What I Meant to Say Was…
BY: JANMASTAMI DAS
Feb 07, WEST VIRGINIA, USA (SUN) — After Hridayananda Goswami's initial endorsement of gay couples "doing their thing", we get a secondary explanation which makes his position easier to defend. Then we get his defense, being defended further by a third party, one of the league of ISKCON apologists who may make things less volatile by excusing what has been said. The old "water down the leader's words" solution to philosophical chaos. "I thought he meant" is less than "pariprashena" (inquire from him submissively), and certainly no one can hold the "infallible acarya" wrong for an explanation that a henchman or a henchman's supporter has given. Hence, we have the likes of this pro-gay piece by Hridayananda, being defended by an ISKCON unauthorized spokesperson, the ubiquitous Sita-pati das.
Sita-pati dasa, AU : ISKCON and Gays Part 3 - H.H. Hrdayananda Goswami* writes
The following letter was published on facebook as a note by "Hrdayananda DasGoswami". That facebook user has recently been created and as yet it is unverified that it is *the* Hrdayananda Goswami irl (irl= in real life).
A recent article on Chakra.org reported that H.H. Hrdayananda Goswami blessed a gay male couple who then performed a marriage ceremony of some description.
That report prompted a number of responses, most notably Krishna-kirti's published on Sampradaya Sun.
The following letter is interesting, and if it's not from Maharaja it's a good
"fake Hrdayananda".
Hridayananda Goswami's Apology
by sitapati at February 06, 2009 11:17 AM
The first thing to do is to cast aspersions as to the legitimacy of the publication. "This might not even be the REAL Hridayananda GOSWAMI". Wasn't he killed in Tora Bora with the real Bin Laden?
If we assume this is his thoughts on these matters, verifiable enough with a Pamho email, taking those statements that Hridayananda has made himself, we can find ample deviation from anything Srila Prabhupada has ever voiced on the subject, but then He was presenting things "as it is", and not "as it might be" if it would draw us larger numbers of followers.
Consider the gratuitous Gita quote, the purport of which hardly supports the use of this verse for this position:
"PURPORT
One should not speak in such a way as to agitate the minds of others. Of course, when a teacher speaks, he can speak the truth for the instruction of his students, but such a teacher should not speak to those who are not his students if he will agitate their minds. This is penance as far as talking is concerned. Besides that, one should not talk nonsense. The process of speaking in spiritual circles is to say something upheld by the scriptures. One should at once quote from scriptural authority to back up what he is saying. At the same time, such talk should be very pleasurable to the ear. By such discussions, one may derive the highest benefit and elevate human society. There is a limitless stock of Vedic literature, and one should study this. This is called penance of speech."
We are left to understand that "such talk should be very pleasurable to the ear", even at the expense of compromising the truth. Clearly, this is not the message of the purport. Some feel that the speaker of this piece on homosexuality (and all those apologetic explainers who support this philosophy) has deviated from the philosophy of KRSNA consciousness, changed the devotees' direction, and now would like to be able to explain away what has been said.
What follows after that is a variety of verbal juggling that puts the speaker safely on both sides of an issue that he first approached. No way of getting your thoughts together on some subject, better than speaking some unthought speculation into mass media and then trying to subdue the firestorm of indignant responses to the verbal flatulence that one has put forth. Kirtanananda was an expert at juggling his way back out of some verbal disaster created by his own inconsistencies. The contention that "science has proven...the genetically, unavoidably homosexual nature of an individual, as well as the natural right of society as a whole to privilege heterosexuality as its social norm", will have to remain "one individual's absurd mental speculation" unless and until more substantial proof is offered of the "genetic" predisposition to our own willful acts. The equation of homosexual lifestyle choices as if it were similar in nature to cancer or diabetes is absurd when proposed by the mundane scientists, and even more outrageous when it is purported to be "the Truth" by someone who is forced to use materialistic scientists ranting to try to prove their case before the devotee community.
There is no scripture to support these speculations, but volumes of scientific research data from sex therapists. Seems some folks will just never learn. The apologetic tone of his letter gives testament to the sensitivity of this issue to the devotee community. Now, in this attempt to put one foot on each side of the fence, each of the parties isolated by the divisive mentality included in this thesis must be placated. The dilemma of such an appeasement is that neither side is truly satisfied by the ever-changing rhetoric on the subject, and both groups feel that they are not properly expressed. And why should they be, since there are several apologies contained in the one letter?
And then this:
"I cannot see such souls, as some apparently do, as disgusting freaks, willfully and obscenely offending God and nature by their genetic makeup. I am well aware of Srila Prabhupada's statements on this matter and I am confident that a mature, thorough knowledge of Prabhupada's preaching content and style makes possible a more moderate interpretation of those statements. I feel that I am well prepared to logically defend this view though I will not belabor it here."
We can only assume that sometime soon, in some other forum, the "HDG" will take the time to better explain things to those of us left thoroughly confused by what the Maharaj has spoken so far.
