By Visakha Priya dasi
Hare Krsna.
Regarding the statement, âKrsna consciousness is not only for temple devotees and strict brahmanas. It is for everyone at all levels,â I would like to offer the following reflections for your consideration:
Although everyone is eligible for bhakti, not everyone is eligible for initiation, especially brahminical initiation. Srila Prabhupadaâs first goal was to create a society of brahmanas, and brahmanas do not indulge in illicit sex. In one of your comments you wrote: âThe Eighth and Ninth Chapters, Second Part of the Kama Shastra describes such people [homosexuals] 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.â
The first thing we seem to learn from this description of homosexuals in Vedic times is that they were sudras. Sudras, of course, are not required to follow the rules and regulations meant for the brahmanas. As explained in Srimad-Bhagavatam, Eleventh Canto, Chapter Twenty-one, Text 11, âThe same activities that would degrade an elevated person do not cause falldown for those who are already fallen. Indeed, one who is lying on the ground cannot possibly fall further. The material association that is dictated by one’s own nature is considered a good quality.â
In the purport to this text, H. H. Hrdayananda dasa Goswami and his team comment as follows:
âThe Lord here further describes the ambiguity in ascertaining material piety and sin. Although intimate association with women is most abominable for a renounced sannyasi, the same association is pious for a householder, who is ordered by Vedic injunction to approach his wife at the suitable time for procreation. Similarly, a brahmana who drinks liquor is considered to be committing a most abominable act, whereas a sudra, a low-class man, who can moderate his drinking is considered to be self-controlled. Piety and sin on the material level are thus relative considerations. Any member of society, however, who receives diksa, initiation into the chanting of the Lord’s holy names, must strictly obey the four regulative principles: no eating of meat, fish or eggs, no illicit sex, no intoxication and no gambling. A spiritually initiated person neglecting these principles will certainly fall from his elevated position of liberation.â
A person in a fallen position (as most of us were at the time of taking up the process of Krsna consciousness) should recognize his or her fallen position, not try to justify it. Certainly, branding, stoning, or burning at stake persons who do not fit within the social system denotes a very primitive and fallen mentality, and the Vedic system, being most advanced and sophisticated, had a humane way to deal with everyone. But brahmanas and sudras didnât mix, because they were governed by different modes of natures. Sudras served the higher classes, were nicely fed and clothed, but they had no say in higher subject matters. Someone might say that in Kali-yuga everyone is a sudra, but even though we were born as sudras, we have been given the opportunity to rise to a higher status of existence through the process of Vaisnava diksa. It is up to everyone to decide whether they want to take it up or not, but if we do decide to take up the process of diksa, we have to endeavor strenuously to maintain ourselves on that platform. And we should take help from those who are successful in maintaining their vows, not from those who are as hopelessly enmeshed in sinful activities as we are. And of course, this doesnât apply only to homosexuals but to all of us.
âKrsna consciousness is not only for temple devotees and strict brahmanas. It is for everyone at all levels.â
Agreed. But Srila Prabhupada has commented (I donât have the reference but have heard it from my spiritual master), âKrsna consciousness is ninety-five percent association.â One might say, âAssociation? Surely, chanting oneâs rounds is more important than association!â But Srila Prabhupada further commented that without proper association you will not be able to maintain the determination to chant. It is therefore essential to look for good association. It may require sacrifices, but thatâs the price to pay for reaching the ultimate goal of lifeâprema pum-artho mahan.
May this find you well.
Your servant,
Visakha Priya dasi
Thanks for the post. I agree wholeheartedly. It is absolutely impossible to make any real progress in devotional service if one engages in illicit sex because all one’s intelligence is lost and one becomes like a sentimentalist or a fanatic. Semen is the most vital substance in the body and regularly draining the body of this substance destroys the covering of the nerves, the myelin sheaths, especially in the brain. Prabhupada regularly said that one must chant the maha mantra and follow the regulative principles, he gave no concessions. Anyone who tries to justify these illicit activities in any way is just wasting his time and is not a follower of the actual Vaisnavas. What one has to do is increase his chanting and take shelter of Gauranga lila and naam and beg the Lord for help, or feel the harsh bite of the threefold miseries.
Hari Bol!
Hare Krishna!
Krsna consciousness means, in the spirit of Srila Prabhupada and Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, that we extend it to everyone without discrimination:
“Not considering who asked for it and who did not, nor who was fit and who unfit to receive it, Caitanya Mahaprabhu distributed the fruit of devotional service.”
(CC 1.9.29)
We should not think that we will preach Krsna consciousness only to the brahmanas and people following the principles. That automatically leaves out 95% of humanity! Rather, we should include everyone in this process, including the fallen and less than perfect. In this way, everyone in society will gradually be elevated.
In Krsna consciousness, there are both positive instructions (chanting, studying scripture, associating with devotees, etc.) and negative ones (refraining from meat-eating, gambling, intoxication, illicit sex, and so on). While both are important, the positive instructions should always be given precedence over the negative. For instance, people should begin hearing and chanting about Krsna even if they cannot follow all of the prohibitions. It is not that one must first give up all bad habits, and then after that he or she may begin Krsna consciousness. Rather, by immediately adopting the positive practices of bhakti-yoga, a person will gradually become inspired to follow the various prohibitions.
Otherwise, if we begin excluding everyone from Krsna consciousness whom we deem “unfit” or “non-brahminical”, we are no better than the stone-hearted smarta-brahmanas that Lord Caitanya personally condemned. Devotees should be very careful about this. We should not become puffed up and think that we are highly qualified brahmanas and all others are low-class sudras. That will be a great mistake for our movement.
Vaishnava das anudas,
Amara dasa
Hare Krishna!
It is true that everyone should be given a chance to hear the holy names, but I think what Vishaka Priya dasi meant is that only one who is very serious and fully prepared to follow the regulative principles should be initiated. Here are some verses from Hari-nama-cintamani, 10th Pariccheda by Namacharya Shrila Thakura Haridasa himself and penned by Shrila Saccidananda Bhaktivinoda Thakura that describe this serious situation:
sraddha-hine peye nama aparadhe mare
sange sange guruke abhakta shighra kare
“If a faithless unqualified person gets initiated into the chanting of Krishna’s Name, then surely he or she will engage in nama-aparadha and be destroyed. Along with his or her own degradation, the disciple will also convert the Guru also into a non-devotee because the Guru gave the Name is the first place and thus is the cause for the offenses of the disciple.”
sradhhahina jane artha lobhe nama diya
narakete jaya nama-aparadha majiya
“Therefore if the Guru gives initiation into the Krishna Mantra due to a desire for money or following, he will commit this namaparadha against Krishna’s Name and will thus go to hell.”
pramade yadyapi nama upadesha haya
sradhhahine tabe guru paya maha-bhaya
“Therefore a Guru should become very fearful when he comes to know that by mistake he has given Krishna-Mantra-Diksha to a faithless unqualified person with ulterior motives.”
vaishnava samaje taha kari vigyapana
sei dusta sisya tyaga kare mahajana
“The Guru should announce in an assembly of devotees and in this way reject the sinful disciple who is engaging in Vaishnava aparadha or Nama aparadha.”
taha na karile guru aparadha krame
bhakti-hina duracara haya maya bhrame
“If the Guru does not reject the envious disciple in this way, the Guru becomes implicated in this aparadha and quickly becomes devoid of bhakti and engages in abominable activities due to the bewilderment of the illusory energy or Maya.”
iha na kariya jei dena nama dhana
sei aparadhe tara narekete patana
“Therefore if a Guru gives Krishna-Mantra-Diksha without creating strong faith in the disciple for Krishna-Nama, then the Guru falls down to hell due to his offense against Krishna-Nama.”
nama peye sisya kare nama aparadha
tahate gurura haya bhakti rasa badha
“After receviing Krishna-Nama-Diksha, if the disciple engages in Vaishnava aparadha or the ten nama-aparadha, then the Guru’s advancement in bhakti rasa is checked or obstructed.”
sei nama aparadhe dunhe sisya guru
narkete maje sei aparadha uru
“And due to this most powerful aparadha by the disciple and by the Guru too who does not stop, correct or reject his blasephemous or offensive disciple, both of them, Guru and disciple fall down into the hellish planets in their next life.”
Hello, As one of the 99.99% of the less than imperfect souls, I can testify to the power of taking shelter of Lord Chaitanya. I had been chanting Hare Krishna without the shelter of a Spiritual Master and my appetite for Srimad Bagavatam and association of the devotees increased but my “negative attractions” seemed unsurmountable. Now that I have increased my Pancha Tattva rounds I have, almost instantly lost the desire for wine (which was a favorite for many years). I give the credit to the mercy of Lord Chaitanya and thank you to the devotees who brought this to my attention. I look forward to losing more hankerings which would impede my desire for Krishna only. Hari Bol
COMMENTS ON POST NO. 2 BY AMARA PRABHU
Sadhus!
Let me enter into this debate, if I may. Really the issue at stake is whether âpracticingâ homosexuals are to be socially accepted within ISKCON ranks. That is to say, whether they should be allowed to participate in public functions (religious or otherwise), whether they â as âcouplesâ â are allowed to come into temples to mingle with the others, whether their presence, in this social milieu, is detrimental to the children who are obviously present in ISKCON templesâ functions, whether practicing homosexuals are a bad example to our children in ISKCON.
Amara has hinted that, âWe should not think that we will preach Krsna consciousness only to the brahmanas and people following the principles. That automatically leaves out 95% of humanity!â
We can only agree with that statement because it does not address the thorny issues of practicing homosexualsâ bad habits. Once the issue of social acceptability of practicing homosexuals is brought to discussion, then many â if not most grhasthas â will object to his assertion.
Nobody has a problem with practicing homosexuals carrying on with their business, in private. But, when they push for social (and religious) acceptability, then most of us will object, because we have a lot to lose if we donât; we have a lot at stake.
Yours in the service of Srila Prabhupada,
Yugala Kishor dasa (Gainesville, FL)
Here are some portions from a book titled Brahmacharya in Krishna Consciousness
by Bhakti Vikas Swami with some quotes from Srila Prabhupada.
Those who do not practice brahmacarya must always remain in illusion. Shrila Prabhupada: âBrahmacarya is very, very essential. When one becomes detestful to sex life, that is the beginning of spiritual life.â (Lecture, 4/4/75) âWithout becoming brahmacari, nobody can understand spiritual life.â (Airport Reception, 18/09/69)
Still, in our present position, brahmacarya must be emphasized as an essential part of the means to our end of attaining love of Krishna. In our present neophyte position, unless we make a rigid program to control our senses, there will never be any possibility of advancement to higher levels.
âA human being is meant to be trained according to certain principles to revive his original knowledge. Such a methodical life is described as tapasya. One can gradually be elevated to the standard of real knowledge, or Krishna consciousness, by practicing austerity and celibacy (brahmacarya), by controlling the mind, by controlling the senses, by giving up oneâs possessions in charity, by being avowedly truthful, by keeping clean, and by practicing yoga-asanas… Unless one is master of his senses, he should not be called Gosvami, but go-dasa, servant of the senses. Following in the footsteps of the six Gosvamis of Vrindavana, all svamis and gosvamis should fully engage in the transcendental loving service of the Lord. As opposed to this, the go-dasas engage in the service of the senses or in the service of the material world. They have no other engagement. Prahlada Maharaja has further described the go-dasa as adanta-go, which refers to one whose senses are not controlled. An adanta-go cannot become a servant of Krishna.â (NOI, Text 1)
Furthermore, to the extent that a person becomes interested in sex, that much he loses all good qualities. For from lust develop all other bad qualities such as greed, personal ambition, hatred, and cruelty. Shrila Prabhupada: âSex life is the background of material existence. Demons are very fond of sex life. The more one is freed from the desire for sex, the more he is promoted to the level of the demigods; the more one is inclined to enjoy sex, the more he is degraded to the level of demonic life.â (SB 3.20.23)
Shrila Prabhupada: âIf our mind is filled with sense gratification, even though we want Krishna consciousness, by continuous practice we cannot forget the subject of sense gratification.â (SB 4.22.30) And, âin the Chaitanya-caritamrita it is stated that if someone sincerely wants to see the Lord and at the same time wants to enjoy this material world, he is considered to be a fool only.â(SB 2.9.23) Therefore, âit is the duty of the transcendentalist to try strenuously to control desire.â (Bg. 5.23)
Neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality are ânatural.â Heterosexual desire is a perverted reflection of our original love for Krishna and homosexuality is another twist. But homosexual or heterosexual, the disease is lust. Homosexuality means that the lust has increased to an abnormally high degree. Shrila Prabhupada: âThe homosexual appetite of a man for another man is demoniac and is not for any sane man in the ordinary course of life.â (SB 3.20.26)
Yugala Kishor,
You bring up the point of practicing homosexuals habits. I know a few gay devotees, I dont know what ‘practicing’ homosexuality means, so I dont know if they ‘practice’ it. It’s not my business, just like I don’t know whether heterosexual devotees are ‘practicing’ it or not. What I do know however are their ‘habits’, which is your concern, I see them everyday. Their habits that I see are chanting Hare Krishna, attending Bhagavatam class, cleaning the temple, serving the devotees, distributing Srila Prabhupadas books, along with many other standard Vaisnava practices, many of them for years, with much sincerity and humility.
What habits manifest when gay practicing Vaisnavas form a committed, monogamous relationship? I am not aware of gay devotees relationships being authorised and practiced anywhere around the world, however you seem to be indicating that you have some evidenced knowledge of what habits will form.
Can you fill us in on the results of this study that you have? I am really fascinated to hear what the ‘lot to lose’ is when devotees who are gay commit to monogamous relationships Do you just mean the same debacle that has generally happened with heterosexual relationships?
Bhakti Lata Bhija Das
This issue would not be a concern if it were not for the fact that within at least the last 5 years, two prominent leaders have suggested that ISKCON as a society or as an institution should confer some measure of public encouragement for homosexual relationships. For this to have occurred, and for a significant section of ISKCON’s membership to take seriously such suggestions, a way of reading Srila Prabhupada’s published works that misrepresents Srila Prabhupada’s own views of these issues has had to have been significantly promoted and adopted. Otherwise, reading Srila Prabhupada in the way he himself advocated reading shastra and the acharyas, “As It Is”, uniquivocally leads to the conclusion that Srila Prabhupada would have staunchly opposed confering any sort of public recognition on homosexual relationships. Terms such as “gay monogamy”, what to speak of “gay marriage”, signify notions that are against Srila Prabhupada’s own teachings.
Excuse my lack of knowledge of Srila Prabupada’s voluminous teachings, but I have always understood that the essence of ISKON was to glorify and spread Krishna Consciousness through the merciful teachings of Lord Chaitanya. I had naturally assumed that even demoniac behavior could be uplifted through the process of hearing, chanting and association. Proper Vaishnava behavior would never seem to condone a flaunting of ones sexual preference,even as sex itself is abandoned. Why must ISKON take a stand on homosexuality, I thought that all sin is to be overcome, not categorized and judged.
Hare Krishna!
I can’t imagine that Srila Prabhupada would object to our encouraging gay and lesbian devotees, living outside the temple, to practice monogamy and faithful marriage over promiscuity. It is definitely a step in the right direction. In preaching to the outside community, all different types of innovative tactics may be used. For instance, everyone knows the story about how Srila Bhatisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura was prepared even to serve meat to a gathering of Englishmen if they would simply hear harikatha! So what to speak of simply encouraging monogamy and faithful marriage among our gay congregational members.
I believe it is very important for ISKCON to preach with innovation, according to time and circumstance, and without discrimination. In his purport to the verse quoted above (CC 1.9.29), Srila Prabhupada writes:
“This is the sum and substance of Lord Caitanya’s sankirtana movement. There is no distinction made between those who are fit and those who are not fit to hear or take part in the sankirtana movement. It should therefore be preached without discrimination. The only purpose of the preachers of the sankirtana movement must be to go on preaching without restriction. That is the way in which Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu introduced this sankirtana movement to the world.”
In another significant verse from Sri Caitanya-Caritamrta, Lord Caitanya expresses His dismay when anyone is left out of His movement:
“Seeing that the Mayavadis and others were fleeing, Lord Caitanya thought, ‘I wanted everyone to be immersed in this inundation of love of Godhead, but some of them have escaped. Therefore I shall devise a trick to drown them also.'”
In his purport to this verse, Srila Prabhupada strongly criticizes those who are unable to employ innovative methods of preaching in communities with different social standards:
“These jealous fools who criticize the intermingling of boys and girls will simply have to be satisfied with their own foolishness because they cannot think of how to spread Krsna consciousness by adopting ways and means that are favorable for this purpose. Their stereotyped methods will never help spread Krsna consciousness. Therefore, what we are doing is perfect by the grace of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, for it is He who proposed to invent a way to capture those who strayed from Krsna consciousness.” (CC 1.7.31-32, purport)
If we are truly interested in preaching to the gay community and including them in Krsna consciousness, this will involve including them on all levels whether as celibate monks or as householder congregational members.
Vaishnava das anudas,
Amara dasa
Amara_dasa wrote:
That is because you filter his relevant statements on this issue from your conception of what Srila Prabhupada would or would not want. Instead, what you do is–cafeteria style–pick out the statements that (kind of) support your own view, leave out the ones that don’t, and then use what’s left as raw material to construct an altogether different meaning–one that SP never intended. What you have done is created a new text and have ascribed its authorship to Srila Prabhupada in order to give your own opinions the gravitas of SP’s authority.
Scholars have called such hermaneutical manipulation “revisionism”; we in ISKCON call it Mayavada:
Comments on Post No. 10
Amara wrote: “If we are truly interested in preaching to the gay community and including them in Krsna consciousness, this will involve including them on all levels whether as celibate monks or as householder congregational members.”
We don’t see an en masse effort, in ISKCON, to preach to homosexuals. You are the one interested in that effort; and that’s your prerogative; we honor that. But, what we don’t buy from such endeavors is that fact that you want us to give a blanket acceptance of all homosexual behavior within the social and organizational life of ISKCON. That’s what are objecting to.
Why are you so keenly interested in the rest of ISKCON to accept homosexual behavior as normal?
Yugala Kishor dasa (Gainesville, FL)
Hare Krishna!
For the most part I have been encouraged by the good number of ISKCON devotees who are willing to work with and encourage the gay community in Krsna consciousness. His Holiness Hridayananada Goswami’s article on gay monogamy is just one example. On a personal level, I have been contacted by quite a few ISKCON gurus, sannyasis and temple presidents who have expressed a willingness to help gay devotees advance spiritually. Many of these senior devotees have gay disciples, temple devotees, friends, relatives, peers, etc. that they are genuinely concerned about and do not simply want to “throw away” just because they require householder life.
During the previous year’s Mayapura conference, His Holiness Jayadvaita Goswami gave a very nice address in which he expressed ISKCON’s need to accommodate devotees with different opinions on how to best serve Srila Prabhupada. On this issue I think we are seeing such a vision manifest. Clearly, not all ISKCON devotees hate gays or wish to exclude them as temple or congregational members. In fact, many devotees appreciate and welcome them. While it is unlikely that ISKCON will pass a resolution ending discrimination against gays, it is also unlikely to pass any resolution banning gay couples from visiting the temple or mandating discrimination against them. Indeed, Allen Ginsberg came to the temple many times accompanied by his long-time lover, Peter Orlovsky, and both Srila Prabhupada and the temple devotees welcomed them wholeheartedly despite any personal disapprovals they may have held about their relationship.
Therefore, I think the best thing right now is for gay devotees to seek out gurus, sannyasis and temples that share such a mood and demonstrate a practical and humane understanding of people with homosexual orientation. There are, in my opinion, enough temples and devotees like this to make such a suggestion feasible. I am very hopeful in this regard and even expect it to increase as time moves forward.
In the service of Srila Prabhupada,
Amara dasa
*Of course* Srila Prabhupada would prefer gays and lesbians to stick to one relationship rather than sleep with a different tree every night! *Of course* Srila Prabhupada would want us to encourage gays and lesbians to chant Hare Krsna, offer their food to Krsna, and visit the Lord in His temple! I don’t think anyone is saying otherwise. But the union of man and woman within the institution of marriage is specifically meant for the gradual purification of conditioned souls attached to the opposite sex. There is no provision in sastra for a common-law ashram for the purification of conditioned souls attached in other ways. To try to adapt the grhastha ashram to suit a homosexual situation will not yield the desired result because it is not sanctioned by sastra. As Krsna-kirti Prabhu recently commented, you cannot pick and choose sastric injunctions, make kichari out of them, and expect to come up with the real thing. It is simply another trick of maya.
If we are born with one leg instead of two, there is nothing we can do about it. We have to face our infirmity and accept the fact that we’ll never be able to run for the Olympics. Our previous karma is responsible for our present state of existence. As someone previously commented, homosexuality is a perversion of the perversion of our pure love for Krsna, and as Amara das pointed out, persons in that category did have a place in Vedic society. In the same way today, I suggest that homosexuals determined to pursue homosexual relationships rather than a life of celibacy do have their place in the society of devotees, but not in leadership positions such as teachers, pujaris, GBCs, gurus, temple presidents, etc. A person born as a homosexual may not be able to change his or her situation in this lifetime, but the choice is there to live a life of celibacy and purify oneself in that way. Then, no one would object to such a person being in a position of leadership. It is common knowlege in ISKCON that several of Srila Prabhupada’s early disciples were homosexual and that Srila Prabhupada knew about it. But because they were living celibate lives (at least we thought they all were!), it was not an issue. But gay unions, although perhaps sanctioned in the kama-sutra, are not sanctioned in the upasana- khanda of the Vedas, and therefore we cannot sanction them either. Srila Prabhupada was very clear on the matter. Just the way he ridiculed and fumed about the way Christianity was condoning homosexuality is pointed proof that we are not allowed to legalize such relationships. It’s hard to be a second-class citizen, but it’s not the society’s fault. It’s a matter of personal karma. Still, karma is not eternal. After one has purified oneself through the proper methods enjoined in the bhakti-sastras, one will be accepted as a bonafide Vaisnava brahmana, regardless of one’s birth and previous activities. And in the meantime, if we need the comfort of a sexual relationship to keep going, then we will have to be satisfied with a second-class status and keep chanting: Hare Krsna, Hare Krsna, Krsna Krsna, Hare Hare/ Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare. Kalau nasty eva, nasty eva, nasty eva gatir anyatha.
N.B. Whether we use the word “gay unions,” “gay marriages,” or “gay monogamy,” the meaning is the same, really. There is no point in arguing the point, which is to gain some official recognition
Visakha Priya (dd) GRS
COMMENTS TO POST NO. 13 BY AMARA PRABHU
AMARA: âFor the most part I have been encouraged by the good number of ISKCON devotees who are willing to work with and encourage the gay community in Krsna consciousness.â
What does âa good number of devoteesâ mean? Why canât you be precise? Is it 10% of the devotee population? Is it 50 or 75%? Are they grhasthas? Sannyasis? Brahmacaris? Who are these people you are referring to, as they were a meaningful number? Can you substantiate your calculation?
âHis Holiness Hridayananada Goswamiâs article on gay monogamy is just one example.â
Yes. We all know about that. This bagatelle of homosexuality is creating a division in ISKCON. It is defining who are the liberals and who are the conservatives. It is tearing apart disciples (who are conservatives) and gurus (who are liberals) apart. This is why the outcome of this issue of homosexuals is very important to the rest of ISKCON.
AMARA: âOn a personal level, I have been contacted by quite a few ISKCON gurus, sannyasis and temple presidents who have expressed a willingness to help gay devotees advance spiritually.â
Again, who are these people you are referring to? Why the secrecy? What is proportion of this âquite a fewâ is? At least HH Hrdayananda Maharaja had the guts to publicly define himself on this issue; needless to say with great controversy and displeasure to many, in ISKCON.
AMARA: âMany of these senior devotees have gay disciples, temple devotees, friends, relatives, peers, etc. that they are genuinely concerned about and do not simply want to âthrow awayâ just because they require householder life.â
How can someone have disciples who are homosexuals? The very notion of discipleship implies vows of no illicit-sex. Homosexuals canât live a life within the protection of grhastha-dharma, because that is confined to men and women, in the relationship of a Vedic (sacred) marriage.
We wonder how even you got a Sanskrit name. Did you disclose to your spiritual master that you were homosexual? Did he, knowing such a fact, go ahead and grant you initiation? Or did you have to lie about it, and got initiated anyway?
No guru, in their right mind, would initiate a person who is not serious or committed to the 4 regulative principles, unless he is lied to by the so-called disciple.
Moreover, householder life (as the term is used in ISKCON) is for bona fide grhasthas. You are pushing for this idea that your glorified notion of homosexualsâ monogamy is to be accommodated within grhastha-dharma. We invite to read, ponder and digest ALL what Prabhupada ever wrote, and said about it. Then you will see why we adamantly opposed to you, and to whomever come up with the idea of accommodating homosexuals within the social, religious and institutional milieu of ISKCON.
Whether the homosexual issue has the potential of dividing and weakening ISKCON, as it has done to the Christians in the West, is something to be carefully watched.
AMARA: âOn this issue (Jayadwaita Swamiâs) I think we are seeing such a vision manifest.â
What vision? The vision of a homosexualsâ paradise in ISKCON? Again, it shows how befuddled you seem to be. Before your vision is manifest in ISKCON, you will see a lot controversy being fought out, you will see leaders defending their philosophical stands on this issue, you will see ISKCONâs peoples, communities and assets being wasted on this issue. In sum, you will see a divided and weakened ISKCON (something that Srila Prabhupada never liked). Is that your vision of a homosexual safe have?
AMARA: âClearly, not all ISKCON devotees hate gays or wish to exclude them as temple or congregational members.â
Hating is one thing, giving blanket acceptance to homosexuality is entirely another matter. You are evading the issue. If you are sincerely interested in providing solutions instead playing the âsentimental cardâ (if I may use that expression), then tell the world why is it that homosexuals should be socially, religiously, institutionally and even dharmically accommodated in ISKCON? What do we (and the world) gain from it? Tell the world, why should we disregard Srila Prabhupadaâs numerous writings and verbal expressions about homosexuality just to accommodate all homosexuals of the world?
AMARA: âIn fact, many devotees appreciate and welcome them. While it is unlikely that ISKCON will pass a resolution ending discrimination against gays, it is also unlikely to pass any resolution banning gay couples from visiting the temple or mandating discrimination against them.â
I would argue otherwise. The issue has the potential of creating further division in ISKCON that it may very well be the best thing to do, to just issue an institutional, religious decree to ban them, and get on with our business of preaching Krishna Consciousness and you get on with your private business of living your dream of making an homosexualsâ paradise.
As Vidura posited to Dhritarasthra: To save his kingdom from doom, a king may sacrifice a city; to save a city, he may sacrifice a village; to save a village, he may sacrifice a family; to save a family, he may sacrifice one member thereof. Hence, if for the sake of preserving ISKCON, the way Srila Prabhupada gave it to use, we have sacrifice homosexuality, then so be it.
AMARA: âTherefore, I think the best thing right now is for gay devotees to seek out gurus, sannyasis and temples that share such a mood and demonstrate a practical and humane understanding of people with homosexual orientation.â
Donât you have your own homosexualsâ websites? Why is that you want to carry your message to us, the non-homosexuals, and forums such Dandavats? Why are you so keenly interested in the non-homosexual world to know about your pro-homosexual agenda and you as an activist thereof?
AMARA: âThere are, in my opinion, enough temples and devotees like this to make such a suggestion feasible. I am very hopeful in this regard and even expect it to increase as time moves forward.
Again, how many? You are trying to portray â to the non homosexual world â the idea that your homosexual agenda has won acceptance in âquite a few,â âenoughâ temples, gurus, and sannyasis. But you have failed to define numbers.
Yugala Kishor dasa (Gainesville, FL)
Although coming to the right conclusion about the nature illicit sex is a very important topic that we must not neglect, in this context it is not the most important consideration. As I quite explicitly stated in my essay, the dispute on this issue points to fundamentally different ways of reading Srila Prabhupada that are incompatible with each other. From my essay:
The most important point under consideration is that for Amara Prabhu, and also for my guru maharaja, to have arrived at some of their specific conclusions, they have had to misrepresent in some way the intended meaning of some of SP’s statements. One of the most outstanding examples of this was also pointed out in my essay. HH HDG offers us a guru-sadhu-shastra analysis of homosexuality as it exists in our most important Vaisnava scriptures–the Bhagavad-gita and especially the Srimad-Bhagavatam. At the end of his analysis, he concludes that none of the sources he examined–shastra, the commentaries of important acharyas, and Srila Prabhupada–do not “explicitly describe or proscribe” homosexuality. (See HDG’s essay, pg 21) This conclusion is important because he believes that it is this absence of information that allows him to proceed with applying a consequentialist evaluation that eventually leads to his prescription of “gay monogamy”.
However, the conclusion of his GSS analysis, that the Bhagavatam does not “explicitly describe or proscribe” homosexuality, is based on a misrepresentation of one of the sources. HH HDG quotes only one of the sentences (twice) from the puport of SB 3.20.26 and not the other. (The purport has only two sentences.) Although it is true that the sentence he quotes neither describes nor proscribes homosexuality, the sentence he does not quote, however, does:
The “homosexual appetite of a man for another man” is a description about homosexuality, and the statement “is demoniac and is not for any sane male” is a proscription. Not only does this omission destroy his argument (and any other conclusions that depend on it), to suggest that SP in his purport did not explicitly “describe or proscribe homosexuality” is a misrepresentation of the meaning SP intended for that purport.
At best, this is an egregious error that must be corrected, and it must be corrected soon because it misrepresents Srila Prabhupada in the same way that Srila Prabhupada tells us how unauthorized commentators misrepresent Krishna when commenting on scriptures such as the Bhagavad-gita. SP characterized this misrepresentation as expressing one’s “own opinions without touching the spirit of Bhagavad-gita as it is.” In this instance, in saying that the Bhagavatam neither describes nor proscribes homosexuality, HH HDG has expressed his own opinion and not that of SP’s, which contradicts his own. That is a grave mistake, and it must be corrected.
Some devotees reading this will take offense for me saying this. After all, my guru maharaja is vastly more learned than me and has done much more and important service in his life-time than I will ever accomplish in my own. That is true. However, that does not mean even great personalities like him are beyond committing mistakes–even grave mistakes on spiritual matters. Bhismadeva made the grave mistake of not protesting Draupadi’s insult in the assembly of the Kauravas. And for that mistake he later had to pay with his own life. Yet he is still one of the twelve Mahajanas. After the battle of Kurukshetra, he was instructing Yuddhisthira Maharaja and innumerable other saintly persons on the subject of dharma. No one in ISKCON is better than Bhishmadeva, so no one should believe himself, or his own guru, is utterly incapable of making mistakes–even in spiritual matters.
Other devotees may accept this but still object to my having aired this in public. They believe that I have violated Vaisnava etiquette by doing so. That may also be true, yet those who object should also consider that I have made a good faith effort in private to resolve this issue personally with my guru maharaja himself. I have referred to this in the preface to my own essay.
Just as a small fire in a house will burn the house down if not put out quickly, this is one of those issues that, to borrow SP’s phrase, will “ruin everything” if not dealt with soon. Since this is about much more than just me, the offenses I’ve inevitably made in raising awareness about this problem are trivial in comparison to what is likely to happen if nothing is done. Believing that whatever we do and whatever we believe in makes little difference is itself a deviation and will eventually turn us into sahajiyas.
Finally, with regard to Mother Vishakha Priya’s concern that if illicit sex is legitimated (the definition changed over time) that people serious about making spiritual advancement may eventually have to look outside of ISKCON, that will not happen simply because the understanding of illicit sex changed. Instead, it will be because we have adopted a way of understanding Srila Prabhupada that makes such a change possible. As I have pointed out already, such a way of reading Srila Prabhupada will necessarily be extended to other issues besides homosexuality. That way of reading, where SP’s words are used as raw material to present some opinion or idea Krishna or SP or some other authorized acharya did not intend, has been characterized by Srila Prabhupada as Mayavada, or Mayavada-bhasya.
If devotees sincere about making spiritual advancement begin an exodus from ISKCON, they will not leave ISKCON because there is lots of illicit sex happening. They will leave when they consider that ISKCON has become irrevocably contaminated with Mayavada.
Yours in the service of Srila Prabhupada,
Krishna-kirti das
An interesting thing to note about Amara_dasa’s comment #13 is that either you pretty much agree with his views of sexuality or you are an inveterate “homophobe” and “gay-hater.” It’s like it has never occurred to him that people can actually have fundamental disagreements with him and present their arguments in good faith. That would at least explain why his responses to those he disagrees with seem to chronically degenerate into declaring their bad faith. For example:
Notice how genuine concern is tied to require household life? That is, after removing all the padding from his statement, his assertion is that people who have “genuine concern” for gays will accept that they should be granted “serious, formal and public recognition and appreciation” as householders. And, of course, the people who won’t do that want to “throw them away”. How evil!
If you fundamentally disagree with him, it’s because you hate gays. (Or at least are very ignorant.) And since you hate gays (or are very ignorant), there is no need to even give you the time of day, what to speak of consider your objections. Nice, tidy, black-and-white. You know where everyone stands in his binary universe. Either you love and honor gays, or you hate them. The unquestionable symptom that you “hate gays” is that you generally disagree with Amara’s take on sexuality.
But then if this binary taxonomy is valid, then how would it explain a statement like this one:
No concession for “gay monogamy” or “gay household” life. In fact SP is telling his disciple just the opposite, that homosexuality in and of itself will not help you advance in spiritual life and that it will only hamper your advancement. Srila Prabhupada’s prescription, however, is to do some service for Krishna. He does not prescribe “gay monogamy” or anything like it. In fact, the above statement is consistent with everything else Srila Prabhupada has said about homosexuality. No where does Srila Prabhupada make any concession for homosexual sex, and his prescription for becoming emancipated from it is service to Krishna. Narada Muni dealt with Manigriva and Nalakuvara in a way that was not conducive to their baser nature. Was that not mercy?
And this is where Amara Prabhu misrepresents Srila Prabhupada big-time: when arguing that homosexuals should be allowed to partake of the social institution of marriage, he uses none of Srila Prabhupada’s statements about homosexuality to support his argument. How can anyone claim to represent Srila Prabhupada on a certain issue and yet avoid using everything he has ever said about it? And, of course, it is all in the name of fealty to Srila Prabhupada.
Could it be the case that Amara’s “encouragement of the Gay Community”, even with the best of intentions, is in some significant ways actually hurting the Krishna Consciousness of his fellow gays?
Save Our Souls
Krsna-kirtiâs recent posting on âResponse to the Ongoing Debateâ brings us back full circle to his original posting. In that posting, Krsna-kirti was trying to draw our attention to something that bothered him very muchâhis guru maharajaâs apparent hermeneutical approach to Srila Prabhupadaâs teachings in the matter of gaysâ right to some kind of official recognition in ISKCON. Initially, a few devotees remarked on the impropriety of a disciple challenging his spiritual masterâs views in public, and I was one of them. Neglecting Krsna-kirtiâs question and his desperation that it should be answered, the commentators proceeded to offer their views on side issues, which, although important, were not the main point.
It is true that it is not the business of us, second-generation devotees, to try to rectify the faults (if any) of their superiors. But it is also true that the business of the superior devotees is to appease the minds of their wards so that they can peacefully continue to serve the mission of Srila Prabhupada with full enthusiasm and efficacy.
On behalf of the devotees who are disturbed by the points left unanswered in Krsna-kirtiâs plea, I humbly request our protectors, i.e. the GBC body, the Sastric Advisory Council, and other learned and saintly devotees (such as Akruranath Prabhu and Babhru Prabhu), to comment on Krsna-kirtiâs points regarding the hermeneutical approach. Please let us know how to proceed with our philosophical understanding of Krsna consciousness. On one level, of course, we do know how to proceed: chant Hare Krsna, follow the principles, etc. But from another point of view, we have given our lives to the Hare Krsna Movement, and I have heard several times that Srila Prabhupada was anxious that we not make this movement into a replica of pseudo Christianity. Please, Maharajas and respected senior Vaisnavas and Vaisnavis, do not leave us in darkness, lest we inadvertently wander to other transcendental pastures.
Your unworthy servant,
Visakha Priya dasi
Visakha Priya mataji,
Though I do not agree that a disciple’s challenge be aired for public scrutiny, which is a contraversial issue, such matters would be better dealt with by private mutual consent. Even so, to agree to disagree with one’s spiritual master on points of understanding Srila Prabhupada’s use of words in the context of homosexuality may not be deemed as serious as blatantly disobeying his orders.
An interesting observation is the interchange between the authority of a spiritual master who expresses his learned opinion on the subject with a mature accomodating stance, verses the authority of Srila Prabhupada, who as the siksa-guru for all of us makes clear unambiguous statements on the issue favored by the disciple, which are contested for interpretation.
The reason I say it is not too serious is because they are disputing a relative subject matter. Because it is relative, only attempts at semantics, pratyaksa, anuman and the rest can ever hope to reach finality, which is unlikely. To debate a relative subject belonging to this ‘endlessly mutable’ realm is fraught with limitations and any appeasement to either party is doubtful.
A warning should be sounded however, because such forthright confrontation has its dangers in undermining the spiritual master, which should be avoided at all costs. There is also the added possibility of a precedent being set for others to do the same.
In light of this exhange between two scholarly devotees, it would be best to see it as what Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja says in CC. Adi 2.117: “A sincere student should not neglect the discussion of such conclusions, considering them contreversial, for such discussions strengthen the mind. Thus one’s mind becomes attached to Sri Krsna.”
Even if relative matters are being discussed, the means to dispute each other’s vantage point can be diverted to; CC. Adi 8.15: “If you are indeed interested in logic and argument, kindly apply it to the mercy of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. If you do so, you will find it to be strikingly wonderful.”
Having said this, such displays of scholarship and intelligence used to unravel the intentional meanings of Srila Prabhupada’s words pertaining to a relative subject is not very fruitful. Katha Upanisad 1.2.23 says: “The Supreme Lord is not attained by expert explanations, by vast intelligence, nor even by much hearing. He is attained only by one who He Himself chooses. To such a person He manifests Himself.”
During our devotional lives controversies will arise repeatedly and our minds have to be strengthened to withstand their impacts. This may be one such incident causing you bother, so I hope these few words from your dear God brother go some way to allaying your disturbance.
By the way, when you say “wander to other transcendental pastures” surely there is no pasture like the one Srila Prabhupada created for us?
Ys, Kesava Krsna dasa.
Dear Mother Vishaka Priya,
You asked me to write something regarding Hrdayananda Maharajaâs hermeneutical approach and how Krishna Kirtiâs differs. I have not found HDGâs original paper(s) on the subject and have not studied KK Prabhuâs closely, so I cannot comment on them.
I have a case going to trial next week and a lot of other clients depending on me right now, so my time is very limited.
I have been peeking in here from time to time, and I appreciate all the sincere discussion. Most of all I feel moved to say that I admire Amara Prabhuâs courage and dedication. I may not always agree with what he says but it surely must take a lot of guts to face the criticism of many seemingly unfriendly devotees and remain committed to Krishna consciousness and ISKCON.
I actually find a lot of common ground in the discussion. You say:
â*Of course* Srila Prabhupada would prefer gays and lesbians to stick to one relationship . . . *Of course* Srila Prabhupada would want us to encourage gays and lesbians to chant Hare Krsna, offer their food to Krsna, and visit the Lord in His temple! I donât think anyone is saying otherwise.â
Agreed. At least I hope no one is saying otherwise.
And I also donât think anyone is saying that the regulative principles of bhakti yoga permit any sex, other than within duly sanctioned male-female marriage for procreation and rearing of God-conscious children (which is also brahmacarya).
Did Hrdayananda Maharaja say otherwise? I cannot imagine he would.
I do think there are devotees in ISKCON who have an attitude which is, for lack of a better word, homophobic. That is to say, just as in nondevotee society there are some straight people who are so uncomfortable around homosexuals they are moved to taunt, ridicule, look down on, harass, or even violently attack them, there are also some neophyte devotees within our society who display some of the same feelings.
I suppose it is not surprising, considering most of us are not highly advanced, saintly devotees, and our attitudes might be expected to mirror those of the culture we come from. Still, I think it is unfortunate, and bad for preaching.
Obviously, we do not adopt the âgay sex is fineâ attitude of most gay activists. I donât think we even really need to talk about that here.
We all know the philosophy. Lust is the all devouring, sinful enemy of the world. Sex is troublesome for everyone, but it can be dovetailed in regulated householder life. Even in the confines of exclusive, heterosexual marriage, illicit sex (such as using contraception) is prohibited. Initiated devotees are expected to refrain from such sins.
Homosexuals have enough problems, and having sexual desires which they cannot even dovetail must be tough. On top of that, they have to deal with the shame and fear of being frequently condemned and judged by others. It may be their karma to suffer that way, but the compassionate devotees should ease such suffering, not contribute to it.
Sure, a maleâs sexual appetite for another is demonic. So is meat-eating. So is adultery, fornication, onanism. We live in a time and place where ungodly impulses are being displayed and glorified constantly all around is. The largest internet-related industry (by far) is pornography. In this age how many people, whether gay or straight, can honestly say their gross and subtle bodies are not coaxing and pulling them toward sinful life?
Advanced devotees are the friends and well-wishers of all. The humble sages see with equal vision the learned and gentle brahmana, the dog and the dog-eater. They deal properly with everyone (making friendship with devotees, showing mercy to the innocent and neglecting the envious atheists.)
Great devotees like Narada Muni made disciples even out of a cruel hunter and a cobra, among others. Srila Prabhupada made disciples out of worse, and has engaged us in assisting his mission.
Undeniably, Srila Prabhupada accepted many homosexuals as his disciples. He required them to promise to give up illicit sex. Not all of them stuck to their vows (and probably many did stick to their vows and we never even learned they were homosexuals). Prabhupada still has a close relationship with these disciples, so we should be careful how we deal with them.
Nowadays we are also focusing on developing congregations including favorable people who are not ready to accept initiation and follow all the principles. Surely there can be monogamous gay couples in our congregations without causing too much of a disturbance.
If there are straight members of the congregation who are disturbed, they should learn to cope somehow. Even if it is not something they encounter in the temple, they will encounter it at work, on book distribution, in stores, or wherever else they go. They need to learn tolerance and humility. We do not have to compromise our high moral standards or understanding of actual religious principles to be polite, respectful, and even friendly to nearly everyone we meet.
If you see everyone as not the body, it comes naturally to respect the soul and Supersoul within them, and if they are actually chanting the holy name we are commanded to respect them within our minds, at least.
We should not adopt the homophobic attitudes of the evangelical Christians. [Of course we can condemn homosexuality as irreligious while not being “homophobic”, as I am using that word.] There is a kind of hatred that is on the platform of duality and material bodily conception that does not belong in Lord Caitanyaâs movement. We are naturally tolerant, humble, and respectful to all.
Srila Prabhupadaâs message of Krishna bhakti is miraculously reaching people from all walks of life, and it is our duty to carry the pure message without consideration of caste or class or condition (or âorientationâ). Even if man-eating rakshasas would come to our temples, we would serve them prasadam and induce them to chant (as long as they did not pose a threat to the safety of the devotees.)
I am hardly âlearned and saintly.â Perhaps because of my own weakness and difficulties with illicit sex over the years, I feel particularly reluctant to judge others on that score. Virtually everyone in this world is under the sway of Cupid, and only by surrendering to Madanamohana do we have any chance of escaping the spell. We should feel compassion for our homosexual brothers and sisters who have so many serious obstacles, and not make more obstacles by creating a philosophy in ISKCON that it is okay to be rude to them or treat them like freaks.
Of course, there will be gay activists who will consider as “homophobic” our uncompromising message that all illicit sex is bad, and that all homosexual conduct is sinful. We can politely and respectfully disagree with them. I have not noticed any such people on Dandavats, and I do not expect to see them here.
Mother Vishaka Priya wrote:
âThe Eighth and Ninth Chapters, Second Part of the Kama Shastra describes such people [homosexuals] 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.â
The first thing we seem to learn from this description of homosexuals in Vedic times is that they were sudras. Sudras, of course, are not required to follow the rules and regulations meant for the brahmanas. As explained in Srimad-Bhagavatam, Eleventh Canto, Chapter Twenty-one, Text 11, âThe same activities that would degrade an elevated person do not cause falldown for those who are already fallen. Indeed, one who is lying on the ground cannot possibly fall further. The material association that is dictated by oneâs own nature is considered a good quality.â
A minor point of clarification. These are not sudras but rather the description of occupation engaged in by varna sankara or mixed castes. Kautilya in his Artha Sastra mentions how the children of prostitutes should be employed as actors, musicians, and spies etc. Sudras followed brahminical principles as do all members of Varna Ashrama dharma. Others outside of VAD–the pancamas-5th group–do not.
Now continue on with your debate.
Dear Akruranatha Prabhu,
Hare Krishna! Thanks for your thoughtful and compassionate comments. They are much appreciated.
I would just like to reiterate our position on illicit sex in regard to your last paragraph. I have been preaching to the gay Vaishnava community for the past six years and none of our members disagree with ISKCON’s stance on illicit sex or homosexual behavior.
I would say that over half of our members are strictly celibate with many who are brahmana-initiated. About twenty-five percent are in committed, monogamous relationships and another twenty-five percent are not yet renounced in this regard. In any case, all of our members agree that sex and sex desire are ultimately to be abandoned. Only our ability to do this, and how to best situate ourselves in the meantime, varies.
Many devotees assume that if a Vaishnava is open or honest about being gay-embodied, then he or she is automatically non-celibate and in favor of illicit sex. This is definitely not true, however, as indicated above. Homosexual devotees are celibate, monogamous and fallen just as heterosexual devotees are. We should remember this and try to help everyone along the path to Krsna.
Vaishnava das anudas,
Amara dasa
The reactions to my essays thus far have not been unexpected, but what has been somewhat unexpected is that the concerns consistently articulated so far (almost exclusively about the guru-disciple relationship) suggest that it is almost impossible to even consider whether someone (in this case, my guru maharaja or even me) is factually in error about one of our core dogmas–namely illicit sex and the means of transcending it, what to speak of being able to adjudicate the interpretive method to arrive at such understandings.
I would be quite happy for anyone reading this to point out where I am logically wrong in my basic argument. Yet so far most of the other commentators seem to have been quite unable to get beyond debating technical issues of the guru-disciple relationship.
To begin with, thus far a number of them seem to have difficulty in separating “good intentions” from the possibility of error. They have said more or less that because of my gm’s intention, which he quite plainly has said is to help devotees who are struggling with homosexuality, that his proposal must be correct. It therefore appears that many devotees are still struggling with the basic ontology of the guru: Can a guru still be factually unliberated (i.e. succeptible to making mistakes, being illusioned, etc.) yet still be qualified to act as guru and acharya by strictly following the disciplic succession, as SP states in his 1968 letter to Janardana? The practical effect of maintaining a presumption of infallibility is that it becomes very difficult to objectively evaluate the substance of some guru’s claim. Of course, generally, when a less experienced devotee has a dispute with a more experienced one, it is usually the case that the more experienced devotee is correct–liberated or not. However, this is not always case.
Also, hardly anyone commenting here practically seems able to accept that I have already tried to resolve this issue privately and confidentially. As I have said quite unambiguously in the preface to my essays, I have indeed tried to resolve this issue privately with my gm–on his terms, no less. Because the effort was private, I am not disclosing the details of the discussion and record of our correspondence, unless one or more of the parties to those exchanges challenges my assertion. Therefore at this time whoever reads this will have to take my word for it that I have made a good faith effort to resolve this issue privately. Of course, you don’t have to take me at my word, but my claim is easy to check. You can always send an email to my gm and ask him yourself.
So, if we can get over these technicalities, what follows describes the nature of my objections. For the objections themselves, please see my essay.
At the time of initiation, when we take our vows, one of them, of course, is to refrain from illicit sex. A vow implies behavior, and on the level of behavior there is little room for uncertainty. The point of my essays is that the alternative approach to interpreting Srila Prabhupada used to arrive at the notion of “gay monogamy” (which is inseparably bound up in notions of illicit sex and the means of transcending them) is easily applied to other aspects of our philosophy. As I have pointed out already, my gm’s notion that SP taught his disciples a greater version and a lesser version of the no illicit sex rule comes directly into conflict with how we as a society have always understood what “illicit sex” means. This is reflected in the logical incompatibility HH HDG’s statement about illicit sex with the GBC’s statement on the same issue years before. Even if the issue of what is considered licit and illicit sex and the means of transcending it is a relative subject matter, because this has a direct bearing on our ability to become Krishna conscious, I don’t think it can be considered something unserious, or something not very serious.
Furthermore, what is more serious and is not a relative subject matter is itself the legitimacy of any particular approach to interpreting shastra. Although Srila Prabhupada himself has made a number of significant statements about homosexuality (and many more about sexuality and illicit sex), Srila Prabhupada has also spoken much about Mayavada, or improper interpretation of shastra:
And Mayavada is not limited to the commentaries of Shankaracarya and his followers. As I have pointed out recently, Srila Prabhupda has provided us this operational definition of what constitutes Mayavada, which is presenting some explanation of the shastras that ultimately misrepresents Krishna’s intention:
If mirepresenting the words of Krishna constitutes Mayavada, then does not misrepresenting the words of the representative of Krishna (in this case Srila Prabhupada) also qualify as Mayavada? If guru, sadhu, and shastra is the means by which we are supposed to understand spiritual topics, then misrepresenting any one of these sources will lead to a wrong understanding of spiritual subject matters. A wrong understanding of spiritual topics will consequently result in a misapplication on the level of practice and behavior. The progression is that from thinking comes feeling comes willing, so being consistently wrong in thought eventually leads to consistently wrong behavior, or behavior that checks if not harms our spiritual advancement.
Shyamasundara dasa wrote: “Sudras followed brahminical principles as do all members of Varna Ashrama dharma.”
Do you have any scriptural references for this statement? Otherwise, I’ve never heard such a position before and it is contradicted in the Dharma Shastra.
“Manu-samhita,” for instance, states that only the brahmanas, as well as ksatriyas and vaishyas that were twice-born, were expected to follow brahminical principles. Sudras and ordinary vaishyas and ksatriyas were not.
According to “Manu-samhita,” sudras were not permitted to hear, learn, recite or instruct Vedic knowledge (MS 3.156, 4.99, 10.127), what to speak of being expected to follow brahminical principles! Text 10.126 states that a sudra “has no right to fulfill the sacred law of the Aryans, although there is no prohibition against his fulfilling certain portions of the law.”
In regard to homosexual behavior, “Manu-samhita” only prohibits it for brahmanas and twice-born men (MS 11.68, 175). If such men engaged in male-to-male copulation they were required to take a ritualistic bath or lose their brahminical, twice-born status. There are otherwise no laws prohibiting homosexual behavior among the ordinary, lower classes.
Pure Vaishnavas, of course, are expected to follow all brahminical principles as Srila Prabhupada instructed us.
-Amara
Dear Krsna-kirti Prabhu,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
My basic disagreements with your article are as follows:
1) You don’t seem to understand or even define homosexual orientation properly,
2) I don’t get any sense or true feeling of compassion for homosexual people and devotees, and
3) You can’t seem to differentiate between Srila Prabhupada’s standards and preaching to the fallen. For instance, Srila Prabhupada often instructed fallen meat-eaters to at least refrain from cow meat and instead only eat the meat of lesser animals such as fish or goat. Only a foolish person would consider that Srila Prabhupada was thus encouraging meat-eating. Rather, he was merely trying to limit it as far as possible. Similarly, when your Guru Maharaja Hridayananda Goswami instructs fallen homosexuals to at least limit themselves to a single partner (in faithful monogamy), only a foolish person will consider that he is therefore encouraging homosexuality. Rather, he is merely trying to limit the illicit behavior as far as possible.
The practice of limiting illicit activities as far as possible among the fallen is a regular preaching tool used by devotees outside temple walls. Only in regard to homosexuality does there appear to be some outcry to this application, and this is what leads me and others to suspect that personal prejudices are coming into play.
Why is it such a concern to you if fallen homosexuals are encouraged to become monogamous rather than promiscuous? My personal suggestion is that you abandon this topic of preaching. It does not become you, in my humble opinion. I say this as a concerned God-uncle.
Vaishnava das anudas,
Amara dasa