The Third Sex: Gay Vaisnavas

[atma 0]

Once in Mayapur when Prabhupada was there (76 or 77?), a Mexican devotee called Pippalai caught Bhavananda having sex with one of the workers from the Goshalla. Pippalai ran towards the temple to tell Prabhupada with Bhav. following him. Some sannyasis (very sure was Tamal) didn't allowed Pippalai to talk to Prabhupada. Bhavananda told Prabhupada that he had a mental desire that actually nothing happened. Prabhupada sent Bhavananda to preach in the boat 'Nitai Pada Kamala" and to follow strict chaturmasya, eating only once a day to atone for his sinful desires. Bhavananda followed strictly. Pippalai was sent to another temple. This I got it from a devotee that saw Pippalai running towards the temple and he told him what actually happened. This devotee went with Bhav in the boat for 4 months and saw how serious in his vow he was.

We also know that Prabhupada told the gay disciples to married women. Sudama, Bhavananda, Hayagriva,Upendra, etc, were at one point married. They did lot of preaching and Srila Prabhupada apreciated their service but we can't say that Prabhupada allowed homosexualism. If Prabhupada told Upendra to get a boy and settle down how come he married and got 2 kids with his wife?

Upset me a lot that some people say that Srila Prabhupada was fallible and that he did mistakes. Maha aparadha to just cover up our material desires.

[Amara_dasa 0]

"Some years back, ISKCON lost one of its senior members, Upendra dasa. He died in Australia from liver failure, resulting from Hepatitis C. He was a gay man. In his early brahmacari days he had the honor of being Srila Prabhupada's servant for a couple of years. And I had the honor of being his close friend from 1975 until his death.

 

Upendraji was always one to speak from the heart. He related to me once something that Srila Prabhupada told him in a private conversation. Upendra was bemoaning his fate as a homosexual in the Hare Krsna movement, and (according to him) Srila Prabhupada---perhaps tired of his endless moaning---advised him to 'just find some nice boy then, and settle down!'

 

This was in a private conversation (not recorded), and some time later Upendra got involved in a futile attempt at marriage with a woman. But he did tell me this antedote, I can vouch for that. And Upendra was, in my experience, an honest and honorable man. Srila Prabhupada was an absolutely sacred memory for him, the most meaningful thing in his entire life, and it's hard for me to imagine he would ever make up something and pass it off as "Prabhupada said...

 

-Adi-karta dasa (Prabhupada disciple)

 

I have also heard this same story from two other sources, the point being, who can really say what Prabhupada would say and do? He surprised us all many times during his life.

 

The subject of our movement's slowness to evolve in certain areas (e.g. attitudes towards women, gay people, etc.) is something that concerns me greatly. The core Vaishnava truths all have to do with the spirit soul, and everything else changes with time. It always has and always will. Srila Prabhupada presented the essential truth and adapted the outward details to a certain degree according to time and circumstance. This has been done by all great acaryas throughout the ages. Had he not passed away several decades ago he might well have instituted other social changes to the movement. Who knows? The world is vastly different (in certain ways) from the world he grew up in.

 

I know one thing: Any religious movement that remains inexorably rooted in some past era becomes extinct. There are many examples. Krsna consciousness must always remain dynamic and adaptable to the times. Let us therefore focus on Srila Prabhupada's essential and timeless spiritual teachings. We should not dwell upon relative social statements that may change with time.

[Maitreya 0]

No need to speculate on what Srila Prabhupada thought when we have his words.

 

From a Sunday feast lecture LA May 21, 1972:

 

So formerly, the king was controlled by saintly persons, by priestly order. They would give the king advice. The Vedic society is divided into four classes of men. It is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gétä, cätur-varëyaà mayä såñöaà guëa-karma-vibhägaçaù [bg. 4.13]. According to quality and work, there are four divisions of men: The brähmaëa, the intelligent class of men; the kñatriyas, the administrative class of men, the martial class of men; and the vaiçyas, the productive class of men; and the çüdras, the worker class of men. That is still existing in a different name, but the difficulty is, the classification is not made according to quality and work. That was the actual position of classification. Nowadays, a çüdra is on the government. A person who is a nonsense number one, he has no knowledge, he is on the head of the government. The things have been topsy-turvied. A person on religious category, he’s advocating something, oh, it is not to be uttered. Homosex. You see? He’s advocating homosex. Just see. These has been topsy-turvied.

[talasiga 0]

Originally posted by amanpeter:

Those with little knowledge of what intimacy actually is, or even the desire to experience it personally, intentionally isolating themselves and avoiding emotional involvement with others, should not be expected to be taken seriously when they comment on relationships that they cannot help seeing in other than a sexual context. They are more to be pitied than condemned.

condemned to pity

 

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 09-02-2001).]

[Tarun 6]

If you do it twice per day facing East, it's transcendental.

[Dayal_Govinda 0]

Dear all,

I am very surprised to see the reactions of the devotees on this forum to the issue raised by Brahma das. I am behind Brahma 100 percent.

The points raised by those devotees in GALVA are important to note, they are not trying to force their homosexuality upon us as has been insinuated by many of the responses herein. They merely require recognition that they can be Gaudiya Vaisnavas too. I for one think it sad that they felt they had to put together such an organization instead of feeling comfortable in the association of all devotees.

However, the responses on this forum have proved why this article was written. We are supposed to be cultivating love for Sri Caitanya mahaprabhu, if we cannot even act in a civilized and compassionate way towards each other whom we call our godbrothers and godsisters then how are we to develop any feelings towards Mahaprabhu?

 

The issue of a 'guru sanctioned gay relationship' is an interesting one. The guru sees all as equal and tries to engage people according to their propensity and situation. If someone is serious about devotional life and happens to be gay, and if they are not be suited to celibate brahmacari life, what does one suggest?

Surely one should situate themselves such that they can practice spiritual life with the least amount of mental anguish. If they are happy in their relationship and it creates a conducive atmosphere for practicing Krsna consciousness then where is the problem? Many heterosexual devotee relationships are dysfunctional and hardly conducive to spiritual life. Are they better just because they are man and wife?

 

I find it a shame that many of the devotees here have shown so much ignorance in dealing with this issue. From equating homosexuality with promiscuity on one side, to the extreme of equating it with pedophilia. It is this kind of prejudice that forces societies such as Galva to form, they are trying to show the devotee community that homosexuality has always been in existence and is a part of their present psychosocial make-up, something that must be dealt with.

 

Regarding Prabhupada's attitude to homosexual relationships, he had to be so accommodating and flexible to fit in with the western society that it would be easy to take it for granted. He was heavily criticized by some of his godbrothers for even allowing men and women to dance together in Kirtan let alone live in the same temple. Such was his vision that he saw the way the western world worked and adjusted the non-essential aspects of devotional life accordingly.

 

There are some people on this forum whom I would be ashamed to be associated with, I will mention no names but by my response you should know whom I am addressing.

We are all part of Mahaprabhu's family, let us try and act that way.

 

Some of my close godbrothers are gay, and I feel far more comfortable around them then I would do around most of these forum members. They are devotees first and foremost, judge by the spirituality of a person not by their sexual preference.

Lets try and be progressive in our thinking, and strive to unite the devotee community rather than drive more rifts between us all.

 

In service

Dayal Govinda dasa.

 

[Guest guest]

There are some people on this forum whom I would be ashamed to be associated with, I

will mention no names but by my response you should know whom I am addressing.

We are all part of Mahaprabhu's family, let us try and act that way.

 

 

I find it amusing that you are from Philo, the home of the headless guru.

 

 

[Gauracandra 1]

Dayal Govinda,

 

I agree with you in spirit. If you read all of my posts you will see that I continually sought to regard all Vaisnavas as friends. However, this morning I came to a shocking realization. I do believe there was an active attempt to lie to the Vaisnavas of the world. I do believe that these homosexuals of Galva worked with Madhusudhani Radha of Chakra, to pretend that their views are consistent with Vaisnava theology. I have no problem with someone who is homosexual wanting to engage in devotional service. Actually the shock of this lie caused me to become very angry. I was very angry because throughout all of my postings I continually stressed the point that we should not work to disturb the spiritual lives of others with this message about homosexuality. Putting aside the fact that the articles on Galva are wrong, what is most disturbing was a united front to lie to all the Vaisnavas of the world via Chakra. This can only be described as low class. Still, please read my response on the Chakra article (I'll go write it now).

 

Gauracandra

[Maitreya 0]

Originally posted by Dayal_Govinda:

Dear all,

 

The issue of a 'guru sanctioned gay relationship' is an interesting one. The guru sees all as equal and tries to engage people according to their propensity and situation. If someone is serious about devotional life and happens to be gay, and if they are not be suited to celibate brahmacari life, what does one suggest?

 

Yeah it's tough.Well tough.I am having a difficult enough time from the hetero side.I do sympathize with their plight, but changing or ignoring Prabhupada's words on the matter is no solution.

 

What do you suggest gay 'marriages' sanctioned by religious institutions?If so go back and read what Prabhupada said about that.

 

 

There are some people on this forum whom I would be ashamed to be associated with, I will mention no names but by my response you should know whom I am addressing.

 

Who cares?You won't see me knocking on your door begging lunch.

 

edited signature only

 

[This message has been edited by Maitreya (edited 09-03-2001).]

[nine9 0]

Gauracandra prabhu,

 

I liked you earlier posts, to a large degree. However this I find unconscienable:

 

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

I do believe there was an active attempt to lie to the Vaisnavas of the world. I do believe that these homosexuals of Galva worked with Madhusudhani Radha of Chakra, to pretend that their views are consistent with Vaisnava theology. ... Actually the shock of this lie caused me to become very angry. I was very angry because throughout all of my postings I continually stressed the point that we should not work to disturb the spiritual lives of others with this message about homosexuality. Putting aside the fact that the articles on Galva are wrong, what is most disturbing was a united front to lie to all the Vaisnavas of the world via Chakra.

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).]

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by nine9:

My views are not incompatible with those of Vaishnava theology. My Guru Maharaja approves.

 

 

<h1>WHO IS YOUR "GURU MAHARAJA"???</h1>

[Maitreya 0]

Well he has a UK e-mail.I'm starting to think he is a disciple of Vipramukya from Chakra, who is also the pres. at Bhaktivedanta Manor-UK.

[Maitreya 0]

Well randOM let's see now, who else?Hmmmm...I know!Boy George!

[nine9 0]

Prabhus,

 

Originally posted by rand0M aXiS:

Nah, he told me in an unsolicited email that it is not Vipramukya.

So much is true.

 

Originally posted by rand0M aXiS:

I know it ain't Vip, 'cause Vip is one of the better ISKCON "gurus" and wouldn't touch Markie except to encourage him to give up his limp wrist.

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).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

The points raised by those devotees in GALVA are important to note, they are not trying to force their homosexuality upon us as has been insinuated by many of the responses herein.

They are doing something worse. They are misrepresenting the Vedic teachings and claiming homosexuality is sanctioned in the scriptures and in Vedic culture. Their entire article is based on lies and misrepresentations. They mis-translate words such as napumsaka, which have historically accepted meanings, and claim it refers to today's homosexuals.

 

responses against the Galva article are not attacking the individuals for their imperfections, they are attacking the distortion and misrepresentation of the Vedic teachings. And when they add rumors of "Prabhupada said we can have homosexual marriages" it is an insult to our spiritual master who has directly instructed not to believe in "Prabhupada saids" unless it is in writing. All of his writings condemn hmosexuality as sinful. There isn't a single statement in favour of it. Why then spread these lies in the name of the Acharya. It is a great offenses, and it is natural his disciples and followers will be offended. I can imagine what other rumors of "Prabhupada said" will be circulating in their community in addition to this.

 

The issue of a 'guru sanctioned gay relationship' is an interesting one.

Srila Prabhupada, the real guru, was clearly against church sanctioned gay relationships. He says it is proof that the church is against religious principles. Any so-called guru, claiming to follow Srila Prabhupada, who makes such distortions in the teachings is bogus. It only makes me doubt whether or not such a personality may himself be homosexual.

 

The guru sees all as equal and tries to engage people according to their propensity and situation. If someone is serious about devotional life and happens to be gay, and if they are not be suited to celibate brahmacari life, what does one suggest?

Srila Prabhupada never compromised on spiritual principles. He told his disciples that they must strictly follow four regulative principles - no meat eating, non intoxication, no illicit sex and no gambling. What if someone was serious about devotional life but couldn't give up meat eating? Prabhupada would not initiate them. The fact is, if they aren't willing to change their life style to suit the gurus instructions then they are not serious about devotion.

 

I found it interesting how these discussions started with mild calls for homosexuals to just be accepted as devotees, and slowly the true agenda came out - guru sanctioned non-celibate homosexual marriages, and "Prabhupada said it was alright".

 

If they are happy in their relationship and it creates a conducive atmosphere for practicing Krsna consciousness then where is the problem?

The problem is sinful activities fo not create a conducive atmosphere for Krishna consciousness. Sharanagati, or surrender to Lord Krishna, has six principles, two of which are most important:

 

anukulyasya sankalpah

pratikulyasya varjanam

 

1) Accepting everything favourable for the execution of devotional service.

2) Rejecting anything unfavourable for the execution of devotional service.

 

Sinful activities belong in the second category, as do all forms of mental speculation. They are to be rejected as contaminations. They should not be propagated as harmonious to the path of krishna-bhakti.

 

Many heterosexual devotee relationships are dysfunctional and hardly conducive to spiritual life. Are they better just because they are man and wife?

They are not better. They are also imperfect in their application of devotional principles. But they never try to propagate their faults as harmonious to devotional service.

 

I find it a shame that many of the devotees here have shown so much ignorance in dealing with this issue.

I find it a shame that some will misrepresent the teachings of the Vedic scriptures to suit their own imperfections. I also find it a shame that such people will try to mislead the devotee public through a well-organized program of dis-information [such as occured on chakra].

 

Regarding Prabhupada's attitude to homosexual relationships, he had to be so accommodating and flexible to fit in with the western society that it would be easy to take it for granted.

 

Srila Prabhupada never compromised on spiritual principles. He was the only guru from India who demanded discipline from his disciples. Others, such as Mahesh Yogi, Rajnesh, etc., accumulated countless followers and millions of dollars by adulterating the vedic teachings and removing all rules and regulations. If Prabhupada had done that, he could have been much more materially successful. But he presented the Vedic teachings as they were, without adulteration. He did not compromise on anything, and he made it clear that Krishna was the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Such a stance was not popular, but it was the truth.

 

[Guest guest]

No hunt valaya. They brag about themselves. And try to disguise as religiousity.

 

How's the weather in Toronto?

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

...this is not about "sex"; it is about "love", devoid of "lust".

There is no such thing in the material world. The closest one can get is the love a mother has for her child, but even that is tinted with the material contamination of lust in a very minute way.

 

[Guest guest]

I could care less about you email to Vipramukya. You come onto this forum with a demonic agenda and ask to be accepted. You will never be accepted.

 

 

BYE!

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

[Note: This message is not directed at the message immediately above this, but as a general principle.]

 

Please no personal insults. I want to be a little strict otherwise this will degenerate into nothing but name calling. I have deleted a couple posts again.

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 09-03-2001).]

[Maitreya 0]

Originally posted by amanpeter:

...and so the speculation begins! The Great Homo Hunt is on! Why DO you continue to live in San Francisco anyway, MC? Better hunting grounds?

 

 

No peter, I live in Berkeley.If someone continualy refers to his guru maharaja as the one granting this license then he should name him.There is a strong implication in that statement that it is parampara approved.Quotes have been offered from Srila Prahupada to the contrary.

 

By the way does the phrase passive aggressive mean anything to you?

 

 

[nine9 0]

Originally posted by jndas:

The closest one can get is the love a mother has for her child, but even that is tinted with the material contamination of lust in a very minute way.

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

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by nine9:

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

Surely you must answer one simple question:

 

<h1>WHO IS YOUR GURU???</h1>

 

Otherwise, please get lost.

[nine9 0]

Originally posted by rand0M aXiS:

And I repeat, WHO IS THIS GURU???

 

Otherwise, get lost.

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).]

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by nine9:

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.

 

Mark

 

 

[This message has been edited by nine9 (edited 09-03-2001).]

Actually I couldn't care less who he is.

 

I didn't know Bhavananda travelled that far.

[Maitreya 0]

Originally posted by nine9:

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".

 

There are different degrees of lust Mark.Just because one is presently not having gross sex doesn't mean he isn't in lust.

I experience it just being around a woman that is attractive even though I may never speak to her.I am also being tortured by this disease of lust.Lust can be very subtle.We are advised to never be alone with a woman even in dreams.

 

Householder life is meant to work through that as jijaji said before.There is no example in any scripture I have read where Lord Caitanya approved homosex householders.What is being objected to is the concoction of homosex marriage,not you as a soul.

 

JNdas has reminded us that real love devoid of lust is with Krishna then it is extended out to all others as His parts and parcels and has nothing to do with any designation of this material world.

 

I appreciate very much your desire to control the senses.The mind is also a sense.Until it is controled[fixed on Krishna]it will only torment us in various ways.

 

If you feel like a woman inside why not become attracted to the ultimate male?