Encouraging celibacy - interesting comment on the subject...

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 8/19/2003 it has been written:

>

> > so & so Swami has a history of talking and publishing imaginative

> > nonsense that disqualifies him from being an acarya. He should talk

> > according to guru sadhu and sastra or take a mothership and fly off to

> > another dimension.

> >

> > Dear Prabhu's and Maharajas, this type of "katha" is embarrassing.

> > Actually,

> it is worse than the topic being discussed because it publically

> criticises a servant of the Lord and Srila Prabhupada. This is not

> auspicious behavior between great souls, particularly on the eve of

> Janmastame and Srila Prabhupada's

> Vyas Puja. I humbly request restraint from such denouncments which in

> themselves are virtually a form of spiritual suicide, both for the writer

> and for the reader.

>

> Yr servant,

> Malati dasi

 

This is an important "philosophical" discussion and should not be seen as

anything personal.

 

In BTS's statement below he states the natabaris were gay and were invited

by Jaganatha Misra to Lord Chaitanya's birth.

 

He was asked to sastrically support his statment, as an ideal leader should.

 

As in the quote provided by Kavicandra Swami, Ädi 13.106, there is no

mention of the professional entertainers or natabaris being homosexual.

 

If there is such a sastric quote then BTS's point is valid, otherwise he

should withdraw his statement:

 

"These natabaris, they were men, gay men,"...

 

Does anyone know the reference to support BTS's above statement that the

"gay" natabaris were invited by Jaganatha Misra to Lord Caitanya's birth

ceremony and their presence contributed to the auspiciousness?

 

> In previous classes I shared how we often lump everyone who is in the gay

> community into a certain sector. We discussed how, when Lord Caitanya was

> born, Jagannatha Misra invited so many people to come and some of those

> who came to honor Lord Caitanya's birth were called the natabaris. These

> natabaris, they were men, gay men, who were professional actors,

> performers, dancers, and it was considered that their presence was

> auspicious. Prabhupada, in one or two conversations, one major

> conversation where he was discussing this issue, says how in India there

> were special villages, special places, where such people lived and that

> they were also invited to various ceremonies-they were celibates, they

> were invited to various celibate ceremonies-and it was considered that

> their presence would bring blessings to the environment. There's also the

> example, of course, about Arjuna. We may remember that when the Pandavas

> were exiled, Arjuna, as well as all of them, were surreptitious-they were

> in disguise-and Arjuna's particular disguise, the word then used was

> eunuch, but it was understood that he was a man dressed as a woman,

> wearing woman's clothing and adopting a woman's mannerisms. When Maharaja

> Virata examined his character to see if he was going to invite Arjuna into

> the kingdom, he tested him to see if he was attracted to women, and of

> course his service was dressing women, and singing, and decorating their

> hair, etc. His name was Brihannala. So if this idea of third gender was

> something in itself demonic, or something in itself evil or whatever, then

> obviously Jagannatha Misra would never have invited such people to Lord

> Caitanya's appearance, and the Pandavas would have never considered having

> Arjuna take that kind of involvement, nor would the king have investigated

> him to see if he was going to allow him to do this kind of work, or in

> Vedic times would such people be invited to various types of occasions, to

> live in certain villages, etc. [excerpt BTS class]

 

BTS also said:

 

> In my statement I made it clear that these gay man, Natrabaris eunuchs

> were celibates. Gay is a modern term that is not limited to Homosexuals.

 

The above statement is confusing. There is a big difference between gay and

eunuch. A eunuch, according to Oxford dictionary, is a castrated man.

Whereas a gay person is described as a homosexual, someone attracted to the

same sex. Gay used to, and also still does mean happy, carefree,

lighthearted. A eunuch maybe celibate, but not a gay or homosexual (at least

the large majority).

 

> But I see how those who have an agenda are trying to use me. Whatever we

> call such people, our position is to condemn illicit sex.

 

This is clear, that is our position is to condemn illicit sex.

 

> Sex life is for

> procreation. Everyone, whatever kind of bodies or minds they have must be

> compassionatly encouraged to follow the 4 rules and regulations as given

> to us by our acaryas. Whatever they are, man, woman or, as Srila

> Prabhupada writes - in-between (S.B. 10.1.69. in the purport) or as stated

> by Lord Shiva in the Kama-sutra - third gender.

 

Quoting the Kama-sutra - the third gender, seems a bit out of our bhakti

line.

 

> So this is really a non-issue some are pushing, for we must all rise above

> the body conception.However to rise above the body conceptions one may

> often look a litle closer at what their particular body disease is.

 

The issue is where do our leaders stand on this issue. Leaders should

provide clear leadership on every issue, leadership that is clearly based

upon our sastras.

[Guest guest]

TRANSLATION

Lord Brahm€, 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.

 

PURPORT

It appears here that the homosexual appetite of males for each other is

created in this episode of the creation of the demons by Brahm€. In other

words, the homosexual appetite of a man for another man is demoniac and is

not for any sane male in the ordinary course of life.

 

(from S.B. 3.20.26)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/19/2003 9:11:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Ajamila.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net writes:

 

> >In a message dated 8/19/2003 it has been written:

> >

> >>so &so Swami has a history of talking and publishing imaginative

> >>nonsense that disqualifies him from being an acarya. He should talk

> >>according to guru sadhu and sastra or take a mothership and fly off to

> >>another dimension.

> >>

> >>Dear Prabhu's and Maharajas, this type of "katha" is embarrassing.

> >>Actually,

> >it is worse than the topic being discussed because it publically

> >criticises a servant of the Lord and Srila Prabhupada. This is not

> >auspicious behavior between great souls, particularly on the eve of

> >Janmastame and Srila Prabhupada's

> >Vyas Puja. I humbly request restraint from such denouncments which in

> >themselves are virtually a form of spiritual suicide, both for the writer

> >and for the reader.

> >

> >Yr servant,

> >Malati dasi

>

> This is an important "philosophical" discussion and should not be seen as

> anything personal.

>

>

 

Please accept my humble obeisances, all glories to Srila Prabhupada. Please

accept this comment in the hesitant and concerned spirit it is being offered

and forgive my audacity in offering it.

 

A vaisnava is being attacked in a very personal way, I believe that was

Malati's point. She has neither condoned nor condemned BTM's statement, only

humbly

suggested that the tone of attack be diminished and rightly so.

 

Whether BTM has misspoken or not is one thing, take that up with him

personally if you are in a position to do that, with the intellectual and

spiritual

capacity necessary for the task. The current back and forth dialogue of half

quotes, and condemning commentary in a public forum is distasteful, offensive

and

not in our "bhakti line" either. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta often made strong

arguments, as did Srila Prabhupada, but not in a sabotaging, self righteous

spirit. There is a time and place for everything, the internet dialogue is not

universal in application. BTM does have a peer group, God brothers who are in a

 

position to discuss these matters with him. Angrily encouraging condemnation by

 

public opinion is not vaisnava etiquette and as Malati pointed out, dangerous.

 

Homosexuality is certainly not a topic that is widely covered in the "bhakti

line" of scriptures, so it would seem that the shastric references would have

to come from where there is discussion, rather than no discussion at all. The

situation does exist today as always, therefore honest and compassionate

discussion is merited. However, it also seems to the reader that this thread is

not

a clear call for leadership as suggested in one of the vitriolic comments,

but rather an angry search for condemnation on a number of levels.

 

This issue of whether or not a eunuch is a homosexual is also misleading and

not on point. They may or may not have been originally homosexual, but without

genitals, it is certain they no longer "lust" after women and even if they

did, there is not much they can do about it. The various words in Sanskrit and

English do not always translate exactly, so a study of the literal meaning of

the various words would be in order. Without that kind of scholarly study, this

 

discussion amounts to opinion and nothing more.

 

In any case, Srila Prabhupada mentions many kinds of lust as being

unacceptable for genuine spiritual awareness and growth. Are we to understand

that those

who are condemning homosexuals themselves and even condemning those

expressing compassion for living entities who have homesexual appetites, are

without

lust of any kind? Or is it that the lust for recognition or power or by men for

 

women and women for men are acceptable forms of lust. As for sex, SP was

clear what the highest standard is, BTM also mentioned the same standard,

illicit

sex is not acceptable for spiritual growth, celibacy should be encouraged.

Illicit as in "not for procreation." Is it probable that everyone on the planet

 

will follow that standard? Can all aspire to that standard? Many heterosexuals

also fall into that category as well.

 

A celibate life will always increase one's power, does it also increase one's

love and compassion for all living entities entangled in the phantasmagoria

of material life? Perhaps that is the test for the value of celibacy. Until we

are single in purpose and only lusting after Krsna's lotus feet, the

identification with matter is there. No matter where we fall on the sanctity

spectrum,

and that is a personal evaluation, the "cure" is there for everyone. Srila

Prabhupada, by his causeless mercy, has made the medicine available to all,

whatever their bodily identification. Is the material body not glaring evidence

 

that we all need some help in escaping the material conception? Fortunately

Srila Prabhupada overlooked the various material coverings we were and are

afflicted with and encouraged us to dance to Krsna's tune, not Maya's. Is that

not

the fundamental point of the bhakti line?

 

Perhaps some of our current acaryas and senior vaisnavas were simply

exhibiting "pastimes" in their lives before Srila Prabhupada glanced at them

with love

and compassion, only they can say. But on this Holiest of Holy days gratitude

for what we all have received and compassion for everyone engaged in this

struggle with material nature, including ourselves, is in order. Who is not

struggling here? Who is not deserving of compassion?

 

Condemnation does not inspire anyone to seek or take help. Condemnation saps

enthusiasm for and progress on the spiritual path. Compassion does not imply

condoning negative behavior, only understanding that bodily identification is

still evident. Anger and the need to condemn others for their lack of purity is

 

not a compassionate response to the difficult issues of material existence

that affect almost everyone on the planet in one way or another.

 

Thank you Srila Prabhupada for accepting me as your patient, for becoming the

physician who ends all evidence of suffering in this burning material

atmosphere. I have been ill for far too long. Sometimes the medicine is bitter,

but I

am forever grateful that you have offered the cure. Daily, I pray for your

mercy that I may finally accept it. your worthless servant, Kanti dasi

[Guest guest]

Dear Kanti and Malati

PAMHO AGTSP

 

Thank you Kanti for your thoughtful comments. In your text posted below you

covered many periferal points culminating in your appreciation for what

Srila Prabhupada has done for you and us all. That was nice. But I'd like to

stick with the main philosophical point.

 

You and Malati agree that there is a very important philosophical point to

be discussed but it was not communicated perhaps sensitively enough by H.H.

BVS, and you both feel his approach was a personal attack.

 

And its true that BVS's words were strong and in an open forum, and could

have been presented in a different way so that good Vaisnavis like

yourselves are not upset by the communication.

 

But it has been said now, and to spend a whole lot of time trying to undo

that would not be as fruitful as clarifying the actual philosophical issue.

Satyam bruyam priyam bruyam (sic) Srila Prabhupada states that during

philosophical discussions the normal ettiquette may not always be observed

given the intense search for the correct siddhanta. So we should stick to

the philsophical point at hand, please. We should not be quick to conclude a

person to have malicious intentions simply because of a strong and seemingly

personal communication. Lets explore whether or not BKS has a philosophical

point.

 

H.H. BTS invited a philosophical discussion on the topic and it can only be

healthy to discuss it thread bare as much as possible, even if some sparks

are set flying in the process. Fierce philosophical debates has always been

a healthy part of Vaisnave tradition.

 

Krishna Kirti Prabhu has posted some excerpts from BTS's 5 year old Warrior

book and having seen the contents therein for the first time it certainly

does raise alarm bells with those concerned about not drifting too far away

from what Srila Prabhupada gave us. Have you read those postings? The

contents seemed unfounded not only in our tradition but in modern society

too. It seems BKS is attacking the contents of the book in connection with

BTS's role as an ISKCON guru along with other things BTS has said along the

same lines. But it must also be made clear that BVS is not attacking the

person, at least intentionally, but rather is concerned out of love for

Srila Prabhupada in his own way about the present and future correct

philosophical adherence to Srila Prabhupada's teachings.

 

And the philosophical point at hand is, based upon Srila Prabhupada's

teachings, what is our philosophical position on gays and lesbians, and

should a practising gay or lesbian live in a "devotee only" ISKCON

community?

 

The quotes on homosexuality by Srila prabhupada provided by Damana Krishna

and Isvara are revealing.

 

Kanti and Malati, you are intelligent devotees and therefore it would be

interesting to hear your points on this philsophical issue, directly and

concisely responding to the above two questions.

 

ys

 

ada

 

> In a message dated 8/19/2003 9:11:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> Ajamila.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net writes:

>

> > >In a message dated 8/19/2003 it has been written:

> > >

> > >>so &so Swami has a history of talking and publishing imaginative

> > >>nonsense that disqualifies him from being an acarya. He should talk

> > >>according to guru sadhu and sastra or take a mothership and fly off to

> > >>another dimension.

> > >>

> > >>Dear Prabhu's and Maharajas, this type of "katha" is embarrassing.

> > >>Actually,

> > >it is worse than the topic being discussed because it publically

> > >criticises a servant of the Lord and Srila Prabhupada. This is not

> > >auspicious behavior between great souls, particularly on the eve of

> > >Janmastame and Srila Prabhupada's

> > >Vyas Puja. I humbly request restraint from such denouncments which in

> > >themselves are virtually a form of spiritual suicide, both for the

> > >writer and for the reader.

> > >

> > >Yr servant,

> > >Malati dasi

> >

> > This is an important "philosophical" discussion and should not be seen

> > as anything personal.

> >

> >

>

> Please accept my humble obeisances, all glories to Srila Prabhupada.

> Please accept this comment in the hesitant and concerned spirit it is

> being offered and forgive my audacity in offering it.

>

> A vaisnava is being attacked in a very personal way, I believe that was

> Malati's point. She has neither condoned nor condemned BTM's statement,

> only humbly

> suggested that the tone of attack be diminished and rightly so.

>

> Whether BTM has misspoken or not is one thing, take that up with him

> personally if you are in a position to do that, with the intellectual and

> spiritual

> capacity necessary for the task. The current back and forth dialogue of

> half quotes, and condemning commentary in a public forum is distasteful,

> offensive and

> not in our "bhakti line" either. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta often made strong

> arguments, as did Srila Prabhupada, but not in a sabotaging, self

> righteous spirit. There is a time and place for everything, the internet

> dialogue is not universal in application. BTM does have a peer group, God

> brothers who are in a

>

> position to discuss these matters with him. Angrily encouraging

> condemnation by

>

> public opinion is not vaisnava etiquette and as Malati pointed out,

> dangerous.

>

> Homosexuality is certainly not a topic that is widely covered in the

> "bhakti line" of scriptures, so it would seem that the shastric references

> would have to come from where there is discussion, rather than no

> discussion at all. The situation does exist today as always, therefore

> honest and compassionate discussion is merited. However, it also seems to

> the reader that this thread is not

> a clear call for leadership as suggested in one of the vitriolic comments,

> but rather an angry search for condemnation on a number of levels.

>

> This issue of whether or not a eunuch is a homosexual is also misleading

> and not on point. They may or may not have been originally homosexual, but

> without genitals, it is certain they no longer "lust" after women and even

> if they did, there is not much they can do about it. The various words in

> Sanskrit and English do not always translate exactly, so a study of the

> literal meaning of the various words would be in order. Without that kind

> of scholarly study, this

>

> discussion amounts to opinion and nothing more.

>

> In any case, Srila Prabhupada mentions many kinds of lust as being

> unacceptable for genuine spiritual awareness and growth. Are we to

> understand that those

> who are condemning homosexuals themselves and even condemning those

> expressing compassion for living entities who have homesexual appetites,

> are without

> lust of any kind? Or is it that the lust for recognition or power or by

> men for

>

> women and women for men are acceptable forms of lust. As for sex, SP was

> clear what the highest standard is, BTM also mentioned the same standard,

> illicit

> sex is not acceptable for spiritual growth, celibacy should be encouraged.

> Illicit as in "not for procreation." Is it probable that everyone on the

> planet

>

> will follow that standard? Can all aspire to that standard? Many

> heterosexuals also fall into that category as well.

>

> A celibate life will always increase one's power, does it also increase

> one's love and compassion for all living entities entangled in the

> phantasmagoria of material life? Perhaps that is the test for the value of

> celibacy. Until we are single in purpose and only lusting after Krsna's

> lotus feet, the identification with matter is there. No matter where we

> fall on the sanctity spectrum,

> and that is a personal evaluation, the "cure" is there for everyone. Srila

> Prabhupada, by his causeless mercy, has made the medicine available to

> all, whatever their bodily identification. Is the material body not

> glaring evidence

>

> that we all need some help in escaping the material conception?

> Fortunately Srila Prabhupada overlooked the various material coverings we

> were and are afflicted with and encouraged us to dance to Krsna's tune,

> not Maya's. Is that not

> the fundamental point of the bhakti line?

>

> Perhaps some of our current acaryas and senior vaisnavas were simply

> exhibiting "pastimes" in their lives before Srila Prabhupada glanced at

> them with love

> and compassion, only they can say. But on this Holiest of Holy days

> gratitude for what we all have received and compassion for everyone

> engaged in this struggle with material nature, including ourselves, is in

> order. Who is not struggling here? Who is not deserving of compassion?

>

> Condemnation does not inspire anyone to seek or take help. Condemnation

> saps enthusiasm for and progress on the spiritual path. Compassion does

> not imply condoning negative behavior, only understanding that bodily

> identification is still evident. Anger and the need to condemn others for

> their lack of purity is

>

> not a compassionate response to the difficult issues of material existence

> that affect almost everyone on the planet in one way or another.

>

> Thank you Srila Prabhupada for accepting me as your patient, for becoming

> the physician who ends all evidence of suffering in this burning material

> atmosphere. I have been ill for far too long. Sometimes the medicine is

> bitter, but I

> am forever grateful that you have offered the cure. Daily, I pray for your

> mercy that I may finally accept it. your worthless servant, Kanti dasi

[Guest guest]

Home Base: ISKCON-Baroda

 

Dear Readers,

 

Namonamaha. Jaya Srila Prabhupada!

 

Thank you very, very much, Ajamila Prabhu, for putting things into

perspective.

 

While I agree that Bhakti Vikas Maharaj's initial comments regarding Bhakti

Tirtha Maharaj were a bit heavy, I think Ajamila Prabhu's analysis should be

carefully considered here.

 

Srila Prabhupada was far "heavier" regarding strict adhearence to the

philosophical principals that he was presenting.

 

The excerpts from the books of Bhakti Tirtha Maharaj as quoted by Krishna

Kirti Prabhu - and I haven't read those books - if true, do prove that

Maharaj has unfortunately presented his own ideas as truth: truth that finds

no basis - "pramana" (evidence), in/from Vedic literatures such as Srimad

Bhagavatam and Bhagavad-gita, etc., etc., etc.

 

If we are to accept his words based on his position as an ISKCON leader - a

GBC and Acharya (initiating Guru & one who is supposed to be setting the

ideal example for his disciples and society), then, it's my most humble

opinion that a philosophical deviation is being indulged in that doesn't

bode well for our institution.

 

The deviations should be corrected. It's a bit more serious than Bir

Krishna Maharaj acknowledged, and I think Krishna Kirti Prabhu's point in

that regard was well made.

 

I think all of us - and I can't speak for all our godbrothers and sisters,

have a tremendous amount of regard and respect for Bhakti Tirtha Maharaj.

Personally I know him from a bit of a distance, but for long: since 1973

when he visited ISKCON Chicago, albeit briefly, for a short visit. We know

of and admire the preaching work he did: the library party in the USA,

"behind" the now defunct "Iron Curtain", the preaching work he's done in

Africa, and also his preaching in the USA in the '90's and at present.

 

In fact he's always been a kind gentleman to me and I was fortunate enough

to have a darshan of his dear mother: and his devotion to his mother was

(and probably still is) great (in the sense of "much" and he set a very good

example in that regard).

 

So it's an unhappy circumstance when someone you love and regard seems to be

going on the wrong path. Sometimes a younger brother becomes a bit strict

with an errant elder brother, although I think maybe Bhakti Vikas Maharaj

could have started out a bit kinder, if you will, while drafting his

remarks.

 

However, Ajamila Prabhu's comments, if read and re-read and taken to heart,

should allieviate the concern of Malati Mataji and Kanti Mataji that Bhakti

Vikas Maharaj had ill intentions.

 

It is my hope and prayer that Bhakti Tirtha Maharaj might do a bit of self

introspection on this topic and in due course of time he might realize that

some of the concepts that he harbors and propagates might be subject to

correction from concerned godbrothers like Bhakti Vikas Swami, albeit that

those godbrothers are his juniors.

 

In view of Srila Prabhupada's well documented comments presented in the

ongoing correspondence regarding homosexuality, it seems in the fitness of

things that he do so. And regarding BT Maharaj's printed comments - the

excerpts from his books that were presented & mentioned herein above, again,

it seems that some correction is indeed in order.

 

Hope this finds you all well.

 

Vaishnava dasanudas,

 

Basu Ghosh Das

[Guest guest]

Maharaja,

 

Dandavats. I am not trying to fool anyone. And I am not speculating.

Let me put it plainly: those eunuchs, homosexuals and other persons

were not stigmatised in the way that many would like to encourage.

Bhakti-tirtha Maharaja's comments that their presence was considered

auspicious is correct, as backed up by Srila Prabhupada himself, and as

still evident in some areas of India today.

 

Your servant,

Rama Kesava dasa

 

 

On Wednesday, November 19, 2003, at 07:24 pm, Bir Krishna das Goswami

wrote:

 

> Don't use the term third gender (trtiya-prakrti). It is such a wildly

> incorrect mental speculation. The third gender in sanskrit is neuter.

> There

> is no such term in relationship to people. Please stick to English and

> don't

> speculate in Sanskrit. In English you are welcome to speculate and

> invent

> your own words and categories (because you won't be able to fool

> anyone as

> we all know English).

>

> ·>Your claim that Bhakti-tirtha Maharaja's statements are cheating is

> ·>untrue. The third-gender (trtiya-prakrti) - including gays, lesbians,

> ·>hijras (transgenders), etc. - was evident and Vedic times, and was at

> ·>times considered auspicious. Ask anyone about the traditional roles

> of

> ·>hijras before their modern-day ostracisation from society, and they

> will

> ·>tell you as much. Indeed your Guru Maharaja, Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta

> ·>Swami Prabhupada states as much in the following quote.

>

[Guest guest]

Its a mistake to lump all these categories into one. The Vedas don't do it,

so neither should we. Nor should we invent a Sanskrit word for it.

 

 

·>Dandavats. I am not trying to fool anyone. And I am not speculating.

·>Let me put it plainly: those eunuchs, homosexuals and other persons

·>were not stigmatised in the way that many would like to encourage.

·>Bhakti-tirtha Maharaja's comments that their presence was considered

·>auspicious is correct, as backed up by Srila Prabhupada himself, and as

·>still evident in some areas of India today.

·>

·>Your servant,

·>Rama Kesava dasa

·>

·>

·>On Wednesday, November 19, 2003, at 07:24 pm, Bir Krishna das Goswami

·>wrote:

·>

·>> Don't use the term third gender (trtiya-prakrti). It is such a wildly

·>> incorrect mental speculation. The third gender in sanskrit is neuter.

·>> There

·>> is no such term in relationship to people. Please stick to English and

·>> don't

·>> speculate in Sanskrit. In English you are welcome to speculate and

·>> invent

·>> your own words and categories (because you won't be able to fool

·>> anyone as

·>> we all know English).

·>>

·>> ·>Your claim that Bhakti-tirtha Maharaja's statements are cheating is

·>> ·>untrue. The third-gender (trtiya-prakrti) - including gays, lesbians,

·>> ·>hijras (transgenders), etc. - was evident and Vedic times, and was at

·>> ·>times considered auspicious. Ask anyone about the traditional roles

·>> of

·>> ·>hijras before their modern-day ostracisation from society, and they

·>> will

·>> ·>tell you as much. Indeed your Guru Maharaja, Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta

·>> ·>Swami Prabhupada states as much in the following quote.

·>>

[Guest guest]

On Thursday, November 20, 2003, at 07:34 am, Braja Sevaki wrote:

 

>

>> Your claim that Bhakti-tirtha Maharaja's statements are cheating is

>> untrue. The third-gender (trtiya-prakrti) - including gays, lesbians,

>> hijras (transgenders), etc. - was evident and Vedic times, and was at

>> times considered auspicious. Ask anyone about the traditional roles of

>> hijras before their modern-day ostracisation from society, and they

>> will

>> tell you as much. Indeed your Guru Maharaja, Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta

>> Swami Prabhupada states as much in the following quote.

>

> I fail to see where Srila Prabhupada's quote would come anywhere close

> to

> supporting your statements. Furthermore, I think you could confine your

> promotion of homosexuality -- and the subtle "demands" for it's

> acceptance

> in Vaisnava circles -- to your website, GALVA. I don't see what it has

> to do

> with any of the conferences you've included in the list above.

 

I was merely replying to a text by Bhakti-vikasa Swami criticising

Bhakti-tirtha Swami's claims.

 

> I believe HH Bir Krishna Goswami has a point, that you shouldn't

> speculate

> in Sanskrit. I can't imagine that someone of your tender years would

> have

> much of a grip of such an intricate language.

 

I do not believe I am speculating in Sanskrit. Though it might surprise

you to know that I've been studying it since I was 14.

 

However, realistically, here I am talking about how we treat a

(physical) type of people. Bhakti-tirtha Swami has been campaigning for

homosexuals to be treated as well as, say, non-celibate heterosexuals -

not worse. I do not see why he's getting such flack for promoting an

act of kindness.

 

> PS: You can post this all around the net and on all your associated

> websites

> (Topical Discussions, GALVA, Chakra), and claim that I'm anti-gay or

> whatever else you might say, but until you ask me what my views are

> and know

> me personally, you're not qualified to jump to that conclusion, ok?

> Just

> wanted to make that clear so there's no confusion ....

 

Don't worry; I'm not about to do that. I don't think you're anti-gay.

How are you these days?

 

Ys., Rama Kesava dasa

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna!

Please accept my humble obeisances.

All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

 

Homosexuality is a manufactured thing.

Eunuchs are a totally different category.

 

*****

Prabhupäda: The hippies are nothing but a group of madmen, that's all. A

madman, they..., means publicly sex, that's all. This Allen Ginsberg's

movement is that, homosex, public sex. Ginsberg was very proud that he had

introduced homosex. He was telling me.

Tamäla Kåñëa: He was telling you?

Prabhupäda: When he first came to me he was very proud: "I have introduced

homosex." He thought very brilliant work it was.

*****

 

Eunuchs can give blessings because they are free from sex. They are neutral

or No sex. How can you call them Homosexuals, Gays, or what ever, if they

have no sex?

 

SB , canto 4, 4.28

TRANSLATION

Sometimes you think yourself a man, sometimes a chaste woman and sometimes

a neutral eunuch. This is all because of the body, which is created by the

illusory energy. This illusory energy is My potency, and actually both of

us—you and I—are pure spiritual identities. Now just try to understand

this. I am trying to explain our factual position.

--------

Prabhupada:....In India there is a system... What you call the eunuchs?

Those who are neither male or female. What do you call? What is their name?

Hayagréva: A combination of both, male and female? A hermaphrodite. A

hermaphrodite.

Prabhupäda: Eunuch, what is that eunuch?

Hayagréva: A eunuch is...

Prabhupäda: Feminine.

Hayagréva: Impotent, an impotent... Someone who's been castrated.

Prabhupäda: Oh, that is called eunuch. By nature, neither man, neither

woman.

Hayagréva: Oh, this is also called asexual, that is to say no sex.

Prabhupäda: No sex.

Hayagréva: Hermaphroditic means they have the physical features of both man

and woman.

Prabhupäda: Oh. At the same time?

Hayagréva: At the same time.

Prabhupäda: I do not exactly. But such people they have their own society

and their means of living is that whenever there is some good occasion, a

marriage or childbirth, like that, so they go there and pray God that this

child may be very long living. In this way they make some prayer and get

some...

 

****

 

I had an interesting talk here in Mayapur with a male dancer who explained

to me that actually there are very few real eunuchs. most of them have

castrated themselves to be accepted into the eunuch society, to make money

by giving so-called blessings to a newborn child.

 

Hoping this will meet you in the very best of health by the grace of

Krishna.

 

Your humble servant,Hrimati dasi

 

Please visit our Vaishnava family-friendly Website at:

http://www.gopalsofttoys.com

[Guest guest]

On Monday, November 24, 2003, at 01:38 pm, Hrimati (dd) ACBSP (Mayapur

- IN) wrote:

 

> Homosexuality is a manufactured thing.

> Eunuchs are a totally different category.

 

I'm manufactured then? Hrmmmmm... Sounds as manufactured to me as

heterosexual desire.

 

Ys., Rama Kesava dasa

[Guest guest]

> On Monday, November 24, 2003, at 01:38 pm, Hrimati (dd) ACBSP (Mayapur

> - IN) wrote:

>

> > Homosexuality is a manufactured thing.

> > Eunuchs are a totally different category.

>

> I'm manufactured then? Hrmmmmm... Sounds as manufactured to me as

> heterosexual desire.

 

Not at all. It's an entirely different thing. It says quite clearly in the

Bhagavatam that homosexuality was created at a specific time.

"Manufactured"? Yes, that's a word than can be used.

 

Lord Brahm€, 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.

PURPORT

It appears here that the homosexual appetite of males for each other is

created in this episode of the creation of the demons by Brahm€. In other

words, the homosexual appetite of a man for another man is demoniac and is

not for any sane male in the ordinary course of life."

 

As for eunuchs, you can read William Dalrymple's "City of Djinns", which

includes a chapter about the eunuchs of Delhi and their history. It has

nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality.

 

Your servant

Braja Sevaki dd

[Guest guest]

Sorry Prabhu, Please do not take it so personal.

We, as human beings, are not all the same of course.

Srila Prabhupada came to purify us all...you and me.

We all have to get free from this material sex desire. If you are attracted

to women or men that is at the end the same thing...it is sex desire that

keeps us in this material world.

Rather than trying to make a statement what kind of person you are in this

material body; please, why don't you try to identify with your original and

eternal body, which is always joyful, blissful and part and parcel of

Krishna?

As Srimad Bhagavatam explains, there are three kinds of human genders, male,

female and neutral. The thing I was trying to explain was that Homosexuality

is actually not one of those categories.

Why would I try to "stick up" or defend the female bodies? This is the body

that I was born into in this lifetime. I want to get out of this body and

not take another birth again! Male, female, Eunuchs, dog, cat, cow...All

these things are just designations that we can and should transcend. We are

souls, eternal servants of Krishna!

 

Hare Krishna!

 

Please forgive any offence I may have committed in my correspondence.

 

Your humble servant,

Hrimati dasi