivadin tradition, you can still be considered a layperson without taking all five precepts. As far as I understand, you only have to hold one (and that one has to be the first one against non-killing) to hold the layperson vow (which is also then necessary for the bodhisattva vow, which is also necessary for the vajrayana samayas).
My teachers, all of them, have stressed loving-kindness and compassion and the cultivation of bodhicitta as so much more important than this one technical definition of the layperson precepts. I first took refuge 25 years ago. My teachers have always been encouraging and helpful with regards to my relationship, even though my husband isn't a Buddhist though he has always shown great respect for Buddhism and my teachers. We had our 26th anniversary this past Tuesday, Sept. 25.
So, I know the traditional specific defintions about "sexual misconduct" in texts like the Upasika Sutra and other similar texts. Even if one considers them authoritative, it doesn't matter. That's not how Buddhism works. It's not like if you have one "flaw", you can't practice everything else not related to that one "flaw" or it won't work.