bowdownmr

I found the following on the dipika.com website: =============================== Gay Monogamy From Hridayananda dasa Goswami (GBC) Posted Dec. 19, 2004 In a recent essay (appearing on Chakra), Amara Prabhu raises the following question: "Gay marriage is ... taken to be outside of the rigid varnasrama system and the ordinary prescription for married life, but suppose it is found to be the best practical arrangement to sustain a person's bhakti, someone who is exclusively homosexual and unable to follow complete celibacy. Can an exception be made to the general rule in the spirit of encouraging bhakti, as cited above, or should we give more importance to the rigid codes of ordinary dharma?" I agree with Amara that a truly spiritual society must constantly seek a balance between the strict codes of varashrama, and the practical spiritual needs of sincere devotees. There can be no doubt that a significant number of souls whose external sexual orientation is homosexual sincerely strive to be Krishna conscious. It is entirely natural and predictable that a majority of these devotees, as with most hetereosexual devotees, will not be suited for lifelong celibacy. My view of this issue is as follows: 1. As a general rule, we should appreciate devotees in terms of the sincerity and the diligence of their spiritual attempts, given the psycho-physical circumstances of their life. In other words, in any condition of life, if a devotee sincerely strives to please Krishna, that devotee is to be admired. 2. It is the duty of any society to recognize, and thus encourage, the admirable behavior of its members. Monogamy, among devotees of any orientation, is an admirable achievement in the context of today's promiscuous society, and should be thus appreciated and encouraged. 3. Given the need to balance strict varnashrama with liberal spirituality, I believe that ISKCON should recognize and encourage monogamy among all its members of whatever orientation, and that such recognition and encouragement should take appropriate forms that achieve both purposes: the maintenance of varnashrama and the encouraging of spiritual sincerity. 4. 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. With best wishes, Hridayananda das Goswami © dipika.org Dec. 19, 2004 ============================== Source: http://www.dipika.org/2004/12/20/19_hdg_on_gay_monogamy/index.html

I have begun chanting as much as I can throughout the day. Oftentimes I will find myself chanting mentally, but I also chant verbally as well. I feel results with both, a peaceful feeling that fills me with love. I do have difficulty focusing when chanting for meditation though. I try to focus on the sound of the maha-mantra as I chant it and exclude all other thoughts, but my mind "multitasks" and several chains of thought pull at me while I chant. I am still very new to this practice. I would appreciate any suggestions that more experienced devotees would care to share. Hare Krishna.

"guest" writes: "how is egg killing an animal? it hasn't even been born yet surely?" The egg is the "germ" of the animal, just like seeds contain the germ of plants. Look up the word "germinate" and you'll understand. An egg, as such, is an unborn, undeveloped animal. It is not a plant, it is not a dairy product, it is a living animal-to-be. We all start out as sperm and egg. Mammals just happen to carry out the incubation and development of the zygote (fertilized egg) internally. Birds, such as chickens, coat their zygotes with a shell and expel them. They sit on them until they hatch when fully developed, whereas mammals carry them inside and expel them when they are fully developed. So, there's little difference between meat and eggs. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Why someone would post inflammatory messages like "Karishna (sic) is dead..." on a website for discussion of the Hare Krishna movement is beyond me. How could one expect such rhetoric to do anything but provoke? Such actions are pointless and do little to further real discussion. I believe that Krishna represents the Universal Being, the Supreme Personality of the Godhead, the unfathomable God of the Universe. He has many names and is known as God by many religions in various guises, but he is still Sri Krishna. Jesus of Nazereth was a great teacher, a rabbi, a man with an understanding of God unlike anyone around him. That is what made him so attractive to his followers. He brought a message of love for God that was to free the Jews from the traditional forms of ritualistic worship and sacrifice and the limits of such practices. Jesus taught that we could all have a direct, real connection to God. He also taught the principles of non-violence and unconditional love. For all of this, he was a man worthy of imitation and study. But I do not believe that he was God incarnate nor a messiah. I can love and respect his memory, revere his teachings without seeing him as divine. Those that are not devotees of Krishna, or who are not seeking to learn more about Krisha Consciousness should not come here to provoke "back and forth" arguments that amount to little more than "my god is better than your god". As I said before, such banter is pointless and yields no productive result. Hare Krishna, Hare Rama, Hare Hare.

Dear Sumedh: Thank you for taking the time to explain so patiently your meaning. I do understand more completely now what you meant, and I have also done some additional research and reading since my last posting which illuminated your point further. There is so much for one to learn. Hare Krishna.

"suresh" writes: "THE BIBLE SAY GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD[.] THAT INCLUDES EVERY PERSON IN THE WORLD. GOD SO LOVE[d] THE WORLD THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, THAT WHO SO EVER BELIEVE ON HIM SHALL NOT PERISH BUT HAVE ETERNAL LIFE." This is a reference to John 3:16 from the New Testament. It is, in fact, a very different perspective on on the Judeo-Christian deity from what is written in the Old Testament. The OT god was very partial to the Hebrews and didn't have much of a problem killing Egyptians or Caananites on their behalf. He was, in fact, a tribal deity of the Hebrews ("the Chosen People"). The deity described in the NT is not presented in this way, and is more universal in nature. This discrepancy is one of my largest complaints about Christianity. I am also confused about the notion that all is required for salvation is "believing" in God. Is that really all that is expected? I think not - not by God and certainly not from the Christian church. suresh writes: "NOTHING IS [im?]POSSIBLE TO GOD HE HEALED IN THE OLD TIMES AND HE IS HEALING NOW." I don't understand what are the "old times" refered to here. Mankind has suffered horribly for millenia from various disorders and maladies. Only in modern times do we live in relative comfort from diseases that killed our ancestors without obstacle. Perhaps Suresh refers to the miracle healings attributed to Jesus. My belief is that such stories are an-historical and mythic by their very nature. Regardless, Jesus' ability to conduct such "healings" would have been limited to his 33-year life span. So much for the 1,977-odd years that have passed since he left the planet. I also don't necessarily believe that it is God's responsibility to "heal" us. That responsiblity lies with ourselves (in terms to our spiritual health) or with medical professionals (in terms of our physical health). I am not a proponent of petitionary prayer, so asking God to heal an ailment does not seem appropiate to me. Instead, I suggest striving to learn and understand as much about the universe around us as possible. Devote your time to study of scriptures. Read them all: the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, the Koran, Greek & Roman mythologies, etc. - God's voice can be heard in any place - but seek from God more understanding and knowledge. That quest will lead to fulfillment and health as well as a greater connection with the Divine. Hare Krishna, Hare Rama.

Judeo-Christian tradition also holds that Yahweh has a form that can be seen: Exodus 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. 3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. 4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I. 5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. 6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God. Exodus 19:9 And the LORD said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the LORD. Exodus 33:11 - And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. Exodus 33:21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: 22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: 23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. Exodus 34:5 - 5 And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD. Exodus 40:34 Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. 35 And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode thereon, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. 36 And when the cloud was taken up from over the tabernacle, the children of Israel went onward in all their journeys: 37 But if the cloud were not taken up, then they journeyed not till the day that it was taken up. 38 For the cloud of the LORD was upon the tabernacle by day, and fire was on it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel, throughout all their journeys. (These verses come from the KJV Bible.) But Yahweh (the Judeo-Christian deity's real name) was not Krishna. Read in Exodus and Leviticus at the explicit instructions that Yahweh gave Moses in regards to how animal sacrifices were to be presented. Somehow I don't see Krishna asking for such tribute. So, Allah is also not Krishna. Yahweh and Allah are two permutations of the same deity - who was originally just one god among many in the region and represented wind and storms. Some may consider Yahweh/Allah to be a demigod, but given the demands presented to Moses for blood sacrifices I don't think that they are Krishna. Hare Krishna.

Thank you very much for welcoming me to this discussion. I don't completely understand this part of your message, Sumedh: "Our friend has an attraction to same-sex, but that is not a problem to seriously take to Krishna Consciousness or become initiated as long as that option is not exercised." I take this to mean, "It's OK to have same-sex attraction, so long as you don't actually engage in sex". Further you write, "monogamous heterosexuals are only allowed to have a relationship for the purpose of bearing God conscious children else it is considered illicit" seems to imply that the vast majority of mankind is engaging in illicit sex - even if they are in a monogamous relationship. I do not question vaishnava standards (and certainly I am just starting to learn about such things), but respectfully I cannot understand how such concepts are expected to work. If you intend "vaishnava" to mean only those who are deeply committed to KC then I do see what you mean, but if you meant it in a broader sense of all Krishna devotees of any degree it falls apart as an un-realistic expectation. Our sexuality, both hetero- and homosexual, is an innate part of us. It is deeply engrained in our genetic and psychological makeup. We, like our cousins in the rest of the animal kingom, have biological drives - and certainly the drive to procreate is one of the stronger ones. I do not believe that God/Krishna would have created us so, with the expectation that we would behave completely contrary to our nature. That is not to say that we are not or should not be masters of our own drives and desires. Just because we can or want to do/have a thing doesn't mean that we should actually do/have it. We should discipline ourselves and our minds - but we should also not completely deny who and what we are. There is a profound connection between two people who genuinely love one another to the exclusion of all others. There is a bond that is shared, more intimate than any other, and part of that is expressed in sexual intercourse. Yes, nature's true intent for intercourse is indeed procreation. However, unlike other animals human females have estrus each month of their adult lives until they reach menopause. To my knowledge, no other mammal exhibits such behavior. There is no "mating season" for humans. Humans can mate at almost any time. Furthermore, humans don't engage in sex simply to procreate. There are profound psychological motivators involved, and certainly sex can be illicit and meaningless or spiritually nourishing and profound. Perhaps I am "too western" in my mindset that sex is more than just a mechanical, procreative act. Real intimacy between committed, loving people has a value all its own. Again, thank you for the welcome. I do look forward to exploring many issues with you all. Hare Krishna.

Thanks for your kindness, kcp1982. I agree that it is the responsibility of parents to teach their children right and wrong and to guide them as best they can to strive for goodness and righteousness. There are many attachments in our lives - money, sex, power, anger, jealousy, etc. - and I do see how KC can help us manage and resist such attachments. However, my homosexuality isn't an "attachment" anymore than your heterosexuality would be. It is a state of being. Homosexuality is a natural part of me, and one's sexual orientation is merely a state of being. What brings attachment into sexuality is how we act upon it. A heterosexual man who chooses to have multiple affairs with different women is attached to illict sex as much as is his gay counterpart who lives in a similar way. However, a monogamous homosexual couple sharing their love together does not fall into this category - just like monogamous heterosexuals don't. I agree with you that we should not encourage others to participate in illicit sexual activities. However, this is not as cut and dry as "don't have gay sex". Substituting illict heterosexual activity for illicit homosexual activity does not yield any net gain. We should encourage people to be responsible with their sexuality, regardless of their orientation, and to discourage non-monogamous sexual relationships. If we teach our children to respect themselves, they will natually be respectful others. If we teach gay children to deplore themselves out of some sense of "traditional values" then we are being irresponsible and will push them away from seeing any good in religion at all. In other words, they will become irreligous if religious beliefs are presented to them in a way that conflicts with their innate being. I was raised in a Christian (Southern Baptist) environment. For a long time, I considered myself an Atheist because I felt so rejected by the church and saw so much hypocricy in their positions. I felt so ostracized that religion became a complete waste of time. It took me YEARS to realize that God is not the church and that my relationship with God is a direct one - I don't have to please the church to please God. As I said before, if my homosexuality is an offense to Krishna I am certain that we can work it out. My sexuality is really irrelevant to anyone else. Hare Krisna.

Friends: I am a newcomer to KC, having recently picked up the Bhagavad Gita As It Is and beginning my path on my spiritual journey. There is much in KC and the Hindu belief system that corresponds with the view of the universe that I have developed over many years of introspection and study of many theological systems. I find that the more I study, read and chant the maha-mantra the more connected to God/Krishna I feel. I am also an openly gay man. I am 34 now, but I came out when I was 18 years old. I am very comfortable and happy with my sexuality and feel that it is an inherent part of me. It is *not* something that I chose, or would choose to change now. In an earlier post "kcp1982" says: "Even the animals know better, these gays and lesbians are lower than any animal. Their mind has been totally won over by the worst kind of ignorance and lust." Actually, homosexuality in animals has been widely reported by biologists. Chimpanzees, orangutans and even penguins have been known to exhibit homosexual behavior. Homosexuality is by no means the norm, but it does indeed exist at fairly consistent ratios throughout most vertebrate species. It is very insulting to be called "lower than any animal". This sort of rhetoric usually comes from fundamentalist Christians, Jews and Muslims. I am a bit shocked that I am confronted with such bigotry here - I indeed expected a little more enlightened crowd among KC-ers. I certainly appreciate that "kcp1982" has his/her own opinions about such issues and how scriptures should be interpreted - but I don't feel that it is productive to use such pejorative language in this or any forum. Certainly, Krishna devotees in the West have suffered horribly from the comical stereotypes that appear in films, TV, etc. "Hare Krishnas" are seen as mindless, silly and confused followers of a dangerous cult. We all have own own journey to make in this life and on our path to Krishna. We should not be so judgemental toward others. If my homosexuality is an offense to Krishna, then I think that He and I can sort it out on our own. It should not cause offense to anyone else. I am very happy to have found this forum, and look forward to participating in discussions. I have many questions about KC, so look for more from me soon. Hare Krishna!