|
Hridayananda's Letter to the GBC by Naradamuni das Posted April 24, 2009 I would like to comment on the criticism that Hridayananda das Goswami's received re. his view on homosexual relationships as stated in his open letter (printed below): Hridayananda das Goswami wrote: (Open letter, December 11, 2004) "A truly spiritual society must constantly seek a balance between the strict codes of varnasrama, and the practical needs of sincere devotees. There can be no doubt that a significant number of souls, whose external sexual orientation is homosexual, sincerely strive to be Krishna conscious. It is entirely natural and predictable that a majority of these devotees, as with most heterosexual devotees, will not be suited for lifelong celibacy"My view of this issue is as follows:As a general rule, we should appreciate devotees in terms of the sincerity and diligence of their spiritual attempts, given the psychophysical circumstances of their life. In other words, in any condition of life, if a devotee sincerely strives to please Krishna, that devotee is to be admired.It is the duty of any society to recognize, and thus encourage, the admirable behavior of its members. Monogamy, among devotees of any orientation, is an admirable achievement in the context of today's promiscuous society, and should be thus appreciated and encouraged.Given the need to balance strict varnasrama with liberal spirituality, I believe that ISKCON should recognize and encourage monogamy among all its members of whatever orientation, and that such recognition and encouragement should take appropriate forms that achieve both purposes: the maintenance of varnasrama and the encouraging of spiritual sincerity.I am not convinced that marriage is the best means in all cases, but some serious, formal and public recognition and appreciation of gay monogamy is, in my view, in the best interest of ISKCON and its members."With best wishes. Hridayananda das Goswami" I'm a devotee and I teach at the University, so I understand very well both sides, i.e. Spiritual and Secular. Hridayananda das Goswami is very clear in what he writes; why must he be sorry for this? I was raised in a catholic family and I always felt forced into a narrower space by the terrorism of the Catholic dogma until I found Krishna Consciousness. Love, compassion and mercy should be offered to everyone, especially to devotees who intend to devote their lives to God!
This is a sincere appeal to all devotees who are passionate about protecting Srila Prabhupada's house. Can we please adopt a balanced, rational and compassionate perspective regarding the recent homosexual union in Los Angeles blessed by Hridayananda Maharaja? This is my humble request. Please hear me out, and then make up your own minds. First of all, according to Sarvatma prabhu, who officiated at the ceremony, both Bhakta Josh and Bhakta Stan are devotees, and thus deserve the utmost respect. One of the first principles of devotional service is that we should honour all devotees, no matter at what stage of devotional service they may find themselves. As Srila Rupa Gosvamipada writes in Sri Upadeshamrta, verse 5:
"krsneti yasya giri tam manasadriyeta" Rupa Gosvami's words are very clear: he does not exclude anyone of a particular varna, asrama or body type from his definition of a devotee. Second of all, these men are straightforward about their sexuality, and moreover are monogamous, vegetarian, philosophically enquiring and upstanding citizens who earn an honest living. Dare I ask how many of our so-called brahminical leaders meet all these qualifications? How many devotees (initiated or not) can claim to be consistently chanting sixteen rounds of the maha-mantra, as Josh is? Or how many of us have the past-life sukriti to be lifelong vegetarians, as Stan is? I offer my humble obeisances to both of them again and again. Third of all, please assess the value of bridge preaching. At the event celebrating their exchange of vows, the maha-mantra was sung and prasadam was distributed. Do we want to be seen as a bunch of rigid fanatics who chase pious, favourable people away, as has happened so many times in the past? Bhakti is a culture, not a cult. Fourth of all, Srila Prabhupada wanted us to cultivate this culture of bhakti through the establishment of varna-asrama-dharma, a solid social structure built on Vedic principles in which all kinds and classes of people would be able to find their natural position, and progress in a stable, sane way towards Krishna. Instead, frequently we find the unattractive cult of niyamagraha: a chaotic ossilation between fanatically following the rules and regulations and whimsically disregarding them. Fifth of all, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has instructed us to be "strict with ourselves but lenient with others." I personally am still struggling to follow this simple but profound injunction. Josh and Stan prabhus, if you are reading this, please accept my apologies for all the unkind and unfair statements others may have made regarding your union. Please do not take offence, but continue instead with your journey towards the source of all varieties of love, Lord Sri Krishna.
Your humble servant, Tulasi devi dasi
|
An Athlete Reminds Us: Gender Not Always Black and White by Amara Das Wilhelm Posted September 27, 2009 When South African track star Caster Semenya was recently identified as intersex by the International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF), much of the world was shocked to discover that not everyone is 100 percent male or female. News anchors scrambled to define terms such as "intersex" and "hermaphrodite," while doctors were forced to explain how modern science determines sex to begin with. There were outcries over Semenya's right to privacy and the so-called shame of her being globally pronounced anything less than purely male or female. All this commotion would likely surprise those of the world's ancient cultures, including the Vedic, who demonstrably possessed a more rational understanding of sex and the gray area existing between male and female. While gathering resources for my book, Tritiya-Prakriti: People of the Third Sex, I came across no fewer than forty Sanskrit words describing gender-variant people ranging from the dviretas, "with both male and female reproductive tissue" (Caraka Samhita 4.2.17), to the shandha, or "men behaving as women" (Sushruta Samhita 3.2.38-42). All of the many known types of sex and gender differentiation, both anatomical and behavioral, are described within the vast canon of Sanskrit literature. Modern science has only recently caught up with and perhaps surpassed the Vedic diagnosis. For instance, we now know that beyond the common chromosomal patterns of XY male and XX female, there are also men with XYY and XXY and women with XO and XXX chromosomes. Such variations produce various intersex effects. More significantly, variations in embryonic hormones can override the chromosomes and cause an XY boy to appear or behave female (to various degrees) and vice versa for an XX girl. Hundreds of related sex and gender variations have been found in both humans and animals, and they are much more common than previously thought. If we include all types of gender differentiation from bisexuality to the most rare form of intersex, approximately 30 percent of all humans can be placed within the grey or gender-different category. Why, then, all the fuss and misunderstanding about gender differences in humans? Much of this is cultural. While ancient cultures were typically familiar with and able to accommodate gender differences, modern societies seem to prefer stigmatizing and hiding them. Intersex babies have been surgically altered to pass as either male or female while transgender and homosexual persons are rebuked for any gender behavior deemed different from normal. Some modern Vaishnavas are also highly reluctant to accommodate or even acknowledge the in-between or third sex, despite various references in our own scriptures.
In the Bhagavad-gita, Lord Krishna implores us to understand both the spiritual and material natures properly, because only then can we correctly utilize things in his service. "To follow another's path," he says in verse 3.35, "is dangerous." Caster Semenya, although gender-different by nature, was likely pressured into assuming a 100-percent female role and is now suffering from the simple untruth of it. The real shame, however, is not Semenya's but rather modern society's insistence on a two-gender only paradigm despite its limitations, artificiality and potential for harm. Fortunately, Caster Semenya herself is keeping the whole incident in proper perspective. "God made me the way I am, and I accept myself," she told the South African You magazine. "I am who I am, and I'm proud of myself."
How terrible it is that we shut our doors to anyone, we should be ashamed of ourselves. Lord Chaitanya embraced murderers and rapists, transforming them in the process, and we cannot even embrace innocent and spiritually inclined men-in-women's bodies, and women-in-men's bodies. ISKCON is well and truly in the league of cheating religion, for we preach one thing- that we are not the body, that everyone is nitya-krsna-das, and that therefore, bhakti is for everyone- and act contrary to it. We are definitely not followers of Lord Chaitanya, or how could we even conceive of such petty hatreds? As far as I am concerned, either I will join an ISKCON society that is not party to such ignorance, or I will not join it, and practise as I am, separately. While I was in the movement, those who practised separately from ISKCON were condemned as "separatists". Actually, I have yet to see this word used in that way, in any part of the sastra. The word "separatist" in sastra, only refers to people who worship in the temple, and yet do not honour the Lord in the heart of every living entity, (SB 3.29.23). So who is the real separatist? "As the blazing fire of death, I cause great fear to whoever makes the least discrimination between himself and other living entities, because of a differential outlook" (SB 3.29.26) There you have it, not from my mouth, but from the Lord Himself. In the purport, Srila Prabhupada makes it clear that this differential outlook is in relation to the body. I hope that the GBC will take notice of this chapter and reverse their very ignorant decision, which is only drawing death near, for all who follow them.
With straw between their teeth, they should beg forgiveness from all they have offended due to their inability to perceive spirit- the soul beyond the body, and the Supersoul dwelling in all, as the witness to all acts of cruelty and discrimination.
|
|