Never "Break" a Devotee
BY: HH HRIDAYANANDA DAS GOSWAMI
Apr 07, CALIFORNIA, USA (SUN) — Hridayananda das Goswami's response and a brief compendium of recent postings on this thread of discussion.
Since Basu Ghosh as included many forums in this discussion, I will add a few points here for those who may be new to our dialogue.
Prabhupada once personally taught me that we should never "break" a devotee, that is never push a devotee to the breaking point. Thus there is a clear, unmistakeable pattern in Srila Prabhupada's preaching: Prabhupada made very heavy statements on various topics, and then in practice he would be more moderate. Examples:
1. Prabhupada spoke strongly against divorce, but in practice authorized
divorce and marriage, when required for Krishna consciousness.
2. Prabhupada spoke very strongly against modern politicians, but often when
he met them, he spoke in a respectful, diplomatic way, encouraging them to
consider and enact Krishna consciousness.
3. Prabhupada often claimed that women were less intelligent, but when faced
with discouraged female disciples, Prabhupada stated that devotee women were
"most intelligent."
4. Prabhupada wrote and spoke harshly of modern priests, but in talks with
priests, he was often respectful and encouraging, though he made strong
points.
5. Prabhupada regularly blasted "so-called scientists and scholars", yet in
practice he often spoke very respectfully to them, and was anxious to have
their endorsement for his books.
6. There is evidence from a very conservative ISKCON preacher that when faced with a homosexual disciple who could not renounce his habit, Prabhupada simply encouraged him to chant Hare Krishna and gradually advance
within that lifestyle.
There is a very high suicide rate among young homosexuals, traced to the heavy pressure they receive to "give it up." If faced with this fact, I am quite sure that Prabhupada would not drive young devotees to suicide. At the same time, I feel that Prabhupada's stance of not publicly supporting homosexuality reflects the Bhagavatam's extreme discretion on this issue. I am now molding my own activities to that standard.
With best wishes,
Hridayananda das Goswami
In response to yesterday's article on the topic by Basu Ghosh das (ACBSP):
Dear Basu Ghosh Prabhu,
Jaya Srila Prabhupada. You state:
> Here is where I am confused.
> You clearly state that you are opposed to gay marriage, and the sin of
> homosexuality.
> And yet, here are the statements you've made that clearly suggest otherwise
I originally made a statement, which you quote, in which I advocated some
type of recognition for gay monogamy, but not necessarily marriage. After
that I researched the topic in shastra and concluded, more moderately, that
the public institution of marriage should be reserved for heterosexual
couples. I made clear on various forums, including Cakra, that this was my
conclusion. There is some evidence that Prabhupada himself, despite his
strong statements against homosexuality, encouraged one of his disciples to
simply do the best he could and go on chanting Hare Krishna, even if he
could not totally renounce homosexuality.
All of this is available in the public domain, and I'm believe that you have
already seen it yourself. Regarding my hermeneutical arguments, since you
have seen them many times, there is no need for me to repeat them here.
With best wishes,
Your servant,
Hridayananda das Goswami
A reply to Hridayananda das Goswami from Krishna Kirti das:
Hridayanda Maharaja wrote:
> Prabhupada once personally taught me that we should never "break" a
> devotee,
> that is never push a devotee to the breaking point. Thus there is a clear,
> unmistakeable pattern in Srila Prabhupada's preaching: Prabhupada made
> very
> heavy statements on various topics, and then in practice he would be more
> moderate. Examples:
>
> 1. Prabhupada spoke strongly against divorce, but in practice authorized
> divorce and marriage, when required for Krishna consciousness.
> 2. Prabhupada spoke very strongly against modern politicians, but often
> when
> he met them, he soke in a respectful, diplomatic way, encouraging them to
> consider and enact Krishna consciousness.
> 3. Prabhupada often claimed that women were less intelligent, but when
> faced
> with discouraged female disciples, Prabhupada stated that devotee women
> were
> "most intelligent."
> 4. Prabhupada wrote and spoke harshly of modern priests, but in talks with
> priests, he was often respectful and encouraging, though he made strong
> points.
> 5. Prabhupada regularly blasted "so-called scientists and scholars", yet
> in
> practice he often spoke very respectfully to them, and was anxious to have
> their endorsement for his books.
In a number of academic fields, the terms "normative" and "positive" are
used to distinguish between what we "should" be doing and what we need to be
doing at any particular point in time. For example, discussions concerning
"normative economics" is about what kind of financial system we "should"
have, and "positive economics" is about what we need to do in any given
circumstance. Basically, the difference between "normative" and "positive"
is one between "should" and "is", the situation we want to have, and the
situation we have to deal with. Or, as Hridayananda himself has said, it's
the difference between the "ideal" and the "real".
In the context of homosexuality, and the problem of how to purify devotees
who happen to be homosexual, what Maharaja has been proposing with gay
monogamy is a "positive" approach to dealing with it. Normative values are
still true, but what do we do in the present to deal with it?
The problem with such a positive approach is that it can never be cleanly
separated from the normative approach. That is not only true for every field
of humanistic science, but it is especially true where are concerns involve
theism. The normative approach determines our positive approach; what we
believe to be the nature of the problem determines our practical, or
positive approach to the problem.
Spiritual purification is something that significantly cannot be evaluated
by empirical methods. Let's take for example chanting Hare Krishna. Some one
might chant it for a long time and be engaged in all sorts of abominable
activities, yet chanting nevertheless has an imperceptible purificatory
effect that is only evident after many years, or perhaps many lifetimes.
(And how would we measure purification over many lifetimes?) We have no
choice but to take it on the authority of the shastras that it is indeed
purifying. And then there is Krishna's own role in purification. As He is
known as Mukunda, the giver of liberation, purification is finally a matter
of when Krishna grants us the purity to approach him. In other words,
purification itself is a non-deterministic proposition and therefore
necessarily frustrates attempts to empirically study it.
Thus, all the contrasts Maharaja makes above are not so black and white as
regards to what we should do. Just because SP was respectful to scientists
does not mean he capitualted to them. The basic approach SP advocated in
dealing with scientists was still one of confrontation, not accommodation.
In the same way, with homosexuality, SP's basic approach was premised on the
a priori notion that homosexual sex (homosex) could not help anyone in any
way. Hence, SP is on record as saying that to one of his disciples and
recommending to the same disciple that he engage in devotional service.
Maharaja, however, has a different *a priori* notion, that homosexuality can
help some people. Because SP and Hridayanda Maharaja have very different
approaches to moral, ethical, and spiritual authority and reasoning, we
should be very concerned about the new kind of thinking that Maharaja is
proposing. If adopted, it will be used widely beyond the issue of
homosexuality.
> 5. There is evidence from a very conservative ISKCON preacher that when
> faced with a homosexual disciple who could not renounce his habit,
> Prabhupada simply encouraged him to chant Hare Krishna and gradually
> advance
> within that lifestyle.
But the recorded evidence does not at all agree with this. If we want to
privilege annecdotal evidence over the harder, recorded evidence, then that
shows we are willing to tailor the evidence to suit our fancy.
> There is a very high suicide rate among young homosexuals, traced to
> the
> heavy pressure they receive to "give it up." If faced with this fact, I am
> quite sure that Prabhupada would not drive young devotees to suicide.
Correlation does not prove causation. Homosexuals are predominated by the
mode of ignorance, and suicide is associated with people predominated by
that mode, not simply homosexuals.
> At the same time, I feel that Prabhupada's stance of not publicly
> supporting homosexuality reflects the Bhagavatam's extreme discretion on
> this issue.
The problem with Maharaja's own stance is that his recommendation is also
normative. For example, in a public statement he has said:
>>> My view of this issue is as follows:
>>> 1. As a general rule, we should appreciate devotees in terms of the
>>> sincerity and diligence of their spiritual attempts, given the
>>> psycho-physical circumstances of their life. In other words, in any
>>> condition of life, if a devotee sincerely strives to please Krishna,
>>> that devotee is to be admired.
>>> 2. It is the duty of any society to recognize, and thus encourage,
>>> the admirable behavior of its members. Monogamy, among devotees of
>>> any orientation, is an admirable achievement in the context of
>>> today's promiscuous society, and should be thus appreciated and
>>> encouraged.
>>> 3. Given the need to balance strict varnasrama with liberal
>>> spirituality, I believe that ISKCON should recognize and encourage
>>> monogamy among all its members of whatever orientation, and that
>>> such recognition and encouragement should take appropriate forms
>>> that achieve both purposes: the maintenance of varnasrama and the
>>> encouraging of spiritual sincerity.
>>> 4. 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.
This statement for the most part is normative, and it is normative because a
normative view is absolutely required to justify his positive recommendation
for gay monogamy. Note the frequent use of the word "should" and other words
like "general rule", "duty" and "best interest". These are some of the
markers that point to the overall normative character of the above
statement. Also, to illustrate why the normative is fundamental to the
positive, take for example this statement: "It is the duty of any society to
recognize, and thus encourage, the admirable behavior of its members."
Because it is a duty to recognize admirable behavior, that necessarily means
we must encourage it. The positive rests on the normative.
And because the positive rests on the normative, it is not possible to
separate the means for achieving the normative from the ends specified by
the normative. Because Hridayananda Maharaja comes to a conclusion about
what to do that is incompatible with what SP himself recommended, his
normative views are also very likely incompatible with SP's own normative
views. Indeed, Maharaja has significant normative differences with SP on a
number of fundamental issues--homosexuality being but one of them.
Yours in the service of Srila Prabhupada.
Krishna Kirti Das
> I am now molding my own activities to that standard.
> With best wishes,
> Hridayananda das Goswami
A further reply by Krishna Kirti das:
Hridayanda Maharaja wrote:
> I originally made a statement, which you quote, in which I advocated some
> type of recognition for gay monogamy, but not necessarily marriage.
So, what do you see as the essential differences between "gay monogamy" and "gay marriage"?
> After
> that I researched the topic in shastra and concluded, more moderately,
> that
> the public institution of marriage should be reserved for heterosexual
> couples.
Since we're talking about "institution" now, we should be clear what an institution is. Institutions have purposes, and to achieve those purposes, they have rules. "Baseball" for example is an institution - it has rules which all players must feel obligated to follow. Without rules, there can be no baseball game, there can be no winners. There can be no game.
With that understanding, although the intended purpose of gay monogamy is to purify homosexuals who take it up (a very questionable proposition itself), it also has the consequence of redefinining the purpose of sex as something other than for procreation--one of the key misconceptions that has been undermining the institution of marriage for many decades now. And, I might add, such a redefinition of sex is at odds with our definition of what is considered licit and illicit sex.
To accommodate an idea like gay monogamy in a Vaishnava society and in society at large is therefore to reinforce, not slacken, the idea that religious (and lawful sex) is for procreation.
A secondary point is that basically Maharaja has come up with a method of purification based only on pratyaksha and anumaan, not shastra. This opens the door to futher speculation on a number of issues, simply because the philosophical approach (consequentialism) is not limited simply to homosexuality.
> I made clear on various forums, including Cakra, that this was my
> conclusion. There is some evidence that Prabhupada himself, despite his
> strong statements against homosexuality, encouraged one of his disciples
> to
> simply do the best he could and go on chanting Hare Krishna, even if he
> could not totally renounce homosexuality.
It should be noted that the evidence Maharaja refers to is not only anecdotal but also is at odds with every other recorded statement of SP's on the matter.
Yours in the service of Srila Prabhupada,
Krishna Kirti Das
> All of this is available in the public domain, and I'm believe that you
> have
> already seen it yourself. Regarding my hermeneutical arguments, since you
> have seen them many times, there is no need for me to repeat them here.
>
> With best wishes,
> Your servant,
> Hridayananda das Goswami
A reply to Hridayananda das Goswami from Candrabhanu das:
1. All illicit sex is sinful whether hetero or homo.
2. Homosex is to a minor degree more sinful than illicit hetero sex
according to Manu.
3. Lower classes have few if no rules imposed by Manu Smriti.
4. Establishing varnashrama will include the lower classes, sudras,
women, chandalas, etc.
5. Prabhupada adjusted his emphasis toward varnashrama in the latter days
of his earthly lila.
6. Accordingly Prabhupada's view toward engaging the lower classes as
well as his rhetoric toward them would undoubtedly have changed as the
social divisions of sudras and even chandalas became integrated into our
socio/spiritual preaching strategy.
7. Traditionalism, which Basu Ghosh and others espouse, correctly asks us to
view shastra as the basis against which the words of guru and sadhu are evaluated. If shastra considers the homosex issue minor then we must try to understand Prabhupada's comments in that light. The conclusion should be, therefore, that any overly strong condemnation on Prabhupada's part would have been relative, specific and in context.
Men are born lower than sudra in Kali Yuga.There is no longer a clear
superiority of one class, race or gender over another. Increasingly the
differences are hypothetical, although there is always a great effort to
claim superiority. Any true Vedic sudra would probably be more qualified
than most modern ISKCON members. The playing field has radically changed at
this point in history regarding who is higher and who is lower. Absolute
rankings have little relevance, and just as racial differences have
increasingly diminished in their meaning to nil so the differences between other classes should also be compared.
This is not to say that the varnas should not be developed, but
that there should be much humble respect amongst them as they become
reestablished and fortified.
And of course all human beings of whatever status must be encouraged to
perform devotional service.
As Srila Prabhupada writes: “…even the ‘candalas,’ or the untouchables,
are also not to be neglected by the higher classes and should be given
necessary protection. Everyone is important, but some are directly
responsible for the advancement of human society, and some are only
indirectly responsible. However, when Krsna consciousness is there, then
everyone’s total benefit is taken care of.”
(Krsna Book, Vol. I, Chap. 24)
Ys
Candrabhanu das
