The headline says it all.
Some of you may be wondering why the silence here. The answer is that up until now, I have been working quietly behind the scenes.
Then there is Hridayanda's "apology". The only funny part about it is his self-description as "conservative":
Ironically, my own views on homosexuality are seen by the world in general as rather conservative and indeed those views often disappoint gay rights activists.
Really?? Which "world in general" would that be?
Being conservative is like being funny. If you're funny, you don't have to tell people you're funny. If you're conservative, you don't have to tell people you're conservative. If you're liberal, you don't have to tell people you're liberal. Like good jokes, people "get it" in terms of what you are pretty quickly. The fact that Hridayananda has to tell us he is conservative just goes to show that he's spent way too much time in the company of radical liberals and gay activists.
Sangat sanjayate kama. I'm not suggesting what kind of association HDG should keep, but a rarefied, ultraliberal sanga would explain why there is this big-time disjunction between how he thinks the world in general sees him and how the world in general actually sees him. He shouldn't complain when both gay rights activists and the "world in general" see him as a gay rights activist.
And now for some theology (without which we couldn't call this site "siddhanta.com"):
[HDG] Clearly we please Krishna by renouncing all sinful activities and selfish desires, and I made this very clear to both parties in private conversations. In other words I offered blessings not for their sense gratification, but for the exact opposite: the giving up of any activity not pleasing to Krishna. I referred to them as "devoted souls" because I do not believe that a person genetically wired for homosexuality is necessarily "bestial" or "demonic" as some apparently feel.
There is a chapter in the Bhagavad-gita called the Divine and Demoniac Natures. It is chapter 16. Significant in this context is the "B" word--"birth":
The transcendental qualities are conducive to liberation, whereas the demoniac qualities make for bondage. Do not worry, O son of Pandu, for you are born with the divine qualities. BG 16.5 trans.
The fact is that people are born with certain natures, and, if we accept the version of the Gita, those natures can be classified as "divine" and "demoniac". It so happens that homosexuality is a sinful tendency, and being "genetically wired" for sinful activity is a consequence of merit and desire in a previous life. The body is called prarabdha-karma, it's a consequence of our acts.
So, yes, people are born with demoniac natures. The first step to overcoming one's own demoniac nature is to recognize it for what it is. If you are gay, then accept that you earned your nature. Devotees are there to help, but that help begins by admitting first there is a problem and that you are responsible for it. Devotees take great risks to help the ignorant get to this point. But rejecting this categorization is rejecting the Gita, and that rejection itself makes one an atheist.
This is not to say that homosexuals cannot transcend their sinful desires, but as with everyone else, transcendence first requires purification, and purification comes from following an authorized process, not just any process.
Within our soceity, there is some illusory idea that having limited amounts of sex (within marriage but not necessarily for procreation, or "gay monogamy" and never for procreation) is purifying. Some think that because limiting sex within a monogamous relationship is a kind of restraint, it should be considered austerity. And because some consider this an austerity, they also consider it purifying.
However, this is not true. Austerity can be in each of the three modes, and a peculiar characteristic of the mode of goodness is that some austerity or penance has the backing of shastra. Recently, for example, a former American TV star Suzanne Somers said on the Oprah Show (a popular American TV Talk Show) that she has had sex with her husband every day for the last three or four decades. (She is around 60 years old.) If having sex within marriage is somehow purifying (as HDG had claimed 4 years ago in his position paper on the matter), then how come, after 40 years of "doing it" daily with her husband, Suzanne Somers hasn't by now become Mother Theresa?
The reason is that dharmic acts also must have divine sanction. Not just any ritual, or custom, or action is purifying. At the end of the 16th chapter of the Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna that those who do not act according to scriptural injunctions are demons, and they cannot elevate themselves.
Then in the 17th chapter, Arjuna asks Krishna what is the state of people who do not follow scriptural injunctions, are they in goodness, passion, or ignorance? Krishna further characterizes the demoniac people in BG 17.5, and one of the characteristics Krishna mentions is that their austerities and penances are not recommended in the shastras.
However, Hridayananda is an outspoken consequentialist. As a consequentialist, he necessarily believes that no act can be ruled out as intrinsically sinful (or pious) since it must be judged on account of its effect, or consequence. But if fundamentally it is consequences that count (and the ability to anticipate consequences), then why can't factual purification roll along on its own without the direction of shastra?
Hridayananda, however, typically refers to the most abstract, highest kinds of scriptural injunctions, such as "always remember Krishna and never forget Him," as his scriptural pramanas. He will claim that the shastras are a part of the calculus in his moral reasoning. For him, these highest injunctions act as the divine guidelines on which a consequentialist moral framework can operate.
The problem that people who have a preference for abtractions face, however, is that besides being abstract shastra is also concrete. It has definite prescriptions and prohibitions, and those are always troublesome for people who prefer abstractions. Manu-smriti is quite explicit in its description of religious marriage, and religious sexual behaviors, as being between a man and a woman. Marriage, vivah-yajna, is a pennance, a sacrifice, that is recommended in the shastras for purification. Gay monogamy isn't. Hence, because Hridayananda's recommendation of "gay monogamy" is an austerity or penance not recommended in the shastras, it can be classified as being in the modes of passion and ignorance and therefore does not result in purifiation. In other words, the recommendation can be classified as being "demonic", in the sense that the word is used in the 16th and 17th chapters of the Gita.
Hridayananda, however, would counter that this is not true because his recommendation is for the sake of achieving a higher purpose, a transcendental state of life--to "always remember Krishna and never forget Him", as he says in his thesis. Yet how do we know that his recommendation will factually help someone achieve that higher purpose? How do we know that Hridayananda or whoever else makes such claims are not deluded or in illusion? The problem here, if you haven't already guessed, is that people who are conditioned souls, not liberated souls, are making such claims. And conditioned souls, of course, are subject to mistakes, illusion, imperfect senses and cheating.
The bottom line is that such otherwise questionable recommendations must finally rest on divine revelation for their authority. Especially where there is reason to believe that the standard shastras may be against such recommendations (as in the case with "gay monogamy"), the person making such a recommendation must make some claim to having some divine insight that ordinary souls do not have. Otherwise, without divine revelation, the new religious principle that departs from the standard shastras is speculation, in the modes of passion and ignorance, and therefore worthless.
To see how this works, Hridayananda is not alone in appealing to higher religious principles to justify a set of questionable purificatory rites and methods. Ironically, the ritvikists also use the very same appeal to higher religious principles to justify the ritvik system. To quote Krishnakant Desai in The Final Order:
The important point is that although the ritvik system may be totally unique, . . . it does not violate higher order sastric principles. It is testament to Srila Prabhupada's genius that he was able to mercifully apply such sastric principles in new and novel ways according to time, place, and circumstance. (Krishnakant Desai, "The Final Order", p. 31)
In defense of the ritvik system, we see here the very same kind of appeal to "higher order sastric principles" that Hridayananda himself uses. Yet here, as most ISKCON insiders would agree, the appeal is mistaken. But why is it mistaken? In the case of ritvikism, the final defense of ISKCON loyalists rested on ritvikism not being in line with the standard shastras and tradition. In the same way and for the same reasons (if we are to be consistent), then Hridayananda's own appeal to higher religious principles must also be mistaken.
If not, then Hridayananda must supply one of two kinds of evidences - concrete support from standard shastras (which he does not have) and not just the most abstract verses, which can be interpreted to support any cause, or he must stake some claim that he is the recipient of some special, divine revelation. Otherwise, the reasonable conclusion is that Hridayananda's recommendation is as speculative as the ritvikists' recommendations.
It is interesting to note that ritvikism and Hridayananda's "gay monogamy" (which is part of a broader "gay liberation movement" within ISKCON) both rely on a preference for abstraction over the concrete. This preference is simultaneously a preference for speculation, and that is a sign that as a society we are still very much infected by the modes of passion and ignorance. Without a substantial return to the mode of goodness, ISKCON will continue to endure such disturbances.
sruti smriti puranadi pancharatra vidhim vina
aikantiki harer bhaktir upathaiyavia kalpate
"Devotional service that ignores the shrutis, smritis, puranas, and pancharatras creates a disturbance in society."
This is exactly what we have in ISKCON today: speculative "devotional" systems coming one right after another and creating disturbances one right after another.
read more