A Response to Hridayananda das Goswami’s “Vaisnava Moral Theology and Homosexuality”
7,132 Views / EMail This Post / Print This Post / Home » A Response to Hridayananda das Goswami’s “Vaisnava Moral Theology and Homosexuality”A Response to Hridayananda das Goswami’s “Vaisnava Moral Theology and Homosexuality” & Sex Life Srila Prabhupada Sanctioned
By Krishna-kirti das
22 January 2007
Preface
( Attention! The following is just the preface, the rest of the article is here or at the link below )
The two essays presented herein together form a critical response to the ideas presented in Hridayananda das Goswami’s essay “Vaisnava Moral Theology and Homosexuality,” published on the internet in February of 2005.
The essays that comprise this work are not a criticism of Goswami’s character, nor do they insinuate that he had any ulterior motive in presenting them. I, the author of these essays, believe Goswami’s character to be without fault and that he is devoid of any ill intention.
In writing these essays I have made every effort to avoid statements or language that suggests otherwise. However, because Goswami himself is an important leader in ISKCON and a spiritual master, some of his confidantes, well-wishers, and disciples could still be upset by the very act of publishing a work such as this and take offense with its author. The reaction could include demands for apology, for censorship, and for punitive measures.
In the midst of these troubled times, an ISKCON leadership that is anxious to maintain a modicum of peace is sometimes all too willing to satisfy the complainants. Although there are some cases where this response is justified, it would be against ISKCON’s best interests to censure this work because dialectic is a necessary part of any strong and vibrant intellectual culture, and dialectic is not possible without giving voice to opposing ideas.
In his essay, which defends a notion that Goswami calls “gay monogamy,” he has presented an idea that is as radical as it is compelling. If for the sake of “peace” ideas that opposed it were to be censured, how could anyone be reasonably sure—including Goswami himself—that the unopposed idea was without serious flaw or without substantial doubt? Just as no kshatriya worthy of being called one would ever want his valor to remain untested by battle, no serious intellectual worthy of his erudition would want his best ideas to remain unchallenged. Hridayananda Goswami is a serious intellectual, so it is in this spirit that these two essays are presented here—much as how Arjuna at the onset of a battle once saluted Bhishmadeva and Dronacharya each with an arrow shot into the ground before their feet.
The first essay presented here, “A Response to Hridayananda Goswami’s ‘Vaisnava Moral Theology and Homosexuality’,” is concerned with the role of Srila Prabhupada’s authority in Goswami’s approach to understanding moral issues with regard to homosexuality. The second essay, “Sex Life Srila Prabhupada Sanctioned,” is concerned with Goswami’s approach to reading Srila Prabhupada’s statements. This second essay examines some of Srila Prabhupada’s statements that Goswami says suggest him that Srila Prabhupada taught a greater (“ideal”) and lesser (“real”) version of the no-illicit-sex rule.
Many who read this essay will be interested to know that I am also Hridayananda das Goswami’s disciple. A disciple challenging his spiritual master in public is generally an objectionable act. Yet in the history of the Vedic tradition, it has happened. Under exceptional circumstances, gurus and disciples have sometimes opposed each other. The fact that Goswami and I are related as guru and disciple will likely make some curious to find out more about why I have taken this extraordinary step. For now, it will be sufficient to consider that in ISKCON most devotees spend most of their time serving in the association of senior devotees other than their guru. From that association comes all kinds of different desires and convictions. I am no exception to this.
Prior to writing and publishing these essays, I had engaged in a protracted email correspondence with Goswami for the sake of trying to better understand his ideas, as he presented them in his essay. Another objective of the correspondence was to present to Goswami my own objections to his ideas. Having this correspondence was initially Goswami’s suggestion. While the former discussion of his own views was fruitful, as I have alluded to in both of my essays, when I finally presented Goswami with my specific objections, he declined to discuss them.
At that time, in the last of our correspondence, I had declared to him my intention to make public those objections—at least for the sake of providing an open opportunity for others to respond to them, if not Goswami himself. Anyone who reads this should not make the mistake of thinking this is merely a personal dispute between my guru and me. It is not. There are many devotees within ISKCON who shar many if not all the views presented herein. At the very least, I hope that I have clearly and concisely presented the most essential objections and issues that we all share.
I thank the devotees who have offered me encouragement and support along the way, and I offer them my humble obeisances. I offer my obeisances to my spiritual master, Hridayananda das Goswami. In presenting these essays, I have meant you no malice. But please understand: I would rather be an outcast and have my arguments given a thoughtful hearing instead of an insider whose arguments are never heard. I offer my obeisances at your feet. And finally, I offer my obeisances at the feet of my param-guru, Srila Prabhupada. Without you, where would we all be? Please have mercy on me.
Hare Krishna.
convert this post to pdf. Comments are closed. Please check back later.
Comments • [comment feed]
The Bhagavatam is unequivocal that sex is meant for procreation:
evam vyavayah prajaya na ratya
SB 11.5.13
“Religious sex life is also permitted, but only in marriage for begetting children, and not for sensuous exploitation of the body.” (Translation by His Holiness Hridayananda dasa Goswami)
It’s not clear whether Krishna Kirti Prabhu has taken the following statement made by Hridayananda Maharaja into account in writing this essay. This was posted on Dandavats on Saturday, June 10th, 2006 and is Maharaja’s clarification written after his other writings on the subject:
“Statement from H.H. Hrdayananda Das Goswami”
http://www.dandavats.com/?p=46
So far we have only the preface, not the two essays, but the preface has some provacative statements about the guru and disciple relationship in ISKCON which we should discuss.
Under exceptional circumstances, guru and disciple have opposed each other. Arjuna opposed Drona in the battle of Kurukshetra.
(Drona appreciated that for political reasons he was on the side of some of his kshatriya disciples opposing others in inter-dynastic warfare. Beyond that, Drona knew that he was playing a specific part in Krishna’s lila and that Arjuna had Krishna on his side: It was not against Drona’s will that Arjuna opposed him.)
(Drona was Arjuna’s guru in martial arts, but Krishna was his guru in sanatan dharma and pure devotional service, besides which, as Drona knew, Krishna is directly the Supreme Personality of Godhead. )
What other incidents in history are Krishna Kirti referring to?
[Baladeva’s commentary on the Gita gives some different interpretations than Visvanatha’s, but I would not go so far as to say that Baladeva “opposed” Visvanatha. (I do not know the history, but I never heard there was any opposition in the sense of a direct challenge or debate.)]
What are the exceptional circumstances in which a faithful disciple may oppose his guru? When, if ever, can “submissive inquiry” from the guru be legitimately replaced by “challenging”? This seems to be the most important question raised by the preface.
It would be one thing if Krishna Kirti said, “after corresponding with my guru, I asked his permission to publish my essays, and he approved.” That would not raise the same kinds of problems.
By saying that HDG declined to discuss Krishna Kirti’s objections and then Krishna Kirti “declared” his intention to publish opposing essays, the sense I get is definitely one of a willingness to oppose not only the ideas, but also the wishes, of HDG. This does not seem like the mood of a loyal disciple.
I am not saying this to gratuitously criticize Krishna Kirti. (We have had earlier discussions on Dandavats and for my part I can honestly say I do not feel personally competitive with him.) I also respect that his relationship with his guru is personal and really none of my business.
However, at the heart of his “preface” published here is a statement about guru-disciple relationships that I cannot really agree with.
Krishna Kirti says: “in ISKCON most devotees spend most of their time serving in the association of senior devotees other than their guru. From that association comes all kinds of different desires and convictions.”
Even if association with other senior devotees gives rise to convictions that differ from the guru, it seems that the principles of surrender to the spiritual master’s wishes and submissive inquiry regarding the absolute truth remain basic to the parampara system.
Can one remain a loyal disciple and openly challenge the guru to a debate without the guru’s permission? I do not see how. There seems to be an insurmountable contradiction in professing to be a loyal disciple of Hridayananda Maharaja and at the same time openly publishing articles challenging his ideas, apparently without his permission or approval.
If Krishna Kirti said he had lost faith in HDG as his spiritual master, I would feel sorry, but I probably would not comment publicly.
What I am having trouble understanding is his explanation that, at least in ISKCON where we may be “influenced by other senior devotees”, it may be acceptable to defy and challenge one’s initiating guru while remaining a loyal and faithful disciple. That needs to be explored.
I am all in favor of openness and free discussion of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, from all angles. I would hate to see Krishna Kirti censored. (On the other hand, his intense desire to have his “arguments heard” might be a material attachment he should cut off, if it is causing him such an obstacle in his relationship with HDG.)
It is just that I think that discussing the principle of parampara raised here is every bit as important (probably much more important) than the issue of whether fallen homosexuals should practice “gay monogamy.”
Clicking the “Read the Rest” link will open the pdf file with the entire essay.
With regard to the nature of Krishna-kirti prabhu’s relationship with his spiritual master in light of the posistions stated on this issue, I’ll make a couple of points. One is that how they relate to each other is certainly a personal issue, and, considering the way ISKCON has been organized for a long time, it is doubtless not at all unusual that someone who took initiation from one of ISKCON’s leaders years ago may find he or she has developed a different way of seeing how to apply certain principles. I agree with Akruranath that it may be a topic worthy of discussion in general terms, if done very sensitively.
Another is that we may note thatKrishna-kirti has worked on this for two years or more, based on the date of the Hridayananda Maharaja’s essay. As someone who has read a great deal of Krishna-kirti’s writing, and who has corresponded with him extensively over the years, I find it hard to imagine that he would have come to this juncture without considerable–and probably agonizing–soul searching. I have always found him intelligent, thoughtful, and sincere in his desire to serve Srila Prabhupada and Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s movement. (And anyone who knows either of us at all must know that there are many social aspects of application on which we do not see eye to eye.) It was doubtless accompanied by much consultation with other devotees, perhaps senior to him, whom in whom he has confidence .He says himself that he corresponded with Maharaja about this issue over a period of time. I suggest that we take him at his word regarding his feelings about his spiritual master.
Those interested in discussing the issue Krishna-kirti’s essay focuses on should, I honestly believe, do so with great care, reading both his and Maharaja’s essays thoroughly and carefully before weighing in on either of their positions. Otherwise, it may be too easy to misunderstand or mischaracterize one or both, which would no doubt erode the value of such discussion.
Without wanting to comment on the situation between the author of this piece and his guru, about which I know nothing, it does seem to me that the phenomenon of disciples having a problem with gurus, and indeed vice versa, is not isolated. Perhaps though both parties could better avoid this embarrassment if there was some effective examination occurring. The Lord has instructed ‘guru lakshana, sishya lakshana, donhara parikshana’ (Mad 24.330) which Sanatana has expanded in the HBV as the direction for guru and disciple to reside together for “at least one year.” (1.73). (Citing the Krama Dipika, he says in one place (1.78) that the disciple should serve the guru for three years prior to diksha). Srila Prabhupada has duly presented this in his books, but current circumstances are such that the disciple rarely resides with the guru, as the HBV recommends. Thus very little actual examination takes place. Over the period of one year there is often not much association at all between the two parties. This problem is further exacerbated by our current system of ‘guru approval’, which tends to leave prospective disciples thinking there is little need to rigorously examine their chosen guru, as they believe the GBC have already done so. And whatever examination is done is often on the basis of flimsy external criteria, rather than the extensive items listed in HBV. On top of that, the current ISKCON system also allows for gurus to accept disciples on the basis of third party recommendations, even further reducing necessary contact. All in all, we leave ourselves wide open to the problem of disenchantment occurring somewhere down the line after initiation, when the serious mutual examination, which should have happened prior to diksha, actually does take place.
Just a few thoughts…
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
As for an example of a disciple directly challenging his guru, the first example that comes to mind is Ramanuja Acharya and his guru Yamunacharya. On two occasions that I know he challenged his guru and went against his wishes: once when given a confidential mantra, only to shout it to the common villagers, and once when hearing his guru liken the color of Krishna’s lotus feet to a monkey’s bottom. While this is not our sampradaya, there is no doubt that Ramanuja Acharya can be taken as instruction, although I do not encourage anyone to consider themselves in the same position as such a uniquely amazing soul.
The second example is a more classic pastime in our line of teaching - Bali Maharaja disobeying the order of his guru Sukra Acharya. Again, we see a disciple rejecting his guru when given an order that is against sanatana-dharma, but whether this is a comparable situation can be taken into question. Is HH Hridayananda Maharaja’s suggestions on gay monogmy the same as Sukra Acharya’s order to reject the request of Krishna?
I once read a book by Naimisaranya dasa about the pastimes of Yamunacarya and Ramanujacarya. I think it was called “The Life and Times of Sri Ramanujacarya”.
Naimasaranya compiled it from other sources as reading material for older gurukulis. It is full of wonderful nectar, about the life of Yamunacarya, Ramanujacarya, and Ramanuja’s disciples. I highly recommend it and I hope it remains available in print.
As I recall from that book, Alabandara Sri Yamunacarya left his body just before Ramanujacarya met him, so they never spoke to each other.
However, Yamunacarya’s body was holding three fingers in a particular way, and as Ramamnujacarya made three vows the three fingers of Sri Yamunacarya’s hand unclenched, confirming his desire that Ramanuja do these three things. (I forget what they were. One was to write a Vaisnava commentary on Vedanta Sutra and establish the vasisthadvaita conclusion, one was to preach extensively and defeat the mayavadis …. I am not even sure I got the first two right).
From the foregoing I understand that the pastimes bhakta Edwin refers to could not be between Ramanujacarya and Yamunacarya.
In the pastime with the “baboon’s bottom,” the guru was obviously not a Vaisnava but some mayavadi offender.
The pastime of telling the secret mantra went (roughly) like this: the guru (I do not remember who the guru was) gave a sacred mantra (om namo narayanaya) and said it would give liberation, but if Ramanuja revealed the secret mantra he would go to hell. Then Ramanuja revealed it to everyone, and the guru confronted him.
Ramanuja explained, “because it will give them liberation, I told everyone.” The guru said, “but you ignored my instruction that by telling you would go to hell.” Ramanuja countered, “I did not ignore it, but I considered that I am prepared to go to hell if I can give so many others liberation.” Then the guru embraced him and said, “You are greater than I am.”
That story of revealing the secret mantra is closest to a loyal disciple disobeying his Vaisnava guru for a higher principle. It is a wonderful story, but it indicates that Ramanucarya understood the higher desire of the guru, which was revealed when the guru approved of the mood of self-sacrifice for the liberation of others.
(What a fantastic story to remember on Lord Nityananda’s appearance day!)
The story of Sukracarya in the Bhagavatam is an example of how a guru who tells you not to surrender to Krishna should be rejected. Vishnu had come in disguise to personally request charity, and Sukracarya was saying “don’t give it, He is really Vishnu”, but Bali Maharaja took the opportunity to give everything to Vishnu, even his own body (atma nivedanam).
I will follow Babhru’s advice and not comment on Hrdayananda Maharaja’s article or Krishna Kirti’s responses unless I have carefully read and considered them first. (I may or may not ever get around to doing that).
In his preface, Krishna Kirti does not seem to be saying that Hrdayananda Maharaja is to be rejected like Sukracarya. It seems perhaps he is presenting it more like the act of Ramanujacarya defying the guru for a purpose so much higher that he is prepared to go to hell.
I appreciate Krishna Dharma’s comments that in ISKCON the gurus and disciples should examine each other closely. We should try to foster such careful, two-way examination as far as possible.
One more instructive story about guru-disciple relationship is the story of Ekalavya. Ekalavya was rejected as a disciple by Dronacarya, but made an earthen murti of Dronacarya and taught himselfe arcery. Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada commented that this behavior was to be condemned. Drona never authorized such a “relationship.”
Later, Ekalavya showed the proper attitude of a disciple by at once giving his thumb as guru dakshina when Drona asked for it. As a result, Drona’s promise that Arjuna would be the greatest archer was kept intact. Ekalavya was willing to sacrifice his achievement of surpassing Arjuna in archery in order to satisfy the desire of the guru.
Dear Prabhus,
Thank you for having me look closer into the life of Ramanuja Acharya. I searched in the Vedabase, and came upon the story of angering his guru in “A Ray of Vishnu.” Here, it mentions that the teacher is not Yamuna Acharya, but Yadavaprakasha - a famous professor of the time who lived in Kanchi. It also mentions that yes, this professor was explaining the passage as told by Shankaracharya.
Where can I find Hridayananda Maharaja’s original article? Is it on Dandavats?
Dear devotees! Please accept my humble obeisances!
There is one interesting story present on the book Prabhupada Nectar by Satsvarupa das Gosvami (pp. 269 - 270) in which Prabhupada says : ” I am just trying to explain that the purpose of a book must be known to the author, and he knows it better than others”. Srila Prabhupada then tells a story about a book called Shah Janah written by Mr. Rath and how friends of the author of such book were not able to discover why he had given this book such a name if the main character was Aurangzeb, one of the five sons of Shah Janah who had killed all his brothers and arrested his father so that he could become the king . Mr Rath answered that while Aurangzeb was usurping his empire and killing his other sons Shah Janah was intensely suffering for all this things in prison therefore he was the genuine hero of the book. Again in the end Srila Prabhupada says that “the author of a book knows very well what is the purpose of that book” and then he mentions how rascals try to understand the Vedanta Sutra without taking into consideration what the author Srila Vyasadeva said, that the key to understand Vedanta Sutra was Srimad Bhagavatam
Therefore, as mentioned in Padmanabha Prabhu’s comment, Hridayananda das Gosvami has explicitly mentioned that he is against gay marriages and yet he is in favor of tolerance within ISKCON of all kinds of people who are seriously looking for spiritual knowledge, no matter what they are so that every one may receive the mercy of Srila Prabhupada and become purified from all sinful activities.
After reading Krsna-kirti’s preface I had mixed feelings. I especially felt uneasy with the sentence “I’d rather be an oucast and have my views heard than be a suppressed insider” (approximate quote). Of course, H. H. Radhanath Swami has said that “a truly humble person seldom appears to be humble,” and I am not advanced enough to see the situation clearly. But Srila Narahari Sarkar has advised us to approach one’s spiritual master in private when in doubt about the propriety of his behavior, and such advise could have been used in the present issue.
Proceeding systematically, I read H. H. Hrdayananda Goswami’s essay. It sounded balanced and merciful, and I only had a fleeting doubt which I will reveal shortly. I expectantly turned to Krsna-kirti’s reply. (I should really say “Krsna-kirti Prabhu,” but I remember him as a young brahmacari in Bombay and I feel more like a mother, so that’s why I have been skipping the “prabhu.”)
As the person who conceived and sent the proposal (via GBC sponsor) which became the 2001 resolution Krsna-kirti consistently refers to, I soon became convinced that Krsna-kirti’s presentation makes an enormous point which needs to be systematically addressed by our spiritual leaders. After that particular proposal was passed, I was told that initially nobody wanted to discuss it, because our spiritual leaders (at least some of them) couldn’t believe the devotees were not following. Somehow, by Krsna’s mercy, it became a major topic of discussion, and at least the rule is on record. In my preaching field at the time, I encountered a lot of difficulties, because although I was only explaining the rules to devotees desirous of taking initiation (NOT to new people and casual congregation members), other devotees would counteract my preaching by saying I was a “fanatical temple devotee.” As a result, some of the candidates who were following nicely fell back into the pit.
At the very end of last year in South Africa, a law was passed, sanctioning gay marriages. We cannot stop the advance of Kali-yuga and we need to encourage everyone. However, by recognizing gay marriages in ISKCON, we endorse sexual activity not meant for procreation, which encourages ordinary married initiated couples to continue with fruitless sexual activities within marriage. If purity is indeed the force, shouldn’t our leaders encourage devotees to follow better and assist them in their struggle? We don’t need to give public lectures about it, but in small bhakti-vrksa groups and counselors groups, surely these things should be discussed and devotees encouraged to follow. We’ve had so many nauseating scandals. And Krsna-kirti’s statement (approximate) that as time goes on, devotees who seriously want to progress will be forced to leave ISKCON is certainly a possibility we can’t dismiss lightly. I must confess that it is only the strong shelter of my gurudeva, His Holiness Giriraj Swami Maharaj, which prevents me from taking association outside of ISKCON. Not that wonderful devotees do not abound in ISKCON. I can think of so many. But there seems to be a lack of adequate training. Actually, Srila Prabhupada’s books are not enough. As Srila Prabhupada himself has explained, we need the guidance of a living guru. Too many devotees feel that they don’t need one. I know it’s hard to keep faith if your spiritual master falls down because I had to take initiation three times before getting proper shelter, but not everyone is so fortunate, and therefore they go where they feel they can get strong guidance. Can we really blame them?
Having said all this, I humbly bow down at the lotus feet of all the devotees, both the exemplary ones and the struggling ones. I beg for your forgiveness if I’ve said anything improper or offensive.
Your aspiring servant, Visakha Priya dasi
Visakha-priya dasi: “At the very end of last year in South Africa, a law was passed, sanctioning gay marriages. We cannot stop the advance of Kali-yuga and we need to encourage everyone.”
Hare Krishna! Personally, I don’t see how gay marriage relates with the advancement of Kali-yuga. Gay unions are mentioned in the ancient Kama Shastra scriptures of India and have obviously been around for a long time. The fact that modern society is now accommodating gay people, rather than hanging or stoning them as was previously done in non-Vedic Christian and Islamic cultures, seems more like a step away from Kali-yuga to me!
Visakha-priya dasi: “However, by recognizing gay marriages in ISKCON, we endorse sexual activity not meant for procreation, which encourages ordinary married initiated couples to continue with fruitless sexual activities within marriage.”
I think it is important to remember that H.H. Hridayananda Maharaja is not even talking about gay marriage within ISKCON (as per the original piece posted here). He is discussing encouraging monogamy as opposed to promiscuity for gay devotees living outside the temple who cannot practice lifelong celibacy. I don’t see how anyone can honestly argue that we should not encourage people to be monogamous rather than promiscuous. The purpose here is not to encourage or endorse illicit sex but rather to minimize it as far as possible.
Visakha-priya dasi: “If purity is indeed the force, shouldn’t our leaders encourage devotees to follow better and assist them in their struggle? We don’t need to give public lectures about it, but in small bhakti-vrksa groups and counselors groups, surely these things should be discussed and devotees encouraged to follow.”
Exactly! And that is just what H.H. Hridayananda Goswami is attempting to do. He is encouraging gay Vaishnavas to continue following Krsna consciousness, controlling their senses as best they can, even if the best they can do is monogamy. On the other hand, devotees like Krsna-kirti dasa and Danavir Swami seem to be saying, “It’s complete celibacy or nothing! If gays can’t follow complete, lifelong celibacy then we don’t want to help them, offer any practical advice or even have them living outside the temple as householders.”
There should be no question which approach is more helpful in encouraging Krsna consciousness among the gay and lesbian Vaishnava community. I think devotees need to learn to engage all members of society whether celibate, monogamous or even those who are completely fallen. Krsna consciousness is not only for temple devotees and strict brahmanas. It is for everyone at all levels.
Vaishnava das anudas,
Amara dasa
[Amara:] Personally, I don’t see how gay marriage relates with the advancement of Kali-yuga. Gay unions are mentioned in the ancient Kama Shastra scriptures of India and have obviously been around for a long time.>
[Humble inquiry] Exactly what mention does homosexuality get in kama-sastra?
[Amara:] The fact that modern society is now accommodating gay people
[Humble interjection:] …is most certainly a symptom of the advance of Kali-yuga! Who can deny it? Abortion also accomodated, so many other varieties of perverse sex also accomodated, open prostitution accomodated, nearly-naked women in public accomodated, gambling also accomodated… The list of sinful activity that was not accomodated 50 years ago but is accomodated today is ever increasing.
[Amara:] I don’t see how anyone can honestly argue that we should not encourage people to be monogamous rather than promiscuous. The purpose here is not to encourage or endorse illicit sex but rather to minimize it as far as possible.
[Humble statement of fact:] If the goal is in fact to minimize the perverse homosexual activity “as far as possible,” then surely one will accept the prescription given by our founder-acarya Srila Prabhupada: marry a woman and live as normal husband and wife. Obviously “gay marriage” falls short of this instruction.
And one might consider that alcoholics are mostly not cured by restricting their drinking to one kind of alcoholic beverage, but rather by lifelong total abstention.
[Amara:] devotees like Krsna-kirti dasa and Danavir Swami seem to be saying, “It’s complete celibacy or nothing! If gays can’t follow complete, lifelong celibacy then we don’t want to help them, offer any practical advice or even have them living outside the temple as householders.”
[Humble response:] Perhaps read more carefully exactly what they have said. But i propose that any person afflicted with the disease of homosexuality should seriously consider trying for exactly that–complete lifelong celibacy. Only if unable to remain fixed in complete celibate, then they can choose the bona fide option of marriage–not homosexual so-called marriage, but legitmate dharmic marriage. Was that not Srila Prabhupada’s program for the few homosexual men who had joined during his time?
>There should be no question which approach is more helpful in encouraging Krsna consciousness among the gay and lesbian Vaishnava community.
[Humble agreement:] Indeed there should be no question that the most helpful approach will be to follow the simple advice/instruction given by Srila Prabhupada: marry a woman and lead a normal household life.
[Amara:] I think devotees need to learn to engage all members of society whether celibate, monogamous or even those who are completely fallen. Krsna consciousness is not only for temple devotees and strict brahmanas. It is for everyone at all levels.
[HUmble comment:] Indeed the practice of Krsna consciousness is open to the most fallen–which category certainly includes homosexuals. But sruti smriti puranadi … If the so-called practice of bhakti-yoga is not according to sastric injuctions and the instructions of previous Vaisnava acaryas, then it is “simply a disturbance to society.”
The concept of “gay monogomy” is exactly such a disturbance to the society of sincere and humble Vaisnavas. Hence, my humble appeal to all “gay Vaisnavas” is to immediately cease being a disturbance to the society of genuine Vaisnavas. Please chant Hare Krsna incessantly and follow the four regulative principles to the best of your ability and thereby yourselves become genuine Vaisnavas. But please STOP the nonsensical, whimsical, and speculative attempt to rubber-stamp “gay monogomy” as if it were something other than a unwelcome disturbance to Vaisnava society!
–a most fallen conditioned soul named
guru-krsna das
Are there instances of homosexual men in ISKCON who married women because of that advice by Srila Prabhupada? If so, how did it work out?
Were the women told of the men’s homosexuality?
[Humble inquiry] Exactly what mention does homosexuality get in kama-sastra?
Reply: The genius of Vedic culture is that it accommodates all members of society, not only celibate brahmanas. One example of this is the accommodation of prostitutes in Vedic cities such as Lord Krsna’s Dvaraka (SB 1.11.19, purport). Only in modern, Kali Yuga culture have we been taught to hate and persecute the lower segments of society.
If devotees studied Vedic social models more carefully they would see how homosexual and transgender people were respectfully accommodated in Vedic culture. The Eighth and Ninth Chapters, Second Part of the Kama Shastra describes such people in full detail, both masculine and feminine types, and points out how they served society as dancers, barbers, hairstylists, flower-sellers, masseurs, prostitutes, and so on. Devotees would do well to consider these models and learn from them. We take information about astrology through the Jyotir Shastra, law through the Dharma Shastra, economics through the Artha Shastra, medicine through the Ayur Shastra, military science through the Dhanur Shastra, etc., yet somehow devotees resist learning about human sexuality through the Kama Shastra. This is unfortunate but explains why so many of us resort to outdated and unrealistic Victorian-era theories instead, such as the notion that homosexuals are demonic and should only be excluded from society.
Vaishnava das anudas,
Amara dasa
Amara_dasa wrote:
This is one way of dealing with people who disagree with you–accuse them of harbouring ill intentions in order to excuse yourself of having to respond to any of their objections. Although such rhetorical smearing features prominently in contemporary political discourse (and gay activism in particular), it is disingenuous to suggest that people either agree with your position or they have to be speaking in bad faith. That is a round-about way of saying that one’s position is correct by definition, and that, essentially, is what the term “politically correct” means. It is a view, an orthodoxy, that cannot be questioned. By definition, opposing views are to be rejected and the people who hold them derided.
As for me, I am quite pleased to be lumped in with Danavir Maharaja. (BTW, his name is “Danavir Goswami”, not “Danavir Swami”.) Up until now, he is the only ISKCON leader to publically oppose “gay monogamy,” and the reason he and I have opposed it is quite simple: Srila Prabhupada’s own views on this issue are unequivocally opposed to it.
In this regard, we have presented our arguments, and we have yet to encounter anyone who disagrees with them and who has actually attempted in good faith to address their substance.