...and don't look back.

[vijay]

I think your statement below may be incorrect.

""purity is the force" was not Prabhupadas saying, it was concocted by a devotee and it is a meaningless statement."

 

Letter Trai

"Regarding Pyari Mohan, Ramacarya, and Nanda devi dasi taking second initiation, if you recommend, that's alright. But now they must keep very clean and never break the regulated principles. Purity is the force and if the people in general notice that we are clean both inside and outside that is to our credit. Regarding your last question, yes, you may call Their Lordships Radha-Gopivallabha.

 

HDG A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada"

 

 

[Kulapavana]

I do not know what motivates Hridayananda Maharaja or you in this matter, I do not read minds very well and it is not even relevant.

 

Purity IS the force when it comes to keeping our disciplic succession line alive, regardless of who said it first. And yes, purity can be defined in many ways, but no amount of word jugglery can substitute for it.

 

"Actually doing something to bring Krishna to those in ignorance...priceless"

 

and you think that a formal recognition and appreciation of gay marriage will do that? that is very rich... look around: how many gay people joined the movement? lots! so this "lack of recognition" must not have been a problem. If you are TRULY SINCERE you do not try to change the tradition thats giving you spiritual life in order to accomodate your specific material attachment - you are just happy to be a part of it. and do you think there is not going to be any negative effect of such changes in OTHER people, the ones you think of as "conservative"? you want to encourage gays (and that is nice) but what about DISCOURAGING other folks? IMHO it is not worth the trouble.

 

"You are wrong, it is about taking sides in a cultural war"

 

yes, maybe FOR YOU it is about making a change in our tradition for the sake of advancing a certain social agenda, but not for all of us. I personally know gay devotees in our movement that I respect and deeply sympathize with - but I would not change our tradition to include recognition for gay marriage because that would DO NOTHING to improve their SPIRITUAL life. Maybe it would improve their SOCIAL life, but we both agree it is about bringing Krishna to those in ignorance... or is it?

[Guest guest]

He is using the idea of cleanliness, as in cleanliness is next to godliness, and also one's personal sadhana as affecting how well a person may be able to preach. Later a devotee invented an aphorism which stated that purity is the force in regards to empowerment from Krishna.

 

Here for the story

 

Prabhupada wasn't inventing an aphorism, he was simply making a comment about personal situations.

 

So when trying to use the idea of purity as a force which is something different then cleanliness or sadhana, then you are not using it like Prabhupada did. He was using it to give the idea that if you are pure in your own sadhana and life, then your preaching will have more effect then if it is not.

 

The idea put forth by Kupalavana is that some kind of adherence to a specific dogma is "purity", and that will make you successfull.

 

That is not what Prabhupada said. He said that if you are clean and pure in your own sadhana, then your own efforts at preaching will be enhanced, it has nothing to do with dogmatic adherence, it has to do with personal sadhana.

[Guest guest]

 

If you are TRULY SINCERE you do not try to change the tradition thats giving you spiritual life in order to accomodate your specific material attachment - you are just happy to be a part of it.

 

 

Bhaktisiddhanta changed the tradition, as did Srila Prabhupada. So traditions can be changed if Acaryas deem it necessary.

 

 

yes, maybe FOR YOU it is about making a change in our tradition for the sake of advancing a certain social agenda, but not for all of us. I personally know gay devotees in our movement that I respect and deeply sympathize with - but I would not change our tradition to include recognition for gay marriage because that would DO NOTHING to improve their SPIRITUAL life. Maybe it would improve their SOCIAL life, but we both agree it is about bringing Krishna to those in ignorance... or is it?

 

 

You are not authorized to change any tradition, so don't worry about.

 

You seem to think that there is some kind of great tragic loss of purity if Iskcon simply voiced support for equal rights for Gays.

 

I think thats just an excuse for people to get on their soap boxes and play the great defender of morals, get over yourselves already. Why should you care if Gays get equal right under the law and whether Iskcon supports that or not ?

 

If you had a preaching mission within Iskcon or that promotes Iskcon I could see you having a concern, on one side or the other. But the loudest critics have nothing to do with Iskcon, nor are they preaching about Iskcon in a positive way.

 

So your opinions really mean nothing to me. Your just trying to create a false image as a defender of something you have no real connection to.

[Kulapavana]

"traditions can be changed if Acaryas deem it necessary"

 

certainly. I'm just waiting for it. untill that happens I will hold the line - that is my job as a disciple. maybe you should do the same.

 

"So your opinions really mean nothing to me. Your just trying to create a false image as a defender of something you have no real connection to."

 

I dont get on soap boxes. I just state my opinion on this forum. I have as much right to expressing myself here as you do. and what do you know about my connection to our tradition? maybe you are getting too full of yourself prabhu

[Guest guest]

I just think "what is your purpose in disagreeing with Hrdayananda's proposition ?"

 

He simply states that it would be good publicity for Iskcon to come out on the side of equal rights for Gays.

 

Those that oppose that idea, what is their objection and why ?

 

Prabhupada was opposed to anything that was not devote entirely to Vedic morality, so he was naturally opposed to Gay marriage.

 

But this debate started by H.Goswami is not about sanctioning Gay marriage. It is about voicing support for equal rights for Gays. The political situation in the west has changed since Prabhupada was among us. Today if you oppose equal rights for Gays you are lumped into being a religion or group that supports and belongs to a whole spectrum of right wing political beliefs. It wasn't like that 30 years ago.

 

But today if you come out and support equal rights for Gays then you will be celebrated by the liberal section of society solely because hardly any religious group is doing so.

 

It is nothing more then a political stunt designed to gain favorable media coverage in liberal society. In America that means about 50% of the population. In Europe that means about 75% of the population.

 

It is easy, free, good publicity.

 

Those that oppose the idea are not thinking of the advantages of the idea. They are simply getting on their soapboxes and condemning an idea which can create great publicity and interest in the media.

 

They are not motivated by the best interest of Iskcon and preaching, they are motivated by trying to be seen as protectors of some moral paradigm. That is the fact.

 

A person who was thoughtful and can see the advantage of gaining the good graces of the western liberal media, that person is thinking of preaching. those that oppose the idea are just making knee jerk emotional outbursts that sevre no real purpose.

 

If Iskcon was to do as Hrdayananda suggests, the result would be a ton of good publicity. If Iskcon would do as the critics suggest, then Iskcon would not receive a ton of good publicity.

 

It's as cut and dry as that. The critics will be left with their moral outrage satisfied and Iskcon will be left withou the gains of tons of good publicity.

 

So what is your motivation ?

 

Is it for Iskcon or for your own personal reasons ?

 

[Guest guest]

Actually, the slogan in question was not a "concoction", if you read the link you gave, it tells how it was transcribed from Chinese scrolls and then read to Srila Prabhupada. Also, I recall seeing that slogan long before 1977, on most monthly "Sankirtan Newsletters."

 

Okay, you criticize devotees who object to Hrdayananda M. proposal, saying they are not even in Iskcon. Actually, most of them are, or at least were, and therefore have a vested interest, and may wish to return, provided problems are rectified.

 

The irony here is, I have seen you say that you are not a disciple of Srila Prabhupada. You often quote from Tripurari M. or Narasingha M. and there's nothing wrong in that. However, if you are outside Iskcon yourself, and speaking on this issue while chastising those whom you disagree with; those whom you perceive to be outside of Iskcon, isn't that just a bit arrogant. You speak as if you have such authority, rather than simply offering your opinion as food for thought. Regardless, if you are outside Iskcon, then why are you in such a huff about this matter. Srila Prabhupada gave his guidelines for his institution. Perhaps your own guru has his own guidelines for his preaching mission, which again, is fine. But your stance seems just a bit odd.

 

Your argument seems to be that there this will increase preaching, if we follow Hrdayananda M. plan. No doubt it will. The more liberal the guidelines, the more followers Iskcon will have, the more favorable coverage Isckon will receive from the media. But Srila Prabhupada wasn't about gaining publicity and followers at the cost of watering down or cheapening his mission. What's next, recognizing and "appreciating" pedophiles?

 

But don't let me stop you from opening up Pandora's Box. Be my guest.

 

Steven

[Guest guest]

Steve you said:

 

 

The irony here is, I have seen you say that you are not a disciple of Srila Prabhupada. You often quote from Tripurari M. or Narasingha M. and there's nothing wrong in that. However, if you are outside Iskcon yourself, and speaking on this issue while chastising those whom you disagree with; those whom you perceive to be outside of Iskcon, isn't that just a bit arrogant. You speak as if you have such authority, rather than simply offering your opinion as food for thought.

 

 

What I actually said was this:

 

 

 

If you had a preaching mission within Iskcon or that promotes Iskcon I could see you having a concern, on one side or the other. But the loudest critics have nothing to do with Iskcon, nor are they preaching about Iskcon in a positive way.

 

 

I do maybe 4-5 hours of preaching on the internet every single day on a wide variety of non devotee forums and blogs. When you preach about Krishna consciousness to liberal audiences it is very easy to gain instant appreciation and interest. All you have to do is agree with their politics. If you do that then you are given an ear to preach about Krishna and they are very open and eager to learn about Vedanta. If you take a conservative political position, then no matter what you say about anything after that, you are ridiculed as a right wing dolt.

 

Whenever I preach the constant problem I run into is that the audience I preach to immediatly goes and does a google search on Krishna, or Bhakti Yoga, or Sri Caitanya. This presents somewhat of a problem when there are so many webpages by right wing fanatical vaisnavas ranting about topics that make them come across as right wing dolts very similar to the hated Christian fundamentalists.

 

They also come upon Iskcon because any google search about any aspect of Krishna consciousness will lead you to an overwhelming amount of Iskcon related websites.

 

So it is in everyone's best interest for Iskcon to have a liberal progressive face. The people who are interested in yoga and Indian philosophy have a visceral hatred of Christian fundamentalism and right wing politics and social views, this is my constant experience when dealing with people. If Iskcon or vaisnavas talking about Iskcon on the internet come across like Christian fundamentalists in their political and social agenda, then people new and interested in Krishna consciousness are immediately turned off, totally and completely. If you run across numerous webpages condemning Iskcon for not being conservative enough, not being repressive enough towards women, gays, or anyone, and using sastra to drive home their points, then the people who are new to Krishna consciousness will feel like they have come across another right wing fundamentalist religion. And believe me, on forums and blogs today, fundamentalist ideology is the enemy . jour.

 

I preach on forums and blogs with huge audiences of professionals, scientists, journalists etc. All my preaching goes down the drain when they search for Bhakti yoga or Sri Caitanya etc on google and end up reading website after website condemning Iskcon for not being reactionary and conservative enough.

 

So I always have to end up defending Iskcon and reactionary right wing demagogue vaisnavas with webpages. There is nothing worse in todays society among the class of people who are actually interested in Krishna then being seen to have the same social and political agenda as Christian fundamentalism.

 

Western society is totally polarized, nowhere is this more apparent then on forums and blogs. There are liberal left wing crowds who hate everything that smacks of Christian fundamentalism who they blame for all the problems in the world today. They are so easy to preach to, you just agree with them politically and they are totally open to yoga and Vedanta. But if they think you are a right winger, then you are immediately rejected, and Krishna is rejected as just another "Fundie" cult.

 

If you say okay, lets just preach to the right wing conservative crowd, you end up preaching to Christians, Jews, and Muslims who could care less about Krishna and will think you are some kind of Satanist or dangerous cult.

 

Now if you don't actually do any preaching except for a few posts on vaisnava websites, then I guess it doesn't matter to you, all you care about is being heard.

 

That is not my trip.

 

I cultivate large audiences of people who are eager but easily dismissive if they feel you are a bigot, or oppressive, or politically incorrect. So I am not speaking out based on my own ideas of what is "pure" or "proper", I know what works when preaching and what fails.

 

 

Your argument seems to be that there this will increase preaching, if we follow Hrdayananda M. plan. No doubt it will. The more liberal the guidelines, the more followers Iskcon will have, the more favorable coverage Isckon will receive from the media. But Srila Prabhupada wasn't about gaining publicity and followers at the cost of watering down or cheapening his mission. What's next, recognizing and "appreciating" pedophiles?

 

 

 

It's easy to stand up and condemn Gays in the name of your religious beliefs, of course that will actually have the effect of hurting the preaching mission, of course as you point out, you don't care.

 

But since I actually do care, and I preach every day to large audiences, I have an idea and I have a motivation to succeed regardless of what some people say. The western media is overwhelmingly liberal. Gays have an influence in the liberal western media that far outweighs their actual numbers. You may not care what that implies for preaching, fine, do what you want, care about what you want, I know that if Iskcon reaches out and publicly gives support for them, that Iskcon will receive an immense interest from western media and the liberal section of western society.

 

You may want to sit in all the glory of your purity, good luck with that. I, on the other hand have other ideas and I am frustrated when vaisnavas who say they represent Krishna consciousness and then say things that make out eager audience automatically reject Krishna consciousness.

 

If you want to equate voicing support for equal rights for Gays [which is advocated by the entire western liberal masses] with pedophilia, then you are and will look like a right wing fundamentalist fool to them. If you feel comfortable with that, then I'm positive you aren't interested in spreading Krishna consciousness, rather you just care about appearing to be "pure".

 

Get it ?

Got it ?

[Guest guest]

 

It's easy to stand up and condemn Gays in the name of your religious beliefs, of course that will actually have the effect of hurting the preaching mission, of course as you point out, you don't care.

 

 

Hmm. Never in my post did I condemn gays. That is not even the issue. Some of my closest devotee friends are/were gay. We're talking "monogamous gay relationships", as you well know, (or at least I think you know), and affording them "recognition and appreciation" the same we would a married couple.

 

Also, you claim that I pointed out that "I don't care." Where in the world did I say such a thing. Hogwash.

 

I never equated equal rights for gays with pedophilia. Reread what I wrote. I asked, "what's next." Making such radical changes/departures from Srila Prabhupada's standards could conceivably degenerate into a progressive downward spiral of further radical changes/departures.

 

I've watched you "preach" before, and you certainly have a not-so-clever way of twisting people's words.

 

Until you can kick that bad habit, I'm afraid I will have to stop conversing with you.

 

Steven

 

[Guest guest]

I didn't create a strawman argument, I was addressing the point of the debate which you wanted to turn into a personal attack on me. I was addressing concepts while your sole content in both of your posts was atacking me using a pretext of "who are you anyways to have an opinion?" and "what will happen next, support of pedophilia ?"

 

Of course you can spin it anyway you like. The fact remains your posts were nothing more then demagogic personal attacks, and then you complain after I spelled out my reasons, that you are misunderstood and misquoted, sorry dude, your agenda is clear, you want to change the debate from concepts to personal vitriolic condemnation.

 

The main point you made is that you don't care if Iskcon and Krishna consciousness does not get tons of good publicity. You would rather spend your time and energy trying to defeat the idea that could do enormous good for Iskcon, or are your two posts not what they appear to be.

 

It's easy to sit in your home and criticize people who preach, you can sit on the sidelines and snipe as so many do, but forget about pretending that you are actually doing a service.

[Guest guest]

Your reply is so utterly absurd, I can't even believe I'm replying to it. You're still at it, putting words into people's mouths, then denying that you would ever do such a thing. I expected better from you.

 

First off, I wasn't attacking you, although if you took it that way, you may wish to look back at your previous posts where you attacked others because you assumed they "weren't in Isckon." I felt it was ironic that you, not being in Iskcon, would speak as a know-it-all and chastise others who have opinions merely because you think they aren't in Iskcon. I was defending the rights of others to speak out on the issue and pointing out your hypocrisy in attacking those who have an opinion, but may not be presently connected with Iskcon in a formal way.

 

Second, you claim that my "sole content" was in "attacking" you. I was addressing the "Purity is the force" quote primarily. Secondarily, I addressed your hypocritical criticism of those whom you feel shouldn't express an opinion if they are not in Iskcon. As Kulapavana Prabhu said, we are expressing opinions, and have just as much a right to do so as you. But you are coming off as being more than a little arrogant.

 

 

Of course you can spin it anyway you like. The fact remains your posts were nothing more then demagogic personal attacks, and then you complain after I spelled out my reasons, that you are misunderstood and misquoted, sorry dude, your agenda is clear, you want to change the debate from concepts to personal vitriolic condemnation.

 

 

Unreal. Talk about spin.

 

 

The main point you made is that you don't care if Iskcon and Krishna consciousness does not get tons of good publicity.

 

 

No it wasn't. And I'd like to think that you know that it wasn't, but now I'm not so sure.

 

 

It's easy to sit in your home and criticize people who preach, you can sit on the sidelines and snipe as so many do, but forget about pretending that you are actually doing a service.

 

 

Talk about sniping. Simply amazing.

 

You can't see it? Seriously. You can't see what you're doing here, and how you're engaging in cheap word jugglery?

 

If you want to close the case, that's okay. If you want to hear the opinions of others, then you'll have to lighten up just a bit, control your anger, and reply honorably to what people actually have to say, instead of splicing and dicing what is being said simply to discredit others and to win an argument.

 

Cheers,

Steven

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

All you have to do is agree with their politics. If you do that then you are given an ear to preach about Krishna and they are very open and eager to learn about Vedanta. If you take a conservative political position, then no matter what you say about anything after that, you are ridiculed as a right wing dolt.

 

 

I think this statement sums up things well; and it is one of the foundations of the gay agenda group.

 

Srila Prabhupada never tried to agree with the popular notions of his time. He did not support women's liberation at the peak of the women's lib movement; he did not support free love when all the hippies were proclaiming it; he did not support the use of drugs when the youth of his time thought it was the quickest way to self realization.

 

If we study the history of saints, we will find that in most cases they were people who were at odds with the world. That is because a saint is an antidote to society for when it becomes too worldy.

 

You will not find someone more at odds with society than Srila Prabhupada: an Indian in orange robes sitting in a park of drug taking people. He was at odds with the world. He said no illicit sex when there was free love. He said no intoxication when drugs were passed around. He said no meat eating in the meat eating capital of the world - America. He was completely unlike the world around him. Thats why the world needed him. He was the antidote to the degraded society of the world.

 

All these people distorting Srila Prabhupada's teachings are free to start their own movements and spout their own beliefs, but the interesting thing is none of these people will do that. Why? Because no one would care to listen to them for a second. So rather than be alone in their own rooms with no audience, they try to take over Srila Prabhupada's position and grab his followers by inserting their teachings into his movement. It's the same as the impersonalist commentators trying to use Krishna's Gita to propogate their own speculations. Why take Krishna's or Prabhupada's words and distort them? Because no one is foolish enough to follow them on their own credit. They try to camouflauge themselves under the facade of Krishna and Prabhupada while in actuality distributing their own poison - just like Rahu and Ketu pretending to be demigods to steal the nectar (amrita).

 

Prabhupada never tried to give in to popular opinions of his time. He came to deliver Lord Krishna's personal message to us, not to gain followers and fame. He was the antidote for the poison of worldy society, and thus he stood out as clearly as the sun from this backdrop of worldliness.

[Guest guest]

Good points, except I am not Prabhupada and I am not trying to change Bhagavat tattva. I don't have a Gay agenda as well. The Gay agenda is their agenda, my points, and Hrdayananda Goswamis pints are that you can be inclusive of Gays and by doing so that will benefit the spreading of Krishna consciousness.

 

I think it is totally improper for anyone to deduce that by wanting to take advantage of a political movement in order to spread Krishna consciousness that we have some other agenda.

 

What agenda would that be ?

 

 

All these people distorting Srila Prabhupada's teachings are free to start their own movements and spout their own beliefs, but the intersting thing is none of these people will do that. Why? Because no one would care to listen to them for a second. So rather than be alone in their own rooms with no audience, they try to take over Srila Prabhupada's position and grab his followers by inserting their teachings into his movement

 

 

I find that a bizarre claim since the person who put forth the idea that I am agreeing with is the main Acarya in Iskcon. My point all along has been that Iskcon will benefit, not some other movement. If wanting to utilize a politcal movement to spread the reading of Srila Prabhupadas books is something like you claim

 

"they try to take over Srila Prabhupada's position and grab his followers by inserting their teachings into his movement"

 

I don't follow. Prabhupadas position is the founder Acarya of Iskcon, how any could take that position is an absurd idea. If what you really mean to say is that no one has the right to preach according to their own inspiration from Krishna, for the rest of all time, as the ritviks claim, then I disagree. Prabhupada asked his followers that first you become Krishna conscious then make disciples, in other words he expected his followers to rise up to the task of being Acaryas. I reject the ideology that no one is ever again allowed to make preaching strategy that differed from Srila Prabhupada. Time, place and circumstance change and the current Acarya can modify the previous Acaryas technique for preaching if that is the will of God.

 

I think it is highly inappropriate for someone to claim that simply because some vaisnavas want to do something different then Prabhupada, that they are fools and deviants. I applaud Hrdayananda Goswami, I did not bring this up, He did. I simply agree whoelheartedly with it being a brilliant preaching strategy.

 

If some people want to claim that therefore I or anyone else who agrees with him is a bogus Guru Aparadhi, fine. I don't take my marching orders from just anyone who claims to be my superior. I follow my own heart.

 

Those who speak about following Prabhupada to a tee shouldbe in Iskcon, if they are not they are disobeying Prabhupada when he asked that everyone work together in Iskcon.

 

Things change, time, place and circumstances change. Should I condemn anyone who claims to be following Srila Prabhupada but is not in Iskcon because Prabhupada aksed everyone to stay ?

 

People should look in their own hearts and look at their own motivations before making claims of being able to decide who is a demon and who is a devotee.

 

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

I find that a bizarre claim since the person who put forth the idea that I am agreeing with is the main Acarya in Iskcon.

 

 

I would have to disagree. In my view Srila Prabhupada is the main acharya in ISKCON and I hope it will stay like that for all times.

[Guest guest]

That is not the tradition in the Gaudiya sampradaya. New Acaryas pop up every generation. From Mahaprabhu on down to Srila Prabhupada and others. Why are you suggesting that there will never again be an Acarya on the level of the numerous previous Acaryas ?

 

The ritvik ideology of Srila Prabhupada as the only Acarya for the rest of all time is not the tradition that Prabhupada taught or was a part of. Before Prabhupada there were empowered Acaryas in every generation, sometimes many empowered Acaryas at the same time.

 

If you disagree with an idea by an Acarya in Iskcon, that is fine and your right, no one should say you have to accept. But to then claim that no future Acarya will arise and do things his way based on the inspiration that pure devotees recieve, is something that is not part of the Gaudiya tradition.

 

Why make a simple disagreement over a single idea from a single Acarya some kind of line in the sand, some kind of statement that no Acarya can ever be on the level of the previous Acaryas ?

 

While I respect your right to disagree over preaching strategy, to wholesale condemn any Acarya as a deviant if he differs from previous Acaryas in style of presentation is too much. Bhaktisiddhanta changed the preaching syle given by Bhaktivinoda, Srila Prabhupada changed the preaching style of Bhaktisiddhanta, the next pure devotee will have the same perogative if that is the will of Gaura Nitai, that is the tradition.

[Kulapavana]

Shivaji, other devotees replied very well to your question as to why we oppose supporting official "recognition and appreciation" of gay unions for the sake of "free good publicity", so I'll just move on.

 

"If you disagree with an idea by an Acarya in Iskcon, that is fine and your right, no one should say you have to accept."

 

we need to be sensitive to all proposed changes by initiating gurus in Iskcon. some of us still remember "acarya" Kirtanananda Swami and the changes he implemented. I remember visiting NV and seeing him bringing an attack dog into temple with him for "personal protection" (and that was just a very minor thing compared to other changes he implemented). I kept thinking: "this guy is off his hinges!" but SCORES of senior Iskcon devotees were buying this stuff like it was candy and praising "The Acharya" for his vision... I was nobody then and I'm nobody now, but I keep my sanity and attachment to our tradition - thank you very much.

 

so excuse me for being cautious now as well...

 

and I'm NOT in any way suggesting here that Hridayananda Maharaja is doing anything improper or comparing him to Kirtanananda Swami. NOT AT ALL! I have the deepest respect for him and his preaching efforts and look up to him as my siksa guru. but the principle of caution remains.

[krsna]

What can repression accomplish?

by Shiva das

 

Posted January 21, 2005

 

Bhaktavatsala prabhu has suggested that "in brahminical society there is no presence whatsoever of homosexuality . . . as it is a wholly spiritually-minded society". He may be holding up some pure standard written about in sastra, but here on Earth things are not so simple. In almost any brahminical sanga in the world one will discover that sex life is commonplace -- both homosexual and heterosexual. It's the same all over.

 

Bhaktavatsala das quotes Srila Prabhupada, "It is the mundane sex interest that keeps one enslaved to the material realm, and the 'bodily concept' of life". However, the Bhagavat teaching is not that one needs totally to renounce sense enjoyment. One needs to strike a balance, one needs to make time for spiritual sravanam, kirtanam, sadhu-sanga, etc. It's not that enjoying your senses keeps you from God; it is the exclusive use of your life and time for sense enjoyment which binds one to the material realm.

 

Srila Prabhupada taught that the best path was the path of moderation. He rejected the false vairagis who prematurely attempt to give up all sense enjoyment, giving the example of the elephant who bathes, and then throws dirt all over itself.

 

The premature renunciation of material enjoyment leads to obsession with that enjoyment. It's like a person who decides to go on a crash diet or give up all sex. At first the person is all excited about being strong in his ascetic endeavor. But almost everyone is unable to maintain such a strict regimen. The object of renunciation is meditated on as the source of pleasure that one wants to renounce. This process reaffirms the subconscious thoughts that the person is depriving himself of pleasure. In this way, the premature overzealous renunciate ends up meditating on that which she or he wishes to negate. It ends up being too much to handle, and the person goes from abstinence to gluttony. This is common among dieters, and it applies to sex life as well.

 

The process prescribed by the Bhagavat is gradual disentanglement from focusing on sense enjoyment. The attitude apparently expressed by Bhaktavatsala das, however, leads to false renunciation and then to obssession with satisfying the hunger wrought by deprivation.

 

He quotes a Bhagavad-gita verse: "I am sex life which is not contrary to religious principles." We all know what the Gita says, but we live in a world where people follow their own conscience. If you want to put up a sign in front of every ISKCON temple that says "No sinners allowed" or "God will punish the sinner", what effect will that have when the primary function is to uplift the most fallen? It will make them feel that they are not wanted, that they are excluded from sanga because they are not good enough.

 

Then he says: "Sex life must be given up, especially as there are no such selfish activities (even for propagation of children) in the eternal transcendental realm of Govinda, which is ever free from birth, and death. It is eternal, as are we, as is Govinda." In my opinion, sex life is not something that the average non-elderly person needs totally to give up; I do agree it is not to become the driving force of your life. As far as there being no sex in the spiritual world, that is a fallacy:

 

Actually lust and sex are there in spiritual life, but when the spirit soul is embodied in material elements, that spiritual urge is expressed through the material body and is therefore pervertedly reflected. When one actually becomes conversant in the science of Krsna consciousness, he can understand that his material desire for sex is abominable, whereas spiritual sex is desirable. Spiritual sex is of two kinds: one in accordance with the constitutional position of the self and the other in accordance with the object. When one understands the truth about this life but is not completely cleansed of material contamination, he is not factually situated in the transcendental abode, Vrndavana, although he may understand spiritual life. When, however, one becomes free from the sex urges of the material body, he can actually attain the supreme abode of Vrndavana. When one is so situated, he can utter the kama-gayatri and kama-bija mantra. -- Teachings of Lord Chaitanya

 

And from Bhaktivinoda Thakura's The Bhagavata,

 

Sexuality symbolizes the highest attraction and the acme of deliciousness of transcendental service. In the Amorous Performances of Vraja, the secrets of the eternal life are exhibited in their uncovered perfection in the activity of the Love of unalloyed souls. . . . Ethical restrictions of sex relationship, that are imposed at Ayodhya by the form of the monogamous marriage are relaxed at Dwarka where the Absolute manifests His fuller personality and appears in the guise of the polygamous Husband. The conventions of marriage are abrogated in Vrindavana where the sanctity of wedlock becomes secondary and a foil to the Amorous Exploits of Sri Krishna in His Fullest Manifestation.

 

Bhaktavatsala das writes, "The mundane sex business is to be given up entirely, if one wishes to indeed 'go back to home, back to Godhead' and get free from the shackles of the mundane material existence. . . ."

 

With respect, "going back home" is not dependent on celibacy. It is dependent on becoming self-realized. Bhaktavatsala prabhu is my friend, so I do not say this about him, but I have many times heard what verges on fanatical rhetoric, often from people who do not follow their own advice. It frequently comes from a place of frustation with their own spiritual lives; it manifests in "speaking out for the Lord" in harsh terms, castigating all who fail to live up to the perceived demands of an unforgiving Deity. They strike out at others in the name of following to the 'T' the most renunciative and restrictive policy. The true spiritual teacher is just the opposite. He or she is personally strict but lenient with others.

 

Bhaktavatsala writes, "One cannot have kirtan, and still be involved in the mundane sex affairs." In my view, this slightly pompous attitude is provably fallacious. How many people around the world are engaged in Kirtan? How many are not engaged in sex life for enjoyment? The answer is obvious. If we take this uncompromising attitude, are we not taking the role of God, taking the position as spokesman for God, taking the harshest position and attitude possible? Nityananda and Gauranga were engaged in magnanimous lila, not saying, "Abandon hope, with no chance to gain the mercy of God."

 

Let us not fall for the trap of fundamentalism -- the resullt of an inner despair and a seeking to gain favor from God by championing the perceived anger and strictness that God has towards His/Her children. If we were softer and more accommodating when it comes to others' perceived faults vis-à-vis their eternal path to Godhead, that would really please God. Our own salvation comes from the development of a softening of our own hearts, not in displaying disdain for the perceived faults of others.

 

[Kulapavana]

"What can repression accomplish?"

 

It is NOT about repression on an individual level (that's what the original BG quote is about, isn't it?) but about public policy of a religious organization. I'm surprised you (and others) cant tell the difference...

 

Vedic civilization and our process is about controlling material tendencies not through outright repression, but through careful regulation. In the process of such regulation, certain amount of social pressure IS required to promote positive behavior. when it comes to sex, Vedas promote married unions of men and women. homosexuality is not seen by the Vedas as some mortal sin but it is also NOT PROMOTED.

 

[krsna]

http://www.chakra.org/discussions/GenFeb09_05.html

 

Last and concluding statement by Maharaja:

 

"Thus considering Vaishnava moral philosophy, as taught by Krishna Himself and by His pure devotees, ISKCON must encourage sincere devotees who at times, in good faith, and within reasonable limits, choose the lesser of evils in order to stabilize themselves on the spiritual path. This principle applies to human sexuality among mutually consenting adults. "

 

 

[theist]

conv. 1-8-76

 

 

Prabhupäda: That they are doing. Still they are doing. Just like you said, some sprinkling water. They have no philosophy and they violate everything, what is stated there in Bible. Now you say that “Thou shall not kill;” they say, “Thou shall not murder.” They are molding. Now this homosex they are sanctioning, man-to-man marriage. They are sanctioning abortion.

 

Acyutänanda: Yes. Two homosexuals were married by a priest.

Prabhupäda: Yes.

 

Tamäla Krsna: Now they have a church where the priests are homosexuals and the attending people are homosexual.

 

Prabhupäda: Hm?

 

Tamäla Krsna: Now they have churches for homosex. That means the priest is a homosexual, and the persons who come are homosexuals. A special church for homosexuals.

 

Prabhupäda: Just see. Is that religion?

[Kulapavana]

Source: Ananova

Published: May 9, 2005

 

Zoo tempts gay penguins to go straight

 

A German zoo has imported four female penguins from Sweden in an effort to tempt its gay penguins to go straight.

 

 

 

The four Swedish females were dispatched to the Bremerhaven Zoo in Bremen after it was found that three of the zoo's five penguin pairs were homosexual.

 

Keepers at the zoo ordered DNA tests to be carried out on the penguins after they had been mating for years without producing any chicks.

 

It was only then they realised that six of the birds were living in homosexual partnerships.

Heike Kueck said that the zoo hoped to see some baby penguins in the coming months.

 

She said that the birds had been mating for years and one couple even adopted a stone that they protected like an egg.

 

Kueck said that the project has the support of the European Endangered Species Programme because the penguins, which are native to South America, are an endangered species.

 

A biologist will be on hand to monitor the experiment.

 

But introducing the Bremerhaven penguins to their new Swedish friends may not be as successful as hoped after earlier experiments revealed great difficulties in separating homosexual couples.

 

In case they show no interest, the zoo has also flown in two new male penguins "so that the ladies don't miss out altogether", Kueck added.