The Questions, Objections, and Deficiencies
of Homosex Monogamy Proposal inside Hare Krishna society ISKCON 2005 to 2022
By Horacio
Francisco Arganis. Ph D.
Vaisnavas Families Union
Disclaimer:
Although the Krishna Consciousness Society has always
respected the very legitimate Rights granted by secular governments to all
minorities and has never, like other religious groups, engaged in public
protests against such very legitimate and well-earned as meritorious Rights of
such groups like: Wokes, LGTB, etc. However, these groups have led a crusade to
infiltrate the temples and the community of Krishna devotees and for this reason this
analysis has been created, which is exclusive within this beliefs system, which
with its legitimate Constitutional Right, has the duty to defend its values and
beliefs internally among their followers and for them is this report only.
Srila Prabhupada stated that in his instructions that
the highest authority is his Books over his conversations (July 20, 1977, to
Prana dasa). And that the letters are individual and not for a universal
authority (to Brahmananda - September 28, 1969). When Srila Prabhupada was
carrying out his mission, he clearly stated, without any ambiguity, in almost
more than 30 statements, in his books, conversations and letters that it is a
great adharma, to support and promote
Homosexual life and conduct, and what to say a monogamy (monos- one and gamos-
Marriage) of this lifestyle (hereafter HSM). Let's look at one of these
examples:
In his books:
Perfect Questions Perfect Answers: Talk
with Bob Cohen, February 27-29, 1972, Mayapura:
Prabhupada:
No, the idea is that marriage is not sacred. They think marriage is a legalized
prostitution. They think like that, but marriage is not that. Even that
Christian paper, what is that, ” … “Watchtower.” It has criticized, one priest
has allowed the marriage between man to man, homosex. So these things are going
on. They take it purely for prostitution. That’s all.” …
SB
4-29-14:
When the world becomes degraded, civilization becomes demoniac, and for
the common man the rectum and the genitals are taken very seriously as the
centers of all activity. Even in such a sacred place as Vrindavan, India,
unintelligent men pass off this rectal and genital business as spiritual
activity. Such people are called sahajiyā. According to their
philosophy, through sexual indulgence one can elevate oneself to the spiritual
platform.
SB 3-20-26 sig
It appears here that the homosexual appetite of males for each other is
created in this episode of the creation of the demons by Brahmā. In other
words, the homosexual appetite of a man for another man is demoniac and is not
for any sane male in the ordinary course of life.
In his Conversations there are almost 27 statements
like these:
Morning Walk,
September 28, 1972, Los Angeles.
Prabhupada: Homosex. They are supporting homosex. So degraded,
and still they say, “What we have done?” They do not know what is degradation,
and they are priest. They are teaching others. They do not know what is the
meaning of degradation.
Conversation with
the GBC, May 25, 1972, Los Angeles.
Prabhupada: Now the priestly order supporting homosex. I was
surprised. They are going to pass resolution for getting married between man to
man. The human society has come down to such a degraded position. It is
astonishing. When I heard from Kirtanananda Maharaja there is a big conference
for passing this resolution. In India still, if there somebody hears about
homosex (makes sound of breathing out). Homosex is there but nobody will
support publicly.
Morning Walk, June 6, 1976, Los Angeles: Just see. Rascal priests also so sinful. Yes, they’re
supporting homosex. So when the priests are sinful, the public is sinful, how
the church will go on? Churches, they are expecting church must support
abortion and child killing.
Room Conversation, July 14, 1977,
Vrindavana.
Prabhupada: The hippies are nothing but
a group of madmen, that’s all. A madman, … means publicly sex, that’s all. This
Allen Ginsberg’s movement is that (madman), homosex, public sex. Ginsberg was
very proud that he had introduced homosex. He was telling me.
In his letters:
Letter to:
Lalitananda, Hawaii 26 May, 1975
I am
very sorry that you have taken to homosex. It will not help you advance in your
attempt for spiritual life. In fact, it will only hamper your advancement. I do
not know why you have taken to such abominable activities. What can I say?
Anyway, try to render whatever service you can to Krishna. Even though you are
in a very degraded condition Krishna, being pleased with your service attitude,
can pick you up from your fallen state. You should stop this homosex
immediately. It is illicit sex, otherwise, your chances of advancing in
spiritual life are nil. Show Krishna you are serious, if you are.
So,
Prabhupada's solution is: to overcome such behavior, through vivaha yajña or sacred Vedic marriage with the opposite sex,
and create a Krishna conscious family (to Raya Rama 1975). And this was applied
in ISKCON and we had very successful cases of improvement and it was the only
thing that was preached in general by the leading disciples of Prabhupada,
until the beginning of this 21st century.
However, it is relevant to not ignore that there is a
social historical context behind this issue. With the fall of the Red Empire -
the USSR in 1992, when the famous Sao Pablo Forum emerged, which was the 1st
Synod of Post-Marxism in Latin America, led by the leaders of the Left (Lula da
Silva, F. Castro, H. Chavez, E. Morales, etc. ) together with their organic
intellectual advisers, Ernesto Lacloud and Chandal Muffet, where they launched
their new weapon for the Revolution and Marxist emancipation, which was social
subversion with the Fightimg for the Rights of Feminism, Abortionism, LGBTQ+ groups, etc., called Progres (in spanish) or
Woke, and by his detractors Gender Ideology. And a little later, in the mid-90's,
an Homo activist infiltrated in ISKCON and started a campaign, using as a
weapon of indoctrination, a famous essay called Traya-prakriti, where he tried to normalize HS, and for that, and obsessively,
month after month he sent his essay, printed in several pages, to our Hare
Krishna temples here and probably in the world. Later, with the emergence of
e-mail, He did so in this medium and in Yahoo Groups, etc. But the leadership
of GBC simply underestimated him.
CC
Adi 13-106, Purport: …so in India still there are professional dancers, blessers
and singers, all of whom assemble together during householder ceremonies,
especially marriages and birth ceremonies. These professional men earn their
livelihood by taking charity on such occasions from the homes of the Hindus.
Eunuchs also take advantage of such ceremonies to receive charity. That is
their means of livelihood. Such men never become servants or engage themselves
in agriculture or business occupations; they simply take charity from
neighborhood friends to maintain themselves peacefully…
Without a doubt, this proves that, unlike the canonical
laws of others religions, in the Vedic dharma texts, they never mandate
genocide or mistreatment of gay people, as is the case of the Hijras or
transgender eunuchs that still exist in India.
But the question arise, more respect, does not necessarily legitimize
and authorize Homo conduct or relationships? We will see this later.
Justification
Well ahead, from 2010 to today, ISKCON has come under
a tremendous bombardment on internet social
media and even in official classes, from some former conservative and leading
disciples of Srila Prabhupada, who openly preach Homo Monogamy and they have
even justified a gay person coming to
certain ISKCON temples and public festivals, dressed in sari and making a
carnival-style procession, bringing more of them, under cover of a letter from
Prabhupada, who had been sent to an gender fluid person, but He was not devotee;
not initiated student:
Honolulu, June 10, 1975 75-06-10
My dear
Jennifer
Please
accept my greetings. I am in due receipt of your letter dated June 6, 1975 and
have noted the contents. First of all, you decide whether you are female or
male, then be one or the other. Then, you may enter our temple any time you
like. But sometimes man and sometimes woman, that is not proper. Such awkward
thing cannot be allowed. It will be disturbing to others. Anyway, continue to
chant Hare Krishna as much as possible.
I hope this
meets you in good health.
Your ever well-wisher,
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
And this letter is especially over-emphasized by the
Pro- Homo and the so-called woke activists, who want to impose the behaviors
and ideals of those groups of social fighting, especially the lobbies called by
their opponents, the “Ideology Gender” (Feminism, LGTB, etc.). However, there
is much to discuss, and in fact we have already deeply discussed the subject in
Conferences, Analysis Roundtables, etc., with devotees scholarly colleagues in
the Network. Well, with that single letter, only the fixation or definition
towards a sex is approved, what a surgery suggests. Furthermore the Gay live is
doesn't authorized , in the face of more
than 31 statements by Prabhupada that clearly say the opposite of this, even in
the same month and on those days that letter was made. So, it is a typical
fallacy of hasty generalization, to admit behaviors that Prabhupada reject.
Furthermore, the vast majority of Prabhupada's disciples, except for one or
two, have not questioned and critically analyzed this. More so, in the second generation
of grand-disciples, such dissenting proposals from the body of Srila Prabhupada's
teachings have been raised a debate.
For what we will limit ourselves to pointing out here,
one of the concepts that has been infiltrating in the Krishna society Imaginary
collective, as if it were something really approved by the scriptures and the
Founder Acharya Srila Prabhupada and the previous Acharyas. Since
unfortunately, although this show of compassion towards the homo people, comes
from a group of generous souls, one of the bases to support or believe that
such woke “progressive” ideas have a
basis, have been some statements completed in an essay, which has gone around
to Hare Krishna movement, but was officially shunned by the GBC, as “divisive
and unauthorized”, by a very holy, compassionate and no bad faith author, who
has received a huge media lynching and tacitly marginalized in ISKCON, as if he
was the only one who opened the door to this matter; although his arguments have
allowed to be used by woke infiltrates
of post-Marxism. And as already said, it is even emotionally repeated by the Hare
Krishna’s so called official guardians of the dogma, and even by Gurus of
dissident Gaudiya Vaisnava branches; without the slightest critical
questioning.
This action was an attempt to comply with a
recommendation that had been made earlier, which at the time sounded scathing,
an overreach, a sharp irony, an excess detrimental to the paradigm that Prabhupada
taught directly in his sacred order, barely 50 years that the Holy Founder Acharya
had begun his mission in the West. Said assignment was that “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.” ,
“(Gay monogamy preferred to promiscuity,” 19 Dec. 2004, Chakra.org, .) In order
to understand the nature of this statement, let's do a hypothetical experiment
to broaden our conceptual horizons. Imagine that in a Krishna’s temple a leader declared: “Although
authorizing abortion is not the best means for all cases; but some formal and
public acknowledgment and appreciation must be given to devout women who opt
for a one-time interrupt of pregnancy.” Or other examples applied to the 4
principles: “Although allowing intoxication is not the best means for all
cases; but some formal and public recognition and appreciation must be for
those sincere devotees who only smoke cannabis”; or “although removing the
strict vow of celibacy for sannyasis is not the best means in all cases; but
some formal and public acknowledgment and appreciation must be for those
sincere sannyasis who only have sex with a single prostitute”. This is the
category of this affirmation, which shows that it is only a typical artifice, a
fallacy of Tautology, since it affirms the same thing that it pretend to deny
but with different words. Since monogamy means that, marry with only one partner,
unlike bigamy and polygamy. In short, that in International Society of Krishna we
recognize as something genuinely dharmic, the Homo Monogamous marriage.
And two months after this offer, the lengthy treatise
(we'll call it MHS 2005) was written to lend an air of sastric legitimacy to
such a recommendation. But could it have been an unfounded rejection of this
proposal by the GBC, which some members of this body now repeat without the
slightest critical analysis, or do the Vedic elements really exist to object to
it? Let us analyze this argument.
The HSM 2005 treatise presents a series of masterful
rhetorical arguments and, without a doubt, has a very important contribution
that we will deal with later, to support a moral philosophy called
consequentialism. This consists of:
An
ethical theory that judges whether something is good by taking into account its
consequences. For example, most people believe that lying is wrong, but if
telling a lie would help save a life, consequentialism says that it is right.
And this was used to excuse what is
called "gay monogamy", that is, Homo marriage with only one partner,
a social arrangement that Prabhupada never approved and always categorically
rejected from 1971 to 1977, as already said. In 2013 the same consequentialism
was used for another apparent scathing argument, which was again to dispute
Prabhupada's authority, in his admission of the account of Yudhisthira betting
Draupadi in Shakuni's rigged dice game, a pastime that not only Srila
Prabhupada but all previous acharyas have accepted as authentic:
Madhvacharya Mahâbhârata
tatparyanirnaya
nirnaya
21-3-47-48
Vrindavan dasa Thakura, Chaitanya
Bhagavata Madhya 10-74-79
Sanatana Goswami in his tika to Brihat
bhagavatanmrita 1-5-38
Bhaktisiddhata Sarasvati in his Chaitanya
Bhagavata tika Madhya 10-74-79
In this regard,
the compassionate saint came to affirm: "I
do not deny or reject Prabhupada's teachings on this matter, I simply
concentrate on what I find in the Bhâgavatam."
However, this statement is not just a typical sophism of Tautology. For
furthermore, this creates a great dilemma: can one read the Bhâgavatam itself and get the true
purport without accepting the Srila Prabhupada’s purports?, the Founder Acharya, Mahajana
directly sent and prophesied by Krishna and Sri Chaitanya? What does it even
mean to call “purports” to Srila Prabhupada's purports? In this way, involuntarily
the dilemma arises, is this a discourse to annul Srila Prabhupada's authority
in this matter?
Said HSM 2005
brief is based on these points:
1
the tension between justice and mercy; 2 the tension between competing; 3 moral
duties; 4 the tension between the ideal and the real; 5 the tension between
acts and consequences.
Now, it would be a great dishonesty, not to recognize
that this essay contributed enormously to understand real aspects that the
marriages of followers of Krishna face, in the broad and correct definition of
what is illicit sex and legitimate sex in the ladies and gentlemen who do their
vow in the vivaja yajña. This brilliant contribution is that there are two
levels:
1. The ideal,
which is by strictly following the Garbadana-samskara ritual rules, which is
fulfilled by the Dvijas who have always been a minority Bhâgavatam 7-11-13:
Those who have been
reformed by the garbhādhāna ceremony and other prescribed reformatory methods,
performed with Vedic mantras and without interruption, and who have been
approved by Lord Brahmā, are dvijas, or twice-born. Such brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas
and vaiśyas, purified by their family traditions and by their behavior, should
worship the Lord, study the Vedas and give charity. In this system, they should
follow the principles of the four āśramas [brahmacarya, gṛhastha, vānaprastha
and sannyāsa].
The garbhādhāna saṁskāra, the ceremony for begetting a
child, must be observed by the higher section of people, namely the dvijas. One
who follows the garbhādhāna saṁskāra system is actually twice-born, ( SB 7- 11 sumary
)
2. The relationship inside the samskara of vivaha or sacred marriage, without strictly following
the rules of the previous Garbhadana sacrament, which is typical and authorized
in the Dharma sastras for people of the sudra category who are the majority.
If one is not purified by the process of
the seed-giving ceremony, or garbhādhāna-saṁskāra, he is
immediately classified amongst the śūdras because only
the śūdras do not undergo this purificatory process. Sex
life without the purificatory process of Kṛṣṇa consciousness is merely the
seed-giving process of the śūdras… (Krishna book Vol. 3 Chap. 86)
Now let's continue with the critical analysis. The
interesting about this is, in an attempt to justify this HSM 2005 thesis, some
examples of paradoxical cases of moral consequentialism from Mahâbhârata are presented, but, upon
careful reading, none of these cases deal with the subject of gay monogamy.
Something that the same proponents recognize in said treaty, as we will see
later. So broadly speaking, it is a fallacy of false association and false
analogy. Needless to say, such proponents doubt and underestimate the authority
of the Mahâbhârata, based on Madhavacharya's
commentary, which they attribute to disqualifying it as "highly
corrupt". So their logic is:
A. Homo Monogamy is genuine because the Mahâbhârata supports it.
B. The basis of A, the Mahâbhârata, is highly corrupt.
C. The Homo Monogamy is genuine.
The conclusion would be that from a highly corrupt
source, it produces something corrupt. Although it is not the only
unintelligible uninformed fact, because if we read the words of Madhavacharya,
they differ from such categorization, since he affirms in his Mâhabhârata tatparyanirnaya (2.3-4) "verses have been added to the book
and others have been removed". And corrupt means according to the
Cambridge dictionary: “to make
someone or something become dishonest or immoral: SMART Vocabulary: Fraud & corruption.”
So it is a typical fallacy of extrapolation.
Although there are others serious errors of logic, and
we would like to deepen them, which would lengthen this analysis a lot.
However, as we will demonstrate in the course of this treatise, the main basis
or foundation where the structure of said MHS 2005 argument is supported is
that this essay presents a deconstructive discourse to dispute and invalidate
the Purports and declarations of the great Mahajana, sent by Krishna to
establish the yuga dharma for the 10,000 of Kali yuga. That is, the exegesis of
Srila Prabhupada in his tika, etc. , “…the
homosexual appetite of a man for another man is demoniac and is not for any
sane male in the ordinary course of life.” (SB 3-20-26, purport), it is
invalid. To do this, the proponent takes refuge in the argument that previous
commentators, some of them Acharyas like Sridhar Swami, has not explained such
passages as Prabhupada. Not the Bhâgavatam
directly. On this premise the author is intended to remove the authority or
validity of Srila Prabhupada's instruction, which already sounds quite lurid,
not to say profane, as we will demonstrate later.
In response, the opponents have presented refutations
to such an argument, a very obvious one being that anybody can observe the
fact, that although the Acharyas have
variously commented on the passages of the Bhâgavatam;
but that does not mean that the tikas or commentaries of Prabhupada and the
other commentators, who expose these passages in various ways are wrong. For
example, in the Putana pastime, the Acharyas variously explain this lila, as
Prabhupada revealed in Krishna's book,
let's see the original text and Prabhupada's explanation:
Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10-6-8:
Lord Śrī Krishna, the all-pervading
Supersoul, lying on the bed, understood that Pūtanā, a witch who was expert in
killing small children, had come to kill Him. Therefore, as if afraid of her, Krishṇa
closed His eyes. Thus Pūtanā took upon her lap Him who was to be her own
annihilation, just as an unintelligent person places a sleeping snake on his
lap, thinking the snake to be a rope.
Krshna book Chapter 6;
This closing of the eyes is interpreted
and studied in different ways by the devotees. Some say that Kṛishṇa closed His
eyes because He did not like to see the face of Pūtanā, who had killed so many
children and who had now come to kill Him. Others say that Pūtanā hesitated to
take the baby on her lap because something extraordinary was being dictated to
her from within, and that in order to give her assurance, Kṛishṇa closed His
eyes so that she would not be frightened. And yet others interpret in this way:
Krishṇa appeared in order to kill the demons and give protection to the
devotees, as stated in the Bhagavad-gītā: paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṁ vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām. The first demon to be killed was a
woman. According to Vedic rules, the killing of a woman, a brāhmaṇa, cows
or a child is strictly forbidden. Krishṇa was obliged to kill the demon Pūtanā,
and because the killing of a woman is forbidden according to Vedic śāstra, He
could not help but close His eyes. Another interpretation is that Krishṇa
closed His eyes because He simply took Pūtanā to be His nurse. Pūtanā came to Krishṇa
just to offer her breast for the Lord to suck. Krishṇa is so merciful that even
though He knew Pūtanā was there to kill Him, He took her as His nurse or
mother.
Now why do the Achayas explain the Bhâgavatam from different angles? This
was clarified by Sri Chaitanya:
"Do not
try to praise Me in that way," the Lord told Sanātana. "Just try to
understand the real nature of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.
Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the sound
representation of the Supreme Lord Krishṇa; therefore Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is not different from Kṛishṇa. Krishṇa is
unlimited, and similarly, each word and letter of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam has unlimited meanings." Teachings
of Lord Chaitanya (1975), Chapter 16
About this type of approach, of wanting to invalidate
the comment of the Founder Acharya of Krishna Society (and Guru of those
proponents), Srila Prabhupada warns us: CC Antya. 7.134
Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam has many ṭīkās, or
commentaries, following the paramparā system, but Śrīdhara
Svāmī’s is first. The commentaries of all the other acharyas follow
his. The paramparā system does not allow one to deviate from
the commentaries of the previous āchāryas. By depending upon
the previous āchāryas, one can write beautiful commentaries.
However, one cannot defy the previous āchāryas. The false
pride that makes one think that he can write better than the previous āchāryas will
make one’s comments faulty. At the present moment it has become fashionable for
everyone to write in his own way, but such writing is never accepted by serious
devotees. Because of false pride, every scholar and philosopher wants to
exhibit his learning by interpreting the śāstras, especially
the Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, in his own way. This system of commenting in one’s own way is
fully condemned by Śrī Chaitanya Mahāprabhu. Therefore He says, ‘... commentaries
written according to one’s own philosophical way are never accepted; no one
will appreciate such commentaries on the revealed scriptures.
Homosexuality and the Sastras
One of the top bases to support the argument in this
paper HSM 2005, the author often try to justify this, saying that there are no
sastric mentions, that forbid homosexuality in the scriptures, or that only the
Manu samhita mentions it, but that it
is not a great sin, therefore Prabhupada's statements against that; are not
valid. But what the scriptures say about it?
Sri Krishna said: The sins because of which the sinful
returning from hell reach particular births, and the signs produced by
particular sins, hear these from Me. Garuda
p 5-1
The murderer of a woman and the destroyer of embryos
are in this birth like wildlife full of diseases; whoever commits illicit
sexual relations is now a turncoat eunuch; who eloped with Master Guru's wife
is born with diseased skin…
The Garuda
Purana V. 2-4: Krishna clearly defines that homosexuality is the result of
having committed Illicit sex, -unnatural ways of copulations like we shall
proof later, etc. And it is a sin just like killing a woman, killing an unborn
baby or abortion, or eloping in adultery with the Guru's wife, strong sins that are punishments for going
to Narakas -hells .
The
Narada-smriti, another legal code
written in vedic times, prohibits marriage…., Among others, homosexuals
mukhe-bhaga ('mouth-vagina' : men who practice oral sex with other men): ». (Narada
Smriti 1-12-15)
Also
the Nárada Smriti 9.223 defines as
sinners condemned for a great sin the eunuchs or transgender, the slanderer of
the maidens, the accused of mortal sin (Abhisastaka), the traitor of a friend,
the informant, the seller of soma and a parivindaka ... etc. Narada smriti 9-223.
The dharmasastras, prohibit sex as illicit intercourse
that is not vaginal (ayoni), even with the wife, and the Yajñavalkya Smriti affirms that this includes acts such as “sodomy with other men”, and defines the
four already mentioned with that conduct ( YS 1-81)
For
having sex with female animals; with the woman in her menstruation, sodomy,
etc., has to purify himself with penance Santapanam. Atri Smriti 1-268
A
man who has another type of sex, other than in the female reproductive organ of
the wife, incurs a sin. Bhodayana dharma
sastra 3-7-2
A
man who has another type of sex, other than in the female reproductive organ of
the wife, incurs a great sin, just like a thief or killing a brahmana. Astampha Dharma Sutra 1-19-5
The
great sinner who discharges the semen in those who have no vagina (ayonis
sodomy, etc), in the wombs of women other than the wife, -prohibited (viyonis)
and in the vagina of animals (pazu-yonis) will fall in hell Reto-bhojana (where
one has to subsist eating semen). He then he falls into VasAkUpa (a deep and
narrow well of grease). There he remains seven years of the Devas and they give
him semen for his diet. When he is reborn on earth, he becomes the most
despicable man in the world. (NArada PurANa 1-15-93b-95a)
Those
foolish men of misconduct who engage in all forms of sexual relations
(pansexualism), or relations with illicit women and who sodomize other men, are
born again without their sexual organs or as effeminate transgenders or
eunuchs. "(Mahabharata
13.133.51-52, Pune critical edition (incomplete text), MBh, Anusasana Parva,
part 2, section CXLV, p. 313 (Ganguly edition, full text))
Now, is it true that in the Manu samhita is said that is not a great sin? Let's see the whole
context and the categories of sins where homosexual relationships are
mentioned:
It
is stated that hitting a brahmana, smelling unpleasant items like liquor,
cheating, and having sex man with a man causes the loss of a good birth or
varna and makes him untouchable. (Manu smriti 11-68)
A
man who has committed sex with animals,
or sex other than with the vagina with a woman -sodomy and oral sex-, or who has had sex in water,
or with a menstruating woman, must perform a Samtapana Krikkhra. (Manu smriti 11-174)
A
twice-born man who has sexual intercourse with a sodomy man or with a woman in
an ox-drawn cart, in water or during the day, will bathe dressed in his clothes
… (Manu smriti 11-173)
Krishna said that the result of intercourse in the
menstrual period even with the wife is so sinful that it takes the perpetrator
to the narákas or hells. (Ekadasi Margashirsha shukla or Mokshada Ekadasi, from the
Brahmanda Purana.)
If
a maiden sexually contaminates (with her fingers, etc) another maiden, her fine will be two hundred pieces
of gold; she too will pay double her nuptial fee and receive ten lashes. — Manu
Smriti 8 -369
If
a woman is found having sexual intercourse with another girl "she will
immediately have her head shaved or her fingers cut off, and she will display
it to him on a donkey." Manu Smriti,
chapter 8, verse 370.
The punishment of the Manusmriti is. 11. 174 prescribes eating the five products of the
cow or Panchagavya and giving up food for one night for various sexual acts
committed by a man, and which are on par with Incest and adultery with the
guru's wife, drinking liquor, hitting a brahmana, sex within water veins or in
menstruation or in the daytime, or sodomy - including those with other men. 11.
175 states that men who have sex with a man must bathe while dressed. According
to 11.68, traditionally a man who engages in such acts is considered to lose
all the merits of his Vedic good birth, he becomes untouchable sinful. The same
is implicate to lesbianism. This proves that homosexuality is indeed a great
sin and that the contrary argument is chimerical.
Another allegation to try to cloud all these evidences
is the one that affirms that there is no mention against homosexuality in the Bhâgavatam, and the Gita.
Although the premises are true, the
problem with this conclusion of invalidity is that it comes up against the fact
that, also in the Bhâgavatam and the Gita is no mention against abortion,
incest, smoking or chewing tobacco, or coffee, nor Ayahuasca, nor
hallucinogenic mushrooms, nor hicurí or peyote and other sinful acts of drug
addiction, and they are not allowed for that. At most pānam — drinking is mentioned in general like intoxication
(SB.1-17-38). Also Hare Krishna movement, Prabhupada, and the entire Hare
Krishna mahamantra are not directly mentioned, and are not invalid. Also many
previous acharyas did not interpret the text: (11-5-32) kṛiṣhṇa-varṇaṁ tviṣākrishṇaṁ
etc., as referring to Sri Chaitanya, who is not directly mentioned in the Bhâgavatam; but that doesn't make it
invalid. So it is just a typical evasion fallacy. Also interesting is that in
SB 7-11- 7 full authority is given to the Smritis
Dharma sastras and Puranas where
female and male homosexuality is mentioned as a great sin, as already cited:
Let's see what the direct quote says:
ŚB 7.11.7
dharma-mūlaṁ
hi bhagavān
sarva-vedamayo
hariḥ
smṛitaṁ
cha tad-vidāṁ rājan
yena
cātmā prasīdati
Synonyms
dharma-mūlam — the root of religious principles; hi — indeed;
bhagavān — the Supreme Personality of Godhead; sarva-veda-mayaḥ — the essence of all Vedic knowledge; hariḥ — the Supreme Being; smṛitam ca —
and the scriptures; tat-vidām — of those who know the Supreme Lord; rājan — O King; yena — by which
(religious principle); ca — also; ātmā — the soul, mind, body and
everything; prasīdati — become fully
satisfied.
The
Supreme Being, the Personality of Godhead, is the essence of all Vedic
knowledge, the root of all religious principles, and the memory (Smriti) of
great authorities. O King Yudhiṣṭhira, this principle of religion is to be
understood as evidence. On the basis of this religious principle, everything is
satisfied, including one’s mind, soul and even one’s body.
Purport…The
smṛiti, the scriptures following the principles of Vedic knowledge, are
considered the evidence of Vedic principles. There are twenty different types
of scripture for following religious principles, and among them the scriptures
of Manu and Yājñavalkya are considered to be all-pervading authorities. In the
Yājñavalkya-smṛiti it is said:
śruti-smriti-sadāchāraḥ
svasya
cha priyam ātmanaḥ
samyak
saṅkalpajaḥ kāmo
dharma-mūlam
idaṁ smritam
One
should learn human behavior from śruti,
the Vedas, and from smriti, the scriptures
following the Vedic principles. Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī in his Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu says:
śruti-smriti-purāṇādi-
pañcharātra-vidhiṁ
vinā
aikāntikī
harer bhaktir
utpātāyaiva
kalpate
The
purport is that to become a devotee one must follow the principles laid down in
śruti and smriti. One must follow the codes of the Purāṇas and the pāñcarātrikī-vidhi. One cannot be a pure devotee
without following the śruti and smriti, and the śruti and smriti without
devotional service cannot lead one to the perfection of life. (This sloka Rupa was heard directly from Sri Chaitanya.)
| In
addition, just as the first canto 1-17-38 indicates in a general way only striyah as illicit sex and pānam — drinking for all types of
drunkenness and drug use, in the 5 Canto is established in a general way that
the other types of sex other than between male and female under the sacred vow
of Vivaha, are sinful which also includes Homosex using the words sarvābhigamas :
yas tv iha vai sarvābigamas tam amutra niraye
vartamānaṁ vajrakaṇṭaka-śalmalim āropya niṣkarṣanti.
Synonyms
yaḥ — anyone who; tu — but; iha — in this life; vai — indeed; sarva-abhigamaḥ — indulges in sex life indiscriminately,
with both men and animals; tam — him; amutra — in the next life; niraye — in the hell; vartamānam — existing; vajrakaṇṭaka-śālmalīm — a silk-cotton tree with thorns like
thunderbolts; āropya — mounting him on; niṣkarṣanti — they pull him out.
A person who indulges in sex indiscriminately —
even with animals — is taken after death to the hell known as
Vajrakaṇṭaka-śālmalī. In this hell there is a silk-cotton tree full of thorns
as strong as thunderbolts. The agents of Yamarāja hang the sinful man on that
tree and pull him down forcibly so that the thorns very severely tear his body.
In summary, Prabhupada
clarifies the error of all that type of argumentation used in the MHS 2005
paper like:
As already explained,
there are three prastanas on the path
of advancement in spiritual knowledge—namely, nyāya-prastana (Vedānta philosophy), śruti-prastana (the Upaniṣads
and Vedic mantras) and smriti-prastana
(the Bhagavad-gītā, Mahābhārata,
Purāṇas, etc.). …and this is called arda-kukuṭī-nyaya, "the logic of
half a hen" (See Ādi-līlā 5.176). If one believes in the Vedic
literatures, one must accept all the Vedic literatures recognized by the great
ācharyas, but the Māyāvādī philosophers accept only the nyāya-prastāna and śruti-prastāna,
rejecting the smṛti-prastāna.
And worse yet, this can lead
us to succumb to another factor that seriously deteriorates our spiritual life,
such as challenging and wanting to invalidate Srila Prabhupada's purports:
Atheism
means defying the authority of the Vedas and decrying the great ācharyas who
teach Vedic scriptures for the benefit of the people in general. (Nectar of Devotion 7):
Atheism
means not to believe in the śastra or not to accept them as it is, to comment
according to one's own whim. That is called atheism.
Lecture
on SB 1.2.6 -- Rome, May 24, 1974:
Atheism
means anyone who does not believe in scriptures, standard scriptures. That is
called atheism.
Lecture
on CC Adi-lila 7-109-114 -- San Francisco, February 20, 1967:
Coming to the end of this dissertation, I would not
like to end by clarifying that some of Prabhupada's disciples, although they
condemn the HSM 2005 paper, they have proposed another formula, which says that
"nothing in the scriptures and instructions of Prabhupada prohibits a free
union but celibate Gays”. Hypothetically supposing that such a case existed, a
chaste and celibate Gay monogamy for life; encouraging this would be to support relationships of homosexual life, something
that Prabhupada strongly disapproved , and also that the reality is, the
testimonies of the biological and adopted children of Homo people, as well as
the people who have reformed from that behavior and neutral and independent
scientific studies among which Dr. Mark Regnerus, University of Texas at
Austin. Renerus, Mark. New Family Structures Study. Ann Arbor, MI:
Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research 2012-11-28, they
have shown that Homosexuals cannot live monogamously and faithfully to a
couple, and with everything and that life of sexual freedom, they continue to
commit suicide, and getting AIDS, taking drugs and other diseases. Therefore,
this argument is as it is said in Spanish, "tie the dog with a sausage
chain". In other words it is an entelechy.
Conclusion
It is certainly quite understandable that such
advanced Vaisnava souls wish to extend their mercy and compassion to the most
fallen and suffering souls. But Srila Prabhupada also set limits to such
generosity CC Madhya 9-49:
It is stated that mercy is one of the
qualities of a Buddhist, but mercy is a relative thing. We show our mercy to a
subordinate or to one who is suffering more than ourselves. However, if there
is a superior person present, the superior person cannot be the object of our
mercy. Rather, we are objects for the mercy of the superior person. Therefore
showing compassion and mercy is a relative activity. It is not the Absolute
Truth. Apart from this, we also must know what actual mercy is. To give a sick
man something forbidden for him to eat is not mercy. Rather, it is cruelty.
Unless we know what mercy really is, we may create an undesirable situation. If
we wish to show real mercy, we will preach Kriṣhṇa consciousness in order to
revive the lost consciousness of human beings, the living entity’s original
consciousness.
So if we keep our movement pure, then you are as
strong as Kṛiṣhṇa. And as soon as we deviate from Him, it immediately becomes
ordinary-mundane. This is the secret. Now it's up to us how to keep it pure.
Then no enemy will be able to kill us. Nobody can exterminate (this movement).
So you seek purity, then you will be successful. So what is your difficulty?
…Follow the rules and regulations (4 principles), worship the Deity and chant
the Hare Kṛiṣhṇa mantra, as we have given, then you will remain as strong as Kṛiṣhṇa.
And if we manufacture some ideas, then it disappears. Kṛiṣhṇa cannot be
manufactured; Krishna is Krishna. You cannot manufacture another competitor of
Kṛiṣhṇa. That is not the way. But bandage the failure. 760503R1-HONOLULU - May
03, 1976
I have no capacity, but I took it, the
words of my guru, as life and soul. So this is fact. Guru-mukha-padma-vākya, cittete koriyā aikya. Everyone should do
that. But if he makes addition, alteration, then he is finished. No addition,
alteration. You have to approach guru—guru means the faithful servant of God, Krishna —and take his word how to serve Him.
Then you are successful. If you concoct, "I am very intelligent than my
guru, and I can make addition or alteration," then you are finished. So
that is the only. Lecture on SB 6-1-26-27 -- Philadelphia, July 12, 1975
The top most
saint and pure merciful vaisnava X advocate to this Homosex Monogamy Proposal inside Hare Krishna society He has given his final verdict on the issue.
April 11, 2009: ISKCON Philadelphia:
Dear GBC members,
Please accept my obeisances. All glories
to Srila Prabhupada.
I am writing in reference to this
resolution passed by the GBC this year:
317. Action and Public Statements
of X : The GBC has carefully reviewed
the recent action (giving blessings) and the public statements of X concerning
homosexuality. These remain controversial and divisive in ISKCON, and the GBC
does not endorse or support them. Teaching obligations have kept X from
attending the GBC meetings this year, so the GBC has not been able to discuss
this issue with him. A GBC delegation will soon meet personally with him to
discuss this issue and attempt to reach a common understanding.
In compliance with that resolution I
have flown to Philadelphia and on April 11, 2009 met with H.H. Bir Krishna Dasa
Goswami and H.G. Ravindra Svarupa Dasa, the GBC delegation.
We have a common understanding, which I
had already expressed prior to the Mayapura GBC meetings, in a dialogue with
some GBC members.
I am writing to reaffirm that I uphold
the Krishna conscious principle that sexual union is for procreation within
marriage, and that no spiritual leader should encourage or endorse any other
form of sexual relation.
I regret that I acted and spoke in such
a way as to give many an impression to the contrary. I am sorry. Your servant.
Saint Vaisnava X
