+200 the fascinating thing about this all is that many folks think its offensive to consider that lord krishna is gay... as if its a mark against his divinity
Hare Krishna! Dear Scott and Andrew, I am genuinely sorry for my silly advice to Chief. Yes, I am hurt by his views but definitely I cannot get angry with him...that is his beauty and quality. Andrew, two issues are completely different from each other. I was not aware that gays are prohibited by any religion. There is no reason why they should not be accepted by religions by allowing them to observe and follow the religious practices. After all God is nobody's private property. And the whole issue becomes ridiculous when we think that nothing exists without God being present into it and that God himself is there in the gays as well. Here, Chief will be tempted to catch me saying that he was not wrong in saying that God is gay. Well then the question of qualities (Gunas) come and God is above all gunas. As long as the sense of body remains the gunas remain. So our bodily manifestation must not be mistaken for God. Not even the body of Krishna should be mistaken for God. When we do that mistake then we tend to love Krishna and do not bother much seeing somebody dying of hunger. So, the soul and body must be identified as separate identities to recognize and love all as Krishna. We try so much to do meditation only for this purpose to go above all gunas, lose all body-senses and know ourselves as all pervading soul(Consciousness) and be one with the whole creation. Love, Kumar.
Is karma eternal? If yes, then why bother with our present activities nor the fruits of our actions. If not, then not everything is eternal.
yes we have choice to live our life consciously by being an aspect of god (which is love... god is love) or we have a choice to be unconscious or asleep (or god not being god) so god can be god unless an aspect of god chose not to be god, god could not have the experience of being god unless there was not-god
so krishna has to be heterosexual for you to have faith in god? you my friend are the one with strange views god is considered gunavasa, the residence of all qualities and so my statement of how could not god in some way be gay as gayness exists in our world to which i have given examples from the padma purana and mahabharata of how bhagavan sri krishna demonstrated these atributes when sri radhe met syama, she asked him, "where is your vasa?" he replied, "my residence is in your eyes" whenever sex is talked about because we have lived in its shadow with so much taboo, there is as is expected, a contorted release when the subject is discussed... all the more so when its about gay sexuality in the space of yoga perfection, gunas are linked to their divine archetype... krishna and his body is the full expression of bhagavan in my sahajiya traditions, krishna lila experiences are expressed through our body and spirit nice crescendo points i would say if we aren't hugging everyone, we aren't hugging krishna if we aren't feeding everyone, we aren't feeding krishna our bliss is only as great as least amongst our collective
If we can change our choice to be conscious or unconscious, then it means our choices are subject to change. If our choices are subject to change, therefore, they are not eternal. God does not need a not-god to be god. Does Brahman need a not-Brahman to be Brahman?
eternally the choice to love and express i do not quite get the connection of why the eternal must be without choice thankfully god does not need a not-god cuz so many are choosing to be not-god it is sad though that people feel compelled to be not-god when evolution calls them forth to their cosmic potential
My post regarding the Chief was just what it appears to be...perceptions of his online personas, which I find at various times to be one or more of many things: perceptive, learned, irritating, undecipherable, ironic, and funny. Regarding the discussion of "gayness" as possibly being of Krishna's many attributes...there's no productive purpose in venturing into territory like that or in playing logic-games regarding it; for myself as a very neophyte bhakta and spiritualist, speculation like this isn't appropriate, and...Srila Prabhupada would most definitely disapprove. Regarding the fitness of gay people to have a spiritual life...there's no law that I know of that prevents them from picking up a japa-mala and chanting Hare Krishna, praying to Jesus Christ, going to church or temple, reading Bhagavad-gita, the Bible, or other scripture, meditating, or whatever suits them.
Allow me to explain to you. For example, we may be suffering right now from the effects of karma (actions) performed since time immemorial, but we are able to change our activities. Since we are able to change our activities, we are able to change our karma. Karma then is not eternal. So the Lord, the living entity, nature, and time, they are all eternal. But the other item, karma, is not eternal. Srila Prabhupada
There are a lot of stories in the puranas that are irrational. As Swami vivekananda has stated , only those scriptures should be accepted , that agrees with reason. I think this story in the padma purana is an allegory or a metaphor for some underlying principle. It could be a certain aspect of the human psyche. Also even if it is all true by some means, how does Krishna become a bisexual ? He is clearly stated to be making love to Arjuni ( the female version of Arjuna ), and not Arjuna. Logically speaking, this is not homosexuality by any means. If by some means, you become a female and desires me and asks me to satisfy you , maybe I might grant you your request, but would that mean that I have become a homosexual in the process!!!!!!!! Also I think that Krishna granting Arjuni her request, and making love to her is a humane thing. According to Tantra, there are three forms of sex. One is animal sex, where one enjoys sex solely for ones selfish pleasure, and is not at all concerned about ones partner. The second is human sex, where one enjoys sex for ones own pleasure, and at the same time gives pleasure and joy to ones partner as well. The third is divine sex, where one engages in sex solely for the sake of giving pleasure and joy to ones partner, and making him or her happy, and is not concerned or bothered about whether one gets pleasure or not. The pleasure of the divine lover lies in the happiness ,pleasure and joy of his or her partner. Here we find Krishna , upon Arjunis request, making love to her and satisfying her , and not because he was interested in his own selfish pleasure. And I also believe it is a person of non-attachment and unconditional love, who can engage in divine sex or love making.
And again where is all these stuff written in the Bhagavad Gita, the mahabharatha or the Srimad Bhagavatham which are the true authorities on the life of Krishna. I have seen people who wears the clothes as worn by Krishna, and I have never seen their penis or even a hint of them. The dhoti, is not like tight jeans, and does not expose the penis or the testicles, or even give a hint of them. Also Krishna , also wore an additional cloth over his dhoti , as is evident in the pictures of his and other people at those times. I have worn a dhoti myself, and others as well, and I have never seen the penis or even a hint of it, in myself, or in others as well. Arjuna himself, is a virile man known for his heroic exploits, and many women were attracted to him and he was interested in them as well, and was chivalrous and well-behaved before them.
I don't know enough to be able to say what the situation is regarding gays and Hinduism - However, I'm afraid that where Christianity is concerned, this is a very controversial issue. The catholic church for instance won't accept gays unless they will become celibate. Half the anglican church want to integrate gays, the rest want them banned. Islam too is very much down on gays. ISKCON seem to have an attitude similar to the catholics. On the other hand, in the UK at least, gays have now got full equality under the law - it is illegal for example to refuse someone a job on grounds of their sexuality. Thus there is a growing conflict between modern secular values which see homosexuality as accepteable and even normal, and religious authorities who are seemingly stuck in the past with their anti-gay views. We have high rankning policemen, and politicians who are openly gay. Thus there is a conflict, and somehow it has to be resolved. If not, then I think it will lead to the further decline of religion.
I have not read any such stuff in the Mahabharatha, and I have read many versions of it. There's no such thing that the victory will be achieved by the sacrifice of some hero with features of masculinity or whatever. And this particular festival, if it is true, is followed only in that particular village, and not in other parts of India. In fact no one knows of such a story in the first place. It could have been created by some poet or scholar in that area , and probably to instill martial virtues in those people. Also there is no logic whatsoever that eunuchs regard themselves as the reincarnation of Krishna, because according to the legend it was Mohini that wed Arvan and not Krishna.
Actually, Arjuna's relationships with women were far from what most people would consider normal - after all, he shared his wife with his four brothers....It's hard to see how that is morally superior to a gay couple who have a commited relationship. As a hetrosexual man, I personally wouldn't fancy such an arrangement.
Draupadi married the 5 Pandava brothers, and each brother was allowed to spend one year as Draupadis husband, followed by the other brother, and this went on. This was clearly an exception in those times, and it was done so that none of the brothers would fight over each other over her, just as the two asura brothers had fought over the apsara Thillotama, and killed each other. Draupadi was to be the common link among them. Also when the Pandavas brought Draupadi before their mother Kunti, Kunti believing that her children had brought something for them, exhorted them before seeing Draupadi to share what they have with each other. This influenced Arjuna to suggest that the 5 pandava brothers ought to marry her and this was done accordingly. This was clearly unorthodox at that time, and the Kauravas mocked the Pandavas and Draupadi for this. <<<<<<<It's hard to see how that is morally superior to a gay couple who have a commited relationship. As a hetrosexual man, I personally wouldn't fancy such an arrangement>>>>> This was just an exception due to the circumstances of that time, and it was not replicated again. I don't think that I have mentioned anywhere that this is morally superior to a gay couple. Hinduism does not say much about homosexuality, so I don't know its views on it. According to Osho, homosexuality is a disease, and he felt that it can be cured by proper hormone therapy or other medical applications. I don't have any problems towards homosexuals, however I believe that homosexuals should restrain and discipline their sexual urges just like normal heterosexuals do. A heterosexual who cannot control his sexual urges towards women and forces himself upon them is termed as a rapist. I believe a similar term or 'rapist' itself should be used as a term for those homosexual men who cannot control their sexual urges towards other men and forces themselves upon them.
Personally, I have no issue with anybody's personal sexual preference. Pretty soon, somebody might sneak up in this forum and insist that Krishna is lesbian just to stir up some attention, or simply because they were looking at a bunch of Indian art or had been reading too much into a lot of old cryptic, Hindu texts. The statement "so-and-so looks bisexual" is totally different from the statement "so-and-so is bisexual." The first one is a perception, a mere speculation, using our own human value judgments. The second statement is a definitive declaration, that needs to be supported by known facts. In the context of religion, these are teachings passed on by authentic, highly realized, masters, gurus or teachers in a long line of succession. An ordinary person referring to passages taken from old Hindu texts and making bold, definitive, declarative statements as to what is or what is not, in the context of religion, is being silly to say the least. The qualities of the personality of the Lord are difficult to understand. They are transcendental. They cannot be described in mere human terms like "gay", "virile", "lesbian", or whatever term you choose. Making bold, declarative, definitive statements of what the Supreme Personality of Godhead is or is not, according to our puny human understanding is self-serving and pointless. To see followers of Krishna consciousness or any religion for that matter seem to be more concerned over the issue of whether the Supreme Personality of Godhead is gay or whatever, while millions of human beings are dying and suffering all over the world, due to wars, poverty, hunger and disease doesn't speak much of religion in general.
Well, sexuality and sexual preferences are also important issues dominating our society , and it requires attention as well.
No doubt about that. Of course, sexuality and sexual preferences are very important to busy ourselves about. How else can we do a good job of pro-creating to replace all those dying from wars, poverty, hunger and disease.
And may I know how homosexuals can create new children to replace those killed by wars , poverty, hunger and disease ?
In regards to sexuality. If we are all not our bodies and atman...which has no gender, is never born and never dies, and we are different genders with each birth--why does it matter if one is or isn't a homosexual? It should not be an issue. I'm sorry to hear that this is what Osho thinks. It is not true. Homosexuality is something someone is born with and it is not something so easily chosen. I'm sure most people don't fancy a life of ridicule. My best friend (actually most of my best friends) are gay or bisexual and I will go to the ends of the earth to stand up for their rights. They are no different than us, if you prick them they still bleed...and they have the right, just as any of us to love deeply. If sexual expression is a way of expressing deep love by connection...then why should this be limited to only those who can procreate. I know procreation is the original purpose of sex...but let's face it there are not many who only have sex to procreate. There is nothing wrong with it, as long as you aren't attached to it and it doesn't control you. Perhaps the story of Arjuna becoming Arjuni is symbolic of how deep Arjuna's love for Krishna is that he became a woman just to share divine union with Him... its just a thought. But the point is also that the stories...are just that...stories. They are meant to tell us a lesson. I think it is quite possible that the avataras lived on this earth and that many of the things, particularly in the Ramayana and Mahabharata could have happened...but you must take them as leela. If we get attached to these stories ...its not the point... the point is to take their lessons...to apply them to our lives... and to work towards dharma, divine deep love, unattachment, and moksha. With these important things to work on, imho it is silly to argue about these silly things like whether or not Krishna was bisexual... it doesn't matter. If you love Him, he will come to you and give you the most beautiful love in the world. Krishna is beyond these labels and all we argue about is just God's leela...let's worry about loving Him more and giving that love to everyone as our brothers and sisters. Let's help our gay brothers and sisters, our homeless brothers and sisters, any one whom we know who is being oppressed or facing injustice... smile at them, give them kind words, give them your love...I think this is more important... I'm sorry to sound preachy...I didn't mean it at all. Forgive me if any of this upsets you or is off or I misunderstood. This is just mho.
