What's wrong with homosexualtiy?

[stonehearted 0]

Originally posted by amanpeter:

`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?

Stone: Next thread--what's wrong with heterosexuality?

 

[stonehearted 0]

 

Originally posted by Maitreya:

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

Stone: Now you're getting personal. You had better show me where I have "tossed aside Srila Prabhupada's clear instructions." I thought we had a discussion of how we might apply those instructions. You're the one withthe black-and-white thinking here. "Either you accept the way I read this, line up behind MY understanding of what Srila Prabhupada means, or you're an offender."

 

If we can't actually discuss these things among ourselves without the name-calling, how are we ever going to change the world?

 

Sheesh!

[Maitreya 0]

That is too off to respond to.Sorry stone you are miss reading me and I may be misreading you.

 

Prabhupada's words are self-effulgent.

 

Hare Krishna

[Audarya lila 0]

Dear Stoneheart,

 

I am very sad that we didn't have the chance to meet in San Diego, but I am sure we will sometime in the future.

 

To all:

 

I have one last thing to say before this thread dies. I personally think that this is a very good topic and it should cause all of us to think about our own application of the principles of Krsna consciousness in our own lives. This is basically how I see the whole issue, topic, or discussion - whatever it is we are doing here. Until we are completely surrendered Krsna conscious entities we will all be covered over by some form of material attachment. What appears palatable to one will be disgusting to another and visa versa. In the true Krsna conscious perspective any form of material attachment needs to be dealt with and eventually we need to move beyond it. But, the reality is - now this is based on my own personal experience and my understanding based on observation over many years of involvment with the Krsna consciousness movement - we do not become pure overnight and we do not give up our attachments overnight. An honest approach by all of us should be to acknowledge our own short comings and attachments and try to develop our Krsna consciousness in the association of those who are more advanced than us.

 

I am most positive that I indulge in practices for which I would be condemned by many devotees. My guess is that many of the readers and posters here do as well. If we take the policy of 'hide it under the rug and pretend it isn't happening' will we ever advance? Maybe, but I think much slower than being honest about our faults and honestly trying to work on improving ourselves in the association of devotees. Each of us is called to be honest and progressive. What I have heard here being espoused by Brahma is that he advocates a liberal policy of including all souls in Lord Chaitanya's movement. I don't think that any devotee has voiced a difference with him on that point. Where the opinions seem to diverge is whether or not devotees should openly acknowledge their material attachments and whether or not a policy can be made to accomodate individual's who fall outside the expected norm within devotee society of following the rules of no meat eating, no illicit sex, no intoxication and no gambling. (on another note, it should be remembered that many arguments that have been raised here have been about human relations and not about sexual indulgence)

 

It should be plain to all of us that many who claimed to follow these four regulative principles failed and out of fear or guilt were unable to admit their own failings and instead 'pretended' to be on a platform that they weren't actually on. This was obviously unhealthy and continues to be for those who remain trapped in this type of guilt and denial.

 

What was initially proposed by Brahma as being something that he would be in favor of was a recognition of a commitment by two individual's to try to live and work together to help each other progress in their spiritual lives. The suggestion was based on the principle of no illicit sex. He eventually extended this idea to include those who are still struggling with the sexual impulse but who are committed to progressive spiritaul culture.

 

My own feeling about these suggestions is that they are not as radical as they are being portrayed to be. On the contrary I personally think that it is a thoughtful approach to a real issue that people are dealing with. The basic idea is not different from one which many of us have already embraced in our own lives. It is this: Be honest about who you are, what your adhikara is, find good association and try to make progress in spiritaul life.

 

I am not sure that I have added much by this post to this discussion, but if it caused any of us to think about our own lives and where we are in terms of our devotion and surrender and to recognize our own fallen and hopeless condition then I consider the attempt a success. (rest assured, I am beneath the straw)

 

Param vijayate Sri Krsna Sankirtan!!!

 

Your servant,

Audarya lila dasa

[Maitreya 0]

Originally posted by Audarya lila:

 

Where the opinions seem to diverge is whether or not devotees should openly acknowledge their material attachments and whether or not a policy can be made to accomodate individual's who fall outside the expected norm within devotee society of following the rules of no meat eating, no illicit sex, no intoxication and no gambling.

 

Okay this is my last bashing of my head against the wall for tonight.I am frustrated admittedly.

 

Audarya-lila, it is really not that.The 'policy' that you refer to here is something that Srila Prabhupada has explictly condemed.

 

It is about directly going against the acaryas instructions in the matter.The policy you refer to is the sanctioning of homo marriages unions etc.

 

When two people are married before God or call it united before God it is considered a blessed sanctioning of the joining of two lives as one.I see it as a sacred act.

 

Oh I give up.

 

Hare Krishna

 

[JRdd 0]

Dear Audaryalila prabhu,

 

You make a succinct perceptive summary and I have no disagreements with anything you have said here.

 

I believe though that there is an issue that is for me not entirely resolved, and that is I would not like to see the flaunting of someone's anarthas. It is a very important point you make, about devotees living in denial of their anarthas; still I do not see that it would be appropriate to bring these up in general discussion. Srila Prabhupada said pick your association, and there are some who you may pick as confidential associates, to whom you may disclose, with safety, matters that bother you. Okay here too we like to air some of our problems. But not to get sanction for the anarthas. But to get encouragement, inspiration, reminders of our true purposes and our true constitutional positions.

 

I would like to add that I do not see those I disagree with as lesser persons; Stonehearted and Bdas are certainly without doubt worthy of my respects. If what is in our heads differs, that does not mean that I don't like someone or that I won't agree with that person on other matters. My best friend and I disagree all the time, but weremain in harmony and our loves crosses two decades.

 

thanks,

Jayaradhe

[amanpeter 0]

Originally posted by stonehearted:

Stone: Next thread--what's wrong with heterosexuality?

Prabhu, that thread was already on Vnn and it went into, I think, six pages just before the entire forum shut down! Whether there was a cause and effect relationship , we do not know, but it certainly caused a major and very bitter battle, including a split between many of the men and women. Some of our relationships here may still be tinged by that brouhaha. Is there really anything more to be said by anyone on this particular subject that has not already been discussed several times over? Peter/valaya

 

 

 

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

[JRdd 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.

 

NEW)Jayaradhe: I didn't think that was an issue here. We are all always expressing our opinions here. No one said we couldn't. As for devotees being gay, I have had best friends who are lesbian, and have also adored gay men I have known in the movement, who have been delightful in their services. I even often feel more comfortable around gay men--not hard for many to understand, I am sure. I never thought about the acts of homosexuality while associating, serving alongside, these persons, never even occurred to me they indulged. Just saw them like I saw any other devotee. Never thought of devotees actually practicing the sex of a gay person until these threads came up. but none of this is an issue to me. I am so hetero that I can hardly conceive, as in imagine, what is thought of as the practices of homosexuality. Therefore, I can not relate to it enough to get the slightest bit flustered about it. The only thing that bothers me is the idea that we may begin acting like it's really okay. We never did that for other anarthas. Why should we do that for homosexuality? I am tired of people thinking it is so liberated and open-minded to think this way. (Makes me wonder how many would get abortions if it wasn't plainly condemned as evil according to our teachings.) Genuine free thinking means to align oneself with what is right. Not with what one has sentimentality toward.

 

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.

 

NEW)Jayaradhe (one word, as Srila Prabhupada wrote my name): Well again I believe most of those authors stated they had gays as friends, though I too sensed at least one who actually seemed to hate persons who are gay--and this could be hurtful enough to spoil the whole barrel of apples in this discussion. (I would not, however, place in the category of hate someone's open disgust of homosexual practices though.)

 

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?

 

NEW) Jayaradhe: No, I meant someone being against sanctioning homosexuality (one idea) and someone being mean-spirited (the other idea). I do not equate the two, at all. But I would also like to take a moment to apologise for being blunt and maybe not careful enough with my words. Who am I to guess that there is black and white thinking or that someone doesn't want to admit when they are wrong. Sorry about that, prabhu.

 

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.

 

NEW) Jayaradhe: True. I don't see that going on here though. I see genuine concern for keeping Srila Prabhupada's teachings and mood intact. Especially considering how many times devotees have thought of something new and it backfired. Why not stick with what we know to be pleasing to Srila prabhupada? In the meantime, I will be among the first to sit next to a gay visitor to a temple. But not if they make a play for me (yes, this has happened to me, more than once).

 

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?

 

NEW) Jayaradhe: I don't know.

 

I'm getting too tired to think about it. Seems like we are on the verge of something, that's all I know.

 

Hari bol, good night,

Jayaradhe

 

 

[JRdd 0]

Hari bol, Valaya. to me that thread on vnn was contentuous because it focused on the bodily platform. As if that is devotee women's focus. Also there were blatant descriptions that should not have been spoken about in mixed company. I personally felt offended both on my behalf and on behalf of my sisters who I know to be way above the standard of nonVaisnavis, and I believe that thread arose out of pent up frustrations on the part of men. I hated being thought of as my body. Heck, even ordinary women can relate to that feeling. Not to say I don't feel the yang of you all (and I think the mix is good, when well-directed) but it is much more encouraging to be seen as a devotee first. And certainly never as someone who is Miss Walking Lust.

 

hari bol, good night,

Jayaradhe

 

Originally posted by amanpeter:

Prabhu, that thread was already on Vnn and it went into, I think, six pages just before the entire forum shut down! Whether there was a cause and effect relationship , we do not know, but it certainly caused a major and very bitter battle, including a split between many of the men and women. Some of our relationships here may still be tinged by that brouhaha. Is there really anything more to be said by anyone on this particular subject that has not already been discussed several times over? Peter/valaya

 

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

 

[BDas 0]

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.

 

And you also asked what advanced devotee supports my position so here is my reply:

 

His Holiness Tripurari Goswami is a renowned devotee of Lord Krishna and a disciple of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. He has been presenting the teachings of Lord Krishna since the early 1970's by distributing his gurudeva's books on a grand scale and also by writing and publishing his own excellent works.

 

Regarding third gender issues, His Holiness has stated, "...my opinion regarding gay and lesbian devotees is that they should be honored in terms of their devotion and spiritual progress. They should cultivate spiritual life from either a celibate status, or in something analogous to a heterosexual monogomous situation. Gay and lesbian people have always been a part of society from Vedic times to our post modern times. They should be accepted for what they are in terms of their sexual orientation and encouraged like everyone else to pursue spiritual life."

 

Tripurari Swami has an ashrama in northern California and has been accepting disciples for many years. It should be clarified that there are many important spiritual matters to be considered when accepting a guru, and that the issue of gay acceptance is only one consideration amongst many. For more information on His Holiness Tripurari Goswami, you can visit his website at: http://www.swami.org

 

Hare Krishna, Brahma

[amanpeter 0]

Originally posted by JRdd:

Hari bol, Valaya. to me that thread on vnn was contentuous because it focused on the bodily platform. As if that is devotee women's focus. Also there were blatant descriptions that should not have been spoken about in mixed company. I personally felt offended both on my behalf and on behalf of my sisters who I know to be way above the standard of nonVaisnavis, and I believe that thread arose out of pent up frustrations on the part of men. I hated being thought of as my body. Heck, even ordinary women can relate to that feeling. Not to say I don't feel the yang of you all (and I think the mix is good, when well-directed) but it is much more encouraging to be seen as a devotee first. And certainly never as someone who is Miss Walking Lust.

 

hari bol, good night,

Jayaradhe

 

LOL! That would be Ms. Walking Lust, wouldn't it? I agree with your interpretation of the VNN thread, JRdd. Frustration does seem to be an important factor, especially with some of us trying to come to grips with middle-aged bodies. One householder `brahmacari-wannabe` in particular was a major instigator, in my opinion. Wonder where he is now? Maybe one of those `gypsy ladies` he was so concerned with finally plucked him off the street, while he was innocently engaged in the Lord's work!

 

 

[BDas 0]

Dear Jayaradhe dasi,

 

I think in my last few posts I addressed all the points you directed to me in one way or another.

 

Whether or not some special concession is accepted regarding Gay partners will vary from group to group.

 

Those who are earnest enough will find room somewhere in the KC movement.

 

Regarding Gay couples I believe we should make room for them or at least some group should. Others who have strong objections will belong to a different group.

 

Women also have issues and will gravitate where they are able to find a comfortable place in the Krishna consciousness movement.

 

As you pointed out spirit souls are not men, women, or third sex. But in their conditioned state they go where they feel comfortable and wanted.

 

We do not expect everyone to become perfectly realized and above all conceptions of bodily identification overnight. Its a gradual process and I know you will agree that in some way everyone should be encouraged and accepted if they have faith in Mahaprabhu.

 

Hare Krishna, Brahma

 

[amanpeter 0]

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

The beginning of the end..."Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!"

[talasiga 0]

Originally posted by jndas:

[Note: The other thread is getting too long, so I thought I would start a fresh one.]

 

I think this is a reference to

http://www.indiadivine.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000588-4.html?

 

[JRdd 0]

That seems a great idea Maitreya. And Brahma prabhu, I am in agreement for sure with the spirit of your posts, which is to be all inclusive. I have always had this attitude, to the point of keeping my child out of the gurukula for fear she would have a them and us mentality. I do not agree that the issue of this discussion is about exclusivity or inclusivity. Therefore I can not agree either with your assessment that I am exclusive.

All glories to the assembled devotees.

ys, Jayaradhe

[stonehearted 0]

 

Originally posted by Maitreya:

That is too off to respond to.Sorry stone you are miss reading me and I may be misreading you.

 

How am I misreading you? Here is exactly what you said: "Don't stop now by tossing aside Srila Prabhupada's clear instructions on the topic at hand."

 

If I did misread you, please point where and accept my heartfelt public apology. If you misread me, then I clearly need to work harder on my communication skills (and, we hope, will thereby develop more sympathy for my students and for those on this list).

 

Maitreya: Prabhupada's words are self-effulgent.

 

Stone: Damned straight!

[stonehearted 0]

 

Originally posted by Audarya lila:

Dear Stoneheart,

 

I am very sad that we didn't have the chance to meet in San Diego, but I am sure we will sometime in the future.

 

Stone: Yikes! I'm really close to being outed here! ;-) (Or whatever emoticon works.) Listen--you'll just have to find an excuse to visit the Big Island now.

 

If Maitreya ever figgers out who's in this closet, he'll be really disappointed in me (if I'm guessing right--Maitreya, Berkeley, . . . )

 

As for the rest of your remarks, Audarya prabhu, mostly megadittoes. Some response likely made to Jayaradhe's next note.

 

 

[kailasa 0]

>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.

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

 

It is better to open restaurant and to spread prasad, what for them marriage? Whether if for whom that homosexual more important all is sense to receive them? Harinama, prasad, book....... The cleanness force - force will not be in this case.

 

kailasa.

 

 

[stonehearted 0]

 

Originally posted by JRdd:

Dear Audaryalila prabhu,

 

I believe though that there is an issue that is for me not entirely resolved, and that is I would not like to see the flaunting of someone's anarthas.

 

Stone: I don't think you'll be able to stir up any argument here, JR. I think the issue in contention was a detail of how to meet people who are struggling to become Krishna conscious where they are and encourage them from there. I have already stated my discomfort with such celebrations of anarthas as Gay Pride festivals, despite my personal connection with many gay men and women. (Now,calm down Maitreya--you know what I mean!) ;-) I don't think someone's spiritual authority (however we might conceive that) acknowledging a long-lasting union and encouraging the partner(s) to continue to advance is necessarily condoning any private behavior, any more than if the partners were of different sexes. We toe the line: to advance past a certain point, all illicit sexual activity, gross and subtle, must be left behind. In the meantime, why not aim for a platonic (not exactly--what I really mean is celibate--Maitreya!)relationship based on the common goal of advancing to the stage of anartha-nivritti. If Brahma would go to the extent of sacnctioning a "marriage" (howeever you might conceive of that), it's probably further than I'd go myself. Still, I'd be reluctant to jump up and down and accuse himof tossing out everything Srila Prabhupada has taught us.

 

JRdd:It is a very important point you make, about devotees living in denial of their anarthas; still I do not see that it would be appropriate to bring these up in general discussion. Srila Prabhupada said pick your association, and there are some who you may pick as confidential associates, to whom you may disclose, with safety, matters that bother you. Okay here too we like to air some of our problems. But not to get sanction for the anarthas. But to get encouragement, inspiration, reminders of our true purposes and our true constitutional positions.

 

Stone: Megadittoes to you, too, Jayaradhe! (Dang, what a cool name!)

 

 

[stonehearted 0]

 

Originally posted by amanpeter:

Prabhu, that thread was already on Vnn and it went into, I think, six pages just before the entire forum shut down! Whether there was a cause and effect relationship , we do not know, but it certainly caused a major and very bitter battle, including a split between many of the men and women. Some of our relationships here may still be tinged by that brouhaha. Is there really anything more to be said by anyone on this particular subject that has not already been discussed several times over?

 

Stone: Yeah, I've checked out some of those discussions on vnn and have chosen to stay away for now. The tone of very many of those posts make the nastiest ones here seem like the Lord's Prayer.

 

As I've said before, I'm at least as interested in the mannre in which we discuss issues among ourselves as in the issues themselves. I'm considering some scholarly articles analyzing vaishnava rhetoric and current practices.

[stonehearted 0]

 

Originally posted by JRdd:

[i am so hetero that I can hardly conceive, as in imagine, what is thought of as the practices of homosexuality.

 

Stone: Yeah, me too

 

JR: Therefore, I can not relate to it enough to get the slightest bit flustered about it.

 

Stone: Well, I'll admit it used to bug me, but that's probably because my years in the Navy and the fact that I used to be slender and almost pretty, and so felt a threat even when none existed.

 

The only thing that bothers me is the idea that we may begin acting like it's really okay. We never did that for other anarthas. Why should we do that for homosexuality? I am tired of people thinking it is so liberated and open-minded to think this way. (Makes me wonder how many would get abortions if it wasn't plainly condemned as evil according to our teachings.) Genuine free thinking means to align oneself with what is right. Not with what one has sentimentality toward.

 

Stone: I agree wholeheartedly. Maybe the next thread could be What's Wrong with TV, or with Eating at Restaurants, or Reading Nespapers? We have in many cases come to more or less accept these acts condemned by Srila Prabhupada. If we were on a slippery slope (not good logic, though), we may be indanger of sliding into accepting multiple sex partners, homosexual behavior, abortion, hamburgers, etc.

 

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.

 

NEW)Jayaradhe (one word, as Srila Prabhupada wrote my name)

 

Stone: Oh--cool! (Dang!) Ghandi, Ghandi, Ghandi. . .

 

JR: Well again I believe most of those authors stated they had gays as friends, though I too sensed at least one who actually seemed to hate persons who are gay--and this could be hurtful enough to spoil the whole barrel of apples in this discussion. (I would not, however, place in the category of hate someone's open disgust of homosexual practices though.)

 

Stone: I think you're right here, and I'll bet the nastiest hasn't been participating for a while. And I agree that disapproval of homosexuality is not the same as homophobia (at least in Stoney's Third Revised Dictionary).

 

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?

 

NEW) Jayaradhe: No, I meant someone being against sanctioning homosexuality (one idea) and someone being mean-spirited (the other idea).

 

Stone: Oh--gotcha. And I agree. Again, I was responding as much to the tone as to what was said.

 

If I entered this discussion among saints like a (pile of) bull, I apologize to all.

[BDas 0]

Dear Friends,

 

I think that ample evidence has been given that Prabhupad was against homosexuality and gay marriage.

 

Evedence can be given that he was against a lot of other things including divorce which is now a commonly accepted within the KC movement at large.

 

I am not in favor of Homosexuality and gay marriage any more than I am in favor of illicit sex in general or divorce.

 

I am in favor of being inclusive and that will mean different things to different people.

 

Thanks to Stonehearted, Audarya lila, and others for their support.

 

And thanks to MC, JNdas, JRd, and others for their participation and their lively antithesis to my thesis.

 

And thanks especially to the Gay devotees who took part as well.

 

Srila Sridhar Maharaja used to say that thesis-antithesis and synthesis is the way of progress.

 

Some may not agree with this statement or the way I am applying it here. OK, so be it.

 

I want to end my participation in this thread with this post from CC that shows how Mahaprabhu and Prabhupad advised us to find the ways and means to include everyone in the Krishna Consciousness Movement.

 

Respects to all and Hare Krishna, Brahma Das

 

Seeing that the Mäyävädés and others were fleeing, Lord Caitanya thought: I wanted everyone to be immersed in this inundation of love of Godhead, but some of them have escaped. Therefore I shall devise a

trick to drown them also.

>

>PURPORT

>

>Here is an important point. Lord Caitanya Mahäprabhu wanted to invent a way to capture the Mäyävädés and others who did not take interest in the Kåñëa consciousness movement. This is the symptom of an äcärya. An äcärya who comes for the service of the Lord cannot be expected to conform to a stereotype, for he must find the ways and

means by which Kåñëa consciousness may be spread.

 

Sometimes jealous persons criticize the Kåñëa consciousness movement because it engages equally both boys and girls in distributing love of Godhead. Not knowing that boys and girls in countries like Europe and America mix very freely, these fools and rascals criticize the boys and girls in

Kåñëa consciousness for intermingling. But these rascals should consider that one cannot suddenly change a community's social

customs.

 

However, since both the boys and girls are being trained to become preachers, those girls are not ordinary girls but are as good as their brothers who are preaching Kåñëa consciousness. Therefore,to engage both boys and girls in fully transcendental activities is a policy intended to spread the Kåñëa consciousness movement. These jealous fools who criticize the intermingling of boys and girls will simply have to be satisfied with their own foolishness because they cannot think of how to spread Kåñëa consciousness by adopting ways and means that are favorable for this purpose. Their stereotyped methods will never help spread Kåñëa consciousness.

 

Therefore, what we are doing is perfect by the grace of Lord Caitanya Mahäprabhu, for

it is He who proposed to invent a way to capture those who strayed from Kåñëa consciousness. Ädi 7.33

 

All Glories to Prabhupada!.......BDas

[Maitreya 0]

Bdas,

 

Perhaps you would include this post and any other comments you may have on the innovation thread.

 

Where innovation and change may become deviation?

 

Who is to say and institute such change etc.

 

That was always close to the heart of this discussion.perhaps by removing the homo topic we could approach it in a new way.

 

MC