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 1968). 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. But there was a very saintly sannyasi, who already left the body in a transcendental way in full Krishna consciousness, who in his books alluded to the importance of the beginning to include the LGBT community, and took refuge in a certain Prabhupada quote:

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 activist, 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- 11sumary )

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 autor 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:

CC Adi 7-117, Purport: 

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

 

 

     ¿Pueden las Mujeres Devotas ser Diksa Gurus o Maestras Espirituales Iniciadoras?

Por lo que ahora analizaremos una de las interrogantes que ha levantado una gran polémica dentro de ISKCON y que a creado una fuerte división, sobre todo en India. No obstante, es importante tener en mente, que en algunos templos de  ISKCON India, se ha acobijado una costumbre, repetimos,  que a las mujeres ni siquiera se les permite entrar al altar hacer adoración, y hasta se quería que no dieran cursos, ni clases de los textos sagrados en público. En México hay un dicho, que alude a cierta mentalidad antropólotra:  “A la mujer hay que tenerla como la escopeta, siempre cargada y al alcance de la mano en la cocina”. Pero ¿que nos dicen Krishna y los textos védicos, la historia del gaudiya vaisnavismo y las instrucciones del Fundador Acharya de ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada? Primero es un hecho que a las damas, mismo que sean devotas se les debe proteger:

 

En el Manu-smrti se afirma que a la mujer no se le debe dar independencia, sino que debe recibir la protección de su padre, su marido y sus hijos mayores. En todas las circunstancias, la mujer debe depender de algún tutor. En la actualidad, a las mujeres se les da plena independencia, como a los hombres, pero en realidad podemos ver que esas mujeres independientes no son más felices que las mujeres que están bajo la tutela de un tutor. Si las personas siguen los  los mandatos dados por los grandes sabios, srutis y smrtis, pueden ser felices en esta vida y en la próxima. Desafortunadamente, los sinvergüenzas están inventando muchas maneras y medios para ser felices. Todo el mundo está inventando muchos métodos. En consecuencia, la sociedad humana ha perdido las formas normales de vida, tanto material como espiritualmente, y como resultado, la gente está confundida y no hay paz ni felicidad en el mundo. Aunque están tratando de resolver los problemas de la sociedad humana en las Naciones Unidas, siguen desconcertados. Como no siguen las instrucciones liberadas de los Vedas, son infelices. (SB. 4.18.3 significado).

 

De las dos facciones, los que se suscriben a no permitir que las santas damas devotas de Krishna sean gurus diksa, y dan los siguientes argumentos:

 

1)  En el Hari-bhakti-vilasa (11.708) cita el Visnu Purana (3.12.30) (sobre cómo debería funcionar un religioso casado grihastha en este mundo):

 

yosito navamanyeta

na casam visvased budhah

na caiversur bhavet tasu

nadhikuryat kadacana

Un hombre sabio nunca debe insultar a las mujeres ni debe confiar en ellas. Nunca debería tener celos de las mujeres, ni jamás debería designarlas.

 

Srila Sanatana Gosvami comenta: nadhikuryat adhikaram na kuryat. yad va stribhyo 'dhikaram na dadhyat ity arthah. “Nadhikuryat” significa que no se debe nombrar a las  mujeres o que no se debe otorgar autoridad a las mujeres. Aunque otros sanscritólogos lo traducen así:

 

Que ningún hombre trate a las mujeres con falta de respeto, ni ponga toda su confianza en ellas. Que no las trate con impaciencia, ni las ponga al frente de asuntos importantes. 

 

Sin embargo, antes de aceptar esta lectura como prueba para rechazar a las Vaisnavis-diksa gurus, es bueno tener en cuenta los siguientes problemas de esa cita: 

 

Srila  Sanātana Gosvāmī ha compilado El Hari-bhakti-vilāsa para guiar a los  Vaiṣṇavas,  quienes nunca siguen el smārta-viddhi. Según Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, los principios regulativos del servicio devocional recopilados por Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī no siguen estrictamente nuestros principios vaiṣṇavas. En realidad, Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī recopiló únicamente un resumen de las detalladas descripciones de los principios regulativos vaiṣṇavas del Hari-bhakti-vilāsa. Sin embargo, la opinión de Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī  de  seguir estrictamente el Hari-bhakti-vilāsa es, en realidad, seguir los rituales vaiṣṇavas en perfecto orden. Él afirma que el smārta-samāja, que es seguido estrictamente por los brāhmaṇas de casta, ha contaminado en las porciones que Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī recopiló del Hari-bhakti-vilāsa original. Por lo tanto, es muy difícil encontrar instrucciones vaiṣṇavas en el libro de Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī. Es mejor consultar el comentario hecho por el propio Sanātana Gosvāmī para el Hari-bhakti-vilāsa bajo el nombre de Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā. Algunos dicen que el mismo comentario (de Gopal Bhatta) fue compilado por Gopīnātha-pūjā Adhikārī, quien se dedicaba al servicio de Śrī Rādhā-ramaṇajī y que resultó ser uno de los discípulos de Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī.  (Madhya 1.35 Sri Caitanya-caritamrta – 1975)

 

         Los eruditos, han descubierto que el Haribhakti Vilasa, fue compuesto con cierta co-autoria de Sananta con Gopal Bhatta, y  algunas partes de  un comentario atribuido a Gopal Bhatta,  fueron de ese discípulo Gopinatha Puja Goswami, que  de manera obvia, reflejan ciertos conceptos del smartismo casteísta, como se explicó en la cita. Otra realidad es, que el verso citado, nunca dice que a las santas mujeres vaisnavis siddhas (santas), devotas de Krishna se les prohíba ser diksa gurinis, o maestras espirituales iniciadoras. Pues mismo la esposa de Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, fundó una línea de sucesión que existe hasta la actualidad, siendo la guru primordial, y otras devotas como veremos más adelante. Por lo que esa cita, no menciona que se aplique a las Santas devotas de Krishna.

Los opositores a menudo citan la siguiente referencia, para no autorizar que las devotas de Krishna en ISKCON den diksa o iniciación, Narada-pancharatra,’ Bharadvaja-samhita (BS):

 

na jatu mantra-da nari na Sudro nantarodbhavabh

nabhiSasto na patitah kamakamo’pyakaminah ||1.42||

striyah Sudradayas caiva bodhayeyur hitahitam |

yatharham mananiyas ca narhanty acaryatam kvacit ||1.43]||

 

Las mujeres, los sudras, etc., pueden dar instrucciones éticas y morales y también son dignos de respeto según sus calificaciones y condiciones pero no tienen derecho a obtener la posición de acharya.

 

Referente a los  Smriti Agamas Samhitas,  son sin duda obras autoririvas. De hecho, los textos Pancharatra, se mencionan en el Mahâbhârata (XII, 335-351) y el Vedanta Sutra (Adhyaya 2 Pada 2), cuya autoridad como antigüedad ha sido confirmada por sabios como Deshika e incluso Yamunacharya, en sus tratados, como el Pancharatra Raksa y el Agama Pramanya. Pero como todos lo textos sagrados, se nos dice que no todas las instrucciones que se encuentran en ellos se aplican en todos los tiempos y épocas. Por ejemplo en los Smritis Dharma-sastras se explica:

 

kṛte tu mānavī dharmas

tretāyāṁ gautamaḥ smṛtaḥ

dvāpare śaṅkha likhitau

kalau pārāśaraḥ smṛtaḥ

Los códigos de Manu fueron autorizados para la era Satya, los códigos de Gautama para la era Treta, los códigos de Sankha y Likhita para la era Dvarpara yuga y los códigos de Parasara para esta era de Kali.  (Parasara Smrti 1.23)

 

Y Srila Prabhupada como Fundador Acharya explicó esto también, sobre los rituales para los samskaras de reproducción:

 

No queremos todos estos rituales. Cantar Hare Krishna es nuestro único oficio. De acuerdo con el Manu-samhita, todos ustedes son mlecchas y yavanas. No pueden tocar el Manu-samhita, ni hablar de traducirlo. De modo que si tratan de seguir el Manu-samhita, entonces se volverán mlecchas y yavanas y su carrera espirutal estará arruinada”. Espero que esto aclare el asunto. [Ref. Carta a Madhusudana Vrndavana, 19 de mayo de 1977]

 

Y también del Smriti de Parasara  Muni u otros, los oponentes nunca han mostrado una cita que prohiba que las santas damas devotas, pueden ser gurunis diksa. Por lo que no es  necesariamente la instrucción mas adecuada para nuestros tiempos. Por que los Acharyas, mismo Ramanuja un gran exponente del Nárada Pancharatra, aceptó a devotos que por nacimiento eran sudras, y los elevó con los procesos samskaras como gurus. Otro problema es, que la cita del Bharadvaja Samhita, tomada en en forma asilada, contradice las instrucciones específicas del canon para los vaisnavas, establecidos en El Padma Purana:

 

sat-karma-nipuno vipro mantra-tantra-visaradah
avaisnavo gurur na syad vaisnavah svapaco guruh

 

Un brahmana erudito, experto en todas las materias del conocimiento védico, no es apto para convertirse en maestro espiritual sin ser vaisnava, o experto en la ciencia de la conciencia de Krishna. Pero una persona nacida en una familia de clase inferior puede convertirse en maestro espiritual si es vaisnava, o consciente de Krishna.  (Cit. En sig.  Bg. 2. 8)

 

Además que Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, quien es Krishna mismo, dio una instrucción que también  rebasa la cita del  Bharadvaja Samhita:

 

kibā vipra, kibā nyāsī, śūdra kene naya
yei kṛṣṇa-tattva-vettā, sei 'guru' haya

kibā — si; vipra — un brāhmaṇa ; kibā — si; nyāsī — un sannyāsī ; śūdra — un śūdra ; kene — por qué; naya — no; yei — cualquiera que; kṛṣṇa - tattva - vettā — un conocedor de la ciencia de Kṛṣṇa; sei — esa persona; guru — el maestro espiritual; haya — es.

Ya sea que uno sea un brāhmaṇa, un sannyāsī o un śūdra —sin importar lo que sea— puede volverse un maestro espiritual si conoce la ciencia de Kṛṣṇa”. (Cc Madhya 8.128)

 

Y tristemente, los opositores evitan señalar la cita posterior de esos versos del Bharadvaja Samhita, que indica que no importa en que estado social o familia sea, si una persona es autorrealizada percibiendo a Krishna en su interior, puede ser guru, confirmando las afirmaciones del Caitanya Caritamrita:

 

kim apy atrābhijāyante yoginaḥ sarva-yoniṣu pratyakṣitātma-nāthānāṁ naiṣāṁ cintyaṁ kulādikam

kim—what; api—if; atra—here; abhijāyante—they are born; yoginaḥ—yogīs; sarva-yoniṣu—in all possible situations in terms of birth; pratyakṣita-ātma-nāthānām—of those who have seen their worshipable Lord in loving devotion, due to their perfection in self-realization; na—not; eṣām—of them; cintyam—is to be considered; kula-ādikam—their family situation and so on. (1.4)

 

Pero, debido a que los yogis que están en la etapa de yoga-pratyakṣa (es decir, están en experiencia mística con Dios), pratyakṣitātma-nāthas, pueden nacer en cualquier tradición familiar, en tales casos no se aplica ninguna consideración de kula, sexo, etc,. como se mencionó anteriormente (pueden convertirse en āchāryas).

 

Además que en el Caitanya Caritamritra, considerado  por todos los sabios gaudiyas vaisnavas como la máxima autoridad de las enseñanzas de de Sri Chatanya, se  confirma lo mismo:

 

strī-bāla-vṛddha, āra ‘caṇḍāla’ ‘yavana’

yei tomāra eka-bāra pāya daraśana

kṛṣṇa-nāma laya, nāce hañā unmatta

ācārya ha-ila sei, tārila jagata

Hasta las mujeres, los niños, los ancianos, los que han comido carne y los miembros de la casta más baja, si Te ven, aunque sólo sea una vez, cantan el santo nombre de Kṛṣṇa, danzan como locos y se vuelven Acharyas - maestros espirituales capaces de liberar al mundo entero.  (Cc Madhya 18.121-122)

 

Es importante subrayar, que mismo Sri Chaitanya dijo, que oír y cantar el Santo Nombre de Krishna, ver la murti o íconos de Krishna, leer y escuchar el Gita y Bhāgavatam,  es igual que ver directamente a Krishna.  También Sri Chaitanya nombró y reconoció hasta a un musulmán converso como guru diksa, que fue Hari Dasa Thakur, como Acharya del canto del Santo nombre de Krishna, quien tuvo discípulos y mismo Chaitanya Mahaprabhu oyó y tomó instrucciones de él. Además que Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Goswami convirtió en sannyasis a muchos discípulos que eran de clases más bajas que los sudras. O sea que con esa cita del Vishnu- Purana y El Bharadvaja samhita, sacado fuera de contexto, nadie de Occidente y muy pocos de India, podrían ser gurus o maestros espirituales diksa.  Por lo tanto, no es autoritativa ni válida  para nuestros tiempos, y teñida con el caisteísmo Smarta brahmana. Para un analizis profundo y etimológico de este versos citado, véase a (Babaji, Satyanarayana Dasa, Female Guru. URL: https://www.jiva.org/female-guru/ 2021)

 

Otro fuente del canon que dejó Srila  Prabhupada, se ha utilizado para sustentar que las vaisnavis no pueden ser autorizadas en tal rango dice:

 

En realidad, la madre de Dhruva Maharaja, Suniti, era su patha-pradarsaka-guru. Patha-pradarsaka-guru significa “el guru, o el maestro espiritual, que muestra el camino”. A ese guru a veces se lo llama siksa-guru. Aunque Narada Muni era su diksa-guru (maestro espiritual iniciador), Suniti, su madre, fue la primera que le dio instrucciones sobre cómo lograr el favor de la Suprema Personalidad de Dios. Es deber del siksa-guru o diksa-guru instruir al discípulo en el camino correcto, y depende del discípulo ejecutar el proceso. Según los mandamientos sástricos, no hay diferencia entre siksa-guru y diksa-guru, y generalmente el siksa-guru más tarde se convierte en diksa-guru. Sin embargo, Suniti, siendo una mujer, y específicamente su madre, no pudo convertirse en la diksa-guru de Dhruva Maharaja. (Bhag. 4.12.32 significado)

 

 Según el GBC, esta es la declaración más contundente contra la posibilidad de que existan diksa-gurus femeninas. Sin embargo, en sí misma, esta declaración no es concluyente, como veremos. El capítulo anterior del Srimad-Bhagavatam (4.11) presenta la conversación de Svayambhuva Manu con Dhruva. ​​Esta anécdota de Dhruva se llevó a cabo durante el reinado de Svayambhuva Manu (Laghu-bhagavatamrta 3.54), en el primer ciclo de Divya-yugas, en la primera Satya yuga. Además, la cita explica que la madre del gran santo príncipe Dhruva, era de la clase real, kshatrya, y como se establece en los textos sagrados, dichas damas no fungían en el papel de Rishikas, o mujeres de la clase sacerdotal Brahmínica, como para ser maestras espirituales, y la costumbre era que por lo general y más lo reyes, tenían secerdotes maestros o gurus, que se ocupaban de dar los samskaras o sacramentos a los hijos. Así que la Dama Suniti era madre y Reyna, por lo que no tenía ese rol. Pero no que las damas vaisnavis santas no puedan ser diksa gurus, como lo estamos sustentando.

 

1) Hari-bhakti-vilasa (1.211) cita del Kularnava-tantra (15.97):

 

svapna-labdhe striya datte

mala-mantre ca try-aksare

ekaksare tatha mantre

siddhadin naiva sodhayet

“

No se debe (dudar  y) poner a prueba un mantra obtenido en un sueño, un mantra dado por una mujer, un mula-mantra [ de más de 20 sílabas] o de una o tres sílabas para siddha (perfección spiritual), etc.”

 

Esto está relacionado con una discusión sobre, cómo poner a prueba el efecto de los mantras por diversos medios. El autor escribe acerca de que los mantras no necesitan ser puestos a prueba, y luego afirma que los krsna-mantras están exentos de pruebas.  Este verso señala el hecho de que, en el pasado, las mujeres a veces daban mantras. Uno podría entonces asumir que las mujeres, en alguna ocasión, habían actuado como diksa-gurus.  También Srila Prabhupada decretó;  

 

Quiero que todos mis hijos e hijas espirituales hereden este título de Bhaktivedanta, de modo que el diploma trascendental familiar continúe a través de las generaciones. A quienes posean el título de Bhaktivedanta se les permitirá iniciar discípulos. Tal vez para 1975, a todos mis discípulos se les permitirá iniciar y aumentar el número de generaciones. Ese es mi programa.” (Carta a Hamsaduta—Los Ángeles 3 de diciembre de 1968)

 

La declaración de Srila Prabhupada es general, pero incluye a las discípulas femeninas, específicamente se establece en referencia a ISKCON. Pero es bueno tener en cuenta el siguiente contexto de las enseñanzas védica que dio el Santo Fundador Acharya:

 

 Por lo tanto, hemos comenzado el Bhagavad-gita Tal Como Es. No trates de convertirte en un maestro espiritual superior. Entonces lo echarás a perder. Permanece siempre como un sirviente de tu maestro espiritual y presenta las cosas tal como las has escuchado. Serás un maestro espiritual. Este es el secreto. Debes saberlo. No trates de volverte demasiado inteligente. Eso te arruinará. Evam parampara- praptam imam rajarsayo viduh [Bg. 4.2]. Así que Chaitanya Mahaprabhu dice, amara ajnaya guru hana tara ei desa...yare dekha, tare kaha, ‘krsna’-upadesa [Cc. Madhya 7.128]. Sólo mira, es muy bueno. Lo encontrarás en el Chaitanya-caritamrta, ya publicado. Caitanya Mahaprabhu dice: Él es el Señor Supremo, Krishna, Él dice, amara ajnaya. “Todo lo que Yo diga, amara ajnaya, por Mi orden, te volverás un maestro espiritual”. Lo dijo  Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Así que uno puede ser muy analfabeto, no tener educación o erudición, puede que no haya nacido en una familia brāhmana, o puede que no seas un sannyasi. Hay tantos requisitos. Pero uno no  puede  tener todas estas cualidades... pero aun así, pueden convertirse en maestro espiritual. ¿Cómo? Amara ajñaya. Como dice Krishna, como dice Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, si sigues, entonces te convertirás en maestro espiritual. Uno puede haber sido antes el  descalifiacado número uno desde el punto de vista material, pero si simplemente sigues estrictamente todo lo que dice Caitanya Mahaprabhu o tu maestro espiritual representante,  entonces te conviertes en guru.

Así que no es muy difícil. Uno no puede pensar que ‘no estoy calificado para convertirme en guru’. No,  estás calificado si sigues estrictamente el sistema parampara. Entonces estás calificado. Eso es todo.  Amara ajñaya guru hana… ¿Y cuál es la dificultad? Caitanya Mahaprabhu dice: ‘No sientas ninguna dificultad’. Porque como maestro espiritual, ¿qué tienes que hacer? Yare dekha, tare kaha, ‘krsna’-upadesa [Cc. Madhya 7.128]. A quienquiera que conozcas, simplemente dile la instrucción que da Krishna. ¿Qué instrucción da Krishna? También es muy fácil. ¿En qué consiste? Krishna dice man-mana bhava mad-bhakto mad-yaji mam namaskuru [Bg. 18.65]. Caitanya-candra-carane kurutanuragam. Simplemente adhiéranse a los pies de loto del Señor Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Entonces se volverán maestros espirituales. Eso es todo”.

“Así que espero que todos ustedes, hombres, mujeres, muchachos y muchachas, se vuelvan maestros espirituales y sigan este principio. Maestro espiritual, simplemente, sinceramente, sigan los principios y hablen al público en general. Entonces Krishna los  volverá inmediatamente sus favoritos. Krishna no se vuelve su favorito; ustedes se vuelven los favoritos de Krishna. Krishna dice en el Bhagavad-gita, na ca tasmad manusyesu kascin me priya-krttamah: “Nadie es más querido para Mí que aquel que está haciendo este humilde servicio de prédica, la conciencia de Krishna”. Así que si quieren ser reconocidos por Krishna muy rápidamente, emprendan este proceso de volverse maestros espirituales, presenten el Bhagavad-gita tal como es. Su vida será perfecta. Muchas gracias”. (Conferencia Vyasa-puja—Londres, 22 de agosto de 1973)

 

Dama Profesora:  Swamiji, ¿podría decir algo acerca del lugar que ocupa la mujer en su movimiento?

 

Prabhupada: No hay distinción entre hombre y mujer. Eso se dice claramente en el Bhagavad-gita. Mam hi partha vyapasritya ye ’pi syuh papa-yonayah / striyo sudras tatha vaisyah. Se menciona al primero, striyah. Striyah sudras tatha vaisyah. Se entiende que estas clases son menos inteligentes: la mujer, el sudra y los vaisyas. Pero Krishna dice: “No, incluso para ellos está abierto”. Porque en el plano espiritual no hay tal distinción, hombre, mujer, negro, blanco, grande o pequeño. No. Todos son almas espirituales. Panditah sama-darsinah [Bg. 5.18]. Vidya-vinaya-sampanne brahmane gavi hastini suni caiva sva-pake ca panditah [Bg. 5.18], aquel que es verdaderamente erudito, es sama-darsinah. No hace ninguna distinción. Pero en lo que respecta a nuestro cuerpo material, debe haber alguna distinción para mantener la sociedad en orden.

 

Dama P: Las mujeres podrían volverse panditas (sacerdotizas brahminicas), entonces.

 

Prabhupāda: Oh, sí. Te ’pi yanti param gatim. No sólo puede venir, sino que también puede alcanzar la perfección. No hay tal restricción. Krishna dijo.

 

Dama P: ¿Tienes  damas panditas  en el movimiento occidental?

 

Prabhupāda: Hay tantas mujeres occidentales, muchachas, en nuestra sociedad. Están cantando, bailando, adoptando la conciencia de Krishna. Por supuesto, porque superficialmente, corporalmente, hay alguna distinción, por eso mantenemos a las mujeres separadas de los hombres, eso es todo. De lo contrario, los derechos son los mismos.

 

Profr. O’Connell: ¿Es posible, Swamiji, que una mujer sea un guru en la línea de sucesión discipular?

 

Prabhupāda: Sí. Jahnava Devi era la esposa de Nityananda. Ella se convirtió. Si ella es capaz de llegar a la más alta perfección de la vida, ¿por qué no es posible convertirse en guru? Pero no muchas. En realidad, quien ha alcanzado la perfección, puede convertirse en guru. Pero el hombre o la mujer, a menos que haya alcanzado la perfección... Yei krsna-tattva-vetta sei guru haya (Cc. Madhya 8.128]. La cualificación del guru es que debe conocer plenamente la ciencia de Krishna. Entonces él o ella puede convertirse en guru. Yei krsna-tattva-vetta, sei guru haya. [Cortado] En nuestra sociedad mundana, ¿hay alguna prohibición de que la mujer no pueda convertirse en profesora? Si está cualificada, puede convertirse en profesora. ¿Qué hay de malo en eso? Debe estar cualificada. Esa es la posición. Así que, de manera similar, si la mujer entiende perfectamente la conciencia de Krishna, puede convertirse en guru.

 

Profesor hindú: Bueno, para entender la conciencia de Krishna, ¿no se requiere adhikara?

 

Prabhupada: Adhikara significa que debe estar de acuerdo para comprender. Eso es adhikara. Pero ( los mundanos dicen)  no estamos de acuerdo. Eso es culpa nuestra. (Entrevista con los profesores O’Connell, Motilal y Shivaram, 18 de junio de 1976, Toronto)

 

Además hay otra conversación donde Srila Prabhupada afirma lo

mismo, pero a un líder devoto del GBC:

 

Prabhupada: Por lo tanto, no se acepta la declaración de un loco. No podemos aceptar la declaración de un niño, la declaración de un loco, la declaración de una persona no autorizada, la declaración de un ciego.

 

Atreya Rsi: ¿La declaración de una mujer?

        

Prabhupada: ¿Eh?

 

Atreya Rsi: Una mujer…

        

Prabhupada: Si una mujer es perfecta en la conciencia de Krishna… Tal como Jahnava Devi, la esposa del Señor Nityananda, ella era acharya. Ella era acharya. Ella controlaba a toda la comunidad vaisnava.

 

Atreya Rsi: ¿El Señor Nityananda?

 

Prabhupada: La  esposa. Jahnava Devi. Ella controlaba a toda la comunidad vaisnava Gaudiya.

 

Atreya Rsi: ¿Tiene referencias sobre eso en alguno de sus libros, Srila Prabhupada?

 

Prabhupada: No creo. Pero hay muchas acharyas. Tal vez en alguna parte podría haberlo mencionado. No es que las mujeres no puedan ser acharyas. Generalmente, no lo son. En casos muy especiales. Pero Jahnava Devi fue aceptada como tal, pero ella no lo declaró.  Las mujeres pueden ser acharyas, pero es raro, sólo en casos especiales.

 

Atreya Rsi: Las mujeres de hoy…, hay un tema muy popular entre las mujeres. Hablan de liberación. Y su deseo de liberarse es sano, pero no lo entienden. Y se oponen muy fuertemente… He hablado con algunas de estas supuestas mujeres liberadas, y se oponen fuertemente a la conciencia de Krishna, porque piensan que discriminamos a las mujeres. Así que he estado aprovechando las oportunidades para explicarles que el único medio para la liberación de los hombres y las mujeres es a través de la conciencia de Krishna.

 

Prabhupāda:  Krishna no hace ninguna discriminación. Krishna no hace. Cualquier diferencia que haya, es una diferencia corporal. Pero como alma, hay igualdad. Así que cualquier diferencia que hagamos, esa es una diferencia corporal. De modo que cuando uno está por encima del concepto corporal de la vida, no hay diferencia. ¿Por qué la mujer? Incluso los gatos y los perros. La mujer es un ser humano. Incluso los gatos y los perros tienen la misma alma espiritual. Así que un erudito erudito lo verá desde el plano espiritual. Entonces hay igualdad. (Conversación en la habitación: 29 de junio de 1972, San Diego)

 

La igualdad se basa en que el alma es igual en todos los seres vivientes. Ésa es la plataforma espiritual. Aquí Prabhupāda repite la idea de que no hay diferencia entre los sexos o incluso entre diferentes especies cuando uno está por encima del concepto corporal.  Veamos ejemplos en la historia del gaudiya vaisnavismo:

Ya mencionamos que Visnupriya, la viuda de Sri Chaitanya fue Diksa-guru.  Pero también Sita Thakurani—La esposa de Advaita Prabhu. Según el Prema-vilasa (24) de Nityananda Dasa, Sita Thakurani dio diksa (Krishna-mantra) a sus dos sirvientes, Nandini y Jangali. Los vaikuntha-svarupas de Nandini y Jangali son los bien conocidos guardianes Jaya y Vijaya (Gaura-ganoddeSa-dipika 89). El discipulado de Sitadevi, junto con otros hechos interesantes, se corrobora en la conocida y respetada compilación llamada Gaudiya-vaisnava abhidhana y en el Sita-caritra de Lokanatha Dasa.

Jahnava Thakurani – La esposa de Nityananda Prabhu. Jahnava Thakurani se convirtió en una de los más grandes líderes de nuestra tradición en la segunda sucesión de maestros. Virabhadra y Ramachandra, los hijos (biológicos y adoptados respectivamente) de Nityananda Prabhu, fueron dos de los más famosos entre sus discípulos iniciados. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura escribe en su Anubhasya: “Virabhadra Gosani era el hijo directo de Srila Nityananda Prabhu y un “El discípulo de Jahnava Devi” (Caitanya-caritamrta Adi-lila 11.8, significado)

La esposa de Yadunandana Acharya, Laksmi, era una mujer muy humilde y sumisa. Tenía dos hermosas hijas llamadas Srimati y Narayani. Por disposición de Sri Isvari (Jahnava Devi), estas dos muchachas se convirtieron en las afortunadas esposas de Virachandra Prabhu. El día de la boda, Yadunandana recibió la iniciación de Virachandra, y Sri Jahnava aceptó felizmente a Srimati y Narayani como sus discípulas”. (Bhakti-ratnakara, cap. 13) También está confirmada como diksa-guru tanto en el Gaudiya-vaisnava abhidhana (págs. 1246-47) como en el Prema-vilasa de Nityananda Dasa (vilasas 15 y 20).

Hemalata Thakurani: la hija mayor de Srinivasa Acharya,  contemporánea de Jahnava, fue una de las líderes prominentes de la tradición en su época. Entre sus discípulos, Yadunandana, el autor del  Karnananda, es particularmente conocido (ver Karnananda capítulos 2 y 3] y la introducción [pág. 12]  citado en el Krsna-karnamrta por Sambidananda Das Ph.D. Ella también tuvo un discípulo descarriado llamado Rupa Kaviraja.  En el Gaudiya-vaisnava abhidhana 1422, se describen los discípulos de Sri Hemalata, tales como  Sri Suvala Chandra Thakura y su sobrino Sri Gokula Chakravarti, Sri Radhavallava Thakura de la aldea de Mandala, Sri Vallava dasa de la familia Gosvami y Yadunandana Vaidya dasa de la aldea de Malihati.  También Kanurama Chakravarti y sus dos sirvientes Darpanayana y Candi, Ramacarana, Madhu Miswas y Radha Kanta Vaidya, Jagadisa Kaviraja y su seguidor, que era hermano de Radhavallabh Kaviraja, fueron iniciados por Hemalata”. (Karnananda, capítulo 2, último párrafo)

 

Un día mi maestro espiritual, Sri Hemalata, me reveló las glorias de Ramachandra”. "Describiré otro episodio que escuché de mi gurú, Sri Isvari Hemalata". (Karnananda, capítulo 3)

 

Gauranga-priya Devi: la segunda esposa y discípula de Srinivasa Acharya (Gaudiya-vaisnava abhidhana 1224). Ella era de una familia brahmana Cakravarti, siendo su padre Raghunatha Cakravarti, un residente de  Gopalapura. Ella inició a varios discípulos, uno de ellos fue Gurucarana Dasa, quien escribió un libro a instancias suyas llamado Premamrta, que se basa en el Prema-vilasa (Gaudiya-vaisnava abhidhana, p. 1203).

 

La primera esposa de Srinivasa Acarya, Srimati Isvari Thakurani, era una dama muy devota. Gauranga-priya, su segunda esposa, también poseía elevadas cualidades devocionales. Con el tiempo, muchas personas se volvieron discípulos de Srinivasa Acarya y sus esposas. (Karnananda, cap. 2)

Gangamata Gosvamini, fue discípula de Haridasa Pandita Gosvami, el sirviente de Govindaji mencionado en el Sri Caitanya-caritamrta. Otros, como el rey Mukundadeva de Jagannatha Puri y varios sirvientes del Señor Jagannatha, recibieron diksa de ella. También era una oradora elocuente y explicó El Srimad-Bhāgavatam a grandes audiencias. El caso de Gangamata Gosvamini es una confirmación más de que una mujer puede ser un guru. Al menos hasta ese punto, la línea era fidedigna porque su guru está confirmado por Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami en el Caitanya-caritamrta (Adi 60). Su aceptación de discípulos está confirmada en el  Gaudiya-vaisnava abhidhana (p. 1197-98) y  el actual mahanta o Abad, Balarama Das Gosvami, del  Monasterio Gangamata Gosvamini Matha en Puri. ¿Debemos seguir esos ejemplos? En el Bhagavad-gita , el Señor Krishna dice

 

yad yad acarati sresthas

tat tad evetaro janah

sa yat pramanam kurute

lokas tad anuvartate.

 

La gente común siguen los pasos de una gran personalidad , sea cual fuere la acción que éste ejecute. Y cualesquiera que sean las pautas que esta establezca mediante actos ejemplares, el mundo entero las sigue. (Bg. 3.21)

 

El Señor Krishna dio esto como una razón por la que Él mismo siguió las leyes de la Religión, porque si no lo hacía, otros seguirían Su ejemplo. De esta manera, uno podría decir que el Señor Krishna actuó como un Acharya, alguien que enseña con Su propio ejemplo. Pero en algunos casos, no es correcto que una persona común siga el ejemplo del Señor Supremo, como en Su danza con las gopis. Lo mismo es cierto de los grandes vaisnavas: a veces su comportamiento está destinado a ser seguido por personas comunes, y a veces no. Entonces, ¿cómo sabemos qué acciones del Señor Supremo y de los grandes devotos debemos seguir y cuáles no?

Por ejemplo, en los pocos casos bien documentados que se han ofrecido anteriormente sobre gurus femeninas en el vaisnavismo gaudiya, hemos presentado personalidades como Jahnava Devi, la esposa del Señor Nityananda. ¿Su conversión en guru es un caso que se debe seguir como ejemplo, o un caso que no debemos imitar? Una guía es la advertencia general de las Escrituras de seguir las instrucciones del Señor y de los grandes devotos en lugar de imitar sus actividades. Eso debería hacernos cautelosos. Otra guía son las indicaciones de los sadhus y los gurus. Por ejemplo, un profesor le preguntó a Srila Prabhupada si las mujeres podían convertirse en gurus en nuestro movimiento. Srila Prabhupada respondió que sí, y puso a Jahnava Devi como ejemplo. Debido a que nuestro Fundador-Acharya indicó claramente que el comportamiento de Jahnava Devi podría ser una guía para nosotros en la cuestión de que las mujeres devotos santas pueden convertirse en gurus en ISKCON, no está mal que sigamos esa indicación.

 Claro, hay otros resistentes que invocan lo “Inasequible” al letaniar  “que esas devotas gurus fueron almas eternas asociadas de Krishna, por ello sólo ellas pueden fungir como gurus”,  lo que no es más que una falacia de evasión y de falsa asociación, pues lo mismo se diría de los asociados hombres de Sri Chaitanya, como los Goswamis de Vrindavana y otros, que fueron gurus y Acharyas, pero eran eternos asociados del Señor; por lo tanto ningún alma de ahora en cuerpo de  hombre podría ser guru. Lo cual es absurdo.