In addition to the original article, there have been various exchanges between the author of the article and others on several internet forums. I will also analyse some of the statements from those discussions.

The first great distortion in this article is in the interpretation of the word "napumsaka", which literally means "not male". According to the author, this word refers to homosexuals. In reality the word "napumsaka" refers to eunuchs, those born with neither male nor female sexual organs. This is the traditional meaning of the word according to Puranic usage. Even today this word is in use in most of the Indic languages. For example in Hindi, Bengali and Oriya this word is found in the form "napumsak". In all these languages the word means "One who is born without sexual organs." The fact is there are separate words used for homosexuals in all of these languages. The word "napumsak" does not, and never did, refer to homosexuals.

Srila Prabhupada actually uses the Bengali form of this word in his "Gitar-gan" (The Bhagavad Gita in Bengali poetry):

napumsak naha partha e ki vyavahar
yogya nahe e karya bandhu ye amar
hrday-daurvalya ei niscayai janibe
chada ei, kara yuddha yadi satruke maribe

"O son of Pritha, do not yield to this degrading impotence. It does not become you. Give up such petty weakness of heart and arise, O chastiser of the enemy."

The word napumsak here refers to one who is impotent. Arjuna was yielding to degrading impotence. He was not becoming a homosexual. He was becoming weak hearted like a eunuch. Prabhupada uses this word to refer to Arjuna's inability to fight.

Srila Prabhupada has himself given us the definition of the napumsaka (eunuch):

quote:

---

Srila Prabhupada: Jagannatha Misra is father. He was… whatever money and cloth and gold and silver… they were coming… he was also distributing to poor man, some dancers. In India there is a system… what do you call the eunuchs? Those who are neither male or female? What do you call them? What is their name?
Devotee: A combination of both?
Srila Prabhupada: Yes.
Devotee: Male and female? Hermaphrodite.
Srila Prabhupada: Eunuchs? What is the eunuch?
Devotee: Eunuch. A eunuch is a…
Srila Prabhupada: Tell me that.
Devotee: Impotent… someone who's been castrated.
Srila Prabhupada: Oh. That is called a eunuch.
Devotee: Eunuch.
Srila Prabhupada: Rather, by nature, neither man nor woman.

---

Srila Prabhupada says, "Rather, by nature, neither man nor woman." The Vedic eunuch, or napumsaka, is one who is born with no sexual organs. It is a physical deformaty, not a choice of lifestyle. The author of the article wants us to believe that the napumsaka described in vedic texts is the modern homosexuals that you find in cities such as San Francisco. This is an unbelievable distortion of the truth with no regard to the language, context or scriptural description. Napumsaka simply does not mean what they claim it means, neither in modern usage nor in ancient usage. The author wants us to believe that the words "homosexual" and "eunuch" are synonyms, when in reality they are entirely different.

In reply during a discussion with the author, one of the participants has stated:

quote:

---

I was surprised because even those who have absolutely no Vedic knowledge distinguish between these two terms.

The word "napumsak" is there not only in Bengali but even in Hindi.

---

This again echoes the fact that these are defined words. We cannot interpolate our own meanings into the dictionaries just to suit our mental speculations. In language we must go by the definitions of words. To claim that "napumsaka" in Puranic usage refers to modern day homosexuals is a blatant lie.

The author has also stated:

quote:

---

The combination of the male and female natures occurs to varying degrees, but on the physical platform (intersexed) it is extremely rare and occurs in about 0.02% of the population, or one out of every 20,000 births. Even then, a disproportionate number of these intersexed persons exhibit "homosexual" behavior.

---

The exhibition of homosexual tendencies is due to the influence of adharma (which is especially prominent in Kali-yuga). In previous ages, which the scriptures are describing, such irreligious tendencies were not common, and as such the eunuchs were asexual. Today in Bengal every "eunuch" is a homosexual, and every "swami" is a cigarette-swami. So what does this prove? Simply it is the influence of Kali-yuga.

The author of the article has stated:

quote:

---

Homosexuality, on the other hand, occurs much more commonly, which most estimates place at about 5% of the population, or one out of every twenty people, and these people make up the majority of what is known in the Vedas as "tritiya-prakriti: people of the third sex."

---

Here we come to a second major distortion of the article. That homosexuals make up the majority of the "third sex" described in Vedic texts is pure speculation. The fact is "the Vedas" do not speak of this. It is the Kama-sutra that describes the "tritiya-prakriti", or third nature. To take a reference from the Kama-sutra and claim it is found in "the Vedas" is in very poor taste. The entire article is not one of scholarship, but of distortion. Innocent people who are not familiar with the language of such statements will be mislead.

The real disease is not homosexuality nor prejudice, it is in not accepting the Vedic texts as they are, and instead trying to interpolate our own thoughts into them. It would be better for us to spend more time reading transcendental literatures such as Taittiriya Upanishad, and less time reading mundane texts such as the Kama-sutra. To take Kama-sutra and keep it on the platform of a transcendental scripture is foolish. Simply because a text is written in sanskrit does not mean anything in regards to the authenticity and value of the text.

As one of the discussion participants has stated:

quote:

---

I think it is important to remember that Sanskrit is just a language. There are curse words in Sanskrit and people have written many things of hardly a spiritual nature in this language.

---

Again, the word "tritiya-prakriti" refers to eunuchs who are born without sexual organs. It is not simply a particular lifestyle or preference decided by one's likes and dislikes. It is a physical deformatory, one caused by sinful activities performed in the previous life.

This is confirmed from a reference the author himself offers in his article, but which he chooses to mistranslate:

"Those foolish men of evil conduct who engage in all forms of intercourse, taking advantage of improper wombs (viyoni), and forcing themselves upon other men (pumsaka), are born again without their organs as neuters." (Mahabharata 13.145.52)

First, this confirms that the eunuch is born without a sexual organ of any type. It is not just a matter of sexual preference. Due to their evil conduct, they are born as eunuchs in their next life with a physical deformaty. What is that evil conduct that brings them this fate? The correct translation of viyoni is "without a female reproductive organ". So this verse actually reads:

"Foolish and evil men engage in all forms of sexual intercourse without a female womb, forcing themselves upon other men."

Their evil activity is that they are homosexual, and because of engaging in such a sinful activity they are born in the next life without their sexual organ, as a eunuch. By living as a homosexual in the present life, one becomes a eunuch (not homosexual) in the next life. This is the result of that sinful activity.

The author cites the example of Arjuna who lived as a eunuch for one year. We should note that Arjuna received the "benediction" or "curse" (whichever way we want to read the story) that his body would physically change to that of a eunuch so that he would not be noticed during the last year of his vana-vasa. Otherwise Arjuna was so famous that whereever he went everyone knew him by appearance alone, and if he had been seen he would have to continue his stay in the forest. Arjuna's body was physically changed by higher powers so that he could remain disguised for the last year of his exile. Arjuna was not a homosexual, as these people want us to believe. Arjuna could not have remained hidden simply by changing his sexual preference, or by putting on the wig of a women. His entire body was physically changed; he factually became a eunuch.

I think it is relevant to note the references cited by the author of the article in regards to Mahabharata. He takes his authority from Kamala Subrahmaniam's "Mahabharata" which is simply a novelized form of the stories found in Mahabharata, full with materialistic distortions. In addition to this, he relies on Krishna Dharma's summary of Mahabharata, which is also a novelized version of an English translation of Mahabharata. Without having even referred to the actual Mahabharata, the author wants us to accept that his statements properly reflect the descriptions of the Vedic times described in the Mahabharata. Having read the Mahabharata, I for one will not accept such distortions silently.

The Vedic description of a eunuch is that they are born without sexual organs and as a result belong to neither sex. Thus they are described as the third sex. This has no connection to homosexuals, who are strugling with their mind and the residual karma-vasanas from their past life.

In the article they state:

quote:

---

Fact- The "Vedic eunuch" was actually what is known today as the gay or homosexual male.
Myth- The Vedic eunuch was an asexual, castrated male no longer relevant to modern society.

---

This shows that the article lacks any trace of scholarship. They just put forth what they want people to believe without regard to language, context, or history, and expect everyone to accept their distortions of precisely defined words. As I said before , even in modern usage the word "napumsak" means one who has no sexual organs.

In a follow-up discussion, the author makes another drastic distortion:

quote:

---

"[Quotes about homosexuals] ...can be found in the Caitanya-caritamrita (1.13.106, verse and purport), and the "nartaka" transgender dancers are also mentioned in the Srimad Bhagavatam (1.11.20-22) concerning Lord Krishna's entrance into Dvaraka."

---

Both of the referred quotes have absolutely nothing to do with homosexuals at all. The particular word used in both verses is "nartaka". Nartaka simply means "dancer". It is a very common word used throughout the Puranas and Itihasas. It always refers to dancers, not to homosexuals.

In fact, Nartaka is a name of Lord Krishna, "nartaka-gopala"; and he is found in the holy dhama of Udupi. It refers to Gopala the dancer, not to Gopala the homosexual. We have two related words, one is "nartana" which means dancing, and the other is "nartaka", which means "one who dances". The usage of this word is very clear and direct. There is no scope for confusion. I can only conclude that the distortion offered by the author of the article was intentional, as there is nothing confusing about this word and its definition.

The referred Bhagavatam verse is as follows:

nata-nartaka-gandharvah
suta-magadha-vandinah
gayanti cottamashloka-
caritany adbhutani ca

"Expert dramatists, artists, dancers, singers, historians, genealogists and learned speakers all gave their respective contributions, being inspired by the superhuman pastimes of the Lord. Thus they proceeded on and on."

The enumeration of dramatists, dancers, singers, puranic reciters, historians, and learned speakers together in a list make it quite clear that "nartaka" is referring to nothing except plain old dancers. To imply that the list should refer to "dramatists, singers, puranic reciters and homosexuals" is ludicrous.

In other shastras we even find that the soul is itself referred to as "nartaka". In the Shiva sutras (9) it is stated:

nartaka aatmaa

"The self is a dancing actor."

The verse does not mean that the soul (atma) is a homosexual. The word nartaka refers specifically to a dancer, and to misuse such statements to propagate our own speculations is certainly an injustice. It is definitely not a sign of scholarship. To put our own teachings into what we read and hear is sravanam (hearing) and kirtanam (reciting) influenced by the modes of passion and ignorance. This is described by Lord Kapila in the third canto of Srimad Bhagavatam, how the nine processes of devotional service become polluted by the three modes of material nature.

Nartana is the art of dancing, and those that follow it are nartakas. Generally those who are born as eunuchs (physically lacking either male or female sex), take to feminine arts such as dance. We even find this in todays modern reflection of homosexuals. Thus Prabhupada mentions in the Chaitanya Charitamrita 1.13.106 purport that eunuchs took to dancing as a livelyhood. Having said that, hardly 0.1% of nartakas (dancers) are eunuchs, even today.

In reply the author has stated:

quote:

---

Certainly the word "nartaka" can refer to any dancer...

---

This is again an unbelievable deception. It is not that the word "can" refer to a dancer, but that it "does" factually and literally mean dancer. This is language, and the word nartaka means dancer. One can check the roots of the word and confirm this truth.

In the article, the author states that the eunuchs are extremely auspicious people. This is not true. A eunuch is born as such due to their sinful activities in their previous life. Certain signs are auspicious or inauspicious according to the circumstances. For example a crow cawing at the back of one's house, an elephant walking towards one's path, etc. The object is neither auspicious nor inauspicious, it is the circumstance that determines the result. If a new child is born, then it is an auspicious sign to see a eunuch, whereas on the battlefield it is an inauspicious sign to see a eunuch. To take only one aspect of the science of omens and to then conclude that eunuchs themselves are auspicious is another distortion.

The article states:

quote:

---

In Vedic literature, the strongest bond within this material world is said to be the attraction between man and woman. Combined, they create so many attachments such as home, property, children, grandchildren, etc., all of which serve as distractions from the cultivation of spiritual life. Transgender people were considered to be aloof from this attachment, particularly gay males. They typically did not engage in procreation or family life, and this was a special quality that made their status unique within civilized Vedic culture."

---

Not only do they want homosexuality to be accepted, but they want us to believe that homosexuals are superior to normal people. I use the word "normal" here deliberately, because that is the implication of the sanskrit word "tritiya-prakriti". In the realm of duality which begins with the combination of purusha and prakriti, a third nature is unnatural. What to speak of homosexuals, who are not even belonging to this third nature, but only imagining themselves belonging to it.

They want us to believe that homosexuals are "aloof from attachment". Is this sanity? There are modern studies on the promiscuity of homosexuals, and it has been pointed out that the average homosexual male has 2,000 sexual partners in their life time, as compared to 7 for a heterosexual male. Are we to believe that homosexuals are somehow superior, free from attachments, and free from the distractions to spiritual life?!

The actual purpose of the article, and GALVA (The Gay and Lesbian Vaishnava Association) who published it, is clearly to make homosexuality appear acceptable to the tenants of Vaishnavism. The fact is it is a sinful activity.

One participant in the discussions replied:

quote:

---

I for one find the name Gay And Lesibian Vaishnava Association rather disgusting.
Why try to link a sinful activity with Vaisnavism?

---

It is my opinion that to try to propagate anything different from Sri Chaitanya's ideal as Gaudiya Vaishnavism is improper. Just as there is no "Heterosexual Society for Krishna Consciousness", there need not be any other concocted society. Why propagate our imperfections as something proper. As one of the discussion participants has stated:

quote:

---

The worst thing we can do is say our vice equals virtue, and work to disturb others with this concocted philosophy.

What is the need for homosexuals to be known as homosexual Vaishnavas? Just do your best to make spiritual progress, but don’t work to disturb others by flaunting such a relationship, and don’t work to lower or blur the spiritual standards.

---

We do not find other specialized groups forming separate societies for Krishna consciousness to legitimatize their vices. For example, in vedic culture there is one marriage that occurs at the age prior to puberty. This marriage is a lifelong committment, and there is no question of separation. At the death of the husband, the wife takes the vidava vrata and becomes a renunciate widow. But in the west we find people are getting divorced and remarrying countless times. In the Vedic system there is no remarriage, as only a "kanya" (virgin girl) may be married. Even the mantras in the sacrifice state that "this girl is a pure virgin", etc. Some westerners are not properly following the general principles of Vaidika dharma (which is purifying), what to speak of Sri Chaitanya's purified principles of transcendence. They are getting remarried and remarried, despite injunctions against it. Sri Chanakya says there is no greater enemy than a child's mother who remarries. Now, would it be proper for such people to create an "International Society for the Divorce and Remarriage of Gaudiya Vaishnavas"? It is an imperfection in them, and should not be propagated side by side with Sri Chaitanya's perfect ideals.

They should not be condemned for their faults, as this world is a place full of faults. But neither should their faults be falsely propagated as harmonious to the topmost spiritual path of Sri Chaitanya, what to speak of as a superior path to traditional material conditionings.

In closing I would like to offer this nice letter by one of the participants from the discussion forum. I consider it also a good representation of my own views on this topic:

quote:

---

Here is my view, partially shaped by [devotee's name]. Let me state first that I do not believe that homosexuality is genetic. I believe it is a choice in as much as the sheer variety of activities people engage in is a choice. If homosexuality is genetic then so is every vice man may engage in. We are simply reduced to being the sum of our genetic parts.

That being said, all religion (in the United States at least) is voluntary. If someone doesn’t like a regulation of a particular religious faith, they have every opportunity to leave and find a faith more suitable to their liking. However, I do not think it appropriate to instead actively work to undermine the principles of that faith. We can simply replace the phrase ‘Homosexual Vaishnavas’ with ‘___________ Vaishnavas’ where any person can fill in the vice of their choice. How about ‘Abortion Provider Vaishnavas’. Why not? “That whole Vedic culture thing is based on some patriarchal model. Its not appropriate for today. Today’s young Vaisnavis need a place to turn to in case of an accidental pregnancy. That’s why we ‘Abortion Provider Vaishnavas’ are such a valuable member of the community.” Hogwash. We don’t need that. If we have a vice and are attracted to Krishna Consciousness, the minimum we should do is practice such activities in private and not seek to disturb others with our spiritual failings. The best thing to do is to work to overcome our personal spiritual shortcomings (which I may add, I have and so do most). The worst thing we can do is say our vice equals virtue, and work to disturb others with this concocted philosophy.

I know we won't resolve this debate, so I just want to say I'm glad you are a Vaishnava. My only advice is that you not work to disturb others or seek to gain acceptance of homosexuality. I have a fairly simple view of homosexuality with regard to religion. Virtually all the major religions of the world (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Vaisnavism) do not accept homosexuality. I read an article recently in which the Dalai Lama said many Hollywood admirers of his wanted him to say homosexuality was alright. He said he couldn't as such practices are forbidden. I do not believe that the injunctions against homosexuality are simply arbitrary or formed out of bigotry. My view is that the ancient sages of all these traditions stood back and watched what happened to society when such activity flourished. They saw what happened to families, to morality, to the spread of disease and such. With this knowledge they came to certain conclusions. I accept their conclusions.

But in the end we all have faults. We should work to build ourselves and others up spiritually rather than work to harm one another. I hope nothing I have said in this discussion has hurt you in anyway.

---

In conclusion, one of the supporters of the GALVA article has stated:

quote:

---

Let us honor Bhakti Devi, and allow her to decide in whose hearts she would like to reside.

---

I think everyone agrees with this, but what some take objection to is an attempt to propagate that homosexuality is accepted as natural in Vedic culture, and that homosexuality is perfectly in line with Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

Up till now we have no evidence of a single pure devotee in the line of Sri Chaitanya or any other authorized sampradaya that was a homosexual. It is a modern fabrication of the 21st century. We do have many cases of pure devotees who lived as grihastas with families, etc., but not of homosexuals. Neither do we find references from our acharya's that it is an acceptable practice, yet we do find statements that marriage according to religious principles between men and women is an acceptable companion to bhakti.

Why try to propogate something that was never propogated by our acharya's? If, as the author of the article claimed, the Vedic culture was full of homosexuals, to the tune of 5% (who will believe such numbers?), then there must have been plenty of homosexual devotees belonging to the various sampradayas, and the respective acharyas must have spoken something directed specifically to these unique individuals. The fact is there are no such directions given by the acharyas because homosexuality was considered a sin, and was against the flow of the bhakti-ganga.