The Case For “Gay Tolerance”
Third-Gender Relationships in Gaudiya Vaishnavism
By Rama Keshava dasa

Firstly I shall begin by offering my humble obeisances unto my beloved Guru Maharaja, Om Sripada Bhaktivedanta Tripurari Swami. Like a benevolent father looking upon his son, he has kindly given shelter to this unfortunate child.

This paper can largely be seen as a sequel to Amara dasa’s research, Tritiya-Prakriti: People of the Third Sex, which describes the social and religious position of third-gender persons in India’s Vedic civilization. Some people believe that Hinduism is silent on homosexuality and bisexuality and therefore tolerant of it. Some sampradayas of Hinduism are perceived as being very body positive. In our sampradaya, we are sometimes perceived as being body negative. In this essay I hope to illustrate how differentiating between homosexuals and heterosexuals is an exercise in futility, with us not being able to see the wood for the trees, as it were. My spiritual master has said:

All sexual attraction, again, is a product of illusion. Thus it must be transcended. If one in a same-sex karmic relationship chose to sublimate his or her love, and in the context of that relationship pursue spiritual life, this would be progressive…Radha-Krsna become the preoccupation of the spiritual aspirant on this path, leaving material passion whether same sex or otherwise far behind. The beauty of Aesthetic Vedanta is that it recognizes that the erotic urge has its origins in the Absolute, thus making for a transcendental reality that is all consuming and intimate, taking the practitioner beyond reverential love of Godhead. (Sanga: Q & A – Curiosity)

In this paper I should like to discuss the nature of relationships, how we distinguish their “validity,” what the third gender is, and hence the validity of third-gender relationships within contemporary Gaudiya Vaishnava society. I should also like to discuss prevailing attitudes, misconceptions, and mindsets within our sampradaya. Whilst relationships are a product of past “karma,” I will not attempt to discuss how they arise. Nor will I discuss the position of transgender individuals. This is a recognized medical condition, viz., gender dysphoria, and as such devotees should treat individuals with compassion and without judgment.

Homosexuality itself has existed since times of yore. Many ancient cultures, including those of the ancient Middle East, Polynesia, North America, etc., accepted homosexual men and women as part of their communities. The Greeks did too. The same can be said of Vedic civilization, which accepted a third gender, as well as heterosexual males and females.

Whether gay and other transgender groups within society should be feared or eliminated, ignored or hidden away, welcomed, or otherwise, we nonetheless find that they have played a position within societies since time immemorial. The Kama Shastra and other sociological and moral texts of Vedic India demonstrate the acceptance of three genders in their society, viz., pums-prakriti (men), striya-prakriti (women), and tritiya-prakriti (third gender), comprising napumsaka (gay males) and svairini (lesbians). “Feminine gay males were often professionally employed by aristocratic women and commonly served within the royal palace. They are proficient in the arts, entertainment, and most notably, dancing. Their presence at marriage and religious ceremonies was considered to invoke auspiciousness, and their blessings were much sought after.” Masculine gay men were often employed as barbers and masseurs and served as house attendants to wealthy vaishyas (merchants) or lived as renunciates or, if they practiced celibacy, employed as temple pujaris.

Relationships between gay men and lesbians were often seen as little more than fraternal or casual love and hence in the spirit of sakhya-rasa. Sometimes, though, they were known to marry one another:

“There are also third-gender citizens, sometimes greatly attached to each other and with complete faith in one another, who get married (parigraha) together.” (Kama Sutra 2.9.36) There were eight different types of marriage according to the Vedic system, and the homosexual marriage that occurred between gay males or lesbians was classified under the gandharva or celestial variety. This type of marriage was not recommended for members of the brahmana community but was often practiced by heterosexual men and women belonging to the lower classes. The gandharva marriage is defined as a union of love and cohabitation, recognized under common law, but without the need of parental consent or religious ceremony.

Neuters, asexuals, and bisexuals were similarly a part of society and were mentioned in many secular and religious documents. This clearly illustrates their existence in Vedic times. The fact that they were accepted and accommodated as equal members of society indicates that Vedic society had a forbearance that we have maybe lost in this era of mankind’s globalization and homogeneity. Amara dasa explains it thus:

In modern times, laws are drawn which artificially attempt to force all citizens to adopt standards that are normally assigned to the priestly class. From the Vedic perspective, however, sexual restraint is only fully effective when it is voluntary. Laws were used to regulate “vice” by establishing designated areas within the city or town and strictly prohibiting it elsewhere, such as in the brahmana or temple districts. Responsible family life and celibacy were publicly encouraged and promoted by the government, but at the same time other forms of sexual behavior were acknowledged and accommodated accordingly. These include a wide variety of activities such as prostitution, polygamy, sexually explicit art, homosexual practices, the keeping of concubines, courtesans, etc. Anyone familiar with Vedic literature will be well aware that these activities were allotted a limited space within its culture. They also continue to flourish even in modern times despite centuries of prohibition. The puritanical concept of total prohibition of vice is a failed, unrealistic system that causes widespread hypocrisy, disrespect for law, and injustice for many citizens. People of the third sex have especially suffered under this system.

Whilst demonstrating that Vedic civilization recognized and accepted gay men and women in their society, it should be noted that they too had limits. Like all practices, there is a limit beyond which something becomes excess. The scriptural law of ancient India exerted heavy penalties against those who transgressed its provisions. Whilst brahmanas were expected to be celibate there were various concessions granted for different segments of the third sex, but there were also penalties for transgression, for example loss of caste for twice-born men who were caught in flagrante delicto. The social codes of the time also gave warnings against certain practices for those not of the priestly class (e.g. adhorata [anal intercourse] and auparistaka [oral sex]).

Of course, the society that we live in is very much different from Vedic India. How then can we transpose such tolerance to modern times? I hope to examine this next. Whilst it is the purview of religion to advise on the spiritual implications of attachment to the body and bodily habits, religion has only taken upon itself the “task” of advising us on the morals of whom we may or may not love in modern times as Kali Yuga has progressed.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines homosexuality as “feeling or involving sexual attraction to persons of the same sex; concerning homosexual relations or people; and relating to the same sex.” The same dictionary defines heterosexuality in the same terms. However, in this day and age, peoples’ identification as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or otherwise, goes far beyond their sexual preference. It extends to whom they wish to spend their time with, share their happiness, and sadness, and all the other trappings of a relationship.

In our sampradaya we have a particular injunction against sexual gratification, and heterosexual and homosexual alike have to do this justice in their daily lives. Hence, my argument is that this is an irrelevant distinction to make, since both heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same thing to deal with. To put it crudely, we must distance our definition of homosexuality—or heterosexuality, for that matter—from the sexual act. Once a difference on the basis of sexual activities is removed, there is no real difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Both are reflections—albeit perverted, like anything in this material world—of sakhya-rasa (the transcendental mellow of friendship). Devotees often view homosexual relationships as “unnatural,” but when quizzed and pressed on this issue, it often becomes immediately apparent that such a view is largely based on and/or prejudiced by what they assume their homosexual brethren do behind closed doors.

A few months ago I was asked: “Can we be accepted as sexual beings?” I responded, initially, by saying no. However, we accept that heterosexual devotees must strive against sexual gratification in their daily lives, so why not homosexual people? In an editorial entitled “Homophobia Is Not Vaishnavism,” Robert Newman has argued:

Those who condemn homosexuals out of hand generally use the argument that it is “unnatural” and therefore give it some special demonic status. But the demonic mentality is simply that of unrestricted sense gratification. Unrestricted homosexual activity is no more demonic than unrestricted heterosexual activity. “Natural” or “unnatural” by social convention has no spiritual relevance; the simple fact is that all lust is unnatural from the point of view of the pure soul. (Chakra, August 9, 2001)

When we couple this with Krsna’s instruction from the Bhagavad Gita, a glimmer of hope is seen:

My dear Arjuna, O winner of wealth, if you cannot fix your mind upon Me without deviation, then follow the principles of bhakti-yoga. In this way develop a desire to attain Me.

If you cannot practice the regulations of bhakti-yoga, then just try to work for Me, because by working for Me you will come to the perfect stage.
(Bhagavad-Gita As It Is 12.9-10)

Hence, we come to realize that even Krsna realizes that we can have difficulties with things. However, the statement karmani kurvan siddhim avapsyasi (by performing this work you will achieve perfection) is very significant. This is a standard to be strived for, as my partner once pointed out to me. I believe that, as hard as it seems, it is something that can by achieved, by God’s grace:

But those who worship Me with devotion, meditating on My transcendental form—to them I carry what they lack and preserve what they have.
(Bhagavad-Gita As It Is 9.22)

Some devotees have grasped this concept quite clearly. Another example is Danavira dasa Goswami, who, when talking about illicit sex in his book Fortunate Souls, wrote, “the same standards apply to heterosexual-preferenced persons and homosexual-preferenced persons.” Maharaja goes on to explain that the remedy for both types of persons is devotional service. However, Maharaja then makes the statement that “there is no scope for such [homosexual] relationships within Krsna consciousness.”

Many gays and lesbians feel put down by these one-step-forward, two-steps-back types of statements. Yes, Srila Prabhupada seemed to have little tolerance for homosexuality, but I would argue that he was opposed to all sexual gratification, and given the prevalent social conditions at the time, homosexuality was little more than sexual attraction. In order to understand why these arguments do not always apply to homosexual couples, we need to analyze what exactly the grhastha asrama (married life) is. I will examine this in the next section.

Because of ISKCON’s (The International Society for Krsna Consciousness) institutional reluctance to speak on the issue of third-gender devotees—often pretending, instead, that they don’t exist—third-gender devotees within ISKCON often have little choice but self-flagellation, should they err from the path of celibacy (or even appear to, as is often the perceived case if they are in a committed, yet celibate relationship). Hence they become “disenfranchised.” Just as Srila Prabhupada accepted heterosexual disciples, well knowing that they would have to work hard to fight against sex desire, we too should be prepared to accept our homosexual brethren as equals. We should strive to apply our principles with balance. My spiritual master, Sripada BV Tripurari Swami, gave this sagely advice, and I believe it is a sensible approach that all should follow:

My opinion regarding gay and lesbian devotees is that they should be honored in terms of their devotion and spiritual progress. They should cultivate spiritual life from either a celibate status, or in something analogous to a heterosexual monogamous situation. Gay and lesbian people have always been a part of society from Vedic times to our postmodern times. They should be accepted for what they are in terms of their sexual orientation and encouraged like everyone else to pursue spiritual life. (Letter, July 2001)

Of course we should not forget that abstinence from sex is the standard that we must strive towards. Not all of us can always adhere to the standards 100 percent; however, this does not mean we should not strive towards them. While Swami Tripurari (and many others) recognizes that with moderate regulation (monogamy) we can advance, this is not a free ticket to sense gratification!

We must ask ourselves just what is a valid relationship, and in particular what can a valid relationship in the grhastha asrama consist of in Krsna consciousness. The primary function of the grhastha asrama, as we have to come to receive it, is to allow couples to rear children in Krsna consciousness. However, it is not merely this. If it were, we ought to call it grhamedhi: “for a grhamedhi, to accept a wife means to satisfy the senses, but for a grhastha a qualified wife is an assistant in every respect for advancement in spiritual activities.” (Srimad Bhagavatam 3.2.11, purport)

So, what then if the children are removed from the equation? For example, if the wife is barren? From the above quote we would see that the relationship would still be valid. Should it be the same for gay men and lesbians? Our parama-guru, Srila Prabhupada, felt that homosexuality was a material reflection of sakhya-rasa. When one of his disciples told him he was homosexual, Prabhupada replied, “No, you just need a friend [Krsna].” The sexual urge must be replaced with love for Krsna. Is it possible that a monogamous homosexual relationship could be just as valid as a heterosexual one? I would argue yes, and most vigorously. If the relationship is conducive to the couple’s sadhana and prevents fall down, then definitely yes. Any other answer amounts to unfair discrimination on the basis of assumption and presupposition.

How then should homosexual persons live their lives? We should examine contemporary attitudes towards the grhastha asrama. Within ISKCON during the late ‘70s and early ‘80s there was a definite lack of appreciation of the asrama, with the brahmacari and sannyasa asramas being favored. Bhaktivinoda Thakura says that in the householder asrama one learns to love others, yet there was in the past the attitude among ISKCON devotees (sannyasis) saying that the householder asrama was just like a dark well. Many “sannyasis” that took to a life of renunciation at a young age later fell down. Swami Tripurari speaks of these issues thus:

In the grhastha asrama one learns to love because to make the relationship between husband and wife as enduring as it should be and to raise children properly both partners must learn to sacrifice. Sacrifice is the foundation of love. Couples should enter married life with a sacred vow to remain together and understand that in order to do so they must learn to sacrifice. When the magic of infatuation is gone, we are to realize that it was only that, an illusion. The bond between husband and wife should be deeper than the skin and involve a commitment to helping one another progress in spiritual life. In the ideal scenario, sannyasa may not be necessary at all, because the commitment to spiritual progress is the basis of one’s marriage. Still, in some cases it may be determined that for the benefit of the society at large, specially qualified men and women may be called to the life of formal renunciation, and in adopting this life, teach others by their example and their unique ability to communicate spiritual understanding. In such cases marriage may culminate in formal renunciation, or men and women may forgo marriage altogether.
(Sadhu Sanga: The Grhastha Asrama and Learning to Love, September 12, 2001)

Now, as we have come to realize the sheer number and distinct role of devotee families within our community, a healthier approach seems to be being fostered. Just as the body cannot survive deprived of an organ, the contributions of each asrama are just as important as the next. We ought to take Bhaktivinoda Thakura’s bhajana to heart:

“Grhe thako, vane thako, sada ‘hari’ bole’ dako.” (Sri Nama, sloka two). We like the first part, but we forget the second part. “Grhe thako, vane thako”—“you can be a householder, you can be a sannyasi,” it doesn’t matter! But you have to remember the second part—“sada ‘hari’ bole’ dako,” that’s what makes it not matter. “Sada ‘hari’ bole’ dako,” if you are “always chanting hari-nama,” then it doesn’t matter.
(Lecture by B.V. Tripurari Swami, February 7, 2001)

In conclusion I should like to offer the opinion that the identification of one’s bodily/mental desires and sexuality as “gay” or whatever is permissible within Gaudiya Vaishnavism, and that “sexuality” is actually a rather limited term, due to the fact that relationships are not merely measured in terms of sexual conduct, but also emotional attachment, affection, caring, companionship, etc. In this day and age the contribution of gay men and lesbians to our sampradaya must be noted, and they should be accorded the same rights and dignity as heterosexuals, as they so deserve. Of course, this essay should not be seen as a justification for breaking one’s religious vows (i.e. engaging in immoral/illicit sex, which in terms of Krsna consciousness, is sexual conduct not intended to beget children). However, I seek to alleviate the distress of those who have been stigmatized for their honesty in admitting their own position.

It should be borne in mind that the views and scenarios presented here are ideals. In this world, nothing is black and white; instead there are shades of grey. However, GALVA (The Gay and Lesbian Vaishnava Association) seeks to present a fundamental premise of tolerance, so we have to idealize to a small degree. It has been recently argued that the gay men of today are not the same as the Puranic definition of the third sex. In a way, this is correct. Most of them are engaged in acts of debauchery, sinful activities, meat-eating, alcoholism, etc. GALVA does not really seek to argue about them. As with all things, the GALVA point of view is an idealized one. Just as we assume in the definition of devotee that he or she is faithfully adhering to Krsna consciousness in both thoughts and deeds, we should bear in mind that the “gay relationships” in Krsna consciousness that we present are idealized ones. The third gender of the Puranas maybe did include those segments of society, who based their relationships on lust and desire alone, but as they neglected to sanction them, so too do we make our presentation one of a celibate homosexual couple, in which the sexual desire has been sublimated and replaced by mutual benefit for devotional service.

There is too much assumption, still as ever, on what people get up to. People automatically assume that homosexuals are promiscuous, or that those couples who are in Krsna consciousness are basing their relationships on satisfying their carnal urges every five minutes. If a homosexual couple comes to Krsna consciousness, fully understanding and accepting that they will be expected to be celibate (as they cannot have children)—as was the Puranic tritiya-prakriti—then they should be seen on an equal footing as heterosexuals. (Of course, if they do not respect that, then that is a different matter… but between them, “guru” and Krsna, maybe the temple authorities, but not the general devotee community.) In our presentation people are innocent until proven guilty.

In an ideal world there would be no need for GALVA, and it is true for me to say that my primary identification is not as a gay man, but as Krsna’s servant. However, until gays and lesbians are treated equally and kindly by the entire Vaishnava community, there will be a need for this type of support group. Too many times I and others have been called deviants and branded as demons simply because assumptions were made as to our private lives. In one case they did not even think to ask if I was seeing anyone (which I was not), and when finally I am seeing someone, then they automatically assume that he is just some “tomboy” I picked up, not interested in devotional service in the slightest. (How far from the truth can some people be?…) We have feelings too. If you say someone’s relationship is sinful, or less valid, or belittle that, then what exactly does that do? That’s why we’re here.

(Rama Keshava dasa is one of the founding members of GALVA. He received diksa initiation from Swami B.V. Tripurari in 2003.)

(From the book, “Tritiya-Prakriti: People of the Third Sex.”)