Homosexuality in the eyes of the Lord

[Dom 0]

Recently, I have shared my thoughts on homosexuality with people that were contrary to my view. My ideas are religious in nature. The discussion has caused me to think about this issue much more closely, and I'm curious to know what the devotees think about this issue. I am starting to think, that it is so complicated and so controversial that I should just stop thinking about it all together, since it doesn't have much to do with me directly. I think this is a good way to go. But I wonder what the Lord thinks about homosexuality.

[mud 0]

Personally, I don't think the Lord thinks about homosexuality or heterosexuality. He's having too much fun doing divine sexuality! I don't feel He is approving of one persons sexuality while condemning anothers. Besides, why bother when You can let the devotees fight it out, hoping to establish an absolute doctrine?!

[theist 1]

well, it is obviously unnatural, just the formation of the bodies into two distinct genders tells us that.

 

Prabhupada refered to it as demoniac.

 

That is really all we need to knowabout it. But current sociological forces are throwing the issue up in our face.

 

How does this gender confusion generate within the mind of someone? I'll post an article below by one of Prabhupada's disciples that explains this.

[theist 1]

Homosexuality & Spirituality

[From an Interview with Siddhasvarupa dasa]

Q: Many homosexuals seem to be experiencing an identity crisis. They don't know who they are. They are in men's bodies but they feel like enjoying as women (homosexual) or they are in women's bodies but they feel like enjoying as men (lesbians). So are these people men or women?

 

A: Neither. Just because a person is in a male body doesn't mean that the person is male; and just because a person or soul is in a female body doesn't mean that the person is a female. This is because the person or soul is not the material body, you are not your body, I am not my body.

 

The body is like a suit of clothes that you are wearing temporarily. At death you will leave this suit of clothes behind and it will be buried in the dirt or burned to ashes. Your body may be female, black, brown or white, American or Filipino, fat or skinny, tall or short, etc. But since you are not the physical body -- since you are the eternal soul only temporarily in the body -- it can ultimately be said you are not any of these labels like male, female, black, white etc. These are bodily designations only but you are not the body.

 

Q: So if I am in a male body and feel a desire to enjoy as a female -- am I in fact a female, or if I am in a female body but I desire to enjoy as a male, am I in fact a male?

 

A: No. I have explained that the person is not the gross physical body but this doesn't mean that the person is the subtle physical body. You must realize that the mind and material desires are a subtle physical body which is also like a suit of clothes over the person or soul. The gross material body made up of the elements earth, water, fire etc., can be compared to the jacket and shirt and the subtle material body composed of the mind, material desires etc., can be compared to the undershirt or underwear.

 

In fact you are not your jacket and shirt nor are you your underwear and undershirt. You are covered by a gross material body and a subtle material body. You are the eternal soul within these gross and subtle physical casings.

 

Q: The identity crisis of homosexuals is "Am I a man because I have a man's body or am I a woman because I want to enjoy as a woman? Which am I, the mind or the body?" This is the question the homosexual is asking himself. Am I the particular type of external body that I have on or am I the desires that I feel? But what you are saying is that we are neither the external body nor the desires.

 

 

 

--

You are not the gross physical body nor are you the mind and desires.

--

 

A: Exactly. You are neither the mind nor the gross body. Both the gross body (male and female body) and the subtle body (mind and desires) are material coverings that you have on. Just because you are in a male body doesn't mean that you are male, similarly just because you are covered by the desire to enjoy as a female doesn't make you a female. You are not the gross physical body nor are you the mind and desires. You are the soul or person covered by these two bodies. You are not the gross or subtle body. You are the living entity situated within these bodies. The identity crisis exists for a person who is not aware of this fact.

 

Q: So homosexuals who say they feel like women trapped in men's bodies are mistakenly identifying themselves as the mind and desires?

 

A: Yes. Individuals in men's bodies but who want to enjoy as women should appreciate the fact that they are not women trapped in men's bodies, rather they are living entities covered up by the desire to enjoy as women, but their "female" desire is encased in a male body.

 

In other words, they are actually identifying themselves to be the subtle body, the mind and desires. That is their mistake. A person can realize that the mind is not the self. Homosexuals, for example, can separate themselves from the tendency to enjoy as women. In other words they can see this tendency to enjoy as women as something apart from themselves; in the same way that they can experience their body as apart from themselves through meditation.

 

A person says "my body", as if the body is his possession. Similarly, a person says, my mind, which points to the fact that the mind is also a possession of the person. I have a body and I have a mind -- but I am neither the body nor the mind.

 

A person can watch images going through his mind in the same way that he watches television. He can act as a witness to the activities of the mind or he may dream and say, "Oh, I had a terrible nightmare", but as soon as the dream is gone, is he gone? No, he still exists. This means he is not the dream. The dream has ceased existing but he has not ceased existing. So he is not the mind.

 

Similarly, desires continually change. A desire to enjoy in a certain way may exist, but then it goes away. But the living entity does not go away. The living entity, who is aware of that desire, continues to exist. The homosexual should be aware that his desires are changing from day to day, month to month, moment to moment. The person is the one who is aware of these ever-changing desires, feelings and thoughts.

 

Homosexuals can say to themselves, "I am aware that I am now experiencing the desire to enjoy as a woman." By such meditation the homosexual comes to realize that such desires are apart from himself; that he can watch those desires as a witness; or he can try to rid his mind of them; or he can give in to them. The choice is his.

 

If the homosexual chooses to (a) watch the desires come and go, if he is simply a witness to them, then he realizes that obviously he is not them, he is apart from them. He is merely a spectator, separated, watching the desires and thoughts go by.

 

 

 

--

The person is trying to get a grip on the mind. This means that the person is not the mind.

--

 

If the homosexual chooses to try to (b) rid himself of such perverted thoughts and desires, he will experience how hard it is to control them. This should act as further evidence to him that he is not those thoughts and desires. In other words, the very fact that a person has a hard time controlling the mind proves that the mind is something distinct from the person -- that the person is apart from the mind trying to control it.

 

The mind is separate from the person. The person is trying to get a grip on the mind and make it do this and do that. This means that the person is not the mind.

 

Furthermore, the very fact that a person has a choice between: A. watching the desires and thoughts as spectator; or B. trying to rid the mind of such thoughts and feelings; or C. giving in to and following the dictates of the mind and desires, is proof that the person is not the desires and thoughts. The person is the one who chooses between A., B. or C. Also, the person is the one who is aware that, "I have decided to give in to my desires" or "I have decided to try to control my desires".

 

Q: Homosexuals can somehow experience that their gross body is something foreign; that they have the wrong kind of body on. Their subtle body does not match up with their gross body. How did this happen?

 

A: This is all due to their desires and activities in their past life. Such desires and past activities have caused them to transmigrate to gross bodies which do not match up with their subtle body.

 

Q: Some people may ask, "How can you prove that we actually transmigrate from one body to another?"

 

A: This is not very difficult to show. As a matter of fact, we have already transmigrated from one body to another in this life. There is no question of what is going to happen later:

 

 

As the embodied soul continually passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. The self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change.

 

-- Bhagavad-gita 2:13

The soul transmigrates from a baby body to a boyhood body, and then migrates into a young man's body. A person who used to live in a young body now lives in a middle-aged body, And a person who used to live in a middle-aged body now lives in an old body. The young body he used to live in is no longer there.

 

Thus, there is no question whether or not there is transmigration of the soul. We see the process happening all around us. We see a person dropping off one body, then leaving that body and taking on another body. It is not the same body -- the body of an old man is not just an older version of the same body he had as a youth. All the cells have changed, the bones have changed, the whole body is different. This is a scientific fact. The body is made up of cells which are constantly being replaced. In fact, the dying process is going on at every moment. The body is constantly changing.

 

In the same way that there is continuity through-out the gradual changes of the present body, there is continuity in the life of the conditioned soul. The desires that a person cultivates during the lifetime of the present gross body do not die when the material body dies. They remain with the living being and act as the link or connection with the next body. The bridge between one type of body and the next is the mentality of the living being -- the subtle body or mind.

 

Q: How does the mind affect the gross body?

 

A:The mind is the nucleus around which the gross body develops. The gross body is the reflection of the mind. The different types of bodies we see in the material world are simply external manifestations of the different desires or tastes of the different living entities.

 

"The living entity in the material world carries his different conceptions of life from one body to another as the air carries aroma. "

 

-- Bhagavad-gita 15:8

A person's consciousness or mentality at the time of death determines the type of gross body he will take on in his next life. And a person will naturally think of what is most dear to him at the time of death. It may be certain pleasures or experiences he is very much attached to or it may be the form of somebody he loves very much, the person he is most attached to.

 

Whatever it may be, by the arrangement of material nature's laws which are under God's direction, he will either take on a body like the one he thinks of or he'll take on a body made specifically for enjoying the type of material pleasure he is most attracted to.

 

In the case of homosexuals, such individuals in their previous lives were somehow or other attached to the male form. And at the time of death, they were thinking of the male form. Thus, they got male bodies in this life.

 

However, because they still have some tendencies to enjoy as women, oftentimes, feminine traits are there in the subtle body. That is why sometimes it seems like these people are freaks of nature. But it is not nature's mistake. It is just that these persons had very, very strong desires to enjoy as women but they were simultaneously attached to men. The line between enjoying as a male or female is very thin.

 

Q: What do you mean when you say, "The line between enjoying as a male or female is very thin"?

 

A: During sexual intercourse, both parties are simply enjoying sexual stimulations. Whether one enjoys the stimulation with a female organ or with a male organ is a very minor point. The point is that during sexual intercourse itself, a person enjoys both sexual organs at one time. A person can't just enjoy his own sexual organ. But whether the instrument that a person or his partner is using is male or female, it doesn't really matter. All the person wants is the sex experience. That is what he is attached to.

 

Q: Many homosexuals are found to have more female hormones than the ordinary men. Can you also explain how this happened?

 

A: Hormones, chromosomes and the entire physical make-up of people are determined by the mentality of the individuals when they leave the body at the time of death. Because there are people who are attached to the male form but who still want to enjoy as females (i.e. they still have feminine desires such as the desire to have children or enjoy sex as women), this mental condition manifests on the gross physical level in the form of increased female hormones or certain modifications in physical make-up.

 

As I've explained earlier, the mentality or consciousness that persons have when they leave the body at the time of death determines the type of body they will take on in their next life. Thus, if a person has the male form firmly implanted in his mind but still has some desires to enjoy as a woman at the time of death, he takes on a male body but one which has more female hormones.

 

This is a very great science. People have to try to understand it as a science. This is not a belief. People must understand the reality of how the mind affects the gross body and how activities of the present body affect the mind.

 

 

 

--

The consciousness that persons have at the time of death determines the type of body they will take on in their next life.

--

 

Q: So if a person has more female hormones due to his desires to enjoy as a female, is he destined to be homosexual?

 

A: No, You have to appreciate how this internal condition needs external stimulus to bring it to the forefront. In other words, you will usually find that an active homosexual was at one point a latent homosexual who did not need to get into it. But if the environment and social situation promotes homosexuality, then this internal condition is easily set into motion.

 

Unfortunately, so-called modern society is increasingly providing the unwanted stimulus for people to become homosexuals. Through social acceptance of perverted homosexual activities, including the establishment and proliferation of homosexual nightclubs and saunas, society itself is making it so that more and more people are becoming homosexuals.

 

The media is especially guilty of encouraging people who were not homosexuals before to become active homosexuals by propagating the idea that homosexuality is a normal and acceptable occurrence.

 

 

 

--

Unfortunately, so-called modern society is increasingly providing the unwanted stimulus for people to become so-called homosexuals.

--

 

Q: From a worldly morality point of view, activities are judged as good or bad according to the standards set by society. Homosexuality has always been judged as 'bad; now it's becoming 'OK'. But how would you judge homosexual activities from the Absolute point of view rather than from the viewpoint of worldly morality?

 

A: If an activity is done for one's own pleasure, it is bad. But if an activity is done for the pleasure of God, then it is good. Actually, this is the only real basis for determining whether an activity is good or bad.

 

Q: So from the Absolute viewpoint, is homosexuality right or wrong?

 

A: In all scriptures, it is clearly stated that homosexuality is wrong. It goes against the laws of nature and of God. This does not mean, however, that all people who are engaging in heterosexual activities are completely free from sin. Illicit heterosexual activities are as sinful as homosexual activities.

 

Q: What do you mean by the word "illicit"?

 

A: Illicit means having sex without actually wanting to have children. It is having sex without making it possible for a soul to enter into the woman's womb so that the soul can be raised to love God. Even sex in marriage is considered illicit if it is engaged in simply for sense gratification and not procreation. It may not be as sinful as engaging in homosexual activities, but it is still displeasing to God. Heterosexual activities, then, are non-different from homosexual activities if they are both based on the selfish desire to enjoy matter.

 

Q: But there must be some differences between engaging in homosexual activities and engaging in heterosexual activities.

 

A: Yes. People can engage in heterosexual activities and be pleasing to God. Heterosexual activities for the purpose of having children do not go against the laws of nature and God. So, they actually please God. However, homosexual activities can never be pleasing to God. Why? Because the only reason people engage in them is for the purpose of gratifying their senses. They are only based on the selfish desire to enjoy matter.

 

Q: Ultimately, you are saying that the only reason people engage in homosexual activities is because they want to enjoy sex.

 

A: Yes. That is their only reason. Sexual pleasure is their life -- their God.

 

Q: But this is also the goal of most heterosexual.

 

A: Yes. But in this regard, the homosexuals are one step ahead of the heterosexuals. Homosexuality is the next step after illicit heterosexuality, because it eliminates the hassles that come with having sex. It is the practical solution in getting rid of problems such as supporting the wife and children and having responsibilities in married life. Without these hassles, homosexuals can enjoy sex more. And because the homosexuals have less hassles than the heterosexuals, then their position, in terms of enjoying sexual orgasm without trouble, is better than the heterosexuals'.

 

The bisexuals, of course, claim that their position is the best because they can choose sex partners from 100% of the population rather than just 50%.

 

 

 

--

The bisexuals claim that their position is the best because they can choose sex partners from 100% of the population.

--

 

In this way, the choice of sex partner is based on the partner’s usefulness in satisfying the sex desire of the other person. The sex partner is seen simply as a sex object to enjoy with and exploit. This is a practical conclusion of the materialistic philosophy.

 

Q: Which is?

 

A: That everyone and everything in the world is meant for our enjoyment and exploitation.

 

Materialistic people perceive others simply as objects to enjoy because they do not see that all living entities are eternal spirit souls who are part and parcel of God. Materialists think that they are the body. They conclude that they can become happy by making the body happy.

 

So, everything and everyone is used to satisfy the desires of the body. They are after sense orgasms -- orgasms of the genitals, the eyes, the nose, the tongue, the ears and the skin.

 

Q: From the materialistic point of view, it seems that the homosexuals and bisexuals have made it?

 

A: Yes. They have succeeded in becoming the complete slaves of their senses. They have made it because they now have less "hang-ups". "Hang-ups'" is described in the concluding article on Guam in a recent Pan-Am magazine:

 

"Since Guam has become a favorite area of the Japanese honeymooners, it is only logical to regard the island mainly as the resort of blushing but properly married couples. Regard again! Until recently, the Guam Visitors Bureau made a practice of observing numerical milestones in the influx of Japanese couples, honoring the lucky thousandth,two thousandth, and the like, with complimentary bridal suites, champagne, meals and other trimmings. To the embarrassment of the Guamanian officials, the news escaped that some of the couples so feted were not married. Guam obviously is a place for FREE SPIRITS."

From this article, we get the idea of what a "free spirit" is! One who does what he wants without any restrictions. A "free spirit" thinks, "I do not have any 'hang-ups'. Previously, I used to have this 'hang-up' about having sex with someone other than my wife/husband. But now, I do not have that 'hang-up' any more. I can enjoy sex without any restriction."

 

A homosexual, then, has one "hang-up" less. He thinks, "I used to be 'hung-up' with my wife. Then I became more free. Now, I can enjoy other women without feeling any guilt whatsoever. It is great! My wife has started to do the same thing with other women. What do I think about it? Well, it is all right. After all, we are both "free spirits". And now, it is even better. I have gone one step further. I not only enjoy women but I now enjoy the men too. Previously, half the population was totally off limits to me. Now I can enjoy everyone -- men and women – without any 'hang-ups'."

 

And maybe, if he becomes more free, he will come to the point of having sex even with pigs and dogs. Without any "hang-ups", of course.

 

Q: Most Filipinos would think that this is an exaggeration.

 

A: It is not an exaggeration, This is actually going on in the United States and Europe.

 

It may not be a far-fetched idea that, soon, people will start suggesting that we should become homosexuals to solve the population problem. I am just waiting for the Planned Parenthood Association to back up homosexuality as the practical solution to overpopulation. They might even teach it in schools -- women for women and men for men.

 

 

 

 

[yasodanandana 0]

when we speak about rules and standards we have to consider that in the material world these rules are given to make easy, for some privileged class of men, to exploit some unfortunate people...

 

so, in this world, the morality is almost an instrument of oppression in the hand of a minority

 

god, pure devotees, saints, gurudeva are not like that, when they say "he's a rascal.. he's demoniac.. he's a subhuman" they say like with unlimited love with the purpose to bring the unfortunate souls back to godhead...

 

we are in kali yuga

kali yuga is "mixing", nothing is entirely good, nor entirely bad... and no one is a real male or a real female.

 

the first symptom of the mixing of sex is that women and men have the same social place, both go to work, both are caring for children, sometimes the man is richer than wife, sometimes the opposite.

 

sometimes the woman is more mature and she's leading the family, sometimes she's older, sometimes the wife is more spiritually advanced than the husband, women pragmatic like a soldier and men poetic, idealist and sentimental .. and so on

 

so we have the "big" homosexuality when individuals of the same gender have sex between them, and a "soft" homosexuality with the natural behaviours of the sexes constantly exchanging

 

having said this, discriminations have a little place in the life of the devotees... sex is a big entanglement to this material world.. homo-sex is another entanglement added to the first making the things more complicated.

 

hare krishna is the medicine for both complicate and simple conditionaments

[Guest guest]

Whether its homo, or hetero or bi sexuality, to attain spiritual maturity one has to certainly control his or her sexual urge

[theist 1]

I thought that a properly engaged grhastha was considered controlled.

[stonehearted 0]

theist: I thought that a properly engaged grhastha was considered controlled.

 

We all have to actively control the six urges, regardless of what upadhi we identify with. There's nothing automatic about it; we have to make the endeavor.

[theist 1]

individually we must all transcend all mundane desires for sure.

 

But the grhastra ashram does seem to have some sanction from the Lord was as the others do not.

 

Correct?

[stonehearted 0]

theist: But the grhastra ashram does seem to have some sanction from the Lord was as the others do not.

 

Correct?

 

Babhru: Yes, in the sense that there is some accommodation for association with the opposite sex and for qualified indulgence in sex. However, it's easy for the conditioned souls, with their propensity to cheat, to misuse whatever license provided by that ashram and therefore deprive themselves of the real benefits of the grihastha ashram. These are commitment, service, and responsibility.

[theist 1]

but the cheating propensity is not under discussion at the moment.

 

What accomodation do the Vedas make for homosexual activity?

 

Please provide some references.

 

Hare Krsna

 

 

[stonehearted 0]

What I was discussing was your statement, "I thought that a properly engaged grhastha was considered controlled."

 

I was simply pointing out that the control is not automatic. My remarks don't go beyond that.

[theist 1]

The point I was trying to get to is that the grhastra ashrama is a God given concession to our lack of control.

 

I take it there are no God give provisions for a homosexual ashrama. If there is perhaps someone can post a reference.

 

One who is properly situated in his devotional service is to be considered saintly even though he may perform some nasty acts. He soon becomes righteous. Right?

 

So I have been considering householders saintly even while I suspect they may be having sex for pleasure only and not for procreation. Have I been incorrect?

 

If some ISKCON offshoot starts marrying homosexuals am I then to them properly situated as are hetero householders?

 

I find this confusing.

 

[stonehearted 0]

You're a recluse. What does it matter to you what someone else does? /images/graemlins/wink.gif I know of no honosexual ashram, and I have little interest in looking for one. However, if devotees in their 50s can marry to help each other advance in Krishna consciousness, why should you criticize anyone who's willing to treat similarly committed gay or lesbian couples with similar respect? If making such commitment and accepting the concomitant responsiblities helps these people gradually control their senses and they ultimately become celibate, foolow all the principles and chant the requisite number of rounds, doesn't the result justify such an adjustment?

 

You will make whatever considerations are natural on the basis of your realization. I'm not at all interested in convincing you to do otherwise.

 

You seem obsessed with a very unlikely hypothetical scenario. How do I know what you should think if someone starts marrying homosexuals? There just isn't anyone you or I know of who's on the verge of doing so. Your business--and mine--is to cultivate firm faith in the holy name of Krishna so we can receive all of Nityananda Prabhu's mercy. That's probably the only chance we have. And if we do avail ourselves of that mercy, everything else will take care of itself. Bas.

[theist 1]

Hare Krsna

[Radhakunda_das 0]

However, if devotees in their 50s can marry to help each other advance in Krishna consciousness, why should you criticize anyone who's willing to treat similarly committed gay or lesbian couples with similar respect? If making such commitment and accepting the concomitant responsiblities helps these people gradually control their senses and they ultimately become celibate, foolow all the principles and chant the requisite number of rounds, doesn't the result justify such an adjustment?

 

Is it that the scriptures forbid marriage at 50? *Is illicit sex between opposite sexes as bad as homosexual sex? Can we authoritatively say that they are the same? BG says faults in ones occupational duty are not on the same footing as faults committed in an illegal ashram, right?

 

[Guest guest]

"I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman." -- California Governor Arnold Schwartzenaeger

[stonehearted 0]

Radhakunda_das: Is it that the scriptures forbid marriage at 50? *Is illicit sex between opposite sexes as bad as homosexual sex? Can we authoritatively say that they are the same? BG says faults in ones occupational duty are not on the same footing as faults committed in an illegal ashram, right?

 

The scriptures prescribe withdrawal from marriage after 50; nevertheless, we see many respectable devotees, in ISKCON and outside, marrying in their late 40s and 50s. My post addresses the relationship, not anyone's sex life. Your sex life is, frankly, neither of any concern or interest to me. What I've heard from older devotees getting married, as well as some gay devotees, is that having a partner helps them focus better on advancing in their service. If it helps someone progress in devotional service, why reject it out of hand?

 

Nor am I proposing any "illegal ashram." All I addressed was the question of whether a long-term committed committed gay couple may benefit from being shown respect similar to that of a married couple. There are married couples who don't have sex; there are also gay devotees couples who obeserve the same regulative principles I assume you rever and follow. Read my posts more carefully, and don't read more into them than is there, and you'll save yourself a little anxiety. Moreover, you may assure yourself that I'm no threat to your devotion because I live in the middle of the ocean and no one cares much what I say, anyway.

[Guest guest]

 

You're a recluse. What does it matter to you what someone else does? I know of no honosexual ashram, and I have little interest in looking for one. However, if devotees in their 50s can marry to help each other advance in Krishna consciousness, why should you criticize anyone who's willing to treat similarly committed gay or lesbian couples with similar respect? If making such commitment and accepting the concomitant responsiblities helps these people gradually control their senses and they ultimately become celibate, foolow all the principles and chant the requisite number of rounds, doesn't the result justify such an adjustment?

 

 

 

I imagine that he, like most critics, is an idealist at heart, and would prefer that things be conducted according to certain standards. I'm sure all of us can recall having an opinion about a particular practice, even though it did not affect us personally.

 

Married life is really for the young. People in their 50's should be focusing on withdrawing from material activity. Then again, there is no hard and fast rule that one should not be married at such an age. Just like there is no hard and fast rule that a man not have more than one wife. But in both cases, we know what the principles would have us do, even if specific prohibitions are lacking.

 

As far as gay marriages are concerned, I'm not clear under what scriptural authority "gay devotees" would choose to have their marriage rites performed. But as far as Vedic rites are concerned, the vivAha mantras from Rig Veda 10.85 are clearly designed for marriage between a male and a female. "Gay" devotees would have to marry under some other religious authority, because Vedas do not allow for a same-sex marriage.

 

[REASWARAN 0]

The problem with those who have extended consciousness (humans) is that we need to try to justify all matters. let us take purely the animal world where presumably the ego has no place in daily living. I have yet to hear of homosexuality in the animal world- a homo dog or a homo pig ? Perhaps homosexuality is a product of the Kalyuga.

[yasodanandana 0]

"The problem with those who have extended consciousness (humans) is that we need to try to justify all matters"

•••right... but the main matter is to chant hare krishna, so every arrangement or adjustement to bring back morality has to be done, not in abstract, but to spread and strenghten the chanting

[stonehearted 0]

I don't know why y'all keep bringing up gay marriage in replies to my posts. I have nowhere advocated such a thing, nor have I ever said there was any sanction for such a thing. I have simply suggested that devotees may want to encourage committed gay couples to make spiritual advancement by showing them the same respect they show committed heterosexual couples.

[stonehearted 0]

Nor have I ever suggested it.

 

REASWARAN: I have yet to hear of homosexuality in the animal world- a homo dog or a homo pig ?

 

Maybe you haven't, but I have. If you're really interested, you might want to do a search. I don't have sufficient time or interest.

[Guest guest]

Thought this essay I wrote last year may interest this thread. The font I use for Sanskrit characters does not seem to be compatible here, but I am sure it is easy to work out Kali, Krsna, etc.

 

Write a review of Jeffrey J. Kripal, Kàlã’s child: the mystic and the erotic in the life and teachings of Ramakrishna (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994).

 

In this essay I hope to show that Kripal’s work is at best misinterpretation and at worse pure speculation without evidence. Kripal follows two themes in his book regarding an apparent secret of Ramakrishna; the first is that Ramakrishna was homosexual or at the very least had homo-erotic visions; the second is that Ramakrishna followed Tantric practices as opposed to Vedàntic.

…I will demonstrate that even though Tantra, not Vedànta, structured the saint’s ecstasies, visions, and teachings, Ramakrishna was emotionally torn by the tradition and its heterosexual symbolism; he could not be forced to complete the Tantric ritual of maithuna or “sexual intercourse” with a woman, for example, not because he had somehow transcended sex… but because the ritual’s heterosexual assumptions seriously violated the structure of his own homosexual desires.

(Kripal 1994:2)

This essay will show that Kripal fails in his attempt to “demonstrate” that Ramakrishna’s “ecstasies, visions, and teachings” came from Tantric practice and that his “homosexual desires” are merely a misinterpretation by Kripal. I will also suggest a different reason to both the transcending of sex and Kripal’s homosexual theory as to why Ramakrishna was reluctant to partake in sex with a woman. Finally, I wish to acknowledge Swami Tyagananda’s (2000: website) criticism of Kripal’s translation work, but as a non-Bengali speaker without access to the original texts, I am unable to pursue this line of argument. For this reason my argument will be based on what Kripal has written and quoted, whether the translation is accurate or not.

My first criticism of Kripal is his source. While he does make reference to several books in the text, he is over-reliant on M’s Kathàmçta. When other texts criticise this text, Kripal (1994: 170-174) is quick to dismiss them even when they are in agreement with each other but at odds with the Kathàmçta. Furthermore, the reliability of the Kathàmçta is questionable. Kripal (1994: 11-12) points out that the text was described by other disciples as nothing more than “Sunday notes” (Kripal 1994: 12). Kripal tries to justify his use of the text by pointing out that by M’s own account he belonged to an inner-circle of Ramakrishna, but surely the author of such a text would make such a claim. Further, criticism of the text is that it was written after Ramakrishna’s death and by someone who had only known him for 4 years. Furthermore, the text was published in five volumes using the same set of notes over a span of thirty-years. For me this casts doubt over the authenticity of the volumes published after the first. For what reason would M have in not publishing all of the work together or within a few years of each other? This doubt is reinforced by the fact that it was the later volumes that were the more suggestive.

Another example of Kripal’s arrogance in his approach to the subject is that he second guesses Ramakrishna from the very beginning; for example, “If Ramakrishna was a Tàntrika… he himself was not fully aware of his own Tantric identity.” (Kripal 1994:5). The truth from Kripal’s writings is that Ramakrishna hovered between Vedāntic and Tantric ideology; he dabbled with Tantric practice as well as entertaining Vedāntic concepts. If anything, he was closer to a Vedāntic concept of the universe than a Tantric one. Kripal (1994:182-187) seems to blur the differences between Tantric and Vedāntic when he describes Tantric as being everything as part of the Goddess, when all one needs to do is substitute Goddess with Brahman to have a Vedāntic view of the universe; in other words everything is an illusion because it is part of the divine. Kripal’s assumption that Ramakrishna was not aware of his own Tantric identity appears to be speculation; Ramakrishna appears to be perfectly aware of his rejection of Tantric symbolism

Together, the two women acted out the nature of Tantric symbolism with its constant use of the sexual and the “very obscene” behind almost every act and symbol. Whatever the two women intended by their symbolic…gestures, Ramakrishna did not like it.

(Kripal 1994:123)

My next criticism is to do with the nature of Ramakrishna’s sexuality. The biggest argument here is whether transsexuality equates to homosexuality. There are many incidences within Kripal’s work that would suggest that Ramakrishna was a transsexual; for example, “… it was, he explained, as if his own inner essence was “female” and Narendra’s was “male” (LP 3.2.46).” (Kripal 1994: 25). I would argue that the transsexuality of Ramakrishna does not equate to homosexuality but more to gender identity and tradition. I will examine some of Kripal’s other homo-erotic examples to prove that Ramakrishna was more asexual than homosexual below.

One of Kripal’s biggest faults is misinterpretations, especially those concerning Vaiùõava traditions. For example, Kripal (1994: 103-109) falsely describes one of Ramakrishna’s earlier visions of himself as Sãtà being kidnapped by the demon king of Sri Lanka, Ràvaõa as being a homo-erotic vision. The vision occurs as Ramakrishna, dressed in female clothes, is being taken by Mathur (his master) to his house. Kripal’s misinterpretation is that Sãtà was unfaithful to Ràma in the Ràmàyaõa and he uses this basis to suggest that Ramakrishna was excited at the prospect of playing the role of Sãtà to his master. The entire section of Kripal’s book is suggestive rather than factual, how was Kripal to know the reasons why Ramakrishna was excited, especially as Ramakrishna himself wrote nothing and texts concerning him are often contradictory (Kripal 1994: 53)? Secondly, the section is inaccurate because Sãtà was faithful to Ràma (Flood 1996: 108). While the Ràmàyaõa is suggestive that Sãtà was unfaithful, it is one of the main morals of the story that Sãtà remained a faithful and dutiful wife, while Ràma’s rejection of her for the sake of his people was an example of a dutiful ruler; the final sequence of the epic, is a further demonstration of how Ràma while maintaining his kingly duties to his people, failed in his duties as a husband and lost Sãtà. It is likely that Ramakrishna would have been aware of Sãtà’s faithfulness to Ràma and therefore while Mathur may have entertained homo-erotic fantasies (Kripal 1994: 61), Ramakrishna is unlikely to have. This can be explained further by the fact that it was Mathur who had dressed Ramakrishna in female garbs, and it was Ramakrishna that felt that Mathur was a demon kidnapping him by force, against his will; just as Sãtà was kidnapped against her will by Ràvaõa but maintained her chastity.

Similar confusion arises from Kripal’s accounts of Kçùõa and Ramakrishna’s trances. On page 58 it is claimed by Kripal that Ramakrishna entered trances to escape the attention of women, thinking him to be “their divine lover”. However, it is also suggested that the women considered him divine because of the trances, hence, because the trances came before the women’s attention, it is more likely that Ramakrishna entered the trances to gain the women’s attention; not the act of a homo-eroticism. Also Kripal tells on page 58 that biographers claim that Ramakrishna sought out the women because he wanted to be one, Kripal points out this is probably true but asks the question, “why was he letting them worship him as a male lover?”. Was the question directed towards Ramakrishna and the reader, or to Kripal’s own doubts of Ramakrishna’s possible homosexuality?

On pages 59 and 65, Kripal discusses Ramakrishna’s desire to be a woman and to worship Kçùõa as though these are homo-erotic experiences, although Kripal (1994:59) does admit that some sort of transgender experience was happening. Kripal’s homo-erotic suggestion is based on the transsexual nature of Ramakrishna and his desire to worship a male, Kçùõa. Of course, such accusations are absurd; the same line of argument could be directed at ISKCON Brahmin who also desire to worship Kçùõa as one of the Gopãs. The transgender nature of Bhakti has many reflections in Hindu tradition; including an episode where Kçùõa and Ràdhà swap clothes, and Kçùõa appears to harbour the desire to be Ràdhà (Scott 1995:website). To suggest that transgender experiences equate to homosexuality in Indian tradition is to suggest that Kçùõa is also homosexual. However, even if the argument by Kripal is allowed to stand, on page 52 Kripal discusses how Ramakrishna saw Kçùõa and Kàlã as one and the same, “Dance again, O Dark One! Throw down the sword and take up the flute…”. From this, Kripal’s argument about worshipping male deities as being homo-erotic becomes redundant because for all Kripal knows, Ramakrishna could be worshipping a female deity with the desire to be a woman, in which case, the homo-erotic suggestions would be more lesbian, but would also cast doubt on whether a transsexual could be described as homosexual. If the homo-erotic experiences are lesbian because Ramakrishna is a transsexual and considers him self a woman, then much of Kripal’s arguments about Ramakrishna being in love with male disciples and the like would crumble.

Kripal does supply some evidence of Ramakrishna’s love for boys who remind him of Kçùõa on pages 66 and 83. Once again Kripal is guilty of misinterpretation because during such times, Ramakrishna considers himself as Ràdhà, Kçùõa’s favourite Gopã, yet, Ràdhà was married to someone other than Kçùõa and her love for Kçùõa was devotional. Once again Ràdhà never strayed from her husband despite her love for Kçùõa and it is most probable that Ramakrishna would have been aware of this asexuality. Even though the literature makes strong suggestions that Kçùõa and Ràdhà were secret lovers there still remains, as mentioned above, the fact that Kçùõa also desired to free his own female energy, øakti by becoming Ràdhà and that Ramakrishna’s exploits may simply have been an emulation of Kçùõa’s.

Kripal’s most convincing evidence does not occur until pages 160 and 161, where he describes how Ramakrishna had a vision in which he “would teasingly fondle his [naked person] little cock with [his] hand”. Yet there are two areas to look at here, the first is that Kripal suggests that the vision was most likely a reversal of roles and that it was the naked person that fondled Ramakrishna’s penis, he also declares that “there are no passages in the texts that state clearly that Ramakrishna was attracted to the paramaha§sa’s [naked follower of øiva and Vedànta] penis”. The second important factor is that Ramakrishna was having a vision. Throughout Kripal’s book all of the homo-erotic images that he provides occur when Ramakrishna is having a vision, but in what state does this vision take place? Kripal fails to pick up on this important piece of evidence but does give a couple of small clues. On page 163, Kripal mentions that Ramakrishna is not in control of his visions, and more importantly Kripal describes on page 69 the nature of one of these visions, “Then such a desire to meet you all would arise in my heart that on account of this wringing-like pain I would get shaky and fall down!”. The point that Kripal misses is that Ramakrishna “would get shaky and fall down!”, this would suggest that Ramakrishna suffered from a form of epilepsy, and in another passage on page 66, Kripal goes on to tell us what that form is most probably likely to be, “Ramakrishna might be described as hyperassociative”, and he continues to give account of a visit to the zoo where upon seeing a lion, Ramakrishna is ““reminded” immediately of the goddess and falls over unconscious”. This form of epilepsy is known as Temporal Lobe Epilepsy and those who suffer from it are likely to experience deep religious connotations in the slightest of things even after a seizure (Eguae-Obazee 2001: website). If Ramakrishna was suffering from such a medical condition could he be held responsible for identifying some of his disciples with the divine and wanting to love them as such? Furthermore, Kripal discusses on page 121 that sex with women was seen as a cure for Ramakrishna’s “condition of madness”; the question that must then be asked is, ‘if your condition is allowing you to commune and see the divine would you be willing to cure it?’

He wished it so; for once he had seen and possessed it for an instant, he could not live without it. From that day onward he would have ceased to exist if he had not constantly renewed the fiery vision. Without it the world was dead, and living men as nothing but vain shadows, painted figures upon a screen.

(Rolland 1965 [1929]:35)

It may be that Ramakrishna’s reluctance to sleep with women, which Kripal (1994: 122) describes as homosexual tendencies, was merely a reluctance to get cured. On pages 133-141 Kripal looks in depth at how Ramakrishna looked to desexualise women into the role of mothers rather than lovers.

Finally, Kripal provides evidence of possible heterosexual experiences on page 79, “A woman very naturally [svabhàvataþi] loves a man. A man very naturally loves a woman” and on page 111, where Ramakrishna is delighted at the idea of getting married. Then on pages 114, 143 and 167 there are suggestions that Ramakrishna had some sort of a sexual relationship (even if it was just cunnilingus as Kripal (1994: 143) suggests) with a wondering Brahmanã [female Brahmin]. Kripal washes over these experiences and even suggests that the use of cunnilingus is a homosexual experience because it avoids the need for intercourse, but as I have already discussed the ‘cure’ for his madness was said to be intercourse with a woman and may provide a more satisfactory explanation to his behaviour.

To conclude, I have taken a very small selection of examples from Kripal’s book to demonstrate that Kripal’s accusations of the homo-erotic nature of Ramakrishna are questionable and often not backed with any kind of evidence other than assumption. I find it amazing that other scholars in the field of Hinduism have failed to pick up on the most obvious connotations regarding his visions related to the Ràmàyaõa and Kçùõa and the Gopãs. ‘Does transsexualism equate to homo-eroticism?’ is the question that really needs to be asked in Kripal’s book and the possibility of Temporal Lobe Epilepsy is another key issue that needs to be addressed. I conclude that transsexualism, a fear of sexual intercourse with the opposite sex, and seeing and then wishing to be part of the divine in young boys (regardless of any possible medical condition) are not necessarily signs of homo-erotic behaviour and that Kripal’s work is full of assumption and false interpretation.

 

 

[Guest guest]

thanks very much for your valuable input. As a devotee of sri ramakrishna, I am indepted to you. Let his grace be with you always

Siva