[PADA: Tripurari Swami's ex-servant told PADA -- he had asked Tripurari -- why he has so many gay disciples? And the servant said -- he was then told by Tripurari "If I do not have a lot of gay disciples, I will not have hardly any disciples." And Tripurari's mentor Sridhara Maharaja created a bi-sexual guru deviation in 1936. Notice also, that the "sympathy for the homosexual agenda" that is being expressed herein by Tripurari is almost identical to the same program of Hrdayananda's and Bir Krishna's "Krishna West."]
http://harmonist.us/2014/05/homosexuality-and-scripture/
TRIPURARI SWAMI: "Therefore, my conviction is that monogamous homosexual relationships are as viable a position from which to cultivate spiritual life as are monogamous heterosexual relationships, and I believe that despite what my guru said decades ago, he would hold the same opinion were he with us today.
[PADA: Srila Prabhupada would endorse gay relationships, and gay marriage, if he were here today? This is called mental speculation.]
TS: Since he was with us, a wealth of insight into the nature of homosexuality has come to light, so much that any devotee would do well to carefully consider it when forming his or her opinion on the subject. Times change and with new information new opinions form, and if they are spiritually reasonable, the task for devotees is to support them with scriptural logic -- sastra-yukti -- or the logic that supports the essential conclusions of revelation.
[PADA: OK so, for the past millions of years homosexuality was not authorized, but suddenly now it is authorized? Why? Because times have changed? Abortions are now authorized by the state as well, is that authorized by -- shastra yukti -- because times have changed?]
TS: The difference between you and Srila Prabhupada is very great. You may repeat what he said (kind of) but you have no ability to change when new information is presented; information that is much more readily available to you than it was to him.
[PADA: The difference between Srila Prabhupada and us is, we are authorized to change the things he said "when new information is available." And since this alleged "new information" is more readily available to us than it was to him, that makes us superior authorities than him. So now, we can make changes to his statements whenever we want to? And who are the people creating this "new information" -- the mundane academics? The liberal lobby? Whom?
Basically this is ALSO what some of the "modernized" Christians are also saying, -- abortion, homosexuality, and the general liberalized Western lifestyle are authorized because "times have changed." India has similar problems. Yep, same process as the "Krishna West" crowd, we need to "update" the religion -- and follow the opinions of modern academics, psychotherapists, mundane scholars and so forth.]
TS: What new information? That one born with a homosexual orientation has no choice in the matter, a fact that has come to light only in recent decades. Srila Prabhupada’s views on this subject were informed by the prevailing misinformation of his time.
[PADA: OK, but people are also born as criminals, meat eaters, butchers, drug dealers, atheists, and so on and so forth. The idea is, we need to change the conditioned status that we were born with. We are not supposed to surrender to the conditioned status we were born with, we are supposed to change ourselves in order to become more pure and realized. Prahlad Maharaja was born a the family of the demons, so he changed that status.
There is no "prevailing information at the time" which previously condemned homosexuality as a conditioned defect. Sorry homosexuality is a conditioned defect all the time -- in the past, now, and it will still be a defect in the future. The sincere Christians also believe that homosexuality is a conditioned defect, and they believed that in the past, now, and they will in the future. Of course smoking cigarettes is also a conditioned defect, that does not mean homosexuals and cigarette smokers are to be condemned per se, but it means we cannot institutionalize these deviations or they will take over the religion.]
TS: By our standards Srila Prabhupada was an even greater person (than Abraham Lincoln); not because he held some dated views on various social issues but because he was an empowered pure devotee who was able to free sincere souls from the bondage of material existence. This is what he should and ultimately will be remembered and appreciated for, not for the few dated statements he made about homosexuality.
[PADA: Srila Prabhupada's comments on homosexuality are "dated"? The modern progressive society is "correct"?]
TS: The verse says that when Lord Brahma created the demons they approached him for sex but were ultimately lured away by the twilight, which appeared to them as a beautiful young woman. The text goes on to elaborate on the alluring qualities of youthful women and how attraction to them clouds the mind of the unintelligent. In that section of the Bhagavatam, only one verse mentions the demons’ sexual attraction to a male, while the ten following verses elaborate on their sexual attraction to a female. Overall, the demons being discussed were obviously more sexually attracted to a woman than they were to a man (Brahma) which indicates that they were not “gay” as we understand the term today.
[PADA: Homosexuality is basically the same as heterosexuality? Oh no pilgrims! Nope, for starters, heterosexual relationships produce a child, and that helps the heterosexuals reduce their sex drive, since they know it produces a child. And moreover, having to deal with their child takes a lot of energy in itself, and gives people less time for thinking about sex.
After there are children, then a whole lot of focus is required to maintain the children, thus the enjoying / party mood is reduced. This is also why so many middle-aged men are trying to get Viagra, their sex desire has crashed -- in part because they already have had kids and so forth.
A middle-aged man we once knew was spending over $15,000 on "sex therapy" and Viagra type drugs to "recover his sex desire," because he could no longer have sex, he had become impotent. He had already produced children, so his sex desire had dwindled. That is the Vedic idea, have children -- and the sex desire will diminish. Then one can clear one's mind to think of God, that's the whole idea. Anyway, Tripurari is doing mental gyrations with the text. The text says, homosexuality is not found in a normal person's life. That is not only the Vedic idea, its the Christian's idea, Buddhist's idea, etc.]
TS: It is also worth mentioning that Prabhupada never backed up his stance on homosexuality with any references from scripture. Even in the purport cited, he does not say that the verse he is commenting on says that homosexuality is demoniac. Instead, using the word “appears,” which indicates a degree of uncertainty, he merely offers his own opinion.
[PADA: Srila Prabhupada's statements are not from scripture? Tripurari also started a huge attack on Srila Prabhupada's "jiva tattva" ideas, saying the same basic thing, there is no shastra to back up his statements, its all conjecture. Does Tripurari support his views on homosexuals from shastra? And if we accept that shastra is the speaking of a pure devotee, wouldn't these statements also be shastra?]
TS: Elsewhere when discussing the subject he also only cites reasoning that demonstrates that his opinion was based on misinformation.
[PADA: Srila Prabhupada's idea that homosexuality is an anartha is based on scriptures.]
TS: Srila Prabhupada has said that animals do not have homosexual relations. In this case Srila Prabhupada made an inaccurate statement in support of his position, one that he must have learned from someone else. If we are to take his words as absolute in all respects, as some devotees claim that we must, then we are forced to deny the proven fact that homosexuality is found in the animal species. If not, we must face the fact that the example given by Srila Prabhupada was mistaken.
[PADA: OK well we do not know if any animals engage in homosexuality or not, but for sure its not something we often see in the animal Kingdom, if at all. The idea is -- that animals are not homosexuals generally. We have seen various animals engaged in heterosexual acts, but not seen even one example of homosexual acts. The idea is, its not part of animal behavior as a general rule. Why is Tripurari on a mission to prove that Srila Prabhupada is wrong? Homosexuality is not found in nature as a rule, that means its God's "natural law" not to have this process going on normally. That is the idea.]
TS: In one discussion of the subject Srila Prabhupada even said, “One should take as it is enjoined in the sastras.” This is what I have done, and as I have already stated, Hindu texts are relatively silent on the issue, so it is very difficult to condemn homosexuality on the basis of sastra.
[PADA: Srila Prabhupada's statements are very clear, and the Christians are also very clear, they do not condone homosexual activity, its an anartha.]
TS: In conclusion, you have made it clear that you feel homosexual relationships established with a view to progress in spiritual life are not to be accepted in the same way that similar heterosexual relationships are. Your arguments on the subject are basically Bible-based religious fundamentalism, as you could not present any verses from Hindu scripture in support of them.
[PADA: Hee hee, right, even the Bible defeats Tripurari swami.]
TS: As for Srila Prabhupada, if it were possible I would welcome a discussion with him on this topic and I feel confidant that in light of present times and information available he would be willing to alter his position in agreement with mine. After all, in regards to his gay disciple Upendra he did exactly that: he sanctioned a committed homosexual relationship with a view to help his disciple progress in spiritual life.
[PADA: Where is this documented?]
TS: That is an oversimplification, Paul. The media is full of heterosexuality, so why not homosexuality? Personally I think it should not be full of either of these expressions. But if one wants to ban public homosexual expression but permit heterosexual public expression, it seems fair to say that one is homophobic, which is defined as an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people, who are simply people born with an attraction to the same sex that is equal to the attraction heterosexuals have toward one another.
And it is also found in other species. It is a naturally occurring exception to the norm. From the Gaudiya perspective it should be curbed or harnessed progressively so as to facilitate spiritual growth, just as heterosexuality should be. Although obviously a slightly different formula is required.
Unfortunately there has been decades of homophobia that led people to think many untruths about the homosexual attraction and as a result people with this attraction have been marginalised in many hurtful ways. Only because such people have spoken up in the last few decades has the public started to recognise the unfair treatment they have been subject to.
Celibacy of monastics properly understood is not erotophobia. It is a well informed choice to forego personal involvement in any form of sexuality. It is not an irrational aversion to sexuality or a condemnation of sexuality
[PADA: Well fine, but all we have to do is to look at ISKCON's history. Under Srila Prabhupada we had 90 percent householders in most temples. After the "gay MAFIA" took over in 1978, the temples are basically empty. The "gay agenda" program does not work. Do the math.
We need varnasrama based on householders, that is what Srila Prabhupada said in 1977. Right now, the problem is that the householders have been marginalized, that is why they are conspicuous by their absence. The marginalized group in ISKCON are the householder, and we were almost all driven out by the Tripurari / Sridhara / GBC / bogus guru's process, and their "gay friendly" agenda, plain and simple. The gay folks have not had a problem existing in ISKCON since 1978, almost everyone else has had problems being able to exist there, including women, children, householders and senior brahmanas etc. ys pd]
http://harmonist.us/2014/05/homosexuality-and-scripture/
TRIPURARI SWAMI: "Therefore, my conviction is that monogamous homosexual relationships are as viable a position from which to cultivate spiritual life as are monogamous heterosexual relationships, and I believe that despite what my guru said decades ago, he would hold the same opinion were he with us today.
[PADA: Srila Prabhupada would endorse gay relationships, and gay marriage, if he were here today? This is called mental speculation.]
TS: Since he was with us, a wealth of insight into the nature of homosexuality has come to light, so much that any devotee would do well to carefully consider it when forming his or her opinion on the subject. Times change and with new information new opinions form, and if they are spiritually reasonable, the task for devotees is to support them with scriptural logic -- sastra-yukti -- or the logic that supports the essential conclusions of revelation.
[PADA: OK so, for the past millions of years homosexuality was not authorized, but suddenly now it is authorized? Why? Because times have changed? Abortions are now authorized by the state as well, is that authorized by -- shastra yukti -- because times have changed?]
[PADA: The difference between Srila Prabhupada and us is, we are authorized to change the things he said "when new information is available." And since this alleged "new information" is more readily available to us than it was to him, that makes us superior authorities than him. So now, we can make changes to his statements whenever we want to? And who are the people creating this "new information" -- the mundane academics? The liberal lobby? Whom?
Basically this is ALSO what some of the "modernized" Christians are also saying, -- abortion, homosexuality, and the general liberalized Western lifestyle are authorized because "times have changed." India has similar problems. Yep, same process as the "Krishna West" crowd, we need to "update" the religion -- and follow the opinions of modern academics, psychotherapists, mundane scholars and so forth.]
TS: What new information? That one born with a homosexual orientation has no choice in the matter, a fact that has come to light only in recent decades. Srila Prabhupada’s views on this subject were informed by the prevailing misinformation of his time.
[PADA: OK, but people are also born as criminals, meat eaters, butchers, drug dealers, atheists, and so on and so forth. The idea is, we need to change the conditioned status that we were born with. We are not supposed to surrender to the conditioned status we were born with, we are supposed to change ourselves in order to become more pure and realized. Prahlad Maharaja was born a the family of the demons, so he changed that status.
There is no "prevailing information at the time" which previously condemned homosexuality as a conditioned defect. Sorry homosexuality is a conditioned defect all the time -- in the past, now, and it will still be a defect in the future. The sincere Christians also believe that homosexuality is a conditioned defect, and they believed that in the past, now, and they will in the future. Of course smoking cigarettes is also a conditioned defect, that does not mean homosexuals and cigarette smokers are to be condemned per se, but it means we cannot institutionalize these deviations or they will take over the religion.]
TS: By our standards Srila Prabhupada was an even greater person (than Abraham Lincoln); not because he held some dated views on various social issues but because he was an empowered pure devotee who was able to free sincere souls from the bondage of material existence. This is what he should and ultimately will be remembered and appreciated for, not for the few dated statements he made about homosexuality.
[PADA: Srila Prabhupada's comments on homosexuality are "dated"? The modern progressive society is "correct"?]
[PADA: Homosexuality is basically the same as heterosexuality? Oh no pilgrims! Nope, for starters, heterosexual relationships produce a child, and that helps the heterosexuals reduce their sex drive, since they know it produces a child. And moreover, having to deal with their child takes a lot of energy in itself, and gives people less time for thinking about sex.
After there are children, then a whole lot of focus is required to maintain the children, thus the enjoying / party mood is reduced. This is also why so many middle-aged men are trying to get Viagra, their sex desire has crashed -- in part because they already have had kids and so forth.
A middle-aged man we once knew was spending over $15,000 on "sex therapy" and Viagra type drugs to "recover his sex desire," because he could no longer have sex, he had become impotent. He had already produced children, so his sex desire had dwindled. That is the Vedic idea, have children -- and the sex desire will diminish. Then one can clear one's mind to think of God, that's the whole idea. Anyway, Tripurari is doing mental gyrations with the text. The text says, homosexuality is not found in a normal person's life. That is not only the Vedic idea, its the Christian's idea, Buddhist's idea, etc.]
TS: It is also worth mentioning that Prabhupada never backed up his stance on homosexuality with any references from scripture. Even in the purport cited, he does not say that the verse he is commenting on says that homosexuality is demoniac. Instead, using the word “appears,” which indicates a degree of uncertainty, he merely offers his own opinion.
[PADA: Srila Prabhupada's statements are not from scripture? Tripurari also started a huge attack on Srila Prabhupada's "jiva tattva" ideas, saying the same basic thing, there is no shastra to back up his statements, its all conjecture. Does Tripurari support his views on homosexuals from shastra? And if we accept that shastra is the speaking of a pure devotee, wouldn't these statements also be shastra?]
TS: Elsewhere when discussing the subject he also only cites reasoning that demonstrates that his opinion was based on misinformation.
[PADA: Srila Prabhupada's idea that homosexuality is an anartha is based on scriptures.]
TS: Srila Prabhupada has said that animals do not have homosexual relations. In this case Srila Prabhupada made an inaccurate statement in support of his position, one that he must have learned from someone else. If we are to take his words as absolute in all respects, as some devotees claim that we must, then we are forced to deny the proven fact that homosexuality is found in the animal species. If not, we must face the fact that the example given by Srila Prabhupada was mistaken.
[PADA: OK well we do not know if any animals engage in homosexuality or not, but for sure its not something we often see in the animal Kingdom, if at all. The idea is -- that animals are not homosexuals generally. We have seen various animals engaged in heterosexual acts, but not seen even one example of homosexual acts. The idea is, its not part of animal behavior as a general rule. Why is Tripurari on a mission to prove that Srila Prabhupada is wrong? Homosexuality is not found in nature as a rule, that means its God's "natural law" not to have this process going on normally. That is the idea.]
TS: In one discussion of the subject Srila Prabhupada even said, “One should take as it is enjoined in the sastras.” This is what I have done, and as I have already stated, Hindu texts are relatively silent on the issue, so it is very difficult to condemn homosexuality on the basis of sastra.
[PADA: Srila Prabhupada's statements are very clear, and the Christians are also very clear, they do not condone homosexual activity, its an anartha.]
TS: In conclusion, you have made it clear that you feel homosexual relationships established with a view to progress in spiritual life are not to be accepted in the same way that similar heterosexual relationships are. Your arguments on the subject are basically Bible-based religious fundamentalism, as you could not present any verses from Hindu scripture in support of them.
[PADA: Hee hee, right, even the Bible defeats Tripurari swami.]
TS: As for Srila Prabhupada, if it were possible I would welcome a discussion with him on this topic and I feel confidant that in light of present times and information available he would be willing to alter his position in agreement with mine. After all, in regards to his gay disciple Upendra he did exactly that: he sanctioned a committed homosexual relationship with a view to help his disciple progress in spiritual life.
[PADA: Where is this documented?]
TS: That is an oversimplification, Paul. The media is full of heterosexuality, so why not homosexuality? Personally I think it should not be full of either of these expressions. But if one wants to ban public homosexual expression but permit heterosexual public expression, it seems fair to say that one is homophobic, which is defined as an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people, who are simply people born with an attraction to the same sex that is equal to the attraction heterosexuals have toward one another.
And it is also found in other species. It is a naturally occurring exception to the norm. From the Gaudiya perspective it should be curbed or harnessed progressively so as to facilitate spiritual growth, just as heterosexuality should be. Although obviously a slightly different formula is required.
Unfortunately there has been decades of homophobia that led people to think many untruths about the homosexual attraction and as a result people with this attraction have been marginalised in many hurtful ways. Only because such people have spoken up in the last few decades has the public started to recognise the unfair treatment they have been subject to.
Celibacy of monastics properly understood is not erotophobia. It is a well informed choice to forego personal involvement in any form of sexuality. It is not an irrational aversion to sexuality or a condemnation of sexuality
[PADA: Well fine, but all we have to do is to look at ISKCON's history. Under Srila Prabhupada we had 90 percent householders in most temples. After the "gay MAFIA" took over in 1978, the temples are basically empty. The "gay agenda" program does not work. Do the math.
We need varnasrama based on householders, that is what Srila Prabhupada said in 1977. Right now, the problem is that the householders have been marginalized, that is why they are conspicuous by their absence. The marginalized group in ISKCON are the householder, and we were almost all driven out by the Tripurari / Sridhara / GBC / bogus guru's process, and their "gay friendly" agenda, plain and simple. The gay folks have not had a problem existing in ISKCON since 1978, almost everyone else has had problems being able to exist there, including women, children, householders and senior brahmanas etc. ys pd]
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.