Hrdayananda Goswami aka Howard Resnick aka Acaryadeva aka Acaryapada aka Gurudeva
Hridayananda (Howard Resnick), is a self-appointed bogus GBC ISKCON "guru" clone (clown), he perverts Srila Prabhupadas books, preaches bogus philosophy, stealing Prabhupadas disciples. Hridayananda received his rubber stamp guru certificate in Iskcons homosexual re-coronation ceremony and crowned himself Acaryadeva. He preaches pro homosexual philosophy.
das Goswami Blesses Gay Male Couple
BY: KRISHNA DAS
Feb 03, INDIA (SUN) ISKCON says a guru just needs to repeat what he heard from his guru - so I guess that Hridayananda das has some pro-gay marriage letters from Prabhupada that we dont know about .
Posted February 1, 2009
On November 8, 2008, Joshua Einhorn and Stanley Harris committed to a loving relationship at a Blessing Ceremony in the Chatsworth district of Los Angeles. One hundred family members, friends and ISKCON devotees celebrated. Santa Barbara ISKCON Temple President, Sarvatma das, officiated. Govinda's of Los Angeles served prasad. H.H. Hridayananda das Goswami conferred this blessing, via e-mail:
"Our love for each other is a reflection of God's love for us. Thus, the perfection of every relationship is to see God in each other.
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.
By such true spiritual love, may they always be, each for the other, a source of spiritual inspiration and happiness. May their relationship lead them, patiently and steadily, back to our real home in the spiritual world, where all relationships become eternal and perfect."
Letter to the GBC
BY: HH HRIDAYANANDA DASA GOSWAMI
Apr 15, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, USA (SUN) --
Dear GBC members,
Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
I am writing in reference to this resolution passed by the GBC this year:
317. Action and Public Statements of Hridayananda Das Goswami
The GBC has carefully reviewed the recent action (giving blessings) and the public statements of Hridayananda Maharaja concerning homosexuality. These remain controversial and divisive in ISKCON, and the GBC does not endorse or support them.
Teaching obligations have kept Hridayananda Maharaja from attending the GBC meetings this year, so the GBC has not been able to discuss this issue with him. A GBC delegation will soon meet personally with him to discuss this issue and attempt to reach a common understanding.
In compliance with that resolution I have flown to Philadelphia and on April 11, 2009 met with H.H. Bir Krishna das Goswami and H.G. Ravindra Svarupa dasa, the GBC delegation.
We have a common understanding, which I had already expressed prior to the Mayapura GBC meetings, in a dialogue with some GBC members.
I am writing to reaffirm that I uphold the Krishna conscious principle that sexual union is for procreation within marriage, and that no spiritual leader should encourage or endorse any other form of sexual relation.
I regret that I acted and spoke in such a way as to give many an impression to the contrary. I am sorry.
Hridayananda dasa Goswami
All the Trappings of a Gay Marriage
BY: HH BHAKTI VIKASA SWAMI
Apr 15, INDIA (SUN) -- http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/04-09/editorials4384.htm
Dear Hridayananda Maharaja, Please accept my obeisances. Jaya Srila Prabhupada. Thank you for your reply.
> > 1 Earlier this year, it became public that you had "blessed" a "gay
> > union." 2 The "gay union" you "blessed" had all the trappings of a
> > religious marriage: a ceremony conducted by a religious minister at a
> > religious venue (in this case, a preaching center overseen by yourself)
> > in which two persons (in your words) "commit themselves to each other."
> > Relatives and friends were invited. The blessings of God were invoked on
> > the couple. The event was reported in a magazine (in this case, Chakra)
> > that covers the affairs of the concerned religious institution.
> A few minor corrections: The event did not take place at an ISKCON facility.
However that the event was presented and seen as an ISKCON event is clear from the following:
"One hundred family members, friends and ISKCON devotees celebrated... Santa Barbara ISKCON temple president Sarvatma das officiated. Govinda's of Los Angeles served prasad. H.H. Hridayananda das Goswami conferred this blessing"
Does the fact that the event did not take place at an ISKCON facility make a significant difference to what transpired?
> It did not have 'all the trappings,'
As mentioned above, it certainly had "many" of the trappings of a religious marriage. According to the description on Chakra, those in attendance, unless specifically informed otherwise, presumably would have understood that the event was to solemnize what was tantamount to what has come to be known as a "gay marriage."
> especially not a marriage vow
The report stated that they "committed to a loving relationship at a Blessing Ceremony." In other words, the crux of the ceremony was your blessing -- in which you specified that "they commit themselves to each other." What is the nature of that commitment that makes it radically different from a "marriage vow" between gays -- that you profess to disfavor?
> the event was not reported in an ISKCON publication
True; Chakra is not an official ISKCON publication. It is a pro-gay site that reports almost exclusively on ISKCON and clearly intends to influence attitudes and policies in ISKCON, and which has for years prominently voiced your opinions, which are in tandem with its propaganda.
By pointing out that the event did not take place at an ISKCON facility and was not reported in an ISKCON publication, you have stressed that this was not an official ISKCON event. Why have you stressed the unofficial nature of this event, and what significant difference do you feel that this makes to what transpired and your leading role in it?
You are of course fully aware that as an ISKCON sannyasi, guru, and GBC member, all your actions, especially formal public actions, are liable to be considered representative of and endorsed by ISKCON, and fully in line with Srila Prabhupada and the parampara.
> It was not my idea to publish the report, and I had no knowledge a picture would be posted.
If you would have known that a report with a picture was going to be posted, would you have acted differently, and if so why?
> > Of course, the outstanding difference between this and a traditional religious
> > marriage was that the "union" was between two males: Joshua Norman
> > Einhorn and Stanley Earl Harris.
> A further 'outstanding difference' is that they chose not to marry, and
> did not make a marriage vow.
Their becoming "committed to a loving relationship" was meant to be solemnized by the "Blessing Ceremony." If not, then what was the purpose of the ceremony and what was it that "one hundred family members, friends and ISKCON devotees celebrated"? And what is the crucial difference between a a marriage vow and a religiously sanctified "committ[ment] to a loving relationship"?
> For the last few years, I have not 'so strongly endorsed and defended' gay unions.
Please explain how your "blessing" of a gay couple's becoming "committed to a loving relationship" is not "serious, formal and public recognition and appreciation" of and not a strong endorsement of "gay unions."
> By your logic, Prabhupada 'strongly endorsed and defended' meat
> eating since he many times urged people that could not or would not give
> up meat to eat a less important animal and not the cow.
> I spoke of a gay mongamous commitment precisely in the way that
> Prabhupada spoke of eating the flesh of less important animals.
A crucial difference is that Srila Prabhupada never advocated or practiced that Vaisnavas should bless meat-eating, nor hold a formal religious ceremony in celebration of it. Your blessing a "gay union," and its celebration by persons reported to be Vaisnavas, gives an aura of religious sanctity to homosexuality, the tendency toward which our founder-acarya describes as "demoniac" and the act of which Manu describes as sinful.
To encourage grossly sinful people to eat chicken rather than beef, or to stick to one homosexual partner rather than flitting around, should be accompanied by making it clear that such activities, although an improvement, are still inherently sinful and punishable by the laws of nature, and have to be given up if one is serious to attain the ultimate goal of life, pure love of Krsna.
But you have extolled Stanley Harris and Joshua Einhorn's "true love for each other," "such true spiritual love," as "in the spirit of God's love for them" and "blessed" them that "their relationship lead them ... back to our real home in the spiritual world." However that "love," that relationship, is homosexual, which our sacred authorities describe as demoniac and sinful; nowhere in sastra is it stated that homosexuality can lead to the spiritual world.
This topic remains "controversial and divisive": you clearly feel your actions to be in the best interests of ISKCON, whereas others feel that your actions are seriously flawed. As this issue deserves to be intelligently scrutinized and understood by the broader body of devotees, who it certainly affects, I am forwarding these texts beyond this conference, thus also affording you further opportunities to clarify your perspective. Clear, unambiguous responses to my points (given above) would be appreciated.
Hoping this meets you well,
Bhakti Vikasa Swami
Bhima Prabhu, 06 February 2009: When we first received this news, it was in the shape of an email. Initially we thought it was some kind of joke, something like what gets published over at The Onion. But then we saw it on Chakra.org, and googling the names of the parties involved, we found it published in Spanish over at Agenia de Noticias da Aids, and uncovered more discussion of it over at Audarya Fellowship. Stupefying. ISKCON Guru Hridayananda das Gosvami once again in the center of controversy over contradiction of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, this time on the matter of homosexual marriage and “true love”. His Holiness has openly sanctioned the marriage between Joshua Einhorn and Stanley Harris, a gay couple, and, moreover, has referred to their connection with one another as “true spiritual love”. We note so far the absence of any response from ISKCON GBC.
Back in August, Hridayananda das Gosvami distinguished himself by openly arguing for selective rejection of aspects of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings that he finds unacceptable. This was brought to our attention by Ameyatma Prabhu (see “In Defense of Srila Prabhupada’s Authority and Position”). Three months later, Joshua and Stanley got married with the blessings of Hridayananda das Gosvami. This in spite of Srila Prabhupada’s denunciation of homosex marriage and illicit sex, both homosexual and heterosexual.
For the younger generation of devotees who might not have read Srila Prabhupada’s books or might not have heard his recorded conversations, here are some of the results that turn up in VedaBase, unequivocal statements of Srila Prabhupada’s position on homosex, same-sex marriage and its endorsement by the so-called religious order.
This is not to say that Joshua and Stanley are not great guys. They may be devotees of Krishna. This is not a condemnation of them. It is a condemnation of Hridyananda das Gosvami’s endorsement of homosex union. We recognize that many of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples were/are homosexuals, and Srila Prabhupada himself knew of their propensities and loved them no less for it. But inclination and acting on it are two different things. Srila Prabhupada could love the sinner, but not the sin. He admonished his disciples, both homosexual and heterosexual, to strictly keep to the four regulative principles (no eating of meat, fish or eggs; no intoxication, including coffee and tea; no illicit sex; and no gambling). What his disciples did and did not do was up to them -- Srila Prabhupada did not go around policing them, but he did speak out against sex life in general and illicit sex in particular, including homosex, which he held to be degraded conduct. He also criticized the Catholic priests who supported homosex and gay marriage, so where does this leave Hridayananda das Gosvami? He clearly has some different opinion from that of Srila Prabhupada.
And this, more so than the issue of homosex marriage, is a serious problem. Hridayananda das Gosvami has crossed the line, stepped outside the boundaries set by the Founder-Acharya, Srila Prabhupada. He has compromised the teachings of Srila Prabhupada, undermined Srila Prabhupada’s authority with his wishy-washy, diluted, feel-good and PC New Age speak, in direct contradiction of Srila Prabhupada’s words on the subject. In other words, Hridayananda das Gosvami has rejected Srila Prabhupada’s opinions, and instead gives his own. We have to point out that this means Hridayananda das Gosvami does not represent Srila Prabhupada; he is an independent operator.
But see for yourself. Here is a sampling of what Srila Prabhupada has said about homosex and gay marriage.
Not the business of priests to support homosex
excerpt from conversation with GBC, Los Angeles, May 25, 1972
PRABHUPADA: The people are foolish, they have forgotten God. We are delivering them. Best service. And without God, it is all useless, zero, all this civilization. Zero. Whatever they are making advancement, it is all zero. And nonsense. But actually it is. Now the priestly order supporting homosex. I was surprised. They are going to pass resolution for getting married between man to man. The human society has come down to such a degraded position. It is astonishing. When I heard from Kirtanananda Maharaja there is a big conference for passing this resolution. In India still, if there somebody hears about homosex, “phew.” [exhales]. Homosex is there but nobody will support publicly. People are going down and this is the subject matter for priestly order? It may be subject matter for the legislator. Priestly order, they are discussing for one week. Just imagine. Phalena parichiyate, one has to study by the result. Not that superficially you show that “We are very much advanced.” Phalena, what is the result? Phalena parichiyate, your--that is in English word also--end justifies the means. The end is this [priestly order endorsing] “We are going to support homosex.” Getting married. There are many cases the priestly order has actually got married. I read it in that paper, “Watch”, what is called?
PRABHUPADA: “Watchtower”. They have complained. So we have nothing to [do with] them. The world is degrading to the lowest status, even less than animal. The animals also do not support homosex. They have never sex life between male to male. They are less than animal. People are becoming less than animal. This is all due to godlessness. Harav abhaktasya kuto mahad-guna [Srimad-Bhagavatam 5.18.12], godless civilization cannot have any good qualities.
excerpt from conversation, Los Angeles, Sep 28, 1972
PRABHUPADA: Christ says that “Thou shall not kill.” They are killing every moment, and still they say, “What we have done?” How nonsense they are, and they are heads of the Christian religion. They are violating in every step…
SVARUP DAMODAR: The leaders.
PRABHUPADA: …the injunction of the scripture, and still they say, “We do not know.” So many drunkards priest, they are going to hospital for treatment, and they are eating, and they are getting married man to man, and still they say, “We do not know what we have done.” Just see how cheaters they are.
JAYATIRTHA: In the last six years…
JAYATIRTHA: In the last six years in the Catholic church, 25,000 priests have left and taken up…
JAYATIRTHA: 25,000 in six years.
PRABHUPADA: What is that?
JAYATIRTHA: Have left the Catholic church, priests.
JAYATIRTHA: Ordained priests, they have left and gone off to marry or whatever. Especially they are concerned that they can’t marry. Catholic priests are not allowed to marry.
PRABHUPADA: Marrying? They are marrying man to man, what to speak of marrying. Sodomy.
JAYATIRTHA: So that’s the alternative. Either they’re leaving or they’re marrying man to man.
PRABHUPADA: Homosex. They are supporting homosex. So degraded, and still they say, “What we have done?” They do not know what is degradation, and they are priest. They are teaching others. They do not know what is the meaning of degradation.
Sanctioning homosex, spiritually bankrupt
excerpt from conversation, Los Angeles, Dec 8, 1973
YASHOMATINANDAN: It’s better sometimes to approach a person with no religion, Prabhupada, than to approach a Christian.
YASHOMATINANDAN: These Christians are very blasphemous.
PRAJAPATI: Very blasphemous.
KARANDHAR: Party spirit.
PRABHUPADA: No no, what is their value? When they are sanctioning abortion, homosex, now they are finished. They have no value.
Stop illicit sex
excerpt from conversation, Perth, May 13, 1975
PRABHUPADA: Nescience, yes. That is pravritti and nivritti. Pravritti means sense enjoyment. And nivritti means self-negation. So when we say that “You shall not have illicit sex,” and their inclination is illicit sex, so therefore it is revolutionary. They are materialistic persons. They want sex enjoyment to the best capacity--homosex, this sex, that sex, naked dance, all sexually inclined, pravritti. And we say, “Stop this,” nivritti. They do not like it because asura [demonic]. …They do not know this is essential. They do not know it. This is essential. Tapasa brahmacharyena [SB 6.1.13]. Tapasya [penance or austerity] means brahmacharya [celibacy]. The so-called swamis, they are coming for this so-called yoga practice, but they are themselves victims of sex. This is going on. Actually, it is a bluff--they have become swamis and teaching some yoga system--because they do not know that one has to stop this first of all. Brahmacharyena. So this bluffing is going on all over the world, and we are speaking just against them. … If you give instruction to the rascals, he will simply be angry. He will not take advantage of it. This is our position. All the so-called professors, philosophers, they are all in the pravritti-marga [path of sense enjoyment]. Therefore they are bringing somebody, “Our interpretation is like this.” Because if they can find out some support from the shastra [scripture], then they think, “We are secure.” This is going on. Pravrittim cha nivrittim jana na vidur asurah. The whole world is full of asuras [demons], descendants of Hiranyakashipu, and it is very difficult. But if we give them chance to chant Hare Krishna mantra, gradually they will understand. Our difficulty: the so-called swamis, priests, popes, they are also in the pravritti-marga. All these, priests, and they have illicit sex. Pravritti-marga. So they are passing, “Yes, you can have homosex with man.” They are getting man-to-man marriage. You know? They are performing the marriage ceremony between man to man in the open church. What class of men they are? And they are priest. Just see.
Ideal character will not advocate homosex
excerpt from conversation with Director of Research of the Department of Social Welfare, Melbourne, May 21, 1975
PRABHUPADA: No. There is no question of high percentage. I said that even a small percentage, there must be some ideal men. At least people will see that here is the ideal man. Just like we are having. Because they are chanting and dancing, many outsiders are coming and they are also learning, they are also offering obeisances. And gradually they are offering their service: “Please accept me.” The example is better than precept. If you have an ideal group of men, then people will automatically learn. That is wanted. But don’t mind, I don’t find any ideal group of men. Even in the priests they are going to hospital for their drinking habit. … In a hospital, five thousand patients, alcoholic patients, priests. Priest should be ideal character. And they are advocating homosex. So where is the ideal character men? If the priestly class they are going to hospital for drinking habit, and they are allowing man-to-man marriage and homosex, then where is ideal character?
DIRECTOR: But homosexual is a sickness. It’s an illness. It’s just like a person can’t see, you would punish him for not seeing. You can’t punish a person for being homosexual. That our society says.
PRABHUPADA: Well, anyway, the priestly class, sanctioning homosex.
PRABHUPADA: Sanctioning. They are allowing homosex. And there was report that man and man was married by the priest. In New York there is a paper, “Watchtower”. That is a Christian paper. I have seen in that paper. They are condemning it, that priest is allowing man-to-man marriage. And they are passing resolution, homosex is passed, “All right.” And in Perth you said that the students are discussing about homosex, in favor of homosex. So where is the ideal character? If you want something tangible business, train some people to become ideal character. That is this Krishna consciousness movement.
DIRECTOR: What you people say what ideal to you is not ideal to somebody else?
PRABHUPADA: I am giving the example ideal character.
DIRECTOR: Yeah, but that’s one opinion.
PRABHUPADA: No. It will not depend on opinion. Opinion… What is the value of opinion if the people are all asses? There is no opinion. One should take as it is enjoined in the shastra. No opinion. What is the use of taking opinion of an ass? So the people are trained up just like dogs and asses, then what is the use of their opinion? If you are to enforce, you must do like this. Just like when we introduced this “No illicit sex.” I never cared for their opinion. The opinion… immediately there will be discussion. And what is the use of taking their opinion? It must be done. That is the defect of Western civilization. Vox populi, taking opinion of the public. But what is the value of this public? Drunkards, smokers, meat-eaters, woman-hunters. What is the… they are not first-class men. So what is the use of such third-class, fourth-class men’s opinion? We do not advocate such opinion. What Krishna said, that is standard, that’s all. Krishna is the Supreme, and His version is final. No opinion, no democracy. When you go to a physician, doctor, for treatment, the physician does not place his prescription for opinion of other patients: “Now I am prescribing this medicine for this gentleman, now give me your opinion.” Does he do that? The all patients, what they will think? The physician is the perfect person. Whatever he has written prescription, that’s all. But here in the Western… everything, public opinion. What is the use of such opinion?
No difference in behavior between a priest and a gross atheist
excerpt from conversation, Mayapur, Feb 16, 1977
PRABHUPADA: They announced that there is a hospital for drunkard priests.
TAMAL KRSNA: Alcoholic priests.
PRABHUPADA: And they have introduced gambling.
TAMAL KRSNA: And homosex.
PRABHUPADA: Homosex, what is that religion? And they’re passing to homosex, religion. They’re getting married man to man. Most degraded.
HARI-SAURI: There’s no difference between the behavior of a priest and the behavior of a gross atheist…
HARI-SAURI: …except he’s dressed as a priest.
PRABHUPADA: That’s all. Dress only.
Apart from the homosex issue, Hridayananda das Gosvami appears to have altogether misunderstood the philosophy of Krishna consciousness, the goal of love of Krishna. He assigns so much importance to the love that Joshua and Stanley have for each other, “in the spirit of God’s love for them”, and in his last sentence writes, “May their relationship lead them, patiently and steadily, back to our real home in the spiritual world, where all relationships become eternal and perfect.” Feel-good stuff we’d expect to hear from a New Age guru, NOT from a disciple of Srila Prabhupada! Srila Prabhupada wrote bluntly to a disciple that engaging in homosex jeopardized his spiritual advancement.
Homosex is illicit sex
letter to a disciple, Hawaii, 26 May, 1975
26 May, 1975
My Dear Lalitananda dasa,
Please accept my blessings. I am in due receipt of your letter dated May 13rd, 1975 and have noted the contents. I am very sorry that you have taken to homosex. It will not help you advance in your attempt for spiritual life. In fact, it will only hamper your advancement. I do not know why you have taken to such abominable activities. What can I say? Anyway, try to render whatever service you can to Krishna. Even though you are in a very degraded condition Krishna, being pleased with your service attitude, can pick you up from your fallen state. You should stop this homosex immediately. It is illicit sex, otherwise, your chances of advancing in spiritual life are nil. Show Krishna you are serious, if you are.
I hope this meets you in good health.
Your ever well-wisher,
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
NOTE: Lalitananda dasa died of AIDS September 1989 in Berkley after his homosexual partner contracted HIV.
Love for others is a reflection of God’s love for us. That’s nice. BUT Srila Prabhupada calls it a “perverted reflection.” Whatever we suppose to be love in our relationships with each other is not love at all, but lust. Real love exists between the living entity and Krishna; otherwise it is not possible. This is Srila Prabhupada’s explanation.
excerpt from lecture, Seattle, Sep 30, 1968
Because this human form of life is meant for developing love for God. Because in all other life we have loved, we have loved. We have loved our children, we have loved our wife, we have loved our nest in the bird’s life, in the beast’s life. There is love. There is no necessity of teaching a bird or beast how to love the children. There is no necessity, because that is natural. To love your home, to love your country, to love your husband, to love your children, to love your wife, and so on, you go on, all this love, more or less they are all in the animal kingdom also. But that sort of love will not give you happiness. You’ll be frustrated because this body is temporary. Therefore all these loving affairs are also temporary and they are not pure. They are simply a perverted reflection of the pure love that is existing between you and Krishna. So if you want really peace, if you really want satisfaction, if you don’t want to be confused, then try to love Krishna. This is the plain program. Then your life will be successful. The Krishna consciousness movement is not something manufactured to mislead and bluff the people. It is a most authorized movement. Vedic literature, the Bhagavad-gita, Srimad-Bhagavatam, Vedanta-sutra, Puranas, and many, many great saintly persons adopted this means. And the vivid example is Lord Chaitanya. You see His picture, He is in the dancing mood. So you have to learn this art, then our life will be successful. You haven’t got to practice anything artificial and speculating and bother your brain and… You have the instinct for loving others. That is instinctive, natural. Simply we are misplacing love and therefore we are frustrated. Frustrated. Confused. So if you don’t want to be confused, if you don’t want to be frustrated, then try to love Krishna, and you’ll feel yourself how you are making progress in peacefulness, in happiness, in everything that you want.
Not love, but lust
excerpt from discussions with Hayagriva das on Kierkegaard
PRABHUPADA: Yes. Love in the material world is impossible. In the material world everyone is interested for his own sense gratification. The love between man and woman, young boy and young girl, that is not love, that is lust, because both the parties are interested in sense gratification. But that is not love. Love means the parties, they will not think of his own sense gratification but the sense gratification of the beloved. That is pure love. That is not possible in the material world, but we see the example of love in the picture of Vrindavana. In the Vrindavana village, everyone--man, animals and fruits, flowers, water, everything--they are only for loving Krishna. They do not want any return from Krishna. That is real love, anyabhilashita-shunyam [Brahma-samhita 1.1.11]. If one loves God with some motive, that is material love. Pure love is simply to satisfy the desires of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore in the material world the love, word “love,” is misused. The propensity of lusty desires is going on as love. Real love is only with God--individually, collectively, any way. And that Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, He is the supreme object of love, either by adoration or by serving or making friendship with Him, or loving Him as child, or loving Him as beloved--there are five different relationships: shanta, dasya, sakhya, vatsalya, madhurya--that is real love.
Actual love means love of God, Krishna
excerpt from Science of Self Realization, “Exploring the Spiritual Frontier”
Krishna tells Arjuna, His disciple, that “It is lust only… which is the all-devouring, sinful enemy of this world.” (Bhagavad-gita 3.37) In the Vedic language there is no word for materialistic “love,” as we call it in the present day. The word kama describes lust or material desire, not love, but the word that we find in the Vedas for actual love is prema, meaning one’s love of God only. Outside of loving God there is no possibility of loving. Rather, there is lusty desire only. Within this atmosphere of matter, the entire range of human activities--and not only every activity of human beings but all living entities--is based upon, given impetus and thus polluted by sex desire, the attraction between male and female. For that sex life, the whole universe is spinning around--and suffering! That is the harsh truth. So-called love here means that “you gratify my senses, I’ll gratify your senses,” and as soon as that gratification stops, immediately there is divorce, separation, quarrel, and hatred. So many things are going on under this false conception of love. Actual love means love of God, Krishna.
So much for love and marriage going on in this material world. Srila Prabhupada did not believe in it.
It seems that Hridayananda das Gosvami has allowed himself to be swayed by popular opinion rather than keep to the uncompromising words of Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada cared not for public opinion; he faithfully presented the shastric conclusions without fear that they might be dismissed or set aside as irrelevant by disbelievers. How should we regard Hridayananda das Gosvami’s work to complete the 10th through 12th cantos of Srimad-Bhagavatan, knowing now that he has faith in neither Srila Prabhupada’s words nor in the verdicts of the predecessor acharyas that are recorded as shastra?
yasya deve para bhaktir
yatha deve tatha gurau
tasyaite kathita hy arthah
“Unto those great souls who have implicit faith in both the Lord and the spiritual master, all the imports of Vedic knowledge are automatically revealed.” [Shvetashvatara Upanishad 6.23]
Srila Prabhupada speaks of safety in keeping to the spiritual master’s instructions:
PRABHUPADA: …I cent percent believe in the words of my spiritual master. That’s all, nothing else. Guru-mukha-padma-vakya, chittete koriya aikya, ara na koriho mane asha ["My only wish is to have my consciousness purified by the words emanating from his lotus mouth."]. Don’t think of any nonsense. Simply execute what your guru has said. That is success. You are daily singing, guru-mukha-padma-vakya. You know the meaning?
PRITHU-PUTRA: Yes. Chittete koriya aikya, ara na koriho mane asha.
PRABHUPADA: This is the instruction. And the child decides it that “Whatever my parent says, that’s all I shall do. I shall do nothing,” then he’s safe. [excerpt from room conversation, Bhuvaneshvar, Jan 28, 1977]
As disciple, Hridayananda das Gosvami has only to accept whatever Srila Prabhupada has said, without argument, without speculation, without proposing anything different.
PRABHUPADA: Here is a technique. The same Krishna and same Arjuna, they are talking as friends. Then what was the necessity of Arjuna accepting Krishna as spiritual master? The same Arjuna and same Krishna, they’ll talk, but what is the necessity of accepting as spiritual master? That means after accepting spiritual master he’ll not argue. He’ll simply accept whatever He says. That is the technique. Friendly talks, equal level, He, Krishna was talking something and he was replying. So that argument has no end. But when he accepts Him as spiritual master, there is no more argument. One has to accept whatever He says. Therefore he’s accepting as spiritual master. After this, Arjuna will never say, “This is wrong, this is, no,” or “I don’t agree.” No. He’ll accept. So acceptance of spiritual master means to accept anything, whatever he says. Therefore one has to select a spiritual master whom he can completely surrender. That is the technique. Veda-vakya. Just like in the Vedic injunction, nobody can deny. Similarly, spiritual master is also representative of Veda. Acharyavan purusho veda. So similarly, it is just like Vedic injunction. So spiritual master has also got the great duty. He has to instruct the disciple in such a way that he may not be misled, and that is not possible because a spiritual master is he who will simply speak from authoritative sources. He’ll speak from Bhagavad-gita, Bhagavata, or what was spoken by Narada, Vyasa, that is his authority. He does not say, “In my opinion it is…” No. Therefore it is perfect, it is coming from the disciplic succession, and if one agrees to such instruction, then he’s also perfectly advancing. It is not difficult to understand. So he’s accepting. “Now I accept You as my spiritual master. You teach me.” [excerpt from lecture on Bhagavad-gita 2.1-10, Los Angeles, Nov 25, 1968]
We are dismayed that Hridayananda das Gosvami continues to present himself as an ISKCON guru, representative of Srila Prabhupada, and that ISKCON GBC do not take steps to discipline him and bring him back in line. But then, Hridayananda das Gosvami, along with his other GBC and guru godbrothers, have not truly represented Srila Prabhupada in all these last 31 years since Srila Prabhupada’s departure. Early on, they turned their backs on Srila Prabhupada’s instruction to act as rittvik representative of the Acharya and initiate new disciples on his behalf, and instead regarded themselves qualified to become guru and initiate their own disciples. Over the years they have disregarded and disobeyed so many of Srila Prabhupada’s instructions--with regard to initiation of new devotees, with regard to management of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, with regard to preserving the integrity of his books (the books have been changed), with regard to management of Society properties, execution of his last will and testament, and with regard to management of the Temples (neglecting to implement the “Direction of Management”, so ordered by Srila Prabhupada in 1970), and have belittled Srila Prabhupada, going to the extent of calling him a “hired worker” in court documents. Even as one after the other of the original 11 “gurus” were implicated in scandalous affairs, the GBC tried to hush the matter and prop them up, until their disgraceful conduct could no longer be contained, and then also, the GBC launched into damage control mode every time, issuing an obscure proclamation of “The GBC gratefully acknowledges the service of So-and-So, and with regret accepts his resignation and looks forward to his return again one day.” So expecting that the GBC will take action to correct Hridayananda das Gosvami is like expecting the Mafia heads to correct one of their own for conducting business as usual. As long as he does not disrupt the business of the others, he is one of the family. So there you have it: gay marriage, love and family according to ISKCON.
Comment: Hridayananda's stance on the gay issue is all about money, nothing else. It's about money, don't you understand? If Hridayananda Maharaja caters to the gays then that will pay off for him because actually gay people are usually quite educated and successful professional people who will donate to their so called guru Hridayananda Maharaja and support his typical jet-set lifestyle like all the rest of the ISKCON gurus.
Letter From Hridayananda Maharaja
by Hridayananda das Goswami
Posted February 6, 2009
Jaya Srila Prabhupada. A letter of blessings that I sent to a gay couple has caused an extraordinary amount of controversy, and so I am writing here to clarify my understanding of this issue, and the intention of my letter.
In the Bhagavad-gita 17.15, Lord Krishna states that "Austerity of speech consists in speaking words that are truthful, pleasing, beneficial, and not agitating to others..."
I have clearly failed to some extent in this duty as prescribed by Lord Krishna, given the bitter and insulting nature of some responses. I sincerely apologize to the devotees for this evident failure.
I have been accused of harboring thinly veiled political motives, or of seeking to impose upon ISKCON a new and de facto social reality regarding homosexual relations. To the devotees, even to the incredulous, I state here that none of this was my intention. In my letter, as I will later explain in detail, I sought, and apparently failed, to strike a balance that would not convulse ISKCON. The great agitation produced by my letter shows that I failed in my intent, for which I again apologize.
I am keenly aware that I do not have the right within ISKCON to unilaterally establish policy on this matter, and my intention was not to preempt, nor to pressure or coerce, a GBC decision on the issue.
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. As stated in an earlier paper I wrote on this topic:
1. I do not advocate, nor perform, gay marriage. I accept the view of Srila Prabhupada, (and, by the way, of the well-known gay musician, Elton John) that marriage historically has been, and should remain, a heterosexual institution.
2. Although science proves that a segment of the population is born with a homosexual orientation, and although homosexuality is thus natural for that group, I do not believe that what is natural for an individual or a group of individuals, is necessarily natural for society. Therefore I seek a balance that respects the genetically, unavoidably homosexual nature of an individual, as well as the natural right of society as a whole to privilege heterosexuality as its social norm.
In my letter, which was addressed to educated non-devotees, I began by saying: "Our love for each other is a reflection of God's love for us. Thus, the perfection of every relationship is to see God in each other."
Since Krishna's love for us is pure, I believed that serious devotees would understand, from the beginning of my statement, that I was speaking of spiritual love, rather than mundane, bodily lust. I believed they would see that I was encouraging the persons involved to see Krishna within each other, and thus fully transcend the bodily concept of life. I then stated:
"May God bless [these] devoted souls, as they commit themselves to each other in the spirit of God's love for them. May [they] always please God through true love for each other."
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.
Irrefutable history shows us that many sincere souls born with a homosexual orientation have struggled sincerely to serve Srila Prabhupada's mission, and to awaken their dormant love for Krishna, despite an often heavy private and social burden. I cannot see such souls, as some apparently do, as disgusting freaks, willfully and obscenely offending God and nature by their genetic makeup. I am well aware of Srila Prabhupada's statements on this matter and I am confident that a mature, thorough knowledge of Prabhupada's preaching content and style makes possible a more moderate interpretation of those statements. I feel that I am well prepared to logically defend this view though I will not belabor it here.
I also do not go to the other extreme of denying that homosexuality, in some ways, is problematic within a spiritual society. The special burden of devotees born with this condition can only be fully eliminated by their own spiritual enlightenment.
In the last paragraph of my letter, I said: "By such true spiritual love, may they always be, each for the other, a source of spiritual inspiration and happiness. May their relationship lead them, patiently and steadily, back to our real home in the spiritual world, where all relationships become eternal and perfect."
I believed that devotees would recognize the language of true spiritual love as referring to pure Krishna consciousness, far beyond the bodily concept of life, far above any form of sexuality. And clearly a relationship that leads people back to the spiritual world must be a relationship which, through genuine devotion and sacrifice, has become fully pleasing to Krishna.
Not a word in my letter addresses current social or political issues related to homosexuality. Not a word in my letter claims a legal status for homosexual couples, be it marriage or civil union. As a Vaishnava teacher, not as a political operative, nor as a renegade policy maker, I prayed to Krishna that He guide two sincere souls to His lotus feet.
That I expressed this sincere wish in a manner that was not sufficiently sensitive to the concerns of other sincere Vaishnavas, I admit. I truly regret this failing on my part. However, that I acted with political motives, I vehemently deny.
Let us take this situation as an opportunity to earnestly discuss how we may best preserve our sacred principles: both our moral rigor as well as our deep compassion.
With best wishes,
Hridayananda das Goswami
[PADA: Even some of the little peons INSIDE of ISKCON are appalled at Hrdayananda's idiocy. This is good: "the king has no clothes," and its increasingly apparent even to the littlest peanut sized pin-heads in ISKCON. All this just after Hrdayananda made some obnoxious comments about Srila Prabhupada's purports which created a previous manure storm, and his previous letter to GALVA devotees which created another manure storm etc.. Hah, hah, hah! Thanks pd]
please also read:
expose - mexico
Hridayananda melt down
Hridayananda's Tough Love
Hridayananda fall down from sannyasa
Hridayananda's Sex - Drugs - and Cocaine Party
Hridayananda rejects Srila Prabhupada
A Response to Hridayananda's Homosexual Philosophy
Hridayananda rejected by his disciple Krishna-Kirti Das
Hrdayananda's bogus Srimad Bhagavatam
Srila Prabhupada on homosexuality
IRG South America Update
Krishna-kirti's letter to the GBC [doc]
Krishna-kirti pdf article here [pdf]
Hridayananda -- Out of Character
Hridayananda's Falldowns with Devamrita devi dasi
Hridayananda exposed by Payonidhi Prabhu
Hridayananda Aparadhi to the Sannyasa Order
Photo Gallery of Hridayananda
any questions please write to
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
All glories to His Divine Grace A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada!