Home

Forums

Topics

Members

Tattva-viveka

gay couple devotees being acknowledged publicly

Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 19, 2009 6:08 am

http://www.chakra.org/announcements/persFeb01_09.html

This was really revolutionary for ISKCON.

Yamuna Dasi - March 19, 2009 8:20 am

Is this consdidered marriage? And does a blessing mean also that agni hotra will be performed or was performed? Is this OK with shastra?

By the way my opinion about homosexuality is still not clear. I don't know how to consider it and what is the right point of view about it. Is it a mental or psychological distortion? Or is it genetically predestigned? And if it is geneticaly predestigned still does it make it OK or not? What I know for sure is that it does not comply with Kama Sutra's definition about the goal of kama, which is procreation and this makes me doubtfu if then it is natural and acceptable from shastra point of view.

Maybe somebody more learned in shastra here can shed some light please?

Babhru Das - March 19, 2009 11:09 am

It was not a wedding. It was a commitment ceremony between two men who associate with devotees and apparently are engaged in chanting, etc. themselves. There was no fire sacrifice. There is no Santa Barbara ISKCON center; Apparently Sarvatma is a disciple of Hridayananda Maharaja's who live in Santa Barbara. And Govinda's of LA is a business that includes catering.

Madan Gopal Das - March 19, 2009 11:19 am

By the way my opinion about homosexuality is still not clear.

Sometimes I feel like we could really use some better smiley's on this site. Here's one:

I think I just heard Vamsi come in...

Madan Gopal Das - March 19, 2009 11:32 am

This was really revolutionary for ISKCON.

It was so revolutionary that it was not in anyway endorsed or supported by iskcon and I'm sure it was not meant to be known publicly. Sarvatma is not by any stretch of the imagination your typical "iskcon" devotee. Just see how the masses (which some say are asses ) responded all over Sampradaya Stun and how Hrdayananda M. was moved to respond to complaints. Don't worry, there is no revolution going on in iskcon, more like an endless implosion... same ol', same ol'.

link

link

By the way, the author of the first article is a disciple of the author of the second.

ooh, it would be fun to have a social/cultural commentary editorial section of "The Harmonist".

Syamasundara - March 19, 2009 12:47 pm

Is this consdidered marriage? And does a blessing mean also that agni hotra will be performed or was performed? Is this OK with shastra?

 

By the way my opinion about homosexuality is still not clear. I don't know how to consider it and what is the right point of view about it. Is it a mental or psychological distortion? Or is it genetically predestigned? And if it is geneticaly predestigned still does it make it OK or not? What I know for sure is that it does not comply with Kama Sutra's definition about the goal of kama, which is procreation and this makes me doubtfu if then it is natural and acceptable from shastra point of view.

 

Maybe somebody more learned in shastra here can shed some light please?

It's a result of karma, like everything else. Any bodily condition is an embarrassment for the soul. It's up to us to take the blessing out of everything. I couldn't tell if it's "OK" or "natural". Ok from what point of view? Material? Spiritual? Lust is lust. From the spiritual point of view we are all souls with a potential for bhakti. As far as nature, there is a lot of homosexuality, bisexuality, hermaphrodism, and even transgenders in the natural world. Make a google search. What we are interested in is the nature of the soul. The rest is all about making a good use of a bad bargain. Those who think they are "OK" because their life style fits somewhat better in the "right-handed male" Vedic worldview, are probably penalized, in that they miss a chance to think dynamically and in a way that goes beyond the material bodies.

Other than that there are a lot of Sangas you could research about that, and there are a few articles by Amara Dasa about the tritiya prakriti, or third gender, as the Vedas call it, and how the Vedic society had a room for everybody. His site is called GALVA.

Babhru Das - March 19, 2009 9:09 pm

It was so revolutionary that it was not in anyway endorsed or supported by iskcon and I'm sure it was not meant to be known publicly. Sarvatma is not by any stretch of the imagination your typical "iskcon" devotee. Just see how the masses (which some say are asses ) responded all over Sampradaya Stun and how Hrdayananda M. was moved to respond to complaints. Don't worry, there is no revolution going on in iskcon, more like an endless implosion... same ol', same ol'.

 

link

 

link

 

By the way, the author of the first article is a disciple of the author of the second.

Correction: was a disciple. He finally repudiated his relationship with the author of the second article a few weeks ago.

ooh, it would be fun to have a social/cultural commentary editorial section of "The Harmonist".

I cannot imagine that we won't.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 19, 2009 9:19 pm

It was so revolutionary that it was not in anyway endorsed or supported by iskcon and I'm sure it was not meant to be known publicly. Sarvatma is not by any stretch of the imagination your typical "iskcon" devotee. Just see how the masses (which some say are asses ) responded all over Sampradaya Stun and how Hrdayananda M. was moved to respond to complaints. Don't worry, there is no revolution going on in iskcon, more like an endless implosion... same ol', same ol'.

 

link

 

link

 

By the way, the author of the first article is a disciple of the author of the second.

 

ooh, it would be fun to have a social/cultural commentary editorial section of "The Harmonist".

That is ok because if the disciple is a pain like krsna kirti no guru can do anything about it.

Even if he took initiation from GM he would have the same problem.

What can be done, he consider himself similar to Danvir Goswami.

However, what is indisputable is that things like blessing a gay wedding (or whatever you want to call it, "a rose by any other name is still a rose") are things that Srila Prabhupada himself clearly and unequivocally spoke out against. Do we want to live in an ISKCON that doesn't respect Srila Prabhupada's teachings and sentiments? Perhaps some do. I don't.

Babhru Das - March 19, 2009 9:35 pm

What can be done, he consider himself similar to Danvir Goswami.

He has for a very long time been much closer philosophically to Danavir Goswami and Trivikrama Swami. In fact, I think he considers himself an advisor to Trivikrama Maharaja.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 19, 2009 9:38 pm

He has for a very long time been much closer philosophically to Danavir Goswami and Trivikrama Swami. In fact, I think he considers himself an advisor to Trivikrama Maharaja.

]

 

That is great for him!! He can enjoy life with them.

Yamuna Dasi - March 19, 2009 11:05 pm

I think that if one is a gay and his sexuality is mixed and not naturally directed towards the final goal of kama which is procreation, it's indeed better to at least commit to one sexual partner than to many, but still it's strange for me a Guru to officially "bless" such relation. Maybe if the disciples need somehow his blessing in their lives, he could give them some blessing, but not officially blessing a gay couple because this would compromise him and his standards... I think. And the disciples should be able to understand his point and reasons and not to put their Guru into such a delicate situation by asking from him an official blessing for a gay relation.

What really bothers me in all these "gay issues" is that all the time gays are making too big thing out of their sexuality and their sexual preferences. If by some karmic reactions you have not straight sexuality at least you can not wave it as a flag but take a humble position and try to deal with it in some sober and less noticeable way as dealing with a defect, not exposing it as being the greatest achievement of yours and trying to prove to everybody (including your own self) how "good" and "natural" and "blessed" you are being a gay.

I liked a lot how once Sadhu Maharaj spoke at a public lecture when asked something about sexuality. He said that it's a natural urge... like going to the toilet... finally you have to go because nature pushes you into that direction very strongly, but do it in the proper way and without making such a big public deal out of it. And this is exactly what the gays usually fail to do. They are making a show off from their sexuality requiring everybody to accept and approve and even "bless" it completely forgetting that it's wrong and cannot require this from the world. Much less to expect that the world would appreciate their parade of wrongly directed lust.

Swami - March 19, 2009 11:44 pm

I think that if one is a gay and his sexuality is mixed and not naturally directed towards the final goal of kama which is procreation, it's indeed better to at least commit to one sexual partner than to many, but still it's strange for me a Guru to officially "bless" such relation. Maybe if the disciples need somehow his blessing in their lives, he could give them some blessing, but not officially blessing a gay couple because this would compromise him and his standards... I think. And the disciples should be able to understand his point and reasons and not to put their Guru into such a delicate situation by asking from him an official blessing for a gay relation.

 

What really bothers me in all these "gay issues" is that all the time gays are making too big thing out of their sexuality and their sexual preferences. If by some karmic reactions you have not straight sexuality at least you can not wave it as a flag but take a humble position and try to deal with it in some sober and less noticeable way as dealing with a defect, not exposing it as being the greatest achievement of yours and trying to prove to everybody (including your own self) how "good" and "natural" and "blessed" you are being a gay.

 

I liked a lot how once Sadhu Maharaj spoke at a public lecture when asked something about sexuality. He said that it's a natural urge... like going to the toilet... finally you have to go because nature pushes you into that direction very strongly, but do it in the proper way and without making such a big public deal out of it. And this is exactly what the gays usually fail to do. They are making a show off from their sexuality requiring everybody to accept and approve and even "bless" it completely forgetting that it's wrong and cannot require this from the world. Much less to expect that the world would appreciate their parade of wrongly directed lust.

You might think differently if you were born gay and had to undergo the kind of discrimination gay people have had to undergo for centuries—the psychological trauma of "coming out," etc. in a society that is largely straight and has been homophobic for centuries. The flag waving is part of that coming out. It is a cry to be allowed to be what they are sexually just as everyone else is without being discriminated against for it or being jailed, beaten up, etc. as has been the norm for so long. One's sexuality is a huge part of one's life. To be in a society that denies that one's homosexual reality is a natural consequence and thus be treated unfairly on account of it is not something I would wish on anyone.

As for scripture, there is no scriptural condemnation of homosexuality in the Hindu cannon that I am aware of. Kama sutra is not scripture but it does address homosexuality without condemning it.

Madan Gopal Das - March 20, 2009 12:08 am

And this is exactly what the gays usually fail to do.

Okay, now I definitely think I heard Vamsi coming; I'm sure he'll be here any minute now!

Yamuna,

I am aware that English is not your first language. Granted this, I will give some leeway here, but I just want to warn you that you are stepping into some very dicey territory here. I know that you also do not know many of the people on this forum personally. Suffice it to say that our Guru Maharaj is a very progressive, dynamic preacher. While uncompromising in his devotion to and preaching of siddhanta, his presentation has also made people of all variety of background feel that bhakti is accessible. And it is!!! - for everyone. Some of "the gays" that you are generalizing about are present amongst us and you will likely be hearing from them ( ) or have on many occasions in other threads. Maybe you don't know that because it doesn't come up that much - this sanga is a deeply spiritually interested group!

While we are a spiritually minded group here, keep in mind that people of a different sexual orientation are likely to be offended by magnification or criticism of their material "difference" just the same as if I started proclaiming that people from Bulgaria are _______ (sorry, I don't know enough to generalize Bulgarian traits ). What to speak of talking about sexual preference as a defect, not natural, wrong, or as HDG referred to it; a "condition". You see, the thing is that it doesn't get equal treatment as just another material desire, a result of karma, etc., and not payed much attention. Instead it is treated uniquely, as race and gender have also been treated uniquely in so called "spiritual" societies and rather than treated with equal vision, such souls of the underprivileged races, gender, sexual orientation, etc. are seen according to their bodies and given inferior status and treatment according to materialistic vision.

God, don't get a social worker started...

Babhru Das - March 20, 2009 1:17 am

I liked a lot how once Sadhu Maharaj spoke at a public lecture when asked something about sexuality. He said that it's a natural urge... like going to the toilet... finally you have to go because nature pushes you into that direction very strongly, but do it in the proper way and without making such a big public deal out of it. And this is exactly what the gays usually fail to do. They are making a show off from their sexuality requiring everybody to accept and approve and even "bless" it completely forgetting that it's wrong and cannot require this from the world. Much less to expect that the world would appreciate their parade of wrongly directed lust.

I have a couple of points. First, what Swami said: ditto.

Second, straights also make a big deal out of their sexuality. There's a famous story about an encounter Srila Prabhupada with a pious Hindu gentleman. While visiting this man's home, Srila Prabhupada was introduced one by one to each member of the man's family, including his son in law and grandchildren: "This is my wife. This is my son. This is my daughter, and this is her husband. This is my granddaughter . . ." etc. When Srila Prabhupada was alone in the room, he said to the devotees, "This is my sex life." There's more to say about this, but I'll hold my fire.

Third, if you read Hridayananda Maharaja's email to the two men carefully, you may find there's a lot less there than some would like you to think. These are two men practicing Krishna consciousness for several years, from what I understand. And they had a long relationship with HdG as a spiritual advisor. And read his real blessing, for goodness' sake. Any blessing he offers is that their love may eventually transform into the real thing, love focused on Krishna. If you like, I can take you through it sentence by sentence. All he's doing is treating them as if they were devotees trying to improve their spiritual lives, not as if they were some sort of pariahs deserving only a curled lip and a loogie at their feet. (That means spit.)

Yamuna Dasi - March 20, 2009 1:56 am

Thank you Madan Gopal prabhu for letting me know all these things. Still the very fact that for the last few months I was reading through different threads in this forum and I never noticed the topic about homosexuality being pushed forwards, really shows that devotees here no matter what their sexual orientation is, are indeed more mature and don't consider their sexual preferences as important as I usually see in the gay groups. I don't know if they ask from Tripurari Maharaj a public and official blessing for their relations... I personally have a friend and she is gay, very nice devotee from many years, but just recently she told me (and it was in a private conversation) that she is a gay, I had absolutely no idea and obviously this is because she was not putting such a public accent on her own sexual orientation, neither keeping it as a secret nor exaggerating it's public importance. Just taking it as it is. She told me that she has the blessing (I don't know if it is for her years long lasting relation with another gay devotee or for their spiritual progress) of her guru, who is a famous Indian acharia from our sampradaya and one of the most respected senior most devotees, but it was never like some public acknowledgement or public blessing.

Sometimes our Gurus are giving blessings for some heterosexual relations which are not marriage (strictly considered they are illicit), hoping and praying that their disciples would one day make their relations clear and official through a marriage and that their blessings can help this process. But at the same time I was also seeing my shiksha Guru refusing initiation to a devotee who asked him for nama diksha, because he was refusing to marry the girl who was pregnant from him and trying to convince her to make an abortion. Later on this devotee received nama diksha from other guru who did not put him such a condition, but later on used his authority as a guru leading his disciple into the direction of marriage and in 2 years he married the mother of his child and after they had 2 more kids and till now are a family. So we can see that it can work in both ways - one guru requiring it and other not requiring it initially, but later expecting it from his disciple. Maybe the sweet will of Krishna worked through both gurus - through the first one who refused nama diksha Krishna showed that aspiring devotee the importance of morals and ethics in his personal life, and the second one through the merciful compromise gave him first some sucriti and then asked him to follow the moral responsibility expected from him. And it worked as a combined effort. Till now this devotee respects very much my shiksha guru, not considering him at all "miser" of mercy for not giving him nama diksha.

I didn't want to offend anybody here for his/her sexual preferences. The very fact that most of us here have sexual desires makes us face the same reality and challenge in our spiritual lives of "kama esha krodha esha"... I don't look from above anybody having homosexual desires, because mine (even if heterosexual) could be stronger than those of somebody with homosexual orientation. So what would be my advantage/benefit if that would be the case?

From my Gurudeva I've learned something very simple and very practical - to try not to meditate so much on this topic (my sexual desires) because it would make them grow and eventually bring me more attachment and troubles. Whatever we meditate upon, we expose ourselves to the risk of getting stronger attachments in that very same direction.

In what I wrote above (and it was objected by you) I was expressing the ideas of my gurus or at least what I have understood till now from them. If I misunderstood something I am ready to adjust my visions. If you noticed I started with this - that some aspects of this topic I don't know how to consider and what position to take... but for some I do have an opinion and dare to express it and if necessary to explain why my opinion is as it is.

Yamuna Dasi - March 20, 2009 2:06 am

And just one more thing to add - regarding feeling offended.

If you would tell me for example that I am an old woman (since I will make 40 this year) or that I have 2-3 kgs of overweight (according to the European fashion standards) or that my English is not sounding nice in the ears of the native English speakers, or that my level of Sanskrit deserves compassion, I might feel somewhat unhappy to hear it, but will admit it's validity.

So I think that a sincere person should try his/her best to admit if something is a valid truth before taking it as an offence and pointing the other person as an offender.

Madan Gopal Das - March 20, 2009 2:45 am

And just one more thing to add - regarding feeling offended.

I might feel somewhat unhappy to hear it, but will admit it's validity.

No honest person feels any different about personal failings or disqualifications in the materially measured things you have brought up. You decide what being 40 means to you... If you are not fluent in English or Sanskrit it is no statement of your worth as a person. But an insult about your weight (your example) would hurt much more if you struggled with obesity. The areas of discrimination such as race, gender, beauty, sexual orientation, etc. - insults of these kind are rooted in dehumanization and power dynamics. They destroy feelings of self-worth. You cannot say that one should not be offended if the insult is "valid" because what is the measure of validity for one sexual orientation, gender, race being better, correct, or more right than another?

While deference to guru and sadhu is glorious, there may be grey areas when discussing society and culture. That is why the greatest teachers are those that have standing in bhakti, not necessarily the politic we believe in. Though they may comment on these things, that is not what they have come to give us.

In HDG's defense (which I am only doing for this example) his blessing of a gay couple is a wonderful effort at removing a material obstacle (discrimination) to this couple's pursuit of bhakti. All he is really saying is "I believe in you; this path is for you too".

Nitaisundara Das - March 20, 2009 3:31 am

From what I understand Hrdayananda maharaja's blessing was just as Babhru said, he explicitly said that this relationship (between the two men) should serve to bring about real spiritual love. Once some of the IRM types got all up in arms he wrote an explanation that was overly apologetic and as GM put it, "he backed down". These two devotees are not even initiated and the fact is that what he said was an effort to help them in KC. Not that it was a tactic, but the intention of the blessing was for KC. I feel terrible for these two devotees to have to hear all the stuff people say about their lifestyle (<that word is imprecise).

Your story about the two different gurus, if taken as an analogy(as I think it was intended) would seem to indicate the idea that homosexuals should seek reformation (i.e. "to be cured") in the course of spiritual life. This is simply wrong. And This is not an issue with the Gurus whom you spoke about, I by no means want to challenge them.

One of the glorious things about Guru Maharaja is he tries to educate us all about the complete picture of the Guru. That is to say, the guru has a relative side. The guru is a person who has appeared in a certain place and time, with certain social norms and so forth, and that effects them. Anyway, there is so much more to be said but I have to do homework and I have a strong feeling others will have something to say as well.

Yamuna Dasi - March 20, 2009 10:38 am

No honest person feels any different about personal failings or disqualifications in the materially measured things you have brought up. You decide what being 40 means to you... If you are not fluent in English or Sanskrit it is no statement of your worth as a person. But an insult about your weight (your example) would hurt much more if you struggled with obesity. The areas of discrimination such as race, gender, beauty, sexual orientation, etc. - insults of these kind are rooted in dehumanization and power dynamics. They destroy feelings of self-worth. You cannot say that one should not be offended if the insult is "valid" because what is the measure of validity for one sexual orientation, gender, race being better, correct, or more right than another?

Please allow me not to agree with you on this. The areas of discrimination such as race, gender, beauty, sexual orientation, etc. can be just observing and naming valid facts. They become for somebody an "insult" only if (and to the degree to which) one identifies himself with his race, gender, beauty, sexual orientation, etc. The same is valid as well for my "level of knowledge of English or Sanskrit" and the extent to which my personal self esteem depends on struggling to give to others the impression that I am a highly educated and learned person. It is other aspect of the same problem of self esteem depending on false self identification, this is why I have put them as well into my example, because they depict the same problem - material self identifications and the inevitably following from them "touchy topics". As less one identifies with his race, gender, beauty or sexual orientation, as less such a person could possibly be/feel offended if someone mentions (with or without the intention to hurt him/her) that he/she is black, woman, ugly, fat, homo- or heterosexual. Valid facts become "insults" only when one takes them as such.

I have also deliberately put into my example the overweight issue, because the tendency of overweight is usually genetically predestined, but still one can do a lot about it by self control and conscious diet. And homosexuality is not even always genetically predestined (as far as know), same as overweight tendency is not always genetically predestined. A friend of mine became homosexual in front of my eyes after being for many years a serious woman-hunter, then because of some story which obviously impressed him a lot he became homosexual... but in the last few years he has a girlfriend and lives together with her... We are not completely hopeless in front of the genes and genes do not completely predestine our life. They can predestine our tendencies, but not our life.

We have to learn somehow to control ourselves also about the level of our touchiness when regarding valid facts.

For example it's a valid fact that God is not pleased by us if we have homosexual relations. Also it's a valid fact that if the heterosexual relation at least can serve the purpose of procreation (being the goal of kama), heterosexual relation cannot serve that purpose and serves only the personal sense gratification. And this is a difference.

The valid fact that the goal of kama is procreation (as stated in Kama Sutra) is not easy to swallow neither for the heterosexuals not for the homosexuals. But still it's a valid fact.

You wrote me "You decide what being 40 means to you... " and I would like to quote it back "You decide what being a homosexual means for you..." I would not feel offended if someone would tell me that it feels better being young than being old (or being slim than being fat, or being a learned in English and Sanskrit person than not), because I don't object it's validity in many aspects. Would you feel offended if someone would tell you that a heterosexual relation serves better the nature through procreation than a homosexual relation which serves only the personal sense gratification? Or would you argue that it's not a valid fact but a cruel attempt to offend homosexuals?

While deference to guru and sadhu is glorious, there may be grey areas when discussing society and culture. That is why the greatest teachers are those that have standing in bhakti, not necessarily the politic we believe in. Though they may comment on these things, that is not what they have come to give us.

In HDG's defense (which I am only doing for this example) his blessing of a gay couple is a wonderful effort at removing a material obstacle (discrimination) to this couple's pursuit of bhakti. All he is really saying is "I believe in you; this path is for you too".

I never heard anybody claiming that homosexuals are not human beings, or that they are not intelligent, or that they have no soul... neither that bhakti is not for them. If I would heard such a claim I would definitely struggle against it. But we are not talking about this here.

HDG gave a "blessing to a gay couple" but had to apologize in detail after and explain that he did not bless their relation, but both of them as souls aspiring for bhakti. Also by blessing them (as souls, not as gays) he did not "remove a material obstacle (discrimination) to this couple's pursuit of bhakti", but created one more scandal and had to apologize and explain after what did he mean by this blessing. Do you think that this made it easier for these 2 persons in their pursuit of bhakti? To bless somebody on his/her path towards divinity is one thing, but to bless a relation means also to approve it.

Do you think that our gurus should bless gay relations and thus approve them?

And again as an answer I would quote you: "Though they may comment on these things, that is not what they have come to give us."

Yamuna Dasi - March 20, 2009 11:13 am

Your story about the two different gurus, if taken as an analogy(as I think it was intended) would seem to indicate the idea that homosexuals should seek reformation (i.e. "to be cured") in the course of spiritual life. This is simply wrong. And This is not an issue with the Gurus whom you spoke about, I by no means want to challenge them.

My story about the two different gurus is to show that sometimes even if seeming that they acted in completely opposite ways (one didn’t give nama diksha and the other gave it), they both worked for the same goal – to “reform” and “cure” this devotee so that he would finally clarify his relation, make it official and blessed as a marriage and take his responsibilities both towards the lady and the child. In this effort they were both successful (it’s not that the first one failed while the second one succeeded) because both contributed for the final positive result, each of them in his own way… and even more, that devotee was able to see it this way and appreciate it.

You wrote that it is simply wrong if I think “that homosexuals should seek reformation (i.e. "to be cured")”. Kama (i.e. the idea that the pursuit of happiness in the direction of sense gratification can ever be successful) is indeed the disease of the material world and we all have to be “reformed” and “cured” of it, no matter if we are heterosexuals or homosexuals. And yes, this is exactly what I meant – that we should all seek reformation (i.e. "to be cured").

Yamuna Dasi - March 20, 2009 11:41 am

I would dare to object the very title of this topic “gay couple devotees being acknowledged publicly”.

What had been acknowledged publicly? That they are gays? Why should the public acknowledge it if they themselves do? I don’t see any reason for the rest to doubt it.

Was it acknowledged publicly that having a gay relation is pleasing God? No.

Was it acknowledged publicly that gays can (and have the right to) also strive for developing love for Krishna and serve divinity? This was not objected by anybody so why then should it be “acknowledged publicly”?

Was it acknowledged publicly that gay devotees can serve God through their sexual preferences? No.

Was it acknowledged publicly that gay devotees can serve God despite of their sexual preferences? Yes.

Was it acknowledged publicly that one can be a gay and still be a devotee? Not more than that one can be a meat-eater or a smoker and still be a devotee in his heart. Meat-eating, smoking and illicit sex are considered obstacles on the path of bhakti by all our acharias.

Was it acknowledged publicly that gay couple devotees exist? Yes it was.

Finally what was indeed acknowledged publicly was that Hridayananda das Goswami did not mean blessing gay relations and that he is deeply sorry for the confusion he created by giving a blessing, which was not meant to be a blessing for the relation, but for the souls in their pursuit of bhakti.

Do you still consider the topic title “gay couple devotees being acknowledged publicly” being a correct one? This title is very ambiguous and imparts ideas which:

- are not corresponding with our siddhanta

- Hridayananda das Goswami himself denied

Swami - March 20, 2009 1:21 pm

In the mission of Bhaktisidhanta Saraswati Thakura sex was to be restricted to sex in married life. My Prabhupada tried to establish a stricter standard, but for the most part his disciples could not follow it, and when this was pointed out to him in individual cases he sanctioned sex outside of procreation for married couples. Everyone agrees that the sexual urge should be harnessed, and different acaryas have tried to help their students do so in different ways, but a standard that students can follow that helps them to progressively harness this desire constitutes sex that is dharmic and is thus arguably blessed--kamo 'smi

If a heterosexual woman is infertile, is she left only with celibacy as a means to harness her sexual desire?

Can you site any scripture to support your views? Again, Kama sutra is not scripture and it offers advice on homosexuality.

I find your ideas to be lacking wisdom, and filled with insensitivity. Realization is about understanding the way other people feel from their perspective and true compassion involves finding a means to help them progress spiritually starting from where they are at.

Madan Gopal Das - March 20, 2009 2:05 pm

The areas of discrimination such as race, gender, beauty, sexual orientation, etc. can be just observing and naming valid facts. They become for somebody an "insult" only if (and to the degree to which) one identifies himself with his race, gender, beauty, sexual orientation, etc.

C'mon Yamuna, you must be arguing just for the sake of arguing. If I say a black person is black - yes, it is valid. If I say a black person is 3/4 of a human being and therefore only entitled to a fraction of the rights of white people that is not "valid" or in some way scientifically verifiable and the person discriminated against is valid in their feelings of horror, rage, shame, etc. for being discriminated against.

The same is valid as well for my "level of knowledge of English or Sanskrit" and the extent to which my personal self esteem depends on struggling to give to others the impression that I am a highly educated and learned person.

As less one identifies with his race, gender, beauty or sexual orientation, as less such a person could possibly be/feel offended if someone mentions (with or without the intention to hurt him/her) that he/she is black, woman, ugly, fat, homo- or heterosexual. Valid facts become "insults" only when one takes them as such.

What you are not seeing is the privilege that comes with the majority status in society. Just try to get this very important point. It is EASIER to not identify with your skinniness, with your heterosexuality, with your whiteness, because society doesn't see those things. You are awarded privilege, a free pass in life to not have to deal with discrimination just because of your birth in accepted norms for society. The people who have it all, who never have to suffer from all variety of discrimination are white heterosexual christian men who have nice names.

And homosexuality is not even always genetically predestined (as far as know), same as overweight tendency is not always genetically predestined.

We have to learn somehow to control ourselves also about the level of our touchiness when regarding valid facts.

You are driving me nuts with the valid facts thing. Tell me what is a valid fact about homosexuality. That you can't have babies? Okay, I give that to you. Can you love?

For example it's a valid fact that God is not pleased by us if we have homosexual relations.

The valid fact that the goal of kama is procreation (as stated in Kama Sutra) is not easy to swallow neither for the heterosexuals not for the homosexuals. But still it's a valid fact.

If God has a list of "not pleasing" things, varna sankara (unwanted children) is on it also. Arjuna is arguing such in Gita. Anyone with the right organs and some kama can procreate. Big deal. But it takes love and sacrifice to raise children. I don't know if you have children, but I do. Raising children is the hardest thing I could ever have imagined doing. It is all about sacrifice and I can't remember getting a whole lot of selfish sense gratification out of it. But I can tell you that I do gain in my knowledge of love and my appreciation for the universiality of the supremacy of love.

You wrote me "You decide what being 40 means to you... " and I would like to quote it back "You decide what being a homosexual means for you..."

Would you feel offended if someone would tell you that a heterosexual relation serves better the nature through procreation than a homosexual relation which serves only the personal sense gratification?

Yes I would, because I know and have experiences that homosexual couples can love each other and raise children with just as much love and sacrifice as I do as a heterosexual.

Yamuna Dasi - March 20, 2009 2:08 pm

Last remark regarding the title of this topic – actually what kind of “acknowledgement” are the homosexuals demanding from both the society and religion? Acknowledgement of existence, of civil rights, of voting rights, of rights for equal education, of employment rights, of driving license rights, of rights for visiting any place permitted for any heterosexual, of having equal health and social insurances, of having same prices in the supermarket… acknowledgement of what? Which is the right or acknowledgment which they had been deprived of among all the rights for which humanity an all its history was endeavoring for? This exaggerated struggle for “acknowledgement” is even entering into spiritual and religious societies in which as we can see gays are not deprived to participate. Sorry to say it but behind all this struggle for “acknowledgement” I see only the ego endeavoring to force the society and religion to acknowledge that being homosexual is completely OK, healthy, moral, ethical, normal and equal in any possible aspect to being heterosexual and is in no way an obstacle in their spiritual advancement. Sorry, it is not and the society and religion cannot acknowledge this even if the homosexuals will name them prejudiced or narrow-minded. There must be some limits even in one’s endeavor for “acknowledgement” if one doesn’t want to be unreasonable and even ridiculous.

So can somebody answer me what kind of acknowledgement are the homosexual people lacking?

Yamuna Dasi - March 20, 2009 2:22 pm

C'mon Yamuna, you must be arguing just for the sake of arguing. If I say a black person is black - yes, it is valid. If I say a black person is 3/4 of a human being and therefore only entitled to a fraction of the rights of white people that is not "valid" or in some way scientifically verifiable and the person discriminated against is valid in their feelings of horror, rage, shame, etc. for being discriminated against.

C'mon Madan Gopal prabhu, who said that a homosexual is 3/4 of a human being and what are those rights of the white people which homosexuals are deprived of? Why should I refute something that I never claimed?

And should I go through each of your other arguments the same way as you went through mine?

Maybe you could respond to a question - what kind of acknowledgement are the homosexual people struggling for and from what kind of rights are they deprived?

Madan Gopal Das - March 20, 2009 2:25 pm

Ooooh I'm getting so frustrated. Yamuna - you would not be a devotee if someone had not fought publicly for acknowledgment of a woman's opportunity in Vaishnavism. You would not have ever had any personal association with a sannyasi, your guru, if at some point in time such acknowledgment was not given. Now you don't even identify with what you could have been discriminated against just a short time back in history. See your case in relation to others who suffer discrimination.

Hell, even presently in gaudiya vaishnava societies people are arguing with your logic that the only valid place for a woman to be is in the home serving her husband by cooking and making babies. Is it that hard for you to see?

Madan Gopal Das - March 20, 2009 2:30 pm

Maybe you could respond to a question - what kind of acknowledgement are the homosexual people struggling for and from what kind of rights are they deprived?

I don't know what it is like in your country, but in the U.S. homosexuals are deprived of equal housing opportunities, medical benefits, economic benefits, the list goes on and on. If you don't think these problems exist in your country it would only be because homosexuals stay "in the closet" so that they don't have to suffer discrimination. And because people like you live in a bubble and don't see how they are being treated. Here I come with a pin to burst that bubble!

Madan Gopal Das - March 20, 2009 2:33 pm

And should I go through each of your other arguments the same way as you went through mine?

Please don't. I think you are an argument machine. While I don't mind debate, I hope that you can be open to consider the points brought up and to do a self-check to understand yourself a little more.

Prema-bhakti - March 20, 2009 2:37 pm

In the mission of Bhaktisidhanta Saraswati Thakura sex was to be restricted to sex in married life. My Prabhupada tried to establish a stricter standard, but for the most part his disciples could not follow it, and when this was pointed out to him in individual cases he sanctioned sex outside of procreation for married couples. Everyone agrees that the sexual urge should be harnessed, and different acaryas have tried to help their students do so in different ways, but a standard that students can follow that helps them to progressively harness this desire constitutes sex that is dharmic and is thus arguably blessed--kamo 'smi

If this is the case and I agree wholeheartedly then how should we address the use of birth control?

Swami - March 20, 2009 2:45 pm

Last remark regarding the title of this topic – actually what kind of “acknowledgement” are the homosexuals demanding from both the society and religion? Acknowledgement of existence, of civil rights, of voting rights, of rights for equal education, of employment rights, of driving license rights, of rights for visiting any place permitted for any heterosexual, of having equal health and social insurances, of having same prices in the supermarket… acknowledgement of what? Which is the right or acknowledgment which they had been deprived of among all the rights for which humanity an all its history was endeavoring for? This exaggerated struggle for “acknowledgement” is even entering into spiritual and religious societies in which as we can see gays are not deprived to participate. Sorry to say it but behind all this struggle for “acknowledgement” I see only the ego endeavoring to force the society and religion to acknowledge that being homosexual is completely OK, healthy, moral, ethical, normal and equal in any possible aspect to being heterosexual and is in no way an obstacle in their spiritual advancement. Sorry, it is not and the society and religion cannot acknowledge this even if the homosexuals will name them prejudiced or narrow-minded. There must be some limits even in one’s endeavor for “acknowledgement” if one doesn’t want to be unreasonable and even ridiculous.

 

So can somebody answer me what kind of acknowledgement are the homosexual people lacking?

You are so ignorant of the plight of homosexuals that it is pathetic. Homosexuality would still be criminal in the United States if it were not for the courage of gay activists.

Homosexuality is a naturally occurring minority phenomenon that is no more an obstacle to one's spiritual life than heterosexuality. This should be acknowledged. And so should my opinion on this forum.

Madan Gopal Das - March 20, 2009 2:50 pm

And again as an answer I would quote you: "Though they may comment on these things, that is not what they have come to give us."

The essential teaching of the acarya is not about culture or politics, but they may let us know what point of view is an anartha for us, keeping us from progressing in bhakti.

Prema-bhakti - March 20, 2009 2:56 pm

Homosexuality would still be criminal in the United States if it were not for the courage of gay activists.

Not very long ago homosexuality was classified as a pathology by the APA (American Psychological Association).

Swami - March 20, 2009 2:58 pm

If this is the case and I agree wholeheartedly then how should we address the use of birth control?

The spirit of dynamic argument you agree with should be the guiding light. But material desires must be gradually retired if we are to become steady and pure in our practice. So one must decide what is more important to oneself and also what is realistic in terms of gradually and happily attaining one's goal. It is more about common sense and of course nava laksana bhakti than rules.

Yamuna Dasi - March 20, 2009 3:06 pm

No prabhu, it's not hard for me to see this but I wonder is it hard for you to see that all these rights mentioned by you above for which women and those defending their rights had to struggle through the human history are not at all refused to the homosexuals nowadays? And what for are you frustrated to me? That I dare to respond to your accusations towards me even if they are not at all valid? Who says that I am not grateful that in the past female rights were defended? Actually somehow I consider it normal at the same time - if a religion acknowledges equally the presence of the soul in a male and in a female body, then why this should not reflect also the human rights of the women? But as I am repeating again and again - the homosexuals are NOT DEPRIVED of any of these rights nowadays! They are initiated, they participate equally in the devotional life, they are pujaris, they are our friends, in more and more countries already there are civil gay marriages. ... what is missing???

Oh yes, the acknowledgement of gay "spiritual marriage" and the acknowledgement that being a gay is in no way an obstacle in one's spiritual advancement. Is this what you want me to acknowledge so that you stop being frustrated at me?

Yamuna Dasi - March 20, 2009 3:11 pm

The essential teaching of the acarya is not about culture or politics, but they may let us know what point of view is an anartha for us, keeping us from progressing in bhakti.

OK, having a gay relation is it according to our acharias and scriptures an anartha and is it keeping us from progressing in bhakti? Or we should rather expect blessing from our gurus for gay relations?

Madan Gopal Das - March 20, 2009 3:14 pm

Sorry, gotta go to work. My best advice is to stop and think. Stop the automatic comeback. Consider that maybe you don't have the full picture. Associate with some people who feel discriminated against right now. Hear from queers!

Yamuna Dasi - March 20, 2009 3:47 pm

the person discriminated against is valid in their feelings of horror, rage, shame, etc. for being discriminated against.

Yes prabhu, all this conversation is about discrimination, right?

And as you said above “the person discriminated against is valid in their feelings of horror, rage, shame, etc. for being discriminated against”.

May I humbly ask all of you here – what are you tearing me into pieces for? What are you frustrated to me for? I (that poor, srupid, ignorant me) am somehow by my own deepest conviction sharing the ideas of Shrila Prabhupad, of my Gurudeva and of my shiksha guru and of the scriptures (as far as I am acquainted with them since as we know our scriptures are incredibly vast and neither Sanskrit nor English are my mother languages) that having a gay relation is indeed an obstacle for the spiritual life.

Would you be cutting into pieces Shrila Prabhupad or my own Gurudeva the way you are cutting me now if he was here in front of you in this forum named Tattva-viveka (deliberation on the truth) and would dare to express the same ideas (as he did express)?

You are accusing me in not being wise, in being narrow-minded and prejudiced for expressing these same ideas which he preached... you are frustrated to me and tearing me into pieces… but would you do the same if it was him here and now, not me, his grand-daughter? Or is he “forgiven” or “excused” by you for having such ideas 30 years ago and now 30 years later I, his grand-daughter, for expressing the very same ideas have to be whipped by you and smashed? Are the “tattvas” in which we believe and which we follow “expired” 30 years after he left this world? Is the expiration period of our siddhanta that short?

Oh, I forgot… we were talking about DISCRIMINATION… I see… indeed you know how to discriminate between “Him” and “me”… even if the ideas expressed are the same. What could I say? What do you expect me to say? … congratulations for the art of discriminating, you are real masters of it… ((

the person discriminated against is valid in their feelings of horror, rage, shame, etc. for being discriminated against.

Would you at least allow me (as per your own words) to be valid in my feeling of horror, rage, shame, etc. for being discriminated against? (

Swami - March 20, 2009 3:58 pm

OK, having a gay relation is it according to our acharias and scriptures and anartha and is it keeping us from progressing in bhakti? Or we should rather expect blessing from our gurus for gay relations?

You have not quoted any scripture or acarya to support your idea that a monogamous gay relationship is an anartha as opposed to a heterosexual one, and I have pointed out the relativity of the notion that sex outside of procreation is sinful by citing differing standards between recent acaryas.

You also continue to ignore the fact of extreme discrimination against homosexuality that has given rise to gay activism. You want to say that the discrimination that you seem barely willing to acknowledge is all over now anyway, so homosexuals should keep quiet about themselves. You are naive at best. Is racism over? Is sexism no longer practiced?

Your position is that homosexual life is not normal, etc., etc, all of which is being contested by gay activism on the basis of science, reason, and essential spirituality. People like you and the ignorance you haughtily display under the guise of spiritual life and being educated are the ongoing reason for gay activism. It makes one wonder about the value of a degree from a Christian fundamentalist college, as if most people don't already.

Swami - March 20, 2009 4:18 pm

Yes prabhu, all this conversation is about discrimination, right?

And as you said above “the person discriminated against is valid in their feelings of horror, rage, shame, etc. for being discriminated against”.

 

May I humbly ask all of you here – what are you tearing me into pieces for? What are you frustrated to me for? I (that poor, srupid, ignorant me) am somehow by my own deepest conviction sharing the ideas of Shrila Prabhupad, of my Gurudeva and of my shiksha guru and of the scriptures (as far as I am acquainted with them since as we know our scriptures are incredibly vast and neither Sanskrit nor English are my mother languages) that having a gay relation is indeed an obstacle for the spiritual life.

 

Would you be cutting into pieces Shrila Prabhupad or my own Gurudeva the way you are cutting me now if he was here in front of you in this forum named Tattva-viveka (deliberation on the truth) and would dare to express the same ideas (as he did express)?

 

You are accusing me in not being wise, in being narrow-minded and prejudiced for expressing these same ideas which he preached... you are frustrated to me and tearing me into pieces… but would you do the same if it was him here and now, not me, his grand-daughter? Or is he “forgiven” or “excused” by you for having such ideas 30 years ago and now 30 years later I, his grand-daughter, for expressing the very same ideas have to be whipped by you and smashed? Are the “tattvas” in which we believe and which we follow “expired” 30 years after he left this world? Is the expiration period of our siddhanta that short?

 

Oh, I forgot… we were talking about DISCRIMINATION… I see… indeed you know how to discriminate between “Him” and “me”… even if the ideas expressed are the same. What could I say? What do you expect me to say? … congratulations for the art of discriminating, you are real masters of it… ((

Would you at least allow me (as per your own words) to be valid in my feeling of horror, rage, shame, etc. for being discriminated against? (

You must be unaware of this. Although Srila Prabhupada frowned on homosexuality in general, he was also very practical, flexible, and compassionate. One of his earliest disciples, Upendra dasa, was a gay man and personal servant of Srila Prabhupada who discussed his sexual orientation with his guru. At that point Srila Prabhupada told him, "Then just find a nice boy, stay with him and practice Krsna consciousness."

I also had the experience of meeting a transsexual who explained her sexual orientation and confusion to Srila Prabhupada before committing to an operation. She told me that Prabhupada told her, "Just pick one or the other [sex] and stick with it." Those who knew him well would have expected him to say something like this in both of these instances. He was very flexible, compassionate, and like any reasonable person, open enough to change his stance on issues when given new information. Since he was amongst us a wealth of insight into the nature of homosexuality has come to light that any contemporary acarya would do well to carefully consider when forming his or her opinion on the subject.

Yamuna Dasi - March 20, 2009 4:20 pm

Maharaj, I never graduated that Orthodox Christian University so I have no degree. They illegally and secretly expelled me from there (by not giving me a protocol, an empty stamped piece of paper, with which to enter at the exam and on which to write, they were never even able to cut me at any exam in order to validate the expel) in order not to cause a political and social scandal because I used to be (according to their own marks given to me at the anonymous exams) their best student with the highest possible score of 30.00. So no need to accuse them for giving an University degree to me - they did not and I did not struggle for my human or student rights since I was no more eager to study "theology" from people with that level of moral and ethical double standards. I have studied there only for 2 years while leading and maintaining an ashram in Sofia... and the level of secret, covered and hidden discrimination which they executed towards me made me doubtful why should I struggle to remain their student. So it was a simultaneous secret/hidden expel from their side and leaving from mine.

I will certainly respond to all your remarks, I am not ignoring them, just after so many accusations against me I need some time and air... to respond to all of them. But right now I need some handkerchiefs, fresh air and chanting... to get myself together.

So please excuse me for the delay.

Yamuna Dasi - March 20, 2009 4:34 pm

You must be unaware of this. Although Srila Prabhupada frowned on homosexuality in general, he was also very practical, flexible, and compassionate. One of his earliest disciples, Upendra dasa, was a gay man and personal servant of Srila Prabhupada who discussed his sexual orientation with his guru. At that point Srila Prabhupada told him, "Then just find a nice boy, stay with him and practice Krsna consciousness."

 

I also had the experience of meeting a transsexual who explained her sexual orientation and confusion to Srila Prabhupada before committing to an operation. She told me that Prabhupada told her, "Just pick one or the other [sex] and stick with it." Those who knew him well would have expected him to say something like this in both of these instances. He was very flexible, compassionate, and like any reasonable person, open enough to change his stance on issues when given new information. Since he was amongst us a wealth of insight into the nature of homosexuality has come to light that any contemporary acarya would do well to carefully consider when forming his or her opinion on the subject.

Thank you for letting me know these facts, Maharaj. I do appreciate it. My own Gurudeva was also flexible on many things - once when some devotee told him that other initiated devotee is actually a smoker, Gurudev said "we shall not kill the person for a cigarette".

I completely agree with the flexibility and compassion shown by both Shrila Prabhupada and my own Gurudeva, but it was in personal relations and in private conversations with the person, not preached as a siddhanta... neither tearing into pieces somebody who expresses the idea that having a gay relation is not contributing for one's spiritual life but is an obstacle...neither of them blessed a gay relation.

Would you bless a gay relation? Or did you? Because this is the starting point of all this discussion and finally it all goes around this question. It's one thing to be compassionate and not make a big deal of the sexuality of your disciples, but it's another thing from the position of an acharia to give a blessing for a gay relation. So would you or did you?

Swami - March 20, 2009 4:37 pm

Let me add that previous acaryas held certain opinions about the extent to which women could participate in bhakti, often excluding them from arcana to one extent or another. With time and new information/insights into the nature of womanhood this has changed. Prabhupada himself exemplifies this kind of change.

Swami - March 20, 2009 4:47 pm

Would you bless a gay relation?

I would give my blessing to a gay couple who were my students if I thought the relationship had the potential to become a meaningful and lasting one and if they were both serious about spiritual life. I would also press them for more service and financial support than I do married couples with children, as I do married couples without children.

Yes, I think the off the record sanctioning on the part of Srila Prabhupada of a gay relationship that I cited is different from making a public policy, but it opens the door for a change in public policy in the future. Things have changed a lot in the last 50 years.

Nitaisundara Das - March 20, 2009 4:54 pm

I don't want to get too involved because GM and Madan are discussing this at a much better level than I can, but one thing:

The idea that homosexuals are no longer discriminated against in GV because they can get initiated and so on is completely ludicrous. Since I have been with Guru Maharaja I have come in contact with numerous gay devotees who approached GM partially, if not largely, because their prospective gurus, or current gurus, had anti-homosexual stances. One such devotee just has hidden relationships with other devotees because he saw another devotee come out to the local temple and be driven away. Another guy left KC for universalism(whatever that is) because he was treated like crap in ISKCON. This was less than a year ago. Bhakti-tirtha swami was attacked by some for encouraging and not condemning gay devotees. One of those devotees commit suicide and wrote to his sister that it was basically because there was no place for him in KC, as it was presented to him.

Here is from GALVA's website:

"A recent poll conducted by GALVA (the Gay and Lesbian Vaishnava Association) has produced mixed results at best. According to the gay and lesbian devotees surveyed, less than one in five (19%) reported being treated nicely at the Gaudiya Vaishnava temples or preaching centers they visited or lived in. The largest group (33%) reported that they were only treated nicely if they didn’t mention they were gay, and 29% said that sometimes they were treated nicely and sometimes poorly. 7% reported being treated like an “outsider,” and 11% complained that they were always treated poorly. "

Like GM pointed out, it is like saying that sexism os gone from Gaudiya Vaisnavism.

I am sorry that you are feeling attacked, but there is validity, and therefore you should not feel discriminated against.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 20, 2009 5:10 pm

In the mission of Bhaktisidhanta Saraswati Thakura sex was to be restricted to sex in married life. My Prabhupada tried to establish a stricter standard, but for the most part his disciples could not follow it, and when this was pointed out to him in individual cases he sanctioned sex outside of procreation for married couples. Everyone agrees that the sexual urge should be harnessed, and different acaryas have tried to help their students do so in different ways, but a standard that students can follow that helps them to progressively harness this desire constitutes sex that is dharmic and is thus arguably blessed--kamo 'smi

 

If a heterosexual woman is infertile, is she left only with celibacy as a means to harness her sexual desire?

 

Can you site any scripture to support your views? Again, Kama sutra is not scripture and it offers advice on homosexuality.

 

I find your ideas to be lacking wisdom, and filled with insensitivity. Realization is about understanding the way other people feel from their perspective and true compassion involves finding a means to help them progress spiritually starting from where they are at.

I think most people use SP's quotes in purports of S.B which are taken as good as sastra. And SP said that Krsna himself is dictating to him so that emboldens the stand of the anti-gay devotees.

Yamuna, I agree that not everything is determined by genes but a lot is. I am embarrassed by my heterosexual lust and I don't think anybody with homosexual lust has to feel more embarrassed than me. Certainly back in India my views will be considered too liberal even for today but things are changing fast. I had the same views like you on homosexuality six seven years back, but after reading about the history of their persecution and getting to interact with people who are homosexual and transgendered personally, I had to change my views.

As an example of the persecution of homosexuals you can see the example of Alan Turing, the founder of modern computer science. He lost his faith in theism because of the treatment meted out to him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing

Homosexuality was illegal in the United Kingdom[5] and regarded as a mental illness and subject to criminal sanctions. In 1952, Arnold Murray, a 19-year-old recent acquaintance of Turing's,[33] helped an accomplice to break into Turing's house, and Turing reported the crime to the police. As a result of the police investigation, Turing acknowledged a sexual relationship with Murray, and a crime having been identified and settled, Turing and Murray were charged with gross indecency under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885. Turing was unrepentant and was convicted of the same crime Oscar Wilde had been convicted of more than fifty years before.[34]

Turing was given a choice between imprisonment and probation, conditional on his undergoing hormonal treatment designed to reduce libido. To avoid jail, he accepted chemical castration via estrogen hormone injections[35] which lasted for a year. His conviction led to a removal of his security clearance and prevented him from continuing consultancy for GCHQ on cryptographic matters. At the time, there was acute public anxiety about spies and homosexual entrapment by Soviet agents, possibly due to the recent exposure of the first two members of the Cambridge Five, Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean, as KGB double agents. Turing was never accused of espionage but, as with all who had worked at Bletchley Park, could not discuss his war work.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 20, 2009 5:16 pm

No it is not. Race, gender, sexual orientation, beauty, mental illness; these are labels that white, patriarchal, christian or The people who have it all, who never have to suffer from all variety of discrimination are white heterosexual christian men who have nice names.

This may change if dawkins has his way!

Anyway atleast to their credit dawkins, satre and other atheists did more for women and homosexuals than all the so called religious people.

Citta Hari Dasa - March 20, 2009 6:38 pm

Yamuna, do you have any idea how much criticism--from devotees!-- has been leveled against Guru Maharaja for his publicly stated views on homosexuality? That in itself should be enough evidence to prove that there is still, to this very day, great opposition to it in Gaudiya Vaisnavism.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 20, 2009 7:11 pm

Now to consider two purvapaksin arguments to balance things out in the Socratic dialectic:

1) SP denounced severely the attempts by the church to legalize homosexual unions. This he said was the sign of progress of kali yuga.

2) IF for instance it is found out(it is already seen in animals) that incestuous relations are determined a lot by one's conditioning, then would be able to give a person practicing monogamous incest the same status as heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Similarly if it is found out that the tendency for humans to have sex with children and animals is something which one's conditioned with, should we extend compassion to these people to start from monogamous relationship with animals and children and progress spiritually. Obviously I assume that the animal, children, sibling or parent are willing partners. There is no coercion there.

I think most devotees will cringe at my call from showing compassion to the people they would consider demonaic in today's standing. But these are arguments which post-modernists always give to justify their view that everything is relative.

And for the most part I have to agree. Only in the domain of experience which is beyond the three modes, postmodern view crumbles according to me.

I have acknowledged that any view I take will have such strong arguments against which it will be hard to defend my view and that is the reality of the material world. Arguments are inconclusive. I can defeat myself through my own arguments.

Madan Gopal Das - March 20, 2009 7:24 pm

I am sorry that you are feeling attacked, but there is validity, and therefore you should not feel discriminated against.

This is my point Yamuna. You are feeling offended, because I am publicly pointing out a blindspot of yours. This is a "valid fact" that you hold some opinions about this topic which are unsubstantiated and which can potentially cause emotional harm to some. I warned you that it would be tough stuff to get into, but you dove right in. So now, practice what you have been preaching and consider whether this is a valid fact about yourself and don't be offended. Try to become more educated about these issues and update your thinking. There is no fault in being opinionated, the fault lies in being stubborn and unwilling to accept more information.

As for your referencing your guru and Prabhupada, I will not dispute what they have said. As you have noted about your Gurudeva and Swami has noted about Prabhupada, they are not static people with one opinion. But I cannot agree more with my Guru Maharaj who is a preacher and who in contemporary culture is expertly distributing bhakti wherever she will go. Bhakti is for anyone, and I find no material limitation that will stop her. The only thing that may slow her down is a heart lacking compassion, or the faith that she reigns supreme.

I'm sorry. I don't like to argue, and I don't want to hurt your feelings. But I think you are a smart person and you deserve to move beyond this narrow thinking. I hope the fresh air and chanting was good.

Swami - March 20, 2009 8:07 pm

Now to consider two purvapaksin arguments to balance things out in the Socratic dialectic:

1) SP denounced severely the attempts by the church to legalize homosexual unions. This he said was the sign of progress of kali yuga.

2) IF for instance it is found out(it is already seen in animals) that incestuous relations are determined a lot by one's conditioning, then would be able to give a person practicing monogamous incest the same status as heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Similarly if it is found out that the tendency for humans to have sex with children and animals is something which one's conditioned with, should we extend compassion to these people to start from monogamous relationship with animals and children and progress spiritually. Obviously I assume that the animal, children, sibling or parent are willing partners. There is no coercion there.

 

I think most devotees will cringe at my call from showing compassion to the people they would consider demonaic in today's standing. But these are arguments which post-modernists always give to justify their view that everything is relative.

And for the most part I have to agree. Only in the domain of experience which is beyond the three modes, postmodern view crumbles according to me.

I have acknowledged that any view I take will have such strong arguments against which it will be hard to defend my view and that is the reality of the material world. Arguments are inconclusive. I can defeat myself through my own arguments.

1. His opinion changed on other issues he felt strongly about, as has mine.

2. Even if human incestuous urges were termed natural it would not be possible be consider them equal to homsexual urges that carry with them a natural aversion to a heterosexual orientation. To say that one cannot have an incestuous relationship is perhaps to deny one of a preferred partner, but it is not to say that they cannot have sex with the same or opposite sex to which they have a natural attraction. Do those involved in incestuous relationships have no attraction and moreover an aversion to any other type of sex? No.

The problem with pedophilia is that involves lack of a consenting adult.

Yamuna Dasi - March 20, 2009 8:47 pm

I would give my blessing to a gay couple who were my students if I thought the relationship had the potential to become a meaningful and lasting one and if they were both serious about spiritual life. I would also press them for more service and financial support than I do married couples with children, as I do married couples without children.

 

Yes, I think the off the record sanctioning on the part of Srila Prabhupada of a gay relationship that I cited is different from making a public policy, but it opens the door for a change in public policy in the future. Things have changed a lot in the last 50 years.

You would give if... and again you said "to a gay couple", not "to their gay relation" (as my question was). This is again diplomatically ambiguous the same way in which HDG apologized that he actually blessed them as souls and as persons, not their gay relation... And as far as my knowledge of English language and the tenses of the verbs in it goes, the expression "I would give if" means that you did not give yet since the conditions included in your “if” had not been complied with or granted, or I am wrong? What should I say?...

I absolutely understand and support your desire to encourage gay devotees into their spiritual life, but in order to show to them and to everybody else here this support, should you smash me and stain me, Uncle? Do I speak wrong things? Am I that stupid? Do I see things distorted now if seeing that for those ideas for which Shrila Prabhupada was considered a very wise man I am accused of being a stupid and narrow minded person? Isn't this a textbook case for discrimination in a thread which is struggling against discrimination? I can't believe my eyes...

Madan Gopal Das - March 20, 2009 8:59 pm

those ideas for which Shrila Prabhupada was considered a very wise man I am accused of being a stupid and narrow minded one?

Srila Prabhupada should not be considered a "wise man" for his views on homosexuality, gender, race, etc. He was a preacher and he regularly directed his preaching towards the culture and times in which he lived. Unfortunately for the spreading of Krsna Consciousness, too many people feel that his wisdom was in these areas more than in his primary message of bhakti. He was a cultured man and his views on these things are dated and characteristic of his culture. He was a very very wise man in bhakti. You on the other hand live in a very different culture than he did, and in preaching and interacting with our modern culture it appears foolish and uneducated to preach the same cultural ideas as your predecessors.

Prahlad Das - March 20, 2009 9:07 pm

If I say a black person is black - yes, it is valid. If I say a black person is 3/4 of a human being and therefore only entitled to a fraction of the rights of white people that is not "valid" or in some way scientifically verifiable and the person discriminated against is valid in their feelings of horror, rage, shame, etc. for being discriminated against.

Babhru Das - March 20, 2009 9:13 pm

You would give if... and again you said "to a gay couple", not "to their gay relation" (as my question was). This is again diplomatically ambiguous the same way in which HDG apologized that he actually blessed them as souls and as persons, not their gay relation...

I don't see Swami's statement as diplomatic or ambiguous. It looks clear and straightforward to me. I also found HdG's email to the men in California very carefully worded. It was his apology which may have been diplomatic, in the sense that he was giving space to those who weren't able to read it carefully.

And as far as my knowledge of English language and the tenses of the verbs in it goes, the expression "I would give if" means that you did not give yet since the conditions included in your “if” had not been complied with or granted, or I am wrong? What should I say?...

I believe he used the conditional sense to convey exactly what he said: he would do it when the conditions were met. You may infer from that statement that he has not yet done so, but that may not be completely correct.

I absolutely understand and support your desire to encourage gay devotees into their spiritual life, but in order to show to them and to everybody else here this support, should you smash me and stain me, Uncle? Do I speak wrong things? Am I that stupid? Do I see things distorted now if seeing that for those ideas for which Shrila Prabhupada was considered a very wise man I am accused of being a stupid and narrow minded person? Isn't this a textbook case for discrimination in a thread which is struggling against discrimination? I can't believe my eyes...

It appears you have made Swami's remarks, and the thread itself, about you, not about the principle being discussed. This seems unfortunate to me. I expect more from someone like you.

Babhru Das - March 20, 2009 9:19 pm

This may be a false dichotomy. Being black or white is a noun. However, being gay is a verb. Homosexuality has its definition based on action (As does heterosexuality), while it takes no action to be defined as a member of a race. If a person never acts upon their sex impulses, how can they truly be categorized as homo or hetero. This is the underlying spiritual and ethical dilemma.

I disagree, based on my experience over my adult life with many gay folks, devotees and "non-devotees," as well as a good deal of reading. Being gay is based not on what one does, but to whom one feels attracted in a romantic and/or sexual way, just as being straight is. Many people have written about this. There's an essay by an English professor in South Carolina called "An Open Letter to My Christian Friends" in which he explains this. I no longer have a copy of this letter, nor do I remember his name right now. But i was quite a brilliant essay, and I found having my students read it carefully and discuss it carefully was very beneficial. Anyway, this is one of the points he makes. He knew he was attracted to other boys romantically a few years before he even had a sense of what that meant, and certainly many years before he ever had a relationship with another man.

Madan Gopal Das - March 20, 2009 9:22 pm

Being black or white is a noun. However, being gay is a verb.

I disagree. Skin color is a characteristic that can be deduced quite easily. Sexual preference may not be acted upon and therefore clearly verified for all to see, but a person who controls their sex desire by not acting upon it is not acting upon a preference that is "in" them, as much as color is in someone's skin.

Babhru Das - March 20, 2009 9:23 pm

The author of that open letter is Ed Madden. If I could get a copy, I'd consider using it to put together a Harmonist article.

Swami - March 20, 2009 9:25 pm

You would give if... and again you said "to a gay couple", not "to their gay relation" (as my question was). This is again diplomatically ambiguous the same way in which HDG apologized that he actually blessed them as souls and as persons, not their gay relation... And as far as my knowledge of English language and the tenses of the verbs in it goes, the expression "I would give if" means that you did not give yet since the conditions included in your “if” had not been complied with or granted, or I am wrong? What should I say?...

I would give my blessing to them in the same way that I would to a heterosexual couple. But I do not have any such disciples to give this blessing to at this time. No it is not the same as what Hridayananda Maharaja said he did.

The difference between you and Srila Prabhuapda is great. You repeat what he said (kind of) but you do not show the ability to change when new information is presented, information which to you is much more readily available than it was to SP. Now what is that information/fact? Basically that one born with a homosexual orientation has no choice in the matter. The whole world was led to believe otherwise until more recent decades proved this notion incorrect. I am saying that Prabhupada had views on this subject held the world over that have been proven to be incorrect, but that they are even more incorrect when one has knowledge available that he did not have and ignores it and holds on to wrong ideas despite it.

Abraham Linclon was a great and wise man that fought for the liberty of the Negroes against slavery, but he also thought that they should never be allowed to hold office. History does not condemn him for his latter position but lauds him for the former. Prabhupada was an even greater person, but not because he held some dated views on various social issues.

This is how is discriminate between you and SP.

Yamuna Dasi - March 20, 2009 9:34 pm

Citta Hari prabhu, if the opposition inside the Gaudiya Vaishnavism is that it does not accept agni hotra and spiritual marriage to be offered for gay relations or our gurus and acharias to bless gay relations, I am sorry but I in no way see this view as fanatical, inhuman or wrong. Gays can be blessed as souls, but not their sexual relations and this is exactly what seems to me that they are pushing forward and requiring. I am not going to comment the many personal stories in which most probably some not very intelligent persons have been rude or cruel to someone, these are personal stories and everybody has such in his/her own life when he/she had been insulted or treated badly and cruelly. If for example I as a heterosexual would push forward too much my sexuality, I would certainly have problems and not only in the Vaishnava circles. I am sorry to say it, but most gay people are definitely pushing and stressing too much their sexual preferences and as a result of this they get some troubles. Why this should be considered necessarily as "discrimination" and not as a "logical sequence"?

Also if some guru does not wish to give nama diksha to certain person who is homosexual, can we blame or stain that guru? He has the right to decide who to accept as a disciple and who not to accept. As Shridhara Maharaj says guru is free! This is exactly why I had given the example with my shiksha guru not giving nama diksha for a devotee who was pressing the mother of his future child to make an abortion and was refusing to marry her because "she was not at the level of his artistic standards" (his words). So was my guru miser for mercy if he didn't give nama diksha to a person who thinks that a woman is at the level of his "artistic standards" to sleep with her, but not to marry her or to “allow” her have her baby and be a lonely mother? Some may say that my guru was "discriminating" this devotee. Let anybody say whatever he/she wants, but I agree with him and support him. Disciple should be humble in front of his guru and beg for mercy, not push it, force it or demand it.

My shiksha guru (who is also my God-brother) is not giving me brahma gayatri mantra since 17 years no matter that I had asked him for it and had tried to give some reasons... but he does not agree. He told me that he is giving me his blessing that I can ask for it from some other vaishnava, but he would not give because he would like to follow Shridhara Maharaja’s standard in this. I told him that if I have asked second initiation exactly from him, I don't have the mentality of a street dog which runs everywhere and takes "food" from every hand. I would wait and expect from him till he gives me... in this or in next life of mine, but I would wish it to be again in a woman body, so that he could give brahma gayatri to a woman.

Maharaj mentioned the dynamic orthodoxy and the ongoing changes. Who knows, this could be one of them but my way to struggle for it is to wait and pray to him to give me, not to leave him and ask from somebody else even if I have (as I do) his blessing for it. If my humbleness and loyalty would be strong enough, one day maybe he will give me and that would be part of the dynamic changes in our sampradaya.

I did not struggle to remain a student in the Orthodox Christian University because I didn't want any more to be their student, but I am ready to struggle to remain a disciple of Bhakti Kamala Tirtha Maharaj, because no matter that I might have some ideas which can differ from his, I see him as my shiksha guru.

But if a gay devotee is refused initiation by some guru, he/she can search for a guru who would give him/her spiritual shelter, but does not need to blame or stain those, who did not accept him/her as their disciples.

Yamuna Dasi - March 20, 2009 9:50 pm

Basically that one born with a homosexual orientation has no choice in the matter.

He/she can have his/her sexual preferences, but does it mean that homosexuals can require that the world religions should supply for them spiritual marriage and blessing for a gay relation? A blessing given is something that comes from God through the person who gives that blessing. In the Bible it is multiple times very clearly stated that God was "angry" and "not pleased" with gay relations, so how could possibly a Christian priest give a blessing or perform a Christian marriage ceremony for gays? This would mean to give only his own "blessing", but it would have nothing to do with God as described in the Bible. This would be the same if somebody would daily offer meat to Krishna, completely disregarding BG 9:27 where Krishna had stated what he would accept.

Also as far as I know it had not been scientifically proven that:

- sexual orientation is always and necessarily gender predestined – it can be a question of some personal decision due to some personal reasons or circumstances

- one born with homosexual orientation has no choice and as somebody citied before in this thread some big scientific organization's conclusion was that homosexuality is a psychological kind of disorder, not necessarily a genetically predestined thing. I had already given the example of the usually genetically predestined overweight which does not mean that with conscious control one cannot do anything about it. We do not consider ourselves complete slaves of our genes, do we?

If we would think so, then a killer should not be considered a criminal since I've read that the scientists had discovered some "killer" gene.

Yamuna Dasi - March 20, 2009 10:09 pm

I would give my blessing to them in the same way that I would to a heterosexual couple.

Does that mean that you would perform agni hotra as you would do it for a heterosexual couple? Or "the same way" is not including this aspect of the blessing?

Regarding your remarks on what diferentiates me from Shrila Prabhupad (even when sharing the same opinion), that I am given much more scientific information about homosexuality than Shrila Prabhupad was given (which makes it inexcusable for me not to change my views), let me object that even nowadays scientists do not have clear and common vision about homosexuality - as I mentioned some consider it completely gender predestined, others consider it as a kind of mental disorder and that it can be a personal choice when there is complete absence of any gender predestination for homosexuality. So I would not say that I have much more information if it's so contradictory. I would rather name it "opinions" than "facts".

Also I am mostly concerned with the kind of information regarding what is pleasing to God, and not what the scientist may say about the genes or the mental disorders. As for now I did not hear or read that God had changed his opinion that gay relation is not pleasing him, so I don't see why I should change my opinion if he did not (or at least I did not receive such information from a reliable source).

While heterosexual relation can be used to please God, I did not read any scriptural evidence that homosexual relation can please God, just the opposite. I can give quotes from the Bible to prove this if necessary.

Actually does somebody claim that gay relation can be used to please God?

Yamuna Dasi - March 20, 2009 10:21 pm

Oh, and if we speak about “scientific facts” and “scientific proofs” still the majority of the world scientists do consider and even “prove” in multiple ways that meat-eating is more healthy and that human body needs meet as part of his healthy nutrition, no matter that many health statistics had shown and continue to show a huge difference of between 35 to 40 % better health in just any health category for the vegetarians in comparison to non-vegetarians. Do you expect me to line up (or adjust) my opinions on spiritual topics with the “facts”, opinions and interpretations of the scientists if they maintain such opinions nowadays? I just don’t see them as authorities if they maintain such claims even when facing facts and statistics. When they give me some better "facts" and get some agreement at least in between themselves and through the time gain my trust and prove themselves to be authoritative, I would accept them as such. But for now they neither have common opinion even about scientific topics, not have proven themselves as authorities about God and his taste and preferences.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 20, 2009 10:41 pm

1. His opinion changed on other issues he felt strongly about, as has mine.

 

2. Even if human incestuous urges were termed natural it would not be possible be consider them equal to homsexual urges that carry with them a natural aversion to a heterosexual orientation. To say that one cannot have an incestuous relationship is perhaps to deny one of a preferred partner, but it is not to say that they cannot have sex with the same or opposite sex to which they have a natural attraction. Do those involved in incestuous relationships have no attraction and moreover an aversion to any other type of sex? No.

 

The problem with pedophilia is that involves lack of a consenting adult.

But there are bisexuals and all other kinds of varieties in between who have resentment towards either. But if we assume in sexual relations of a person with animals or with a child the receptor(child or animal) is willing, will you consider it ok, given the understanding that it is mostly one's conditioning that pulls one towards that attraction.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 20, 2009 10:47 pm

I disagree, based on my experience over my adult life with many gay folks, devotees and "non-devotees," as well as a good deal of reading. Being gay is based not on what one does, but to whom one feels attracted in a romantic and/or sexual way, just as being straight is. Many people have written about this. There's an essay by an English professor in South Carolina called "An Open Letter to My Christian Friends" in which he explains this. I no longer have a copy of this letter, nor do I remember his name right now. But i was quite a brilliant essay, and I found having my students read it carefully and discuss it carefully was very beneficial. Anyway, this is one of the points he makes. He knew he was attracted to other boys romantically a few years before he even had a sense of what that meant, and certainly many years before he ever had a relationship with another man.

Yes certainly what you say is true, but there are people who experiment with all kinds of things including children and animals. So I would say that though most people are covered by characterizing them as naturally heterosexual and homosexual , some people have shown flexibility to change from one to another(maybe they were kind of bisexual).

One more thing is that in old Greek times, homosexuality was considered to be superior to heterosexuality. The relation between two men was considered more intellectual,subtle and purer than heterosexual relation.

So in that society there was no persecution of homosexuals.

Madan Gopal Das - March 20, 2009 10:54 pm

Is it me or have we been here before? Dejavu' I thought you got some fresh air and japa Yamuna!

even nowadays scientists do not have clear and common vision about homosexuality - as I mentioned some consider it completely gender predestined, others consider it as a kind of mental disorder

Prema pointed out that the American Psychological Association (more accurately the DSM) referred to homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1973(!) that was removed from the DSM and through subsequent updates was clarified more and more. Name a scientist today that is promoting such ideas. Oh, I guess there might be Christian Scientists who believe that! - (that is a religious group, not a PhD who believes in Jesus.)

While heterosexual relation can be used to please God, I did not read any scriptural evidence that homosexual relation can please God, just the opposite. I can give quotes from the Bible to prove this if necessary.

Again, this seems oddly familiar. I think your feelings are getting in the way of your reading. Give us scriptural evidence stating homosexual relationship is displeasing to God. Please. Heterosexual relations can be very displeasing to God, could they not? While the dharma-sastra may support some of your idea of heterosexuality being pleasing to God (and really just pleasing to the person pursuing karma-marga), part of the argument in this thread has been that the bhakta's view of God is different and that God is not so pleased by how you have sex, but by your development in bhakti. True, one could choose to make babies in devotional service. One could just as well plant a vegetable in devotional service. Who is more pleasing to Bhakta-vatsala, a man who has a vice of wife beating, illicit affairs, and having unwanted progeny, or another who is humbly serving the Lord in anartha nivritti while loving another man? My bet is on the second guy.

Please don't quote the Bible to prove anything because I am not interested in that scripture, especially for commentary on current social issues. There is way too huge of a debate about the relevance of culture issues in the bible related to modernity. But it is an interesting study; one that has two sides quite similar to the views you see in this thread. And yes, there are gay Christians in big positions - they have also had to deal with this issue and you would do well to familiarize yourself with their struggle. Look up Gene Robinson, the first openly gay Episcopal Bishop.

Madan Gopal Das - March 20, 2009 10:57 pm

sexual relations of a person with animals or with a child the receptor(child or animal) is willing

Children or animals cannot be willing. They don't know what sex is, and the act by an adult is violence because of the power of the perpetrator over the victim.

Nitaisundara Das - March 20, 2009 11:00 pm

Also I am mostly concerned with the kind of information regarding what is pleasing to God,

I dont know kama sutra but the information I have heard regarding what is pleasing to God usuallly stresses god's devotee. So stop arguing with them endlessly... You said you were willing to change, information has come, you don't think it merits change, so sit down and accept the fact that you are going to be the odd-man-out (an english saying meaning that you will be different from the majority), and you are not going to enlighten everyone else.

Guru-nistha Das - March 20, 2009 11:04 pm

While heterosexual relation can be used to please God, I did not read any scriptural evidence that homosexual relation can please God, just the opposite. I can give quotes from the Bible to prove this if necessary.

Actually does somebody claim that gay relation can be used to please God?

Who cares about the Bible?! Gaudiya Vaishnavism doesn't have to be justified by the Bible in any way. We owe no debt to the Christians, quite the opposite.

If you would follow all the things that the old testament says is pleasing to God, you'd be butchering and killing left and right.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 20, 2009 11:07 pm

Children or animals cannot be willing. They don't know what sex is, and the act by an adult is violence because of the power of the perpetrator over the victim.

Why can't animals be willing? They know what sex is and many animals from different species have had sex before.

And at least men can have sex with apes.

BTW this is just a purvapaksin argument in order to consider the scenario of natural predestined attraction of a man towards a child or an animal. Atleast he should not be condemned if he was predisposed to that kind of preference. But certainly I can see that you are uncomfortable with this position, but you should be willing to change your stand if new evidence comes in that regard.

Pedophiles are considered mentally insane the same way as homosexuals were before, but has anybody given them sympathy to understand whether they were naturally attracted to children or not. No they are portrayed as demons in the same way as homosexuals were before.

I also consider them mentally problematic but I know that new evidence in favor of their genetic predisposition will lead me to be more sympathetic towards their ostracization by society.

Audarya-lila Dasa - March 20, 2009 11:23 pm

Why can't animals be willing? They know what sex is and many animals from different species have had sex before.

And at least men can have sex with apes.

BTW this is just a purvapaksin argument in order to consider the scenario of natural predestined attraction of a man towards a child or an animal. Atleast he should not be condemned if he was predisposed to that kind of preference. But certainly I can see that you are uncomfortable with this position, but you should be willing to change your stand if new evidence comes in that regard.

Pedophiles are considered mentally insane the same way as homosexuals were before, but has anybody given them sympathy to understand whether they were naturally attracted to children or not. No they are portrayed as demons in the same way as homosexuals were before.

I also consider them mentally problematic but I know that new evidence in favor of their genetic predisposition will lead me to be more sympathetic towards their ostracization by society.

Pedophilia is based upon domination and controlling others. It harms the victims as has been proven over and over again so I don't think your arguing about someone's predisposition to this type of exploitation will convince anyone that acting on it is justified. Just the same as Yamuna's killer gene argument. There are genes that are involved in discrimation and the abilitiy to empathize with others and in those who engage in acts of violence toward others these genes have been shown in many cases to be defective, or missing altogether. Still, all acts of violence on others are univerally condemned and will continue to be regardless of genetic findings and genetic disorders some people have.

Swami - March 20, 2009 11:23 pm

I do not perform agni hotras for marriage and I do not marry devotees at all. I see no difference between blessing a homosexual or heterosexual devotional relationship. Is that clear?

I consider your ideas antiquated, homophobic and just plain wrong. In my opinion homosexuality is not a disease, and despite a minority of Christian scientist hold outs I believe the case is closed.

I do not believe the Bible to be revealed scripture. Still I have read scholarly refutations by Christians that refute the verse from the Bible that others take as a condemnation of homosexuality. Don't quote the Bible here to support you flimsy case. Again, you are unable to cite only of our scriptures in support of your position, not one. But I will help you out here. Manusmrti, which has practically nothing to do with Gaudiya Vaisnavism reads: "A twice-born man who commits an unnatural offence with a male, or has intercourse with a female in a cart drawn by oxen, in water, or in the day-time, shall bathe, dressed in his clothes." You might be able to use this to support your position elsewhere. You will not find anything else in the entire Hindu scriptural cannon.

As for what pleases God, I am not so concerned with that because Krsna is also not concerned with it as explained in Caitanya-caritamrta. I am however, concerned with what pleases Krsna. Thus I encourage people to follow in the footsteps of the Vrajavasis regardless of their sexual orientation. But no, I do not think that the sexual acts of homosexuals please Krsna any more or less than those of heterosexual people.

Madan Gopal Das - March 20, 2009 11:29 pm

Why can't animals be willing?

Animals, in their dependence and inferiority to human beings do not approach humans for sex. Animals can be raped, but for obvious reasons of intelligence difference cannot be consenting.

Pedophiles are considered mentally insane the same way as homosexuals were before, but has anybody given them sympathy to understand whether they were naturally attracted to children or not.

I am willing to update my opinion in light of new evidence, but the major difference here that you have to consider is the consent. Pedophilia is a criminal act because of the taking away of the right of the victim. Same as rape. Same as murder...

As far as I know, there isn't evidence for pedophilia coming from nature (genetics), but rather it has a large environmental component; linked often times to being the victim of similar sexual abuse. Though society shuns and looks down upon this behavior for the obvious harm it causes children, pedophiles are given mental health treatment and looked upon with compassion by the people who treat them.

Yamuna Dasi - March 20, 2009 11:34 pm

Who cares about the Bible?! Gaudiya Vaishnavism doesn't have to be justified by the Bible in any way. We owe no debt to the Christians, quite the opposite.

If you would follow all the things that the old testament says is pleasing to God, you'd be butchering and killing left and right.

If you would follow what Krishna required from Arjuna on Kurukshetra, you would be murdering the majority of your relatives. What kind of an "arguments" are you giving?

Madan Gopal Das - March 20, 2009 11:44 pm

If you would follow what Krishna required from Arjuna on Kurukshetra, you would be murdering the majority of your relatives.

See The Death of Tuomas Mäkinen available from Absolute Truth Press.

Audarya-lila Dasa - March 20, 2009 11:45 pm

I think the whole premise that any kind of sex is pleasing to God is questionable. I do think that there are devotees and those who are devoted to God who desire to have children and bring them up with the purpose of helping them to develop love for God in a similar way. In the rare instances where people engage in sex with this and only this in mind, there may be some scope for determining that this type of sex can be termed a type of bhakti, and I think that is what Srila Prabhupada had in mind when he set the standards for his society. But as Guru Maharaja has already pointed out - this standard is not practical for the general population and has been shown to be a standard that few, if any, could live up to.

The reality is that everyone who comes to take up the practices of bhakti has a lot of conditioning to deal with. We have many samskaras that predispose us to certain ways of thinking and certain ways of acting. Whether one is a heterosexual or a homosexual or any other type of sexual being - engaging in sex has to do with stimulating the senses and seeking material gratification. Our goal is to engage our senses in Krsna service as much as possbile and perform bhakti sadhana under the able guidance of our competent guides so that we gradually come out from under the oppression of our conditioning. This topic is really about acknowleding the differences in conditioning we all have and finding the right material adjustments to help us progress in bhakti such that we eventually can overcome those things that get in the way of ananya bhakti.

I think it should be obvious to any thinking person that conditioning to sexual enjoyment in whatever form it takes is material conditioning that impedes bhakti. Be that as it may, we are where we are at and we need to be honest and try to progress from where we are. We need to acknowledge that the sexual impulse and desire to engage in sexual relations is not fundamentally different between heterosexuals, homosexuals or bisexuals and that those types of preference should not be used to discriminate against those who don't share our same orientation.

The only valid point that you have Yamuna is that heterosex is the only type of sex that can result in pregnancy. Other than that, sex is sex and the vast 99.999999% of sexual acts are engaged in to gratify the senses.

Yamuna, you should read through Guru Maharaja's posts carefully because he has presented a very balanced view that is in keeping with the times and is not only progressive but quite practical as well.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 20, 2009 11:59 pm

Pedophilia is based upon domination and controlling others. It harms the victims as has been proven over and over again so I don't think your arguing about someone's predisposition to this type of exploitation will convince anyone that acting on it is justified. Just the same as Yamuna's killer gene argument. There are genes that are involved in discrimation and the abilitiy to empathize with others and in those who engage in acts of violence toward others these genes have been shown in many cases to be defective, or missing altogether. Still, all acts of violence on others are univerally condemned and will continue to be regardless of genetic findings and genetic disorders some people have.

Yes but what is the fault of the person when genes of empathy are missing from his body. Violence is not good but he could not do anything about it.

Madan Gopal Das - March 21, 2009 12:06 am

Yes but what is the fault of the person when genes of empathy are missing from his body. Violence is not good but he could not do anything about it.

Nothing is "wrong" if your hypothetical compassion genes are missing or by some mental defect a person cannot identify with the suffering of others. But they should be kept away from the opportunity to do harm to others. One should not be compassionate to them by sacrificing others.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 21, 2009 12:07 am

pedophiles are given mental health treatment and looked upon with compassion by the people who treat them.

That is good to know.

I think during the course of evolution, animals from different species had consensual sex. And also in S.B and elsewhere you have references of progeny coming from union of men(more like demigods) and other animals.

Second thing is about SP being flexible when offered evidence contrary to his opinion, I think he was not flexible enough to admit the evolution theory in spite of so much evidence. A lot to do with his disciples and them not talking about the implications of his statements.

But I think the purvapaksin is adequately defeated and the last argument I gave is pretty weak.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 21, 2009 12:09 am

If you would follow what Krishna required from Arjuna on Kurukshetra, you would be murdering the majority of your relatives. What kind of an "arguments" are you giving?

But if I want to use the scripture and prove that women are sly like foxes(SB talk by Urvasi) then I should not trust anything that you say. Obviously I don't talk to women and think like that.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 21, 2009 12:13 am

Yamuna, you should read through Guru Maharaja's posts carefully because he has presented a very balanced view that is in keeping with the times and is not only progressive but quite practical as well.

Yes , amazing post Audarya-Lila. You have put everything down so succinctly.

Swami - March 21, 2009 12:15 am

Second thing is about SP being flexible when offered evidence contrary to his opinion, I think he was not flexible enough to admit the evolution theory in spite of so much evidence. A lot to do with his disciples and them not talking about the implications of his statements.

Perhaps evolutionary theory is more a metaphysics of materialism that it is science.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 21, 2009 12:27 am

Perhaps evolutionary theory is more a metaphysics of materialism that it is science.

Yes there is some truth to it. But he was not willing to give a patient hearing to things like evolution, moon landing if those finding contradicted anything in the Puranas like the fact about 8,400,000 species. He insisted that scientists are wrong because it is written in the book that there are only these many species. He was not willing to consider any evidence that easily. A lot of devotees loved it when he smashed other people as they could not do a good job of that themselves.

But certainly I accept that it is part of his dominant personality and only that kind of personality can capture masses. We have never seen people who are very cautious in their speech being successful with the masses.

Guru-nistha Das - March 21, 2009 1:00 am

But if I want to use the scripture and prove that women are sly like foxes(SB talk by Urvasi) then I should not trust anything that you say.

But that's actually true Yamuna, there are so many more negative statements in the hindu scriptures about women than homosexuals and I find it interesting that you neglect the other idea and embrace the other.

Yamuna Dasi - March 21, 2009 10:29 am

 

But that's actually true Yamuna, there are so many more negative statements in the hindu scriptures about women than homosexuals and I find it interesting that you neglect the other idea and embrace the other.

I in no way embrace the idea of negative statements in our scriptures about women (since they are for those who consider themselves “women” in material world and act as such) and neglect the lack of negative statements about homosexuality, I just don't take that literary our scriptures as obviously you do and if you read my 11 points regarding Shrila Prabhupada's sexist language, I was meditating a lot on the reasons why a person of his caliber among so many great things he said and wrote should also put such sexist and even not valid statements (as the one regarding the weight of the female's brain compared to male’s) as well. Maybe these were as my Uncle here mentioned due to lack of information (even though I think this information was quite available since you don’t need any new scientist or technological inventions to just measure the weight of a female’s and male’s brain or to be aware of the fact that it’s not the quantity that matters but the quality)… or maybe these were the reflections of the human side of guru, remembering for example how his wife sold his Bhagavatam and bought black tea with the money… or maybe they were reflections of his rasa-bhava, being a gopal, friend of Krishna who is mainly focused on Krishna and not so much on the gopies…

But I am really surprised by your double-mind standards, cousin, that if God tells the Jews in the old testament to kill and they do it you find it disgusting and unacceptable as an advice coming from true God, but when Krishna tells Arjuna to kill his relatives and not only in our scriptures and he does it, you find this just great and perfectly fitting the image of God in your heart.

Interesting standards you have of logic. I am not talking about feelings since I am aware that "partiality towards his devotees is the greatest ornament of Bhagavan" and "it is partiality that fuels the land of divine love"... "As Paramatma, God is the impartial witness; as Bhagavan, he is partial to his devotees." Still I am surprised that you don't give to God the freedom to speak through the voice of Paramatma to Moses as well, and not only to Arjuna, and you are limiting his allowance to speak only to the realm of hindu scriptures… ops, sorry, only to those of hindu scriptures, who YOU accept as scriptures.

Also it surprises me that you took so deeply seriously the many negative statements on women in hindu scriptures to the level to impact even the level of your logic and fair judgement. Obviously you took them literary and now you feel being a glorious follower of them... enjoy this maya!

But if we speak about how our scriptures present what the most glorious of men and the sons of the demigods and especially the embodiment of dharma, Yudhishthir Maharaj did - staking their wife in a gambling game (treating her as an object, not even as a human being and nothing to speak of a living soul or their "beloved wife" and mother of their kids), then just watching how their cousins are dragging her by the hair half naked along the stairs and in the hall in front of everybody and then trying to undress her publicly, if I was taking this as the example of dharma to be followed, I should rather go to psychiatrist for consultation, cousin, and he would with full right send me in a mental hospital to get some treatment which I would obviously need. But instead of taking it as an example to be followed I am taking it as the picturesque way of Krishna to deliver to all women (and as you know all the souls are female energy) the divine message not to expect any protection from men, because they will not get it from them anyway, even if those man happen to be "the best friends of Krishna" (as were the Pandavas and as are the members of this forum) and "the best among men" (as Krishna describes them in Gita). The only protector of women (souls) will be Krishna himself alone, so he kindly advices all women (i.e. all those who identify themselves with the soul, not with the body and who wish to derive pleasure by serving him, not by exploiting the others) not to look around in hope of help or protection because they shall not get it anyway. What a true prediction indeed. This is how I take for example this story from Maharbharata and how I extract the siddhanta from it, cousin. If you prefer to take it literary and follow it, as I see you do, go for it, enjoy this maya as well. I am not even looking at any of you with the slightest hope of compassion or protection from your side, knowing well that you are "men" and I am a "woman"... but don't worry, cousin, my sari is endless, so there is no way to be "undressed" or humiliated or offended by any of you here, no matter how much you drag me by the hair in the vast hall of "Tattva-viveka" in your useless attempt to humiliate me. Endless sari I’ve got, cousin, so no way, sorry!

And if one day, facing Death in the eyes, as Bhishma did on Kurukshetra laying on his “bed” of arrows, the result of all the arrows he was shooting against his “enemies”, and talking “glorious words” about dharma and everybody listening to him with tears in their eyes, if Draupadi would come to you, cousin, and ask you as she asked Bhishma “who are you to talk about dharma?! Where was you sense of dharma when you were watching them drag me by the hair half naked and crying when I had nothing to do with your stupid masculine games of gambling?!”, would you cousin answer in order to “excuse” yourself as Bhishma did saying: “Sorry, Draupadi, I was eating Duryodhana’s bread so I could do nothing to protect you…”

And since in this forum I have been asked few times about homosexuality described in our scriptures and Krishna's opinion about it, I know just of one such case and he was quite positive about it - the gopies... sometimes caressing each-other and exchanging kisses while talking about Krishna and remembering thus his caresses and kisses. Sorry cousin, they were all WOMEN, not men! And this is the only case of homosexuality in our scriptures which I know about which was approved by Krishna. But sorry to tell you, not only that they were all women, there was also no man around even to witness this. So maybe that is why you are so unaware about this story and I excuse you for this considering the objective obstacles you have in being aware about it since no man was around to tell you after and you don’t seem being neither open nor ready for communication with “females”.

Yamuna Dasi - March 21, 2009 10:44 am

Yes but what is the fault of the person when genes of empathy are missing from his body. Violence is not good but he could not do anything about it.

Wow, where did we reach after so much deliberation on “truth”? That a violator and a pedophil are innocent since they are just poor victims of their genes and indeed violence is not good but what could they possibly do if the genes of empathy are just missing from their bodies. What an incredible conclusion from spiritual and learned person and a representative of the Gaudiya Vaishnavism today!

Excuse me, but if any of you would tell this in front of a psychologist, he would certainly put you a diagnosis and send you for treatment in a secured medical place.

Even if we ASSUME that one is a complete slave of his genes and cannot do anything which is not programmed and predestined there being thus a complete 100 % robot, still if we have even a slightest idea about the law of karma, from karma point of view he is still not a victim, but the real cause for his genes being the way they are. So still no excuse for him.

Yamuna Dasi - March 21, 2009 12:31 pm

But if I want to use the scripture and prove that women are sly like foxes(SB talk by Urvasi) then I should not trust anything that you say. Obviously I don't talk to women and think like that.

You are obviously not trusting anything I say so what is your point then? Actually I was not trying to call for trust in my posts, but for logic. And yes my dear cousin, you do talk to women and think exactly like that and all what you wrote here just proves it and makes it obvious. But as a proverb says "you don't need eyes to see, you need vision".

One thing gets more clear for me now - what could have possibly made that girl, the author of the blog "Hare Krsihna Women" sooo furious as to push her to see the things in our philosophy and practice so dark, cruel, sexist and anti-female. It is the statements and attitude like that of you (and unfortunately not only you) here, cousin. Madhan-golal was true at least saying that "the person discriminated against is valid in their feelings of horror, rage, shame, etc. for being discriminated against." So she is valid, not in everything she writes, but in her FEELING of horror, rage and shame. But I am sure you will not admit the validity of this as well (no matter that I am quoting the words of one of you) just the same way as you did not admit the validity of anything I said either. The words of Madhan-gopal are obviously valid for some and not valid for others, depending on discrimination and the person executing that discrimination.

I am reading through all the discussion going on here and meditating… and wondering…

If indeed as Audarya-lila said the only valid (according to all of you) point that I gave till now is that heterosex is the only type of sex that can result in pregnancy and anyway this is finally something that everybody here knows and agrees about, and since nobody objected that this is not the only valid point in my words here, then should I continue to write? What for? If just everybody here finds me stupid, lacking any logic, knowledge, wisdom and realization, and if Tattva-viveka is a closed forum, then to whom am I speaking and what for if all I say is just not valid for all of you here and you see not even a drop of truth in it?

"Tattva-viveka" means "deliberation on truth", but in this discussion of ours here we reached the core of it - what TRUTH really is and what does it mean for each of us and where do we stand in our approach and in our relation and in our feelings towards the Truth. And the obvious conclusion is that no matter that we all belong to the line of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, our visions about the truth are quite different if not to say diametrically opposite.

I see that this group of the Gaudiya Vaishnavism here would like to make a "spiritual revolution" by rating the Gaudiya Vaishnavism (as a branch of the Hinduism) as the FIRST WORLD RELIGION ever starting officially to give blessing to gay relations and obviously not long after to give it the adequate form by offering agni hotra to the blessing. What can I say? If this is the way the majority here sees the "spiritual revolution" or the "dynamic orthodoxy", I am obviously not one who shares these views. Blame me for it, name me "stupid", "lacking wisdom", "narrow-minded", "outdated" or as you like, but I just don't share this vision of yours.

Few of you were writing here in a very passionate manner how incredibly grateful I actually have to be that at all nowadays I am able to be a vaishnava and even to be allowed to speak in such a vaishnava forum and that this is all due to some "spiritual revolutions" made by Shrila Prabhupad and by other acharias in our line, but excuse me for what I will say, I am not feeling that much grateful because I had always taken it as GRANTED! Do you know why? Because my Gurudeva was not "preaching" the way you do... and was not having the attitude you show... and because I would have NEVER EVER joined Gaudiya Vaishnavism if the presentation of it which I received would have been that which the majority of you gad given here during our "deliberation on the truth". Am I wrong in taking the lack of sexism as something granted to me by default from my Gurudeva and from the way he presented to me our scriptures and siddhanta? Truth is also subjective, cousins, so my truth regarding this is that I am not wrong to have been taking the lack of sexism in Gaudiya Vaishnavism as something granted to me by default. Now due to you I have learned a higher truth, that it is not granted and it's something that I will have to fight for and be grateful when and if I finally receive it. Thank you for illuminating me with that higher and more realistic vision of reality. Obviously my Gurudeva was mercifully keeping me in the clouds for the last 20 years and now came the time for me to land at Kurukshetra and fight for something I was considering granted... and thus develop further appreciation and gratitude... to my Gurudeva. Maybe he knew me well enough to know what a dreamer I am and to save me that part of reality for the times when my bhakty-lata would be strong enough not to get crushed by such a discussion as this one here and some of the ideas and feelings of rage, anger and hatred expressed so fluently here. Because finally we preach about taste... and about feelings... and believe that finally it’s the realm of DIVINE FEELIGS where we all wish to go. I am happy that at least for this we are "birds of a feather" so even if we could not fly together in that same direction, maybe one day if we are determined, sincere and pure enough in our endeavors to reach there, we could have a surprising nice meeting there... in the realm of divine feelings... and maybe there we should all be less concerned with "tattva", gay relations and should they be blessed by our gurus and all the diverse visions we have on it, because the feeling “there” (in that highest realm) will be so powerfully overwhelming that "tattva" (or our subjective visions about it) would not be any more at all an issue... there.

“Oh when, oh when that day will be mine…” Actually I would prefer to change the words of this famous song to “Oh when, oh when that day will be ours…”

Babhru Das - March 21, 2009 1:09 pm

I see that this group of the Gaudiya Vaishnavism here would like to make a "spiritual revolution" by rating the Gaudiya Vaishnavism (as a branch of the Hinduism) as the FIRST WORLD RELIGION ever starting officially to give blessing to gay relations and obviously not long after to give it the adequate form by offering agni hotra to the blessing. What can I say? If this is the way the majority here sees the "spiritual revolution" or the "dynamic orthodoxy", I am obviously not one who shares these views. Blame me for it, name me "stupid", "lacking wisdom", "narrow-minded", "outdated" or as you like, but I just don't share this vision of yours.

Yamuna, you've written a lot about "validity" in this thread. The fact is that validity is a concept related to logic. For example, we may test the validity of a syllogism's logic by checking to see if the conclusion logically derives from its premises. For example, we may say that all humans have heads (major premise), and Babhru is a human (minor premise), so we conclude, therefore, that Babhru has a head. That's a logically valid argument.

However, you've concluded above that we as a group have an agenda of becoming the first world religion ever to officially bless gay relations and then have fire sacrifices to sanctify them. This assertion has two big problems: truth and validity. The truth is that, at least in the US, and I'd guess in some western European countries as well, many churches and liberal Jewish rabbis have been blessing gay unions for years, if not decades. The other problem is that your assertion above cannot be validly inferred from anything anyone has said here, especially since several of us, not the least of whom is Tripurari Maharaja himself, has said explicitly that our group has no intention of doing so. Swami has said clearly and explicitly that he does not marry anyone, straight or gay. When we have agnihotras, it's at initiations and temple openings, and only when Bhrigupada is present, as far as I have seen. (Now that I think about it, perhaps Karnamrita has done fire sacrifices on the East Coast.)

I understand that you are more conservative about gay relations than other members of this group. I think we get that. You also seem to think we're piling up on you, doing everything we can to humiliate you. That, I'm afraid, I don't get at all. Your problem seems to me to be nothing more than no one here shares your feelings about homosexual people. And somehow you've managed, at least in your mind, to turn that into a sort of sexist conspiracy. That just doesn't make sense to a group that is reviled elsewhere for not marginalizing women. Why can't you simply accept that you don't agree with the rest of us here on this issue (or we bullheadedly won't agree with you), and leave it at that?

Madan Gopal Das - March 21, 2009 1:17 pm

Gaura-vijaya, myself and others who brought up the point of the progressive development of a woman's role in Gaudiya Vaishnava spirituality only did so to assist you in relating to the development of gay devotees rights in GV. That was not a very difficult correlation to make. You take for granted your access to GV, and we are trying to help you see that homosexuals should have such freedom to take it for granted that they also have freedom to practice. Simple.

Then you say that they do have the freedom, but just want to make a show of their bodily identification. When enlightened by the devotees here as to the reality that homosexuals don't have the freedom that you think, that discrimination is real, and that discrimination of all varieties continues despite the progressive march of time, you show some of your true colors (attitudes) about homosexuality. When we challenge you to come to a better understanding, you stubbornly hold to antiquated ideas. What can be done? Yes, you can disagree. You can say that homosexuals should not be awarded rights, blessings or whatever because of their unique type of conditioning. You can say that you hold the same opinion as that of your guru and your param-guru. I don't feel any of the confidence that you do that the parampara you represent would not have progressed in their preaching over time. All evidence is to the contrary.

If none of these 6 pages of discussion are sinking in, I would request you to keep your opinions on this issue to yourself. While trying to serve the guru-parampara I (and I gather many on this forum) have come to the conclusion that we are in line with the spirit of our acaryas and most importantly that of our Guru Maharaj. I have no more to say, that has not been said already.

Yamuna Dasi - March 21, 2009 1:21 pm

I do not perform agni hotras for marriage and I do not marry devotees at all. I see no difference between blessing a homosexual or heterosexual devotional relationship. Is that clear?

 

I consider your ideas antiquated, homophobic and just plain wrong. In my opinion homosexuality is not a disease, and despite a minority of Christian scientist hold outs I believe the case is closed.

 

I do not believe the Bible to be revealed scripture. Still I have read scholarly refutations by Christians that refute the verse from the Bible that others take as a condemnation of homosexuality. Don't quote the Bible here to support you flimsy case. Again, you are unable to cite only of our scriptures in support of your position, not one. But I will help you out here. Manusmrti, which has practically nothing to do with Gaudiya Vaisnavism reads: "A twice-born man who commits an unnatural offence with a male, or has intercourse with a female in a cart drawn by oxen, in water, or in the day-time, shall bathe, dressed in his clothes." You might be able to use this to support your position elsewhere. You will not find anything else in the entire Hindu scriptural cannon.

 

As for what pleases God, I am not so concerned with that because Krsna is also not concerned with it as explained in Caitanya-caritamrta. I am however, concerned with what pleases Krsna. Thus I encourage people to follow in the footsteps of the Vrajavasis regardless of their sexual orientation. But no, I do not think that the sexual acts of homosexuals please Krsna any more or less than those of heterosexual people.

Maharaj, if you accept Manusmriti as a scripture, then why don't you see that there even a one time gay relation is named "unnatural offence", what to speak about a regular and "blessed by guru" gay relation? Or maybe Manusmriti is not a scripture for you just like Kama Sutra and the Bible and its definition for homosexuality as "unnatural offence" is therefore not valid in your eyes?

I didn't know that verse which you quoted from Manusmriti, but I knew only one example from shastra (a shastra also accepted by you as such) about "homosexuality" and it's in favor of it - the gopies.

But still:

1/ it's between females, not between males (and in Manusmriti is also not mentioned that a woman would be committing an "unnatural offence" if having a relation with another woman, but I would in no way use this to support female homosexuality, don't worry)

2/ they were doing it completely absorbed in thoughts for Krishna as if it had been him who they were kissing and caressing

3/ it's a completely spiritual act of the highest level and cannot be in any way compared to material homosexuality between men

And also by the way this kind of approved "homosexuality" was also exclusively for the gopies being on the highest level of madhurya-rasa. I never heard that for example the gopals or participants in any other rasa had been able to perform anything like that.

Madan Gopal Das - March 21, 2009 1:28 pm

Maharaj, if you accept Manusmriti as a scripture, then why don't you see that there even a one time gay relation is named "unnatural offence", what to speak about a regular and "blessed by guru" gay relation? Or maybe Manusmriti is not a scripture for you just like Kama Sutra and the Bible and its definition for homosexuality as "unnatural offence" is therefore not valid in your eyes?

I don't want to answer for Swami, but again - this is not sinking in! Swami has answered this.

As for what pleases God, I am not so concerned with that because Krsna is also not concerned with it as explained in Caitanya-caritamrta. I am however, concerned with what pleases Krsna. Thus I encourage people to follow in the footsteps of the Vrajavasis regardless of their sexual orientation.

I have also tried to point out that the God of the dharma-sastra and Krsna are different. The path to attain their service is different. We are not a group very much interested in dharma-sastra. And even in dharma-sastra there is not much if anything forbidding homosexuality.

That should be clear - got it?

Yamuna Dasi - March 21, 2009 1:42 pm

Yamuna, you've written a lot about "validity" in this thread. The fact is that validity is a concept related to logic. For example, we may test the validity of a syllogism's logic by checking to see if the conclusion logically derives from its premises. For example, we may say that all humans have heads (major premise), and Babhru is a human (minor premise), so we conclude, therefore, that Babhru has a head. That's a logically valid argument.

 

However, you've concluded above that we as a group have an agenda of becoming the first world religion ever to officially bless gay relations and then have fire sacrifices to sanctify them. This assertion has two big problems: truth and validity. The truth is that, at least in the US, and I'd guess in some western European countries as well, many churches and liberal Jewish rabbis have been blessing gay unions for years, if not decades. The other problem is that your assertion above cannot be validly inferred from anything anyone has said here, especially since several of us, not the least of whom is Tripurari Maharaja himself, has said explicitly that our group has no intention of doing so. Swami has said clearly and explicitly that he does not marry anyone, straight or gay. When we have agnihotras, it's at initiations and temple openings, and only when Bhrigupada is present, as far as I have seen. (Now that I think about it, perhaps Karnamrita has done fire sacrifices on the East Coast.)

 

I understand that you are more conservative about gay relations than other members of this group. I think we get that. You also seem to think we're piling up on you, doing everything we can to humiliate you. That, I'm afraid, I don't get at all. Your problem seems to me to be nothing more than no one here shares your feelings about homosexual people. And somehow you've managed, at least in your mind, to turn that into a sort of sexist conspiracy. That just doesn't make sense to a group that is reviled elsewhere for not marginalizing women. Why can't you simply accept that you don't agree with the rest of us here on this issue (or we bullheadedly won't agree with you), and leave it at that?

I had certainly accepted the obvious, that I don’t agree with the rest of you here regarding gay relations and the validity of blessing such relations and I am leaving it at that. As you can see I am still responding only to some of the posts to which I have something to object. Or do you want me to stop objecting something that I have what to object about?

None of these priests or rabies and their actions had been accepted by the mainstream of the religion to which they belong and were severely criticized for blessing gay couples and even performing a "marriage" ceremony. Many of them had to apologize and explain in detail the way HDG did and stop doing it as most probably he will, realizing as he did their mistake.

I was mentioning the agni hotra only as the form corresponding to the content of officially blessing a relation. The form of an official "blessing for a relation" is still called "marriage". By the way how could I know that in this group you are not performing agni hotras for marriages? In all the other Vaisnava groups which I know agni hotra is performed for marriage.

By the way I had also studied logic and yes, I was indeed calling for logic, knowing well that validity is a concept related to logic.

For example, we may test the validity of a syllogism's logic by checking to see if the conclusion logically derives from its premises. For example, we may say God can speak through any person or book he wants (major premise), and the Bible is a book (minor premise), so we conclude, therefore, God can speak through the Bible (no matter if we accept or not the Bible being a scripture). That's a logically valid argument.

Yes Babhru, I have written a lot about the "validity" of a claim in this thread, but also about the "validity" of a feeling.

And in the realm of feelings there are also premises (both major and minor) and the syllogism's logic in the realm of feelings can also be checked for validity.

Madan Gopal Das - March 21, 2009 2:00 pm

None of these priests or rabies and their actions had been accepted by the mainstream of the religion to which they belong and were severely criticized for blessing gay couples and even performing a "marriage" ceremony.

BINGO!!! You are on to something here Yamuna. Now consider this: Are you part of the mainstream of your religion? I'll tell you what, WE AREN'T! And GM and his group are criticized for it. Form-breaking is a tradition in our parampara.

Yamuna Dasi - March 21, 2009 2:06 pm

I don't want to answer for Swami, but again - this is not sinking in! Swami has answered this.

 

I have also tried to point out that the God of the dharma-sastra and Krsna are different. The path to attain their service is different. We are not a group very much interested in dharma-sastra. And even in dharma-sastra there is not much if anything forbidding homosexuality.

 

That should be clear - got it?

Yeah, man, I got it. (if I have to answer in your manner and style, just hoping that you might be acquainted with the principle of the mirror and what is it used for and when)

If you consider Manusmriti as dharma-shastra you might consider if it forbids homosexuality by naming it "unnatural offence" or it blesses it as long as one bathes afterwards with his clothes. And you could give a deeper thought on what would possibly Manusmriti wants to convey as an idea by saying “A twice-born man who commits an unnatural offence with a male… shall bathe, dressed in his clothes”. Maybe “shall bathe” could also mean that from now on such a person would do better to never put off his clothes even when bathing, not just do it once for purifying his body from that act… just an idea.

And don't worry, man, it's pretty obvious even to me that you as per your words are "not a group very much interested in dharma-sastra". But as far as I know and have learned both from shastra and from my Gurdeva, one should walk all the way of dharma before being allowed to ever put his feet on the sacred soil of rasa... and unfortunately I don’t see having a gay relation or insisting that it should be blessed much like walking the way of dharma, but rather as only dreaming of the land of rasa and making plans how to reach there by avoiding the path of dharma, which our acharias consider impossible. Krishna at Kurukshertra also advised Arjuna first to learn the art of perfectly following the path of dharma before even trying to follow the path of “sarva dharman parityaja…” And still I am pretty sure that by “sarva dharman parityaja…” he was in no way meaning to start a gay relation in the material word. That is not the way in which one should abandon dharma in the name of pursuing rasa.

Babhru Das - March 21, 2009 2:13 pm

I had certainly accepted the obvious, that I don’t agree with the rest of you here regarding gay relations and the validity of blessing such relations and I am leaving it at that. As you can see I am still responding only to some of the posts to which I have something to object. Or do you want me to stop objecting something that I have what to object about?

Oh, goodness, no! Object to your heart's content. Whom am I to object to that?

None of these priests or rabies and their actions had been accepted by the mainstream of the religion to which they belong and were severely criticized for blessing gay couples and even performing a "marriage" ceremony.

Many of them had to apologize and explain in detail the way HDG did and stop doing it as most probably he will, realizing as he did their mistake.

Hridayananda Maharaja didn't acknowledge any mistake, except, perhaps, in his judgment of the . As I pointed out, it was more of a clarification, which is a diplomatic move meant, in this case, to provide cover for those who didn't read his email to the two men carefully. It sure wasn't anything like a retraction. I don't know if you've seen all his correspondence on the issue, but he stands firm in his conviction that gay people who aspire to a life of serious sadhana (but who still may have some distance to go) should be encouraged.

I was mentioning the agni hotra only as the form corresponding to the content of officially blessing a relation. The form of an official "blessing for a relation" is still called "marriage".

By the way how could I know that in this group you are not performing agni hotras for marriages? In all the other Vaisnava groups which I know agni hotra is performed for marriage.

Maybe we are, but I don't have any experience of it. (Those in the group who get around more than I can correct me.) Moreover, Swami wrote a direct answer to your question about this, saying he doesn't do agnihotras for marriage at all.

By the way I had also studied logic and yes, I was indeed calling for logic, knowing well that validity is a concept related to logic.

For example, we may test the validity of a syllogism's logic by checking to see if the conclusion logically derives from its premises. For example, we may say God can speak through any person or book he wants (major premise), and the Bible is a book (minor premise), so we conclude, therefore, God can speak through the Bible (no matter if we accept or not the Bible being a scripture). That's a logically valid argument.

Yes, and you probably know that validity and truth are separate issues. And it would also be logically valid to say that God can speak through Johnathan Livingston Seagull, a book popular among New-Agers in the '70s. But I wouldn't get too excited about it.

Madan Gopal Das - March 21, 2009 2:25 pm

But as far as I know and have learned both from shastra and from my Gurdeva, one should walk all the way of dharma before being allowed to ever put his feet on the sacred soil of rasa...

Our dharma is Gaudiya Vaishnava sadacara. I am sometimes childish and silly, but my sangha is exemplary in their practice of this dharma.

Yamuna Dasi - March 21, 2009 2:42 pm

Actually, at least in the US, that's not the case. Controversy certainly swirls around the issue in many churches, but such blessings have become pretty widely accepted.

Hridayananda Maharaja didn't acknowledge any mistake, except, perhaps, in his judgment of the . As I pointed out, it was more of a clarification, which is a diplomatic move meant, in this case, to provide cover for those who didn't read his email to the two men carefully. It sure wasn't anything like a retraction. I don't know if you've seen all his correspondence on the issue, but he stands firm in his conviction that gay people who aspire to a life of serious sadhana (but who still may have some distance to go) should be encouraged.

HDG wrote "I sincerely apologize to the devotees for this evident failure." I am leaving it up to you to decide if "failure" equals "mistake" here. And also I am leaving it up to you to decide if someone who apologizes for doing something is indeed sorry for doing it or not.

Controversy certainly swirls around the issue in many churches, but such blessings have become pretty widely accepted.

If by "pretty widely accepted" you mean the gay circles or their close friends or said with the words of statistics less than 0.1% on the people in general... what could I say except that this is not my understanding about "pretty widely accepted".

Swami wrote a direct answer to your question about this, saying he doesn't do agnihotras for marriage at all.

This could mean that he himself personally is not performing the yagya. My guru also rarely does it himself, usually there is some other brahmana doing it. Thus the words of Maharaj could mean not that no agni hotra ceremony is ever performed for marriage in your group, but that he personally is not the performer of that yagya.

Yes, and you probably know that validity and truth are separate issues.

Yes I am pretty aware of it and was even writing in this forum that logic itself states clearly that it's not a science about the truth, but about the laws by which thoughts follow one another. But still we are using logic in our search for the truth and also in our deliberations on the truth, right? We are not just throwing in an artistic way a bunch of words here and there in the space admiring the artistic effect of it.

Yamuna Dasi - March 21, 2009 2:44 pm

Our dharma is Gaudiya Vaishnava sadacara. I am sometimes childish and silly, but my sangha is exemplary in their practice of this dharma.

Once again you didn't get the gist of my post. Your sangha cannot walk for you the path of dharma.

Madan Gopal Das - March 21, 2009 3:01 pm

HDG wrote "I sincerely apologize to the devotees for this evident failure."

You cannot have read his letter. He is not apologizing for the blessing, he is apologizing because he failed in austerity of speech according to Gita "In the Bhagavad-gita 17.15, Lord Krishna states that “Austerity of speech consists in speaking words that are truthful, pleasing, beneficial, and not agitating to others…”. That is what he says he failed to do. Just read it and you will see! Actually, I kind of read it with sarcasm (which is entirely his style) that his words have caused an uproar. He is not apologizing for the blessing, and suggests that there should be a dialogue about this issue.

If by "pretty widely accepted" you mean the gay circles or their close friends or said with the words of statistics less than 0.1% on the people in general...

You just don't know the U.S. Yamuna. And we are not that progressive compared to some countries on this issue.

I have hopes for having a Hindu Encounter with Modernity here, but this seems to be a Hindu Encounter with Stubbornity. Oops, there I go again, breaching my GV sadacara dharma. Well, you gotta have some personality right??!

Prahlad Das - March 21, 2009 3:03 pm

Babhru Prabhu, I still have a hard time agreeing about the validity of using skin color as a qualifier for sexual preference.

I can see using an example of a white person who considers sexual union with a black person preferable, as an example, since it has more to do with preference.

However, existence and preference are two different things. Dharma (including Gaudiya Vaishnava) calls for the relinquishing of the false ego, therefore if I were to consider myself a white male, I would be deemed, conditioned to illusion, according to Vaishnava Philosophy, what to speak of me deeming my Self a white man who prefers sex with a .... well you get the picture. iccha dvesa samutena B.G. 7.27

Dealing with a communal legality for preferential desires is a conundrum. Is homosexual better than heterosexual? I'm sure it depends on a number of qualifiers.

I know Srila Prabhupada made many exceptions and few allowances for homosexuality. Throughout his purports and translations he showed pure exception to it as dharma. Yet, off the record so to speak, he gave allowance as in the case of Upendra Prabhu. Whether this was an allowance meant to become a rule, remains to be seen by the acharyas of this parampara. I know in S.B. there is specific mention of when Brahma was creating, demons were created from his anus. After being created, they then pursued Brahma for sexual relations mano a mano. This was considered demoniac.

I truly appreciated Swami's defining of asura recently. I think, for myself, it has shed a whole new light on life.

Madan Gopal Das - March 21, 2009 3:04 pm

Once again you didn't get the gist of my post. Your sangha cannot walk for you the path of dharma.

No, but they can drag me along.

Nitaisundara Das - March 21, 2009 3:06 pm

Yamuna, you are just arguing anything and everything you can get your hands on, and I believe we have all recognized before this thread that that is simply what you do. I don't have the time or interest to read all of your obnoxiously long posts, but I did catch you bringing up the woman at the "Hare Krishna Women" blog like you could relate to how she must feel. You are getting into very dangerous territory there and it is sincerely out of unselfish motives that I bring this up.

She feels the way she does because she has developed a samskara for aparadha! Yes there is validity in some of her observations, but because they have only served to validate her aparadha, she gets no sympathy from me (and Guru Maharaja has expressed the same). Her motivation is not to become a saranagata, it is pratishta. If I were you I would be EXTREMELY careful about sympathizing with that type of person on the grounds of social issues.

Similarly, your motivation in this discussion seems something other than truth seeking. Which is not to say you have to agree, but to argue incessantly as you are doing, to the point where the only result is everyone coming back at you stronger, and you then resenting them for being sexist, is a sign that you have some strong desire to get something from this discussion (perhaps to be right). The lengths to which are willing to challenge everybody, especially Guru Maharaja, is pretty repelling.

It is clear that you are blaming everybody else in this conflict, but it would be good to give some credit that we are not in a conspiracy against you, send a man on this forum to say the things youve said and see if it plays out differently. At this point it would probably be good to resort to a "the environment is friendly" mindset and avoid feeling like a victim, which would make it harder for you to participate on TV.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 21, 2009 3:06 pm

But I am really surprised by your double-mind standards, cousin, that if God tells the Jews in the old testament to kill and they do it you find it disgusting and unacceptable as an advice coming from true God, but when Krishna tells Arjuna to kill his relatives and not only in our scriptures and he does it, you find this just great and perfectly fitting the image of God in your heart.

I or Guru-Nistha don't share the views on discrimination of women. We just wanted you to assess homosexual issues with the same empathy and sensitivity as women's issues.

By getting agitated by my statement about woman, you have vindicated my stand. Your retorted sharply in trying to prove me to be a women hater without understanding the context in which I spoke. It shows how hurt you were.I apologize if you are hurt but don't retaliate and hurt others. You do get offended when derogatory statements are made about women, though you say you are not on the bodily platform. Hence you are trying to get to terms with what SP said about women and rationalize it somehow. But with gays that flexibility is missing.

Nitaisundara Das - March 21, 2009 3:10 pm

I have hopes for having a Hindu Encounter with Modernity here, but this seems to be a Hindu Encounter with Stubbornity.

I think we can all put differences aside and acknowledge a good joke when we see one

Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 21, 2009 3:12 pm

And since in this forum I have been asked few times about homosexuality described in our scriptures and Krishna's opinion about it, I know just of one such case and he was quite positive about it - the gopies... sometimes caressing each-other and exchanging kisses while talking about Krishna and remembering thus his caresses and kisses. Sorry cousin, they were all WOMEN, not men! And this is the only case of homosexuality in our scriptures which I know about which was approved by Krishna. But sorry to tell you, not only that they were all women, there was also no man around even to witness this. So maybe that is why you are so unaware about this story and I excuse you for this considering the objective obstacles you have in being aware about it since no man was around to tell you after and you don’t seem being neither open nor ready for communication with “females”.

Gopis are not in material bodies, dear cousin and don't bring down transcendental subject matters to mundane male women issues. We all have not yet crossed brahma-bhuta so better retreat from talking about gopis like that and identifying yourself with them.

Yamuna Dasi - March 21, 2009 3:23 pm

You cannot have read his letter. He is not apologizing for the blessing, he is apologizing because he failed in austerity of speech according to Gita "In the Bhagavad-gita 17.15, Lord Krishna states that “Austerity of speech consists in speaking words that are truthful, pleasing, beneficial, and not agitating to others…”. That is what he says he failed to do. Just read it and you will see! Actually, I kind of read it with sarcasm (which is entirely his style) that his words have caused an uproar. He is not apologizing for the blessing, and suggests that there should be a dialogue about this issue.

Believe it or not I have read his letter and from there I was quoting. Wrong premise again, cousin, but I am a kind of getting used to this from your side.

In that verse which he also quotes in his letter of APOLOGY is said “Austerity of speech consists in speaking words that are truthful, pleasing, beneficial, and not agitating to others..." Obviously if he apologizes for failing in regards to this verse, he meant in regards to what is mentioned in it "speaking words that are truthful, pleasing, beneficial, and not agitating to others", but obviously you assume that from all the 4 mentioned in it he is apologizing for failing ONLY in regards to the last one "speaking words that are… not agitating to others". One more interesting premise from your side... 1/4

You just don't know the U.S. Yamuna. And we are not that progressive compared to some countries on this issue.

Even if we assume again one more premise of yours, that I do not know US, do I need to know US in order to give you a worldwide statistic that it's less than 0.1 % those who accept or support spiritual blessing or spiritual marriage for gay relations?

I have hopes for having a Hindu Encounter with Modernity here, but this seems to be a Hindu Encounter with Stubbornity. Oops, there I go again, breaching my GV sadacara dharma. Well, you gotta have some personality right??!

I am leaving it to others to judge about my personality and if I have it or not. You can make a survey here and get a statistical idea (not just your own) about what is the overall opinion of the participants in this forum, but it will not be at all that of those who know me better and also in action and in person.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 21, 2009 3:28 pm

I know in S.B. there is specific mention of when Brahma was creating, demons were created from his anus. After being created, they then pursued Brahma for sexual relations mano a mano. This was considered demoniac.

I thank you Prahlad prabhu for giving some support to Yamuna. She will feel much better after this.

Yamuna Dasi - March 21, 2009 3:36 pm

Gopis are not in material bodies, dear cousin and don't bring down transcendental subject matters to a mundane male women issues. We all have not yet crossed brahma-bhuta so better retreat from talking about gopis like that and identifying yourself with them.

Since nobody from the associates of Krishna or Mahaprabhu were in their material bodies, does it mean that we cannot give any examples from these scriptures?

If you were reading more carefully what I wrote before starting to write back, you should have read that I also wrote "it's a completely spiritual act of the highest level and cannot be in any way compared to material homosexuality between men". Again pure juggling with words from your side, cousin.

Would be interesting to know if you think that somebody having a gay relation had already crossed brahma-bhuta or is he more allowed or permitted by you to talk about gopies... or to identify with them... (which I was not doing at all, it was all in your fertile imagination).

Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 21, 2009 3:38 pm

Since nobody from the associates of Krishna or Mahaprabhu were in their material bodies, does it mean that we cannot give any examples from these scriptures?

If you were reading more carefully what I wrote before starting to write back, you should have read that I also wrote "it's a completely spiritual act of the highest level and cannot be in any way compared to material homosexuality between men". Again pure juggling with words from your side, cousin.

 

Would be interesting to know if you think that somebody having a gay relation had already crossed brahma-bhuta or is he more allowed or permitted by you to talk about gopies... or to identify with them... (which I was not doing at all, it was all in your fertile imagination).

You did not get my points. I am sorry, I failed in my logical ability in this forum. I was misunderstood completely by you.

Prahlad Das - March 21, 2009 3:39 pm

I thank you Prahlad prabhu for giving some support to Yamuna. She will feel much better after this.

Gaura Vijaya Prabhu, it is as it is. Who draws support and for what reason is up to them I'm sure there are other ways to read the verse and I am open to hearing them. Also, I'd love to see the article which Babhru Prabhu mentioned. If there is anyone out there that can stand to be educated, it is me. My stating this instance is not to "doom" homosexuals as asuras. There are asuras who are mahajanas as well so this is no doom.

What we are talking about is the attempt to enjoy one's senses by pursuing objects of relative desirability.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 21, 2009 3:41 pm

Gaura Vijaya Prabhu, it is as it is. Who draws support and for what reason is up to them I'm sure there are other ways to read the verse and I am open to hearing them. Also, I'd love to see the article which Babhru Prabhu mentioned. If there is anyone out there that can stand to be educated, it is me. My stating this instance is not to "doom" homosexuals as asuras. There are asuras who are mahajanas as well so this is no doom.

What we are talking about is the attempt to enjoy one's senses by pursuing objects of relative desirability.

Good point.

Yamuna Dasi - March 21, 2009 3:43 pm

I thank you Prahlad prabhu for giving some support to Yamuna. She will feel much better after this.

Thank you Prahlad for giving scriptural quotes which I could not give.

Indeed I do. You start knowing me and the depths of my personality better Gaura-Vijaya.

But I did not see any comment from you on the quote. Or the opinion of Brahma about what is demoniac and what is not has no value in the eyes of those following the path of Gaudiya Vaishnava sadacara?

Yamuna Dasi - March 21, 2009 3:47 pm

What we are talking about is the attempt to enjoy one's senses by pursuing objects of relative desirability.

Please let me correct you a bit - what we are talking about is should the attempt to enjoy one's senses by pursuing objects of relative desirability be "acknowledged publicly" by receiving a blessing from guru. That is the topic we are discussing here.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 21, 2009 3:52 pm

Thank you Prahlad for giving scriptural quotes which I could not give.

 

Indeed I do. You start knowing me and the depths of my personality better Gaura-Vijaya.

 

But I did not see any comment from you on the quote. Or the opinion of Brahma about what is demoniac and what is not has no value in the eyes of those following the path of Gaudiya Vaishnava sadacara?

I don't comment on something which I don't know and I accept that I am unable to say anything on the opinion of Brahma.

Yamuna Dasi - March 21, 2009 4:00 pm

I don't comment on something which I don't know and I accept that I am unable to say anything on the opinion of Brahma.

You are able to say at least if it's a valid opinion for you, since all my opinions till now were not valid in your eyes. I am not expecting you to comment on Brahma’s opinion but take your position regarding it.

Yes, Babhru, again I am speaking about validity, I know... but that’s the gist of all we are discussing here – what is valid for us and what do we wish to follow… or bless…

Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 21, 2009 4:06 pm

You are able to say at least if it's a valid opinion for you, since all my opinions till know were not valid in your eyes. I am not expecting you to comment on Brahma’s opinion but take your position regarding it.

Like I said, I failed miserably when I used the quote about women. You really did not understand even after madan gopal hinted about what I meant . If you don't recall(kali yuga memory is short so cannot blame you) I have actually supported you before in some forums, when I found your ideas fair.

Now the point about brahma is discussed in HDG's original article and he did try to address it.

I don't feel that I need to give opinion about things, if I am not sure or ill-informed. I would say I don't know. I acknowledge contradiction as a part of existence and krsna himself displays contradictory qualities.

Nitaisundara Das - March 21, 2009 4:14 pm

Please let me correct you a bit - what we are talking about is should the attempt to enjoy one's senses by pursuing objects of relative desirability be "acknowledged publicly" by receiving a blessing from guru. That is the topic we are discussing here.

No this thread is about a specific type of pursuit, that is what you are blindly arguing.

Frankly Yamuna if you don't change your tune a lot, and soon, you probably won't be welcome here much longer. And that is not because you disagree or because you are a woman. It is because you are disrespectful to Guru Maharaja, overly condescending to the devotees, and just argumentative. So if you want to go that route because you are unwilling to change or at least "agree to disagree" than you can do that. Frankly I have been thinking for some time that eventually you would be too inappropriate and have to leave Tattva Viveka. Please understand this is not personal, you are creating an unreasonable disturbance here. From what I have seen our sanga allows more room for disagreement, even with GM, than any other group I know of. Sometimes people cross the line even still, and I think you are doing that. I anticipate you will think I am full of it and just targeting you with everyone else, but I don't know what I can say to convince you otherwise.

Your future on TV is not my decision, but I have a feeling everybody here is getting pretty tired of your contrarian spirit, on this thread and almost all others.

Swami - March 21, 2009 4:48 pm

I did not cite the section of the Bhagavata referred to by Prahlada because there is noting in the text itself that explicitly refers to homosexuality. Here are the relevant verses from that chapter in Prabhupada's translation.

Demons were born from the creation of night, and the demigods were born from the creation of day. In other words, demons like the Yaksas and Raksasas are born of the quality of ignorance, and demigods are born of the quality of goodness.

Lord Brahma then gave birth to the demons from his buttocks, and they were very fond of sex. Because they were too lustful, they approached him for copulation.

The worshipful Brahma first laughed at their stupidity, but finding the shameless asuras close upon him, he grew indignant and ran in great haste out of fear.

He approached the Personality of Godhead, who bestows all boons and who dispels the agony of His devotees and of those who take shelter of His lotus feet. He manifests His innumerable transcendental forms for the satisfaction of His devotees.

Lord Brahma, approaching the Lord, addressed Him thus: My Lord, please protect me from these sinful demons, who were created by me under Your order. They are infuriated by an appetite for sex and have come to attack me.

My Lord, You are the only one capable of ending the affliction of the distressed and inflicting agony on those who never resort to Your feet.

The Lord, who can distinctly see the minds of others, perceived Brahma's distress and said to him: "Cast off this impure body of yours." Thus commanded by the Lord, Brahma cast off his body.

The body given up by Brahma took the form of the evening twilight, when the day and night meet, a time which kindles passion. The asuras, who are passionate by nature, dominated as they are by the element of rajas, took it for a damsel, whose lotus feet resounded with the tinkling of anklets, whose eyes were wide with intoxication and whose hips were covered by fine cloth, over which shone a girdle.

Her breasts projected upward because of their clinging to each other, and they were too contiguous to admit any intervening space. She had a shapely nose and beautiful teeth; a lovely smile played on her lips, and she cast a sportful glance at the asuras.

Adorned with dark tresses, she hid herself, as it were, out of shyness. Upon seeing that girl, the asuras were all infatuated with an appetite for sex.

The demons praised her: Oh, what a beauty! What rare self-control! What a budding youth! In the midst of us all, who are passionately longing for her, she is moving about like one absolutely free from passion.

Indulging in various speculations about the evening twilight, which appeared to them endowed with the form of a young woman, the wicked-minded asuras treated her with respect and fondly spoke to her as follows.

From this section in one of his purports Prabhupada writes :

"It appears here that the homosexual appetite of males for each other is created in this episode of the creation of the demons by Brahma. In other words, the homosexual appetite of a man for another man is demoniac and is not for any sane male in the ordinary course of life."

However his opinion here is a personal reflection on the text and we are already aware of that opinion and have addressed it in this thread.

Syama Gopala Dasa - March 21, 2009 5:20 pm

Man, if there is one thing I'm learning from this topic, it's:

trinad api sunichena

taror api sahishnuna

amanina manadena

kirtaniyah sada harih

Swami - March 21, 2009 5:27 pm

Yes, Babhru, again I am speaking about validity, I know... but that’s the gist of all we are discussing here – what is valid for us and what do we wish to follow… or bless…

You have made it clear that you think homosexuality is unnatural and that monogamous homosexual relationships formed with a view to progress in spiritual life and partnership are not to be blessed in the same way that similar heterosexual relationships are blessed. Your arguments in support of these positions have been trotted out and have not fared well with the majority of participants here. They are basically religious fundamentalist arguments or arguments shared by the entire world up until recent times during which old laws based on similar opinions have been taken off the books. Recent times also show homosexuals have been and are still in the process of gaining all the rights and protections that heterosexual people enjoy. You agree that they should enjoy these rights, but it seems that you do not understand the reason why you do or that you are in denial of it. The reason is that gay activists are fighting a winning battle. Homosexuals are gaining the rights they feel entitled to because their arguments make sense to a majority and can be supported by an essential spiritual understanding. I think it would be wise to see the writing on the wall. But some people like you will continue to hold out and consider homosexuality a pathology, etc., even while conceding points here and there and then pretending that is how you always felt when your previous position is exposed for the bigotry it amounts to.

As for Srila Prabhupada, I would welcome a discussion with him on this topic and I feel confident that upon hearing all the arguments that you have readily available to you, most of which have only received wide circulation in more recent years after the departure of Srila Prabhupada, that he would alter his position on the subject.

You are free to differ but you should be aware that your arguments are not as convincing here on this forum to others as they are to you. It is also pointless and unbecoming to continue to play the victim card as you have been. The best you can do at this point is to respectfully agree to disagree.

Brahma Dasa - March 21, 2009 5:33 pm

"It appears here that the homosexual appetite of males for each other is created in this episode of the creation of the demons by Brahma.”

Appears: to seem, to give the impression of being

(Webster’s dictionary)

The use of the word appears indicates some degree of uncertainty. (As in an opinion.)

Swami - March 21, 2009 5:58 pm

I think you really have to consider how familiar with homosexuality Prabhuapda was and thus how much his opinion was based on what he heard from others and a natural heterosexual distaste for the idea of homosexuality, as opposed to the extent to which his opinion was informed by actually knowing homosexual people from the West who had demonstrated that they had every ability to function as normal persons, etc. and in many cases better than some heterosexuals.

A clue to the answer may be found in Srila Sridhara Maharaja's response to hearing about lesbians for the first time, "How is it possible?"

Babhru Das - March 21, 2009 7:36 pm

Babhru Prabhu, I still have a hard time agreeing about the validity of using skin color as a qualifier for sexual preference.

Skin color is accepted as a good analog for "sexual preference" because it's something most gay folks realize has been part of their identity. They realize that they are romantically/sexually attracted to those of the same sex even before they have any real sense of what that means. This is something Madden addressed in his essay. (I wish I could get my hands on that essay!) And it's something they feel whether they're sexually active or not. It's not the same as a preference for black partners, or blonde partners, or slender partners. That is the experience many gay and bisexual men and women write about a great deal.

Dealing with a communal legality for preferential desires is a conundrum. Is homosexual better than heterosexual? I'm sure it depends on a number of qualifiers.

I know Srila Prabhupada made many exceptions and few allowances for homosexuality. Throughout his purports and translations he showed pure exception to it as dharma. Yet, off the record so to speak, he gave allowance as in the case of Upendra Prabhu. Whether this was an allowance meant to become a rule, remains to be seen by the acharyas of this parampara. I know in S.B. there is specific mention of when Brahma was creating, demons were created from his anus. After being created, they then pursued Brahma for sexual relations mano a mano. This was considered demoniac.

Was it actually the desire for someone of the same sex that was demoniac, or the sexual violence?

Babhru Das - March 21, 2009 8:12 pm

I think what I was getting to was that the response was more like what happens in prison than what happens in a romantic encounter.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 21, 2009 8:29 pm

I think what I was getting to was that the response was more like what happens in prison than what happens in a romantic encounter.

Yes in prisons, for example Tihar Jail in Delhi, heterosexual males have known to indulge in homosexual activity due to lack of sexual outlet but that is different from general homosexual behavior.

Babhru Das - March 21, 2009 8:46 pm

In US prisons there's not only homosexual activity among otherwise straight men, but sexual assault is a common way to assert power over other inmates. That's what I was thinking of.

Yamuna Dasi - March 21, 2009 11:18 pm

I think you really have to consider how familiar with homosexuality Prabhuapda was and thus how much his opinion was based on what he heard from others and a natural heterosexual distaste for the idea of homosexuality, as opposed to the extent to which his opinion was informed by actually knowing homosexual people from the West who had demonstrated that they had every ability to function as normal persons, etc. and in many cases better than some heterosexuals.

 

A clue to the answer may be found in Srila Sridhara Maharaja's response to hearing about lesbians for the first time, "How is it possible?"

This reaction of Shridhara Maharaj shows once again how pure and innocent he is, because male homosexuality is so vastly spread in India and it's very logical that a corresponding to it female homosexuality could exist as well, but still he was either not aware about the widely-spread in India male homosexuality (which I doubt) or was knowing it but due to purity was unable to presume and imagine that also female homosexuality exists.

Once my Gurudeva asked him a question from the Hungarian devotees as per their request: "What can we do to avoid chanting the Maha-mantra as a routine activity thus losing the taste for it?" to which Shridhara Maharaj asked: "Excuse me Maharaj, could you please repeat the question because I did not understand it?" Gurudev excused himself and answered that he has no more questions.

Shridhara Maharaj ki jay!

Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 21, 2009 11:55 pm

In US prisons there's not only homosexual activity among otherwise straight men, but sexual assault is a common way to assert power over other inmates. That's what I was thinking of.

And then there are shades of grey among different homosexuals. For example some homosexual males detest heterosexual relations but some have intercourse with women and have children. Therefore some people try to classify homosexuals (more inclined naturally in that direction), who still have sexual relations with women(they don't detest it that much) as closer to bisexuals.

I am not an expert on this but that is what my limited knowledge was. You, vamsi and madan have better exposure than me on this very intricate topic.

Swami - March 22, 2009 12:25 am

This reaction of Shridhara Maharaj shows once again how pure and innocent he is, because male homosexuality is so vastly spread in India and it's very logical that a corresponding to it female homosexuality could exist as well, but still he was either not aware about the widely-spread in India male homosexuality (which I doubt) or was knowing it but due to purity was unable to presume and imagine that also female homosexuality exists.

 

Once my Gurudeva asked him a question from the Hungarian devotees as per their request: "What can we do to avoid chanting the Maha-mantra as a routine activity thus losing the taste for it?" to which Shridhara Maharaj asked: "Excuse me Maharaj, could you please repeat the question because I did not understand it?" Gurudev excused himself and answered that he has no more questions.

 

Shridhara Maharaj ki jay!

My point was that the familiarity these acaryas had with homosexuality was an Indian version where, like the West but more so, homosexuality was a closet, back room affair for deranged people who could not function responsibly in the world, people who were potentially dangerous prone to intoxication, unclean, pathological, etc. This is the image that society the modern world over has placed homosexuals within thereby creating the very thing it imagined homosexuality to be and thus reinforcing that image. But as it turns out, these things artificially attached to homosexuality have nothing to do with it at all. It is not inherently any of the these things and many homosexuals are cleaner, more responsible and just plain better people than many heterosexual people.

Just try to imagine growing up and finding that when your young friends began to develop an attraction to the opposite sex you found yourself developing a sexual attraction to the same sex and had learned that you were a queer who could be justifiably beaten up and that there would be no shoulder to cry on at home. Employers (if you could get hired) would fire you if they detected your sexual attraction, which is not something that one can easily hide or that heterosexuals hide. Indeed they were privileged to celebrate it! You had to pursue your sexuality in the back alley or at an illegal bar and thus ended up being the very kind of person society made you be when it could have been otherwise. The world is still just understanding that they did this to millions of children.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 22, 2009 12:39 am

My point was that the familiarity these acaryas had with homosexuality was an Indian version where, like the West but more so, homosexuality was a closet, back room affair for deranged people who could not function responsibly in the world, people who were potentially dangerous prone to intoxication, unclean, pathological, etc. This is the image that society the modern world over has placed homosexuals within thereby creating the very thing it imagined homosexuality to be and thus reinforcing that image. But as it turns out, these things artificially attached to homosexuality have nothing to do with it at all. It is not inherently any of the these things and many homosexuals are cleaner, more responsible and just plain better people than many heterosexual people.

 

Just try to imagine growing up and finding that when your young friends began to develop an attraction to the opposite sex you found yourself developing a sexual attraction to the same sex and had learned that you were a queer who could be justifiably beaten up and that there would be no shoulder to cry on at home. Employers (if you could get hired) would fire you if they detected your sexual attraction, which is not something that one can easily hide or that heterosexuals hide. Indeed they were privileged to celebrate it! You had to pursue your sexuality in the back alley or at an illegal bar and thus ended up being the very kind of person society made you be when it could have been otherwise. The world is still just understanding that they did this to millions of children.

Yes like I pointed out homosexuals were better off and were glorified as being better than heterosexuals in Greek society and they had much better status in that society than now. Many intellectuals and responsible people during Greek time were homosexually inclined. Plato, I think takes a view that though mundane sexuality is to be transcended, the relations between people should evolve from grosser exchanges to subtle exchanges and he saw equal if not more room for that in homosexual relations.

Growing up in India, I concur with GM completely. He has captured the situation in India perfectly and my attitude was also molded by the Indian environment. But only good thing I learnt from the onset was that I should take good insights wherever they come from-- East or West. Due to the the association of GM and other great humble people in my life, I have learned to give a patient hearing to any new evidence which can challenge my current paradigms and hence change my stand if necessary.. We need to be able to bend like a tree as pointed out by GM in a lecture.

Five or six years back when I read Plato and his liberal views on homosexuality, I was shocked. The person whose writings and character I really admired, how could he not take a negative stance towards homosexuality. But after examining different sources and meeting great homosexual people personally, I did change my view. And I hope that you also try to be open and receptive, Yamuna.

Guru-nistha Das - March 22, 2009 1:01 am

I think another point to consider is the argument, "Why do gays have to think of their sexuality so much?"

I'm sure if you have to suppress and hide a huge part of your identity, you will keep processing it constantly, either consciously or unconsciously. And that kind of contemplation is consuming and may result in unhealthy expressions or mental problems, so "keeping it to yourself" can actually make a gay person think about sex way more. If one comes out of the closet it may happen with a splash, which is understandable, but then it's out in the open and it's being dealt with and it's easier to move on and concentrate on other things.

I believe society has forced gays to "make a big deal out of their sexuality", just like human rights are a huge issue in China. It's reactionary.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 22, 2009 1:03 am

I think another point to consider is the argument, "Why do gays have to think of their sexuality so much?"

I'm sure if you have to suppress and hide a huge part of your identity, you will keep processing it constantly, either consciously or unconsciously. And that kind of contemplation is consuming and may result in unhealthy expressions or mental problems, so "keeping it to yourself" can actually make a gay person think about sex way more. If one comes out of the closet it may happen with a splash, which is understandable, but then it's out in the open and it's being dealt with and it's easier to move on and concentrate on other things.

 

I believe society has forced gays to "make a big deal out of their sexuality", just like human rights are a huge issue in China. It's reactionary.

Very good point. What can repression accomplish. Strong repression leads to overcompensation on the other side.

Swami - March 22, 2009 2:23 pm

It is also worth mentioning that Prabhupada never backed up his stance on homosexuality with any scriptural references. Even in the purport cited earlier he does not say that the verse he is commenting on says that homosexuality is demoniac. Instead he merely offers his own opinion. Elsewhere when discussing the subject he also only cites reasoning that demonstrates that his opinion was based upon misinformation. For example, in one place he says that homosexuality is not even found in the animal world and thus homosexuality is beneath even animal life. . Now we know that this is not true. So Prabhupada has spoken a falsehood in support of his position, one that he must have learned from someone else. If we are to take his words as absolute in all respects as some claim, are we to deny the fact that homosexuality is found in animal species? If not, we must say that Prabhupada was wrong when he said that. If his reasoning in support of his position is proven wrong, then his position on the issue itself is brought into question, especially when it is also not supported by scripture. So to disagree with his opinion here is not to pick and choose whimsically but to do so in the very way he taught us to do.

I also have personal experience of Prabhupada taking a strong position on the basis of misinformation and then changing his position and even endorsing the changed position in his books after learning from myself and others that his original position was misinformed.

Yamuna Dasi - March 23, 2009 8:40 am

Yes, Maharaj, I agree to disagree.

But I would also like to respond to some questions which you were putting me and till now I was avoiding to respond. First I would like to defend myself against some charges placed towards me before responding to your questions which I will if I am given the chance to.

I would like to defend myself from the charge that I was playing the “victim card”. Till now in this thread if you noticed I was a kind of avoiding to respond to you (even when you were putting me direct questions) not because I had no answer, as obviously it seems like, but because of some reasons. First of all, it is emotionally very hard for me to “fight” (even in an argument) against you because you are my beloved Uncle. Second, I am in a forum of yours, I am your guest here, and a guest is naturally expected to “behave” and an aspect of “behaving” as a guest includes also not expressing (what to speak about defending) ideas, opposing to those of the host. At least not when you are his guest and at least not “in public” in front of his other guests, who had gathered into his “home” to enjoy being together with him and not for listening other opposing opinions. But even thought I was even mostly not even answering to your questions or directly to you, but to some of the other participants, still my behavior was found by them “offensive towards you”. No matter that some of them were directly offensive towards me in what they wrote and in the way they wrote it and no matter that from a certain moment only I started responding them in their own style also mentioning that I am doing it deliberately, in a desperate attempt to show that this is not the right tone and manner of having a discussion.

I know very well that "it is partiality that fuels the land of divine love", but at the same time one is tending to expect to be able to invoke objectivity of opinion from the other side by trying to give arguments. During an argument one expects to be indeed reasons versus reasons, not feelings versus feelings because in the realm of feelingss as we all know there is not much if any space for arguments. Otherwise the best defender of a criminal in the court would have been his mother who would tell the judge “he’s my son and I love him, so you cannot sue him and punish him” and he would have to agree. But in an argument one just hopes that objectivity can be invoked in considering the arguments presented. Unfortunately in this situation objectivity cannot be demanded by me since most of them are your disciples and what fuels the divine soil of their bhakti-lata is exactly their love and partiality towards you, because they had chosen you as their Gurudeva and all their hope and trust are on you.

You said that I was playing “the card of the victim”. Yes Uncle I was, because I was trying to explain exactly this – that being put in such a situation, to argue with a guru in front of his disciples is indeed being a kind of “victim” of the situation. I also dare to have different opinions from that of my guru, but I never ever argue with him in public or in front of his disciples. I can dare to present to him some arguments but always in private. Also since it happens that he is not only my guru, but also my God-brother, we both behave and talk with each other in quite a different manner than the way he is communicating with his disciples, but I never ever do this in front of them either… not even the jokes we exchange usually in private. I am aware that I should give them good example of how to behave with guru and in front of them I do behave as being exactly like one of them, not as a God-sister. When after the departure of my Gurudeva I was given the option to ask for second initiation from a guru, I had chosen a God-brother, him, because he was the person who was most close to my heart and in who I was also able to see the true continuation of the mission of my Gurudeva. And before giving me second initiation we had a talk and he told me that our relation as close friends and God-brother and God-sister would never be changed by artificially imposing over it Guru-shisya rules. Still I am his shisya and I do try to behave like this in public, while having the privilege to enjoy his closer friendship in private. And in some arguments of ours he was accepting my opinion and taking the direction which I was proposing after hearing my reasons.

But here the situation is not the same. I am put to speak publicly and in front of your disciples, so anything I say in direction of not agreeing with your opinion can be seen by them as an offence towards you. Checkmate. This is exactly the same situation as per which ISKCON is considering somehow (and sometimes without this softening “somehow”) as an offender to Shrila Prabhupad every disciple of his (and not only) who expresses or follows opinions different from those of Shrila Prabhupada and defends them also publicly. Many of you consider you an offender towards him for the same reason your disciples here would consider me an offender towards you – and this reason is having a different opinion and defending it publicly. And since Shrila Prabhupada is not here so that his disciples cannot go to him, present all the facts and arguments which they have and accept whatever he decides that is the valid conclusion, some of them chose to follow directly what he said while others chose to suppose that if he knew some more facts his opinion would have changed. Who could say for sure what he would say about this, we can only guess. And even if Shrila Prabhupad would have changed some of his ideas, maybe Shridhara Maharaj or other great acharias of ours would not have changed their opinion on the subject so the same free choice remains in front of everybody – to follow the guru of his heart and his ideas and opinions as well. In your commentary to Gita I’ve read that some of our greatest acharias in our line had 180 degrees opposing opinions about how a verse should be translated even, what to speak about how it should be commented.

By writing all the above I wanted to defend myself for “playing the card of the victim” because sometimes we are really a kind of “victims” of a certain situation which puts us in a checkmat. For example a student of mine of yoga came to the ashram for a Sunday program by my invitation and there it happened that one devotee who lives now in the ashram had invited an ISKCON friend of him, also initiated disciple of Suhotra Swami (I am not sure if it’s right to use swami, but I also don’t know how to refer) to lead a free yoga course regularly in the ashram. When my yoga student came to the program they too directly invited her to start visiting the free yoga courses given by that devotee in our ashram. The hour of the yoga class in the ashram is the same as the hour of my class in a yoga studio, and there the classes are of course paid. And my student asked me: “Yamuna, do you mind if I am going for yoga classes in the ashram, but thus I will be missing your classes in the studio?” This is what I am calling checkmat. Because from one side it is putting on the balance “my yoga class” and the ashram, from other side it’s also putting on a balance “free” versus “paid” and from third and most important for me side is that this ISKCON devotee is sometimes a very confused person who was even shouting to me on a public Sunday program that murties are just material objects and that all the world in which we live is a creation of the extraterrestrials and we are their experiment. He is a devotee from more than 10 years and often a pujari in the ISKCON temple, but somehow in his heart he is able to accommodate both Krishna and his love for him and his other strange ideas and opinions. In this way by the innocent question of my student “Yamuna, do you mind?” I am put to measure these 3 pros and cons and give her a clear answer. As her yoga teacher and somebody who was preaching to her, I am very concerned with her wellbeing and advancement and I don’t want to let her that this confused devotee is teaching her yoga in our ashram (which is already enough confused situation) because I don’t trust what ideas he will present to her and if the ideas of the “material” murties and the extraterrestrials will not be again bursting. At the same time I am completely aware that it’s good for her going to the ashram and that having a free yoga lesson is to be preferred than having a paid one.

Another example of a chessmat situation is that other disciple of mine came to the ashram for a first time and the lecturer who is a very serious businessman and a very intelligent devotee was saying in his lecture that at this period of his life he is very confused but hopes that one day it will not be so any more. So this student of mine after the lecture told me that maybe she will be coming sometimes to the ashram, but rarely, because she does not have so much time and she does not want to listen to a lecture from someone who is that confused even by his own opinion. Chessmat from the situation again.

So in both cases I had to give explanations to my students by finding difficult balancing reasons.

The same way Maharaj I am put in the chessmat situation here. If I respond to your questions defending an opposing of your opinion, in the eyes of the most of the devotees here I am inevitably an offender. As I said, I was playing “the victim card” because I am trying to explain this very nature of the situation. Also all the dispute here is about victimizing the gays. Somehow one of their main points is just the same as mine – that they are put in chessmat situation by the fact that they are born with such bodies and minds (even though often being a homosexual is not from the genes but a personal decision and choice). It is also that I am put in the chessmat situation that I am born in a woman body and because of this my guru does not want to give me Brahma gayatri. But the difference is that I am not “demanding” it from him, I am pleading it from him, while the gay activists are “demanding” that they should be equally blessed and married as the heterosexuals and having in all aspects “equal rights”. As persons and souls we all have equal rights, but still in our line and also in the society in general, there are distinctions made. When for example I take from the pujary the ghee-lamp after it had been offered to the deities I first offer it to the male devotees following also the formal order of first the most senior amongst the initiated then the rest of the initiated in the order of being initiated and then the non-initiated, and then come the ladies devotees in the same sequence. So we do follow some distinctions based on sex and can we say that this is wrong? No. And I accept it. We are equal and at the same time not equal. And if for the sake of this I cannot receive Brahma gyatri from my guru in this lifetime, I am ready to accept it and not even ask for it from other guru in our line even though he gave me his blessing for it, because I still believe that all the divine mercy is given to me even though if I cannot formally receive Brahmaa Gayatri because my guru had chosen in this respect to follow what Shridhara Maharaj followed as a practice and not what Shrila Prabhupada did and I acknowledge the freedom of my guru to chose which of them to follow in this regard. I accept that due to the material fact that I am born in a female body I cannot receive this mantra but still I have all the blessings, and my idea is that maybe the gay devotees can also accept the idea that if they are born in gay bodies they cannot receive the “formal blessing” for their gay relation from guru and also not spiritual marriage and agni hotra ceremony but still they have all the blessings from the guru as persons and for their spiritual growth. And I consider that being able to humbly accept this is also a part of the spiritual growth. To learn the art of begging for mercy rather than being an “activist” fighting for rights.

As some of you have mentioned here, I have quite of a fighting spirit, but regarding my spiritual direction, I prefer to take the path of begging for mercy rather that of fighting for rights. That is why I am humbly begging all of you to please try to understand also my way of seeing the Truth and I am not going to fight for being heard by you or agreed with.

I do agree to disagree.

And I am also begging you Maharaj and all of you for the privilege of being part of this devotional forum because I have so much to learn here.

Madan Gopal Das - March 23, 2009 10:11 am

The same way Maharaj I am put in the chessmat situation here. If I respond to your questions defending an opposing of your opinion, in the eyes of the most of the devotees here I am inevitably an offender.

As I was one of the main participants trying to challenge your thinking on this issue, I would like to respond briefly.

You have mentioned several times that you wanted to put the mirror up to me, so that I could see how you were being treated. I think a big component of what has gone on here is the cultural difference between us. You have spoken to me using words like "c'mon man", etc. which don't bother me in the slightest. In fact, I guess they are kind of cute! So, while I function in a certain way in presentation according to my conditioned nature as an English speaking American with a youthful debating spirit, I have no intention of offending you personally while having a spirited argument. Please forgive me for any range that the argument went beyond the subject and entered into your personal feelings. Again, I think this is mostly due to the culture gap between us.

**An important note here is that feelings get hurt when there is a cultural gap between two parties. If we try to become culturally competent, we can lessen the effect our ignorance has in our cross-cultural relations. My whole attempt here has been to help you learn a little bit about homosexual cultural identity so that you can function better in relations with them.

Regarding everyone here thinking of you as an offender because your may disagree with our GM, my experience is that in a debate about a philosophical issue we are all much more mature than you give us credit for. I can't think of anyone on this forum who will shy from an intense analysis of an issue, even when GM asks for dissenting opinion. And yet what you say is true. We also all recognize and honor GM as having the final say and his opinion is absolute to us. But just please don't think we are that simple minded as to write you off because you won't jump in line. Thus the many calls for you to agree to disagree after you had several times demonstrated that we could not bring you in line with our spirit of understanding on this issue.

Also all the dispute here is about victimizing the gays. Somehow one of their main points is just the same as mine – that they are put in chessmat situation by the fact that they are born with such bodies and minds (even though often being a homosexual is not from the genes but a personal decision and choice)

I have spent several hours over several days trying to enlighten you with new information and you will not embrace it. Keep it simple, agree to disagree and leave it at that. Please don't defend your misunderstanding and in that way bring it up again. You have been given a lot of information to study from a variety of sources; well-wishing uncles (GM, Babhru and Brahma), gentle and patient cousins, and colloquial speaking insensitive American cousins like myself. Take whatever works for you and choose a different battle. I think the arguments here have been used up. And with that, I depart! Off to new frontiers! My humble pranam to you Yamuna.

Syamasundara - March 23, 2009 10:50 am

You have spoken to me using words like "c'mon man", etc. which don't bother me in the slightest.

Technically, she used that expression in her tit for tat style, right after you used it with her.

As for Yamuna, have you ever seen an arati in India? As soon as the lamp is given out and passed around, there are no more men or women, but just animals (in a very good sense, though). They jump on that lamp as if their life depended on that little light of mercy. SP made a lot of adjustments in his centers because for the first time there were brahmacaris and brahmacarinis, and anyway men and women living in the same ashrams.

Also, I don't think it's fair to compare the generic gay population, with their gay parades and simulated (and not) sex on the streets (to express that they are just like the heterosexuals??) with individual Vaishnavas or aspiring Vaishnavas that are embarking on the path of bhakti with their mental and physical baggage, that include sexual orientation and desires.

Why the "blessing" of the union is so appalling to you, as if something atrocious were being sanctioned, is beyond me, especially after everyone's explanation, especially with Hrdayananda Mj's words being so clear and even explained by Babhru, and especially after you've just said that people decide to be homosexual, bisexual or transgender. When did you decide to be heterosexual? And what if you were forced to love and have intimacy only with women?

You don't need to answer, we already know your position.

Yamuna Dasi - March 23, 2009 11:15 am

You have spoken to me using words like "c'mon man", etc. which don't bother me in the slightest. In fact, I guess they are kind of cute! So, while I function in a certain way in presentation according to my conditioned nature as an English speaking American with a youthful debating spirit, I have no intention of offending you personally while having a spirited argument. Please forgive me for any range that the argument went beyond the subject and entered into your personal feelings. Again, I think this is mostly due to the culture gap between us.

Madan Gopal prabhu, I have not been using in my responses to you “c'mon man”, so please be precise when using quotation marks because in this situation they mean exact quote and it is not so at all. I said “C'mon Madan Gopal prabhu” in post # 25 as a “mirroring response” to your “c’mon Yamuna” and that makes quite a difference, especially considering that I was also mentioning that I am doing it deliberately to illustrate you that it’s not sounding nice talking in this manner. If you are excusing yourself with the cultural difference between us (it’s not the case, we have also slang in Bulgaria but I am not using it in my conversations with devotees especially when we are not that close as to be able to do it as a sign of mutual intimacy not as a way to being “condescending” as Nitaisudara prabhu accused me being, completely disregarding really condescending posts and ways of referring to me by you and by others) and your “youthful debating spirit”, would you permit me excuse myself with mirroring you in order to bring you back to the good tone and manners in a vaishnava argument? And if again I would be accused by Nitaisudara prabhu for being “condescending” for doing this, I would humbly beg you to consider the difference of who and when did it and for what purpose.

But if you find “condescending” the very fact that I might disagree on some topics even after reading your arguments and reasoning, I have nothing more to say.

Regarding everyone here thinking of you as an offender because your may disagree with our GM, my experience is that in a debate about a philosophical issue we are all much more mature than you give us credit for.

I wouldn’t be in this forum if I was “not giving credit” to the maturity of the vaishnavas here and their opinions as well, but this does not mean that on certain issues I might not disagree and try to explain why and this is exactly what I am doing now. The forum is named “Tattva-viveka” and we are exactly deliberating on the truth and the different ways we see it and why, considering also the many factors that might have influenced these differences, as you have mentioned even "cultural difference" being one of them.

I have spent several hours over several days trying to enlighten you with new information and you will not embrace it.

I have been using recent scientific information when claiming that scientists nowadays have found cases of homosexuals being homosexuals when completely missing that in their genes. This proves that homosexuality is not always a question of genetic predestination but can be also a personal choice. Also as already mentioned by me in this thread, we are not victims of our genes being the way they are since this is a result of personal choices and also karma, and the responsibility for both our karma or our personal choices is ours.

Madan Gopal Das - March 23, 2009 11:59 am

Technically, she used that expression in her tit for tat style, right after you used it with her.

Oh I know that. I just didn't consider it offensive coming back from her as I didn't think it would be that strikingly offensive when I spoke that way towards her. It was just a little manifestation of my growing impatience. Again, apologies are out there. Internet/email communication lends itself to impersonalism and I just like to jazz it up, add some color so that we can get to know each others personalities in a forum like this. Unfortunately I guess it can also lead to misunderstanding and miscommunication. No substitute for real-world friendship! Thanks for posting Shyam!

Yamuna Dasi - March 23, 2009 1:35 pm

As for Yamuna, have you ever seen an arati in India? As soon as the lamp is given out and passed around, there are no more men or women, but just animals (in a very good sense, though). They jump on that lamp as if their life depended on that little light of mercy. SP made a lot of adjustments in his centers because for the first time there were brahmacaris and brahmacarinis, and anyway men and women living in the same ashrams.

Also, I don't think it's fair to compare the generic gay population, with their gay parades and simulated (and not) sex on the streets (to express that they are just like the heterosexuals??) with individual Vaishnavas or aspiring Vaishnavas that are embarking on the path of bhakti with their mental and physical baggage, that include sexual orientation and desires.

 

Why the "blessing" of the union is so appalling to you, as if something atrocious were being sanctioned, is beyond me, especially after everyone's explanation, especially with Hrdayananda Mj's words being so clear and even explained by Babhru, and especially after you've just said that people decide to be homosexual, bisexual or transgender. When did you decide to be heterosexual? And what if you were forced to love and have intimacy only with women?

You don't need to answer, we already know your position.

Syamasundara prabhu, I would like to give an answer, because you don't know so well my position as you think. And also please be so kind when putting questions (as you did in this post of yours) to allow and permit also space for an answer and not just tell me "You don't need to answer, we already know your position". If you wish to have a dialogue and not a monologue, give it a chance by supposing that maybe you don't know at least something about the opinion of the other side.

Regarding the arati in India I also find it sweet the eagerness in which people can strive for mercy forgetting even any order or proper behavior. I was only giving an example with the order we follow in regarding the offering of ghee-lamp only to illustrate the point that we might be equal as souls but still we are not equal in "just any and every aspect" - there are seniors and juniors, parents and kids, sexual differences and many other differences as well. My Gurudeva used to say "don't enter in the opposite sex bathroom just in order to prove that you are not this body any more". That was my point.

The blessing of a gay union is not "so appalling" to me, please don't exaggerate. For me it's just wrong. I had explained that a personal "blessing" is one thing since it's like a well-wishing, while a blessing from a guru implies also his approval for what he is blessing and also God's approval and the approval of the scriptures as well since guru is a representative of God and embodiment of shatra. As Krishna says in Gita 3.21:

"Whatever a great man does, the world follows. Whatever standards he sets, the world pursues."

If a guru is blessing not the persons and the souls of the gays but the very "gay relation" and in the same and equal manner as a heterosexual union is blessed, then how would the people make the difference between homosexual union and heterosexual one? Wouldn't they consider them also "equal" then in just any and every aspect if the guru blesses them also equally? What could give then to people the key and the clue to make such a distinguishing if everything is made "just equal"? Because the gay activists want exactly this – their relations being recognized just as completely equal to heterosexual relations and also in just any and every aspect.

Krishna was definitely distinguishing between a heterosexual union and a homosexual one (and all our acharias till now as well). Even when he allowed Arjuna personal sexual intimacy with himself as described in Padma Purana 5.74.60, Arjuna had to be transformed and take a female form, could not remain in his usual and inherent male form. Even though Krishna is svayam Bhagavan and thus he is completely free to cross any moral and ethical standard for the sake of lila, still even he did not cross this one! He crossed all the social and religious norms regarding male-female relation by his love affairs with Radhika and the gopies, but even he did not cross them in regarding to having a gay relation with his best friend Arjuna. Arjuna had to be transformed by the mercy of Radhika in one having a female body in order Krishna to allow himself a sexual intimacy with him. Was it by chance or was it because Krishna wants to establish that heterosexual and homosexual relation are not "just equal" even for the sake of the lila of svayam Bhagavan and thus set also an example and not leave any space for misinterpretation and following? He beard the risk of misinterpretation and following for heterosexual relation but avoided that risk for a homosexual one. Does that make any difference or again we shall consider it "just the same" or "completely equal" or we shall follow Krishna's example of distinguishing?

Also in Gita 3.9 Krishna sais:

"Other than action performed for the purpose of sacrifice, all action in this world is binding. Act in sacrifice for the satisfaction of God, O son of Kunti, without being attached to enjoying the results."

But in a gay relation there is only option for enjoying, no option for sacrifice, while in a heterosexual marriage there is so much sacrifice in giving birth to kids and maintaining and raising them and even in tolerating each other's imperfections and getting humble for the sake of self sacrifice in the name of raising and properly educating the kids in the best possible way. Practically the parents make sacrifices for their kids till the end of their lives and thus through these innumerous sacrifices of theirs they advance. Even Shrila Prabhupada left his family only after he had raised his kids and was tolerating till then all the peculiarities of his wife even when going against his deepest ideals. Still he endured and thus fulfilled all his parental duties before taking sannyas and leaving.

Also in Gita 3.14 Krishan says: "sacrifice is born of prescribed duties and ritual", but in the gay relation there is no "prescribed duties and ritual" and thus no sacrifice. In this way if we bless the "gay relation" we shall be blessing the very absence of prescribed duties and sacrifice. Even more, by establishing the new ritual of "giving blessing to a gay relation" we are actually trying to supply a ritual for a gay relation, which is otherwise completely missing in the Vedic culture and in shastra. Even if we create a new ritual "blessing of a gay relation" we shall still not be able to supply the corresponding "prescribed duties" (since there are no prescribed duties for a gay relation in shastra) and Krihsna mentions in that verse that there are two ingredients necessary for a sacrifice to be born – "prescribed duties and ritual", not just one. In a gay relation they are just missing and even if we supply one by creating it, still the other one will be missing and no sacrifice will be born.

"Ritual and prescribed duties originate from sacred literature (Vedas), and the sacred literature arises from the imperishable Absolute... one who in human life does not acknowledge this cycle lives irresponsibly for sense pleasure and thus in vain."

BG 3.15-16

Madan Gopal Das - March 23, 2009 1:40 pm

Madan Gopal prabhu, I have not been using in my responses to you “c'mon man”, so please be precise when using quotation marks because in this situation they mean exact quote and it is not so at all.

Sorry, I merged the two separate instances you tried to "mirror" my style in attempt to get me to feel what you were feeling. I was referring to these from your post #93:

Yeah, man, I got it. (if I have to answer in your manner and style, just hoping that you might be acquainted with the principle of the mirror and what is it used for and when)

And don't worry, man, it's pretty obvious even to me that you

And again I will say - it doesn't bother me. I don't mind at all if you show personality or if your feelings come through in your text. I would prefer that a person I am debating with show some passion for her stance. But this is not about style, or emotion. Realizing that you were put off by mine, I tried to keep it about the issue.

**Adding a "prabhu" into the mix doesn't do much for me. It doesn't make me hear your argument any better or consider that the discussion has somehow become more dignified. I take no offense and I ask you to forgive my unintended offenses in the spirit of dialog.

Here is a thread in which we discussed homosexuality issues previously. I only refer you to it in appealing again to your sensibilities; trying to give you a little experience of being "the other". No need to comment on that thread or open it back up.

Babhru Das - March 23, 2009 2:26 pm

But in a gay relation there is only option for enjoying, no option for sacrifice, while in a heterosexual marriage there is so much sacrifice in giving birth to kids and maintaining and raising them and even in tolerating each other's imperfections and getting humble for the sake of self sacrifice in the name of raising and properly educating the kids in the best possible way. Practically the parents make sacrifices for their kids till the end of their lives and thus through these innumerous sacrifices of theirs they advance.

I beg your pardon? At least in the US, gay couples do have children, raise them with love, and sacrifice for them. It has become common enough in this country that it has become part of the popular culture. and gay couples live together for decades, sacrificing for each other, tolerating not only the problems children bring to their lives, but each other's frailties. And nowadays, they may also add elements of sadhana under the direction of magnanimous devotees, and gradually become free of the contamination of attachment to sense gratification of all kinds. Cannot you imagine that a gay couple, chanting, preaching, donating, serving in many ways, may become as free of sex desire as a straight couple, live together as the closest of friends, and continue their lives of progressive surrender and service? If you can't, then, of course, it would not be possible for you to help them become progressively surrendered. If we can't, then the only mercy available to them is what so many fundamentalist Christians (and devotees, for that matter) give: "You faggots can all burn in Hell!" I know which one makes more sense to me. After all, for about 40 years, I have been a beneficiary of the mercy of parama karuna Nitai-Gaurachandra. And it's their mercy that brought me to this company. When I met with Swami in July of 1999, after not having seen him for over 25 years, I immediately knew where my future lay.

I hope you won't mistake the stern tone of this note for aggression. This is not an attack, and this is not about you. As you point out in your post, sacrifice goes beyond rituals. It's action, as we see in Bhagavad-gita. How could someone who is as bright as you are, and who has been as fortunate as you have in being given the shelter of such a magnanimous, soft-hearted devotee as Narayana Maharaja, possibly need an old goof like me to point this out?

Yamuna Dasi - March 23, 2009 2:31 pm

Sorry, I merged the two separate instances you tried to "mirror" my style in attempt to get me to feel what you were feeling. I was referring to these from your post #93:

 

And again I will say - it doesn't bother me. I don't mind at all if you show personality or if your feelings come through in your text. I would prefer that a person I am debating with show some passion for her stance. But this is not about style, or emotion. Realizing that you were put off by mine, I tried to keep it about the issue.

I was not showing personality and my feelings were not coming through, I was only mirroring, sorry if you would prefer that they would. It was twice since once obviously it didn't work.

And a quote is a quote, if you "quote" - be precise, don't "merge" because the expression you got through your "merging" definitely conveys other feeling and attitude, not mine.

**Adding a "prabhu" into the mix doesn't do much for me. It doesn't make me hear your argument any better or consider that the discussion has somehow become more dignified. I take no offense and I ask you to forgive my unintended offenses in the spirit of dialog.

It might not mean anything for you how I am addressing you but it matters for me and for the others as well and for the tone and style of the whole posting. So please don't put more dark shadows on my sadacara by merging expressions in a tendentious way. If you quote, quote correctly, don't make a tendentious mix and present it as my words and as a precise quote. It's not fair.

Nitaisundara Das - March 23, 2009 2:44 pm

For the sake of fairness I might point out that you misquoted me. I did not say you were offensive to Guru Maharaja, I said disrespectful, and there is a difference in my head. Now I am not totally positive that I did not say offensive, but I do not plan on searching back through the thread, you can do that if you would like.

All in all, "agree to disagree" usually means stopping the presentation of arguments and explanations, and I think that would be good at this point. Clearly no progress is being made here.

Syamasundara - March 23, 2009 2:48 pm

Syamasundara prabhu, I would like to give an answer, because you don't know so well my position as you think. And also please be so kind when putting questions (as you did in this post of yours) to allow and permit also space for an answer and not just tell me "You don't need to answer, we already know your position". If you wish to have a dialogue and not a monologue, give it a chance by supposing that maybe you don't know at least something about the opinion of the other side.

 

Regarding the arati in India I also find it sweet the eagerness in which people can strive for mercy forgetting even any order or proper behavior. I was only giving an example with the order we follow in regarding the offering of ghee-lamp only to illustrate the point that we might be equal as souls but still we are not equal in "just any and every aspect" - there are seniors and juniors, parents and kids, sexual differences and many other differences as well. My Gurudeva used to say "don't enter in the opposite sex bathroom just in order to prove that you are not this body any more". That was my point.

 

The blessing of a gay union is not "so appalling" to me, please don't exaggerate. For me it's just wrong. I had explained that a personal "blessing" is one thing since it's like a well-wishing, while a blessing from a guru implies also his approval for what he is blessing and also God's approval and the approval of the scriptures as well since guru is a representative of God and embodiment of shatra. As Krishna says in Gita 3.21:

 

"Whatever a great man does, the world follows. Whatever standards he sets, the word pursues."

 

If a guru is blessing not the persons and the souls of the gays but the very "gay relation" and in the same and equal manner as a heterosexual union is blessed, then how would the people make the difference between homosexual union and heterosexual one? Wouldn't they consider them also "equal" then in just any and every aspect if the guru blesses them also equally? What could give then to people the key and the clue to make such a distinguishing if everything is made "just equal"? Because the gay activists want exactly this – their relations being recognized just as completely equal to heterosexual relations and also in just any and every aspect.

 

Krishna was definitely distinguishing between a heterosexual union and a homosexual one (and all our acharias till now as well). Even when he allowed Arjuna personal sexual intimacy with himself as described in Padma Purana 5.74.60, Arjuna had to be transformed and take a female form, could not remain in his usual and inherent male form. Even though Krishna is svayam Bhagavan and thus he is completely free to cross any moral and ethical standard for the sake of lila, still even he did not cross this one! He crossed all the social and religious norms regarding male-female relation by his love affairs with Radhika and the gopies, but even he did not cross them in regarding to having a gay relation with his best friend Arjuna. Arjuna had to be transformed by the mercy of Radhika in one having a female body in order Krishna to allow himself a sexual intimacy with him. Was it by chance or was it because Krishna wants to establish that heterosexual and homosexual relation are not "just equal" even for the sake of the lila of svayam Bhagavan and thus set also an example and not leave any space for misinterpretation and following? He beard the risk of misinterpretation and following for heterosexual relation but avoided that risk for a homosexual one. Does that make any difference or again we shall consider it "just the same" or "completely equal" or we shall follow Krishna's example of distinguishing?

 

Also in Gita 3.9 Krishna sais:

"Other than action performed for the purpose of sacrifice, all action in this world is binding. Act in sacrifice for the satisfaction of God, O son of Kunti, without being attached to enjoying the results."

 

But in a gay relation there is only option for enjoying, no option for sacrifice, while in a heterosexual marriage there is so much sacrifice in giving birth to kids and maintaining and raising them and even in tolerating each other's imperfections and getting humble for the sake of self sacrifice in the name of raising and properly educating the kids in the best possible way. Practically the parents make sacrifices for their kids till the end of their lives and thus through these innumerous sacrifices of theirs they advance. Even Shrila Prabhupada left his family only after he had raised his kids and was tolerating till then all the peculiarities of his wife even when going against his deepest ideals. Still he endured and thus fulfilled all his parental duties before taking sannyas and leaving.

 

Also in Gita 3.14 Krishan says: "sacrifice is born of prescribed duties and ritual", but in the gay relation there is no "prescribed duties and ritual" and thus no sacrifice. In this way if we bless the "gay relation" we shall be blessing the very absence of prescribed duties and sacrifice. Even more, by establishing the new ritual of "giving blessing to a gay relation" we are actually trying to supply a ritual for a gay relation, which is otherwise completely missing in the Vedic culture and in shastra. Even if we create a new ritual "blessing of a gay relation" we shall still not be able to supply the corresponding "prescribed duties" (since there are no prescribed duties for a gay relation in shastra) and Krihsna mentions in that verse that there are two ingredients necessary for a sacrifice to be born – "prescribed duties and ritual", not just one. In a gay relation they are just missing and even if we supply one by creating it, still the other one will be missing and no sacrifice will be born.

 

"Ritual and prescribed duties originate from sacred literature (Vedas), and the sacred literature arises from the imperishable Absolute... one who in human life does not acknowledge this cycle lives irresponsibly for sense pleasure and thus in vain."

BG 3.15-16

Like I said, your position is well known by now. What are your prescribed duties by the way? Are you married? Divorced? Unmarried mother? What man is Vedically taking care of you and protecting you from your own lust and the lust of all other men around? Are you doing everything right and according to scripture? And is your sadhana and faith affected by that or lack thereof? How can you make such blanket statements about gay and/or straight couples?

We are talking of a sadhu blessing and encouraging the spiritual progress of two sadhakas, not condoning lust and sex life per se. The only difference you are talking about is really a matter of orifices, that are not even that far apart, or big enough, or visible enough to deserve so many words. Rather than orifices, we should use our words to fill our hearts in this forum.

Guru-nistha Das - March 23, 2009 4:24 pm

Dear Yamuna,

obviously I have been one of the most arrogant opponents of yours and admittedly have resorted to being condescending out of irritation.

I apologize for that and will not do it in the future.

I still don't accept the stance you seem to be putting forth that you have been totally logical and reasonable all along whereas we have resorted to sentimentality and being condescending, but I don't wish to talk about the subject anymore because it's not leading anywhere. I think we should just drop the whole case and move forward.

Madan Gopal Das - March 23, 2009 7:16 pm

Here is a thread in which we discussed homosexuality issues previously. No need to comment on that thread or open it back up.

:Yawn:

Here is another Yamuna. Warning don't go here seeking dharma! This is mostly devoid of etiquette; but full of personalism and fun! - mostly entertainment and self-expression going on in this one. Still cracks me up...

Swami - March 23, 2009 8:10 pm

It is very easy for heterosexual people to decide the truth about homosexuality but often difficult for them to hear the truth about it from those who are homosexual. Thank you Syamasndara for asking when Yamuna decided to be straight (if she is) instead of gay. Some times you have a way of saying things concisely.

As for pervious acaryas, we do not know the opinion of any previous acarya other than Srila Prabhupada on this subject. All of them have been silent, as has the scripture. Perhaps Yamuna knows the opinion of her Nama guru, my gurubhai the late Sripad Narayana Maharaja, but I am not convinced of that.

I knew him very well and I have little doubt that despite the possibility of his previously holding a different opinion, were he in this conversation, he would side with me. Has he said anything about homosexuality? If so, I would be prepared to examine those statements in light of present times and information and seek to demonstrate logically that it would be reasonable to conclude that the would have changed his position, as I have done with Srila Prabhupada. If for example he held an opposing opinion that was based on facts that have been proven to be falsehoods, and given the fact that there are no scriptural statements condemning homosexuality, what is left for his argument to be based on? Being a reasonable person and one guided by scripture I suspect that he would follow reasonable arguments, especially if they could be supported by scripture, and leave aside unreasonable ones that are unsupported.

This brings us to the possibility that homosexuality, which is not condemned in scripture, is in fact condoned or accepted as a fact of nature. Perhaps Amara dasa of GALVA has found such support.

As for present acaryas, I know of two, both senior in age to me and both from India, BV Narayana Maharaja and BV Tirtha Maharaja, who have encouraged and blessed gay couples to live live together and pursue Krsna consciousness under their guidance.

As for the idea that gay couples can have sex without children and that therefore they are different from straight couples with regard to spiritual practices, according to Bhaktisiddhanta this is not true. He allowed straight couples to marry and have sex within marriage even when it would not lead to procreation.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 23, 2009 10:37 pm

Like I said, your position is well known by now. What are your prescribed duties by the way? Are you married? Divorced? Unmarried mother? What man is Vedically taking care of you and protecting you from your own lust and the lust of all other men around? Are you doing everything right and according to scripture? And is your sadhana and faith affected by that or lack thereof? How can you make such blanket statements about gay and/or straight couples?

We are talking of a sadhu blessing and encouraging the spiritual progress of two sadhakas, not condoning lust and sex life per se. The only difference you are talking about is really a matter of orifices, that are not even that far apart, or big enough, or visible enough to deserve so many words. Rather than orifices, we should use our words to fill our hearts in this forum.

I really appreciate your post. When I consider yamuna's stand one thing comes to my mind. She basically wants the person with a particular conditioning to take responsibility for the fact that even though they didn't choose to be homosexual in this life, they have some karma which made them this way. This karma is theirs so they should be guilty of that. But does that really help? For example I must have committed murder and must have born as bisexual, homosexual etc, so yes I must be guilty that I have not surrendered to Krsna and lived for sense gratification. But this is just a universal principle of embarrassment which holds true for all living entities with anadi karma. Why should only the person with previous karma manifesting as a specific conditioning in the present times be targeted specifically. This is unfair. My very close cousin was born deaf, so should I just tell him that you were very sinful in the previous life so you are useless and feel guilty about it. Does that help when he is sincerely wanting to make progress materially and spiritually in life ? I can be born deaf the next life, would I want that to happen to me when I sincerely want to progress.

As syama pointed out, this topic is not about homosexuals who are just wanting to enjoy sex life with no idea for spiritual life. It is about the people who want to progress from where they are in a responsible manner. Even in the former case boundless heterosexual activity is no better than homosexual activity. Using the relationship between krsna and the gopis to justify heterosexual activity as better than homosexual activity is really not a great idea.

And as Audarya lila has made clear only heterosexual activity which is done only to have a child can be said to better than anything else but I sincerely doubt many people who practice this principle(though it is not entirely impossible). But then it is possible that there are homosexuals who marry just for emotional and spiritual companionship and don't have sexual intercourse and they should be classified in this exceptional category of people too. That is apart from sanyasis like GM.

Another thing is that many devotees like DS,BVS, Sankarshan das Adhikari Mahanidhi Swami etc have a strong stand against homosexuality and among them some have good spiritual standing. So it takes a generational attitude shift like what happened with women rights in India to see the change in mentality come through. For example even some noted women in ISKCON have tried there best to accept that women are less intelligent than men and weak spiritually in order to defer to SP. One generation later this may not be the case.

Swami - March 24, 2009 2:03 am

We should also consider the bhakti sastras. What does Bahktirasamrta-sindhu say about human sexuality or about regulating it? Nothing. What about Bhakti-sandarbha? Nothing. Let us go back in time to Narada's Bhakti-sutras. Nothing.

What about the Bhagavatm? Here we find only that attachment to sex is problematic. The section from which SP drew his regulatiions can be interpreted in any number of ways "dyutam panam striyah suna." Dyutam means gambling; panam means drinking; suna means salughter house. srtiyah means women. The word he translated as "illicit sex" is "striyah." I have seen others render it "prostitution" with regard to this particular verse. At any rate, the Bhagavata goes on to say that those on the path of dharma (dharma-silah) should be careful to avoid these things. So whatever stiryah means here it pertains to dharma more than bhakti and how to think about these for things in relation to bhakti is a detail subject to adjustment by an acarya.

Apparently Prabhupada himself adjusted the meaning of stiryah from that of his guru. I have changed it once again with regard to my students in condsideration of time and circumstance. That aside, as time goes on and Kali yuga gets worse as it is aid to do, one will no doubt have to rely more on the strength of bhakti than the moral fiber of those desiring to embrace it when preaching and initiating disciples.*

By the way, I think at one time it was illegal for couples in China to have more than one child. How would you preach there, that bhakti is very generous and powerful because rather than expecting people to be celibate to participate in it people could mary and have one night of sexual intercourse? At lease my guru had a brian for how to preach—he knew how and when to adjust principles dynamically. And I do not appreciate characterizations of him that lead one to think otherwise, especially when they come from neophyte devotees.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 24, 2009 2:13 am

By the way, I think at one time it was illegal for couples in China to have more than one child. How would you preach there, that bhakti is very generous and powerful because rather than expecting people to be celibate to participate in it people could mary and have one night of sexual intercourse? At lease my guru had a brian for how to preach—he knew how and when to adjust principles dynamically. And I do not appreciate characterizations of him that lead one to think otherwise, especially when they come from neophyte devotees.

I am sorry if I said anything wrong in my last post above and upset you . I don't know whether your comments were related to something which I said.

Swami - March 24, 2009 2:56 am

I am sorry if I said anything wrong in my last post above and upset you . I don't know whether your comments were related to something which I said.

No, nothing to do with anything you have said.

Bhrigu - March 24, 2009 10:49 am

I was away for a few days and missed most of the "action" of this thread. Many nice postings here. Thank you Guru Maharaj for taking such a bold and clear stand on this issue! This is a great example of the dynamic orthodoxy of the last Sanga.

Devyah-pati Das SERBIA - March 24, 2009 1:03 pm

For the advancement in bhakti the most important thing is to follow

instructions of ones guru(s).

Good example is this hunter who had cruel sistem of killing animals,

shooting them and then leaving them to slowly suffer until their death.

He started to follow instructions of his guru and made extraordinary

change in his spiritual status, which as the side effect had his total

moral improvement, and he became so compassionate that he did

not want to kill even an ant.

There was a devotee in ISKCON who had important role in its

administration and generaly had high status. Later, he was proven

to be a homosexual and even to be spending large amounts of

devotees money on his personal needs. Still, this devotee had

love for Srila Prabhupad! Yes! He used to carry SP when he was

sick and do many nice services to the lotus feet of SP.

We must always be aware of the potency of the respectful and

loving thinking, feeling, willing and acting towards ones guru

(guru bhakti). Even some ordinary materialistic person who by

good luck have oppened the door to SP when he was walking,

has enormous spiritual benefit, because in Krsnas eyes he did

service to his loving devotee, so what to speak about devotee

who is doing conscious service to guru, regardless of the position

in which the devotee is presently in.

Are we not in the process of bhakti because we are unclean?

What are we? Perfect because we are not homosexuals?

Instead of wasting ones energy and valuable time on trying to prove

that homosexuality is something to be condemned, it would be much

wiser to become honest and concerned with ones own heart and deal

with ones anarthas first.

Catch the rope your guru gave you, save yourself first, become clean,

and then look around to see if there is someone whome you can help...

Swami - March 24, 2009 2:11 pm

More from the Bhagavatam

The Bhagavatam also says that a householder should have sex only when the guru orders grhasthasyartu-gaminah, and in the same section it says that brahmacaris should not eat unless ordered by the guru, nor should they put oil on their heads or massage themselves with their hands or receive one from others’ hands and they should dress regularly with a belt of straw and with deerskin garments. Vanaprasthas are to live in the forest and dress in tree bark, etc. (SM 7.12)

Later in SB11.5 it is said that sex should be performed in accordance with the prescriptions for garbhodana samskara, evam vyavayah prajaya na ratya. In the same verse the proper means to engage in drinking wine and partaking in animal sacrifice is described. Note that Mahaprabhu has forbidden animal sacrifice altogether in this age and that Prabhupada did not insist that his disciples perform the garbhadhana samskara, although he did make up his own idea of a ritual consisting of chanting 50 rounds in the name of this samksara that he suggested his householders observe before sex. However, this was quickly abandoned. Indeed Prabhupada even abandoned presiding over weddings because of the way marriages were going. The point being that as with many other injunctions the acarya made adjustments.

Otherwise the section in which this verse appears is discussing those who abuse the Vedas by indulgence in sense enjoyment in their name, the purport being that while there is allowance for sense indulgence it should be indulged in with a view to make spiritual progress by gradually overcoming the need for it.

Then in SB 11.14.83 in the chapter about varnasrama dharma is it said that while other orders should remain celibate the householder should approach his wife for sex at the proper time, grhasthasyapy rtau gantuh. This appears to be another reference to sex for procreation.

But in speaking of dharma Manu says it well when he says

“It may be considered that meat-eating, intoxication and sex indulgence are natural propensities of the conditioned souls, and therefore such persons should not be condemned for these activities. But unless one gives up such sinful activities, there is no possibility of achieving the actual perfection of life."

And from Prabhupada himself we have

“Illicit sex is sex outside of marriage.” (Science of Self-Realization, Chapter 2)

“Students are required to follow strictly the regulative principles of Vedic life: 1) No illicit sex-life (i.e. outside of marriage)” (From a letter to a life member; April 5, 1972)

Babhru Das - March 24, 2009 2:43 pm

Although Srila Prabhupada may not have continued instructing devotees to chant 50 rounds before conceiving a child, I know that many continued to do so, at least for years afterward. My sense is that he decided at a certain point to refrain from any involvement in devotees' married life. Here's some more:

There are, of course, instances where he included restriction against sex not meant for procreation, but it seems his general mood was more generous. His main thrust was that sense gratification be subject to some restriction and that devotees accept responsibility for it. For example, he said on a couple of occasions that if someone wants to marry, that means he has to find a way to make a living.

I also would be happier with the quotations from the small books if I could more easily trace out the lectures from which the various chapters were edited. But it does seem Srila Prabhupada was more generous than some would like to portray.

Swami - March 24, 2009 3:02 pm

Nice quotes Babhru. Thank you!

Madan Gopal Das - March 24, 2009 5:10 pm

according to Bhaktisiddhanta this is not true. He allowed straight couples to marry and have sex within marriage even when it would not lead to procreation.

Guru Maharaj, could you elaborate on this? Is there some anecdotal information you could share with us?

It is difficult for me to shift to the idea of Prabhupada's generosity on this subject; sex other than for procreation. Not that I think that he was not adaptable... I know of a few incidents where he seemed to bend, and I appreciate the quotes from Babhru, but my general sense continues to be that these are exceptions. I'm just saying that though the need is there to help devotees embrace some flexibility regarding this issue, the obstacle is Prabhupada faith - and I think the majority of his followers feel that he was rigid, rather than generous on this issue.

I'll provide some quotes for both sides as soon as I get a chance.

Madan Gopal Das - March 24, 2009 5:37 pm

Here are some quotes

Although he has a wife, a householder should not use his senses for sex life unnecessarily. There are restrictions for the householders even in sex life, which should only be engaged in for the propagation of children. If he does not require children, he should not enjoy sex life with his wife.

 

According to the Vedic scriptures the contraceptive method should be restraint in sex life. It is not that one should indulge in unrestricted sex life and avoid children by using some method to check pregnancy.

 

For the intelligent men, controlling the senses is the most essential qualification. It is the basis of morality. Sex indulgence even with a legitimate wife must also be controlled, and thereby family control will automatically follow.

 

In other words, sex life with one’s wife is equal to prostitution if the regulations are not properly followed.

 

The grhastha is allowed to indulge in sex life during the period favorable for procreation and in accordance with the spiritual master's order. If the spiritual master's orders allow a grhastha to engage in sex life at a particular time, then the grhastha may do so; otherwise, if the spiritual master orders against it, the grhastha should abstain. The grhastha must obtain permission from the spiritual master to observe the ritualistic ceremony of garbhadhana-samskara. Then he may approach his wife to beget children, otherwise not. A brahmana generally remains a brahmacari throughout his entire life, but although some brahmanas become grhasthas and indulge in sex life, they do so under the complete control of the spiritual master.

A devotee should observe the vow of celibacy. Celibacy does not necessitate that one be absolutely free from sex life; satisfaction with one’s wife is permitted also under the vow of celibacy. The best policy is to avoid sex life altogether.

 

One should remain satisfied with one woman, being duly married. One can satisfy one’s lusty desires with his wife without creating disturbances in society and being punished for doing so.

 

One should be satisfied with his married wife, for even a slight deviation will create havoc. A Kåñëa conscious gåhastha should always remember this. He should always be satisfied with one wife and be peaceful simply by chanting the Hare Kåñëa mantra.

 

Guest (2): Let me try to delineate that a little more precisely. I have

known people who have said, “Well, yes, you know I don’t like birth, and I

don’t like death, and I don’t like old age. But I have a tremendous driving

need, and I don’t know how to deal with it. You see, I must have sex. I must

have sex. And I’m tormented. I’m stuck in the trap. I’m ensnared.” You see?

That is the individual I’m... Now if you can already reach the person

through jnana and convince him, and he can act on the decision of his will,

then he’s obviously already in a high state. But what do you do with the

sort of person who is split, who is torn by his instinctual physical needs

and they drive him? You see? And yet he wants to do something. How can you

deal with such a person without forcing him to contain himself in such a way

that he will resent it? Or must he be allowed to expend his energy until he

is convinced by experience?

 

Prabhupada: No. Just like amongst our students there are many married

couples also, and there are brahmacaris also. That I barred from this? He is

not barred. Nobody is barred. Simply following some regulation. That will

gradually train him. And the main principle is that as you go on hearing

about this transcendental message, then you gradually become attached to

these transcendental things. And the more you become attached to these

transcendental things, the more you forget these material things.

 

Guest (2): So it’s an evolutionary process, and one need not force.

 

Prabhupada: No. There is no question of force. There is no question of

force. We don’t force. There is no question of force. Force cannot act. If I

force you, then it will not act. You have to evolve yourself, from this

platform to this platform. That is possible for everyone.

 

Guest (2): So if someone feels he has an overwhelming need, he shouldn’t try

to hold back to the point at which he suffers pain, but he should also chant

or do something that will elevate him. And gradually he will...

 

Prabhupada: Yes, yes, yes. First thing is... Suppose a man is too much

sexually addicted. If he hears that “This is impediment to my spiritual

advancement,” if he hears repeatedly, then he thinks of his weakness, that

“This should not have been done, but I am so weak.” So with this knowledge

he can advance. You see. At least, he must know that “This is not good for

my spiritual advancement.” Then it will be... Then Krsna, or God, will help

him. There is an English proverb, “One who helps himself, God helps.” Yes.

God’s help will come. So there is no question of despair. Anyone can begin,

and the simple beginning is chanting Hare Krsna. So all our students, they

were also addicted to such things, but by following this process they are

also now free. So it is not impossible. There is no such program which is

impossible to be performed. No. Practically this program is the simplest and

the easiest process, and it can be adopted by anyone in any condition of

life. That is the beauty of this process.

Just had to include this, not in any particular section. Oh the glory of the bhaktivedanta's :

If one is intelligent, he can think of his wife’s body as nothing but a lump of matter that will ultimately be transformed into small insects, stool or ashes.

Swami - March 24, 2009 8:50 pm

Guru Maharaj, could you elaborate on this? Is there some anecdotal information you could share with us?

Well at the time of initiation neither BVT nor BSST asked their disciples to vow to refrain from sex other than for procreation. But of course it was understood that sex out of wedlock was illicit. As per Rupa Goswami, faith is all one needs to be eligible to tread the path of bhkait, which begins with gurvasraya, taking shelter of the guru.

On a somewhat different note I know of an instance in which one sannyasi disciple of BSST was greatly troubled by lust and BSST arranged for a prostitute to satisfy him. I am not sure if the sannyasi went through with it or this snapped him out of it! How's that for thinking out of the box! Such thinking is possible for one who is deeply absorbed in Krsna consciousness.

Instead of looking at bhakti through the lens of morality, we should look at morality through the lens of bhakti. It is possible for one to have more bhakti and less morality than one who has more morality and less bhakti. Of the two the former is superior.

Madan Gopal Das - March 24, 2009 9:33 pm

I am not sure if the sannyasi went through with it or this snapped him out of it!

Wow. I would think having one's guru arrange for your sense gratification would turn anyone off to their material pursuits. But my oh my, what compassionate teachers we serve.

Sure puts a new twist on the "eat meat if you have to, but just preach" idea!

Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 24, 2009 10:21 pm

More from the Bhagavatam

 

 

But in speaking of dharma Manu says it well when he says

 

“It may be considered that meat-eating, intoxication and sex indulgence are natural propensities of the conditioned souls, and therefore such persons should not be condemned for these activities. But unless one gives up such sinful activities, there is no possibility of achieving the actual perfection of life."

Manu says,

"There is no sin in eating meat, in (drinking) spirituous liquor, and in carnal intercourse, for that is the natural way of created beings, but abstention brings great rewards."

I think the other translation of Manu's words on dharma is even more liberal and that had lead Archana Siddhi to ask a question on the Swami Call. Basically, she was surprised at the fact that BSST used this translation. Here these "sinful" activities are not even called sinful. On the other hand, SP used the word sinful as referring to these four activities exclusively repeatedly in his videos, interviews and translations. That was how he measured sin and hence the translation above which BSST used surprised Archana siddhi. Obviously, it is hard to harmonize the reaction for each of these activities given in S.B like drinking molten iron etc with the fact that Manu states that they are not inherently sinful. Some sanskrit scholars feel that the word sin( like Adam's original sin) is not a good translation for sanskrit word papam. Papam is more like an activity which degrades the soul and impedes her spiritual progress.

Many spiritual people like Aquinas or Jesus are known to have committed some of these "sins" in their life.

Maybe as SP was brought up in a house where these activities were never practiced, he took a tougher stand than BSST. BSST on the other hand would have known by first hand experience that BVT was able to produce spiritual literatures like Krsna Samhita while he was still consuming fish and meat. This is obviously disconcerting to some devotees and hence they say Krsna Samhita is just a karmi book written when BVT was acting like a karmi.

I guess SP strongly tied devotion to these four principles, seeing the lack of them in the west. But now his society and disciples measure all spiritual people by the extent to which they fall in line with these principles. That I find not that a great idea.

Gopala Dasa - March 25, 2009 7:41 am

I guess SP strongly tied devotion to these four principles, seeing the lack of them in the west. But now his society and disciples measure all spiritual people by the extent to which they fall in line with these principles. That I find not that a great idea.

I just have to shake my head when I read some mainstream news story about KC in which most of the direct quotations are about the “four regs,” cold showers, and alarm-clock timings.

But of course, the various quotes Madan Gopala provided demonstrate that Srila Prabhupada gave a more complex purport to the principle (sex should be restricted). Typically that principle is rattled off in simplistic, bullet-point fashion.

In any case, we know that many devotees have trouble with the “ambiguity” or apparent “contradiction” that arises when trying to reconcile hardline statements (in this instance, on human sexuality) with less restrictive ones. (What to speak of the example GM gives of BSST arranging the prostitute.) If we understand that principles are things that must be interpreted and applied, however, then ambiguity ceases to be a problem. There will be nuance, diversity, etc. in the application of any principle. How could there not be? This is not some innovation.

We know that some devotees actually take comfort in very rigid interpretation of principles (even if they can’t live up to them). Rigidity helps circumvent complex thought. But I think it is far better to understand the purpose of a principle, and aspire to increasingly and more thoughtfully uphold that principle because it will be favorable to bhakti. Fear and guilt are quite low (but prevalent) sources of motivation, by comparison.

Babhru Das - March 25, 2009 9:12 am

If we understand that principles are things that must be interpreted and applied, however, then ambiguity ceases to be a problem. There will be nuance, diversity, etc. in the application of any principle. How could there not be? This is not some innovation.

I think this is an important point to consider. What we're discussing here is not innovation; rather, it's carefully considering how to apply a principle in particular circumstances.

We know that some devotees actually take comfort in very rigid interpretation of principles (even if they can’t live up to them). Rigidity helps circumvent complex thought. But I think it is far better to understand the purpose of a principle, and aspire to increasingly and more thoughtfully uphold that principle because it will be favorable to bhakti. Fear and guilt are quite low (but prevalent) sources of motivation, by comparison.

Rigidity may be useful when faith is tender; however, we are supposed to progress in the cultivation of our faith and become more flexible. One thing I've long appreciated about Swami's company is his focus on Srila Prabhupada's flexibility.

Devyah-pati Das SERBIA - March 25, 2009 2:44 pm

I have the feeling that insisting on the idea that homosexuals are

so much different from the others is influenced with the mode of

passion...

In Bhagavad-gita 18.21 Krsna says:

"That knowledge by which a different type of living entity is seen

to be dwelling in different bodies is knowledge in the mode of passion."

Previous to that in verse 18.20 Krsna says:

"That knowledge by which one undivided spiritual nature is seen

in all existences, undivided in the divided, is knowledge in the

mode of goodness."

Prema-bhakti - March 25, 2009 4:15 pm

Instead of looking at bhakti through the lens of morality, we should look at morality through the lens of bhakti. It is possible for one to have more bhakti and less morality than one who has more morality and less bhakti. Of the two the former is superior.

For reasons I attribute to my conditioning and experience in ISKCON, I tend to grapple with this idea. The underlying point here being that bhakti is independent is understood yet I guess I am not really convinced how it could be possible and to even be superior to have more bhakti and less morality.

Prahlad Das - March 25, 2009 4:22 pm

I have the feeling that insisting on the idea that homosexuals are

so much different from the others is influenced with the mode of

passion...

 

In Bhagavad-gita 18.21 Krsna says:

 

"That knowledge by which a different type of living entity is seen

to be dwelling in different bodies is knowledge in the mode of passion."

 

Previous to that in verse 18.20 Krsna says:

 

"That knowledge by which one undivided spiritual nature is seen

in all existences, undivided in the divided, is knowledge in the

mode of goodness."

Nice!!!

Madan Gopal Das - March 25, 2009 4:23 pm

how it could be possible and to even be superior to have more bhakti and less morality.

Think of how the devotees who have raga are viewed by those who don't. Their behavior can at times be criticized from a moral point of view. Examples from our tradition are numerous. Morality is connected to dharma. Bhakti is independent.

Why does Krsna say api cet suduracaro? Because he values bhakti over morality.

This is in no way to say that morality has no place in the development of bhakti, or that advanced devotees don't exhibit moral behavior. But in spiritual development, it is low on the ladder.

I think your experience (and mine) in iskcon make it hard to understand this because iskcon is absorbed in rules, morality, etc. and development of the higher stages where morality is seen as secondary to bhakti is foreign to them.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 25, 2009 4:47 pm

Think of how the devotees who have raga are viewed by those

I think your experience (and mine) in iskcon make it hard to understand this because iskcon is absorbed in rules, morality, etc. and development of the higher stages where morality is seen as secondary to bhakti is foreign to them.

Yes, but this stand of ISKCON has been taken due to lack of morality and basic integrity in ISKCON before which led to the fall in its public credibility.

But I think now they feel that the emphasis on the four regs and their strict implementation can restore the lost credibility of ISKCON.

Many devotees tell me,"Who apart from devotees is following the four regs? Everybody else is enjoying their senses. Therefore this is the only genuine spiritual process."

Then I think Taliban and Saudi Arabia have even better theoretical moral standards. Is their spiritual realization better?

This is a sensitive issue. The lack of integrity and the outbreak of scandals in the institution in past make it hard for ISKCON to toe the line that more bhakti can mean less morality. As they did toe that line in late 70's and early 80's to damaging effect.

But otherwise because conditioning and prabhada karma of every individual soul is different, krsna will accept soul's devotion taking into account her conditioning. Therefore ,souls with a conditioning that leads them to commit immoral activities, maybe still be trying their best to do their devotion and they may not be proud of their transgressions. And krsna appreciates this soul's devotion intensely and ignores their lack of morality.

Prema-bhakti - March 25, 2009 4:49 pm

Think of how the devotees who have raga are viewed by those who don't. Their behavior can at times be criticized from a moral point of view. Examples from our tradition are numerous. Morality is connected to dharma. Bhakti is independent.

 

Why does Krsna say api cet suduracaro? Because he values bhakti over morality.

 

This is in no way to say that morality has no place in the development of bhakti, or that advanced devotees don't exhibit moral behavior. But in spiritual development, it is low on the ladder.

 

I think your experience (and mine) in iskcon make it hard to understand this because iskcon is absorbed in rules, morality, etc. and development of the higher stages where morality is seen as secondary to bhakti is foreign to them.

Thanks Madan. This is all true and I agree in terms of how devotees with raga may be viewed.

Does the same hold true for devotees on lower levels of development? No, because raga bhaktas are actually fixed in their devotion. They are only perceived as "immoral". Whereas devotees on lower levels may actually be engaged in immoral activities.

It is interesting how VCT qualifies api cet sudaracaro in two ways, that a devotee becomes immediately repentant and immediately becomes righteous or that in the future he or she will become righteous but is considered so in a "subtle" form. The emphasis is on a pure heart which will presently or eventually mitigate sinful behavior.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 25, 2009 4:56 pm

Does the same hold true for devotees on lower levels of development? No, because raga bhaktas are actually fixed in their devotion. They are only perceived as "immoral". Whereas devotees on lower levels may actually be engaged in immoral activities.

Yes that is a very good point.

Prahlad Das - March 25, 2009 5:07 pm

Yes, but this stand of ISKCON has been due to lack of morality and basic integrity in ISKCON before which led to fall in its stock under public scrutiny.

But I think they feel that only four regs can show the world how devotees have greatest morality and integrity.

Many devotees tell me that who apart from devotees is following four regs, everybody else is enjoying. SO this is the only genuine process.

Then I think Taliban and Saudi Arabia have even better theoretical moral standards. Is there spiritual realization better?

This is a sensitive issue. The lack of integrity and the outbreak of scandals in the institution in past make it hard for ISKCON to toe the line that more bhakti can mean less morality. As they did toe that line in late 70's and early 80's to damaging effect.

 

But otherwise because conditioning of every soul and prabhada karma is different, krsna will take soul's devotion taking into account her conditioning. Therefore souls with a conditioning which leads them to commit immoral activities, maybe still trying their best to do their devotion and obviously they are not proud of their trangressions. And krsna appreciates this devotion and ignores their lack of morality.

Actually, the emphasis on morality and integrity was in ISKCON before the "fall". As was previously mentioned, most of the quotes pertaining to the "Hare Krsna's" by news and media revolve around the four regulations, early waking, cold showers etc... My parents were on the front page of one of the major Philadelphia newpapers (perhaps one of the subsections, I can find out if anyone is interested) with the headlines, "Couple Weds for Sect's Sake". This was back in '70? It addressed the union for sex as being only for the production of offspring to be raised in the Krsna Consciousness Movement, among other ideologies.

This type of emphasis (extreme?) on rules and regulations may have encouraged the growth of ISKCON. The general mass of people are afraid to think for themselves. There is a sort of removal of personal responsibility. "I follow the rules therefore I am doing good." I also believe that it leads to secretive subversion. When you have a society which is so focused on the structured rules, and willing to condemn one another for breaking the rules (blooping, falling down etc...) people tend to become secretive with their acting upon their desires. Psychologically, this may be analyzed till we reach a state of vertigo. Basically what we had was a situation where the position began defining the person rather than the other way.

Madan Gopal Das - March 25, 2009 5:30 pm

Does the same hold true for devotees on lower levels of development? No, because raga bhaktas are actually fixed in their devotion. They are only perceived as "immoral". Whereas devotees on lower levels may actually be engaged in immoral activities.

Good point. Good discussion! In response to the devotees on lower levels who are actually immoral in their behavior, I think the spirit you are questioning in GM's post should still apply. I see our process as inherently positive. If our bhakti is like a well of mixed ink and milk, what should we do? Keep pouring in milk! If we have even a little bhakti, but a lot of immorality, what will our sweet lord find in us, what will he magnify? So in that way, having a lot of standing in morality, but hardly any bhakti doesn't get you too far - at least with the goal I have in mind. Some people think that this path is a form of dharma and are interested in scoring points with god and advancing their way to goloka through perfect following of rules. Sorry, you are going to have to leave that behind at some point. Though not examples of how the ajata-ruci bhakta should act, I think of the examples the ragatmika's set - leaving their clothes on the river bank for Krsna-bhakti, gathering dust from their feet for Krsna-bhakti... These examples and countless others demonstrate to us what attitude exists in perfection of bhakti. How we get there is not by willy-nilly renouncing moral behavior, but when our morality doesn't measure up, what are you going to do? - bhakti! Seeing morality through the lens of bhakti means that if morality is compromised but opportunity for bhakti is there, the immorality is overlooked. That was one main point in this thread. So the morality of homosexual relations is questionable (as are heterosexual) but seeing the opportunity for bhakti means seeing moral questions as secondary, if not altogether unrelated. This is appropriate, wanted, needed and unquestionably bhakti-dharma.

Madan Gopal Das - March 25, 2009 5:41 pm

It is interesting how VCT qualifies api cet sudaracaro in two ways, that a devotee becomes immediately repentant and immediately becomes righteous or that in the future he or she will become righteous but is considered so in a "subtle" form. The emphasis is on a pure heart which will presently or eventually mitigate sinful behavior.

May I suggest that pure heart means a devotional heart? Not pure like in the sense of morality - sanitary. Being immediately repentant in heart a devotee will likely pray to Krsna. This is bhakti, and by bhakti one immediately becomes righteous: dharmic, pure, etc. The way I read this is as an emphasis again of the superiority of bhakti over dharma.

Prahlad Das - March 25, 2009 5:47 pm

May I suggest that pure heart means a devotional heart? Not pure like in the sense of morality - sanitary. Being immediately repentant in heart a devotee will likely pray to Krsna. This is bhakti, and by bhakti one immediately becomes righteous: dharmic, pure, etc. The way I read this is as an emphasis again of the superiority of bhakti over dharma.

Swami - March 25, 2009 6:50 pm

No amount of morality can give bhakti, but bhakti will eventually make one moral.

Prema-bhakti - March 25, 2009 10:11 pm

May I suggest that pure heart means a devotional heart? Not pure like in the sense of morality - sanitary. Being immediately repentant in heart a devotee will likely pray to Krsna. This is bhakti, and by bhakti one immediately becomes righteous: dharmic, pure, etc. The way I read this is as an emphasis again of the superiority of bhakti over dharma.

Yes, that is how I understand it. I was trying to make the point that it seems that the level of transgression described is extremely slight and will/ must be rectified (even if initially only on a subtle plane) for a sadhu.

One can't just wallow in their sinful habits and be progressive in bhakti. Just as someone can't become overly attached to dharmic regulations and expect to progress in bhakti.

Prema-bhakti - March 25, 2009 10:24 pm

Seeing morality through the lens of bhakti means that if morality is compromised but opportunity for bhakti is there, the immorality is overlooked. That was one main point in this thread. So the morality of homosexual relations is questionable (as are heterosexual) but seeing the opportunity for bhakti means seeing moral questions as secondary, if not altogether unrelated. This is appropriate, wanted, needed and unquestionably bhakti-dharma.

I am not sure if I agree that if morality is compromised for bhakti, it is overlooked.

I am was not directly addressing the homosexuality/heterosexuality discussion on this thread . I believe neither orientation is inherently sinful or immoral. I wanted to explore the philosophical point of less morality and more bhakti as superior to less bhakti and more morality.

Madan Gopal Das - March 25, 2009 10:30 pm

I am not sure if I agree that if morality is compromised for bhakti, it is overlooked.

Let's say it is of secondary concern then... though in the highest reaches of bhakti, yes, it is overlooked.

I am was not directly addressing the homosexuality/heterosexuality discussion on this thread .

Oh I know you weren't addressing that issue. It just came to me as an example because of the discussion in this thread.

Prahlad Das - March 26, 2009 12:00 am

I don't think anyone here is supportive of the notion that bhakti awards on the "rights" to regress to lower natures. An importance is stressed at being honest about where one is at in their life's evolution. The submission of sincere inquiry to a spiritual master is the natural progression. A sincere inquirer will ask questions of pertinence to their perspective and experience. Knowing where one is makes all the difference when knowing how to get to where one wants to go. As Srila Sridhara Maharaj says, (paraphrasing) "The ground we fall on serves as the ground which may support us to stand again."

Vamsidhari Dasa - March 29, 2009 7:19 pm

I am coming to this discussion very late and thanks Madan for mentioning me. I just have to say that readying Guru Maharaja's and all of your responses to Yamuna's confusion makes me proud to be in this group and love you all so much.

Yours,

Vamsi

Swami - March 29, 2009 7:41 pm

I watched "Milk" the other night. Great movie. Everyone should see it. We will be reviewing it for the Harmonist and discussing this topic more in that format. The Harmonist will provide us a platform to make these discussions public.

Here is something on the topic from Shambala Sun, a well established Buddhist magazine. http://www.shambhalasun.com/

Syamasundara - March 29, 2009 8:55 pm

Oh it's come out already?

Babhru Das - March 30, 2009 1:25 am

Steve Silberman's article and the accompanying audio help put a human face on this issue. Thanks.

Nitaisundara Das - March 30, 2009 2:17 am

I agree that audio was great. He was very articulate. Buddhism has presented itself in such a way that there are so many people like him who are comfrotable becoming committed practicioners (gay and otherwise). We need to inundate the Gaudiya world with the Harmonist.

Vamsidhari Dasa - March 30, 2009 4:53 pm

I watched "Milk" the other night. Great movie. Everyone should see it. We will be reviewing it for the Harmonist and discussing this topic more in that format. The Harmonist will provide us a platform to make these discussions public.

 

Here is something on the topic from Shambala Sun, a well established Buddhist magazine. http://www.shambhalasun.com/

Guru Maharaja you are my Pride and Joy I am happy to wave your flag anywhere!

Citta Hari Dasa - March 30, 2009 8:16 pm

We need to inundate the Gaudiya world with the Harmonist.

Yes! Let's do it.

Guru-nistha Das - March 31, 2009 3:24 am

Yes! Let's do it.

Jay-hoo!! This is so exciting.

Vrindavandas - March 31, 2009 6:47 am

Thought you all might enjoy this from the GBC resolutions last month. This just got posted on dandavats. I dropped Hridayananda Maharaja an email and am waiting for his reply. Sarvatma and I spoke about it today. He could care less what the GBC says or does, feels they are irrelevant.

317. Action and Public Statements of Hridayananda Das Goswami

[statement]

The GBC has carefully reviewed the recent action (giving blessings) and the public statements of Hridayananda Maharaja concerning homosexuality. These remain controversial and divisive in ISKCON, and the GBC goes not endorse or support them.

Teaching obligations have kept Hridayananda Maharaja from attending the GBC meetings this year, so the GBC has not been able to discuss this issue with him. A GBC delegation will soon meet personally with him to discuss this issue and attempt to reach a common understanding.

Jiva-daya Dasa - March 31, 2009 1:20 pm

Teaching obligations have kept Hridayananda Maharaja from attending the GBC meetings this year, so the GBC has not been able to discuss this issue with him. A GBC delegation will soon meet personally with him to discuss this issue and attempt to reach a common understanding.

This idea of "not being able to discuss this issue with him" is yet another example of the failure to communicate that plagues so many fragmented institutions. Makes me wonder how strong the desire to "discuss" really is. Discouraging at best.

Yamuna Dasi - March 31, 2009 10:43 pm

I beg your pardon? At least in the US, gay couples do have children, raise them with love, and sacrifice for them. It has become common enough in this country that it has become part of the popular culture. and gay couples live together for decades, sacrificing for each other, tolerating not only the problems children bring to their lives, but each other's frailties. And nowadays, they may also add elements of sadhana under the direction of magnanimous devotees, and gradually become free of the contamination of attachment to sense gratification of all kinds. Cannot you imagine that a gay couple, chanting, preaching, donating, serving in many ways, may become as free of sex desire as a straight couple, live together as the closest of friends, and continue their lives of progressive surrender and service? If you can't, then, of course, it would not be possible for you to help them become progressively surrendered. If we can't, then the only mercy available to them is what so many fundamentalist Christians (and devotees, for that matter) give: "You faggots can all burn in Hell!" I know which one makes more sense to me. After all, for about 40 years, I have been a beneficiary of the mercy of parama karuna Nitai-Gaurachandra. And it's their mercy that brought me to this company. When I met with Swami in July of 1999, after not having seen him for over 25 years, I immediately knew where my future lay.

 

I hope you won't mistake the stern tone of this note for aggression. This is not an attack, and this is not about you. As you point out in your post, sacrifice goes beyond rituals. It's action, as we see in Bhagavad-gita. How could someone who is as bright as you are, and who has been as fortunate as you have in being given the shelter of such a magnanimous, soft-hearted devotee as Narayana Maharaja, possibly need an old goof like me to point this out?

OK, a week is over and I can continue reading and responding. I had given myself a week in which not to read the messages posted here and respectively not to respond. I needed a break of time so to be able to look at it from the distance of some time passing. I hope everybody enjoyed the "unity" of opinion, so now comes the diversity part...

Babhru prabhu, can you give any scriptural evidence that the duty of a gay relation is to raise kids? If not, why then you consider that they are completing the same duty as the heterosexual relation if they are raising kids? Krishna says in Gita that it’s better to fulfill even with mistakes your prescribed duty than to try to complete a duty which is not yours since this is very dangerous. In all the 17th chapter of Gita Krishna responds to Arjuna’s question “what is the status of those who ignore the scripture but nonetheless worship with faith?”

Krishna’s answer goes through all the chapter but can be also summarized with:

“They call that sacrifice tamasic which is contrary to scriptural injunction”

and thus those who perform such sacrifice not in accordance to scriptural injunction have no faith in scripture and as Krishna concludes at the end of the chapter:

“… any action performed without faith – even sacrifice, charity, and austerity – is considered impious. Such acts are fruitful neither in this world nor the next.”

Also the concluding last two verses of 16th chapter of Gita say:

“One who acts out of impulse, ignoring scriptural injunctions, attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the ultimate goal of life.

Therefore the scripture is your authority in the matter in determining what is to be done and what is not to be done. Understanding the scriptural injunctions, you should act accordingly in this world.”

In this way Babhru prabhu the sacrifices mentioned by you since they are not scriptural injunction, are not accepted as equal at all to the same sacrifices if performed by a heterosexual married couple, because for them to raise kids is a scriptural injunction while for the gays it is a personally invented idea of “self-sacrifice” or as Krishna says: “out of impulse, ignoring scriptural injunctions”.

Also, if you speak that "gay couples do have children" do you want to mention also the statistical percentages in order to be objective?

Do you know what percentage of the gays are as was mentioned before "genetically predestined gays" and what percentage is a question of personal choice not having anything to do with genes?

Do you know what percentage of the gays at all declare any desire of having kids? Sorry, very few, nothing to do with majority.

Do you know what percentage of those gays who declare that they would like to have kids and raise them really do it? Sorry, again very few.

Do you know what is the chance an adoption of a parentless child do be permitted by the court to a gay relation rather than to an a heterosexual one if 2 couples declare desire to adopt the child? Very small. Do you really think that a gay couple can raise without any problem a normal child and not to influence in "any possible way" the visions of this child on sexuality? I will repeat here your starting expression: "I beg your pardon?" It would be the same if some parents would be smoking but claiming that they can raise a child being a 100 % non-smoker because they will regularly teach the child "don't watch what we are doing, rather do what we are telling you is right." This is not a good way of teaching, sorry.

And because we are discussing here if a guru should give blessing to a "gay relation", then just imagine if the guru has to consider all these facts before giving a blessing to a gay relation, can you imagine what a huge disclaimer he would need to accompany his blessing?

The biggest phone company in Bulgaria made themselves ridiculous by running an advertising campaign with huge billboards all over saying with huge letters:

0* cents/minute for city phone call

and then most down on the billboards with 50 times smaller letters explaining the "*":

- only Saturdays and Sundays

- only after 8 pm till 5 am

- only after an initial fee of 0.11 leva

Everybody just laughed at them... such an absurd advertisement which was trying to make fools of all the nation.

And now just imagine the "blessing for a gay relation" by guru... or if we look at the very title of this post "gay couple devotees being acknowledged publicly"... and imagine how many lines of a disclaimer it will need after the "*"...

- only for those who are genetically gay predestined (and this had been proven by a DNA test which confirms this completely) and also considering the karmic fact that still one is not a victim of his/her genes but they are result of his/her choices

- only for those who wish to have kids and raise them (even though there is no shastric evidence that this is the dharma of a gay, to raise kids) and not only wish to have kids but actually have them already as a proof of their intention for self-sacrifice in raising kids, even though this self-sacrifice is not a prescribed duty but a self-invented one…

Nobody speaks of "You faggots can all burn in Hell!", don’t exaggerate. All we discuss here is should a guru give blessing to a "gay relation" with all the implications of approval which such a blessing contains. Or should we add one more line in the disclaimer like "I do bless their relation but not its essence of being homosexual and I also claim that their example should not be followed"?

Gays can advance personally by having a personal blessing from guru, not by requiring through gay activist actions to have his blessing for their gay relation and thus target to get an approval for it as being "just equal" in any aspect to heterosexual relation. Sorry, it is not "just equal" neither for shastra nor to even svayam Bhagavan in his lila.

Yamuna Dasi - March 31, 2009 10:53 pm

As you point out in your post, sacrifice goes beyond rituals. It's action, as we see in Bhagavad-gita. How could someone who is as bright as you are, and who has been as fortunate as you have in being given the shelter of such a magnanimous, soft-hearted devotee as Narayana Maharaja, possibly need an old goof like me to point this out?

In my post I did not point out that sacrifice goes beyond rituals, I was quoting Gita that sacrifice is born by scriptural injunction and ritual.

What I do point in my previous to this post is that sacrifice does not go beyond or override (I am not sure in my English here) scriptures and that a "sacrifice" performed against scriptural injunctions cannot be considered real sacrifice but is rather a whimsical idea which as Krishna states leads neither to perfection, nor to happiness, nor to the ultimate goal of life, even if the performer of this "sacrifice" or others consider it as a "sacrifice".

Yamuna Dasi - March 31, 2009 11:06 pm

All in all, "agree to disagree" usually means stopping the presentation of arguments and explanations, and I think that would be good at this point. Clearly no progress is being made here.

Excuse me but I disagree that I have to stop giving arguments and I do have such. I do agree to disagree but for me this does not involve that I should stop giving arguments in support to my points and responding to those who had given arguments objecting some of mine. This is just not fair.

When that Christian author of the blog to which Tripurari Maharaj was objecting at some moment cut him off and after doing it continued himself giving his reasons and arguments, I thought how ugly and unfair it was. Do you wish to repeat his "good example" here?

Yamuna Dasi - March 31, 2009 11:37 pm

Like I said, your position is well known by now. What are your prescribed duties by the way? Are you married? Divorced? Unmarried mother? What man is Vedically taking care of you and protecting you from your own lust and the lust of all other men around? Are you doing everything right and according to scripture? And is your sadhana and faith affected by that or lack thereof?

I am not married, not having kids and the "man" who is "Vedically taking care of me and protecting me from my own lust and the lust of all other men around" is my Gurudeva... and I dare to hope Krishna as well. I guess my sadhana is affected by what my marital status is since my duties would have been different if I would have been married or having kids. Not doing so is my personal choice and it is approved by my Gurudeva.

If I am doing everything right and according to scripture is a question of a personal confession which I would feel obliged to give to my Gurudeva alone and to Krishna, not as a public confession in this forum. Of what use could be such a public confession of mine here? No matter what I would say if you are not ready to accept it then it has no meaning at all in responding. And I don't see from your tone that you are able to accept my answer as a true one. Imagine if I would have responded you that yes, I am indeed keeping brahmacharia as the prescribed means from shastra and from my Gurudeva for protecting myself from my own lust and that of all other men around. Then what? What would this change in you and in your vision about my answers? Will it make them more valuable in your eyes? Or more valid?

More questions?

Yamuna Dasi - March 31, 2009 11:52 pm

The only difference you are talking about is really a matter of orifices, that are not even that far apart, or big enough, or visible enough to deserve so many words. Rather than orifices, we should use our words to fill our hearts in this forum.

The only difference I am talking about is not a matter of orifices, but a matter of morality and scriptural injunctions differentiating between those orifices disregarding their closeness at distance.

If you see that the discussion we are having here is just about two orifices which are not even that far apart, I find your opinion as very brutal. Scriptures do find those orifices as different and having different purposes and not any use of them being equally natural or recommended and maybe you can give it a try to make some differentiation between them as well, as scripturally prescribed, no matter the close distance between them. Regarding close distances Shridhara Maharaj says that the distance between the mind and the heart is only around 20 cm but still we are walking that way through so many life times.

And since you are talking about "filling our hearts", do you think that those words which you wrote above fill your heart or those of others? And with what?

Yamuna Dasi - April 1, 2009 12:09 am

I am stopping here for tonight responding. It's 3 am here and I need some sleep before continuing... and some fresh air as well. And I hope that the following answers at page 10 (since I am still there) which I will read will not be as brutal as this last one. I also hope that you will not find me again "disrespectful" for naming this brutal answer "brutal".

Swami - April 1, 2009 12:38 am

A number of techniques have been used to try to suppress homosexual feelings and/or create heterosexual feelings in gays and lesbians:

Lesbians had their breasts amputated.

Lesbians had their perfectly healthy uteri removed.

Male gays were given aversion therapy; e.g. clients were shown pictures of naked men and simultaneously shocked with electricity.

Other "treatments" included:

brain surgery in the form of frontal lobotomies.

castration.

counseling and psychotherapy.

drug therapy: e.g. animal-organ extracts, cocaine, estrogen, testosterone.

positive therapy: e.g. men were asked to masturbate and then were shown pictures of women just before orgasm.

prayer and spiritual counseling.

therapy by tedium: men were shown homoerotic pictures until they became totally bored.

During the Nazi regime in Germany, Himmler attempted to "cure" gays by requiring them to visit the camp brothel at Flossenburg. "Ten Ravensbruck women provided the services with little success. The women [were later]...shipped to Auschwitz" for execution.

During the recent apartheid regime in South Africa, gays and lesbians were considered deviants. They were sent to a special ward of a military hospital to be "rehabilitated." This involved electric shock treatments and chemical castration. Those who could not be "cured" were given sex-change operations. A number of "patients" died.

The success rate of these therapies in actually changing clients' sexual orientation has been between 0% and something less than 0.1%. However, the success rate at changing clients' sexual behavior is much greater. Some of these techniques can persuade homosexuals to be celibate -- perhaps only for a short interval -- either through terror, guilt, or persuasion that God considers same-sex behavior to be an abomination. They can persuade bisexuals to confine their sexual activities to members of the opposite sex. They may even be able to train gays to successfully have sex with a woman, while fantasize about making love to another man. But therapies do not seem to be capable of changing one's feelings -- one's sexual orientation -- in the vast majority of people.

Vamsidhari Dasa - April 1, 2009 6:21 am

Teaching obligations have kept Hridayananda Maharaja from attending the GBC meetings this year, so the GBC has not been able to discuss this issue with him. A GBC delegation will soon meet personally with him to discuss this issue and attempt to reach a common understanding.

:Cow: :Cow: :LMAO: :LMAO: :LMAO:

I wonder whats was said. sorry still laughing......

Vamsidhari Dasa - April 1, 2009 6:59 am

Dear Yamuna devi,

I find your positions very sad and quite disheartening especially as you present as someone who is speaking against misogyny. Homophobia, you know, is a form of it. You say so many things that are offensive and closed-minded that I have difficulty actually responding to you. It is your incessant offering of counter arguments that signals a total inability to hear people and actually take in what they are saying. If you stop arguing you might actually learn something. You claim to represent diversity while you only show us how misinformed and misguided you are. You have come here for some guidance so take it already!

I am grateful to those with much more continence than me who approached you calmly. I am not known to be blessed with such virtue.

It is hard to know where to start, but it is even harder to read the stuff you write. It seems to me that you have taken all your closed-mindedness, bigotry, prejudice, communism, orthodoxy, self-hatred and mixed it in a soup you call "scriptural injunctions". It seems like you don't look to scripture to find God and humility but to justify your skewed point of view. The sad thing is that you are not alone, there are millions of those like you who predicate hate and discrimination against gay people based on nothing but ignorance and fear. I find it hard to write to you, to convince you that there is nothing wrong with being gay or try to defend my position because all my life I had to struggle with people like you. I have been discriminated against, beaten, mistreated in ways I cant even mention here all by self righteous bigots who claim to know that my way of loving another man is wrong, against nature, criminal, and alas, non-vedic. My experience is nothing compared to those who have been tortured and killed just because they could not love who you think they should. We used to be criminals, then we became homosexuals, only to become a pathology. Then in the 60s we became queer and fought back. In the 70s we became gay and then people realized (in 1974) that we were not sick. Now, we just want to be married people. But no you are saying we should just be quiet go do our dirty deeds somewhere in the dark so that you are not disturbed by our flags and our happiness, by our desire to be together and have our union recognized as based on same values and sentiments like yours. There is nothing dirty about our love, but it is those like you who soil it.

I am tired of listening to people like you who take religion as an excuse to remain ignorant and hateful, to perpetuate their prejudice. I am tired of defending myself and who I am from those like you. I refuse to subjugate my life to your ignorance or try to use my example to bring you some enlightenment. The information is all there but you refuse to take it. It sounds that sadly you are beyond help. If you do not see the need to open your heart and mind what can a fag like me say to you to change it?

I am filled with so much pride and hope when I see that there are so many here who can speak about it and engage you. The world is indeed changing into a better place when there are so many who are not gay who can speak and fight for gay rights and we can be quiet for a while. I feel so blessed and touched to be in such company. In conclusion, Yamuna devi, you do not need to change for me but if you do it for your own benefit you can only have a better life. Life filled with so much hate and so much ignorance will get you no where.

Yamuna Dasi - April 1, 2009 9:24 am

Dear Yamuna devi,

I find your positions very sad and quite disheartening especially as you present as someone who is speaking against misogyny. Homophobia, you know, is a form of it. You say so many things that are offensive and closed-minded that I have difficulty actually responding to you. It is your incessant offering of counter arguments that signals a total inability to hear people and actually take in what they are saying. If you stop arguing you might actually learn something. You claim to represent diversity while you only show us how misinformed and misguided you are. You have come here for some guidance so take it already!

I am grateful to those with much more continence than me who approached you calmly. I am not known to be blessed with such virtue.

It is hard to know where to start, but it is even harder to read the stuff you write. It seems to me that you have taken all your closed-mindedness, bigotry, prejudice, communism, orthodoxy, self-hatred and mixed it in a soup you call "scriptural injunctions". It seems like you don't look to scripture to find God and humility but to justify your skewed point of view. The sad thing is that you are not alone, there are millions of those like you who predicate hate and discrimination against gay people based on nothing but ignorance and fear. I find it hard to write to you, to convince you that there is nothing wrong with being gay or try to defend my position because all my life I had to struggle with people like you. I have been discriminated against, beaten, mistreated in ways I cant even mention here all by self righteous bigots who claim to know that my way of loving another man is wrong, against nature, criminal, and alas, non-vedic. My experience is nothing compared to those who have been tortured and killed just because they could not love who you think they should. We used to be criminals, then we became homosexuals, only to become a pathology. Then in the 60s we became queer and fought back. In the 70s we became gay and then people realized (in 1974) that we were not sick. Now, we just want to be married people. But no you are saying we should just be quiet go do our dirty deeds somewhere in the dark so that you are not disturbed by our flags and our happiness, by our desire to be together and have our union recognized as based on same values and sentiments like yours. There is nothing dirty about our love, but it is those like you who soil it.

I am tired of listening to people like you who take religion as an excuse to remain ignorant and hateful, to perpetuate their prejudice. I am tired of defending myself and who I am from those like you. I refuse to subjugate my life to your ignorance or try to use my example to bring you some enlightenment. The information is all there but you refuse to take it. It sounds that sadly you are beyond help. If you do not see the need to open your heart and mind what can a fag like me say to you to change it?

I am filled with so much pride and hope when I see that there are so many here who can speak about it and engage you. The world is indeed changing into a better place when there are so many who are not gay who can speak and fight for gay rights and we can be quiet for a while. I feel so blessed and touched to be in such company. In conclusion, Yamuna devi, you do not need to change for me but if you do it for your own benefit you can only have a better life. Life filled with so much hate and so much ignorance will get you no where.

Vamsidhari prabhu, you are very unfair with me in this post of yours and this also makes me very sad. You are few times repeating that there is so much “hate” in my posts which is not at all so. You are definitely placing sufferings which you had in the past from some other people on me and blaming me for what you have passed through. This is completely unfair towards me because all what I am objecting in this thread here is a spiritual blessing to a gay relation, nothing else! I am even for gay civil marriages because the civil marriage is the way to tell the society in which you live that you live with that particular person and also to legally justify your relation. All what I don’t agree with is that a spiritual blessing or spiritual marriage should be offered in an equal basis as to a heterosexual relation. And you call this opinion of mine “hate”, “ignorance”, “homophobia”, “closed-mindedness”, “bigotry”, “prejudice”, “disheartening”, “communism”, “orthodoxy”, “self-hatred”, “skewed”, “offence” and you classify me as “misinformed” and “misguided”.

If you blame me for all these it means that all those who share the same opinion as that expressed by me also fall into same faults, and I dare to mention that this includes Shrila Prabhupad, Shridhara Maharaj and so many acharias and gurus in our line from the past and the present. You find them all hateful, ignorant, homophobic, closed-minded, bigots, prejudiced, disheartened, communistic, orthodox, self-hateful, skewed, offensive, misinformed and misguided just because they don’t agree that a guru should give spiritual blessing for a gay relation. Because this is all what I claim - that a homosexual relation is not “just the same” as a heterosexual one and that it is not correct to be given "just the same" spiritual blessing from guru. For this you blame me for all the mistakes and inhuman deeds of all the humanity through the years. This is a very distorted vision and very unfair towards me to say at least. And it does show hate and closed-mindedness from your side.

Please try to open your mind and heart and to understand that all these scriptures, acharias and gurus are not that stupid or poorly informed and that they also have their good reasons for not giving a spiritual blessing to a gay relation and same recognition as to a heterosexual relation. No scripture gives a spiritual blessing to a gay relation, so how can you expect that a guru shoul do that thus contradicting the scriptures? But you continue with your desperate fight for “equal rights” and “public recognition” giving “proofs” that between a gay relation or heterosexual relation there is no difference at all and that the right thing to be done is that finally scriptures, religions, acharias and gurus should bless them if they had suffered in the past so many mistreatments… and you are not pleased with anything less than this! No personal blessing from guru, no equal rights (since you all the time speak so much about rights) with everybody which you already have, nothing can please you except receiving a spiritual blessing for having sex in a gay relation and it being considered as equal in any aspect to heterosexual. This is practically what you want and what you fight for. (Krishna also did not find a homosexual relation with Arjuna to be proper or acceptable even for him in his lila as svayam Bhagavan and Arjuna's sex had to be changed temporarily for the sake of lila. Would you blame Krishna as well in all the above listed for not finding a gay relation with his best friend Arjuna as "just equal" to a heterosexual one?) All I say is that I don’t agree with this and that I don’t believe that world religions would change their scriptures and visions in order to supply this to you. Maybe you can change your visions to see that there is enough space for spiritual life and practice in Gaudiya Vaishnavism even if it’s gurus don’t agree to give you everything that you demand.

My guru will not give me Brahma gayatri in this lifetime because I am a woman, but I am not starting a war for “my rights” against him blaming him for all the listed above things in which you blamed me. I am humbly accepting his decision, considering myself privileged being given the chance to practice the other Gayatri mantras and repeating my plea to him to give me also his blessing to practice Brahma Gayatri only once per year. I am doing this exactly because it’s a plea, not a fight for rights. What bothers me in all the mood and the attitude of the gays is exactly the fighting spirit and the idea that they have “rights” also over blessings. This I do find a skewed vision and bigotry.

Syamasundara - April 1, 2009 12:58 pm

See, while you are all preoccupied with these Vedic and Dharmic considerations (dharma-jijñasa), the same Scripture you appeal to, says athato brahma-jijñasa. It's an aphorism of Vedanta Sutra, not a minor sloka between explanations of how to calculate time or descriptions of hellish planets. It means: "Now therefore (that you are in a human body, which is so rare) it's time for inquiry (jijñasa) about transcendence (Brahman). Leave all other considerations behind, forget whatever else was said in the scripture the way you know it; that pertained to your present birth and how you should do the best of it. In a previous birth your duties were others, and yet different in the birth before, but know that birth after birth, you will always be a spirit soul, as you've always been. That's what all those injunctions were supposed to have you learn and keep in mind, so now focus on that, try to see everything from the point of view of transcendence, because that's where you belong."

That's pretty much what it says in those 3 words. If we approach Scripture in light of those three words, especially under good guidance, we'll see that the rest of Scripture goes on to say that as souls we are eternal, cognizant and joyful, and that we have a potential to experience that to an infinite degree. However, if you are really lucky and you get in touch with bhakti, you'll know that that white light of ananda is composed by many colors, or flavors (rasa) in relation to Krsna, who is the source of it all, and with whom you have an eternal relationship. So a much stronger exhortation we are getting from Scripture, if and when it chooses to reveal its heart to you, is about rasa-jijñasa.

I don't know how many of us are actively preoccupied with rasa-jijãsa here, but that is our goal and ideal, and while cultivating that, we try at least to maintain a transcendental point of view, and we value greatly the words of those sadhus who are on that level and can help us sort things out, including the statements of previous sadhus.

If a sadhu, whose concern is only with Krsna and bhakti, blesses the endeavor of two souls who try to have the same concern, we are but supportive.

That's what HAG's (why do people say HDG?) blessing words were about: that their expression of love may turn into and support their cultivation of real and divine love. No mention of physical practices. After all, gurus bless male and a female disciple of theirs to serve them as couples all the time, but do you think that they are blessing their vaginal sex?? No, the concern of the sadhu would still be the same.

What seems to slip out of your grasp is why blessing a gay couple would make news. We have tried to tell you why by explaining to you how most people think, and paradoxically, we were telling you about something you know very well, as it seems to be your own view.

As far as Krsna's sexuality and why it was necessary that Arjuna take a female body, it should be clear to you that he just doesn't fancy guys (have you received kama-gayatri?). He is the all-powerful Supreme Person, and he can obviously do whatever he wants if he so chooses, but he really likes to be himself, and he likes girls, no way around it, so stop trying to tell everybody who they should be attracted to.

Braja-sundari Dasi - April 1, 2009 1:12 pm

No scripture gives a spiritual blessing to a gay relation, so how can you expect that a guru shoul do that thus contradicting the scriptures?

Yamuna, do you at least understand what you write yourself? No scripture say anything about using a computer and posting on forums as well. Why do you contradict scriptures by doing so?

You were asked several times but still cannot give even one example of scripture saying anything against homosexuality or blessings for the gay people. Show us your learning in sastra and present it or remain silent instead of inventing new meaning of scriptures and demanding everyone else to accept it as spiritual.

Vamsidhari Dasa - April 1, 2009 3:30 pm

My guru will not give me Brahma gayatri in this lifetime because I am a woman, but I am not starting a war for “my rights” against him blaming him for all the listed above things in which you blamed me. I am humbly accepting his decision, considering myself privileged being given the chance to practice the other Gayatri mantras and repeating my plea to him to give me also his blessing to practice Brahma Gayatri only once per year. I am doing this exactly because it’s a plea, not a fight for rights. What bothers me in all the mood and the attitude of the gays is exactly the fighting spirit and the idea that they have “rights” also over blessings. This I do find a skewed vision and bigotry.

This is very sad. It is even more sad that you accept being mistreated as a sign of humility. We do not have right for the blessing but we have the right to tell people like you to mind your own business and stop with your attacks. The mare fact that a sadhu decided to give blessing means that its bonified or that the present sadhu to whom you aspire to serve and whose spiritual guidance you want says that is OK should make you think about it a bit. I do not need to get informed on the subject since I am an expert on the subject both experientially and academically but to sit here and present evidence to you about social, psychological, and other research to contradict you. I think it is a waste of time because you do not wish to hear it. What you have a problem with has nothing with scriptures but with your prejudice, that is my point.

I agree with Braja Sundari your daily life is a scriptural contradiction and you have no problem with that at all.

Madan Gopal Das - April 1, 2009 3:32 pm

Sorry to be blunt, but I was relieved when this topic stopped getting responses from Yamuna. Call it "not allowing the dissenting voice" or whatever. I call it not feeding the barking dogs (as in "the dogs may bark but the caravan keeps moving"). I would like to see continuing discussion of topics that Yamuna raises (maybe), without directly engaging her. I found ONE new thought in that long response to Vamsi; Civil unions vs. marriage. That is something worth discussing the pros/cons of, or at least educating Yamuna about. I just don't have the patience to do that here anymore. Perhaps it will come out in a Harmonist article. What I didn't find in Yamuna's response was any understanding for how the positions she advocates give rise to the feelings Vamsi expresses. Because we can find her opinions on this issue reflected many many places in the devotional and secular world, do we have to hear it anymore? I feel like we have been everything from gentle to flame-throwing and sarcastic and now she's coming back for more.

Can you voluntarily leave this topic Yamuna? Getting fresh air and losing sleep is not working for you or any of us. Maybe something is in your air??

Or I can just voluntarily leave this topic... Glad you got to chime in Vamsi! We (I) love having such an awesome sanga too. If you ever find that right guy and get married (if the state allows it), I bless the hell out of your relationship! No guru here, just a friend.

Prema-bhakti - April 1, 2009 3:40 pm

If you ever find that right guy and get married (if the state allows it), I bless the hell out of your relationship! No guru here, just a friend.

Madan you rule! :Broken Heart:

Jiva-daya Dasa - April 1, 2009 3:45 pm

Dear Yamuna dasi,

I have been reading the posts on this thread and trying follow what it is that you are trying to say and what it is that you don't agree with. I think I now have a clearer idea of your opinion after your last post.

However, I am still confused when you say above that you are only concerned with the guru's blessing of this union. Reading your posts, I do not believe this is the only disagreement you have.

Perhaps this is due to a language barrier but I will tell you that in my language and local culture here where I live in the U.S., refering to homosexuals as "the gays" (as you have done more than once since your second post on this thread) in and of itself presents an intolerant and enimical stance against homosexuality. By speaking this way without providing scriptural evidence to support this opinion, your comments seem to be more of an attack on a particular lifestyle rather than a sound argument for acceptable spiritual practices.

Please know that I read your posts and I want to understand what you are saying. I have made this comment to perhaps facilitate communication (not necessarily unanimous agreement). This is a complex topic and it is difficult to remain quiet.

Madan Gopal Das - April 1, 2009 3:52 pm

That's what HAG's (why do people say HDG?)

HDG = Hrdayananda DAS Goswami, but thanks for the funny image of an old hag goswami.

Thanks for your sensible responses Shyam, right down to your use of descriptive words. Prabhupada was good at "shock value", and so I have an appreciation for it. I'm hoping we can all come to the stage Gita describes wherein all the "orifices" are illumined by knowledge. Sorry, I just can't resist the humor - it makes me less stressed out!! :Broken Heart:

Vamsidhari Dasa - April 1, 2009 3:52 pm

Sorry to be blunt, but I was relieved when this topic stopped getting responses from Yamuna. Call it "not allowing the dissenting voice" or whatever. I call it not feeding the barking dogs (as in "the dogs may bark but the caravan keeps moving"). I would like to see continuing discussion of topics that Yamuna raises (maybe), without directly engaging her. I found ONE new thought in that long response to Vamsi; Civil unions vs. marriage. That is something worth discussing the pros/cons of, or at least educating Yamuna about. I just don't have the patience to do that here anymore. Perhaps it will come out in a Harmonist article. What I didn't find in Yamuna's response was any understanding for how the positions she advocates give rise to the feelings Vamsi expresses. Because we can find her opinions on this issue reflected many many places in the devotional and secular world, do we have to hear it anymore? I feel like we have been everything from gentle to flame-throwing and sarcastic and now she's coming back for more.

 

Can you voluntarily leave this topic Yamuna? Getting fresh air and losing sleep is not working for you or any of us. Maybe something is in your air??

 

Or I can just voluntarily leave this topic... Glad you got to chime in Vamsi! We (I) love having such an awesome sanga too. If you ever find that right guy and get married (if the state allows it), I bless the hell out of your relationship! No guru here, just a friend.

I agree with you and sorry to fan the flames, but I am a flamer as you all know. Yamuna needs to chill out and get some fresh air. Yeah if the dissenting voice is fascist we dont allow it. I had to respond because I am just fed up with people like this.

Thanks for the blessing I am looking for my wedding sari as we speak.

*It also just occurred to me that we cannot possibly expect Yamuna to get it. She is in a very repressed and repressive environment and ideas like this to her are like "a thorn in one's side" she cannot possibly understand why we should tolerate anything like it. Ideas like this create too much conflict both socially and individually where totalitarianism has ruled for so long. People cannot just accept progressive ideas because it feel too threatening to their sense of values and self. To engage it this process of change really demands courage and some introspection, which judging from her post are underdeveloped. Pretty much I am over educating Yamuna and I am for cross-pollinating of ideas between like minded.*

Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 1, 2009 4:25 pm

HDG = Hrdayananda DAS Goswami, but thanks for the funny image of an old hag goswami.

I don't think it is good to make jokes on sanayasi names(and their abbreviations) which prabhupada has given. But that is just my opinion. We don't want our GM to be treated with such humor( I don't want it atleast), so we should maintain some civility in addressing a sanayasi in a philosophical forum. It is ok to attack him philosophically but having fun with names? That can be done in yahoo chats..

Vamsidhari Dasa - April 1, 2009 4:35 pm

I don't think it is good to make jokes on sanayasi names(and their abbreviations) which prabhupada has given. But that is just my opinion. We don't want our GM to be treated with such humor( I don't want it atleast), so we should maintain some civility in addressing a sanayasi in a philosophical forum. It is ok to attack him philosophically but having fun with names? That can be done in yahoo chats..

:Broken Heart: :Shame On You: :Shame On You: :Shame On You: :Shame On You: :Shame On You: :Shame On You: :Shame On You:

BAD MADAN, BAD!

LMAO

Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 1, 2009 5:06 pm

:Broken Heart: :Shame On You: :Shame On You: :Shame On You: :Shame On You: :Shame On You: :Shame On You: :Shame On You:

BAD MADAN, BAD!

LMAO

alright enjoy the fun. I am too serious for nothing I guess.

Guru-nistha Das - April 1, 2009 5:32 pm

I would like to announce henceforward that Guru maharaja has blessed the relationship of Bhumi devi dasi (on the left) and Raga devi dasi (on the right).They have lived together for years but wanted to finally formalize their relationship. They have been talking about adopting Rati devi dasi, but nothing has been confirmed yet.

Nitaisundara Das - April 1, 2009 5:34 pm

:Broken Heart: It should be noted that the Guru's ashrama is a manifestation of Navadvip dhama, thus we see homosexuality in the dhama :Shame On You: :Shame On You:

Syama Gopala Dasa - April 1, 2009 5:36 pm

alright enjoy the fun. I am too serious for nothing I guess.

Don't take it too serious, Gaura-Vijaya. You know Vamsi. This at least lightened up the thread a bit.

As a sanga we try to be culturally sensitive with regard to scripture. so has anyone read into Bulgaria and its stance on homosexuality?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Bulgaria

Only 15% in favor of gay marriage. Though its laws are more liberal.

Madan Gopal Das - April 1, 2009 5:55 pm

I don't think it is good to make jokes on sanayasi names

Sorry, I really didn't mean it as a joke about his name or person. Was just clarifying why it is actually HDG and not HAG as Shyam was wondering. Then the hypothetical HAG swami just had me a chucklin'. I wasn't thinking of HDG as a HAG - but maybe YOU were?!! :Broken Heart:

All in fun bro, all in fun.

Madan Gopal Das - April 1, 2009 6:00 pm

I would like to announce henceforward that Guru maharaja has blessed the relationship of Bhumi devi dasi (on the left) and Raga devi dasi (on the right).

Thank god our sanga has the best sense of humor around!!! You made my day GN!

Kamalaksa Das - April 1, 2009 6:22 pm

S O M E . F U R T H E R . R E A D I N G

The following study might be of interest for this discussion:

Homophobia and Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the EU Member States

Part II - The Social Situation

The book can be found in pdf form at least from the following site. (Yes, I know the site is in Finnish, but just click on the red link saying: "raportti englanniksi", and you'll be able to download a pdf in plain English.)

http://lepakkolaakso.net/teema/raportti_se...d=2&aid=899

What might be of special interest to this forum is chapter 1.7, which deals with religious institutions, and their take on the LGBT issue.

Here a quote from the more positive side:

"However, there are also examples of religious institutions across the European Union that have a different approach to LGBT persons and issues. For example, in the Netherlands by 1995 the synod of the Netherlands Reformed Church had already issued a statement that members of the church have equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation or way of life.

In 1990 the synod of Emmen of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands “called on all congregations to accept homosexual members, in office too”. In 1995 the Lutheran synod of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands decided to bless these homosexual relationships in the church as well stating that there are no theological arguments ‘against blessing two people in their promise of lasting friendship, devotion, and faithfulness’.

In Finland, reportedly since 1999 the Kallio parish (Kallion seurakunta) in Helsinki has embraced “rainbow people” and the “Rainbow Masses” have been held in connection with Gay Pride events in Vaasa, Helsinki and Tampere.

An ecumenical group called Yhteys (alliance) is working to promote more liberal attitudes towards sexual and gender minorities within the Church. In Sweden, as was mentioned earlier the Church participated in the 2008 Pride event."

The chapter ends with the quote:

"There are also some positive examples of religious organisations engaging with LGBT persons."

Which in practical terms means there is still a long way to go, but at least our group is already up front!

*

As a side note the first openly homosexual Finnish priest (female) came out publicly yesterday in our country's largest newspaper, and will be appearing on a talkshow next week, speaking about this subject.

Kamalaksa Das - April 1, 2009 6:48 pm

I just couldn't resist. Some more quotes from the conclusion, and attitudes we've encountered even in this discussion:

"Negative attitudes toward LGBT people were identified in all Member States of the EU. Some EU citizens report that they would be uncomfortable having a homosexual as a friend, colleague or neighbour.

Some would also be uncomfortable with a relative forming a relationship with a transgender person.

Some consider LGBT persons ineligible to work as teachers.

Some do not think LGBT persons should be visible in public spaces.

And some believe that homosexuality is an illness that should be treated medically."

*

These attitudes where most frequently found in Eastern European and Catholic countries.

Syama Gopala Dasa - April 1, 2009 8:49 pm

Thanks for that great pdf and summary, Kamalaksa.

I tell you the Dutch Reformed church isn't well known for their progressive stance. So if even they can recognize equal rights...

Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 1, 2009 10:28 pm

I just couldn't resist. Some more quotes from the conclusion, and attitudes we've encountered even in this discussion:

 

"Negative attitudes toward LGBT people were identified in all Member States of the EU. Some EU citizens report that they would be uncomfortable having a homosexual as a friend, colleague or neighbour.

 

Some would also be uncomfortable with a relative forming a relationship with a transgender person.

 

Some consider LGBT persons ineligible to work as teachers.

 

Some do not think LGBT persons should be visible in public spaces.

 

And some believe that homosexuality is an illness that should be treated medically."

 

*

 

These attitudes where most frequently found in Eastern European and Catholic countries.

I think it is necessary to separate bisexual people from purely homosexual people because studies on homosexuality can lead to very poor results otherwise.This has happened in studies conducted in eastern europe where homosexuals and bisexuals were not distinguished. Bisexual people can atleast function as straight people(they just have to keep their desires for other men/women in check. A straight man similarly needs to check his desires for other women besides his wife ). Therefore people can think incorrectly that all homosexuals can change their sexual behavior. GL should make this point very clear especially in less developed countries.

There are a couple of more things I have observed in the attitude of people not only from backward Eastern European countries but even from liberals. People from outside India think many guys are having sexual relationships among each other if they embrace or hold hands. That shows how oversexed society can cloud the vision of a person and think that all relations need to be only sexual.

Second people from a sex starved or repressive society like India feel that men and women cannot have any relationship which is not sexual.

Certainly looking at this, we can also see another kind of bias which is cultural and this bias also needs to removed to move forward spiritually. Atleast people should think about relationships which are non-sexual too.

Maybe due to less exposure to sexuality in my childhood, I could atleast have an idea about relationships which can be non-sexual even if there is physical contact between guys. People can't believe it now.

On a kind of both funny and serious note, I can say that many times people find me asexual nowadays and I am discriminated against! lol!

Though I still have lust down in my heart and I do a good job of keeping it hidden.

Audarya-lila Dasa - April 1, 2009 10:46 pm

I would give my blessing to them in the same way that I would to a heterosexual couple.

Yamuna dd,

My Guru Maharaja has already explicitly said he would give his blessing to a gay couple in the same way he would a heterosexual couple as quoted above. I personally find your continued questioning of the validity of such a blessing or the scriptural backing for such a blessing to be distasteful at best given that this is his forum and those who join and discuss here have faith in him and are following him. You joined this forum persumably because you have some faith in him but you fail to listen to him or to acknowledge all he has said on this thread.

You must follow your own heart in the matter of faith but it is really in bad taste to continue on in this way on this topic. I am sure Guru Maharaja would be happy to assist you and clarify any doubts you may have regarding the statement he made but what you are doing on this thread is decidedly not 'submissive inquiry'.

You keep talking about scripture and what is sanctioned by scripture and what isn't, but you have not offered any scripture that supports your stance. We are all familiar with Bhagavad Gita here and it's good to quote from it - but there is nothing there to support your stance. You have a world view based on your upbringing and conditioning such that you believe that God sanctions heterosexual unions but that homosexual unions are somehow sinful and 'unsanctionable'. When asked to provide scriptural support for your worldview you have come up decidedly short. Equating homosexuality with smoking or other 'bad habits' as you did in your response to Babhru simply illustrates the point that you think homosexuals are deviants and that their sexual orientation should not be tolerated or 'taught' but rather be 'taught against'. This is just plain ignorance. You're sexual orientation is not something that is 'taught' to you. It is simply part of who you are. Think about it for just a fraction of a second - what reasonable person would choose to be a homosexual given all the discrimination they would have to face by making such a choice? What reasonable person would choose to be a woman knowing all the discrimination they would have to face? What reasonable person would choose to be black in a nation of privlideged whites knowing the discrimination they would have to face?

Homosexuals don't have anything to be ashamed of. rather it is those who think they do that do.

Please give this thread a rest and if you do actually value Guru Maharaja's guidance I would suggest that you inquire from him personally and have whatever doubts you have about this subject cleared by his expert guidance.

Prahlad Das - April 2, 2009 1:16 am

Cousin Yamuna,

Audarya Lila has written well. Ethically, it is distasteful to continue this particular conversation in an opposing way. It is certainly not unethical for you to feel the way you do, it's just agitating to continue expressing it in a congregation where you are far outnumbered in opposing opinions. It can be likened to "taking a stick and beating a bees nest."

There is an eastern saying, "How can I fill your cup if it is already full?" The devotees in this sanga have tried to express their viewpoints in as much as you have tried. What I don't see happening is an acceptance on either side of this discussion. In situations like this, it pays dividends to try to acknowledge the truths in each argument. There is also a state of mind which encourages growth, called "the beginners mind". Practicing a "beginners mind" allows one to see, both objectively and subjectively, the fundamentals of their journey. Somehow, your journey has brought you to this discussion and you are finding yourself at odds with the many who are around you. What are we at odds for?

I have to admit, I am not as liberal in my considerations of sexual diversity as many of those who have posted. In a sense I have to thank you for bringing up your issues since I was able to witness the passionate discussion which took place. Personally, I am less disposed to bring up controversial issues which I already have vested interests in and prefer instead to listen, carefully, to conversations taking place regarding those issues. There are times when I don't agree and times when I do.

Not to drown anyone in cliches but sometimes we have to step back a bit to see the whole picture. If we still aren't seeing the whole picture, we need to step back a bit further. But in all circumstances we need to want to see the picture in order to see the picture.

What I see happening is this:

This world is full of gradations of both gross and subtle misidentification.

This world, and our existence in it, is caused by our attempt to be Isvara; to control and exploit our surroundings.

Our distresses in this world are brought about by our misidentifying our selves with that which is not related to us.

One does not follow the path of Dharma nor Bhakti simply by having children or by being married to members of the opposite sex.

If one were to want to share Dharma, one must become righteous themselves. "Doctor, heal thyself!" as Srila Sridhara Maharaj put it.

In order to heal one's self, one must address the disease affecting them, not address other diseases.

There are many paths of Dharma and it is confusing for the conditioned soul. What we do know is the path of righteousness produces comfortable results, and the path of unrighteousness produces difficult results. However neither one can afford permanent satisfaction, for accumulation of anything (with a material basis) for one's self is bound to be exhausted in due course of time. Perfect Dharma can bring one to the post of Brahma (the highest post available in this world) and may also provide moksha, but moksha has been frowned upon by the followers of Vraja Bhakti and Navadvipa Bhakti as selfishly motivated. The path of Bhakti however, is substantial and fulfilling to our self. Axiomatically, both Krsna and Suta Goswami present the ultimate duty of one's life:

sarva-dharman parityajya

mam ekam saranam vraja

aham tvam sarva-papebhyo

moksayisyami ma sucah

(B.G. 18.66)

and Srimad Bhagavatam states

sa vai pumsam paro dharmo

yato bhaktir adhoksaje

ahaituky apratihata

yayatma suprasidati

(S.B. 1.2.6)

If you read the purport which Srila Prabhupada wrote regarding this verse from the Srimad Bhagavatam, you can see not only his view point but also the viewpoint of Vyasa, Sukadeva, Mahaprabhu, and Gaura Bhakta Vrnda with regard to what the greatest undertaking is.

Who can really say they are existing perfectly in this world. This world is jivah jivasya jivanam (S.B. 1.13.47). There is simply no activity in this world which isn't incurring some form of paapam.

I have taken birth in a male body, which either entitles or condemns me to act as a man. I have taken birth in a heterosexual body which either entitles me or condemns me to act as a heterosexual. What I can't do is know what it is to be a woman. I can't see the beauties from their perspective nor take advantage of that type of covering. Nor can I know about homosexuality. These are material designations which are actually products of paapam and samsara.

We must concern ourselves with what Krsna wants, not what we want. This is a high level of surrender, but not unable to be had. It is through Hari Nama that we have some hope in this way. Hari Nama is so benevolent and so powerful, can we say we have a right to it? It descends upon us through the magnanimity of the Saragrahi Vaishnava. At what point were you or I qualified to chant the Holy Name? Even a brahman who lived only on milk was not qualified to because of his pride in his false identity. The more one cultivates trnad api sunicena the more one can be immersed in Hari Nama.

The Saragrahi Vaishnava, who is para dukha dukhi, sees the inherently dire situation we are in (the never ending cycle of birth and death, happiness and distress, samsara) and says, "From now onward, take shelter of Hari's Name. It is your only salvation and brings all auspiciousness to your life." Gradually one may find themselves being purified but it has to start from somewhere. For me it starts here, with me thinking "I am a heterosexual man who has fathered two children: one girl and one boy. I have such and such career and a house like this..."

These types of thoughts are anarthas I hope to become free from.

We have no other recourse, but to adopt the frame of mind (hopefully sooner than later) to see our position as insignificant (regardless of any material post we occupy) in proportion to Krsna and whatever sufferings (material identifications) we experience are somehow due to reactions of our own misdeeds.

In this regard:

tat te 'nukampāḿ su-samīkṣamāṇo

bhuñjāna evātma-kṛtaḿ vipākam

hṛd-vāg-vapurbhir vidadhan namas te

jīveta yo mukti-pade sa dāya-bhāk

(S.B. 10.14.8)

Only by receiving the shelter of Hari Nama do we have a chance to make progress in the ultimate fulfillment of our soul.

Your question, "Can a gay relationship be blessed" has been answered already. Here, Swami has said that he has no problems blessing homosexual people, but not on the basis of sex life.

Also, the vows of marriage reflect proportionately few references to sex (if any), and more reference to character, honor, protection, love, sacrifice of one's own desires for the benefit of another, honesty, and fidelity.

Swami - April 2, 2009 2:46 am

Yes, if this continues I will be left with nothing other than to bless Yamuna to be born homosexual so that she can get what we are talking about. After all some can only learn by experience. It is not wise to doubt my ability to bless.

Vamsidhari Dasa - April 2, 2009 5:31 am

I would like to announce henceforward that Guru maharaja has blessed the relationship of Bhumi devi dasi (on the left) and Raga devi dasi (on the right).They have lived together for years but wanted to finally formalize their relationship. They have been talking about adopting Rati devi dasi, but nothing has been confirmed yet.

 

So if anyone comes forth to say that homosexuality or homo-bestio-sexuality is unnatural please be warned. This is the funnies thing EVER! Bhumi dd is a big dyke, we need to take her on the dyke march which is the day before gay pride!

Vamsidhari Dasa - April 2, 2009 6:13 am

I think it is necessary to separate bisexual people from purely homosexual people because studies on homosexuality can lead to very poor results otherwise. Therefore people can think incorrectly that all homosexuals can change their sexual behavior. GL should make this point very clear especially in less developed countries.

 

 

Second people from a sex starved or repressive society like India feel that men and women cannot have any relationship which is not sexual.

 

Certainly looking at this, we can also see another kind of bias which is cultural and this bias also needs to removed to move forward spiritually. Atleast people should think about relationships which are non-sexual too.

 

On a kind of both funny and serious note, I can say that many times people find me asexual nowadays and I am discriminated against! lol!

Though I still have lust down in my heart and I do a good job of keeping it hidden.

Ok some points of clarification are needed you are not "serious for nothing" you are hilarious when you sound like some kind of "karma police." (cif. Radiohead)

Most importantly sexuality is not a question of behavior but a question of identity. So any one can do any kind sexual behavior without really having to identify as homo-hetero-bi sexual. By identity I mean a private sense of self. Also affection is not sexuality you are right and it is often confusing to Westerners with rigid identities when they see affection between members of the same sex. Sexuality and gender identification are fluid and they are on the continuum. Sexual identity is composed of three aspects: behavior, fantasy and affective preference (i.e. desire). So these three can vary in different individuals and are not necessarily always congruent.

I also strongly object that sexuality is a matter of lust, mostly because I don't believe in lust as a construct it does not exist psychologically as an independent feeling, rather it is a moralistic view of erotic desire. Seeing sexuality as only lust or based on desire would be like saying that hunger is solely based on the feeling of emptiness. Anyway just something to poke your asexual self.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 2, 2009 3:05 pm

Ok some points of clarification are needed you are not "serious for nothing" you are hilarious when you sound like some kind of "karma police." (cif. Radiohead)

 

Most importantly sexuality is not a question of behavior but a question of identity. So any one can do any kind sexual behavior without really having to identify as homo-hetero-bi sexual. By identity I mean a private sense of self. Also affection is not sexuality you are right and it is often confusing to Westerners with rigid identities when they see affection between members of the same sex. Sexuality and gender identification are fluid and they are on the continuum. Sexual identity is composed of three aspects: behavior, fantasy and affective preference (i.e. desire). So these three can vary in different individuals and are not necessarily always congruent.

I also strongly object that sexuality is a matter of lust, mostly because I don't believe in lust as a construct it does not exist psychologically as an independent feeling, rather it is a moralistic view of erotic desire. Seeing sexuality as only lust or based on desire would be like saying that hunger is solely based on the feeling of emptiness. Anyway just something to poke your asexual self.

You may not believe in lust as a construct but Krsna speaks about lust all through in the B.G and Bhagavatam. Nothing gets more explicit than that. Only he identifies with sex which is dharmic. So more or less all sexual expressions, heterosexual or homosexual do constitute lust. And this is from a absolute standpoint; otherwise yes sexual activity keeping in mind one's current conditioning can be progressive. I don't feel it is right to use the word "sinful" for sexual expression, but it is certainly spiritually detrimental from the absolute standpoint. It is not the question of morals, it is an obstacle everybody needs to overcome through spiritual practice.

And yes I have not conquered this anartha completely yet but I am aware that it is strongly detrimental to my spiritual progress.

But you are free to have your views on this point and I hope I am free too. On this point, I don't think your views represent GM or GV. If they do I will accept them.

Secondly I was just talking about etiquette in addressing a sanayasi. If that is karma police, I apologize.

Vamsidhari Dasa - April 2, 2009 3:17 pm

. On this point, I don't think your views represent GM or GV. If they do I will accept them.

As long as you do then we are all saved! You do not need to accept anything I wouldn't want to perturb your mind too much. But anyway one can never converse with you from a human point of view cuz you are such a good representative of the absolute. I dwell down here, with little people

Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 2, 2009 3:20 pm

To add one more thing, like GM said in "Ancient Wisdom for Modern Ignorance" there is some difference between hunger and sexual desire. Sexual desire can be sublimated and there have been many instances of people like Newton,Kant etc even in the west, who could live without sexual intercourse. But living without food is not possible, unless you are a mystic yogi. So a person does not die without sex, but he does without food. So the two are not equivalent.

Vamsidhari Dasa - April 2, 2009 3:34 pm

To add one more thing, like GM said in "Ancient Wisdom for Modern Ignorance" there is some difference between hunger and sexual desire. Sexual desire can be sublimated and there have been many instances of people like Newton,Kant etc even in the west, who could live without sexual intercourse. But living without food is not possible, unless you are a mystic yogi. So a person does not die without sex, but he does without food. So the two are not equivalent.

There are many forms of death one can be alive yet internally so dead and dry like a fig leaf! Anyway GM also said that he would write another book called "Ancient Ignorance for Modern Wisdom." I don't really wish to debate this with you it makes me feel I am wasting time and my Modern Wisdom. Also if you are in such an exalted company like Kant, and Newton (which is all BS by the way) why would you ever want to come down and hang out with these lowly lustful people?

Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 2, 2009 3:37 pm

There are many forms of death one can be alive yet internally so dead and dry like a fig leaf! Anyway GM also said that he would write another book called "Ancient Ignorance for Modern Wisdom."

You feel that Kant, Newton and Plato are internally dead then I want to be internally dead and dry like a fig. Please bless me to be like that!! And btw if and when I am free from lust, it is only by the grace of GM, SSM and devotees, not by my self effort. I am aware of that.

If using abusive terminology(BS) for everybody makes you happy then so be it.

And I will only speak from relative standpoint about myself. nothing absolute.

Following Wittgenstein, I should remain silent and not speak anything from absolute standpoint till I am 80.

Continue to speak your mind.

Nitaisundara Das - April 2, 2009 3:53 pm

According to Gaudiya Vedanta desire is the cause of everything here, our body, our mind, our circumstances, everything. From another perspective it is the desire of Visnu, but still a desire. Does pointing this out make one disconnected from the world? I look to Guru Maharaja to answer that question and I find a resounding "no". That is the world. "Detachment is about getting closer to people" in a meaningful way, and Gaura vijaya is proposing the theory that underlies the cultivation of detachment. Maybe you should not dismiss it so readily. We are not your enemies Vamsi, nor are we fanatics, we are fellow servants of Guru Maharaja trying to represent his vision.

Gaura-vijaya I did not interpret the HDG thing like you did but it was totally appropriate to say it given how you read it. Speak on brother man.

Vamsidhari Dasa - April 2, 2009 4:19 pm

Guru Maharaja trying to represent his vision.

If anyone thinks that GM views are fully represented and elaborated in "Ancient Wisdom..." then I would strongly suggest that they stop readying and start listening cuz not only have they missed the point but they might actually also miss the boat.

I actually have no problem with the notion of detachment but I do not believe that GV is talking about that. I would call it "determent" as a better adjective. People think that if they turn something into an abject they are detached from it but that is easy. I think that the point of what GM is saying that the world, worldly, people and human things are valuable and precious to know that and to be able to let it go is how I think of detachment but to say that it is a stinky piece of crap and look at it from some kind of Kantian distance then thats just bogus.

So there you go, bro, chew on that and may I just remind you once again that I am a part of we so that I don't see you as very different then I although I am much better lookin

Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 2, 2009 4:22 pm

Gaura-vijaya I did not interpret the HDG thing like you did but it was totally appropriate to say it given how you read it. Speak on brother man.

Madan gopala also did not read it that way and he already clarified that.

Anything I speak is taken as a sign of arrogance by vamsi and he puts me on a pedestal sarcastically. I never claimed to be on that pedestal but is it necessary to condemn one for having that ideal and aspiration, that too with biting sarcasm. Maybe it is necessary so that one can learn to ignore these small things and move on, respecting the different personalities involved in a mission.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 2, 2009 4:27 pm

If anyone thinks that GM views are fully represented and elaborated in "Ancient Wisdom..." then I would strongly suggest that they

No they are not, I just made a point from that book. It was not the complete GV philosophy and you missed Nitai's point too. He never claimed that book is representing Gaudiya Vaisnavism completely. He did even mention the book.

There are different kinds of personalities and saying that people who are looking the world from Kantian detachment are incorrect shows how insensitive you are to people like me, who like to function in small groups. Kant did not even say that the world is crap and you are not aware of his philosophy. I am sorry to say this. Some people are more introvert and some are more extrovert and outreaching and they will have their own way of progressing spiritually.

Vamsidhari Dasa - April 2, 2009 4:31 pm

There are different kinds of personalities and so saying that people who are looking the world from Kantian detachment are incorrect shows how insensitive you are people like me, who are loners. Some people are more introvert and some are more extrovert and outreaching and they will have their own way of progressing spiritually.

you can introvert as much as you want but what I am reacting to is speaking from this position of authority in scriptural matter that is really annoying and yes I am intolerant of that and also insensitive.

Swami - April 2, 2009 4:33 pm

I also strongly object that sexuality is a matter of lust, mostly because I don't believe in lust as a construct it does not exist psychologically as an independent feeling, rather it is a moralistic view of erotic desire. Seeing sexuality as only lust or based on desire would be like saying that hunger is solely based on the feeling of emptiness. Anyway just something to poke your asexual self.

You have labeled sex as erotic desire while stating that seeing sexuality as being based on desire is incorrect.

Taken theologically lust means erotic desire that is an impediment to spiritual life. As I have often stated, everyone agrees that erotic desire needs to be regulated in human society but everyone draws the line differently. I think Vamisdhari that you would agree, for example, that erotic desire on the part of an adult for a child or animal would be inappropriate or that another's erotic desire in relation to yourself may need to be regulated, if perhaps you were unwilling. Rape is also an outgrowth of erotic desire and although it may also have social causes.

At any rate everyone agrees that erotic desire is not inherently bad. It even has its place and its expression in the Absolute. But "down here" it needs to be regulated and hopefully and ultimately traced out to its origin in Radha Krsna where it finds its most wholesome expression.

So lust may be merely a moral judgement on erotic desire but it is nonetheless very real and plays a part not only in religious life but also in essential spiritual pursuit as pointed out by Gaura-vijaya. That is unless one does not acknowledge an ontological Radha Krsna but instead merely a postmodern subjective one, and even then it is hard to see how lust would not be real in some sense in this case as well at least as an impediment to experiencing the subjective reality of prema as it might be thought of.

This issue aside your tone to Gaura-vijaya is unnecessarily condescending and unbecoming for a person who considers himself educated, especially when speaking to another other educated people. It almost seems that your condescension and flippant manner of speech is a smokescreen for avoiding discussion that may expose the shortcomings of a particular position you may have taken. It's not, in other words, convincing.

Vamsidhari Dasa - April 2, 2009 11:56 pm

You have labeled sex as erotic desire while stating that seeing sexuality as being based on desire is incorrect.

 

Taken theologically lust means erotic desire that is an impediment to spiritual life. As I have often stated, everyone agrees that erotic desire needs to be regulated in human society but everyone draws the line differently. I think Vamisdhari that you would agree, for example, that erotic desire on the part of an adult for a child or animal would be inappropriate or that another's erotic desire in relation to yourself may need to be regulated, if perhaps you were unwilling. Rape is also an outgrowth of erotic desire and although it may also have social causes.

 

At any rate everyone agrees that erotic desire is not inherently bad. It even has its place and its expression in the Absolute. But "down here" it needs to be regulated and hopefully and ultimately traced out to its origin in Radha Krsna where it finds its most wholesome expression.

 

So lust may be merely a moral judgement on erotic desire but it is nonetheless very real and plays a part not only in religious life but also in essential spiritual pursuit as pointed out by Gaura-vijaya. That is unless one does not acknowledge an ontological Radha Krsna but instead merely a postmodern subjective one, and even then it is hard to see how lust would not be real in some sense in this case as well at least as an impediment to experiencing the subjective reality of prema as it might be thought of.

 

This issue aside your tone to Gaura-vijaya is unnecessarily condescending and unbecoming for a person who considers himself educated, especially when speaking to another other educated people. It almost seems that your condescension and flippant manner of speech is a smokescreen for avoiding discussion that may expose the shortcomings of a particular position you may have taken. It's not, in other words, convincing.

Dear Guru Maharaja,

I apologize that my posts have disturbed you enough to react. Yes, I do deserve to be chastised and thank you for that.

However let me explain to you what I mean. By erotic desire I mean love, i.e., desire for physical union with another based on love. Rape, pedophilia, and bestiality are not based on love but on desire to dominate, subjugate, hurt, humiliate the other (or self) therefore it cannot be considered erotic they could be considered sadistic, aggressive, impulsive. I have also identified in my post that sexuality, and sexual orientation are multi-determined and that they are not only a product of desire. That is why I said that lust does not exist because what is usually considered lustful and inappropriate is not based on love and erotic desire but on those things that I elected above for example. If you read anywhere that I was advocating free love of free lusting then let me take that back because it is not my intention.

Another point is that even those people who have sexual compulsions cannot be said to have their behavior motivated by lust but by depression, fear, addiction, self-hatred, desperation. Outside it looks like desire but inside it is something completely different. If you speak to these people you almost never find that desire to love is a motivator.

I cannot comment on ontological truths and in that regard I bow down to your authority. As a matter of fact I never allow myself to speak on these subjects because I do not know enough to speak with some conviction. What is the point of me repeating that Srimad Sridar Dev Goswami said or what you said if I don't really know what that means? I accept it and wait for the time to be able to speak about it. Everybody read the same books and we all read different things in them. The Modern Ignorance had its value in the context in which appeared but I find it hard to see now-days that you still hold many of those views. However, in this area there is much more I do not know.

What is problematic for me is that when we speak of issues of sexuality, philosophy, or tattoos just to name a few, someone inevitably says "Krishna says..." "scripture says," "sadhu says", etc. At that point all conversation stops because how does one respond to that? At that point one can just sit quietly because there is only one Absolute truth and thats it. I react to dogmatism, parroting, rigidity, to inability to consider what I said because it is too disturbing. I do that in every person or group I belong to, because I like to challenge people's views of self and other that are based on things that are poorly understood at best and misunderstood at the worst. It does not mean that I think I am better then anyone or that I know better.

I am also not here to convince anyone of anything I abandoned that long ago. I am not pulling what I say out of thin air or sit here to develop some theories of my own but what I said is based on what I know about human sexuality, mental and emotional life granted that I am not the absolute expert on it (thank God!!!). Simply I do not have time to espouse entire theories and the breath of experience that are behind what I say.

I apologize if my tone to GV offended you and him and that you feel it is unbecoming of me. I deeply regret that. I will recuse myself from any further comments if you wish especially if it only builds animosity. Perhaps I really do not have much to offer and I will think about that.

Thank you for reading.

Yours

Vamsidhari

Prahlad Das - April 3, 2009 2:20 am

To add one more thing, like GM said in "Ancient Wisdom for Modern Ignorance" there is some difference between hunger and sexual desire. Sexual desire can be sublimated and there have been many instances of people like Newton,Kant etc even in the west, who could live without sexual intercourse. But living without food is not possible, unless you are a mystic yogi. So a person does not die without sex, but he does without food. So the two are not equivalent.

I find it interesting that we seem to be arguing half-truths. I agree with you, Gaura Vijaya Prabhu, that of bodily necessities, food takes a powerful precedence over sex. Just as a heterosexual may not know what it is to exist as a homosexual, so to does a person, who is not starving, not have a glimpse of what it is to be a starving person. I do have to wonder, if a person on the brink of involuntary starvation was offered a choice of erotic pleasures or food, what would they choose?

Needs and desires are often mixed in gray areas...necessities are confused with desires and desires become augmented to the position of necessities. "I need a car" is not the same as "I want a car." Obviously, anyone thinking they need a car can take counsel from the Amish community as to how perfectly normal it is to not have one. Taking it to another level, "I need to have sex," is not the same thing as, "I want to have sex." And yet, on another level, "I need to eat" is not the same as "I want to eat."

It is laughable and strange to think of someone actually needing to have sex in order for their body to continue functioning. There may be an actual physical ailment like this, but I'm not familiar with it.

We may not be on a mature level of existence, but instruction, logic and philosophy are there for us to acknowledge the possibility of a more mature stage of existence. They give us a goal to look forward to. It is not enough to simply say that we aren't there so it doesn't exist. We have all come to a certain degree of understanding, by the grace of exalted Vaishnavas (such as Swami), that even life, itself, continues even without eating. Life continues even without our mortal frame.

We are all here, on this forum, because we are searching for association with the Absolute Truth. We have found a surplus in this association and it would do good for us to try to keep that as a filter through which we communicate. Learning involves practice otherwise it is simply hearing.

Swami - April 3, 2009 2:44 am

Dear Guru Maharaja,

I apologize that my posts have disturbed you enough to react. Yes, I do deserve to be chastised and thank you for that.

However let me explain to you what I mean. By erotic desire I mean love, i.e., desire for physical union with another based on love. Rape, pedophilia, and bestiality are not based on love but on desire to dominate, subjugate, hurt, humiliate the other (or self) therefore it cannot be considered erotic they could be considered sadistic, aggressive, impulsive. I have also identified in my post that sexuality, and sexual orientation are multi-determined and that they are not only a product of desire. That is why I said that lust does not exist because what is usually considered lustful and inappropriate is not based on love and erotic desire but on those things that I elected above for example. If you read anywhere that I was advocating free love of free lusting then let me take that back because it is not my intention.

 

Another point is that even those people who have sexual compulsions cannot be said to have their behavior motivated by lust but by depression, fear, addiction, self-hatred, desperation. Outside it looks like desire but inside it is something completely different. If you speak to these people you almost never find that desire to love is a motivator.

 

I cannot comment on ontological truths and in that regard I bow down to your authority. As a matter of fact I never allow myself to speak on these subjects because I do not know enough to speak with some conviction. What is the point of me repeating that Srimad Sridar Dev Goswami said or what you said if I don't really know what that means? I accept it and wait for the time to be able to speak about it. Everybody read the same books and we all read different things in them. The Modern Ignorance had its value in the context in which appeared but I find it hard to see now-days that you still hold many of those views. However, in this area there is much more I do not know.

 

What is problematic for me is that when we speak of issues of sexuality, philosophy, or tattoos just to name a few, someone inevitably says "Krishna says..." "scripture says," "sadhu says", etc. At that point all conversation stops because how does one respond to that? At that point one can just sit quietly because there is only one Absolute truth and thats it. I react to dogmatism, parroting, rigidity, to inability to consider what I said because it is too disturbing. I do that in every person or group I belong to, because I like to challenge people's views of self and other that are based on things that are poorly understood at best and misunderstood at the worst. It does not mean that I think I am better then anyone or that I know better.

I am also not here to convince anyone of anything I abandoned that long ago. I am not pulling what I say out of thin air or sit here to develop some theories of my own but what I said is based on what I know about human sexuality, mental and emotional life granted that I am not the absolute expert on it (thank God!!!). Simply I do not have time to espouse entire theories and the breath of experience that are behind what I say.

I apologize if my tone to GV offended you and him and that you feel it is unbecoming of me. I deeply regret that. I will recuse myself from any further comments if you wish especially if it only builds animosity. Perhaps I really do not have much to offer and I will think about that.

Thank you for reading.

Yours

Vamsidhari

Your first two paragraphs help to an extent to explain your statement that lust does not exist as a construct. Basically you seem to say, as I read it, that love (erotic desire) is devoid of lust and other types of sexuality that do not constitute erotic love that are often called lust are in actuality almost always motivated by something else. I will have to think about that and I think that it maybe worth discussing with others here. But initially what strikes me about this notion is that there is a huge pornographic industry in this world and while people may have differing motives for getting involved in it other than love or sexual interest, it is hard to dismiss altogether the idea that this industry is not primarily fueled by excessive sexual desire, which the dictionary defines as lust. People want sex and not out of love. They may love a partner but see another "sexy" person and desire sex with that person, not love and not anything else. Are we just to assume that such people have other issues under the surface that makes them feel like this and not label it lust or excessive sexual desire?

Now regarding religious fundamentalism, it seems to me that we are regularly exposing its shortcomings on this forum. We do cite scripture but tend to look at such citations or words of acaryas from many angles in an effort to extract the essence of what has been said with a view to apply it in our times. For example, the fundamentalism of Yamuna on this thread's topic is something that almost everyone else deplored. In other words when someone says "Krsna says . . ." I do not find that the conversation stops at all. Even if "I say" it does not stop because I have made it a point to encourage critcal spiritual thinking and made it clear that it may in some instances be spiritually correct to have different opinions on one subject. So your statement sounds more as though it may be out of balance in that you feel the need to nuke anyone citing scripture in the context of offering an answer even on this forum. After all, there is a place for citing scripture and sometimes Krsna has pretty good answers! So good that one can think about them forever and come up with new understandings of what he means.

As for the idea that you may really no have much to offer, we may need a psychologist to understand what's behind it.

Vamsidhari Dasa - April 3, 2009 5:02 pm

Dear Guru Maharaja,

Thanks for your kind response.

Your first two paragraphs help to an extent to explain your statement that lust does not exist as a construct. Basically you seem to say, as I read it, that love (erotic desire) is devoid of lust and other types of sexuality that do not constitute erotic love that are often called lust are in actuality almost always motivated by something else. I will have to think about that and I think that it maybe worth discussing with others here. But initially what strikes me about this notion is that there is a huge pornographic industry in this world and while people may harave differing motives for getting involved in it other than love or sexual interest, it is hard to dismiss altogether the idea that this industry is not primarily fueled by excessive sexual desire, which the dictionary defines as lust. People want sex and not out of love. They may love a partner but see another "sexy" person and desire sex with that person, not love and not anything else. Are we just to assume that such people have other issues under the surface that makes them feel like this and not label it lust or excessive sexual desire?

 

 

You understand better then anyone I think that nothing in this world is purely one thing. So even though my argument appears to be somewhat reductionistic it should be understood that things are infinitely complicated. Yes I do not believe that pornographic industry is based on erotic desire. It is based on excuse my French, "getting off." So people might have the need for it because they are angry and looking for a release, they are lonely and do not have much meaningful human contact. I think it is based more on aggression, anger, fear, some internal emptiness that longs for fulfillment but cannot take anything nutrition in. We all know that some feminist say that pornography is degrading to women and as such servers to keep women in a degrading state. In other words EVERYTHING can be sexualized but that it no the same as the erotic. The erotic is really the love of life, the other as a compete being, separate but the same. It is what makes the world go around but it is a form of energy that comes from the inside, the impetus to create, generate, be loved and recognized as a whole human being, etc. (I must stop here cuz I might be sounding too much like a hippie). I am reminded of SP's story that you fondly tell us about the skyscrapers. Being the trickster that He was why do you think he chose skyscrapers as a metaphor? My understanding of the story you tell is so simple but very instructive. The world is AWESOME but only a part of the Lord and nothing really to fear or put down.

 

 

Now regarding religious fundamentalism, it seems to me that we are regularly exposing its shortcomings on this forum. We do cite scripture but tend to look at such citations or words of acaryas from many angles in an effort to extract the essence of what has been said with a view to apply it in our times. For example, the fundamentalism of Yamuna on this thread's topic is something that almost everyone else deplored. In other words when someone says "Krsna says . . ." I do not find that the conversation stops at all. Even if "I say" it does not stop because I have made it a point to encourage critcal spiritual thinking and made it clear that it may in some instances be spiritually correct to have different opinions on one subject. So your statement sounds more as though it may be out of balance in that you feel the need to nuke anyone citing scripture in the context of offering an answer even on this forum. After all, there is a place for citing scripture and sometimes Krsna has pretty good answers! So good that one can think about them forever and come up with new understandings of what he means.

 

 

To be clear I was not referring to "fundamentalism" here. But in fairness we all have and need some "fundamentalistic" attitudes and understanding of things. I think that it is a necessary step in learning but thats all it is just a step. So yes I am very guilty on nuking certain people when they sound so formulaic. It is the worst way to get a point across but hopefully disturbance would create some cracking of rigidity in toughs. Just to make sure I said it I am often guilty of the same.

 

:Just Kidding: I love Krishna's answers but I find them so liberating and never really limiting or one sided. Maybe its because I see your example of how you lived then in your quotidian life and it all really just makes me giggle a lot. Maybe I am just completely :Just Kidding:

 

As for the idea that you may really no have much to offer, we may need a psychologist to understand what's behind it.

 

I am working on it!

 

But now I really wanted to come to the main point of our argument. When people discuss matters of gayness inevitably there comes a point of talking about lust and lustful things and seeing that as a motivator. As I said before sexuality is not a matter of lust it is a matter of IDENTITY. This identity is painfully forged in opposition to the world around it. The whole point of gay marriage is to recognize that we are capable of having relationships that are based on more then just "getting off." This is what I was trying to say. Marriage is a social context in which these relationships would be allowed to occur. When gay people were criminals they took that identity on and behaved like criminals. It took people like Oscar Wilde, for example, to speak of LOVE that "does not dare to speak its name" so that we could gradually move away from THINKING of homosexuality as anything but immoral, criminal behavior. The same goes for homosexuality as psychopathology. It was de-pathologized in 1974 by the American Psychiatric Association citing numerous studies that showed no difference in mental health between hetero and homo-sapiens . But it took the professional association I belong to 20 years to start considering homosexuality as something else then character pathology. So it is hard to change the way we think of things even contrary to the evidence what to speak of something that appear contrary to our core believes about who we are as people. Marriage in its inception was not based on lust but on property law. A woman, by marrying a man, would become a part of his property. Later we started thinking that women might actually be human being and have rights but not before some women said ENOUGH! The marriage moved from property to sanctity only relatively early in human history. I think lust came later because it was thought that because women have uteri their desire is uncontrollable and need to be checked by sanctifying marriage in the eyes of God. Mean while back in the camp "the boys were boys..." I know that in these point you or anyone else does not need any convincing.

I think that there is something about our erotic desire that is very disturbing to us and I think that it is because it is much larger and sponger then what we can take. So we have always been very scared of it and used many means to curtail it. I do not believe that it can be any different. Maybe in a selected few.

Thank you for your kind attention.

 

Yours

Vamsidhari

 

Jaya Sri Ram Jaya Sri Sannyasa!

Vamsidhari Dasa - April 3, 2009 6:06 pm

I wanted to add one more thing to this.

Romantic love as we know it did not even exist before the romanticism. I mean even the concept was foreign to us until so recently in history and when it first appeared people laughed at it thought it was of no importance that is irrelevant to human condition. So in that vain, before we even thought of love, people could not be united in love but only in lust, it was a question of property of prosperity. then came the Romanticists and bursted the bubble sort to speak. So we can think what is the Romanticists contribution to modern thought..... Just a thought....We first have to allow something to appear in our minds before we can actually see it in the world and by that I mean social-cultural-political world.

Swami - April 3, 2009 6:20 pm

I wanted to add one more thing to this.

Romantic love as we know it did not even exist before the romanticism. I mean even the concept was foreign to us until so recently in history and when it first appeared people laughed at it thought it was of no importance that is irrelevant to human condition. So in that vain, before we even thought of love, people could not be united in love but only in lust, it was a question of property of prosperity. then came the Romanticists and bursted the bubble sort to speak. So we can think what is the Romanticists contribution to modern thought..... Just a thought....We first have to allow something to appear in our minds before we can actually see it in the world and by that I mean social-cultural-political world.

\\

Your point aside, are you forgetting that India is part of the world? Long before Europe's Romanticism of the 18th century Indian literature spoke of erotic and romantic love.

Vamsidhari Dasa - April 3, 2009 7:56 pm

\\

 

Your point aside, are you forgetting that India is part of the world? Long before Europe's Romanticism of the 18th century Indian literature spoke of erotic and romantic love.

I think that WAS my point.

Vamsidhari Dasa - April 3, 2009 8:13 pm

I find it interesting that we seem to be arguing half-truths. I agree with you, Gaura Vijaya Prabhu, that of bodily necessities, food takes a powerful precedence over sex. Just as a heterosexual may not know what it is to exist as a homosexual, so to does a person, who is not starving, not have a glimpse of what it is to be a starving person. I do have to wonder, if a person on the brink of involuntary starvation was offered a choice of erotic pleasures or food, what would they choose?

 

Needs and desires are often mixed in gray areas...necessities are confused with desires and desires become augmented to the position of necessities. "I need a car" is not the same as "I want a car." Obviously, anyone thinking they need a car can take counsel from the Amish community as to how perfectly normal it is to not have one. Taking it to another level, "I need to have sex," is not the same thing as, "I want to have sex." And yet, on another level, "I need to eat" is not the same as "I want to eat."

 

It is laughable and strange to think of someone actually needing to have sex in order for their body to continue functioning. There may be an actual physical ailment like this, but I'm not familiar with it.

I disagree that you do not know what it is to exist as a homosexual because it is the same as existing as heterosexual except that the object of DESIRE is of the same sex. There is really no great mystery there. You might not know how it feels to have your desire labeled as deviant, wrong, immoral, sick, or that you are forever condemned to be a failure in your endeavors just because of object of your affection. But I am sure that in your life you could find instances when you felt some version of the above feelings that you might want to multiply 100 fold.

There would be some things that you could do to start imaging how us gays might feel. Take everything you are and everything you love and everything you think of your self as and then just imagine that that is wrong/deviant/sick/ etc.

Also when we were in college we had to do these experiment to immerse ourselves in other's experience to learn first hand how it is to BE someone. So we had to chose something that is totally foreign to us like women had to live like men, men like women, gays as straights, straights as gays etc. So you might want to try live as a gay person for a day, speak only to gay people, do only gay things ( :Just Kidding: ), and maybe you will get a glimpse of how it might feel for a gay person to be in this world.

All that said, you see, the most important point that I want to make is there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR YOU TO DO THAT! You do not have to know and you life will be as good as it has always been. Some people, on the other hand, are really not that lucky.

Also to be human is not just to have wants and needs that are connected to physical life. There is also emotional life and emotional needs, there is spiritual life and, I assume with that there also also spiritual needs. I don't think that these have to be mutually exclusive. But how to get there OMG, I haven't a clue (yet).

Swami - April 3, 2009 9:45 pm

I think that WAS my point.

achaa

Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 3, 2009 9:47 pm

\\

 

Your point aside, are you forgetting that India is part of the world? Long before Europe's Romanticism of the 18th century Indian literature spoke of erotic and romantic love.

I think that Greeks too did a fairly good job of depicting erotic and romantic love. And homosexuality was not a taboo for them; they didn't do such a good job with women though.

There are some people who are psychologically healthy and still watch pornography. I know some couples who watch pornography together and they are enjoying life very well. Isabells Rossellini said that she loves filming animals having sex, not "humans having sex" and she is not known to have any concrete psychological issues. In one sense, everybody has some psychological issue. "Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you"-Jung. Certainly there will be some psychological understanding for this phenomenon. Wittgenstein said that philosophers should not speak using metaphysics and they need psychiatric treatment so that they stop asking metaphysical questions. According to him, the mystic and metaphysical things should not be spoken about at all and one should remain silent on these issues. So psychology has taken the space of philosophy completely now.

I agree that lust is just a feeling of emptiness or unfulfilled desires but so is any desire like anger, fear etc. So should we stop using any words to describe them? If we work according to linguistic analysis, we will be able to make only tautological or analytic statement which hardly convey any information. As soon as you write anything else, one can find a contradiction.

For example:

think it is based more on aggression, anger, fear, some internal emptiness that longs for fulfillment but cannot take anything nutrition in

If Lust is not a construct but it is more based on aggression, anger and fear why are these qualities constructs? Why is anger and fear more primary than lust?

Now I should stop.

Swami - April 3, 2009 10:16 pm

I think one could argue that love is just a construct and that lust or raw sexual desire is primal:

As creatures we are sexually attracted initially, even if we are not aware of it. So lust comes first as a biological imperative. As for love, that's a construct and does not actually exist. It's a way of describing the way we go against our programming and our biological imperative to remain with someone who satisfies the evolved part of us.

Audarya-lila Dasa - April 3, 2009 11:35 pm

I'd like to add a perspective based on my own personal experience regarding intimacy, sex life, lust etc. First off I would like to say that I believe that the idea that the only sex that is allowable within a devotee's life is that which is between husband and wife for the sole purpose of procreation led to a lot of disfunctional people and a lot of 'hiding' of peoples 'dirty little secrets'. I agree with the general tone of the last few posts that sex within the context of a committed loving relationship is, no doubt the highest human expression of sexuality because it is based on deep committment and love.

Having said the above I would also like to temper the whole thing by stating the unavoidable - as sadhakas whose goal is nitya seva we have to be honest and realistic about all our human seperate interests no matter how noble or how close to divine we may feel they are. There are gradations to human endeavors and motivations in all fields of thought and endeavor. Why would sex be any different? Even in the most loving relationship sex is still sex. It is not the simply 'getting off' type as Vamsi suggested might be the case wtih one who is engaged in a lower expression of sexuality - but it is, afterall, a sensual act and one that is based on seperate interest to nitya seva. I know the sahajiyas like to think that sex can be divine, but that is not an accepted doctrine within our lineage. I know Jagadananda, who is a very thoughtful devotee, thinks that since sexuality is so central to the human and divine experience that human sexuality must be able to be spiritualized and hence he is a card carrying sahajiya.

I disagree with that notion entirely. I don't think that human sexuality has to be portrayed as someting bad or perverse to get the point across that seperate interests should gradually fade away as we develop deeper and deeper faith and engage more intensely in seva. Undoubtedly a conjugal relationship which fosters sexual intimacy is as close to the divine as we can come in our human relations, but it is still at the end of the day - material.

I've thought a lot about this issue and while I can see how other sensual 'pleasures' can be spiritualized by putting Krsna in the center, I cannot see the same with regard to human sexuality other than the above mentioned sex for procreation as seva ideal.

So while 'lust' may be a word that goes against your finer sensibilities Vamsi, I do think that in the broadest sense of the word if you use it in the context of the urge for seperate enjoyment whether that be wanting to share intimacy or just 'get off' it would appear to me to be a fitting terminology.

Nitaisundara Das - April 4, 2009 12:16 am

If Lust is not a construct but it is more based on aggression, anger and fear why are these qualities constructs? Why is anger and fear more primary than lust?

I think this is a good point. Gita 2.62-63 seems to confirm that desire comes first. It says anger springs forth from desire. Scriptural authority aside, from the very first time I read the Gita I always felt these verses to be very practically evident in life. So whether anger is the apparent cause of lust or not, underlying that I think is an excessive desire (a lust of sorts) for something, be it attention, control, etc.

Prahlad Das - April 4, 2009 12:33 am

I think that Greeks too did a fairly good job of depicting erotic and romantic love. And homosexuality was not a taboo for them; they didn't do such a good job with women though.

Nor children.

Swami - April 4, 2009 12:33 am

I know the sahajiyas like to think that sex can be divine, but that is not an accepted doctrine within our lineage. I know Jagadananda, who is a very thoughtful devotee, thinks that since sexuality is so central to the human and divine experience that human sexuality must be able to be spiritualized and hence he is a card carrying sahajiya.

 

I disagree with that notion entirely. I don't think that human sexuality has to be portrayed as someting bad or perverse to get the point across that seperate interests should gradually fade away as we develop deeper and deeper faith and engage more intensely in seva. Undoubtedly a conjugal relationship which fosters sexual intimacy is as close to the divine as we can come in our human relations, but it is still at the end of the day - material.

 

I've thought a lot about this issue and while I can see how other sensual 'pleasures' can be spiritualized by putting Krsna in the center, I cannot see the same with regard to human sexuality other than the above mentioned sex for procreation as seva ideal.

Yes, I agree. In this regard I had an email exchange with Jagadananda in 2007 after he contacted me and began discussing his sahajiya ideas. Below are my two responses to him, neither of which he replied to with anything significant. Remeber when reading htem that I am writing to a particular person, so my points are tailored to his sensibilties and insights and are further based on our relationship of many years.

One:

Jagat,

Glad I could be of help. I have not been a reader of your blog, but I did hear of your sahajiya inclinations sometime ago and how they had affected your association. You and I have talked before about these things to some extent, but never in detail.

I understand that humanity and spirituality come together in Gaudiya Vaisnanvism. However, as you know, the result of this union is the disappearance of kama with the gradual appearance of prema. The disappearance of kama is not the sadhya, but prema will not manifest until quite some time after kama disappears within the context of the culture of bhakti.

My experience is that the spiritual bliss that arises in krsnanusilanam at any stage along the path makes sense indulgence and mundane relationships seem distasteful. In my experience this includes even the desire to taste and eat palatable and nourishing foods. In my experience it does not cause me to loose love for friends, children, etc., but it changes the dynamic of such love because it causes me to see others differently. I cease from seeing them as objects of exploitation that I think I need in order to be whole. Instead I experience them from a spiritual perspective, and I understand the detachment that ensues to be an abstract form of love that is concomitant to the sadhya of prema. With this detachment that corresponds with a developing Krsna centered love I feel I have grown into a better position from which to love all people.

What I meant to say about humanity and Vedanta being at odds is that without the Vedanta side of the Gaudiya Vedanta world view in place it is easy to err on the side of kama in the name of prema or its development. Adding Gaudiya to the term Vedanta with all that is does to validate the human sense of what life is about (sexuality included) does not do away with basic tenants of Vedanta: there is a difference between the body and ourselves. At least this is my experience.

Furthermore, bhava is something quite different from anything within the mundane experience, although we readily draw examples from our mundane experience in an effort to explain and understand it. What is mahabhava svarupini? Knowing requires going there to find out—"People will tell you where the've gone. The'll tell you where to go, but till you get there yourself you'll never really know" (Joni Mitchell).

I realize that "there" is here, but it is being here in a way that we are not at present. If that turns out to be enjoying one's senses with a different angle of vision than the one I had before embarking on the path, I am certainly not opposed to that, but I do not think I would arrive there without going through the detachment that seems to occur naturally as a by product of hearing and chanting about Radha Govinda, detachment that seems to foster hearing and chanting with increased taste.

TWO:

Jagat,

I found your blog and read you post on promiscuity and sadhana. Now I understand you ideas better. If one can employ eating in sadhana, why not sex? For that matter, does not the lila speak loudly to us along these lines if we but listen?

Personally I think the tradition does speak overtly of employing sex in sadhana in a way that fosters sacrifice, which I understand to be the underlying foundation of true love. What does the tradition advocate in this regard? Married life, or in terms I am more comfortable with, "a committed relationship."

Most Gaudiya sects are no doubt sexually repressed. In my sect I have worked to insure that this does happen. I ask no vows of celibacy with the exception of those committed to monastic life, even while both men and women live at our monasteries (thus the sexually neutral term "monastics). I suggest that others find partners through the social system of the society they live in, which often involves premarital sex, living together before marriage, etc.—all of this in pursuit of finding a relationship that makes sense, one that helps to stabilize one emotionally so that one can be better suited for increased spiritual practice. Within a committed relationship partners are not expected to meet Victorian standards, and for good reasons. They are encouraged to pursue an ethically, morally responsible life in consideration of the times in which they live, taking into consideration issues we all face in today's world, rather than attempt to adhere to a morality that does not answer to the complexity of today's world. In doing so different opinions arise and each person is expected to make their own decisions, while honoring those of others.

The overall spirit is not that sex is bad, but rather that it does need to be harnessed sensibly, and furthermore it is but a shadow of the light of prema, a shadow that one can learn something valuable from in terms of spiritual attainment. This is of course very different form all of the other Gaudiya sects that I am familiar with. Still it has nothing to do with sahajiya sadhana, as I understand it. Nor do I think that the Gaudiya tradition speaks to us of that kind of sadhana. My experience leads me to believe that progressive, spiritually serious people will more readily identify with this model similar to mine than they will with one advocating a sexually explicit form of sadhana.

Just thought I would share this with you. You obviously have your own path to pursue.

Swami

Prahlad Das - April 4, 2009 12:36 am

I think one could argue that love is just a construct and that lust or raw sexual desire is primal:

 

As creatures we are sexually attracted initially, even if we are not aware of it. So lust comes first as a biological imperative. As for love, that's a construct and does not actually exist. It's a way of describing the way we go against our programming and our biological imperative to remain with someone who satisfies the evolved part of us.

Love it! :Just Kidding:

Vamsidhari Dasa - April 4, 2009 12:44 am

I think one could argue that love is just a construct and that lust or raw sexual desire is primal:

 

As creatures we are sexually attracted initially, even if we are not aware of it. So lust comes first as a biological imperative. As for love, that's a construct and does not actually exist. It's a way of describing the way we go against our programming and our biological imperative to remain with someone who satisfies the evolved part of us.

I am wondering who took Guru Maharaja and exchanged him with Dr. Freud.

What is the biological imperative?

Swami - April 4, 2009 1:25 am

I am wondering who took Guru Maharaja and exchanged him with Dr. Freud.

 

What is the biological imperative?

I am still here. Never did like Sigmund (protector) Freud (joy) much. Not much love there.

Prahlad Das - April 4, 2009 1:34 am

We seem to be discussing love and joy and I'd like to share two personally inspirational statements by Rabindranath Tagore:

I slept and dreamt that life was joy. I awoke and saw that life was service. I acted and behold, service was joy.

In love, at one of its poles you find the personal, at the other the impersonal. At one you have the positive assertion - Here I am; at the other the equally strong denial - I am not. Without this ego what is love? And again, with only this ego how can love be possible?

Nitaisundara Das - April 4, 2009 2:26 am

Brief digression:

Prahlad, you are so busted for holding out on us on the quotes thread! Those are great.

Vamsidhari Dasa - April 4, 2009 3:59 am

I am still here. Never did like Sigmund (protector) Freud (joy) much. Not much love there.

I was beginning to wonder :Just Kidding: Its true not much love there. I very much like your response to Jagadananda.

What does sahajiya really mean?

Prahlad Das - April 4, 2009 4:07 am

Brief digression:

 

Prahlad, you are so busted for holding out on us on the quotes thread! Those are great.

LOL! :Just Kidding: I strike when I least expect it! :Just Kidding: Feel free to relocate them.

Vamsidhari Dasa - April 4, 2009 4:17 am

So while 'lust' may be a word that goes against your finer sensibilities Vamsi, I do think that in the broadest sense of the word if you use it in the context of the urge for seperate enjoyment whether that be wanting to share intimacy or just 'get off' it would appear to me to be a fitting terminology.

Yes I might have no sense but I do have sensibilities. I was reacting to the pejorative aspect of lust that is often used to perpetuate prejudice. I was also trying to say that not all forms of sexual activity are based on "lust," that there is a difference between erotic (loving) and other kinds of desire. Again, I was responding that most forms of uninhibited sexual behavior are not based on sexual desire but could be based on many other desires.

I also do not believe that people are "naturally without sex desires" but that kind of state of mind can be a sign of either elevated spiritual nature or of some kind of psychopathology (but enough about that).

Devyah-pati Das SERBIA - April 4, 2009 9:10 am

This song describes nicely how do homosexual people feel

when they are discriminated...

SMALLTOWN BOY - (singing Bronski Beat)

You leave in the morning

With everything you own

In a little black case

Alone on a platform

The wind and the rain

On a sad and lonely face

Mother will never understand

Why you had to leave

But the answers you seek

Will never be found at home

The love that you need

Will never be found at home

Run away, turn away, run away, turn away, run away

Run away, turn away, run away, turn away, run away

Pushed around and kicked around

Always a lonely boy

You were the one

That theyd talk about around town

As they put you down

And as hard as they would try

Theyd hurt to make you cry

But you never cried to them

Just to your soul

No you never cried to them

Just to your soul

Run away, turn away, run away, turn away, run away

Run away, turn away, run away, turn away, run away

Cry , boy, cry...

You leave in the morning

With everything you own

In a little black case

Alone on a platform

The wind and the rain

On a sad and lonely face

Run away, turn away, run away, turn away, run away

Run away, turn away, run away, turn away, run away...

Vamsidhari Dasa - April 4, 2009 5:09 pm

This song describes nicely how do homosexual people feel

when they are discriminated...

SMALLTOWN BOY - (singing Bronski Beat)

 

You leave in the morning

With everything you own

In a little black case

Alone on a platform

The wind and the rain

On a sad and lonely face

 

Mother will never understand

Why you had to leave

But the answers you seek

Will never be found at home

The love that you need

Will never be found at home

 

Run away, turn away, run away, turn away, run away

Run away, turn away, run away, turn away, run away

 

Pushed around and kicked around

Always a lonely boy

You were the one

That theyd talk about around town

As they put you down

 

And as hard as they would try

Theyd hurt to make you cry

But you never cried to them

Just to your soul

No you never cried to them

Just to your soul

 

Run away, turn away, run away, turn away, run away

Run away, turn away, run away, turn away, run away

 

Cry , boy, cry...

 

You leave in the morning

With everything you own

In a little black case

Alone on a platform

The wind and the rain

On a sad and lonely face

 

Run away, turn away, run away, turn away, run away

Run away, turn away, run away, turn away, run away...

OMG you just sent me in the 80s light speed. This pretty much is the GAYEST song EVER! Even more gay then Diana Ross! And such a fitting ending..... LOL

Vamsidhari Dasa - April 4, 2009 5:13 pm

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR THE GAYS

Pretty soon we can all go register into Bed, Bath, and Beyond to live your middle class dream!

Iowa Court Says Gay Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional - New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/us/04iowa.html

April 4, 2009

Iowa Court Says Gay Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional

By MONICA DAVEY and LIZ ROBBINS

DES MOINES - Iowa became the first state in the Midwest to approve

same-sex marriage on Friday, after the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously

decided that a 1998 law limiting marriage to a man and a woman was

unconstitutional.

The decision was the culmination of a four-year legal battle that began

in the lower courts. The Supreme Court said same-sex marriages could

begin in Iowa in as soon as 21 days.

The case here was being closely followed by advocates on both sides of

the issue. While the same-sex marriage debate has played out on both

coasts, the Midwest - where no states had permitted same-sex marriage -

was seen as entirely different. In the past, at least six states in the

Midwest were among those around the country that adopted amendments to

their state constitutions banning same-sex marriage.

"The Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a

woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution,"

the justices said in a summary of their decision.

And later in the ruling, they said: "Equal protection under the Iowa

Constitution is essentially a direction that all persons similarly

situated should be treated alike. Since territorial times, Iowa has

given meaning to this constitutional provision, striking blows to

slavery and segregation, and recognizing women's rights. The court found

the issue of same-sex marriage comes to it with the same importance as

the landmark cases of the past."

In a hotel in Des Moines, several of the same-sex couples who were

involved in the suit wept, teared up and embraced as they learned about

the decision from their lawyers. "I'd like to introduce you to my

fiancee," said Kate Varnum, 34, reaching over to Trish Varnum. "Today I

am proud to be a lifelong Iowan."

"We are blessed to live in Iowa," she added.

Opponents of same-sex marriage criticized the ruling.

"The decision made by the Iowa Supreme Court today to allow gay marriage

in Iowa is disappointing on many levels," State Senator Paul McKinley,

the Republican leader, said in a statement on The Des Moines Register's

Web site. "I believe marriage should only be between one man and one

woman and I am confident the majority of Iowans want traditional

marriage to be legally recognized in this state."

He added: "Though the court has made their decision, I believe every

Iowan should have a voice on this matter and that is why the Iowa

Legislature should immediately act to pass a Constitutional Amendment

that protects traditional marriage, keeps it as a sacred bond only

between one man and one woman and gives every Iowan a chance to have

their say through a vote of the people."

Advocates of same-sex marriage said they did not believe opponents had

any immediate way to overturn the decision. A constitutional amendment

would require the state legislature to approve a ban on same-sex

marriage in two consecutive sessions after which voters would have a

chance to weigh in.

Iowa has no residency requirement for getting a marriage license, which

some suggest may mean a flurry of people from other states.

Two states - Connecticut and Massachusetts - currently allow same-sex

marriages. Several other states on the East coast allow civil unions,

lawmakers in Vermont are considering gay marriage, and California

allowed it until November's election, when residents rejected the idea

in a voter initiative.

A change in Iowa's take on marriage, advocates for gay marriage said

before Friday's ruling, would signal a broader shift in public thinking,

even in the nation's more conservative middle. Opponents of same-sex

marriage, meanwhile, had said any legal decision in support of same-sex

marriage in Iowa would certainly trigger a prompt and sharp response

among residents and, surely, state lawmakers.

The legal case here began in 2005, when six same-sex couples filed suit

against the county recorder here in Polk County because he would not

accept their marriage license applications.

Two years later, a local judge here, Robert B. Hanson, ruled in that

case that a state law defining marriage as only between a man and woman

was unconstitutional. The ruling, in 2007, set off a flurry of same-sex

couples from all over the state, racing for the courthouse in Polk

County.

The rush lasted less than a day in August of 2007. Although Judge Hanson

had ruled against the state law, he quickly decided to delay any

additional granting of licenses, saying that the Iowa Supreme Court

should have an opportunity to weigh in first. In the end, about 20

couples applied before the stay was issued. Just one couple, Timothy

McQuillan, then 21, and Sean Fritz, 24, managed to obtain their license

and also to marry.

Prahlad Das - April 4, 2009 5:43 pm

I disagree that you do not know what it is to exist as a homosexual because it is the same as existing as heterosexual except that the object of DESIRE is of the same sex. There is really no great mystery there. You might not know how it feels to have your desire labeled as deviant, wrong, immoral, sick, or that you are forever condemned to be a failure in your endeavors just because of object of your affection. But I am sure that in your life you could find instances when you felt some version of the above feelings that you might want to multiply 100 fold.

There would be some things that you could do to start imaging how us gays might feel. Take everything you are and everything you love and everything you think of your self as and then just imagine that that is wrong/deviant/sick/ etc.

Also when we were in college we had to do these experiment to immerse ourselves in other's experience to learn first hand how it is to BE someone. So we had to chose something that is totally foreign to us like women had to live like men, men like women, gays as straights, straights as gays etc. So you might want to try live as a gay person for a day, speak only to gay people, do only gay things ( ), and maybe you will get a glimpse of how it might feel for a gay person to be in this world.

All that said, you see, the most important point that I want to make is there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR YOU TO DO THAT! You do not have to know and you life will be as good as it has always been. Some people, on the other hand, are really not that lucky.

 

Also to be human is not just to have wants and needs that are connected to physical life. There is also emotional life and emotional needs, there is spiritual life and, I assume with that there also also spiritual needs. I don't think that these have to be mutually exclusive. But how to get there OMG, I haven't a clue (yet).

The point is, it would all be conjecture, for me (even the multiplying 100 fold). I'll admit, I have some sort of inkling of what it is to be immersed in homosexual culture, likely more than the average heterosexual. But for existing, truly, as a homosexual, I may only get a gist through logic and inference. In much the same way, we can use logic and inference, under the guidance of a spiritual master, to discover our ultimate spiritual needs and wants and reveal our misidentified emotional and physical needs and wants. We all are aware, that in Gaudiya Philosophy, emotions may be either on the material plane or spiritual plane. It is up to us to be honest as to which type we are experiencing.

There is so much discrimination in this world. Aside from my proximity to homosexuals, my father-in-law still won't speak directly to his daughter nor be in the same town as me, and this is after 9 years of marriage and 2 children. I don't need to list the types of discrimination that are available, I'm sure you are more authoritative than me in this regard. The question is, "Why?". Do they all stem from misunderstandings? Have they evolved or devolved from their original intentions? And if so, what were those original intentions?

Your calling for me not having to know how it feels, seems to be inconsistent with the majority of this threads subjective proofs and assertions. I agree, though, that there is no reason for me to try to culture myself in true definitive homosexual empathy. We all have our issues of contention, discrimination against our "accepted identities", and our path (at least locally in this forum) is to try to break free of this samsara davanala.

What I appreciate in this sanga, is that the Acharya is willing to accept our "current identities" and tries to culture our concerns to be that of Krsna Consciousness. We aren't ostracized for our sexual impulses or material interests. Contrarily, from where we stand, we are encouraged to obtain Vaishnava association more frequently, and day-to-day, try to increase our awareness of Krsna and His Shaktis and our existence in relation to Them.

So you and I have our apparent differences, and some choose to make a controversy based on it, but our Swamis have "sama-darshina" and see us through an equalizing divine vision and encourage us both to pursue Krsna as our true interest and not anything else.

Audarya-lila Dasa - April 8, 2009 10:34 pm

"There is a very high suicide rate among young homosexuals, traced to the heavy pressure they receive to "give it up." If faced with this fact, I am quite sure that Prabhupada would not drive young devotees to suicide. At the same time, I feel that Prabhupada's stance of not publicly supporting homosexuality reflects the Bhagavatam's extreme discretion on this issue. I am now molding my own activities to that standard. "

The quote above is from something published on the sampradaya sun by Hridayananda Dasa Goswami. Since we talked about this quite a bit in this thread and no scriptural support was given for those who wish to discriminate against homosexuals I find it odd that he would write something like this. Rather than standing up and backing up his position he seems to be backing down because of the fundamentalists challenging him. This is really too bad but no altogether unexpected.

Swami - April 8, 2009 11:17 pm

"There is a very high suicide rate among young homosexuals, traced to the heavy pressure they receive to "give it up." If faced with this fact, I am quite sure that Prabhupada would not drive young devotees to suicide. At the same time, I feel that Prabhupada's stance of not publicly supporting homosexuality reflects the Bhagavatam's extreme discretion on this issue. I am now molding my own activities to that standard. "

The quote above is from something published on the sampradaya sun by Hridayananda Dasa Goswami. Since we talked about this quite a bit in this thread and no scriptural support was given for those who wish to discriminate against homosexuals I find it odd that he would write something like this. Rather than standing up and backing up his position he seems to be backing down because of the fundamentalists challenging him. This is really too bad but no altogether unexpected.

Today Hridayananda Maharaja sent me a long paper he has written on this subject. Much of the paper explains the fact that morality is complex and is essentially not constituted of laws but rather reasoning about laws with regard to real life circumstances. Maharaja cites Sri Krsna in mahabharata thus:

"It is difficult to grasp the highest understanding [of morality]. One ascertains it by reasoning. Now there are many people who simply claim morality is scripture.' Though I don't oppose that view, scriptures do not give rules for every case. Morality is taught for the progress of living beings. Morality [dharma] derives from the act of sustaining [dharana]. Thus authorities say that morality [dharma] is that which sustains living beings. The conclusion is that whatever sustains is actually dharma." [MB 8.49.48-50]

And throughout his article he draws on the Bhagavata and other scriptural narratives to illustrate his main point that there is a letter and spirit of the law.

The essence and conclusion of Maharaja's article is posted below.

It is a basic principle of Krishna consciousness that this material world is a perverted reflection of the eternal spiritual world. Our temporary bodies are shadows or reflections of our eternal, spiritual bodies. And Krishna Himself is the Supreme Person with a supreme eternal body. Sacred texts like Srimad-bhagavatam and Bhagavad-gita reveal in detail the nature, behavior and activities of the Supreme Lord Krishna, and so we possess an absolute objective standard against which we can measure our own behavior. This is especially true because we not only have information of Krishna's activities in the spiritual world, but we also know of His activities in this material world where He descends as an avatara to demonstrate dharma, proper behavior, by His own life on earth, and through the lives of His pure devotees who assist Him.

Thus we can say that the absolute, objective and eternal standard for conjugal relationship is that such a relationship should develop between a male and a female who possess, respectively, male and female qualities both in body and mind. Further such conjugal relationships must be dedicated to transcendental devotional service and must ultimately aim at pure spiritual love, free of material lust. In this world we find some degree of impurity in almost every conjugal relationship. Still the appropriate pairing of male and female, in body and mind, even in this imperfect world is, in one sense, a closer reflection of the eternal standard than we find in irregular sexualities, such as homosexuality.

Lord Krishna states in the Bhagavad-gita 7.11, that He is present in sexuality which does not oppose dharma. Srila Prabhupada teaches that sex is ultimately meant for devoted procreation in the service of God. Even if most grhastha devotees struggle with this standard and, in practice, restrict themselves to the easier version of the rule -- no sex outside of marriage -- the higher standard is still the ideal to which all serious devotees should aspire. The fact that many or even most grhasthas find it difficult to always act on the ideal platform does not at all invalidate, nor even diminish, the value of the ideal.

A mundane example serves to illustrate this point: because American society, even in the face of widespread hypocrisy, preserved the ideal of social and legal equality, the American Civil Rights movement was able to appeal to this ideal in the pursuit of racial justice. Similarly, it is essential for the progress of its members that ISKCON preserve the spiritual ideal of sex for procreation between an appropriate man and woman who are bound by the sacred vows of matrimony. But how should ISKCON deal with homosexuality? Let us consider the issue in the light of Vaishnava moral philosophy, focusing on the various moral tensions that must be balanced.

Conclusion

Justice dictates that souls surrender to God, giving up all sins. Mercy dictates patience and understanding. Ultimately we must do what is best for the individual devotee and for the society of devotees. Although to some extent there will inevitably be tension between the wishes and needs of society and those of the individual, we must ultimately find a way to encourage and inspire individual devotees with special difficulties, and at the same time maintain the sanctity of standard moral and spiritual principles. ISKCON must balance justice and mercy, the ideal and the real. ISKCON must defend the importance of moral acts, but ISKCON must also do that which will bring about beneficial consequences.

Prabhupada emphasizes that Krishna consciousness is a gradual process. He taught this, literally, hundreds of times. Here are two samples taken from hundreds of statements he made on the subject:

Everyone has to cleanse his heart by a gradual process, not abruptly. [bg 3.35 Purport]

The duty of the government, therefore, is to take charge of training all the citizens in such a way that by a gradual process they will be elevated to the spiritual platform and will realize the self and his relationship with God. [bhag 6.2.3 Purport]

Let us keep in mind what the English word gradual actually means. Here are some definitions from standard dictionaries:

Gradual: proceeding or developing slowly by steps or degrees; proceeding in small stages; moving, changing, or developing by fine or often imperceptible degrees; changing slowly.

Some people feel that to encourage gay monogamy is to encourage homosexuality. To test this argument, let us apply it to another sinful activity: drug abuse. In fact there are many sincere Vaishnavas around the world who struggle with some form of substance abuse. If ISKCON follows the example of other religions and offers programs to help faithful members overcome such problems, and if recovering devotees are praised and encouraged when they reduce their use of drugs, does that mean that ISKCON is encouraging, condoning or justifying the use of drugs? Obviously not.

Similarly, to encourage devotees who are struggling to regulate, reduce and eliminate sinful sexuality in any form is not to praise or encourage sinful activities. The truth is the opposite: we are praising and encouraging the reduction and gradual elimination of such activities.

In the case of a devotee grhastha couple, sex within marriage but not for procreation is clearly sinful, at least in a strict sense. Yet sometimes devotees state that no illicit sex means no sex outside of marriage. Indeed that is the standard that many respected grhasthas are able to follow. Why do we thus condone a sexual act which is, in the strictest sense, sinful? Surely because it is the lesser of two evils, the greater evil being sex outside of marriage.

The question then arises: is the policy of choosing the lesser of evils valid only for heterosexuals, or it is also a necessary strategy for homosexuals? Keep in mind that Prabhupada emphasizes that Krishna consciousness is a gradual process, that is a process that proceeds slowly, step by step. The notion of a gradual process logically entails the further notion that gradual steps in the right direction are just that: steps in the right direction. And a spiritual society must encourage all its members to take steps in the right direction.

Finally, we must keep in mind the ultimate moral principle, found in the Padma Purana and quoted in the Sri Caitanya Caritamrta 2.22.113:

Vishnu is always to be remembered and never to be forgotten. All injunctions and prohibitions can only be servants of these two.23

Srila Prabhupada writes in his purport to this verse: There are many regulative principles in the shastras and directions given by the spiritual master. These regulative principles should act as servants of the basic principle -- that is, one should always remember Krishna and never forget Him.

Similarly, Lord Krishna Himself states at the end of the Gita, 18.66:

Giving up all moral/religious principles, come to Me alone for shelter. I shall protect you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear!

Thus considering Vaishnava moral philosophy, as taught by Krishna Himself and by His pure devotees, ISKCON must encourage sincere devotees who at times, in good faith, and within reasonable limits, choose the lesser of evils in order to stabilize themselves on the spiritual path. This principle applies to human sexuality among mutually consenting adults.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 24, 2009 12:46 am

http://www.sivaramaswami.com/?p=5507

SRS commends Miss USA for speaking against gay marriage.

Nitaisundara Das - April 24, 2009 1:45 am

I saw that, thought about writing a semi-ambiguous article for Harmonist from it. The irony of course being when he was given an ultimatum by the GBC he left his siksa guru (it's ironic because the main point of his podcast is that we should stand up for what we believe in, the homosexuality was secondary)....

Syamasundara - April 24, 2009 2:01 am

This is "awaiting moderation"... we'll see. It's probably too long. Oh well.

She didn't speak the truth, but her personal opinion, certainly not based on shastra. A devotee has to speak the truth no doubt, such as "we are not the body" and various corollary facts that would direct a spirit soul toward brahma-jijñasa.

Too many devotees nowadays mistake the eternal and transcendental message contained in one quarter of the Vedic literature with the balance of the information contained in the same, such as moral codes, etc.

If that consoles anybody who really wants to stick to the culture and habits of a millenia-old civilization, Amara dasa did an in-depth research on the matter, proving how in Vedic society, members of the third gender (tritiya prakrti) did have a room in society, and some were in committed relationships according to the gandharva fashion.

The point remains that a Vaishnava should not focus on the cultural expressions of the Vedic message, but rather on the eternal and transcendental ones. Gays and lesbians are there no matter what. Which Vaisnava can think of a category of not even only human beings, but living beings, who do not deserve the mercy of Sri Sri Gaura and Nityananda? Everybody is welcome, everybody is urged, especially by Nityananda Prabhu. Once we are bitten by that "black snake" it is not a matter of changing our clothes, vernacular or sexual orientation. The only thing we need to change is ourselves, with the strength of our sincerity and with the blessings and help of a sad-guru, who may see it beneficial for some to engage in a committed relationship, no matter what the genders involved. Scriptures are but the passive agents of the Absolute, but the intervention of a guru is also important. He or she may take whatever decision to foster the spiritual advancement of the disciple, and that's a glorious thing.

Citta Hari Dasa - April 24, 2009 2:36 am

It wasn't clear to me if SRS was commending her for standing up for what she believes in or if he agrees with her opinion and referred to that as "truth."

Nitaisundara Das - April 24, 2009 3:14 am

did you listen to the podcast or just see the article? in the cast he makes it clear that "we as devotees" agree with miss USA, despite her not being a chaste woman....

Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 24, 2009 1:14 pm

did you listen to the podcast or just see the article? in the cast he makes it clear that "we as devotees" agree with miss USA, despite her not being a chaste woman....

yes that is why I posted it. He makes his support for miss USA clear even though she is not a "chaste" woman. I was thinking of posting Alan Turing's example on his website and ask him whether he is against homosexual marriage or even against any homosexual relations. Does he consider it to be demonaic and pathological? That also I would like to know.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 24, 2009 1:17 pm

This is "awaiting moderation"... we'll see. It's probably too long. Oh well.

 

She didn't speak the truth, but her personal opinion, certainly not based on shastra. A devotee has to speak the truth no doubt, such as "we are not the body" and various corollary facts that would direct a spirit soul toward brahma-jijñasa.

Too many devotees nowadays mistake the eternal and transcendental message contained in one quarter of the Vedic literature with the balance of the information contained in the same, such as moral codes, etc.

If that consoles anybody who really wants to stick to the culture and habits of a millenia-old civilization, Amara dasa did an in-depth research on the matter, proving how in Vedic society, members of the third gender (tritiya prakrti) did have a room in society, and some were in committed relationships according to the gandharva fashion.

The point remains that a Vaishnava should not focus on the cultural expressions of the Vedic message, but rather on the eternal and transcendental ones. Gays and lesbians are there no matter what. Which Vaisnava can think of a category of not even only human beings, but living beings, who do not deserve the mercy of Sri Sri Gaura and Nityananda? Everybody is welcome, everybody is urged, especially by Nityananda Prabhu. Once we are bitten by that "black snake" it is not a matter of changing our clothes, vernacular or sexual orientation. The only thing we need to change is ourselves, with the strength of our sincerity and with the blessings and help of a sad-guru, who may see it beneficial for some to engage in a committed relationship, no matter what the genders involved. Scriptures are but the passive agents of the Absolute, but the intervention of a guru is also important. He or she may take whatever decision to foster the spiritual advancement of the disciple, and that's a glorious thing.

Yes but just clubbing all of them into third gendered also was not good enough as it really ignores the distinctions between transgendered, transsexual and homosexual people. But anyway like you pointed out, this framework in today's time will create havoc.

Nitaisundara Das - April 24, 2009 5:34 pm

I found all of this below from Sitaapati's blog. It seems like Vaisnava Maharaja is trying to make Narayana Maharaja's statements more accomodating then they really are. In fact, I think the statements are pretty negative:

Swami BV Vaisnava Maharaja writes in the GALVA group:

Dandavats Dear Prabhus and Didis,

 

Sorry to be so long in writing on this issue but I've been busy the last few days.

 

I'm forwarding below the actual letter from my Gurudeva, Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Goswami on same sex marriage. I wrote asking for an official statement because I will be attending gay pride parades this summer in San Francisco, London and Amsterdam as part of a delegation of devotees from all sangas and thought the question might be presented then by devotees and new people we meet, including the media. I knew his response would not be unsupported by scripture and most likely conservative, but wanted to know his position exactly so I didn't misrepresent him or "put words into his mouth."

 

Nothing really is changed in our preaching to gay people however. We will continue to encourage everyone to do what is necessary for them individually to take up the chanting of the holy names and gradually become qualified to follow the rules and regulations, under the guidance of a bona-fide spiritual master. However, their marriages will not be blessed by him at this time. This does not mean they cannot legally marry or remain his disciples or that their service or sadhana is compromised or devalued.

 

The conclusion or pinnacle of sastra on achieving perfection is to be 100% free from material desires and attachments. Sex life is the most prominent of these and gets most of the attention. As we know Lord Krishna states in the Bhagavad Gita that the only sex life he condones is that for reproduction. Well, that's not much fun for straight couples is it? Basically it means that every time they have sex there should be a child 9 months later or it's illicit! I remember Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja said that when he was married he had sex 6 times and had 6 children, and that was the extent of his sex life. Guess that's one reason Kali Yuga is the age of quarrel and hypocrisy - the standard is so high, beyond 99.9% of us, that hypocrisy is the result. That is why nama sankirtan is the only way, the only dharma for this age. What else can we do really, honestly?

 

Srila BV Narayana Maharaja has openly accepted everyone who comes to him, be they gay or straight. I have been honest with him about myself since I first came to know of him in 1997. He gave me responsible services and 2 years ago sannyas. He would send us other gay men from here and there in the world, to his math in Birmingham, England, for training and association in an environment where no one would be turned away who could follow the rules of the ashram. Many gay men have stayed and visited us while I was in charge there for 6 years. I say this to make it clear he is not opposed to gay people or homophobic. I would be hard pressed to stay for so long if I saw that he was.

 

I repeat my call to all gay devotees to think about opening our own centres or having home programmes where it is practicle for you. We will not be rejecting anyone in doing this but simply expanding the preaching movement of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. One of the main tennets of our faith is that we must have the association of like minded devotees who are more advanced than ourselves and affectionate to us. Like minded and affectionate - must!!! I'm very ready and willing to to do this right now. Anyone?

 

We have come to this movement for God consciousness and not for society consciousness - as Srila Bhakti Raksak Sridhara Goswami stated so eloquently to ISKCON GBC who came to him for advice shortly after the departure of Srila Prabhupada. You can read this conversation which is the 5th chapter of "Sri Guru and His Grace" here:

 

http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/srila_sridh...sri_guru_5.html

 

I'll be happy to speak more on this and opening centres/ nama hatta programmes.

 

Next Monday I'll embark on a preaching tour which might not give me internet access for 1 month so please forgive me if I do not reply timely to messages here on personally.

 

Vaisnava dasanudas,

BV Vaisnava

All Glories to Sri Sri Guru & Gauranga!

 

Swami B.V. Narayan

 

Founder Acharya of Bhaktivedanta Trust International [bHAKTI] and International Gaudiya Vedanta Trust

 

Sri Kesavji Gaudiya Math - Mathura [uP] 281001 India - Ph.: + 91 565.2502334

 

President of Sri Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti Trust and Vice President of Sri Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti

 

________________________________________

 

My dear Sriman Bhaktivedanta Vaisnava Maharaja,

 

my heartly blessings are for you. All glories to Sri Sri Guru and Gauranga, all glories to Sri Sri Radha Vinode Bihariji.

 

I received your letter and became very happy to hear from you. I was remembering you during my visit to Guangzhou which was extremely successful. So many wonderful devotees assembled and heard Harikatha & received initiation. I am very pleased with your services.

 

In regard to the contents of your message, it is not described anywhere in our Vaisnava Sastra that men and ladies can live together and practice proper Vaisnava dharma. Only in the grhasta ashram husband and wife can live together and follow ideal grhasta life.

 

If it is bone fide and authorized for two men to live together or for 2 ladies to live together then it must be mentioned in Hari Bhakti Vilasa.

 

Our Acaryas have also never accepted this concept as authentic. Rather, this is the product of Kali Yuga only. In sastras it is mentioned that in Kali Yuga practically all are living a sinful life. The only hope and grace for the living entities is that they accept the process of Sankirtan as propagated by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and His bone fide followers. For this we have to give up sinful life and follow the ideal character of a devotee. For practicing and making progress in spiritual life, to encourage a life that is sinful is out of the question.

 

Your ever well-wisher,

Swami B.V. Narayan

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 2:16 AM, BV Vaisnava Maharaja wrote:

Dear Srila Gurudeva,

 

Please accept my most humble dandavat pranams in the dust of your lotus feet.

 

Sri Sri Guru-Gauranga Jayatah!

All glories to Sri Sri Gaura Nitai!

All glories to Sri Sri Radhavinodabiharji!

 

I’m writing to ask for advice about a very important social issue in the world today. I am being asked for an official statement from many devotees around the world from our own and other sangas as well as from people in general. The question is what is our faith’s policy regarding same sex marriage and/or unions? May we perform such marriages or bless them? Such blessings are already being given by certain ISKCON leaders and in other Gaudiya Vaisnava and “Hindu” organisations.

 

Amara Prabhu, whom you know from Hawaii, has compiled a book of references from many Vedic texts mentioning such unions which seem to indicate that such unions have always existed and were accepted in Vedic society. I am asking if we might bless such marriages (where they are legal secularly) or civil unions with the idea that promoting a monogamous relationship helps to curb sense gratification and that such unions/marriages will be made for the purpose of helping each other to perform devotional activities as in opposite sex marriages/unions?

 

The whole topic has become political in the world today because marriage is no longer only a religious function but a civil right due to benefits granted those whom “marry” not granted to those who declare civil partnerships. I realise this is potentially a very controversial request, with many ramifications, but it could be a powerful preaching tool in the sense that it would definitely be a non-sectarian acknowledgement of the jiva as spirit soul and not this material body.

 

Your unworthy disciple,

BV Vaisnava

Citta Hari Dasa - April 24, 2009 5:37 pm

did you listen to the podcast or just see the article? in the cast he makes it clear that "we as devotees" agree with miss USA, despite her not being a chaste woman....

I just saw the post on his website with the link.

Kamalaksa Das - April 24, 2009 7:26 pm

As a small departure from the current discussion, I thought I would share with you a sneak peak of an upcoming documentary.

The debate over LGBT rights is clearly one that concerns and touches a much bigger circle than that of the devotee community. And judging by the media coverage, it is not an easy issue even for mainstream society. I just saw this trailer, which presents an interesting angle on the discussion we are engaged in:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/magnolia/outrage/

From the webpage:

From Academy Award-nominated documentary filmmaker Kirby Dick (This Film Is Not Yet Rated) comes OUTRAGE, a searing indictment of the hypocrisy of closeted politicians with appalling gay rights voting records who actively campaign against the LGBT community they covertly belong to.

Boldly revealing the hidden lives of some of the United States’ most powerful policymakers, OUTRAGE takes a comprehensive look at the harm they’ve inflicted on millions of Americans, and examines the media’s complicity in keeping their secrets.

With analysis from prominent members of the gay community such as Congressman Barney Frank, former NJ Governor Jim McGreevey, activist Larry Kramer, radio personality Michelangelo Signorile, and openly gay congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (Representative, Wisconsin 2nd district), OUTRAGE probes deeply into the psychology of this double lifestyle, the ethics of outing closeted politicians, the double standards that the media upholds in its coverage of the sex lives of gay public figures, and much more.

Nitaisundara Das - April 24, 2009 10:22 pm

wow, heavy trailer. It looks really good. It is reminiscent of the devotee world unfortunately...

Babhru Das - April 24, 2009 11:04 pm

I found all of this below from Sitaapati's blog. It seems like Vaisnava Maharaja is trying to make Narayana Maharaja's statements more accomodating then they really are. In fact, I think the statements are pretty negative:

Vaisnava Maharaja and Amara have been touting NM's openness to gay devotees for some time. I'd guess he was a little surprised by just how conservative NM's response is. (He says same-sex unions won't be blessed by NM at this time, which implies a little optimism for which I see little or no support in NM's letter.) NM has been very accommodating to those who express faith in his instructions and a willingness to chant and follow the process of sadhana bhakti. That includes openly gay devotees, devotees with a history of domestic abuse and child abuse, or whatever. His focus is on their faith and interest in making progress. But it's clear from this letter that he isn't particularly moved by Amara's book, and he won't sanction unions unless they're between a man and a woman.

That doesn't seem to cool Maharaja's drive to present Krishna consciousness to groups of gay folks, though. If he can inspire others' faith in the holy names, more power to him.

Babhru Das - April 24, 2009 11:09 pm

Outrage looks pretty cool. I like the subtitle they suggested: "We know what you did last session."

Madan Gopal Das - April 27, 2009 4:01 am

Sivarama Swami's comments in response to Syamu's

Syamasundara Prabhu I beg to differ with some of your points. She did not speak from sastra but she did speak the truth. That truth was not siddhanta, but it was in line with the eternal principles of varnasrama-dharma, the social framework of sadhana-bhkati, which, according to our sad-guru Srila Prabhupada, condemns homosexual relationships. Thus while the Vedic social structure and its leaders may allow homosexuals to live as they do and in some restricted way, they do not condone, what to speak of promote such conduct. And then of course, like anyone else, homosexuals have the right to practice devotion to their heart’s content and that will be the medicine that brings them to socially acceptable behavior and then to transcendence.

Respected Swamiji,

May I respectfully differ?

You suggest that while this woman did not speak the siddhanta, she spoke the truth. As devotees we prefer the bhakti-siddhanta to any truth of dharma. And the truth of bhakti is that it surpasses dharma in every possible sense. This woman’s opinion is only one on a social (not spiritual) issue, and I doubt whether we might consider her opinions as reflective of the true culture of varnasrama.

 

As for varnasrama being the “social framework for sadhana-bhakti”, varnasrama’s perfection is in Hari-tosanam. So if a homosexual couple is already doing Hari-tosanam through the practice of bhakti, what need do they have to fit into an ever changing social view of what is moral? After all, as bhakta’s we must argue that bhakti is much more pleasing to Krsna than dharma; sarva dharman parityaja, dharma projita kaitavo ‘tra

 

Could you please explain why varnasrama is the “social framework for sadhana-bhakti”? According to the implications of SB 1.2.13, someone could do bhakti without varnasrama, but to do varnasrama without bhakti would be undesirable to say the least.

 

Furthermore, it is not my understanding of bhakti that it would reward a material fruit, such as the fitting into a category of socially acceptable behavior. Morality and good behavior may be a by-product of proper practice of bhakti, but they are certainly not its goal.

 

Now the real question is - in modern times, not Prabhupada era ISKCON or even 5000 years ago varnasrama, who decides now whether homosexuality is immoral and furthermore whether it is detrimental to the practice of bhakti?

Nitaisundara Das - April 27, 2009 4:37 am

jai-o! I'd be surprised if they post it up, but they have surprised me multiple times already when I thought they would censor. Let's see what happens...

Swami - April 27, 2009 1:35 pm

It is good that Narayana Maharaja has referred to Hari-bhakti-vilasa because this is our Guadiya Vaisnava smriti adherence to which excuses us from the need to adhere to Dharma-sastras such as Manu-smiriti. Thus we can disregard Manu-smriti and still follow the principle that bhakti must be in accordance with sruti, smriti, puranadi lest it be a disturbance to society in the name of bhakti. Although the verse from Padma Purana that states this has been used by Sri Rupa for the most part to distinguish Visnu bhakti from the so called bhakti of some Buddhist sects that of course have no regard for Hindu scripture.

However, there is a long history of Gaudiya Vaisnavas adjusting the rules of Hari-bhakti-vilasa in relation to time and circumstance and in doing so stressing the power of bhakti. BSST's telling a disciple to eat grains on ekadasi for the sake of preaching may be an example, and of course few if any sects religiously follow the ekadasi vrata as it is detailed in Hari-bhakti-vilasa. All of this seems to cast Hari-bhakti-vilasa in a slightly relative light, leaving room for thinking about our present social environment dynamically.

Srivatsa Goswami once stressed to me that Hbv states that the guru should not be a sannyasi. I replied by questioning the absoluteness of the verse and his understanding of the spirit of it. He replied in turn by telling me with pride that hi sect followed Hbv more closely than any other, to which I replied "Thank you for confirming my point. No one follows it to the letter."

Prabhupada has also described certain verses from the text as "more of less material in consideration," verses stating that a sudra should take initiation form a sudra guru, etc.

Citta Hari Dasa - April 27, 2009 3:38 pm

I would be very surprised to hear NM or SS ever admit to the relativity of HBV, especially in support of this issue.

Swami - April 27, 2009 6:30 pm

I would be very surprised to hear NM or SS ever admit to the relativity of HBV, especially in support of this issue.

Me too, but fortunately the truth of the matter is not dependent upon getting them to agree. That said the relativity of Hbv is undeniable and to dwell on these social issues is only valuable to the extent one dwells on them to put them in perspective so that they do not obscure bhakti.

Nitaisundara Das - April 27, 2009 9:06 pm

It is good that Narayana Maharaja has referred to Hari-bhakti-vilasa because this is our Guadiya Vaisnava smriti adherence to which excuses us from the need to adhere to Dharma-sastras such as Manu-smiriti. Thus we can disregard Manu-smriti and still follow the principle that bhakti must be in accordance with sruti, smriti, puranadi lest it be a disturbance to society in the name of bhakti. Although the verse from Padma Purana that states this has been used by Sri Rupa for the most part to distinguish Visnu bhakti from the so called bhakti of some Buddhist sects that of course have no regard for Hindu scripture.

 

However, there is a long history of Gaudiya Vaisnavas adjusting the rules of Hari-bhakti-vilasa in relation to time and circumstance and in doing so stressing the power of bhakti. BSST's telling a disciple to eat grains on ekadasi for the sake of preaching may be an example, and of course few if any sects religiously follow the ekadasi vrata as it is detailed in Hari-bhakti-vilasa. All of this seems to cast Hari-bhakti-vilasa in a slightly relative light, leaving room for thinking about our present social environment dynamically.

 

Srivatsa Goswami once stressed to me that Hbv states that the guru should not be a sannyasi. I replied by questioning the absoluteness of the verse and his understanding of the spirit of it. He replied in turn by telling me with pride that hi sect followed Hbv more closely than any other, to which I replied "Thank you for confirming my point. No one follows it to the letter."

 

Prabhupada has also described certain verses from the text as "more of less material in consideration," verses stating that a sudra should take initiation form a sudra guru, etc.

Out of hundreds of GM's talks on my Ipod this exact story came up today :Just Kidding: . It's funny that NM or SS would deny the point of course, both being sannyasi gurus.

Citta Hari Dasa - April 27, 2009 10:30 pm

Out of hundreds of GM's talks on my Ipod this exact story came up today :Just Kidding: . It's funny that NM or SS would deny the point of course, both being sannyasi gurus.

Of course they wouldn't deny it--and therein lies the irony: they already (tacitly) admit and overtly live by a relativized version of Hbv, without perhaps even realizing it. Clearly cultural bias is playing a large part in both cases. It's more understandable in NM's case since he is older and Indian. But SS. . .

Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 28, 2009 2:13 am

I have added the following in SS's blog.

Dear Sivarami Swami,

I expected that you will more informed about this issue. I also had similar stand on this issue due to my upbringing in India when I was a teenager, but after being exposed to evidence which clearly shows that homosexual people cannot be made straight in general, I had to change my opinion. Prominent among those people on whom this experiment of conversion was tried is Alan Turing, the father of modern computer science. He was castrated and injected hormones to cure his "homosexuality", but he ended up dying a frustrated man. He was not a oversexed person like people think homosexuals to be but he was prosecuted unneccesarily. Being a great vaisnava that you are, I hope that you heart melts and you change your stand on this issue. Being not born in that condition, we will never be able to understand it but a perfect yogi is able to understand the pain and suffering of others as his own according to the B.G. I am sure you are one of those. Kindly change your heart.

man.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing

I won't hurt to admit that SP was wrong on this point. It will enhance the glory of his disciples and SP not diminish it and makes GV a dynamic forward looking tradition. Not that we are condoning unbridled sex, but allow people to progress from the position they are in. Or else like heterosexual couples who anyway have illicit sex( sex not "only" for procreation), homosexual people will do the same after initiation and it will increase hypocrisy in ISKCON of the form which the church had.

Swami - April 28, 2009 9:22 am

I found this interesting:

There are several references to homosexual marriage inboth the Kama Sutra (2.9.36) and within Yashodara's famous twelfth−century commentary, Jayamangala. The Kama Sutra mentions that sometimes homosexual men are so greatly attached to one another and have such complete faith in one another, that they marry. Jayamangala states that homosexual men who renounce women willingly and love one another instead, marry together in a deep bond of trust and friendship.There were eight different types of marriage mentioned in traditional Hinduism, and while same−sex marriage was not considered a religious type, it was still accepted as a civil or common−law marriage arrangement known as a gandharva or "love−marriage" (as distinct from an arranged religious heterosexual alliance.)

Religious marriage in Hinduism is said to fulfill three functions:Prajaa, Dharma, and Rati. Prajaa is progeny for perpetuation of one's family, Dharma is fulfilment of religious duties, and Rati is companionship and mutual pleasure. Since homosexual relations do not produce progeny they are often considered to fall short of religious marriage. Nevertheless, most Hindus do not forbid sterile heterosexual couples from marrying, or even couples who are past their child−bearing age. In such instances, the need for companionship (Rati) overrides the injunction to reproduce and proponents for gay marriage argue that the same humanitarian empathy should be applied to same−sex couples.

Bhrigu - April 28, 2009 10:01 am

I guess I have to comment since the HBV was brought up: the text says nothing against or for homosexuality. But neither does it mention polygamy, and that is of course "bona fide" from the viewpoint of Gaudiya Vaishnava history. So arguing against same sex marriages out of the silence of the HBV is not a very strong argument.

Babhru Das - April 28, 2009 11:27 am

I have added the following in SS's blog.

 

I won't hurt to admit that SP was wrong on this point. It will enhance the glory of his disciples and SP not diminish it . . .

I’m not sure this is the most effective way to put this. Effective rhetoric is built on four characteristics: logos (simply put, the soundness and appropriateness of the evidence), ethos (the speaker's character or credibility), pathos (the audience's emotional needs), and kairos (the context or timeliness of the argument). In this case, your audience is a sannyasi who teaches Krishna consciousness according to what he has learned from Srila Prabhupada. To suggest publicly that there’s no harm in admitting that Srila Prabhupada is wrong is too likely to open a can of worms. It could well bring your audience to a slippery-slope argument, which may be even messier than the escaped worms. It may have been more effective to suggest that the reproving comments Srila Prabhupada made about homosexuality are not his entire record, that his behavior with gay disciples often runs counter to those statements.

It may also undermine your effectiveness to suggest that SS “kindly change [his] heart.” Since he is a sannyasi with considerable experience, old enough to be your father, and a godbrother of your guru maharaja, that may be seen as too direct to have the desired effect.

I’m not saying that either of these is wrong, or even that you're wrong in saying them, but that there may be more effective ways to present the ideas.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 28, 2009 1:05 pm

I’m not sure this is the most effective way to put this. Effective rhetoric is built on four characteristics: logos (simply put, the soundness and appropriateness of the evidence), ethos (the speaker's character or credibility), pathos (the audience's emotional needs), and kairos (the context or timeliness of the argument). In this case, your audience is a sannyasi who teaches Krishna consciousness according to what he has learned from Srila Prabhupada. To suggest publicly that there’s no harm in admitting that Srila Prabhupada is wrong is too likely to open a can of worms. It could well bring your audience to a slippery-slope argument, which may be even messier than the escaped worms. It may have been more effective to suggest that the reproving comments Srila Prabhupada made about homosexuality are not his entire record, that his behavior with gay disciples often runs counter to those statements.

 

It may also undermine your effectiveness to suggest that SS “kindly change [his] heart.” Since he is a sannyasi with considerable experience, old enough to be your father, and a godbrother of your guru maharaja, that may be seen as too direct to have the desired effect.

 

I’m not saying that either of these is wrong, or even that you're wrong in saying them, but that there may be more effective ways to present the ideas.

thank you babhru for your comments. Should I apologize for it on his blog and correct myself?

Babhru Das - April 28, 2009 2:59 pm

I don't know. If you could think of a graceful way to clarify your remarks, that might be useful. Or you might wait for one of his disciples to object to a perceived tone in your post and do so then. I think it's important that we speak boldly, but that we also assess the situation before publishing. Srila Prabhupada sometimes said that gentle folk thing twice before speaking. Writing naturally affords us the opportunity to do so. We can compose, let it sit a bit, and go back and look it over later with a cold eye, or consult, as we see fit, before posting things.

Citta Hari Dasa - April 28, 2009 4:17 pm

Clearly the vast majority of marriages (unions) these days is of the gandharva type, whether gay or straight, and even among devotees, so where is the question of dharmic marriages except in perhaps a few extremely rare cases? Does it make sense to propagate such an ideal as the standard when hardly anyone does it in reality? As we see from ISKCON's example the attempt to establish dharmic (arranged) marriages didn't go over so well, to the point where one could easily question the validity of propagating arranged marriages in the present cultural context, whether in the West or even in India.

Since homosexual relations do not produce progeny they are often considered to fall short of religious marriage.

To me it comes back to what you've been saying all along, Guru Maharaja: that if two people want to pursue spiritual life in a committed relationship--whatever the genders involved may be--then what is the problem? If they follow the guru's advice and the guru is pleased then all religious requirements are fulfilled.

I found this interesting:

 

There are several references to homosexual marriage inboth the Kama Sutra (2.9.36) and within Yashodara's famous twelfth−century commentary, Jayamangala. The Kama Sutra mentions that sometimes homosexual men are so greatly attached to one another and have such complete faith in one another, that they marry. Jayamangala states that homosexual men who renounce women willingly and love one another instead, marry together in a deep bond of trust and friendship.There were eight different types of marriage mentioned in traditional Hinduism, and while same−sex marriage was not considered a religious type, it was still accepted as a civil or common−law marriage arrangement known as a gandharva or "love−marriage" (as distinct from an arranged religious heterosexual alliance.)

 

Religious marriage in Hinduism is said to fulfill three functions:Prajaa, Dharma, and Rati. Prajaa is progeny for perpetuation of one's family, Dharma is fulfilment of religious duties, and Rati is companionship and mutual pleasure. Since homosexual relations do not produce progeny they are often considered to fall short of religious marriage. Nevertheless, most Hindus do not forbid sterile heterosexual couples from marrying, or even couples who are past their child−bearing age. In such instances, the need for companionship (Rati) overrides the injunction to reproduce and proponents for gay marriage argue that the same humanitarian empathy should be applied to same−sex couples.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 28, 2009 7:24 pm

I don't know. If you could think of a graceful way to clarify your remarks, that might be useful. Or you might wait for one of his disciples to object to a perceived tone in your post and do so then. I think it's important that we speak boldly, but that we also assess the situation before publishing. Srila Prabhupada sometimes said that gentle folk thing twice before speaking. Writing naturally affords us the opportunity to do so. We can compose, let it sit a bit, and go back and look it over later with a cold eye, or consult, as we see fit, before posting things.

I will wait for today and then write something tomorrow.

In future I will try to send you my post before putting it on a such a website. This will endure better quality.

But in this case SS does not know that I am GM's disciple so it should not be so much of a problem.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 29, 2009 3:44 am

I will wait for today and then write something tomorrow.

In future I will try to send you my post before putting it on a such a website. This will endure better quality.

But in this case SS does not know that I am GM's disciple so it should not be so much of a problem.

This is something interesting from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/

As has been frequently noted, the ancient Greeks did not have terms or concepts that correspond to the contemporary dichotomy of ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’. There is a wealth of material from ancient Greece pertinent to issues of sexuality, ranging from dialogues of Plato, such as the Symposium, to plays by Aristophanes, and Greek artwork and vases. What follows is a brief description of ancient Greek attitudes, but it is important to recognize that there was regional variation. For example, in parts of Ionia there were general strictures against same-sex eros, while in Elis and Boiotia (e.g., Thebes), it was approved of and even celebrated (cf. Dover, 1989; Halperin, 1990).

Probably the most frequent assumption of sexual orientation is that persons can respond erotically to beauty in either sex. Diogenes Laeurtius, for example, wrote of Alcibiades, the Athenian general and politician of the 5th century B.C., “in his adolescence he drew away the husbands from their wives, and as a young man the wives from their husbands.” (Quoted in Greenberg, 1988, 144) Some persons were noted for their exclusive interests in persons of one gender. For example, Alexander the Great and the founder of Stoicism, Zeno of Citium, were known for their exclusive interest in boys and other men. Such persons, however, are generally portrayed as the exception. Furthermore, the issue of what gender one is attracted to is seen as an issue of taste or preference, rather than as a moral issue. A character in Plutarch's Erotikos (Dialogue on Love) argues that “the noble lover of beauty engages in love wherever he sees excellence and splendid natural endowment without regard for any difference in physiological detail.” (Ibid., 146) Gender just becomes irrelevant “detail” and instead the excellence in character and beauty is what is most important.

Even though the gender that one was erotically attracted to (at any specific time, given the assumption that persons will likely be attracted to persons of both sexes) was not important, other issues were salient, such as whether one exercised moderation. Status concerns were also of the highest importance. Given that only free men had full status, women and male slaves were not problematic sexual partners. Sex between freemen, however, was problematic for status. The central distinction in ancient Greek sexual relations was between taking an active or insertive role, versus a passive or penetrated one. The passive role was acceptable only for inferiors, such as women, slaves, or male youths who were not yet citizens. Hence the cultural ideal of a same-sex relationship was between an older man, probably in his 20's or 30's, known as the erastes, and a boy whose beard had not yet begun to grow, the eromenos or paidika. In this relationship there was courtship ritual, involving gifts (such as a rooster), and other norms. The erastes had to show that he had nobler interests in the boy, rather than a purely sexual concern. The boy was not to submit too easily, and if pursued by more than one man, was to show discretion and pick the more noble one. There is also evidence that penetration was often avoided by having the erastes face his beloved and place his penis between the thighs of the eromenos, which is known as intercrural sex. The relationship was to be temporary and should end upon the boy reaching adulthood (Dover, 1989). To continue in a submissive role even while one should be an equal citizen was considered troubling, although there certainly were many adult male same-sex relationships that were noted and not strongly stigmatized. While the passive role was thus seen as problematic, to be attracted to men was often taken as a sign of masculinity. Greek gods, such as Zeus, had stories of same-sex exploits attributed to them, as did other key figures in Greek myth and literature, such as Achilles and Hercules. Plato, in the Symposium, argues for an army to be comprised of same-sex lovers. Thebes did form such a regiment, the Sacred Band of Thebes, formed of 500 soldiers. They were renowned in the ancient world for their valor in battle.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 29, 2009 2:26 pm

what you said babhru was correct and SS has smashed down any suggestion that SP can be wrong on anything in his new post so he proves his loyalty towards SP and I become an offender at the feet of SP. He equates a meat eater to a homosexual. Very good!!

Even the example of Alan Turing has no affect on him.

Should I still apologize to him after his post?

Madan Gopal Das - April 29, 2009 4:43 pm

wow, I just can't believe that he is using krsnanusilanam to make a determination that homosexuality is a behavior that is "not pleasing", because it is in his eyes immoral. The very verse he is citing rules out the idea that you can please Krsna by your morality!!! karmady-anavrtam...

I'm working on a reply which I hope he'll post despite not wanting to continue the debate from his side.

Gopala Dasa - April 29, 2009 5:19 pm

what you said babhru was correct and SS has smashed down any suggestion that SP can be wrong on anything in his new post so he proves his loyalty towards SP and I become an offender at the feet of SP. He equates a meat eater to a homosexual. Very good!!

The point can be made (although it would be unwelcome on the SRS site) that “loyalty” means -- and requires -- something more than simply verbatim repetition.

Viewed more comprehensively, genuine loyalty would entail responding to contemporary issues in a “Prabhupada-like” fashion, rather than simply transposing his responses to particular information or circumstances to situations decades later. This is so apparent to me, but others find it almost impossible to stomach.

SRS claims that Prabhupada “clearly, consistently and repeatedly” condemned homosexuality. Even if that were true (and it really isn’t), the argument can still be made that responding to the issue in a way that fosters krsna-bhakti is in fact the more faithful and loyal approach. SRS’s stance is one that will advance social conservatism, but not krsnanusilanam. This disservice is, in its way, disloyal.

Madan Gopal Das - April 30, 2009 5:07 pm

SS has made a podcast reply to our comments.

Here is a reply I'm posting if he doesn't just cut it off with his last word. I'll give it until tonight to post if anyone here wants to comment. I'm a little tired though, lamenting as to how people don't understand the glory of bhakti like I have from our GM.

Pranams Swami, thank you for your reply. I hope that you will continue this discussion as I see it as favorable (anukul) by bringing out the glory of bhakti.

 

I agree with you that dharma that is favorable to bhakti practice should not be given up, but it takes a back seat to bhakti when it comes to pleasing Krsna. In your example, the regulative principles may be dharmic practices of behavior, but they are entirely subordinate to the bhakti practice of chanting the holy name. If a devotee cannot follow the principles as they are given by the guru, they should take all encouragement that the chanting of the holy name is pleasing to Krsna; in whatever state of behavior one is. Furthermore, their practice of chanting is the only hope for attaining to some moral standard of behavior. The regulative principles may be favorable to bhakti, but chanting the name IS bhakti.

 

I have trouble with the way you have mirrored Rupa Goswami's "krsnanusilanam" with the "hari-tosanam" described in the Bhagavatam. SB 1.2.13 is trying to bring people who are disposed to karma-marga towards bhakti by stating that pleasing the Lord is the goal of varnasrama. Anyabhilasita sunyam is directed to a wholly different audience and describes uttama bhakti; specifically how it is free from things such as karma-marga considerations. Morality lies squarely on the path of dharma (karma). Practicing bhakti "Krsna's way" has nothing to do with behavior, but everything to do with the heart of love. It has everything to do with anukulya, a "friendly" or favorable attitude towards Him. And the major point in this verse is that consideration of karma (and jnana) be given up. VCT comments on this by saying "Karma refers to the daily and periodic duties enjoined by the smrti scriptures, not to the services offered to the Lord, for devotional activities are anusilanam... Performing nitya-karmas (daily duties) with faith, out of fear of sin if one does not perform them, under the authority of rules, is a covering on bhakti. As well, performing them with faith that they will produce bhakti is a covering on bhakti." So, we see here that fear of repercussion from not following dharma, as well as the idea that following dharma produces bhakti - both ideas cover one's bhakti.

 

I disagree that we should promote the practices of bhakti and good behavior. We should really only promote the practice of bhakti. Good behavior is subjective, and as I am implying cannot be said to please Krsna directly like the practice of bhakti can. That is why He says in Gita "WHATEVER you do, WHATEVER you eat... do it for Me" Furthermore, if a subjective idea of morality is to be achieved at all, it will only be achieved in conjunction with bhakti practice; not independently.

 

I don't believe that Srila Prabhupada would ever promote a particular behavioral practice over the direct practice of bhakti. I find his commentary on social issues like homosexuality, feminism, race, etc. in the Bhagavatam to be just that - social commentary. When the times where that commentary on that society have passed, the relevance of some of Prabhupada's words on these subjects may also have had their time. Prabhupada's words and delineation on the practice of bhakti are eternally beneficial and do not fade with the changes of society. They are absolute truth, because their subject is the Absolute. Prabhupada's commentary on social issues may be uninformed and outdated. This is not offensive! Prabhupada was known also as a human being who commented on things based upon information that he had. Sometimes he changed his mind when he was given other information.

Prabhupada's comments on homosexuality are reflective of a time when people misunderstood it and had much less information about it than today. Even homosexuals themselves were uninformed. Homosexuality used to be thought of as a mental illness, as something that could be "cured" and as a result of overindulgence in sex. Today these ideas have been proven incorrect. True homosexuality is not a choice, just as the heterosexual does not at some point in life choose to be attracted to the opposite sex. Race and sex are also not choices. It would be ludicrous to think that a black woman has to become a white man in order to do bhakti "Krsna's way". In the same way, homosexuals cannot become straight in order to please Krsna any more. They must do bhakti, just as any jiva in any conditioned state must do bhakti in order to please our istha-deva.

 

Having sex heterosexually and producing children is not pleasing to Krsna in and of itself. If it were, there would be a lot of pure devotees in the world! This leads to the conclusion of my previous post - determining what is religious must be an ongoing process. What is bhakti has already been determined by Krsna; he tells us what he wants, and he doesn't ask for a certain behavior. Religious conduct is determined by society, and society's values change with time. The varnasrama society has considerations about what is moral and immoral re. sex. (It should be noted that there is hardly any mention of homosexuality in the whole of the vedic literature.) If you are to suggest that Prabhupada wanted us to follow varnasrama now, somebody has a lot of work to do to determine what are the duties for the varna's and asrama's in today's society, because a lot has changed since the Bhagavatam's descriptions of a varnasrama society. First and foremost, white people of European descent would be off the bottom of the list of varna's, probably rather close to where the other anomaly's like homosexuality would be placed. The point is that any regulation of society norms must be modernized. If it is not, you alienate an enormous population of intelligent, modern thinkers who may be thirsty for what we really want to give them - BHAKTI!

Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 30, 2009 7:33 pm

I disagree that we should promote the practices of bhakti and good behavior. We should really only promote the practice of bhakti.

This sentence can be modified as this is a little antinomian. You can temper it a little bit. Good behavior cannot be put down in such a strong manner. You can say that certainly lust is an impediment but bhakti will burn all desires which are pulling one away from bhakti(it does not mean that first homosexual desire will be converted to heterosexual desire and then that person will be corrected). There were lot of slips by him, as he first said sex only inside marriage is acceptable.Because of my pressure he had to say sex only for procreation repeatedly. The fact that he really thinks that intiated devotees are following that standard shows how unaware of the real behavior. He has in a hidden way targeted people like HDG and called people like HDG and us being influenced by kali yuga and psychology books.

In his podcast he has referred to me as a sahijiya or similar to a christian who tampers the christian teaching of thou shall not kill to thou shall not murder. SS is misinformed on the topic as jesus and his disciples did eat fish according to historical evidence. Anyway that is not the point. His charge that I am backing a sahijya doctrine doesn't seem to be correct.

Madan you can explain how lust is an obstacle certainly but both homosexual and heterosexual and there is no need to prefer one over another.

All devotees eventually want that their desire to please Guru and Krsna should be greater than any other desire but they will take time before they reach there.

Prahlad Das - April 30, 2009 7:59 pm

I think your over-all emphasis on bhakti is well-put.

However, I think you will find strong resistance to the contention that "true homosexuality" is not a choice; that a homosexual performing heterosexually is equitable to a black man becoming a white woman. I believe this lies at the foundation for the controversy of homosexuality.

While sexuality may not be a choice, sex always is, if not by more than one party, then definitely by one. Thus the controversy. Humans are given the capacity to make informed decisions and not continuously operate on reflex. Those humans who solely operate on instinct and reflex generally become disassociated from society.

There are many instances where sexual gratification is obtained through homosexual methods by heterosexual people. This is frequent in detention facilities. This leads to a notion that sexual gratification can be had by ulterior methods from what is ideally desirable.

There is sexual desire, and then there is sexual desire of a preferred type. The role of the leaders of society is to govern which type of preferred sexual action is acceptable. In the past, in certain societies, it was socially acceptable for adults to obtain sexual gratification from youth or slaves or servants or lower class, regardless of what sex they were. This was normal.

The question is, where do you draw the line for what is allowable and what isn't? Obviously, a mutually consenting relationship of two adults is hard to disagree with. But consenting adults don't necessarily mean wise decisions. Adults consent to many things.

I think the notion of arranged marriages are closely tied to this discussion. Are arranged marriages a violation of human instinct and character? The parties involved come together in union under circumstances that are unimaginable to me. Yet, it happens all the time and with results not undesirable, even though the partners may not be preferred by eachother.

This is a sort of rambling doubt I have regarding this topic. As you can see, it is recurring :Big Grin: If Babhru Prabhu would kindly get me a copy of the article he was impressed by, I would be happy to read it.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 30, 2009 9:42 pm

This is the video of the most fanatic church and their stand against homosexuality.

Madan Gopal Das - May 1, 2009 12:19 am

Good behavior cannot be put down in such a strong manner.

Thanks for your input Gaura-Vijaya. I am not putting down good behavior, but in fact agreeing with him that it should not be given up when in conjunction with bhakti. What I am stressing is that bhakti should be emphasized instead of standards of behavior. He said that we should promote both. If anything favorable to bhakti should be promoted, it should be the saintly qualities that give rise to "moral" behavior. If you become saintly, if you become devotional, you will be moral. All the qualities of the deva's exist in the devotee... and it may not be that that devotee ACTS in the way you think. I say promote bhakti, because the more you cultivate bhakti, the less Krsna is concerned with your behavior. Sastra is chock full of examples.

Remember that simple saying "Act in such a way that Krsna sees you, not in a way that you can see Krsna"? This is my point. Bhakti is all powerful to attract Krsna. Behavior is not.

Madan Gopal Das - May 1, 2009 12:30 am

However, I think you will find strong resistance to the contention that "true homosexuality" is not a choice; that a homosexual performing heterosexually is equitable to a black man becoming a white woman...

 

While sexuality may not be a choice, sex always is

Behavior is a choice. To some degree you can control how you act. Until one reaches the higher stages of bhakti, one cannot control the sense of identity they possess. You cannot control being born black. But you can control your behavior - which is human behavior regardless of color of skin. You cannot control which sex you are sexually attracted to. You can control your behavior related to that - which is human behavior regardless of sexual orientation.

He said

A practicing homosexual couple may be engaged in the limbs of bhakti, but their conduct is not pleasing to Krsna because they are engaged in illicit sex—sex life for any reason than procreation. Thus their bhakti is not pure. When they practice bhakti Krsna’s way, not their way, then it will be so.

Gaura-Vijaya Das - May 1, 2009 6:18 pm

These are SP's quotes which people use against homosexuality.

Prabhupada: Homosex. They are supporting homosex. So degraded, and still they say, “What we have done?” They do not know what is degradation, and they are priest. They are teaching others. They do not know what is the meaning of degradation.

– Morning Walk Conversation — Los Angeles, September 28, 1972

———————————————————————–

Prabhupada: The world is degrading to the lowest status, even less than animal. The animal also do not support homosex. They have never sex life between male to male. They are less than animal. People are becoming less than animal. This is all due to godlessness. Harav abhaktasya kuto mahad-guna [sB 5.18.12], godless civilization cannot have any good qualities. Harav abhaktasya kuto mahad-guna mano rathena asato dhavato. They simply go to the untruth by mental speculation.

– Conversation with the GBC — Los Angeles, May 25, 1972

———————————————————————–

Prabhupada: No no, what is their value? When they are sanctioning abortion, homosex, now they are finished. They have no value.

Karandhara: Well, most or a greater proportion of the traditional Christians condemn homosex and abortion. A good quantity of the traditional Christians, they condemn abortion and homosex.

Prabhupada: Yes, they are good, but mostly, as you were telling me that, that Pope is disgusted… Yes. Nobody cares for the Bible or the Pope. That is everywhere, not only Christian. Actually there is no religion at the present moment. All animals. We don’t blame only the Christians. The Hindus, Muslim, everyone. They have lost all religion.

– Morning Walk — December 8, 1973, Los Angeles

———————————————————————–

Prabhupada: So generally, people are suffering on account of association with tamo-guna and rajo-guna, whole material world, mostly tamo-guna and few of them in rajo-guna. The symptoms of rajo-guna and tamo-guna are lust and greediness. Just like yesterday you told me the students are talking about homosex. That means tamo-guna, that the education students, they are discussing about homosex. That means tamo-guna, lusty desires, very prominent, and how to fulfill, by homosex or sex with woman. This is their subject matter, kama. So everyone in this material world infected with this tamo-guna, all lusty desires, in various ways, varieties. And some of them in rajo-guna-politics and improvement of material condition. So we have to cut down this tamo-guna and rajo-guna, come to the sattva-guna. Then he’ll not be disturbed by these lusty desires and greediness. Then he’ll be happy.

also:

That means they are making their own lusty desires fulfilled in the name of Bible, that’s all. Everyone is doing like that. They are changing. Mass opinion is now homosex. They are passing abortion. They are passing… What is this? This is their business. For fulfillment of their lusty desires and greediness, they are bringing the authority of Bible, Bhagavad-gita. This is going on in the name of religion.

– Morning Walk — May 11, 1975, Perth

———————————————————————–

Prabhupada: This homosex propaganda is another side of impotency. So that is natural. If you enjoy too much, then you become impotent.

Brahmananda: They are trying to make that more and more accepted in America, homosex.

Prabhupada: Yes. The churches accept. It is already law.

Nitai: This women’s liberation movement, the leaders are also homosexual.

They’re lesbians.

Prabhupada: (laughs) Just see. Hare Krsna. The whole world is on the verge of ruination. Kali-yuga.

– Morning Walk — September 6, 1975, Vrndavana

———————————————————————–

Tamala Krsna: Now they have churches for homosex. That means the priest is a homosexual, and the persons who come are homosexuals. A special church for homosexuals.

Prabhupada: Just see. Is that religion?

– Room Conversation — January 8, 1976, Nellore

———————————————————————–

Prabhupada: The hippies are nothing but a group of madmen, that’s all. A madman, they…, means publicly sex, that’s all. This Allen Ginsberg’s movement is that, homosex, public sex. Ginsberg was very proud that he had introduced homosex. He was telling me.

Tamala Krsna: He was telling you?

Prabhupada: When he first came to me he was very proud: “I have introduced homosex.” He thought very brilliant work it was.

– Room Conversation Varnasrama July 14, 1977, Vrndavana

———————————————————————–

Hawaii

26 May, 1975

My Dear Lalitananda dasa,

Please accept my blessings. I am in due receipt of your letter dated May 13rd, 1975 and have noted the contents. I am very sorry that you have taken to homosex. It will not help you advance in your attempt for spiritual life.

In fact, it will only hamper your advancement. I do not know why you have taken to such abominable activities. What can I say? Anyway, try to render whatever service you can to Krishna. Even though you are in a very degraded condition Krishna, being pleased with your service attitude, can pick you up from your fallen state. You should stop this homosex immediately. It is illicit sex, otherwise, your chances of advancing in spiritual life are nil.

Show Krishna you are serious, if you are.

I hope this meets you in good health.

Your ever well-wisher,

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

Gaura-Vijaya Das - May 2, 2009 11:19 pm

A good beginning for India hindus who are gay.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indians...how/4475458.cms

Gaura-Vijaya Das - May 9, 2009 3:12 pm

http://pandavas.wordpress.com/2009/04/20/a...eo/#comment-186

giridhari prabhu has come out in defence of HDG. his spiritual master in his blog. But it is easy to see that most replies even from SP's disciples are negative. He mentions Tripurari Swami's sanga and how it is mainstream on this issue. The term mainstream is denigrating for most SP's followers.

I think this is an exchange between GM and HDG I guess.

On the other hand, he recently wrote this to a godbrother of his, who was suggesting he fully support gay marriage:

You mention “It [homosexuality] is not criminal, nor is it a pathology…”

One definition of ‘pathology’ is ‘mental, social, or linguistic abnormality or malfunction.’ I believe there is a sense in which same sex union is ‘abnormal’, though we should not mean condemn or persecute one born with that abnormality. Radha Krishna are the eternal model, and there is a sense in which the union of male with female, even in this bizarre world, is ‘natural.’

I do not oppose or deny the science on homosexuality, I simply make a distinction between what is natural for the individual and for society.