10-11-2006, 08:46 PM
Perhaps relevant here..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Re: [hc] Morals/Ethics, Homosexuality
Dear GRS,
Hindu texts accepted homosexuality as something normal. They do not
denigrate the practice. The Kamasutra, for example, has many verses that
discuss homosexuality in a non-judgmental manner. Refreshingly, just as the
Kamasutra prescribes what a heterosexual couple must do post-coitus to
fulfill love-making, it makes similar prescriptions for homosexual lovers as
well. You can find in virtually every ancient temple, sculptures that
portray both heterosexual and homosexual forms of sacred sexuality.
Hindu ethics and moral ideals pertain to all the four aspects of purusharta:
dharma, artha, kama and moksha. Many texts elucidate on these ideals. The
dharmashastras, Kautilya's Arthashastra, the Itihasas are all example of
this genre. Sangam era Tamil texts such as the Tirukkural translate or
capture the essence of what these dharmashastras say. These texts were
written in response to the prevailing social mores.
Hindu moral ideals have been evolving dynamically and not been frozen like
those of the Abrahamic religions. Most importantly, since dharmashastras
were ideals and not codes of law, they were not imposed. They rather served
as the epitome of ideals that society could emulate. They also changed with
times. On the other hand, the Abrahamic religions imposed their codes of law
leading to rigidity and ossification.
Regards,
KV<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Re: [hc] Morals/Ethics, Homosexuality
Dear GRS and Hari Krishna,
1. There no historical or traditional basis to assume that the other
three purushartas, especially Kama, should be subservient to moksha, or that
moksha is the purpose of the other three. Kama is a purusharta in its own
right. In fact, moksha is optional in Hinduism. Our sages knew that only a
few can overcome karma and samsara, and hence the teachings leading to
moksha were imparted confidentially. Texts like the Tirukkural deal with the
other three purushartas but not moksha. The over-the-counter prescription to
moksha is a recent phenomenon.
2. If some acharyas say that Kama must be regulated, I have no
disagreement. In fact, everything, including sanyasa or artha, must be
regulated. The very concept of vivaha is meant to regulate Kama. This does
not mean that Kama is a necessary evil, or that one must overcome Kama to
attain moksha. While some texts/traditions might have come to subscribe to
that view, even within those traditions one can cite numerous examples to
the contrary. For example, Arjuna did not give up Kama. He actually enjoyed
it to his heart's content by begetting pretty wives. It did not prevent him
from attaining moksha or from being the recipient of the Gita.
3. I have my highest regard for the acharyas but I do not take their
words uncritically. Practically every acharya has made statements that can
be shown to be incorrect or illogical. So, if an acharya makes a statement
that goes against the evidence, I would go with the evidence. Acharyas are
also product of their times. They incur prarabdha karma. If the prevailing
norm is Victorian prudishness, they will absorb some of it.
4. Atheism and agnosticism are very essential, in my opinion the most
essential, aspects of Hinduism. If theism stands for the belief in one
Supreme God, many early Hindu schools were not theistic: Mimamsa or Sankhya
for example. The notion of devas in the Veda samhitas is also not the same
as theism.
5. I agree with you that some verses did not accept homosexuality.
Since Dharmashastras and smritis were written and rewritten repeatedly, such
verses reflect the mindset of the concerned editor. One needs to look at the
larger picture. Temple sculptures are very critical pointers in this regard.
They were based on Shilpashastras. The fact that the Shilpashastras
incorporate the themes from the Kamashastras, and depict them in temple
sculptures is clear proof that the dominant Hindu thought did not find
sexuality and homosexuality profane.
6. There is no question of tolerating homosexuality, after declaring
it base. There is increasing evidence that one's sexual preferences are in
his/her genes. Homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality. It is not a
vice to be tolerated or overcome. This is a sickening Abrahamic thinking. I
am glad that the larger Hindu fabric has historically held a rational view
on this.
7. Likewise, there are very explicit depictions of sensuous lovemaking
of our Divinities in numerous puranas and itihasas. Krishna and Radha, Rama
and Sita, have all been portrayed like that. This shows that while the later
day Victorian prudes feared sexuality, our ancients approached it normally.
Since the puranas were written for the hearing pleasure of the masses â they
were performed as ballads, one can be sure that our ancients did not think
that sexuality is something to be repressed.
8. In the Brhat Samhita, Siva is so enamored by Tilottama's beauty
that as she circumambulates Him, He acquires eyes on all sides of His head
so He could see her all the time. But then He makes one concession: fearing
Parvati's ire, He fixes the gaze of one pair of eyes on Her! Varahamihira
should not have feared that Kama is a necessary evil â otherwise, he would
have portrayed Siva along more ascetic lines!
Regards,
KV<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Re: [hc] Morals/Ethics, Homosexuality
Dear GRS,
Hindu texts accepted homosexuality as something normal. They do not
denigrate the practice. The Kamasutra, for example, has many verses that
discuss homosexuality in a non-judgmental manner. Refreshingly, just as the
Kamasutra prescribes what a heterosexual couple must do post-coitus to
fulfill love-making, it makes similar prescriptions for homosexual lovers as
well. You can find in virtually every ancient temple, sculptures that
portray both heterosexual and homosexual forms of sacred sexuality.
Hindu ethics and moral ideals pertain to all the four aspects of purusharta:
dharma, artha, kama and moksha. Many texts elucidate on these ideals. The
dharmashastras, Kautilya's Arthashastra, the Itihasas are all example of
this genre. Sangam era Tamil texts such as the Tirukkural translate or
capture the essence of what these dharmashastras say. These texts were
written in response to the prevailing social mores.
Hindu moral ideals have been evolving dynamically and not been frozen like
those of the Abrahamic religions. Most importantly, since dharmashastras
were ideals and not codes of law, they were not imposed. They rather served
as the epitome of ideals that society could emulate. They also changed with
times. On the other hand, the Abrahamic religions imposed their codes of law
leading to rigidity and ossification.
Regards,
KV<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Re: [hc] Morals/Ethics, Homosexuality
Dear GRS and Hari Krishna,
1. There no historical or traditional basis to assume that the other
three purushartas, especially Kama, should be subservient to moksha, or that
moksha is the purpose of the other three. Kama is a purusharta in its own
right. In fact, moksha is optional in Hinduism. Our sages knew that only a
few can overcome karma and samsara, and hence the teachings leading to
moksha were imparted confidentially. Texts like the Tirukkural deal with the
other three purushartas but not moksha. The over-the-counter prescription to
moksha is a recent phenomenon.
2. If some acharyas say that Kama must be regulated, I have no
disagreement. In fact, everything, including sanyasa or artha, must be
regulated. The very concept of vivaha is meant to regulate Kama. This does
not mean that Kama is a necessary evil, or that one must overcome Kama to
attain moksha. While some texts/traditions might have come to subscribe to
that view, even within those traditions one can cite numerous examples to
the contrary. For example, Arjuna did not give up Kama. He actually enjoyed
it to his heart's content by begetting pretty wives. It did not prevent him
from attaining moksha or from being the recipient of the Gita.
3. I have my highest regard for the acharyas but I do not take their
words uncritically. Practically every acharya has made statements that can
be shown to be incorrect or illogical. So, if an acharya makes a statement
that goes against the evidence, I would go with the evidence. Acharyas are
also product of their times. They incur prarabdha karma. If the prevailing
norm is Victorian prudishness, they will absorb some of it.
4. Atheism and agnosticism are very essential, in my opinion the most
essential, aspects of Hinduism. If theism stands for the belief in one
Supreme God, many early Hindu schools were not theistic: Mimamsa or Sankhya
for example. The notion of devas in the Veda samhitas is also not the same
as theism.
5. I agree with you that some verses did not accept homosexuality.
Since Dharmashastras and smritis were written and rewritten repeatedly, such
verses reflect the mindset of the concerned editor. One needs to look at the
larger picture. Temple sculptures are very critical pointers in this regard.
They were based on Shilpashastras. The fact that the Shilpashastras
incorporate the themes from the Kamashastras, and depict them in temple
sculptures is clear proof that the dominant Hindu thought did not find
sexuality and homosexuality profane.
6. There is no question of tolerating homosexuality, after declaring
it base. There is increasing evidence that one's sexual preferences are in
his/her genes. Homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality. It is not a
vice to be tolerated or overcome. This is a sickening Abrahamic thinking. I
am glad that the larger Hindu fabric has historically held a rational view
on this.
7. Likewise, there are very explicit depictions of sensuous lovemaking
of our Divinities in numerous puranas and itihasas. Krishna and Radha, Rama
and Sita, have all been portrayed like that. This shows that while the later
day Victorian prudes feared sexuality, our ancients approached it normally.
Since the puranas were written for the hearing pleasure of the masses â they
were performed as ballads, one can be sure that our ancients did not think
that sexuality is something to be repressed.
8. In the Brhat Samhita, Siva is so enamored by Tilottama's beauty
that as she circumambulates Him, He acquires eyes on all sides of His head
so He could see her all the time. But then He makes one concession: fearing
Parvati's ire, He fixes the gaze of one pair of eyes on Her! Varahamihira
should not have feared that Kama is a necessary evil â otherwise, he would
have portrayed Siva along more ascetic lines!
Regards,
KV<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->