Response to HH Hridayananda Maharaj
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Reply to some comments by Krishna Kirti Dasa
The following definitions are not precise:
In a number of academic fields, the terms "normative" and "positive" are; used to distinguish between what we "should" be doing and what we need to be; doing at any particular point in time.
The 'positive' is defined as 'dealing only with matters of fact and experience; not speculative or theoretical.' Thus the essence of 'positive' is not in fact telling us 'what we need to do,' but rather simply telling us
about the way things are, including descriptions of causal chains that may be relevant to our purposes. It is the 'normative', the prescriptive, that tells us what we should do with those fact, or originally motivates us to seek a particular set of facts.
For example, discussions concerning "normative economics" is about what kind; of financial system we "should" have, and "positive economics" is about what; we need to do in any given circumstance.
Again, this is an imprecise definition and the imprecision will affect KK's argument, as I hope to show. Here is a standard definition of positive and
normative economics from a Forbes internet dictionary:
"What Does Positive Economics Mean? The study of economics based on objective analysis...For example, a positive economic statement would be: "Increasing the interest rate will encourage people to save." This is considered a positive economic statement because it does not contain value judgments and its accuracy can be tested."
From another source:
"An example of a positive economic statement:
The price of milk has risen from $3 a gallon to $5 a gallon in the past five years.
This is a positive statement because it can be proven true or false by comparison against real world data. The statement focuses on facts.
An example of a normative economic statement:
The price of milk should be $6 a gallon to give dairy farmers a higher living standard and to save the family farm.
This is a normative statement because it depends on value judgments and cannot be proven true or false by comparison against real world data. This specific statement makes the judgment that farmers need a higher living standard and that family farms need to be saved. Consumers who purchase more expensive milk products might argue otherwise."
Thus the positive supplies facts, and given a particular normative purpose, the facts indicate a practical method to fulfill a particular goal.
For example, if I want to drive from Florida to California, the road atlas will give me the information I need. I need to drive west because I bring a purpose to the facts. The atlas does not 'argue' that I need to drive west, it merely shows me that California is west of Florida, and that a particular road is the shortest route.
Basically, the difference between "normative" and "positive" is one between; "should" and "is", the situation we want to have, and the situation we have to; deal with. Or, as Hridayananda himself has said, it's the difference between; the "ideal" and the "real".
The above is a more accurate definition, though still not precise, since we may prescribe 'normative' standards without considering them to be ideal.
In the context of homosexuality, and the problem of how to purify devotees; who happen to be homosexual, what Maharaja has been proposing with gay; monogamy is a "positive" approach to dealing with it. Normative values are; still true, but what do we do in the present to deal with it?
This statement is again imprecise. As soon as we recognize that to purify devotees is valuable or important or desireable, we have a purpose, and thus
our approach is 'normative.' We then look at physiological and psychological facts in the same way that a motorist looks at a road atlas. We try to find the best way to achieve the goal of pure Krishna consciousness. Prabhupada himself was a consummate pragmatist, as I will show later by citing a letter he wrote to an aspiring devotee with gender issues.
The problem with such a positive approach is that it can never be cleanly separated from the normative approach. That is not only true for every field
of humanistic science, but it is especially true where are concerns involve theism. The normative approach determines our positive approach; what we believe to be the nature of the problem determines our practical, or positive approach to the problem.
This is not at all clear. What would be a 'pure' normative approach? Would such an approach ignore all the facts of the matter and simply declare what
ought to be, regardless of the facts? A purely positive approach logically could not exist, because without values and purposes, one would have no reason to consider any facts at all.
In fact, we all share a common 'normative' approach, in that we all desire to be Krishna conscious ourselves and to help others become Krishna
conscious. We disagree precisely on the 'facts,' which may include different hermeneutic approaches to Prabhupada's statements on worldly matters. Thus
we may derive different 'facts' about Prabhupada's practical strategies.
There are philosophers who attack the very notion of objectivity, and who thus claim that any set of positive facts is tainted by normative purposes. This position does not enjoy a consensus among thinkers, and yet KK states it as a 'fact.' Here is a relevant quote:
"The methodological basis for a positive/normative distinction has its roots in the fact-value distinction in philosophy, the principal proponents of such distinctions being David Hume and G. E. Moore. The logical basis of such a relation... has been disputed in the philosophical literature. Such debates are reflected in discussion of positive science and specifically in economics, where critics, such as Gunnar Myrdal (1954) dispute the idea that
economics can be completely neutral and agenda-free."
We have here a philosophical position called 'skepticism.' If, as KK here implies, those with purposes inevitably filter out positive facts which
do not suit their purpose, thus making objectivity impossible, then none of us are objective, since we all have purposes.
In fact, my purpose is not to promote homosexuality. My purpose is to promote Krishna consciousness and I do not think that this purpose in itself renders me incapable of objectively considering the facts. Further, when I do consider the facts, I am not employing a 'positive approach,' I am simply
trying to be practical, like everyone else.
Spiritual purification is something that significantly cannot be evaluated by empirical methods.
Prabhupada tried in various ways to show the measureable benefits of Krishna consciousness. He never tired of stating how a priest noticed that ISKCON devotees were 'bright-faced,' and Prabhupada constantly gave the devotees' ability to follow the 4 principles and dedicate their lives to God as scientific evidence of the potency of Lord Caitanya's movement. Prabhupada always stressed that unlike in other, lesser processes, in Krishna consciousness, we always know where we stand on the path of spiritual
advancement.
Let's take for example chanting Hare Krishna. Some one might chant it for a long time and be engaged in all sorts of abominable activities, yet chanting
nevertheless has an imperceptible purificatory effect that is only evident after many years, or perhaps many lifetimes.
In the 2nd canto, the Bhagavatam states that one's heart is 'steel-framed' if in spite of repeated chanting, the heart does not melt. Prabhupada stressed that it is offenseless chanting which brings the result.
(And how would we measure purification over many lifetimes?) We have no choice but to take it on the authority of the shastras that it is indeed purifying. And then there is Krishna's own role in purification.
This depiction of Krishna consciousness, as a faith-based method that cannot be verified, is deeply opposed to the spirit and letter of Prabhupada's
teaching. Those who are feeling the wonderful effects of chanting, and practically experiencing powerful benefits, would not make the above claims.
We have always claimed in our preaching that Krishna consciousness is a spiritual science. Are we now to abandon that claim? Some things may be
taken on faith, but the basic, powerful purifying effect of chanting is a daily, indeed hourly experience for many sincere devotees.
As He is known as Mukunda, the giver of liberation, purification is finally a matter of when Krishna grants us the purity to approach him. In other words,
purification itself is a non-deterministic proposition and therefore necessarily frustrates attempts to empirically study it.
This sounds a bit more like Calvin than Krishna. Although Krishna is surely independent, He clearly states in the Gita that He is equal to all and that
he precisely (tathaiva) reciprocates with those who approach Him.
Thus, all the contrasts Maharaja makes above are not so black and white as regards to what we should do. Just because SP was respectful to scientists
does not mean he capitualted to them. The basic approach SP advocated in dealing with scientists was still one of confrontation, not accommodation.
My point was very simple: there is a difference between Prabhupada's statements ABOUT scientists, and his statements TO him. Even if both statements are strong, there is a relevant difference. Are we to now think that gentle persuasion is "capitulation"?
In the same way, with homosexuality, SP's basic approach was premised on the a priori notion that homosexual sex (homosex) could not help anyone in any way. Hence, SP is on record as saying that to one of his disciples and recommending to the same disciple that he engage in devotional service.
Prabhupada said that if someone cannot give up drinking, he or she should meditate on Krishna as the taste in their liquor. Does this mean that Srila
Prabhupada advocated drinking liquor? What about this letter from Prabhupada?
Jennifer Wayne Woodward
3081 16th St. #201
San Francisco, CA. 94103
My dear Jennifer,
Please accept my greetings. I am in due receipt of your letter dated June 6, 1975 and have noted the contents. First of all, you decide whether you are female or male, then be one or the other. Then, you may enter our temple any time you like. But sometimes man and sometimes woman, that is not proper.
Such awkward thing cannot be allowed. It will be disturbing to others. Anyway, continue to chant Hare Krishna as much as possible. I hope this meets you in good health.
Your ever well-wisher,
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
Maharaja, however, has a different *a priori* notion, that homosexuality can help some people.
This is an absurd claim. Did Prabhupada believe that liquor could help some people, or did he encourage those already addicted to liquor to meditate on
Krishna within their lives and thus gradually transcend drinking? Is it the case that I advise people to take up homosexuality as a therapeutic method
of purification? Or do I advise people already entangled in that situation to try to see Krishna in their lives and gradually transcend their lust?
The answer is obvious.
With best wishes,
Hridayananda das Gosvami
Hridayananda dasa Gosvami's letter to the GBC
April 11, 2009
ISKCON Philadelphia
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 Gosvami
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 Gosvami 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.
Your servant,
Hridayananda dasa Gosvami
"gay marriage" and "gay union" -- what is the difference?
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Reply to Bhakti Vikasa Swami
Dear Bhakti Vikasa Swami,
Please accept my obeisances. Jaya Srila Prabhupada. Thank you for your
letter.
Four years ago, you publically announced that it was in ISKCON's best interests to offer "serious, formal and public recognition and appreciation" for "gay monogamy."
I have moderated my position on this, as I have often explained.
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.
It did not have 'all the trappings,' especially not a marriage vow, and the event was not reported in an ISKCON publication. It was not my idea to publish the report, and I had no knowledge a picture would be posted.
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.
In an email of 5 April 2009, sent to multiple receivers and conferences, you wrote: "I have repeatedly clarified that I am not in favor of gay marriage."
Maharaja, it is not clear to me, so kindly clarify once more: what is the significant difference between "gay union" of the type that you so strongly endorse and defend, and "gay marriage," which you disfavor? What is the crucial factor that makes them so markedly different as to evoke your wholly different attitude toward them?
Bhakti Vikasa Swami
For the last few years, I have not 'so strongly endorsed and defended' 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.
On the other hand, I clearly explain in my paper that heterosexual marriage in Krishna consciousness is the standard for human society.
With best wishes,
Your servant,
Hridayananda das Gosvami
