Tripurari Maharaja

[theist]

 

 

Although my Guru Maharaja frowned on homosexuality in general, he was also very practical, flexible, and compassionate. One of his earliest disciples was a gay man who once related how he had ultimately discussed his sexual orientation with Srila Prabhupada. He said that at that point Srila Prabhupada said "Then just find a nice boy, stay with him and practice Krsna consciousness."

 

 

 

Maybe next time you will make it more clear which is Tripurari's voice and which is yours. I think you can understand why it wasn't clear this was from Tripurari. I wasn't trying to axe you but so many people say Prabhupada said this thing or that thing that I have found it wise to take such statements with a grain of salt until I see more proof.

 

This very point came up here some months back and no one could locate any record of such a statement.

[Kulapavana]

That "distancing" could be coming from TS's compassion capacity. I still have a negative view on this issue (homosexuality), but what do you do if an otherwise nice person takes up Krishna Consciousness and tries to better himself or herself? It's a delicate balance between the encouragement of the positive and correction of behaviour. I think that the real issue is sexual promiscuity that has to be condemned, be it homo- or hetero- sexual.

[theist]

Just do what Prabhupada did. He condemned the activity and accepted the person. he didn't start conducting hono mariages, which is what they are now lobbying for, rather he condemned the so-called clergy for offering this church sanction.

 

At the same time as condemning the activity he allowed a gay disciple to be his personal servant.

 

The soul is neither gay or straight. That is just some temporary action developed through contact with the modes of material nature.

 

But some activities elevate the individual and society in general and some degrade. We need to keep both well defined and separate I believe.

 

Most of us have our own issues that we fight with. To give sanction means to take away or weaken the motivation to fight through the dark tendancy.

 

Sanctioning a persons negative behavior pattern leaves them with feeling comfortable with it to some degree. That to me is a violent act directed towards that person.

 

Another problem arises when we mistakenly reject that person and then become a stumbling block to their recovery.

 

So it strikes me that there is a fine line there to be walked. The line appears to be seeing others as spiritsoul and the Lord in everyones heart, and then acting accordingly.

 

Easy to say but something that I cannot yet do. But our leaders must or why do we call them leaders.

 

Let's be very careful in trying to modify the example left by Srila Prabhupada. We run the risk of seeing ourselves to be more compassionate in our thinking then he and that thinking will only bring disaster.

[Kulapavana]

agreed prabhuji, very fine line indeed that has to be approached with utmost caution and humility... but as the society changes with time, place and circumstances, changes are made by the acaryas in our sampradaya (in practicalities of the sadhana) to adjust our movement to the audience. Srila Prabhupada made quite a few of such changes and this process should not stop with his departure. That would go against our lineage. This world is full of fossilized religious movements... let's not allow ours to be one of them...

[theist]

 

 

I am not much fond of the idea of changing things to accommodate the public--better to change the public to accommodate us. letter bali-mardana Bombay Dec. 28, 1971

 

 

Changing things was also said by Prabhupada to be a Western problem.

 

Change for change sake srikes my as inspired by the mode of passion. Whereas maintained and sustained truth is in the mode of goodness. I don't know much about how the modes work so I could be wrong.

 

Especially on this issue where Srila Prabhupada has clearly spoken out in the opposite.

[Kulapavana]

That is pretty obvious: all quotes have to be viewed in context. How do you explain all the changes Srila Prabhupada made himself? (big stuff, like number of rounds chanted or allowing women it the ashramas, giving them brahmana initiation). He would change his position on things sometimetimes after listening to arguments from both sides (too bad he was often presented half-truths or worse) And sometimes things have to be changed also because they dont work... a good disciple does not just blindly follow: he understands guru's purpose and does what is required.

[theist]

 

Nowadays, a südra is on the government. A person who is a nonsense number one, he has no knowledge, he is on the head of the government. The things have been topsy-turvied. A person on religious category, he’s advocating something, oh, it is not to be uttered. Homosex. You see? He’s advocating homosex. Prabhupada at a sunday feast lecture LA May 21, 1972

 

 

Performing a marriage ceremony is a sanctioning event.

 

Main Entry: [2]sanction

Function: transitive verb

1 : to make valid or binding usually by a formal procedure (as ratification)

2 : to give effective or authoritative approval or consent to

synonym see APPROVE

 

also

 

Main Entry: [1]sanc·tion

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin sanction-, sanctio, from sancire to make holy —more at SACRED

15th century

1 : a formal decree; especially : an ecclesiastical decree

2 a : obsolete : a solemn agreement : OATH b : something that makes an oath binding

3 : the detriment, loss of reward, or coercive intervention annexed to a violation of a law as a means of enforcing the law

4 a : a consideration, principle, or influence (as of conscience) that impels to moral action or determines moral judgment b : a mechanism of social control for enforcing a society's standards c : explicit or official approval, permission, or ratification : APPROBATION

 

So I have seen letters from gay devotees on Chakra saying that ISKCON should consider changing now to the performance of gay marriages (sanctioning).

 

This is thought to be more inclusive then Prabhupada's arrangement, who was an old Bengali man influenced by his past 'Victorian' old fashioned culture.

 

I reject that completely.

 

 

[Kulapavana]

I do not think ISKCON or other temples should get involved in sanctioning gay marriages due to the obvious controversy. But if they (the couple wanting to sanctify their relationship) can find a hotri priest willing to perform the yajna for them outside the temple than what is the harm? If the gay couple is sincere, they will go for it. If they have other agenda, they will keep complaining.

[Guest guest]

sex desire for same sex or opposite sex is based

on mentality.

 

people either see the same sex or opposite sex or both

as desirable depending on their perception of

pleasure.

 

sex is all about self gratification,if you percieve same sex

relations as pleasurable and also opposite sex

as pleasurable then you see things without

any conditioned concepts.

 

most people are conditioned to see opposite sexual

relations as pleasurable, but same sex as not.

 

some view sex without any conditioning and see sex

purely as a pleaurable activity regardless of same sex or not.

 

so homosexuality is conditioning to see same sex as pleaure,but not opposite sex.

 

heterosexuality sees opposite sex as pleasure but not

same sex.

 

bi-sexuality sees things without conditioning , in fact

any sex is pleasureable strictly speaking.

 

the desire for any of these three types of sexual activity

depends on conditioning, either in past lives or present.

 

so to say same sex is perverted is a moral judgement not

a scientific one, the mentality of a person will determine

which view he has of sex, strictly speaking all sex

is pleasurable, perversion is a mental concept

not physical, we know this because what a female

does in sex if done by a male many consider

perverted, the same activity, skin rubbing,

but by different people is seen as either

proper or improper depending on the mental state

of the person who is judging.

 

Spiritual reasoning as to proper or improper

sexual conduct is another matter, and based on

philosophical reasoning, not moral judgements.

[theist]

Homosexuality & Spirituality

[From an Interview with Siddhasvarupa dasa]

Q: Many homosexuals seem to be experiencing an identity crisis. They don't know who they are. They are in men's bodies but they feel like enjoying as women (homosexual) or they are in women's bodies but they feel like enjoying as men (lesbians). So are these people men or women?

 

A: Neither. Just because a person is in a male body doesn't mean that the person is male; and just because a person or soul is in a female body doesn't mean that the person is a female. This is because the person or soul is not the material body, you are not your body, I am not my body.

 

The body is like a suit of clothes that you are wearing temporarily. At death you will leave this suit of clothes behind and it will be buried in the dirt or burned to ashes. Your body may be female, black, brown or white, American or Filipino, fat or skinny, tall or short, etc. But since you are not the physical body -- since you are the eternal soul only temporarily in the body -- it can ultimately be said you are not any of these labels like male, female, black, white etc. These are bodily designations only but you are not the body.

 

Q: So if I am in a male body and feel a desire to enjoy as a female -- am I in fact a female, or if I am in a female body but I desire to enjoy as a male, am I in fact a male?

 

A: No. I have explained that the person is not the gross physical body but this doesn't mean that the person is the subtle physical body. You must realize that the mind and material desires are a subtle physical body which is also like a suit of clothes over the person or soul. The gross material body made up of the elements earth, water, fire etc., can be compared to the jacket and shirt and the subtle material body composed of the mind, material desires etc., can be compared to the undershirt or underwear.

 

In fact you are not your jacket and shirt nor are you your underwear and undershirt. You are covered by a gross material body and a subtle material body. You are the eternal soul within these gross and subtle physical casings.

 

Q: The identity crisis of homosexuals is "Am I a man because I have a man's body or am I a woman because I want to enjoy as a woman? Which am I, the mind or the body?" This is the question the homosexual is asking himself. Am I the particular type of external body that I have on or am I the desires that I feel? But what you are saying is that we are neither the external body nor the desires.

 

 

 

--

You are not the gross physical body nor are you the mind and desires.

--

 

A: Exactly. You are neither the mind nor the gross body. Both the gross body (male and female body) and the subtle body (mind and desires) are material coverings that you have on. Just because you are in a male body doesn't mean that you are male, similarly just because you are covered by the desire to enjoy as a female doesn't make you a female. You are not the gross physical body nor are you the mind and desires. You are the soul or person covered by these two bodies. You are not the gross or subtle body. You are the living entity situated within these bodies. The identity crisis exists for a person who is not aware of this fact.

 

Q: So homosexuals who say they feel like women trapped in men's bodies are mistakenly identifying themselves as the mind and desires?

 

A: Yes. Individuals in men's bodies but who want to enjoy as women should appreciate the fact that they are not women trapped in men's bodies, rather they are living entities covered up by the desire to enjoy as women, but their "female" desire is encased in a male body.

 

In other words, they are actually identifying themselves to be the subtle body, the mind and desires. That is their mistake. A person can realize that the mind is not the self. Homosexuals, for example, can separate themselves from the tendency to enjoy as women. In other words they can see this tendency to enjoy as women as something apart from themselves; in the same way that they can experience their body as apart from themselves through meditation.

 

A person says "my body", as if the body is his possession. Similarly, a person says, my mind, which points to the fact that the mind is also a possession of the person. I have a body and I have a mind -- but I am neither the body nor the mind.

 

A person can watch images going through his mind in the same way that he watches television. He can act as a witness to the activities of the mind or he may dream and say, "Oh, I had a terrible nightmare", but as soon as the dream is gone, is he gone? No, he still exists. This means he is not the dream. The dream has ceased existing but he has not ceased existing. So he is not the mind.

 

Similarly, desires continually change. A desire to enjoy in a certain way may exist, but then it goes away. But the living entity does not go away. The living entity, who is aware of that desire, continues to exist. The homosexual should be aware that his desires are changing from day to day, month to month, moment to moment. The person is the one who is aware of these ever-changing desires, feelings and thoughts.

 

Homosexuals can say to themselves, "I am aware that I am now experiencing the desire to enjoy as a woman." By such meditation the homosexual comes to realize that such desires are apart from himself; that he can watch those desires as a witness; or he can try to rid his mind of them; or he can give in to them. The choice is his.

 

If the homosexual chooses to (a) watch the desires come and go, if he is simply a witness to them, then he realizes that obviously he is not them, he is apart from them. He is merely a spectator, separated, watching the desires and thoughts go by.

 

 

 

--

The person is trying to get a grip on the mind. This means that the person is not the mind.

--

 

If the homosexual chooses to try to (b) rid himself of such perverted thoughts and desires, he will experience how hard it is to control them. This should act as further evidence to him that he is not those thoughts and desires. In other words, the very fact that a person has a hard time controlling the mind proves that the mind is something distinct from the person -- that the person is apart from the mind trying to control it.

 

The mind is separate from the person. The person is trying to get a grip on the mind and make it do this and do that. This means that the person is not the mind.

 

Furthermore, the very fact that a person has a choice between: A. watching the desires and thoughts as spectator; or B. trying to rid the mind of such thoughts and feelings; or C. giving in to and following the dictates of the mind and desires, is proof that the person is not the desires and thoughts. The person is the one who chooses between A., B. or C. Also, the person is the one who is aware that, "I have decided to give in to my desires" or "I have decided to try to control my desires".

 

Q: Homosexuals can somehow experience that their gross body is something foreign; that they have the wrong kind of body on. Their subtle body does not match up with their gross body. How did this happen?

 

A: This is all due to their desires and activities in their past life. Such desires and past activities have caused them to transmigrate to gross bodies which do not match up with their subtle body.

 

Q: Some people may ask, "How can you prove that we actually transmigrate from one body to another?"

 

A: This is not very difficult to show. As a matter of fact, we have already transmigrated from one body to another in this life. There is no question of what is going to happen later:

 

 

As the embodied soul continually passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. The self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change.

 

-- Bhagavad-gita 2:13

The soul transmigrates from a baby body to a boyhood body, and then migrates into a young man's body. A person who used to live in a young body now lives in a middle-aged body, And a person who used to live in a middle-aged body now lives in an old body. The young body he used to live in is no longer there.

 

Thus, there is no question whether or not there is transmigration of the soul. We see the process happening all around us. We see a person dropping off one body, then leaving that body and taking on another body. It is not the same body -- the body of an old man is not just an older version of the same body he had as a youth. All the cells have changed, the bones have changed, the whole body is different. This is a scientific fact. The body is made up of cells which are constantly being replaced. In fact, the dying process is going on at every moment. The body is constantly changing.

 

In the same way that there is continuity through-out the gradual changes of the present body, there is continuity in the life of the conditioned soul. The desires that a person cultivates during the lifetime of the present gross body do not die when the material body dies. They remain with the living being and act as the link or connection with the next body. The bridge between one type of body and the next is the mentality of the living being -- the subtle body or mind.

 

Q: How does the mind affect the gross body?

 

A:The mind is the nucleus around which the gross body develops. The gross body is the reflection of the mind. The different types of bodies we see in the material world are simply external manifestations of the different desires or tastes of the different living entities.

 

"The living entity in the material world carries his different conceptions of life from one body to another as the air carries aroma. "

 

-- Bhagavad-gita 15:8

A person's consciousness or mentality at the time of death determines the type of gross body he will take on in his next life. And a person will naturally think of what is most dear to him at the time of death. It may be certain pleasures or experiences he is very much attached to or it may be the form of somebody he loves very much, the person he is most attached to.

 

Whatever it may be, by the arrangement of material nature's laws which are under God's direction, he will either take on a body like the one he thinks of or he'll take on a body made specifically for enjoying the type of material pleasure he is most attracted to.

 

In the case of homosexuals, such individuals in their previous lives were somehow or other attached to the male form. And at the time of death, they were thinking of the male form. Thus, they got male bodies in this life.

 

However, because they still have some tendencies to enjoy as women, oftentimes, feminine traits are there in the subtle body. That is why sometimes it seems like these people are freaks of nature. But it is not nature's mistake. It is just that these persons had very, very strong desires to enjoy as women but they were simultaneously attached to men. The line between enjoying as a male or female is very thin.

 

Q: What do you mean when you say, "The line between enjoying as a male or female is very thin"?

 

A: During sexual intercourse, both parties are simply enjoying sexual stimulations. Whether one enjoys the stimulation with a female organ or with a male organ is a very minor point. The point is that during sexual intercourse itself, a person enjoys both sexual organs at one time. A person can't just enjoy his own sexual organ. But whether the instrument that a person or his partner is using is male or female, it doesn't really matter. All the person wants is the sex experience. That is what he is attached to.

 

Q: Many homosexuals are found to have more female hormones than the ordinary men. Can you also explain how this happened?

 

A: Hormones, chromosomes and the entire physical make-up of people are determined by the mentality of the individuals when they leave the body at the time of death. Because there are people who are attached to the male form but who still want to enjoy as females (i.e. they still have feminine desires such as the desire to have children or enjoy sex as women), this mental condition manifests on the gross physical level in the form of increased female hormones or certain modifications in physical make-up.

 

As I've explained earlier, the mentality or consciousness that persons have when they leave the body at the time of death determines the type of body they will take on in their next life. Thus, if a person has the male form firmly implanted in his mind but still has some desires to enjoy as a woman at the time of death, he takes on a male body but one which has more female hormones.

 

This is a very great science. People have to try to understand it as a science. This is not a belief. People must understand the reality of how the mind affects the gross body and how activities of the present body affect the mind.

 

 

 

--

The consciousness that persons have at the time of death determines the type of body they will take on in their next life.

--

 

Q: So if a person has more female hormones due to his desires to enjoy as a female, is he destined to be homosexual?

 

A: No, You have to appreciate how this internal condition needs external stimulus to bring it to the forefront. In other words, you will usually find that an active homosexual was at one point a latent homosexual who did not need to get into it. But if the environment and social situation promotes homosexuality, then this internal condition is easily set into motion.

 

Unfortunately, so-called modern society is increasingly providing the unwanted stimulus for people to become homosexuals. Through social acceptance of perverted homosexual activities, including the establishment and proliferation of homosexual nightclubs and saunas, society itself is making it so that more and more people are becoming homosexuals.

 

The media is especially guilty of encouraging people who were not homosexuals before to become active homosexuals by propagating the idea that homosexuality is a normal and acceptable occurrence.

 

 

 

--

Unfortunately, so-called modern society is increasingly providing the unwanted stimulus for people to become so-called homosexuals.

--

 

Q: From a worldly morality point of view, activities are judged as good or bad according to the standards set by society. Homosexuality has always been judged as 'bad; now it's becoming 'OK'. But how would you judge homosexual activities from the Absolute point of view rather than from the viewpoint of worldly morality?

 

A: If an activity is done for one's own pleasure, it is bad. But if an activity is done for the pleasure of God, then it is good. Actually, this is the only real basis for determining whether an activity is good or bad.

 

Q: So from the Absolute viewpoint, is homosexuality right or wrong?

 

A: In all scriptures, it is clearly stated that homosexuality is wrong. It goes against the laws of nature and of God. This does not mean, however, that all people who are engaging in heterosexual activities are completely free from sin. Illicit heterosexual activities are as sinful as homosexual activities.

 

Q: What do you mean by the word "illicit"?

 

A: Illicit means having sex without actually wanting to have children. It is having sex without making it possible for a soul to enter into the woman's womb so that the soul can be raised to love God. Even sex in marriage is considered illicit if it is engaged in simply for sense gratification and not procreation. It may not be as sinful as engaging in homosexual activities, but it is still displeasing to God. Heterosexual activities, then, are non-different from homosexual activities if they are both based on the selfish desire to enjoy matter.

 

Q: But there must be some differences between engaging in homosexual activities and engaging in heterosexual activities.

 

A: Yes. People can engage in heterosexual activities and be pleasing to God. Heterosexual activities for the purpose of having children do not go against the laws of nature and God. So, they actually please God. However, homosexual activities can never be pleasing to God. Why? Because the only reason people engage in them is for the purpose of gratifying their senses. They are only based on the selfish desire to enjoy matter.

 

Q: Ultimately, you are saying that the only reason people engage in homosexual activities is because they want to enjoy sex.

 

A: Yes. That is their only reason. Sexual pleasure is their life -- their God.

 

Q: But this is also the goal of most heterosexual.

 

A: Yes. But in this regard, the homosexuals are one step ahead of the heterosexuals. Homosexuality is the next step after illicit heterosexuality, because it eliminates the hassles that come with having sex. It is the practical solution in getting rid of problems such as supporting the wife and children and having responsibilities in married life. Without these hassles, homosexuals can enjoy sex more. And because the homosexuals have less hassles than the heterosexuals, then their position, in terms of enjoying sexual orgasm without trouble, is better than the heterosexuals'.

 

The bisexuals, of course, claim that their position is the best because they can choose sex partners from 100% of the population rather than just 50%.

 

 

 

--

The bisexuals claim that their position is the best because they can choose sex partners from 100% of the population.

--

 

In this way, the choice of sex partner is based on the partner’s usefulness in satisfying the sex desire of the other person. The sex partner is seen simply as a sex object to enjoy with and exploit. This is a practical conclusion of the materialistic philosophy.

 

Q: Which is?

 

A: That everyone and everything in the world is meant for our enjoyment and exploitation.

 

Materialistic people perceive others simply as objects to enjoy because they do not see that all living entities are eternal spirit souls who are part and parcel of God. Materialists think that they are the body. They conclude that they can become happy by making the body happy.

 

So, everything and everyone is used to satisfy the desires of the body. They are after sense orgasms -- orgasms of the genitals, the eyes, the nose, the tongue, the ears and the skin.

 

Q: From the materialistic point of view, it seems that the homosexuals and bisexuals have made it?

 

A: Yes. They have succeeded in becoming the complete slaves of their senses. They have made it because they now have less "hang-ups". "Hang-ups'" is described in the concluding article on Guam in a recent Pan-Am magazine:

 

"Since Guam has become a favorite area of the Japanese honeymooners, it is only logical to regard the island mainly as the resort of blushing but properly married couples. Regard again! Until recently, the Guam Visitors Bureau made a practice of observing numerical milestones in the influx of Japanese couples, honoring the lucky thousandth,two thousandth, and the like, with complimentary bridal suites, champagne, meals and other trimmings. To the embarrassment of the Guamanian officials, the news escaped that some of the couples so feted were not married. Guam obviously is a place for FREE SPIRITS."

From this article, we get the idea of what a "free spirit" is! One who does what he wants without any restrictions. A "free spirit" thinks, "I do not have any 'hang-ups'. Previously, I used to have this 'hang-up' about having sex with someone other than my wife/husband. But now, I do not have that 'hang-up' any more. I can enjoy sex without any restriction."

 

A homosexual, then, has one "hang-up" less. He thinks, "I used to be 'hung-up' with my wife. Then I became more free. Now, I can enjoy other women without feeling any guilt whatsoever. It is great! My wife has started to do the same thing with other women. What do I think about it? Well, it is all right. After all, we are both "free spirits". And now, it is even better. I have gone one step further. I not only enjoy women but I now enjoy the men too. Previously, half the population was totally off limits to me. Now I can enjoy everyone -- men and women – without any 'hang-ups'."

 

And maybe, if he becomes more free, he will come to the point of having sex even with pigs and dogs. Without any "hang-ups", of course.

 

Q: Most Filipinos would think that this is an exaggeration.

 

A: It is not an exaggeration, This is actually going on in the United States and Europe.

 

It may not be a far-fetched idea that, soon, people will start suggesting that we should become homosexuals to solve the population problem. I am just waiting for the Planned Parenthood Association to back up homosexuality as the practical solution to overpopulation. They might even teach it in schools -- women for women and men for men.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

but what do you do if an otherwise nice person takes up Krishna Consciousness and tries to better himself or herself? It's a delicate balance between the encouragement of the positive and correction of behaviour.

 

 

What you do is encourage the homosexual persons to come to the temple and serve as any other congregational member does. He does not need to have initiation in order to do seva. For that matter, any such initiation given without regard for the regulative principles is meaningless, just like the sacred thread on a "brahmin" who eats meat.

 

 

I think that the real issue is sexual promiscuity that has to be condemned, be it homo- or hetero- sexual.

 

 

 

According to Vedic standards, any sexual activity outside the scope of procreation within marriage is considered sexual promiscuity. We can complain about the unfairness of it, but it isn't our place to change such things.

 

Scripturally speaking, it's actually better for homosexuals to avoid all sexual activity, rather than getting the very small allowance of sexual enjoyment permitted to heterosexuals in householder life. There is a very well known story from MahAbhArata in which a king, cursed (by SukrAchArya if I remember right?) prematurely with old age, requests his youngest son to exchange his youth for the king's premature old age, so that the king can go enjoy his senses for just a little while longer. The son, moved by filial affection agrees, allowing the king to regain his youthful body. The king then retires to the forest with a very willing apsara maiden and tries futilely to satisfy his desires. Frustrated with this, he returns to his son after some time and declares that sexual desire cannot be quenched by indulgence any more than fire can be put out by pouring ghee on it.

 

The lesson is obvious. We shouldn't try artificially to get some allotment for sexual indulgence. Even sex within marriage is nothing more than a compromise with mAyA.

 

 

but as the society changes with time, place and circumstances, changes are made by the acaryas in our sampradaya (in practicalities of the sadhana) to adjust our movement to the audience.

 

 

No! We do not change our principles to "adjust our movement to our audience." *We* have no authority to change anything. Only a great AchArya on the level of a Srila Prabhupada or a NArada Muni has the right to make *temporary* *compromises* with certain *ancillary principles* which might otherwise serve as stumbling blocks to unqualified individuals seeking Krishna-consciousness.

 

Certain devotees keep quoting "time, place, and circumstances" to excuse all sorts of deviations in their sAdhana. But this is not some made-up idea. This principle actually arises from the BhAgavatam, in a conversation between NArada and Dhruva. The latter was a mere boy, and he had retired to the forest out of anger to seek the favor of Lord NArAyana. NArada had given him the praNava mantra to chant, even though he was only a kShatriya, and he had in other ways simplified the recommended process of worshp so that Dhruva could get the desired result. Here is the evidence (SB 4.8.54):

 

oM namo bhagavate vAsudevAya

mantreNAnena devasya kuryAd dravyamayIM budhaH |

saparyAM vividhair dravyair desha-kAla-vibhAgavit ||

 

OM namo bhagavate vAsudevAya. This is the twelve-syllable mantra for worshiping Lord Krishna. One should install the physical forms of the Lord, and with the chanting of the mantra one should offer flowers and fruits and other varieties of foodstuffs exactly according to the rules and regulations prescribed by authorities. But this should be done in consideration of place, time, and attendant conveniences and inconveniences.

 

PURPORT

OM namo bhagavate vAsudevAya is known as the dvAdashAkShara-mantra. This mantra is chanted by VaiShNava devotees, and it begins with praNava, or oMkAra. There is an injunction that those who are not brAhmanas cannot pronounce the praNava mantra. But Dhruva MahArAja was born a kShatrya. He at once admitted before NArada Muni that as a kShatriya he was unable to accept NArada's instruction of renunciation and mental equilibrium, which are the concern of a brAhmana. Still, although not a brAhmana but a kShatriya, Dhruva was allowed, on the authority of NArada, to pronounce the praNava oMkAra.

 

Please note that even NArada, who knows all the Vedas, did not compromise with a core principle like one of the four main regulative principles. The verse above sets the precedent that an AchArya can adjust certain *external* principles (like the principle that only a brahmin can chant the praNava oMkAra mantra) so that the sAdhaka can advance in spiritual life.

 

There is no question of adjusting the four regulative principles (no meat-eating, no illicit sex, no intoxication, no gambling) because without these principles, one cannot advance to or beyond the saD-AchAra stage of devotion. Srila Prabhupada writes in his Bhaktivedanta Purports that one who cannot even follow the four regulative principles is not even a shuudra, but rather something less:

 

One who does not follow the regulative principles as they are laid down in the scriptures and who acts according to his whims is called demoniac or asuric. There is no other criterion but obedience to the regulative principles of scriptures. (Bhagavad-Gita As It Is 17.6 purport)

 

Consequently, it should be understood that there is no question of changing the four regulative principles when it comes to training in spiritual life.

 

 

Srila Prabhupada made quite a few of such changes and this process should not stop with his departure. That would go against our lineage. This world is full of fossilized religious movements... let's not allow ours to be one of them...

 

 

Ironically, it's the changes people make, forgetting them to be temporary, which fossilize a religious movement. With each new change, the movement becomes less and less spiritual, its potency diluted by an ever increasing number of spiritual seekers who want the topmost goal of life but not the austerity necessary to get it. Thus an otherwise bona fide religious movement become about as relevant to society at large as Vivekananda, Sai Baba, Ramakrishna, Chinmayananda, etc.

 

 

That is pretty obvious: all quotes have to be viewed in context. How do you explain all the changes Srila Prabhupada made himself? (big stuff, like number of rounds chanted or allowing women it the ashramas, giving them brahmana initiation). He would change his position on things sometimetimes after listening to arguments from both sides (too bad he was often presented half-truths or worse) And sometimes things have to be changed also because they dont work... a good disciple does not just blindly follow: he understands guru's purpose and does what is required.

 

 

 

These kinds of changes were all in regards to external principles, not the basic four regulative principles. The four regulative principles cannot be changed under any circumstance. If one cannot follow them, then let him come to temple and serve as a congregational member. Giving someone "initiation" when he can't even follow these basic civilized principles is meaningless. Rather, one should first demonstrate that he can follow these principles, and *then* he can begin his spiritual life starting with formal acceptance of a guru. Yes, it may mean that instead of tens of thousands of initiates in ISKCON, we may have only ten or so. But a single moon is worth a thousand stars. Only a pure devotee can help awaken other pure devotees. On the other hand, devotional service performed without attention to the principles of shruti, smriti, and purAnas is simply an unauthorized disturbance to society and a waste of time according to Srila Rupa Gosvami.

 

 

The heart of Vaisnava sannyasa is renouncing material life and embracing the service of Sri Krsna. This is open to both men and women. Whereas the formality of accepting the renounced order of sannyasa has largely been restricted to men in consideration of socioreligious concerns. However, as circumstances change and these concerns are no longer relevant, I see no reason why women should be barred from accepting sannyasa.

 

 

 

Although it is true that sannyAsa is defined in the shAstra in a functional way (i.e. one who has given up the false sense of proprietorship and instead dedicates everything to Lord Krishna), nevertheless the saffron robes and tri-dandi is not supposed to be granted to just anyone.

 

The four orders of varna and aashrama are designed to properly engage individuals with different mental and bodily attributes into appropriate activites becoming of them. The order of sannyAsa in particular is meant for men who are prepared to take up solitude and either wander the earth preaching or stay in one place and do bhajan. Women are not meant for this since the shAstras forbid for them to be independent. In this regard, Manu says:

 

baalye piturvashe tishhThet.h paaNigraahasya yauvane |

putraaNaaM bhartari prete na bhajet.h strii svatantrataam.h || manu 5.148 ||

 

In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons; a woman must never be independent. (manu dharma shAstra 5.148)

 

So the robes of sannyAsa (along with which come the duties of solitude and total independence from rest of society) are not meant for women. Actually, women who become widowed are for all practical purposes in the female equivalent of the sannyAsa order; the difference only is that they are not meant to roam about unprotected - their sons or other male relatives must be responsible towards them.

 

Junior sannyAsis may also spend much of their time in close association with their guru while he is still physically present. This is another reason why sannyAsa is not meant for women, since for women to be in such close proximity to a sannyAsi would be associated with impropriety, if for no other reason than just the appearance of it. There is an ISKCON-clone society called "International Society of Divine Love" led by a "guru" who is very envious of Srila Prabhupada. This "guru" initiates many female "sannyAsinis," a practice which he justifies by saying that although it has no Vedic precedent, it can be done because he is a Vaishnava (imagine that, Vaishnava scriptures not being relevant to Vaishnavas!). He is always in close association with these female "sannyAsinis." I always criticized him on this point, and I would be hypocritical if I were not similarly critical of BV Tripurari for doing the same thing.

 

Please therefore, let us not violate shAstric principle and invent some idea that is not found therein. One could find so much fault with Srila Prabhupada for making many compromises initially during his preaching, but history has long since exonerated him for any compromises he was forced to make. Remember that a guru who accepts a disciple also accepts all of that disciple's karmas also. Knowing this to be the case, it is a big risk for a guru to accept a disciple who promises to follow the regulative principles, what to speak of a disciple who is not going to. Nor is there reason to give saffron robes to women, who, if they are truly renounced, can perform their God-given duties in that spirit.

[Kulapavana]

I did not say anything about initiation. That is a matter for a guru to decide who is worthy and when.

 

As to the regulative principles and their "absolute" nature. You (sorry, I do not know your real name) say:

 

"There is no question of adjusting the four regulative principles (no meat-eating, no illicit sex, no intoxication, no gambling) because without these principles, one cannot advance to or beyond the saD-AchAra stage of devotion. Srila Prabhupada writes in his Bhaktivedanta Purports that one who cannot even follow the four regulative principles is not even a shuudra, but rather something less:

 

One who does not follow the regulative principles as they are laid down in the scriptures and who acts according to his whims is called demoniac or asuric. There is no other criterion but obedience to the regulative principles of scriptures. (Bhagavad-Gita As It Is 17.6 purport)"

 

You seem to forget that in Vedic civilization different regulative principles applied to different varnas. These are the regulative principles of the scriptures this verse is talking about. Srila Prabhupada wanted to train a group of brahmanas first, and for that purpose our 4 regulative principles are absolutely essential. But that is only the beginning of his social and spiritual mission.

 

You jump the gun again here: I said:

 

"but as the society changes with time, place and circumstances, changes are made by the acaryas in our sampradaya (in practicalities of the sadhana) to adjust our movement to the audience"

 

to which you shout:

 

"No! We do not change our principles to "adjust our movement to our audience." *We* have no authority to change anything. Only a great AchArya on the level of a Srila Prabhupada or a NArada Muni has the right to make *temporary* *compromises* with certain *ancillary principles* which might otherwise serve as stumbling blocks to unqualified individuals seeking Krishna-consciousness"

 

You obviously either misunderstand or misconstrue my words to make a point. You may have to wait a very, very long time for an acarya of Srila Prabhupada's caliber to adjust minor practicalities of spreading Krishna Consciousness in the West. That is a "no risk" option you advocate. Unfortunately the time is NOT on our side, and the Society Srila Prabhupada has built is becoming less and less relevant to people in general for many reasons, one of which (but definitely an important one) is our inability to engage people in Krishna's service according to their level of advancement and material conditioning.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

You seem to forget that in Vedic civilization different regulative principles applied to different varnas.

 

 

Please quote the exact evidence for your comment above. As far as I know, the four regulative principles are meant to be followed by all human beings in varnAshrama society, and Srila Prabhupada made no distinctions based on varna when he instructed everyone to follow them.

 

Please quote your evidence, and if it is valid, I will admit I'm wrong. I don't want to speak improperly.

 

 

These are the regulative principles of the scriptures this verse is talking about. Srila Prabhupada wanted to train a group of brahmanas first, and for that purpose our 4 regulative principles are absolutely essential. But that is only the beginning of his social and spiritual mission.

 

 

 

Precisely. This is why the regulative principles cannot be changed. They are essential. And that includes "no illicit sex" which naturally prohibits homosexual intercourse.

 

 

You jump the gun again here: I said:

 

 

 

I'm sorry if you feel that way, but so many times I see devotees speaking of "time, place, and circumstances" as if just anyone can adjust anything to suit their convenience. These devotees are forgetting the very specific context in which the "time, place, and circumstance" precedent occurred. Your wording also seemed to indicate the same.

 

 

You obviously either misunderstand or misconstrue my words to make a point. You may have to wait a very, very long time for an acarya of Srila Prabhupada's caliber to adjust minor practicalities of spreading Krishna Consciousness in the West.

 

 

 

Pardon me, but we don't need anyone to adjust the four regulative principles. Those are essential.

 

Practicalities are things like how the Deity is worshipped, i.e. do we worship with flowers first or ghee lamp first? Or for example, washing one's hands and mouth after eating. Or performing HarinAma vs sitting and writing books or vice-versa. These are all practicalities, and the AchArya can adjust these kinds of things.

 

But there is no precedent in shAstra for adjusting the four regulative principles. There is no question of advancement to the higher stages of devotion if one cannot even curb these animalistic tendencies. Otherwise, why do we criticize caste brahmins who eat meat? They will eventually get purified, right? So why criticize? It's downright hypocritical to find fault with someone for not following the four regulative principles while at the same time allowing our own initiates to compromise with them.

 

 

That is a "no risk" option you advocate. Unfortunately the time is NOT on our side, and the Society Srila Prabhupada has built is becoming less and less relevant to people in general for many reasons, one of which (but definitely an important one) is our inability to engage people in Krishna's service according to their level of advancement and material conditioning.

 

 

 

The real reason ISKCON is becoming irrelevant to society at large is because many devotees no longer follow the regulative principles. Consequently, they have no potency. We have a society of thousands, all of whom started out quite enthusiastic, and then for whatever reason have slowed down and compromised with their ideals. Television watching, divorce, and other karmi activities are quite common in ISKCON compared to karmi society. There hasn't been much implementation of "Vedic Culture" in the society, though everyone speaks of it. There is a very low retention rate in the society. Intellectuals are frequently burnt out and/or driven out. Enthusiastic Indians come into the society thinking it is full of "true brahmins" only to get disgusted after a while when they see the truth, and then they leave. And there is no shortage of people who come to ISKCON temples for years, and still haven't figured out that it is-NOT-ALL-ONE.

 

This is the very real fallout of a strategy that was intended to spread the religion to everyone as quickly as possible. Do I fault Srila Prabhupada for it? No. He was of advanced age and failing health, and he had to take up his guru's mission. What I think people should realize is that quantity does not make up for quality. Having 5000 initiated devotees is meaningless if, for example, the vast majority of them cannot teach and lead by example.

 

Allowing homosexual marriages and initiation for people engaged in homosexual intercourse will not fix what ails Western Vaishnavism. Nor will having wandering, saffron-clad female Vaishnava sannyAsinis. Must we follow in the footsteps of miscreants like the Divine Love Society guru? Let's build a society that actually means something, rather than just another Hindu society where all principles are optional and everything can be renegotiated so as to recruit more disciples.

 

A single moon is worth a thousand stars.

[Kulapavana]

"You seem to forget that in Vedic civilization different regulative principles applied to different varnas" ...for confirmation just read Mahabharata, preferably full unabridged edition, focus on Bhishma's instructions on the bed of arrows. Vedic civilization was supremely practical and certainly not everybody in it followed the 4 regs. But anyway, I was not attacking the importance of these principles...

 

You said: "The real reason ISKCON is becoming irrelevant to society at large is because many devotees no longer follow the regulative principles"

 

I dont have the ability to see what people do, or dont do, behind closed doors. But let me offer a comment here: The failure of ISKCON is the failure of it's management, pure and simple. It is always like that: organizations fail because they are poorly led.

 

"Allowing homosexual marriages and initiation for people engaged in homosexual intercourse will not fix what ails Western Vaishnavism. Nor will having wandering, saffron-clad female Vaishnava sannyAsinis"

 

Could not agree with you more. But that was not a point I was making. We need good leaders who are pure in their motives and brave enough to take risks in spreading of the Sankirtan Movement.

[Guest guest]

 

I dont have the ability to see what people do, or dont do, behind closed doors.

 

 

Even if you didn't see the explicit, obvious digressions, you can infer them by observing certain symptoms of behavior. Surely you know what I'm talking about.

 

 

But let me offer a comment here: The failure of ISKCON is the failure of it's management, pure and simple. It is always like that: organizations fail because they are poorly led.

 

 

 

This may be the ultimate cause. Or it might be a coincident cause. But in either case it goes hand-in-hand with the fact that regulative principles are not being followed. Most people have no contact with leaders, but they do see the average "in the trenches" devotees. Those are the people who are either going to impress them or disgust them. And hence it really is the average devotee and his ability to follow the regulative principles that makes the difference for society at large.

 

 

"Allowing homosexual marriages and initiation for people engaged in homosexual intercourse will not fix what ails Western Vaishnavism. Nor will having wandering, saffron-clad female Vaishnava sannyAsinis"

 

Could not agree with you more. But that was not a point I was making. We need good leaders who are pure in their motives and brave enough to take risks in spreading of the Sankirtan Movement.

 

 

Then we are in agreement. As long as you understand that "good leader" is not synonymous with someone taking unprecedented compromises with basic, regulative principles.

[Kulapavana]

Unnamed guest prabhu:

 

All it boils down to is giving Vaishnavas like Tripurari Maharaja the benefit of a doubt in their sincere but maybe unconventional (to some) preaching efforts. We judge by the results.

 

As to the waiting for the moon to rise. I am a sailor and let me tell you something about stars on a moonless night: they HELP tremendously! ;-)

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

...and brave enough to take risks in spreading of the Sankirtan Movement.

 

 

For pure devotees there are no risks as they are simply following the orders of the Supreme Lord who is guiding their every move.

 

Risks are there for those who are not in contact with the Supersoul, and who therefore need to guess and gamble as to what should and should not be done. Such people are better fit to simply follow the orders of the liberated soul instead of gambling with adjustments that they are ultimately unsure of.

[Kulapavana]

Jndas: "For pure devotees there are no risks as they are simply following the orders of the Supreme Lord who is guiding their every move"

 

 

We could start here by defining the term "risk" and go on for a while. But it seems to me you do not have the full appreciation what effort it can be even for a pure devotee to spread the Sankirtan Movement in the West. There are hints to that in Srila Prabhupada's recollections of his early days in US. Do not be simplistic. Next we could define the term "pure devotee" and go on for a while. Do not be overly miserly using this term... how do you know who is guiding their moves?

[Guest guest]

 

how do you know who is guiding their moves?

 

 

 

The point I think, is that no one knows what is guiding his moves, because it is clearly not shAstra.

 

There is no precedent for female sannyAsis, and the injunctions of Manu along with expectations of Vedic culture more or less prohibit such an idea, since women are always to be protected. Similarly, there is no precedent for initiating people who are not going to follow one or more of the regulative principles. The example of Naarada and Dhruva does not apply in this case, for reasons mentioned already in the previous postings.

 

It is indeed a risky business to depart from the established scriptural principles. As for the result, well, how do we define a good result? Does having a certain number of disciples mean that one's methods are automatically bona fide?

 

[Kulapavana]

and where did I advocate initiating people who do not follow all 4 regs? or giving sannyasa to women? (btw: I still have a problem with sannyasa given to anybody but qualified and mature brahminical candidates, but let us not go there for now ;-)

[Guest guest]

Dear JNDAS,

 

I think your argument really boils down to semantics. A preacher does take all sorts of risks in service to Krsna. Of course, it is also not a risk because it is full service and the outcome is in Krsna's hands.

 

Srila Prabhupada experimented with alot of different adjustments in terms of time, place and circumstance. Somethings he kept and others he changed yet again. Here is an interesting and informative example for you to contemplate. Srila Prabhupada issued an order that his devotees should not wear 'karmi' clothes when out distributing books. He did this in light of information he received that his disciples were dressing like hippies. He later changed that order when he was informed of the success of the distributors and the fact that many people felt uncomfortable being approached by devotees in robes. Srila Prabhupada was very practical and he was also very conscious of the overall image that devotees were creating for the movement and he made adjustments accordingly.

 

Many of Srila Prabhupada's contemporaries faulted him for deviating from the standards set in Gaudiya Matha by his Guru Maharaja. Others, such as Sridhara Maharaja, saw how effective he was in his mission and expressed their feelings of gratitude and honor at having such a 'brother'.

 

Times change and our presentation will have to change as well in order to be relevant to the current climate - that's the meaning of parampara - it is alive, not dead or stagnant.

 

You are right that the person to make the changes must be a pure devotee, no question about that. The tricky part comes in trying to recognize who is pure and empowered to make such adjustments. History tells us that those who are will not necessarily be popular or accepted by the masses. It was the case with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and Srila Bhaktivedanta, so what makes anyone think that it will not be the case with their representative?

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

[Kulapavana]

In this case a good result would be having many people advance in their Krishna Consciousness, leading happy and productive lives, infecting others with their enthusiasm for spreading Lord Caitanya mission to every town and village

[Guest guest]

 

and where did I advocate initiating people who do not follow all 4 regs? or giving sannyasa to women? (btw: I still have a problem with sannyasa given to anybody but qualified and mature brahminical candidates, but let us not go there for now ;-)

 

 

 

Someone earlier in this forum opined that B.V. Tripurari Swami felt that it was okay for women to take sannyAsa, and also that homosexual men could get initiation as long as they stayed in monogamous relationships with other men (thus not following the "no illict sex" regulation).

 

Whether or not BVT actually said these things I do not know. All I am saying is that anyone holding to such views is certainly departing from the shAstric precedent.

 

And as far as sannyAsa being only given to spiritually mature and qualified brahminical candidates, I am in full agreement there, and I see no reason why we should be ashamed to say it. Frankly, I am also of the opinion that the sacred thread should also be given only to those individuals who have attained a certain level of understanding of the scriptures. When you think about ithe current initiation system in ISKCON, in its ideal form, is still a huge compromise compared to the traditional system, in which sAdhakas were required to memorize the entire corpus of Vedas consisting of hundreds of thousands of verses. In GaudIya sampradAya, all we want is for people to read and understand (not even memorize) 18,000 verses from the BhAgavatam, and still so many people get second initiation who have not even done that!

[Guest guest]

I think I'm going to start calling myself "Unnamed Guest Prabhu." That's cool. Thanks!

[Guest guest]

It is risky business indeed to suggest that a stalwart devotee of the Lord has some agenda to fulfill other than fulfilling the orders of his spiritual master.

 

I would like to ask the anonymous guest who posted the comment about women and sannyasa just where all this protection of women is taking place? Iskcon is the biggest mission in the Bhaktivinoda Parivara - shall we look to Iskcon to see if this Vedic ideal is established? In fact, women in Iskcon have been exploited and abused terribly over the years - women in American society are much better protected because they are given equal rights and full access to education. Tripurari Maharaja made the point in response to his 'Vedic' critics that the best protection for women is education at this time.

 

Many Gaudiya's find the adjustments made by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta in instituting the sannyasa ashrama to be a deviation. The reality is that according to time, place and circumstance ajustments will be made such that the message of Mahaprabhu will reach everyone in a relevant way such that they are inspired to act.

 

Women are leaders in all aspects of society - business, science, sports, politics - why should they not be leaders in religious institutions? The answer is obvious - they should be leaders and those who have the capacity and realization should be pushed forward to represent the Sankirtan movement.

 

Try to get past saffron and white thinking. The principle is simple enough - anyone - regardless of age, color, gender or race should be given respect according to their level of attainment. Those who have extensive knowledge of sastra, who are living a renounced life, who have experiencial spiritual life - should be recognized as leaders. When Srila Bhaktisiddhanta instituted the sannyasa ashrama in GM he did so based on the utility of preaching for the time and place at hand.

 

Women are accepted as leaders and are given full rights and access in so many areas throughout the world. The question as devotees we should ask ourselves is: why should we have a position of status and leadership that is only available to men? That is, afterall, what sannyasa has come to mean in contemporary GV society. It is awarded to individuals based on advancement and the society in general holds the sannyasis in high regard.

 

There is absoultely no reason why women should not be leading kirtans, giving talks, writing books and initiating disciples if they are qualified to do so. The only impediment besides qualification is a society which is decidedly partiarchal and in which many men feel they are superior and more intelligent than the women.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa