Tripurari Maharaja

[BDas]

The point I made on beliefnet and Prabhupada made many times as well is that you have to preach to a person according to his level of eligibility. The person on beliefnet was actually very favorable until he was introduced to quotes from Prabhupada that he found impossible to harmonize or appreciate. Previous to calling the quote hate speech, which practically any modern liberal thinker would do, he identified himself with and preached on behalf of the movement. He even took the time to present the mantra in a respectful way.

 

He wrote: "In my temple, the Hare Krishna temple functions as a wonderful westernized Hindu temple. We have worship of Murtis. We have a mix of Indian, White, Black and Hispanic devotees. We operate in English while still reading texts and prayers in Sanskrit.The Hare Krishna movement traces its origins through Sri Caitanya 500 years ago. It is a Hindu lineage. Its practice is chanting Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna Hare HareHare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare. Devotees are encouraged to say 16 rounds of the mantra. They are enjoined to stay clear of intoxicants, illicit sex and be strict vegetarians. The cooking and serving of prasadam (food offered to Krishna) is the other pillar of the faith. To me, as I said, Hare Krishnas are Vaisnavite Hindus successfully transpanted into a Western context and language."

 

Then a quote from Prabhupada was presented to him that he had never heard before and was beyond his level of eligibility to appreciate. Thus in the name of “presenting the truth” the preacher pushed him from favorable to unfavorable in one fell swoop. This move was more the fault of the preacher who by previous experience should have known that this person or practically any liberal person in that position would not be able to appreciate such quotes from any source. Thus I believe the preacher was more at fault for the offense to Prabhupada than the person being preached to. A person is a product of his culture. Anti-homosexual quotes will surely be appreciated in the bible belt but not in liberal Berkeley culture.

 

And any objective person can well see from this episode that this kind of preaching is counterproductive!

 

The art of preaching requires that one present the truth according to the level of eligibility of the audience. And the goal of preaching is not just to present truth but to present truth in such a way that people will appreciate Krishna consciousness and take up the practice. To do this requires insight, tact, and common sense on the part of the preacher. Yes, preachers should present the truth but more often than not the truth needs to be spoon-fed knowing full well that people don’t need to know everything all at once. /BDas

 

[Guest guest]

Thanks atmaji. Babhru yes we will find more engaging topics.

 

Bdas, I really have nothing to say that isn't already on the thread,so I'll leave you with the last word.

 

Hare Krsna

[stonehearted]

BDas wrote: Thus I believe the preacher was more at fault for the offense

to Prabhupada than the person being preached to. . . . any objective person can well see from this episode that this kind of preaching is counterproductive!

 

The art of preaching requires that one present the truth according to the level of eligibility of the audience. And

the goal of preaching is not just to present truth but to present truth in such a way that people will appreciate

Krishna consciousness and take up the practice. To do this requires insight, tact, and common sense on the

part of the preacher. Yes, preachers should present the truth but more often than not the truth needs to be

spoon-fed knowing full well that people don’t need to know everything all at once.

 

Babhru: We all probably have plenty of experience of preaching in an immature manner due to our scant realization. Effective preaching should begin with meeting people where they are and showing them, first of all, the desirability of progressing, then the means for gradually attaining their goal, moving step by step from here to there. That requires sensitivity and humility. And, as Brahma says, we often need to spoon feed them, which requires patience.

 

We are enjoined against preaching the Holy Name's glories to the faithless. We should also infer from this injunction that we should at all stages preach what is appropriate, find what our audience may appreciate and gradually encourage them to make progress. When we accept the resposibility of preaching, we may remain detached from the results only in the sense that we ultimately leave the results to Krishna; however, as Krishna's agents we are always responsible to Him to present His product (Krishna prema) in the best possible light. And we ultimately judge the effectiveness of any activity by its result (phalena parichiyate). The result of our preaching should be that the way we conduct ourselves should increase the audience's faith in Krishna consciousness, even a little. In this case, the audience was already favorable ("In my temple . . ."--notice how favorably disposed he was to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's movement). However, the preacher found a way to create an opening for offense.

 

This is an unfortunate example of how a great deal of our preaching efforts can be undone. We need to become mature enough in our faith that we won't feel threatened by someone who has a different realization, or whose realization may not be as advanced as ours, or by someone whose realization is far advanced beyond ours. Rather, we will always seek new perspectives, always welcome hearing new, higher realizations, and always be eager to share our own realization with others in a manner appropriate with their advancement. A long time ago, Isaw that real preaching ultimately means an overflow of realization, that real preachers have som much Krishna consciousness that they can't contain it, so it spills over and contaminates anyone near (read: receptive) enough.

 

One example of meeting the audience where they are is Brahmananda's story of showing a picture of his girlfriend to Srila Prabhupada. Did Prabhupada start railing against unrestricted mixing of sexes? No. In fact, the way he dealt very gently with Brahmananda's affection for the girl created an opening for progressive detachment and increased faith in Srila Prabhupada.

 

Years ago, when my older daughter was in high school, one boy who befriended her was gay, out of the closet even in high school. Krishnamayi was also out--as a Hare Krishna devotee; everyone in the school knew her as Mission Bay's Hare Krishna. One day this boy asked her what Hare Krishna devotees believed about homosexuality. She responded that, as far as she understood, the scriptures considered homosexual behaviour as sinful, but that devotees dealt with the people they met as humans hungry for spiritual food. This boy's respect for her grew becuase her answer was direct, uncompromising, and compassionate. They became very good friends during their years in high school, and Sam came to the temple's programs quite often, happily chanting and enjoying prasadam. He was a nice boy whose faith in Krishna was nudged along a little by Krishnamayi's own faith. He died at 19, and we have faith that the association he had with devotees benefited him.

 

Babhru das

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

The art of preaching requires that one present the truth according to the level of eligibility of the audience.

 

 

Though this may be offtopic, what I find most objectionable is when people like Amara Das choose to not present the truth at all, and instead propagate that homosexuality is not sinful, is natural, and is perfectly in line with Prabhupada's teachings. They manufacture nonexistent meanings to sanskrit words in an attempt to show that homosexuality was accepted in ancient Vedic times. When educated sanskritists such as Hridayananda Goswami point out that they are wrong in their using such made up definitions for these sanskrit words, they question Maharaja's knowledge of sanskrit, while they themselves know nothing about sanskrit and its grammar. Its just a comical farce.

 

I certainly see a distinction between presenting truth according to eligibility, and presenting falsehoods because its the easy thing to do.

 

Prabhupada was always very merciful and kind, yet he never deviated from his message regardless of the audience. When he met with the Christian priests and cardinals, the first thing he asked them was why they were sinfully killing cows. He didn't recommend they consult the "cow killing vaishnava organizations" (GOHVA - Go-Hatya Vaishnava Association), since they were a more broad minded and all-embracing organization.

[theist]

Years ago, when my older daughter was in high school, one boy who befriended her was gay, out of the closet even in high school. Krishnamayi was also out--as a Hare Krishna devotee; everyone in the school knew her as Mission Bay's Hare Krishna. One day this boy asked her what Hare Krishna devotees believed about homosexuality. She responded that, as far as she understood, the scriptures considered homosexual behaviour as sinful, but that devotees dealt with the people they met as humans hungry for spiritual food. This boy's respect for her grew becuase her answer was direct, uncompromising, and compassionate. They became very good friends during their years in high school, and Sam came to the temple's programs quite often, happily chanting and enjoying prasadam. He was a nice boy whose faith in Krishna was nudged along a little by Krishnamayi's own faith. He died at 19, and we have faith that the association he had with devotees benefited him.

 

Babhru das

 

 

Looks like I can't control the urge to speak. Babhru you have stated my postion very nicely but in a context that is in opposition to my position. Therefore I can only conclude that you are trying to both discuss the idea broadly and at the same time relate it to this specific incident which you have just demonstrated you know little of.

 

When you have gotten that straight please come back and explain how we are to judge the specific eligibility of the audience via the World Wide Web. Maybe we can all learn from the dissertation.

 

 

[theist]

Yes that was my point in copying and posting Prabhupada's quote directly. Bdas had refered the person to the galva web site for the answer the post had submitted. Which was what was the ISKCON position on homosexuality. I don't consider galva as representing ISKCON's position.

 

By the way did anyone consider that maybe the person posing the question had heard stories of homosexual priests molesting children in ISKCON and was trying to find out the real position for himself. He may have appreciated the truth. The person Bdas and others are referring to was not the person putting for th the question. They were answer for ISKCON supposedly by presenting a "gay positive" message.

[theist]

Amogha: In one high school here they asked the question whether we accept homosexuality. And I said, “Of course not. This is only a perversion.” And they said, “This is nature’s way to stop overpopulation,” because there won’t be any children. So much foolish.

 

Prabhupäda: How degraded the human society is becoming. And the children, they are discussing.

 

----------

 

In the above morning walk converstaion we see that the disciple Amogha was giving a talk to a high school class and we can see how he answered. Notice Prabhupada's resonse. Did he chastise Amogha for nor sugarcoating his response?

 

You decide.

[Guest guest]

theist: I can only conclude that you are trying to both discuss the idea broadly and at the same time relate it to this specific incident which you have just demonstrated you know little of.

 

You're losing me here, sir. What incident are you asserting I know little of--your reply to copithorne on Beliefnet? I've read it several times. Your response was to paste a quotation without any context or discussion, except to chide someone who identified himself as not being a devotee for offending Srila Prabhupada. Your responses here and there make you appear very defensive of your action, as though it's not possible that any reasonable devotee could have a problem with it. I don't mean to attack you; as I have pointed out many times, my academic training and spiritual aspirations seem to meet in an interest in the way we carry out discussions among ourselves. I seem unable to control an urge to examine our rhetoric. I'm sure you're a wonderful disciple, very dedicate to you spiritual master's service, and I apologize if anything I write comes across as personal criticism. I also want to point out that Brahma did not call you a Bible-thumper and fire-and-brimstone preacher; rather, he compared your post to the preaching of such folks. This isn't hair splitting; there is a distinction that a careful reader should acknowledge.

 

You also wrote: explain how we are to judge the specific eligibility of the audience via the World Wide Web.

 

No dissertation is necessary. We simply need to pay attention to whatever signals are given, and if we don't have enough, find ways to elicit more--pretty much like preaching in person. If we still arent' sure, it may sometimes be best to move to the topic a little cautiously. Why not start by introducing some ideas from the 2nd chapter of Bhagavad-gita (Gadadhar identified himself as a Hindu, so he would probably respect Bhagavad-gita) and then into a brief discussion of how all forms of sense gratification distract us from our real business as human beings (self realization), and that some, especially sex, distract us very powerfully. Then you may be able to explain how vedic culture makes allowances for married sex to be sanctified, but makes no such allowances for sex outside marriage. As your relationship builds, it may eventually be appropriate to share a quotations such as the one you did, making sure you point out that the chanting of the holy names of Krishna, especially the maha-mantra, is so powerful that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu has given it to everyone, regardless of any material disqualification.

 

Just as when we preach face to face, preaching on the Web requires a little thought and effort. We take is as something easy.

 

Any questions? Class dismissed--and, hey, have a great weekend!

[Guest guest]

That was me, Babhru. I pressed a key that did something weird and caused a problem with my browser, and I apparently replied without logging on again. I'm sorry for posting anonymously.

[theist]

And I suppose Prabhupada should have scoulded Amogha for telling a high school class that homosexuality was perverted when asked.

 

Honesty is the best policy. And of course you don't thump someone on the head with it. But you still must speak it.

 

BTW I am not a disciple. I am just a point in the circle of the laiety.

 

What do you mean have anice weekend its only Thurs. You must have a cushie position at the U. rascal academics

 

 

[paul108]

Although I have only a moment now, I just want to say that I believe the truth should be spoken as much as possible. People in general want to remain ignorant, and that is apparently their God-given right. But if someone wants to know what is true, then that is what should be told, for the Supreme Truth is the highest compassion. If we cannot hear the truth from sincere devotees of Lord Caitanya, then we cannot hear it at all. The unadulterated truth is what is meant by "As It Is."

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

[stonehearted]

theist: And I suppose Prabhupada should have scoulded Amogha for telling a high school class that homosexuality was perverted when asked.

 

No, not at all. Especially then, and especially in a high school, and most particularly on the spot, it wouldn't have been at all unusual for someone representing a religious group to say that. The situation was different. I didn't say we should dodge questions, just that, when we have some time, we should cultivate the audience's bhaktilata.

 

t: Honesty is the best policy. And of course you don't thump someone on the head with it. But you still must speak it.

 

Did my "lesson" evade the truth?

 

t: BTW I am not a disciple. I am just a point in the circle of the laiety.

 

Eventually, according to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's instructions to Sanatan Goswami, we have to make a commitment and accept initiation in order to keep making progress. See anyone qualified who moves your heart? No need to share anything too personal. And I ain't preaching to you--just pointing out something I'm sure you already know.

 

t: What do you mean have anice weekend its only Thurs. You must have a cushie position at the U. rascal academics

 

Actually, I wrote that as a wishful-thinking goof. I have classes and meetings tomorrow. And stacks of papers to read tonight and over the weekend. No chushy position; I'm a community-college professor who teaches 5 writing classes a semester (that's 300 papers, along with preparation and various administative bull pucky--I calculated yesterday that, since 1989, I've read well over 30,000 student papers), which, along with committee service and community service means long work weeks and short weekends.

 

But do have a wonderful Nityananda trayodahsi. We're having a festival at our little community temple in Hilo tomorrow--bhajans, kirtans, abhisheka, Nitai-katha, and a feast (we have quite a few really good cooks here). It will be a wonderful break from professing English (maybe even a chance to profess Krishna bhakti).

[stonehearted]

paul108 wrote: I just want to say that I believe the truth should be spoken as much as possible. People in general want to remain ignorant, and that is apparently their God-given right. But if someone wants to know what is true, then that is what should be told, for the Supreme Truth is the highest compassion. If we cannot hear the truth from sincere devotees of Lord Caitanya, then we cannot hear it at all. The unadulterated truth is what is meant by "As It Is."

 

And I think everyone here agrees with you, Paul. All I'm pointing out (and I think it was Brahma's message as well) is that we need to be thoughtful about just how to present the truth in each cirumstance. There is a difference between mature, effective preaching and parroting, although we can become purified (and sometimes help others) when all we're qualified to do is parrot. There's no fault in being introspective enough to be aware of our own position. And it's an essential element of effective communication to know what we mean to accomplish and just who our audience is. Srila Prabhupada demonstrated that in spades throughout every day. Lord Chaitanya's message is dynamic, and the spiritual master is a dynamic personality, not static. My godbrother Bhurijana prabhu tells a story of a leading sannyasi lamenting to Srila Prabhupada that not all devotees were into going out and selling books on the street all day, but had other interests, such as farm communities. Srila Prabhupada looked at him and asked, "Do you think the spiritual master is a dead stone who connot give different instructions to different devotees?"

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

And I think everyone here agrees with you, Paul. All I'm pointing out (and I think it was Brahma's message as well) is that we need to be thoughtful about just how to present the truth in each cirumstance.

 

 

But Brahma Das pointed this person to the GALVA website, which is not based on truth at all and not in line with Srila Prabhupada's teachings. For example, Srila Prabhupada did not teach that sex between "third gender" people was considered natural and non-sinful in Vedic culture.

 

And secondly, the person did ask for ISKCON's view on the matter, not GALVA's.

[atma]

that's why I agree with Theist and JNdas.

[stonehearted]

You win.

 

Boy, this thread just won't die. Try to get a thread with Krishna-katha going and you may get a nibble once in a while. Talk about women and gays, and we all get excited.

[atma]

they were trying to present the truth here. It wasn't about gays.

[Guest guest]

Atma,

 

I disagree with your assessment. I don't think it was about truth at all. We have to recognize the difference between the relative and absolute.

 

Simply pasting a quote by Srila Prahbupada about gays is definitely truthful in regard to what he said, afterall - Theist simply cut and pasted the quote - so there was not misrepresentation. But the principle being discussed really is how to preach and motivate others to take up the practices of Krsna consciousness.

 

Srila Prabhupada changed his views when he was presented with facts that overrode his current thinking about a relative issue. Do you think that he would still hold to the opinion that women have smaller brains? Of course not, these are relative issues and any reasonable person will ajust their thinking about them as more information is gained.

 

So what about gays and the stance of Iskcon or Gaudiyas in general? Is it fixed for all time? Shall we state that it is siddhanta? On the basis of what specific sastric quote? Shall we simply ignore the findings of modern science? Shall we ignore psychologists and psychiatrists? The geneticists?

 

Personally, I don't think so. We have to adjust our stance according to the data we have at hand. I have not read much of what is posted on the Galva site but from what I have read I think they are trying to sort things out and ajust the teachings to the times and information at hand. Is that something to get excited about? I guess it depends on who you are what you consider to be essential.

 

I haven't seen the suggestion on that site that the principles that Srila Prabhupada expected his disciples to follow be changed - I'm talking here about the four regulative principles.

 

Anyway, I do agree with Babhru - let's talk some Hari Katha. Lord Nityananda ki jaya!!!!!

[theist]

guest:>> "Anyway, I do agree with Babhru - let's talk some Hari Katha. Lord Nityananda ki jaya!!!!! <<

 

Then why didn't you, instead of presenting your views on homosexuality?

 

Prabhupada's purport was concerning an incident with Lord Brahma at the dawn of this creation when the demons were manifested from his buttocks. The homosexuals were among them. Sorry, no matter what our present scientists and sociologists may speculate the majority of us will still understand the difference between male and female.

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Do you think that he would still hold to the opinion that women have smaller brains?

 

 

Women do have smaller brains. /images/graemlins/smile.gif But that isn't too relevant.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DyeHard/dye990602.html

 

As far as Srila Prabhupada's scriptural conclusions, no I don't think he would change his views even if presented with "evidence" that homosexuality was genetic and non-sinful. Not sure how the scientists would determine that homosexuality was non-sinful...

 

And as far as truth, yes, it should be presented in a proper way. But that is different then presenting lies to satisfy one's false bodily identifications and material attachments (i.e. GALVA).

 

You missed the point that GALVA claims sex between third gender people was natural and considered non-sinful in Vedic times. Srila Prabhupada said exactly the opposite. There is no way to reconcile these differences. Thus as far as ISKCON's view, they accept Srila Prabhupada's conclusion on this matter. And that was what the questioner was asking for.

[paul108]

"Shall we simply ignore the findings of modern science? Shall we ignore psychologists and psychiatrists? The geneticists?"

 

I don't mind ignoring these so-called authorities. Personally, if Srila Prabhupada were to tell me the sun is green, then I would say it's green. Your "data at hand" is based on the bodily conception, with the four defects. If you consider the mundane scientists worshipable, then you're free to follow them to their destination. As for me, my hopeful destination is the shade of the lotus feet of Srila Prabhupada's servants.

 

Hare Krishna

[stonehearted]

I was going to let this die. Let me say clearly that I accept the version of the shastras that sex outside marriage is sinful. Any activity that distracts us from progress toward life's ultimate goal, Krishna prema, is sinful. Accepting that the inclination for romantic/sexual relations with those of the same sex appears to be due to samskaras from previous lives (i.e., that it seems to be inherent in some, not a "lifestyle choice") is not identical with asserting that homosexual behavior is not sinful. However, I don't believe that means we have license to condemn those caught up in sinful life. The real truth is that, as Srila Prabhupada told us, Lord Chaitanya and Nityananda came to save the most fallen first. When I joined ISKCON late in 1969, ISKCON had maybe 200 members. So I must admit I must be pretty fallen. If Gaura-Nitai can help me, They can help gay men and women who develop a little faith in Them. Our business as Their agents is to find the means, by hook or crook, to help all fallen souls (our superiors) to grow that faith.

 

I have some faith in Nityananda Prabhu; I have some faith in the holy names of Krishna. Srila Prabhupada, as my Godbrother Gopavrindapal has pointed out, had an apparently unique faith in the maha-mantra. My faith is that this trumps all other considerations. That's all. Those who want to argue these peripheral points can spend all the time they want and glory in the conviction that they are right. If necessary, I'll sign a certificate that they have beaten me. (Oh--I think I already have published such an admission on the World Wide Web!) In the meantime, I will continue to treat gay and straight men and women, of whatever race or political stripe, with whatever respect will help them and me grow our faitn in the dust of the lotus feet of Lord Nityananda.

 

Your aspiring servant,

Babhru das

[theist]

Babhru, I'm sure you understand that not accepting homosexuality as normal,even within the material context,is not the same as condemning people that have that inclination. That is the subtle(or not so)insinuation of many. Concidentally it is also the tactic of the secular homosexual activists. Witness the widespread misuse of the term homophobia.

 

Speak against homosex and you are an intolerant bigot, even to the point to where Srila Prabhupada has been called such a name. I don't think sooo.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

However, I don't believe that means we have license to condemn those caught up in sinful life.

 

 

I don't think the point is about condemning sinful people, nor about whether Lord Chaitanya's mercy is for the most fallen. The point is someone asked what was ISKCON's view on homosexuality, and in reply they were directed to the GALVA website. The GALVA website certainly isn't Prabhupada's view, nor ISKCON's view.

 

To point out that the GALVA website is a combination of lies, and in contrast to their view Srila Prabhupada considers homosexuality to be sinful and abnormal isn't condemning the individual nor is it saying they are unfit for Lord Chaitanya's mercy.

 

To present untruth as truth in a deceptive manner is not the same as presenting truth in a palatable form. Unfortunately GALVA does the former.

 

 

I have some faith in Nityananda Prabhu; I have some faith in the holy names of Krishna.

 

 

I think Theist and others also have some faith in Nityananda Prabhu and the Holy name. They are not against homosexuals taking to devotional service. He seems to be against the deception and lies of GALVA. GALVA claims sex between third gender people was considered natural and non-sinful in Vedic times. Srila Prabhupada did not accept such a view. For GALVA to attempt to distort Srila Prabhupada's position and say that it is in line with their view is pure deception. For example, in response to all of Srila Prabhupada's quotes about homosexuality, GALVA (Amara Das) responds by saying they are being quoted out of context. That is a plain lie.

 

 

If Gaura-Nitai can help me, They can help gay men and women who develop a little faith in Them. Our business as Their agents is to find the means, by hook or crook, to help all fallen souls (our superiors) to grow that faith.

 

 

Gaura Nitai can help anyone except those who offend the spiritual master. Distorting the message of the Guru to accomodate one's material attachments is certainly a gurvaparadha. This is what GALVA is based on.

 

No one is against homosexuals taking to devotional service. What we are against is certain groups claiming homosexuality is not sinful, and that it is perfectly in line with Vedic culture and Vaishnavism. This is nonsense.

 

And if someone questions any of this, the answer is, "If you're serious you will go get initiated first. Get your initiation certificate like me."

 

Maybe Theist was initiated last life. Or do we need to accept a new eternal spiritual master who is guru life after life every time we take birth? Maybe bhakti isn't eternal, and maybe our devotional progress does not continue into our next birth. Maybe the spiritual master has no capacity to protect and guide us after he dies. Or maybe he cannot trace us out after we are born again.

 

[Guest guest]

JNDAS,

 

Now that's stretching what Babhru said. I didn't think that his suggesting that Theist take spiritual life serious enough to seek to find a Guru to guide him was a way of dismissing him. His point was really about sitting on the sidelines and critiquing everyone while not making a commitment oneself. That doesn't mean that Theist doesn't have meaningful insights or that his opinions will be dismissed due to his 'lower qualification'. At least I didn't see the comment in that light. It is actually what Rupa Goswami teaches in Bhakti rasamrita sindhu. One of the first steps in progressive spiritual life is taking diksha from a bona fide spiritual master. I didn't catch the part where Rupa Goswami mentions that it may not be necessary due to possible past life connections. Can you show us where that is stated by any of our acharyas? Your speculations regarding Sri Guru are just that. Do you think that the spiritual master will always be bound up in the world to drag his wayward disciples home? Will Krsna bar the spiritual master from his abode? His function is eternal in the material kingdom? This type of speculation is incorrect. The tattva is that the Guru is one and he is none other than Krsna himself. It is this principle of Guru that will continue to guide and encourage you through many life times. Each life time a sincere sadhaka will begin where he left off and will take diksha accordingly. Bhaktivinoda Thakur took diksha, Mahaprabhu took diksha. There is no precedence for your type of idea within Gaudiya history.

 

As far as claims on the Galva site, I am not sure your correct in what your saying. Since I haven't read all the articles I really can't say, but I didn't see any claims that sinful activity was anything but sinful. What I saw the in the little bit of reading I did was that the presentation was meant to help people to get over their prejudices and preconceptions of people based on their natural inclinations. Devotees all believe and try to follow the same principles, whether they're gay or not.

 

Paul - you are not meant to deny the truth of reason and sense perception in favor of fanaticism. You have to reconcile all truths and, of course, sastric evidence takes precedence - but we are not to deny other valid sources of truth. Jiva Goswami covers this in his tattva sandarbha.

 

Srila Prabhupada stressed over and over again that he wanted his followers to be thoughtful people who used common sense and utilized their intelligence to the fullest extent in Krsna's service. He did not want followers who could not think for themselves and when he did come across this type of mentality he would suggest to those discples that they find someone who could think to do so for them.

 

Theist, thanks for the nudge.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa