WIE: In this issue of the magazine we're exploring whether it's possible for an individual to come to a point in their spiritual evolution when they're no longer compulsively fixated on gender differences or sexual preferences, while at the same time having no need to avoid or deny whatever differences that may actually exist. Do you think that such a condition is attainable?

JC: Yes. But not easily. What we're really talking about here is the kind of insight that comes from the realization of emptiness or nonduality. Someone who has real insight into the ultimate truth, into emptiness, is capable of seeing beyond gender and sexual orientation distinctions. But until that point is reached, we still live with the social conditioning that we inherit from our culture.

WIE: Looking at what it could mean to not be compulsively fixated on differences and not avoid or deny differences, would you say this would be a state of total androgyny or a state where natural differences would be revealed without there being any set reference points for any individual, man or woman, gay or straight?

JC: Where compulsion related to sexual or gender identity is most strong, from a Buddhist point of view, is in regard to sexual desire. So, I suppose one way of phrasing this question is: Is it possible to respect gender differences while at the same time avoiding sexual desire? And Buddhism, of course, would say yes, one can reach a state of desirelessness where one does not fixate upon the sexual identity of another person without denying the conventional differences that exist between men and women, both biologically and as constructed by culture.

WIE: As you said, traditional Buddhist teachings of liberation emphasize coming to the end of desire and craving. But one of the common themes in the gay liberation movement is the acceptance of and fascination with sexual desire, and even the strong assertion of the importance of expressing, exhibiting and fulfilling this desire as a part of coming into one's own more complete gay identity. Gay psychiatrist Anthony Richardson says, "Sex is of primary importance to us. Insistence on the importance of sex is one of our differences from most straight folks." Given the Buddha's teachings on the difficulties of navigating the strong force of sexual desire, do you think it is possible that the celebration of an identity based on one's sexuality could lead to increased confusion rather than to freedom from the chains of desire and attachment? How do gay Buddhists reconcile the contradiction between what is sometimes called "liberated self-expression" and the Buddha's injunction to quench the flames of sexual desire?

JC: First of all, let me say that even among gay writers today there is considerable debate regarding the extent to which sexuality and sexual expression are a necessary part of gay identity. Many gay writers raise the question of whether the claim that it is has, in fact, had negative consequences, like fueling the fires of AIDS. This is a debated issue even in the North American gay community. There have always been voices in the gay liberation movement that have questioned the essentializing of a "gay identity" in any way. So, for example, to say, "Sexual self-expression is an essential part of gay identity"—that it must be this way—I find problematic. I don't believe that sexual self-expression is essential to being a gay person. To say that it is essential is to make celibate gay men and women somehow less gay, which is both logically absurd and ethically problematic, as if to say, "You don't count as a real gay person." Now there's no question that in Buddhism, desire is one of the major problems that human beings face. And sexuality is perhaps the strongest form of desire. Therefore, in order to decrease desire, sexual activity must be diminished or curtailed. I see this as being one of the cornerstones of the Buddhist path and I see no way for Buddhists to interpret their way out of this. My personal belief is that there is a kind of responsible sexuality that Buddhism calls for that commits Buddhists to keeping their sexuality within bounds. And I don't see that this in any way negatively impinges upon the struggles of gay people, gay men in particular.

WIE: It's commonly believed that the Buddha had strong views about the inherent inferiority of women on a spiritual path. What were his views on homosexuality?

JC: The Buddha was a pragmatist. He realized, I think, that the insights that he had often went against social norms. And I think that the Buddha also realized that it was necessary to sometimes compromise his insights as an upaya, a skillful means, in order to benefit a greater number of beings. For example, although it seems to me that the Buddha could not possibly have seen an essential distinction between homosexual and heterosexual acts, there are portions of the Buddhist texts that seem to come down on homosexuality. On one hand, I think this had to do with the social setting in which the Buddha found himself. On the other, it probably had to do with a pervasive homophobia found even among his followers, followers who were responsible for compiling and editing those texts. If we look at the Buddhist teachings as a whole, there's no question that singling out homosexuality for special critique is not consistent with the Buddha's general message. And the same can be said in regard to the position of women. The Buddha lived in a time and place where it would have been impossible for him to advocate radical egalitarianism between the sexes. But if we look at the Buddha's teachings as a whole, it is quite clear that the Buddha did not believe that women were inferior or that women were spiritually inferior. On the issues that are most important, namely whether women can attain enlightenment while still being women, the Buddha was quite clear that they can. So if we were to transport the Buddha through time to the present day, given our present circumstances, I think there's no question that the Buddha would come out in favor of gay liberation and women's liberation.

WIE: When we think about the Buddha, we think of somebody who is walking this earth as a living example of the fulfillment of our spiritual potential. If you could imagine meeting the Buddha, what do you suppose that his transmission would be, specifically with regard to gender? What do you think we could learn about being a natural man, uninhibited by social convention or by a fixed and limited identification with one's sexuality or by one's gender, from one like the Buddha?

JC: That's a very hard question. I mean, in the Buddhist texts you find cases of enlightened people changing sexes, a man turning into a woman, say, or vice versa, in order to teach people lessons. If the Buddha is, as the texts portray him, a master of skillful means, it's not inconceivable that the Buddha might engage in such acts to completely confound our notions of what is male and what is female—what in contemporary circles is called "gender f—ing"—for the sake of making a spiritual point. That certainly is possible, but I think it's also quite consistent that the Buddha would simply act as a man or a woman without engaging in these types of actions. The answer to this question is that there's no predicting what the Buddha would do. Whatever actions would be for the benefit of others, those are the actions that the Buddha would engage in.

WIE: On this subject of changing genders, we interviewed Kate Bornstein, who was born a man and had a sex change operation to become a woman. She calls herself a "gender outlaw," and one of the goals of her philosophy is to confound people's ideas of gender. Do you think that her extreme measures are useful to break apart our deep and rigid ideas of what it means to be a man or a woman, or do you think that what she is doing actually has more to do with a fixation on and identification with gender?

JC: We tend to be enculturated in such a way that we have very fixed ideas of what it means to be masculine or feminine, male or female. Part of the process of becoming more spiritually aware involves losing that rigidity in regard to all categories, in regard to all forms of duality, including male and female. So to the extent that we can be challenged in these ways, I think that's healthy. Sometimes we tend to think that we can only come to spiritual insight when we engage in some kind of special, isolated, meditative exercise. And perhaps ultimately it is that kind of practice that is going to lead to permanent spiritual transformation. But that doesn't mean that along the way we can't learn a great deal from the conventional world around us, including actions like Bornstein's. There are many conventional lessons that begin the process of breaking down the solid foundations of the false world we live in, and this might be a good example of one.

WIE: With respect to breaking down our fixed identification with our sexual and gender identity, what was your experience when you went from being a monk to being a layperson?

JC: I don't know if it's possible to generalize but, in retrospect, I'm quite convinced that in my own case, the most effective way of sustaining a spiritual program is through celibacy. Now don't get me wrong, I'm far from being celibate at this stage in my life. But I still hold celibacy as an ideal, and I have tremendous respect for those who can keep to the discipline of celibacy. I have heard some former monks justify their return to lay life by claiming that they needed to gain some new experiences, or by claiming that a sexually active life was more conducive to spiritual growth. This is certainly not my experience. With me it had to do with a number of conditions, for example, finding that living in the West was particularly unconducive to living a celibate lifestyle.

WIE: How did your experience as a monk help you in the pursuit of the transcendence of gender fixation or identification as a man? Did it help you to leave those ideas behind? Did it help break apart some of your fixed reference points because you set aside the sexual part of your life?

JC: I don't think that monasticism or celibacy, in and of itself, does that. What does do that is whatever insights you come to by engaging in spiritual practices while a monk or a nun. I don't believe that the monastic life alone is going to give you the tools for deconstructing gender differences. That comes from elsewhere.

WIE: Are you referring to the realization of emptiness that you brought up earlier?

JC: Right.

WIE: It's interesting. So if we want to be truly free, if we really want to go beyond—not only as a spiritual experience, but to actually manifest that realization in time and space, in our lives, through our humanity—what do you think it would mean to give up this fundamental investment in being a man or a woman?

JC: You know, this might go back again to what I think is almost a Western obsession with sexual identity and gender differences or gender identity. It's said in the Indo-Tibetan Buddhist texts that an understanding of nonduality, of emptiness, brings about greater compassion. I think that the most tangible result of seeing through gender, of seeing through the distinctions of male and female, gay and straight, manifests itself in a kind of equanimity of compassionate action in regard to all creatures. All distinctions, not only gender distinctions—beautiful, ugly, fat, thin, intelligent, ignorant—form the basis for restricting our compassionate action. I think a person who has truly seen the empty nature of these distinctions, including male/female, gay/straight, would exhibit the kind of equanimity in their life that does not distinguish between human beings.