BASU GHOSH DAS, Apr 10, 2009, ISKCON Vishakhapatnam – ICC/RGB meetings
Dear Hridayananda Maharaj,
Yatibhyonamaha. Jaya Srila Prabhupada!
Received your message:
> > 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 I originally made a statement, which you quote, in which I advocated some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.
Maharaj, I’m glad to know that you’ve had a “shift” in outlook, as you’ve
written above. It’s clear to me now that you have changed your views.
Despite the fact that you continue to differentiate between “marriage” and
“monogamy”. So I went to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary and found
the following defintion:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monogamy
> monogamy
> One entry found.
> Main Entry: monogamy
> Function: noun
> Etymology:
> French monogamie, from Late Latin monogamia, from Greek, from monogamos
> monogamous, from mon- + gamos marriage, from gamein to marry
> Date: 1612
> 1 archaic : the practice of marrying only once during a lifetime
> 2: the state or custom of being married to one person at a time
> 3: the condition or practice of having a single mate during a period of
> time
So I imagine that on the basis of the third definition here, you meant a
differentiation? Whatever, you write that you’ve changed your opinion.
> All of this is available in the public domain, and I’m believe that you
> have already seen it yourself.
Maharaj, so much is there in the public domain. In my last letter to you, I
was attempting to deal with specific and clear statements you made
advocating “gay monogamy” and the “blessing” you sent to the marriage of a
“gay couple”.
The first statement of your’s advocating “gay monogamy” admittedly appeared
on the Chakra website back during December 2004, and that’s quite sometime
ago.
However, the “blessing” appeared on Chakra.org just two months ago:
“May God bless Joshua Norman Einhorn and Stanley Earl Harris, both
devoted souls, as they commit themselves to each other in the
spirit of God’s love for them. May Joshua and Stanley always please God
through true love for each other.”
Maharaj, the blessing in general, and specifically this particular statement
can easily be interpreted as “condoning” a “gay relationship”, what to speak
of a “gay martial relationship” or a “gay committed [which seems to indicate
to mean a committment between homosexuals to have sexual relations only
between themselves without a “formal marriage”] relationship.
You’ve cited the example of Prabhupada encouraging a specific disciple to go
on chanting and “doing the best he could”, when it was apparent that he
could not give up his homosexuality.
Maharaj, I pretty sure you are referring to a particular devotee, who served
as Prabhupada’s “personal servant”, for sometime, and who, after
Prabhupada’s disappearance, contracted “Aids”, through his homosexual
dalliances, and sadly, left his body due to the disease. Since you haven’t
referred to his name, I won’t either. It’s not important to the topic.
However, I don’t think this story — which I think we can agree on is
totally true — is an example that translates into openly condoning
homosexuality.
So, while I honestly appreciate Maharaj, that you’ve clarified that you are
not in favor of any form of “gay monogamy” now, may I humbly submit that the
blessing that you sent to Joshua and Stanley, just two months ago, conveys
an opposite message.
At least that’s the view of a number of devotees, like myself. It seems to
support the “wider egalitarian agenda”. The blessing stands in
contradiction of being opposed to “gay monogamy”, despite the honest plea
that it was [probably] just intended to “encourage” these devotees in
devotional service.
Specifically the words employed in the particular sentence, ” as they commit
themselves to each other”. Kindly consider, and respond, if you think it
can help clear up the idea that this is definate espousal of “gay monogamy”,
albeit is more subtle language.
> 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
At present, I’m busy in the ICC meetings, and from tomorrow, I’ll be even
busier, when the IRGB meetings begin. In those meetings, I’m the
“Secretary” — one of the meeting’s officers, and these next three days will
be hectic. Then, thereafter, I’m off on a short “tirth yatra” to Srisailam
(Shiva – “jyotirlinga”) and Ahobilam (Nrsimha kshetra). So it might be
difficult for me to respond in detail to anything “hermeneutical”, and in
any case, you’ve made a “sweeping generalization” and alluded to my having
seen them “many times”, which I’m not sure I have — unless I saw them
again.
You have written several points to me separately. So far, I haven’t been
able to respond for several reasons, travel being one, preoccupation with
other e-mails and the ongoing meeting, others. However, I notice that
Krishna Kirti Prabhu has begun a dialog with you on some of those points. I
hope you’ll excuse me for the moment, but I hope to respond “in due course
of time”.
Maharaj, thank you for taking the time and trouble to respond to my letters,
despite the fact that you are not at all obliged to do so. Your doing so is
highly appreciated.
Again, I feel that your public blessing [discussed in some detail, above] is
a cause of philosophical concern, as I had written earlier. Unless that’s
cleared up by you, many of us will continue to believe that you condone
homosexuality and/or “gay monogamy”, despite your plea that you don’t.
As a sannyasi godbrother just wrote me (sending me a copy of what he sent to
the “Tridandi Sannyas” conference on PAMHO):
> This issue certainly fits the description given above as divisive.
> Certainly many devotees would be uncomfortable with an ISKCON tolerant of
> or even tacitly encouraging gay unions.
Hope this meets you well.
das,
Basu Ghosh Das
Speak Your Mind