What's wrong with homosexualtiy?

[BDas 0]

Dear Maitreya,

 

I would have stated my case as I did at another time when I talked to SP about book selling and public opinion.

 

Considering the conditions of modern times I believe SP would agree with me on this issue.

 

SP changed his opinions at times after talking with disciples and learning more of the facts.

 

One example is when he first rejected the idea of book distribution in regular clothes and wigs but later permitted it after a discussion with Karandhar and others.

 

And SF and world opinion on Gay rights was not the same 25 years ago when SP was here.

 

Hare Krishna, Brahma

[Maitreya 0]

Brahma, are you in consultation with Vaisnava's more advanced than your good self?

 

This speculation of your's is no small step.And a step of deviation from the path.Do you have any advanced Vaisnava who agrees with you?If so who.

[Maitreya 0]

Originally posted by BDas:

Dear Maitreya,

 

Here again you asked me the hypothetical question,

 

"Would you feel comfortable presenting this idea to SP and how do you think he would have reacted"?

 

I gave my answer and it does not confrom to your conception of Prabhupad. What else is new?

 

Your question called for speculation when you asked how do you think SP would have reacted to my position. Then when I answered honestly how I believed SP would have supported my position you condemned my speculation.

 

So please no more hypothetical questions from you.

 

Actually I thought by putting it in that way it may have given you another perspective.I was wrong.

 

[stonehearted 0]

 

Originally posted by Maitreya:

Well Srila Prabhupada's words on the issue are all I need.

 

I'd like to horn in here for just a moment to point out that what Brahma suggested was adjusting the presentation, not changing the principles.

 

In the quotation from Tripurari Maharaj, the only statement I see that could resasonably be considered controversial is the reference to a relationship "analogous to a heterosexual monogamous situation." Some may see that as beyond the pale; however, my experience is that long-term monogamous relationships between partners (my personal experience is a heterosexual marriage of almost 29 years)who are seriously pursuing Krishna consciousness eventually and gradually become celibate partnerships. I know of many couple married for a long time whose avoidance of married sex was less than perfect earlier on but who eventually (and gradually) were able to put it behind them. What's the problem with giving gay couples the same chance?

 

Let's face it: wet or dry, it's stool. (Srila Prabhupada said that, sir.)

[stonehearted 0]

One more point, if I may. Those of you who have not been married for a long time, or who have become accustomed to changing partners every few years, or who have never been married, may have some difficulty accepting the assertion I made above. That's simply because it's outside your experience. Those of us who know many long-married devotee couples, and even some long-together devotee gay couples, won't find that assertion at all surprising.

[Maitreya 0]

[salagram-sila]Stonehearted,

 

No the thing is quotes have been submitted where Srila Prabhupada specifically speaks against homosex marriages.

 

Brahma's point is those statements are now outdated, so we can just toss them out.I'm not sure how much of the discussion you have followed on a couple different threads, but Brahma is considering sanctioned,[as in formal fire sacrifice marriages] for homos.

 

I am not sure if Tripurari is going quite that far.

 

It is one thing to accept people for programs etc. but to formally give sanction to homosex through marriage is a real concoction.

[BDas 0]

Dear Maitreya,you wrote:

 

Brahma is considering sanctioned,[as in formal fire sacrifice marriages] for homos.

 

Reply: Thanks, I got guite a laugh out of this fire sacrifice post.

 

You seemed to have extrapolated a lot out of my statement:

 

"I would be prepared to do the ceremony myself if I thought that by performing gay marriages I could bring the homosexual community to the feet of Mahaprabhu."

 

Actually, I was thinking of a more secular marriage like do you take this man and man or woman and woman as the case may be etc

 

But come to think of it if the requirements could be met i.e. that I could by performing a fire sacrifice bring the gay community to the feet of Mahaprabhu than I would indeed go ahead and perform a fire sacrafice.

 

(And I would be willing to do so in front of Yamaraja himself and let him be my judge.)

 

Other than that I think some personal commitment by the Gay couple and close friends would be sufficient.

 

Some discretion might be in order here also.

 

After all Prabhupad said women could perform artik in his temples except for some places in India where tradition is so strong against this idea that massive criticism by ortodox hindus would be the result.

 

We have seen what kind of massive criticism resulted simply from my suggestion that Gay unions of some kind be accomodated.

 

Anyway this has been quite a discussion and thank to stone for the kind words of support.

 

Respects to all, Brahma

[kailasa 0]

>BD: And did you lose your authority when you decided to sell books on Mayavadi Hinduism as a come on to Krishna Consciousness?

>BD: Fine, and show me again where Prabhupad said we should sell the books of Aurobindo and Yogananda to promote Krishna consciousness.

 

In the comments to BG, Srila Prabhupada the concept writes - " before meeting with pure devotee impersonal is acceptable "

 

[dasanudas 0]

I tend to see both sides of this debate. i.e.

I like the all-accomodating mood, But it also depends where it leads to if homosexuals are accepted into the fold. If you see some of the sahajiya movements in India that SBST warned against you will see some of this unpalitable persuasion within them, there is a place for them within vaisnavism but not connected to the line of Srila Bhaktisiddanta Saraswati Thakur if they continue to propagate their seperated cause, as it does send a mixed message to the newcomers. But there's nothing new under the sun, India has seen it all, and Bhaktisiddanta Thakur set the foundations for our line, taking everything into consideration for our ultimate good and highest welfare. It's merely a matter of us adjusting to his design.

I find it nessacary to referr to present day acharyas who you can confidently trust, who are in the line of the Rupanuga acharyas, I have personally found Srila B.S. Govinda Maharaj to be a very nice blend of both Srila Sridhar Maharaj And Srila Swami Prabhupad, with his finger on the pulse of modern present day issues but one has to recognize his authority and then accept his verdict on such matters. This is where the difficulty comes in with the western sadhakas, we take what fits in with our thinking and sentiment and reject what does'nt. Whereas if we are truly accepting a person as our Siksha guru their every word is our life and soul, there is no room for speculation, but then if we find contradiction it can make it a little more confusing.

Prabhupad knew of some of his disciples sexual preferences, but I personally feel he would have never condoned homo marriage within the movement. But then maybe Brahma Prabhu is extending Prabhupads mercy further, there's no harm in experimenting if he feels it will bring souls under the banner of Nitai and Gauranga and give others a chance for purification. But my feeling is these sorts of revolutionary changes according to time and circumstance should be kept as his own responsibility and only connected to a line where the previous Acharya is known to agree, then the fruit will speak for itself.

ys MK dasanudas

[BDas 0]

OK, Dasanudas,

 

Your post sounds reasonable enough to me. And I am happy that for now the posts seem to be in my favor. Or lets say favorable to accomodation of Gay unions in one way or another.

 

It think that you are in Australia a country that is not exactly noted as Gay friendly.

 

I live in the ultra liberal city of SF where any person who thinks that Gays should not be allowed equal rights regarding marriage are considered in a fanatical minority.

 

I believe at least here in SF some concession should be made to accomodate Gay commitments. And in other HK groups they should be in the least overlooked and Gay devotees should always be encouraged.

 

A Krishna consciousness movement that expresses tolorance and encouragement for all. What a novel idea!

 

Hare Krishna, BDas

[Guest guest]

BD: (And I would be willing to do so in front of Yamaraja himself and let him be my judge.)

 

 

BB: Then that will be arranged!

[Maitreya 0]

Originally posted by BDas:

Dear Maitreya,you wrote:

 

Brahma is considering sanctioned,[as in formal fire sacrifice marriages] for homos.

 

Reply: Thanks, I got guite a laugh out of this fire sacrifice post.

 

You seemed to have extrapolated a lot out of my statement:

 

"I would be prepared to do the ceremony myself if I thought that by performing gay marriages I could bring the homosexual community to the feet of Mahaprabhu."

 

Actually, I was thinking of a more secular marriage like do you take this man and man or woman and woman as the case may be etc

 

Brahma das,Since the context of this discussion is in relationship to the Hare Krishna movement and you are an ordained priest of that movement it seemed natural to think you would be performing marriage ceremonies in the Krishna conscious fashion.

 

Yeah you really do have me confused now.Secular priest?Hmmmmm.....

But come to think of it if the requirements could be met i.e. that I could by performing a fire sacrifice bring the gay community to the feet of Mahaprabhu than I would indeed go ahead and perform a fire sacrafice.

You are just now thinking of these things?If you teach someone with either homo or hetero tendancies to chant Hare Krishna that is bringing them to the feet of Mahaprabhu.

(And I would be willing to do so in front of Yamaraja himself and let him be my judge.)

Birth of a martyr?

Other than that I think some personal commitment by the Gay couple and close friends would be sufficient.

[stonehearted 0]

Dear Maitreya,

 

You wrote:

I'm not sure how much of the discussion you have followed on a couple different threads, but Brahma is considering sanctioned,[as in formal fire sacrifice marriages] for homos.

 

My reply (I haven't yet figured out how to do all the fancy stuff some of you do):

 

I went through both threads pretty thoroughly before participating. Rhetorician Kenneth Burke refers to ongoing discussions as a parlor we enter, finding a conversation going on, listening a while and then, once you've gotten the tenor of the conversation, chiming in.

 

I didn't see Brahma suggest fire sacrifices anywhere. What I inferred was something analogous to a civil ceremony, a more or less formal declaration of commitment overseen by him.

 

I have a question here. What do we do if a heterosexual couple who have never married each other becomes devotees, and, after a while becomes eligible for intitation? Do we assume a longstanding hetero couple is married and just let them in, or do we probe their lives, asking if they're really married, asking them to produce the marriage license as proof?

 

I think all we're really suggesting is that we treat gay devotees as people rather than as "fags." This requires getting a little above the bodily platform, feeling some compassion for those suffering for lack of a connection with Krishna (para-duhkha-duhkhi), and demonstrating our faith in the processes of bhakti (sadhu-sanga, nama kirtan, bhagavat-sravan . . . or Krishna-katha, Krishna-puja, nama sankirtana).

[dasanudas 0]

Yes it is true I live in OZ, I was born in Sydney where the largest Gay festival on the planet takes place each year 'The Gay Mardi Gras' possibly attracting more people than the Ratha Yatra in India. It is highly organized, extremely disgusting, and lowly decadent not exactly a family outing that you would like to take your children to as it is more like a Babalonian Ball or Fellinis Satiricon that espouses all sorts of sick and depraved activity in the uttmost pomp and pride. Many are delluded by the robust oily bodies undulating on their floats in various unthinkable postures, that these people are celebrating freedom and that somehow they represent a joyous minority movement of humanity, little or misunderstood. But many things are not apparently what they seem in this world. Sadly peoples lives are so empty of real God-centred pleasure that they are ready to join any dance that looks vaguely like the happiness they so desperately are missing out on. Emmersed in intoxication they can't tell the difference between decadence and divinity, so long as it feels good.

So you'll find Ausralia is very Homo tolerant and that one ****ananda is already propagating the same stand you espouse in Sydney.

[Maitreya 0]

Here are a couple of things Prabhupada had to say on it.One of which is to write papers and openly "Challenge strongly" the idea that homosex and religion mix.

 

 

Prabhupäda: ...not sentimental. There is no religion, and still, they are professing, “I profess this religion,” Where is your religion? If actually there was religion in the human society, why there are so many problems? There should not have been so many problems. The problems are in the animal society. Why there should be problem in human society? Because they have given up the real principles. They are simply animals. Therefore there are so many problems. Actually there is no problem. Even they are not animal. Less than animal. In animal society there is no problem. There is problem, but not so acute. They are free. Just like the ducks, the pigeons, they fly from one country to another. They have no problem of immigration department, passport, or visa. They have no problem. These rascals should understand that they have created problem on account of their animalistic, less than animalistic civilization. There is no limit of sense gratification. The sense gratification, homosex, they are supporting. Just see. Just see. At least, in animal society there is no homosex. They have created homosex, and that is being passed by the priest, the religious heads. You know that?

Devotee: Yes, I’ve heard.

Prabhupäda: Just see. If you say that they are animal civilization, that is a great credit for them. It is less than animal civilization. Write all this in papers and everything, all openly. Challenge strongly. First of all, realize, then challenge. [break] Conversations Aug.25 1971

 

Prabhupäda: No no, what is their value? When they are sanctioning abortion, homosex, now they are finished. They have no value.

Karandhara: Well, most or a greater proportion of the traditional Christians condemn homosex and abortion. A good quantity of the traditional Christians, they condemn abortion and homosex.

Prabhupäda: Yes, they are good, but mostly, as you were telling me that, that Pope is disgusted... Yes. Nobody cares for the Bible or the Pope. That is everywhere, not only Christian. Actually there is no religion at the present moment. All animals. We don’t blame only the Christians. The Hindus, Muslim, everyone. They have lost all religion.Dec 8,1973 Converstions

 

 

Now is there anybody here that will deny that a marriage ceremony is a form of sanction?

 

Fire sacrifice no sacrifice what is being suggested is sanction.Please reread what His Divine Grace said about such sanction.

 

[stonehearted 0]

 

Originally posted by dasanudas:

Many are delluded by the robust oily bodies undulating on their floats in various unthinkable postures, that these people are celebrating freedom and that somehow they represent a joyous minority movement of humanity, little or misunderstood. But many things are not apparently what they seem in this world. Sadly peoples lives are so empty of real God-centred pleasure that they are ready to join any dance that looks vaguely like the happiness they so desperately are missing out on. Emmersed in intoxication they can't tell the difference between decadence and divinity, so long as it feels good.

 

Stone: Yes, that's pretty much the way life is in the material world, isn't it?. Although we "liberals" are sometimes taken to endorse the "gay lifestyle," as I said in my previous post, all I think we advocate is treating these folks as if they were actually spiritual entities (sarvopadhi vinirmuktam: free from all material designations). I've had gay friends (including devotees) and colleagues, and I've figured out how to do this, despite my lack of spiritual vision.

At the same time, I don't find any more comfort or pleasure in Gay Pride parades and festivals than I would in a Heterosexual Pride parade. ("Say it loud! We're horny and proud! Say it loud! . . .")

 

So you'll find Ausralia is very Homo tolerant and that one ****ananda is already propagating the same stand you espouse in Sydney.

 

I'll take your word for it, for the moment. Does he preach to the gay community, or just mix (and play) with them? Is his preaching bearing real fruit, i.e., people actually advancing in chanting so that they gradually become free from sex desire? (I don't want to turn this into a ****ananda-katha thread.)

[Maitreya 0]

Originally posted by stonehearted:

Dear Maitreya,

 

I didn't see Brahma suggest fire sacrifices anywhere. What I inferred was something analogous to a civil ceremony, a more or less formal declaration of commitment overseen by him.

That is sanction.Rather Christian style ceremony or Vedic.He is advocating sanction in the name of the Gaudiya Sampradaya.

I have a question here. What do we do if a heterosexual couple who have never married each other becomes devotees, and, after a while becomes eligible for intitation? Do we assume a longstanding hetero couple is married and just let them in, or do we probe their lives, asking if they're really married, asking them to produce the marriage license as proof?

Who is 'we'?That is between the guru and the aspirants.And of course the guru must probe their lives on many levels.And the aspirants must probe the gurus lives as well,to the fullest degree posssible.

 

Those of us who are opposed to this sanctioning of homo lifestyles have precedent in the form of the God given varnashrama system and the example and words of previous acaryas.We are on solid ground.

[JRdd 0]

Originally posted by stonehearted:

I have a question here. What do we do if a heterosexual couple who have never married each other becomes devotees, and, after a while becomes eligible for intitation? Do we assume a longstanding hetero couple is married and just let them in, or do we probe their lives, asking if they're really married, asking them to produce the marriage license as proof?

This logic though contradicts what you are trying to defend. Who goes around asking devotees if they are gay, and what they do in their private lives? We present the teachings, the process, we don't absorb ourselves in what is not our business. And yet Brahma prabhu seems to want to make a POINT of bringing up homosexuality for discussing in sangha situations.

 

I think all we're really suggesting is that we treat gay devotees as people rather than as "fags." This requires getting a little above the bodily platform, feeling some compassion for those suffering for lack of a connection with Krishna (para-duhkha-duhkhi), and demonstrating our faith in the processes of bhakti (sadhu-sanga, nama kirtan, bhagavat-sravan . . . or Krishna-katha, Krishna-puja, nama sankirtana).

Well I say the same thing, and so do others who object to the policy of sanctioning homosexuality. This discussion keeps going in circles because people keep ASSUMING that taking this stance means lacking compassion or acceptance or embracing all into the fold. I personally don't see how the two ideas are equivalent or go hand-in-hand, and it seems like either black and white thinking, or someone doesn't want to admit that they might be wrong. I don't know. But it just doesn't add up, to me. And so it also almost seems as if the underlying implication is that Srila Prabhupada, who is so dear to the all-merciful Mahaprabhu, himself lacks compassion!

 

If there is to be any value in this discussion. can't we all agree to move on from the useless and groundless accusations of heartlessness that some are being targeted with on this thread? And stick with what is the real topic?

 

thanks, Jayaradhe

 

 

[stonehearted 0]

 

Originally posted by Maitreya:

Who is 'we'?That is between the guru and the aspirants.And of course the guru must probe their lives on many levels.And the aspirants must probe the gurus lives as well,to the fullest degree posssible.

 

"We" is the society of devotees--whichever you identify with, I suppose.

 

Maitreya: Those of us who are opposed to this sanctioning of homo lifestyles have precedent in the form of the God given varnashrama system and the example and words of previous acaryas.We are on solid ground.

 

Stone: Well, good for you! Actually, it seems that genuinely solid ground would be a bedrock of pure Krishna consciousness, free from anarthas and from bodily consciousness. In classical rhetoric, a speaker's ethos (credibility) is essential to the message. That may be why some things are more palatable--no, more easily understood--when coming from a realized soul such as Srila Prabhupada. We've seen so many of the "solid" devotees accustomed to using the guru's instructions as a bludgeon come and go.

 

Earlier, you asked Brahma das if he's in consultation with vaishnavas more advanced than he. May we ask the same of you?

 

With respect,

Rockhead

[Maitreya 0]

Originally posted by stonehearted:

 

 

The society of devotees don't vote on if a guru can accept a certain disciple or not.It's a personal relationship between the guru and the aspirant.

 

That is why I posted his words,yet again.

 

 

Your barely disguished animosity towards me is showing oh all compassionate one.But no matter.

 

You can ask.I am a congreational member in Berkeley, not in any camp and below the level of vaidhi-bhakti.I consult Srila Prabhupada's books letters and tapes.

 

The difference is I am not proposing to lead any changes in Srila Prabhupada's movement.That is a very important distinction.

 

So what about his words that I posted above?Do you accept his consultation.

 

edited for adjusting quotation placements

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Maitreya (edited 09-13-2001).]

[stonehearted 0]

 

Originally posted by Maitreya:

Your barely disguished animosity towards me is showing oh all compassionate one.But no matter.

 

Stone: No animosity, honest. Some disagreement, perhaps. Can't we disagree without disliking each other? In fact, if you're who I think you may be, we've been friends. (Think about it; I have given clues, and I think Brahma has seen through my disguise.) The question about your asscociation was an honest question, with no intent to antagonize or embarrass you.

 

Maitreya: You can ask.I am a congreational memeber in Berkeley, not in any camp and below the level of vaidhi-bhakti.I consult Srila Prabhupada's books letters and tapes.

 

Stone: Fine--fair enough. Just asking. If I'd meant something more, I probably would have asked who you think may be more advanced than you. But I didn't, so relax, catch your breath.

 

Maitreya: The difference is I am not proposing to lead any changes in Srila Prabhupada's movement.That is a very important distinction.

 

Rocky: Brahma's just preaching according to his realization. And the fact is that we've both witnessed changes in Srila Prabhupada's movement instigated or suggested by the GBC, the ritviks, and others. And still, inside or outside ISKCON, devotees continue to preach according to their realization. No change to the essence of Lord Chaitanya's movement.

 

Maitreya: So what about his words that I posted above?Do you accept his consultation.

 

Rock: Of course. Do you believe he meant them to generate the kind of hateful speech from devotees we've seen on these threads? I don't. I have for more than 32 years tried to understand the essence of Lord Chaitanya's teachings, and have tried to share that to the extent I'm capable with others. You got a problem with that?

 

The fact is that I'm at least as interested in the way devotees conduct these discussions as I am with the content. Srila Prabhupada often exhorted us to be gentlemen and ladies. He also said on more than one occasion that a gentleman thinks twice before speaking. We should carefully consider what effect we intend to have on our audience.

 

 

[amanpeter 0]

`What's Wrong With Homosexuality?` Well, for one thing, it sucks participants into something which can never reach any mutually satisfying, fruitful conclusion. It just goes on and on, back and forth, similar to this thread itself. There really is no end except to pull out, prabhus...all points have already been made several times by both sides. Why continue to poke at each other in such an obviously unproductive effort?

[JRdd 0]

Valaya this post surpasses your cleverest posts a hundredfold. Touche, bravo, ole, haha hoho hee hee, etc.

[Maitreya 0]

Originally posted by stonehearted:

 

 

I have no problem with that question, it was the statement that quoting Srila Prabhupada as a form of bludgeoning.I see it as a resolution.I am just amazed at the ease his initiated disciples can just brush aside his statements.You would think that the strong nature of his statements would have concluded the matter.And you are not the first to claim that those who oppose the sanction of gay marriage are mean spirited, and lacking in compassion.

The fact is I do lack compassion,but not for the reasons stated.

 

As I said this type of questioning doesn't bother me in the slightest.My level of advancement is not much.Kanistha at best,below the human standard at times as well.The problem is I find that so many devotees who are much more advanced than I are still getting off on some weird factional trips and therefore I am afraid to take their siksa to seriously.So I rely on what I can learn from what His Divine Grace so kindly left.

 

 

This is the essence of the matter.Realization or speculation.Anuone regardless of present status can chant and approach the Lord.Realization.Homos can now be married.Speculation.

 

 

Yes, I have witnessed the same.And in all cases the changes were thought to be realizations.

 

 

Lord Caitanya was firm externally as well.Chota Haridas.Essence is found in the instructions of the acarya.Please him and you please Krishna and the whole Spiritual Sky.

 

What you see in the problem at hand as adaption I see as deviation.You must admit it is against Srila Prabhupada's very clear words and example[he didn't arrange homo relationships].

 

 

I expect that those who claim to represent him in the parampara to accept his teaching on the matter.No hatred, but no sanction either.

 

That is laudable.Don't stop now by tossing aside Srila Prabhupada's clear instructions on the topic at hand.That will cause problems.

That is good advise and well taken.

 

Acarya teaches by example as well as verbal and written instructions.We all agree.Srila Prabhupada's example was he did not sanction homo marriages.He spoke strongly against the idea.He did accept as disciples that had been involved in homosex without discrimination.That is example for us as well.

 

What else needs to be said?

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Maitreya (edited 09-13-2001).]

[stonehearted 0]

Jayaradhe: This logic though contradicts what you are trying to defend. Who goes around asking devotees if they are gay, and what they do in their private lives?

 

Stone: Devotees assume some devotees are gay, and if they don't address it directly, they tend to talk about it behind the subjects' backs (at least, that's what I've experienced over the years). And what I'm "trying to defend" is one devotee's opportunity to express an opinion different from yours or mine.

I think all we're really suggesting is that we treat gay devotees as people rather than as "fags."

Jayaradhe: Well I say the same thing, and so do others who object to the policy of sanctioning homosexuality. This discussion keeps going in circles because people keep ASSUMING that taking this stance means lacking compassion or acceptance or embracing all into the fold.

 

Stone: What I did was infer from the tone of some of these posts that the authors don't like gay people. I could just as easily say that the discussion keeps going in circles because some people keep ASSUMING that a more "liberal" approach to preaching to gays means they approve of homosexuality.

 

Jaya Radhe: I personally don't see how the two ideas are equivalent or go hand-in-hand, and it seems like either black and white thinking, or someone doesn't want to admit that they might be wrong. I don't know.

 

Stone: What two ideas? Illicit heterosexual realtions and illicit homosexual relations?

 

JRdd: And so it also almost seems as if the underlying implication is that Srila Prabhupada, who is so dear to the all-merciful Mahaprabhu, himself lacks compassion!

 

Stonehearted: That's because you may have missed something else I said: that it's the way Srila Prabhupada's words are used by some. You've been around a while, so you must have seen plenty of instances where devotees use something Srila Prabhupada said as a club to subdue someone. There may be more than one who won't concede.

 

JRdd: If there is to be any value in this discussion. can't we all agree to move on from the useless and groundless accusations of heartlessness that some are being targeted with on this thread?

 

Stone: Does that include the useless and groundless accusations that Brahma supports homesxual activity?