HinduNet
Forums Chat Annouce Calender DigiCards Recommend Remote Invites
Page 8 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#47896 - 06/08/04 10:57 PM Re: Being a gay Hindu - My first step towards freedom ***** [Re: Shaivite]
vedananda Offline
stranger

Registered: 04/24/04
Posts: 2
Namaste Shaivite

Actually many people all through Hindu history and literature were married, had children and gained moksha. It is clear that the ideal is complete celebacy and presently that is a challenge in almost all communities. however we should and must strive towards these ideals. Our goal / purpose as a Hindu is moksha or liberation. If this is our ultimate goal, then the means towards attaining this goal becomes as important as the goal itself.

Hindu dharma has four stages of life commencing with brahmachari (student life of celebacy), Grihasta (householder or marriage stage), Vanaprastha and sannyasi. During the householder stage, sexual activity is dharmic as long as it is in keeping within scriptural guidelines. So the institution of marriage and family is not condemned by Hinduism (for moksha) but rather is guided by scripture so that the ultimate end can be attained.

In taking guidance from scripture, we must be careful not to tease out a meaning that satisfies our whim or fancy, or one that somehow justifies our actions in some way or the other.
Sex has been investigated and analysed very profoundly in Hinduism (Kama sutra). But while this is so, we are guided by the Prashtana Traya which suggests sex only for procreation.
This is the ideal. We should not attempt to lower it but should assist all those aspiring to attain this ideal. By telling anyone that it is okay to have sex in moderation or to be gay is okay, without informing them of the ideal will be an injustice, especially if such a person is seeking answers in Hinduism.
It is true that Hindu scriptures give advice - "the advice on sex is that it is for procreation. What procreation can occur via a homosexual relationship? Such a relationship is contrary to the principles and institution of marriage and dharma (right action).

I like your opening remarks that homosexuality and heterosexuality has nothing to do with atman. However note that Hinduism has everything to do with atman. Our lives and lifestyles must lead us towards self realisation or realisation of the atman. If we are learning Hinduism and its teachings, towards what end is this learning if not towards liberation? Is it too just for pleasure?

Katha Upanisad: "In life there are two paths, the pleasurable and the good. He who chooses the pleasurable, verily loses he the path"

As for your "growing mountain of evidence", have heard of the growing mountain of evidence that homosexuality was present since the dawn of creation and is part of GOD's plan?

Seriously though, have you heard of :"as you think, so you become". Do you think that this is true?

NB: My gay friends, - this is not any attack or judgement on anyone, just an attempt to set the record straight.
I may not like what you do, but this does not diminish my love and prayer for you.


Lets us know exactly where we are and where we need to go. May we not fool ourselves inbetween.

Namaste

Top
#47897 - 06/09/04 12:22 AM Re: Being a gay Hindu - My first step towards freedom [Re: vedananda]
abcdhinduz Offline
member
*

Registered: 12/08/02
Posts: 219
Vedananda: you wrote:
" like your opening remarks that homosexuality and heterosexuality has nothing to do with atman. However note that Hinduism has everything to do with atman".
AT personal level each person may benefit by knowing about ATMAN within.

BUT your ATMAN does not make any decisions for you as to how you must direct your sexual urges! It is there in Dharmasastras. It is upto each adult individual however to act rightly based upon the laws of nature and nurture as well. If you are GAY, that is because your genes are programmed to be that way. You can't think it is a learned behavior and therefore must be condemned.

If your sexual behaviors are causing problems to another person or whatever you are planning to have sex w, then it is not in line w DHARMA at all. no where in Hindu scriptures there is any sanction for homosexual orientation
at all.

However, like any other sexual activities that a heterosexual couple may engage in, if it does produce harm to others bodily or physically or psychologically, then all people must watch what they are doing first. If my neighbors are homosexuals, it may not bother me at all, as long as they don't ask me to have sex w them or have sex w minors in our block!

" like your opening remarks that homosexuality and heterosexuality has nothing to do with atman".

WRONG. It is said in Briha Upanishad, that every time a male spits out semen, ATMAN is lost in those sperms. HOW?
Semen is a material protein fluid in which those tineyest gametes called sperms move around. If you leave them out in a tube for a while, they can not move as vigorusly as they would inside a womb! Anyway, sperms are the "organ" of reproduction for a man, while the egg is for a woman technically.

The difference is egg does not travel outside the woman's body under normal circumstances at all. Only the sperms do to unite w the "ONLY ONE EGG" that is put into the womb every month by a woman. The sperm's ATMAN leaves it because it gets thrown out of a man's body! That is the sacrifice that was revealed thru Aswamedha yagna in Briha U.

If that sperm did not unite w an EGG and produce a fetus, all sperms that got out of a man's body are said to be in waste. ATMAN or the potential creatorship is lost when sperms get out of a man's body in an unwanted act/s.

Homosexuals on the other hand are made or programmed from ancient time to be non-reprdouctive only. That is the way, their gunas are set up by PRAKRITIC genomes. Their anupraktic genes have undergone certain special modifications from the time of continental drift that they tend to manifest their in-born gunas or tendencies only. There is nothing BRAHMAN can do about it.

Besides, it is not said anywhere in VEDA or even in BRiHA u. that all sex is for procreation only. KAMA or lust is excessive craving for certain material things! Remember our body is a material thing too! Some people crave so much for
being close to it than others. Being close gives them the so called "BLISSFUL" feeling, which is what LORD SHIVA Lingha is used to show as "DIVINE UNION" as heterosexual couple, for PROCREATION purpose.

BUT there is also a story of SHIVA AND VISHNU (was dressed like a MOHINI or a lady) and HAD A CHILD named "LORD AYAPPA"...given in puranic stories!

(this is in parallel w the story of LOT in Sodom/gomorrah in genesis Bk I under OT).

In Ashwamedha yagna, there was a research as to how human life was formed on earth. That discovery was explained by saying when a purusha (man) spits out semen, the ATMAN is lost which results in the material outcome of a fetus only if properly used by the couple. Also at that time, it was a hightened case of immorality going on. All women were rendered infertile because of ABRAHM (our hebrew verson of BRAHMA was sinning)having a child w HAGAR and SARAH having something w ABHIMELECH. It was a curse that they tried to fix by allowing all men to have indiscriminate sex (as in tantric style within a temple of ISHTAR) w all infetile women. Which made very many problems to show up in that society then. When they performed this ASWAMEDHA YAGNA, the lesson was to tell people not to waste or sacrifice ATMAN unnecessarily by unwanted sexual relationships!

So ATMAN though gets out of man's body for creation purposes, if it does not really end up producing a child, then that ATMAN moves on to another formed body of a living organism only.

in that sense, you are right! ATMAN is not affected by any sexual acts at all. But your material body is. STDs and unwanted pregnancies or unwated relationships may result if a person does not use proper DHARMA based knowledge and practices.

" However note that Hinduism has everything to do with atman"

MOKSHA or liberation has mostly to do w ATMAN uniting w BRAHMAN. Hindus may have an ultimate goal, which is that.
It may take however, may lives to attain that for most of us in kali yuga. We are not good at resisting temptations or distractions of our desires or urges at all.

"Our lives and lifestyles must lead us towards self realisation or realisation of the atman"

sure, keep trying and trying. If two homosexual couple remain monogamous and do not bother other people, or mind their own business, sure they can worship BRAHMAN and attain Moksha as well!

MOKSHA is not limited to heterosexuals only! or it does not exclude homosexuals or any particular gender people!

It is not affecting ATMAN in anyway. BUT whatever your body is subjected to is going to affect only your physical body, mind and intellect or collect more vasanas or memories for future. Which means, the goal of MOKSHA is getting postphoned indefinitely for many reasons by some people!

LOL:)

I am a heterosexual mom, who did not set up my goal on MOKSHA, as I know it is a long term goal for me. Unless I drastically improve and consciously renunce every thing around in my envt.

BUT I can't. I am a mother of a 3 yr old. He needs me and my daughter/hubby need me! LOL:) They will not allow me to become a "sanyasi", though my ego feels sort of inclined towards it!!

"However note that Hinduism has everything to do with atman"

Not really.

It has to do w helping people (to live a whole life) lead a Dharmic life and a longivity increases when you follow Dharmas.

Hinduism is there to protect your material body, mind and intellect by depleting unwanted or unhealthy memories accumulation only. The more bad memories you collect or whatever (even too much of good is unhealthy) then you are likely to be re-born to deplete them or to work w those cravings or unresolved issues all over again.

Hinduism is a like a guarantteed insurance policy w dharma practices for healthy long life!

"Our lives and lifestyles must lead us towards self realisation or realisation of the atman"

YUP. You are right! But even w self realization, there are people who may slip and fall or commit sins, like those 4,500 catholic priests who did molest about 12,000 kids!
They were homo-or-hetero sexual people.

Following good conduct, duty, virtues, w laws of your nature and others in your nurture is very collectly called DHARMIC ways of life karmas in action.

"Our lives and lifestyles must lead us towards self realisation or realisation of the atman"

TRY. TRY. but make sure you are within Dharma limits here.
ATMAN can't limit you, but your society can or your material body can.

I am tryin gto find a verse which can explain this better to Shaivaite and you now. I will post later.

This is Americanhindu1, BTW here posting to say good luck.

Top
#47898 - 06/09/04 04:48 PM Re: False: "Homosexuality and heterosexuality both have no place in SD". [Re: marik]
Kalel Offline
seeker
***

Registered: 02/24/04
Posts: 54
Loc: USA
I think traditionally, Hindus have been very slow to accept homosexuality, as in many religious theologies - especially in Hinduism which views the bonding of man and woman as sacred. What is great about Hinduism, however, is it's ability to mold and develop with time to accomodate many fascets of life. I think that in time, those who do not accept homosexuals as Hindu will find acceptance in it, even if it takes generations. Consider that through our various lifetimes, we are presented with experiences to learn from in the development of our soul. That is my viewpoint on the homosexual Hindu - there is more to do with it than just the here an now.
Cheers,
Kalel
_________________________
Cheers, Kalel

Top
#47899 - 06/10/04 12:03 AM Re: Being a gay Hindu - My first step towards freedom [Re: asokaram]
SevaShakti Offline
stranger

Registered: 04/29/04
Posts: 4
Loc: Asheville, NC
Hi everyone, it is WONDERFUL to read this discussion. I haven't even got halfway through the posts yet, but I am so happy to see this even being discussed -- and almost completely positively (except for those stupid imposters). Being Hindu and Queer, I have often heard conflicting things about what our religion "really" says about sexuality in all its forms -- I'm glad to have so many others to learn from.

Top
#47900 - 07/20/04 07:47 AM Re: Being a gay Hindu - My first step towards freedom [Re: vedananda]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Vedananda is guilty of denigrading Hinduism to the level of a 'religion' like Christianity and Islam. We know Hinduism is just a way of spiritual life. In fact it does not believe in any 'one' way but innumerable ways to reach spirituality/ God.

Vedananda seems to be misquoting Bhagavata Gita. Lord Krishna himself had innumerous relationships with not only females but there are even stories of him making 'raslila' (surely it was not just dancing) with gopes. He wouldn't preach something he did not practice. Lord Krishna had thousands of Ranis. Did he really have as many kids? His love affair with Radha has been eulogised in Hinduism. Now Radha was his maternal aunt, and Krishna never meant to marry her.

While one way of reaching spirituality is through abandonment of physical needs (including food/water/sex) another is through 'spiritual' sex. In fact although there is no history of male-female sex as a means of attaining spirituality but several sects in the ancient world used sexual bonding between males as a vehicle of attaining spirituality. Whether it is our own Tantrism, or Sufism (Islam influenced by Hinduism), or the pre-Christian spiritual practices prevalent all over Europe and the middle east. In fact there are documentary proofs that Jesus was a spiritual leader who had sex with males in order to help them reach god.

What is now known as Hinduism is actually a mixture of various spiritual practises and social customs which have gotten intertwined and confused. A number of spiritual practices have been mentioned in old scriptures. But the process of discovering new paths is not completed. And that is why we always had new spiritual leaders who did something different (Buddha, Mahavira, etc.).

The fact that the majority of people married and had children and that some spiritual practices professed 'sex only for procreation' path, is in no way an indication that marriage and children is what Hinduism is all about or that it considers sex only for procreation. It was just the way society evolved. The same way that the caste system as is practised today does not represent true Hinduism, but is mixed up with the spiritual practices of the common man and sold as "Hindu Religion".

Of course, our history is replete with prominent figures who did not get married or raised children. But Vedananda must also realise that the fact that most people are married and have children is not an indication that they are 'heterosexuals'*. Marriage in Hinduism is a social duty, and has little to do with 'sexual orientation'. The common person --- man or woman cannot refuse to get married.

And then look at our mythology. Our own Hanuman Ji did not marry. In fact he stayed away from women (so do his true disciples to this day). Traditionally, women may not enter his temple. He is basically a macho god. There are other Gods like him, e.g. Lord Kartikeya, another 'macho' god.

Not to mention that true spiritual people not only in Hinduism but the world over, never married or had relationships with women or had children and if they did (lord Buddha), they left them. There are large sects of such practices still prevalent in India.

On the other hand it can be said that if the predominant Hindu society (not Hindu spiritual practices) did not promote sex between men it did not romote sex between men/women either (not beyond marriage, which was for reproduction). In fact, till recently, a man and a woman could not even hold hands in public. Even in marriage husband and wife may not publicly display their affection. However, the society has always condoned various forms of non-procreative bondings in the mainstream society as long as the people indulged in them discreetly and did not make an issue of them.

(*In my opinion a heterosexual is one who is not aroused by a person of the same sex at all + is opposed to others having sex with the same-sex!)

Top
#47901 - 07/20/04 10:34 AM Re: Being a gay Hindu - My first step towards freedom [Re: asokaram]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Namaskar everyone,
I've been working on the issues around 'masculinity' (including men's health and rights) for about 9years now. In my experience, the current issue is an extremely important one for men. I've learned several new things from this discussion about the topic and I'd keep sharing my experiences/ opinions (of which I'm also writing a book).
Here's the first one (actually I've posted one before):

Science is an institution of the heterosexual western society. As such it is heavily heterosexualised. 'heterosexual' in my view is a western concept which is not as simple as 'relationships between males and females'. All traditional societies practise that, but none of them (including India ) are heterosexual societies. 'Heterosexuality' is an anti-men ideology, a system which seeks to stamp out all traces of (esp.) sexual bonding between males from the society, driven basically by Christianity) and isolating and marginalising the remnants as 'homosexuals', essentially disempowering the entire male population. The heterosexual world is based on the strategies of 'NEGATING', failing which 'IGNORING', failing which 'SUPPRESSING', (sexual) bonding between men, especially between 'straight' men. Therefore, no matter of scientific proof is going to bring any substantial changes for the 'rights' of so-called 'gay' or 'straight' or 'transexual' people. (Actually, 'gay' people get their rights but it's straight men who will find it difficult, but I'll elaborate on that later).

There is conclusive and published proof that Jesus had relations with men. But has that changed anything for the Christian or the western world? Even though the findings were scientific, they were in the beginning suppressed and later ignored. It has not changed scientific approaches, ideas, values, the relgion or the society. Similarly, scientific discoveries about the animal world will not change things too.

The history of the world is not even half of what it is told without talking about the importance of (often predominant) relationships, marriages, bondings between males, and the power it had to influence and change the course of History. But the Historians with high degrees would pretend that it is not even there. And the cases that keep coming up are suppressed or ignored.

Not surprisingly, upon the discovery that in Afghanistan there is still a region where it is a widespread and celebrated practise of (straight) men having male lovers in their youth, and later on marrying women -- the male lover often continues even after marriage -- the Western scholars with doctorates made derogatory statements (masquerading as expert comments) saying that the men in the orient are anyway feminine, they wear kohl, and are deprived of women, that's why they indulge in such practises. It is exactly the same 'heterosexual' strategy as in the case of decades of 'scientific' studies of the animal world.

The scientists in power are just not ready to accept the truth. They don't deserve their degrees.

So one wonders why is it so important to know the scientific truth. For the accepting mind (like the spiritualists) (we need spiritualists not secularists) it does not matter what the science says. As long as the heart and the higher consciousness accepts it. For, spirituality does not need science to be able to see the nature or the truth. Science is a human institution and is heavily bound to human biases. They say one thing today and another tomorrow. The only thing science is capabale of satisfactorily explaining are the 'physical' laws of nature. It fails miserably in the other areas (including Human emotions, nature and behaviour).

And if one understands the truth that bonding between same-sexes is an important part of human existence, what would really help in changing things is to understand the 'heterosexual' society, why it came into being, who are the people who perpetuate it, what are their motives and how exactly does the heterosexual society manage to suppress, negate and ignore so effectively a human need which is there in all of us, irrespective of one's sexual orientation.

regards

Top
#47902 - 07/27/04 02:11 PM Re: Being a gay Hindu - My first step towards freedom [Re: babu_81]
purusharth Offline
stranger

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 6
Quote:

Accepting your orientation is not easy. Accepting the fact that you are different from others, and that is the thing that is always going to remain with you, that you cannot change - is a difficult pill to swallow.




I have news for you babu_81. Having a sexual need for men is neither different nor rare by any account. There is hardly a man on earth who does not have an inherent need for another man, including (actually, especially) the macho ones who in the west may show hostility towards any open expression/ discussion of male/male intimacy. In fact most men have enough sexual need for another man to sustain an intense lifelong relationship. That most men suppress it because of how society brings us up making us hate this instinct is a different story ----- but one that all men should know.

The only thing different about you is (probably) that you do not have a sexual interest in girls ----- and that is what makes your life more difficult than others. However, in all probability, you may be surprised to find that you too may have sexual attraction for girls, if you allow yourself to break free from the prison of 'sexual orientation', which fact should not make you any less proud of the special gift that god has given to all men to be able to bond intimately with other men.

Whether you like women or not, you are not different from any straight man. In fact you are straight unless, you have a strong feminine streak in you. In which case, you probably will not complain about being different. You would feel different and want to celebrate your difference. It's the straight men who on account of their open profession of love for another man, are forced into the 'gay' identity by the heterosexual society (through its mispropaganda) who find it impossible to adjust.

As a peer, a straight man can only relate to another straight man, irrespective of whether he is attracted to women, men or both --- as happens in India and any other traditional society (perhaps things are changing here too!)

That heterosexual is not the same as 'straight' should be clear to anyone with eyes open. There is no dearth of transgendered/ transexual/ feminine people who swear by their exclusive sexual attraction for women. And the 'out' guys are only a fraction of their real numbers.

And then there are meterosexuals.

It is the unnatural, heterosexual, western society that makes you feel different by forcing you away from the 'straight' community, where you rightfully belong, into the third gender 'gay' community, which actually would suit many of these 'heterosexual' guys better.

By the way, have you heard this one:
"about 10% of any society is heterosexual".
(heterosexual: one who does not feel any sexual attraction towards a member of the same sex)



P.S.> I am a counsellor on sexual health. I have helped several straight men break free from their 'gay' prisons. Believe me, nothing is more empowering than that. If all this makes sense to you (or anyone else reading this) I'd be glad to assist.

Top
#47903 - 07/27/04 09:55 PM Re: Being a gay Hindu - My first step towards freedom *DELETED* [Re: purusharth]
Shaivite Offline
guru
***

Registered: 11/06/02
Posts: 2999
Post deleted by Shaivite

Top
#47904 - 07/28/04 10:17 AM Re: Being a gay Hindu - My first step towards freedom [Re: Shaivite]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:

The only prison to break free from is the attachment to labels and societal expectations.




You are right spiritually speaking. Nothing is more empowering than rising above all these in a spiritual sense.

But it is not an option for most people (esp. the youth) and it does not solve all the problems. These 'sexual orientation' labels are not only meaningless on a spiritual plane, but even on the physical plane they are absurd.

I mean to have an identity based on the outer-sex of a second person (even if it's one's lover) is too far fetched. And then has anyone ever thought about why it is only the 'outer-sex' of the partner which is important to determine one's 'orientation', if we have to define ourselves by the 'qualities' of our partners. There are so many other qualities of one's partner, e.g. his/her colour, nationality, 'gender' (and not outer-sex), etc. How about having the following definitions based on (say) colour:

Homosexual : 'White' man who has sex with 'white' woman
heterosexual : 'white' man who has sex with 'black' man

.....doesn't it sound absurd. The point is that 'sexual orientation' based on outer-sex of partner is as absurd as 'sexual orientation' based on colour (etc.). Can't you see the Christian conspiracy behind the society's obsession with the outer-sex of one's partner. The fact is that 'sexual orientation' is a social tool in the hands of the Christian west to isolate those men who have male partners.

Here's another example of the absurdity of 'sexual orientation':

Now orientation presumably refers to one's sexual desires, which are nothing but emotions. But isn't it absurd to divide emotions on the basis of whom it is directed at. Human emotions cannot be disected 'clinically'. They loose their essence if you do. Suppose instead of sex between men, it was 'expressing anger' at women that Christianity condemned. How would it sound if they divided anger thus:

homoangry : Men who get angry at men
heteroangry : Men who get angry at women

And then gone on to propagate that 'homoangry' men are intrinsically different from 'heteroangry' ones and are 'third gender'.

Had this been the case, men would have vied with each other to prove that they could only get angry at men (and they'll do it all the time), and that they can never get angry at a woman, come what may.

Just like anger, sexual desire can happen for anyone, and sexual orientation is just as stupid as 'anger orientation'.

I'm sorry if I seem to be stretching this issue too far, but I feel that the 'sexual orientation' is one aspect of the West which is deeply anti-men, and that we Indians tend to accept it without questioning it, which is severely harming out own fluidity and freedom, back in India.

On the physical plane these unnatural identities do severely limit one's 'natural' course of life. However, it's also true that in such a hostile society, the only way out is to start by spiritual enlightenment (rather than political one), like you said, and then use this power to change the world around you.

thanks for your patience.

Top
#47905 - 01/07/05 05:31 PM Re: False: "Homosexuality and heterosexuality both have no place in SD [Re: marik]
Youtellme Offline
stranger

Registered: 01/04/05
Posts: 5
Loc: Germany
Quote:

Anyone, no matter what race, nationality, color, sex, political party, level of education, occupation, can embrace Hinduism and sanatana dharma and find spiritual fullfillment. It is not complicated, there are no qualifications to meet... only sincerity of intent is needed, and even that is not required.<

So why don't they admit western people into temples especially in Southern India. Are there so many who behave badly?

By the way: how does this Quote thing work? Help!!!



Top
Page 8 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >


Moderator:  ashs, satay, Shaivite 




This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2010, Dharma Universe.