ISKCON Cultural Journal Update: The Influence of Gay Advocacy in ISKC

[Guest guest]

ISKCON Cultural Journal Update: The Influence of Gay Advocacy in ISKCON

 

September 03, 2004

 

 

------

 

 

It looks like the predictions in my September 1st entry were correct:

Dear XYZ Maharaja, Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to

Srila Prabhupada. Thank you for your letter. I think that you have

perhaps picked up the wrong...

 

 

------

 

http://siddhanta.com/archives/culture/000108.html

 

 

 

------

 

 

It looks like the predictions in my [1]September 1st entry were

correct:

Dear XYZ Maharaja,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila

Prabhupada.

Thank you for your letter.

I think that you have perhaps picked up the wrong signal from this

agenda item, please let me try to explain.

Firstly this is an academic exercise, it is not that ANYONE at the

meeting is proposing such motions in real terms.

The idea is similar to Srila Prabhupada often engaging in the

'sport' of debating on his morning walks. Sometimes he would get

his disciples to take the role of the scientist or mayavadi etc.,

or indeed sometimes he would do this himself.

The idea is that we faced more and more with these issues in our

preaching and we have to be as well prepared as possible to defeat

the arguments presented.

So that is the purpose of this exercise. Again I repeat no-one is

supporting or promoting the issues concerned.

Your servant, Praghosa dasa.

 

This was what I said yesterday: The official reason for holding the

debate include any one of the following: (educational) presenting the

facts of gay-marriage to ISKCON leaders and preachers so they can

present more effective arguments against gay-marriage. . . . The first

reason (educational) is the one that will most likely be given,

although either one or both of the other reasons may also be offered.

 

So, Prabhupada did this, why can't we follow in his footsteps?

 

It's not the dialog itself that is the problem, it is the context in

which that dialog takes place that is the problem. So many things

derive their meaning and significance from their context, and this

issue is no different. In other words, there may be other factors, or

interests at work which, in spite of all benevolent intentions may be

acting to bring about a result some of the actors don't intend. We all

have the experience of doing something or saying something and not

getting the desired result. This is because, according to Krishna in

the Bhagavad-gita, there are five factors that contribute to the

outcome of any action: "The place of action [the body], the performer,

the various senses, the many different kinds of endeavor, and

ultimately the Supersoulthese are the five factors of action. Whatever

right or wrong action a man performs by body, mind or speech is caused

by these five factors. Therefore one who thinks himself the only doer,

not considering the five factors, is certainly not very intelligent

and cannot see things as they are." (Bhagavad-gita As It Is 18.14 -

16) So, at least according to our theology (metaphysics, really) it is

a theoretical possibility that something like the debate may have some

other outcome besides that which is explicitly intended.

 

It is a fact that people in general are sometimes mistaken as to what

their motivations may be.

When we examine our own consciousness and become aware of being

aware, our consciousness no doubt differs from when we are thinking

about something else, so even accurate descriptions may be

atypical. In addition, assuming that Freud's notion that mind

includes an unconscious has some merit, how can introspection be

accurate if so crucial a component is largely inaccessible? In

support, Nisbett and Wilson ( 1977) cite several lines of evidence

to indicate that people are simply not very good at introspecting,

remaining blissfully unaware of such things as their reasons for

doing something or of factors that have demonstrably influenced a

behavior, such as, solving a puzzle.

(Jock Abra. "Should Psychology Be a Science? Pros and Cons."

Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT., 1998. Page 16)

 

Advertising works because it is possible through communication to

modify people's behavior, to get them to do things you want them to

do. So the reason for an official gay marriage debate in ISKCON might

not be so much because of external pressure from throngs of gays and

gay sympathizers protesting ISKCON's conservative stance on marriage.

The reason for an official debate taking place may be more due to

internal pressure from devotees in ISKCON who want ISKCON to endorse

gay-marriage. So, since "the message is the medium," let's take a look

at some of the gay ideas that have been bouncing around ISKCON as well

as who has been bouncing them.

 

The logical place to start is with those who have been most outspoken

in their demands for ISKCON to embrace homosexuality. That place is

[2]GALVA, the Gay and Lesbian Vaishnava Association, Inc. Here are

some of their objectives (bolding added):

* Quite simply GALVA is a case for the tolerance of the existence of

gay and lesbian Gaudiya Vaisnavas following the regulative

principles of Krsna Consciousness. The purpose of this site is to

examine various positions towards sexuality and its acceptance

within the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya, better known (through one

of its constituents, ISKCON) as the Hare Krishna movement. Within

the ethical morals of Vaishnavism, sexual conduct other than for

procreation is proscribed. (Home Page. Source:

[3]http://www.nine9.ukshells.co.uk/cgi-bin/galva-idx.pl?node=galva

-main)

* Third-gender devotees who can no longer maintain their monastic

vows are not rejected by the temple or pressured into following

artificial renunciation. Rather, they are offered realistic

counseling and advice. They are encouraged to keep their ties with

the center, continue their devotion outside of temple life, become

responsible citizens and establish committed, monogamous

relationships. ('Is Your Temple Gay-friendly?' Amara dasa. Source:

[4]http://www.galva.nl/Gay_friendly.html)

* There are also third-gender citizens, sometimes greatly attached

to each other and with complete faith in one another, who get

married (parigraha) together. (KS 2.9.36) There were eight

different types of marriage according to the Vedic system, and the

homosexual marriage that occurred between gay males or lesbians

was classified under the gandharva or celestial variety. ("The

Case For Gay Tolerance

Third-Gender Relationships in Gaudiya Vaishnavism" Rama Keshava

dasa. Source: [5]http://www.galva.nl/gaytolerance.html)

* In the comments below, Srila Prabhupada discusses homosexuality in

a negative way. He discourages it as a practice for his disciples,

most of whom, of course, were heterosexual. He stresses that

procreative sex within marriage is the only acceptable option for

them and that homosex, as he called it, was unnatural and degraded

behavior for those in the ordinary course of life. Many of his

comments are reflections of popular social views, and some have

even since been proven untrue, such as the statements that

homosexuality is caused by overindulgence with women, or that

there is no homosexuality in the animal kingdom. It should also be

noted that in these negative comments, Srila Prabhupada discusses

homosex as an improper behavioral choice rather than as an

inherent nature or third sex. ("Srila Prabhupada on

Homosexuality:I Do Not Know Exactly Amara dasa. Source:

[6]http://www.galva.nl/prabhupada.html) [blog comment: It is

inevitable that, with the agenda of the gay Vaishnavas to somehow

win acceptance for homosexual behavior being so far apart from the

conclusions of the disciplic succession, it is inevitable that

they criticize Srila Prabhupada.]

* Srila Prabhupada: Now the priestly order is supporting homosex. I

was surprised. They are going to pass a resolution for getting

married between man to man. The human society has come down to

such a degraded position. It is astonishing. (5/25/72, Los

Angeles)

.

.

.

Comments: One should not be surprised that Srila Prabhupada was

shocked to learn of homosexual marriage when it was first openly

practiced in the West, especially since he held such a low opinion

of homosex between ordinary males or females. Although he had

never heard of such a thing before, it was not without precedence.

In the Kama-sutra 2.9.36 it is stated, There are also third-sexed

citizens, sometimes greatly attached to each other and with

complete faith in one another, who get married together. This type

of marriage was defined as gandharva--- a union of love and

co-habitation, recognized under common law, but without the need

of parental consent or religious ceremony.

Srila Prabhupada often mentioned that complete celibacy was nearly

impossible in this day and age. Certainly this statement is no

less true for gays and lesbians than it is for heterosexuals.

Therefore it is only reasonable to suggest that homosexuals unable

to practice celibacy would be better situated in committed,

monogamous relationships than they would be if abandoned

altogether to engage in unbridled sexual behavior. (Ibid.)

 

"Monogamous relationship," of course, is code for "gay-marriage." Now,

those most vocal about this are admittedly a small group of people,

but as Margaret Mead once accurately observed, "Never doubt that a

small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world.

Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." Now, all this would not

be taken so seriously if it weren't for the fact that GALVA seems to

have some quotes / responses from ISKCON leaders that they believe

supports their cause:

The steps taken towards diksa can be discussed as a private matter

with the desired guru in mind. Attitudes will vary from guru to

guru on the multi-sexual variants of today, and some will be more

broad-minded on the subject. All persons must be dealt with on an

individual basis, while at the same time the four regulative

principles are to be considered. Many senior devotees will give

interpretations on the illicit sex issue, but in the strictest

sense, intercourseas it is understood from Prabhupadais meant for

procreation and procreation alone. Our leaders have looked at this

issue realistically and have concluded, at least for grihastas

[married couples], that they are encouraged to reach this platform.

I counsel grihastas that it is their responsibility to keep the

relationships intact for their own sake and for the sake of their

children where there are some. If some affection is shown outside

procreation, then they have somewhat of an obligation. In other

words, do not try to be a brahmacari [celibate] when you are a

grihasta.

(Bhakti Marga Swami. "Perspectives on Homosexuality." Source:

[7]http://www.galva.nl/perspectives4.html)

 

Though what Maharaja says is, basically, true--certainly, many married

couples in ISKCON just don't perfectly follow their vows and need

helpthe curiosity here is the unconventional use of categories.

Instead of brahmachari (celibate) as compared to grihastha

(non-celibate), why not use the categories of "dharma" as compared to

"adharma"? It would be more accurate. For a brahmachari procreation is

forbidden. For a grihastha, it is allowed only under certain

circumstances, otherwise also forbidden. Transgression is adharma for

both and therefore binding in the material world. It probably is not a

good thing that many senior devotees will give (different)

interpretations on the illicit sex issue, although that is also

probably true. Still, Bhakti Marga Swami's remarks are on their

website, and someone at GALVA seems to think it advances their cause.

Quite a while back, I received a copy of your [Amara dasa] paper,

[8]Tritiya-prakriti: People of the Third Sex. I read the paper. It

was very informative, but I did not really let it sink in deeply.

Recently, I have been making so much more effort in trying to open

up my heart to be more available in understanding and serving all

Vaishnavas with greater effectiveness. After hearing of Damodaras

suicide, I read your paper over again, along with some of the

writings of H.H. Bhakti Ananda Goswami, Rama Keshava dasa and

Mitravinda dasi. I must say that I have seen the light, (especially

after more closely reading over the story in the Bhagavatam

concerning Lord Brahmas creating the personalities from his

buttocks, the account of the members of the third sex who were in

attendance at Lord Caitanyas appearance, and a closer investigation

of Arjuna in his transgender form of Brihannala.)

.

.

.

Yours in Srila Prabhupada¹s service,

with love,

Bhakti Tirtha Swami

PS Today I gave the Sunday feast lecture on many points presented

in your paper. And, by the way, my Sunday feast lectures here in

Gita Nagari are recorded for my weekly television show that comes

on in Washington DC, which is now in its eighth year. So many

people were also able to simultaneously benefit from your paper.

(Bhakti Tirtha Swami. "Perspectives on Homosexuality." Source:

[9]http://www.nine9.ukshells.co.uk/cgi-bin/galva-idx.pl?node=galva-

bhakti-tirtha)

 

So Maharaja has "seen the light" and is giving lectures using "many of

the points" presented in Amara das' paper. (More points along these

lines given by Maharaja can be seen [10]here.) So it would appear that

the gay Vaishnava agenda has sympathetic ears in some of ISKCON's high

places. Maharaja may be the only one who so outspokenly favors GALVA's

agenda, but then he might not be. Where there is smoke there is fire.

There may very well be others who aren't so outspoken but who

nonetheless in their hearts also agree with GALVA's agenda. Merely

saying that no one high up in ISKCON believes that gay-marriage should

be endorsed by ISKCON is no longer good enough to reassure us that

this is so.

 

And aside from the official non-ISKCON website chakra.org, which might

as well be called an official ISKCON website since the GBC refused to

prohibit ISKCON officers from patronizing that site in spite of the

fact that the editors at chakra from time-to-time publish artciles

critical of Srila Prabhupada and its editors have a proven [11]track

record of outspoken atheism. It is arguably the most popular ISKCON

website because it publishes more articles submitted by official

ISKCON projects more frequently than any other website around. One of

the featured sections on chakra happens to be dedicated to the

[12]"Third Gender." In the "Third Gender" section, we find this

telling remark by Ananda das. (The same person who recently wrote a

[13]highly critical article deprecating Srila Prabhupada.)

I believe that, within ISKCON, we ought to begin a discussion on

solemnizing same-gender marriages with temple ceremonies, just as

we now celebrate opposite-gender marriages. I think it is the tide

of history. We may fight it, some of us, like King Canute

attempting to hold back the waters, but I believe most countries

will have civil laws recognizing same-gender marriage.

(Ananda das. "Same-gender marriages -- An unstoppable tide" July

11, 2003. Source:

[14]http://chakra.org/discussions/GenJul11_03.html)

 

So, gay advocacy within ISKCON looks like this: there is a very small

but very vocal group of people on ISKCON's periphery that have made

inroads in influencing the opinions of some of ISKCON's more

influential leaders. Those influential leaders in turn disseminate

their opinions to their followers and whoever else listens to them.

Furthermore, the most popular ISKCON website maintains a section

dedicated to advocacy of the "Third Gender" (primarily homosexuality)

and from time to time publishes articles favoring it. (Articles

deprecating homosexual expression within ISKCON are guaranteed a

response and never have the last word.) What does this mean in regard

to the official gay-marriage debate to be held by ISKCON officers?

What all this means is that it is more likely that the reason this

debate is taking place is because of internal trends toward

liberalizing the definition of gender (and, hence marriage) within

ISKCON rather than the official, external reason of explaining to the

world why homosexual marriage is not a good thing. Both reasons may be

simultaneously valid, however the internal, liberalizing trends are

likely the more prominent impetus for holding the debate at all.

 

References

1. http://siddhanta.com/archives/culture/000105.html

2. http://www.galva.nl/main.html

3. http://www.nine9.ukshells.co.uk/cgi-bin/galva-idx.pl?node=galva-main

4. http://www.galva.nl/Gay_friendly.html

5. http://www.galva.nl/gaytolerance.html

6. http://www.galva.nl/prabhupada.html

7. http://www.galva.nl/perspectives4.html

8. http://www.nine9.ukshells.co.uk/cgi-bin/galva-idx.pl?node=galva-amara-bk

9.

http://www.nine9.ukshells.co.uk/cgi-bin/galva-idx.pl?node=galva-bhakti-tirtha

10. http://siddhanta.org/articles/speculation/btswami/

11. http://siddhanta.com/archives/culture/000063.html

12. http://chakra.org/discussions/3gender.html

13. http://chakra.org/discussions/succMay29_04.html

14. http://chakra.org/discussions/GenJul11_03.html

 

 

--

Powered by Movable Type

Version 2.661

http://www.movabletype.org/