Moral Thesis Unravelled

[Guest guest]

MORAL THESIS UNRAVELED

 

By Danavir Goswami

 

Recently a paper by the title "Vaisnava Moral Theology and the Homosexual

Issue" (hereafter Moral Thesis) appeared on a public internet news forum

frequented by ISKCON devotees and followers. In a previous work entitled

"Chaste Harlots" I have comprehensively responded to the "Homosexual Issue"

brought forward in the Moral Thesis, thus I will not do so again here. In

this paper, I will attempt to analyze and unravel, if you will, the rather

protracted Moral Thesis, considering the paper's assumptions and their

implications for ISKCON.

The Krishna consciousness movement should not be overly influenced by

popular opinion lest it abandons its foundational tenets. We know that

scholars, anti-cultists, governments and others are putting pressure on

ISKCON to conform to their ideas. In fact some members of the academic

community cry that unless ISKCON gives up its literal interpretation of the

scriptures the organization will become irrelevant to scholars. This is

totally untrue. Just the opposite is true. If ISKCON compromises its pure

position to cater to modern whimsical trends, the institution will become

rubbish. The tendency to compromise in the place of preaching should not be

indulged.

The Moral Thesis at times quotes Srila Prabhupada for support and at other

times totally ignores his statements. Although the Moral Thesis presents

several scriptural stories and references, its shocking conclusions place

the devotee-reader in the most unenviable position of having to accept

several premises.

 

PREMISE #1: Sastric Ambiguity

 

The Moral Thesis:

 

"Prabhupada states in his Bhagavatam purport to 3.20.26: 'It appears here

that the homosexual appetite of males for each other is created in this

episode of the creation of the demons by Brahma.' Although homosexuality is

said to have existed since the dawn of creation, the Bhagavatam does not

explicitly describe nor proscribe it."

 

Firstly, by saying "said to have existed" the Moral Thesis makes it sound as

if the Bhagavatam's statement may not be accurate. The Srimad Bhagavatam is

accepted as the topmost trusted scripture and its statements are held above

all others by Vaisnava acaryas such as Sridhara Svami, Ramanujacarya and

Vallabhacarya. Srila Vyasadeva also confirms this: srimad-bhagavate

maha-muni-krte kim va parair isvarah. "This beautiful Bhagavatam, compiled

by the great sage Vyasadeva [in his maturity], is sufficient in itself for

God realization. What is the need of any other scripture?" Srila Jiva

Gosvami explains in his Sandarbha that even if there are some paradoxical

statements between scriptures, Bhagavata Purana is to be taken as the final

decision. Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu also accepted Srimad Bhagavatam as

the spotless Vedic authority.

 

Secondly, how can the Moral Thesis say that the Bhagavatam does not

explicitly describe homosexuality when we have a graphic case of it in the

very verse under discussion (3.20.26)?

 

Lord Brahma, approaching the Lord, addressed Him thus: My Lord, please

protect me from these sinful demons, who were created by me under Your

order. They are infuriated by an appetite for sex and have come to attack

me.

 

The Sanskrit indicates that the men created by Brahma (tah imah) were

approaching (upakramanti) him (mam [brahma]) for sex (yabhitum).

Three texts prior in verse 23 the Bhagavatam also discloses that they (te)

approached (abhipedire) Brahma for copulation (maithunaya). The topic of

these verses is clearly a case of persons of one sex (male) approaching

another person of the same sex (male) for sex-there is no ambiguity here. In

fact, considering the attempted homosexual encounter Srila Prabhupada could

not have translated the verses more literally.

 

Thirdly, it is untrue that Srimad Bhagavatam does not explicitly proscribe

homosexuality. The word proscribe is defined: "To condemn or to prohibit."

In general the Srimad Bhagavatam condemns and prohibits sinful activity of

all kinds. The persons involved in the attempted sinful act are termed

"demons" (adevan) in verse 23 indicating the ungodly or those who oppose the

demigods and Lord Visnu. Verse 26 refers to those persons as "sinful demons"

(papah). How could the behavior of persons characterized as "demons" and

"sinful demons" not be proscribed by the scripture in which such

descriptions appear? Demoniac behavior is most assuredly condemned in the

Srimad Bhagavatam and other Vedic literature exemplified by the hordes of

demons killed by the Lord Himself. In particular, the Bhagavatam is

described as the very source of religious principles for the age of Kali.

 

krsne sva-dhamopagate

dharma-jnanadibhih saha

kalau nasta-drsam esa

puranarko 'dhunoditah

 

This Bhagavata Purana is as brilliant as the sun, and it has arisen just

after the departure of Lord Krsna to His own abode, accompanied by religion,

knowledge, etc. Persons who have lost their vision due to the dense darkness

of ignorance in the age of Kali shall get light from this Purana.

One of the expressed purposes of the Lord's descent upon this material world

is to annihilate the miscreants who do not care for Krishna consciousness.

In the Bhagavad-gita the Supreme Lord eternally prohibits such demons by

threatening to personally annihilate them (vinasaya ca duskrtam). If one

argues that the Lord only personally appears to annihilate big demons and

not the ordinary small sinful persons-it can be seen that the Lord also

denounces such small sinful persons in the Bhagavad-gita:

 

He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims

attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme

destination.(16.23)

 

Furthermore the Lord condemns such persons by casting (ksipami) them

(dvisatah kruran) "into the ocean of material existence, into various

demoniac species of life."

Aside from this, we find in the episode under discussion sinful demons

directly attacking Brahma, or Vidhi, the father of all religious principles.

What could be more condemned or proscribed?

 

PREMISE #2: Poor Sanskrit Scholarship or Homophobia

 

The Moral Thesis:

 

"The story does not describe mutually consensual homosexuality, since Brahma

fled the lusty demons."

 

By use of the term "mutually consensual homosexuality," the Moral Thesis

wishes to make a distinction between the demoniac homosexual attackers of

Brahma and modern gay partners. The nature of the Brahma-attacking demons'

sexual attraction was confirmed above, now we will address the term mutually

consensual. The Moral Thesis contends that the demons attacking Brahma were

wicked primarily because they attempted to force their lusty desires upon

another unwilling person-whereas typical gay behavior taking place between

willing adults cannot be considered to be in the same category.

Although it is true that the demoniac attack against Brahma represents

homosexuality in a most extreme manner, still, the Bhagavatam holds

homosexual behavior of any type as immoral. In his purport to Srimad

Bhagavatam, 3.20.26 as quoted above, Srila Prabhupada viewed both forced and

consensual homosexuality as falling into the same category of sinful

activity or illicit sex. The Moral Thesis finds this assessment faulty and

thus insinuates that ordinary gays of today have been contemptuously lumped

into the same category as those of the demoniac attackers. Thus the

implication points to either poor Sanskrit scholarship or homophobia.

Let us consider Srila Prabhupada's Sanskrit scholarship first.

 

Moral Thesis:

 

"We must search the most important Vaishnava sciptures presented by Srila

Prabhupada, the Bhagavad-gita and the Srimad-bhagavatam, for specific,

explicit, unambiguous scriptural statements about homosexuality. The result?

There are none. Remarkably, neither the Gita nor the Bhagavatam gives a

single explicit reference to mutually consensual homosexuality."

 

"The story does not give any rule, injunction, or prohibition regarding

homosexuality. Indeed the very word homosexuality does not appear in the

Bhagavatam."

 

"Since we do not find a specific, explicit, unambiguous set of rules for

dealing with homosexuality, we must engage in spiritual reasoning about it."

 

The very word zoo-philia also does not appear in the Bhagavatam-does that

mean sex with animals is acceptable? The Moral Thesis attempts to justify

its claim that "the Bhagavatam does not explicitly describe nor proscribe"

homosexuality by suggesting that only the homosexual attack is forbidden and

not homosexual behavior if it is mutually consensual among adults.

This proposal is fundamentally wrong since there is indeed a perfectly

specific, explicit, unambiguous set of rules for dealing with homosexuality

as we will demonstrate. In attempting to eliminate a scriptural prohibition,

the Moral Thesis employs absurd literalism to support its claim that

"neither the Gita nor the Bhagavatam gives a single explicit reference to

mutually consensual homosexuality."

Lord Krishna states that He is sex life which does not violate religious

principles (dharmaviruddho bhutesu kamo 'smi). [bhagavad-gita 7.11] What

constitutes religious principles with regard to sex indulgence is clearly

enunciated throughout the Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

" Particularly in the Third Canto the incident of Diti's impregnation

instructs that even when duly married and desiring offspring, sexual union

is considered illicit when bereft of purificatory regulations.

 

" In the Seventh Canto, Sri Narada Muni also prescribes principles of

the eternal religious system which he "heard from the mouth of Narayaëa"

beginning with brahmacaryam. There brahmacaryam is defined as continence or

abstaining from misuse of one's semen (not indulging in sex with women other

than one's own wife and not having sex with one's own wife when sex is

forbidden, like during the period of menstruation). The sage further

explains that the gåhastha "is given permission by the spiritual master to

indulge in sex during the period favorable for procreation (guru-vrttir

vikalpena grhasthasyartu-gaminaù." (7.12.11)

 

" Another directive is given in the Eleventh Canto to Vasudeva as

follows:

 

Religious sex life is also permitted, but only in marriage for begetting

children, and not for sensuous exploitation of the body. Unfortunately,

however, the less intelligent materialists cannot understand that their

duties in life should be performed purely on the spiritual platform.

(vyavayah prajaya na ratya imam visuddham na viduh sva-dharmam)(11.5.13)

 

" The most explicit information found in the Srimad Bhagavatam,

however, is spoken by the supreme authority, Lord Krishna, as follows:

 

A householder may approach his wife for sex only at the time prescribed for

begetting children. (grhasthasyapy rtau gantuh). (11.18.43)

 

Since the scriptural injunction for grhasthas excludes any sexual activity

not specifically intended for procreation, it naturally forbids all sex for

any other purpose. By forbidding all rather than most, some or numerous the

order is unambiguous and explicit. Thus the prohibition necessarily includes

each and every diverse form of illicit sex such as homosexuality, incest,

auto-eroticism, pedophilia, zoo-philia, necrophilia, etc. When sex

indulgence is allowed only under specific conditions, it automatically

prohibits any sex indulgence which does not meet those specific conditions.

The sastra's way of identifying prohibited behavior is the most

comprehensive and intelligent because it not only makes sense in the

immediate time period but it also allows for any situation that could arise

in the future. In Kali-yuga the perverted sinful activities of men and women

take on newer and more bizarre shapes and thus the sastras sensibly provide

prohibitions for each and every form of illicit sexual behavior which does

not conform to the precise allowable application given in the sastra.

If a man tells a barber to shave his head clean, it is understood the man

means that all the hairs on his head should be cut. The barber need not ask

whether the man wants this or that specific hair to be shaved. Nor can the

man be rightly accused of being ambiguous or inexplicit in his instruction.

He has accurately included each and every hair in the instruction for the

barber to cut. A typical barber would not become bewildered by this

instruction. The instruction is explicit because it refers to each

individual hair and it is unambiguous because there is no doubt about which

hairs are included. Not only would the task of specifically attempting to

name each and every hair to be cut be impractical, it is also redundant and

unnecessary. Thus the Srimad Bhagavatam and the Bhagavad-gita display the

kind of wisdom and foresight that one would expect from the most important

Vaisnava scriptures.

Looking at this in another way, let's imagine an attorney arguing in court

to defend his client:

 

"Your Honor, my client was given a citation for breaking the traffic law

Number 1634 of the Municipal Traffic Section, which states that: "no motor

vehicle weighing over 2 tons may be driven on this road." Your Honor, please

note that my client was driving a 60-foot long, green Mac truck that weighed

4 tons. I have searched the entire traffic law book and I can swear that in

that entire body of laws there is not a single explicit reference

prohibiting a 60- foot long, green Mac truck weighing 4 tons to drive on

that road."

 

>From a purely and absurdly technical angle of vision, the attorney is

stating a fact: indeed there is no "single explicit reference" prohibiting a

"60-foot, green Mac truck weighing 4 tons" in the traffic law book. However,

a sober judge will explain to the foolish attorney that the single law

prohibiting any motor vehicle weighing more than 2 tons includes all

varieties of motor vehicles never minding whether the vehicle's brand is

Mac, Scania, International, Volvo, brandless or any other brand-and whether

the vehicle is colored green, blue, pink, grey, polka-dotted or whatever-and

whether the vehicle weighs 2 ½ tons, 4 tons, 8 tons or any other weight

beyond 2 tons-or whether the vehicle is 60 feet long, 20 feet long, or 120

feet long. The law applies equally to them all. There is no need, nor any

possibility, for the traffic law book to enumerate all the trillions of

potential characteristic-combinations of motor vehicles which could violate

the law. In short, it is understood by sane persons that this prohibition

refers to all types of motor vehicles weighing more than 2 tons.

So, getting back to the claim that: "neither the Gita nor the Bhagavatam

gives a single explicit reference to mutually consensual homosexuality"-it

must be soberly pointed out that indeed mutually consensual homosexuality is

included in the multitudes of types of prohibited illicit sex indulgence

because it falls outside of Srimad Bhagavatam's accepted criteria for

religious sex. These accepted criteria include: 1) within a sacred marriage

between a man and a woman, 2) the purpose must be for procreation, and 3)

the scriptural regulations must be observed, etc. Since mutually consensual

homosexuality unmistakably meets none of these decisive factors, it must be

considered prohibited or illicit. Consensuality is by no means a saving

grace for homosexuality according to Vaisnava scripture.

It is also unfair to charge Srila Prabhupada of being homophobic when his

very life's example of saving the conditioned souls (including gays) proves

otherwise. It is observed that many former homosexuals experienced

transcendental transformations by engaging in devotional service to Krishna

under the direction of Srila Prabhupada. The qualification of those persons

was their willingness to give up sinful habits and abide by the guidance

given by His Divine Grace. Lacking such faith, some of today's

homosexually-oriented candidates for Krishna consciousness represented by

the Moral Thesis, claim unfair discrimination. No, it is not homophobia at

work but rather careful adherence to the verdict of the scriptures and the

unswerving dedication of the society's founder-acarya. Members of ISKCON

take the purports of His Divine Grace to be as good as scripture, without

which there would be no understanding of scripture in the West today. The

Moral Thesis, on the other hand, seems to view them as expendable.

Fortunately, we have His Divine Grace to clarify exactly what is meant by

Bhagavatam stories so we don't need to speculate and come to perverse

conclusions.

God and scripture deem some human acts wrong, and it is the faithful, honest

and pure persons who accept and abide by those injunctions. For example,

stealing is deemed wrong by God and scripture. Similarly, whether we like it

or not, homosexual behavior is also one of the human acts which is deemed

wrong by God and revealed scriptures throughout the world, thus it should be

given up by all sane persons. One may argue that there are exceptions to the

rule, and sometimes stealing could be condoned. That exception is very rare

and it is certainly not a principle which should be broadly encouraged. But

one may object: "There is a vast spectrum of stealing from armed robbery to

shoplifting, and surely they differ in their severity." Although there is a

relative hierarchy in stealing diamonds (hira-cora) or cucumbers

(khira-cora) both are criminal acts and are punishable. Similarly, according

to scriptures (sastra caksus) the aggressive homosexual attack and the

commonplace consensual homosexual relationships found today are both immoral

and condemned.

Devotional service encompasses the highest reason because it has been

decided by superior authorities. When the founder-acarya has given his

verdict on an issue, it is offensive to bring that same issue up to the open

forum for debate. A lower court cannot overrule a higher court's decision.

Whether one does not understand the instruction or one does not accept the

instruction or one thinks the instruction is okay but needs a little

work-the policy of trying to outsmart the founder-acarya is not wise.

 

PREMISE #3: Infidelity to Acaryas

 

The Moral Thesis:

 

"The godless demons who chased Brahma for sex were apparently attracted to

the specific part of his body that manifests female beauty. Both in the

Bhagavatam text itself, and in the commentaries of the great Acaryas, we

find unanimous evidence that these demons were actually lusting after

women."

 

"In conclusion, there is no doubt that the godless demons created by Brahma

all felt extreme lust toward women. A question arises as to whether they

approached Brahma in a straighforward homosexual way, or whether they were

attracted to a female aspect of Brahma's cosmic body, since Brahma gave up

to them a body in the form of a beautiful female. Keep in mind that the

Bhagavatam itself states at 3.20.53 that Brahma gave them a "part", amsha,

of his body, and Sridhara Swami states that this part was in fact an aspect

of Brahma's mental state, specifically the state of lust. Thus according to

the Bhagavatam and Sridhara Swami, the demons lustfully rushed at Brahma who

then seems to have given them what they wanted: a beautiful female.

Therefore it is clear that the demons had a strong heterosexual appetite, as

well as an ambiguous attraction to a lusty female aspect of Lord Brahma."

 

"In their commentaries on this incident, three great commentators ---

Sridhara Swami, Vira Raghavacarya, and Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakur, all

describe these demons as stri-lampata, "lusting after women." Thus when the

Bhagavatam first mentions this incident and desribes the demons as

atilolupan, "excessively lusty," Sridhara Swami states that this lust was

for women."

 

The insinuation here by the Moral Thesis is that because the Bhaktivedanta

Translations and Purports describe the demons' attack on Brahma for sex as

homosexual they have deviated from the acaryas' (such as Sridhara Swami,

Vira Raghavacarya, and Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakur), standard conclusion

concerning this episode of Srimad Bhagavatam.

This claim cannot stand. Srila Prabhupada taught that the homosexual

appetite within men is produced of excessive lust after women (atilolupan

stri-lampata) just as the commentators have explained. He is totally in

agreement with the acarya commentators on this point. Thus the Moral Thesis'

attempt to discredit Srila Prabhupada's fidelity to the acaryas of the

Srimad Bhagavatam fails.

What makes the Bhaktivedanta Purports so outstanding is that they focus the

light of the Bhagavata and the previous acaryas into a powerful and

compassionate beam of hope and mercy for the fallen conditioned souls of

Kali-yuga. His Divine Grace further extended that mercy with practical

advice to his followers of homosexual inclination that they should sincerely

perform devotional service to Krishna and they, like others, would transcend

the material impurities of their birth and activities. Those who carefully

follow the principles of bhakti-yoga achieve spiritual advancement, proving

that His Divine Grace's advice continues to work. The purport under scrutiny

is especially brilliant because it crystallizes exactly what is happening in

the episode and what is to be learned by such an incident.

A renowned modern Sanskrit scholar expresses the opinion that Srila

Prabhupada's purports to the Srimad-Bhagavatam reveal his loyalty to the

Vaisnava tradition of scriptural commentary:

 

"I have gathered some insights into Srila Prabhupada's hermeneutic

methodology…He always de-emphasized his own abilities, preferring to be

judged on the more objective grounds of his bona fide allegiance to the

teachings of the Vaisnava tradition he represented. He did not credit his

preaching success to any special abilities of his own. As he once said, 'I

don't claim that I am a pure devotee or perfect, but my only qualification

is that I am trying to follow the instruction of the perfect.'…

To publicly establish spiritual authority, then, a teacher, rather than

making an open spectacle of his intimate ecstasies, should simply speak

philosophically on the basis of what previous authorities have said in

scripture and on reputable commentaries of scripture. Srila Prabhupada

wanted his own authority to be accepted according to how faithfully he lived

up to that standard…

Srila Prabhupada was firmly convinced of the relevance of Srimad-Bhagavatam.

In his view, the Bhagavatam's teachings were timeless, the perennial science

of God consciousness. His own responsibility was simply to translate them

without distortion. If the instructions of his authoritative predecessors

were properly served, the whole world would surely benefit… He based his own

presentation largely on the commentaries of previous authorities."

 

(Back to Godhead Magazine; Volume 36, Number 04, 2002;

"Serving the Words of His Predecessors," By Gopiparanadhana Dasa

Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (BBT) Sanskrit editor and translator for more than

25 years.

His works include Srimad Bhagavatam and Sri Brhad-Bhagavatamrta)

 

The Moral Thesis:

 

"It is not clear from the original Bhagavatam story that the demons were

true homosexuals. By close study of this story, we find that in fact the

demons who approached Brahma were at most bi-sexual, and that even this

bi-sexuality is quite ambiguous."

 

Whether the demoniac men approaching Brahma were "true" homosexuals meaning

persons exclusively attracted to males without sexual attraction for females

is not of primary concern. The Moral Thesis tries to divert attention from

the primary action of the verse to a technical discussion of bisexuality

which carries little relevance to the event. A judge is not is not

particularly interested in whether a rapist is heterosexual, bisexual or

homosexual. The criminal act itself is to be judged-not latent tendencies.

 

PREMISE #4: Human Reasoning Paramount

 

Moral Thesis:

 

"Sometimes devotees state that 'no illicit sex' means 'no sex outside of

marriage.' Indeed that is the standard that many respected grhasthas are

able to follow."

 

"ISKCON teaches the ideal in regards to avoiding illicit sexuality within

marriage but in reality accommodates illicit sex within marriage."

 

The Moral Thesis here puts forward the idea that ISKCON and its

founder-acarya authorize two acceptable standards of sexual indulgence (a

higher and a lower) within the grhastha asrama. Although acknowledging that

the higher standard is the ideal, the Moral Thesis argues that the lower is

also authorized by default despite the fact that it accommodates illicit

sex. Supposedly, authorization of a lower standard emanates from statements

made by Srila Prabhupada himself, such as those below:

 

" "Illicit sex is sex outside of marriage." (Science of

Self-Realization, Chapter 2)

 

" "Students are required to follow strictly the regulative principles

of Vedic life: 1) No illicit sex-life (i.e. outside of marriage)" (From a

letter to a life member; April 5, 1972)

 

While Srila Prabhupada's statement that "illicit sex is sex outside of

marriage" is certainly true, it does not constitute an "easier version of

the rule" as the Moral Thesis demands. It cannot be supported that Srila

Prabhupada taught such an "easier" version of regulative principles because

illicit sex is not limited only to sex outside of marriage. His Divine Grace

made numerous statements on the subject, as did Srimad Bhagavatam (see the

four verses quoted in the Premise #3 section above). When asked for a brief

definition of what illicit sex constituted, His Divine Grace sometimes opted

to give a simple, abbreviated description of the term rather than the more

detailed explanation which he reserved for the proper time and circumstance.

Consider a botany professor who tells some children that coconuts come from

seeds in the ground. The statement is not incorrect but certainly lacks

completeness. The simplified explanation cannot be taken as realistic

guidance on how to grow coconuts. The same professor lectures his university

graduate students on the details of growing coconuts such as the type of

seed, soil, sowing techniques, weeding, temperatures, quantities of water,

sunlight, fertilizers, diseases, plant predators, plant characteristics-its

flowers, fruits, etc. The professor reveals more about the science of

botanically growing coconuts according to time and circumstance and the

capacity of the students. Not only is the statement to the children

incomplete, but an inexperienced person trying to grow coconuts simply based

on that meagre information would easily become baffled presuming that

putting any seed, in any type of ground, at any time, in any location would

produce coconuts. Further information would be required to successfully grow

coconuts from the start.

In the same way, when comprehensive explanations were required, Srila

Prabhupada spared no pains in providing minute details about the standard

for sex within Vaisnava marriage. On the other hand, when a reporter from

the London Times interviewing Srila Prabhupada asked about it, His Divine

Grace replied with the abbreviated "illicit sex is sex outside of marriage."

(Science of Self-Realization, Chapter 2)

 

Moral Thesis:

 

"Why do we thus condone a sexual act which is, in the strictest sense,

sinful? Surely because it is the lesser of two evils, the greater evil being

sex outside of marriage."

 

If the discussion revolves around the standard for the grhastha asrama or

the standard for Vaisnavas within marriage, or the standard for married

initiated students within the International Society for Krishna

Consciousness, the truth is that there is but one acceptable standard. The

acceptable standard is the complete explanation given in Srimad Bhagavatam

(see the Eleventh Canto quoted above) and confirmed by His Divine Grace as

follows.

 

"It is sometimes misunderstood that a grhastha, a householder, is permitted

to indulge in sex at any time. This is a wrong conception of grhastha life.

The grhastha is allowed to indulge in sex life during the period favorable

for procreation and in accordance with the spiritual master's order. If the

spiritual master's orders allow a grhastha to engage in sex life at a

particular time, then the grhastha may do so; otherwise, if the spiritual

master orders against it, the grhastha should abstain. The grhastha must

obtain permission from the spiritual master to observe the ritualistic

ceremony of garbhadhana-samskara. Then he may approach his wife to beget

children, otherwise not." (Srimad Bhagavatam 7.12.11 Purport)

 

This line of reasoning should be clear to all honest persons. Why then does

the Moral Thesis propose that an "easier rule" was established for Vaisnava

grhasthas? Wishful thinking does not constitute religious principles nor can

illicit sex within marriage be rightly called the grhastha asrama. Srila

Prabhupada set equal standards for all of his followers where the grhastha

asrama is characterized as a spiritual order in which husband and wife make

spiritual advancement. Householders who do not follow the regulative

principles enunciated in these verses of Srimad Bhagavatam do not belong to

the grhastha asrama but are termed grhamedhis (materialistic householders).

The "easier rule" fallacy is definitely not a rule for Vaisnavas because it

was not given by sastra, previous acaryas or by Srila Prabhupada.

The Moral Thesis fabricates an "easier rule" on the basis of its own

concocted "lesser of the two evils" reasoning. Such a proposition is as

foolish as the atheistic slogan yata mata tata patha-"all ways lead to the

Truth." We cannot manufacture our own way of understanding devotional

service for it is not that everything one manufactures or concocts will lead

to understanding God.

 

Moral Thesis:

 

"The question then arises: is the policy of choosing the lesser of evils

valid only for heterosexuals, or is it also a necessary strategy for

homosexuals?"

 

Now by disclosing this "easier rule-lesser of evils" theory, the Moral

Thesis makes it easy to see the basis of the "gay monogamy" proposition. In

a vain attempt to support this objective, the Moral Thesis employs

pieced-together bits of mundane interpretations of scriptural stories.

 

PREMISE #5: Story Interpretations

 

Story #1) Moral Thesis: "In both these stories of Asvatthama and

Rukmi we find justice tempered by mercy, resulting in an

act of merciful justice which does not obey the strictest letter of the

law."

 

The Moral Thesis proposes that the punishments Krishna meted out to

Asvatthama and Rukmi compromised justice and mercy and did "not obey the

strictest letter of the law." The Moral Thesis has not accurately understood

these pastimes. In reality, Krishna never compromises justice in favor of

mercy. Rather His mercy is always perfectly just and His justice is always

perfectly merciful and both follow the supreme letter of the law. This marks

the difference between the ordinary flawed living entities trying to play

God by redesigning human morality and the Lord Himself. The Lord and His

devotee Arjuna did not compromise the letter of the law in punishing

Asvatthama. More accurately, they knew all the laws and thus came to the

perfect conclusion that Asvatthama should not be slain but humiliated. It

may appear like a compromise to those who are not conversant with all the

appropriate laws or to those who choose to ignore the appropriate laws.

According to Srimad Bhagavatam, the punishment chosen for Asvatthama was

perfect according to dharma.

 

"Cutting the hair from his head, depriving him of his wealth and driving him

from his residence are the prescribed punishments for the relative of a

brahmana. There is no injunction for killing the body." (1.7.58)

 

Srila Prabhupada nicely comments on the outcome:

 

Contradictory orders of different persons are impossible to carry out.

Therefore a compromise was selected by Arjuna by his sharp intelligence, and

he separated the jewel from the head of Asvatthama. This was as good as

cutting off his head, and yet his life was saved for all practical purposes.

Here Asvatthama is indicated as twice-born. Certainly he was twice-born, but

he fell down from his position, and therefore he was properly punished. Thus

being insulted, the humiliated Asvatthama was simultaneously killed and not

killed by the intelligence of Lord Krsna and Arjuna.

 

Story #2) Moral Thesis: "A strong male seeks to act in a strong way

claiming such an act to be

just. A respected lady [Kunti] then insists on a somewhat different course,

and the male adjusts his behavior."

 

The Moral Thesis asserts that when calling demigods for sons Pandu

compromised dharma to appease his wife Kunti. In reality this story provides

no compromise of dharma in the least. Pandu's acquiescence to his wife's

opinion was fully based on dharma. Kunti devi also happened to be a very

great devotee of the Lord and a learned scholar in Vedic knowledge in

addition to her being Pandu's beloved wife. There was no fault on Pandu's

part in listening to his dharma patni, nor was there any fault on Kunti's

part for speaking what she had heard from saints and sastra. The final

decision was made mutually in accord with all dharmic principles and did not

depend on mundane human feminine appeals.

 

Story #3) Moral Thesis: "The family's moral duty, was not at all clear

to the them and they could not agree on what to do since any possible moral

act seemed to violate another moral duty of equal importance. The key point

here is that practical circumstances presented a seemingly insoluble moral

conflict to a good, brahminical, Vedic family."

 

The Moral Thesis wishes to use the Eka-cakra brahmana family's dilemma in

deciding which family member should be sacrificed to the demon Baka to prove

that no matter how hard one tries to be moral or pious, one will inevitably

fail due to "conflicting moral duties." Such a gloomy view is not entirely

untrue, however it certainly does not touch the actual lesson to be learned

from the story. In reality, the brahmana and his family represent all

conditioned souls in this material world facing the perplexities of worldly

existence. Ordinary dharma or varnasrama provides some relief from the

confusion, however it is not capable of solving the problems entirely.

To actually resolve life's dilemma everyone requires the guidance of a bona

fide spiritual master whose transcendental instructions burn away the dense

fog of confusion and anxiety. Fortunately for the brahmana family of

Eka-cakra, the Lord sent His dear representative Vaisnavi in the form of

Srimati Kuntidevi to compassionately, transcendentally and efficiently solve

the family's problems. So the moral dilemma was solved permanently and

safely by the divine grace of Srimati Kuntidevi and her son Bhimasena.

Sanjaya declared that:

 

Wherever there is Krsna, the master of all mystics, and wherever there is

Arjuna, the supreme archer, there will also certainly be opulence, victory,

extraordinary power, and morality. That is my opinion.

yatra yogesvarah krsno

yatra partho dhanur-dharah

tatra srir vijayo bhutir

dhruva nitir matir mama

 

The pure devotee knows how to act in all circumstances satisfying both

morality and bhakti.

 

Story #4) Moral Thesis: "Narada urges upon Mrgari the lesser of

evils."

 

The Moral Thesis wishes to show how Narada chose the lesser of moral evils

when he advised Mrgari the hunter to fully kill animals rather than to

half-kill them. Again the Moral Thesis has put aside the true significance

of the scriptural story (this time from the Puranas) to instead emphasize a

minor element-and that also incorrectly. A great saintly person like Narada

Muni does not travel around the material and spiritual worlds to split hairs

over the relative papa of killing and half-killing animals. Narada Muni's

real intent was to encourage the hunter to stop hunting altogether and

depend totally on the Lord for his maintenance. That is why he spoke the

significant words to the hunter, "You stop this hunting business and I will

give you your livelihood."

Narada's preaching strategy was successful with Mrgari as it was when he

disclosed to Kamsa that Krishna and Balarama were sons of Vasudeva. In that

pastime, Narada knew that as a result of his disclosure Kamsa would arrange

to kill the boys-but Krishna would defeat Kamsa. In the same way, Narada

knew that although Mrgari the hunter was sinful, he was nonetheless

simple-hearted and would give up killing animals completely.

 

Story #5) Moral Thesis: "In a sense, Bhishma declares here that even

if the universe should

collapse, he will not give up his vow. Consequences don't matter. All that

does matter is the integrity of an act itself, in this case the act of

keeping one's vow."

 

The Moral Thesis considers Bhisma's vow of celibacy insensitive to its

consequences. This sanctimonious interpretation attempts to bring down one

of Vedic culture's most sacred and beneficial vows to the mundane level.

Bhisma never intended that consequences didn't matter; rather he meant that

the act of dharma (keeping his sacred vow) inevitably produces the best

consequences. Of that he is sure, and he is a mahajana. Bhisma should not be

considered an ordinary impetuous youth prone to making rash vows without due

deliberation. At the time of making his vow, Bhisma was already perfectly

educated in all branches of Vedic knowledge by great rishis. If Bhisma's vow

were truly whimsical, irresponsible and harmful as implied by the Moral

Thesis, why would Yamaraja, the great demigod and universal authority on

morality, include Bhisma's name as one of the twelve wisest authorities

(mahajanas) in existence?

 

Several other factors must be considered in regard to Bhisma's vow:

 

A) Bhisma was well-aware that the fisherman's daughter Satyavati was

divinely chosen to be

the mother of the Kuru dynasty.

B) Despite his vow of celibacy Bhisma never shirked his responsibility to

protect and guide the

Kuru dynasty through valiant fighting and giving perfect counsel.

C) The sacred vow of naistiki brahmacarya is authorized by Vedic authorities

and has been

glorified in the lives of the Kumaras, Narada, Hanuman, Kapila, Sukadeva,

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, etc. Bhisma's vow was no different.

D) We have not heard of any acarya intimating that Bhisma's vow of celibacy

was inauspicious

or would bring inauspicious results.

E) The vow was so glorious and auspicious that the Supreme Lord Sri

Krishna Himself

personally attended to Bhisma at the time of his passing from this world.

 

Story #6) Moral Thesis: "There is, however, another approach to

morality in which one's

primary concern is with the consequences of an act. The most famous

proponent of this pragmatic approach is of course Krishna Himself. Indeed

Krishna teaches pragmatic moral philosophy to Bhishma himself at the Battle

of Kurukshetra."

 

The Moral Thesis considers Krishna's picking up the broken chariot wheel to

protect Arjuna from Bhisma's attack a model of breeching dharma (morality)

for the sake of helping people. In reality however, Lord Krishna does not

become immoral by His activities but rather He becomes glorified by the

seemingly immoral acts, as indicated earlier. His youthful dancing with the

gopis, childish butter-stealing, fleeing the battlefield and breaking a

promise all demonstrate His independence from mundane governance. These

special activities must be considered the transcendental prerogative of the

Supreme Personality of Godhead and should not be used as models upon which

ordinary souls compromise morality to achieve social expediency.

If one actually wishes to critique the broken promise of Krishna,

many additional factors must be taken into account:

 

A) Krishna's singular status as the omniscient, benevolent,

all-merciful God.

B) Lord Krishna's chivalrous relationship with Bhisma known as vira

rasa.

C) Lord Krishna's magnanimous willingness to sacrifice His own promise

in order to keep the promise of His beloved devotee Bhisma. Bhisma vowed

earlier that morning he would kill Arjuna unless Krishna broke His promise.

D) The intimate friendship of Arjuna with Krishna.

E) Krishna's preference to honor the declaration of Arjuna (kaunteya

pratijanihi na me bhaktah pranasyati). Krishna prefers to be known as the

protector of His devotees rather than the keeper of promises.

F) The fate of the world should Arjuna have been slain.

G) How morality is defined when it is employed by God, etc.

 

Story #7) Moral Thesis: "Krishna tells Yudhisthira, 'O Pandava,

casting aside dharma, do what is practical for victory so that Drona of the

golden car does not kill you all in battle.'"

 

The Moral Thesis highlights how Krishna advised Yudhisthira to cast aside

dharma in order to defeat Drona. Many of the same considerations discussed

in Story #6 apply here with the addition of several other factors.

 

A) The statement of Bhagavad-gita provides a higher stratum of dharma

or morality which is accomplished when one has implicit faith in the

directions of the Supreme Lord.

 

sarva-dharman parityajya

mam ekam saranam vraja

aham tvam sarva-papebhyo

moksayisyami ma sucah

 

"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall

deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear." (18.66)

 

An ordinary person cannot invoke such indemnity by a would-be desire to

become a social reformer. For example, an ordinary soul should not recommend

casting aside Vedic morality for the sake of supposedly appeasing the minds

of those unable to follow standard religious principles.

 

B) Drona the brahmana had already breeched dharma by fighting in a

ksatriya war.

C) Drona had lost his respectability by siding with the evil

Duryodhana.

D) Drona himself had personally and explicitly outlined to Yudhisthira

what means should be used for his own defeat.

E) Drupada had performed a Vedic sacrifice to kill Drona and a son

(Dhrstadyumna) was born for fulfilling that purpose.

 

Story #8) Moral Thesis: "One must keep in mind that the whole purpose

of moral principles is to benefit people. At times, good people, externally,

perform bad deeds.

At times, bad people, externally, perform good deeds.

In such cases one must look beyond appearances to see what actually produces

good consequences."

 

The Moral Thesis uses a story from the Mahabharata to demonstrate how a

family-minded hunter was sent to heaven and a superficially truthful

brahmana was sent to hell. From this we are supposed to look beyond outward

appearances and to be careful of false self-righteousness. There is a

similar story told by Srila Prabhupada about a brahmana who lived next to a

prostitute. Each time the prostitute had a customer, the brahmana would add

a stone to a pile that gradually became a wall, revealing to everyone her

sinful activity. He became so absorbed in pointing out her sinfulness that

at the time of death, he thought of the prostitute and fell down from his

position. The prostitute, however, felt remorse for her sinful behavior and

longed to become purified and thus she became elevated. The intricacies of

action are very hard to understand. Therefore one should know properly what

action is, what forbidden action is, and what inaction is. (4.17)

 

However, Srila Prabhupada has made the whole process quite easy by his lucid

instructions and the sincere follower accepts them without a challenging

spirit. If guru, sastra and sadhu all agree on a particular topic, which is

definitely true with the case under discussion, why should one waste time in

such hermeneutical gymnastics. Indeed Lord Krishna instructs in His

Uddhava-gita that mundane duality and the Absolute Truth go ill together.

 

kim bhadram kim abhadram va

dvaitasyavastunah kiyat

vacoditam tad anrtam

manasa dhyatam eva ca

 

Anything not conceived in relationship to Krsna should be understood to be

illusion [maya]. None of the illusions uttered by words or conceived in the

mind are factual. Because illusion is not factual, there is no distinction

between what we think is good and what we think is bad. When we speak of the

Absolute Truth, such speculations do not apply. (Srimad-Bhagavatam: 11.28.4)

 

Similarly, Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu points out the mistake of

speculating.

 

'dvaite' bhadrabhadra-jnana, saba-'manodharma'

'ei bhala, ei manda',-ei saba 'bhrama'

 

"In the material world, conceptions of good and bad are all mental

speculations. Therefore, saying 'This is good' and 'This is bad' is all a

mistake." (Caitanya-caritamrta: Antya 4.176)

 

To make matters worse, the Thesis chooses to quote from a Sanskrit edition

of the work produced by scholars who reject as spurious certain portions of

the Mahabharata such as the attempted disrobing of Draupadi. The Moral

Thesis's curving thread running through all these stories is that human

reasoning surpasses dharma, scriptural injunctions, the words of the Supreme

Lord and the spiritual master.

 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

 

Moral Thesis:

 

"To encourage devotees who are struggling to regulate, reduce and eliminate

sinful sexuality in any form is not to praise or encourage sinful

activities. The truth is the opposite: we are praising and encouraging the

reduction and gradual elimination of such activities."

 

"Lord Krishna Himself states at the end of the Gita, 18.66: Giving up all

moral/religious principles and come to Me alone for shelter. I shall protect

you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear!"

"Thus considering Vaishnava moral philosophy, as taught by Krishna Himself

and by His pure devotees, ISKCON must encourage sincere devotees who at

times, in good faith, and within reasonable limits, choose the lesser of

evils in order to stabilize themselves on the spiritual path. This principle

applies to human sexuality among mutually consenting adults."

 

Dharma is not achieved by adharma. Inventing a so-called religious

principle based on an insane society's mores is like cleaning a wine-stained

pot with wine. The process of trying to understand scriptures by use of

logic and argument goes on unsuccessfully for millions of lifetimes-vedesu

durlabham adurlabham atma-bhaktau. A simple devotee gives the guru a glass

of water when it is asked for whereas the sophisticated philosopher

conjectures that soy milk is better, so he brings that.

A similar phenomenon befell Western society at large when in the beginning

of the 20th century Sigmund Freud introduced an atheistic, decadent paradigm

of pseudo science and rhetoric. Hopefully, the Vaisnava community will stand

its ground against the "Moral Thesis" which ostensibly appears as a

scholarly Vaisnava reassessment of preaching strategy.

Although completely blinded by ignorance, the lost souls of

Kali-yuga have received the grace of Krishna in the form of His Divine Grace

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

 

tarko 'pratisthah srutayo vibhinna

nasav rsir yasya matam na bhinnam

dharmasya tattvam nihitam guhayam

mahajano yena gatah sa panthah

 

Dry arguments are inconclusive. A great personality whose opinion does not

differ from others is not considered a great sage. Simply by studying the

Vedas, which are variegated, one cannot come to the right path by which

religious principles are understood. The solid truth of religious principles

is hidden in the heart of an unadulterated, self-realized person.

Consequently, as the sastras confirm, one should accept whatever progressive

path the mahajanas advocate. (Mahabharata, Vana-parva, 313.117).

 

 

As with the punishing of Asvatthama Arjuna incorporated all relevant

instructions and made the perfect conclusion without breaking any dharmic

rules, so has Srila Prabhupada incorporated ISKCON. True devotees and

members of ISKCON accept His Divine Grace as the person bhagavata and thus

his words are the same as Srimad Bhagavatam. ISKCON has become somewhat

celebrated for its high standards, and Srila Prabhupada requested his

followers to maintain those high standards.

ISKCON accepts its founder-acarya as a prominent mahajana and agrees to

follow his conclusions without wrangling new interpretations to suit the

current social trends-but the Moral Thesis dares to differ. Ignoring the

founder-acarya's explicit directives on the subject, the Moral Thesis

produces four papers of twenty pages and displays them eagerly. Yet, moral

reasoning which contradicts scripture and guru and sadhu is useless.

Although one may give assurances to persons accepting sub-religious actions

that they will make spiritual advancement, it must be pointed out that

non-Vedic standards cannot be established whimsically. The Moral Thesis

keeps whispering that His Divine Grace's teachings are outdated. Thus

abandoning the founder-acarya's guidance, the Moral Thesis unfortunately is

guilty of not knowing what actually produces good consequences. In the

Srimad Bhagavatam's Fifth Canto we learn of how Bharata Maharaja sought a

righteous path in saving a drowning fawn but, because he had no counsel of a

spiritual master, became entangled in his affection and thus lost his status

as an advanced devotee. Social reasoning may be popular with ordinary

society, but a devotee prefers to please the real acarya and Krishna.

 

ei kali-kale ara nahi kona dharma

vaisnava, vaisnava-sastra, ei kahe marma

 

In this Age of Kali there are no genuine religious principles other than

those established by Vaisnava devotees and the Vaisnava scriptures. This is

the sum and substance of everything. (CC Madhya 9.362)

 

Hare Krishna.