False Renunciation Creates Sexual Predators? (PADA)

PADA: Simply stated, many people knew Kirtanananda swami had material propensities. And, he did. So they should have helped us block him from being a guru. Mundane sex attraction is not pure spiritual and Godly consciousness. All of them had problems, as I already pointed out with Jayatirtha example. We need to evolve to honesty, for starters. Ys pd

TD: So if Kirtanananda was hetrosexual that would have been okay?? You're making being gay a disqualification for guruship... whereas heteros, no problem? That's how it comes off ... so you might want to have a peek at that... and you're off about Jayatirtha.... your facts are wrong... but that's par for the course!!

PADA: OK except -- I was there with Jayatirtha in Los Angeles, and later I went to UK and was with him again, when he became guru. I am an eye witness. You have not told me what are the "real facts" about Jayatirtha, so I have no idea what your complaint actually is. 

I am also quoting what others said about Kirtanananda, proving they knew he had material contaminations in 1971, and was therefore not qualified to be full fledged guru a few years later. And you want to re-write history there as well. Nor was Jayatirtha qualified etc. Sorry, Madhvacarya says we have to understand history accurately, or we will remain confused. 

You do not know me or anything about me, nor did you inquire. If you know the history better than me, tell us what it is, and just explain it all, so we will not remain in illusion of "the real story" known only by yourself. I am interested to know "the real story," go ahead and spill it! ys pd

HD: Thank you for your very interesting discussion. May I contribute my own two cents? According to Gaudiya-Vaishnava theology as I understand it, there is no harm in being a guru with homosexual orientation; as long as the guru strictly follows the process of Vaidhi Bhakti. That means: controlling the senses. Kirtanananda did not do this. 

Therefore he was a hypocrite and unfit to be guru, at least in the Gaudiya-Vaishnava tradition. Yes, a householder can also be guru, but he should also control his senses, and have sex only according to religious principles. Of course, today, the majority of people, at least in the USA, think there is nothing inherently wrong with the gay orientation and activities. That is, however, opposed to Gaudiya-Vaishnava theology. No?

PADA: Yes, that is partially true. However, a person who is a layman follower is not qualified to absorb sins and act in the capacity of a diksha guru. A diksha guru have to absorb the sins of the followers, which is why the Christians know Jesus takes their sins, not the layman or the more advanced priest, neither is qualified to act in the higher capacity of "ksha" -- absorbing sins. Rather Srila Prabhupada told us if we tried to act as diksha gurus and absorb sins, we would get sick, fall down, or both, of course many of them died prematurely. 

A person who follows is called a layman, at best a priest, he cannot take another soul back to vaikuntha with him, because he is not there yet himself, and he may not get there anytime soon. The strictly following person will therefore not claim to be taking other's sins, he knows that is forbidden for the lay person to claim. Jayatirtha was surrounded by a huge dark cloud, which I felt personally when he passed me on a narrow stair, he was taking sins and they were sticking to his subtle body. And the person who killed him said he saw a giant demon around him, I would not have reason to doubt that. ys pd

TD: I don't ever recall reading anything about gayness in sastra. If you mean that laypeople can't have sex, or only gay people can't have sex, i think that is quite mistaken as well. Sex within marriage is pretty standard def about what is licit sex. This whole thing about only for the purpose of procreation is coming from the celibate order that is quite exclusivist. You can be a devotee and have sex. It just has to not disturb your bhajan, and there are prescriptions for that.

If you're saying that householders can't be guru, then that is certainly not part of the tradition. There have and will be many householder gurus. Bhaktivinoda's diksha guru was householder as was Bhaktivinoda.

Jayatirtha was murdered by a deranged disciple.. It is a lesson in where fanaticism leads. Many gurus have fanatical disciples and many let them act out their fanaticism is dysfunctional ways. Francis, who did the deed, used to tell everyone that Tirthapada was God. That sort of thing. When he turned, he turned hard!

PADA: Bhaktivinode Thakura is a householder. I never said he is not a guru? As for Jayatirtha, he was never a guru, he had no ability to take the karma of disciples. Ever. Srila Prabhupada said we neophytes cannot take the post of diksha guru and absorb other's sins, and if we do artificially -- we will get sick, fall down or both, and many of them died prematurely. 

Jayatirtha ALREADY had an existing tendency to have sex with other's wives, and get death threats as a result, we knew that, he knew that, so he was never a guru. This was all an artificial personality cult situation. Someone already wanted to kill him for having sex with his wife in Los Angeles, and then he went on doing the same thing after 1978, and that is what happened, he knew that could get him killed, and he tempted fate, and lost. That means he is a bewildered conditioned soul person, not a guru. ys pd

TD: PADA, you are sticking to your story even in the face of new evidence... i was part of the cult, so i know how it went down...

And your definition of guru is sorely lacking in substance... A guru is someone who doesn't have sex with other's wives? Really. I think that to be a neophyte guru you really ought to know most of the Gaudiya doctrine. There are kanishta gurus. Prabhupada admits as much in Upadeshamrita.

We all heard that extreme version of illicit sex... only for procreation....

PADA: People who want to engage in illicit sex life, whatever type it is -- could be argued about degrees of entanglement perhaps, but they are not yet eligible to be counted as pure devotees of God. They may be some level of devotee, but it is not yet pure. People who are attached to illicit sex are conditioned souls, even the Church knows that, so they make celibacy the ideal for their monks and nuns. It is a common standard in all main line religions. ys pd

TD: And has caused unlimited misery... and a lot of pedophilia as well... just get a bunch of young men and tell them not to have sex... you'll get the same result no matter where you go.

PADA: Well maybe, but all of the acharyas taught renounced people need to be strict and Lord Chaitanya was very strict on that too. Bottom line is to be honest. If one needs to have certain material enjoyments, do not pretend to be renounced and cheat the public. 

All sorts of sannyasa scandals happened in the 1936 Gaudiya Maths, and still happen every day in India. And according to some reports to us, are happening in certain Gaudiya camps right now ... as we speak. And in one case, a secreted out photo shows the Gaudiya Matha swami with what appears to be a naked small girl on his lap. So that is not the fault of the higher standard, it is the fault of people pretending they are on the high standard ... When they aren’t. Ys pd

 TD: Have you heard the one about the brahmin and the prostitute... every day when he saw a new customer enter her door, he piled another brick up... and one day the wall was so high that it fell on him and killed the poor brahmin!

PADA: Illicit sex is also the cause of so many divorces, never mind rampant stds, abortions, and every day there are love triangle murders, kidnapped sex slaves, people going missing and never found, child abductions, rapes ending in murders, etc. even in the ordinary world of mundane people. It is a cause of trouble even among regular people, never mind those aspiring to be spiritual. That is why it is called an anartha, or unwanted desire. This is a problem everywhere, not just in the Gaudiya world. Ys pd

TD: It is not one you can give up like that ... FALSE RENUNCIATION leads to all the nasty parts of illicit sex ... pornography, pedophilia... etc.. so by demonizing sex, you contribute to the very things you hate!

PADA: Illicit sex has been condemned for millions of years, way before I got here. Ravana was kidnapping women and so on, millions of years ago. Women were being kidnapped even at the time of Krishna. 

Sages and saints in the Vedas have had all sorts of problems with illicit sex, and there are many, many well recorded incidents. I am not sure how you can simply say none of this ever happens, to even saints and sages -- and since time immemorial? And! All recorded in the VEDAS thousands of years ago. 

Lord Indra had problems with it, so have other demigods, and all going on since hundreds of thousands of years ago. I did not start the discussion on this illicit sex process, it has been going on basically forever. And illicit sex causes problems all over the mundane society NOW, including many DAILY cases of rapes, child abductions, abortions, murders in love triangles, ad infinitum all of which happen EVERY single day -- day in and day out. 

You need to watch a few daytime soap operas if you think this is only a problem in religious institutions. To say that all this problem is authorized by Krishna, is a little bit like adding to the problem? No, Krishna does not authorize these processes. 

False renunciation is not good too, ok agreed, but this problem is going on everywhere and all over the place already. I am not demonizing anything, illicit sex can lead to all sorts of troubles, just look at the daily news anywhere in the world. If I say, lets open the floodgates on this anartha, well, hee hee, it is already opened and for centuries of time. 

"Porn hub" site says most of their viewers are in places like the USA Bible belt, India, Muslim lands and other places where they claim to be religious. So it is not something that only happens in one particular religion, it happens all over. 

I am being realistic, illicit sex is not helpful in many examples, and that is simply common sense known to anyone who reads the Vedas, or reads the newspapers, or watches soap operas etc. It is something to beware of, and not being aware of the problem -- is to the peril of the non-aware. No bona fide religion on earth encourages illicit sex -- and -- for good reasons. 

Falsely renounced people may turn to pedophilia, rapes and so forth. Perhaps, I am not aware of any statistics on that. But pedophiles and sexual aggressors are also very smart people, and they sometimes infiltrate the religion to exploit the situation. False renunciation in itself might cause pedophilia, maybe, but I would say the larger problem is that sexual predators enter religions knowing they can get their hooks onto vulnerable people.

I believe that is what happens in the Church, in ISKCON, and in similar situations, for the most part. 

ys pd]