The Third Sex: Gay Vaisnavas

[BDas]

This is a letter sent to me by a person who attended one of the programs in our home. It contains a link to an article on Homosexuality in Vedic culture and to the Gay and Lesbian Vaisnava Association.

 

Below is my reply to his letter written after I went to the sites. BDas

 

 

Haribol, Brahma Dasa,

 

Thank you for responding to me so quickly. I had already forgotten that I

was going to send you this address. Please forgive my delay. Please write

me with your response. I also include the GALVA resource page....in which

you can find some other writings...including a few of those that were on

CHAKRA and responses from other Gurus within and outside of ISKCON.

Your friend and servant

Albert

 

http://www.geocities.com/galva108/

http://www.nine9.ukshells.co.uk/cgi-bin/galva-idx.pl

Dear Albert,

I spent about an hour reading the essay on the third sex and another few minutes on the Galva site. The essay is very well done and although I can not vouch for the accuracy of all that was written I certainly agree with the spirit of the words. I think this is important information that should be made available to the devotees most of whom are good hearted and accepting. I posted the link to the GALVA sites on Dharma mela and India Divine and there may be some discussion that you might like to take part in. I know you won't expect everyone on these sites to agree with your point of view, but I am sure enough devotees will agree and by this you will be more encouraged to pursue Krishna Consciousness.

Krishna Consciousness is always above any type of material designation including householder or sanyassi. Therefore never be discouraged by any type of prejudice or intolerance you might find within the overall movement of Krishna Consciousness. All such prejudice is due to material vision that is the result of past impressions from our previous karma.

Also try not to overly identify with any type of socio-political group or organization. Our goal is to always see ourselves as servants of Krishna regardless of material considerations. This is the Absolute viewpoint that is eternal and unchanging. We should always try to live and work in full consciousness of this Absolute viewpoint. Hare Krishna

If I can be of any further assistance please let me know.

Sincerely, Brahma Das

[Gauracandra]

Here is my view, partially shaped by Maitreya. Let me state first that I do not believe that homosexuality is genetic. I believe it is a choice in as much as the sheer variety of activities people engage in is a choice. If homosexuality is genetic then so is every vice man may engage in. We are simply reduced to being the sum of our genetic parts.

 

That being said, all religion (in the U.S. at least) is voluntary. If someone doesn’t like a regulation of a particular religious faith, they have every opportunity to leave and find a faith more suitable to their liking. However, I do not think it appropriate to instead actively work to undermine the principles of that faith. We can simply replace the phrase ‘Homosexual Vaisnavas’ with ‘___________ Vaisnavas’ where any person can fill in the vice of their choice. How about ‘Abortion Provider Vaisnavas’. Why not? “That whole Vedic culture thing is based on some patriarchal model. Its not appropriate for today. Today’s young Vaisnavis need a place to turn to in case of an accidental pregnancy. That’s why we ‘Abortion Provider Vaisnavas’ are such a valuable member of the community.” Hogwash. We don’t need that. If we have a vice and are attracted to Krsna Consciousness, the minimum we should do is practice such activities in private and not seek to disturb others with our spiritual failings. The best thing to do is to work to overcome our personal spiritual shortcomings (which I may add, I have and so do most). The worst thing we can do is say our vice=virtue, and work to disturb others with this concocted philosophy.

 

Gauracandra

 

[amanpeter]

Although it may seem that acceptance and recognition on an equal level is the goal, if one looks more closely at this site and has perhaps had the opportunity of knowing such individuals personally, it becomes obvious that members of the so-called third sex consider themselves superior to either of the other two.

 

I am particularly uncomfortable with references to Lord Caitanya which remind me of the gay Jesus debate. Identification with the body results in illusory misconceptions without end and Mayadevi provides full facility to justify just about anything. We must remember that as God conciousness increases, so too the influence of Maya will simultaneously gain in prevalance, since they are opposite sides of the same coin.

[jijaji]

from that gay site;

:In Vedic literature, the strongest bond within this material world is said to be the attraction between man and woman. Combined, they create so many attachments such as home, property, children, grandchildren, etc., all of which serve as distractions from the cultivation of spiritual life. Transgender people were considered to be aloof from this attachment, particularly gay males. They typically did not engage in procreation or family life, and this was a special quality that made their status unique within civilized Vedic culture."

 

I do not accept this at all...they are simply trying to elevate their own status.

 

Aloof from attachment...sure!

 

Where is the proof that the natabaris were drag-queens..?

 

 

------------------

PEACE OUT NOW

[BDas]

Here in SF we have a very large Gay community which is made up of all kinds of people. In general they are affluent, educated, articulate and liberal. Many are spiritually inclined and some have become devotees.

 

Although homosexuality may be a choice for some people I do not believe this is the case for the vast majority of Gay people. If you think that most homosexuals can be changed to hetrosexuals through religious conversion than you carry the same opinion as that of the Christian right. And that opinion is not widly accepted by sociologists.

 

[All references to deleted messages remove. -jndas]

 

Hare Krishna, BDas

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 08-28-2001).]

[Maitreya]

Originally posted by BDas:

 

Although homosexuality may be a choice for some people I do not believe this is the case for the vast majority of Gay people. If you think that most homosexuals can be changed to hetrosexuals through religious conversion than you carry the same opinion as that of the Christian right. And that opinion is not widly accepted by sociologists.

BDas,

 

Change is always posssible.This whole subtle and gross material plane is one of constant change.

 

Problem with sociologists is they don't recognize past births and the tedancies that get carried over.

 

Clearly homosexuality is a demonic practice.Prabhupada's puports on how they charged Lord Brahma is the reference, but common sense tells us the same thing.

 

I know you are advocating for tolerance and not their behavior.But why are they always flaunting their trip?

 

I like the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, like they have in the military.Seems the most practical to me.

 

Hare Krishna

MC

 

[jijaji]

Ya know.....

 

I lived in SF for 7 years back in the 80's and I gotta say..The Gay community I saw were biggest bunch of BABIES EVER.

 

They can laugh and tease and put down every other group of people on the face of the earth (and they do) but if you start making any fun of them..!

 

WATCH OUT.

 

Their in the streets marching (For Real).

 

The Gay community in SF seemed like a bunch of uptight biggots themselves, as a straight person I remember myself and my girlfriend being harassed by them on occasion, being called BREADERS etc.

 

I also remember Buena Vista Park in the Haight having to be policed because families with kids out on a nice stroll in the park were coming across too many bush buddies (ya get me?)

 

Many Gay men have been known to have many MULTIPLE SEX partners in one night..say to the tune of 24,30. Of course this kind of activity helped AIDS spread once in hit their community.

(notice I said the promescuity helped spread it, not being gay)

 

It is just bizarre to me that Gay men in particular can be so involved in such disgusting behaviour i.e. anal sex, fist ****ing, and other gross things and when people make jokes about them ..their all hurt..!

 

 

 

 

------------------

PEACE OUT NOW

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 08-28-2001).]

[nine9]

Dear Prabhus,

 

I felt I should comment on this topic, since it begins with a link to the website that I administrate. One important thing I have been attempting to emphasize - at all times - is that the term "homosexuality" is a very labelling one, not completely able to describe the type of relationship exhibited. For example I am in a loving, caring (yet celibate) relationship with my partner, yet I would still not condone sexual relations between anyone that is contrary to regulative principles. This is the point I was trying to get across in my article on Chakra when I asked:

if two men, or two women, are living together in a healthy loving relationship, strictly adhering to regulative principles (i.e. no sexual conduct), do we have the right to reject them on the basis of what we think they are up to?

So far responses have been quite positive, from within and outwith of the Gaudiya Vaishnava community.

 

Please keep this one single point in mind when discussing this subject.

 

Your aspiring servant,

 

Rama Kesava dasa

(Mark)

 

 

[This message has been edited by nine9 (edited 09-26-2001).]

[Maitreya]

Mark,

 

Do you feel that you should have a right to a recognized[by God]marriage,before the Deities and that should be condned and accepted by the Vaisnava community as a whole?

 

Sounds like you got some rasa confusion happening with your "partner".

 

What exactly are you trying to accomplish?

 

I for one find the name Gay And Lesibian Vaisnava Association rather disgusting.

 

Why try to link a sinful activity with Vaisnavism?

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

I have just deleted and edited several messages to keep this conversation on track and civil. I am sorry if anyone disagrees.

[Maitreya]

See the thing is Mark the rasa confusion is while in a male form we should relate to other's in male forms as brothers.

 

There is reason behind the structure of the material world.

 

You can say we are all spiritsoul so it doesn't matter.I would disagree.Some could say they have this love for their father or sibling or pet dog and it's okay cause we aren't the body anyway.

 

The roles in nature are there for a purpose.

 

Instead of trying to justify your confusion in the gender role area why not just admit it and get on with chanting?Instead you seem to think changing everyone else's opinion is an important thing to do.

 

As an aside, jijaji's post on SF is right on.He didn't mention all the toilet fags that cruise the public men's rooms in that city.Yucko!

 

But I know those that are chanting are not in this group. I do make the distinction.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

...yet I would still not condone sexual relations between anyone that is contrary to regulative principles.

But what about general principles of sad-achara that should be followed by human beings. Principles of cleanliness, behaviour, etc., that are engrained in Vedic culture. I don't want to get into details, but its not clear where you or someone else would draw the line of proper conduct.

 

Thats a personal topic, and not necessary to bring up, but to try to propogate anything different from Sri Chaitanya's ideal as Gaudiya Vaishnavism is improper.

 

Just as there is no "Heterosexual Society for Krishna Consciousness", there need not be any other.

 

For example, in vedic culture there is one marriage that occurs at the age prior to puberty. This marriage is a lifelong committment, and there is no question of separation. At the death of the husband, the wife takes the vidava vrata and becomes a renunciate widow. But in the west we find people are getting divorce, and remarrying countless times. In the Vedic system there is no remarriage, as only a "kanya" (virgin girl) may be married. Even the mantras in the sacrifice state that "this girl is a pure virgin", etc. Some westerners are not properly following the general principles of Vaidika dharma (which is purifying), what to speak of Sri Chaitanya's purified principles of transcendence. They are getting remarried and remarried, despite injunctions against it. And Chanakya says there is no greater enemy than a child's mother who remarries. Now, would it be proper for such people to create a "International Society for the Divorce and Remarriage of Gaudiya Vaishnavas"? It is an imperfection in them, and should not be propagated along with Sri Chaitanya's perfect ideals.

 

They should not be condemned for their faults, as this world is a place full of faults. But neither should their faults be falsely propogated as harmonious to the topmost spiritual path of Sri Chaitanya, what to speak of as a superior path to traditional material conditionings.

[jijaji]

As hard as it is for many to hear this I say it;

 

Homosexuality is against NATURE..look at the bees, the animals in the forest, FISH all pretty much (darwin will throw disagreement) but for the most part ANIMALS are NATURELY heterosexual, look at the butterflies (they are whom we should emulate)

 

Homosexual is a mal-function and not in accordance to the universal principal of YIN/YANG it is simply speaking UNNATURAL...no mattetr HOW MUCH the Gay Community PROTESTS.

 

There is something known as sacred ground and it it is NOT MAN & MAN or WOMEN and WOMEN!

 

Man & women in this material world can be seen as a preverted reflection, (there is basis in this) Radha Krishna..

 

There is NO basis for MAN & MAN OR Women & Women except material perversion....and a bizarre twist of what kind of relationships we should have in the material world.

 

jijaji

[Gauracandra]

Just to clarify my position on this topic. If there were a vegetarian homosexual and a meat eating heterosexual, all else being equal, I would conclude that the vegetarian homosexual is more spiritual advanced. He would simply have an attachment to sex desire, while the other would be inflicting pain on another of God’s creatures.

 

I know there are people who are attempting to be Vaisnavas (as we all are) who happen to be homosexual. To them I would certainly embrace them as brothers and sisters. However, that being said, I do not think we should blur the line of what is proper and improper conduct for Vaisnavas.

 

A while back I watched a “Memories” video with Sudhama Prabhu, who was homosexual, and you could tell he had great love for Srila Prabhupada and for Krsna. He performed great service for all devotees. In no way would I reject such a devotee.

 

Ultimately, however, I don’t see what it is you expect from us. You say the point is for homosexuals to engage in the regulations, but quite frankly I think your form of preaching will simply encourage others to blur that line, and suggest that such regulations are uncalled for. If someone is homosexual and aspiring to be a Vaisnava, I don’t see where the controversy is. Why should I know about it? In what way do you expect me to change my behavior because you tell me you are homosexual. I won’t accept it as proper conduct. What is the need for homosexuals to be known as homosexual Vaisnavas? Just do your best to make spiritual progress, but don’t work to disturb others by flaunting such a relationship, and don’t work to lower or blur the spiritual standards. These are my thoughts.

 

Gauracandra

[amanpeter]

Originally posted by jndas:

I have just deleted and edited several messages to keep this conversation on track and civil. I am sorry if anyone disagrees.

Agreed and accepted, prabhu. Please note that a discussion of this same subject matter is presently happening on the Dharma-mela forum.

 

[This message has been edited by amanpeter (edited 08-28-2001).]

[suryaz]

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

Just to clarify my position on this topic. If there were a vegetarian homosexual and a meat eating heterosexual, all else being equal, I would conclude that the vegetarian homosexual is more spiritual advanced. He would simply have an attachment to sex desire, while the other would be inflicting pain on another of God’s creatures.

 

Gauracandra

Hummm??? That is a bit of a sticky one. As I understand Prabhupada mentions - of the 4 regulated principles illicit sex is the most sinful.

 

Bhagavatam also suggests the spirit souls (jivas) line up to take birth within the male sperm. Given that context, abuse of male sperm infers the abuse of human birth and death or the natural development thereof.

 

Can the sperm count be equal in all males? I do not think so.

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 08-28-2001).]

[nine9]

Excuse me, prabhus, but I think you're all missing my point.

 

I don't mean to advertise my position. In fact I only responded to any of this because I saw this topic as a referer URL to the website.

 

It really disappoints me when everyone thinks that all gay men are promiscuous, or even have "sexual" relations. For the record both my current and previous relationships are/were conjugal, but completely free from sexual gratification.

 

You ask me what I expect. Nothing, really. If I have provoked just a bit of careful thought then that's great. You say you fear that all I (and others like me) say will cause people to renege on the regulative principles. Yes, I fear that too. I often quarrel with my gay (aspiring) devotee friends... in fact I had to write a specific rider to my website after someone thought that I was preaching against celibacy (erm, no, I'm preaching for it).

 

My only concern is for those entering spiritual life, who are already in committed relationships. I do not want to see those relationships broken up simply because those people think that the need for celibacy (or only for sex for procreation) implicitly invalidates their relationship. Surely we can all experience certain rasas in a pure way, not dominated by sex, no matter what our bodies?

 

Your humble servant,

 

Rama Kesava dasa

(Mark)

 

 

PS Maitreya -- true, I am slightly uncomfortable with the name GALVA. As regards to what I am trying to accomplish with my partner:- spiritual advancement whilst living in a healthy loving and mutually advantageous (and guru-approved) relationship.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by nine9 (edited 09-26-2001).]

[Maitreya]

Mark,

 

Sex or not, why "partner" and not brother?

 

Committed means nothing if the committment is based on illusion.So who cares if they get broken up?We have to drop the illusion as we accept the reality.

 

You may think your realtionship with this person is beyond the body, but ask yourself this:if it is beyond the body and we are all spiritsoul, then why not someone in a female form?

 

Hare Krishna

[talasiga]

Originally posted by nine9:

It really disappoints me when everyone thinks that all gay men are promiscuous, or even have "sexual" relations. For the record both my current and previous relationships are/were conjugal, but completely free from sexual gratification.

..................................

Surely we can all experience certain rasas in a pure way, not dominated by sex, no matter what our bodies?

 

 

Dear nine9

 

It seems to me that you dont have a homosexual relationship but a transgender one in as much as there does not appear to be a gender sexual parameter in the loving intimacy between you - the sex is transcended.

 

What a blessing that you are able to embrace this intimacy without its energy being subsumed or disrupted by the expiations of sex.

 

Spiritual intimacy between people can be problematic in so many ways in the industrialised society that we live in.

 

Many are afraid to get soulfully close to another for fear of arousing corollary erotic urges, whether the other is of the opposite sex or not, - erotic urges that would be inappropriate to the moral, societal or even psychological situation of the persons.

 

Others see "spiritual intimacy" as only some sort of highly genteel prequel to sex or as necessarily part and parcel of a refined sexual experience.

 

Of course spiritual intimacy without sexual practice need not be devoid of, or deny the the erotic current. However this may well express itself in a flavour of platonic love. I think this is what you mean by rasa.

 

Kindest Regards

 

 

 

------------------

talasiga@hotmail.com

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

For the record both my current and previous relationships are/were conjugal, but completely free from sexual gratification.

Which comes to one of my points, and that is that Vedic culture is against "conjugal" relationships that are not "for life". Actually the marriage is supposed to last for seven lives, and there are certain vows, practices, etc., that are followed to assure that the partners remain together for the seven lives.

 

I have to agree with Maitreya. Why must the relationship be "conjugal", and not brotherly. I love so many people as my brother, and our relationships are very close and strong.

 

We should try to adjust our own consciousness rather than adjust the teachings to suit our mind.

 

[nine9]

Maitreya prabhu,

 

You ask why "partner" and not brother, and why in the male form and not the female... I don't know. I can't explain it. It's just something that has happened. Yes, I acknowledge that I desired a male companion rather than a female one...but I can't do much to change that. This relationship is committed whether I like it or not. To abrogate such a relationship would have an averse effect on both me and him, not just emotionally, but also on a spiritual front. Of course there are very slight erotic, or base undercurrents there...we have both recognised that, but have made the deliberate committal to put that all aside and be in a healthy committed relationship, in which love for each other is, to paraphrase my spiritual master, "inextricably entwined with love for Guru" - and hence, by induction, a life of devotion.

 

I think Talasiga puts the point very nicely, and with great care. I am very grateful for this post.

 

Your aspiring servant,

 

Rama Kesava dasa

(Mark)

 

P.S. JN Das, I've never attempted to adjust the teachings, so to speak. That would be heresy on my part. I simply try to resolve my condition versus the "arrived" elements/understanding of contemporary Vaishnava thought.

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by nine9 (edited 09-26-2001).]

[BDas]

I will try to make the same(deleted)point I made before in a more delicate manner.

 

Many devotees on these forums who are quick to condemn homosexuals for sexual deviancy are themselves practicing some type unaccepted sex as far as the scriptures are concerned. Along with that many drink and or take drugs.

 

Since I left ashram life in 1984 I have known few devotees living outside the ashram who claimed to be strictly following the rules and regulations.

 

It is considered quite normal for devotees living outside to be sexually active and few chant regular rounds.

 

Still they areregarded as devotees because they have some love for Krishna and Prabhupad. When asked about such devotees Prabhupad said they should still be considered Vaisnavas unless they begin to eat meat.

 

In the article on the third sex it said that living apart from the rest of society was a normal situation for Gays in Vedic culture. We also see this is true to a certain extent in todays culture. In many ways they are a world apart in the way they live and view life.

 

But those who have appreciation for Krishna are still Vaisnavas regardless of their sexuality and should be given respect and encouragement to be Krishna conscious.

 

Just as we respect and try to help other devotees who do not follow the all the sexual rules and regulations. Hare Krishna, Bdas

[Gauracandra]

I know we won't resolve this debate so I just want to say I'm glad you are a Vaisnava. My only advice is that you not work to disturb others or seek to gain acceptance of homosexuality.

 

I have a fairly simple view of homosexuality with regard to religion. Virtually all the major religions of the world (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Vaisnavism) do not accept homosexuality. I read an article recently in which the Dalai Lama said many Hollywood admirers of his wanted him to say homosexuality was alright. He said he couldn't as such practices are forbidden. I do not believe that the injunctions against homosexuality are simply arbitrary or formed out of bigotry. My view is that the ancient sages of all these traditions stood back and watched what happened to society when such activity flourished. They saw what happened to families, to morality, to the spread of disease and such. With this knowledge they came to certain conclusions. I accept their conclusions.

 

But in the end we all have faults. We should work to build ourselves and others up spiritually rather than work to harm one another. I hope nothing I have said in this discussion has hurt you in anyway.

 

Gauracandra

[talasiga]

Gauracandra

 

I think Mark was raising

transgender loving intimacy

devoid of sexual practices

Your focus on homosexual practices

is off the Mark

[nine9]

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

But in the end we all have faults. We should work to build ourselves and others up spiritually rather than work to harm one another. I hope nothing I have said in this discussion has hurt you in anyway.

No, prabhu. Nothing that you've said has hurt me in the slightest. You are right in saying that we will never resolve this. That's because this is an issue of interpretation for the most part. I just ask you all to look at Talasiga's comments:

Originally posted by talasiga:

I think Mark was raising

transgender loving intimacy

devoid of sexual practices

Your focus on homosexual practices

is off the Mark

These words express my sentiment, much better than I ever could hope to do. I'll be honest, I don't identify as "homosexual" (and don't want to) - it places too much emphasis on the sex - rather I'd just say I'm in a "gay" (for use of better word) relationship, and my partner happens to be a man. However, the same rules apply as if I were heterosexual.

 

With my warmest regards, and my sincerest hopes that I have not offended anyone, or confused anyone as to the nature of my position,

 

Your aspiring servant,

 

Rama Kesava dasa

(Mark)

 

nine9@ukshells.co.uk

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by nine9 (edited 09-26-2001).]