Human society is hooked on love. It is this heart-driven force that propels us to move in this world and crosses all socio-economic, cultural, and political strata. Universally, we find ourselves captivated by the promise of love everlasting and all of its romantic accoutrements. There are so many web sites, books, and services to aid in our search for love, but nonetheless we usually end up looking in all the wrong places and way too many faces. Even if we are fortunate enough to find a match, the reality is that our infatuation will wane and our “love” will become dutiful or worse. Even in the best of scenarios one thing is for sure: our love relationships will come to an end.  It is this fact that is readily acknowledged at wedding nuptials with the ominous phrase “until death do us part.”  This truth of non-enduring love is echoed in Gaudiya Vedanta, which posits that humanity’s forceful urge and subsequent search for love harkens back to our spiritual origin and the soul’s inherent quest for love supreme. And it is only in this search for divine love that we will find ultimate and eternal satisfaction.

It is a natural and appropriate conclusion that we would search for enduring love in transcendence. It is Gaudiya siddhanta, however, that informs us that it is the svayam form of God, Sri Krishna, who charmingly corresponds with the highest expression of love, Vraja-bhakti. It is in his human-like form of a cow herder that God becomes most accessible to his devotees. This intimacy and the potential to attain it are at the heart of the Gaudiya Vaishnava theology.

The search for divine intimacy is illuminated by sastra, the Srimad-Bhagavatam, which is described as the ripened fruit of the Vedas, nigama kalpa taror galitam phalam. (SB 1.1.3) Hearing Krishna lila from sources such as Srimad-Bhagavatam will help our hearts become pure, and thus we can gradually become eligible to enter such sacred territory. It is this point that makes the bhakti-marga, the path where divinity meets humanity, supreme. In this regard, Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura writes in his Sarartha Darsini commentary on Srimad-Bhagavatam 10.33.36, “By hearing about Krishna’s love dalliances with the gopis, the living entities situated in human bodies (manusam deham asthitah) will become believers in these topics.”  Sanatana Goswami explains in his Vaishnava Tosani, “The words manusam deham asthitah may also indicate that those jivas who have attained the human form of life are able to hear all these pastimes, and thus they become exclusively devoted to the Supreme Lord.” It is this human-like form of godhead and his lila that tug at the heartstrings of humanity and lead us on the path towards enduring love.

As sadhakas, our practice includes hearing Krishna’s pastimes with faith from the proper sources, but this practice must be fueled by saranagati, surrender, the foundational principle on which a metaphorical stage is erected for the divine drama of Krishna lila to eventually unfold. It is in the context of bhakti performed faithfully following guru parampara that our worldly lust will leave the heart, and gradually, prema will develop, as stated in Srimad Bhagavatam 10.33.39.¹ In this regard, Visvantha Cakravarti Thakura comments that one who faithfully and continuously hears the glories of Krsna’s lilas is learned (dhirah pandita) for he does not doubt how Krishna prema can appear even if material lust is present in the heart. Visvanatha goes on to establish that such power of prema demonstrates its glorious independent nature.

Vraja-prema is so powerful that it turns those with worldly desires into bhaktas simply by hearing about it. Tasting this prema turned Caitanya Mahaprabhu into a mad man, and ultimately, it is this love that has the force to topple God off his throne and enable us to experience the enduring love that we now move in search of.

1. Anyone who faithfully hears or describes the Lord’s playful affairs wiith the young gopis of Vrndavana will attain the Lord’s pure devotional service. Thus he will quickly become sober and conquer lust, the disease of the heart.

This article originally appeared in Psychology Today.

By Daniel R. Hawes

An article appeared in PLoS one this past May which describes brain differences between Vegetarians, Vegans and Omnivores in the way they process pictures of animal suffering.

The study in question is a neuroimaging study intent on investigating whether

“the neural representation of conditions of abuse and suffering might be different among subjects who made different feeding choice due to ethical reasons, and thus result in the engagement of different components of the brain networks associated with empathy and social cognition”

The hypothesis behind this study is based on the observation that Vegetarians and Vegans tend to base their decision to avoid animal products on ethical grounds. Assuming that Vegetarians and Vegans – because of their underlying moral philosophies – show greater empathy towards animal suffering, it is very well possible that these differences in empathy extend beyond the animal domain and show up as general differences in the degree of empathy felt towards other humans also; even at a neurological level.

The study – in basic terms – investigates this hypothesis by placing subjects into a functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) machine and looking at the “activation” of different brain areas as subjects view a randomized series of pictures. The pictures used for this study included neutral scenes and an even share of scenes depicting various kinds of animal and human suffering.

The first main finding of this study is that, compared to Omnivores, Vegans and Vegetarians show higher activation of empathy related brain areas (e.g. Anterior Cingular Cortex and left Inferior Frontal Gyrus) when observing scenes of suffering; whether it be animal or human suffering.

Further, pictures of animal suffering (in contrast to pictures human suffering) recruited specific brain regions in Vegans and Vegetarians that were not differentially recruited by Omnivores. These were areas which are thought to be associated with higher-order representations of the self and self values (e.g. medial Prefrontal Cortex).

In addition to generally higher activations in the above mentioned areas, a second main finding of this study is that there are certain brain areas which only Vegetarians and Vegans seem to activate when processing pictures of suffering. In particular, when viewing pictures of human suffering, Vegetarians in this study recruited additional brain areas thought to be associated with bodily representations that distinguish self from others. (Notably these areas were particularly active when mutilations were shown).

The study has – of course – its own shortcomings, and I am somewhat breaking one of my own rules here by presenting fMRI related research without a thorough discussion of the statistics involved, however I feel vindicated by the fact that the authors themselves remain moderate in their conclusions by stating that

“Our results converge with theories that consider empathy as accommodating a shared representation of emotions and sensations between individuals, allowing us to understand others. They also led us to speculate that the neuronal bases of empathy involve several distinct components including mirroring mechanisms, as well as emotion contagion and representations of connectedness with the self. In addition, brain areas similar to those showing different emotional responses between groups in our study have also been found to be modulated by religiosity, further supporting a key role of affect and empathy in moral reasoning and social values.” [italics added].

All things considered, the study suggests that Vegetarians are more empathetic to the suffering of others, but as I contemplate the well-documented health benefits of a Vegetarian diet, as well as the environmental and social hazards of current meat eating habits and production practices, I think it is obvious that reducing your meat consumption will first and foremost be an act of compassion towards yourself.

By Mary E. Hunt

Update: The Vatican has now issued the norms on dealing with priest sex abuse cases and other “more grave crimes” including “attempted sacred ordination of a woman.” They took great pains to distinguish the two, claiming there are two kinds of such crimes—one related to the sacraments and the other to moral issues. A Vatican official said, “The two types are essentially different and their gravity is on different levels.” This does not answer the question why they are both in the same list. — ed.

While Protestant churches like the Presbyterian Church USA have their annual gatherings in the summer, the institutional Roman Catholic Church, with no such meetings to worry about, uses the season to issue documents from on high. According to published reports, the Vatican is soon to release new norms that govern matters of sexual abuse by clergy. (Ho hum—but wait, there’s more.) They are expected to include the ordination of women under the delicta graviora, the same category of grave sin that governs sexual abuse by priests. Cue the music of doom!

It is hard to see past the PR aspect of this to the theological. Mixing the two issues, even under the same legal umbrella, is a profoundly perverse proposition. Either these gentlemen are more ethically tone deaf than one can imagine, or they are sly beyond the dreams of foxes in an effort to redirect attention from the criminal behavior of clergy against children to their wrath over the ordination of women. Neither option is terribly appealing.

The forthcoming norms are assumed to be the codification of the 2001 guidelines which made the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the powerful Vatican department formerly headed by now Pope Benedict XVI) the central location for handling sex abuse cases. These changes may make it easier for the Congregation in selected cases to forgo lengthy and costly ecclesial trials and simply laicize certain offending priests. But the Congregation’s track record under then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who moved slowly if at all on many egregious cases, does not inspire confidence.

The new norms are not expected to be as clear and definitive as those adopted by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2002, when they were faced with paying more than $1 billion in compensation to victims and for lawyers’ fees. The Vatican deals with a global church, so its legalese tends to be more generic and open to interpretation. It will be interesting to see just how these norms are spelled out but no one expects unambiguous prose and zero tolerance. So what about the ordination of women? How did that sneak in here?

A Desperate Vatican?

The 2001 norms focused on “most grave crimes” against the sacraments and against morals. Some of the pedophilia crimes took place in the context of the sacrament of Penance or Confession. Breaking the seal of confession—that is, revealing anything told in the exchange between priest and penitent—is against the law. Another so-called grave matter dealt with in this way is “desecrating the sacred species.” That means taking a consecrated host and throwing it on the ground. Canonists will spend their summer parsing the implications of these matters, but we still need to track down the ordination of women which is now in the mix of sinful actions.

The Congregation declared in 2008 that women who get ordained “simulate ordination.” According to the Vatican official’s lights, the women, and the bishops who ordain them, automatically excommunicate themselves. It all sounds rather contorted. In this soon-to-be-published document, the ordination of women is said to be spelled out as one of those dicey matters which is not only a violation of the sacrament of Holy Orders, but so serious as to warrant the attention of Rome.

Perhaps they reason that the women’s ordination cases will keep them so busy that the pedophilia crimes will go away. Maybe they think people will be so scandalized by women wanting to get on with the ministry of the church at a time when the institution is morally bankrupt that they will forget the cover-ups that necessitated this revision of law in the first place. Or, perhaps the foxes may really think that this effort to centralize power with even less accountability can take place quietly since so many people will be exercised over the mere suggestion of women priests.

Stay tuned, but I think they miss their guess. There is simply no comparison between a theological argument over who is “fit matter” to be ordained and the destruction of a child’s life; not to mention the thousands of people who have been abused by clergy. The public simply won’t buy it, and the end result is that the institutional Roman Catholic Church will look even more out of touch with reality than ever.

I generally refrain from commenting on these matters without the document in front of me, but this is such a classic case of how church law is made—yes, like watching sausage being made—that it invites conjecture. It may turn out that the concerns over women’s ordination being linked with priest pedophilia are unwarranted. We will see by late summer when the document is expected.

Laws are made in relation to real events. There must have been a time when desecrating the sacred species was common enough to warrant comment. So, too, there have long been violations of the seal of confession. Another sticky wicket that got this kind of attention was “forgiving an accomplice in a sin of impurity.” This was when a priest had sex with another adult (usually referred to in the Latin instructions on this as “Titus, a man” with “Bertha, a woman” though we now know there were more options) and then forgave the sin in confession. It was considered a catch-22. So a law was made to send such cases to a higher authority.

Unless there are more women in the pipeline than I think, the ordination of women might be something the Vatican could have afforded to ignore in the hope it would go away. If women’s ordination really makes the list this time it implies three things:

First, the institutional church recognizes that women are being ordained both by the Roman Catholic Womenpriests initiative and in other congregational settings. Pity the form is so similar as to arouse the Vatican’s attention when the real news is that many local communities simply go ahead with shared ministry without ordaining anyone. The theologies vary, but the whole movement represents a challenge to the Vatican’s claim as sole authority in choosing priests. Like birth control, I think the ban on women priests will soon be honored by so few Catholics that even the institutional church will try to sweep it under the theological rug. That is one reason the ban on abortion has such a high profile: because Catholics’ use of birth control is simply a done deal.

Second, since its male priests are among those who will be sanctioned, the Vatican is obviously worried that the tide has turned against it inside as well as outside. Maryknoll priest Roy Bourgeois participated in a women’s ordination celebration in 2008 and was told to recant his actions. To date, no final word has come down on his refusal to do so. Maybe this law is it. More likely, it is a warning to other priests who might break clerical ranks and stand with feminists in ministry. Here’s hoping they have the courage and good sense.

Third, by drawing attention to women’s ordination, even if it is a tactic to distract attention from the pedophilia crimes and cover-ups, the Vatican is signaling its own desperate situation. Rumors of internal dissension in the Vatican ranks are rampant. One can only imagine what discussion ensued on this matter. Or maybe there wasn’t any discussion at all, which would be worse.

Catholics Go On Living while the Vatican Translates Dicta

But there is some good news coming from Catholicism this summer; two lovely examples serve as a reminder that all is not lost. First, those who are not Catholic are beginning to react to this ungodly mess with creative and courageous solidarity. Recently, the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, which provided financial support for the Holy Family Adoption Services, told the group they could no longer consider same-sex couples as potential parents for the infants and children they place. The agency refused to cooperate, losing a good bit of its financial support in the process.

Happily, Bishop Jon Bruno of the Episcopal Diocese offered to sponsor the group under Episcopal auspices. Robert K. Ross, President and CEO of The California Endowment, a donor agency issued a wonderful letter spelling out why the Endowment donated $50,000 and asking other people and agencies to do the same. He wrote:

While civic and public discourse these days seems to be dominated by scapegoating, intolerance, and even hate—Arizona’s anti-immigration legislation and California’s Prop. 8 battle embody such activity—we want to take a quiet moment to acknowledge the moral courage of the board of directors of Holy Family Adoption Services and Bishop Jon Bruno.

Amen to that.

A second break with Catholic institutional action is found in the increasing number of Catholics living their faith according to their consciences, ignoring the Vatican entirely. At the recent memorial mass for William R. Callahan, one of the founding directors of the DC-area social justice-oriented Quixote Center, such new practices were in evidence.

Bill Callahan was a Jesuit priest. A feminist before most men could even spell the word, he was dismissed from the order in the 1990s for reasons including his support of women’s ordination. He declined to leave his public ministry at Quixote and return to Boston as ordered. In other words, he refused to cop to a false notion of obedience that was really just a show of institutional church muscle. Instead, he continued on for decades as a dedicated champion of the rights of people in Central America, as a proponent of the full rights of women and LGBTQ people in both church and society, and as an all-around mensch.

He also continued to be a priest; not of the timid institutional sort, but a priest of the people who was called upon countless times to preside at weddings, baptisms, and funerals. He could be relied on to lead a Eucharist where everyone from the Irish grandmother to the smallest child was included, welcome at the table, and edified. According to Catholic theology well understood, all Catholics are priests by virtue of baptism.

Bill Callahan’s funeral liturgy held recently in a public school all-purpose room (sans air conditioning) was one such example of this reality. The gifted radio show host Maureen Fiedler of Interfaith Voices handled the whole celebration with aplomb. Bill’s companion of forty years in ministry, Dolly Pomerleau, spoke movingly and humorously of the man and his ways; a Catholic, married, male priest and a Catholic, married, woman bishop were the presiders.

The joyful celebration of a sad loss reflects the emerging model of small base communities that come together on important occasions. It was suspiciously like the early Church, which eventually built cathedrals for just such periodic gatherings of the local groups that otherwise worshiped and carried out their justice work in their own homes and centers.

So while the Vatican staff is busy translating its latest dictum into various languages, Catholic people, with the help of our friends, are living new models of Church. We do so in the hope that we might salvage the heart of the tradition we value, even while the institution persists in its own demise.

Q. Is being gay a sin?

A. I don’t think that any reasonable person would consider “being gay” sinful in as much as the distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behavior is understood. Sometimes people refer to biblical passages that they say condemn homosexuality but even Christian theologians have offered plausible interpretations to the contrary. For example, regarding the often-quoted verse (Romans 1:26-27) where the apostle Paul denounced homosexual behavior as unnatural, one distinguished Christian theologian comments, “No doubt Paul was unaware of the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has apparently very little choice, and sexual behavior, over which one does. He seemed to assume that those whom he condemned were heterosexuals who were acting contrary to nature, “leaving,” “giving up,” or “exchanging” their regular sexual orientation for that which was foreign to them. Paul knew nothing of the modern psychosexual understanding of homosexuals as persons whose orientation is fixed early in life, or perhaps even genetically in some cases. For such persons, having heterosexual relations would be acting contrary to nature, “leaving,” “giving up,” or “exchanging” their natural sexual orientation for one that was unnatural to them.” (Rev. Dr. Walter Wink, Professor of Biblical Interpretation, Auburn Theological Seminary) Hindu texts, on the other hand, are relatively silent on the issue, and when they do discuss homosexuality, it is in relation to heterosexual brahmanas, or priests, indulging in homosexual liaisons. The Hindu dharma sastra describes such behavior as a minor sin; however, it is hardly possible to make a determination as to the religious status of homosexuality in today’s world on the basis of a few isolated statements from the dharma sastra. Nor will mere reference to Srimad Bhagavatam’s statements concerning spiritually correct “celibate householder sexuality” or the Bhagavad-gita’s identification of divinity with dharmic sexuality, serve conclusively in condemning homosexuality. Indeed, wholesale condemnation of homosexuality on the basis of Hindu scripture is quite difficult, and given the amount of information on the subject that we have today, which was not available even fifty years ago, such condemnation would not in my opinion be spiritually correct or compassionate.

Therefore, my conviction is that monogamous homosexual relationships are as viable a position from which to cultivate spiritual life as are monogamous heterosexual relationships, and I believe that despite what my guru said decades ago, he would hold the same opinion were he with us today. Since he was with us, a wealth of insight into the nature of homosexuality has come to light, so much that any devotee would do well to carefully consider it when forming his or her opinion on the subject. Times change and with new information new opinions form, and if they are spiritually reasonable, the task for devotees is to support them with scriptural logic—sastra-yukti—or the logic that supports the essential conclusions of revelation.

Q. What really bothers me about today’s homosexuals is how they wave their gay flag and require everybody to approve of their sexuality. Why should the world appreciate their parade of wrongly directed lust?

A. You might think differently if you were born gay and had to undergo the kind of discrimination that homosexuals have been experiencing for centuries, what to speak of the psychological trauma of “coming out” in our largely homophobic society. The fact is that homosexuality would still be a criminal offence in the United States if it were not for the courage of gay activists. Their flag waving is a cry to be allowed to be what they are without being attacked, jailed, or discriminated against, which was the norm here in America for so long. What’s more, in some countries people are still being executed for homosexuality. Sexuality is a huge part of a person’s life. To be forced to live in a society where one is routinely mistreated because of his or her natural occurring sexuality is something I would not would wish on anyone.

Q. I am a Hindu and I believe that homosexuals should seek reformation because scripture (the Bible) states that God is not pleased with homosexual relations. The Kama sutra states that the goal of kama, or lust, is procreation. Heterosexual relations serve this purpose but homosexual relations serve only personal sense gratification. Dharma means to accept one’s duty in relation to society and God, so how could homosexuality, which has nothing to do with procreation, be considered in any way dharmic?

A. In the Hindu canon there is no condemnation of homosexuality that I am aware of. You profess to be Hindu but are unable to cite any of our scriptures to support your position, not one. Kama sutra is not scripture but it does address homosexuality without condemning it as you have done.

Ultimately everyone agrees that the sexual urge should be harnessed, and different acaryas have tried to help their students do so in different ways. In the mission of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura, sexual activity was supposed to be restricted to married life, but our Srila Prabhupada tried to establish a stricter standard, one that permitted sex only for the purpose of procreation. However, the vast majority of his disciples could not follow this standard. Thus in some individual cases he sanctioned sex outside of procreation for married couples. The point is that establishing a standard that students can follow and that helps them to progressively harness this desire constitutes sex that is dharmic and is thus arguably blessed—kamo ’smi. Realistically, whether one is gay or straight this would be limiting sexual activity to within a committed long-term relationship, doing so for the purpose of making advancement in spiritual life.

Furthermore, we are not concerned with trying to please God by following the complex rules of dharma because Krishna is not concerned with this. He says, sarva-dharman parityajya: “Forgo all concerns of dharma and take exclusive refuge in me. I will protect you from all reactions. Do not fear.” Spontaneous love brought about by devotion (bhakti) is the way to please Krishna, and homosexuality being a naturally occurring minority phenomenon is no more an obstacle to bhakti than is heterosexuality. Therefore, I encourage everyone regardless of their sexual orientation to become devotees of Krishna and follow in the footsteps of the residents of Vrindavana. This is the highest dharma—prema dharma.

Regarding your proposal that homosexuals seek reformation. As far back as 1948 sex researcher Alfred Kinsey attempted to document patients who had been converted from homosexuality to heterosexuality during therapy and could not find one whose sexual orientation had been changed. Later, in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association officially ceased classifying homosexuality as a disease, and today’s psychiatrists and psychologists almost never attempt to change a person’s sexual orientation. All this means that your notion of converting homosexuals into heterosexuals will certainly be a failure.

Finally, just try to imagine growing up and finding that when your young friends began to develop an attraction to the opposite sex you found yourself developing a sexual attraction to the same sex and had learned that you were a queer who could be justifiably beaten up and that there would be no shoulder to cry on at home. Employers (if you could get hired) would fire you if they detected your sexual attraction, which is not something that one can easily hide or that heterosexuals hide (indeed they are encouraged to celebrate it!). Then imagine that you had to pursue your sexuality in the back alley or at an illegal bar and thus ended up being the shady person that society accused you of being and gave you little opportunity of avoiding. The world is still just understanding that they did this to millions of children. Think about it.

Q. Swami, from your writing on the issue of homosexuality it appears that you want to encourage gay people to become devotees. I think that sounds broadminded but I think that the way you are doing it flies in the face of the words of your guru Srila Prabhupada, who was a great and wise man. I like to quote Prabhupada’s words on the topic verbatim, and I don’t think doing so is narrow-minded. What can possibly be wrong with just repeating what he said? And what he said does not jive with your approach.

A. The difference between you and Srila Prabhupada is very great. You may repeat what he said (kind of) but you have no ability to change when new information is presented; information that is much more readily available to you than it was to him. What new information? That one born with a homosexual orientation has no choice in the matter, a fact that has come to light only in recent decades. Srila Prabhupada’s views on this subject were informed by the prevailing misinformation of his time. He similarly wrote that women were less intelligent because their brain size was almost half that of men which is another piece of misinformation that he attributed to Dr. Urquhart, a professor at the institution he attended in Calcutta. However, unlike you, Srila Prabhupada was able to significantly change his position when new information was presented to him. Being incorrect at times is normal, but what’s egregiously incorrect is when a person simply ignores new information and holds fast to outdated ideas despite of it.

Abraham Lincoln was also a great and wise man. He brought about the abolition of slavery in America but he also felt that black people should not be allowed to hold public office. Although once nationally accepted, this idea has in our time been internationally rejected. Still, history does not condemn Lincoln for his latter position but rather lauds him for the former–freeing the slaves. By our standards Srila Prabhupada was an even greater person; not because he held some dated views on various social issues but because he was an empowered pure devotee who was able to free sincere souls from the bondage of material existence. This is what he should and ultimately will be remembered and appreciated for, not for the few dated statements he made about homosexuality.

Q. You say that you know of no passages in the Hindu scriptures that condemn homosexuality, but in his purport to Srimad Bhagavatam verse 3.20.26 Srila Prabhupada writes: “It appears here that the homosexual appetite of males for each other is created in this episode of the creation of the demons by Brahma. In other words, the homosexual appetite of a man for another man is demoniac and is not for any sane male in the ordinary course of life.” How do you explain this?

A. The verse says that when Lord Brahma created the demons they approached him for sex but were ultimately lured away by the twilight, which appeared to them as a beautiful young woman. The text goes on to elaborate on the alluring qualities of youthful women and how attraction to them clouds the mind of the unintelligent. In that section of the Bhagavatam, only one verse mentions the demons’ sexual attraction to a male, while the ten following verses elaborate on their sexual attraction to a female. Overall, the demons being discussed were obviously more sexually attracted to a woman than they were to a man (Brahma) which indicates that they were not “gay” as we understand the term today.

It is also worth mentioning that Prabhupada never backed up his stance on homosexuality with any references from scripture. Even in the purport cited, he does not say that the verse he is commenting on says that homosexuality is demoniac. Instead, using the word “appears,” which indicates a degree of uncertainty, he merely offers his own opinion. Elsewhere when discussing the subject he also only cites reasoning that demonstrates that his opinion was based on misinformation. For example, in one place he says that homosexuality is not even found in the animal world; a notion that we now know is incorrect. In this case Srila Prabhupada made an inaccurate statement in support of his position, one that he must have learned from someone else. If we are to take his words as absolute in all respects, as some devotees claim that we must, then we are forced to deny the proven fact that homosexuality is found in the animal species. If not, we must face the fact that the example given by Srila Prabhupada was mistaken. If the example used in support of one’s reasoning is proven wrong, then one’s position on the issue itself is brought into question, especially if that position is not clearly supported by scripture. So to disagree with Srila Prabhupada’s opinion on homosexuality is not to pick and choose whimsically, but to do so in the very way that he taught us to do, which is to consider the issue according to sastra. In one discussion of the subject Srila Prabhupada even said, “One should take as it is enjoined in the sastras.” This is what I have done, and as I have already stated, Hindu texts are relatively silent on the issue, so it is very difficult to condemn homosexuality on the basis of sastra.

In conclusion, you have made it clear that you feel homosexual relationships established with a view to progress in spiritual life are not to be accepted in the same way that similar heterosexual relationships are. Your arguments on the subject are basically Bible-based religious fundamentalism, as you could not present any verses from Hindu scripture in support of them. As for Srila Prabhupada, if it were possible I would welcome a discussion with him on this topic and I feel confidant that in light of present times and information available he would be willing to alter his position in agreement with mine. After all, in regards to his gay disciple Upendra he did exactly that: he sanctioned a committed homosexual relationship with a view to help his disciple progress in spiritual life.

See Sanga: The Essence of Varnasrama Dharma

Many, many people, particularly those whose faith he held, could speak volumes about the glories of Aindra prabhu and possibly give us glimpses into the internal life he cultivated. I will not pretend to know much about him. But I, like many, had a few interactions with him, held some appreciation for his convictions, and feel that his passing is a great loss for the Vaisnava community.

My first encounter with Aindra was through his Vrindavana Mellows tapes in the early 90s. In our brahmacari asrama we would listen to them often and learn many of the melodies. In 1995, ’96, and ‘98, while in Vrindavana, I was able to participate in several of his kirtanas and associate with some of his kirtana crew. Visiting his room was like stepping into some medieval babaji’s cave: walls plastered with cow dung, a maha-prasad Tamal tree from the courtyard of the mandira, uncountable salagram silas… And then there was the twenty-first century recording equipment with which he expertly demonstrated yukta-vairagya, working his magic to engineer transcendent sound. I fondly remember gathering with his gang on the veranda outside his room as they belted out a chorus response for his latest recording Prayers to the Dust of Vraja. In that room, the life, the kirtana-rasa, the bhava I had heard in those recordings came alive before my eyes. There were the instruments—the bells that you hear ringing in Mellows recordings, swarmandala, and the ankle bells he wore on his feet as he would pound out rhythm while simultaneously playing harmonium and bellowing forth commanding kirtana… While residing in that tiny little corner of Vraja-dhama, he was broadcasting its environment all over the world.

As a kid I used to sing and play music in punk bands. The art of music is in expressing the passion of the soul. I had an attraction to kirtana because it was the highest, most complete form of self-expression. Aindra’s kirtanas always made me feel self-expressed, feeling the mood of saranagati to Sri Krishna in the form of Sri Nama prabhu. I’ve always felt that just as we consider the consciousness of the chef entering the food that he or she prepares, the mood of the kirtaniya is manifest in their presentation of kirtana. Kirtana with Aindra in Vrindavana was always focused, absorbing, and emotionally rich. You never felt inattentive because his fervor for the name kept you present. He was a master of rhythm and synchronicity. He would bark commands of his intentions in changing the flow. Often he would give a soul-piercing stare, looking like a madman. He wanted you there, in Nama, in congregation. Never for a minute did I feel pratistha in his kirtana.

As I consider what influence he had on my life, I think that what I appreciate the most about Aindra prabhu was his contribution to the diversity of Iskcon. His eccentric nature, unkempt look, crazy brown cloth, his frustration with the status quo, and his nature to periodically boil over and without restraint speak in such a way as to be censured by authority. He was anything but a generic Hare Krishna devotee. He was someone who was prodding his associates, his community, and his gurudeva’s mission to move, progress, advance! Can’t you hear him yelling now?! His “settle for nothing less” sense of urgency was contagious. It is most unfortunate that Iskcon has many times been unable to appreciate or accomodate such diversity, particularly in those fortunate souls like Aindra prabhu who develop an attraction and pursuit of raga-marga and who desire to assist their brethren by sharing their realization. I have it on good authority that Aindra had recently published a book of his realizations. After making an offering at Srila Prabhupada’s tirobhava mahotsava last year, he was once again rebuked and told that if his book was published he would have to leave Iskcon and give up his most cherished sankirtana service. Although he did publish at least one for himself, I have heard that in desiring to keep this service, his thought was that his book would have to wait until after his death to be available to the masses.

It is most tragic that the spiritual progress of an influential person could be seen as a management problem rather than an opportunity for reassessing, re-evaluating and re-prioritizing the purpose of Srila Prabhupada’s mission. Aindra prabhu certainly had some biting words to say in this regard. While some may not agree with his philosophy or his style of presentation, the silencing of dissent, either through threat of excommunication or through the unfortunate demise of the dissenter is most disappointing to those who yearn for truth. Spiritual progress is by nature a highly individualized affair, and its presentation in a worldwide society of varying degrees of adhikara is most definitely a challenge. However, I hope that before facing more of these unfortunate circumstances, Iskcon can learn to at least accomodate, but better yet, to advocate, for the individual development of its membership, considering the accompanying management dilemma only secondarily.

“Humility implies perfect submission to the truth and no sympathy for untruth. A person who entertains any partiality for untruth is unfit to chant the kirtana of Hari.” – Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur Prabhupada

All glories to Hari-kirtan-rasacarya Sripad Aindra prabhu!

Aindra Prabhu – Govardhana puja 2005 (kartika)

It should come as no surprise that Aubrey de Grey, the central character in “Long for This World,” Pulitzer Prize-winning science writer Jonathan Weiner’s latest book about the science and philosophy of aging and immortality, looks like “Father Time before his hair turned grey.” De Grey is a computer scientist turned gerontologist who thinks that we can cure aging and essentially become immortal in less than one hundred years.

With his long beard and sunken cheeks, de Grey seems to be deliberately trying to look the part of time-traveling sage. He may look like he’s from the Middle Ages, but his radical theory of how to eliminate human decline that Weiner lays plain is cutting-edge and highly controversial.

In Weiner’s hands, it also has inspired an astute and elegantly presented discussion about why all living things age and die and how life would change were it never to end.

For centuries, science has focused on figuring out how life begins and develops, not when or how it begins to decline. And life’s end, as gauged via average life expectancy, has changed significantly throughout Western history.

During the Roman Empire, it averaged 25 years. A millennium later, during the Middle Ages, it increased to 33 years. During the second half of the 20th century, “we gained almost thirty years, or about as much time as our species had gained before in the whole struggle of existence.” This long view of history indicates that the end of life can be extremely malleable.

Along with longer life spans, our beliefs about how and why life ends have evolved significantly. Weiner charts these ways of thinking from the Bible to the age of Darwin to contemporary laboratories, where single-celled organisms have revealed some of the most significant information about life’s decline.

All living cells produce waste and suffer damage that eventually starts to accumulate and gum up the works inside our molecular machinery.

“Whatever your age, and wherever on Earth you live,” Weiner writes, “your mortality rate doubles every eight years or so, from birth to death. And it doubles because of the buildup of damage and garbage.”

To slow down or stop aging , today’s longevity scientists have been trying to figure out how to manage this deadly cellular gunk by re-engineering either its production, a cell’s repair system or the garbage itself.

Taking out the garbage, Aubrey de Grey’s idea, is theoretically the simplest approach, but its execution is not. Whole-Body Interdiction of Lengthening Telomeres or WILT, de Grey’s theory, involves highly invasive procedures including regular chemotherapy, bone marrow transplants and stem cell replacements. The result, de Grey thinks, would produce nearly immortal humans who are masters of their cells’ rejuvenation.

WILT intrigues some and horrifies others. Albert Einstein College of Medicine’s Jan Vijg thinks it is “sheer nonsense.” Cambridge University geneticist John Archer thinks de Grey’s theory is worth testing. “In reality we need more Aubreys….” Archer says. “Chaps like him who can see over the hedges.”

What Weiner sees over the hedges are the complex moral and philosophical questions that immortality would bring to human life. Philosopher Bernard Williams once wrote, “Immortality, or a state without death, would be meaningless … because death gives meaning to life.” To Weiner’s mind, life may not lose its meaning, but its significance would undoubtedly change.

“Francis Crick once said that a good scientist should be able to explain any laboratory result to a barmaid,” Weiner writes. With “Long for This World,” Weiner has done this Crickism one better. He has written a fascinating, deeply thought-provoking book full of intricate science and complicated moral questions made easily accessible for barmaids and the rest of us ordinary mortals. We will be certain to ponder Weiner’s rich topic for eternity.

This review originally appeared in the Kansas City Star.