BY: ROCANA DASA
Feb 12, CANADA (SUN) — A weekly response to Dandavats editorials.
Over the last two weeks in Obeisances, we've offered some commentary on Krishna-kirti's analysis of the paper "Vaisnava Moral Theology and Homosexuality" by Hridayananda das Goswami Acaryadeva. Last week I focused on this it was analyzed by Krishna-kirti dasa, the disciple of Hridayananda, who appears to have a similar, if not equal, scholarly status as the Goswami. This is not a qualification that I share, so my comments will not be on such a scholastic level. And while the Goswami and Krishna-kirti have undoubtedly spent weeks, if not months, writing their expert presentations, my comments are simply offered in brief.
I think it's important for the readers to have a clear understanding of who Hridayananda das Goswami is in terms of ISKCON, and what part he played in the movement's history. As we see by the title "Acaryadeva", he has chosen to maintain his forbidden Zonal Acarya title. It was concluded during the so-called reform movement that all such vestiges of the contaminated Zonal Acarya system were to be disbanded, but Hridayananda himself has personally chosen not to give it up. Today, other Zonal Acaryas, and those who have followed in their footsteps, blame their disciples for insisting on referring to them in such a way as this, but here we can see that the Goswami has become attached to referring to himself as an "Acaryadeva".
I mention this because the underlying message one gets when reading his paper is that he is assuming the position of Acaryadeva. In other words, he suggests that he's on a level of spirituality that that allows him to make a final determination as it pertains to the application of the principle of guru, sastra and sadhu.
Reading the paper, one is impressed by his in-depth understanding of Vaisnava sastra. Not only has the author written commentary on the Srimad-Bhagavatam, he has also written commentary on the Mahabharata, and it's obvious that he has an unusually deep comprehension of the Mahabharata, which most of us can't claim to have. Of course, he's using his training as a scholar in projects such as this paper. That knowledge, along with his in-depth understanding of sastra, honed over many years, shines through in his writing.
In my previous article, I challenged the somewhat suspicious fact that Hridayananda has chosen this particular subject in lieu of many other far more important subjects he could have looked at in-depth. Considering the fact that ISKCON (and therefore Srila Prabhupada) have helped to pay for his education, one would think he'd take responsibility for applying his astute knowledge and understanding to the many important issues that have very seriously impacted ISKCON over the years, the least of which has been gay monogamy.
If for some reason the Goswami simply had a strong personal desire to focus on the topic of gay monogamy, he might have aimed his intelligence at the heart of the issue as it has most impacted ISKCON. I refer to those in the renounced order, particularly sannyasis, who have homosexual tendencies but have chosen to remain celibate. The Goswami could have taken the very same analytical approach to exploring the complexities of celibate gay sannyasa life as he has taken to considering gay monogamy in general. I would have preferred to see his approach applied to giving us some insight into that phenomenon, which has caused a great deal of havoc in ISKCON. In fact, the society has enshrined the principle that one can be a gay sannyasi who has chosen to be celibate, and this alone merits our serious consideration.
One can easily conclude that it's much easier for someone who is homosexually inclined, whether by choice or by karma/genetics, to become a sannyasi than it is for a heterosexually inclined individual. All the rules and regulations of sannyasa are based on the idea that the person is a heterosexual. Sannyasis are to strictly keep away from the association of women because of the effect it has on their spiritual lives, whether or not that effect is outwardly perceived by themselves or others. In the case of celibate gay sannyasis, however, they are surrounded by men -- the objects and stimulus of their hopefully controlled desire. I'm sure many readers wonder just how many of our ISKCON sannyasis, if they were honest with themselves and with us, would admit that if they weren't part of a society like ISKCON, in "normal life" they would have inevitably chosen to come out of the closet and declare their sexual preference.
This dynamic presents a very significant threat to the spiritual lives of gay celibate sannyasis, and it is this dynamic that the institution has consistently avoided looking at or addressing over the years. As the Goswami himself has shown us, there's very little direct commentary or evidence within sastra for us to draw upon in terms of addressing the problem of homosexuality, so this obviously applies to the circumstance of gay celibate sannyasis.
I could speak exclusively on this topic, but that's not the purpose of this particular paper. I encourage anyone who wants to speak on the subject to do so, especially the Goswami himself. This subject is not something that has become buried in ISKCON's past -- it's a problem that the membership is dealing with to this very day. For example, we have the Bhavananda issue: Bhav is back in Mayapur. He is a perfect example of the principle I'm talking about. Of course, now he's wearing white, whatever that means.
Ultimately the Goswami concludes that there's really nothing you can point to in sastra, and there's very little that Srila Prabhupada has said on the subject, but apparently he's said more than even the previous acaryas have said, in his 'as it is' directness and as he applies Krsna consciousness to western culture. This has been pointed out by Krishna-kirti as an apparent disagreement between Acaryadeva and Srila Prabhupada.
Moral Tensions
As it pertains to the specific subject of gay monogamy, I personally agree with many of the arguments that the Goswami makes. He suggests how we as individuals have to apply certain dynamics to our own personal life in this regard. He lists these concepts as "moral tensions":
1. the tension between justice and mercy;
2. the tension between competing moral duties;
3. the tension between the ideal and the real;
4. the tension between acts and consequences;
In the ISKCON milieu, it's most interesting to try and reconcile the tension between justice and mercy. If the Goswami wasn't focused on gay monogamy, then he could apply the same analysis to examples that are far more applicable to us than the ones he presented from Srimad Bhagavatam and Mahabharata. While these examples are enlightening, I would be more interested in hearing how the author applies the justice/mercy principle to circumstances he personally played a major part in as a Zonal Acarya in post-samadhi ISKCON.
During the Zonal Acarya era, Hridayananda was recognized and renowned as a great scholar. He played a major role in articulating and defending the Zonal Acarya system. In hindsight, I think it would be hard for anyone to disagree that Hridayananda advanced the Zonal Acarya agenda in a very merciless way. So if he had offered the example of his own experience as a Zonal Acarya, this would have been a far more relevant way of considering the dynamics of justice and mercy than his reliance on Bhagavatam and Mahabharata stories. In fact, a philosophical analysis of the Zonal Acarya system has never been done by him or any of ISKCON's 'sastric advisors', although the topic is infinitely more important to ISKCON than gay monogamy.
In reading the scriptural examples that the Goswami has chosen to include in support of his position on gay monogamy, we note that in the cases of both Ashvatamma and Rukmi, when difficulties arose all the parties had a chance to say something on the matter, regardless of whether they were women or what their official relationship was from a societal point of view. Everyone was invited to give their perspective. Of course, this has never been the case in post-samadhi ISKCON and again, the Zonal Acarya phenomenon is a fitting example.
Ultimately, who has the final say? That's the big question. Who is qualified to have the final say? In the pastimes of Ashvatamma and Rukmi, so many principles are presented that one can take into consideration. For example, the principle that women are soft-hearted, and that there is a particular exalted person who has to consider all the advice, because they're the ones that have to take the action. In Arjuna's case he had to deal with Ashvatamma while in Rukmi's case, Krsna had to take the action Himself, even though His older brothers disagreed, as in the pastime of Balarama.
In the case of ISKCON, when the Zonal Acaryas were administrating their justice, they did their best to make sure that the membership did not hear what the victims had to say. Harsh justice was administered in order to keep the Zonal Acaryas' power intact, and somehow or other, they justified that this was for the betterment of the society.
Later on in the paper, we see that the Goswami takes into consideration the individual's need for freedom in comparison to the society's needs, and where there's a conflict between the two, one has to decide. But in the case of the Zonal Acaryadevas, serving the agenda they advanced was their only consideration. Consequently, thousands of godbrothers and sisters were, through various ways and means, eliminated from ISKCON because it didn’t serve the Zonal Acaryas to deal with them and allow them to stay.
It's my belief that this is still happening today, and little has changed. Srila Prabhupada's disciples are very disposable in the eyes of the leaders, and among the few that remain within the institution, we still hear of them being drummed out.
Ideal versus Real
Of course, the most debatable aspect of what is presented in the Goswami's paper, and what Krishna-kirti focused on in his commentary, is the whole principle of the "ideal versus the real". This in itself is a subject worthy of great study and debate. In a sense, it's a shame that the presentation of this ideal vs. real dynamic is wasted on the subject Hridayananda has chosen to apply it to.
The Goswami introduces this idea in the context of two main subject matters: sex and violence, two of the most dangerous activities in human society. As he mentions many times, there's very little information that can be gleaned from sastra on the subject of homosex, therefore he applies sastric principles to sex in itself. In other words, we all vow to follow the four regulations, no illicit sex being one of them. According to the Goswami, Srila Prabhupada gave the householders a 'backdoor' in the sense that they could define illicit sex in ideal terms, in the strictest sense as being only for procreating children. Or, they could take the "real" road of monogamous sex, or sex within the constraints of marriage. Hridayananda comments that according to his perspective as a celibate who, as far as we know, hasn't had sex or associated intimately with women since he was a teenager, he has concluded that most of us householders don't follow this regulative principle, and we have "trouble with it". I wouldn’t actually know whether that's true or not, because I'm not privy to the personal details of the devotees' lives. I really do think it's a private matter between you and your Spiritual Master, and it doesn't have much to do with the society in this particular context.
Now sex as it applies to celibates such as brahmacaries, what to speak of sannyasis, that demands a lot more intense scrutiny because they're the ones who are practically running the whole society. You just have to look at the pictures from the GBC meetings to see how many are in saffron compared to the color of grhastas. What celibacy means in the case of celibate gay renunciants who are relating to members of the same sex is very different than how heterosexual renunciants deal with relating to members of the opposite sex. So this dynamic is not simply about how renunciants in general avoid the association of women, as delineated in the pastimes of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu.
Of course, some ISKCON sannyasis point to Srila Prabhupada, the Sampradaya Acarya, using as an example his ability and willingness to engage and associate, to a limited degree, with female disciples two generations younger than he. Based on this example, they justify surrounding themselves with young, attractive female followers who we know see them more in the context of rock stars than they do actual gurus or sannyasis.
What would Srila Prabhupada or Lord Caitanya say about this?
There's much more mention of this type of falldown or deviation in the Srimad Bhagavatam and the Caitanya-caritamrta, and even the Mahabharata, then there is on the subject of gay monogamy, so why doesn't the Goswami deal with this issue? Although gay monogamy or homosexuality in its entirely is seemingly neglected in the sastra, it doesn't seem to occur to the Goswami that this in itself is a message worthy of contemplation. There are myriad manifestations of sex drive that one could point to, but many perversions are not specifically mentioned in sastra.
Sastra speaks very clearly on the subject of how strict a sannyasi should be in terms of avoiding association with women. If they break these restrictions is it subtle sex, and if so, how does that impact human society? And what if the sannyasi has gay tendencies, and breaks the restrictions of renunciation by committing subtle sex via his close association with men? And how do these dynamics compare to the impact of homosexuality in the context that Hridayananda applies it, gay monogamy, which occurs among a relatively small percentage of practicing Vaisnavas? Again, we can see that the greatest value for ISKCON in this discussion is found not where Hridayananda placed his focus, but rather in an area that it is uncomfortable for the leadership to explore.
It's also interesting to note how, in the case of sexual falldowns, ISKCON sannyasis, gurus and GBCs have ruled against those who have fallen due to sex. While the leadership has been quite severe in dealing with many heterosexual devotees who have fallen down into sex, they have been far more lenient in applying the sastric principles when godbrothers who were engaged in homosex have fallen down. Take for example individuals such as Bhavananda, Satadhanya, Nitai Chand, and Subal Swami. We don't hear much about Subal Swami these days, because his circumstance happened while Srila Prabhupada was still in his ISKCON lila. Subal was more honest than most, admitting his propensity and gracefully excluding himself from the society. The others named above, however, have shamelessly fought to maintain their power and status within the institution, and their GBC/sannyasi/guru friends have complied to an amazing degree.
So what does that tell us about those who have had to unravel these dilemmas, or moral tensions? One would assume that's what the GBC's role is, although they've essentially abdicated that part of their responsibility and turned it over to people like Hridayananda and the SAC. And even when they've tried to apply the suggestions handed down by these advisors, they either leave many issues vague or they just leave it up to the interpretation of local GBC's. We see this in the case of Jayapataka Swami, who has invited his old gay friend Bhavananda back to Mayapur. On the same principle, Hridayananda wants to invite gay monogamous people back, or to include them in ISKCON on the principle of mercy. But why can't they apply the same principle of mercy to Rtviks, or those who are attracted to Sridhar and Narayana Maharaja, or to those who have had trouble previously in some capacity other than sex?
Examples of Violence
Hridayananda has pointed out that violence is another problem that can be examined in the context of the "real versus ideal" ideal construct. In exploring the tension between these two, and how to reconcile it, he uses hunting, of all things, as an example because that's what's in sastra. Of course, here in the Sampradaya Sun we've been hearing a great deal lately about the application of violence within ISKCON, and in particular as one of the Zonal Acaryas applied it in his zone, namely Kirtanananda at New Vrindaban. It appears that many devotees met their end due to acts of violence that occurred at New Vrindaban. So again, there are examples far more close to home that one could use in exploring the dynamics of violence. But aside from hunting, one could also use the sastric examples of the battle of Kurukshetra, or Lord Balarama killing Romaharsan Suta with a straw.
Hridayananda also doesn't mention the fact that Srila Prabhupada has come out swinging, so to speak, on the issue of violence. This is due to the fact that India has been mesmerized by Gandhi's application of non-violence, which is really a Buddhist principle, not a Vedic principle. Srila Prabhupada has addressed this issue very intensely in many lectures and conversations, even highlighting the principle that devotees are authorized, under certain circumstances, to use violence. I recently gave a commentary on a morning walk conversation wherein Srila Prabhupada said we should kill the Communists and Muslims. He stated that there's no such thing as politics without violence, and we have seen the truth of that, even in ISKCON. Aside from the bizarre example of Kirtanananda's use of violence at New Vrindaban, we have other institutional examples to look at. According to my understanding of our philosophy, excluding, ostracizing or throwing out devotees from their spiritual master's asrama and denying them the association of devotees, the Deities, and access to Srila Prabhupada's spiritual community, is a very violent act. This is far more applicable to the example that Hridayananda gave earlier regarding both Rukmi and Asvatamma, in other words, banishing them from Vedic society on account of them killing. Those who were banished from ISKCON, however, were banished simply because they had a different philosophical understanding of guru-tattva. So ISKCON has not had a problem with devotees wanting to go hunting. It has had a problem with ISKCON authorities using violence against their own godbrothers.
Weighing Morality
The number four category of tensions that the Goswami addresses is "Acts and Consequences", and how we have to individually determine, on a day-to-day basis, these ethical principles. Of course, as members of the Vaisnava community we're more interested in how this principle is applied collectively within our Spiritual Master's mission. Here again, we can easily conclude that ISKCON leaders have done a very poor job in applying this to innumerable circumstances they've had to apply this principle to.
Hridayananda likes to use examples from the Mahabharata to make his points, and I find it quite interesting to see how he uses circumstances such as Bhismadeva's vow of remaining celibate. Despite the consequences of that one pastime with Satyavati, he decides that this was the young Bhisma, and that the older Bhisma was wiser. Referring to his pastime of giving a discourse on the bed of arrows, Hridayananda is trying to make the point that he showed much more wisdom in his application of the principle.
Here the Goswami gives us an interesting insight into the stories from the Mahabharata, wherein there seems to be a difference between the appearance and the intention. Again, this applies to a hunter, Balaka, who became renowned for killing an animal with good intentions and being praised for the act. This, in comparison to the story of Kaushika, a brahman's moral failure in telling the truth to murderers as to where the local inhabitants were hiding, so that they could use the information to kill them.
"Truth is not to be spoken and falsity is to be spoken in a case where falsity becomes truth and truth becomes falsity."
The dilemma as the Goswami presents it is in determining truth and falsity, and applying that to the whole principle of morality. He comes to the conclusion that morality centers around the principle that we should try to not injure living beings. And of course, he's applying this to ISKCON's somewhat hard-nosed position on gays. In fact, many ISKCON authorities have a rather fanatical position on gay monogamy, quite in excess of "hard-nosed".
As previously noted, the Goswami again doesn't apply these principles to other issues that have come up over the years in ISKCON, and which are far more important than gay monogamy. In those instances Hridayananda has been as hard as a thunderbolt, and has shown no mercy whatsoever in excluding Rtviks or anyone associated with the Gaudiya Matha, without debate, without consideration, without writing a big paper.
Of course, he likes to interpret sastra, or include sastric references that support his personal position, i.e., his position of power within the institution, but these references do not speak to the concept of mercy, nor do they take into consideration the consequences of certain acts. Take for instance the consequence to the sankirtana movement of so many highly qualified, trained, convinced preachers having been excluded. How has that impacted the spreading of Krsna consciousness throughout the world? There's just no calculating what the positive consequences could have been had this not been allowed to happen. The question in my mind is, is the exclusion of all these devotees really moral behaviour?
As the author points out, the whole purpose of moral principles is to benefit people, so how did excluding godbrothers from their Spiritual Master's mercy in the form of his movement/mission help the individuals, what to speak of all the individuals that could have been inconceivably benefited by the preaching that could have taken place had these people been awarded some mercy? And this is not simply based on what Hridayananda describes here as 'sometimes good people externally perform bad deeds'. In the case of ISKCON, this is really about a pattern, it's not an exception to the rule. Nobody within the administration, including those in Hridayananda's circle of friends, have ever admitted that they did the wrong thing as it pertains to excluding all those sincere individuals from participating in Srila Prabhupada's organization.
Protecting the Individual
Next, the Goswami gives us the interesting example of Srila Prabhupada himself, who prohibited centralization and bureaucracy simply based upon the principle that it stifles individual freedom. Of course, the fact that Srila Prabhupada threw a wrench in the works has, to this very day, put the GBC in a great dilemma. Their strong tendency is to want to do these very things, because centralizing and bureaucratizing are a substitute for spiritual potency. This is why even at the GBC meetings, they break into committees and try to come up with rules and regulations rather than philosophically discussing the issues that they themselves have made it crystal clear have to be addressed.
The writer doesn't bring up another important reason why Srila Prabhupada forbid this type of organization: because it contaminates the leaders, the GBC, the sannyasis who participate in this kind of a program. It puts too much power in their hands and this type of power isn't good for their spiritual advancement. This whole organizational concept was based on the assumption that these persons would have a much higher degree of Krsna consciousness than other members of the society.
We have witnessed, and I think accurately concluded, that this has been one of the greatest causes of falldown and disturbance within ISKCON. This fact has even been acknowledge by the GBC in the last few days, as we read in the Dandavats presentation of the daily meeting events. In other words, the biggest negative impact that's been made on ISKCON is that of the big devotees -- gurus, sannyasis, GBC's -- falling down. Do you think this has something to do with the principle of centralization and bureaucracy? In other words, isn't it easy to see what Srila Prabhupada was against putting so much power in the hands of a few renounced people, whose main responsibility is to remain spiritually free from such things?
Although the writer acknowledges the fact that Srila Prabhupada recognized and tried to protect the individual's freedom, he points out that if you live in the society, then you have a big price to pay -a social contract. As an individual, you have to learn pretty quickly that what's natural for the individual may not necessarily be natural for the society… whatever that's supposed to mean. Obviously Srila Prabhupada didn't make that distinction. The price most of us had to pay was a price we couldn't afford, which was that we had to be totally subservient and divorced from our individuality in order to become a member under people like Hridayananda, who subjugated everyone else's individuality so that they could enjoy their own individuality unrestrictedly. The author is a perfect example. His scholarly tendencies were greatly facilitated, enabling him to pursue a degree and engage in intellectual work at the cost of others, who had to collect all the money that supported him. And they're still doing it today.
In his essay, the Goswami ultimately comes back to his main theme, which is that a society should create room or facility for all sincere members. "Sincere members", of course, refers to the gay population, not to sincere godbrothers. And to do this, the society has to make a distinction between what's public and what's private behaviour. We assume that sex is "private behaviour". In fact, most things in the practice of Krsna consciousness are private, including following the regulative principles chanting rounds, sincerely and humbly reading the instructions of the Sampradaya Acarya, etc. These are all essentially "private behaviors" because no one can determine for sure whether or you you're doing them without offense. All you really have is the individual's testimonial that they're actually doing these things, yet this is the yardstick used to determine whether or not you're approved for a position in the institution such as guru or sannyasa. In fact, publicly you can do all sorts of nonsense, and people just ignore it. For example, we have sannyasis living like retired rich people. Many of them are even wearing hair, and engaging in little preaching activity, yet they can privately say that they're following the principles and chanting their rounds and on the basis of that, no one challenges them. Who can know what's actually going on with their sexuality?
I've detected various sentences in Hridayananda's paper in which he tries to instruct individuals to overlook all the problems that people like him have created in the society, based on the principle of ideal standards. He suggests that individuals shouldn't hold the society to impossible standards. "The society", of course, actually refers to the leaders. So according to Hridayananda, we shouldn't look for ideal standards in our leaders, just "real" standards.
"Thus an intolerant society must ultimately itself fall a victim to its members’ intolerance of that society’s own inevitable flaws."
I would say the society has been pretty tolerant when it comes to him, personally. So far he hasn't fallen victim to the society's intolerance of his unacceptable, albeit "realistic" lifestyle.
I've already given a fair bit deal of commentary in the previous segments on the Goswami's actual stand on homosexuality and scriptures, and frankly I have very little interest in this subject. What most disturbs me, as it does the Goswami's own disciple, is the fact that he has chosen to compare past Sampradaya Acaryas to the present Sampradaya Acarya, Srila Prabhupada, pointing out where they differ in their "opinions" or viewpoints. This comparison is made with respect to a section of Srimad Bhagavatam referring to Lord Brahma's creative process, wherein after he created the demons and they attacked him for sex. Srila Prabhupada makes a very small reference to the fact that this is homosexual, while the other acaryas didn't refer to it as homosexual. Unfortunately, Hridayananda has chosen to emphasize the difference in a way that undermines Srila Prabhupada's position as a Sampradaya Acarya in the eyes of his readers.
He again goes back to Srila Prabhupada's ideal conception of what the regulative principles are, and again points out that grihastas have a hard time with sexuality. Never mind the fact that per capita, those in the renounced order in ISKCON appear to be having a much harder time with sexuality than the householders.
Have Mercy
In his concluding remarks, the Goswami returns to his main theme, which is that we should have so much mercy, and that mercy dictates patience and understanding. We should focus on the individuals. As I've pointed out, this is essentially the opposite of what he's been practicing for so many years as a leader in ISKCON, as it pertains to all other issues except for gay behaviour. He suggests that such mercy will bring about many beneficial consequences in ISKCON if we are more open-minded in relation to the issue of gays. Of course, the ISKCON leaders are very close-minded when it comes to all other issues.
The Goswami says that the process of Krsna consciousness is gradual, therefore gay individuals will gradually become purified and their gay monogamy will turn into celibacy. But one could say the same thing about, for instance, someone who temporarily, out of frustration and a lack of proper training, and without any personalism from the leadership, may have embraced the Rtvik philosophy, or may have taken shelter of some guru in our Vaisnava community outside of ISKCON, particularly the Gaudiya Matha. One could apply the same principles Hridayananda recommends for monogamous gays, and say that if such individuals were gradually encouraged and included, they too would be purified. After all, the exclusion of such persons has had a far more serious impact on our membership and our potency to preach than whether or not a few gays become our members, or feel welcome.
Personally, I don't have a problem with gay members in ISKCON. We're supposed to see everyone as a spirit soul. We all have our particular problems; some may be gay while others are suffering from something else that's holding them back. The worst thing you can be cursed with is to become addicted to power and prestige, adoration and distinction, and I think that's what's holding Acaryadeva back. So let us all put our mercy to work, on his behalf. Perhaps he will be gradually purified, and will make an effort to undo the significant damage he has helped to perpetrate on ISKCON over the years.
Obeisances to Dandavats, and to Hridayananda das Goswami.
