I used to be a hindu

[Maya3]

Vrindavana Das,

Why is it so important to you that you convince people that being gay is not accepted in Hinduism?

Maya

 

[Vrindavana Das]

According to Srila Sridhar Maharaj's teachings, marriage is part of karma-kanda and also part of the Four Goals of Material Life. Marriage is only a material designation to help one practice the Krishna conception; otherwise, it has nothing to do with pure, uncalculated devotion to the Sweet Absolute.

Yes. If one cannot progress in the path of Kṛṣṇa conception, he is allowed to get married. How do you intend to justify marriage of homosexuals for progressing in the path of Kṛṣṇa conception, with the above?!!

The prescribed worship for Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is not found in the classic Vedic literatures... and your point is? Mahaprabhu's teachings are veritably the distillation of bhakti that is mixed in the other Vedic literatures such as Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam. If you are a Gaudiya shishya, then you know well that inasmuch as the Golden-Armed Incarnation of Love of God is hidden and must be examined as such, so too is not everything blatantly plain in the Scriptures.[/QUOTE]

My point is exactly what I have said: marriage of homosexuals is not enjoined in the scriptures.

Why are you comparing homosexuality to the advent and teachings of Śri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. It even sounds ridiculous! Apart from the fact there is no connection between the two.

Asides, the advent of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is clearly mentioned in the scriptures.

Try this link: Sri Chaitanya in the Vedas | Krishna.com

"We need society only to help us. If our affinity to the society keeps us down, then that should be given up, and we must march on. There is the absolute consideration and the relative consideration. When they come into clash, the relative must be given up, and the absolute should be accepted. If my inner voice, my spiritual conscience decides that this sort of company cannot really help me, then I will be under painful necessity to give them up, and to run towards my destination, wherever my spiritual conscience guides me. Any other course will be hypocrisy, and it will check my real progress. If we are sincere in our attempt, then no one in the world can check us or deceive us; we can only deceive ourselves (na hi kalyana-krt kascid durgatim tata gacchati) [Bg. 6.40]. We must be true to our own selves, and true to the Supreme Lord. We must be sincere."

-- Srila Sridhar Maharaj

I can very well understand the excerpt. However, what I do not understand is why have you mentioned it here. This excerpt deals with Bhakti and you are using it to justify homosexuality.

You are 'against' what is written here and not 'for'. I will take just a few lines to clarify:

...we must march on...This is for progress in Kṛṣṇa conciousness/conception. Not for homosexuality.

...relative must be given up, and the absolute should be accepted...Absoulte is Kṛṣṇa and relative is temporary physical relations like homosexuality.

...my spiritual conscience decides that this sort of company (temporary mundane relations like homosexuality in this case) cannot really help me, then I will be under painful necessity to give them up (such friends), and to run towards my destination (Kṛṣṇa Consciousness/conception),

...Any other course (like homosexuality) will be hypocrisy, and it will check my real progress (towards Kṛṣṇa conception).

Only Krishna is the Absolute Judge. Let him deal with the 'homosexuals' and you can focus on your own bhakti.

I think we are in a same faith forum. Asides, Krishna has already made his point clear in the revealed scriptures. Only you are not ready to listen.

I do not know much about religion, save that it is sarva dharman parityajya, mam ekam sharanam vraja...That is the essence. What can repression accomplish? (Gita 3.33). Maybe it's the way that other gurukulis live their lives, but I would rather live my life in integrity with those who are helping others live God-conscious lives than participating in prajalpa and idle talk amongst other devotees.

By following something that has been forbidden, you are helping(?) others live God-Conscious life?!! Participating in prajalpa and idle talk amongst other devotees would mean to misguide others and propagate ignorance like homosexuality is acceptable, in the name of religion. You are only causing harm to the ones you love! :help:

Krishna can do whatever He wants. Rakhe Krishna mare ke, Mare Krishna rakhe ke. He could even utilise non-devotees for His purpose, and His names are an infinitude of Names, and not necessarily Krishna, or Govinda.

I agree. One should not give up Chanting the Holy names of Lord under any circumstance.

I just try to take the good, reject the bad, see the Lord as my Master, seek His protection, try to be humble, and surrender everything unto Him. (Six Limbs of Loving Devotion unto the Lord)

I keep it simple. And whatever that Beautiful Absolute desires to do with me, let Him do. :shout

Absolutely right. If that is the case, why have you left devotional service?

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Vrindavana Das,

Why is it so important to you that you convince people that being gay is not accepted in Hinduism?

Maya

For the simple reason that it is the truth.

Is it okay for me to call a woman a 'prostitute' because I have lust in my eyes?

If I am lusty and cannot give up homosexuality, that does not mean we should say religion accepts homosexuality. It is incorrect.

Religion does not exist for us. Religion exists for God. What gives us the right to exploit religion like a prostitute for our insatiable lust and homosexual tendencies?

 

[Jainarayan]

For the simple reason that it is the truth.

Is it okay for me to call a woman a 'prostitute' because I have lust in my eyes?

If I am lusty and cannot give up homosexuality, that does not mean we should say religion accepts homosexuality. It is incorrect.

Religion does not exist for us. Religion exists for God. What gives us the right to exploit religion like a prostitute for our insatiable lust and homosexual tendencies?

Poster on Ignore and I now bow out of this homophobic-scriptures-being-twisted-vomit.

 

[Vinayaka]

"The truth" is opinion. Christians call us to "The truth". Islam calls is to "The truth" ISKCONites are no different. Everybody has a version of "The truth" and those versions all vary. It reminds me of my great Uncle, and his story telling of many many years ago when I was a young child. Whenever he began "Now this is the absolute Truth..." we all knew darn well a whopper was coming. If little kids can figure this out, then so should adults be able to. But apparently this is asking way too much.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

You exist, I exist...it is a 'fact' and not a 'story'. Supreme Lord exists, and that too is a fact. My opinion can be that you do not exist, but that will not change the 'fact' that you do.

Religion is not a bed-time story. Religion is a way of life, practiced by great Rīśīs and sages and shown to us for our welfare of achieving the HIGHEST bliss - the bliss of love between soul and Supersoul.

It is about reviving our eternal relationship with the eternal Supreme Lord. But it is not so cheap that we live in contradiction to Lord's injunction and still get that highest bliss. If someone tells you that you can, he is cheating you - for your money or maybe something else that you have which he wants. Human life is very rare and precious. We should not waste it following a fake religion which is nothing but mental speculation.

 

[Maya3]

For the simple reason that it is the truth.

It is not.

Religion does not exist for us. Religion exists for God. What gives us the right to exploit religion like a prostitute for our insatiable lust and homosexual tendencies?

It does exist for us. God was here long before humans started wondering about her/him/it.
We are the ones who have made up the religions to try to figure out what and who god is.

Maya

 

[Vinayaka]

It is about reviving our eternal relationship with the eternal Supreme Lord. .... Human life is very rare and precious. We should not waste it following a fake religion which is nothing but mental speculation.

I agree with this, more or less, because, after all, I'm a Hindu too. Perhaps just as staunch as you, but most likely not. But when I can't even go to a Rathayatri celebration in my own city for fear of getting harassed by proseltysing, and I see ISKCON proseltysing going on in India at temples of other denominations, (like mine) it gets a tad nonsensical. Yes, that is the truth.

 

[Riverwolf]

This is only hearsay and not scientific, as per your own words. Why should I believe it in the absence any proof?

I read great wisdom in the Dao De Jing. I see great wisdom in the teachings of the Buddha. That wisdom is at the same level as that in our Scripture.

That is what I have observed.

Also, please advise where did I say Bhakti is the only path?

LOL! Where is it said? Please quote. Please explain Bhakti and how is it the easiest?

Isn't that what the Bhagavata Purana said? (I don't have my copy on me to check at the moment.)

Maybe Bhagavad Gītā, Rāmāyāna, Mahābhārata, Kurukshetra and many others are just fiction. Am I suppose to believe that you are right and a whole religion is wrong!

Those don't compose the entire religion, and I don't in any way believe in the "all-or-nothing" approach to religion.

Because we lack the qualification to follow the rules, that does not make spirituality a lesser science. It is the origin of science even in Vedic civilization and Churches of the west. How can the source be inferior to the emanation? What you are suggesting is not rational.

I don't think you really understand how science works. It has improved over the centuries, not degraded.

Why is learning the periodic table a requirement for advancing in chemical engineering discipline?

It takes knowledge of the periodic table to properly manipulate the elements. They are forever connected.

What is the connection between celibacy and spirituality?

We have improved our knowledge in material field, so we have got material knowledge. If we improve our consciousness in the spiritual field, we will get spiritual knowledge. Something like...first deserve and then desire.

But how do we even know that this "spiritual field" even exists?

Evidence should not be disbelieved. It should be question. Spirit of one (disbelieving) is rejecting; and the other (questioning) is 'understanding'. You are rejecting everything even before going to any rational level. So, why should I take anything you are saying as an evidence which should be believed? Wonder why I am getting the feeling that this is a 'time-pass' than a discussion.

Doubt is not the same as disbelief. Disbelieving is making a firm statement; doubt is questioning, and is the beginning of inquiry.

Are you saying that spiritual science is like the 'trick' of a magician? Read the book - The journey home. Autobiography of an American Swami. And if you want to believe something that you see or want to believe...I am not God; and God is not your servant.

You're a dualist; I'm not. Why? We've interpreted the Scriptures differently; that's why, in your eyes, I am not God, but in my eyes, you are still my Lord Siva trying to teach me a lesson. Why would the servant teach the master?

I've heard a quote (don't know the source) that has great wisdom, that I attempt to follow: those who claim to control the Gods are, in fact, controlled by the Gods.

You believe or you don't. It makes no difference either ways. If you want to know, I have pointed to the information. If you don't want to know, you can choose to ignore.

Why is the information you've pointed to worthy of being taken seriously?

I also said the same thing. I said 'imbalance' and you say 'effects'. As for the modern medicines, they have a side effect. Also, they do not cure the disease from the root. Ayurveda does not have side effects. It is natural. Also, it cures the disease from it's root.

All forms of medicine have side effects; the vast majority of modern medicine is is just the completely distilled and purified good qualities of the same medicines use throughout history, but without the extra baggage that was there before.

Puranas are in Sanskrit. You can take a word-to-word, do a literal translation, and understand their import. Then you can decide if the interpretations are correct of not.

I take it you've done that with all 18 Puranas?

Someday, I'll do just that. For now, I need to focus on Japanese.

If in the scripture you believe, you find that Kali is Supreme, it would be in the material world. Not in the spiritual world.

Kali is this material world; she is Shakti. She is all Timespace. It's beyond Her that is Siva, the Eternally Unmoving. That is Spirit.

This wasn't determined from Scripture; I've determined this from Her image and Her Name.

Kali is AUM, and Siva is the silence before and after AUM. That is my perspective.

With due respect, I believe 'inquiry' is the first step towards true understanding. If I get caught in the cycle of doubting, I will only look at the 'negative' and shall not see the 'positives'. Spirituality is the science of the 'positive'...of the highest positive that we all are searching after - Love.

Inquiry is the next step from doubting. It's not focusing on the negative aspects; all it is is simply saying "Is that really so?" That's all doubt is.

Besides, in logic, when trying to determine if something is true, the default stance is that it's false. It's like that to help remove bias.

As for evidence, I can provide evidences to all your points from the scriptures, but, are you ready to take them as evidence? From my view, if you see, is it worth the trouble?

Here is one. I quote this so you understand that we have to 'inquire' and not 'doubt'. So please do not take it in any other way:

The Vedanta-sutra (1.1.1) states:

athato brahma jijnasa​

"Now one should inquire about Brahman - The Absolute Truth, the transcendental, spiritual nature"

Wait, you said that we have to "inquire", but then you quote a verse that says we should not inquire?

Well, anyway, why shouldn't we inquire about Brahman?

In the Bhagavad-Gītā, Lord Kṛṣṇa says:

ajñaś cāśraddadhānaś ca
saḿśayātmā vinaśyati
nāyaḿ loko 'sti na paro
na sukhaḿ saḿśayātmanaḥ​

But ignorant and faithless persons who doubt the revealed scriptures do not attain God consciousness; they fall down. For the doubting soul there is happiness neither in this world nor in the next. [B.G. 4.40]

And why should I believe Lord Krishna actually said that? How do you know some other writer didn't write it at some point and attributed it to Lord Krishna?

Even if he did, it would seem that, based on a brief bit of research into Sanskrit, the "Revealed Scriptures" aren't even mentioned in the verse at all; it seems to simply say "those without a lump of faith"(shraddha ~= faith, dhanah = lump/mass, a = negative), without mentioning what that faith may be in.

And, considering the fact that there are plenty of "doubting souls" who are perfectly happy in this world, I don't think it's applicable to what I'm talking about.

 

[Riverwolf]

Honestly, I do not believe that Ramakrishnas are a sect to achieve Supreme Lord. Worshiping a Demi-God or Goddess, no one can achieve the Supreme. It is like boarding a plane to France, whilst wanting to go to Italy. If we dilute religion (meant for Supreme Lord's satisfaction), by seeking our sense gratification, and rejecting the pure religion. We will get diluted religion. In other words, we will get cheated; no one else!

Also, as for Manu Smrītī, I will not reject what has been accepted as a Scripture by the great Sages. I think they know more than me and they were far more intelligent than me. So, I will stick to my believing Manu Smrītī is a scripture. If someone believes otherwise; it is their choice.

Hold on, hold on! I think I've pinpointed the main cause of disagreement between us!

You see, among the wisest Sages I've ever read have been members of the Ramakrishna Order, along with Sri Ramakrishna Himself(who was anything but worldly). But it seems you do not consider them to be Sages.

On the other hand, it seems you have quite the respect for Sri Prabhupada as one great Sage, but, while I acknowledge him as a Sage for his great Bhakti, his actual scholarship is unimpressive at best. (His translation of the Sri Isopanishad is, frankly, terrible.)

So... it seems we disagree on which Sages are worthy of being followed.

You have your own intelligence, I'm sure. Who was it who said, "I do not feel inclined to believe that the same God who endowed us with reason and intelligence had intended us to forgo their use"?

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Honestly, I do not believe that Ramakrishnas are a sect to achieve Supreme Lord. Worshiping a Demi-God or Goddess, no one can achieve the Supreme.

Many saints in the History of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition would disagree. Here is the story of one.

Ramakrishna and His Disciples - Christopher Isherwood - Google Books

 

[Vrindavana Das]

It is not.

It does exist for us. God was here long before humans started wondering about her/him/it.
We are the ones who have made up the religions to try to figure out what and who god is.

Maya

If you insist!

 

[Vrindavana Das]

I read great wisdom in the Dao De Jing. I see great wisdom in the teachings of the Buddha. That wisdom is at the same level as that in our Scripture.

That is what I have observed.

Who decides that this great wisdom is at the same level as transcendental scriptures? What is his qualification to make such a decision? Does he even know the scriptures to pass a judgement like that?

These are my observations.

Isn't that what the Bhagavata Purana said? (I don't have my copy on me to check at the moment.)

There is nothing to this effect in the Śrimad Bhagavatām. Had devotion been the easiest, it would have the largest number of devotees. On the contrary, you will find, it has the least!

Those don't compose the entire religion, and I don't in any way believe in the "all-or-nothing" approach to religion.

You can change it to 'major chunk of Hindu religion' for ease of understanding.

I don't think you really understand how science works. It has improved over the centuries, not degraded.

Still, the emanation will always remain inferior to the source.

It takes knowledge of the periodic table to properly manipulate the elements. They are forever connected.

What is the connection between celibacy and spirituality?

Spiritual advancement means to uplift one's level of consciousness. Sex is the opposite, it binds us to the impermanent material conception of life. Celibacy & spirituality are forever connected ... through 'consciousness'.

But how do we even know that this "spiritual field" even exists?

To know that space technology exists, I need to study and advance in the discipline. It is done in a bonafide institution & under an expert guide, and not whimsically.

Study the discipline of spirituality under an expert guide (spiritual master) in a bonafide disciplic succession (authorized by the scriptures).

Doubt is not the same as disbelief. Disbelieving is making a firm statement; doubt is questioning, and is the beginning of inquiry.

'Spirit' of doubting is disbelief. Inquiry is the beginning, not doubting.

You're a dualist; I'm not. Why? We've interpreted the Scriptures differently; that's why, in your eyes, I am not God, but in my eyes, you are still my Lord Siva trying to teach me a lesson. Why would the servant teach the master?

Dualism and non-dualism - both are different levels of realization of the same Absolute Truth. You are not wrong, I am not wrong. Just levels of understanding is different.

I've heard a quote (don't know the source) that has great wisdom, that I attempt to follow: those who claim to control the Gods are, in fact, controlled by the Gods.

A variation of this, which I believe and try to follow is:

sri-bhagavan uvaca
aham bhakta-paradhino
hy asvatantra iva dvija
sadhubhir grasta-hridayo
bhaktair bhakta-jana-priyah​

The Supreme Personality of Godhead said to the brahmana: I am completely under the control of My devotees. Indeed, I am not at all independent. Because My devotees are completely devoid of material desires, I sit only within the cores of their hearts. What to speak of My devotee, even those who are devotees of My devotee are very dear to Me. [S.B. 9.4.63]

Why is the information you've pointed to worthy of being taken seriously?

Because it is from the timeless scriptures, and not my fallible personal point-of-view.

All forms of medicine have side effects; the vast majority of modern medicine is is just the completely distilled and purified good qualities of the same medicines use throughout history, but without the extra baggage that was there before.

That is incorrect. Modern science itself is evolving, it is in the learning stage. Someone, who himself is learning cannot impart perfect knowledge. Most of the world is now turning to Yoga and Ayurveda, which is the gift of spirituality (scriptures) to the mankind. Should be proof enough, unless you consider half the world to be mad and foolish.

I take it you've done that with all 18 Puranas?

Someday, I'll do just that. For now, I need to focus on Japanese.

I have done my research and am convinced.

Kali is this material world; she is Shakti. She is all Timespace. It's beyond Her that is Siva, the Eternally Unmoving. That is Spirit.

This wasn't determined from Scripture; I've determined this from Her image and Her Name.

Kali is AUM, and Siva is the silence before and after AUM. That is my perspective.

Spirituality is to transcend the material creation and attain the kingdom of Supreme Lord. A place that is eternal, full of knowledge and full of bliss.

Inquiry is the next step from doubting. It's not focusing on the negative aspects; all it is is simply saying "Is that really so?" That's all doubt is.

Inquiry is the first step.

Besides, in logic, when trying to determine if something is true, the default stance is that it's false. It's like that to help remove bias.

Logic comes after inquiry, when information has been given, which we are trying to understand. Here also, the intent should be to try and understand and question that which we do not understand. Not doubt.

Wait, you said that we have to "inquire", but then you quote a verse that says we should not inquire?

The verse says 'we should inquire'. Please re-read.

Well, anyway, why shouldn't we inquire about Brahman?

Please re-read the quote. We SHOULD inquire about the Brāhman.

And why should I believe Lord Krishna actually said that? How do you know some other writer didn't write it at some point and attributed it to Lord Krishna?

Believe what you must.

Even if he did, it would seem that, based on a brief bit of research into Sanskrit, the "Revealed Scriptures" aren't even mentioned in the verse at all; it seems to simply say "those without a lump of faith"(shraddha ~= faith, dhanah = lump/mass, a = negative), without mentioning what that faith may be in.

ajñaḥ — a fool who has no knowledge in standard scriptures; ca — and; aśraddadhānaḥ — without faith in revealed scriptures; ca — also; saḿśaya — of doubts; ātmā — a person; vinaśyati — falls back; na — never; ayam — in this; lokaḥ — world; asti — there is; na — nor; paraḥ — in the next life; na — not; sukham — happiness; saḿśaya — doubtful; ātmanaḥ — of the person.

And, considering the fact that there are plenty of "doubting souls" who are perfectly happy in this world, I don't think it's applicable to what I'm talking about.

That is your perception. This world is termed as 'dukhalayam-ashashavatam' by the Supreme Lord. Meaning, it is a temporary place, and full of miseries. There is no real happiness here.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Hold on, hold on! I think I've pinpointed the main cause of disagreement between us!

You see, among the wisest Sages I've ever read have been members of the Ramakrishna Order, along with Sri Ramakrishna Himself(who was anything but worldly). But it seems you do not consider them to be Sages.

On the other hand, it seems you have quite the respect for Sri Prabhupada as one great Sage, but, while I acknowledge him as a Sage for his great Bhakti, his actual scholarship is unimpressive at best. (His translation of the Sri Isopanishad is, frankly, terrible.)

So... it seems we disagree on which Sages are worthy of being followed.

You have your own intelligence, I'm sure. Who was it who said, "I do not feel inclined to believe that the same God who endowed us with reason and intelligence had intended us to forgo their use"?

The point of disagreement between us is that you are basing your understanding on your personal understanding, thinking it to be intelligence. I, on the other hand, am basing my understanding on the teachings of the scriptures, thinking that to be intelligence.

A person, who worships a Demi-God or Goddess, cannot attain the Supreme. So, I do not think I am interested in this so-called knowledge they have imparted. If someone is interested, it is his wish.

kāmais tais tair hṛta-jñānāḥ
prapadyante 'nya-devatāḥ
taḿ taḿ niyamam āsthāya
prakṛtyā niyatāḥ svayā​

Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures.[B.G. 7.20]

Asides, if you have some scriptural verses to prove your point, I am willing to take this further with you. I do not intend to waste your time discussing personal point-of-views, which can conveniently disregard all or certain portions of scriptures, accept some portions, change and so on.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Many saints in the History of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition would disagree. Here is the story of one.

Ramakrishna and His Disciples - Christopher Isherwood - Google Books

I have never heard of any Bhagvan Das who was an exalted devotee belonging to lineage of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. It is not there in any of Gaudiya Vaishnava literature that I am aware of. If you are aware, please point out. The author (Christopher Isherwood) has portrayed a devotee, of a different faith, as an exalted personality to highlight the greatness of Sri Ramakrishna. Christopher Isherwood is no authority for me to accept that work as authoritative. I is a material book and not spiritual. That is my perspective. If you want to believe him, it is your choice.

 

[Maya3]

Maya

 

[Vrindavana Das]

:beach:

 

[Vinayaka]

Maya

That's my cat's name.

 

[Gaura Priya]

Hold on, hold on! I think I've pinpointed the main cause of disagreement between us!

You see, among the wisest Sages I've ever read have been members of the Ramakrishna Order, along with Sri Ramakrishna Himself(who was anything but worldly). But it seems you do not consider them to be Sages.

On the other hand, it seems you have quite the respect for Sri Prabhupada as one great Sage, but, while I acknowledge him as a Sage for his great Bhakti, his actual scholarship is unimpressive at best. (His translation of the Sri Isopanishad is, frankly, terrible.)

So... it seems we disagree on which Sages are worthy of being followed.

You have your own intelligence, I'm sure. Who was it who said, "I do not feel inclined to believe that the same God who endowed us with reason and intelligence had intended us to forgo their use"?

Because Sri Ramakrishna never really stood to represent the Vaishnava tradition in its entirety, it's natural that he wouldn't be accepted unless under the sampradaya and appointed and taken diksha under them.

For the idea that other religions can lead one to God consciousness in the Vaishnava tradition, I would quote from Srila Bhaktivinod Thakur, who is a highly respected Vaishnava in the 19th century.

"Sectarianism is a natural byproduct of the Absolute Truth. When acaryas first ascertain and instruct the Truth, it is not polluted with sectarianism. But the rules and regulations received through disciplic succession regarding the goal and the method of achieving it are changed in due course of time according to the mentality and locale of the people. A rule that is followed by one society is not necessarily accepted in another society. That is why one community is different from another. As a community gradually develops more respect for its own standards, it develops hatred towards other communities and considers their standards inferior. These sectarian symptoms are seen in all countries since time immemorial. This is prominent amongst neophytes and found to some extent amongst madhyama-adhikaris [middle-class devotees]. Amongst uttama-adhikaris [highest class devotees], however, there is no trace of sectarianism. Adherence to a particular standard is the prominent symptom of a society...

...The religious principles taught by Mohammed and Jesus Christ are similar to the religious principles thaught by Vaishnava sects. Buddhism and Jainism are similar to Shaiva-dharma. This is scientific consideration of truths regarding religious principles. Those who consider their own religious principles as real dharma and others religious principles as irreligion or subreligion are unable to ascertain the truth due to being influenced by prejudice. Actually religious principles followed by people in general are different only due to the different qualifications of the practitioners, but the constitutional religious principles of all living entities are one. It is not proper for swanlike persons to reject the religious principles that people in general follow according to their situation."

Haribol,
Mohini.

 

[Gaura Priya]

Yes. If one cannot progress in the path of Kṛṣṇa conception, he is allowed to get married. How do you intend to justify marriage of homosexuals for progressing in the path of Kṛṣṇa conception, with the above?!!

Because the quote in context was also utilised for the devotees who changed from ISKCON to SCS Math, or for those who joined other Gaudiya Vaishnava organisations, such as Srila Narayan Maharaj. I personally do not believe that Lord Narayana would care a jot or tittle of who I marry. I know that my former godsister and godbrother would have preferred that I marry into the Math, and an ISKCON devotee tolerable... but under no circumstances would they ever accept a disciple from Srila Narayan Maharaj to be married to me.

These deep-seated tendencies and roots towards sectarianism amongst Gaudiya Vaishnava maths, amongst Vaishnava denominations, amongst the Hindu religions, and amongst the other religions at large are sickening to me. And to a larger extension, prejudice against homosexuals, especially when I know a few homosexual devotees who are engaged in service at the local temple. Without their service, the temple wouldn't function as much.

We are all rooted with anarthas, and I would rather that I focus on my own than that of others.

My point is exactly what I have said: marriage of homosexuals is not enjoined in the scriptures.

Sri Krishna Chaitanya came for the fallen, even the homosexuals. He came for the fallen, not the pure devotees. He came for the women, when no woman could even be pujaris or wear Vaishnava tilaka on their heads.

Heck, women wearing Vaishnava tilaka is a new thing... I believe it was a tradition begun very recently, from Srila Bhaktivinod Thakur or one of his spiritual descendents, like Srila Prabhupad.

OR women being pujaris. That is a very new innovation, actually. Or the fact that caste-consciousness does not appear when it comes to pujari work is also new.

The usage of OTHER instruments (like harmonium) BESIDES mrdanga and karatalas is also an innovation that the other Gaudiya organisations did not recommend because 'Mahaprabhu did not use these instruments.' Srila Prabhupad gave allowance and expanded the Gaudiya tradition in this way.

Mahaprabhu came for everyone, that regardless of vidhi, he wanted everyone to chant the names of God, and just devote oneself to Him, whether woman or man, householder or renunciate, gay or straight, married or single.

It is inevitable. In Canada, we already have gay and lesbian householders who are raising families with children. Why not just give them Krishna consciousness, rather than judging their families and ways of life? The Krishna conception is non-sectarian by theory - by praxis it should be too.