Tripurari Maharaja

[theist 1]

I get sucked into the dimension of rumor mongering and gossip.

 

Whatever may be the truth, thanks Bhaktyavasa, your post has rescued me.

 

Hare Krsna

[paul108 0]

I hope you're right.

 

Hare Krishna

[theist 1]

May ask if you are feeling pressure to align yourself with any particular external guru at this time? I know this is personal and certainly no harm if you don't want to answer.

 

Maybe just food for thought although I'm sure it won't be new to you.

 

It is just that I have seen so many people take initiation because those at the local temple keep asking them about it and there is a kind of pressure to offically join up. Then so many of these"gurus" fall down and the disciple is left in a confused state with their faith shaken.

 

Are you feeling this impulse from Caitya-guru within? If not I would wait for His direction while continuing to chant,serve and learn. You can still take siksa from anyone while bowing to Prabhupada. Simply by bowing to Prabhupada we are sure to please Krsna. No doubt. No gamble. No risk. No loss. Big gain.

 

All I am saying is please make sure you are hearing the correct voice in this decision.

 

Hare Krsna Prabhu

[paul108 0]

I've definitely met some devotees who've stressed the importance of Harinama initiation, but not recently. Mostly I've thought about the things Srila Prabhupada has said. Also, it was Krishna who enticed me to pursue Krishna consciousness, and He personally told me to accept a spiritual master. I didn't think I could find someone like Srila Prabhupada, so that was a dilemma. At that time my trouble was that I didn't think I could find a qualified guru, but after a few years I realized that I could never be sure of my own qualification. The way I feel now is that the guru may not seem perfect, and I am certainly not perfect, but I have to take the instruction of Krishna and Srila Prabhupada and do my best to satisfy them. Other than that, I don't see any other meaning to spiritual life.

 

I chose Bhaktimarga Swami for a few reasons. He always payed personal attention to my spiritual life, keeping me by his side whenever I visited the Toronto temple. When my wife and I wanted to get married, he personally arranged the wedding at that year's Rathayatra festival. That tells me that he would respect our marriage and not give me any instruction contrary to the health of my family. I have also been very impressed with his sadhana. I remember many times when he would return as late as 11:00 or 11:30 p.m. from home programs, yet he would be awake at 2:00 chanting japa the next morning. One afternoon after a night like that, he asked me to read to him from Srimad Bhagavatam while he had a little nap. He slept for about 10 minutes, and was refreshed. I was amazed that he could function so well on 3 hours sleep. Another time I remember an Indian grihastha devotee approached him and touched his feet. When this happened he offered his humble prayers to Srila Prabhupada, carrying this devotee's worship up the parampara to Krishna.

 

4 years ago when I first asked Bhaktimarga Swami about Harinama initiation, I was following strictly at that time, but had some philosophical doubt of my own qualification. Bhaktimarga Swami didn't offer me any comprimise or suggest that it would be OK to fail to keep the vows. I think that is also important. Sense gratification and spiritual life are completely opposite, so even if nothing else, if he inspires me to follow the 4 regs and chant 16 rounds every day, then I have nothing to lose except my false conceptions.

 

Hare Krishna

 

p.s. There is no local temple. I'm half-way between the Philadelphia temple and Gita Nagari, 80 miles from each. I've never felt any pressure from either place. Soon we hope to buy a house near Gita Nagari, which is one reason why I felt inclined to discuss the issue my recent messages. Hare Krishna

[theist 1]

answer from such a thoughtful devotee.

 

Dandavats Paul

[Vaishnava_das108 1]

Please excuse my late reply.

 

 

I would amend that to say that the thread is about the CONTENTION that Tripurari Maharaja has deviated. I wonder what could possibly be gained by such sadhu-ninda. According to the understanding of the ten offenses recited (apparently rather mechanically) in ISKCON centers every morning, a sadhu is someone dedicated to propagating the glories of chanting the holy name. According to my memory of Monier-Williams, "nind" indicates not just blasphemy, but any criticism or ridicule. There's no doubt a very good reason this is the first offense we are enjoined to avoid if our chanting is to bear fruit any time soon. Raghunath Bhatta Gosvami refused to hear any criticism of vaishnavas, even if it appeared justified. He preferred instead to hear what they had done to serve Krishna.

 

 

I must say that I really am sick of this way of thinking, that even the bare facts of the situation is considered to be "sadhu-ninda," or other names. Also, I find it extremely convenient that this expands even to "criticism or ridicule." I suppose that, in practical terms, those devotees who protested to, say, Kirtanananda's deviations before he publicly fell down are guilty of sadhu-ninda? Also, the anecdote about Raghunath das Goswami is very nice, but I am not at his highly exalted lev el, so I am perfectly entitled at this point to see things in my deluded vision and interpet them with my fault-finding mentality.

 

Not that I am comparing Tripurari Swami (TS) to Kirtanananda, but really, there are specific points of contention that show that he preaches differently from the Gurus on certain specific points. This is undeniable.

 

 

It's one thing to discuss principles; it's another to launch a crusade against a preacher who has inspired many devotees, old and new, including many ISKCON stalwarts. I can't say it strongly enough: Beware. (And I'll tell you frankly that I'd write the same sermon if you were proposing an examination of the faults of Narayan Maharaja, Sivarama Swami, Narasingha Maharaja, Bhaktitirtha Swami, Hridayananda Maharaj, Atma-tattva prabhu, or anyone else. Beware.)

 

 

Ooooooooh! Beware of the big black monstah!

 

Joking aside, the rest of your piece about the failures of ISKCON possibly traced to Vaishnava-aparadha is a good analysis and valuable. However, it is besides the point that I was making. First of all, no one has launched a crusade against Tripurari Swami. One might like to note that he himself is the source of his views on female sannyasa, etc, therefore he offers it for due appraisal and/or criticism.

 

One cannot seriously believe that preaching a completely revolutionary idea will not draw any comments, good or bad? I'm sure that Hitler, Amin et al., also had their yes-men with th specific object of minimising any opposition.

 

Not that I am comparing you to Hitler or Amin, Stonehearted, but I'm sorry but I think this is the very crux of the issue and it has to be seriously thought out, and quite frankly I am not at all impressed about these pieces about "sadhu-ninda" etc.

I see that Stonehearted has been unfairly criticised (though constructively) about his seeming silencing of Theist with claims that he is uninitiated, etc. I must say that I also feel more or less the same way, that I am being frightened off this TS issue with tales of vaishnava-aparadha and the big black elephant.

[Vaishnava_das108 1]

With the intention of getting this discussion back on topic (yet again), let us note this:

 

 

I confess to a certain level of frustration concerning the original question I asked has not been answered in a clear a forthright manner.

 

"What does Tripurari actually teach on gay unions and other topics?"

 

 

Poor Theist, and then I note that no one has a specific answer as yet. Theist has been directed many times to personally ask Tripurari Swami for his comments on the matter, and he has said that he is not that interested (or something of the like).

 

Yet the question remains largely unanswered.

 

Well, the correct answer can only be: Tripurari Swami has not said very much on record.

[Vaishnava_das108 1]

 

"...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."

 

Now, I imagine that many people will take this quote in many different ways and think of it's application differently.

 

 

I shall certainly offer my interpretation.

 

Earlier, we noted how Stonehearted made the following comment: "Even if we listed all the quotations in VedaBase, what would that establish? Perhaps a good look at Srila Prabhupada's opinion of homosexual behavior. That's different, I think, from being gay."

 

Well, this only shows the obvious: that Srila Prabhupada's statements as listen in VedaBase shows direct statements that revolve around a disapproval of homosexual behaviour. I do not have a copy of VedaBase, but I have read extracts of Srila Prabhupada's talks that contain firm and unswerving disaproval of homosexual behaviour. I cna only assume that VedaBase will contain more of the same.

 

As such, we can see that the above quote from TS is favourable to homosexuals, "They should be accepted for what they are in terms of their sexual orientation and encouraged like everyone else to pursue spiritual life."

 

While I have no problem with homosexuals pursuing spiritual life, just like all us ex-drunkards meat-eaters and womanisers etc were/are pursuing, I do have a problem with TS's statement saying that the "sexual orientation" should be accepted.

[stonehearted 0]

Vaishnava_das108: I must say that I really am sick of this way of thinking, that even the bare facts of the situation is considered to be

"sadhu-ninda," or other names. Also, I find it extremely convenient that this expands even to "criticism or ridicule."

 

Babhru: Feel free to be sick as you like, but my point was not about the bare facts but your characterization of Maharaja's preaching as certainly a deviation. It's possible to discuss the issue without denigrating the person. And since the definition of "sadhu" we get from Srila Prabhupada is that soul entirely dedicated to preaching the glories of the holy name, we should be careful of how we speak about such souls. I'm sorry you find it too convenient that "nind" actually includes any ridicule or denigration, but that's the way it is

 

V: I suppose that, in practical terms, those devotees who protested to, say, Kirtanananda's deviations before he publicly

fell down are guilty of sadhu-ninda? Also, the anecdote about Raghunath das Goswami is very nice, but I am not at

his highly exalted lev el, so I am perfectly entitled at this point to see things in my deluded vision and interpet them

with my fault-finding mentality.

 

B: That depends largely on their motives and the deviations they pointed out. Don't be too facile, either, with your dismissal of Raghunath Bhatta Goswami's example. That is our ideal. Of course we all fall short of it, but we are meantto aspire to that state of consciousness (it's called Krishna consciousness).

 

V: Not that I am comparing Tripurari Swami (TS) to Kirtanananda. . . .

 

B: Yes, you are, at least implicitly. Otherwise, what's the point of bringing Kirtananada up?

 

V: Ooooooooh! Beware of the big black monstah!

 

B: Yer goddamn right! (Actually, it's a mad elephant set loose in a garden of tender creepers.) My rea point, though, is that if we're actually thoughtful, we should be able to find ways to discuss these contentious points without offending any vaishnavas. Otherwise, it may be nothing more than gossip (which Mahaprabhu Himself warned Raghunath Das against).

 

V: Not that I am comparing you to Hitler or Amin, Stonehearted. . . .

 

B: Sure you are, but it's not a big deal. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

V: I see that Stonehearted has been unfairly criticised (though constructively) about his seeming silencing of Theist with

claims that he is uninitiated, etc. I must say that I also feel more or less the same way, that I am being frightened off

this TS issue with tales of vaishnava-aparadha and the big black elephant.

 

B: My intention is not to frighten you (or anyone else) off with a boogeyman, but to call attention to the way we discuss these issues. I admit there's a certain arrogance inherent in my doing so, especially considering my own character. But it's a habit; as a long-time aspiring devotee and writing teacher, I have a hard time not caring about the effects of the way we write about Krishna consciousness.

I would characterize the earlier criticism as mistaken more than unfair. I agree that it was constructive both in the sense that it was (at least mostly) honest, and in the sense that I benefitted from seeing the way I expressed my points through others' eyes. When I fall short of the ideals I espouse, I think it's fair for interlocutors to call me on it.

 

I think these points are worth discussing; moreover, I think they're worth discussing in a way that will benefit us all. If I have misread the tone of your posts, I apologize. Stranger things have happened.

 

Babhru

[stonehearted 0]

Vaishnava_das108: Well, the correct answer can only be: Tripurari Swami has not said very much on record.

 

Babhru:Yep, I do believe you're right. It apparently hasn'jt been a burning issue for him.

[stonehearted 0]

Vaishnava_das108: As such, we can see that the above quote from TS is favourable to homosexuals, "They should be accepted for what

they are in terms of their sexual orientation and encouraged like everyone else to pursue spiritual life."

 

While I have no problem with homosexuals pursuing spiritual life, just like all us ex-drunkards meat-eaters and

womanisers etc were/are pursuing, I do have a problem with TS's statement saying that the "sexual orientation" should

be accepted.

 

Babrhu: I respectfully submit the possibility that this may be a misreading of what he wrote. He doesn't seem to me to be saying we should be happy that they're gay, but that we accept their attempts to approach the supreme goal. I know many wonderful devotees who have struggled (or are still struggling) to give up counterproductive behavior. Following Srila Prabhupada's example, I think it's well to see their service rather than the flaws. That doesn't mean you necessarily have to associate intimately (in whatever sense) with them, but treat them decently. I don't think he's saying more than that.

[gHari 0]

I would agree that we cannot blame Tripurari Swami because odd agenda flaunters attempt to twist his words to their crooked purpose. Quite frankly, and maybe this is an offence, but I experienced very mixed almost disgusting emotions when I read "Jaya Sri Guru and Gauranga" at the end of one of those earlier nonsense GALVA posts. I objected to someone writing such drivel and then somehow attempting to associate Sri Krsna Caitanya with such obvious contorted madness.

 

It was like wrestling the Vedas to support an addiction to chicken eating, and at the end of the article saying "All glories to Srila Prabhupada and Sri Caitanya". As though there was any glory at all in it. Their shame was certainly not projected onto Gaurahari in my mind. I saw no relation at all.

 

There, I said it; took me over a month, but I finally broke down. See Braveheart: I knew that lesson from your master's master wouldn't save this mule for very long.

[theist 1]

No, you are right to speak up. Silence is taken for agreement and these guys are really off the wall with trying to graft homosex lifestyle onto the Krsna Conscious movement in the way the are doing it. propping up their misconception with twisted imaginary quotes from Prabhupada that he supposedly, according to them spoke to one disciple who is now off the planet.

[Vaishnava_das108 1]

 

Babhru: Feel free to be sick as you like, but my point was not about the bare facts but your characterization of Maharaja's preaching as certainly a deviation. It's possible to discuss the issue without denigrating the person. And since the definition of "sadhu" we get from Srila Prabhupada is that soul entirely dedicated to preaching the glories of the holy name, we should be careful of how we speak about such souls. I'm sorry you find it too convenient that "nind" actually includes any ridicule or denigration, but that's the way it is

 

 

I don't see how I was denigrating Tripurari Swami. I have certainly been accused of doing so, but I think I have clearly stated that any issue that I have is with the things he is reported to be preaching. If I happen to see something that seems to be deviated from Srila Prabhupada's viewpoint, or indeed the viewpoint of the past Acharyas, I see no harm in saying so directly.

 

For all the guff, we must speak clearly.

 

 

B: That depends largely on their motives and the deviations they pointed out. Don't be too facile, either, with your dismissal of Raghunath Bhatta Goswami's example. That is our ideal. Of course we all fall short of it, but we are meantto aspire to that state of consciousness (it's called Krishna consciousness).

 

 

OK, there is no need to get so patronising ..

 

Plus, why should anyone who points out Kirtanananda's deviations be accused/thought of as having an ulterior motive? Kirtanananda deviated, that's a fact. Where is the 'nind' since he is no longer a Vaishnava in good standing?

 

 

V: Not that I am comparing Tripurari Swami (TS) to Kirtanananda. . . .

 

B: Yes, you are, at least implicitly. Otherwise, what's the point of bringing Kirtananada up?

 

 

I used Kirtanananda as an example because he is a good example of a devotee who has publicly deviated. Since he is no longer a Vaishnava in good standing, why should there be any 'nind' in pointing these out?

 

Then I stated that I am not necessarily comparing K to TS because I have nothing against TS as a person. It is with his teachings that I have an issue. Why should there be any 'nind' in pointing these out if anyone observes a marked forking from Srila Prabhupada's teachings?

 

 

My rea point, though, is that if we're actually thoughtful, we should be able to find ways to discuss these contentious points without offending any vaishnavas. Otherwise, it may be nothing more than gossip (which Mahaprabhu Himself warned Raghunath Das against).

 

 

OK well, I notice that the "female sannyasa" issue is being spoken about almost everywhere I know on the Net, and the TS ashram hasn't issued any denial, so I wouldn't think that this was a piece of salacious gossip.

 

 

V: Not that I am comparing you to Hitler or Amin, Stonehearted. . . .

 

B: Sure you are, but it's not a big deal.

 

 

I wasn't, but if you got offended by my hasty speech then I apologise. I wrote that poste in a bit of haste as I had things to do so I didn't have time to word my responses as carefully as I normally do.

[Vaishnava_das108 1]

 

Babrhu: I respectfully submit the possibility that this may be a misreading of what he wrote. He doesn't seem to me to be saying we should be happy that they're gay, but that we accept their attempts to approach the supreme goal. I know many wonderful devotees who have struggled (or are still struggling) to give up counterproductive behavior.

 

 

OK, this was one of those posts where I wrote in haste that day.

 

My comments were mainly in response to past posts about similar bad habits that Srila Prabhupada disapproved of.

 

I mean, I actually got a realisation that day!

 

For all my years and silent contemplation about how to deal with the issue of homosexuality from a spiritual viewpoint, and how to reconcile it with the explosion of sexual perversions that we see all around us today, I was in a bit of a quandary.

It is true that homosexuality was not quite as public then as it is now, performed mostly behind closed doors for fear of public humiliation, etc. Now that homosexuality has come to the fore and is even being accepted as a bona fide sexual orientation, much to the dismay of the ultra-orthodox crowd, how do we deal with this issue?

Then it is also true that Srila Prabhupada made some comments, though not as much as he criticised illicit sex, meat eating, gambling, etc., as was pointed out by some previous posters. Then we know that he criticised homosexuality too. What more, we find that we even have homosexual devotees in our ranks! What to do?

 

Well, this is the issue. Homosexuality may very be a bad habit and a perversion, and that people who indulge in it are to be condemned from a spiritual viewpoint, this still does not exclude them from receiving Mahaprabhu's mercy, since Mahaprabhu's mercy is also available to all those ex-meat eaters, ex-womanisers, etc., who received it through the benevolent sidelong glance of Srila Prabhupada.

[theist 1]

I believe this reveals why Srila Prabhupada didn't spend time on the subject of homosex. Here we can see and hear that he considered it such a distastefull topic.But he did speak the following at a Sunday Feast lecture when newcomers were undoubtly present.

--------------

 

LA May 21, 1972

 

Nowadays, a südra 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. The four classes of men are there, still. But the third-class, fourth-class man is taking the place of first class. And the first-class man is kicked out, "Go out.Don't talk of God." This is the position at the present moment.

[stonehearted 0]

Vaishnava_das108: I don't see how I was denigrating Tripurari Swami.

 

Here's what I guess I was responding to: The sum and substance of the 'Tripurari Swami' issue is that he has deviated in MANY ways from his guru maharajas, Srila Prabhupada and Sridhara Maharaja.

 

I'd be much happier with that statement if it were qualified in the way I suggested in reponse: ". . . is the contention that he has deviated. . . ." But I'll take you at your word that your concern is the issue itself. Although someone asserted that his deviations were indisputable, I'd suggest that the issue is precisely a dispute over how to understand some of his positions that appear to some to be different from what we've heard from Srila Prabhupada and our guru-varga. Anyway, I'll stop slamming you about it. If you catch me up to my old tricks, please just call me on it.

 

V: OK, there is no need to get so patronising ..

 

B: Sorry. That parenthetical comment may well have been innocent, but it was in fact snide and patronizing. We all deserve better.

 

V: Plus, why should anyone who points out Kirtanananda's deviations be accused/thought of as having an ulterior motive? Kirtanananda deviated, that's a fact. Where is the 'nind' since he is no longer a Vaishnava in good standing?

 

B: Here's an interesting issue: what does it mean to be a vaishnava in good standing? But perhpas that's another thread. I think what I had in mind was that in retrospect it's easy to rationalize all criticism of Kirtanananda. I know that I've often caught myself feeling comfortable with the ill feelings I had for him when he did or said things that pee'ed me off. But the real issue is what my motives were at the time--what my consciousness was. If there was something less than noble motivating my criticism, even if it was warranted, my devotional creeper would have been stunted. (Aha! That explains a lot!) For example, I watched Sudama Swami lead the charge against Bali Mardan in 1974. Bali was definitely deviating. But after he was gone, Sudama shortly gave up his sannyasa, deviated from the regulative principles of freedom, and became the target of the next attacks, led by Guru-kripa and Yashodanandan, as well as Jayatirtha. It wasn't too long before Guru-kripa's deviations caught up with him and he found himself in a Thai prison. Shortly after that, Jayatirtha's creeper was also in trouble, followed by his head. And the list goes on, and on, and on . . .

 

I don't mean to imply that we should ignore clear deviations from our practice and the principles of Krishna conscoiusness as they are given by our acharyas. We should, however, always be cautious, even generous, in our dealings with everyone, especially vaishnavas working hard to spread the holy name. I saw several instances where that exactly describes Srila Prabhupada's behavior.

 

V: OK well, I notice that the "female sannyasa" issue is being spoken about almost everywhere I know on the Net, and the TS ashram hasn't issued any denial, so I wouldn't think that this was a piece of salacious gossip.

 

B: Well, just that a lot of folks are talking about it (literally or virtually) doesn't mean it's not gossip.

 

V: if you got offended by my hasty speech then I apologise

 

B: I wasn't offended at all. It wasn't a big deal. I just find it a little too convenient to compare X to Y, then say, "Not that I was comparing X to Y." I know you didn't mean to put me in the same class as Hitler and Amin, or Tripurari Maharaj in the same class as Kirtanananda. It's like making a sexist or racist remark around a woman or a black person, then saying, "C'mon--it was a joke!" We all write in too much haste too often. The good in that is that it gives us opportunities to apologize to each other.

[Kulapavana 0]

Tripurari Maharaja is a very nice Vaishnava. I mean it from the bottom of my heart. He is very mature, with deep understanding of our tradition and has genuine compassion for all. I have been in our Movement since 1979 and can say with sincerity that I have met very few devotees of his caliber. The light of our Sampradaya clearly shines through him. Hare Krishna!

[theist 1]

What still bothers me is its his disciple that run the gal_a site.

 

I am left with the rather disurbing thought that that distancing is a plausable deniability sort of positioning.

 

That was the reason I started this thread because it is uncomfortable thinking that and at the same time reading his sanga articles which are really nice and from which I try to learn something.

[Guest guest]

Tripurari Swami has several homosexual disciples. Generally it is known that celibacy is the ideal, but otherwise he encourages them to have monogamous relationships. I've noticed however that very few of his homosexual disciples are able to commit to monogamous relationships.

[Guest guest]

Theist, I think these Sangas answer your questions about how he feels about homosexuality and women taking sannyasa.

 

http://www.swami.org/sanga/archives/pages/volume_five/m219.html#5

 

Q. Could you tell me exactly what Hinduism's view is on sexuality and things such as homosexuality and the concept of an Indian woman being covered from head to toe? I read that ancient India was sexually liberated as the Kama Sutra and the Khajuraho temple illustrate but modern Indian society is extremely conservative and any kind of sex talk is taboo. Being an Indian-American teenager, it's very confusing to me. Could you explain what our religion says about these issues?

 

A. Hindu religious scripture clearly mandates that for sexual relationships to be spiritually progressive they must be tied to commitment, generally in the form of sacred vows of marriage. The spirit behind this policy is that the sexual urge, which animates the world, must be regulated if it is to be transcended.

 

Hindu scripture is largely silent on homosexuality, although it may be acknowledged in books such as the Kama-sutra, but not with regard to spiritual progress. Modern Hinduism for the most part condemns homosexuality yet misunderstands it to be an improper choice rather than psycho-physical reality that some people are born with, rendering them as attracted to the same sex as heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex. As modern society has come to better understand this phenomenon, it is also imperative that Hindu spiritual traditions do the same if they are to remain vital.

 

A dynamic approach in doing so might involve encouraging homosexuals to also establish committed relationships in an effort to help them transcend sexuality altogether, as is done in the case of heterosexuals. Of course, such relationships would not include raising children, which is a significant consequence, if not deterrent, to continued sexuality. However, committed homosexual relationships may provide other impetuses for spirituality such as more time for spiritual practice and seva to compensate for this.

 

Although my Guru Maharaja frowned on homosexuality in general, he was also very practical, flexible, and compassionate. One of his earliest disciples was a gay man who once related how he had ultimately discussed his sexual orientation with Srila Prabhupada. He said that at that point Srila Prabhupada said "Then just find a nice boy, stay with him and practice Krsna consciousness."

 

I also had the experience of meeting a transexual who explained her sexual orientation and confusion to Srila Prabhupada before committing to an operation. She told me that Prabhupada told her. "Just pick one or the other [sex] and stick with it." Those who knew him well would have expected him to say something like this in both of these incidences. Again he was very flexible and compassionate.

 

I believe that Hinduism originally held a much more broadminded view on sexuality than many of its expressions do today. Over the years Muslim and Victorian standards have had some influence on socioreligious aspects of Hinduism, examples of which are the covering of a women's body from head to toe.

 

http://www.swami.org/sanga/archives/pages/volume_three/m140.html

 

Q. What was Prabhupada's opinion of homosexuality?

 

A. Prabhupada felt that homosexuality was a material reflection of sakhya rasa. When one of his disciples told him he was homosexual, Prabhupada replied , "No, you just need a friend (Krsna)." The sexual urge must be replaced with love for Krsna.

 

http://www.swami.org/sanga/archives/pages/volume_four/m205.html

 

Q. Why aren't women allowed to take sannyasa? If women are not these bodies and Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy teaches that all souls are equal and get an equal opportunity to go back to Krsna, then why is there a restriction against women taking sannyasa? This restriction indicates to me that women are not being given the same opportunity as men for full spiritual advancement. In other spiritual societies women are given sannyasa, so why is it different in Gaudiya Vaisnavism? When I asked this question of other devotees, the answer I received was that women are not given sannyasa because they are supposed to be protected. However, I am aware that devotee women are not always protected and sometimes are even sent out alone to preach in foreign countries, including Africa. Please enlighten me on this matter.

 

A. The heart of Vaisnava sannyasa is renouncing material life and embracing the service of Sri Krsna. This is open to both men and women. Whereas the formality of accepting the renounced order of sannyasa has largely been restricted to men in consideration of socioreligious concerns. However, as circumstances change and these concerns are no longer relevant, I see no reason why women should be barred from accepting sannyasa.

 

In our times the relevance of anyone formally accepting sannyasa is questionable in terms of how it is perceived by the public. Furthermore, the tendency to equate the formal acceptance of sannyasa with spiritual advancement has caused many devotees to aspire for the formality of sannyasa rather than the substance of the order.

 

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu took the renounced order of life for the sake of preaching. At that time sannyasis were respected in Indian society, and thus Mahaprabhu took advantage of this in order to bring attention to his message. Similarly, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura instituted Vaisnava sannyasa in his lineage nearly a century ago. Among other reasons, he did this for the purpose of bringing dignity to the Gaudiya lineage in the eyes of the masses, who, due to the influence of the Advaitins and smarta brahmanas, over-identified the formal order of sannyasa with spiritual advancement and believed that one must be born in a brahmana family and then take sannyasa in order to attain liberation.

 

In his lineage, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta gave sannyasa only to those who were born in brahmana families and he engaged them in preaching widely. In that lineage the practice of accepting sannyasa continues to this day although the criteria for accepting this order of life is no longer restricted to those born in brahmana families. Indeed we now have sannyasis who by socioreligious caste consideration were born as "untouchables."

 

Today the general public does not automatically identify the sannyasa dress with spiritual advancement, and thus it may not always be conducive to furthering the message of Mahaprabhu. For example, although Srila Prabhupada gave me sannyasa, at one point he also wrote that in consideration of my preaching service at the time, which involved dressing in secular clothes, such acceptance of the formalities of sannyasa might be more of a hindrance than anything else. Therefore advanced devotees should determine whom to give sannyasa to in consideration of a number of factors, among which public opinion and perception is as important as is the devotee's level of spiritual advancement. At some point public opinion could warrant either the need for woman sannyasis or no sannyasis at all. At the same time, the tradition very much needs the guidance of spiritually advanced devotees, both male and female, who have renounced material life.

 

My personal opinion in consideration of public perception is that there is considerable merit in continuing the sannyasa tradition today but that the criteria for its acceptance should rest in greater spiritual advancement and scriptural knowledge than has been the standard in the recent past. I also believe that it is likely that there are a number of women who meet these criteria.

 

 

[theist 1]

 

Although my Guru Maharaja frowned on homosexuality in general, he was also very practical, flexible, and compassionate. One of his earliest disciples was a gay man who once related how he had ultimately discussed his sexual orientation with Srila Prabhupada. He said that at that point Srila Prabhupada said "Then just find a nice boy, stay with him and practice Krsna consciousness."

 

 

Where is that recorded anywhere? I knew Upendra. I even used to drop LSD with him at one point. He never said anything like that to me although we rarely talked of this subject.

 

Until you can back this up I think it is very dishonest of you to keep repeating it.

 

[theist 1]

I've read that sanga article. Thanks. Anyway I don't wish to start this up again.

 

On the woman and sannyasa issue i have realized it's none of my business really. I have long been open to hearing Krsna consciousness from a man or woman that knows Krsna irrespective of how he or she happens to be dressed.

[Guest guest]

 

Tripurari Swami has several homosexual disciples. Generally it is known that celibacy is the ideal, but otherwise he encourages them to have monogamous relationships. I've noticed however that very few of his homosexual disciples are able to commit to monogamous relationships.

 

 

I sympathize with homosexual people and have no ill will towards them, and I see no reason why homosexual people who agree to follow the 4 regulative principles can not get initiation.

 

However, if the above quoted is true, then I think it does represent a clear departure from Srila Prabhupada's standard. Actually, it's a departure from the Vedic standard. If one is practicing any sexual intercourse outside of procreation within marriage then it is a deviation.

 

Now, one could argue that even many heterosexuals would have trouble with that principle. To which I would respond that such people should not be given initiation. Why is there so much emphasis on having so many disciples? Seems to me that it would be better to have a few meaningful initiations than a whole bunch where regulative principles are not so strictly followed. A single moon is worth a thousand stars.

 

There is no reason that bhaktas who are not so strict cannot benefit from the devotees' association and come to the temple; but they shouldn't get initiation unless they are really going to follow the 4 regs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>Until you can back this up I think it is very dishonest of >you to keep repeating it.

 

I was repeating Tripurari Swami's opinion, since the original topic of this thread asked what his views were and at the time the original thread was posted, these Sangas were not yet published. Anyway, it is Tripurari Swami's job to back it up, not mine.