...and don't look back.

[Guest guest]

Kaveri Devi Dasi wrote:

 

"We are part of an already degraded society. We shouldn't forget this and act as if this has nothing to do with us. As devotees we don't want to water down the standards or principles, because we understand that the result won't be the same. But what's the object of all the rules and regulations we have? What's the purpose of ISKCON?"

 

I find this hits the spot. What is the purpose of ISKCON ?

 

Is the purpose of ISKCON to be like the Christian right in America ? Is Iskcon supposed to be the moral watchdogs of society ? Is ISKCON supposed to be the gateway to Vraja or the demagogic enforcer of morality ?

 

If ISKCON takes the stand of being the morality police then this will automatically curtail it's effectiveness in being the gateway to Vraja. This is an axiomatic truth. What would happen is that spirituality would be replaced by moral ideology. Instead of ISKCON being about the distribution of Kirtan and prasadam and the Bhagavata, it's purpose would be to tell people what is wrong with their lives. It would change from being a purveyor of a positive into being a purveyor of a negative. Instead of embracing all people and sharing the gift of Sri Sri Radha Govinda, it would be about finding faults with people.

 

This is seen all the time. Some devotees preach about Krishna, some preach about Maya. Some preach about the positive message of the Gita, others preach about the negative moral situation in the present day society.

 

There has to be a balance. If you want ISKCON to succeed, then any impediment to that success will be anathema. If you care more about the integrity of preaching a moral dogma, then you will not care about the impediments that will be created to the success of the overall mission by insisting on that.

 

Hrdayananda Maharaja clearly cares more about the success of the mission. In modern society we find a different social paradigm then the one during Srila Prabhupadas lila among us. The politically correct viewpoint is the respected viewpoint among the class of people who will be naturally attracted to ISKCON. This means the liberal class of society. In Europe that is the over whelming majority of people. In America that is around 60% of the people. If ISKCON presents a politically incorrect attitude towards the Gay issue, then it will alienate it's natural audience.

 

This has to do with the success of ISKCON. One of the offenses to the holy name is considering the holy name to be equal to mundane morality or some kind of activity in the mode of goodness. If we take the mundane moral high ground on the basis of the moral unacceptablity of Gay marriage in the present social situation, then we commit an offense to the name. We deny accesss to the name by aligning ourselves with reactionary politics in the minds of the public, or non vaisnavas. By siding with mundane moral paradigms that are unpopular and insignificant to our purpose, then we equate the chanting of the holy name with mundane morality. The Sankirtan movement is above mundane morality and to hold it hostage to it, would be a mistake. By taking the path as shown by Hrdayananda Maharaja, only good can come of it. ISKCON will be seen as the champion of liberty and human rights by our naural audience. I see his suggestion as the idea of a person who wants all facility for the spreading of the holy name to be opened up. I cheer his brave writing.

[theist 1]

 

I can see how his comments are related to the subject of same-sex unions, marriage, or whatever. I will not be bullied into apologizing for reading carefully, nor for recommending others to read carefully so we don't nbeed to waste time, energy, and enmity discussing something unnecessarily. (That's supposed to be a sign that I don't really feel bullied by you, theist, but also that I won't let anyone intimidate me with Limbaugh-esque name calling, such as "pinhead acadimic elitist.")

 

 

Wow pretty sensitive there Babhru. Actually I meant what I wrote just as I wrote it. You often mention how its your naqture to read everything very carefully because you are a professor and your job requires it. I thought that is why you may have taken the topic so narrowly. And actually iI know you may like to think of everyone who sees this from a different view point as being self righteous and filled with disgust but I have just been discussing this as I see it as very important to the survival of that organiztion. Even though I don't go there much myself(like 1 time in the last 14 months) I can ceratinly see the positive work they do and the possiblities for a great future are there.

 

I see this gay marriage idiocy as ruinning ISKCON. Yes no less then destroying what the guru sham hasn't already. What are you good kind heart "all inclusive" types never figure in is how many people you are going to chase away with this nonsense. How much support you will lose. but of course the void won't last as the homosexual community will rush in to help out for the political propaganda value if nothing else.

I have said my piece for this thread.

 

 

 

Umapati Maharaja, whom I have known for 32 years and who seems rather conservative (I'm not fond of a conservative/progressive [or liberal] dichotomy, at least among devotees) with regard to many issues, urges the same. It's not an elitist-professor thing but an important element of civil discourse.

 

 

[stonehearted 0]

At least for now. Gotta go spend time with my heterosexual family.

 

theist, my remarks about self righteousness were written with tongue firmly in cheek, and were aimed at myself at least as much as at you, Jahnava, and others whose perspective is different from mine. This is an icky topic, no matter who's looking. Many devotees who are gay may take umbrage at the remarks of those who are less tolerant of them, and the more "conservative" among us see the others as blinded by sentimentalism. As far as the purpose of ISKCON, I've occasionally posted Srila Prabhupada's list of seven purposes for that institution. We all would do well to read them carefully and assimilate the ideals presented there.

 

And, dammit--bring on the hugs!

 

Mo' laytah, but maybe on another topic.

 

Babhru

[krsna 3]

I married a gay devotee

 

by Iccha dhari d.d.

 

Posted December 22, 2004

 

I would like to thank HH Hridayananda Maharaja for his objective, human and caring view on gay devotees in our movement. But what will happen next? I can imagine that many of his godbrothers do not agree with it and will criticise him for making such comments. How unfortunate. I am just patiently waiting for the time when we start to care for each other on the human level and when this policy about gay devotees will be clear once and for all -- they have the right to be in the same relationships as heterosexual devotees. They have the same need for affection, love, care and partnership.

 

I was married to a gay devotee 3 years ago. I didn't have a clue about his sexual orientation. Recently we separated. It was very painful and emotionally exhausting for both of us, and the most painful thing about it was that his guru and some of his godbrothers knew about his sexual orientation and didn't tell me anything. I felt very cheated. Somehow, our society is forcing those devotees to act against their nature and thus hurting others as well. It is not fair.

 

Now I see it as Krsna's arrangement, because the whole situation helped me to understand gays and to realize that they are the same spirit souls as all others with the same needs in life.

 

If some devotee feels he doesn't want to follow celibacy anymore, he is suggested to get married -- quite natural -- but, from gays, everybody is expecting that they either marry a member of the opposite sex or stay celibate. That is quite unfair, don't you think?

 

[krsna 3]

from Umapati Swami:

 

There are a lot of letters coming about Gay Monogamy, and I haven't had time to answer the ones that have problems, so I'd like to put down a few ground rules for the discussion.

 

The question is, Should we encourage homosexuals to renounce promiscuity and take up monogamy, not as a facility for illicit sex but as a step toward eventual renouncement, just as we encourage heterosexual people to take up monogamy for the same reason?

 

Everyone agrees that homosexual sex is illicit sex, so there is no need to write articles trying to prove that point. Nor is there any need to write articles describing the sexual things that homosexuals do or to say that homosexuals are incapable of monogamy unless you know every homosexual in the world.

 

Srila Prabhupada disapproved of same-sex marriage, but are there other ways to encourage same-sex monogamy without going against the letter or the spirit of his instructions?

 

 

[krsna 3]

Process of Krishna consciousness is practical and gradual

by Hrdayananda das Goswami

Posted January 3, 2005

 

Recently, I posted a text recommending a particular strategy for helping devotees whose bodies are homosexual. I realize that my remarks were brief and perhaps thus lend themselves to misinterepration. I apologize for that.

 

I am now writing a much more elaborate explanation of my views that will, I hope, correct this problem. In the meantime, I would request devotees to read carefully. It is simply not possible for me to respond to every letter on this and other forums, but I will address one letter, simply to demonstrate the need for careful reading.

 

A letter has appeared on Dipika stating: "It's not really a solution to give all people who say they are gay some formal recognized status."

 

I did not propose "to give all people who say they are gay some formal recognized status." Rather I am concerned with sincere devotees who a) are trying their best to give up sense gratification and advance in Krishna consciousness, b) are homosexual, and c) are unable at this point to completely renounce.

 

The core of the issue is this: the fallen soul has to give up all sin and sense gratification and return to Krishna. This can only be done in the association of devotees. Therefore Prabhupada formed ISKCON. We do not justify or condone sin, but we try to encourage sincere devotees to come and take good association and advance so that they can gradually give up sin. I suggested a practical means to help certain sincere devotees who are trying to free themselves from sin and sense gratification.

 

Far from justifying homosexual behavior, I suggest a means by which such devotees can gradually give up that behavior. What I am accepting is the fact that a spirit soul can simultaneously be a) a sincere devotee trying to be Krishna conscious, b) incapable at the moment of total renunciation, and c) homosexual. I further assume that we should do what we can to help those people advance in Krishna consciousness, the only means to transcend sin.

 

"If you are really serious about giving gays a solution in spiritual life, then why not take a look at the factors that lead to homosexuality? There are numerous studies being conducted into just that very matter."

 

According to this logic, we can easily stop all heterosexual activity within ISKCON not aimed at procreation if we simply "take a look at the factors that lead to" such sex. Prabhupada stated that Krishna consciousness is a gradual process and that is true for everyone. Are we to now believe that for sincere devotees with homosexual bodies, Krishna consciousness is not a gradual process? Are homosexuals actually more advanced than heterosexuals, in that heterosexuals give up lust only gradually but homosexuals can do it instantly?

 

The fact that an activity is sinful does not necessarily make it easier to give up. I have proposed a practical strategy to renounce homosexuality, and a degree of compassion that will encourage devotees struggling with this issue to associate with other devotees and get the strength they need gradually to give up their sinful activities. If we simply condemn and despise such devotees, they will not at all be encouraged to associate with ISKCON, and thus it will actually be much more difficult for them to renounce sin.

 

In conclusion, I will soon publish here and elsewhere a much more elaborate statement on this issue, quoting Krishna Himself and other great authorities in favor of doing what is practical to help individuals to improve themselves, even if such strategies are not explicitly given as shastric rules. Again, it is Krishna Himself who says this, along with other great authorities. Stay tuned. And read carefully.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

The core of the issue is this: the fallen soul has to give up all sin and sense gratification and return to Krishna. This can only be done in the association of devotees. Therefore Prabhupada formed ISKCON. We do not justify or condone sin, but we try to encourage sincere devotees to come and take good association and advance so that they can gradually give up sin.

 

 

 

The key point of contention was that Hridayananda Maharaja suggested ISKCON give formal recognition and appreciation to monogomous homosexual relationships.

 

In his latest reply he tries to hide that issue while putting forward a position no one is arguing against. Yes, all people should be helped to gradually give up sinful activity in the association of devotees. No one disagrees with that.

 

But why give "formal recognition and appreciation" for their sinful activities?

 

I would have to agree with Theist's statement that ISKCON is Prabhupada's society, so let it hold up his standards and teachings.

[stonehearted 0]

The phrase "formal recognition" is the real problem. Perhaps he'll explain it more completely in his next installment. In the meantime, I think it's unnecessarily contentious to characterize his postion as formally appreciating their sinful acitivies; I believe it may be more honest (and, yes, it complicates the issue) to note that the appreciation is for the commitment that may gradually carry the partners to a higher devotional standard. In all ISKCON communities I've lived in, that's how the devotees treat heterosexual couples.

 

Please note how I qualified my suggestions in the previous paragraph. Careful reading is a virute, not a vice.

[Kulapavana 0]

instead of concentrating on humility - befitting all of us fallen souls - we become preoccupied with "appreciation" and "recognition".

[theist 1]

Process of Krishna consciousness is practical and gradual

by Hrdayananda das Goswami

 

 

Recently, I posted a text recommending a particular strategy for helping devotees whose bodies are homosexual. I realize that my remarks were brief and perhaps thus lend themselves to misinterepration. I apologize for that.

 

I am now writing a much more elaborate explanation of my views that will, I hope, correct this problem. In the meantime, I would request devotees to read carefully. It is simply not possible for me to respond to every letter on this and other forums, but I will address one letter, simply to demonstrate the need for careful reading.

 

A letter has appeared on Dipika stating: "It's not really a solution to give all people who say they are gay some formal recognized status."

 

I did not propose "to give all people who say they are gay some formal recognized status." Rather I am concerned with sincere devotees who a) are trying their best to give up sense gratification and advance in Krishna consciousness, b) are homosexual, and c) are unable at this point to completely renounce.

 

The core of the issue is this: the fallen soul has to give up all sin and sense gratification and return to Krishna. This can only be done in the association of devotees. Therefore Prabhupada formed ISKCON. We do not justify or condone sin, but we try to encourage sincere devotees to come and take good association and advance so that they can gradually give up sin. I suggested a practical means to help certain sincere devotees who are trying to free themselves from sin and sense gratification.

 

Far from justifying homosexual behavior, I suggest a means by which such devotees can gradually give up that behavior. What I am accepting is the fact that a spirit soul can simultaneously be a) a sincere devotee trying to be Krishna conscious, b) incapable at the moment of total renunciation, and c) homosexual. I further assume that we should do what we can to help those people advance in Krishna consciousness, the only means to transcend sin.

 

"If you are really serious about giving gays a solution in spiritual life, then why not take a look at the factors that lead to homosexuality? There are numerous studies being conducted into just that very matter."

 

According to this logic, we can easily stop all heterosexual activity within ISKCON not aimed at procreation if we simply "take a look at the factors that lead to" such sex. Prabhupada stated that Krishna consciousness is a gradual process and that is true for everyone. Are we to now believe that for sincere devotees with homosexual bodies, Krishna consciousness is not a gradual process? Are homosexuals actually more advanced than heterosexuals, in that heterosexuals give up lust only gradually but homosexuals can do it instantly?

 

The fact that an activity is sinful does not necessarily make it easier to give up. I have proposed a practical strategy to renounce homosexuality, and a degree of compassion that will encourage devotees struggling with this issue to associate with other devotees and get the strength they need gradually to give up their sinful activities. If we simply condemn and despise such devotees, they will not at all be encouraged to associate with ISKCON, and thus it will actually be much more difficult for them to renounce sin.

 

In conclusion, I will soon publish here and elsewhere a much more elaborate statement on this issue, quoting Krishna Himself and other great authorities in favor of doing what is practical to help individuals to improve themselves, even if such strategies are not explicitly given as shastric rules. Again, it is Krishna Himself who says this, along with other great authorities. Stay tuned. And read carefully.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

The key point of contention was that Hridayananda Maharaja suggested ISKCON give formal recognition and appreciation to monogomous homosexual relationships.

 

In his latest reply he tries to hide that issue while putting forward a position no one is arguing against. Yes, all people should be helped to gradually give up sinful activity in the association of devotees. No one disagrees with that.

 

But why give "formal recognition and appreciation" for their sinful activities?

 

I would have to agree with Theist's statement that ISKCON is Prabhupada's society, so let it hold up his standards and teachings.

 

 

Why not give formal recognition and appreciation ?

 

What are the pros and cons ?

 

Pro- Iskcon would be seen and admired by the liberal and progressive sections of western society and gain good publicity and interest.

 

Pro- Gays would be interseted to learn what Krishna consciousness is all about.

 

Pro- Gays are wealthier, better educated, and more influential in western society then any other other sub culture or the avergae person.

 

Con- Right wing reactionaries would be displeased. But they are generally not attracted to Krishna consciousness anyways.

 

As far as promoting the idea that Iskcon is Prabhupadas movement, I think Prabhupada would find that to be improper. Iskcon is meant to be the continuation of His Guru's mission, which was a continuation of His Guru's mission, etc.

 

Each Acarya can make changes according to time, place, and circumstance. If we eliminate that from Iskcon, then it become sand institution based on one Acarya, instead of an institution carrying on the eternal Parampara. What if Prabhupada had the attitude you promote ? Then he would have made Iskcon as an exact copy of the Gaudiya Math. No women would have been allowed. Iskcon was created by Prabhupada but He is not the purpose of Iskcon. Iskcon's purpose is to continue on with he Parampara. time, place and circumstances change, and the Acaryas can change things according to their discretion. That is the tradition. Otherwise Iskcon should change it's name to the the International society for Prabhupada consciousness.

 

When you deify one Acarya and make his preaching mode the eternal mode for all and everyone else, then the parampara is over in that society.

 

If Iskcon wants to promote itself as a socially reactionary tradition, then it will repel anyone who finds that to be unacceptable. Since Iskcons main and almost exclusive source for new blood comes from the sector of society which abhors reactionary social dogma, by promoting a Gay friendly face, then that will be seen as inclusive and progressive and invite furthur investigation.

 

If all you care about is some mythical integrity of being anti sex, or anti gay, then you will be left with that. With Iskcons history it cannot afford to be seen as hypocritical anymore then it already is.

 

A pro gay platform is good publicity, anyone who thinks that some kind of loss of integrity will be the result, just look at the integrity and reputation Iskcon has today. It could use some good publicity, it definitely does not need right wing reactionaries with no vision for preaching making noises about so called morals.

 

What has Iskcons public morals led it's reputation to be as of today ? Hows that working out ?

 

[theist 1]

 

Recently, I posted a text recommending a particular strategy for helping devotees whose bodies are homosexual. I realize that my remarks were brief and perhaps thus lend themselves to misinterepration. I apologize for that.

 

I am now writing a much more elaborate explanation of my views that will, I hope, correct this problem. In the meantime, I would request devotees to read carefully. It is simply not possible for me to respond to every letter on this and other forums, but I will address one letter, simply to demonstrate the need for careful reading.

 

A letter has appeared on Dipika stating: "It's not really a solution to give all people who say they are gay some formal recognized status."

 

I did not propose "to give all people who say they are gay some formal recognized status." Rather I am concerned with sincere devotees who a) are trying their best to give up sense gratification and advance in Krishna consciousness, b) are homosexual, and c) are unable at this point to completely renounce.

 

 

From his first statement:

 

"I am not convinced that marriage is the best means in all cases, but some serious, formal and public recognition and appreciation of gay monogamy is, in my view, in the best interest of ISKCON and its members. "

 

Actually I think the writing was quite clear and the reading was also quite clear. He is saying that not all cases of gays wanting "serious, formal and public recognition and appreciation of gay monogamy" will receive it from ISKCON but those that meet the following critea should.

 

2nd statement:

 

I suggest a means by which such devotees can gradually give up that behavior. What I am accepting is the fact that a spirit soul can simultaneously be a) a sincere devotee trying to be Krishna conscious, b) incapable at the moment of total renunciation, and c) homosexual. I further assume that we should do what we can to help those people advance in Krishna consciousness, the only means to transcend sin.

 

 

Krsna conscious is the only means to transcend sin, and transmitting Krsna consciousness is not dependented on any "serious, formal and public recognition and appreciation of gay monogamy".

 

 

Yes and thank you for the admonition to read carefully. We will. 'Buyer beware' also comes to mind as well as 'read the fine print' and 'the devil is in the details'.

 

Turn on the fans, I feel a smokescreen is coming on.

 

[Guest guest]

 

From his first statement:

 

"I am not convinced that marriage is the best means in all cases, but some serious, formal and public recognition and appreciation of gay monogamy is, in my view, in the best interest of ISKCON and its members. "

 

Actually I think the writing was quite clear and the reading was also quite clear. He is saying that not all cases of gays wanting "serious, formal and public recognition and appreciation of gay monogamy" will receive it from ISKCON but those that meet the following critea should.

 

 

No, he is making a call for preaching purposes. This is why he includes "in the best interest of Iskcon"

 

 

"Krsna conscious is the only means to transcend sin, and transmitting Krsna consciousness is not dependented on any "serious, formal and public recognition and appreciation of gay monogamy".

 

 

Yes and thank you for the admonition to read carefully. We will. 'Buyer beware' also comes to mind as well as 'read the fine print' and 'the devil is in the details'.

 

Turn on the fans, I feel a smokescreen is coming on.

 

 

Why is "Krsna consciousness the only means to transcend sin" ? and what does that even mean ? He goes off on a tangent uneccessarily, he writes about Krsna Consciousness in terms of sinning , he says

 

 

The core of the issue is this: the fallen soul has to give up all sin and sense gratification and return to Krishna. This can only be done in the association of devotees. Therefore Prabhupada formed ISKCON. We do not justify or condone sin, but we try to encourage sincere devotees to come and take good association and advance so that they can gradually give up sin. I suggested a practical means to help certain sincere devotees who are trying to free themselves from sin and sense gratification.

 

 

This kind of ideology is not coming from the parampara. "The core of the issue is that everyone must give up all sense graitification to go to Krsna ? What the ??? This is not Gaudiya tattva. While Hrdayananda Goswami has a progressive view about Gays and preaching, this other view equating Krsna consciousness with renunciation is way off the mark. Bhagavat tattva teaches moderation, not renunciation. Renunciation is for the elderly. Krishna consciousness is about self realization, it is not about giving up something, it is about gaining something. A person in prison or a disabled person cannot enjoy much in the way of "sin", this doesn't make the person Krishna conscious. Ksatriyas are allowe great amounts of sense enjoyment, the vedic path doesn't equate renunciation with spiritual advancement. Renunciation can help some people, but does not make one automatically spiritual.

 

I think the problem with many devotees like Hrdayananda is that he has a good idea i.e to give Iskcon good publicity, but then he has to back track and make silly concessions due to ignorant arm chair neophytes who know next to nothing about Krishna consciousness nor how to preach about it.

 

Better if he just makes a strong stand. Call the fakes out for what they are. Armchair acaryas with no real experience nor understanding of what they proclaim themselves pandits about. He shouldn't back down and water down his original smart message to placate neophytes on ego trips.

[krsna 3]

"Gay monogamy" overrated

by Bhaktavatsala das

 

Posted January 8, 2005

 

In response to the article by His Holiness Hrdayananda das Goswami, titled "Gay monogamy preferred to promiscuity," it is certainly a weird (and perverted) use of the word "gay" with reference to homosexual behaviour, as there is nothing jolly, happy, nor uplifting, about the subject, nor about such lusty activities. Only devotees/Vaishnavas can be truly said to be "gay" -- being situated in the joy of devotional service at the divine lotus feet of Guru and Gauranga/Govinda.

 

There seems to be acertain fundamental incorrectness in the statement that "Gay monogamy [is] preferred to promiscuity." In brahminical society there is no presence whatsoever of homosexuality, nor is the focus of brahminical society on any form of mundane sexuality at all, as it is a wholly spiritually-minded society (as we see in the examples of Srimad-Bhagavatam). The focus of such a society, being spiritual and supramundane, is beyond the realm and jurisdiction of the mundane material existence, wherein souls are bound by the "shackles" (as Srila Prabhupada describes it) of mundane sex affairs.

 

Srila Prabhupada describes that it is the mundane sex interest (whether homosexual or heterosexual) that keeps one enslaved to the material realm, and the "bodily concept" of life (or mundane bodily consciousness and identification). Simple.

 

It is suprising that in discussing this fundamental subject, there has been mostly the expression of individual opinions, without reference to the the opinion of the Supreme Lord, Govinda. Surprising, considering the philosophical accomplishments of Hrdayananda Maharaja. The fact is that the opinion of Govinda is absolute, is the basis of everything, and beyond time, etc. He is never subject to the lusty interests of souls bound within the mundane material existence.

 

In Bhagavad-gita (7.11) Govinda says: "I am sex life which is not contrary to religious principles." Simple. But this is where all the debate and speculation comes in, as to what constitutes "religious principles" etc. Basically all religions offer various variations of "religious principles" which cater to the various desires of living entities, in various degrees of relationship, and rebellion, with the Supreme Lord, Govinda. Srila Prabhupada is quite emphatic, in the purport to this verse of Bhagavad-gita. He simply says, ". . . sex life, according to religious principles (dharma), should be for the propagation of children, not otherwise." Note he says "should be" and "not otherwise." So, it always comes down to personal choice. Certainly, according to Govinda, "irreligious" sex would include homosexuality, whether "monogamous" or "promiscuous", etc., as no children are ever produced from such a union.

 

If one desires to get free from the repetitious cycle of birth and death, and thereby the bondage of the mundane material existence, sex life must be given up, especially as there are no such selfish activities (even for propagation of children) in the eternal transcendental realm of Govinda, which is ever free from birth, and death. It is eternal, as are we, as is Govinda. Even here, we can say that the promotion and proliferation of homosexuality as an acceptable part (and activity) of human society is certainly not going to lead to a healthy, peaceful society, especially when the simple fact is that sex is meant to (at best) produce children, naturally.

 

Hence homosexual "monogamy" is not "better than promiscuity" as there is no (and never will be any) production of children in such a "monogamous" relationship (when there often is in heterosexual promiscuity). Still, basically, children produced outside of (heterosexual) monogamous wedlock are considered varna-sankara (unwanted). Of course, we all have the right to our God-given free-will, but there is such a thing as good, better, and best, even in the eternal existence.

 

There are activities that keep one bound to the cycle of birth and death (samsara), the main one being the mundane sex interest, which keeps one mentally enslaved to the bodily (physical) conception of life, being that one identifies oneself with the body (and physics), thinking that that is who one is, and that pleasure and happiness come from the body, and the things associated with, and produced from, the body. That is simply ignorance. Ignoring the eternal spiritual reality of Govinda. That is the root of our dis-ease.

 

When it comes down to the actual purpose of the Krishna consciousness movement, we have to say that the mundane sex business is to be given up entirely, if one wishes to indeed "go back to home, back to Godhead" and get free from the shackles of the mundane material existence of repeated birth and death, as there is no question of any such business in the spiritual world ever, nor in brahminical/spiritual society and culture.

 

Of course one can, alternatively, go on eternally speculating that the mundane sex business does not have to be given up to be "spiritual" and liberated, but then one will remain within the mundane jurisdiction (due to such mundane conceptions and interests) wherein one is given "freedom" to pursue one's own independent interests, separate from Govinda.

 

Certainly homosexuality is on the bodily concept of life, and can never be considered in the realm of devotional service nor spiritual, whereas a bonafide couple, in Krishna conscious wedlock, can have the mentality of producing, and raising, children as divine service to Guru and Govinda, basically dovetailing their mundane sex interest in a way connected with Govinda. Of course, that still requires mundane sexual involvement, which is never pure, nor spiritual. It is mundane.

 

One cannot have kirtan, and still be involved in the mundane sex affairs. Simple, whether homosexual or heterosexual. We can say, definitely, that (of the two) heterosexuality, within marriage, is acceptable to Govinda. But even that is to be, inevitably and eventually, given up (if one wishes to return "back home, back to Godhead", back to Goloka/Govinda). That is the very meaning of the term "liberated" (liberated from bondage to lust, and mundane sexual involvement).

 

[AncientMariner 0]

I just want to know when Isckon is going to give formal recognition and appreciation to right wing reactionaries? Just kidding......

 

 

"Now they are even granting man-to-man marriage, what to speak of other things. The priests are sermonizing on this idea of man-to-man marriage. Just see how degraded they have become! Previously was there any conception like this, at least outside America? Nobody thought that a man could be married to another man. What is this? And the priests are supporting it. Do you know that? So what is their standard?" - Prabhupada, The Journey of Self Discovery

[theist 1]

I felt discrimated against when I tried to put up a portrait of William F. Buckely Jr. in the lobby. What an uproar that caused. I had my feelings hurt.

 

You would think that quote from Prabhupada above would be enough to end this stupid idea long before it got this far. But those homo-activists are persistent and when they start getting big name supprot from different quarters that can only be encouraging to them.

[Guest guest]

While Bhaktavatsala is a friend of mine, i will have to disagree with her entire rant.

 

First off she says:

 

 

In brahminical society there is no presence whatsoever of homosexuality, nor is the focus of brahminical society on any form of mundane sexuality at all, as it is a wholly spiritually-minded society (as we see in the examples of Srimad-Bhagavatam).

 

 

What is she talking about ? What does she mean by "Brahminical society" ?

 

You can go to any "Brahminical society" in the world, that is temple communities comprised of Brahmanas, and you will find Homosexuals. So right off she makes a false statement that is verifiably false. She may hold up some pure standard written about is sastra, but here on Earth things are not so simple. You can go to any Brahminical sanga in the world and I can guarantee you that sex life will be common place. ISKCON was created as a Brahminical society and Homosexual sex as well as Heterosexual sex was and is rampant. It's the same all over.

 

Then she says:

 

 

Srila Prabhupada describes that it is the mundane sex interest (whether homosexual or heterosexual) that keeps one enslaved to the material realm, and the "bodily concept" of life (or mundane bodily consciousness and identification). Simple.

 

 

Simple ?

 

Not quite.

 

The point of the Bhagavat teaching is that exclusively utilizing the human form of life for the pursuit of sense enjoyment is what binds you to the material world. Not that you need to totally renounce sense enjoyment. One needs to strike a balance, one needs to make time for spiritual sanga, sravanam kirtanam, sadhu sanga etc. It's not that enjoying your senses keeps you from God, it is the exclusive use of your life and time for sense enjoyment which binds one to the material realm.

 

Srila Prabhupada taught that the best path was the path of moderation. He rejected the false vairagi who prematurely attempt to give up all sense enjoyment. He gave the example of the Elephant who bathes, and then throws dirt allover itself. The premature renunciation of material enjoyment leads to obbsession with that enjoyment. It's like a person who decides to go on a crash diet or give up all sex. At first the person is all excited about being strong in his ascetic endeavor. But the truth is that almost everyone is unable to maintain such a strict regimen. The object of renunciation is meditated on as the source of pleasure that one wants to renounce. This process reaffirms the subconscious thoughts that the person is depriving himself of pleasure. In this way the premature over zealous renunciate ends up meditating on that which ehwishes to negate. It ends up being to much to handle and the person goes from abstinence to gluttony. This is common among dieters, and it applies to sex life as well. The process prescribed by the Bhagavat is gradual unentanglement from focusing exclusivley on sense enjoyment. The attitude expressed by Bhaktavatsala leads to false renunciation and then to obssession with satisfying the hunger wrought by deprivation.

 

 

In Bhagavad-gita (7.11) Govinda says: "I am sex life which is not contrary to religious principles." Simple. But this is where all the debate and speculation comes in, as to what constitutes "religious principles" etc. Basically all religions offer various variations of "religious principles" which cater to the various desires of living entities, in various degrees of relationship, and rebellion, with the Supreme Lord, Govinda. Srila Prabhupada is quite emphatic, in the purport to this verse of Bhagavad-gita. He simply says, ". . . sex life, according to religious principles (dharma), should be for the propagation of children, not otherwise." Note he says "should be" and "not otherwise." So, it always comes down to personal choice. Certainly, according to Govinda, "irreligious" sex would include homosexuality, whether "monogamous" or "promiscuous", etc., as no children are ever produced from such a union.

 

 

We all know what the Gita says, but we live in a world where people follow their own conscience. If you want to put up a sign in front of every Iskcon temple that says "No sinners allowed" or "God will punsih the sinner", what effect will that have when the primary function of Iskcon is to uplift the most fallen ? It will make them feel that they are not wanted, that they are excluded from sanga because they are not good enough.

 

Then she says:

 

 

If one desires to get free from the repetitious cycle of birth and death, and thereby the bondage of the mundane material existence, sex life must be given up, especially as there are no such selfish activities (even for propagation of children) in the eternal transcendental realm of Govinda, which is ever free from birth, and death. It is eternal, as are we, as is Govinda. Even here, we can say that the promotion and proliferation of homosexuality as an acceptable part (and activity) of human society is certainly not going to lead to a healthy, peaceful society, especially when the simple fact is that sex is meant to (at best) produce children, naturally.

 

 

Sex life is not something that one needs to give up, it is supposed to not become the driving force of your life. As far as there being no sex in the spiritual world that is a fallacy.

 

From The teachings of Lord Chaitanya by Srila Prabhupada

 

 

The material Cupid represents the attraction of the external flesh and body, but the spiritual Cupid is the attraction by which the Supersoul attracts the individual soul. Actually lust and sex are there in spiritual life, but when the spirit soul is embodied in material elements, that spiritual urge is expressed through the material body and is therefore pervertedly reflected. When one actually becomes conversant in the science of Krsna consciousness, he can understand that his material desire for sex is abominable, whereas spiritual sex is desirable.

Spiritual sex is of two kinds: one in accordance with the constitutional position of the self and the other in accordance with the object. When one understands the truth about this life but is not completely cleansed of material contamination, he is not factually situated in the transcendental abode, Vrndavana, although he may understand spiritual life. When, however, one becomes free from the sex urges of the material body, he can actually attain the supreme abode of Vrndavana. When one is so situated, he can utter the kama-gayatri and kama-bija mantra.

 

 

 

Krsna is always engaged in love affairs with Radharani, and He takes to the bushes of Vrndavana to enjoy His lusty activities with Her. Thus He successfully carries out His lusty instincts. In Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu it is stated:. "By His impudent and daring talks about sex indulgence, Krsna obliged Srimati Radharani to close Her eyes, and taking advantage of this, Krsna painted many pictures on Her breasts. These pictures served as subject matter for Radharani's friends to joke about. Thus Krsna was always engaged in lusty activities, and thus He made His youthful life successful."

 

 

And From Bhaktivinoda Thakura's The Bhagavata

 

 

The dalliances of Sri Krishna in Vraja have a close resemblance to unconventional mundane amour. Sexuality, in all its forms, is an essentially repulsive affair on the mundane plane. It is, therefore, impossible to understand how the corresponding Transcendental activity can be the most exquisitely wholesome service of the Absolute. It is, however, possible to be reconciled, to some extent, to the truth of the narrative of the Bhagavatam if we are prepared to admit the reasonableness of the doctrine that the mundane world is the unwholesome reflection of the realm of the Absolute, and that this world appears in a scale of values that is the reverse of that which obtains in the reality of which it happens to be the shadow...

 

...Sexuality symbolizes the highest attraction and the acme of deliciousness of transcendental service. In the Amorous Performances of Vraja, the secrets of the eternal life are exhibited in their uncovered perfection in the activity of the Love of unalloyed souls...

 

...The conventions of civilized society for the regulation of sexual relationship attain their ethical perfection in the Varnashrama society can readily appreciate the Transparent moral purity of life on the plane of Vaikuntha and Ayodhya, although he cannot understand their esoteric nature. In those Realms, Godhead poses as the ideal monogamous Husband. Ethical restrictions of sex relationship, that are imposed at Ayodhya by the form of the monogamous marriage are relaxed at Dwarka where the Absolute manifests His fuller personality and appears in the guise of the polygamous Husband. The conventions of marriage are abrogated in Vrindavana where the sanctity of wedlock becomes secondary and a foil to the Amorous Exploits of Sri Krishna in His Fullest Manifestation.

 

 

Then she says:

 

 

When it comes down to the actual purpose of the Krishna consciousness movement, we have to say that the mundane sex business is to be given up entirely, if one wishes to indeed "go back to home, back to Godhead" and get free from the shackles of the mundane material existence of repeated birth and death, as there is no question of any such business in the spiritual world ever, nor in brahminical/spiritual society and culture.

 

 

"Going back home" is not dependent on celibacy. It is dependent on becoming Self Realized. Whenever armchair acaryas start to preach their fanatical rhetoric that I know they themselves do not follow, I know it comes from a place of frustation with their own spiritual lives. They strike out at others in the name of "following to the tee the most renunciative and restrictive policy". But the true spiritual teacher is just the opposite. He or she is strict with themselves and lenient with others. This kind of lashing out at others and their inablity to come up to the perceived highest standard of yogic renunciation is a sign of a person's own feelings of inadequacy, it manifests in "speaking out for the Lord" in harsh terms castigating all who fail to live up to the perceived demands of an unforgiving deity.

 

Finally she concludes:

 

 

One cannot have kirtan, and still be involved in the mundane sex affairs. Simple, whether homosexual or heterosexual. We can say, definitely, that (of the two) heterosexuality, within marriage, is acceptable to Govinda. But even that is to be, inevitably and eventually, given up (if one wishes to return "back home, back to Godhead", back to Goloka/Govinda). That is the very meaning of the term "liberated" (liberated from bondage to lust, and mundane sexual involvement).

 

 

Yet this pompous attitude is a false and provably fallacious argument. How many people around the world are engaged in Kirtan ? How many are not enagaged in sex life for enjoyment ? The answer is obvious. It is this uncompromising attitude, this harsh treatment of perceived offenders and insincere seekers that she deems herself to be thejudge of...of course all in the name of Govinda. She is taking the role of God, taking the position as spokesman for God, yet she is taking the harshest position and attitude possible. Nityananda and Gauranga were are engaged in magnanimous lile, if Bhaktavatsala has her way, magnanimity will be changed into demands for total and complete submission at all times...or you have no hope, and no chance to gain the mercy of God.

 

 

 

 

[krsna 3]

"Now they are even granting man-to-man marriage,

what to speak of other things.

The priests are sermonizing on this idea of man-to-man marriage.

 

Just see how degraded they have become!

Previously was there any conception like this,

at least outside America?

 

Nobody thought that a man could be married to another man. What is this?

And the priests are supporting it.

Do you know that?

So what is their standard?"

 

- Srila Prabhupada, The Journey of Self Discovery

 

[krsna 3]

ISKCON should not accommodate gays

by Joshua Hawley

 

Posted January 9, 2005

 

His Holiness Hrdayananda das Goswami's qualified endorsement of monogamous gay relationships is, in my opinion, unjustified by Vaisnava scriptures. The Krishna consciousness movement or ISKCON was founded on the basis of establishing a brahminical society. To endorse gay marriage on the basis of some modern form of thought is not at all justified within the Vedic culture, which is independent of modern arguments and justifications.

 

As Srila Prabhupada said, commenting on Bhagavad-gita 9.10,

"Amongst the demons, there is no perfect knowledge. . . . Every one of them has a particular theory of his own. According to them, one interpretation of the scriptures is as good as another, for they do not believe in a standard understanding of the scriptural injunctions."

 

Encouraging homosexuals to adopt spiritual life is certainly acceptable; however, to endorse homosexual behavior is condemmed. If someone is born a demon, does it mean we endorse their behavior based on their so-called psycho-physical nature? No, such behavior is condemmed always.

 

"Those who are demoniac do not know what is to be done and what is not to be done. Neither cleanliness nor proper behavior nor truth is found in them." (Bhagavad-gita, 16.7)

 

The whole point of Krishna consciousness is to transcend our psycho-physical nature. Hiding the truth of Krishna consciousness for the sake of popularity does nothing to advance ISKCON. As far as I understand the ISKCON movement is meant for brahmanas only, although they may give guidance to the other orders of society. Purity is the force.

 

Even Amara prabhu's attempt at justifying homosexuality by citing various so-called scriptures is defeated in and of itself. Does he think that every philosopher who wrote some book out of India is Vedic? The various so-called Kama Sastras are there to encourage gross materialism only. Even the Kama Sutra describes homosexuality as a kind of perversion. There are so many scholars and philosophers out of India that blaspheme the Vedas and ignore scriptural evidence. Even when Krishna Himself was on the planet, He had to defeat many nonsense arguments.

 

There are many arguments promoting many different types of behavior in the modern age, and some may be very attractive and convincing, but a devotee with some sinful desire he cannot forego does not try to justify his behavior; he will simply accept reactions for such sinful behavior and try to rectify his character to fall in line with the Vedic authority. Endorsements and arguments to commit what I understand to be sinful behaviour (based on Srila Prabhupada's books and lectures) are thoroughly condemned.

 

Please do not misconstrue my intent; I am not bashing gays or anyone else, but Prabhupada established ISKCON on the basis of Vedic authority, not modern whimsicality. From my understanding of Vedic authority, homosexuality is condemmed outright.

 

"One who does not follow the regulative principles as they are laid down in the scriptures and who acts according to his whims is called demoniac, or asuric. There is no other criterion but obedience to the regulative principles of scriptures."

(Bhagavad-gita, 16.6, purport)

 

One may argue on any other basis, but a serious Vaisnava will reject, refuse and refute such nonsense. Prabhupada said we are not vox populi; we are not here trying to win a popularity contest. We are simply trying to please Krishna. I invite Hrdayananda Maharaja to justify and clarify his response to Amara das.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

Prabhupda: Nobody thought that a man could be married to another man. What is this? And the priests are supporting it. Do you know that? So what is their standard?"

 

 

 

What would prabhupada say if he knew not only christian priests were supporting it, but even his guru successors? We can only imagine:

 

--Begin imagination--

 

Prabhupada: Nobody thought that a man could be married to another man. What is this? And some of my guru successors are supporting it. Do you know that? So what is their standard?"

 

--End imagination--

 

Yes, let's be fair and hold our own people up to the same standards Prabhupada expected of teachers of other religions.

 

If the Christian priests were cheaters for supporting this, the same is the case for gurus in the Gaudiya line who support this absurdity while claiming to be faithful to Prabhupada.

 

[Kulapavana 0]

"Yes, let's be fair and hold our own people up to the same standards Prabhupada expected of teachers of other religions.

 

If the Christian priests were cheaters for supporting this, the same is the case for gurus in the Gaudiya line who support this absurdity while claiming to be faithful to Prabhupada."

 

Exactly. It is all a bogus claim that such "appreciation and recognition" of gay marriage by our institutions will help some souls find their way to Krishna - if they are truly sincere, Krishna will certainly help them. if they are not... good riddance!

 

thus far all this discussion started by the gay lobby activities brought nothing but disturbance in our society. if that helped some, it probably also hurt just as many people.

 

[Guest guest]

Joshua Hawley is speaking out of his hat. First off he says the Kama Sutra condemns homosexuality. Obviously he has never read it. If you doubt my word, read it yourself.

 

Secondly he says Iskcon is meant to be only for brahmanas. In fact Srila Prabhupada near the end of his lila in Feb 1977 has said:

 

 

Hari-Sauri: But in our community as it is, we are training up as Vaisnavas...

 

Prabhupada: Vaisnava is not so easy. The varnasrama-dharma should be established to become a Vaisnava. It is not so easy to become Vaisnava.

 

Hari-Sauri: No, it's not a cheap thing.

 

Prabhupada: Yes. Vaisnava, to become Vaisnava, is not so easy. If to become Vaisnava is so easy, why so many fall down? It is not easy.

 

Hari-Sauri: Varnasrama system is beneficial. Where will we introduce the varnasrama system, then?

 

Prabhupada: In our society, amongst our members.

 

Hari-Sauri: But then if everybody's being raised to the brahminical platform...

 

Prabhupada: Not everybody. Why you are misunderstanding? Varnasrama, not everybody should become brahmana.

 

Hari-Sauri: No, but in our society practically everyone is being raised to that platform. So then one might ask what is...

 

Prabhupada: Everybody is being raised, but they're falling down.

 

Hari-Sauri: So then we should make it more difficult to get brahminical initiation. After four or five years.

 

Prabhupada: Not necessary. You remain as a ksatriya. You'll be happy.

 

Hari-Sauri: No need for even any brahmana initiation, then...

 

Prabhupada: No, no.

 

 

 

 

Joshua said:

 

 

Please do not misconstrue my intent; I am not bashing gays or anyone else, but Prabhupada established ISKCON on the basis of Vedic authority, not modern whimsicality. From my understanding of Vedic authority, homosexuality is condemmed outright.

 

 

Acaryas can make changes to the preaching endeavor according to time, place and circumstance. Just look at how the Gurukula experiment worked out. That was based on Vedic authority yet because the time, place and circumstance were not favorable the whole project has led Iskcon to be the castigated world wide as a dangerous cult, and could very well lead to the closing of most of it's temples. If you want to call any decision made by an Acarya meant to increase the popularity of the sankirtan mission "whimsical", then you can include Srila Prabhupada in that category for allowing women into the sanga of Brahmacaris and sannyasis. Was that "whimsical" and non vedic because it is not the traditional vedic practice ?

 

The Acarya can make changes according to his perception of what is best. Anyone who wants to challenge that authority can do so, good luck to them.

 

To say that he is not bashing Gays is ludicrous. He is using sastra to bash Gays. Just like he and many people use sastra to bash all types of people engaged in many activities they deem inappropriate. So be honest, you are bashing Gays, you are telling them they cannot become God conscious.

 

I am really tired of hearing from people who I know for a fact do not follow strictly the rules they preach so vigorously about.

 

What is this debate really about ?

 

Is it a theatre for those who want to grandstand by getting up on their soapboxes to prove how pure and loyal and staunch they are in their rhetoric ?

 

Hrdayananda Goswami wants to make a public recognition of gays for preaching purposes. He is not telling us that he wants to endorse sex life, or meat eating, or any other forbidden thing, he wants to make it public that Iskcon is a tolerant progressive movement that cares about people, that Iskcon is not bigoted.

 

For some reason many people cannot understand that preaching requires change at times for the purpose of spreading Krishna consciousness.

 

We need to look at the situation in the real world vis a vis Iskcon and it's reputation.

 

Right now Iskcon has the reputation of child abuse, sexism, racism, and criminal behavior i.e murder, guns, racketeering etc.

 

For all of the huffing and puffing by all those who think they are upholding some kind of pure moral ideal for Iskcon to follow, get real. Iskcon has a horrible reputation, and we all know it.

 

Instead of getting up on your soapboxes and ranting about the insidious influence of tolerance for gays, how about trying to be conscious of what is best for Iskcon's reputation. This is after all what the debate should be about.

 

Instead we get people complaining who are not in Iskcon, who don't like Iskcon and who don't do anything for Iskcon.

 

Iskcon needs good publicity more then it needs to satisfy the demands of critics.

 

If you think Iskcon should not treat Gays with the same respect that everyone else enjoys, fine. I believe the good publicity by standing up for equality for Gays is of much greater good then the criticism of people who don't help Iskcon anyways.

[Guest guest]

Many of you do not know what is motivating Hrdayananda Goswami.

 

In the Western world today their is big debate going on about Gay marriage.

 

The argument put forth by the pro side is: that under the law, marriage partners receive certain rights that non married couples do not receive. It has to do with insurance, medical rights, inheritance, and a host of other monetary concerns and legal concerns.

 

The pro Gay marriage side complains that they do not recieve equal treatment under the law vis a vis marriage. Because they cannot get married [where that is restricted] they complain that they are deprived of the same rights that everyone else is entitled to.

 

The anti Gay marriage side argues that allowing Gay marriage will destroy the "sanctity of marriage". They argue a biblical ideology, much like the arguments on this forum.

 

That is the entire debate. And it has divided society into two distinct camps.

 

The anti Gay marriage camp is identified with the Christian right, Republicans, and the right wing nationalist/jingoist crowd.

 

The Pro Gay marriage camp is everyone else.

 

What the point of Hrdayananda Goswami's suggestion is all about is to take a stand in support of equal rights under the law. It is not about endorsing homosexual lifestyles, it is about siding with egalitarians in an egalitarian society which is quickly becoming dominated by cryto-religious fascism, or at least that is the great fear of the masses of non right wing christians.

 

There is a cultural war going on.

 

It is between the forces who believe in egalitarian principles as the guiding light of society, versus the bibilical dominionists i.e the right wing christian community who believe the bible should be used as a lawbook, just like the Islamic world uses Sharia.

 

Go Here to read about Dominionism and it's impact on America and it's plan for the world.

 

Hrdayananda wants to put Iskcon publicly on the side of egalitarianism, he wants to side with the mass of people who oppose unjust laws based on discrimination, and the right wing christian dominionists in general.

 

It's interesting, a person can raise cows for slaughter, support the massacre and bombing of innocent civilians, and support any number of immoral acts, yet they recieve the full protection under the law that a Gay vaisnava does not.

 

A person may be engaged in helping the needy, feeding the starving, distributing the message of the Gita, and leading a life dedicated to doing good, but if he or she is Gay, the cow killing, child bombing fascist demon receives legal rights that the spiritual minded person does not.

 

This is what the debate is about. Should Gays be treated unequally under the laws of the state ?

 

Should Iskcon be on the side of the Pro violence, Pro Biblical dominionism, pro inequality and pro bigotry ?

 

Or should Iskcon be publicly on the side of egalitarianism and stand up against the empire of exploitation and fascist ultra violent demonic demagogues ?

[Kulapavana 0]

ultimately, this issue is not about taking sides in the cultural war in the West, but about what is good for the mission of Lord Chaitanya. some speakers on this issue certainly DO have their own (hidden or not) agenda, but if "purity is the force", that should be our objective.

[Guest guest]

 

ultimately, this issue is not about taking sides in the cultural war in the West, but about what is good for the mission of Lord Chaitanya. some speakers on this issue certainly DO have their own (hidden or not) agenda, but if "purity is the force", that should be our objective.

 

 

You are wrong, it is about taking sides in a cultural war otherwise why would Hrdayananda bring up Gay marriage recognition when that is the hot topic in the news ? That is being used today as a cultural/political dividing line, it is used as a poltical football for people to get behind and show their loyalty towards.

 

"purity is the force" was not Prabhupadas saying, it was concocted by a devotee and it is a meaningless statement. What does it even mean ? Are the republicans pure because they are victorious in their demonic agenda ? Is the cow slaughter industry, the weapons industry, the prison industry, the sex slave industry etc, are the y all pure because they are all very successfull.

 

Is vegetarianism without "purity" because most people eat meat ? Is the message of the Koran "purity" becaue it is so successfull in it's widespread abuse of people all over the Islamic world ? Is America and the corporate world bank/IMF demonic world empire "pure" because it is so successfull ?

 

If "purity is the force" then whatever is successfull must be pure, and whatever is not successfull must not be pure.

 

No, purity is not "the force". Krishna's plan is the force, end of story.

 

Yes people have an agenda, that agenda can be varied depending on the person. Otherwise they would not express their opinion. That much is obvious. The real question is what is that agenda ? Is it to promote themselves as pure icons of purity, or is it to do what is best for the spreading of the message of the Gita and Sankirtan ?

 

Anyone can put forth an image on the internet of themselves as being the champion of "purity", so what ?

 

What are they actually doing to advance the cause of Sri Nitai Gaurangas mission to elevate the most fallen ?

 

Self serving lip service ? Cheap self promotion. Actually doing something to bring Krishna to those in ignorance...priceless.