homosexuality

[devotee]

Namaste Yajvan ji, GaneshPrasad ji and others,

The thread's main point of discussion was, "Homosexuality" and not the "third sex". Mentioning a "napunshak"/impotent or "third sex" in Mahabharata doesn't approve homosexuality.

OM

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~

namasté devotee,

Namaste Yajvan ji, GaneshPrasad ji and others,

The thread's main point of discussion was, "Homosexuality" and not the "third sex". Mentioning a "napunshak"/impotent or "third sex" in Mahabharata doesn't approve homosexuality.
OM

Yes, you are correct - that is why I asked ramakrishna the parvan he was referring to so we can look and consider
from where this persepctive has come.


praṇām

[Ramakrishna]

yajvan: Thank you for your clarification. My sincere apologies for being misinformed. You sound like a very intelligent and well-informed person. I do not feel like going back and reading all the previous posts, so would you be so kind as to tell me your opinion of Hinduism and homosexuality? Do you believe it is against Hinduism, or does it not really matter?

Thank you

[SeekingPeaceOfMind]

Here are some points to ponder upon when approaching this subject.

Some people have the opinion that homosexuality isn't natural because it appears less in the species, well then what about gold and diamonds? Why does a human not take a plentiful rock readily available from ones back garden and perhaps some bark from a tree and fashion jewelery from those items which are abundant. The very reason humans appreciate and covet gold and diamonds is exactly the same reason why they do not accept homosexuality, it comes down to rarity. Perhaps the homosexual with it's rarity should be considered precious as are all rare things, be it gold, diamonds, oil, rare spices and delicacies etc etc.

Another point is the Shiva-Shakti equation, if one wishes to view this spiritually, then perhaps the homosexual has a greater balance of masculine and feminine influences within them. A heterosexual man requires a wife and a heterosexual women requires a husband, but often times homosexuals (particularly gay men) are far more independent and able to at times be sensitive yet conduct themselves with the masculinity to lead and direct those around them. Blue for a boy, pink for a girl but purple for a homosexual due to the blending of character traits.

Another argument is homoesexuals cannot have children, well spiritually the physical is seen as being spiritually inferior to pure consciousness. The homosexuals love is one comprised solely of consciousness without the by-product of the gross physical.

If homosexuals weren't so beaten and discouraged from engaging in spiritual practices who knows what treasures might be uncovered. I'm paraphrasing here but once a man said to Boy George 'it is harder for a gay person to get into heaven' and Boy George replied 'well perhaps straight people should stop holding the gates shut.'

Namaste.

[Sri Vaishnava]

I'm just wondering if homosexuality is considered a bad thing in hinduism or by most hindus? I was just reading a thread on these forums about a sikh criticism of ramakrishna which mentioned a book that claimed he was homosexual. Apparently, these claims caused a lot of controversy in india because hindus are homophobic.

This is not a subject I would frequent, but it so happens that I know the answer to this one. Everyone here quotes the mahAbhArata, but one needs to look in the right place.

There is an anecdote connected with the sishya of srI vAnamAmalai jeeyar swami in the sri vaishnava tradition. His name was srI varadAchArya and lived in the 15th century. He was renowned for his discourses on the mahAbhArata. One day, his sishya approached him and asked him a question - "In this world, we see that a man is married to a woman. Do the dharma sAstras say that it is possible for a man to love a man?"

*Note: The sishya who asked this question later on became one of the greatest acharyas of our tradition. His question was not motivated by any personal inclinations, but only as a tattva jignyAsa. Understanding every facet of nature is a part of Vishishtadvaita Vedanta and we leave nothing unexplained.

SrI varadAchArya replied - It is not uncommon. In the virAta parva, when the pandavas were in hiding during the last year of their exile, Draupadi served as a hand-maid. The mahAbhArata says that when Draupadi went to take a bath, the ladies who waited on her were so enamoured of her beauty that they wished they could be men so that they were eligible to love her. Hence, developing feelings for the same sex is possible.

So, atleast as far as we are concerned, it is not an unnatural thing, homosexuality. All this is also a product of karma.

But, one must also add that the sAstras permit marriage and union only for the sake of progeny and furthering of the vaidika tradition. If you are marrying for love, such a marriage falls into the scope of samsArA. So, by default, since homosexuals cannot reproduce, their marriage would not be classified as any of the 8 types of marriage (daiva, brahma, pisaca kalyanas, etc) sanctioned by the sAstras and it would not be deemed beneficial.

In short, no matter what your inclinations are, vairAgya and restraint of the senses is important. Kama is discouraged, be it for a man or a woman.

And I think, this position is neither biased nor over-free. Its a rational stance.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

the arguments continue and there is no convincing side A or side B of what is or is not best. It is one more thing of confusion that comes to the human condition. I am firm and clear on my position and can sleep well at night. For those thinking this whole subject though I wish you the best that you come to a resolution.

praṇām

[Viraja]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

the arguments continue and there is no convincing side A or side B of what is or is not best. It is one more thing of confusion that comes to the human condition. I am firm and clear on my position and can sleep well at night. For those thinking this whole subject though I wish you the best that you come to a resolution.

praṇām

Maybe the confusion is because those who oppose (homosexual marriages) aren't applying 'desh/kaal/patra' principles, Yajvan ji.

[Sri Vaishnava]

the arguments continue and there is no convincing side A or side B of what is or is not best. It is one more thing of confusion that comes to the human condition. I am firm and clear on my position and can sleep well at night. For those thinking this whole subject though I wish you the best that you come to a resolution.

There is no need to assume that everyone other than your good self is confused. The sAstras are very clear on this and every other subject and leave no room for doubt on any matter (and by that, I hope I do not invite sarcastic comments on dinosaurs and stuff like that!). Especially in the matter of dharma, artha and kama, which the mahAbhArata covers in full.

However, if you find these arguments unconvincing, that is of course, your viewpoint and naturally, that will be your "firm conviction" as others have theirs.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

I do not know the convictions of the last two posts above... yet the term 'oppose' surfaced. My view is not based upon opposing.

For me it is quite clear - I do not wish to confuse what one does to whom one truly is. I wish avoid becoming defined by an action.

... do as you see fit.
praṇām

[philosoraptor]

Sexuality in general is "unnatural," as it relates to the body, which is itself the result of past guNa and karma. Our distinctive identity as spiritual Atman-s makes such bodily activities inherently unnatural, especially when they are performed for purposes other than realizing the nature of Atman and paramAtman. There is an allowance for limited heterosexual contact in the context of marriage for progeny. Sensual contact for the purpose of physical pleasure, even when rationalized in the name of so-called "love," is still on the plane of materialistic activity, and thus generates karma, which is binding.

People who say that we have many valid opinions on this subject are simply not correct. The position of shAstra is very clear on this point: liberation should be sought, and activities which cause karma should be discarded. None of this is to say that people will seek liberation and discard materialistic activities. In the end, people will do whatever they want to do, but we should be honest and stick to the conclusions of shAstra, rather than implying there is some kind of non-existent ambiguity on this subject.

People who talk about having arrangements for homosexual marriages are missing the point. Our Vedic culture has never been about creating more arrangements for sensual pleasure.