nine9

Dear Gauracandra prabhu, Thank you for your "insightful" comments. Unfortunately you are slightly misinformed. I would post regarding other topics, however my time and resources are slightly limited. I was given this link by a friend and chose to reply since it mentioned the web-site that I administrate. Do you expect me to do anything else? Wouldn't you reply if you were in my position. Unfortunately arguing is a waste of time, and we will never come to a clear compromise. I propose therefore that we cease to debate these things. I remain, Your humble servant, Rama Kesava dasa rama.kesava.BVTS@pamho.net / nine9@ukshells.co.uk (disciple of HH B.V. Tripurari Swami Maharaja) PS Please address me by my given-name.

My dear Jahnava Nitai prabhu, Thank you for noticing I had posted Amara dasa's Q&A on my site. I am sorry but I do not have enough time right now to comment on your points. This is mostly because I work night-shift and it is now the morning (hence my night). I would like to say one thing, however. Please notice this: True my friend Amara prabhu has said that homosexuality is not a sin, and that it is the natural behaviour of the third-sex. This is certain, just as the natural expression of the sex drive in heterosexual persons is to couple with those of opposite sex. Please do not let any of this infer that celibacy is not important for us, too. By your arguments heterosexual sex is a sin, too. In fact, any sex, not for procreation is lusty, sinful, and materially binding. I agree with you whole-heartedly. However, I feel that the only way we can free ourselves from these vices it to recognise our respective positions. This does not change the order of the spiritual master. I have my vice. You have yours. And I pray that both of us can be free of them. Please also remember that homosexuality does not always equate to the adhorata, or intercourse without a female womb that you so disparage and see as a sin. I would like to point out that <UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI> to be "homosexual" includes far more than just the physical, as a heterosexual relationship based on celibacy conists of more than just physical attraction; and<LI> secondly the portion of the Mahabharata that you quote from (13.145.52) can has oft been mistranslated into the English language. The word viyoni, or improper womb, refers to the womb of another man's wife, the mother, sister, animal or child. This word was commonly mistranslated by early British scholars to mean "anything other than the female organ" in order to unfairly associate natural homosexuality with criminal behavior. Please bear these points in mind, and remember, above all that celibacy is equally important to us. I am at your disposal to answer any questions you may. I remain, Your humble servant, Rama Kesava dasa (Mark A Miles) rama.kesava.BVTS@pamho.net / nine9@ukshells.co.uk PS You attempted to join the GALVA108 e-Group didn't you? [This message has been edited by nine9 (edited 10-23-2001).]

No - I simply meant that things can always be expressed with eloquence and consideration and without resorting to insult. That's all. :-) Rama Kesava dasa (Mark) [This message has been edited by nine9 (edited 09-26-2001).]

Dayal Govinda prabhu, Just for the record I know JN dasa has limited time available and often only gets online for "15 minutes" a day. So, he might not have seen randOM's comments, yet. I'm not insulted, though. It's like...um, how angry do you get if you get bitten by an itty-bitty insect? Not much. However, it does matter if everyone else is insulted. Rama Kesava dasa (Mark) [This message has been edited by nine9 (edited 09-26-2001).]

I hear what you say, randOM, but you are not even reading Prabhupada's words. See what he defines homosex as: "it is illicit sex". So is sex in a heterosexual relationship where it is not for procreation. Let's not beat around the bush anymore. We can all agree that sex not meant for procreation is illicit. Now, what do we think about relationships where that desire for sex has been deliberately curtailed and stopped? Mark PS RandOM, Stop committing Guru aparadha. I would remind you of the fourty-sixth sloka in Srimad Bhagavatam 10.4. You may not like Tripurari Maharaja, and you may have had bad experiences with him... but you don't have to resort to calling him a demon! Why don't you attempt to resolve this issue with him? Rama Kesava dasa (Mark) [This message has been edited by nine9 (edited 09-26-2001).]

Prabhu, Who ever said this? We are not superior. Everyone is fallen, in his or her own way. And, yes, we have our way and will be condemned for it...just as people condemn any form of attachment via a relationship. No we don't want any sciptural sanction. We just want to be left alone to overcome this "vice" just like heterosexual couples must. We're not necessarily proud of it either. Did you ever think to ask? Rama Kesava dasa (Mark) [This message has been edited by nine9 (edited 09-26-2001).]

Disagree. Temple authorities have known to be ruthless in their lack of compassion, kicking people out due to rumours and scaremongering. A person's life before taking shelter of the spiritual master should not have any bearing on his devotional service, as long as it is good and free from offence. However, in many cases Temple authorities have neglected this principle. Agreed. That is true, however we are often denied association. It's far more than the facts and reality of what homosexuality is, but also the perceived notions - that "scaremongering" I was talking about. For example, there are cases of people being chucked out of temples just because it was known that they were HIV+, but they were never asked how they got it, etc. It's misconceptions I'm on about, here. Well, we're never going to get agreement now, are we? I know that. I'm glad at least that I'm celibate...I know we will never come to an agreement as to whether or not it is proper to have a celibate homosexual relationship. ...And truth be told I am sorry for my reaction. Disagree. Yes, we do, but only where they are civil, non-offensive, and do not send Bhakti Devi running away. It was nice and civil to begin with, e.g. when Brahma dasa was posting, but now it's become a little painful for both sides. I'd rather not fight. Agree. I certainly won't be posting here on this subject again. Disagree. Agreed. Let's just forget all of this. I mean, I'd rather talk about my latest halva recipe, actually. Thank you, prabhu. I beg to remain, Your humble servant, Rama Kesava dasa (Mark) [This message has been edited by nine9 (edited 09-26-2001).]

That is untrue. Homosexuality can never be normalised, but neither are we attempting to do so. It is not nice to be "homosexual". It is dreadful to never be able to have children. And it is horrible to be forced to live apart, to be stigmatised simply by what others think you get up to in the bedroom. However, we will always be pushed outside the door by bigoted small-minded persons such as yourself who are unwilling to look beyond material characteristics. Please desist from discussing us when we no longer want to participate. Kicking a man when he's down is far from honourable. And doing so when you have deliberately taken the floor out from underneath him, even less so. YHS Rama Kesava dasa (Mark) [This message has been edited by nine9 (edited 09-26-2001).]

I really don't understand anymore. Gaudiya Vaishnavas get married...I've seen such celebrations myself. Surely those marriages are motivated out of attraction, even a slight amount? Plus, I will be honest, this relationship is not just motivated out of attraction, it is also motivated out of loneliness (a need for companionship), and a need to live with someone who is like-minded and who, instead of hampering my spiritual pursuits, aids in that. Surely it does not matter if the butter melts...it is still the same substance, just a different form. Now, if it evaporates then you lose subtance, too? Surely we are talking about not taking things to extremes, here? I cannot believe that you are all advocating that all relationships are completely useless. That's just oversimplifying Gaudiya precepts. Your confused servant, Rama Kesava dasa (Mark) [This message has been edited by nine9 (edited 09-26-2001).]

Maitreya prabhu, Thank you for your kind and very calming comments. I just must ask a small question. You say "homosex marriage"... I wasn't aware I was asking for that. I don't actually like the idea of civic unions, per se. I want to ask you, though, because I must know: do you consider a guru giving his blessing to a relationship to be "marriage"? Please know that I ask this question out of sincere naivety, Your humble servant, Rama Kesava dasa (Mark) [This message has been edited by nine9 (edited 09-26-2001).]

You could actually work it out. Think about it. I have provided enough information in this forum for you to identify him, by name. I have also said that I will not identify him without his permission. Do you think I can "magic" this permission up? I need to ask him. Rama Kesava dasa (Mark) [This message has been edited by nine9 (edited 09-26-2001).]

Surely you are jesting? (I mean about a mother lusting after her child?)

Prabhus, So much is true. Oh really? I direct you to my e-mail from Vipramukhya Swami. Plus this is my point - that I have been trying to make again and again and again - this is not about "sex"; it is about "love", devoid of "lust". Lastly, I should only like to reveal to you the identity of my Guru Maharaja with his consent. So far I haven't asked him, and I don't actually intend to, because I don't want him to know the level of aparadhic entangelement I have been getting myself into. Your humble servant, Rama Kesava dasa (Mark) [This message has been edited by nine9 (edited 09-26-2001).]

Gauracandra prabhu, I liked you earlier posts, to a large degree. However this I find unconscienable: This is simply not true. For the record, this is the chain of events: <UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI> 3 June - I join the , lgbthindu, and consquently find Amara dasa's research. I read it, find it interesting and affording some solace (whilst disagreeing on some points, however - particularly "Maharaja Virata's Example")<LI> 23 July - I write my own letter to Chakra, VNN and VINA - Chakra publishes it 27/7. Before this I did not know Madhusudhani Radha. I did not confer with anyone when writing my letter. Neither, I believe, did anyone else.<LI> At no point did I ever attempt to lie to anyone. How are my views inconsistent with Vaishnava theology? Please, do point out where! My views are not incompatible with those of Vaishnava theology. My Guru Maharaja approves. After all I am applying all regulative principles equally and stringently. I see no problem here. I have already made my point many times - I do not believe in any bending or breaking of the rules - I do not intend to make this point until I am blue in the face. If you could not understand when I said I advocated strict celibacy then you will never get it. Therefore, I believe my participation in this debate has now served its usefulness. Your aspiring servant, Rama Kesava dasa (Mark) [This message has been edited by nine9 (edited 09-26-2001).]

That's not a very nice thing to say. Of course guru can be fallible. It is possible for him to make a mistake. However, we don't often accuse him of such. There is only one being that possesses the six opulences in full. That is Krsna. Everyone else can only possess them to a limited degree. Therefore everyone else can make mistakes due to imperfect knowledger. I think we should agree to disagree. You are far too extreme(ist) for my liking. Mark PS I might add that when Niscala mata says "Srila Prabhupada had imperfect senses", she probably means it not to attack Him, but rather in the way that everyone has imperfect senses and limited knowledge. You cannot refute this statement...otherwise you are claiming that Krsna is not Absolute! Rama Kesava dasa (Mark) [This message has been edited by nine9 (edited 09-26-2001).]

Dear rand0M aXiS, I do not mean to put this so bluntly, but why do you keep missing the point? HOW DARE you think that I would ever go against Srila Prabhupada's orders!? Every time I say Sri Guru pranama ("om ajñana-timirandhasya...") I remember how indebted I am to Him, and how I have been given so many chances again and again to serve the Lord despite my shortcomings in fulfilling Srila Prabhupada's commands. But to deliberately DISOBEY His injunction!? Never! Why do you think I have completely alienated virtually all the gay neophyte devotees I know by consistently banging the drum of celibacy. They call me a hypocrite because I say they can continue to have a relationship without sex ... but it is possible, is it not? Or, am I to believe that grhasta couples in ISKCON do not think of each other at all, except when they want to raise a child, and even then in a clinical fashion? Come on! Maybe I am impotent because I do not feel a sex impulse for a woman? But am I then to be spurned as a demon simply because you think that I have transferred those sex desires to a man? You brand me something I am not, and have missed the entire point here, prabhu. Rama Kesava dasa (Mark) [This message has been edited by nine9 (edited 09-26-2001).]

Actually Random, there is no difference, at all. Since there is no possibility of homosexuals procreating together, then there is no difference whatsoever. Think about what both statements really mean. In the first you talk about taking a vow of celibacy. In the second you talk about condoning the grhastha asrama for homosexual couples. Now, if they properly obey the order of guru then they have already vowed to be celibate. Q.E.D. Two realities are congruent. I beg to remain Your insignificant servant, Rama Kesava dasa (Mark) P.S. Maitreya, do you realise how distasteful your comment are, when you brand all of us together in one big pot? I, for one, do not want to be lumped together with the rest of 'gay society' (yes, it is promiscuous; I am not). P.P.S. Why should I tell you my guru? I am an aspirant at the moment and feel it would be inappropriate to reveal his identity to anyone given the sensitive nature of this debate. It could, for example, be used against him by those of a dubious character. He is not the only one to be accepting, though, I suggest you go to http://www.nine9.ukshells.co.uk/cgi-bin/galva-idx.pl and look at the opinions (a little scant, at the moment, but that's because people are so darn afraid to speak up!) from both within ISKCON and without. [This message has been edited by nine9 (edited 09-26-2001).]

Please retract your "loving partner crap" comment. I, myself, take extreme offence. Until my Guru Maharaja says otherwise I know my relationship is valid. The fact that it is not based on sex is good, too. End of story. Maitreya, Gauracandra, are you really advocating breaking up all relationships, prabhus? Ask yourself that. In no way am I attempting to convert anyone - in fact I wish I had not been born into this position that I am - but I cannot do anything about it. I wish no-one was gay, and would actually advise those not in relationships to not dwell on it any further. However, the main thrust of my efforts is for people already in relationships. I do not want to see good bona fide relationships that aid the partners' sadhana broken up. Your aspiring servant, Rama Kesava dasa (Mark) [This message has been edited by nine9 (edited 09-26-2001).]

No, prabhu. Nothing that you've said has hurt me in the slightest. You are right in saying that we will never resolve this. That's because this is an issue of interpretation for the most part. I just ask you all to look at Talasiga's comments: These words express my sentiment, much better than I ever could hope to do. I'll be honest, I don't identify as "homosexual" (and don't want to) - it places too much emphasis on the sex - rather I'd just say I'm in a "gay" (for use of better word) relationship, and my partner happens to be a man. However, the same rules apply as if I were heterosexual. With my warmest regards, and my sincerest hopes that I have not offended anyone, or confused anyone as to the nature of my position, Your aspiring servant, Rama Kesava dasa (Mark) nine9@ukshells.co.uk [This message has been edited by nine9 (edited 09-26-2001).]

Maitreya prabhu, You ask why "partner" and not brother, and why in the male form and not the female... I don't know. I can't explain it. It's just something that has happened. Yes, I acknowledge that I desired a male companion rather than a female one...but I can't do much to change that. This relationship is committed whether I like it or not. To abrogate such a relationship would have an averse effect on both me and him, not just emotionally, but also on a spiritual front. Of course there are very slight erotic, or base undercurrents there...we have both recognised that, but have made the deliberate committal to put that all aside and be in a healthy committed relationship, in which love for each other is, to paraphrase my spiritual master, "inextricably entwined with love for Guru" - and hence, by induction, a life of devotion. I think Talasiga puts the point very nicely, and with great care. I am very grateful for this post. Your aspiring servant, Rama Kesava dasa (Mark) P.S. JN Das, I've never attempted to adjust the teachings, so to speak. That would be heresy on my part. I simply try to resolve my condition versus the "arrived" elements/understanding of contemporary Vaishnava thought. [This message has been edited by nine9 (edited 09-26-2001).]

Excuse me, prabhus, but I think you're all missing my point. I don't mean to advertise my position. In fact I only responded to any of this because I saw this topic as a referer URL to the website. It really disappoints me when everyone thinks that all gay men are promiscuous, or even have "sexual" relations. For the record both my current and previous relationships are/were conjugal, but completely free from sexual gratification. You ask me what I expect. Nothing, really. If I have provoked just a bit of careful thought then that's great. You say you fear that all I (and others like me) say will cause people to renege on the regulative principles. Yes, I fear that too. I often quarrel with my gay (aspiring) devotee friends... in fact I had to write a specific rider to my website after someone thought that I was preaching against celibacy (erm, no, I'm preaching for it). My only concern is for those entering spiritual life, who are already in committed relationships. I do not want to see those relationships broken up simply because those people think that the need for celibacy (or only for sex for procreation) implicitly invalidates their relationship. Surely we can all experience certain rasas in a pure way, not dominated by sex, no matter what our bodies? Your humble servant, Rama Kesava dasa (Mark) PS Maitreya -- true, I am slightly uncomfortable with the name GALVA. As regards to what I am trying to accomplish with my partner:- spiritual advancement whilst living in a healthy loving and mutually advantageous (and guru-approved) relationship. [This message has been edited by nine9 (edited 09-26-2001).]

Dear Prabhus, I felt I should comment on this topic, since it begins with a link to the website that I administrate. One important thing I have been attempting to emphasize - at all times - is that the term "homosexuality" is a very labelling one, not completely able to describe the type of relationship exhibited. For example I am in a loving, caring (yet celibate) relationship with my partner, yet I would still not condone sexual relations between anyone that is contrary to regulative principles. This is the point I was trying to get across in my article on Chakra when I asked: So far responses have been quite positive, from within and outwith of the Gaudiya Vaishnava community. Please keep this one single point in mind when discussing this subject. Your aspiring servant, Rama Kesava dasa (Mark) [This message has been edited by nine9 (edited 09-26-2001).]